Page | 1

PFrederick Herzberg Prof Niranjan Pani,Ph D ,D.litt.

Professor , Dept. Of Public administration ,

Utkal University , Bhubaneswar-751004

Email: paniniranjan@gmail.com

Frederick Herzberg, renowned clinical psychologist, propounded Two Factor theory

or otherwise called Motivation –Hygiene theory .No doubt his Dual factor theory is widely

accepted by HR managers of new millennium in dealing with human behaviour at work.

Before examining the theory it is pertinent to have a close look at his early life.

Early life

Frederick Irving Herzberg was born on April 18, 1923 in Massachusetts and died on January 19,

2000 at Salt Lake city. He was an American psychologist and he was one of the most influential

personality in business management. It is a matter of record, to reiterate, that he introduced job

enrichment and the Motivator-Hygiene theory. To this his publication "One More Time, How

Do You Motivate Employees?"in 1968 was a mile stone in motivational theory .

In his early career Herzberg pursued his undergraduate course at City College of New York.

Later he left his studies to enlist in the army. Further he graduated from City College in

1946 and moved to the University of Pittsburgh to undertake post-graduate work . Side by

side he was teaching as a professor of psychology at Case Western Reserve

University in Cleveland . Next he moved to the University of Utah as a professor of

Management .

Back drop – Dual Structure Theory

Herzberg proposed several key findings of his behavioural motivational study. In fact

employees are made dissatisfied by an uncongenial environment. Simultaneously, they are

rarely made satisfied by a friendly environment. Hence the prevention of dissatisfaction is

important as encouragement of motivator satisfaction. To be clear hygiene factors operate

independently of motivation factors – to be analysed in detail later. An employee can be

highly motivated in his work. He can be dissatisfied with his work environment. All hygiene

factors are important. True the frequency of their occurrence differs considerably. Also it is a

fact hygiene improvements have short-term effects. Improvements to bad hygiene factors

result in a short-term removal of, or prevention of, dissatisfaction. So to say hygiene needs

are cyclical in nature. At times they come back to an initial point. According to Herzberg this

leads to the "What have you done for me lately?" syndrome. Hygiene needs have an

Page | 3

Herzberg classified these job factors into two categories-

a. Hygiene factors- Those job factors which are essential for existence of motivation at workplace are hygiene factors. Specifically these do not lead to positive satisfaction for long-term. But absence of these factors at workplace gives rise to dissatisfaction. These factors are extrinsic to work. Hygiene factors are also called as dissatisfiers or maintenance factors as they are required to avoid dissatisfaction. To be clear the hygiene factors stood for the physiological needs .All people at work want to fulfil these psychological needs. Hygiene factors include:

Pay - The pay or salary structure of the employees should be appropriate ,equitable and reasonable.

Administrative policies – Organization’s policies should not be too rigid, fair and clear. Fringe benefits - The employees should get a number of fringe benefits. Working conditions – organization should provide safe, clean and hygienic working

conditions. Status - The employees’ status within the organization should be retained. Interpersonal Relations - The relationship of the employees with his peers, superiors and

subordinates should be appropriate and acceptable. Job Security - The organization must provide job security to the employees.

b. Motivational factors- According to Herzberg, the hygiene factors cannot be regarded as motivators. The motivational factors provide positive satisfaction. Important fact is motivational factors are ‘inherent to work’. No doubt these factors motivate the employees for a greater performance. To put it in other term these factors are called satisfiers. These factors are related to performing the job. Employees find these factors intrinsically rewarding. The motivators are the psychological needs .They are :

Recognition – The work of the employees should be appreciated by managers.

Achievement - The employees must have a sense of achievement.

Growth and promotional opportunities – Employees are concerned with Organizational goal and their personal growth

Responsibility – Responsibility is to be given to the employees for fulfilment of the mission of the organization

Work it self - The work itself should be meaningful, interesting and challenging .

Above all ,to put briefly , Frederick Herzberg’s great contribution was motivation at work. He first published his theory in 1959 in a book entitled ‘The Motivation to Work’. His theory is two factor content theory. It is often referred to as a two need system. It is a content theory which explains the two factors of an individual’s motivation. In his findings Herzberg split his factors of motivation into two categories called hygiene factors and motivation factors. The Hygiene factors can de-motivate or cause dissatisfaction if they are not present. However, they do not very often create satisfaction when they are present.

