<p>It exists today a widespread interest for employee satisfaction, much effort are used in companies to achieve job satisfaction within their employees. One theory that has received a great deal of publicity is Hackman & Oldhams Job characteristics model which addresses the </p><p>question of how companies can provide job satisfaction through organizational change. The foundation of the theory is that five core job characteristics are responsible for creating job satisfaction. The purpose of this paper is to study these characteristics through the employees and their boss and to determine how they believe these characteristics to affect employee satisfaction. The paper focuses on a company located in a branch widely known for low employee satisfaction. Through interviews with both employees and their boss certain </p><p>discrepancies has emerged. One of these discrepancies concern a job characteristic which in </p><p>the theory is acknowledged for having a big impact on employee satisfaction, however </p><p>employees rated this characteristic to be of very little importance for overall employee </p><p>satisfaction. Another discrepancy was found when the boss was to give his take on how to </p><p>create employee satisfaction. Both the theory and the employees rated one characteristic to be </p><p>of high importance for overall employee satisfaction, this view was not shared by the boss </p><p>which drastically downplayed the importance of that job characteristic on overall employee </p><p>satisfaction.</p>

In order to survive in the intense competition environment, every company tries to find the way to strengthen its core competences efficiently and to gain more competitive advantages. Therefore, more and more companies start to outsource their non-core value activities in order to focus their limited resources on constructing and developing their core competences. However, when adopting outsourcing policies¡]including function outsourcing and job outsourcing¡^, companies need to review every characteristics of their jobs and sort them by organization targets or goals. Thus, they will figure out those ¡§non-core jobs¡¨, and seek the way to differentiate their own employment strategies between core and non-core jobs. Due to the idea of outsourcing, another employment type is triggered¡Xnamely employee dispatching. However, it is important to know what causes companies adopting employee dispatching. Is it the same reason as outsourcing, namely to strengthen core competences? Or is it just to minimize the operating costs? Or to avoid the legal liabilities which every company should follow. In this study, we interview the HR managers that have the authority to make the decisions in the four high-tech. companies. The aims of this research are as follows; to find out how those companies make the dispatching decisions, what the real causes are, how to choose contractors, and how to evaluate the effects of adopting employee dispatching. By consolidating and analyzing those research data, we hope that this study can shed some light on this area, provide decision making suggestions, and new research perspectives of employment shift in this study. Meanwhile, these findings can be of use for further research in this area in the future. After consolidating the data we gathered, we find: 1.Companies adopt dispatched workers to replace regular employees when considering personnel expense cost down and legal liabilities avoidance. 2.From the practicing of implementing dispatched workers, those four companies learned how to set the scope of non-core jobs for outsourcing further more. 3.The following three key factors: Specialty, Finance, and Service, can be used to help those who want to use employee dispatching to select their partners. 4.Dispatch companies just provide the only function, outsourcing employees, to their corporate customers. They have no ability to provide the other business functions. 5.For long-term planning, those enterprises have moved to China due to globalization expansion of their suppliers and customers to China market. Therefore, they will hire dispatching employees instead to fulfill those non-core jobs in Taiwan.

It exists today a widespread interest for employee satisfaction, much effort are used in companies to achieve job satisfaction within their employees. One theory that has received a great deal of publicity is Hackman & Oldhams Job characteristics model which addresses the question of how companies can provide job satisfaction through organizational change. The foundation of the theory is that five core job characteristics are responsible for creating job satisfaction. The purpose of this paper is to study these characteristics through the employees and their boss and to determine how they believe these characteristics to affect employee satisfaction. The paper focuses on a company located in a branch widely known for low employee satisfaction. Through interviews with both employees and their boss certain discrepancies has emerged. One of these discrepancies concern a job characteristic which in the theory is acknowledged for having a big impact on employee satisfaction, however employees rated this characteristic to be of very little importance for overall employee satisfaction. Another discrepancy was found when the boss was to give his take on how to create employee satisfaction. Both the theory and the employees rated one characteristic to be of high importance for overall employee satisfaction, this view was not shared by the boss which drastically downplayed the importance of that job characteristic on overall employee satisfaction.

This study investigated person-situation relations of professional preparation and job classification of secondary school athletic training positions with core job dimensions and affective outcomes within Hackman and Oldham's 1980 Job Characteristics Model. Research focused on which relations show increased affective outcomes; relationships between core job dimensions and affective outcomes; and characteristics of the core job dimensions of task identification, task significance, and skill variety of athletic trainer tasks as defined by the National Athletic Trainers Association Board of Certification, Inc. 1995 Role Delineation Study.