human motivation in the workplace

8/7/2019 Human motivation in the workplace

1/11

HUMAN MOTIVATION IN THE W O R K ORGANIZATION:T H E O R I E S A N D IMPLICATIONS

Lamp Li

I . Product iv i ty , Job Satisfaction, and MotivationIn a modern society, one of the central pro-

blems is to provide jobs for all those who want an dare able to work. But once people ge t jobs, it isfor th e management of any organization, businessor governmental, to worry about employee motiva-t i o n : because employee motivation or motivation oforganizational members is one of the critical func-tions of a manager, an d because there is a persist-en t ly increasing pressure fo r increased productivityin order to meet competition, to best utilize scarceresources, and to provide goods and services tomore an d more people at less an d less cost.

In fac t , employee motivation ha s been verypopular in management circles. Motivation, in itstraditional sense among management writers,means a process of stimulating people to action toaccomplish desired goals. It is a crucial factor injudging management style as well as in determining

product ivi ty . Generally, w e judge managers by twoimportant considerations of production andpeople, which in turn are based on the three factorsof motivation, participative management, an dinterpersonal competence. Good managers ar edriven mainly by the need fo r self-actualization,and are deeply interested in both people and pro-duction. They are both high-task and high-relation-ship oriented. Average managers ar e concerned witheg o status, and are high-task, low-relationshiporiented. Poor managers ar e preoccupied by safetyand ego-status needs, they are of low-task, low-relationship kind of people. Their guides arepersonnel manual and SOPs, and their goal is simplyself-preservation.

Motivation is often mistakenly teamed withjob satisfaction,1 resulting in misconceptionsabout the relationships between productivity, jobsatisfaction and motivation.

Traditional views treat employee satisfaction-253-


2/11

N E W A S I A C OL L E GE A C A DE MI C A N N UA L VOL . X IX

as an input tha t cont r ibutes to product ivi ty . How-ever , researches by industrial relations peoplesince early 1950s suggest that it is rather an outputin the shor t run , a l though in the long run aminimum level of satisfaction is considered neces-sary and should be maintained. This change inthinking is best seen in the fol lowing theore t ica lmode l on product ivi ty-sa t is fac t ion re la tionships asdeveloped by Porter an d Lawler. (See Figure 1 . )

Thus, employee satisfaction does n ot neces-sarily lead to high employee performance, whilehighly pr oduc tive employ ees are not nec essarilythe highly satisfied em ployee s. But effectivem a n a g e m e n t can provide both product ivi ty andsa t isfac t ion . In fact , productivity an d satisfactionare determined by dif feren t sets of fac tors . Thismay be seen from th e following brief list ing:

Figure 1. The Per formance-Reward -Sa t i s f ac t ion Model

Perceived equi tabler e wa rdsEmployee's perceptionsof both his worth andreward s

In tr insic rewards(Rewards an employee giveshimself fo r doing a good job) People like to do a good job; Th e employee himself givesan d controls the reward;so Very closely related toper fo rmance ;Extr insic rewards(Pay , promotion, employeebenefi t s , . . .) Organizationally controlled; Given through performanc eappraisalwhich at bestis an art, so Not so closely related toperformance as intrinsicrewards

Ada pted f rom: Edw ard E. Lawler , I I I and Lyman W. Porter,Managerial Attitudes and Performance, I rwin ,1968, p. 165.

- 254 -


3/11

H U M A N M O T I V A T I O N I N T H E W O R K O R G A N I Z A T I O N

Figure 2. Dete rminan t s of Product ivi ty and Job SatisfactionDeterminan ts of productivity Determinan ts of job satisfaction

Resource utilizedTechnology (plant, equipment, process, . . . . )Raw materials

Employee ' s jo b performanceAbility to perform:

SkillsKnowledge

Motivation to performPhysical condit ions

jo b layou t, safety, lighting, ven tilation, restperiods, music,...

