Hertzberg Theory of Motivation:

Frederick Hertzberg contributed greatly to the way in which managers think about motivation at work. He first published his theory in 1959 in a book allowed the Motivation to Work and put forward a two factor content theory which is often referred to as a two need system. It is a content theory which explains the factors of an individuals motivation by identifying their needs and desires what satisfies their needs and desires and by establishing the aims that they pursue to satisfy these desires. Hertzberg original research was undertaken in the offices of engineers and accountants rather than on the fact ory floor and involved interviewing over two hundred employees. His aim was to determine work situations where the subjects were highly motivated and satisfied rather than where the opposite was true and his research was later paired with many studies invo lving a broader sampling of professional people. In his findings Hertzberg split his factors of motivation into two categories called Hygiene factors and Motivation factors. The Hygiene factors can demotivate 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. The two types of factors may be listed as follows in order of importance. Hygiene factors leading to dissatisfaction.
y y y y y y y y y y y

Relationship with Boss Work Conditions Salary Relationship with Peers Motivators (Leading to satisfaction). Achievement Recognition The work itself Responsibility Advancement Growth

The dissatisfiers are hygiene factors in the sense that they are mainte nance factors required to avoid dissatisfaction and stop workers from being unhappy, but do not

create satisfaction in themselves. They can be avoided by using hygienic methods to prevent them. It is clear from the lists that the factors in each are not actually opposing i.e. the satisfiers are not the opposite of the dissatisfiers. The opposite of satisfaction is dissatisfaction but is no satisfaction. Both lists contain factors that lead to motivation, but to a differing extent because they fulfil different needs. The Hygiene factors have an end which once fulfilled then cease to be motivating factors while the Motivation factors are much more open ended and this is why they continue to motivate. Hertzberg also developed the concept that there are two distinct human needs. 1) Physiological needs avoiding unpleasantness or discom fort and may be fulfilled. 2) Psychological needs: the need for personal development fulfilled by activities which cause one to grow. Hertzberg believed that the Hygiene factors causing no satisfaction are not applicable to the task an employee undertakes but are external to that task. They are the Adam part of the concept where an incentive may be attributed to a fear of punishment or increase in discomfort. He thought that these did work but only as short term motivators constantly increasing someone salary to motivate them will merely encourage them to look for the next wage rise and nothing else however salary may also be a demotivator where the employee perceives it to be too low or low compared to that of their peers. The long term motivators are the Abraham part of the concept that lead to satisfaction and are intrinsic to the job itself and the job design. Consider the chambermaid who prefers to receive a note of appreciation for her high standar ds from a guest than a carelessly delivered gratuity. It is important to understand that the two types of factors are not mutually exclusive and that management must try to fulfil both types of need for an employee to be truly satisfied with their job. Once the Hygiene factors have been satisfied providing more of them will not create further motivation but not satisfying them may cause demotivation unlike the Motivation factors where management may not fulfil all of them but the workers may still feel motivated. Major companies have recognised this situation when designing their methods of reward and recognition. Probably one of the most important ideas that Herzberg postulated based on his findi ngs of satisfaction is that of job enrichment. This is the add ition of different tasks to a job to provide greater involvement and interaction with that job. It is obviously a continuous management process. The job must use the full ability of the employee and provide

them with sufficient challenge. Any employee who demonstrates an increasing level of ability should be given correspondingly increasing levels of responsibility. If a job cannot be designed to use an employee full ability management should consider employing someone of lesser skills or perhaps automation of the task. If a persons skills cannot be used to the full they will experience problems with motivation. Most job frustrations arise from Hygiene factors such as frustration due to bureaucracy poor organisation internal politics or feeling exploited. Tesco one of the leading

retailers in the UK recently gained recognition via achieving the National Business Awards employer of the year when the judges declared that 1) New and more open lines of communication between managers and staff. 2) Directors and senior managers spend a week on the shop floor listening to ideas from customers and staff. 3) A scheme exists to spot individual talent and to fast track shop floor workers up the promotional ladder. 4) A better understanding of individual employees pers onal circumstances. These initiatives have helped Tesco deliver record growth and sales profits and illustrate how theory may be used in practice. Over the years there are criticisms that have arisen his sample of employees was not representative of all wo rkers, but further studies have tended to support his findings. In addition some critics have declared that it is natural for people to take credit for satisfaction but to blame dissatisfaction on external factors. Every

individual is just that an indivi dual and theories of motivation cannot realistically apply to each single employee however they are useful for identifying the main ways in which people are motivated. Her tzberg and his findings have been extremely influential in developments associated wi th the field of job design and methods of management to provide job satisfaction and motivation.

