The_Human_Relations_View_of_Motivation

uman JveLaliom View ojJnoilvailon 67 H. Roy Kaplan Curt Tausky Bhopinder S. Bolaria 3i 68 uman relations theorists arc by no means cast in the same mold, yet they share a core of "principles" that rest on assumptions about human nature and motivation that deserve critical analysis. Let us begin with the concept of job enlargement, since it provides a convenient handle on human relations thinking. Job enlargement refers to combining the small tasks of several men performing short work cycles into a larger task performed by one man in a longer work cycle. The concept itself is both normative and empirical, combining, as it does, the assertion that the dignity of man requires job enlargement with assurances that increased job satisfaction and individual output result from it. Rensis Likert states the normative side of the case unequivocably in his New Patterns of Management: Every worker "should sec his task as difficult, important, and meaningful. . . . V/hen jobs do not meet this specification, they should be reorganized so that they do." Job enlargement, as most of the human relations theorists view it, goes a good deal beyond combining tasks into a natural and more meaningful unit; it also involves giving the worker more freedom and greater or control over the task. The employee participates in many of the decisions that determine the framework within which he works. Thus, we can see at the core of human relations theory a reaction against Frederick Taylor's scientific management. Among Taylor's principles of work organization, the most important centered on (1) the necessity to separate the functions of planning and execution—that is, t hinking from doing; (2) the advantages of specialization, which were to be gained by assigning men to small, routinized tasks; and (3) the requirement for material incentives, since he believed that man is by nature lazy and responds only to a prompt and tangible reward. For Taylor, the application of these principles was the key to increased organizational productivity; to human relations theor- ists, the solution to greater productivity lies in standing Taylor on his head: recombine small jobs and fuse thinking and doing as much as possible. By organizing the work in shop and office in this manner, runs the argument, material incentives become of secondary importance in motivating workers, since the motivation to exert effort in behalf of organizational goals follows naturally and inevitably from the intrinsically interesting nature of the work itself. Although human relationists react against the substantive reasoning of scientific management, they share a common outlook on two basic issues. First, both theories hold out the tantalizing promise of increased work effort among organizational participants. They differ on how to accomplish this, but both agree that there is a "one best way." Job 69 enlargement and participation are among the principal means proposed by human relationists to heighten commitment toward work. One feature of these means should be highlighted—the assumption of a relationship between nonfinancial satisfactions and the degree of effort expended on work tasks: The greater the degree of nonfinancial satisfactions achieved, the greater will be the amount of effort expended by the worker on his job. A second revealing similarity between scientific management and human relations is the assumption that individual interests and organizational roles are compatible. If conflict exists, it is due to a defect in organization, and this can be remedied. Within the scientific management framework, the proper manipulation of monetary incentives was thought to solve the problem; within the human relations framework, training in interpersonal relations and employee participation in resolving work problems are held to be the solution to most conflicts between individual interests and those of the organization. BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF HUMAN RELATIONS To understand the human relations viewpoint, we must look at its basic premises about the nature of man and his commitment to work. Fortunately, Douglas McGregor, one of the founders of the human relations movement, has laid out two basic and contrasting perspectives of man in his well-known Theories X and Y. Theory X, as he points out, is the "conventional" view of the tasks of management and its assumptions about man. Theory Y, he argues, is a different conception of management "based on more adequate assumptions about human nature and human motivation." 70 Theory X states: 1. Management is responsible for organizing the elements o£ productive enter- prise—money, materials, equipment, people —in the interest of economic ends. 2. W ith respect to people, this is a process of directing their efforts, motivating them, controlling their actions, and modifying their behavior to fit the needs of the organization. 3. W ithout this active intervention by management, people would be passive, even resistant, to organizational needs. They must therefore be persuaded, rewarded, punished, controlled—their actions must be directed. This is management's task. We often sum it up by saying that management consists of getting things done through other people. 