Page 103 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

82 work design and individual work performance
enhance performance primarily via enhancing knowledge, then the GNS of employees
might be of minimal consequence.
A whole range of other individual variables has also been considered as moderators
(Wall & Martin, 1987), including the need for autonomy, Protestant Work Ethic, role
stress, extrinsic satisfaction, and job longevity. However, as with the research on GNS, the
outcomes of these studies have been rather inconsistent. Kemp and Cook (1983) proposed
that, rather than trying to find moderators that are replicable across situations, we should
aim to “specify the conditions under which moderators are important” (p. 896). Parker
and Wall (1998) suggested several individual-difference variables that could be important
moderators of work design that have been neglected, including self-efficacy, tolerance
of role ambiguity, change orientation, proactive personality, and preference for group
working. For example, because job redesign usually involves looser and more emergent
job descriptions, it could be hypothesized that individuals who cannot tolerate ambiguity
(i.e., who prefer more tightly prescribed jobs) will experience fewer benefits of work
enrichment. Related to this idea, Parker and Sprigg (1999) found that employees with a
moreproactivepersonalityrespondedmorefavourablyto‘active’jobs(i.e.,jobswithhigh
autonomy and high demands) than employees with a more passive personality. Whether
proactive personality moderates the work design–performance relationship is unknown.
Demographic variables such as age, gender, ethnicity, as well as other forms of diversity,
could also moderate the effect of work design on outcomes (Parker & Wall, 1998).

Organizational contingencies
In the same way that one would expect individuals to respond differently to work design,
it is pretty clear that the effects of work design will vary depending on the context.
Adopting this approach, Cummings and Blumberg (1987) proposed three organizational
factors that influence the choice and effects of work design over and above individual
factors: technical interdependence, technical uncertainty, and environmental uncertainty.
Technical interdependence concerns the degree of required cooperation to make a
product or service. In situations where interdependence is low, such as the job of a per-
sonal secretary, Cummings and Blumberg (1987) recommended individual job redesigns
such as job enrichment. However, if technical interdependence is high, and employees
need to cooperate and share information to get their job done, work should be designed
at the group level so that members can coordinate interrelated tasks. The implication is
that a mismatch between the form of work design and the degree of interdependence
will lead to underperformance. The premise that group forms of work design, or team
working, are most appropriate when there is interdependence between tasks is widely
accepted within the team effectiveness literature (e.g., Wageman, 1995; Liden, Wayne,
& Bradway, 1997). However, this does not mean that organizations necessarily act in
accordance with the premise. In the content of a wire-making company, Sprigg, Jackson,
andParker(2000)reportedthatteamworkingwassuccessfulwithinthewirerope-making
area where employees could cooperate to make a wire rope, but it was not successful
in the wire-drawing area because there was little need or opportunity for employees to
cooperate. Statistical analyses showed that it was the lack of interdependence in the wire
rope-making area that explained the differential outcomes.
Cummings and Blumberg (1987) also suggested the importance of technical uncer-
tainty, or the amount of information processing and decision-making required when