[1] The original version of job characteristics theory proposed a model of five “core” job characteristics (i.e. skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback) that affect five work-related outcomes (i.e. motivation, satisfaction, performance, and absenteeism and turnover) through three psychological states (i.e. experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility, and knowledge of results).
Up until then, the prevailing attitude was that jobs should be simplified in order to maximize production, however it was found that when subjected to highly routinized and repetitive tasks, the benefits of simplification sometimes disappeared due to worker dissatisfaction.
In 1980, Hackman and Oldham presented the final form of the Job Characteristics Theory in their book Work Redesign.
[2][10] The JDS directly measures jobholders' perceptions of the five core job characteristics, their experienced psychological states, their Growth Need Strength, and outcomes.
The JRF was designed to obtain the assessments from external observers, such as supervisors or researchers, of the core job characteristics.
[2] According to the final version of the theory, five core job characteristics should prompt three critical psychological states, which lead to many favorable personal and work outcomes.
[16][17][18] JCT provided the chance to systematically assess the relationship between the previously discovered psychological states ('Experienced Meaningfulness, 'Experienced Responsibility, and Knowledge of Results) and outcomes.
Previous research found that four job characteristics (autonomy, variety, identity, and feedback) could increase workers’ performance, satisfaction, and attendance.
This tendency for high levels of job characteristics to lead to positive outcomes can be formulated by the motivating potential score (MPS).
While Herzberg et al. took into account the importance of intrinsically and extrinsically motivating job characteristics there was no consideration of individual differences.
[2] Taylor's[23] theory of scientific management emphasized efficiency and productivity through the simplification of tasks and division of labor.
Sociotechnical systems theory[24] predicts an increase in satisfaction and productivity through designing work that optimized person-technology interactions.
Adaptive structuration theory[28] provides a way to look at the interaction between technology's intended and actual use in an organization, and how it can influence different work-related outcomes.
It had been suggested that reverse scoring on several of the questions was to blame for the inconsistent studies looking at the factors involved in the Job Diagnostic Survey.
[31][32] Humphrey, Nahrgang, and Morgeson[33] extended the original model by incorporating many different outcomes and job characteristics.
Fried and Ferris[35] mentioned seven general areas of criticism in their review, which are discussed below: Over the years since Job Characteristics Theory's introduction into the organizational literature, there have been many changes to the field and to work itself.
Oldham and Hackman suggest that the areas more fruitful for development in work design are social motivation, job crafting, and teams.
[1] In the applied domain, Hackman and Oldham have reported that a number of consulting firms have employed their model or modified it to meet their needs.