Job Diagnostic Survey

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hackman and Oldham work motivation model

The Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) is a psychological procedure for workplace analysis that is based on the job characteristic theory (often also job characteristics model ) by Hackman and Oldham . With it, the motivation potential, which primarily results from the work task and the other properties of a work system , should be determined and given as a point value. It is assumed that motivation arises from the work task and that personal characteristics as well as colleagues and superiors affect the motivational potential as moderators.

Representation of the JDS

The JDS is

  1. a diagnostic tool that allows problem areas in work design, togetherness and motivational potential to be tracked down,
  2. whereby targeted improvements can be initiated and with the
  3. an evaluation and success control of the work structuring measures can be carried out.

The following questions should be answered in detail:

  1. Are there any observable problems with staff and work results?
  2. Can the work organization be responsible for the problems observed?
  3. Which aspects of work organization need the most significant changes?
  4. How willing are employees to participate in structuring work?

Basics

Necessary prerequisites for successful work structuring are theoretical ideas about which motivationally effective processes are stimulated by certain characteristics of the work situation and which mechanisms are conveyed through which these processes are then reflected in the experience and behavior of the worker . The question of the possible effects of characteristics of the work situation and the work task on the experience and behavior of employees in work organizations is a central topic of work and organizational psychology . The “Job Characteristics Model” developed by Hackman and Oldham provides a framework for work design based on motivational psychology. Originally, the JDS was intended to subject the “Job Characteristics Model” to an empirical validity test. In addition, the JDS can be used to diagnose the motivational stimulus content of a work situation and - based on this - evaluate the success of work structuring.

The job characteristics model

The starting point is the concept of "intrinsic work motivation". This is based on the idea that people do their work not as a result of compulsions or other external (extrinsic) incentives, but on the basis of incentives that are conveyed by performing the work itself. Hackman and Oldham link an intrinsic work motivation to three essential conditions: Firstly, the worker must have knowledge of the results of their work in order to be able to assess a work result achieved according to their own or third-party standards. The person must Second, as a responsible experience for the results of the work, and eventually they must work as meaningful and evaluate valuable.

According to the model, these experience states are influenced by the following five attributes (core dimensions):

  1. Diversity of requirements ("skill variety")
  2. Holistic nature of the task (task identity)
  3. Importance of the task ("Task significance")
  4. Autonomy ("Autonomy")
  5. Feedback ("Feedback from the job").

These in turn affect the dependent model variables intrinsic motivation ( "internal work motivation"), satisfaction with development opportunities ( "growth satisfaction") General job satisfaction ( "general job satisfaction") and performance of high quality ( "work effectiviness").

In addition, by including moderation variables, the differences in the subjective perception of the characteristics of the work situation by different people are taken into account: the need for development, the satisfaction of the context and the individual's level of ability.

The JDS arch

Technically, the JDS is a questionnaire that can be filled out in a good 45 minutes and easily evaluated using a spreadsheet . The information is all collected from the perspective of the respective employee and reflects the work situation and activity exclusively from the perspective of the job holder. The advantage of this “subjective” work analysis is seen in the fact that ultimately, conditions of a work situation that cannot be objectively found are effective in terms of experience and behavior, but rather the dealing with the situation that makes up the individual reality.

The result is a point value that describes the level of motivation potential (MPS). In addition to the open questions about “department” and “status”, the questionnaire contains 81 scaled items, 60 of which relate to variables of the job characteristics model (image). In detail these are:

1. Core features (core dimensions) of the workplace ("Job Characteristics")

  • Change of requirements ("Skill variety") (AW - 3 items)
  • Task identity (AI - 3 items)
  • Task significance (AB - 3 items)
  • Autonomy ("Autonomy") (AU - 3 items)
  • Factual feedback ("Feedback from the job itself") (SR - 3 items)
  • Personal feedback ("Feedback from agents") (PR - 3 items)
  • Cooperation with colleagues ("Dealing with others") (ZK - 3 items)

2. Crucial psychological stages ("Experienced Psychological States")

  • Experienced meaningfulness of the work (ESA - 4 items)
  • Experienced responsibility for the work (EVA - 6 items)
  • Knowledge of the results of the work activities (KEA - 4 items)

