motivation and job satisfaction - · pdf filemotivation and job satisfaction ... was to...

[ 226 ]

Management Decision36/4 [1998] 226–231

© MCB University Press [ISSN 0025-1747]

Motivation and job satisfaction

Mark A. Tietjen and Robert M. MyersPalm 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 creatingjob 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 attitudeHerzberg 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:1 How can one specify the attitude of any

individual toward his or her job?2 What causes these attitudes?3 What are the consequences of these

attitudes?

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 ofthe 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 was

semistructured in nature so that a list ofquestions 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 ofunhappiness 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 taskcompleted. Conversely, hygienes tend toinclude extrinsic entities such as relationswith co-workers, which do not pertain to theworker’s actual job.

[ 227 ]

Mark A. Tietjen andRobert M. MyersMotivation and jobsatisfaction


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 KITAIntegral 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 known

as 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 workharder 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 job satisfaction

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 ofHerzberg 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:1 Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction result

from different causes.2 The two-factor theory is parallel to the

dual 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;

[ 228 ]



• 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 ofhis/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 ofhunger 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 ofdistinction.

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 ofsatisfaction into two sections. For example, ifan 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 interviewed

tend 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 ofintensity.

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 ofcrucial 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 ofvalue 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 ofwhat is valued, and the intensity attribute,how much is valued. With regard to findingsatisfaction in one’s job, the employee who

[ 229 ]



performs adequately on the job is the indi-vidual who decides to pursue his or hervalues.

Though Locke’s discussion continues into more technical areas, the followingsection presents Locke’s conceptualizationof values in contrast to needs. As values area point at which Locke’s theory of job satis-faction begins to separate from the theory ofHerzberg, so too are agent and event factorsa source of divergence between the twotheorists.

Agent/event factorsAn event, or condition, is that which causesan employee to feel satisfaction (Locke, 1976).An agent refers to that which causes an eventto occur (Locke, 1976). Events, therefore, aremotivators, in Herzberg’s terms. Conditionssuch as success/failure or responsibilitymotivate workers and have the potential toevoke satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Agents,conversely, are comparable to hygiene fac-tors; the customer or supervisor, forinstance, causes an event, which then causesa feeling of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.Whereas Herzberg’s factors limit the chanceof equal outcomes for positive and negativeresults, the event categories include bothpositive and negative possibilities for satis-faction. They are discussed in Table II(Locke, 1976).

The clarification of factors which motivateversus the means through which the motiva-tion occurs leads to an adjusted view of jobsatisfaction/dissatisfaction.

An adjusted view of job satisfaction/dissatisfactionDefined as a positive emotional state (Locke,1976) which results from the appraisal ofone’s job experiences, satisfaction (Locke etal., 1975), then, becomes a function of theperceived discrepancy between intended andactual performance, or the degree to whichone’s performance is discrepant with one’sset of values. The closer the expected is to theoutcome, and the greater the achievement ofone’s values, the higher the yield of

satisfaction (Locke, 1976). As long as theaforementioned agents can be viewed as facil-itators in the attainment of the worker’s goalsand the acknowledgment of the worker’svalues, the employee will be satisfied.

Life-cycle theory

To this point, focus has been placed on thefactors that influence employees to be eithermotivated or merely moved, satisfied or dis-satisfied. However, the role of the leaderplayed by each manager directly influences inwhat manner the employee will be motivatedand find satisfaction. Additionally, since theirimportant 1969 article “The life-cycle theoryof leadership” (Maslow, 1954), Kenneth Blan-chard and Paul Hersey have revisited the roleof the manager as leader, reevaluating thatrole in the 1990s.

The role of leadership in motivation The life-cycle theory was developed to illus-trate the important relationship between taskand relationship-oriented dimensions ofmanagement. The theory helped managers tosee how they should adjust according to thelevel of maturity within each worker. It alsoportrayed the dynamics of high and lowpropensities of task and relationship-orientedmanagers when mixed with differing circum-stances as well as diverse groups of employ-ees. In drawing attention to the two-facetedfocus of managers – that is task and relation-ships – the life-cycle theory was very effectivein explaining what was referred to as the“superior/subordinate” relationship.

