Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory Of Motivation-Hygiene

What Is Two-Factor Theory?

The two-factor motivation theory, otherwise known as Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory or dual-factor theory, argues that there are separate sets of mutually exclusive factors in the workplace that either cause job satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1966; 1982; 1991; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959).

Generally, these factors encouraging job satisfaction relate to self-growth and self-actualization.

The two-factor motivation theory has become one of the most commonly used theoretical frameworks in job satisfaction research (Dion, 2006).

To Herzberg, motivators ensured job satisfaction, while a lack of hygiene factors spawned job dissatisfaction.

The major mid-twentieth century researchers in motivation — Maslow (1954), Herzberg, Vroom (1964), Alderfer (1972), McCalland (1961), and Locke et al. (1981) — devised research which Basset-Jones and Lloyd argue can be divided into content and process theories of motivation.

Content theories, such as Herzberg et al. (1959), assume a complex interaction between internal and external factors and explore how people respond to different internal and external stimuli.

Meanwhile, process theories, such as that of Vroom (1964), consider how factors internal to the person lead to different behaviors.

Frederick Herzberg’s Approach

Frederick Herzberg and his two collaborators, Mausner and Snyderman, developed the motivation-hygiene theory in their book Motivation to Work.

Influenced by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Jones, 2011), Herzberg concluded that satisfaction and dissatisfaction could not be measured reliably on the same continuum and conducted a series of studies where he attempted to determine what factors in work environments cause satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

Herzberg and his colleagues explored the impact of fourteen factors on job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in terms of their frequency and duration of impact (Bassett-Jones and Lloyd, 2005).

In the first of these studies, Heizberg asked 13 laborers, clerical workers, foremen, plant engineers, and accountants to describe, in detail, situations where they felt exceptionally good or bad about their jobs (Robbins and Judge, 2013).

Generally, respondents, when describing situations where they felt good about their jobs, cited factors intrinsic to their work, while those describing situations where they felt bad about their jobs cited extrinsic factors.

Herzberg (1959) considers two factors that can add to or detract from job satisfaction: hygiene and motivation.

While hygiene factors are related to “the need to avoid unpleasantness,” motivation factors more directly lead to job satisfaction because of “the need of the individual for self-growth and self-actualization.”

The traditional view of job satisfaction entails that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction exist on the same continuum; employees who lack reasons to be satisfied with their jobs must be dissatisfied (Robbins and Judge, 2013).

However, hygiene and motivational factors are distinct. To Herzberg, the opposite of job satisfaction was not job dissatisfaction but no job satisfaction. Conversely, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is no job dissatisfaction (Kacel et al., 2005).

These two separate continua of job satisfaction and job satisfaction support the possibility that someone can be content with certain aspects of their jobs but discontent with others.

Perhaps more pessimistically, this also implies that simply eliminating “dissatisfiers” would not necessarily lead to job satisfaction as much as placation (motivational concepts).

These so-called “satisfiers” (motivational factors) and “dissatisfiers” (a lack of hygiene factors) are dynamic, constantly interacting, highly subject to change, and relative to the employee (Misener and Cox, 2001).

Certain satisfiers or dissatisfiers may be more important than others depending on personal and professional contexts.

According to Herzberg, whether or not dissatisfiers outweigh satisfiers predict whether employees find their job interesting and enjoyable and their likelihood of remaining at their current jobs (Kacel et al., 2005).

Motivation Factors

Herzberg et al. (1959) argue that motivation factors are necessary to improve job satisfaction.

According to Herzberg, these motivators are intrinsic to the job and lead to job satisfaction because they satisfy the needs for growth and self-actualization (Herzberg, 1966).

In his original paper, Herzberg examines 14 motivational and hygiene factors, of which there are notable examples:

1. Advancement: Herzberg defined advancement as the upward and positive status or position of someone in a workplace.

   Meanwhile, a negative or neutral status at work represents negative advancement (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

2. The work itself: The content of job tasks can positively or negatively affect employees.

   The job’s difficulty and level of engagement can dramatically impact satisfaction or dissatisfaction in the workplace (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

3. Possibility for growth: Possibilities for growth exist in the same vein as Maslow’s self-actualization; they are opportunities for a person to experience personal growth and promotion in the workplace.

