Organizational and Job Design
Organizations are systems of relating resources that will make possible the accomplishment of specified ends or goals. They are social and technological devices made up of people and physical factors. With the aid of technological implementation, these people execute functions or tasks that lead to the accomplishment of rationally determined objectives. Organizations are processing units which transform certain inputs from the environment into specified outputs desired by society; e.g., a hospital transforms ill patients into healthy people, and a manufacturing firm transforms raw material into usable products.
Every manager has the responsibility of organizing subordinates into patterns of interactions that will facilitate accomplishment of unit goals. However, the basic, overall design of the total organization has always been the responsibility of the chief executive. As the organization grows in size, its complexity increases at an even more rapid rate. Consequently, in the larger organizations, there have been evolved specialized people and units to advise and assist the chief executive in this organizing function. One survey indicated that 100 of the nation's top 500 companies had established specialized staff units for the purpose of assisting in organizational design and d6velopment.
There is growing evidence that the personnel department is the one that will be responsible for the organization design unit, at least until the unit merits separate status under the chief executive. The study cited above revealed that most of the 100 existing departments were subdivisions of personnel departments. In another study of 244 personnel departments in large companies, 82 percent had been given general responsibility for organization planning .2 In those companies placing the unit outside of that department, it was usually grouped with such personnel activities as management development and human resource planning.
The above studies strongly suggest that the personnel manager should develop a special interest and expertise in organization planning and design in order to provide the service desired by the chief executive. This view also makes sense, considering the nature of the operative functions of personnel. If the three key components of any organization are people, jobs, and physical factors, the personnel manager has special knowledge of the first two. Organizations are dependent upon the caliber of personnel available, and it is no accident that organizational design is frequently grouped with personnel activities like executive training and development and the forecasting of human resource needs. The personnel unit also collects information about job content which can be of material assistance in organizational design.
The function of organizing is basically a process of tying these key components together and harnessing them so that they may be directed toward enterprise objectives. Thus, a technical definition of the formal process of organizing would be as follows: it is the process of establishing relationships (responsibility, authority, and accountability) among key components (personnel, functions, and physical factors) for the purpose of harnessing (line, line/staff, functionalized, and project structures) and directing toward organizational objectives. Thus, experts in organizational design require knowledge of such subjects as objectives, components, relationships, and structures. If the personnel manager is to provide sound and effective advice in this area, this executive must study the theory and practice of organizing as avidly as the more traditional content of the personnel functions. Brief coverage of the major elements of this definition will be presented in the following sections.
ORGANIZATIONAL OBJECTIVES
Inasmuch as organizations are intended rational devices established to achieve objectives, it is logical to begin a consideration of organization design with a consideration of those objectives. One of the first things recognized by most managers is that any organization has multiple objectives. One classification of goals of business organizations has been established as follows:
I. Primary objectives
A. Create and distribute a product or service
B. Satisfy personal objectives of the members of the organization, such as:
1. Profits for owners
2. Salaries and other compensation for executives
3. Wages and other compensation for employees
4. Psychic income for all, including:
a. Pride in work
b. Security
c. Recognition
d. Acceptance
C. Meet community and social obligations, such as:
1. Protection and enhancement of the human resources of society
2. Protection and enhancement of the physical resources of society
II. Secondary objectives
A. Economy of operation in meeting the primary objectives
B. Effectiveness of operation in meeting the primary objectives
A careful study of the above outline should reveal much concerning the nature of organizational objective;. Reasonable accomplishment of all is prerequisite to managerial success, a fact that should create some appreciation of the difficulty of the managerial task.
PRODUCT OR SERVICE OBJECTIVES Every business organization must have as one of its basic purposes the creation and distribution of some good or service. The tangible representation of this objective is the automobile, refrigerator, can of beans, or haircut. The personnel engaged in the actual creation, distribution, or financing of this product are performing the basic work of the organization. They are carrying the ball. A personnel department is not so engaged. It is charged with the responsibility of assisting those in production who are creating the product, those in sales who are distributing it, and those in finance who provide the funds for its creation and distribution. Thus, the goals of a personnel department must be derived from the objectives of the entire organization.
PERSONAL OBJECTIVES An organization is composed of two or more people. These people have various and often conflicting personal objectives, which must be reasonably satisfied or individuals will withdraw from the organization. Such withdrawal can lead to collapse of the enterprise and failure to accomplish the product or service objective.
These personal objectives are of two general types, monetary and nonmonetary. In recent years, management has become increasingly aware of the nonmonetary goals of people. When the wage or salary is somewhat reasonable, other desires come to the fore, and they form the basis of today's human relations program.
On personnel management rests a large measure of the responsibility for ensuring satisfactory accomplishment of the personal objectives of employees. If the personal objectives of all groups are not reasonably achieved, the basic objectives of the entire organization will suffer. Consideration of the nature and techniques of fulfilling many of these objectives constitutes a major portion of this text.
COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL OBLIGATIONS Society has imposed upon business a number of broad social obligations, which thereby become business objectives. It is apparent that appreciation of super ordinate societal goals, discussed in preceding chapters, will have considerable impact upon the design of complex organizations in the future.
SECONDARY OBJECTIVES In labeling economy and effectiveness of operation as secondary objectives, one should not imply that they are unimportant. If these goals also are not satisfactorily achieved, all other goals will suffer. But again, we are not in the business of providing more economy and effectiveness in a vacuum. Some other objective must be the basic goal, which we hope to accomplish with a reasonable expenditure of money and effort.
PRIMACY OF PRODUCT OR SERVICE OBJECTIVE Aside from their multiplicity, one aspect of the outline of business objectives that seems unusual is the emphasis on the product or service objective. The thesis of the primacy of the service objective can be defended in three areas. The first might be labeled the political area. Society, through the Constitution, has granted us the right to own property and establish a business. The right was not granted solely to enable an owner to make a profit; rather, the right to make a profit was granted in order to provide an incentive to produce the goods and services that society needs. Profit is the personal motivation; the good or service is the end or objective. Ours is known as the profit system, a system which is a means to the end of creating the necessary and desirable goods. The service objective exists in other types of economic systems where the profit objective does not.
The second defense lies in the area of organization. It is a principle of organization that all members must have one common goal in order to secure cooperation and coordination of action. The product or service objective is the only one in which all are immediately interested. Thus, while the objective of the business manager or owner is profit, the objective of the business organization is the product or service.
The last defense of this thesis is economic in nature. Under our competitive system, there is substantial freedom of choice in the markets for goods and services. The theory of the system is that resources will flow to the organizations that produce the best product at the lowest price. In the political area, a business may be voted out of existence or hampered by means of legislation. In the marketplace, it may be voted out or restricted by the customer's dollar. Thus, the rationale of our system is that resources, income for profits and wages, will flow to the organization that creates the best goods and services.
In the final analysis, the manager who is aware of the tremendous importance of the product or service objective, already being aware of the profit objective, will have a philosophy of management that will not be too far wrong. An intelligent pursuit of profits, with equitable consideration for labor and the customer, will usually lead to the same position as the principle of the primacy of the service objective.
FUNCTIONS
Objectives do not accomplish themselves. Work must be executed by people or machines in order that objectives may be achieved. The word "function" can be defined simply as work that can be distinguished from other work. The function of production, for instance, can be defined and distinguished from sales, just as planning can be separated from control. In manufacturing concerns, three functions are considered to be primary or organic: they are sales, production, and finance. These functions contribute directly toward the accomplishment of the basic objective of the firm, that is, the product or service objective. Since these are primary, they are generally referred to as "line" functions.
In the one-person firm, all functions are bound up in one person. This person produces, sells, and finances the product. As the volume of business increases, a process of functional differentiation occurs. This is essentially a separation of certain functions from the original performer and an assignment of them to other people who are added to the enterprise. Functional differentiation takes place in two directions downward and outward. The results of both directions of growth are the same, i.e., more functional specialization.
Functional differentiation downward
Staying with the one-person firm for the moment, we see that as the business grows, a helper will be hired. Thus, a function has been differentiated, possibly in the area of production, and assigned to the second person, as shown in Figure 4-1. The process of downward differentiation is under way, and we now have two levels of organization. As volume continues to grow, additional personnel are added to the organization, as depicted in Figure 4-2. Perhaps one or two of the subordinates are engaged in the function of selling. At some point in this process of functional splitting, the owner will encounter a basic principle of organization known as the span of control .5 This principle is basically a statement of human limitations; that is, there is a limit to the number of people and functions that one person can supervise effectively. Assuming that our owner-manager has reached that limit, we must push down to another level of organization. One of our present employees is perhaps appointed a supervisor, and now this span of control can be utilized when we add other personnel to the company. With further growth, three full levels will come into existence, as shown in Figure 4-3.
As the limits of anyone's span of control are reached, we are forced to push down and create another level of organization. In organizations of several thousand members, there may be as many as fourteen different levels. Were there no such principle as the span of control, there would be one manager, to whom all others would report.
Let us examine this span-of-control principle more closely. What are the limits? The number of functions and personnel that one person can supervise effectively will depend upon such factors as that person's ability, one's subordinates' abilities, the complexity of the functions performed, the similarity of the functions to one another, the degree of situational stability, and the degree to which separate work assignments interlock. A series of sub principles can thus be devised as follows: (1) the greater the degree of functional complexity, the fewer the functions that can be supervised effectively, and (2) the greater the degree of dissimilarity of functions, the fewer the functions that can be controlled effectively. Research by Joan Woodward indicates that the type of technology has impact upon spans of controls actually used in business organizations. Classifying technology on the basis of unit or small-batch processing, mass production, and process production with continuous flow, she discovered that the spans were largest in mass production enterprises and relatively smaller in the other two. Jobs of those being controlled were more routine and similar in mass production, thereby lengthening the effective span.
