EP_24

EuroMed Journal of Business
Work characteristics and work performance of knowledge workers

Tomislav Hernaus Josip Mikulić
Article information:
To cite this document:
Tomislav Hernaus Josip Mikulić , (2014)," Work characteristics and work performance of knowledge workers
", EuroMed Journal of Business, Vol. 9 Iss 3 pp. 268 - 292
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-11-2013-0054
Downloaded on: 14 December 2016, At: 05:28 (PT)
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 05:28 14 December 2016 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 127 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1786 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2012),"Development of an individual work performance questionnaire", International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management, Vol. 62 Iss 1 pp. 6-28 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410401311285273
(2014),"Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance", International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63 Iss 3 pp. 308-323 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJPPM-01-2013-0008
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:173272 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1450-2194.htm
EMJB
9,3
Work characteristics and
work performance of
knowledge workers
268 Tomislav Hernaus
Department of Organization and Management,
Received 7 November 2013
Revised 30 January 2014 Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia, and
8 March 2014 Josip Mikulić
Accepted 8 March 2014
Department of Tourism Faculty of Economics and Business,
University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate a specific pattern of relationships among
various task, knowledge and social characteristics of work design and work outcomes. It clearly shows
how particular work characteristics influence task and contextual performance.
Design/methodology/approach – The empirical research was conducted through a field survey
of the largest Croatian organizations with more than 500 employees. A cross-sectional and
cross-occupational sample of 512 knowledge workers from 48 organizations is analyzed by applying
the partial least squares structural equation modeling technique.
Findings – The results confirmed the existence and importance of the interaction between work
characteristics and work outcomes. However, the findings suggest that only knowledge characteristics
of work design exhibit a significant effect on both dimensions of work behavior, while task and social
characteristics showed different effects on task and contextual performance, respectively.
Practical implications – The research findings clearly show that work design efforts are not
straightforward but rather context-specific, and with diverging performance effects. Organizations can
significantly enhance their bottom-line performance by designing challenging and cognitively
demanding configurations of work tasks for their knowledge workers.
Originality/value – The paper extends previous research by capturing a broader set of work
characteristics of knowledge workers. The results suggest that different categories of work characteristics
have different effects on task and contextual performance. By revealing the nature of work design in
the central and eastern European context, this study indicates the existence of possible differences in work
design practices in various backgrounds.
Keywords Work design, Work characteristics, PLS-SEM, Contextual performance,
Task performance
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Global business trends are dramatically changing the settled ways of organizing
and working (e.g. Oldham and Hackman, 2010; Hernaus, 2011a). Work has become
more cognitively demanding and complex, flexible working arrangements are gaining
momentum, teamwork has almost become a norm while workforce composition is
much more diverse than it used to be. Substantial changes in the nature of work
and the rise of knowledge economy have recently revived the academic interest and
EuroMed Journal of Business
Vol. 9 No. 3, 2014
pp. 268-292 The authors are grateful to the Editor-in-Chief and the two anonymous reviewers for their
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1450-2194 insights and recommendations. The authors also thank Marylene Gagne and Nina Pološki Vokić
DOI 10.1108/EMJB-11-2013-0054 for valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this work.
broadened the research focus from job design to work design, and from task Work
characteristics to job/work characteristics. A wider range of work characteristics have characteristics
been recognized (e.g. Parker et al., 2001; Molinsky and Margolis, 2005; Morgeson and
Humphrey, 2006; Grant, 2007; Humphrey et al., 2007; Grant et al., 2010b; Dierdorff and work
and Morgeson, 2013) in a search for better understanding of contemporary jobs, performances
employees’ work behavior and performance.
Although work design, as an antecedent of organizational behavior, represents the 269
central pillar of performance, it is still an under-researched topic. This holds true for
intellectually challenging working environments. For instance, a multidimensionality
of work characteristics has not been emphasized enough (e.g. Grant et al., 2010a) and a
large number of knowledge work relationships (e.g. job specialization, problem solving,
and information processing) have not been sufficiently and systemically studied
yet (Grant, 2007; Humphrey et al., 2007). A better understanding of the knowledge
work context could be achieved by expanding the range of work characteristics beyond
task characteristics and studying their interaction and multidimensionality more
thoroughly (e.g. Parker and Ohly, 2008; Grant et al., 2010a). Although Campion and
Thayer (1985) and Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) among the others have developed
a very broad understanding of modern work design theory, their models should be
empirically tested in different contexts in order to be validated and further improved.
The aim of the current study is to capture a broader set of work characteristics and
to determine a specific pattern of relationships among various task, knowledge, and
social characteristics of work design and work outcomes. Knowledge workers are in
the focus of the research as they are an increasingly important and voluminous group
of employees, including a quarter to a half of workers in advanced economies
(e.g. Drucker, 1959; Davenport, 2005; Levenson, 2012). Work design practices of
Croatian workers were examined using an adapted Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ)
and by applying variance-based structural equations modeling (SEM).
The study clearly shows how particular bundles of work characteristics are related
to both task and contextual performance. By taking into consideration an extensive
number of work characteristics and two distinct work outcome measures, research
findings offer a more generalized view of work design and provide useful insights for
both HRM theory and practice. Additionally, as we know very little about how work
design is done in transitional economies (e.g. Fay and Frese, 2000) this empirical study
revealed the nature of jobs and respective work characteristics in the central and
eastern European context.
2. Literature review and hypotheses development

Work characteristics
Jobs are tightly woven into the structure and affect every aspect of the organization.
Their nature can vary substantially within and between organizations. However, although
heterogeneous in nature, jobs can be conceived, analysed and compared in broader
terms. While work design offers both a holistic and an analytical view for studying jobs,
work characteristics represent objective, measurable dimensions of work and reflect
conceptually distinct design features (e.g. Morgeson and Campion, 2003).
During the 1970s and the 1980s, jobs were dominantly described and evaluated
through task characteristics. The Job Characteristics Model ( JCM) introduced by
Hackman and Oldham (1976), which has so far been cited over 4,500 times (Google
Scholar, accessed March 3, 2014), heavily stressed the importance of these motivational
attributes of work. Task job characteristics are associated with task environment and
EMJB reflect structural aspects of work tasks (Spector and van Katwyk, 1999). High levels of
9,3 these characteristics lead to a higher motivating potential of a particular job, which
was established from an extensive investigation of manual and clerical workers over
the past decades. Widely accepted and recognized task job characteristics are: work
autonomy, task variety, task significance, task identity, and feedback (e.g. Hackman
and Lawler, 1971; Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Sims et al., 1976; Fried and Ferris, 1987;
270 Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006).
However, although the JCM is insightful and important, it provides a limited view of
work and neglects other important job-related aspects (such as the social and physical
environment, cognitive requirements, and work context). The global shift to the service
and knowledge economy, accompanied by technological and scientific advances,
has profoundly changed the nature of work done within organizations. Now more
than ever, employees need to handle non-repetitive, non-routine tasks and they
are getting more involved in complex knowledge processing (e.g. Kumar, 2011).
The increase of knowledge workers whose jobs mainly deal with knowledge or
information (Drucker, 1993, 1999; Cortada, 1998; Huang, 2011) requires a more
thorough investigation of work characteristics of this important and distinct group of
employees (e.g. Von Glinow, 1988; Allee, 1997; Horibe, 1999; Yan et al., 2011).
Thus, researchers devoted a great attention to extending the model conceptually to
include a broader range of work characteristics. The interdisciplinary perspective
developed by Campion and Thayer (1985) and Campion (1987) was one of the most
significant efforts. Warr (1987) concurrently created his extensive Vitamin Model,
while several years later Parker et al. (2001) introduced their Elaborated Model of
Work Design, distinguishing among five categories of variables (i.e. antecedents,
work characteristics, outcomes, mechanisms, and contingencies). Finally, Humphrey
et al. (2007) conducted a meta-analysis and provided an integrative work design
typology that placed 18 work characteristics into three major categories: motivational
(task and knowledge), social, and contextual. Obviously, the aforementioned extensions
to the original JCM addressed important work features that should be additionally
investigated within the knowledge work context. Besides the traditionally addressed task
characteristics, it has been argued that both social and knowledge job characteristics
should be studied more thoroughly (e.g. Grant, 2007; Morgeson and Humphrey, 2008;
Grant and Parker, 2009; Parker and Ohly, 2009).
Social job characteristics provide a unique perspective on work design beyond
motivational characteristics (Humphrey et al., 2007). They are the structural features
of jobs that influence relational coordination and emphasize interpersonal interactions
and social environment as pervasive and important determinants of work design.
Social characteristics of work have become especially important due to a recent wider
application of teams and teamwork in organizations, following the realization that people
often cannot handle complex tasks by themselves. Interdependence, both received and
initiated, strongly determines the nature of a particular work. However, there are also
other relevant social job characteristics such as: social support, interaction outside the
organization, and feedback from others (e.g. Kiggundu, 1981; Grant, 2007; Humphrey
et al., 2007; Morgeson and Humphrey, 2008; Grant and Parker, 2009).
Recent dissemination of service work and an overflow of knowledge workers
have particularly emphasized the importance of cognitive ability for handling working
issues. As organizations increasingly struggle with complexity and tend to build
their future on the knowledge work, they should be able to recognize, understand and
design jobs that will utilize competencies of their workers. Cognitive or knowledge
characteristics of work reflect the kinds of knowledge, skill, and ability demands that Work
are placed on an individual as a function of what is done on the job (Morgeson and characteristics
Humphrey, 2006). They are the structural features of jobs that affect the development
and utilization of information and skills (Parker et al., 2001). The most prominent and work
knowledge job characteristics are: job complexity, information processing, skill variety, performances
problem solving, skill utilization, and job specialization (e.g. Morgeson and Humphrey,
2006, 2008; Vough and Parker, 2008). 271
Although the abovementioned work characteristics explain a respective amount
of variance in work outcomes (e.g. Humphrey et al., 2007), the list is not exhaustive. Not
only that some work characteristics cannot fit neatly into these three categories, but
there are other significant categories (e.g. physical characteristics, temporal characteristics,
group characteristics, organizational characteristics, occupational characteristics) that
represent attributes of the broader work environment and also strongly shape the
work and influence employees’ outcomes (e.g. Parker and Wall, 1998; Parker et al., 2001;
Morgeson and Campion, 2003; Morgeson and Humphrey, 2008; Dierdorff and Morgeson,
2013). However, it is not possible to address their entire complexity in a single study, so the
research focus was on the most relevant task, knowledge, and social job characteristics of
knowledge workers, and their relationship with work outcome variables.
Task and contextual performance

