An investigation of Herzberg's two-factor theory ofwork motivation applied to maintenance workers

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Ferguson, Vern Stanley, 1916-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.

Download date 21/06/2018 12:51:27

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/554538

AN INVESTIGATION OP HERZBERG’S TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF WORK MOTIVATION : APPLIED TO MAINTENANCE WORKERS . .

byVern Stanley Fergus on

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of theDEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree ofMASTER OF SCIENCE

. : In the Graduate CollegeTHE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

1 9 7&

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfill­ment of requirements for an advanced degree at The Univer­sity of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable with­out special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholar­ship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED : ^ -----------

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:

< % t r / 7. / % zRICHARBKB. CHASE DATEAssociate Professor of Management

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author gratefully, acknowledges Dr« Chase .for his assistance and encouragement throughout the course of this investigation and study.

This thesis is dedicated to the author's father whose continuous encouragement was sincerely appreciated.

.ill

TABLE -OF CONTENTS:'' . . . . ■ Page

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS , . . . . . . ... . . . . . . viLIST OF TABLES . . . . ... © » . .... . © ® . . . . . vi 1.ABSTRACT » . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . „• „ viiiCHAPTER'

1. INTRODUCTION. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Early Classicists .. . . . .; . . . . . . . . . 1BehaviorIsts . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 3Job Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Attitude Survey . . . . « . .' . . . . . . . . - 10Attitude Models . .: . . . . ... » . . . 12.

Objectives of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. 2. EVALUATION OF HERZBERG * S TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF

WORK MOTIVATION . . . . > . . . . . . . . . . . . .' 14Supporters of the.Herzberg.Theory . . . . . . 1?

Selected Studies . . .. . .. 17Herzberg1s Critics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Selected. Studies... . . . . . ... . . . . . 20Other Viewists of the Herzberg Theory . . . . 23

Contradictionlsts . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 23Issuists e e e . © o o « e « -o © e * . * . . 21Traditionalists . . . . . . . . 25Reac1 2.onxsts ... . . . . . . . . * . . . . . 27

- ••• Herzberg Counters the Critics .... . . . . 29S"Unnna#ry . @ . . . . . . . . . . . . « . © . © 31

3- EXPERIMENTAL. DESIGN . . . . .". . . . . . . . . 33Pur pose . . * . . . a « e a . a . - . o o o o © 333y[ e t It O CL . . . e e . . . . . @ a . . a a o a . 3 3

... Part 1--Ranking Method . . . . . . . . . . . ' 35Part 2— Herzberg-type Method . . . . . . . . 37

iv

V

TABLE'OP CONTENTS— Continued■ ■ . . Page

4. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 39Result s « © «■ o o « © © ©. © © © © © © © © © . .© jf,. 39

Part 1— Ranking Results © © © . © © © © 39Part 2— -Herzberg—type Method Results . . © © ^3Contrasted the Methods‘ Results . . . « . © .

Comparison of the Experiment's Results to Herzberg.'s Theory « © » . » © « . © . . . . » . 51

Herzberg's Major Hypothesis and Theory © © © 51Compared Hypotheses and Findings © © © © ■ © © 52

Summary and Conclusions © . . . . . . . . . . . 5^Summary © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 5 *Conclusions © © © © © ©.© * © * * © © © © © © 5 t

--Major Implication of the Experiment . . . . . . .56

APPENDIX © © © © © © © © © - © © © © ©■© © © © © © © © © 5 0SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY © . . . © © © © © © © © © © © . © 64

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure1. Range of Rankings and Average Ranks of Factors.2. Comparison of Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers

for 26 Custodial Workers . . . . . . . . . .3• Comparison of Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers

for 14 Maintenance Workers . . . . . . . . .■ 4. Comparison of Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers

for The Overall Study Population . . . . . .

Page

. 42

. 44

46

. 48

LIST OF TABLESPage

Table1. MEAN RANKINGS AND RANK ORDER

OF THE 10 WORK CATEGORIES.........................40

vii

ABSTRACTIndustries1 early attempts to further promote effi­

ciency and productivity turned toward improving the jpd attitudes of their workers. Employee attitude surveys be­came commonplace, but early research investigations of job attitudes in toto were unknown.

• Dr. Herzberg’s satisfiers-dissatisflers theory of motivation.was published in 1959, under the title, The Motivation To Work. . The theory soon generated numerous in­vestigations .that were designed to test its validity. Exam­ination of a number of these studies revealed that the studies supporting the Herzberg theory approximated those that did not give it support. •

The author's study attempted to examine Herzberg's theory, using two different methodologies. . One consisted of the ranking of job factors, and the other, a modified repli­cation of Herzberg's methodology. In both instances, a questionnaire supplied the necessary information for the analyses. This study tested two hypotheses, one for each methodology. The accrued results support the study's hy­potheses and unequivocally support Herzberg's theory of work motivation.

vi 11

. - ""' v . ■ ' . ; ix ’The experiment ’s findings for the job factors» Work

Itselfs Harmonious Group, Work Conditions, and Supervision, in conjunction with the inherent nature of the sample popu­lation, form the nucleus of this study’s major implication-- the cohesiveness of the work groups„

CHAPTER. 1

INTRODUCTION •

The dawn of the twentieth century saw the young and thriving American industry, seeking further expansion and growth. . Plants were operating at full capacity and there was full employment. Yet, there existed the ever present . demand- for, increased productivity and efficiency. To im­prove the individual worker's efficiency, industry discover­ed that it must, consider the attitudes of its workers--the attitudes workers have about their jobs. Thus, early indus­trial and researcher. thought turned first, toward man and his work, and then to man as an individual being-~both point ing toward' a. better understanding of the individual -worker’s job attitudes. Hopefullymanagement, might then devise meas ures to enhance the worker’s motivation to perform his tasks more effectively and yet attain some degree of job satisfaction. ....

■ Early Classicists The most, influential of classical management pio­

neers concerned with man and his work was Taylor (1911). Taylor implored the necessity for a complete mental revo­lution on the part of the working man and on the part of the manager as to their respective duties toward their work.

Such a mental revolution.would open the door to understand­ing man and his work and the individual job attitudes that he.holds. To.him this mental revolution was the prerequi­site for scientific management— the scientific method for solving factory problems which he laid down in his four principles, of scientific management.

Taylor applied the scientific method to solutions of such problems, arid from these analyses, he built up his order­ly set of principles. In essence, he developed a science of work, a science for each element of man’s work, and support­ed it with such techniques as time study, motion analysis, and piece work. This science (mathematical formulae) so de™ - rived, and when applied with the cooperation of management . to the work of mari, would lead to enormous Increase in out­put of .the workman.. On this basic principle, he added the .principles of scientific-selection of workers, and their pro­gressive development; the joining of the selected workman.and the science of work; and, the division of work into two sections-— one is handed over.to management. Thus, manage­ment in assuming, a mass of new duties, which would require cooperation between management and the workmen, both sides would be busy.and issues would be resolved. For,his contri- bution.to the theory of management, Taylor earned the title, "The Father of Scientific Management".

One other pioneer, Gilbreth (1923), should be noted, especially because of his interest in the employee as an

individual. His major contribution to scientific management was the development of motion study as a basic management technique. He believed that with the application of his motion study technique, a task and its environmental con­ditions could be established and standardized, and thus, would inevitably increase the worker’s output, Gilbreth’s main concern was with the one best way.to do work; however, he did.believe that an individual's productivity depended on attitude, opportunity, and physical environment. Like Gilbreth, other researchers have shown interest in the em­ployee as an individual. One such group of researchers viewed: the worker, not only as to his work, but also as one possessing individual feelings, sentiments, and attitudes which reflect on his behavioral work performance. . Such researchers have been acclaimed, behaviorists.

Behaviorists .As early as 1909, and continuing through her life

span, Mary Parker Follett expressed a behaviorist philosophy which was quite a contrast to that of the classicists. "The collected papers of Mary Parker,Follett", published in the book. Dynamics of Administration, ed. Metcalf and Urwick (1 9^2 ), reflect her pioneering thoughts in the field of human relations. Her philosophy was that any enduring soci­ety, any continuously productive industrial organization, must;be founded upon the recognition of the motivating

desires of the individual and of the group. In all her writ­ings f she always sought to fOrce home a realization of the fact that the democratic way of life» implemented by intelli­gent organization and administration of government and indus­try, is to work toward an honest integration of all points of view, to the end that every individuality may be mobilized and made to count both as a person and as an effective part of his group and of society as a whole. Although her views were ahead of the time, others with such views were to follow,

Elton MayO: and his colleagues at the Harvard Business School followed somewhat the views expressed by Mary Parker Follett, They top, were concerned with the worker, the supervisor, and groups of men at work, The studies by Hoeth- lisberger and Dickson (1939)? Roethlisberger (1943), and Mayo (1945) introduced the work group into the analysis of industry. Psychological theory was used as the starting point in the famous Hawthorne studies by Mayo (1933) and by Roethlisberger and Dickson (1947), Although the studies were not theoretically oriented, they are real contributions to theory. One important and related study points up some of their major findings. In the Bank Wiring Room experiment by Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939)» the investigators found that it was the socially maladjusted individual, the deviant from the work group, who maintained a level of pro­duction above that of the group even though his native

ability was considerably below that of many of the others. They also discovered that the relationships between workers and their supervisors exert more influence on output thanany manipulator of environmental conditions. Also, they

, . . v .

noted that informal associations of a group of men at work act as a potent stabilizer on the level of production (the notion of the informal group enforcing its notion of the "fair day's work"). These findings formed the basis of a new frame of reference in industry and various programs were inaugurated which changed, to some extent, the life of the industrial worker from that of the robot-like, piece of equip­ment to the status of a thinking human being. Like Mayo and his associates, two other writers were concerned with the work group, as'evidenced by the following review.

