of job research

• Type a title or code for matches
• No quick matches found
• Search for keyword results

O*NET OnLine features

Introduction.

Welcome to your tool for career exploration and job analysis!

O*NET OnLine has detailed descriptions of the world of work for use by job seekers, workforce development and HR professionals, students, developers, researchers, and more!

Find, search, or browse across 900+ occupations based on your goals and needs. Then use comprehensive reports to learn about requirements, characteristics, and available opportunities for your selected occupation.

Take advantage of the customized OnLine Help feature available throughout the site. Or, use the available Desk Aid .

Build your future with O*NET OnLine!

Occupation Keyword Search

Find occupations.

Bright Outlook occupations are expected to grow rapidly in the next several years, will have large numbers of job openings, or are new and emerging occupations.

Career Clusters contain occupations in the same field of work that require similar skills. They can be used to focus education plans towards obtaining the necessary knowledge, competencies, and training for success in a particular career pathway.

Hot technologies are software and technology skills frequently included in employer job postings.

Discover hot technologies now

Industries are broad groups of businesses or organizations with similar activities, products, or services. Occupations are included based on the percentage of workers employed in that industry.

Job Families are groups of occupations based on work performed, skills, education, training, and credentials.

Job Zones group occupations into one of five categories based on levels of education, experience, and training necessary to perform the occupation.

Occupations are listed that require education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines.

There are 1,016 occupation titles and codes within the current O*NET system.

Find an occupation in the list

Advanced Searches

Use your job duties to find occupations that perform similar work. The search uses the O*NET database of over 19,000 occupation-specific task statements.

Professional associations are a great source of additional information on jobs, specialties, and industries. They also serve as an excellent starting point for networking in your career of choice. Get seamless access to professional associations by searching the O*NET database of almost 3,000 organizations related to the occupations in the U.S. economy.

Use activities performed across different types of jobs to find occupations. The search uses the O*NET database of over 2,000 detailed work activities performed across a small to moderate number of occupations.

Many employers value workers with soft skills—interpersonal and thinking skills needed to interact successfully with people and to perform efficiently and effectively in the workplace.

Find occupations using your current and/or future soft skills.

Build your skills list now

Find occupations based on software used on the job. Learn about the technology and related skills needed to successfully perform in today’s world of work.

Browse by O*NET Data

More career sites & resources

Our O*NET information portal has data and tools for workforce professionals and developers, including:

• Current O*NET data files
• Interest Profiler
• License agreements
• O*NET Content Model
• O*NET-SOC occupation taxonomy
• Reports and documents
• Web Services

Find more options on the home page , or search the site:

Stay up to date with product releases, new features, database updates, and other important O*NET project developments.

The Future of Jobs Report 2023

The Future of Jobs Report 2023 explores how jobs and skills will evolve over the next five years. This fourth edition of the series continues the analysis of employer expectations to provide new insights on how socio-economic and technology trends will shape the workplace of the future.

Where the jobs are: An inside look at our new Future of Work research

February 18, 2021 The McKinsey Global Institute ’ s new Future of Work research is about the barista at your favorite coffee shop, the doctor you visit over video, and the manager you haven ’ t seen in person for a year. Our analysts grouped 800 occupations across eight countries into ten ‘ work arenas ’ based on the level of physical proximity they require. We evaluated them against over-riding trends—including automation, aging populations, digitization, sustainability, and more—to create the fullest picture possible of how COVID-19 will reshape the ways we work.

Three leaders of the research—Susan Lund, Anu Madgavkar , and Olivia Robinson —take us inside the report ’ s findings .

What did you learn that most surprised you?

Susan: When we reflected on what the pandemic is really changing, for the first time what mattered most were the physical characteristics of a job. For instance, did your work include close contact with the public? How many different people do you interact with in a day? Are you in a highly trafficked public location—or a setting with few others?

By looking at occupations from that perspective, we could group them in a different way than we traditionally do, either by sector of the economy, like health care, or by type of occupation, like manager. It’s a new dimension to work that becomes very important when we consider the changes going forward.

Olivia: One of the most surprising things for me, based on our estimates, is the decline of low-wage jobs. In the past, it was believed there would be a polarization with growth of both higher-wage and lower-wage jobs and the loss of middle-level jobs, partly due to automation.

With COVID-related trends, we see an additional decline of lower-wage jobs, and that nearly all growth is concentrated in higher-paying jobs. If we can enable the skill and occupational transitions so many people will need, they could be set on paths to higher-skilled and better paying work. That’s a good thing—one we hope our research will help to guide.

During the pandemic, almost every business scrambled to enable their employees to work remotely. Is working from home here to stay?

Susan: Yes and no. The majority of people across industries have no chance to work remotely, but many office workers do. We believe about 25 percent will go to the office a few days a week and work from home the rest. We think this trend may stick; some people report that it can help with work-life balance; some companies are finding that employees can be more productive; and it can save both of those parties money in things like commuting costs for workers and office space for companies.

Virtual working also gives people the option to move to smaller cities and the suburbs. At a recent meeting of human resource leaders, many were talking about opening up satellite locations or hubs in different cities to tap into entirely different talent pools.

According to the report, one in 16 people will have to change not just jobs but industries. How will they do that?

Susan: It won’t be easy. In our research, for example, we take the example of a cashier and map out four possible career pathways: in health care, IT, transportation and delivery, and sales and marketing. After being a cashier, with some training, that person could gain the skills they need to become a call-center representative. From there, if they work in sales-type call center jobs, they might move into a career in marketing and sales outside the call center.

Researching and mapping those kind of career paths will be essential for helping people figure out how to get on an upwardly mobile career track. But this is not just up to individuals to figure out. Companies, educators, and policymakers are all going to have to work together to help people identify these career pathways and then create the programs, resources, and reskilling opportunities necessary to make them possible.

Possible career pathways from a cashier job to growing, more highly paid occupations

We know that reskilling will be critical to helping thousands of people transition from one job to the next. How might that happen at scale?

Anu: A number of large companies have invested in different sorts of training and apprenticeship programs, creating upwardly mobile career paths for their employees. For instance, Walmart has more than 200 academies for their associates with training in management, supply chain, and technology. IBM, Bosch, and Barclays started apprenticeship programs to train workers for tech jobs with career pathways.

At the national level, there are lots of examples we can learn from but no one has yet cracked the code. In Singapore, India, and the countries of the EU, we see national platform-based reskilling initiatives, such as using digital learning passes for citizens.

But as Susan mentions, people can’t do reskilling alone. We’ve got to take the good ideas that are happening within companies and communities and scale them nationally to include millions of people. People will need shorter term programs to get the basic skills they need for an entry level job in a few weeks—not years—and the learning has to be targeted to the essential tasks for the immediate term, similar to Generation programs.

Generation Z workers have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. What advice would you give to someone just starting out?

Olivia: I would say, if possible, focus on building skills for jobs that are in growing industries, such as healthcare, tech, engineering, science, and logistics. The good news is that there will also be high growth in jobs that require socio-emotional skills, such as negotiation, influencing, and decision-making. And we may see new positions emerging because of COVID-19, such as remote-work coordinators.

Hiring may also be changing. A number of companies are focusing less on degrees and job titles and more on skills assessments. Job platforms are matching candidates with jobs based on skills not past job roles or titles. This can all help open up opportunities and improve mobility.

In terms of mindsets, I would recommend against thinking of your education as something that is one day finished, and then you just work. That divide no longer exists; your education never ends. Your career will be about life-long learning across different occupations and industries.

Finally, as you look ahead, do you see any silver linings coming out of this crisis?

Susan: Most companies are reimagining themselves right now. They are embracing speed and flexibility and agility, and the flattening of hierarchies in an effort to make decisions faster and better. For workers, this can be an opportunity to move onto career pathways that offer greater upward mobility. And for the economy, we could see higher productivity growth if we help workers make those transitions.

Never miss a story

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• The State of American Jobs

How the shifting economic landscape is reshaping work and society and affecting the way people think about the skills and training they need to get ahead

Table of contents.

• 1. Changes in the American workplace
• 2. How Americans assess the job situation today and prospects for the future
• 3. How Americans view their jobs
• 4. Skills and training needed to compete in today’s economy
• 5. The value of a college education
• Acknowledgments
• Methodology

Tectonic changes are reshaping U.S. workplaces as the economy moves deeper into the knowledge-focused age. These changes are affecting the very nature of jobs by rewarding social, communications and analytical skills. They are prodding many workers to think about lifetime commitments to retraining and upgrading their skills. And they may be prompting a society-wide reckoning about where those constantly evolving skills should be learned – and what the role of colleges should be.

A new Pew Research Center survey, conducted in association with the Markle Foundation, finds that these new realities are not lost on the American public: The vast majority of U.S. workers say that new skills and training may hold the key to their future job success.

That sentiment is echoed in a new Pew Research Center analysis of government jobs data, which finds that for the past several decades, employment has been rising faster in jobs requiring higher levels of preparation – that is, more education, training and experience.

The number of workers in occupations requiring average to above-average education, training and experience increased from 49 million in 1980 to 83 million in 2015, or by 68%. This was more than double the 31% increase over the same period in employment, from 50 million to 65 million, in jobs requiring below-average education, training and experience. 1

At the same time, the national survey – conducted May 25 to June 29, 2016, among 5,006 U.S. adults (including 3,096 employed adults) – shows how deeply Americans have internalized these trends:

Many see personal upgrading as a constant: More than half (54%) of adults in the labor force say it will be essential for them to get training and develop new skills throughout their work life in order to keep up with changes in the workplace. And 35% of workers, including about three-in-ten (27%) adults with at least a bachelor’s degree, say they don’t have the education and training they need to get ahead at work. Many are already taking action or being required to do so by their employer or by licensing requirements in their jobs: 45% of employed adults say they got extra training to improve their job skills in the past 12 months.

The public sees threats to jobs coming from several directions: Eight-in-ten adults say increased outsourcing of jobs to other countries hurts American workers, and roughly the same share (77%) say having more foreign-made products sold in the U.S. has been harmful. Significant shares also cite increased use of contract or temporary workers (57%) and declines in union membership (49%) as trends that are hurting, rather than helping, workers. At the same time, global markets for U.S.-made products are seen as helpful for workers by 68% of adults. And seven-in-ten say the rise of the internet and email has been a net positive.

Americans think the responsibility for preparing and succeeding in today’s workforce starts with individuals themselves: Roughly seven-in-ten (72%) say “a lot” of responsibility falls on individuals to make sure that they have the right skills and education to be successful in today’s economy. And 60% believe public K-12 schools should bear a lot of responsibility for this. After that, views differ on the roles that other entities, such as companies and different levels of government, should play in preparing people for the workforce.

The role of college is being debated: While many college graduates with two- or four-year degrees describe their own experience as having a positive impact on them, just 16% of all Americans think that a four-year degree prepares students very well for a well-paying job in today’s economy. And there is no consensus regarding the main purpose of college. Roughly a third of adults (35%) say it should be to help individuals grow personally and intellectually, while 50% say it should be to teach job-related skills.

Overall, the survey findings and employment data show how Americans are hustling to adapt to new labor force realities. Some of the key themes in this two-pronged analysis:

The nature of jobs is changing, and women may be beneficiaries

The new analysis of employment data shows that the job categories with the highest growth tend to require higher social skills, analytic savvy and technical prowess. Since 1980, employment in jobs requiring stronger social skills, namely interpersonal, communications or management skills, increased from 49 million to 90 million, or 83%. Further, employment increased 77% (from 49 million to 86 million) in jobs requiring higher levels of analytical skills, including critical thinking and computer use. By comparison, the number of workers in jobs requiring higher levels of manual or physical skills, such as machinery operation and physical labor has changed relatively little. 2

A look at occupations by the combinations of skills suggests that jobs requiring both higher social and higher analytical skills, such as managerial or teaching jobs, are generally doing better than other jobs in terms of employment growth. Employment in these hybrid occupations has grown 94% since 1980 (from 39 million to 76 million), representing a higher growth rate than jobs requiring higher social skills or those calling for higher analytical skills.

The analysis of job skills and preparation in this report is based on the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Information Network (O*NET), a database covering more than 950 occupations. Each occupation is rated on a series of dimensions, including the importance of various skills and the level of preparation needed to perform the job.

This report analyzes the changing demand for three major families of job skills – social, analytical and physical. Social skills encompass such things as writing, speaking, managing and negotiating. Examples of analytical skills are critical thinking, mathematics and computer programming. Physical skills include operating vehicles and machinery and repairing electronic equipment. Occupations were rated as requiring either an average to above-average level of each major skill type or a below-average level of each skill. The skill ratings utilize the latest available O*NET data and do not change over time. Changes in employment for occupations grouped by the importance of social, analytical and physical skills reflect the changing need for each skill. (Employment estimates are derived from the Current Population Survey (CPS); see Chapter 1 and Methodology for more details.)

Many occupations have overlapping skill requirements (e.g., it is important for postsecondary teachers to have higher levels of both social and analytical skills).

The analysis also uses O*NET data to examine the changing need for job preparation in the workplace. The level of preparation reflects the combination of education, experience and other forms of training needed on the job. Occupations were rated as requiring either an average to above-average level of preparation or a below-average level of preparation. The average level of preparation corresponds to an associate degree or a similar level of vocational training, plus some prior job experience and one or two years of either formal or informal on-the-job training (e.g., electricians).

The shifting demand for skills in the modern workplace may be working to the benefit of women. Women, who represent 47% of the overall workforce, make up the majority of workers in jobs where social or analytical skills are relatively more important, 55% and 52%, respectively. For their part, men are relatively more engaged in jobs calling for more intensive physical and manual skills, making up 70% of workers in those occupations. This is likely to have contributed to the shrinking of the gender pay gap from 1980 to 2015 given that wages are rising much faster in jobs requiring social and analytical skills.

These changes highlight the rise of a service-oriented and knowledge-based economy. From 1990 to 2015, employment growth in the U.S. was led by the educational services and health care and social assistance sectors. Employment has doubled in each of these sectors since 1990 (105% and 99%, respectively). By comparison, overall employment (non-farm) increased 30% during this period.

Most workers say they will need continuous training, and many say they don’t have the skills they need now to get ahead in their job

Fully 54% of adults who are currently in the labor force say that it will be essential for them to get training and develop new skills throughout their work life to keep up with changes in the workplace. An additional 33% say this will be important, but not essential. Only 12% of workers say ongoing training will not be important for them.

