Management Decision

Motivation and job satisfaction

Mark A. Tietjen Robert M. Myers
Article information:
To cite this document:
Mark A. Tietjen Robert M. Myers, (1998),"Motivation and job satisfaction", Management Decision, Vol. 36 Iss 4 pp. 226 - 231
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251749810211027
Downloaded on: 07 April 2015, At: 02:41 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 11 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 66557 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION LIBRARY At 02:41 07 April 2015 (PT)

Carolyn Stringer, Jeni Didham, Paul Theivananthampillai, (2011),"Motivation, pay satisfaction, and job satisfaction
of front-line employees", Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. 161-179 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/11766091111137564
Michael W. Graham, Philip E. Messner, (1998),"Principals and job satisfaction", International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 12 Iss 5 pp. 196-202 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513549810225925
Daulatram B. Lund, (2003),"Organizational culture and job satisfaction", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol.
18 Iss 3 pp. 219-236 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/0885862031047313

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 490284 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Motivation and job satisfaction

Mark A. Tietjen and Robert M. Myers

Palm Beach Atlantic College, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA

The movement of workers to semistructured in nature so that a list of

act in a desired manner has Herzberg and job satisfaction questions was the basis of the survey, but the
always consumed the thoughts Concept of attitude interviewer was free to pursue other man-
of managers. In many ways, Herzberg et al. (1959) proposed that an ners of inquiry.
Downloaded by HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION LIBRARY At 02:41 07 April 2015 (PT)

this goal has been reached employee’s motivation to work is best under- The purpose of this discussion on attitude
through incentive programs, stood when the respective attitude of that was to summarize in short, the importance
corporate pep talks, and other employee is understood. That is, the internal of attitude as a starting point of the dual-
types of conditional adminis- concept of attitude which originates from a factor theory of Herzberg, and briefly show
trative policy. However, as the his approach to experimentation and
state of mind, when probed, should reveal the
workers adjust their behaviour
most pragmatic information for managers research.
in response to one of the
with regard to the motivation of workers. In
aforementioned stimuli, is job
his approach to studying the feelings of peo- Motivation and hygiene factors
satisfaction actualized? The
ple toward their work, or their attitudes, As a result of his inquiry about the attitudes
instilling of satisfaction within
Herzberg et al. (1959) set out to answer three of employees, Herzberg et al. (1959) developed
workers is a crucial task of
management. Satisfaction questions: two distinct lists of factors. One set of factors
creates confidence, loyalty 1 How can one specify the attitude of any caused happy feelings or a good attitude
and ultimately improved individual toward his or her job? within the worker, and these factors, on the
quality in the output of the 2 What causes these attitudes? whole, were task-related. The other grouping
employed. Satisfaction, 3 What are the consequences of these was primarily present when feelings of
though, is not the simple attitudes? unhappiness or bad attitude were evident,
result of an incentive program. The order of these questions is empirically and these factors, Herzberg claimed, were not
Employees will most likely not methodical and, for Herzberg, the final ques- directly related to the job itself, but to the
take any more pride in their tion, which would demonstrate the relation- conditions that surrounded doing that job.