Brayfield and Crockett (1955)> in their review of literature— ■ "Employee Attitudes and Employee Performance", . infer that there is little evidence in the available litera­ture that employee attitudes bear any simple or appreciable relationship to performance on the job. In their review, they were concerned primarily with the group and not the in­dividual. . This is evidenced by their exclusion of absentee­ism, accidents, turnover, etc. (they.do infer that attitudesare related to absenteeism and turnover). Katzell (1 9 5 7) suggests that Brayfield and Crockett slights anything not statistically significant; and, they state their generaliza­tion prior to their consideration of the parameters involved

; ' ■ ' ' ■ V - : ■ ; : '■ . . 6:-in the relationship between attitudes and performance. Even though the authors declined to justify such a relationship, it does appear that they recognize the importance of individ­ual attitudes, especially in the inferred areas of absentee­ism, accidents, and turnover. However, a trio of writers did find that job satisfaction is related to work effort.

In a study by Prien, Barrett, Svetlik (196?), the - authors found that what an employee feels in a work environ­ment is dependent to a large degree upon what exists in that environment* . The authors also saw a positive correlation between overall:job satisfaction and ratings of energy; that overall job satisfaction is not related to salary, diffi­culty, or tenure; and, they conclude that as overall satis­faction increases, the amount of .energy the incumbent invests, in his job increases* Though their views are somewhat dif~ - ferent than those of Brayfield and Crockett (1955)* they reflect favorably on the relationship between attitudes, work effort, and job satisfaction.

Several- eminent writers have applied formal socio­logical and. psychological theory to the analysis of people's attitudes towards their jobs. Among them are Malinowski (1944), Hughes (1946), and Homans (1950) in sociology, and Lewim; (19^0, 1951) in psychology. Typically, their efforts focus on the group as the unit of investigation, wherein the individual.plays a role primarily in terms of his position in the structure of the group or his contribution to group

processes. In contrast, Argyris (1957) focuses specifically on the individualo His contribution is a vigorous defense of the individual's integrity: The need of the person tomaintain his self-esteem and his .right to grow in the face of the demands of the Organization for "teamwork". This attack on pressures to conformity is a healthy corrective to the group-centeredness of much of the work of the Michi­gan Research'Center investigators and others who seem to be . caught up in the web of group relationships, rather than with both the group and the group's basic ingredient— the individual and his. need satisfaction. A noted theorist on this particular point is discussed below.

Maslow (1943, 195*0 theorized an order to the seem­ing capriciousness of employee wants— -the wants from his job. He. views these wants as unsatisfied needs which serve as moti ■vators toward job satisfaction. The author's theory of moti­vation focuses on his concept of a "need hierarchy" in which the various needs of an individual can be placed on a hierarchy of prepotency. According to Maslow's theory, when a need is fairly well satisfied, the next prepotent (higher) need emerges, in turn to dominate the conscious life and to serve as the center of organization of behavior, since grat­ified needs are.no longer active motivators. The hierarchy begins with the basic physiological needs as initially the most prepotent, in motivation of the individual and extends through a variety of psychological and social needs. This

concept has led many people to feel that the worker can never be satisfied with his job. For instance«, some have sought an answer to the question, "How are you going to solve the dilemma of trying to motivate workers who have a continuously revolving set of needs"? Gruenfield and Weis- senberg (1970) and Wolf (1970) in their postulations, shed some light on such a situation. Their works will be discuss­ed in Chapter 2.

. In any event, Maslow6 s theory expounds a concept that should be given full consideration by all persons who manage men. The recognition that individual needs do exist is para­mount to any management activity. Once recognized, managers may enhance individual motivation by providing the worker with the opportunities to satisfy his higher order needs once the satisfaction of the lower order or basic needs have been provided for. Further, the theory suggests that satisfaction of individual needs promotes job satisfaction, and in turn promotes positive job attitudes on the one hand; while neg­lect of such needs, on the other hand, produces negative job attitudes. Either one tends to bear on overall job satisfac­tion and productivity of the organization. In addition to this mix of needs, job satisfaction, and attitudes, addition­al information about an employee's job attitude is desirable.

Job Attitudes . • •Factors, other than Individual' need satisfaction,

have been observed as being related to job attitudes« Since the first writings in industrial psychology, many conjectures have appeared about the specific factors influencing job atti­tudes. The earlier research, as well as the observations of many others, indicated an urgent need for more and better in- •• formation about the attitudes of people toward their jobs, Herzberg et al, (1957) attempted to fulfill this need for ^further- information by delving into several thousands of ar­ticles and books regarding the factors relating to job atti­tudes and the effects of job attitudes on work performance,

. Herzberg and his associates.system!zed the literature, and classified the problem areas of job attitudes. They noted differences in the kind of things desired from a job by com­pany Workers at higher or lower levels, older and younger workers, and between men and women. However, they found that the stability of these findings was relatively slight. The one dramatic finding that emerged from their review of the literature was the.fact that there was a difference in the primacy of factors, depending upon whether the investigator was looking for things the worker liked about his job or things he disliked. . The concept, later adopted by Herzberg., Mausner, and Snyderman (1959)* that there were some factors that were "dissatisfiers” was suggested by this finding.

10In summary, the authors found that the areas of study

encompassed by "job attitudes'1 had certain well-defined char­acteristics. The measurement of job attitudes had been devel­oped and applied extensively. Demographic studies showing variations in job attitudes among many different populations had been identified and their relative potential evaluated.In addition, studies of the effects of job attitudes had also been carried out, but they found the findings of these studies to.be far from conclusive. The major failing of the studies, according to Herzberg and. his associates, was their very frag­mentary nature. One important area, the varying methods em­ployed to secure employee responses concerning the job in order to determine the worker's attitude toward his job, left the reviewers with much to be desired.

Attitude SurveyWhat is the best way or method to secure employee

responses about, his job?; It was noted from the earlier re­search, that some investigators assessed the information from the workers in accordance with what each was looking for, such as, the worker's likes or dislikes about his job. One tool or technique to secure this information was, and even now, is an attitude survey. Such surveys, if intelligently formulated and implemented, and, if the results are skillfully evaluated, can be potent agents; but, if they are not given the necessary expert and careful attention, their potential value may be negated. . . ..

Several renowned writers have expressed their views concerning attitude surveys. Likert (1 9 6 1) eloquently points out that attitude surveys allow for the assessment of the human resources of the organization. He also points out that only by.assessing such factors as the satisfaction level of employees can organizations determine the impact of actions upon all relevant organizational resources. He further be­lieves that looking just at the effects of an action on one type of organizational activity, while ignoring its impact on the job satisfaction of employees, can be a costly type of myopia. .

Lawler (1 9 6 7), though very much in agreement with Likert, delves, more thoroughly into the substance of attitude surveys, in expressing his views. He feels that most atti­tude surveys do not measure those attitudes that are most important in determining how motivated an individual will be to perform his .job effectively.■ On the other hand, he be­lieves that job satisfaction measures have proved to be rather effective in predicting absenteeism and turnover rates. Again turning the coin, he states that attitudes toward the impor­tance of job factors have not been particularly effective in predicting any aspects of an employee's job behavior, nor do attitude surveys measure any attitudes that appear to be direct determinants of performance effectiveness. Lawler, sub­stantiates.his views, or rather more precisely expresses them, when:. he suggests that man' s path-goal attitudes toward what ■

■- \ V ' : : ; 12factors; influence the rewards he receives, combined with his work or job satisfaction.data, are the-keys to understanding the employee's motivation to perform effectively. He further suggests that motivation theory may provide a possible an­swer to how attitude surveys may be made more effective.

Attitude ModelsLawler's path-goal attitude measures, noted in the

preceding paragraph, provides a sort of retrogressive glimpse back to man and his work as expressed by the early classi­cists. There one may picture a simple, economic attitude model of man based on the logic of efficiency as proposed by the early scientific movement.. Then, later on, the be- haviorists pictured a different model--the simple feeling or attitude model based on the logic of sentiments. And yet, another model is to be unfolded--the factors-attitudes- ef f ects complex model which will be discussed in Chapter 2. Thus, has been the emerging attitude models of man--the worker's job attitudes which industry long ago discovered that it must consider in order to meet the ever increasing demand for productivity and efficiency. Having now built the foundation, the objectives of this study are discussed below. ...

Ob.ieotives of This Study This study is concerned.with' an evaluation of Fred­

erick Herzberg’s theory of motivation and its application to a purposively selected sample population--namely, maintenance workers of a Public School District. Based on the completion of an employee attitude survey questionnaire by the selected population, the study will seek to show which job factors are considered by the workers as being the most important or the least important to them. Further, it will attempt to determine their likes and dislikes about their jobs. Analy­sis of the survey's findings will then be related to those postulated by the Herzberg theory in order to determine the - theory's relevancy to this study’s population.