It’s the most highly educated workers who feel this most acutely. Some 63% of adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher level of education say they will need to keep advancing their skills throughout their career, compared with 45% of those with no college experience who feel the same sense of urgency. Government data reinforce this finding as workers with higher levels of education are more likely to engage in job training or acquire job certificates or licenses.

Young adults are more likely than their older counterparts to see skills and training as essential (61% among those ages 18 to 29), perhaps because of the longer trajectory they have ahead of them. Even so, 56% of those ages 30 to 49 say ongoing training will be essential for them, as do roughly four-in-ten workers ages 50 and older.

Adults who are working in certain STEM-related industries of science, technology, engineering and math are among the most likely to say ongoing training and skills development will be essential for them. Two-thirds of employed adults who work in computer programming and information technology say this will be essential for them. And roughly six-in-ten workers who are in the health care industry (62%) say the same. By contrast, about half of adults working in hospitality (47%), manufacturing or farming (46%) or retail or wholesale trade (46%) see training and skills development as an essential part of their future work life. 3

For some people, acquiring new skills won’t just be a necessity in the future: 35% of working adults say they need more education and training now in order to get ahead in their job or career. A plurality of those who say they need more training say the best way for them to get that training would be through additional formal education. This is true across levels of educational attainment: Four-year college graduates say they would pursue a graduate degree, two-year college graduates say they would try to get a four-year degree, and high school graduates say they would go to college.

A significant share (about a third) of workers who say they need more training believe on-the-job training would be the best way to gain the skills they need to get ahead, while fewer (17%) point to certificate programs as the most promising pathway.

Public sees a mix of soft skills and technical skills as crucial to success in today’s economy

When people think about what it takes for workers to be successful these days, large majorities rank a mixture of technical and “soft skills” as critical, including detailed understanding of how to use computers (85% say this is “extremely” or “very” important), ability to work with those from diverse backgrounds (85%), training in writing and communications (85%) and access to training to update skills (82%).

Next on the list are training in science and math – 69% believe that is extremely or very important – and knowing computer programming (64%). A smaller share of Americans believe that mastering social media (37%) and knowing a foreign language (36%) are at least very important for success in the modern workplace.

When workers are asked about the skills they rely on most in their jobs, interpersonal skills, critical thinking, and good written and spoken communications skills top the list. 4 While most Americans say having a detailed understanding of computer technology is very important for success in today’s economy, only 28% say computer skills are central to the work they do, and even fewer (14%) say they rely on high-level math, analytical or computer skills at work.

Workers who rely heavily on interpersonal skills, critical thinking and good communications skills report that they acquired these skills in different settings. Among workers who say that having interpersonal skills is extremely or very important for them to do their job, some 35% say they learned those skills on the job, while 8% say they honed those skills through their formal education. But a sizable share – 38% – volunteer that they taught themselves those skills or came by them naturally. 5

For those who rely on critical thinking skills, the workplace is an important training ground. Among workers who say this skill set is important in their job, 46% say they learned these skills on the job. About one-in-five (19%) say they acquired these skills in their formal education, and a similar share (18%) say they gained these skills through life experience.

Workers are more divided when it comes to where they learned written and spoken communications skills: 42% say they picked up these skills through their formal education, while 30% say they learned these skills through work experience. An additional 12% say they learned these skills through life experience or that they were self-taught.

Pay is almost stuck in place and benefits are less plentiful

The earnings of American workers have increased modestly in recent decades. According to the Center’s analysis of government data, the average hourly wage, adjusted for inflation, increased from $19 in 1990 to $22 in 2015, or 16% in 25 years. 6 Jobs requiring higher levels of social or analytical skills generally pay more than jobs requiring higher physical or manual skills, and the pay gap between manual and analytical jobs has grown over the years.

The average hourly wage of workers in jobs requiring higher levels of analytical skills increased from $23 in 1990 to $27 in 2015, or 19%. And the average wages of workers in jobs requiring higher levels of social skills increased from $22 to $26 over that time period (15%). In the meantime, the average hourly wage of workers in jobs in which physical skills are important increased only 7%, from $16 in 1990 to $18 in 2015.

The survey finds that pluralities of Americans feel that employer benefits are not as generous as they were in the past (49% say that) and that they will continue to worsen in the future (44%). They are right about the direction benefits have been going. According to government data, the share of workers with an employer-sponsored health insurance plan (either through their own employer or through the employer of a family member) fell from 77% in 1980 to 69% in 2013. In addition, the share of workers with access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan has fallen. It most recently peaked at 57% in 2001, up from 50% in 1980. 7 However, the share fell to 45% by 2015.

Currently, most Americans do not feel threatened in their jobs, but many say jobs feel less secure than in the past and competitive threats come from several directions

There are somewhat paradoxical findings in the survey when it comes to issues related to job security. On the one hand, American workers’ confidence in their own job security is relatively high these days, especially compared with the low point in the early 1980s. On the other hand, people believe there is less job security overall now than in the past, and that more job insecurity awaits tomorrow’s workers.

Today, 60% of employed Americans say it is not at all likely that they will lose their job or be laid off in the next 12 months. An additional 28% say it is not too likely. By comparison, in the midst of the 2001 recession, 52% believed it was not at all likely they would be laid off.

Overall, 49% of American workers say they are very satisfied with their current job. Three-in-ten are somewhat satisfied, and the remainder say they are somewhat dissatisfied (9%) or very dissatisfied (6%). The most satisfied workers tend to live in higher-income families and have higher levels of education.

Still, the survey identifies vulnerable workers. Those with lower levels of education are more likely to be temporary workers or out of work altogether. They are also more likely to believe their current skills are insufficient for career advancement and to think there are not enough good jobs locally. Furthermore, less educated workers are also among the most likely to say that their jobs are imperiled. For instance, 39% of those without a high school education say it is very or fairly likely they may be laid off within 12 months. By comparison, 7% of those with a bachelor’s degree or more education say the same.

Educational attainment is a clear and consistent marker when it comes to feelings about job security and future prospects. One-in-five (20%) of those with a high school diploma or less believe it would be possible for their boss to use technology to replace them – nearly double the rate of those with a bachelor’s degree who say that. Roughly four-in-ten (38%) workers with no college experience say they lack the education and training to get ahead in their jobs, compared with 27% of those with a bachelor’s degree who assert that.

More broadly, and despite the views of many that their current jobs are safe, a sizable number view the national job situation as unstable at best. A majority of Americans (63%) believe jobs are less secure now than they were 20 to 30 years ago, and about half (51%) anticipate jobs will become less secure in the future.

As they assess the factors that may be hurting U.S. workers, people say the greatest harms to American jobs are outsourcing (80% believe outsourcing hurts American workers) and imports (77%). Many also cite the increased use of contract and temporary workers (57%) and the decline of union membership (49%) as harmful factors.

The impact of immigrants and automation draw more evenly divided verdicts. Half of Americans (50%) think automation of jobs has hurt workers, compared with 42% who think it has helped.

Some 45% of Americans believe the growing number of immigrants working in the U.S. has hurt workers overall, and 42% believe the immigrant influx has helped workers. There has been a substantial increase since 2006 in the share of Americans, especially among Democrats, who believe the influx of immigrant workers has helped U.S. workers overall.

What’s mostly helping workers? Big majorities think exports and work-enhancing technology such as the internet and email are aids to workers.

People say workers themselves have the most responsibility for their job readiness and K-12 schools are the next in line; opinions diverge about the role of colleges, employers and governments

Americans think the responsibility for preparing and succeeding in today’s workforce starts with individuals themselves: 72% say “a lot” of responsibility should fall on individuals, and 22% say “some” responsibility is theirs. Six-in-ten believe public K-12 schools should have a lot of responsibility, while 28% believe schools should bear some responsibility.

After that, views differ on the roles other entities should play, including some ambivalence about the purpose of colleges and universities. Among all adults, 52% say colleges should have a lot of responsibility in making sure that the American workforce has the right skills and education to be successful, and 49% believe employers should have a lot of responsibility. After that, 40% assign a lot of responsibility to state governments, and 35% say the federal government should assume a lot of responsibility.

Notably, people’s views are linked to their partisan allegiances. Democrats and independents who lean Democratic are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to say public schools, colleges, and the federal and state governments should have a lot of responsibility for making sure U.S. workers are prepared for today’s jobs. Republicans and Republican leaners place more emphasis on individual responsibility.

Even as college graduates salute their experiences as positive, many do not think colleges do a great job preparing students for the workplace

Americans have somewhat mixed attitudes about the effectiveness of traditional four-year colleges and other higher education institutions. On a personal level, many college graduates describe their own educational experience as having a generally positive impact on their personal and professional development. Around six-in-ten (62%) college graduates with a two-year or four-year degree think their degree was very useful for helping them grow personally and intellectually, while roughly half think it was very useful for opening up job opportunities (53%), or for providing them with specific job-related skills and knowledge (49%).

Yet even as many college graduates view their own educational experience in positive terms, the public as a whole – including a substantial share of college graduates – expresses reservations about the ability of higher education institutions to prepare students for the workforce more generally.

Just 16% of Americans think that a four-year degree prepares students very well for a well-paying job in today’s economy. An additional 51% say colleges prepare students somewhat well for the workplace. The verdict on two-year colleges is similar: 12% think that a two-year associate degree prepares students very well, and 46% say this type of degree prepares students somewhat well. When it comes to professional or technical certificates, 26% of adults say these prepare students very well for well-paying jobs and 52% say somewhat well. These findings tie to previous Pew Research Center work showing that noteworthy majorities of adults think colleges fail to provide students with good value for the money and that college is too expensive.

Relatively positive assessments of certificate programs as a way to prepare workers for jobs in today’s economy are particularly widespread among those who did not complete high school; 44% in this group say these types of programs prepare people very well, compared with about a quarter (27%) of those with a high school diploma and a similar share of those with some college (22%), a two-year degree (28%), or a four-year degree or more (22%).

Workers have mixed views on the extent to which their own credentials and qualifications match up with the requirements of their job. Some 41% say they have more qualifications than their job requires, compared with 50% who think they have the right amount of qualifications and 9% who say they are underqualified.

In addition, working Americans were asked if they thought someone with less education than they had could develop the skills and knowledge needed to do their job. A solid majority (73%) say “yes.” Among those with a bachelor’s degree, 65% say someone with less education could learn to do their job, and the shares are significantly higher among those with some college (82%) and those with a high school diploma (80%). Even so, job seekers take minimum requirements seriously. A third of those who do not have a four-year college degree have elected not to apply for a job they felt they were qualified for because it required a four-year degree, suggesting that employers may be missing out on a pool of potential workers.

The economy is at the top of voters’ minds

These findings about the state of work in America emerge in the midst of a national political campaign where voters think the economy is a top concern. A separate Pew Research Center survey, conducted Sept. 1 to 4, 2016, among 1,004 adults nationwide, focused on major issues in the campaign. Offered a list of five key issues and asked which one is the most important to their vote for president, 37% of registered voters cite the economy, 18% choose health care, 14% say terrorism, 13% name immigration and 13% name gun policy.

Asked further about a series of economic concerns, 43% of voters say the job situation is either the most important economic issue in determining their vote for president this year or the second most important. The same share say the federal budget deficit is either first or second among the factors driving their vote for president. An additional 38% of voters point to tax reform as the most or second-most important economic issue influencing their vote for president, 32% cite income inequality, 22% say rising prices and 16% cite global trade.

Among registered voters, Republicans (43%) and Democrats (48%) are roughly equally likely to cite jobs as the first or second key economic issue driving their vote for president. They differ, however, in the importance of the budget deficit – Republicans are three times as likely as Democrats to rank this as a top issue (62% vs. 20%). Among independents, 50% place high importance on the deficit. Republican voters also place more importance on tax reform than do Democrats (44% vs. 31% say it’s the most or second-most important issue).

Democratic voters place much more importance on income inequality than do Republicans: 54% vs. 12%, respectively, rank this issue as the most or second-most important economic issue for them. Democrats are also more likely than Republicans to say rising prices are an important voting issue (26% vs. 16%). There is no significant gap between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the importance of global trade.

The remainder of this report examines in greater detail key trends in the labor market and how they are playing out in the lives of American workers. Chapter 1 includes an analysis of trends in job and wage growth by occupations with an emphasis on skills and preparation. It also looks at trends in employer-provided benefits, job tenure, hiring practices and alternative work arrangements. Chapter 2 looks at public assessments of the job situation – including how key characteristics of work have changed from a generation ago and what the future may look like, the extent to which megatrends in the economy are helping or hurting today’s workers, who bears the greatest responsibility for worker readiness these days, and which skills are most important in today’s economy. Chapter 3 explores the views of workers themselves including job satisfaction and fulfillment and feelings about job security. Chapter 4 looks at the skills workers use in their own jobs, whether they feel properly equipped to do their jobs well, and where they would turn to increase their skills and gain additional training. And finally, Chapter 5 explores public views about the value of a college education.

Other key findings:

• In 2015, one-in-four workers (25%) in the U.S. had a job-related certificate or license, such as an information technology certificate or a teacher’s license, according to new data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The share is higher among better educated workers, running at 52% among workers with a postgraduate degree. Women (28%) are more likely than men (23%) to have a certificate or license.
• Young workers are earning significantly less than they did in 1980, but the opposite is happening with older workers. Among full-time, year-round workers, the median earnings of 16- to 24-year-olds in 1980 were $28,131. By 2015 the median had fallen 11%, to only $25,000. Meanwhile, the median pay of workers 65 and older rose 37%, from $36,483 in 1980 to $50,000 in 2015. And workers ages 55 to 64 also earned 10% more in 2015 than they did in 1980. (Earnings data are in 2014 dollars.)
• Americans are putting in more time at work. The average length of a workweek was 38.7 hours in 2015, slightly up from 38.1 hours in 1980. 8 Meanwhile, Americans are working more weeks per year. The average weeks worked per year increased from 43 in 1980 to 46.8 in 2015. Combined, this adds up to an additional one month’s worth of work in a year.
• Job tenure has ticked upwards. In 2014, about half of workers (51%) had worked for their current employer five years or more, compared with 46% of workers who were in that position in 1996.
• Workers are increasingly taking on a variety of nontraditional jobs: Some work as independent contractors, some are employed through a contract firm and others are on-call workers or serve as temporary help through an agency. According to experts, 9 the share of U.S. workers with these alternative employment arrangements has gone up significantly in this century. It’s estimated that in 2015, 15.8% of the U.S. workforce, or 24 million workers, is in these types of jobs.