work even if they win the ship between attitude and subsequent behav- The first group he called motivators (job
weekend getaway for having factors):
ior, was particularly important. In response
the highest sales. This paper • recognition;
to the “fragmentary nature” of previous
reviews the literature of moti- • achievement;
scholarship, the combination of the three
vational theorists and draws • possibility of growth;
questions resulted in a single unit of study –
from their approaches to job • advancement;
the factors-attitudes-effects (F-A-E) complex.
satisfaction and the role of • responsibility;
Herzberg described his new approach as
motivation within job satisfac- • work itself.
tion. The theories of Frederick idiographic (Herzberg et al., 1959). Contrary
Herzberg and Edwin Locke are to the statistical or nomothetic approach The second group Herzberg named hygiene
presented chronologically to which places more emphasis on a group’s factors (extra-job factors):
show how Locke’s theory was interaction with a particular variable, the • salary;
a response to Herzberg’s idiographic view was based on the premise • interpersonal relations – supervisor;
theory. By understanding that the F-A-E complex should be studied • interpersonal relations – subordinates;
these theories, managers can within individuals. • interpersonal relations – peers;
focus on strategies of creating The method Herzberg used placed empha- • supervision – technical;
job satisfaction. This is fol- sis of the qualitative investigation of the F-A- • company policy and administration;
lowed by a brief examination E complex over a quantitative assessment of
• working conditions;
of Kenneth Blanchard and the information, though results were quanti-
• factors in personal life;
Paul Hersey’s theory on lead- fied at a later point. The design of Herzberg’s
• status;
ership within management and experimentation was to ask open-ended ques-
• job security.
how this art is changing tions specifically about a worker’s experi-
through time. ences when feelings about his/her job were Motivators refer to factors intrinsic within
more positive or negative than usual the work itself like the recognition of a task
Management Decision (Herzberg et al., 1959). He preferred such an completed. Conversely, hygienes tend to
36/4 [1998] 226–231 approach over the ranking of pre-written include extrinsic entities such as relations
© MCB University Press (and assumed) factors compiled and limited with co-workers, which do not pertain to the
[ISSN 0025-1747] by the experimenter. Each interview was worker’s actual job.
[ 226 ]
 Mark A. Tietjen and The relationship of satisfaction and as a power trip. What about positive KITA?
Robert M. Myers dissatisfaction Positive KITA can be summarized in one
Motivation and job The most significant and basic difference word – reward. The relationship is “if…,
satisfaction
between Herzberg’s two factors is the then… ”. If you finish this task in one week,
Management Decision inherent level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction then you will receive this bonus. Though
36/4 [1998] 226–231
within each factor. If motivation includes many managers give incentives to motivate,
only those things which promote action over Herzberg says that positive KITA is not moti-
time, then motivators are the factors that vational. Positive KITA, rather, moves or
promote long-running attitudes and satisfac- stimulates movement. When the worker
tion. According to Herzberg et al. (1959), moti- receives the bonus on completion of the task,
vators cause positive job attitudes because is the individual any more motivated to work
they satisfy the worker’s need for self-actual- harder now? Was there a lasting effect
ization (Maslow, 1954), the individual’s ulti- because of the conditional bonus? No, the
mate goal. The presence of these motivators
Downloaded by HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION LIBRARY At 02:41 07 April 2015 (PT)

