Towards a Theory of Work Satisfaction: An Examination of Karl Marx and Frederick Herzberg

Abstract

Introduction Americans lead the western world in the number of hours spent at work. Why do we work so hard? One answer is that we enjoy our jobs. Work brings us satisfaction. This essay argues that work satisfaction not only entails enjoyment but also three ethical considerations as well. Two of these ethical concerns speak to the development of talents and community interest; the third addresses the subjective quality of ethical claims. Work is discussed using two models. The ethical model put forth by Karl Marx and the psychological one proposed by Frederick Herzberg. The essay ends with a few comments on how their views should be modified, amended and ignored. Karl Marx's Ethical Model Marx begins his analysis of work satisfaction with a look at capitalist production. What is produced is often useless, even dangerous. Production decisions are based on profit rather than public benefit. To use his terms, capitalism is dominated by exchange value rather than use value. What to produce should be based on objective moral criteria, not immoral motives like exchange value. Moreover, work satisfaction cannot be achieved when nature is exploited for small interest. Air and water must used for community objectives. Marx also cautions that work under capitalism emphasizes competition and selfishness, making friendships unusual. In sum, work alienates us from what we produce, the natural environment, our latent talents and each another. Work satisfaction should have a moral base and speak to producing useful goods and services, stimulating our capacities, forming meaningful relationships and appropriating natural resources for useful purposes (Marx, 1977, 75-96). Work alienation refers to the objective social conditions of work and does not depend on the opinion of the worker. Enjoying work is not a guarantee that it is unalienating. For instance, under capitalism people compensate for lack of satisfying jobs by exalting their animal qualities. He observes: The result we arrive at then is that man (the worker) only feels himself freely active in his animal functions of eating, drinking, and procreating, at most also in his dwelling and dress, and feels himself an animal in his human functions. Eating, drinking, procreating, etc., are indeed truly human functions. But in the abstraction that separates them from other rounds of human activity and makes them into final and exclusive ends they become animal. (Marx, 1977, 80-81) Pleasure become the single motive in life since it connects so quickly to part of our humanity. The quick fix before and after work is their daily highlight. Yet, when food, drink, and sex dominate life, they diminish our humanity since they ignore our wider possibilities. Ironically, the morally uninformed may enjoy such a life. An issue for Marx is how to move from a so-called incorrect moral evaluation of work to a correct one. Why should people agree with his ideas of work if they are happy with their so called alienating jobs? What is wrong with a miner who enjoys his alienating job? Marx insists that the miner suffers from a false consciousness or what Herbert Marcuse calls euphoria in (Marcuse, 1974, 50). Euphoria refers to their personal reaction while unhappiness refers to missing more reasonable possibilities. According to Marx, workers should be reeducated so they can judge work correctly. V. I. Lenin took this idea a step further and told disgruntled workers that it should be impossible to experience work dissatisfaction since they owned the means of production (Lenin, 1965, 35-277). The personal realization of alienation is the first step towards organizing for better working conditions. On the other hand, the denial of alienation may well retard this movement. Satisfied yet alienated workers are often compliant. Marx also noted that unsatisfying work can be highly productive. We should endure unsatisfying work when it is the best agent to relieve poverty. …