Supplemental MaterialsOne Hundred Years of Work Design Research: Looking Back and Looking Forward

by S. K. Parker et al., 2017, Journal of Applied Psychologyhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000106

Online Resource 1: Glossary of Terms

Autonomous work group (also semi-autonomous work group, self-managing team): A group of

interdependent members who have collective autonomy over aspects of their work, such

as when and how to carry out tasks and which tasks are allocated to which members.

Challenge demands (or challenge stressors): Stress-inducing work demands that also have the

potential to promote mastery, personal growth, or future demands. Examples include

workload, time pressure, and responsibility.

Empowerment (psychological): A motivational construct that captures individuals’ experience of

meaning, impact, self-determination, and competence.

Empowerment (structural): Structures, policies, and practices that delegate power and authority to

employees.

Hindrance demands: Stress-inducing demands that have the potential to thwart growth, learning,

and attainment of goals. Examples include including organizational politics, role

ambiguity, and role conflict.

Interdependence: Degree to which individuals need to work closely with others to carry out their

job or work role.

Job autonomy: Degree to which the job provides discretion over daily work decisions, work

methods, and work scheduling, such as when and how to do tasks.

Job demands: Aspects of jobs that require high levels of, or sustained, physical, mental, or

emotional effort (e.g., time pressure, emotional demands).

Job enlargement: Expanding the content of jobs to include additional tasks.

Job enrichment: Increasing the motivational value of work, such as enhancing autonomy over work

planning and execution by giving responsibility for decisions normally undertaken by

supervisors.

Job rotation: Rotating employees from one job to another job.

Job feedback. Degree to which job incumbent obtains clear information about his/her effectiveness

whilst performing their work tasks/ job.

Job identity (or task identity): Degree to which a job requires completion of a “whole” job, from

beginning to end.

Job resources: Aspects of the job that help achieve goals, personal development, and help deal with

job demands (e.g., job autonomy, social support).

Job significance (or task significance): Degree to which a job has a substantial impact on the lives

or work of others.

Job variety (or task variety): Degree to which a job involves a variety of activities.

Relational work design: Designing roles to provide greater opportunities for employees to interact

with others, such as the beneficiaries of the work.

Roles: Expected patterns of behavior that arise from social processes and interactions.

Role conflict: Incompatible demands from different role senders.

Role ambiguity (or low role clarity): Lack of clarity about role expectations.

Scientific management: A system (introduced by Fredrick Taylor) in which managers analyze tasks,

break them into simplified elements, train employees to perform the elements, and then

closely monitor employee compliance with simplified tasks.

Skill utilization: Extent to which the job allows the incumbent an opportunity to use their skills,

abilities, and talents.

Skill variety: Extent to which a job involves using a number of different skills.

Social support: Provision of emotional or instrumental help, typically from a peer or supervisor.

Sociotechnical systems (STS) theory and principles: Idea that the technical and social aspects of

work should be jointly optimized when designing work, with principles such as that work

should provide variety, allow learning, include autonomous decision-making, offer social

support, be relevant, and lead to a desirable future for incumbents.

Online Resource 2: Mapping the Work Design Literature

First, we sought to obtain an appropriate set of work design articles that was used in both the next

steps. Second, we identified influential articles. Third, we conducted scientific mapping. Each of

these steps is elaborated next.

1. Data set of work design articles

To obtain a total data set of work design articles, an initial set of results was obtained using

a set of search terms in the Psycinfo and Web of Science database. We used Psycinfo (which

includes many psychology journals) as well as Web of Science to ensure comprehensive coverage

and to ensure a match with Humphrey et al. (2007). The resulting set of records was very large

(>50,000 abstracts in Web of Science). Only 500 and 200 records at a time (Web of Science and

Psycinfo, respectively) can be exported from the databases to separate files, which then have to be

aggregated into a single file. Given this limitation, >50,000 records was not a workable quantity.

Accordingly, some search terms were modified to make them more work specific.