Employee performance and behavior result from both objective (work characteristics)
and subjective (individual traits) features of the workplace. From the organizational
standpoint, decisions made about work design are particularly relevant, because work
characteristics shape an employee’s motivation and have an enormous positive or
negative impact on organizational success and individual well-being (e.g. Morgeson
and Campion, 2003).
In the last two decades an increasing number of authors strongly suggested that work
performance should be measured as behavioral outcomes that consist of task performance
and contextual performance (e.g. Campbell, 1990; Borman and Motowidlo, 1993, 1997;
Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994; Motowidlo and Schmit, 1999). These constructs reflect
different aspects of overall work performance (e.g. Griffin et al., 2000) and they are
presumed to exist in virtually all jobs (Hattrup et al., 1998).
Task performance or in-role performance can be defined as the effectiveness with
which employees perform activities that contribute to the organization’s technical core
(Borman and Motowidlo, 1997). Employees can add value either directly by designing
and implementing a part of its technological process, such as creating a product
prototype, delivering and improving a service, managing subordinates, or indirectly by
providing it with the needed knowledge support. This type of performance refers to
activities that are formally a part of a job description and evaluates the basic required
duties of a particular job (Ng and Feldman, 2009).
Contextual performance or extra-role performance, a construct very similar in
nature to organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (e.g. Organ, 1988, 1997), represents
behavior that does not necessarily support the organization’s technical core as much as
it supports the organization’s climate and culture (Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994;
Conway, 1996; Borman and Motowidlo, 1997; Motowidlo et al., 1997; Edwards et al.,
2008; Jex and Britt, 2008). Contextual activities are important because they contribute
to organizational effectiveness by shaping the organizational, the social, and the
psychological context and because they serve as a catalyst for task activities and
processes. Such activities include volunteering to carry out task activities that are not
EMJB formally a part of the job, as well as helping and cooperating with others in the
9,3 organization to get tasks accomplished (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997).
Research hypotheses
Task and contextual performance as outcome variables represent a starting point in
determining the overall contribution of a knowledge worker to a wider, organizational
272 system. Both outcomes were found to be important in determining work quality,
which is responsible for enhancing individual work performance (e.g. Motowidlo and
Van Scotter, 1994). However, task and contextual performance are affected by work
characteristics in a specific manner. For instance, extensive research suggests that
employees, who work in jobs with enriched work characteristics, tend to manifest
higher task performance and more frequent OCBs (e.g. Grant, 2012). Since earlier
studies were mostly focussed on the JCM and its traditional job (task) characteristics,
there is a lack of studies that explicitly compare the effect of other (e.g. knowledge and
social) work characteristics on distinctive job-related outcomes. Although Humphrey
et al. (2007) have done the groundwork for such research, by analyzing numerous work
characteristics and outcomes, unfortunately they did not put enough emphasis on
work performance, particularly not on its contextual dimension.
Previous research efforts dominantly reported a significant influence of task
characteristics on individual job performance of non-managerial, clerical, and
manual workers (e.g. Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Fried and Ferris, 1987; Dodd and
Ganster, 1996; Singh, 1998; Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006, 2008; Humphrey et al.,
2007; Indartono et al., 2010). In addition, the results of meta-analyses revealed that task
characteristics are weakly related to task performance (e.g. Fried, 1991; Podsakoff et al.,
1996; Sonnentag et al., 2008) and somewhat stronger associated with contextual
performance (e.g. Podsakoff et al., 1996; Purvanova et al., 2006; Johari, 2011).
However, studies that jointly examine the relationship between bundles of work
characteristics and both task and contextual performance of knowledge workers are
scarce. Although several studies suggest that task job characteristics have a stronger
link with contextual than they do with task performance (e.g. Parker and Wall, 1998;
Chen and Chiu, 2009), we still do not know whether this is valid for knowledge
workers. Knowledge work is clearly distinct from non-knowledge work (e.g. Yan et al.,
2011) and it could potentially have diverse effects on work behavior. Knowledge
workers require greater autonomy, they would like to handle a more significant and
identifiable piece of work, and should perform a wider range of different tasks
than manual or clerical workers. Enriched task job characteristics of knowledge
workers should increase their motivation and encourage individual work efforts.
However, putting larger emphasis on work autonomy and task identity could have
a differing effect on handling contextual activities and practising cooperative
behavior. Knowledge workers might not be motivated to collaborate with others
if their jobs require handling complex tasks from a beginning to an end. Therefore, we
assume that task job characteristics should have a diverse impact on various work
performance dimensions:
H1a. Task job characteristics have a significant impact on task performance of

knowledge workers.
H1b. Task job characteristics do not have a significant impact on contextual

performance of knowledge workers.
Recently, researchers have noted that social or relational job characteristics are also Work
important components of work (Parker and Wall, 2001; Humphrey et al., 2007), which characteristics
can potentially influence both task and contextual performance. Enriched social
characteristics are related to positive, socially oriented work behaviors (Grant, 2007; and work
Dierdorff and Morgeson, 2013) and may generate positive affect. They are particularly performances
important for knowledge-based activities (e.g. Starbuck, 1992), because managers
and professionals mostly conduct their work by coordinating the efforts of their 273
subordinates or through interaction, collaboration, and exchange of information with
their colleagues or business partners. Although already Hackman and Lawler (1971)
have found that jobs with enriched social roles significantly relate to job performance,
empirical findings regarding the nature of their influence on contextual performance are
still insufficient. Whilst larger task interdependence and collaborative practices such as
teamwork and interaction with others should significantly endorse organizational
contribution, knowledge workers could easily lose focus on their individual work activities.
Thus, we formulate the following hypotheses:
H2a. Social job characteristics do not have a significant impact on task performance
of knowledge workers.
H2b. Social job characteristics have a significant impact on contextual performance

Finally, we should not neglect the influence of knowledge job characteristics on work
outcomes. Their recent development reflects the wide increase of knowledge work
and knowledge workers in modern business (Huang, 2011). Given the intellectual
nature of knowledge workers, the enriched knowledge job characteristics should be
positively related to perceived skill utilization (e.g. Morrison et al., 2005) and they are
important for achieving the person-job fit (e.g. Edwards, 1991; Cable and Judge, 1996;
Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). If they are enriched, knowledge job characteristics can
create challenging task bundles and provide workers with opportunities to solve
problems, process complex information, and to apply deep and broad skills (e.g.
Morgeson and Campion, 2002; Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006). Such a demanding and
complex work setting is aligned with personal traits and KSAs of knowledge workers,
and therefore should result in a positive work behavior:
H3a. Knowledge job characteristics have a significant impact on task performance

