Scholarship of Motivation Theory Using databases in the Walden library (e.g., Business Source Complete or ABI/Inform complete

www.hbrreprints.org

B

E S T

O F

H B R

One More Time

How Do You Motivate Employees?

by Frederick Herzberg

•

Included with this full-text

Harvard Business Review

article:

The Idea in Brief—the core idea

The Idea in Practice—putting the idea to work

1

Article Summary

2

One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?

A list of related materials, with annotations to guide further

exploration of the article’s ideas and applications

13

Further Reading

Forget praise. Forget

punishment. Forget cash. You

need to make their jobs more

interesting.

Reprint R0301F This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc. 's WAL HUMN 6100 Foundations of Human Capital Development at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Feb 2018 to Apr

2019.

B

E S T

O F

H B R

One More Time

How Do You Motivate Employees?

page 1

The Idea in Brief The Idea in Practice

C O

P Y

R IG

H T

© 2

0 0 2 H

A R

V A

R D

B U

S IN

E S

S S

C H

O O

L P

U B

L IS

H IN

G C

O R

P O

R A

T IO

N . A

L L

R IG

H T

S R

E S

E R

V E

D .

Imagine your workforce so motivated that employees relish more hours of work, not fewer, initiate increased responsibility them- selves, and boast about their challenging work, not their paychecks or bonuses.

An impossible dream? Not if you under- stand the counterintuitive force behind motivation—and the ineffectiveness of most performance incentives. Despite media attention to the contrary, motivation does not come from perks, plush offices, or even promotions or pay. These extrinsic incentives may stimulate people to put their noses to the grindstone—but they’ll likely perform only as long as it takes to get that next raise or promotion.

The truth? You and your organization have only limited power to motivate employees. Yes, unfair salaries may damage morale. But when you do offer fat paychecks and other extrinsic incentives, people won’t necessarily work harder or smarter.

Why? Most of us are motivated by intrinsic rewards: interesting, challenging work, and the opportunity to achieve and grow into greater responsibility.

O f course, you have to provide some extrinsic incentives. After all, few of us can afford to work for no salary. But the real key to motivating your employees is enabling them to activate their own internal genera- tors. Otherwise, you’ll be stuck trying to recharge their batteries yourself—again and again.

How do you help employees charge them- selves up? Enrich their jobs by applying these principles:

• Increase individuals’ accountability for their work by removing some controls.

• Give people responsibility for a complete process or unit of work.

• Make information available directly to employees rather than sending it through their managers first.

• Enable people to take on new, more diffi- cult tasks they haven’t handled before.

• Assign individuals specialized tasks that allow them to become experts.

The payoff? Employees gain an enhanced sense of responsibility and achievement, along with new opportunities to learn and grow—continually.

Example: A large firm began enriching stockholder correspondents’ jobs by appointing subject- matter experts within each unit—then encouraging other unit members to consult with them before seeking supervisory help. It also held correspondents person- ally responsible for their communications’ quality and quantity. Supervisors who had proofread and signed all letters now checked only 10% of them. And rather than harping on production quotas, supervisors no longer discussed daily quantities.

These deceptively modest changes paid big dividends: Within six months, the correspondents’ motivation soared—as measured by their answers to questions such as “How many opportunities do you feel you have in your job for making wor thwhile contributions?” Equally valuable, their performance noticeably improved, as measured by their commu-

nications’ quality and accuracy, and their speed of response to stockholders.

Job enrichment isn’t easy. Managers may initially fear that they’ll no longer be needed once their direct reports take on more responsibility. Employees will likely re- quire time to master new tasks and challenges.

But managers will eventually rediscover their real functions, for example, developing staff rather than simply checking their work. And employees’ enthusiasm and commitment will ultimately rise—along with your company’s overall performance.

This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc. 's WAL HUMN 6100 Foundations of Human Capital Development at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Feb 2018 to Apr 2019.

B

E S T

O F

H B R

One More Time

How Do You Motivate Employees?

by Frederick Herzberg

harvard business review • january 2003 page 2

C O

P Y

R IG

H T

© 2

0 0 2 H

A R

V A

R D

B U

S IN

E S

S S

C H

O O

L P

U B

L IS

H IN

G C

O R

P O

R A

T IO

N . A

L L

R IG

H T

S R

E S

E R

V E

D .

Forget praise. Forget punishment. Forget cash. You need to make their

jobs more interesting.