4. T he average man is by nature indolent—he works as little as possible. 5. H e lacks ambition, dislikes responsibility, prefers to be led. 6. He is inherently self-centered, indifferent to organizational needs. 7. H e is by nature resistant to change. 8. He is gullible, not very bright, the ready dupe of the charlatan and demagogue. Theory Y states: 1. Management is responsible for organizing the elements of productive enterprise—money, materials, equipment, people— in the interest of economic ends. 2. People are not by nature passive or resistant to organizational needs. They have become so as a result of experience in organizations. 3. T he motivation, the potential for development, the capacity for assuming responsibility, the readiness to direct behavior toward organizational goals are all present in people. Management does not put them there. It is a responsibility of management to make it possible for people to recognize and develop these human characteristics for themselves. 4. T he essential task of management is to arrange organizational conditions and methods of operations so that people can achieve their goals best by directing their own efforts toward organizational objectives. Notice especially assumption 6 in Theory X, and its explicit rejection by assumption 2 in Theory Y. The point that should be stressed is that the "conventional" view of man assumes that he is self-centered. A control system organized around a carrotand-stick system of material rewards is therefore necessary in order to induce men to cooperate in achieving organizational goals. On the other hand—given assumptions 2 and 3 in Theory Y, the "proper" organizational structure—large jobs and decision making shared between superiors and subordinates are held to be the inducements that result in sustained effort to achieve organizational goals. Theory X is skeptical about man, much in the manner of Thomas Hobbes, who viewed man as basically self-centered, his predatory instincts being held in check solely by the fear of punishment and the promise of reward. Theory Y, on the other hand, is optimistic in the manner of Jean Jacques Rousseau, who saw man as altruistic in nature but corrupted by existing institutions. It seems apparent that the thrust of human relations writings on organizational structure incorporates assumption 4 of Theory Y: Self-interestedness and material concerns, which on the surface are characteristic of man, are actually products of the rigidly hierarchical control systems and tedious tasks embedded in work organizations as they presently exist. It is the implicit assumption of human relationists that all individuals can, should, and indeed want to obtain satisfaction and intrinsic involvement in their work. In his book, Worff^ and the Nature of Man, Professor Frederick Herzberg of The University of Utah makes this point succinctly: Probably one of the most destructive misinterpretations of the American way of life has been to belittle, attentuate, and degrade the concept of the worker's initiative and achievement as pursued for economic profit. Man docs work for profit in order to avoid pain; but in a positive sense, he works to enjoy the excitement and meaning that achievement provides for his own psychological growth and thereby his happiness. The limitarion of goals by those in industry to that of profit is contradicting and reducing our nation's great heritage. It suggests that there is no nobler purpose in the American experiment than the satisfaction of the avoidance needs of animals. How valid are the positions held by the human relationists.'' To what extent do the realities of life in the workplace correspond to their generous description of man and his motives' Do the data repute their depiction or confirm it—or is the evidence contradictory and the general picture confused.'* How V ALID IS THE CASE FOR P ARTICIPATION ' We should first distinguish between participation and other aspects of job enrichment. The employee might logically appreciate a bigger, more interesting, more challenging task without necessarily wanting greater control over the conditions under which he performs it. Similarly, an employee might value the chance for increased participation in decisions affecting his job without desiring a bigger, more interesting job, which he may view as more demanding and stressful. Participation in organizations received a lot of impetus from the research of Kurt Lewin in the 194O's among boys' clubs and Red Cross volunteer nurses. This research supported the hypothesis that participation in decision making heightened cooperation toward group goals. These studies and more that followed were essentially a critique 71 H. Roy Kaplan is presently assistant projessor oj sociology at the State University oj New Yor\ in Buffalo, His major research interests are in industrial sociology, complex organizations, and medical sociology. Projessor Kaplan has done graduate wor^ at the University oj Maine and the University oj Massachusetts. Curt Tausky is associate projessor oj sociology at the University oj Massachusetts. He is the author oj numerous writings on industrial sociology and complex organizations, including his recently published boo\. Work Organizations: Major TTieoretical Perspectives. Projessor Tausky received his PhD. at the University oj Oregon. 