Air University Review, May-June 1976

Do more with less!" "Manpower levels are going down!" "Budgets will be more constrained than ever?" With all my resources decreasing, the mission is increasing!" How can we do more with less? How can we improve performance and mission accomplishment? In the face of the "gloom and doom" forecasts, what, indeed, is today's Air Force manager to do?

As we continually examine managerial strategies hoping to find the answer to cope with the challenges presented by increasing requirements in an environment of scarce resources, there is a growing awareness that perhaps the single most important factor in people's performance is the design of the work. However, most efforts to improve performance seem to center on improving the conditions surrounding the work. We stress improved supervisory techniques and interpersonal relations, and we try to improve working conditions. These are worthwhile efforts, but they usually result only in short-term improvements in attitudes and productivity, and the situation often returns quickly to normal.

Long-term improvements will not be made until we realize that it is the job itself which needs to be changed. If people are unhappy with the temperature in the room, adjust the temperature; but if they don't like their job, don't expect more comfortable temperatures to change their attitudes and behavior. We have to learn to make jobs more interesting.

A concept with great potential for the USAF manager in this regard is "job enrichment." The concept of job enrichment provides the manager with a strategy that will motivate subordinates and at the same time enhance mission accomplishment. The purpose of this article is to examine the concept of job enrichment, look at its utility for today's USAF managers, and discuss the enrichment process.

Job enrichment has become one of the most popular management buzz words. Like most buzz words, it has frequently been misused or used loosely.

The term "job enrichment" is firmly lodged in the vocabulary of managers, behavioral scientists and journalists. Managers are beginning to accept the basic theory behind job enrichment, but only at the cocktail-party level of understanding of human behavior. Behavioral scientists, ever ready to jump on a bandwagon, often have an equally shallow understanding, but a better vocabulary. And journalists have a new movement to misinterpret. The result has been that job enrichment now represents many approaches intended to increase human satisfaction and performance at work, and the differences between all the approaches are no longer clear.¹

Since the term "job enrichment" has been abused and distorted, then, we need to make our use clear.

Job enrichment is both a concept and a process concerned with changing jobs to make them more meaningful to those who perform them and at the same time to make better use of the worker's knowledge, skills, and ideas. The concept of job enrichment was crystallized with the motivation-hygiene theory of job attitudes advanced by Frederick Herzberg, currently University Distinguished Professor at the College of Business, University of Utah. His two-factor theory, first presented in 1959, depart sharply from conventional theories of job satisfaction.²

A brief review of Herzberg's findings necessary to understand fully the concept job enrichment.

Motivation-hygiene theory suggests that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are produced by different work factors. What people satisfied at work are factors that relate to the content of their job--specifically; achievement, recognition for achievement, interesting work, increased responsibility, growth, and advancement. (Called motivators). On the other hand, what makes people unhappy at work is not what they do but how well (or poorly) they are treated. These treatment factors (dissatisfiers) are related not to the content of work, but to the context of the job. The main factors in this group are company policy and administration practices, supervision, interpersonal relationships working conditions, salary, status and security. Because these factors describe the job context and, in their negative aspects, serve to provide job dissatisfaction, we have called them hygiene factors, symbolizing the fact that they represent preventive and environmental conditions of work.³

Therefore, according to Herzberg, superior performance can only be generated by concentrating on the "motivators."

This concept is then applied to the work itself. When we look at any job, we find three dimensions that define its parameters: the degree of completeness, the control factor, and the feedback dimension. By further specifying these dimensions, we can define an "enriched job" as follows:⁴

(1) An enriched job is a complete piece of work in the sense that the worker can identify a series of tasks or activities that end in a definable product for a specific recipient. These two aspects of job completeness need amplification. First is task combination. The job needs to be complete in that has an identifiable beginning and end, is logically separable from other "pieces" of work, and is not duplicated by anyone else in the work unit (i.e., before, after, or above). Second, the jobholder should be able to identify users or receivers of the work. Work should be assigned on the basis client relationships (other departments, external customers) or natural work units (specific set of accounts, geographical areas, or alphabetical ordering).

(2) An enriched job affords the worker as much decision-making responsibility and control as possible in carrying out the work. The conditional phrase "as possible" is a recognition of the fact that it will not always be possible to extend complete control or decision-making to a job incumbent. It is important that the person have the power to act in unusual situations or circumstances. Build in as many decision and problem-solving activities that affect the service and quality levels of the work as possible. For example, the worker should have as much control as possible over such things as setting work priorities, resolving complaints and mistakes, sending work back for more information, and direct communication with other areas.

(3) The third and final dimension of an enriched job is that it provides direct feedback through the work itself on how well the worker is doing. The worker should not be dependent on a supervisor to know whether or not the job is being satisfactorily accomplished. Such feedback can be provided by direct user complaints, error rates, volume counts, and turnaround times.

