The role of standards, accountability, and extrinsic rewards in ...

University of Massachusetts Amherst University of Massachusetts Amherst

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst

Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014

1-1-1975

The role of standards, accountability, and extrinsic rewards in an The role of standards, accountability, and extrinsic rewards in an

industrial job enrichment program. industrial job enrichment program.

E. Lauck Parke University of Massachusetts Amherst

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Parke, E. Lauck, "The role of standards, accountability, and extrinsic rewards in an industrial job enrichment program." (1975). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 5943. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/5943

This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected].

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Fdissertations_1%2F5943&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/5943?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Fdissertations_1%2F5943&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

UMASS/AMHERST

31E0t.bC0^D11115

y:r:>

THE ROLE OF STANDARDS, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND EXTRINSIC REWARDS IN AN INDUSTRIAL

JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM

A Dissertation Presented

By

E. LAUCK PARKE

Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

1975 December

Major Subject: Business Administration

(c) E. Lauck Parke 1975 All Rights Reserved



A Dissertation

By

E. LAUCK PARKE

Approved as to style and content by:

Professor Curt Ta Outside

isky, Member

of Sociology

jf i/jLhi Kent B. Monroe, Director Ph.D. Programs, School of Business Administration

IV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Numerous individuals contributed to this investigation

but special thanks are due Larry Stapp, Tony Ciorciari, and

Verne Hilman who ungrudgingly offered a great deal of time

and perspective to my research. Likewise, all of the super¬

visors in the department deserve credit for helping to keep

the interviewing process on schedule. I would also like to

thank all of the workers in this department who by their

nature and interest in my research made an otherwise grueling

task enjoyable.

My committee members, Kenan Sahin, Curt Tausky, and Max

S. Wortman, Jr. deserve both sincere appreciation and credit,

their insights, proding and support encouraged the completion

of this dissertation.

The last minute skill and cheerful support of Vesta

Powers is impossible to overlook and deserves many thanks.

She is a typist par excellence and was a valuable asset at

a difficult time.

Finally, a monumental debt of gratitude to my wife,

Libby, who suffered the most yet never waivered in her com¬

mitment to me and to what we have both been trying to

accomplish.

Libby

<J)ujs Cwf)s yov

ns SOyayis you epxeTai

VI


JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM (December 1975)

E. Lauck Parke, B.A., Drew University M.B.A., Pennsylvania State University Ph.D., University of Massachusetts

Directed by: Dr. Max S. Wortman, Jr.

ABSTRACT

Job enrichment is a managerial strategy aimed at making

dull, boring jobs more interesting and challenging to the

workers who perform them. Specifically, it attempts to give

workers more responsibility, increase their sense of accom¬

plishment, and allow them to self-actualize while on the job.

Successful enrichment efforts supposedly lead to increases

in workers' job satisfaction, improvements in the amount and

quality of production performances, and reductions in absen¬

teeism and turnover.

Promises of these potential gains as well as reports of

successful industrial applications of the technique have

fueled a growing interest in the use of this job redesign

strategy. However, recent difficulties by some organizations

in applying the job enrichment process, as well as failures

in other applications to attain hoped-for improvements in

productivity, absenteeism, and turnover have encouraged a

rethinking of the underlying dynamics of the enrichment pro¬

cess .

Vll

Uncertainty has arisen not only as to the components of

job enrichment that are critical to success, but also as to

whether or not Herzberg's need theory interpretation of the

process is still appropriate. To examine these issues in

more detail, an exploratory case study of an industrial job

enrichment program was conducted. The investigation was de¬

signed to assess workers' perceptions as to the role and im¬

portance of standards, individual accountability, and per¬

formance-sanction linkages. In addition, the appropriateness

of using a reinforcement interpretation of the enrichment

process was examined.

Findings indicate that standards, accountability, the

fear of punishments, and extrinsic rewards may have signifi¬

cant 'impact on workers' performances under a job enrichment

program. Further, results cast some doubt on the need theory

assumption that only intrinsic rewards and the inherent na¬

ture of the job can serve to motivate workers. Reinforce¬

ment mechanisms in the situational characteristics of the

work place were found to have potentially a very powerful im¬

pact on a worker’s "motivation."

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• • • vm

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . iv

ABSTRACT. vi

LIST OF TABLES. x

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION . 1

Background of the Research Project . 2 Objectives of the Study. 9 Significance of the Study . 9

CHAPTER II - BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF JOB ENRICHMENT . 12

Theoretical Background . 23 Herzberg’s Perspective . 31 Job Enrichment. 3 7 Examples of Job Enrichment. 42

A.T.6T. 42 Imperial Chemical Industries . 45 Texas Instruments. 48 Corning Glass . 50 Other organizations. 52

Job Enrichment Reexamined . 54 Intrinsic Rewards and Job Enrichment . 63 A Reinforcement View of Job Enrichment .... 71 Summary. 8 0

CHAPTER III - DEFINITIONS, RESEARCH FRAMEWORK AND PROCEDURES. 8 3

Definitions. 83 General Research Framework . 86 Methodology. 91

Sources of data. 92 Research population . 92 Methods of attaining the data. 9 3 Analysis of the data. 96

Summary. 9 7

ix

Page

CHAPTER IV - RESULTS OF THE STUDY. 9 8

Data Collection. 98 The Final Research Site. 101 Characteristics of the Research Population . . . 104 Results of the Specific Predictions . 105

Overview of the Performance-Sanction Assumption. 135

Overview. 165

CHAPTER V - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 171

Methodology Results . . Implications . Limitations Future Research

173 175 180 183 185

BIBLIOGRAPHY 189

APPENDIX A. 205

APPENDIX B. 207

APPENDIX C. 208

APPENDIX D. 216

X

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 19 7 5 . 10 6

4.2 PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES TO AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975; QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PRE¬ DICTION 1 (WORKERS' AWARENESS OF STANDARDS) . . 108

4.3 PARTICIPANTS' RESPONSES TO AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975; QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PRE¬ DICTION 1 (WORKERS' AWARENESS OF STANDARDS-BY SKILL LEVELS). Ill

4.4 PARTICIPANTS' RESPONSES TO AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975; QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PRE¬ DICTION 2 (WORKERS' CONCERN OVER SUBSTANDARD PERFORMANCES). 113

4.5 - PARTICIPANTS' RESPONSES TO AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975; QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PRE¬ DICTION 3 (THE MAGNITUDE OF WORKERS' CONCERN OVER SUBSTANDARD PERFORMANCES) . 116

4.6 PARTICIPANTS' RESPONSES TO AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975; QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PRE¬ DICTION 3 (MAGNITUDE OF WORKERS' CONCERN OVER SUBSTANDARD PERFORMANCES-BY AGE) . 118

4.7 PARTICIPANTS' RESPONSES TO AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975; QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PRE¬ DICTION 4 (THE EFFECTS OF ACCOUNTABILITY ON THE QUALITY OF WORKERS' PERFORMANCES) . 124

4.8 PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES TO AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975; QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PRE¬ DICTION 4 (THE EFFECTS OF ACCOUNTABILITY ON THE QUANTITY OF WORKERS' PERFORMANCES) . 128

XI

Table Page

4.9 PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES TO AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975; QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PRE¬ DICTION 4 (THE EFFECTS OF A BONUS ON THE QUALITY OF WORKERS’ PERFORMANCES) . 132

4.10 PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES TO AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975; QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PRE¬ DICTION 4 (THE EFFECTS OF A BONUS ON THE QUANTITY OF WORKERS’ PERFORMANCES) . 133

4.11 PARTICIPANTS' RESPONSES TO AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975; QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PRE¬ DICTION 5 (THE IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUMENTAL RE¬ WARDS) . 137

4.12 PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES TO AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975; QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PRE¬ DICTION 5 (THE IMPORTANCE OF INTRINSIC REWARDS). 139

4.13 . PARTICIPANTS' RESPONSES TO AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975; QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PRE¬ DICTION 5 (THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL REWARDS) . . 140

4.14 PARTICIPANTS' RESPONSES TO AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975; QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PRE¬ DICTION 6 (THE IMPACT OF THE FEAR OF SANCTIONS ON WORKERS’ PERFORMANCES) . 148

4.15 PARTICIPANTS' RESPONSES TO AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975; QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PRE¬ DICTION 6 (THE IMPACT OF CO-WORKER PRESSURE ON WORKERS’ PERFORMANCES) . 151

4.16 PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES TO AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975; QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PRE¬ DICTION 6 (THE IMPACT OF INTRINSIC REWARDS ON WORKERS' PERFORMANCES) . 153

Xll

Table Page

4.17 PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES TO AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975; QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PRE¬ DICTION 7 (FACTORS WORKERS VALUE IN A JOB) ... 157

4.18 PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES TO AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975; QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PRE¬ DICTION 7 (THE IMPORTANCE OF COMPLEXITY VS. PAY). 160

4.19 PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES TO AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975; QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PRE¬ DICTION 7 (THE IMPORTANCE OF DECISION-MAKING VS. PAY). 162

4.20 PARTICIPANTS' RESPONSES TO AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975; QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PRE¬ DICTION 7 (THE IMPORTANCE OF PERSONAL GROWTH VS. JOB SECURITY). 164

2

of their jobs, workers are said to perform more effectively.

However, programs of job enrichment based upon this

concept of vertically loading the job with more variety, com¬

plexity, and responsibility have not always produced desired

results. Consequently, many industrial researchers and man¬

agement practitioners have begun to review and rethink the

entire issue of job enrichment. Conjectures such as: (1)

workers must be more carefully chosen, (2) only certain tech¬

nologies and organizational climates are amenable, and (3)

managers must be more supportive of their enrichment programs,

are frequently offered as refinements that will potentially

improve the success of practical applications of job enrich¬

ment theory. A possible shortcoming with much of this re¬

thinking is that seldom, if ever, is the basic underlying

assumption that man is motivated by a hierarchy of needs

brought into question. The basic theory is accepted as sound,

and program failures are assumed to arise primarily from poor

applications of the theory.

The purpose of this investigation is to explore the via¬

bility of using an alternative reinforcement model to explain

workers' responses to an industrial job enrichment program.

Background of the Research Project

Over the past decade several prominent companies have

instituted job enrichment programs to counter slumping pro¬

ductivity from what many have called the "blue-collar blues."

3

The majority of the reported programs have been successful

in either increasing productivity and/or reducing absenteeism

and turnover. For this reason, job enrichment has become an

important issue in the area of Organizational Behavior.

The theory underlying the design of most job enrichment

programs can be traced to Herzberg and his Motivator-Hygiene

3 Theory of Motivation. Herzberg contends that motivation to

perform at work is related to how intrinsically satisfying

the worker finds the job itself. He bases his design for job

Lj.

enrichment programs upon Maslow’s Hierarchy of Meeds as well

as on his own Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction. The

essential thesis is that workers have a need to self-actual-

ize or realize their full potential on the job, and they will

perform better if given the opportunity to satisfy this need.

Opportunities for achievement, responsibility, advancement,

and personal growth lead to self-actualization and ultimately

job satisfaction; it is job satisfaction that leads to job

performance. Worker motivation stems from the intrinsic re¬

wards derived from a job having sufficient amounts of variety,

discretion, responsibility, and opportunities to exercise per¬

sonal skills and talents. Stifling, boring, and unchallenging

3 See: Frederick Herzberg, Bernard Mausner, and Barbara

Snyderman, The Motivation to Work (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959)1 Frederick Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man (Cleveland: World Publishing, 1966).

4 Abraham Maslow, MA Theory of Human Motivation," Psycho¬

logical Review, 50 (July, 1943), 370-396.

4

jobs do not provide the motivators necessary for job satis¬

faction and, therefore, performance suffers.

5 Herzberg also claims that extrinsic rewards such as pay,

security, fringe benefits, and company policies will not

serve to motivate workers to perform satisfactorily over the

long-run. Thus Herzberg prescribes that managers interested

in raising productivity on boring jobs should turn away from

"carrot and stick" incentives and instead concentrate on mak¬

ing jobs interesting, challenging, and satisfying to workers.

Reports on successful job enrichment programs by Ford on

6 7 8 A.T.ST., Walton on Gaines, Beer and Huse on Corning Glass,

g and Rush on Texas Instruments have attested to the merit of

the Herzberg Theory.

Herzberg’s perspective of job enrichment appears to have

three major problems. First, House and Wigdor^ emphasize a

well-formulated, long-standing body of research that refutes

any significant relationship between job satisfaction and job

5 Herzberg, "One More Time," 53.

c

Robert N. Ford, "Job Enrichment Lessons From A.T.ST." Harvard Business Review, 51 (January-February, 1973), 96-106. -7-

Walton, "How to Counter Alienation," 70-81. g Michael Beer and Edgar Huse, "Improving Organizational

Effectiveness Through Planned Change and Development," Corning, New York, 1970. (Mimeographed.)

g Harold M.F. Rush, Job Design For Motivation (New York:

The Conference Board, 19 71')', 39-4 5 .

^Robert J. House and Lawrence A. Wigdor, "Herzberg"s Dual-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction and Motivation: A Re¬ view of the Evidence and a Criticism," Personnel Psychology, 20 (Winter, 1967), 369-389.

5

performance. Extensive reviews of previous job satisfaction

11 12 13 research by Brayfield and Crockett, Vroom, and Ronan

reveal a very low, statistically insignificant relationship

between workers' job satisfaction and their subsequent job

performance. Such findings are damaging to Herzberg's thesis.

Second, practical applications of job enrichment theory

have led to interesting, sometimes unexpected results. Some

job enrichment efforts have failed while others have met only

14 limited success. As a result, some companies have abandoned

the technique as being too costly or not capable of accomplish¬

ing the objectives of management. These failures have led

some proponents of job enrichment to retrench and declare that

it is not a cure-all for all personnel ills. Claims are now

made that job enrichment will work when the technology, job,

and worker provide the appropriate climate necessary for suc-

15 cess. In addition, it has become apparent that some workers

"Ârthur H. Brayfield and James H. Crockett, "Employee Attitudes and Employee Performance," Psychological Bulletin, 52 (1955), 396-424.

12 Victor H. Vroom, Work and Motivation (New York: John

Wiley and Sons, 1964), p. 183. 13

W.W. Ronan, "Individual and Situational Variables Re¬ lating to Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 54, Part 2 (February, 19 70) , 1-31.

14 J. Richard Hackman, "On the Coming Demise of Job En¬

richment," Technical Report #9, December, 1974 (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University, Department of Administrative Sciences); Whitsett, "Where Are Your Unenriched Jobs?," 74-80.

15 See: David Sirota, "Job Enrichment--Another Management

Fad?," The Conference Board Record, 10 (April, 1973), 40-45; John J. Morse, l,A Contingency Look at Job Design," California Management Review, 16 (Fall, 1973), 67-75 ; Whitsett'^ "Where Are Your Unenriched Jobs?," 74-80.

6

actually like repetitive work and that not all workers want

job enrichment.^

Despite the current clamor that many workers suffer from

the "blue-collar blues," a recent survey cited in Work in

17 America found that between 80 and 90 percent of American

18 workers were satisfied with their jobs. Sorenson found

that few workers wished to change their jobs and make them

19 more interesting. Blauner reviewed previous studies and

noted that 51 percent of the workers did not find their work

2 0 too simple for their capabilities. Form’s study of auto

workers indicated that most respondents felt that their jobs

were satisfying and served to integrate their lives. Sirota,

a job enrichment enthusiast, found that sewing machine oper¬

ators- on "boring" jobs were interested in their work.

In response to specific enrichment programs, workers

21 express widely varying reactions. Hulin reported that some

16 See Chris Argyris, "Personality and Organization Theo¬

ry," Administrative Science Quarterly, 48 (June, 1973), 141- 167; Charles L. Hulin, ‘‘individual Differences and Job Enrich- ment--The Case Against General Treatments," in New Perspec¬ tives in Job Enrichment, ed. by John R. Maher (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971), pp. 159-196.

17 Special Task Force to the Secretary of Health, Educa¬

tion and Welfare, Work In America, p. 14. 18

T.C. Sorenson, "Do Americans Like Their Jobs?," Parade, June 3, 1973, pp. 15-16.

19 Robert Blauner, Alienation and Freedom (Chicago: Uni¬

versity of Chicago Press'^ 1964) , p. 84. 2 0

W.H. Form, "Auto Workers and Their Machines: A Study of Work, Factory, and Job Satisfaction in Four Countries," Social Forces, 52 (1973), 1-15.

21 Hulin, 159-196.

7

workers found enriched jobs challenging while others did not;

2 2 Turner and Lawrence noted similar findings in their re-

2 3 search. Argyris has indicated that lower-class workers may

become tense and unhappy when their jobs are initially en¬

larged. The most recent testimony to workers’ less than en¬

thusiastic reception of job enrichment is Weinberg’s findings

that five out of six American auto workers, placed in en¬

riched jobs in Saab's new engine plant, preferred their

2 4 Detroit assembly-line jobs.

Third, and perhaps more significant to the understanding

of job enrichment in the broader context of Organizational

Behavior, is the emergence and widening acceptance of alter-

2 5 native theories of motivation. The theories of Homans,

26 27 28 Vroom, Lawler, and Skinner provide intuitively engaging

2 2 Arthur N. Turner and Paul R. Lawrence, Industrial Jobs

and the Worker: An Investigation of Task Response to Task Attributes (Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Business School, 1965).

2 3 Argyris, "Personality and Organization Theory," 153.

24 "Even in Sweden, U.S. Workers Find Drudgery," New York

Times, January 5, 1975, section 4, p. 11. 2 5

George Homans, Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961).

2 6 Vroom, Work and Motivation.

2 7 Edward E. Lawler, Motivation in Work Organizations

(Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole, 19 7 3) . 2 8

B.F. Skinner, About Behaviorism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974).

8

rivals to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Herzberg’s Two-

Factor Theory in explaining workplace behavior. The process

orientation of these more recently refined theories forces

social scientists to redirect their concerns from the innate

need structure of man to the contingencies within any given

situation that conditions and maintains social behavior.

These theories converge on an exchange-reinforcement perspec¬

tive of workplace behavior. The primary assumption is that

behavior results more from structural characteristics of the

situation than from the inherent proclivities of the indi¬

vidual. Not only does such a perspective reveal itself as

parsimonious, but it also seems more in line with workplace

reality. By including the nature of the exchange relation¬

ship inherent in most organizations, these theories appear

capable of embracing more of the evidence in the area of

Organizational Behavior.

In view of the failures or limited success of some en¬

richment efforts, contradictory research findings about

workers' needs and performances, and the emergence of alter¬

native theories of motivation, the current widely accepted

explanation of why job enrichment works no longer seems as

appropriate as it once did. Thus, it seems reasonable to

examine the enrichment process in detail and attempt to posit

an alternative theory as to why it works.

9

Objectives of the Study

The objectives of this study are: (1) to identify poten¬

tial reinforcement mechanisms that workers deem important in

their decision to perform while on the job, (2) to investigate

whether workers desire intrinsic or extrinsic rewards for their

on the job performances, (3) to posit an alternative theory as

to why job enrichment programs are successful, and (4) to out¬

line the critical components of a successful job enrichment

program so as to aid managers in future applications of the

technique.

Some of the specific questions to be investigated are

(1) Do workers on enriched jobs worry about their perform¬

ances and fear the consequences of substandard work? (2) Do

these workers think that their performances would change if

situational characteristics and controls were changed? (3)

What types of rewards and punishments do workers most respect

in the enriched setting? (4) What impact do these important

sanctions have on workers* performance levels? and (5) Why

do workers express interest in having their jobs enriched?

Significance of the Study

Job redesign, and job enrichment in particular, have been

the focus of a great deal of attention and debate. There is

little doubt that job enrichment is a progressive managerial

technique and that it is capable of solving some of industry's

labor ills. In fact, many claim that it offers not only man-

10

agers, but more importantly workers, substantial relief from

the supposed oppressive industrial practices of Scientific

Management. Some have even heralded it as a major step in

humanizing the work place, thus allowing the recognition of

the worker's true worth. But job enrichment is not without

problems.

Reports of limited successes, worker resistance, and

outright failures have had a sobering effect upon management's

prior enthusiasm for the technique. These problems and man¬

agement's new found cautiousness have led some researchers to

2 9 predict the coming demise of job enrichment. Although this

is an extreme prediction, it is clear that job enrichment is

in trouble. If job enrichment is to be salvaged and its via¬

bility insured, an improved conceptual understanding of the

underlying dynamics of the process seems crucial.

The practical significance of this study is the poten¬

tial identification of the components critical to program

success. This project is intimately related to the entire

area of job enrichment and job redesign and seeks to demon¬

strate and conceptually explain why such programs succeed in

improving productivity, absenteeism, and turnover. By addres¬

sing the core issue of job redesign and motivation, the vari¬

ables managers must manipulate to improve jobs and increase

worker morale and productivity can be isolated.

—

Hackman, "On the Coming Demise of Job Enrichment," 2.

11

Further, results of such a study should have practical

managerial value not only in administering existing programs,

but also in improving the operation of any subsequent pro¬

grams. Findings should aid in the development of a practical

guide to the design and implementation of successful enrich¬

ment efforts.

The question of motivation is also a significant issue

in this study. The investigation examined in detail two major

perspectives on motivation and attempted to provide data as to

the relevant application of both perspectives in the indus¬

trial setting. Thus for those interested in the theoretical

considerations, the study should channel future research into

yet unexamined areas of job enrichment and organizational dy¬

namics .

Finally, in relation to academicians and the classroom

setting, the study provides data on an alternative perspec¬

tive of job redesign and motivation whose conceptual formula¬

tion is just beginning to emerge in the literature. The

availability of such data should help to focus and guide

critical analysis of the developing job enrichment issue.

CHAPTER II

BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF JOB ENRICHMENT

The job redesign strategy known as job enrichment repre¬

sents the culmination of several decades of research into the

issue of alienation, job satisfaction, and worker motivation.

Developing out of problems found to be inherent in Frederick

Taylor's scientific management and traceable to the early

Hawthorne studies at Western Electric,"1' this research on bore¬

dom, worker discontent, and the quality of working life has

recently experienced a revival.

Popular press articles in the New York Times, The Wall

Street Journal, Life, and Time magazine, public speeches,

journal articles, and books on the subject all reveal current

interest. Press articles such as: "Reform of Work: Move

2 3 for More Creative Jobs Stirs Debate," "Boredom Fighters,"

4 "Switching Off the Assembly Line," "Boredom Spells Trouble

"^See: F.J. Roethlisberger and W.J. Dickson, Management and the Worker (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1939 ); and Elton Mayo, The Human Problems of an Indus¬ trial Civilization (Boston: Harvard University Graduate School of Business, 1933).

^The New York Times, November 13, 1974, p. 24.

^The Wall Street Journal, August 21, 1972, p. 1. 4 "Switching Off the Assembly Line," International Man¬

agement , 29 (December, 1974), 61.

13

5 6 on the Line,” and "Sabotage at Lordstown?" as well as popu-

7 lar, widely read and discussed books such as Work In America,

8 9 Job Power, and The Job Revolution, generally call for the

revamping of boring, fractionalized jobs and the rehumaniza¬

tion of the work place. Similarly, Leonard Woodcock, presi¬

dent of the United Automobile Workers, has called for an im¬

provement in the quality of working life. Leon Greenberg,

speaking for the National Commission on Productivity, has

called for the enrichment and humanization of the work place.

Senator Edward Kennedy’s Senate hearings on worker alienation

have outlined the importance of considering the non-economic

needs of workers.

A primary reason for this interest in improving the work¬

place- appears to result from the fact that application of the

principles of scientific management served to crush workers’

individuality and render jobs devoid of value and meaning.

For Frederick Taylor,^ man was an economic animal and

sought only monetary reward for his efforts. The economic

-

"Boredom Spells Trouble on the Line," Life, September, 1972, p. 30.

^"Sabotage at Lordstown?," Time, February 7, 1972, p. 76. 7 Report of a Special Task Force to the Secretary of

Health, Education and Welfare, Work In America (Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, 1973 V.

8 David Jenkins, Job Power (Baltimore, Maryland: Penquin

Books, 1973). 9 Judson Gooding, The Job Revolution (New York: Walker,

1972 ).

10Frederick Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Manage¬ ment (New York: Harper and Row, 1911).

14

view of man and the Protestant Work Ethic thus guided Taylor's

formulation of the scientific approach to management. Given

this view of man, Taylor felt that the proper incentives would

bring organizational goals and individual goals into agreement

and would result in increased production. This early economic

view of motivation was widely accepted and became the major

orientation of industrial engineering departments as they de¬

signed production jobs and the incentives to make them run

smoothly. Management, assuming the economic orientation of

labor set out to remove uncertainty from the production pro¬

cesses and refine the technologically most rational, effi¬

cient means of production. V/orkers were often placed in the

process as if another piece of production equipment and viewed

only as a pair of hands. This drive toward efficiency took

its toll. As Sorcher and Meyer noted:

Simplification brought disadvantages along with its hoped-for advantages; it brought boredom, meaning¬ lessness; it removed challenge and any sense of in¬ dividual commitment. Not only does simplification carried to its limits do damage to the worker's self-esteem and motivation, but repetitiveness, when it entails boredom and lack of goals, also in- ^ creases poor quality work rather than decreasing it.

Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Emile Durkheim, at one time

or another expressed their dismay and concern over the issue

of simplification and fractionalization. Their concerns

■^Melvin Sorcher and Herbert Meyer, "Motivation and Job Performance," Personnel Administration 31 (July-August, 1968), 21.

15

focused on either the underutilization of workers’ abilities

and mental resources or on the potential social deviance that

might result from holding a repetitive job. The concern for

the underutilization of workers' abilities stemmed from the

realization that the new, highly fractionalized jobs did not

allow workers the sense of mastery over their work as they

had once experienced under the old craft system. Not until

the Hawthorne studies in the 1920’s did researchers begin to

realize the impacts of the industrial age on the working

population. With the advent of this type of systematic in¬

dustrial, psychological research, the importance of workers’

attitudes on their overt behavior became a topic of study.

Summarizing the impact of these studies, Bullock noted:

The Westen Electric researchers demonstrated the existence of employee motivations even more com¬ pelling than the economic ones, and laid the foundation for the study of workers as social beings guided by hopes, fears, expectations, values and attitudes affecting their productiv¬ ity. 12

These findings initiated many studies designed to mea¬

sure workers' attitudes and explore the relationship between

characteristics of the work place and a worker's performance.

13 Research such as that by Hoppock into presumed relation-

—

Robert Bullock, Social Factors Related to Job Satisfac¬ tion (Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1952), p. 4.

13 Robert Hoppock, Job Satisfaction (New York: Harper 6

Brothers Publishers, 1935).

16

ships between a worker's reported job satisfaction and subse¬

quent performance while on the job, became prevalent. The

Hawthorne studies thus sparked research into situational

characteristics contributing to worker morale. Host of these

studies were based on the assumption that job satisfaction

was related directly to performance levels. Correlational

studies attempted to relate job performance, turnover, absen¬

teeism, and/or sabotage with satisfaction, attitudes toward

the company, attitudes toward immediate supervision, satis¬

faction with working conditions, satisfaction with co-workers,

and even with the type of background music played. Lawler

14 and Porter noted that simplistic satisfaction-performance

thinking and research permeated most of the studies conducted

throughout the 1930b and 1940b.

The lure of a simple job satisfaction-job performance

relationship attracted the interest of managements which

were concerned with improving productivity. As a result, the

Human Relations approach to management gained momentum. The

guiding principles became those of treating workers with more

respect, thinking of them as humans, and encouraging good

labor-management relations. Situational characteristics and

interpersonal relations were stressed.

"Êdward E. Lawler and Lyman W. Porter, "The Effect of Performance on Job Satisfaction," Industrial Relations, 7 (October, 1967), p. 20.

17

Job enlargement and participative management developed

as managerial tools to implement some of these theories. Job

enlargement was designed to reduce some of the repetitiveness

by combining several small fractionalized tasks into a larger

job. A larger job involved an increase in the number and

variety of operations a worker was required to complete. It

was assumed that variety of tasks led to higher satisfaction

and higher job performance. Participative management encour¬

aged workers to become involved in decisions occurring in con¬

nection with their jobs. The hope was that those involved in

the decision-making process would be more commited to carry¬

ing out the final decision; it was assumed performance would

improve.

Unfortunately, the job satisfaction-job performance re¬

lationship was more complicated than first suspected. Despite

Originally, "job enlargement” represented the process of combining two or more tasks of the same nature and complex¬ ity into a single ’’enlarged” job. Many researchers have used this term to represent what has now been labeled "job enrich¬ ment.” Job enrichment represents a much more extensive re¬ structuring of the job than was intended by the term "job en¬ largement.” Herzberg warned against using the term job en¬ largement because of this confusion and offered the term ’’or¬ thodox job enrichment” for job redesign programs based on the Motivator-Hygiene theory. Since many, including Guest, Hulin and Blood, Kilbridge, Hackman, and Shepard have equated job enlargement and job enrichment in their writings, it is diffi¬ cult to avoid confusion. For the purposes of this investiga¬ tion, job enlargement will retain its original meaning. When it is used by other authors to represent thenewer concept of job enrichment, a note to that effect will be inserted.

18

strenuous efforts and numerous programs, the hoped for im¬

provements in absenteeism, turnover, and productivity were

not realized. There was obviously more to job satisfaction

and improved performance than just the impact of the factors

and conditions that surrounded the job.

16 17 Findings by Worthy, Katz, Maccoby, and Morse as well

18 as others on the relationship between autonomy, the delega¬

tion of authority and job satisfaction-job performance, re¬

vealed that the content of the job itself might be a more

important factor in the satisfaction-performance relationship

than the job context factors.

Davis,^ Kornhauser,^^ McGregor,^ Argyris,^ Likert,

16 J.C. Worthy, "Organizational Structure and Employee

Morale," American Sociological Review, 15 (1950), 169-179. 17

D. Katz, N. Maccoby, and N. Morse, Productivity, Supervision, and Morale in an Office Situation (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1950).

18 See: Nancy Morse and Everett Reimer, "The Experimental

Change of a Major Organizational Variable," Journal of Abnor- mal and Social Psychology, 52 (January 1956), 120-129.

19 Louis E. Davis, "Toward a Theory of Job Design,"

Journal of Industrial Engineering, 8, (1957), 305-309. 2 0

A.W. Kornhauser, Mental Health of the Industrial Worker: A Detroit Study (New York: Wiley, 1965).

Douglas M. McGregor, "The Human Side of Enterprise," The Management Review, 46 (1957) 22-28, 88-92.

2 2 Chris Argyris, Integrating the Individual and the

Organization (New York: Wiley, 1964). 2 3

Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961).

19

24 and Herzberg, condemning the division of labor with its

fractionalization and simplification as the root cause of

dissatisfaction and performance problems among workers,

called for the restructuring of the basic intrinsic nature

and content of industrial jobs. This view or model of work¬

place behavior assumed that repetitiveness and monotony led

to boredom, dissatisfaction, and poor performance. The solu¬

tion to this resulting boredom and poor performance many

claimed was larger more meaningful jobs, jobs that provide

interest, challenge, variety, complexity, responsibility,

and chances for personal growth.

Interest in job content moved to the forefront of work

behavior research. Incidents like the General Motors

strikes that started at Lordstown and quickly involved

thirteen other plants across the country have given rise

to numerous ideas for humanizing the work place and efforts

to provide opportunities for real achievement on the job.

Sirota has noted that among the most current ideas for re¬

designing and humanizing industrial jobs is Frederick Herz-

2 5 berg’s theory of job enrichment. It appears as though

management has taken interest in this relatively new behav-

24 Frederick Herzberg, ’’One More Time: How Do You Moti¬

vate Employees?” Harvard Business Review, 46 (January- February, 1968), 53-62.

2 5 David Sirota, "Job Enrichment - Another Management

Fad?,” Conference Board Record, 10 (April, 1973), 40.

20

iorally oriented theory. As Reif, Ferrazzi, and Evans

stated,"Management’s efforts to more effectively utilize

human resources embraces the growing interest in job en¬

richment . . . " ^ ^

The process of enrichment is relatively simple, direct,

and straight forward. Reif, Ferrazzi, and Evans have pro¬

vided some insight into job enrichment.

Job enrichment, by definition, is concerned with designing work that includes a greater variety of content; requires a higher level of knowledge and skill; gives the worker more autonomy and responsibility for planning, directing, and con¬ trolling his job; and provides the opportunity for personal growth and meaningful work experi¬ ence. 2 7

Or as York outlined:

An enriched job can be defined as follows: a) It is a complete piece of work in the sense that the worker can identify a series of tasks or activities that end in a definable product for a given receiver (client) or group of receivers; b) It affords the employee as much decision¬ making responsibility and control as possible in carrying out the work; c) It provides direct feedback through the work itself on how well the employee is doing the job.28

Thus, we have a job redesign technique that aims to dis¬

pel boredom, monotony, and worker dissatisfaction by com-

William E. Reif, David N. Ferrazzi, and Robert J. Evans, "Job Enrichment: Who Uses It and Why," Business Hori- zons, 17 (February, 1974), 73.

2 7 Ibid., 73

2 8 Lyle Yorks,"Job Enrichment Boosts Performance," Jour¬

nal of Systems Management, 26 (January, 1975), 16-19.

21

pletely restructuring the intrinsic nature of industrial jobs.

The approach shuns the horizontal loading concept of job en¬

largement, where several tasks of the same complexity are

"horizontally” linked or grouped into a larger job and fo¬

cuses rather on the concept of vertically loading a job with

more challenge and complexity. Herzberg has noted that this

process entails: (1) giving the worker more responsibility

by giving him a more complex job, (2) allowing the worker to

achieve, and learn more about his job, (3) designing tasks

that allow for personal growth on the part of the worker, (4)

providing advancement opportunities to higher skill tasks,

and (5) allowing workers to do tasks that interest them.

This concentrates on factors intrinsic to the job itself,

not on extrinsic factors in the larger work environment.

The process gives workers more autonomy and responsibility

for planning, controlling, and directing not only their own

work but also the work of any subordinates.

The ultimate aim is increased performance levels, but

increases that result from higher levels of internal motiva¬

tion rather than from the external prods of pay and tight

supervision. For as Grote stated, "Job enrichment is a

29 strategy for increasing motivation."'' But Sirota indicated

that the approach appears to have promise not only in terms

-—--

Richard C. Grote, "Implementing Job Enrichment," California Management Review, 15 (Fall, L972), 1C.

22

of motivation but also in relation to other job oriented be¬

haviors .

The favorable—sometimes spectacular--results asserted for job enrichment projects have received extensive publicity. While much of the original experimentation with the technique was done at A.T.ST.... similar achievements have been reported in companies such as Texas Instruments, Maytag, Motorola, and I.B.M. The published results have been almost uniformly favorable, with improve¬ ments claimed on just about every conceivable dimension of organization effectiveness; ranging from work quality and productivity to labor man¬ agement cooperation and harmony.30

However, implementation of job enrichment has not been

without problems nor has it been without its detractors.

Recent trends in the- management literature impinging on job

enrichment suggest the need for further research into the

underlying structure of the enrichment process. Prior to

addressing these divergent trends, however, it seems appro¬

priate to examine in more detail the theoretical basis for

the enrichment process as well as examples of actual appli¬

cations of the theory.

The remainder of this chapter will cover: (1) a review

of the theory upon which job enrichment is based, (2) a rep¬

resentative sample of case studies detailing the development

and success of job enrichment as a motivational strategy,

(3) some of the problems, unanswered questions, and contra¬

dictory evidence of the enrichment process, and (4) possible

30 Sirota, "Job Enrichment," 40.

alternative interpretations of the underlying structure of

job enrichment.

2

Theoretical Background

31 Maslow’s thinking and writing on the nature of man

permeates most of the current research on organizational be¬

havior and the redesign of jobs. His hierarchy of needs is

a widely accepted, though unproven, concept which provides

the framework for the theories of several major, modern-day

organizational researchers. Among them is Herzberg's Moti¬

vator-Hygiene theory upon which job enrichment strategy is

built. Central to Maslow's model is the assumption about

the striving nature of man. Noting that Maslow’s thinking

is in the psychological tradition of Jung, Adler, and Sulli¬

van, Herzberg relates this central thesis:

...the supreme goal of man is to fulfill himself as a creative, unique individual according to his own innate potentialities and within the limits of reality.32

Maslow believed that man is motivated by an inherent set of

needs. When unsatisfied, these needs generate and mediate

See: Abraham Maslow, "A Theory of Human Motivation,” Psychological Review, 50 (July 1943), 370-396; Abraham Maslov?, Motivation and Personality (New York: Harper, 1954) Abraham Maslov/, Eupsychian Management (Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey, 1965).

32 Frederick Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man (Cleve

land: World Publishing, 1966), TT!

24

the behavior necessary to satisfy the most pressing need.

Since man is a perpetually wanting animal, he seeks to ful¬

fill what he lacks. Hence the focus is on the inherent na¬

ture of an individual that serves to energize his behavior.

Maslow goes on to specify this inherent nature as a hierarchy

of five need levels ranging from basic physiological needs up

through safety, love, esteem, and self-actualization needs.

While the three lower levels include physiological, safety,

and love needs, the two higher level needs include esteem

and self-actualization needs. The job redesign literature

revolves around the later two.

