1. © The Hofstede Centre 2012
Labor satisfaction versus culture
Introduction
Sometimes our certified consultants run into potential clients, who prefer to survey labor
satisfaction instead of organizational culture. That begs for a reaction.
Some of the reasons given by their clients are:
1. In the case of labor satisfaction surveys, we know what we get. In the case of a culture scan we
don’t.
2. We have already conducted labor satisfaction surveys for many years, and we like to compare
developments of labor satisfaction among our employees over time.
3. We are also interested in our culture, but we don’t want to bother our employees with too
many surveys
The above sounds all very plausible, but the question is whether itreally makes sense. Or in other
words, is it all that wise to conduct labor satisfaction surveys? There are of course a lot of
professionals who have a vested interest in labor satisfaction surveys, but that in itself gives no
proof of the usefulness of such surveys. By the way, we have a vested interest in culture scans,
thus: be aware!
What are the benefits of labor satisfaction surveys?
People conduct labor satisfaction surveys based on the presumption that a happy worker is a
productive worker. The question is whether this is really so. But before trying to answer this
question there is another presumption, we want to address, viz. that employers can increase labor
satisfaction and therefore the degree of happiness among employees.
What is it, that employers can do about employees’ happiness?
Since Frederick Herzberg's theory on job motivation was published in 1968 it has become common
knowledge that a distinction can be made between factors causing job satisfaction and hygiene
factors. Hygiene factors are job factors that can cause dissatisfaction if missing but do not
necessarily motivate employees if increased, such as in the case of an increase in salary above a
minimum level.

2. © The Hofstede Centre 2012
According to Herzberg the top six motivators causing satisfaction and the top six hygiene factors
causing dissatisfaction, listed in the order of higher to lower importance are:
Leading to satisfaction:
Achievement
Recognition
Work itself
Responsibility
Advancement
Growth
Leading to dissatisfaction:
Company policy
Supervision
Relationship with boss
Work conditions
Salary
Relationship with peers
There are, however, nowadaysmisgivings about Herzberg’s theory. It is questioned whether
such a distinction really exists or whether this distinction is based on the fact that it is natural
for people to take credit for satisfaction and to blame dissatisfaction on external factors and not
on themselves.
Does this imply that the distinction, which has been made by Herzberg, has become totally
obsolete? And does this also imply that employers cannot do anything about employees’
happiness?
It is everybody’s experience that one’s environment can have an impact on one’s feelings of
happiness, with the exception of those being fully equanimous or those being manic and/or
depressive.At the same time it has been found, see next paragraph, that the nature of our
personality is the most important factor defining job satisfaction.
We therefore would like to suggest that the nature of our personality is an important
explanatory factor defining our degree of happiness, next to factors leading to dissatisfaction.
These hygienic factors may embrace also factors which have been listed by Herzberg under
factors leading to satisfaction; see above.
If the above is correct, it implies that employers can still do something about it, viz. ensuring
that hygiene factors are as much as possible absent in the work environment. Employers may be
less able to satisfy their employees than often thought, but they can certainly dissatisfy them.
By ensuring that hygiene factors are as much as possible absent in the work place, they can still
have an enormous impact on the degree of happiness of their employees.
The next question is what the relationship is between happiness and performance.
What is the relationship between happiness and performance?
Another point of critique on the theory of Herzberg is that there have been found indications
that employee personality may be more important regarding performance than job satisfaction
per se. The link between job satisfaction and performance is thought to be a deceptive
relationship; instead, both satisfaction and performance are thought to be the result of
personality.

3. © The Hofstede Centre 2012
It has been pointed out that a happy worker is not necessarily a productive worker. This has
been also found by Hofstede’s research in the field of organizational culture on which our work
is based. Based on his findings we could make a distinction between stay motivation and work
motivation. Cultures can either decrease employees’ willingness to stay on and it can also
stimulate employees to stay with their employer. Cultures can also either stimulate employees
to be productive or instead they can hinder productivity. The cultural factors which define the
degree of stay and work motivation differ with one exception. The exception (It concerns in
terms of the model D4; local versus professional), however, is not one of the factors which
contributes most to motivation. In other words, from a cultural perspective, both types of
motivation are only weakly related.
The cultural factors defining stay motivation coincide with what in earlier days was called:
“Work climate”. A nice work environment will induce people to stay, at least to a degree. These
factors, however don’t say anything about performance. Also not in the case of the overlapping
factor, D4, because a local culture will increase stay motivation, whereas a professional culture
will increase work motivation.
The factors adding up to a high stay motivation are factors which will make employees more
happy, such as the employer who will take co-responsibility for the welfare of employees. From
a cultural perspective this has no impact on work motivation. In other words Hofstede’s findings
support research which has found that happiness and performance are not necessarily related.
Again: What are the benefits of labor satisfaction surveys?
In the case of labor satisfaction surveys no distinction is made between stay and work motivation.
Therefore, no distinction is made between factors creating happiness and factors creating a higher
degree of performance. This is not at all surprising. In the case of labor satisfaction surveys
respondents are asked “how it feels”, which is not related to issues of productivity. In the case of
organizational culture surveys it is the challenge to describe objective reality. Work realityembraces
a lot more than labor satisfaction, such as inducement or hindrance to work productively.
Labor satisfaction surveys will assess especially whether hygienic factors are prevalent and to
which degree. This may be useful, but this can also be measured by a culture scan. Yet, a culture
scan will of course not measure everything. Thus, the degree to which respondents are unhappy
with their salary is not measured by a culture scan and can be part of a labor satisfaction survey.
The question is whether such questions are useful, because this can be also found out in other
ways. Unhappiness with one’s salary is not defined by the absolute level of income but by the
income received in comparison to those with whom people compare themselves. Thus, if
employees receive clearly less than their colleagues in other organizations and if they have found
out about it, they will become dissatisfied. One doesn’t need a labor satisfaction survey to identify
such a grievance.