72 Bhopinder S. Bolaria is assistant projessor oj sociology at the University oj Maine. He is also a member oj the Manpou/er Research jaculty there, and director oj the Research and Evaluation Service oj the Maine Regional Medical Program. His areas oj specialization include industrial sociology, complex organizations, and medical sociology. Professor Bolaria received his Ph.D. at Washington State University. of the unilateral exercise of power: Participation is the opposite of simply expecting subordinates to do as they are told. The compatibility of participation with democratic values is obvious. Underlying both is the assumption that a shared decision produces commitment among the participants. Moreover, human relations theory postulates a link between participation and productivity. The chain of reasoning follows these lines: Participation increases satisfaction, and satisfaction is reflected in increased work effort. Hugh Clegg, in A New Approach to Industrial Democracy, examined the outcome of worker participation in the form of codetermination and workers' management. His findings are most interesting: First, participation through representation does not of itself enhance workers' satisfaction. Second, productivity is not related to participation through representation. Nevertheless, it does appear to be true that, at the person-toperson level, having a voice in the work process does increase satisfaction, and here human relations has an important point. However, one should not make too much of this. Let us indicate briefly what can be said about the consequences of participation with some degree of confidence. • Most workers, whether white-collar or blue-collar, do not seek a peer relationship with their supervisor. This emerged quite clearly in studies reported by Arnold Tannenbaum in Control in Organization. H e found that when employees were asked about the existing distribution of control, and what it should be ideally, there was little divergence between the two distributions. The respondents did want more "say," but not much more than they had. Although a more consultative relationship was desired, it was well within the framework of expecting management to manage. • Whatever increment in satisfaction may result from moving toward a consultative relationship is not reflected to a significant extent in greater work effort. Studies by Victor Vroom, Arthur Brayfield, and James Crockett surveyed the relationship between satisfaction and productivity and found it to be of negligible magnitude. Tannenbaum, in a study of 33 automobile dealerships and 32 delivery agencies, found correlations between job satisfaction and productivity ranging from .14 to —.18; in other words the relationship between satisfaction and productivity ranged from slightly positive to negative. However, there is evidence to suggest that turnover and absenteeism are more closely related to satisfaction than is direct work effort. Thus, we should not dismiss the long-run consequences of satisfaction for the organization. • Even among professionals, as shown in the large-scale study of Donald Pelz and Frank Andrews, Scientists in Organizations, complete autonomy resulted in less scientific productivity than situations in which decision making depended on consultation between peers. Apparently, the discussion of new directions and findings of research with other scientists and the laboratory director is salutary. • Extensive participation may be more important to academic theorists than to people in bureaucratic settings. The material rewards an organization provides may, especially at the manual level, outweigh any interest in participation in decision making. John Goldthorpe's study. The Affluent WorJ^er, finds a very pronounced pecuniary orientation toward work among factory workers in Britain: Their major interest was the size of the wage package. One might speculate that whatever success such programs as the Scanlon Plan and the Kaiser Plan enjoy is 73 d ue more to their potential for increasing the employee's pay, than to the increased work effort that presumably follows from the consultative relations also featured in the plan. DEFINING JOB ENRICHMENT 74 Most human relationists subscribe to the need theory of Abraham Maslow, which stresses the need for people to self-actualize in their life activities, particularly work. From this arises the warning to management to provide employees with interesting and stimulating work that helps to satisfy higher-level needs. Human relationists frequently contend that contemporary complex organizations with their elaborate specialization of tasks, web of rules and regulations, and mechanized technology are alienating large segments of workers from their work and work places. Some writers, such as Robert Blauner, go so far as to speculate that a majority of workers in our society may be estranged from their work. These supposed trends have led to extensive researches on job satisfaction among various segments of the labor force. One study of accountants and engineers by Frederick Herzberg and his associates led to the postulation of a new conception of worker motivation, the Motivation-Hygiene theory of job satisfaction. Based on a rationalistic conception