A Strategy for the Redesign of Work
| Date | 01 February 1976 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055307 |
| Pages | 33-39 |
| Published date | 01 February 1976 |
| Author | Enid Mumford |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
A Strategy for the Redesign
of Work
Enid Mumford
Reader in Organizational Sociology, Manchester Business School;
Director, Computer and Work Design Research Unit
The Summer 1972 issue of
Personnel
Review contained an
article by Enid Mumford setting out a framework for analys-
ing job satisfaction.1 This article presented a theoretical and
practical approach for evaluating and measuring job satisfac-
tion, together with a definition which equated job satisfaction
with the fit between what an employee was seeking from work
and what he was receiving or, in other words, the fit between
job needs and expectations and the requirements of the job.
This analytical framework has since been used extensively in
industrial and commercial organizations as a means for assist-
ing the design of the human part of computer systems. The
method has been used in the following way.
A self completion questionnaire is filled in by employees in
the department or departments which are to be affected by a
proposed new computer system. This questionnaire is handed
out some time in advance of any technical design decisions
being taken and the employee group concerned is told that
the information will be used to enable the design group to
take account of employee job satisfaction needs when design-
ing the new system. Once the questionnaires have been com-
pleted they are collected by the research workers and proces-
sed by computer in such a way that the degree of satisfaction
with each of the fit areas in the job satisfaction framework can
be clearly distinguished. A careful note is taken of those areas
where the fit
is
'good', in the sense that more than 75% of the
staff in the department are satisfied with this aspect of work;
and those areas where the fit is bad, or less than 25% are
satisfied. The research team then proceed in one of two ways.
First, this data is fed back to the people who have completed
the questionnaires by means of discussion in small groups of
five to six people. The discussion concentrates particularly on
the problems which each group believes to underlie the bad fit
areas and on possible solutions to these problems using the
introduction of the new computer system as an opportunity
for solving difficulties. Some discussion is also focused on why
particular aspects of work are viewed as satisfactory and on
whether efforts should be made to maintain this level of satis-
faction through the way in which the new computer system is
designed. These discussions may stop after this feedback
exercise and the technical design group will then use the
information on job satisfaction needs and problems to guide
them in the design of the human part of the system. Prefera-
bly, however, discussions are encouraged to continue by
management and the systems design team and in this way the
staff of the department which will use the new computer sys-
tem are able to exert a significant influence over its design. In
one or two innovative, imaginative and democratic firms
management has given responsibility for the design of the
human part of a computer system − that is, the design of how
the office shall be organized and individual jobs structured −
to a design group consisting of departmental employees such
as clerks. In this situation the research workers feed the job
satisfaction data back to this clerical design group and
encourage them to use it as the basis of discussions with their
own work colleagues on how the department shall be reor-
ganized.
The second approach is used in situations where it is difficult
to have group discussion because management is not happy
about such an approach. In this instance once the question-
naire has been completed and the data analysed, explanations
of the reasons for poor and good fits are obtained by carrying
out depth interviews with a sample of staff in the department
and gathering their opinions on the reasons for problems and
on how these problems might be solved. This information is
then passed to the group responsible for the design of the new
computer system. Once the system has been implemented
and has settled down, the research workers again ask emp-
loyees to complete the same questionnaire and these post-
change job satisfaction data are analysed. If the computer
system has been designed competently in human terms then
the various fits in the job satisfaction framework should be
better in the post-change situation than they were in the pre-
change. If some of them are still poor then work organization
is once again examined to see if the operating system is flexi-
ble enough to permit further modifications to be made. This
method of analysing job satisfaction needs and problems has
proved very satisfactory in practice and has been regarded as
providing useful information by design groups irrespective of
whether these are made up of managers, technical computer
specialists or clerks from the user department.
The weakness of the method has been that, although it is
effective in diagnosing job satisfaction needs and problems
and developing solutions it does not greatly assist the diag-
nosis and solution of work problems which are related to
production and efficiency rather than job satisfaction. Yet
managers are often more interested in correcting these kinds
of problems than in improving job satisfaction and employees
may be as interested in improving efficiency as in improving
job satisfaction. Indeed it can be argued that working in an
efficiently run department contributes considerably to feel-
ings of job satisfaction. Early this year the author of this
paper was privileged to be able to able to spend some weeks
with Professors Lou Davis and Jim Taylor of the Quality of
Working Life Programme, of the University of California,
Los Angeles. At that time this programme was a part of the
To continue reading
Request your trial