Herzberg's two-factor theory: essence and applicability today

The article explains:

1. The essence of Herzberg's two-factor theory
2. Balance of factors in Herzberg's theory
3. Tips for applying Herzberg's theory in practice
4. Criticism of Herzberg's two-factor theory

Herzberg's two-factor theory is another attempt to understand the motivating factors of enterprise employees in order to highlight those that are the most significant.
Many managers and business owners are looking for ways to increase labor productivity in such a way that this growth comes from within the team, and this theory has become one of such attempts. Despite the fact that this research is more than half a century old, its relevance remains largely true today. However, it is necessary to take into account the criticisms that have been put forward by other researchers. In our article we will tell you what the essence of the two-factor theory is, how it can be applied in practice and we will analyze its vulnerable provisions.

Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation

Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation was developed in 1959 by Frederick Herzberg and his colleagues - their goal was to find out the reasons for a person's satisfaction and dissatisfaction with activities, as well as to identify the reasons for the increase and decrease in labor productivity.

To do this, scientists conducted a survey of two hundred engineers and employees of one large organization working in the field of paint and varnish coatings. Participants had to describe those situations when their attitude towards work was positive and they had a desire to work, and situations when their attitude towards work, on the contrary, was negative, and they felt dissatisfaction, but there was no desire to work at all.

The results of this study allowed Herzberg to conclude that job satisfaction depends on its internal and content characteristics, and dissatisfaction depends on the external characteristics of the job and its context. The result was that all factors that influence human activity in production situations were divided into hygienic and motivating.

Links[edit]

1. ^ abc Herzberg, Frederick; Mausner, Bernard; Snyderman, Barbara B. (1959). Motivation to work
   (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. ISBN 0471373893.
2. Herzberg, Frederick (1966). Work and Human Nature
   . Cleveland: World Publishing. OCLC 243610.
3. ↑
   Herzberg, Frederick (January–February 1964).
   "Motivational-hygienic concept and labor force problems." Human Resource Management
   (27): 3–7.
4. ^ a b c d Hackman, J. Richard; Oldham, Greg R. (August 1976). "Motivation through Job Design: Testing a Theory." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
   .
   16
   (2): 250–279. DOI: 10.1016/0030-5073 (76) 90016-7. OCLC 4925746330.
5. ^ ab Herzberg, Frederick (January–February 1968). “Once again: how to motivate employees?” . Harvard Business Review
   .
   46
   (1):53–62. OCLC 219963337.
6. "Herzberg's Motivational-Hygiene Theory (Two-Factor Theory)". NetMBA.com
   . Retrieved December 9, 2014.
7. ^ a b "Herzberg's motivators and hygiene factors". Mindtools.com
   . Retrieved December 2, 2014.
8. "Herzberg's motivational-hygiene theory: two-factor". Educational Library
   . 2021-03-31. Retrieved March 31, 2021.
9. Shujahat, Muhammad; Ali, Bakhtiar; Nawaz, Faisal; Durst, Suzanne; Kianto, Aino (2018). “Transforming the Impact of Knowledge Management into Knowledge-Based Innovation: The Neglected and Mediating Role of Skilled Worker Satisfaction.” Human factors and ergonomics in production
   .
   32
   (1):200–212. DOI: 10.1016/0030-5073 (76) 90016-7.
10. “A Summary of Herzberg's Factors of Motivation and Hygiene. Annotation" . Values-based management. Retrieved December 9, 2014.
11. Schultz, Duane P.; Schultz, Sydney Ellen (2010). Psychology and work today: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology
    (10th ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall. pp. 38–39. ISBN 0-205-68358-4.
12. Hines, George H. (December 1973). "Cross-cultural differences in the two-factor theory of motivation." Journal of Applied Psychology
    .
    58
    (3):375–377. DOI: 10.1037/h0036299.
13. King, Nathan (1970). "Explaining and Evaluating the Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction." Psychological Bulletin
    .
    74
    (1): 18–31. DOI: 10.1037/h0029444. OCLC 4643874729.
14. Holmberg, Christopher; Sobis, Ivona; Carlstrom, Eric (November 2015). “Job satisfaction among Swedish mental health nursing staff: a cross-sectional study.” International Journal of Public Administration
    .
    39
    (6):429–436. DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2015.1018432.
15. Georgopolous, Vasily S.; Mahoney, Gerald M.; Jones Jr., Niall W. (December 1957). "The Path-Goal Approach to Performance." Journal of Applied Psychology
    .
    41
    (6):345–353. DOI: 10.1037/h0048473. OCLC 4643146464.

Hygiene factors

Hygiene factors, also called health factors, are factors that are related to the environment in which the work itself takes place. The term "hygienic" was borrowed by Herzberg from medical terminology, in which it refers to factors that help maintain health, but do not necessarily improve it.