The final search terms that we used were: Job/work design, job enlargement, job/work

enrichment, job/work characteristic, task attribute, job perception, enriched job, taylorism, job

simplification, simplified jobs, mechanistic job design, motivating work, deskilling, job variety,

task variety, skill variety, job feedback, job autonomy, job control, job significance, task

significance, job identity, job scope, job/work complexity, job demand, role demand, role overload,

work overload, work load, work demands, cost-responsibility, role clarity, role ambiguity,

autonomous work team/group, autonomous work group, self-managing teams/groups, semi-

autonomous team/group, group work design, self-leading team, self-leading groups, team design,

job crafting, i-deals, role innovation, virtual work/team, job share, flex time, JCM, Herzberg two-

factor theory, motivator-hygiene theory, structural/team empowerment, quality circles, scientific

management, task/job interdependence, work interdependence, social contact, emotional demands,

time pressure, attentional demand, cognitive demand, problem solving demand, role conflict, job

meaningfulness, work meaningfulness, experienced responsibility, knowledge of results, physical

demands, task revision, sociotechnical systems, job quality, job diagnostic, job descriptive index,

multiskilling, job/work content, job/work conditions, job/work dimensions, job/work social support,

task identity, psychological states. This search resulted in a more workable set of records of

approximately 25,000 records. These records were screened to eliminate duplicate records from the

set, to remove clearly irrelevant records, and to delete the following types of records: books,

conference proceedings, and non-English publications. The resulting set was 17,874 records.

Next, we created a more focused data set by concentrating only on records from 70

psychology and management journals. Specifically, we chose OS/OB/HRM/IR journals listed in the

Harzing list, plus any additional journals listed in Peters et al. (2014) or in Zickar and Highhouse

(2001). The resulting 5,708 records were the psychology/management work design articles that we

used in to identify the most influential articles (Table 1 in the article) and which we used in the

main scientific mapping exercise (Figure 2 in the article).

We also created from the psychology/management data set a further subset of articles: those

published in the Journal of Applied Psychology. These records were used in the JAP scientific map

(Online Resource 2).

2. Identification of the Most Influential Articles

As noted above, to identify the most important work design articles, we focused on 5,708 journal

articles on the topic of work design within the field of management and psychology. We narrowed

this list further by including only those articles published before 2010 that had at least 100 citations

(Web of Science), and those articles between 2010 and 2015 identified as “highly cited” papers.

From this list of >500 articles, we identified those “influential articles that took the field in new

directions.” In making these judgements, although we considered citations, we did not rely on

citations alone. First, citations are biased from a temporal perspective, underestimating the impact

of early papers (when the field was smaller and so papers were cited less) and more recent papers

(which have not had time to be cited). Second, citations can be biased from a cultural perspective.

Consequently, we selected articles as influential articles to be those that we judged, using both

citations and our own professional expertise, to be an article or book that has shaped or extended

work design research in a significant way. We excluded from the list:

- measure development studies, unless they explicitly took the field in a new direction;

- reviews and meta analyses, unless they explicitly took the field in a new direction;

- practical applications of work design;

- applications of work design theory to other management/ psychology research (e.g., work

design as one antecedent among many in predicting a particular outcome); and

- important books or book chapters (these were excluded because of their very large number,

which would have expanded the list considerably).

The identification of the most influential articles naturally involves a degree of judgement that

cannot be readily quantified. The process of selection involved the first author making an initial

recommendation of approximately 70 articles, using a combination of citations and her own

judgment. Both the second and third author inspected the list and identified whether they agreed or

disagreed, and each author identified any additional articles they believed should be included. We

then settled on 35 articles for which we had clear and shared agreement.

3. Scientific Mapping

We used VOSviewer (see http://www.vosviewer.com/) to conduct scientific mapping on the 5,708

articles in the psychology/management field (see above). VOSviewer has validated procedures for

term extraction and selection, visual mapping of relatedness, and clustering of terms. Consistent

with Lee et al. (2014), we used the default settings in the software, which generally represents “the

best practice in the science mapping literature.”

