Exploring Horticultural Employees' Attitudes Toward Their Jobs: A Qualitative Analysis Based on Herzberg's Theory of Job Satisfaction

Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Dec 2005 by Bitsch, Vera, Hogberg, Michael

Different from instances when employees use the term information and mean aspects of supervision (e.g., clear and complete instructions), the factor information describes whether employees receive information beyond their immediate job about the company in general, change in ownership, long-term plans, and financial well being. Information can contribute to satisfaction, if an employee receives regular updates on the company. Information can also be a source of dissatisfaction, when employees feel left in the dark and would like to see more regular meetings. Similar to compensation, information seems to function as a hygiene factor (Table 5).

Discussion and Conclusions

Support for Herzberg's theory of job context factors causing dissatisfaction or the absence thereof versus job content factors causing satisfaction or no satisfaction provided through this analysis is weak. While the number of respondents is small, few cases can suffice to challenge or qualify a theory. The critique that the two-cluster theory is possibly an artifact of the critical-incident data collection method seems to the point.

Using an in-depth interview approach, the results show no clear-cut boundary between positive and negative feelings about the job along the lines of content versus context factors. Some context factors-personal life, interpersonal relationships with superiors, and family-business values-function as motivators. On the other hand, a content factorwork itself-shows a potential for dissatisfaction that challenges its role as a motivator for this group of employees with mostly general labor-type tasks. These findings are important because motivational approaches to work design often focus narrowly on the task itself, thereby unnecessarily limiting the scope of potential improvements.

Results of this study indicate that both groups of factors, content and context factors, can substitute for each other to some extent. Job satisfaction does not solely depend on motivators. Most interviewees would recommend their company to a friend or a relative searching for a job, which means they have reached, at minimum, a basic satisfaction level.

Overall, employees are much less likely to emphasize negative aspects of their work than positive ones. Eliciting negative comments required intensive probing, while interviewees liked to dwell on the positive. This corresponds with typical findings in job satisfaction studies of 70-90% satisfied employees and does not necessarily indicate very high satisfaction levels, but rather social expectations and response tendencies.

The results of this analysis correspond with other studies of job satisfaction in agriculture. Bitsch (1996) notes physical strain and wages as the most frequent reasons to leave the industry cited by horticultural apprentices in Germany. Dissatisfying aspects of working conditions and perceptions of wages and benefits cited by nonsupervisory employees corroborate these results. The most frequently stated area for improving job satisfaction in the apprentice study was also compensation. Recognition, support with additional training and development, and participation and responsibility in work-related decisions were other frequent responses. These responses correspond with satisfying and dissatisfying aspects of supervision and involvement articulated by nonsupervisory employees. Fogleman et al., in a study of dairy-farm employees in New York, also found overall high satisfaction levels, but varying satisfaction with different components. The satisfaction component over which managers and supervisors have the most control, feedback, is where employees were least satisfied. This result corresponds with the presumed deficit in supervisory training of agricultural supervisors and managers and the results of this study.