1、<p><b>　　中文3600字</b></p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文（設(shè)計）</p><p><b>　　外文翻譯</b></p><p>　　外文出處 Management Decision ，1998：P226-231 </p><p&g

2、t;　　外文作者 Mark A. Tietjen， Robert M. Myers </p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Motivation and job satisfaction</p><p>　　Mark A. Tietje

3、n， Robert M. Myers</p><p>　　The movement of workers to act in a desired manner has always consumed the thoughts of managers. In many ways, this goal has been reached through incentive programs, corporate pep

4、 talks, and other types of conditional administrative policy. However, as the workers adjust their behavior in response to one of the aforementioned stimuli, is job satisfaction actualized? The instilling of satisfaction

5、 within workers is a crucial task of management. Satisfaction creates confidence, loyalty and ultimat</p><p>　　Herzberg and job satisfaction</p><p>　　Herzberg et al. (1959) proposed that an empl

6、oyee’s motivation to work is best understood when the respective attitude of that employee is understood. That is, the internal concept of attitude which originates from a state of mind, when probed, should reveal the mo

7、st pragmatic information for managers with regard to the motivation of workers. In his approach to studying the feelings of people toward their work, or their attitudes, Herzberg et al. (1959) set out to answer three que

8、stions:</p><p>　　(1)can one specify the attitude of any individual toward his or her job?</p><p>　　(2)causes these attitudes?</p><p>　　(3)are the consequences of these attitudes?<

9、;/p><p>　　The order of these questions is empirically methodical and, for Herzberg, the final question, which would demonstrate the relationship between attitude and subsequent behavior, was particularly import

10、ant. In response to the “fragmentary nature” of previous scholarship, the combination of the three questions resulted in a single unit of study - the factors-attitudes-effects (F-A-E) complex. Herzberg described his new

11、approach as idiographic (Herzberg et al., 1959). Contrary to the statistical or </p><p>　　The method Herzberg used placed emphasis of the qualitative investigation of the F-A-E complex over a quantitative as

12、sessment of the information, though results were quantified at a later point. The design of Herzberg’s experimentation was to ask open-ended questions specifically about a worker’s experiences when feelings about his/her

13、 job were more positive or negative than usual (Herzberg et al., 1959). He preferred such an approach over the ranking of pre-written (and assumed) factors compile</p><p>　　As a result of his inquiry about t

14、he attitudes of employees, Herzberg et al. (1959) developed two distinct lists of factors. One set of factors caused happy feelings or a good attitude within the worker, and these factors, on the whole, were task-related

15、. The other grouping was primarily present when feelings of unhappiness or bad attitude were evident, and these factors, Herzberg claimed, were not directly related to the job itself, but to the conditions that surrounde

16、d doing that job. The firs</p><p>　　The most significant and basic difference between Herzberg’s two factors is the inherent level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction within each factor. If motivation includes o

17、nly those things which promote action over time, then motivators are the factors that promote long-running attitudes and satisfaction. According to Herzberg et al. (1959), motivators cause positive job attitudes because

18、they satisfy the worker’s need for self-actualization (Maslow, 1954), the individual’s ultimate goal. The pre</p><p>　　How does Herzberg base this non-bipolar relationship? Job satisfaction (House and Wigdor

19、, 1967) contains two separate and independent dimensions. These dimensions are not on differing ends of one continuum; instead they consist of two separate and distinct continua. According to Herzberg (1968), the opposit

20、e of job satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, but rather a simple lack of satisfaction. In the same way, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not satisfaction, but rather “no dissatisfaction</p><p>　　Motiv

21、ation vs. movement in KITA</p><p>　　Integral to Herzberg’s theory of motivation is the difference between motivation and movement. He compares the two in his discussion of KITA (Herzberg, 1968) - the polite

22、acronym for a “kick in the —”. There are three different types of KITA: negative physical KITA; negative psychological KITA; positive KITA.</p><p>　　In today’s litigious society, it is probable that most man

23、agers will deal less and less with workers utilizing negative physical KITA, or physical contact to initiate action out of an indolent employee. Negative psychological KITA is also rather useless in motivating workers; t

