APPLICATION OF HERZBERG´S MOTIVATOR-HYGIENE

THEORY FOR THE ALBANIAN WORKFORCE

GRADUATION PROJECT

KRISTI PODGORICA

EPOKA UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

TIRANA, ALBANIA
June,2022
 APPLICATION OF HERZBERG´S MOTIVATOR-HYGIENE
THEORY FOR THE ALBANIAN WORKFORCE

Kristi Podgorica

Thesis Submitted in Fulfillment of Requirement for the Graduation Project in

Business Administration

Epoka University
2022

II
 APPROVAL PAGE

Student Name & Surname: Kristi Podgorica

Faculty: Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences
Department: Business Administration
Thesis Title: APPLICATION OF HERZBERG´S MOTIVATOR-HYGIENE
THEORY FOR THE ALBANIAN WORKFORCE
Date of Defense: 23/06/2022

I certify that this final work satisfies all the requirements as a Graduation
Project in Business Administration.
………………………………
Head of Department

This is to certify that I have read this final work and that in my opinion it is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a Graduation Project in Business
Administration.
……………………………….
Supervisor
Examination Committee Members
Title / Name & Surname Affiliation Signature
1-
2-
3-

III
APPLICATION OF HERZBERG´S MOTIVATOR-HYGIENE
THEORY FOR THE ALBANIAN WORKFORCE

ABSTRACT

Albania is considered to have a developing economy. The organizational

behavior of the Albanian workforce is developing with the economy, and a
motivation theory like Herzberg´s two-factor theory can help to make this
evolution easier. This research work aspires to find which factors of this theory
are being fully appreciated and which are the differences between the results
found in Herzberg´s original study and the results found in the Albanian culture
and context.

All the factors that affect job dissatisfaction and job satisfaction will be discussed
on theory and how are these factors established in the Albanian workforce. To
test what hygiene factors, motivator factors or a combination of both are found
in the Albanian workforce, a questionnaire will be conducted to determine which
factors are more valued and which factors are not being fully implied.

After the conduction of this research, a disagreement between Herzberg´s

original observation and our study´s results was found. “Wage or salary” a
hygiene factor in Herzberg’s theory and study, was the most important
motivational factor for our respondents. Furthermore, only two of Herzberg´s
motivation factors are related with job satisfaction for our Albanian workforce.
The other factors, “work itself”, “responsibility” and “recognition” are rated
eighth, ninth and tenth.

IV
 ACKNOWLDEGMENTS

There are many people who helped to make my years at the graduate school most
valuable. First, I thank MSc. Aida Bitri, my Graduation Project supervisor. She
helped with her guidance to get the best from me for this research. I also thank
all the professors who contributed much to the development of my intellectual
way of thinking. They gave me not only their knowledge but also an example of
a good citizen and academician.

Many thanks also to my graduate student colleagues who with I shared many
academic and personal conversations.

The last words of thanks go to my family. I thank my parents Fabjana and

Skender Podgorica and my little sister Kjara Podgorica for their support and help
through my journey.

V
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this Graduation Project, titled APPLICATION OF

HERZBERG´S MOTIVATOR-HYGIENE THEORY FOR THE ALBANIAN
WORKFORCE, is based on my original work except quotations and citations
which have been duly acknowledged. I also declare that this thesis has not been
previously or concurrently submitted for the award of any degree, at Epoka
University, any other university or institution.

(Signature)
Name of Candidate:
Date:

VI
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL PAGE..................................................................................... III

ABSTRACT..................................................................................................IV

ACKNOWLDEGMENTS ............................................................................. V

DECLARATION ..........................................................................................VI

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................IX

LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................XI

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1

1.1 Definition of terms ................................................................................ 2

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................... 4

2.1 Herzberg´s original study ................................................................ 4

2.2 Studies that support the Motivation-Hygiene theory...................... 5

2.3 Opposing studies of Herzberg´s Hygiene-Motivator theory ........... 6

2.4 Case of Albania ................................................................................ 8

2.5 Research aim and objectives ............................................................ 8

2.5.1 Research aim ................................................................................... 8

2.5.2 Specific objectives ........................................................................... 9

3. Research methodology .......................................................................... 10

4. Results ................................................................................................... 12

4.1 Demographic information .............................................................. 12

4.2 Declarations related with hygiene factors ..................................... 15

4.3 Declarations related with motivation factors ................................ 26

VII
 4.4 Rank of Herzberg’s factors ............................................................ 38

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 42

REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 43

APPENDIX A ......................................................................................................... 46

VIII
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: The physical work surroundings are poor. (Age group) ..................... 16
Table 2: The physical surroundings are poor. (Gender) ................................... 17
Table 3: The physical surroundings are poor. (Working years) ....................... 17
Table 4: The physical surroundings are poor. (Working sector) ...................... 17
Table 5: The organizational policies are not ethic and clear. (Age group) ....... 18
Table 6: The organizational policies are not ethic and clear. (Gender) ............ 18
Table 7: The organizational policies are not ethic and clear. (Working years) . 19
Table 8: The organizational policies are not ethic and clear. (Working sector) 19
Table 9: I don´t have a good relationship with my supervisor. ........................ 20
Table 10: I don´t have a good relationship with my supervisor. (Gender) ....... 20
Table 11: I don´t have a good relationship with my supervisor. (Working years)
....................................................................................................................... 20
Table 12: I don´t have a good relationship with my supervisor. ...................... 21
Table 13: I don´t have a good relationship with my co-workers. (Age group) . 22
Table 14: I don´t have a good relationship with my co-workers. (Gender) ...... 22
Table 15: I don´t have a good relationship with my co-workers. (Working
years) ............................................................................................................. 22
Table 16: I don´t have a good relationship with my co-workers. (Working
sector) ............................................................................................................ 23
Table 17: I have a lot of time without receiving a wage raise. (Age group) ..... 24
Table 18: I have a lot of time without receiving a wage raise. (Gender) .......... 24
Table 19: I have a lot of time without receiving a wage raise. (Working years)
....................................................................................................................... 24
Table 20: I have a lot of time without receiving a wage raise. (Working years)
....................................................................................................................... 25
Table 21: I don´t feel like my job place is secure. (Age group) ....................... 25

IX
Table 22: I don´t feel like my job place is secure. (Gender) ............................ 26
Table 23: I don´t feel like my job place is secure. (Working years) ................. 26
Table 24: I don´t feel like my job place is secure. (Working sector) ................ 26
Table 25: I see results from work. (Age group) ............................................... 27
Table 26: I see results from work. (Gender) .................................................... 28
Table 27: I see results from work (Working years) ......................................... 28
Table 28: I see results from work. (Working sector) ....................................... 28
Table 29: My good ideas are accepted. (Age group) ....................................... 29
Table 30: My good ideas are accepted. (Gender) ............................................ 29
Table 31: My good ideas are accepted. (Working years) ................................. 30
Table 32: My good ideas are accepted. (Working sector) ................................ 30
Table 33: The work I do is valued from the society. (Age group).................... 31
Table 34: The work I do is valued from the society. (Gender) ......................... 31
Table 35: The work I do is values from the society. (Working years) .............. 31
Table 36: The work I do is valued from the society. (Working sector) ............ 32
Table 37: I have the responsibility to be independent. (Age group) ................. 32
Table 38: I have the responsibility to be independent. (Gender) ...................... 33
Table 39: I have the responsibility to be independent. (Working years) .......... 33
Table 40: I have the responsibility to be independent. (Working sector) ......... 33
Table 41: I have grown in position within the years. (Age group) ................... 34
Table 42: I have grown in position within the years. (Gender) ........................ 35
Table 43: I have grown in position within the years. (Working years) ............. 35
Table 44: I have grown in position within the years. (Working sector)............ 35
Table 45: I am always challenged to develop professionally. (Age group) ...... 36
Table 46: I am always challenged to develop professionally. (Gender) ........... 37
Table 47: I am always challenged to develop professionally. (Working years) 37
Table 48: I am always challenged to develop professionally. (Working sector)
....................................................................................................................... 37
Table 49: The total score, average rating and the ranking of the factors in the
third part of the questionnaire. ........................................................................ 38
Table 50: Differences between Herzberg´s findings and our findings.............. 40