Social conditionsstatus an d role, group dynamics, influencesystems, leadership , . . .

Individual 's needsphysiological, social, egoistic, . . .

Job or work s i tua t ion:Pa y an d promotionDegree of job specializationJob levelSupervisionRecognition of abilityFair evaluation of workW ork groups

Personal characteristics:Ag eSexEducationPersonalityHealth

Social, cultural an d s i tua t iona l environments :Family relationshipSocial statusRecreational outletsActivities in the Organization (labor, political,

purely social, etc.)Economic characteristics of the community(poor or wealthy)

In general, productivity depends on 3 things:resources utilized, employee's ability to perform,an d employee's willingness to work or motivation toperform. Although motivation is not the soledeterminant of productivity, it is a determinant ofcrucial importance. W ithout motivation, resourcesand ability will be of little avail, or may even resultin undesirable behavior.

II . Motives Behind Human Behavior

A theory on motivation-to-work must atleast answer the following questions:

Why do people work in the first place? (thedecision to work)

Why do people choose a particular occupation?(the occupation choice)

Why do individuals join a particular organiza-tion? (the decision to join an organization)

Why do some individuals decide to use theirabilities to the maximum? (the decision

- 2 5 5 -


4/11

N E W A SIA COLLEGE A CA DEMIC A NN UA L VOL. XIXto use abilities to the m a x i m u m )

W hy do some people leave an organization insearch of other position? (the decision toleave an organiza t ion)

E a c h decis ion or choice has i t s own se t ofde terminants which we will not elaborate here.2W h a t we are intereste d in is employee m otivatio n onthe job and in an organiza t iona l context .

W ha t is motivation? Motivation is a generalte rm applying to the en t i re c lass of drives, desires,needs , an d wishes. It is essentially a process bywhich an individual attempts to satisfy certainn e e d s by engag i ng in va r i ous behavio r s . A m o t i v a t e dbehavior is goal -di rec ted , susta ined, and is a resul tf rom internal needs and drives. Not all behavior ism o t i v a t e d ,3 b ut m o s t o f work behavio r is mot iva ted .A mot ive is an in te rna l dr ive tha t "arouses , d i rec ts ,and integrates a person's behavior." Psychologistslike to c lassify mo tives or drives into Prima ry,Genera l , and Secondary ca tegories .4 H o w e v e r ,motives may be qui te complex and of ten con f l i c t -ing. They cannot be seen or observed di rec t ly , theycan only be inferred from the beha vior, or simplyassumed to exist in order to explain the behavior.But alas, motives cannot always be inferred fromthe behavior .5 For example , you eat at a restau-ran t , w hat i s your motive? I t may be hunger (phy-

siological needs) , sex (restauran t provides a meetin gplace for extra-marital affair) , status (you want tobe seen in a prestigious restaurant), or else. Further-more , motiva t ion is but one of the three psycho-logical processes or causes that explain the humanbehavior. The other two being perception andlearn ing.

The basic drives or motives behind humanbehavior are needs.6 There are many kinds orcategor ies of needs . The first wri ter who relatedhum an need s wi thin a need-hierarchy fram ework i sAbraham Maslow 7 But this hierarchy refers to themo tivation al scale of n orm al, healthy people livingin a relat ively highly de veloped society. Mo reov er,Maslow did not apply his need hierarchy directlyto work mo t iva t i on un t i l abou t 20 years la te r .8In the me ant im e, h i s proposi t ions have been subjectto many cri ticisms and modifications.9 Despite this,his need hierarchy concept has been widely used asa theore t i ca l foundat ion for management approachto motivation, especially managerial motivation.

