- Email: [email protected]
The human relations view of motivation
H. Roy lbph Curt Tausky Bhopindcr S. Bolaria
68
“principles” that rest on assumptions about human nature and motivation that deserve critical analysis. Let us begin with the concept of job enlargement, since it provides a convenient handle on human relations thinking. Job enlargement refers to combining the small tasks of several men performing short
work cycles into a larger task performed by one man in a longer work cycle. The concept itself is both normative and empirical, combining, as it does, the assertion that the dignity of man requires job enJargement with assurances that increased job satisfaction and individual output result from it. Rensis Likert states the normative side of the case unequivocably in his 2vcw Fattnns of iUana,-Fmcnt: Every worker “should see his task as diflicuh, importam, and meaningful. . . . When jobs do not meet this specScation, they should be reorganized so that they do.” Job enlargement, as most of the human relations theorists view it, goes a good deal beyond combining tasks into a natural and more meaningful unit; it also involves giving the worker more freedom and greater
control over the task The employee participates in many of the decisions that determine the framework within which he works. Thus, we can see at the core of human relations theory a reaction against Frederick Taylor’s scientific management. Among Taylor’s principles of work organization, the most important centered on (1) the necessity to separate the functions of planning and execution+hat is, thinking from doing; (2) the advantages of specialiion, which were to be gained by assigning men to strut& routinized tasks; and (3) the requirement for material incentives, since he believed thaw man is by nature lazy and responds only to a prompt and tangible reward For Taylor, the application of these principles was the key to increased organizational productivity; to human relations theor-
ists, the sohttion to greater productivity lies in standing Taylor on his head: recombine small jobs and fuse thinkmg and doing as much as possibk. By organiziig the work in shop and o&e in this manner, runs the argument, material incentives become of secondary importance in motivating workers, since the motivation to exert e&t in behalf of organizational goals follows naturahy and inevitably from the intrinsicahy interesting nature of the work itself. Although human relationistsreact against the substantivr~ masoning of scientific management, they share a common outlook on twq basic issues. Firsh both theories hoid out the tantalizing promise of increased work effort among organizational participants. They differ on how to accomplish thi: but both agree that there is a ‘One best way.” Job
69
enlargement and participation are among the principal means proposed by human relationists to heighten commitment toward work. One feature of these means should be highlighted-the assumption of a relationship between nonfinancial satiskrions and the degree of effort expended on work tasks: The greater the degree of non&an&l satisfactions achieved, the greater will be the amount of effort expended by the worker on his job. A second revealing similarity between scientific management and human re!ations is the assumption that individual interests and organizational roles are compatible. If conflict exists, it is due to a defect in organization, and this can be remedied. Within the scientific management framework, the proper manipulation of monetary incentives was thought to solve the problem; within the human relations framework, training in interpersonal relations and employee participation in resolving work problems are held to be the solution to most conflicts between individual interests and those of the organization. BASICASSUMPTIONS OFHUMAN RELATIONS
70
To understand the human relations viewpoint, we must look at its basic premises about the nature of man and his commitment to work. Fortunately, Douglas McGregor, one of the founders of the human relations movement, has laid out two basic and contrasting perspectives of man in his well-known Theories X and Y. Theory X, as he points out, is the “conventional” view of the tasks of management and its assumptions about man. Theory Y, hr .trgues, is a different conception of management “‘based on more adequate assumptions about human nature and human motivation.” Theory X states: 1. Management is responsible for organizing the elementa of productive enter-
prise-money, .naterials, equipment, people -in the mterest of economic ends. 2. With respect to people, this is a process of directing their efforts, motivating them, controlling their actions, and modifying their behavior to St the needs of the organization. 3. Without this active intervention by management, people would be passive, even resistant, to organizational needs. They must therefore be persuaded, rewarded, punished, controlled-their actions must be directed. ‘Ilhis is management’s task. We often sum it up by Lying that management consists of getting things done through other people. 4. The average man is by nature indolent-he works as little as oossible. 5. He lacks ambition, dislikes responsibiIity, prefers to be led. 6. He is inherently self-centered, indifferent to organizational needs. 1. He is by nature resistant to ChSiIlg62 8. He is gullible, not very bright, the ready dupe of the charlatan and demagogue. Theory Y states: 1. Management is responsible for organizing the elements of productive enterprise-money, materials, equipment, peoplein the interest of economic ends. 2. People are not by nature passive or resistant to organizational needs. They have become so as a result of experience in organizations. 3. The motivation, the potential for development, the capacity for assuming responsibility, the readiness to direct behavior toward organizational goals are all present in people. Management does not put them there. It is a responsibility of management to make it possible for people to recognize and develop these human characteristics for themselves.
4. The essential task of management is to arrange organizational c.,,nditions and methods of operations so that people can achieve their goals best by dire&.-,- tk: c-:;i efforts toward organizational objectives. Notice especially assumption 6 in Theory X, and its explicit rejection by assumption 2 in Theory Y. The p&u that should he stressed is that the “conventional” view of man assumes that he is selfcentered. A control system organized around a carrotand-stick system of material rewards is therefore necessary m order to induce men to cooperate in achieving organizational goals. C?n the other hand-given assumptions 2 and 3 in Theory Y, the uproper” organizational structure-large jobs and decision making shared between superiors and subordinates are held to be the inducements that result in sustained efIort to achieve organizational goals. Theory X is skeptical about man, much in the rnannef of Thomas Hobbes, who viewed man as basically se&enter4 his predatory instincts being held in check soMy by the fear of p&shment and the promise of reward. Theory Y, on the other hand, is optimistic in the manner of Jean Jacques Rousseau, who saw man as altruistic in nature but corrupted by existing institutions. It seems apparent that the thrust of human relations writings on organizational structure incorporates assumption 4 of Theory Y: Self-interestedness and mater% concerns, which on the surface are characteristic of man, are actually products of the rigidly hierarchical control systems and tedious tasks embedded in work organizations as they presently exist. It is the impIicit assumption of hu,man relationists that all individuals can, should, and indeed want to obtain satisfaction and intrinsic involvtient in their work. In his book, Wart and the Nature of Man, Professor Frederick He&g of The University of Utah n+es this point succinctly:
Probably one of the most destructive mirixerpreta.:ons of the American way of life has been to belittle, attentuate, and degrade the concept of the worker’s initiative and achievement as pursued for economic profit Man does work for profit in order to avoid pain; but in a positive sense, he works to enjoy the excitement and meaning that achievemerit provides for his own psychological growth and the&y his happiness. The limitation of goals by those in industry to that of pofit is contradicting and reducing our nation’s grclt heritage. It suggests that there is no nobler purpo~ in the American experiment than the satisfactirr-~ of rhe avoidance needs of animalr
How valid are the positions held by the human rekxtionists? To what extent do the realities of life in the workplace correspond to their generous description of man and his motives ? Do the data repute their depiction or con&-m it-or is the evidence contradictory and the general picture confused ?
HOWVALIDISZHECASE FOB PAUTICIPATIO~?
