Job characteristics model.Hackman & Oldham (1976) proposed in the JCM that work should be designed to have fifive core job characteristics ( job variety, job autonomy, job feedback, job signifificance, and job identity ), which engender three critical psychological states in individualsexperiencing meaning, feeling responsible for outcomes, and understanding the results of theirefforts. In turn, these psychological states were proposed to enhance employees' intrinsic motivation, job satisfaction, and performance, while reducing turnover. Although some more specifific propositions of the JCM have not been consistently supported (such as the idea that individualswith a high need for growth will benefifit most from the core job characteristics), the central proposition that work characteristics affect attitudinal outcomes has been well established in several meta-analyses. The most recent meta-analysis (Humphrey et al. 2007), of 259 studies, showed that all or most of the fifive core work characteristics relate to the JCM outcomes of job satisfaction,growth satisfaction, and internal work motivation, as well as to other outcomes such as organizational commitment, coworker satisfaction, burnout, and role perceptions. In addition, experienced meaning was the key psychological state that mediated the relationship between job characteristics and outcomes. These meta-analytic fifindingsbased mostly on studies with cross-sectional research designsare supported by longitudinal and quasi-experimental studies showing positive effects of job enrichment on attitudes and affective reactions (see the review by Parker & Wall1998). Longitudinal studies also show that low autonomy and low support increase absence, and that job enrichment can reduce employee turnover.Meta-analyses show clear links between work characteristics and subjective job performance, although when objective job performance is considered, only job autonomy is important (Humphreyet al. 2007). Several quasi-experimental and longitudinal studies also show positive performance effects of motivating work characteristics, although a smaller set of other studies have failed to show

performance effects (Kopelman 2006), which suggests that the relationship between enrichment and performance is moderated, as discussed in the next section.An issue that has long dogged the JCM is the use of job incumbents' perceptions to assess job characteristics. For instance, critics have argued that individuals' perceptions of their job

characteristics are constructions that arise from social inflfluences, such as the attitudes of their peers. However, although social cues do affect perceptions of work characteristics, there is plenty of evidence that using perceptions to assess job characteristics is valid in most situations (seeDaniels 2006, Morgeson & Campion 2003).

Elaborated job characteristics approaches.The JCM's core elements have been expanded.

For example, the elaborated job characteristics model proposed the need to extend the core workcharacteristics, moderators, outcomes, mechanisms, and antecedents of work design (Parker et al.2001; see also Morgeson & Humphrey 2008), as discussed below.First, there are important job features beyond the JCM's fifive core job characteristics. Over

the years, much attention has been given to social characteristics such as task interdependence (Langfred 2005). Further job characteristics have become salient as a result of changes in work organization. For example, the rise of dual working parents highlights the need to consider autonomy over working hours; the growth in service work identififies the need to consider emotional job demands; the rise of individuals working from home highlights the role of social contact during work; and changes in career structures bring to the fore opportunities for skill development. In their Work Design Questionnaire, Morgeson & Humphrey (2006) distinguished 21 job characteristics covering four categories: task motivation (i.e., the fifive JCM characteristics), knowledge motivation (e.g., problem-solving demands), social characteristics (e.g., social support), and contextual characteristics (e.g., work conditions). In Humphrey et al.'s (2007)meta-analysis, motivational work characteristics explained 34% of the variance in job satisfaction;social and contextual characteristics explained a further 17% and 4%, respectively. Besidesexpanding what work characteristics are considered, it is important to consider interactions between them, such as the balance between individual autonomy and group autonomy (Langfred

2000).A second extension is to consider outcomes of work design beyond those specifified in the JCM. In some cases, the outcomes are extensions of established onesfor example, going beyond increased effort and productivity as the key indicators of performance to examine performance outcomes such as customer loyalty and employee creativity. In other cases, outcomes have been extended to reflflect changes in the nature of work or the workforce. For example, the increasing number of employed women means it is important to consider how work design affects family functioning (see, e.g., Kelly et al. 2011), and interest in social responsibility raises questions about how poor-quality work might lead individuals to seek out enriching volunteer opportunities (Grant 2012a). Additional work design outcomes are further considered in Part 2 of this article (see also reviews such as Demerouti & Bakker 2011, Morgeson & Humphrey 2008).