worker was simply moved temporarily to act.

has the potential to create great job satisfac- There are, however, no extended effects once
tion; however, in the absence of motivators, the bonus is received.
Herzberg says, dissatisfaction does not occur. Recalling motivator factors, Herzberg
Likewise, hygiene factors, which simply (1968) concludes that only these factors can
“move” (cause temporary action), have the have a lasting impression on a worker’s atti-
potential to cause great dissatisfaction. Simi- tude, satisfaction and, thus, work. Further-
larly, their absence does not provoke a high more, workers perform best (Steininger, 1994)
level of satisfaction. when this stimulation is internal and work-
How does Herzberg base this non-bipolar
related.
relationship? Job satisfaction (House and
Wigdor, 1967) contains two separate and inde-
pendent dimensions. These dimensions are Locke’s theory on job
not on differing ends of one continuum;
satisfaction
instead they consist of two separate and dis-
tinct continua. According to Herzberg (1968), Locke’s composite theory of job satisfaction
the opposite of job satisfaction is not dissatis- is the product of many other concepts which
faction, but rather a simple lack of satisfac- he has developed through study and
tion. In the same way, the opposite of job dis- research on related topics such as goal-
satisfaction is not satisfaction, but rather “no setting and employee performance.
dissatisfaction”. For example, consider the Likewise, his explanation of job satisfaction
hygiene factor, work conditions. If the air is in part, a response to some of Herzberg’s
conditioner breaks in the middle of a hot proposals. Thus, Locke’s criticism of
summer day, workers will be greatly dissatis- Herzberg will be the initial discussion, fol-
fied. However, if the air-conditioner works lowed by his theory on values, agent/event
throughout the day as expected, the workers factors, and finally an adjusted view of job
will not be particularly satisfied by taking satisfaction.
notice and being grateful.
Criticisms of Herzberg
Motivation vs. movement in KITA Locke’s assessment of Herzberg’s two-factor
Integral to Herzberg’s theory of motivation is theory can be summarized in brief by the
the difference between motivation and move- following conclusions about Herzberg’s
ment. He compares the two in his discussion thinking:
of KITA (Herzberg, 1968) – the polite acronym 1 Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction result
for a “kick in the —— ”. There are three dif- from different causes.
ferent types of KITA: 2 The two-factor theory is parallel to the
• negative physical KITA; dual theory of man’s needs, which states
• negative psychological KITA; that physical needs (like those of animals)
• positive KITA. work in conjunction with hygiene factors,
In today’s litigious society, it is probable that and psychological needs or growth needs
most managers will deal less and less with (unique to humans) work alongside
workers utilizing negative physical KITA, or motivators (Locke, 1976). With these
physical contact to initiate action out of an propositions as the basis for Locke’s
indolent employee. Negative psychological understanding of Herzberg, the following
KITA is also rather useless in motivating is a list of Locke’s criticisms:
workers; the primary benefit, though mali- • mind-body dichotomy;
cious, is the feeding of one’s ego, also known • unidirectional operation of needs;
[ 227 ]
 Mark A. Tietjen and • lack of parallel between man’s needs and tend to take credit for the satisfying events
Robert M. Myers the motivation and hygiene factors such as advancement or recognition, while
Motivation and job • incident classification system; blaming others such as supervisors, subordi-
satisfaction
• defensiveness; nates, peers, and even policy, for dissatisfying
Management Decision • the use of frequency data; situations. Locke does not feel that Herzberg
36/4 [1998] 226–231
• denial of individual differences. addressed this fallacy sufficiently for the
importance it has in assessing validity of his
According to Locke’s (1976) first critique,
results.
Herzberg’s view of man’s nature implies a
Herzberg’s use of frequency data placed
split between the psychological and
emphasis on the number of times a particu-
biological processes of the human make-up.
lar factor was mentioned. However, as the
The two are of dual nature and function
scope of 203 accountants and engineers was
apart, not related to one another. On the con-
trary, Locke proposes that the mind and body narrow, it is likely that many workers,
though unique, experienced similar difficul-
Downloaded by HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION LIBRARY At 02:41 07 April 2015 (PT)

