Personality and Culture as Moderators in the Job Characteristics Model

Michle Boonzaier University of Stellenbosch*, Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602, South Africa Email: Shalom3@telkomsa.net Telephone: +27 21 8500683 Facsimile: +27 21 8500683 *Doctoral student

Abstract The proposed study seeks to refine the Job Characteristics Model to include salient moderator variables, and to determine whether personality and culture (as individual and environmental/group level variables respectively) moderate (in interaction with each other) the relationships between the job characteristics (independent variables) and employee motivation, satisfaction, and work effectiveness (dependent variables) in the Job Characteristics Model, and as such increase the predictive value of the model in a diverse workforce.
Keywords: Job design; Job characteristics model; personality; culture; moderator

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY The field of Industrial Psychology is concerned with positively influencing its two primary dependent variables, namely organizational productivity and employee motivation and job satisfaction. Organizational productivity and work motivation and satisfaction are linked, in that research demonstrates a relatively strong significant relationship between the two, indicating that higher levels of job satisfaction are associated with higher levels of work output (Robbins & Judge, 2007). Research also demonstrates that the nature of an employees job significantly influences his/her levels of motivation and job satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). The Job Characteristics Model of Hackman and Oldham (1980) remains the most influential model guiding research on job redesign as a strategy for enhancing motivated work performance and job satisfaction (Perry, Mesch & Paarlberg, 2006). A review by Boonzaier, Ficker and Rust (2001) of research on the Job Characteristics Model and its attendant Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS), however, revealed distinct and limiting shortcomings of the model, including the fact that the moderator variables postulated by the original model (Growth Need Strength, as an individual level variable, and certain job context factors, as organization level variables) have been shown to be superfluous in predicting outcome variance. Appropriate moderators in the model therefore still need to be identified and empirically verified.

The development and refinement of the Job Characteristics Model has also taken place in a predominantly Western environment and has failed to take different cultural environments into account (Lee-Ross, 2005). Increases in organizational productivity are strategic goals of businesses small and large, nationally and internationally, as well as non-profit organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). From a financial perspective, globalization, as a world-wide and South African trend, is placing concomitant pressure on organizations to increase productivity, profitability and return on investment. From a human resource management perspective, globalization demands flexibility in adapting to different cultures, on both national and organizational levels. A phenomenon in todays world of work is the increasing diversification of workforces, both internationally and specifically within the South African workplace. The diversification of the South African workplace is a natural consequence of the countrys diverse population, as well as being a function of labour legislation, for example the Employment Equity Act (1998), designed to diversify the employment scenario towards representivity in all sectors and all employment levels.

LITERATURE REVIEW Research in the field of job design has focused on the impact that various job characteristics, worker characteristics and work environment factors have on employee motivation, job satisfaction, work performance, absenteeism and turnover. An overview of the evolution of job design theory during the 20th century (Grobler, Wrnich, Carrell, Elbert & Hatfield, 2006) saw the rise and decline of Frederick Taylors scientific management (with its great concern for employee output and its poor concern for employee satisfaction) as well as the human relations approach to the management of people (with its behavioural science interventions emphasizing support of and concern for workers in an effort to indirectly boost productivity). Evidenced shortcomings of these two approaches (Stoner & Freeman, 1992; Steers & Porter, 1991) birthed a new, humanistic management approach by Herzberg (1968) who proposed a set of intrinsic job characteristics such as recognition, responsibility, advancement and achievement that appeared to be related to job satisfaction. Herzberg suggested that the factors that motivate people in their jobs are those associated with the work itself or to outcomes directly derived from it, which people find intrinsically satisfying. The next two decades yielded many elaborations on Herzbergs philosophy, culminating in an approach to understanding worker-job relationships known as the job characteristics theory. This theory has subsequently been embodied in the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). The Job Characteristics Model (Figure 1) provides a systematic exposition of how the interaction between the nature of the job (embodied by the job characteristics), the nature of the job environment (that is, job context factors), and the nature of the worker (represented by certain individual variables) influences work motivation, satisfaction and productivity. Definitions of the variables in Figure 1 were originally formulated by Hackman and Oldham (1975, 1976).

