Herzbergs Theory of Motivation

September 2011

Herzbergs Theory of Motivation

By Julio Warner Loiseau, BSc, MPA

Abstract This article aims to review Herzbergs two-factor theory to employee motivation in todays enterprises. The main purpose of this article is to point out the motivator-hygiene factors that have a significant impact on the overall level of employee job satisfaction. The review shows that Herzbergs motivation-hygiene theory best explained the process of motivating employees. It also indicates that achievement and company policy have significant impact on the overall level of employee job satisfaction, suggesting that managers need to focus more on these factors to better motivate employees.

Keywords Herzbergs theory, employees retention techniques, employees motivation, Herzberg model, job satisfaction, human resources techniques, human resources responsibilities, managers strength, hygiene in work place.

Herzbergs Theory of Motivation 1 I. Introduction People (employees) are to an organization the most valuable asset; therefore, management of people in the workplace is the fundamental part of any of all management process. To understand the critical importance of people in an organization it is necessary to have an inclusive harmonization between the human element and the organization itself. In fact, many well-managed organizations learn to consider an average worker as the root source of quality and productivity gains. Depend on the size; many of such organizations do not look to capital investment, but to employees, as the fundamental source of improvement. Dynamic managers with knowledge about what motivates people have at their command the most powerful tool to achieve extraordinary results. When companies are effective in satisfying their employees, employees arm themselves with an extraordinary level of confidence that induce them to stay longer, make a deeper commitment to the business, recommend ways to improve the companys services or products, and work harder to satisfy the customers and stakeholders. It is not only by compassion that some employees would agree on a pay cut to help keep other peers at work. It is this clear spirit of ownership that encourages them to see not only their own profit but to agree on some little sacrifices to assure their job security. When employees are satisfied they dont even need to be involved in Union. However, in order to make employees satisfied and committed to their jobs, strong, dynamic, efficient, and effective motivation at their respective levels, departments, operations, middle and top management are needed. Certainly, employee motivation is one of the most complex issues in every organization. Hence, the literature of motivation research from Herzberg motivation theory helps managers understand and deal with some of the complexity and multi-faceted nature of human needs.

Herzbergs Theory of Motivation 2 II. Literature Review Understanding what stimulate people in all works of life is fundamental to all who seek to become managers. Herzberg was one of the best known of all the theorists on motivation. He was well-known for his formal job analysis methods and his ideas on job enrichment, improvement, enlargement and rotation. His ideas on motivation in the hygiene-motivation theory were particularly useful to help the average manager understands what motivates people. His theory attempted to explain the factors that motivate individuals through identifying and satisfying their individual needs, desires and the aims pursue to satisfy these desires (Herzberg, 1968). His original research was undertaken in the offices of engineers and accountants rather than on the factory floor and involved interviewing as much as two hundred employees. The goal was to determine work situations where the subjects were highly motivated and satisfied instead of the opposite and his research was later paired with many studies involving a broader sampling of professional (Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959). According to Herzbergs finding, for adequate workplace motivation, it is important that leadership understands the active needs for individual employee (Herzberg, 1968). His theory showed common base than the one presented by Maslow. Maslows model indicated that fundamental, lower-order needs like safety and physiological requirements have to be satisfied in order to pursue higher-level motivators along the lines of self-fulfillment (Maslow, 1943). He based on his hierarchical diagram, often called Maslows Needs Pyramid or Maslows Needs Triangle, after a need is satisfied it stops acting as a motivator and the next need one rank higher starts to motivate (cf: Maslows Hierarchy Needs). Meanwhile, Herzbergs ideas related strongly to modern ethical management and social responsibility. Herzberg, like Maslow, understood well and attempted to teach the ethical management principles that many leaders today, typically in

Herzbergs Theory of Motivation 3 businesses and organizations that lack humanity, still struggle to grasp. In this respect Herzberg's concepts are just as relevant now as when he first suggested them, except that the implications of responsibility, fairness, justice and compassion in business are now global (Lindner, 1998). Although Herzberg is most noted for his famous hygiene and motivational factors theory, he was essentially concerned with peoples well -being at work (Herzberg, 1968). Underpinning his theories and academic teachings, he was basically attempting to bring more humanity and caring into the workplace. His purpose was not to develop theories to be used as motivational tools but to improve organizational performance. He and most other theorists sought primarily to explain how to manage people properly, for the good of all people at work (Daft, 1997). Herzbergs research proved that people will strive to achieve hygiene needs because they are unhappy without them, but once satisfied the effect soon wears off -satisfaction is temporary. Then as now, poorly managed organizations assume that people are not motivated by addressing hygiene needs. People are only truly motivated by enabling them to reach for and satisfy the factors that Herzberg identified as real motivators, such as achievement, advancement, development, etc., which represent a far deeper level of meaning and fulfillment (Eastman & Williams, 1993). Examples of Herzbergs hygiene needs (or maintenance factors) in the workplace are: policy, relationship with supervisor, working conditions, salary, company vehicles, status, security, relationship with subordinates, personal life (Breuning & Hoover, 2000). Herzbergs research identified that true motivators were other completely different factors, notably: achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, advancement (Berman, Bowman, West & Van Wart, 2006). This theory of motivation is known as a two factor content theory. It is based upon the deceptively simple idea that motivation can be dichotomized into hygiene factors and motivation

