INTRODUCTION
Job enrichment is an attempt to motivate employees by giving them the opportunity to use
the range of their abilities. It is an idea that was developed by the American psychologist
Frederick Herzberg in the 1950s. It can be contrasted to job enlargement which simply increases
the number of tasks without changing the challenge. As such job enrichment has been described
as 'vertical loading' of a job, while job enlargement is 'horizontal loading'. An enriched job
should ideally contain:
A range of tasks and challenges of varying difficulties (Physical or Mental)
A complete unit of work - a meaningful task
Feedback, encouragement and communication
Job enrichment, as a managerial activity includes a three steps technique:
1. Turn employees' effort into performance:
Ensuring that objectives are well-defined and understood by everyone. The overall
corporate mission statement should be communicated to all. Individual's goals should
also be clear. Each employee should know exactly how he/she fits into the overall
process and be aware of how important their contributions are to the organization and its
customers.
Providing adequate resources for each employee to perform well. This includes support
functions like information technology, communication technology, and personnel training
and development.
Creating a supportive corporate culture. This includes peer support networks, supportive
management, and removing elements that foster mistrust and politicking.
Free flow of information. Eliminate secrecy.
Provide enough freedom to facilitate job excellence. Encourage and reward employee
initiative. Flextime or compressed hours could be offered.
Provide adequate recognition, appreciation, and other motivators.
Provide skill improvement opportunities. This could include paid education at
universities or on the job training.
Provide job variety. This can be done by job sharing or job rotation programmes.
It may be necessary to re-engineer the job process. This could involve redesigning the
physical facility, redesign processes, change technologies, simplification of procedures,
elimination of repetitiveness, redesigning authority structures.
2. Link employee’s performance directly to reward:
Clear definition of the reward is a must
Explanation of the link between performance and reward is important
Make sure the employee gets the right reward if performs well
If reward is not given, explanation is needed
3. Make sure the employee wants the reward. How to find out?
Ask them
Use surveys( checklist, listing, questions)
Job enrichment is a type of job redesign intended to reverse the effects of tasks that are
repetitive requiring little autonomy. Some of these effects are boredom, lack of flexibility, and
employee dissatisfaction (Leach & Wall, 2004). The underlying principle is to expand the scope
of the job with a greater variety of tasks, vertical in nature, that require self-sufficiency. Since the
goal is to give the individual exposure to tasks normally reserved for differently focused or
higher positions, merely adding more of the same responsibilities related to an employee's
current position is not considered job enrichment.
The basis for job enrichment practices is the work done by Frederick Herzberg in the 1950's
and 60's, which was further refined in 1975 by Hackman and Oldham using what they called the
Job Characteristics Model. This model assumes that if five core job characteristics are present,
three psychological states critical to motivation are produced, resulting in positive outcomes
(Kotila, 2001). Figure 1 illustrates this model.
Job enrichment can only be truly successful if planning includes support for all phases of the
initiative. Ohio State University Extension began a job enrichment program in 1992 and
surveyed the participants five years later. The results, broken down into 3 sub-buckets of data
beyond the main grouping of advantages/disadvantages as shown in Table 1, indicate the
University had not fully considered the planning and administrative aspects of the program
(Fourman and Jones, 1997). While the benefits are seemingly obvious, programs fail not
because of a lack of benefits, but rather due to implementation problems. These problems can
include a perception of too great a cost, lack of long-term commitment of resources, and
potential job classification changes (Cunningham and Eberle, 1990).
In order for a job enrichment program to produce positive results, worker needs and
organizational needs must be analyzed and acted upon. According to Cunningham and Eberle
(1990), before an enrichment program is begun, the following questions should be asked:
1. Do employees need jobs that involve responsibility, variety, feedback, challenge,
accountability, significance, and opportunities to learn?
2. What techniques can be implemented without changing the job classification plan?
3. What techniques would require changes in the job classification plan? (p.3)
When asked about the successes of a Training Generalist job enrichment program begun in 2002,
Karen Keenan, Learning Manager with Bank of America, stated the accomplishments were,
"greater than expected". The Training Generalist program has resulted in three successful
participants to date. According to Ms. Keenan, positive results can be directly tied to a program
that addressed the strategic goal of greater resource flexibility without adding to staff, as well as
to proper planning, guidance, and feedback for the participants. Having a voluntary program
contributed as well, attracting a high caliber of individuals eager to expand their skills and be
positioned for advancement. To date, all three Training Generalists have experienced promotions
and additional recognition while affording Ms. Keenan's team financial results and workload
flexibility it could not have otherwise achieved.
A job enrichment program can be a very effective intervention in some situations where a
Performance Technician is faced with a request for motivational training. Ralph Brown (2004)
summed it up very nicely:
Job enrichment doesn't work for everyone. Some people are very resistant to more
responsibility or to opportunities for personal growth, but…researchers report that
some people they expected to resist, seized the opportunity. Enriching jobs is a
particularly effective way to develop employees provided the jobs are truly
enriched, not just more work for them to do.
INDUSTRY PROFILE
COMPANY PROFILE
ROOTS INDUSTRIES LTD (RIL) is a leading manufacturer of horns in India and the
11th largest horn manufacturing company in the world, Head quartered in Coimbatore, India.
ROOTS have been a dominant player in the manufacture of Horns, Casting products, Industrial
cleaning machines, Precision products and other products like Electronic Horns, Brake Shoes,
Brake Pads, Halogen Lamps, Relays, Melody Makers, Roots Parking Guide System, Piston &
Rings, Flashes, etc.,
Since its establishment in 1970, ROOTS had a vision and commitment to produce
and deliver quality products adhering to International standards. With a strong innovative base
and commitment to quality ROOTS has occupied a key position in both International and
domestic market as suppliers to leading OEMS and aftermarket.
