Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory or Two Factor Theory

In an effort to better understand the factors which motivated employees, Frederick Herzberg
performed in dept interviews with employees looking to determine which aspects of their job they
liked, and which caused them displeasure. This study revealed that one set of factors caused job
satisfaction, whilst a different set of factors tended to cause job dissatisfaction. As a result, an
absence of certain factors would demotivate employees, but increasing these factors past a
certain level would not motivate the employees any further. In contrast, some factors would not
demotivate employees if they were absent, but it they were provided they would increase
employee motivation.
These results led Herzberg to terms the factors which could motivate employees motivators
whilst the factors which caused dissatisfaction if they were absent were referred to as hygiene
factors. As such, Herzberg developed that Motivation-Hygiene theory, also known as the Two
Factor theory, to explain how managers could use these factors to motivate their employees.
The following factors were indicated as the most important hygiene factors:
* Company policies
* Quality of supervision
* Employees relationship with their boss
* General working conditions
* Salary
* Employees relationship with their peers
Whilst the following were the most important motivators:
* Potential for achievement
* Receiving recognition
* The work itself
* Being given responsibility
* The potential for advancement
* The potential for growth
As such, whilst an employee who has bad relationships with their peers will perform worse,
someone with excellent relationships with their peers will not necessarily perform any better than
those with good relationships. Furthermore, someone who has no responsibility will not perform
any worse than someone with a small amount of responsibility, but someone with a good level of
responsibility will perform better than both of them.
Herzberg argued that these results occurred because of the two distinct human needs
represented by the two sets of factors. The hygiene factors represented physiological needs
which people expected to be fulfilled: people will generally feel bad if they are hungry, poor or
lonely but being full and rich does not guarantee happiness. In contrast, the motivation factors
represented psychological needs that were seen as a bonus: people do not have to receive
recognition to be happy, but in general receiving genuine recognition will always boost someones
mood and motivation.
In addition, Herzberg observed that the hygiene factors tended to be external to the work: policies
and salary would be set by the company, whilst relationships did not depend on what job was
being done. As such, Herzberg referred to these factors as KITA factors, which stands for Kick
In The Ass, as he believed that these incentives could only be used as a punishment. As such,
they would only result in limited, short term benefits, as the employee would merely have to
perform to avoid them being taken away. In contrast, the motivation factors were part of the work
itself, and hence the harder the employee worked, the greater the motivation factors would
become. Therefore these factors will tend to motivate employees to work harder.

Implications for managers and limitations

The motivation-hygiene theory implies that managers must focus their efforts in two areas:
ensuring that hygiene factors are sufficient to avoid any employee dissatisfaction, whilst also
ensuring that the work is rewarding and challenging enough to motivate employees to work
harder. Indeed, Herzberg argued that managers must focus on job enrichment in order to
motivate employees, and this must represent a continuous management process. As such, not
only must the job be challenging and interesting enough to utilise the employees ability, but
employees who have proven themselves must be given more challenging roles and increased
responsibility in order to continue to be motivated. As such, if a job does not fully utilise an
employees abilities, the task should be automated or given to someone with a lower level of skill,
to avoid demotivation.
However, it has been argued that the two-factor result is a natural reaction to asking employees
around the sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in their work. This is because people will
tend to claim that their own performance and role provides them with satisfaction, whilst blaming
any dissatisfaction on factors outside their control, such as salary, managers and colleagues. In
addition, there is little evidence to support the argument that factors which provide job satisfaction
will always increase employee motivation.
Theory X and Theory Y
In response to the two sides of the debate around employee motivation and the best ways to
boost productivity, Douglas McGregor argued that managers would tend to pursue the approach
which was most in line with their view of their employees. He claimed that managers who viewed
their employees as lazy would be more likely to follow an approach based on control, whilst
managers who believed the workers could be motivated and wanted to develop themselves
would be more likely to attempt to create positive working environments and opportunities for
advancement. McGregor referred to these theories as theory X and theory Y.
It is important to note that, in contrast to popular opinion, McGregor did not state the theory Y was
preferable to theory X, rather he held that both views had merit, and managers should not have
too narrow a view of motivation. As such, he believed that scientific management approaches
could benefit from focusing on the need to motivate workers, whilst motivational approaches
could also benefit from greater managerial control. As such, he argued that theory X and theory Y
simply represented different ends of a continuum of approaches to improving productivity, and
managers should not fix themselves to one end of the continuum.
Both theory X and theory Y state that managers are responsible for assembling and organising
the various factors of production, including their employees, with the goal being to produce
maximum economic benefit for the shareholders. However, they take different views around the
drivers of employee behaviour.
Theory X
According to theory X, the average employee is lazy, does not like to work, and will attempt to
avoid having to work as much as possible. They also have no ambition or responsibility, and do
not care about the performance of the organisation. As such, they will tend to resist any
organisational change, and not be particularly innovative or intelligent, only working because they
have to in order to have money and security. However, it also holds that they are quite gullible
and easy to manipulate. As a result, managers who follow a theory X approach can try to take a
hard, controlling approach or a soft persuasive approach.
The hard approach depends on tight managerial controls and close supervision, such as
proposed by scientific management, whilst also using coercion and implicit threats to prevent any

soldiering. In contrast, the soft approach looks to manipulate employees with money and low
levels of supervision, in an attempt to acquire employee cooperation and reasonable levels of
productivity. Unfortunately, the hard approach will tend to generate hostility and resistance, whilst
the soft approach will lead to workers requesting greater levels of rewards whilst working as little
as possible. McGregor felt that most firms tried to use some aspect of both of these approaches,
but neither were very successful.
The reason for this is that McGregor claimed that theory X would only ever focus on low level
needs such as security. As such, whilst the threat of removing security, in the form of pay cuts or
potential sackings, would only motivate an employee to a certain level. As such, whilst following a
Theory X approach would be better than following no approach, it will never satisfy high level
needs, and employees will not be motivated by their work. Instead, they will look for more money
and rewards to compensate, thus allowing them to fulfil their social and esteem needs outside of
work. Therefore, employees will never satisfy their high level needs through work, and thus will
never work to their maximum productivity.
In addition, McGregor argued that modern developed societies, with their abundant and cheap
food, high tax rates and social safety nets, already satisfied most of the physiological and security
needs of people. This meant that providing monetary rewards and punishments would not
motivate staff as their discomfort at being controlled would outweigh the monetary benefits. As
such, employees under theory X will tend to dislike their work and take no interest in the goals of
the organisation, thus fulfilling the assumptions made under the theory. As such, McGregor
argued that theory X was a self fulfilling prophecy, and that managers who followed it would end
up demotivating even the most intrinsically motivated workforce.
Theory Y
In contrast to theory X, theory Y assumes that working can be made as natural to people as play
and rest. As such, people will motivate themselves to fulfil their work objectives, provided they
commit to them, and they feel they will fulfil higher needs by achieving them. In addition, if these
conditions can be fulfilled, people will seek additional challenges and responsibility, and will
handle them well because humans are naturally creative and innovative: their talents just need to
be encouraged in their work.
The most important aspect of theory Y is that it focused on the cycle of managers providing
interesting work, which motivates employees to achieve, which allows managers to provide them
with more interesting and challenging work, thus fulfilling the higher level esteem needs, and
allowing people to approach self actualisation in their work. As self actualisation is a continually
evolving need, it will thus continue to motivate employees throughout their working lives.
This allows managers to align employees personal goals with the goals of the organisation, by
allowing the employee to fulfil their needs as the organisation succeeds. For example, a firm can
decentralise its control structure, providing employees with more responsibility and harnessing
more of their skills to drive success. Companies can also consult employees as part of the
planning and decision making processes, giving the employees input into the organisations
success whilst benefitting from the employees creativity. Participative performance appraisals are
also often used in theory Y, as when employees participate in setting and monitoring their
objectives, they are more likely to strive to reach them.
If such a system can be properly implemented, it would result in very high levels of motivation,
with employees working ever harder as their personal needs develop and their job develops to
satisfy them. However, Theory Y management cannot be seen as a soft approach as it is easy for
employees to manipulate the system by pretending to be demotivated and hiding their true
motivations. Indeed, McGregor argued that some employees may not have developed sufficient
emotional maturity to embrace a Theory Y style of management, and may believe the managers
are trying to manipulate them or are being weak. As such, managers may need to develop an

initial system of control for employees, and relax that system as the employee matures and
develops.
Implications of these types of theories for leaders in modern organizations
As theorists through the past many years worked towards the Human Relations Movement, many
other fields of expertise joined in to create a stronger force of knowledge and growth. From
Psychology that helps to explain changes in human behavior, to Sociology, where we actually
study people in their relationships with other human beings. Social Psychology was created when
the two concepts were blended so that we can focus on actual influences of people on one
another to Anthropology and Political Science. All of these pieces are a part of the growth and
success of human development in not only the success of work force development but in human
relationships in general.
With Theories X, Y, and Z implications for the modern organization include new challenges and
opportunities. As we learn from these theories and work to implement the ideas in them we must
be aware of the modern issues of working with people from different cultures and overseeing
movements of jobs to countries with low-cost labor. Also, we must embrace diversity as the U.S.
demographics change and understand that our new managers must recognize and respond to
the different culture changes that will surely ensue with their growing diverse working population.
These theories have proven with many fortune 500 companies and others that when applied, do
improve quality and productivity and also help to strengthen company labor issues. In addition to
the changing work demographic, new problems and issues have risen since the X, Y and Z
theories were formed. Some issues include fewer skilled laborers, early retirements, and older
workers. Other opportunities that have been implied while companies use Theory Y and Z
include, an improvement of people skills, empowering their employees, stimulating change,
helping employees balance work with life conflicts, and improving ethical behavior.
Modern implications for companies using these theories have shown improvements in turnover
rates, productivity, effectiveness, efficiency, organizational behavior, and job satisfaction.
Many assumptions are made in the work place, based on observations of the workers, and their
relationship with management. The types of tasks being performed, as well as the types of
employees which make up a particular organization can set the stage for the types of leadership
roles which will be assumed by managers (McGregor, 1960). Douglas McGregors Theory X and
Y, and William Ouchis Theory Z have all proven to be useful in the management field. Many
companies have successfully integrated similar economic and human principles in a management
style from Theorys Y and Z. Theorys Y and Z have both shown to be quite successful framework
for American companies. Theory X is not obsolete. Actually, Theory X is still very prominent in the
business world. Most managers however do not see themselves as using this type of
management style until given the opportunity to see how their employees actually feel about the
management style that is being used. Then will an effort be made to look further into a different,
possibly more successful style of managing.