X
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Clustered column chart of the distribution of respondents by their age

group.............................................................................................................. 12
Figure 2: Pie chart of the distribution of respondents by their gender .............. 13
Figure 3: Clustered column chart of the distribution of respondents by their
working years ................................................................................................. 14
Figure 4: Pie chart of the distribution of respondents by their working sector. 15
Figure 5: Responses from the statement "The physical work surroundings are
poor." ............................................................................................................. 16
Figure 6: Responses from the statement "The organizational policies are not
ethic and clear"............................................................................................... 18
Figure 7: Responses from the statement "I don´t have a good relationship with
my supervisor." .............................................................................................. 19
Figure 8: Responses from the statement "I don´t have a good relationship with
my co-workers." ............................................................................................. 21
Figure 9: Responses from the statement "I have a lot of time without receiving a
wage raise." .................................................................................................... 23
Figure 10: Responses from the statement "I don´t feel like my job place is
secure." .......................................................................................................... 25
Figure 11: Responses from the statement "I see results from work" ................ 27
Figure 12: Responses from the statement "My good ideas are accepted." ........ 29
Figure 13: Responses from the statement "The work I do is valued from the
society." ......................................................................................................... 30
Figure 14: Responses from the statement "I have the responsibility to be
independent." ................................................................................................. 32
Figure 15: Responses from the statement "I have grown in position within the
years." ............................................................................................................ 34
XI
Figure 16: Responses from the statement "I am always challenged to develop
professionally." .............................................................................................. 36
Figure 17: Rank of the factors by their overall score. ...................................... 39
Figure 18: Rank of the factors by their average rating. .................................... 39

XII
 1. INTRODUCTION

If we don´t understand people, we don´t understand business (Sinek,2021).

People are the driving force of the organization and motivating them to give their
best for themselves and for the company is a challenge itself. Different theories
of motivation have been developed through the years, through different economic
or social revolutions, and through people´s attitude towards work.

Motivation is important for people to be prosperous and joyful at work and in

their personal lives. The importance of this factor is shown also with different
theories that explain how the practices of motivation work and strengthen the
foundations of this component. Most of these theories have been developed in
western civilizations and you may find social factors treated in these theories that
are not applicable in other cultures or societies (Iguisi, 2009). These theories, as
many social theories, cannot be considered as universal. Employees in
developing countries may have different motivation backgrounds than
employees in developed countries, as social and cultural factors affect their
development (Ozsoy,2013). Theories that have risen from the importance of
motivation are: McClelland's Theory of Needs (McClelland 1961, 1976, 1985),
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1954), Alderfer's ERG Theory (Alderfer
1967,1969), Porter and Lawler Expectancy Theory (Porter & Lawler, 1968) and
many more. As a result, it's critical to examine and test these aspects and
hypotheses in other cultures as well as developing and/or poor countries.

Frederick Herzberg in his study, while explaining motivation, proposed two main
factors, hygiene factors and motivation factors (Herzberg, Mauster, Snyderman,
1959; Herzberg, 1966, 1971, 2003; Herzberg et al, 2005). Hygiene factors and
their absence directly affect impact on employees´ dissatisfaction, whereas
motivation factors and their presence increase employees´ satisfaction.

1
Herzberg´s Two Factor theory is considered to be one of the most essential
theories of motivation. Herzberg held his study in a specific population with
specific characteristics. Albania is a different country, has a different economy,
a different culture and mentality than America. This can deliver differences
between the approach to motivation between the American workforce and
Albanian workforce. This research paper aspires to find which factors the
Albanian workforce finds more meaningful to reach job satisfaction and to help
achieving the “cementation” of these factors.

1.1 Definition of terms

Job satisfaction is the feeling related with the fulfillment of tasks and the
performance of the job content. It can also be stated as the good sensation that an
employee may have with work circumstances (Aziri, 2021).

Job dissatisfaction is the feeling related with the lack of the individual´s spirit
and positive job attitude resulting mainly from environmental factors
surrounding the job (McKenna and Oritt, 1981).

Motivation factors relate to Herzberg´s motivation factors that are found in this
study. When these factors are fulfilled, they bring job satisfaction to employees.
These factors are as below:

a. Recognition means the notice where congratulations or critics for a job

are involved.

b. Achievement is defined as the accomplishment of a job situation.

c. Possibility of growth includes the tendency of an employee having the

opportunity to grow in ranks within the company or develop skills in
his/her profession.

d. Advancement is used when the employee actually changes status or

position within the organization.

2
 e. Work itself defines the means someone has to work to complete a task.

f. Responsibility signifies the trust given to have full responsibility for your
own work, others´ work and given extra responsibility.

Hygiene factors relate to Herzberg´s hygiene factors that are found in this study.
The absence of these factors results to high job dissatisfaction. These factors are
as below:

a. Organizational policies describe the organization´s rules, policies and

regulations towards employees and other internal or external actors.

b. Working conditions include the tangible conditions at work, the quantity

of work and the equipment or facilities needed to do the work.

c. Quality of supervision relates with the righteousness or the

unrighteousness and the competence or incompetence of the supervisor.

d. Relationship with co-workers contain the good relations with co-workers

whom employees have a continual communication. These relations are
represented by three categories of: Interpersonal Relations, Superior
Interpersonal Relations, Subordinate Interpersonal Relations.

e. Status and security signify the importance of someone´s status and the
job security an employee feels to have or not.

f. Base wage or salary encompasses the complete chain of events in which

compensation is a factor. All of these occurrences include a wage or
salary rise or an unmet expectation.

3
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Herzberg´s original study

The original study was held by Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman (1959). This
study took in consideration 203 male accountants and engineers as subjects.
These subjects were selected from several industrial companies in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania in United States of America. This application was cultivated by a
semi-structured interviews, where each of the respondents was asked to explain
an episode which caused them to feel extremely good or extremely bad about the
specific job (Herzberg,1966;1974;1987). This theory is a successor of Flanagan´s
(1954) theory of “critical incidence”. This theory was developed by asking the
interviewees not only to tell the job related incidents but also to describe the
reason after their feelings.