% / - chapter 2 -

EVALUATION OF HERZBERG ‘ S TWO-FACTOR •. ..THEORY OF WORK MOTIVATION ■

.Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) published their theoretical study.under the title, The Motivation To Work. The study was made as a result of a grant from the Buhl Foundation, supported by matching funds from a number of industrial firms in the Pittsburgh area. The work was essentially a study of job attitudes-=a follow-up after an earlier review of job attitudes literature published by Herzberg et. al. (.195?) under the title, Job Attitudes Review, of Research and Opinion (See Chapter 1).

Their work was a basic new approach to the study of job attitudes. They.formulated the concept which was termed as the factors-attitudes-effects complex--a complex that should be investigated simultaneously and studied as a unit. To evaluate this chosen concept, the authors questioned some two hundred professional engineers and accountants in nine varying organizations within the greater Pittsburgh indus­trial complex regarding times when they feel exceptionally good or bad about their jobs. From the data revealed, Herzberg and his associates hoped to develop a coherent

picture of the factors responsible for the interviewees‘

-'‘ y - ;: ;: 15job attitudes and the effects of these attitudes on their job performance«,

More specifically, Burke (1 9 6 6) adds clarity to the Herzberg, Mausner,•and Snyderman procedure, methodology, and findings. He states that the authors in focusing on the mo­tivation of the engineers and accountants, utilized a semi­structured interview method in which the interviewee recalled two incidents, one satisfying and the other dissatisfying, from his employment experiences (Herzberg*s sequence of events methodology), An a. posteriori content analysis indi­cated that certain job characteristics were important for and led to job dissatisfaction (but not to job satisfaction)» Herzberg and his colleagues referred to the characteristics which produced satisfaction as "motivators" and to the char­acteristics which - produced dissatisfaction as "hygienes",In general, motivators were those characteristics which sat­isfied the individual's needs for self-actualization and self-realization in his work. These revolved around the need to develop in one's occupation as a source of personal growth. Hygienes, on the other hand, tended to represent environmental factors descriptive of the job context. This group was associated with fair treatment in supervision, wages, and working conditions,

Hinrichs and Mischkind (1 9 6 7), well summed, the Herz­berg. theory, when they declared that the core of Herzberg's concept maintains that motivator factors account for

' : ; : ' 16 variance in overall job satisfaction above a hedonic level with little or no bearing on satisfaction below that level..Hygiene factors, on the other hand, account: for variance in overall job satisfaction below a hedonic level with lit.tie or no bearing on overall satisfaction above that point. In short, the claim is that motivator variables pperate primari­ly on the positive side of the overall job-satisfaction scale while hygiene variables operate on the negative side.

The above stated positive-negative aspects of the overall job-satisfaction scale appear to denote the opposite­ness of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. To clar­ify this thought, (Herzberg 1964, p. 3) in a later theoretical paper, took the next logical step and decided that job satis­faction and job dissatisfaction were not the opposite of each other, but..,"that job satisfaction is made up of two unipolar traits.” This clarification, or possibly a new thought on the part of Herzberg, is just one questionable in­stance surrounding the two- factor theory of work motivation.It has found supporters and unearthed critics, as evidenced by the volume of writings attempting to substantiate or re­fute the Herzberg theory. In these writings, one finds that the theory has been given various labels. It has been labeled as the dual approach to job motivation; the theory of job satisfaction; the theory of motivation-hygiene; the mot i vat ion- hygiene .. theory; the two-factor theory of job satisfaction; the satisfiers-dissatisfiers theory of

; motivation; the Herzberg theory of satisfiers-dissatisfiers » and Herzberg's two-factor theory of work motivation. Which­ever , numerous writers have either supported, or not support­ed , .the Herzberg theory. ' ■;

Supporters of the Herzberg Theory

Selected StudiesIn researching the volume of writings centering on

the Herzberg theory $ the author noted twenty-five supporters of the theory~~mostly were replications of the Herzberg design. Only two of the supporters used a different method

. from that of Herzberg.. Three of the studies are herein discussed.. • . . ■ • •

1. One study, essentially a replication of the Herz­berg design, was mad.e by Schwartz, Jenusaitis, and Stark(1 9 6 3) '* The .authors’ procedure consisted of a content analy­sis of written stories describing pleasant and unpleasant job expiences of 111 male supervisors employed by 21 public utility companies. They found that motivators were generally associated with pleasant experiences and hygienes with un­pleasant experiences. . One Herzberg. motivator acted like a hygiene, in the sample. In this study, the basic Herzberg methodology was used to collect and analyze the data. The results upheld the Herzberg theory.

2. Another replication, was the study presented by• Myers (1964). His study consisted of a content analysis of .

' , ■ . .. ‘ ' 18 Herzberg-llke Interviews of 282 male scientists» engineers„ manufacturing supervisors, and hourly technicians, and 52

female hourly assemblers. Myers found job characteristics grouped naturally into: motivator-hygiene dichotomies„ How­ever, one Herzberg motivator acted like a hygiene and other Herzberg motivators acted both as motivators and hygienes, Different job levels had different job characteristic con­figurations. The female configuration was different from the four male configurations, suggesting a sex factor.Common Herzberg motivators were absent from the hourly tech­nician and hourly female assembler configurations, suggest­ing a job level factor. The overall trends of the study are interpreted as. supporting Herzberg8s motivator-hygiene theory . (the two-factor theory of work motivation),

3. The controversial work by. Halpern (1 9 6 6) is the last supportive study relevant to the Herzberg theory to be discussed.' It is viewed, as being controversial because sev­eral writers have noted his work as not supporting the theory, while others have found it supportive. These views are provided, especially to point up the confusion surround­ing the Herzberg theory.

Hinrichs and:Mischkind (1 9 6 7) lists Halpern, among others, as partially, if not totally, failing to support the predictions which one would make based upon the basic two- component hypothesis . of job satisfaction (Herzberg*s theory). A trio of.writers, Lindsay, Marks, and Gorlow (1 9 6 7). include

. ■ V :' ; 19Halpern in a group of writers that either do not support the Herzberg theory, or at best give equivocal support to it.In another study by Waters and Waters (1 9 6 9), Halpern wasdepicted as having reported data contradictory to the two-■ ' : -factor theory; however, Waters and Waters recognized that in the Halpern study satisfaction/dissatisfaction was measured on a single continuum and not assessed separately as Herz­berg 1s theory suggests. In the face of these views, Saliman (1970) reports that Halpern is one of three writers that support the. Herzberg theory, although Halpern used a differ­ent method from that of Herzberg.

Thus the confusion reigns. In light, of this situa­tion, the Halpern study, itself, was noted as being support­ive of the Herzberg theory. An analysis of the study appears to substantiated this conclusion. The study was concerned with the rating of satisfaction with four motivators, four hygienes, and overall job satisfaction on respondent’s best- liked jobs. The respondents were ninety-three college grad­uates working in various occupations. Halpern found that although:the respondents were equally satisfied with both the motivator and hygiene aspects of their jobs, the moti- : vators contributed significantly more to overall satisfaction than did the hygienes. To more specifically reflect his findings, (Halpern 1 9 6 6, p. 200) concluded that "These find­ings support the basic thesis of the motivator-hygiene . theory of job satisfaction. In. spite of the fact that the

respondents were equally satisfied with both aspects of their jobs, it is the motlvatorS"~the factors related to personal success in work and individual growth— that are primarily related to job satisfaction". Now, let us turn to several writers who do not lend their support to the Herzberg theory of work motivation.

. Herzberg1s Critics

Selected Studies .The span of research that uncovered the supportive

studies also discovered twenty-seven works that did not support the Herzberg theory. Of this number, twenty-four used a different method from that of Herzberg; and only three, using the Herzberg technique, did not support the theory. Again, three selected studies will be discussed.

1. The first selected study was made by Ewen (1964). The author's procedure consisted of a factor analysis of a ^8-item attitude scale completed by 1,021 full-time life in­surance agents divided into an experimental sample (5^1) and a cross-validation sample (480). Ewen found that six inter- pretable factors emerged, of which three were hygienes and two motivators. Two of the three hygienes acted like moti­vators in both samples; the other hygiene acted like a motivator in the cross-validation sample, and like both a motivator and a hygiene in the experimental sample. One motivator acted both as a motivator and a hygiene. Ewen6s

methodology differed from that of Herzberg. . He used a struc­tured format (58-item' attitude scale) and a factor analysis technique for data analysis, and concluded that the results did not support the Herzberg theory.

2. Another study, which again used.a different method from that of Herzberg, was conducted by Dunnette (1 9 6 5)» He, like Ewen, used a factor analysis technique.But, it consisted of a factor analysis of Q sorts of two sets of thirty-six statements (equated for social desirability) for highly satisfying and highly dissatisfying job situations'. The population study consisted of 114 store executives, 7^ sales clerks, 43 secretaries,.. 128 engineers and research scientists , 46 salesmen,. 91 army reserve personnel and em­ployed adults enrolled in a supervisory course. Dunnette?s findings disclosed that some Herzberg motivators were re­lated to satisfying job situations but Herzberg hygienes were not related to dissatisfying job situations. One Herzberg motivator acted like a hygiene. There was also a positive relationship between the importance of a factor as both a motivator and a.hygiene contrary to the negative relation­ship expected under Herzberg*s theory. Thus, the same ■ factors were contributors to both satisfaction and dissatis­faction. ' Hence,, the author * s findings gave no support for the Herzberg theory of job satisfaction.

