BLS WORKING PAPERS 

 U.S. Department of Labor 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Office of Productivity and Technology 

Is Job Enrichment Really Enriching? 

Robert D. Mohr, University of New Hampshire 

Cindy Zoghi, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Working Paper 389

January 2006

All views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
IS JOB ENRICHMENT REALLY ENRICHING? 

ROBERT D. MOHR 

CINDY ZOGHI 

Robert D. Mohr is Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of New Hampshire 

Whittemore School of Business and Economics, Durham, New Hampshire 03824. Phone: (603) 

862-3302, e-mail: rmohr@cisunix.unh.edu. Cindy Zoghi is a Research Economist at the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2 Massachusetts Ave NE, Suite 2180, Washington, D.C. 20212 

Phone: (202) 691-5680, e-mail: zoghi.cindy@bls.gov. All views expressed in this paper are 

those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics. The authors thank Andrew Clark, Karen Conway, Bruce Elmslie, Dan 

Hamermesh, Edward Lazear, and David Levine for helpful comments and thank Lucy Chung at 

Statistics Canada for exceptional support with the data. 

The data are available through arrangement with Statistics Canada. Copies of the programs used 

to generate the results presented herein are available upon request from Cindy Zoghi at the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2 Massachusetts Ave. NE Suite 2180, Washington DC 20212.
Abstract 

This study uses a survey of Canadian workers with rich, matched data on job characteristics to 

examine whether “enriched” job design, with features like quality circles, feedback, suggestion 

programs, and task teams, affects job satisfaction. We identify two competing hypotheses on the 

relationship between enriched jobs and job satisfaction. The “motivation hypothesis,” implies 

that enrichment will generally increase satisfaction and the “intensification hypothesis,” implies 

that enrichment may decrease satisfaction by increasing the intensity and scope of work. Our 

results show that several forms of enrichment, specifically suggestion programs, information 

sharing, task teams, quality circles and training, raise satisfaction. Therefore we argue that the 

data support the motivation hypothesis. Partitioning the data by education level or union 

membership further supports this conclusion, while a direct test of the intensification hypothesis 

does not support the competing hypothesis. 

1
 Job satisfaction has important economic impacts. Low job satisfaction is associated with 

higher rates of quitting (Freeman 1978; Gordon and Denisi 1995; Clark, Georgellis and Sanfey 

1998), higher rates of absenteeism (Clegg 1983; Drago and Wooden 1992) and lower levels of 

work effort (Mangione and Quinn 1975). Dissatisfaction therefore results in higher labor costs 

and lower productivity. While economists have made important strides in understanding the 

demographic factors that influence job satisfaction, they have generally not focused on testing 

the impacts of enriched job design on satisfaction. 

 Job enrichment includes a number of different workplace practices, such as quality 

circles, self-directed teams, job rotation, information sharing and others. One possible 

motivation for adopting such practices is to challenge and motivate workers, and to encourage 

them to participate in improving productivity, safety, and the quality of their product. To the 

extent that workers enjoy the challenge and the autonomy, this will raise job satisfaction and 

reduce hiring and training costs and increase productivity. An alternative motivation for 

adopting job enrichment is to enlarge the jobs by encouraging multi-tasking and to adopt peer 

monitoring. These steps would also improve productivity, but without an accompanying 

increase in job satisfaction. 

 This study uses a survey of Canadian workers with rich data on job characteristics to 

examine whether firms that choose enriched job design and workplace practices have more 

satisfied workers. It extends the literature in several important ways. First, by focusing on job 

design, it concentrates on factors that a firm’s management might easily control. Second, the 

data allow us to distinguish between “Taylorist” jobs and “enriched” jobs and to evaluate these 

two competing hypotheses about the influence of enrichment on satisfaction. Finally, the data 

1 
allow us to better control for several potential sources of bias that have been largely ignored in 

previous work on job satisfaction. 

Background 

 The literature on job design contrasts “Taylorist” jobs to “enriched” jobs. Fredrick 

Taylor (1947) viewed job design as a scientific optimization problem, where industrial engineers 

study the production process and devise the most efficient way to break that process into 

individual, precisely defined tasks. Typically, a Taylorist job is highly specialized, and workers 

are not encouraged to experiment, innovate, or otherwise vary the way that tasks are completed. 

In the 1970’s, academics such as Richard Hackman, Edward Lawler and Greg Oldham started to 

argue that Taylorist job design is sub-optimal (Hackman and Lawler 1971; Lawler 1973; Porter, 

Lawler and Hackman 1975; Hackman & Oldham 1976, 1980). Enriched jobs, by encouraging 

workers to learn and innovate at work, increase the motivating potential of work. Motivated 

workers perform tasks more accurately and are more likely to find productivity innovations that 

engineers overlook. In the 1980’s, firms put the theory into practice by redesigning jobs, 

adopting self-managed teams and work groups, and creating employee participation programs 

like quality circles.1

 While enriched jobs have proliferated, it is unclear whether this has 

increased employee satisfaction. Here we focus on two competing hypotheses about the 

relationship between enriched jobs and job satisfaction. 

 The idea that enriched job design motivates effort is central to Hackman, Lawler and 

Oldham’s theory. Their underlying assumption is that Taylorist jobs cannot meet the employees’ 

psychological and social needs (Cappelli and Rogovsky 1994). Job enrichment meets these 

 

1

 Collectively, Ichniowski, Delaney and Lewin (1989), Delaney, Lewin and Ichniowski (1989), Lawler, Mohrman, 

and Ledford (1992), and Osterman (1994) document (for US workplaces) that formal use of these new management 

practices was infrequent in the 1970’s and quite common by the 1990’s. 

