Air University Review, March-April 1969
Organizations are formed for the purpose of achieving an objective. The various activities that occur within the structure of an organization as it pursues its objective are identified as “organization behavior.” That factor of production which gives “organization behavior” its unique characteristic is the human element, the people who work within the organization. And “organization behavior” can be conceptualized as the summation of the individual behavior of each member of the organization.
A manager’s task, simply stated, is to design and control organization behavior. If we, as managers, wish to influence and modify that behavior, we must understand that to do so we must influence and modify the composite behavior of all the individuals within the organization.
Many managers are currently giving increased attention to the findings of behavioral scientists and considering the implications of their findings on organization structure, managerial behavior, and supervisory techniques. The Department of the Air Force has also recognized that its objectives will be achieved effectively and efficiently only as it understands better what influences the behavior of its officers and men.
In studying behavioral science, one learns that, just as the behavior or
movement of physical objects is caused by the combination of forces acting on
them, human behavior is caused by many influential factors. One finds also that
human behavior is need-oriented.l That is, behavior is aimed at the
fulfillment of some need or combination of needs experienced by the individual.
If we define a goal as that which will satisfy a given need, we can say that
man is goal-oriented or goal-directed. The concept of individual motivation can
now be introduced and defined as the willingness of the individual to expend
energy to achieve a goal and satisfy a need.
Managers in industry are concerned with the task of motivating their employees. A work force that is poorly motivated may exhibit lower productivity, poorer quality, more numerous grievances, and increased turnover when compared with a highly motivated work force. An organization so characterized is costly, while the development of highly motivated workers is economical. The Air Force also has a deep concern for the problem of motivating officers and airmen. Air Force personnel who are poorly motivated toward Air Force objectives will show lower productivity, increased discontent with their circumstances, and a desire to get out of the Air Force. The cost to the nation and the Air Force in lost production and in replacement training is considerable. These costs could be reduced by the increased retention rates and greater productivity associated with highly motivated personnel.
It is important to note that every individual is motivated to some degree. This motivation influences behavior that is directed toward his personal goals, the achievement of which he believes will satisfy his current needs. As managers we try to influence that portion of the individual’s behavior which occurs within the work environment. We expect that behavior to be coordinated with the behavior of other individuals and lead to the achievement of the organization’s objectives.
The problem faced by managers, then, is the structuring of a work environment that allows the individual to achieve personal goals and satisfy needs while at the same time assisting the organization to achieve its objectives. Only then do we have highly motivated employees from a manager’s viewpoint.
In 1966 the United States Air Force, concerned with the problem of
motivating Air Force officers and identifying factors influencing motivation,
undertook a study of the matter. The study report, entitled A Study in
Officer Motivation (New View), was completed in March 1967.2
The “New View” study was a systematic approach, using well-recognized research techniques to ascertain those factors or variables that influence Air Force job performance (productivity) and retention. From 15,772 junior officers (2 to 5 years’ service) a random selection provided the group to be studied. Data on their attitudes were obtained by a personal two-hour interview by trained interviewers.
The research technique utilized was the one developed by Professor Frederick Herzberg in research leading to his motivation hygiene theory.3 A summary of his findings is shown in Figure 1. Herzberg reached the following conclusions:
Feelings of strong job satisfaction come principally from the job itself and the opportunities for Achievement, the Recognition for the achievement, Work Itself, Responsibility, and professional Advancement and Growth. These factors are termed motivators since their presence in a worker’s job produces not only job satisfaction, but also increased productivity and retention. Feelings of dissatisfaction are more likely to be attached to the environment in which one does his job, from such factors as company policies and administration, supervision, working conditions, salary, personal life, and interpersonal relations. These factors are called “dissatisfiers” and are the source of job dissatisfaction that results in decreased productivity and retention. When both the motivators and dissatisfiers are properly applied and controlled, a motivated and productive worker is more likely to result.
|
|
“New View” confirmed Herzberg’s theory for the officer group investigated, finding the motivators leading to job satisfaction in the Air Force to be achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, advancement, growth, and patriotism, and the dissatisfiers to be salary, policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relations, personal life, status, working conditions, and security.
|
|
“New View” thus provided an answer to the question, What motivates an individual in the Air Force? It also provided a general answer to the question, How do we motivate the individual? We need to make his job rich in motivators. The technique of doing this is called job enrichment by Herzberg. This is not to be considered the same as job enlargement. A job that is boring and unchallenging is not enriched by being enlarged; it is only a bigger boring and unchallenging job. What is required is the addition of motivational factors to the job assignment.
Believing “New View” to be a very important report and worthy of study and application by every officer in the Air Force, we submit our analysis of it as a guide for implementation.
