On This Page:ToggleDefinitionHerzberg’s ApproachMotivation FactorsHerzberg’s Hygiene FactorsExamplesCritical Evaluation
On This Page:Toggle
On This Page:
Key Takeaways
What Is Two-Factor Theory?
The two-factor motivation theory, otherwise known as Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory or dual-factor theory, argues that there are separate sets of mutually exclusive factors in the workplace that either cause job satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1966; 1982; 1991; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959).
Generally, these factors encourage job satisfaction and relate to self-growth and self-actualization.
The two-factor motivation theory has become one of the most commonly used theoretical frameworks in job satisfaction research (Dion, 2006).
To Herzberg, motivators ensured job satisfaction, while a lack of hygiene factors spawned job dissatisfaction.
Herzberg’s Motivation - Hygiene Theory with Icons in an Infographic template
The major mid-twentieth century researchers in motivation — Maslow (1954), Herzberg, Vroom (1964), Alderfer (1972), McCalland (1961), and Locke et al. (1981) — devised research which Basset-Jones and Lloyd argue can be divided into content and process theories of motivation.
Content theories, such as Herzberg et al. (1959), assume a complex interaction between internal and external factors and explore how people respond to different internal and external stimuli.
Meanwhile, process theories, such as that of Vroom (1964), consider how factors internal to the person lead to different behaviors.
Frederick Herzberg’s Approach
Frederick Herzberg and his two collaborators, Mausner and Snyderman, developed the motivation-hygiene theory in their bookMotivation to Work.
Herzberg and his colleagues explored the impact of fourteen factors on job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in terms of their frequency and duration of impact (Bassett-Jones and Lloyd, 2005).
In the first of these studies, Heizberg asked 13 laborers, clerical workers, foremen, plant engineers, and accountants to describe, in detail, situations where they felt exceptionally good or bad about their jobs (Robbins and Judge, 2013).
Generally, respondents, when describing situations where they felt good about their jobs, cited factors intrinsic to their work, while those describing situations where they felt bad about their jobs citedextrinsic factors.
Herzberg (1959) considers two factors that can add to or detract from job satisfaction: hygiene and motivation.
While hygiene factors are related to “the need to avoid unpleasantness,” motivation factors more directly lead to job satisfaction because of “the need of the individual for self-growth and self-actualization.”
The traditional view of job satisfaction entails that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction exist on the same continuum; employees who lack reasons to be satisfied with their jobs must be dissatisfied (Robbins and Judge, 2013).
However, hygiene and motivational factors are distinct. To Herzberg, the opposite of job satisfaction was not job dissatisfaction but no job satisfaction. Conversely, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is no job dissatisfaction (Kacel et al., 2005).
These two separate continua of job satisfaction and job satisfaction support the possibility that someone can be content with certain aspects of their jobs but discontent with others.
Perhaps more pessimistically, this also implies that simply eliminating “dissatisfiers” would not necessarily lead to job satisfaction as much as placation (motivational concepts).
These so-called “satisfiers” (motivational factors) and “dissatisfiers” (a lack of hygiene factors) are dynamic, constantly interacting, highly subject to change, and relative to the employee (Misener and Cox, 2001).
Certain satisfiers or dissatisfiers may be more important than others depending on personal and professional contexts.
According to Herzberg, whether or not dissatisfiers outweigh satisfiers predict whether employees find their job interesting and enjoyable and their likelihood of remaining at their current jobs (Kacel et al., 2005).
Motivation Factors
Herzberg et al. (1959) argue that motivation factors are necessary to improve job satisfaction.
According to Herzberg, these motivators are intrinsic to the job and lead to job satisfaction because they satisfy the needs for growth andself-actualization(Herzberg, 1966).
In his original paper, Herzberg examines 14 motivational and hygiene factors, of which there are notable examples:
Meanwhile, a negative or neutral status at work represents negative advancement (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).
The job’s difficulty and level of engagement can dramatically impact satisfaction or dissatisfaction in the workplace (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).