   Personal growth can result in professional growth, increased opportunities to develop new skills and techniques, and gaining professional knowledge (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

4. Responsibility: Responsibility encompasses both the responsibilities held by the individual and the authority granted to the individual in their role.

   People gain satisfaction from being given the responsibility and authority to make decisions. Conversely, a mismatch between responsibility and level of authority negatively affects job satisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

5. Recognition: When employees receive praise or rewards for reaching goals or producing high-quality work, they receive recognition.

   Negative recognition involves criticism or blame for a poorly done job (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

6. Achievement: Positive achievement can involve, for example, completing a difficult task on time, solving a job-related problem, or seeing positive results from one’s work.

   Negative achievement includes failure to progress at work or poor job-related decision-making (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

Herzberg’s Hygiene Factors

Hygiene factors are those which decrease job dissatisfaction. Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman used the term hygiene as “medical hygiene…[which] operates to remove health hazards from the environment” (1959; Alshmemri et al., 2017).

Herzberg also states that hygiene factors are extrinsic to the job and function in “the need to avoid unpleasantness” (Herzberg, 1966).

Hygiene factors, rather than relating to the content of the job in itself, tend to relate to contextual factors such as interpersonal relations, salary, company policies, and administration, relationship with supervisors, and working conditions:

1. Interpersonal relations: Interpersonal relationships involve the personal and working relationships between an employee and his supervisors, subordinates, and peers.

   This can manifest in, for example, job-related interactions as well as social discussions in both the work environment and during informal break times.

2. Salary: Salary includes wage or salary increases and negative unfulfilled expectations of wage or salary increases (Alshmemri et al., 2017).
3. Company policies and administration: Company policies and administration include factors such as the extent to which company organization and management policies and guidelines are clear or unclear.

   For example, a lack of delegation of authority, vague policies and procedures, and communication may lead to job dissatisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017).

4. Supervision: Supervision involves an employee’s judgments of the competence or incompetence and fairness or unfairness of the supervisor or supervision.

   For example, this could include a supervisor’s willingness to delegate responsibility or teach and their knowledge of the job.

   Poor leadership and management can decrease job dissatisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017).

5. Working conditions: Finally, working conditions involve the physical surroundings of the job and whether or not they are good or poor.

   Factors leading to a good or poor workspace could involve the amount of work, space, ventilation, tools, temperature, and safety (Alshmemri et al., 2017).

Examples

Critical Evaluation

The two-factor theory has not been well supported by research. Generally, criticisms of the theory focus on Herzberg’s methodology and assumptions.

Critics have also noted that if hygiene and motivational factors are equally important to a person, both should be capable of motivating employees (Robbins and Judge, 2013).

Herzberg conducted his formative motivation theory research at a time when organizations tended to be rigid and bureaucratic. As organizations shifted away from focusing on mass production and toward innovation, new theories of motivation, such as those based on behaviorism, evolved (Bassett-Jones and Lloyd, 2005).

A large number of replication studies emerged following Herzberg’s results. Those using Herzberg’s methodology — the critical incident framework — were consistent with his original results, while research that used methods such as surveys supported the traditional idea that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction exist on the same continuum (Bassett-Jones and Lloyd, 2005).

Soon after Motivation at Work’s publication, Vroom (1964) offered a notable critique of this phenomenon: people would naturally be inclined toward protecting their egos when asked to recall good and bad work moments, thus attributing good moments to their personal achievement and capability and bad moments to work (Basset-Jones and Lloyd, 2005).

Thus, in Herzberg’s original qualitative study involving about 200 participants, participants may have been biased when thinking about times in the past when they felt good or bad about their jobs.

Nonetheless, critics struggled to grapple with how Herzberg’s methodology produced results with such consistency.

Nonetheless, critics continued attributing Herzberg’s results to factors such as social desirability bias (Wall, 1973) and personality (Evans and McKee, 1970).