Q.16. What is ‘THERBLIG’? Ex plain. (AKTU. 2009 - 10)
Ans. One of the most interesting of the Gilbreth’s contributions was the analysis and breakdown of a task into its basic elements of motion, which they called “therbligs.” This word, invented, by Frank Gilbreth a the result of a suggestion from his wife, can in some respects be considered as a forerunner of Serutan. Reading therblig backward gives the name Cilbreth except that the t and h are reversed. The therbligs are very useful; each has a name and a symbol, as shown in figure.
Every job involves a number of these therbligs. By way of illustration, consider signing one’s name. A man usually keeps his fountain pen in his inside coat pocket. In therblig terms he must search, find, select (assuming he has more than one pen).
transport loaned, position, disassemble, position, use, assemble, transfer, search, find, position. A lot of work for such a simple task that is done in so short a time.
After all the therbligs involved in the task have been identified, it is then necessary to ask six questions:
1. Is each therblig necessary?
2. Can the task be made simpler by having fewer motions?
3. Can there be less motion in performance or degree?
4. Can the steps be combined?
5. Can the sequence be changed?
6. Can more than one be done at the same time?
Q.17. Describe in brief Herzberg’s two factor theory. (AKTU. 2011 - 12)
Ans. Herzberg’s two factor theory: -
Basic Study: -
The original study of Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman was concerned with an investigation into causes of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of engineers and accountants. Their method was quite simple. They interviewed each person individually. Each worker was asked to describe, in detail, times when he felt exceptionally good or exceptionally bad about his job. The interviews were then “content analyzed” to see (1) what kind of things were mentioned when people described the times they were very satisfied with their job, (2) what kinds satisfied with their job, and (3) if the kinds of things described in these two different circumstances would be different.
The result of their study did indicate that things which were associated with high satisfaction (“satisfiers”) were somewhat different from the things which were associated with situations of low satisfaction (“dissatisfiers”). They found that the descriptions of good periods included such things as achievement, recognition advancement, responsibility, etc. All of these things seemed to relate to the actual content of the job - they were therefore called content factors. Description of bad work periods seemed to be filled with items dealing with company policy, supervision, salary, and working conditions. These items seemed to relate to the context in which a person performed his task and were therefore referred to as context factors.
The Model: -
Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman postulated two general classes of work variables—satisfiers and dissatisfiers. Satisfiers are those things which lead to job satisfaction, they are generally job content factors or “motivators.” Dissatisfiers are those things which result in job dissatisfaction; they are generally job context or “hygiene” factors. To quote the authors.
Because the model postulates these two general classes of variables - one class which can satisfy but not dissatisfy, and one which causes dissatisfaction but not satisfaction - the model has been designed as Herzberg’s Two factor theory.
Q.17. Describe in brief Herzberg’s two factor theory. (AKTU. 2011 - 12)
Ans. Herzberg’s two factor theory: -
Basic Study: -
The original study of Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman was concerned with an investigation into causes of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of engineers and accountants. Their method was quite simple. They interviewed each person individually. Each worker was asked to describe, in detail, times when he felt exceptionally good or exceptionally bad about his job. The interviews were then “content analyzed” to see (1) what kind of things were mentioned when people described the times they were very satisfied with their job, (2) what kinds satisfied with their job, and (3) if the kinds of things described in these two different circumstances would be different.
The result of their study did indicate that things which were associated with high satisfaction (“satisfiers”) were somewhat different from the things which were associated with situations of low satisfaction (“dissatisfiers”). They found that the descriptions of good periods included such things as achievement, recognition advancement, responsibility, etc. All of these things seemed to relate to the actual content of the job - they were therefore called content factors. Description of bad work periods seemed to be filled with items dealing with company policy, supervision, salary, and working conditions. These items seemed to relate to the context in which a person performed his task and were therefore referred to as context factors.
The Model: -
Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman postulated two general classes of work variables—satisfiers and dissatisfiers. Satisfiers are those things which lead to job satisfaction, they are generally job content factors or “motivators.” Dissatisfiers are those things which result in job dissatisfaction; they are generally job context or “hygiene” factors. To quote the authors.
Because the model postulates these two general classes of variables - one class which can satisfy but not dissatisfy, and one which causes dissatisfaction but not satisfaction - the model has been designed as Herzberg’s Two factor theory.
