Learn in your language
Skip to content
A Level · Cambridge (CIE) · 9990

Compare theories of job satisfaction and job design

Compare Herzberg’s hygiene and motivator factors with Hackman and Oldham’s job characteristics model, then distinguish rotation, enlargement and enrichment.

Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 · Organisational Psychology · 2028–2030 · Version 1 · OPTION-OR-4.5.1

Original StudyForA teaching mapped to Cambridge 9990 Organisational Psychology for 2028–2030. Example studies are independent learning support, not Cambridge material or official mark schemes. Findings are limited to their samples, measures and settings.

Before you begin

  • Job satisfaction and work attitudes are related but distinct. Identify the construct, sample and measurement method before interpreting a score or applying a model to an organisation.

Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.

Quick readiness check

Which set belongs to Hackman and Oldham’s job characteristics model?

What you will learn

  • Herzberg’s hygiene and motivational factors
  • Hackman–Oldham job characteristics and psychological states
  • Job enrichment, rotation and enlargement; Belias and Sklikas (2013)

Herzberg separates sources of dissatisfaction from motivators

Herzberg’s two-factor theory distinguishes hygiene factors from motivators. Hygiene factors include pay, policies, supervision, relationships and working conditions. Poor hygiene conditions may cause dissatisfaction; improving them may reduce dissatisfaction without automatically creating lasting interest in the work.

Motivators are features such as achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement and the work itself. The theory proposes that these can support satisfaction and motivation. Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman developed the account from interviews asking 203 accountants and engineers to describe work events associated with marked satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

That method relies on retrospective accounts and the way events are interpreted and classified; occupational and cultural context can matter. Do not use the theory as a universal rule that pay never motivates or that a single job feature affects every worker in the same way.

Hackman and Oldham link job features to psychological states

The job characteristics model identifies skill variety, task identity and task significance as contributors to experienced meaningfulness; autonomy contributes to experienced responsibility; and feedback contributes to knowledge of results. These psychological states are proposed to support internal motivation and other work outcomes.

The model also recognises that people may respond differently to complex, challenging jobs. Growth-need strength and the work context can influence the relationship. The original test examined 658 employees in 62 jobs across seven organisations, supporting the model while remaining bounded by the measures, jobs and organisations studied.

The model differs from Herzberg: it specifies job characteristics and proposed psychological states, rather than dividing conditions into hygiene and motivator categories. Neither model means that simply adding responsibility or variety will help if workers lack training, resources or support.

Job design changes the content or control of a role

Job rotation moves workers between different tasks or roles, usually to broaden experience or vary activity. Job enlargement adds more tasks at a similar level of responsibility. Job enrichment adds greater responsibility, discretion, planning or control, so the role changes vertically as well as horizontally.

Belias and Sklikas (2013) discuss job rotation, enlargement and enrichment as job-design techniques. Their article is a review, not a randomised workplace trial that proves one technique always increases satisfaction or performance.

Start with the job and workers’ needs: a rotation requires training and safe handovers; enlargement can become extra workload without extra control; enrichment needs authority, time and support. Evaluate satisfaction, quality, safety and workload together, with employee consultation and a baseline.

Sources for this lesson

Pause and explain

A worker receives more tasks at the same level of responsibility. Which job-design technique is this?

Put the idea to work

Worked example

A call centre raises pay but leaves workers with repetitive scripts, no task discretion and little feedback. Apply Herzberg and Hackman–Oldham to suggest a cautious job redesign.

Show the worked solution
  1. Pay is a hygiene factor in Herzberg’s account; correcting it may reduce dissatisfaction but need not make the task meaningful.
  2. Low skill variety, task identity, autonomy or feedback may limit the psychological states described by Hackman and Oldham.
  3. Test a supported redesign, such as added task variety or appropriate discretion, while tracking workload, service quality and worker experience.

Answer The pay change addresses a hygiene condition but does not resolve the repetitive task design. A pilot could increase skill variety, task identity, appropriate autonomy and feedback, with training and clear limits. Measure worker experience, quality, errors and workload before and after; neither theory guarantees the same response for every worker.

Try a topic test

Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.

Test this topic →

From guided practice to a new situation

Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.

1 · Guided

A warehouse improves lighting and pay but offers no feedback or responsibility. Explain the change using both Herzberg and Hackman–Oldham.

Give me a hint

Use each theory’s own terms and avoid treating one as the other.

Compare my reasoning
  1. Lighting and pay are hygiene conditions in Herzberg’s account; improving them may reduce dissatisfaction.
  2. The change does not necessarily add motivators such as recognition, achievement or responsibility.
  3. In Hackman–Oldham, feedback and autonomy are job characteristics linked to knowledge of results and experienced responsibility.

The improvements address hygiene conditions and may reduce dissatisfaction, but they do not necessarily add Herzberg motivators. In the job-characteristics model, the role still lacks feedback and autonomy, so knowledge of results and experienced responsibility may remain limited.

Look for these in your work

  • Hygiene factors applied
  • Motivators distinguished
  • Job characteristics mapped to states
2 · Independent

Classify three proposals: rotate workers between stations; add two similar-level duties; let workers plan and evaluate their own work.