H3b. Knowledge job characteristics have a significant impact on contextual

performance of knowledge workers (Figure 1).
Workers with enriched motivational (task and knowledge) and social job
characteristics may feel grateful to the organization for providing desirable jobs
(Slattery et al., 2010). According to Grant (2012), their core motives can be satisfied
by enriched work designs that provide meaning, connection, and the sense of social
belonging, as well as learning and developmental opportunities. Eventually,
such positive, motivational and challenging stimuli should result in better
work performance results in general although some distinctive effects on different
performance dimensions should be present.
EMJB WORK DESIGN WORK PERFORMANCE
CHARACTERISTICS OUTCOMES
9,3
Task characteristics
Work autonomy
Task variety
Task significance H1a
274 Task identity
Nature of the task H1b
Task
Knowledge characteristics performance
Job complexity H3a
Skill variety
Job specialization
Problem solving H3b Contextual
Information processing performance
Skill utilization
H2a
Social characteristics
Task interdependence H2b
Figure 1. Interaction with others
Research model Group cooperation
3. Method
Sample
The empirical research was conducted through a field study of employees from
large-sized Croatian organizations. The population consisted of 226 organizations
with more than 500 employees listed by the Croatian Chamber of Economy.
A cross-sectional and cross-occupational research design was applied in order to
include knowledge workers – managers and professionals – from a variety of different
jobs and occupations.
The data collection process began in November 2009 and lasted until February
2010. The self-administered questionnaire supplemented with a cover letter and
a short brochure was distributed by postal mail to CEOs of targeted organizations.
The snowball sampling strategy was used in order to increase the sample variety.
Contact persons in each organization, chosen by their CEOs, received guidelines for
choosing the sample of managers and professionals, which represented various parts
and levels of the organization. Respondents were surveyed regarding the nature
of their work characteristics.
A total of 139 managers and 373 professionals from 48 organizations were chosen
to participate in the research with the overall response rate of 21.2 percent. The survey
sample included organizations from 12 different industries. Manufacturing
organizations (33.3 percent), along with transport and financial companies (each
12.5 percent) were mostly represented. The chosen sampling strategy ensured a
considerable number of diverse jobs at the individual level (185 different job titles),
thereby increasing the external validity of the findings (e.g. Chen and Chiu, 2009).
The modal number of respondents per organization was six, M ¼ 10.69, SD ¼ 7.72.
Most of the participants were 30-39 years old, with more than ten years of work
experience (60.9 percent), and 48.7 percent were female. Respondents dominantly had
a university diploma (77.0 percent) and were mainly positioned on the third or the Work
fourth hierarchical level within the organization (56.5 percent). characteristics
Research instrument and work
The work characteristics were assessed using the adapted WDQ, a comprehensive performances
instrument and a general measure of work design originally developed and validated
by Morgeson and Humphrey (2006). Since WDQ provides a very good platform 275
for work design research (e.g. Truxillo et al., 2012), we decided to adopt 11 out of
21 original WDQ measures, and followed a later example of Dierdorff and Morgeson
(2013), who computed work autonomy and interdependence measures into a single
variable each. Other measures, related to the nature of task, skill variety, skill utilization,
and group cooperation have been adopted from the revised Job Diagnostic Survey ( JDS)
(Idaszak and Drasgow, 1987), Karasek’s Job-Demand-Control ( JDC) model (Xie, 1996) and
the work of Campion et al. (1993) and Hernaus (2010), respectively.

The survey questionnaire was focussed on gathering perceived work characteristics
of knowledge workers rather than objective characteristics; because there is a strong
evidence and common thinking that employee self-ratings are congruent with objective
job features (e.g. Oldham et al., 1976; Fried and Ferris, 1987; Kulik et al., 1987;
Naughton and Outcalt, 1988; Spector, 1992; Parker and Ohly, 2009; Hornung et al., 2010;
Barrick et al., 2013). Furthermore, as most research on work design has been conducted
in the way that employees evaluated both the work characteristics and perceptual
outcomes (Humphrey et al., 2007), we have also decided to adopt subjective measures of
work performance. We used work outcome measures of task and contextual performance
initially developed by Borman and Motowidlo (1993, 1997), and empirically tested and
adjusted by Befort and Hattrup (2003). Such subjective measures of work performance
are introduced as appropriate measures not only within the field of HRM (e.g. Wall et al.,
2004), but they are also valid in almost all the major topic areas in the field of
organizational psychology (Mowday and Sutton, 1993).
The survey instrument encompassed 72 items on a five-point Likert-type scale
measuring 14 work design variables and two outcome variables. Respondents had to
indicate the extent of agreement or disagreement with statements about their work
characteristics (ranging from 1 ¼ “strongly disagree” to 5 ¼ “strongly agree”). The
adapted questionnaire was pre-tested and its reliability and validity had been checked
causing smaller changes in the initial design, ultimately resulting in 65 items that are
aggregately shown in Table I.
Data analysis
In order to test the previously formulated research hypotheses we applied partial least
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). PLS-SEM is a variance-based
modeling technique that has been gaining increasing popularity in organizational
research (e.g. Becker et al., 2012; Hair et al., 2012; Peng and Lai, 2012; Wilden
et al., 2013). An important advantage of PLS-SEM toward covariance-based SEM
(e.g. LISREL, AMOS) is that it deals more efficiently with non-normal data and
facilitates model estimations that involve both reflectively and formatively identified
variables (Ringle et al., 2012). The latter feature is the main reason for applying
PLS-SEM in the present study, since the focal exogenous variables cannot be
appropriately modeled as reflectively identified constructs (i.e. task, social, and
knowledge job characteristics). These variables were modeled as second-order
formative constructs with several reflectively identified first-order constructs.
EMJB Number Cronbach’s
9,3 Category Variable Source of items a
Work characteristics
Task job Work autonomy (AUTON) WDQb 3 0.765
characteristics (TASK) Task variety (VARIETY) WDQ 3a 0.704
276 Task significance (SIGNIF) WDQ 4 0.700
Task identity (IDENTITY) WDQ 4 0.844
Nature of the task (NATURE) Hernaus (2010) 3 0.604
Knowledge job Job complexity ( JCOMPLEX) WDQ 3 0.676
characteristics (KNOW) Skill variety (SKILVAR) JDS 2a 0.737
Job specialization ( JOBSPEC) WDQ 4 0.861
Problem solving (PROBSOLV) WDQ 4 0.653
Information processing WDQ 4 0.851

(PROCINF)
Skill utilization (SKILUTIL) JDC 5 0.763
Social job Task interdependence WDQ 6 0.773
characteristics (INTERDEP)
(SOCIAL) Interaction with others WDQb 4 0.711
(INTERACT)
Group cooperation Campion et al.
(GROUPCO) (1993) 3 0.838
Outcomes
Work performance Task performance Befort and
(TASKPERF) Hattrup (2003) 6 0.846
Contextual performance Befort and
(CONPERF) Hattrup (2003) 9a 0.868
Table I.
Research instrument Notes: aOriginal scale adjusted due to construct reliability requirements; boriginal scale adapted
overview and reliability by authors
The endogenous or outcome variables (i.e. task and contextual performance) were
modeled as first-order reflective constructs.
A two-step analytical approach was taken. Reliability and validity of the
measurement model were thoroughly examined before analyzing the inner path
structures of the model. The reporting guidelines for the formative and the reflective
model evaluation by Ringle et al. (2012) were applied. The sequential latent variable
score (LVS) method was used in estimating the model (Wetzels et al., 2009; Hair et al.,
2013b). This method involves two stages. In the first stage, LVS of the first-order
reflective constructs are calculated without the second-order construct being present
(e.g. Agarwal and Karahanna, 2000). Single-factor solutions were extracted with a
varimax rotation. In the second stage, LVSs of these first-order reflective constructs
enter the main model in which they are used as manifest indicators of the respective
second-order formative construct (i.e. task, social, and knowledge job characteristics).
Although recent studies advocate the use of a variant of the repeated indicator
approach for reflective-formative higher-order constructs (such as the ones in our
study), it is acknowledged that the two-stage approach proves more useful when the
researcher’s interest is in the path coefficients from and to the higher-order constructs
(Becker et al., 2012). Moreover, this approach results in a more parsimonious model
which incorporates only focal higher-order constructs.
All model estimations in this study were conducted with the SmartPLS 2.0 software Work
(Ringle et al., 2005). Prior to the estimations the data were mean-centred. The path characteristics
weighting scheme was used and missing data were excluded case-wise. Pre-modeling
activities included a thorough explorative data analysis. The SPSS software package and work
was used to check the normality of the data and to calculate other descriptive statistics, performances
including correlation coefficients. The Shapiro-Wilk test indicated that our data are
non-linear ( p-value ¼ 0.000). As an introduction to the results, Table II displays means, 277
standard deviations, and the matrix of correlations for all examined variables.
4. Results
Measurement model results
First we examined the reflectively identified parts of the model. The Cronbach’s a and the
composite reliability scores for the two reflectively identified endogenous constructs
indicate high internal consistency. Respective values significantly exceed the cut-off value
of 0.7 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). The average variances extracted of the two constructs also
exceed the cut-off value of 0.5, which indicates sufficient convergent validity. Furthermore,
both constructs meet the Fornell-Larcker criterion of discriminant validity (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981; Henseler et al., 2009). An examination of absolute standardized outer
loadings further reveals a sufficient level of indicator reliability. Although not all the
loadings exceed the cut-off value of 0.7 (i.e. job complexity and problem solving), scores
above 0.5 can be considered acceptable when the respective construct is measured by other
indicators as well (e.g. Chin, 1998).
To assess the quality of the formative measurement model we examined the magnitude
of indicator weights and their significance. Since significance-levels are not automatically
reported in PLS-SEM we applied a bootstrap procedure to calculate standard errors and
to obtain t-statistics (Tenenhaus et al., 2005). The number of bootstrap samples was set to
5,000 with the number of cases set equal to the number of cases in the original sample
(n ¼ 512). The results of this analysis revealed the statistical significance of most
indicators, with three exceptions, all of them related to knowledge job characteristics – i.e.
job specialization, problem solving, and skill variety (see Table III).
An examination of collinearity statistics did not reveal redundancy of any of the
first-order constructs. The tolerance statistic was significantly above the cut-off value
of 0.2 for all the indicators (Hair et al., 2013a), with maximum variance inflation factors of
1.479, 1.240, and 2.066 within task, social, and knowledge job characteristics, respectively.
All indicators of the formative second-order constructs were thus retained in the model.
Structural model results

