TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0. INTRODUCTION
2.0. TWO FACTOR THEORY (HYGIENE FACTORS AND MOTIVATORS)
2.1. Background
2.2. Difference between hygiene factors and motivators
2.3. Criticisms of the two-factor theory
4.0. HOW TO MOTIVATE STAFF TO OPERATE EFFECTIVELY
6.0. CONCLUSION
7.0. REFERENCES
1.0. INTRODUCTION
High performance is achieved by well-motivated people who are prepared to exercise
discretionary effort. Even in fairly basic roles, Hunter et al (1990) found that the difference
in value added discretionary performance between superior and standard performers
was 19 percent. For highly complex jobs it was 48 per cent. To motivate people it is
necessary to appreciate how motivation works. This means understanding motivation
theory and how the theory can be put into practice. Motivation is concerned with the
strength and direction of behaviour and the factors that influence people to behave in
certain ways, (Armstrong, 2009). It refers to various goals individuals have, the ways in
which individuals chose their goals and the ways in which others try to change their
behaviour.
2.0. TWO FACTOR THEORY (HYGIENE FACTORS AND MOTIVATORS)
2.1. Background
The two-factor theory of motivation was developed by Frederick Herzberg and his
colleagues in 1950s to investigate the sources of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of
accountants and engineers in the Pittsburg, Pennsylvania area. Individual employees were
interviewed and asked to describe the times during which they felt exceptionally good and
exceptionally bad about their jobs and how long their feelings persisted. The hygienemotivation theory attempted to explain the factors that motivate individuals through
identifying and satisfying their individual needs, desires and the aims pursue to satisfy
these desires.

From their research, they concluded that there were two different sets of factors that
affected positive or negative job attitudes. Frederick Herzberg claims that these
motivational factors have to be there for job satisfaction and that you cannot have full job
satisfaction with hygiene factors alone.
2.2. Difference between hygiene factors and motivators

Firstly, Motivators or satisfiers are those factors directly concerned with the satisfaction
gained from a job such as: the sense of achievement and the intrinsic value obtained from
the job itself, the level of recognition by both colleagues and management, the level of
responsibility opportunities for advancement and the status provided, (Herzberg, 1968).
Motivators lead to satisfaction because of the need for growth and a sense of self
achievement, (Boltes, Lippke and Gregory, 1995). A lack of motivators leads to over
concentration on hygiene factors, which are those negative factors which can be seen and
therefore form the basis of complaint and concern, (Ezell, 2003). On the other hand,
hygiene factors lead to dissatisfaction with a job because of the need to avoid anxiety or
stress, (Bartholomew and Smith, 1990). Hygiene factors are concerned with factors
associated with the job itself but are not directly a part of it. Typically, this is salary, though
other factors which will often act as dissatisfiers include: perceived differences with others,
job security, working conditions, the quality of management organisational policy,
administration, interpersonal relations (Berman, Bowman, West and Van Wart, 2006). The
dissatisfiers are hygiene factors in the sense that they are maintenance factors required to
avoid dissatisfaction and stop workers unhappiness, but do not create satisfaction in
themselves. They can be avoided by using hygienic methods to prevent them (Herzberg,
Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959).

Secondly, the hygiene factors such as pay and benefits, company policy and
administration, relationships with co-workers, physical environment, supervision, job
security, status, salary, working conditions as well as personal life are said to increase the
likelihood of job satisfaction but not be the reason for it. Frederick Herzberg claims that
2

hygiene factors can be positive for job satisfaction and can also help to lower
employee turnover and retain staff members employed at a company for longer. It is good
for a company to increase their involvement to keep these hygiene factors but the
motivational factors are said to be the highest influence in retaining staff and keeping
workers happy. These are mainly thoughts and feelings by the employee as to how well
they feel they are doing. Although these are thoughts and feelings of the
employee, employers can help by showing recognition and giving
these factors will

influence

the

thoughts

and

feelings

of

promotions,

the employee and

their motivation will be higher as a result.