We should first distinguish between participation and other aspecrs of joh enrichment. The employee might logically appreciate a bigger, more interesting, more challenging task without necessarily wanting greater control over the conditions under which he performs it. Similarly, an employee might value the chance for increased participation in decisions af&ting his job without desiring a bigge;, more interesting job, which he may view as more demanding and stre&L ParticiPation in organizations receivedalotofimpetusfromtheresearchof Kurt Lewin in the 1940% among boys’ clubs and Red Cross vohmteer nurses. This research supported the hypo&esis that participation in decision making heightened cooperation toward group goals. These sttu ’ ‘s and more that followed were essentially a critique
71
H. Roy Kaplan is pescdy &stunt professor of sociology at the State Universiq oj New York in &&lo. His major research interests we in indutrbl loridogy, comp&z orgunixations, and medical so&o!ogy. Projessor Kaplan has done graduate work at the UnL wrdy oj Maine and tk urn-uff& oj Massachusetts.
Curt Taudq is assodc profasor of sociology a# the University uj Masacbetts. He is tk aathor of nwnerous writings an indnst&d s~&Iogy and campkx organizations. inclvding his recrvtly published bvo& Work Organizations: Major Them-&al Pcrspc~ tivcs Projcssvr Tausky teccived his PhD. ot the University of Oregon.
Bhopinda S. Boiaria ii as&ant pr+.rm of sociology at the Urn&r+ of M&e. He is abo a men&r of tk Manpower Resawch faadty there, and director of the Resrarch rmd Ev&wtion Service oj the Maine Regional Medial Program. Hb weus of sp&tlizativn in&de indastrial sociology, campkx organi zdons, and medial sociologq. Projessw &la&> received his PhD. ot Washington State University.
of the unilateral exercise of power: Participation is tbe opposite of simply expecting subordinates to do as they are told The compatibuity of participation with democratic values is obvious. Underlying both is the assumption that a shared decision produces commitment among the participants. Moreover, human relations theory post&es a link between participation and productivity. The chain of reasoning follows these lines: Participation increases satisfaction, and satisfaction is reflected in increased work efIort. Hugh Clegg, in A Neru Approach to indusmbi Democracy, exauxined the outcome of worker participation in the form of codetermination and workers’ management. His findings are most interesting: First, -participation through representation does not of itself enhance workers’ saGsfaction. Second, productivity is not related to participation &rough representation. Nevd&s, it doesappeartobetruetha~attheperson-toperson Ieve& having a voice in the work pmcess does increase satisfaction, and here human relations has an important point. However, one should not make too much of this. Let us indicate briefly what can be said about the consequences of participation v&h some degree of confidence. l Most workers, whether white-cc!Jar or blue-collar, do not seek a peer relationship with their supervisor. This emerged quite clearly in studies reported by Arnold Tannenbaum in Conttd in Organization, He found that when employees were asked about the existing distribution of control, and what it should be ideally, there was little divergence between the two distributions. The respondents did want more -say,” but not much more than they had Although a more consultative relationship was desired, it was well within the framework of expecting management to manage.
l WFiitever increment in satisfaction may result from moving toward a consultative relationship is not reflected to a significant extent in greater work effort. Studies by Victor Vroom, Alrhur Brayfield, and James Crockett surveyed the relationship between satisfaction and productivity and found it to be of negligible magnitude Tannenbaum, in a study of 33 automobile dealerships and 32 delivery agencies, found correlations between job satisfaction and pmductivity ranging from .14 to -48; in other words the relationship between satisfaction and productivity ranged from slightly positive to negative. However, there is evidence to suggest that turnover and ahsenteeism are more closely related to satisfaction thau is direct work effort. Thus, we should not dismiss the long-run consequences of satisfaction for the organization. * Even among professionals, as Sh5WIlinthCiZWgSMC&StUd~5fDonad Pelx and Frank Andrews, &z&t& in Organizrrtion, come autonomy resulted in less scientific productivity than sinradons in which decision making depended on consultation between peers. Apparently, the discussion of new direct&s and findings of research with other scientists and tbe laboratory director is salutary. 0 Extensive Participation may be more important to academic theorists than to people in bureaucratic seuings. The material rewards an organization provides may, especially at the manual level, outweigh any interest in particiPation in decision making. John Goldthorpe’s study, The A&etat Worker, finds a very pronounced pecuniary orientation toward work among factory workers in Britain: Their major interest was tbe size of the wage package. One might speculate that whatever success such programs fo the Scardon Plan and the Kaii Plan enjoy is
73
due more to their potential for increasing the eaq&yee’s pay, than to the increased work effort that presumably follows from the con sultative relations also featured in the plan.
DEFININGJOBENRICHMENT
74
Most human relationists subscribe to the need theory of Abraham Maslow, which stresses the need for people to self-actualize in their life activities, particularly work. From this arises the warning to management to provide employees with interesting and stimulating work that helps to satisfy higher-level needs. Human relationists frequently contend that contemporary complex organizations with their elaborate specialization of tasks, web of rules and regulations, and mechanized technology are alienating large qments of workers from their work and work places. Some writers, such as Robert Blauner, go so far as to speculate that a majority of workers in our society may be estranged from their work. These supposed wends have led to extensive researcheson job satisfaction among various segments of the labor force. One study of accountants and engineers by Frederick Her&erg and his associates led to the postulation of a new conception of worker motivation, the Motivation-Hygiene theory of job satisfaction.-Based on a rationalistic conception of man and his perfectibility, and largely derived from theories emphasizing the importance of the satisfaction of higher-level ileeds through work, this theory emerged on the scene in the late I95Us. The theory stated that there were two dichotomous sets of factors, each having different effects on the attitudes of workers and their motivations. One set of factors, labeled “motivators,” was said to be related to the Intrinsic aspects of the work situation--e-g., the WC& task itselfand was believed to affect job satisfaction.
When “motivators,” such as the oR~rtunity for achievement, advancement, and recognition, are present at satisfactory levels in a person’s job, satisfaction occurs. However, it is the “hygienes,” those factors concerned with the extrinsic aspect of the work environment, such as salary, job security, working conditions, and supervision, that affect job dissatis+&ion. According to this theory, the absence of “motivators’* does not lead to job dissatisfaction, but to lack of job satisfaction. If “hygienes” are present at sutlicient levels in the worker’s job, satisfaction does not occur, there is merely an absena of job dissatisfaction-a neutral state. However, should the level of “hygiene” satisfaction he less than that desired by the worker, job d+atisfaction will ensue. This theory, lie many contemporary human relations approaches to work, puts thG satisfaction of uhigher-level needssuch as seIf-actualization at the core of man’s motivation to work. The reason for this position is not hard to grasp in view of Herzberg’s conception of the dual nature of man, which he refers to as the concept of Adam and Abr&am. Adam is the animal part of man, continually seeking the satisfaaion of such basic needs as food and shelter, and he represents a myopic perspective of life. Abraham, however, is the embodiment of ail that is human in man. He stands for the rational, perfectible counterpart of Adam. His goal is to mature psychologically and to realize his true potential through his work. Herxbergs theory of motivation assumes that an individual’s job must be meaningful and aIlow for the lasting satisfaction of higher-level needs in order to satisfy the cravings of Abraham. Otherwise, motivation must be achieved through the carrot-and-stick method of continual offerings of hygienic reward-g., salary incream. (Her&erg uses the acronym KITA-Rick In The Ass-for these types of
motivating stimuli.) St& rewards are presumed to afEord increased motivation, but only for a short duration, since the basic needs of man are thought to be insatiabie and ..nercfore cyclical. Unique and resourceful as this theory may be, we should not allow ourselves t6 uorritica~y accept its assumptions regarding the nature of man. More of this shortly. However, a more empirical point of contendon concerns the failure of the theory to consider that workers in different segments of the Iabor force have varying orientations.
