In Work and the Nature of Man, Frederick Hersberg developed what be called the hygiene concept. This idea states that certain job conditions cause more trouble when absent than they do good when present. He called these the maintenance of Augiene factors, and noted that many managers considered them motivators, but that actually their effect was more negative than positive in that their absence was a common source of dissatisfaction. He listed ten of these:
1-Company policy and administration
2. Technical supervision
3. Interpersonal relations with supervisors
4. Interpersonal relations with peers
5. Interpersonal relations with subordinates
6. Salary
7. Job security
8. Personal life
9. Work conditions
10, Status
In contrast to these he found certain factors which have a positive effect on motivation and job satisfaction but whose absence does not cause great dissatisfaction. He called these the motivational factors or satisfiers. The six motivators were identified as:
1. Achievement
2. Recognition
3. Advancement
4. The work itself
5. The possibility of growth
6. Responsibility
Donnelly compared the Maslow and Herzberg models to illustrate some of the weaknesses in Herzberg’s approach. As you see, Herzberg’s motivational factors appear high on Maslow’s hierarchy-perhaps because Herzberg’s subjects were engineers and accountants. Herzberg has been criticized for other reasons, but his concept is a useful tool for analysis.
Much other work has been done on motivation which we do not have space to consider here. But we have said enough to show that it is of great importance for the manager to be aware that he is dealing with people, not with mere cogs in a machine, and that the more he knows about how they work, the more successful he will be.
Social scientists have studied small group and interpersonal relations for some years, but the application of their findings to the business system is fairly recent Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne studies in the 1920s and 1930s were the first to call attention to processes occurring in small groups which affect both individuals and the total organization. Ronald B. Levy classified groups in terms of feelings
1. Some group members are directed mainly toward themselves. They do little for the group, and are concerned mainly with what they can take from it. They generally wish to associate with the “right” people.
2 -Some group members have strong relationships with each other. They often have strong group loyalty, which can be transplanted into action to aid fellow members
3-The syntality group is comprised of members who have learned to identify and feel loyal to the group as a whole. They have become aware that the group is more than the sum total of the behavior of the separate members. This analysis may show us some of our motives for belonging to groups-and also the motives of our peers. Philips and Erickson identify five kinds of groups in terms of purpose, and these are related to the work group we shall soon come to.
1. People with a common concern for a problem who wish to devise a solution or take action.
2 People of various professional abilities wishing to investigate a problem and propose solutions to some person or group with authority to take action.
3. Legislative and decision-making groups regularly designated to deal with public.
4. Groups set up by established organizations to deal on a regular basis with problems as they arise.
5 Groups to implement plans for previously designated projects or policies.
Such groups suggest the nucleus of the structures that may evolve formally or informally in the organization of an enterprise. Groups of these five types are problem or goal-centered. Some may be formally appointed; others may meet informally because of special circumstances.
People working closely together interact and communicate with one another. Location is therefore a factor in the formation of work groups. People who perform related and specialized tasks are physically located in the same area or on the same. job-such as secretaries working in the same office.
Work groups are also formed for economic reasons, when people believe they can derive greater economic benefits from a cohesive group. Aside from unionization, older employees may form groups to further their interests in pension administration and benefits. In actual operations, where standards of performance are used as a basis of wage and incentive programs, a group may be formed to maintain a certain level of production or income.
A third kind of work group exists for socio-psychological reasons Maslow’s hierarchy of needs will help to explain the motives for joining such groups. Security, affection or the respect of peers, status or esteem, and even sell actualization are prominent among these motives. Such work groups-perhaps better called groups at work-are informal rather than formal, according to Philips and Erickson.
In contrast, management appoints formal separate groups to accomplish specific tasks. The formal group is appointed by a superior body, while the informal group comes together voluntarily for satisfactions it cannot get through the organization. There are several major differences between informal and formal work groups these stem from the nature of group leadership. The formal group has an appointed leader, and status, norms, and communications flow from this authority. The informal group selects its own leader, who emerges from the group membership and is given status by its members.
There are other group characteristics which the manager should be aware of in relation to work groups. For example, the cohesiveness or closeness of a group is in inverse ratio to its size: the smaller the group, the more cohesive it will be Dependence of members on the work group also affects its togetherness. Success in reaching goals and improvement in status increases cohesiveness. A group rated higher than other groups, or one whose past members have been promoted to the group, will be more cohesive than groups lower down on the ladder. The demands of management may also be an important factor in group cohesiveness. When management threatens action to raise performance levels, a group may grow closer under pressure or threat of the loss of security. Cohesiveness then may come from within the group or from external sources.
One important application of behavioral science theory to the work group situation is through sociometric analysis. J. L. Moreno developed the sociogram, a diagram charting the interpersonal relationships within groups. Through a series of questions, it is possible to learn which people would prefer to work with one another or which individuals may best serve as advisors to a group according to the group’s own preferences. Even a simple sociogram indicates certain relationships it is evident from this diagram that Joe is the overwhelming choice of this group as a work partner. We may conclude that he will emerge as the leader. Friendships are important because choices are reciprocated, and according to the diagram, there is evidence that Jim is an isolate, since nobody chose him to work with. The managers may wish to replace Jim in this group with somebody who would be more acceptable to the others. While this has been a simplified explanation of sociometry, it points out some of the values of the method. As Northway states, a sociometric score is in essence the number of times a person has been chosen by others as a preferred associate for certain actions. It points out that there are preferences and that individuals are conscious of them. By “certain actions,” sociometry implies that there is a time. Dimension and a task dimension, so that the same people may not like to perform the same task together, and that if they do, their feelings may change over time.
