Analysis of Herzbergs Two-factor Theory

Analysis of Herzbergs Two-factor surmisalGuided by the question what employees in the information society of the twenty-first coke perceive as applicable for their personal demand in comparison to Herzbergs ii-factor possibility this dissertation presents a soft exact conducted with a group of German k straightledge educateers. The participants reject Herzbergs both factor hypothesis as an adequate pauperismal theory for their oeuvre motivating. According to the participants view a cultural bias can be assemble in Herzbergs theory. Further much the to a trim placelying assumption of Herzbergs theory that product line satisfaction and dissatisfaction depend on different factors is doubted. alternatively it is suggested by the participants the difference take to be made between pauperism and line of merchandise satisfaction. The theory does non reflect the German cultural angle of dip towards a team-based admittance and the grandness of safety ineluctably for motivation. The inducing factors proposed by Herzberg scarcely parti whollyy meet the cognizance of the group of participants. A ment everyy thought-provoking break down, visionary leadership and psychological safety be the appoint motivators in the researched organisation. Differences in the nature of the mull and the cultural environment atomic number 18 suggested as reasons why earlier studies on Herzbergs theory resulted in ambivalent findings concerning the validity of Herzbergs theory. Implications of a affirmable misunderstanding of Herzberg concerning the kindred between job satisfaction, job dissatisfaction and motivation on the both-factor theory and different relevant motivational theories get discussed.Revaluating Herzbergs Two-Factor guessA forty-fifth AnniversaryHonour where honour is due in shape to end for 45years with pop being disproved and maintain a place under the nigh important of its kind an academic theory has to be a truly dramatic speci men. This is the case for Frederick Herzbergs two-factor theory of study motivation, published in The motivation to Work (Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman) in 1959. In its essence the theory relates motivation and job satisfaction with a set of work-related factors and job dissatisfaction with a set of factors in the organisational environment.Since its introduction in 1959 it can be said that the two-factor theory has had broad persuade on the body of science on workplace motivation. contempt existing criticism it can be deferd that the two-factory theory fulfils all quad criteria of a valuable academic theory (Whitsett and Winslow 1967), it has resolving and instructive power, has gen durationted a vast amount of kick upstairs research (Herzberg 1993) and is a helpful base for prediction on the topic of workplace motivation. In increase Herzberg (Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman 1959) introduced a unsanded research method to generate his findings, the so-called feelin g-sustaining non innate technique that caused great sensation and dispute in academic circles at that point in time. In this way Herzbergs theory has lost nonhing of its attractiveness to and influence on academics and managers alike over the past decades. In contrary it can even so be found on the managers motivational toolbag for managing into the new millennium (Buhler 200320) and in modern academic textbooks (Mullins 2002, Rollinson and Broad compass 2002). The same holds true for Herzbergs original research design, which is still used by current researchers all around the world to conduct studies on workplace motivation (Ruthankoon and Ogunlana 2003, Tamosaitis and Schwenkers 2002, Timmreck 2001).What strives Herzbergs theory such an outstanding specimen amongst the various motivational theories are its underlying thoughts on organisational behaviour in general that shit largely on A.H. Maslows (1943) famous pecking order of needs theory on human behaviour.His findings i n the field of motivation led Herzberg to break down one of the trailblazers of the job enrichment movement during the late 1960s and 1970s that is now highly connected to his name and contri aloneed much to Herzbergs later fame (Clark, Chandler and Barry 1994, Hackman 1975, Reif, Ferrazzi and Evans 1974). With his ideas on job enrichment Herzberg introduced a change that still can be found in our modern job design.Neverthe slight paradigms have changed during the last 45 years. The new millennium has seen the coming of the information society and the knowledge era (Van Beveren 2002). Thus forcing change on the complaisant and organisational environment (Mullins 2002). Writers such as Senge (1990) and Edmonson (1999) stress the importance of organisational learnedness and new team based approaches to life pace with changes forced onto organisations by the suppuration stage of globalisation and the chop-chop increasing