One More Time:How Do You Motivate
Employees?
by Frederick Herzberg

Harvard Business Review
Reprint 87507

Harvard Business Review
HBR Subscriptions

Harvard Business Review
Subscription Service
P.O. Box 52623
Boulder, CO 80322-2623
Telephone: U.S. and Canada (800) 274-3214
Outside U.S. 44-85-846-8888
Fax: (617) 496-8145
American Express, MasterCard, VISA accepted. Billing available.

HBR Article Reprints
HBR Index

Harvard Business Review
Operations Department
Soldiers Field
Boston, MA 02163
Telephone: (800) 545-7685
Fax: (617) 496-8145

HBR Custom Reprints

Inquire about HBR’s custom service for quantity orders.
Imprint your company’s logo on reprint covers, select articles
for custom collections or books. Color available.
Telephone: (617) 495-6198
Fax: (617) 496-2470

Permissions

For permission to quote or reprint on a one-time basis:
Telephone: (800) 545-7685
Fax: (617) 495-6985
For permission to re-publish please write or call:
Permissions Editor
Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation
Soldiers Field
Boston, MA 02163(617) 495-6849

HarvardBusinessReview
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1987
Reprint Number
JOHN O. WHITNEY

TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT EVERY DAY

87514

TED KOLDERIEEDUCATION THAT WORKS:
THE RIGHT ROLE FOR BUSINESS

87508

CHESTER E. FINN, JR.

EDUCATION THAT WORKS:
MAKE THE SCHOOLS COMPETE

87504

SIR ADRIAN CADBURY

ETHICAL MANAGERS MAKE THEIR OWN RULES

87502

ALAN M. WEBBERGERALD R. FORD: THE STATESMAN AS CEO

87505

JOHN DEARDENMEASURING PROFIT CENTER MANAGERS

87503

WILLIAM J. BRUNS, JR., AND
F. WARREN MCFARLAN

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PUTS POWER
IN CONTROL SYSTEMS

87501

RICHARD J. SCHONBERGERFRUGAL MANUFACTURING

87512

B. SHAPIRO, V. RANGAN,
R. MORIARTY, AND E. ROSSMANAGE CUSTOMERS FOR PROFITS

87513

FREDERICK HERZBERGONE MORE TIME: HOW DO YOU MOTIVATE EMPLOYEES?

87507

PROBING OPINIONSCOMPETITIVENESS SURVEY: HBR READERS RESPOND

87515

GROWING CONCERNSBUYING GROUPS: CLOUT FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

87506

KENNETH G. HARDY AND
ALLAN J. MAGRATH

MARISA MANLEY

THOMAS P. ROHLEN

COREY ROSEN AND
MICHAEL QUARREYKEEPING INFORMED
PRODUCT LIABILITY: YOU’RE MORE EXPOSEDTHAN YOU THINK

87509

FOR THE MANAGER’S BOOKSHELF
WHY JAPANESE EDUCATION WORKS

87510

SPECIAL REPORTHOW WELL IS EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP WORKING?

87511

HBR CLASSICOne More Time:How Do You Motivate
Employees?
by Frederick Herzberg
How many articles, books, speeches, and workshops have pleaded plaintively, “How do I get an
employee to do what I want?”
The psychology of motivation is tremendously
complex, and what has been unraveled with any
degree of assurance is small indeed. But the dismal
ratio of knowledge to speculation has not dampened the enthusiasm for new forms of snake oil thatare constantly coming on the market, many ofthem with academic testimonials. Doubtless thisarticle will have no depressing impact on the market for snake oil, but since the ideas expressed in it
have been tested in many corporations and other organizations, it will help – I hope – to redress the imbalance in the aforementioned ratio.

‘Motivating’ with KITA
In lectures to industry on the problem, I havefound that the audiences are anxious for quick andpractical answers, so I will begin with a straightforward, practical formula for moving people.
What is the simplest, surest, and most direct way
of getting someone to do something? Ask? But if
the person responds that he or she does not want to
do it, then that calls for psychological consultation
to determine the reason for such obstinacy. Tell the
person? The response shows that he or she does notunderstand you, and now an expert in communication methods has to be brought in to show you how
to get through. Give the person a monetary incentive? I do not need to remind the reader of the comHARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

September-October 1987

plexity and difficulty involved in setting up and administering an incentive system. Show the person?
This means a costly training program. We need asimple way.
Every audience contains the “direct action” manager who shouts, “Kick the person!” And this typeof manager is right. The surest and least circumlocuted way of getting someone to do something is toadminister a kick in the pants – to give what might
be called the KITA.
There are various forms of KITA, and here aresome of them:
Negative physical KITA. This is a literal application of the term and was frequently used in thepast. It has, however, three major drawbacks: (1) it
is inelegant; (2) it contradicts the precious image of
benevolence that most organizations cherish; and(3) since it is a physical attack, it directly stimulates the autonomic nervous system, and this often
To mark the 65th birthday of the Harvard Business Review, it’s appropriate to republish as a “Classic” one ofits landmark articles. Frederick Herzberg’s contribution
has sold more than 1.2 million reprints since its publication in the January-February 1968 issue. By some
300,000 copies over the runner-up, that is the largest saleof any of the thousands of articles that have ever appeared between HBR’s covers. Frederick Herzberg, Distinguished Professor of Management at the University of
Utah, was head of the department of psychology at Case
Western Reserve University when he wrote this article.
His writings include the book Work and the Nature of
Man (World, 1966).