Page | 4

Hygiene Factors (leading to dissatisfaction):

Company Policy Supervision Relationship with Boss Work Conditions Salary Relationship with Peers

Motivators (leading to satisfaction):

Achievement Recognition The work itself Responsibility Advancement Growth

The dissatisfiers are hygiene factors. They are maintenance factors .They are required to avoid dissatisfaction and stop workers from being unhappy. Concomitantly ,they do not create satisfaction in themselves. It is clear from the lists that the factors in each are not actually opposing to each other The satisfiers,as noted above , are not the opposite of the dissatisfiers. In otherword, the opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction but is ‘no satisfaction’. The lists of both factors lead to motivation, but to a differing degree because they fulfil different needs. The concept of Herzberg was developed on the basis of two distinct human needs:

1) Physiological needs: “avoiding unpleasantness or discomfort and may be fulfilled via money to buy food and shelter etc”. 2) Psychological needs: “the need for personal development fulfilled by activities which cause one to grow”.

Some pointed out that “He identified this as the Adam and Abraham Concept where Adam is animal and wants to avoid pain or discomfort, but Abraham is human and needs to go beyond the physical requirements and expand psychologically too”.To quote the author , “Herzberg believed that the Hygiene factors causing no satisfaction are not applicable to the task an employee undertakes but are external to that task. They are the Adam part of the concept where an incentive may be attributed to a fear of punishment or increase in discomfort or as he phrased it ‘A Kick up the Ass’ (KITA). He thought that these did work but only as short term motivators e.g. constantly increasing someone’s salary to motivate them will merely encourage them to look for the next wage rise and nothing else; however, salary may also be a de-motivator where the employee perceives it to be too low or low compared to that of their peers. The long term motivators are the Abraham part of the concept that lead to satisfaction and are intrinsic to the job itself and the job design. Consider the chambermaid who prefers to receive a note of appreciation for her high standards from a guest than a carelessly delivered gratuity”.

Further , Herzberg and his findings have been extremely influential in developments associated with the field of job design and methods of management to provide job satisfaction and motivation. The figure2 explains it in a categorical manner.

Page | 9

As such as per the diagram Hygiene factors include:

- Company policy and administration

- Wages, salaries and other financial remuneration

- Quality of supervision

- Quality of inter-personal relations

- Working conditions

Examples of Herzberg's 'hygiene' needs (or maintenance factors) in the workplace are:

policy

relationship with supervisor

work conditions

salary

company car

status

security

relationship with subordinates

personal life

Herzberg's research identified that true motivators were other completely different factors, notably:

achievement

recognition

work itself

responsibility

advancement

Page | 10

Is money a strong motivator?3

Herzberg addressed money particularly in context of salary. To him money is not a motivator like the primary motivators such as achievement and recognition.Herzberg said about 'salary':"It [salary] appears as frequently in the high sequences ['sequences' refers to events causing high or low attitude feelings recalled by interviewees in the study] as it does in the low sequences... however... we find that in the lows [events leading to dissatisfaction], salary is found almost three times as often in the long-range as in the short-range attitude changes..." (There was no such bias towards the more important long-range feelings in the high attitude events.)And about the interrelation of salary and other factors:"...when salary occurred as a factor in the lows (causes of dissatisfaction) it revolved around the unfairness of the wage system within the company... It was the system of salary administration that was being described... [or] it concerned an advancement that was not accompanied by a salary increase... In contrast to this, salary was mentioned in the high stories (events causing satisfaction) as something that went along with a person's achievement on the job. It was a form of recognition; it meant more than money; it meant a job well done; it meant that the individual was progressing in his work..."And Herzberg concluded about salary (i.e., money, earnings, etc):"Viewed within the context of the sequences of events, salary as a factor belongs more in the group that defines the job situation and is primarily a dissatisfier."In contrast many people argue nevertheless that money is a primary motivator.For most people money is not a motivator .For all people there are other motivators than money.Surveys and research studies repeatedly show that other factors motivate more than money. For instance, a survey by Development Dimensions International published in the UK Times newspaper in 2004 interviewed 1,000 staff from companies employing more than 500 workers, and found many to be bored, lacking commitment and looking for a new job. Pay actually came fifth in the reasons people gave for leaving their jobs.

