JOB DESIGN AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

An Engage for Success White Paper

January 2013

Professor Katie Truss, University of Kent

Angela Baron, Independent HR Consultant
Doug Crawford, Cerus Consulting
Tom Debenham, People Insight
Mike Emmott, CIPD
Dr Stephen Harding, Towers Watson
Matthew Longman, Devon and Cornwall Police
Eti Murray, Civil Service Employee Policy
Professor Peter Totterdill, UKWON

What is Job Design?

Job design is the process of putting together a range of tasks, duties and responsibilities
to create a composite for individuals to undertake in their work and to regard as their
own. It is crucial: not only is it the basis of individual satisfaction and achievement at
work, it is necessary to get the job done efficiently, economically, reliably and safely.
(Torrington et al., 2011: 84)
Ever since jobs have existed, debate has raged about the best way to design them. F.W. Taylors
Scientific Management approach developed during the Industrial Revolution suggested that jobs
should be broken down into simple and repetitive tasks in order to maximise productivity. This
encouraged employers to create jobs that allowed individual workers very limited scope for
innovation, creativity and variety, and inevitably led to boredom and dissatisfaction.
During the mid-20th Century as the Human Relations movement emerged, there was an increased
realisation that individual motivational needs should be taken into account in the way work was
designed, leading to an emphasis on allowing people scope within their work for social interaction,
personal development, and the realisation of their own ambitions (Garg and Rastogi, 2006).
Since then, there has been a growing volume of research exploring how to bring these elements
together so that jobs can be designed both to maximise the engagement and satisfaction of
individual workers on the one hand, and maximise the productivity and performance of
organisations on the other. There is now considerable evidence that individuals experience of their
day-to-day work directly affects their engagement levels, and also their personal effectiveness
(Morgeson et al., 2011; Shantz et al., 2013). Related issues include how jobs are embedded within
their broader organisational contexts, how they interrelate with one another, and the design of the
wider organisation itself. As well as being important for engagement, job design has been shown to
be important for the health of workers as well (Grzywacz and Dooley, 2003).
However, job design remains a topic that receives much less attention from employers and
policymakers as a driver of engagement compared with other aspects of management such as
leadership or management style (Truss, 2012). There is a dearth of information available for
employers on the key principles of job design and the major factors that need to be taken into
consideration when designing engaging jobs. This is a cause for concern, particularly in light of
findings such as those from Cerus Consulting who, in a recent survey of their client group, found that
68% said that the single most important factor for high levels of engagement was doing a job that is
challenging and varied and which makes a meaningful contribution.
The aim of this White Paper is to outline the evidence demonstrating the impact of job design on
engagement, and to provide employers with insight into how to design jobs that will maximise levels
of engagement.

In doing this, we draw on research findings and best practice examples in the area of job design and
focus on the following areas:

Does job design matter for engagement?

The content of jobs what are the key factors that distinguish engaging jobs?
Work environment the setting within which work takes place.
The role of the manager in creating engaging jobs.

Does Job Design Matter for Engagement?

Both academic and practitioner studies have shown that the design of work affects how engaged
people are (Humphrey et al., 2007). For example, in an overview paper, Christian et al (2011) found
that job features such as task variety, autonomy, significance and feedback had all been positively
related to engagement in a wide range of research papers. The same features have been found in
other studies to be linked with motivation (Fried and Ferris, 1987; Hackman and Oldham, 1980).
William Kahns (1990) seminal study of work engagement showed how the context within which
work is carried out combines with features of the work itself to foster high levels of engagement.
From a theoretical perspective, one of the reasons why job design is so important for engagement is
that well designed jobs that are interesting, varied and challenging can increase the resources that
an individual has, and help buffer the demands placed upon them. Researchers refer to this as the
job demands-resources framework, and studies have shown that this model is a helpful way of
considering how and why people respond in different ways to their work situation (Bakker and
Demerouti, 2007; Shantz et al., 2013). For instance, when people find their work monotonous and
undemanding, this can lead to psychological distress and disengagement as peoples resources
become depleted (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006; Work Foundation, 2009). Conversely, when
people have interesting, challenging tasks to do, they feel motivated and inspired to invest their
energies in their work, and it is the investment of these personal energies that researchers have
found lies at the heart of engagement (Crawford et al., 2013)
Other studies corroborate these findings. For instance:

Bond (2010), in a study of call centre workers, found that a relatively small increase in
autonomy led to a significant increase in motivation, alongside a decrease in absenteeism
and mental distress.
Wrzniewski and Dutton (2001) studied hospital cleaning staff, and found that those given
more autonomy to interact with patients, visitors and others were more satisfied than their
counterparts, and felt they were playing a more important role.
Humphrey et al (2007) in their meta-study, found that 14 different work characteristics
explained 43% of the variance in a range of 19 different worker attitudes and behaviours.