Copyright © 1987 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved.

MOTIVATING EMPLOYEES

results in negative feedback – the employee may
just kick you in return. These factors give rise tocertain taboos against negative physical KITA.
In uncovering infinite sources of psychologicalvulnerabilities and the appropriate methods to playtunes on them, psychologists have come to the rescue of those who are no longer permitted to use
negative physical KITA. “He took my rug away”; “I
wonder what she meant by that”; “The boss is always going around me” – these symptomatic expressions of ego sores that have been rubbed raw are
the result of application of:
Negative psychological KITA. This has several
advantages over negative physical KITA. First, thecruelty is not visible; the bleeding is internal andcomes much later. Second, since it affects the higher
cortical centers of the brain with its inhibitory powers, it reduces the possibility of physical backlash.
Third, since the number of psychological pains thata person can feel is almost infinite, the direction andsite possibilities of the KITA are increased manytimes. Fourth, the person administering the kickcan manage to be above it all and let the system accomplish the dirty work. Fifth, those who practice it
receive some ego satisfaction (one-upmanship),whereas they would find drawing blood abhorrent.
Finally, if the employee does complain, he or she
can always be accused of being paranoid; there is notangible evidence of an actual attack.
Now, what does negative KITA accomplish? If I
kick you in the rear (physically or psychologically),
who is motivated? I am motivated; you move! Negative KITA does not lead to motivation, but tomovement. So:
Positive KITA. Let us consider motivation. If I
say to you, “Do this for me or the company, and in
return I will give you a reward, an incentive, morestatus, a promotion, all the quid pro quos that exist
in the industrial organization,” am I motivating
you? The overwhelming opinion I receive frommanagement people is, “Yes, this is motivation.”
I have a year-old Schnauzer. When it was a small
puppy and I wanted it to move, I kicked it in therear and it moved. Now that I have finished its obedience training, I hold up a dog biscuit when I want
the Schnauzer to move. In this instance, who is motivated – I or the dog? The dog wants the biscuit,
but it is I who want it to move. Again, I am the one
who is motivated, and the dog is the one whomoves. In this instance all I did was apply KITA
frontally; I exerted a pull instead of a push. Whenindustry wishes to use such positive KITAs, it hasavailable an incredible number and variety of dog
biscuits (jelly beans for humans) to wave in front of
employees to get them to jump.
6

Why is it that managerial audiences are quick to
see that negative KITA is not motivation, while
they are almost unanimous in their judgment that
positive KITA is motivation. It is because negative
KITA is rape, and positive KITA is seduction. But it
is infinitely worse to be seduced than to be raped;
the latter is an unfortunate occurrence, while theformer signifies that you were a party to your own
downfall. This is why positive KITA is so popular:
it is a tradition; it is the American way. The organization does not have to kick you; you kick yourself.

Myths About Motivation
Why is KITA not motivation? If I kick my dog(from the front or the back), he will move. And when
I want him to move again, what must I do? I mustkick him again. Similarly, I can charge a person’sbattery, and then recharge it, and recharge it again.
But it is only when one has a generator of one’s own
that we can talk about motivation. One then needs
no outside stimulation. One wants to do it.
With this in mind, we can review some positive
KITA personnel practices that were developed as attempts to instill “motivation”:
1. Reducing time spent at work. This represents
a marvelous way of motivating people to work –getting them off the job! We have reduced (formallyand informally) the time spent on the job over thelast 50 or 60 years until we are finally on the way to
the “61⁄2-day weekend.” An interesting variant of
this approach is the development of off-hour recreation programs. The philosophy here seems to bethat those who play together, work together. The
fact is that motivated people seek more hours ofwork, not fewer.
2. Spiraling wages. Have these motivated people?
Yes, to seek the next wage increase. Some medievalists still can be heard to say that a good depression will get employees moving. They feel that
if rising wages don’t or won’t do the job, reducing
them will.
3. Fringe benefits. Industry has outdone the mostwelfare-minded of welfare states in dispensing
cradle-to-the-grave succor. One company I know of
had an informal “fringe benefit of the month club”
going for a while. The cost of fringe benefits in thiscountry has reached approximately 25% of thewage dollar, and we still cry for motivation.
People spend less time working for more money
and more security than ever before, and the trend
cannot be reversed. These benefits are no longer rewards; they are rights. A 6-day week is inhuman, a10-hour day is exploitation, extended medical coverage is a basic decency, and stock options are the
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