In data based on the Current Population Survey, “employed” Americans are those who were at work in the week prior to the survey or who were temporarily absent from their job. In data based on the Current Employment Statistics survey, “employed” Americans are those who are on non-farm payrolls who received pay for any part of the pay period that includes the 12th day of the month, including those on paid leave. Persons are counted in each job they hold. In data from the Pew Research Center surveys, “employed” Americans are those who say they work full or part time, unless otherwise noted. “In the labor force” is used to describe those who are either employed or are unemployed but are looking for work.

Employed respondents were asked how many jobs they have. If they said they have more than one, they were asked if they consider one to be their primary job. Respondents who reported having more than one job and don’t consider one to be their primary job were not asked most subsequent questions about their current job. Those who said they have more than one but consider one to be their primary job were asked to think about only their primary job when answering questions about their current job. See topline questionnaire for details on how each question was filtered.

Throughout this report, “four-year degree” and “bachelor’s degree” are used interchangeably. Similarly, “a bachelor’s degree or more” and “at least a bachelor’s degree” convey the same level of educational attainment. Unless otherwise noted, “some college” includes those with a two-year degree or those who have attended college but did not complete a degree. “High school” refers to those who have attained a high school diploma or its equivalent, such as a General Education Development (GED) certificate.

References to whites, blacks and Asians include only those who are non-Hispanic, unless otherwise noted, and identify themselves as only one race. Hispanics are of any race. In Chapters 2 to 5, Asians are not analyzed separately due to small sample size.

• The level of preparation required by an occupation is based on ratings from the Department of Labor’s Occupational Information Network (O*NET). In the O*NET data, the preparation required is rated on a scale of one (little or no preparation needed) to five (extensive preparation needed). This rating depends on a combination of education, experience, and other forms of job training. The mid-level preparation (rating of three) corresponds to an associate degree or a similar level of vocational training, plus some prior job experience and one to two years of either formal or informal on-the-job training (e.g., electricians). Above-average preparation typically calls for a four-year college degree and additional years of experience and training (e.g., lawyers). ↩
• The importance of a given skill to a job is ascertained from the latest ratings in the Department of Labor’s Occupational Information Network (O*NET). See Chapter 1 and Methodology for more details. ↩
• The industries and occupations mentioned are not exhaustive but represent some of the most common responses given in the survey. See Methodology for details on how industries and occupations were classified. ↩
• Respondents who reported having more than one job but did not consider any to be their primary job were not asked this question, nor were they asked most subsequent questions about their current job. Those who said they have more than one job but consider one to be their primary job were asked to think about only their primary job when answering questions about their current job. ↩
• Respondents were asked how they learned one skill that they listed as extremely or very important for their job. Respondents who ranked only one skill as “extremely important” were asked about that skill. If they ranked more than one skill extremely important, one of those skills was randomly chosen. Respondents who did not rank any skills extremely important but ranked one skill “very important” were asked about that skill. If they ranked no skills extremely important, but ranked more than one skill very important, one of those skills was randomly chosen. ↩
• Percentage changes are computed before numbers are rounded. ↩
• This increase occurred entirely in the 1990s, a decade that encompassed the longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history. The share covered by their own employer’s health plan held fairly steady in the 1990s, in contrast to declines before and after the decade. ↩
• The trend in hours worked depends on the data source ( Frazis and Stewart, 2010 ). The figures presented are based on the Current Population Survey and use household respondent reports of work hours. ↩
• All references for alternative work arrangements are from Katz, Lawrence F. and Alan B. Krueger, “ The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work Arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015 ” Published September, 2016, NBER. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Business & Workplace
• Employee Benefits

A Majority of Latinas Feel Pressure To Support Their Families or To Succeed at Work

A look at small businesses in the u.s., majorities of adults see decline of union membership as bad for the u.s. and working people, a look at black-owned businesses in the u.s., from businesses and banks to colleges and churches: americans’ views of u.s. institutions, most popular, report materials.

• State of American Jobs omnibus survey

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, a state-of-the-art overview of job-crafting research: current trends and future research directions.

Career Development International

ISSN : 1362-0436

Article publication date: 1 December 2021

Issue publication date: 21 February 2022

In celebration of the 25th anniversary of the founding of Career Development International , a state-of-the-art overview of recent trends in job-crafting research was conducted. Since job crafting was introduced twenty years ago as a type of proactive work behavior that employees engage in to adjust their jobs to their needs, skills, and preferences, research has evolved tremendously.

Design/methodology/approach

To take stock of recent developments and to unravel the latest trends in the field, this overview encompasses job-crafting research published in the years 2016–2021. The overview portrays that recent contributions have matured the theoretical and empirical advancement of job-crafting research from three perspectives (i.e. individual, team and social).

When looking at the job-crafting literature through these three perspectives, a total of six trends were uncovered that show that job-crafting research has moved to a more in-depth theory-testing approach; broadened its scope; examined team-level job crafting and social relationships; and focused on the impact of job crafting on others in the work environment and their evaluations and reactions to it.

Originality/value

The overview of recent trends within the job-crafting literature ends with a set of recommendations for how future research on job crafting could progress and create scientific impact for the coming years.

• Approach crafting
• Avoidance crafting
• Job crafting
• Collaborative crafting
• Interpersonal relations
• Employee behavior

Tims, M. , Twemlow, M. and Fong, C.Y.M. (2022), "A state-of-the-art overview of job-crafting research: current trends and future research directions", Career Development International , Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 54-78. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-08-2021-0216

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology
• Personality
• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Job and work design.

• Anja Van den Broeck Anja Van den Broeck KU Leuven
•  and  Sharon K. Parker Sharon K. Parker University of Western Australia
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.15
• Published online: 24 May 2017

Job design or work design refers to the content, structure, and organization of tasks and activities. It is mostly studied in terms of job characteristics, such as autonomy, workload, role problems, and feedback. Throughout history, job design has moved away from a sole focus on efficiency and productivity to more motivational job designs, including the social approach toward work, Herzberg’s two-factor model, Hackman and Oldham’s job characteristics model, the job demand control model of Karasek, Warr’s vitamin model, and the job demands resources model of Bakker and Demerouti. The models make it clear that a variety of job characteristics make up the quality of job design that benefits employees and employers alike. Job design is crucial for a whole range of outcomes, including (a) employee health and well-being, (b) attitudes like job satisfaction and commitment, (c) employee cognitions and learning, and (d) behaviors like productivity, absenteeism, proactivity, and innovation. Employee personal characteristics play an important role in job design. They influence how employees themselves perceive and seek out particular job characteristics, help in understanding how job design exerts its influence, and have the potential to change the impact of job design.

• work design
• job characteristics
• satisfaction
• performance
• proactivity

“It is about a search, too, for daily meaning as well as daily bread, for recognition as well as cash, for astonishment rather than torpor; in short, for a sort of life rather than a Monday through Friday sort of dying” (Terkel, 1974 , p. xi).

Billions of people spend most of their waking lives at work, so it is fortunate that work can be a positive feature of living. Obviously, the associated salary helps to pay the bills and provides a means for a certain standard of living. But good work also structures one’s time, builds identity, allows for social contact, and enables engagement in meaningful activities (Jahoda, 1982 ). Nevertheless, although work can serve these important functions, it can also be a threat to people’s well-being, cause alienation, and result in burnout. As an extreme example of its negative effects, Chinese and French telecom workers have been reported committing suicide because of work-related issues.

Whether work is beneficial or detrimental is largely dependent upon how it is designed. Work design is defined as the content, structure, and organization of one’s task and activities (Parker, 2014 ). It is mostly studied in terms of job characteristics, such as job autonomy and workload, which are like the building blocks of work design. Meta-analytical results show that these job characteristics predict employees’ health and well-being, their cognitions and learning, and their attitudes and behavior (Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007 ; Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Hofmann, 2011 ). There is no doubt that work design is important, so it is not surprising that it has received considerable research attention (Parker, Morgeson, & Johns, 2017 ).

Throughout the 20th century , several authors developed different job-design models, which have been expanded into various contemporary perspectives. The net effect is that the literature on work design is somewhat fragmented. Rather than providing one overall framework to study the design of jobs—similar to the Big 5 framework in personality, for example—job-design models consider the topic from different angles. This diversity may be an advantage in understanding the complexity of job design, but an overview—let alone on overarching model—is lacking, which inhibits the sharing of knowledge and ultimately our understanding of job design.

Against this background, it is necessary to review the approaches that have dominated the literature around the world and the contemporary models that have emerged from them. This overview reveals the basic principles that guide views on job design: how work is conceptualized, how job characteristics relate to important outcomes, and the roles personal aspects play in job design–outcome relationships.

This article makes several contributions to the literature. First, by providing an overview of important job-design models that have dominated the work-design literature around the globe, the article introduces job-design scholars working in one research tradition to other traditions. Second, the article explicates the most important assumptions about the impact of job design across the different models and brings the assumptions together in one integrative work design (IWD) model. Finally, the article supplies an overview of fruitful avenues for future research that might stimulate future research on the important topic of job design. Although previously it had been argued that “we know all there is to know” about job design (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999 ), one in three employees in Europe still has a job of poor intrinsic quality (Lorenz & Valeyre, 2005 ) and different influences put pressure on the quality of jobs (Parker, Holman, & Van den Broeck, 2017 ) . Building on this overall model, different pathways emerge for the rejuvenation of the literature (Parker et al., 2017 ) and for fostering knowledge on how jobs can be designed so that work brings out the best in people.

Historical Overview of Models Around the Globe

Job design has a long history. Ever since people organized themselves to hunt and gather for food, or even to build the Aztec temples, people identified activities, tasks, and roles and distributed them among collaborators. The scientific study of work design, however, started with the work of Adam Smith, who described in his book The Wealth of Nations how the division of labor could increase productivity. Previously, the timing and location of work fitted seamlessly in with everyday activities, and many industries were characterized by craftsmen, who developed a product from the beginning to the end (Barley & Kunda, 2001 ). A blacksmith would craft pins starting from iron ore, while a carpenter made cupboards out of trees. But Adam Smith advocated the dissection of labor into different tasks, and the division of these task among employees, so that each would repetitively execute small tasks: One employee would cut the metal plate, while another one would polish the pins.

Scientific Management

The principle of the division of labor was further developed into scientific management (Taylor, 2004 ). Adopting a scientific approach to work in order to increase efficiency, Taylor argued that ideal jobs included single, highly simplified, and specialized activities that were repeated throughout the working day, with little time to waste in between (Campion & Thayer, 1988 ). Taylor developed his ideas in the realm of the Industrial Revolution, which made it possible to automate many of the activities in people’s jobs. Employees were essentially considered parts of the machinery, with the idea they could easily be replaced. While previously employees inherited or chose their trades and learned on the job by trial and error, with Taylorism, employees were selected and trained to execute specific tasks according to prescribed procedures and standards. Supervisors were tasked with monitoring employees’ actions, leading to the division between unskilled manual labor and skilled managerial tasks, and to the rewarding of employees according to their performance (e.g., via piecework) so that the goals of the employees (i.e., making money) would be aligned with the goal of the company (i.e., making profit).

Essential principles of Taylorism thus include simplification and specialization, but also the selection and training of employees to achieve a fit between demands of the job and employees’ abilities. Because of these principles, efficiency rocketed, and Taylorism was soon also adopted for office jobs. Today, Taylorism still inspires the design of both manufacturing and service jobs in many organizations (Parker et al., 2017 ).

Despite its positive consequences in terms of productivity, one downside of this mechanical approach to job design was that employee morale dropped. For instance, in the Midvale Steel plant, where Taylorism was implemented, employees experienced mental and physical fatigue and boredom, resulting in sabotage and absenteeism (Walker & Guest, 1952 ). The negative effects of Taylorism eventually led to the development of several less mechanistic and more motivational work designs, including social and psychological approaches.

Social Approaches to Work

In further exploring the effects of Taylorism, Mayo and his colleagues uncovered the importance of individual attitudes toward work and teams. In the famous “Hawthorne studies,” focusing on a team of Western Electric Company workers, Mayo and colleagues aimed to improve employees’ working conditions, but they failed to find strong effects of interventions like increasing or decreasing illumination, or shortening or lengthening the working day, on individual employee performance, even though such effects would be expected based on Taylorism. Rather, production went up over the course of the period in which the employees were involved and consulted in the experiment. The free expression of ideas and feelings to the management, and sustained cooperation in teams, increased employee morale and ultimately efficiency. Group norms were shown to have a strong effect on employee attitudes and behavior and were more effective in generating employee productivity than individual rewards, potentially because being part of a group increased feelings of security. In a Taylorism model, people were seen as a part of a machine, but according to Mayo, employees should be regarded as part of a social group.

The focus on groups was further developed into sociotechnical systems theory by human relations scholars at the Tavistock Institute in the United Kingdom (Pasmore, 1995 ). The scholars aimed to optimize the alignment of technical systems and employees. To make optimal use of the available technology, the scholars were convinced that teams of employees should have the autonomy to organize themselves (without too much supervision) and to manage technological problems and to suggest improvements, thereby breaking with the previous division between manual labor and managerial tasks. Furthermore, rather than advocating specialization, human relations scholars argued that, within the teams, employees should work on a meaningful and relatively broad set of tasks and that team members should be allowed to rotate, so that they would have some variety and become multi-skilled (Pasmore, 1995 ).

Sociotechnical systems theory gave rise to the use of autonomous working groups, later labeled self-managing teams . Several studies provided evidence for the positive effects of autonomous working groups on job satisfaction and performance, but the positive effects were not always found Some have therefore argued that autonomous work teams need to be implemented with care and may be most effective in uncertain contexts, where individuals can make a difference (Wageman, 1997 ; Wright & Cordery, 1999 ).

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory

Building on the importance of employees’ attitudes, the first major model that made an explicit link between job design and employee motivation is the two-factor theory of Herzberg ( 1968 ). Herzberg started from Maslow’s need pyramid ( 1954 ) and argued that, while some job aspects caused job satisfaction, other were responsible for employee dissatisfaction. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction were thus considered independent states, with different antecedents. Dissatisfaction was said to occur when employees feel deprived of their physical, animal needs, due to a lack of “hygiene factors,” such as a decent salary, security, safe working conditions, status, good relationships at work, and attention to one’s personal life. Satisfaction, in contrast, was said to be intertwined with growth-oriented human needs and is influenced by the availability of motivators like achievement, recognition, responsibility, and growth.