Of the lower level needs, the physiological needs are

the most basic. They encompass the drive to secure the

factors necessary to maintain the body in a state of homeo¬

stasis, such as food and water. Safety needs represent the

desire to be free from threats and dangers in one’s environ¬

ment, whether they be from nature or man. Love needs in¬

clude the striving for affection, belongingness, and group

membership.

With respect to the higher level needs, Maslow noted:

All people in our society... have a need or desire for a stable, firmly based, (usually) high evalu¬ ation of themselves, for self-respect, or self¬ esteem, and for the esteem of others. 3

And in regard to self-actualization, he continued:

33 Abraham Maslow, "A Theory of Human Motivation,” 381.

25

Even if all these needs are satisfied, we may still often (if not always) expect that a new discontent and restlessness will soon develop, unless the in¬ dividual is doing what he is fitted for. A musi¬ cian must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately happy. What a man 'can* be, he 'must’ be. This need we may call self-actualization.... It refers to the de¬ sire for self-fulfillment, mainly, to the tendency for him to become actualized in what he is poten¬ tially.... In one individual it may take the form of the desire to be an ideal mother, in another it may be expressed athletically, and in still another it may be expressed in painting pictures or in in¬ ventions .

These needs impinge on human behavior and are arranged

in a hierarchy of 'prepotency.' In the words of Maslow,

That is to say, the appearance of one need usually rests on the prior satisfaction of another, more pre-potent need...35 A person who is lacking food, safety, love, and esteem would most probably hunger for food more strongly than anything else.

Once 1:his hunger for food is satisfied, Maslow states that

other needs higher up in the hierarchy immediately become

potent and begin to dominate the individual. Once satisfied,

the physiological need for food loses its importance and mo¬

tivational force to the unsatisfied higher order needs; the

individual's attention turns to the remaining unfulfilled

needs.

Thus a satisfied need does not act as a motivator for

the individual. Maslow indicated that this was an important

fact in his formulation, especially if one was interested in

34Ibid., 383.

35Ibid., 370.

36Ibid., 373.

26

understanding exactly what is motivating a person at any

given time.

This assumption seems most pertinent from the standpoint

of organizational behavior. It presupposes that individuals

have a sense of enough pay, security, co-worker acceptance,

recognition and self-esteem; thus at some point these widely

relied upon organizational rewards must become ineffective in

motivating the individual.

Supposedly the self-actualization need can never be com¬

pletely satisfied and will continue to motivate the individ¬

ual to action even if all lower order needs are satisfied.

With this in mind it is easy to understand why modern organi¬

zational need theorists claim that to motivate the worker,

jobs must be designed to allow individuals to self-actualize.

Expanding and adding more detail to his theory, Maslow

made several points in regard to the functioning of the need

hierarchy. First, he noted that higher level needs do not

just suddenly emerge, but gradually arise as the next lower

need approaches satisfaction. Second, a need does not have

to be completely satisfied for the next higher need to gain

motive strength. Third, the needs of an individual are all

partially satisfied at any one time. Fourth, behavior is

multi-motivated in the sense that several or all of the needs

combine to determine each act of behavior. Thus an act of

behavior is never singly or exclusively determined by one

27

need. And fifth, that an individual who is thwarted in the

satisfaction of any of his needs can be characterized as sick.

Maslow reported that:

...a healthy man is primarily motivated by his needs to develop and actualize his fullest poten¬ tialities and capacities. If a man has any other basic needs in an active, chronic sense, then he is simply an unhealthy man.37

When one carries Maslow's framework over into the study

of organizational behavior, as McGregor, Argyris, Likert,

Maier and others have done, the focus immediately turns to

the structural nature of organizations and their ability to

foster the satisfaction of man's inherent needs. These re¬

searchers frequently assume that man's needs are congruent

with only certain environments and they conclude that organ¬

izations must be designed to encourage the satisfaction of

the hypothesized hierarchy of needs. Many need theorists

attest that most organizations today are not designed with

man's needs in mind and as a result tend to be need frus¬

trating rather than need satisfying. Claims are made that

frustration of workers' esteem and self-actualization needs

is particularly accute in many industrial organizations. In

reference to this, Kaplan, Tausky, and Bolaria noted:

...Argyris, Maier, McGregor, and Davis. These investigators have argued that healthy individ¬ uals desire an organizational environment which can satisfy their higher level needs...Our con¬ temporary complex organizations are, however, depicted as stifling individual initiative and creativity and fostering conformity, dependency,

37 Ibid., 394.

28

immaturity and subsequent alienation of employees from their work.38

Similarly, McGregor has indicated that:

The typical industrial organization offers few opportunities for the satisfaction of these ego¬ istic needs to people at lower levels in the hierarchy. The conventional methods of organi¬ zing work, particularly in mass-production in¬ dustries, give little heed to these aspects of human motivation. If the practices of scien¬ tific management were deliberately calculated to thwart these needs, they could hardly accomp¬ lish this purpose better than they do.^

The end result of this frustration of workers' needs is

conflict between the individual and the goals of the organi¬

zation. Workers supposedly express the deprivation of their

higher level needs by exhibiting inappropriate (from the

standpoint of management) behavior, such as absenteeism,

turnover, sabotage, and poor quality work. Advocates of

this view believe that organizations must be redesigned if

individuals are to be satisfied and happy and if organiza¬

tions are to benefit from constructive, creative efforts of

their individual members.

As could be expected, several prominent need theorists

have offered remedies for the stifling, intolerable, need-

frustrating conditions that exist today in complex organiza¬

tions. There is reasonable consistency in the basic thrust

of most of these need-based theories and therefore McGregor's

"Job H. Roy Kaplan, Curt Tausky, and Bhopinder S. Bolaria,

Enrichment," Personnel Journal, 48 (October, 1969), 794. 39

McGregor, "The Human Side of Enterprise," 27.

29

formulation will be taken as fairly representative.

McGregor contended that many of the practices of manage¬

ment stemmed from the tenents of scientific management and

the conventional or bureaucratic theories of organizations.

These theories, McGregor pointed out, assumed that since man

was indolent, lacked ambition, disliked responsibility, and

worked as little as possible, management had to intervene and

reward, punish, and control workers in order to force compli-

4 0 ance with organizational objectives. Belief in this con¬

ception of man and this view of management’s role led inevit¬

ably to the carrot-and-stick approach to motivation. Concen¬

tration is placed on external control mechanisms, such as

close supervision and strict rules and regulations, and on

extrinsic rewards such as money and good working conditions.

He said that such an approach to management may work well if

employees are living at a subsistence level and are concerned

only with satisfying their basic physiological and security

needs. Since the majority of American workers live above the

subsistence level, McGregor felt that workers' higher order

needs have become prepotent and now in addition to seeking

money from their jobs they also seek esteem and the opportun¬

ity to self-actualize at work.

His conclusion was that the use of this type of approach

in the management of men stifles the inherent nature of men,

40Ibid. , 23.

30

underutilizes their abilities, and forces workers to become

indolent, passive, and resistent.

Integrating Maslow's conceptualization of man into or¬

ganizational theory, McGregor reformulated what he considered

to be a more promising theory of management. This "en¬

lightened" approach to the practice of management explicitly

assumed that man inherently has the potential for develop¬

ment and is not by nature indolent, passive or resistent to

the needs of organizations. In addition, it assumed that

it is the responsibility of management to design organiza¬

tions so that individuals can best attain their goals by

41 directing their efforts toward organizational objectives.

The reformulation concentrated on self-control and self-

direction and called for the redesign of work so as to en¬

courage the satisfaction of man’s higher order needs.

McGregor felt that the focus on self-control and self-direc¬

tion would lead to increased effort and involvement on the

part of the workers, as well as a congruence between indi¬

vidual and organizational goals. Further, he felt that use

of this approach to management would lessen the problems of

absenteeism, turnover, and sabotage.

Other need-based theories such as Argyris' Immature-

4 2 Mature Personality theory, Likert’s Supportive Management

41Ibid., 88. 42

Argyris, Integrating the Individual and the Organiza- tion (New York: Wiley, 1964).

31

4 3 . 44 Style, and Davis' Socio-technical Approach are basically

predicated on the reasoning that McGregor uses and are simi¬

larly consistent with the strategy of job enrichment as pro¬

posed by Frederick Herzberg.

Herzberg's Perspective

Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene theory of job attitudes

emerged following a massive review of previous job attitude

45 research. Conducted in 1957, the review covered fifty years

of research and over two thousand articles. Conclusions from

this project served as the basis for Herzberg's job enrichment

strategy. The most important finding of the review was that

contrary to previous beliefs, job satisfaction was not a uni¬

dimensional concept. Herzberg had found that job attitudes

were affected by two distinctly different factors.

4 6 As Wood and LeBold noted, traditional job satisfaction

research had been firmly grounded in the assumption that if

the presence of a positive job related factor led to job

satisfaction then the absence of this factor would lead to

dissatisfaction. Satisfaction-dissatisfaction was thought

Likert, New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1961).

4 4 Davis, "Toward a Theory of Job Design," 305-309.

4 5 See: Frederick Herzberg, et ajL. , Job Attitudes: Re¬

view of Research and Opinion (Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh, 1957).

^Donald A. Wood, and William K. LeBold, "The Multivari¬ ate Nature of Professional Job Satisfaction," Personnel Psy¬ chology , 23 (Summer, 1970), 173.

32

of as a single continuum ranging from extreme satisfaction to

extreme dissatisfaction with each job related factor adding

to an overall job satisfaction index. Herzberg’s endeavors

cast doubt on this simplistic view of job satisfaction and

pointed toward a more complex, multidimensional view of job

attitudes. At the end of their review, they conjectured that

the factors affecting a worker’s feelings of job satisfaction

were not related to factors that led a worker to express dis¬

satisfaction with his job. Job satisfaction was no longer

being viewed as a single continuum, but rather as two separ¬

ate indexes of different job attitudes, one representing job

satisfaction and the other job dissatisfaction.

To test this roughly formulated conjecture, Herzberg

47 and his associates conducted field research in 1959.

Approximately 200 engineers and accountants were interviewed

using an open-ended, semi-structured instrument which elicited

their job attitudes. To isolate those factors that workers

associated with a positive feeling of job satisfaction and

determine if these were different than factors associated with

feelings of dissatisfaction, a critical incident approach was

used. This technique instructed the subjects to recall a

period when they held very positive feelings of job satisfac¬

tion, then they were asked to relate what factors or elements

_

Frederick Herzberg, Bernard Mausner, and Barbara Snyderman, The Motivation to Work (New York: Wiley, 1959).

33

in the work setting had contributed to these positive feel¬

ings. Then they were asked to recall a period when they had

experienced very negative feelings toward their job and re¬

late what factors or elements contributed to these feelings.

With these data assembled, a content analysis was conducted.

Whitsett and Winslow noted that this content analysis

4 8 revealed two distinct sets of factors. One set, dealing

with intrinsic aspects of the job, definitely affected job

satisfaction. The other set of factors, dealt with extrinsic

aspects surrounding the job and these determined job dissat¬

isfaction. Elaborating on these factors Herzberg indicated

that sources of dissatisfaction included company policies,

supervision, working conditions, status, salary, and inter¬

personal relations. He labeled these hygiene factors be¬

cause when they are provided in adequate amounts they prevent

dissatisfaction. Factors that affect job satisfaction, on

the other hand, included interesting work, responsibility,

achievement, recognition, and opportunities for personal

growth. These, Herzberg labeled motivators since he found

them to be associated with intrinsic motivation and success-

49 ful job performances.

h o

D.A. Whitsett, and E.K. Winslow, "An Analysis of Studies Critical of the Motivator-Hygiene Theory," Personnel Psychology, 20 (Winter, 1967), 392.

49 Frederick Herzberg, "The New Industrial Psychology,"

Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 18 (April, 1965), 369.

34

What Herzberg proposed was a Two-Factor approach to the

understanding of job attitudes and on-the-job motivation.

His central idea was that factors leading to job satisfaction

and ultimately motivated job performances are separate and

distinct from the factors that lead to job dissatisfaction.

In Herzberg1s formulation, the opposite of job satisfaction

is not job dissatisfaction, but simply a lack of job satis¬

faction. Two separate continuums were advanced to explain

workers1 job related attitudes.

To support the existence of these two separate continuums,

Herzberg postulated that man has two opposite sets of needs,

one to avoid deprivation and unpleasantness, the other to

experience psychological growth. Herzberg indicated that

the first set of needs stemmed from man’s animal nature and

primary biological drives, and in today's industrial world

are expressed in terms of the necessity and demand for pay,

security, and good working conditions. The second set of

needs encompassed what Herzberg called that unique, innately

human desire to realize one's potential, to achieve, to util-

50 ize one's mind, and to grow psychologically. This is ex¬

pressed today by the desire for more challenging tasks, more

responsibility, and the chance to take pride in one's work.

Essentially, Herzberg took Haslow's hierarchy of needs and

divided it into: (1) the need to avoid pain and (2) the need

50 Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man, p. 52.

35

for psychological growth, and then related these to the indus¬

trial setting.^

Dissatisfaction on the job can be avoided by satisfying

workers’ pain avoidance needs, but job satisfaction and moti¬

vated performances arise only when workers’ higher level needs

are fulfilled through the intrinsic nature of their jobs.

Thus, if pay, benefits, and working conditions are exception¬

ally good, workers may still not be satisfied with their jobs.

Supposedly, workers must achieve and experience growth induc¬

ing tasks if they are to be satisfied and perform well in

52 their organizations. If managers ignore hygiene factors

such as salary, interpersonal relations, and supervision and

allow oppressive supervision, low pay, or poor working condi¬

tions to prevail, then Herzberg indicated that workers will

be dissatisfied and as a result their performances will suf¬

fer. But since hygiene factors have only an indirect and

5 3 short-lived effect on motivation, additional hygienes can¬

not serve to motivate workers to higher performance levels.

51 Note that Herzberg makes this direct comparison to

Maslow's hierarchy of needs in, Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man, 141.

52 See: Herzberg, "The New Industrial Psychology," 364-

376 ; Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man; Herzberg, ’’One More Time," 53—62; Frederick Herzberg, "The Wise Old Turk,” Harvard Business Review, 52 (September-October, 1974), 70- 80.

5 3 Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man, 170.

36

For Herzberg, the answer to motivating workers' per¬

formances was in properly supplying each job with intrinsic

motivators that satisfy the needs of psychological growth

and self-actualization,^4 5 since a worker is motivated to per-

5 5 form only when the performance is meaningful. Motivators

included the opportunities for achievement, recognition, more

responsibility, advancement, personal growth, as well as

challenging assignments and merit increases. However, Herz¬

berg continued to recognize the dual nature of man and im¬

plored managers to address themselves to the adequate con-

56 sideration of both sets of needs when designing jobs.

Since the original study in 1959, the Motivator-Hygiene

theory of job attitudes has been tested and replicated numer-

5 7 ous times." Both the findings and the methodology used have

58 been the focus of a great deal of controversy and debate,

at this point however, what seems more important for this in¬

vestigation is the strategy of job enrichment that has de¬

veloped from the Motivator—Hygiene theory.

4Whitsett, and Winslow, "An Analysis of Studies," 395. 5 5 "Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man, 8.

""Whitsett, and Winslow, "A.n Analysis of Studies," 412. 57

For an excellent summary of replications, see: Herz¬ berg, Work and the Nature of Kan, 122; Kaplan, Tausky, and Bolaria^ "Job Enrichment," 192.

5 8 ""For an excellent review of the controversy, see Valerie

M. Bookman, "The Herzberg Controversy," Personnel Psychology, 24 (Summer 1271), 155-189; also Whitcett, and Winslow, hAn Analysis of the Studies," 391-415.

37

Job Enrichment

Reflecting on earlier management strategies, Herzberg

noted that scientific management and the industrial engineer¬

ing approach to personnel management have achieved a great

deal. These approaches lean heavily upon the use of hygiene

factors to secure performance, however, and since our complex

industrial society now faces workers who have, for the most

part, satisfied their lower order survival needs, Herzberg

indicated that these approaches are no longer appropriate.

Many managers and firms still subscribe to these earlier

theories of management, and approach management with the

carrot-and-stick. They show no concern for man’s higher

level needs and thus workers are often frustrated in their

quest for self-fulfillment. Fractionalized, industrial jobs,

devoid of intrinsic value are easy work for a robot but not,

Herzberg noted, for the normal, mentally healthy human.

5 9 Humans supposedly need variety and challenge in their work.

The lack of motivators in many industrial jobs results

in the human problems of absenteeism, turnover, sabotage,

strikes, and demands for higher wages since this is the only

way workers can vent their frustrations over dull meaningless

jobs. Further, workers become overly sensitive to the hy¬

giene factors and demand spiraling improvements in pay, fringe

- -

Herzberg, "The New Industrial Psychology,” 373.

38

benefits and working conditions. Management, Herzberg felt,

improperly responds to these symptoms by addressing only

hygiene factors and not the entire motivator-hygiene issue.

To rectify this, he called for the redesign of industrial l

jobs so as to let the motivator factors he had isolated

emerge. If this were allowed to occur, workers would have

the opportunity to experience self-actualization and psycho¬

logical growth on their jobs, internal motivation would pre¬

sumably take over and the need for constant managerial prod¬

ding would lessen. If motivators are present and workers

view their jobs as meaningful, Herzberg contended, then

workers would challenge and complete the tasks assigned.

One supposedly fosters the emergence of these motivators

by implementing the redesign strategy of job enrichment.

Programs of enrichment encourage the inclusion of greater

autonomy, discretion, freedom of action, variety, and com-

6 0 plexity in each worker’s job. In relation to the process,

Paul, Robertson, and Herzberg have stated that:

...job enrichment seeks to improve both task effi¬ ciency and human satisfaction by means of building into people’s jobs, quite specifically, greater scope for personal achievement and its recognition, more challenging and responsible work, and more opportunity for individual advancement and growth. It is concerned only incidentally with matters such as pay and working conditions, organizational

_

William E. Reif, and Robert M. Monczka, ’’Job Redesign: A Contingency Approach to Implementation,” Personnel, 50 (May-June, 1973), 21.

39

structure, communications, and training, important and necessary though these may be in their own right.61

Thus the process of enrichment deals specifically with the

job content factors of: (1) variety, (2) autonomy, (3) re¬

sponsibility, (4) task identity, (5) job knowledge and skill,

(6) interactions with others, and (7) feedback on personal

performance.

In the process, some direct external controls on workers

are removed and they are given more autonomy and discretion

over the completion of assigned tasks. At the same time,

work-related feedback and personal accountability are in¬

creased. Workers are encouraged to become an expert in a

given job area and they are also given much broader say in

the planning, controlling, and directing of their own efforts

and the efforts of their subordinates. In this manner, the

worker is confronted with opportunities for meaningful in¬

volvement in the job and given the chance for psychological

growth.

In his now famous, "One More Time: How Do You Motivate

6 2 Employees?" Herzberg outlined specific steps to job enrich¬

ment. These steps include, removing some controls over

01 William J. Paul, Keith B. Robertson, and Frederick

Herzberg, "Job Enrichment Pays Off," Harvard Business Review, 47 (March-April, 1969), 61.

6 2 Herzberg, "One More Time," 53-62.

40

workers while increasing personal accountability, offering

complete modules of work, providing additional job-related

freedom and authority, improving performance feedback, and

allowing workers to become an expert in one particular area.

In a more recent article, he updated and refined the enrich¬

ment process and revealed the ingredients that he felt were

6 3 necessary for a successful job enrichment effort.

What Herzberg proposed or outlined was that a truly well

designed job--an enriched job--is a complete, naturally de¬

finable unit of work, where the worker is not only able to

see clearly the boundaries of his responsibility, but also

given as much decision making control over what happens with¬

in those job boundaries as possible. The job automatically

provides workers with immediate and direct, nonsupervisory

feedback on how well they are performing as well as auto¬

matic recognition for successful performances. This then is

the process of vertically loading the job--improving the in¬

trinsic nature of the job itself, not just changing the en¬

vironmental conditions surrounding the job.

When these changes are made, workers are given oppor¬

tunities to increase their knowledge and understanding, be

creative within the job, experience the complexity and chal¬

lenge of decision-making, and become unique individuals capa¬

ble of psychological growth.

63 Herzberg, "The Wise Old Turk," 72.

41

Obviously, such an undertaking requires a very definite

change in management style. Scientific management and tradi¬

tional industrial engineering approaches are incompatible

with the job enrichment notions that workers are intelligent,

capable decision makers and that the locus of control should

be shifted downward into their hands. The repressive, carrot-

and-stick approaches to motivation common today in many in¬

dustrial firms, Kerzberg felt, must be changed if management

is to encourage internal motivation and its resulting pro-

...... 64 ductivity increases.

How does management know whether or not a job has been

properly enriched? As Grote has outlined, management must

ask itself:

Does the job provide the opportunity for meaning¬ ful achievement? Is there recognition for achieve¬ ment? Does the iob provide the opportunity to grow and learn?

If the answers to these questions are no, then Grote implored

managers to take steps to change jobs and provide these con-

,. . . 6 6 ditions.

Since the advent of the job enrichment theory, many in¬

dustrial concerns have attempted to implement the strategy

and reap some of the assumed benefits of the technique such

as increased productivity, and reduced absenteeism and turn-

64 Kaplan, Tausky, and Bolaria, "Job Enrichment," 792.

6 5 Grote, "Implementing Job Enrichment," 17.

66T. ., Ibid., 17.

42

over. To get a fuller view of how the strategy has been im¬

plemented and to secure a sounder understanding of exactly

wnat job enrichment involves, outlines of the following

cases are set forth.

Examples of Job Enrichment

A.T.ST.^ One of the first enrichment efforts at A.T.ST.

involved correspondents in the Stockholder Relations Depart¬

ment who were charged with the task of responding to stock¬

holders' inquiries. Management felt this was a desirable job,

providing challenge and complexity for those involved. How¬

ever, morale, turnover, and productivity did not bear this

out. Steps were taken to enrich and revitalize the intrinsic

aspects of the job.

Enrichment entailed giving one group of correspondents

increased responsibility by allowing them to complete several

steps that supervisors had previously performed. Formerly,

supervisors had signed all letters-, correspondents on en¬

riched jobs, however, were allowed to sign their own names

and were held accountable for the accuracy and the quality

of the letters they drafted. Personalized responses to in¬

quiries were encouraged over the previously used form letter

- _

See: Robert N. Ford, Motivation Through the Work It¬ self (New York: American Management Association, 196 9); Fred K. Foulkes, Creating More Meaningful Work (New York: American Management Association, 1969) 107; Herzberg, "One More Time," 57; Sirota, "Job Enrichment," 40.

43

approach. Subject matter specialists were established to

deal with the specialized requests that supervisors had once

handled.

Clearly these modifications in the correspondents’ jobs

increased the accountability of each employee and provided

individual correspondents with more feedback on their per¬

sonal performance. Signing one’s work certainly increased

the visibility of one’s performance relative to an established

standard.

Reported results were impressive. Significant improve¬

ments in the quality of letters and in the speed of response

were noted. Absenteeism and turnover in the experimental

group fell and their reported satisfaction level increased.

Supervisory verification of letters in this group dropped as

much as 90 per cent in some cases. Similar results were not

evident in the non-enriched control groups. The experimental

group also experienced a much higher rate of promotion.

In a second enrichment effort, clerks compiling tele¬

phone directories for Indiana Bell Telephone had their jobs

expanded. Under the enrichment program the clerks were given

responsibility for checking and verifying entries; previously

this had been done by special checkers and inspectors. Re¬

checking of entries was reduced since employees now had total

responsibility for the accuracy of the sections assigned to

them. With clerical checking cut by one-third, the work

force was reduced from 120 to 74 employees. Because the per-

44

formance of an individual employee was now far more visible,

employees could now be held accountable for their mistakes;

feedback on one’s performance was also more readily available.

In addition to the reduction in the work force, the program

led to improvements in performance, and "buck passing" of

responsibility for inaccuracies was restricted.

6 8 Ford noted that these changes provided the compilers

with more responsibility, autonomy, and discretion in their

jobs. Renewed pride in the work, the challenge of a more

complex job, and the opportunity to self-actualize on the

job were cited as reasons for improvements in performance.

6 9 In a third experiment, the jobs of a group of service

representatives and service-order typists were redesigned in

an effort to stem problems of turnover and delayed handling

of customer service requests. Prior to enrichment, a cus¬

tomer's call was answered by any available service repre¬

sentative. Once taken, the request was sent to a typing

pool for processing. Under this arrangement requests for

service were frequently delayed, misdirected, or misplaced.

Responsibility for delays was impossible to trace.

After enrichment, service representatives and supporting

service-order typists were grouped together and assigned re-

^Robert N. Ford, "Job Enrichment Lessons From A.T.ST.," Harvard Business Review, 51 (January-February, 1973), 96-106.

69Ibid., 96-106.

45

sponsibility for specific geographical areas. Customer ser¬

vice requests were now referred to the service representative

and typist in charge of the geographical area in which the

customer lived. If a customer's order or request for service

were delayed or misplaced, specific employees could be held

accountable for the delay.

Results of the program included a 63 per cent jump in

the number of service orders processed on time and a signifi¬

cant drop in the turnover rate among service-order typists.

Ford indicated that the new sense of participation, opportun¬

ities to experience a direct client relationship with cus¬

tomers, and recognition for completing the job on time,

accounted for the vast improvements in performance. At the

same time, however, service-order typists were promoted to a

higher pay scale.

7 0 Imperial Chemical Industries. The first case at Im¬

perial Chemical involved laboratory technicians in an indus¬

trial research department. Although the technicians were

professionally qualified, they lacked scientific degrees and

therefore were only allowed to carry out experiments arranged

by departmental scientists. Essentially, the job consisted

of setting up equipment, recording data, and supervising

laboratory assistants. Surveys confirmed management's sus¬

picion that these technicians were frustrated. A major

Paul, Robertson, and Herzberg, "Job Enrichment Pays Off," 61-78.

46

frustration noted was that technicians felt that their skills

and technical abilities were being wasted on routine work.

Under the enrichment program, technicians were encouraged to

author reports about projects upon which they had worked.

These reports were published and the technicians were held

responsible for answering questions arising from their re¬

ports. Further, not only were they given more say in the

planning of experiments and projects, but they were also

allowed to requisition equipment and materials necessary to

conduct experiments. Finally, technicians were given re¬

sponsibility for hiring laboratory assistants and junior

71 staff. Paul, Robertson, and Herzberg claimed that these

changes encompassed all of Herzberg's motivators and thus

created more challenging jobs that offered chances for

achievement, recognition and personal growth.

Results included the assessment that the quality of the

monthly progress reports submitted by the experimental group

was superior to that exhibited by the control group. Write¬

ups of individual experiments by the technicians in the ex¬

perimental group compared favorably with reports done by the

better educated, more advanced scientists. Paul, Robertson,

and Herzberg indicated that this showed that the laboratory

technicians did experience advancement and psychological

growth. Despite the fact that there was no significant

IT Ibid., 66.

47

change in reported job attitudes when measured on a before-

and-after experiment basis, management noted substantial

growth on the part of the technicians and general positive

results from the program. Improvements in the experimental

group were attributed to the additional challenge of the re¬

designed jobs, the achievement and recognition from report

writing, and the increased autonomy and discretion in ob¬

taining equipment and conducting experiments. As in previous

cases, the accountability of these employees increased, as did

the feedback on their relative performance. In this experi¬

ment, the process of report writing provided the link between

individuals and their performances.

A second case covered production supervisors in a metal

fabrication process. Mahagement had apparently become con¬

cerned over the erosion of supervisors' traditional role.

Much of the responsibility for planning, control, and dis¬

cipline had, over the years reverted to higher levels of

management, so that many small scale, day-to-day issues and

problems were swamping middle level managers. To correct

this situation, management enriched the jobs of its super¬

visors. As part of the program, supervisors were given the

discretion to schedule production and were assigned special

problems in such areas as quality control. Decisions about

non-routine payments and the hiring, training, assessment,

and discipline of subordinates were placed in their hands.

48

Not only did the supervisors recruit better quality per¬

sonnel after enrichment, but they also trained them success¬

fully. A decline in down-time resulting from the inability

of replacement workers to quickly fill in during emergencies

was noted. In addition, supervisors were considered quite

capable of handling their increased disciplinary role, since

incidences of repeat offences by troublesome workers fell as

did short-term work stoppages. Although there was no im¬

provement in the supervisors’ job attitude scores over the

trial period, superintendents praised the experiment because

it had revealed the capable supervisors. Improvements were

credited to the achievement and challenge inherent in the

enriched jobs. Supervisors were thought to have responded

positively to the motivators found in these more "meaningful"

jobs.

7 2 Texas Instruments. Texas Instruments pioneered

efforts to implement Herzberg's job enrichment theory in the

7 3 industrial setting. Representative of these efforts and

-72- See: Earl D. Weed, "Job Enrichment Cleans Up at Texas

Instruments," in New Perspectives in Job Enrichment ed. by John R. Maher (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971), pp. 55-78; also Harold M.F. Rush, Job Design for Motivation (New York: The Conference Board, 1971), ppT 39-45.

7 3 For additional examples of Texas Instruments job en¬

richment efforts see Fred K. Foulkes, Creating More Meaning¬ ful Work (New York: American Management Association, 1969) pp. 5 6-$ 6; Jenkins, Job Power, pp. 193-196 ; Sirota, "Job En¬ richment," 40-45 ; Sirota, and Alan D. Wolfson, "Job Enrich¬ ment: Surmounting the Obstacles," Personnel, 49 (July-August, 1972), 8-19.

49

indicative of management's philosophy toward the worker is an

experiment involving the janitorial cleaning service at the

Dallas plant. Before enrichment, janitorial services had

been contracted to an outside firm. Displeasure with this

service and the generally low level of cleanliness led man¬

agement to establish its own janitorial department on a trial

basis. Since management's philosophy embraced Herzberg and

McGregor as well as the desire to have workers involved in

worthwhile endeavors enrichment efforts were aimed at raising

the low status of janitorial jobs and securing the commitment

of these workers to the importance of their jobs. Wages and

fringe benefits were increased, more modern equipment was

made available, improved selection and training of janitorial

workers were undertaken, and weekly planning meetings aimed at

goal setting and goal attainment were instituted. Emphasis

was placed on job involvement, both on an individual and team

basis. During the team meetings, workers were encouraged to

participate in job-related planning and problem solving.

Workers were given increased responsibility for the planning

and control of their efforts and held accountable for their

performances.

Although these employees were hired from the ranks of

the outside contractor, they apparently did not experience

the same dissatisfactions they had while working under the

old arrangement: quarterly turnover had dropped 91 per cent.

At the same time the company reported that its cleanliness

50

ratings for the areas covered by the janitorial service had

jumped from 65 per cent of perfect to 85 per cent, and 40

per cent fewer personnel were needed to accomplish this.

After observing this enrichment experiment for over two years

and noting an annual cost savings of $103,000, Texas Instru¬

ments decided to expand the pilot to its entire cleaning

function. Those close to the experiment attributed success

to the fact that as a result of the expanded responsibility

for planning and control of their jobs, the workers were more

motivated, involved and committed. The challenge of problem

solving, planning, and goal setting provided the motivators

necessary to encourage improved performance.

In this case, not only were major hygiene factors manip¬

ulated (pay and benefits), but management assigned specific

areas to each individual and made it clear that above average

cleanliness was expected.

74 . 75 Corning Glass. In their first enrichment experiment,

Corning Glass did away with its assembly line for building

74 See: Jenkins, Job Power, pp. 196-198; also Michael

Beer and Edgar Huse, "Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Planned Change and Development," Corning, N.Y., 1970 28-30. (Mimeographed.)

75 ~For a review of this and other enrichment efforts at

Corning Glass, see: Report of a Special Task Force to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Work In America, p. 100; Richard E. Walton, Innovative Restructuring of Work," in The Worker and the Job, ed. by Jerome M. Rosow (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 156; "The Drive to Make Dull Jobs Interesting," U.S. News and World Report, July 17, 1972, p. 50.

51

laboratory hot plates. Basing their efforts on the "whole-

job concept," in which each employee was assigned specific

responsibilities and held accountable for them, each former

assembly-line worker now assembled an entire hot plate unit.

Employees finished a unit, tested it, inspected it for qual¬

ity control problems, and placed their initials on the com¬

pleted hot plate before shipping it out. Meetings were es¬

tablished so the group could plan and schedule production to

meet weekly objectives and devise improvements in the assem¬

bly process. The initials would not only make it possible

to reference customer complaints, but also to allow workers

to identify with their work and take pride in their efforts

for they would receive recognition for high quality levels.

Recognition for achievement and involvement in the expanded

production process were important program elements.

As a result of this effort, quality control rejects

dropped from 23 to 1 per cent and absenteeism fell by seven

per cent. Based upon the extreme success of this pilot pro¬

ject, Corning expanded enrichment to cover all but the most

complex jobs in their bio-medical instrument facility. Ulti¬

mately, a total of 90 employees and two supervisors were in¬

volved.

As in previous cases, accountability and feedback appeared

to play important roles in the enrichment process. In this

case, the pay structure was changed by management during en¬

richment so as to base it more directly on merit.

52

Other organizations. The job enrichment strategy has

been applied in numerous other organizations including:

76 77 78 Motorola, Gaines Pet Food, Aluminum Company of Canada,

79 80 81 General Electric, Chemical Bank of New York, and Maytag.

Several recent books provide extensive coverage of job enrich-

8 2 ment and job redesign efforts around the world. Reif,

8 3 Ferrazzi, and Evans supply an excellent summary of the ex¬

tent of the job enrichment movement.

7 6 Report of a Special Task Force to the Secretary of

Health, Education and Welfare, Work In America, p. 101; Roy Hill, "The Team Effort at Motorola,1* International Management, 27 (February, 1972), 43-45; "Marketing Programs that Win Prizes," Business Week, October 27, 1973, pp. 53-54.

7 7 Richard E. Walton, "How to Counter Alienation in the

Plant," Harvard Business Review, 50 (November-December 1972), 70-81.

7 8 Jean Champagne, "Adapting Jobs to People: Experiments

at Alcan," Monthly Labor Review, 96 (April, 1973), 49-51; Wall Street Journal, May 22, 1970, p. 1.

79 "The Drive to Make Dull Jobs Interesting," U.S. News

and World Report, July 17, 1972, p. 50. gQ *

Charles H. Gibson, "Volvo Increases Productivity Through Job Enrichment," California Management Review, 15 (Summer, 1973), 64-66.

81 Maurice Kilbridge, "Reduced Costs Through Job Enlarge¬

ment: A Case," Journal of Business, 33 (October, 1960), 357- 362; also James FT Biggane and Paul A. Stewart, "Job Enlarge¬ ment: A Case Study," in Design of Jobs, ed. by Louis E. Davis and James C. Taylor (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1972), pp. 264-276.

8 2 See: Report of a Special Task Force to the Secretary

of Health, Education, and welfare, Work In America; Maher, New Perspectives; Jenkins, Job Power"; Davis and Taylor, Design of Jobs; Rosow, The Worker and the Job.

8 3 William E. Reif, David N. Ferrazzi, and Robert J. Evans,

"Job Enrichment: Who Uses It and Why," Business Horizons, 17 (February, 1974), 73-78.

53

Until quite recently, glowing claims of success laced the

literature and job enrichment was heralded as a potential pan¬

acea for many personnel ills faced by industry. However, there

appear to be problems; failures have begun to come to light.

Hackman stated:

What we have seen out there in the 'organizational heartland' is not very encouraging. If our obser¬ vations are representative...job enrichment is failing as often as it is succeeding.84

8 5 Whitsett, confirmed the fact that there have been many fail-

8 6 ures. And Horse, called the documented effects of job en-

8 7 richment contradictory. Reif, Ferrazzi, and Evans claimed

that much publicized success of cases involving A.T.ST., Texas

Instruments, and Maytag cannot be taken as necessarily repre¬

sentative of what job enrichment will do in all industrial ap¬

plications. Their survey of companies involved in job enrich-

8 8 ment efforts bears this out. Finally, Reif and Luthans, sum¬

marizing much of this new thrust, pointed to a study by Hulin

and Blood and claimed it as representative of a body of liter¬

ature indicating that the motivational effects of job enrich¬

ment may be generally overstated and possibly unfounded.

84 J. Richard Hackman, "On the Coming Demise of Job En¬

richment," Technical Report #9 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Uni¬ versity, Department of Administrative Sciences, 1974), p.2.

8 5 Davis A. Whitsett, "Where Are Your Unenriched Jobs?,"

Harvard Business Review, 53 (January-February, 1975), 74.

8^John J. Morse, "A Contingency Look At Job Design," California Management Review, 16 (Fall, 1973), 69.

87William E. Reif, David N. Ferrazzi, and Robert J. Evans, "Job Enrichment: Who Uses It and Why," 73.

88william E. Reif, and Fred Luthans, "Does Job Enrich¬ ment Really Pay Off?," California Management Review, 15 (Fall, 1972), 33.

54

Job Enrichment Reexamined

In an effort to better understand the process, some re¬

searchers have begun to reexamine the underlying assumptions

and factors involved in successful applications of job en¬

richment .

Given research findings in related areas of organiza¬

tional behavior, it appears that Herzberg's three major assump¬

tions underlying why job enrichment works are open to question.

First is the assumption that increases in job satisfaction

will lead to increases in job performance. Second is the

assumption that man has an innate need to self-actualize on

the job. And third is the belief that all workers want more

interesting, challenging, satisfying work and thus seek the

intrinsic rewards that enriched jobs have to offer.

