Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
[
226
]
Management Decision36/4 [
1998
]226–231 © MCBUniversity Press[
ISSN0025-1747
]
Motivation and job satisfaction
Mark A. Tietjen and Robert M. Myers
Palm Beach Atlantic College, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA
The movement of workers toact in a desired manner hasalways consumed the thoughtsof managers. In many ways,this goal has been reachedthrough incentive programs,corporate pep talks, and othertypes of conditional adminis-trative policy. However, as theworkers adjust their behaviourin response to one of theaforementioned stimuli, is jobsatisfaction actualized? Theinstilling of satisfaction withinworkers is a crucial task ofmanagement. Satisfactioncreates confidence, loyaltyand ultimately improvedquality in the output of theemployed. Satisfaction,though, is not the simpleresult of an incentive program.Employees will most likely nottake any more pride in theirwork even if they win theweekend getaway for havingthe highest sales. This paperreviews the literature of moti-vational theorists and drawsfrom their approaches to jobsatisfaction and the role ofmotivation within job satisfac-tion. The theories of FrederickHerzberg and Edwin Locke arepresented chronologically toshow how Locke’s theory wasa response to Herzberg’stheory. By understandingthese theories, managers canfocus on strategies of creating job satisfaction. This is fol-lowed by a brief examinationof Kenneth Blanchard andPaul Hersey’s theory on lead-ership within management andhow this art is changingthrough time.
Herzberg and job satisfaction
Concept of attitude
Herzberg
et al.
(1959) proposed that anemployee’s motivation to work is best under-stood when the respective attitude of thatemployee is understood. That is, the internalconcept of attitude which originates from astate of mind, when probed, should reveal themost pragmatic information for managerswith regard to the motivation of workers. Inhis approach to studying the feelings of peo-ple toward their work, or their attitudes,Herzberg
et al.
(1959) set out to answer threequestions:1How can one specify the attitude of anyindividual toward his or her job?2What causes these attitudes?3What are the consequences of theseattitudes?The order of these questions is empiricallymethodical and, for Herzberg, the final ques-tion, which would demonstrate the relation-ship between attitude and subsequent behav-ior, was particularly important. In responseto the “fragmentary nature” of previousscholarship, the combination of the threequestions resulted in a single unit of study –the factors-attitudes-effects (F-A-E) complex.Herzberg described his new approach asidiographic (Herzberg
et al.,
1959). Contraryto the statistical or nomothetic approachwhich places more emphasis on a group’sinteraction with a particular variable, theidiographic view was based on the premisethat the F-A-E complex should be studiedwithin individuals.The method Herzberg used placed empha-sis of the qualitative investigation of the F-A-E complex over a quantitative assessment of the information, though results were quanti-fied at a later point. The design of Herzberg’sexperimentation was to ask open-ended ques-tions specifically about a worker’s experi-ences when feelings about his/her job weremore positive or negative than usual(Herzberg
et al.
, 1959). He preferred such anapproach over the ranking of pre-written(and assumed) factors compiled and limitedby the experimenter. Each interview wassemistructured in nature so that a list of questions was the basis of the survey, but theinterviewer was free to pursue other man-ners of inquiry.The purpose of this discussion on attitudewas to summarize in short, the importanceof attitude as a starting point of the dual-factor theory of Herzberg, and briefly showhis approach to experimentation andresearch.
Motivation and hygiene factors
As a result of his inquiry about the attitudesof employees, Herzberg
et al.
(1959) developedtwo distinct lists of factors. One set of factorscaused happy feelings or a good attitudewithin the worker, and these factors, on thewhole, were task-related. The other groupingwas primarily present when feelings of unhappiness or bad attitude were evident,and these factors, Herzberg claimed, were notdirectly related to the job itself, but to theconditions that surrounded doing that job.The first group he called motivators (jobfactors):•recognition;•achievement;•possibility of growth;•advancement;•responsibility;•work itself.The second group Herzberg named hygienefactors (extra-job factors):•salary;•interpersonal relations – supervisor;•interpersonal relations – subordinates;•interpersonal relations – peers;•supervision – technical;•company policy and administration;•working conditions;•factors in personal life;•status;•job security.Motivators refer to factors intrinsic withinthe work itself like the recognition of a task completed. Conversely, hygienes tend toinclude extrinsic entities such as relationswith co-workers, which do not pertain to theworker’s actual job.