We first assessed the coefficients of determination (R 2) of the two endogenous variables
to evaluate the predictive power of the model. For task performance (TASKPERF) and
contextual performance (CONPERF) R2 scores were 0.240 and 0.402, respectively.
Although Chin (1998) recommends a cut-off value of 0.4 as indicating substantial path
structures in the inner model, the lower score still significantly exceeds the acceptable
threshold of 0.1 (Falk and Miller, 1981; Lew and Sinkovics, 2013).
In the next step, we estimated effect sizes ( f 2) to assess the impact of the individual
latent exogenous variables on the endogenous variables. Separate scores for the two
endogenous variables were calculated using the following formula (Chin, 2010):
f 2 ¼ ðR2included R2excluded Þ=ð1 R2included Þ

9,3
278
EMJB
Table II.
Correlation matrix
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1 Work autonomy 3.67 0.76 –

2 Task variety 4.16 0.69 0.31** –
3 Task significance 3.29 0.76 0.24** 0.37** –
4 Task identity 3.83 0.73 0.30** 0.18** 0.15** –
5 Nature of the task 3.83 0.69 0.30** 0.31** 0.40** 0.29** –
6 Job complexity 3.82 0.75 0.29** 0.37** 0.22** 0.17** 0.21** –
7 Skill variety 4.08 0.71 0.35** 0.53** 0.35** 0.26** 0.41** 0.41** –
8 Job specialization 3.67 0.81 0.28** 0.41** 0.34** 0.25** 0.38** 0.32** 0.68** –
9 Problem solving 3.51 0.71 0.19** 0.35** 0.22** 0.05 0.20** 0.25** 0.44** 0.38** –
10 Information processing 4.29 0.61 0.29** 0.57** 0.35** 0.19** 0.36** 0.45** 0.63** 0.56** 0.44** –
11 Skill utilization 3.75 0.62 0.42** 0.45** 0.31** 0.40** 0.33** 0.29** 0.45** 0.41** 0.29** 0.50** –
12 Task interdependence 501 0.63 0.22** 0.22** 0.27** 0.05 0.30** 0.13** 0.30** 0.29** 0.24** 0.19** 0.31** –
13 Group cooperation 464 0.68 0.27** 0.26** 0.16** 0.29** 0.22** 0.10* 0.22** 0.20** 0.27** 0.45** 0.14** 0.13** –
14 Interaction with others 3.62 0.79 0.23** 0.30** 0.40** 0.09* 0.41** 0.18** 0.35** 0.24** 0.18** 0.33** 0.32** 0.22** 0.18** –
15 Task performance 4.15 0.49 0.32** 0.29** 0.12* 0.27** 0.24** 0.28** 0.33** 0.31** 0.19** 0.30** 0.42** 0.16** 0.31** 0.13** –
16 Contextual performance 4.01 0.51 0.37** 0.40** 0.25** 0.23** 0.27** 0.28** 0.40** 0.38** 0.32** 0.47** 0.47** 0.25** 0.36** 0.30** 0.64** –
Notes: Significance-level (two-tailed) **po0.01; *po0.05

Original Sample SD SE t-statistics
Work
Sample (O) mean (M ) (STDEV) (STERR) (|O/STERR|) characteristics
AUTON - TASK 0.351 0.344 0.087 0.087 4.041***
and work
VARIETY - TASK 0.623 0.618 0.075 0.075 8.363*** performances
SIGNIF - TASK 0.185 0.179 0.090 0.090 2.056**
IDENTITY - TASK 0.271 0.264 0.077 0.077 3.510***
NATUR - TASK 0.223 0.221 0.092 0.092 2.417** 279
JCOMPLEX - KNOW 0.161 0.162 0.059 0.059 2.738**
SKILLVAR - KNOW 0.124 0.130 0.095 0.095 1.302 ns
JOBSPEC - KNOW 0.056 0.052 0.078 0.078 0.718 ns
PROBSOLV - KNOW 0.071 0.071 0.066 0.066 1.087 ns
PROCINF - KNOW 0.354 0.343 0.081 0.081 4.347***
SKILUTIL - KNOW 0.543 0.541 0.069 0.069 7.833***
Table III.
INTERDEP- SOCIAL 0.266 0.259 0.081 0.081 3.289***

INTERACT - SOCIAL 0.449 0.441 0.094 0.094 4.799*** Bootstrap standard errors
GROUPCO - SOCIAL 0.687 0.681 0.080 0.080 8.565*** and significance levels of
formative indicator
Notes: ns, Not significant. Significance-level (two-tailed): ***po0.001; **po0.01 weights
where R2included is the coefficient of determination in the main model (all exogenous
variables included), and R2excluded the coefficient of determination with the focal predictor
omitted from the model. Threshold values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 were used to classify the
effect sizes into small, medium, and large ones, respectively (Cohen, 1988). This analysis
yielded small effect sizes for all the three categories of work characteristics, except
the medium effect size of knowledge job characteristics on contextual performance
( f 2 ¼ 0.152). The results are summarized in Table IV.
We then examined the Stone-Geisser’s Q2 statistic to assess the predictive relevance of
the model (Stone, 1974; Geisser, 1975). This statistic evaluates how well endogenous
variables are explained by exogenous variables in the structural model (Chin, 1998; Hair
et al., 2013b). This statistic should be above zero (it is reported as cross-validated
redundancy in SmartPLS 2.0). We further computed scores of cross-validated
communality (q2) which measures the model’s ability to predict the manifest indicators
from the calculated latent variables (Tenenhaus et al., 2005). Cross-validated communality
scores of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 are indicative of a weak, a moderate, and a strong degree of
predictive relevance of each effect, respectively. Both cross-validated redundancy and
communality were obtained following the blindfolding and jackknife re-sampling
approaches. Results are presented in Table V. The Q2 measure exceeds zero for all inner
model variables, thus indicating predictive relevance of their explanatory variables
(Henseler et al., 2009). The q2 measure indicates strong predictive relevance for knowledge
job characteristics, a medium level for task job characteristics, and very weak predictive
relevance for social job characteristics.
R2 f2
TASKPERF CONPERF TASKPERF CONPERF
Full model 0.240 0.402 – –

Task job characteristics (TASK) 0.229 0.380 0.014 0.037 Table IV.
Knowledge job characteristics (KNOW) 0.192 0.311 0.063 0.152 Analysis of predictive
Social job characteristics (SOCIAL) 0.232 0.374 0.011 0.047 power and effect sizes
EMJB Finally, we assessed the significance of the estimated path coefficients in the inner model,
9,3 i.e. between focal types of work characteristics and the two work outcome variables
(i.e. task and contextual performance). To obtain an insight into significance levels we
again applied the bootstrap procedure described earlier when assessing the significance
of weights of the first-order indicators. The results are provided in Table VI.
The results revealed that task job characteristics in general have a statistically
280 significant effect on task performance, t ¼ 2.629, po0.001, but not on contextual
performance, t ¼ 1.640, p40.01. Thus, our first set of hypotheses (H1a and H1b) is
supported. Our data confirmed that a bundle of task job characteristics (i.e. work
autonomy, task variety, task identity, task significance, the nature of work) have
a significant impact on task performance of knowledge workers. However, the size of
their effect on contextual performance is small and non-significant.
Conversely, a range of social job characteristics (i.e. task interdependence,
interaction with others, group cooperation) have shown a statistically significant effect
on contextual performance, t ¼ 4.302, po0.001, but not on task performance of the
same group of respondents, t ¼ 1.235, p40.01. Accordingly, we were able to accept the
second set of hypotheses (H2a and H2b) and to conclude that social job characteristics
have a significant impact on contextual performance of knowledge workers, while their
influence on task performance is absent.
Finally, our data unambiguously show that knowledge job characteristics (i.e. job
complexity, skill variety, job specialization, problem solving, information processing, and
skill utilization) have a significant effect on both contextual and task performance
of knowledge workers, t ¼ 10.618, po0.001 and t ¼ 6.784, po0.001, respectively. The
path coefficient is, however, larger between knowledge job characteristics and contextual
performance than between knowledge job characteristics and task performance (0.460
and 0.336, respectively). This result is in line with the earlier calculated effect size
statistic f 2 (see Table III). Accordingly, the third set of hypotheses (H3a and H3b) of our
research is also accepted.
CV redundancy (Q2) CV communality (q2)
Task performance (TASKPERF) 0.129 –

Contextual performance (CONPERF) 0.187 –
Table V. Task job characteristics (TASK) – 0.153
Analysis of predictive Knowledge job characteristics (KNOW) – 0.293
relevance Social job characteristics (SOCIAL) – 0.015
Original Sample SD SE t-statistics

Sample (O) mean (M ) (STDEV) (STERR) (|O/STERR|)
TASK - TASKPERF 0.153 0.157 0.058 0.058 2.629**

TASK - CONPERF 0.081 0.091 0.050 0.050 1.640 ns
SOCIAL - TASKPERF 0.058 0.064 0.047 0.047 1.235 ns
SOCIAL - CONPERF 0.176 0.177 0.041 0.041 4.302***
Table VI. KNOW - TASKPERF 0.336 0.338 0.050 0.050 6.784***
Bootstrap standard errors KNOW - CONPERF 0.460 0.456 0.043 0.043 10.618***
and significance levels of
path coefficient estimates Notes: ns, Not significant. Significance-level (two-tailed): ***po0.001; **po0.01
Testing for control variables Work
Although our structural model’s predicting power is acceptable, and identifiable path characteristics
structures exist between bundles of work characteristics and work performance outcomes,
the model should be additionally tested across different industries and occupations. The and work
non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests revealed that work characteristics of two subsets performances
of knowledge workers – managers and professionals, differ significantly. Task identity,
problem solving and task interdependence were the only three work characteristics that 281
were not found to be significantly different across work types.
In addition, the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis H-tests showed that more than
a few of the examined work characteristics differ across industries. For instance, three
task job characteristics (i.e. work autonomy, task variety, and task significance), four
knowledge job characteristics (i.e. skill variety, problem solving, information processing,
and skill utilization) and two social job characteristics (i.e. interaction with others, and
group cooperation) were found to differ significantly (see Table VII).