Now RIL is the first Indian and first manufacturing company in the world to get
ISO / TS 16949 Certification based on effective implementation of QS 9000 Certification and
VDA 6.1 Certification. Other certifications like E – Certification from Europe, ISO 14001
Certification, and Q1 Certification add crowns to it.
Their competitors includes Bosch, Lucas-TVS, Minda Industries, Harley & Co, Vibrant
Auto components, National Electric company, etc.,
Its customers include the massive automobile giants like Mercedes, Ford, Mitsubishi,
Mahindra & Mahindra, Toyota, Fiat, Tata Motors, Bajaj Tempo Ltd, Kinetic Honda, TVS,
Leyland, etc.,
ROOTS Industries Ltd. is a leading manufacturer of HORNS in India and the 11th
largest Horn Manufacturing Company in the world.
Headquartered in Coimbatore - India, ROOTS has been a dominant player in the
manufacture of Horns and other products like Castings and Industrial Cleaning Machines.
Since its establishment in 1970, ROOTS has had a vision and commitment to produce and
deliver quality products adhering to International Standards.
With a strong innovative base and commitment to Quality, Roots Industries Limited has
occupied a key position in both international and domestic market as suppliers to leading OEMs
and after market. Similar to products, Roots has leading edge over competitors on strong quality
system base. Now, RIL is the first Indian Company and first horn manufacturing company in the
world to get ISO/TS 16949 certification based on effective implementation of QS 9000 and
VDA 6.1 system requirement earlier. Roots' vision is to become a world class company
manufacturing world class product, excelling in human relation.
Fact Sheet
Year of
Establishment
: 1970
Nature of Business : Manufacturer, Exporter, Trader
Major Markets : Australia/NZ, Indian Subcontinent, East Europe, Central America, North
Europe, Middle East, South America, South/West Europe and North
America
Aim / Vision / Mission
We will stand technologically ahead of others to deliver world-class innovative
products useful to our customers. We will rather lose our business than our customers'
satisfaction. It is our aim that the customer should get the best value for his money.
Every member of our company will have decent living standards. We care deeply for
our families, for our environment and our society. We promise to pay back in full measure to
the society by way of selfless and unstinted service.
QUALITY
QUALITY - AN ALL PERVASIVE ENTITY
Roots is committed to manufacture customer-centric and technology-driven products on
par with international quality standards. For example, the horns manufactured undergo a rigorous
life-cycle test and are subjected to an endurance of over 200,000 cycles of performance while the
industry norm requires only 100,000.
What's more, Roots believes in a quality culture that goes beyond just products. Equal
emphasis is given to quality in human relation and quality in service. Roots in its journey
towards Total Quality Management has reached important milestones: ISO 9001, QS 9000, VDA
6.1, ISO/TS 16949 and ISO 14001 Certification, presently in the process of obtaining NABL
accreditation for our Metrology lab. The Group's TQM policy has a well-integrated Quality
Circle Movement with active employee participation at various levels.
QUALITY POLICY:
We are committed to provide world-class products and services with due concern
for the environment and safety of the society.
This will be achieved through total employee involvement,
technology upgradation, cost reduction and continual improvement
in
* Quality of the products and services
* Quality Management system
* Compliance to QMS requirements
Quality will reflect in everything we do and think
* Quality in behaviour
* Quality in governance
* Quality in human relation
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
With due concern towards maintaining and improving the Quality of Life, Roots is committed
for sustainable development by minimising pollution and conserving resources.
This will be achieved through continual improvement in Environmental Awareness of all
employees & associates, Legal Compliance and Objective towards Environmental Protection.
K. Ramasamy
Chairman
Roots Group
Personal Culture
The management has been encouraging and promoting a very informal culture, "Personal
touch", sense of belonging, enabling employees to become involved and contribute to the success
of the company. The top management also conscientiously inculcates values in the people.
Work Environment
Special and conscious efforts are directed towards house keeping of the highest order.
Renovation and modernization of office premises and office support systems are carried out on
an ongoing basis.
Training
Roots believe in systematic training for employees at all levels. As a part of the
Organizational Development efforts, training programmes are being conducted in-house, for
employees at all levels. In addition, staffs are also sponsored for need based training programmes
at leading Management Development Institutes.
Total Quality Management
Customer Focus is not merely a buzzword but it has become an important factor of every
day work and has got internalized into the work environment. There is an equal emphasis on
internal customer focus leading to greater team efforts and better cross-functional relationship.
Quality Circle Movement
To ensure worker participation and team work on the shop-floor, Roots Industries India
Ltd has a very effective Quality Circle Movement in the organization. As on today Roots
Industries India Ltd has 3 operating Quality Circles having 24 members and some of them have
won awards at different conventions and competitions.
Through interaction with workmen in these sessions, a process of 2-way communication has
been initiated and valuable feedback has been received on worker feelings, perception, problems
and attitudes. Simultaneously management has communicated the problems faced by them and
the plans to overcome these problems.
Good Morning Assembly
The management aims in operator's mental & physical fitness and it is ensured through
the GMA.
The operators and shift supervisor, assemble before the I shift beginning and do
occupation of fitness exercise, discuss about the Quality Safety & Production aspects of the
Previous shifts and take Quality / Safety oath.
