Introduction

Globally, job satisfaction/dissatisfaction of employees determine the success or

otherwise of organizations. Understanding the concept of employees’ motivation
is imperative because performance, reaction to compensation and other human
resource concerns are affected by and influence motivation.

Today’s business environment has placed increasing pressure on

organizations both in government and industry to accomplish more with less.
Meeting this challenge through higher productivity is possible if the individual
workers can be properly motivated (Khalid, 2013)

Herzberg Motivation – Hygiene Theory

Fredrick Herzberg and his associates developed the motivation – hygiene theory,
commonly known as the two-factor theory, in the late 19505 and early 19605.
Herzberg and his associates conducted a research based on the interview of zoo
engineers and accountants who worked for 11 different firms in Pittsburgh area
U.S.A.

The purpose of the research was to find out as to what variables are perceived to
be desirable goals to achieve and conversely undesirable conditions to avoid.
During the course of the interviews, these men were asked to describe a few
previous job experiences in which they feel “exceptionally good” or
exceptionally bad” about jobs. They were also asked to rate the degree of which
their feelings were influenced for better or worse – by each experience which they
described.

Based on the answer received from the 200 people, Herzberg concluded that these
are certain factors that tend to be consistently related to job satisfaction and on
the other hand, there are some factors, which are consistently related to job
dissatisfaction. The last of the job condition he referred to as maintenance or
hygiene factors and the first job condition as motivational factors. The

1
motivational factors are intrinsic in nature and the hygiene factors are extrinsic in
nature.

Examples of hygiene factors and motivators affecting job satisfaction.

Hygiene Factors Motivators

- Company Policy and Administration Achievement Recognition

- Supervision Growth Possibilities
- Salary Career Advancement
- Status Level of Responsibility
- Job Security The Job Itself
- Personal Life
- Working Conditions

Herzberg suggests that organizations can utilize three distinct methods to increase
the motivational factors:

- Job enrichment
- Job rotation
- Job enlargement

Herzberg theorised that the job satisfaction and dissatisfaction move on two
distinct and independent continuums. Job satisfaction appears on a scale which
ranges from no job satisfaction to high job degree of job satisfaction while job
dissatisfaction appears on a different distinct scale which appears from high
degree of job dissatisfaction to no job dissatisfaction (Wong and Tsang, 1999).

According to Ruthankoon and Ogunlana (2003), the following is a glance of each

of the motivation factors by Herzberg:

i. Achievement: An example of positive achievement might be if an

employee completes a task or project before the deadline and receives
high reviews on the result, the satisfaction the employee feels would

2
 increase. However, if that same individual is unable to finish the project
in time, or feels rushed and is unable to do the job well, the satisfaction
level may decrease.
ii. Recognition: When the employee receives the acknowledgement they
deserve for a job well done, the satisfaction will increase. If the
employees work is overlooked or criticized it will have the opposite
effect.
iii. Work itself: This involves the employees’ perception of whether the
work is too difficult or challenging, too easy, boring or interesting.
iv. Responsibility: This involves the degree of freedom an employee has to
make their own decisions and implement their own ideas. The more
liberty to take on that responsibility the more inclined the employee
may be to work harder on the project, and be more satisfied with the
result.
v. Advancement: This refers to the expected or unexpected possibility of
promotion. An example of negative advancement would be if an
employee did not receive an expected promotion or demotion.
vi. Possibility of Growth: This motivation factor includes the chance one
might have for advancement within the company. This could also
include the opportunity to learn a new skill or trade. When the
possibility/opportunity for growth is lacking or if the employee has
reached the peak or glass ceiling, as it is sometimes referred to, this
could give a negative effect on the satisfaction the employee feels with
their job and position.

Furthermore, Ruthankoon and Ogunlana, held that the following are the hygiene
factors, which work in the same way with positive or negative attributes;
however, these factors can only have an effect on the dissatisfaction one feels:

3
 i. Company policy or administration: An employee’s perception of
whether the policies in place are good or bad or fair or not, changes the
level of dissatisfaction that employee will feel.
ii. Personal or working relationships: This is those relationships one
engages in with their supervisors, peers and subordinates. How
someone feels about the interaction and discussions that take place
within the work environment can also effect dissatisfaction.
iii. Working conditions: This includes the physical surroundings that one
works within, such as the facilities or location.
iv. Salary: This factors is fairly simple, the increase or decrease of wage or
salary effects the dissatisfaction within a company a great deal.
v. Personal life: Although people try to separate the two, work and
personal life, it is inevitable that one will affect the other.
vi. Feeling a job security: This is a pretty significant factor. The sense of
job security within a position or organization as a whole relates the
dissatisfaction as well.

