Virtuality and Modern Job Design: Extending the Job Characteristics Model to Include

the Moderating Effect of Individual Experiences of Electronic Dependence and

Copresence
Gibson, Gibbs, Stanko, Tesluk, Cohen (2011)
Extension of JCM to address virtual work design, arguing that the effects of critical job
parameters (e.g. task significance) on psychological states depend individual
experiences of electronic dependence and its interaction with intimacy, and the interaction
between copresence with identification.
Synopsis:
Virtual activity has emerged as a critical organisational form for a global economy. The
remote nature of these activities has been reported to lead to negative experiences (e.g.
alienation). The two main factors of virtuality that correspond to this negative experience
are the electronic dependence and the lack of copresence. However, these difficulties
are considered to be surmountable through proper job design.
Theoretical framework:
Hackman and Lawler (1971), and later Hackman and Oldham (1976), developed 5 core
job characteristics that if met provide job satisfaction:

 Skill variety
 Task identity
 Task significance
 Autonomy
 Feedback
These are also linked, by the same people to three motivational psychological states:

 Experienced meaningfulness
 Experienced responsibility
 Knowledge of results
Extending the JCM to Virtual Work Design:
Features of work that interact with the above: cognitive demands, emotional demands,
physical and social contact, and independence. E.g. the concept of social interactions
is intrinsically linked to the job characteristics such as significance of task, autonomy
and feedback. For the virtual setting, the two main criteria of focus are experience of
electronic dependence and geographic dispersion. They argue that JCM advocated a
system of intimacy but that electronic dependence made this parameter precarious,
and that the lack of copresence makes the identification also precarious.
Perceived electronic dependence and intimacy:
New research has argued that workers may vary in the subjective perception of how
electronically connected they are with their collaborators. This paper covers the subjective
perceptions of virtual work and how they affect the individual workers. It is argued that
computer mediated collaboration occurs less frequently, takes longer than, and is
perceived as less effective than face to face collaboration. This electrical dependence

1
is only detrimental to social interactions if there is a reduction in intimacy, which is argued
to be key to job satisfaction.
Copresence and Idenfication:
Beyond objective indicators of distance, individuals can vary in their perception of
distance. Copresence is more about a perception of closeness versus distance.
Identification (self-categorisation with respect to others) argues that organisational
identification is powerful, and the subgroup dynamics present in different geographical
areas create a fragmentation of the teams.
Results:
Hypothesis 1A: Experienced meaningfulness
Both task significance and perceived electronic dependence were significant positive
factors in predicting meaningfulness. The interaction between the terms were encouraging
for the hypothesis. When adding the intimacy parameter, and its interaction with the other
terms, however, the significance and explanatory power of the results did not increase
hence, the hypothesis is only partly supported.
Hypothesis 1B: Experienced meaningfulness
The main effect of copresence was not significant, however, when interacting it with task
significance, there was a large increase in both significance and in explanatory power.
When copresence is low, there is a positive and significant relationship. When including
identity, the explanatory power did not increase, hence, the hypothesis is only partly
supported.
Hypothesis 2A: Experienced responsibility
Autonomy and electronic dependence were significant positive predictors, especially
when interacted, of responsibility, providing partial support for the hypothesis. When
electronic dependence is low, there is a strong positive relationship between responsibility
and autonomy. When including intimacy, the interaction terms were significant and hence
provided additional support for the hypothesis. Furthermore, when electronic dependence
and intimacy are high, the relationship is negative, and when electronic dependence is
low, the relationship is strongly positive regardless of intimacy. This provides full support
for hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2B: Experienced responsibility
Copresence and autonomy are significant predictors of responsibility. However,
opposite to what was predicted, when copresence is low, there is a positive and significant
relationship between responsibility and autonomy. When accounting for identification, it
is seen that this parameter magnifies the relationship (when high, more positive; when
low, more negative). Thereby, when all parameters are considered, there is partial support
for part of the hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3A: Knowledge of results
Feedback was a significant positive predictor of knowledge of results, especially when
combine dwith electronic dependence. The results showed partial support for the
hypothesis. When including intimacy, the interaction was significant but did not add much

2
explanatory power, and it was found that this parameter magnifies the relationship. These
results supported fully the hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3B: Knowledge of results
Feedback and copresence combined did not provide a significant increase in explanatory
power to the relationship between feedback and knowledge of results. When including
identification, there was an increase in significance but not due to the terms of interest,
and therefore the hypothesis is not supported.
Implications for theory:
Changes for the JCM:

 JCM predictions for task significance and meaningfulness are enhanced by virtual
features, which can be attributed to the lack of social interaction putting task
significance at the forefront of psychological motivators.
 This enhancement does not apply to the autonomy and responsibility relationship
as the anonymity created by the virtual interface defers accountability. However,
the lack of copresence did impact this relationship positively (contrary to
hypothesis). This should be studied more in the future.
 Feedback is increasingly important as virtual features decrease. However, in a
virtual setting, if this feedback is combined with a sense of identity among
collaborators, the knowledge of the results increases.
However, the authors acknowledge that as they focused on the depth of understanding
worker psychology, the breadth of their research might be limited (small sample of projects
for 177 people). Furthermore, individual characteristics are likely to play a role inside of
the experienced psychological effects of virtuality.
Implications for practice:
It’s possible to replicate the benefits of face-to-face meetings on experienced
psychological effects on workers, through intimacy and identification which instil a
sense of closeness regardless of geographical distance. Also highlights the importance of
a shared vision when considering virtual and remote work.