Job characteristics Skill variety Task identity Task significance Autonomy

Critical psychological states Experienced meaningfulness of work Experienced responsibility for work outcomes Knowledge of results

Personal and work outcomes High internal work motivation High general job satisfaction High growth satisfaction High work effectiveness

Feedback

Moderators: Growth-need strength Pay satisfaction Security satisfaction Co-worker satisfaction Supervisor satisfaction Knowledge and skill

Figure 1: The Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1980: 90)

Since its inception, the Job Characteristics Model has given rise to decades of international research, and is considered the alpha model guiding research on the nature of jobs (Johns, Xie & Fang, 1992). A review based on 2616 research articles on employee motivation and performance by Perry, Mesch and Paarlberg (2006) states that most recent developments in work design centred on the Job Characteristics Model. The reliability and rationale of Hackman and Oldhams model and accompanying Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) have been extensively tested with positive consequences in a variety of settings, for example in music schools (Lawrence, 2004) and for occupations in the wider educational sector (Van Dick, Schnitger, Schwartzmann-Buchelt & Wagner, 2001), in penal facilities (Mcdowall-Chittenden, 2002) and in the hospitality industry (Lee-Ross, 2002). Local research, too, established the applicability of the model for use in South African organizations (Boonzaier & Boonzaier, 1994). This led to the acceptance of the Job Characteristics Model as a conceptual basis for addressing problems related to employee performance, motivation and satisfaction, and the utilization of the accompanying JDS as a management tool to: diagnose jobs considered for redesign in order to establish their current capacity for stimulating motivation, satisfaction and effective work performance; identify those specific job characteristics that are most in need of enrichment, based on the above-mentioned diagnosis; assess the readiness of employees to respond positively to improved jobs; implement action steps for redesigning jobs and enriching specific job characteristics (Hackman, Oldham, Janson & Purdy, 1975); evaluate the effects of job redesign interventions on the motivation, satisfaction and effectiveness of employees.

However, despite the Job Characteristics Model possessing proven usefulness, and achieving international and local acceptance as a conceptual framework for addressing motivation and satisfaction problems, its extensive application and the scrutiny that it has been subjected to has revealed specific shortcomings which require mention. Boonzaier et al. (2001), in their review and evaluation of research on the Job Characteristics Model and the JDS, present evidence confirming strong positive relationships between the job characteristics as independent variables and motivation and satisfaction as dependent variables. Internal work motivation, general job satisfaction and growth satisfaction serve as valid dependent variables. The five job characteristics, namely skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback are verified as valid and equal independent variables, contrary to the original formulation of Hackman and Oldham (1980) whereby the predictive utility of each of autonomy and feedback was equated with the combined influence of skill variety, task identity, and task significance (as evidenced by the utilization of the multiplicative computation of the Motivating Potential Score, or MPS). Also, the original formulations of the model are shown to specify inappropriate and inadequate worker characteristics (the three psychological states, growth-need strength, and knowledge and skill) and work environment characteristics (satisfaction with pay, security, supervision, and coworkers) as mediators and moderators respectively of the relationships between the independent and dependent variables. Boonzaier et al. (2001: 2325) consequently proposed a basic (unmediated/unmoderated) Job Characteristics Model (Figure 2) as the cornerstone for establishing and developing a modern job design theory or model.
Job characteristics Skill variety Task identity Task significance Autonomy Feedback Personal outcomes Internal work motivation General job satisfaction Growth satisfaction

Figure 2: The Basic (unmediated/unmoderated) Job Characteristics Model

Alongside this more parsimonious unmoderated and unmediated Job Characteristics Model a commensurate revision of the JDS was also proposed by Boonzaier et al. (2001) to facilitate further theory development (Boonzaier et al., 2001: 23-25). The Revised JDS has subsequently been supported by research (Buys, Olckers & Schaap, 2007). Whilst research confirms that various worker- and work environment characteristics influence the dependent variables in important ways, no single such characteristic explains a significant amount of outcome variance beyond the influence of the job characteristics (Boonzaier et al., 2001). Therefore, to further enhance the predictive validity and practical usefulness of the basic (unmediated/unmoderated) model, a central research goal in job design remains the identification, definition and measurement of appropriate worker- and environment characteristics (person and environment factors) which would account for significant amounts of variance in motivation and satisfaction beyond the influence of the job characteristics. The