of man and his perfectibility, and largely derived from theories emphasizing the importance of the satisfaction of higher-level needs through work, this theory emerged on the scene in the late 195O's. The theory stated that there were two dichotomous sets of factors, each having different effects on the attitudes of workers and their motivations. One set of factors, labeled "motivators," was said to be related to the intrinsic aspects of the work situation—e.g., the work task itself— and was believed to affect job satisfaction. When "motivators," such as the opportunity for achievement, advancement, and recognition, are present at satisfactory levels in a person's job, satisfaction occurs. However, it is the "hygienes," those factors concerned with the extrinsic aspect of the work environment, such as salary, job security, working conditions, and supervision, that affect job dissatisfaction. According to this theory, the absence of "motivators" does not lead to job dissatisfaction, but to lack of job satisfaction. If "hygienes" are present at sufficient levels in the worker's job, satisfaction does not occur, there is merely an absence of job dissatisfaction—a neutral state. However, should the level of "hygiene" satisfaction be less than that desired by the worker, job dissatisfaction will ensue. This theory, like many contemporary human relations approaches to work, puts the satisfaction of "higher-level needs" such as self-actualization at the core of man's motivation to work. The reason for this position is not hard to grasp in view of Herzberg's conception of the dual nature of man, v/hich he refers to as the concept of Adam and Abraham. Adam is the animal part of man, continually seeking the satisfaction of such basic needs as food and shelter, and he represents a myopic perspective of life. Abraham, however, is the embodiment of all that is human in man. He stands for the rational, perfectible counterpart of Adam. His goal is to mature psychologically and to realize his true potential through his work. Herzberg's theory of motivation assumes that an individual's job must be meaningful and allow for the lasting satisfaction of higher-level needs in order to satisfy the cravings of Abraham. Otherwise, motivation must be achieved through the carrot-and-stick method of continual offerings of hygienic rewards—e.g., salary increases. (Herzberg uses the acronym KITA—Kick In The Ass—for these types of motivating stimuli.) Such rewards are presumed to afford increased motivation, but only for a short duration, since the basic needs of man are thought to be insatiable and therefore cyclical. Unique and resourceful as this theory may be, we should not allow ourselves to uncritically accept its assumptions regarding the nature of man. More of this shortly. However, a more empirical point of contention concerns the failure of the theory to consider that workers in different segments of the labor force have varying orientations. Moreover, while Herzberg's original study was of professional white-collar workers, subsequent studies of similar level workers reveal that there is frequently no discernible uniformity among their work orientations, either. Figure 1 contains an inventory of studies of white-collar and professional workers that support and refute the Motivation-Hygiene theory. It is apparent that more than half of the studies presented do not confirm the theory. This questions the applicability of the theory even to professional and white-collar workers. Figure 1 STUDIES ON THE MOTIVATION-HYGIENE THEORY 'Signifies support of the theory. Source *Schwarz, Paul, Attitudes of Middle-Management Personnel (Pittsburgh: American Institutes for Research, 1959). Sample 372 third level supervisors. •Harrison, Roger, "Sources of Motivations in Manager's Job Attitudes," Personnel Psychology, XIII (Winter, 1960), pp. 425-434. 186 first- and second-level supervisors in a manufacturing firm. •Schwartz, et al., "Modvarional Factors Among Supervisors in the Utility Industry," Personnel Psychology. XVI (Spring, 1963), pp. 4S-53. 111 male supervisors in 21 utility companies. Friedlander, Frank, "Underlying Sources of Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology, XLVII (August, 1963), pp. 246-250. Engineers, supervisors and salaried employees of a manufacturing concern (200 of each level). •Saleh, Shoukry D., "A Study of Attitude Change in tbe Preretirement Period," Journal of Applied Psychology, XLVIII (October, 1964), pp. 31&312. 85 male managerial preretirees in 12 companies. •Myers, M. Scott, "Who Are Your Motivated Workers'," Harvard Business Review, XLII (January-February, 1964), pp. 73-78. 230 male scientists, engineers, and manufacturing supervisors. •Friedlander, Frank, Eugene Walton, "Positive and Negative Motivations Toward Work," Administrative Science Quarterly, IX (1964), pp. 194207. 82 scientists and engineers at an armed services research and development laboratory. Ewen, Robert B., "Some Determinants of Job Satisfaction: A Study of the Generality of Herzberg's Theory," Journal of Applied Psychology, XLVII (June, 1964), pp. 161-163. 1,021 full-time life insurance agents. 75 •Herzberg, Frederick, "The Motivation to Work Among Finnish Supervisors," Personnel Psychology, XVIII (Winter, 1965), pp. 393-402. 