III. Theories of Mot iva t i onBased on the c o n c e p t of needs, and employ-

ing the valence-expectancy and instrumentali tyformula t ion , a basic model of the motivationprocess may be presented as follows:

Need(motive,tension)

Valence ( the strength of an indi-vidual's preference for a particularoutcome) 1Perception an d selection of outcomeswhich have potential for need satisfaction

tExpec tancy (probability that a parti-cular action will lead to a particularoutcome)Motivation

Figure 3. A Basic M odel of the Motivation Process

First leveloutcomes(rewards):Pa yAction r* RecognitionPromotionInternalsatisfaction

Instru-mentality

Second leveloutcomes(need satis-faction):PowerSecurityEsteemSocial

- 2 5 6 -


5/11

H U MAN M O T I V A T I O N I N T H E W O R K ORGANIZATION

From this basic process which is more or lessgenerally accepted to-day, it should be obviousthat the important driving force is the degree towhich the individual values certain rew ards orsecond-level outcomes or , what needs areoperating at what strength to motivate the indi-vidual's behavior. Against the background of therelatively highly develo ped W estern societies,modern behaviorists would sa y that th e lower-level(physiological and safety) n eeds are generallysatisfied in modern industry . What is neglectedor less explored is the higher-level needs, so theyput mu ch more emphasis on higher-level needsatisfaction in the work organization.

Bu t their appro ache s to or con cep ts aboutmotivators are different. Such differences ar e onlyna tu ra l when we consider th e fact that in the-s tudyof employee motivation, the role of money (com-pensation systems), leadership, technology, jobcontent , work environment , etc . have all to beconsidered.1 0 Management li terature abounds withdif ferent formulations of theories an d empiricalstudies about motivation. While full descriptions ofthem are readily available elsewhere, it may beworth while to briefly note here some of thedifferences, bearing in mind the important point ofagreement that individual employees attempt tosatisfy many needs through their work and throughtheir relationship with an organization.

Somewhat along the traditional line of view-ing motivation as something imposed on anemployee, Douglas McGregor an d Rensis Likertpu t much emphasis on management style. Theyopined11 that leadership (manager) behavior basedon Theory Y assumption or system 4 managementwould lead to management practice that provides

democratic leadership an d employee participation,making employees feel real responsibility fo r organi-zation's goals. This management (leadership) styleis asserted to produce better results in productivityan d job satisfaction, as it motivates the subordinatesto achieve job objectives. Several points need bemade clear here. First, Theory Y is not permissive!In fact , i t is even sterner than Theory X becauseit has to achieve what Theory X achieved, and thendo a good deal more. Secondly, while leadershipstyle and management practice influences employeemotivation, the latter also influences the former.Thirdly, Likert 's motivational forces include botheconomic rewards and the higher-level needs.Indeed, his approach embraces the enti re needhierarchy an d considers the whole man. And hecautioned that application of the basic principlesof system 4 management should take into accountthe differences in the kind of work, industry tradi-tion, an d skills an d values of employees of a parti-cular company.

Similar in nature to, but broader in scopethan, the above line of thinking is the call for anorganization structure and work environment thatwould provide opportunity for internal and externalintegration, employee participation, self-expression,and self-actualization. Authors like Bakke, Argyris,Bennis, Litwin an d Str inger12 opined that th etraditional structure of rigid specialization, well-designed jobs, an d standard operating procedures(so-called bureaucratic-mechanistic structure) canhardly provide such work environment whosebasic ingredients consist of nature of task (involv-ing technology and social and psychological pro-cesses), work group, an d leadership. Only anadaptive-organic system can provide a high degree

- 2 5 7 -


6/11

N EW AS I A C O LLEG E AC AD EMI C ANN U AL V O L. X IX

of job flexibility, initiative, variety, and enrichmentto match the varied interests and multiple talentsof modern man.13 This adaptive-organic structurean d env i ronment is especially suitable fo r organi-zations using dynamic technologies.

O n the other h an d, there are behavioristswho seek to search for the inner forces whichenergize and move the individual into goal-directedbehavior . Am ong them, Frederick Herzberg isperhaps th e most widely known a uthor.

