Ramlall, 2004 stated that
motivation will drive a person’s behavior in such a particular way that will
achieve organizational goals as well as employee benefits. Explanations of
motivation developed by various scholars influence to the outcomes of employee
satisfaction (Badubi, 2004). Dion (2006) Highlights Herzberg’s Two-Factor model
of Motivation as one of the most significant content theories in job
satisfaction. Motivation-hygiene theory is also known as Herzberg’s two-factor
theory or Herzberg’s duel-factor theory (1959). As stated by Jones (2011), in 1959, Herzberg,
Maunser and Snyderman published the two-factor model of work motivation
and developed the motivation-hygiene theory, which was influenced by Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs.
The main concept of this theory
is the difference between motivation factors and hygiene factors. Herzberg et
al. (1959) described the motivation factors, as intrinsic to the job and
hygiene factors as extrinsic to the job. Hence, motivation factors are only
operated to increase the job satisfaction whereas hygiene factors work to
reduce job dissatisfaction. As well as, the actual content of the job tasks
impacts the employees either positively or negatively. Furthermore, if the job
is interesting or boring, if the job tasks are easy or too difficult impact the
job satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Alshmemri, 2017). Herzberg mentions
motivation factors are the six “Job content” factors including achievement,
recognition, work itself, responsibility, advancement and possibility of growth,
hygiene factors are “job context” factors, which include company policy,
supervision, relationship with supervisors, work conditions, relationship with
peers, salary, personal life, relationship with subordinates, status and job
security (Ruthankoon et al., 2003).
According to Riley (2005), Herzberg’s Two-factor theory still resonates with both scholars and practitioners
with its common sense approach and the simplicity of the model. The two-factor
theory has been applied by the HRM Practitioners in a variety of innovative ways. Stello (2011) highlights that appraising a concept
like job satisfaction requires to pay the attention on the most valid sources of
employee data available. Considering the implementation of the theory, it is
not recommended by the scholars to apply the theory strictly as modeled. However,
Area managers can influence the satisfaction level of the employees.
Ruthankoon et. al., (2003) indicated
that the possibility of growth was an important motivator, with the study
tested Two-factor theory in the construction industry. As well as the study implied
that salary is a first ranked source of job satisfaction which leads to the vice
versa of satisfaction similarly. The Interpersonal relations were also
important in reducing dissatisfaction as a hygiene factor.
When evaluating
a concept such as job satisfaction, it seems that employee’s own perceptions
and memories are the most valid source of data available (Riley, 2005). According
to Rathankoon et al., (2003), the motivation patterns are different from each
employee, depending on various contextual factors. Hence, understanding the
actual requirement is important to increase the job satisfaction.
Akhtar, Robina
& Mohamad, Nizam & Nazarudin, Mohamad & Nazarudin, Colonel Assoc.
Prof. Dr. Mohamad Nizam. (2020). Synthesizing literature of leadership, job
satisfaction and trust in leadership. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism
and Leisure. 9. 1-16.
Alshmemri, M., Shahwan-Akl, L.
and Maude, P., 2017. Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Life Science Journal, 14(5),
pp.12-16.
Badubi, R.M.,
2017. Theories of motivation and their application in organizations: A risk
analysis. International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, 3(3),
pp.44-51.
Dion,
M.J., 2006. The impact of workplace incivility and occupational stress on the job
satisfaction and turnover intention of acute care nurses. University of Connecticut.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., &
Snydermann B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.
Jones,
T.L., 2011. Effects of motivating and hygiene factors on job satisfaction among school
nurses (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
Ramlall, S., 2004. A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee retention within organizations. Journal of American academy of business, 5(1/2), pp.52-63
Ruthankoon, R. and Ogunlana, S.O.,
2003. Testing Herzberg’s two‐factor theory in the Thai construction industry.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.
Stello, C.M.,
2011. Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction: An integrative
literature review. In Unpublished paper presented at The 2011 Student Research
Conference: Exploring Opportunities in Research, Policy, and Practice,
University of Minnesota Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy and
Development, Minneapolis, MN.
It is very important to identify any demotivating factors in the company and permanently eliminate those. This could be bad organization policies, low compensation scheme, poor work relationships, poor workplace conditions or a mixture of all these issues. (Herzberg, 2003) Removing the hygiene factors from the organization helps to achieve a ‘neutral’ workspace. Afterwards, the organization management can continue to implement better employee policies that help to motivate the workforce (Timmreck, 2001).
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comment Dileep. According to Herzberg (2003), motivation factors are only operated to increase the job satisfaction whereas hygiene factors work to reduce job dissatisfaction. Addding to your points, weak leadership behaviors, heavy work load and poor-corporation between employees causes for job dissatisfaction. Ruthankoon et al. (2003) mentions that the motivation factors are the “Job content” factors including achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility and hygiene factors are “job context” factors, which include company policy, supervision, relationship with supervisors, work conditions, relationship with peers, salary, personal life, relationship with subordinates, status and job security.
DeleteHi gihan, agree with you, adding to your point, The lack of applicability for the employees who are in mostly unskilled jobs or repetitive, monotonous, tedious work limited scope (Dartey-Baah, & Amoako, 2011).also the full supply of Hygiene Factors will not necessary result in employees’ job satisfaction. to increase employees performance and productivity, Motivation factors must be there(Wan et al, 2013).
