Herzberg Two Factor Theory

11 Key excerpts on "Herzberg Two Factor Theory"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  Management, P-eBK

  • John R. Schermerhorn, Jr., Paul Davidson, Daniel G. Bachrach, Peter Woods, Fatima Junaid, Tui McKeown, Mary Jesselyn Co(Authors)
  • 2022(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  They relate to Maslow’s lower order needs, Alderfer’s existence and relatedness needs, and McClelland’s affiliation need. Herzberg used these findings to offer the two-factor theory of motivation shown in figure 14.2. Its basic premise is that hygiene factors influence job dissatisfaction while satisfier factors influence job satisfaction. The distinction is important, since Herzberg is saying that you can’t increase job satisfaction by improving the hygiene factors. You will only get less dissatisfaction. Although minimising dissatisfaction is a worthy goal, according to Herzberg, you can’t expect increased motivation unless you improve upon the satisfier factors. FIGURE 14.2 Herzberg’s two-factor theory Improving the satisfier factors increases job satisfaction Improving the hygiene factors decreases job dissatisfaction Herzberg’s two-factor principles Job dissatisfaction Influenced by hygiene factors • Working conditions • Co-worker relations • Policies and rules • Supervisor quality • Base wage, salary Job satisfaction Influenced by satisfier factors • Achievement • Recognition • Responsibility • Work itself • Advancement • Personal growth Scholars criticised Herzberg’s two-factor theory because it was difficult to replicate his research. Herzberg later conducted a large-scale study and published it with Harvard Business School to reclaim his theory’s legitimacy. In his revised theory, the two factors have overlaps, with each acting as both a hygiene and satisfier factor. His revised model is presented in figure 14.3. You can see, for example, that salary is principally a hygiene factor, but somewhat a satisfier factor. As expected, company policy and administration is a strong hygiene factor, but no matter how well they are done, they do not contribute greatly to satisfaction. Pdf_Folio:399 CHAPTER 14 Motivation 399

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Supervisory Management

  The Art of Inspiring, Empowering, and Developing

  • Donald Mosley, Donald Mosley, Jr., Paul Pietri, , Donald Mosley, Donald Mosley, Jr., Paul Pietri(Authors)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Cengage Learning EMEA

    (Publisher)

  Chapter 7: Motivation 203 Qualifying Herzberg’s Theory Herzberg’s results have been replicated in other studies involving nonprofessionals, such as food-service workers, assembly-line workers, and others. However, you should bear in mind some important qualifications to Herzberg’s theory: 1. Money can be a motivating factor, especially when it is tied to recognition and achievement. 2. For some people, especially professionals, the absence of motivating factors such as recognition, advancement, and challenge can constitute dissatisfaction. 3. Critics contend a built-in bias of Herzberg’s findings is when asked about something positive on the job, a person is biased toward mentioning something in which his or her behavior is the focal point, such as a feeling of achievement, meeting a job challenge, and so on. Conversely, when asked about dissatisfiers, a person is likely to mention extrinsic factors over which he or she has no control, such as pay or working conditions. Despite these qualifications, we feel Herzberg’s theory is valuable as a general guide to understanding behavior at work. It also helps set the stage to understand better job design theory, discussed later in this chapter. Other Motivation Theories This section explores other motivation theories with which you should be familiar. These include expectancy, goal-setting, equity, reinforcement, and job design theories. Expectancy Theory The theories of Maslow and Herzberg focus primarily on the individual and his or her needs as dominant employee motivation factors. Expectancy theory is more dynamic. It views an individual’s motivation as a more conscious effort involving the interplay of three variables: (1) expectancy that effort leads to a given performance result, (2) prob- ability of reward(s) associated with the performance result, and (3) the value of the reward to the individual.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Organizational Behavior and Public Management, Revised and Expanded

  • Michael L. Vasu, Debra W. Stewart, G. David Garson, Michael L. Vasu, Debra W. Stewart, G. David Garson(Authors)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  The Japanese upsurge of manufacturing productivity has engendered much interest in their management techniques. It has also engendered a new addition to the list of management theories; namely Theory Z. William Ouchi, drawing upon the work of McGregor, has postulated that America needs a new approach, Theory Z, if American management is to improve its productivity (Ouchi, 1981). Theory Z is a synthesis of elements of Japanese management and a Theory Y perspective on the value of human resources. Theory Z organizations place high value on long term employment, consensual decision making, individual responsibility, slow evaluation and promotion systems, and moderately specialized career paths. A Theory Z management approach has been attempted at a number of major American corporations such as Chrysler and it has its strong advocates (Joiner, 1985). Motivational models coming out of the humanistic psychology tradition see human motivation as a function of the need level at which a particular employee is operating (Doyle, 1992).

