SATISFIED BY CHANGING THE TASK DESIGN?

(1)

SATISFIED BY CHANGING THE TASK DESIGN?

THE INFLUENCE OF ELEMENTS OF TASK DESIGN ON JOB SATISFACTION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR AND THE MEDIATING ROLE OF INTRINSIC MOTIVATION AND

MODERATING ROLE OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Master Thesis, Msc BA, Specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

March 17, 2014 DENNIS SCHEPERS Student number: 1667017 Oudeweg 59 9711 TJ Groningen Tel.: +31 (0)6 41 62 30 10

Email: d.schepers@student.rug.nl/dennisschepers@hotmail.com

Supervisors/ university: J. Rupert B. Emans

Acknowledgment: I would like to thank dr. J. Rupert for her support, constructive criticism and excellent guidance in every phase of my thesis. Furthermore, I express my thanks to Rob for helping me through the tough

(2)

2 ABSTRACT

In this quantitative study, the focus is on the relationship between two elements of change in task design (autonomy and task significance) and job satisfaction, with intrinsic motivation acting as a mediator. The influence of leadership is also considered in this context by adding transformational leadership as a moderator in the relation between the changing task design elements and intrinsic motivation. It was proposed by Hackman and Oldham (1976) that the direct relationship between the task design elements and job satisfaction to be positive and that this relationship would be stronger when influenced by higher levels of transformational leadership. Also, according to the theory of Hackman and Oldham (1976) the relationship between the task design elements (autonomy and task significance) and the satisfaction of the job can be (partly) explained by intrinsic motivation. Results of this study indicate a positive effect of the task design elements on job satisfaction, whereas no evidence is found for the moderating effect of transformational leadership in this research. Further, results show that intrinsic motivation (partially) mediate the relation between task design elements (autonomy and task significance) and job satisfaction.

(3)

3

INTRODUCTION

“The challenge for any type of organization (public or private) is to meet the corporate objectives for effectiveness and productivity with the needs of employees for motivation, reward and satisfaction.” (Manolopoulos, 2008)

To align with the long-term plans of the Dutch government, the urge to work mainly with the computer (e.g. internet portals, e-mail and digital forms) and to deal with the short-term cuts in the budget the Dutch tax administration has been undergoing a radical organizational change for a few years now. The focus of controlling and punishing tax regimes is shifting towards a public organization that provides service (information) and help with administration (filled-in digital forms). Same as the rest of the public sector, it started a process of transplanting the management philosophies, principles and techniques used in private sector into the public sector (Trotta et al., 2011). In the public sector, policies are influenced by a New Public Management (NPM) approach, which includes Business Process Management (BPM), outsourcing, customer-oriented service, downsizing and cost savings. The underlying concept involves focusing on the front office to improve performance within the context of a user-provider relationship, and outsourcing the back office (Rochet, Habib & Soldo, 2009). As Weekaroddy and colleagues (2010) states as “the ICT-enabled and organization-led transformation of government operations, internal and external processes and structures to enable the realization of services that meet public-sector objectives such as efficiency, transparency, accountability and citizen centricity.”

However, in the absence of availability on economic indicators of efficiency (e.g. price and costs) the public sector is traditionally viewed as a sector which has ambiguous goals and that the performance goals are hard-to-measure (Wright, 2001). An explanation for this is that public organizations do not represent and are not directly accountable for an individual, who, in their turn, not necessary directly benefit from the service. These organizations represent a group or a large population of a country that is responsible for funding and it is hard to relate extrinsic rewards to the performance of employees (Baldwin, 1987; Wright, 2001). Wright (2001) argues that in the public-sector work context it is easier to constrain employees to reduce rate of failure of a process than to extrinsically or intrinsically motivate employees to do something right. To have a successful implementation of NPM, the focus should not only be on the external outcomes, but also on the internal satisfaction of the employees.

(5)

5 According to this NPM movement, specifically transformational leadership is necessary to facilitate change in a public environment. (Weekarrody et al., 2010). Transformational leadership encourages leaders to intrinsically motivate through empowering a clear vision and motivating followers’ support for change for group- or organization common goals instead of self-interest and own goals (Burns, 1978; Bass, Avolio & Goodheim, 1987; Podsakoff et al.,1984; Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993). Research shows a strong positive link between transformational leadership and performance and satisfaction in government organizations (Trottier, Van Wart & Wang, 2008; Wofford, Whittington & Goodwin, 2001).

(6)

6 office now provides guidance through the information system and to a lesser l extent legal and/or financial information or advice.

So, following the NPM approach will a change in task design have an effect on job satisfaction? Research shows that there is a positive influence of transformational leadership on relationships that are related to job satisfaction through intrinsic motivation (Yang, 2010, Yulk 2010). Focusing on transformational leadership, the long-term goals should increase the intrinsic motivation and thereby the level of job satisfaction. It is supported by research that the two job characteristics (autonomy and task significance) have a positive effect on intrinsic motivation. This will consequently result in an increasing level of job satisfaction. Understanding the relation between intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction will help the management deal with the changing approach of the Dutch tax administration in terms of the implementation of New Public Management. Focusing on the internal organization, the understanding of what the influence of specific job characteristics will be on job satisfaction will help managers to motivate and intervene when dealing with this kind of incremental change. Then, encouraged by the NPM approach, to find out if the chosen leaderships approach in this kind of change has a positive effect on this relation.

(7)

7 Research question and conceptual model

Main question: What is the relationship between task design and job satisfaction and how do intrinsic motivation mediate and transformational leadership moderate this relationship?

Fig 1: Conceptual model

(8)

8

THEORY

2.1 Job satisfaction

In organizational research, job satisfaction is without a doubt one of the most studied outcomes (Spector, 1997). Probably one of the main reasons for this is the fact that in organizational research job satisfaction on itself is an important outcome and is related to many other key job outcomes, for example turnover, commitment, absenteeism and performance (Couger et al, 1979; Tett and Meyer, 1993; Griffeth et al 2000). These variables can have a negative influence on job outcomes when job dissatisfaction occurs (Aziri, 2011). For that reason, Spector (1997) mentioned that research on the prevention of dissatisfaction is of great importance to managers and that the focus should be on positive relations on satisfaction. Consequently, when the negative effects of dissatisfaction are costly, they also take a lot of effort to turn dissatisfaction to satisfaction. Therefore, positive outcome of job satisfaction attracts also a lot of attention from managers and leaders. They point out the importance and relevance for further organizational research on those positive outcomes (Spector, 1997).

