Air University Review, November-December 1976

Major General Edmund A. Rafalko

For some years now, most of my speeches, many of the conversations with my staff, and discussions with my superiors have centered on some variation of the austerity theme. "Do more with your present resources." Make every dollar count. "We must do better." Everyone agreed, but we also sensed the frustration that comes from an agreement on end objectives without a definitive plan to achieve them. Rhetoric and platitudes soon wear thin. In late 1972 and early 1973 at the Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, we began looking for some way to lend substance to what we perceived as a willingness among our supervisors and work force to cooperate.

We struggled to discover a feasible rationale that would give ample support to our combat forces yet at the same time reduce the resources required to generate and provide that support.

In 1972-73, Ogden Air Logistics Center was a major USAF installation employing 18,000 personnel and accounting for a $254,000,000 payroll. It was an important facility in dollar terms, yes, but of more significance, the importance of the weapon systems and commodities managed there. Included are the entire free world arsenal of ICBM's, the Minuteman and Titan II, and our most widely used fighter aircraft, the F-4. The center also manages all the nonnuclear airmunitions used by the Air Force and recently was assigned as provisional manager of the new air combat fighter, the F-16.

Given the size of the installation, the primacy of the systems, and the volume of the materiel managed, any small over-all improvement would be of considerable dollar magnitude.

Two of the major questions that we must continue to study are: How can we increase productivity and improve quality, in the face of continuing cutbacks in both funds and personnel? Given the current economic climate, how can we build motivation yet cope with the ever changing problems and needs of our work force?

The Plans and Programs Directorate at Ogden ALC conducted a comprehensive study to determine whether we might benefit from any of the many motivation programs available to us. The conclusion was that the motivation-hygiene theory developed by Dr. Frederick Herzberg offered the greatest possibility. The timing of this decision was fortunate, for Dr. Herzberg had just recently moved from Case Western Re-serve University in Ohio to accept the position of Distinguished Professor of Management at the University of Utah, at nearby Salt Lake City. Dr. Herzberg and his associates have been of enormous help in establishing the program.

Essentially, the motivation-hygiene theory suggests that productivity is a function of technology and motivation, or P = f(T,M). We require the technology to be efficient, the motivation to be human.

Dr. Herzberg believes that workers have two sets of needs, both of which must be satisfied if high production and quality are to be achieved. The worker has hygiene needs--needs that relate to the conditions under which he does his job. Deficiencies in this area influence job dissatisfaction.

The worker also has another set of needs which, if they are fulfilled, will bring about a high degree of job satisfaction. These Dr. Herzberg refers to as the motivators. They relate to the job itself rather than to the circumstances surrounding it. The accompanying chart displays the various dimensions that influence both aspects of the nature of man at work.

He refers to Orthodox Job Enrichment (OJE) as the application of these factors to a work situation.

Confusing these two sets of needs can get us into trouble. We cannot, for instance, achieve lasting motivation by simply improving working conditions which, at best, would only eliminate whatever dissatisfaction that existed regarding working conditions and be relatively short-lived.

OJE is a common sense approach to people at work because it gets down to the touch labor level, the direct worker, and puts management focus on his needs--on the factors in and around those jobs that dissatisfy him. But more important, it focuses on those elements that motivate him.

We worked hard to redesign jobs in order to create more elements of motivation. We had to be sincere and credible with the worker, yet operate within the management and supervisory structure

One of the essential elements of our program is the ability of our OJE keymen. They were selected on the basis of cur rent managerial skills, broad knowledge of their organization, and a past experience of succeeding. They had to be able to learn, assimilate, and teach. The keymen received comprehensive training theory, dynamics, skills, and the OJE implementing processes; the training totaled about 120 classroom hour equivalent to eight credit hours in the University of Utah graduate school. However, the training does not stand alone. The development process continues for an additional eight months before the keyman is considered to be fully proficient.

Following initial training efforts, the 16 keymen selected 11 pilot projects. Each of these projects followed a similar pattern for enrichment. The first step in the process of job enrichment was the formulation of the implementing and coordinating committees. The implementing committee is a group, usually of four to eight members, made up of the supervisor of the area to be enriched, specialists, and other first- and second-level supervisors who can be of assistance in developing the strategy for implementation of job enrichment principles. The coordinating committee is of similar size and comprised of middle- and upper-level managers over the unit under consideration. The coordinating committee is charged with expediting changes proposed by the implementing committee and with removing roadblocks to implementation. The keyman served as advisor and trainer for both groups.

After instructing them in motivation- hygiene theory, the keyman directed the implementing committee in brainstorming techniques as a means to generate ideas for installing motivators into the jobs under evaluation. This process was called greenlighting. The next step was to evaluate the "greenlight" list to come up with viable items. The evaluation process was called redlighting. If we found that an area had excessive hygiene problems, we had to clean them up to acceptable levels before trying to enrich the jobs.