Research carried out by People Insight that aimed to find out the key engagement drivers discovered
that eight of the top 10 drivers of engagement were all closely correlated with job design (the
correlation is shown in brackets):

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

I get a sense of achievement from working here (0.70)

I enjoy my work (0.63)
In my job I have the chance to do what I do best (0.56)
I am proud of the work that I do (0.54)
I feel valued and recognised for the work that I do (0.54)
My job makes the best use of the skills and abilities that I have (0.54)
I have the right opportunities to learn and grow at work (0.53)
I have the freedom I need to get on with my job (0.49).

Overall, the conclusion is that the way jobs are designed has a significant impact on engagement
levels. The question for employers and managers therefore is: how can jobs be designed for optimal
effect? This involves several inter-related areas: the design of the actual work itself; the setting
within which work takes place; and the role of the line manager.

The Content of Jobs What are the Key Factors that Distinguish Engaging
Jobs?

Much of what we know today about job content design emanates from the seminal work of
Hackman and Oldham (1980), who developed the Job Characteristics Model. This identifies five core
motivational job features:

Skill variety: the extent to which a jobholder is required to use a range of different skills.
Identity: the extent to which a job involves the completion of a whole piece of work with
end-to-end responsibility.
Significance: the amount of impact that a job has, and the contribution that the job makes.
Autonomy: the amount of discretion that the jobholder has in making decisions about what
to do and how to do it.
Feedback: direct information about the performance requirements of the job.

According to their research, jobs with high levels of these five features are the most motivational.
The reason for this is that these job characteristics give rise to the following psychological states:

Experienced meaningfulness, or the ability to see your work as meaningful in some way
Experienced responsibility, or feeling responsible for the outcomes of your work
Knowledge of results, or the ability to see the outcome or impact of your work.

In consequence, jobs with these characteristics are most likely to lead to high levels of performance,
positive attitudes towards work, and decreased negative attitudes and behaviours.
Later research has established links between these elements of job design and levels of engagement
(Bakker and Bal, 2010; Christian et al., 2011; Kahn, 1990; May et al., 2004; Saks, 2006; Schaufeli and
Bakker, 2004). Other studies have shown that the five characteristics are also linked with job
satisfaction and internal work motivation (Fried and Ferris, 1987; Humphrey et al., 2007).
The reason why Hackman and Oldhams job design features are important for engagement can be
understood within the context of psychological theory. For example, people whose jobs are varied
are more likely to experience a sense of energy in relation to their work. Some studies have shown
that monotonous work can lead to psychological distress and disengagement (Melamed et al, 1995).
People whose work is autonomous experience a feeling of responsibility, and are then more likely to
invest effort into their work, even in the face of obstacles (Shantz et al., 2013).
When someone is responsible for a whole piece of meaningful work (identity) and perceive their
work as significant, then they are more likely to invest their whole self into their work and
experience a sense of pride. Adam Grant (2008) conducted an interesting experiment involving
lifeguards that illustrates this point. The lifeguards were divided into two groups, the first group
were read stories featuring heroic lifeguards and the second group were not read any stories. One
month later, those who had heard the stories reported stronger feelings of self-worth than those in
the second group. Such feelings of self-worth can generate high levels of engagement. It has
equally been known for a long time that feedback on performance is highly motivational for people
when done in the right way.
The most complete test to date of how Hackman and Oldhams job characteristics are linked with
engagement was conducted by Shantz et al (2013). Their study showed a positive relationship for
four of the five features (variety, autonomy, significance and feedback), with skill variety showing
the strongest relationship. The study also showed that workers who were strongly engaged were
also more likely to help others out at work (undertake citizenship behaviours) and to perform
better. Furthermore, they also found that highly engaged workers were less likely to behave in
deviant ways, such as coming into work late.
The theoretical framework social exchange theory can help to make sense of these findings. Social
exchange theory suggests that employees and employers are in a symbiotic relationship, so that
when an employee perceives themselves to have been treated well by their employer, such as
through being given interesting, varied and autonomous work, then they are likely to reciprocate by
investing their own energies into their work in the form of engagement.
Another framework that is useful in helping to understand why engagement is important in the
context of performance is broaden-and-build theory (Frederickson, 2001). This is based on the idea
within positive psychology that positive emotions expand individuals thought-action repertoires and
5

increase their personal resources. Thus, people who experience positive emotions and thoughts at
work, such as those who find their work meaningful and are highly engaged, are more likely than
their disengaged colleagues to come up with new ideas, creative solutions and to recover quickly
from setbacks (Soane et al., 2013). This highlights the importance of creating positive work
experiences for people.
Parker et al (2001) extend Hackman and Oldhams original model by proposing the addition of
further job characteristics relevant to the modern era:

Opportunity for skill acquisition, growth and development, especially transferable skills.
Minimisation of role conflict, which is important particularly for front-line workers who often
have to play multiple roles.
Cognitive characteristics: it has been predicted that increased attention and increased
problem-solving are required.
Emotional characteristics: work in the modern era increasingly demands emotional labour
eg service work.
Group-level characteristics: such as team cohesion, team composition, group norms and
interdependence. These are likely to interact with individual-level factors in various ways.

Parker and colleagues suggested that different work characteristics will be particularly salient in
different settings and job roles. Some workers, such as management consultants, might already
experience high levels of autonomy, whilst others, such as teleworkers, might be more tightly
controlled and therefore benefit from increased autonomy. In her wider work on job design,
Sharon Parker argues that increasing autonomy is a particularly important mechanism for job
redesign, raising levels of motivation and self-efficacy. Bond (2010) also showed how a relatively
small increase in the autonomy of call centre workers in a UK bank (eg by allowing them a greater
say in the planning of their work) led to a significant increase in motivation, a decrease in
absenteeism and mental distress. A recent Work Foundation report (2012) demonstrated that levels
of autonomy at work vary considerably between countries.
Finally, a key factor in engaging jobs is job-ability fit. A recent study by the Work Foundation (2009)
found that 44% of workers overall, and 36% of knowledge workers, say that their skills are underused in their current roles. It is generally known that workers who feel they are well suited to their
roles are more engaged than their peers (Truss et al., 2006). This is an important point, since some
studies have shown rising levels of worker dissatisfaction with the mismatch between their skills and
the work they are asked to do (Green, 2006). The CIPD further found in 2008 that perceived skill
utilisation is one of the strongest predictors of job related wellbeing.

Case Study: WL Gore

(Source: Adapted from CIPD, 2008: 25-26)
WL Gore was founded in 1958 and is best known for its GORE-TEX fabrics. Its fluoropolymer
products are also used in the medical and automotive industries; the company employs around
8,000 associates in over 45 locations around the world. The company was founded on a set of four
guiding principles:

Fairness to each other and everyone with whom we come into contact
Freedom to encourage, help and allow other associates to grow in knowledge, skill and
scope of responsibility
The ability to make ones own commitments and keep them
Ability to make decisions without reference to others, but in consultation with other
associates before undertaking actions that could seriously negatively impact the success of
the company

Gore is organised in a flat, non-hierarchical structure (a lattice), with no traditional organisation

charts, ranks or job titles, or chains of command. People are recruited on the basis of cultural fit
with the company. There are no rigid job descriptions, instead, associates commit to contribute
individually and collectively to work areas or projects according to their skills. Individuals are
encouraged to take an interest in a wide variety of job areas of projects. Providing their core
responsibilities are carried out, an associate can then stretch and build on their role to suit their
interests, aspirations and the business needs. The lattice structure gives associates the opportunity
to use their own judgement, take ownership or work areas and access the resources they need.
Additions or stretch to roles may be one-off activities or longer-term activities that add onto existing
roles. Associates choose another associate to act as their sponsor; the sponsor coaches individuals to
help them maximise their contribution to the company and chart a course through the organisation
to fulfil their personal objectives whilst maximising business performance.
When someone leaves, a replacement is not automatically hired. The position is re-evaluated to see
if it is still relevant, enabling work and job design to be constantly re-evaluated and refreshed.
Associates are encouraged to take an interest in ensuring their role is enabling them to maximise
their contribution. Leaders often emerge naturally through demonstrating special knowledge, skills
or experience that advance business objectives. However, lateral communication is encouraged
within multidisciplinary teams.