Through interaction with workmen in these sessions, a process of 2 way communication
has been initiated and valuable feedback has been received on worker feelings, perception,
problems and attitudes. Simultaneously management has communicated the problems faced by
them and the plans to overcome these problems.
Roots has a strong people-oriented work culture that can be seen and felt across all its
member concerns. Whether they work in group or in isolation, their effort is well appreciated and
achievements well rewarded. They have a sense of belonging and they revel in an environment
of openness and trust. Cross-functional teams function as one seamless whole and foster the true
spirit of teamwork.
Roots as a learning organization systematically trains its employees at all levels.
Conducted in-house, the training programmes equip them to meet new challenges head on.
Employees are encouraged to voice their feelings, ideas and opinions. There is a successful
suggestion scheme in operation and best suggestions are rewarded.
Lasting relationship will evolve only when people know that their work is valued and that
they contribute meaningfully to the growth of the organization. At Roots, people across the
group companies, through interactions at workshops and seminars, get to know each other
individually, share their common experiences and learn something about life.
ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTRE
The Engineering Research Centre (ERC) is involved in the continuous improvement and
enhancement of design to increase performance and reliability. The ERC functioning under three
distinct heads cater to the needs of Roots Industries, Roots Multiclean and Roots Auto Products.
Though there is a three-pronged operational ethos, the ERC is integrated and meshed
seamlessly with one single objective: that of design research and performance monitoring.
Through extensive product engineering, the ERC cell of ROOTS achieves the following:
Designing and developing new products with customer focus.
Conducting required tests to ensure product reliability.
Initiating necessary corrective and preventive action for ensuring peak performance
Fine-tuning products with available components to satisfy customer requirements
The ERC consists of the best talent that includes engineering graduates, ITI brains and design
engineers. The team works with top-notch tools like
Proe2000i2 - for solid modeling
AutoCAD 2000 - for Drafting
CorelDraw V 8.0 - for Graphical Applications
MILESTONES
1970 Promotes American Auto Service for manufacture of Electric Horns.
1972 First to manufacture Servo Brakes for Light Motor Vehicles.
1984 Roots Auto Products Private Limited was established to manufacture Air Horns.
Die Casting Unit commences commercial operations.
1988 Polycraft, a unit for Plastic Injection Moulding was established.
1990 Roots Industries India Ltd takes over Electric Horn business.
1992 RMCL enters into Techno-Financial collaboration with M/s. Hako Werke GmbH, Germany.
1992 Roots Industries India Ltd obtains the National Certification - ISI mark of quality.
1994 Production of floor cleaning equipment commences.
Roots Industries India Ltd wins American International Quality Award.
1999 Becomes the first horn manufacturer in Asia to obtain QS 9000
2000 Becomes the first horn manufacturer in Asia to obtain VDA 6.1 and the first in the world to win
ISO / TS 16949
2000 The first to introduce digitally controlled air horns and low frequency, low decibel irritation free
Jumbo Air Horns.
2003 Roots Industries India Ltd., Horn Division is accredited with ISO 14001 : 1996
2003 Roots Industries India Ltd., upgraded its ISO / TS 16949 from 1999 version to 2002 version
2004 Roots Industries India Ltd (RIL) opens its 100% exclusive Export Oriented Unit at their Horn
Division,
Thoppampatti, Coimbatore to cater the needs of Ford North America.
2004 RIL's EOU commences its supplies to Ford, North America
2004 Roots Multiclean Limited (RMCL) inaugurates its 100% EOU Plant at Kovilpalayam, Coimbatore
2004 Roots Cast Private Limited (RCPL) inaugurates its Unit II at Arugampalayam, Coimbatore
2004 Roots Auto Products Pvt Ltd (RAPPL) expands with its Machining Division at Arugampalayam,
Coimbatore
2004 RIL successfully launches its Malaysian Plant
2004 The group company American Auto Service is accredited with ISO 9001 : 2000
2005 Roots Industries India Ltd., is certified with MS 9000, a pre-requisite for Q1 award for Ford
Automotive Operations
Suppliers. Focus on Systems and Processes
2005 Roots Metrology & Testing Laboratory has been accredited by National Accreditation Board for
testing & calibration in the field of Mechanical – Linear & Angular
2005 Roots Industries India Ltd., is awarded Q1 by Ford Motor Company
2005 Roots Industries India Ltd., Horn Division upgraded its ISO : 14001 from 1996 version to 2004
version
Management:
Roots Industries India Ltd is managed by an excellent team of path-breakers, chief among
them being the Chairman, Mr. K. RAMASAMY, a Master's Degree Holder in Automobile
Engineering from Lincoln Technical Institute, USA.
The company credo is echoed in his own words,
"At ROOTS, we believe that if something is worth doing, it is worth doing well. And this
attitude is reflected in every realm of our activities. As a customer, you naturally expect the
best. We are fully geared, in spirit and method, to meet your requirements."
He is supported by technical and administrative people, experts in their own field, who
together strive to maintain the highest quality quotient in all of ROOTS' products.
Mr. Ramasamy, the driving force behind Roots' success
An obsessive hobby went into the making of this self-made industrialist. Born in an
agricultural family, young Ramasamy had a great interest in repairing automobiles. This led to
his getting the master's degree in Automobile Engineering from Lincoln Technical Institute,
USA in 1969 and developing a unique Radiator Coolant Recovery System, which is today a
standard equipment in almost all vehicles manufactured by the advanced countries.
