The development of an interdisciplinary job design questionnaire and a study of its interrelationships with a variety of outcomes is described. A taxonomy of job design approaches was developed from literature of different disciplines: (a) a motivational approach from organizational psychology; (b) a mechanistic approach from classic industrial engineering; (c) a biological approach from work physiology and biomechanics; and (d) a perceptual/motor approach from experimental psychology. The Multimethod Job Design Questionnaire (MJDQ) was developed reflecting these approaches. A corresponding taxonomy of job outcomes was developed, and hypotheses were generated as to relationships between job design approaches and outcomes. A field study involved 121 jobs, 215 incumbents, and 23 supervisors from five plants. Results indicated the MJDQ was reliable, and most hypotheses were supported. Different job design approaches influence different outcomes and may have some costs as well as benefits; an interdisciplinary perspective is needed to integrate major theories of job design. Even a cursory examination of the job design literature reveals many different schools of thought: industrial engineering approaches of scientific management and time and motion study, the psychological approaches of job enrichment and motivating job characteristics , the human factors or ergonomics approaches, and sociotechnical approaches to job design. Although there is some overlap in the recommendations made for proper job design, there is considerable divergence in focus and even some direct conflict in advice. Proponents, however, claim that their job designs positively influence most of the outcome spectrum for both the individual and the organization.

No abstract

The construct validity of traditional assessment center dimensions was compared with that of a set of alternative constructs based on the functional structure of managerial work. Subjects were 75 middle‐level managers in state government who participated in two developmental assessment centers as part of a centralized management development program. One assessment center measured performance in terms of traditional attribute dimensions and the other in terms of functions performed in managerial work. Results show that evidence for construct validity is weak for both sets of constructs.

No abstract