Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:Information and Management:Vol37.Issue5.Aug2000:
Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
Research
Toward a holistic model of task design for IS professionals
Stanley E. Gambilla,*, W. Jeff Clarka,1, Ronald B. Wilkesb,2
a
Department of Computer Information Systems, Middle Tennessee State University, P.O. Box 45, Murfreesboro, TN 37132, USA
b
Department of Management Information Systems and Decision Sciences, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152, USA
Received 3 February 1997; accepted 28 December 1997
Abstract
IS Task design issues and employee motivation can impact information system effectiveness. A questionnaire was
developed to integrate important job design factors from equity, expectancy, job characteristics, and goal setting theories. Data
was collected from 30 organizations using questionnaires. Job design factors identi®ed were feedback, justice, employee
voice, task identity, individual differences, physical dressings, autonomy, and goal dif®culty. Limitations of the research and
practical implications for both IS practitioners and academics are discussed. # 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Motivation; Work motivation; Task design; Job; Design; Job characteristics theory; Equity theory; Goal-setting theory; Expectancy
theory
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Research has shown that IS personnel are different
from personnel in other professions [8,9]. If IS personnel are indeed different, then the possibility exists
that generally accepted methods of motivation may
not work for them. In spite of this reported difference,
research on the motivation of IS professionals has
largely been ignored [3].
Even though very little research has been conducted
speci®cally on personnel in the IS world, it is considered important [12]. According to Brancheau and
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: 1-615-848-0918.
Tel.: 1-615-898-2838.
2
Retired.
1
Hoffman [4], `It seems reasonable to question whether
it is possible to operate IS effectively without satis®ed
and highly motivated employees.' Most of the job
related research focuses on the introduction and use of
technology [5,49]. This research examines motivation
and the problems that IS professionals experience
when designing tasks.
1.2. Purpose of this effort
This research attempts to integrate four widely used
task design theories: equity, expectancy, job characteristics, and goal setting, into a single model. Focusing on a single task design theory provides a limited
view of a very broad ®eld. Development of an integrative model will allow IS professionals to broaden
their understanding and application of task design.
This integration can improve the understanding of task
design, motivation and IS personnel.
0378-7206/00/$ ± see front matter # 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 8 - 7 2 0 6 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 5 3 - 1
218
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
From an organizational viewpoint, the main value
of the theories of task design is their power to predict
what variables can be manipulated to improve
employee work motivation. Studies have shown that
task design variables are positively related to internal
work motivation and outcomes.
ratios are assumed to yield equitable states and equal
feelings of satisfaction. When inequity is perceived
to exist, the individual tries to restore equity. This
is supposedly true even for those bene®ting from
inequity.
Some more important extensions to equity theory
include distributive justice [27], which focuses on the
fairness of evaluations received relative to work performed, and procedural justice [41], which focuses on
the fairness of the evaluation procedures used to
determine ratings and rewards. A more recent extension, organizational justice, focuses on the role of
fairness as a consideration in the workplace in general
[17,19].
Most applied research in equity theory focuses on
procedural issues related to performance evaluation.
Key factors in understanding and applying equity
theory can be summarized in terms of standards,
observation and communication [2,14,16,28,29,43,
44].
Effective standards should be clear, consistent and
well known. Actual work observation must occur
frequently and directly. Communication should be
bi-directional with active solicitation of input from
the employee, including opportunities for appeal and
the expression of opinions. Feedback should be interactive and include proposals for the resolution of
dif®culties and rationale for conclusions.
Other factors affecting states of equity or inequity
include workspace characteristics [18]. These include
¯oor and desk space, privacy, and the capacity to
personalize or decorate workspace.
2.2. Equity theory
2.3. Expectancy theory
Equity theory says that a major determinant of
job performance and satisfaction is the degree
of equity, or inequity, that an individual perceives
in a work situation [1]. The degree of equity is de®ned
in terms of the ratio of an individual's inputs (such
as effort) to outcomes (such as pay) compared to a
similar ratio for someone in a similar role [39].
The strength of the person's motivation is directly
related to the level of inequity perceived to exist;
it may be based on subjective perception or objective
reality [20]. If the ratios are unequal, the inequitably
overpaid individual will experience feelings of guilt
and the others will experience feelings of anger. Equal
Expectancy theory has been one of the more
popular approaches to task design for the past two
decades [23]. Its basic tenet is that individuals are
motivated to engage in behaviors to the extent that
they expect those behaviors to result in positive
outcomes [35]. Vroom [45], the originator of expectancy theory, explains that motivation is a product
of a person's level of desire (valence) and that
person's estimate of the probability that action will
lead to achievement (expectancy). Research suggests
that expectancy theory is the basis for workers'
incentives and rewards in organizational settings
[46].
1.3. Overview of the study
A ®eld study was conducted to investigate task
factors used in designing IS jobs. A survey instrument
was developed that integrated task design factors from
the four different theories. Data was collected to help
measure the degree to which an organization's job
design increases work motivation.
The survey instrument was distributed to human
resource and IS management to gather data about how
jobs are designed for IS professionals. The subjects
were asked to be as objective as possible and to answer
the questions in terms of how jobs are actually
designed rather than express their own design opinions. This data was used to determine whether: work
motivation is considered important; the job design
process follows anticipated theoretical guidelines;
and there were task design variables in these IS
organizations.
2. Review of four key task design and motivation
theories
2.1. Key task design factors
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
The basic concepts of expectancy theory are [36]:
1. Performance-outcome expectancy Ð The individual's belief that a certain type of behavior will
result in certain outcomes.
2. Valence Ð Each outcome has a certain value or
attractiveness to a specific individual and that
outcome varies among individuals.
3. Effort-performance expectancy Ð Each behavior
has a certain expectancy or probability of success.
These concepts form the foundation for the design
of incentive systems. From the perspective of
expectancy theory the manager's role focuses on
defining clear goals, setting clear expectations,
and providing payoffs based on individual differences [46].
While there has been very little speci®c agreement
on the standards and measures of expectancy theory
there are some common dimensions in the literature.
The two most prevalent of these dimensions are
individual differences, referring to the consideration
of variations in ability, and leader behavior, which
includes using positive rewards, clarifying expectations, and engaging in supportive behavior. Other key
dimensions are organizational practices, such as rules,
constraints and reward systems, and communication,
which includes both feedback and participatory decision-making. [11,24,38].
2.4. Job characteristics theory
Job characteristics theory, from Hackman and Oldham, identi®es three critical psychological states that
lead to high internal work motivation [22]. It is based
on the belief that all three of these states must be
present for strong internal motivation to develop and
persist. These states suggest that a person must:
1. Have knowledge of the results of his or her work.
2. Feel responsibility for the results of the work,
believing that he or she is personally accountable
for the outcome.
3. Experience the work as meaningful, as something
that counts in one's own system of values.
Since these states are internal and not directly
subject to manipulation, Hackman and Oldham have
identi®ed ®ve job characteristics that they consider
to be `reasonably objective, measurable, changeable
219
properties of the work itself that foster these psychological states, and through them, enhance internal
work motivation' [21].
Three of these ®ve characteristics are said to contribute to the experienced meaningfulness of the work.
It is recognized that there are other ways for work to
take on meaning for the person who performs it, but
that these three `seem especially powerful in in¯uencing the experienced meaningfulness of work.' These
three characteristics are:
1. Skill variety Ð The degree to which a job
requires a variety of different activities in carrying
it out, involving the use of a number of different skills
and talents.
2. Task identity Ð The degree to which a job
requires completion of a `whole' and identi®able piece
of work, that is, doing a job from beginning to end with
a visible outcome.
3. Task signi®cance Ð The degree to which the job
has a substantial impact on the lives of other people,
whether they are in the immediate organization or
outside it.
A person can experience work as meaningful,
even if one or two of these task characteristics are
quite low. Another characteristic fosters increased
feelings of personal responsibility for the work outcomes:
4. Autonomy Ð The degree to which the job
provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in
determining the procedures to be used in carrying it
out.
The ®nal characteristic involves knowledge that the
results of one's work is affected directly by the amount
of feedback one receives from doing it.
5. Job feedback Ð The degree to which carrying out
the work activities provides the individual with direct
and clear information about the effectiveness of his or
her performance.
Individual differences play an important role in job
characteristics theory. Just as some employees will
respond positively to a job that is high in motivating
potential, others will respond negatively to it.
There are three moderating characteristics of people
that are considered important in understanding who
will and who will not respond positively to such jobs.
They are knowledge and skill, growth need strength,
and satisfaction with the work context.
220
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
People with suf®cient knowledge and skill to perform well should feel positive about their job performance, while people lacking suf®cient knowledge and
skill will have negative feelings. People with a need
for personal growth are expected to develop higher
internal motivation, especially when they work on a
challenging job. People's willingness to take advantage of opportunities in a high motivating job is
impacted by various job and organizational characteristics such as pay, job security, co-workers, and supervisors.