The abovementioned findings are expected and acceptable, because there are
obviously important differences across occupations (e.g. Dierdorff and Morgeson, 2013)
and industries (e.g. Zoghi et al., 2005) in the choice of work characteristics. Additionally,
while there are notable differences between knowledge- and non-knowledge work;
differences also exist among knowledge workers themselves. For instance, although
managers and professionals are often classified together and they represent groups of
knowledge workers (e.g. Drucker, 1999; Davenport, 2005; Levenson, 2012; Krausert,
2014), their jobs are somewhat heterogeneous in nature (e.g. Huang, 2011). As our data
indicated, the occupational and the sectorial context potentially moderate the effect of
work characteristics on performance. Unfortunately, due to sampling constraints we
were not able to investigate this more thoroughly. Although work characteristics’
differences identified across industries and work types are indicative, they are unreliable
because our subsample sizes are not large enough to ensure adequate power. In order to
include occupational and industrial specifics into our PLS-SEM model, we would need
to have a significantly larger data set. Thus, we decided to interpret our data at the
aggregated level of knowledge workers.
Differences across work types Differences across industries

Work characteristics U s w2 s
Work autonomy 17,207.5 0.000*** 27.040 0.005**

Task variety 16,795.5 0.000*** 19.993 0.045*
Task significance 18,846.5 0.002** 20.310 0.041*
Task identity 23,300.5 0.172 7.484 0.759
Nature of the task 19,599.5 0.001*** 13.757 0.247
Job complexity 19,928.5 0.001*** 16.789 0.114
Skill variety 20,096.5 0.000*** 20.379 0.040*
Job specialization 20,338.0 0.001*** 17.364 0.098
Problem solving 22,602.0 0.136 26.039 0.006**
Information processing 19,914.5 0.000*** 23.896 0.013***
Skill utilization 20,046.0 0.000*** 20.637 0.037*
Task interdependence 22,526.5 0.094 14.703 0.196 Table VII.
Interaction with others 17,627.5 0.000*** 42.092 0.000*** Significant differences in
Group cooperation 18,153.5 0.040** 36.135 0.000*** respondent’s work
characteristics across
Notes: ns, Not significant. Significance-level (two-tailed): ***po0.001; **po0.01; *po0.05 industries and work types
EMJB 5. Discussion
9,3 Organizational scholars have suggested that, given significant changes in work contexts,
foundational work design theories may not reflect current realities (e.g. Barley and Kunda,
2001; Parker et al., 2001; Juillerat, 2010). Previous research efforts were dominantly
focussed on the relationship between task characteristics and job satisfaction of
non-knowledge workers. The majority of studies did not control for different work types
282 (e.g. manual, clerical, professional, managerial) and they usually provided aggregate
results across subsets of employees. Therefore, we decided to focus on knowledge workers
as an increasing subset of workforce and to empirically test an extended model of work
design in order to determine effects among various sets of work characteristics and
two different performance measures. For this purpose we applied PLS-SEM to a model
that encompasses both reflectively and formatively identified variables. Using an adapted
WDQ, originally introduced by Morgeson and Humphrey (2006), and just recently applied
within the US occupational research context (Dierdorff and Morgeson, 2013; Morgeson
and Garza, 2013), we examined work design practices of Croatian knowledge workers.
Theoretical contribution
Our research confirmed the existence and importance of the relationship between work
design and work performance. Initial assumptions about differential effects of work
characteristics on task and contextual performance were supported by our data.
First, we found that task job characteristics of knowledge workers have a
significant impact on task performance, but they do not have a statistically significant
influence on contextual performance. Although such results are somewhat different
from the existing literature (e.g. Podsakoff et al., 1996; Purvanova et al., 2006; Johari,
2011), they clearly emphasize the existence of work design trade-offs. On the one
hand, knowledge workers handle very complex and non-repetitive tasks on a daily
basis. When their task job characteristics are enriched, managers, and professionals
probably feel more responsible for the work itself and are keen to offer even greater
task performance. In such circumstances, they also presumably create higher value
directly through their work tasks. However, on the other hand, their organizational
contribution remains at the same level. By being responsible for a larger and more
diverse set of tasks, knowledge workers are challenged and motivated to provide
an additional individual effort. “Task enrichment” obviously sharpens their focus on
formal job elements, but fails to address informal ones.
Second, social job characteristics of knowledge workers seemed to have more
adverse effects on their work performance than task job characteristics. “Social
enrichment” emphasizes informal job elements and creates cohesion in the workplace.
It requires employees to take a broader perspective and stimulates them to
communicate among themselves, mutually support each other and generously share
ideas, knowledge and information. Therefore, higher levels of performance are not
primarily achieved by handling formal tasks, but through providing service to other
people (e.g. colleagues, partners, customers, suppliers). However, such altruistic or
prosocial behavior (e.g. Parker et al., 2006; Grant, 2012, 2013; Dierdorff and Morgeson,
2013) often requires extra time and effort from “givers,” which can cause a less visible
contribution. This is especially valid within the knowledge work context, where tasks
are complex and uncertain, and employees are expected to simultaneously handle
cognitively demanding individual tasks while providing help to others. Knowledge
workers with enriched social job characteristics certainly have more opportunities to
work and behave proactively (e.g. Grant and Parker, 2009), which can eventually result
in higher contextual performance, but their task performance will remain unchanged. Work
In other words, increased interaction with others and greater task interdependence characteristics
could offer synergistic effects among the workforce, but will not lead to a higher job
result of a particular, altruistic manager or professional. and work
Third, knowledge job characteristics seem to have it all. “Knowledge enrichment” performances
provides a significant influence on both task and contextual performance. Knowledge
job characteristics were reported to be the most influential bundle of work 283
characteristics within our study because their path coefficient estimates significantly
outweigh the effects of other work characteristics. Such results confirm a distinctive
nature and the importance of knowledge work for the modern business society.
Obviously, knowledge workers require and favor complex problem solving and
information processing opportunities, skill variety and utilization, or the use of
specialized knowledge and skills in their workplace. In such a work environment, they
are challenged to provide additional work efforts and therefore increase not solely their
own performance, but also the performance of their colleagues. Enriched knowledge
job characteristics offer managers and professionals the opportunity for continuous
development and for expanding their knowledge base. Eventually, this could result in a
spillover effect, where employees will start to share their knowledge and help each
other in handling challenging and interdependent tasks.
Finally, given the focus on professional and managerial employees, our study
demonstrated that contextual performance is an at least as equally important work
outcome measure as the traditionally established and extensively investigated task or
in-role performance. In other words, our findings, along with similar studies (e.g. Hoffer
Gittell et al., 2008; Grant, 2012), suggest that knowledge jobs should be designed with
explicit attention to how well they contribute to other beneficiaries. Interestingly, it seems
that prosocial work behavior can be achieved not solely through “social enrichment”
(e.g. Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006; Grant, 2012), but also, as shown in the case of
Croatian knowledge workers, through “knowledge enrichment” (e.g. Parker et al., 1997).
However, one must be careful to find the balance among various dimensions of job
enrichment, whereas some bundles of work characteristics have distinctive effects.
Strengths and limitations

