Page 100 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

developing the research agenda and a proposed model 79
self-efficacy’ (Parker, 1998). Employees perceived themselves to be more capable of
carrying out a range of proactive, interpersonal and integrative tasks beyond prescribed
technical requirements (e.g., designing improved procedures, presenting information to
management, and meeting with customers or suppliers). Studies by Frese and colleagues
have also shown that enhanced job complexity is associated with the display of more
personal initiative (Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996), and that this association can
be partly attributed to the development of greater work-related self-efficacy (Speier &
Frese, 1997). Collectively, these studies demonstrate that work design has the potential
to do more than simply motivate employees to put in greater effort; it can facilitate the
development of more proactive motivational mind-sets and behaviours that are likely to
be particular important in today’s dynamic and flexible organizations.
The development of proactive motivation could also be indicative of a deeper-level
change, or a change in motivating dispositions. It has been argued that work design
can change people’s temperament, especially over the long term (Frese, 1982; Volpert,
1975). In action theory, for example, “the human is seen as an active rather that a passive
being who changes the world through work actions and thereby changes him or herself ”
(Frese & Zapf, 1994, p. 86). Considering personality development as an outcome of work
design relates to the view that human development is a continuous process extending
throughout the life span (e.g., Baltes & Schaie, 1973), and the view that personality and
the environment interact to bring about change in both elements (Endler & Magnusson,
1976).
Proposing that work design can affect stable personality traits is a rather contentious
proposition, and might indeed contradict the very definition of personality for some. To
date, there is no evidence that work design affects any of the well-established ‘Big Five’
personality dimensions. However, it is plausible to expect that work design might affect
some more specific individual aspects traditionally considered to be relatively stable,
such as growth need strength, need for achievement, and self-esteem (Parker & Wall,
1998). For example, if an employee is in a simplified job for many years, the person
is likely to adapt his/her aspirations for growth to the situation. Similarly, over time,
an employee placed in a work group might find his/her preference for interdependent
working changing, depending on the nature of the tasks and rewards (Wageman, 1995).
Redesigning employees’ work therefore might result in those employees developing
higher growth needs or need for belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). There is some
evidence, albeit fairly scarce, that supports the notion of changing dispositions. Frese
(1982) cited studies showing that simplified jobs can lead to a sense of resignation,
apathy, and a reduced level of aspiration. Brousseau (1983) also found links between
job scope and changes in active orientation. More recently, Wageman (1995) has shown
that individual differences in preference for autonomy come into congruence over time
based on the tasks and rewards faced by employees in work groups. Similarly, as we
described above, there is evidence that passive motivational states, which could be quite
stable, can be reversed via the introduction of work redesign (Parker, 1998; Parker et al.,
1997).
The idea that work design can affect employee personality implies spillover effects
of work design into people’s non-working lives (Parker & Wall, 1998). Frese and Zapf
(1994) suggested that complex work environments facilitate the development of long-
range goals that could then transfer to non-work activities. Related to these arguments,
some studies have shown that employees in challenging jobs are most active in leisure and