are very closely related. It is through the

mind that the human discovers the nature of ties. Herzberg et al. (1959) concludes that
his/her physical and psychological needs and those most listed are the most satisfying or
how they may be satisfied. Locke suggests the dissatisfying. Even though, for example, a
proof that the basic need for survival, a bio- dissatisfying factor is recorded numerously,
logical need, is only reached through the use this does not necessarily imply that this
of the mind. factor is a significant problem or even irri-
With regard to Herzberg’s correlation tates a worker as much as an infrequent
between hygienes, motivators, physical and problem which causes a greater level of dis-
psychological needs, it can be inferred that satisfaction. Locke suggests the measure-
the first set are unidirectional, so too are ment of intensity rather than frequency
physical and psychological needs (Locke, (Locke, 1976). For instance, an employee
1976). Locke notes there is no justification for could mention a time when he or she suc-
this conclusion. Providing the example of the ceeded or failed and rank its level of
physical need, hunger, he writes that acts like intensity.
eating can serve not only as aversions of Concurrent with the previous criticism,
hunger pangs, but also as pleasures for the the denial of individual differences pertains
body. to the incorrect minimization of diversity
The third criticism which pertains directly within the sample. Locke (1976) concedes
to the previous two, is simply the lack of a that though an individual’s needs may be
parallel relationship between the two group- similar, his or her values are not. Values,
ings of factors and needs (Locke, 1976). Their furthermore, have the most significant
relation is hazy and overlapping in several impact on emotional response to one’s job.
instances. A new company policy (hygiene) Therefore, since individuals have unique
may have a significant effect on a worker’s values and do not place the same importance
interest in the work itself or his/her success on money or promotion, for example, the
with it. The correlation lacks a clear line of study deprives them of that which makes
distinction. them distinct from others. Values are of
Locke’s critique of Herzberg’s classifica- crucial importance in Locke’s theory of job
tion system (Locke, 1976), common to the satisfaction, as evidenced in his response to
preceding criticism, claims that the two- Herzberg’s theory.
factor theory is, in itself, inconsistent in
categorizing factors of satisfaction. The two- Locke’s concept of values (vs. needs)
factor theory merely splits the spectra of Locke defers to Rand’s (1964) definition of
satisfaction into two sections. For example, if value as “that which one acts to gain and/or
an employee is given a new task (which is keep”. From this definition, the distinction
deemed a motivator) this is considered between a need and value must be discerned.
responsibility. However, if a manager will not A comparison (Locke, 1976) of the two is
delegate the duty, the situation takes the found in Table I.
label of supervision-technical. Locke states Distinguishing values from needs, Locke
that the breakup of one element (like respon- (1970) contends that they have more in com-
sibility) into two different types of factors mon with goals. Both values and goals have
results from the confusion between the event content and intensity characteristics. The
and the agent. content attribute answers the question of
The phenomenon of defensiveness (Locke, what is valued, and the intensity attribute,
1976) is a further criticism of Herzberg’s how much is valued. With regard to finding
work, whereby the employees interviewed satisfaction in one’s job, the employee who
[ 228 ]
 Mark A. Tietjen and performs adequately on the job is the indi- satisfaction (Locke, 1976). As long as the
Robert M. Myers vidual who decides to pursue his or her aforementioned agents can be viewed as facil-
Motivation and job values. itators in the attainment of the worker’s goals
satisfaction and the acknowledgment of the worker’s
Though Locke’s discussion continues
Management Decision into more technical areas, the following values, the employee will be satisfied.
36/4 [1998] 226–231
section presents Locke’s conceptualization
of values in contrast to needs. As values are
a point at which Locke’s theory of job satis- Life-cycle theory
faction begins to separate from the theory of
To this point, focus has been placed on the
Herzberg, so too are agent and event factors
factors that influence employees to be either
a source of divergence between the two
motivated or merely moved, satisfied or dis-
theorists.
satisfied. However, the role of the leader
played by each manager directly influences in
Table I
Downloaded by HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION LIBRARY At 02:41 07 April 2015 (PT)