Moreover, while Her&erg’s original study was of professional white-collar workers, subsequent studies of similar level workers reveal that there is frequently no discernible uniformity among their work orientations, either. Figure 1 contains an inventory of studies of white-collar and professional workers that support and refitte the Motivation-Hygiene theory. It is apparent that more than half of the studies presented do not confirm the theory. This questions the applicability of the theory even to professional and white-collar workers.
Figwe I
sotuce *Schwa* Paul.A&4desof Pffsond Research,
(pinsburgh: l%!q.
%miso~ Roger, ager’s Job XIII (Winter, *Schwartz,
et
%ourees
Auitics,” I%@), al.,
sumpzc
Mid&-lUunagenunt lbnC&n hStiNtSS
of Motivations
Permnncl
372 third
level
supervisory
for
in Man-
P&oZo#,
‘.I36 first- and Nring firm.
second-level
supervisors
in a n%~~ufac
pp. 42-34.
“Motivational Utility
Factors Industry,”
Among
11 I male
in 21 utility
sc~isors
companier~
Pcr;nmnel PsycboIog]~, XVI (spring, 1%3), pp. 45-53. Supervisors
in
the
Friedlander, Frank, “Underlying Sources of Job Satisfaction,” lournul of Applied Psychology, XLVII (August, 1963)) pp. 246-250. ‘Saleh, Shoukty D., “A Study of Attitude the Preretirement Period,” iorrnrrrl
Psyf/lozOgy, XLVIII
(oaober,
Change 2 of &.&cd
supervisors concern
Engineers,
manufacruring
85 male
managerial
and salaried employees (Nx) of each level).
preretirees
of
a
in 12 companies.
WV?), pp. 310-
312.
*Myers, M. Scott, Harmrd ers?,” uary-February, *Friedlander, Negative istruttke
Who
Are Your Motivated WorkBtincss Ihtitu, XL11 (JanI!X4), pp. 73-78.
Frank, Eugene Walton, “Positive an; Motivations Toward Work,” A&i Science Qdy, IX (LW), pp. 19%
230 male supervisors.
scientists,
engineers,
and
manufacmring
82 scientists and engineers at an armed search and development laboratory.
services
re-
207.
Ewen, Robert B., “‘Some Determinants Satisfaction: A Study of the Generality berg’s Theory,” ]ourncJ of Applied XL.VII (June, 1964), pp. 161-163.
of Job of Herr-
Psychdogy,
1,021 full-time
life insurance
agents.
75
l Herzberg, Frederick, “The Motivation
1.19lower-level supervisors in Fio!and.
*Dysinger, Dale W., “Motivational Factors Affecting Army Research and Development Persottnel,” Report AD 640-390, American Institutes for Research, May, 1966.
600 research and development scientists and engineers from 12 Army installations
to Work .imong Fiuish Supervisors,” Personnel Pqdology, XVIII (Winter, l%S), pp. 393-492.
t
Wernimont, Paul F., ‘Intrinsic and Extrinsic FOG tots in Job Satisfaction,” /oMsor of Applied Pwchdogy, L (February, 1966).pp. 41-50.
50 accountants and %2 engineers.
Gracn, George B., “‘Motivator and Hygiene Dimensions for Research and Development Engineers,” journal of Applied Paychdogy, L (December, 1966)) pp. 563-566.
153 engineers from two electronics firms.
Hiorichs, John R., Louis A. &&kind, “Empirical and Theoretical Limitations of the Two-Factor Hypothesis of Job Satisfaction,” ]olrnrrd oj Ap plied Psychology, LI (April, 1%7), pp. 191-200.
613 male technicians in a large national company.
Hulin, Charles L., Patricia A. Smith, “An Empirical Investigation of Two ImpBitiuns uf the TwoFactor Theory of Job Satisfaction,” J@ of Applied Pqchdogy, Ll @ctober, 1%7), pp. 396-402.
670 home office employees, supervisors, and exautives in a large international corpuration in Montreal, CM-
Wernimont, Paul F., Paul Toren, Henry Kapeil, ‘%omparison of Sources of Personal S&&G tion and of Work Motivation,” ~arcrvrtri of Applied P&o/ogy, LfV ( 1970), pp. 95-102.
775 scientists and technicians at a A4iiwestern plant
Grucnfeld, Leopold W., Peter Weissenbeqg, “‘Fmld Independence and Articulation nf Sources of Job Satisfaction,” journal of Applied P&dogy. LIV (1970), pp. 424-426
96 male civil service employees.
Armstrong, Thomas B., “Job Content and Context Factors Related to Satisfaction for Different Occupational Levels,” JorwuaZ of Applied Psychology, LV (1971), pp. 57-65.
200 engineers and 153 assemblers at an electronics manufacturing company in New York.
What has happened to the universal need of man to realize his fuli potential through his work? Her&erg and other human relationists reply that the need is still there, but dormant. People have become preoccupied with the satisfaction of lower-level needs in their quest for monetary status and prestige. Organizations have fostered dependency and immaturitv through rigid authori-
enable a handful of men at the to.3 to make ah the meaningful decisions; also, rewarding employees hygienically produces a cycle of perpetual shortterm motivation and want. To rectify this supposedly abnormal situation, Her&erg and others have proposed the implementation of various programs of job enrichment to provide workers with the satisfaction of their
tariao
structures
that
higher-level needs by increasing their job involvement through rotating and enlarging jobs and developing their achievement, creativity, and independence.
A DISSENTING VIEW OF WORKER MOTIVATION Not all workers are totally committed to their jobs, nor do they view their work as intrinsically satisfying. But this is not necessarily because they are mentally ill, as Her&erg states, or emotionally immature, as Chris Argyris and some human relation&s suggest. There are many workers who want and derive most of their satisfactions away from th
desire self-actualiwtion in their work, rather than to assume that the desire is an inherent characteristic of human nature? There may be only a limited segment of the labor force that through long training, class baekground, and identification wLh a profession has become intrinsically dedicated to work-for example, scientists in basic research, RsiD engineers, and some executives. Interestingly, Pelx and Andrews found that even scientists and enginers are interested in extrinsic rewards as well as in the work itself, This point suggests the probable academic bias of many human relations writers and their theories. Based in academic swroutuiin~ which aflord them the oppramity to be creative and to self-actual&, have they inadvertentIy infused their own value orientations into their theories and overgeneralized the applicxnions of such concepts to allmen? The ilaw in the human relations perspectiveisthatitisoftenassumedthatthe goals of the individual and the organ&t&~ are compatihle; some human relationists even contend that they are, or should bk, the same. From their perspective, the orgamxation should help its employees to mature psyehologically and emotionally by providing meaningful job experiences for them, for which service employees, in return, would work enthusiastically to achieve organizational goals. How neat this package sounds! But life is not quite so sirr+le, and neither are the motivations of workers.