139 lower-level supervisors in Finland. •Dysingcr, Dale W., "Motivational Factors Affecting Army Research and Development Personnel," Report AD 640-390, American Institutes for Research, May, 1966. 600 research and development scientists and engineers from 12 Army installations. Wernimont, Paul F., "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors in Job Satisfaction," journal oj Applied Psychology, L (February, 1966), pp. 41-50. Graen, George B., "Motivator and Hygiene Dimensions for Research and Development Engineers," journal oj Applied Psychology, L (December, 1966), pp. 563-566. 153 engineers from two electronics firms. Hinrichs, John R., Louis A. Mischkind, "Empirical and Theoretical Limitations of rfie Two-Factor Hypothesis of Job Satisfaction," journal oj Applied Psychology, LI (April, 1967), pp. 191-200. 613 male technicians in a large national company. Hulin, Charles L., Patricia A. Smith, "An Empirical Investigation of Two Implications of the TwoFactor Theory of Job Satisfaction," Journal oj Applied Psychology. LI (October, 1967), pp. 396-402. 670 home office employees, supervisors, and executives in a large international corporation in Montreal, Quebec. Wernimont, Paul F ., Paul Toren, Henry Kapell, "Comparison of Sources of Personal Satisfaction and of Work Motivation," journal oj Applied Psychology, LIV (1970), pp. 95-102. 775 scientists and technicians at a Midwestern plant. Gruenfcld, Leopold W., Peter Weisscnberg, "Field Independence and Articulation of Sources of Job Satisfaction," journal oj Applied Psychology, LIV (1970), pp. 424-426. 96 male civil service employees. Armstrong, Thomas B., "Job Content and Context Factors Related to Satisfaction for Different Occupational Levels," journal oj Applied Psychology, LV (1971), pp. 57-65. 76 50 accountants and 82 engineers. 200 engineers and 153 assemblers at an electronics manufacturing company in New York. What has happened to the universal need of man to realize his full potential through his work ' H erzberg and other human relationists reply that the need is still there, but dormant. People have become preoccupied with the satisfaction of lower-level needs in their quest for monetary status and prestige. Organizations have fostered dependency and immaturity through rigid authori- tarian structures that enable a handful of men at the top to make all the meaningful decisions; also, rewarding employees hygienically produces a cycle of perpetual shortterm motivation and want. To rectify this supposedly abnormal situation, Herzberg and others have proposed the implementation of various programs of job enrichment to provide workers with the satisfaction of their higher-level needs by increasing their job involvement through rotating and enlarging jobs and developing their achievement, creativity, and independence. A DISSENTING VIEW OF WORKER MOTIVATION Not all workers are totally committed to their jobs, nor do they view their work as intrinsically satisfying. But this is not necessarily because they are mentally ill, as Herzberg states, or emotionally immature, as Chris Argyris and some human relationists suggest. There are many workers who want and derive most of their satisfactions away from their jobs. This may not be due to an unhealthy perspective, if work is coming to occupy a position of lesser importance in the lives of men—a point open to empirical investigation. Even if the importance of work has not diminished, could the vast majority of workers in our society be trained rapidly for jobs that allow them the opportunity to self-actualize.' There is also the fact that many jobs do not lend themselves to being enriched without vast expense. Then, too, there are many workers who do not want their jobs enlarged, rotated, or altered—they are content with the status quo. To this last point, human relationists retort that such workers have only learned a negative orientation toward work; the organization has corrupted them, as it were, and in their corrupted state they are disloyal to the organization or, at least, capable of being disloyal. Such conclusions are unwarranted. Why should we believe that all men seek the ultimate satisfaction of higher-level needs in their work, when, in fact, the probability exists that a sizable proportion of the working population has little interest in doing so.' Isn't it possible that people must learn to desire self-actualization in their work, rather than to assume that the desire is an inherent characteristic of human nature' There may be only a limited segment of the labor force that through long training, class background, and identification with a profession has become intrinsically dedicated to work—for example, scientists in basic research, R&D engineers, and some executives. Interestingly, Pelz and Andrews found that even scientists and engineers are interested in extrinsic rewards as well as in the work itself. T his point suggests the probable academic bias of many human relations writers and their theories. Based in academic surroundings, which aflord them the opportunity to be creative and to self-actualize, have they inadvertently infused their own value orientations into their theories and overgeneralized the applications of such concepts to all men } The flaw in the human relations perspective is that it is often assumed that the goals of the individual and the organization are compatible; some human relationists even contend that they are, or should be, the same. From their perspective, the organization should help its employees to mature psychologically and emotionally by providing meaningful job experiences for them, for which service employees, in return, would work enthusiastically to achieve organizational goals. How neat this package sounds! But life is not quite so simple, and neither are the motivations of workers. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIVATION, CLASS, A D JOBS N When he considers the motivations of his workers, an employer must be aware of the variety of their needs and wants. Many studies have shown that the desire for achieve- 77 m ent and independence in work is found substantially less among lower-class workers than among middle and upper class workers. For example. Figure 2 presents tbe results of tbree surveys of worker orientations conducted among different segments of tbe population in tbe United States. For the sake of brevity, only two items tbat bear directly on tbis discussion are included. Sample one was composed of a national cross-section of 274 blue-collar workers surveyed by the National Opinion Research Center. Sample two was based upon the responses of 1379 male vocadonal-tecbnical scbool students in four New England scbools. Sample tbree was drawn from an analysis of 151 middle managers employed in three firms in tbe Boston area. It can be readily seen that tbcrc is uniformity among all tbe samples regarding tbe desire to work, as Item 1 reflects. However, Item 2, concerning the goals of men in their jobs, reveals some important differences between the blue-collar workers and trainees on tbe one band, and tbe wbite-collar managers on the otber. Substantially more of tbe managers than of tbe blue-collar workers and vocational-tecbnical trainees were concerned witb gaining promotions in tbeir jobs, giving us a hint as to underlying differences in tbeir orientations to work. Many other studies have also illustrated divergent orientations among workers at different occupational levels. For example, Robert Dubin found tbat work was not a "central life interest" among tbe industrial workers be studied. However, using tbe same metbodological tool on bis sample of registered nurses, Louis Orzack reported tbeir orientations to tbeir jobs to be one of strong attachment, and concluded bis results were diametrically opposed to Dubin's. On botb levels, but particularly among lower-level workers, we find an interest in extrinsic job factors surrounding tbe work situation, such as salary, fringe benefits. Figure 2 WORK ORIENTATIONS OF M ALE BLUE-COLLAR W ORKERS, W HITE-COLLAR MANAGERS, AND VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL T RAINEES Blue-Collar Voc.-Tech. Wor\crs Trainees (N=274) (N=1379) White-CoUar Managers (N=151) /o /o 1. If by some chance you had enough money to live comfortably witbout working, do you tbink you would work anyway! 19 13 81 87 11 89 2. If you could be sure tbat your income would go up steadily without getting a promotion, would you care about being promoted ' 78 Would not work Would work anyway Yes No 25 75 39 fij 71 29 Source: Curt Tausky, " Occupation^ Mobility Interests," Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, {Nov., 1967), p. 246; data on vocational-technical trainees was derived from an unpublished study by Bhopinder S. Bolaria. job security, working conditions, and to some extent, supervision. In order to understand tbis orientation toward work, we should look first to tbe factors influencing workers to seek sucb rewards. Tbe blame sbould not be placed solely on the organizational structure —if indeed blame is an appropriate word to employ. We sbould focus instead on tbe opportunity structure of our society, wbicb bas produced limited occupational mobility, especially for members of lower social classes. Among tbose forced to remain in a condition of relative want there is a tendency to seek tbe satisfaction of lower-level needs to the exclusion of all otbers. As for the middle- and upper-class persons wbo seem preoccupied with status, salary, and fringe benefits, tbis is easily explainable in tbe context of our consumption-oriented society, whicb offers tbose rewards for achievement and performance. Are sucb people sick, or is it not normal for tbem to want what is most pressing in their lives—for tbe poor black in tbe gbetto, a steady job with maintenance pay; for the white middle-class executive, a sbiny desk in a private office, or a raise at tbe end of tbe year witb guaranteed paid vacations' To argue that this runs counter to human nature is illogical. At tbe moment, it is tbeir nature, or as Pascal would argue, their custom, which is but a second nature. ORGANIZATIONAL INTROSPECTION How do we go about motivating workers' The first step sbould be tbrough an assessment of their present needs and wants with respect to work. Awareness of tbe various orientations to work should lead to a clearer picture of wby an individual seeks employment at a particular firm, and what be wants and expects to get out of his job in tbe way of sucb tbings as "meaningful" work experience. salary, working