The Job diagnostic survey (JDS), a companion
instrument designed to operationalize job characteristic theory, is one of the most widely used instruments
for research on task design and motivation [15,37,40].
The wide use of the JDS lends to its credibility as well
as to its validity and reliability.
2.5. Goal setting theory
The two major premises of goal setting theory
pertain to the effects of goal dif®culty and goal
speci®city/dif®culty on task performance. Goals that
are hard to achieve, if accepted, lead to better task
performance than do easy goals [30]. Individual motivation and performance are improved when a worker
knows clearly what is expected and is challenged by it.
Gutknecht and Miller list three requirements for goal
setting:
1. Proper goal de®nition, knowing its purpose and
the needs.
2. Specific, exact goals that are definable, measurable, challenging, and attainable.
3. Feedback, knowing how well the goal is being
attained.
Goal setting theory has been referred to as among
the most scienti®cally valid theories in organizational
science [31]. Several researchers have reported strong
support for the impact of goal setting on task performance [25,26,32]. Two recent meta-analyses support
the major propositions of goal setting theory: goal
dif®culty, goal speci®city, participation, and feedback
relate positively to task performance [33,42]. The
literature on goal setting theory reveals widespread
support for four key variables: participation in goal
setting, speci®city of goals, dif®culty of goals, and
feedback of progress in meeting goals.
2.6. IS motivation
While the very little research on motivation of IS
personnel has resulted in primarily inconclusive
results it tends toward the position that IS personnel
are different [10,34]. Cougar and Zawacki, in their
work using a modi®ed version of the Job Diagnostic
Survey to 2500 IS personnel, concluded that IS personnel were signi®cantly different from people in
other professions, in that they had low social needs
and high growth needs. Later work also indicates that
IS personnel are different [7,48].
Woodruff [47], using the `Personality Research
Form' from behavioral psychology, provides limited
support for the work of Couger and Zawacki in his
study of personality differences. Later research [34]
found IS personnel in the insurance industry to be
quite different from the IS community as a whole.
However, Ferratt and Short [13] failed to ®nd IS
personnel different in their survey of 1005 people
in insurance companies in midwestern US.
A study of various industries found differences
between traditional (working before the 1980s) and
nontraditional (began work since 1980) IS professionals [33]. In this study the traditional staff reported
lower internal and social needs than nontraditional
staff.
3. Research method
3.1. Instrumentation and formulation of hypotheses
The instrument, Motivational Design Rating Form
(MDRF), designed for this research represents a
synthesis of Equity Theory (EQT), Expectancy Theory (EXT), Job Characteristics Theory (JCT) and Goal
Setting Theory (GST). It was developed from several
previously validated instruments based on one of the
four theories. Each instrument has been shown to
possess predictive power for variables like internal
work motivation and work outcomes (individual performance), as well as many not addressed here. Each
instrument included validated items that were factor
analyzed and shown to load on factors similar to those
being investigated here.
Fourteen distinct factors were identi®ed from the
set of the four theories being considered. Table 1 lists
221
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
Table 1
Original factors (14) and predicted factors (10)a
Original factors
Source
Predicted factors
Task identity
Goal specificity
Participation
Employee voice
Feedback from job
Feedback from goals
Skill variety
Goal difficulty
Task significance
Autonomy
Procedural justice
Distributive justice
Physical dressings
Individual differences
JCT
GST
GST and EXT
EQT and EXT
JCT
GST
JCT
GST
JCT and EXT
JCT
EQT and EXT
EQT
EQT
EQT, EXT, JCT AND GST
Task/Goal clarity
a
Participation
Feedback
Job complexity
Task significance
Autonomy
Procedural justice
Distributive justice
Physical dressings
Individual differences
EQT±Equity theory; EXT±Expectancy theory; JCT±Job Characteristics Theory and GST±Goal setting theory.
these `original factors,' identi®es their source theory
or theories and projects their mapping to a new set of
predicted factors.
3.2. Discussion of the predicted factors mapping
The original factors were extracted from instruments developed and validated in several prior studies.
It was expected that some of the theories would
overlap. Therefore, the integrative nature of this
research was expected to produce fewer factors than
the original 14.
Eight of the original factors appeared to map to just
four factors in the integrated instrument. Six of the
original factors appeared to map in a one-to-one
relationship with a single factor each in the integrated
instrument.
Task identity (JCT) and goal speci®city (GST, EXT)
appear to be similar. Identity refers to doing a whole,
identi®able piece of work. Speci®city refers to clear,
speci®c goals that are readily identi®able. For a goal to
be speci®c, the task(s) must be clearly identi®ed with a
clear beginning and end. It is hypothesized that task
identity (JCT) and goal speci®city (JCT and EXT) will
combine to form one factor.
Participation (GST) and employee voice (EQT
and EXT) both deal with the extent people are
allowed to have input into the decision making process. Empirical evidence based on equity theory and
expectancy theory suggests that employee participation is important in any decision that affects the
employee. Goal setting theory only addresses
employee participation in terms of work objectives
and this appears to be a subset of participation in
general. It is hypothesized that participation in goal
setting (GST) and employee voice (EQT and EXT)
will combine to form one factor.
Feedback in JCT deals with the job itself while
feedback in GST deals with speci®c goals. Even
though JCT refers to feedback from the job itself
and not people, both deal with feedback and are
expected to be related. It is hypothesized that feedback
from the job itself (JCT) and feedback on goal effort
(GST) will combine to form one factor.
On the surface, skill variety (JCT) and goal dif®culty (GST) do not appear to have much in common.
However, examination of the individual items associated with each factor reveals striking similarities.
The ®rst skill variety question on the JCT instrument
also determines job dif®culty when it states `the job is
quite simple. . .' It appears to measure the same concepts as GST questions number one (`. . .little dif®culty in reaching their work objectives; they appear to
be fairly easy') and number three (`. . .great deal of
effort for IS professionals to complete'). Also, item
two from the instruments of both theories address skill
level (`Number of complex and sophisticated skills'±
JCT, and `high degree of skill and know-how'±GST).
222
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
It seems reasonable to assume that a task or goal that is
dif®cult to complete will require a variety of skills and
talents. It is hypothesized that skill variety (JCT) and
goal dif®culty (GST) will combine to form one factor.
The remaining six original factors have no apparent
similarities and should emerge from the factor analysis in the same way as prior research.
3.3. Data collection
MDRF questionnaires were distributed in 30 organizations. Of the 180 questionnaires distributed, 117
were returned for a response rate of 65%. The participants represented a variety of government and
industry organizations, including city and county
government, wholesale distribution, ®nancial services, food processing, health care, higher education,
hotel/casino, manufacturing, service, software development, and transportation. The participating organizations were located in seven states.
The MDRF instrument was distributed to six subjects in each organization. These included one personnel (human resources) manager and ®ve IS
managers. In some smaller organizations senior management members were used as substitutes. Senior
managers were chosen because they were expected to
have more direct input into the job design process than
they would in larger organizations.
4. Analysis of results
4.1. Discussion of expected mapping factors
The expected factor mappings were tested using
principle components factor analysis with a varimax
rotation. The eigenvalue criterion was used to determine signi®cant factors (eigenvalues greater than
one). Generally, minimum factor loadings of 0.5 were
required for a question to be included in a factor. Five
questions were used that had loadings less than 0.5,
however, all the ®ve had loadings of 0.47 or greater
and seemed to ®t with their respective factors. This is
considered an acceptable level since some researchers
use loadings as low as 0.3 for a cutoff [6]. Appendix A
lists the individual questions and factor loadings associated with each of these eight factors identi®ed in this
research and the theories and factors originally associated with the individual questions. Table 2 shows
that the support for the predicted factors was mixed.
The expected mapping of task identity and goal
speci®city factors into a single factor was not supported. Two of the three questions from the original
task identity factor loaded on one factor. Two additional questions also loaded on this factor.
There was only partial support for the expectation
that participation in goal setting and employee voice
factors would form one factor. All three questions
Table 2
Mapping of original factors (14) to predicted factors (10)
Original factors
a
Task identity
Goal specificity
Participation
Employee voicea
Feedback from job
Feedback from goals
Skill variety
Goal difficultya
Task significance
Autonomy
Procedural justice
Distributive justice
Physical dressings
Individual differences
a
b
Predicted factors
Supported
Task/Goal clarity
No
Participation
Partial
Feedback
Yes
Job complexity
No
Task significance
Autonomy
Procedural justice
Distributive justice
Physical dressings
Individual differences
No
Yes
Yesb
Yesb
Yes
Yes
Support exists for single factor, which was originally predicted to join with another factor.