Herzbergs Theory of Motivation 4 factors and is often referred to as a two need system (Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959). These two separate needs are the need to avoid unpleasantness and discomfort and, at the other end of the motivational scale, the need for personal development (Clark, 1992). A shortage of the factors that positively encourage employees (the motivating factors) will cause employees to focus on other, non-job related hygiene factors (Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959). As reported above, in his findings Herzberg split his factors of motivation into two categories called Hygiene factors and Motivation factors (Herzberg, 1968). The Hygiene factors can de-motivate or cause dissatisfaction if they are not present, but do not very often create satisfaction when they are present. However, Motivation factors do motivate or create satisfaction and are rarely the cause of dissatisfaction (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Herzbergs (1959) Motivation-Hygiene Theory established how job satisfaction and dissatisfaction operate separately from one another. The Motivation-Hygiene Theory differentiates among motivating and maintenance influences in the workplace (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). He suggested that individuals are encouraged by motivators more than maintenance factors. Motivators include a stimulating vocation, accountability, and providing fulfillment from the profession, such as awards, accomplishment, or individual development. On the other hand, maintenance influences include position, employment, income, and benefits, but these influences do not provide affirmative satisfaction, though dissatisfaction occurs from their deficiency (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). The most important part of the theory of motivation presented by Herzberg is that the main motivating factors are not in the environment but in the intrinsic value and satisfaction gained from the job itself (Herzberg, 1968). It follows therefore that to motivate an individual, a job itself must be challenging, have scope for enrichment and be of interest to the jobholder (Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman,

Herzbergs Theory of Motivation 5 1959). Motivators (sometimes called satisfiers) are those factors directly concerned with the satisfaction gained from a job, such as: the sense of achievement and the intrinsic value obtained from the job itself , the level of recognition by both colleagues and management , the level of responsibility opportunities for advancement and the status provided (Herzberg, 1968). Motivators or satisfiers lead to satisfaction because of the need for growth and a sense of selfachievement (Boltes, Lippke, & Gregory, 1995). A lack of motivators leads to overconcentration on hygiene factors, which are those negative factors which can be seen and therefore form the basis of complaint and concern (Ezell, 2003). Hygiene factors (often referred to as maintenance factors) lead to dissatisfaction with a job because of the need to avoid anxiety or stress (Bartholomew & Smith, 1990). Anxiety and stresses are referred to as hygiene factors because they can be avoided or prevented by the use of hygienic methods. The important fact to remember is that attention to these hygiene factors prevents dissatisfaction but does not necessarily provide positive motivation (Herzberg, 1968). Hygiene factors are also often referred to as dissatisfiers (Herzberg, 1968). They are concerned with factors associated with the job itself but are not directly a part of it. Typically, this is salary, although other factors which will often act as dissatisfiers include: perceived differences with others, job security, working conditions, the quality of management, organizational policy, administration, interpersonal relations (Berman, Bowman, West & Van Wart, 2006). The dissatisfiers are hygiene factors in the sense that they are maintenance factors required to avoid dissatisfaction and stop workers unhappiness, but do not create satisfaction in themselves. They can be avoided by using hygienic methods to prevent them (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Herzbergs theory recognizes the intrinsic satisfaction that can be obtained from the work itself. It draws attention to job design and makes managers aware that problems of motivation