Herzberg’s two factor theory - Validity and Criticisms

While the distinction between the motivational and hygiene factors is interesting
to understanding the applicability of motivation theory directly in the design of
the organizations; there are certain criticisms that have to be noted:

There exist some factors that cannot clearly be classified into hygiene factors or
motivational factors. We already looked at salary as an example for this
dichotomy.

Individual differences like age, sex, social status, education or occupational levels
also influence to what extent these factors have an impact. These individual
differences are not considered in the theory.

4
When we look at organizations, they typically have an internal flow process that
would determine what sort of feelings an individual would develop toward the
factors. This aspect too is not considered in the 2 factor theory.

The technique used to identify has been from the critical-incidents method or
research, and most of the work here has been done by Herzberg and his students.
This is again a criticism sited by experts.

In spite of these criticisms, the 2 factor theory is extremely useful in the design
of work.

Validity

Hines (1973), tested Herzberg’s two factor motivation theory in New Zealand,
using ratings of 12 job factors and overall job satisfaction obtained from 218
middle managers and 196 salaried employees. Contrary to dichotomous
motivator-hygiene predictions, supervision and interpersonal relationships were
ranked highly by those with high job satisfaction, and there was strong agreement
between satisfied managers and salaried employees in the relative importance of
jobs factors, findings are interpreted in terms of social and employment
conditions in New Zealand.

In 1968, Herzberg stated that his two-factor theory study had already been
replicated 16 times in a wide variety of populations including some in communist
countries corroborated with studies using different procedures that agree with his
original findings regarding intrinsic employee motivation making it one of the
most widely replicated studies on job attitudes (Wikipedia, 2018)

Khalid (2013) Conducted a research on an empirical analysis of Herzberg’s two-

factor theory to examine what motivates employees the most and also to examine
their level of satisfaction, in Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi
(ATBU), Nigeria, using Herzberg’s two factor theory. The results show that
motivator factors were the dominant motivators of A.T.B.U. staff. It was found

5
that the respondents received job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction from both
the motivating and the hygiene factors. This is a clear evidence that motivator
factors are more effective than hygiene in motivating staff of A.T.B.U. Bauchi,
Nigeria.

A research to study the relationship of motivation with organization performance

in 454 employees serving in three corporations of Greece. Results stressed
leadership to recognised the importance of intrinsic job rewards such as creative
work, recognition for achievements and more autonomy within the workplace for
motivating employees effectively. Synergy of extrinsic and intrinsic incentives
was considered the most effective remedy for promoting motivating employees.
However, intrinsic rewards rather than financial incentives were found to be
potent predictors of organization performance. Study concluded that satisfaction
determinants being multifaceted in nature, are different for different demographic
variables and ability (Manolopoulos, 2008).

Herzberg theory is appreciated on the grounds that it provides an insight into the
task of motivation by drawing attention to the job factors which are often
overlooked. It shows the value of job enrichment in motivation. Thus, Herzberg’s
theory has solved the problems of managers who were wondering why their
policies failed to motivate the employees adequately.

Criticism

However, this theory has not gone unchallenged, it has been criticised on the
following grounds:

Sinha (2018) observed that the study was inconclusive because it was limited to
only engineers and accountants. The professionals or the white collar workers
may like responsibility and challenging jobs. But the general workers are
motivated by the pay and other benefits. The effect of hygiene and motivational
factors may totally be reversed on some other categories of people.

6
A study was conducted to investigate the reasons of employee turnover of middle
managers including senior and junior workers performing sales, research and
computer related activities. Results made the contention that intrinsic job factors
were both important contributors of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction which was
partly in sharp contrast to Herzbergs proposition that satisfaction has nothing to
do with job dissatisfaction (Spillane, 1973).