4. © The Hofstede Centre 2012
Employers should be prudent in conducting labor satisfaction surveys. Such surveys imply, seen
from the perspective of respondents, that something will be done about it. If respondents are
dissatisfied, rightly so, and if the employer doesn’t take corrective actions, then employees will
become even more dissatisfied.
Another characteristic of labor satisfaction surveys is that such surveys can have a negative impact
on the degree of dissatisfaction, although employees appear to be very satisfied. Suppose that the
results of such surveys are very positive. Then management rightly assumes that nothing has to be
done. The mere fact, however, that a labor satisfaction survey will be conducted will create
expectations, because a perfect world only exists in paradise. As expectations will not be met,
satisfaction will decrease. Apparently, not only on the level of the smallest particles in universe
measurements can influence the outcome of the findings. The same can be true on the level of
social reality.
How to integrate the two bodies of know-how?
How to integrate the deceptive relationship between happiness and performance with the findings
of Hofstede? In regard to stay motivation both bodies of know-how coincide. Stay motivation is not
positively correlated with work motivation. In other words: People may be very happy with the
work situation they find themselves in, but this will not have any positive impact on their level of
performance.
Yet, according to the findings of Hofstede there exists a relationship between culture and
performance, measured by the degree of work motivation. In other words: There is more to work
motivation than personality. It is of course not so that anybody claimed that it is only personality
that will tell us whether those concerned will do well, but it is certainly seen as the major factor.
This contradicts Hofstede’s findings, which emphasize the importance of culture, next to other
factors.
What can be the reason for the fact that culture has been overlooked as an important factor co-
defining work motivation? It probably can be explained by the fact that labor satisfaction surveys
ask respondents to describe their feelings about their work environment and the content of the
job; whether they are happy or unhappy about it.
With the help of culture scans we try to describe objective work reality; i.e. we want to describe
how it isby comparing work reality in as many different organizations as possible.
Respondents have strong feelings regarding the questions which are loading the scores on stay
motivation in the model of Hofstede. Thus, e.g. most people prefer an open culture over a closed
culture to a strong degree, being one of the autonomous dimensions in the Hofstede model, which
is adding up to stay motivation. Because of such strong feeling about work reality, the two bodies
of know-how coincide. Respondents, however, have weak feelings regarding the questions which
are loading the scores on work motivation in the model of Hofstede. Thus, e.g. most people prefer
a goal oriented culture over a means oriented culture, but only to a certain degree, being one of
the autonomous dimensions, which is adding up to work motivation.

5. © The Hofstede Centre 2012
Before we continue, let us first define organizational culture: Culture describes the way people in
an organization relate to each other, to their work and to the outside world, compared to people in
other organizations.
Culture exists by mutual adjustment, by direction, by social control and by socialization. New
comers may be still surprised about how “they” do things over here. But, if those newcomers
remain surprised they will either leave by themselves or they are being rejected. Thus, the way we
do things over here is the “normal” way. Only, when people still have strong feelings about certain
aspects of their work reality they will be able to reflect about it. When their feelings were not
strong to start with, it is very difficult to reflect about it, certainly because culture only exists by
comparison.
When it is hard for respondents to reflect about part of their work reality, it is also hard to collect
meaningful information about it. That may be the reason why until recently, no meaningful
information has been collected about what we call “work motivation”. Actually, motivation may be
in this respect a misleading “word”, as respondents are not necessarily aware of the fact that their
work reality induces them to be either very productive or instead hinders them to be very
productive. Things are just as they are; they are normal. Yet, in order to compare stay motivation
with work motivation we will maintain the use of the word “motivation”.
Why is it that Hofstede’s findings were not identified when using labor satisfaction surveys? Labor
satisfaction surveys can be easily construed, as the questions are straightforward. How do you feel
about this and how do you feel about that; those type of questions. In the case of culture scans,
one wants to avoid socially desirable answers in order to come as close to a description of objective
reality with the help of subjective respondents as possible. Proper formulation of such questions is
therefore much more demanding.
For more information see the article: “How to create a meaningful description of culture”.
Conclusion
Motivation to stay depends especially on the following factors:
o Culture
o Hygiene factors
o Personality
One may find a high degree of correlation between culture and hygiene factors
Motivation to work productively depends especially on the following factors:
o Culture
o Personality
Bob Waisfisz 5 January 2013
For more information, please contact: bob@itim.org
bob@thehofstedecentre.com

6. © The Hofstede Centre 2012