what manner the employee will be motivated

Comparison of needs and values
and find satisfaction. Additionally, since their
Needs Values important 1969 article “The life-cycle theory
of leadership” (Maslow, 1954), Kenneth Blan-
Needs are innate, a priori Values are acquired, a posteriori
chard and Paul Hersey have revisited the role
Needs are the same for all humans (Locke, Values are unique to the individual of the manager as leader, reevaluating that
1976; Maslow, 1962) (Locke, 1976) role in the 1990s.
Needs are objective: they exist apart from Values are subjective: they are acquired
knowledge of them through conscious and sub-conscious means The role of leadership in motivation
Needs confront man and require action Values ultimately determine choice and The life-cycle theory was developed to illus-
emotional reaction trate the important relationship between task
and relationship-oriented dimensions of
management. The theory helped managers to
Agent/event factors
An event, or condition, is that which causes see how they should adjust according to the
an employee to feel satisfaction (Locke, 1976). level of maturity within each worker. It also
An agent refers to that which causes an event portrayed the dynamics of high and low
to occur (Locke, 1976). Events, therefore, are propensities of task and relationship-oriented
motivators, in Herzberg’s terms. Conditions managers when mixed with differing circum-
such as success/failure or responsibility stances as well as diverse groups of employ-
motivate workers and have the potential to ees. In drawing attention to the two-faceted
evoke satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Agents, focus of managers – that is task and relation-
conversely, are comparable to hygiene fac- ships – the life-cycle theory was very effective
tors; the customer or supervisor, for in explaining what was referred to as the
instance, causes an event, which then causes “superior/subordinate” relationship.
a feeling of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. In reassessing their joint discovery of the
Whereas Herzberg’s factors limit the chance life-cycle theory, Blanchard and Hersey
of equal outcomes for positive and negative renamed the theory of leadership “Situa-
results, the event categories include both tional Leadership”. Implied in the newer title
positive and negative possibilities for satis- was an emphasis on “task behavior” and
faction. They are discussed in Table II “relationship behavior” rather than attitude.
(Locke, 1976). Whereas some attitudes were clearly better
The clarification of factors which motivate than others, no one leadership style is best.
versus the means through which the motiva- For example (Maslow, 1954), all managers
tion occurs leads to an adjusted view of job should have the attitude that both production
satisfaction/dissatisfaction. and people are very important. However, this
particular attitude can be expressed through
An adjusted view of job satisfaction/ numerous different leadership styles depend-
dissatisfaction ing on the manager. Since the original theory
Defined as a positive emotional state (Locke, was posed, they have assigned descriptors to
1976) which results from the appraisal of quadrants of high and low task and relation-
one’s job experiences, satisfaction (Locke et ship behaviors. The four quadrants are
al., 1975), then, becomes a function of the telling, selling, participating, and delegating,
perceived discrepancy between intended and and each inherently displays the respective
actual performance, or the degree to which balance a manager uses in his or her balance
one’s performance is discrepant with one’s of task and relationship behavior.
set of values. The closer the expected is to the Blanchard and Hersey’s clarification of
outcome, and the greater the achievement of leadership style provides a stepping stone for
one’s values, the higher the yield of all managers dealing with a new and diverse
[ 229 ]
 Mark A. Tietjen and Table II
Robert M. Myers Agent/event factors
Motivation and job
satisfaction Events Agents
Management Decision 1. Task activity – employee can enjoy or not enjoy work 1. Self – the respondent
36/4 [1998] 226–231
2. Amount of work – amount of work is just right, or 2. Supervisor – superior of respondent
the amount is too much or too little
3. Smoothness – work went smoothly, or work was 3. Co-worker – colleague or peer at same level
characterized by interruption and distraction
4. Success/failure – employee finished task, 4. Subordinate – person at lower level
completed problem, or he/she failed to finish or
reach a goal
5. Promotion/demotion or lack of promotion 5. Organization, management, or policies – no
– worker was promoted, or not promoted, though particular person(s)
Downloaded by HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION LIBRARY At 02:41 07 April 2015 (PT)

he/she expected promotion

6. Responsibility – responsibility was increased, a 6. Customer – includes students, patients, buyers
special assignment was given, or responsibility was not
increased as desired, did not receive special assignment
7. Verbal recognition of work/negative verbal 7. Nonhuman Agent – nature, machinery, weather,
recognition of work – worker was praised, thanked, “God”
complimented, or worker was criticized, blamed, or
not thanked
8. Money – worker received monetary raise or bonus, 8. No Agent – luck, Murphy’s law; or unclassifiable
or did not receive desired raise or bonus
9. Interpersonal atmosphere – there was a pleasant
atmosphere where people got along well, or the
atmosphere was unpleasant where people got along
poorly
10. Physical working conditions pleasant/unpleasant
– temperature, machinery, hours of work were pleasant
and manageable, or they were unpleasant
11. Uncodable or other – there was a good outcome of
a union election, or there was an accident, or poor
outcome to a union election