Firstly, the hygiene factors are the need that enables the person to stay within that
particular organization. This includes factors such as salary, job security, working
condition, supervision and relationship with peers/ boss. For example, a person may have
to work with that company because they offer a permanent job with a sufficient income so
that person can maintain his/ her standard of living. Whereas motivators are the inspiring
need that push the person to achieve higher which include factors such as achievement,
recognition, responsibility and growth. In some company like Google California, they
practice the Fit for Life programme where they offer free access to fitness centre, gyms,
and health checks. They also grant Summer Hours programme whereby employee can
enjoy a flexible working hours provided that the employee has met the working hours for
the full week. By doing so, the company consistently delivers strong results as the
employee are highly motivated and enthusiast towards the companys business.

Third, Hygiene factors can de-motivate or cause dissatisfaction if they are not present, but
do not very often create satisfaction when they are present. However motivation factors do
motivate or create satisfaction and are rarely the cause of dissatisfaction. (Herzberg,
Mausner and Snyderman, 1959). He suggested that individuals are encouraged by
motivators than hygiene factors, Motivators include a stimulating vocation, accountability
3

and providing fulfilment from the profession, such as awards, accomplishment or

individual development. On the other hand, hygiene factors influences include position,
employment, income and benefits, but these influences do not provide affirmative
satisfaction, though dissatisfaction occurs from their deficiency, (Hackman and Oldham,
1976).
According Herzberg is that the main motivating factors are not in the environment but in
the environment but in the intrinsic value and satisfaction gained from the job itself,
(Herzberg, 1968). It follows therefore that to motivate an individual, a job itself must be
challenging, have scope for enrichment and be of interest to the jobholder, (Herzberg,
Mausner & Snyderman, 1959).

Secondly, the difference the two factors is that hygiene factor are often refer to as
dissatisfiers because elements in the workplace such as excessive company bureaucracy
or an autocratic working environment may led to a stressful and unhappy employee. As a
result, the companys productivity may not improve or even decline due to the lack of
intrinsic motivation. In contrast, the company will get better performance if motivator
factors (which also known as satisfier) are introduced. Rewarding employee with
bonuses and promotion for their achievement are the common ways for motivating an
employee.
Hygiene factors can de-motivate or cause dissatisfaction if they are not present, but do not
very often create satisfaction when they are present. However motivation factors factors do
motivate or create satisfaction and are rarely the cause of dissatisfaction. (Herzberg,
Mausner and Snyderman, 1959). He suggested that individuals are encouraged by
4

motivators than maintainance factors, Motivators include a stimulating vocation,

accountability and providing fulfilment from the profession, such as awards,
accomplishment or individual development. On the other hand, maintenance influences
include position, employment, income and benefits, but these influences do not provide
affirmative satisfaction, though dissatisfaction occurs from their deficiency, (Hackman and
Oldham, 1976).
According Herzberg is that the main motivating factors are not in the environment but in
the environment but in the intrinsic value and satisfaction gained from the job itself,
(Herzberg, 1968). It follows therefore that to motivate an individual, a job itself must be
challenging, have scope for enrichment and be of interest to the jobholder, (Herzberg,
Mausner & Snyderman, 1959).

Herzbergs theory recognizes the intrinsic satisfaction that can be obtained from the work
itself. It draws attention to job design and makes managers aware that problems of
motivation may not necessarily be directly associated with the work. Problems can often be
external to the job (Herzberg, 1968). Managers understanding that factors which demotivate workers mayoften be related to matters other than the work itself, can lead to
improved motivation, greater job satisfaction and improved organizational performance by
the entire workforce (Boltes,Lippke & Gregory, 1995). Understanding individual goals,
coupled with wider skills andabilities, can lead to greater opportunities (Boltes, Lippke &
Gregory, 1995). Individuals are seenas valuable to organizations and can acquire new skills
useful in the future. Improving skills,opportunities and increasing employee knowledge
will, in the longer term, increase the value of an organizations human assets. Most
importantly, it can lead to greater staff commitment,understanding and loyalty (Castillo&
Cano, 2004).

