Job enlargement

Job enlargement is a work design approach that increases the number and variety of tasks performed by an employee at the same organizational level, expanding the scope of the job horizontally without adding higher-level responsibilities (Herzberg F. 1968, p.59)^[1]. Instead of assembling one component all day, a worker might assemble three different components. The job grows wider, not deeper. More tasks, but the same level of skill, authority, and decision-making.

The approach emerged from recognition that extreme job specialization—breaking work into tiny, repetitive fragments—created problems. Workers doing the same small task thousands of times daily became bored, disengaged, and error-prone. Absenteeism and turnover plagued highly specialized operations. Job enlargement offered a remedy: restore some variety without fundamentally restructuring work.

Theoretical foundations

Job enlargement developed from several intellectual streams:

Scientific management backlash. Frederick Taylor's scientific management maximized efficiency through task specialization. By the mid-20th century, the human costs became apparent—worker alienation, monotony, and resistance. Job enlargement represented a partial retreat from extreme specialization^[2].

Human relations movement. The Hawthorne studies and subsequent research highlighted social and psychological factors in worker productivity. Recognition that workers weren't simply economic maximizers opened space for job design interventions.

Herzberg's critique. Frederick Herzberg distinguished job enlargement from job enrichment. He characterized job enlargement as "horizontal loading"—adding more tasks at the same level—versus job enrichment's "vertical loading"—adding responsibility and autonomy. Herzberg famously dismissed job enlargement as "adding zero to zero"—more meaningless tasks don't create meaningful work.

Industrial applications. Despite theoretical critiques, manufacturers implemented job enlargement pragmatically. IBM introduced enlarged assembly jobs in the 1940s. Other companies followed, reporting reduced turnover and improved quality.

Mechanism and implementation

Job enlargement operates through several mechanisms:

Task combination

Sequential tasks. Workers perform multiple steps in a production sequence rather than a single step. Someone previously inserting bolts now inserts bolts, attaches brackets, and applies labels^[3].

Parallel tasks. Workers perform several similar but distinct tasks, alternating between them. A customer service representative handles billing inquiries, service questions, and account changes rather than specializing in one.

Complete units. Rather than contributing one element, workers complete entire subassemblies or products. The shift from assembly line to work cells exemplifies this approach.

Implementation approaches

Gradual expansion. Adding tasks incrementally allows workers to master each addition before proceeding. Sudden expansion risks overwhelming workers and degrading performance.

Training requirements. Enlarged jobs require broader skill sets. Cross-training costs must be weighed against expected benefits.

Work station redesign. Physical layouts may require modification. Tasks previously performed at separate stations now need consolidated workspaces^[4].

Performance measurement adjustment. Metrics designed for specialized jobs may not suit enlarged ones. Evaluation criteria need updating.

Distinction from related concepts

Job enlargement differs from similar interventions:

Job enrichment

Vertical vs. horizontal. Job enrichment adds responsibility, autonomy, and decision-making authority—vertical expansion. Job enlargement adds tasks at the same level—horizontal expansion.

Herzberg's distinction. Enlargement addresses only "hygiene factors"; enrichment addresses "motivators." Enlargement may reduce dissatisfaction; enrichment creates satisfaction.

Combined approaches. Effective job redesign often combines enlargement and enrichment. Adding tasks (horizontal) while also granting authority over how to perform them (vertical) produces greater impact than either alone^[5].

Job rotation

Permanent vs. temporary. Job enlargement permanently expands a single position. Job rotation temporarily assigns workers to different positions in sequence.

Variety mechanism. Both reduce monotony through variety. Enlargement achieves variety within one job; rotation achieves it by changing jobs periodically.

Skill development. Rotation exposes workers to entirely different functions; enlargement deepens expertise within a broader version of one function.

Benefits

Job enlargement offers several potential advantages:

Reduced monotony. Variety breaks tedium. Performing three tasks is less mind-numbing than performing one. Even if individual tasks remain routine, alternation provides psychological relief^[6].