As for the first assumption, Morse^ indicated that a

major flaw in much of the current job redesign thinking is

the general feeling that job satisfaction and job performance

are linked in a direct relationship. He feels that the evi¬

dence on this relationship is inconclusive and that research¬

ers and managers alike should shift their emphasis and concen¬

trate on the relationship between job enrichment and actual

job motivation. Backing Horse's contentions is a well founded

body of literature that seriously questions the job satisfac-

89 Morse, "A Contingency Look at Job Design," 69.

55

9 0 91 tion-job performance link. House and Wigdor, Smith,

92 93 94 Opsahl and Dunnette, Strauss, Lawler and Porter, and

9 5 Kahn all indicated that the assumed relationship between

job satisfaction and job performance is ill-founded and

should be dealt with cautiously. The often cited, extensive

reviews of previous job satisfaction research by Brayfield

9 6 9 7 and Crockett and Vroom revealed a statistically insig¬

nificant relationship between reported job satisfaction and

job performance. Vroom found only a .14 median correlation

90 Robert J. House, and Lawrence A. Wigdor, "Herzberg's

Dual-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction and Motivation: A Review of the Evidence and a Criticism,” Personnel Psychol- ogy, 20 (Winter, 1967), 369-389.

91 Patricia Cain Smith, et. al., The Measurement of Satis¬

faction in Work and Retirement: A Strategy for the Study of Attitudes (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969) , p. Ti

92 Robert L. Opsahl, and Marvin D. Dunnette, "Financial

Compensation Plans in Industrial Motivation,” in Studies in Personnel and Industrial Psychology, ed. by Edwin A. F lei's- man (Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1967), p. 270 .

9 3 George Strauss, "Some Notes on Power-Equalization," in

The Social Science of Organizations, ed. by Harold Leavitt (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964), p. 63.

94 Lawler and Porter, "The Effects of Performance on Job

Satisfaction," 20-28. 9 5

Robert L. Kahn, "The Prediction of Productivity," Jour¬ nal of Social Issues, 12 (1956), 41-49.

9 6 Arthur Brayfield and James H. Crockett, "Employee Atti¬

tudes and Employee Performance," Psychological Bulletin, 52 (1955), 396-424.

9 7 Victor Vroom, Work and Motivation (New York: Wiley,

1964), pp. 143-174.

56

between the two in the studies he reviewed. Ronan’s recent

9 8 survey reconfirms these older findings. Since it has been

so difficult to obtain any relationship between job satis-

9 9 faction and job performance, Hulin and Blood concluded that

this shows the weakness of traditional job behavior models

such as Herzberg’s.

Noting a stronger established relationship between job

satisfaction and either absenteeism or turnover, Lawler^*"*

indicated that measures of job satisfaction could be used to

predict a person’s motivation to come to work, but not his

motivation to perform once at work. Many others have also

noted this difference between the decision to come to work

as opposed to the decision to perform once on the job: they

are viewed as quite different motivations. In the same vein,

Applewhite concluded that the assumed relationship between

reported job satisfaction and actual job performance is not

as simple as first thought.

Summing up the implications of their findings, Brayfield

9 8 W.W. Ronan, ’’Individual and Situational Variables Re¬

lating to Job Satisfaction,” Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 54 Part 2 (February^ 1970) , 1-31.

9 9 Charles L. Hulin and Milton R. Blood, "Job Enlargement,

Individual Differences, and Worker Responses,” Psychological Bulletin, 69 (January, 1968), 43.

^Êdward E. Lawler, "Job Attitudes and Employee Motiva¬ tion: Theory, Research, and Practice,” Personnel Psychology, 23 (Summer, 1970), 223-237.

■^^Philip B. Applewhite, Organizational Behavior (Engle¬ wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965), p. 6 .

57

and Crockett noted that:

...it is time to question the strategy and ethical merit of selling to industrial concerns an assumed relationship between employee attitudes and employ¬ ee performance.

They imply that until more conclusive evidence is revealed

the assumption is best unused. Findings over the past twenty

years have done little to discredit their original conten¬

tions .

Despite these findings the assumption that job satis¬

faction leads to higher levels of job performance still serves

as a central relationship in job redesign formulations of

Herzberg and other need theorists.

The second assumption open to some question deals with

man's innate need to self-actualize. Commenting on research

findings that reveal significant differences in the ex¬

pressed needs of workers, Kaplan, Tausky, and Bolaria noted

that: ^

An appropriate starting point for discussion of the origins of these differences lies in answering the following question: Is the desire for the attain¬ ment of self-actualization universal among workers ... Specifically, do 'all' workers seek and desire achievement, advancement, independence and recog¬ nition in their work?^3

The implications of their analysis lead to the conclusion

that the need to self-actualize is not universal among men.

10 2 Brayfield and Crockett, "Employee Attitudes

ployee Performance," 396-424. 10 3

Kaplan, Tausky, and Bolaria, "Job Enrichment

and

t!

>

Em-

793.

58

104 105 Dubin, and Porter and Lawler support this conclusion by

indicating that workers are more involved with the instru¬

mental concerns of money and security than with the so called

10 6 higher order needs. Roszak noted that people have only

recently become interested in the issue of self-actualization.

Lawler commented that, nThe concept of man as a self-actual-

107 izing organism is essentially a development of the 1960s,"

thus implying that the concept is a social period phenomenon.

Throughout history many models of man have risen and

fallen with the climate of the times; there is good reason to

suspect that Maslow's self-actualization needs are also

period bound. The use of slaves throughout history to ac¬

complish the work of the powerful or wealthy argues against

the existence of an innate need to self-actualize by the

sweat of one's brow.

108 109 Levitan and Johnston, Kaplan, Tausky, and Bolaria,

104 Robert Dubin, "Industrial Workers' World: A Study of

the 'Central Life Interests'of Industrial Workers," Social Problems, 3 (1956), 131-142.

10 5 Lyman W. Porter, and Edward E. Lawler, "Properties of

Organizational Structure in Relation to Job Attitudes and Job Behavior," Psychological Bulletin, 64 (1965), 23-51.

10 6 Theodore Roszak, The Making of Counter Culture

(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1969). 10 7

Edward E. Lawler, Motivation In Work Organizations (Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole, 19 7 3), p . 39.

10 8 Sar A. Levitan, and William B. Johnston, "Job Redesign,

Reform, Enrichment—Exploring the Limitations," Monthly Labor Review, 96 (July, 1973), 35-41.


59

and Foulkes contended that academic researchers may have

infused their own needs and values into their job redesign

formulations and hence assume that because they want to

”self-actualize” everyone else must also want to self-actualize

via a more interesting, challenging job. Evidence of workers’

expressed needs just does not support this self-actualization

perspective.

Maslow himself has expressed some doubts over his need

hierarchy formulation and its application to the industrial

setting. He has stated that his research was based on the

study of neurotics in a clinical situation and that the carry

over to the industrial setting is therefore tenuous. In addi¬

tion, he has warned that his studies were poorly designed and

thus the concept of self-actualization should not be unques-

tioningly accepted as truth.Even in his original formu¬

lation of the need hierarchy, Maslow noted that behavior is

almost always determined by situational, cultural and bio-

112 logical factors in addition to the needs that he outlined.

Stressing this, he went on to state that basic needs do not

determine all behavior and that 'field determinants’ are also

important and should not be overlooked.

^■■^Foulkes, Creating More Meaningful Work, p. 41.

l^Maslow, Eupsychian Management, pp. 55-56 . 112

Maslow, "A Theory of Human Motivation,” 371, 390.

60

Maslow's caution can only damage Herzberg’s contention

that job enrichment is necessary to satisfy the self-actual¬

ization needs of the worker. Workers, let alone anyone else,

may not even have self-actualization needs, and even if they

do, to claim that satisfaction of these needs in the enriched

setting accounts for all improvements in performance seems

unwarranted.

In examining the third assumption, that workers express

a desire for more challenging, more interesting work, there

is additional support for questioning the inherent need to

self-actualize. Numerous researchers have examined dull,

repetitive work and asked the questions: Are workers on

these jobs satisfied? Do they all want more interesting jobs?

Findings from many of these research efforts cast doubt upon

the assumption that workers would all welcome more interest¬

ing, satisfying work.

Drucker called the problem of monotony a "romantic fable"

and said that many workers continually find satisfaction on

repetitive jobs. Baldamus' concept of traction revealed

the possibility that workers experience sufficient satisfac-

114 tion as they are "pulled along" by their repetitive jobs.

n 3 Peter Drucker, The New Society (New York: Harper and

Brothers, 1949), p. 168. 114

Arthur N. Turner, and Paul R. Lawrence, Industrial Jobs and the Worker: An Investigation of Task Response to Task Attributes (Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Busi- ness School, 1965), p. 27.

61

Studies by Walker and Mariott, Argyris,^^ Lawler,

118 119 Turner and Lawrence, and Morse support the idea that

some workers prefer simple, repetitive or uncomplicated tasks.

Smith, et al., after conducting research on women holding

"boring" jobs in knitting mills concluded that some workers

12 0 are simply less susceptible to monotonous work. Chinoy’s

study of automobile workers found that workers were more up¬

set with the lack of control over their work than with the

121 repetitiyeness of the jobs. Reif and Schoderbek found

that unskilled workers were not interested in the responsi-

12 2 bility and challenge that went wTith job redesign. Wishing

to daydream and socialize while on the job, these workers pre¬

ferred the status quo of their highly routine tasks. In his

study' of workers on mechanically paced assembly lines, Kil-

bridge found that the workers expressed little dissatisfac-

_ C.R. Walker, and R.A. Marriott, "A Study of Attitudes

to Factory Work," Occupational Psychology, 25 (1951), 181-191. 116

Chris Argyris, "The Individual and Organization: An Empirical Test," Administrative Science Quarterly, 4 (Spring, 1959) 145-167.

117 Lawler, Motivation In Work Organizations, p. 163.

118 Turner and Lawrence, Industrial Jobs and the Worker.

119 Morse, "A Contingency Look at Job Design," 67-75.

12 0 Smith et. al., The Measurement of Satisfaction, p. 327.

121 Ely Chinoy, Automobile Workers and the American Dream

(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1955).

^■^William p. Reif, and Peter P. Schoderbeck, "Job En¬ largement: Antidote to Apathy," Management of Personnel Quar¬ terly ,15 (Spring, 1966), 16-23.

62

12 3 tion or frustration with their jobs. Spurning larger tasks

and the opportunity to control the pace of the line them¬

selves , these workers reported that they liked the rhythm of

the repetitive tasks on the assembly line.

124 125 Given this type of finding, both Lawler and Fein

concluded that there are significant differences between

workers and that a boring, repetitive job to one may be

challenging and satisfying to another. Further, they noted

that some workers actually fear the responsibility and chal¬

lenge of more complex work. Data compiled by Sheppard and

12 6 Herrick indicated that although 51 per cent of workers

they surveyed on low level jobs reported the blues, 49 per

12 7 cent did not. Turner and Lawrence reported very similar

findings in their research. Walker and Guest’s 1952 study

of auto workers noted that upward of 69 per cent of the

128 129 workers found their work interesting. Similarly, Blauner

12 3 Maurice D. Kilbridge, "Do Workers Prefer Larger Jobs?,"

Personnel, 37 (September-October, 1960), 45-48. 12 4

Lawler, Motivation in Organizations, p. 107. 12 5

Mitchell Fein, "Job Enrichment: A Reevaluation," Sloan Management Review, 15 (Winter, 1974), 69-88.

12 6 Harold Sheppard and Neal Herrick, Where Have all the

Robots Gone? (New York: New Press, 1972). 12 7

Turner and Lawrence, Industrial Jobs and the Worker. 12 8

Charles R. Walker, and Robert Guest, The Man on the Assembly Line (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1952).

12 9 Robert Blauner, Alienation and Freedom (Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1964).

63

reviewed previous studies and noted that 51 per cent of the

workers did not find their work too simple for their abili¬

ties. Form's 1973 study of auto workers indicated that most

respondents felt that their jobs were satisfying and served

130 to integrate their lives. Sirota expressed surprise at

his finding that most sewing machine operators in his study

131 were interested in their work. Weintraub's 1973 findings

132 confirm Sirota's. And two recent public opinion polls

cited in Work In America, show that 80 to 91 per cent of

13 3 American workers are satisfied with their jobs.

In spite of this, Herzberg still claims that job enrich¬

ment is necessary if workers are to self-actualize while they

are at work. Sirota's comment on the workers' apparent de¬

sire for more interesting, challenging work seems more fit¬

ting. "We have yet to see picket signs demanding less boring

v ..134 work."

Intrinsic Rewards and Job Enrichment

Not only do some workers have difficulty adjusting to

130 W.H. Form, "Auto Workers and Their Machines: A Study

of Work, Factory and Job Satisfaction in Four Countries," Social Forces, 52 (1973), 1-15.

131 See: Fein, "Job Enrichment: A Reevaluation," p. 82.

132T.. , no Ibid. , p. 82.

13 3 Report of a Special Task Force to the Secretary of

Health, Education and Welfare, Work In America, p. 14. 1 34

Sirota, "Job Enrichment," 43.

64

enrichment, but also many workers still value the extrinsic

rewards of money and fringe benefits more than the offer of

interesting, challenging work.

In their extensive survey of who uses job enrichment,

Reif, Ferrazzi and Evans found that some workers have diffi-

13 5 culty adjusting to job enrichment. Problems seem to

arise over the reluctance on the part of some workers to

accept the responsibility and authority that goes with self-

supervision, as well as resistence to changes in job content.

Argyris reported that some workers may express less desire

for variety and challenging work and may become tense and

13 6 unhappy shortly after their jobs have been enriched.

Hulin indicated that there is wide variability in people’s

reactions when their jobs are enriched; some finding the

137 jobs challenging,others not. The findings of Turner and

Lawrence are supportive of this variability in workers' re-

138 sponses to job enrichment. Reif and Luthans noted that

135 Reif, Ferrazzi, and Evans, "Job Enrichment: Who

Uses it and Why," 76. 13 6

Chris Argyris, "Personality and Organization Theory," Administrative Science Quarterly, 18 (June, 1973), 153.

TTJ Charles Hulin, "Individual Differences and Job En¬ richment -- The Case Against General Treatments," in New Per¬ spectives in Job Enrichment,ed. by John R. Maher (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971), pp. 159-191.

13 8 Turner and Lawrence, Industrial Jobs and the Worker.

65

some workers simply do not see job enrichment as a fair trade

for the reduced chances for social interaction with fellow

workers. Other workers they found react negatively because

they fear failure or prefer the dependent relationship they

had in their old job. Kaplan, Tausky, and Bolaria pointed

out that some workers may resist or resent enrichment simply

because it interrupts their established work routine or makes

them feel ill at ease.'*'^

141 14? Studies by Blood and Hulin, Kennedy and O'Neil,

14? 144 Kilbridge, and MacKinney, Wernimont, and Galitz all

revealed that workers frequently do not want enrichment or

the opportunity to experience growth on their jobs. Review-

ing the enrichment process, Fein commented that many union

leaders have expressed that supporters of the job enrichment

14 5 strategy just do not know what workers really want. An

Reif and Luthans, "Does Job Enrichment Really Pay Off?," 36.


141 Milton R. Blood and Charles L. Hulin, "Alienation,

Environmental Characteristics, and Worker Responses," Journal of Applied Psychology, 51 (June, 1967), 284-290.

142 James E. Kennedy and Harry E. O'Neil, "Job Content

and Workers' Opinions," Journal of Applied Psychology, 47 (December, 1958), 372-375.

^Kilbridge, "Do Workers Prefer Larger Jobs?," 45-48 . 144

A.C. MacKinney, P.F. Wernimont, and W.O. Galitz, "Has Specialization Reduced Job Satisfaction?," Personnel, 39 (1962), 8-17.

"'"l+^Fein, "Job Enrichment: A Reevaluation," 79.

66

international study by Strauss and Rosenstein reached essen-

146 tially the same conclusion. Hulin and Blood called the

widely accepted notion that workers should value interesting,

challenging work merely an evaluative assumption that is not

147 necessarily supported by data. Similarly, Fein indicated

that numerous studies demonstrate the fact that few workers

are really attracted to enriched jobs because they wish to

1 hD find fulfillment and self-actualization.

Testing the desire of assembly-line workers to escape

the monotony of their Detroit-style jobs and become involved

in more challenging jobs, Weinberg placed six Detroit auto¬

mobile workers on enriched jobs in the new Saab engine

149 plant. Coming as a surprise for many, five of the six

workers expressed preference for their routine assembly jobs.

Faster work and more concentration were cited as the primary

drawbacks of the enriched jobs. In light of this type of

15 0 finding, job enrichment enthusiasts such as Whitsett,

151 152 Sirota, and Morse have conceded that job enrichment is

not for everyone.

146 G. Strauss and E. Rosenstein, "Workers’ Participation:

A Critical View," Industrial Relations, 9 (1970), 197-214. 14 7

Hulin and Blood, "Job Enlargement," 45.

^^Fein, "Job Enrichment: A Reevaluation," 77. 14 9

"Even in Sweden, U.S. Workers Find Drudgery," The New York Times, January 5, 1975, section 4, p. 11.

^"^Whitsett, "Where Are Your Unenriched Jobs?," 74-80.

'^■''Sirota, "Job Enrichment," 40-45. 15 2

Morse, "A Contingency Look at Job Design," 67-75.

67

153 154 Levitan and Johnston and Schrank have concluded

that wages, benefits, and general standard of living are far

more important to most workers than is interesting, challeng¬

ing work. Findings supportive of this conclusion, apparently

have been shunned or discounted over the years in favor of

the claim that workers want enriched jobs. Workers still

apparently value very highly the extrinsic rewards that work

has to offer. Several enrichment efforts may not have gotten

off the ground unless workers had been promised or received

financial incentives for participating. Foulkes pointed out

that at Polaroid, employees received a guarantee not only

that they would not lose financially if they entered the job

rotation program, but also that merit increases would be a

15 6 part of the program when they were deserved. Workers be¬

gan to enter this program only after seeing it as the best

route to advancement. Commenting on Procter and Gamble,

Texas Instruments, Gaines, and Polaroid, Fein noted that either

these companies had a history of attractive wage and benefit

packages, or that pay and benefits were increased significant¬

ly as a part of the enrichment programs. It is Fein's con¬

tention that these increases cannot be overlooked as potential

^■^Levitan and Johnston, "Job Redesign," 39. 154

Robert Schrank, "Work In America: What Do Workers Really Want?," Industrial Relations, 13 (May, 1974), 124.

15 5 Kornhauser, Mental Health of the Industrial Worker:

A Detroit Study. 156

Foulkes, Creating More Meaningful Work, p. 39.

68

causes when trying to account for productivity increases that

15 7 result from the enrichment process.

In a Swedish experiment reported by Bjork, workers fear¬

ing a potential pay loss as a result of the experiment, de¬

manded and received a guarantee that their wages would not

fall below previous average pay levels for the duration of

15 8 the experiment. At the Bureau of Retirement and Survivors

Insurance of the Social Security Administration, the new

"modularization" program has led the employees’ union to de¬

mand increased payoffs because employees felt that the en¬

richment program increased both responsibility and work

loads.

Even after enrichment has occurred, workers do not seem

fully satisfied with the additional "intrinsic" rewards of

more interesting work, and they often demand a cash share of

16 0 the increased productivity. Ginsberg found such a result

in a Dutch enrichment experiment; the experiment was termi¬

nated when workers demanded pay increases for their added

responsibility. Apparently there will be productivity bar-

157 Fein, "Job Enrichment: A Reevaluation," 73-74.

15 8 Lars E. Bjork, "An Experiment in Work Satisfaction,"

Scientific American, 232 (March 1975), 20.

"'■^Federal Times, August 14 , 19 74, p. 2. 16 0

Eli Ginsberg's comments are reported by William F. Whyte, "Organizations for the Future," in The Next Twenty- Five Years of Industrial Relations, ed. by Gerald G. Sommers (Madison, Wisconsin: Industrial Relations Research Associa¬ tion , 1973), p. 134.

69

gaining under the new enrichment programs at both Volvo and

Saab. Gooding stated: "The most common theme of complaint

heard in job enriched plants is that there should be, but

often is not, more pay for more responsibility and more pro-

161 duction." Shultz does not find this result at all sur¬

prising since he feels that we all expect some ’quid pro quo’

for taking on additional responsibilities. If this type of

program is to succeed, Shultz feels that some mechanism must

be devised to monetarily share the gains in productivity with

the workers.

This high level of interest in bread and butter issues

should come as no surprise. Numerous studies in the past

have supported the position that preoccupation over the basic

rewards of work is, and has been prevalent among the working

16 3 class. Morse and Weiss conjectured that as society becomes

161 Judson Gooding, ”It Pay to Wake up the Blue-Collar

Worker,” Fortune, September, 1970, p. 167. 16 2

George Shultz, ’’Worker Participation on Production Problems," in The Scanlon Plan,ed. by Frederick Lesieur (Cam¬ bridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1958), p. 50.

16 3 See: J.H. Goldthorpe, et al., The Affluent Worker:

Industrial Attitudes and Behavior "("Cambridge: Cambridge Uni¬ versity Press, 19 6 8 ) ; Richard Centers and Hadley Cantril, "In¬ come Satisfaction and Income Aspiration," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 41 (1946), 64-69; William F. Whyte, Money and Motivation (New York: Harper and Row, 1955); R.A. Katzell, et. ah, '*Job Satisfaction, Job Performance, and Situational Characteristics," Journal of Applied Psychology, 45 (April, 1961), 65-72; Ely Chinoy, "The Tradition of Opportunity and the Aspirations of Automobile Workers," American Journal of Sociol¬ ogy , 57 (March, 1952), 453-459; William Form, and James Gesch- wender, "Social Reference Basis of Job Satisfaction: The Case of Manual Workers," American Sociological Review, 27 (April, 1962), 228-237; Blood and Hulin, "Alienation, Environmental Characteris¬ tics, and Worker Responses," and Turner and Lawrence, Industrial Jobs and the Worker.

70

more complex and more industrialized, increasing numbers of

people begin to view work simply as a means to earning a

164 living. Tausky implied that three out of four workers can

be viewed as "normatively tied to work as the acceptable

16 5 source of income." Likewise, Fein noted that the jobs

that behavioral scientists see as boring are viewed by work¬

ers strictly as a source of bread. Union bargaining supports

16 6 this view. Katz citing economic interdependence between

workers and factories, concludes simply that workers need

. 167 work.

One may ask what impact this apparent instrumental or¬

ientation of workers has on motivation and the enrichment

process. Strauss responds quite clearly, "There is little

16 8 evidence that money has ceased to be a prime motivator."

16 9 Whyte’s classic study seems to bear this fact out. Sirota

1 £4 Nancy C. Morse, and Robert S. Weiss, "The Function

and Meaning of Work and the Job," American Sociological Re- view, 20 (April, 1955), 191.

16 5 Curt Tausky, "Meanings of Work Among Blue Collar Men,"

Pacific Sociological Review, 12 (Spring, 1969), 54.

■^^Mitchell Fein, "The Real Needs and Goals of Blue-Collar Workers," The Conference Board Record, 10 (February, 1973), 32.

16 7 Fred Katz, "Explaining Informal Work Groups in Com¬

plex Organizations: The Case for Autonomy in Structure," Ad- ministrative Science Quarterly, 10 (September, 1965), 205.

16 8 Strauss, "Some Notes on Power-Equalization," p. 53.

^"^William F. Whyte, "Incentives for Productivity," Applied Anthropology, 7 (Spring, 1948); Whyte, Money and Motivation.

71

and Wolfson pointed out that most managers should be well

aware of the power of financial incentives on employee moti-

170 171 vation and productivity. Porter, Lawler, and Hackman,

172 173 Shapiro and Wahba, and Turner and Lawrence all indi¬

cated that extrinsic rewards are highly relevant in the pro¬

cess of motivating job performance.

A Reinforcement View of Enrichment

Does the existence of all of the above shortcomings of

Herzberg's theory of job enrichment mean that the intrinsic

rewards of which he speaks are not potential sources of mo¬

tivation? Not necessarily, but it does imply that his simple

content theory of man’s innate hierarchy of needs may no

longer be capable of fully explaining the underlying dynamics

of the enrichment process. For when we examine in more depth

the individual differences between workers' desires for job

enrichment we find that several social factors are at work.

Numerous studies show that factors such as cultural

170 Sirota and Wolfson, ’’Job Enrichment: Surmounting

the Obstacles," 13. 171

Lyman W. Porter , Edward E. Lawler, and J. Richard Hackman, Behavior in Organizations (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975).

17 2 Jack H. Shapiro, and Mahmoud A. Wahba, "Frederick

W. Taylor--62 Years Later," Personnel Journal, 53 (August, 1974), 574.

17 3 Turner and Lawrence, Industrial Jobs and the Worker.

72

174 175 background, rural vs. urban upbringing, plant location,

17 6 community characteristics, and workers’ frame of reference,

177 • 178 179 occupational level, education, social class, reli-

174 See: Hanafi M. Soliman, "Motivation-Hygiene Theory

of Job Attitudes: An Empirical Investigation and an Attempt to Reconcile Both the One-and the Two-Factor Theories of Job Attitudes,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 54 (1970), 452- 461; Hulin and Blood, "Job Enlargement, Individual Differ¬ ences, and Worker Responses,” 41-55; Whyte, Money and Moti¬ vation ; Gerald I. Susman, "Job Enlargement: Effects of Culture on Worker Responses,” Industrial Relations, 12 (Feb. 1973), 1-15.

17 5 See: Kennedy and O’Neil, "Job Content and Workers'

Opinions," 372-375; Lawler, Motivation in Organizations, p. 163; Katzell, et al., "Job Satisfaction, Job Performance, and Situational Characteristics," 65-72; Blood and Hulin, "Alienation, Environmental Characteristics and Worker Re¬ sponses," 284-290; Turner and Lawrence, Industrial Jobs and the Worker.

See: Brayfield, and Crockett, "Employee Attitudes and Employee Performance," 396-424; Blood and Hulin, "Alien¬ ation, Environmental Characteristics and Worker Responses," 284-290; Hulin, "Individual Differences and Job Enrichment - The Case Against General Treatments," in New Perspectives in Job Enrichment, pp. 159-196; Katzell, et_ al . , "Job Satisfac¬ tion , Job Performance, and Situational Characteristics," 65- 72.

177 See: Richard Centers and Daphne E. Bugental, "In¬

trinsic and Extrinsic Job Motivations Among Different Seg¬ ments of the Working Population," Journal of Applied Psy¬ chology , 50 (June, 1966), 193-197; Frank Friedlander, "Com¬ parative Work Value Systems," Personnel Psychology, 58 (Spring, 1965), 1-20 ; Thomas B~ Armstrong, ’’Job Content and Context Factors Related To Satisfaction For Different Occu¬ pational Levels," Journal of Applied Psychology, 55 (1971), 57-65; Leonard Goodwin, "Occupational Goals and Satisfactions of the American Work Force," Personnel Psychology, 22 (1969), 313-325.

17 8 See: Tausky, "Meanings of Work Among Blue Collar

Men," 49-55. 17 9

See: Sheppard and Herrick, Where Have All the Robots Gone?; also Harland Padfield and Roy Williams, Stay Where You Were (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1973); Reif and Luthans, "Does Job Enrichment Really Pay Off?," 33.

73

180 181 gion, and race all mediate or affect in some way the

attitudes a worker holds toward his job and affects the man¬

ner in which he performs while on the job. As Hulin points

out:

These results also raise serious questions con¬ cerning the validity of the suggestion by Herzberg that the determinants of how a man reacts to his job are to be found in the intrinsic characteris¬ tics surrounding the job. It is no longer enough to consider community and situational variables as moderator variables or nuisance variables.i82

This clearly implies that the socialization process must

be taken into consideration when we seek to understand why

some enrichment programs succeed while others fail. The im¬

plication of course is that through the socialization pro¬

cess, people have learned to value and seek different rewards

18 q from the world of work. w Herzberg, although recognizing

that occupational level and education do affect attitudes,

does not fully incorporate these factors, nor other social

18 0 See: David J. Cherrington and J. Owen Cherrington,

"Participation, Performance, and Appraisal," Business Hori- zons, 17 (December, 1974), 35-44; David L. Featherman, "The Socioeconomic Achievement of White Religio-Ethnic Subgroups: Social and Psychological Explanations," American Sociological Review, 36 (April, 1971), 207-222; Turner and Lawrence, In¬ dustrial Jobs and the Worker, p. 69-70.

1 g -| See: Sheppard and Herrick, Where Have A.ll the Robots

Gone?;Padfield and Williams, Stay Where You Were. 18 2

See: Charles L. Hulin, "Effects of Community Charac¬ teristics on Measures of Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology, 50 (February, 1966), 191.

18 3 ^See: Whyte, Money and Motivation, p. 48; also Pad-

field and Williams, Stay Where You Were, p. 80.

74

or situational factors into his job enrichment strategy.'*'84

He simply assumes that all workers will seek intrinsic re¬

wards at work. Ey this assumption he side steps or ignores

the entire issue of socialization or social learning. How¬

ever, to Gellerman as well as to a host of psychologists and

sociologists in the tradition of Thorndike, Watson, Hull,

Spence, Lewin, Tolman, Rotter, and Goffman, situational fac¬

tors and reinforcement contingencies cannot be overlooked if

one is interested in understanding behavior. Since as Gell¬

erman stated:

The way most people act at any given time depends more on the ’culture’ in which they happen to find themselves than on their personal characteristics. Observe a man at his workplace with his peers, later in his boss’ office, later in a bar at the end of the workday, later at home with his children, and still later in church on Sunday....He acted at least somewhat differently in each because he was expected to, or more precisely, he had learned...to act in certain ways in each situation. Thus behav¬ ior is determined to a large extent by what we ’learn’ to ’assume’ about other people’s expecta¬ tions . 1 ^25

What is at issue here is not whether the job enrichment

strategy leads to higher productivity, but rather what fac¬

tors best account for changes in workers’ on the job per¬

formances .

184 See: Whitsett and Winslow. ”An Analysis of Studies,

410; Kaplan, Tausky, and Bolaria, "Job Enrichment," 797; Horse, "A Contingency Look at Job Design," 74.

^8^Saul W. Gellerman, "Who’s Against Productivity?," The Conference Board Record, 10 (September, 1973), 40.

75

Unlike the content theories of Maslow, McGregor, and

186 187 Herzberg, the process theories of Vroom, Homans,

1 o o IRQ Lawler, and Skinner all deal directly with the issue of

social conditioning. Since these theories focus more heavily

on the process that serves to shape and maintain behavior, as

opposed to the innate content of man, they appear to retain

greater potential flexibility than Herzberg’s theory in ex¬

plaining responses to job enrichment. This includes not only

individual differences in workers' responses to job enrich¬

ment, but also the diverse results companies have experienced

with the strategy.

Roughly, the central theme of these reinforcement based

models of man, especially Skinner’s, is that (1) people be¬

have in ways that they find most rewarding and (2) an indi¬

vidual's behavior can be changed simply by making rewards

the individual values contingent upon specific performances.

In the words of Luthans and Kreitner:

...this approach assumes that organizational be¬ havior depends on its consequences, that organi¬ zational behavior with reinforcing consequences tends to increase in frequency, whereas organiza¬ tional behavior with punishing consequences tends

18 6 Vroom, Work and Motivation, p. 17.

18 7 George Homans, Social Behavior: Its Elemental Forms

(New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961). 18 8

Lawler, Motivation in Work Organizations. 18 9

B.F. Skinner, Science and Human Behavior (New York: Free Press, 1953); B.Fi Skinner, About Behaviorism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974).

76

to diminish in frequency. To be sustained, spe¬ cific responses must be reinforced or strengthened by immediate environmental contingencies.

Given these assumptions, the only other consideration that

one must be aware of when trying to apply a reinforcement

perspective is that rewards or consequences are idiosyncratic;

thus the rewards one man values and seeks another may shun.

Under this formulation, predicting and controlling a man’s

behavior depends only upon knowing what rewards he or she

has learned to value and what punishments he or she has

learned to fear; no other assumptions about a person’s in¬

ternal nature need to be made.

Process theories hence avoid postulates about the in¬

ternal states of man, metaphysical assumptions become unnec¬

essary and the focus in trying to understand motivation

shifts from the issue of vaguely defined internal needs and

attitudes to the issue of situational rewards and overt be-

191 haviors. In addition, although the existence of an innate

190 Fred Luthans, and Robert Kreitner, "The Management of

Behavioral Contingencies,” Personnel, 51 (July-August, 1974), 8.

191 See: Walter R. Nord, "Beyond the Teaching Machine:

The Neglected Area of Operant Conditioning in the Theory and Practice of Management," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4 ( , 19 69), 375-401; also John Kunkel, "Some Behavioral Aspects of Social Change and Economic Development," in Behavioral Sociology, ed. by Robert Burgess and Donald Bushel! (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), p. 327; and Fred Luthans and David Lyman, "Training Supervisors to Use Organizational Behavior Modification," Personnel, 50 (Septem- ber-October, 1973), 41.

77

hierarchy of needs has yet to be proven empirically, the propo¬

sitions advanced by those supportive of a reinforcement model

of man's behavior find substantial support in both clinical

and experimental research.

Despite these apparent strengths of the reinforcement

perspective few involved in the study of organizational behav¬

ior have toyed seriously with the concept. Although Marcus

and House point out that "Many current theories of complex or-

19 3 ganizations implicitly use exchange as their basic dynamic,"

Cherrington and Cherrington feel that this type of theory has

been essentially neglected in the area of management and or-

194 ganizational behavior.

With the exception of a few isolated cases, little has

been done to systematically apply the reinforcement concepts

reflected in these various theories to the actual practice of

management. Schneier reported successfully using operant con¬

ditioning in the training of the hard-core unemployed in the

192 See: George C. Homans, "The Sociological Relevance

of Behaviorism," in Behavioral Sociology, ed. by Robert Burgess and Donald Bushell (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), p. 12.

19 3 Philip Marcus, and James House, "Exchange Between

Superiors and Subordinates in Large Organizations," Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, 18 (June, 1973), 209.

T§T+ ! David J. Cherrington and J. Owen Cherrington, "Par¬

ticipation, Performance, and Appraisal," Business Horizons, 17 (December, 1974), 35.

78

19 5 boxing of metal bedframes. Sielaff noted that production

doubled when Skinnerian principles were applied in one pro-

196 duction setting he studied. Feeney of Emery Air Freight

and Grady of Michigan Bell Telephone both reported substan¬

tial performance improvements in sections of their organiza-

19 7 tions when positive reinforcement principles were applied.

198 199 Serin, and Wiard both cited cases where direct rewards

of trading stamps for high attendance records effectively cut

absenteeism. In addition to these, Aldis,2^ Stagner and

201 202 Rosen, and Opsahl and Dunnette all conducted studies

19 5 Craig Schneier, "Behavior Modification: Training the

Hard-Core Unemployed,” Personnel, 50 (May-June, 1973), 65-69. 19 6

Theodore Sielaff, "Modification of Work Behavior," Personnel Journal, 53 (July, 1974), 513-517.

See: "Where Skinner’s Theories Work," Business Week, December 2 , 1972 , pp. 64-65 ; "New Tool ’Reinforcement1 for Good Work," Business Week, December 18, 1971, pp. 76-77; "At Emery Air Freight: Positive Reinforcement Boosts Performance," Organizational Dynamics, 1 (1973), 41-50.

^^William Serrin, "The Assembly Line," The Atlantic Monthly, 228 (October, 1971), p. 62.

199 Harry Wiard, "Why Manage Behavior? A Case For Posi¬

tive Reinforcement," Human Resource Management, 11 (Summer, 1972), 18.

200O. Aldis, "Of Pigeons and Men," in Control of Human Behavior, ed. by Roger Ulrich, Thomas Stachnick, and John Mabry (Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman, 1966), pp. 218- 221.

2 01 R. Stagner and H. Rosen, Psychology of Union-Manage-

ment Relations (Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1966). 20 2

Robert Opsahl, and Marvin Dunnette, "The Role of Financial Compensation in Industrial Motivation," Psychologi- cal Bulletin, 66 (1966), 94-118.

79

that reveal the power of properly placed contingent reinforce¬

ments .

When one turns to the specific area of job design and

enrichment, even less has been done with reinforcement con¬

cepts. Fein implied the appropriateness of using the rein-

203 204 forcement outlook in the design of jobs, while Nord,

205 206 Tausky and Parke, and Parke and Tausky conjectured that

the success of a job enrichment program may rest upon how

effectively reinforcement contingencies are incorporated into

the basic structure of the program. The implication is

that unless specific reinforcement mechanisms are systemat¬

ically or unwittingly built into enriched jobs, the enrich¬

ment effort may fail to produce the desired increases in per¬

formance levels.

Capturing the thrust of this newly developing perspec¬

tive on job enrichment, Nord commented:

By way of summary, much of the current work on job enlargement and enrichment has attributed the effects to feelings of achievement or responsi¬ bility, without taking into account numerous other possible reinforcers which may be more basic.

20 3 Fein, "Job Enrichment: A Reevaluation," 80.

2 0 4 Nord, "Beyond the Teaching Machine," 392.

2 0 5 Curt Tausky and E. Lauck Parke, "Need Theory, Rein¬

forcement Theory, and Job Enrichment," in Handbook of Work, Organization and Society, ed. by Robert Dubin (Chicago: Rand McNally, in press).