September-October 1987

salvation of American initiative. Unless the ante
is continuously raised, the psychological reactionof employees is that the company is turning backthe clock.
When industry began to realize that both the economic nerve and the lazy nerve of their employees
had insatiable appetites, it started to listen to the
behavioral scientists who, more out of a humanist
tradition than from scientific study, criticized management for not knowing how to deal with people.
The next KITA easily followed.
4. Human relations training. Over 30 years ofteaching and, in many instances, of practicing psychological approaches to handling people have resulted in costly human relations programs and, inthe end, the same question: How do you motivate
workers? Here, too, escalations have taken place.
Thirty years ago it was necessary to request,“Please don’t spit on the floor.” Today the same admonition requires three “pleases” before the employee feels that a superior has demonstrated thepsychologically proper attitude.
The failure of human relations training to produce
motivation led to the conclusion that supervisors or
managers themselves were not psychologically true
to themselves in their practice of interpersonal decency. So an advanced form of human relations
KITA, sensitivity training, was unfolded.
5. Sensitivity training. Do you really, really understand yourself? Do you really, really, really trust
other people? Do you really, really, really, really cooperate? The failure of sensitivity training is now
being explained, by those who have become opportunistic exploiters of the technique, as a failure to
really (five times) conduct proper sensitivity training courses.
With the realization that there are only temporary
gains from comfort and economic and interpersonal
KITA, personnel managers concluded that the fault
lay not in what they were doing, but in the employee’s failure to appreciate what they were doing. This
opened up the field of communications, a whole
new area of “scientifically” sanctioned KITA.
6. Communications. The professor of communications was invited to join the faculty of management training programs and help in making employees understand what management was doing
for them. House organs, briefing sessions, supervisory instruction on the importance of communication, and all sorts of propaganda have proliferated
until today there is even an International Councilof Industrial Editors. But no motivation resulted,
and the obvious thought occurred that perhaps
management was not hearing what the employees
were saying. That led to the next KITA.
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

September-October 1987

7. Two-way communication. Management ordered morale surveys, suggestion plans, and group
participation programs. Then both employees andmanagement were communicating and listening toeach other more than ever, but without much improvement in motivation.
The behavioral scientists began to take anotherlook at their conceptions and their data, and they
took human relations one step further. A glimmer oftruth was beginning to show through in the writingsof the so-called higher-order-need psychologists.
People, so they said, want to actualize themselves.
Unfortunately, the “actualizing” psychologists got
mixed up with the human relations psychologists,
and a new KITA emerged.
8. Job participation. Though it may not have been
the theoretical intention, job participation often became a “give them the big picture” approach. For
example, if a man is tightening 10,000 nuts a day on
an assembly line with a torque wrench, tell him heis building a Chevrolet. Another approach had thegoal of giving employees a “feeling” that they are
determining, in some measure, what they do on thejob. The goal was to provide a sense of achievement
rather than a substantive achievement in the task.
Real achievement, of course, requires a task thatmakes it possible.
But still there was no motivation. This led to theinevitable conclusion that the employees must be
sick, and therefore to the next KITA.
9. Employee counseling. The initial use of thisform of KITA in a systematic fashion can be credited
to the Hawthorne experiment of the Western Electric Company during the early 1930s. At that time,
it was found that the employees harbored irrational
feelings that were interfering with the rational operation of the factory. Counseling in this instance wasa means of letting the employees unburden themselves by talking to someone about their problems.
Although the counseling techniques were primitive, the program was large indeed.
The counseling approach suffered as a result ofexperiences during World War II, when the programs themselves were found to be interferingwith the operation of the organizations; the counselors had forgotten their role of benevolent listeners and were attempting to do something about the
problems that they heard about. Psychologicalcounseling, however, has managed to survive thenegative impact of World War II experiences andtoday is beginning to flourish with renewed sophistication. But, alas, many of these programs,
like all the others, do not seem to have lessened thepressure of demands to find out how to motivate
workers.
7

Exhibit I

Factors affecting job attitudes asreported in 12 investigations
Factors characterizing 1,844 eventson the job that led
to extreme dissatisfaction

Percentage
frequency

50%

40

30

Factors characterizing 1,753 eventson the job that led
to extreme satisfaction

20

10

0

10

20

30

40

50%

Achievement
Recognition
Work itself
Responsibility
Advancement
GrowthCompany policy
and administration
Supervision
Relationship with supervisor
Work conditions
SalaryRelationship with peers

All factors
contributing tojob dissatisfaction

All factors
contributing tojob satisfaction

69

19

Personal life
HygieneRelationship with subordinates
31

Motivators

81

StatusSecurity

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

Hygiene vs. Motivators
Let me rephrase the perennial question this way:
How do you install a generator in an employee? A
brief review of my motivation-hygiene theory of job
8