However, there is still no unambiguous definition of job satisfaction. According to Janssen (2001) job satisfaction is the extent of a positive emotional response to the job resulting from an employee’s appraisal as fulfilling or congruent with the individual’s values. Sari (2004) adds that an employee’s appraisal is linked to the characteristics and demands of one’s task. Earlier authors went even beyond that, like Hoppock (1935), he defined job satisfaction as any combination of psychological, physiological and environmental circumstances that cause a person truthfully to say I am satisfied with my job (Hoppock, 1935). Hereby, he claims that satisfaction of a job is influenced by external factors and that with those factors the combination must be found with internal factors to have a sort of ultimate form of complete satisfaction in a job.

(9)

9 perceives the combination of psychological, physiological and environmental circumstances of the job that should fulfill one’s values to reach a pleasurable or positive emotional state. The appraisal of one’s job or the job perceptions are dependent on perceiving the combination of the elements of job design and to meet a sort of positive emotional state that is clear to, for example, the management to intervene or adjust the design of the job.

Further research supports the theory that this positive emotional state of mind is closely linked to job satisfaction and the design of the job are closely related to the job characteristics defined in the Job Characteristics Model of Hackman and Oldman (1976). Deliberation of this model will follow later in this paper. Judge and colleagues argue that job characteristics are positively related to job satisfaction (Judge et al., 1997; Judge, Bono & Locke, 2000). Supported by the research of two meta-analyses there is evidence that there is a positive, strong relationship between perceptual measures of intrinsic job characteristics and job satisfaction (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985). This emphasizes the importance of the characteristics that influence the satisfaction of the job and with the definition earlier mentioned it is about to achieve the fulfillment of the perceptions of the values a job or a task has to reach a kind of positive emotional state.

Clearly, in organizational research job satisfaction in itself is an important outcome and is related to many other key job outcomes, for example turnover, commitment and performance (Couger et al, 1979; Tett and Meyer, 1993; Griffeth et al 2000). Therefore, insight in how to increase the satisfaction of a job is of great importance in practice. These studies argue that job satisfaction is related to outcomes that derive from the design of a job. Job satisfaction is a collection of perceptions of feelings and beliefs of how employees see their job or task (Armstrong, 2006). This implies that positive perceptions of characteristics of the job lead to increasing job satisfaction and negative perceptions of attributes of the job leads to job dissatisfaction (Armstrong, 2006).

So, in order to increase job satisfaction the emphasis in a change should be on the perception of job or task characteristics. The job design characteristics are the input where job satisfaction is the outcome and when change is happening that affects the design of a job it is of great importance to know which elements to focus on. Which changing characteristics of a task or job will influence the satisfaction of the job?

2.2 Perceived change in task design

(10)

10 The emphasis on higher personal and work outcomes is important to have a further look at how tasks are formed and what specific characteristics underlie the whole process of a change in task design. This starts with an elaboration of the JCM of Hackman & Oldham (1976).

JCM: Job Characteristics Model

The research of Hackman and Oldham (1976) distinguishes key or core job characteristics that are specific determinants of various job outcomes. The five core characteristics they define are skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback of the job (Hackman & Oldham, 1979).

• Skill variety is the degree to which a specific job or task includes different activities and talents of the person that are required in performing the job.

• Task identity is the degree of completing a task or job from doing a whole and identifiable piece of work from beginning to end.

• Task significance is the degree of the impact the job or task has on lives of others whether on small scale e.g. the immediate organizational or on large scale e.g. global.

• Autonomy is the degree of the freedom, independence and discretion of controlling procedures to complete the tasks and scheduling them.

• Feedback is the degree of insight and clear information of owns individual performance and effectiveness. (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Judge, Bono & Locke; 2000)

The effects of these five job characteristics or core job dimensions on personal and work outcomes are mediated by three critical psychological states: experienced meaningfulness of the work, experienced responsibility of outcomes of the work and knowledge of the actual results of the work activities (Hackman & Oldham, 1976).

(11)

11 level of perceiving the specific core characteristics (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; 1980). Many

researchers argue that the perception of the job characteristics lead to positive motivations (intrinsic and extrinsic) and that this relationship also enhances the increase of job satisfaction if there is a focus on the psychological states (e.g. Hackman and Lawler 1971; Fried and Ferris 1987; Ilgen and Hollenbeck 1991; Tyagi and Wotruba 1993; Singh et al. 1994; Judge et al. 1997; Morris and Venkatesh 2010).

So, if satisfaction of the job is an important outcome in relation with other job outcomes that negatively affect performance or commitment of a job (e.g. turnover, absenteeism) than it is even or more important to know how to facilitate this relation (Couger et al, 1979; Tett and Meyer, 1993; Griffeth et al 2000). Change in task design is a change in job characteristics. Job characteristics describe aspects of the job or task an employee perceives (Hackman & Lawler, 1971). As mentioned earlier, it is the individuals perception of characteristics of a job what can make that an employee reaches a certain positive emotional state and the sum of the characteristics that gives a complete overview of the task design.

