|
Job Enrichment By Peter Mione |
|||||
|
"You know that retaining experienced
employees is a key factor in our continued success, yet I
see us losing more and more of our long-standing account managers.
Our survey shows they are bored with their jobs. I want a
quick motivational training program for all employees starting
in a week. Let's make sure this doesn't continue to happen!"
"We want to make sure we hang on to our
top performing service representatives. I want you to put
together an hour presentation showing them the options for
advancement in our company. We can't afford to lose these
people to the competition." As with so many similar requests, analysis will most likely show
that a training solution would not be very effective for either
of the above scenarios. If the root causes of the scenarios are
truly related to boredom and lack of preparation for advancement,
job enrichment could be an excellent non-training intervention. Job enrichment is a type of job redesign intended to reverse the
effects of tasks that are repetitive requiring little autonomy.
Some of these effects are boredom, lack of flexibility, and employee
dissatisfaction (Leach & Wall, 2004). The underlying principle
is to expand the scope of the job with a greater variety of tasks,
vertical in nature, that require self-sufficiency. Since the goal
is to give the individual exposure to tasks normally reserved for
differently focused or higher positions, merely adding more of the
same responsibilities related to an employee's current position
is not considered job enrichment. The basis for job enrichment practices is the work done by Frederick
Herzberg in the 1950's and 60's, which was further refined in 1975
by Hackman and Oldham using what they called the Job Characteristics
Model. This model assumes that if five core job characteristics
are present, three psychological states critical to motivation are
produced, resulting in positive outcomes (Kotila, 2001). Figure
1 illustrates this model. Job enrichment can only be truly successful if planning includes
support for all phases of the initiative. Ohio State University
Extension began a job enrichment program in 1992 and surveyed the
participants five years later. The results, broken down into 3 sub-buckets
of data beyond the main grouping of advantages/disadvantages as
shown in Table 1, indicate the University had not fully considered
the planning and administrative aspects of the program (Fourman
and Jones, 1997). While the benefits are seemingly obvious, programs
fail not In order for a job enrichment program to produce positive results,
worker needs and organizational needs must be analyzed and acted
upon. According to Cunningham and Eberle (1990), before an enrichment
program is begun, the following questions should be asked: When asked about the successes of a Training Generalist job enrichment
program begun in 2002, Karen Keenan, Learning Manager with Bank
of America, stated the accomplishments were, "greater than
expected". The Training Generalist program has resulted in
three successful participants to date. According to Ms. Keenan,
positive results can be directly tied to a program that addressed
the strategic goal of greater resource flexibility without adding
to staff, as well as to proper planning, guidance, and feedback
for the participants. Having a voluntary program contributed as
well, attracting a high caliber of individuals eager to expand their
skills and be positioned for advancement. To date, all three Training
Generalists have experienced promotions and additional recognition
while affording Ms. Keenan's team financial results and workload
flexibility it could not have otherwise achieved. A job enrichment program can be a very effective intervention in
some situations where a Performance Technician is faced with a request
for motivational training. Ralph Brown (2004) summed it up very
nicely: References
Author Note
|
|||||