To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first one in which bundles of
different work characteristics of knowledge workers were examined with their task and
contextual performance, making this systematic investigation unique and practically
significant. As such, it is a logical extension of the seminal work and the meta-analytic
review of work design literature made by Humphrey et al. (2007) which offers insights
from an under-researched central and eastern European research context.
This study not only advances the understanding of the existing relationships
between a wide range of work characteristics and distinct work performance
outcomes, but it also indicates the existence of possible differences in work design
practices in various backgrounds. Although researchers have become increasingly
concerned with the workforce differentiation (e.g. Von Glinow, 1988; Becker et al., 2009;
de Lange et al., 2010), still very few of them empirically focussed on distinct work
characteristics of knowledge workers’ jobs.
We managed to test an extended model of work design and provide useful results
for second-order formative constructs (task, social, and knowledge job characteristics),
which allowed for a more generalized view of work design practice. In addition,
by applying the PLS-SEM modeling technique, we shed a new light on interactions
EMJB between work characteristics and work outcomes, and presented possible insights for
9,3 further application within both psychology and organizational research.
Despite its contributions and strengths, this study has several limitations. Although
various work design variables had been observed, due to rigorous methodological
requirements and research scope constraints, few interesting and important ones were
not included. Furthermore, the used sample was based on employees from various
284 parts and levels of organizations, with different occupations. Such a cross-occupational
sample offers greater width, but again it potentially results in somewhat lower effect
sizes. In addition, knowledge workers have become a very large and diverse group
of employees. While managers and professionals are “put under the same hat” in our
study, differences among occupational categories and jobs, industries, organizations
and hierarchical levels certainly exist and they should be addressed in future studies
(e.g. Krausert, 2014). Another related problem is how to distinguish knowledge from
non-knowledge jobs. Although we followed Drucker’s (1967) definition of knowledge

workers and classified engineers, technicians and managers as eligible respondents for
our study, such a classification may be outdated.
There were also some minor construct reliability problems. Although the research
instrument had been previously tested and validated within the Croatian context on
a larger and more diverse sample of employees (e.g. Hernaus, 2010, 2011b), Cronbach’s
a for three constructs were slightly below the cut-off value for the examined sample
of knowledge workers. Finally, the findings reported in this study were based on
self-reports and may therefore be subject to bias. However, some authors (Spector,
2006; de Lange et al., 2010) argued that the problem of common-method variance is
overstated and may even be outdated, as it is more a question of the measurement bias
than the bias of the method itself. Our scales showed good reliability scores and were
designed to measure a fundamentally unobservable knowledge work (e.g. Allee, 1997;
Pfeffer and Sutton, 2000). We therefore expect that the measurement bias in this study
is relatively small.
Practical implications
The research findings have several important implications for theory and practice.
They offer valuable insights about work design and its impact on work performance
to academicians, managers, and HRM professionals. It is clearly shown that work
design efforts are not straightforward but rather context-specific, and with diverging
performance effects. For the modern business environment, “knowledge enrichment”
seems to be particularly important, although “social enrichment” and “task enrichment”
are also quite stimulating for knowledge workers. Organizations can significantly
enhance their bottom-line performance by designing challenging and cognitively
demanding configurations of work tasks for their knowledge workers. Job enrichment in
general and “knowledge enrichment” in particular, can lead toward better skill utilization,
higher employee satisfaction and further development of the workforce (e.g. Morrison
et al., 2005). Such a work design approach is recommendable for knowledge workers and
it goes hand in hand with their motivational background. However, we need to find
a balance between work requirements and human capabilities. Chronic job demands
and over-enriched work design have potential drawbacks and can eventually result in
a burnout (e.g. Kinnunen et al., 2011).
Moreover, our study highlights the importance of contextual performance for
determining a knowledge worker’s overall contribution. Apparently, managers and HRM
professionals should no longer be focussed solely on in-role or individual performance.
Nowadays, organizations can be successful only if their employees collaborate and Work
help each other. Because doing business has become a team sport, old-fashioned characteristics
performance measurement and individual reward systems need to be adjusted in order
to promote prosocial behavior within the organization. and work
Finally, the conducted study suggests a heterogeneous impact of task and social job performances
characteristics on different individual performance dimensions. While the former bundle
of work characteristics loads more strongly on traditional metrics of in-role performance, 285
the latter set primarily boosts extra-role performance, thereby having certain implications
on organizational performance. Although we found that work characteristics have
a distinctive effect on work performance of knowledge workers, it should not be an
argument for or against “task” and “social” enrichment, but rather a call for their mutual
adjustment and refinement, in order to enhance overall work performance.
6. Conclusion
Knowledge workers are here to stay. They represent strategic resources of an organization
creating value, delivering service, generating innovations, or disseminating knowledge.
Thus, designing knowledge work is more important than ever. Although work design
and core job (task) characteristics have been heavily researched topics in the field of
organizational psychology and behavior (e.g. Griffin and McMahan, 1993; Oldham, 1996;
Foss et al., 2009), we still do not know enough about organizing and optimizing cognitive
processes of the educated workforce. As work design decisions are complex and
heterogenous, HR managers need to take into account diverse aspects of the workplace.
Task, knowledge, and social job characteristics are certainly among the most important
ones. However, their impact on employee’s motivation and work performance is not
uniform, which means that “task enrichment,” “knowledge enrichment” and “social
enrichment” of knowledge work are HRM practices that should be approached very
carefully if we want to create well-designed jobs. Ultimately, we should be aware that
knowledge jobs that are “too” enriched can be even more dangerous than jobs that are
insufficiently enriched and not challenging enough.
References
Agarwal, R. and Karahanna, E. (2000), “Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive
absorption and beliefs about information technology usage”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 665-694.
Allee, V. (1997), The Knowledge Evolution: Expanding Organizational Intelligence,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Barley, S.R. and Kunda, G. (2001), “Bringing work back in”, Organization Studies, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 76-95.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. and Li, N. (2013), “The theory of purposeful work behavior: the role of
personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 132-153.
Becker, B.E., Huselid, M.A. and Beatty, R. (2009), The Differentiated Workforce, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
Becker, J.-M., Klein, K. and Wetzels, M. (2012), “Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-SEM:
guidelines for using reflective-formative type models”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 45
Nos 5/6, pp. 359-394.
EMJB Befort, N. and Hattrup, K. (2003), “Valuing task and contextual performance: experience, job
roles, and ratings of the importance of job behaviours”, Applied Human Resource
9,3 Management Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 17-32.
Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1993), “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
contextual performance”, in Schmitt, N. and Borman, W.C. (Eds), Personnel Selection in
Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 71-98.
286 Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1997), “Task performance and contextual performance: the
meaning for personnel selection research”, Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 99-109.
Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1996), “Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational
entry”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 294-311.
Campbell, J.P. (1990), “Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and
organizational psychology”, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto,
CA, pp. 687-732.