Support exists for joining two factors, procedural justice and distributive justice that was not predicted.
223
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
previously associated with employee voice loaded on
one factor, as did one of three questions originally
associated with participation in goal setting.
The expected mapping of feedback from the job and
feedback on goal effort into one factor was supported.
Five of the six associated questions loaded on the
factor. Another question from goal setting theory
(GST) also loaded on this factor. Although the additional question was originally associated with a `speci®c goal' factor, it addresses the issue of a person
having a clear sense of priorities.
The expectation that skill variety and goal dif®culty
would form one factor was not supported. However, a
goal dif®culty factor was identi®ed.
Three of the six original factors mapped directly to
a single factor as expected. The mapping for one
factor, task signi®cance, was not supported. Also,
procedural justice and distributive justice mapped to
form a single factor. Six out seven related questions
loaded on this factor. Table 3 lists the 14 factors
identi®ed from prior research, theory of origin, and
the eight factors that actually occurred.
4.2. Importance of work motivation
Additional data was gathered on the importance of
work motivation in the organization to determine how
important motivation was in participating organizations. Analysis indicated that work motivation was
considered important in design of jobs for general and
IS professionals. The statement `work motivation is
considered important in the design of jobs for professionals in general' resulted in a mean response of 5.5
(7-point Likert scale with a 7 as the highest positive
response) with a standard deviation of 1.7. The mean
response to the statement `work motivation is considered important in the design of jobs for information
systems professionals' was 5.6 (on a 7-point Likert
scale) with a standard deviation of 1.5. These two
variables were highly correlated with a correlation
coef®cient of 0.886 and a p-value of 0.000.
4.3. Interpretation of research findings
4.3.1. Job design factors
Of the 10 expected factors feedback, autonomy,
individual differences and physical dressings were
the only ones that correlated. Four other factors identi®ed in this research were task identity, employee
voice, goal dif®culty, and justice. Individual differences is common to all four job design theories in
this research. Together, these eight task design
factors form the holistic task design model shown
in Fig. 1.
4.4. Limitations of the research
Several factors limit the generalizability of the
results of this research.
Table 3
Original factors (14) and identified factors (8)a
Original factors
Source
Identified factors
Task identity
Goal specificity
Participation
Employee voice
Feedback from job
Feedback from goals
Skill variety
Goal difficulty
Task significance
Autonomy
Procedural justice
Distributive justice
Physical dressings
Individual differences
JCT
GST
GST and EXT
EQT and EXT
JCT
GST
JCT
GST
JCT and EXT
JCT
EQT and EXT
EQT
EQT
EQT, EXT, JCT AND GST
Task identity
a
EQT±Equity theory; EXT±Expectancy theory; JCT±Job characteristics theory and GST±Goal setting theory.
Employee Voice
Feedback
Goal difficulty
Autonomy
Justice
Physical dressings
Individual differences
224
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
4.5. Implications of the research
Fig. 1. Holistic task design model.
1. The participating organizations were from seven
states, predominately in southern US. Possibly,
organizations in other parts of the country are
managed differently.
2. It is also possible that organizations may differ by
industry. Although the overall total number of
participating organizations was sufficient for this
research, there were not enough for analysis by
industry.
This study provides empirical support through factor analysis for eight of the 14 job design factors
identi®ed in prior research. Five them were conspicuous in their absence: goal speci®city, participation
in goal setting, skill variety, and task signi®cance.
Because the job design factors and items loading on
their respective factors had been validated in prior
research, they were expected to manifest themselves
in some form here. Their failure to appear may be
because they were `watered down' or affected by the
integrative nature of this research, or that the participating organizations were either not aware of these
factors or did not consider them important.
With today's shortage of IS personnel and high turnover rates, it is important that organizations make every
reasonable effort to retain valuable employees. An
important aspect of any retention effort is job design in
a way that promotes highly satis®ed and motivated
employees. This research provides a single integrated
model of task design that is simpler to use than trying
to combine several independent models. It also helps
ensure the application of a wider variety of task design
techniques than if a single task design model is used.
Appendix
Feedback factor
Loadings
Theory
Factor
Question
0.69101
JCT
Feedback
0.47544
GST
Feedback
0.55553
GST
Feedback
0.70505
GST
Specific
0.64177
GST
Feedback
0.64666
JCT
Feedback
Just doing the work required by the job provides many chances for a
person to figure out how well he or she is doing.
IS professionals receive a considerable amount of feedback concerning
the quantity of work they produce.
IS professionals are well-informed by their supervision about how well
they are doing in their work toward their work objectives.
IS professionals understand fully which of their work objectives are
more important than others; they have a clear sense of priorities on their
goals.
IS professionals are provided with a great deal of feedback and guidance
on the quality of their work.
To what extent does the design of jobs result in a job where `doing the
job itself' will provide the person with information about his or her
work performance? That is, will the work itself provide clues about
how well the person is doing-aside from any `feedback' co-workers or
supervisors may provide?
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
225
Justice factor
Loadings
Theory
Factor
Question
0.61736
EQT
Procedural
0.60779
EQT
Procedural
0.79410
EQT
Procedural
0.76258
EQT
Procedural
0.84063
EQT
0.49291
EQT
There is two-way communication between the rater and ratee during
their formal performance evaluation interview.
The person being evaluated during performance evaluations is given a
real opportunity to challenge or rebut the evaluation.
The person conducting the formal performance evaluation interview is
very familiar with the work of the person being evaluated.
Standards for evaluating performance are consistently applied for
everyone being evaluated.
Performance ratings are clearly based on actual performance of the
individual being evaluated.
Recommendations for salary increases and promotion are based on
ratings received.
Distributive
Employee voice factor
Loadings
Theory
Factor
Question
0.66192
EXT
GST
EXT
GST
EXT
GST
EXT
GST
Employee
voice
Employee
voice
Participation
IS professionals are encouraged to speak up when they disagree
with a decision.
Management makes most decisions concerning the IS function
without asking IS professionals for their opinions.
IS professionals have little voice in the formulation of work
objectives.
IS professionals participate in decisions on adopting new policies
and programs that involve the IS function.
0.47160
0.50621
0.60653
EQT
EQT
EQT
EQT
Employee
Voice
Task identity factor
Loadings
Theory
Factor
Question
0.49166
JCT
Task identity
0.67521
JCT
Task significance
0.59912
GST
Goal specificity
0.53294
JCT
Task identity
The job is arranged so that a person does `not' have the chance
to do an entire piece of work from beginning to end.
The job itself is `not' very significant or important in the
broader scheme of things.
Work objectives for IS professionals are ambiguous and
unclear.
To what extent does the design of jobs result in a job that
involves doing a `hole' and identifiable piece of work? That
is, will the IS professional work on a complete piece of work
that has an obvious beginning and end? Or is it only a small
part of the overall piece of work, which is finished by other
people?
226
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
Individual differences factor
Loadings
Theory
Factor
Question
0.77543
ALL
Individual
differences
0.74884
ALL
0.77638
ALL
Individual
differences
Individual
differences
Work assignments for IS professionals are generally made based on who
is available to do the work at the time without regard to individual
differences.
Serious consideration is given to individual differences when work
assignments are made for IS professionals.
Very little consideration is given to individual differences when work
assignments are made for IS professionals.
Physical dressings factor
Loadings
Theory
Factor
Question
0.89470
EQT
Physical
dressings
0.83739
EQT
0.54922
EQT
Physical
dressings
Physical
dressings
IS professionals within the same job classification have similar amounts of
floor space, storage space, and desk space in their personal work area or
office.
IS professionals within the same job classification generally have similar
amounts of privacy in their personal work area or office.
IS professionals within the same job classification generally have similar
opportunities to select the decor and furnishings of their personal work
area or office.
Autonomy factor
Loadings
Theory
Factor
Question
0.59058
JCT
Autonomy
0.64875
GST
Participation
0.49555
JCT
Autonomy
The job gives a person considerable opportunity for independence and
freedom in how he or she does the work.
IS professionals are pretty much in control of setting their own work
goals.
To what extent is `autonomy' considered in job design. That is, to what
extent does the job allow the worker to decide on their own how to go
about doing the work?
Goal difficulty factor
Loadings
Theory
Factor
Question
0.70917
GST
Goal difficulty
0.54123
GST
Goal difficulty
0.75649
GST
Goal difficulty
IS professionals have little difficulty in reaching their work
objectives; they appear to be fairly easy.
IS professionals must possess a high degree of skill and knowhow to fully attain their work objectives.
Work objectives require a great deal of effort for IS
professionals to complete.