In 1970, Mr. Ramasamy promoted M/s. American Auto Service, which was taken over in
1992 by Roots Industries Private Limited, a company promoted by Mr. Ramasamy. This
company entered into technical collaboration with Robert Bosch, the world leaders in auto
electrical to manufacture all the range of Bosch Horns. Mr. Ramasamy had a very inquisitive and
innovative temperament. This led to his having many firsts in his distinguished career.
Servo brakes were designed for the first time in India by Mr. Ramasamy. He designed the
first high frequency Wind Tone type horn which was smaller and lighter than conventional
horns. Besides all the other firsts, Mr. Ramasamy introduced electronically controlled
Musical Air Horns for the first time in the World.
The thirst for innovation and drive to move forward, led to the establishment of a die
casting unit to meet the captive requirement of ROOTS. In 1987, Mr. Ramasamy set up a full-
fledged modern tool room equipped with the latest machines for the manufacture of precision
tools and dies. He promoted Roots Multiclean Ltd., a joint venture in Techno-financial
collaboration with M/s. Hako Werke GmbH, Germany to manufacture world class Industrial
Floor Care and Floor Cleaning Equipments. RMCL is successfully spreading the concept of
Mechanized Cleaning in India and also exports its products to various countries like
Australia, Britain, Germany, Japan Singapore, etc.
Mr. Ramasamy can very proudly claim that he is a self-made industrialist and in
recognition of the same, he has been conferred the Udyog Shree Award in the year 1990. He
has also been awarded the Udyog Rattan Award by the Institute of Economic Studies in the
year 1991.
Mr. Ramasamy has been awarded Udyog Patra Award by the Institute of Trade and
Industrial Development Delhi in the year 1992 in recognition of being a self made industrialist
and also his contribution to the economic development of the country along with Bharatiya
Udyog Jothi Award instituted by the Indian Institute of Entrepreneurship Development, Delhi.
Mr. Ramasamy has been conferred the Vikas Rattan Award and the Gem of India
award. He has been awarded Udyog Gaurav Award by All India Organization of
Entrepreneurship Confederation.
Roots Industries has been awarded the American International Quality Award in 1994
by Fulham Geissler Associates, USA.
Mr. K. Ramasamy was Chairman of the Confederation of Indian Industry Coimbatore.
Besides this, he lends his leadership to a lot of other social organizations and his dynamic
presence is a driving force behind all the group companies of Roots.
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
Primary Objective:
To study the skills and abilities of the employee so that new responsibilities and tasks are
added with existing job.
Secondary Objectives:
To recognize the skilled employee and to enrich their jobs.
To increase the level of skill flexibility in employee.
To give better freedom and autonomy in their work organization.
To vertically enlarge their jobs.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
A study on employee’s job enrichment is an attempt to motivate employees by giving
them the opportunity to use the wide range of their abilities.
The study helps to find the potential employee.
The study gives an idea to develop the skills in employees about various areas.
The study helps to find the skilled employee and to produce more output.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Due to the long span of time allotted for project work most of the company not giving
permission.
The management was not ready to supply confidential information about the company in
general and employees in particular.
In many cases, the study does not give the expected results.
Some of the employees are not ready to provide the response for the questionnaire.
Employees not providing accurate information in the questionnaire which leads to wrong
analysis.
QUESTIONNAIRE
A Study on Employees Job Enrichment
Personal Details (1-7):
1. Name:
2. Age: Below 20 21-30 31-40 Above 40
3. Gender: Male Female
4. Salary:Below 5000 5000-10000 10000-15000 Above 15000
5. Education Qualification: 10th 12th Diploma Degree Post Graduate
6. Mobile Number:
7. Experience:
Please indicate your level of Agreement or Disagreement with the following Statements by placing a tick mark in the relevant grid (Strongly Agree = SA, Agree = A, Neutral = N, Disagree = DA, Strongly Disagree = SDA).
S.NO Statements SA A N DA SDA
8. I have the skills and abilities to do more jobs
9. Motivation is important to do the vertically loaded jobs
10. The amount of the work I am expected to do on my job is reasonable for me and to the company
11. My department has good priorities and direction for employees
12. I have adequate information and knowledge which enables me to do my jobs well
13. Opportunity is given in the company to use my variety of skills
14. Opportunity is given in the company to complete my entire task which I can do by own
15. I am confident of my ability to do my job and enriched job
16. I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work and enriched work
17. I have mastered in the skills which necessary for my job and also to do other jobs
18. I can decide on my own about how to do my work
19. I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how to do my own job
20. I have significant autonomy in determining how to do my own job
21. If job enrichment is made, I can be more effective
22. I have more technical/ behavioral skills to contribute more to the company
23. Job enrichment increases level of skill flexibility
24. Considering everything, how far you satisfied with your job?
Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Highly Dissatisfied
25. Do you think that job enrichment has a good effect on skill improvement of employees?
Yes, Majorly Yes, Quite a bit Not Really Not at all
26. Whether you can use your variety of skills to increase the production of the company?
Yes, Majorly Yes, Quite a bit Not Really Not at all
27. Rank the department you would like to enrich your job
Production MarketingFinanceHuman ResourcePackingSelling
28. Rank the Techniques you need in job enrichment
Change in nature of workChange in department of workTo work with new teamMore work with less manpower
29. Rank the Monetary Rewards you need
SalaryWageIncentivesCommissionPaid leave
30. Rank the Non Monetary Rewards you need
RecognitionPraiseFeedbackFulfilling WorkAchievementsResponsibilityAutonomyInfluencePersonal Growth