Personal growth can result in professional growth, increased opportunities to develop new skills and techniques, and gaining professional knowledge (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).
People gain satisfaction from being given the responsibility and authority to make decisions. Conversely, a mismatch between responsibility and level of authority negatively affects job satisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).
Negative recognition involves criticism or blame for a poorly done job (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).
Negative achievement includes failure to progress at work or poor job-related decision-making (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).
Herzberg’s Hygiene Factors
Hygiene factors are those which decrease job dissatisfaction. Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman used the term hygiene as “medical hygiene…[which] operates to remove health hazards from the environment” (1959; Alshmemri et al., 2017).
Herzberg also states that hygiene factors are extrinsic to the job and function in “the need to avoid unpleasantness” (Herzberg, 1966).
Hygiene factors, rather than relating to the content of the job in itself, tend to relate to contextual factors such as interpersonal relations, salary, company policies, and administration, relationship with supervisors, and working conditions:
This can manifest in, for example, job-related interactions as well as social discussions in both the work environment and during informal break times.
For example, a lack of delegation of authority, vague policies and procedures, and communication may lead to job dissatisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017).
For example, this could include a supervisor’s willingness to delegate responsibility or teach and their knowledge of the job.
Poor leadership and management can decrease job satisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017).
Factors leading to a good or poor workspace could involve the amount of work, space, ventilation, tools, temperature, and safety (Alshmemri et al., 2017).
Examples
Nursing
In one such study, Kacel et al. (2005) used Herzberg’s theory as a framework for qualitatively studying job satisfaction among 147 nurse practitioners in the Midwest of the United States.
Kacel et al. noticed a Koelbel, Fuller, and Misener (1991) study that suggested that nurses often become nurse practitioners because of dissatisfaction with their staff nursing position and a desire to use their abilities to their fullest potential — to fulfill what Herzberg would call motivation factors.
In particular, nurses become nurse practitioners, according to Kacel, because of the role’s challenge and autonomy (2005).
The researchers devised the Misener Nurse Practitioner Job Satisfaction Scale (Misner and Cox, 2001). This is a 44-item questionnaire that focuses on six of Herzberg’s motivational and hygiene factors: collegiality, autonomy, professional social and community interaction, professional growth, time, and benefits and compensation (Kace et al., 2005).
The study described which factors were the most strongly associated with satisfaction and dissatisfaction and found that salary and administrative policies, in particular, influence nurses’ job dissatisfaction (Kacel et al., 2005).
Mid-Level Manager Job Satisfaction in India
Although heavily critiqued, Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory still greatly influences current methodology, particularly in several modern Asian workplace studies (Robbins and Judge, 2013).
Vijayakumar and Saxena (2015) conducted one such study in India. Attempting to address the controversy over whether monetary compensation motivates poor hygiene, the researchers used a questionnaire to ask 144 mid-level managers about what factors influenced their job satisfaction most.
In general, Straat found that video games determined to be of low quality — with a low average rating on a popular review website — tended to have more usability design issues; however, users tended to express more opinions about game aesthetics, narrative, or storyline than usability issues in their reviews (Straat and Verhageen, 2014).
Thisheuristicincludes factors such as “Players feel in control,” “The game goals are clear,” and “there is an emotional connection between the player and the game world,” which parallel Herzberg’s workplace factors.
The researchers then categorized each item in this heuristic as a hygienic or motivational factor according to participant responses (Straat and Warpefelt, 2015).
Critical Evaluation
Critics have also noted that if hygiene and motivational factors are equally important to a person, both should be capable of motivating employees (Robbins and Judge, 2013).
Herzberg conducted his formative motivation theory research at a time when organizations tended to be rigid and bureaucratic. As organizations shifted away from focusing on mass production and toward innovation, new theories of motivation, such as those based onbehaviorism, evolved (Bassett-Jones and Lloyd, 2005).