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
5. Summary
Speci®c hypotheses about job design factors for IS
professionals were presented. These hypotheses were
tested using data collected from 30 different organizations primarily located in southern US. Signi®cant
®ndings indicate that:
1. Organizations consider task design for IS professionals important.
2. Task identity, employee voice, feedback, goal
difficulty, autonomy, justice, physical dressings,
and feedback (combined) are important task
design variables.
References
[1] J.S. Adams, Toward an understanding of inequity, Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology 67, 1963, pp. 422±436.
[2] R.J. Bies, D.L. Shapiro, Voice and justification: their
influence on procedural fairness judgements, Academy of
Management Journal 31, 1988, pp. 676±685.
[3] R. Bostrom, L. Olfman, M. Sein, The importance of learning
style in end- user training, MIS Quarterly 14 (1), 1990, pp.
100±119.
[4] J.C. Brancheau, T.R. Hoffmann, Managing information
systems for effectiveness and humanity: applying research
on organizational behavior, Information & Management 13,
1987, 233±243.
[5] J.C. Brancheau, J.C.J. Wetherbe, The adoption of spreadsheet
software: testing innovation diffusion theory in the context of
end-user computing, Information Systems Research 1 (2),
1990, pp. 115±143.
[6] N. Cliff, Analyzing Multivariate Data, Academic Press, New
York, 1987.
[7] J.D. Couger, New challenges in motivating MIS personnel,
Journal of Information Systems Management, 1989.
[8] J.D. Couger, R.A. Zawacki, What motivates DP professionals,
Datamation, 1978, 118±123.
[9] J.D. Couger, R.A. Zawacki, Motivating and Managing
Computer Personnel. Wiley, New York, 1980.
[10] F.D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and
user acceptance of information technology, MIS Quarterly,
1989, 319±339.
[11] W.L. Dellva, J.G. Wacker, R.K. Teas, Motivational antecedents: a test of predictor models, Psychological Reports 56,
1985, pp. 447±461.
[12] G.W. Dickson, J.C. Wetherbe, The Management of Information Systems. McGraw-Hill, 1985.
[13] T.W. Ferratt, L.E. Short, Are information systems people
different? An investigation of how they are and should be
managed, MIS Quarterly 12 (3), 1988, pp. 427±443.
[14] R. Folger, M.A. Konovsky, Effects of procedural and
distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions, Academy of Management Journal 32 (1), 1989, pp. 115±130.
227
[15] Y. Fried, G.R. Ferris, The validity of the job characteristics
model: a review and meta analysis, Personnel Psychology 40,
1987, pp. 287±322.
[16] J. Greenberg, Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations, Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (2),
1986, pp. 340±342.
[17] J. Greenberg, Equity and workplace status: a field experiment, Journal of Applied Psychology 73, 1987, pp. 606±
613.
[18] J. Greenberg, Cognitive reevaluation of outcomes in response
to underpayment inequity, Academy of Management Journal
32 (1), 1989, pp. 174±184.
[19] J. Greenberg, Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and
tomorrow, Journal of Management 16 (2), 1990, pp. 399±432.
[20] D.B. Gutknecht, J.R. Miller, The Organizational and Human
Resources Sourcebook, University Press of America, New
York, 1990.
[21] J.R. Hackman, G.R. Oldham, Work Redesign, AddisonWesley, Reading, MA, 1975.
[22] J.R. Hackman, G.R. Oldham, Motivation through the design
of work: test of a theory, Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance 16, 1976, pp. 250±279.
[23] A. Harrell, M. Stahl, Additive information processing and the
relationship between expectancy of success and motivational
force, Academy of Management Journal 29 (2), 1986, pp.
424±433.
[24] R.J. House, G. Dessler, The path-goal theory of leadership:
some post hoc and a priori tests, Paper presented at the
Second Leadership Symposium: Contingency Approaches to
Leadership, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois,
1973, in: H.P. Sims, A.D. Szilagy, D.R. McKemey, Antecedents of Work Related Expectancies, Academy of Management Journal,1976, pp. 547±559.
[25] R.A. Katzell, R.A. Guzzo, Psychological approaches to
productivity improvements, American Psychologist 38,
1983, pp. 468±472.
[26] G.P. Latham, T.W. Lee, Goal setting, in: E.A. Locke (Ed.),
Generalizing for Laboratory to Field Settings: Research
Findings from Industrial±Organizational Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management.
Heath Lexington, Lexington, MA, 1985.
[27] G.S. Leventhal, Fairness in social relationships, in: J.W.
Thibaut, J.T. Spence, R.C. Carson, Contemporary Topics in
Social Psychology, General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ,
1976.
[28] G.S. Leventhal, J. Karuza, W.R. Fry, Beyond fairness: a
theory of allocation preferences, in: G. Mikula (Eds.), Justice
and Social Interaction, Springer, New York, 1980, pp. 167±
218.
[29] E.A. Lind, T.R. Tyler, The Social Psychology of Procedural
Justice, Plenum Press, New York, 1988.
[30] E.A. Locke, Toward a theory of task motivation and
incentives, Organization Behavior and Human Performance
3, 1968, pp. 157±189.
[31] E.A. Locke, G.P. Latham, M. Erez, The determinants of goal
commitment, Academy of Management Review 13 (1), 1988,
pp. 23±39.
228
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
[32] E.A. Locke, K.N. Shaw, L.M. Saari, G.P. Latham, Goal
setting and task performance: 1969±1980, Psychological
Bulletin 90, 1981, pp. 125±152.
[33] A.J. Mento, R.P. Steel, R.J. Karren, A meta-analytic study
of goal setting on task performance: 1966±1984, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 39, 1987, pp. 52±83.
[34] M.J. Meyers, An examination of motivation in the information systems profession, Ph.D. Dissertation (unpublished),
University of Texas, Austin, 1989.
[35] L.E. Miller, J.E. Grush, Improving predictions in expectancy
theory research: effects of personality, expectancies, and
norms, Academy of Management Journal 31 (1), 1988, pp.
107±122.
[36] D. Nadler, E. Lawler, Quality of work life: perspectives and
directions, Organizational Dynamics 11 (3), 1983, pp. 20±30.
[37] R.W. Renn, A Holistic Evaluation of the job characteristics
model: a longitudinal structural equation analysis, Unpublished dissertation, Georgia State University, 1989.
[38] H.P. Sims, A.D. Szilagy, D.R. McKemey, D.R. Antecedents
of Work Related Expectancies, Academy of Management
Journal December, 1976, 547±559.
[39] R.M. Steers, L.W. Porter, Motivation and Work Behavior,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975.
[40] T.D. Taber, E. Taylor, A review and evaluation of the
psychometric properties of the job diagnostic survey,
Personnel Psychology 43, 1975, pp. 467±500.
[41] J. Thibaut, L. Walker, Procedural Justice: A Psychological
Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1975.
[42] M.E. Tubbs, Goal setting: a meta-analytic examination of the
empirical evidence, Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (3),
1986, pp. 474±483.
[43] T.R. Tyler, R.J. Bies, Beyond formal procedures: the
interpersonal context of procedural justice, in: J. Carroll
(Ed.), Advances in Applied Social Psychology: Business
Settings, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1989,
pp. 77±98.
[44] T.R. Tyler, K. Rasinski, N. Spodick, The influence of voice on
satisfaction with leaders: exploring the meaning of process
control., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48,
1985, pp. 72±81.
[45] V.H. Vroom, Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York, 1964.
[46] M.E. Weiner, Managing people for enhanced performance,
Administration in Social Work 11 (3±4), 1987, pp. 147±160.
[47] C.K. Woodruff, Data processing people±are they really
different? Information and Management 3, 1980, pp. 133±
139.
[48] R.A. Zawacki, The Real Key to MIS Motivation is in the
Matchups, Business Month, 1989, 77±78.
[49] R. Zmud, An examination of `Push-Pull' theory applied to
process innovation in knowledge work, Management Science
30 (6), 1984, pp. 727±738.
Stanley E. Gambill is an Associate
Professor of Computer Information Systems at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, TN. He worked
as a systems analyst and systems
specialist for DuPont prior to entering
the academic field. He holds a Ph.D. in
Management Information Systems from
the University of Memphis.
Ronald B. Wilkes is semi-retired and
most recently was Chief Technology
Officer for Global Operations and Technology at Citicorp. His Ph.D. is in
Management Information systems from
the University of Minnesota. He has held
faculty positions in Management Information Systems at Georgia State University and in the Fogelman College of
Business and Economics at the University of Memphis. His primary research interests are in management
of the information technology resource. He has served as President
of the Memphis chapter of the Society for Information Mamangement.
Jeff Clark is a Professor of Computer
Informaton Systems at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro,
TN. He holds his Ph.D. in Information
Systems from Northwestern University
and is a Certified Computer Professional
(CCP). He served three terms as the
president of the Society for the Advancement of Information Systems. He has
over 20 publications in various information systems journals.