Although Herzberg’s model has been criticized and has received little empirical support (Wall & Stephenson, 1970 ), it has had a vast impact on the literature on job design. First, Herzberg provided the building blocks for the meta-theory underlying job design. In building on the differentiation between basic animal needs and more human, higher order growth needs, Herzberg inspired McGregor ( 1960 ) to develop Theory X and Theory Y, two views on humankind that managers may hold that have implications for how jobs should be designed. Theory X assumes that employees are passive and lazy and need to be pushed (i.e., the stick approach to motivation) or pulled (i.e., the carrot approach to motivation) using the principles of Taylorism. In contrast, managers who hold Theory Y see employees as active and growth-oriented human beings who like to interact with their environment. Adopting this theory likely stimulates managers to design highly satisfying and motivational jobs that make optimal use of the interest and energy of employees.

Second, Herzberg was the first to develop a well-defined job-design model and to advocate the empirical study of people’s jobs, thereby paving the way for the tradition of job-design research that we know today. Moreover, Herzberg pointed out the importance of a fair wage and good working conditions, similar to Taylorism and social relations at work, as did the human relations movement. In addition, he called for attention to opportunities to learn and develop oneself, which were to be found in the content of the job. As such, Herzberg was arguably the first to advance that the true motivational potential of work is linked to the content of one’s job. He further advanced that jobs could become more motivating by job enlargement (i.e., adding additional tasks of similar difficulty) and—most importantly—job enrichment (i.e., by adding more complex task and decision authority). As in the case of autonomous teams, these practices can lead to beneficial outcomes, although the effects ultimately depend on the context and manner in which they are implemented (Axtell & Parker, 2003 ; Campion, Mumford, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005 )

Hackman and Oldham’s Job Characteristics Model

Hackman and Oldham followed through on the idea of motivational jobs and exclusively focused on job content in their job characteristics model (JCM; Hackman & Oldham, 1976 ). Specifically, they argued that the motivating potential of jobs could be determined by assessing the degree of task significance, task identity, and variety, as well as the autonomy and feedback directly from the job. Moving beyond mere job satisfaction, these job characteristics were argued to lead to an expanded set of outcomes of job design, including internal motivation, performance, absenteeism, and turnover. Furthermore, where previous models were silent about the psychological process through which job design may have its impact, Hackman and Oldham proposed three psychological states as mediating mechanism: having knowledge of results, feelings responsible, and experiencing meaningfulness in the job. These states were expected to be influenced by feedback, autonomy, and the combination of task identity, task significance, and variety, respectively. While both autonomy and feedback are essential for jobs to be motivating, as each of the latter aspects relate to the same critical psychological state, task identity, task significance, and variety were considered to be interchangeable, which introduced the possibility that particular job aspects can compensate for each other, so that low task identity wouldn’t be problematic when employees experience high levels of variety.

An important contribution from Hackman and Oldham is that they acknowledged the importance of individual differences. They assumed that peoples’ skills, knowledge, and ability, as well as general satisfaction with the work context, may impact the strength of the relations between the job characteristics and the critical psychological states, and between the latter and the work outcomes (Oldham, Hackman, & Pearce, 1976 ). Perhaps the most important moderator in the JCM is peoples’ growth-need strength, which is defined as the degree to which employees want to develop in the context of work. Highly growth-oriented employees may benefit more from job enrichment.

In addition to developing the JCM, Hackman and Oldham also contributed to the job-design literature by presenting a measure (Hackman & Oldham, 1976 ), which spurred empirical research. Meta-analysis supported the basic tenets of the model, showing that motivational characteristics lead to favorable attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, via some of the critical psychological states (Fried & Ferris, 1987 ; Humphrey et al., 2007 ; Johns, Xie, & Gang, 1992 ). However, criticism has been directed at the inclusion of only a limited set of job characteristics, mediating mechanisms, and behavioral outcomes, as well as at the model’s focus only on the motivational aspects of work, while ignoring the stressful aspects (Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001 ) proposed an elaborated version of the JCM that identified an expanded set of work characteristics (including those more important in contemporary work, such as emotional demands and performance-monitoring demands), elaborated moderators (including, for example, operational uncertainty), and outcomes (including creativity, proactivity, and safety). This model also proposed antecedents of work design.

Karasek’s Job Demand Control Model

Karasek ( 1979 ) built on the criticisms of the JCM. In his job demand control model, he synthesized the traditions on detrimental aspects of work design (i.e., demands, including workload and role stressors) and the beneficial aspects (i.e., job control, including autonomy and skill variety) mentioned in the literature following the development of the Michigan Model (Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pinneau, 1975 ) and the JCM, respectively. Rather than considering both aspects separately, seeing all structural work aspects as a demand, Karasek argued that job demands and job control have to be examined in combination, as the effects of each may be fundamentally different depending on the level of the other.

Specifically, Karasek built his theory on four types of jobs: Passive jobs are characterized by low demands and low control, while high-strain jobs include high job demands and low job control. Low-strain jobs are characterized by low demands and high job control, while active jobs include both high demands and high job control. These four types of jobs fall along two continua. Low- and high-strain jobs are modeled on a continuum from low strain to high strain, which over time may result in stress and health problems, while passive and active jobs are modeled on a growth-related continuum ranging from low to high activation, fostering motivation, learning, and development. Following up on the assumptions of the Michigan Model, Karasek proposed that job design not only may have short-term effects, but also in the long run, may affect employee personality: Continuous exposure to stressful jobs leads to accumulated strain, which then causes long-term anxiety that inhibits learning. Continuous exposure to active jobs, in contrast, builds experiences of mastery, which then buffers the perception of strain (Theorell & Karasek, 1996 ).

Apart from an expanded focus on the content of work in terms of job demands and job control, Karasek expanded his model by reintroducing social support, as a beneficial aspect of job design, and more specifically as an antidote to job demands. The role of social relations at work was acknowledged by Herzberg (although only as a hygiene factor) but was not included in the JCM, which continued to dominate the job-design literature in the United States.

Karasek’s model spurred research on job stress, as well as on health-related outcomes, such mortality and cardiovascular diseases (Van der Doef & Maes, 1998 ). The additive effects of job demands and job control are often found, but more cross-sectionally than over time, which suggests that reciprocal or reversed effects may also occur, with well-being, motivation, and learning also predicting job design (Hausser, Mojzisch, Niesel, & Schulz-Hardt, 2010 ). Results for the interaction between job demands and job control are limited (Van der Doef & Maes, 1999 ), even among high-quality studies (de Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers, 2003 ).

Warr’s Vitamin Model

Warr ( 1987 ) further expanded on the number of job characteristics that may influence people’s well-being. Going beyond the design of jobs, per se, Warr examined environmental aspects that may serve as vitamins for people’s well-being, in or outside the context of work. Well-being is herein broadly defined, including affective well-being, which is arranged around three axes—pleasure and displeasure, anxiety versus comfort, and depression versus enthusiasm—as well as competence, aspiration, autonomy, and integrated functioning of feeling harmonious. In total, Warr discerned nine different broad environmental factors that affect aspects of well-being, including:

Availability of money or a decent salary.

Physical security (good working conditions and working material).

Environmental clarity (low job insecurity, high role clarity, predictable outcomes, and task feedback).

A valued social position associated with, for example, task significance and the possibility to contribute to society.

Contact with others or the possibility of having (good) social relations at work, being able to depend on others, and working on a nice team.

Variety or having changes in one’s task context and social relations.

Externally generated goals or a challenging workload, with low levels of role conflict and conflict or competition with others.

Opportunity for skill use and acquisition or the potential to apply and extend one’s skills.

Opportunities for personal control or having autonomy, discretion, and opportunities to participate (Warr, 1987 ).

Intriguingly, Warr was the first to recognize that these job characteristics are not necessarily linearly related to employee well-being. Some job characteristics, and more specifically money, safety, and a valued social position, are the vitamins C and E. First, they affect employee well-being linearly, but only a certain amount, with their effects plateaus maintaining a constant effect (CE). The other job characteristics, however, are vitamins A and D and affect employee well-being in a curvilinear way: both low and high levels are detrimental, with any addition beyond a certain level leading to decrease in well-being (AD). In assuming these relations, Warr captured the widely held assumption that there can be too much of a good thing (Pierce & Aguinis, 2011 ). For example, while some amount of workload can be beneficial, too much workload may be detrimental for employees’ well-being. Similarly, too much job stimulation may contribute to negative health outcomes (Fried et al., 2013 ).

Furthermore, in line with Hackman and Oldham, Warr proposed that some employees are more susceptible to the impact of particular job characteristics than others, because their personal values or abilities fit better with particular job characteristics. For example, employees with low preference for independence benefit less from autonomy, while employees having a high tolerance for ambiguity suffer less when their environment provides less clear guidelines (Warr, 1987 ).

Research has provided some support for the vitamin model, showing that externally generated goals, autonomy, and social support may indeed have curvilinear relations with employee well-being (De Jonge & Schaufeli, 1998 ; Xie & Johns, 1995 ), but these results are not always replicated, especially not longitudinally (Mäkikangas, Feldt, & Kinnunen, 2007 ) or when general, rather than job-related, well-being is assessed (Rydstedt, Ferrie, & Head, 2006 ). One of the merits of the vitamin model is, however, that it broadened researchers’ horizons in terms of which job characteristics could influence employee well-being.

The Job Demands Resources Model of Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli

The job demands resources model (JD-R model; Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014 ; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001 ) aimed to provide an integrative view of job characteristics. At the core of the model lies the various job characteristics that may impact employees, which can be meaningfully classified as job demands and job resources. Job demands are defined as “those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive and emotional) effort or skills and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007 , p. 312). They are not necessarily negative, but turn into job stressors when they exceed workers’ capacities, which makes it hard for them to recover. Job resources are defined as the “physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that … (1) [are] functional in achieving work goals, (2) reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs, [or] (3) stimulate personal growth, learning, and development” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007 , p. 312).

Just like the vitamin model, the JD-R model focuses on employee well-being as a crucial outcome. Following the positive psychology movement advocating the balanced study of the bright side of employees’ functioning (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000 ) along with the dark side, both negative (i.e., burnout) and positive (i.e., work engagement) aspects of well-being are considered as the crucial pathways through which job demands and job resources relate to a host of other outcomes, including employee physical health and well-being, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and different types of behaviors, including in-role and extra-role performance, as well as counterproductive behavior (for an overview, see Van den Broeck, Van Ruysseveldt, Vanbelle, & De Witte, 2013 ).

Job demands are considered the main cause of burnout. In being continuously confronted with job demands, employees can become emotionally exhausted because they put all their energy into the job. Under particular situations, such as when all their effort is in vain, they likely start withdrawing from their job as a means to protect themselves and become cynical, which is part of the burnout response. Job resources can also have a (limited) direct negative relationship with burnout (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004 ), but they are most crucial for the development of vigor and dedication, the main components of work engagement. Job demands and job resources are also assumed to interact, so that high levels of resources may attenuate (i.e., buffer) the association between job demands and burnout, while job demands are said to strengthen (i.e., boost) the association between job resources and work engagement.

Within the JD-R model, individual factors are modeled as personal resources, which are defined as malleable lower-order, cognitive-affective personal aspects reflecting a positive belief in oneself or the world (van den Heuvel, Demerouti, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2010 ). As in the job characteristics model, personal resources can represent the underlying process through which job resources prevent burnout and foster work engagement (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007 ), moderate, and—more specifically—buffer the health-impairing impact of job demands, as job resources do, and they may serve as antecedents of the job characteristics, preventing the occurrence of job demands and increasing the (perceived) availability of job resources.

Evidence supporting the JD-R model is abundant, but the model is used mostly in the European literature. Job demands and job resources are convincingly shown to relate to burnout and work engagement (Nahrgang et al., 2011 ), while some evidence is provided for their interactions and the role of personal resources (Van den Broeck et al., 2013 ).

Contemporary Job-Design Models

Over the years, various other models have been developed. They may range from slightly different perspectives on job characteristics and their roles in the prediction of employee functioning to more fundamental changes in how we could perceive job design.

For example, some scholars suggested that not all job demands are equal, but need to be differentiated into challenging and hindering job demands. While challenges are obstacles that can be overcome and hold the potential for learning, hindrances are threatening obstacles that drain people’s energy and prevent goal achievement (Lepine, Podsakoff, & Lepine, 2005 ). Some authors suggested that job demands can be either challenging, or hindering, or both, depending on the appraisal of the individual employee (Rodríguez, Kozusnik, & Peiro, 2013 ; Webster, Beehr, & Christiansen, 2010 ). Others, in contrast, argued that employees generally categorize particular job demands as challenging (e.g., workload and time pressure) or hindering (e.g., red tape and role conflict), in relatively clear-cut categorizations (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000 ; Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, De Witte, & Vansteenkiste, 2010 ).

Morgeson and Humphrey ( 2006 ) aimed to integrate the various job characteristics that have been examined in the literature and encouraged job-design scholars not only to focus on task characteristics, such as autonomy and variety, and social characteristics, such as social support and interdependence, but also to pick up on the work context and consider ergonomics, equipment use, and work conditions. This call aligns with the observations of Campion and Thayer ( 1985 ). They noticed that job-design scholars seem to have specialized in either the biological (e.g., concern with noise and lifting), the ergonomic (e.g., lighting, information input), the motivational (e.g., autonomy, variety), or the mechanistic (e.g., specialization, simplification) job characteristics, while Taylor, for example, considered each of these aspects in designing jobs. The more integrative view may be more beneficial, because motivational job characteristics may also have an impact on biological functioning (e.g., heart disease), and the best results may be achieved when ergonomic and motivational factors are jointly considered. For example, Das, Shikdar, and Winters ( 2007 ) found that drill press operators who had the most ergonomic tools and received training were more satisfied and performed better than their counterparts who also could use the ergonomic tools but didn’t receive any training.

New developments in the job-design literature also focused on the relations between the job characteristics and outcomes. The Demand-Induced Strain Compensation model (DISC model; de Jonge & Dormann, 2003 ), for example, further refined job-design theory by qualifying the interaction between job demands and job resources. Specifically, the DISC model assumes that job resources have more potential to buffer the negative effect of job demands on employee well-being when the demands, resources, and outcomes are all physical, cognitive, or emotional. That is, emotional resources, such as social support, may best buffer the impact of emotional demands on emotional stability (Van de Ven, De Jonge, & Vlerick, 2014 ).