’ 3° In a study by Wernimont (1966-), the last non- supportive study to be discussed, responses to both forced

choice and free-choice items.:were obtained from fifty accountants and eighty-?two engineers in self-descriptions of past satisfying and dissatisfying situations. The author found that both groups of respondents endorsed more "intrin­sic" than "extrinsic" items when describing both situations. Achievement, Work Itself, and Responsibility were mentioned most often in describing past satisfying situations, and lack of Advancement and Recognition were most often mentioned in dissatisfying situations. Wernimont concluded that both intrinsic and extrinsic factors can be sources of both satis­faction and dissatisfaction, but intrinsic factors are stronger in both cases. Also, the satisfaction variables were not unidirectional in their effects, and expectations have a strong influence on the extent of satisfaction with job factors. (Graen -1966, p. 55 -) supports the findings'of Wernimont by stating "that Intrinsic factors are more impor­tant contributors to both satisfaction and dissatisfaction than extrinsic factors . . . The "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" classification appears to be the most reasonable candidate on which to make the distinction between more or less potent contributors to job satisfaction".

Wernimont's study agrees with the Herzberg findings that intrinsic factors are important determiners of satis­fied feelings about the job, but the results of his study conflict markedly with Herzberg's claim that extrinsic factors contribute most to dissatisfied feelings about the.

job. (Wernimont 1 9 6 6, p. 20) further states that "satisfac­tion with the job Pan be due to high levels of satisfaction with intrinsic factors, and dissatisfaction can be due to low levels of satisfaction with intrinsic factors." Al­though partial agreement with Herzberg is noted» the study provides no substantial support for the Herzberg theory. Several other writers viewed Herzberg‘s theory somewhat differently and they are discussed below.

. Other Viewists of the Herzberg Theory

Contradictionists'' • -The.Ewen et al (1 9 6 6) study "An Empirical Test of

the Herzberg Two-Factor Theory" reported data contradictory to the two-factor theory. However, in this study satisfac­tion/dissatisfaction was measured on a single continuum.This method is contrary to Herzberg1s which suggests that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are qualitatively differ­ent and should be assessed separately.

Hulin and Smith (1 9 6 7) also report data contradic­tory to the two-factor theory for both male and female employees in their empirical investigation of two implica­tions of the theory. In their study, the authors obtained measures of. satisfaction/dissatisfaction from different ran­domly selected groups within the same company. The authors designed special instruments to measure independently

■' : ‘ 24satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Even so, they reported data contradictory to the two-factor theory for both male and female employees.

Issuists • -Brayfield (i9 6 0 ), in his ’’Review of P. Herzberg,

B. Mausner» and B. Snyderman, The motivation to work” took issue with the methods used by Herzberg and associates as well as with their conclusions. Specifically, Brayfield discounted their results on the basis of the method used (content analysis of interview data),

In a review, entitled as was Brayfield’s above, Kahn (1 9 6 1) likewise took issue with the Herzberg methods and con­clusions, Primarily, he felt that defensive behavior and' displacement could account for the findings of Herzberg,

■ Mausner, and Synderman,Vroom and Maier (1 9 6 1) also were at odds with Herz-

, berg and his associates’ methodology (sequence of events) and their conclusions. They questioned the legitimacy of their conclusions that qualitatively different conditions act as satisfiers from those acting as dissatisfiers„ Pointedly, (Vroom and Maier 1961, p, 433) state "There is a risk in inferring the actual causes of satisfaction and dis­satisfaction from descriptions of events by individuals. It

• Zseems possible that the obtained differences between events may reflect defensive processes at work within the individ-

. ual," Thus, in substance, it may be said that the issuists

■ : x . :y, . ■ - . " '■: • . 25 ■are in agreement in that they all disagree, for on reason or another, with the methods and conclusions reported by Herzberg and his associates in their two-factor theory of job satisfaction.

TraditionalistsThis group of viewists of the Herzberg theory report

findings more compatible with the traditional model of, job satisfaction and disconfirm predictions of the two-factor theory.

The traditional model or theory. The theory con­tends that any work-related variable may contribute to both satisfaction and dissatisfaction; i.e,, if the presence of a variable contributed to satisfaction, then the absence of that' variable would contribute to dissatisfaction and vice versa. The traditional theory hypothesizes that if job vari­ables are categorized according to the two-factor classifica­tion system, both so-called satisfiers and dissatisfiers con­tribute over the entire continuum of overall job satisfaction- dissatisfaction. Further the theory hypothesizes that intrinsic variables (satisfiers) are related more strongly to overall satisfaction-dissatisfaction than are extrinsic variables (dissatisfiers), In addition, it views the differ­ences between satisfiers and dissatisfiers as primarily a matter of potency rather than a matter of directionality.

' : . ■ . • 26 1 One study, which may be viewed as damaging to the two-factortheory and as supporting the traditional theory, will now bediscussed.

The study by Hulin and Smith (1 9 6 7) was designed as an empirical investigation of two implications of the two- factor theory of job satisfaction. In addition to reporting data contradictory to the two-factor theory, the study also furnished quite unique data. It was this data that was exam­ined by Graen and Hulin (1 9 6 8) from the perspective of strong inference as postulated by Platt (1964), The strong- inference approach pits hypotheses from competing theories against one another and demands a determination of their relative value for future research.. To examine the unique data from the perspective of this approach, multiple hypoth­eses were tested between the two-factor theory, of Herzberg, Mausner, and. Synderman.and the traditional theory of job satisfaction'. Graen and Hul ins s procedure granted the assumption of the two-fact or theory of a dimensional differ­ence between overall satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Instruments employed were designed to capitalize on any unique variance associated with the satisfaction or the dis«* . satisfaction dimension. Their analysis consisted of one-way analyses of variance of the Job Description Index variables of Work Itself, Promotion, Salary, Supervision, and Co-work­ers on overall satisfaction and on overall dissatisfaction.

The investigators found that the results of their study dlsconfirm predictioris of the two-factor theory. The. findings that "satisfier" variables (Work Itself and Pro­motion) contribute to both satisfaction and dissatisfaction and that "dissatisfier" variables (Co-workers » Supervision, and Salary) contribute to satisfaction and not dissatis­faction are incompatible with the two-factor theory. To Graen and H u l i n t h e results were more compatible with the traditional theory which hypothesizes that if job variables are categorized according to the two-factor classification system, both so-called satlsfiers and dissatisfiers non- tribute over the entire continuum of overall job satisfaction dissatisfaction.' In essence, Graen and Hulinfs study reports results in support of the hypotheses of the tradi­tional theory at the expense of the two-factor theory.

Reactionists. .. Two writers are noted as proposing different approach

es to the study of job satisfaction.1. Wolf (1970) proposes a theory of motivation

based on Maslow’s (19^3? 195*0 concept of a "need hierarchy", and suggests that it would account for all the discrepant ■ research results concerning job satisfaction. The author believes that such a theory, so founded, would differentiate between job satisfaction/dissatisfaction as end states and job motivation as a force to achieve an end state.

In substancef Wolf theorizes that Herzberg's contentand context elements are related to both satisfaction anddissatisfaction in terms of the level of gratification of thevarious needs within Maslow's hierarchy; and, that job moti-

h.: 'vation results from an individual's perception of the rela­tionship between specific job-related behaviors and desired need-gratifying consequences» Further, context elements are interpreted as being unlikely to be perceived, as leading to. increased gratification of active needs through job-related behaviors, while content items are likely to be so perceived. Thus, one writer reacts to the Herzberg theory by proposing one of his own. But, its value can only be determined by implementation and empirical testing. .

2. Another reaction to the Herzberg theory is the study presented by Gruenfield and Welssenberg (1970). • They believed that the results' to substantiate or refute Herzberg were, still contradictory and inconclusive and the reason may be the;relative neglect of individual variables in the many investigations. . This belief led to their study of what they termed, the FI's (Field Independence) and the FD's (Field Dependence).. The FI's were those persons able to perceive and evaluate his environment in a relatively analytical manner (he is less concerned with the social aspects of his environment and relatively more concerned with mastery of his physical environment and the tasks he is performing).The FD's were persons who do not generally possess this

■ : : y;.": : '■ ■ ■: . ■ ■ . ' ' ' 29"dissembeddlng" ability (he is a more .global perceiver and more responsive to the social aspects'bf the environment).

The authors, by examination of two groups differing in cognitive style, demonstrated that these differences affected perceptions of potential rewards of the organiza­tion. . Also, that consideration of individual differences in cognitive style is Important to understand the nature of the differential perceptions and responses to organizational environments. Thus, they concluded that such a considera­tion of individual differences may clarify some of the con­fusion that surrounds the attempts to substantiate or refute the Herzberg theory of job satisfaction. Here„ one may see a reactionist adopting the role of a "clarifler". At least, the study adds another off-shoot to the Herzberg theory.• In all, Herzbergrs theory has gained many supporters $ and yet,, it has been the subject of considerable criticism. In light of this situation, Herzberg co-authored the following study.