While the “New View” study gives new insight on what motivates the junior officer, further study would probably yield similar findings for all Air Force officers and airmen. The question is then how to utilize these findings to yield improved productivity, job performance, and lower turnover. The study gives some general guides but does not suggest specific actions to be taken, as these must be determined by individual officers and commanders.
There are two important actions which officers and commanders should take. First they should begin motivating subordinates by seeing that the jobs under their command are rich in motivational factors. A job assignment should offer possibilities for achievement, recognition, advancement, growth, and responsibility as well as be challenging and interesting. Herzberg identifies this condition as job enrichment.
Second, we need to improve those factors that provide the principal sources of job dissatisfaction: salary, organizational policy and administration, supervision, working conditions, status, and security.
While it is easy to make these simple though general statements, it certainly is more easily said than done.
When dealing with the human element, we must always remember that there is no book of rules and procedures to guide us infallibly in all situations. We may establish guiding principles to assist us, but we need to recognize that a manager’s (or officer’s) behavior at any time is influenced by the situation, the individual being supervised, and the supervisor himself.
The “New View” study increases our understanding, for it adds a concept to our knowledge of motivation: that people, whether in industry or in the Air Force, are motivated by factors relating to the job and are dissatisfied by factors peripheral to the job. This concept must take its appropriate place in our total store of knowledge, and we must utilize it wisely.
The supervisor must understand that he is dealing with individuals and that each individual is different. Some will be motivated by recognition, others by responsibility; and while there is an interrelationship between the motivators, each individual will react differently to them. There will be some, too, who are more interested in security and stability and will be frustrated and insecure when given a responsible, challenging assignment.
It is important to recognize, then, that there is no one single procedure, no structural program, which all commanders can initiate within their command to ensure more highly motivated individuals. Job enrichment is an individual-to-individual action performed by a supervisor for a specific individual on his specific job. What is desirable in one situation with one individual may not be satisfactory in a different situation and with another individual.
The implementation of “New View” therefore involves not so much a specific program or procedure for everyone to follow as an atmosphere-an attitude-that pervades the total organization. Although this atmosphere or attitude can be limited to a suborganization, it produces the most benefit when it pervades the total organization from top to bottom. It is my firm belief that the maximum benefits from this study will be realized only as its implications are understood by the highest authorities, who allow it to influence their method of management and thereby influence its adoption all the way down to each individual officer.
While I cannot be specific on how to implement “New View” knowledge, I can indicate some actions which would be inadvisable or questionable. As noted earlier, there can be no one program or action that will work for everyone. It would be a mistake to establish by command specific programs designed to motivate officers and men. All actions taken must be taken honestly and sincerely, not because of command edict. The atmosphere or attitude of each officer is more important than the specific program, which will differ between groups.
Care must be taken that actions intended to motivate are not in fact more concerned with those factors which are a source of job dissatisfaction. While it is important to reduce those irritants which cause one to be dissatisfied with the job, one misses the point of “New View” if he thinks such action will motivate the individual.
It is important that one’s actions be sincere. Too often a supervisor may attempt to give the “feeling” of responsibility, or the “feeling” of recognition, when no responsibility or recognition is in fact given. This is pure employee manipulation. While successful at times, when discovered (as it often is) the result is reduced motivation and increased dissatisfaction. We are not interested in giving people the “feeling” of something, but in giving them the real thing.
In building a motivating, job-enriching atmosphere, one should consider such things as encouraging further education and study, participation on junior officer councils, interviews with the individuals, awards, and field contacts by commanders.
Education can be a motivator and desirable if the individual, once he has gained the additional knowledge or degree, is given the opportunity of using it on the job, either through job enrichment or promotion. Educational opportunities provided for the individual will raise his expectations. If he is not given the opportunity to use his increased knowledge on the job, once he has completed a course of study or reached a higher level of capability, he may be motivated to look elsewhere for opportunities and leave. Therefore it might be wiser not to encourage his educational pursuits unless he can be given an enriched assignment, a promotion, or another job change that will allow him to use his new skills.
Junior officer councils can be an excellent way of giving recognition and responsibility provided they are doing meaningful work and are taken seriously by the commander. They should not be used as a convenient tool of the commander to get annoying little jobs done that he personally is not interested in or which are really negligible in importance. Too often the jobs may be used to give the officers a “feeling” of involvement and participation whereas their assigned tasks indicate this is not true involvement.
It is quite possible that some commanders will assign to junior officer councils the job of implementing “New View.” In my opinion this is a mistake. How can the junior officer council advise the commander that he needs to reconsider his approach to job assignments? How can they tell him it must start at the top and filter down through the total organization? How can they say, “Our jobs are lacking in motivational factors; enrich our jobs”? As noted earlier, implementing of “New View” cannot be delegated but must be the responsibility of each officer who supervises another, starting at the top.