Thus, to increase job satisfaction the emphasis in a change in task design should be on the perception of specific job or task characteristics and by research of Morris and Venkatesh (2010) and Hackman and Oldham (1976) the two characteristics (autonomy and task significance) are positively related to job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between task design and job satisfaction

• Hypothesis 1a: There is a positive relationship between autonomy and job satisfaction • Hypothesis 1b: There is a positive relationship between task significance and job satisfaction

2.3 Intrinsic motivation

Intrinsic motivation in essence refers to the inner source where the general term ‘motivation’ originated from. Deci (1972) stated: “Right from the birth onward a human being is an active, inquisitive, curious and playful creature”. It is in the nature of humans to learn and explore and to be ready for it without the requirement of extraneous incentives to perform (Ryan & Deci, 2000). So, by nature this feature of the humans inclines the chance and the need to actively assimilate, to creatively use and develop our skills in an way that this also significantly affects performance (Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, intrinsic motivation is within a person’s nature, it does not mean everyone is motivated equally for every activity or a particular activity. Therefore, it is important to notice the

H1a

Autonomy + Job satisfaction Task significance + Job satisfaction

(12)

12 tension between an individual and his task as it comes to motivation. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) specify this phenomenon by creating a definition that intrinsic task motivation involves positively valued experiences that individuals derive directly from a task. To meet this inner state of satisfaction of the task and therefore not require external incentives to reach it, it is important that a leader knows how to facilitate this and/or accommodate the conditions. This is important because a manager or leader does not have direct control over the perception of all of the conditions. This is enhanced by the research that shows that a person is intrinsically motivated when an individual performs an activity where he or she positively values experiences from the activity for no obvious reward accept solely the activity itself (Deci, 1972; Thomas, 2009; Thomas & Tymon, 1994, 2009). Thus, again the focus is on the relationship between an individual and his task, suggesting that there is a relation between the task or job and intrinsic motivation. This implies that there is an influence of the design of the task (or job) to intrinsically motivate an individual.

Furthermore, Ryan & Deci (2000) state that the motivation of the task or job exists because it is inherently interesting and/or enjoyable and not only motivated by external forces and incentives. Therefore it is important to have a close look on how exactly motivation is strengthen the task itself. Lawler (1969) argued that intrinsic motivation is present in the extent that an employee, what he referred as the job holder, the one who is actually performing the job valued the abilities and the participation in the setting of the job of meaningful goals (Lawler & Hall, 1970).

(13)

13 satisfaction (Ryan & Dec, 2000). This virtuous circle during a change is important when the focus for the success of the change is the outcome job satisfaction (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas, 2009). Therefore, it is crucial to understand that the relation between task design and job satisfaction is all about perception of the design of the task that will influence the satisfaction. This state of motivation will mediate between the perception of the job or task characteristics and the satisfaction of the job. It is expected that when there is a change in task or job design, regarding less autonomy and less task significance, intrinsically motivated individuals will experience lower satisfaction of the task or job.

Intrinsic motivation is one of the motivation dimensions of the Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985). SDT focuses on the positive side of humanity and states that humans by nature are pro-active in shaping their surroundings. In life, humans evolve to a more authentic way of functioning. In their nature there is the will for acting autonomously. However, this innate active attitude is not always present and sufficiently developed. Only a stimulating environment will activate this inborn attribute. Then there is a level freedom of determination. Freedom of self-determination is when somebody is free to decide and value the importance of factors instead that is shaped by external influences (Taylor, 1991). According Taylor (1991), this freedom of self-determination could be referred to as autonomy in SDT. One of the statements of SDT is that if employees interact in a surrounding that is highly controlled or full of chaos this will result in decrease of motivation and the chance of counter productiveness increases (Deci & Ryan, 2002). The focus in the key studies of SDT is on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The focus in this paper is on intrinsic motivation and therefore the effect of freedom of decision making and making own choices in acting without influenced by authority. Vallerand and Ratelle (2002) argue that the intrinsic motivation refers to intrinsic rewards like internal interest and state of enjoyment.

(14)

14 So, does intrinsic motivation explain the level of job satisfaction when an employee experiences autonomy or task significance in their job?

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between task design and job satisfaction is mediated by intrinsic motivation.

Hypothesis 2a: The relationship between autonomy and job satisfaction is mediated by intrinsic motivation. Hypothesis 2b: The relationship between task significance and job satisfaction is mediated by intrinsic motivation.

2.4 Transformational leadership

Transformational leadership refers to a long term relationship established between the leader and followers, built up over many interactions and having a more organizational or strategic orientation (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell & Liu, 2008). This theory is based on the perception that leaders can stimulate followers (employees) to reach a higher level of thinking (Burns 1978). “Charismatic leaders who make followers more aware of the importance and values of task outcomes, activate their higher-order needs, and induce them to transcend self-interests for the sake of the organization” (Bass, 1985). The conceptualization of transformational leadership and the distinction from transactional leadership originates from the book ‘Leadership’ of Burns (1978). Since the introduction of the theory of transformational leadership, first by Burns in 1978 and later by Bass in 1985, the theory evolved to the four I’s (inspirational motivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration) (Bass, 1990).

• Inspirational motivation is about communicating appealing visions to followers. This is done by using symbols to focus on enthusiasm and optimism. Also, to

encouragement images of attractive future states which followers envision for themselves (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003; Yang, Wu, Chang & Chien, 2011). • Idealized influence is about trust, respect and admiration for the leader. Yang et al.

(2011) call this phenomenon charismatic arousal. It provokes follower emotions and identification towards the leader. Bass et al. (2003) add that followers want to emulate

H2a

Autonomy Intrinsic motivation Job satisfaction

H2b Task significance

(15)

15 their leaders. This is earned by sharing risks with their followers and for example considering their needs over their own (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003).

• Intellectual stimulation is about the stimulation of followers’ innovativeness and creativity. To challenge assumptions, reframing of challenges and making an effort to alter old habits and situations to new ways by leaders to take risks and request followers’ ideas and creative solutions. This is all achieved by the leaders dissemination that there is no ridicule and that it is alright to make mistakes (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003).

• Individualized consideration is about mentoring, attention for the needs and coaching of followers. Listening to the concerns of followers and paying attention to the needs of followers by leaders is how they can support the opportunities of the individual. This is done in a way that leaders create a climate of supportiveness for growth by acting as a mentor or coach. Thereby, followers develop higher level of potential. (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003)

(16)

16 the group, transformational leadership research shows that this has a positive influence on job satisfaction (Yang, 2011). Furthermore, in research the emphasis in relation with transformational leadership is not the direct link with job satisfaction, but transformational leadership focuses on reaching long-term organizational goals and thereby focuses on the internal resources like responsibility, value of the job and autonomy will increase intrinsic motivation (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Osborn & Marion, 2009; Yukl, 2010). These characteristics in change will decrease the level of intrinsic motivation and transformational leadership will enhance the intrinsic motivation of employees by doing their work as well as the development of confidence and determination to reach specific goals (Thomas and Velthouse 1990; Wright and Pandley, 2010). Thus, the interference of transformational leadership will positively affect the relation between change in the level of two job characteristics and intrinsic motivation.

Hypothesis 3: the relationship between task design and intrinsic motivation is positively moderated by transformational style of leadership

• Hypothesis 3a: the relationship between autonomy and intrinsic motivation is positively moderated by

transformational leadership

• Hypothesis 3b: the relationship between task significance and intrinsic motivation is positively

moderated by transformational leadership

H3a

Autonomy Intrinsic motivation

(17)

17

RESEARCH METHOD

This section focuses on the methodology used to test the conceptual model. Firstly, there is an elaboration on the method of data collection used in this study will be clarified. Further, the analysis of the data is described.

3.1 Data collection

Data were collected by conducting a questionnaire about task significance, task autonomy, intrinsic motivation, transformational leadership and job satisfaction. The organization where the data was collected from a government organization. Discretion is one of the most important values of the organization. This had to be ensured in the whole process of data collection and data analysis. Both the discretion issue and the nature of the questions made that anonymity was very important for filling in the questionnaire, since it involves questions about leadership of the employees’ superior and satisfaction about the job of the respondents. Therefore, no personal information was included like name, email address, team number or the name of the supervisor.

3.2 Sample and procedure

The sample of the survey comprises all employees of the front office who share the similar tasks in the job descriptions and affected when the change occurred. This resulted in a sample of 249 participants, the response was 122 ( response rate of 49%). However, 2 of the respondents were removed from the sample because they did not fill in 26 of the 29 questions. Because of the significant number of questions that were blank it was found not useful for the research. After the removal of these 2 respondents the response was 119 (response rate of 47,8%). The average age of the respondents was 32 years (SD=9,341), ranging from 23 to 63 years. 38,3% of the respondents was male and 61,7% was female. Average age of the total population is 33 years and the distribution of gender in the total population is 35,1% male and 64,9% female.

Additionally, questions were asked regarding organizational tenure and level of education. Organizational tenure had a mean of 3,3 years (SD=5,535), ranging from 0 to 40 years. 25,5% of the respondents filled in that they had ‘mbo’ as highest level of education. 40.9% of the respondents answered that they had ‘hbo’ as highest level of education and 33.6% of the respondents filled in as ‘WO’ highest level of education. Missing values appeared in autonomy (2 missing values), transformational leadership (2 missing values), intrinsic motivation (7 missing values), job satisfaction (8 missing values) and in the control variables (gender, age, level of education and organizational tenure) (9 missing values).

(18)

18 had a advantages over other distribution methods (in example interviews by telephone or face-to-face, survey handed out on paper), such as automatic sequencing of the questions, automatic validation of answers and maintaining anonymity which in turn decreases the social desirability bias (Kantowitz & Elmes, 2005). The responses were collected in an online account and there was no need to fill in specific personal data to send the results. This was done to safeguard the demand of discretion and anonymity. If respondents wanted to receive more information or general results of the research they had to send a separated email.

3.3 Measures

The measures of the variables were adopted from other research on the specific variables. All variables were measured by multi item scales, which were based on a seven-point Likert scale. Both five-point and seven-point Likert scales are supported by literature because of their relatively equivalent outcomes. In this study the seven-point Likert scale was used. Earlier studies showed that this scale produces greater variability than the other five-point scale (Rhodes, Matheson & Mark, 2010). and that the seven-point scale provides more sensitive indications of respondents’ feelings and has the highest overall reliability (Alwin, 1997).

All items, except the items concerning transformational leadership, had a range from 1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree. The items for transformational leadership had a range from 1=never to 7=always. For the sake of clarity the seven scale answering options were specified in the questionnaire.

Because the survey was conducted in a Dutch organization, the items were translated from English to Dutch. To ensure the adaption did not affect the clarity of the items there was a pretest conducted on a group of seven persons. Four of them were representatives of the sample because they contained all of the characteristics of the sample, except for the fact that they operate on a separated cell of the organization. The other three were outsiders with relevant experience and background comparable to the sample. The combination of insiders and outsiders in the pre-test group was made to limit possible test bias and to receive objective feedback on the questions of the survey. The pre-test resulted in adjustments to the phraseology and corrections in the translation of the questions.

(19)

19 following; “I feel fairly satisfied with my present job” and “I find real enjoyment in my work”. Cronbach’s alpha is .92

Task Significance Task significance was measured by 4 items of the Work Design Questionnaire of Morgeson and Humphrey (2006). This part of the WDQ includes four statements which had to be answered on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Examples of items used: “The results of my work are likely to significantly affect the lives of other people” and “The work performed on the job has a significant impact on people outside the organization”. Cronbach’s alpha .79

Autonomy The items measuring the level of autonomy were adopted from the research of Morris and Venkatesh (2010). The 2 items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Example of an item used: “The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the work.” The reliability of this scale was .81

Transformational Leadership The items measuring the level of transformational leadership were adopted from the Global Transformational Leadership scale (GTL) as employed in the research of Carless, Wearing and Mann (2000). The 7-items are statements to measure the seven transformational leadership behavior. These highly interrelated behaviors are vision, staff development, supportive leadership, empowerment, innovative thinking, lead by example and charisma. The seven behaviors are adapted from the research of Podsakoff et al. (1990) and summarized to the 7-items of the GTL by Carless et al. (2000). By this, the questionnaire consist of less questions then when the use of standard 23-item scale adopted from the research of Podsakoff et al. (1990). This results in a comprehensive list of questions. The 7 items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "Never" to "Always". Examples of items used: “My superior communicates a clear and positive vision of the future” and “My superior is clear about his/her values and practices what he/she preaches.” The reliability of this scale was .93

Intrinsic Motivation The items measuring the level of intrinsic job motivation were adopted from the research of Warr et al. (1979). The 6 items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Items used in this scale were for example: “I feel a sense of personal satisfaction when I do this job well” and “I try to think of ways of doing my job effectively.” The reliability of this scale was .76

(20)

20 satisfaction (Hunt and Saul, 1975). Furthermore, I used two other control variables, organizational tenure and level of education.