body of knowledge. delay 0.1 highlights the changes in w ariness during the last centuries.Table 0.1 Comparing the paradigms19th century20th century21st century guess of personhoodInterchangeable muscle and energyA subordinate with a hierarchy of needsAutonomous and reflexive individualInformation and understandThe province of counselling alone concern-dominated and shared on a express basisWidely diffusedThe purpose of workSurvival accretion of wealth and social statusPart of strategic life inventIdentificationWith the firm and/or with the working classIdentify with a social group and/or the firmThe disenfranchised self battleDisruptive and to be avoidedDisruptive entirely tolerated and can be settled through and through collective bargainingA normal part of lifeDivision of labourManagers decide, employees put to deathManagers decide, employees execute thoughtfullyEmployees and managers decide and executePowerConcentrated on the topLimited, functional sharing/ authorityDiffused and sharedSource Mullins, Laurie J. (2002)The radic al changes in the organisational environment in any case made it requisite to develop new methods of analysis. Under the impression of the growing complexity of influences on organisations business research balanced its traditional tranquil methods of quantitative research with the more flexible and dynamic research tools of qualitative research (Bryman and Bell 2003). Thus providing new ways of conducting research and revaluating the results of already existing findings.This papers presents the results of a qualitative study conducted in a branch of a German software company in order to explore the perception of modern knowledge workers on their own workplace motivation and to compare these perceptions to Herzbergs two-factor theory. Chapter one summarises Herzbergs work on motivation and job enrichment as well as Maslows hierarchy of needs theory as an important predecessor to Herzbergs work. Chapter two summarises the criticism on both Herzbergs and Maslows work, provides a d raft survey of Hofstedes cultural framework and presents further literature relevant to the research. Chapter three introduces the company where the research was conducted and the participants. It as well contains the methodology and method sections. Chapter four presents the findings of the research, while chapter five contains the discussion. Chapter six finally closes the paper with the conclusions, the limitations of the research and issues for further research.Chapter 1 Herzberg, Maslow and Human NeedsThis chapter highlights Herzbergs two-factor theory of workplace motivation and his consecutive work on job enrichment as well as A.H. Maslows hierarchy of needs theory of motivation. The relations between the two theories are discussed.1.1 Herzbergs two-factor theoryIt was in fact Herzbergs psychological backrestground that lead to the insights, which became the basis of his first research published in 1959 his well-known book The Motivation to Work (Herzberg 1993, Herzberg, Ma usner and Snyderman 1959). During his time working at a public wellness school Herzberg came to the conclusion that mental health is non the opposite of mental illness (Herzberg 1993xii). The idea that things usually believed to be separately differents opposite do non need to be diametrically opposed if they are de shapeined by different factors became the foundation of Herzbergs theory on workplace motivation. Herzberg argued that if job satisfaction was determined by different factors than dissatisfaction with the job, job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction were not precisely each other(a)s opposite and had to be treated as different aspects of work (Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman 1959). In order to prove this hypothesis Herzberg made use of the critical incident method.. Herzberg conducted his initial research with a sample of 203 engineers and accountants asking them to absorb one situation (critical incident) where they felt good in their job and another(prenominal)(p renominal) situation where they felt bad at work (Herzberg 1993, Rollinson, Broadfield and Edwards 1998). The analysis of the interviews was conducted by a team of researches that had been trained to understand and categorise similar statements by the participants in the same way, so that the experiences described could be grouped under a set of generic ground (Herzberg, Mausner, Boch Snyderman 1959). After this coding modus operandi the results became quantified, simply by counting how often each generic term had been named in inter-group communication to job satisfaction or in connection to job dissatisfaction (Herzberg, Mausner, Boch Snyderman 1959). By this means Herzberg and his team were able to extract two sets of factors from the interviews, one that was repeatedly mentioned in connection to job satisfaction or a good feeling about the job and one