80%
60
40
Ratio and percent

20

0

20

40

60

80%

attitudes is required before theoretical and practicalsuggestions can be offered. The theory was firstdrawn from an examination of events in the lives ofengineers and accountants. At least 16 other investigations, using a wide variety of populations (including some in the Communist countries), havesince been completed, making the original research
one of the most replicated studies in the field of job
attitudes.
The findings of these studies, along with corroboration from many other investigations using differHARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

September-October 1987

MOTIVATING EMPLOYEES

ent procedures, suggest that the factors involved in
producing job satisfaction (and motivation) are separate and distinct from the factors that lead to job
dissatisfaction. Since separate factors need to beconsidered, depending on whether job satisfaction
or job dissatisfaction is being examined, it follows
that these two feelings are not opposites of eachother. The opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction but, rather, no job satisfaction; andsimilarly, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is notjob satisfaction, but no job dissatisfaction.
Stating the concept presents a problem in semantics, for we normally think of satisfaction and dissatisfaction as opposites – i.e., what is not satisfying must be dissatisfying, and vice versa. But whenit comes to understanding the behavior of people intheir jobs, more than a play on words is involved.
Two different needs of human beings are involved
here. One set of needs can be thought of as stemmingfrom humankind’s animal nature – the built-in driveto avoid pain from the environment, plus all thelearned drives that become conditioned to the basic
biological needs. For example, hunger, a basic biological drive, makes it necessary to earn money, andthen money becomes a specific drive. The other setof needs relates to that unique human characteristic,
the ability to achieve and, through achievement, toexperience psychological growth. The stimuli for thegrowth needs are tasks that induce growth; in the industrial setting, they are the job content. Contrariwise, the stimuli inducing pain-avoidance behavior
are found in the job environment.
The growth or motivator factors that are intrinsic to the job are: achievement, recognition forachievement, the work itself, responsibility, andgrowth or advancement. The dissatisfaction-avoidance or hygiene (KITA) factors that are extrinsic tothe job include: company policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relationships,
working conditions, salary, status, and security.
A composite of the factors that are involved incausing job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction,
drawn from samples of 1,685 employees, is shownin Exhibit I. The results indicate that motivators
were the primary cause of satisfaction, and hygiene
factors the primary cause of unhappiness on the job.
The employees, studied in 12 different investigations, included lower level supervisors, professional women, agricultural administrators, men about
to retire from management positions, hospital
maintenance personnel, manufacturing supervisors, nurses, food handlers, military officers, engineers, scientists, housekeepers, teachers, technicians, female assemblers, accountants, Finnish
foremen, and Hungarian engineers.
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

September-October 1987

They were asked what job events had occurred intheir work that had led to extreme satisfaction or extreme dissatisfaction on their part. Their responses
are broken down in the exhibit into percentages of
total “positive” job events and of total “negative”
job events. (The figures total more than 100% on
both the “hygiene” and “motivators” sides because
often at least two factors can be attributed to a single event; advancement, for instance, often accompanies assumption of responsibility.)
To illustrate, a typical response involving achievement that had a negative effect for the employee was,
“I was unhappy because I didn’t do the job successfully.” A typical response in the small number of
positive job events in the company policy and administration grouping was, “I was happy because thecompany reorganized the section so that I didn’t report any longer to the guy I didn’t get along with.”
As the lower right-hand part of the exhibit shows,of all the factors contributing to job satisfaction,
81% were motivators. And of all the factors contributing to the employees’ dissatisfaction overtheir work, 69% involved hygiene elements.
Eternal triangle. There are three general philosophies of personnel management. The first is basedon organizational theory, the second on industrial
engineering, and the third on behavioral science.
Organizational theorists believe that humanneeds are either so irrational or so varied and adjustable to specific situations that the major function of personnel management is to be as pragmaticas the occasion demands. If jobs are organized in aproper manner, they reason, the result will be themost efficient job structure, and the most favorable
job attitudes will follow as a matter of course.
Industrial engineers hold that humankind ismechanistically oriented and economically motivated and that human needs are best met by attuning the individual to the most efficient work process. The goal of personnel management therefore
should be to concoct the most appropriate incentive system and to design the specific working conditions in a way that facilitates the most efficientuse of the human machine. By structuring jobs in amanner that leads to the most efficient operation,engineers believe that they can obtain the optimalorganization of work and the proper work attitudes.
Behavioral scientists focus on group sentiments,
attitudes of individual employees, and the organization’s social and psychological climate. This persuasion emphasizes one or more of the various
hygiene and motivator needs. Its approach to personnel management is generally to emphasize someform of human relations education, in the hope of instilling healthy employee attitudes and an organiza9