ReplyDeleteAgree with you Dineth. Aside from the cost savings, train, and keep less experienced people, the advantages of hiring a more dependable and consistent staff are worth considering (Johannessen, et al., 2020). They feel that work experience provides better practical knowledge and a greater ability to handle situations. Carraher et al. (2006) advocates that there should be an effective reward system to retain the high performers in organizations and reward should be related to their productivity.
DeleteAgreed Gihan. In addition to the above, This theory shows that humans do not make an effort to meet the lower-level needs but prevent them from becoming dissatisfied (Kian, 2013). In order to motivate employees, management must focus on providing high-level requirements. Motivation factors such as recognition, achievement, responsibility, growth, opportunities and promotion make high motivation and high satisfaction further; hygiene factors include salary, Working Conditions, Job Security, personal life, Company policies, and administration create general satisfaction (Kim, 2006). Herzberg says the best way to motivate the employees is to give challenging work to take responsibility (Leach and Westbrook, 2000).
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comment Nirmika. Adding to your points, Baron (1983) defined motivation as a set of processes concerned with a kind of force that energizes behavior and directs it towards achieving specific goals. It further states that not only motivation can influence performance, but that performance can also influence motivation, if followed by rewards. Baron (1983) concludes organizations could benefit from implementing total reward programs that focus on formal reward policies.
DeleteHi Gihan Adding more to your points,Many studies have been conducted between motivational factors and hygienic factors. Based on those studies, it has come to light that motivational factors takes lead than the other as motivation always keeps employees occupied and willingness to work (Winer & Schiff, 1980).
ReplyDeleteHi Amila. Thank you for the comment. Saraswathi (2011) explains motivation as the willingness to exert high levels of effort, toward organizational goals, conditioned by the effort’s ability to satisfy some individual needs. The setting of Herzberg’s theory clearly explained employees’ motivation will only follow by satisfaction in Motivators that have Personal Characteristic factors within, whereas satisfaction in Hygiene factor that found similar with Environmental factors will only prevent them from dissatisfaction.
DeleteHi Gihan, well-written article. Adding some points to this according to Spector (1997), based on people liking or disliking their jobs are defined as job satisfaction whereas has a positive influence in employee commitment and organizational performance (levy, 2003) and has a negative influence on non-appearance and turnover intentions (Yousef, 2000).
ReplyDeleteHi Lakshan. Agree with your valuable explanation. Armstrong & Taylor (2020) states that the intrinsic motivation factors, the quality of supervision and Success or failure of tasks are the factors which can affect the levels of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
DeleteNicely explained, also motivation factors help to increase the job satisfaction of an employee further this increases their efficiency and ultimately leads to an increase in organizational effectiveness. These have been identified as rewards, or incentives that sharpen the drive to satisfy the wants of an employee (Zimmerman, 1988).
ReplyDeleteHi Ganith. Thank you for the comment. According to Armstrong and Taylor (2020), Job satisfaction is identified with the attitudes and feelings that employees have about the duties. Rathankoon et al, (2003) explains that it is important to understanding the actual requirement of the employee to increase the job satisfaction.
DeleteHi...Gihan, Well explained and Managers are responsible for creating an environment that allows employees to reach their maximum potential. Failure to create such an environment might raise employee dissatisfaction, leading to reduced performance, lower job satisfaction, and increasing departure from the company (Kovach, 1995)
ReplyDeleteHi Indika. Agree with your valuable comment. Employee Motivation is explained as the thing makes employees stick at work. Simultaneously, it is essential for Human resource Professionals to consider the relationship of motivation, with job satisfaction (Armstrong & Taylor, 2020).
DeleteI complied with your points, and If I add more value to it. According to Herzberg 1966, motivation factors are directly related to work-related factors and job satisfaction. Hygiene factors are not related to work itself but affect the employee's dissatisfaction. The organization should fulfill employee motivational factors to achieve the company goal. If the employee is satisfied and not motivated, he is reluctant to drive the extra mile to accomplish work.
ReplyDeleteHi Thiloka. Yes. I agree with your valuable explanation. According to Herzberg (1966) the two factors effect on job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are defined “motivation by the work itself’” for motivating factors which are related to job content, and “Hygiene” as used in medical use of the term which is related to the job context, including pay and working conditions.
DeleteHi Gihan well written article ,agreeing with your points stated on this blog post , would like to highlight that Armstrong argued Herzberg's two factor model was attacked.The research method has been criticised because no attempt was made to measure the relationship between satisfaction and performance.It has been suggested that the two factor nature of the theory is an unavoidable results of the questioning method used by the interviewers.It has also been suggested that wide and unwarranted inferences have been drawn from small and specialised samples and that there is no evidence to suggest that the satisfiers do improve productivity(Arsmtrong,2006)
ReplyDeleteHi Manoj. Thank you very much for the comment. Agree with your explanation. The two factor theory was criticized by Opsahl & Dunnette (1966) because there isn’t any attempt made for measuring the relationship between job satisfaction and performance. However, it is used by the practitioners as it is easy to understand and seems to be based on real life and consider both financial and non-financial factors when developing the rewarding systems (Armstrong & Taylor, 2020).
DeleteHi Gihan, very informative article. There has been some criticism about the effectiveness of Herzberg's two factor theory. However, Armstrong (2014) argues that the theory is still relevant and widely accepted because it is easy to understand and accepts the importances of non monetary benefits.
ReplyDeleteHi Divakar. Thank you and agree with your comment. Opsahl & Dunnette (1966) criticized the two-factor theory saying that there isn’t any attempt suggested for measuring the relationship between job satisfaction and performance.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete