Kelly Sellers Is Really Fed Up With His Department's Perform

Kelly Sellers Is Really Fed Up With His Departments Performance He K

Kelly Sellers is really fed up with his department’s performance. He knows that his people have a very boring job, and the way the technological process is set up leaves little latitude for what he has learned about vertically loading the job through job enrichment. Yet he is convinced that there must be some way to make it more interesting to do a dull job. “At least I want to find out for my people and improve their performance,” he thinks. The employees in Kelly’s department are involved in the assembly of small hair dryer motors.

There are 25 to 30 steps in the assembly process, depending on the motor that is being assembled. The process is very simple, and currently each worker completes only one or two steps of the operation. Each employee has his or her own assigned workstation and stays at that particular place for the entire day. Kelly has decided to try a couple of things to improve performance. First, he has decided to organize the department into work teams.

The members of each team would be able to move the workstations around as they desired. He has decided to allow each team to divide the tasks up as they see fit. Next, Kelly has decided to post each team’s performance on a daily basis and to reward the team with the highest performance by giving them a “rubber chicken” award that they can display at their workbenches. The production manager, after checking with engineering, has reluctantly agreed to Kelly’s proposal on a trial basis.

Paper For Above instruction

Kelly Sellers’ initiative to enhance job design and team performance in his department hinges significantly on understanding and applying motivational theories related to job enrichment and job redesign. His approach, which involves forming flexible work teams with shared responsibilities and performance-based rewards, aligns with contemporary practices aimed at increasing employee motivation and job satisfaction. To evaluate the potential effectiveness of his strategy, it is essential to analyze the core job dimensions based on Hackman and Oldham’s job characteristics model and consider further improvements to his redesign approach.

Assessment of Kelly's Approach Using the Hackman-Oldham Model

The Hackman and Oldham model identifies five core job dimensions: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. These dimensions are critical in influencing critical psychological states that lead to higher motivation, performance, and job satisfaction.

Before the Redesign

Initially, Kelly’s employees engage in a monotonous, repetitive task—assembling small hair dryer motors, with each worker responsible for only one or two steps within a sequence of 25 to 30 steps. This setup results in low skill variety, limited task identity, and minimal autonomy. Employees lack the opportunity to see the full scope of the process, which diminishes task significance and intrinsic motivation. Feedback is likely limited to immediate supervision or the final product, hindering the employees’ perception of their impact and progress.

After the Redesign

Kelly’s plan to create work teams with the flexibility to allocate tasks among themselves enhances several core dimensions. Allowing team members to choose their roles increases skill variety and autonomy. As teams distribute work, they can coordinate to improve efficiency, potentially boosting task identity and significance since employees see more of the process and their contribution's importance. Posting team performance results and awarding the highest-performing team introduces ongoing feedback and recognition, further motivating employees.

Potential Improvements to the Redesign

Despite these positive steps, Kelly can refine his approach to maximize motivation and job satisfaction. First, implementing job enrichment strategies such as vertical loading—enabling employees to plan and control their work—can foster a sense of ownership. Introducing rotating roles among team members could broaden skill development and reduce monotony. Providing meaningful feedback through regular performance discussions and coaching can deepen employees’ understanding of their contributions. Additionally, aligning rewards with individual and team efforts and recognizing quality, innovation, or teamwork can enhance perceived task significance and motivation.

Possible Outcomes if the Redesign Fails

If Kelly's experimental approach does not yield the desired improvements in motivation and productivity, and the production manager insists on reverting to the original task design, several consequences may ensue. Primarily, the employees may experience decreased motivation, feeling their efforts are less valued and their roles less meaningful, which could result in lower engagement, increased absenteeism, or higher turnover. The old monotonous task setup may reinforce feelings of alienation and boredom, thereby impairing performance and quality. Furthermore, Kelly’s reputation as a leader committed to worker well-being and innovation may suffer if his efforts are seen as unsuccessful or poorly implemented.

Conclusion

Kelly’s approach to job redesign, emphasizing teamwork, autonomy, and performance-based recognition, has strong theoretical support from the Hackman-Oldham model. By focusing on increasing skill variety, task significance, autonomy, and feedback, he is likely to enhance motivation and job satisfaction. Nevertheless, further improvements such as vertical loading, role rotation, and enhanced feedback could make his redesign more effective. Should these efforts not succeed and the traditional task design be reinstated, negative impacts on morale and productivity could ensue, highlighting the importance of sustained and comprehensive redesign strategies that genuinely engage employees.

References

• Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279.
• Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (2011). The motivation to work. Transaction Publishers.
• Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. J. (2010). The progress principle: Using small wins to ignite joy, engagement, and creativity at work. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
• Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin.
• Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.
• Frederick Herzberg, Bernard Mausner, and Barbara Snyderman, (2011). The Motivation to Work. Transaction Publishers.
• Lawler, E. E. (2000). Rewarding teamwork: How to motivate groups and individuals. Jossey-Bass.
• Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the 21st century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516.
• Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2014). Organization development and change. Cengage Learning.