RELA-ZIONSHIP
BE-N
MOTIVATEON, Cuss,
ANDJOBS
When he considers the motivations of his workers, an employermust -bt aware- Of the variety of their needs and wants. Many sttdies have shown that the desire for achieve-
77
ment and independence in work is found sub standaily Iess among lower-class workers than among middle and upper class workers. For example, Figure 2 presents the results of three surveys of worker orientations conducted among different segments of the population in the United States. For the sake of brevity, only two items that bear directly on this discussion are included. Sample one was composed of a national cross+ecu‘on of 274 blue-collar workers surveyed by the National Opinion Research Center. Sample two was based upon the responses of 379 male vocational-technical school students in four New England schools. Sample three was drawn from an analysis of 151 middle managers employed in three firms in the Boston area. It can be readily se+ that there is uniformity among all the samples regarding the desire to work, as Item 1 retlects. However, Item 2, concerning the goals of men in their jobs, reveals some important difIerences
berwecn the bluecollar workers and trainees on the one hand, and the white-collar managers on the other. Substantially more of the managers than of the blue-collar workers and vocational-technical trainees were concerned with gaining promotions in their jobs, giving us a hint as to un&rlyiug di&rences in their orientations to work. Many other studies have also ilhutrated divergent c&mations among workers at d&rent occup&maI levels. For example, Robert Dubin found that work was not a “central life interest” among the industrial workers he studied. However, using the same methodological tool on his sample of registered nurses, Louis Orxack reported their orientations to thcii jobs to be one of strong attachment, and conciuded his results were diametrically opposed to Dubin’s. On both levels, but particularly among fewer-level workers, we find an interest in extrinsic job factors surrounding the work situation, such as salary, fringe benefits,
Woruc ORIENTATIONS OF MALE BLTJECOLLUI Worucxas,Wnrre-Co~~~a MANAGERS, VOCATIONALTECHNICAL TV
1. If by some chance you had enough money to live comfortably without working, do you thii you would work anyway? 2. If you could he sure that your income would go up steadily without getting a promotion, would you care about beii promoted?
Would not work Would work anyway
YeS No
AND
Bluc-cdlra WO+S
?Yoc.-Tech. Tminces
White-Colku Msnagcrs
(N=274) % 13 81
(iV=Z379) % 13 g7
(N=ZSZ) % 11 89
25 75
39 61
Source: Curt Tat+, “Ckcupatimal Mob&y bttcwtt~ Cm&m Review oj So&logy and Anthropobgyy. (Nov., 1967). p. 246; data on vocational-technica trainees um derimd from an mpt&Iished study ‘by Bhopindm Bolaria.
78
71 29
S.
job security, working wnditions, and rc some extent, supervision. In order to understand this orientation toward work, we should look first to the factors influencing workers to seek such rewards. The blame should not be placed soldy on the organixational structure -if indeed blame is an appropriate word to employ. We should focus instead on the opportunity structure of our society, which has produced liited occupational mobility, especially for members of lower so+? classes. Among those forced to remain in a condition of relative want there is a tendency to seek the satisfaction of lower-levd needs to the exclusion of all others. As for the middle- and upperclass peraous who seem preoccupied with status, salary, and fringe benefits, this is easily explainable in the context of our consumption-oriented m&y, which offers those rewards for achievement and performance. Are such people sick, or is it not normal for themtowantwhatiamostpres&gintheir lives-for the poor black in the ghetto, a steady job with maintenance pay; for the wbite middle&ass executivq a shiny desk in a private o&e, or a raise at the end of the year with guaranteed paid vacations? To argue that this runs counter to human nature is illogical. At the moment, it is their nature, or as Pascal would argue, their custom, which is but a second nature.
How do we go about motivating workers? The first step should be through an assessment of their present needs and wants with respect to work. Awareness of the various orientations to work should lead to a clearer picture of why an individual seeks employment at a particular firm, and what he wants and expects to get out of his job in‘ the way of such things as “‘pzaningful” work experience,
salary, working conditions, and supervision. Knowing the expectations that workers bring to their jobs is a prerequisite for reducing con&a in the organization. For example, in assembly-line operations, to redesign the jobs and provide more room for the empk3yee to exercise inSative might lead to fowtr production. The jobs, at least on paper, might be less efhcient. Management would need to take a motivational audit of the employees involved in advance of any move to determine first, how much increased initiative on the job really means to them-whether the results of increased motivation would tend to offset the technical ine&&n&s involved in the change; second, whether some other motivation, such as a more equitable incentive scheme, would stand a better chance of improving both joh sati&ction and output. In the final analysis, the need is for “organization intrmpeaion.” As for increasing loyalty among employq4it is worth noting that as occupations become more uprofe.ssU~ kryalty to impersonal professional VahSesmay begin to take precedence over loyalty to organixational goals. With respect to the loyalty of lower-levd persome in organizations, extensive literature indicates their preoccupation with having a secure wage, and it is wnceivable that if this is provided, job attachment and even loyalty to the employer may result among some of these workers. Ifhistoryhasanythingtoteachus about the subject, there is scant evidence that the human relations approach wili be able to adequately wpe with organizational wnaict unless it is rooted in person-to-person relationships that have gone awry. While the human relationist modd of the altruistic, workobsessed man is flattering, it is also idealiitic and unreaiistic, fitting too few workers to solve many organizational problems of worker motivation.
79
SELECTED
Chris Argyris, in Personali:y and Organization (New York, Harper and Bros., 1957) indicts the structure of contemporary complex organizations for their deleterious effects on the intellectual growth and maturity of the individuals working in them. The book might more accurady have heen entitled Personality Vcrsw Orgmkbon. Robert Blauncr, in Alienattkn and Frce&m (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1%4), analyzes &tiering technologicaalsystems and dteir effects on the people employed in them and attempts to establish that modern mass production technology has alienated large segments of workers. Hugh A. Ciegg, in A New Apmach to Industrial Democracy (Oxford, England, Basil Blackwell, Ltd., 1%3), presents a solid analysis of the consequences of workers’ management and codetermination in European industry. John H. Goldthorpe and others, in The A@ct# Worker: Industriai Attitudes mtd Behticw (New York, Cambridge University Press, I968), is a study of manual workers in England that indicates a pronounced interest in ofWte-job activities; on the job, the size of their pay was found to he the principal motivating factor. Frederick Her&erg, in Wor4 and the Natwe of A&n (New York, World Publishing Co., l%6), presents an interpretation of the motivation of men based upon a dualistic perspective of human nature, and goes on to link this to a theory of worker motivation and mental health. Rensis Linkert. in New Patterns of Managmwnt /New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961), presents discussion and data to demonstrate the gains in productivity and satisfaction following from the application of human relations principles.
80
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Douglas McGregor, in “The Human Side of Enterprise,” Management Re&w, Vol. 46 (November, 1957), discussesand appeals for the application of Theory Y instead of the conventional and generally employed Theory X. Donald C. P&t, and Frank M. Andrews, S&r&# i# Orgwtiaations: Productive Ciimates for Research and Drvdopunt (New Y&k, John Wiley 6 sons, Inc, 1966), is an cxcelht study of I500 scientists and engineers in government and private laboratories that examines a variety of organizational elements that influence scientific productivity. William G. Scott, in Organiz&n Theory: A Bettavioral Analysis for Manqpmrnt (Homewoal, Ill, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1%7), provides an exhaustive review of theories and approaches to the study of organizltions. He further attempts to oudine a system of organization based upoa the introduction of “industrial humanism” in organizations. ArnnJd S, Tatmenbatma, Control i# Orga&z4UhSs (NCW York McGraw-Hill Bnok Cu,.l%tl) is an antbJngy thatdrawstogakermanyofdustudieseonducted by the btitute for social Reseawh (Univetsity of Michigan) on control in a variety of organizational settings. A good summary of the human rdations perspective is presented, together with a large body of data. Curt Tat&y, in Wore Organizations: Major Tkoretical Persp-tk (Itasca, IL, Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1970), describes the major tkeories of organization and evaluates data on the plausibility of the theories. Finally, Frederick W. Taylor, S&Jt;t;c Martagement (New York, Harper & Row, 1947) is a highly useful collection of Taylor’s major statements on scientific management.
