Herzberg`s Theory of Motivation September 2011

'Her:bergs Theorv of Motivation`

Bv Julio Warner Loiseau, BSc, MPA






Abstract - This article aims to review Herzberg`s two-Iactor theory to employee motivation in
today`s enterprises. The main purpose oI this article is to point out the motivator-hygiene Iactors
that have a signiIicant impact on the overall level oI employee job satisIaction. The review
shows that Herzberg`s motivation-hygiene theory best explained the process oI motivating
employees. It also indicates that achievement and company policy have signiIicant impact on the
overall level oI employee job satisIaction, suggesting that managers need to Iocus more on these
Iactors to better motivate employees.

Keywords - Herzberg`s theory, employees` retention techniques, employees` motivation,
Herzberg model, job satisIaction, human resources techniques, human resources responsibilities,
managers` strength, hygiene in work place.


Herzberg`s Theory oI Motivation 1

I. Introduction
People (employees) are to an organization the most valuable asset; thereIore,
management oI people in the workplace is the Iundamental part oI any oI all management
process. To understand the critical importance oI people in an organization it is necessary to have
an inclusive harmonization between the human element and the organization itselI. In Iact, many
well-managed organizations learn to consider an average worker as the root source oI quality and
productivity gains. Depend on the size; many oI such organizations do not look to capital
investment, but to employees, as the Iundamental source oI improvement. Dynamic managers
with knowledge about what motivates people have at their command the most powerIul tool to
achieve extraordinary results. When companies are eIIective in satisIying their employees,
employees arm themselves with an extraordinary level oI conIidence that induce them to stay
longer, make a deeper commitment to the business, recommend ways to improve the company`s
services or products, and work harder to satisIy 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 oI ownership that encourages them to see not only their
own proIit but to agree on some little sacriIices to assure their job security. When employees are
satisIied they don`t even need to be involved in Union. However, in order to make employees
satisIied and committed to their jobs, strong, dynamic, eIIicient, and eIIective motivation at their
respective levels, departments, operations, middle and top management are needed. Certainly,
employee motivation is one oI the most complex issues in every organization. Hence, the
literature oI motivation research Irom Herzberg motivation theory helps managers understand
and deal with some oI the complexity and multi-Iaceted nature oI human needs.



Herzberg`s Theory oI Motivation 2

II. Literature Review
Understanding what stimulate people in all works oI liIe is Iundamental to all who seek
to become managers. Herzberg was one oI the best known oI all the theorists on motivation. He
was well-known Ior his Iormal job analysis methods and his ideas on job enrichment,
improvement, enlargement and rotation. His ideas on motivation in the hygiene-motivation
theory were particularly useIul to help the average manager understands what motivates people.
His theory attempted to explain the Iactors that motivate individuals through identiIying
and satisIying their individual needs, desires and the aims pursue to satisIy these desires
(Herzberg, 1968). His original research was undertaken in the oIIices oI engineers and
accountants rather than on the Iactory Iloor and involved interviewing as much as two hundred
employees. The goal was to determine work situations where the subjects were highly motivated
and satisIied instead oI the opposite and his research was later paired with many studies
involving a broader sampling oI proIessional (Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959).
According to Herzberg`s Iinding, Ior adequate workplace motivation, it is important that
leadership understands the active needs Ior individual employee (Herzberg, 1968). His theory
showed common base than the one presented by Maslow. Maslow`s model indicated that
Iundamental, lower-order needs like saIety and physiological requirements have to be satisIied in
order to pursue higher-level motivators along the lines oI selI-IulIillment (Maslow, 1943). He
based on his hierarchical diagram, oIten called Maslow`s Needs Pyramid` or Maslow`s Needs
Triangle`, aIter a need is satisIied it stops acting as a motivator and the next need one rank higher
starts to motivate (cI: Maslow`s Hierarchy Needs). Meanwhile, Herzberg`s 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


Herzberg`s Theory oI 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 Iirst suggested them, except that the implications oI
responsibility, Iairness, justice and compassion in business are now global (Lindner, 1998).
Although Herzberg is most noted Ior his Iamous hygiene` and motivational Iactors
theory, he was essentially concerned with people`s 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 perIormance. He and most other theorists
sought primarily to explain how to manage people properly, Ior the good oI all people at work
(DaIt, 1997). Herzberg`s research proved that people will strive to achieve hygiene` needs
because they are unhappy without them, but once satisIied the eIIect soon wears oII -satisIaction
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 Ior and satisIy the Iactors that Herzberg identiIied as real motivators, such as achievement,
advancement, development, etc., which represent a Iar deeper level oI meaning and IulIillment
(Eastman & Williams, 1993). Examples oI Herzberg`s hygiene needs (or maintenance Iactors) in
the workplace are: policy, relationship with supervisor, working conditions, salary, company
vehicles, status, security, relationship with subordinates, personal liIe (Breuning & Hoover,
2000). Herzberg`s research identiIied that true motivators were other completely diIIerent
Iactors, notably: achievement, recognition, work itselI, responsibility, advancement (Berman,
Bowman, West & Van Wart, 2006).
This theory oI motivation is known as a two Iactor content theory. It is based upon the
deceptively simple idea that motivation can be dichotomized into hygiene Iactors and motivation