In reassessing their joint discovery of thelife-cycle theory, Blanchard and Herseyrenamed the theory of leadership “Situa-tional Leadership”. Implied in the newer titlewas an emphasis on “task behavior” and“relationship behavior” rather than attitude.Whereas some attitudes were clearly betterthan others, no one leadership style is best.For example (Maslow, 1954), all managersshould have the attitude that both productionand people are very important. However, thisparticular attitude can be expressed throughnumerous different leadership styles depend-ing on the manager. Since the original theorywas posed, they have assigned descriptors toquadrants of high and low task and relation-ship behaviors. The four quadrants aretelling, selling, participating, and delegating,and each inherently displays the respectivebalance a manager uses in his or her balanceof task and relationship behavior.

Blanchard and Hersey’s clarification ofleadership style provides a stepping stone forall managers dealing with a new and diverse

Table IComparison of needs and values

Needs Values

Needs are innate, a priori Values are acquired, a posteriori

Needs are the same for all humans (Locke, Values are unique to the individual1976; Maslow, 1962) (Locke, 1976)Needs are objective: they exist apart from Values are subjective: they are acquired knowledge of them through conscious and sub-conscious means

Needs confront man and require action Values ultimately determine choice andemotional reaction

[ 230 ]



work force as compared to that of the 1970s and1980s. Emphasizing this change, the authors(Blanchard and Hersey, 1996) exhort that “lead-ership is done with people, not to people”.

Conclusion and implications

In the manager’s search for knowledge onmotivation of employees or the enhancementof job satisfaction, Herzberg’s concept ofattitude as a force powerful in determiningoutput has been complemented by Locke’sformulation of value and its importance towork goals and subsequently job satisfaction.Additionally, the situational theory of leader-ship serves to aid management in its balanceof task and relationship. “Attitude is every-thing”, goes the familiar phrase. Indeed,attitudes serve as the bottom line in specify-ing behavior. However, they do not act alone.The values, or worldview, a worker carriesinto the job form the foundation by whichattitudes develop. Therefore, managers mustacknowledge both the significance of attitudesand values to the actions of the worker.

However, whereas the values are much moresubjective to the worker and have developedover the individual’s life, attitudes can beimpacted or influenced much more easily.

In seeking to create specific boundaries andclarification of his categories, Herzberg notedthat factors which cause extreme satisfactionand extreme dissatisfaction were not identi-cal for the most part. Though Locke’sresponse places the event factors on the samespectrum, the dual-factor findings ofHerzberg are significant in that theypioneered a new way of thinking, drawingattention to the integral role that manage-ment has in cultivating satisfaction withinworkers. Locke’s clarification of that whichmotivates and the means through whichsomeone is motivated in the agent/eventtheory, draws more practical application tothe way factors at work contribute to theexperience of the worker as understoodthrough satisfaction/dissatisfaction.

What Herzberg offers in his distinguishingbetween motivation and movement is applica-ble for all management. A kick in the pantsgets the job done, to be sure. However, it

Table IIAgent/event factors

Events Agents

1. Task activity – employee can enjoy or not enjoy work 1. Self – the respondent2. Amount of work – amount of work is just right, or 2. Supervisor – superior of respondent

the amount is too much or too little3. Smoothness – work went smoothly, or work was 3. Co-worker – colleague or peer at same level

characterized by interruption and distraction4. Success/failure – employee finished task, 4. Subordinate – person at lower level

completed problem, or he/she failed to finish orreach a goal

5. Promotion/demotion or lack of promotion 5. Organization, management, or policies – no– worker was promoted, or not promoted, though particular person(s)he/she expected promotion

6. Responsibility – responsibility was increased, a 6. Customer – includes students, patients, buyersspecial assignment was given, or responsibility was notincreased as desired, did not receive special assignment