These terms were counted as 16 factors and were called as job factors. Six factors
were classified as motivators and the other ten as hygiene factors. The results of
the study for the accountants were that job satisfaction was indicated 78% of the
time from motivators and 22% of the time from hygiene factors. On the other
hand, job dissatisfaction was caused 62% of the time from hygiene factors and
38% of the time from motivators. This showed that for the accountants, job
dissatisfaction was related to hygiene factors and job satisfaction were related to
motivation factors.

Moreover, the results from the engineers were similar as job satisfaction was
correlated 79% of the time with motivators and 21% of the time with hygiene
factors. Job dissatisfaction was caused 67% of the time from hygiene factors and
33% of the time from motivators.

From this study, Herzberg and his associates cultivated the basis of motivation-
hygiene theory. Factors as work itself, recognition, responsibility and
advancement were classified as motivators that caused the increase or decrease

4
of job satisfaction. The factors related the increase or decrease to job
dissatisfaction were called hygiene factors and were arranged as supervision,
relationships with supervisors, co-workers and subordinates, working conditions,
salary and security.

2.2 Studies that support the Motivation-Hygiene theory

A reproduction of Herzberg´s study was constructed by Gendel (Herzberg,

1966;2003). This research was developed by studying the answers of 119
housekeepers employed at two hospitals in Cleveland, United States of America.
90% of these respondents were African-American. In this study, the theory of
Motivation-Hygiene factors was confirmed where aspects as achievement,
recognition and the work itself were indicated as motivators, and elements as
salary, supervision and working conditions were specified as hygiene factors.

An attempt of Herzberg´s theory was also conducted by Perezel (Herzberg,

1966). 78 engineers working at Locomotive Works in Budapest, Hungary were
the part of the study. The conclusions of the research were in line with Hygiene-
Motivator Theory. The main motivation factors found were achievement, the
work itself, responsibility and recognition. Hygiene factors were represented by
the company´s policies and the supervision.

Another replication of this theory was directed by Walt (Herzberg, 1966), where
50 high status women employed in the United States of America government,
were chosen as a sample size to collect the desired data. The group was 45 years
old on average, and half of them were graduates. The main factors that lead to
job satisfaction were responsibility, work itself, recognition and personal
achievement.

In order to investigate the disagreement surrounding the two-factor concept,

Behling, Labovitz, and Kosmo (1968) looked at studies that both supported and
questioned Herzberg's conclusions. They claimed that the debate had descended
into a series of "I'm right and you're wrong" accusations and counterclaims that
5
did little to advance knowledge in the subject while ignoring the constraints of
studying a theoretical notion like as job satisfaction (Behling et al., 1968). The
authors point out that there is no proof that there is a single truth, and that study
that replicated Herzberg's method frequently supported the two-factor
hypothesis, whereas studies that used different methodologies disputed it.

Cummings (1975) used a different strategy than the original theory to test the
two-factor hypothesis with personnel at various levels within a single work
organization's structure. Although there was an exception within one set of
workers, his findings generally corroborated Herzberg's conclusions. After
additional inquiry, he discovered that it was due to a new management strategy
in that specific group, demonstrating management's potential to promote
motivated job satisfaction at all levels through the use of modern approaches
(Cummings, 1975).

Other similar studies were conducted and are conducted during the years, but the
ones mentioned above strengthen the foundations of Herzberg´s Two Factors
Motivation theory.

2.3 Opposing studies of Herzberg´s Hygiene-Motivator theory

One of the main experimentations opposing Herzberg´s theory was administered

by Singh and Baumfartel (Herzberg, 1966). They studied the feedback from 340
non-supervisory workers at a big commercial aircraft base in the mid-west.
Terms that were considered in the evaluation of the answers were age, length of
service, organizational relationships and education. The research method used in
this study was a questionnaire that ranked the connection of cultural or
demographic information with the importance of job factors on a five point
Linkert scale. In this research paper the most important factors that affected the
respondents’ answers were age and education. The main development in this
study was that subjects that were older weren´t highly motivated to grow within
the organization, but in the other hand younger participants that had a high level

6
of education perceived personal growth as the most important factor. These
findings go against Herzberg´s theory.

Hakel, Dunnete and Campbell (1967) studied a group of 133 store administrators,
44 secretaries, 89 sales agents, 49 salesmen, 92 army reserve men and 129
engineers. The authors engaged two sets of 36 declarations which were paired
with highly satisfactory and unsatisfactory job circumstances. Factors like
recognition, achievement, responsibility, supervision and relationships within the
organization were considered the most important dissatisfiers and satisfiers. Also
it was found that some recipients indicated that their job satisfaction came from
job content, some evaluated more important the job context, and some a blend of
both. The same situation stands for job dissatisfaction, too. This study concluded
that factors that affected job satisfaction, also affected job dissatisfaction. This
closure was in dispute with Herzberg´s Hygiene-Motivator theory.

Cremer (1979) also tested Herzberg´s Two Factor Motivation theory by studying
a sample of 10 mid-level managers. The respondents were required to present
two 45-minute interviews each, where they explain their current job and the
factors that satisfy or dissatisfy them. The study found that their answers were
contrasting from what is concluded in the motivator-hygiene theory. The subjects
were satisfied and dissatisfied from both types of factors without any difference.
These results failed to approve Herzberg´s theory.

Construction workers in Bangkok were also put to the test to see if the two-factor
theory holds true (Ogunlana & Chang, 1998). Although the study could not
validate the theory, it was suggested that the contradicting results were due to
Thailand's lower ranking on Maslow's hierarchy of requirements. Because
survival was remained their major concern, these workers were unable to pursue
self-actualization and place value on Herzberg's motivators (Ogunlana & Chang,
1998).

Schroder (2008) used the two-factor theory as the theoretical framework for
researching 835 university employees in order to investigate the impact of
demographical factors on job satisfaction. Overall job satisfaction has been

7
linked to age and educational level. Differing occupational groups had different
levels of intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction, which contradicted Herzberg's
results (Schroder, 2008).

2.4 Case of Albania

Albania´s economy is considered to be an economy of a developing country

and its workforce describes fully this state of economy. With 166386 active
registered businesses in 2020 (Instat,2021) we can expect a diverse workforce
with different types of organizations in the market. Despite the employment
opportunities provided by the private sector, some problems have risen. Many
firms and Human Resource Managers have ascertained problems like high
employee turnover, poor performance, increase in absenteeism and lack of
motivation. A research of this type hasn´t been conducted in Albania but, a
study of this character can help finding the roots of the problems, because
motivation can be considered a dominant aspect to run an organization
smoothly and neatly (Ganta, 2014).

Herzberg´s Two Factor theory was concluded in a western culture, population

and economy. The ranking or the importance of respective factors in Herzberg´s
Two Factor theory may not be the same in Albania or other similar countries
and economies.

2.5 Research aim and objectives

2.5.1 Research aim

The aim of this study is to determine if the factors labeled as motivation

factors are related to job satisfaction and if the factors labeled as hygiene
factors are related to job dissatisfaction, or what perception can be found

8
 in Albania. The study is also expected to show which is the most
important factor for the Albanian workforce.

2.5.2 Specific objectives

a. To show the differences between the rank of factors in Herzberg´s

original study to the rank of factors in this study.
b. To allocate the importance of hygiene factors represented by
declarations, that bring higher job dissatisfaction in the Albanian
workforce.
c. To allocate the importance of motivation factors that bring higher job
satisfaction in the Albanian workforce.