3.4 Data analysis

The statistical program “SPSS version 20” was used for analyzing the data in order to test the hypotheses. The section below gives an overview of the data analysis.

3.4.1 Factor analysis and reliability analysis

In order to determine whether factor analysis is meaningful to perform on the chosen variables, a Barlett´s test of sphericity and ´Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO)’was conducted. The KMO was .853 (>.50), the Barlett’s test was significant (p<.00) and therefore demonstrates that a factor analysis may be performed. The principal component analysis was used as extraction method. For a proper way of interpretation of the factors the rotation technique that was conducted was the direct Kaiser Oblimin rotation technique. On the first run, the factor analysis indicated that 5 components can be distinguished. This was consistent with the theory which is presented in previous parts of this research. This is logically explained because of the 5 variables used in the research, job satisfaction, task significance, autonomy, intrinsic motivation and transformational leadership. In table 1, these results can be found. Another justification of the used of this amount of factors is that each factor explain 4,5% or more of the total variance and when continuing with selection of more factors this is no longer the case.

In table 1a, it can be seen that job satisfaction, the dependent variable, has high factors loading on one single component. However, when looking at intrinsic motivation, a problem emerged. Two of the items of that variable, resp. Intrins1 and Intrins3, loaded on the same component as job satisfaction. Besides that, the two items of autonomy both loaded on the same component as job satisfaction. Two of the variables load on the dependent variable and this is a problem. A reason that these two other variables loaded on the component of job satisfaction can be found in the formulation of the questions. The strong link in the question between the initial meaning (autonomous working or intrinsically motivated) that part of the construct of the scale and the personal feeling of satisfaction that a job yields.

(21)

21 The second step was to have a closer look at the variable intrinsic motivation. In the factor analysis two items of intrinsic motivation (intrins1 and intrins3) load onto the same component as job satisfaction and one item (intrins6) load on the component of task significance. This is a problem as two items load onto the dependent variable. When zooming in on the formulation of the items intrins1, intrins3 there can be reasons found why the two items load on the same component as the items of job satisfaction. Intrins1 asked about the personal (intrinsic) satisfaction if one perform his job well. This is close to the formulation of the items on job satisfaction and therefore it loads on the same factor. Intrins3 asks about the feeling of pride when one perform his job well. Then item intrin6 also loaded strongly on two different factors. This item is concerning the intrinsic motivation of trying to perform a task effectively. Comparing this item with the other items leads to the conclusion that this is the only question not concerning a (intrinsic) feeling but on performance of a task.

When examining task significance, I found that all the items of task significance load onto the same component but, as mentioned before, one item of intrinsic motivation also loads onto this component. When looking at the content of the items a reason can be found for this. Intrins6 is about the motivation of doing a task effectively, therefore the focus can be too much on the performance of the task instead of the feeling it causes. This distinction can be enforced by a proper translation to Dutch. Removing this item would not increase the Cronbach’s Alpha, but would barely decrease the Alpha.

In conclusion, the six items together give a good overview on intrinsic motivation by theory and considering deleting items should be done with great caution. The fact is that the items load on different factors then the construct of the scale meant to do. To have a statistical valid scale that is still theoretically sufficiently supported the decision is made to remove item intrins1, intrins3 and intrins6.

Further, in table 1a and 1b it can be found that transformational leadership is perfectly distinct from other variables having high factor loadings on one single component. All items of task significance also load on one single component with high factor loading and therefore the original scale is kept.

In conclusion, after performing a factor analysis and finding not all perfect distinct scales the decision is made to keep the original scales for the sake of the research and the link with the theory explained in previous chapters.

(22)

22 3.4.2 Reliabilities

The internal reliability of the factors were tested with the Cronbach’s Alpha. When performing multiple factor analyses, the Cronbach’s Alpha was closely monitored when making decisions of forming the scales. The alpha is a good measure of the reliability of the scales. The alpha scores for the scales are displayed in Table 3. The table shows that all of the scales show have an acceptable to excellent reliability. For this reason and considering the decrease of reliability when deleting an item, it is decided to accept the scales.

(23)

23

RESULTS

4.1 Descriptive statistics and correlations

The mean, the standard deviation and the correlations of all scales are represented in table 2. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to perform the correlation analysis (two-tailed). In order to test the hypotheses, an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression analysis methodology is applied.

Table 2: Means, Standard deviations and Correlations

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Gender 1,62 0,49 _ 2. Age 32,40 9,34 ,09 _ 3. Job tenure 3,30 5,54 -,13 ,16 _ 4. Education 2,08 0,77 -,21** _-,33*** _-,19** _{_} 5. Autonomy 3,72 1,36 -,10 ,11 -,01 -,24** _{_} 6. Task Significance 5,17 0,84 -,07 ,16 -,08 -,11 ,39*** _{_} 7. Transformational Leadership 4,72 1,08 -,03 -,02 -,03 -,03 ,31*** _,15 _{_} 8. Intrinsic Motivation 4,93 1,11 ,07 ,34*** _,01 _-,13 _,28*** _,32*** _,20** _{_} 9. Job Satisfaction 4,63 1,32 -,05 ,28*** _,17 _-,30*** _,65*** _,40*** _,35***_,42***_{_}

***. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.10 level (2-tailed). N=110

The Pearson correlation coefficients shows a fairly strong positive correlation (r= .65, p< .01) between autonomy and job satisfaction. This means that higher level of autonomy is associated with higher levels of job satisfaction. There is a strong positive relationship (r=.40, p<.01) between task significance and job satisfaction. This means that higher level of task significance is associated with higher levels of job satisfaction. Also, there is a moderate positive correlation (r=.35, p<.01) between transformational leadership and job satisfaction. This means that higher level of transformational leadership is moderate associated with higher level of job satisfaction. Age has the strongest positive correlation (r=.34, p<.01) with intrinsic motivation and a weak positive correlation (r=.28, p<.01) with job satisfaction. The results shows a moderate negative relationship (r=-.30, p<.01) between education and job satisfaction. This means that higher level of education is associated with lower level of job satisfaction. The strongest correlation, apart from autonomy, is the relation between intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction (r= .42, p< .01).This means that higher level of intrinsic motivation is associated with higher level of job satisfaction.