24、he primary benefit, though malicious, is the feeding of one’s ego, also known as a power trip. What about positive KITA? Positive KITA can be summarized in one word - reward. The relationship is “if…, then… ”. If you fin

25、is</p><p>　　Recalling motivator factors, Herzberg (1968) concludes that only these factors can have a lasting impression on a worker’s attitude, satisfaction and, thus, work. Furthermore, workers perform bes

26、t (Steininger, 1994) when this stimulation is internal and work-related.</p><p>　　Locke’s theory on job satisfaction</p><p>　　Locke’s composite theory of job satisfaction is the product of many

27、other concepts which he has developed through study and research on related topics such as goal-setting and employee performance. Likewise, his explanation of job satisfaction is in part, a response to some of Herzberg’s

28、 proposals. Thus, Locke’s criticism of Herzberg will be the initial discussion, followed by his theory on values, agent/event factors, and finally an adjusted view of job satisfaction.</p><p>　　Criticisms of

29、 Herzberg</p><p>　　Locke’s assessment of Herzberg’s two-factor theory can be summarized in brief by the following conclusions about Herzberg’s thinking: satisfaction and dissatisfaction result from different

30、 causes. Two-factor theory is parallel to the dual theory of man’s needs, which states that physical needs (like those of animals) work in conjunction with hygiene factors, and psychological needs or growth needs (unique

31、 to humans) work alongside motivators (Locke, 1976). With these propositions as the basis fo</p><p>　　According to Locke’s (1976) first critique, Herzberg’s view of man’s nature implies a split between the p

32、sychological and biological processes of the human make-up. The two are of dual nature and function apart, not related to one another. On the contrary, Locke proposes that the mind and body are very closely related. It i

33、s through the mind that the human discovers the nature of his/her physical and psychological needs and how they may be satisfied. Locke suggests the proof that the basic need </p><p>　　With regard to Herzber

34、g’s correlation between hygienes, motivators, physical and psychological needs, it can be inferred that the first set are unidirectional, so too are physical and psychological needs (Locke, 1976). Locke notes there is no

35、 justification for this conclusion. Providing the example of the physical need, hunger, he writes that acts like eating can serve not only as aversions of hunger pangs, but also as pleasures for the body.</p><

36、p>　　The third criticism which pertains directly to the previous two, is simply the lack of a parallel relationship between the two groupings of factors and needs (Locke, 1976). Their relation is hazy and overlapping i

37、n several instances. A new company policy (hygiene) may have a significant effect on a worker’s interest in the work itself or his/her success with it. The correlation lacks a clear line of distinction.</p><p&

38、gt;　　Locke’s critique of Herzberg’s classification system (Locke, 1976), common to the preceding criticism, claims that the two-factor theory is, in itself, inconsistent in categorizing factors of satisfaction. The two-f

39、actor theory merely splits the spectra of satisfaction into two sections. For example, if an employee is given a new task (which is deemed a motivator) this is considered responsibility. However, if a manager will not de

40、legate the duty, the situation takes the label of supervision-tec</p><p>　　The phenomenon of defensiveness (Locke, 1976) is a further criticism of Herzberg’s work, whereby the employees interviewed tend to t

41、ake credit for the satisfying events such as advancement or recognition, while blaming others such as supervisors, subordinates, peers, and even policy, for dissatisfying situations. Locke does not feel that Herzberg add

42、ressed this fallacy sufficiently for the importance it has in assessing validity of his results.</p><p>　　Herzberg’s use of frequency data placed emphasis on the number of times a particular factor was menti

43、oned. However, as the scope of 203 accountants and engineers was narrow, it is likely that many workers, though unique, experienced similar difficulties. Herzberg et al. (1959) concludes that those most listed are the mo

44、st satisfying or dissatisfying. Even though, for example, a dissatisfying factor is recorded numerously, this does not necessarily imply that this factor is a significant problem </p><p>　　Concurrent with th

45、e previous criticism, the denial of individual differences pertains to the incorrect minimization of diversity within the sample. Locke concedes that though an individual’s needs may be similar, his or her values are not

46、. Values, furthermore, have the most significant impact on emotional response to one’s job. Therefore, since individuals have unique values and do not place the same importance on money or promotion, for example, the stu