Third, scholars have identifified mechanisms by which work design might affect job attitudes and behaviors beyond the JCM's critical psychological states. Some of these expanded mechanisms are motivationally oriented, such as self-effificacy (Parker 1998) and psychological empowerment (Morgeson & Campion 2003). Other mechanisms are nonmotivational. For example, employees with autonomy can often respond to problems faster than specialists can (Wall & Jackson 1995), and they can often make better decisions than supervisors can because they can access unique in

formation that is only available to those doing the work (Langfred & Moye 2004). Job enrichment can promote learning and more effective coping, mechanisms considered further in the second part of this review. Fourth, scholars have considered an elaborated set of moderators of how work characteristics affect outcomes. When it comes to individual differences, the concept of fifit suggests that which work characteristics are valued varies according to individual preferences, desires, and demographics. Individual differences do moderate work design effects, although these fifindings are rather inconsistent (Morgeson & Campion 2003). Moreover, there is no basis for expecting that any single individual difference variable will moderate all work characteristic-outcome relation ships, because the processes underpinning these links vary according to the work characteristic and the outcome. A theoretical approach will help move this area forward, such as Raja & Johns's

(2010) study that drew on trait activation theory (which predicts that people behaviorally express their traits in situations that cue those traits) to understand the link between personality, job scope, and performance. Several theoretical predictions remain untested, such as Fried et al.'s(2007) proposal that simplifified jobs might not cause adverse effects early in one's career if a job is seen as a stepping stone for future enriched jobs.The most consistent contextual moderator of work design is uncertainty. Job enrichment appears to most enhance performance when operational uncertainty is high rather than low (see Wall& Jackson 1995). This is probably because, in unpredictable situations, knowledge is incomplete

and flflexible responses are required, and autonomy facilitates both the speed and quality of decision making. Scholars have also argued that enriched work design is most effective when it aligns with organizational and human resource systems (Cordery & Parker 2007), a perspective that concurs with the high-performance work systems perspective that bundles of aligned practices enhance organizational performance (see, e.g., Combs et al. 2006). In contrast to these arguments, Morgeson et al. (2006) found that autonomous work groups are effective only when reward, feedback,

and information systems are poor. Although studies have considered national cultural inflfluences on work design, there is no clear overall picture of cultural effects (Erez 2010), which is a salient void in the context of globalization.A fififth elaboration of the JCM has been to consider individual and contextual factors that shape, inflfluence, and/or constrain work characteristics. Regarding individual factors, job incumbents can proactively craft their own job designs (see Expanded Motivational Theories, below). Regarding contextual factors, variables such as institutional regimes, organizational design, leadership, occupational context, and organizational practices (e.g., structural empowerment, lean production, temporary employment, downsizing, teleworking) can directly affect or generate work characteristics or exert a cross-level inflfluence on work characteristics (see Motivational Work Design in Practice, below). An implication of these fifindings is that work can be redesigned not only by direct manipulation of job characteristics but also, for example, by developing empowering leaders or by restructuring. A further implication is that work design should be proactively considered when new technologies and strategies are introduced (although, unfortunately, work design is often disregarded). Occupations can also shape or constrain work characteristics (Dierdorff & Morgeson 2013), and the relationship between broader practices

and work design can be reciprocal, for example, a positive leader-member exchange relationshipbetween a manager and the job incumbent might contribute to more enriched work that, in turn reinforces and enhances the positive relationship between the manager and the job incumbent.Altogether, the JCM has been expanded in useful ways. It can, and should, be expanded further to reflflect changes in work in general (e.g., a growth in virtual work, changes in employment contracts, and an increase in service and knowledge work) and changes in the nature of the workforce (e.g., aging, more women, increased diversity as a result of migration patterns).

Group work design.Group work design is appropriate when individual roles are interdependent and there is a need for collective working. Sociotechnical systems principles were early inflfluences on group work design. Scholars (see, e.g., Campion et al. 1993) extended these ideas, proposing input-process-output models of team effectiveness. Inputs include group-level work design,contextual inflfluences, and group composition; processes include intermediary group states or at