The Work Environment

A recent report by the Work Foundation (2012) showed how our working environment is going
through a period of profound change in the wake of the economic crisis, a series of high-profile
environmental disasters, technological advancements, and ongoing industrial restructuring. Whilst
efforts to redesign jobs to include greater autonomy and skill use are to be welcomed, the Work
Foundation also notes that these trends can be linked with harmful developments given the current
environment, such as work intensification. It goes without saying that when jobholders become
significantly overloaded, whether their jobs are well-designed or not, the likely outcomes are
stress, ill-health, absenteeism and turnover.
In an earlier report, the Work Foundation (2009) highlighted how some of the countervailing forces
that the current rapid technological advancements, such as wireless technologies and social media,
are impacting on the core features of job design:

Figure 1 Positive and Negative Effects from Technological Advancements

The increased flexibility, scope for wider involvement and creativity offered by new media need to
be balanced against the potential for increased stress and feelings of surveillance.
Equally, as Oldham and Hackman (2010) noted when they recently revisited their work on job
design, the significant increase in semi-permanent, contractual and temporary work relationships
will inevitably affect how jobs are designed and how people experience them. They suggest that
these changes mean that the social dimension of work requires greater consideration than before.
In particular, job design in relation to team functioning needs to be considered, alongside
organisational structures and processes. Rather than considering job design in isolation, which may
have been possible during previous eras, we now have to think about jobs in their social context of
teams, leaders and climate (Parker et al., 2001). The CIPD (2008) refer to this as smart working,
which they define as: an approach to organising work that aims to drive greater efficiency and
8

effectiveness in achieving job outcomes through a combination of flexibility, autonomy and

collaboration, in parallel with optimising tools and working environments for employers (p. 4).
As Parker et al (2001) note, when jobs are technically inter-dependent, job design needs to take
place at the group, rather than the individual level. This leads us into the domain of organisation
design and development; as the CIPD (2008) argue, there is a need for a whole systems approach to
designing jobs and organisations, since the work context will influence the relationship between job
design and outcomes in either positive or negative ways (Morgeson et al., 2010). For instance, in a
recent study of knowledge workers, the Work Foundation (2008) found that 65% say that their
organisation is rule and policy bound, but that only 5% actually prefer to work in an environment
like this.
Factors beyond the individual job that need to be considered in relation to job design can include:

Climate: ie the shared perceptions held within the organisation

Technical systems: including design and usage
Organisational structure: including work flow, degree of centralisation and degree of
formalisation
Organisation and individual development: ie how jobs allow people to use and develop their
own skills and careers, as well as the overall design and development of the organisation
Physical work environment, including ergonomic factors
Team and group working including team cohesion, team composition and interdependency
Flexible working practices and the boundary between work and non-work
Work processes and work flow.
(CIPD, 2008; Garg and Rastogi, 2005; Morgeson et al., 2010; Parker et al., 2001).

Case Study: Centrica

(Source: Adapted from CIPD, 2008: 21-23)
Centrica is an international energy organisation based in the UK and employing around 29,000
people in the UK and a further 4,000 overseas. In 2005, the company decided to consolidate its five
West London sites into three and, at the same time, change ways of working. Project Martini was
set up to identify and implement new working practices that took advantage of the new and
upgraded working facilities and investment in IT. The project strapline was: work is something you
do, not somewhere you go. Changes included hotdesking, team footprints ie areas of hot desks
allocated to teams; touch down zones for printing and checking email and collaborative work
zones. Break out areas were created for informal conversations with an increased number of
dedicated meeting rooms. Lockers replaced individual filing cabinets and a clear desk policy was
implemented. Laptops and home printers were introduced across employee groups with new
phones with email capabilities. The intranet was upgraded to enable employees to collaborate and
share documents on the web. Flexible working policies were introduced to encourage working hours
and location flexibility and staff were given the freedom to choose their work location to best
achieve work outcomes together with their line manager.
To help prepare for the changes, managers were given extensive training and empowered to rolemodel the changes. A set of interventions was introduced to help employees prepare for the
change, including roadshows, manager coaching, team-building workshops, one-to-one
consultations and technical training. Centrica regarded the changes as a core element of their
employee proposition; overall, the business benefits included travel savings of the equivalent of 13
trips to the moon; work-life balance improved by 38%; engagement improved by 4%.

10

The Role of the Manager in Creating Engaging Jobs

The line manager has a significant role to play in creating an environment where workers can find
their work engaging, through shaping job content, treatment of the role holder, and levels of trust
(Clegg and Spencer, 2007). The redesign of workers jobs therefore needs to be linked with a
consideration of the role of the line manager as well. If jobs are redesigned to increase worker
autonomy, for instance, then in some settings this might be perceived as the line manager passing
the buck and interpreted in negative, rather than positive ways.
This is particularly important when the intent of the job redesign is to impact levels of employee
engagement, given the close relationship between manager behaviour and employee performance.
We also need to consider the experience of line managers themselves, and how they are rewarded
and incentivised for their behaviours at work.
In the section that follows, Towers Watson shows how their data can shed light on the role of the
manager in employee engagement.