Herzberg sustained that Man has two sets of needs; one as an animal to avoid pain, andtwo
as a human being to grow psychologically. He illustrated this also through Biblical
5

example:Adam after his expulsion from Eden having the need for food, warmth, shelter,
guidance, safety,etc., those represent the hygiene needs; and Abraham, capable and
achieving great thingsthrough self-development which represents the motivational needs.
Herzberg identified aspecific category within the study responses which he called
possibility of growth. This arosein relatively few cases within the study and was not
considered a major factor by Herzberg.Where referring to growth or personal growth in
terms of Herzberg's primary motivators,growth should be seen as an aspect of
advancement, and not confused with the different matter of possibility of growth
(Herzberg, 1968).

As

question

about

the

role

of

money

commonly

arises

when

considering

Herzbergsresearch and theories, so its appropriate to include it here. At lower levels of

Maslowshierarchy of needs, such as physiological needs, he considered money as a
motivator; nevertheless it tends to have a motivating effect on staff that lasts only for a
short period --inaccordance with Herzbergs two-factor model of motivation. At higher
levels of the hierarchy, praise, respect, recognition, empowerment and a sense of belonging
are far more powerfulmotivators than money (Bowen & Radhakrishna, 1991). Herzberg
addressed money particularly--referring specifically to salary in his study and analysis.
Herzberg acknowledged thecomplexity of the salary issue (money, earnings, etc), and
concluded that money is not amotivator in the way that the primary motivators are, such as
achievement and recognition.Herzberg said about salary: Salary appears as frequently in
the high sequences (sequences areevents causing high or low attitude feelings recalled by
interviewees in the study) as it does inthe low sequences... however... it is more detectable
in the lows as factors leading todissatisfaction, salary is found almost three times as often
in the long-range as in the short-rangeattitude changes... Salary can influence both
categories (High or low) (Herzberg, Mausner, &Snyderman, 1959).

In conclusion, Herzberg theorized that employees must be motivated to experience

jobsatisfaction but that unacceptable working conditions can only result in a lack of
6

satisfaction.The data analyzed for the study reported here indicate Extension agents left the
organization for both reasons: lack of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction (Herzberg,
1968). The presence of sufficient maintenance factors prevents employment discontent,
whereas adequate motivatorsmay direct occupational contentment (Mausner, &
Snyderman, 1959). When salary occurred as afactor in the lows (causes of dissatisfaction)
it revolved around the unfairness of the wage systemwithin the organization... It was the
system of salary administration that was being described... italso concerned an
advancement that was not accompanied by a salary increase... In contrast tothis, salary was
mentioned in the high stories (events causing satisfaction) as something that went along
with a persons achievement on the job. It was a form of recognition; job satisfactionmeant
more than money; it meant a job well done; it meant that the individual was progressing
inhis work (Herzberg, 1968). Viewed within the context of the sequences of events, salary
as afactor belongs more in the group that defines the job situation and is primarily a
dissatisfier. Thisgroup has a tendency to be categorized as victims by productivity
(Berman, Bowman, West &Van Wart, 2006). Many people argue nevertheless that money
is a primary motivator. For most people money is not a motivator - despite what they might
think and say.Over the years there are criticisms that have arisen of Herzberg such as his
sample of employees was not representative of all workers, but further studies have tended
to support hisfindings. In addition some critics have declared that it is natural for people to
take credit for satisfaction, but to blame dissatisfaction on external factors (Herzberg,
Mausner, & Snyderman,1959). Those same critics argued that to individual, theories of
motivation cannot realisticallyapply to each single employee; however; they are useful for
identifying the main overall ways inwhich people are motivated. Herzberg and his findings
have been extremely influential indevelopments associated with the field of job design and
methods of management to provide jobsatisfaction and motivation.