9
 3. Research methodology

Following the aim and objectives of the study, two types of research methods
that can be used: qualitative and quantitative. Many authors like Perezel (1966),
Walt (1966), Cremer (1979) that have chosen to conduct a study on motivation
implied a quantitative method to get the most accurate results. A quantitative
analysis helps the researcher to distribute the respondents’ answers to different
factors and to have a clear statistical view of the risen problem. The focal point
of this approach is to use various calculations, questionnaires and tests to analyze
the causes and effects that show the majorities´ results. The researcher keeps a
distance and has a detached point of view from the study (Ghauri and
Gronhaug,2005). As Ghauri and Gronhaug (2005) mention, the prejudice of the
quantitative method is that it doesn´t show the full position of the respondent.

In comparison, the qualitative method is adopted when the investigator wants to

examine the respondents´ opinions, feelings and other subjective variables. In
this type of approach, the researcher has an active duty in gathering the needed
information (Merriam,1998). This type of method presents a fuller picture of the
problem, but it requires more work to be cultivated.

After reviewing all the contributes and defects, and also keeping in mind the
functionality, practicality and the efficiency of the methods mentioned above, it was
decided that a quantitative method with qualitative aspects will be used. The quantitative
approach will be followed by distributing a questionnaire to a chosen sample size. The
results will be studied having in mind also the theoretical background.

The form that was chosen to develop this research was a questionnaire (Appendix A).
This questionnaire was established in Google Forms as an easy and efficient platform to
realize and distribute the survey. The questionnaire was shared by email and other social
media networks to arrive the maximum distribution. The questionnaire was shared for
approximately 3 weeks and the questionnaire collected 83 responds. After all the results

10
were collected, Google Forms and Microsoft Excel helped to analyze and regulate all
the responds.

11
 4. Results

4.1 Demographic information

The questionnaire was answered by 83 respondents and there are 4 demographic

components that explain our respondents The components are their age group,
gender, their working years and working sector. These elements are helpful to
determine differences and similarities between the respondents´ answers.

Figure 1: Clustered column chart of the distribution of respondents by their age

group.

Age group
40.0%
34.9%
35.0%
28.9%
30.0%
25.3%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
9.6%
10.0%
5.0% 1.2%
0.0%
18-25 26-35 36-45 46-60 60+

In Figure 1 is shown the distribution of respondents by their age group. They are
divided by the age groups of 18 to 25 years old, 26 to 35 years old, 36 to 45 years
old, 46 to 60 years old and older than 60 years old. There is a similar distribution
between the age groups of 18 to 25 years old with 24 respondents or 28.9%, 26
to 35 years old with 29 respondents or 34.9% and 36 to 45 years old with 21
respondents or 25.3%. There are less respondents in the age groups of 46 to 60

12
years old with 8 respondents or 9.6% and only 1 respondent or 1.2% for the age
group of older than 60 years old.

Figure 2: Pie chart of the distribution of respondents by their gender

Respondents' Gender

27.7%

72.3%

Female Male

There is a majority of females with 60 respondents or 72.3% and a minority of

males with 27.7% or 23 respondents.

13
Figure 3: Clustered column chart of the distribution of respondents by their
working years

Working years
45.0% 42.2%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0% 18.1%
15.0% 13.3% 13.3%
10.8%
10.0%
5.0% 2.4%
0.0%
<1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-5 years 5-10 years 10 years

Figure 3 displays the distribution of respondents by their working years. They

are divided by the working years of less than 1 year, 1 to 2 years, 2 to 3 years, 3
to 5 years, 5 to 10 years and more than 10 years. There is a very much alike share
of respondents between the working years of less than 1 year with 11 respondents
or 13.3%, 3 to 5 years with also 11 respondents and 13.3% and 2 to 3 years with
9 respondents or 10.8%. There are 15 respondents or 18.1% with 5 to 10 years of
experiences, 2 respondents or 2.4% with 1 to 2 working years and the majority
with 35 respondents or 42.2% were with more than 10 working years.

14
Figure 4: Pie chart of the distribution of respondents by their working
sector.

Working sector

25.3%

74.7%

Private sector Public sector

Figure 4 is displayed the allocation of respondents by their working sector. Most

of the respondents with 62 people or 74.7% are working in the private sector, and
the rest of the respondents with 21 people or 25.3% are working in the public
sector.

After this data we can say that the majority of the respondents are in the age group
of 26 to 35 years old, are female, have been in the workforce for more than 10
years and are working in the private sector.

4.2 Declarations related with hygiene factors

The data collected from the rating of the declarations related with hygiene factors
are also analyzed by examining their demographic allocation. These declarations
were asked to be rated from the level of the job dissatisfaction the specific
declaration gives to the respondent. The rating was from 1 to 5 with 1 being “This
declaration gives me the least amount of job dissatisfaction” and 5 being “This
declaration gives me the most amount of job dissatisfaction”.

15
In the most of the declarations we can notice that the overall mean from the rating
of the declarations are equal with the means of the biggest groups from the
different demographic aspects.

Figure 5: Responses from the statement "The physical work surroundings are
poor."

Number of respondents
25 23

20 19
16
15 13
12
10

0
1(Least) 2 3 4 5(Most)

Table 1: The physical work surroundings are poor. (Age group)

Age group Mean Standard deviation

18-25 3.11 1.34
26-35 3.12 1.36
36-45 3.02 1.34
46-60 3.08 1.41
60+ 3 /
TOTAL 3.2 1.35

16
Table 2: The physical surroundings are poor. (Gender)

Gender Mean Standard deviation

Male 3.11 1.33
Female 3.2 1.35
TOTAL 3.2 1.35

Table 3: The physical surroundings are poor. (Working years)

Working years Mean Standard deviation

<1 year 3.02 1.38
1-2 years 3.5 1.32
2-3 years 3.02 1.32
3-5 years 2.98 1.35
5-10 years 3 1.36
+10 years 3.1 1.4
TOTAL 3.2 1.35

Table 4: The physical surroundings are poor. (Working sector)

Working sector Mean Standard deviation

Private 3.12 1.36
Public 3.08 1.41
TOTAL 3.2 1.35

17
Figure 6: Responses from the statement "The organizational policies are not
ethic and clear"

Number of respondents
30 27
25

20
16 15
15 14
11
10

0
1(Least) 2 3 4 5(Most)

Table 5: The organizational policies are not ethic and clear. (Age group)

Age group Mean Standard deviation

18-25 3.14 1.58
26-35 3.22 1.52
36-45 3.31 1.54
46-60 3.29 1.45
60+ 3 /
TOTAL 3.31 1.52

Table 6: The organizational policies are not ethic and clear. (Gender)

Gender Mean Standard deviation

Male 3.25 1.55
Female 3.31 1.52
TOTAL 3.31 1.52

18
Table 7: The organizational policies are not ethic and clear. (Working years)

Working years Mean Standard deviation

<1 year 3.22 1.58
1-2 years 2 1.75
2-3 years 3.15 1.61
3-5 years 3.14 1.56
5-10 years 3.23 1.54
+10 years 3.22 1.51
TOTAL 3.31 1.52

Table 8: The organizational policies are not ethic and clear. (Working sector)

Working sector Mean Standard deviation

Private 3.3 1.53
Public 3.23 1.52
TOTAL 3.31 1.52

Figure 7: Responses from the statement "I don´t have a good relationship with
my supervisor."