  Two Factor Theory

  Frederick Herzberg, in his “Two Factor Theory of Motivation,” departs from the pure growth and development model and yet is rooted in it. He asks a simple question: “How do you install a generator in an employee?” In order to answer this question, he asks another, what do people want from their jobs? He asked employees to describe in detail the situations in which they felt very good or bad about their jobs. He then recorded and categorized those responses. He observed that the answers they gave when they were satisfied were different than those that they gave when they were dissatisfied. Herzberg, concluded that job attitudes where best described in terms of two factors he called dissatisfiers and motivators . Herzberg argued that factors leading to job satisfaction are different from those which lead to job dissatisfaction! In effect, he argued that a dual continuum existed and that the opposite of “satisfaction” is “no satisfaction” and the opposite of “dissatisfaction” is “no dissatisfaction.”

  Figure 5 is a graphic representation of Herzberg’s conceptual framework. Note, that the dual continuum underscores the existence of separate factors. The key to understanding the difference resides in the pleasure-pain principle. One set of needs stems from the person’s animal disposition and centers on the avoidance of loss of life, hunger, pain, sexual deprivation, and so on. The second dimension of human nature is pleasure-seeking oriented or motivation. Recall, Maslow’s need hierarchy! According to Herzberg, human beings have a compelling urge to reach their own potential by continuous psychological growth (Herzberg, 1966). Those aspects of work which are motivators

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The John Adair Lexicon of Leadership

  The Definitive Guide to Leadership Skills and Knowledge

  • John Adair(Author)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • Kogan Page

    (Publisher)

  In retrospect, the research work of Herzberg and his colleagues, and the studies which his theory has provoked, confirm the view that work in industry and large organizations can be a means for at least the partial satisfaction of people’s higher needs. Some support for Maslow’s theory of prepotence is also afforded by the finding that if work does not provide adequate means for meeting the lower needs, it is experienced as positively dissatisfying, more so than if opportunities for more intrinsic satisfactions are missing. Herzberg’s dualistic framework has a value as a stimulating and introductory visual sketchmap in teaching, but it becomes an over-simplification if taken beyond a certain point. Moreover, his apparent contradiction of Maslow turns out to be more a symptom of differences in casts of mind rather than anything more fundamental in theory.

  Herzberg’s particular contribution was his passionate concern for people, matched with an evangelistic fervour for the gospel that industrial work, as much as any other form of work, should serve the humanistic purpose of self-actualization. So much so that jobs which do not lend themselves to this end are to be ‘enriched’ until they do, or mechanized out of existence. In cases where mechanization or automation is impossible, ‘hygiene factors’, such as big financial rewards, must clearly be seen to be compensations for being subhuman.

  With a new faith in man and some professional ingenuity, however, it will be possible to enrich most jobs so that they win more of both intrinsic satisfactions and extrinsic rewards for the worker. In keeping with the behavioural science school as a whole, Herzberg’s public platform was that such job enrichment leads to more motivation, which in turn yields higher company profits.

  KEYPOINTS

  • It is worth giving close attention to Herzberg’s Motivation – Hygiene theory because there is a lot of truth in it. The factors which satisfy or motivate us at work are not the opposite of the ones that dissatisfy or demotivate us: they are not two sides of the same coin.
  • The factors which make us unhappy are around the job itself. Using a medical metaphor, Herzberg called them the Hygiene factors. Improve these conditions and you will be reducing the level of dissatisfaction. But you won’t make people happy by this route alone.
  • To improve satisfaction (and motivation) in a job, as opposed to mere contentment with a job, you have to tackle another set of factors: achievement , recognition , variety and creativity

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Staff Management in Library and Information Work

  • Peter Jordan, Caroline Lloyd(Authors)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  It follows from Herzberg’s studies that staff managers should be more concerned with job enrichment strategies and with job content changes rather than assuming that it is the low-motivated employees who are somehow at fault and that the job content is inviolate. He is sceptical of sacred words like ‘achievement’, ‘challenge’, ‘growth’ and ‘responsibility’ unless they are translated into practical strategies such as job enrichment and actual delegation.

