MOTIVATION HYGIENE THEORY AND ITS APPLICATION IN THE FIELD OF JOB SATISFACTION

The purpose of this article is to bring out information on Motivation Hygiene theory, and major theories on job satisfaction, research and analysis of traditional model as well as Motivation-Hygiene Theory, criticism on Motivation-
Hygiene Theory, and studies in the field of education using Motivation-Hygiene Theory. It appears that research continued to show support as well as nonsupport for the theory whatever the methodology used.

Motivation-Hygiene Theory:
Motivation-Hygiene theory is considered a major work in the field of job satisfaction that has been attributed to Herzberg and his associates, Mausner and Peterson. The theory has been also called the two-factor theory, and the dual-factory theory. . This famous motivation-hygiene theory is built on Maslow's need
hierarchy theory.
According to this theory, specific things provide job satisfaction for the worker and other things dissatisfy the worker. The satisfiers provide the worker some sort of psychological pleasure. The dissatisfiers are things that concern the condition under which the work is done and how the worker is paid. Herzberg groups
these factors into satisfiers and dissatisfiers. Herzberg and his colleagues conducted pilot studies to substantiate and develop further the methodology and the hypotheses being tested. The conclusions mentioned by Godfrey (1978) are:
• It was concluded from the studies that a triad of factors-attitudes-effect could be studied as a unitary system.

• The pilot studies also confirmed the major hypotheses of factor duality from which two separate sets of factors emerged, the first more closely associated with satisfying experience and the second more closely associated with dissatisfying job related experience (p. 20).

The original research, used to develop the theory, was conducted with 203 accountants and engineers employed in nine manufacturing firms in the Pittsburgh area. Using an individual approach facilitated by a semi-structured, critical incident interview technique, each engineer was asked to think of times when felt well
about the jobs. Each subject was then asked to describe the conditions that led to those feelings. Herzberg repeated the same approach with a wide variety of other employees. Results obtained from the critical-incident method were fairly consistent across the various subjects. Reported good feelings were generally associated with the job itself, content,
intrinsic, or psychological factors. These included:
Achievement
Recognition for achievement
The work itself
Responsibility
Advancement, and growth.

Herzberg named these contents factors "job satisfiers" or "motivators" because they fulfill an individual's need for psychological growth. Reported bad feelings, on the other hand, were generally associated with the environment surrounding the job context, extrinsic, or physical factors. These included:
Company policies
Supervision
Interpersonal relations
Working conditions and
Salary.

Herzberg named them "job dissatisfier" or "hygiene" factors because they were preventive and environmental. The interviews were analyzed by content analysis using an a posteriori approach in which categories of analysis were extracted from the material itself.
Critique of the Motivation-Hygiene Theory
The two-factor theory has been criticized by other researchers and theorists. These researchers have investigated the theory from many perspectives, including ones that were not considered by the original researchers. Some researchers have used Herzberg's semi-structured interview procedure, while others have used
alternate methodologies. The areas most intensively scrutinized, investigated, and criticized were:
Methodology;
Bi-dimensionality;
Theory interpretation and the overall job satisfaction concept and the individual difference concepts.
The most basic attack was that, although the theory works well with the "critical incident technique" (the method Herzberg used to measure motivation-hygiene factors to determine the results) it is bound to one methodology. The subjects selected for the study were given the following direction by an interviewer:
Think of a time when you felt exceptionally good or exceptionally bad about your job, either your present job or any other job you have had. This can be either the 'long-range or the short-range' kind of situation, as I have just described it. Tell me what happened (Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman, 1957, p. 141).

Herzberg et al. in 1959, selected this original methodology for the following reason:
Attitudinal research is not yet sure of what an attitude is and how it may differ from similar concepts such as opinions, interests, feelings, and tendencies... How can one know that someone has an attitude of feeling about something? … Culture shows responses are too often the product of rating scale items, particularly
when they are irrelevant in the job situation (Grigaliunas and Herzberg1974, p. 73).