When Frederick Herzberg researched the sources of employee motivation during the 1950s and 1960s, he discovered a dichotomy that stills in- trigues (and baffles) managers: The things that make people satisfied and motivated on the job are different in kind from the things that make them dissatisfied.

Ask workers what makes them unhappy at work, and you’ll hear about an annoying boss, a low salary, an uncomfortable work space, or stu- pid rules. Managed badly, environmental factors make people miserable, and they can certainly be demotivating. But even if managed brilliantly, they don’t motivate anybody to work much harder or smarter. People are motivated, in- stead, by interesting work, challenge, and in- creasing responsibility. These intrinsic factors answer people’s deep-seated need for growth and achievement.

Herzberg’s work influenced a generation of scholars and managers—but his conclusions don’t seem to have fully penetrated the American workplace, if the extraordinary attention still paid to compensation and incentive packages is any indication.

How many articles, books, speeches, and workshops have pleaded plaintively, “How do I get an employee to do what I want?”

The psychology of motivation is tremen- dously complex, and what has been unraveled with any degree of assurance is small in- deed. But the dismal ratio of knowledge to speculation has not dampened the enthusiasm for new forms of snake oil that are constantly coming on the market, many of them with academic testimonials. Doubtless this arti- cle will have no depressing impact on the market for snake oil, but since the ideas expressed in it have been tested in many corporations and other organizations, it will help—I hope—to redress the imbalance in the aforementioned ratio.

“Motivating” with KITA

In lectures to industry on the problem, I have found that the audiences are usually anxious for quick and practical answers, so I will begin with a straightforward, practical formula for moving people.

This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc. 's WAL HUMN 6100 Foundations of Human Capital Development at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Feb 2018 to Apr 2019.

One More Time

•

•

•

B

EST

OF

HBR

harvard business review • january 2003 page 3

What is the simplest, surest, and most di- rect way of getting someone to do some- thing? Ask? But if the person responds that he or she does not want to do it, then that calls for psychological consultation to deter- mine the reason for such obstinacy. Tell the person? The response shows that he or she does not understand you, and now an expert in communication methods has to be brought in to show you how to get through. Give the person a monetary incentive? I do not need to remind the reader of the complexity and difficulty involved in setting up and administering an incentive system. Show the person? This means a costly training program. We need a simple way.

Every audience contains the “direct action” manager who shouts, “Kick the person!” And this type of manager is right. The surest and least circumlocuted way of getting someone to do something is to administer a kick in the pants—to give what might be called the KITA.

There are various forms of KITA, and here are some of them:

Negative Physical KITA. This is a literal application of the term and was frequently used in the past. It has, however, three major drawbacks: 1) It is inelegant; 2) it contradicts the precious image of benevolence that most organizations cherish; and 3) since it is a physical attack, it directly stimulates the auto- nomic nervous system, and this often results in negative feedback—the employee may just kick you in return. These factors give rise to certain taboos against negative physical KITA.

In uncovering infinite sources of psycho- logical vulnerabilities and the appropriate methods to play tunes on them, psycholo- gists have come to the rescue of those who are no longer permitted to use negative physical KITA. “He took my rug away”; “I wonder what she meant by that”; “The boss is always going around me”—these symptomatic expressions of ego sores that have been rubbed raw are the result of application of:

Negative Psychological KITA. This has sev- eral advantages over negative physical KITA. First, the cruelty is not visible; the bleeding is internal and comes much later. Second, since it affects the higher cortical centers of the brain with its inhibitory powers, it reduces the possibility of physical backlash. Third, since the number of psychological pains that a person can feel is almost infinite, the direc-

tion and site possibilities of the KITA are increased many times. Fourth, the person administering the kick can manage to be above it all and let the system accomplish the dirty work. Fifth, those who practice it receive some ego satisfaction (one-upmanship), whereas they would find drawing blood abhorrent. Finally, if the employee does com- plain, he or she can always be accused of being paranoid; there is no tangible evidence of an actual attack.

Now, what does negative KITA accomplish? If I kick you in the rear (physically or psycho- logically), who is motivated? I am motivated; you move! Negative KITA does not lead to motivation, but to movement. So:

Positive KITA. Let us consider motivation. If I say to you, “Do this for me or the com- pany, and in return I will give you a reward, an incentive, more status, a promotion, all the quid pro quos that exist in the industrial organization,” am I motivating you? The overwhelming opinion I receive from man- agement people is, “Yes, this is motivation.”