2 0 6 E. Lauck Parke and Curt Tausky, "The Mythology of

Job Enrichment," Personnel, 52 (September-October, 1975), 12-21.

80

Further research to determine the efficacy of these various possibilities is needed before definite conclusions can be drawn. Do the feelings of achieve¬ ment or responsibility operate as reinforcers in an operant manner? Do these feelings come from more basic rewards as task variety? Present data does not permit answer to these questions.^7

In light of this, it seems appropriate to examine in

more detail the structure of an enrichment program for signs

of whether or not reinforcement mechanisms are present, and

whether or not they have a significant impact on the workers’

job related behavior. This study modestly hopes to reveal $

the possible existence of some of these reinforcement mech¬

anisms .

Summary

As has been indicated, much of the current thinking and

research in organizational behavior is predicated on a need

theory view of man. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs pervades

many aspects of modern managerial thought, job enrichment in¬

cluded. Central to this need theory perspective is the be¬

lief that man has an inborn, innate drive to self-actualize

to his fullest potential. Unless man is allowed to grow and

develop psychologically, he will become disgruntled, dissat¬

isfied, and unproductive.

Accepting Maslow's basic formulation and noting dissat¬

isfied, disgruntled, unproductive workers, Herzberg designed

Nord, "Beyond the Teaching Machine:," 392 .

81

a management strategy, known as job enrichment, to counter

industry’s "misuse" of potentially creative, self-motivated

workers. Herzberg claimed that many industrial jobs stifled

workers' innate nature and crippled their ability to find

satisfaction and challenge through their work. What Herzberg

proposed was a job redesign program that returned challenge,

responsibility, discretion, autonomy, and variety to individ¬

ual job holders. By this process, workers' latent desires to

grow and develop would be tapped and their self-initiated,

self-motivated performances would increase. Increases in

worker job satisfaction and on the job performances, as well

as declines in absenteeism and turnover were all potential

benefits that were supposed to accrue to management.

Actual applications of the job enrichment strategy often

have not faired as well as was expected. Although many pro¬

grams have reported performance improvements, many others

have been quietly dropped or substantially overhauled. Some

researchers fear the coming demise of job enrichment because

managers are finding that it does not always live up to its

glittery promises.

Difficulties and shortcomings in the enrichment process

have led some researchers to rethink and re-examine the basic

underlying assumptions of the strategy. One recent thrust of

this examination has been to look at job enrichment from a

social learning perspective. Basic to this reinforcement

approach is the notion that behaviors are shaped and main-

82

tained by situational reinforcers, rather than by innate

characteristics or needs. Consideration is thus placed on

the structure of a given situation and on the social process

within the structure. The rewards and punishments that

serve to shape and direct behavior become the focus of at¬

tention .

Although quite a novel idea, this reinforcement approach

to understanding the dynamics of job enrichment appears to

have the potential for explaining a broader range of worker

responses and reactions to the strategy of job enrichment.

Further research into this area seems, at this point, war¬

ranted .

CHAPTER III

DEFINITIONS, RESEARCH FRAMEWORK, AND PROCEDURES

This chapter details the methods and procedures used to

conduct this investigation. Specifically, it covers: (1)

the definition of terms and concepts used in the text; (2)

the general research framework, the specific predictions and

their relationship to the purpose of the study; and (3) the

methodology and procedures used in the research.

Definitions

Many of the terms that are vital to a proper under¬

standing of the remainder of this analysis were either re¬

vealed or in some way defined during the review of the liter¬

ature in Chapter II. To clarify any possible misunderstand¬

ings or misconceptions that may have developed, and to es¬

tablish a common definitional base, several important defi¬

nitions are set forth below.

Job Enrichment: The process or strategy of expanding jobs to provide workers with more autonomy, dis¬ cretion, and responsibility m carrying out their assigned task, while at the same time increasing the variety, complexity, and challenge of these tasks. This process ‘'vertically" loads a 30b by bringing addi¬ tional responsibility and decision making powers down the chain of command to the job holder. Enrichment is in contrast to "hor¬ izontally" loading the job which simply adds more tasks of the same nature and complexity to an existing job. An enriched job by its nature should require higher levels of skill

84

from the worker and provide opportunities for personal growth. Unless otherwise stated, Herzberg’s definition of "orthodox job enrichment" served as a guide.^

Self-Actualization: The process of self development and personal psychological growtfT! The fulfillment of a person as a creative, unique individual cap¬ able of fully realizing innate potentials. Maslow implied that self-actualization is a very personal, individualistic state, each person actualizing in a unique manner. Sup¬ posedly, both an unskilled laborer and a doctor can self-actualize their inherent po¬ tential, each in a different fashion. Mas- low’s original statement on the topic was used as a guideline.^

Motivator Factors (motivators): "Herzberg indicated that these factors account for the personal growth and motivation of a worker while on the 30b. They include: achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, growth, and advancement. These factors are intrinsic to the nature of the job itself. The presence of these fac¬ tors in a well designed job is supposed to lead to job satisfaction. Their absence, however, should not create job dissatisfaction.

Hygiene Factors (hygienes): "Herzberg1s term for The extrinsic environ¬ mental factors that cause job dissatisfac¬ tion . These include: company policy and administration, supervision, relationship with supervisors, working conditions, salary, relationships with peers, status, security, and personal life. When a job involves poor quality hygienes, workers are supposed to become dissatisfied. According to Herzberg, hygienes do not affect job satisfaction or motivation. He has stated that motivators and hygienes are separate and distinct, pro-

'LFrederick Herzberg, "The Wise Old Turk," Harvard Busi- ness Review, 52 (September-October, 1974), 71.

2 Abraham Maslow, "A Theory of Human Motivation," Psycho¬

logical Review, 50 (July, 1943), 382.

85

viding the dichotomy between job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction.

Standards: Any established, implied, or understood rule or basis of comparison used m assessing or judging the quality or quantity of a perform¬ ance. Standards provide a gauge to measure a worker's performance relative to levels de¬ sired by management.

Accountability: The quasi-legal or moral obligation to answer for one's actions or performances. When re¬ sponsibility for a particular task or job is delegated, the individual receiving the dele¬ gation becomes obligated to carry out the assignment and in turn is answerable or liable for subsequent actions in reference to the del¬ egated task. Specific rewards or penalties are often made contingent upon the nature of the resulting performance.

Sanctions: Any consideration that gives binding force to a rule of conduct or a request for performance. The consideration can be a reward for properly complying with the instructions or a penalty for non-compliance. Although the term sanc¬ tion is often used to imply primarily negative, coercive measures to force compliance, here it is meant to imply both the positive and the negative consequences of a specific act of be¬ havior. The term sanction thus encompasses both rewards and penalties used in the organizational setting to obtain adherence to organizational goals and objectives.

Intrinsic Rewards: ~Any internal, subjective "compensation" that workers bestow upon themselves, such as the positive feeling one gains from a sense of accomplishment. These rewards are broad ranging and often sui generis. The receipt of this type of reward is most likely to be expressed in terms of "good feelings" and hence is difficult to measure or quantify.

86

Extrinsic Rewards: Any external, objective "compensation" that Is bestowed upon workers by their surround¬ ing environment. The act of bestowing such a reward is directly observable and must in¬ volve at least two individuals. Most social environments tend to limit the range of these to a few generalized rewards such as money and status. As with intrinsic rewards, however, extrinsic rewards are often differ¬ entially valued by individuals.

Instrumental Rewards: ~~An important subclass of extrinsic rewards that provide workers with the essentials necessary to survive! In our society these rewards include: pay, bonuses, and job se¬ curity. Most people are capable of surviving without status or work group acceptance, but they would find it difficult to live without income and a steady job.

Performance-Sanction Linkages: These represent the overt or implied rela¬ tionship or bond between a specific behavioral performance level and specific rewards or pen¬ alties to be bestowed upon attainment of that performance level. Specification of the rela¬ tionship can range from very concrete, de¬ tailed performance contracts, to vague, gen¬ eral threats of-a reward or punishment, to sub¬ jective nonverbal feelings or expectations as to what "may” happen if a specific performance level is or is not attained. Such specifica¬ tions act as control mechanisms and help to reduce the uncertainty in performance levels.

General Research Framework

Most of the literature on job enrichment either recounted

the success of an actual application of the process or it out¬

lined the presumed nature of man and the theoretical basis for

using job enrichment concepts. Few studies queried workers as

to their impressions of the enrichment process, and even fewer

87

questioned the basic underlying assumptions on job enrichment

advanced *by Herzberg. As a result of this critical void in

job enrichment research, this investi gation was formulated to

document workers' views and opinions about the rewards and

punishments potentially inherent in the enrichment process.

In addition, it was hoped that the findings would reveal some

of the aspects of the underlying structure and nature of job

enrichment. Primary focus was placed on the issue: What

makes workers on enriched jobs perform--is it pride and self-

actualization or is it fear of sanctions and the quest for

extrinsic rewards?

As an exploratory study into whether or not basic ele¬

ments of reinforcement process exist in the enriched setting,

the research attempted not only to isolate the critical ele¬

ments that elicit desired employee behaviors but also indi¬

cate the degree of importance workers attach to each of these

elements. By this approach, it was felt that the objectives

outlined in Chapter I would best be attained.

Formulation of the following specific predictions de¬

rived from an earlier theoretical analysis conducted by the

3 author early in 1974. A pilot study (see Chapter IV for

details of this study) during April and May, 1975 further re¬

fined this orientation. The theoretical analysis pointed to

-

E. Lauck Parke, "The Skinnerian Framework And The Study of Complex Organizations," (unpublished research paper, Uni¬ versity of Massachusetts, 1974).

88

the possible existence of powerful reinforcement mechanisms

in previous enrichment efforts. The subsequent pilot study

confirmed, in part, the suspected reinforcement relationships

and provided insights into the reasons for reported increases

in job related performances. Findings from these two earlier

endeavors gave rise to articulation of two broad conjectures

on the enrichment process: (1) Workers on enriched jobs per¬

form because performance expectations have been clarified by

management and workers fear the consequences of poor per¬

formances; (2) Workers’ interest in job enrichment results

from possible instrumental gains that might come with the

new jobs rather than from the intrinsic rewards inherent in

an enriched job.

-Further refinements of these two conjectures led to the

formulation of the following specific predictions:

(1) Workers involved in a job enrichment program are very aware of performance standards that relate to quality and quantity of their in¬ dividual performances.

(2) Workers involved in a job enrichment program worry about how well they are performing relative to the established performance standards.

(3) The worry of these workers centers heavily on the fear of sanctions and punishments that might result if their performances are below standards.

(4) Workers involved in a job enrichment program indicate that their current levels of per¬ formance would change if the existing reward and/or sanction structure were modified.

89

(5) Workers involved in a job enrichment program come to work primarily to obtain the instru¬ mental rewards that are offered at work, rather than to self-actualize or socialize while on the job.

(6) Once on the job, these workers perform pri¬ marily because they fear sanctions or co-worker pressure rather than because they take pride in their work or because of the intrinsic re¬ wards or satisfaction gained from doing the job.

(7) Workers involved in a job enrichment program, although favorably inclined to more interest¬ ing, challenging work, will accept and wel¬ come these jobs only if the jobs concomitantly offer increases in the instrumental rewards.

These seven predictions stem directly from the two

broader conjectures outlined above. The first four specific i

predictions serve to develop a logical argument supporting

the first conjecture, the Performance-Sanction Assumption.

This - reinforcement based notion implies that current on-

the-job performances result directly from the rewards and

punishment contingencies workers face in regard to their

job related performances.

The first prediction attempts not only to establish

whether or not performance standards exist, but more import¬

antly to gauge workers’ awareness of exactly what management

expects in terms of performance. It was assumed that if per¬

formance expectations exist, and if standards are clearly

specified, then workers would express worry and concern over

the attainment of these performance levels. The second spe¬

cific prediction was designed to assess whether or not this

suspected concern over performance levels does exist in the

90

research population. The third specific prediction extends

the logic and reveals whether or not the concerns over per¬

formance levels arise because rewards and sanctions have been

linked directly to the performance standards. The underlying

assumption is that workers are concerned about meeting per¬

formance standards primarily because they harbor expectations

that they may suffer undesirable consequences if their perform¬

ances are below established standards. The fourth specific

prediction served to bolster the previous prediction by attempt

ing to assess how much workers’ performances would change if ex

isting reward-sanction structures were modified.

Support for the above four specific predictions would

lend credence to the conjecture that a reinforcement process

might be at work in the job enrichment setting. Further,

such support would imply that rewards and punishments direct¬

ly affect the performance levels of the workers involved in

the job enrichment program under study.

The remaining three specific predictions were designed

to elicit support for the second broad conjecture, the Instru¬

mental Orientation Assumption. This assumption simply states

that workers view the instrumental rewards of pay, job se¬

curity, and fringe benefits as definitively more important

than the intrinsic rewards of autonomy, discretion, and more

interesting work. Prediction five indicates that workers

come to work primarily to earn a living, not because of their

desire to self-actualize or socialize while on the job. Pre¬

diction six implies that once on the job, workers perform not

91

because they take pride in doing their work well, but rather

because they fear the consequences that might result if their

performances fall below managerially determined standards.

The seventh and final prediction outlines the assumption that

workers value the enrichment process only when provisions are

made to materially increase the extrinsic reward level along

with the increases in intrinsic rewards. The implication

here is that workers will not take an enriched job simply be¬

cause they value more interesting, more challenging work.

Unless the enrichment program includes extra instrumental in¬

centives it will have little appeal for the majority of

workers.

Methodology

The primary objective of this investigation was to focus

on the components or structures in a job enrichment program

that might account for workers' performance levels, there¬

fore an in-depth case study of a single enrichment effort

seemed most appropriate. Such a case analysis provided not

only the opinions and observations of all of the individuals

involved, but also a detailed perspective on the underlying

dynamics of the process of job enrichment. The apparent ad¬

vantage to this approach appeared to be the potential for

gathering a more complete, global understanding of the in¬

trinsic nature and functioning of the enrichment process.

The balanced gained from collecting in-depth data from a

92

broad range of participants seemed best suited to the pur¬

poses of this study.

The remainder of this section covers the following spe¬

cific points: (1) Sources of Data; (2) Research Population,

(3) Methods of Obtaining the Data; and (4) Analysis of the

Data.

Sources of data. The primary source of data for this

investigation was structured interviews with the blue-collar

participants of an industrial job enrichment program. Re¬

sponses and observations recorded from interviews with these

workers provided the bulk of the data used in the analysis

of the specific research predictions.

Secondary sources of data included tape-recorded inter¬

views- with the following people: (1) members of management

responsible for the design and implementation of the job en¬

richment program, (2) members of management currently admin¬

istering or directing the job enrichment program, and (3)

supervisors and line personnel directly overseeing the blue-

collar production workers. Information was also obtained

from a diary-style research log of the researcher's daily

shop-floor observations.

Research population. For the purposes of this study

workers were drawn from an industrial unit currently under¬

going or involved in a job enrichment program. The research¬

er anticipated that every hourly employee in the department

or section would be interviewed. With the exception of the

93

exclusion of a few workers noted in Chapter IV, all workers

were interviewed--a total of 103. Likewise, the researcher

anticipated interviewing all of the designers, managers, and

supervisors directing this job enrichment program. This was

also possible.

Methods of attaining the data. Initially, supervisors

were asked to solicit the cooperation of their subordinates.

In order to encourage participation and to put the respond¬

ents at ease, interviews were conducted on company time, at

the employee’s place of employment, and in a ’’neutral" loca¬

tion such as the company cafeteria or a vacant workmanship

training room. Confidentiality of each individual’s responses

was guaranteed. The researcher estimates that each interview

required approximately one hour. Workers agreeing to par¬

ticipate were interviewed when the supervisor felt that the

employee’s absence would be least disruptive to the produc¬

tion process.

Prior to each interview, the appropriate supervisor in¬

troduced the researcher to the next available respondent and

briefly explained the nature of the research to the employee.

After this brief introduction, the researcher escorted the

employee to the interviewing location. Once at the interview

site, the employee was given directions on the format of the

questionnaire and the possible response categories were ex-

94

4 plained. In addition, each respondent was asked to complete

5 a personal data profile. Following these steps the inter¬

viewer read each of the questions on the structured question-

g naire and recorded the respondent’s answers on a blank

questionnaire form as they were given.

This method of administering the questionnaire was spe¬

cifically chosen to overcome two shortcomings often found in

other studies of this nature. First, this method afforded

the interviewer the opportunity to clarify any misunderstand¬

ings in the meanings of questions when they arose, (interpre-

tational problems were found during the pilot study, see

Chapter IV). Face to face interviewing hopefully reduced the

number of non responses as well as increased the accuracy of

each individual response. Second, this method allowed the

respondent to expand or to clarify, when necessary, any of

the quantitative responses that were made. In this fashion,

the interviewer was given the opportunity to add richness and

depth to the data by recording statements and comments made

in reference to quantitative questions that provoked the re¬

spondent. This additional data would not be available if an

ordinary mailed questionnaire had been used and therefore the

face to face technique supplied further valuable insights into

4 See Appendix A for a copy of these directions.

5 See Appendix B for a sample of this personal demograph¬

ic data profile. g See Appendix C for a sample copy of the actual question¬

naire used to sample workers’ attitudes.

95

the functioning of the job enrichment process.

Members of management involved in either the design or

current control of the job enrichment program were identified

. 7 and interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire.

These conversations were tape recorded and catalogued for

future reference and analysis. Notes were taken during each

interview session on the most pertinent issues covered thus

providing a summary record of the most important considera¬

tions relating to the purpose of this study.

Personal interviews with each supervisor took much the

same format as the interviews with the designers and the

managers. Tape recordings were made of each interview. The

emphasis of these interviews focused more heavily on the

issue of control and the delineation of the steps that super¬

visors take to insure employee compliance with production

standards. These interview’s also centered on performance

records of individual workers and on each supervisor’s "theo¬

ry" of motivation. Interviews with managers and supervisors

revealed insights into the managerial philosophy actually

employed in the research site.

The final method of data collection entailed a chrono¬

logical log of events, conversations, observations, and in¬

sights that affected the research effort. The researcher

_

See Appendix D for a sample of the semi-structured questionnaire used to interview management personnel.

96

recorded important daily occurrences at the time they happened,

or shortly thereafter, in order to preserve the truest possi¬

ble rendition of the situation. Entries in this research log

were not limited to aspects of the enrichment program but

rather were allowed to span a broad range of material thought

to impinge on the behavioral performances of the workers under

examination. Observed interactions between workers, or be¬

tween workers and managers, conversations the researcher par¬

ticipated in while on the shop floor, and changes in the

physical working conditions in the department were all in¬

cluded as entries in the research log. Through this process

a fuller picture of the impact of a job enrichment program

was reconstructed when the primary data was held up for

scrutiny.

Analysis of the data. An analysis of the response fre¬

quencies for each questionnaire item was the primary method

of data interpretation. Data obtained from the workers'

questionnaires were used to assess the appropriateness of

each one of the specific predictions. Marginal frequencies

on each question for the entire sample were examined and the

support of the research predictions considered in light of

these findings. Differences in response patterns among var¬

ious subsamples were considered using the cross tabulation

feature of the SPSS statistical package.

Data from the tape recorded interviews and the research

log were reviewed, condensed, and entered into the discussion

97

of the questionnaire results when it further illuminated the

response patterns.

Summary

This chapter detailed the research framework and the

methods and procedures used to conduct this investigation.

Specifically, the chapter covered the definition of import¬

ant terms and concepts, an outline of the conjectures and

specific research predictions to be examined, sources of

data, methods of obtaining the data, and methods for the

analysis of the data.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this chapter is to present, describe, and

analyze the findings of this research study. The chapter is

divided into three major sections: (1) data collection, in¬

dicating when and where data gathering took palce, along

with characteristics of the research population; (2) results

related to the specific research predictions; and (3) over¬

view of the findings.

Data Collection

Early in 1975 a list of companies known to be involved

in job enrichment in the New England area was culled from the

literature. In addition, faculty members of the Department

of Industrial Engineering and the School of Business were

queried as to other possible research sites in the area.

Through the use of the state wide industrial directory,^ and

2 other industrial reference sources, the name, address, and

telephone number of an appropriate corporate officer were ob¬

tained for each listing.

■'"Department of Commerce and Development, Massachusetts Industrial Directory (Boston: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1971).

2 Dunn and Bradstreet, Reference Book of Corporate Man¬

agements (New York: Dunn and Bradstreet, 1974); Standard and Poor, Register of Corporations, Directors, and Executives (New York: Standard and Poor, 197 5).

99

Each of the original eleven corporate officers was then

personally telephoned by the researcher. After a brief in¬

troduction explaining that the researcher was a graduate stu¬

dent at the University of Massachusetts doing research on job

enrichment, the purpose and scope of the project was outlined.

During these initial contacts, one company explained that it

had not been involved in the enrichment process. Another

company noted that it was conducting enrichment experiments

but wished to maintain a low profile on the issue due to past

union-management problems. The remaining companies requested

either a personal interview with the researcher or a written

statement outlining the proposed research and detailing the

nature and amount of corporate involvement requested. Seven

corporate visits followed. Visits to the remaining plants

were not possible.

From these interviews and concurrent on site inspections,

two of the programs were viewed as inappropriate or too small

to provide the necessary sample size desired. Managers for

three other concerns decided that their participation in such

a project would not be in the best interest of the company at

that time and respectfully declined requests for participa¬

tion. The two remaining companies eventually agreed upon

full participation and promised total cooperation during the

data collection process. In each case they expressed inter¬

est in obtaining the researcher's unbiased insight into their

job redesign efforts in exchange for their participation. In

100

addition, they requested that research disrupt the production

process as little as possible and that the researcher respect

the supervisors' decisions as to the availability of workers

for interviewing. In turn, the companies agreed to the re¬

searcher's request that the workers' responses be confiden¬

tial.

From March 3, 1975 until May 2, 1975 research was con¬

ducted at the first company, a large national firm producing

communications equipment. Preparatory meetings with the de¬

partment chief and his supervisors outlined the nature of

the project and revealed what was expected from the department.

A system for taking workers off the production line was also

established. On March 24, 1975, actual interviewing of the

blue-collar employees began. In this case, it quickly became

apparent that the job redesign efforts of this department did

not include all of the elements necessary to make the program

an example of what Herzberg has called an "orthodox job en¬

richment program." Because several enrichment concepts had

been included and because the researcher needed interviewing

experience, the decision was made to continue the interviews

at this site. Subsequently, this pilot study was used ex¬

clusively for the testing and refinement of both the ques-

o tionnaire and the interviewing techniques."

3 See Appendix C for a copy of the final draft of the

questionnaire used to interview workers.

101

During April, 1975, a total of sixty employees were in¬

terviewed as the questionnaire went through four revisions.

Questions that workers had difficulty understanding, as well

as questions that did not appear to measure what was in¬

tended, were rewritten or eliminated. Response categories

in the structured section of the questionnaire were modified

to a five-fold Likert-type scale to allow better representa¬

tion of strongly held attitudes. The questionnaire also was

shortened and reorganized in a more systematic fashion so as

to make it easier for the workers to respond to each item.

As for the interviewing process, the researcher learned how

to put the respondents at ease, explain the study, and uni¬

formly ask the questions. The pilot study led to significant

improvements in both the questionnaire and the interviewing

process, thus strengthening subsequent data gathering.

The Final Research Site

The second company that agreed to participate in the

research project is a large international concern producing

electronic data processing equipment. The company has ex¬

perienced substantial growth recently and has gained a repu¬

tation for not only producing high quality equipment but also

for being an excellent company to work for. In addition, the

company has a reputation for being youthful, aggressive, and

forward looking; the profit center concept is a major manage¬

ment tool.

102

The facility at which the enrichment experiment was be¬

ing conducted is located in a rural area of Massachusetts.

Approximately 2,000 employees are on the payroll. In a new

plant, the general working conditions are clean and pleasant

and the organizational climate is relaxed and friendly.

In the past eighteen months, the company created a de¬

partment to produce a newly developed product line. This

department has the sole responsibility for producing an en¬

tire product from start to finish. The process includes the

fabrication of printed circuit boards, the preparation of

electrical wires, the insertion and assembly of electronic

components, the final assembly of all the component parts,

and the quality testing of the completed units. Except for

the outside purchase of a few vendor produced subassemblies,

all parts are assembled within the department. Although it

takes several days to prepare all the component parts, buffer

stocks permit the completion of approximately forty units per

day, with each unit passing through approximately two dozen

separate work stations.

During the process of setting up the department, the

managers of this profit center or department hired a profes¬

sional job enrichment consultant to help incorporate job en¬

richment concepts into the production process. The end re¬

sult was that instead of setting up a standard assembly line

with its highly fractionalized work stations (which is typi¬

cal for the type of product being made), workers were given

103

broad responsibility for assembling and quality checking en¬

tire components or modules. Further, teams of workers were

formed to work on specific aspects of the product; team mem¬

bers were allowed to rotate through the various different

jobs covered by the team assignment.

The recognition and achievement that Herzberg called for

were accomplished by having each worker sign or initial his

or her work after it had been quality checked, by posting

daily production figures for each team of each individual on

large blackboards, and by posting weekly quality control

charts in a prominent location of the department. Since the

consulting firm is widely known for its use of the Herzberg

approach to job redesign, it seems safe to assume that the

resulting enrichment process closely approxirrates what Herz¬

berg would consider to be an orthodox job enrichment program.

Introductory meetings were held with the managers of

this department on May 2, 1975. Actual interviewing began

on May 12, 1975 and continued until July 25, 1975. During

this period, the researcher spent approximately six to eight

hours a day on the shop floor interviewing and observing the

department function. Extensive personal observations as well

as conversations with managers and supervisors were completed

in an effort to secure a detailed look at all aspects of the

enrichment process. Both diary-style notes of important

events and tape recordings of major interactions with man¬

agers were kept in order to provide as accurate a record as

104

possible on the dynamics of the enrichment process. These

additional sources of information proved invaluable in pro¬

viding broader perspectives on the questionnaire results.

Characteristics of the Research Population

When interviewing began in mid May, a total of 110 em¬

ployees were directly connected with the production process

in this department. Although the department expanded and

added personnel during the research period, the final group

from whom questionnaire data were collected totaled 103.

Two reasons account for the exclusion of some members of the

department from the study. First, several of the original

110 employees were attached to a special testing and repair

group not formally covered by the enrichment program. Their

participation seemed to add little to the perspective on en¬

richment and they were therefore excluded. Second, a minimum

time of one month was needed for workers to learn their newly

acquired jobs and begin to feel a part of the enrichment pro¬

gram and the department; thus anyone with less than one

month's service was automatically excluded. The remaining

103 employees of the department who held enriched jobs were

interviewed. No one refused or hesitated to participate in

the study.

Since the entire department was relatively new, the

average length of service on the enriched jobs was eight

months. Of the workers questioned, 60 per cent were female,

105

61 per cent were less than 30 years of age, 75 per cent had

completed at least high school, 51 per cent came from a rural

background, and 78 per cent were classified as unskilled or

semi-skilled. Table 4.1 summarizes the pertinent character¬

istics of this sample. Cross-tabulations revealed that fe¬

male workers in this sample were on the average older than

males, younger workers have attained higher levels of educa¬

tion and thus not surprisingly, higher skill levels and high¬

er income levels.^

Results of the Specific Research Predictions

In this section, the results of this study are reviewed

and their implications discussed. In an effort to assist

the reader in comprehending this study, the results and dis¬

cussion are presented together as follows. First, the broad

conjectures concerning the enrichment process are stated.

Second, each of the several specific predictions supporting

the two conjectures are presented and covered in turn. Under

each specific prediction, the questionnaire item(s) relating

to it are stated, the actual results listed, and then the re¬

sults are discussed as to how they support or do not support

the conjecture that reinforcement mechanisms are at work in

a job enrichment program. Finally, after each of the two

-

The SPSS crosstabulation feature was used to examine the relationships between these demographic characteristics. Relationships cited were significant at the .05 level.

106

TABLE 4.1

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN AN INDUSTRIAL JOB ENRICHMENT PROGRAM IN

NEW ENGLAND, MAY, 1975

Demographic Characteristic n

Percentage of Total Sample

Sex: Female 62 60 Male 41 40 Total 103 100

Age: Under 20 19 18 21-25 31 31 26-30 12 11 31-35 9 9 36-40 8 8 41-45 4 3 46-50 12 12 51-55 5 5 56-60 2 2 Over 60 1 1 Total 103 100

Education: Grade School 3 3 Some High School 12 12 High School 51 49 Technical School 11 11 Some College 24 23 College 2 2 Total 103 100

Background: Rural 52 51 Urban 51 49 Total 103 100

Skill Level: Unskilled 24 23 Semi-Skilled 57 55 Skilled 9 9 Highly Skilled 13 13 Total 103 100

107

conjectures and seven specific predictions have been covered,

an overview of the results is presented. Important cross¬

tabulations and subsample differences are noted when they

add perspective to the discussion.

Conjecture 1: The Performance-Sanction Assumption

Workers on enriched jobs perform primarily because management has clarified performance expectations and workers fear the sanctions that might result from poor performances.

Following are the four specific predictions and fourteen

questionnaire items established to explore the appropriate¬

ness of this conjecture.

Specific Prediction 1:

Workers involved in a job enrichment pro¬ gram are very aware of the performance standards that relate to the quality and quantity of their individual performances.

Responses to questionnaire items^ 1 and 13 (see Table 4.2)

impinge directly upon this prediction. Eighty-eight per cent

of the sample responded affirmatively to the question: "Is

there a clear standard for how good the quality of your work

must be?,n 55 per cent of the workers responded ’definitely

yes ' • Seventy-five per cent of the sample responded posi¬

tively to the question: "Do you know how much work you are

supposed to complete each day?," 54 per cent responded ’defi¬

nitely yes' .

^From this point, questions from the actual questionnaire found in Appendix C will be referred to as: item 1, item 2....

PA

RT

ICIP

AN

TS

’ R

ES

PO

NS

ES

TO

AN

IND

US

TR

IAL

JOB

E

NR

ICH

ME

NT

PR

OG

RA

M

IN

NE

W

EN

GL

AN

D,

MA

Y,

1975;

QU

ES

TIO

NN

AIR

E

ITE

MS

RE

LA

TIN

G

TO

SP

EC

IFIC

PR

ED

ICT

ION

(W

OR

KE

RS

’ A

WA

RE

NE

SS

OF

ST

AN

DA

RD

S)

108

Mh o a)

H 0 ft bO 6 rd rd ft in lO co CO CO o .3* CM LO CD I

g 0 o p 0 ft

iH fd ft O

Eh

LO co o LO CM

a- CO oo H CO CO CM LO o l g LO CO o LO CM CM

1—1

w w 0 O a> O bo £ bo £

w bo bo rH bo bo 0 i—I <—1 rd i—i i—l

0) »H a) a) 0 ft o 0 0 W P ft P ft o ft P ft £ 0 •H G •H ft •H P •H O bfl £ w £ £ w £ ft 0 •H •H •H •H W ft ft w ft ft ft W ft ft » ft ft W -H

e 0) ft M

P rd rd £ a) a4

i—I C-* 000

,£ A fd ft

4-> D Xl W P O G 0) O 6 ,£ b0 ft ^

5 Pi WOO

3 ,£ O O >> fd

0

Pi 0 O ft 3: <D

o e P o e O

S o o ft

rC xd

5 0 O w £ o ^ ft

ft g g O W bo c'*

0 bo o Pi fd Q nJx)

£ 0 •

ft O M S

I-1 CO

To

tal

10

3

100

109

From the responses to these two questions, it is obvious

that most of the workers in this sample are well aware of

the performance levels management expects from them. This

is especially true in relation to the quality of their per¬

formances. In light of management’s attitude toward quality,

this high level of awareness is not surprising. Despite the

daily posting of output results for each individual or team

on large blackboards throughout the department, quality

levels were obviously far more important to the firm’s man¬

agement than was the quantity of output.

The company’s autonomous quality audit team frequently

disassembled random units off this department’s line and

checked every aspect of it against quality standards. Per¬

formance reports resulting from this type of inspection

were sent directly back to the department and the individ¬

uals or teams responsible for the mistakes. Furthermore,

quality checks by departmental staff members were often made

and the results posted in a prominent place within the de¬

partment. The production manager constantly checked daily

production and quality figures and frequently walked the

shop floor to visit individuals or teams that appeared to be

having trouble in meeting the standards. Numerous research

log entries and taped interviews with managers confirmed and

reinforced the feeling that the quality of the product was

of the utmost importance to those in charge.

110

A second factor may also account for the higher aware¬

ness of quality standards than of quantity standards. When

the sample was partitioned by skill levels, the response

pattern to item 13 (quantity standards) revealed substantial

differences between the various skill levels. Ninety-five

per cent of the semi-skilled assemblers were aware of quan¬

tity standards, whereas only 22 per cent of the highly

skilled technicians were aware of a quantity standard for

their work, (see Table 4.3). This is not surprising because

the trouble shooting nature of the technicians' work had

made it impossible for management to firmly establish quanti¬

ty standards for this class of worker. Close supervision

over this aspect of the technicians' performances was there¬

fore very apparent during much of the research period. On

the other hand, quality standards were much easier to pre¬

scribe and enforce for the work done by the technicians.

Simple awareness of standards hardly establishes strong

evidence in support of adopting a reinforcement perspective

to understanding job enrichment. Herzberg himself has

stated that a well-formulated job enrichment program should

increase individual accountability and point up individual

performances so as to increase a worker's opportunities for g

recognition and personal achievement. Acute awareness of

Frederick Herzberg, "One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?," Harvard Business Review, 46 (January-February, 1968), 56.

PA

RT

ICIP

AN

TS

’ R

ES

PO

NS

ES

TO

AN

IND

US

TR

IAL

JOB

E

NR

ICH

ME

NT

PR

OG

RA

M

IN

NE

W

EN

GL

AN

D,

MA

Y,

19

75

; Q

UE

ST

ION

NA

IRE

ITE

MS

RE

LA

TIN

G

TO

SP

EC

IFIC

PR

ED

ICT

ION

(W

OR

KE

RS

’ A

WA

RE

NE

SS

OF

ST

AN

DA

RD

S-B

Y

SK

ILL

LE

VE

LS

)

111

i—1 (I) dP LO CO LO CM 1 X rH txO (—1

•H *H X X

1—1 i—l CO

CO 3 CNI 1—1 CM CO 1

03 0 o\° LO CM 1 CO 1

1—1 rH -d" CM CO

0 rH > •rH 0 X

1-1 co 3 d- CM 1 CO 1

1-1 1-1 TO •H 1 CD dP CM CO CM CO 1 X •H i—1 o- CM

00 £i rH CD -rH CD X

CO 3 1—1 CO rH CM 1 i—1

TJ CD dP oo LO CO CD 1

1 H CO CM CM

un

il

CO 3 CD CO CM r^ 1

CO 0 O >. 3

CO >, >> CD rH rH

CD •rH 0 0 0

CO u 4-» u +-» 3 o •H 3 •H 0 10 3 CO 3 PU CD •H •rH CO +J 4h CO ■p 4h CD nj 0 0 O o 0

« o TO >0 3 3 T3

0

U 1 S 0 £ O'* O O >> ,3 3 O 0

O TO >, 0

o -M X 3 X O

3 TO 0 O 0 0

e 3 £ CO CD 0 0 0

+J >.,3 p^-h H O P. 0

o 3 3 rH Q £ co p«

e (D •

+-* 0 CO H S i—1

112

standards, in combination with the results from the next two

predictions, however, appears to reveal that workers’ con¬

cerns over their performances relative to established stan¬

dards focuses less on what Herzberg calls the intrinsic re¬

wards from a sense of accomplishment, and more on the poten¬

tial consequences workers fear they face if they fail to meet

managerially determined standards.

The results on these two questionnaire items seem to

support the first specific prediction.


Workers involved in a job enrichment pro¬ gram worry about how well they perform relative to the established performance standards for the quality and quantity of their output.

When asked item 6: "When you have made too many mistakes, do

you worry about it?," 88 per cent of the sample answered yes

or definitely yes. Similarly, when asked item 18: "When you

do not complete enough work do you worry about it?," 76 per

cent of the workers responded affirmatively, (see Table 4.4).

Both sets of responses indicate that substantial numbers

of workers in this department do worry about the level of

their performance. Given management’s pressing concern over

quality standards, it is not surprising to find that workers

worry more about quality standards than about quantity stan¬

dards. A 76 per cent worry rate among workers over the quan¬

tity of their output, however, is still a very powerful state¬

ment about workers’ concerns.