tional climate that is considered to be felicitous tohuman values. The belief is that proper attitudes willlead to efficient job and organizational structure.
There is always a lively debate about the overall
effectiveness of the approaches of organizational
theorists and industrial engineers. Manifestly bothhave achieved much. But the nagging question forbehavorial scientists has been: What is the cost in
human problems that eventually cause more expense to the organization – for instance, turnover,absenteeism, errors, violation of safety rules,
strikes, restriction of output, higher wages, andgreater fringe benefits? On the other hand, behavioral scientists are hard put to document muchmanifest improvement in personnel management,using their approach.
The three philosophies can be depicted as a triangle, as is done in Exhibit II, with each persuasion
claiming the apex angle. The motivation-hygiene
theory claims the same angle as industrial engineering, but for opposite goals. Rather than rationalizing the work to increase efficiency, the theory
suggests that work be enriched to bring about effective utilization of personnel. Such a systematic attempt to motivate employees by manipulating the
motivator factors is just beginning.
The term job enrichment describes this embryonic movement. An older term, job enlargement,
should be avoided because it is associated with past
failures stemming from a misunderstanding of the
problem. Job enrichment provides the opportunity
for the employee’s psychological growth, while job
enlargement merely makes a job structurally bigger. Since scientific job enrichment is very new,this article only suggests the principles and practical steps that have recently emerged from several
successful experiments in industry.
Job loading. In attempting to enrich certain jobs,
management often reduces the personal contribution of employees rather than giving them opportunities for growth in their accustomed jobs. Such endeavors, which I shall call horizontal job loading (asopposed to vertical loading, or providing motivatorfactors), have been the problem of earlier job enlargement programs. Job loading merely enlarges
the meaninglessness of the job. Some examples ofthis approach, and their effect, are:
M Challenging the employee by increasing theamount of production expected. If each tightens
10,000 bolts a day, see if each can tighten 20,000
bolts a day. The arithmetic involved shows thatmultiplying zero by zero still equals zero.
M Adding another meaningless task to the existing
one, usually some routine clerical activity. The
arithmetic here is adding zero to zero.
10

Exhibit II‘Triangle’ of philosophies of personnel
management

A
Industrial engineeringjobs

BOrganizational theory
work flow

Exhibit III

C
Behavioral science
attitudes

Principles of vertical job loading

Principle

Motivators involved

A Removing some controls while
A retaining accountability

Responsibility and personal
achievement

B Increasing the accountability
B of individuals for own work

Responsibility and recognition

C Giving a person a complete
C natural unit of work (module,
C division, area, and so on)

Responsibility, achievement, andrecognition

D Granting additional authority toD employees in their activity; job
D freedom

Responsibility, achievement, andrecognition

E Making periodic reports
E directly available to the
E workers themselves rather
E than to supervisors

Internal recognition

F Introducing new and more
E difficult tasks not previously
E handled

Growth and learning

G Assigning individuals specific
G or specialized tasks, enabling
G them to become experts

Responsibility, growth, andadvancement

M Rotating the assignments of a number of jobs thatneed to be enriched. This means washing dishes fora while, then washing silverware. The arithmetic is
substituting one zero for another zero.
M Removing the most difficult parts of the assignment in order to free the worker to accomplish moreof the less challenging assignments. This traditional
industrial engineering approach amounts to subtraction in the hope of accomplishing addition.
These are common forms of horizontal loadingthat frequently come up in preliminary brainstorming sessions of job enrichment. The principles ofvertical loading have not all been worked out as yet,and they remain rather general, but I have furHARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

September-October 1987

MOTIVATING EMPLOYEES

nished seven useful starting points for consideration in Exhibit III.
A successful application. An example from ahighly successful job enrichment experiment can illustrate the distinction between horizontal and vertical loading of a job. The subjects of this study were
the stockholder correspondents employed by a verylarge corporation. Seemingly, the task required ofthese carefully selected and highly trained correspondents was quite complex and challenging. But
almost all indexes of performance and job attitudes
were low, and exit interviewing confirmed that thechallenge of the job existed merely as words.
A job enrichment project was initiated in theform of an experiment with one group, designatedas an achieving unit, having its job enriched by theprinciples described in Exhibit III. A control group
continued to do its job in the traditional way.
(There were also two “uncommitted” groups of correspondents formed to measure the so-called
Hawthorne Effect – that is, to gauge whether productivity and attitudes toward the job changed artificially merely because employees sensed that thecompany was paying more attention to them indoing something different or novel. The results forthese groups were substantially the same as for thecontrol group, and for the sake of simplicity I do notdeal with them in this summary.) No changes inhygiene were introduced for either group other thanthose that would have been made anyway, such as
normal pay increases.
The changes for the achieving unit were introduced in the first two months, averaging one per
week of the seven motivators listed in Exhibit III.
At the end of six months the members of theachieving unit were found to be outperforming
their counterparts in the control group, and in addition indicated a marked increase in their liking fortheir jobs. Other results showed that the achieving
group had lower absenteeism and, subsequently, amuch higher rate of promotion.
Exhibit IV illustrates the changes in performance,measured in February and March, before the study
period began, and at the end of each month of thestudy period. The shareholder service index represents quality of letters, including accuracy of information, and speed of response to stockholders’ letters of inquiry. The index of a current month wasaveraged into the average of the two prior months,
which means that improvement was harder to obtain if the indexes of the previous months were low.
The “achievers” were performing less well before
the six-month period started, and their performanceservice index continued to decline after the introduction of the motivators, evidently because of unHARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

