Ann. Data. Sci.

(2016) 3(2):155–173
DOI 10.1007/s40745-016-0077-9

Two Factor Theory of Motivation and Satisfaction:

An Empirical Verification

M. A. Sanjeev1 · A. V. Surya2

Received: 3 March 2016 / Revised: 8 March 2016 / Accepted: 17 March 2016 /

Published online: 30 March 2016
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Abstract Effective talent management is imperative for organisational success. This

involves acquiring, deploying, developing, engaging and retaining talent in the organ-
isation there by providing a stable staff for achieving organisational objectives.
Herzberg’s two factor theory of motivation and satisfaction was proposed in 1959 and
has been widely tested empirically with mixed results. The purpose of this research
is to verify the ‘two factor theory’ in the modern day context using exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis. The study is done among pharmaceutical sales and mar-
keting professionals. The findings confirm the existence of two factor structure of
motivation and satisfaction. The employees are satisfied in the presence of motivat-
ing factors only and hygiene factors do not have any influence on satisfaction levels.
The motivating factors however, are not fully intrinsic in nature and consists of cer-
tain extrinsic elements also as classified by Herzberg. The factors are also not fully
independent with a high amount of shared variance between them.

Keywords Two-factor theory · Motivation · Hygiene factor · Motivating factor ·

Factor structure · Empirical verification · Factor analysis

B M. A. Sanjeev
ma.sanjeev@jiit.ac.in; masanjeev@rediffmail.com
A. V. Surya
av.surya@imrbint.com

1 Jaypee Business School, JIIT, A-10, Sector – 62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201307, India
2 IMRB International, SRI Division, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019, India

123
156 Ann. Data. Sci. (2016) 3(2):155–173

1 Introduction

In a hyper competitive world, organisations fight not only in the product and services
markets but also in the labour markets. There is a need for constant efforts to attract,
develop and retain the right kind of talent, which becomes the prime source of differen-
tiation. Any failure in doing so results in the loss of human capital to competition and
ultimately the market standing of the organisation. A set of stable staff, as espoused
by Henry Fayol in his 14 principles of management, will help the organisation in
its endeavour to achieve the business objectives. In a dynamic business environment
organisational performance may be vastly affected by extraneous factors. However,
extraneous factors are common to all participants in an industry and under such cir-
cumstances factors that differentiate, a winner from others, are a set of motivated,
satisfied and stable work force. Two-factor theory, a contribution of the behavioural
sciences approach school to management, holds immense relevance even today in
employee motivation efforts. We still have certain motives that drive us to take up a
job and all these motives may not satisfy us with the job. However, the motives might
have changed in the past six decades since the initial proposal of the two-factor theory.
The current paper tries to investigate the motives, that are relevant to the research
subjects, for taking up the profession and which among them can be classified as
‘motivating’ and ‘hygiene’ factors. The study results will immensely help managers
develop suitable strategies to motivate and satisfy their employees leading to enhanced
organisational performance.
Indian pharmaceutical industry has been a vanguard, along with the IT industry,
to the health of the Indian economy. It has grown significantly, post liberalisation,
and is the pivot on which cost effective health care efforts in India and the world
across are hinged on. This is proven by the facts that India produces 10 % of the
Global medicines by volume, 20 % of the Global generic medicines, has the largest
concentration of US-FDA approved plats outside the United States and export to more
than 200 countries across the world; all this while contributing only to 1.4 % in value to
global pharmaceutical sales [20]. The domestic pharmaceutical industry has grown to
about 12 billion USD (about 80000 crore rupees) with about 20000 registered players;
making it one of the most competitive industries in the country. The competition has
meant that success for any organisation depends on its marketing efforts. A study by
Mazumdar found that the profitability of the pharmaceutical organisations significantly
depended on the marketing expenditures [25].
Most industries have certain critical roles which absorb its best efforts in terms of
resources like time, investment and human capital. For the pharmaceutical industry the
critical roles are research & marketing. A good research will ensure a constant supply
of innovative and new products which, when combined with good marketing will
ensure successful commercialization and revenue generation. Marketing is of special
importance to pharmaceutical industry due to the scientific nature of the products
and the legal restrictions on sales and marketing. The marketing in pharmaceutical
industry is ‘direct’ in nature. The products are directly marketed to the customer
(the medical practitioner) who decides on the consumption and the consumer has no
role in the buying process except for paying and consuming the product. There is
wide usage of field force to directly market the product to a highly targeted customer

123
Ann. Data. Sci. (2016) 3(2):155–173 157

segment through personal selling. There are about 150,000 medical reps in India
that forms the foundation of this massive direct marketing effort [29]. This often is
the only available method of marketing as directly selling the product through mass
communication, as done by other fast moving consumer goods makers, is legally
restricted and considered unethical. The severe competition in the industry and the
dependence on the sales staff has resulted in high role stress. When combined with
a plethora of job opportunities, due to the market growth, the role stress has resulted
in high turnover among pharmaceutical sales personnel. The turnover rates reported
vary from above 20 %, as reported by line managers to 30 % [6]. This has necessitated
constant effort in finding suitable ways to motivate and satisfy the sales force with
an aim to retaining them. Any success or failure in doing so decides an organisations
ability to succeed and exist perpetually.