Herzberg differentiated tw o sets of needs:Animal need an d uniquely human need. He appliedthese sets of need to work situat ions an d made aclear -cut distinction between motivators andhygiene factors . The hygiene factors are the exter-

nally installed generators, they "determine"behavior on the j ob , bu t no t "motivate" behavior.Without proper provisions for them, they will causejo b dissatisfaction or negative motivation. Howev er,even with adequate provisions, they can onlyprevent dissatisfaction, but cannot lead to positivean d persistent motivation. So they are "dissatis-fiers" by nature. The motivators, on the otherhand, are the inner generators and are stronglymotivating. Since they are strongly motivating,they can't also be demotivating when they are notprovided. So they are "satisfiers" by nature. 1 4Herzberg's framework may be shown in the follow-in g figure:

Figure 4: Herzb erg's Two -F actot Theory of MotivationAnimal need

corresponds toMaslow's lower-level needs

taken care byHygiene or maintenance factors(Dissatisfiers):

Company policy & adm.Quality of supervisionInterpersonal relationshipW orki ng condit ionsSalary & fringe benefitsStatusSecurityRelated to

J ob con t e x t or job environment: peripheralto the job

Uniquely human needcorresponds to

Maslow's higher-level needstaken care by

Real motivators(Satisfiers):AchievementRecognition of achievementIntrinsic interest of the workJob responsibilityGrowth or advancement

Related toJob content: directly related to the jobitself

Herzberg's theory has been subject to heavy criticism by academicians, and evidence against his-258-


7/11

HUMAN MOT I VA T I ON IN THE W O R K O R G A N I Z A T I O Ntheory seems to be greater than evidencefo r it . For one thing, his theory is strict lyuni-dimensional: a job factor can either bea satisfier or a dissatisfier, but cannot be both.But many research findings show there ar ejo b factors which lead to both satisfaction an ddissatisfaction. Money an d inter-personal relation-ship are good examples. Even fear of punishmentcont inues to be a stron g mo tivator. Also, hi s theoryassumes that the motivator and hygiene factorsoperate in the same fashion for everyone. This isjus t n ot t rue . Fur thermore , his theory is somewhatme thod -bound (he used the crit ical incident tech-nique which generate results supporting his theory).Despite these criticisms, his theory ha s made somemajor cont r ibut ions toward our u n d e r s t a n d i n g ofmo tivation by applying need hierarchy con cept tothe work sett ing. Indeed, he is the one who ist ruly concerned with th e role of job c o n t e n t inemployee motivation. His applications of jobenrichm ent principles may be over-simplifyingma tters, b ut they do provide practic al ways formotivating employees, and have greatly influencedmanagerial practices in the modern business world.

Victor Vroom, after crit icizing Herzberg'stheory as merely a theory of job satisfaction, deve-loped an alternative valence-expectancy theory ofmotivation. According to Vroom, the strength (orforce) of the motivation to act or to behave is afunction of the algebraic sum of the products ofvalences multiplied by expectancies or probabilities(i.e., SViPi). The valence refers to one's feelings;it may be zero, n egative, or positive, depending onthe individual,15 In recent years, there have beenmany elaborations or reconceptualizations ofVroom's theory.16 Generally speaking, it has

beco me a widely know n theory that desc ribes themotivation process (refer to Figure 3), and has beensupported by most of the studies that have testedit . The theory takes into acc oun t individual differ-ences in the prediction of motivated behavior, butit offers little help fo r actually motivating employ-ees.

IV . Practical ImplicationsF r o m th e foregoing, we may say that needsar e the origin of m u c h of human mot iva t ion . Motiv-

ators are the inner gen erators of an employee. Thegenerators have to be incited or ignited by anappropriate organiza t iona l climate.17 The logic ofall this sounds rather simple, but the implicationsfo r action ar e quite complex an d delicate. In wha tfollows, the author will attempt to raise somequest ions in regard to the translation of conceptualknow ledge in to pract ice .1 8

First , exactly what are the motivators? Thereis no defin ite answer despite Herzberg 's assertionto the cont rary . I t would depend on differentsocieties, different individuals, and different organi-zational or job levels. There is probab ly no un iversalmo tivator for all mankin d, nor is there a singlemotivating force for any o ne individual. It is aproblem of what mixture of needs for what kind ofpeople in what kind of society. In Hong Kong, forexample, there is no doubt that money is a predo-minant motivator with regard to both the lower-level need satisfaction and the fulfillment of statusan d achievement goals.

