Journal of Applied Psychology 1988, Vol. 73, No. 3.467-481 Copyright 1988 by theAm rican Psychological Association, Inc. 0021-9010/88/100.75 Interdisciplinary Approaches to Job Design: A Constructive Replication With Extensions Michael A. Campion Krannert School of Management Purdue University This study replicated Campion and Thayer's (1985) research, which drew from many disciplines (e.g., psychology, engineering, human factors, physiology) to demonstrate four approaches to job design and their corresponding outcomes: motivational approach with satisfaction outcomes, mech- anistic approach with efficiency outcomes, biological approach with comfort outcomes, and percep- tual/motor approach with reliability outcomes. This study extended the research in five ways. First, it used an expanded sample of 92 jobs and 1,024 respondents from a different industry. Second, a self- report measure was developed and evaluated, because many jobs cannot be analyzed observationally. Third, method bias was addressed by not finding evidence of priming effects, by demonstrating strong relationships even when within-subject bias was avoided, and by relating job design to inde- pendent opinion survey data. Fourth, reliability of aggregate responses was demonstrated, and rela- tionships at the job level of analysis were larger than at the individual level. Fifth, neither individual differences in terms of preferences/toferances for types of work nor demographics moderated job design-outcome relationships. It was concluded that different approaches to job design influence different outcomes, each approach has costs as well as benefits, trade-offs may be needed, and both theory and practice must be interdisciplinary in perspective. Job design theorizing and research in psychology and the or- ganizational sciences have focused almost exclusively on job en- richment and enlargement (Ford, 1969; Herzberg, 1966) or characteristics of motivating jobs (Griffin, 1982b; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). This framework concentrates on those features of jobs that enhance psychologi- cal meaning and motivational potential, such as variety, auton- omy, and task significance. Other academic disciplines, such as industrial engineering and ergonomics, also examine job de- sign, but they too are fairly parochial in approach. That is, they focus primarily on their particular school of thought without significant consideration of other perspectives. Although there is some overlap in the recommendations made for proper job design by the different disciplines, there is also considerable divergence and even some direct conflict in advice. Yet proponents from each school claim that their ap- proach has a positive influence on a wide spectrum of outcomes for both individuals and organizations—from individual job satisfaction and performance to productivity and efficiency of the work system (e.g., Barnes, 1980, p. v; Grandjean, 1980, pp. ix-x; Hackman & Oldham, 1980, p. 94; McCormick, 1976, p. An abbreviated version of this article was presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management in New Orleans, August 1987.1 especially wish to thank the following individuals for their comments on the design of this study or on the article itself: Chris J. Berger, James E. Campion, Daniel C. Ganster, Allen I. Kraut, Sarah Rassenfoss, Donald P. Schwab, Paul W. Thayer, Bart Victor, Irwin L. Goldstein, and two anonymous reviewers. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mi- chael A. Campion, Krannert School of Management, Purdue Univer- sity, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907. 4). Campion and Thayer (1985) addressed this confusion by adopting an interdisciplinary perspective. They reviewed and integrated this diverse literature and delineated taxonomies of job design approaches and outcomes. Subsequently, in a field study, they demonstrated that each approach is actually ori- ented toward the optimization of different categories of out- comes. The four approaches to job design that were discovered and their corresponding outcomes are as follows.' First, a motivational approach emerged from the aforemen- tioned literature on job enrichment, enlargement, and charac- teristics of motivating jobs as well as from theories of work mo- tivation (Mitchell, 1976; Steers &Mowday, 1977;Vroom, 1964) and psychological principles from sociotechnical approaches (Cherns, 1976;Englestad, 1979; Rousseau, 1977). It represents an encompassing collection of recommendations intended to enhance the motivational nature of jobs. It derives from organi- zational psychology and is associated with job satisfaction, in- trinsic motivation, and job involvement as well as job perfor- mance and attendance. Second, a mechanistic approach, reflecting classic industrial engineering, emerged with recommendations from scientific management, time and motion study, and work simplification (Barnes, 1980; Gilbreth, 1911;Maynard, 1971;Mundel, 1970; F. Taylor, 1911). It is oriented toward human resource efficiency 1 The reviewers correctly noted that there may well be other ap- proaches to job design not included here. For example, one reviewer stated that there is an Occupational Analysis approach to job design that clusters tasks into jobs on the basis of aptitude and training require- ments. It is frequently used in the military, and its goal is to make best use of available and predicted future skills. 467 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.