work force as compared to that of the 1970s and However, whereas the values are much more
1980s. Emphasizing this change, the authors subjective to the worker and have developed
(Blanchard and Hersey, 1996) exhort that “lead- over the individual’s life, attitudes can be
ership is done with people, not to people”. impacted or influenced much more easily.
In seeking to create specific boundaries and
clarification of his categories, Herzberg noted
Conclusion and implications that factors which cause extreme satisfaction
and extreme dissatisfaction were not identi-
In the manager’s search for knowledge on
cal for the most part. Though Locke’s
motivation of employees or the enhancement response places the event factors on the same
of job satisfaction, Herzberg’s concept of spectrum, the dual-factor findings of
attitude as a force powerful in determining Herzberg are significant in that they
output has been complemented by Locke’s pioneered a new way of thinking, drawing
formulation of value and its importance to attention to the integral role that manage-
work goals and subsequently job satisfaction. ment has in cultivating satisfaction within
Additionally, the situational theory of leader- workers. Locke’s clarification of that which
ship serves to aid management in its balance motivates and the means through which
of task and relationship. “Attitude is every- someone is motivated in the agent/event
thing”, goes the familiar phrase. Indeed, theory, draws more practical application to
attitudes serve as the bottom line in specify- the way factors at work contribute to the
ing behavior. However, they do not act alone. experience of the worker as understood
The values, or worldview, a worker carries through satisfaction/dissatisfaction.
into the job form the foundation by which What Herzberg offers in his distinguishing
attitudes develop. Therefore, managers must between motivation and movement is applica-
acknowledge both the significance of attitudes ble for all management. A kick in the pants
and values to the actions of the worker. gets the job done, to be sure. However, it
[ 230 ]
 Mark A. Tietjen and affects no lasting positive change within the Herzberg, F., Maunser, B. and Snyderman, B.
Robert M. Myers worker. This is not a call to cancel incentive (1959), The Motivation to Work, John Wiley
Motivation and job programs but to encourage consideration of a and Sons Inc., New York, NY.
satisfaction refined definition of motivation. This new House, R.J. and Wigdor, L.A. (1967), “Herzberg’s
Management Decision definition deals primarily with an adjust- dual-factor theory of job satisfaction
36/4 [1998] 226–231 ment in performance as a function of an and motivation: a review of the evidence
adjustment in the work of the employee. and a criticism”, Personal Psychology,
Likewise, both theories point to the work pp. 369-89.
itself as containing the most potential for Locke, E.A. (1970), “The supervisor as ‘motivator’:
causing satisfaction. Enhanced, sustained his influence on employee performance and
satisfaction”, in Bass, B.M., Cooper, R. and
performance on the job results not so much
Haas, J.A. (Eds), Managing for Accomplish-
from the fully furnished office or the temper-
ment, Heath and Company, Washington, DC,
ature of the work environment, but the basic
pp. 57-67.
duty assigned in the job description and all
Downloaded by HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION LIBRARY At 02:41 07 April 2015 (PT)

Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job

those intrinsic feelings that produce positive
satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.),
attitudes about that duty. Although aspects of
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
one’s personal life as well as non-job factors Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL,
at work influence the behavior and eventu- pp. 1297-349.
ally the satisfaction of the worker, it is the Locke, E.A., Cartledge, N. and Knerr, C.S. (1975),
work itself which brings fulfilment and “Studies of the relationship between satisfac-
Maslow’s higher order of needs into being. tion, goal-setting and performance”, in Steers,
For management, this means that when a M.R. and Porter, W.L. (Eds), Motivation and
worker’s performance steadily declines, it is Work Behavior, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY,
not due to a lack of perks or enforcement on pp. 464-73.
the part of management. Instead, the task of Maslow, A.H. (1954), Motivation and Personality,
the employee should be altered in such a way Harper & Row Publishers, New York, NY.
that the fulfilment gained from doing the job Maslow, A.H. (1962), Toward a Psychology of
is expected daily. Being, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company,
New York, NY.
References Rand, A. (1964), “The objectivist ethics”, in Rand,
Blanchard, K.H. and Hersey, P. (1996), “Great A. (Ed.), The Virtue of Selfishness, Signet,
ideas”, Training and Development, January, New York, NY, p. 15.
pp. 42-7. Steininger, D.J. (1994), “Why quality initiatives
Herzberg, F. (1968), “One more time: how do you are failing: the need to address the foundation
motivate employees?”, Harvard Business of human motivation”, Human Resource
Review, pp. 53-62. Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 601-16.

