Its for educational purpose.. all rights reserved to the owner of this document

1. Differences in Motivational Properties
between Job Enlargement
and Job Enrichment
KAE H.CHUNG
Wichita State University
MONICA F.ROSS
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Differences in motivational properties between Job enlargement and
job enrichment are investigated. Differences in employees' motivation
and ability should be reflected in determining an appropriate type of
job design. Expectancy/instrumentality theory of motivation provides
a basis for explaining employees' responses to various job designs.
Though often viewed as inseparable or in-
terchangeable concepts, job enlargement and
job enrichment are best implemented as two dis-
tinct managerial strategies, job enlargement re-
quires changes in the technical aspects of a job,
while job enrichment requires changes in be-
Kae H. Chung (Ph.D. — Louisiana State University) is Profes-
sor of Administration at Wichita State University, Wichita,
Kansas.
Monica F. Ross is an M.B.A. candidate at the University of Wis-
consin-Madison.
Received 11/17/75; Revised 2/16/76; Accepted 3/18/76;
Revised 4/12/76.
havioral systems in an organization. Although
enriching a job is said to have a stronger motiva-
tional impact on employees than job enlarge-
ment, it is extremely complex and time-consum-
ing to implement because it involves changes in
attitudes and values of organizational as well as
societal members. Behavioral changes tend to
arouse resistance from organizational members.
But job enlargement involves technical changes,
which can be adopted more expediently than
behavioral changes, and is therefore less likely to
cause organizational resistance. Contrary to
Herzberg's (1) argument that job enlargement is
113

2. 114 Job Enlargement and Job Enrichment
a futile exercise in expanding the meaningless-
ness of a job, an optimally enlarged job possesses
a number of properties that can have a motiva-
tional impact on some workers. Workers with low
need for self-control and growth may be perfect-
ly happy with enlarged jobs without job enrich-
ment.
This article: (a) investigates the differences
in motivational properties (task attributes, moti-
vational effects, and managerial implications) of
job enlargement and job enrichment and (b) sug-
gests a set of managerial strategies to accommo-
date the differences in employees' motivation in
job design.
Motivational Properties of
Job Enlargement
job enlargement is often called "horizontal
job loading", simply adding more task elements
to an existing job. When a job is enlarged, the
worker performs a large work unit involving a
variety of task elements rather than a fragmented
job. An enlarged job can elicit intrinsic motiva-
tion for a number of reasons, as explained by the
following task attributes.
Task Attributes of Enlarged Jobs
Task Variety — A fragmented job requiring
a limited number of unchanging responses can
lead to boredom. Introduction of task variety
causes a series of mental activations requiring a
variety of responses and thus reducing monoto-
ny. According to neuropsychological activation
theory, the level of activation (the extent of an
organism's energy release) is affected by stimu-
lus intensity and variation; the greater the inten-
sity and variation of stimuli, the higher the level
of activation (8, 41). But there is an inverted-V re-
lationship between activation level and perform-
ance. At low activation levels, performance is de-
pressed due to lack of alertness, decrease in sen-
sory sensitivity, and lack of muscular coordina-
tion. At intermediate levels, performance is opti-
mal; at high levels, performance is again de-
pressed due to hypertension and loss of control.
Job enlargement is supported by activation the-
ory because task variation increases the level of
activation; an intermediate level of task variety
should sustain an optimal level of activation as
well as performance.
Meaningful Work Module — By combining
related task elements, the job becomes larger
and closer to a whole work unit. The worker who
performs a whole work unit, or at least a major
portion of a product or project, begins to appre-
ciate his or her contribution to the completion
of the product or project. The worker who com-
pletes a work module within a time unit that is
psychologically and technically meaningful (20)
will find the job interesting and worthwhile. The
time unit can range from one-half hour to days,
depending on the nature of the job and individ-
ual differences in attention level. Key points for
designing meaningful work modules are: a work-
er who completes a work module should feel a
sense of accomplishment; and each undertaking
of a new module should rejuvenate the level of
activation. Homans (16) suggested that tasks be
designed so that repeated activities lead up to
the accomplishment of some final result. When
this happens, the enlarged job will have high
motivation value.