The selection of the critical incident interview technique could enable the interviewer to determine the factor-attitudes-effect information from each respondent.
In response to this type of situation Soliman (1970) argued that subjects tend to give socially acceptable answer, (i.e., what they think the interviewer wants to hear). Herzberg considered the technique of formulating and testing the motivation-hygiene theory in The Motivation to Work, and verifying and generalizing upon
it in Work and the Nature of the Man, as a sound form of psychological research, if not to say rigorous research discipline. He explained:
Because of the unreliability of many of its findings, psychological research is more suspect than research in the hard sciences. This unreliability stems largely form the number of variables involved and also forms the more subtle intrusion of the bias of the investigator. More than in other science, replication
of research is a must in psychology in order to substantiate findings (Herzberg, 1966, p. 92).

Some researchers questioned the mutual exclusiveness of the job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction dimensions (i.e., whether there are really two separate dimensions). As researchers found, some motivators appear frequently as satisfier as well as dissatisfier. This tendency was found for hygiene factors as well. (House
and Lawrence 1967).
The focus of another critique reported by Campbell et al., (1970) was link between satisfaction and performance. These researchers found that satisfying job experience were related to favorable performance effects and a positive association existed between dissatisfying experiences and unfavorable performance effect.
Herzberg’s work focused on employee satisfaction, not motivation derived from job satisfaction and work performance of the employee.
Despite this criticism, Herzberg contributed substantially in the both fields of work life, business as well as toward the education side. The research is being conducted by using two continuums, instead of single continuum, all over the world in all aspects and walks of life.
Job satisfaction and Motivation Hygiene Theory.
The study of job satisfaction was started with the vast movement concerned with work measurement in the era of industrial revolution in the early years of this century. Although the term "job satisfaction" first appeared in 1935 in the index of Psychological Abstract but the work of Frederick W. Taylor (1911), perhaps,
was the first remarkable effort, which marked the beginning of this work. Most of the work done concerning job satisfaction was in the field of industry or business. There has been an abundance of opinions on this subject, most of which reflects personal attitudes or limited experiences. The National Opinion Research Center, Survey Research Centers
conducted several national job satisfaction studies at the University of Michigan and University of Southern California and also the yearly Gallup Polls. The major concern remained on the job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction, the work attitude and the work life.
The major works on job satisfaction can be identified into four contemporary theories:
Fulfillment Theory
Discrepancy Theory
Equity/ Inequity Theory, and
Motivation - Hygiene Theory.

The fulfillment theory views job satisfaction as dependent on how much of a given outcome or group of outcomes a person receives (Kanfer, 1990: Lawler, 1973, p. 65).
Discrepancy theories are concerned with the individual needs and wants. Individual needs and wants affect the satisfaction of a worker as human being. If s/he cannot fulfill the needs s/he will be dissatisfied. Even if some needs are fulfilled and some needs are not fulfilled. It makes human being (worker) dissatisfied
(Lawler, 1973, p. 66-67)
Equity theories suggest that the main way in which a person evaluates his job be by comparison with another person. The comparison is supposed to be made in the form of a ratio of the input in the job situation to the outcomes obtained from it. If the ratio compares unfavorably with that of others then feeling of inequity
and dissatisfaction result. It is a difficult to think of this as being objective, because the worker compares himself with another worker of his own choice. S/he selects the other for comparison. (Lawler, 1973, p. 66-67)
Motivation-Hygiene theory classifies work factors according to their contribution to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. (Kohler, 1999, p.14: Lunenburg and Ornstein, 1996, p. 93)

RESEARCH IN JOB SATISFACTION:

Prior to Motivation-Hygiene theory, the research conducted in the field of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction was with traditional model; that is, the job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction were simply the opposite ends of a continuum. Figure 1 graphically represents the traditional model:

Job Job
Satisfaction Dissatisfaction
A B
____________________________________________