Herzberg`s Theory oI Motivation 4

Iactors and is oIten reIerred to as a two need system` (Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959).
These two separate needs` are the need to avoid unpleasantness and discomIort and, at the other
end oI the motivational scale, the need Ior personal development (Clark, 1992). A shortage oI the
Iactors that positively encourage employees (the motivating Iactors) will cause employees to
Iocus on other, non-job related hygiene` Iactors (Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959).
As reported above, in his Iindings Herzberg split his Iactors oI motivation into two
categories called Hygiene Iactors and Motivation Iactors (Herzberg, 1968). The Hygiene Iactors
can de-motivate or cause dissatisIaction iI they are not present, but do not very oIten create
satisIaction when they are present. However, Motivation Iactors do motivate or create
satisIaction and are rarely the cause oI dissatisIaction (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959).
Herzberg`s (1959) Motivation-Hygiene Theory established how job satisIaction and
dissatisIaction operate separately Irom one another. The Motivation-Hygiene Theory
diIIerentiates among motivating and maintenance inIluences in the workplace (Herzberg,
Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). He suggested that individuals are encouraged by motivators
more than maintenance Iactors. Motivators include a stimulating vocation, accountability, and
providing IulIillment Irom the proIession, such as awards, accomplishment, or individual
development. On the other hand, maintenance inIluences include position, employment, income,
and beneIits, but these inIluences do not provide aIIirmative satisIaction, though dissatisIaction
occurs Irom their deIiciency (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). The most important part oI the theory
oI motivation presented by Herzberg is that the main motivating Iactors are not in the
environment but in the intrinsic value and satisIaction gained Irom the job itselI (Herzberg,
1968). It Iollows thereIore that to motivate an individual, a job itselI must be challenging, have
scope Ior enrichment and be oI interest to the jobholder (Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman,


Herzberg`s Theory oI Motivation 5

1959). Motivators (sometimes called satisIiers`) are those Iactors directly concerned with the
satisIaction gained Irom a job, such as: the sense oI achievement and the intrinsic value obtained
Irom the job itselI , the level oI recognition by both colleagues and management , the level oI
responsibility opportunities Ior advancement and the status provided (Herzberg, 1968).
Motivators or satisIiers lead to satisIaction because oI the need Ior growth and a sense oI selI-
achievement (Boltes, Lippke, & Gregory, 1995). A lack oI motivators leads to over-
concentration on hygiene Iactors, which are those negative Iactors which can be seen and
thereIore Iorm the basis oI complaint and concern (Ezell, 2003). Hygiene Iactors (oIten reIerred
to as maintenance Iactors) lead to dissatisIaction with a job because oI the need to avoid anxiety
or stress (Bartholomew & Smith, 1990). Anxiety and stresses are reIerred to as hygiene Iactors
because they can be avoided or prevented by the use oI hygienic` methods. The important Iact
to remember is that attention to these hygiene Iactors prevents dissatisIaction but does not
necessarily provide positive motivation (Herzberg, 1968). Hygiene Iactors are also oIten reIerred
to as dissatisIiers` (Herzberg, 1968). They are concerned with Iactors associated with the job
itselI but are not directly a part oI it. Typically, this is salary, although other Iactors which will
oIten act as dissatisIiers include: perceived diIIerences with others, job security, working
conditions, the quality oI management, organizational policy, administration, interpersonal
relations (Berman, Bowman, West & Van Wart, 2006). The dissatisIiers are hygiene Iactors in
the sense that they are maintenance Iactors required to avoid dissatisIaction and stop workers
unhappiness, but do not create satisIaction in themselves. They can be avoided by using
hygienic` methods to prevent them (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959).
Herzberg`s theory recognizes the intrinsic satisIaction that can be obtained Irom the work
itselI. It draws attention to job design and makes managers aware that problems oI motivation


Herzberg`s Theory oI Motivation 6

may not necessarily be directly associated with the work. Problems can oIten be external to the
job (Herzberg, 1968). Managers` understanding that Iactors which de-motivate workers may
oIten be related to matters other than the work itselI, can lead to improved motivation, greater
job satisIaction and improved organizational perIormance by the entire workIorce (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 useIul in the Iuture. Improving skills,
opportunities and increasing employee knowledge will, in the longer term, increase the value oI
an organization`s human assets. Most importantly, it can lead to greater staII commitment,
understanding and loyalty (Castillo& Cano, 2004).
Herzberg sustained that Man has two sets oI 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 aIter his expulsion Irom Eden having the need Ior Iood, warmth, shelter, guidance, saIety,
etc., those represent the hygiene` needs; and Abraham, capable and achieving great things
through selI-development which represents the motivational` needs. Herzberg identiIied a
speciIic category within the study responses which he called possibility oI growth`. This arose
in relatively Iew cases within the study and was not considered a major Iactor by Herzberg.
Where reIerring to growth` or personal growth` in terms oI Herzberg's primary motivators,
growth` should be seen as an aspect oI advancement, and not conIused with the diIIerent matter
oI possibility oI growth` (Herzberg, 1968).
As question about the role oI money commonly arises when considering Herzberg`s
research and theories, so it`s appropriate to include it here. At lower levels oI Maslow`s
hierarchy oI needs, such as physiological needs, he considered money as a motivator;


Herzberg`s Theory oI Motivation 7

nevertheless it tends to have a motivating eIIect on staII that lasts only Ior a short period --in
accordance with Herzberg`s two-Iactor model oI motivation. At higher levels oI the hierarchy,
praise, respect, recognition, empowerment and a sense oI belonging are Iar more powerIul
motivators than money (Bowen & Radhakrishna, 1991). Herzberg addressed money particularly
--reIerring speciIically to salary` in his study and analysis. Herzberg acknowledged the
complexity oI 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 Irequently in the high sequences (sequences are
events causing high or low attitude Ieelings recalled by interviewees in the study) as it does in
the low sequences... however... it is more detectable in the lows as Iactors leading to
dissatisIaction, salary is Iound almost three times as oIten in the long-range as in the short-range
attitude changes... Salary can inIluence both categories (High or low) (Herzberg, Mausner, &
Snyderman, 1959).
In conclusion, Herzberg theorized that employees must be motivated to experience job
satisIaction but that unacceptable working conditions can only result in a lack oI satisIaction.
The data analyzed Ior the study reported here indicate Extension agents leIt the organization Ior
both reasons: lack oI job satisIaction and job dissatisIaction (Herzberg, 1968). The presence oI
suIIicient maintenance Iactors prevents employment discontent, whereas adequate motivators
may direct occupational contentment (Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). When salary occurred as a
Iactor in the lows (causes oI dissatisIaction) it revolved around the unIairness oI the wage system
within the organization... It was the system oI 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 satisIaction) as something that


Herzberg`s Theory oI Motivation 8

went along with a person`s achievement on the job. It was a Iorm oI recognition; job satisIaction
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 oI the sequences oI events, salary as a
Iactor belongs more in the group that deIines the job situation and is primarily a dissatisIier. 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 oI Herzberg such as his sample oI
employees was not representative oI all workers, but Iurther studies have tended to support his
Iindings. In addition some critics have declared that it is natural Ior people to take credit Ior
satisIaction, but to blame dissatisIaction on external Iactors (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman,
1959). Those same critics argued that to individual, theories oI motivation cannot realistically
apply to each single employee; however; they are useIul Ior identiIying the main overall ways in
which people are motivated. Herzberg and his Iindings have been extremely inIluential in
developments associated with the Iield oI job design and methods oI management to provide job
satisIaction and motivation.









Herzberg`s Theory oI Motivation 9

References
Bartholomew, H. M., & Smith, K. L. (1990). Stresses oI 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 satisIaction in extension: A Texas
study. Journal of Extension, 33(5).
Bowen, B. E., & Radhakrishna, R. B. (1991). Job satisIaction oI agricultural education Iaculty: A
constant phenomena. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32(2), 21.
Breuning, T. H., & Hoover, T. S. (2000). Personal liIe Iactors as related to eIIectiveness and
satisIaction oI secondary agricultural teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32(4), 42.
Castillo, J. X., & Cano, J. (2004). Factors explaining job satisIaction among Iaculty. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 45(3), 74-75.
Clark, R. W. (1992). Stress and turnover among extension directors. Journal of Extension, 30(2)
DaIt, R. L. (1997). Management (4
th
ed). New York, NY: Dryden Press, Harcourt Brace College
Publishers.
Eastman, K., & Williams, D. L. (1993). Relationship between mentoring and career development
oI agricultural education Iaculty. 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.


Herzberg`s Theory oI Motivation 10

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