47、dy deprives them of that which makes them </p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p><b>　　動機與工作滿意</b></p><p>　　Mark A. Tietjen， Robert M. Myers</p><p>　　員工的滿意程

48、度總是處于動態(tài)的變化中，這一問題一直困擾著管理者。在許多方面，這個目標已經(jīng)達成激勵項目，公司鼓勵會談，和其他條件管理方針的類型。然而，員工通過上述一個因素的影響而調(diào)整他們的行為，就是工作滿意的實施嗎？對員工滿意度的灌輸是管理中的一項重要任務(wù)。滿意創(chuàng)造信心、忠誠和員工產(chǎn)出最終完善的質(zhì)量。滿意縱然不是簡單的一個激勵計劃的結(jié)果。員工很有可能不會為他們的工作感到驕傲即使他們贏得周末擁有最高的銷售。本文綜述了激勵理論家的著作和把他們的方法運用到工

49、作滿意度中以及在工作滿意度中動機的作用。弗雷德里克·赫茨伯格和埃德溫·洛克提出按時間順序說明洛克的理論是如何赫茨伯格理論的理論進行評論的。通過了解這些理論，管理者可以集中精力創(chuàng)造工作滿意度的策略。這是繼以肯尼思和保羅的理論對管理者的領(lǐng)導能力和這門藝術(shù)如何隨著時間一直不斷變化的一個簡短的檢驗。</p><p>　　赫茨伯格和工作滿意度</p><p>　　赫茨伯格理論(1

50、959)建議一個員工的工作積極性在當其態(tài)度被理解時應(yīng)當更好的被理解。也就是說，態(tài)度的內(nèi)在概念它源于一種精神狀態(tài)，在探討時，能夠把關(guān)于員工積極性方面最實際的信息透露給管理者。用他的方法來研究員工對于他們的工作的感情，或是他們的態(tài)度，赫茨伯格理論(1959)陳列回答了三個問題：(1)能詳細說明每個人關(guān)于他或她的工作的態(tài)度嗎？(2) 導致這些態(tài)度的原因呢？(3)這些態(tài)度的后果是什么呢？</p><p>　　這些問題的順

51、序是有條理的，對于赫茨伯格的最后的問題，證明關(guān)于態(tài)度和后來的行為之間的關(guān)系，尤其重要。為了回應(yīng)早先獎學金的性質(zhì)，三個問題的結(jié)合出現(xiàn)了一個研究復雜的態(tài)度的影響因素的單元。赫茨伯格具體描述了他的新方法。用一個特定的變量著重強調(diào)群體的互動的相反的統(tǒng)計或類似的方法，具體的看法是基于一個每個個體內(nèi)部復雜的態(tài)度的影響因素被研究的前提。</p><p>　　赫茨伯格運用信息的定量評價的方法，把重點放在了關(guān)于態(tài)度影響因素的定性研

52、究上，盡管在以后的觀點中結(jié)果被量化。赫茨伯格的實驗設(shè)計是問一些開放式的問題，特別是關(guān)于一名員工當他/她的工作是比平常更積極的或是消極的經(jīng)歷。他喜歡用通過實驗者預先假設(shè)編制和限制的因素的歸類的方法。每次訪談都被本質(zhì)的記錄是因為一大串問題是調(diào)查的基礎(chǔ)，但是采訪者是自由追求調(diào)查其他的方式。</p><p>　　依照員工滿意度的調(diào)查結(jié)果，赫茨伯格理論(1959)揭露了兩組截然不同的因素。一組因素是引起員工快樂的心情或好的

53、態(tài)度的因素，這些因素，總的來說是相關(guān)的任務(wù)。另外一組是不高興的感覺或是惡劣的態(tài)度是明顯的，這些因素，赫茨伯格稱沒有直接關(guān)系到工作本身，但是是工作環(huán)境的條件。第一組是激勵因素(工作因素)：識別，成就，發(fā)展的可能性，進步，責任，工作本身。第二組赫茨伯格名叫保健因素：薪水，人際關(guān)系-主管，人際關(guān)系—下屬，人際關(guān)系—同伴，監(jiān)督—技術(shù)，企業(yè)的政策和管理，工作條件，個人生活因素，地位，工作保障。激勵因素是指在工作本身的內(nèi)在因素如同認可一個任務(wù)得以完