Traditional managers tend to prefer smaller spans, which permit a higher degree of control of communication and operations. Psychologists and sociologists, on the other hand, advocate broader spans, which necessitate a greater degree of freedom for the subordinate. It is apparent that there are no valid formulas that will indicate the theoretically perfect span for any situation. The particular philosophy of management, analysis of the limiting factors cited above, and a reasonable amount of trial and error will all doubtlessly be involved in answering this question for each manager.
Functional differentiation outward
The lack of managerial specialization becomes increasingly serious with increased growth in size of organization. This situation results from the effect of another principle known sometimes as the law of functional growth. This law states that as the volume of business grows, the complexity of the functions necessary for performance increases at an even more rapid pace. For example, the establishment of a wage and salary structure for a shop of four or five people is considerably less difficult than the performance of the same function for a concern of several hundred or thousand employees. The effect of this principle is to emphasize the need for managerial assistance through specialization. Certain activities are differentiated outward from the chain of command previously established by means of downward differentiation. Secondary or staff functions are established in areas other than production, sales, or finance. The objective of these secondary functions is the assistance and facilitation of the performance of line functions. Thus a staff function is one that has been separated from the line for purposes of specialization. Its separation is justified only so long as it is believed that the function can be performed more effectively and economically by a specialist than by the line from which it was evolved.
The above description can be clarified by an example. Functional differentiation downward of the three primary functions creates a pure line organization. All members are producing, selling, or financing, or are in the direct chain of command above these three functions. The production supervisor in Figure 4-4 has been having trouble training new personnel because of the rapid growth of the firm. He or she has asked that a line machine operator be assigned as a training assistant to assume much of the responsibility in that area. Training done by the training assistant is a staff function. As the business continues to grow, there may be more work than the training assistant can handle alone. He or she is provided with a subordinate, which means, of course, that functional differentiation is pushing downward within the staff function of training. This movement results in the formation of a staff section, the training section.
While the above functional differentiation outward and downward is going on, the law of functional growth has forced other functions out of the line into staff assignments. The production supervisor may have the usual subordinate line personnel but will also have a multitude of staff engaged in such activities as training, production control, inspection, hiring, safety, and the like. To reduce the span of control, one may prefer to regroup some of the staff sections to form a staff department. Thus the personnel department may consist of the sections of hiring, training, safety, and other functions deserving of specialization at this stage of growth.
Functional differentiation outward can take place at any level in the primary chain command. It may take place gradually and go through the above-described steps: (1) assignment of the function to one person, a staff assistant; (2) creation of a staff unit by adding personnel; and (3) creation of a larger staff unit by grouping with related specialized units. In addition, with further growth the staff unit may develop an internal support structure. For example, if the training effort becomes sufficiently large, the organization may be able to afford a training research subunit. Thus, if production is primary to the goal, and training secondary in that production is facilitated, then training research is tertiary in that it facilitates the secondary function of training. In effect, we have experienced functional differentiation downward in training to create a secondary chain of command, followed by functional differentiation outward to create a "staff-to-staff."
Finally, if the firm grows quite large, the staff function can be separated on multiple levels from top to bottom in the organization. As shown in Figure 4-5, there can be a personnel director for the entire organization, as well as personnel units for each of the product managers. The top central unit serves as a clearinghouse for personnel information and activities throughout the enterprise. It may also provide certain central services, such as negotiating the master contract with the labor union. This parallel functional development also acts as a specialized channel of communication and constitutes a career promotion ladder. It should be noted that even though the staff director is reporting directly to the president, and may even be accorded vice-presidential standing, this in no way transforms the unit into line status. The incidence of service toward primary organizational goals is still controlling.
RELATIONSHIPS
The process of organizing is one of relating the component parts of the organization to one another and to the organization objective. Knowledge of these parts functions, personnel, and physical factors is prerequisite to understanding the relationships that should exist among them. Characteristics of personnel and physical factors assigned to differentiated functions will also, of course, have impact upon the design. Though treatment of these two components will not be undertaken at this point, various illustrations will appear in this and later chapters. Organizing is the process of binding the parts together into a unified whole that can operate effectively. The immediate result of this process is the establishment of organization structure, a subject that will be discussed later in this chapter.
The relationships that will be established among the components of organization are of two general types, formal and informal. Formal relationships are those which are officially established and prescribed in the organization manual, charts, and job descriptions. The three basic relationships of this category are responsibility, authority, and accountability. Informal relationships are those that emerge from the formal and are established unofficially by particular persons employed. They would include such relationships as power, status, and politics.
Responsibility
Responsibility is one's obligation to perform the functions assigned to the best of one's ability in accordance with directions received. It is logically the first relationship that should be established and is based on an analysis of functions required to accomplish the organization objective.
There are many principles governing the formal assignment of responsibility. Perhaps the foremost one is the principle of functional similarity. This principle states that the functions assigned to an individual should be grouped on the basis of similarity to one another in order to facilitate specialization. Insofar as possible, the functions to be assigned to make up a job, section, department, or division should be sufficiently related one to another to take advantage of specialized backgrounds. The greater the volume of work, the greater is the opportunity to apply the principle of functional similarity.
Other principles applicable to responsibility are: (1) there should be no overlapping responsibilities the same function should not be assigned to two or more persons; (2) responsibility limits should be clearly defined; (3) there should be no gaps in responsibility assignments work that should be done must be assigned to some person; and (4) responsibility should not be assigned for work that is unnecessary and does not contribute toward organization objectives. It should be noted that responsibility is assigned through delegation from superiors. The significance of the word "delegation" is that the process in no way reduces the superior's original amount of responsibility. This concept is what puts the risk in a manager's job. Responsibility is still full and complete although execution of the task has been largely relegated to others.
Authority
Authority is the right to decide what should be done and the right to do it or to require someone else to do it. The basic principle governing this relationship is the principle of coequal authority and responsibility. This principle states that a commensurate amount of authority should accompany a delegation of responsibility. just as responsibility is derived from functional analysis, authority is derived from responsibility. A person should have no authority without having a prior responsibility.
The source of formal authority is from above through delegation. One receives official organizational rights to hire, fire, spend money, etc., from one's superior, and ultimately from organization owners and society at large.
Accountability
Accountability is the requirement of answerability for one's performance. It is the opposite phase of responsibility, in that responsibility is delegated downward while one is accountable upward to some superior for proper performance. If one has been delegated an amount of authority commensurate with responsibility, one can, logically, be held accountable for results. just as responsibility is a derivative of functions and authority is a derivative of responsibility, accountability is a derivative of authority. If insufficient authority has been delegated, it is not logical to hold a person fully answerable.
Perhaps the foremost principle governing the formal relationship of accountability is that of single accountability. This principle states that the most desirable relationship is that each person be accountable to only one superior. Divided accountability to multiple superiors imposes considerable difficulties upon the subordinate. As the size of the organization increases with concurrent expansion in the number of staff specialists, this principle of single accountability is placed in considerable jeopardy.
It has been suggested that a related concept, the principle of unity of command, is more important than single accountability. Though a person has two bosses, if those bosses are coordinated, unity of command can be preserved despite the loss of single accountability. It may well be that future large-size organizations will see the increased introduction of "plural executive," that is, a number of executives operating as one office.
To summarize the organizing process to this point, we started with a determination of organizational objectives. From this, a specification of necessary functions to accomplish these objectives was developed. When personnel are introduced to execute functions, responsibility is established. On the basis of this responsibility, authority is allocated to make accomplishment possible. Assuming sufficient authority, then accountability can be imposed. Thus, the logical derivation is in the sequence of (1) objectives, (2) functions, (3) responsibility, (4) authority, and (5) accountability.
ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE
The immediate result of the organizing process is the creation of organization structure. This structure is a framework of the formal relationships that have been established. The purpose of the structure is to assist in regulating and directing the efforts put forth in an organization so that they are coordinated and consistent with organization objectives.
There are several basic types of organization structure, any one of which may be adopted. If responsibility, authority, and accountability are established in one way, the result is line structure. If these relationships are set up in another way, the line and staff structure is created. The third arrangement of relationships is known as the functional type of structure. Each of these structures will be briefly described and the location of the personnel functions noted. In addition, the project structure will be briefly discussed to indicate how activities can be fitted into this most recent structural adaptation.
Line organization structure
The nature of line organization structure has been largely described in the earlier discussion of functional differentiation. Line structure is created by the functional differentiation downward of primary or basic functions. In manufacturing, these basic functions are production, sales, and finance. Thus in the line organization, all personnel are either producing, selling, or financing, or are in the direct chain of command above these three functions. There is no functional differentiation outward.
In the line organization, the personnel functions exist but are performed by line personnel. A supervisor is responsible for procurement of personnel and their development and integration in the workplace. He or she has no assistance in these matters beyond what superiors can supply.
One of the decisions common to all types of structure is the selection of bases for grouping divided activities. What has been divided must be combined, if possible, to effect coordinated and unified progress toward organization goals. Perhaps the two most significant bases of grouping are (1) functions and (2) product or service. Line organizations typically group on the basis of the first that is, all activities related to production, for example, are placed in one unit, while all those related to the selling function are placed in another. This ensures specialization and requires the top manager of the enterprise to coordinate the total task.
With increasing size, firms typically move to the product or service base. Each unit has its own production and sales sub groupings, thus leading to a seeming duplication of activities throughout the firm. Each may be established as a separate profit center designed to produce such values as a "whole" approach to each product, more rapid decision making, and greater development and motivation of personnel responsible.
In addition to these two bases of grouping, other choices available are (1) geography, (2) customers, (3) time, and (4) numbers. Recognition of the first will result in territory managers. The second reflects recognition of peculiar customer requirements, e.g., teenage shops and budget basements in department stores. Time and numbers may call for multiple supervisors on different work shifts. Specific applications of these possible bases will be discussed with reference to the personnel unit in the following chapter.
Line and staff organization structure
Functional differentiation downward and outward produces a line and staff organization. Most business organizations, except the very small, have this type of structure. The problems of management have become sufficiently complex so that presumably expert attention will produce more effective results in selected areas. This expertise is introduced into the organization in an advisory or facilitative manner. In theory, line managers are free to reject the specialized advice or service on the basis of overriding general objectives. Examples of specific guides for combining line and staff activities will be discussed in the following chapter with specific reference to the staff personnel unit.
Functional organization structure
The adoption of the functional form of organization structure involves the violation of some principles of organization previously cited. A functional relationship is established when a staff function is brought directly to bear on line functions with authority to command rather than to advise. Thus, the integrity of the line is broken and some personnel are accountable to multiple superiors. If the personnel unit, for example, is set up on a functionalized basis, it does not recommend that a supervisor accept an applicant; it orders that it be done. The unit can overrule lower line managers on matters of wages, grievances, training, and the like. Thus in matters pertaining to personnel, the supervisor must look to the personnel unit; in other areas, the supervisor looks to the appropriate line superior.
No firms today are completely functionalized in all specialized functions. The significance lies in the provision of a third alternative. Organizers can choose among the following: (1) a function such as hiring can be allocated to the supervisor (line organization); (2) it can be given to a specialized personnel unit with rights of advice only (line and staff); or (3) it can be assigned to the personnel unit with rights of command (functionalized). The third alternative should be used sparingly to prevent distortion of basic general objectives.
Project structure
A variation of the functionalized form now coming into wider use, particularly in the aerospace industry, is the project structure. If a management desires to emphasize strongly a specific undertaking or project, a special structure can be created. Such projects are usually unique and unfamiliar to the existing organization and complex in nature. They require interaction among specialists and have limited time objectives. A project manager is given authority to assemble temporarily the necessary talents and facilities to accomplish an undertaking. In some instances, the usual line and staff departments do the work, but the project manager specifies what effort is needed and when it will be performed. The operating unit manager may decide who in his or her unit is to help and how the work is to be accomplished. It is apparent that, though the unit manager has line or command authority over personnel, the project manager has functionalized authority in connection with the work on the particular project.
Business managers have found the project structure supplement to be highly effective in assuring the accomplishment of important goals. The project cannot get lost between departments. It has been found that one person can work for two or more "masters," and that a "master" can effectively influence those over whom he or she has no clear authority. The possibility of conflict and frustration is great, but the opportunity for prompt, expeditious, and effective accomplishment is even greater. The coordinative power of the knowledge and expertise of the participating specialists makes up in part for the vagueness and complexity of formal organizational relationships. Both project managers and supporting unit managers must maintain an open mind and be willing to negotiate. The typical role of personnel managers in project structures is to provide supporting personnel specialists and to be willing to share in their supervision.
CONTRAST OF FORMALAND INFORMAL ORGANIZATION
The formal organization structure provides a minimal basic blueprint for the guidance of behavior. Most of the relationships within organizations are informal and unofficial in nature as particular people work out day-to-day problems. As Figure 4-6 indicates, the informal emerges from the formal. A formal job may be assigned but its execution involves additional role expectations. A role would consist of the total pattern of expected behavior, interactions, and feelings that one should display, e.g., dress like a manager, demonstrate loyalty to the firm, stick-up for one's subordinates, etc. Whereas the formal structure will set up an official unit, such as a production division, particular employees will informally establish primary work groups involving helping and supporting relationships, providing members adhere to group norms.
Power can be defined as the capacity to apply "any force that results in behavior that would not have occurred if that force had not been present." As such, it includes, but goes beyond the authority provided by the formal organization. Other sources of power would include knowledge, rewards, punishments, personality, friends, and the ability to control significant contingencies that impact on organizational performance.
The formal organization allocates levels of responsibility and authority, and these can have a considerable effect upon one's status or social rank. Other sources of status would include seniority, associates, and education. One can tell much about a person's status in an organization by observing such symbols as uniforms, desks, rugs, paintings, office location, number of secretaries, automobile, and privileges accorded.