Herzberg Counters The CriticsGrigaliunas and Herzberg (1971) noted that the

fundamental prediction of the motivator-hyglene (M-H) theory . of Frederick Herzberg had undergone well over fifty replications. The sequence of events methodology and its variations had been largely utilized throughout these replications, and consequently, this had led to the criticism that the M-H theory, is "shackled to the story telling

that both motivator and hygiene factors are equally important for human beings. However, more important, the theory indi­cates the feelings that result in individuals when certain psychological processes, are in operation. It describes the underlying dynamics that are obscured by manifest value systems and social desirability of item wording. On the other hand, the authors conclude that the rating scale tech­niques lead to inappropriate and misleading results when used to examine.either the M-H theory or job attitudes in general. In all, it appears that Herzberg‘s counter to his critics (especially those who utilize rating scale techniques in job attitude research) has shifted the burden of verifi-’ cation to such researchers who now must defend their own al­ternative methodology.

Summary .Thinking back to Chapter 1, the investigation re­

vealed the changing views toward man, who in the beginning was merely a tool for increasing production, to that of a human being with his peculiar feelings,. sentiments, and atti­tudes which all come to bear on his work situation. Maybe it's not just the almighty dollar that's important to him. What of job satisfaction? Such a query has resulted in changes in the life of the worker from that of the robot-like piece of equipment to the status of a thinking human being.An increasing amount.of research and studies have focused on the individual and his personal attributes as being important

- -y '■ . . ; : ■ 32keys to opening the door for improving workers' job.atti­tudes » their motivation, and'ultimately their overall job performance and satisfaction.

Frederick Herzberg's review of job attitude litera­ture ultimately led him to the formulation of his M-H theory of job satisfaction; namely, Herzberg's two-factOr theory of work motivation (This Chapter). Like any theory, even though it found many supporters, it also stirred up considerable criticism. However, where the Herzberg technique or a modified form of it was used, the M-H theory has received widespread acceptance. Such a modified form of the Herzberg technique is utilized in the following experimental investi­gation of Herzberg's two-.factor theory of work motivation applied to maintenance workers.

CHARTER 3

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN ,

For the sake of clarity, the methods utilized in this experiment and their results are presented.in two parts. Part 1 consists of the ranking of items (ten job factors)-— a method which Grigaliunas and Herzberg (1971) decry as producing Inappropriate and misleading results when used to examine the M-H theory (See Chapter 2). In Part 2, an attempt was made to replicate, in a modified form, Herzberg1s methodology— content analysis of data ■ gathered from responses to two open-ended questions, classi­fied and analyzed in accordance with (Herzberg, Mausner,. and Snyderman1s, 1959, pp. 44-49, PP. 143-146) definitions and analysis of first level job factors. It was hoped that this manner of presentation would enable the investigator to con- .trast the two parts of the experiment. Also, this overview may enhance one8s understanding of the experiment's purpose, method, and results.

PurposeIn view of the significant amount of skepticism

attached to the M-H theory, and especially the apparent lack of relative studies of job satisfaction among maintenance workers and their assistants, this experiment focused on: ' : '' \ \ 33 ■' : . . V ; -

just such a working population— custodial and maintenance workers in a Public School District. Generally, its purpose was to evaluate each worker’s responses to a two-part ques­tionnaire relating to job factors, which may or may not be •influencing his present satisfaction with his current posi­tion; and» to compare the results with the predictions of the Herzberg theory. More specifically, a major purpose was founded on the investigator’s characteristic conceptualiza­tion of the study’s work population. In brief, the concept held that the responsive data accruing from the application of the two methods of investigation to the purposively selected work groups would produce contrary results. There­fore , two hypotheses were formulated to test such theorized contrary results.

The two hypotheses tested in this experiment were asfollows

Hypothesis 1. Hygiene factors (the.variables which are work supporting or■contextual to the work) are the choice factors that are most important for the job satisfaction of this work population«

Hypothesis 2. Motivator factors (the variables which are generally work related or job-content variables) are the prime influencers of present satisfaction in their currentposition.

35• Method

The entire custodial and maintenance work force ofthe Public School District was sent the survey questionnaire,with instructions for its completion (See Appendix), and anaddressed, stamped return envelope. The total mailing andresponses of employees to the survey are listed below. Thetwo-part method of investigation follows this listing.

Work Total Total PercentCategory Employees Respondees Responding

Custodial-----Custodian 30 26 8?

Maintenance--Buildings 12 10 83Grounds .... 6 4 6?

48 40 83

Part 1--Ranking MethodThe first part of the survey asked the workers to

rank from one to ten a list of factors which they consider "most important" to "least important" to their job satisfac­tion. These ten factors were modified slightly from those used in previously reported studies by (Lindahl, 1949, p. 2 6 5) and (Herzberzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman, 1959, pp. 44-49), and included four motivators and six hygienes. The motivators were: Work That Keeps You Interested (workitself). Full Appreciation of Work Done (recognition),

; - V . ' ' - -.'';' ' ' : : ; -:i' ' . . 36 .Keeping Well Informed (advancement and achievement)» and Harmonious Group of Fellow-workers (group motivation)« The Hygienes were: Good Wages» Pleasant Working Conditions, JobSecurity, Good Supervision, Company Policy and Administration, and A Safe Place To Work.

To determine the relative importance of motivators and hygienes, a mean ranking was computed for each job factor and a- mean rank order determined for the work cate- . gory rankings (Table.1).' Also, an overall range of rankings was computed showing the interquartile range and the median rank of the job factors (Figure 1)..

Limitations of the Ranking Method. The major, limi-. tat ion of this method was the size of the sample investigated. The total number.: of employees in the Custodial' and Mainte­nance. (buildings and grounds) work categories--only forty- eight, restricted the size of the study population. To the author, another limitation seemed' apparent. It was felt . that the responses based on the freedom of choice as to the . importance of listed job factors may be reflections of the workers’ value systems and/or their idealistic expressions of job satisfaction, rather than realistic expressions of the work situation relating to present satisfaction in their current position,' Although this method had its limitations, it was used, not only for contrasting purposes, but since many prominent researchers found it to their satisfaction.

; Part 2"~Herzberg“type Method. The second part, of the survey questionnaire asked

the employees to write; in their own words, their hottest andfrank answers to two open-ended questions. The questions

- " ■ ■ ......were: "What Do You Like Most About Your Job?" and "What DoYou Dislike Most. About Your Job?" The responses to the • questions were analyzed in accordance with a modified "Analy­sis of Factors" by (Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman, 1959» pp. 14-3-146), The responses were then classified in ten cat­egories or job factors using the definitions of the factors by (Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman, 1959, pp. 44-49), mod­ified as appropriate for this study.

To compare the responses classified in the ten job- factor categories, percentage, tabulations of the favorable •■(motivators-satisfiers) and unfavorable (hygiene-dissatis- 'fiers) comments were made for the Custodial and the combined Maintenance groups (Figures 2 and 3). In addition, like tabulations of the job factors were made for the overall study population and the motivators and hygienes were con­trasted (Figure 4).

Limitations of The Herzberg-type Method. The size of the sample (forty-eight), likewise was a limitation on this method of analysis. The method was further limited by administrative exclusion.of Herzberg-like semistructured interviews. One other limitation must be acknowledged: Itstems from the one-party classification and analysis of the

' ' •■■■ V ■ : :: ■■■■ ■ ■ - 38job factors deduced from the workers * replies to the two.open-ended questions— -two or more reviewers, in agreement»would aid in the reduction of individual biases or errorsin judgment.

The results realized from the application of the two methods are discussed in Chapter 4.

CHAPTER >

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ,

First» the methods’ findings were tabulated; and secondly, they were: contrasted and then compared to Herz- berg's two-factor theory of work motivation. This was done in order to establish a frame of reference for comparison of. the present study's two hypotheses to Herzbergfs major hy­pothesis. Lastly, relevant conclusions were drawn and a major implication of the experiment was determined.

ResultsPart 1--Ranking Results

Of the forty returned-questionnaires, none failed to complete it in its entirety. Thus, as to ranking the ten job factors'in.order of importance, all indicated their choices, making a total of 400 responses--260 Custodial, 100 Mainten­ance- buildings', and 40- for the Grounds work category. Tabu­lation of the responses was made, using the ranking method, and is presented in Table 1....

One interesting aspect of this: table is the degree of agreement in the top five choices and their rank order of importance (all were hygienes; and in addition, the building .maintenance workers-indicated as their sixth choice, A Safe Place To Work, another hygiene factor). Only one exception

: ' ' A' -' " ; ' 39 ; I . / v

40TABLE 1

MEAN RANKINGS AND RANK ORDER OF THE 10 WORK CATEGORIES

MaintenanceCustodial

(N=26)Buildings

(N=10)Grounds (N=4)

Job FactorMean

RankingRankOrder

MeanRanking

RankOrder

MeanRanking

RaniOrdi

Job Security 2 . 8 1 1 2 . 2 1 1.75 1

Good Wages 3.19 2 2.4 2 3.75 2

Good Fringe Benefits 4.04 3 3.5 3 5.25 5Pleasant Working

Conditions4.2] 4 4.3 4 4.5 4

Good Supervision 4.81 5 5-1 5 4.0 3Work That Keeps You

Interested6.04 6 CO o 8 5-5 6

Full Appreciation of Work Done

6 . 8 8 7 8 . 0 9.5 6 . 5 7

A Safe Place To Work

7.0 8 6.5 6 8.5 9

Harmonious Group of Fellow-workers

?.ll 9 8 . 0 9.5 8.75 H

Keeping Well In- 7.15 10 7-3 7 7.75 8formed

■ ■■' ; ; ■ ' ■ ; ■ - ; ... ■' 41

to the top five rank order oecured--the rank order,■numbers 3 and 5. for the grounds workers, was the reverse of those for the Maintenance~buiIdings and Custodial categories. Overall, the hygiene rank order was favored "by a 3~to~2 ratio.