September-October 1987

Exhibit IV

Shareholder service index in company
experimentThree-month cumulative average

Performance index
100

Achieving

80

60
Control

40

20

0

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Six-month study period

certainty after their newly granted responsibilities.
In the third month, however, performance improved, and soon the members of this group hadreached a high level of accomplishment.
Exhibit V shows the two groups’ attitudes toward
their job, measured at the end of March, just before
the first motivator was introduced, and again at theend of September. The correspondents were asked
16 questions, all involving motivation. A typicalone was, “As you see it, how many opportunities doyou feel that you have in your job for making
worthwhile contributions?” The answers werescaled from 1 to 5, with 80 as the maximum possible score. The achievers became much more positive about their job, while the attitude of the control unit remained about the same (the drop is notstatistically significant).
How was the job of these correspondents restructured? Exhibit VI lists the suggestions made thatwere deemed to be horizontal loading, and the actual vertical loading changes that were incorporated
in the job of the achieving unit. The capital lettersunder “Principle” after “Vertical loading” refer to
11

MOTIVATING EMPLOYEES

Exhibit V

Changes in attitudes toward tasks incompany experiment
Changes in mean scores over six-month
periodJob reaction mean score
60

55
Achieving
50

45

40

Control

35
March
Time between surveys

Septemberthe corresponding letters in Exhibit III. The reader
will note that the rejected forms of horizontal loading correspond closely to the list of common manifestations I mentioned earlier.

Steps for Job Enrichment
Now that the motivator idea has been described inpractice, here are the steps that managers should takein instituting the principle with their employees:
1. Select those jobs in which (a) the investment inindustrial engineering does not make changes too
costly, (b) attitudes are poor, (c) hygiene is becoming very costly, and (d) motivation will make a difference in performance.
2. Approach these jobs with the conviction thatthey can be changed. Years of tradition have led
managers to believe that the content of the jobs issacrosanct and the only scope of action that they
have is in ways of stimulating people.
3. Brainstorm a list of changes that may enrich
the jobs, without concern for their practicality.
4. Screen the list to eliminate suggestions that involve hygiene, rather than actual motivation.
5. Screen the list for generalities, such as “givethem more responsibility,” that are rarely followed
in practice. This might seem obvious, but the moti12

vator words have never left industry; the substancehas just been rationalized and organized out. Words
like “responsibility,” “growth,” “achievement,”
and “challenge,” for example, have been elevated to
the lyrics of the patriotic anthem for all organizations. It is the old problem typified by the pledge ofallegiance to the flag being more important thancontributions to the country – of following theform, rather than the substance.
6. Screen the list to eliminate any horizontal
loading suggestions.
7. Avoid direct participation by the employees
whose jobs are to be enriched. Ideas they have expressed previously certainly constitute a valuable
source for recommended changes, but their direct
involvement contaminates the process with human relations hygiene and, more specifically, gives
them only a sense of making a contribution. The
job is to be changed, and it is the content that willproduce the motivation, not attitudes about being
involved or the challenge inherent in setting up ajob. That process will be over shortly, and it is what
the employees will be doing from then on that will
determine their motivation. A sense of participation will result only in short-term movement.
8. In the initial attempts at job enrichment, set
up a controlled experiment. At least two equivalentgroups should be chosen, one an experimental unit
in which the motivators are systematically introduced over a period of time, and the other one a control group in which no changes are made. For bothgroups, hygiene should be allowed to follow its natural course for the duration of the experiment. Preand post-installation tests of performance and job
attitudes are necessary to evaluate the effectivenessof the job enrichment program. The attitude test
must be limited to motivator items in order to divorce employees’ views of the jobs they are given
from all the surrounding hygiene feelings that theymight have.
9. Be prepared for a drop in performance in the experimental group the first few weeks. The changeover to a new job may lead to a temporary reductionin efficiency.
10. Expect your first-line supervisors to experience some anxiety and hostility over the changes
you are making. The anxiety comes from their fearthat the changes will result in poorer performancefor their unit. Hostility will arise when the employees start assuming what the supervisors regard as
their own responsibility for performance. The supervisor without checking duties to perform maythen be left with little to do.
After successful experiment, however, the supervisors usually discover the supervisory and manHARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

September-October 1987

Exhibit VI

Enlargement vs. enrichment of correspondents’tasks in company experiment
Horizontal loading suggestions
rejected

Vertical loading suggestions
adoptedFirm quotas could be set for letters to be answeredeach day, using a rate which would be hard to reach.