68
“principles” that rest on assumptions about human nature and motivation that deserve critical analysis. Let us begin with the concept of job enlargement, since it provides a convenient handle on human relations thinking. Job enlargement refers to combining the small tasks of several men performing short
work cycles into a larger task performed by one man in a longer work cycle. The concept itself is both normative and empirical, combining, as it does, the assertion that the dignity of man requires job enJargement with assurances that increased job satisfaction and individual output result from it. Rensis Likert states the normative side of the case unequivocably in his 2vcw Fattnns of iUana,-Fmcnt: Every worker “should see his task as diflicuh, importam, and meaningful. . . . When jobs do not meet this specScation, they should be reorganized so that they do.” Job enlargement, as most of the human relations theorists view it, goes a good deal beyond combining tasks into a natural and more meaningful unit; it also involves giving the worker more freedom and greater
control over the task The employee participates in many of the decisions that determine the framework within which he works. Thus, we can see at the core of human relations theory a reaction against Frederick Taylor’s scientific management. Among Taylor’s principles of work organization, the most important centered on (1) the necessity to separate the functions of planning and execution+hat is, thinking from doing; (2) the advantages of specialiion, which were to be gained by assigning men to strut& routinized tasks; and (3) the requirement for material incentives, since he believed thaw man is by nature lazy and responds only to a prompt and tangible reward For Taylor, the application of these principles was the key to increased organizational productivity; to human relations theor-
ists, the sohttion to greater productivity lies in standing Taylor on his head: recombine small jobs and fuse thinkmg and doing as much as possibk. By organiziig the work in shop and o&e in this manner, runs the argument, material incentives become of secondary importance in motivating workers, since the motivation to exert e&t in behalf of organizational goals follows naturahy and inevitably from the intrinsicahy interesting nature of the work itself. Although human relationistsreact against the substantivr~ masoning of scientific management, they share a common outlook on twq basic issues. Firsh both theories hoid out the tantalizing promise of increased work effort among organizational participants. They differ on how to accomplish thi: but both agree that there is a ‘One best way.” Job
69
enlargement and participation are among the principal means proposed by human relationists to heighten commitment toward work. One feature of these means should be highlighted-the assumption of a relationship between nonfinancial satiskrions and the degree of effort expended on work tasks: The greater the degree of non&an&l satisfactions achieved, the greater will be the amount of effort expended by the worker on his job. A second revealing similarity between scientific management and human re!ations is the assumption that individual interests and organizational roles are compatible. If conflict exists, it is due to a defect in organization, and this can be remedied. Within the scientific management framework, the proper manipulation of monetary incentives was thought to solve the problem; within the human relations framework, training in interpersonal relations and employee participation in resolving work problems are held to be the solution to most conflicts between individual interests and those of the organization. BASICASSUMPTIONS OFHUMAN RELATIONS
70
To understand the human relations viewpoint, we must look at its basic premises about the nature of man and his commitment to work. Fortunately, Douglas McGregor, one of the founders of the human relations movement, has laid out two basic and contrasting perspectives of man in his well-known Theories X and Y. Theory X, as he points out, is the “conventional” view of the tasks of management and its assumptions about man. Theory Y, hr .trgues, is a different conception of management “‘based on more adequate assumptions about human nature and human motivation.” Theory X states: 1. Management is responsible for organizing the elementa of productive enter-
prise-money, .naterials, equipment, people -in the mterest of economic ends. 2. With respect to people, this is a process of directing their efforts, motivating them, controlling their actions, and modifying their behavior to St the needs of the organization. 3. Without this active intervention by management, people would be passive, even resistant, to organizational needs. They must therefore be persuaded, rewarded, punished, controlled-their actions must be directed. ‘Ilhis is management’s task. We often sum it up by Lying that management consists of getting things done through other people. 4. The average man is by nature indolent-he works as little as oossible. 5. He lacks ambition, dislikes responsibiIity, prefers to be led. 6. He is inherently self-centered, indifferent to organizational needs. 1. He is by nature resistant to ChSiIlg62 8. He is gullible, not very bright, the ready dupe of the charlatan and demagogue. Theory Y states: 1. Management is responsible for organizing the elements of productive enterprise-money, materials, equipment, peoplein the interest of economic ends. 2. People are not by nature passive or resistant to organizational needs. They have become so as a result of experience in organizations. 3. The motivation, the potential for development, the capacity for assuming responsibility, the readiness to direct behavior toward organizational goals are all present in people. Management does not put them there. It is a responsibility of management to make it possible for people to recognize and develop these human characteristics for themselves.
4. The essential task of management is to arrange organizational c.,,nditions and methods of operations so that people can achieve their goals best by dire&.-,- tk: c-:;i efforts toward organizational objectives. Notice especially assumption 6 in Theory X, and its explicit rejection by assumption 2 in Theory Y. The p&u that should he stressed is that the “conventional” view of man assumes that he is selfcentered. A control system organized around a carrotand-stick system of material rewards is therefore necessary m order to induce men to cooperate in achieving organizational goals. C?n the other hand-given assumptions 2 and 3 in Theory Y, the uproper” organizational structure-large jobs and decision making shared between superiors and subordinates are held to be the inducements that result in sustained efIort to achieve organizational goals. Theory X is skeptical about man, much in the rnannef of Thomas Hobbes, who viewed man as basically se&enter4 his predatory instincts being held in check soMy by the fear of p&shment and the promise of reward. Theory Y, on the other hand, is optimistic in the manner of Jean Jacques Rousseau, who saw man as altruistic in nature but corrupted by existing institutions. It seems apparent that the thrust of human relations writings on organizational structure incorporates assumption 4 of Theory Y: Self-interestedness and mater% concerns, which on the surface are characteristic of man, are actually products of the rigidly hierarchical control systems and tedious tasks embedded in work organizations as they presently exist. It is the impIicit assumption of hu,man relationists that all individuals can, should, and indeed want to obtain satisfaction and intrinsic involvtient in their work. In his book, Wart and the Nature of Man, Professor Frederick He&g of The University of Utah n+es this point succinctly:
Probably one of the most destructive mirixerpreta.:ons of the American way of life has been to belittle, attentuate, and degrade the concept of the worker’s initiative and achievement as pursued for economic profit Man does work for profit in order to avoid pain; but in a positive sense, he works to enjoy the excitement and meaning that achievemerit provides for his own psychological growth and the&y his happiness. The limitation of goals by those in industry to that of pofit is contradicting and reducing our nation’s grclt heritage. It suggests that there is no nobler purpo~ in the American experiment than the satisfactirr-~ of rhe avoidance needs of animalr
How valid are the positions held by the human rekxtionists? To what extent do the realities of life in the workplace correspond to their generous description of man and his motives ? Do the data repute their depiction or con&-m it-or is the evidence contradictory and the general picture confused ?
HOWVALIDISZHECASE FOB PAUTICIPATIO~?
We should first distinguish between participation and other aspecrs of joh enrichment. The employee might logically appreciate a bigger, more interesting, more challenging task without necessarily wanting greater control over the conditions under which he performs it. Similarly, an employee might value the chance for increased participation in decisions af&ting his job without desiring a bigge;, more interesting job, which he may view as more demanding and stre&L ParticiPation in organizations receivedalotofimpetusfromtheresearchof Kurt Lewin in the 1940% among boys’ clubs and Red Cross vohmteer nurses. This research supported the hypo&esis that participation in decision making heightened cooperation toward group goals. These sttu ’ ‘s and more that followed were essentially a critique
71
H. Roy Kaplan is pescdy &stunt professor of sociology at the State Universiq oj New York in &&lo. His major research interests we in indutrbl loridogy, comp&z orgunixations, and medical so&o!ogy. Projessor Kaplan has done graduate work at the UnL wrdy oj Maine and tk urn-uff& oj Massachusetts.