A large number of replication studies emerged following Herzberg’s results. Those using Herzberg’s methodology — the critical incident framework — were consistent with his original results, while research that used methods such as surveys supported the traditional idea that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction exist on the same continuum (Bassett-Jones and Lloyd, 2005).
Soon after Motivation at Work’s publication, Vroom (1964) offered a notable critique of this phenomenon: people would naturally be inclined toward protecting their egos when asked to recall good and bad work moments, thus attributing good moments to their personal achievement and capability and bad moments to work (Basset-Jones and Lloyd, 2005).
Thus, in Herzberg’s original qualitative study involving about 200 participants, participants may have been biased when thinking about times in the past when they felt good or bad about their jobs.
Nonetheless, critics struggled to grapple with how Herzberg’s methodology produced results with such consistency.
Nonetheless, critics continued attributing Herzberg’s results to factors such as social desirability bias (Wall, 1973) and personality (Evans and McKee, 1970).
FAQs
What is Herzberg two factor theory?Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory proposes that two sets of factors influence job satisfaction: hygiene factors and motivators.Hygiene factors, like salary and working conditions, don’t motivate but can cause dissatisfaction if inadequate.Motivators, like achievement, recognition, and growth, can create satisfaction and enhance motivation when present.According to Herzberg, what would be considered “motivators”?According to Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, “motivators” are factors that lead to job satisfaction and motivate employees to perform better. These include meaningful work, recognition, responsibility, opportunities for growth, achievement, and advancement.These factors are intrinsic to the work and are related to an individual’s need for personal growth and self-fulfillment.According to Herzberg’s two-factor theory, which factor would motivate individuals the most?According to Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, the “motivators” are the most potent in driving job satisfaction and motivation.These include intrinsic aspects such as achievement, recognition, work, responsibility, advancement, and growth opportunities.Herzberg suggests these factors promote higher performance as they fulfill individuals’ deep-seated needs for personal growth and self-fulfillment.However, the exact factor motivating most would vary based on the individual’s values and personal needs.
What is Herzberg two factor theory?Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory proposes that two sets of factors influence job satisfaction: hygiene factors and motivators.Hygiene factors, like salary and working conditions, don’t motivate but can cause dissatisfaction if inadequate.Motivators, like achievement, recognition, and growth, can create satisfaction and enhance motivation when present.
What is Herzberg two factor theory?
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory proposes that two sets of factors influence job satisfaction: hygiene factors and motivators.Hygiene factors, like salary and working conditions, don’t motivate but can cause dissatisfaction if inadequate.Motivators, like achievement, recognition, and growth, can create satisfaction and enhance motivation when present.
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory proposes that two sets of factors influence job satisfaction: hygiene factors and motivators.
Hygiene factors, like salary and working conditions, don’t motivate but can cause dissatisfaction if inadequate.
Motivators, like achievement, recognition, and growth, can create satisfaction and enhance motivation when present.
According to Herzberg, what would be considered “motivators”?According to Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, “motivators” are factors that lead to job satisfaction and motivate employees to perform better. These include meaningful work, recognition, responsibility, opportunities for growth, achievement, and advancement.These factors are intrinsic to the work and are related to an individual’s need for personal growth and self-fulfillment.
According to Herzberg, what would be considered “motivators”?
According to Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, “motivators” are factors that lead to job satisfaction and motivate employees to perform better. These include meaningful work, recognition, responsibility, opportunities for growth, achievement, and advancement.These factors are intrinsic to the work and are related to an individual’s need for personal growth and self-fulfillment.
According to Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, “motivators” are factors that lead to job satisfaction and motivate employees to perform better. These include meaningful work, recognition, responsibility, opportunities for growth, achievement, and advancement.
These factors are intrinsic to the work and are related to an individual’s need for personal growth and self-fulfillment.