Performance Feedback — A worker per-
forming a fractionated job with short perform-
ance cycles repeats the same set of motions end-
lessly without obtaining a meaningful finishing
point. It is difficult to count the number of fin-
ished performance cycles, and even if counted,
the feedback is meaningless. Knowledge of re-
sults (KR) on enlarged jobs measures the work-
er's level of accomplishment, which can be eval-
uated for organizational rewards. KR serves two
motivational functions. First, KR is an external
stimulus if added to a repetitive and dull task;
because activation level increases, the perform-
ance level can be sustained or even improved at
least temporarily (41). Second, KR can have a
greater motivational value if it is internally gen-
erated from task performance than if it is exter-
nally introduced (10). The worker is more likely
to utilize internally generated KR in setting per-

3. Academy of Management Review-January 1977 115
formance goals or standards in evaluating prog-
ress toward these goals (6, 28, 29, 40).
Ability Utilization — People derive satisfac-
tion from jobs that permit utilization of skills and
abilities, and enlarged jobs usually require more
mental and physical abilities. Vroom (44) re-
ported a positive correlation between opportu-
nity for self-expression in the job (ability utiliza-
tion) and job satisfaction for blue-collar workers.
Kornhauser (21) also reported a significant rela-
tionship between ability utilization and mental
health for young and middle-aged workers
across various occupational levels. According to
expectancy theorists (e.g., 2, 3, 26, 45), a task
should be designed so that exertion of effort or
energy results in task accomplishment. Simplified
jobs are less motivating because they require
low levels of ability and effort utilization. Since
mechanized job productivity depends primarily
on machines, workers' skills and abilities are not
perceived to be principal determinants of task
accomplishment. Overly enlarged jobs are not
motivating because they require more skills and
abilities than workers possess, creating frustra-
tion and obstacles to task accomplishment. En-
larged jobs with optimum levels of complexity
allow effort to be closely related to task accom-
plishment, creating a task situation that is chal-
lenging but attainable.
Worfeer-paced Control — job enlargement
makes it difficult to place workers on a machine-
paced production line. Since work modules are
completed by workers with different tempera-
ments, work habits, and skill and ability levels,
production speeds and work methods cannot be
completely standardized. The worker-paced pro-
duction line is motivational because it satisfies
the worker's desire to control the work environ-
ment. Workers can develop their own work
methods and habits, suitable to their personal-
ities, and reflecting their own work rhythms. En-
larged jobs organized around the worker-paced
production line may help to reduce employee
turnover and absenteeism.
Motivational Effects of Job Enlargement
Although a number of studies have at-
tempted to measure the effects of new work sys-
tems on employee job satisfaction and perform-
ance, relatively few have used only one type of
work system based on either horizontal or verti-
cal job loading. Thus it is difficult to test any per-
formance prediction that one work system is su-
perior to another in arousing employee motiva-
tion. But the following studies help in predicting
motivational effects of job enlargement.
Conant and Kilbridge (17), Guest (11), Law-
ler (25), Walker (46), and Walker and Guest (47)
studied the effects of job enlargement (primarily
horizontal job loading) on employee motivation.
They concluded that job enlargement is more
likely to improve employee satisfaction and
product quality and, to a certain extent, to re-
duce costs and increase productivity. But a situa-
tion may be created in which workers have to ex-
ert more energy and effort to produce the same
rate of production as before the jobs were en-
larged. Enlarged jobs usually involve worker-
paced production methods that may reduce pro-
duction speed and prevent optimal human
movements. Workers may draw more job satis-
faction from producing quality products than
from producing a large quantity of low quality
products. Thus, job enlargement is most likely to
(a) have a positive effect on employee satisfac-
tion, (b) have a positive influence on the quality
of product, and (c) have an effect on productiv-
ity.