Among the most important hygiene factors are the following:

• Company and administration policy
• Safety
• Comfortable working conditions
• Acceptable lighting, good heating, etc.
• Schedule
• Salary
• Availability of paid holidays
• Availability of sick leave
• Carrying out activities in the field of social security, healthcare and other social programs
• Relationships with colleagues and management
• Level of direct control of work

Hygiene factors almost never cause a complete feeling of satisfaction and do not have an activating effect on human activity. However, thanks to their presence, the feeling of dissatisfaction can be prevented; if they are absent, this may cause a feeling of dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction and irritation among employees of the organization.

The presence of this group of factors leads to the emergence of a state where there is no job dissatisfaction as such, but there is no job satisfaction either, because Positive hygiene factors are a given. Negatively characterized hygiene factors, in turn, can lead to complete dissatisfaction with work.

It follows from this that the conditions in which work takes place cannot be considered as motivating factors. Most people would probably be happy to work in a pleasant environment, but based on this theory itself, a clean shop or machine is unlikely to be a substitute for the work itself, from which a person can receive pleasure or public recognition of his merits and achievements.

According to Herzberg, those employers who seek to increase the motivation of their employees by increasing wages will ultimately be disappointed, because Once employees have become accustomed to the new salary level, they are likely to view it as a hygiene factor. And from the moment increased payments become a regular component of the salary, they will immediately cease to motivate people. Human psychology is such that he is motivated more by the desire to have something than by the fact that he already has something.

Despite the fact that a fairly large number of managers are of the opinion that a well-thought-out system of rewarding employees is a motivation enhancer, in fact it turns out that any such system will be taken for granted: it, of course, will maintain a feeling of satisfaction, but will not create it at all .

Validity and criticism[edit]

In 1968, Herzberg stated that his two-factor theoretical research had already been replicated 16 times in a wide variety of populations, including some in communist countries, and supported by studies using a variety of procedures that were consistent with his original findings regarding intrinsic employee motivation, making him one of the most widely replicated studies of work attitudes.

One such replication was made by George Hines and published in December 1973 in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Hines tested Herzberg's two-factor motivation theory in New Zealand using ratings of 12 job factors and overall job satisfaction from 218 middle managers and 196 employees. Contrary to the motivator-hygiene dichotomous predictions, supervision and interpersonal relationships were rated highly by those with high job satisfaction, and there was clear agreement between satisfied managers and employees regarding the relative importance of job factors. The results are interpreted in terms of social and employment conditions in New Zealand. [12]

Although the Motivator-Hygiene concept is still highly respected, satisfaction and dissatisfaction tend to be [ who?

] is no longer considered to exist in separate scales. The division of satisfaction and dissatisfaction has been shown to be an artifact of the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) used by Herzberg to record events. [13] Additionally, it was noted that the theory does not allow for individual differences, such as certain personality traits, that might influence individuals' unique responses to motivating or hygiene factors. [4]

A number of behavioral scientists [ who?

] pointed out the insufficiency of theories of hierarchy and hygiene of motivation.
The most basic criticism is that both of these theories make a relatively explicit assumption that happy and satisfied workers produce more, even though this may not be the case. [ citation needed
] For example, if playing golf better is a means chosen to satisfy the need for recognition, then ways might be found to play and think about golf more often, possibly leading to lower performance at work due to less attention .
[ citation needed
]. However, despite the impact on output, employee job satisfaction (e.g., as measured by Herzberg's theory) is important for employee retention, which is critical for occupations experiencing shortages. [14]

However, another problem is that these and other statistical theories are concerned with explaining "average" behavior, despite significant differences between individuals that may influence motivational factors. For example, in his pursuit of status, a person may take a balanced view and strive to follow multiple behavioral paths in an attempt to achieve a combination of personal status goals. [ citation needed

]

In other words, an individual's expectation or estimated likelihood that a given behavior will produce a valued outcome determines their choice of means and the effort they will put into those means. In fact, this expectation chart depicts an employee asking himself the question posed by one researcher: “ How much will I get for achieving a personal goal after putting so much effort into achieving a given organizational goal?

"[15] Victor Vroom's expectancy theory also provides a basis for expectancy-based motivation.

This approach to the study and understanding of motivation appears to have certain conceptual advantages over other theories: first, unlike the theories of Maslow and Herzberg, it is able to take into account individual differences. [ citation needed

] Second, its focus is on the present and future, in contrast to drive theory, which emphasizes past learning.
[ citation needed
] Third, it specifically correlates behavior with goals and thus eliminates the problem of assumed relationships such as those between motivation and performance.
[ citation needed
] Fourth, he links motivation to ability: Performance = Motivation * Ability.[
citation needed
]

However, a study conducted by Gallup, as described in the book First , Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do

by Marcus Buckingham and Kurt Kofman appear to provide strong support for Herzberg's division of satisfaction and dissatisfaction into two separate bathroom scales. In this book, the authors discuss how research has identified twelve questions that provide a framework for identifying high-performing people and organizations. These twelve questions are fully consistent with Herzberg's motivational factors, while hygiene factors have little effect on motivation for high performance.