Give me a hint

Look at movement between roles, added breadth, and added responsibility.

Compare my reasoning
  1. Moving between stations is job rotation.
  2. Adding duties at a similar level is job enlargement.
  3. Planning and evaluating work adds discretion and control, so it is job enrichment.

The proposals are rotation, enlargement and enrichment respectively. A fair evaluation would check training, workload, safety and whether workers have real authority to carry out enriched responsibilities.

Look for these in your work

  • All three techniques classified
  • Responsibility distinguished from breadth
  • Implementation needs noted
3 · Transfer

Design a small job redesign for a team with low reported feedback and autonomy. State what you would change and how you would evaluate it.

Give me a hint

Tie each proposed change to a model component, then measure possible costs as well as benefits.

Compare my reasoning
  1. Add a regular, useful feedback loop so workers can see task quality and results.
  2. Offer bounded discretion over task sequence or method where safety and service standards allow.
  3. Compare baseline and follow-up worker ratings, errors, workload and safety, and consult workers about access and unintended effects.

A pilot could add task feedback and controlled discretion, linking the change to knowledge of results and autonomy. Evaluate the outcomes together; increased control is not beneficial if workload rises or safety support is missing.

Look for these in your work

  • Model links explicit
  • Changes feasible and bounded
  • Evaluation includes outcomes and trade-offs

Common mistakes

  • Claiming hygiene factors can never influence motivation
  • Treating Herzberg and Hackman–Oldham as the same theory
  • Confusing enlargement with enrichment
  • Assuming more tasks automatically mean more meaningful work
  • Treating a review as an experiment that proves job-design effects
Recall without your notes

What can you explain now?

How does job enlargement differ from job enrichment?

Compare with the explanation

Enlargement adds tasks at a similar responsibility level; enrichment adds greater responsibility, discretion or control.

Ask whether the change is horizontal in task breadth or vertical in responsibility.

After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.

Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.

Make it stick

Explain the difference between hygiene factors and motivators, then map the five job characteristics to the three psychological states. Distinguish rotation, enlargement and enrichment.

If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.

Keep learning Psychology

Course scope and assessment

Seven original lessons map all 15 AS research-method and methodological-concept sections to explained Guided, Independent and Transfer practice. All 12 compulsory AS core studies have original study-specific teaching and staged practice; five additional A Level methodology lessons cover research design and validity. All 15 Clinical, all 15 Consumer (2.1.1–2.5.3) and all 15 Health (3.1.1–3.5.3) Psychology sections link to original teaching and staged practice. All 15 Organisational Psychology sections 4.1–4.5 now have original teaching and explained staged practice; the six new 4.4–4.5 lessons bring the planning map to 92 of 92 indexed sections. Consumer lessons cover physical and psychological environments; decision models, heuristics and mistakes; packaging, selling and buying; advertising, self-monitoring, product placement, brand recognition and slogans. Evaluation boundaries are explicit: studies use particular products, samples, tasks and settings; gaze, recall, self-report, EEG indices, ratings, choices and purchases are different outcomes. Health evidence is bounded: Laba et al. measured hypothetical preferences; Riekert and Drotar raise a non-response concern; Chung and Naya's cap tracked openings, not swallowing; Chaney et al. was a short caregiver-reported pilot; Yokley and Glenwick examined immunisation attendance in one public-health setting. MacLachlan et al. report one patient, not a controlled treatment effect; Brudvik et al. compared separate child, parent and physician ratings in one emergency department. Chandola et al. found a cohort association; Wang et al. measured responses during a monitored arithmetic task; Evans and Wener observed commuters; Bridge et al. found mixed self-rated outcomes in radiotherapy. Janis and Feshbach measured short-term self-reports in one school; Lewin et al. tested a rehabilitation package, not information alone. Tapper et al. and Fox et al. studied bounded school and worksite programmes; incentive effects do not establish transfer or rule out reporting effects. Weinstein measured comparative expectations, while Seligman’s framework is conceptual and Shoshani and Steinmetz used a school-level comparison. These findings do not establish universal health effects or diagnose individuals. Need-theory examples use a child measurement study, not a workplace test; SMART is a practical checklist, not a motivational theory. Landry et al. compared reward framing with student volunteers in a lab; this does not establish universal effects in workplaces. Cuadrado et al. (2008) measured undergraduate evaluations of presented leaders, not workplace performance or hiring; this does not establish a universal gender effect. The historical 1995 Munchausen criteria are not a current diagnostic checklist. Cambridge’s 2028–2030 Reference List treats Oruč et al. (1997) as an example of genetic explanation although its participants had bipolar I; gambling disorder is listed in Cambridge’s Clinical topic but classified under addictive behaviours in ICD-11. Candidates choose two options, but all four remain listed so schools can select a route. The 92-section count is a planning index, not a Cambridge score. Remaining work is deeper coverage review, separate-year syllabus reconciliation, timed-paper practice and human subject-expert review. The separate 2027 and 2024–2026 syllabuses are not reconciled into this route. Practice is not official grading, a timed-paper simulation or human subject-expert review.

StudyForA · Learn with understanding

Original teaching content and links to official sources. Check your exam year and qualification before using a resource.