31. If your enriched job takes extra time than working hours to complete your task will you like to do it?
Yes No
32. If yes how many hours you like to work?
One Hour Two Hours Three Hours Above Three Hours Not at all
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Abstract
This study uses a survey of Canadian workers with rich, matched data on job
characteristics to examine whether “enriched” job design, with features like quality circles,
feedback, suggestion programs, and task teams, affects job satisfaction. We identify two
competing hypotheses on the relationship between enriched jobs and job satisfaction. The
“motivation hypothesis,” implies that enrichment will generally increase satisfaction and the
“intensification hypothesis,” implies that enrichment may decrease satisfaction by increasing the
intensity and scope of work. Our results show that several forms of enrichment, specifically
suggestion programs, information sharing, task teams, quality circles and training, raise
satisfaction. Therefore we argue that the data support the motivation hypothesis. Partitioning the
data by education level or union membership further supports this conclusion, while a direct test
of the intensification hypothesis does not support the competing hypothesis.
Job satisfaction has important economic impacts. Low job satisfaction is associated with
higher rates of quitting (Freeman 1978; Gordon and Denisi 1995; Clark, Georgellis and Sanfey
1998), higher rates of absenteeism (Clegg 1983; Drago and Wooden 1992) and lower levels of
work effort (Mangione and Quinn 1975). Dissatisfaction therefore results in higher labor costs
and lower productivity. While economists have made important strides in understanding the
demographic factors that influence job satisfaction, they have generally not focused on testing
the impacts of enriched job design on satisfaction.
Job enrichment includes a number of different workplace practices, such as quality
circles, self-directed teams, job rotation, information sharing and others. One possible motivation
for adopting such practices is to challenge and motivate workers, and to encourage them to
participate in improving productivity, safety, and the quality of their product. To the extent that
workers enjoy the challenge and the autonomy, this will raise job satisfaction and reduce hiring
and training costs and increase productivity. An alternative motivation for adopting job
enrichment is to enlarge the jobs by encouraging multi-tasking and to adopt peer monitoring.
These steps would also improve productivity, but without an accompanying increase in job
satisfaction.
This study uses a survey of Canadian workers with rich data on job characteristics to
examine whether firms that choose enriched job design and workplace practices have more
satisfied workers. It extends the literature in several important ways. First, by focusing on job
design, it concentrates on factors that a firm’s management might easily control. Second, the data
allow us to distinguish between “Taylorist” jobs and “enriched” jobs and to evaluate these two
competing hypotheses about the influence of enrichment on satisfaction. Finally, the data allow
us to better control for several potential sources of bias that have been largely ignored in
previous work on job satisfaction.
Background
The literature on job design contrasts “Taylorist” jobs to “enriched” jobs. Fredrick Taylor
(1947) viewed job design as a scientific optimization problem, where industrial engineers study
the production process and devise the most efficient way to break that process into individual,
precisely defined tasks. Typically, a Taylorist job is highly specialized, and workers are not
encouraged to experiment, innovate, or otherwise vary the way that tasks are completed. In the
1970’s, academics such as Richard Hackman, Edward Lawler and Greg Oldham started to argue
that Taylorist job design is sub-optimal (Hackman and Lawler 1971; Lawler 1973; Porter,
Lawler and Hackman 1975; Hackman & Oldham 1976, 1980). Enriched jobs, by encouraging
workers to learn and innovate at work, increase the motivating potential of work. Motivated
workers perform tasks more accurately and are more likely to find productivity innovations that
engineers overlook. In the 1980’s, firms put the theory into practice by redesigning jobs,
adopting self-managed teams and work groups, and creating employee participation programs
like quality circles.1 While enriched jobs have proliferated, it is unclear whether this has
increased employee satisfaction. Here we focus on two competing hypotheses about the
relationship between enriched jobs and job satisfaction.
The idea that enriched job design motivates effort is central to Hackman, Lawler and
Oldham’s theory. Their underlying assumption is that Taylorist jobs cannot meet the employees’
psychological and social needs (Cappelli and Rogovsky 1994). Job enrichment meets these
1 Collectively, Ichniowski, Delaney and Lewin (1989), Delaney, Lewin and Ichniowski (1989),
Lawler, Mohrman, and Ledford (1992), and Osterman (1994) document (for US workplaces) that
formal use of these new management practices was infrequent in the 1970’s and quite common
by the 1990’s. Needs and increases the motivating potential of work, which simultaneously
increases both worker satisfaction and effort. We refer to this hypothesis as the “motivation
hypothesis.” If the data support the hypothesis, we would expect enrichment to have a positive
and significant effect on job satisfaction. The degree that enrichment increases satisfaction may
vary, as workers differ in their desire for work that fulfills “higher order needs,” like autonomy,
intellectual challenge, or seeing projects through to completion. Since education, age, or
experience may be correlated to higher order needs, the effect of job design on job satisfaction
may vary with these individual characteristics.
Critics argue that workers may dislike enrichment for several reasons (Kelly 1982; Pollert
1991). Some employees may prefer Taylorist workplaces. The narrowly defined jobs in a
Taylorist workplace allow the employer to easily define performance standards and ensure that
an employee will not be asked to do tasks outside of the job’s definition. Job enrichment is often
accompanied by “intensification of work.” For example, most of the examples from a widely
cited Business Week (1983:100) report on flexibility involve enlarging jobs by adding additional
responsibilities (Thompson and McHugh 1990). Furthermore, because success in an enriched job
no longer depends on completion of narrowly defined tasks, “employment security is now
conditional on market success, rather than assured by [the worker’s] status as directly employed
personnel” (Whitaker 1991:252). Finally, as economic theorists have long understood, increasing
effort levels can also be accomplished by increased monitoring. Enrichment techniques like total
quality management, teams and quality circles create incentives for peer surveillance, which can
lead to lower job satisfaction (Delbridge, Turnbull and Wilkinson 1992; Sewell and Wilkinson
1992; Garrahan and Stewart 1992). We name these views the “intensification hypothesis.”2 For
support of this hypothesis, we would expect enrichment to be associated with increased job
intensity and lower levels of satisfaction.
By distilling a large and nuanced literature into two hypotheses, we obviously simplify.
For example, even the proponents of enrichment recognize that the benefits are not universal –
some workers may be less satisfied. Conversely, proponents of the intensification hypothesis
generally direct their criticisms at the more general move towards “flexibility,” which in addition
to enrichment also includes a move to a core-periphery model with increased use of temporary
workers and decreased job security. In other words, these critics agree that enrichment might
benefit some workers but they argue that, as implemented, enrichment is generally detrimental to
the employee. Finally, Hamermesh (1977) points out that with perfect certainty, and a continuum
of different jobs (offering different combinations of wages and benefits) there should be no
difference in satisfaction beyond that due to randomly distributed tastes. Under this theory of
compensating differentials, if workers prefer modern job design, then in equilibrium employers
with enriched workplaces can offer relatively lower wages. In this case, satisfaction levels will
not vary with the degree of enrichment, although differences might be observed after controlling
for pay and other variables. Having made these caveats, we believe that our two hypotheses
capture the overall tenor of the different viewpoints on the likely links between job enrichment
and job satisfaction.
Empirical Strategy
In order to test the hypotheses on the effect of enrichment on job satisfaction, we follow
Clark and Oswald (1996) in treating job satisfaction, s, as a function that depends on pay,
benefits and a variety of other factors. We therefore define an individual’s job satisfaction:
(1) s = s (y, h, i, j)
where y represents a vector of variables describing pay and benefits, h is hours of work, and i and
j represent individual and job characteristics, respectively. Job characteristics include the
measures of enrichment. Positive coefficients on these variables would support the motivation
hypothesis, while negative oneswould suggest intensification. In order to estimate equation (1),
we must assume that measures of satisfaction are comparable across individuals; this assumption
is commonly made in the psychology literature but is uncommon among economists.
Correct estimation of equation (1) poses some specific econometric issues. For example,
in order to control adequately for y we estimate equation 1 not only by controlling for wages, but
also by controlling for a wide range of benefits, and several forms of incentive pay. Correct
estimation of the last two variables, i and j is particularly difficult in a cross section. Although
our estimations can control for many characteristics of both workers and workplaces,
unobservable characteristics of both might bias these results if correlated with both job
satisfaction and the regressors. One such example is management style. It may be that working
for an effective manager increases a worker’s job satisfaction and that effective managers
employ enrichment techniques like job rotation and frequent feedback. Thus, some part of the
effect of these variables on job satisfaction might in fact be the effect of management style on
job satisfaction, biasing the result.
The unique design of the WES allows us to control for such unobserved workplace
characteristics in cross-sectional estimates. The WES consists of matched employee and
employer surveys. In one set of surveys, employees are asked about the characteristics of their
jobs, including whether they participate in enrichment practices such as suggestion programs,
flexible job design, information sharing, etc. Separate surveys ask employers if they use (on a
formal basis) these same enrichment practices. The employer responses diverge significantly
from employee responses on the same work practices. Even if an employer has a formal program
implementing some work organization practice, this does not mean that all surveyed workers will
hold jobs employing this practice. It is also possible for particular jobs to have features of
enrichment, even if the employer does not have a formal program advocating that feature. The
employer responses allow us to control for aspects of management style that might be correlated
with the enrichment variables. If the effect of a particular workplace feature erroneously captures
the unobserved management style, then we would expect the effect to disappear when controlling
for the organizational practices of the firm. The employer portion of the survey allows us to
control for six characteristics that describe how work is organized and an additional 12
characteristics describing how decisions are made. All 18 of these control variables are described
in the appendix, at the bottom of table A3.
After analyzing the effect of enrichment on job satisfaction in the full sample, we get
further insight into the intensification hypotheses by separately estimating job satisfaction for
enriched and unionized workers. In these subsets, intensification may be more evident. For
example, if workers find small amounts of enrichment desirable, but associate larger amounts of
enrichment with increased job intensity, then we would expect to see either smaller or negative
effects of enrichment on satisfaction in workplaces that apply several different forms of
enrichment. If workers who opt to join unions are particularly concerned about job intensity and
scope, then we may see strong evidence of the intensification in this sub-sample.
We also test the intensification hypothesis directly using two different measures. First, we
identify those workers who respond that they would like to reduce their workweek, and also
respond that one reason is work-related stress. If enrichment increases the likelihood of a
respondent belonging to this group, then we view this as evidence consistent with the
intensification hypothesis. Second, some prior studies find a causal relationship between some
enrichment variables and workplace hazards or workplace injuries (Askenazy 2001; Brenner,
Fairris and Ruser 2004). Therefore, we also regress days of paid sick leave taken as a function of
the enrichment variables. A positive and significant relationship here would also support the
intensification hypothesis.
Our ability to better control for individual-specific and workplace-specific variables
makes an important contribution to the empirical literature on job satisfaction. Most large micro
data sets of workers do not contain rich information on workplace and job characteristics.