Campion, M.A. (1987), “Interdisciplinary approaches to job design: a replication with methodological
extensions”, in Hoy, F. (Ed.), Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, Academy of
Management, Boston, MA, pp. 249-253.
Campion, M.A. and Thayer, P.W. (1985), “Development and field evaluation of an interdisciplinary
measure of job design”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 29-43.
Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J. and Higgs, A.C. (1993), “Relations between work group characteristics
and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 823-850.
Chen, C. and Chiu, S. (2009), “The mediating role of job involvement in the relationship between
job characteristics and organizational citizenship behaviour”, Journal of Social Psychology,
Vol. 149 No. 4, pp. 474-494.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling”,
in Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295-336.
Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, in Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W.,
Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, pp. 655-690.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Conway, J.M. (1996), “Additional construct validity evidence for the task/contextual performance
distinction”, Human Performance, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 309-329.
Cortada, J. (Ed.) (1998), Rise of the Knowledge Worker, Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn.
Davenport, T.H. (2005), Thinking for a Living: How to Get Better Performance and Results
from Knowledge Workers, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
de Lange, A.H., Taris, T.W., Jansen, P., Kompier, M.A.J., Houtman, I.L.D. and Bongers, P.M. (2010),
“On the relationships among work characteristics and learning-related behavior: does age
matter?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 925-950.
Dierdorff, E.C. and Morgeson, F.P. (2013), “Getting what the occupation gives: exploring
multilevel links between work design and occupational values”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 687-721.
Dodd, N.G. and Ganster, D.C. (1996), “The interactive effects of variety, autonomy and
feedbacks on attitudes and performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 329-347.
Drucker, F.P. (1959), Landmarks of Tomorrow, Harper & Brothers, New York, NY.
Drucker, F.P. (1993), Post-Capitalist Society, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY. Work
Drucker, F.P. (1999), Management Challenges for the 21st Century, HarperCollins Publishers, characteristics
New York, NY.
Drucker, P.F. (1967), The Effective Executive, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
and work
Edwards, B.D., Bell, S.T., Decuir, W.A. and Decuir, A.D. (2008), “Relationships between facets
performances
of job satisfaction and task and contextual performance”, Applied Psychology:
An International Review, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 441-465. 287
Edwards, J.R. (1991), “Person-job fit: a conceptual integration, literature review, and
methodological critique”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 6, John Wiley & Sons, Oxford, pp. 283-357.
Falk, R.F. and Miller, N.B. (1981), A Primer for Soft Modelling, The University of Akron Press,
Akron, OH.
Fay, D. and Frese, M. (2000), “Conservatives’ approach to work: less prepared for future work
demands?”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 171-195.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Foss, N.J., Minbaeva, D.B., Pedersen, T. and Reinholt, M. (2009), “Encouraging knowledge sharing
among employees: how job design matters”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 48 No. 6,
pp. 871-893.
Fried, Y. (1991), “Meta-analytic comparison of the job diagnostic survey and job characteristics
inventory as correlates of work satisfaction and performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 690-697.
Fried, Y. and Ferris, G.R. (1987), “The validity of the job characteristics model: a review and
meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 287-322.
Geisser, S. (1975), “The predictive sample reuse method with applications”, Journal of the
American Statistical Association, Vol. 70 No. 350, pp. 320-328.
Grant, A.M. (2007), “Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 393-417.
Grant, A.M. (2012), “Giving time, time after time: work design and sustained employee
participation in corporate volunteering”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 589-615.
Grant, A.M. (2013), Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success, Viking Adult,
New York, NY.
Grant, A.M. and Parker, S.K. (2009), “Redesigning work design theories: the rise of relational and
proactive perspectives”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 3, pp. 317-375.
Grant, A.M., Fried, Y. and Juillerat, T. (2010a), “Work matters: job design in classic and
contemporary perspectives”, in Zedeck, S. (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,
pp. 417-453.
Grant, A.M., Fried, Y., Parker, S.K. and Frese, M. (2010b), “Putting job design in context:
introduction to the special issue”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 Nos 2/3,
pp. 145-157.
Griffin, M.A., Neal, A. and Neale, M. (2000), “The contribution of task performance and
contextual performance to effectiveness: investigating the role of situational constraints”,
Applied Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 517-533.
Griffin, R.W. and McMahan, G.C. (1993), Job Design: A Contemporary Review and Future
Prospects, CEO Publication G 93-12 (232), Center for Effective Organizations,
Los Angeles, CA.
EMJB Hackman, J.R. and Lawler, E.E. (1971), “Employee reactions to job characteristics”, Journal of
Applied Psychology Monograph, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 259-286.
9,3
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), “Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 250-279.
Hair, J.F., Rigle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2013a), “Editorial: partial least squares structural equation
modeling: rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance”, Long Range
288 Planning, Vol. 46 Nos 1/2, pp. 1-12.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2013b), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Pieper, T.M. and Ringle, C.M. (2012), “The use of partial least squares
structural equation modeling in strategic management research: a review of past practices
and recommendations for future applications”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 45 Nos 5/6,
pp. 320-340.
Hattrup, K., O’Connell, M.S. and Wingate, P.H. (1998), “Prediction of multidimensional criteria:
distinguishing task and contextual performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 305-319.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The used of partial least squares
path modeling in international marketing”, in Sinkovics, R.R. and Ghauri, P.N. (Eds),
Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 20, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley,
pp. 277-319.
Hernaus, T. (2010), “Integrating macro- and micro-organizational variables through multilevel
approach”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Zagreb, Zagreb.
Hernaus, T. (2011a), “Business trends and tendencies in organization design and work design
practice: identifying cause-and-effect relationships”, Business Systems Research, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 4-16.
Hernaus, T. (2011b), “Determining a multilevel mediating role of work characteristics in
relationship between macro-organizational variables and work performance”, 4th Annual
Conference of the Euromed Academy of Business, October 20-21, Elounda, pp. 816-835.
Hoffer Gittell, J., Weinberg, D., Bennett, A. and Miller, J.A. (2008), “Is the doctor in? A relational
approach to job design and the coordination of work”, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 729-755.
Horibe, F. (1999), Managing Knowledge Workers: New Skills and Attitudes to Unlock the
Intellectual Capital in Your Organization, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Hornung, S., Rousseau, D.M., Glaser, J., Angerer, P. and Weigl, M. (2010), “Beyond top-down and
bottom-up work redesign: customizing job content through idiosyncratic deals”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 Nos 2/3, pp. 187-215.
Huang, T.-P. (2011), “Comparing motivating work characteristics, job satisfaction, and turnover
intention of knowledge workers and blue-collar workers, and testing a structural model of
the variables’ relationships in China and Japan”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 924-944.
Humphrey, S.E., Nahrgang, J.D. and Morgeson, F.P. (2007), “Integrating motivational, social, and
contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the
work design literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 1332-1356.
Idaszak, J.R. and Drasgow, F. (1987), “A revision of the job diagnostic survey: elimination
of a measurement artefact”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 69-74.
Indartono, S., Chiou, H. and Chen, C.V. (2010), “The joint moderating impact of personal job fit
and servant leadership on the relationship between the task characteristics of job design
and performance”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, Vol. 2
No. 8, pp. 42-61.
Jex, S.M. and Britt, T.W. (2008), Organizational Psychology: A Scientist-Practitioner Approach, Work
John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
characteristics
Johari, J.B. (2011), “The structural relationships between organizational structure, job characteristics,
work involvement, and job performance among public servants”, unpublished doctoral and work
dissertation, University Utara Malaysia, Sintok. performances
Juillerat, T. (2010), “Friends, not foes?: work design and formalization in the modern work
context”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 Nos 2/3, pp. 216-239. 289
Kiggundu, M.N. (1981), “Task interdependence and the theory of job design”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 499-508.
Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., Siltaloppi, M. and Sonnentag, S. (2011), “Job demands-resources model in
the context of recovery: testing recovery experiences as mediators”, European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 805-832.
Krausert, A. (2014), “HRM systems for knowledge workers: differences among top managers,
middle managers, and professional employees”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 53

No. 1, pp. 67-87.
Kristof-Brown, A., Zimmerman, R. and Johnson, E. (2005), “Consequences of individuals’
fit at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and
person-supervisor fit”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 281-342.
Kulik, C.T., Oldham, G.R. and Hackman, J.R. (1987), “Work design as an approach to
person-environment fit”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 278-296.
Kumar, S. (2011), “Motivating employees: an exploratory study on knowledge workers”, South
Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 310-323.
Levenson, A. (2012), “Talent management: challenges of building cross-functional capability in
high-performance work systems environments”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,
Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 187-204.
Lew, Y.K. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2013), “Crossing borders and industry sectors: behavioral
governance in strategic alliances and product innovation for competitive advantage”,
Long Range Planning, Vol. 46 Nos 1/2, pp. 13-38.
Molinsky, A.L. and Margolis, J.D. (2005), “Necessary evils and interpersonal sensitivity in
organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 245-268.
Morgeson, F.P. and Campion, M.A. (2002), “Minimizing tradeoffs when redesigning work:
evidence from a longitudinal quasi-experiment”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 3,
pp. 589-612.
Morgeson, F.P. and Campion, M.A. (2003), “Work design”, in Borman, W.C., Ilgen, D.R. and
Klimoski, R.J. (Eds), Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and organizational Psychology,
Vol. 12, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 423-452.
Morgeson, F.P. and Garza, A.S. (2013), “From individual work characteristics to work
design configurations”, Work Design Symposium: Comprehensive Work Design
Analysis – Insights from Around the Globe, May 22-25, Münster.
Morgeson, F.P. and Humphrey, S.E. (2006), “The work design questionnaire (WDQ): developing
and validating comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 6, pp. 1321-1339.
Morgeson, F.P. and Humphrey, S.E. (2008), “Job and team design: toward a more integrative
conceptualization of work design”, in Martocchio, J. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and
Human Resource Management, Vol. 27, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, London,
pp. 39-92.
Morrison, D., Cordery, J., Girardi, A. and Payne, R. (2005), “Job design, opportunities for skill
utilization, and intrinsic job satisfaction”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 59-79.
EMJB Motowidlo, S.J. and Schmit, M.J. (1999), “Performance assessment in unique jobs”, in Ilgen, D.R.
and Pulakos, E.D. (Eds), The Changing Nature of Performance: Implications for Staffing,
9,3 Motivation, and Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 56-86.
Motowidlo, S.J. and Van Scotter, J.R. (1994), “Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 4,
pp. 475-480.
290 Motowidlo, S.J., Borman, W.C. and Schmit, M.J. (1997), “A theory of individual differences in task
and contextual performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 71-83.
Mowday, R.T. and Sutton, R.I. (1993), “Organizational behavior: linking individuals and groups
to organizational contexts”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 195-229.
Naughton, T.J. and Outcalt, D. (1988), “Development and test of an occupational taxonomy
based on job characteristics theory”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 16-36.
Ng, T.W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (2009), “How broadly does education contribute to job performance?”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 89-134.
Oldham, G.R. (1996), “Job design”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 11, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY,
pp. 33-60.
Oldham, G.R. and Hackman, J.R. (2010), “Not what it was and not what it will be: the future
of job design research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 Nos 2/3, pp. 463-479.
Oldham, G.R., Hackman, J.R. and Pearce, J.L. (1976), “Condition under which employees respond
positively to enriched work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 395-403.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lexington, KY.
Organ, D.W. (1997), “Organizational citizenship behavior: it’s construct clean-up time”,
Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 85-97.
Parker, S.K. and Ohly, S. (2008), “Designing motivating jobs”, in Kanfer, R., Chen, R.G. and
Pritchard, R. (Eds), Work Motivation: Past, Present and Future, Routledge, New York, NY,
pp. 233-284.
Parker, S.K. and Ohly, S. (2009), “Extending the reach of job design theory: going beyond the job
characteristics model”, in Wilkinson, A., Redman, S.S. and Bacon, N. (Eds), Sage Handbook
of Human Resource Management, Sage, London, pp. 269-286.
Parker, S.K. and Wall, T.D. (1998), Job and Work Design, Sage Publications, London.
Parker, S.K. and Wall, T.D. (2001), “Work design: learning from the past and mapping a new
terrain”, in Anderson, N., Ones, D.S., Sinangil, H.K. and Viswesvaran, C. (Eds), Handbook of
Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, Sage Publications, London, pp. 90-110.
Parker, S.K., Wall, T.D. and Cordery, J.L. (2001), “Future work design research and practice:
towards an elaborated model of work design”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Parker, S.K., Wall, T.D. and Jackson, P.R. (1997), “ ‘That’s not my job’: developing flexible
employee work orientations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 899-929.
Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M. and Turner, N. (2006), “Modeling the antecedents of proactive
behavior at work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 636-652.
Peng, D.X. and Lai, F. (2012), “Using partial least squares in operations management research:
a practical guideline and summary of past research”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 467-480.
Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R.I. (2000), The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn
Knowledge into Action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Bommer, W.H. (1996), “A meta-analysis of the relationships Work
between Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes,
role perceptions, and performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 4, characteristics
pp. 380-399. and work
Purvanova, R.K., Bono, J.E. and Dzieweczynski, J. (2006), “Transformational leadership, job performances
characteristics, and organizational citizenship performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 1-22.
291
Ringle, C., Wende, S. and Will, A. (2005), “SmartPLS 2.0”, Hamburg, available at:
www.smartpls.de (accessed February 15, 2013).
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Straub, D.W. (2012), “A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS
Quarterly”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Sims, H.P., Szilagyi, A.D. and Keller, R.T. (1976), “The measurement of job characteristics”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 195-212.
Singh, J. (1998), “Striking a balance in boundary-spanning positions: an investigation of some