2 
needs and increases the motivating potential of work, which simultaneously increases both 

worker satisfaction and effort. We refer to this hypothesis as the “motivation hypothesis.” If the 

data support the hypothesis, we would expect enrichment to have a positive and significant effect 

on job satisfaction. The degree that enrichment increases satisfaction may vary, as workers 

differ in their desire for work that fulfills “higher order needs,” like autonomy, intellectual 

challenge, or seeing projects through to completion. Since education, age, or experience may be 

correlated to higher order needs, the effect of job design on job satisfaction may vary with these 

individual characteristics. 

 Critics argue that workers may dislike enrichment for several reasons (Kelly 1982; Pollert 

1991). Some employees may prefer Taylorist workplaces. The narrowly defined jobs in a 

Taylorist workplace allow the employer to easily define performance standards and ensure that 

an employee will not be asked to do tasks outside of the job’s definition. Job enrichment is often 

accompanied by “intensification of work.” For example, most of the examples from a widely 

cited Business Week (1983:100) report on flexibility involve enlarging jobs by adding additional 

responsibilities (Thompson and McHugh 1990). Furthermore, because success in an enriched 

job no longer depends on completion of narrowly defined tasks, “employment security is now 

conditional on market success, rather than assured by [the worker’s] status as directly employed 

personnel” (Whitaker 1991:252). Finally, as economic theorists have long understood, 

increasing effort levels can also be accomplished by increased monitoring. Enrichment 

techniques like total quality management, teams and quality circles create incentives for peer 

surveillance, which can lead to lower job satisfaction (Delbridge, Turnbull and Wilkinson 1992; 

Sewell and Wilkinson 1992; Garrahan and Stewart 1992). We name these views the 

3 
“intensification hypothesis.”2

 For support of this hypothesis, we would expect enrichment to be 

associated with increased job intensity and lower levels of satisfaction. 

 By distilling a large and nuanced literature into two hypotheses, we obviously simplify. 

For example, even the proponents of enrichment recognize that the benefits are not universal – 

some workers may be less satisfied. Conversely, proponents of the intensification hypothesis 

generally direct their criticisms at the more general move towards “flexibility,” which in addition 

to enrichment also includes a move to a core-periphery model with increased use of temporary 

workers and decreased job security. In other words, these critics agree that enrichment might 

benefit some workers but they argue that, as implemented, enrichment is generally detrimental to 

the employee. Finally, Hamermesh (1977) points out that with perfect certainty, and a 

continuum of different jobs (offering different combinations of wages and benefits) there should 

be no difference in satisfaction beyond that due to randomly distributed tastes. Under this theory 

of compensating differentials, if workers prefer modern job design, then in equilibrium 

employers with enriched workplaces can offer relatively lower wages. In this case, satisfaction 

levels will not vary with the degree of enrichment, although differences might be observed after 

controlling for pay and other variables. Having made these caveats, we believe that our two 

hypotheses capture the overall tenor of the different viewpoints on the likely links between job 

enrichment and job satisfaction. 

Data Description 

 Since 1999, Statistics Canada has collected annual nationally-representative data for the

Workplace and Employee Survey (WES).3

 This survey gathers extensive information on 

 

2

 For a thorough survey of these arguments, see Thompson and McHugh (1990). 

4 
workforce characteristics and job organization. It asks detailed questions about decision-making, 

quality circles, teams, suggestion programs, feedback, and self-directed work, which match 

characteristics that Hackman and Oldham use to define enriched jobs. We use pooled cross 

sections of employees with their matched workplace information from 1999 and 2001. In each 

year the WES sampled over 6,000 Canadian workplaces with paid employees. At each 

establishment, one or more contact persons were identified and interviewed for the workplace 

portion of the survey instrument.4

 In addition, up to twelve employees were randomly selected 

and interviewed by telephone to complete the employee portion of the survey. The sample 

includes observations from 43,917 employees.5

 Because full information about work 

organization practices is limited to workplaces with more than 10 employees, we dropped 7,540 

employee observations from small employers. Some of the remaining observations are missing 

crucial demographic information or responses to the job satisfaction questions. Therefore, our 

estimations are based on approximately 30,000 observations. 

 Table 1 reports the proportion of workers who participate in different forms of 

enrichment. It shows that, a significant fraction of workers participate in each of the enrichment 

practices identified. At the same time considerable variation exists: only 16% of workers report 

participation in a task team, whereas 68% of workers participate in employee suggestion 

programs, and nearly 80% are informed about workplace changes. One quarter of workers 

participate in quality circles and job rotation. Around 40% of workers receive classroom training 

or participate in a self-directed workgroup or employee surveys. 

 3

 Data are gathered from all parts of Canada except the Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest territories and the survey 

covers all industries except farming, fishing, hunting, trapping, private households, religious organizations and 

public administration. For a full description of the development and use of this survey, see Krebs et al (1999). 4

 The primary contact person is typically a human resources manager. 1999 interviews were in person; in 2001 

Statistics Canada conducted computer-assisted telephone interviews. 

5

 Each cohort also responded to a follow-up survey one year later. For example, of the 25,533 respondents observed 

in 1999, 20,160 also responded in 2000. 