Research
Toward a holistic model of task design for IS professionals
Stanley E. Gambilla,*, W. Jeff Clarka,1, Ronald B. Wilkesb,2
a
Department of Computer Information Systems, Middle Tennessee State University, P.O. Box 45, Murfreesboro, TN 37132, USA
b
Department of Management Information Systems and Decision Sciences, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152, USA
Received 3 February 1997; accepted 28 December 1997
Abstract
IS Task design issues and employee motivation can impact information system effectiveness. A questionnaire was
developed to integrate important job design factors from equity, expectancy, job characteristics, and goal setting theories. Data
was collected from 30 organizations using questionnaires. Job design factors identi®ed were feedback, justice, employee
voice, task identity, individual differences, physical dressings, autonomy, and goal dif®culty. Limitations of the research and
practical implications for both IS practitioners and academics are discussed. # 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Motivation; Work motivation; Task design; Job; Design; Job characteristics theory; Equity theory; Goal-setting theory; Expectancy
theory
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Research has shown that IS personnel are different
from personnel in other professions [8,9]. If IS personnel are indeed different, then the possibility exists
that generally accepted methods of motivation may
not work for them. In spite of this reported difference,
research on the motivation of IS professionals has
largely been ignored [3].
Even though very little research has been conducted
speci®cally on personnel in the IS world, it is considered important [12]. According to Brancheau and
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: 1-615-848-0918.
Tel.: 1-615-898-2838.
2
Retired.
1
Hoffman [4], `It seems reasonable to question whether
it is possible to operate IS effectively without satis®ed
and highly motivated employees.' Most of the job
related research focuses on the introduction and use of
technology [5,49]. This research examines motivation
and the problems that IS professionals experience
when designing tasks.
1.2. Purpose of this effort
This research attempts to integrate four widely used
task design theories: equity, expectancy, job characteristics, and goal setting, into a single model. Focusing on a single task design theory provides a limited
view of a very broad ®eld. Development of an integrative model will allow IS professionals to broaden
their understanding and application of task design.
This integration can improve the understanding of task
design, motivation and IS personnel.
0378-7206/00/$ ± see front matter # 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 8 - 7 2 0 6 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 5 3 - 1
218
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
From an organizational viewpoint, the main value
of the theories of task design is their power to predict
what variables can be manipulated to improve
employee work motivation. Studies have shown that
task design variables are positively related to internal
work motivation and outcomes.
ratios are assumed to yield equitable states and equal
feelings of satisfaction. When inequity is perceived
to exist, the individual tries to restore equity. This
is supposedly true even for those bene®ting from
inequity.
Some more important extensions to equity theory
include distributive justice [27], which focuses on the
fairness of evaluations received relative to work performed, and procedural justice [41], which focuses on
the fairness of the evaluation procedures used to
determine ratings and rewards. A more recent extension, organizational justice, focuses on the role of
fairness as a consideration in the workplace in general
[17,19].
Most applied research in equity theory focuses on
procedural issues related to performance evaluation.
Key factors in understanding and applying equity
theory can be summarized in terms of standards,
observation and communication [2,14,16,28,29,43,
44].
Effective standards should be clear, consistent and
well known. Actual work observation must occur
frequently and directly. Communication should be
bi-directional with active solicitation of input from
the employee, including opportunities for appeal and
the expression of opinions. Feedback should be interactive and include proposals for the resolution of
dif®culties and rationale for conclusions.
Other factors affecting states of equity or inequity
include workspace characteristics [18]. These include
¯oor and desk space, privacy, and the capacity to
personalize or decorate workspace.
2.2. Equity theory
2.3. Expectancy theory
Equity theory says that a major determinant of
job performance and satisfaction is the degree
of equity, or inequity, that an individual perceives
in a work situation [1]. The degree of equity is de®ned
in terms of the ratio of an individual's inputs (such
as effort) to outcomes (such as pay) compared to a
similar ratio for someone in a similar role [39].
The strength of the person's motivation is directly
related to the level of inequity perceived to exist;
it may be based on subjective perception or objective
reality [20]. If the ratios are unequal, the inequitably
overpaid individual will experience feelings of guilt
and the others will experience feelings of anger. Equal
Expectancy theory has been one of the more
popular approaches to task design for the past two
decades [23]. Its basic tenet is that individuals are
motivated to engage in behaviors to the extent that
they expect those behaviors to result in positive
outcomes [35]. Vroom [45], the originator of expectancy theory, explains that motivation is a product
of a person's level of desire (valence) and that
person's estimate of the probability that action will
lead to achievement (expectancy). Research suggests
that expectancy theory is the basis for workers'
incentives and rewards in organizational settings
[46].
1.3. Overview of the study
A ®eld study was conducted to investigate task
factors used in designing IS jobs. A survey instrument
was developed that integrated task design factors from
the four different theories. Data was collected to help
measure the degree to which an organization's job
design increases work motivation.
The survey instrument was distributed to human
resource and IS management to gather data about how
jobs are designed for IS professionals. The subjects
were asked to be as objective as possible and to answer
the questions in terms of how jobs are actually
designed rather than express their own design opinions. This data was used to determine whether: work
motivation is considered important; the job design
process follows anticipated theoretical guidelines;
and there were task design variables in these IS
organizations.
2. Review of four key task design and motivation
theories
2.1. Key task design factors
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
The basic concepts of expectancy theory are [36]:
1. Performance-outcome expectancy Ð The individual's belief that a certain type of behavior will
result in certain outcomes.
2. Valence Ð Each outcome has a certain value or
attractiveness to a specific individual and that
outcome varies among individuals.
3. Effort-performance expectancy Ð Each behavior
has a certain expectancy or probability of success.
These concepts form the foundation for the design
of incentive systems. From the perspective of
expectancy theory the manager's role focuses on
defining clear goals, setting clear expectations,
and providing payoffs based on individual differences [46].
While there has been very little speci®c agreement
on the standards and measures of expectancy theory
there are some common dimensions in the literature.
The two most prevalent of these dimensions are
individual differences, referring to the consideration
of variations in ability, and leader behavior, which
includes using positive rewards, clarifying expectations, and engaging in supportive behavior. Other key
dimensions are organizational practices, such as rules,
constraints and reward systems, and communication,
which includes both feedback and participatory decision-making. [11,24,38].
2.4. Job characteristics theory
Job characteristics theory, from Hackman and Oldham, identi®es three critical psychological states that
lead to high internal work motivation [22]. It is based
on the belief that all three of these states must be
present for strong internal motivation to develop and
persist. These states suggest that a person must:
1. Have knowledge of the results of his or her work.
2. Feel responsibility for the results of the work,
believing that he or she is personally accountable
for the outcome.
3. Experience the work as meaningful, as something
that counts in one's own system of values.
Since these states are internal and not directly
subject to manipulation, Hackman and Oldham have
identi®ed ®ve job characteristics that they consider
to be `reasonably objective, measurable, changeable
219
properties of the work itself that foster these psychological states, and through them, enhance internal
work motivation' [21].
Three of these ®ve characteristics are said to contribute to the experienced meaningfulness of the work.
It is recognized that there are other ways for work to
take on meaning for the person who performs it, but
that these three `seem especially powerful in in¯uencing the experienced meaningfulness of work.' These
three characteristics are:
1. Skill variety Ð The degree to which a job
requires a variety of different activities in carrying
it out, involving the use of a number of different skills
and talents.
2. Task identity Ð The degree to which a job
requires completion of a `whole' and identi®able piece
of work, that is, doing a job from beginning to end with
a visible outcome.
3. Task signi®cance Ð The degree to which the job
has a substantial impact on the lives of other people,
whether they are in the immediate organization or
outside it.
A person can experience work as meaningful,
even if one or two of these task characteristics are
quite low. Another characteristic fosters increased
feelings of personal responsibility for the work outcomes:
4. Autonomy Ð The degree to which the job
provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in
determining the procedures to be used in carrying it
out.
The ®nal characteristic involves knowledge that the
results of one's work is affected directly by the amount
of feedback one receives from doing it.
5. Job feedback Ð The degree to which carrying out
the work activities provides the individual with direct
and clear information about the effectiveness of his or
her performance.
Individual differences play an important role in job
characteristics theory. Just as some employees will
respond positively to a job that is high in motivating
potential, others will respond negatively to it.
There are three moderating characteristics of people
that are considered important in understanding who
will and who will not respond positively to such jobs.
They are knowledge and skill, growth need strength,
and satisfaction with the work context.
220
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
People with suf®cient knowledge and skill to perform well should feel positive about their job performance, while people lacking suf®cient knowledge and
skill will have negative feelings. People with a need
for personal growth are expected to develop higher
internal motivation, especially when they work on a
challenging job. People's willingness to take advantage of opportunities in a high motivating job is
impacted by various job and organizational characteristics such as pay, job security, co-workers, and supervisors.