Costs for Enlarging Jobs
Although job enlargement is much simpler
to implement than job enrichment, potential
users should be aware of its costs. In many in-
stances, the existing assembly production lines
need to be broken up and restructured into
work modules that can be considered as natural
and psychologically meaningful work units. Re-
designing and balancing production lines is cost-
ly. Volvo estimated that a new work system would
cost about 10 percent more than a comparable
conventional auto plant (1). Workers and super-
visors need to be retrained to adjust to new work
systems. Outside consultants are usually invited
to monitor the implementation process. Many

4. 116 lob Enlargement and Job Enrichment
companies experience drops in productivity dur-
ing the initial stage of new work system imple-
mentation. Finally, under job enlargement work-
ers perform more complicated jobs and may de-
mand higher wages.
In summary, a properly enlarged job pos-
sesses motivational characteristics which may
arouse job satisfaction of rank-and-file employ-
ees who are not interested in performing overly
demanding jobs. Furthermore, job enlargement
is a prerequisite for job enrichment. Although
job enlargement incurs some costs, it can be rec-
ommended to employers on the basis of human-
istic considerations and cost savings attributable
to reduced absenteeism, lower turnover, and de-
creased product rejects.
Motivational Properties of
Job Enrichment
job enrichment, often called "vertical job
loading", allows workers to perform managerial
functions previously restricted to managerial and
supervisory personnel. If founded on enlarged
jobs, it allows workers to perform more task com-
ponents, and also to have more control over the
tasks they perform. Motivating characteristics of
job enrichment — including participation, au-
tonomy, and responsibility — appeal to employ-
ees who strive for the satisfaction of higher-or-
der needs such as self-control, self-respect, and
self-actualization.
Task Attributes of Job Enrichment
Employee Participation — Employee partici-
pation in managerial decisions can influence
employee job performance, as well as satisfac-
tion. Employees who participate in the decision-
making process tend to internalize organization-
al decisions and feel personally responsible for
carrying them out. Thus, the success or failure of
a decision and subsequent action becomes their
success or failure (45). But the quality of deci-
sions seems to depend on other factors, such as
quality and quantity of participants' information
and the type of decisions to be made. Decision
quality is enhanced when participants have the
necessary information (43) and when partici-
pants' goals are congruent with organizational
goals. When their goals are not congruent with
organizational goals, workers may not find any
reason to set high standards and increase pro-
ductivity.
Goal Intemalization — Motivation is goal-
oriented behavior. If a job enrichment program
is to be successful, workers should be involved
in the goal-setting process for their work group.
According to Likert (27) and Odiorne (35), par-
ticipation itself does not guarantee high produc-
tivity unless it results in the workers' establish-
ment of high performance goals for themselves.
A supportive supervisory climate must also
be present if an organization is to achieve high
productivity. According to Locke (28), empirical
studies showing a positive relationship between
participation and high performance have in-
volved the establishment of high performance
goals by participants. Bryan and Locke (5), La-
tham and Baldes (22), Latham and Kinne (23),
Latham and Yukl (24), and Ronan, Latham, and
Kinne (40) generally support Locke's theory of
goal-setting in producing high performance.
Proponents of job enrichment suggest that
the goal-setting technique be applied to all lev-
els of employees in order to achieve maximum
effect on employee motivation (e.g., 15, 34, 37).
But implementation of participatory goal-setting
systems at lower levels of organizational hier-
archy may not be practical because workers at
these levels may not be technically and psycho-
logically prepared to perform highly demanding
managerial jobs. Thus it seems necessary to reex-
amine the simplistic notion of goal-setting sys-
tems applied to all levels of employees.
Autonomy — Job enrichment programs
should go beyond employee participation in op-
erational decisions. Employees should be given
autonomy and control over the means of achiev-
ing organizational goals. They should be allowed
to evaluate their own performance, take risks,
and learn from their mistakes. When workers are
given authority to manage their own jobs, it

5. Academy of Management Review-January 1977 117
should be unnecessary for managers to exercise
close supervision; supervisors can then be avail-
able to employees for consultation, advice, guid-
ance, and training. When autonomy is working,
managers can spend their time planning, trou-
ble-shooting, and helping their supervisors. Even
the number of supervisory personnel can be re-
duced somewhat. But employee autonomy is
frequently in conflict with management's desire
to have control over, or be informed of, subor-
dinates' activities. Managers may delegate au-
thority to workers, but they are still responsible
for their subordinates' actions. Even if a manager
does not mean to interfere with workers, his or
her concern for production may lead to frequent
review of subordinates' progress. This behavior
may make workers feel that they do not really
have autonomy in managing their jobs.