Number of respondents
25 23 23

20 17
15 14

10
6
5

0
1(Least) 2 3 4 5(Most)

19
Table 9: I don´t have a good relationship with my supervisor.

Age group Mean Standard deviation

18-25 3.09 1.55
26-35 3.04 1.55
36-45 2.94 1.56
46-60 2.92 1.52
60+ 3 /
TOTAL 3.1 1.57

Table 10: I don´t have a good relationship with my supervisor. (Gender)

Gender Mean Standard deviation

Male 3.07 1.56
Female 3.1 1.57
TOTAL 3.1 1.57

Table 11: I don´t have a good relationship with my supervisor. (Working years)

Working years Mean Standard deviation

<1 year 3.07 1.56
1-2 years 2.5 1.75
2-3 years 3.06 1.55
3-5 years 2.92 1.56
5-10 years 3.04 1.55
+10 years 3.1 1.57
TOTAL 3.1 1.57

20
Table 12: I don´t have a good relationship with my supervisor.

Working sector Mean Standard deviation

Private 3.1 1.57
Public 2.92 1.52
TOTAL 3.1 1.57

Figure 8: Responses from the statement "I don´t have a good relationship with
my co-workers."

Number of respondents
30
26
25
20
20 17
15
15
10
5
5
0
1(Least) 2 3 4 5(Most)

The declaration that affected the least on increasing the job dissatisfaction of the
respondents was “I don’t have a good relationship with my co-workers” with a
mean of 2.92. This declaration, as shown in Figure 8, was also the declaration
related with the hygiene factors, that got the most number of 1s with 26 answers.

21
Table 13: I don´t have a good relationship with my co-workers. (Age group)

Age group Mean Standard deviation

18-25 2.9 1.51
26-35 2,88 1.51
36-45 2.91 1.53
46-60 2.85 1.45
60+ 3 /
TOTAL 2.92 1.52

Table 14: I don´t have a good relationship with my co-workers. (Gender)

Gender Mean Standard deviation

Male 2.88 1.5
Female 2.92 1.52
TOTAL 2.92 1.52

Table 15: I don´t have a good relationship with my co-workers. (Working

years)

Working years Mean Standard deviation

<1 year 2.88 1.51
1-2 years 2.5 1.75
2-3 years 2.97 1.49
3-5 years 2.75 1.47
5-10 years 2.9 1.53
+10 years 2.92 1.52
TOTAL 2.92 1.52

22
Table 16: I don´t have a good relationship with my co-workers. (Working
sector)

Working sector Mean Standard deviation

Private 2.9 1.51
Public 2.75 1.46
TOTAL 2.92 1.52

Figure 9: Responses from the statement "I have a lot of time without receiving a
wage raise."

Number of respondents
35 31
30
25
20 16
13 14
15
9
10
5
0
1(Least) 2 3 4 5(Most)

On the other hand, the declaration related with the biggest increase of job
dissatisfaction for our respondents was “I have a lot of time without receiving a
wage raise” with a mean of 3.52. Figure 9 shows that this declaration is also the
declaration related with the hygiene factors, that got the most number of 5s with
31 answers.

23
Table 17: I have a lot of time without receiving a wage raise. (Age group)

Age group Mean Standard deviation

18-25 3.46 1.51
26-35 3.49 1.48
36-45 3.49 1.48
46-60 3.42 1.52
60+ 2 /
TOTAL 3.52 1.48

Table 18: I have a lot of time without receiving a wage raise. (Gender)

Gender Mean Standard deviation

Male 3.46 1.51
Female 3.52 1.48
TOTAL 3.52 1.48

Table 19: I have a lot of time without receiving a wage raise. (Working years)

Working years Mean Standard deviation

<1 year 3.45 1.52
1-2 years 4 1.63
2-3 years 3.48 1.53
3-5 years 3.37 1.55
5-10 years 3.45 1.5
+10 years 3.52 1.48
TOTAL 3.52 1.48

24
Table 20: I have a lot of time without receiving a wage raise. (Working years)

Working sector Mean Standard deviation

Private 3.48 1.48
Public 3.52 1.48
TOTAL 3.52 1.48

Figure 10: Responses from the statement "I don´t feel like my job place is
secure."

Number of respondents
30
25
25

20 19

15 14 14
11
10

0
1(Least) 2 3 4 5(Most)

Table 21: I don´t feel like my job place is secure. (Age group)

Age group Mean Standard deviation

18-25 3.13 1.54
26-35 3.15 1.56
36-45 3.11 1.57
46-60 3.08 1.62
60+ 3 /
TOTAL 3.14 1.57

25
Table 22: I don´t feel like my job place is secure. (Gender)

Gender Mean Standard deviation

Male 3.08 1.57
Female 3.14 1.57
TOTAL 3.14 1.57

Table 23: I don´t feel like my job place is secure. (Working years)

Working years Mean Standard deviation

<1 year 3.12 1.55
1-2 years 3 1.48
2-3 years 3.23 1.5
3-5 years 3.07 1.57
5-10 years 3.1 1.58
+10 years 3.14 1.57
TOTAL 3.14 1.57

Table 24: I don´t feel like my job place is secure. (Working sector)

Working sector Mean Standard deviation

Private 3.16 1.56
Public 3.14 1.57
TOTAL 3.14 1.57

4.3 Declarations related with motivation factors

Data collected from the declaration related with motivation factors are analyzed
based on the distribution of answers from different demographic information.
These declarations were asked to be rated from the level of job satisfaction the
specific declaration gives to the respondent. The rating was from 1 to 5 with 1
26
being “This declaration gives me the least amount of job satisfaction” and 5 being
“This declaration gives me the most amount of job satisfaction”.

In the most of the declarations we can also notice that the overall mean from the
rating of the declarations are equal with the means of the biggest groups from the
different demographic aspects.

Figure 11: Responses from the statement "I see results from work"

Number of respondents
40 34
32
30
20
8
10 4 5
0
1(Least) 2 3 4 5(Most)

Table 25: I see results from work. (Age group)

Age group Mean Standard deviation

18-25 4.07 1.07
26-35 4.07 1.09
36-45 4.05 1.09
46-60 4.08 0.97
60+ 2 /
TOTAL 4.05 1.09

27
Table 26: I see results from work. (Gender)

Gender Mean Standard deviation

Male 4.1 1.06
Female 4.05 1.09
TOTAL 4.05 1.09

Table 27: I see results from work (Working years)

Working years Mean Standard deviation

<1 year 4.07 1.08
1-2 years 5 1.03
2-3 years 4.11 1.07
3-5 years 4.08 1.1
5-10 years 4.06 1.1
+10 years 4.05 1.09
TOTAL 4.05 1.09

Table 28: I see results from work. (Working sector)

Working sector Mean Standard deviation

Private 4.08 1.05
Public 4.05 1.09
TOTAL 4.05 1.09

28
Figure 12: Responses from the statement "My good ideas are accepted."

Number of respondents
40
34
35
30 28
25
20
15
15
10
5 3 3
0
1(Least) 2 3 4 5(Most)

Table 29: My good ideas are accepted. (Age group)

Age group Mean Standard deviation

18-25 4.1 0.98
26-35 4.07 0.98
36-45 4.05 1.04
46-60 4.04 0.99
60+ 4 /
TOTAL 4.05 1.03

Table 30: My good ideas are accepted. (Gender)

Gender Mean Standard deviation

Male 4.05 1
Female 4.05 1.03
TOTAL 4.05 1.03

29
Table 31: My good ideas are accepted. (Working years)

Working years Mean Standard deviation

<1 year 4.1 0.99
1-2 years 5 1.06
2-3 years 4.16 0.87
3-5 years 4.12 1.04
5-10 years 4.1 0.99
+10 years 4.05 1.03
TOTAL 4.05 1.03

Table 32: My good ideas are accepted. (Working sector)

Working sector Mean Standard deviation

Private 4.09 0.99
Public 4.05 1.03
TOTAL 4.05 1.03

Figure 13: Responses from the statement "The work I do is valued from the
society."