2 Motive, Motivation and Satisfaction

The words motive, motivation and satisfaction are widely interchangingly used by
researchers. However, motive/ motivation are a clearly different concept from sat-
isfaction and it is essential to clarify the same in relation to jobs. Both, Oxford and
Cambridge dictionaries [5,30], define motive (noun) as the reason for doing something.
When used along with another noun it is considered to be an adjective. Motivation
(noun) on the other hand is treated slightly differently by the two dictionaries. Cam-
bridge dictionary treats it as the enthusiasm for doing something. Oxford, on the other
hand, defines it as the reason why somebody does something or behaves in a particular
way. Satisfaction is the good feeling that you have when you have achieved some-
thing or something you wanted to happen does happen by the Oxford dictionary. The
Cambridge dictionary defines satisfaction as a pleasant feeling which you get when
you receive something you wanted or when you have done something you wanted
to do.
It has to be clearly understood that ‘motive/ motivation’ is the reason for an action,
the reason for somebody to do something. Motivation, sometimes, may be used to
indicate the level of ‘enthusiasm’ for something. Satisfaction however, is associated
with the outcome of the activity. It indicates the good or pleasant feeling that emanates
when the result of the activity matches your expectation. In case of a job the motive
might be various like money, growth opportunity, social recognition, ability to be cre-
ative, autonomy provided by the job, authority provided by the job etc. Satisfaction
with the job is a pleasant feeling you get when you achieve your objective regarding
the motive i.e. when you perceive that you have received adequate amount of mone-
tary rewards, grown as expected, had adequate autonomy on the job, could use your
creative skills etc. (In all there are about 24 job attributes that have been studied as the
motive for doing a certain as per available literature). Apart from satisfaction with the
individual job attributes employee may also rate the job overall, where employee may
consider the job overall as satisfying or not irrespective of his rating of the individual
attributes.

123
158 Ann. Data. Sci. (2016) 3(2):155–173

3 Two-Factor Theory

Two Factor Theory proposed in 1959 by Frederick Herzberg is also called as Motivator-
Hygiene theory. It was a refreshing departure from job satisfaction theories till then as
it considered job satisfaction as two separate continuums. It was based on the premise
that presence of one set of job attributes (motives) lead to job satisfaction and absence
of a completely different set of job attributes (hygiene) lead to job dissatisfaction. Till
Herzberg’s two factor theory, job satisfaction was considered as a single continuum
represented by satisfaction and dissatisfaction at the two opposing extremes [2]. It
was assumed the motives for doing a job either caused satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
However, this view was to change with the proposal of two factor theory, forever. The
two factor theory postulated that job satisfaction was made of two different continuums.
One continuum controlled by hygiene factors represented dissatisfaction at one end of
the continuum and no-dissatisfaction at the opposing end of the continuum. The second
continuum, controlled by motivating factors, represented no-dissatisfaction at one end
and satisfaction at the opposing end. It was postulated that hygiene factors, when
present in a job, caused no dissatisfaction. However, when absent the hygiene factors
caused dissatisfaction with the job (Fig. 1). On the other hand the motivating factors
caused satisfaction when present and no dissatisfaction when absent. This necessitated
managers to consider two sets of job attributes one that satisfied the employees and
one that did not dissatisfy the employees.
The two factor theory was the result of a study, sponsored by the Buhl founda-
tion, in the industrial town of Pittsburg that began in 1957. The study used critical
incident method that allowed participants to rate incidents according to its impact on
job attitude. The incidents were classified in to two types’ viz. high sequence and
low sequence events. The high and low sequence events found to be were mutually
exclusive except for salary. Salary was later classified as a high sequence event and
appreciation and recognition as a part of low sequence event as it was often considered
a part of salary in the study. The high sequence events were labeled as hygiene factors
and did not cause job satisfaction when present but resulted in dissatisfaction when
absent. The low sequence events were labeled as motivators and caused job satisfaction

Fig. 1 Two-factor theory

123
Ann. Data. Sci. (2016) 3(2):155–173 159

when present and caused no dissatisfaction when absent. Based on these two types of
factors the two factor theory of job satisfaction was proposed in 1959. The two factor
theory also borrowed liberally from Maslow’s theory of need hierarchy. The hygiene
factors represented the lower level needs like physiological and safety needs and the
motivating factors represented higher order needs like belongingness, security and self
actualization needs.
Herzberg classified supervision, interpersonal relation, physical working condition,
salary, company policy and its administration, benefits and job security as the hygiene
factors. The motivating factors included recognition, sense of achievement, growth,
responsibility, advancement and the work itself [32]. The motivating factors were also
called intrinsic factors as they came from within the job itself and the hygiene factors
were considered as extrinsic factors as they were external to the job. Further stud-
ies on job satisfaction considered many more motives, apart from those studied by
Herzberg, while studying job satisfaction. Job satisfaction instruments like Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire measures about 20 factors while studying job satisfaction.
An extensive literature review yielded about 24 factors that contributed to job satis-
faction. The motives were referred, often interchangingly, as job characteristics, job
attributes, job factors etc. by various researchers. The two-factor theory is one of the
most widely applied job satisfaction theories in designing jobs. The jobs were specif-
ically designed to include motivating factors to improve the motivation potential of
the job and ensuring the presence of hygiene factors to prevent job dissatisfaction.
The two-factor theory also has its applications in job enlargement, job rotation and
job enrichment [33]. The two-factor theory also significantly influences the later job
satisfaction theories like job characteristics model [13].

