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.