Group Management — Autonomy can be
granted to employees collectively or individually.
Most proponents of job enrichment programs
prefer group action over the individualized ap-
proach (e.g., 1, 17, 48). The work group defines
its task-goals, undertakes its tasks jointly, ap-
praises its accomplishments and individual mem-
bers' contributions to the group effort, and dis-
tributes the outcomes among its members. For
example, self-managed work teams at the Gen-
eral Foods plant are given collective responsibil-
ity for managing day-to-day production prob-
lems. Assignments of individual tasks are subject
to team consensus, and tasks can be reassigned
by the team to accommodate individual differ-
ences in skills, capacities, and interests (48).
The group management approach is desir-
able for most jobs that require a high degree of
interaction among work group members. Man-
agers and workers must coordinate their efforts
to achieve organizational or group goals. When
employee job performances are mutually inter-
dependent, it is difficult to identify individual-
ized performance standards and accomplish-
ments. An individualized performance system
can be detrimental to such job situations, lead-
ing the employee to pursue personal goals while
ignoring joint organizational responsibilities.
Motivational Effects of Job Enrichment
Vroom (45) and Maier (32) indicated that
participation in decision making leads to greater
acceptance of decisions by workers and thus in-
creases employee motivation. But other studies
indicate that participation does not necessarily
lead to high motivation and productivity unless
it results in high performance goals set by the
participants themselves (5, 24, 27, 28, 35). Individ-
ual and organizational constraints may prevent
effective utilization of goal-setting systems, in-
cluding workers' technical and psychological
readiness to perform demanding jobs, pay, job
security, and organizational climate. Further,
employees will not set high performance goals
unless their jobs have been horizontally enlarged
to make their tasks psychologically meaningful.
Thus, it is doubtful whether job enrichment
alone can have a strong motivational impact on
employee behavior. When these two types of
work systems are jointly applied under favorable
circumstances, job enrichment can exert more
influence on employee motivation than can job
enlargement because it gives workers more op-
portunities to utilize their abilities and exert
control over their work environment.
Combined Approach to Job Design
Job enrichment seems to gain motivational
power when combined with job enlargement. It
is predicted that job satisfaction and productivity
will be highest when both job enlargement and
job enrichment are jointly applied to redesign-
ing work systems. HEW's report Work in America
(14) advocated that the work system should in-
clude both horizontal and vertical job loadings
if it is to have a strong impact on employee satis-
faction and job performance. Such a complete
work system resulted in a productivity increase
from five percent to 40 percent. A number of in-
dustrial experiences with the combined ap-
proach to job design support such a prediction.
AT&T reported that after it had introduced
the new work system into a service representa-
tives' office at Southwestern Bell, the absentee-
ism rate in the experimental unit was 0.6 percent.

6. 118 Job Enlargement and Job Enrichment
compared with 2.5 percent in other groups. The
errors per 100 orders were 2.9 as compared with
4.6 in the control group. The nine typists in the
group were producing service order pages at a
rate one-third higher than the 51 service order
typists in the control group (9). At the General
Foods plant, people involved in the new work
system reported high job satisfaction, reductions
in manufacturing costs through fewer quality re-
jects, a lower absenteeism rate, and an increase
in productivity. On the average, 77 people
achieved the production level which was esti-
mated to require 110 employees if conventional
engineering principles were adopted (48). Roche
and MacKinnon (39) and Paul, Robertson, and
Herzberg (36) also reported positive results in
job satisfaction and performance at Texas Instru-
ments and Imperial Chemical (England), respec-
tively.