  Holbeche’s researches into the effect on staff of flatter structures revealed how senior managers had talked of ‘a sense of loss’ brought about by the need to delegate areas of responsibility which they considered their own, whilst ‘people in specialist posts are often under pressure to broaden their areas of work or move to a more useful specialism for the business.’32 Shifts like these, for example on subject specialists in libraries, can be very demotivating as, in Herzberg’s terms, strong motivators are being removed.

  One problem with Herzberg’s two-factor theory is that the choice of methodology determines the results. D’Elia warns that the two-factor theory ‘is a consequence of its simplistic methodology’, and more sophisticated attempts to replicate its results have been unsuccessful or inconclusive. It is therefore said to be a misleading theory on which to base practical strategies of staff motivation:

  This method, by its very form, forces the employee to describe satisfying factors and dissatisfying factors separately, it permits the employee to accept responsibility for his good feelings and to ascribe to others the responsibility for his bad feelings, it is open to subjectivity on the part of the researcher who interprets and codes the employee’s responses.33

  This rather undermines studies like Plate and Stone’s, which used the Herzberg methodology and replicated his results accordingly. However, it would be a pity if the ‘critical incident’ approach to exploring job satisfaction were to be thrown out because of its association with the two-factor theory. It is a useful device in a semi-structured questionnaire or interview to include questions like ‘Please describe briefly an occasion at work when you felt particularly satisfied’, and ‘Please describe an occasion at work when you felt particularly dissatisfied.’ In the authors’ experience, the answers are illuminating, and do not divide neatly into Herzberg’s motivators and hygiene factors, unless the researcher has set out with that particular methodology in mind. For example, library assistants’ responses to automated circulation systems were collected during a student field study, and it was found that the decrease in sociability between staff and users was a source of dissatisfaction for some assistants, but a source of satisfaction for others, who liked to get their work done more quickly and efficiently. Thus, the same factor could be a source of satisfaction or dissatisfaction according to individuals’ differing needs at work – as in the Maslowian hierarchy, where some staff may seek mainly social and belongingness needs, while others seek esteem or recognition for work well done.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Organizational Behavior 4

  From Theory to Practice

  • John B. Miner(Author)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Abstractions such as content and context, motivators and hygienes, and the like simply do not hold when one gets closer to specifics. Opportunity for growth, which should be the essence of a self-actualizing motivator, is no more a source of satisfaction than dissatisfaction. Salary, interpersonal relations, status, and security are not just sources of dissatisfaction; they are often equally likely to be sources of satisfaction, and in certain groups some of them may well be predominant sources of satisfaction. Ray Hackman’s (1969) reanalysis of the original study data clearly supports these conclusions. Achievement and the work itself also are repeatedly found to be sources of dissatisfaction as well as satisfaction. Herzberg’s categorization of pay as a hygiene factor appears now to be an artifact of the time in which he wrote (Rousseau and Ho 2000).

  Motivation-hygiene theory seems now to lack the support needed to confirm it, in spite of an extended period of testing and a great deal of research. A quote from a major review of the job satisfaction research provides a feel for what has happened:

  Though the theory continues to be advocated by Herzberg and recommended for further study by others …, these attempts at resurrecting the theory run against considerable scientific evidence…. Disconfirming evidence has effectively laid the Herzberg theory to rest … Given the virtual absence of tests of the two-factory theory since 1971, we find [this] a suitable epitaph (Judge and Church 2000, 168).