Towers Watson Engagement Study

Towers Watson undertook a study of the relationship between employee engagement and
organisation performance across a population of 16 insurance companies. They found a strong
association between increased employee engagement and significant increases in financial gains.
They then analysed the data to determine whether a relationship exists between manager
effectiveness and employee engagement. Working in depth with one of the insurance companies,
they identified engagement survey items and a manager performance index. Using that index, they
correlated the engagement and performance indices across nine major units within the company.
They found a 0.63 correlation between manager performance and engagement at this company (1.0
would indicate a perfect linear relationship and zero would mean no relationship). These results
suggest a connection between the manager performance and employee engagement measures, and
ultimately between manager performance and financial results, (Davenport & Harding, 2012).
In similar vein, a 2010 study by the Economist Intelligence Unit found that the motivational ability of
the immediate line manager is the single most important contributor to employee engagement,
ahead of such factors as senior management vision, values, and charisma. Chris Bones of
Manchester Business School reinforces the point: There is no real evidence to say that leadership
makes a difference. The only people that can help employees reach positive answers to those
questions that directly influence engagement, such as do I feel valued? Or is my career
progressing? are their immediate managers (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2010).
How well are managers doing in meeting up to this challenge of engaging their people, and of
managing their people in general? Towers Watson asked about this and a series of other more
specific questions in the 2010 Towers Watson Global Workforce Study. What this showed was that
11

fewer than two thirds of the worlds workforce finds its immediate managers effective (just 59 per
cent, average across 22 countries). They sub-analysed the results to understand better the impact of
effective versus ineffective management. The table below shows some of the results.

Table 1 Effective Managers Excel at Matching Tasks with Abilities and Crafting Jobs to Individuals

Disagree that
Agree that Immediate Immediate Manager Is
Manager Is Effective
Effective

My Immediate Manager:
Assigns tasks suited to my skills and abilities

81%

27%

Understand the challenges I face in my job

77%

18%

Helps remove obstacles to doing my job well

74%

12%

Note: Respondents are divided into two categories: those who agree that they have an effective
manager and those who disagree. Figures are per cent of respondents in each category giving
favourable answers (Agree or Tend to agree) for each immediate manager item.

Why should managers be less than successful in managing people in ways that engage them? Part of
the problem is the way in which manager and supervisor roles are traditionally defined to focus on
tasks rather than people. Managers are often expected to spend the bulk of their time on their area
of expertise, and such expertise will frequently have been the primary criterion for promotion to the
managerial role in the first place. This tension of managing tasks or people emerges regularly in
qualitative studies.
Towers Watson found in focus groups with 63 middle managers in a mid-sized commercial bank that
the participants said that their greatest frustration came from having to juggle demands for handson work with the responsibility for leading people and managing work processes. Comparable
results were obtained from a similar-sized study in a utility company. As with their bank
counterparts, almost 60 per cent of the utility managers said that one of the best ways to improve
their managerial effectiveness would be to reduce the time spent juggling personal production tasks
and oversight responsibilities (Davenport and Harding, 2010).
How might this change? Consider the two jobs depicted in the two tables below. Table 2 shows the
job of a manager who has a strong technical focus. Call her the Widget Wizard. She is the most
skilled producer on the team, and spends her time accordingly. Half of her working hours go to
directly producing output. The biggest part of the rest (30 per cent) goes to administrative activities.

12

She allocates whats left to focusing on people (10 per cent), overseeing work processes and
maintaining some external contact (5 per cent each).
Her span of control is moderate and her competencies lean clearly to the technical side. Because so
little time investment goes to people (with, say, eight direct reports, an average of only 30 minutes
each during a 40-hour week) and work processes, the employees in the unit perceive limits to their
roles and their ability to improve their competencies and performance. This manager will seem
successful, especially if her goals and rewards focus chiefly on what she herself produces. But the
people in the unit will suffer. In effect, she has traded her productivity for that of her work group. It
is unlikely that this job profile will maximize net revenue; it certainly will not do much to build
human capital or enhance employee engagement. Increasing the span of control would only make
things worse. At some point, the dilution of manager attention to employee needs ultimately
diminishes individual productivity and overall group output falls.