4 Evidence and Criticism

There has been empirical support for and against the two-factor theory. The criticism
for the theory has been mainly on three fronts that includes the basic assumptions of
the study, its methodology and findings of the study. The biggest criticism of the two-
factor theory has been its methodology. Motivating and hygiene factors are still well
regarded. However, separate continuum of satisfaction and dissatisfaction is generally
considered a figment of the ‘Critical Incident Technique’ used by Herzberg and it is
today accepted that they exist on the same continuum [19]. Lodahl [24] opined that
the relation between motivation and satisfaction was shallow was in nature and trying
to interpret one from the other not very advisable. Lawler [21] questioned the theory
based on the satisfaction-performance relationship, which was considered indirect.
Studying in the same lines Schwab and DeVitt [34] found that the two-factor theory
of satisfaction held ‘good’, but there was no connection between satisfaction and
performance. Ewen et al. [10] found that the ‘retrospective’ account, used by Herzberg,
suspect and studied job satisfaction using job descriptive index (JDI), a previously
validated method. They found that only ‘work itself’ had any important bearing on
job satisfaction. Similar results were later obtained in the empirical investigations of
[9,36]. According to Farr [11], Herzberg’s method derived a causal relationship due to
socially desirable responses by the research subjects. He also opined that it is human

123
160 Ann. Data. Sci. (2016) 3(2):155–173

to attribute satisfaction to internal factors and dissatisfaction to external factors, a kind

of fundamental attribution error.
Lindsay et al. [22] found that the same factors could impact both job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction and concluded that the idea of two distinct continuums, of satisfaction,
should be re-evaluated. [4], while studying certified public accountants found that both
job satisfaction and dissatisfaction were derived from hygiene as well as motivating
factors. Maidani [28], in his study of private and public sector employees, also found
evidence for both hygiene and motivating factors to be sources of job satisfaction,
indicating a single continuum. It was also accepted that Herzberg’s study did not
include blue collared workers and did not consider individual differences induced by
factors like position, culture etc [16]. A study by Tutor [37] with the Tennessee Career
Ladder Programme (TCLP) found that teachers were motivated by hygiene factors
like money.
Studies supporting the two-factor theory also have been abundant. Herzberg, him-
self, replicated his study among low level supervisors in Finland and found similar
results as the original study; establishing the cross cultural validity of two-factor the-
ory [14,15]. Salary was an item of contention in the original studies by Herzberg due
to its complex treatment. Macarov [26] conducted his investigations of the two-factor
theory in an Israeli kibbutz, where the hygiene needs are generally fulfilled by the kib-
butz. The findings of his study supported the two-factor theory. Bockman [3], while
reviewing over 30 studies related to investigations of the two factor theory, opined
that the differences and conflicting results were due to measuring different things and
not invalidation of the two factor theory. Gaziel [12], while studying school principals
in Israel, found distinction between motivation and hygiene factors thus providing
cross-cultural validation for two factor theory.

5 Research Model

Due to the impact of jobs on the human lives, as we spend most of our productive years
on the job, it has been one of the most widely studied job attitudes [24]. According to
the ABC theory of attitudes [32], attitudes are tripartite construct with cognitive, affec-
tive and behavioural components. The cognitive component deals with the evaluation
of the attitudinal objects, the evaluation leads to affection towards the attitudinal object
and this in turn decides the behavioural intention regarding the attitudinal object. The
complex construct of the attitude has led to usage of varying methods of studying job
satisfaction. Considering the vastly different methods used to investigate job satisfac-
tion and the two-factor theory it may be beneficial to clarify the research model at this
juncture. The current study considers ‘satisfaction’ with the job to be a single con-
tinuum unlike proposed by Herzberg. It however, considers the motives to belong to
two different categories/ factors viz. hygiene and motivating with only the motivating
factor having any influence on job satisfaction. Combining the two-factor theory and
ABC model of job satisfaction the current study proposed the following model for
empirical investigation (Fig. 2). It proposes that the evaluation (cognition) of the job
motives (job attributes) will influence the affection towards the job. The motives will

123
Ann. Data. Sci. (2016) 3(2):155–173 161

Fig. 2 Proposed research model

fall in to two categories/ factors viz. hygiene and motivating factors. It is hypothesized
that
H1 Motivating factors will have a significant effect on affective job satisfaction.
H2 Hygiene factors will have no significant effect on affective job satisfaction.
The study does not include the ‘behavioural’ part of the attitude (job satisfaction)
in its scope. The study measures the satisfaction with the motives and the affective job
satisfaction using separate instruments unlike Herzberg’s critical incident methods of
evaluating the motives and job satisfaction.