2.3. Criticisms of the two-factor theory

Herzbergs two-factor theory has been strongly criticized. Opsahl and Dunnette (1966)
argue that the research method has been criticized because no attempt was made to
measure the relationship between satisfaction and performance. It has been suggested that
7

the two-factor nature of the theory is an inevitable result of the questioning method used by
the interviewers. It has also been suggested that wide and unwarranted inferences have
been drawn from small and specialized samples and that there is no evidence to suggest
that the satisfiers do improve productivity. Gaziel (1986) also argue that the theory; (i)
appears to bebound to the critical incident method; (ii) confuses events causing feelings of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the agent that caused the event to happen; (iii) the
reliability of the data could have been negatively impacted by ego-defensiveness on the
part of the employee; (iv) factors overlapped as sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction;
(v) the value of the factors differed as a function of the occupational level of the employee;
and (vi) the theory ignores the part played by individual differences among employees,
(Gaziel, 1986)
In spite of these criticisms the Herzberg two-factor theory continues to thrive; partly
because it is easy to understand and seems to be based on real life rather than academic
abstractions, and partly because it convincingly emphasizes the positive value of the
intrinsic motivating factors. It is also in accord with a fundamental belief in the dignity of
labour and the Protestant ethic that work is good in itself. As a result, Herzberg had
immense influence on the job enrichment movement, which sought to design jobs in a way
that would maximize the opportunities to obtain intrinsic satisfaction from work and thus
improve the quality of working life.
3. MOTIVATING STAFF TO OPERATE EFFECTIVELY
One of the important principles in management is that no two individuals are motivated the
same way. To assist those who seemingly underperform, you need to personalize the
concept of motivation:

Make employees a priority. The most valued asset of your business enterprise are
the employees, not customers; therefore, treat employees as valued and they will
perform as expected.

Consider your management style. Quite often the style of management in a

business or work environment can stymie the growth of employees. To get proper
8

results and maintain high productivity requires a leader who is dynamic and
charismatic, rather than a manager that is stringent and autocratic.

Exercise the habit common among highly effective people: First, seek to
understand your employees; then, venture to be understood. This makes your job of
motivating the workers much easier, positioning you for success.

Employee motivation should not be an arrangement done once, but regularly, using
the following guidelines.

3.1. Understand the discontent in the employee

It is important to understand what makes the employee underperform by reviewing their
skills, will, and capability. Once these three areas have been reviewed, the employer can be
in a better position to fix the weak points. A good reassessment would require an open and
honest communication with the employee in question. This way, the employee can talk
candidly about work dissatisfaction, which the employer can deal with in accordance with
the policies of the organization.
3.2. Set goals together
Goals define where the business is headed, and the employee should understand this as
well. An employee who gets the chance to contribute to goal setting is more likely to be
motivated to achieving those goals. Discussing a business goal with employees also gives
them room to see the employer's passion in the business and understand what is required to
achieve it. The goals should also be reviewed with the employee monthly or quarterly and
focus on areas that need improvement.
3.3. Encourage teamwork
Employees may find themselves performing better when allocated to a team. Teams in the
workplace instill competition. One team will want to outdo the other and receive
recognition from the employer. Once an unmotivated worker is on a team, he or she will
9

have no choice but to put their strong skills at work for the overall good of the whole
group.
3.4. Lead by example
Employers should practice what they preach at all times. The performance, energy, and
timeliness they want in employees should be first exuded by the employer. As a result, the
employee is more likely to value work without disgruntlement.
3.5. Reward achievements
Employees lack the morale to do better in their workplace if the employer never recognizes
their achievements. Rewards do not have to be in monetary terms; they can be as simple as
a pat on the back. These rewards give the employee the impression that the employer is
aware of what they are doing and appreciates all their effort.
3.6. Pay fairly
Employees will always compare their pay with that of employees in competing companies.
If a certain employer seems to pay lower than the rest, then the workers will lack the
motivation to reach the business goals. It is imperative for the employer to pay reasonably
to ensure that the employees do not underperform or leave for competing businesses.
3.7. Communicate effectively
Employees who do not play a role in decision-making, do not air ideas or suggestions, or
receive no feedback will think of themselves as worthless. An employer should have time
for employees to hear their ideas and suggestions. In addition, the employer should provide
all relevant information that an employee needs to perform his or her tasks well.
3.8. Let the employee go
An underperforming employee can be a liability to a business, especially if the employer
does not act. A discussion with the underperforming employee should result in visible
changes. Apply some of the employee motivation techniques mentioned above. If the
changes are not evident, then the employer should fire that employee to avoid a domino
effect in which more employees become less productive, to prevent the business from
incurring huge losses.
10