The Job diagnostic survey (JDS), a companion
instrument designed to operationalize job characteristic theory, is one of the most widely used instruments
for research on task design and motivation [15,37,40].
The wide use of the JDS lends to its credibility as well
as to its validity and reliability.
2.5. Goal setting theory
The two major premises of goal setting theory
pertain to the effects of goal dif®culty and goal
speci®city/dif®culty on task performance. Goals that
are hard to achieve, if accepted, lead to better task
performance than do easy goals [30]. Individual motivation and performance are improved when a worker
knows clearly what is expected and is challenged by it.
Gutknecht and Miller list three requirements for goal
setting:
1. Proper goal de®nition, knowing its purpose and
the needs.
2. Specific, exact goals that are definable, measurable, challenging, and attainable.
3. Feedback, knowing how well the goal is being
attained.
Goal setting theory has been referred to as among
the most scienti®cally valid theories in organizational
science [31]. Several researchers have reported strong
support for the impact of goal setting on task performance [25,26,32]. Two recent meta-analyses support
the major propositions of goal setting theory: goal
dif®culty, goal speci®city, participation, and feedback
relate positively to task performance [33,42]. The
literature on goal setting theory reveals widespread
support for four key variables: participation in goal
setting, speci®city of goals, dif®culty of goals, and
feedback of progress in meeting goals.
2.6. IS motivation
While the very little research on motivation of IS
personnel has resulted in primarily inconclusive
results it tends toward the position that IS personnel
are different [10,34]. Cougar and Zawacki, in their
work using a modi®ed version of the Job Diagnostic
Survey to 2500 IS personnel, concluded that IS personnel were signi®cantly different from people in
other professions, in that they had low social needs
and high growth needs. Later work also indicates that
IS personnel are different [7,48].
Woodruff [47], using the `Personality Research
Form' from behavioral psychology, provides limited
support for the work of Couger and Zawacki in his
study of personality differences. Later research [34]
found IS personnel in the insurance industry to be
quite different from the IS community as a whole.
However, Ferratt and Short [13] failed to ®nd IS
personnel different in their survey of 1005 people
in insurance companies in midwestern US.
A study of various industries found differences
between traditional (working before the 1980s) and
nontraditional (began work since 1980) IS professionals [33]. In this study the traditional staff reported
lower internal and social needs than nontraditional
staff.
3. Research method
3.1. Instrumentation and formulation of hypotheses
The instrument, Motivational Design Rating Form
(MDRF), designed for this research represents a
synthesis of Equity Theory (EQT), Expectancy Theory (EXT), Job Characteristics Theory (JCT) and Goal
Setting Theory (GST). It was developed from several
previously validated instruments based on one of the
four theories. Each instrument has been shown to
possess predictive power for variables like internal
work motivation and work outcomes (individual performance), as well as many not addressed here. Each
instrument included validated items that were factor
analyzed and shown to load on factors similar to those
being investigated here.
Fourteen distinct factors were identi®ed from the
set of the four theories being considered. Table 1 lists
221
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
Table 1
Original factors (14) and predicted factors (10)a
Original factors
Source
Predicted factors
Task identity
Goal specificity
Participation
Employee voice
Feedback from job
Feedback from goals
Skill variety
Goal difficulty
Task significance
Autonomy
Procedural justice
Distributive justice
Physical dressings
Individual differences
JCT
GST
GST and EXT
EQT and EXT
JCT
GST
JCT
GST
JCT and EXT
JCT
EQT and EXT
EQT
EQT
EQT, EXT, JCT AND GST
Task/Goal clarity
a
Participation
Feedback
Job complexity
Task significance
Autonomy
Procedural justice
Distributive justice
Physical dressings
Individual differences
EQT±Equity theory; EXT±Expectancy theory; JCT±Job Characteristics Theory and GST±Goal setting theory.
these `original factors,' identi®es their source theory
or theories and projects their mapping to a new set of
predicted factors.
3.2. Discussion of the predicted factors mapping
The original factors were extracted from instruments developed and validated in several prior studies.
It was expected that some of the theories would
overlap. Therefore, the integrative nature of this
research was expected to produce fewer factors than
the original 14.
Eight of the original factors appeared to map to just
four factors in the integrated instrument. Six of the
original factors appeared to map in a one-to-one
relationship with a single factor each in the integrated
instrument.
Task identity (JCT) and goal speci®city (GST, EXT)
appear to be similar. Identity refers to doing a whole,
identi®able piece of work. Speci®city refers to clear,
speci®c goals that are readily identi®able. For a goal to
be speci®c, the task(s) must be clearly identi®ed with a
clear beginning and end. It is hypothesized that task
identity (JCT) and goal speci®city (JCT and EXT) will
combine to form one factor.
Participation (GST) and employee voice (EQT
and EXT) both deal with the extent people are
allowed to have input into the decision making process. Empirical evidence based on equity theory and
expectancy theory suggests that employee participation is important in any decision that affects the
employee. Goal setting theory only addresses
employee participation in terms of work objectives
and this appears to be a subset of participation in
general. It is hypothesized that participation in goal
setting (GST) and employee voice (EQT and EXT)
will combine to form one factor.
Feedback in JCT deals with the job itself while
feedback in GST deals with speci®c goals. Even
though JCT refers to feedback from the job itself
and not people, both deal with feedback and are
expected to be related. It is hypothesized that feedback
from the job itself (JCT) and feedback on goal effort
(GST) will combine to form one factor.
On the surface, skill variety (JCT) and goal dif®culty (GST) do not appear to have much in common.
However, examination of the individual items associated with each factor reveals striking similarities.
The ®rst skill variety question on the JCT instrument
also determines job dif®culty when it states `the job is
quite simple. . .' It appears to measure the same concepts as GST questions number one (`. . .little dif®culty in reaching their work objectives; they appear to
be fairly easy') and number three (`. . .great deal of
effort for IS professionals to complete'). Also, item
two from the instruments of both theories address skill
level (`Number of complex and sophisticated skills'±
JCT, and `high degree of skill and know-how'±GST).
222
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
It seems reasonable to assume that a task or goal that is
dif®cult to complete will require a variety of skills and
talents. It is hypothesized that skill variety (JCT) and
goal dif®culty (GST) will combine to form one factor.
The remaining six original factors have no apparent
similarities and should emerge from the factor analysis in the same way as prior research.
3.3. Data collection
MDRF questionnaires were distributed in 30 organizations. Of the 180 questionnaires distributed, 117
were returned for a response rate of 65%. The participants represented a variety of government and
industry organizations, including city and county
government, wholesale distribution, ®nancial services, food processing, health care, higher education,
hotel/casino, manufacturing, service, software development, and transportation. The participating organizations were located in seven states.
The MDRF instrument was distributed to six subjects in each organization. These included one personnel (human resources) manager and ®ve IS
managers. In some smaller organizations senior management members were used as substitutes. Senior
managers were chosen because they were expected to
have more direct input into the job design process than
they would in larger organizations.
4. Analysis of results
4.1. Discussion of expected mapping factors
The expected factor mappings were tested using
principle components factor analysis with a varimax
rotation. The eigenvalue criterion was used to determine signi®cant factors (eigenvalues greater than
one). Generally, minimum factor loadings of 0.5 were
required for a question to be included in a factor. Five
questions were used that had loadings less than 0.5,
however, all the ®ve had loadings of 0.47 or greater
and seemed to ®t with their respective factors. This is
considered an acceptable level since some researchers
use loadings as low as 0.3 for a cutoff [6]. Appendix A
lists the individual questions and factor loadings associated with each of these eight factors identi®ed in this
research and the theories and factors originally associated with the individual questions. Table 2 shows
that the support for the predicted factors was mixed.
The expected mapping of task identity and goal
speci®city factors into a single factor was not supported. Two of the three questions from the original
task identity factor loaded on one factor. Two additional questions also loaded on this factor.
There was only partial support for the expectation
that participation in goal setting and employee voice
factors would form one factor. All three questions
Table 2
Mapping of original factors (14) to predicted factors (10)
Original factors
a
Task identity
Goal specificity
Participation
Employee voicea
Feedback from job
Feedback from goals
Skill variety
Goal difficultya
Task significance
Autonomy
Procedural justice
Distributive justice
Physical dressings
Individual differences
a
b
Predicted factors
Supported
Task/Goal clarity
No
Participation
Partial
Feedback
Yes
Job complexity
No
Task significance
Autonomy
Procedural justice
Distributive justice
Physical dressings
Individual differences
No
Yes
Yesb
Yesb
Yes
Yes
Support exists for single factor, which was originally predicted to join with another factor.
Support exists for joining two factors, procedural justice and distributive justice that was not predicted.