search therefore still exists for an appropriate and adequate moderator of the relationships between the independent and dependent variables in the basic Job Characteristics Model. A further shortcoming of the Job Characteristics Model lies in the fact that the development and refinement of the model has taken place in a predominantly Western environment and has largely failed to take different cultural environments into account. Many organizational behaviour theories and management practices currently reflect a Western ethnocentric bias (Lee-Ross, 2005). Globalization and the increase in multi-national businesses highlight the importance of understanding the similarities and differences between the cultures of different countries so that appropriate and effective managerial behaviours and interventions can be formulated. For the same reason, an analysis of the similarities and differences between the sub-cultures within a specific country also requires investigation. Culture can be regarded as a central environmental variable shaping behaviour in organizations (Steenkamp, 2001), but there still exists a void with respect to research testing whether the nature of a job intrinsically motivates workers from different cultural groups differently. The cultural diversity within South Africa, and between cultures in general, should thus be taken into account when refining the Job Characteristics Model and explaining the relationships between job characteristics and work behaviour. In a study of the relationship between the Big Five factors of personality and work involvement, Bozionelos (2004) reports the existence of a relationship between the two variables. Work involvement is described as an important motivational variable that is of interest to organizations (ibid., 69), thus linking personality variables to work motivation. Furthermore, Goldberg (1993), Salgado (1997), Rothmann and Coetzer (2003) and Robbins and Judge (2007) conclude that personality measures are valid predictors of work behaviour. More specifically, the Big Five factors of personality (Goldberg, 1999) are valid predictors of various workplace dependant variables. The role that personality variables play in explaining the relationships between the job characteristics and the outcome variables in the Job Characteristics Model of job design needs to be systematically addressed by empirical research. The proposed study submits that workers motivation and job satisfaction are influenced by the five core job characteristics as stated in the basic Job Characteristics Model that is, the propensity of these characteristics determines the richness of the job to motivate workers towards productive performance and to keep them satisfied with the job. In addition, individual and environmental characteristics are also postulated to contribute to productive performance, job satisfaction and work motivation. Specifically, personality and culture are suggested as moderator variables in a revised Job Characteristics Model. The revision the Job Characteristics Model proposed by the current study (Figure 3) postulates that problems with regards to demotivation and dissatisfaction can be addressed by increasing the presence of the core job characteristics present in the employees job, provided that individual (personality) and cultural variables do not mitigate against such an intervention; Lee Ross (2005), for example, in a comparison of hotel workers in Mauritius and Australia, concludes that cultural predisposition could result in some employees responding negatively to empowered jobs because they are uncomfortable in such job structures. In other words, the basic Job Characteristics Model is not necessarily held to be the panacea for work motivation and satisfaction problems for all people across all cultures.

(INDEPENDENT VARIABLES) Job characteristics Skill variety Task identity Task significance Autonomy Feedback

(DEPENDENT VARIABLES) Personal outcomes Internal motivation General job satisfaction Growth satisfaction Work effectiveness

(MODERATOR VARIABLES) Personality

Culture

Figure 3: The Proposed Revision of the Job Characteristics Model

RESEARCH PROBLEM Job re-design diagnoses and interventions (that may have a Western ethnocentric bias) need to take cognizance of individual and cultural differences. RESEARCH QUESTION Do personality and culture (as individual and environmental/group level variables respectively) moderate (in interaction with each other) the relationships between the job characteristics (independent variable) and employee motivation, satisfaction and effective work behaviour (dependent variable) in the Job Characteristics Model? AIM OF THE STUDY To refine the Job Characteristics Model (to include salient moderator variables which significantly influence the relationship between the independent and the dependent variables) and to test this revision of the model. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY The study will test whether the inclusion of personality and culture (as individual and environmental/group level variables) increases the predictive value of the Job Characteristics Model in a diverse workforce. HYPOTHESES Personality accounts for significant amounts of variance in the personal outcomes beyond the influence of the job characteristics.

Culture accounts for significant amounts of variance in the personal outcomes beyond the influence of the job characteristics. Personality and Culture, in interaction with one another, account for significant amounts of variance in the personal outcomes beyond the influence of the job characteristics. RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY In an attempt to increase organizational productivity and levels of employee motivation and job satisfaction, managers are faced with the challenge of re-designing jobs according to guidelines that have been shown to yield organizational benefits. Globally, and in South Africa with its imperatives of employment equity and Black economic empowerment, workforces are increasingly diversifying, with resultant management challenges. In order to provide a useful and relevant management tool, workplace models need to take that diversity, on both and individual and cultural levels, into account. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY Research design The study is an investigative revision of the Job Characteristics Model, striving to provide a conceptual basis for addressing work motivation and satisfaction problems and equipping managers and human resource practitioners with usable tools to diagnose and remedy such problems; as such it is a combination of basic and applied research, in a non-experimental correlational research design. Sampling A population of about 750 senior trainee management students from the Faculty of Business at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology will be drawn. Individual workers form the unit of analysis. The population includes subgroups from Hospitality Management, Tourism Management, Human Resource Management, Public Management, Retail Business Management, Public Relations Management, Marketing Management, Event Management, and Sport Management. For the duration of their practical training, workers are exposed to management activities and responsibilities. Trainees come from a heterogeneous mixture of cultures; they reflect the different cultural groups in South Africa, as well as students from Gabon, Congo, Malawi, Mozambique and other African countries. Data Measuring instruments will comprise the Revised JDS, Goldbergs Big Five Personality Questionnaire, and Shalom Schwartzs Value Survey. Psychometric data will be secured by a registered psychologist, and individual work performance measures, based on trainees performance in a prescribed portfolio of job tasks (and double-blind reviewed by external examiners), will be obtained through the programme co-ordinator. Multiple Regression and Structural Equations Modelling procedures will be applied in analysis. SIGNIFICANCE AND VALUE OF THE STUDY A revised model of job re-design, incorporating personality and cultural variables, will assist managers in tailoring job enrichment interventions, with improved benefit to both the organization and the individual worker.