Curt Taudq is assodc profasor of sociology a# the University uj Masacbetts. He is tk aathor of nwnerous writings an indnst&d s~&Iogy and campkx organizations. inclvding his recrvtly published bvo& Work Organizations: Major Them-&al Pcrspc~ tivcs Projcssvr Tausky teccived his PhD. ot the University of Oregon.
Bhopinda S. Boiaria ii as&ant pr+.rm of sociology at the Urn&r+ of M&e. He is abo a men&r of tk Manpower Resawch faadty there, and director of the Resrarch rmd Ev&wtion Service oj the Maine Regional Medial Program. Hb weus of sp&tlizativn in&de indastrial sociology, campkx organi zdons, and medial sociologq. Projessw &la&> received his PhD. ot Washington State University.
of the unilateral exercise of power: Participation is tbe opposite of simply expecting subordinates to do as they are told The compatibuity of participation with democratic values is obvious. Underlying both is the assumption that a shared decision produces commitment among the participants. Moreover, human relations theory post&es a link between participation and productivity. The chain of reasoning follows these lines: Participation increases satisfaction, and satisfaction is reflected in increased work efIort. Hugh Clegg, in A Neru Approach to indusmbi Democracy, exauxined the outcome of worker participation in the form of codetermination and workers’ management. His findings are most interesting: First, -participation through representation does not of itself enhance workers’ saGsfaction. Second, productivity is not related to participation &rough representation. Nevd&s, it doesappeartobetruetha~attheperson-toperson Ieve& having a voice in the work pmcess does increase satisfaction, and here human relations has an important point. However, one should not make too much of this. Let us indicate briefly what can be said about the consequences of participation v&h some degree of confidence. l Most workers, whether white-cc!Jar or blue-collar, do not seek a peer relationship with their supervisor. This emerged quite clearly in studies reported by Arnold Tannenbaum in Conttd in Organization, He found that when employees were asked about the existing distribution of control, and what it should be ideally, there was little divergence between the two distributions. The respondents did want more -say,” but not much more than they had Although a more consultative relationship was desired, it was well within the framework of expecting management to manage.
l WFiitever increment in satisfaction may result from moving toward a consultative relationship is not reflected to a significant extent in greater work effort. Studies by Victor Vroom, Alrhur Brayfield, and James Crockett surveyed the relationship between satisfaction and productivity and found it to be of negligible magnitude Tannenbaum, in a study of 33 automobile dealerships and 32 delivery agencies, found correlations between job satisfaction and pmductivity ranging from .14 to -48; in other words the relationship between satisfaction and productivity ranged from slightly positive to negative. However, there is evidence to suggest that turnover and ahsenteeism are more closely related to satisfaction thau is direct work effort. Thus, we should not dismiss the long-run consequences of satisfaction for the organization. * Even among professionals, as Sh5WIlinthCiZWgSMC&StUd~5fDonad Pelx and Frank Andrews, &z&t& in Organizrrtion, come autonomy resulted in less scientific productivity than sinradons in which decision making depended on consultation between peers. Apparently, the discussion of new direct&s and findings of research with other scientists and tbe laboratory director is salutary. 0 Extensive Participation may be more important to academic theorists than to people in bureaucratic seuings. The material rewards an organization provides may, especially at the manual level, outweigh any interest in particiPation in decision making. John Goldthorpe’s study, The A&etat Worker, finds a very pronounced pecuniary orientation toward work among factory workers in Britain: Their major interest was tbe size of the wage package. One might speculate that whatever success such programs fo the Scardon Plan and the Kaii Plan enjoy is
73
due more to their potential for increasing the eaq&yee’s pay, than to the increased work effort that presumably follows from the con sultative relations also featured in the plan.
DEFININGJOBENRICHMENT
74
Most human relationists subscribe to the need theory of Abraham Maslow, which stresses the need for people to self-actualize in their life activities, particularly work. From this arises the warning to management to provide employees with interesting and stimulating work that helps to satisfy higher-level needs. Human relationists frequently contend that contemporary complex organizations with their elaborate specialization of tasks, web of rules and regulations, and mechanized technology are alienating large qments of workers from their work and work places. Some writers, such as Robert Blauner, go so far as to speculate that a majority of workers in our society may be estranged from their work. These supposed wends have led to extensive researcheson job satisfaction among various segments of the labor force. One study of accountants and engineers by Frederick Her&erg and his associates led to the postulation of a new conception of worker motivation, the Motivation-Hygiene theory of job satisfaction.-Based on a rationalistic conception of man and his perfectibility, and largely derived from theories emphasizing the importance of the satisfaction of higher-level ileeds through work, this theory emerged on the scene in the late I95Us. The theory stated that there were two dichotomous sets of factors, each having different effects on the attitudes of workers and their motivations. One set of factors, labeled “motivators,” was said to be related to the Intrinsic aspects of the work situation--e-g., the WC& task itselfand was believed to affect job satisfaction.
When “motivators,” such as the oR~rtunity for achievement, advancement, and recognition, are present at satisfactory levels in a person’s job, satisfaction occurs. However, it is the “hygienes,” those factors concerned with the extrinsic aspect of the work environment, such as salary, job security, working conditions, and supervision, that affect job dissatis+&ion. According to this theory, the absence of “motivators’* does not lead to job dissatisfaction, but to lack of job satisfaction. If “hygienes” are present at sutlicient levels in the worker’s job, satisfaction does not occur, there is merely an absena of job dissatisfaction-a neutral state. However, should the level of “hygiene” satisfaction he less than that desired by the worker, job d+atisfaction will ensue. This theory, lie many contemporary human relations approaches to work, puts thG satisfaction of uhigher-level needssuch as seIf-actualization at the core of man’s motivation to work. The reason for this position is not hard to grasp in view of Herzberg’s conception of the dual nature of man, which he refers to as the concept of Adam and Abr&am. Adam is the animal part of man, continually seeking the satisfaaion of such basic needs as food and shelter, and he represents a myopic perspective of life. Abraham, however, is the embodiment of ail that is human in man. He stands for the rational, perfectible counterpart of Adam. His goal is to mature psychologically and to realize his true potential through his work. Herxbergs theory of motivation assumes that an individual’s job must be meaningful and aIlow for the lasting satisfaction of higher-level needs in order to satisfy the cravings of Abraham. Otherwise, motivation must be achieved through the carrot-and-stick method of continual offerings of hygienic reward-g., salary incream. (Her&erg uses the acronym KITA-Rick In The Ass-for these types of
motivating stimuli.) St& rewards are presumed to afEord increased motivation, but only for a short duration, since the basic needs of man are thought to be insatiabie and ..nercfore cyclical. Unique and resourceful as this theory may be, we should not allow ourselves t6 uorritica~y accept its assumptions regarding the nature of man. More of this shortly. However, a more empirical point of contendon concerns the failure of the theory to consider that workers in different segments of the Iabor force have varying orientations.