The editor of Organizational Dynamics (1)
reported that at Philips (Netherlands), job rede-
sign improved employee morale, reduced pro-
duction costs by 10 percent, and increased prod-
uct quality. Saab-Scania (Sweden) reported that
after job redesign there were some improve-
ments in employee attitudes, absenteeism, and
product quality (1), but no proof of increased
productivity as a result of job redesign. Volvo
(Sweden) also reported some improvements in
absenteeism, turnover, and product quality, but
no measurable improvement in production. The
general feeling among all these companies is that
improved product quality and reduced labor
problems (such as absenteeism and turnover)
could cover the costs of redesigning the work
systems.
Implementation Constraints
Despite considerable enthusiasm generated
by job enrichment, many employers find it diffi-
cult to implement this concept in their organiza-
tions. Luthans and Reif (30) found that out of 125
industrial firms surveyed, only five had made any
formal efforts to enrich jobs. Even in these firms
only a small portion of employees were affected
by the job enrichment programs. For example.
the job enrichment program at Texas Instru-
ments, which is considered a pioneer in this field,
has involved only about 10 percent of its total
work force. Another 25 percent of the surveyed
firms have applied these programs to a small por-
tion of their employees on an informal basis.
There are a number of reasons why job en-
richment is not used as widely as many industrial
psychologists would like and why it fails to pro-
duce positive results in some companies. First,
job enlargement should precede job enrichment
to make the job interesting before managerial
autonomy is given. Second, employees will not
positively, respond to new work systems unless
they are reasonably satisfied with lower-order
needs, such as economic well-being and affilia-
tion. When these needs are not satisfied, em-
ployees become preoccupied with satisfying
them, and higher-order needs do not emerge as
motivators. Third, job enrichment tends to sen-
sitize workers to expect satisfaction of higher-or-
der needs because they are usually told that the
work systems are being redesigned to fulfill these
needs. While raising the level of expectation is
relatively simple, meeting the raised expectation
is more complex, since it involves a time-con-
suming effort of orchestrating the divergent
goals of individuals, groups, and the organiza-
tion into workable terms. Finally, there are sig-
nificant differences in workers' responses to job
enrichment. In particular, higher-order needs
and urban-rural backgrounds of employees
moderate the effectiveness of job enrichment (4,
12, 19). Workers who are motivated by lower-or-
der needs and urban backgrounds tend to re-
spond poorly to job enrichment.
Job Design Strategies
Job design, especially in its combined ap-
proach, can have a significant influence on em-
ployee motivation because it contains the major
motivational components as suggested in instru-
mental/expectancy theory of motivation. Job de-
sign affects the employee's expectancy (a) that
effort leads to task performance (E - P); (b) that

7. iAcademy of Management Review-January 1977 119
task performance leads to intrinsic as well as ex-
trinsic incentive rewards (P - I); and (c) that these
incentive rewards have the power of satisfying
the person's needs (I - N).
Workers respond to job design differently,
reflecting individual differences in perceiving
these motivational components, and these dif-
ferences often determine the effectiveness of
new work systems. For example, not all workers
are interested in performing demanding jobs,
nor are they all motivated by higher-order need
satisfaction. Also, not all organizations are able
to supply adequate hygiene factors, such as pay
and job security, and have a supportive climate
for managerial innovation. Thus, these individual
and organizational characteristics should be re-
flected in job design.
Individual Differences and Task Difficulty
Job design affects workers' expectancy that
effort leads to task performance (E - P). It is nec-
essary to design a job to contain an optimal level
of task performance difficulty in order to elicit
work motivation.
The optimal level of task design or difficulty
varies for different individuals. Some can handle
demanding jobs effectively and thus are rein-
forced by successful accomplishment, while
others are not able to perform and become dis-
couraged. Hulin (18) and Hulin and Blood (19)
indicated an inverted-V relationship between
task difficulty and job satisfaction, with the opti-
mal level of job satisfaction varying for different
workers. Contrary to the view that routinized
and repetitive jobs lead to boredom and job dis-
satisfaction, some workers find them suitable or
even desirable. Hackman and Lawler (12), Hack-
man and Oldham (13), and Brief and Aldag (4)
also reported that individuals with higher-order
need strength generally display stronger rela-
tionships between core task attributes (e.g., task
variety, task identity, autonomy, and feedback)
and job satisfaction than do individuals who are
lower in higher-order need strength.