6 Research Methodology

This section discusses, in detail, the research, sampling and data design used in the
study. It also includes an introduction to the analysis is also included in this section.

6.1 Research Design

The classification of research design is varying and is usually based on the descriptors.
The current study, based on the purpose, is descriptive in nature. It is a formal study
in it that the research questions are clearly crystallized and the objective is to verify
the same. On the time dimension it is a cross sectional study involving one time data
collection from the sample. The study is conducted in two stages. A pilot survey
that explores the factor structure (based on Herzberg’s two-factor theory). This is
followed by a confirmatory stage where the factor structure and the research model
were empirically tested.

6.2 Sampling Design

The use of sampling has been adopted for both stages of the study. The sample size for
the pilot study has been calculated on the basis of number of variable (Motives/ job

123
162 Ann. Data. Sci. (2016) 3(2):155–173

attributes) measured. For the confirmatory study the sample size has been calculated
based on the population size (150,000 pharmaceutical sales and marketing profession-
als). In both cases a margin of 20 % was maintained while recruiting the samples. The
final sample attained for the pilot survey was 149 respondents and for the confirmatory
survey had 450 respondents. The sampling design was different for the pilot and con-
firmatory survey. The pilot survey used an online snowballing technique to recruit the
respondents. The survey questionnaire link (the survey was hosted on a website) was
mailed to the acquaintances from the profession with a request for participation and
for reference to their acquaintance from the profession. Follow up remainders were
sent at the end of 4th and 6th week. A total of about 480 mails were sent out and 149
responses were received at the end of the 6th week at response rate of about 30 %.
The confirmatory survey used multi stage cluster sampling to recruit the respondents.
The country was geographically divided in to four zones and the metro city in each
zone was selected as the representative city. The subjects were field intercepted at the
premises of the 3 largest pharmaceutical distributors in the city. It was orally ensured
that they had not participated in this/ similar survey in the near past to prevent over-
laps and repetition of the samples. A total of 450 usable responses were received at a
response rate of about 80 %.

6.3 Research Instrument

The study used a self administered questionnaire for both stages of the research.
For the pilot survey the questionnaire was an online version which was hosted on a
survey website and accessed through a link. The confirmatory survey used the paper
and pencil version of the same questionnaire. The survey instrument was specifically
developed for this purpose using the ten step/ three phase approach advised by [35]. The
instrument measured 17 motives (job attributes) using 2 homogenous item composites.
The instrument also measured affective job satisfaction using 4 homogenous item
composites. In all the questionnaire had 38 questions and all the items used a 5 point
‘agreement type’ Likert scaling. The job attributes with their functional definition is
given in Annexure1 and the final Questionnaire is given in Annexure 2.

6.4 Analysis Tools

The study used SPSS and AMOS for data analysis. The pilot survey analysed the factor
structure using PCA (Principle Component Analysis) with SPSS. The confirmatory
survey used AMOS for CFA (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) to confirm the factor
structure, ascertain the structural validity and verify the hypothesis. The same are
discussed in detail in the next section.

7 Analysis and Discussion

The analysis and discussion consists of two parts. In the pilot survey an exploration of
the factor structure is done in line with the two-factor theory. The confirmatory stage

123
Ann. Data. Sci. (2016) 3(2):155–173 163

Table 1 Test of sampling

KMO and Bartlett’s test
adequacy
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure 0.88
of sampling adequacy
Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 1186.94
df 171.00
Sig. 0.00

deals with the verification of the factor structure, proposed research model and the
research hypothesis.

7.1 Pilot Survey

The pilot survey had a total sample of 149 subjects and the main objective was to
discover the underlying factor structure for the motives (job attributes) included in the
study. An Exploratory Factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using Principle Compo-
nent Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation. The analysis was programmed to extract
only two factors in line with the two-factor theory. The KMO measure of sampling
adequacy was 0.88 at 99 % CI level and was considered good [27] (Table 1).
Both factors had an Eigen value of more than one and together extracted 50 % of
the total variance (Table 2).
The communalities extracted for the motives (job attributes) indicated that it varied
between 0.41 (co-worker relation) and 0.62 (clarity of roles and responsibilities). The
communalities extracted were above 0.32, as recommended by [7].The first factor had
11 motives (job attributes) and included clarity of role and responsibility, recognition,
ability utilisation, organisational stability and prospects, supervision-interpersonal,
supervision-technical, co-worker relation, morality, creativity and communication sat-
isfaction. The factor was more intrinsic in nature (it also has some extrinsic factors) and
was named as Motivating Factor. The second factor had six motives (Job attributes)
and included compensation, work-life balance, policy, job security, growth opportu-
nity and justice. This factor looked more extrinsic in nature (it also has some intrinsic
factors) and was named as Hygiene Factor. The final factor structure is as in Table 3.