Table 2 Defining Alternative Manager Roles

In contrast to the Widget Wizard, the People Powermeister spends one-fifth of her time on direct
personal production, enough to keep technically current and professionally credible. A full 40 per
cent goes to people focus. This allocation yields a generous two hour allotment of development time
per week for each of eight direct reports. Not all of this time goes to one-on-one coaching; some
could be invested group discussions of goals, team learning sessions and quiet time to plan
development strategies for each individual. Equal 10 per cent allotments go to improving the work
systems used by the group and to building network contacts outside the unit. What chiefly
distinguishes this manager role is the 60 per cent time allocation to activities (people focus, work
process oversight and external contact) that add to individual and group productivity

13

Table 3 Defining Alternative Manager Roles

Organisations are moving towards the creation of more people-centric manager roles. One example
(Davenport, 2013 forthcoming) is with a major airline where there is a desire to improve employee
engagement and alongside it greater customer focus and operational discipline. A root cause
analysis revealed several of the problems of the Widget Wizard example above, ie supervisors with
a heavy administrative burden and a consequent de-emphasis of the people leadership elements of
the role. Currently, roles are being restructured to focus more on people leadership and
development, and with a revised approach to competencies and learning for those entering such
positions.

14

A Personal View
Matthew Longman, Devon & Cornwall Police
The simplest and biggest issue for me is whether a member of staff can give an elevator pitch on
what their role is, ie, sum up in 30 seconds what their role is and what they add to where the
organisation wants to go. Equally important is whether a line manager can do this for each of their
direct reports. As organisations have shrunk, roles have been combined and lines of management
blurred. Although the matrix structure is popular at present, it can lead to a lack of clarity around
what an individuals role actually is. It then becomes hard to measure performance, offer feedback
or develop someone. Therefore, it is important that individual employees and their line managers
understand what the priorities of the role are, the skills required for the role, the boundaries of
decision-making and how performance will be measured.
In particular, it is vital that the deliverables of a role are clearly defined. Research in the Police in
2010 showed a direct correlation between lack of training, guidance, engagement and consultation,
with a lack of alignment with organisational goals. Analysis of our regular officer and staff surveys
shows that those whose roles are clearly defined give consistently more positive responses.
There have been some cases when lack of role clarity, coupled with the pressures on staffing
numbers, have meant that officers have been trying to perform multiple roles with a consequent
strain on individual wellbeing and performance. As a consequence, the organisation is addressing
these concerns through widespread consultation with staff and engagement in future design.

15

Case Study: Unipart

Peter Rose, HR Director
The Unipart Group is a leading logistics provider, manufacturer and consultant operating
globally across a wide range of market sectors.
Uniparts approach is to build a culture which inspires and enables people to go the extra
mile and actively seek opportunities for continuous improvement in all that they do. They
believe that this approach has benefits for employees, the organisation and its customers.
Unipart has developed capability in lean working and continuous improvement over the last
25 years which combines tools and techniques with a culture that encourages personal
ownership of work.
Unipart uses continuous improvement principles and techniques in its approach to how
work is designed, critically amongst these principles is the approach that decision making is
devolved to the lowest level, and that standardised processes are used to ensure that there
is one best way of working. How does Unipart resolve this apparent contradiction? How
can people be engaged when they work in standardised ways?
The answer is deceptively easy. People themselves own the standardised best way of
working; they design it, measure it and are enabled and expected to improve it, for the
benefit of themselves and their customers. Thus whilst the tasks themselves become
simpler, people are given more responsibility, variety and control over what they do. This
approach is used to generate improvements, both on a day-to-day basis, and also to
manage major changes in the business.
Uniparts site in Baginton, Coventry demonstrates good examples of how continuous
improvement tools and techniques are used to improve work design to either achieve daily
improvements or large step change improvements. This site which services major
automotive clients has in recent years faced major challenges including reconfiguring its
existing operations and workforce to provide radically different services, managing new
technology introductions, and adapting to complex new customer needs.
One of the key continuous improvement tools used in work design is Value Stream
Mapping. A good recent example of this tool was demonstrated when a new business
opportunity was introduced. This made it necessary to dramatically re-organise the layout of
the warehouse, change ways of working and achieve significant process improvements over
a matter of 8 weeks. In order to do this, a group of people who actually undertook the work
initially used value stream mapping. This involved the identification of all the processes
involved in their work, and re-designing them in order to eliminate waste wherever
possible. Then working with the rest of the team in the warehouse, they decided upon the
optimum design of the processes and the physical layout of the workplace, they then took
responsibility for implementing and sustaining the improvements.
Not only were the necessary changes implemented, the service level achieved following the
sustainment activity also improved dramatically. Uniparts belief is that sustainment of
improvements is only really possible if the people that do the work themselves have been
involved in the design and implementation of the solution.
16