I have a year-old schnauzer. When it was a small puppy and I wanted it to move, I kicked it in the rear and it moved. Now that I have finished its obedience training, I hold up a dog biscuit when I want the schnauzer to move. In this instance, who is motivated—I or the dog? The dog wants the biscuit, but it is I who want it to move. Again, I am the one who is motivated, and the dog is the one who moves. In this instance all I did was apply KITA frontally; I exerted a pull instead of a push. When industry wishes to use such posi- tive KITAs, it has available an incredible num- ber and variety of dog biscuits (jelly beans for humans) to wave in front of employees to get them to jump.

Myths About Motivation

Why is KITA not motivation? If I kick my dog (from the front or the back), he will move. And when I want him to move again, what must I do? I must kick him again. Similarly, I can charge a person’s battery, and then re- charge it, and recharge it again. But it is only when one has a generator of one’s own that we can talk about motivation. One then needs no outside stimulation. One wants to do it.

With this in mind, we can review some positive KITA personnel practices that were developed as attempts to instill “motivation”:

Frederick Herzberg,

Distinguished Professor of Management at the Uni- versity of Utah in Salt Lake City, was head of the department of psychology at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland when he wrote this article. His writings include the book Work and the Nature of Man (World, 1966).

This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc. 's WAL HUMN 6100 Foundations of Human Capital Development at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Feb 2018 to Apr 2019.

One More Time

•

•

•

B

EST

OF

HBR

harvard business review • january 2003 page 4

1. Reducing Time Spent at Work.

This rep- resents a marvelous way of motivating peo- ple to work—getting them off the job! We have reduced (formally and informally) the time spent on the job over the last 50 or 60 years until we are finally on the way to the “6-day weekend.” An interesting variant of this approach is the development of off-hour recreation programs. The philosophy h e re s e e m s t o b e t h at t h o s e w h o p l ay to – gether, work together. The fact is that mo- tivated people seek more hours of work, not fewer.

2. Spiraling Wages. Have these motivated people? Yes, to seek the next wage increase. Some medievalists still can be heard to say that a good depression will get employees moving. They feel that if rising wages don’t or won’t do the job, reducing them will.

3. Fringe Benefits. Industry has outdone the most welfare-minded of welfare states in dispensing cradle-to-the-grave succor. One company I know of had an informal “fringe benefit of the month club” going for a while. The cost of fringe benefits in this country has reached approximately 25% of the wage dollar, and we still cry for motivation.

People spend less time working for more money and more security than ever before, and the trend cannot be reversed. These bene- fits are no longer rewards; they are rights. A 6- day week is inhuman, a 10-hour day is exploitation, extended medical coverage is a basic decency, and stock options are the salvation of American initiative. Unless the ante is continuously raised, the psychological reaction of employees is that the company is turning back the clock.

When industry began to realize that both the economic nerve and the lazy nerve of their employees had insatiable appetites, it started to listen to the behavioral scientists who, more out of a humanist tradition than from scientific study, criticized management for not knowing how to deal with people. The next KITA easily followed.

4. Human Relations Training. More than 30 years of teaching and, in many instances, of practicing psychological approaches to handling people have resulted in costly human relations programs and, in the end, the same question: How do you motivate workers? Here, too, escalations have taken place. Thirty years ago it was necessary to

request, “Please don’t spit on the floor.” Today the same admonition requires three “pleases” before the employee feels that a superior has demonstrated the psychologi- cally proper attitude.

The failure of human relations training to produce motivation led to the conclusion that supervisors or managers themselves were not psychologically true to themselves in their practice of interpersonal decency. So an advanced form of human relations KITA, sensitivity training, was unfolded.

5. Sensitivity Training. Do you really, really understand yourself ? Do you really, really, really trust other people? Do you really, really, really, really cooperate? The failure of sensitivity training is now being explained, by those who have become opportunistic exploiters of the technique, as a failure to really (five times) conduct proper sensitivity training courses.

With the realization that there are only tem- porary gains from comfort and economic and interpersonal KITA, personnel managers con- cluded that the fault lay not in what they were doing, but in the employee’s failure to appreci- ate what they were doing. This opened up the field of communications, a new area of “scientifically” sanctioned KITA.

6. Communications. The professor of com- munications was invited to join the faculty of management training programs and help in making employees understand what manage- ment was doing for them. House organs, briefing sessions, supervisory instruction on the importance of communication, and all sorts of propaganda have proliferated until today there is even an International Council of Industrial Editors. But no motivation resulted, and the obvious thought occurred that perhaps management was not hearing what the employees were saying. That led to the next KITA.

