Motivation-Hygiene theory, also known as ‘two factor’ and ‘dual factor theory’ was developed in the 1950s by psychologists Frederick Herzberg, Bernard Mausner and Barbara Bloch Snyderman. The theory proposes that employee dissatisfaction and employee motivation are influenced by two different sets of factors: the job context and the job content respectively. Here we take a closer look at the Motivation-Hygiene theory and the responses it has received over the years. We also consider the implications of the theory in the workplace, and how it can help managers to motivate their employees more effectively.
Background
The Motivation-Hygiene theory was first presented by Herzberg and his colleagues in their book The Motivation to Work in 1959. It was, the authors noted, a time of ‘industrial crisis’ in which unemployment was rife. They suggested that, in such a difficult climate, having an increased understanding of how to motivate employees might give organisations a competitive advantage.
Herzberg’s theory of motivation is based on the premise of ‘needs-satisfaction’, the idea that humans have different types of needs which all need to be met in order for them to be truly fulfilled. This type of motivation theory was made famous earlier by Abraham Maslow, who published his ‘Hierarchy of Human Needs’ model in 1954. Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs provides a detailed explanation of the model.
The theory
Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory is based on the findings of a series of interviews he and his colleagues conducted with engineers and accountants. The participants were asked to describe events at work that had made them feel particularly good about their jobs, and those that had made them feel particularly bad.
Herzberg identified a number of factors that were frequently attributed by the interview subjects to their negative experiences at work. These factors related to the context of the job role, and Herzberg termed them ‘hygiene factors’. When considering the participants’ positive experiences at work, however, Herzberg et al discovered that a separate set of factors were often described. These related to the content of the job role, and were termed ‘satisfiers’.
This distinction is crucial: the factors that motivate employees at work and those that cause dissatisfaction are not one and the same. As Herzberg put it:
‘The opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction but, rather, no job satisfaction; and, similarly, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction, but no job dissatisfaction.’
Let’s consider hygiene factors and satisfiers in turn.
Hygiene factors
As a result of their investigations, Herzberg proposed that the following factors can cause dissatisfaction among employees:
unfair or insufficient salary and benefits (compared to those of colleagues and peers with equal standing to them)
lack of job security
poor physical working conditions
lack of status at work
overcomplicated policies and administration
poor interpersonal relationships
Satisfiers
According to Herzberg and his colleagues, genuine motivation can be achieved when, in addition to addressing the hygiene factors outlined above, organisations also meet employees’ needs for:
the potential to achieve
an appropriate level of responsibility
recognition for achievements made
the provision of relevant, interesting and challenging work
the potential for career advancement and personal growth
The following diagram illustrates hygiene factors and motivating factors:
While organisations have a responsibility to meet the basic hygiene factors, Herzberg warns that doing this will only serve to prevent employee dissatisfaction. To have a truly satisfied and motivated workforce, organisations must also enrich their job roles in order to meet their employees’ higher-level satisfier needs. As Herzberg puts it:
‘…both kinds of factors meet the needs of the employee; but it is primarily the ‘motivators’ that serve to bring about the kind of job satisfaction and …the kind of improvement in performance that industry is seeking from its work force.’
Challenges to Herzberg’s work
Over the years there have been a number of challenges to Herzberg’s study and resulting theory. Many of these criticisms have focused on Herzberg’s use of the critical incident research technique (CIT). In Herzberg’s study, this involved asking participants to recount ‘critical incidents’ that had a significant impact – either positive or negative – on how they felt about their jobs. This technique is inherently subject to attribution bias, as people are more likely to hold their organisation responsible for negative workplace events, but attribute positive ones to their own behaviour and actions. In addition, CIT relies on participants recalling events accurately and recounting them truthfully. As a result, some of Herzberg’s critics have questioned the credibility of his participants’ responses.
Herzberg’s theory has also been criticised for its presentation of hygiene factors and motivators as mutually exclusive forces in the workplace; Paul Wernimont’s 1966 replication study indicated that both motivators and hygiene factors can result in feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
Further challenges to Herzberg’s theory have focused on its failure to take into account the different needs and values of employees working in different industries, and the individual differences – particularly cultural ones – that might exist between employees in the same organisation.
Despite its criticisms, Herzberg’s work occupies a significant place in the history of motivation theory, as it was the first study to suggest that employers should look to the work itself, rather than external variables as a source of employee motivation.
Motivation-Hygiene theory in action
Herzberg’s theory has a number of implications for managers today. Addressing hygiene factors can help to foster a satisfying work environment for team members.
This might involve:
using clear and straightforward language in documentation and choosing the most appropriate form of media to deliver organisational messages
ensuring the working environment is laid out appropriately and that the temperature and noise level in the workplace is acceptable
providing employees with the tools and resources they need in order to complete their tasks safely and comfortably
ensuring that employees are paid fairly and that individuals who perform at a similar level receive similar salaries and benefits
being upfront and honest with employees about the security of their jobs, communicating this clearly and providing regular updates
instilling a sense of pride in employees by explaining how their work contributes to the wider strategic objectives of the organisation
fostering good interpersonal relations in the team by encouraging employees to work collaboratively and creating opportunities for teams to socialise outside of work, if appropriate
Although taking these steps alone will not directly motivate employees, it will, according to Herzberg’s theory, help to prevent dissatisfaction. To genuinely motivate employees to perform well, managers must also meet employees’ high-level satisfier needs. This can involve:
matching roles and responsibilities to employees’ skills and interests
giving individuals increased responsibility when appropriate
providing employees with additional training and development opportunities
offering regular praise, as well as recognising and rewarding achievements
giving employees interesting and challenging work whenever possible
supporting your team members’ career development objectives
providing opportunities for employees to get involved in high-level projects or initiatives when appropriate
Summary
Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory provides managers with some important points to consider when thinking about how to motivate their employees. Firstly, the factors that give rise to dissatisfaction are not simply the opposite of those that motivate employees. One set of factors relates to the context of the job (hygiene factors), while the other relates to the job content (satisfiers). If managers successfully address the ‘hygiene’ factors in their organisations, they will only succeed in preventing dissatisfaction. Achieving the kind of genuine motivation that results in improved performance requires an additional effort to meet the high level ‘satisfier’ needs of employees. While a number of challenges have been made to the theory over the years, Herzberg’s work helps us understand that being motivated and not being dissatisfied are two different states, and that managers must take steps to ensure that their employees experience both.
Reference:
Frederick Herzberg, Bernard Mausner and Barbara Bloch Snyderman, The Motivation to Work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias
Gary P. Latham, Work Motivation: History, Theory, Research, and Practice
Comments