tributes such as group norms; and outputs include team-level performance and team-member affective reactions. Subsequent team research expanded these models in various ways, although the work design characteristics focused on are still primarily group-level versions of the JCM, with the additional inclusion of interdependence.Most attention has been given to group autonomy, which is when team members are allocated collective responsibility for their work. There is encouragingly consistent evidence across studies of autonomous work groups, team effectiveness, and team empowerment that group autonomy is associated with positive team member job attitudes and reactions, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Maynard et al. 2012, Parker & Wall 1998). One dent in this positive picture is the question of whether team autonomy can operate as an insidious form of control.Barker's (1993, p. 432) ethnographic study showed that in self-managing teams, workers imposed values on themselves in an increasingly rigid way, such that initially enthusiastic participants became "strained and burdened." Such fifindings might not be generalizable. For example, Gaille(2013) reported for a large sample of UK workers that, although individual autonomy was more strongly correlated with well-being and satisfaction than participation in a semiautonomous work group was, the latter hadno negative effect on well-being and had a positive effect on learning.Just as for individual-level work design and performance, the story for performance and behavioral outcomes of group autonomy is more complex (Cohen & Bailey 1997). Reviews and meta-analyses identify positive performance and behavioral effects of group autonomy (see, e.g.,Cohen & Bailey 1997), for example, via psychological empowerment (Maynard et al. 2012). However, at least a few rigorous studies have shown nonsignifificant or mixed effects (see Parker & Wall1998). Null effects might be partly explained by a mismatch between group autonomy and teammember task interdependence: Group work does not make sense if team members have low task interdependence. Consistent with this premise, Langfred (2005) reported that teams with high task interdependence perform better with high levels of team autonomy, whereas low-interdependence teams perform better with high levels of individual autonomy. Likewise, a meta-analysis by Burke et al. (2006) showed that empowering leadership predicts team productivity most strongly when interdependence in the team is high rather than low.Beyond interdependence, other moderators of group autonomy effects have been identifified;for example, self-managing teams have more positive effects when team members are not isolated from external inflfluences (Haas 2010), when task uncertainty is high (Cordery et al. 2010), and when teams engage in conceptual tasks for which the means-ends is not clear rather than simpler behavioral tasks (Stewart & Barrick 2000). Virtuality also appears important: Kirkman et al. (2004) showed that team empowerment is a stronger predictor of team effectiveness when teams meet face to face less often; their explanation for this fifinding is that empowerment is especially important for facilitating learning within a challenging virtual context. Another question concerns the higher-level effects of group autonomy. A case study showed that autonomous group work design can enhance intrateam performance while hampering interteam coordination because of the high team ownership experienced by team members (Ingvaldsen& Rolfsen 2012). Similarly, in a simulation study, decentralized planning was associated with

increased team member proactivity and aspiration, but also with coordination problems across teams, resulting in net negative effects on multisystem performance (Lanaj et al. 2013).A broader literature on concepts such as high-performance work systems (HPWSs) typically considers self-management of teams to be one of the important practices, alongside other elements such as incentive compensation and extensive training. HPWSs are associated with organizational performance, and the link is stronger when a system of practices is considered rather than one

single practice (Combs et al. 2006). One would anticipate that these positive organization-level effects are partly accounted for by the positive effects of individual or group work design at lower levels of analysis, although most studies have not examined these pathways.

Expanded Motivational Theories: Proactive, Prosocial, and Other Perspectives

This section extends beyond intrinsic motivation to consider the effect of work design on proactive and prosocial forms of motivation (see also Grant & Parker 2009), as well as on other forms of motivation.

Proactive perspectives on work design.The JCM is relatively passive in terms of the type of outcomes it considers as well as the presumed causes of work design.Regarding outcomes, job satisfaction is one of the most popular outcomes of work design,yet satisfaction can be experienced as a form of passive contentment. Likewise, task performance concerns carrying out expected tasks well, but more active types of performance, such as taking initiative and proactively introducing improvements, are considered increasingly important in today's dynamic workplaces. Consequently, scholars have increasingly become concerned with how work design can facilitate more proactive attitudes and behaviors. Parker et al. (2010) argued that work design can promote "can do," "reason to," and "energized to" motivational states that in turn stimulate proactivity. Thus, varied and challenging tasks provide employees the opportunity for enactive mastery, which, in turn, cultivates self-effificacy beliefs that they can take charge of their environment (Parker 1998). Enriched jobs also enhance individuals' reason to be proactive, for example, by giving individuals a better appreciation of the impact of their work (Grant 2007) and by promoting flflexible role orientations in which individuals feel ownership for broader work goals(Parker et al. 2001). Interestingly, time pressure and situational constraintswhich are typically considered to be stressors in work settingscan also generate a reason to be proactive. From a control theory perspective, these stressors signal a mismatch between a desired and an actual situation, which stimulates employees to want to proactively rectify the situation (Fay & Sonnentag 2002). Finally, enriched jobs can promote "energized to" states, such as feelings of enthusiasm and vigor (Parker et al. 2009). A meta-analysis by Tornau & Frese (2013) highlighted the importance of job control and social support in predicting proactive work behavior.A second proactive perspective relates to the causes of work design. The traditional work design approach assumes that others (e.g., managers) design jobs, or that work design derives