7.2 Confirmatory Survey

The confirmatory survey was done to verify the factor structures obtained in the pilot
survey and subsequent analysis. It also empirically verified the research model and the
research hypothesis. This stage had a total sample size of 450 subjects and used a self
administered paper and pencil questionnaire for data collection. The data was analysed
using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using AMOS that uses a co-variance based
structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) for structural validation. The validity of the
proposed structure is indicated by the fit indices. For CFA a wide range of fit indices
are available and use of multiple fit indices is generally recommended. The fit indices
are generally classified in to absolute and incremental indices [18]. The absolute fit

123
 164

123
Table 2 Factor extraction-EFA

Total variance explained

Component Initial Eigen values Extraction sums of squared loadings Rotation sums of squared loadings

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 (Intrinsic) 7.15 42.09 42.09 7.15 42.09 42.09 5.20 30.61 30.61
2 (Extrinsic) 1.33 7.81 49.90 1.33 7.81 49.90 3.28 19.29 49.90
Ann. Data. Sci. (2016) 3(2):155–173
Ann. Data. Sci. (2016) 3(2):155–173 165

Table 3 Factor structure EFA

Rotated component matrix

Component

Motivating factor/intrinsic Hygiene Communalities

(intrinsic factor) factor/extrinsic extracted

Clarity of role and responsibility 0.78 0.08 0.61

Recognition 0.70 0.27 0.57
Ability utilisation 0.69 0.18 0.50
Organisational stability 0.67 0.14 0.47
Supervision interpersonal 0.64 0.26 0.48
Independence and autonomy 0.64 0.37 0.54
Supervision technical 0.63 0.35 0.52
Co worker relation 0.62 0.14 0.41
Morality 0.62 0.30 0.47
Creativity 0.58 0.29 0.42
Communication satisfaction 0.58 0.28 0.42
Compensation 0.16 0.72 0.54
Work-life balance 0.04 0.70 0.50
Policy 0.21 0.68 0.51
Job security 0.38 0.59 0.50
Growth Opportunity 0.38 0.57 0.47
Justice 0.50 0.51 0.51

Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization
(Rotation converged in 3 iterations.)

indices does not use a base line model for ascertaining the model fit and include,
RMSEA, GFI, AGFI, RMR and SRMR. The incremental indices, on the other hand,
uses a baseline model for ascertaining the model fit and include NFI, NNFI, CFI, PNFI
and CAIC.
The various fit indices indicated good empirical validity for the proposed research
model (Fig. 2). CMIN/df (normed chi square) was 3.0 for the proposed model and
well below 5.0 as recommended by Wheaton et al [38]. RMSEA of less than .08 is
recommended by Mac Callum and the current model returned a RMSEA of 0.067
indicating good model fit. [17] recommends CFI, NFI and NNFI should be more than
0.9 to indicate model validity. The proposed model returned 0.916, 0.88 and 0.903 for
the three measures respectively indicating validity of the proposed research model. A
summation, of the various indices, is given in Table 4.
The convergent and discriminent validity of a model is of utmost importance for
it indicated how the measures of the constructs are related or different. The average
variance extracted (AVE), the maximum shared variance (MSV) and the structural
reliability (SR) will indicate the convergence and divergence between the two-factors
(Table 5 ). The AVE extracted for the ‘motivating’ factor’ is 0.42 and for the ‘hygiene
factor’ it is 0.35. This is below the desired levels of 0.5 and indicated poor convergence.

123
166 Ann. Data. Sci. (2016) 3(2):155–173

Table 4 Model fit

Fit index Value obtained Value desired
indices—CFA
CMIN/df 3 3 or less
RMSEA 0.067 0.08 or less
NFI 0.88 0.9 or more
CFI 0.916 0.9 or more
TLI (NNFI) 0.903 0.9 or more
P value 0.00 0.05 or less
PCLOSE 0.00 0.05 or less

Table 5 AVE, MSV and

Parameter Score Indication
structural reliability for the
two-factors AVE—F1 0.45 Poor convergence
AVE—F2 0.35 Poor convergence
MSV—F1/F2 0.65 Poor divergence
Structural reliability F1 0.89 Good
Structural reliability F2 0.79 Good

The MSV between the two-factors were 0.64 and well above the desired values of 0.50
indicating poor divergence. The structural reliability for the motivating and hygiene
factors was 0.89 and 0.79 respectively indicating good reliability for both the factors.
This may be due to the fact that some of the motives (job attributes) were loading
significantly on both the factors. Affective job satisfaction however, was affected only
by motivating factors. The final model arrived at, after CFA, is given in Fig. 3.
The standard regression weight for motivating factor and affective job satisfaction
was 0.823 which was significant at 99 % CI levels. Thus, H1 is not rejected. This indi-
cated that about 67 % of variance in affective job satisfaction was explained by moti-
vating factors. The hygiene factors however, had no influence on the affective job satis-
faction with a standardised regression weight of −0.033 with a p value of 0.705. Thus,
H2 is not rejected. The standard regression weights for the model are given in Table 6.
Previous empirical investigations, of two-factor theory, also have returned results
that did not confirm to two-factor theory as exactly proposed by Herzberg. [1] found
the empirical results of two-factor theory confusing and imprecise while studying job
satisfaction. While investigating job satisfaction among waste management profes-
sionals, [23], found that hygiene factors caused job satisfaction and not motivating
factors. [31], while studying employees in Thai construction industry, also found the
results of two-factor theory confusing. In a study of business student satisfaction and
retention [8] found that college student’s satisfaction was consistent with Herzberg’s
two-factor theory.