4.2 Regression analysis (OLS)

(24)

24 independent variables were separately regressed on the dependent variable job satisfaction. The second relationship that is tested is the relation between the elements in task design and job satisfaction is mediated by intrinsic motivation. The third analysis tests whether the relation between perceived change in task design and intrinsic motivation is moderated by transformational leadership.

4.2.1 Hypotheses testing

Direct effect of perceived task design on job satisfaction

. Hypothesis 1 proposes a positive relation between the two parts of task design and the dependent variable job satisfaction. Therefore, this hypothesis was divided into hypothesis 1a and hypothesis 1b. Hypothesis 1a proposes a positive relation between task autonomy and job satisfaction. The results of the regression analysis (β= .59, p<.001, R2=.50) supports this hypothesis. Thus, this hypothesis can be confirmed; higher level of autonomy is found to lead to higher job satisfaction. Hypothesis 1b proposes a positive relation between task significance and job satisfaction. The results of the regression analysis (β= .57, p<.001, R2=.27) provide support for this hypothesis. Thus, the higher task significance, the higher job satisfaction; this hypothesis can be confirmed.

Mediation of intrinsic motivation

The second hypothesis proposes that intrinsic motivation mediates the relationship between the two variables of task design (autonomy and task significance) and job satisfaction. Mediation was tested with the four step method of Baron and Kenny (1986). Step one is to find out if there is a significant relationship between the independent variables (i.e. autonomy and task significance) and the dependent variable (i.e. job satisfaction). Step two is to find a significant relationship between the independent variables and the mediator. Third step, is to check the condition whether there is a significant relationship between the mediator (i.e. intrinsic motivation) and the dependent variable (i.e. job satisfaction). The final step, multiple regression analysis (OLS) when including the independent variables and the mediator in the regression. There should still be a significant relation between the mediator and the dependent variable and no significant relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable.

(25)

25 in the regression analysis together with intrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation remained statistically significant (β= .27, p<.005). Autonomy remained statistically significant (β=.54, p<.005), whereas its β only showed a minor decline. Thus, the mediation hypothesis is partly supported for autonomy.

Next, the procedure was repeated for the independent variable task significance. First, the relation between task significance and job satisfaction was tested for statistical significance. The analysis showed that a significant relationship was found (β=.57, p<.001, R2=.24). Second, the relationship between task significance and intrinsic motivation was tested and showed a significant relationship (β=.28, p<.005, R2=.16). Third, the relationship between intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction was earlier in this chapter tested and found to be significant (β=.45, p<.001, R2=.24). Finally, both the relationships between respectively task significance and job satisfaction (β=.44, p<.005) as well as the mediation by intrinsic motivation in this relation remained statistically significant (β= .35, p<.001). These findings supports the existence of a partial mediation.

The Sobel tests were significant for both autonomy (z=2.33, p<.05) and task significance (z=2.51, p<.05). In conclusion, no evidence is found in support of hypothesis 2a, whereas partial support is found for hypothesis 2b.

Moderation of transformational leadership

Hypothesis 3 states that transformational leadership positively moderates the relation between the task design and intrinsic motivation (see table 4).

Table 4 Intrinsic motivation

Variable β β Control variables Gender .19 .13 Age .04*** .04** Edu .08 .01 Tenure -.00 -.00 Main effects Autonomy (Auto) .21* Task Significance (TS) .37** Transformational leadership (TL) .16 .18 Interaction effect TL x Auto -.08 TL x TS -.13

(26)

26 As before, task design was divided into two separate variables; autonomy and task significance. First all the variables were mean centered. The moderato represented by the product of transformational leadership and resp. autonomy and task significance and then added to the regression model. However, the moderator is not statistically significant (resp. autonomy β= -.08, p=n.s., R2=.27 and task significance β= -.13, p=n.s., R2=.24 ) in both models.

In conclusion, there is no evidence found that supports a moderation effect of transformational leadership on the relation of autonomy or task significance and intrinsic motivation. This is supported by the fact that the interaction term only accounts for an additional resp. 0.3% (R2 =.27) and 0.2% (R2 =.24) of the variance in intrinsic motivation. Therefore, no evidence is found for supporting hypothesis 3a and 3b

4.2.2 Summary of results

In total, six hypotheses were tested. Two of them were fully supported, two partly supported and two rejected as can be found in table 5.

Table 5

Summary of the supported and rejected hyptheses

Hypotheses (Partly) supported/

rejected

1a There is a positive relationship between task autonomy and job satisfaction Supported

1b There is a positive relationship between task significance and job satisfaction Supported

2a The relationship between autonomy and job satisfaction is mediated by intrinsic

motivation.

(Partly) Supported

2b The relationship between task significance and job satisfaction is mediated by

intrinsic motivation.

(Partly) Supported

3a The relationship between autonomy and intrinsic motivation is positively moderated

by transformational leadership

Rejected 3b The relationship between task significance and intrinsic motivation is positively

moderated by transformational leadership

(27)

27

DISCUSSION

This study explores the relationship between two important parts of change in task design and satisfaction of the job, as well as the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation within that relationship. Subsequently, if a transformational leadership style influences the relation between the two parts of task design and intrinsic motivation. In this specific matter, the purpose was to test if, in the environment of a public organization where the elements of task design were changed, the expected positive relation of task design (and in specific autonomy and task significance) and job satisfaction was still supported and could be explained through the mediation of intrinsic motivation. Additionally, the moderating role of transformational leadership was tested in order to find out if the style of leadership, as preferred by the theory of New Public Management (Weerakkody et al., 2010), would influence the relationship between autonomy, task significance and intrinsic motivation to increase the level of job satisfaction.

5. 1 Summary of Main Findings

It was expected that the two characteristics of task design, autonomy and task significance, had a significant positive effect on job satisfaction. The next hypothesis sought to find out how much of that relation could be explained by intrinsic motivation. Finally, this research tested to what extent a transformational leadership style will influence the relationship between the task design variables and intrinsic motivation.