PA

RT

ICIP

AN

TS

' R

ES

PO

NS

ES

TO

AN

IND

US

TR

IAL

JOB

E

NR

ICH

ME

NT

PR

OG

RA

M

IN

NE

W

EN

GL

AN

D,

MA

Y,

19

75

; Q

UE

ST

ION

NA

IRE

ITE

MS

RE

LA

TIN

G

TO

SP

EC

IFIC

PR

ED

ICT

ION

(W

OR

KE

RS

' C

ON

CE

RN

OV

ER

SU

BS

TA

ND

AR

D

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

ES

113

CM

4m o a>

ft E

a) to ftf cd -ft CO G Q) rH

CO LO

O rtf ft -ft

a) o Oh Eh

CM CO

CM CO CM O O

CM LO GO i—I CM LO rH

CD CO CM OO CM CO CO CO

G LO CO o CM LO

CD

CO Cd

CD O CD O G G

Cd >> i—1 >> >. CD rH rH cd rH rH

<L) •H CD CD CD -p <D CD CD Cd ft 4-> ft ■P 0 +-* G -P G O •rH G •H Eh •H G •H O to G Cd G G Cd G ft 0) •H •H •H •H Cd •p 4m Cd 4-> 4m 4h Cd 4-> 4m CD cd CD 0) O O CD CD CD O O CD ft o "O >0 G G G G >> G G G

-ft

•H

>>4-> G ft cd O E ,ft

cd O O -ft ft

u CD o G 3 rd E ft

O a) > fd o A G

G O cv* G +-» 0) *H

a) +-> -ft G

CL) O •H ,ft ft 03 E O >> a ft

u ■ft O O 3: G

G O O G >>

E 0)

+-> M

G cd o a)

03 G -ft 0) cn -C-H 3= E

G O O G >>

ry

G ^ Q) ft

,C O 3 2

E a) • -p o m s

CO

To

tal

103

100

114

The importance of the results supporting this predic¬

tion is that not only are workers aware of the performance

levels that they are expected to reach, but that most workers

worry about the attainment of these levels. This is an im¬

portant finding relative to the acceptance or rejection of

the reinforcement perspective on job enrichment.

Worry usually carries with it a negative connotation,

implying that one is fearful, anxious, or uneasy about the

situation or potential consequences one faces. If this can

be assumed with these workers, then it may be possible to

explain some of their behavioral performances in terms of

responses aimed at reducing or lessening their anxiety levels.

Anxiety or worry is an uncomfortable state that most people

try to avoid. If workers can reduce the anxiety they ex¬

perience over standards by performing up to expected levels,

then it is possible to consider some performances as anxiety

induced.

These findings seem to imply that in addition to Herzberg's

claim that people perform on enriched jobs to gain recognition

7 and a sense of accomplishment, the possibility that some of

the workers' productivity is due to tension or worry reduction

activities must be considered. Meeting expected standards

may be easier and less stressful than agonizing over what

might happen if one fails to perform acceptably. This ap-

- .

Herzberg, passim.

115

pears to be a possibility that Herzberg simply did not con¬

sider in his formulation. Because of this, the nature of

the worry these workers experience seems to be an important

consideration. Do workers' concerns focus on fears of being

externally punished for poor performances or do their con¬

cerns focus on the potential damage to pride and their sense

of accomplishment?


The worry expressed by the workers on job enrichment programs centers heavily on the fear of sanctions that might result from poor job related performances.

Item 8 was an open-ended question that asked: "Why do you

worry about making too many mistakes?" Responses to this

question were analyzed and then grouped by similarity into

ten major categories that ranged from worry or concern over

severe consequences such as losing one's job to less dire

consequences such as, "I worry because I take pride in doing

good work, and I get satisfaction from doing the job right,"

(see Table 4.5). Only two of the ten categories derived from

workers' responses revealed concern over factors that Herz¬

berg would label as intrinsic rewards or considerations.

All of the remaining categories clearly expressed the primary

concern of workers over the potential loss of very basic hy¬

giene-type rewards such as their job, potential promotions,

or supervisory support. In fact a total of 52 per cent of

the sample expressed that they worried about what most people

PA

RT

ICIP

AN

TS

' R

ES

PO

NS

ES

TO

AN

IND

US

TR

IAL

JOB

E

NR

ICH

ME

NT

PR

OG

RA

M

IN

NE

W

EN

GL

AN

D,

MA

Y,

1975;

QU

ES

TIO

NN

AIR

E

ITE

MS

RE

LA

TIN

G

TO

SP

EC

IFIC

PR

ED

ICT

ION

3 (T

HE

MA

GN

ITU

DE

OF

WO

RK

ER

S'

CO

NC

ER

N

OV

ER

SU

BS

TA

ND

AR

D

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

ES

)

116

4-* G CD O co LO o CO CM CM

g Q)

Oh

CM jX CO

i—I i—I i—I

CD O o rH

LOCMLOCnuOrfC-rHCM

i—I i—I i—I i—I rH rH O O

00 CO LD o CD CM CM CM LD Zf CO CO CD CM LO CD CD LO t-- rH CM 1 oo G 1—1 rH rH H H rH o i—1 i—1 i—1 rH H i—1 o

rH rH

P G P P >> •

CO 0 P rG 0 P G

•ro 0 b£) •ro CO •H i—1 O CO G co P -H CD G i—1 i—1 G G G cd CD rG G i—1 G CO 4-> •H <D rH G O CD co >» bO G CD CO 0 >>P £ G G

*H rG G co (D’rlfl P rG 0 G CD G p cd +-> 4-1 G 0 G G O o P p cd G P o G O O O P co O TO Eh 0 >o O G O Eh CO g Gd >0 CD £ rQ G X) o CO rG £ 0 to G 0 G CD O X 0 CD CO G CD 4-> 2 O G X> PPG >>TOp >> G XI >, CO CD O P O G CD 4-* G P G o O G XI O G GPP

P G CD X> CO G CD G •H P G G G G GOP G G 6 £ G -H Pp bfl O P £ p G G P CD G

X) G XI •rH P 6 G -P G XI 0 XI •H 0 CO £ H bO G dJ 0 CD G 0 O -H CD £ CD G bO £ O 4m G > G >o > PP bfl bO a O O P G o > P G O P a <D *H G

Hi •H O CD G G X) X) — •H G O CD •H 4-> 0 G O CO CO 4m P £ G G *H *H bO G 4m (X £ G P G bO XI <D u G G G G O 0 4-> G XI P

X) •H bfl) CD bO bOx) O -H •rl G *H XI bOP bO bO O CD P •H G G CO 0) G G 4m G G GOG 4-> O G G G C i—1 CD G P -H *H G

XI O •H 4m -H •H G i—1 P co d) G •H G •H •H 6 P CO p G 0 bO a) rd G CD rG CD 0 H X) O CD rG Q) CD 4m 0 G CD i—1 o CD P P P 4m G O -H P rP P O 0 X) O P XI

P CO P 0 4h G CD co P CD •H 0 fd 4m CD 4m 4_, •H CD 4m *H P G 4-1 CD 4m 4-i G 4m bO G P o O rX 0 O Xl P O G O P 0 0 XI G G O G P

rd CO *rH *H >> CO G •H CD CD •H P G P G G (D G H G G CD G P G G G XI O G rH o CO G co G G rX G CO G G X P G CO G G G G G G H P o a) •H CD CD G 4h H GOG 0 CD •H CD CD 4m G O G G G £

4m £ 4m 4m £ G X) 4h S P G 4-i £ 4m 4m G P O 4m 4m P i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 £

O G

I 4m 4-*

£ g p H

>. O g o G P D* o co £ bO Q)

G X G -H rd O P P >, G CO

£ *H o £

X) P G >o

>o O G P X G § £

£ CD •

4-> O H P

CD

rO G O' G G rH P G G P G O £ O

G

5 O 5 co o G

G P •H OP bfl G >. O G O

G O bO 0 G G

X) P G P G G

>> O bO O PPG 3 G‘H XI

G X) O

o O CM

Hi

117

would probably characterize as fairly dire consequences.

Seventeen per cent, for instance, worried that they might

lose their job if they made too many mistakes, 12 per cent

feared that mistakes would go on one’s record and hurt one's

chances for a promotion, 10 per cent worried about being

reprimanded by their bosses. When asked item 20: "Why do

you worry about not completing enough work?," responses

were substantially the same as found in item 8, (see Table

4.5). Fifty-seven per cent expressed fear of dire conse¬

quences such as losing one's job (16 per cent), receiving a

poor merit evaluation (12 per cent), looking bad to the

supervisor or co-workers (15 per cent), having the boss yell

at you (9 per cent), or being shifted to a less desirable

job C5 per cent). When the 14 per cent who worried about

having to work harder to catch up the next day is added in,

71 per cent of the total sample fear what may be character¬

ized as externally imposed punishments for poor performances.

On the other hand, only 12 per cent of the sample mentioned

that they worried because poor performances would reflect on

their abilities, or in some way dampen their sense of achieve

ment; not one worker mentioned that pride was in any way con¬

nected to job related worries.

Age apparently has an impact on a worker's response to

both of these questions, (see Table 4.6). Clearly workers

under the age of forty worry much more about the possibility

of losing their job or being passed over for a promotion if

PA

RT

ICIP

AN

TS

’ R

ES

PO

NS

ES

TO

AN

IND

US

TR

IAL

JOB

E

NR

ICH

ME

NT

PR

OG

RA

M

IN

NE

W

EN

GL

AN

D,

MA

Y,

1975;

QU

ES

TIO

NN

AIR

E

ITE

MS

RE

LA

TIN

G

TO

SP

EC

IFIC

PR

ED

ICT

ION

3 (M

AG

NIT

UD

E

OF

WO

RK

ER

S’

CO

NC

ER

N

OV

ER

SU

BS

TA

ND

AR

D

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

ES

-BY

AG

E)

118

o St

G cu > o

a) bO

o St

G CU

Td G G

•fc d) co CO 0) G *H O G Q< O co bO a) cu

p rd o

g a) p HH

6 a) . P O M S

I J-Jj-OOCO I j^-corOrHJ- o r-H CO CM O

r—I

00 CO CO

I—I I—I

| LO CD | CM

CM CM rH O O

rd CO LO LO o 4

3

1

CO CD 1—1 co o oo CM CO rH O i—1 CO H H 1 o CM rH 1—1 f—1 i—1 o rH i—1 rH CM i—1 rH i—1 o

1—1 rH •

CO P o P G •n O rG •n •H i—1 CU

CO G co P bO CO rd rH H G G G CJ1 cu a: -h G CU P •H CU Cd O CU CO >1 bO G d) CO 0 ^rQ £ d)

•H G G co d) *H rH rG CO G (U rd i—1 co P P G O G G rQ rd P O O' G G rd G O O O rQ co O O 4-> 0 rQ >, O G O P O g G Td 0) g A3 *n O G Td CO rG g O *n O a O rd 0) 0 X O H CO rd CU O — 5 H G Td +j -h id t>i*n CU kH G Td P >, CO <D cu P« O G cu p G rG G O O G o 

Td G Td G 6 g P bO £ T) o Td •H rQ O co g rH bO cu • 0) O CU G O O G d) 6 CU G g 0 4h G CO CO G >. > fG P bO bfl O O *H P G 0 > Or bO O P a CU *H CU

-rl O d) G G tg o — •rH G o (UGH o G O p bO «P P g G G *H *H bO Td G 4h C4 g G *H G bO Td CO rd

a CU X G G G 0 G P G Td rd P bO CU bO bOTd O -rH •H rd G Td bOP bfl bO 0 d) P •H G G cu G G 4h G G G 0 rd P 0 *H c G G G O CU G P »H *rl i—1 d)

•rH 4-1 •H •H nj rH CG CO G •H G •H •H rH g rQ CO rG a d) rd a) d) G d) OH d) O d) rG CD 0 4-i *H CU CO O p CU •H Q< 4-1 d) 4h G •H d)HH G G 4h (U 4h 4h G 4-i bO G p O X 0 O Td G O Oh G o g O O X) G G O G Q< CO G

rd CO *H *rH CO rd •H d) CU •H 0 •H G P G G d) rd H G G <U G P G G rd Td 0 G rH d) g rd CO rd rd X G co rd G X P rd CO rd rd G G G rdH^ CU d) •H CU CU rd 4-i tH d) o id O d) •H > O >> cu o* G P G O G rH X G P o- G GG CO CO 0 co O g O d) *H 5 bfl d) S 0 S •H G

G G a G P GH rd G G O O G P OP bO bO G >* rd CO >> O G CU *H

g *H G 0 P O g O G rd co

Td p Td P CU o cu G >> G G

>, O G >i O W) cu G rG rQ rd G G G CO bO 2 rd £ IS fd *rH G -H

0 Mh Q. CO rH Q) H

CM X < rd

CO

119

they make too many mistakes. Thirty-eight per cent of those

under forty hold this type of fear whereas only 4 per cent of

those over forty hold these fears. Similarly, with a ques¬

tionnaire item 20, 29 per cent of the workers under forty

worried that they might lose their job or hurt their chances

for a promotion if they did not complete enough work, whereas

only 20 per cent of the workers over forty expressed these

same concerns. Furthermore, 20 per cent of those under forty

worried about the fact that their supervisor and/or co-workers

would think that they were "goofing off" if they did not com¬

plete enough work. None of the workers over forty expressed

such a view.

Older workers on the other hand, were far more likely to

express that their worries centered around knowing whether or

not they could still do the job properly and keep up with the

smart, younger workers. A total of eight workers, or 33 per

cent of those over forty expressed this type of concern; only

9 per cent of those under forty mentioned such concerns.

Twenty-one per cent of the older workers expressed that they

took pride in their work and worried when they failed to

achieve good quality; only 11 per cent of those under forty

felt this way. As for concern over the speed of their output,

older workers were more likely to express either that they

definitely worried, but were unsure over what (29 per cent

vs. 13 per cent for the workers under forty), or that they

worried about falling behind because that made it harder to

meet the quota for the next day (25 per cent vs. 11 per cent).

120

There appears to be a plausible, straight-forward explan¬

ation for the differences due to age. First, many of the

younger workers were still serving or had recently completed

their probationary period with the company. During this

probation, workers have not been permanently hired and it is

made clear to them that their continued employment is directly

contingent upon satisfactory performance while on the job.

Older workers on the other hand, have gained a degree of both

seniority and security in that they are not easily fired if

their performance slips (several written warnings and a per¬

sonnel department hearing are necessary). Hence, younger

workers may have been much more sensitive to the fact that

the rewards of continued employment were directly tied to

the performance levels they attained.

Second, older workers have not only had considerably

more practice in doing their jobs, which would tend to re¬

duce worry and anxieties, but they have also ’’learned the

ropes” as to how the rewards and seniority systems work with¬

in the company. They may know that the rewards and sanctions

distributed by management are not based strictly on merit and

outstanding performances. Older workers may have learned

that undue worry and concern over one's performance is un¬

necessary and unjustified in view of the past actions that

management has taken when workers’ performances have fallen

below the established standards. Younger workers may not be

privy to this type of information and may still fear the im-

121

plicit or explicit threats relative to poor performances.

There is little doubt that the more frequently held dire

fears of younger workers stimulated their performance levels.

Although the researcher was not given access to individual

productivity data to confirm this contention, several often

repeated and recorded comments by managers as well as by

older workers seem to bear this out. On five separate occa¬

sions, members of management (including the production man¬

ager, the business manager, and three supervisors) noted that

they were very pleased with performances of the younger workers

because they frequently out produce the older workers. At

least eight older workers complained to the researcher, dur¬

ing their interviews, that the daily quotas had been raised

several times since the department was set up just because

some of the younger workers were producing more than they had

to in order to meet their daily quotas.

Clearly, the self-professed fears and worries of younger

workers have some impact on performance levels. Contrary to

claims that workers find the enriched job challenging, and

strive for the intrinsic rewards of personal growth, the re¬

inforcement perspective would claim that younger workers value

the rewards of continued employment and perform up to standard

to avoid termination.

Overview on conjecture 1. Taken as a conceptual unit,

the results of the first three specific predictions appear to

lend support to the possibility that reinforcement mechanisms

in the enriched setting may account for some, if not all of

122

the workers’ behavioral performances. Workers in this sample

are aware of standards, they worry about their performances

relative to these standards, and finally their worry revolves

around the fear of being punished for poor performances.

From this it seems clear that the majority of these workers

understand the structural characteristics of the situation

and act accordingly to gain the rewards they value and avoid

the sanctions they fear. They understand that their perform¬

ances are being measured and compared to standards, they un¬

derstand that linked or tied directly to substandard per¬

formances are sanctions that they worry about and wish to

avoid.

The assumption that remains to be tested is that the

structure of the situation does affect or control the actual

behavior of these workers. Does the awareness of standards

and the fear of getting fired or the fear of being passed

over for a promotion cause these workers to behave differ¬

ently than they would if their performances were not being

measured, or if other rewards were offered for their per¬

formances? Findings relative to the next prediction shed

light on this issue.


Workers involved in a job enrichment pro¬ gram indicate that their current level of performance would change if the existing performance-reward linkages were modified, or additional rewards were added.

Relative to this prediction, questions were posed in two dis-

123

tinct areas. First, workers were asked what would happen if

individuals were no longer held accountable for their per¬

formances. Second, they were asked what would happen if

different reward contingencies were offered for subsequent

changes in their performances. The results indicate at worst,

partial support for the contention that changes in situa¬

tional contingencies would have an impact on workers' per¬

formances .

When asked item 11: "If no one kept track of who was

making mistakes, do you think that workers here would be

less careful about mistakes than they are now?," 40 per cent

of those asked responded 'definitely yes’, 36 per cent re¬

sponded ’yes', and 11 percent were not sure. When the ques¬

tion was personalized (item 12), and they were asked: "If

no one kept track of the mistakes you made, do you think

that you might be less careful about mistakes?," positive

responses fell, but a sizable minority of 37 per cent still

indicated that they would be less careful under the circum¬

stances; 8 per cent answered not sure. Despite the strong

likelihood of defensive responses in front of the inter¬

viewer, a sizable segment still indicated that the quality of

their performance would suffer if no one were holding them

directly accountable, (see Table 4.7).

This result is important, for it implies that the job

enrichment practice of having workers quality check and sign

their work actually reinforces some workers to be more care-

PA

RT

ICIP

AN

TS

' R

ES

PO

NS

ES

TO

AN

IND

US

TR

IAL

JOB

E

NR

ICH

ME

NT

PR

OG

RA

M

IN

NE

W

EN

GL

AN

D,

MA

Y,

19

75

; Q

UE

ST

ION

NA

IRE

ITE

MS

RE

LA

TIN

G

TO

SP

EC

IFIC

PR

ED

ICT

ION

4 (T

HE

EF

FE

CT

S

OF

AC

CO

UN

TA

BIL

ITY

ON

TH

E

QU

AL

ITY

OF

WO

RK

ER

S'

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

ES

)

124

P o a>

CD PL bO £ 03 fd p C/0 O CD 1—1 CO I o C"- o CO C" CO o c CO rH H o CO H- o CD rH 1—1 rH 0 03 3 P CD O P

3 i—1 o 1—1 -=f l CO IH* I—1 CD cn CO CO CO rH i—1 o CO H" O

1—1 i—1

co CO d) 0 CD O

CO 3 kH 3 CD Q) 1—1 i—1 03 •H >> 03 >> >> o3 3 3 rH i—1 P rH rH P 0 o CD CD CD O CD CD CD O Pn b£ P 3 P Eh P 3 P Eh to a) •H 3 •H •H 3 •H a) P 3 CO 3 3 CO 3 X fd •H •H •H •H

O P CO P P P CO P P CD CL) 0 O CD CD CD O O CD

03) >> 3 3 X X >) 3 3 X

X i—1

0 3 3 CD CD CO ,3 O 0 1 r3 O P d)

>> £ CO P X X •H o- P o3

P O <D S 2 P " rC P o x 3 0 o a) bo co

d) P 3 X *H •H ,3 "A 3 X (d £ £ a CO O 0) a £ fd CD CO P 3 fd 3 p

fd rd 3 3 0 3 c* P rd a) P O o 3

P X rH >> >> 3) 0 p CO 3 3 CD P P o3 3 cvh o p ,3 PrP fd <d £ 2 d) P (D fd 3 H CD X 3 y ^ p 3 3

W3 P fd 3 p P fd <d 3 rd a fd a) x CD

6 3 ■H x r3 3 co 3 3 3 a) O ^ P CO p O CD *H fd o p rd CO P A O >> H 0 6 X 0) CO O n) P

3 £ rH 0) 3 P co 3 CO *H co 3 co fd

p 3 r3 0) 3 P *H O d) ,3 H 2 P rQ P M £ >•» rH p

£ CD • rH CM P O H H M S

125

ful than they would otherwise be. Herzberg's contention

would be that signing one's name affords the worker recogni¬

tion and chances for achievement and because of this, the

worker takes pride in his work and performs well. This may

or may not be true. An alternate, equally plausible ex¬

planation for quality improvements reported under an enrich¬

ment program may simply be that workers perform well because

they fear the consequences of doing poor quality work. The

act of signing one's name to what is produced greatly in¬

creases not only one's visibility, but also one's account¬

ability. If you sign what you produce (as do most of the

workers in this sample) and the unit contains a mistake,

then management has concrete evidence of your poor perform¬

ance.' They need only point to the mistake and to your name

and say, "you are producing sub-standard units."

Substandard work is unacceptable in most industrial

settings and such work is discouraged usually by reprimanding

those responsible--if the person responsible can be clearly

identified. Since the responsible party cannot be identi¬

fied in many industrial situations, no one is reprimanded

and the substandard units are simply sent to a separate re¬

work department. Not so in this job enrichment case. Workers

sign or initial their work, mistakes are taken directly back

to the person who made them and given the responsibility for

its repair. Such rework obviously makes it harder to meet

the current day's quota. Further, both bosses and co-workers

126

know who is making mistakes and can apply ridicule and threats.

The consequences of making mistakes in this situation can only

be characterized as aversive and thus to be avoided. Doing

good quality work the first time may be less painful to

workers, especially if they worry about the consequences re¬

vealed under specific prediction 3.

These results raise a major question: If no one is

keeping track of their performances, why is it assumed that

workers should maintain high quality? Many subscribers to

need theory might say that workers strive for quality on the

job in order to grow, achieve, and self-actualize, but 37

per cent of this sample say that if no one kept track of

their mistakes they would not care as much about quality as

they do now. Is this surprising? Not necessarily. Maintain¬

ing high quality is hard work, and if management does not

know who is making the mistakes then they cannot threaten

workers with punishment. It seems more realistic to assume

that in essence what workers are saying in the first four

specific predictions is the following: workers understand

that performances are linked to rewards and punishments, that

signatures or initials link individuals to their performances,

that some or all of the rewards are to be valued and that some

of the punishments are to be avoided. Thus in order to gain

the rewards and to avoid the punishments, workers realize

that they must perform up to the levels that have been es¬

tablished as acceptable. They in turn profess that their per-

127

formances would fall or change if the performance-sanction

linkages were removed or modified.

In regard to the amount of output they produce, some

workers stated that their performances would change if they

were no longer being held directly accountable for how much

they produced. Responding to item 23: "If no one kept track

of how much each worker completed, do you think that workers

here would complete less work than they do now?," 29 per cent

answered ’definitely yes’, and 39 per cent responded ’yes.’

Thus 68 per cent of this sample indicated that other workers

in this job enrichment program would complete less work if

management stopped measuring individual outputs, (see Table

4.8).

When asked directly about their own performances (item

24): "If no one kept track of how much work you completed,

do you think that you might complete less work than you do

now?," workers’ affirmative responses dropped substantially

to only 25 per cent of the sample. Six per cent answered

’definitely yes,’ 19 per cent said ’yes,' and 6 per cent re¬

sponded 'unsure.' As with the question on the quality of

one's performance, this particular question is potentially

very threatening. In spite of the possibility of defensive

responses on the part of those questioned, however, 25 per

cent still openly admitted that their output would drop if

management stopped 'keeping score,’ (see Table 4.8).

PA

RT

ICIP

AN

TS

’ R

ES

PO

NS

ES

TO

AN

IND

US

TR

IAL

JOB

E

NR

ICH

ME

NT

PR

OG

RA

M

IN

NE

W

EN

GL

AN

D,

MA

Y,

19

75

; Q

UE

ST

ION

NA

IRE

ITE

MS

RE

LA

TIN

G

TO

SP

EC

IFIC

PR

ED

ICT

ION

4 (T

HE

EF

FE

CT

S

OF

AC

CO

UN

TA

BIL

ITY

ON

TH

E

QU

AN

TIT

Y

OF

WO

RK

ER

S’

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

ES

)

128

ft O <1>

Q) ft W) £ fd fd ft OQ cn G cm Q) rH O fd P ft 0> O ft E-f

cn f" co CM

o CD CO CD to CO o

o o c CO p-

lO i—I

CM

CO

O CO o

CM to oo

to CO CO

o

CO co CO 0) o 0)

0) a) >> G CO •H H g P >, >> fd >0 0 0 i—i rH ft 1—1 ft bo a) a) 0) o d) 0) CO (U -P P -P H ft P (D -P ■H G •H •H G ft fd G co G G CO

o •H •H •H ft CO -P ft ft CO ft 0) O x >. c G X X >i G

o X G

fd 5 * a) ,G 2 o G O X P ft 0 X O ^0(1) ft >>

ft rG ft " ft ft a) p ft X X G O rH CO O o a) bo fd

ft p 2 ft *H ft ft £ ^ a) 6 ft o o ft co O rH rd O P co fd ft 3 X P o a) P £ O P -P P 2 H ft 0 >. O

0) o IS f X+J 0) ft ft ft P <d -P ft G fd CO a) o ft o) c- a) OG CO ft S -P H X >.ft (U

ft 0 r—1 G VMM

6 G O G O G P G 0) 0) O Id *H O O O O -H ft O' ft > G rG ft G O G G a) a G £

ft G O O ft ft G O o o H 6 >, 5 -p 1—1 £ >> O X

S a) • CO H- ft O CM CM

M s

o G

O g

>. iH Q) ft •H c

•rH ft 0) X

fd ft o

Eh

129

These results provide evidence that some workers are

performing at a given level primarily because of the struc¬

tural nature of the situation. Change the structure by re¬

ducing a worker's individual accountability and some of the

workers in this sample state that they will behave differ¬

ently. What workers are revealing is that the mere fact that

some one is keeping track of performances affects their be¬

havior. If no one were keeping track, some workers simply

see no reason to produce as much as they would if someone

were looking over their shoulder. Thus, by making workers

accountable, and keeping track of their performances, man¬

agement may be forcing compliance with performance expecta¬

tions .

The results of the three preceding specific predictions

appear to reveal that it is not so much the record keeping

itself that affects workers' performances as it is the re¬

wards and punishments that have been linked by management

to these records. Workers have rightly perceived that raises,

promotions, merit increases, supervisory reprimands, written

warnings, dismissals all hinge on a worker's quality and

quantity "box scores". Workers know very well that daily

production figures are not posted on large blackboards for

fun. Management, they feel, must use that information for

something, and as merit evaluation time approaches, just try

to tell the workers that those daily quality and quantity

figures are not important.

130

Results supporting specific prediction 3 showed that

these workers worry about not completing enough work because

of their fears over the possible loss of their jobs, or the

possible loss of a promotion. Here, the results imply that

if no one were keeping track of how much a worker completed,

some workers would complete less work. Tying the threat of

termination to substandard performance surely reinforces

workers to meet the established standards. VThen this rein¬

forcer is removed it should not be surprising if continued

efforts are not sustained. Removing the measurement mechan

ism necessary to link punishments with substandard perform¬

ances simply renders the reinforcement process powerless to

insure worker compliance with established standards.

Relative to the impact of changes in positive rewards

on the quality of workers' performances, item 9: "If a

bonus were given to workers who hardly made any mistakes in

their work, do you think that workers here would be more

careful about mistakes than they are now?," reveals that 42

per cent responded 'definitely yes,' 40 per cent answered

'yes,' and 15 per cent were not sure. Similarly, on item 10

"If a bonus were given to workers who hardly made any mis¬

takes in their work, do you think that you might be more

careful about mistakes than you are now?," 34 per cent an¬

swered 'definitely yes,' 32 per cent 'yes,' and 6 per cent

indicated that they were not sure. Although the percentage

131

of workers answering affirmatively on item 10 is substan¬

tially less than those who responded positively on item 9, a

66 per cent positive response is still a very powerful state¬

ment about what might affect workers’ behavior (see Table 4.9).

In relation to the impact of rewards on quantity of out¬

put, item 21 asked: ”If a bonus were given for completing

more work than had been scheduled, do you think that workers

here would complete more work than they do now?.” Thirty-

five per cent of the sample responded ’definitely yes,’ 47

per cent ’yes,' and 10 per cent were not sure. On item 22:

”If a bonus were given for completing more work than had

been scheduled, do you think that you might complete more

work than you do now?," 31 per cent of those asked answered

'definitely yes,' 32 per cent said ’yes,’ and 10 per cent

were not sure. Again, both response sets reveal strong

statements attesting to the potential impacts that various

positive rewards might have on workers' job related perform¬

ances, (see Table 4.10).

Taken as a single unit, these four questions indicate

that workers feel that a positive reward such as a bonus

would affect both the quality and quantity of their perform¬

ances. Workers appear to be displaying the potential for

altering their behaviors if and when situational rewards are

introduced. The implication is that it may be possible to

control and manipulate workers’ behavior in desired direc¬

tions simply by specifying the desired behaviors and offer-

PA

RT

ICIP

AN

TS

' R

ES

PO

NS

ES

TO

AN

IND

US

TR

IAL

JOB

E

NR

ICH

ME

NT

PR

OG

RA

M

IN

NE

W

EN

GL

AN

D,

MA

Y,

19

75

; Q

UE

ST

ION

NA

IRE

ITE

MS

RE

LA

TIN

G

TO

SP

EC

IFIC

PR

ED

ICT

ION

4 (T

HE

EF

FE

CT

S

OF

A

BO

NU

S

ON

TH

E

QU

AL

ITY

OF

WO

RK

ER

S'

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

ES

)

132

O (13 I-1

03 ft bO £ G aj P C/D G 0) r-H O 03 G p 03 o ft Eh

C/D a) a) C/D G o co a) a) p ft 03

CJ

£ QD P M

CM sj-

o St

o o

St

CO CnI

CO (O J J-

CM

CO

St r—I LO CO

o LO CO

CO

CO to LO

CM

CO CO a) O 03 0 >> G

rH >> G

>0 >» o3 >> >. rH rH ft i—1 rH QJ Q) 03 O 03 03 03 P G -P P G P •rH 3 •H •H 3 •H G CO G G CO G

"H •H •H •H » G G 03

>> 03 -P o- >0 03 co G O G 3 S GOG 03 03 03 03 O O 03 03 X

o ft ft G O P aJ -p cl) « o3 P 0) ft P

03 ft CO 03 03 ft bO co G 03 G G H G G o3 G •H •H 0) e o 03 3 03 03 6 O £ £

> 2 ft ft > •H G 03 >, •H >> 3 P bQ rH G O G 03 bOH G O 3 o*

03 -H 5 03 ft 03 *H >> O S (13 G a) O -H 03 G 03 ft O G a) 2 CO

03 ft ft P

O

P 03 ft P

G 03 ft P

G G ft 0) ft P

O CO ft

P G G 03 GH a) P 3 G

cp 03 3 3 X 3 5 X 03

£ G CO G 0) CO G CO G G 3 0) O CO 03 •H ft 03 O CO 03 •H rd O P ft G ft ft ft . ,3 O H 0) G P 03 G 03 G p

0) ft P 1—1 P G ft ft 03 G G to 3 3 co G co 3 G G

ft O -H O O •H ft O -H O O rG M 5 6 >> 5 El M 2 £ >. S P

• cn O

o o

CO o iH

03 P O

Eh

PA

RT

ICIP

AN

TS

’ R

ES

PO

NS

ES

TO

AN

IND

US

TR

IAL

JOB

E

NR

ICH

ME

NT

PR

OG

RA

M

IN

NE

W

EN

GL

AN

D,

MA

Y,

1975;

QU

ES

TIO

NN

AIR

E

ITE

MS

RE

LA

TIN

G

TO

SP

EC

IFIC

PR

ED

ICT

ION

4 (T

HE

EF

FE

CT

S

OF

A

BO

NU

S

ON

TH

E

QU

AN

TIT

Y

OF

WO

RK

ER

S’

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

ES

)

133

P O CD

t-{ CD CL bO £ d3 d3

■pcc lo

G co a) (H a a3 G P a) o

Ph Eh

O CO

P o o

i—I CN O LO CN CO CO rH CN

o o I—I

G CO CO

cn o co P- i—I

CO

o CN CO

CO CO

CO

CN CN CO

o

cn cn <D O CD 0

cn G >> G CD CD i—1 P cn >0 >> d3 >0 >> dJ G g 1—1 H P r—1 rH P O o CD CD CD O CD CD CD O Ph b£ P G P Eh P g P Eh cn CD ■H P •rH •H p •H CD P G cn G G cn G

P4 03 •H •H •H •H O P cn P P P cn P P

CD a) 0 0 CD CD CD 0 0 CD dD G G X) dD >0 G G dp

£ 0) p H

X) 03 M 1 O G G g d3

•H O P G G G a >> G G O 1 O dJ P CD O 03 >, g P PG dp G P rG O 0

P P H P POO >» G OP G d3 a) x >) o G cd g p G > G 5 dJ > G -rG dJ

■H O O rG •H O op bOrG bO £ dp CD P bO £ CD -H P

G P £ CD a) - CD G CD CD P G G GPP G G G op p G CD O CD O CD O <D O O ^ £ rH cn £ 5 g rG >,

P G O cn bfldp cd (D cn bo cn p CD p G cd G G PC dJ G G *H G G O G -H G G 0 O P O O £ 0 P CD P g P CD cn £ ,G CD CD

rH Q) P G G CD dJ Oh G P P c- 03 Ph G P

g <D 03 CD £ g dP -H CD P O CD rG P 0 P O d3 G P (H O G P P G P 0 G P Oh

g CD • i—I P O CN M S

CN CN

134

ing rewards for the performance of these behaviors. The

specification of such reward contingencies is central to the

reinforcement approach.

These results appear to indicate that workers would re¬

spond and perform differently if the simple bonus oriented

reinforcement mechanism were instituted. This implication

supports a reinforcement interpretation of workers’ perform¬

ance improvements on enriched jobs.

When all of the results under this specific prediction

are reviewed, the findings appear to show that many workers

profess the need for imposed structure to guide and regulate

their performances. That is, they express the need for con¬

tingent performance-reward linkages if they are to sustain

the high levels of performance expected by management. This

is not to say that some workers are not capable of self-dir¬

ection and ’’internally generated” motivation, but rather

that for many workers, it is the nature and structure of the

work situation that prompts their performance levels. A sub¬

stantial minority of the workers expressed that without the

measurement of their performance and the attendant threats

and/or rewards of the measurement process, their performances

would fall. Thus, if management had not structured the work

situation with performances contingent on rewards and punish¬

ment, it appears as though the workers involved in this en¬

richment program would not be performing up to management's

expectations.

135

These workers, however, seem willing to modify their

behavior and produce more provided that they receive some

1 quid pro quo1 for their additional efforts. There are in¬

dications that these behavioral changes may be due to the

reward and reinforcement mechanisms that are an inherent

part of the enrichment process.

Thus although not supported by the majority of responses,

specific prediction 4 finds support among a substantial min¬

ority of the workers canvassed.

Overview of the Performance-Sanction Assumption. In

sum, when the findings from the above four specific predic¬

tions are reviewed and integrated into a single logical unit,

one should detect some basis for entertaining the broad Per¬

formance-Sanction Assumption (Conjecture 1) made at the

start of this analysis. Although the attitudes collected in

this research are far from conclusive evidence that the be¬

havior of workers on enriched jobs is a function of the re¬

ward and punishment structure inherent in the enrichment

process, they do lend support to further consideration and

testing of this interpretation of job enrichment.

To strengthen the support for this consideration, it

seems appropriate to question and review the types of re¬

wards and sanctions that might possibly serve to reinforce

the decision of workers to come to work and the decision to

perform once they are on the job. Do they value the instru¬

mental rewards of money and continued employment, or do they

136

value the intrinsic gains and satisfactions of which Herzberg

speaks? Once on the job, do they produce out of fear of

punishment over poor performances, or because they take in¬

trinsic pride in achievement?

Conjecture 2: The Instrumental Orientation Assumption

Workers’ interest in enriched jobs stems more from the possible instrumental gains that may, or do result from the new job rather than from the intrinsic rewards supposedly inherent in the enriched job.

Following are the specific predictions and the analysis of

the questionnaire items pertaining to the appropriateness

of this second conjecture.


Workers involved in a job enrichment pro¬ gram come to work primarily to gain the instrumental rewards that are connected with work, rather than to self-actualize or to socialize while on the job.