The results shown by Table 1 provide support for Hypothesis 1 of this experiment. This finding will be dis­cussed to a greater extent when the author's hypotheses are compared to Herzberg's, and-when some probable reasons for the findings are offered.

Another method of .illustrating the ranking data tabulated in Table 1, is presented in Figure 1. This meas­ure gives the overall range of rankings (interquartile range) for the middle fifty per cent of the experiment.This Figure made it possible to estimate how typical the. average.ranks were when compared to the many rank responses. Two aspects of Figure 1 are worthy of note. First, the spread .of ranks was quite uniform, indicating somewhat of a "bunching" of factor choices around the average choice (rank). Thus, there was a. considerable amount of consistency among the ranking patterns; formed by the workers' responses.Secondly/ the top five factor choices (hygienes) formed a distinct group as opposed to the bottom five group (motiva­tors). These findings will later be compared to those de­rived from the application of. the Herzberg-type method of analysis. -

42

RANGE OF RANKINGS

JOB FACTOR

Job Security Good WagesGood Fringe BenefitsPleasant Working

ConditionsGood SupervisionWork That Keeps You

InterestedFull Appreciation of

Work DoneA Safe Place To WorkHarmonious Group of

Fellow-workers

LEASTIMPORTANT

10 9 8 7

MOSTIMPORTANT4 3 ' 2

+

+

+

- h

+

- t

Keeping Well Informed

LEGEND INTERQUARTILE RANGE __

MEDIAN RANK /

Fig. 1. Range of Rankings and Average Ranks of Factors (N=400 choices of job factors by 40 employees)

Part 2— Herzberg-type Method ResultsThe employees' responses to two open-ended questions,

asked by the questionnaire, provided the source of the data for analysis and classification, using the Herzberg method, modified as appropriate for this experiment. Tabulation of the source data is listed below.

Work ResponsesCategory Favorable Unfavorable Total

Custodial------------ 68 28 96Maintenance---------- 35 23 58

103 51 154-

In charting the results, the favorable and unfavor­able responses were termed as High Feelings and Low Feelings, respectively. The findings are presented in three chartings. Figure 2 shows the results for the Custodial work category; Figure 3, the Maintenance category (buildings and grounds), and Figure 4 for the overall study population.

Figure 2 shows the job characteristics grouped into a motivator-hygiene dichotomy. The top five are motivators (the factor, Harmonious Group, was considered motivational) and the bottom five are hygienes. Herzberg's motivator, Responsibility, was absent from the dichotomy. No workers commented on this factor. Several points reflected on the percentage lines are worth mentioning. The most satisfying element in the Custodial work category related to the factor,

44

Percentage Low Feelings

20 10

Percentage High Feelings

+ 10 20

Work Itself0 17

Harmonic as Group0 13

Recogr it ion0 10

Achiev ementd 9

Advane ement0 6

Work Conditions11 6

Wages10 0

Co. Pol. & Adm.7 3

Supervlsi on3 2

Job se curityC 5

Fig. 2. Comparison of Satisfiers and Dissatisfiersfor 2 6 Custodial Workers

(N=68 High Feelings and 28 Low Feelings)

Work Itself, and the most dissatisfying, to the factor. Work .. ConditionsThis finding provides some questions for manage- .• ment. The factor. Job Security, was found as deserting its hygienic group. This Herzberg hygiene acted as a motivator. Not one worker reported it as unfavorable.

For the maintenance workers (Figure 3), somewhat /different results were found. First, they too declared the Work Itself as the most satisfying and Work Conditions as the most dissatisfying. However, this finding also.shows that nearly twice as many maintenance workers were unhappy with their working conditions than were the custodians ■. (Figure 2). In addition, they noted the. factor, Supervision, as being considerably more dissatisfying than did the custo­dians. This element^ may be a probable source for bridging- the-gap between the Work Itself and Work Conditions. With the exception of the alignment of factors, the motivator- hygiene dichotomy was like that found for the Custodial group. Again, the factor, Job Security, acted as a moti­vator. Although the factor. Wages, was less dissatisfying than it was for the custodians, it remains a controversial affector of job. attitudes--job satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Since money can really play two separate and distinct roles in affecting .job attitudes, management and administration must be aware of them if its salary and wage programs are to be equitable.

46

Percentage Low Feelings

20 10 — +Percentage

High Feelings10 20

19

11

Work0

Recognition 0

Achievement 0

Advancement 0

Harmon0

Wap

Co. Pol.5______

Itself14

11

ous Groun ________ 7

Work Conditions 2

Supervision 2

res0& Adm.

Job Security 0 4

Fig. 3• Comparison of Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers for 14 Maintenance Workers

(N=35 High Feelings and 23 Low Feelings)

, ' : : ■ < 47The findings.presented in Figure 4 for the overall

study population 'bear up those discussed for Figures 2 and 3 and provide support for Hypothesis 2 of this experiment.Two other points are worth mentioning since they apply to all three figures» One is the conspicuous absence of any moti­vators acting as hygienes. Not one worker commented unfavor­ably in relation to the motivator group. Lastly, Figure 4 points up an important relationship--the percentage of the motivators (high job-attitude feelings) was contrasted with the percentage of the high job-attitude feelings and low job-attitude feelings of the hygiene factors,; The above results derived from the application ofthe Herzberg-type method, together with those accrued from the ranking method used to examine the M-H theory (Part 1), formulate-the two-part methodology adopted for the author * s experimento .The differences in the methods' findings are dis­cussed below.

Contrasted the Methodsf ResultsIn the opening remarks of this experiment (See

Purpose, Chapter 3)$ it was conjectured that the application of the two methods of analysis (the ranking method and the Herzberg-type method) to the response data would produce con­trary results. Their implementation and related findings supported that conjecture. Although the results formulated contentually similar dichotomies, they posed opposite positions. Why did these two types of analysis present such

48

Percentage Low Feelings

20 10

Percentage High Feelings

+ 10 20

Work Itself0 16

Harmonl ous Group0 11

Recog nit ion0 10

Achie vement0 9

Ad van Dement0 7

Work Co ndit ions14 5

Wa ges8 0

Supe rvis ion6 2

Co. Po 1. & Adm.6 4

Job S Dcurity0 5

60 30 30 60

Motivators0 52

Hygienes33 15

Fig, 4. Comparison of Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers for The Overall Study Population (N=103 High Feelings and 51 Low Feelings)

different findings? For.example, why did the workers choose the factor. Job Security, a hygiene, as being the most impor­tant Job factor; but, when stating their likes and dislikes about their jobs, they liked the factor, Work Itself, the most? Like questions could be asked about other factors, such as Wages, Work Conditions, and Supervision. Answers to these questions impose studies in themselves.. Even if they were answered for the moment, job factors are bound to change in importance as the worker's job situation and his individ­ual and group "needs" change.

Though the work situation and employee needs do. change with time, an overriding subjective reason for the opposite findings is offered. This override was previously mentioned as a limitation on the ranking method of analysis. There, the author expressed his belief that the.workers' responses would be more representative of their value sys­tems than of their present satisfaction in their current positions. Value.systems may be defined as embedded cultural products--culture traits, such as education, training, skills, etc. of a given people.

This experimental study's population was observed as groups of like people; and as such, they possess somewhat similar value systems. Basically then, like all such workers, they want the good.things that help them to satisfy their needs— not just their job needs, but also their continuously revolving sets of both on-the-job and off-the-job needs.

Therefore, their choices of job factors which are "most important" or "least,important" to them, may be reflections of their "wants" enmeshed with their value systems. In other words, the workers' expressed "wants" resulted in the ranking of hygiene factors as being most important to them, and motivators, the least important.

On the other hand, when the workers were asked to anonymously indicate their likes and dislikes about their jobs, they took advantage of this opportunity and freely expressed themselves— opened up (so to speak) on their bosses, the work conditions (tools, equipment, facilities, etc.)» their pay, and other matters about their job situa­tions-" the good and bad things about their work situations which they felt at:that particular moment in time. This given anonymity could have been another reason for the oppo­site findings. Whatever, the findings that stemmed from the application of the Herzberg-type method of analysis to the response data pointed up their so-called "felt" feelings--the sum of which favored the Work Itself and four other motiva­tors over five hygiene job factors. In essence, the Herzberg- type method results were opposite of those derived from the ranking method of analysis as applied to the study data...

Lastly, one other subjective, yet significant, reason for. the oppositeness of the m e t h o d s ’ findings may lie in the format of the questionnaire, itself. The wording of the instructions, the job factors, and the questions for

eliciting job-attitude responses may have had major effects on the information obtained^ Also, since this experimental study's questionnaire did not specifically include the words, satisfaction or dissatisfaction, differences in the informa­tion obtained could have Occurred. The above offerings, subjective as they are, may explain the differences in the findings of the two methods of analysis--the conjectured contrary results presented in the tabulations.