5. CONCLUSION
The motivation-hygiene theory has given a new perspective on job attitudes. The
traditional perspective on job attitudes was that the opposite of job satisfaction was job
dissatisfaction and the opposite of job dissatisfaction was job satisfaction. In other words,
removing the causes that make workers feel dissatisfied would help them feel satisfied and
removing the causes that help workers feel satisfied would make them feel dissatisfied.
Herzbergs two-factor theory throws new light on the content of work motivation. For
many years, managers generally concentrated on the hygienic factors. When faced with a
morale problem, the typical solution was higher pay, more fringe benefits and better
working conditions. But this approach did not work. Managers are often perplexed because
in spite of paying higher wages and better working conditions, their employees are still not
motivated. Herzberg offers an explanation for the dilemma. By emphasizing only on the
hygienic factors, management is not motivating its personnel.
Understanding what stimulate people in all works of life is fundamental to all who seek to
become managers. Herzberg was one of the best known of all the theorists on motivation.
Hewas well-known for his formal job analysis methods and his ideas on job enrichment,
improvement, enlargement and rotation. His ideas on motivation in the hygienemotivationtheory were particularly useful to help the average manager understands what
motivates people.His theory attempted to explain the factors that motivate individuals
11

through identifyingand satisfying their individual needs, desires and the aims pursue to
satisfy these desires(Herzberg, 1968). His original research was undertaken in the offices
of engineers andaccountants rather than on the factory floor and involved interviewing as
much as two hundredemployees. The goal was to determine work situations where the
subjects were highly motivatedand satisfied instead of the opposite and his research was
later paired with many studiesinvolving a broader sampling of professional (Herzberg,
Mausner & Snyderman, 1959).

6. REFERENCES

Armstrongs Handbook of Human-resource Management Practice (11th ed.)

Michael. Armstrong, 2009

Bartholomew, H. M., & Smith, K. L. (1990). Stresses of multicounty agent

positions. Journal of Extension, 28 (4).

Berman, E.M., Bowman, J.S., West, J.P., & Van Wart, M. (2006). Human resource
management in public service: Paradoxes, processes, and problems. Sage
Publications, Inc.

Boltes, B. V., Lippke, L. A., & Gregory, E. (1995). Employee satisfaction in

extension: A Texasstudy. Journal of Extension, 33 (5).

Bowen, B. E., & Radhakrishna, R. B. (1991). Job satisfaction of agricultural

education faculty: Aconstant phenomena. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32 (2),
21.

Breuning, T. H., & Hoover, T. S. (2000). Personal life factors as related to

effectiveness and satisfaction of secondary agricultural teachers Journal of
Agricultural Education, 32(4), 42.

Castillo, J. X., & Cano, J. (2004). Factors explaining job satisfaction among faculty.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 45 (3), 74-75.

Clark, R. W. (1992). Stress and turnover among extension directors. Journal of

Extension, 30 (2).
12

Daft, R. L. (1997). Management (4th ed). New York, NY: Dryden Press, Harcourt
Brace College Publishers.

Eastman, K., & Williams, D. L. (1993). Relationship between mentoring and career
developmentof agricultural education faculty.Journal of Agricultural Education,
34(2), 75.

Ezell, P. A. (2003). Job stress and turnover intentions among Tennessee cooperative
extensionsystem employees. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (06), 1920A.

Herzberg, F. (1968).Work and the nature of man. London, UK: Crosby.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work.
New York, NY:John Wiley & Sons.

Lindner, J. R. (1998). Understanding employee motivation. Journal of Extension,

36 (3).

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4),

370-96.

13