Moreover, while Her&erg’s original study was of professional white-collar workers, subsequent studies of similar level workers reveal that there is frequently no discernible uniformity among their work orientations, either. Figure 1 contains an inventory of studies of white-collar and professional workers that support and refitte the Motivation-Hygiene theory. It is apparent that more than half of the studies presented do not confirm the theory. This questions the applicability of the theory even to professional and white-collar workers.
Figwe I
sotuce *Schwa* Paul.A&4desof Pffsond Research,
(pinsburgh: l%!q.
%miso~ Roger, ager’s Job XIII (Winter, *Schwartz,
et
%ourees
Auitics,” I%@), al.,
sumpzc
Mid&-lUunagenunt lbnC&n hStiNtSS
of Motivations
Permnncl
372 third
level
supervisory
for
in Man-
P&oZo#,
‘.I36 first- and Nring firm.
second-level
supervisors
in a n%~~ufac
pp. 42-34.
“Motivational Utility
Factors Industry,”
Among
11 I male
in 21 utility
sc~isors
companier~
Pcr;nmnel PsycboIog]~, XVI (spring, 1%3), pp. 45-53. Supervisors
in
the
Friedlander, Frank, “Underlying Sources of Job Satisfaction,” lournul of Applied Psychology, XLVII (August, 1963)) pp. 246-250. ‘Saleh, Shoukty D., “A Study of Attitude the Preretirement Period,” iorrnrrrl
Psyf/lozOgy, XLVIII
(oaober,
Change 2 of &.&cd
supervisors concern
Engineers,
manufacruring
85 male
managerial
and salaried employees (Nx) of each level).
preretirees
of
a
in 12 companies.
WV?), pp. 310-
312.
*Myers, M. Scott, Harmrd ers?,” uary-February, *Friedlander, Negative istruttke
Who
Are Your Motivated WorkBtincss Ihtitu, XL11 (JanI!X4), pp. 73-78.
Frank, Eugene Walton, “Positive an; Motivations Toward Work,” A&i Science Qdy, IX (LW), pp. 19%
230 male supervisors.
scientists,
engineers,
and
manufacmring
82 scientists and engineers at an armed search and development laboratory.
services
re-
207.
Ewen, Robert B., “‘Some Determinants Satisfaction: A Study of the Generality berg’s Theory,” ]ourncJ of Applied XL.VII (June, 1964), pp. 161-163.
of Job of Herr-
Psychdogy,
1,021 full-time
life insurance
agents.
75
l Herzberg, Frederick, “The Motivation
1.19lower-level supervisors in Fio!and.
*Dysinger, Dale W., “Motivational Factors Affecting Army Research and Development Persottnel,” Report AD 640-390, American Institutes for Research, May, 1966.
600 research and development scientists and engineers from 12 Army installations
to Work .imong Fiuish Supervisors,” Personnel Pqdology, XVIII (Winter, l%S), pp. 393-492.
t
Wernimont, Paul F., ‘Intrinsic and Extrinsic FOG tots in Job Satisfaction,” /oMsor of Applied Pwchdogy, L (February, 1966).pp. 41-50.
50 accountants and %2 engineers.
Gracn, George B., “‘Motivator and Hygiene Dimensions for Research and Development Engineers,” journal of Applied Paychdogy, L (December, 1966)) pp. 563-566.
153 engineers from two electronics firms.
Hiorichs, John R., Louis A. &&kind, “Empirical and Theoretical Limitations of the Two-Factor Hypothesis of Job Satisfaction,” ]olrnrrd oj Ap plied Psychology, LI (April, 1%7), pp. 191-200.
613 male technicians in a large national company.
Hulin, Charles L., Patricia A. Smith, “An Empirical Investigation of Two ImpBitiuns uf the TwoFactor Theory of Job Satisfaction,” J@ of Applied Pqchdogy, Ll @ctober, 1%7), pp. 396-402.
670 home office employees, supervisors, and exautives in a large international corpuration in Montreal, CM-
Wernimont, Paul F., Paul Toren, Henry Kapeil, ‘%omparison of Sources of Personal S&&G tion and of Work Motivation,” ~arcrvrtri of Applied P&o/ogy, LfV ( 1970), pp. 95-102.
775 scientists and technicians at a A4iiwestern plant
Grucnfeld, Leopold W., Peter Weissenbeqg, “‘Fmld Independence and Articulation nf Sources of Job Satisfaction,” journal of Applied P&dogy. LIV (1970), pp. 424-426
96 male civil service employees.
Armstrong, Thomas B., “Job Content and Context Factors Related to Satisfaction for Different Occupational Levels,” JorwuaZ of Applied Psychology, LV (1971), pp. 57-65.
200 engineers and 153 assemblers at an electronics manufacturing company in New York.
What has happened to the universal need of man to realize his fuli potential through his work? Her&erg and other human relationists reply that the need is still there, but dormant. People have become preoccupied with the satisfaction of lower-level needs in their quest for monetary status and prestige. Organizations have fostered dependency and immaturitv through rigid authori-
enable a handful of men at the to.3 to make ah the meaningful decisions; also, rewarding employees hygienically produces a cycle of perpetual shortterm motivation and want. To rectify this supposedly abnormal situation, Her&erg and others have proposed the implementation of various programs of job enrichment to provide workers with the satisfaction of their
tariao
structures
that
higher-level needs by increasing their job involvement through rotating and enlarging jobs and developing their achievement, creativity, and independence.
A DISSENTING VIEW OF WORKER MOTIVATION Not all workers are totally committed to their jobs, nor do they view their work as intrinsically satisfying. But this is not necessarily because they are mentally ill, as Her&erg states, or emotionally immature, as Chris Argyris and some human relation&s suggest. There are many workers who want and derive most of their satisfactions away from th
desire self-actualiwtion in their work, rather than to assume that the desire is an inherent characteristic of human nature? There may be only a limited segment of the labor force that through long training, class baekground, and identification wLh a profession has become intrinsically dedicated to work-for example, scientists in basic research, RsiD engineers, and some executives. Interestingly, Pelx and Andrews found that even scientists and enginers are interested in extrinsic rewards as well as in the work itself, This point suggests the probable academic bias of many human relations writers and their theories. Based in academic swroutuiin~ which aflord them the oppramity to be creative and to self-actual&, have they inadvertentIy infused their own value orientations into their theories and overgeneralized the applicxnions of such concepts to allmen? The ilaw in the human relations perspectiveisthatitisoftenassumedthatthe goals of the individual and the organ&t&~ are compatihle; some human relationists even contend that they are, or should bk, the same. From their perspective, the orgamxation should help its employees to mature psyehologically and emotionally by providing meaningful job experiences for them, for which service employees, in return, would work enthusiastically to achieve organizational goals. How neat this package sounds! But life is not quite so sirr+le, and neither are the motivations of workers.