unconventional influences of role stressors and job characteristics on job outcomes of
salespeople”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 69-86.
Slattery, J., Selvarajan, T., Anderson, J. and Sardessai, R. (2010), “Relationship between job
characteristics and attitudes: a study of temporary employees”, Journal of Applied Social
Sonnentag, S., Volmer, J. and Spychala, A. (2008), “Job performance”, in Barling, J. and
Cooper C.L. (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1: Micro
Approaches, Sage Publications, London, pp. 427-447.
Spector, P.E. (1992), “A consideration of the validity and meaning of self-report measures of job
conditions”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 7, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 123-151.
Spector, P.E. (2006), Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Research and Practice, John Wiley
& Sons, New York, NY.
Spector, P.E. and Van Katwyk, P.T. (1999), “The role of negative affectivity in employee reactions
to job characteristics: bias effect or substantive effect?”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 205-218.
Starbuck, W. (1992), “Learning by knowledge intensive firms”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 713-740.
Stone, M. (1974), “Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions”, Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 111-147.
Tenenhaus, M., Pagés, J., Ambroisine, L. and Guinot, C. (2005), “PLS methodology to study
relationships between hedonic judgments and product characteristics”, Food Quality and
Preference, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 315-325.
Truxillo, D.M., Cadiz, D.M., Rineer, J.R., Zaniboni, S. and Fraccaroli, F. (2012), “A lifespan
perspective on job design: fitting the job and the worker to promote job satisfaction,
engagement, and performance”, Organizational Psychology Review, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 340-360.
Von Glinow, M.A. (1988), The New Professionals: Managing Today’s High-Tech Employees,
Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.
Vough, H. and Parker, S.K. (2008), “Work design research: still going strong”, in Cooper, C.L. and
Barling, J. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1: Micro Approaches,
Sage Publications, London, pp. 410-426.
Wall, T.D., Michie, J., Patterson, M., Wood, S.J., Sheehan, M., Clegg, C.W. and West, M. (2004),
“On the validity of subjective measures of company performance”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 95-119.
EMJB Warr, P.B. (1987), Work, Unemployment, and Mental Health, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
9,3 Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schroder, G. and van Oppen, C. (2009), “Using PLS path modeling
for assessing hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 177-195.
Wilden, R., Gudergan, S.P., Nielsen, B.B. and Lings, I. (2013), “Dynamic capabilities and
performance: strategy, structure and environment”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 46 Nos 1/2,
292 pp. 72-96.
Xie, J.L. (1996), “Karasek’s model in the People’s Republic of China: effects on job demands,
control, and individual differences”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 6,
pp. 1594-1619.
Yan, M., Peng, K.Z. and Francesco, A.M. (2011), “The differential effects of job design on
knowledge workers and manual workers: a quasi-experimental field study in China”,
Human Resource Management, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 407-424.
Zoghi, C., Levenson, A. and Gibbs, M. (2005), “Why are jobs designed the way they are?”,
BLS working papers, US Department of Labor, available at: www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/
ec050080.pdf (accessed May 27, 2013).
Further reading
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Pfeffer, J. (1994), Competitive Advantage Through People, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
About the authors

Tomislav Hernaus is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University
of Zagreb. His current research interest is multilevel design of organizations and work. He is the
author or a co-author of three books, a dozen book chapters, and a significant number of scientific
papers published in refereed journals or presented at conferences worldwide. He has received
several awards and honours for his scientific accomplishments. Tomislav Hernaus is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: thernaus@efzg.hr
Josip Mikulić is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University
of Zagreb. His research is currently focussed on decision-support systems in tourism marketing
and management. His work has been published in several top-tier journals such as Expert
Systems with Applications, Tourism Management, Journal of Air Transport Management and
Managing Service Quality, among others. He has received several awards and honours for his
scientific accomplishments.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2422-4194 MalikAshish Ashish Malik Dr Ashish Malik, University of

Newcastle – Central Coast, Australia. Dr Ashish is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Newcastle,
Australia. He teaches human resource management and development courses and has published and
presented more than 70 research papers at numerous conferences and published widely in academic
journals such as Asia-Pacific Business Review, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Health
Care Management Review and Industrial Marketing Management. He has co-edited/authored three books
on themes including Indian culture, business models and human capital in the Indian IT industry and
co-edited a special issue on Indian culture in the journal Culture and Organization and employment
relations in India in the International Journal of Employment Studies. Rosenberger Philip J. III Philip
J. Rosenberger III Dr Philip J. Rosenberger III, University of Newcastle – Central Coast, Australia.
Dr Rosenberger is a Lecturer teaches several marketing and market research courses at the University
of Newcastle, Australia. Dr Rosenberger has published and presented more than 70 research papers
at numerous conferences and published widely in academic journals such as Journal of Marketing
Management, Australasian Marketing Journal, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing and Business
Horizons. FitzgeraldMartin Martin Fitzgerald Associate Professor Martin Fitzgerald, University of
Newcastle – Central Coast, Australia. Associate Professor Martin Fitzgerald is the Head of Disciple
(Management) and he teaches management and related courses at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Martin has held several Senior Executive and Leadership roles at the University of Newcastle and several
other academic bodies. HoulcroftLouise Louise Houlcroft Dr Louise Houlcroft, University of Newcastle
– Central Coast, Australia. Dr Houlcroft holds a Doctorate in Psychology and is a Research Assistant at
the Faculty of Business and Law, University of Newcastle’s Central Coast Campus. Central Coast Business
School, Faculty of Business and Law, University of Newcastle, Ourimbah, Australia Faculty of Business
and Law, University of Newcastle, Ourimbah, Australia . 2016. Factors affecting smart working: evidence
from Australia. International Journal of Manpower 37:6, 1042-1066. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Professor Carla C.J.M. Millar and Dr Vicki Culpin Tomislav Hernaus Department of Organization and
Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia Nina Pološki
Vokic Department of Organization and Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of
Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia . 2014. Work design for different generational cohorts. Journal of Organizational
Change Management 27:4, 615-641. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

EP_24

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EP_24

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EP_24

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EuroMed Journal of Business

Work characteristics and work performance of knowledge workers

References: this document contains references to 127 other documents.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

2. Literature review and hypotheses development

Task and contextual performance

H1a. Task job characteristics have a significant impact on task performance of

H1b. Task job characteristics do not have a significant impact on contextual

H2b. Social job characteristics have a significant impact on contextual performance

H3a. Knowledge job characteristics have a significant impact on task performance

H3b. Knowledge job characteristics have a significant impact on contextual

the work of Campion et al. (1993) and Hernaus (2010), respectively.

Information processing WDQ 4 0.851

Structural model results

f 2 ¼ ðR2included R2excluded Þ=ð1 R2included Þ

1 Work autonomy 3.67 0.76 –

Notes: Significance-level (two-tailed) **po0.01; *po0.05

INTERDEP- SOCIAL 0.266 0.259 0.081 0.081 3.289***

Full model 0.240 0.402 – –

CV redundancy (Q2) CV communality (q2)

Task performance (TASKPERF) 0.129 –

Original Sample SD SE t-statistics

TASK - TASKPERF 0.153 0.157 0.058 0.058 2.629**

group cooperation) were found to differ significantly (see Table VII).

Differences across work types Differences across industries

Work autonomy 17,207.5 0.000*** 27.040 0.005**

Strengths and limitations

non-knowledge jobs. Although we followed Drucker’s (1967) definition of knowledge

CA, pp. 687-732.

middle managers, and professional employees”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 53

Singh, J. (1998), “Striking a balance in boundary-spanning positions: an investigation of some

About the authors

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

1. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2422-4194 MalikAshish Ashish Malik Dr Ashish Malik, University of

You might also like

Work autonomy 17,207.5 0.000* 27.040 0.005