More profound changes in job-design theory have been launched. For example, building on the notions of role conflict and role ambiguity (Kahn et al., 1964 ), Ilgen and Hollenbeck ( 1992 ) argued for the study of work roles, which are generally broader than people’s prescribed jobs because they also include emergent and self-imitated tasks. The focus on work roles led to a flourishing literature on role breadth self-efficacy (Parker, 1998 ), personal initiative (Frese, Garst, & Fay, 2007 ), and proactive work behavior (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006 ), with the argument being that work design is an especially important facilitator of these outcomes.

The relational perspective of Grant and colleagues is also a novel extension (e.g., Grant, 2007 ). In this approach, a powerful way to design work is to ensure that employees are connected with those that benefit from the work. Such an approach enhances task significance, and thereby promotes greater prosocial motivation amongst employees, which in turn benefits employee performance (for a review, see Grant & Parker, 2009 ).

Another development has been to recognize the role of work design in promoting learning. As Parker ( 2014 , p. 671) argued: “Motivational theories of work design have dominated psychological approaches to work design. However, we need to expand the criterion space beyond motivation, not just by adding extra dependent variables to empirical studies but by exploring when, why, and how work design can help to achieve different purposes.” Parker outlined existing theory and research that suggest work design might be a powerful—yet currently rather neglected—intervention for promoting learning outcomes, such as the accelerated acquisition of expert knowledge, as well as for promoting developmental outcomes over the lifespan (such as the development of cognitive complexity, or even moral development).

Nevertheless, despite, or perhaps because of, the different perspectives, the current job-design literature can be fragmented, with different job-design models offering insights to different parts of the puzzle but not necessarily the whole puzzle. To move the job-design literature forward, a more synthesized mental model of the literature has been developed that describes what can already be considered established knowledge and that highlights fruitful ways forward.

The Integrative Work Design Model

Figure 1. The Integrated Work Design (IWD) Model.

Building from the job-design models featured in the literature and the principles they put forward, an integrative work design model can be developed. The model may stimulate scholars to think broadly when studying job design and to develop new areas for research. It may equally assist managers to consider various aspects of people’s jobs when assessing the adequateness of the jobs they design. The model includes job characteristics as antecedents, and their possible relations with employee outcomes, including employee well-being, cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors. Finally, personal characteristics are taken into account as intervening variables in these relationships. The core aspects of the integrative work design (IWD) model are outlined in Figure 1 .

Job Characteristics as Antecedents

In keeping with the approach of the JD-R, the differentiation between job resources and job demands is maintained as a valuable framework for grouping job characteristics. This approach is not without criticism (Van den Broeck et al., 2013 ). For example, not all job characteristics can be easily classified as either a job demand or a job resource (e.g., job security could be a resource, while job insecurity could be a demand). However, within the IWD model it is maintained that various positive and negative events are not simply opposite ends of the spectrum (e.g., the absence of aggressive or troublesome patients doesn’t necessarily turn patient contacts into positive experiences; Hakanen, Bakker, & Demerouti, 2005 ). The difference between positive and negative reflects the universal differentiation between the positive and the negative, which is rooted in our neurophysiology and how we appraise each encounter with the environment (Barrett, Mesquita, Ochsner, & Gross, 2007 ). Negatives typically loom larger than positives and have a stronger impact on negative aspects of employee functioning, while positive aspects are more predictive of positive outcomes (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001 ). This suggests that having a mindset that looks at both job demands and job resources allows scholars and managers alike to take a balanced perspective on the beneficial and detrimental characteristics of a job.

Although Warr, as well as the JD-R model, start from the assumption that several job characteristics may have an impact on employee functioning, by far the most empirical attention has been paid to the restricted list of job characteristics proposed by Karasek: autonomy, workload, and social support (Humphrey et al., 2007 ), and/or the five job characteristics covered in the JCM. To overcome this issue, a broader view on job design seems necessary. People may be inspired by new developments in the job-design literature differentiating between job challenges (e.g., responsibility) and job hindrances (e.g., red tape), as was done in the development of a model including job hindrances, challenges, and resources (Crawford, Lepine, & Rich, 2010 ; Van den Broeck et al., 2010 ). Second, the classification by Campion and Thayer ( 1985 , 1988 ) may be a source of inspiration to also include job characteristics related to human factors (e.g., equipment) and biological factors (e.g., noise, temperature), along with the mechanical (e.g., repetition) and motivational (e.g., promotion, task significance) job characteristics. Job-design scholars may consider the inclusion of context-specific job-specific hindrances, challenges, and resources, such as student aggression for teachers, number and duration of interventions for firefighters, or having contact with the patients’ families for nurses (for an overview, see Van den Broeck et al., 2013 ).

The study of specific and general job characteristics may also take into account recent developments in the labor market, such as the digital revolution, and the changes in demographics. Few studies have included the consequences of these changes in the study of contemporary jobs, although they have caused dramatic changes in job design (Cordery & Parker, 2012 ). For example, due to technological advances, jobs have undergone profound changes. While some jobs are disappearing due to automation and digitalization, the remaining jobs—for example, in supporting, maintaining, and repairing technology—have become more analytical and problem-solving in nature. Recent job-design scales therefore include concentration and precision as cognitive or mental demands (Van Veldhoven, Prins, Van der Laken, & Dijkstra, 2016 ), which may become extremely relevant for older workers who experience a decline in fluid intelligence (Krings, Sczesny, & Kluge, 2011 ). Due to the technological revolution, employees also become increasingly dependent on technology, leading to techno-stress (Tarafdar, D’Arcy, Turel, & Gupta, 2015 ). The growing body of research on this issue, however, developed outside of I/O psychology, with the leading publications in information and computer sciences. Similarly, the use of digital technology has made it possible to work from home. This increased the degree to which work-related activities intruded into private life and had implications for job design in terms of autonomy and social support (Allen, Golden, & Shockley, 2015 ; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007 ). Research interest on the impact of telework is growing, but—again—mostly as a separate field, rather than as an aspect of job design (Bailey & Kurland, 2002 ).

Finally, and again in line with the JD-R model and the recent work of Morgeson and Humphrey ( 2006 ), job demands and job resources can be found at the level of one’s task and job in general—relating to the content of work—but also at the level of the social relations at work (e.g., conflict vs. social support), which includes the social support component of the Karasek model and the call for more research on the role of social influences at work (Grant & Parker, 2009 ). Apart from the social aspects, attention could also be paid to job characteristics at the team level. In 2012 , Hollenbeck, Beersma, and Schouten noted that up to 80% of all Fortune organizations rely on teamwork to achieve their goals. Team characteristics, such as interdependence and team autonomy, have an impact on employee task characteristics, such as autonomy and well-being and performance (Langfred, 2007 ; Van Mierlo, Rutte, Vermunt, Kompier, & Doorewaard, 2007 ) and could therefore be taken into account.

Furthermore, scholars may want to go one step further and incorporate aspects at the level of the organization, such as HR-related demands and resources (e.g., strategic impact; De Cooman, Stynen, Van den Broeck, Sels, & De Witte, 2013 ) and organizational climate (e.g., safety climate; Dollard & Bakker, 2010 ). Apart from examining the direct impact of these characteristics on employee functioning, job-design scholars could also examine their interplay, in terms of how organizational and team-level variables influence social and task characteristics, as well as how the different levels may buffer, amplify, or boost each other’s impact (Parker, Van den Broeck, & Holman, 2017 ). Furthermore, scholars could examine the interplay between job characteristics through profile analyses (Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, Luyckx, & De Witte, 2012 ).

The Relations of Job Characteristics with Outcomes

The previous models have outlined that job characteristics may influence employee outcomes in many different ways. While most models assume linear relations, Warr argued for curvilinear relations, where both too little and too much of a job characteristic, such as workload, would lead to lower levels of employee well-being, an assumption that also seems to be implicit in the definition of job demands in the JD-R model. Others have argued that such curvilinear relationships are nothing less than “urban myths,” as they are difficult to establish empirically (Taris, 2006 ). Although the lack of empirical support for curvilinear relations may also be attributable to methodological shortcomings, this challenging statement has encouraged other scholars to argue that not the amount, but the type, of job demands matters for how they relate to employee functioning (Lepine et al., 2005 ; Van den Broeck et al., 2010 ). This approach ties in with the appraisal theory (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985 ), which states that the interpretation of an event as challenging or threatening determines how people react to it. Future studies may follow through on these potential curvilinear or differentiated results.

Moreover, it would be interesting to see more research on the differentiated results of particular job characteristics. While Hackman and Oldham argued that all motivational job characteristics would have an impact on employee motivation, performance, and turnover, other frameworks (e.g., Herzberg’s two-factor theory, Karasek’s job demand control model, the JD-R, and the DISC model) propose that some job characteristics would be more strongly related to particular outcomes. This is in line with the meta-analysis findings that motivational characteristics may, for example, explain more variance in performance than social characteristics, but the latter seemed to be most important in the prediction of turnover intentions (Humphrey et al., 2007 ). Furthermore, this meta-analysis showed that work-scheduling autonomy is less predictive of job satisfaction than decision-making autonomy, which shows that it is worthwhile to examine the different effects of different job characteristics.

Different Outcomes of Job Design

Within the job-design literature, different outcomes of job design have been put to the fore. Whereas Taylor mostly focused on performance, most of the motivational and health-oriented job-design models focused on aspects of employee well-being and attitudes. But none of the existing job-design models does full justice to the rich amount of consequences that have been empirically studied. The immediate, i.e., individual-level, outcomes of job design are here grouped in terms of health and well-being, cognitions and learning, attitudes, and behaviors (Cordery & Parker, 2012 ; Humphrey et al., 2007 ). The IWD model thus goes beyond mere well-being, core task performance, absenteeism, and turnover.

Health and Well-being

First, following through on their importance in job-design models, employee health and well-being have arguably been the most studied outcomes of job design. Meta-analytic results convincingly show that job characteristics like autonomy, feedback, and social support increase employee engagement and prevent employees from feeling anxious, stressed, or burned out (Humphrey et al., 2007 ; Nahrgang et al., 2011 ). In line with these results, many countries developed policies that urge employers to take care of the psychosocial risk factors—including mostly quantitative and qualitative demands, job control, and opportunities for skill development—to prevent these outcomes (Formazin et al., 2014 ).

A policy-oriented focus on the improvement of job design also has the potential to prevent more injuries and somatic health problems related to job design. For example, job characteristics are also important precursors of accidents, injuries, and unsafe behavior (Nahrgang et al., 2011 ), because high job demands and low job resources might cause employees to routinely violate safety rules (Hansez & Chmiel, 2010 ). People working in jobs of low quality also have higher risk of stroke and the development of heart disease (Backé, Seidler, Latza, Rossnagel, & Schumann, 2012 ; Eller et al., 2009 ). Similar results have been found for the experience of low back pain, pain in the shoulders or knees (Bernal et al., 2015 ), or obesity (Fried et al., 2013 ; Kim & Han, 2015 ). Interestingly, these results are mostly reported in journals featuring biomedical and human factors research (Parker et al., 2017 ), leaving these far-reaching consequences of job design relatively unnoticed in I/O psychology.

A considerable body of research established the importance of job design for employee attitudes toward work, such as organizational commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction (Humphrey et al., 2007 ). Meta-analytic results, for example, show that job demands explain 28% of the variance in job design, while job resources can explain no less than 62% to 85% (Humphrey et al., 2007 ; Nahrgang et al., 2011 ). Results are inconclusive whether high levels of job satisfaction should be attributed primarily to good social relations at work or to the motivational characteristics defined by Hackman and Oldham.

Cognitions and Learning

While much attention has been devoted to health and well-being, research interest in cognitions as outcomes of job design has only been emerging recently and is a promising avenue for the future (Parker, 2014 ). Although more complex jobs may be challenging (Van Veldhoven et al., 2016 ), in their systematic review, Then et al. ( 2014 ) demonstrated that this might also have positive consequences, as high work complexity—together with high job control—has a protective effect against the decline of cognitive functions later in life and dementia. Increasing cognitive demands may thus start a process in which cognitive processes are maintained, if not increased. Similarly, work pressure may reduce daytime intuitive decision making, but enhance analytical thinking (Gordon, Demerouti, Bipp, & Le Blanc, 2015 ) and foster learning (De Witte, Verhofstadt, & Omey, 2007 ), as could be expected based on Karasek’s model and German action theory (Frese & Zapf, 1994 ). For example, Holman et al. ( 2012 ) showed that blue collar workers in a vehicle manufacturer improved their learning strategies when being allotted job control, while solving complex problems. Similar results were found in a diary study (Niessen, Sonnentag, & Friederike, 2012 ), where job resources, such as having meaning on one’s job, allowed employees to maintain focus and explore new information, which then led to employees’ thriving, defined as a combination of learning and high levels of energy.

In the work context, different behaviors are valued, ranging from performance and adaptivity to proactivity (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007 ). Taylor’s primary aim was to design jobs to increase job performance according to the scientific standards he established. Although performance has received less attention throughout the different classic job-design models, it is still considered crucial in job design research. Results are somewhat mixed. While meta-analyses show that a range of job resources (e.g., autonomy, skill or task variety, task significance, feedback) all relate positively to self-rated performance, only autonomy seems to relate to objective performance (Humphrey et al., 2007 ). Motivational and social factors like autonomy, task identity, feedback from the job, and social support are also important predictor of behaviors like absenteeism, while social aspects of work design, such as social support, feedback from others, and interdependence, prove to be most important for turnover intentions (Humphrey et al., 2007 ). Job resources like feedback and intrinsically motivating tasks also predict extra role behaviors, such as altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, and civic virtue, while job demands like role ambiguity, role conflict, and task routinization are negatively related to these behaviors (Podskaoff, Mackenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000 ).

Job design also affects adaptivity, or the degree employees cope well with the ongoing change and adversities in organizations (Griffin et al., 2007 ). For example, sportsmanship, or tolerating work-related inconveniences without complaining, is fostered when employees find their jobs inherently satisfying and receive feedback, while role problems likely forestall sportsmanship (Podskaoff et al., 2000 ).

More than just adapting to the rapid changes and the insecurity characterizing the contemporary labor market, employees are also required to proactively anticipate and act upon potential future opportunities (Griffin et al., 2007 ). Job design had not always been considered essential for employee proactivity (Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004 ), but recent views see job design—and most importantly autonomy and social support—as an important antecedent (Parker et al., 2006 ), which is confirmed by meta-analytic results (Tornau & Frese, 2013 ). Employees in enriched jobs are more inclined to be proactive than employees in jobs characterized by routinization and formalization (Marinova, Peng, Lorinkova, Van Dyne, & Chiaburu, 2015 ).