7. Two-Way Communication. Management ordered morale surveys, suggestion plans, and group participation programs. Then both management and employees were communi- cating and listening to each other more than ever, but without much improvement in motivation.

The behavioral scientists began to take another look at their conceptions and their data, and they took human relations one step further. A glimmer of truth was beginning to show through in the writings of the so-called

Have spiraling wages

motivated people? Yes, to

seek the next wage

increase.

This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc. 's WAL HUMN 6100 Foundations of Human Capital Development at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Feb 2018 to Apr 2019.

One More Time

•

•

•

B

EST

OF

HBR

harvard business review • january 2003 page 5

higher-order-need psychologists. People, so they said, want to actualize themselves. Unfortunately, the “actualizing” psycholo- gists got mixed up with the human relations psychologists, and a new KITA emerged.

8. Job Participation. Though it may not have been the theoretical intention, job participation often became a “give them the big picture” approach. For example, if a man is tightening 10,000 nuts a day on an assem- bly line with a torque wrench, tell him he is building a Chevrolet. Another approach had the goal of giving employees a “feeling” that they are determining, in some measure, what they do on the job. The goal was to provide a sense of achievement rather than a substantive achievement in the task. Real achievement, of course, requires a task that makes it possible.

But still there was no motivation. This led to the inevitable conclusion that the employees must be sick, and therefore to the next KITA.

9. Employee Counseling. The initial use of this form of KITA in a systematic fashion can be credited to the Hawthorne experiment of the Western Electric Company during the early 1930s. At that time, it was found that the employees harbored irrational feelings that were interfering with the rational opera- tion of the factory. Counseling in this in- stance was a means of letting the employees unburden themselves by talking to someone about their problems. Although the counsel- ing techniques were primitive, the program was large indeed.

The counseling approach suffered as a result of experiences during World War II, when the programs themselves were found to be interfering with the operation of the organi- zations; the counselors had forgotten their role of benevolent listeners and were attempt- ing to do something about the problems that they heard about. Psychological counseling, however, has managed to survive the nega- tive impact of World War II experiences and today is beginning to flourish with renewed sophistication. But, alas, many of these pro- grams, like all the others, do not seem to have lessened the pressure of demands to find out how to motivate workers.

Since KITA results only in short-term movement, it is safe to predict that the cost of these programs will increase steadily and new varieties will be developed as old posi- tive KITAs reach their satiation points.

Hygiene vs. Motivators

Let me rephrase the perennial question this way: How do you install a generator in an employee? A brief review of my motivation- hygiene theory of job attitudes is required before theoretical and practical suggestions can be offered. The theory was first drawn from an examination of events in the lives of engineers and accountants. At least 16 other investigations, using a wide variety of popu- lations (including some in the Communist countries), have since been completed, making the original research one of the most repli- cated studies in the field of job attitudes.

The findings of these studies, along with corroboration from many other investigations using different procedures, suggest that the factors involved in producing job satisfaction (and motivation) are separate and distinct from the factors that lead to job dissatisfac- tion. (See Exhibit 1, which is further explained below.) Since separate factors need to be con- sidered, depending on whether job satisfac- tion or job dissatisfaction is being examined, it follows that these two feelings are not opposites of each other. The opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction but, rather, no job satisfaction; and similarly, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satis- faction, but no job dissatisfaction.

Stating the concept presents a problem in semantics, for we normally think of satisfac- tion and dissatisfaction as opposites; i.e., what is not satisfying must be dissatisfying, and vice versa. But when it comes to understand- ing the behavior of people in their jobs, more than a play on words is involved.

Two different needs of human beings are in- volved here. One set of needs can be thought of as stemming from humankind’s animal nature—the built-in drive to avoid pain from the environment, plus all the learned drives that become conditioned to the basic biologi- cal needs. For example, hunger, a basic biologi- cal drive, makes it necessary to earn money, and then money becomes a specific drive. The other set of needs relates to that unique human characteristic, the ability to achieve and, through achievement, to experience psy- chological growth. The stimuli for the growth needs are tasks that induce growth; in the in- dustrial setting, they are the job content. Con- trariwise, the stimuli inducing pain-avoidance behavior are found in the job environment.

The opposite of job

dissatisfaction is not job

satisfaction, but no job

dissatisfaction.

This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc. 's WAL HUMN 6100 Foundations of Human Capital Development at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Feb 2018 to Apr 2019.