8 Conclusions

Managers are responsible for creating satisfied employees. Satisfied employees in-turn
enhances organisational performance and stay longer in their job there by enhancing

123
Ann. Data. Sci. (2016) 3(2):155–173 167

Fig. 3 Two-factor model

the organisational stability. However what motives (job attributes) satisfy an employee
is an intriguing question. This seems to depend on the characteristics of the profession
and the person. The empirical evidence generated by the current study leads to the
following conclusions.
• The job motives (attributes) can be classified in to two-factors as proposed by
Herzberg.
• Only one of the factors affected affective job satisfaction and can be termed as
motivating factor and the other factor as hygiene factor.
• The motivating factors were not purely intrinsic or the hygiene factors extrinsic in
nature. There was cross loading of the job motives (attributes) on to the opposing
factors.
• The hygiene and motivating factors were not fully independent and co-varied
significantly.
The pharmaceutical sales and marketing professionals considered 17 motives impor-
tant for their profession. The 17 motives could be classified in to two factor viz.
hygiene factors and motivating factors. The motivating factors significantly influenced
job satisfaction of the employees and included clarity of role and responsibility, recog-

123
168 Ann. Data. Sci. (2016) 3(2):155–173

Table 6 Standardised regression weights

Motive (job attribute) Factor Regression weight

Clarity of role and responsibility Motivating factor 0.71**

Recognition Motivating factor 0.72**
Ability utilisation Motivating factor 0.68**
Organisational stability and prospects Motivating factor 0.68**
Supervision—technical Motivating factor 0.64**
Independence and autonomy Motivating factor 0.71**
Co-worker relation Motivating factor 0.56**
Morality Motivating factor 0.66**
Creativity Motivating factor 0.62**
Communication satisfaction Motivating factor 0.69**
Supervision interpersonal Motivating factor 0.69**
Job security Hygiene factor 0.58**
Time utilisation Hygiene factor 0.47**
Policy fairness Hygiene factor 0.60**
Growth opportunity Hygiene factor 0.67**
Justice Hygiene factor 0.65**
Compensation Hygiene factor 0.70**
Motivating factor AJS 0.82** H1 not rejected
Hygiene factor AJS −0.03 H2 not rejected

** p < 0.01

nition, ability utilisation, organisational stability and prospects, supervision technical,

supervision interpersonal, independence and autonomy, co-worker relation, morality,
creativity, communication satisfaction and supervision interpersonal. The hygiene fac-
tors had no influence on job satisfaction and included job security, time utilisation,
policy fairness, growth opportunity, justice and compensation. However, the hygiene
and motivating factors co-varied significantly indicating that the hygiene factors can-
not be neglected while motivating employees.

9 Managerial Implications

Motivation and retention of employees is a prime responsibility of managers which will

help them in achieving the organisational objectives. For a pharmaceutical sales man-
ager there are about 11 attributes (motives) that contribute to employee job satisfaction
and classified as motivating factors. The manager should widely use them to creating
satisfied employees ensuring organisational performance. There are 6 attributes that
do not influence job satisfaction and are called hygiene factors. However, he should
not neglect the hygiene factors altogether as they have a significant influence on the
motivating factors. For example ‘organisation’s growth prospect’ may cause job sat-
isfaction to an employee but when it does not result in improved ‘growth opportunity’

123
Ann. Data. Sci. (2016) 3(2):155–173 169

and ‘higher salaries’ for the employees it may not have any effect on employee’s sat-
isfaction and rather may play a contradictory role. Similarly, recognition will improve
job satisfaction. However, any lack of justice in recognition of the employee may be
counterproductive. Thus it is imperative that the practicing managers liberally use the
motivating factors to enhance the job satisfaction level of employees while ensuring
satisfaction levels with the hygiene factors.

10 Limitations and Future Research

The major limitation of the study is in the coverage it achieves. The study is done among
sales and marketing personnel from one industry, pharmaceuticals. Thus, extrapolation
of the results will have to be done with caution. Future studies may look at an improved
scope of coverage while examining the subject to generate more generalizable results.
It is also proposed, for future research, that the two-factor theory of job satisfaction will
be profession and personnel dependent. Combining Maslow’s need hierarchy and two
factor theory it can be proposed that employees in unskilled professions, needing low
education and skill requirements and generally giving low payoffs, will be satisfied
by hygiene factors. The vice-versa may be proposed true for the skilled labour. It also
should be investigated whether employees from a more privileged intellectual and
financial background are satisfied with intrinsic factors and their colleagues from less
privileged background with hygiene factors.

