This study replicated Campion and Thayefs (1985) research, which drew from many disciplines (e.g., psychology, engineering, human factors, physiology) to demonstrate four approaches to job design and their corresponding outcomes: motivational approach with satisfaction outcomes, mechanistic approach with efficiency outcomes, biological approach with comfort outcomes, and perceptual/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 from a different industry. Second, a selfreport measure was developed and evaluated, because many jobs cannot be analyzed observationally. Third, method bias was addressed by not finding evidence of priming effects, by demonstrating strong relationships even when within-subject bias was avoided, and by relating job design to independent opinion survey data. Fourth, reliability of aggregate responses was demonstrated, and relationships 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 was concluded 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 be interdisciplinary in perspective.