One More Time

•

•

•

B

EST

OF

HBR

harvard business review • january 2003 page 6

Percentage frequency

0201 04 %0503001020304%05

H yg

ie n

e f

a ct

o rs

In tr

in si

c m

o ti

va to

rs

achievement

recognition

work itself

responsibility

advancement

growth

company policy and administration

supervision

relationship with supervisor

work conditions

salary

relationship with peers

personal life

relationship with subordinates

status

security

Factors characterizing ,844 events on the job that led to extreme dissatisfaction

Exhibit 1

Factors affecting job attitudes as reported in 12 investigations

Factors characterizing ,753 events on the job that led to extreme satisfaction

Hygiene 1969

Motivators 8131

Total of all factors contributing to job

dissatisfaction

Total of all factors contributing to job

satisfaction

Percentage frequency

02 04 06 %08020406%08 0

11

This document is authorized for use only in Laureate Education, Inc. 's WAL HUMN 6100 Foundations of Human Capital Development at Laureate Education – Baltimore from Feb 2018 to Apr 2019.

One More Time

•

•

•

B

EST

OF

HBR

harvard business review • january 2003 page 7

The growth or

motivator

factors that are intrinsic to the job are: achievement, recog- nition for achievement, the work itself, re- sponsibility, and growth or advancement. The dissatisfaction-avoidance or hygiene (KITA) factors that are extrinsic to the job include: company policy and administration, supervi- sion, interpersonal relationships, working conditions, salary, status, and security.

A composite of the factors that are in- volved in causing job satisfaction and job dis- satisfaction, drawn from samples of 1,685 employees, is shown in Exhibit 1. The results indicate that motivators were the primary cause of satisfaction, and hygiene factors the primary cause of unhappiness on the job. The employees, studied in 12 different inves- tigations, included lower level supervisors, professional women, agricultural administra- tors, men about to retire from management positions, hospital maintenance personnel, manufacturing supervisors, nurses, food han- dlers, military officers, engineers, scientists, housekeepers, teachers, technicians, female assemblers, accountants, Finnish foremen, and Hungarian engineers.

They were asked what job events had occurred in their work that had led to ex- treme satisfaction or extreme dissatisfaction on their part. Their responses are broken down in the exhibit into percentages of total “positive” job events and of total “negative” job events. (The figures total more than 100% on both the “hygiene” and “motivators” sides because often at least two factors can be attributed to a single event; advancement, for instance, often accompanies assumption of responsibility.)

To illustrate, a typical response involving achievement that had a negative effect for the employee was, “I was unhappy because I didn’t do the job successfully.” A typical re- sponse in the small number of positive job events in the company policy and adminis- tration grouping was, “I was happy because the company reorganized the section so that I didn’t report any longer to the guy I didn’t get along with.”

As the lower right-hand part of the exhibit shows, of all the factors contributing to job satisfaction, 81% were motivators. And of all the factors contributing to the employees’ dissatisfaction over their work, 69% involved hygiene elements.

Eternal Triangle. There are three general philosophies of personnel management. The first is based on organizational theory, the second on industrial engineering, and the third on behavioral science.

Organizational theorists believe that human needs are either so irrational or so varied and adjustable to specific situations that the major function of personnel management is to be as pragmatic as the occasion demands. If jobs are organized in a proper manner, they reason, the result will be the most efficient job structure, and the most favorable job attitudes will follow as a matter of course.

Industrial engineers hold that humankind is mechanistically oriented and economically motivated and that human needs are best met by attuning the individual to the most efficient work process. The goal of personnel management therefore should be to concoct the most appropriate incentive system and to design the specific working conditions in a way that facilitates the most efficient use of the human machine. By structuring jobs in a manner that leads to the most efficient opera- tion, engineers believe that they can obtain the optimal organization of work and the proper work attitudes.

Behavioral scientists focus on group senti- ments, attitudes of individual employees, and the organization’s social and psychological climate. This persuasion emphasizes one or more of the various hygiene and motivator needs. Its approach to personnel manage- ment is generally to emphasize some form of human relations education, in the hope of in- stilling healthy employee attitudes and an or- ganizational climate that is considered to be felicitous to human values. The belief is that proper attitudes will lead to efficient job and organizational structure.

There is always a lively debate concerning the overall effectiveness of the approaches of organizational theorists and industrial engi- neers. Manifestly, both have achieved much. But the nagging question for behavioral sci- entists has been: What is the c

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.