that was coupled to job dissatisfaction or a bad feeling about the job. stemma satisfaction, accord to Herzberg, is mainly a result of the actual work conducted and a series of issues that contributed to the positive perception of the work, such as science, proceeding, the possibility of ingathering, patterned advance and responsibility (Herzberg, Mausner, Boch Snyderman 1959, Tietjen and Myers 1998). Herzberg concluded that these factors not scarcely cause job satisfaction, but to have a positive and lasting influence on motivation, if they are present. Therefore these factors became known as motivators. Dissatisfaction on the other hand was caused by factors in the job environment that did not directly contribute to the work itself (Herzberg, Mausner, Boch Snyderman 1959, Mullins 2002). The positive handling of these factors, harmonise to Herzberg, could have only a short-run effect on motivation, while these factors caused severe dissatisfaction with the job, if they were handled badly. Herzberg referred to this factors as hygienics.Herzberg regarded his findings as prove for his initial hypoth esis that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction were unrelated matters (Herzberg, Mausner, Boch Snyderman 1959). so he regarded the opposite of job satisfaction to be no satisfaction and the opposite of job dissatisfaction to be no satisfaction. Thus the presence of motivator factors would cause satisfaction and motivation and their absence only no satisfaction. The hygienics factors on the other hand would mainly lead to dissatisfaction and would in a positive case only cause a zero state of motivation or satisfaction (Mullins 2002). Motivator and Hygiene factors are contrasted in table 1.1.Table 1.1 Motivators and Hygiene FactorsMotivatorsHygiene FactorsAchievementCompany polity and administrationRecognitionTechnical supervisionWork itselfSalary provinceInterpersonal relations supervisionAdvancementWorking conditionsPossibility of developmentStatusInterpersonal relations subordinateInterpersonal relations peers individual(a) Life agate line securitySource Tietjen and Myers 199 8Herzberg (1968, 2003) further elaborated his perception of workplace motivation in his famous article One much Time How Do You Motivate Employees that has arrive the most reprinted article of the Harvard business concern Review of all times (Herzberg 1993). By comparing the two terms motivation and movement, Herzberg rejects the classical carrot and stick approach of management. Herzberg rather follows the apprehension that financial incentives, a pleasant social environment or the fling of status symbols as well as punishment and disciplining by management may move or drive employees towards the fulfilment of a definite task, but entrust not make the task itself more provoke or motivate (Herzberg 1968). In his later work Herzberg compared hygiene to heroine, stating that more and more hygiene improvements are requirement to achieve less and less motivation (Dowling 1971). According to Herzberg (1968) only well-designed jobs, challenging tasks and the acknowledging aware ness of management and colleagues forget fill employees with enthusiasm for their jobs and intrinsically motivate them to carry out their tasks. Management is requested not to push employees towards organisational goals, but to provide sensible and challenging tasks that forget their subordinates to grow while working towards the organisational goals. Goal fulfilment needs to be recognised by management in an appropriate manor. patronage Herzbergs emphasise on the fact that motivation can only be achieved by the motivators, he stresses that a proper management of the hygiene factors is equally important in order to make work not only a motivating but pleasant experience (Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman 1959, Mullins 2002).1.2 Herzbergs Contribution to Job EnrichmentHerzberg did not restrict his 1968 article to be a mere summary of his earlier work on motivation. Instead he additionally presented a list of what he called regulations of vertical job lode (Table 1.2) that indicated how jobs needed to be modified in order to show forward the motivators of his two-factor theory to their advantage (Herzberg 200393).Table 1.2 conventions of vertical job loadingPrincipleMotivators involvedA. Removing some covers while retaining functionResponsibility and personal achievementB. Increasing the accountability of individuals for own workResponsibility and recognitionC. vainglorious a person a complete natural unit of work (module, division, area, and so on)Responsibility, achievement, and recognitionD. Granting additional authority to employees in their activity, job immunityResponsibility, achievement, and recognitionE. Making periodic reports directly available to the workers themselves rather than to supervisors inbred recognitionF. Introducing new and more difficult tasks not