223
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
previously associated with employee voice loaded on
one factor, as did one of three questions originally
associated with participation in goal setting.
The expected mapping of feedback from the job and
feedback on goal effort into one factor was supported.
Five of the six associated questions loaded on the
factor. Another question from goal setting theory
(GST) also loaded on this factor. Although the additional question was originally associated with a `speci®c goal' factor, it addresses the issue of a person
having a clear sense of priorities.
The expectation that skill variety and goal dif®culty
would form one factor was not supported. However, a
goal dif®culty factor was identi®ed.
Three of the six original factors mapped directly to
a single factor as expected. The mapping for one
factor, task signi®cance, was not supported. Also,
procedural justice and distributive justice mapped to
form a single factor. Six out seven related questions
loaded on this factor. Table 3 lists the 14 factors
identi®ed from prior research, theory of origin, and
the eight factors that actually occurred.
4.2. Importance of work motivation
Additional data was gathered on the importance of
work motivation in the organization to determine how
important motivation was in participating organizations. Analysis indicated that work motivation was
considered important in design of jobs for general and
IS professionals. The statement `work motivation is
considered important in the design of jobs for professionals in general' resulted in a mean response of 5.5
(7-point Likert scale with a 7 as the highest positive
response) with a standard deviation of 1.7. The mean
response to the statement `work motivation is considered important in the design of jobs for information
systems professionals' was 5.6 (on a 7-point Likert
scale) with a standard deviation of 1.5. These two
variables were highly correlated with a correlation
coef®cient of 0.886 and a p-value of 0.000.
4.3. Interpretation of research findings
4.3.1. Job design factors
Of the 10 expected factors feedback, autonomy,
individual differences and physical dressings were
the only ones that correlated. Four other factors identi®ed in this research were task identity, employee
voice, goal dif®culty, and justice. Individual differences is common to all four job design theories in
this research. Together, these eight task design
factors form the holistic task design model shown
in Fig. 1.
4.4. Limitations of the research
Several factors limit the generalizability of the
results of this research.
Table 3
Original factors (14) and identified factors (8)a
Original factors
Source
Identified factors
Task identity
Goal specificity
Participation
Employee voice
Feedback from job
Feedback from goals
Skill variety
Goal difficulty
Task significance
Autonomy
Procedural justice
Distributive justice
Physical dressings
Individual differences
JCT
GST
GST and EXT
EQT and EXT
JCT
GST
JCT
GST
JCT and EXT
JCT
EQT and EXT
EQT
EQT
EQT, EXT, JCT AND GST
Task identity
a
EQT±Equity theory; EXT±Expectancy theory; JCT±Job characteristics theory and GST±Goal setting theory.
Employee Voice
Feedback
Goal difficulty
Autonomy
Justice
Physical dressings
Individual differences
224
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
4.5. Implications of the research
Fig. 1. Holistic task design model.
1. The participating organizations were from seven
states, predominately in southern US. Possibly,
organizations in other parts of the country are
managed differently.
2. It is also possible that organizations may differ by
industry. Although the overall total number of
participating organizations was sufficient for this
research, there were not enough for analysis by
industry.
This study provides empirical support through factor analysis for eight of the 14 job design factors
identi®ed in prior research. Five them were conspicuous in their absence: goal speci®city, participation
in goal setting, skill variety, and task signi®cance.
Because the job design factors and items loading on
their respective factors had been validated in prior
research, they were expected to manifest themselves
in some form here. Their failure to appear may be
because they were `watered down' or affected by the
integrative nature of this research, or that the participating organizations were either not aware of these
factors or did not consider them important.
With today's shortage of IS personnel and high turnover rates, it is important that organizations make every
reasonable effort to retain valuable employees. An
important aspect of any retention effort is job design in
a way that promotes highly satis®ed and motivated
employees. This research provides a single integrated
model of task design that is simpler to use than trying
to combine several independent models. It also helps
ensure the application of a wider variety of task design
techniques than if a single task design model is used.
Appendix
Feedback factor
Loadings
Theory
Factor
Question
0.69101
JCT
Feedback
0.47544
GST
Feedback
0.55553
GST
Feedback
0.70505
GST
Specific
0.64177
GST
Feedback
0.64666
JCT
Feedback
Just doing the work required by the job provides many chances for a
person to figure out how well he or she is doing.
IS professionals receive a considerable amount of feedback concerning
the quantity of work they produce.
IS professionals are well-informed by their supervision about how well
they are doing in their work toward their work objectives.
IS professionals understand fully which of their work objectives are
more important than others; they have a clear sense of priorities on their
goals.
IS professionals are provided with a great deal of feedback and guidance
on the quality of their work.
To what extent does the design of jobs result in a job where `doing the
job itself' will provide the person with information about his or her
work performance? That is, will the work itself provide clues about
how well the person is doing-aside from any `feedback' co-workers or
supervisors may provide?
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
225
Justice factor
Loadings
Theory
Factor
Question
0.61736
EQT
Procedural
0.60779
EQT
Procedural
0.79410
EQT
Procedural
0.76258
EQT
Procedural
0.84063
EQT
0.49291
EQT
There is two-way communication between the rater and ratee during
their formal performance evaluation interview.
The person being evaluated during performance evaluations is given a
real opportunity to challenge or rebut the evaluation.
The person conducting the formal performance evaluation interview is
very familiar with the work of the person being evaluated.
Standards for evaluating performance are consistently applied for
everyone being evaluated.
Performance ratings are clearly based on actual performance of the
individual being evaluated.
Recommendations for salary increases and promotion are based on
ratings received.
Distributive
Employee voice factor
Loadings
Theory
Factor
Question
0.66192
EXT
GST
EXT
GST
EXT
GST
EXT
GST
Employee
voice
Employee
voice
Participation
IS professionals are encouraged to speak up when they disagree
with a decision.
Management makes most decisions concerning the IS function
without asking IS professionals for their opinions.
IS professionals have little voice in the formulation of work
objectives.
IS professionals participate in decisions on adopting new policies
and programs that involve the IS function.
0.47160
0.50621
0.60653
EQT
EQT
EQT
EQT
Employee
Voice
Task identity factor
Loadings
Theory
Factor
Question
0.49166
JCT
Task identity
0.67521
JCT
Task significance
0.59912
GST
Goal specificity
0.53294
JCT
Task identity
The job is arranged so that a person does `not' have the chance
to do an entire piece of work from beginning to end.
The job itself is `not' very significant or important in the
broader scheme of things.
Work objectives for IS professionals are ambiguous and
unclear.
To what extent does the design of jobs result in a job that
involves doing a `hole' and identifiable piece of work? That
is, will the IS professional work on a complete piece of work
that has an obvious beginning and end? Or is it only a small
part of the overall piece of work, which is finished by other
people?
226
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
Individual differences factor
Loadings
Theory
Factor
Question
0.77543
ALL
Individual
differences
0.74884
ALL
0.77638
ALL
Individual
differences
Individual
differences
Work assignments for IS professionals are generally made based on who
is available to do the work at the time without regard to individual
differences.
Serious consideration is given to individual differences when work
assignments are made for IS professionals.
Very little consideration is given to individual differences when work
assignments are made for IS professionals.
Physical dressings factor
Loadings
Theory
Factor
Question
0.89470
EQT
Physical
dressings
0.83739
EQT
0.54922
EQT
Physical
dressings
Physical
dressings
IS professionals within the same job classification have similar amounts of
floor space, storage space, and desk space in their personal work area or
office.
IS professionals within the same job classification generally have similar
amounts of privacy in their personal work area or office.
IS professionals within the same job classification generally have similar
opportunities to select the decor and furnishings of their personal work
area or office.
Autonomy factor
Loadings
Theory
Factor
Question
0.59058
JCT
Autonomy
0.64875
GST
Participation
0.49555
JCT
Autonomy
The job gives a person considerable opportunity for independence and
freedom in how he or she does the work.
IS professionals are pretty much in control of setting their own work
goals.
To what extent is `autonomy' considered in job design. That is, to what
extent does the job allow the worker to decide on their own how to go
about doing the work?
Goal difficulty factor
Loadings
Theory
Factor
Question
0.70917
GST
Goal difficulty
0.54123
GST
Goal difficulty
0.75649
GST
Goal difficulty
IS professionals have little difficulty in reaching their work
objectives; they appear to be fairly easy.
IS professionals must possess a high degree of skill and knowhow to fully attain their work objectives.
Work objectives require a great deal of effort for IS
professionals to complete.
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
5. Summary
Speci®c hypotheses about job design factors for IS
professionals were presented. These hypotheses were
tested using data collected from 30 different organizations primarily located in southern US. Signi®cant
®ndings indicate that:
1. Organizations consider task design for IS professionals important.
2. Task identity, employee voice, feedback, goal
difficulty, autonomy, justice, physical dressings,
and feedback (combined) are important task
design variables.