The main reasons were lack of stimulus jobs and no opportunity for advancement - classic Herzberg motivators - 43% left for better promotion chances, 28% for more challenging work; 23% for a more exciting place to work; and 21% and more varied work.”. It is easy to fall into the trap of believing that people only work for “the money”, but Herzberg’s work suggests that this certainly isn’t true. See figure 7

Figure :7

3 Taken from websites.

Higher Order of

Needs

Lower Order of

Needs

Page | 13

individual does — that is, to the nature of the work he performs. Apparently this relates to

such needs as achievement, competency, status, personal worth, and self-realization. No

doubt such needs make one in work place happy and satisfied. On the other hand,

the absence of such gratifying job characteristics does not appear to lead to unhappiness and

dissatisfaction. In its place, dissatisfaction results from unfavorable assessments of such job-

related factors – organization’s policies, supervision, technical problems, salary, interpersonal

relations on the job, and working conditions. Thus, if management likes to increase

satisfaction on the job, managers should focus on the nature of the work itself. Conversely, if

management intends to reduce dissatisfaction, then it must focus on the job environment —

policies, procedures, supervision, and working conditions. For a balanced growth of the

organization management is equally concerned with both sets of job factors. The two sets of

job factors are presented below.

In essence, to put again, Two-factor theory differentiates between Motivators and Hygiene

factors.

Motivators (e.g. challenging work, recognition, responsibility) that give positive

satisfaction, arising from intrinsic conditions of the job itself, such as recognition,

achievement, or personal growth,

Hygiene factors (e.g. status, job security, salary, fringe benefits, and work conditions)

do not give positive satisfaction, though dissatisfaction results from their absence.

These are extrinsic to the work itself, and include aspects such as company policies,

supervisory practices, or wages/salary.

Effectively, motivation factors are needed to motivate an employee to higher performance.

And hygiene factors are required to ensure an employee is not dissatisfied. Unlike Maslow,

Herzberg provided empirical evidence to confirm the motivation-hygiene theory. Yet his has

been criticized on methodological grounds. The theory also ignores blue-collar workers.

Despite these limitations, Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory is acceptable broadly.

To put it in other word Herzberg's theory give attention to the importance of internal job factors as motivating forces for employees. This was for increasing job enrichment for employees. Unquestionably, the Motivator-Hygiene concept is still well regarded. “But satisfaction and dissatisfaction are generally no longer considered to exist on separate scales. A number of behavioral scientists have pointed to inadequacies in the Need Hierarchy and Motivation-Hygiene theories. The most basic is the criticism that both of these theories contain the relatively explicit assumption that happy and satisfied workers produce more, even though this might not be the case “ Additionally , The expectancy theory by Victor Vroom also provides a framework for motivation based on expectations . Also there exit strengths and weaknesses of Herzberg’s Two-factor Theory. One benefit of Herzberg's Two-Factor theory is that it provided awareness that job design can impact employee satisfaction and motivation. Also it laid the ground work for Job Characteristics Theory .There by it

Page | 17

Step two: Ask immediate managers about responsibilities and tasks required to do the job well,

Step three: Ask similar questions to the current employee doing the job,

Step Four: Observe an employee who does the job well,

Step Five: Try to do the job yourself, careful to not attempt jobs that are very dangerous and that are done by employees with prolonged experience, and

Step Six: Write a job description detailing all your findings. (Robertson and Smith 1985)

Job Characteristics Theory:

At workplace certain demotivators are repetitive, monotonous jobs like job of a cashier. To

enrich these jobs, employers may implement a rotating assembly schedule to allow the

employees to complete several different tasks during a scheduled work day. “Whenever there

is a chance to cross-train or add tasks to a job, am employer should do everything possible to

give the worker that chance”.

Satisfactory and Dissatisfactory Factors

“The main purpose of job design (or re-design) is to increase both employee motivation and

productivity (Rush, 1971). To this end, the Two-Hygiene Theory by Herzberg (Rush, 1971)

describes two sets of factors, satisfying and dissatisfying, that affect an employee's self-

esteem and opportunity for self-actualization in the workplace. Examples of these are seen

below:

Dissatisfactory Factors

1. Administrative Policies

2. Supervision

3. Working Conditions

4. Interpersonal Relations

5. Salary

6. Statistics

7. Job Security

8. Personal Life

Satisfactory Factors

1. Achievement

2. Recognition

3. Work itself

4. Responsibilities

Page | 18

5. Advancement

6. Growth”

Research on Job Design- Herzberg’s Two-factor Theory: Empirical Studies4

Interestingly, “a recent empirical study was published concerning the two-factor theory and

how it influenced job motivation for seasonal hotel and tourism workers. The study itself was

largely focused on peaking demands of work at different times of the year (Kennedy, 1999).

According to this study, Herzberg proposed that humans have two sets of needs and our work

satisfaction and dissatisfaction depend on whether those needs are met (Lundberg,

Gudmundson, & Andersson, 2008). The results of this study confirmed that work motivation

is in fact driven by the satisfaction of our higher needs and not by our mundane needs.

According to this study, if employers want employees to have higher work motivation, then

they must give more responsibility and feedback to all employees.”