Annexure 1: Motives (Job Attributes) and Their Functional Definition

Motive (job attribute) and definition

Ability utilisation Chance to use one’s skills and abilities on the job
Time utilisation Ability to optimally balance one’s time between professional and personal life
Growth opportunity Chances of advancement in the current job
Independence Freedom to do make and execute your business plans on the job
Policy fairness Perceived fairness of company’s policy regarding employees
Compensation fairness Feeling adequacy of the financial remuneration for the job performed
Co-worker relation How you feel about your relation with colleagues and work teams
Creativity Opportunity to try new ways of doing things on the job
Job security A feeling that you will not be removed unreasonably from employment
Morality Feeling of fit between personal moral values and values demanded by the job
Recognition Appreciation received in return of a good job done
Supervision (interpersonal) The way manager treats/ interacts with you
Supervision (technical) Manager’s ability to guide and train me on the job various aspects of the job
Work pressure The physical and mental impact of the job
Communication satisfaction Satisfaction with relevancy and timeliness of communication within the
organisation

123
170 Ann. Data. Sci. (2016) 3(2):155–173

Motive (job attribute) and definition

Justice Transparency and fairness in implementing the company policies

Clarity of role and responsibility Clarity of what needs to be done on the job and what results you are
accountable for
Organisational stability and prospects The perception about the financial stability and future prospects of
the organisation
Opportunity perception Perception about availability of suitable alternative employments
Affective job satisfaction Positive emotional state resulting from appraisal of one’s job attributes or job
experiences

Annexure 2: Survey Instrument

Kindly tick the appropriate response on each statements given below as

1: Strongly agree 2: Agree 3: Neither agree or disagree 4: Disagree 5: Strongly

disagree

No Statements Categories

1 I have good growth opportunities in my current job 1 2 3 4 5

2 My organisation provides me a steady employment 1 2 3 4 5
3 I get adequate time to spend with my family and friends 1 2 3 4 5
after work
4 The company policies towards employees are fair 1 2 3 4 5
5 My manager treats me equitably (equal to others) 1 2 3 4 5
6 I have friend/s at work 1 2 3 4 5
7 My manager trains me on all aspects of the job 1 2 3 4 5
8 I will not be removed unreasonably from my 1 2 3 4 5
employment
9 I can enlist my colleague’s support in times of 1 2 3 4 5
professional difficulties
10 I am treated with respect by my manager 1 2 3 4 5
11 I do my job without feeling guilty 1 2 3 4 5
12 When I do a good job, it is recognised immediately 1 2 3 4 5
13 My organisation is financially performing well 1 2 3 4 5
14 Overall I am satisfied with my work 1 2 3 4 5
15 I can seek clarification and additional information 1 2 3 4 5
regarding decisions affecting me
16 I can try new ways of doing things on the job 1 2 3 4 5
17 I am adequately paid for the work I do 1 2 3 4 5
18 I am asked to work according to an ethics code 1 2 3 4 5
19 I will recommend my company to a known job seeker 1 2 3 4 5
20 My organisation has good vision and plans for the future 1 2 3 4 5

123
Ann. Data. Sci. (2016) 3(2):155–173 171

No Statements Categories

21 My organisation communicates relevant information 1 2 3 4 5

22 I am able to use my skills and abilities regularly at work 1 2 3 4 5
23 I have been clearly communicated about results 1 2 3 4 5
expected, of me, on the job
24 My manager regularly appreciates my good work 1 2 3 4 5
25 I am appreciated for trying new ways of doing my work 1 2 3 4 5
26 Company policies towards employees are comparable to 1 2 3 4 5
similar organization
27 Rewards and punishments are dispensed fairly in my 1 2 3 4 5
organization
28 Employees are treated with respect and dignity 1 2 3 4 5
29 I get to work independently of others 1 2 3 4 5
30 My work is suited to my skills and abilities 1 2 3 4 5
31 I get to make decisions about my job 1 2 3 4 5
32 My organisation communicates information timely 1 2 3 4 5
33 I have a fair chance of advancement in the current job 1 2 3 4 5
34 My salary is comparable (more or less equal) to similar 1 2 3 4 5
companies
35 I have clear directions on how to perform my job 1 2 3 4 5
36 I feel enthusiastic about my job 1 2 3 4 5
37 I find real enjoyment in my work 1 2 3 4 5
38 My manager is competent in guiding me through 1 2 3 4 5
difficult professional situations

References
1. Atchison TJ, Lefferts EA (1972) The prediction of turnover using Herzberg’s job satisfaction technique.
Pers Psychol 25(1):53–64
2. Behling O, Labovitz G, Kosmo R (1968) The Herzberg controversy: a critical reappraisal. Acad Manag
J 11(1):99–108
3. Bockman V (1971) The Herzberg controversy. Pers Psychol 24(2):155–189
4. Brenner V, Carmack C, Weinstein M (1971) An empirical test of the motivation-hygiene theory. J
Account Res 9(2):359–366
5. Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2008) (3rd edn.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
6. Chary S, Gupta T (2014) A study on field force attrition and the response of consulting doctors in
Greater Mumbai. Express Pharma. Retrieved from http://archive.expresspharmaonline.com/sections/
pharma-life-2/3954-a-study-on-field-force-attrition-and-the-response-of-consulting-doctors-in-gre
ater-mumbai. Accessed 9 Apr 2015
7. Crocker L, Algina J (1986) Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
Orlando
8. DeShields Oscar W Jr, Kara Ali, Kaynak Erdener (2005) Determinants of business student satisfaction
and retention in higher education: applying Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Int J Educ Manag 19(2):128–
139
9. Dunaway L, Running A (2009) Job satisfaction as self-care within a restrictive regulatory environment:
Nevada’s study. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 21(10):557–564
10. Ewen R, Smith P, Hulin C, Locke E (1966) An empirical test of the Herzberg two-factor theory. J Appl
Psychol 50(6):544–550