Secondly, in motivating employees, managershave to identify th e operative needs an d job-relatedgoals of the employees. Or, they have to devisesome goal-setting process with employees' partici-

- 2 5 9 -


8/11

N E W ASIA COLLEGE ACADEMIC A N N U A L VOL. X IX

pation . This is already a form idable job. Moreover,after the operative needs an d job-related goals ar eidenti f ied in a part icular si tuat ion, there is thep roblem of availability of rew ards to satisfy th eneeds through goal fulfil lment. In other words,does each and every employee perceive the reward sas available, n ot ju s t wha t management says isavailable? Many rewards necessary to insureemployee motivat ion an d goal-fulfillment ju s t don ot exist in many organizations. In such organiza-tions, reward s are provided for , or focused on, lowerlevel nee ds, so that the higher level n eed s neverbecome active.

A closely related problem is how consistentis the linkage betw een high p erfo rm an ce and thea t t a inment of desired rewards. If the linkage isinc on sistent and the em ployee sees a low prob abi-lity of achieving a desired reward, a motivationproblem will arise an d per formance - re l a t edbehavior w ill be red uced , even though the reward isclearly shown as available by the man agem en t.

Thirdly, achievem ent is generally recogn izedas an importan t motivator for higher level perform -ance. But in many organizations, there are no well-defin ed, achievable task objectives set by man age-ment or mutually agreed upon between manage-ment an d employees, nor is there clear identifica-tion of group task objectives an d their linkage totask-responsibilities of individuals in the group.Under such circumstances, th e employee wouldlose his direction and his achievement motivationwould be deprived of its very pre-requisite. More-over, employee's performance must be evaluatedagainst the set task objectives, an d there must haveopen, accurate, specific (not generalized) feedbackavailable to the employee as to how he is doing.

Many man agers and com pany m anagements havefailed in the implementat ion of employee motiva-tion, because they failed to recognize the import-ance of goal or objective setting and performancefeedback as motivational tools.

Lastly, something need be said about themotivational possibilities intrinsic to the workitself. This is the job enrichment theme, so muchstressed by Herzberg and assoc iates and also sopopular an d controversial .19 Job enrichment is toenrich the job content by providing more varied an dchallenging content in the work so as to changeemployee's behavior directly. Its essential elementsare: (1 ) Design th e work module to give th eemployee or work group a natural unit of work an dresponsibility, (2) Considerable or complete controlof the w ork module by the employee o r workgroup, (3) Sufficient direct feedbac k of workresults to the employee or work group, and (4)Appropriate standards for measuring performance.While job enrichment programs have been widelyapplied in many countries and industries, manage-ment writers an d pract i t ioners still question theirreal effectiveness.

Conceptually, jo b enr i chment , by itself alone,provides only a partial answer to the innovativeefforts to re-design th e total work organization, an dhas typically failed in its limited objective becauseth e organizational system often returns to its earlierequilibrium.20 Moreover, individuals differ vastly.Man y employees prefer low-level c ompeten cy,security, an d relative independence to responsibi-lity, growth, an d team participation. To them, jobcon te n t is' not automatically related to job satis-faction, an d motivation not necessarily a functionof job satisfaction. They often find higher-level

- 2 6 0 -


9/11

H U M A N M O T I V A T I O N I N T H E W O R K O R G A N I Z A T I O Nneed satisfaction outside th e work environment .Also, there is the difficulty of cont inuouslysupplying "challenges."