“Another study conducted by Parsons and Broadbride (2006) also confirmed the two-factor

theory and its effect on motivation. This study focused on work motivation in a retail setting.

The researchers were theorizing whether extrinsic or intrinsic factors increased work

motivation, and if so, which one increased it the most. What the researcher found was that

intrinsic factors such as responsibility, self-development, and personal recognition increased

job satisfaction and work motivation. They also found that extrinsic factors decrease

employee's job satisfaction”.

Job Characteristics Theory

“The job characteristics theory had more research conducted with greater support for it.

Hackman and Oldham (1976) defined which work characteristics produced more satisfied

workers in job situations. The five characteristics are: autonomy, skill variety, task identity,

task significance, and feedback. According to the theory, these five components boost

positive behavioral and attitudinal outcomes while lessening chances of negative ones. As a

result of these changes, people should become more motivated and therefore improve work

performance (Greasley, 2009). Another study, conducted by Fried and Ferris (1987),

discovered via meta-analysis that those five characteristics correlated strongly with job

satisfaction, growth satisfaction, and internal work motivation. However, these five traits

showed a poor relationship to job performance and absenteeism.”

“Humphrey, Nahrgang, and Morgeson (2007) conducted a study, which attempted to prove

whether the five characteristics truly show a relationship with all characteristics suggested by

the theory. The study reviewed more than 250 studies and nearly 250,000 participants

confirming that job design is integral to worker motivation. Although there was definitive

evidence of differing levels of effects each of these characteristics has on worker motivation,

4Excerpts are taken from respective Empirical studies placed in websites.

Page | 19

the end result still confirmed the theory created by Hackman and Oldham: That each of these

components has a legitimate and real effect.”

“Another study was conducted on the relationship between job design and burnout among

prison staff. Due to the high psychological demands and deleterious effects of emotional

stress on prison employees, research suggests that the job characteristics impact employee

motivation and performance that ultimately result in burnout and high turnover (Lambert,

Hogan, Dial, Jiang, & Khondaker, 2012). Drawing from Hackman and Oldman’s Job

Characteristics Theory (1976), researchers set out to discover which dimensions of the Job

Characteristics Theory, specifically supervisions, job variety, feedback, and autonomy, are

negatively experienced by the staff. Surveys were administered to prison staff at a state-run,

high security facility. With a response rate of 68%, the researchers were able to determine

that emotional burnout (dependent variable) was negatively correlated with the four job

characteristics. When the supervision, variety, feedback and autonomy indices were high,

there was a decrease in respondent’s feelings of emotional burnout. What’s more, the

positions held had a direct impact on emotional exhaustion in that those respondents who had

frequent contact with inmates had a higher rate of burnout. Interestingly, the largest effect on

the dependent variable was the job characteristic of autonomy, followed by position and

feedback, while supervision and job variety had no significant effect. This data suggests that

positive, rather than negative effect, increases staff performance by providing clarity of job

expectations and sense of control among hierarchical or power-driven workplace such as a

correctional facility. That is, workplace stressors are mediated by the positive effects of the

aforementioned characteristics and assist in reducing emotional burnout and turnover.”

Job Characteristics Theory

“Job Characteristics Theory improves upon Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory (Northouse,

2010). It has been studied extensively, has tangible measures, and high physiological scores

were achieved (Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985). As reported by Loher et al.,

(1985), there was an average correlation of .40 between core job dimensions scores and

reported job satisfaction.

Other Job Design-Related Topic Research

“Flow (a state of consciousness where people become totally immersed in an activity and

enjoy it intensely) has been identified as a desirable state with positive effects on the well-

being of employees and innovation at work. Positive psychology has a strong focus on

quality of life and the opportunities for personal growth and optimal functioning. Flow

research supports the view that work provides opportunities for experiencing a state of

positive well-being (Henry, 2004). Flow has been described as "a particular kind of

experience that is so engrossing that it becomes autotelic, that is, worth dooing for its own

sake..." (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999, p. 824). Although flow is perceived to be worth doing for

its own sake, it brings about benefits for organizations and their employees, such as job

satisfaction, enthusiasm, contentment, and motivation. To date, there has been limited

Page | 20

attention paid to which activities and job characteristics may promote flow at work. Nielsen

and Cleal (2010) conducted a study on flow states, specifically, identifying activities and

predictors of flow so that businesses can design jobs that will facilitate this higher level of

employee engagement and productivity. They found that employees in jobs that involve

planning, problem solving, and evaluation with clearly-defined roles and objectives

experienced more flow states, and were therefore more engaged and effective, than

employees in positions where their roles were not clear or where they were performing their

duties in an unstructured environment where their work was not reviewed on a regular basis.