RELA-ZIONSHIP
BE-N
MOTIVATEON, Cuss,
ANDJOBS
When he considers the motivations of his workers, an employermust -bt aware- Of the variety of their needs and wants. Many sttdies have shown that the desire for achieve-
77
ment and independence in work is found sub standaily Iess among lower-class workers than among middle and upper class workers. For example, Figure 2 presents the results of three surveys of worker orientations conducted among different segments of the population in the United States. For the sake of brevity, only two items that bear directly on this discussion are included. Sample one was composed of a national cross+ecu‘on of 274 blue-collar workers surveyed by the National Opinion Research Center. Sample two was based upon the responses of 379 male vocational-technical school students in four New England schools. Sample three was drawn from an analysis of 151 middle managers employed in three firms in the Boston area. It can be readily se+ that there is uniformity among all the samples regarding the desire to work, as Item 1 retlects. However, Item 2, concerning the goals of men in their jobs, reveals some important difIerences
berwecn the bluecollar workers and trainees on the one hand, and the white-collar managers on the other. Substantially more of the managers than of the blue-collar workers and vocational-technical trainees were concerned with gaining promotions in their jobs, giving us a hint as to un&rlyiug di&rences in their orientations to work. Many other studies have also ilhutrated divergent c&mations among workers at d&rent occup&maI levels. For example, Robert Dubin found that work was not a “central life interest” among the industrial workers he studied. However, using the same methodological tool on his sample of registered nurses, Louis Orxack reported their orientations to thcii jobs to be one of strong attachment, and conciuded his results were diametrically opposed to Dubin’s. On both levels, but particularly among fewer-level workers, we find an interest in extrinsic job factors surrounding the work situation, such as salary, fringe benefits,
Woruc ORIENTATIONS OF MALE BLTJECOLLUI Worucxas,Wnrre-Co~~~a MANAGERS, VOCATIONALTECHNICAL TV
1. If by some chance you had enough money to live comfortably without working, do you thii you would work anyway? 2. If you could he sure that your income would go up steadily without getting a promotion, would you care about beii promoted?
Would not work Would work anyway
YeS No
AND
Bluc-cdlra WO+S
?Yoc.-Tech. Tminces
White-Colku Msnagcrs
(N=274) % 13 81
(iV=Z379) % 13 g7
(N=ZSZ) % 11 89
25 75
39 61
Source: Curt Tat+, “Ckcupatimal Mob&y bttcwtt~ Cm&m Review oj So&logy and Anthropobgyy. (Nov., 1967). p. 246; data on vocational-technica trainees um derimd from an mpt&Iished study ‘by Bhopindm Bolaria.
78
71 29
S.
job security, working wnditions, and rc some extent, supervision. In order to understand this orientation toward work, we should look first to the factors influencing workers to seek such rewards. The blame should not be placed soldy on the organixational structure -if indeed blame is an appropriate word to employ. We should focus instead on the opportunity structure of our society, which has produced liited occupational mobility, especially for members of lower so+? classes. Among those forced to remain in a condition of relative want there is a tendency to seek the satisfaction of lower-levd needs to the exclusion of all others. As for the middle- and upperclass peraous who seem preoccupied with status, salary, and fringe benefits, this is easily explainable in the context of our consumption-oriented m&y, which offers those rewards for achievement and performance. Are such people sick, or is it not normal for themtowantwhatiamostpres&gintheir lives-for the poor black in the ghetto, a steady job with maintenance pay; for the wbite middle&ass executivq a shiny desk in a private o&e, or a raise at the end of the year with guaranteed paid vacations? To argue that this runs counter to human nature is illogical. At the moment, it is their nature, or as Pascal would argue, their custom, which is but a second nature.
How do we go about motivating workers? The first step should be through an assessment of their present needs and wants with respect to work. Awareness of the various orientations to work should lead to a clearer picture of why an individual seeks employment at a particular firm, and what he wants and expects to get out of his job in‘ the way of such things as “‘pzaningful” work experience,
salary, working conditions, and supervision. Knowing the expectations that workers bring to their jobs is a prerequisite for reducing con&a in the organization. For example, in assembly-line operations, to redesign the jobs and provide more room for the empk3yee to exercise inSative might lead to fowtr production. The jobs, at least on paper, might be less efhcient. Management would need to take a motivational audit of the employees involved in advance of any move to determine first, how much increased initiative on the job really means to them-whether the results of increased motivation would tend to offset the technical ine&&n&s involved in the change; second, whether some other motivation, such as a more equitable incentive scheme, would stand a better chance of improving both joh sati&ction and output. In the final analysis, the need is for “organization intrmpeaion.” As for increasing loyalty among employq4it is worth noting that as occupations become more uprofe.ssU~ kryalty to impersonal professional VahSesmay begin to take precedence over loyalty to organixational goals. With respect to the loyalty of lower-levd persome in organizations, extensive literature indicates their preoccupation with having a secure wage, and it is wnceivable that if this is provided, job attachment and even loyalty to the employer may result among some of these workers. Ifhistoryhasanythingtoteachus about the subject, there is scant evidence that the human relations approach wili be able to adequately wpe with organizational wnaict unless it is rooted in person-to-person relationships that have gone awry. While the human relationist modd of the altruistic, workobsessed man is flattering, it is also idealiitic and unreaiistic, fitting too few workers to solve many organizational problems of worker motivation.
79
SELECTED
Chris Argyris, in Personali:y and Organization (New York, Harper and Bros., 1957) indicts the structure of contemporary complex organizations for their deleterious effects on the intellectual growth and maturity of the individuals working in them. The book might more accurady have heen entitled Personality Vcrsw Orgmkbon. Robert Blauncr, in Alienattkn and Frce&m (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1%4), analyzes &tiering technologicaalsystems and dteir effects on the people employed in them and attempts to establish that modern mass production technology has alienated large segments of workers. Hugh A. Ciegg, in A New Apmach to Industrial Democracy (Oxford, England, Basil Blackwell, Ltd., 1%3), presents a solid analysis of the consequences of workers’ management and codetermination in European industry. John H. Goldthorpe and others, in The A@ct# Worker: Industriai Attitudes mtd Behticw (New York, Cambridge University Press, I968), is a study of manual workers in England that indicates a pronounced interest in ofWte-job activities; on the job, the size of their pay was found to he the principal motivating factor. Frederick Her&erg, in Wor4 and the Natwe of A&n (New York, World Publishing Co., l%6), presents an interpretation of the motivation of men based upon a dualistic perspective of human nature, and goes on to link this to a theory of worker motivation and mental health. Rensis Linkert. in New Patterns of Managmwnt /New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961), presents discussion and data to demonstrate the gains in productivity and satisfaction following from the application of human relations principles.
80
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Douglas McGregor, in “The Human Side of Enterprise,” Management Re&w, Vol. 46 (November, 1957), discussesand appeals for the application of Theory Y instead of the conventional and generally employed Theory X. Donald C. P&t, and Frank M. Andrews, S&r&# i# Orgwtiaations: Productive Ciimates for Research and Drvdopunt (New Y&k, John Wiley 6 sons, Inc, 1966), is an cxcelht study of I500 scientists and engineers in government and private laboratories that examines a variety of organizational elements that influence scientific productivity. William G. Scott, in Organiz&n Theory: A Bettavioral Analysis for Manqpmrnt (Homewoal, Ill, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1%7), provides an exhaustive review of theories and approaches to the study of organizltions. He further attempts to oudine a system of organization based upoa the introduction of “industrial humanism” in organizations. ArnnJd S, Tatmenbatma, Control i# Orga&z4UhSs (NCW York McGraw-Hill Bnok Cu,.l%tl) is an antbJngy thatdrawstogakermanyofdustudieseonducted by the btitute for social Reseawh (Univetsity of Michigan) on control in a variety of organizational settings. A good summary of the human rdations perspective is presented, together with a large body of data. Curt Tat&y, in Wore Organizations: Major Tkoretical Persp-tk (Itasca, IL, Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1970), describes the major tkeories of organization and evaluates data on the plausibility of the theories. Finally, Frederick W. Taylor, S&Jt;t;c Martagement (New York, Harper & Row, 1947) is a highly useful collection of Taylor’s major statements on scientific management.