Subject matter experts were appointed within each unit
for other members of the unit to consult with before
seeking supervisory help. (The supervisor had been answering all specialized and difficult questions.)

The secretaries could type the letters themselves, aswell as compose them, or take on any other clericalfunctions.
All difficult or complex inquiries could be channeled toa few secretaries so that the remainder could achieve
high rates of output. These jobs could be exchanged
from time to time.
The secretaries could be rotated through units handlingdifferent customers, and then sent back to their own
units.

agerial functions they have neglected, or whichwere never theirs because all their time was given
over to checking the work of their subordinates. For
example, in the R&D division of one large chemicalcompany I know of, the supervisors of the laboratory assistants were theoretically responsible for
their training and evaluation. These functions,however, had come to be performed in a routine,
unsubstantial fashion. After the job enrichment
program, during which the supervisors were notmerely passive observers of the assistants’ performance, the supervisors actually were devoting theirtime to reviewing performance and administering
thorough training.
What has been called an employee-centered styleof supervision will come about not through education of supervisors, but by changing the jobs thatthey do.

Concluding Note
Job enrichment will not be a one-time proposition, but a continuous management function. The
initial changes should last for a very long period oftime. There are a number of reasons for this:
M The changes should bring the job up to the levelof challenge commensurate with the skill thatwas hired.

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

September-October 1987

Principle

G

Correspondents signed their own names on letters.
(The supervisor had been signing all letters.)

B

The work of the more experienced correspondents was
proofread less frequently by supervisors and was doneat correspondents’ desks, dropping verification from
100% to 10%. (Previously, all correspondents’ letters
had been checked by the supervisor.)

A

Production was discussed, but only in terms such as“a full day’s work is expected.” As time went on, thiswas no longer mentioned. (Before, the group had been
constantly reminded of the number of letters that needed to be answered.)D

Outgoing mail went directly to the mailroom without going over supervisors’ desks. (The letters had always
been routed through the supervisors.)A

Correspondents were encouraged to answer letters in amore personalized way. (Reliance on the form-letter approach had been standard practice.)C

Each correspondents was held personally responsible forthe quality and accuracy of letters. (This responsibility
had been the province of the supervisor and theverifier.)

B, E

M Those who have still more ability eventually will

be able to demonstrate it better and win promotion
to higher level jobs.
M The very nature of motivators, as opposed to hygiene factors, is that they have a much longer term
effect on employees’ attitudes. Perhaps the job will
have to be enriched again, but this will not occur as
frequently as the need for hygiene.
Not all jobs can be enriched, nor do all jobs need
to be enriched. If only a small percentage of thetime and money that is now devoted to hygiene,
however, were given to job enrichment efforts, thereturn in human satisfaction and economic gain
would be one of the largest dividends that industry
and society have ever reaped through their efforts at
better personnel management.
The argument for job enrichment can be summed
up quite simply: if you have employees on a job, usethem. If you can’t use them on the job, get rid ofthem, either via automation or by selecting someone with lesser ability. If you can’t use them andyou can’t get rid of them, you will have a motivation problem.
Reprint 87507[See Retrospective Commentary on following page.]13

Retrospective Commentary

Figure A

How the hygiene-motivator factors affectjob attitudes in six countries
All factors contributing tojob dissatisfaction

Percentage

ward in motivation is personal
growth, people don’t need to be rewarded incrementally. I write abook – a big accomplishment. ThenI write an article – a lesser accomplishment, but nevertheless an addition to my personal growth.
For this article, I invented theacronym KITA (kick in the ass) to describe the movement technique. The
inelegance of the term offended
those who consider good treatment a
motivating strategy, regardless of thenature of the work itself. In this plain
language I tried to spotlight the animal approach to dealing with humanbeings that characterizes so much of
our behavioral science intervention.
The article’s popularity stems ingreat part from readers’ recognition

getting intrinsic rewards out of interesting and challenging work.
While the immediate behavioral
results from movement and motivation appear alike, their dynamics,
which produce vastly different longterm consequences, are different.
Movement requires constant reinforcement and stresses short-term
results. To get a reaction, management must constantly enhance theextrinsic rewards for movement. If I
get a bonus of $1,000 one year and$500 the next, I am getting extra rewards both years, but psychologically I have taken a $500 salary cut.
Motivation is based on growthneeds. It is an internal engine, andits benefits show up over a long period of time. Because the ultimate re-I wrote this article at the height of
the attention on improving employee performance through various(contrived) psychological approaches to human relations. I tried to redress industrial social scientists’overconcern about how to treat
workers to the neglect of how to design the work itself.
The first part of the article distinguishes between motivation andmovement, a distinction that mostwriting on motivation misses.
Movement is a function of fear ofpunishment or failure to get extrinsic rewards. It is the typical procedure used in animal training and its
counterpart, behavioral modification techniques for humans. Motivation is a function of growth from100%