conditions, and supervision. Knowing tbe expectations tbat workers bring to their jobs is a prerequisite for reducing conflict in tbe organization. For example, in assembly-line operations, to redesign tbe jobs and provide more room for the employee to exercise initiative might lead to lower production. The jobs, at least on paper, migbt be less efficient. Management would need to take a motivational audit of tbe employees involved in advance of any move to determine first, bow mucb increased initiative on the job really means to them—whether tbe results of increased motivation would tend to offset tbe tecbnical inefficiencies involved in tbe change; second, whether some other motivation, such as a more equitable incentive scbeme, would stand a better cbance of improving botb job satisfaction and output. In tbe final analysis, tbe need is for "organizational introspection." As for increasing loyalty among employees, it is wortb noting tbat as occupations become more "professionalized," loyalty to impersonal professional values may begin to take precedence over loyalty to organizational goals. With respect to tbe loyalty of lower-level personnel in organizations, extensive literature indicates tbeir preoccupation witb having a secure wage, and it is conceivable tbat if this is provided, job attachment and even loyalty to tbe employer may result among some of tbese workers. If history has anything to teach us about tbe subject, tbere is scant evidence that tbe buman relations approacb will be able to adequately cope witb organizational conflict unless it is rooted in person-to-person relationsbips tbat bave gone awry. Wbile the buman relationist model of tbe altruistic, workobsessed man is flattering, it is also idealistic and unrealistic, fitting too few workers to solve many organizational problems of worker motivation. S ELECTED BiBLtocRApHY Chris Argyris, in Personality and Organization (New York, Harper and Bros., 1957) indicts the stnicture of contemporary complex organizations for their deleterious effects on the intellectual growth and maturity of the individuals working in them. The book might more accurately have been entitled Personality Versus Organization. Robert Blauner, in Alienation and Freedom (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1964), analyzes differing technological systems and their effects on the people employed in them and attempts to establish that modern mass production technology has alienated large segments of workers. Hugh A. Clegg, in A Netv Aproach to Industrial Democracy (Oxford, England, Basil Blackwell, Ltd., 1963), presents a solid analysis of the consequences of workers' management and codetermination in European industry. John H. Goldthorpe and others, in The Affluent Wori^er: Industrial Attitudes and Behavior (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1968), is a study of manual workers in England that indicates a pronounced interest in off-the-job activities; on the job, the size of their pay was found to be the principal motivating factor. Frederick Herzberg, in Wor/^ and the Nature of Man (New York, World Publishing Co., 1966), presents an interpretation of the motivation of men based upon a dualistic perspective of human nature, and goes on to link this to a theory of worker motivation and mental health, Rensis Linkert, in Netv Patterns of Management (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961), presents discussion and data to demonstrate the gains in productivity and satisfaction following from the application of human relations principles. 80 Douglas McGregor, in "The Human Side of Enterprise," Management Review, Vol. 46 (November, 1957), discusses and appeals for the application of Theory Y instead of the conventional and generally employed Theory X. Donald C. Pelz, and Frank M. Andrews, Scientists in Organisations: Productive Climates for Research and Development (New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966), is an excellent study of 1500 scientists and engineers in government and private laboratories that examines a variety of organizational elements that influence scientific productivity. William G. Scott, in Organization Theory: A Behavioral Analysis for Management (Homewood, 111., Richard D . Irwin, Inc., 1967), provides an exhaustive review of theories and approaches to the study of organizations. He further attempts to outline a system of organization based upon the introduction of "industrial humanism" in organizations. Arnold S. Tannenbaum, Control in Organizations (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., .1968) is an anthology that draws together many of the studies conducted by the Institute for Social Research (University of Michigan) on control in a variety of organizational settings. A good summary of the human relations perspective is presented, together with a large body of data. Curt Tausky, in Wor^ Organizations: Major Theoretical Perspectives (Itasca, 111., Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1970), describes the major theories of organization and evaluates data on the plausibility of the theories. Finally, Frederick W . Taylor, Scientific Management (New York, Harper & Row, 1947) is a highly useful collection of Taylor's major statements on scientific management.