Job design is also an important moderator for proactivity, allowing proactive motivations to materialize in proactive behavior (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010 ). Meta-analyses, for example, suggest that employees don’t need autonomy to generate ideas, but require autonomy for idea implementation (Hammond, Neff, Farr, Schwall, & Zhao, 2011 ). As for job demands, the relations may be complex: while uncertainty relates negatively to feedback seeking (Anseel, Beatty, Shen, Lievens, & Sackett, 2015 ), job demands like complexity associate positively with proactive innovation (Hammond et al., 2011 ). Similar results are found at the within-person level. For example, civil servants are more likely to proactively try to improve procedures and introduce new ways of working when they are challenged by time pressure and situational constraints (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2007 ). Proactive behavior may also become a challenge in itself, because one has to plan his actions and invest additional hours or effort in the proactive behavior (Podsakoff, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Maynes, & Spoelma, 2014 ). Job characteristics like job insecurity may also lead to counterproductive behaviors toward the organization (Van den Broeck et al., 2014 ) and also toward other employees. For example, Van den Broeck, Baillien, and De Witte ( 2011 ) found that job demands like workload are a risk factor for bullying behavior, while job resources like autonomy and supervisory support seem to reduce this risk. However, employees having both high job demands and high job resources were most at risk of becoming bullies at work.

Employee health and well-being, cognitions, attitudes, and behavior are treated as independent elements in the IWD model. They are, however, most likely to influence each other. High levels of well-being have, for example, been shown to relate to commitment and behavioral outcomes (Nahrgang et al., 2011 ). Moreover, thus far, mostly short-term outcomes at the level of the employee were mentioned, leaving outcomes that evolve only over time or develop at the organizational unexplored. Job design is, however, also related to several such outcomes, potentially through its impact on well-being, cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors. For example, job design also has an effect on one’s self-definition (Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 2016 ) and careers (Fried, Grant, Levi, Hadani, & Slowik, 2007 ). Longitudinal studies among more than 2,000 employees show that having high job demands and few opportunities for skill development or social support cause employees to retire early, even above and beyond their impact on mental and physical health (de Wind et al., 2014 ; de Wind, Geuskens, Ybema, Bongers, & van der Beek, 2015 ). Job design also leads to the financial success of the organization. High levels of job resources during one’s shift, for example, increase the financial returns in the fast food industry, as they contributed to the work engagement of the employees (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009 ). High job resources equally increase the service climate within the hospitality sector, which then associates with customer loyalty (Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005 ). These outcomes not only may be caused by job characteristics, but also feed into job characteristics (i.e., they have reciprocal relationships), and they may be dependent on employees’ personal characteristics.

Personal Characteristics

Several of the job-characteristics models have considered the role of personal characteristics within job design. Rightly so, as employee functioning is likely to be a function of both situation (i.e., to be job related) and person factors. Most attention with regard to the role of person factors has been paid to personal resources, which are defined as highly valued aspects, relating to resilience and contributing to individuals’ potential to successfully control and influence the environment (Hobfoll, Johnson, Ennis, & Jackson, 2003 ).

Several personal characteristics have been considered personal resources. Within the JCM, for example, growth-need strength can be seen as a personal resource, as are the critical psychological states of meaning, knowledge of results, and responsibility. Within Warr’s vitamin model, employees’ values are considered essential to how employees respond to certain contexts, while a host of personal resources have been studied in the realm of the JD-R model, ranging from hope and optimism to the core self-evaluations of self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, emotional stability, and locus of control (Van den Broeck et al., 2013 ).

In our view, personal resources may play at least three different roles in the job-design literature. First, they may moderate the impact of job characteristics on employee functioning (i.e., job resources as moderators). Conservation of resources Theory (COR), for example, assumes that having resources allows people to cope with demanding circumstances, so that personal resources may buffer the negative consequences (Hobfoll, 1989 ). In line with this view, employees endowed with self-esteem and optimism were found to experience less psychological distress when confronted with job demands like time pressure (Mäkangas & Kinnunen, 2003 ), while customer orientation buffers the association between job demands and burnout (Babakus, Yavas, & Ashill, 2009 ).

In addition to the buffering effect, job resources can also amplify the positive effects of resourceful job characteristics, as was also mentioned by Hackman and Oldham, as well as by Warr. Again following COR, employees holding high levels of personal resources in a resourceful environment may build resource caravans, which may then lead to low levels of stress and high performance (Hobfoll, 2002 ). More specifically, personal resources may boost the impact of job resources, because a fit between the personal resources and the job characteristics causes employees to pay more attention to the availability of the job characteristics, but also because they have more adaptive ways to act upon the job characteristics (Kristof-brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005 ). For example, employees who aim to develop themselves see more opportunities for development and may make better use of such opportunities, which then increases their well-being (Van den Broeck, Schreurs, Guenter, & van Emmerik, 2015 ; Van den Broeck, Van Ruysseveldt, Smulders, & De Witte, 2011 ).

Apart from the relatively straightforward moderating effects, personal resources may also influence the impact of job characteristics in a more complex way. Because of their boosting effect on job resources, personal resources may also enable employees to use their job resources better to offset the negative effects of job demands, leading to a three-way interaction between personal and job resources and job demands. For example, employees having an internal locus of control may make optimal use of the job control at their disposal to attenuate the effects of daily stressors, while for employees having an external locus of control, job control may not be put in practice and in some research actually predicted poorer well-being and health (Meier, Semmer, Elfering, & Jacobshagen, 2008 ; for a similar study, see Parker & Sprigg, 1999 ). Considering the curvilinear effects, personal resources may affect the tipping point at which increases in job characteristics stop being positive or even start to have negative consequences, so that employees with a high need for security may appreciate higher levels of role clarity than employees who are more adventurous (Warr, 1987 ). Overall, personal resources may allow employees to make better use of job resources, while dealing better with job demands, leading to different outcomes for employees working in the same jobs.

A second role of personal resources may be in explaining the relationships between job characteristics and their outcomes (i.e., personal resources as mediators). Hackman and Oldham suggested that the environment could influence employees’ psychological states, which then explains why job characteristics affect, for example, employee motivation and performance. According to JD-R scholars, this is true not only for the critical psychological states, but also for various personal resources. An important addition to the assumption is that not only may job resources add to psychological states, but also job demands can be assumed to take away employees’ energy and hinder their goal orientation, thereby decreasing employees’ personal resources (Hobfoll, 1989 ). In support of this, research shows that the same psychological resources may indeed explain the effects of both motivational and demanding job characteristics: While job resources lead to high levels of engagement and low levels of burnout through increased satisfaction of SDT’s basic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, job demands hinder the experience of basic need satisfaction and therefore lead to higher levels of burnout and more counterproductive behavior (Van den Broeck, Suela, Vander Elst, Fischmann, Iliescu, & De Witte, 2014 ; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens, 2008 ). In exploring the mediating role of personal resources, future research may answer the call for more attention to the processes underpinning the relations between job characteristics and outcomes (Parker et al., 2001 ).

Finally, personal resources may serve as antecedents of job demands and job resources. This may be because managers provide more favorable job conditions to highly motivated employees (Rousseau, 2001 ), because such employees craft their job to include more motivational and less demanding characteristics (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001 ), or because resourceful employees appraise their job situation as more benign or challenging and less threatening (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985 ).

Notably, thus far, the job-design literature focuses on relatively changeable and positive personal characteristics. However, more stable personal characteristics may also play a role, as they may shape employees’ directedness to particular goals and thereby equally serve as antecedents and moderators of job characteristics (Barrick, Mount, & Li, 2013 ). The personality trait of neuroticism may, for example, cause employees to report higher job demands, while extroverted employees experience more job resources (Bakker et al., 2010 ). Moreover, recently, it was also shown that job characteristics may change employees’ personality (Wu, 2016 ). A final consideration is that particular personal aspects may also make employees more vulnerable to the negative impact of job demands or make it more difficult to benefit from positive aspects.

The job-design literature has a long history and continues to grow. Although some job-design scholars have argued there is nothing left to know about job design, new aspects are still unraveling and many aspects of the nature of job characteristics and their relationship with various outcomes, as well as the role of personal characteristics, remain underexplored. Because job design strongly associates with a host of outcomes and various jobs are still of low quality, job design still deserves scholarly and managerial attention. The integrative work design (IWD) model may assist in the process.