According to Herzberg’s two-factor theory, which factor would motivate individuals the most?According to Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, the “motivators” are the most potent in driving job satisfaction and motivation.These include intrinsic aspects such as achievement, recognition, work, responsibility, advancement, and growth opportunities.Herzberg suggests these factors promote higher performance as they fulfill individuals’ deep-seated needs for personal growth and self-fulfillment.However, the exact factor motivating most would vary based on the individual’s values and personal needs.
According to Herzberg’s two-factor theory, which factor would motivate individuals the most?
According to Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, the “motivators” are the most potent in driving job satisfaction and motivation.These include intrinsic aspects such as achievement, recognition, work, responsibility, advancement, and growth opportunities.Herzberg suggests these factors promote higher performance as they fulfill individuals’ deep-seated needs for personal growth and self-fulfillment.However, the exact factor motivating most would vary based on the individual’s values and personal needs.
According to Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, the “motivators” are the most potent in driving job satisfaction and motivation.
These include intrinsic aspects such as achievement, recognition, work, responsibility, advancement, and growth opportunities.
Herzberg suggests these factors promote higher performance as they fulfill individuals’ deep-seated needs for personal growth and self-fulfillment.
However, the exact factor motivating most would vary based on the individual’s values and personal needs.
References
Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational settings.
Alshmemri, M., Shahwan-Akl, L., & Maude, P. (2017). Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Life Science Journal, 14(5), 12-16.
Bassett‐Jones, N., & Lloyd, G. C. (2005). Does Herzberg’s motivation theory have staying power? Journal of management development.
Desurvire, H., & Wiberg, C. (2009). Game usability heuristics (PLAY) for evaluating and designing better games: The next iteration. Paper presented at the International conference on online communities and social computing.
Dion, M. J. (2006). The impact of workplace incivility and occupational stress on the job satisfaction and turnover intention of acute care nurses: University of Connecticut.
Evans, M., & McKee, D. (1970). Some effects of internal versus external orientations upon the relationship between various aspects of job satisfaction. J Appl Psychol, 2(1), 17-24.
Herzberg, F. I. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man.
Herzberg, F. I. (1970). Avoiding pain in the organization. Industry Week. Dec, 7.
Herzberg, F. I . (1971a). More on avoiding pain in the organization. Industry Week. Jan. 18.
Herzberg, F. I. (1974). The wise old Turk. Harvard Business Review, 54(5), 70-80.
Herzberg, F. I. (1982). The managerial choice: To be efficient and to be human (2nd ed., Rev.). Salt Lake City, UT: Olympus.
Herzberg, F. I. (1991). Happiness and unhappiness: A brief autobiography of Frederick I. Herzberg. Unpublished manuscript, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Herzberg. F. I., & Hamlin, R. M. (1961). A motivation-hygiene concept of mental health.Mental Hygiene, 45, 394-401.
Herzberg, F. I., Mausner, R., Peterson, R., & Capwell, D. (1957). Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Services of Pittsburgh.
Herzberg, F. I., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York:John Wiley.
Jones, T. L. (2011). Effects of motivating and hygiene factors on job satisfaction among school nurses. Walden University.
Kacel, B., Miller, M., & Norris, D. (2005). Measurement of nurse practitioner job satisfaction in a Midwestern state. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 17(1), 27-32.
Koelbel, P. W., Fuller, S. G., & Misener, T. R. (1991). Job satisfaction of nurse practitioners: an analysis using Herzberg’s theory.The Nurse Practitioner, 16(4), 43, 46-52, 55.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980.Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125.
Further Reading
herzberg two factor theory. 1 arrow pointing upwards labelled ‘motivation factors’ with words outside of it: achievement, interest, responsibility, advancement. Another arrow pointing downwards labelled ‘hygiene factors’ with words outside of it: salary, conditions, policies, supervision, relationships.
Saul McLeod, PhD
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Charlotte NickersonResearch Assistant at Harvard UniversityUndergraduate at Harvard UniversityCharlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.
Charlotte NickersonResearch Assistant at Harvard UniversityUndergraduate at Harvard University
Charlotte Nickerson
Research Assistant at Harvard University
Undergraduate at Harvard University
Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.