Number of respondents
35 33
30
25 21
20 17
15
10 6 6
5
0
1(Least) 2 3 4 5(Most)

30
The declaration that affected the least on increasing job satisfaction of the
respondents was “The work I do is valued from the society” with a mean of 3.83.

Table 33: The work I do is valued from the society. (Age group)

Age group Mean Standard deviation

18-25 3.81 1.18
26-35 3.85 1.21
36-45 3.85 1.21
46-60 3.79 1.21
60+ 4 /
TOTAL 3.83 1.24

Table 34: The work I do is valued from the society. (Gender)

Gender Mean Standard deviation

Male 3.83 1.2
Female 3.83 1.24
TOTAL 3.83 1.24

Table 35: The work I do is values from the society. (Working years)

Working years Mean Standard deviation

<1 year 3.81 1.19
1-2 years 3.5 1.22
2-3 years 3.94 1.11
3-5 years 3.83 1.22
5-10 years 3.87 1.18
+10 years 3.83 1.24
TOTAL 3.83 1.24

31
Table 36: The work I do is valued from the society. (Working sector)

Working sector Mean Standard deviation

Private 3.84 1.21
Public 3.83 1.24
TOTAL 3.83 1.24

Figure 14: Responses from the statement "I have the responsibility to be
independent."

Number of respondents
35 33
30
25
25
20 17
15
10
5
5 3
0
1(Least) 2 3 4 5(Most)

Table 37: I have the responsibility to be independent. (Age group)

Age group Mean Standard deviation

18-25 3.87 1.17
26-35 3.91 1.14
36-45 3.91 1.14
46-60 3.88 1.17
60+ 2 /
TOTAL 3.94 1.14

32
Table 38: I have the responsibility to be independent. (Gender)

Gender Mean Standard deviation

Male 3.86 1.18
Female 3.94 1.14
TOTAL 3.94 1.14

Table 39: I have the responsibility to be independent. (Working years)

Working years Mean Standard deviation

<1 year 3.87 1.17
1-2 years 4.5 1.15
2-3 years 3.97 1.09
3-5 years 3.85 1.23
5-10 years 3.87 1.15
+10 years 3.94 1.14
TOTAL 3.94 1.14

Table 40: I have the responsibility to be independent. (Working sector)

Working sector Mean Standard deviation

Private 3.91 1.15
Public 3.94 1.24
TOTAL 3.94 1.14

33
Figure 15: Responses from the statement "I have grown in position within the
years."

Number of respondents
40 35
35
30
25 20
20 16
15
10 8
4
5
0
1(Least) 2 3 4 5(Most)

Figure 15 shows the declaration related with the motivation factors, that got the
most number of 1s with 8 answers was “I have grown in position within the
years”.

Table 41: I have grown in position within the years. (Age group)

Age group Mean Standard deviation

18-25 3.81 1.27
26-35 3.86 1.26
36-45 3.81 1.3
46-60 3.85 1.16
60+ 3 /
TOTAL 3.84 1.29

34
Table 42: I have grown in position within the years. (Gender)

Gender Mean Standard deviation

Male 3.89 1.22
Female 3.84 1.29
TOTAL 3.84 1.29

Table 43: I have grown in position within the years. (Working years)

Working years Mean Standard deviation

<1 year 3.81 1.28
1-2 years 3.5 1.24
2-3 years 3.87 1.23
3-5 years 3.81 1.25
5-10 years 3.84 1.28
+10 years 3.84 1.29
TOTAL 3.84 1.29

Table 44: I have grown in position within the years. (Working sector)

Working Standard
Mean
sector deviation
Private 3.9 1.23
Public 3.84 1.29
TOTAL 3.84 1.29

35
Figure 16: Responses from the statement "I am always challenged to develop
professionally."

Number of respondents
40 38
35
30
25 21
20 18
15
10
5 3 3
0
1(Least) 2 3 4 5(Most)

The declaration that brought the most job satisfaction to the respondents was “I
am always challenged to develop professionally” with a mean of 4.06. As shown
in Figure 16, this declaration related with motivation factors is also rated with the
most number of 5s with 38 answers.

Table 45: I am always challenged to develop professionally. (Age group)

Age group Mean Standard deviation

18-25 4 1.13
26-35 4.05 1.08
36-45 4.06 1.09
46-60 4.04 0.97
60+ 3 /
TOTAL 4.06 1.07

36
Table 46: I am always challenged to develop professionally. (Gender)

Gender Mean Standard deviation

Male 4.04 1.12
Female 4.06 1.07
TOTAL 4.06 1.07

Table 47: I am always challenged to develop professionally. (Working years)

Working years Mean Standard deviation

<1 year 4 1.14
1-2 years 4 1.21
2-3 years 3.98 1.17
3-5 years 3.95 1.18
5-10 years 4.05 1.1
+10 years 4.06 1.07
TOTAL 4.06 1.07

Table 48: I am always challenged to develop professionally. (Working sector)

Working sector Mean Standard deviation

Private 4.04 1.08
Public 4.06 1.07
TOTAL 4.06 1.07

37
 4.4 Rank of Herzberg’s factors

The third part of the questionnaire asked our respondents to rank the factors
included in Herzberg´s Two Factor theory from the amount the specific factor is
important to them. The ranking was from 1 which meant the most important
factor, to 12 which meant the least important factor.

Table 49: The total score, average rating and the ranking of the factors in the
third part of the questionnaire.

Factors Total Score Average Rating Rank

Organization's policies 399 4.81 3
Quality of supervision 478 5.76 5
Achievement 413 4.98 4
Wage or salary 339 4.08 1
Growth 387 4.66 2
Working conditions 501 6.04 6
Work itself 562 6.77 8
Status and security 536 6.46 7
Responsibility 599 7.22 9
Relationships with co-workers 648 7.81 11
Recognition 616 7.42 10

Table 49 shows the total score from the rating of the factors. These results derived
by multiplying the rank and the number of answers. The factor with the fewest
overall score was “wage or salary” with 339 points and the factor with the most
overall score was “relationships with co-workers”. Having in mind the
requirement we had for the third part of our questionnaire, we can say that the
factor that was considered the most important was “wage or salary” with an
average rating of 4.08, and the factor considered the least important was
“relationships with co-workers” with an average rating of 7.81.

38
Figure 17: Rank of the factors by their overall score.

Overall score
700 648
562 599 616
600 536
478 501
500
387 399 413
400 339
300
200
100
0

Figure 18: Rank of the factors by their average rating.

Average rating
9 7.81
8 6.77 7.22 7.42
7 6.46
5.76 6.04
6 4.66 4.81 4.98
5 4.08
4
3
2
1
0

39
Table 50: Differences between Herzberg´s findings and our findings.

Herzberg's Findings Our Findings

Factors Rank Rank Difference
Achievement 1 4 3
Recognition 2 10 8
Work itself 3 8 5
Responsibility 4 9 5
Wage or salary 5 1 -4
Growth 6 2 -4
Quality of supervision 7 5 -2
Relationships with co-workers 8 11 3
Organization´s policies 9 3 -6
Working conditions 10 6 -4
Status and security 11 7 -4

Table 50 displays the differences between the ranking of the factors between
Herzberg´s original study in 1959 in America and the ranking of the factors from
the data collected from our questionnaire in 2022 in Albania. The most important
factor for the sample that Herzberg tested his theory is “achievement”. This factor
is considered a motivation factor which contributes on increasing job satisfaction.
Our sample chose “wage or salary” as the most important factor. This factor is
considered a hygiene factor that decreases job dissatisfaction and does not bring
job satisfaction. The second, third and fourth ranked factors in Herzberg´s
findings are respectively “recognition”, “work itself” and “responsibility”. Also
these factors are motivation factors which, when they are present, increase job
satisfaction. In our findings, the second, the third and the fourth ranked factors
respectively are “growth”, “organization´s policies” and “achievement”.
“Growth” and “achievement” are considered as motivation factors that derive
increase on job satisfaction. “Organization´s policies” is considered as a hygiene
factor which contributes on job dissatisfaction. In Herzberg´s study, the fifth,

40
sixth and seventh ranked factors are respectively “wage or salary”, “growth” and
“quality of supervision”. “Wage or salary” and “quality of supervision” are
acknowledged as hygiene factors which contribute in job dissatisfaction.
“Growth” is considered a motivation factor and leads to job satisfaction. Our
study concluded that the fifth, sixth and seventh ranked factors are respectively
“quality of supervision”, “working conditions” and “status and security”. All
these factors are considered to be hygiene factors and contribute to job
dissatisfaction. Herzberg found in his study that the eighth, ninth and tenth ranked
factors are correspondingly “relationships with co-workers”, “organization´s
policy” and “working conditions”. All these factors are treated as hygiene factors
and are linked with job dissatisfaction. Our study shows that the eighth, ninth and
tenth ranked factors are respectively “work itself”, “responsibility” and
“recognition”. All these factors are motivation factors and are connected to job
satisfaction.

In conclusion there are big differences between Herzberg´s finding and our
findings. The sample size from the Albanian workforce evaluate hygiene factors
as wage or salary, organization´s policies and quality of supervision as more
important, as they can bring more satisfaction in their job.

41
 CONCLUSION

The conclusions of this study are derived as below:

 The information acquired from this study shows us that the respondents
find “wage or salary” as the most important or dominant factor and the
presence of which contributes a perception of job satisfaction for the
sample size which represents the Albanian workforce. Also the other
contrast between Herzberg´s original study and our study was the ranking
of the factors which is different. Our findings counter Herzberg´s Two
Factor theory because Herzberg mentioned “salary” as a hygiene factor,
that means the absence of it as a factor brings job dissatisfaction but the
presence of it does not cause job satisfaction. Other than that, only two of
Herzberg´s motivational factors are also considered as motivational
factors from our respondents. The motivational factors that when present
bring job satisfaction to our respondents are “wage or salary”, “growth”,
“organization´s policies”, “achievement” and “quality of supervision”.
This shows that only two factors mentioned by Herzberg as motivation
factors are also important to causing job satisfaction for the Albanian
employees.
 The results and analysis of the answers from the questionnaire have
shown that there is not a big connection between the factors which cause
job satisfaction and motivation between the American and Albanian
respondents. The answers show that factors motivating our respondents
count on the social, economic, political and cultural factors, as we found
the responses and receptions collected by our sample size is different
from the ones collected by Herzberg. Our findings are in the same
continuity with other theories that oppose Herzberg´s findings like the
studies from Hakel, Dunnete and Campbell (1967), Cremer (1979) and
Schroder (2008).

42
 REFERENCES

Sinek, S. [@simonsinek]. (2021, December 29). If we don't understand people,

we don't understand business. Twitter.
https://twitter.com/simonsinek/status/1476255456372871172?lang=en

Iguisi, O. (2009). Motivation-related values across cultures. African Journal of

Business Management

Ozsoy, E. (2013). A research on determining the relationship between Type A

and Type B personality and job satisfaction. Unpublished Master Thesis, Sakarya
University, Sakarya, Turkey.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World Publishing
Company.

Herzberg, F. (1971). Work and the nature of man. New York: World Publishing.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Bloch Snyderman, B. (2005). The motivation to
work. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Herzberg, F., Mauster, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work.
New York, Wiley.

Herzberg, H. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard
Business Review

McCelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New

York., NY.

McClelland, D. C. (1976). The achieving society. New York, NY: Irvington

Publishers.

McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human Motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman &

Co

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.

43
Alderfer, C P. (1969). An Empirical Test of a New Theory of Human Needs,
Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance

Alderfer, C. P. (1967). Convergent and Discriminant Validation of Satisfaction

and Desire Measures by Interviews and Questionnaires, Journal of Applied
Psychology

Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance.

Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press and Richard D. Irwin.

instat.gov.al. 2021. Business Register in Albania. [online] Available at:

<http://www.instat.gov.al/en/statistical-literacy/business-register-in-
albania/#:~:text=At%20the%20end%20of%202020,compared%20to%20the%2
02019%20registrations.> [Accessed 6 June 2022].

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snydermann B.(1959). The motivation to work.
New York: Wiley.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. New York: World Publishing.

Flanagan, J., 1954. THE CRITICAL INCIDENT TECHNIQUE. American

Institute for Research and University of Pittsburgh: John C. Flanagan.

Dunette, M., Campbell, J. and Hakel, M., 1967. Factors contributing to job
satisfaction and job dissatisfaction in six occupational groups.

Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard
Business Review

Cummings, P. (1975). Does Herzberg’s theory really work? Management

Review, 64(2), 35-37.

Behling, O., Labovitz, G., & Kosmo, R. (1968). The Herzberg controversy: A
critical reappraisal. Academy of Management Journal

Herzberg, F. (1974). Motivation-hygiene profiles. Organizational Dynamics

Herzberg, F. (1987). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard
Business Review
44
Ogunlana, S. & Chang, W. (1998). Worker motivation on selected construction
sites in Bangkok, Thailand. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management

Schroder, R. (2008). Job satisfaction of employees at a Christian university.

Journal of Research on Christian Education

Ghauri P, Gronhaug K (2005). Research methods in business studies – A

practical guide. 3rd edition. Prentice Hall.

Merriam SB (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in

Education. Revised and Expanded from "Case Study Research in Education."

Aziri, B., 2021. JOB SATISFACTION: A LITERATURE REVIEW. Tetovo:

Brikend Aziri.

McKenna, J. F., & Oritt, P. L. (1981). Job Dissatisfaction: A Social Disease.