5 
 The survey contains two measures of job satisfaction, overall satisfaction and satisfaction 

with pay and benefits, both measured by a four-point Likert scale, with the four responses being 

“1: very dissatisfied”, “2: dissatisfied”, “3: satisfied”, and “4: very satisfied”. Table 2 reports 

how overall satisfaction levels vary according to eight characteristics that we associate 

enrichment: employee surveys, employee suggestion programs, job rotation, teamwork, quality 

circles, and classroom training.6 Workers are most likely to report “satisfied”, so the mean value 

is close to three. Without exception, satisfaction is higher among workers participating in any of 

the enrichment practices, with the largest differences being for those who participate in 

suggestion programs, task teams and quality circles, and those who are informed about 

workplace changes. 

Empirical Strategy 

 In order to test the hypotheses on the effect of enrichment on job satisfaction, we follow 

Clark and Oswald (1996) in treating job satisfaction, s, as a function that depends on pay, 

benefits and a variety of other factors. We therefore define an individual’s job satisfaction: 

(1) s = s (y, h, i, j)

where y represents a vector of variables describing pay and benefits, h is hours of work, and i 

and j represent individual and job characteristics, respectively. Job characteristics include the 

measures of enrichment. Positive coefficients on these variables would support the motivation 

hypothesis, while negative oneswould suggest intensification. In order to estimate equation (1), 

 

6

 The appendix (table A1) reports satisfaction by demographic and workplace characteristics. These results are 

largely consistent with prior literature. One unusual result is that unionized workers report roughly equal levels of 

satisfaction to other workers. 

6 
we must assume that measures of satisfaction are comparable across individuals; this assumption 

is commonly made in the psychology literature but is uncommon among economists. 

 Correct estimation of equation (1) poses some specific econometric issues. For example, 

in order to control adequately for y we estimate equation 1 not only by controlling for wages, 

but also by controlling for a wide range of benefits, and several forms of incentive pay. Correct 

estimation of the last two variables, i and j is particularly difficult in a cross section. Although 

our estimations can control for many characteristics of both workers and workplaces, 

unobservable characteristics of both might bias these results if correlated with both job 

satisfaction and the regressors. One such example is management style. It may be that working 

for an effective manager increases a worker’s job satisfaction and that effective managers 

employ enrichment techniques like job rotation and frequent feedback. Thus, some part of the 

effect of these variables on job satisfaction might in fact be the effect of management style on 

job satisfaction, biasing the result. 

 The unique design of the WES allows us to control for such unobserved workplace 

characteristics in cross-sectional estimates. The WES consists of matched employee and 

employer surveys. In one set of surveys, employees are asked about the characteristics of their 

jobs, including whether they participate in enrichment practices such as suggestion programs, 

flexible job design, information sharing, etc. Separate surveys ask employers if they use (on a 

formal basis) these same enrichment practices. The employer responses diverge significantly 

from employee responses on the same work practices. Even if an employer has a formal 

program implementing some work organization practice, this does not mean that all surveyed 

workers will hold jobs employing this practice. It is also possible for particular jobs to have 

features of enrichment, even if the employer does not have a formal program advocating that 

7 
feature. The employer responses allow us to control for aspects of management style that might 

be correlated with the enrichment variables. If the effect of a particular workplace feature 

erroneously captures the unobserved management style, then we would expect the effect to 

disappear when controlling for the organizational practices of the firm. The employer portion of 

the survey allows us to control for six characteristics that describe how work is organized and an 

additional 12 characteristics describing how decisions are made. All 18 of these control 

variables are described in the appendix, at the bottom of table A3.

After analyzing the effect of enrichment on job satisfaction in the full sample, we get 

further insight into the intensification hypotheses by separately estimating job satisfaction for 

enriched and unionized workers. In these subsets, intensification may be more evident. For 

example, if workers find small amounts of enrichment desirable, but associate larger amounts of 

enrichment with increased job intensity, then we would expect to see either smaller or negative 

effects of enrichment on satisfaction in workplaces that apply several different forms of 

enrichment. If workers who opt to join unions are particularly concerned about job intensity and 

scope, then we may see strong evidence of the intensification in this sub-sample. 

 We also test the intensification hypothesis directly using two different measures. First, 

we identify those workers who respond that they would like to reduce their workweek, and also 

respond that one reason is work-related stress. If enrichment increases the likelihood of a 

respondent belonging to this group, then we view this as evidence consistent with the 

intensification hypothesis. Second, some prior studies find a causal relationship between some 

enrichment variables and workplace hazards or workplace injuries (Askenazy 2001; Brenner, 

Fairris and Ruser 2004). Therefore, we also regress days of paid sick leave taken as a function of 

8 
the enrichment variables. A positive and significant relationship here would also support the 

intensification hypothesis. 

 Our ability to better control for individual-specific and workplace-specific variables 

makes an important contribution to the empirical literature on job satisfaction. Most large micro 

data sets of workers do not contain rich information on workplace and job characteristics. 

Therefore, the best current work has used data sets limited to a small number of workplaces, 

which allows researchers to better identify job characteristics and also to observe several workers 

at the same firm or jobsite. Drago, Estrin and Wooden (1992), Gordon and Denisi (1995), and 

Brown and McIntosh (2003) show that controlling for workplace characteristics does

qualitatively change conclusions about job-satisfaction.7 

This work, along with Clark (1999) and Bauer (2004), is among the first to study the 

relationship between job characteristics and job satisfaction in a broadly representative data set. 

Therefore, it reveals how well prior results generalize, and allows for a much more precise 

identification of the effects of different types of job characteristics. In particular, we are unaware 

of other papers that use matched data, which allows us to effectively control for unobserved 

management characteristics.8

Full-Sample Results 

 Table 3 reports the effect of job enrichment policies on worker satisfaction. The first 

three columns show coefficients from ordered probit estimations of equation (1), appropriately 

weighted to account for the stratified sampling procedure. The fourth column shows coefficients 

 

7

 Other authors have looked at case studies. See Griffin (1991) or Kato and Jones (2005), for example. 