How Managers can Motivate Employees According to Hertzberg:

Employees are motivated by the interesting work challenge and increasing responsibility basic factors. People have a inherent need for growth and achievement. Hertzberg work influenced a generation of scholars and researchers but never seemed to make an impact on managers in the workplace where the focus

on motivation remained t he carrot and stick approach or external motivators. Its been defined as a predisposition to behave in a purpose ful manner to achieve specific unmet needs and the will to achieve and the inner force that drives individuals to accomplish personal and organizational goals. The answer is survival. Motivated employees are needed in our rapidly changing workplaces and to be effective managers need to understand that and do something about it. A review of the research literature by James R. Lindner at Ohio State University concluded that employee motivation was driven more by factors such as interesting work than financial compensation. Author of Great Motivation Secrets of Great Leaders concluded that motivation comes from wanting to do something of one's own free will and that motivation is simply leadership behaviour wanting to do what is right for people and the organization. More recently due to the expanding field of neuroscience, we have acquired new insights into the motivation issue. In the July 2008 issue authors Nitin Nohria, Boris Groysberg and Linda Eling Lee describe a new model of employee motivation. They outline the four fundamental emotional drives that underlie motivation as The drive to acquire the acquisition of scarce material things including financial compensation to feel better the drive to bond developing strong bonds of love caring and belonging the drive to comprehend to make sense of our world so we can take the right actions and the drive to defend defending our property ourselves and our accomplishments. Norhria and associates argue that managers who try to increase motivation must satisfy all of these four drives. Best practice companies have initiated rewar d systems based on performance addressed the bond drive by developing a corporate culture based on friendship mutual reliance collaboration and sharing addressed the drive of

comprehend by instituting job design system where jobs are designed for specific roles and those jobs are meaningful and foster a sense of contributi on to the organization.

Refrences
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50,248 -287. Brockner, J., Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 86, 35 -66. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta -analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psycholog y, 86, 425-445. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta -analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627668. Gagn, M. & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self -determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26, 331- 362. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstatter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 186 -199. Gollwitzer, P. M. & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement.

Bibliography.
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol 38. (pp. 69 -119). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 16, 250 279. Judge, T. A ., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self -evaluation traits - Self-esteem, Generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability - with job Satisfaction and job performance: A meta -analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80-92. Judge, T.A. & Lilies, R. (2003). Relationship of Personality to Performance Motivation: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (4), 797 -807. Kehr, H. M. (2004). Integrating implicit motives, explicit motives, and perceived abilities: the compensatory model of work motivation and volition. Academy of Management Review, 29, 479499. Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J. , Hollenbeck, J. R., & Alge, B. J. (1999). Goal commitment and the goal -setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (6), 885 -896. Latham, G. P. & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and rese arch at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485 -516. Locke, E.A., Latham, G. P., Smith, K. J. & Wood, R. E. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance. Prentice Hall. Macey, W. H. & Schneider, B. (2008). The Mean ing of Employee Engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3 -30. Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E. & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee Commitment and Motivation: A Conceptual Analysis and Integrative Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (6), 991-1007. Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L. & Eby, L. T. (2006). Locus of control at work: A metaanalysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1057 - 1087. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C. & Dilchert, S. (2005). Personality at Work: Raising Awareness and Correcting Misconceptions. Human Performance, 18 (4), 389 -404. Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A., Lacost, H. A. &

Roberts, J. E. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 389 -416. Rodgers, R. & Hunter, J. E. (1991). Impact of management by objectives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 (2), 322 -336. Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W. & van R henen, W. (2008). Workaholism, Burnout, and Work Engagement: Three of a Kind or Three Different Kinds of Employee Well -being? Applies Psychology: An International Review, 57 (2), 173 -203. Stajkovic, A., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self -efficacy and work-related performance: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240 -261. Wofford, J. C., Goodwin, V. L., & Premack, S. (1992). Meta -analysis of the antecedents of personal goal level and of the antecedents and consequences of goal commitment. Journal of Manageme nt, 18 (3), 595 -615.