As power and status are used in an organization, we become involved in a political process. Organization members may choose to cooperate, reward their friends and punish enemies, bend or break formal regulations, cover for each other, and a host of other activities. It would be naive to insist that political action does not take place in organizations. They can be overdone and work contrary to the formal goals, but in many instances they enable complex situations to be dealt with in a reasonably effective manner. If only the formal organization and its accompanying rules and procedures were followed religiously and without deviation, most organizations would be seriously harmed. We do not mean to suggest in Figure 4-7 that the informal organization consists solely of drinking and sleeping on the job, gossip, sabotage, and backstabbing. What we do intend to suggest is that there is far more to organizations than that prescribed by the formal.
JOB DESIGN
Moving from general groupings to the specific, the personnel manager should have an even greater interest in the design and specification of individual jobs within the organization. Excessive specialization and concentration upon technical efficiency have had an adverse impact upon the motivation of personnel responsible for executing these narrow jobs.
The design of an effective work unit for an individual employee is a highly complex task. It should not be left solely to the line supervisor, the union business agent, or the industrial engineer. The personnel manager has a responsibility to represent the interests of the individual, Which hopefully will be reflected to some degree in the interests of the total organization. Among the many factors that will affect job design are (1) the proven values of specialization and repetitive operations, (2) changing technology, (3) labor union policies, (4) abilities of present personnel, (5) available supply of potential employees, (6) the interaction requirements among jobs within the system, and (7) psychological and social needs of human beings that can be met by the job.
Specialization tends to lead to greater productivity as well as ease of hiring. The resulting unit of work undergoes constant modification because of the impact of mechanization and automation. Some jobs are eliminated, others created, and still others altered in content, resulting in different specifications of education, experience, personality, and breadth of viewpoint. Labor unions are necessarily involved and seek to retain both present employee security and union control of these units of work. Thus, the firm may be required to respect jurisdictional lines of traditional crafts or to delay alteration of job content despite advances in technology. Economic and organizational values lost in job design may be recouped in part through enhanced union cooperation.
Management must also be concerned with the practical considerations of quantity and quality of personnel presently available, both within the firm and in the labor market generally. It does little good to design a job in terms of the ideal if the resulting unit cannot be supplied with workers. Consequently, changes in job content may be made to reflect particular characteristics of specific people available for transfer or hire.
It is apparent that the interrelationships among various jobs will levy an interaction requirement upon job incumbents. Work systems should be designed to minimize points of friction. For example, Whyte's restaurant study found that when lower-status personnel, such as runners, initiated action for higher-status personnel, such as chefs, the potential for explosions and dish breakage was increased.8 He hypothesized that work will flow more smoothly when those of higher status are in a position to originate work for those of lower status. What appear to be personality conflicts between two individuals may actually be defects in job design which tend to go counter to the needs and cultures of personnel handling the jobs.
Behavioral scientists have continually stressed the importance of designing jobs and systems of work in a manner that will satisfy psychological and sociological needs of people. One of the most commonly cited human relations problems in this area of job design is employee dissatisfaction with jobs that are repetitive, narrow, meaningless, and routine. Engineering efficiency has led to the creation of the production and assembly lines. Such lines have proved themselves on the basis of the quantity and quality of production that can be exacted from such a productive arrangement. The major deficiency, however, lies in the human relations area, with such specific problems resulting as the boredom of the worker, loss of pride in work, insecurity, and obsessive thinking. These problems are compounded when a moving conveyor links all positions together. The conveyor is a "monster" whose pressure never ceases.
Traditionally, the solution to excessive specialization of job assignments has involved some means of periodic rotation to provide variety, e.g., change tasks every few hours, or work up the moving assembly line. In recent years, considerable research has been undertaken with respect to more unusual and seemingly risky changes in job content. Among these are job enlargement, job enrichment, and semiautonomous groups.
Job enlargement
In response to criticisms concerning the dehumanization of work through excessive specialization, an obvious suggestion would be to enlarge job content to utilize more of the abilities of employees. If the additional responsibilities are of a horizontal nature, variety has been introduced and the process is termed "job enlargement." If the additional responsibilities are of a vertical nature encompassing self-control, the process is termed "job enrichment." Job enrichment is the approach to job design most recommended by behaviorists and will be discussed in the following section.