Figure 1: Traditional model of job satisfaction

The entire worlds over, experts have conducted researches into job satisfaction to determine its usefulness in organizations. Locke (1969) estimated that the number of studies could exceed four thousand. Since then of course, a great many more studies have been published. Ruth Walsh (1967) compiled a lot of work in the
field of job satisfaction and job satisfaction in her book. It revealed from the literature that it was not until the late 1920s that job satisfaction/ job dissatisfaction research received formal recognition and was found worthy of investigation. As explained by Kornhauser (1930), vocational selection procedures, training programs, and rest periods assessed
in terms of their efficiency. He questioned the lack of reference to satisfaction as he perceived the two constructs were not independent. He felt that a study of morale is important in relationship to productivity. But even where it is not, administrators and managers should be interested in the individual and social effects of the work.
The work of Taylor (1911), based on the assumption that individuals would be motivated and satisfied to perform well if rewards were directly related to the performance of carefully planned task, was the earliest recognized work in the field of job satisfaction. The research of Levenstein (1912), Munsterberg (1913), and
Slichter (1919) compiled a valuable information about job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction on a variety of workers in numerous occupations. Many others like Mayo and Roethlisberger (1920), on factors of social nature, Mayo, Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939) job attitude and their relationship to work behavior, Likert's (1932) contributions to the
development of theories of job satisfaction were valuable addition in the early research on job dissatisfaction. Later Maslow (1943) made an important contribution, study of human needs, to knowledge about human motivation, an important factor in job satisfaction. Schaffer (1953) concluded in his study that the failure to relate worker behavior to
satisfaction was due to the inability of researchers. Blai (1962) found out that job satisfaction and need satisfaction were related, and many others contributed in the field of job dissatisfaction. Contrary to many studies (e.g., Brayfield and Crockett 1955 and White 1962) no relation was found satisfaction and productivity. Also Eckerman (1963) could
not confirm a positive relationship between need for achievement and job satisfaction. However, in seeking a relationship between job satisfaction and productivity, he found that both low and medium producers were less satisfied with their achievement than were high producer who were also high in achievement.
Despite the tremendous amount of information available, nothing still yields so much controversy, as does the question of the nature of job satisfaction. However, the importance of the study of the work attitude is established. Therefore, researchers, in this field, have been continuously conducting studies to establish solid
system. So that, a guidelines could be provided for the management of the industries as well as schools.
There has been conducted extensive research on this theory soon after Herzberg's work was published. A large number of studies had been conducted to identify the relationship between Herzberg’s factors and job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. The studies have supported as well as have shown no support, or only
partial support for the Motivation-Hygiene theory. Grigaliunas and Herzberg (1971) reported that fundamental predictions of the motivation-hygiene theory had undergone well over fifty replications and until that time, it was the most replicable study in contemporary industrial world.
Soon after the Motivation-Hygiene theory was published, Anderson (1961) replicated by using the Herzberg methodology. He selected a population sample, which consisted of three occupational levels, a Veterans Administration Hospital, Engineering services (skilled workers), and unskilled workers. The study supported
the universally of Herzberg conclusions.
Cecil Miskel (1974) using two continuums conducted a study to compare the response of Industrial managers, school administrators, and teachers. He found that a different conceptual framework concerning motivation, hygiene, and risk factors existed for teachers, school administrators, and industrial managers. A high
level of concern exhibited from teachers for hygiene factors with low risk propensity, whereas managers showed low concern for hygiene factors with high risk propensity; and educational administrators, appearing in the middle of the continuum, were similar to teachers in their high concern for hygiene factors but resembled managers in this risk
propensity.
The study of Luz B. Allende (1986) conducted in New York to test the applicability of the Herzberg Motivation-Hygiene theory to Puerto Rican workers indicated that most of the responses to the Herzberg Questionnaire did apply in a similar manner according to the original dual factor theory. However, one major finding
was contrary to the Herzberg’s original finding that, the hygiene factor of “interpersonal relations with clients” acted as a satisfier. In the job dissatisfaction category, the strongest relationship and the most frequent significant finding was for the dissatisfier of “interpersonal relations with superiors”.
In the study of Khojasteh (1993), A questionnaire on intrinsic/extrinsic rewards received 362 responses from 380 managers. It revealed that Pay and security were greater motivators for private than for public sector managers. In the public sector, recognition had higher motivating potential, whereas achievement and
advancement motivated both groups.
In the study of Gawel (1997) it revealed that achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, and advancement were strong determiners of job satisfaction.
Many more studies provided support to the framework of the Motivation-Hygiene theory. It also appears that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are related to different aspects of the job in different ways in different organizations. Therefore, it can be concluded by agreeing with Herzberg that it is not necessary that the
things which make somebody happy at work are not simply the opposite of the things which make them unhappy and vice versa. Two sets of things are different in kind making people satisfied and dissatisfied.
Research in the field of education
Considerable research has been conducted applying Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory in the field of education. One of the early researchers in education was Thomas Sergiovanni. He (1967) replicated Herzberg’s study with teachers. The purpose of Sergiovanni’s study was to test hypotheses related to teachers drawn
from the theory of Frederick Herzberg. Sergiovanni found that achievement, recognition, and responsibility contribute predominantly to job satisfaction of teachers, whereas, inadequate style of supervision, interpersonal relations with students, and poor interpersonal relations with colleagues and parents, rigid and inflexible school policies and
administrative practices, were factors predominantly to teachers job dissatisfaction.
The results…. demonstrate that many of the factors which accounted for high job feeling of teachers and many of the factors which accounted for low job feelings o teachers were mutually exclusive. This study provides support for the hypothesis that satisfiers and dissatisfiers tend to be mutually exclusive. Further, the
satisfaction factors tended to focus on the work itself and, the dissatisfiers tended to focus on the condition of work. (p.82)