Skill utilization. Workers use more of their capabilities. Specialized jobs often underutilize worker abilities; enlarged jobs tap broader skills.

Flexibility. Cross-trained workers can shift between tasks as demand varies. Absences disrupt operations less when multiple workers can perform multiple tasks.

Quality improvement. Workers completing larger work segments take greater ownership of outcomes. They catch errors that might pass unnoticed in highly fragmented work.

Workforce planning. Broader job definitions simplify scheduling and reduce overstaffing requirements for peak periods.

Limitations and criticisms

Job enlargement faces significant critiques:

Herzberg's critique

Motivational limits. Adding meaningless tasks doesn't create meaningful work. Three boring tasks may be no better than one. Herzberg argued that only enrichment—adding growth, achievement, and responsibility—truly motivates^[7].

Hygiene vs. motivators. Enlargement may reduce dissatisfaction (a hygiene factor outcome) without generating satisfaction (which requires motivator factors).

Practical limitations

Increased workload concerns. Workers may perceive enlargement as simply more work without additional compensation. Union resistance often reflects this concern.

Training costs. Teaching multiple tasks costs more than training specialists. The investment must be recovered through improved outcomes.

Equipment and layout. Consolidated workstations may require capital investment. Space constraints may limit feasibility.

Optimal specialization tradeoff. Some specialization improves efficiency through practice effects. Too much enlargement may sacrifice these gains.

Individual differences

Worker preferences vary. Some workers prefer routine and predictability; forced variety creates anxiety. Others crave variety; for them, any enlargement helps^[8].

Skill differentials. Not all workers can master multiple tasks. Enlargement may exceed some workers' capabilities while boring others.

Historical applications

Several notable implementations illustrate job enlargement:

IBM Endicott (1944). IBM's early experiment replaced assembly line work with individual assembly of complete machines. Quality improved and worker satisfaction increased.

Maytag. Appliance manufacturer Maytag implemented job enlargement in washer assembly, with workers completing entire subassemblies rather than single tasks.

Volvo Kalmar plant (1974). The Swedish automaker's innovative plant used work teams performing enlarged jobs, though the approach also included enrichment elements.

Manufacturing cells. The broader shift from assembly lines to cellular manufacturing embodies job enlargement principles—workers in cells complete larger work segments than line workers.

Contemporary relevance

Modern work design increasingly incorporates enlargement concepts:

Lean manufacturing. Toyota Production System and lean principles emphasize multi-skilled workers capable of performing multiple operations.

Service sector. Customer service roles often combine multiple functions—a bank teller might handle deposits, open accounts, and sell products.

Knowledge work. Professional roles naturally encompass varied tasks, though excessive specialization can occur here too.

Gig economy. Independent contractors often perform broader task sets than traditional employees in equivalent functions.

Job enlargement — recommended articles

Job enrichment — Work design — Human resources management — Organizational behavior

References

• Herzberg F. (1968), One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?, Harvard Business Review.
• Hackman J.R., Oldham G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley.
• Parker S.K., Wall T.D. (1998), Job and Work Design: Organizing Work to Promote Well-Being and Effectiveness, Sage.
• Lawler E.E. (1969), Job Design and Employee Motivation, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 22.

Footnotes

1. ↑ Herzberg F. (1968), One More Time, p.59
2. ↑ Parker S.K., Wall T.D. (1998), Job and Work Design, pp.12-34
3. ↑ Hackman J.R., Oldham G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, pp.56-78
4. ↑ Lawler E.E. (1969), Job Design and Employee Motivation, pp.427-435
5. ↑ Herzberg F. (1968), One More Time, pp.61-67
6. ↑ Parker S.K., Wall T.D. (1998), Job and Work Design, pp.89-112
7. ↑ Herzberg F. (1968), One More Time, pp.59-62
8. ↑ Hackman J.R., Oldham G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, pp.134-156

Author: Sławomir Wawak