8

 Frijters et al. (2003) show that matched data can be exploited to get significant new insights on the link between 

discrimination and job satisfaction. 

9 
from a fixed effects logit, where the dependent variable has been collapsed from four Likert 

ordered values to two. Each model also controls for a full set of worker characteristics. The 

results for these control variables are generally consistent with prior literature and can be found 

in the appendix, table A3.9

 

 The four models in table 3 differ in terms of the control variables used. Model 1 controls 

only for worker characteristics. The enrichment variables generally have a positive impact. Six 

of the eight variables--suggestion programs, job rotation, information sharing, teams, quality 

circles and classroom training--are significant at the 95% level; the remaining two are 

insignificantly different from zero. Model 1 does not control for either wages and benefits or for 

workplace practices reported from the employer portion of the survey. The former might affect 

results if compensating differentials offset the satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) associated with 

enrichment. The latter matters if unobserved managerial style biases results. Models 2 and 3 

add these controls, which are individually listed in appendix, table A4.10 Very little changes 

with these formulations. The exact same enrichment practices remain statistically significant and 

the coefficient estimates remain virtually unchanged. Compensating differentials do not appear 

to generally equalize satisfaction levels and there is no evidence that the original estimates 

erroneously captured omitted workplace effects. Model 4 takes advantage of the presence of 

multiple employees at each establishment to control for any remaining unobservable 

establishment characteristics that affect a worker’s job satisfaction. Under this specification, the 

 

9

 One unusual result is the coefficient on union membership, which is insignificant and has the opposite sign of prior 

findings. The control variables also include some variables not typically found in other analyses: having been 

promoted or frequently working overtime increases satisfaction. Long or undesirable hours, shift work, or an 

education level that exceeds the level required for the job decreases satisfaction. While table A3 reports only the 

coefficients from model 3, the coefficient estimates are remarkably stable across models. 

10 With controls for the employer portion of the survey, we would expect to produce more conservative estimates of 

the benefits of enrichment. Collinearity between the control variable from the workplace survey and the enrichment 

variable from the employee survey may make the enrichment variables appear less significant. This would be true 

even if satisfaction depended only on job, not workplace, characteristics. 

10 
six enrichment practices that were significant in models 1-3, remain so. In addition, participation 

in a self directed workgroup is now also positively associated with job satisfaction. 

 Before using this evidence to conclude that enrichment increases satisfaction, we first 

explore two alternate explanations for the results. It may be that satisfied employees are more 

likely to report the existence of enrichment practices, or that satisfied workers are more likely to 

be invited by their employers to participate in activities like job rotation or quality circles.11 To 

check for differences in survey reports, we compared the correlation coefficients between 

enrichment measures on the employer survey and enrichment measures on the employee survey 

by satisfaction level. If satisfied workers were more likely to accurately report participation, 

then we would expect a stronger positive correlation for this subset of workers. Table 4 shows 

these correlation coefficients for the full sample, for workers who report being either very 

satisfied or satisfied, and for those who report being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. There are 

no systematic differences across groups, indicating that satisfied workers are no more likely to 

report the presence of enrichment practices than dissatisfied ones. 

 To check whether satisfied workers are more likely to participate in enriched jobs, we use 

the fact that each worker is observed for two years. We compare the initial period job 

satisfaction of workers who begin participating in one of the enrichment practices by the 

following year to the satisfaction of those who do not begin participating. Initial job satisfaction 

is not statistically different for most of the enrichment variables, with the exception of those who 

begin participating in a job rotation program—those workers have lower job satisfaction prior to 

participating. Thus it does not appear that those who participate are initially more satisfied. 

Results for Enriched and Unionized Worker Subsamples 

 

11 We thank David Levine and Edward Lazear respectively for pointing out these possibilities. 

11 
 In aggregate, the results support the motivation hypothesis. Suggestion programs, job 

rotation, information sharing, quality circles, and task teams have consistently positive and 

statistically significant impacts on enrichment. None of the results support the intensification 

hypothesis: except for self-directed workgroups in model 3, even the insignificant variables have 

positive coefficients. We now explore the possibility that the intensification hypothesis, while 

not valid in the full sample, holds for certain sub-samples. To do this, we estimate separate 

equations by enrichment level and union membership. These results are presented in tables 5 

and 6. 

 In order to define an “enriched” worker, we use the 18 control variables for work 

organizational practices and combine them with the 8 measures of enrichment to derive 26 

characteristics of an enriched job-workplace combination. A worker is designated as working at 

an enriched workplace if the job-workplace combination has at least 7 of the 26 characteristics.12 

Estimating an ordered probit separately for enriched workers allows us to investigate the 

possibility that enrichment has non-linear effects. For example, it is possible that both the 

motivation hypothesis and the intensification hypothesis have some validity. Small amounts of 

enrichment might increase satisfaction, while increasing enrichment further simply increases the 

intensity and scope of work. Table 5 presents no evidence for this, however. The effect on 

satisfaction is the same in enriched workplaces as in the full sample, in both size and 

significance. Furthermore, in some cases the effects of enrichment practices appear to be smaller 

and less statistically significant in the unenriched sample, suggesting complementarities between 

workplace practices. Ichniowski, Shaw and Prennushi (1997) find similar complementarities in 

the productivity benefits of adopting such practices. 

 

12 The cutoff value is arbitrarily chosen, but results are not sensitive to choosing a slightly higher or lower threshold. 

12 
 A second partition of the data, reported in table 6, considers a separate estimation for 

unionized workers. Unions have a history of opposing the types of changes that accompany 

enrichment. It is possible, therefore, that those workers who are most averse to job 

intensification and job enlargement may choose to join a union or be a member of a workplace 

that is governed by a collective bargaining agreement. There is no evidence that enrichment, in 

general, decreases satisfaction for this group, although several of the enrichment practices have 

smaller and less significant effects on satisfaction. Three of the enrichment variables, suggestion 

programs, information sharing and quality circles remain positive and significant with 

coefficients that are qualitatively similar to the full sample. In contrast to the full sample, 

classroom training and task teams become insignificant, while participation in employee surveys 

becomes significant. No enrichment variable decreases satisfaction. 

A Direct Test of the Intensification Hypothesis 

Thus far, the results give strong support for the motivation hypothesis and no support for 

the intensification hypotheses. With respect to the latter, none of the eight estimations finds a 

single negative and statistically significant effect of a job enrichment measure on job satisfaction. 

We note however, that job satisfaction is not a direct test of the intensification claim. Critics 

argue that job design, as it has been implemented, has led to “job enlargement,” and “effort 

intensity” (Pollert 1991, pp. 3, 12). The WES identifies workers who would prefer shorter 

working hours in part because of work-related stress and also includes information on the 

number of paid sick-leave days taken during the past year. We use these two measures as 

dependent variables and test the effect of enrichment, including the same set of control variables 

as in the third column of Table 3. If enrichment practices intensify jobs and increase stress, we 

13 
would expect to find that these practices increase the probability of workers preferring shorter 

hours and increase the number of sick days taken. The results are reported in Table 7. In 

aggregate, these data give very little support for the intensification hypothesis. In column 1, only 

membership in a quality circle increases our measure of work-related stress, while one 

enrichment variable, information sharing, decreases work-related stress. Only participation in 

employee surveys is positively correlated with paid sick leave days at a statistically significant 

level. 

Conclusion 

This study uses a unique, rich, matched data set to investigate the relationship between 

enriched jobs and employee satisfaction. We identify two competing hypotheses about this 

relationship. The motivation hypothesis argues that enrichment satisfies employees’ 

psychological and social needs and will therefore increase satisfaction. The intensification 

hypothesis, on the other hand, argues that enriched jobs require workers to do more types of 

tasks and work more intensely, and reduces job security. Therefore, enrichment should decrease 

satisfaction. 

 We carefully control for employee and workplace characteristics, including unobserved 

establishment characteristics that might be correlated with both employee satisfaction and the 

choice of enrichment practices. Additionally, we control for the employee’s wages to account for 

the possibility of compensating differentials. Our results produce strong support for the 

motivation hypothesis and no support for the intensification hypothesis. Suggestion programs, 

job rotation, information sharing, teams, quality circles and classroom training all are positively 

associated with job satisfaction. The same results hold for the specific subset of unionized 

14 
workers. Even among workers who are in highly enriched jobs, the enrichment practices are 

positively related to job satisfaction. These results strongly support the motivation hypothesis, 

and neither these results nor direct tests of work-related stress show support for the 

intensification hypothesis. 

15 
References: 

Askenazy, Philippe 2001. “Innovative Workplace Practices and Occupational Injuries and 

Illnesses in the United States.” Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 

485–516.

Bauer, Thomas K. 2004. “High performance workplace practices and job satisfaction: evidence 

from Europe.” (August) Bonn: IZA discussion paper no. 1265. 

Brenner, Mark D., David Fairris and John W. Ruser 2004. “Flexible Work Practices and 

Occupational Safety and Health: Exploring the Relationship between Cumulative Trauma 

Disorders and Workplace Transformation.” Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy 

and Society Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 242–266.

Brown, Donna and Steven McIntosh 2003. “Job Satisfaction in the low wage service sector.” 

Applied Economics, Vol. 35, pp. 1241-1254. 

Business Week 1983. “A Work Revolution in U.S. Industry.” Business Week (May 16), Iss. 

2790, p. 100. 

Cappelli, Peter and Nikolai Rogovsky 1994. “New work systems and skill requirements.” 

International Labour Review, Vol. 133, No. 2, pp. 204-20. 

Clark, Andrew E. 1999. “What makes a good job: evidence from OECD countries.” Mimeo, 

 CNRS and LEO-Cresp, Université d’Orléans. 

Clark, Andrew E. and Andrew J. Oswald. 1996. “Satisfaction and Comparison Income.” Journal 

of Public Economics, Vol. 17, pp. 95-121. 

Clark, Andrew E., Yannis Georgellis and Peter Sanfey. 1998. “Job Satisfaction, Wages and 

Quits: Evidence from German Panel Data.” Research in Labor Economics, Vol. 17, pp. 

88-101. 

Clegg, Chris W. 1983. “Psychology of employee lateness, absence and turnover: a 

methodological critique and an empirical study.” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68, 

pp. 88-101. 

Delaney, John T., David Lewin, and Casey Ichniowiski 1989. "Human Resource Policies and 

Practices in American Firms." Bureau of Labor-Management Relations, No.137. 

Delbridge, Rick, Peter Turnbull and Barry Wilkinson 1992. “Pushing back the frontiers: 

management control and work intensification under JIT/TQM Regimes,” New 

Technology, Work and Employment, vol 7: 97-106. 