Figure 2 Standard Operating Procedures

Potential Service Issues

Another major tool that is used in improving work design is the use of Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs). SOPs are owned by the individuals responsible for the processes and
define the approach to be taken when carrying out its constituent elements. In Baginton this
approach has been extremely important in the introduction of new technologies that have
automated previously manual processes. To do this effectively volunteers from the area
were used to define the new processes, select the best equipment, and design the training
and SOPS for their colleagues. This ensured this new introduction was effectively
implemented with the engagement of those in the area. All tasks on the site have an SOP
and all the SOPs are owned by those doing the jobs, reflecting the fundamental belief that
those that do the job understand it the best.
An example of how day-to-day improvements are encouraged is the use of simple problem
solving approaches. These are used on a daily basis across Uniparts operations to deliver
incremental benefits, supported by tools such as quality circles (termed Our Contribution
Counts Circles in Unipart). In Baginton all employees on average get involved in 3 circles a
year, delivering cost savings of around 400,000 per annum. This develops a culture in
which employees are naturally encouraged to voice their ideas as to how their work is
designed and delivered, which creates a culture of engagement and improved performance.
There are many other continuous improvement tools and techniques that support good
work design ranging from smoothing work flow, through to ensuring that defects are
eliminated, and to ensuring the organisation has the right capability. The above examples
show how particular techniques have been used in different circumstances, but the real
power is how the tools and techniques are used together to enable people to take
ownership of their work which drives employee engagement.

17

Implications for Employers

The most important point arising from this White Paper is that job design matters a great deal for
engagement. Academic research from a psychological perspective has suggested that engagement
represents the energetic, cognitive and emotional investment of the self into work (Truss et al.,
2013). As Kahns (1990) seminal study showed, these personal investments can only take place
where individuals are in roles designed to enable them to use their skills, and that they perceive to
be meaningful. Job design is central to this.
Whilst traditional job design theories, such as Hackman and Oldhams Work Characteristics model,
emphasise the importance of the design of work tasks, we also know that job design needs to take
account of factors in three additional domains, as shown in Figure 3:

Figure 3 Four Elements of Job Design

Job Content: the actual content of the job should be designed to enable people to find
their work meaningful. In addition, people need to have a sense of responsibility, and be
able to see the link between the work they do and the end results of their work. Where
possible, job content needs to allow people to use their current skills and develop new
ones; see how their work contributes to a whole piece of work; feel that the work they
do matters and makes a difference; have a sense of autonomy; and receive regular and
constructive feedback.
18

Job Context: this includes factors such as ergonomic job design, work setting,
technology, and flexible working options. When designing jobs, these contextual
features all need to be taken into consideration; we know that a sense of autonomy
arises in part when employees feel they have some choice and control over the context
within which they work. Equally, in order to experience the safety that Kahn (1990)
notes to be so vital for engagement, employees need to feel their job is environmentally
and ergonomically healthy.
Work Relationships: studies have shown, and common-sense tells us, that people are
more likely to be engaged when they are in open, trusting and harmonious work
settings. Jobs in the modern economy are more likely to be inter-dependent, and so job
design needs to consider not just the job itself, but also the way the job holder is
intended to interact with those around them.
Line Manager: the line manager has a vital role to play in bringing the individuals job
design to life. Simply having a well-designed job will count for nothing with an
unsupportive line manager who provides no feedback.

Taken together, these four elements will all need to be considered when determining how to design
jobs optimally. The best solution will vary depending on context and job type, but we have outlined
some of the basic principles that underpin good job design in this paper, and provided some case
study examples of how other organisations have achieved this.