Another researcher, Mottaz, (1985) investigated the effect of intrinsic rewards

and extrinsic organisational rewards on job satisfaction of 1,385 employees
working in diverse industries like Hospitals, University, Order-processing firms,
law enforcement agency and a plastic factory. Study concluded that intrinsic task
rewards such as autonomy, meaningfulness of the work and challenging task
followed by extrinsic rewards such as supervisor and colleague’s assistance were
potent predictors of job satisfaction in all occupational groups. But extrinsic
organizational rewards such as adequate pay equity, working conditions, fringe
benefits and promotional opportunity were found to be powerful determinants of
job satisfaction only in lower-level occupation which refuted Herzberg thesis that
hygiene factors do not produce job satisfaction.

The study also revealed that the importance placed on intrinsic rewards for higher
level occupations increased with the increase in their professional experience. In
addition, it suggested that organizational rewards had the ceiling effect and the
workers of all sections desperately need the job enrichment factors along with
pay and fringe benefits, attractive work environment and opportunities of
promotion.

Another criticism of the theory is directed at the method of research and data
collection. The respondents were asked to report exceptionally good and
exceptionally bad job experience. This methodology is defective because such
information will always be subjective and biased (Sinha, 2018). Findings of a
survey conducted by Savery (1996) in a sample of 83 public hospital pharmacists

7
reflected that enrichment of motivators like interesting and challenging job, sense
of achievement and recognition of performance in the job were positively
associated with job satisfaction and substantial reduction of job dissatisfaction.

Conclusion

While Herzberg did a pretty good job of identifying factors that affect job
satisfaction, most people today recognize that these factors can’t neatly be
grouped into categories for everybody or for any situation. For example,
increased pay could be a motivator for some employees, possibly through
overtime and piece rates, but only to a certain extent; a working mother who has
a fixed schedule due to child care requirements might not at all be motivated by
overtime, and asking even the most eager employee to work 20 hours/day for
extra pay will only motivate for so long. Low pay might be a demotivator for
some employees, but someone making a transition into the workforce after a long
absence or a senior looking more for the affiliation and activity of work might not
be demotivated by low pay. The advantages of Herzberg’s theory is in identifying
that there are factors that in general will motivate and demotivate groups of
employees, some of which are in the control of managers (like level of
responsibility and working conditions) and some which are outside of their
control (like personal life). Herzberg’s model can be used to identify broad issues
that need to be addressed or mitigated in general. For example, in an environment
where employees are unsure of their job security, managers can try to mitigate
the demotivating effect by providing open communication, and by reassuring
employees about the situation. The disadvantages are that Herzberg’s model is
more of a generalization that may not be appropriate to all groups of employees
or individuals within a group. Herzberg based his theory on interviews with
accountants and engineers. His findings are not necessarily directly applicable to
vastly different employee groups. Hourly employees may not be particularly
interested in job enlargement and enrichment, and may be more motivated by

8
increased pay. Some employees may be more motivated by flexible work
arrangements. Additionally, too much of a good thing can be bad: giving an
employee responsibility they are not prepared for can be overwhelming and
become a demotivator.

References

Hines, G.H. (1973) Cross Cultural Differences in Two-Factor Motivation Theory.

Journal of Applied Psychology 58(3): 375-377

Khalid, H.M. (2013) An Empirical Analysis of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory.

www.academic.edu. Retrieved 6th July, 2018

Monolopoulos, D. (2008) An Evaluation of Employee Motivation in the

Extended Public Sector in Greece. Employee Relations 30(1): 63-85

Mottaz, C.J. (1985) The Relative Importance of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards
as Determinants of Work Satisfaction. The Sociological Quarterly 26(3):
365-385

Ruthankoon, R. and Ogunlana, S.O. (2003) Testing Herzberg’s Two-Factor

Theory in Thai Construction Industry, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management 10(5): 335-341

Savery, I.K. (1996) The Congruence Between the Importance of Job Satisfaction
and the Perceived Level of Achievement. Journal of Management
Development 15:6

Sinha, K (2018) Herzberg’s Motivation Hygiene Theory: Factors and Critical

Analysis. Christin Medium www.yourarticledelivery.com/motive.
Retrieved 6th July

Spillane R. (1973) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Job Satisfaction and Labour Turnover:
A Questionnaire Study of Australian Managers. Occupational Psychology
47: 71-74.

9
Wikipedia (2018) Two Factor Theory. en.m.wikipedia.org. retrieved 6th July

Wong, S.V.S and Tsang, N (1999) The Impact of Demographic Factors on Hong
Kong Hotel Employees Choice of Job Related Motivators. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 11 (5): 230-241.

10