A systematic understanding of responses to dimensions necessitates that the dimensions be defined and operationalized consistently. This paper's results indicate that task attribute manipulations have not consistently/represented the theoretical conceptualizations of the task characteristics. The implications of these results for job design research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barrett, G.V., Forbes, J.B., Alexander, R.A., O'Connor, E.J., & Balascoe, L.The relationship between individual attributes and job design: Monitoring tasks. (Technical Report No. 4). Akron, Ohio: University of Akron, Department of Psychology, 1975.
2.
Bernardin, H.J., LaShells, M.B., Smith, P.C., & Alvares, K.M.Behavioral expectation scales: Effects of developmental procedures and formats. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 75-79.
3.
Brief, A.P., & Aldag, R.J.The Job Characteristic Inventory: An examination. Academy of Management Journal, 1978, 21, 659-670.
4.
Davis, L.E., & Valfer, E.S.Intervening responses to changes in supervisor job designs. Occupational Psychology, 1965, 39, 171-189.
5.
Dunham, R.B.The measurement and dimensionality of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 404-409.
6.
Dunham, R. B., Aldag, R.J., & Brief, A. P.Dimensionality of task design as measured by the Job Diagnostic Survey. Academy of Management Journal, 1977, 20, 209-223.
7.
Farr, J. L.Task characteristics, reward contingency, and intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1976, 16, 294-307.
8.
Ford, R.N., & Gillette, M. B.A new approach to job motivation: Improving the work itself. In R.N. Ford (Ed.), Motivation through the work itselfAmerican Management Association, 1969.
9.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R.Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 159-170.
10.
Koch, J.L.Effects of feedback on job attitudes and work behavior: A field experiment. (Technical Report No. 6). Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, 1976.
11.
Likert, R.A technique for the measurement of attitudes. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: Wiley, 1967.
12.
Maher, J. R.Job enrichment, performance and morale in a simulated factory. In J. R. Maher (Ed.), New perspectives in job enrichment. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971.
13.
O'Connor, E.J., Barrett, G.V., & Alexander, R.A.Organizational police' decisions as a function of individual differences and task design: Maintenance tasks. (Technical Report No. 10). Akron, Ohio: University of Akron, Department of Psychology, 1977.
14.
O'Connor, E.J., Rudolf, C.J., & Peters, L.H.Individual differences and job design reconsidered: Where do we go from here?Academy of Management Review, 1980,5, 249-254.
15.
Pierce, J.L., & Dunham, R.B.Task design: A literature review. Academy of Management Review, 1976, 1, 83-97.
16.
Sheaffer, H.J.The framemen trial. In R.N. Ford (Ed.), Motivation through the work itselfAmerican Management Association, 1969.
17.
Smith, P.C., & Kendall, L.M.Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1963, 47, 149-155.
18.
Thurstone, L. L.Attitudes; can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 1928, 33, 529-554.
19.
Umstot, D.D., Bell, C.H., & Mitchell, T.R.Effects of job enrichment and task goals on satisfaction and productivity: Implications for job design:Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61379-394.
20.
White, J. K.Individual differences and the job quality-worker response relationship: Review, integration, and comments. Academy of Management Review, 1978, 3, 267-280.
