Interdisciplinary approaches to job design: A constructive replication with extensions.

(e.g., psychology, engineering, human factors, physiology) to demonstrate four approaches tojob design and their corresponding outcomes: motivational approach with satisfaction outcomes, mech-anistic approach with efficiency outcomes, biological approach with comfort outcomes, and percep-tual/motor approach with reliability outcomes. This study extended the research in five ways. First, it used an expanded sample of 92 jobs and 1,024 respondents froma different industry. Second, a self-report measure was developed and evaluated, because many jobs cannot be analyzed observationally. Third, method bias was addressed by not finding evidence of priming effects, bydemonstrating strong relationships even when within-subject bias was avo ded, and by relating job design to inde-pendent opinion survey data. Fourth, reliability of aggregate responses was demonstrated, and rela-tionships at the job level of analysis were larger than at the individual level. Fifth, neither individual differences in terms of preferences/tolerances for types of work nor demographics moderated job design-outcome relationships. It wasconcluded that different approaches to job design influence different outcomes, each approach has costs as well as benefits, trade-offs may be needed, and both theory and practice must beinterdisciplinary in perspective. Job design theorizing and research in psychology and the or-ganizational sciences have focused almost exclusively on job en-richment and enlargement (Ford, 1969; Herzberg, 1966) or characteristics of motivating jobs (Griffin, 1982b; Hackman