3. Criterion variables ("Affective Outcomes")

  • General job satisfaction (AAZ - 5 items)
  • Intrinsic work motivation (IAM - 6 items)
  • Satisfaction with personal development opportunities (growth satisfaction) (ZPE - 4 items)

4. Moderation variables

  • Satisfaction ("context satisfactions") with
    • Job security ("Satisfaction with job security") (ZAS - 2 items)
    • Work remuneration ("Satisfaction with compensation - pay") (ZAV - 2 items) - also translated as "remuneration" and "payment"
    • Social climate ("Satisfaction with co-workers") (ZSK - 3 items)
    • Supervisor ("Satisfaction with supervision") (ZV - 3 items)

5. Needs for personal development ("Individual Growth needs strength") (BPE)

In this area, preferences for certain work situations are first asked (11 questions). Furthermore, work situations are compared with the characteristics relevant in the model in a pair comparison and are to be evaluated. This also serves to determine the work orientation . The consistency of the response behavior is also checked by changing scaling and questioning directions.

The JDS is purely job-related. It is therefore not suitable for aptitude diagnostics .

From the items of the core dimensions, the motivation potential (MPS) is calculated with a key finding: .

Further items are used to determine additional individual statements.

criticism

The JDS is a comparatively well-designed instrument and has been well tested. Changes that the authors introduced over time are sometimes difficult to understand. In view of different, sometimes idiosyncratic translations into German, with some of the question formats also being changed, it is difficult to compare results for research.

One problem is the interpretation of the results. The point values ​​are comparable and - based on changes in individual workplaces - are suitable for longitudinal sections. The question of which MPS should be classified as sufficient, satisfactory or even good, however, remains open. Despite the moderation variables taken into account, there is a risk of doing too much of a good thing and of overwhelming employees in new work systems. Furthermore, economic requirements for the necessary quantities, for example, are ignored. A lower limit, which must be exceeded in any case, is not defined. For such assessments, the theory of action regulation has proven to be more useful.

Matern (1983) criticizes the undifferentiated use of the term “ job satisfaction ” and the divergence between the demanding theoretical constructs and the (in their eyes) “poor operationalization in the questions”. According to their assessment, the JDS is an “essential development stage of psychological work analysis procedures”, but “too rough” for the planning of design measures.

Maier (2009) subjected the job characteristics model to a new, detailed empirical investigation with the JDS and found a few less significant constructs on the lower levels and suggests an extended model that also includes constructs such as insufficient demand.

swell

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ See: Hackman, Richard; Oldham, Greg R .: Development of the job diagnostic survey. In: Journal of Applied Psychology 60 (1975) 2, pp. 159-170.
  2. ↑ Hackman, J. Richard; Oldham, Greg R .: Work Redesign (Organization Development). Upper Saddle River (New Jersey): Prentice Hall, 1980. - ISBN 978-0-201-02779-2 .
  3. ^ Berger, Gerhard: The Job Diagnostic Survey. In: PERSONAL (1984) 3, pp. 86-90.
  4. ↑ Kulik, Carol T .; Oldham, Greg R .: Job Diagnostic Survey. In: Gael, Sidney (Ed.): The Job Analysis Handbook for Business, Industry, and Government: Volume II . New York: Wiley, 1988.- ISBN 0-471-63173-6 . Pp. 938-959. The dependent variables are presented differently in this source than in the 1975 Hackman and Oldham publication.
  5. ↑ Classification according to: Schmidt, K.-H .; Kleinbeck, U .; Ottmann, W .; Seidel, B .: The Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS). In: Psychologie und Praxis - Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organizational Psychologie (1985) 29, pp. 162–172.
  6. ^ Matern, Hermann: Psychological work analysis. In: Hacker, Winfried : Special work and engineering psychology : teaching text 3. Berlin (East): Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1983 (Quoted from Ulich, Eberhard : Arbeitsspsychologie . Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel, 2005. - ISBN 3-7910-2442 -6 . P. 108 f.)
  7. ↑ Maier, Mechthild: Group work as a work design measure to increase job satisfaction and work motivation. Göttingen: Cuvilier, 2009. - ISBN 978-3-86727-932-1 .

Web links