5.1.1 Direct relation between elements of task design and job satisfaction

(28)

28 JCM theory of (Hackman & Oldham,1976) and the studies of Morris & Venkatesh (2010). Morris & Venkatesh (2010) argue the positive relationship between autonomy, task significance and the satisfaction of the job. The direct relationship of the two characteristics and job satisfaction is also found in this research and emphasizes the importance of the different parts of job design.

Also, the theory of JCM (1976) described that autonomy has a stronger relation with job satisfaction, than the relation between task significance with job satisfaction, because of the change in elements of task design mostly affected the freedom of performance of a task or job. The results of this study shows that this expectation is met. Autonomy explains a larger part of the positive relation with job satisfaction than does task significance. Therefore, when there is a change in job design and the need for job satisfaction is relevant, a significant part of attention during the redesign phase should be on autonomy of the job.

5.1.2 Mediation of intrinsic motivation

The relationships between the two task design variables and job satisfaction were tested for mediation of intrinsic motivation. For both models, one for autonomy and one for task significance, there is no evidence found for full mediation of intrinsic motivation. However, there is evidence found for partial mediation of intrinsic motivation of the models with the independent variable task significance. Also a weaker partial mediation of intrinsic motivation in the relationship of autonomy and job satisfaction is found. This suggests that in the relation of the two task design elements, autonomy and task significance, there is a direct effect on job satisfaction, but for a significant part this relation can be explained by how intrinsically motivated an employee is.

Autonomy: The relationship between autonomy and job satisfaction can be partly explained by the level of intrinsic motivation. By Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) the expectation is that there is a strong positive relationship between autonomy and intrinsic motivation. The results however indicate a weak link between these two variables. The positive relationship exists, but on a 10 percent level of significance. This means that there is no strong evidence found for the effect that when an employee perceives higher level of autonomy, he or she will be more intrinsically motivated. Nonetheless, this still implies that the higher an employee perceives autonomy, the higher he or she will be intrinsically motivated to perform the job and will be more satisfied with the job.

(29)

29 relations, with and without mediation of intrinsic motivation, increasing level of task significance result in higher satisfaction of the job. So, this implies that the more an employee feels that the job has an impact on lives of others, the more he or she will be satisfied by the job.

5.1.3 Moderation of transformational leadership

Tests were performed to find out whether there is a positive moderating effect of transformational leadership between the two task design elements and the chosen job outcome, satisfaction.

Autonomy: The interaction effect between autonomy and transformational leadership on intrinsic motivation is found to be not significant. Contrary to the expectations, this means that transformational leadership does not influence the relationship between autonomy and intrinsic motivation.

Task significance: To find out whether transformational has a significant positive effect on the relationship of task significance and intrinsic motivation, tests were also performed and these tests turned out to be not statistically significant. Therefore, this means that this research does not find enough evidence for a moderation effect of transformational leadership on the relationship between task significance and intrinsic motivation.

5.2 Theoretical implications

This research was conducted at an public organization where a change in task design has taken place. This setting was of great importance and the starting point of this study. The studies on the Job Characteristics Model of Hackman and Oldham (1976) were at the basis of this research. Specific elements were extracted from this theory and constructed in an environment which was barely researched yet. These specific elements have a focus on the importance of freedom of acting and feeling of significance in a task or job. First of all, it was interesting to find out if the argued relationships were still as strong and positive as expected in this environment. Results showed that there was evidence that, in the case of task redesign, when an employee perceived higher level of autonomy or task significance the more satisfied he or she is about their job. This is consistent with the theory of JCM (Morris & Venkatesh, 2010), where there is evidence of strong relationship of all the job characteristics and job satisfaction in the setting of changing job characteristics. Employees who perceiving autonomy and task significance weight more value to their job and thereby they are more positive about their job. When an employee values the job higher concerning the significant impact of it on others or the autonomous freedom he or she perceives, satisfaction increase more comparing with an employee who does not perceive these attributes of task design. Positive feelings about the characteristics of the job enhances the positive feelings about the job itself (Hackman and Oldham, 1976).

(30)

30 importance of autonomy in a job. Especially when designing a job the results of this study confirms the necessity of paying attention to the level of autonomy. In the theory of Hackman and Oldham (1976) autonomy is argued to be one of the most important characteristics and this study confirms this statement.

The (partial) mediating role of intrinsic motivation on the relation between task design elements (task significance and autonomy) and the outcome variable job satisfaction is and the combination of parts of the two theories JCM and SDT is also a contribution of this research. This study elaborates on the significant importance of the Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) in the relationship between the element autonomy and job satisfaction of the Job Characteristic Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). By theory, an employee’s experience of a sense of choice in doing the job is mentioned as self-determination and when this is perceived it is related to a higher level of satisfaction (Baard, 2002; Deci & Ryan, 2008). This theory is not supported by this study. The relationship between autonomy and intrinsic motivation is not found to be statistically significant. The mediation effect is not found for intrinsic motivation in the relationship between autonomy and job satisfaction. Thus, where there is much evidence found on this matter in other research, surprisingly there is no support found for this proposed relationship in this study. This can be explained by the overlap of perceiving both variables. By theory, for example the SDT, a strong link between the two variables may be perceived simultaneously by the respondents. So, intrinsic motivation is not by evidence the predictor of the positive relation between autonomy and job satisfaction. The reason for this can also be the strong need for autonomy to be satisfied of a job specifically in a public organization. As argued in the introduction, employees of a public organization value autonomy very high. So, autonomy may be an important predictor of the satisfaction of a job and not exclusively by being intrinsically motivated.

(31)

31 working at a public organization can be that an employee’s task or job significant influences the lives of others and this alone gives satisfaction of that job or task. So, task significance is an important predictor of the satisfaction of a job and not exclusively due to the induced level of intrinsic motivation.

There is no evidence found of the interaction effect of transformational leadership in the relationships between autonomy and intrinsic motivation and task significance and intrinsic motivation. This is remarkable, because literature shows much evidence on this topic. One explanation of this fact is that there is tested with a small item-scale of the transformational leadership theory and that thereby it is not thoroughly tested on every aspect of transformational leadership. Another explanation can be the small sample size of this study. With a larger sample size more statistical power can be given to the results of this study and a stronger statistical conclusion can be taken from the relationship between the independent variables and intrinsic motivation concerning the interaction of transformational leadership. There is much evidence in this study for a strong link between a transformational style of leadership and, for example, autonomy in effect on intrinsic motivation. 5.3 Limitations and further research

Although the conceptual model and a significant part of this research are based on existing theories, for example the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), the Self-determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), there are a few limitations of this research.