The first step in the mapping process involved identifying “noun phrases” (groups of nouns

and preceding adjectives) that occur in the abstract or title of at least 10 articles. Generic nouns like

“reader” or “journal” were removed, as they do not help distinguish topics. Other terms relevant to

the method of data analysis (e.g., “regression”), approach (e.g., “cross-sectional study”) were also

removed. In addition, synonyms were grouped together, including different spelling of the same

term. For example, organizational citizenship behavior, citizenship, citizenship behavior with the

various spellings were coded as “citizenship behavior.” The relevance of the terms was then

computed, and the relatedness was assessed using the association strength measure, which refers to

the ratio between the number of co-occurrence of two terms relative to the expected number of co-

occurrences of the two terms. Association strength measures were used as input for the VOS

mapping technique, which is a two-dimensional depiction of term relatedness.

Tables A and B show summaries of the cluster maps obtained for the scientific mapping of

the psychology/management work design research and the JAP work design research, respectively.

Figure A shows the scientific map generated using the JAP work design articles only. Figures B

and C show density maps for the scientific mapping of the psychology/management work design

research and the JAP work design research, respectively. In the density maps, those topics that have

been investigated most are shown in red.

References

Lee, C. I., Felps, W., & Baruch, Y. (2014). Toward a taxonomy of career studies through

bibliometric visualization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 339–351.

Peters, K., Daniels, K., Hodgkinson, G. P., & Haslam, S. A. (2014). Experts’ judgments of

management journal quality: An identity concerns model. Journal of Management, 40, 1785–

1812.

Van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., Dekker, R., & van den Berg, J. (2010). A comparison of two

techniques for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS. Journal of the

American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 2405–2416.

Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and

clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 629–635.

Zickar, M. J., & Highhouse, S. (2001). Measuring prestige of journals in industrial-organizational

psychology. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 38, 29–36.

Table SA Clusters of Research Topics Identified From Scientific Mapping of Work Design Articles in the Psychology and Management Literature

Cluster Label Description of cluster Defining work design terms Outcome terms

1 (red) Sociotechnical

and AWGs

Sociotechnical systems-oriented work design

(e.g., teams), as well as broader, more

contextualized, management-oriented

concepts

Team, work organization, self-

managing team, group work,

empowerment, interdependence, and

autonomous work group

Team

performance/effectiveness,

innovation, competitive

advantage

2 (green) Job

characteristics

model

Job characteristics concepts with emphasis

on motivational outcomes, with some link to

the job analytic perspective.

Job characteristics, feedback, task

variety, task significance, JCM

Job satisfaction

3 (blue) Job demands-

control model

Job demands-control work design with

emphasis on mental/physical health

outcomes

Job demand, job stress, job strain,

health, work load, fatigue, applied

ergonomics, recovery

Job demand, job stress, job

strain, health, work load,

fatigue, applied

ergonomics, recovery

5 (pink) Job demands-

resources

model

Key variables in the job demands/resources

model, with focus on burnout and

engagement as outcomes

Job resources, emotional demands,

work-family interface

Exhaustion, burnout,

engagement

4 (yellow) Role theory Focus on role ambiguity and conflict, but

also role processes

Role ambiguity, role conflict

personality, role perceptions

Self-efficacy, newcomer

socialization

Table SB Clusters of Research Topics Identified From Scientific Mapping of Work Design Articles in the Journal of Applied Psychology

Cluster label Work design terms Outcome terms Link to clusters from Table A1 (green) Job characteristics

modelJob characteristics, job diagnostic survey, skill variety, job feedback, job complexity, job enrichment

Job satisfaction, effort, attitude

This cluster is similar to the job characteristics cluster referred to in Table 1, albeit fewer terms and it includes team.

2 (yellow)

Role theory Role ambiguity, role conflict, role clarity

Organizational commitment

This is similar to, albeit narrower than, the role variables (yellow) cluster

3 (purple) Job demands-control/resources models

Job demand, job control, job resources, job stressor, work load, role overload

Exhaustion, health, job strain, job stress

This cluster combined the job demands-control cluster (blue) and the job demands-resources cluster (pink), although each is narrower

4 (orange)

Work–family interface

Work family conflict Conflict An additional cluster here (in the broader map, these terms are part of the job demands-resources cluster)

Figure SA. Scientific map for JAP articles only (see Table SB for description of clusters).

Figures SB and SC. Density maps of work design articles in Psychology and

Management (top figure) and in the Journal of Applied Psychology (bottom

figure). Red, followed by yellow, indicates area of highest density.

Online Resource 3: Ngram Analyses Showing Work Usage in Google Books

Figure SA. Plot of terms from Google’s Ngram Viewer using the English Corpus, 1800–2008. Search terms were: (job design + work design—

blue line), (Taylorism + scientific management—red line), (job enrichment + job enlargement + job characteristics + job autonomy—green line),

(self-managing teams + autonomous work + sociotechnical systems—orange line), (job demand + job control—purple line), (role conflict + role

ambiguity—maroon line).

Figure SB: Plot of terms from Google’s Ngram Viewer using the English Corpus, 1800–2008. Search terms were (work empowerment +

team empowerment + structural empowerment + employee empowerment)*10—blue line, (teamwork +work teams + team work—red

line), (job demands + work demands)*10—green line.

Figure SC: Plot of terms from Google’s Ngram Viewer using the English Corpus, 1800–2008. Search terms were electronic monitoring,

(attentional demands +cognitive demands + problem solving demands + job complexity + work complexity—red line), (work overload +

role overload—green line), time pressure—orange line, (emotional demands+ emotional labor + emotional labor—purple line) .

Online Resource 4: Work Design Reviews, Meta analyses, Syntheses

Andrei, D., & Parker, S. K. (in press). Work design for performance: Expanding the criterion for

contemporary work. In N. Anderson, C. Viswesvaran, H. K. Sinangil, & D. S. Ones (Eds), The

Sage handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (2nd Edition). London,

England: Sage Publications.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328.

Belkic, K. L., Landsbergis, P. A., Schnall, P. L., & Baker, D. (2004). Is job strain a major source of

cardiovascular disease risk? Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 30, 85–128.

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of

leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288–

307.

Campion, M. A., Mumford, T. V., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Work redesign: Eight

obstacles and opportunities. Human Resource Management, 44, 367–390.

Cherns, A. (1976). The principles of sociotechnical design. Human Relations, 29, 783–792.

Clegg, C., & Spencer, C. (2007). A circular and dynamic model of the process of job design. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 321–339.

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the

shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290.

Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high-performance work practices

matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology,

59, 501–528.

Cordery, J., & Parker, S. K. (2007). Work organization. In P. Boxall, J. Purcell, & P. Wright (Eds.),

Oxford handbook of human resource management (pp. 187–209). Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

Cordery, J. L., & Parker, S. K., (2012) Work design: Creating jobs and roles that promote individual

effectiveness. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology (pp. 247–285). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee

engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 95, 834–848

Cullinane, S. J., Bosak, J., Flood, P. C., & Demerouti, E. (2013). Job design under lean manufacturing

and its impact on employee outcomes. Organizational Psychology Review, 3, 41–61.

Cummings, T., & Blumberg, M. (1987). Advanced manufacturing technology and work design. In T. D.

Wall, C. W. Clegg, & N. J. Kemp (Eds.), The human side of advanced manufacturing

technology (pp. 37–60). New York: John Wiley.

Daniels, K. (2006). Rethinking job characteristics in work stress research. Human Relations, 59, 267–

290.

Davis, G. F. (2010). Job design meets organizational sociology. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

31, 302–308.

De Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A., Houtmn, I., & Bongers, P. M. (2003). The very best of

the millennium: Longitudinal research and the demand-control-(support) model. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 282–305.

Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2011). The job demands-resources model: Challenges for future

research. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37, 1–9.

Elsbach, K. D., & Hargadon A. B., (2006). Enhancing creativity through “mindless” work: A

framework of workday design. Organization Science, 17, 470–483.

Feldman, D. C., & Gainey, T. W. (1997). Patterns of telecommuting and their consequences: Framing

the research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 7, 369–388.

Fisher, C. D., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 320–330.

Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In H. C.

Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & J. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational

psychology, (2nd Edition, pp. 271–340), Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

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,

76, 690–697.

Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-

analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322.

Fried, Y., Grant, A. M., Levi, A. S., Hadani, M., & Slowik, L. H. (2007). Job design in temporal

context: A career dynamics perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 911–927.

Fried, Y., Levi, A. S., & Laurence, G. (2008). Motivation and job design in the new world of work. In

C. Cooper & C. Cartwright (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personnel psychology (pp. 586-611).

Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.

Gardner, D. G., & Cummings, L. L. (1988). Activation theory and job design: Review and

reconceptualization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 81–122.

Ganster, D. C., & Fusilier, M. R. (1989). Control in the workplace. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson

(Eds), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 235–280). Oxford,

England: John Wiley & Sons.

Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy

of Management Review, 32, 393–417.

Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and

proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 317–375.

Grant, A.M., Fried, Y., & Juillerat, T. (2011). Work matters: Job design in classic and contemporary

perspectives. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology

(pp. 417–452). Washington, DC. American Psychological Association.

Grant, A., Fried, Y., Parker, S. K., & Frese, M. (2010). Putting job design in context: Introduction to the

special issue. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 145–157. (Note: this special issue

contains several interdisciplinary commentaries with novel ideas for work design research)

Griffin, R. W. (1987). Toward an integrated theory of task design. Research in Organizational

Behavior, 9, 79–120.

Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance

effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26, 497–520.

Hall, D. T. T., & Heras, M. L. (2010). Reintegrating job design and career theory: Creating not just

good jobs but smart jobs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 448–462.

Holman, D., Clegg, C., & Waterson, P. (2002). Navigating the territory of job design. Applied

Ergonomics, 33, 197–205.

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & 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, 92, 1332–1356.

Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1991). The structure of work: Job design and roles. In M. D. Dunnette

& L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, 2nd

Edition, pp. 165–207). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role

ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 36, 16–78.

Johns, G., Xie, J. I., & Fang, Y. Q. (1992). Mediating and moderating effects in job design. Journal of

Management, 18, 657–676.

Karasek R.A., & Theorell T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of

working life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Kiggundu, M. N. (1981). Task interdependence and the theory of job design. Academy of Management

Review, 6, 499–508.

Kinicki, A. J., McKee-Ryan, F. M., Schriesheim, C. A., & Carson, K. P. (2002). Assessing the construct

validity of the Job Descriptive Index: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 87, 14–20.

Kopelman R. E. (2006). Job redesign and productivity: A review of the evidence. National Productivity

Review, 4, 237–255.

Lee R. T., & Ashforth B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three

dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123–133.

LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–

hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 764–775.

Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of the relation of

job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 280–289.

Macy B. A., & Izumi, H. (1993). Organizational change, design, and work innovation: A meta-analysis

of 131 North American field studies, 1961-1991. Research in Organizational Change and

Development, 7, 235–313.

Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-analytic

review. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 727–753.

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2008). Job and team design: Toward a more integrative

conceptualization of work design. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human

resource management (Vol. 27, pp. 39–91). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing

Limited.

Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2003). Work design. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J.

Klimoski (Eds), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology ,

(Vol. 12, pp. 423–452). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Safety at work: A meta-analytic

investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety

outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 71–94.

Nieuwenhuijsen, K., Bruinvels, D., & Frings-Dresen, M. (2010). Psychosocial work environment and

stress-related disorders: A systematic review. Occupational Medicine, 60, 277–286.

Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job

design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 463–479.

Oldham, G. R. (1996). Job design. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

11, 33–60.

Parker, S. K. (2002). Designing jobs that enhance employee well-being and effectiveness. In P. B. Warr

(Ed.), Psychology at work (5th Edition. pp. 276–299). London: Penguin.

Parker, S. K. (2014). Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity,

and more. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 661–691.

Parker, S. K., Andrei, D., & Li, W. (2014). An overdue overhaul: Revamping work design theory from

a time perspective. In A. Shipp & Y. Fried (Eds), Time and work: How time impacts individuals

(pp. 191–229). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

Parker, S. K., & Ohly, S. (2008). Designing motivating work. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. Pritchard

(Eds), Work motivation: Past, present and future (pp. 233-284). New York, USA: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Parker, S. K., & Ohly, S. (2009). Extending the reach of job design theory: Going beyond the Job

Characteristics Model. In A. Wilkinson, N. Bacon, T. Redman, and S. Snell (Eds) The handbook

of human resource management (pp. 269–286). London, England: Sage.