Drago, Robert, Saul Estrin, and Mark Wooden 1992. “Pay for Performance Incentives and 

Work Attitudes.” Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 217-32. 

16 
Drago, Robert and Mark Wooden 1992. “The determinants of labor absence: economic factors 

and workgroup norms across countries.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 45, 

No. 4, pp. 135-141. 

Freeman, Richard B. 1978. “Job Satisfaction as an Economic Variable.” American Economic 

Review, Vol. 68, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Ninetieth Annual Meeting of the 

American Economic Association. (May), pp. 135-141. 

Frijters, Paul, Michael A. Shields, Nikolaos Theodoropoulos, and Stephen W. Price 2003. 

“Testing for Employee Discrimination using matched employer-employee data: theory 

and evidence.” (June) IZA Discussion Paper No. 807. 

Garrahan, Philip and Paul Stewart 1992. The Nissan Enigma: Flexibility at work in a local 

economy, London: Mansett. 

Gordon, Michael E. and Angelo S. Denisi 1995. “A re-examination of the relationship between 

union membership and job satisfaction.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 

(January). 

Griffin, Ricky W. 1991. “Effects of Work Redesign on Employee Perceptions, Attitudes and 

Behaviors: A Long-Term Investigation.” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 

2, pp. 425-435. 

Hackman, J. Richard and Edward E. Lawler, III 1971. “Employee reactions to job 

characteristics.” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 55, pp. 259-286. 

Hackman, J. Richard, and Greg R. Oldham 1976. “Motivation through the design of work: Test 

of a theory.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16, pp. 250-279. 

Hackman, J. Richard, and Greg R. Oldham 1980. Work Redesign, Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. 

Hamermesh, Daniel S. 1977. “Economic Aspects of Job Satisfaction.” In O.E. Ashenfelter and 

W.E. Oates, eds., Essays in Labour Market Analysis, John Wiley, New York, pp 53-72. 

Ichniowski, Casey, Kathryn Shaw, and Giovanna Prennushi 1997. “The Effects of Human 

Resources Management Practices on Productivity: A Study of Steel Finishing Lines.” 

American Economic Review, Vol. 87, No. 3, pp. 55-72. 

Ichniowski, Casey, John T. Delaney and David Lewin 1989. “The New Human Resource 

Management in U.S. Workplaces: Is it Really New and is it Really Nonunion?” Relations 

Industrielles, (January), pp. 55-72. 

Kato, Takao and Derek C. Jones 2005. “The Effects of Employee Involvement on Firm 

Performance: Evidence from an Econometric Case Study” (May) William Davidson 

Institute Working Paper No. 612. 

17 
Kelly, John E. 1982. Scientific Management, Job Redesign and Work Performance, London: 

Academic Press. 

Krebs, Howard, Zdenek Patak, Garnett Picot and Ted Wannell 1999. “The Development and 

Use of a Canadian Linked Employer-Employee Survey.” mimeo, Statistics Canada.

Lawler, Edward E. 1973. Motivation in Work Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Republished as classic edition in 1994. 

Lawler, Edward E., S.A. Mohrman, and G.E. Ledford 1992. “The Fortune 100 and total 

quality.” Quality and Participation, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 6-10.

Mangione, Thomas W. and Robert P. Quinn 1975. “Job Satisfaction, Counter-productive 

Behaviour and Drug Use at Work.” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, 1975, pp 

114-116.

Osterman, Paul 1994. “How Common is Workplace Transformation and Who Adopts it.” 

Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 47 (January), pp.173-88. 

Pollert, Anna 1991. “The Orthodoxy of Flexibility.” In A. Pollert, ed., Farewell to Flexibility? 

Basil Blackwell, Oxford. 

Porter, Lyman W., Edward E. Lawler, III, and J. Richard Hackman 1975. Behavior in 

organizations, New York: McGraw Hill. 

Sewell, Graham and Barry Wilkinson 1992. “Someone to Watch over me: Surveillance, 

Discipline and Just-in-time Labour Process.” Sociology, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 271-89. 

Taylor, Frederick W. 1947. Scientific Management, New York: Harper and Row. 

Thompson, Paul and David McHugh 1990. Work Organizations: A Critical Introduction. 

MacMillan Press, London. 

Whitaker, M. 1991. “Towards flexibility: technical change and buyer-supplier relations in the 

British clothing industry.” In P. Blyton and J. Morris, eds., A Flexible Future? Prospects 

for Employment and Organization, de Gruyter, Berlin. 

18 
Table 1. Use of enrichment practices in 1999 and 2001 WES

Mean

Participate in employee survey .4593 

Participate in suggestion program .6838 

Participate in job rotation .2669 

Informed about workplace changes .7850 

Participate in task team .1612 

Participate in quality circle .2580 

Part of self-directed workgroup .3713 

Received classroom training .3919 

Number of observations 32,047 

Note: weighted means from pooled 1999 and 2001 data. 

19 
Table 2. Satisfaction rates in 1999 and 2001 WES, by 

whether or not job is enriched 

All workers 3.202 

Job enrichment Yes No

Participate in employee survey 3.261 

(.005) 

3.169 

(.005) 

Participate in suggestion program 3.276 

(.004) 

3.063 

(.007) 

Participate in job rotation 3.268 

(.007) 

3.179 

(.004) 

Informed about workplace changes 3.268 

(.004) 

3.029 

(.009) 

Participate in task team 3.387 

(.008) 

3.170 

(.004) 

Participate in quality circle 3.369 

(.007) 

3.145 

(.004) 

Part of self-directed workgroup 3.270 

(.006) 

3.165 

(.005) 

Received classroom training 3.295 

(.005) 

3.158 

(.005) 

Note: weighted means from pooled 1999 and 2001 data. Standard errors 

in parentheses. The satisfaction variable takes values 1 (very dissatisfied), 

2 (dissatisfied), 3 (satisfied), 4 (very satisfied). 