Bagi yg membutuhkan topik-topik penelitian bidang manajemen, Kunjungi:
http://arsip-manajemen.blogspot.com
 
[
227
]
Mark A. Tietjen andRobert M. Myers
Motivation and job satisfaction 
Management Decision36/4 [1998] 226–231
The relationship of satisfaction anddissatisfaction
The most significant and basic differencebetween Herzberg’s two factors is theinherent level of satisfaction/dissatisfactionwithin each factor. If motivation includesonly those things which promote action overtime, then motivators are the factors thatpromote long-running attitudes and satisfac-tion. According to Herzberg
et al.
(1959), moti-vators cause positive job attitudes becausethey satisfy the worker’s need for self-actual-ization (Maslow, 1954), the individual’s ulti-mate goal. The presence of these motivatorshas the potential to create great job satisfac-tion; however, in the absence of motivators,Herzberg says, dissatisfaction does not occur.Likewise, hygiene factors, which simply“move” (cause temporary action), have thepotential to cause great dissatisfaction. Simi-larly, their absence does not provoke a highlevel of satisfaction.How does Herzberg base this non-bipolarrelationship? Job satisfaction (House andWigdor, 1967) contains two separate and inde-pendent dimensions. These dimensions arenot on differing ends of one continuum;instead they consist of two separate and dis-tinct continua. According to Herzberg (1968),the opposite of job satisfaction is not dissatis-faction, but rather a simple lack of satisfac-tion. In the same way, the opposite of job dis-satisfaction is not satisfaction, but rather “nodissatisfaction”. For example, consider thehygiene factor, work conditions. If the airconditioner breaks in the middle of a hotsummer day, workers will be greatly dissatis-fied. However, if the air-conditioner worksthroughout the day as expected, the workerswill not be particularly satisfied by takingnotice and being grateful.
Motivation vs. movement in KITA
Integral to Herzberg’s theory of motivation isthe difference between motivation and move-ment. He compares the two in his discussionof KITA (Herzberg, 1968) – the polite acronymfor a “kick in the —— ”. There are three dif-ferent types of KITA:•negative physical KITA;•negative psychological KITA;•positive KITA.In today’s litigious society, it is probable thatmost managers will deal less and less withworkers utilizing negative physical KITA, orphysical contact to initiate action out of anindolent employee. Negative psychologicalKITA is also rather useless in motivatingworkers; the primary benefit, though mali-cious, is the feeding of one’s ego, also knownas a power trip. What about positive KITA?Positive KITA can be summarized in oneword – reward. The relationship is “if…,then… ”. If you finish this task in one week,then you will receive this bonus. Thoughmany managers give incentives to motivate,Herzberg says that positive KITA is not moti-vational. Positive KITA, rather, moves orstimulates movement. When the workerreceives the bonus on completion of the task,is the individual any more motivated to work harder now? Was there a lasting effectbecause of the conditional bonus? No, theworker was simply moved temporarily to act.There are, however, no extended effects oncethe bonus is received.Recalling motivator factors, Herzberg(1968) concludes that only these factors canhave a lasting impression on a worker’s atti-tude, satisfaction and, thus, work. Further-more, workers perform best (Steininger, 1994)when this stimulation is internal and work-related.
Locke’s theory on jobsatisfaction
Locke’s composite theory of job satisfactionis the product of many other concepts whichhe has developed through study andresearch on related topics such as goal-setting and employee performance.Likewise, his explanation of job satisfactionis in part, a response to some of Herzberg’sproposals. Thus, Locke’s criticism of Herzberg will be the initial discussion, fol-lowed by his theory on values, agent/eventfactors, and finally an adjusted view of jobsatisfaction.