The implications of their study's findings are that when human resource managers are

implementing interventions to promote flow, they need to ensure that the work is organized

in a way that provides problem-solving activities and that it's evaluated at regular intervals.

Both aspects are important for promoting flow.”

No doubt Herzberg’s work- Two Factor Theory - is a pioneering work. It exemplifies

motivators and maintenance factors at work situations. On the work of Hertzberg, new

dimensions are added to it. As a matter of fact job rotation, job enrichment and job

enlargement are added to make a job meaningful for the growth of the organization.

References.

Cleal B., & Nielsen, K. (2010). Predicting flow at work: Investigating the activities and job

characteristics that predict flow states at work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,

15(2), 180-190. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018893

Feder, B.J. 2000, "F.I. Herzberg, 76, Professor And Management Consultant", New York

Times, Feb 1, 2000, pg. C26. Available from: ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New

York Times (1851 - 2003). [October 28, 2006].

Gardner, D. G., & Cummings, L. L. (1988). Activation theory and job design: Review and

reconceptualization. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior

(Vol. 10, pp. 81--122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Garg, P., & Rastogi, R. (2006). New model of job design: motivating employees'

performance. The Journal of Management Development, 25(6).

Grant, A.M., Fried, Y., Parker, S.K., & Frese, M. (2010). Putting job design in context:

Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31.

Greasley, A. (2009). Operations management (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons,

Inc.

Hackman, J. Richard; Oldham, Greg R. (August 1976). "Motivation Through the Design of

Work: Test of a Theory". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16 (2)

Page | 21

Henry, J. (2004). Positive and creative organization. In P.A. Linley & S. Joseph.

(Eds.). Postive psyhology in practice (pp. 287-305). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Herzberg, F.I. 1987, 'One more time: How do you motivate employees?', Harvard Business

Review, Sep/Oct87, Vol. 65 Issue 5, p109-120 (note: the reference to sales numbers is in the

abstract written by the editors.)

Herzberg, Frederick (1959), The Motivation to Work, New York: John Wiley and Sons,

Herzberg, Frederick (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: World

Publishing. OCLC 243610.

Herzberg, Frederick (January-February 1964). "The Motivation-Hygiene Concept and

Problems of Manpower". Personnel Administrator (27)

Herzberg, Frederick (January-February 1968). "One More Time: How Do You Motivate

Employees?". Harvard Business Review 46 (1):

Herzberg, Frederick; Mausner, Bernard; Snyderman, Barbara B. (1959). The Motivation to

Work (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.

Humphreys, S., Nahrgang, J., & Morgeson, F. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and

contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the

work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5),

Hyun, Sungmin (2009). Re-examination of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of Motivation in

the Korean Army Foodservice Operation (MS thesis). Iowa State University.

Khalifa, Mohamed Hossam El-Din; Truong, Quang (2010). "The Relationship between

Employee Perceptions of Equity and Job Satisfaction in the Egyptian Private

Universities". Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics 3 (5):

Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L, Dial, K. C., Jiang, S., & Khondaker, M. I. (2012). Is the job

burning me out? An exploratory test of the job characteristics model on the emotional

burnout of prison staff. The Prison Journal, 92(1).

Locke, E. A., & Henne, D. (1986). Work motivation theories. In C. L. Cooper & I. T.

Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1-

35). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of the

relation of job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 280-289.

Page | 22

Lundberg, C., Gudmundson, A., & Andersson, T. D. (2008). Herzberg’s two-factor theory of

work motivation tested empirically on seasonal workers in hospitality and tourism. Tourism

Management, 30, 890-899.

Nourthouse, P.G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Parsons, E., & Broadbride, A. (2006). Job motivation and satisfaction: Unpacking the key

factors for charity shop managers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 13(2).

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2012). Job Design: Do I find my work

interesting and challenging? Work Attitudes and Motivation. Retrieved

from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su12/psych484/002/content/lesson10/lesson10_03.

html.

Sandrone, V. (2012). _Frederick W. Taylor: Master of Scientific Management. _Retrieved

from: www.skymark.com/resources/leaders/taylor.asp.

Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G. & Osborn, R. N. (2005). Organizational Behavior (9th ed.).

New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Schultz, Duane P.; Schultz, Sydney Ellen (2010). Psychology and Work Today: An

Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology (10th ed.). New York City:

Prentice Hall.

Smith, K. G., & Hitt, M. A. (2005). Great minds in management: The process of theory

development. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Twenge, J.M. (2006). Generation me: Why today's young Americans are more confident,

assertive, entitled and more miserable than ever before. New York, NY: Free Press.