123
172 Ann. Data. Sci. (2016) 3(2):155–173

11. Farr R (1977) On the nature of attributional artifacts in qualitative research: Herzberg’s two- factor
theory of work motivation. J Occup Psychol 50(1):3–14
12. Gaziel H (1986) Correlates of job satisfaction: a study of the two factor theory in an educational setting.
J Psychol 120(6):613–626
13. Hackman JR, Oldham GR (1976) Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Org Behav
Hum Perform 16(2):250–279. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
14. Herzberg F (1965) The motivation to work among Finnish supervisors. Pers Psychol 18(4):393–402
15. Herzberg F (1968) One more time: how do you motivate employees? Harvard Bus Rev 46(1):53–62
16. Hines GH (1973) Cross-cultural differences in two-factor motivation theory. J Appl Psychol 58(3):375–
377
17. Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6(1):1–55
18. Jöreskog K, Sörbom D (1993) LISREL 8: structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command
language. Scientific Software International Inc, Chicago
19. King N (1970) Clarification and evaluation of the two-factor theory of job satisfaction. Psychol Bull
74(1):18–31
20. Kodgule MM (2012) Growth of Indian pharmaceutical industry: impact of Indian, US & European
patent laws and regulatory requirements. Pharma Times 44(7):45–49
21. Lawler E (1970) Job attitudes and employee motivation: theory, research, and practice. Pers Psychol
23(2):223–237
22. Lindsay C, Marks E, Gorlow L (1967) The Herzberg theory: a critique and reformulation. J Appl
Psychol 51(4):330–339
23. Locke EA, Whiting RJ (1974) Sources of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among solid waste man-
agement employees. J Appl Psychol 59(2):145–156
24. Lodahl T (1964) Patterns of job attitudes in two assembly technologies. Adm Sci Quart 8(4):482–519
25. Mazumdar M (2013) Performance of pharmaceutical companies in India, contributions to economics.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin. doi:10.1007/978-3-7908-2876-4_2
26. Macarov D (1972) Work patterns and satisfactions in an Israeli kibbutz: a test of the Herzberg hypoth-
esis. Pers Psychol 25(15):483–493
27. MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM (1996) Power analysis and determination of sample size
for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods 1(2):130–149
28. Maidani E (1991) Comparative study of Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction among public
and private sectors. Public Pers Manag 20(4):441–448
29. Mathew, C Joe (2013, June, 5) Indian Pill Brigade: Medical Reps must evolve if they want to keep
up with times. http://www.businessworld.in/news/business/pharma/the-pill-brigade/911437/page-1.
html. Accessed 1 Dec 2014
30. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. (2010). 8th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford: UK
31. Rathavoot R, Ogunlana SO (2003) Testing Herzberg’s two-factor theory in the Thai construction
industry. Eng Constr Archit Manag 10(5):333–341
32. Rosenberg MJ, Hovland CI (eds) (1960) Cognitive, affective and behavioural components of attitudes.
In: Attitude organization and change: an analysis of consistency among attitude components. Yale
University Press, New Haven
33. Schultz DP, Schultz SE (2010) Psychology and work today: an introduction to industrial and organi-
zational psychology, 10th edn. Prentice Hall, New York
34. Schwab D, DeVitt W (1971) A test of the adequacy of the two factor theory as a predictor of self-report
performance effects. Pers Psychol 24(2):293–303
35. Slavec A, Drnovsek M (2012) A perspective on scale development in entrepreneurship research. Econ
Bus Rev 14(1):39–62
36. Smerek R, Peterson M (2007) Examining Herzberg’s theory: Improving job satisfaction among non-
academic employees at a university. Res High Educ 48(2):229–250
37. Tutor FD (1986) ‘The relationship between perceived need deficiencies and factors influencing teacher
participation in the tennessee career ladder. Doctoral dissertation, Memphis State University, Memphis,
TN
38. Wheaton B, Muthen B, Alwin DF, Summers G (1977) Assessing reliability and stability in panel
models. Sociol Methodol 8(1):84–136

123
Ann. Data. Sci. (2016) 3(2):155–173 173

M. A. Sanjeev is a faculty of management studies at the Jaypee Business School. He has over 15 years of
experience in the field of sales & marketing across the pharmaceutical, advertising and financial services
industry. He has been teaching for the past six years and areas of interest include General Management,
Marketing Communication, Consumer Behaviour and Sales Force Management.

A. V. Surya is a senior vice president at the Social Research Institute Division of IMRB International, a
WPP group company. He has more than two decades experience in the field of Market & Social research
and has closely worked with various governmental and aid developmental agencies in the field of educa-
tion, health, water & sanitation and other social issues.

123