All factors contributing tojob satisfaction

80

60

40

20

0

61

20

40

60

100%

80

8

Japan
92

39

34

70
India
30

66

72

20

South Africa
28

86

15

86
Zambia

85

12

38

69
Italy

62

31

33

60
Israel67

40

HygieneMotivators

Figure C

Figure B

Sensory ingredients of job enrichment

Control
overresources

Directfeedback

Feeling

New learning

Directcommunications
authority

ClientFeelingthat KITA underlies the assumed
benevolence of personnel practices.
If I were writing “One More Time”
in 1987, I would emphasize the important, positive role of organizational behaviorists more than I did
in 1968. We can certainly learn to
get along better on the job. Reduced
workplace tension through congenial relations is a necessary ingredient of a pleasant environment.
The second part of the article describes my motivation-hygiene theory. It suggests that environmental
factors (hygienes) can at best create
no dissatisfaction on the job, andtheir absence creates dissatisfaction.
In contrast, what makes people happy on the job and motivates them are
the job content factors (motivators).
The controversy surrounding theseconcepts continues to this day.
While the original 12 studies were
mostly American (they also included
Finnish supervisors and Hungarian
engineers), the results have been

Product
Unique expertise

Selfscheduling

Personal
accountability

Client relationships in an Air Force function

ManagerEngineers

Supervisor

Material
inventory
clerk

Damageevaluator

Scheduler

Support shop
personnel

Sheet
metal
mechanicLinemechanic

Avionics
mechanic

Test
pilot

MOTIVATING EMPLOYEESRetrospective Commentary (continued)
replicated throughout the world. A
sampling of recent foreign investigations, which the reader can comparewith the first American studies detailed in Exhibit I in “One MoreTime,” appears in Figure A. The similarity of the profiles is worth noting.
The 1970s was the decade of job
enrichment (discussed in the thirdpart of the article), sometimes called
job design or redesign by opponentsof the motivation-hygiene theory.
Since the first trial-and-error studies
at AT&T, experience has produced
refinements of the procedures for job
enrichment and the goals for achieving it. I like to illustrate them in thewheel shown in Figure B.
This diagram reflects my conviction that the present-day abstractionof work has shut out feelings from thejob content. Finance, for example,
has become the focus of attention inmost businesses, and nothing is more
abstract and devoid of feeling. Part ofthe blame can be laid to electronic
communication, which promotes detachment and abstraction. Job enrichment grows out of knowing yourproduct and your client with feeling,
not just intellectually.
With reference to the motivator
ingredients discussed in the 1968
article, “recognition for achievement” translates into “direct feedback” in Figure B. The wheel in Figure B shows this feedback to comechiefly from the client and productof the work itself, not from the supervisor (except in the case of new

16

hires). The motivator factor “responsibility” translates into a number ofingredients: self-scheduling, authority to communicate, control of resources, and accountability. Finally,
the motivator factors “advancement” and “growth” translate into
the central dynamic of new learning
leading to unique expertise. The
feeling of satisfaction is also indicated as a dynamic of learning fromclients and products.
The key to job enrichment is nurture of a client relationship rather
than a functional or hierarchical relationship. Let me illustrate with adiagram of relationships in an airplane overhaul project carried out
for the U.S. Air Force (Figure C). The
avionics mechanic’s external clientis the test pilot, and although he reports to his supervisor, his supervisor serves him. The sheet metal mechanic and the line mechanic serve
the avionics mechanic. And so onback into the system.
By backing into the system, you
can identify who serves whom – not
who reports to whom – which is critical in trying to enrich jobs. You
identify the external client, then thecore jobs, or internal client jobs, serving that client. You first enrich thecore jobs with the ingredients shownin Figure B and then enrich the corejobs that serve these internal clients.
During the 1970s, critics predictedthat job enrichment would reduce
the number of employees. Ironically,
the restructuring and downsizing of

U.S. companies during the 1980s
have often serendipitously produced
job enrichment. With fewer employees performing the same tasks, somejob enrichment was inevitable. But
the greater efficiency of enrichedjobs ultimately leads to a competitive edge and more jobs.
Today, we seem to be losing
ground to KITA. It’s all the bottom
line, as the expression goes. The
work ethic and quality of worklife
movement have succumbed to thepragmatics of worldwide competition and the escalation of management direction by the abstract fieldsof finance and marketing – as opposed to production and sales, where
palpable knowledge of clients andproducts resides. These abstract
fields are more conducive to movement than to motivation. I find the
new entrants in the world of workon the whole a passionless lot intent
on serving financial indexes rather
than clients and products. Motivation encompasses passion; movement is sterile.
To return to “One More Time”: I
don’t think I would write it muchdifferently today, though I would include the knowledge gained fromrecent job enrichment experiments.
The distinction between movement
and motivation is still true, and motivation-hygiene theory is still aframework with which to evaluate
actions. Job enrichment remains the
key to designing work that motivates employees.

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

September-October 1987