The Foreign Service Journal, February 2004

Many factors affect morale but, taken as a whole, morale is an indica- tor of how well an organization is managed. In the private sector, high morale has been clearly related to employee retention and a healthy “bottom line.” Improved morale pays dividends, literally. This has motivat- ed private organizations to invest in activities or improvements in the work environment to boost morale. These changes convey, through action and in an unequivocal way, the interest of an organization’s manage- ment in the welfare of its members. W. Lindsey, in his article “Mapping Work Group Morale” ( Journal for Quality & Participation ) says: “Work morale is a function of a person’s attitude toward these key factors: 1. the job itself, 2. the work group, 3. management practices, and 4. economic rewards.” He also con- cludes that there is usually a positive relationship between morale and performance. Studies have con- firmed that relationship — and the financial value of high morale in the workplace. But how directly does morale affect the organizational bottom line? Perhaps Edwin Locke of the University of Maryland expresses the best view: “The effects of morale on productivity are indirect rather than direct.” Experts are certain, however, that low morale can harm an organi- zation, and the employee, in other ways. Some examples are: work avoidance, defiance, talking back, deliberately ignoring rules and, worst of all, what Locke calls aggression (sabotage, stealing, starting rumors, leaking information to the press, etc.). The highest cost, however, is paid in human suffering and unhap- piness. Ambassador Tibor B. Nagy, in his article “Ambassadors and Post Morale: The Most Critical Element” ( Foreign Service Journal , February 2003), says, “… post morale is a major factor in determining whether a post functions well, or is simply dys- functional.” Another way of thinking about morale is in almost biological terms. Living organisms or bodies are form- ed by cells. When the cells become ill, we have a sick organism. Organ- izations are formed by people. Neg- lecting the people — in any part of the organization — is neglecting the organization and this can eventually lead to ailments and impaired func- tioning. Organizations can slow, fal- ter or even “die” of management neglect or mistreatment much like a living organism. Certain basic needs must be met (shelter, safety, food and acceptance by others) before higher-level needs (job security, career goals, prestige, recognition, etc.) become motivators and affect morale. Another set of individual factors is the psychological needs of the individual. Everyone has psychological needs; some are conscious, others unconscious. The sum of such unwritten conscious and unconscious expectations at work is what is called the “psychological con- tract.” When the psychological con- tract is broken by the organization, morale declines. But morale is a two-way street. It is important to emphasize that good morale in an organization is the joint responsibility of management and employees. Simply because most vis- ible aspects of morale are the respon- sibility of management, employees should not assume they are exempt from responsibility. Measuring Morale Levinson says that the key to solv- ing morale problems in organizations is diagnosis. Having some idea about the level of morale is rather useless if we do not have any idea of its reasons or causes and some idea, therefore, about how to improve it. It is extremely difficult to measure morale because many of the factors are constantly changing and do not have the same effect on everybody. Different survey instruments have been developed to measure morale, some of them quite elaborate. In spite of how sophisticated surveys are, “there is nothing quite like being there face to face,” says Anne B. Fisher in her article “Morale Crisis.” I have found that the “face to face” approach combined with a rating of morale by the individual is the most useful approach to measurement. It is very difficult to develop an idea or concept of what morale is like at a post without specifically looking into the matter. People usually do not volunteer this information spon- taneously. Without getting too “sci- entific” about it, I ask people to “translate” their perception or des- cription of morale into a number in a scale from 0 to 10, with 10 being the best realistically possible morale. Most people have no problem giving the requested number. Those num- bers can be averaged and compared from visit to visit. I also ask the individual to evalu- ate each of the various internal and external factors contributing to mor- ale as they relate to the operation of the post or life in the city and coun- try. The table on p. 59 shows the list 58 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 4 One ambassador routinely humiliated officers in public, even those he had praised for good performance.