Application questions
1 How is it possible to affect the attitudes of enhancement and even reconfiguration of
employees in your organization, such that tasks within a job?
attitude does not become a factor which 3 In diagnosing problems experienced by
leads to dissatisfaction? employees and pinpointing their sources,
2 Does recent company policy reflect an does management often confuse agent and
attempt to move employees through event factors?
reward/punishment conditions or 4 Is management doing its job in balancing
motivate employees through the the task with relationships?

[ 231 ]
 This article has been cited by:

1. Abdulaziz M. Jarkas, Milan Radosavljevic, Liu Wuyi. 2014. Prominent demotivational factors influencing the productivity of
construction project managers in Qatar. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 63:8, 1070-1090.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Susanna Kultalahti, Riitta Liisa Viitala. 2014. Sufficient challenges and a weekend ahead – Generation Y describing motivation
at work. Journal of Organizational Change Management 27:4, 569-582. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Steven Westlund. 2013. Leading Techies. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals
2:10.4018/jhcitp.20110401, 1-15. [CrossRef]
4. Jonathan H Westover. 2013. The impact of comparative state-directed development on working conditions and employee
satisfaction. Journal of Management & Organization 19, 498-518. [CrossRef]
5. Lourdes Canós‐Darós. 2013. An algorithm to identify the most motivated employees. Management Decision 51:4, 813-823.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Martin Gächter, David A. Savage, Benno Torgler. 2013. Retaining the thin blue line. International Journal of Social Economics
40:5, 479-503. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Lars Willnat, David H. Weaver, Jihyang Choi. 2013. THE GLOBAL JOURNALIST IN THE TWENTY-FIRST
Downloaded by HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION LIBRARY At 02:41 07 April 2015 (PT)

CENTURY. Journalism Practice 7, 163-183. [CrossRef]

8. Jonathan H Westover. 2012. The Impact of Comparative State-Directed Development on Working Conditions and Employee
Satisfaction. Journal of Management & Organization 1971-2006. [CrossRef]
9. Francis A. Adzei, Roger A. Atinga. 2012. Motivation and retention of health workers in Ghana's district hospitals. Journal of
Health Organization and Management 26:4, 467-485. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Jonathan H Westover. 2012. The impact of comparative state-directed development on working conditions and employee
satisfaction. Journal of Management & Organization 18, 537-554. [CrossRef]
11. Jonathan H. Westover. 2012. Comparative welfare state impacts on work quality and job satisfaction. International Journal
of Social Economics 39:7, 503-525. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. ALI RAVARI, MOHSEN BAZARGAN, ZOHRE VANAKI, TAYEBE MIRZAEI. 2012. Job satisfaction among Iranian
hospital-based practicing nurses: examining the influence of self-expectation, social interaction and organisational situations.
Journal of Nursing Management 20:10.1111/jonm.2012.20.issue-4, 522-533. [CrossRef]
13. Hamidah Abdul Rahman, Azizah Raja, Roziana Shaari, Siti Aisyah Panatik, Ishak Mad Shah, Khairunnisa Hamid. 2012.
Employees Contentment in an Organization. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 40, 604-608. [CrossRef]
14. Fang Yang. 2011. Work, motivation and personal characteristics: an in‐depth study of six organizations in Ningbo. Chinese
Management Studies 5:3, 272-297. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Carolyn Stringer, Jeni Didham, Paul Theivananthampillai. 2011. Motivation, pay satisfaction, and job satisfaction of front‐
line employees. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 8:2, 161-179. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Jeannette Taylor, Jonathan H. Westover. 2011. Job Satisfaction in The Public Service. Public Management Review 13, 731-751.
[CrossRef]
17. Aleksandra Pop‐Vasileva, Kevin Baird, Bill Blair. 2011. University corporatisation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal 24:4, 408-439. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Jasna Auer Antoncic, Bostjan Antoncic. 2011. Employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and firm growth: a model. Industrial
Management & Data Systems 111:4, 589-607. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Angelos Pantouvakis. 2011. Internal service quality and job satisfaction synergies for performance improvement: Some evidence
from a B2B environment. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 19, 11-22. [CrossRef]
20. Maria de Lourdes Machado, Virgílio Meira Soares, Rui Brites, José Brites Ferreira, Odília Maria Rocha Gouveia. 2011. A Look
to Academics Job Satisfaction and Motivation in Portuguese Higher Education Institutions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 29, 1715-1724. [CrossRef]
21. Feyyat Gokce. 2010. Assessment of teacher motivation. School Leadership & Management 30, 487-499. [CrossRef]
22. Thomas Lange, Gail Pacheco, Vijay Kumar Shrotryia. 2010. Culture, industrialisation and multiple domains of employees'
job satisfaction: a case for HR strategy redesign in India. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 21,
2438-2451. [CrossRef]
23. Rong Ma, David G. Allen. 2009. Recruiting across cultures: A value-based model of recruitment. Human Resource
Management Review 19, 334-346. [CrossRef]
24. Christine Lundberg, Anna Gudmundson, Tommy D. Andersson. 2009. Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of work motivation
tested empirically on seasonal workers in hospitality and tourism. Tourism Management 30, 890-899. [CrossRef]
 25. Carmel Herington, Lester W. Johnson, Don Scott. 2009. Firm–employee relationship strength—A conceptual model. Journal
of Business Research 62, 1096-1107. [CrossRef]
26. Nick Bontis, Alexander Serenko. 2009. A causal model of human capital antecedents and consequents in the financial services
industry. Journal of Intellectual Capital 10:1, 53-69. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Emmett J. Lodree, Christopher D. Geiger, Xiaochun Jiang. 2009. Taxonomy for integrating scheduling theory and human
factors: Review and research opportunities. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 39, 39-51. [CrossRef]
28. Sally Sledge, Angela K. Miles, Samuel Coppage. 2008. What role does culture play? A look at motivation and job satisfaction
among hotel workers in Brazil. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 19, 1667-1682. [CrossRef]
29. Theodore Metaxas. 2008. Attractive Investment Images in Southeastern Europe: the Case of Varna, Bulgaria. South East
European Journal of Economics and Business 3. . [CrossRef]
30. Anastasios Zopiatis, Panikkos Constanti. 2007. Human resource challenges confronting the Cyprus hospitality industry.
EuroMed Journal of Business 2:2, 135-153. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Yannis Georgellis, Thomas Lange. 2007. Participation in continuous, on-the-job training and the impact on job satisfaction:
longitudinal evidence from the German labour market. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 18, 969-985.
[CrossRef]
32. Elizabeth Parsons, Adelina Broadbridge. 2006. Job motivation and satisfaction: Unpacking the key factors for charity shop
Downloaded by HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION LIBRARY At 02:41 07 April 2015 (PT)

managers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13, 121-131. [CrossRef]

33. Michael Byrne. 2006. The Implications of Herzberg's "Motivation-Hygiene" Theory for Management in the Irish Health
Sector. The Health Care Manager 25, 4-11. [CrossRef]
34. María José Garrido, Pilar Pérez, Carmen Antón. 2005. Determinants of sales manager job satisfaction. An analysis of Spanish
industrial firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 16, 1934-1954. [CrossRef]
35. Shah Jalal Sarker, Alf Crossman, Parkpoom Chinmeteepituck. 2003. The relationships of age and length of service with
job satisfaction: an examination of hotel employees in Thailand. Journal of Managerial Psychology 18:7, 745-758. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
36. Peter W. Brodbeck. 2002. Complexity theory and organization procedure design. Business Process Management Journal 8:4,
377-402. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
37. Chris Gee, Maria E. Burke. 2001. Realising potential: the new motivation game. Management Decision 39:2, 131-137.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Steven WestlundLeading Techies 200-215. [CrossRef]