HERZBERG’S MOTIVATOR HYGIENE THEORY
Description
“Frederick Herzberg’s theory is based on a landmark study in which he interviewed 203 accountants and engineers” (Kreitner and Kinicki 2007, p. 240). Motivator Hygiene Theory (MHT) states that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are not opposites. The opposite of job satisfaction is no job satisfaction. The opposite of job dissatisfaction is no job dissatisfaction. Motivation can be achieved through job satisfaction.
MHT uses motivators and hygiene factors. Motivators are intrinsic entities and influence job satisfaction, while hygiene factors are extrinsic and at best produce no job dissatisfaction. Both factors can be seen in Figure 1. A base assumption of MHT is
Figure 1: Motivator and Hygiene Factors (Herzberg, 1987, p. 112)
managers can motivate individuals by building motivators into their jobs. Additionally, managers can reduce costs associated with turnover and job absenteeism by managing the hygiene factors to minimize job dissatisfaction.
Analysis
While MHT provides an extremely useful framework, it is not without criticism. One frequent criticism is the original study was based on US engineers and accountants. This limits the test to two job categories and one culture. However, since 1968, the test has been repeated over twenty times with different populations and cultures. The results were notably similar (Herzberg, 1987).
The theories’ double groupings are also criticized. While the motivators seem to correctly provide intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction, other surveys have found hygiene factors also provide job satisfaction (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2007). However, Figure 1 shows both hygiene and motivators overlap to an extent. A modification of MHT can better account for the criticisms. One can view MHT as a four-part grid with all factors contributing to motivation and satisfaction. See Figure 2.
Figure 2: MHT Four-Part Grid
Herzberg criticizes himself for leaning too far to the industrial engineering viewpoint and not giving the behaviorist viewpoint enough weight. He feels that positive reinforcements are necessary in the workplace if only to create a pleasant working environment (Herzberg, 1987). The author feels this is a valid point and that reinforcement, both negative and positive, as well as MHT have an important role in organizations.
The last criticism is Herzberg’s theory seems to have an underlying assumption that all people are intrinsically motivated and self-starters. If this were the case, everyone would be in Maslow’s self-actualization stage. From the author’s experience, this is not the case. Many people have priorities lying outside the workplace and just want a 9 to 5 job. One can argue that motivators will have little effect and hygiene factors will be what the person cares about.
Although there are several criticisms, MHT does provide a solid foundation for analyzing motivation and job satisfaction. In fact, one can argue that the other theories examined can be described in terms of motivator and hygiene factors.
JOB DESIGN
Description
Creating motivation through Job Design (JD) involves changing the nature of an employee’s job to increase performance and job satisfaction. JD has four different approaches: biological, perceptual-motor, mechanistic, and motivational (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2007). This article examines three motivational JD theories which are an application of MHT.
The first is Horizontal Job Loading (HJL). This is the ineffective practice of adding more of the same tasks to a person’s job. “(Horizontal) job loading merely enlarges the meaninglessness of the job” (Herzberg, 1987, p. 114).
The second approach is Vertical Job Loading (VJL). With this approach, employees are giving more responsibility and often take many of their manager’s tasks. This offers the opportunity for personal growth, achievement, recognition, and other HMT motivators. Herzberg performed a VJL study whose results are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Vertical Job Loading Results (Herzberg, 1987)
The final motivational JD model is the Job Characteristics Model (JCM). This model, developed by Richard Hackman and Greg Oldham, focuses on restructuring a job by focusing on intrinsic motivation. The model focuses on three critical psychological states:
1. The perceived meaningfulness of the work itself.
2. The perceived responsibility for outcomes.
3. Knowledge of the actual perceived results of the work.
The psychological states are in turn influenced by five core job characteristics.
1. Skill Variety - Using varied skill sets. Affects work meaningfulness.
2. Task Identity - Ability to perform a whole piece of work. Affects work meaningfulness.
3. Task Significance – Affect the job has on other people. Affects work meaningfulness.
4. Autonomy – Affects perceived responsibility for outcomes.
5. Job Feedback – Provides knowledge of work results.
The core job characteristics influence the core psychological states, which determine the outcomes shown in Figure 4. To account for differences in effectiveness by individual, JCM adds three moderators that vary from person to person.
Analysis
While HJL does not produce long-term motivation, VJL and the JCM do. They have a lot in common. Both focus on intrinsic factors for motivation. VJL focuses on motivators while JCM focuses on the three core psychological states and what influences them. Both share a common weakness by ignoring extrinsic factors. The two theories are very different in two significant ways. First, VJL often focuses on taking over some of a superior’s work. JCM focuses on the work itself and does not have that underlying assumption. Second, VJL does not take differences in individuals into account for how effective it will be whereas JCM does.
Figure 4: Job Characteristic Model (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2007)
While it is generally agreed VJL and JCM increase long-term motivation, each theory has its critics. The criticisms of VJL are usually pointed at the binary approach of HMT. Watson wonders if the Herzberg survey questions themselves falsely increase the appearance that the two factor approach is accurate (Watson, 1986).
JCM critics point to research that states it can reduce performance as easily as it can increase it (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2007). This represents a high risk since redesigning a job can be time intensive and costly to implement.
A criticism of JD in general is that it concentrates on a limited set of motivational work features such as skill variety and autonomy at the expense of other important factors like social environment and work context (Humphrey, Nahrgang, and Morgeson, 2007).
EQUITY THEORY
Description
Equity theory (ET) states that motivation and behavior are a function of perceived fairness in the organization. Employees subjectively compare themselves to a similar person. The comparison person can exist in the organization, or have a similar title in a different organization. The comparisons are based on the concept of inputs and outcomes. Inputs consist of an employee’s human capital, hierarchical position in the company, and the amount of work they do. Outputs are what the company provides and include pay and bonuses, inclusion in decision making, fringe benefits, promotions, and job security (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2007). There are three equity outcomes:
1. Equitable Situation: Comparison person has an equal input to output ratio.
2. Negative Inequity: Comparison person has a higher input to output ratio.
3. Positive Inequity: Comparison person has a lower input to output ratio.
ET assumes that a person will try to resolve inequities. The resolution can be cognitive (justifying the inequity mentally) or behavioral (increasing or reducing inputs). Different people have different equity sensitivities. There are three groups:
1. Benevolent: Insensitive to inequity.
2. Sensitive: Quickly resolves negative and positive inequity.
3. Entitled: Has no tolerance for negative equity. Expects positive equity.
ET was expanded into the concept of Organizational Justice. This examines how fairly people feel they are treated at work and consists of three parts:
1. Distributive Justice: Perceived fairness with respect to reward distribution.
2. Procedural Justice: Perceived fairness in allocation decisions.
3. Interactional Justice: Perceived fairness in how decisions are implemented.
Analysis
Equity is a subjective concept. How an employee perceives the situation has far more bearing than the situation itself. Forethought, democratic decision-making, and good communication seem to be the keys to maintaining Organizational Justice. A manager should think about perceived equity before giving a reward. “Research shows that positive perceptions of Distributive and Procedural Justice are enhanced by giving an employee a ‘voice’ in decisions that affect them” (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2007, page 244). Interactional Justice requires communicating the “why” of a decisions and treating people with respect and dignity.
Equity sensitivity reliably predicts lower motivation when pay is low and has begun to examine the wide ranges of behaviors that inequity may invoke (Ambrose and Kulik, 1999). It can also predict Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs) by sensitivity group. Equity Sensitive people perform far more OCBs than Benevolents or Entitleds when perceived organizational justice is high (Blakely, Andrews, and Moorman, 2005).
Ambrose and Kulik criticize equity sensitivity research in a few ways. There is a lack of referent standards to analyze research results, studies are not long term, and experiment measures are often based on subjective measures by those interviewed. This may have caused mixed study results.
CONCLUSION
Individual motivation is such a complex topic that no single model seems able to adequately cover it. It then seems logical to develop a multidimensional analytical framework that combines several models. A proposed hybrid model can be seen in Figure 5. It allows for the analysis of problems, actions (positive and negative reinforcement) and proposed changes from the following six perspectives:
1. Intrinsic Factors
2. Extrinsic Factors
3. Equity Factors
4. Goal Factors
5. Social Factors
6. Individual Factors
Using this model ensures a broader perspective when analyzing the workplace.
Figure 5
The Multidimensional Analysis Model forces a manager to analyze a situation across several theories instead of one or two.
REFERENCES
Ambrose, M. L. & Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25, 231-292.
Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of equity sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 59-273.
Herzberg, F. (1987). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 65, 109-120.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 332-356.
Kreitner, R. & Kinicki, A. (2007). Foundations of motivation. In J. E. Biernat (Ed.),
Organizational behavior (pp. 240-259). 7 edition, New York: McGraw Hill.
Watson, T. J. (1986). Chapter 4. Management, organization and employment
strategy: New directions in theory and practice. (pp. 87-132). London and New York: Routledge & Kengan Paul.