previously handled ripening and learningG. Assigning individuals specific or specialised tasks, enabling them to become expertsResponsibility, growth, and advancementSource Herzberg 200 3Herzbergs approach to create more a more fulfilling job experience by swelled jobs more motivating contents and thusly more meaning became known as the job enrichment movement (Hackman 1975, Reif, Ferazzi and Evans 1974). The job enrichment idea was taken up by some(prenominal) other writers, who partially developed rivalling concepts to the one of Herzberg, such as sociotechnical systems, participative management and industrial democracy (Herzberg 1974). Although the theories on job enrichment overlap in indisputable aspects, it giveing be sufficient for the purpose of this paper on Herzbergs motivational theory to focus on Herzbergs own approach that became known as orthodox job enrichment, as this concept is most strongly linked to Herzbergs motivator-hygiene theory (Herzberg 1974). In his paper The acute old Turk Herzberg (1974) presents are more complete approach to job enrichment compared to his principles on vertical job loading mentioned above. Job enrichment, he arg ues, is based on the kins between ability, chance and performance reinforcement. The more ability an employee possesses to do his or her work, Herzberg points out, the easier this employee can be motivated to do a good job. This principle is of significance for the organisations policies on recruitment and selection as well training and development, as a person who is lacking the necessary competence is far more difficult to motivate. Ability on the other hand is of no use, if the job does not offer the opportunity to make full use of ones own abilities, or as Herzberg (197471) puts it managers cannot motivate a person to do a good job, unless in that respect is a good job to do. Finally the employees cooking to grow with his work needs to be reinforced. Appraisal systems do not only need to appreciate the employees growth, they need to reward growth with the potential for further growth and advancement, as there is no sentience in providing training without opportunity, no se nse in offering opportunity without training, and no sense in offering both training and opportunity if the reinforcement is solely by hygiene procedures (Herzberg 197471).Herzberg (1974) continues by presenting eight features a good job should include, direct feedback, a client relationship, a learning function, the opportunity for each person to schedule his own work, unique expertise, control over resources, direct communications and personal accountability. Direct feedback can constitute of the immediate response of the supervisor to the results of the subordinate or even best(p) the opportunity for the subordinate to independently verify his or her efforts him or herself. The relationship to a specific client gives the employee the opportunity to better understand the needs and problems of his or her customer and participate in their solution. Herzberg (1974) recommends to organise internal supplier-client relationships for back office employees in order to increase their int erest in the boilers suit work processes. New learning refers to possibilities for the employee to grow psychologically in order to keep his or her job meaning or purposeful. It further allows the employee to unendingly update his or her knowledge in order to maintain the necessary competence in a fast changing economical environment. scheduling is supposed to grant the employee the freedom of how to structure his or her tasks. While the deadlines are still set by management the employee becomes free to set his or her own pace to keep them. Unique expertise aims at giving each employee a more or less individual field of competence in order to increase his or her identification with the task. chequer over resources is meant to allocate the means for a project to the lowest possible take of hierarchy in order to increase the responsibility of the lower ranks. Direct communications authority allows employees to address their colleagues in other split of the organisation in formal matters directly without having to involve the hierarchy. Thus miserliness time and improving the social relations within the organisation. Personal accountability finally frees the employee from doing single in itself meaningless tasks and provides responsibility for a perspicuous set of tasks with which the employee can identify. Although these factors are closer to reality than the principles of vertical job loading in table 1.2 it is still fairly obvious how their executing can contribute to including the motivators of Herzbergs two-factor theory mentioned in table 1.1 into the employees unremarkable work.In 1979 Herzberg published an even more refined view on job enrichment, based on a stick that highlighted the central importance of the client relationship for orthodox job