This paper examines Frederick Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation, developed in the 1950s, which divides workplace influences into hygiene factors and motivational factors. It explains how hygiene factors — such as salary, working conditions, and supervision — are necessary but insufficient for motivation, while intrinsic motivators drive genuine engagement and performance. The paper outlines four workplace motivational environments identified by Herzberg, discusses common criticisms of the theory including its limited situational sensitivity, and highlights its continued relevance in contemporary research, particularly in healthcare settings such as nurse burnout studies.
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 — they would not stimulate employees to perform at a higher level — but which were still necessary to create a healthy attitude toward work. Hygiene factors include salary, benefits, working conditions, policies, the quality of supervision, and the quality of interpersonal relations with colleagues (Syptak, Marsland, & Ulmer, 1999). Motivational factors, by contrast, include the intrinsic rewards of the work itself and the satisfaction 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 that Herzberg believed hygiene factors must be addressed; employees cannot be expected to endure intolerable conditions and remain motivated by statements about the company's higher vision alone. But an ideal motivational environment will encompass both factors. As research has confirmed, "even with the 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, para. 5). There is therefore a strong emphasis in the construct on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivational factors, and organizations must clearly identify which factors they are lacking (Damij et al., 2015).
Herzberg identifies a variety of workplace settings with different types of motivational orientations. The ideal setting is one with high levels of both hygiene and motivation, in which employees can perform at their maximum capacity ("Herzberg's Motivation Theory," 2018). Another setting is one with high hygiene but low motivation — in other words, pay and working conditions are adequate, but little effort is made to help employees feel engaged in their work ("Herzberg's Motivation Theory," 2018). Employees may appear complacent in this situation, even though it is not unpleasant.
In contrast, workplaces with low hygiene but high motivation are typical in healthcare or small startups, where employees find the work exciting but must labor under poor working conditions and inadequate pay relative to the effort they must expend ("Herzberg's Motivation Theory," 2018). Finally, the worst possible situation is a combination of low motivation and low hygiene, which is likely to become untenable over time for both employers and employees ("Herzberg's Motivation Theory," 2018).
"Limitations including situational and demographic shortcomings"
"Theory applied to nurse burnout and job satisfaction research"
You’re 54% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.