Business & Society

Ganta, V., 2014. MOTIVATION IN THE WORKPLACE TO IMPROVE THE

EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE. Visakhapatnam.

45
APPENDIX A

46
Teoria e Herzbergut mbi dy llojet e faktorëve të motivimit të punonjësve ... https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1DUfPnReImGqLVvCGrmfPHriO4p-...

Teoria e Herzbergut mbi dy llojet e

faktorëve të motivimit të punonjësve në
Shqipëri
Përshëndetje, unë jam Kristi Podgorica, student i vitit të tretë pranë Universitetit Epoka në
programin e studimit “Administrim Biznes”.

Pyetjet e mëposhtme kanë si qëllim mbledhjen e të dhënave të nevojshme për ti dhënë

përgjigje pyetjeve se cilët janë faktorët që motivojnë forcën punëtore shqipëtare dhe si
kategorizohen këto faktorë sipas rëndësisë. Rezultatet e këtij studimi do të prezantohen në
temën së diplomës Bachelor me titullin “Teoria e Herzbergut për dy llojet e faktorëve të
motivimit të forcës punëtore në Shqipëri”

 
Jeni të lutur ti përgjigjeni pyetjeve të mëposhtme me sinqeritet.

*Për cdo të anketuar sigurohet konfidencialiteti i të dhënave. Këto të dhëna do të përdoren

vetëm për qëllime statistikore dhe anonimiteti juaj do të jetë i plotë.

* Required

1. Sa është  mosha juaj? *

Mark only one oval.

18-25

26-35

36-45

46-60

60+

1 of 10 6/16/2022, 10:43 PM
Teoria e Herzbergut mbi dy llojet e faktorëve të motivimit të punonjësve ... https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1DUfPnReImGqLVvCGrmfPHriO4p-...

2. Cila është gjinia juaj? *

Mark only one oval.

Femër

Mashkull

Tjetër

3. Sa vite keni që jeni pjesë e forcës punëtore shqiptare? *

Mark only one oval.

<1 vit

1-2 vite

2-3 vite

3-5 vite

5-10 vite

+10 vite

4. Në cilin sektor punoni? *

Mark only one oval.

Sektori privat

Sektori shtetëror

5. Cili është profesioni juaj? *

Cilat nga deklaratat e mëposhtme ju bëjnë të ndiheni keq duke shkaktuar

pakënaqësi në punë?
Ju lutem përzgjidhni atë vlerë që identifikon më mirë gjendjen tuaj.
Faktorët e
1- Nuk më ndikon aspak, 2- Më ndikon pak, 3 Neutrale 4- Më ndikon 5 Më
higjenes ndikon shumë.

2 of 10 6/16/2022, 10:43 PM
Teoria e Herzbergut mbi dy llojet e faktorëve të motivimit të punonjësve ... https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1DUfPnReImGqLVvCGrmfPHriO4p-...

6. Ambjenti fizik në punë është i dobët. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

7. Politikat e organizatës janë joetike dhe të paqarta. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

8. Supervizori im nuk është kompetent. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

9. Nuk kam një marrdhënie të mirë me supervizorin tim. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

3 of 10 6/16/2022, 10:43 PM
Teoria e Herzbergut mbi dy llojet e faktorëve të motivimit të punonjësve ... https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1DUfPnReImGqLVvCGrmfPHriO4p-...

10. Supervizori im i merr të gjitha vlerësimet për veten e tij/e saj. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

11. Nuk kam një marrdhënie të mirë me pjesëtarët e tjerë. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

12. Ka një mungesë bashkëveprimi midis pjesëtarëve të grupit. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

13. Ka kaluar një kohë e gjatë pa patur një rritje rroge. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

4 of 10 6/16/2022, 10:43 PM
Teoria e Herzbergut mbi dy llojet e faktorëve të motivimit të punonjësve ... https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1DUfPnReImGqLVvCGrmfPHriO4p-...

14. Rroga ime është më e ulët sesa dikush tjetër që punon një punë të ngjashme. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

15. Nuk përfitoj bonuse monetare. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

16. Ndihem sikur nuk e kam të sigurt vendin e punës. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

17. Kohëzgjatja e pushimeve është e shkurtër. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

5 of 10 6/16/2022, 10:43 PM
Teoria e Herzbergut mbi dy llojet e faktorëve të motivimit të punonjësve ... https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1DUfPnReImGqLVvCGrmfPHriO4p-...

18. Puna është fizikisht e lodhshme. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

19. Puna është mendërisht e lodhshme. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Cilat nga deklaratat e mëposhtme ju bëjnë të ndiheni mirë duke shkaktuar

kënaqësi në punë?
Ju lutem përzgjidhni atë vlerë që identifikon më mirë gjendjen tuaj.
Faktorët
 1- Nuk më ndikon aspak, 2- Më ndikon pak, 3 Neutrale 4- Më ndikon 5 Më
motivues ndikon shumë.

20. Shikoj rezultate në punë. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

6 of 10 6/16/2022, 10:43 PM
Teoria e Herzbergut mbi dy llojet e faktorëve të motivimit të punonjësve ... https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1DUfPnReImGqLVvCGrmfPHriO4p-...

21. Kam mundësi rritjeje brenda në organizatë. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

22. Idetë e mia të mira pranohen. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

23. Lëvdohem kur arrij objektivat e vendosura. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

24. Puna që bëj vlerësohet në shoqëri. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

7 of 10 6/16/2022, 10:43 PM
Teoria e Herzbergut mbi dy llojet e faktorëve të motivimit të punonjësve ... https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1DUfPnReImGqLVvCGrmfPHriO4p-...

25. Jam rritur në pozicionin brenda organizatës gjatë viteve *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

26. Kam përgjegjësinë të jem i/e pavarur. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

27. Sfidohem vazhdimisht të zhvillohem profesionalisht. *

Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Cili është faktori më i rëndësishëm për ju? Vlerësojini nga më i rëndësishmi deri te
më pak i rëndësishmi.
RENDITJA 1-Më i rëndësishmi         deri tek     11-Më pak i rëndësishmi

8 of 10 6/16/2022, 10:43 PM
Teoria e Herzbergut mbi dy llojet e faktorëve të motivimit të punonjësve ... https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1DUfPnReImGqLVvCGrmfPHriO4p-...

28. Cili është faktori më i rëndësishëm për ju? Vlerësojini nga më i rëndësishmi deri te pak *
i rëndësishmi.                                     1-Më i rëndësishmi deri tek                                                
       11-Më pak i rëndësishmi                                   *Përgjigjja është e limituar për kolonë,
pra një faktor duhet t’i përkasi një numri.

Mark only one oval per row.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Politikat e
organizatës

Kualiteti i
supervizionit

Arritjet
personale

Paga

Rritja
personale

Kushtet
fizike të
punës

Vetë lloji i
punës

Statusi dhe
siguria

Pavarësia

Marrdhënia
me pjestarët
e tjerë

Njohja e
vlerave
personale
në punë

9 of 10 6/16/2022, 10:43 PM
Teoria e Herzbergut mbi dy llojet e faktorëve të motivimit të punonjësve ... https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1DUfPnReImGqLVvCGrmfPHriO4p-...

This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google.

 Forms

10 of 10 6/16/2022, 10:43 PM