Responses to the questionnaire items that focus on the

issue of money and job security are as follows, (see Table

4.11). On item 65: ’’One of the main reasons I come to

work is because I need the money to make ends meet.,” 52 per

cent of the workers responded 'strongly agree,’ 38 per cent

'agree,' while 7 per cent answered ’disagree.’ To item 70:

’’One of the main reasons I come to work is because if I were

absent too much the company might want to replace me with

someone else.,” 35 per cent of the sample answered ’strongly

agree,’ and 41 per cent ’agree.’ Finally, on item 68: "One

of the main reasons I come to work is because I need the

PA

RT

ICIP

AN

TS

’ R

ES

PO

NS

ES

TO

AN

IND

US

TR

IAL

JOB

E

NR

ICH

ME

NT

PRO

GR

AM

IN

NEW

EN

GL

AN

D,

MA

Y,

19

75

; Q

UE

ST

ION

NA

IRE

ITE

MS

RE

LA

TIN

G

TO

SP

EC

IFIC

PR

ED

ICT

ION

(T

HE

IMP

OR

TA

NC

E

OF

INS

TR

UM

EN

TA

L

RE

WA

RD

S)

137

LO

O Q) rH

CD P tO £ rd rd p GO CM CO CM C~" rH O LO H CO CM O oo o o C LO CO O CO rH O CM CO CO o O) 1—1 rH i—I tH

o fd g -p <D o

04 H

CD CM C'-' rH CO CD CM J CT CM CO LO CT> zf rH zr co G LO CO O CO rH O CM CO CO o

rH rH t—1

0) GJ G) a> 0) 0) G G G

G) t>0 G> to cu to Q) rd G> fd G) rd

CO G to rH G CO rH G CO i—1 G) a; bO •h rd to •H fd to •h fd CO •H fd TD -P fd "O -P fd 'U P

G G O o o O O >, a) a) >> E-f >» (U G) >>Eh >> GJ G) (H oC i—i G QJ rH rH G G) rH rH G G) rH CO Q) to 3 G to to G G to to G G bO <o P> G Q) co to G G G) CO to G G G) co to G

rd O 0) fd O O G) fd o O CD fd o O G G -P co G G G -p CO G G G P CO G

-P bO O *H -P -P t0 O *H P -P bO O *H P CO<GQCO CO < G Q W CO<GQCO

<D £ O ,C O P •

4h G) M 'D H •H G) 1 CO w H fd

 -P G <D G fd G CO T) G A G £ G A o a

3 C O fd o 4h fd G fd g> G CO O £ CO G CO >

•H O •H •H P •H •rH >>

fd G> a) fd p x; fd G) (d •

£ A X £ -P X -P £ ^ G a fd G G tO'H G O G> p

a) co £ 0) O G) *H IS G> O £ ^ a) ,G *H ,G 2 CO £ A 3c •H

6 p o -P ^ a> -P G) rH n

G) -p O fd >0 £ O A G P mh G 4h P G Mh P» P CO fd M o o >> O CO fd G) O to a

a; d) fd GO GJG c a) G 0) £ 3 £ Id G) £ G) *H 3 G o O c O O H G o G) ,G 0)

O -P £ o a m a cu O o G P G

£ a) • lO o OO

p o <X> r-» CO

H S

138

money for extra things like a vacation, a new car, etc.," 24

per cent strongly agreed, 38 per cent agreed, and 30 per cent

disagreed. Approximately three-fourths of the 30 per cent

who disagreed to this last statement, made comments to the

effect that the job barely provided enough income for food

and thus the job could not be viewed as a source of income

for luxuries such as a new car.

Questionnaire items 69, 66, and 67 concentrated primar¬

ily on the intrinsic reward reasons for coming to work, (see

Table 4.12). Included here would be the desire to come to

work to self-actualize, learn new skills, or gain a sense of

achievement. Item 69: "One of the main reasons I come to

work is because I take pride in doing a good day’s work.,"

revealed that 12 per cent of the workers strongly agreed

with the statement, while an additional 71 responded ’agree.'

On item 66: "One of the main reasons I come to work is be¬

cause I want to develop my skills and abilities.," 28 per

cent strongly agreed, 49 per cent agreed, and 18 per cent

disagreed. A.s for item 67: "One of the main reasons I come

to wTork is because I enjoy doing the kind of work I do here.,"

23 per cent strongly agreed, 51 per cent agreed, and 16 per

cent disagreed.

Relative to social reasons for coming to work, (see

Table 4.13), 6 per cent of the workers strongly agreed with

item 64: "One of the main reasons I come to work is because

it gives me a chance to talk and to be around people," while

PA

RT

ICIP

AN

TS

’ R

ES

PO

NS

ES

TO

AN

IND

US

TR

IAL

JOB

E

NR

ICH

ME

NT

PRO

GR

AM

IN

NEW

EN

GL

AN

D,

MA

Y,

19

75

; Q

UE

ST

ION

NA

IRE

ITE

MS

RE

LA

TIN

G

TO

SP

EC

IFIC

PR

ED

ICT

ION

(T

HE

IMP

OR

TA

NC

E

OF

INT

RIN

SIC

RE

WA

RD

S)

139

LO

P O CD

CD ft bO £ rd (d -H OQ CM H r-' o l o CO CO i o CO CM C-- CD CM o

c i—1 t"- iH o CM LO |—I o CM LO H o 0) i—1 i—i t—1 i—1 o fd ft P (D O ft Eh

CO CO C'~- O | CO cn rl st cn i CO co r- r- CM CO

G H Is i—1 a CM LO rH o CM LO rH o i—1 1—1 1—1

CD CD CD CD CD CD ft G G

CD bO 0) bO CD bO cd (d CD rd CD fd

co ft CO rH G CO 1—1 G co 1—1 CD a) bd •H fd bO •rl fd bO •rl fd CO •rH fd Td P fd Td P fd Td P G ft O 0 O 0 0 >> a) a) >,H >> CD CD >>Eh >> CD CD Eh ft b£ rH ft CD H rH G <D 1-1 rH G CD 1—1 (0 a> bd d G bfl bO P G bO bd P G bO a) p G CD co bO G G CD CO bO G G a) co bO G ft fd O a) td o O <D rd O 0 a) (d O

o ft ft ft co G G ft ft co G G G P co G P bO 0 -H ft P t>0 O *H P P bO O •rl P w<^;p w co<!z:qco co < ft; Q CO

Td M M O M M CO H M

O 1—1 CO 0) bO CO CD rH co CD P C CO G CO *H G co 0 O P fd o 3 ft O p CO <d CO (d co CO fd Td fd a bo fd a fd O G CD c CD CD >, CD Q) *rl ft P *H G ft £ G ft ft

o G CO T3 G CO ft G CO (D •

•H •H •H •H O « •H ft P CD fd G fd i—1 CO rd p G £ ft *H £ ft CD CD E ft CD

G • ft > ft G bO P a) o a) M CD 0 <D P CD O G ft £ Td ft ft 2 Td ft P S ft O

e ft •H o P i—1 P o Td <d O G 5 OOP O Td P ft P ft ft ft ft ft P p H M o CO o fd O

CD CD - a) p OOP a) £ ft >> CD £ G Td <D £ *n G G O fd (d G O fd G G 0 G O o a p Td O a £ fd O O CD

6 a) • cn CO P O CD CO co H s

PA

RT

ICIP

AN

TS

’ R

ES

PO

NS

ES

TO

AN

IND

US

TR

IAL

JOB

E

NR

ICH

ME

NT

PRO

GR

AM

IN

NEW

EN

GL

AN

D,

MA

Y,

19

75

; Q

UE

ST

ION

NA

IRE

ITE

MS

RE

LA

TIN

G

TO

SP

EC

IFIC

PR

ED

ICT

ION

(T

HE

IMP

OR

TA

NC

E

OF

SO

CIA

L

RE

WA

RD

S)

140

LO

P O Q)

I-I a) ex 60 £ rtf rtf P OQ G d>

O nj G P CD O

CG Eh

co

£ d) P M G

LO

J- LO OO CO

CO o o

CN J- co

CO I—| o o

CO r~- -H"

UO O') CO CO

0) 0) g

CO

o CNI CO CO CN CO

CO r~l

0) d) G

CO

o I—I

d) bO d) bO d) rtf CD rtf

co G co rH G CO rH d) <d bO •H rtf bO •H rtf co *H rtf X) P rtf X> P G G O O o o d) d) >) Eh >» CD CD >> Eh Cc bO rH G d) i—1 rH G CD r—1 CO (D bO G G bO btf G G bO CD p G 0) co W) G G d) co bO G

CG rtf O <D rtf O O d) rtf O O G G -P 10 G G G P CO G

P btf O •H -P -P bO O •H P 00 < Q CO CO < 5G Q 00

PH •H X PH rH • CD o

CO CD rtf d) CO CO p G CO P 1—1 G G 0 G (X O rtf bO CO rtf O o CO a G rtf a -P d) rtf d) •H CD d) P d) G rG G G <D G P

O XJ CO a) •

G CO G G G •H £ d> ■rH •rH rtf G •H O £ rtf G O rtf G CO •rH £ X a G £ G P

G rtf O d) <D O rtf CD S £

rG £ <D rG £ £ -P d) G -P CO d) O £ O d) rG P P -P O P P > P PH O CO P O •H •H

CD d) d) bO CD £ > XJ d) £ G o •H G G o P 0 O a bO rtf O a •r| X3

• zf CO O co CO

141

45 per cent responded 'agree,1 and 44 per cent 'disagree.'

And on item 63: "One of the main reasons I come to work is

because it gives me something to do with my time.," 2 per

cent strongly agreed, 34 per cent agreed, 41 per cent dis¬

agreed, and 17 per cent strongly disagreed.

Looking at these results, one point seems immediately

clear: workers come to work for a multitude of reasons.

These reasons span money, security, pride, chances for growth

and development, and social contact. Money for survival and

continued employment top the list, for 90 per cent of this

sample agreed that money was a prime reason for coming to

work, and 76 per cent agreed that fear of losing their job

was another major reason for coming to work. What is prob¬

ably most powerful about these two items is the large per¬

centage of workers who strongly agreed to these two state¬

ments. Fifty-two per cent of the sample strongly agreed

that money was a major reason for coming to work, while 35

per cent strongly agreed that the fear of being replaced

provided a strong incentive to show up for work. In contrast,

although 83 per cent of those questioned responded affirma¬

tively to the statement that they came to work because they

took pride in doing a good day's work, only 12 per cent

strongly agreed with this reason. Thus when only strongly

held attitudes about coming to work are considered, money and

job security clearly prevail as primary reasons why workers

in this sample show up for work. This should come as no

surprise. In our highly job-centered, consumer-oriented

142

society, both money and job security serve as compelling re¬

inforcers to most workers.

As has been seen, in addition to money and job security,

pride in doing a good day's work (item 69) and the desire to

develop one's abilities (item 66) also surface as important

reasons why many of these workers come to work. It seems

possible however, that the participants in this study may

have responded defensively to these two statements. A worker

facing a strange interviewer might find it more difficult to

reveal that pride in doing a good job and the chance to de¬

velop one's skills are not personally important, than to

deny the importance of money and job security. Since the

Work Ethic and the issue of taking pride in work are popular

notions, many in our culture may find it hard to publicly

deny the importance of these attitudes. Unfortunately, it

is almost impossible to confirm or deny the presence of de¬

fensive bias in cases such as this.

At any rate, responses to items 69 and 66 reveal that

younger workers apparently take pride in work and the oppor¬

tunity to develop skills and abilities more seriously as

major reasons for coming to work than do older workers.

Fifteen per cent of the workers under forth strongly agreed

with item 69 (pride in doing a good day’s work), in contrast,

only 4 per cent of those over forty strongly agreed with this

statement. Similarly, 34 per cent of those under forty

strongly agreed that they came to work to develop their skills

143

and abilities (item 66), only 8 per cent of those over forty

felt this way.

Sex also appeared to make a difference in how items 69

and 66 were answered. A higher percentage of males strongly

agreed that pride in doing a good day’s work was an important

reasons for coming to work (item 69). On item 66, (desire to

develop skills and abilities), 49 per cent of the males

strongly agreed, but only 14 per cent of the females cited

this as a major reason for coming to work. Males and younger

workers thus appear to view work as a place to gain a sense

of pride and accomplishment as well as a place to develop

one's skills and abilities.

Neither of these differences in response patterns seems

particularly surprising. The work-a-day world is primarily

dominated by males, and a prevalent conception in our society

is that males are "supposed” to hold full time jobs, develop

their skills and abilities, and take pride in their vocation—

females are not. As for the age difference, technical skill

is highly regarded in this company and the well publicized

route to advancement and promotion is via schooling, training,

and learning of new skills. Younger workers appeared more

vigorous and idealistic about their careers and they were ob¬

viously bucking for promotions through improvements in their

skills and abilities. Older workers were not as enthusiastic

about learning the requisite new skills and abilities. Fur¬

ther, younger workers in this sample have attained higher

144

levels of schooling, many having completed some college.

Economic hard times have forced many of these educated

younger workers into production level jobs. At this point,

they express the desire to develop some skills and hopefully

use these skills to advance as the economy improves. Since

the researcher found this a prevalent view among the younger

workers, it may provide a partial explanation for the higher

percentage of younger workers responding affirmatively to

questionnaire items 69 and 66.

As suspected, social reasons for coming to work are not

nearly as_ important as are money or job security. Social

reasons, however, are not totally unimportant since 51 per

cent of the workers questioned agreed with the statement

that they came to work because it gave them a chance to talk

and be around people; 44 per cent disagreed with this state¬

ment. On item 63: "One of the main reasons I come to work

is because it gives me something to do with my time.,” only

36 per cent agreed, while 58 per cent disagreed--obviously

these workers do not see this as a very important reason for

coming to work.

In review, the findings of this investigation only par¬

tially support Specific Prediction 5. The instrumental re¬

wards of money and job security are high on the list of im¬

portant reasons as to why most workers show up for work. But

contrary to expectations, pride in doing a good day’s work,

as well as the desire to develop one's abilities and skills

145

also appear important to workers. Although surprising and

somewhat counter to Specific Prediction 5, these results are

not necessarily damaging to the reinforcement perspective.

As seen in Chapter II, the reinforcement approach is

firmly based in the social learning process. Hence, pride

from doing a good day’s work and the desire to develop new

skills and abilities could simply be viewed as learned re¬

inforcers. Workers may have learned, during their social¬

ization into the world of work, to value and seek a sense of

pride in doing a good day’s work as well as a sense of mastery

from developing new skills and abilities. The prevalence in

our society of a generally favorable disposition toward the

Work Ethic makes it somewhat easier to understand why so many

workers might hold and profess these attitudes and thus re¬

spond as this sample has.

8 9 Many writers, such as Padfield and Williams, Schrank,

and Fein‘S have indicated that the general social milieu in

this country endorses and reinforces the idea that holding a

job, working hard, developing one’s skills, and taking pride

in one’s work are important and should be valued and sought

o

Harland Padfield and Roy Williams, Stay Where You Were (Philadelphia: J.P. Lippincott, 1973).

9 Robert Schrank, "Work in America: What Do Workers

Really Want?," Industrial Relations, 13 (May, 1974), passim.

■^Mitchell Fein, "Job Enrichment: A Re-evaluation," Sloan Management Review, 15 (Winter, 1974), passim.

146

after. After all, in this country, one’s social identity

derives directly from the job one holds. Furthermore, those

who are often most revered are the craftsmen, those workers

who have developed their skills and abilities and who now

take pride in their efforts. Individuals growing up in a

culture that values pride, skills and abilities, will learn

to value exactly what the general culture values. Pride in

doing a good day’s work, achievement, and the development of

one's skills and abilities are certainly valued by much of

the American community.

Workers may also hold these attitudes on pride in doing

a good day’s work and the desire to develop skills and abil¬

ities simply as a means to more desirable ends. Workers

who profess the Work Ethic and appear to take pride in their

work, are, in the eyes of most employers, ideal employees—

model workers. Model workers are not only praised for hold¬

ing these views, they are also often given raises, bonuses,

promotions, and other desirable rewards. Thus if one desires

these secondary rewards and realizes that employers look

favorably upon those who profess and display the trappings

of the Work Ethic, small wonder that some workers actually

do profess these attitudes and display these behaviors.

In conclusion, the findings under this specific predic¬

tion imply that a vastly diverse range of rewards is sought *

by employees from work. The instrumental rewards such a‘s

money and job security, although pressingly important to

147

most workers, are not the only rewards that workers have

apparently learned to seek. The intrinsic rewards that Herz-

berg indicates as being important to the success of job en¬

richment are also valued by many workers. Although it is

probably safe to assume that the majority of workers come

to work for instrumental reasons, secondary rewards cannot

be discounted as being important motivators. These secondary

reasons, however, may be the result of the normal socializa¬

tion process and thus not necessarily an inherent need for

all workers as Herzberg seems to feel.


Once on the job, workers on a job enrich¬ ment program perform primarily out of fear of sanctions and co-worker pressure rather than out of pride or for the in¬ trinsic rewards or satisfactions of doing the job.

As to the impact of the fear of sanctions, items 51, 50,

46, and 58 are relevant, (see Table 4.14). On item 51: "I

try not to make mistakes because mistakes make me look bad to

my supervisor,", 36 per cent of the workers strongly agreed,

and 46 per cent responded 'agree.’ Approximately four out of

every five open-ended comments made in regard to this state¬

ment indicated that workers did not like being yelled at or

reprimanded by their supervisor for poor performances and so

they worked to avoid this occurrence. When asked item 50: "I

try not to make mistakes because if I made too many mistakes

I might lose my present job.," 27 per cent responded with a

148

0) Oh bO £

CO rd rd w P CO o £

CO P CD M < O rd

P 2 £ P O X 0) o 1—1 o Oh Eh

JOB

1

97

5

DIC

T

PE

RF

P <

w >H Oh 00

CO Ph Eh

O S < w pH

. . Eh < P W W Oh W X P M o

s P

M CJ Eh H 05 P < S3 Oh W

M Eh < P P o M Eh CO

Oh O

EH O <

W Oh

P p O'M

W p H

P O <D

ID (£l Is i—| | O MO onn J o CO zt M O CN CO CM o

i—| Ol to H J o coco CN CO CO O M CO

p < p C" CO M 1 co oo cd cn CD Zj- CO CN O LO CN oo ESOH £ CO zt r—1 o CN CO CN o CN Zf CO o i—l CO MX P ^ Oh X

1—1 1—1 i—1

Q Q M O P P O P 0) d) d) M < W CD d) d)

P Ph P £ £ £ X CD CO O CD bO (D bO (D bO d) < X 0) rd d) rd 0) rd CD

W O CO CO £ C0 M £ CO M £ CO M £ M O Eh S 0) (L) bO •h rd bO •H fd bO •H (d bO

• Eh 3: O CO •H rd X P rd X P rd X P rd J- W CD H £ £ O O o

CO P P Eh 0 0 >, <D 0) >1 Eh >> d) CD >iEh >> d) d) >> Eh >, W W MO Oh bO M £ d) r—1 r—1 £ Q) M M £ CD i—1 r—1 P CO P Eh P CO 0) bfl £ £ bO bO £ £ bO bO £ £ bO bO PQ P M < < 0) P £ CO bO £ £ < O M CO P rd O 0) rd O O d) rd O O CD rd O O Eh Ph P W O £ £ P C0 £ £ £ P CO £ £ £ P CO £ £

CO < X Oh 4-> bO O •H P P bO O •H P P bflO •H P P W X o co <q p Q CO C0<£0 CO CO < Q CO CO X CD CO

£ <D p

, CO XI d) £ d) £ d) £ £ CD X 0) O X rd bo P rd rd d) £ rd £ CO dee fd 6 £ p Ph S P •H p p p - CO O CO d) > CO O d) CO O £ X

■H X £ •H O CO •H O P O P fi fd CD e p o e p d-d £ X

s Oh M b0 CD d) d) £ 0) 0) d) d) M CO 5 P CO CO P X P X X) P 0) O rd d) rd rd P rd id P p £ M £ X >> e e w) e e mo Ph CO

rd £ •H •H *n O P O M £ • O M 6 >>M P (0 0 P p P rd £

•H p P M O 4h M p P £ P -H •n P -H O P -H

£ O X O CO O CO P rd d> £ 0) rd £ d) d) P £ CD CD d) P CO p CO P £ CO X X P CO M >> £ >> £ (d d) >» £ rd CD • £ £

£ rd P £ rd P CO £ rd P £ P o (d P O O P O CO <D P O CO £ r-* h-% 3 o

d) O CD *H £ CD M CD »d CD M P i—1 M P g Ph M P £ P 2 M P

• M o CD CO 0 lO LO zt LO

too

much

I m

ight

lose

my

No

t sure

7 7

present

job.

Dis

agre

e

40

39

S

tro

ng

ly

dis

agree

3 3

To

tal

103

100

149

’strongly agree,’ and 35 per cent answered ’agree.’ Thus 62

per cent of this sample feared that they might lose their

job if they made mistakes or performed poorly. Similarly,

many workers feared that they might be transferred to a less

desirable job if they made too many mistakes. Sixty per cent

of the sample replied affirmatively to the statement: ”1 try

not to make mistakes because if I made too many mistakes I

might get transferred to a job I don't want.," (item 46).

Twenty-one per cent strongly agreed to this statement while

an additional 39 per cent answered ’agree.' Obviously, the

fear of being transferred to an undesirable job is a powerful

reinforcer that may account for some of the high quality work

that many of these workers produce. Finally, a total of 51

per cent of the workers responded affirmatively to item 58:

"I work at my present speed because if I slowed down too

much I might lose my present job.” Thirteen per cent re¬

sponded ’strongly agree,' 38 per cent simply agreed.

Although not all workers indicated that the fear of

losing their job or the fear of being reprimanded directly

affects their performance, substantial numbers expressed such

fears. Fear such as these, when harbored by workers, cer¬

tainly would appear to provide strong incentive to produce up

to the performance standards established by management.

Findings also reveal that co-worker and team pressures

in some way affect the performance attitudes of many of the

workers in this sample, as items 39, 42, 52 and 59 demon-

150

strate, (see Table 4.15). On item 39: MDo team members

joke or hint that workers who slack off should get to work?,"

a powerful 38 per cent of the sample strongly agreed, while

another sizable 43 per cent of those responding said yes to

the question. Such responses would seem to firmly establish

the existence of co-worker pressure; joking and hinting in

the industrial setting are often backed with deadly serious¬

ness to comply with team established norms.

Responses to item 42 reveal that some of this team pres¬

sure, at least, is directed toward the attainment of the pro¬

duction goals established by management. Sixty-five per cent

of the workers responded affirmatively to the question: "Is

there pressure within the teams to meet the production sched-

ule?"'. Of these, 13 per cent said definitely yes and 52 per

cent responded ’yes.’ Since 40 per cent of those responding

to these items were not members of a team, their responses

were removed. When this was done, the magnitude of the team

pressure became more obvious. Affirmation that team pressure

existed jumped to 76 per cent of the sample on item 42.

The impact of potentially aversive consequences from co-

workers can also be seen in items 52 and 59. To item 52: I

try not to make mistakes because mistakes make me look bad

to the people I work with.," 17 per cent strongly agreed and

58 per cent responded 'agree.1 And on item 59: "I work at

my present speed because I don't want the people I work with

to tell me to work faster.," 9 per cent strongly agreed and

151

P O 0)

LO

St

w p CQ < H

C/3 w

to cj Id <

o •«M

PQ LO Eh o O CJ d d) CD M d

i—1 Q w PI W d < pi: M >H d •-

2 < CO Eh 2 o d C/3 M w 2> r> d X Q Q M d 2 2 CJ o M < w 2:

•—I O-i sows < s o

w o O H w H E2 P4

W CD P CO 2 2 CO W H CO CO 2 Eh W S H Ph o m p.) Cu 21 CJ

CO ^ Ph Ph w 2 w Ph CD C/3 2

0 2^ - wo CO CW Eh ^ Eh M I 2 Eh O < 2 W CJ d W 2 H % H W O ffi < o HOW Eh H W Eh W WOO < 2 M < O. W Eh P)

CO S W M 2 cr w

Eh

> d > >> fd d P rH M P o o CU CU CU 0 (P bC P P P Eh CO (U bO (U d o*

Pi (U CO 0 M P Pi 2 d O <U o 6 P P rd S fd CO cu cu p o EH P p d

6 p T3 cu e p 0 o P fd d i p M <U -H d d

P rd 0 fd T3

O P M d Q 0 CO fd

St CN rH <N H LO H CM

o o

OO CO CN CM H LO CN

I o o

CD CT) CO OO CN LO

St St H CO H co M LO H CN o

OO O CN CO H to CN

CO o

CD O CO O CO CO

(U CU

P CO cu bO (U cu O CU id cu

d P co p M bO •rH i—| bO

>> rd (d nd rd fd M M P P 0 cu cu >» o >, CU CU P P P Eh rH P CU M Eh M P CU •rH d •H bO d P bO bO d P d co d d cu CO bO d d cu co bo

•rH •rH o cu fd O O 

•h d rd S drd P P XJ p CU CO P P 0 co cu i—1 0 •H Pi •H d d p p p 2 d 6 d o d d

6 cu cu (d rd • CU > 0 P P P cu P CO 0 S T3 0 d EH •H p • 2 rJW

c- p fi rd PM p cu O CU o TJ P fd MO P P 1—1 d cu fd •H 1 3 rd a a)

M P

P P

P 2

O P o o H 15

2 CO

P 2 o fd 5 o

CU

M P

(U

H O dP o <u 0) d fi

e cu ♦ p o

1m 2

CD CO

CN CN CD

-3" LO LO

Str

ongly dis

agree

1

1 T

ota

l 103

100

152

29 per cent agreed.

Although on this item, 58 per cent of the sample dis¬

agreed that their speed is affected by the fear of co-v/orkers,

when all four of these questionnaire items are taken as a

unit they reveal that the impact of co-worker pressure is

present in the enriched setting. This pressure does affect

workers’ performance attitudes. These may not be the most

important factors in sustaining workers' performance levels,

but at the same time they should not be dismissed as being

irrelevant as potential explanations for performance improve¬

ments in the enriched setting.

Contrary to expectation, the intrinsic rewards of pride

and satisfaction apparently do impact heavily on workers’

performance attitudes, (see Table 4.16). To item 48: "I

try not to make mistakes because I get satisfaction from

doing the best work I can.,” 57 per cent responded ’strongly

agree,’ all of the remaining workers agreed with this state¬

ment. Thus it appears as though satisfaction from doing good

quality work has a very definite impact on workers’ perform¬

ance attitudes. This was a totally unexpected result. Even

when the possibility of defensive bias is entertained, the

results are so supportive of this statement, that its sig¬

nificance cannot be played down.

Satisfaction or a sense of accomplishment also appears

to play an important role to these workers. Similarly, re¬

sults are found under item 60: "I work at my present speed

153

C/D w

CD O s

53 < O S

•"H CQ lo Eh O O r- O Ph b cn H Ph

-I Q W W Pm

"PH >H Pm -

< M

Pm <J CO O S M

- « W « CO Pm Eh Eh

H 53 Eh H

S W

M O < S

S Pd O

Eh

3 cu H S o m M CJ Eh

3 . S

Pm W

Eh CJ < Pm

s Eh CO W U W 0'S

Eh

4h 0 Q)

H

CD q bO g rd rd P co P <D i—I a rd P P a> o

Pm Eh

r- CO I co =t

o zf CM CM CN 1 O o 9

7

4

1 o CD CO o H o o 1—1

CO CD O i—1

jf zf o 1—1

i—l Zt* CO o rH

Pd < CO CD zf 1 l 1 00 LO zf CM CM 1 00 1—1 rH C- zf 1 CO CO 0 CO H H CO

Eh S CJ Pm P LO Zf 0 CO CD 0 zf LO 0 1—1 LO co 0 CO H W 1—1 1—1 1—1 rH

P> "Pm M

Q Q H Pd 53 53 O O 0) CD (D CD H <H^ CD d) d) CD

P Pm P P P P r^-H CJ CO S d) bfl d) bO CD bO d) bO

< 53 0 d) rd CD rd CD rd d) rd CD w 0 co P CO P CO P CO p CO rH O Eh CO a) d) bO •rH rH bO •H 1—1 bO •rH rH bO •rH 1—1

• Eh 32 Q co •H rd TO Id rd Td Id rd Td rd rd Td Id zf W cj Pd P p P P P p

CO 53 3 < 0 0 d) CD >. 0 >> 0) d) >, O >> d) d) 0 >0 CD d) 0 W W h rs Pm bO rH P d> rH Eh 1—1 P d) 1—1 EH rH P CD rH Eh rH P d) rH Eh

PI CO 53 EH w co d) bO 2 P bO bO Q p bO bO Q P bO bfl 3 P bO PQ 521 M < Pd d) P P d) CO bfl P P d) CO bO P p CD co bO P P CD CO bO P

< O P Pd rd O d) rd O O <D rd O 0 CD id 0 O CD rd O Pm s WO CJ P P P CO P P P p CO P p P P co p P P P CO p

CO < Pd H P bfl 0 •H P P bO O •rH P p bO O •H p P bfl O •rl P

w Pd CO CO<dP CO CO < ^7 r—< Q CO CO < 13 Q CO CO < 2 Q CO

co a)

id P C/D

rl

Q)

rd

P H O

•H ^ P Pi a rd P

CO 4-*

o 3

•H P

CO

CD

0 P

P 0

rd P CO

CD P rP 0) P bO

H bO

P •rH

d)

d d o d) o id d) *H (Hi

QmP co a ^

rd O P P O P CO bO

0) *H CO -P rd

d) rd P CO P P<

-p 0) bO

6 MC •H

+JHA! rd P

CO T5

rd

d)

M

rd P

CO •H

£

d)

rd

6

O -P

P

o

Q

O

P

I

6 O

Pm O

d)

HP

o -p

p p

rd

CO d)

r* rd P co p

>>

6

CO •H

Pd p

CO

p a Q

Td • O CO P <D

*rH p p

p: d)

CO rd d) 6

rd • O P P p co o

•H P o

CD

£ Pm co

d) P CD O CD O P d) rd P d) d)

P CO Td cX co ^ CO d) 6 CO p

H >> p P P >»p^ >> p 1

P Id g • O rd £ p Id P >> p Id P

POO P S 0 O P O P P O H

CD p rd CD P CD P rd CD d)

H rQ 4h O IH A 4h H p 0 P< H rQ CO

6 6 d) • CO 0 co CD

P 0

H S

zf CD LO zf

154

because I get satisfaction from working at a good pace.” In

this case, only 34 per cent strongly agreed, but a sizable 62

per cent of the workers responded 'agree.' Thus 96 per cent

of this sample indicated that satisfaction from a good pace

at work helped determine the speed at which they work.

On item 53: "I try not to make mistakes because I want

to be proud of the products this company makes.," 40 per cent

strongly agreed and another 49 per cent answered 'agree.’ In

a similar vein, a total of 65 per cent of the sample responded

positively to the statement (item 49): "I try not to make

mistakes because mistakes hurt my self-respcet.” Seventeen

per cent strongly agreed, while 48 per cent stated that they •

agreed with the statement. In this case, a sizable minority

of those questioned (30 per cent) disagreed with the state¬

ment. One might assume then that the issue of self-respect

has less impact on workers’ performance attitudes than does

satisfaction or pride in a sense of accomplishment.

As with Specific Prediction 5, the findings noted here

seem to support the contention that workers’ behavioral per¬

formances are guided by a multitude of fears and potential

rewards--intrinsic as well as extrinsic. These results in¬

dicate that once on the job, workers apparently perform in

order not only to avoid potential punishments, but also to

gain potentially satisfying intrinsic rewards such as a

sense of pride and a sense of satisfaction with one's acccm-

155

plishments.

Contrary to Herzberg's thinking, however, the motivation

to perform in the enriched setting does not necessarily stem

solely from the intrinsic rewards of pride, personal growth,

or a sense of accomplishment. The findings of this study

confirm that the fear of losing one’s job, the fear of being

transferred to a less desirable job, and co-worker pressures

are all powerful forces that act in some fashion to shape

workers' performance attitudes in the enriched setting. Much

of the current need theory based writing concentrates on the

power of intrinsic rewards to motivate performance. The evi¬

dence here suggests that although intrinsic rewards are im¬

portant, there are potentially other reinforcers and rewards

in the work setting that either force or encourage workers

to comply with established performance standards.

These reinforcers can be characterized as structural in

nature. They are a part of the work situation, whether in¬

tentionally designed in by management or unwittingly placed

there by accident. The important point is that the presence

of these reinforcers, by design or accident, serves effective¬

ly in sustaining workers' performance oriented behavior on

enriched jobs. Although the evidence does not fully support

the specific prediction that fears and pressures account ex¬

clusively for workers’ job related performances, the find¬

ings do indicate that fears and pressures are powerful ex-

156

trinsic motivators that deserve the same consideration that

Herzberg's "motivators" have received. These external forces

may explain the reported improvements in performance under job

enrichment as well, if not better, than Herzberg’s need theory

approach.


Workers involved in a job enrichment program, although favorably inclined to more inter¬ esting challenging work, will accept these enriched jobs only if the jobs concomitantly offer increases in instrumental rewards for the worker.

Questionnaire item 75, reveals that a substantial number

of workers in this sample want more interesting work, (see

Table 4.17). A total of 81 per cent of the workers canvassed

responded affirmatively to the question: "Do you want a more

interesting job?." Twenty-one per cent of those responding,

answered 'definitely yes.' When asked item 77: "What factors

would make you want to take another job?," however, few work¬

ers expressed primary interest in chances for achievement,

personal growth, challenging or interesting work, or for that

matter any of the other motivators that Herzberg says workers

value so highly, (see Table 4.17). What workers did express

an interest in, were the more basic extrinsic rewards, or in

Herzberg's terms, the hygiene factors. Eighty-nine per cent

of the sample included in their responses to item 77 some

mention of the instrumental rewards of money, job security,

fringe benefits, or better working conditions. Nine per cent

PA

RT

ICIP

AN

TS

’ R

ES

PO

NS

ES

TO

AN

IND

US

TR

IAL

JOB

E

NR

ICH

ME

NT

PR

OG

RA

M

IN

NE

W

EN

GL

AN

D,

MA

Y,

19

75

; Q

UE

ST

ION

NA

IRE

ITE

MS

RE

LA

TIN

G

TO

SP

EC

IFIC

PR

ED

ICT

ION

(F

AC

TO

RS

WO

RK

ER

S

VA

LU

E

IN

A

JOB

)

p c QJ

rH O CO 00 1 o CM LO LO rH LO Zb CO LO ft CM CO i—1 o H CM CM rH qj 1—1

(ft

ft CM CM CD CO 1 CO CM o~ CD LO CM CO zb co LO CM CD t—1 o rH CM CM H

1—1

>> P P •H ft

rH ft P co rtf ft O P ft CO

co P a CO O CO CO O QJ CO qj O aj p /—> QJ CO ft P ft p

•H Eh CO •H CO QJ ft ft o Qj QJ o ft P ft > QJ O p > •H •ro O p <D O *H •H P nj •H bO bO 0 ft P CO bfl nj > P >> >» QJ CD •n aj a ft >> > •H O P rH bO P P nj h P -H P g ft ft aj d) P o P O CO P O QJ O TD ft ft X ft O g ft p O P

O o 0) 0) Q) QJ £ 0 O CO a P •H £ p ft P P p ft ft QJ ft p a) co P P O CJ ft O O o

■ft 0) 03 a) *H ft aj o Qj o •H P p O CO ft C ^ bfl O p ft P •H P O

CJ 0) O nj >>P ft o P ft nj p >. ft r\ A P o •» O •H QJ ft 0) P ft

ft ^ nj >> >vH p ft QJ g Qj 0 >1 a) 0) 0J ft P nj QJ P ft QJ g ft

H H ft ft ft QJ Or ft ft QJ •H QJ O qj a) a) CD 0 o O P QJ O QJ g bO >» g P P co +-> ft P g £ £ P ft ft £ £ >» ft O nj o ft •H ft •H O QJ QJ H P nj CO > ft O ft CO ft 0) QJ 0) •H p 0) QJ nj g •H Q* •H •rH ft ft ft ft bfl bO ft g ft rd •H p p CO P CO P P 0 O o O >vH O O or1 ft ft ft o 0 QJ a) a) o 0 qj £ £ £ ^ p p 6 co QJ nj p-p g p

IP Q >H S S Q I 1 i l 1 i i 1 1

QJ p ft nj O P g P ft P

0 0 ft nj • r i CO o

0 ft >, 0) o- P bQ 5 O M P ft c p P 0) nj O Qj *H a M P *n

£ 2 P QJ nj nj qj CO ft P £ O ft P ft 0) nj P QJ M O ft <D nj P

QJ P qj rH P P 4-> QJ ft ft ft O

O ft P P O nj ft Q *H P 2 £ nj

• lo O r-

M P

158

stated that more money and more job security would be their

sole criteria for taking another job. An additional 20 per

cent noted that although money would be the major consider¬

ation, other hygiene factors such as fringe benefits, better

hours, friendly co-workers, easier commuting, better working

conditions, day-care center, etc., would also be of some im¬

portance in their decision to take another job.

Twenty-one per cent listed money, job security, and

other hygiene-type factors as of primary importance, but

noted that more interesting work or chances for advancement

might also be of some lesser importance. Twenty-five per

cent of the sample made equal mention of hygiene and moti¬

vator factors. Finally, 13 per cent mentioned primarily

chances for advancement, variety, challenging work, but in

closing suggested that more money or other hygiene factors

would probably be of some interest to them in their decision

to take another job.

Although the intrinsic rewards supposedly offered by the

enrichment process are indeed valued by some of these work¬

ers, the clear majority of this sample are far more inter¬

ested in the traditional extrinsic rewards of money, job se¬

curity, working conditions, and other so-called hygiene fac¬

tors. Support for this specific prediction should come as no

major surprise to those willing to listen to workers' bar¬

gaining table demands.

159

Further support for the contention that workers expect

some quid pro quo for accepting more challenging work, or

more decision making can be found in responses to the follow¬

ing sets of questions.

Asking questionnaire item 25: "Would you take a job

that was more complex and had more variety than your present

job, if the new job paid you the same as you earn now?," 61

per cent said yes, 29 per cent said no, (see Table 4.18).

When the question was rephrased to ask if they would take a

more complex, varied job for less pay (item 26), 77 per cent

responded negatively, 50 per cent responding 'definitely no.'