19

References
Bakker, A. B., and Bal, M. P. (2010) Weekly Work Engagement and Performance: A Study among
Starting Teachers, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 189-206.
Bakker, A. B., and Demerouti, E. (2007) The Job Demands-Resources Model: State of the Art,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 309-328.
Bond, F. W. (2010) How can job design improve worker well-being and workplace performance?
Institute for Employment Studies, 40th Anniversary Conference.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., and Slaughter, J. E. (2011) Work Engagement: A Quantitative Review
and Test of Its Relations with Task and Contextual Performance, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64,
pp.89-136.
CIPD (2008) Smart Working: The Impact of Work Organisation and Job Design. Wimbledon: CIPD.
Clegg, C. and Spencer, C. (2007) A Circular and Dynamic Model of the Process of Job Design, Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 80, pp. 321-339.
Crawford, E., Rich, B., Buckman, B. and Bergeron, J. (2013 in press) The Antecedents and Drivers of
Employee Engagement, in Truss, C., Alfes, K., Delbridge, R., Shantz, A. and Soane, E. (Eds) Employee
Engagement in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Davenport, T (2012) Personal communication.
Davenport ,T. and Harding, S. D. (2010) Manager Redefined: The Competitive Advantage in the
Middle of Your Organization. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Davenport, T. O. and Harding, S. D. (2012) The New Manager Manifesto Human Resources People &
Strategy, Vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 24-31.
Economist Intelligence Unit (2010) Re-engaging with engagement: Views from the boardroom on
employee engagement. London: EIU.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001) The Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psychology: The Broaden-andBuild Theory of Positive Emotions, American Psychologist,Vol. 56, pp. 218-226.
Fried, Y., and Ferris, G. R. (1987) The Validity of the Job Characteristics Model. A Review and MetaAnalysis Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40, pp.287-322.
Garg, P. and Rastogi, R. (2006) New Model of Job Design: Motivating Employees Performance,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 572-587.
Grant, A. M. (2008) The Significance of Task Significance: Job Performance Effects, Relational
Mechanisms, and Boundary Conditions, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93, pp. 108-124.
Green, F. (2006) Demanding Work: The Paradox of Job Quality in the Affluent Economy. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.

20

Grzywacz, J. and Dooley, D. (2003) Good Jobs to Bad Jobs: Replicated Evidence of an Employment
Continuum from Two Large Surveys, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 56, No.8, pp. 1749-60.
Hackman, J. R., and Oldham, G. R. (1980), Work Redesign, Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., and Morgeson, F. P. (2007) Integrating Motivational, Social, and
Contextual Work Design Features: A Meta-Analytic Summary and Theoretical Extension of the Work
Design Literature, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92, pp. 1332-1356.
Kahn, W. A. (1990) Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 692-724.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., and Harter, L. M. (2004) The Psychological Conditions of Meaningfulness,
Safety and Availability and the Engagement of the Human Spirit at Work, Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 11-37.
Melamed, S., Ben-Avi, I., Luz, J., and Green, M. (1995) Objective and Subjective Work Monotony:
Effects on Job Satisfaction, Psychological Distress, and Absenteeism in Blue-Collar Workers, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80, pp. 29-42.
Morgeson, F., Dierdorff, E. and Hmurovic, J. (2010) Work Design in situ: Understanding the Role of
Occupational and Organizational Context, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 351-360.
Morgeson, F. P., and Humphrey, S. E. (2006) The Work Design Questionnaire (Wdq): Developing and
Validating a Comprehensive Measure for Assessing Job Design and the Nature of Work, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 91, pp. 1321-1339.
Oldham, G. and Hackman, J. (2010) Not What it Was and not What it Will Be: The Future of Job
Design Research, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 463-479.
Parker, S., Wall, T. and Cordery, J. (2001) Future Work Design Research and Practice: Towards an
Elaborated Model of Work Design, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74,
p. 413-440.
Saks, A. M. (2006) Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 600-619.
Schaufeli, W. B., and Bakker, A. B. (2004) Job Demands, Job Resources, and Their Relationship with
Burnout and Engagement: A Multi-Sample Study, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp.
293-315.
Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Soane, E., and Truss C. (2013 in press) A Theoretical and Empirical Extension
of the Job Characteristics Model. International Journal of Human Resource Management.
Soane, E., Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., Rees, C. and Gatenby, M. (2013 in press) The Association
of Meaningfulness, Wellbeing and Engagement with Absenteeism: A Moderated Mediation Model.
Human Resource Management.
Torrington, D., Hall, L., Taylor, S., and Atkinson, C. (2011) Human Resource Management. 8th Edition.
Harlow: Pearson.
21

Towers Watson (2010) Global Workforce Study: The new employment deal: How far, how fast, how
enduring. New York: Towers Watson.
Truss, C. (2012) Spinning Plates and Juggling Hats: Employee Engagement in an Era of Austerity.
Wimbledon: CIPD.
Truss, C., Delbridge, R., Soane, E., Alfes, K. and Shantz, A. (Eds) (2013 forthcoming) Employee
Engagement in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Truss, C., Soane, E., Edwards, C., Wisdom, K. Croll, A. and Burnett, J. (2006) Working Life: Employee
Attitudes and Engagement 2006. Wimbledon: CIPD.
Work Foundation (2009) Knowledge Workers and Knowledge Work. A Knowledge Economy
Programme Report. Lancaster: Work Foundation.
Work Foundation (2012) Good Work, High Performance and Productivity. Lancaster: Work
Foundation.
Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J. (2001) Crafting a job: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters of
their Work, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 179-201.

22