enrichment. The relationship to a client, according to Herzberg, would improve an employees opportunity to constantly update his knowledge of the customers needs and requirements thus enabling to stay i n touch with the in vogue(p) developments, increasing his knowledge and contributing to the employees unique expertise. Herzbergs model of job enrichment is depicted in figure 1.1.Figure 1.1 Herzbergs set of Job EnrichmentControlOver ResourcesDirect FeedbackNew learning leaf node RelationshipUnique ExpertiseSelf-SchedulingDirect Communications federal agencyPersonal AccountabilitySource Herzberg 19791.3 Maslows Hierarchy of Needs TheoryPublished in 1943 A.H. Maslows hierarchy of needs theory is in fact not only a predecessor of Herzbergs two-factor theory, but its basis as it will be pointed out later (Mullins 2002, Rollinson and Broadfield 2002). Maslow (1943) suggests that motivation is a result of five different sets of human needs and desires, that is to say physiological, safety, sexual love, dream up and self-actualisation needs (Mullins 2002, Rollinson and Broadfield 2002, Clark, Chandler and Barry 1998). Physiological needs refer to the most essential issues of human s urvival such as food and drink, air to breath, sleep, procreation and so on. Safety needs include physical safety, but also the human desire for predictability and orderliness. Love needs consist of all sorts of social affiliation and their advantages. Esteem needs include self-esteem and the confidence in ones own abilities as well as the recognition and admiration by others. Self-actualisation needs finally refer to the ultimate experience of self-fulfilment and the idea of becoming the person one always wanted to be. Although Maslow (1943) only wrote about a hierarchy, his levels of needs usually are pictured as a pyramid (Figure 1.2).Figure 1.2 Maslows Hierarchy of NeedsSelf- recognitionEsteemLoveeSafetyPhysiologicalSource Mullins 2002People, according to Maslow (1943), process through these levels of needs in a hierarchical order, as one level of needs gets satisfied it loses its motivating effect making the individual long for the satisfaction of the next set of needs. Withou t at least a certain(p) degree of satisfaction in one level of needs, however, people will not be interested in the satisfaction of the higher levels and hence no motivation will be triggered by those higher needs. Maslow (1943) gives the model of the starving person that cannot be motivated by any other means than food. If this person had enough to eat, food will cease to be a motivator and given the fact that physiological needs in general are perceived satisfying the persons motivation will turn to the realisation of the next higher set of needs.Maslow (1943) himself pointed out the hierarchical order in which he arranged the needs was not a strict one. Instead several issues can have an influence on this order. First of all a set of needs does not need to be entirely satisfied in order to allow the individual to proceed to the next level, already a certain degree of satisfaction can be enough for the individual to aim for another set of needs. In this case, however, the unsat isfied parts of the earlier level will remain motivators. Additionally the structure of the hierarchy may vary according to personalities. Some people may have a stronger interest in esteem than in love and therefore want to satisfy the esteem needs earlier. Psychotic persons may have no interest in specific satisfaction of certain levels of needs such as love at all, while highly idealistic persons may sacrifice everything in pursuit of just one single need. Another group of persons may be satisfied with settling in one level of the hierarchy without being interested in satisfying any higher levels. moreover it has to be kept in mind that definitely most actions taken by individuals officiate more than just one set of needs. A dinner with friends in a luxurious restaurant for workout will not only satisfy physiological needs but may also satisfy aspects of love and esteem.Although Maslows theory initially was not meant to be applied to the work context it soon became influential in the analysis of workplace motivation as well (Mullins 2002, Rollinson and Broadfield 2002). Steers and Porter for example elaborated real-life incentives within the work environment that could be used to serve all of the employees needs as shown in table 1.3. Alderfer further all-encompassing Maslows thoughts in his ERG theory (Mullins 2002, Rollinson and Broadfield 2002).Table 1.3 Application of Maslows Theory to the Work ContextNeeds levelsGeneral rewardsOrganisational factors1. PhysiologicalFood, water, sex, sleepa Payb Pleasant working conditionsc Cafeteria2. SafetySafety, security, stability, tax sheltera Safe working conditionsb Company benefitsc Job security3. SocialLove, affection, belongingnessa Cohesive work groupb Friendly supervisionc Pro