References
[1] J.S. Adams, Toward an understanding of inequity, Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology 67, 1963, pp. 422±436.
[2] R.J. Bies, D.L. Shapiro, Voice and justification: their
influence on procedural fairness judgements, Academy of
Management Journal 31, 1988, pp. 676±685.
[3] R. Bostrom, L. Olfman, M. Sein, The importance of learning
style in end- user training, MIS Quarterly 14 (1), 1990, pp.
100±119.
[4] J.C. Brancheau, T.R. Hoffmann, Managing information
systems for effectiveness and humanity: applying research
on organizational behavior, Information & Management 13,
1987, 233±243.
[5] J.C. Brancheau, J.C.J. Wetherbe, The adoption of spreadsheet
software: testing innovation diffusion theory in the context of
end-user computing, Information Systems Research 1 (2),
1990, pp. 115±143.
[6] N. Cliff, Analyzing Multivariate Data, Academic Press, New
York, 1987.
[7] J.D. Couger, New challenges in motivating MIS personnel,
Journal of Information Systems Management, 1989.
[8] J.D. Couger, R.A. Zawacki, What motivates DP professionals,
Datamation, 1978, 118±123.
[9] J.D. Couger, R.A. Zawacki, Motivating and Managing
Computer Personnel. Wiley, New York, 1980.
[10] F.D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and
user acceptance of information technology, MIS Quarterly,
1989, 319±339.
[11] W.L. Dellva, J.G. Wacker, R.K. Teas, Motivational antecedents: a test of predictor models, Psychological Reports 56,
1985, pp. 447±461.
[12] G.W. Dickson, J.C. Wetherbe, The Management of Information Systems. McGraw-Hill, 1985.
[13] T.W. Ferratt, L.E. Short, Are information systems people
different? An investigation of how they are and should be
managed, MIS Quarterly 12 (3), 1988, pp. 427±443.
[14] R. Folger, M.A. Konovsky, Effects of procedural and
distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions, Academy of Management Journal 32 (1), 1989, pp. 115±130.
227
[15] Y. Fried, G.R. Ferris, The validity of the job characteristics
model: a review and meta analysis, Personnel Psychology 40,
1987, pp. 287±322.
[16] J. Greenberg, Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations, Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (2),
1986, pp. 340±342.
[17] J. Greenberg, Equity and workplace status: a field experiment, Journal of Applied Psychology 73, 1987, pp. 606±
613.
[18] J. Greenberg, Cognitive reevaluation of outcomes in response
to underpayment inequity, Academy of Management Journal
32 (1), 1989, pp. 174±184.
[19] J. Greenberg, Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and
tomorrow, Journal of Management 16 (2), 1990, pp. 399±432.
[20] D.B. Gutknecht, J.R. Miller, The Organizational and Human
Resources Sourcebook, University Press of America, New
York, 1990.
[21] J.R. Hackman, G.R. Oldham, Work Redesign, AddisonWesley, Reading, MA, 1975.
[22] J.R. Hackman, G.R. Oldham, Motivation through the design
of work: test of a theory, Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance 16, 1976, pp. 250±279.
[23] A. Harrell, M. Stahl, Additive information processing and the
relationship between expectancy of success and motivational
force, Academy of Management Journal 29 (2), 1986, pp.
424±433.
[24] R.J. House, G. Dessler, The path-goal theory of leadership:
some post hoc and a priori tests, Paper presented at the
Second Leadership Symposium: Contingency Approaches to
Leadership, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois,
1973, in: H.P. Sims, A.D. Szilagy, D.R. McKemey, Antecedents of Work Related Expectancies, Academy of Management Journal,1976, pp. 547±559.
[25] R.A. Katzell, R.A. Guzzo, Psychological approaches to
productivity improvements, American Psychologist 38,
1983, pp. 468±472.
[26] G.P. Latham, T.W. Lee, Goal setting, in: E.A. Locke (Ed.),
Generalizing for Laboratory to Field Settings: Research
Findings from Industrial±Organizational Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management.
Heath Lexington, Lexington, MA, 1985.
[27] G.S. Leventhal, Fairness in social relationships, in: J.W.
Thibaut, J.T. Spence, R.C. Carson, Contemporary Topics in
Social Psychology, General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ,
1976.
[28] G.S. Leventhal, J. Karuza, W.R. Fry, Beyond fairness: a
theory of allocation preferences, in: G. Mikula (Eds.), Justice
and Social Interaction, Springer, New York, 1980, pp. 167±
218.
[29] E.A. Lind, T.R. Tyler, The Social Psychology of Procedural
Justice, Plenum Press, New York, 1988.
[30] E.A. Locke, Toward a theory of task motivation and
incentives, Organization Behavior and Human Performance
3, 1968, pp. 157±189.
[31] E.A. Locke, G.P. Latham, M. Erez, The determinants of goal
commitment, Academy of Management Review 13 (1), 1988,
pp. 23±39.
228
S.E. Gambill et al. / Information & Management 37 (2000) 217±228
[32] E.A. Locke, K.N. Shaw, L.M. Saari, G.P. Latham, Goal
setting and task performance: 1969±1980, Psychological
Bulletin 90, 1981, pp. 125±152.
[33] A.J. Mento, R.P. Steel, R.J. Karren, A meta-analytic study
of goal setting on task performance: 1966±1984, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 39, 1987, pp. 52±83.
[34] M.J. Meyers, An examination of motivation in the information systems profession, Ph.D. Dissertation (unpublished),
University of Texas, Austin, 1989.
[35] L.E. Miller, J.E. Grush, Improving predictions in expectancy
theory research: effects of personality, expectancies, and
norms, Academy of Management Journal 31 (1), 1988, pp.
107±122.
[36] D. Nadler, E. Lawler, Quality of work life: perspectives and
directions, Organizational Dynamics 11 (3), 1983, pp. 20±30.
[37] R.W. Renn, A Holistic Evaluation of the job characteristics
model: a longitudinal structural equation analysis, Unpublished dissertation, Georgia State University, 1989.
[38] H.P. Sims, A.D. Szilagy, D.R. McKemey, D.R. Antecedents
of Work Related Expectancies, Academy of Management
Journal December, 1976, 547±559.
[39] R.M. Steers, L.W. Porter, Motivation and Work Behavior,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975.
[40] T.D. Taber, E. Taylor, A review and evaluation of the
psychometric properties of the job diagnostic survey,
Personnel Psychology 43, 1975, pp. 467±500.
[41] J. Thibaut, L. Walker, Procedural Justice: A Psychological
Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1975.
[42] M.E. Tubbs, Goal setting: a meta-analytic examination of the
empirical evidence, Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (3),
1986, pp. 474±483.
[43] T.R. Tyler, R.J. Bies, Beyond formal procedures: the
interpersonal context of procedural justice, in: J. Carroll
(Ed.), Advances in Applied Social Psychology: Business
Settings, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1989,
pp. 77±98.
[44] T.R. Tyler, K. Rasinski, N. Spodick, The influence of voice on
satisfaction with leaders: exploring the meaning of process
control., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48,
1985, pp. 72±81.
[45] V.H. Vroom, Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York, 1964.
[46] M.E. Weiner, Managing people for enhanced performance,
Administration in Social Work 11 (3±4), 1987, pp. 147±160.
[47] C.K. Woodruff, Data processing people±are they really
different? Information and Management 3, 1980, pp. 133±
139.
[48] R.A. Zawacki, The Real Key to MIS Motivation is in the
Matchups, Business Month, 1989, 77±78.
[49] R. Zmud, An examination of `Push-Pull' theory applied to
process innovation in knowledge work, Management Science
30 (6), 1984, pp. 727±738.
Stanley E. Gambill is an Associate
Professor of Computer Information Systems at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, TN. He worked
as a systems analyst and systems
specialist for DuPont prior to entering
the academic field. He holds a Ph.D. in
Management Information Systems from
the University of Memphis.
Ronald B. Wilkes is semi-retired and
most recently was Chief Technology
Officer for Global Operations and Technology at Citicorp. His Ph.D. is in
Management Information systems from
the University of Minnesota. He has held
faculty positions in Management Information Systems at Georgia State University and in the Fogelman College of
Business and Economics at the University of Memphis. His primary research interests are in management
of the information technology resource. He has served as President
of the Memphis chapter of the Society for Information Mamangement.
Jeff Clark is a Professor of Computer
Informaton Systems at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro,
TN. He holds his Ph.D. in Information
Systems from Northwestern University
and is a Certified Computer Professional
(CCP). He served three terms as the
president of the Society for the Advancement of Information Systems. He has
over 20 publications in various information systems journals.