User talk:Aman11040/sandbox

Thank you for establishing communication on the topic of "job enrichment vs. job enlargement." I am shocked at the horrible change on the content of the article, but that is the nature of Wikipedia. Any body can write or edit whatever they please even if it is obvious that ther comprehendion level of the subject at hand is non-existing. What I think you could benefit the most from is, in your effort to edit the article as it is show tonight, for me to paste the article I wrote about it and posted on wikipedia. You will see the huge discrepancy from what I wrote and some one else contributed anonymously about it. Nothing in te article makes reference to money in relation to job enrichment. In addition to hat, "Job Enrichment" and "Job Enlargement" are not interchangeable with measures of "job Satisfaction" but were included in the article as measures that can be influenced throuh the use of Job Enrichment or Enlargement. All the Scientific citation are clear, and you are welcome to look them up. I hope that that helps in your educational endeavor. The text book Motivation at Work referenced gives in-depth info. from scientific studies conducted withint Adanced Research and Design Statistical Analysis, and Validity, and Reliability of Testing in Psychology. The procedures are rigorous, in addition to the APA strict guidelines. They're not addressed in an introd. course.

Do not hesitate to write an emal via Wikipedia for further clarification if it would help your educational enrichment in I/O Psy.

"Job Enrichment vs. Job Enlargement

Second Edition Wednesday, January 09, 2008. First Edition 2007 This brief describes two concepts we often apply inpersonnel management which you can use to attract andretain first-class employees, particularly if they areintrinsically motivated; this factor might be onlynice if when we are more extrinsically motivated. Job enrichment in organizational development, human resources management, and organizational behavior, is the process of giving an employee more responsibility and increased decision-making authority (Motivation and Work Behavior; Fifth Edition by Richard M. Steers and Lyman W. Porter; 1991). This is the opposite of job enlargement, which does not give greater authority, just more duties.[1] Job enlargement is often called "multi-tasking". This perhaps violates of one of the key principles of human achievement, namely, concentration of effort.[2] One can perhaps manage and work on a variety of projects and still practice concentrated effort[3], but multitasking is so out of hand that it often prevents an employee from getting anything done.

The current practice of job enrichment stemmed from the work of Frederick Herzberg in the 1950s and 1960s.[4] Herzberg's two factor theory argued that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are not to be seen as one dimension, but two. Aspects of work that contributed to job satisfaction are called motivators and aspects that contributed to job dissatisfaction are called hygiene factors; hence, the theory is also refereed to as motivator-hygiene theory. Examples of motivators are recognition, achievement, and advancement. Examples of hygiene factors are salary, company policies and working conditions. According to Herzberg's theory, the existence of motivators would lead to job satisfaction, but the lack of motivators would not lead to job dissatisfaction, and similarly; hygiene factors affect job dissatisfaction, but not job satisfaction. In general, research has failed to confirm these central aspects of the theory.[5]Hackman and Oldham later refined the work of Herzberg into the Job Characteristics Model [6], which forms the basis of job enrichment today. (UTC)[7]"

Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback
Joselv83 (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Would you mind checking out my sandbox and leaving a review? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joselv83 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback
(MsNika349 (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC))

Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback

Name of student reviewer: Hmehta0120

Date of review: 5/8/2013

Name of editor: Aman11040

URL of editor’s Userpage:	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aman11040/sandbox

Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page: 5/8/2013

Date review submitted to instructor: 5/8/2013

Length of edit (too long/too short): Your length for the edit for the (web) article edit is a good length.

Image (needed/appropriate): The page is very simple so maybe an image could be something to look into. But not needed but would give you extra points.

Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit):	N/A-Article based Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed: N/A- You haven't provided information where you got the information from. So something to cite to support what you are saying. Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych: N/A-refer to pervious box.

Wikiformatting: Its okay, it needs work. Seems like you want to use bullet points so wasn't able to do so. So something to look into wiki edits. Also use of bullet points, bold, and etc will help you get extra help. Grammar & composition: Seems great to me over all in this category. Other comments: Your edit sounds very much similar to the page, so something to look into. Also hope the tips given are useful. Good Luck!

Hmehta0120 (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback
Neffateriet (talk) 9:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback
Azahur (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback
Azahur (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback
Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback

Name of student reviewer: Aisha Hamid

Date of review: 5/8/2013

Name of editor: Aman11040

URL of editor’s Userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aman11040/sandbox

Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page: 5/9/2013

Date review submitted to instructor: 5/9/2013

Length of edit (too long/too short): Length of the edit is perfect.

Image (needed/appropriate): N/A- if you desire you can add one, but I don’t believe it is needed

Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit): N/A

Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed: N/A- You have not cited /provided link or citation of article.

Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych): N/A- see comment in previous box.

Wikiformatting: It’s okay. Needs more help in organization, refer to wiki to help you create bullet points, italics, underline and cite references.

Grammar & composition: Good.

Other comments: Over all seems good, but does need work. It sounds similar to the pervious article such as the first couple of line. Also try being creative and will help you get extra points.

Aisha Hamid (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)