The relationship between task attributes and
individual differences is shown in Figure 1. Em-
t
Job Satisfaction and Productivity
Professional
Personnel
Skilled Workers
Unskilled Workers
Task Difficulty (TDI)
FIGURE 1. Task Difficulty and
Individual Difference.
ployees with strong desire for and ability to per-
form demanding jobs (professional and manage-
rial personnel) will find the highest level of job
satisfaction and performance when their jobs are
heavily enriched and complex, whereas workers
with lower desire for and limited ability to per-
form demanding jobs (unskilled and semi-
skilled) will find their optimal levels of job satis-
faction and productivity when their jobs are rel-
atively simple. Most skilled workers then will find
their optimal levels of job satisfaction and pro-
ductivity when their jobs are moderately en-
larged and enriched.
The task difficulty index (TDI), shown in Fig-
ure 1, can be derived from the task attributes
(task variety, meaningful work module, per-
formance feedback, ability utilization, worker-
paced control, group interaction, responsibility,
and autonomy). The individual readiness index
(IRI) is then derived from workers' skill levels and
their psychological states. The skill levels meas-

8. 120 Job Enlargement and Job Enrichment
ure workers' technical readiness for performing
given tasks, while the psychological need states
measure their psychological readiness for under-
taking the tasks. The inverted-V chart indicated
that job satisfaction and performance increase
when both TDI and IRI increase, but they de-
crease as the gap between TDI and IRI widens.
The figure also implies that a worker's readiness
(IRI) should be matched with the task difficulty
(TDI) to maximize job satisfaction and produc-
tivity. Motivational problems arise when the
worker is either over-qualified or under-quali-
fied for the job.
Effects on Performance-Reward Tie
Job design influences workers' perception
of the performance-incentive reward tie (P-l) in
several ways. First, workers performing enriched
jobs can see a direct relationship between task
accomplishment and feelings of achievement,
recognition, and growth. If they perform success-
fully, they will be immediately reinforced by task
accomplishment without going through super-
visory evaluation. However, less productive
workers will merely be frustrated when they can-
not accomplish their assigned demanding jobs.
Thus, job enrichment is highly motivational for
productive work groups but it can be a liability
for unskilled workers.
The E-P tie is closely related to workers' per-
ceptions of the P-l tie. When task difficulty is low
and every employee can perform the job, all will
be rewarded for its completion regardless of ef-
fort level. If the task difficulty is too high, an av-
erage employee is not able to accomplish the
task and will not be rewarded for effort no mat-
ter how hard he or she may try. In either case,
workers will perceive that their efforts are not
related to performance (E-P) and are not re-
warded (P-I). This will discourage employees
from exerting efforts to accomplish their tasks.
But workers will be motivated to perform their
tasks when these tasks possess an intermediate
degree of performance difficulty because their
perceptions of the E-P and P-l ties at this task dif-
ficulty level will be highly motivational.
Matching Incentives with Needs
A critical task in developing an effective in-
centive-reward system is to match organizational
incentives with individual needs (I-N). Workers
who strive for satisfaction of existence needs will
be motivated by such extrinsic incentives as pay,
job security, and working conditions (34), and
may easily tolerate or even prefer simplified and
routinized jobs. Some workers are primarily mo-
tivated by socializing opportunities on their jobs.
Reif and Luthans (38) found that unskilled work-
ers prefer routinized tasks because these jobs
provide them with opportunities to socialize or
daydream without undue mental exhaustion and
responsibility. Employees with higher-order
needs are motivated by such inventives as
achievement, recognition, responsibility, and
growth opportunity. Thus, job enrichment is
recommended to motivate employees with high-
er-order needs, while establishing an effective
reward system and building a sociable organiza-
tional climate are suggested for workers with
such maintenance needs as socialization and ex-
istence. But a minimum to moderate level of job
enlargement can be motivational even for main-
tenance seekers because such an enlarged job
can be less boring and requires a minimum level
of skill and responsibility.