A job having these three dimensions will therefore include: responsibility for planning task accomplishment; the freedom to exercise that plan in the completion of the tasks; and the feedback necessary to enable each worker to assess the effectiveness of that plan in accomplishing the task so as to take any necessary corrective action to insure successful task completion.

What is the utility of job enrichment in the USAF? We can gain insight into this question by looking at experience in the private sector. Industry has been wrestling with the problem of job satisfaction and worker motivation for a number of years. There is a growing consensus among managers as well as behavioral scientists that the way jobs are structured--the work itself --is critical. They have concluded that today's workers desire challenge and individual growth on the job. Unfortunately, in the interest of efficiency, today's complex organizations often rigidly structure jobs, career progression, and personal development. Work tends to be too simplified and overspecialized. Industry has found that these conditions result in decreased productivity, alienation, hostility toward the organization, increasing absenteeism and turnover, and pervasive feelings of unhappiness and discontent. The extent to which these conditions exist in the USAF is open to question. Air Force traditions and our mission in support of national objectives undoubtedly help to cushion or retard the impact of such forces. It is clear, however, that the Air Force is affected by the same social and technological trends as the rest of society and that our people will respond positively to motivation through the work itself.

Indeed, many an Air Force manager may already have recognized signs of discontent with the job on the part of his personnel--or even with his own job. What, then, do some managers perceive as good jobs? An example from experience common to many of us may help. Officers and NCO's who served a tour in Southeast Asia think of the job there as the best they have ever had. We talk of feeling a sense of achievement, recognition for a job well done, interesting work, and tremendous responsibilities. It is interesting that we felt this way about jobs with a less than desirable environment, poor working conditions, family separation, finances stretched to the breaking point, and great personal danger for many. This common experience provides a practical example of a kind of job enrichment that was not designed but resulted from the exigencies of the situation.

For another perspective, let us look at how today's jobs are perceived by a select group of USAF middle managers. A survey of the students in the Air War College and Air Command and Staff College classes of 1974 found that 89 percent of 680 respondents felt that almost every job can be made more stimulating, interesting, and challenging. Ninety-nine percent felt that individual recognition is a key factor in employee motivation. Seventy-five percent felt people want to accept responsibility. And seventy-two percent felt that allowing subordinates to set performance standards will not result in subpar standards.⁵

Clearly, USAF managers perceive that there is room for job improvements. People want to be challenged, to have interesting work, and to be responsible for their actions. They also recognize that their subordinates want to be involved and will probably be more productive if they are.

Traditionally, when job enrichment advocates have been asked where this concept will help, they have answered, "Anywhere you have problems." It was basically symptomatic approach: look for jobs where worker attitudes are poor as evidenced low productivity, poor-quality work, low morale, disciplinary problems, requests for transfers, and low reenlistment rates. Of course, if these or other symptoms are present, it is the manager's responsibilities to get at the cause. While this symptomatic approach to job enrichment has times proven successful, it has also resulted in much misdirected activity.

Obviously, there are situations with turnover or poor productivity in which enrichment would not help. People leave or perform poorly for many reasons: They feel they are underpaid, their supervisor is poor, the work conditions are unacceptable, or they are bored and uninterested in their assignments. Since job enrichment is a process for making work more interesting, it can help only when the last reason mentioned is the cause of the symptoms. But another, more fundamental condition must exist before job enrichment can make a contribution: there must be a structural opportunity to redesign the job. So the first question to be asked in assessing the usefulness of job enrichment in any organization is--where are the tasks done in such a way that leaves room for them to be enriched?²⁶

Structural data can provide information about the technical feasibility of job enrichment. In studying structural opportunities, the manager is attempting to determine the possibilities for assigning work on a user basis or task combination, or building better decision-making and control into the job, or providing better feedback. The existence of one or more of these structural clues does not necessarily indicate that jobs should be enriched, only that the structural opportunity for enrichment exists. Some of the structural indicators that may warrant further investigation include

--duplication of functions (Is task combination possible?)

--extensive use of specialists or troubleshooters (Do they have the best part of everyone else's job?)

--one-on-one reporting relationships (Does the person on the bottom get the leftovers?)

--the existence of general labor pools (Is client identification possible?)

--multiple authority limits (Can more authority be given to those in lower jobs?)

--divided responsibility (Can responsibility be specifically placed?⁷

These clues should be helpful in determining whether job enrichment is possible. Whether it is desirable is usually not an easy question to answer.

There are specific steps a manager can take to facilitate the enrichment process once it has been decided that an enrichment effort is the course of action to pursue:

1. Select a job with which at least one member of your group or work team is intimately familiar. Define all the major tasks and responsibilities of the selected job as it is presently designed.

2. Determine criteria against which you can measure improvement or slippage resulting from job changes.

3. Brainstorm a list of changes. Generalizations such as responsibility, achievement, recognition, and personal growth must be translated into specifics relating to the work being performed.