54、成。相反地，保健因素傾向于包括外在單位，與員工的實際工作不相關(guān)的同事之間的關(guān)系。</p><p>　　赫茨伯格的兩個因素之間的最重要和最根本區(qū)別是每一個因素的滿意或不滿意的內(nèi)在程度。要是動機包括那些隨著時間的推進作用，然后激勵就提升長期的態(tài)度和滿意的因素就好了。根據(jù)赫茨伯格理論(1959年)，激勵因素引起積極的工作態(tài)度是因為它們滿足了員工的需求，個人的目標。這些激勵因素的存在有可能創(chuàng)造了巨大的工作滿意度，然而，在

55、缺乏激勵因素，赫茨伯格說，不滿意不會發(fā)生。同樣地，保健因素簡單的“變動”(造成暫時性的動作)，有可能造成很不滿。同樣地，他們的缺失并不能引起一個滿意的高標準。</p><p>　　赫茨伯格如何以非極端的關(guān)系為基礎(chǔ)呢？工作滿意度包含兩個獨立的維度。這些維度不是關(guān)于一個連續(xù)的不同的目標，相反，他們還包括兩個獨立的與其他不同的。根據(jù)赫茨伯格(1968)，工作滿意度的對立面不是不滿意，而是一種單純的滿意的缺乏。在同樣的方

56、式，工作不滿意的對立面不是滿意，而是“沒有不滿意”。例如，就保健因素，工作條件而言。如果在一個炎熱的夏天的中午，空調(diào)不運轉(zhuǎn)了，員工們將會大大不滿。然而，如果空調(diào)就像預期的那樣工作一整天，員工們也將不會很滿意，不會特別注意更何況心存感激。</p><p>　　動機和行為在KITA中的區(qū)別</p><p>　　赫茨伯格的激勵理論是在整體上對動機和行為進行區(qū)分。他在他的KITA討論中隊這兩者進行

57、了比較。這里有KITA的三種不同種類：負面生理的KITA，消極心理的KITA，積極的KITA。</p><p>　　在當今的爭論社會，很有可能會造成大多數(shù)管理者越來越少的處理員工利用負面生理的KITA，或者利用負面生理對惰性的員工開始采取身體接觸的行動。消極心理的KITA在激勵員工方面是相當無用的；主要的效益即使是惡意的，是靠自我為生的，也被認為是掌權(quán)。積極的KITA怎么樣呢？積極的KITA可以概括為一個詞—獎勵

58、。它的關(guān)系是“如果…，然后…”。如果你在一個星期內(nèi)完成這項任務(wù)，您將會得到這個獎金。雖然許多管理者給獎勵激勵，赫茨伯格說積極的KITA不是激發(fā)性的。積極的KITA相當移動或刺激運動。當員工接到完成任務(wù)后的獎金，就是個體有更多動力去更加努力地工作嗎？會因為條件式的獎金而有深遠的影響嗎？不是的，員工只是暫時行動。但是，并不會因為曾經(jīng)獲得的獎勵而延長影響。</p><p>　　回想激勵因素，赫茨伯格認為只有這些因素可以

59、在員工的態(tài)度，滿意上留下深刻印象，然后工作。此外，當這種刺激是內(nèi)部和相關(guān)工作時，員工會表現(xiàn)的很好。</p><p>　　洛克的理論對工作滿意度的影響</p><p>　　洛克的工作滿意度的綜合理論是許多其他關(guān)于他開發(fā)通過學習和研究目標設(shè)定和員工的績效相關(guān)議題的概念的作品。同樣地,他的解釋的工作滿意是在一定程度上是回應(yīng)的赫茨伯格的一些建議。因此，他的工作滿意度的解釋是部分的，是赫茨伯格建議的