A diversity of test projects was necessary to enable an evaluation of commandwide application, but, more important, we needed to know if OJE would solve production problems in a cost-effective manner.

Measures were critical to the initial evaluation. Soft data were encouraging in terms of reduced turnover, reduced sick leave, and improved attitude, but hard data in terms of units produced and reduced man-hours required are also impressive.

Investment was high in the beginning because of the time required for training of keymen and supervisors. (See Figure 1.) Return lagged investment by three to five months. The pilot study chart shows returned investment for the 11 pilot projects through their first 15 months of operation.

Projects were not initiated until March 1974, and the first job changes came in April. Figures aggregated through March 1975 for the 11 original projects reflect an investment of about $173,000 compared to a return rounded out to nearly $325,000. Included in the investment figures are fewer than 13,000 out-of-pocket dollars for contract and training materials. This expediture resulted from an agreement with Herzberg and associates for training of the first 16 key-men. Most of the investment cost is for salaries paid to keymen and management involved in the 11 projects. The return data result from such things as materials, fuel, increased units of production, and the need for fewer people.

All this has not been easy. We have had success, but also lack of it--no failures, but resistance--what we refer as the "sameness syndrome." Yet, on balance, there have been many more pluses than minuses. We are now more competent and confident that we can overcome areas of resistance, maintain our momentum, and continue our flow and expansion downstream. We have not agonized over the lack of measurable progress in specific projects, but we have highlighted and reinforced our successes.

One project that was a particular source of satisfaction involved the installation of a wing strap on the bottom of an F-4E aircraft wing. From 1 April 1974 to 31 November 1975, we showed a potential savings of $166,000, quality defect reduction of more than 30%, and a significant reduction in absenteeism. These results were obtained through the implementation process previously described. The keyman provided the coordinating and implementing committees with 20 hours of training on the motivation-hygiene theory. The implementing committee then analyzed the work flow in the project, and after applying job enrichment principles to the job, they came up with a plan to increase motivational aspects of the job. The following list shows some of the changes that were made to the job and their accompanying motivator:

Likewise, the following list gives a sample of ideas that were generated in the "greenlight" session but eliminated during the "redlight" phase. This project was closed in November 1975 when the workload was completed.

Based on these and other results, reinforced by the enthusiasm of top management people and my own personal conviction that we can continue to progress, we have established an organization designed to accelerate the expansion pf success.

Twenty-five full-time keyman positions have been created. These folks now have the background, experience, and the technical ability required to train and develop new keymen.

Fifteen of these positions will be used on a one-year rotational basis. We will select and train new keymen two to three times a year to provide an orderly but controlled progression. This cycle provides an additive channel for expansion as the old keymen return to their former positions or to positions of increased responsibility. We will continue our relationship with Herzberg and associates for the time being in order to reinforce the skill development and proficiency of all our keymen.

The job enrichment program has matured beyond the test phase. As of 31 December 1975, we had 48 projects with more than 1867 workers directly involved. Projects include functions from across the ALC; we have had successful ones involving line workers in maintenance as well as office workers in many of the base organizations. * The accompanying chart shows how our costs and returns have run for all projects through calendar year 1975.

*Headquarters Air Force Logistics Command is formulating plans to implement the concept of job enrichment commandwide, according to General F. Michael Rogers, AFLC commander.

We need better measurement tools to differentiate among the many productivity programs we have on-going. We also need to be able to judge better how each of our efforts contributes to defense readiness. The OJE staff office has developed guidelines and policies that will help provide that kind of visibility. Currently our projects impact mostly at the microlevel. As our efforts expand, we will begin to influence the gross or macromeasures.

Our experience has shown that to increase productivity we must create a work environment in which each individual is first allowed, and then encouraged, to achieve his full work potential. It is that latent, unused, individual talent multiplied by the thousands of people we employ that can give us major productivity increases. Apparently, we have applied a theory that will help create such an environment. We have adopted a management strategy that will reinforce job motivators. We have established an organization that will systematically review how we do what we must do. We must move closer to our primary objective of increased support to our combat forces at reduced costs. By now OJE is an absolutely essential part of that "common sense approach to people at work."

Progress to date suggests that we expand the investment and sustain and enlarge the application. This we have done. We are currently in the process of expanding our enrichment efforts vertically to improve the job of our supervisors and managers as well as the jobs of the line workers.

We intend to watch closely, determine and use better measures as we assess the full potential of our people performing meaningful work.

So, there it is: Orthodox Job Enrichment--Ogden Style. We have studied it, applied it, and it is working!