Variety can be produced by adding functions, thus possibly reducing monotony. An added psychological value can be derived if the added functions make possible the completion of an identifiable unit, thereby producing a sense of closure. As a case in point, research reported by Louis Davis demonstrated that the breaking up of a conveyor zed assembly line is not necessarily disastrous in terms of output.9 The product studied was a hospital appliance that was to be assembled by nine operators spaced along a moving conveyor. Figure 4-8, part a, shows the daily productivity index of this old method at 100. Part b shows the results of the mere removal of the conveyor, with the work stations remaining as before. Production dropped to an index of go, thus demonstrating the power of the moving conveyor. Part c shows the record of a new system of production, in which one worker performed all nine operations, thereby applying the concept of job enlargement. Part d refers to the same system of work, one worker for all operations, but with the work taking place in the main production area rather than in a room adjacent to the production floor as in the case of c. It should be noted that the production rate of the original conveyor was never reached through the job enlargement methods. However, the experiment covering parts c and d lasted for only 43 days. Production with the moving assembly line method of operation had been going on for years.
Though quantity was slow in returning under job enlargement, quality was immediately and significantly improved. The percentage of rejects dropped to one-fourth of the original total. When the accountability for proper performance can be effectively determined for each employee, rather than divided up among the group, quality usually improves.
In a study of various assembly line jobs in a home laundry manufacturing firm, attempts were made over a 5-year period to increase the number and variety of tasks in single jobs.10 For example, a pump assembly line of six operators required an average of 1.77 minutes per unit. In moving to single-operator work stations where the operator would perform the full assembly, the time was reduced to 1.49 minutes. In thirteen other similar job changes, there was an average decrease in quality rejects from 2.9 to 1.4 percent. However, there was an average decrease in output efficiency from 138 percent to 126 percent.
Job enrichment
Though variety and closure are helpful, they are often not enough to effect the improvements visualized by behaviorists. The theory of job enrichment is outlined in Figure 4-9. Behaviorists contend that the employee will become "turned on" to his or her job if (1) the work is meaningful, (2) the worker has knowledge of operating results, and (3) the worker is personally responsible for these results. Meaning can be placed into a job by providing for skill variety, task identity, and task significance. Knowledge of operating results can be effected by opening feedback channels to the worker, and if the employee is granted some degree of discretion and autonomy over the job, that worker's sense of responsibility is increased.
Moving from theory to practice, one inquires as to how the five core job dimensions can be designed into a unit of work. To effect the first, variety, the job can be enlarged as discussed earlier. One can move backward in the work flow, and add preparation functions; or move forward and combine the task with finishing or quality control functions. If sufficiently broadened, the task will take on a separate identity. The combination of tasks should be a natural one, e.g., the worker makes a whole item, provides services for one department, etc. A natural unit of work tends to promote a sense of job ownership, a feeling of responsibility for an identifiable unit of work.
The establishment of identifiable and natural work units will serve to demonstrate the service provided by the worker. If one can perceive that one's performance has impact upon others, task significance is enhanced. Naturally, the greater the impact, the greater the degree of task significance, e.g., a design engineer on a space probe versus a design engineer in a toy factory.
Many feel that the most critical core dimension is that of job autonomy. It certainly is the critical difference between job enlargement and job enrichment. Autonomy is created through a process of "vertical loading," that is, the worker is given self-management rights in multiple areas. In various programs, such additional responsibilities as the following have been given: (1) setting one's own work schedule and work breaks, (2) establishing work methods, (3) making one's own quality checks, (4) varying the workplace, (5) changing duties with others, (6) setting priorities as to work performed, (7) making crisis decisions in problem situations rather than relying on the boss, (8) training less experienced workers, (9) establishing direct relationships with the users of one's output (the client), and (10) setting one's own work pace.
The fifth core dimension, opening feedback channels, is necessary to the other four. One of the joys of bowling or playing golf is the immediate feedback on performance results. One can imagine the problems involved if we were forced to bowl through a curtain. Though there would still be some feedback in terms of sound, the specific results are missing. Too often this is the case in various organizations. The supervisor "sees" the results and may or may not have the time and inclination to feed them back to the worker. Job-provided feedback is preferred to supervisor-provided feedback.
Numerous job enrichment experimental programs have been reported in the literature. For example, the job of a key punch operator in the Travelers Insurance Company was enriched to include: (1) working for only one particular department, (2) communicating directly with the user-client, (3) checking one's own quality, (4) establishing personal work schedules, and (5) correcting one's own errors. Results of the project include an increase in quantity of output (39 percent versus 8 percent for a control group), a decrease in the error rate (.9 percent versus a previous 1.5 percent), and a decrease in the absenteeism rate (minus 24 percent versus a 27 percent increase for the control group). A recent survey of fifty-eight companies with job enrichment programs revealed that two-thirds felt that product quality had improved, half said employee turnover was down an average of 18 percent, over one-third reported decreases in absenteeism of 15 percent, and one-third indicated that employee satisfaction had improved with grievances dropping by 16 percent. The average cost of introducing the program was slightly in excess of $1,000 per employee whose job was enriched.