Parker, S. K., & Turner, N. (2002). Work design and individual job performance: Research findings and

an agenda for future inquiry. In S. Sonnentag (Eds), Psychological management of individual

performance: A handbook in the psychology of management in organizations (pp. 69–96).

Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Parker, S. K., Turner, N., & Griffin, M. A. (2003). Designing healthy work. In D. A. Hofmann & L. E.

Tetrick (Eds), Health and safety in organizations: A multi-level perspective (pp. 91–130). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Parker, S. K., & Wall, T. (1998). Job and work design: Organizing work to promote well-being and

effectiveness. London, England: Sage Publications.

Parker, S. K., & Wall, T. D. (2001). Work design: Learning from the past and mapping a new terrain. In

N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds). Handbook of industrial, work

and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 90–109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. (2001). Future work design research and practice: Towards

an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

74, 413–440.

Pierce, J. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1976). Task design: A literature review. Academy of Management

Review, 1, 83–97.

Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor-hindrance

stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior:

A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 438–454.

Roberts, K. H., & Glick, W. (1981). The job characteristics approach to task design: A critical review.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 193–217.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task

design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.

Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological

and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 96, 981–1003.

Smith, M. J., & Sainfort, P. C. (1989). A balance theory of job design for stress reduction. International

Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 4, 67–79.

Sonnentag S. (1996). Work group factors and individual well-being. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of

work group psychology (pp. 345–367). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy

and participation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005–1016.

Stansfeld, S., & Candy, B. (2006). Psychosocial work environment and mental health: A meta-analytic

review. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 32, 443–462.

Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J. (2005). Job demands, job control, strain and learning behavior: Review

and research agenda. In A. S. G Antoniou & C. L. Cooper (Eds), Research companion to

organizational health psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 132–150), Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar

Publishing.

Terry, D. J., & Jimmieson, N. (1999). The psychology of control in work organizations. In I. Robertson

& C. Cooper (Eds), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol 14,

pp. 95–148). London, England: Wiley.

Thomas, J., & Griffin, R. (1983). The social information processing model of task design: A review of

the literature. Academy of Management Review, 8, 672–682.

Torraco, R. J. (2005). Work design theory: A review and critique with implications for human resource

development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 85–109.

Tubre, T. C., & Collins, J. M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: A meta-analysis of the

relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance. Journal of

Management, 26, 155–169.

Turner, N., Parker, S. K., & Williams, H. M. (2006). Team-working in organizations: Implications for

workplace safety. In M. Shams, & P. R. Jackson (Eds), Developments in Work and Organizational

Psychology, Implications for International Business (pp. 49–78). Volume 20 of International

Business and Management Series (Series Edition, P. V. Guauri), Amsterdam, Netherlands:

Elsevier.

Van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1999). The job demand-control (-support) model and psychological

well-being: A review of 20 years of empirical research. Work & Stress, 13, 87–114.

van Veldhoven, M., Taris, T. W., de Jonge, J., & Broersen, S. (2005). The relationship between work

characteristics and employee health and well-being: How much complexity do we really need?

International Journal of Stress Management, 12, 3–28.

Vough, H., & Parker, S. K. (2008). Work design research: Still going strong. In C. L. Cooper & J.

Barling (Eds), The sage handbook of organizational behavior (Vol 1, pp. 410–426). London:

Sage Publications.

Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1995). New manufacturing initiatives and shopfloor work design. In A.

Howard (Ed.) The changing nature of work (pp. 139–174). San-Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wall, T. D., & Martin, R. (1987). Job and work design. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds),

International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 61–91). Oxford, England:

John Wiley & Sons.

Wall, T. D., Cordery, J. L., & Clegg, C. W. (2002). Empowerment, performance, and operational

uncertainty: A theoretical integration. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 146–

169.

Zapf, D. (2002). Emotion work and psychological well-being: A review of the literature and some

conceptual considerations. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 237–268.

Zapf, D., Dormann, C., & Frese, M. (1996). Longitudinal studies in organizational stress research: A

review of the literature with reference to methodological issues. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 1, 145–155.