HERZBERG’S TWO FACTOR THEORY

 also called motivation‐hygiene theory.

 Proposed by Psychologist Frederick Herzberg.
 A theory that relates intrinsic factors to job satisfaction and associates extrinsic factors with
dissatisfaction.
 Theory-
 Believing that an individual’s relation to work is basic and that one’s attitude towards work
can very well determine success or failure, Herzberg investigated the question ‘What do
people want from their jobs?’ He asked people to describe, in detail, situations in which
they felt exceptionally good or bad about their jobs. The responses were then tabulated and
categorized.
 From the categorized responses, Herzberg concluded that the replies people gave when
they felt good about their jobs were significantly different from the replies given when they
felt bad.

 Intrinsic factors, such as advancement, recognition, responsibility, and achievement seem to

be related to job satisfaction.
 Respondents who felt good about their work tended to attribute these factors to
themselves.
 Dissatisfied respondents tended to cite extrinsic factors, such as supervision, pay, company
policies and working conditions. (External factors)
 Based on the data, Herzberg suggested that the opposite of satisfaction is not
dissatisfaction, as was traditionally believed. Removing dissatisfying characteristics from a
job does not necessarily make the job satisfying.
 Herzberg proposed that his findings indicated the existence of a dual continuum: the
opposite of ‘satisfaction’ is ‘no satisfaction’, and the opposite of ‘dissatisfaction’ is ‘no
dissatisfaction’.
 According to Herzberg, the factors that lead to job satisfaction are separate and distinct
from those that lead to job dissatisfaction.
  Therefore, managers who seek to eliminate factors that can create job dissatisfaction may
bring about peace but not necessarily motivation. They will be placating their workforce
rather than motivating workers.
 Herzberg characterized conditions surrounding the job such as quality of supervision, pay,
company policies, physical working conditions, relations with others and job security as
hygiene factors. When they’re adequate, people will not be dissatisfied; neither will they be
satisfied. Herzberg labelled the satisfiers motivators, and he called the dissatisfiers hygiene
factors
 Hygiene factors are factors – such as company policy and administration, supervision, and
salary – that, when adequate in a job, placate workers. When these factors are adequate,
people will not be dissatisfied. (Placate-make (someone) less angry or hostile.)
 He also suggested that emphasizing factors associated with the work itself or with outcomes
directly derived from it, such as promotional opportunities, opportunities for personal
growth, recognition, responsibility, and achievement, that are intrinsically rewarding, will
help in motivating people on their jobs.

 Relation to Maslow’s Need

 Hierarchy Herzberg’s theory is closely related to Maslow’s need hierarchy.
 The hygiene factors are preventive and environmental in nature, and they are roughly
equivalent to Maslow’s lower-level needs.
 These hygiene factors prevent dissatisfaction, but they do not lead to satisfaction. In effect,
they bring motivation up to a theoretical zero level and are a necessary “floor” to prevent
dissatisfaction, and they serve as a platform or take-off point for motivation.
 By themselves, the hygiene factors do not motivate. Only the motivators, Herzberg asserted,
motivate employees on the job. They are roughly equivalent to Maslow’s higher-level needs.
 According to Herzberg’s theory, an individual must have a job with a challenging content in
order to be truly motivated.

 Contribution to Work Motivation

 Herzberg’s two-factor theory provided a new light on the content of work motivation.
 Up to this point, management had generally concentrated on the hygiene factors. When
faced with a morale problem, the typical solution was higher pay, more fringe benefits, and
better working conditions.
  However, as has been pointed out, this simplistic solution did not really work. Management
is often perplexed because they are paying high wages and salaries, have an excellent
fringe-benefit package, and provide great working conditions, but their employees are still
not motivated.
 Herzberg’s theory offered an explanation for this problem. By concentrating only on the
hygiene factors, management were not really motivating their personnel. There are
probably very few workers or associates who do not feel that they deserve the raise they
receive.
 On the other hand, there are many dissatisfied associates and managers who feel they do
not get a large enough raise. This simple observation points out that the hygiene factors
seem to be important in preventing dissatisfaction but do not lead to satisfaction.
 Herzberg would be the first to say that the hygiene factors are absolutely necessary to
maintain the human resources of an organization. However, as in the Maslow sense, once
“the belly is full” of hygiene factors, which is the case in most modern organizations,
dangling any more in front of employees will not really motivate them.
 According to Herzberg’s theory, only a challenging job that has the opportunities for
achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, and growth will motivate personnel.

 The criticisms of the theory include the following:

1. The procedure that Herzberg used is limited by its methodology. When things are going
well, people tend to take credit themselves. Contrarily, they blame failure on the extrinsic
environment.
2. The reliability of Herzberg’s methodology is questioned. Raters have to make
interpretations, so they may contaminate the findings by interpreting one response in one
manner while treating a similar response differently.
3. No overall measure of satisfaction was utilized. A person may dislike part of a job yet still
think the job is acceptable overall.
4. Herzberg assumed a relationship between satisfaction and productivity, but the research
methodology he used looked only at satisfaction and not at productivity. To make such
research relevant, one must assume a strong relationship between satisfaction and
productivity.