from broader organizational and technological choices. However, individuals mold their work characteristics to fifit their individual abilities or personalities. Much recent attention has been given to how individuals redesign their own work, for example, through job crafting, proactive work behavior, or obtaining personalized employment arrangements in the form of idiosyncratic deals (Grant & Parker 2009). Groups can also initiate work design change (see, e.g., Leana et al.

2009). Training individuals to proactively craft their work might increase the effectiveness of top-down work redesign efforts by equipping job incumbents with the skills and attitudes to realize the opportunities offered. Knowledge and professional workers might particularly benefifit from redesigning their own work, because these individuals typically have more autonomy, higher education, and higher aspiration for career progression and are increasingly subjected to excessive

work demands that might require crafting to be manageable (see below). Theoretically, although scholars recognize that individuals' proactivity can shape their work design, the mechanisms by which this process occurs have barely been considered (Grant & Parker 2009).The above proactive perspectives come together in the idea of a positive spiral, in which work design promotes proactive attitudes and behaviors that, in turn, lead individuals to shape their work design, causing further development of proactive attitudes and behaviors, ad infifinitum. In support of such a spiral, Frese et al. (2007) showed that autonomy and job complexity predict control orientation (a motivational state that includes self-effificacy), which predicts personal initiative, which in turn leads to perceptions of autonomy and complexity. Research on the job demands-resources model (see below) is similarly concerned with positive spirals between job resources

and personal resources (Demerouti & Bakker 2011). One issue to explore further is how workdesign might, via such positive spirals, contribute to positive organization-level outcomes, such as organizational innovation or corporate entrepreneurship.

Prosocial motivation and relational work design.Attention to social and relational aspects of work design has recently gathered pace, in part because of shifts in practice, such as a greater level of collaboration across intra- and interorganizational boundaries (Grant & Parker 2009). A key advance is the relational job design perspective, which focuses on how work structures can provide more or fewer opportunities for employees to interact with others, which in turn affect their motivation, attitudes, and job performance (Grant 2007). In an extension of research on task signifificance, Grant (2007) argued that when jobs are structured such that incumbents have contact with those who benefifit from their work (i.e., benefificiaries, such as clients, customers, and patients), job incumbents empathize with the benefificiaries, which encourages incumbents' effort,persistence, and helping behavior.A series of studies by Grant and colleagues has supported and extended these ideas. In a fifield ex periment in a call center, callers were given brief contact with a benefificiaryin this case, a scholar ship recipient who benefifited from funding raised by callers. Compared with controls, these callers spent signifificantly more time on calls over the next month and vastly increased their average weekly

revenue (Grant et al. 2007). In another study, nurses who volunteered to help assemble surgical kitsfor use in disadvantaged countries met and heard vivid stories from benefificiaries (in this case, health are practitioners who had previously used surgical kits in former war zones). Compared with controls, these nurses had increased prosocial motivation and assembled more kits (Belle 2013), an effect that was even stronger for individuals high in prosocial motivation at the outset. The positive effects of relational work design are boosted by transformational leadership (Grant 2012b).

A key theoretical contribution of the relational perspective is that work design can activate employees' prosocial motivation, that is, their desire to bring benefifit to others. This contrasts with the traditional emphasis on designing work to enhance intrinsic interest in the job. Practically,relational work design can be a path for increasing work meaning when enriched types of work redesign are impossible or politically untenable. It is also likely that different forms of relational work design will suit different contexts. For a sample of doctors who already had frequent contact with patients, structural support was a powerful form of relational work design, albeit one focused on enhancing relationships among employees rather than between employees and their benefificiaries (Parker et al. 2012).

sourceParker, S. (2014). Beyond motivation: job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity, and more.Annual review of psychology, 65, 661-91 .

QuestionCompare individual versus group-focused work design models.