Therefore, the best current work has used data sets limited to a small number of workplaces,
which allows researchers to better identify job characteristics and also to observe several workers
at the same firm or jobsite. Drago, Estrin and Wooden (1992), Gordon and Denisi (1995), and
Brown and McIntosh (2003) show that controlling for workplace characteristics does
qualitatively change conclusions about job-satisfaction. This work, along with Clark (1999) and
Bauer (2004), is among the first to study the relationship between job characteristics and job
satisfaction in a broadly representative data set. Therefore, it reveals how well prior results
generalize, and allows for a much more precise identification of the effects of different types of
job characteristics. In particular, we are unaware of other papers that use matched data, which
allows us to effectively control for unobserved management characteristics.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
METHODOLOGY
Methodology is the science dealing with principles of procedure in research and study. It
is the backbone of project work. Methodology can be defined a: “the analysis of the principles of
the methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline”. It describes how the researcher
selects his sample, sample size, methods of data collection, various tools used for studying the
problem and objective in view. Methodology includes a collection of theories, concepts or ideas
as they relate to a particular discipline or field of inquiry.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
Research methodology is the systematic way to solve the research problem. It is the
science of studying, how a researcher is done scientifically. Research refers to a search of
knowledge one can also define research for the pertinent information on a specific topic. The
research is a care full investigation or enquiry through research for new facts in any branch of
knowledge.
There are four main aspects of the research methodology: design, sampling, data
collection, the data analysis. If inappropriate methodology is used, or if appropriate,
methodology is used poorly, the results of a study could be misleading.
RESEARCH DESIGN
Research design refers to the conception structure within which research would be
conducted. A research design indicates a plan of action to be carried out in connection with a
proposed research work; it provides guideline for knowing whether the research is moving in the
right direction.
In this study the analytical wise research design is used. The study includes survey and
facts finding enquires of different kinds. Further it deals with demographic factors such as age,
sex, education qualification etc.
RESEARCH PROCEDURE
Identification of research problem Literature review Specifying the purpose of research Determine specific research questions or hypotheses Data collection Analyzing and interpreting the data Reporting and evaluating research
SAMPLING
In statistics and survey methodology, sampling is concerned with the selection of a subset
of individuals from within a population to estimate characteristics of the whole population.
SAMPLE TECHNIQUES
a) Population
Population is a set of finite or infinite collection of individuals. Population of this study is
the employees of roots industry limited in Coimbatore.
b) Sample elements
Sample elements of this study are taken from the employees of roots industry limited.
c) Sample size
Sample size refers to the number of the respondent to be selected from the total
population to collect information. The sample size of this study is 100 employees.
d) Sample method
In this study the sample method used is the descriptive sampling. Here 100 employees
are taken on the basis of convenient sampling. No specific method is used in this. These methods
have no strict laws. It is done as per the convenient of the researcher.
e) Sampling unit
This is that element or set of elements considered for selection in some stage of sampling
(same as the elements, in a simple single-stage sample). In a multi-stage sample, the sampling
unit could be blocks, households, and individuals within the households.
f) Sample Design
Sample design is definite plan determined before any data is actually for obtaining a
sample from a given population. This refers to a set of rules or procedures that specify how a
sample is to be selected. This can either be probability or non-probability.
g) Parameter of Interest
Employees of Roots Industry Limited is the parameter of interest.
DATA COLLECTION
Survey method has been used to collect samples. It is the most commonly used method of
primary data collection, survey technique is a systematic gathering of data from respondent
through questionnaires. In this study questionnaire has been used for collecting primary data
through survey method.
SOURCE OF DATA
Both primary and secondary data have been used for data collection.
a. Primary data
The primary data are those data which are collected by the investigator or his agents for
the first time and have original in character. They are the actual information which is received by
the researcher for the study from the actual field of research.
Source of Primary data:
In this study the method used for collection of primary data is questionnaire survey
method. Questionnaire survey means planned effort to collect the desired information from a
representative sample of the relevant population. A questionnaire provides a concrete basis for
negative as well as positive evaluation of respondent. So, a questionnaire was prepared for the
conducting the survey.
b. Secondary data
Secondary data are those data which are already collected by someone for his own
purpose from old files, records, published or unpublished sources, annual reports of the
company. It can be also defined as those data that are collected from some other persons or from
some other persons or from the organization itself.