Comparison of the Experiment's Results ' to Herzberg's Theory

In order to make a meaningful comparison, it wasnecessary first, to note Herzberg's major hypothesis, andthen to briefly review his theory. . "

Herzberg's Major Hypothesis and TheoryHerzberg's major hypothesis is that satisfaction-

dissatisfaction is a function of the classes of motivators and hygienes. The theory was summarized by (Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman, 1959, pp. 81-82) as follows: The 'three factors of work itself, responsibility, and advancement stand out strongly as the major factors involved in producing high job attitudes. Their role in producing poor job atti­tudes is extremely small. Contrariwise, company policy and administration, supervision, and working conditions repre­sent the major job dissatisfiersi

In essence, Herzberg and. his associates concluded that the determinants of job satisfaction, motivators, are different from the determinants of job dissatisfaction, hy­gienes. Motivators, which are job-content variables, are called such, to emphasize their role in satisfying the worker's need for self-actualization. Job-context variables are labeled hygienes to indicate their role in preventing job dissatisfaction. They further concluded that motivators affect job attitudes in a positive direction, and their absence will .much less frequently lead to job dissatisfaction. On the other hand, hygienes represent the major dissatisfiers with little potency to affect job attitudes in a positive direction. It was hoped that this brief review would provide the first-hand information necessary for the specific com­parison discussed below.

Compared. Hypotheses and FindingsThis experiment's two hypotheses differed somewhat

from Herzberg's major hypothesis. (See .Purpose, Chapter 3) « Hypothesis 1 of this experiment postulated the findings that would be derived from the application of the ranking method of analysis to the response data (See Ranking Method, Chapter 3). Although it was supported by the experiment's findings, the method used to obtain the data differed greatly from Herzberg's methodology; therefore, comparison to his hy­pothesis was not, considered plausible. On the other hand,

Hypothesis 2 was comparable since the data was obtained by using a modified replication of the Herzberg method of analy­sis. The results showed that this hypothesis compared ' favorably to Herzberg!sespecially on noting his conclusions

: As to comparing the findings, again it was not, "con­sidered plausible to compare those derived from the ranking method for the same reason as stated above. However, this study’s findings by. the Herzberg-type method were similar, but.two important differences occurred. One dealt with.

■ Herzberg’s motivator. Responsibility. Nowhere in thisstudy's response data could any of the workers' comments be construed as relating to this job factor. The other differ-

. enoe was found, as regards the job factor. Harmonious Group of Fellow-workers, which was used in lieu of Herzberg's- classification'. Interpersonal Relations--peers, a hygiene.

: This chosen factor was.believe to be motivational because of the expected, cohesiveness of the work groups. The find­ings supported this expectation. Thus, this factor was found as a motivator in contrast to.Herzberg1s pronounced

. hygienic aspects of his similar job. factor. With the ex­ception of these two stated differences, the other motivators and hygienes behaved like Herzberg1s , though there were some minor variations as to their strengths in the motivator- hygiene dichotomy. No other specifics were noted for com­parison of this experiment’s results to Herzberg's theory. .

-Summary and Conclusions -

Summary . ' , ' ■ V ;:-To recall, the experiment utilized two methods to

analyze the employees5 responses obtained from the survey questionnaire. On using the ranking method, the workersf positive job-attitudes appeared tuned to their "wants” for job satisfaction; but, on using the Herzberg-type method, they seemed to be tuned to their current feelings of satis­faction in their.respective positionso The results derived from the application of the ranking method produced a so- called hygiene-motivator dichotomy, while those derived from applying the Herzberg-type method produced a motivator- hygiene, dichotomy--two opposite states. The experiment’s two hypotheses were supported by its findings; however, only hypothesis 2 of the,experiment, and the experiment's finding by the.Herzberg-type method, compared favorably to Herzberg1s major hypothesis and findings— the motivators and hygienes behaved like, those postulated by the Herzbergian theory.

ConclusionsThe following conclusions are based on the author's

investigation and experiment and their interpretations,1. The ranking method (ranking of job factors) tech­

niques elicit inappropriate and misleading,results when used to examine the motivation-hygiene theory.

: ' .V - 55:2». A modified replication of Herzberg's methodology

leads to results similar to those predicted by the Herzberg ■ theory,... 3e Herzberg-like classification, analysis, and tabu­lation of this experiment’s data formed a motivator-hygiene dichotomy similar to that formed by Herzberg‘s findings., 4. Motivators appear related more to job satisfaction

.than hygienes by a ,3-to-l ratio,5« The importance of the inherent nature of work

groups is underestimated by management. This■ means that the particular combination of qualities that exist in the members of the work groups; are potential motivating forces which should be recognized, appreciated, and skillfully directed toward the, desired, goals.

6 . The culture of. the groups is likewise a moti­vating force-~a potent force operating within its cultural bounds. These bounds can be limiting forces if they are not recognized, understood and given full consideration by man­agement in all directed work activities.

7. Work group relationships may be motivating. agents. Groups of like people tend to form coherent groups.

8 . Individuals, given the opportunity, provide in­formation worthy of management’s attention--its sincere attention if. good employer-employee relations are to be achieved and maintained.;

9« Influence of the-overall work environment„ not just the work situation, is a major ingredient of employee satisfaction,'

10. Generally, this study's findings lend support to Herzberg's two-factor theory of work motivation (See Part 2— Herzberg-type Method Results).

11. While awaiting future research, the Herzberg theory provides for one relative theory of motivation attuned to job attitudes and job satisfaction. As such, it shouldbe granted its due credit, at least until it is refuted in total dr a better one is•presented..

Major Implication of the Experiment The winding down of a study doesn't end with the

conclusions drawn. One last turn - remains and it is concerned with the major implication of this experiment's findings.In short, the Implication, stems' from the relationship of specific work related variables to the nature.of the work groups investigated.

It has been reported in many small group studies that job satisfaction is in part a group phenomenon. .In- light of such studies, and based on this experiment's find­ings as related to first-hand information gained by this author while interviewing these same groups of employees (this study's population) when working on. another project . conducted for the school district,.this investigator views

the cohesiveness of the work groups as being the major impli­cation gleaned from the experiment’s findings and the avail­able information at hand; and therefore, it appears as the major influencing agent for job satisfaction. In essence, the work groups’ cohesiveness (degree of attraction of their members to the groups) is observed as a manifestation of the groups’ members’ inherent nature, their cultural backgrounds and similar value systems. Thus, as groups of like people, and as people being "individually" alike, each individual’s attitudes toward his work may certainly be affected by his . position within the structure of his group and by the nature ■ of that structure itself.

As group members, they seemed to work together as a team, doing the varied tasks as assigned, and to pride them­selves for jobs well done. To them, the work itself was . challenging, interesting, and'worth-while. They spoke highly of their workplace— working for the school district gave them status and recognition— they were employees of a public institution. As individuals, they were friendly, sociable, pleasing, and easygoing; and, they seemed dedicated, not only to their groups’V work activities, but also to their own specialties and their employer, the school district.

Further, with respect to the specific work related variables that were involved in producing high feelings on the job, especially the variables, Work Itself and Harmonious Group, the respondees’ positive job-attitudes toward them

seem to imply that the group process is quite influential,. :On the other hand, two specific work.variables. Work Condi­tions and Supervision, were involved in producing negative, job-attitudes (low feelings on the job). . However, since all the mentioned variables are directly related to getting the job done, simultaneous evaluation of the resulting positive and negative job-attitudes might well reveal individual and/or deviant cases which may be affecting the groups' mem­bers' specific attitudes about their work situations, The high degree of attraction of the members to their groups, their cohesiveness, may also affect each group's ability to control the behavior of its members. Since the groups seem to.be under the direction of capable supervisors and the. majority of the workers pride themselves for jobs well done, the groups' cohesiveness (group power) will tend to keep any deviants in line, control production goals, and.also point up any areas of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction as was noted in the experiment's- findings.

... In. substance then', the motivating variables were noted as more related to overall job satisfaction than were the hy~ - gienic variables, by a 3"to-1 ratio. Also, the influence of the groups' processes appears to be the major motivating force for the workers' overall job satisfaction. Therefore, the majority of the workers may be.viewed as regulars, with but a few being observed as deviants whose behavior is, for

all practical purposes, being controlled to a great degree, as evidenced by the overall favorable findings of Job satis­faction.

. Though such deviant cases add to the perplexities that administrations encounter, it is the overall cohesiveness of the work groups, i.e., the togetherness of their members» that tends to shape each worker’s attitudes, his motivation, and ultimately, his overall work performance and Job satis­faction. This group phenomenon is highly significant and worthy of management’s recognition, appreciation, and under­standing if employee satisfaction is to be maintained and generally improved. . Such a potential motivating force should be skillfully directed toward individual and organizational goals.' '

APPENDIX

. INSTRUCTIONS FOR QUESTIONNAIRE ,(PLEASE BEAD CAREFULLY)

TO ALL EMPLOYEES:. This questionnaire is to find out your likes and dislikes about your job. Ten factors about your work are listed. Their.order of listing has no bearing on their importance. Look over this list. Take your time to ' think about them. Do not discuss them with other workers ,or your supervisor. .We want only your own opinions. Rank the factors from 1 to 10 as to their importance to you. The following example will help you to understand this ranking procedure. . -EXAMPLE: Only one.number can be given to each job factor.