Only 9 per cent stated that they would still take the job if

it offered less pay. Finally, when more pay was offered

along'with variety and complexity (item 27), a substantial

65 per cent answTered 'definitely yes,' and 21 per cent more

responded 'yes.'

The only factor altered throughout these three questions

was the level of monetary reward relative to the worker's

current pay level. Since workers' responses varied greatly

over these three questions, one is almost forced to conclude

that money plays an important role in determining the attrac¬

tiveness of an enriched job. If it offers more money, workers

seem to like it. If, on the other hand, it offers less pay,

workers want no part of it. Even when there is no pay loss

involved, a sizable segment of this sample are not interested

in more 'challenging' work.

PA

RT

ICIP

AN

TS

’ R

ES

PO

NS

ES

TO

AN

IND

US

TR

IAL

JOB

E

NR

ICH

ME

NT

PR

OG

RA

M

IN

NE

W

EN

GL

AN

D,

MA

Y,

19

75

; Q

UE

ST

ION

NA

IRE

ITE

MS

RE

LA

TIN

G

TO

SP

EC

IFIC

PR

ED

ICT

ION

(T

HE

IMP

OR

TA

NC

E

OF

CO

MP

LE

XIT

Y

VS

. P

AY

)

160

P O <U

0) o< m e fd rd P CO OO CO i—i i—1 C-~ O H cn st cn O G rH St rH CM o H CM J o

Perc

e

To

tal 1—1 1—1

£ (U • P O M S

LO rH CD LO CD CM

CD St

St

CM CM

00

o iH cn St CO t—1

rH CM LO

CO

O t-- cm cn uo CD CM

CO CO CO cu o CU o cu o

CO >> G G G 0) a) rH i—1 CO •H >> >> fd >> fd >> G G rH <H P i—1 rH p rH 1—1 o O P P CO P P

Q) CD O O 0) 0) 0) o o d) cu h P Q Q >h Jz; ►-r Q Q >h Jz; p Q

P rd P P

P O

fd

X! rd P

X> c id

g p o

s CU G rd

0) o- ^ 2

rd

G G O >.

G rd P

5 a) G

a) p p

P

g o >.

G rd P P

P rd X P fd P P

P X O G •n fd

fd K QJ

0) G

G O

G P o >> a>

P G G P fd rd P P P P

> r\ G rd £ #\ CO fd £ >» r* G p o P p O G P O P p Q) p o p P o

o 0) o >> G o CU o i—1 o cu o £ G •H •n rd G •H •n o* G •H •n 0-

£ 0 cu G x) d) O (U G X O (U G X 2 a) G rd P •rH >> G rd P •H O G rd P •H O p o > G rd G O > G rd G o > G fd G M X £ 0) Ph O X £ d) Oh X) £ (U PH

1—1 cu CO >> rH d) C0 G i—1 <u P G G CO G d) P G CO G d) p G G p G d) P G O fd o G O CO O rd O G o rd O fd o G o fd

3= 3: £ C4 •m fd 5 2 £ Oh •n 0) 3s 5 £ Oh •n CU

LO

CM CO CM

r- CM

Tota

l 103

100

161

This same pattern of responses developed when the issue

of decision making versus pay was posed. On item 28: "Would

you take a job that required you to think more and make more

decisions than you do now, if the new job paid the same as

you earn now?," 57 per cent responded affirmatively, 26 per

cent answered negatively, (see Table 4.19). When the same

job was offered but with less pay (item 29), 77 per cent in¬

dicated that they would not take the job, a substantial num¬

ber of the workers (46 per cent) responded ’definitely no.’

Only 10 per cent of the workers said that they would still

take the job offer under these circumstances. When a job

that requires more thinking and decision making was offered,

but at a higher pay level (item 30), 55 per cent of this

sample noted that they would definitely take the job. A

total of 79 per cent of the workers responded affirmatively

to this question.

In addition to the strong implications made by these

percentages, open-ended comments made in reference to these

three questions are even more telling. Sixty per cent of the

statements made revolved around the following phrases: ”If

I’m thinking more and working harder, I ought to be paid

more,” or ”I’d be a fool to take a more difficult job unless

it paid me more money.” Furthermore, the workers who ex¬

pressed that they would take this type of job for the same

or less pay, almost without exception noted that they saw

162

e'¬

en I—I

St

W -4 OQ < H

O • I—I

P3 lo H O M O b O) H

H O J wo. < * (p M >h Ph • (P < C/3 H S O > OQ H

OQ W

W 09 OQ ^ ^ H

m a WÊHW S M < Q O -4

W Ph (P O

W

O'

4h O Q)

i—1 0 CP bo 6 fd fd

■H C/D CM lo 0- H lo O CM CD CM 1-4 CO o LO H OO CM o £ r—1 -ZD" 1—1 CM O H oo .rt p LO CM rH o 0) (H i—1 rH 1—1 a fd Pi 4-> 0) o

CP H

CM CO OO CN LO OO CM CD oo CM M OO MO H OO CM 00 £ H d- H CN o r—1 oo zJ- O LO CM rH o

H i—1 1—1

C/D CO CO 0 O CU O a) O

C/D io £ >1 £ ►>1 fc £ 0 0 i—1 i—1 1—1 C/D •H >> >1 d >> >i d >> kH d £ Pi r—1 H •H rH rH 4-» rH H 4-> O O (1) CD (0 O 0) CD CU O 0 0 0 0 CP bO 4-* Pi 4-» Eh 4-> £ 4-* Eh 4-* £ 4-J Eh CO 0 •H £ *H •H £ •rH •H £ •rl a; •H ewe: £ co £ £ co £

CP rd •H -H •rH •H •H •H CJ Mh CO 4-* 4h Mh CO 4-* 4h Mh CO 4-* Mh

CM) O 0 d) CU CU O 0 CU 0 0 0 0 0 Q >h S Q Q >h p !z; Q Q ^ ^ P

CO £ 2 0 CU £ 4-* £ fd CO £ d o d O

Pi *H Q) O r£ e CO CU pi £ co 0 ■H U X 4-* £ a £ 4-> £ p: £

X a) 4-» >: O 4-» d X O 4J d PD £ Td co PD £ •rH A PD £ -H A 0 *H Mh fd O *H CO Mh 4-> O •£ CO Mh 4-»

*(—>,£ d) *H •ropl •H •H •mp: *rl *rl -M Pi d) 4J O CO 4-J O 0

rd 0 " £ d (U * CO d 0 « £ 0 £ 5 fd 0 •o 3 a) 0 MO ^ O

d) 4-» O co O i i 0 4-* O 6 P4 O rd 0 A 4-J O 0 0 *H O 4-> O O 0 •H 0

>> e Id -M >> £ Td d £ >> £ Md d £ £ o* £ CP £ CM

6 O Td Td £ Td O Td CU £ £ od a) £ £ d) >iO £ O -H O O P> £ pup op £ 4-* £ d >> d £ £ d >. 0 d £ d >i O d M 'd *H CP Td *H £ •n d) d'H s •n 0

H £ a) £ £ H £ £ rH £ £ £ d p m p Pi £ CdTd d £ £ £ cd'd d £ o <D o A o d O d) £ p: cu 0 0 0 £ A 0 O

12 p 2 P *n > S £ dP £

e QJ • oo cr> o

4-» O CM CM 00 H S

163

the job as a chance for promotion and eventually higher pay.

They went on to indicate that the "temporary" risk of the

same or slightly less pay would be worth taking because in

this company the people who tackle and can do the difficult

jobs are the ones who eventually get promoted to the big

salaries.

Findings seem to point in one direction. The majority

of these workers stated that intrinsic rewards of personal

growth, challenging work, and the chance to self-actualize

on the job, by themselves ■ are insufficient rewards to at¬

tract most workers into accepting an enriched job. Workers

clearly expect financial compensation for the increased de¬

mands on their talents and abilities.

Finally, when examining the importance of job security

vers,us the intrinsic rewards of an enriched job, results re¬

veal that workers express a preference for job security, (see

Table 4.20).

Questionnaire item 31 asked: "Would you take a job

that required you to develop new abilities and new skills,

if the new job had as much job security as you have now?."

To this, 23 per cent responded ’definitely yes’ and 67 per

cent responded 'yes.' When the same job was offered, but

with less job security, 78 per cent of the workers responded

that they would not be interested in such a job offer. When

additional job security was added to the same job offer, a

stunning 46 per cent of the sample stated that they would

164

C"-

2 2 O Eh

•*-' M H CO co Eh p^ O U D 2 CD I—I O

H Q W W W C/D < «*P4 H 2 ft CQ ft < O EnÔb GO M Id * Ph • Q Q H CO 525 S O > M < W

12 CD CO Eh < S ES

WOO O O Eh ft cm Eh 3: CD

• W CD zi- CO S S J

W H < W CO ^ [h 2 W 55 W <J O CO O W CO < ft S W ft Eh CO <q ft W

W ft ft ft CD CO

O S W - ft W O CO ft Eh Eh MW 2 Eh O < 525 W ft ft W ft < M 2 M Eh o m < ft M O 2 O Eh M ft ft ft ft O 2 < 2 M M ft W Eh

CO W W 2 ID Eh cy^s

2 O CD

rH 0) to e rd id 2 CO CO C" CO CO i—1 o (N i—1 O') CO CD O co OO CO co | G CM CO o M CO CO o zt- zf (L) H M M O id G 2 CD o ft Eh

.zt- CD CO CO M CO CM M O O o CO t"* O CO co 1 C CM CO O i—1 H zj" zf o Zt- LO

M M

CO CO co CD O CD o CD O

CO 2 G 2 G 2 G <D CD i—1 M CO •H 2 2 rd 2 2 id 5=o 2 g G i—1 rH 2 M M 2 i—1 H o O 0) CD CD O CD CD CD O (D CD CD ft bO 2 G 2 Eh 2 G 2 2 2 G 2 CO CD ’rH G •H •H G •H •H G •H a) 2 g CO G G CO G G co G ft id •H •H •H •H •H •H

CD 2 co 2 2 2 CO 2 2 2 co 2 2

CD CD O O (D CD CD O O CD CD <D O O (D Q 2 ft 2 Q Q 2 2 2 Q Q 2 ft 2 Q

1 CD 2

1 CD 2

G •H 15 G •H c- CD CD 3

2 5 - o* 2 G - > 2 3 - 2 O rd CD CO 3 id co co rd rd CD CO O G 2 G M 2 O 2 ft M co 2 2 G M TO

2 M O G 2 O M CD 2 1—1 CD ft*H G i—1 *H i—1 G ft-H CD >

2 O 2 6 (D 2 CD 2 O 2 O 2 G rd O i—1 CO > O > CO 2 2 OH co O 2

■n CD CO rd to CD rd TO CD S > 3 rd 2 2 5 2 G

rd > 3 G

id CD CD rd (D rd CD CD 2 O 2 G 2 G O G 2 2 2 G rd 2

CD id O (D 2 O 2 CD 2 2 O 2 2 2 2 2 to 2 O 2 G rd 2 G id G G 2 id 2 G 2 rd 2 cd 2 CO 2 O id 5 2 2 rd O 2

G O rd >o CD •H G TO 2 G O CO •n G co G G G O co

S 0 2 CD O 2 CD G O 2 CD 3 2 CD 2 •H 3: 2 2 CD *H O 2 •H CD 2 2 2 2 (D •H G 2 CD <D 2 2 G *H M 2 CD *H G g 2 *H *H 2 CO 2 (D *H G

—1 G M G M G M 2 c- i—1 G M G G •rH "H CD O G Cd*H 2 5 G •H *H (D O 0 G 2 2 CD O CD 2 2 O O O G 2 2 <d 3 Cd rd 2 CO 5 4 <d H TO G ES cd rd 2 C0

6 CD • —1 CM co 2 O oo CO CO M

To

tal

103

100

165

definitely take the job. Most of the remaining workers (48

per cent) answered ’yes' to this question.

As before, only one factor was altered throughout this

set of questions, the amount of job security offered. The

intrinsic rewards of the basic job remained the same. Thus

the responses workers gave expressed their perspective on

the importance of job security relative to opportunities for

developing their skills and abilities. Even when workers

would lose no job security, only 23 per cent of the sample

revealed a desire to develop new skills and abilities. This

contrasts sharply with the 45 per cent of the workers who

would take the same job if it included more job security.

Job security emerges as of primary importance to a sizable

majority of these workers.

The findings noted above appear to make a definite and

straight-forward statement with respect to Specific Predic¬

tion 7: workers desire and expect additional instrumental

rewards from the enrichment process.

Overview

Since the previous section covered so much material, it

seems advisable to briefly recount the findings before at¬

tempting to place perspective on the investigation.

First, relative to the Performance-Sanction Assumption,

the results confirm that workers are aware of standards and

that they worry about the consequences of not meeting these

166

standards. It also seems fair to conclude that the conse¬

quences that most of these workers worry about can be char¬

acterized as being reasonably severe in nature. After all,

being fired, or being transferred to an undesirable job are

not minor punishments. Further, workers indicated that any

change in the existing control structure, such as the addi¬

tion of a bonus or the removal of individual accountability,

would lead to changes in their performance levels. In sum,

workers appeared to verify the researcher’s assumption that

the structural characteristics such as standards and feed¬

back/accountability mechanisms have a profound impact on the

quality and quantity of workers’ performances. The results

seem to provide support for this conclusion.

Second, in regard to the Instrumental-Orientation Assump¬

tion , the results are somewhat less clear-cut. There is

little doubt that money and job security rank high on the

list of important factors that workers seek from their jobs.

But Herzberg's motivators also appear to play some role in

the performance decisions of these workers. The findings do

not fully elucidate the balance between these two different

types of rewards. One thing that is clear, however, is that

workers are not particularly excited about the intrinsic re¬

wards a job enrichment program offers unless instrumental

rewards are also offered as part and parcel of the program.

Results also confirm that workers come to work and perform

once at work for a multitude of different reasons and re-

167

wards, and not for just instrumental rewards as was first

suspected.

Although there is only limited support in the findings

for the Instrumental-Orientation Assumption, strong support

for the Performance-Sanction Assumption still seems very

significant. What became clear as the investigation pro¬

gressed was that the kind of rewards that workers value is

not important per se. What is_ important is how the rewards

that workers value are linked to their performances. The

major conclusion of this study would have to be that com¬

pliance with managerially established standards is very

likely insured when the rewards and punishments that workers

respect and value are linked or tied directly to the attain¬

ment of specific performance levels.

Results imply that if management sets standards and

offers sanctions for performances relative to these stand¬

ards , then workers will perform up to these standards pro¬

vided that three conditions are met. First, the standards

must be realistic and physically attainable by a majority of

the workers. Second, the workers must value the positive

rewards and fear the negative rewards that management is

offering relative to the standards. Performance cannot

assured if workers are indifferent to the situational sanc¬

tions. Third, there must be a well established, highly

visible system that continually informs both workers and

managers how each individual is performing relative to the

168

established standards.

These conditions appear to have been met in this job

program. Management had established very definite, clear

cut standards for most of the work areas in the department,

and had posted these on large blackboards in various loca¬

tions. Although workers complained about meeting these

standards, their complaints focused on the shortages of

parts that made it difficult or impossible to meet the quotas.

Most workers were capable and did make the standards when

the process was running smoothly.

As for feedback/accountability: First, workers signed

either their names or their initials to each component they

worked on, and mistakes when discovered were returned to the

responsible person to be pointed out or repaired. Second,

daily output from each team or individual was posted on the

blackboards under the daily quota figures. Daily perform¬

ances were clearly posted and visible to anyone who entered

the department; trouble areas were easily pinpointed. Work¬

ers obviously took an interest in these postings. During the

investigation, it was not uncommon for the researcher to ob¬

serve workers standing in front of the blackboards discussing

their performance records. Constant awareness and concern

over these standards was also reflected in comments recorded

during the interviews as well as in entries of conversations

made in the research log.

169

Regular, highly visible feedback to workers definitely

had been designed into the structure of this department.

From this feedback came clear-cut individual accountability.

On this point, several managers and supervisors noted that

they felt it was of utmost importance to tell people how

well they were doing and to hold them accountable for how

well they actually performed. This type of control was most

assuredly a part of the general managerial philosophy.

Relative to the sanctions being offered, results confirm

that the fear of being fired, the fear of being transferred

to a less desirable job, and the fear of being reprimanded

by the bosses were prevalent thoughts among the workers in

this sample. A large majority of the workers noted that not

only did they perform because they needed the money to make

ends meet, but also because they were still under a proba¬

tionary period with the company and they had to perform well

in order to keep their jobs. It seems fair to assume that

continued employment was a valued reward for most of these

workers.

In sum, it would appear as though the managers in this

department had established a very effective control mechan¬

ism that applied pressure to insure the compliance with es¬

tablished performance standards.

The question now becomes, how reasonable is it to assume

that workers1 performance levels are, at least in part, de¬

termined by the reinforcement mechanism of standards, feed-

170

back, accountability, and contingent sanctions? Workers’

individual performances have been linked to specific sanc¬

tions by an efficient feedback/accountability system. But

can one conclude that workers respond to this control system

and perform better because it is present?

Certainly, there is no real proof that the reinforcement

perspective definitely explains the enrichment process better

than the Motivator-Hygiene theory, but there does appear to

be evidence that this alternate approach to the interpre¬

tation of performance improvements on enriched jobs is viable

and that it should be examined more closely in the future.

This type of continued scrutiny of job enrichment can only

help to further clarify the underlying dynamics of the pro¬

cess .

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Job enrichment is a motivational technique that has

gained the favor of numerous industrial firms and public

agencies in recent years. For the most part, the technique

steins directly from Frederick Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene

Theory of Job Attitudes. Herzberg contends that job satis¬

faction determines the level of a worker's effort of job

related performances. Job satisfaction derives from the

degree to which the worker is allowed to grow and self-

actualize while on his job. If jobs allow workers to take

responsibility, make decisions, experience challenge, grow,

and develop then workers will be active and productive. If

on the other hand, jobs stifle and repress workers' innate

tendencies for growth and development, workers will become

disgruntled and dissatisfied. Hence management will face

serious motivational problems and increasing demands for

higher wages, more benefits, and better working conditions.

Proponents of job enrichment claim that it holds the

answers for solving many of today's worker related indus¬

trial ills. In actual practice the technique has not always

been successful; some researchers claim that it fails as

often as it succeeds. There is also a great deal of contro¬

versy, given prior research evidence in other areas, over the

appropriateness of using Herzberg's theory to explain work-

172

ers ’ job related attitudes and performances. Much of the

controversy revolves around the fact that, despite extensive

study, little evidence has been found to support the assumed

relationship that job satisfaction leads to high job perform¬

ances; an assumption central to Heraberg’s thesis.

Recent trends in the study of organizational behavior

point to the possibility that the social process theories of

Homans, Vroom, Lawler, and Skinner, may provide more explan¬

atory power in understanding workers’ job related perform¬

ances. All of these theories concentrate on the situational

reinforcers that shape and maintain behavior, rather than on

the innate characteristics of man, as Herzberg does. Since

the focus is on specific actions and observable outcomes, as

opposed to assumed hypothetical constructs or intervening

variables, these reinforcement theories appear to be capable

of not only explaining a wider variety of work place behav¬

ior, but also of being far more testable by established

scientific methods.

Although some exploratory research has been done with

these reinforcement based theories in a limited sector of

organizational behavior, no one has explored the implications

of such theories specifically in the area of job enrichment.

Therefore, the purpose of this research was to conduct an

exploratory analysis, probing for indications that rewards

and punishments in the work setting affect workers’ attitudes

toward work related performances.

173

The specific objectives of the study were: (1) to at¬

tempt to identify factors that workers deemed important in

their decision to perform while on the job, (2) to investi¬

gate whether workers desire intrinsic or extrinsic rewards

for their on the job performances, (3) to posit a possible

alternative explanation as to why job enrichment programs

work, and (4) to outline the critical components necessary

to insure program success.

Methodology

Since no previous research had examined job enrichment

from a reinforcement perspective, nor had any potential re¬

wards or sanctions been identified in the enriched setting,

the decision was made to conduct an exploratory attitude

survey as an attempt to isolate and define rewards and pun¬

ishments that workers respected in the enriched setting.

The lack of prior research into this particular topic

area made the formulation of specific, testable hypotheses

difficult. Since no ground work had established or defined

potentially important variables and no conjectures had been

offered as to the relationships between these unidentified,

potentially important variables, the straight-forward, sys¬

tematic testing of assumed relationships was neither proper

nor possible. In addition, the subsequent denial of access

to company records on individual performances made it im¬

possible to correlate the workers’ attitudinal data with

174

their performance data. It was felt that results from the

attitude survey alone, under the circumstances, would pro¬

vide extremely valuable insights into the possible existence

of powerful reinforcement mechanisms in the enriched setting.

Such attitude surveys had in the past served to identify and

define important factors that previously had not been sus¬

pected as relevant to workers' behavior. The survey approach

was thus viewed as a logical first step in outlining and de¬

lineating courses of potential future research in this ill-

defined area.

Two broad conjectures and seven specific predictions

were formulated relative to workers’ attitudes about the job

enrichment program they were involved in. A structured ques¬

tionnaire was developed and pretested. Questionnaire items

were aimed at assessing the importance that workers attached

to various rewards and punishments that the researcher felt

existed in the enriched setting. In most cases, a single

question was used to focus attention on a particular reward

or sanction factor.

Secondary data were obtained via extensive personal ob¬

servations by the researcher and by open-ended interviews

with management personnel. Both of these additional sources

proved invaluable in clarifying the results of the attitude

survey.

Analysis frequency was used to determine the appropri¬

ateness of the two conjectures and seven specific predictions.

175

Pertinent information from the secondary sources of data pro

vided additional perspectives relative to these specific pre

dictions.

Results

The actual interviewing of workers for this study occur

red from May 15, 1975 through July 30, 1975. A total of 103

blue-collar workers were interviewed using the structured

questionnaire. Findings relative to the two broad conjec¬

tures and their attendant specific predictions were as fol¬

lows :

Conjecture 1: The Performance-Sanction Assumption

Workers on enriched jobs perform primarily because management has clarified perform¬ ance expectations and workers fear the sanctions that might result from poor per¬ formances .

1


Workers involved in a job enrichment program are very aware of the performance standards that relate to the quality and quantity of their individual performances.

Findings from the study definitely support the conclusion

that a clear majority of the workers questioned were aware

of the standards management had established for the quality

and quantity of their work. Workers expressed particular

awareness of the quality standard.

176


Workers involved in a job enrichment pro¬ gram worry about how well they perform relative to the established performance standards for the quality and quantity of their output.

Results from the structured questionnaire confirm that a

substantial majority of the workers questioned do worry about

their performances relative to established standards.


The worry expressed by the workers on a job enrichment program centers heavily on the fear of sanctions that might re¬ sult from poor job related performances.

The responses of approximately two-thirds of the workers in

this study support this prediction. Fears expressed by this

segment indicate substantial worry over the potential threat

of external punishments if their performances fall below es¬

tablished standards.


Workers involved in a job enrichment pro¬ gram indicate that their current level of performance would change if the existing performance-reward linkages were modified or if additional rewards were offered.

Although only partial support is found for the first half of

this prediction, substantial support is found for the second

half. A majority of the workers were convinced that the

addition of a bonus would increase not only their own per¬

formances, but also those of their co-workers. On the other

hand, however, there are mixed reactions as to how workers

177

feel that they would react to a lessening of direct perform¬

ance-reward control over their performances. The majority

of the respondents indicated that behavioral changes would

be slight to non-existent, but a sizable minority of 37 per

cent of the sample indicated quite the opposite. Thus al¬

though the support for this prediction can be only charac¬

terized as partial, the results are nonetheless significant

and informative relative to the broader conjecture under con

sideration.

When all four of the above specific predictions are

taken as a single unit, their combined results provide sub¬

stantial confirmation of the Performance-Sanction Assumption

Results of this study imply that performance-reward contin¬

gencies in some way affect the performances of workers on

enriched jobs.

Conjecture 2: The Instrumental Orientation Assumption

Workers' interest in enriched jobs stems more from the possible instrumental gains that may or do result from the new job rather than from the intrinsic rewards supposedly inherent in the enriched job.


Workers involved in a job enrichment pro¬ gram come to work primarily to gain the instrumental rewards that are connected with work, rather than to self-actualize or socialize on the job.

Although the results definitely confirm the extreme import¬

ance of the financial rewards of work, contrary to predic¬

tion, self-actualization and social rewards are also of

178

major importance. All three rewards appear to play signifi¬

cant roles in inducing workers to show up for work. It is

possible, however, that all of these rewards are learned or

socially conditioned, rather than innate needs as Herzberg

has implied.


Once on the job, workers on a job enrich¬ ment program perform primarily out of fear of sanctions and co-worker pressure rather than out of pride or for the in¬ trinsic rewards or satisfactions of doing the j ob.

Although the first half of this prediction finds substantial

support in the results, pride in one’s work and satisfaction

with other intrinsic rewards, also impact on workers' deci¬

sions to perform once on the job. The findings reveal that

the fear of losing one’s job, co-worker pressure, as well as

the intrinsic rewards and satisfactions of work all, in some

fashion, affect workers’ attitudes toward the quality and

quantity of their output. Of significance, is the implica¬

tion that the fear of being fired or the fear of being trans¬

ferred to an undesirable job affects performance. Advocates

of job enrichment have not considered these fears as poten¬

tial motivators. This finding should encourage the rethink¬

ing of the entire job enrichment-motivation concept.


Workers involved in a job enrichment pro¬ gram, although favorably inclined to more interesting, challenging work, will accept

179

these enriched jobs only if the jobs con¬ comitantly offer increases in instrumental rewards for the workers.

Results of this study substantially confirm this specific

prediction. Although the intrinsic rewards offered by job

enrichment are of at least passing interest to some of the

workers, the basic extrinsic rewards of pay, job security,

and fringe benefits are valued by a clear majority of these

workers.

In conclusion, results from the three specific predic¬

tions tend, for the most part, to confirm the Instrumental

Orientation Assumption. Workers in this study were defi¬

nitely very concerned about pay, job security, working con¬

ditions, and fringe benefits. At the same time, the intrin¬

sic rewards of which Kerzberg speaks also appeared to be of

some interest and importance to many of these workers. The

significance of these findings appears that workers’ im¬

proved performances under an enrichment program may not be

solely due to Herzberg's motivators. This study indicates

that performance-sanction linkages, as well as other more

instrumental fears and rewards affect the manner in which

workers view their own performances.

In sum, Herzberg’s assumption that more interesting,

more challenging work, and the opportunity for personal

growth are solely responsible for performance improvements

registered under industrial job enrichment programs needs to

be questioned. Clearly, there are other factors, not yet

100

considered, that must be researched if the dynamics of the

enrichment process are to be fully understood. These fac¬

tors deserve, at the very least, the same attention that

Herzberg’s motivators have received.

Implications

Although additional research is needed to fully confirm

the results found in this study, the findings do indicate

several important tentative conclusions. First, they show

that performance attitudes of workers on enriched jobs are

affected not only by the motivator factors outlined by Herz-

berg, but also by other fears and expectations. In many

cases these worries and concerns appear to be far more power¬

ful in affecting workers’ performance attitudes than are the

intrinsic rewards of personal growth and development. It

seems odd to conclude that performance improvements under

enrichment are due to self-actualization drives when workers

say themselves that they perform because they fear the con¬

sequences of poor performance. Fear of being fired when per¬

formances are sub-standard appears to be a powerful induce¬

ment to conform to established standards. Proponents of job

enrichment have apparently overlooked the impact of such

fears on workers’ performances.

Second, there are indications that workers actually

value the improved instrumental rewards of pay, job security,

working conditions, and fringe benefits an enrichment program

181

offers above the intrinsic rewards Herzberg says they value.

If this is truej then workers may resist enrichment efforts

that fail to include sufficient improvements in the instru¬

mental rewards. Workers in this investigation clearly ex¬

pected to be compensated for any additional physical or men¬

tal efforts. Past enrichment failures might possibly be ex¬

plained on the basis that they did not include adequate im¬

provements in instrumental rewards to interest workers in

striving for higher performance levels.

Programs that provide for improvements in both hygiene

and motivator factors appear to stand a better chance of

attaining desired changes in performance levels than do pro¬

grams that improve only motivators. The separate impacts of

hygiene and motivator factors on job-related performances

need to be reassessed. Many seem to have confused or mis¬

understood the contributions of these two different factors.

Third, when all of the specific predictions are taken

together, the case supporting the presence of an underlying

reinforcement is somewhat clarified. Workers appear to be

reacting to situational characteristics that have been

structured into the enrichment program. They fear the con¬

sequences of not attaining standards and indicate that per¬

formances would suffer if the standards were removed. This

provides a strong case for suspecting that standards serve to

reinforce the level of performance that management desires.

182

From the realization that there may be an underlying re¬

inforcement process that insures workers’ compliance flows

the idea that it is the structural design of the enrichment

setting, rather than the content of the program that de¬

termines program success. A program may have content that

challenges workers and allows them to grow and develop, but

unless it also has the structural elements of accountability,

feedback, and the attendant threats of disciplinary action,

the program may not succeed. Unless individual performances

are structurally tied to rewards and punishments that work¬

ers respect, job enrichment programs may be doomed to failure.

The key to a successful enrichment program may well be t

how effective the designers are in developing accounting and

feedback systems that consistently and automatically reward

workers who exceed standards and punish workers who produce

sub-standard work. Unless rewards and punishments are made

directly contingent upon an individual’s performance, enrich¬

ment may be meaningless in terms of performance improvements.

The implication for the design of enrichment programs is that

they should be designed with great care and structured in

such a way to include valued performance-reward contingencies.

Finally, in the broader area of organizational behavior,

the results imply that a great deal of ordinary, everyday

behavior within organizations may be the result of unsuspected

reinforcement processes. Future research into this area is

certainly called for.

183

Limitations

As with any investigation of this nature and magnitude,

limitations and potential shortcomings are indigenous. In

this case, these potential problems span four areas. First,

despite repeated pre-testing and refinement of the question¬

naire, it is still possible that some respondents had diffi¬

culties in understanding the meaning of some of the research¬

er's questions. Inappropriate or false answers resulting

from such misunderstandings may have gone undetected. This

raises the issue of questionnaire validity. Did the instru¬

ment and its individual items actually measure the attitudes

that the researcher intended to measure? It is a difficult ques¬

tion to answer without further use and testing of the instru¬

ment.

Second, the potentially threatening nature of some of

the questionnaire items and the face to face interview tech¬

niques may have prompted defensive responses. To protect

their egos, respondents may have characterized their atti¬

tudes in a more favorable light than was actually true. Al¬

though it is likely that this problem occurred, its occur¬

rence handicaps the study only in the sense that it makes

the tests of the specific predictions inherently more con¬

servative. Thus the support shown for most of the predic¬

tions can be viewed as potentially an understatement of

workers' true performance attitudes.

184

Third, open-ended questions give rise to the problems

of recording and coding biases. The researcher unconscious¬

ly may have selected only those comments that supported the

central research thrust and ignored potentially damaging

statements. VThen these comments were categorized into coded

response groups, they may have been unconsciously interpreted

and coded into response groups that favored the prediction

under consideration. Although the total elimination of such

biases seems impossible, the researcher’s awareness of such

possible biases throughout the recording and coding of re¬

sponses hopefully reduced their occurrence. To guard against

these problems, every comment made in reference to an open-

ended question was recorded verbatim. During coding, when

there was doubt as to which of two categories a response

should be placed in, the least supportive category of the

two was systematically selected. The results from the open-

ended questions, thus, should also provide a conservative

test of these predictions.

Finally, there is the inherent limitation suffered by

most attitude surveys. More often than not, attitudes are

taken as precursors of actual behavior. Although there is

some research evidence to support this assumption, it may not

always be the case. In this study, workers’ performance

attitudes have been measured and the implicit assumption made

that these attitudes directly affect or cause subsequent per¬

formances. In doing so, the researcher may have over-stepped

185

the bounds of reasonable cause and effect.

Because company performance records were inaccessible,

workers’ attitudes were not directly linked or correlated to

individual performances. Uncertainty thus still remains as

to whether or not the fears, worries, and rewards expressed

by these workers actually do account for performance differ¬

ences. There is no real statistical evidence to confirm or

establish the validity of the assumption that the fears and

expectations of these workers directly affect their job-re¬

lated performances. However, many long-standing notions in

the area of organizational behavior, including Herzberg’s

Motivator-Hygiene theory, are based on just such attitude or

opinion research. As an exploratory tool, such studies have

proved quite valuable in outlining and guiding future re¬

search. Follow-up research can be designed to verify the

conjectures that develop from these attitudinal surveys.

The modest aim of this investigation was to attempt to

reveal and identify potential reinforcement factors in the

enriched setting. Confirmation of these findings, as well

as the refinement and proof of actual reinforcement relation¬

ships is clearly the task of future, more eloquent research.

Future Research

Although this research project served to tentatively

identify and isolate potential performance-sanction linkages

that may account for performance improvements in the enriched

186

setting, the findings are by no means conclusive. Prior to

this investigation, the existence, importance, and impact of

specific reinforcers had not been suspected in job enrichment

programs. These findings indicate the potential fruitfulness

of additional research into this area.

At this point, three distinct types of research seem

appropriate. First, additional in-depth case studies are

needed to further isolate situational factors that serve to

reinforce workers' performances. This type of research should

attempt to identify the full range of rewards and punishments

that impinge on workers * performances or that in any way re¬

inforce their behaviors. Further, research of this nature

should attempt to determine the strength and versatility of

different rewards at management’s disposal. Major questions

that need to be addressed in this area are: What rewards and

punishments do workers most value and fear? Do all workers

respond equally to the same performance contingencies? Is it

feasible to consciously incorporate valued rewards and punish¬

ments into a job enrichment program?

Second, another major step would be to explore the actual

relationship between the structural reinforcers, and workers’

actual performances. In this case, correlational analysis

between the three factors seems most appropriate. The enrich¬

ment program could be analyzed and scored as to the number and

strength of the performance-sanction linkages. Second, work¬

ers' attitudes (fears and expectations) relative to these link-

187

ages could be measured. Third, these two scores could be

correlated with actual performance data. In effect, workers’

performance records would be correlated with performance

attitudes and the program’s overall performance-sanction

structure. If a program contains powerful performance-re¬

ward contingencies, and workers' attitudes indicate strong

fears and expectations about these contingencies, then one

would expect high performance results. Correlational studies

should help' to reveal the true nature of this assumed rela¬

tionship .

Finally, comparative analyses between programs is called

for. Through this process, it would be possible to compare

the impacts of different reinforcement mechanisms. Some pro¬

grams undoubtedly are designed and structured (consciously or

unconsciously) to include very definite performance rein¬

forcement mechanisms, on the other hand, some programs prob¬

ably lack these mechanisms. By comparing the performance re¬

sults of two programs having significantly different rein¬

forcement structures, researchers may be able to demonstrate

the importance of various reward systems to the design of

successful job enrichment programs.

Reinforcement theory is a relatively new concept in the

study of organizational behavior. Until now, the role of

this theory in the area of job enrichment had not been fully

explored. This investigation revealed the possibility that

an underlying reinforcement process may account for workers'

188

performances on enriched jobs. Although the findings do not

provide conclusive proof, they do indicate that the pursuit

of this line of reasoning is appropriate and potentially

very rewarding.

189

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Aldis , 0. "Of Pigeons and Men.” Control of Human Behavior. Edited by Roger Ulrich, Thomas Stachnik, and John Mabry. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1966 .

Applewhite, Philip B. Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Iiall, 1965 .

Argyris, Chris. Integrating the Individual and the Organiza¬ tion . New York: Wiley, 1964.

Bandura, Albert, and Walters, Richard. Social Learning and Personality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963.

Biggane, James, and Stewart, Paul A. "Job Enlargement: A Case Study," Design of Jobs. Edited by Louis E. Davis and James C. Taylor. Baltimore, Maryland: Penquin Books, 1972.

Bindra, Dalbir and Stewart, Jane, eds. Motivation. Middle¬ sex, England: Penquin Modern, 1971.

Blauner, Robert. Alienation and Freedom. Chicago: Univers¬ ity of Chicago Press, 1964.

Bullock, Robert P. Social Factors Related to Job Satisfac¬ tion . Columbus"^ Ohio: The Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, The Ohio State University, 1952.

Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C. Experimental and Quasi Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.

Chinoy, Ely. Automobile Workers and the American Dream. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1955.

Davis, Louis E. , and Cherns, Albert B., eds. The Quality of Working Life. Vol. I. New York: Free Press, 1975.

Davis Louis E., and Taylor, James C., eds. Design of Jobs. Baltimore, Maryland: Penquin Books, 1972.

190

Department of Commerce and Development. Massachusetts Indus- trial Directory. Boston: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1971.

Drucker, Peter. The New Society. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949.

Dunn and Bradstreet. Reference Book of Corporate Managements. 8th ed. New York: Dunn and Bradstreet, 1974.

Durkheim, Emile. The Division of Labor. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1933.

Ford, Robert N. Motivation Through the Work Itself. New York: American Management Association, 1969.

Foulkes, Fred K. Creating More Meaningful Work. New York: American Management Association, 1969.

Goldthorpe, John; Lockwood, D.; Beckhofer, F.; and Platt, J. The Affluent Worker: Industrial Attitudes and Behavior. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1968.

Gooding, Judson. The Job Revolution. New York: Walker, 1972 .