In the area of recognition, there may be a number of programs similar to “Junior Officer of the Month” and “Accent on Bars.” These can be worthwhile, but they only scratch the surface. You don’t motivate a thousand men by recognizing one of them, and even one a month does not give many a chance to be recognized during the year. Recognition as a motivator needs to be less dramatic and more personal. It is the awareness by the individual on a daily basis that is important. This is accomplished in many ways by the supervisor as he relates to the worker-by thanks for a good job, a word of praise sincerely given, daily courtesies showing interest in the individual as a person. This is the important and basic recognition that is required, with a base award of some type as frosting on the cake.
An officer may utilize interviews with lower-ranking officers in an attempt to get a “feel” of his organization. I believe this approach and the resulting information should be questioned. To what degree does the subordinate feel free to express his true opinion to a superior officer? What is the possibility that he will communicate only what he feels the supervisor wants to hear? People are not completely free to express themselves, particularly to those who have influence over their careers. While this approach must be criticized, it is important to note that it can be a significant action. The problem is to increase the reliability of the information received, by developing an atmosphere that encourages a higher level of reliable and meaningful communication.
How can this be accomplished? One method would be by studies and reports like “New View.” In a sense this is a communication from a group of officers concerning what motivates them and what causes job dissatisfaction. Other studies of attitude might also be helpful in this respect. A second method, and by far the best, is to develop an atmosphere which encourages a high degree of honest communication among all levels of the hierarchy. This requires greater communication feedback within a supportive atmosphere.
Rensis Likert has said that this atmosphere can be achieved by practicing the “Principle of Supportive Relationships.” The principle can be briefly stated:
The leadership and other
processes of the organization must be such as to ensure a maximum probability
that in all interactions and all relationships, within the organization, each
member wi1l, in the light of his background, values, and expectations, view the
experience as supportive and one which builds and maintains his sense of
personal worth and importance. 4
This requires the supervisor to be sincerely concerned about others. He needs to treat them as equals and important rather than as objects to be moved or manipulated for his good. By building this concern into the organization and practicing it in everyday contacts, he will develop an increased capability to communicate with other individuals, and the information received will be more accurate, more reliable, and more helpful. Until he has developed an organization that achieves high-quality communication, he needs studies like “New View” to provide a better understanding of cause-and-effect relationships.
Changes in causal variables will influence intervening variables, which in turn affect end results. More meaningful measures of intervening variables will help managers to predict end results or will indicate when changes are needed in the causal variables. For example, job enrichment would be identified as a change in the causal variables. This change will result, according to “New View,” in more favorable attitudes about the Air Force.
More favorable attitudes about the Air Force will result in increased retention rates an end result. There is a time delay, however, in this sequence of actions. One follows the other. Unless we measure the intervening variable (officer or airman attitude), we may make the mistake of expecting a change in end results too quickly after a change in causal variables. Without these measurements we may abandon a change as unsuccessful whereas in fact it was successful and was only delayed in influencing the end results. Techniques for measuring intervening variables need to be developed and used by the Air Force.
The lessons of “New View,” properly applied, will assist each officer to develop the work environment and work assignments under his command so as to enable each individual to satisfy his personal needs and achieve personal goals while highly motivated to support the Air Force in its task of national defense.
Ames, Iowa
Notes
1. A. H. Maslow,”A Theory of Human Motivation,” Psychological Review, Vol. 50, 1943, pp. 370-96.
2. Department of the Air Force, A Study in Officer Motivation (New View), Office of the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, Washington, D.C., November 1966, VoIs. I and II.
3. Frederick Herzberg, “Motivation, Morale and Money,” Psychology Today, 1, 10 (March 1968), 42-45 and 66-67; F. Herzberg, “One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?” Harvard Business Review, 46, 1 (January-February 1968), 53-62; F. Herzberg, B. Mausner, and B. Synderman, The Motivation to Work (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959).
4. Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw-HilI Book Company, Inc., 1961), p. 103.
Dr. Clifford E. Smith (Ph.D., Iowa State University) is Associate Professor of Industrial Engineering at Iowa State, Ames, Iowa. He worked for Consumers Power Company and Spaulding Fibre Company, Lansing, Michigan, and for Packard Electric Division of General Motors Corporation, Warren, Ohio, from 1949 until he joined the ISU staff in 1962. While on leave from ISU, September 1968 to February 1969, he was with the University of Illinois College of Commerce and Business Administration as visiting associate professor and for further study of the behavioral sciences. Dr. Smith became familiar with the “New View” study while conducting research at Scott AFB, Illinois, in 1967, under an AFOSR contract.
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.
Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor
