Herzberg Two Factor Theory

What Herzberg Two Factor Theory is

Herzberg Two Factor Theory (نظرية هيرزبرج) is a theory of work motivation put forward by the psychologist Frederick Herzberg. In Arabic his surname is also spelled هيرزبرغ and هرزبرغ, and the theory is also called the two factor theory (نظرية العاملين). The theory holds that the factors that prevent dissatisfaction at work are not the factors that drive satisfaction and effort. They are two different groups, and not a single group ranged from low to high. Herzberg named the first group hygiene factors and the second group motivators.

The concept matters to the human resources officer, the line manager and the owner of the establishment. An organisation that raises pay and improves working conditions and then waits for effort to increase may be assuming that the factor it has addressed is the one that moves the employee. The theory says that this assumption may not hold. The definition is limited to this one theory, and the other theories of motivation are gathered under work motivation.

Who proposed the theory and where it comes from

The theory is attributed to Frederick Herzberg. It appeared in the book The Motivation to Work, published in 1959 by John Wiley in New York, whose authors are Herzberg, Bernard Mausner and Barbara Bloch Snyderman. Herzberg then presented it to readers of management literature in the article “One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?” in the Harvard Business Review, volume 46, number 1, January to February 1968.

According to the summary sources we reviewed, the data for the first study were gathered through interviews with engineers and accountants. The participants were asked to recall events that made them very happy with their work and events that made them very unhappy with it, a method described as the critical incident technique. We did not see the text of the book itself, so we summarise what the available sources report about it. We do not quote it, and we do not state the number of participants, because the sources differ on it.

What hygiene factors are

Hygiene factors take their name from preventive health measures. They keep the working environment free of irritants, and they do not produce satisfaction by themselves. They relate to the context of the work and not to the work itself. Among their examples, the summary sources list:

• Company policy and administration. The rules the establishment lays down and the way work proceeds within it.
• Supervision. The quality of the relationship with the supervisor and the supervisor’s way of following the work.
• Relations with colleagues. The atmosphere in which the employee works among colleagues.
• Working conditions. The place, the tools and the working hours.
• Pay. What the employee receives in return for the work.
• Status and job security. The employee’s standing in the establishment and how far the employee feels assured of staying.

The idea of the theory is that the absence or poor quality of these factors may produce dissatisfaction, while their presence at a good level does not necessarily produce satisfaction and motivation. An employee who works in a pleasant place for suitable pay may not, for that reason alone, feel driven to put in extra effort, but may be troubled if these things are missing.

What motivators are

Motivators, in this theory, relate to the content of the work itself. In one of his later presentations of the theory, Herzberg lists achievement, recognition for achievement, the work itself, responsibility, and growth or advancement. These are factors that may lead to satisfaction and effort when they are present. The theory thereby departs from a view that places satisfaction and dissatisfaction at the two ends of one continuum. It sets the opposite of dissatisfaction as the absence of dissatisfaction, and the opposite of satisfaction as the absence of satisfaction. The two groups therefore lie on two different continua:

• On the hygiene continuum: from dissatisfaction to the absence of dissatisfaction.
• On the motivators continuum: from the absence of satisfaction to satisfaction.

On this understanding it is not enough to say that an employee is satisfied or dissatisfied, because the theory looks at the type of factors the employee is talking about. An employee may have no complaint about pay and the conditions of the place and still find nothing in the work that drives them.

How the theory differs from nearby theories

The theory meets other theories of motivation, but its question is different, so we mark only where the difference lies and do not set those theories out again:

• Hierarchy of needs arranges human needs in categories and gives them an order of priority. Herzberg’s theory separates what prevents dissatisfaction from what drives satisfaction, and it does not rely on a hierarchical order among needs. A further theory places part of what moves an employee in three basic psychological needs, autonomy, competence and relatedness, which are set out in Self Determination Theory.
• Theory X and Theory Y are two assumptions about what a manager believes of the nature of employees. They are not a theory of the factors of satisfaction. They concern the assumptions a manager carries.
• Employee engagement is the degree of attachment that drives an employee to effort beyond what is required. It is a state of the employee, whereas the theory deals with factors in the work that may affect that state.

How the terms satisfaction and dissatisfaction are used

In the theory, “dissatisfaction” means what arises from the context of the work when that context worsens, and “satisfaction” means what arises from the content of the work when it is enriched. This use is particular to the theory, and it may not match what an employee means when they say that they are satisfied with their job. Carrying the results of a satisfaction survey into this framework may therefore call for caution, because the sentence “I am satisfied” may combine the two types.

A hypothetical example: sorting employee comments

Assume that an establishment collected 40 written comments from its employees about what troubles them at work and what they would like, and sorted them according to the theory. It found 24 comments about pay, schedules, the style of supervision and the conditions of the place, which are hygiene factors, and 16 comments about the content of the work, recognition and responsibility, which are motivators.

The share of the first group is 24 ÷ 40 = 60%, the share of the second is 16 ÷ 40 = 40%, and together they make 100%. In this example the hygiene comments exceed the motivator comments by 24 minus 16, which equals 8 comments. The figures are hypothetical, and the example does not mean that pay and the conditions of the place deserve attention first, since the motivator comments may weigh more heavily on those who wrote them. It shows only how the content of comments can be examined with the theory: by sorting them into the context of the work or its content, and then asking whether the remedy is the same for both types or different.

The sorting calls for caution, because a single comment may bear both classifications. The comment “nobody notices what I have achieved” may be classed as recognition, which is a motivator, or as a style of supervision, which is a hygiene factor, depending on what its writer means.

How the theory relates to job design

Since motivators in the theory relate to the content of the work, a question may arise about the design of the job itself. In his article Herzberg linked this idea to the enrichment of jobs, which is the practical side dealt with in job enrichment. Job autonomy deals with the choice an employee has in how the work is done, and it may be one of the forms in which the motivator tied to responsibility is addressed. That link between the concepts is ours and is not part of the theory.

None of this means that pay does not matter. The theory does not say that hygiene factors have no value. It says that their absence may do harm and that their presence alone may not drive. Hygiene factors may also touch employee wellbeing, through the safety of the working environment and the comfort of the employee, and that too is a link of ours.

A hypothetical example: remedying a single factor

Picture a team of 15 employees, 9 of whom submitted comments about the conditions of the place before it was improved. After the improvement the comments numbered 3. The fall is 9 minus 3, which equals 6 comments, or 6 ÷ 9 ≈ 66.7% of the earlier comments. Assume further that the number of suggestions the team made for developing the work itself stayed as it was, 4 suggestions before the improvement and 4 after it.

The example sets out, in hypothetical form, what the theory anticipates: that remedying a hygiene factor may reduce complaint about it without changing the extra effort employees give. The example proves nothing about reality, since we chose the figures to show the structure and they were not measured in any establishment. Nor should it be understood to mean that the remedy is of no use, because reducing complaint may be an aim in itself.

The limits of the theory

The first limit to consider is the method of collecting data. The study rested on interviews in which participants recalled events and explained them, and what a person recalls and attributes may not match what actually moved them. This is our own judgement about the nature of the method and is not taken from a particular critic. In the sources we reviewed we found no accredited test that confirms the same division in every job and every setting.

The theory classifies factors by their expected effect, but it does not say how the effect differs from one employee to another. One employee may see pay as a motivator at a stage of life, and another may see it as a factor that has done its work once it is in place. Individual differences of this kind are taken up in work motivation.

The theory offers no scale that gives an establishment a score on hygiene and another on motivators. Any classification of factors used in practice is a matter of application, and it is not part of what Herzberg wrote.

How an establishment can use the theory

We suggest using the theory as a tool that helps to put one question: is what we are addressing the context of the work or its content? When a complaint reaches the human resources officer, or when the officer is asked to raise motivation, the officer can ask whether the problem lies in what surrounds the work or in the work itself. The officer can also ask whether the job offers a chance for achievement, recognition and responsibility.

The answer may show that one remedy was applied to two different problems and that one of them was left untouched. This is a practical recommendation of ours and is not part of the theory as Herzberg framed it. In essence the theory distinguishes two types of factors. It assumes that the two types differ in their effect, and it leaves each establishment to verify that in its setting.

This is an explanation of the concept, not legal advice.