Criticisms of Herzberg
Locke’s assessment of Herzberg’s two-factortheory can be summarized in brief by thefollowing conclusions about Herzberg’sthinking:1Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction resultfrom different causes.2The two-factor theory is parallel to thedual theory of man’s needs, which statesthat physical needs (like those of animals)work in conjunction with hygiene factors,and psychological needs or growth needs(unique to humans) work alongsidemotivators (Locke, 1976). With thesepropositions as the basis for Locke’sunderstanding of Herzberg, the followingis a list of Locke’s criticisms:•mind-body dichotomy;•unidirectional operation of needs;
Bagi yg membutuhkan topik-topik penelitian bidang manajemen, Kunjungi:
http://arsip-manajemen.blogspot.com
 
[
228
]
Mark A. Tietjen andRobert M. Myers
Motivation and job satisfaction 
Management Decision36/4 [1998] 226–231
•lack of parallel between man’s needs andthe motivation and hygiene factors•incident classification system;•defensiveness;•the use of frequency data;•denial of individual differences.According to Locke’s (1976) first critique,Herzberg’s view of man’s nature implies asplit between the psychological andbiological processes of the human make-up.The two are of dual nature and functionapart, not related to one another. On the con-trary, Locke proposes that the mind and bodyare very closely related. It is through themind that the human discovers the nature of his/her physical and psychological needs andhow they may be satisfied. Locke suggests theproof that the basic need for survival, a bio-logical need, is only reached through the useof the mind.With regard to Herzberg’s correlationbetween hygienes, motivators, physical andpsychological needs, it can be inferred thatthe first set are unidirectional, so too arephysical and psychological needs (Locke,1976). Locke notes there is no justification forthis conclusion. Providing the example of thephysical need, hunger, he writes that acts likeeating can serve not only as aversions of hunger pangs, but also as pleasures for thebody.The third criticism which pertains directlyto the previous two, is simply the lack of aparallel relationship between the two group-ings of factors and needs (Locke, 1976). Theirrelation is hazy and overlapping in severalinstances. A new company policy (hygiene)may have a significant effect on a worker’sinterest in the work itself or his/her successwith it. The correlation lacks a clear line of distinction.Locke’s critique of Herzberg’s classifica-tion system (Locke, 1976), common to thepreceding criticism, claims that the two-factor theory is, in itself, inconsistent incategorizing factors of satisfaction. The two-factor theory merely splits the spectra of satisfaction into two sections. For example, if an employee is given a new task (which isdeemed a motivator) this is consideredresponsibility. However, if a manager will notdelegate the duty, the situation takes thelabel of supervision-technical. Locke statesthat the breakup of one element (like respon-sibility) into two different types of factorsresults from the confusion between the eventand the agent.The phenomenon of defensiveness (Locke,1976) is a further criticism of Herzberg’swork, whereby the employees interviewedtend to take credit for the satisfying eventssuch as advancement or recognition, whileblaming others such as supervisors, subordi-nates, peers, and even policy, for dissatisfyingsituations. Locke does not feel that Herzbergaddressed this fallacy sufficiently for theimportance it has in assessing validity of hisresults.Herzberg’s use of frequency data placedemphasis on the number of times a particu-lar factor was mentioned. However, as thescope of 203 accountants and engineers wasnarrow, it is likely that many workers,though unique, experienced similar difficul-ties. Herzberg
et al.
(1959) concludes thatthose most listed are the most satisfying ordissatisfying. Even though, for example, adissatisfying factor is recorded numerously,this does not necessarily imply that thisfactor is a significant problem or even irri-tates a worker as much as an infrequentproblem which causes a greater level of dis-satisfaction. Locke suggests the measure-ment of intensity rather than frequency(Locke, 1976). For instance, an employeecould mention a time when he or she suc-ceeded or failed and rank its level of intensity.Concurrent with the previous criticism,the denial of individual differences pertainsto the incorrect minimization of diversitywithin the sample. Locke (1976) concedesthat though an individual’s needs may besimilar, his or her values are not. Values,furthermore, have the most significantimpact on emotional response to one’s job.Therefore, since individuals have uniquevalues and do not place the same importanceon money or promotion, for example, thestudy deprives them of that which makesthem distinct from others. Values are of crucial importance in Locke’s theory of jobsatisfaction, as evidenced in his response toHerzberg’s theory.
Locke’s concept of values (vs. needs)
Locke defers to Rand’s (1964) definition of value as “that which one acts to gain and/orkeep”. From this definition, the distinctionbetween a need and value must be discerned.A comparison (Locke, 1976) of the two isfound in Table I.Distinguishing values from needs, Locke(1970) contends that they have more in com-mon with goals. Both values and goals havecontent and intensity characteristics. Thecontent attribute answers the question of what is valued, and the intensity attribute,how much is valued. With regard to findingsatisfaction in one’s job, the employee who
Bagi yg membutuhkan topik-topik penelitian bidang manajemen, Kunjungi:
http://arsip-manajemen.blogspot.com
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.