Practically, there are many questions aboutimplementat ion. Managers often do not know whatis necessary to implement a job enrichment pro-gram, or don ' t like (resist) to change their role orthinking. Since man y mean ingful tasks must beadded an d boredsome ones removed, good, intel-lectualized lear nin g (e.g., training program s andclasses) cann ot be the substitute for practic e andexperience. Do man agers carefully study what kindof work can be enriched? Are key, responsibleindividuals assigned to attack th e many toughissues involved beforehand? Have the employeesparticipated in the work re-design project so that itis not imposed on them? Has the work itself notactually chan ged after the red esign due to resist-

anc e, con fusion, or bureaucrat ic prac t ice? Does theto p management gives support an d commi t me n tsuch as budget overruns, rewards fo r extra efforts,. . . ? Is there systematic and cont inuous evaluationof the work re-design project once it is undertaken?Such questions ar e very crucial to the success ofan y jo b enrichment program, even if we concedeconceptually that jo b enrichment is the mosteffective motivat ing technique.

The author ha s briefly reviewed several motiv-ation theories an d discussed some of the pract icalimplications fo r managerial act ion. I t seems that th edifficulty lies not so mu ch in theorizing as inactual implementation. Thus what is the appro-priate approach an d action program towardemployee motivation in a particular organizationremains therefore th e toughest job for itsmanagers to accomplish.

-261


10/11

N E W ASIA COLLEGE ACADEMIC ANNUAL VOL. XIX

'Job satisfaction refers to the feeling(s) which an employee has abou t hi s total jo b situation, including other jo b alter-natives available besides hi s present job.2 See Dunn and Stephens, Managem ent of Personnel , Manpower M anagement and Organizational Behavior , McGraw-Hill,1972, pp . 164-174.3 Some psychologists classify three main categories of behavior: Motivated behavior characterized by persistent goal orientation;Frustration-instigated behavior or behavior withou t a goal; Reflexes and automatic behavior determined only by neura l connections."Primary - unlearned andphysiologically based, such ashunger, thirst, sleep, sex.Gen eral also unlearned, but not physiologically based, such as motives for com petence, c uriousity, man ipulation,activity, affection.

Secondary - learned and most relevant to organizational behavior, such as power, achievem ent, affiliation, secu rity,status.5 Ernest R. Hilgard & Richard C. Atkinson in their Introduction to Psychology (4th ed., Harcourt, B race & W orld, 1967,pp . 141-142) summarized 5 reasons fo r this difficulty:The expression of human motives differ from culture to culture an d from person to person within a culture. Similar motives may be manifested through unlike behavior.Unl ike motives may be expressed thr ough similar behavior.

, Motives may appear in disguised forms.An y single act of behavior may express several motives.6 But recent studies by biological scientists indicated that needs are not always th e cause of hum an behavior, but a resultof it. They s ay behavior is ofte n w hat we do, not w hy we do it.'Ab r a h a m Maslow, "A Theory of H um a n Motivat ion," Psychological Review, July 1943, pp.370-396; also,Motivationan d Personality, Harper & Ro w, 1954.8 Se e Maslow, Eupsychian Management, Irwin & the Dorsey Press, 1965. In a very rough manner, Maslow's need

hierarchy theory can be converted into a content model of work motivation, as follows:Needs: Contents:Self Actualization \ Achievement feeling

Ego needs \ Titles, status symbols, promotions, banquetsSocial needs \ Formal & informal work groupsSafety needs \ Seniority plans, union, severance pay

Basic or physiological needs \ PayMaslow estimated that 85% of basic needs, 70% of security needs, 50% of belonging needs, 40% of esteem needs, and 10% ofself-actualization needs are satisfied in organizations generally (in western societies).