Further, it revealed that the satisfaction factors were found in the work itself (intrinsic) and the dissatisfiers were found in the environment of the work (extrinsic).
Further more, Sergiovanni found that some factors in the work situation were satisfiers when present, but not dissatisfiers when absent. Whereas other factors were dissatisfiers, but when eliminated as dissatisfiers, it would not result in positive motivation.
Lunenburg and Ornstein (1996) reported that in an industrial setting

Sergiovanni’s study at least in two ways deviated from Herzberg’s study:

1. The work itself accounted for both satisfaction and dissatisfaction among teachers. Explaining this finding, Sergiovanni noted ‘elements of the job of teaching as we presently know it are inherently less satisfying’ (p. 108). Routine house keeping, attendance taking, procuring milk money, paper work, study
hall supervision, lunch duty, and so on seem to neutralize the more satisfying aspects of teaching.
2. Advancement, an important motivator in Herzberg’s study of accountants and engineers was conspicuously missing from Sergiovanni’s study of teachers. According to Sergiovanni, teaching as an occupation offers little opportunity for advancement as it is currently structured.

Cecil Miskel (1973) made a comparison among teachers, principals, and central office administrators by using a questionnaire variation of the Herzberg method. It revealed that principals have a high tolerance than do the teachers. Further, it appeared that teachers have a greater desire for security than do central office
administrators, except those teachers who aspired to administrative positions. The aspiring administrators also expressed a greater desire for the motivators.
Batchler (1981) examined the implications for educators of the Motivation-Hygiene Theory, and suggested those increasing staff opportunities for decision making, goal setting, and expanded professional competence provided job satisfaction to staff.
In contrary to many studies, it has revealed in the study of James (1982) that those factors contributing to teacher satisfaction are also, if absent, most often the cause for teacher dissatisfaction.
In the study of Frataccia and Hennington (1982) it was found that many teachers have difficulty in satisfying their needs and in deriving satisfaction from teaching. This study examined the needs that teachers appear to have difficulty in satisfying. The study is based on Herzberg's Motivation- Hygiene Theory, related to Maslow's
Hierarchy of Needs. It revealed that all humans have two sets of needs: the need for psychological growth, and the need to avoid unpleasantness. The factors associated with the motivation component of this theory are related to self-actualization: achievement, recognition, work, advancement, and responsibility. The factors associated with the hygiene
component involved security and social needs: company policy and administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations, and working conditions.
Within the hygiene component, the teachers were dissatisfied with all the factors. Within the motivation component, teachers reported dissatisfaction with recognition, advancement, and achievement.
In the study of Friesen, David, And Others (1983) the aspects of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction identified by 327 principals in Alberta, Canada are compared with the findings of Herzberg and others. Limited support for Herzberg's hypotheses is found.
Diener (1984) conducted a study on the attitudes of 277 faculty members about their work. According to Motivation Hygiene theory that works satisfaction stems from the work itself and dissatisfaction from the work environment was explored. Special attention was focused to attitudes toward work, job stress, overall job