20 
Table 3. Effect of job enrichment policies on worker job satisfaction in 

pooled 1999 and 2001 WES 

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Participate in employee 

survey 

.0332 

(.029) 

.0427 

(.032) 

.0317 

(.032) 

.0040 

(.033) 

Participate in suggestion 

program 

.1618***

(.031) 

.1707***

(.033) 

.1757***

(.034) 

.3047***

(.035) 

Participate in job rotation .0642**

(.033) 

.0620*

(.035) 

.0717**

(.035) 

.1311***

(.034) 

Informed about workplace 

changes 

.2669***

(.037) 

.2807***

(.040) 

.2682***

(.040) 

.2806***

(.042) 

Participate in task team .1466***

(.041) 

.1582***

(.044) 

.1628***

(.044) 

.2240***

(.042) 

Participate in quality circle .1481***

(.037) 

.1476***

(.039) 

.1408***

(.039) 

.2535***

(.038) 

Part of self-directed 

workgroup 

.0115 

(.034) 

.0036 

(.035) 

-.0102 

(.035) 

.0782**

(.033) 

Received classroom training .0945***

(.031) 

.1040***

(.032) 

.0872***

(.033) 

.1558***

(.032) 

Worker Characteristics 

controls 

YES YES YES YES 

Wage control? NO NO YES YES 

Establishment workplace 

organization controls? 

NO YES YES YES 

Establishment fixed effects? NO NO NO YES 

Pseudo R2 .0489 .0531 .0567 .0002 

Number of observations 32,047 29,272 29,272 26,094 

Notes: Columns 1-3 report ordered probit coefficients (dependent variable takes on four possible values). Fourth 

column reports fixed effects logit coefficients (collapsing dependent variable into two values). Standard errors in 

parentheses. *** - p<.01, ** - p<.05, *

 - p<.10. 

21 
Table 4. Correlation between responses on employee and workplace surveys for 

enrichment and work organization variables. 

Item from workplace 

survey

Item from employee 

survey

All 

workers

Satisfied 

workers

Dissatisfied 

workers

Employee suggestion 

programs 

Asked to completes 

employee surveys 

.107 .109 .106 

Employee suggestion 

programs 

Employee suggestion 

program 

.079 .086 .037 

Flexible job design Job rotation .015 .011 .049 

Information sharing Information sharing .130 .126 .154 

Problem-solving teams Task teams or labormanagement committee .046 .043 .067 

Problem-solving teams Quality circle or team .053 .056 -.003 

Labour-management 

committees 

Task teams or labormanagement committee .046 .043 .084 

Labour-management 

committees 

Quality circle or team .003 .003 .003 

Self-directed groups Self-directed groups .061 .066 .005 

Notes: Correlation coefficients between employer response to survey item in column one and employee 

response to survey item in column two. Satisfied workers respond being “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with 

their job overall, dissatisfied workers responded being “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied”. 

22 
Table 5. Effect of enrichment policies on job satisfaction in high- and 

low-enrichment establishments 

Full 

sample

Enriched 

sample

Unenriched 

sample

Participate in employee survey .0317 

(.032) 

.0614 

(.043) 

.0095 

(.044) 

Participate in suggestion program .1757***

(.034) 

.1656***

(.046) 

.1971***

(.044) 

Participate in job rotation .0717**

(.035) 

.1063***

(.042) 

.0166 

(.058) 

Informed about workplace changes .2682***

(.040) 

.3626***

(.074) 

.2320***

(.047) 

Participate in task team .1628***

(.044) 

.1891***

(.052) 

.1079 

(.073) 

Participate in quality circle .1408***

(.039) 

.1458***

(.051) 

.1189*

(.062) 

Part of self-directed workgroup -.0102 

(.035) 

-.0059 

(.046) 

-.0245 

(.054) 

Received classroom training .0872***

(.033) 

.0888**

(.043) 

.0931*

(.051) 

Pseudo R2 .0567 .0537 .0538 

Number of observations 29,272 14,142 15,130 

Notes: Ordered probit coefficients (dependent variable takes on four possible values). The models 

control for worker characteristics, wages and establishment workplace organization as in the third 

column of Table 3. Standard errors in parentheses. *** - p<.01, ** - p<.05, *

 - p<.10. 

23 
Table 6. Effect of enrichment policies on job satisfaction in union and 

non-union establishments 

Full 

sample

Union 

sample

Non-union 

sample

Participate in employee survey .0317 

(.032) 

.1035**

(.044) 

.0008 

(.041) 

Participate in suggestion program .1757***

(.034) 

.1458***

(.052) 

.1889***

(.042) 

Participate in job rotation .0717**

(.035) 

.0494 

(.048) 

.0765*

(.045) 

Informed about workplace changes .2682***

(.040) 

.2581***

(.063) 

.2769***

(.051) 

Participate in task team .1628***

(.044) 

.0595 

(.068) 

.2294***

(.056) 

Participate in quality circle .1408***

(.039) 

.1108*

(.060) 

.1523***

(.048) 

Part of self-directed workgroup -.0102 

(.035) 

-.0113 

(.055) 

-.0202 

(.043) 

Received classroom training .0872***

(.033) 

.0212 

(.043) 

.1281***

(.044) 

R2 .0567 .0537 .0666 

Number of observations 29,272 10,477 18,795 

Notes: Ordered probit coefficients (dependent variable takes on four possible values). The 

models control for worker characteristics, wages, and establishment workplace organization 

as in the third column of Table 3. tandard errors in parentheses. *** - p<.01, ** - p<.05, *

 - p<.10. 