Firstly, the main limitation of this research is the number of respondents (N). There was a relatively low amount of respondents that filled in all the questions of the questionnaire. A higher number of respondents would give more statistical power to the results. For example, one of the outcomes is partial mediation of intrinsic motivation. It is expected that when the number of respondents were higher, then the mediation effect would be higher. Another example of the advantage of a larger amount of respondents is that the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable would be stronger.

Secondly, there is a choice made for a concise questionnaire and this resulted in a questionnaire with few items due the time employee were given to fill in the questionnaire. In contrast with the scales provided by theory, the results in the data reduction phase gave not enough options to delete items from a scale and leave enough items to have a comprehensive scale for every variable. For example and for further research, I would recommend to use all of the 15-item Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS; Hackman and Oldham 1974) instead of the shortened scale ofJob Satisfaction Inventory (Judge, Locke and colleagues, 1998) and the Multi Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1995) instead of the 7-item version Global Transformational Leadership scale of Carless et al. (2000). This should lead to increase reliability of the construction of the scales and it is likely that transformational leadership is an interacting term in that research.

(32)

32 Recommended is for further research that multiple points in time the measurement should take place. Especially, in the changing setting it is interesting to find out if the results match or if there is another pattern to be found.

Additionally, this research could be extended by measuring all of the five characteristics of the Job Characteristics Model. By doing this, a better insight can be given on the factors that influence motivation and/or job satisfaction. In this research the two characteristics were chosen for the strong theoretical link with the changed task design in the case of the organization where the research had taken place.

5.4 Practical implications

From a managerial perspective, this study could be of interest because of the insights provided on the importance of autonomy and task significance in relation with job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was argued to be one of the most important outcomes in an organizational setting. Thus, when thinking of changing the design of a job, specifically in a public organization, it is of great importance to have a close look on to what extent the job can be performed autonomously and to what extent the job is of significance to the employee, because both have a strong positive effect on the satisfaction of the job. This study shows that the higher level of autonomy and task significance a job contains an employee experiences higher job satisfaction. Managers should be aware in the designing phase of a job to make the job as autonomous and significant as it can be. Also, intrinsic motivated employees are more satisfied by their job. So, the focus for managers in designing a job should also be on how to intrinsically motivated the employees. Intrinsic motivation is proven to have a positive effect on the satisfaction of employees. This study contributes by giving insight to where to focus in a change that affect task design in a public organization. If a manager wants to increase the job satisfaction it can be achieved with designing a job with high level of autonomy and significance and with taking in account the intrinsic motivation of the employees. Although, this study shows that the relationship between job satisfaction and autonomy and task significance not exclusively is meditated by the intrinsic motivation of an employee, it is still an important factor of influence. For managers it is important to pay attention to the intrinsic motivation of the employees, simultaneously with the level of autonomy and task significance when designing a job.

(33)

33

REFERENCES

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal Of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18.

Alvarez, R. (2008). “Examining Technology, Structure and Identity During an Enterprise Systems Implementation,” Information Systems Journal (18:2), pp. 203-224.

Armstrong, M. (2006). A Handbook of Human resource Management Practice, Tenth Edition, Kogan Page Publishing, London, , p. 264

Baldwin, J. (1987). Public versus Private: Not that different, not that consequential. Public Personnel Management, 1987, 16:2:181-93

Baron, R. & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6):1173-1182.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY US: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B.J., & Goodheim, L. (1987). Biography and the assessment of transformational leadership at the world class level. Journal of Management, 13, 7-19.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218

Burnes, B. (2009). Managing change (5th ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited

Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal Of Business And Psychology, 14(3), 389-405.

Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. (2001). Transformational Leadership and Sports Performance: The Mediating Role of Intrinsic Motivation. Journal Of Applied Social Psychology, 31(7), 1521-1534.

(34)

34 Couger, J., Zawacki, R. A., & Oppermann, E. B. (1979). Motivation levels of mis managers versus those of their employees. mis Quarterly, 3(3), 47-56.

Cronbach, L.J. & Shavelson, R.J. (2004) My Current Thoughts on Coefficient Alpha and Successor Procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 64, no. 3, 391-418

Deci, E. L. (1972). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal Of Personality & Social Psychology, 22(1), 113-120.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology/ Psychologie Canadienne, 49, 14 –23. doi:10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14

Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D. M. (2006). The effects of organizational changes on employee commitment: a multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 1-29.

Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: a review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287-322.

Goštautaitė, B., & Bučiūnienė, I. (2010). Integrating job characteristics model into the person-environment fit framework. Economics & Management, 505-511

Grant A. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal Of Applied Psychology. January 2008;93(1):108-124. Available from: PsycARTICLES, Ipswich, MA.

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the Next Millennium. Journal Of Management, 26(3), 463-488.

(35)

35 Hackman, J., & Lawler III, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 55(3), 259-286.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279

Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees' commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 346-357.

Herscovitch, L. & Meyer, J. P. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11(3), 299.

Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474-487.

Houkes, I., Janssen, P. M., de Jonge, J., & Nijhuis, F. N. (2001). Specific relationships between work characteristics and intrinsic work motivation, burnout and turnover intention: A multi-sample analysis. European Journal Of Work & Organizational Psychology, 10(1), 1-23.

Ilgen, D. R., and Hollenbeck, J. R. 1991. “The Structure of Work: Job Design and Roles,” in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd ed.), M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (eds.), Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, pp. 165-207.

Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job dissatisfaction. Academy Of Management Journal, 44(5), 1039-1050.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 237-249.

Kudo, H. (2010). E-governance as strategy of public sector reform: peculiarity of Japanese it policy and its institutional origin. Financial Accountability & Management, 26(1), 65-84.

Lawler, E. E., & Hall, D. T. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 54(4), 305-312. doi:10.1037/h0029692

SATISFIED BY CHANGING THE TASK DESIGN?