  The one possible rejoinder to this epitaph occurs as a result of recent reviews of research on the job satisfaction-performance relationship. At the beginning of this chapter, I noted that Herzberg found some positive correlation here; he tended to endorse the view that satisfaction and performance were positively related more than did other academics of the time. Now, however, the evidence that emerges from research seems to be more consistent with Herzberg’s position (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and Patton 2001). There is some evidence that in combining evidence from different measures of job satisfaction this review may have been in error to some degree (Scarpello and Hayton 2001). However, a subsequent review focused on a single job satisfaction instrument (Kinicki, McKee-Ryan, Schriesheim, and Carson 2002) continues to uphold the Herzberg position.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Industrial and Organizational Psychology

  Research and Practice

  • Paul E. Spector(Author)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  Hygiene factors, no matter how favorable, cannot lead to motivation or satisfaction with work. Most researchers consider Herzberg’s theory to be invalid (Locke & Henne, 1986). The major problem with the theory is that the two-factor structure has not been supported by research. Despite shortcomings in the theory, Herzberg has been influential. His work helped focus the field on the important issue of providing meaningful work to people. It led to the application of job enrichment in many organizations. It also was the basis for Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) job characteristics theory, which is discussed in Chapters 9 and 10.  REINFORCEMENT THEORY Reinforcement theory describes how rewards or reinforcements can affect behavior. The theory does not deal with internal states such as motivation, so in a sense it is a nonmotivational theory. It explains behavior as a function of prior reward experiences or “reinforcement history.” Behavior is seen as a response to the environment. The major tenet of reinforcement theory is the law of effect (Thorndike, 1913). This states that the probability of a particular behavior increases if it is followed by a reward or reinforcement. Conversely, the probability of a behavior decreases if it is followed by a punishment. Behaviors become established through the pairing or associating of behavior with reinforcement. In other words, rewards are contingent on a particular behavior occurring. In a job context, this means that performance-relevant behaviors will increase in frequency if they are rewarded. Rewards can be tangible (money) or intangible (praise). They can be given by the organization or be a by-product of tasks themselves. Thus the organization can provide a 192  Chapter 8. Theories of Employee Motivation bonus for good performance, or good performance can provide a sense of accomplishment by itself. Both can be equally reinforcing and lead to continued good performance.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Organizational Behaviour

  People, Process, Work and Human Resource Management

  • Stephen J Perkins, Raisa Arvinen-Muondo(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Kogan Page

    (Publisher)

  Similar to Maslow and Alderfer’s theories, McClelland (1961) provided a dynamic view of needs where he focused on just three needs: achievement, power and affiliation. McClelland suggested that people with a high achievement need strive for personal achievement rather than rewards. They seek situations where they can attain personal responsibility for finding solutions to problems and receive rapid feedback on their performance so that they can set moderately challenging goals. Individuals who have a high power need enjoy being in charge, strive for influence over others, prefer to be placed into competitive and status-oriented situations, and tend to be more concerned with prestige and gaining influence over others than with effective performance. The need for affiliation is the desire to be liked and accepted by others. Individuals with high affiliation motive strive for friendship, prefer cooperative situations rather than competitive ones, and desire relationships involving a high degree of mutual understanding.

  Job enrichment theory Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman (1959), based on Maslow and McGregor’s theory, developed job enrichment theory, also termed as two-factor theory or motivator-hygiene theory. Herzberg concluded that:

  •    The opposite of job satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, rather it is no job satisfaction.

  •    The opposite of dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction, rather it is no job dissatisfaction.

  •    Hence job satisfaction and dissatisfaction lie on two separate continua.

  Therefore, Herzberg argued that the presence and absence of job content factors such as achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility and advancement lead to job satisfaction or no satisfaction but do not cause dissatisfaction. On the other hand, job context or hygiene factors such as company policy and administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations and working conditions lead to dissatisfaction or no dissatisfaction but do not cause job satisfaction. In order to develop the job content of motivation seekers, Herzberg proposed job enrichment, which involves giving employees whole tasks that require more complex skills and greater expertise (Linstead, Fulop and Lilley, 2009). However, Herzberg later argued that all jobs were not capable of being enriched or need to be enriched as the ‘hygiene seekers could be productive and satisfied in their jobs even if they were monotonous and disliked ones’ (1987).