Herzb'erg, Frederick. Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland, Ohio: World Publishing, 1966^

Herzberg, Frederick; Mausner, Bernard; Peterson, Richard; and Capwell, David. Job Attitudes: Review of Research and Opinion. Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh, 1957.

Herzberg, Frederick; Mausner, Bernard; and Snyderman, Barbara. The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley, 1959.

Homans, George. Social Behavior: Its Elemental Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961.

_. "The Sociological Relevance of Behaviorism,” Behav- Toral Sociology. Edited by Robert Burgess and Donald Bushell. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969.

Hoppock, Robert. Job Satisfaction. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1935.

Hulin, Charles L. "Individual Differences and Job Enrichment --The Case Against General Treatments,” New Perspectives in Job Enrichment. Edited by John R. Maher. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971.

191

Jenkins, David. Job Power. Baltimore, Maryland: Penquin Books, 1973.

Katz, Daniel; Maccoby, Nathan; and Morse, Nancy. Productiv¬ ity, Supervision, and Morale in an Office Situation. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1950.

Katzell, Raymond, and Yankelovich, Daniel. Work, Productiv¬ ity, and Job Satisfaction. New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1975.

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rln eh art and W insto n, 19 7 3 .

Kbrnhauser, Arthur W. Mental Health of the Industrial Worker: A Detroit Study"! New York: Wiley, 19 6 5 .

Kunkel, John. "Some Behavioral Aspects of Social Change and Economic Development," Behavioral Sociology. Edited by Robert Burgess and Donald Bushell. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969.

Lawler, Edward E. III. Motivation in Work Organizations. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1973.

_Pay and Organizational Effectiveness: A Psychologi¬ cal View. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

Levitan, Sar A., and Johnston, William B. Work is Here to Stay, Alas. Salt Lake City, Utah: Olympus Publishing, 1974.

Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

Luthans, Fred. Organizational Behavior: A Modern Behavioral Approach to Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.

Maher, John R., ed. New Perspectives in Job Enrichment. New York: Van Nostrand Remhold, 1971.

Marx, Karl. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1970.

Maslow, Abraham. Eupsychian Management. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey, 1965.

_. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper, 19 54.

192

Mayo, Elton. The Human Problems of an Industrial Civiliza¬ tion . Boston: Harvard "University Graduate School of Business Administration, 1933.

McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.

Opsahl, Robert L., and Dunnette, Marvin D. "Financial Com¬ pensation Plans in Industrial Motivation," Studies in Personnel and Industrial Psychology. Edited by Edwin A. Fleishman. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1967.

O'Toole, James, ed. Work and the Quality of Life. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1974.

Padfield, Harland, and Williams, Roy. Stay Where You Were. Philadelphia: J.P. Lippincott, 1973.

Porter, Lyman W.; Lawler, Edward E.; and Hackman, J. Richard. Behavior in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975 .

Report of a Special Task Force to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Work in America. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1973.

Roeth’lisberger, Fritz J. , and Dickson, William J. Management and the Worker. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1939.

Rosow, Jerome M., ed. The Worker and the Job. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.

Roszak, Theodore. The Making of Counter Culture. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1969.

Rush, Harold M.F. Job Design For Motivation. New York: The Conference Board, 1971.

Sheppard, Harold L. , and Herrick, Neal Q. Where Have All the Robots Gone? New York: New Press, 1972.

Shultz, George. "Worker Participation on Production Prob¬ lems," The Scanlon Plan. Edited by Frederick Lesieur. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1958.

Skinner, B.F. About Behaviorism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974.

. Science and Human Behavior. New York: Free Press, 1953.

193

Smith, Adam. "The Education of the Worker,” Of Men and Machines. Edited by A.O. Lewis. New York: Dutton, 1963.

Smith, Patricia C. ; Kendall, Lome N. ; and Hulin, Charles L. The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement: A Strategy for the Study of Attitudes. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.

Somers, Gerald G., ed. The Next Twenty-five Years of Indus¬ trial Relations. Madison, Wisconsin: Industrial Rela- tions Research Association, 1973.

Standard and Poor. Register of Corporations, Directors, and Executives. Vol. 2. New York: Standard and Poor, 1975.

Stagner, Ross, and Rosen, Hjalmar. Psychology of Union-Man¬ agement Relations. Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1966.

Strauss, George. "Some Notes on Power-Equalization,” The Social Science of Organizations. Edited by Harold Leavit. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1964.

Tausky, Curt. Work Organizations. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock, 1970 .

Tausky, Curt, and Parke, E. Lauck. "Need Theory, Reinforce¬ ment Theory, and Job Enrichment,” Handbook of Work, Organization and Society. Edited by Robert Dubin. Chicago: Rand McNally, in press.

Taylor, Frederick W. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper and Row, 1911.

Thorp, Roland G., and Wetzel, Ralph J. Behavior Modifica¬ tion in the Natural Environment. New York: Academic Press , 1969.

Turner, Arthur N., and Lawrence, Paul R. Industrial Jobs and the Worker: An Investigation of Task Response to Task Attributes. Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Business School, 1965.

Vroom, Victor H. Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley, 1964.

Walker, Charles R. , and Guest, Robert. The Man on the Assembly Line. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1952.

194

Walton, Richard E. "Innovative Restructuring of Work," The Worker and the Job. Edited by Jerome M. Rosow. Engle¬ wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1974.

Weed, Earl D. "Job Enrichment 'Cleans Up' at Texas Instru¬ ments," New Perspectives in Job Enrichment. Edited by John R. Maher. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971.

Whyte, William F. Money and Motivation. New York: Harper and Row, 1955.

Articles

Adam, Everett E. "An Analysis of Changes in Performance Quality with Operant Conditioning Procedures," Journal of Applied Psychology, 56 (December, 1972), 480-486.

Argyris, Chris. "The Individual and Organization: An Em¬ pirical Test," Administrative Science Quarterly, 4 (Spring, 1959), 145-167.

_. "Personality and Organization Theory," Administra¬ tive Science Quarterly, 18 (June, 1973), 141-167.

Armstrong, Thomas B. "Job Content and Context Factors Re¬ lated to Satisfaction for Different Occupational Levels," Journal of Applied Psychology, 55 (February, 1971), 57-64.

"At Emery Air Freight: Positive Reinforcement Boosts Per¬ formance," Organizational Dynamics, 1 (January, 1973), 41-50.

Baer, Donald M.; Wolf, Montrose M.; and Risley, Todd R. "Some Current Dimensions of Applied Behavioral Analy¬ sis," Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 1 (Spring, 1968), 91-97.

Beatty, Richard, and Schneier, Craig. "A Case For Positive Reinforcement," Business Horizons, 18 (April, 1975), 57-66.

Beer, Michael, and Huse, Edgar. "Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Planned Change and Development," Corning, New York, 1970. (Mimeographed)

Bjork, Lars E. "An Experiment in Work Satisfaction," Scien¬ tific American, 232 (March, 1975), 17-23.

195

Blood, Milton R. , and Hulin, Charles L. "Alienation, Environ¬ mental Characteristics and Worker Responses,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 51 (June, 1967), 284-290.

Bockman, Valerie M. "The Herzberg Controversy," Personnel Psychology, 24 (Summer, 1971), 155-189.

"Boredom Fighters," Wall Street Journal, August 21, 1972, p. 1.

"Boredom Spells Trouble on the Line," Life, September 10, 1972, p. 30.

Brayfield, Arthur H., and Crockett, James H. "Employee Atti¬ tudes and Employee Performance," Psychological Bulletin, 52 (September, 1955), 396-424.

Caulkins, David. "Job Redesign: Pay Implications," Person¬ nel , 51 (May-June, 1974), 29-34.

Centers, Richard, and Bugental, Daphne E. "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Job Motivations Among Different Segments of the Working Population," Journal of Applied Psychology, 50 (June, 1966), 193-197.

Centers, Richard, and Cantril, Hadley. "Income Satisfaction and Income Aspiration," Journal of Abnormal Social Psy¬ chology , 41 (January, 194 6)', 6 4 - 6 9 .

Champagne, Jean. "Adapting Jobs to People: Experiments at Alcan," Monthly Labor Review, 96 (April, 1973), 49-51.

Cherrington, David J., and Cherrington, J. Owen. "Partici¬ pation, Performance, and Appraisal," Business Horizons, 17 (December, 1974), 35-44.

Cherrington, David J. ; Reitz, H. Joseph; and Scott, William E. "Effects of Reward and Contingent Reinforcement on Satisfaction and Task Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, 55 (November, 1971), 531-536 .

Chinoy, Ely. "The Tradition of Opportunity and the Aspira¬ tions of Automobile Workers," American Journal of Soci¬ ology , 57 (March, 1952), 453-459.

Collins, Donald C., and Roubolt, Robert R. "A Study of Em¬ ployee Resistance to Job Enrichment," Personnel Journal, 54 (April, 1975), 232-235.

Davis, Louis E. "Toward a Theory of Job Design," Journal of Industrial Engineering, 8 (June, 1957), 305-309.

196

Deci, Edward L. "The Effect of Contingent and Noncontingent Rewards and Controls on Intrinsic Motivation,” Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Performance, 8 (October^ 1972), 217-229.

Douglas, Merrill E., and Johnston, Stephen T. "Successful Job Enrichment—A Case Example,” Atlantic Economic Re¬ view , 24 (November-December, 197471 9-12.

"The Drive to Make Dull Jobs Interesting," U.S. News and World Report, July,17, 1972, p. 50-54.

Dubin, Robert. "Industrial Workers ’ WTorld: A Study of the ’Central Live Interests’ of Industrial Workers," Social Problems, 3 (January, 1956), 131-142.

"Even in Sweden, U.S. Workers Find Drudgery," New York Times, January 5, 1975, section 4, p. 11.

Featherman, David L. "The Socioeconomic Achievement of White Religio-Ethnic Subgroups: Social and Psychological Ex¬ planations," American Sociological Review, 36 (April, 1971), 207-222.

Federal Times, August 13, 1974, p. 2.

Fein, Mitchell. "Job Enrichment: A Re-evaluation," Sloan Management Review, 15 (Winter, 1975), 69-88.

_. "The Myth of Job Enrichment," The Humanist, (Septem- ber-October, 1973), 30-32.

_. "The Real Needs and Goals of Blue-Collar Workers," The Conference Board Record, 10 (February, 1973), 26-33.

_. "Restoring the Incentive to Wage Incentive Plans," The Conference Board Record, 11 (November, 1972), 17-21.

Flanagan, Robert J.; Strauss, George; and Ulman, Lloyd. "Worker Discontent and Work Place Behavior," Industrial Relations, 13 (May, 1974), 101-123.

Ford, Robert N. "Job Enrichment Lessons From A.T.ST.," Harvard Business Review, 51 (January-February, 1973), 96-106.

Form, William H. "Auto Workers and Their Machines: A Study of Work, Factory, and Job Satisfaction in Four Countries," Social Forces, 52 (September, 1973), 1-15.

Form, William H., and Geshwender, James A. "Social Reference Basis of Job Satisfaction: The Case of Manual Workers," American Sociological Review, 27 (April, 1962), 228-237.

197

Friedlander, Frank. "Comparative Work Value Systems," Per¬ sonnel Psychology, 58 (Spring, 1965), 1-20.

Gellerman, Saul W. "Who’s Against Productivity?," The Conference Board Record, 10 (September, 1973), 39-43.

Gibson, Charles H. "Volvo Increases Productivity Through Job Enrichment," California Management Review, 15 (Summer, 1973), 64-66.

Gooding, Judson. "It Pays to Wake Up the Blue Collar Worker," Fortune, September, 1970, pp. 133-135.

Goodwin, Leonard. "Occupational Goals and Satisfactions of the American Work Force," Personnel Psychology, 22 (Fall, 1969 ) , 313-325.

Gluskinos, Ury, and Kestelmen, Bruce J. "Management and Labor Leaders’ Perception of Workers’ Needs as Compared With Self-Reported Needs," Personnel Psychology, 24 (Summer, 1971), 239-246.

Grote, Richard C. "Implementing Job Enrichment," California Management Review, 15 (Fall, 1972), 16-21.

Hackman, J. Richard. "Is Job Enrichment Just a Fad?," Harvard Business Review, 53 (September-October, 1975), 129-138.

_. "Nature of the Task as a Determiner of Job Behav- Tor," Personnel Psychology, 22 (Winter, 1969), 435-444.

_. "On the Coming Demise of Job Enrichment," Technical Report #9? Department of Administrative Sciences, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., December, 1974.

Hackman, J. Richard, and Oldham, Greg R. "Motivation Through the Design of Work," Technical Report #6, Department of Administrative Sciences, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., December, 1974.

Herzberg, Frederick. "The New Industrial Psychology," Indus- trial and Labor Relations Review, 18 (April, 1965), 364-376.

_. "New Perspective On the Will to Work," Personnel Administrator, 19 (July-August, 1974), 21-25.

_. "One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?," Harvard Business Review, 46 (January-February, 1968), 53-62.

Harvard Business 70-80.

Herzberg, Frederick. "The Wise Old Turk," Review, 52 (September-October, 1974),

Hill, Roy. "The Team Effort at Motorola," International Man¬ agement , 27 (February, 1972), 43-45.

House, Robert J., and Wigdor, Lawrence A. "Herzberg’s Dual- Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction and Motivation: A Review of the Evidence and a Criticism," Personnel Psy¬ chology , 20 (Winter, 1967), 369-389.

Hulin, Charles L. "Effects of Community Characteristics on Measures of Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psy¬ chology, 50 (April, 1966), 185-192.

Hulin, Charles L., and Blood, Milton R. "Job Enlargement, Individual Differences, and Worker Responses," Psycho¬ logical Bulletin, 69 (January, 1968), 41-55.

Jablonsky, Stephen F., and DeVries, David L. "Operant Con¬ ditioning Principles Extrapolated to the Theory of Man¬ agement ," Organizational Behavior and Human Perform¬ ance , 7 (April, 1972 ), 340-3 5 8i

Kahn, Robert L. "The Prediction of Productivity," Journal of Social Issues, 12 (Spring, 1956), 41-49.

Kaplan, H. Roy; Tausky, Curt; and Bolaria, Bhopinder S. "Job Enrichment," Personnel Journal, 48 (October, 1969), 791-798.

Katz, Fred. "Explaining Informal Work Groups in Complex Organizations: The Case for Autonomous Structure," Administrative Science Quarterly, 10 (September, 1965), 204-223.

Katzell, Raymond A.; Barrett, Richard S.; and Parker, Tread¬ way C. "Job Satisfaction, Job Performance, and Situa¬ tional Characteristics," Journal of Applied Psychology, 45 (April, 1961), 65-72.

Kennedy, James E., and O’Neil, Harry E. "Job Content and Workers’ Opinions," Journal of Applied Psychology, 47 (December, 1958), 372-375.

Kilbridge, Maurice D. "Do They All Want Larger Jobs?," Super¬ visory Management, 6 (April, 1961), 25-28.

Kilbridge, Maurice D., and Conant, Edward H. "An Interdisci¬ plinary Analysis of Job Enlargement: Technology, Costs, and Behavioral Implications," Industrial and Labor Rela¬ tions Review, 18 (April, 1965), 377-395.

199

Kilbridge, Maurice D. "Do Workers Prefer Larger Jobs?,” Personnel, 37 (September-October, 1960), 45-48.

_. "Reduced Costs Through Job Enlargement: A Case," Journal of Business, 33 (October, 1960), 357-362.

_. "Turnover, Absence, and Transfer Rates as Indi¬ cators of Employee Dissatisfaction with Repetitive Work," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 15 (October, 19 61)', 21-32.

King, Nathan. "Clarification and Evaluation of the Two- Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction," Psychological Bulle¬ tin, 74 (1970), 18-31.

Lawler, Edward E. "Job Attitudes and Employee Motivation: Theory, Research, and Practice," Personnel Psychology, 23 (Summer, 1970) 223-237.

_. "Job Design and Employee Motivation," Personnel Psy¬ chology , 22 (Winter, 1969), 426-435.

Lawler, Edward E., and Porter, Lyman W. "The Effect of Per¬ formance on Job Satisfaction," Industrial Relations, 7 (October, 1967), 20-28.

Lazer, Robert T. "Behavior Modification as a Managerial Technique," The Conference Board Record, 12 (January, 19 75 ), 22-25.

Levitan, Sar A., and Johnston, William B. "Job Redesign, Reform, Enrichment--Exploring the Limitations," Monthly Labor Review, 96 (July, 1973), 35-41.

Lindsay, Carl A.; Marks, Edmond; and Gorlow, Leon. "The Herzberg Theory: A Critique and Reformulation," Journal of Applied Psychology, 51 (August, 1967), 330-339.

Luthans, Fred, and Kreitner, Robert. "The Management of Behavioral Contingencies," Personnel, 51 (July-August, 1974), 7-16.

Luthans, Fred, and Lyman, David. "Training Supervisors to Use Organizational Behavior Modification," Personnel, 50 (September-October, 1973), 38-44.

Luthans, Fred, and Ttemann, Robert. "Motivation vs. Learning Approaches to Organizational Behavior," Business Hori- zons, 16 (December, 1973), 55-62.

200

MacKinney, A.C.; Wernimont, P.F.; Galitz, W.O. "Has Special¬ ization Reduced Job Satisfaction?," Personnel, 39 (Janu- ary-February, 1962), 8-17.

Marcus, Philip, and House, James. "Exchange Between Superiors and Subordinates in Large Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly, 18 (June, 1973), 209-222.

"Marketing Programs that Win Prizes," Business Week, October 27, 1973, pp. 53-54.

Maslow, Abraham H. "A Theory of Human Motivation," Psycho¬ logical Review, 50 (July, 1943), 370-396.

McGregor, Douglas M. "The Human Side of Enterprise," Manage¬ ment Review, 46 (November, 1957), 22-28, 88-92.

Morse, John J. "A Contingency Look at Job Design," California Management Review, 16 (Fall, 1973), 67-75.

Morse, Nancy, and Reimer, Everett. "The Experimental Change of a Major Organizational Variable," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52 (January, 1956), 129-219.

Morse, Nancy, and Weiss, Robert. "The Function and Meaning of Work and the Job," American Sociological Review, 20 (April, 1955), 191-198.

"New Tool ’Reinforcement' for Good Work," Business Week, December 18, 1971, pp. 76-77.

Nord, Walter R. "Beyond the Teaching Machine: The Neglected Area of Operant Conditioning in the Theory and Practice of Management," Organizational Behavior and Human Per¬ formance , 4 (November, 1969), 375-401.

Oates, David. "Team Concept Brings Job Satisfaction," Inter¬ national Management, 28 (February, 1973), 33-36.

Opsahl, Robert, and Dunnette, Marvin D. "The Role of Finan¬ cial Compensation in Industrial Motivation," Psychologi¬ cal Bulletin, 66 (August, 1966), 94-118.

Parke,E. Lauck, and Tausky, Curt. "The Mythology of Job En¬ richment," Personnel, 52 (September-October, 1975), 12- 21.

Parsons, H.M. "What Happened at Hawthorne?," Science, March 8, 1974, pp. 922-932.

201

Paul, William J.; Robertson, Keith B.; and Herzberg, Fred¬ erick. "Job Enrichment Pays Off," Harvard Business Re¬ view , 47 (March-April, 1969), 61-78.

Pedalino, Ed, and Gamboa, Victor U. "Behavior Modification and Absenteeism: Intervention in one Industrial Setting," Journal of Applied Psychology, 59 (December, 1974), 694- 698 .

Porter, Lyman, and Lawler, Edward E. "Properties of Organi¬ zational Structure in Relation to Job Attitudes and Job Behavior," Psychological Bulletin, 64 (July, 1965), 23- 51.

Reif, William E., and Luthans, Fred. "Does Job Enrichment Really Pay Off?," California Management Review, 15 (Fall, 1972), 30-37.

Reif, William E., and Monczka, Robert M. "Job Redesign: A Contingency Approach to Implementation," Personnel, 50 (May-June, 1973), 18-28.

Reif, William E.; Ferrazzi, David N.; and Evans, Robert J. "Job Enrichment: Who Uses It and Why," Business Hori¬ zons , 17 (February, 1974), 73-78.

Reif, William E., and Schoderbek, Peter P. "Job Enlargement: Antidote to Apathy," Management of Personnel Quarterly, 15 (Spring, 1966), 16-23.

Ronan, W.W. "Individual and Situational Variables Relating to Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 54, Part 2 (February, 19 7 0 ) , 1-31.

"Sabotage at Lordstown?," Time, February 7, 1972, p. 76.

Salpukas, Agis. "Plant Is Experimenting With Changing Work Line," New York Times, April 9, 1975, p. 24.

•_. "Reform of Work: Move for Creative Jobs Stirs Debate," New York Times, November 13, 1974, p. 24.

_. "Swedish Auto Plant Drops Assembly Line," New York Times, November 12, 1974, p. 31.

Schneier, Craig E. "Behavior Modification in Management: A Review and Critique," Academy of Management Journal, 17 (September, 1974), 528-548.

_. "Behavior Modification: Training the Hard-Core Unemployed," Personnel, 50 (May-June, 1973), 65-69.

202

Schrank, Robert. ’’Work in America: What Do Workers Really Want?," Industrial Relations, 13 (Hay, 1974), 124-129.

Schwab, Donald P.; DeVitt, William H.; and Cumming, Larry L. ”A Test of the Adequacy of the Two-Factor Theory as a Predictor of Self-Report Performance Effects," Personnel Psychology, 25 (Summer, 1971), 293-303.

Serrin, William. "The Assembly Line," Atlantic Monthly, 228 (October, 1971), 62-65.

Shapiro, H. Jack, and Wahba, Mahmoud A. "Frederick W. Taylor—62 Years Later," Personnel Journal, 53 (August, 1974), 574-578.

Sielaff, Theodore J. "Modification of Work Behavior," Personnel Journal, 53 (July, 1974), 513-517.

Sirota, David. "Job Enrichment--Another Management Fad?," The Conference Board Record, 10 (April, 1973), 40-45.

Sirota, David, and Wolfson, Alan D. "Job Enrichment: Sur¬ mounting the Obstacles," Personnel, 49 (July-August, 1972), 8-19.

. "Job Enrichment: What Are the Obstacles?," Personnel, 49 (May-June, 1972), 8-17.

Smith, Patricia C. "The Prediction of Individual Differences in Susceptibility to Industrial Monotony," Journal of Applied Psychology, 39 (August, 1955), 322-329.

Soliman, Hanafi M. "Motivation-Hygiene Theory of Job Atti¬ tudes: An Empirical Investigation and an Attempt to Reconcile Both the One- and the Two-Factor Theories of Job Attitudes," Journal of Applied Psychology, 54 (October, 1970), 452-461.

Sorcher, Melvin, and Meyer, Herbert H. "Motivation and Job Performance," Personnel Administration, 31 (July- August, 1968), 8-21.

Sorenson, T.C. "Do Americans Like Their Jobs?," Parade, June 3, 1973, pp. 15-16.

Strauss, George, and Rosenstein, Eliezer. "Workers’ Partici¬ pation: A Critical View," Industrial Relations, 9 (February, 1970), 197-214.

203

Susman, Gerald I. MJob Enlargement: Effects of Culture on Worker Responses," Industrial Relations, 12 (February, 1973), 1-15.

"Switching off the Assembly Line," International Management, 29 (December, 1974), 61.

Tausky, Curt. "Meanings of Work Among Blue Collar Men," Pacific Sociological Review, 12 (Spring, 1969), 49-55.

Walker, Charles R., and Marriott, Robert A. "A Study of Attitudes to Factory Work," Occupational Psychology, 25 (July, 1951), 181-191.

Walton, Richard E. "How to Counter Alienation in the Plant," Harvard Business Review, 50 (November-December, 1972), 70-80.

Weintraub, Emanuel. "The Real Cause of Workers' Discontent," New York Times, January 21, 1973.

Wiard, Harry. "Why Manage Behavior? A Case for Positive Reinforcement," Human Resource Management, 11 (Summer, 1972), 15-20.

"Where Skinner’s Theories Work," Business Week, December 2, ' 1972, pp. 64-65.

Whitsett, David A. "Where Are Your Unenriched Jobs?," Harvard Business Review, 53 (January-February, 1975), 74-80.

Whitsett, David A., and Winslow, Erik K. "An Analysis of Studies Critical of the Motivator-Hygiene Theory," Personnel Psychology, 20 (Winter, 1967), 391-415.

Whyte, William F. "Incentives for Productivity," Applied Anthropology, 7 (Spring, 1948), 1-16.

_. "Organizations for the Future," The Next Twenty-Five Years of Industrial Relations. Edited by Gerald G. Somers. Madison, Wisconsin: Industrial Relations Re¬ search Association, 1973.

_. "Skinnerian Theory in Organizations," Psychology Today, 5 (April, 1972), 67.

Wood, Donald A., and LeBold, William K. "The Multivariate Nature of Professional Job Satisfaction," Personnel Psychology, 23 (Summer, 1970), 173-189.

204

Worthy, James C. "Organizational Structure and Employee Morale," American Sociological Review, 15 (April, 1950), 169-179.

Yorks, Lyle. "Job Enrichment Boosts Performance," Journal of Systems Management, 26 (January, 1975), 16-19.

Zimmerer, T.W. "The Whole Truth?--Money Motivates People," Personnel Administration, 17 (March, 1972), 21-23.

APPENDIX A

205

STUDY OF PEOPLE AND THEIR JOBS

Directions for Participants

I am currently a student at the University of Massachu¬

setts in Amherst, and am doing research on people and their

jobs. I have received permission from your department head

to interview some of you about the work you do and your atti¬

tudes about your jobs.

People feel differently about their jobs and their work,

and I am interested in your personal opinions and feelings.

Because of this, the value of my study rests on the frankness

and care with which you answer my questions. This is not a

test of any kind; there are no "right" answers. Your name

will hot appear on your answer sheet and no attempt will be

made to identify who has said what. I will take your answers

back to the University of Massachusetts and tabulate them

there. The results will appear only as percentages, such as:

"50 per cent of the workers said that they liked their work"

or "one of the workers said that pay was a very important

factor."

If you have any questions or comments about my study

please feel free to stop and chat with me when you see me in

the department. Thank you for your cooperation.

The first part of the study involves questions. You

should answer each one of the questions that is read to you

206

in one of the following five ways:

Definitely yes

Yes

Not sure

No

Definitely no

Here is a card with these five responses on it to help you

answer the questions. (Hand respondent Card 1.)

The second part of the study involves statements about

your work and your job. Each one of these statements can be

answered in one of the following five ways:

Strongly agree

Agree

Not sure

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I will give you a second card with these five answers on it

when we reach these statements.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to

ask them now before we begin.

APPENDIX B



207

QUESTIONNAIRE ON WORKER’S DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

1) Age range under 20 41-45 21-25 46-50 26-30 51-55 31-35 56-60 36-40 over 60

2) Education grade school some high school high school technical school some college college

3) Size of the community in which you lived when you last attended school full time?

-farm area _ -small city -small town (25,-75,000)

(5,000-25,000) _ -city

4) Size of the community in which you NOW live?

-farm area _ -small city -small town (25,000-75,000)

(5,000-25,000) _ -city

5) What was your father’s occupation when you were growing up?

6) How long have you worked at the job you now hold in this department?

less than 6 months 6 months to 1 year 1 year to 5 years

5 years to 15 years over 15 years

APPENDIX C

208



QUESTIONNAIRE FOR JOB ENRICHMENT PARTICIPANTS

(Present information on the study to the respondent)

Please remember that I want your personal opinions about these questions. No one else will see your answers, the results are confidential.

(Hand respondent Card #1 and explain the use of the card in answering the first BLOCK of questions.)

BLOCK I -section 1: These questions are about the quality of

your work

1) Is there a clear standard for how good the quality of your work must be? DY Y U N DN

2) How do you find out if you have made a mistake in your work?

3) Does it bother you that someone tells you in person that you have made a mistake? DY Y U N DN

4) How quickly do you find out if you _immediately have made a mistake in your work? _daily

_weekly _monthly _never

5) What happens if you make too many mistakes?

6) When you have made too many mistakes, do you worry about it? DY Y U N DN

7) Do you often worry about making too many mistakes? DY Y U N DN

8) Why do you worry about making too many mistakes?

9) If a bonus was given to workers who hardly made any mistakes in their work, do you think that workers here would be more careful about mistakes than they are now? DY Y U N DN

209

10) If a bonus was given to workers who hardly made any mistakes in their work, do you think that you might be more careful about mistakes than you are now?

11) If no one kept track of who was making mistakes, do you think that workers here would be less careful about mistakes than they are now?

12) If no one kept track of the mistakes that you made, do you think that you might be less careful about mistakes than you are now?

DY U N DN

DY Y U N DN

DY Y U N DN

-section 2: These questions are about the amount of work you do

13)

14)

15)

16)

Do you know how much work you are supposed to complete each day? DY Y U N DN

How do you find out if you are not doing enough work?

Does it bother you that someone tells you in person that you are not doing enough work? DY Y U N DN

How quickly do you find out if you are not completing enough work? immediately

"daily weekly monthly never

17) What happens if you do not complete enough work?

18) When you do not complete enough work, do you worry about it? DY Y U N DN

19) Do you often worry about not completing enough work? DY Y U N DN

20) Why do you think or worry about not completing enough work?

210

21) If a bonus was given for completing more work than had been scheduled, do you think that workers here would complete more work than they do now? DY Y U N DN

22) If a bonus was given for completing more work than had been scheduled, do you think that you might complete more work than you do now? DY Y U N DN

23) If no one kept track of how much each worker completed, do you think that workers here would complete less work than they do now? DY Y U N DN

24) If no one kept track of how much work you completed, do you think that you might complete less work than you do now? DY Y U N DN

-section 3: These questions concern what kind of job you might like to have. Again,-I am interested in your personal opinions.

25) Would you take a job that was more complex and had more variety than your present job, if the new job paid the SAME as you earn now?

26) Would you take a job that was more complex and had more variety than your present job, if the new job paid LESS than you earn now?

27) Would you take a job that was more complex and had more variety than your present job, if the new job paid MORE than you earn now?

28) Would you take a job that required you to think more and make more decisions than you do now, if the new job paid the SAME as you earn now? DY Y U N DN

29) Would you take a job that required you to think more and make more decisions than you do now, if the new job paid LESS than you earn now?

DY Y U N DN

DY Y U N DN

DY Y U N DN

DY Y U N DN

211

30) Would you take a job that required you to think more and make more decisions than you do now, if the new job paid MORE than you earn now? DY Y U N DN

31) Would you take a job that required you to develop new abilities and new skills, if the new job had as MUCH job security as you have now? DY Y U N DN

32) Would you take a job that required you to develop new abilities and new skills, if the new job had LESS job security than you have now? DY Y U N DN

33) Would you take a job that required you to develop new abilities and new skills, if the new job had MORE job security than you have now? DY Y U N DN

34) Would you take a job, Cat the same pay grade) that allowed you to develop new skills, if the new supervisor was stricter and less understanding than the one you have now? DY Y U N DN

35) Would you take a job (at the same pay grade) that allowed you to develop new skills, if the new supervisor was more friendly and understanding than the one you have now? DY Y U N DN

36) Would you take a job (at the same pay grade) that allowed you to develop new skills, if the new supervisor was just like the supervisor you have now? DY Y U N DN

37) If no one kept track of who was absent, do you think that the workers here would be absent more often? DY Y U N DN

38) If no one kept track of when you were absent, do you think that you might be absent more often? DY Y U N DN

39) Do team members ever joke or hint that workers who slack-off should get to work and produce more? DY Y U N DN

212

40) Do teams ever compete against each other to see who can produce the most and/or get the highest efficiency rating?

41) Do team members think that it is wrong for a worker to be absent if he or she is not really sick?

42) Is there pressure within the teams to meet the production schedule?

43) Do you like the team approach to working?

44) Why do you like the teams?

45) Would you still want to work on a team if you could earn more working by yourself?

DY Y U

DY Y U

DY Y U

DY Y U

DY Y U

- (Take back Card #1)

BLOCK II (Hand respondent Card #2 and explain the use of the in'answering the second block of questions.)

-section 4: These questions concern your reasons for the way you do

46) I try not to make mistakes because if I made too many mistakes I might get transferred to a job I don’t want. SA

47) I try not to make mistakes because I don’t like other people to point out my mistakes. SA

48) I try not to make mistakes because I get satisfaction from doing the best work I can. SA

49) I try not to make mistakes because mistakes hurt my self-respect. SA

50) I try not to make mistakes because if I made too many mistakes I might lose my present job. SA

A

A

A

A

A

U

U

U

U

U

N DN

N DN

N DN

N DN

N DN

card

working

D SD

D SD

D SD

D SD

D SD

213

51) I try not to make mistakes because mistakes make me look bad to my supervisor.

52) I try not to make mistakes because mistakes make me look bad to the people I work with.

53) I try not to make mistakes because I want to be proud of the products this company makes.

54) I work at my present speed because if I worked slower, I might get transferred to a job I don’t want.

55) I work at my present speed because I don’t want my supervisor to tell me to work faster.

56) I work at my present speed because I want to do a fair day's work.

57) I work at my present speed because slowing down would hurt my self- respect .

58) I work at my present speed because if I slowed down too much I might lose my present job.

59) I work at my present speed because I don’t want the people I work with to tell me to work faster.

60) I work at my present speed because I get satisfaction from working at a good pace.

61) I work at my present speed because the people I work with don't want any of us to work too fast.

62) I work at my present speed because if you work too fast, the rate for the job might be reset higher than it is now.

SA A U D SD

SA A U D SD

SA A U D SD

SA A U D SD

SA A U D SD

SA A U D SD

SA A U D SD

SA A U D SD

SA A U D SD

SA A U D SD

SA A U D SD

SA A U D SD

214

-section 5: These questions concern why you work.

63) One of the main reasons I come to work is because it gives me something to do with my time. SA A U D SD

64) One of the main reasons I come to work is because it gives me a chance to talk and to be around people.

65) One of the main reasons I come to work is because I need the money to make ends meet.

SA A U D SD

SA A U D SD

66) One of the main reasons I come to work is because I want to develop my skills and abilities. SA A U D SD

67) One of the main reasons I come to work is because I enjoy doing the kind of work I do here. SA A U D SD

68) One of the main reasons I come to work is because I need the money for extra things like a vacation, a new car, etc

69) One of the main reasons I come to work is because I take pride in doing a good day's work.

SA A U D SD

SA A U D SD

70) One of the main reasons I come to work is because if I was absent too much the company might want to replace me with someone else. SA A U D SD

(Take back Card #2)

BLOCK III

-section 6: These are some general questions on all aspects of your work.

71) How does time usually pass while you are at work?

quickly so-so slowly

72) If you won the million dollar lottery, what would you do about working?

continue on my present job change to some other job stop working

215

73) Why would you continue to work?

74) Is your job: boring, interesting _boring or just a job? _interesting

_just a job

75) Do you want a more interesting job? DY Y U N DN

76) Is there anything you particularly like or dislike about your job?

77) What are two or three factors that would make you want to take another job?

APPENDIX D

216

Major Question Areas for Discussion with Program Designers and Managers.

I. The Program

-What is the program?

-Why was the program started?

-Upon what theory or theories was it based?

-How are the jobs in this department different than they are in other departments?

II. Specific Outcomes of the New Program

-What are the organizational advantages of using a program such as this?

-Is it easier to manage or supervise under the new program?

-In your opinion how successful is the new program?

-Is the program working as well as you had expected it would? Why or why not?

-Are there any problems with the new program? What are these problems?

-What is or will be done to "iron" these problems out?

-Has productivity increased since the program started? Why?

-Has the quality of the product improved since the program started? Why?

-Has absenteeism dropped since the program started? Why or why not?

-Has turnover dropped since the program started? Why or why not?

III. Accounting for the Improvements

-What do you feel makes the workers perform better under the new program?

-Are there clear standards for the quality and quantity of the work that is supposed to be produced?

217

-How important is it to meet these standards? Will the program continue if these standards are not met?

-How concerned are you and the company with productivity?

-What evaluative criteria are you using to monitor the success of the program?

IV. Accountability and Feedback

-Are the workers more directly accountable for their performance under the new program?

-Were the standards re-set or clarified under the new program?

-How strictly are the standards enforced under the new program?

-Is the worker’s performance more visible under the new program?

-Do the workers get more feedback on their performance than other workers here?

-Is the feedback on performance more frequent and faster under the new program?

-Has the feedback been individualized so that each worker now gets word on his own personal performance?

V. Performance-Reward Links

-Are the workers rewarded differently under the new program?

-What happens when a worker exceeds the standard?

-What happens if a worker falls below the standard?

-What happens if a worker ’’goofs-off"?

VI. Extrinsic Rewards

-Are the workers earning more under the new program?

-Is there more status for workers under the new program?

-Have working conditions changed under the program?

218

VI. Intrinsic Rewards

-Do the workers have more discretion and autonomy under the program?

-Do the workers have more responsibility under the program?

-Do the workers have more chance for achievement and recognition for that achievement under the program?

-Are the jobs under the program more complex and interesting?

-Are there more chances for promotion in this depart¬ ment?

VII. Teams

-How do teams decide who will do what job?

-Do all workers like the team approach to working?

-Do teams ever compete against one another to produce the most or to strive for the production quota?

-Do team members ever joke or hint that their team¬ mates should work harder and produce more?

-Why do you think the team arrangement works so well?

The role of standards, accountability, and extrinsic rewards in ...

Documents