Despite the well-developed behavioral theory and the many reports of program success, one must conclude that job enrichment is no panacea. When one large insurance company attempted to introduce job enrichment, most affected employees (82 percent) reported liking the jobs but almost as many (68 percent) stated that employee morale was lower because they were not being paid in proportion to increased duties.13 As Figure 4-9 indicates, the enrichment process is mediated by the strength of employee growth needs. Those high in the need for achievement (n Ach are more likely to respond to job enrichment opportunities. Employees low in the need for achievement (low n Ach) are often unaffected by such changes. A person with a high n Ach is one who feels a need to accomplish something important, to compete against a challenging standard of excellence, and prefers to receive clear and prompt feedback of results. Employees who are younger and more educated are more responsive to job enrichment. A survey of some 1,500 employees revealed that white-collar employees ranked "interesting work" as most important, whereas blue-collar employees ranked it in seventh position after such items as security, pay, helpful coworkers, and clearly defined responsibilities. Thus, management should not assume that all employees are alike in their growth needs.
SEMIAUTONOMOUS WORK GROUPS
The interaction requirements of many jobs would call for "work group enrichment" rather than job enrichment. Early research in the British coal industry indicated that work divided by the mining cycle rather than the shift made possible the formation of self-sufficient, largely self-managed work groups that were able to effect considerable gains in productivity. One writer contends that a "not-so-quiet revolution" has occurred in the United States in the last decade with many firms experimenting with the concept of self-managing groups. Among the firms cited were General Foods, Procter and Gamble, General Motors, Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, and H. J. Heinz. Some have been so effective that the firms are unwilling to release details because of competitive reasons.
Among the prominent features of many such programs are the following: (1) the group sets its own output goals; (2) it may do its own purchasing, inventory and quality control; (3) vacancies are filled by group decision; (4) all start at the same pay; (5) pay increases are determined by the number of skills learned; (6) job rotation is practiced and members are expected to learn all jobs; (7) an effort is made to mix interesting and routine tasks; and (8) the group may elect a group leader to communicate with management. The basis for grouping of employees is by product rather than specialized function.
Prominent publicized examples of self-managed groups are plants of General Foods and Volvo. In a pet-food manufacturing plant, all tasks were assigned to teams of seven to seventeen members. After 18 months of operation, the results were favorable in economic terms: overhead costs were 33 percent lower, absenteeism 9 percent lower, and quality rejects 92 percent lower. Problems arising included some team disputes over certifying each other as qualified in particular skills, inability of some team members to stop acting like bosses, and refusal of some members to take on added responsibilities. After some years of economic success, the employees felt that General Foods should introduce a profit-sharing plan; the request was turned down inasmuch as no other plants in the firm had such plans.
When technology is rigid as in the case of automobile manufacturing, the opportunities for self-managing groups would appear limited. However, Volvo has built a new plant at Kalmar, Sweden, that has been designed so that production could be accomplished by teams. The traditional long assembly line has been broken into multiple short lines interspersed with storage areas so that teams of fifteen to t%%7enty-five members can perform such tasks as building an entire engine, installing all electrical systems, or installing brakes and wheel systems. Within limits, the teams set their own pace and divide up tasks among members. The work cycle for some tasks has been increased to 20 or 30 minutes. Rather than a fixed conveyor, the cars are mounted on individual mobile platforms. The major reason for the new plant was to improve the quality of work life, and former absenteeism rates of 20 percent and turnover rates of 40 percent have been drastically reduced. There is still considerable doubt about the impact of the program on unit costs.
SUMMARY
This chapter has ranged from the general to the specific, from the basic overall objectives of an organization to the specific job content of an individual task. On the thesis that the personnel manager will be increasingly called upon for advice and expertise in the field of organizational design, knowledge must be obtained on such diverse subjects as objectives, functions, relationships, structure, job enlargement and enrichment, and semiautonomous work groups.
Organizing is the process of establishing formal relationships (responsibility, authority, and accountability) among key components (functions, personnel, and physical factors) for the purpose of harnessing (line, line/staff, functionalized, or project structure) and directing toward common enterprise objectives (service, member, and social). Objectives govern the specification of functions, which tend to be differentiated, both downward and outward, with increasing size of organization. Primary, secondary, and tertiary contributions to the primary objective can be identified. These analyses of objectives and functions are necessary for the understanding and design of basic instrumental structures.
Whether an organizational expert or not, the personnel manager must study the design of specific job and group assignments. Psychological and sociological research suggests that redesign of work content to provide variety, closure, significance, autonomy, and feedback can often provide considerable returns to the organization. Returns in the areas of product quality, and such human values as morale, absenteeism, and turnover are highly probable. The major concerns usually encountered revolve around the considerable investment in time and talent required for such redesign, accompanied by doubts about the net impact upon work output.
