Herzbergs Two Factor Motivational Theory

Conceptual Framework: Herzberg’s Two-Factor Motivation Theory
The management theorist Frederick Herzberg, writing in the 1950s, conceptualized job satisfaction and motivation as encompassing two dimensions. The first factor pertained to hygiene, which Herzberg defined as essential components of the workplace that were not intrinsically motivating to stimulate the employee to perform at a higher level, but which were still necessary to create a healthy attitude towards work. Hygiene factors include salary, benefits, working conditions, policies, the quality of the supervision, and the quality of interpersonal relations with colleagues. (Syptak, Marsland, & Ulmer, 1999). Motivational factors, however, include the intrinsic rewards of the work itself and the delights of taking on additional responsibilities. “Motivators…create satisfaction by fulfilling individuals' needs for meaning and personal growth” (Syptak, et al., 1999, p.26). It must be stressed the Herzberg believed that hygiene factors must be addressed; employees cannot be expected to endure intolerable conditions and be motivated by statements by the company about its higher vision. But an ideal motivational environment will encompass both factors.
Herzberg identifies a variety of workplace settings with different types of motivational orientations. The ideal setting is one with high levels of hygiene and motivation, in which employees can perform at their maximum capacity (“Herzberg’s Motivation Theory,” 2018). Another setting is one with high levels of hygiene but low motivation—in other words, the pay and working conditions are adequate, but there is little effort to make employees feel engaged in their work (“Herzberg’s Motivation Theory,” 2018). Employees may seem complacent in this situation, even though it is not unpleasant. In contrast, workplaces with low hygiene and high motivation are typical in healthcare or small startups, where employees find the work excitement, but must labor under poor working conditions and inadequate pay relative to the effort which they must expend (“Herzberg’s Motivation Theory,” 2018). Finally, the worst possible situation is a combination of low motivation and low levels of hygiene, which is likely to be an untenable situation for a long period of time for either employers or employees (“Herzberg’s Motivation Theory,” 2018).
Herzberg’s theory has been criticized as being insufficiently situational in context. It does not take into consideration the fact that some employees may be more motivated by monetary compensation than others, for example (Juneja, 2020). It has also been criticized as being in appropriate for blue collar workers (Juneja, 2020). However, despite the relatively old age of the theory, dating back long before the information age of the present, it has proven to be very useful in its simplicity as a conceptual model. Herzberg does not conceive of motivation factors as overlapping—organizations much clearly identify what factors they are lacking (Damij, et al., 2015). There is also a greater stress upon the intrinsic versus extrinsic motivational factors in the construct. “Even with best treatment of the hygienic factors, employees will be neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. It is only through boosting the motivating factors that a company can realistically expect enhanced motivation of their employees” (Damij, et al., 2015, par.5).
In studies today, Herzberg’s theory has been used to better understand motivation in healthcare. For example, one study of burnout in nurses used the framework to understand life satisfaction and job satisfaction as a way of preventing burnout in this high-risk category. It found that midwives had a relatively low rate of burnout, which was attributed to job satisfaction (Uchmanowicz, et al., 2019). Herzberg’s theory may be simple, but theorists have thus still found it useful to offer needed advice to managers about how to encourage employees to perform better.
Reference
Damij, N., Levnaji?, Z., Rejec Skrt, V., & Suklan, J. (2015). What motivates us for work? PloS one, 10(7), e0132641. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132641
Herzberg’s motivation theory—two factor theory. (2018). Expert Program Management (EPM). Retrieved from: https://expertprogrammanagement.com/2018/04/herzbergs-two-factor-theory/
Juneja, P. (2020). Herzberg’s two factor theory of motivation. Management Study Guide. Retrieved from: https://managementstudyguide.com/herzbergs-theory-motivation.htm
Syptak, J.M., Marsland, D.W., & Ulmer, D. (1999). Job satisfaction: Putting theory into practice. Family Practice Management,6(9):26. Retrieved from: https://www.aafp.org/fpm/1999/1000/p26.html
Uchmanowicz, I., Manulik, S., Lomper, K., Rozensztrauch, A., Zborowska, A., Kolasi?ska, J., & Rosi?czuk, J. (2019). Life satisfaction, job satisfaction, life orientation and occupational burnout among nurses and midwives in medical institutions in Poland: a cross-sectional study. BMJ open, 9(1), e024296. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024296