Sources of secondary data:
Company manuals
Company website
Annual report
Periodicals and publications
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Frequencies:
Bar Chart
Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 21-30 48 45.7 45.7 45.7
31-40 39 37.1 37.1 82.9
Above 40 18 17.1 17.1 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Male 88 83.8 83.8 83.8
Female 17 16.2 16.2 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
Salary
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Below 5000 2 1.9 1.9 1.9
5000-10000 29 27.6 27.6 29.5
10000-15000 26 24.8 24.8 54.3
Above 15000 48 45.7 45.7 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
Education Qualification
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 10th 10 9.5 9.5 9.5
12th 5 4.8 4.8 14.3
Diploma 28 26.7 26.7 41.0
Degree 44 41.9 41.9 82.9
Post Graduate 18 17.1 17.1 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
Experience
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 0-5yrs 26 24.8 24.8 24.8
5-10yrs 30 28.6 28.6 53.3
10-15yrs 29 27.6 27.6 81.0
15-20yrs 16 15.2 15.2 96.2
Above 20yrs 4 3.8 3.8 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
i have the skills and abilities to do more jobs
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 42 40.0 40.0 40.0
Agree 60 57.1 57.1 97.1
Neutral 3 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
motivation is important to do the vertically loaded jobs
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 35 33.3 33.3 33.3
Agree 64 61.0 61.0 94.3
Neutral 6 5.7 5.7 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
the amount of the work i am expected to do on my job is reasonable for me and to the company
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 19 18.1 18.1 18.1
Agree 76 72.4 72.4 90.5
Neutral 8 7.6 7.6 98.1
Disagree 2 1.9 1.9 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
my department has good priorities and direction for employees
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 29 27.6 27.6 27.6
Agree 66 62.9 62.9 90.5
Neutral 8 7.6 7.6 98.1
Disagree 2 1.9 1.9 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
i have adequate information and knowledge which enables me to do my jobs well
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 24 22.9 22.9 22.9
Agree 76 72.4 72.4 95.2
Neutral 5 4.8 4.8 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
opportunity is given in the company to use my variety of skills
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 18 17.1 17.1 17.1
Agree 78 74.3 74.3 91.4
Neutral 8 7.6 7.6 99.0
Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
opportunity is given in the company to complete my entire task which i can do by own
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 21 20.0 20.0 20.0
Agree 76 72.4 72.4 92.4
Neutral 8 7.6 7.6 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
i am confident of my ability to do my job and enriched job
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 34 32.4 32.4 32.4
Agree 68 64.8 64.8 97.1
Neutral 3 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
i am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work and enriched work
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 36 34.3 34.3 34.3
Agree 66 62.9 62.9 97.1
Neutral 3 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
i have mastered in the skills which is necessary for my job and also to do other jobs
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 27 25.7 25.7 25.7
Agree 68 64.8 64.8 90.5
Neutral 10 9.5 9.5 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
i can decide on my own about how to do my own work
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 20 19.0 19.0 19.0
Agree 73 69.5 69.5 88.6
Neutral 10 9.5 9.5 98.1
Disagree 2 1.9 1.9 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
i have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how to do my own job
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 22 21.0 21.0 21.0
Agree 67 63.8 63.8 84.8
Neutral 15 14.3 14.3 99.0
Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
i have significant autonomy in determining how to do my own job
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 14 13.3 13.3 13.3
Agree 76 72.4 72.4 85.7
Neutral 15 14.3 14.3 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
if job enrichment is made i can be more effective
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 20 19.0 19.0 19.0
Agree 74 70.5 70.5 89.5
Neutral 10 9.5 9.5 99.0
Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
i have more technical/behavioral skills to contribute more to the company
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 26 24.8 24.8 24.8
Agree 68 64.8 64.8 89.5
Neutral 10 9.5 9.5 99.0
Disagree 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
job enrichment increases level of skill flexibility
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 20 19.0 19.0 19.0
Agree 72 68.6 68.6 87.6
Neutral 13 12.4 12.4 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
considering everything how far you satisfied with your job
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Highly Satisfied 19 18.1 18.1 18.1
Satisfied 74 70.5 70.5 88.6
Neutral 10 9.5 9.5 98.1
Dissatisfied 1 1.0 1.0 99.0
Highly Dissatisfied 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
do you think that job enrichment has a good effect on skill improvement of employees
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes Majorly 42 40.0 40.0 40.0
Yes Quite a Bit 60 57.1 57.1 97.1
Not Really 3 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
whether you can use your variety of skills to increase the production of the company
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes Majorly 51 48.6 48.6 48.6
Yes Quite a Bit 51 48.6 48.6 97.1
Not Really 3 2.9 2.9 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
rank the department you would like to enrich your job
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Production 57 54.3 54.3 54.3
Marketing 22 21.0 21.0 75.2
Finance 13 12.4 12.4 87.6
Human Resource 8 7.6 7.6 95.2
Selling 1 1.0 1.0 96.2
Design 1 1.0 1.0 97.1
Tool Design 2 1.9 1.9 99.0
IT 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
rank the techniques you need in job enrichment
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Change in Nature of Work 40 38.1 38.1 38.1
Change in Department of Work 19 18.1 18.1 56.2
To Work with New Team 25 23.8 23.8 80.0
More Work with Less Manpower 21 20.0 20.0 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
rank the monetary rewards you need
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Salary 85 81.0 81.0 81.0
Wage 6 5.7 5.7 86.7
Incentives 11 10.5 10.5 97.1
Commission 2 1.9 1.9 99.0
Paid Leave 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
rank the non monetary rewards you need
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Recognition 39 37.1 37.1 37.1
Praise 9 8.6 8.6 45.7
Feedback 8 7.6 7.6 53.3
Fulfilling Work 4 3.8 3.8 57.1
Achievements 8 7.6 7.6 64.8
Responsibility 15 14.3 14.3 79.0
Autonomy 1 1.0 1.0 80.0
Influence 2 1.9 1.9 81.9
Personal Growth 19 18.1 18.1 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
if your enriched job takes extra time than working hours to complete your task will you
like to do it
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 87 82.9 82.9 82.9
No 18 17.1 17.1 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
if yes how many hours you like to work
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid One Hour 7 6.7 6.7 6.7
Two Hours 34 32.4 32.4 39.0
Three Hours 18 17.1 17.1 56.2
Above Three Hours 28 26.7 26.7 82.9
Not at All 18 17.1 17.1 100.0
Total 105 100.0 100.0
ONEWAY EducationQualification BY IHaveTheSkillsAndAbilitiesToDoMoreJobs
Oneway
ANOVA
Education Qualification
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 1.488 2 .744 .581 .561
Within Groups 130.702 102 1.281
Total 132.190 104
Top Related