Conclusion
Several implications can be drawn from this
discussion for designing work systems. First, job
enrichment (vertical job loading) may not be ap-
plicable to all employees in an organization. It
can have a strong motivational value for employ-
ees who prefer challenge in performing de-
manding jobs, have abilities to perform, and are
motivated to satisfy higher-order needs. It may
have little or even a negative effect on workers
who prefer lower task difficulty, are unskilled,
and are primarily motivated by lower-order
needs. Second, job enlargement (horizontal job
loading) with a limited degree of job enrichment
is recommended for most skilled workers who
are reasonably satisfied with lower-order needs
and yet who are not ready to undertake highly

9. Academy of Management Review-January 1977 121
demanding jobs. Finally, job enlargement is more
suitable to workers at lower levels of organiza-
tional echelons who are primarily motivated by
lower-order needs. Enlarged jobs with opportu-
nities for socialization may better satisy their
needs. Since no one particular job design is a
cure-all managerial remedy, management should
carefully study the differences in employees'
technical and psychological readiness before any
specific job design is implemented.
REFERENCES
1. AMACOM'S Editor. "Job Redesign on the Assembly
Line: Farewell to Blue-Collar Blues?" Organizational Dy-
namics, Vo. 2 m73), 5^-67.
2. Atkinson, J. W. An Introduction to Motivation (Prince-
ton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand, 1964).
3 Atkinson, J. W., and N. T. Feather. A Theory of Achieve-
ment Motivation (New York: Wiley, 1966).
4. Brief, A. P., and R. J. Aldag. "Employee Reactions to Job
Characteristics: A Constructive Replication," journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 (1975), 182-186.
5. Bryan, J. F., and E. A. Locke. "Coal Setting as a Means of
Increasing Motivation," journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 51 (1967), 274-277.
6. Chung, K. H., and W. D. Vickery. "Relative Effectiveness
and Joint Effects of Three Selected Reinforcements in a
Repetitive Task Situation," Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, Vol. 16 (1976), 114-142.
7. Conant, E. H., and M. D. Kilbridge. "An Interdisciplinary
Analysis of Job Enlargement: Technology, Costs, and Be-
havioral Implications," Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, Vol. 18 (1975), 377-395.
8. Duffy, Elizabeth. Activation and Behavior (New York:
Wiley, 1962).
9. Ford, R. N. "Job Enrichment Lessons From AT&T," Har-
vard Bus/ness Review, Vol. 51 (1973), 96-106.
10. Greller, M. M., and D. M. Herold. "Sources of Feedback:
A Preliminary Investigation," Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, Vol. 13 (1975), 244-256.
11. Cuest, R. H. "Job Enlargement: A Revolution in Job De-
sign," Personnel Administration, Vol. 20 (1967), 9-16.
12. Hackman, J. R., and E. E. Lawler. "Employee Reactions to
Job Characteristics," journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
55 (1971), 259-286.
13. Hackman, J. R., and G. R. Oldham. "Development of the
Job Diagnostic Survey," journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 60 (1975), 159-170.
14. H. E. W. Work in America (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
1973).
15. Herzberg, Frederick. "One More Time: How Do You
Motivate Employees?" Harvard Business Review, Vol. 46
(1968), 53-62.
16. Homans, G. C. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Formi
(New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1961).
17. Howell, R. A. "A Fresh Look at Management By Objec-
tives," Business Horizons, Vol. 11 (1967), 51-58.
18. Hulin, C. L. "Individual Differences and Job Enrichment
— The Case Against General Treatments," in ). R Maher
(Ed), New Perspectives in job Enrichment (New York:
Van Nostrand, 1971), 162-191.
19. Hulin, C. L., and M. R. Blood. "Job Enlargement, Indi-
vidual Differences and Worker Responses," Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, Vol. 69 (1968), 41-55.