Further Reading

• Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions . Journal of Applied Psychology , 93 (1), 108–124.
• Oldham, G. R. , & Fried, Y. (2016). Job design research and theory: Past, present and future . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 136 , 20–35.
• 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 (2–3), 463–479.
• Allen, T. D. , Golden, T. D. , & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings . Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 16 (2), 40–68.
• Ambrose, M. L. , & Kulik, C. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990. Journal of Management , 25 (3), 231–292.
• Anderson, N. , De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science . Journal of Organizational Behavior , 25 (2), 147–173.
• Anseel, F. , Beatty, A. S. , Shen, W. , Lievens, F. , & Sackett, P. R. (2015). How are we doing after 30 years? A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and outcomes of feedback-seeking behavior . Journal of Management , 41 (1), 318–348.
• Axtell, C. M. , & Parker, S. K. (2003). Promoting role breadth self-efficacy through involvement, work redesign and training . Human Relations , 56 (1), 113–131.
• Babakus, E. , Yavas, U. , & Ashill, N. J. (2009). The role of customer orientation as a moderator of the job demand–burnout–performance relationship: A surface-level trait perspective . Journal of Retailing , 85 (4), 480–492.
• Backé, E.-M. , Seidler, A. , Latza, U. , Rossnagel, K. , & Schumann, B. (2012). The role of psychosocial stress at work for the development of cardiovascular diseases: A systematic review . International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health , 85 (1), 67–79.
• Bailey, D. E. , & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work . Journal of Organizational Behavior , 23 , 383–400.
• Bakker, A. B. , Boyd, C. M. , Dollard, M. , Gillespie, N. , Winefield, A. H. , & Stough, C. (2010). The role of personality in the job demands-resources model: A study of Australian academic staff . Career Development International , 15 (7), 622–636.
• Bakker, A. B. , & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art . Journal of Managerial Psychology , 22 (3), 309–328.
• Bakker, A. B. , Demerouti, E. , & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The JD–R approach . Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior , 1 (1), 389–411.
• Barley, S. R. , & Kunda, G. (2001). Bringing work back in . Organization Science , 12 (1), 76–95.
• Barrett, L. F. , Mesquita, B. , Ochsner, K. N. , & Gross, J. J. (2007). The experience of emotion . Annual Review of Psychology , 58 , 373–403.
• Barrick, M. R. , Mount, M. K. , & Li, N. (2013). The theory of purposeful work behavior: The role of personality, higher-order goals and job characteristics. Academy of Management Review , 38 (1), 132–153.
• Baumeister, R. F. , Bratslavsky, E. , Finkenauer, C. , & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good . Review of General Psychology , 5 (4), 323–370.
• Bernal, D. , Campos-Serna, J. , Tobias, A. , Vargas-Prada, S. , Benavides, F. G. , & Serra, C. (2015). Work-related psychosocial risk factors and musculoskeletal disorders in hospital nurses and nursing aides: A systematic review and meta-analysis . International Journal of Nursing Studies , 52 (2), 635–648.
• Campion, M. A. , Mumford, T. V. , Morgeson, F. P. , & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Work redesign: Eight obstacles and opportunities . Human Resource Management , 44 (4), 367–390.
• Campion, M. A. , & Thayer, P. W. (1985). Development and field evaluation of an interdisciplinary measure of job design . Journal of Applied Psychology , 70 (1), 29–43.
• Campion, M. A. , & Thayer, P. W. (1988). Job design: Approaches, outcomes and trade-offs. Organizational Dynamics , 15 (3), 66–79.
• Caplan, R. D. , Cobb, S. , French, J. R. R, Jr. , Harrison, R. V. , & Pinneau, S. R., Jr. (1975). Demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences . Washington, DC.: US Government Printing Office
• Cavanaugh, M. A. , Boswell, W. R. , Roehling, M. V. , & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers . Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 (1), 65–74.
• Cordery, J. , & Parker, S. K. (2007). Organization of work. In P. F. Boxall , J. Purcell , & P. M. Wright (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Human Resource management (Vol. 1, pp. 12–13). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Cordery, J. L. , & Parker, S. K. (2012). Job and role design. In S. Kozlowski (Ed.), Oxford handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol 1, pp. 247–284). Oxford: 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 . The Journal of Applied Psychology , 95 (5), 834–848.
• Das, B. , Shikdar, A. A. , & Winters, T. (2007). Workstation redesign for a repetitive drill press operation: A combined work design and ergonomics approach . Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing , 17 (4), 395–410.
• De Cooman, R. , Stynen, D. , Van den Broeck, A. , Sels, L. , & De Witte, H. (2013). How job characteristics relate to need satisfaction and autonomous motivation: Implications for work effort . Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 43 (6), 1342–1352.
• De Jonge, J. , & Dormann, C. (2003). The DISC model: Demand-induced strain compensation mechanisms in job stress. In M. F. Dollard , H. R. Winefield , & A. H. Winefield (Eds.), Occupational stress in the service professions (pp. 43–74). London: Taylor & Francis.
• De Jonge, J. , & Schaufeli, W. B. (1998). Job characteristics and employee well-being: A test of Warr’s vitamin model in health care workers using structural equation modelling . Journal of Organizational Behavior , 19 (4), 387–407.
• de Lange, A. H. , Taris, T. W. , Kompier, M. A. J. , Houtman, I. L. D. , & Bongers, P. M. (2003). “The very best of the millennium”: Longitudinal research and the demand-control (-support) model . Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 8 (4), 282–305.
• de Wind, A. , Geuskens, G. A. , Ybema, J. F. , Blatter, B. M. , Burdorf, A. , Bongers, P. M. , et al. (2014). Health, job characteristics, skills, and social and financial factors in relation to early retirement—Results from a longitudinal study in the Netherlands . Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health , 40 (2), 186–194.
• de Wind, A. , Geuskens, G. A. , Ybema, J. F. , Bongers, P. M. , & van der Beek, A. J. (2015). The role of ability, motivation, and opportunity to work in the transition from work to early retirement—Testing and optimizing the Early Retirement Model . Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health , 41 (1), 24–35.
• De Witte, H. , Verhofstadt, E. , & Omey, E. (2007). Testing Karasek’s learning and strain hypotheses on young workers in their first job . Work & Stress , 21 (2), 131–141.
• Demerouti, E. , Bakker, A. B. , Nachreiner, F. , & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout . Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 (3), 499–512.
• Dollard, M. F. , & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive work environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement . Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 83 (3), 579–599.
• Eller, N. H. , Netterstrøm, B. , Gyntelberg, F. , Kristensen, T. S. , Nielsen, F. , Steptoe, A. , et al. (2009). Work-related psychosocial factors and the development of ischemic heart disease . Cardiology in Review , 17 (2), 83–97.
• Folkman, S. , & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 48 (1), 150–170.
• Formazin, M. , Burr, H. , Aagestad, C. , Tynes, T. , Thorsen, S. V. , Perkio-Makela, M. , et al. (2014). Dimensional comparability of psychosocial working conditions as covered in European monitoring questionnaires . BMC Public Health , 14 , 1251.
• Frese, M. , Garst, H. , & Fay, D. (2007). Making things happen: Reciprocal relationships between work characteristics and personal initiative in a four-wave longitudinal structural equation model . The Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 (4), 1084–1102.
• Frese, M. , & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In H. C. Triandis , M. D. Dunnette , & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 271–340). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Fried, Y. , & Ferris, G. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis . Personnel Psychology , 40 (2), 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 (7), 911–927.
• Fried, Y. , Laurence, G. A. , Shirom, A. , Melamed, S. , Toker, S. , Berliner, S. , et al. (2013). The relationship between job enrichment and abdominal obesity: A longitudinal field study of apparently healthy individuals . Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 18 (4), 458–468.
• Fritz, C. , & Sonnentag, S. (2007). Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: A look at job stressors and positive affect during the workday . Journal of Management , 35 (1), 94–111.
• Gajendran, R. S. , & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences . The Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 (6), 1524–1541.
• Gordon, H. J. , Demerouti, E. , Bipp, T. , & Le Blanc, P. M. (2015). The Job Demands and Resources Decision Making (JD-R-DM) model . European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 24 (1), 44–58.
• Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review , 32 (2), 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 (1), 317–375.
• Griffin, M. A. , Neal, A. , & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal , 50 (2), 327–347.
• Hackman, J. R. , & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 16 , 250–279.
• Hakanen, J. J. , Bakker, A. B. , & Demerouti, E. (2005). How dentists cope with their job demands and stay engaged: The moderating role of job resources . European Journal of Oral Sciences , 113 (6), 479–487.
• Hammond, M. M. , Neff, N. L. , Farr, J. L. , Schwall, A. R. , & Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis . Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts , 5 (1), 90–105.
• Hansez, I. , & Chmiel, N. (2010). Safety behavior: Job demands, job resources, and perceived management commitment to safety . Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 15 (3), 267–278.
• Hausser, J. A. , Mojzisch, A. , Niesel, M. , & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010). Ten years on: A review of recent research on the Job Demand-Control (-Support) model and psychological well-being . Work and Stress , 24 (1), 1–35.
• Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review , 48 , 53–62.
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist , 44 (3), 513–524.
• Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation . Review of General Psychology , 6 (4), 307–324.
• Hobfoll, S. E. , Johnson, R. J. , Ennis, N. , & Jackson, A. P. (2003). Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 84 (3), 632–643.
• Holman, D. , Totterdell, P. , Axtell, C. , Stride, C. , Port, R. , Svensson, R. , & Zibarras, L. (2012). Job design and the employee innovation process: The mediating role of learning strategies . Journal of Business and Psychology , 27 , 177–191.
• Huang, Y. , Xu, S. , Hua, J. , Zhu, D. , Liu, C. , Hu, Y. , et al. (2015). Association between job strain and risk of incident stroke . Neurology , 85 , 1–7.
• 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 (5), 1332–1356.
• Ilgen, D. R. , & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1992). The structure ofwork: Job design and roles. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2d ed., Vol. 2, pp. 165–207). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment: A social-psychological analysis . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Johns, G. , Xie, J. L. , & Gang, Y. (1992). Mediating and moderating effects in job design. Journal of Management , 18 (4), 657–676.
• Kahn, R. L. , Wolfe, D. M. , Quinn, R. P. , Snoek, J. D. , & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Occupational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity . New York: John Wiley and Sons.
• Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly , 24 , 285–308.
• Kim, T. H. , & Han, E. (2015). Impact of body mass on job quality . Economics and Human Biology , 17 , 75–85.
• Krings, F. , Sczesny, S. , & Kluge, A. (2011). Stereotypical inferences as mediators of age discrimination: The role of competence and warmth . British Journal of Management , 22 (2), 187–201.
• Kristof-brown, A. M. Y. L. , Zimmerman, R. D. , & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology , 58 , 281–342.
• Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy and task interdependence in self-managing teams. The Academy of Management Journal , 50 (4), 885–900.
• 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 (5), 764–775.
• Lorenz, E. , & Valeyre, A. (2005). Organisational innovation, human resource management and labour market structure: A comparison of the EU-15 . The Journal of Industrial Relations , 47 (4), 424–442.
• Mäkikangas, A. , Feldt, T. , & Kinnunen, U. (2007). Warr’s scale of job-related affective well-being: A longitudinal examination of its structure and relationships with work characteristics . Work & Stress , 21 (3), 197–219.
• Mäkangas, A. , & Kinnunen, U. (2003). Psychosocial work stressors and well-being: Selfesteem and optimism as moderators in a one-year longitudinal sample. Personality and Individual Differences , 35 , 537–557.
• Marinova, S. V. , Peng, C. , Lorinkova, N. , Van Dyne, L. , & Chiaburu, D. (2015). Change-oriented behavior: A meta-analysis of individual and job design predictors . Journal of Vocational Behavior , 88 , 104–120.
• Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality . New York: Harper & Row.
• McGregor, D. , (1960). The human side of enterprise . New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Meier, L. L. , Semmer, N. K. , Elfering, A. , & Jacobshagen, N. (2008). The double meaning of control: Three-way interactions between internal resources, job control, and stressors at work . Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 13 (3), 244–258.
• Morgeson, F. P. , & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work . Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 (6), 1321–1339.
• 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 . The Journal of Applied Psychology , 96 (1), 71–94.
• Niessen, C. , Sonnentag, S. , & Friederike, S. (2012). Thriving at work—A diary study . Journal of Organizational Behavior , 33 , 468–487.
• Oldham, G. R. , Hackman, J. R. , & Pearce, J. L. (1976). Conditions under which employees respond positively to enriched work . Journal of Applied Psychology , 61 (4), 395–403.
• Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. The Journal of Applied Psychology , 83 (6), 835–852. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9885197 .
• 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. , Bindl, U. K. , & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation . Journal of Management , 36 (4), 827–856.
• Parker, S. K. , Holman, D. , & Van den Broeck, A. (2017). Work design influences: A synthesis of multi-level factors that affect the design of work . Academy of Management Annals , 11 , 267–308.
• Parker, S. K. , Morgeson, F. P. , & Johns, G. (2017). One hundred years of work design research: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of Applied Psychology , 102 , 403.
• Parker, S. K. , & Sprigg, C. A. (1999). Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: The role of job demands, job conrol, and proactive personality. Journal of Applied Psychology , 84 (6), 925–939.
• 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.
• Parker, S. K. , Wall, T. D. , & Jackson, P. R. (2016). “That’s Not My Job”: Developing flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal , 40 (4), 899–929.
• Parker, S. K. , Williams, H. M. , & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work . Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 (3), 636–652.
• Pasmore, W. A. (1995). Social science transformed: The socio-technical perspective. Human Relations , 48 (1), 1–21.
• Pierce, J. R. , & Aguinis, H. (2011). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management . Journal of Management , 39 (2), 313–338.
• Podsakoff, N. P. , Podsakoff, P. M. , MacKenzie, S. B. , Maynes, T. D. , & Spoelma, T. M. (2014). Consequences of unit-level organizational citizenship behaviors: A review and recommendations for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 35 , 87–119.
• Podskaoff, P. M. , Mackenzie, S. B. , Paine, J. B. , & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and future research. Journal of Management , 26 (3), 513–563.
• Rodríguez, I. , Kozusnik, M. W. , & Peiro, J. M. (2013). Development and validation of the Valencia Eustress-Distress Appraisal Scale . International. Journal of Stress Management , 20 (4), 279–308.
• Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Flexibility versus fairness? Organizational Dynamics , 29 (4), 260–273.
• Rydstedt, L. W. , Ferrie, J. , & Head, J. (2006). Is there support for curvilinear relationships between psychosocial work characteristics and mental well-being? Cross-sectional and long-term data from the Whitehall II study . Work and Stress , 20 (1), 6–20.
• Salanova, M. , Agut, S. , & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate . The Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 (6), 1217–1227.
• Schaufeli, W. B. , & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 25 , 293–315.
• Seligman, M. E. P. , & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction . American Psychologist , 55 (1), 5–14.
• Tarafdar, M. , D’Arcy, J. , Turel, O. , & Gupta, A. (2015). The dark side of information technology. MIT Sloan Management Review , 56 (2), 61–70. Retrieved from http://mitsmr.com/1wD3N7E.
• Taris, T. W. (2006). Bricks without clay: On urban myths in occupational health psychology . Work & Stress , 20 (2), 99–104.
• Taylor, F. W. (2004). Scientific management . London. Routledge.
• Terkel, S. , (Ed.). (1974). Working: People talk about what they do all day and how they feel about what they do . The New Press.
• Then, F. S. , Luck, T. , Luppa, M. , Thinschmidt, M. , Deckert, S. , Nieuwenhuijsen, K. , et al. (2014). Systematic review of the effect of the psychosocial working environment on cognition and dementia . Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 71 (5), 358–365.
• Theorell, T. , & Karasek, R. A. (1996). Current issues relating to psychosocial job strain and cardiovascular disease research . Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 1 (1), 9–26.
• Tornau, K. , & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean-up in proactivity research: A meta-analysis on the nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental validities . Applied Psychology: An International Review , 62 (1), 44–96.
• Van de Ven, B. , De Jonge, J. , & Vlerick, P. (2014). Testing the triple-match principle in the technology sector: A two-wave longitudinal panel study . Applied Psychology , 63 (2), 300–325.
• Van den Broeck, A. , Baillien, E. , & De Witte, H. (2011). Workplace bullying: A perspective from the Job Demands-Resources model . South African Journal of Industrial Psychology , 37 (2), 1–12.
• Van den Broeck, A. , De Cuyper, N. , De Witte, H. , & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). Not all job demands are equal: Differentiating job hindrances and job challenges in the Job Demands–Resources model . European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 19 (6), 735–759.
• Van den Broeck, A. , De Cuyper, N. , Luyckx, K. , & De Witte, H. (2012). Employees’ job demands–resources profiles, burnout and work engagement: A person-centred examination. Economic Industrial Democracy , 33 (4), 691–706.
• Van den Broeck, A. , Schreurs, B. , Guenter, H. , & van Emmerik, I. H. (2015). Skill utilization and well-being: A cross-level story of day-to-day fluctuations and personal intrinsic values . Work & Stress , 29 (3), 306–323.
• Van den Broeck, A. , Suela, C. , Vander Elst, T. , Fischmann, G. , Iliescu, D. , & De Witte, H. (2014). The mediating role of psychological needs in the relation between qualitative job insecurity and counterproductive work behavior . Career Development International , 19 (5), 526–547.
• Van den Broeck, A. , Van Ruysseveldt, J. , Smulders, P. , & De Witte, H. (2011). Does an intrinsic work value orientation strengthen the impact of job resources? A perspective from the Job Demands–Resources model . European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 20 (5), 581–609.
• Van den Broeck, A. , Van Ruysseveldt, J. , Vanbelle, E. , & De Witte, H. (2013). The Job Demands–Resources model: Overview and suggestions for future research. In A. B. Bakker (Ed.), Advances in positive organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 83–105). Emerald, Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Van den Broeck, A. , Vansteenkiste, M. , De Witte, H. , & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction . Work & Stress , 22 (3), 277–294.
• van den Heuvel, M. , Demerouti, E. , Bakker, A. B. , & Schaufeli, W. B. (2010). Personal resources and work engagement in the face of change. Contemporary occupational health psychology: Global Perspectives on Research and Practice , 1 , 124–150.
• van den Heuvel, M. , Demerouti, E. , Bakker, A. B. , & Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). Adapting to change: The value of change information and meaning-making . Journal of Vocational Behavior , 83 (1), 11–21.
• Van der Doef, M. , & Maes, S. (1998). The job demand-control (-support) model and physical health outcomes: A review of the strain and buffer hypotheses . Psychology & Health , 13 (5), 909–936.
• 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 (2), 87–114.
• Van Mierlo, H. , Rutte, C. G. , Vermunt, J. K. , Kompier, M. A. J. , & Doorewaard, J. A. C. M. (2007). A multi-level mediation model of the relationships between team autonomy, individual task design and psychological well-being . Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 80 (4), 647–664.
• Van Veldhoven, M. , Prins, J. , Van der Laken, P. , & Dijkstra, L. (2016). Manual QEEW2.0: 42 short scales for survey research on work, well-being and performance . Amsterdam: SKB.
• Warr, P. (1987). Work, unemployment, and mental health . Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Wageman, R. (1997). Critical success factors for creating superb teams . Organizational Dynamics , 26 , 49–61.
• Walker, C. R. , & Guest, R. H. (1952). The man on the assembly line . Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.
• Wall, T. D. , & Stephenson, G. M. (1970). Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job attitudes: A critical evaluation and some fresh evidence . Industrial Relations Journal , 1 (3), 41–65.
• Webster, J. R. , Beehr, T. a. , & Christiansen, N. D. (2010). Toward a better understanding of the effects of hindrance and challenge stressors on work behavior . Journal of Vocational Behavior , 76 (1), 68–77.
• Wright, B. M. , & Cordery, J. L. (1999). Production uncertainty as a contextual moderator of employee reactions to job design . The Journal of Applied Psychology , 84 (3), 456–463.
• Wrzesniewski, A. , & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work . The Academy of Management Review , 26 (2), 179–201.
• Wu, C. H. (2016). Personality change via work: A job demand-control model of Big-Five personality changes . Journal of Vocational Behavior , 92 , 157–166.
• Xanthopoulou, D. , Bakker, A. B. , Demerouti, E. , & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model . International Journal of Stress Management , 14 (2), 121–141.
• Xanthopoulou, D. , Bakker, A. B. , Demerouti, E. , & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources . Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 82 (1), 183–200.
• Xie, J. L. , & Johns, G. (1995). Job scope and stress: Can job scope be too high? Academy of Management Journal , 38 (5), 1288–1309.