satisfaction, and chief job satisfactions and dissatisfactions. Consideration was also given to work demands (such as class load or research opportunities), working conditions (such as adequacy of facilities or class size), and rewards and appreciation (such as salary and recognition for good teaching). The chief source of satisfaction found was student
growth, followed by personal growth and intellectual stimulation. Working conditions that enhance the life and work of a faculty member-- a flexible schedule and autonomy in the classroom--were highly valued. Dissatisfactions arose from working conditions, including poor facilities and equipment, inflexible or heavy teaching schedules, lack of
recognition, low salaries and high amounts of bureaucracy, and student and colleague apathy. Information on the characteristics and background of the faculty respondents was included.
The study of Kaufman (1984) examined the feasibility of the use of the Herzberg Motivation-Hygiene Theory to identify groups of teachers as motivation seekers. The theory distinguished individuals by their personal needs, i.e., "hygiene needs," such as working conditions, salary, class size, supervision, policy, and
benefits, and "motivation needs," such as recognition, achievement, responsibility, and intrinsic rewards of the job. Through a questionnaire, developed to measure: (1) motivation/satisfaction; (2) hygiene/dissatisfaction; and (3) commitment/activities, responses were obtained from 198 elementary and secondary school teachers. The study concluded
that the Herzberg Motivation-Hygiene Theory could be used in education to distinguish between motivation seekers and hygiene seekers. Based on criteria established for this study, motivation seekers were found more committed to the teaching profession than were non-motivation seekers. It also revealed that demographic variables had no bearing on
the respondents' degree of motivation.
The study of Hill, Malcolm (1987) examined the issue of job satisfaction of college faculty from the perspective of Herzberg's "two-factor" theory and assesses the utility of the theory. Data from 1,089 full-time faculty in 20 college and university campuses supported that "intrinsic" factors contribute primarily to job
satisfaction.
The findings of the study of Nussel, Edward J., and others (1988) by a survey of 426 teacher educators indicated a generally high level of job satisfaction, with certain
administrative concerns contributing to a decrease in satisfaction. The study also found the Herzberg model of job satisfaction-dissatisfaction applicable to faculty members in education.
A study conducted by F. Bellott and F. Tutor (1990) found that for elementary and secondary school teachers in the Tennessee Career Ladder Program, Herzberg's characterization of salary as a hygiene factor did not seem to hold true. These findings may help explain that "why" good teachers are lost to higher paying
positions.
Oshagbemi (1997) Responses from 566 college faculty (51.4%) indicated that teaching and research each contribute about 25% to job satisfaction and 16% to dissatisfaction. Results do not support Herzberg's theory that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are separate and distinct; findings reveal the influence of situation.
Despite having studies, which supported the traditional theory, it can easily be concluded on the base of studies conducted by using the methodology of two-factor theory, that Herzberg's findings opened a new chapter in the literature on job satisfaction. Herzberg's theory has important implications for the work life both in
industries as well as in education.