Herzbergs Theory of Motivation 6 may not necessarily be directly associated with the work. Problems can often be external to the job (Herzberg, 1968). Managers understanding that factors which de-motivate workers may often be related to matters other than the work itself, can lead to improved motivation, greater job satisfaction and improved organizational performance by the entire workforce (Boltes, Lippke & Gregory, 1995). Understanding individual goals, coupled with wider skills and abilities, can lead to greater opportunities (Boltes, Lippke & Gregory, 1995). Individuals are seen as valuable to organizations and can acquire new skills useful in the future. Improving skills, opportunities and increasing employee knowledge will, in the longer term, increase the value of an organizations human assets. Most importantly, it can lead to greater staff commitment, understanding and loyalty (Castillo& Cano, 2004). Herzberg sustained that Man has two sets of needs; one as an animal to avoid pain, and two as a human being to grow psychologically. He illustrated this also through Biblical example: Adam after his expulsion from Eden having the need for food, warmth, shelter, guidance, safety, etc., those represent the hygiene needs; and Abraham, capable and achieving great things through self-development which represents the motivational needs. Herzberg identified a specific category within the study responses which he called possibility of growth. This arose in relatively few cases within the study and was not considered a major factor by Herzberg. Where referring to growth or personal growth in terms of Herzberg's primary motivators, growth should be seen as an aspect of advancement, and not confused with the different matter of possibility of growth (Herzberg, 1968). As question about the role of money commonly arises when considering Herzbergs research and theories, so its appropriate to include it here. At lower levels of Maslows hierarchy of needs, such as physiological needs, he considered money as a motivator;

Herzbergs Theory of Motivation 7 nevertheless it tends to have a motivating effect on staff that lasts only for a short period --in accordance with Herzbergs two-factor model of motivation. At higher levels of the hierarchy, praise, respect, recognition, empowerment and a sense of belonging are far more powerful motivators than money (Bowen & Radhakrishna, 1991). Herzberg addressed money particularly --referring specifically to salary in his study and analysis. Herzberg acknowledged the complexity of the salary issue (money, earnings, etc), and concluded that money is not a motivator in the way that the primary motivators are, such as achievement and recognition. Herzberg said about salary: Salary appears as frequently in the high sequences (sequences are events causing high or low attitude feelings recalled by interviewees in the study) as it does in the low sequences... however... it is more detectable in the lows as factors leading to dissatisfaction, salary is found almost three times as often in the long-range as in the short-range attitude changes... Salary can influence both categories (High or low) (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). In conclusion, Herzberg theorized that employees must be motivated to experience job satisfaction but that unacceptable working conditions can only result in a lack of satisfaction. The data analyzed for the study reported here indicate Extension agents left the organization for both reasons: lack of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1968). The presence of sufficient maintenance factors prevents employment discontent, whereas adequate motivators may direct occupational contentment (Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). When salary occurred as a factor in the lows (causes of dissatisfaction) it revolved around the unfairness of the wage system within the organization... It was the system of salary administration that was being described... it also 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

Herzbergs Theory of Motivation 8 went along with a persons achievement on the job. It was a form of recognition; job satisfaction meant more than money; it meant a job well done; it meant that the individual was progressing in his work (Herzberg, 1968). 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. This group has a tendency to be categorized as victims by productivity (Berman, Bowman, West & Van Wart, 2006). Many people argue nevertheless that money is a primary motivator. For most people money is not a motivator - despite what they might think and say. Over the years there are criticisms that have arisen of Herzberg such as his sample of employees was not representative of all workers, but further studies have tended to support his findings. In addition some critics have declared that it is natural for people to take credit for satisfaction, but to blame dissatisfaction on external factors (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Those same critics argued that to individual, theories of motivation cannot realistically apply to each single employee; however; they are useful for identifying the main overall ways in which people are motivated. 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.

Herzbergs Theory of Motivation 9 References Bartholomew, H. M., & Smith, K. L. (1990). Stresses of multicounty agent positions. Journal of Extension, 28(4). Berman, E.M., Bowman, J.S., West, J.P., & Van Wart, M. (2006). Human resource management in public service: Paradoxes, processes, and problems. Sage Publications, Inc. Boltes, B. V., Lippke, L. A., & Gregory, E. (1995). Employee satisfaction in extension: A Texas study. Journal of Extension, 33(5). Bowen, B. E., & Radhakrishna, R. B. (1991). Job satisfaction of agricultural education faculty: A constant phenomena. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32(2), 21. Breuning, T. H., & Hoover, T. S. (2000). Personal life factors as related to effectiveness and satisfaction of secondary agricultural teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32(4), 42. Castillo, J. X., & Cano, J. (2004). Factors explaining job satisfaction among faculty. Journal of Agricultural Education, 45(3), 74-75. Clark, R. W. (1992). Stress and turnover among extension directors. Journal of Extension, 30(2) Daft, R. L. (1997). Management (4th ed). New York, NY: Dryden Press, Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Eastman, K., & Williams, D. L. (1993). Relationship between mentoring and career development of agricultural education faculty. Journal of Agricultural Education, 34(2), 75. Ezell, P. A. (2003). Job stress and turnover intentions among Tennessee cooperative extension system employees. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(06), 1920A. Herzberg, F. (1968). Work and the nature of man. London, UK: Crosby Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959).The motivation to work. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Herzbergs Theory of Motivation 10 Lindner, J. R. (1998). Understanding employee motivation. Journal of Extension, 36(3). Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-96.