References

Boonzaier, B. & Boonzaier, M. 1994. The job diagnostic survey: a functional tool for South African managers, South African Journal of Business Management, 25(3):101-109. Boonzaier, B., Ficker, B. & Rust, B. 2001. A Review of Research on the Job Characteristics Model and the Attendant Job Diagnostic Survey, South African Journal of Business Management, 32(1):1134. Bozionelos, N. 2004. The big five of personality and work involvement, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(1):69-81. Buys, M.A., Olckers, C. & Schaap, P. 2007. The construct validity of the revised job diagnostic survey, South African Journal of Business Management, 38(2):33-40. Employment Equity Act, No 55 of 1998, Government Gazette, (19370), 19 October 1998.

Goldberg, L.R. 1993. The structure of phenotypic personality traits, American Psychologist, 48:2634. Goldberg, L.R. 1999. A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lowerlevel facets of several five-factor models. In Mervielde, I., Deary, I.J., De Fruyt, F. & Ostendorf, F. (eds). Personality Psychology in Europe. Tilberg, The Netherlands: Tilberg University Press: 7-28. Grobler, P., Wrnich, S., Carrell, M.R., Elbert, N.F. & Hatfield, R.D. 2006. Human Resource Management in South Africa. 3rd ed. London: Thomson. Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. 1975. Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey, Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2):159-170. Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2):250-279. Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. 1980. Work Redesign. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Hackman, J.R., Oldham, R.G., Janson, R., Purdy, K. 1975. "A new strategy for job enrichment", California Management Review, 17(4):55-71.

Herzberg, F. 1968. One more time: How do you motivate employees?, Harvard Business Review, 46(1):53-62. Johns, G., Xie, J.L. & Fang, Y. 1992. Mediating and moderating effects in job design, Journal of Management, 18(4):657-676. Lawrence, R. M. 2004. The application of Hackman and Oldhams job characteristic model to perceptions community music school faculty have towards their job, Dissertation Abstracts International: Humanities and Social Sciences, 65(1A):101. Lee-Ross, D. 2002. An exploratory study of work motivation among private and public sector hospital chefs in Australia, Journal of Management Development, 21(8):576-588.

Lee-Ross, D. 2005. Perceived job characteristics and internal work motivation: An exploratory crosscultural analysis of the motivational antecedents of hotel workers in Mauritius and Australia, Journal of Management Development, 24(3):253-266. Mcdowall-Chittenden, K.T. 2002. Job satisfaction as related to job characteristics in penal facilities, Dissertation Abstracts International: Humanities and Social Sciences, 62(7A):2481. Perry, J.L., Mesch, D. & Paarlberg, L. 2006. Motivating Employees in a New Governance Era: The Performance Paradigm Revisited, Public Administration Review, 66(4):505-514. Robbins, S.P. & Judge, T.A. 2007. Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. Rothmann, S. & Coetzer, E.P. 2003. The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(1):68-74. Salgado, J. F. 1997. The five-factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community, Journal of Applied Psychology, 82:30-43. Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. 2001. The role of national culture in international marketing research, International Marketing Review, 18(1):30-44. Steers, R.M. & Porter, L.W. 1991. Motivation and Work Behavior. Singapore: McGraw-Hill. Stoner, J.A.F. & Freeman, R.E. 1992. Management. 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Van Dick, R., Schnitger, C., Schwartzmann-Buchelt, C. & Wagner, U. 2001. The Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) for educational sector occupations. An evaluation of model properties of the Job Characteristics Model among teachers, university staff members, and nursery school teachers with jobspecific versions of the JDS, Zeitschrift fur Arbeits und Organisationspsychologie, 45(2):74-92.