24 
Table 7. Effect of enrichment policies on job-related stress 

Prefer fewer hours 

due to stress

Days paid sick 

leave taken

Participate in employee survey .0003 

(.001) 

.4962**

(.244) 

Participate in suggestion program .0010 

(.001) 

-.7876 

(.664) 

Participate in job rotation -.0009 

(.001) 

-.2093 

(.185) 

Informed about workplace changes -.0038** 

(.002) 

.5638 

(.509) 

Participate in task team -.0018 

(.001) 

-.3138 

(.320) 

Participate in quality circle .0028**

(.002) 

-.1432 

(.275) 

Part of self-directed workgroup .0001 

(.001) 

.1939 

(.317) 

Received classroom training .0001 

(.001) 

-.3161 

(.345) 

R2 .2670 .0311 

Number of observations 29,371 29,371 

Notes: Column 1 reports probit marginal effects. Column 2 reports OLS coefficients. The 

models control for worker characteristics, wages, and establishment workplace organization as 

in the third column of Table 3. Standard errors in parentheses. *** - p<.01, ** - p<.05, *

 - p<.10. 

25 
Table A1. Sample means and satisfaction rates in 1999 and 2001 WES for 

select demographic characteristics 

Mean

Satisfaction 

Rate

Standard 

Error

All workers 3.202 .004 

Age < 25 .0764 3.104 .018 

Aged 25-34 .2235 3.137 .008 

Aged 35-44 .3210 3.242 .006 

Aged 45+ .3792 3.243 .006 

Female .4938 3.226 .006 

Male .5062 3.180 .005 

Married .5932 3.249 .005 

Unmarried .4068 3.141 .006 

With disability .0200 3.075 .024 

Without disability .9800 3.205 .004 

Covered by union .3326 3.181 .006 

Not covered by union .6674 3.207 .005 

High school only .2844 3.203 .007 

Some college .5121 3.203 .005 

Bachelor’s degree .1385 3.183 .011 

Advanced degree .0650 3.238 .016 

Overeducated .3533 3.165 .006 

Not overeducated .6467 3.222 .005 

Part-timer .1458 3.227 .012 

Full-timer .8542 3.197 .004 

Prefers ± 5 hours .1872 3.044 .009 

Hours within 5 of optimal .8128 3.240 .004 

Home language not work language .0999 3.066 .012 

Home language is work language .9001 3.217 .004 

Promoted in past year .4198 3.267 .005 

Not promoted in past year .5802 3.156 .005 

Establishment < 25 employees .1933 3.224 .010 

Establishment 25-99 employees .3062 3.174 .006 

Establishment 100-249 employees .1506 3.187 .008 

Establishment ≥ 250 employees .3498 3.269 .006 

Note: weighted means from pooled 1999 and 2001 data. The satisfaction variable takes values 

1 (very dissatisfied), 2 (dissatisfied), 3 (satisfied), 4 (very satisfied). 

26 
 

Table A2. Effect of worker characteristics on job satisfaction

Tenure -.0033 

Experience -.0073 

Experience2/100 .0351***

Female .0771**

Married .0585*

Has children .0699**

Covered by union -.0194 

High school only .1140**

Bachelor’s degree -.1493***

Advanced degree .0462 

Home language not work language -.1357***

Disability that limits work activities -.0249 

Education exceeds that required for job -.0544 

Hours per week -.0086***

Would prefer ± 5 hours -.2962***

Overtime hours .0900**

Uses a computer on the job .0207 

Works late shift -.0825 

Promoted within the last year .1540***

Manager .1197 

Professional -.1001 

Technical/trade worker -.0214 

Marketing/sales worker -- 

Clerical/administrative .0450 

Production worker with no trade -.0610 

Natural log of hourly wage .2829***

Year 2001 -.0660**

Notes: Ordered probit coefficients from model in column 3 of Table 3. 

*

 - p<.01, ** - p<.05, *** - p<.10. 

27 
Table A3. Effect of workplace characteristics on job satisfaction 

Number of employees/100 .0012 

Vacancy rate -.0989 

Many competitors -.0509 

Incentive pay available .0145 

Gainsharing pay available -.1240***

Profit sharing pay available .0818*

Merit pay available .0211 

Workers help decide planning of daily individual work -.0210 

Workers help decide planning of weekly individual work .0269 

Workers help decide on follow-up of results .0503 

Workers help decide on customer relations -.0466 

Workers help decide on quality control -.0161 

Workers help decide on purchase of necessary supplies .0355 

Workers help decide on maintenance of machinery and equipment .0218 

Workers help decide on setting staffing levels .1468*

Workers help decide on filling vacancies .0030 

Workers help decide on training -.0136 

Workers help decide on choice of production technology -.0160 

Workers help decide on product/service development .0755 

Workplace has employee suggestion program -.0460 

Workplace has flexible job design program .0192 

Workplace has information sharing program -.0332 

Workplace has problem-solving teams .0681*

Workplace has joint labor-management committees -.0772**

Workplace has self-directed work groups -.0181 

Notes: Ordered probit coefficients from model in column 3 of Table 3. 

*

 - p<.01, ** - p<.05, *** - p<.10. 

28