4. Categorize all the ideas, identifying potential "motivators" and potential "hygiene" factors, into the following areas:

a. A complete module of work

b. New responsibility

c. New form of recognition

d. New feedback

e. Growth opportunities

f. Roadblocks--rules or procedures that will need to be changed

g. Working conditions (and other hygiene factors).

5. Evaluate the ideas and identify those that seem to be excellent and those that seem to be good. The rest are classed as "not so great" and may be ignored.

6. If it is possible to remove roadblocks or improve working conditions, by all means do so. If the list is strong on road-block items or working conditions and weak in the first five categories, a job enrichment effort may not be particularly profitable.

7. If the list is strong on the first five categories, implement the excellent and good items that are the best candidates for reshaping the job. Introduce changes gradually to allow workers time to assimilate new procedures, tasks, responsibilities, and relationships.

8. Re-evaluate the criteria for measuring the results of change.

The enriched job may not include all the original indicators, or unanticipated benefits may result.

Not all jobs need enrichment. "Some jobs do not lend themselves to redesign, or would be too expensive to change."⁹ Not all people want or need their jobs enriched. "Employees may differ in their psychological readiness for enriched work."¹⁰ Before enriching jobs in the organization, the manager should obtain the support of his own supervisor. This enables the supervisor to become aware of the problems and issues involved. Few supervisors like surprises!

Managers can enrich jobs below them to the degree that they possess the leeway to give their people more autonomy in their jobs. But one cannot trade off "hygienes" for "motivators"--even if it is a good job, people still need a good job environment (status, supervision, working conditions, etc.).

Unrealistic expectations should be avoided. Many enrichment efforts have been stopped before they had an adequate chance to work out. Industry's experience has been that there may initially be a slight drop in productivity. After all, the people are learning a new job.

If job enrichment is confused with merely adding additional tasks, it will probably not work. Dr. Herzberg cites the example of the dishwasher who specialized in washing cups and saucers, After his job was "enriched," he washed silverware as well.

A typical supervisory reaction to job enrichment is, "I'm giving away all of my authority." Once the manager becomes accustomed to the changes, he may be able to do things he had only limited time to do before, like planning.

Job enrichment is not a panacea. It is not an end in and of itself. Above all, it is not simply redesigning jobs. It must be viewed as part of a larger systems approach that includes work organization--close attention to the way work groups are made up and managed. It also includes redesign of supervisory structures, including hierarchies, reporting relationships, and levels of supervision. Finally, it includes team building worker participation, supervisory training, creation of autonomous work teams, goal setting, performance appraisal, and turnover analysis.

A change or intervention technique is generally introduced into an organization because some aspect of the system is not working well. I feel we should become committed to job enrichment as a very potent means of breaking a dysfunctional cycle. Compared to other methods of intervention, it works fast, and it has perhaps the best chance of bringing about lasting performance improvements. It seems inevitable that job enrichment is linked these other kinds of change. Sometimes one technique comes first, sometimes another. They may deal with different aspects of the total quality of working life, but they can all be valid starting places, and they can all enrich the job.

In the final analysis it's really up to manager to examine the organization determine the feasibility of the enrichment process. Job enrichment can help us to "do more with less," and that is our challenge for the foreseeable future.

1. Frederick Herzberg, "The Wise Old Turk," Harvard Business Review, September-October 1974, p. 70.

2. Frederick Herzberg "One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employee?" Harvard Business Review, January-February 1968, pp. 53-62.

3. Frederick Herzberg, "Motivation-Hygiene Profile," Organizational Dynamics, Fall 1974, p. 18.

4. Lyle Yorks, "Job Enrichment Boosts Performance," Journal of Systems Management, January 1975, p. 16.

5. These data were gathered in an Air Command and Staff College Group Research effort, "Air Force Leaders in the 1980’s"(June 1974), which will be published in a series of articles and papers edited by Lieutenant Colonel Franklin D. Margiotta, Chief, Division of Staff Communications and Research Air Command and Staff College.

6. David A. Whitsett, "Where Are Your Enriched Jobs?" Harvard Business Review, January-February 1975, p. 74.

7. Ibid., pp. 74-80; and Lyle Yorks, "Determining Job Enrichment Feasibility, "Personnel, November-December 1974, p. 22.

8. Lieutenant Colonel T. Roger Manley, "An Air Force Supervisor's Guide to Job Enrichment," unpublished monograph, Department of Systems Management, School of Engineering, Air Force Institute of Technology, April 1975.

9. A. Cohen, S. Fink, H. Gadon, R. Willits, Effective Behavior in Organizations (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1976), p. 117.

10. J.R. Hackman,"Is Job Enrichment Just a Fad?" Harvard Business Review, September-October 1975, p. 130.

The author is extremely grateful to Major Francis M. Rush, Bolling AFB, for his invaluable editorial advice and unselfish comments and contributions to this article.

When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.