Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Hackman, E. Lawler (1971)
Employee reactions to job characteristics.Journal of Applied Psychology, 55
B. Gardell (1977)
Autonomy and Participation at WorkHuman Relations, 30
Paul Paul, Robertson Robertson, Herzberg Herzberg (1969)
Job Enrichment Pays OffHarvard Business Review, 47
S. Seashore, D. Bowers (1970)
Durability of organizational change.American Psychologist, 25
F. Herzberg (1968)
One more time : How do you motivate your employees?Harvard Business Review, 46
V. Vroom (1962)
EGO‐INVOLVEMENT, JOB SATISFACTION, AND JOB PERFORMANCEPersonnel Psychology, 15
J., Richard, Hackman (1976)
Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16
L. Davis (1966)
The Design of JobsJournal of Industrial Relations, 9
Herzberg Herzberg (1968)
One More Time: How do you Motivate EmployeesHarvard Business Review, 46
J. Hebden (1975)
Patterns of Work IdentificationWork and Occupations, 2
H. Dachler, C. Hulin (1969)
A reconsideration of the relationship between satisfaction and judged importance of environmental and job characteristicsOrganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4
The older industrial psychology before the contributions of Gunnar Westerlund and like-minded colleagues in other countries was a branch of applied individual psychology concerned with personnel selection, training and efficient methods of work. With the famous studies of Mayo (1933) and Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939) at Western Electric, and the so-called Hawthorne effect, came the recognition of social psychological factors. But even with this breakthrough industrial psychologists restricted what social psychology they did use to small groups or to the personalities of key actors. Group dynamics and personality dynamics were studied in and applied to organizations without taking into account the nature of the organizational setting. Whether the organization was public or private, voluntary or coerced, totally or partially inclusive of its members, authoritarian or democratic in structure, profit making or service orientated, highly or poorly differentiated in structure; these and similar dimensions were ignored. Sociologists were concerned with these structural properties but they too were single-minded in looking only at global characteristics and not tying them to the ongoing psychological processes to which they were related and which, in some cases, gave meaning to the abstractions about organizations. The advance from this earlier simplistic stage has come
Applied Psychology – Wiley
Published: Jan 1, 1986
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.