How does modern job design differ from classical theory?

• A. Modern: anyone can do the job if rules exist
• B. Modern: people matter and must fit the job; Classical: anyone can do the job if rules exist
• C. Modern: people matter and must fit the job
• D. Classical: people matter and must fit the job; Modern: anyone can do the job if rules exist

Answer: (B)

Modern job design centers on people and how the work fits their abilities, motivations, and development. It treats employees as active contributors whose needs and strengths shape how a job is designed—aiming for meaningful tasks, autonomy, skill variety, and timely feedback. When jobs are crafted to fit the worker, engagement, satisfaction, and performance tend to improve, because people see their work as purposeful and aligned with their capabilities.

In contrast, classical theory (often tied to scientific management) treats work as something to be standardized and controlled for maximum efficiency. Jobs are broken into simple, repetitive tasks, and performance is guided by clear rules and close supervision. Workers are viewed more as interchangeable parts, and the emphasis is on ensuring conformity and predictable output through rule-based procedures rather than tailoring the job to the individual.

So the contrast is clear: modern design says people matter and must fit the job, while classical design emphasizes rule-driven efficiency and standardization. The idea that “anyone can do the job if rules exist” aligns more with the classical view of interchangeable workers and standardized processes.