60、一些響應(yīng)。因此，洛克的評論是初步討論，后面是他對價值觀的理論，代理/事件因素，最后是一個調(diào)整工作滿意度的觀點。</p><p><b>　　赫茨伯格的評論</b></p><p>　　洛克對赫茨伯格的雙因素理論的評估，可以通過以下關(guān)于赫茨伯格的思想的結(jié)論進行簡要總結(jié)：滿意與不滿意的起因于不同的原因。雙因素理論是對相對于人的需要的雙方面的理論，它表明結(jié)合保健因素工作方面

61、的生理需要，和工作中伴隨著激勵因素的心理需要或成長需要(洛克,1976年)。基于這些洛克對赫茨伯格的理解的命題，以下是一個洛克的評論的清單：身心的二分法；需求的單向運行；人的需求和動機對比的缺乏以及保健因素的分類制度；防衛(wèi)心理；頻率數(shù)據(jù)的使用；拒絕個別差異。</p><p>　　根據(jù)洛克(1976)第一次評論，赫茨伯格的觀點，人的本能意味著一個在心理與生物分裂的人類構(gòu)造的過程。這兩個是雙重的性質(zhì)的和作用分開的,與

62、另外的無關(guān)。相反，洛克提出精神和身體是非常密切相關(guān)的。它是通過人類發(fā)現(xiàn)的發(fā)現(xiàn)他/她的生理和心理需要的本質(zhì)的心理以及他們?nèi)绾慰梢詽M足。洛克提出了基于生存需要，一種生物的需要的證明是通過頭腦的使用。</p><p>　　關(guān)于赫茨伯格的保健激勵因素和生理心理需求的相關(guān)性，可以推斷第一個是單向性的，生理和心理的需要也一樣。洛克指出沒有這樣的結(jié)論的理由。提供物質(zhì)需要的例子，饑餓，他寫道假裝吃不僅可以成為饑痛的厭惡，而且是身

63、體的享受。</p><p>　　第三次評論直接附屬于前兩個，僅僅是在因素和需要兩者之間平行關(guān)系的缺乏。他們的關(guān)系在幾個實例是朦朧而重疊的。一家新公司的保健政策會顯著影響到員工對工作本身的興趣或他/她的成功。缺少一條相關(guān)差別的清楚線。</p><p>　　洛克關(guān)于赫茨伯格的分類系統(tǒng)的評論，為先前的評論所共用，主張雙因素理論在本身在滿意分類因素的不一致。雙因素理論的滿意的范圍僅僅分裂成兩個區(qū)段

64、。舉例來說，設(shè)想一名員工被賦予了新的的任務(wù)(被認為是一種動力)，這被認為是有責任。然而，如果一個管理者將不會委派職務(wù)作為代表，位置便標注成技術(shù)監(jiān)督。洛克認為把一個元素(如責任感)分裂成從事件和代理之間混淆的兩類不同因素的結(jié)果。</p><p>　　防御心理的現(xiàn)象是赫茨伯格作品的進一步評論，如何讓員工把面試當做是令人滿意的事件就如進步和認可，因為遇到不滿意的情形而責備他人如主管，下屬，同事，甚至是政策。洛克不覺得赫

65、茨伯格提到的這個謬論的重要性充分有效的在評估他的研究結(jié)果。</p><p>　　赫茨伯格的頻率數(shù)據(jù)的使用強調(diào)被提及一個特定因素的次數(shù)。然而，由于203會計師和工程師的范圍是有限的，雖然獨特，經(jīng)歷過類似的困難。赫茨伯格理論(1959)認為那些上市的是最令人滿足的或者是不滿意的。即便如此，例如，一個不滿意的因素是多數(shù)地記錄，但這并不一定意味著這個因素是一個十分嚴重的問題或者甚至刺激員工越來越多的導致更高層次的不滿的罕

66、見問題。洛克提出了測量強度而不是頻率(洛克,1976年)。例如，一名員工當他或她成功或者失敗的時候可以提到一個時間并排列強度的等級水平。</p><p>　　同時先前的評論，拒絕個體差異附屬到樣品中多樣性不適當?shù)淖钚』Ｂ蹇?1976)承認即使個人需求也許是相似的，但他或她的價值觀不一樣。除了價值觀，在情緒反應(yīng)方面有最重要的影響。所以，個人有特定的價值觀，不要把金錢或晉升放在相同的重要性上，例如，研究使他們不同于