1. If you feel the factor "Keeping Well Informed" is "most important" to you,, rank the factor number 1 .

■ .v 2 „' If the factor is - not the most important (number 1) or not the least important (number _1 0) , choose one of the.numbers between 1 to 10 as your rank for the factor.

3. Or, if you feel that the factor is of "least . importance" to you, rank it number 1 0 .

After you have assigned a separate number to each of the job■ ■ . 60 : : :

factors, write in your own_words» your honest and frank answers to the last two. questions. Please feel free to write what you choose in the space provided under each question.DO NOT SIGN YOUR NAME TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.WRITE IN THE NAME OF YOUR SECTION OR.DIVISION. Space is provided for this information and it is needed for work location purposes only-You have approximately one week to complete your question­naire. The self-addressed, stamped envelope is attached for the mailing of your, questionnaire.

62QUESTIONNAIRE

SECTION______RANK THE FACTORS LISTED BELOW* THE INSTRUCTION SHEET DESCRIBES THE RANKING PROCEDURE YOU MUST FOLLOW. BE SURE YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND IT BEFORE YOU ASSIGN YOUR SELECTED RANKING NUMBERS TO THE FACTORS.

____________ JOB FACTORS___________ RANKINGS OF JOB FACTORS1. Work That Keeps You

Interested2. Full Appreciation of

Work Done3• Good Wages4. Pleasant Working

Conditions5. Keeping Well

Informed6 . Job Security7. Good Supervision8 . Good Fringe Benefits

(Holidays, Vacations,Sick Leave, Insurance,Retirement)

9. A Safe Place To Work10. Harmonious Group of

Fellow-workers

COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING .QUESTIONS. THEY PROVIDE YOU WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRULY EXPRESS YOUR OPINIONS.

1. What Do You Like Most About Your Job?

2. What Do You Dislike Most About Your Job?

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Argyrls, C ,, Personality and. Organization; the conflict be- : tween system and the individual. New York: Harper» 1957«Brayfield, Arthur H. "Review of F. Herzberg, B.Mausner,

and B.. Snyderman, The Motivation to Work," Personnel Psychology, i9 6 0 , 13, 101-102,

Brayfield, Arthur H., and Crockett, Walter H. "Employee. Attitudes a,nd Employee Performance," Psychological Bulletin, 1933. (52) 3. 415-422.

Burke, Ronald J « "Are Herzberg‘s Motivators and Hygienes Uhidimensional?" Journal of-Applied Psychology, 1 9 6 6,(5 0) 4, 317-3 2 1.: ",

■Dunnette,:M. D. ."Factor Structure of Unusually Satisfying, and Unusually Dissatisfying Job Situations For Six

. Occupational Groups," Paper presented at the Midwest ■ Psychological Association, Chicago, 19^5» -Dunnette, M. D., Campbell, J. P., and Hakel, M. D. "Factors

Contributing to Job Satisfaction and Job Dissatisfaction in Six Occupational Groups," Organizational Behavior and. Human Performance, 1 9 6 7, 2 , l43-l?4.

Ewen, R. B. "Some Determinants of Job Satisfaction: A Studyof the Generality -of Herzberg1s Theory. Journal of Applied -

; Psychology, 1964, 48, 161-1 6 3.Ewen, R. B., Smith, P. C., Hulin, C. L., and Locke, E. A.

"An Empirical Test of the Herzberg Two-Factor Theory," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 9 6 6, 5 0 , 544-5 5 0«

Gilbreth, Frank. "Science in Management for the one best way to do work,". Societa Umanitaria (Milan, Italy), 1 9 2 3.

Graen, George B. "Addendum To "An Empirical Test of the■ Herzberg Two-Factor Theory," Journal of Applied

Psychology, 1966, (50) 6 , 55’i~55^~Graen, George B ., and Hulin, Charles L. "Addendum To "An

Empiricar Investigation of Two Implications of the Two- Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 9 6 8, (52) 4, 341-342.

64

65Grigaliunas, Benedict S.., and Herzberg, Frederick. "Rele­

vancy in the Test of Motivator-Hygiene Theory," Jburnal . : of Applied Psychology, 1971, (55) 1. 73-79.Gruenfield, Leopold W,, and Weissenberg, Peter. "Field

Independence and Articulation of Sources of Job Satis­faction," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, (5^) 5,

, 42^— 426.

Halpern, Gerald. "Relative Contributions of Motivator and Hygiene Factors to Overall Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 9 6 6, (50) 3, 1 98-2 0 0 . .

Herzberg, Frederick. "The Motivation-Hygiene Concept and : Problems of Manpower,” Personnel Administration,/; 1964, 2?, 3-7.Herzberg, Frederick, Mausner, Bernard, and Snyderman, B. B.. . The Motivation to Work. (2nd ed.) New York: Wiley, 1959.Herzberg, Frederick, Mausner, Bernard, Peterson, Richard 0.,

and Capwell, Dora -F. Job Attitudes: . Review of Research and Opinion. Pittsburg: Psychological Service ofPittsburgh, 1957.

Hinrichs, John R., and Mischkind, Louis A. "Empirical and Theoretical Limitations of the Two-Factor Hypothesis of Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology,1 9 6 7, (51) 2 , I9I-2 OO. .

Homans, G. C..: .The Human Group,. New York: Ha r court, Brace, 1950.

Hughes, E. C. "The Knitting of Racial Groups in Industry,."' American Sociological Review; 1946, 11, 512-519.Hulin, C. L,, and Smith, P. A. "An Empirical Investigation

of Two Implications of the Two-Factor Theory of Job Sat- . isfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 9 6 7, 51, • 396-402.

Kahn, Robert L . . "Review of F. Herzberg, B. Mausner, and '■ B. Snyderman, The Motivation to Work," Contemporary

Psychology, 1 9 6 1, 6, 9-10.Katzell, Raymond A . "Industrial School Psychology," Annual

Review of Psychology, 1957, 243-244.

: • 66Lawler6 1116 Edward E. "Attitude Surveys and Job Perfor­

mance," Personnel Administration, Sept-Octo 1967. 3-S. 22-24. ™ ™ ' ~-™ ™ "Lewln, Kurt. Resolving; Social Conflict. New York: Harper,

1950.Lewln, Kurt. Field Theory In Social Science. New York:

Harper, 1951. : ,Llkert, R. New Patterns of Management. New York:

M cGraw-H 1 l l 19 61.Lindahl, Lawrence. "What Makes a Good Job," Personnel,

Jan. 1949, 265.Lindsay, Carl A., Marks, Edmond, and Gorlow, Leon. "The

Herzberg Theory: A Critique and Reformulation." Journalof Applied Psychology, 1 9 6 7, (51) 4, 330-339=

Malinowski, B.. A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University ofNorth Carolina Press, 1944.

Maslow, A. H. "A Theory of Motivation," Psychological Review, 1943, 50, 370-396.

Maslow, A. H. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper,1954.

Mayo, Elton. The Human Problems of an Industrial Civiliza­tion. New York: Macmillan, 1933=

Mayo, Elton. The Social Problems of an Industrial Civili­zation. Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1945.

Metcalf, Henry C. and Urwlck, L. (ed.). Dynamics of Administration. New York: Harper Brothers! 19%.

Myers, S. M. "Who Are Your .Motivated Workers?" Harvard Business Review, 1964, 42, 73-88.

Platt, J. R."Strong Inference," Science, 1964, 146, 347-352.

Erien, E. P., Barrett, G., and Svetlik, B. "The Prediction of Job Performance," Personnel Administration, Mar-Apr.1 9 6 7, 40-43.

6?Roefchlisberger5 P. J . Management and Morale„• Cambridges

. Harvard University Press, 19^3®Roethlisberger» P. J., and Dickson, W. J. Management and

the Worker- Cambridge: Harvard University Press» 1939.Roethlisberger, P. J . , and Dickson, W. J. Management and

the Worker. Cambridge: Harvard University P r e s s 1947.Saliman, Hanafi M. "Motivation-Hygiene Theory of Job

Attitudes: An Empirical Investigation and An Attemptto Reconcile Both the One-and the-Two Factor Theories of Job Attitudes,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, (5*0 5, 452-461.

Schwartz, M . M .V J enusa it is, E.» and Stark, H. "Motiva­tional Factors Among Supervisors in the Utility Industry," Personnel Psychology, 1 9 6 3, 16, 45-53«

Taylor, Frederick W. The Principles of Scientific Manage­ment . New York: Harper & Brothers, 1911.

Vroom, V. H. and Maier, N. R. P. "Industrial School Psychology." Annual Review of Psychology, 1 9 6 1, 12, 413—4-46,

Waters, L, K., and Waters, Carrie Wherry. "Correlates of Job Satisfaction.and Job Dissatisfaction Among Female

. Workers," Journal of Applied Psychology. 1 9 6 9, (53) 5, 388-391. ' . '

Wernimont, Paul P . , "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors in Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 9 6 6, (50) 1, 41-50.

Whitsett, P. A., and Winslow, E. K. "An Analysis of Studies Critical of the Motivator-Hygiene Theory," Personnel Psychology, 1967, 20, 391-415.

Wolf, Martin G. "Need Gratification Theory: A TheoreticalReformulation of Job Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction and Job Motivation," Journal of Applied. Psychology, 1970, (54) 1,

■ 87-94. ,

7036M7