20. Kahn, R. L. "The Work Module-A Tonic for Lunchpail
Lassitude," Psychology Today, Vol. 6 (1973), 35-39, 94-95.
21. Kornhauser, A. W. Mental Health of the Industrial Work-
er: A Detroit Study (New York: Wiley, 1%2).
22. Latham, G. P., and J. J Baldes. "The 'Practical Signifi-
cance' of Locke's Theory of Goal Setting," journal ol Ap-
plied Psychology, Vol. 60 (1975), 122-124.
23. Latham, G. P., and S. B. Kinne. "Improving Job Perform-
ance Through Training in Goal Setting," journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, Vol. 59 (1974), 187-191.
24. Latham, G. P., and G. A. Yukl. "Assigned Versus Partici-
pative Goal Setting with Educated and Uneducated
Wood Workers," journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60
(1975), 299-302.
25. Lawler, E. E. "Job Design and Employee Motivation,"
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 22 (1969), 526-435.
26. Lawler, E. E. Mot(vaf/on in Work Organizations (Monte-
rey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1973).
27. Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1967).
28. Locke, E. A. "Toward a Theory of Task Motivation and
Incentives," Organizational Behavior and Human Per-
formance, Vol. 3 (1968), 157-189.
29. Locke, E. A., N. Cartledge, and J. Koeppel. "Motivational
Effects of Knowledge of Results: A Goal-Setting Phe-
nomenon?" Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 70 (1968), 474-
485.
30. Luthans, F., and W. E. Reif. "Job Enrichment: Long on
Theory, Short on Practice," Organizational Dynamics,
Vol. 2 (1974), 30-43.
31. Mahone, C. H. "Fear of Failure and Unrealistic Vocation-
al Aspiration," journal of Abnormal Social Psychology,
Vol. 60 (1960), 253-261.
32. Maier, N. R. F. Prob/em-So/v/ng Discussions and Confer-
ences: Leadership Methods and Skills (New York: Mc-
Graw-Hill, 1963).

10. 122 Job Enlargement and Job Enrichment
33. Morris, J. L. "Propensity for Risk Taking as Determinant
of Vocational Choice: An Extension of the Theory of
Achievement Motivation," journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 3 (1967), 328-335.
34. Myers, M. S. fvery Employee A Manager (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1970).
35. Odiorne, G S. Managemen(-6y-Ob;ecf/ves (New York:
Pitman, 1970).
36. Paul, W. J., K. B. Robertson, and F. Herzberg. "Job En-
richment Pays Off," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 47
(1964), 61-78.
37. Raia, A. P. Management By Objectives (Glenview, III.:
Scott, Foresman, 1974).
38. Reif, W. E., and F. Luthans. "Does Job Enrichment Really
Pay Off?" California Management Review, Vol. 14 (1972),
30-37.
39. Roche, W. )., and N. L. MacKinnon. "Motivating People
With Meaningful Work," Harvard Business Review, Vol.
48 (1970), 97-110.
40. Ronan, W. W., G. P. Latham, and S. B. Kinne. "The Effects
of Goal Setting and Supervision on Worker Behavior in
an Industrial Situation," journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 57 (1973), 302-307.
41. Scott, W. E. "Activation Theory and Task Design," Or-
ganizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 1
(1966), 3-30.
42. Sirota, D., and A. D. Wolfson. "Pragmatic Approach to
People Problems," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 51
(1973), 120-128.
43. Swinth, R. L. "Organizational Joint Problem-Solving,"
Management Science, Vol. 18 (1971), B68-B79.
44. Vroom, V. H. "Ego-involvement, Job Satisfaction, and
Job Performance," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 15 (1962),
159-177.
45. Vroom, V. H. Work and Motivation (New York: Wiley,
1964).
46. Walker, C. R. "The Problem of the Repetitive Job," Har-
vard Business Review, Vol. 28 (1950), 54-59.
47. Walker, C. R., and R. H. Guest. The Man on the Assembly
Line (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1952).
48. Walton, R. E. "How to Counter Alienation in the Plant,"
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 50 (1972), 70-81.