Related Articles

• Action Regulation Theory
• Work and Family
• Occupational Health Psychology
• The Psychology of Work Engagement
• Corporate Social Responsibility: An Overview from an Organizational and Psychological Perspective

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 15 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.80.149.115]
• 185.80.149.115

Character limit 500 /500

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Research: Negotiating Is Unlikely to Jeopardize Your Job Offer

• Einav Hart,
• Julia Bear,
• Zhiying (Bella) Ren

A series of seven studies found that candidates have more power than they assume.

Job seekers worry about negotiating an offer for many reasons, including the worst-case scenario that the offer will be rescinded. Across a series of seven studies, researchers found that these fears are consistently exaggerated: Candidates think they are much more likely to jeopardize a deal than managers report they are. This fear can lead candidates to avoid negotiating altogether. The authors explore two reasons driving this fear and offer research-backed advice on how anxious candidates can approach job negotiations.

Imagine that you just received a job offer for a position you are excited about. Now what? You might consider negotiating for a higher salary, job flexibility, or other benefits , but you’re apprehensive. You can’t help thinking: What if I don’t get what I ask for? Or, in the worst-case scenario, what if the hiring manager decides to withdraw the offer?

• Einav Hart is an assistant professor of management at George Mason University’s Costello College of Business, and a visiting scholar at the Wharton School. Her research interests include conflict management, negotiations, and organizational behavior.
• Julia Bear is a professor of organizational behavior at the College of Business at Stony Brook University (SUNY). Her research interests include the influence of gender on negotiation, as well as understanding gender gaps in organizations more broadly.
• Zhiying (Bella) Ren is a doctoral student at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Her research focuses on conversational dynamics in organizations and negotiations.

Partner Center

Coordinator, Early Learning Research

Apply now Job no: 531566 Work type: Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Location: Main Campus (Gainesville, FL) Categories: Education/Training/Instructional Design Department: 18300000 - ED-LASTINGER CENTER

Advertised: 14 May 2024 Eastern Daylight Time Applications close:

Back to search results Apply now Refer a friend

Search results

Current opportunities.

Powered by PageUp

Refine search

• Non-Tenure-Track Faculty 1
• Education/Training/Instructional Design 1
• Main Campus (Gainesville, FL) 1
• 18300000 - ED-LASTINGER CENTER 1
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Veteran Preference
• Applicant Tutorial
• UF Hiring Policies
• Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics
• Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Faculty Positions
• Labor Condition Application (ETA Form 9035): Notice of Filings
• Application for Permanent Employment Certification (ETA Form 9089): Notice of Job Availability
• Search Committee Public Meeting Notices
• Accessibility at UF
• Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention Program (DAAPP)
• Drug-Free Workplace

Equal Opportunity Employer

The University is committed to non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations, genetic information and veteran status in all aspects of employment including recruitment, hiring, promotions, transfers, discipline, terminations, wage and salary administration, benefits, and training.

We will email you new jobs that match this search.

Ok, we will send you jobs like this.

The email address was invalid, please check for errors.

You must agree to the privacy statement

More From Forbes

10 best entry-level remote jobs in 2024, from research.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Entry-level jobs should be evaluated according to growth potential, wellbeing, and opportunity, not ... [+] just salary

When evaluating entry-level jobs, you might be inclined to consider them based on pay and job flexibility alone, due to the current nature of the employment market. However, it turns out that there are more factors to consider than just the average pay or the flexible nature of the role.

According to a recent WalletHub study, you should think about three core characteristics so that your career is on a solid footing.

That's what WalletHub analysts did when researching entry-level jobs for their recent report on the top entry-level jobs for 2024. They evaluated entry-level jobs according to these three factors:

• Immediate opportunity
• Growth potential
• Job hazards

Immediate opportunity refers to the entry-level job being in demand, with a significant number of opportunities and higher-than-usual starting salaries.

Growth potential, on the other hand, concentrates on evaluating the probability that the job would be replaced by AI or technology, as well as income and job growth potential, and the likelihood of being provided with on-the-job training.

Cannes Film Festival 2024: Stars Arrive On Red Carpet For Annual Event

Televisaunivision 2024-25 slate touts latino culture, vix growth, juanpa zurita, william levy deals, northern lights could show up yet again tonight here s an updated aurora borealis forecast.

Finally, measuring roles against job hazards means that you bear in mind factors such as wellbeing and work-life balance, and the possibility of occupational injuries.

Top 10 Remote Entry-Level Jobs

According to their analysis of the data based on 108 entry-level jobs, and their overall weighting in the scoring, here are the top 10 in the list:

• Environmental health and safety engineer
• Certified Nursing Assistant
• Software Engineer
• Safety Representative
• Hardware Engineer
• Safety Technician
• Electronics Engineer
• Systems Engineer
• Operations Research Analyst

Once thing is clear: if you look at the list above, you will notice that engineers and technicians occupy almost three-quarters of that list.

However, unfortunately, many of these entry-level jobs cannot be performed remotely, due to the nature of the roles. Therefore, here are the top 10 remote entry-level jobs from WalletHub's analysis of 108 job titles:

• Software engineer
• Operations research analyst
• Web applications developer
• Benefits analyst
• Database administrator
• Web designer
• Market research analyst
• Web content writer
• Financial analyst

These roles are heavily focused on tech, and call for professionals with strong analytical skills, so it is important to bear this in mind when considering your career options this summer.

How To Get A Remote Entry-Level Job In 2024

To secure a remote entry-level job, you'll need a combination of preparation, networking, and targeted job search strategies. Here are some ways you can increase your chances of landing a remote entry-level job:

• Identify your skills and interests : Assess your strengths and what you're passionate about to determine the type of entry-level remote job you're interested in pursuing. It is important to get this right as early as possible because this choice sets the precedent for your career future.
• Learn relevant skills : Once you've identified your skills, you should learn new skills that will place you in a favorable position to work remotely, such as communication skills, collaboration across multiple time zones, and collaborative software.
• Tailor your resume: Ensure you customize your resume and supporting application documents to highlight your relevant skills, experiences, and achievements. In addition to job-specific skills, you especially need to emphasize your ability to work independently, communicate effectively, and manage time.
• Use remote job boards : Remote entry-level jobs can be located in a variety of places, including online job boards, remote job websites (such as We Work Remotely), and company career pages.
• Gain experience: Some entry-level jobs do require some prior experience (ironic, right?) so you'll need to be prepared in the event this scenario occurs. You can gain relevant experience for a remote entry-level job through freelance projects, traineeships, internships, and/or volunteering. Ideally, focus on remote opportunities at this stage so you have a feel for what it's like to work from home, should this experience be needed by a potential employer.

Team strategy meeting on research, post it on glass wall and group work planning together. Business ... [+] people brainstorming analytics vision think tank ideas, collaboration thinking and sticky notes

Use these steps above, be patient with the process, try unconventional approaches, and you will find yourself in your dream remote entry-level job.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

• Skip to main menu
• Skip to user menu

Clinical Research Coordinator, School of Medicine / Neurology

Share this job

Get job alerts

Create a job alert and receive personalized job recommendations straight to your inbox.

Similar jobs

Transportation studies librarian.

• St. Louis, Missouri, United States

Part Time Academic Advisor

• Texas City, Texas, United States

Staff Research Associate - 129837

Job description, #129837 staff research associate.

UCSD Layoff from Career Appointment : Apply by 5/16/24for consideration with preference for rehire. All layoff applicants should contact their Employment Advisor.

Special Selection Applicants : Apply by 5/28/24. Eligible Special Selection clients should contact their Disability Counselor for assistance.

DESCRIPTION

Incumbent will assist Principal Investigator in research on studying the role of non-coding RNAs in stress and aging pathways.

Incumbent will perform the following duties: assist with C. elegans experiments by growing and collecting worms, and conducting microinjections to create transgenic strains; utilize standard biology procedures such as DNA/RNA/protein preparations, PCR, cloning, gel electrophoresis, etc; generate and analyze genomic sequencing data. In addition, incumbent will also participate in the publication of scientific manuscripts based on experiments performed.

QUALIFICATIONS

Theoretical understanding of genetics and molecular biology; BS in biology or related field OR an equivalent combination of education and laboratory experience.

Experience working with molecular biology procedures such as DNA and RNA preparations and cloning, gel electrophoresis, Western Blotting, PCR, etc.

Experience with basic molecular biology laboratory equipment such as centrifuges, microscopes, balances, pH meter, etc.

Manual and visual dexterity to manipulate worms and identify developmental stages.

Knowledge and skill with sterile techniques.

Experience to perform mathematical calculations including computing molarities, pH’s, etc.

Demonstrated ability to record scientific data in a well-organized laboratory notebook. Demonstrated organizational skills to keep clear and accurate records.

Excellent interpersonal, oral and written communication skills. Demonstrated ability in using tact, diplomacy, discretion, and flexibility with diverse personalities and situations. Demonstrated ability to work as part of a research team, and interact effectively with collaborating labs and others in scientific community.

Ability to maintain confidentiality of matters related to work.

Knowledge of specialized scientific terminology.

Knowledge of library databases such as PubMed to locate journal articles electronically and in print.

Demonstrated ability to work independently or collaboratively on a research project. Ability to maintain a high level of motivation to contribute to cutting edge research, and seek and learn new experimental methods as required.

Demonstrated skills to read and follow established lab protocols and work effectively with minimal instruction.

Knowledge of Material Safety Data Sheets, and hazardous communication and Injury and Illness Prevention Program. Knowledge of laboratory safety precautions, including use of protective items such as goggles, coats, etc., and the ability to train other laboratory members in safety precautions.

Demonstrated ability to provide work direction to undergraduate student workers. Skill to train others in various lab techniques and procedures (safety precautions, preparation of media, dishwashing, equipment usage, laboratory maintenance, etc.).

Experience and skill with MS Office programs, Adobe Photoshop, spreadsheet, internet and other computer software; willingness and ability to update and increase PC skills and knowledge as needed.

Experience working with C. elegans, including microinjection of worms.

Experience creating and analyzing genomic datasets; bioinformatics knowledge and ability

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

Must be willing to work safely with radioactive isotopes.

Must be willing to work occasional overtime (evening or weekend) as required by particular experiments.

Background check required.

Pay Transparency Act

Annual Full Pay Range: $53,766 - $64,143 (will be prorated if the appointment percentage is less than 100%)

Hourly Equivalent: $25.75 - $30.72

Factors in determining the appropriate compensation for a role include experience, skills, knowledge, abilities, education, licensure and certifications, and other business and organizational needs. The Hiring Pay Scale referenced in the job posting is the budgeted salary or hourly range that the University reasonably expects to pay for this position. The Annual Full Pay Range may be broader than what the University anticipates to pay for this position, based on internal equity, budget, and collective bargaining agreements (when applicable).

If employed by the University of California, you will be required to comply with our Policy on Vaccination Programs, which may be amended or revised from time to time. Federal, state, or local public health directives may impose additional requirements.

To foster the best possible working and learning environment, UC San Diego strives to cultivate a rich and diverse environment, inclusive and supportive of all students, faculty, staff and visitors. For more information, please visit UC San Diego Principles of Community .

UC San Diego is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, age or protected veteran status.

For the University of California’s Affirmative Action Policy please visit: https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/4010393/PPSM-20 For the University of California’s Anti-Discrimination Policy, please visit: https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/1001004/Anti-Discrimination

UC San Diego is a smoke and tobacco free environment. Please visit smokefree.ucsd.edu for more information.

Application Instructions

Please click on the link below to apply for this position. A new window will open and direct you to apply at our corporate careers page. We look forward to hearing from you!

Share This Page

Posted : 5/14/2024

Job Reference # : 129837

JOIN OUR TALENT COMMUNITY

Interested in working at UC San Diego and UC San Diego Health but can't find a position that's right for you? Submit your resume to our Talent Community to be considered for future opportunities that may align with your expertise. Please note, by joining our Talent Community, you are not applying for a position with UC San Diego Campus and Health. Rather, this is an additional way for our Talent Acquisition team to find candidates with specific credentials, if an opportunity arises. You are still encouraged to regularly check back on our career site or sign up for Job Alerts to apply for openings that are a match for your background.

• Career Sites by Recruiting.com

RESEARCH ASST I (Student/Work Study) - BIO

The research assistant will work with Dr. Rebecca Tonietto on a greenhouse study.

Responsibilities*

• Assist with mesocosm establishment
• Watering and rotating mesocosms in the greenhouse
• Assist with the simulator experiments

Required Qualifications*

• Must be a current University of Michigan-Flint undergraduate student in good academic standing or recently graduated from a UM-Flint undergraduate program and not currently enrolled in a graduate program
• Must have an interest in outdoor field work and working with plants
• Must have successfully completed Ecology (BIO 327)

Desired Qualifications*

Experience with plant identification preferred.

Work Schedule

The appointment will be for the summer 2024 semester.

Additional Information

University of Michigan-Flint - Plan for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

The University of Michigan-Flint's DEI plan can be found at: https://www.umflint.edu/dei/?  

The University of Michigan-Flint exhibits its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion through enacting fair practices, policies, and procedures particularly in support of the equitable participation of the historically underserved. UM-Flint recognizes the value of diversity in our efforts to provide equitable access and opportunities to all regardless of individual identities in support of a climate where everyone feels a sense of belonging, community, and agency.

Diversity is a core value at University of Michigan-Flint. We are passionate about building and sustaining an inclusive and equitable working and learning environment for all students, staff, and faculty. The University of Michigan-Flint seeks to recruit and retain a diverse workforce as a reflection of our commitment to serve the diverse people of Michigan, to maintain the excellence of the University, and to offer our students richly varied disciplines, perspectives, and ways of knowing and learning for the purpose of becoming global citizens in a connected world.

Background Screening

The University of Michigan conducts background checks on all job candidates upon acceptance of a contingent offer and may use a third party administrator to conduct background checks.  Background checks are performed in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Application Deadline

Job openings are posted for a minimum of three calendar days.  The review and selection process may begin as early as the fourth day after posting. This opening may be removed from posting boards and filled anytime after the minimum posting period has ended.

U-M EEO/AA Statement

The University of Michigan is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.

Simplified Sign On

Contact your local Help or Service Desk.

Legal Notice

This is a private computer system restricted to those with proper authorization. If you are not authorized to access data on this system, disconnect immediately. Unauthorized user or access may be subject to prosecution or disciplinary action. Unless restricted by local law, all information, including any personal information, as well as encrypted communications on this system, including email and internet activity, are subject to review, monitoring, and recording at any time without notice or permission.