Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene Theory
Herzberg's motivator-hygiene theory is, perhaps, the most
controversial theory of work motivation. The original research used in
developing the theory was conducted with several hundred accountants and
engineers. Herzberg and his colleagues used the critical incident method of
obtaining data for their research. That is, the subjects in the study were
asked two questions: (1) "Can you describe, in detail, when you felt
exceptionally good about your job?" and (2) "Can you describe, in
detail, when you felt exceptionally bad about your job?" Herzberg's
motivator-hygiene theory, as well as the supporting data, was first published in
1959 (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman) and was subsequently amplified and
developed in a later book (Herzberg, 1966).
On the basis of his study, Herzberg reported that employees
tended to describe satisfying experiences in terms of factors that were intrinsic
to the content of the job itself These factors were called
"motivators" and included such variables as achievement, recognition,
the work itself, responsibility, advancement, and growth. Conversely,
dissatisfying experiences, called "hygiene" factors, resulted largely
from extrinsic, non-job-related factors, such as company policies, salary,
coworker relations, and supervisory style. Herzberg argued, on the basis of
these results, that eliminating the causes of dissatisfaction (through hygiene
factors) would not result in a state of satisfaction. Instead, it would result
in a neutral state. Satisfaction (and motivation) would occur only as a result
of the use of motivators.
Evaluation of Herzberg's
Motivator-Hygiene Theory
Since its inception, Herzberg's theory has been subject to
several important criticisms. For example, it has been noted (King, 1970) that
the model itself has five different theoretical interpretations and that the
available research evidence is not entirely consistent with any oft hese
interpretations. Second, a number of scholars believe the model does not give
sufficient attention to individual differences (although Herzberg himself
would dispute this) and assumes that job enrichment benefits all employees.
Research evidence suggests that individual differences are, in fact, an
important moderator of the effects of job enrichment. Finally, research has
generally failed to support the existence of two independent factors
(motivators and hygiene factors). Even so, the model has enhanced our
understanding of motivation at work.
One of the most significant contributions of Herzberg's
work was the strong impact it had on stimulating thought, research, and
experimentation in the area of motivation at work. This contribution should not to be
overlooked. Before 1959, little research had been carried out on work motivation (with the notable exception of
Viteles, 1953, and Maier, 1955), and the research that did exist was largely
fragmentary. Maslow's work on needs hierarchy theory and the re-Murrays McClelland's, and Atkinson's work on achievement motivation theory was concerned largely with laboratory-based findings or clinical observations, and none had
seriously addressed the problems of the workplace at that time. Herzberg
filled this void by specifically calling attention to the need for increased
understanding of the role of motivation in work organizations.
Moreover, he did so in a systematic manner and in language
that was easily understood by managers. He advanced a theory that was simple to
grasp, was based on some empirical data, and—equally important—offered managers
specific recommendations for action to improve employee motivational levels. In
doing so, he forced organizations to examine closely a number of possible
misconceptions concerning motivation. For example, Herzberg argued that money
should not necessarily be viewed as the most potent force on the job. Moreover,
he stated that other "context" factors in addition to money which
surround an employee's job (such as fringe benefits and supervisory style)
should not be expected to affect motivation markedly either. He advanced a
strong case that managers must instead give considerable attention to a series
of "content" factors (such as opportunities for achievement,
recognition, and advancement) that have an important bearing on behavior.
In addition, Herzberg probably deserves a good deal of
credit for acting as a stimulus to other researchers who have advocated
alternative theories of work motivation. A
multitude of research articles have been generated as a result of the so-called
"Herzberg controversy." Some of these articles (e.g., Bockman, 1971;
Whitset & Winslow, 1967) strongly support Herzberg's position, while others
(e.g., House & Wigdor, 1967; Vroom, 1964) seriously question the research
methodology underlying the theory. Such debate is healthy for any science. The
student of motivation should consider Herzberg's theory—or any other such theory—to
be one attempt at modeling work behavior. In other words, it appears that a
fruitful approach to this "controversial" theory would be to learn
from it that which can help us develop better models, rather than to accept or
reject the model totally.
It is interesting that, despite the voluminous
criticism leveled against the model, Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory is
still popular among managers. Furthermore, Herzberg's theory appears to have an
international appeal. Gibson, Ivancevich, and Donnelly (1994) report that in
their discussions of motivation applications with numerous managers in Europe,
the Pacific Rim, and Latin America, "the Herzberg explanation is referred
to more often than any other theory"