  A subsequent version of Herzberg’s job enrichment theory has been developed by Hackman and Oldham (1976) in their job characteristics enrichment model, widely known as the Hackman and Oldham model. According to their model, three critical psychological needs of the employees have to be met in order to create job enrichment and job satisfaction:

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Supervision in the Hospitality Industry

  • John R. Walker(Author)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  However, removing the causes of dissatisfaction (the human relations approach) does not create satisfaction, and it therefore does not motivate performance. Herzberg called these envi- ronmental factors hygiene factors. They are also commonly called maintenance factors. For example, if you think you are underpaid, if you don’t get along with your boss, if the kitchen isn’t air-conditioned—these things can reduce motivation and cause absenteeism, poor work, and less work. They are related to motivation only in the sense that they reduce it. Such factors must be maintained at satisfying levels to avoid negative motivation. But air-conditioning the kitchen or raising wages will not make the cooks work harder once the novelty wears off. In contrast, a sec- ond group of factors provides both motivation and job satisfaction. These, Herzberg found, consist of opportunities in the job itself for achievement and growth—such factors as recognition, responsibility, achievement, advancement, and the work itself. He called these factors motivators. If you give a cook who loves to invent new dishes a chance to develop a special menu item, you will see a motivator at work. The answer to motivating employees, then, lies in the job itself. If it can be enriched to pro- vide opportunity for achievement and growth, it will not only motivate the worker to perform well but will also tap unused potential and use personnel more effectively. We look at job enrich- ment in more detail later in the chapter. What do you think? Are the motivators recognition, responsibility, achievement, advancement, and the work itself? What motivates you? dissatisfiers A factor in a job environment that produces dissatisfaction, usually reducing motivation. hygiene factors (maintenance factors) Factors in the job environment that produce job satisfaction or dissatisfaction but do not motivate performance. motivators Whatever triggers a person’s inner motivation to perform.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Motivating to Perform in the Workplace

  • Institute of Leadership & Management(Author)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  I think there is less room for argument here. I would say that most people are not normally motivated by the fact of having a job, but may become very demotivated should there be a threat of losing it.

  4.3. Conclusions and criticisms

  Herzberg’s motivating factors:

  ■  achievement; ■  responsibility; ■  the work itself; ■  recognition; ■  advancement;

  can all be said to be one’s feelings about the job itself . As Herzberg wrote, the motivating factors:

  ‘all seem to describe man’s relationship to what he does: his job content, achievement on a task, recognition for task achievement, the nature of the task, responsibility for a task and professional advancement or growth in task capability.’

  Conversely, the maintenance factors:

  ■  working conditions ■  company policy and administration ■  interpersonal relations ■  salary ■  status ■  job security

  Is this all a bit too simplistic? What do you think?

  can all be said to do with the working environment . Herzberg said of these that:

  ‘… the “dissatisfier” factors describe his relationship to the context or environment in which he does his job.’

  Thus the first group of factors are relevant to the work a person does and the other to the environment in which it is done. Or: the causes of satisfaction at work lie in the content of the job; the causes of dissatisfaction lie in the working environment.

  Herzberg’s findings were very significant for managers. They drew attention to the fact that job content has a great influence on the behaviour of people at work, and that factors like salary and working conditions may not in themselves motivate.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Skills of Management and Leadership

  Managing People in Organisations

  • W. David Rees, Christine Porter(Authors)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Red Globe Press

    (Publisher)

  The practical implications of Herzberg’s work are considerable. The basic message is: don’t ignore the hygiene factors but don’t stop there. People may want considerable involvement in their job for their own self-development. Employers may find that this is a source of considerable energy that is avail-able. Conversely, underutilized employees may engage in potentially destruc-tive activity. EXAMPLE: The devil finds work for idle hands Two South Wales police officers felt obliged to resign after competing to see who could drive the furthest away from their base during a shift. Two other officers, part of a group known as ‘the seaside five’, were fined 13 days loss of pay. The fifth officer left for unrelated reasons. The trips made included visits over 30 miles from their base. These activities apparently came to light when a patrol car broke down in England outside the police area ( Western Mail , 2008). It is necessary to be cautious in generalizing about the relevance of Herzberg’s work. There have been methodological criticisms of it, particu-larly because of his reliance on the critical incident technique, which only established the highs and lows in the attitudes of employees to their jobs. Also his research was conducted some time ago and only with professional-level employees working in the USA. Furthermore, not everyone wants to, or is able to, concentrate on meeting the higher-level need of self-actualization. This can be for a number of reasons, including preoccupation with meeting lower-level needs. National culture can also be important, and the potential importance of this factor is examined in greater detail later in this chapter. Herzberg’s work, however, can provide a very useful framework for trying to match individual needs to job requirements.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book