7. Verbal recognition of work/negative verbal 7. Nonhuman Agent – nature, machinery, weather, recognition of work – worker was praised, thanked, “God”complimented, or worker was criticized, blamed, or not thanked

8. Money – worker received monetary raise or bonus, 8. No Agent – luck, Murphy’s law; or unclassifiableor did not receive desired raise or bonus

9. Interpersonal atmosphere – there was a pleasant atmosphere where people got along well, or the atmosphere was unpleasant where people got along poorly

10. Physical working conditions pleasant/unpleasant – temperature, machinery, hours of work were pleasant and manageable, or they were unpleasant

11. Uncodable or other – there was a good outcome of a union election, or there was an accident, or poor outcome to a union election

[ 231 ]



affects no lasting positive change within theworker. This is not a call to cancel incentiveprograms but to encourage consideration of arefined definition of motivation. This newdefinition deals primarily with an adjust-ment in performance as a function of anadjustment in the work of the employee.

Likewise, both theories point to the workitself as containing the most potential forcausing satisfaction. Enhanced, sustainedperformance on the job results not so muchfrom the fully furnished office or the temper-ature of the work environment, but the basicduty assigned in the job description and allthose intrinsic feelings that produce positiveattitudes about that duty. Although aspects ofone’s personal life as well as non-job factorsat work influence the behavior and eventu-ally the satisfaction of the worker, it is thework itself which brings fulfilment andMaslow’s higher order of needs into being.For management, this means that when aworker’s performance steadily declines, it isnot due to a lack of perks or enforcement onthe part of management. Instead, the task ofthe employee should be altered in such a waythat the fulfilment gained from doing the jobis expected daily.

ReferencesBlanchard, K.H. and Hersey, P. (1996), “Great

ideas”, Training and Development, January,pp. 42-7.

Herzberg, F. (1968), “One more time: how do youmotivate employees?”, Harvard BusinessReview, pp. 53-62.

Herzberg, F., Maunser, B. and Snyderman, B.(1959), The Motivation to Work, John Wileyand Sons Inc., New York, NY.

House, R.J. and Wigdor, L.A. (1967), “Herzberg’sdual-factor theory of job satisfaction and motivation: a review of the evidence and a criticism”, Personal Psychology,pp. 369-89.

Locke, E.A. (1970), “The supervisor as ‘motivator’:his influence on employee performance andsatisfaction”, in Bass, B.M., Cooper, R. andHaas, J.A. (Eds), Managing for Accomplish-ment, Heath and Company, Washington, DC,pp. 57-67.

Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of jobsatisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.),Handbook of Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 1297-349.

Locke, E.A., Cartledge, N. and Knerr, C.S. (1975),“Studies of the relationship between satisfac-tion, goal-setting and performance”, in Steers,M.R. and Porter, W.L. (Eds), Motivation andWork Behavior, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY,pp. 464-73.

Maslow, A.H. (1954), Motivation and Personality,Harper & Row Publishers, New York, NY.

Maslow, A.H. (1962), Toward a Psychology ofBeing, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY.

Rand, A. (1964), “The objectivist ethics”, in Rand,A. (Ed.), The Virtue of Selfishness, Signet, New York, NY, p. 15.

Steininger, D.J. (1994), “Why quality initiativesare failing: the need to address the foundationof human motivation”, Human ResourceManagement, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 601-16.

Application questions

1 How is it possible to affect the attitudes ofemployees in your organization, such thatattitude does not become a factor whichleads to dissatisfaction?

2 Does recent company policy reflect anattempt to move employees throughreward/punishment conditions ormotivate employees through the

enhancement and even reconfiguration oftasks within a job?

3 In diagnosing problems experienced byemployees and pinpointing their sources,does management often confuse agent andevent factors?

4 Is management doing its job in balancingthe task with relationships?

motivation and job satisfaction - · pdf filemotivation and job satisfaction ... was to...

Documents