Motivating factors

Motivating factors, also called motivators, are directly related to the essence of the activity itself and its nature. They help to increase the level of job satisfaction and are considered as an independent group of needs, which, summarized, can be called growth needs.

The main motivators include the following:

• Success
• Public acceptance
• Interesting activity content
• Opportunity to grow professionally
• Degree of responsibility
• Official position

Social recognition gives a person a sense of self-respect and self-worth, which should tell the manager to provide feedback to the employee about a job well done. Another significant factor is the employee’s activity itself. It must be borne in mind that monotonous work does not bring satisfaction, but creative and varied activities, on the contrary, stimulate growth, prevent tardiness, absenteeism, etc. In addition, for many people, career growth and additional responsibility serve as an excellent motivator.

Workarounds [edit]

Herzberg's theory focuses on the importance of internal job factors as driving forces for employees. He designed it to improve the quality of work for employees. Herzberg wanted to give employees the opportunity to participate in the planning, execution and evaluation of their work. He suggested doing this: [4] [5] [11]

• Removing some of management's control over employees and increasing accountability and responsibility for their work, which in turn will increase employee autonomy.
• Creating complete and natural work units where possible. An example would be allowing employees to create an entire division or section rather than allowing them to create only part of it.
• Providing regular and ongoing performance and performance feedback directly to employees rather than through managers.
• Encourage employees to take on new and challenging tasks and become experts at the task.

Herzberg's conclusions

In the process of his research, Herzberg came to the following conclusions:

• Satisfaction and dissatisfaction with activities are two independent dimensions that can be visually displayed on two different graphs;
• There is a whole group of factors influencing the first graph “satisfaction with activity - no satisfaction with activity” (motivating factors), as well as a group of other factors influencing the second graph “dissatisfaction with activity – no dissatisfaction with activity” (hygiene factors).

The formula derived by Herzberg is as follows:

• Work environment and working conditions + motivating factors = state of satisfaction
• Work environment and working conditions - motivating factors = zero effect

Summary

Between Frederick Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation, certain parallels can be drawn with Abraham Maslow's pyramid of needs: the hygiene needs of Herzberg's theory correspond to the lowest level of needs of Maslow's pyramid, and motivating factors correspond to the highest level of needs, respectively.

Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation was a new explanation of the mechanism of people's motivation in the process of work. Previously, to increase staff motivation, attempts were made to improve working conditions, increase wages, provide special benefits, in other words, attention was paid to hygiene factors. But these attempts and solutions did not give the necessary results, because... They had no effect on employee motivation. Subsequently, many organizations attempted to implement the basic provisions of Herzberg's theory, and in fact they showed their effectiveness.

However, despite the effective application of Herzberg's theory in practice by many organizations, several criticisms have been leveled at the theory:

• The source of motivation can be both motivating and hygiene factors, which depends on the needs of each individual person;
• A lack of motivators can lead to a state of dissatisfaction with the activity, and successfully formed hygiene factors can lead to a state of satisfaction, which depends on each specific situation;
• Not in all cases, a state of satisfaction with activities leads to an increase in labor productivity, which significantly diverges from Herzberg’s assumptions;
• A system for increasing motivation should be created taking into account all possible behavioral characteristics of people and characteristics of the environment.

All these remarks are evidence that motivation should be considered as a plausible process. What will motivate one person in a certain situation may not have any effect on him in another situation or on another person in a similar situation.

Thus, we can summarize: Frederick Herzberg, of course, made significant contributions to the understanding of human motivation, but in his theory he did not take into account many variables that determine situations related to motivation. Further research by scientists led to the creation of procedural theories of motivation.

We also recommend reading:

• Storytelling
• 10 factors of professional burnout
• How to enjoy work
• Professional burnout: what is it and how to prevent it?
• Causes of aggression
• Internal and external motivation: which is more effective?
• Adams' Theory of Fairness to Employees
• Business motivation model
• Social technologies
• Cattell's personality model
• The Hawthorne effect: what does labor productivity actually depend on?

Key words:1Psychoregulation

Theory in practice

Theory is meaningless if you cannot use it in practice. Every employer who wants to improve the productivity of their enterprise can apply the theory of motivation. To do this you only need to take two steps.

Step 1. Remove dissatisfaction.

1. Change the company's work policy if it interferes with comfortable work.
2. Monitor activities effectively, but unobtrusively.
3. Provide decent wages slightly above average.
4. Make working conditions safe.
5. Build relationships between employees.

Creative and active work brings more satisfaction

Step 2: Provide Satisfaction.

1. Enable employees to set goals and achieve them.
2. Provide people with new, extraordinary tasks.
3. Give a chance to advance and grow.
4. Provide opportunities for training and advancement.
5. Recognize people's successes and achievements. Don’t forget to praise if there is really something for it.

You need to find your own approach to each person, because the methods of motivation are different for everyone. To understand this, it is important to communicate with employees and get close to them.

Managers must put Herzberg's theory into practice to improve performance