'The following indicate some of the criticisms an d modifications: The specific 5-category system and its internal ordering have little empirical validity, n ot every on e follows exactlytha t pattern; The theory tells us very little about how to activate motivation; Some management writers classify needs into "higher needs" an d "lower needs" (M.A. W ahba an d L.G. Bridwell),or "achievement need" (n Ach ) , "power need" (n Pow), an d "affiliation need" (n Aff) (D.C. McClelland an d asso-ciates); or "existence," "relatedness," and "growth" (C.P. Aldefer); or "animal need" and "uniquely human need"(F. Herzberg).

'"See E.E. Lawler, 111,Motivation in Work Organizations, Brooks/Cole publishing Co., 1973, pp . 5-7.

- 2 6 2 -


11/11

H U M A N MOTIVATION IN THE W O R K O R G A N I Z A T I ON 11

"See Douglas McG regor, Th e Human Side of Enterprises, McGraw-Hill, 1960. pp . 47-49; Rensis Likert, Th e HumanOrganization, McGraw-Hill, 1967.12 See, fo r example, E . Wight Bakke, "The Fun ct ion of Management" , in E.M. Hugh-Jon es (ed.) Human Relat ions andModern Management, North Holland PubL Co., 1958; Chris Argyris, Personality and Organization, Harper & Row, 1957 ;Warren Bennis, Changing Organizations, McGraw-Hill, 1966; G.H. Litwin an d R.A. St ringer, Jr . Motivation an d Organiza-tional Climate, Harvard Business School, 1968.13 For a comparison of some of the characteristics between the adaptive-organic organization structure and the mechanis-tic-bureaucratic structure, se e Ralph M. Hower and Jay W . Lorsch, "Organization Inputs," in John A. Seller, Systems Analysisin Organizational Behavior, Irwin, 1967, p. 168.14See Frederick Herzberg, Bernard Mausn er, and Barbara Snyderman, The Motivation to Work , W iley, 1959, pp. 20-62,141; Frederick Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man , Th e World Publishing Co., 1966, pp . 92-129; "One More Time: HowDo You Motivate Employees?" Harvard Business Review, J an . Feb. 1968.15 Victor H. Vroom , Work an d Motivation, W iley, 1964, pp. 14-15, 128."See John Camphell, Marvin Dun net te, Edward Lawler I I I , an d Kar l W eick, Ma nagerial Behavior, Performance, an dEffectiveness, McGraw-Hill , 1970; A nth on y Biglan and Teren ce Mitchell , "Inst rumentali ty Theories", and Terence Mitchell ,"Expectancy Model of Job Sat isfact ion, Occupat ional Preferenc e and E ffort : A Theoretical , Methodological and Em piricalAppraisal ,"Psychology Bul let in , 82, 1974.17 Organizational climate is a set of properties of the work environ men t perceived direct ly or indirect ly by the employ ees.It s impo rtan t dime nsion s include: leadersh ip patterns, goal-direction, size an d st ructure of the organizat ion, communicat ionnetworks, amoun t of challenge and responsibili ty, degree and nature of c onflic t , nature of reward and pun ishmen t systems,etc. There is no uniqu e set of organ izational climate dimensions, nor is there one best value for each of those dime nsion s.18 I n this connect ion, th e reader m ay refer to "Motivation: Good Theory Poor Application," by Joe l K . Leidecker an dJ ames J . Hall, Training and Development Journal, June 1974."See, fo r example, Paul, Robertson an d Herzberg, "Job En richmen t Pays Off," Harvard Business Review, Mar.-Apr.1969; Robert Ford, "Job Enrichment Lessons from AT & T," Harvard Business Review, Jan.-Feb. 1973; William Reif an dFred Luthans, "Does Job En richment Really Pays Off?" California Management Review, Fail 1972; and J . Richard Hackm an,"Is Job Enr i chment Jus t a Fad?" Harvard Business Review, Sept.-Oct. 1975.2"See Richard W alton, "How to Coun ter Alienat ion in the Plant," Harvard Business Review, Nov.-Dec. 1972.

- 2 6 3 -

human motivation in the workplace

Documents