Employee Motivation and the Herzberg Theory

 

In the late fifties, Herzberg conducted various surveys by involving employees to find out what are the elements that affect the employees to feel exceptionally good or bad about their job employment (Herzberg et al., 1959; Stello, 2011). Robbins (2009) highlights as per the results of Herzberg, two sets of factors can be identified in deciding employees working attitudes and level of performance: Motivation and Hygiene factors. 

Through the analysis of the collected data, it was evident that there are two types of employees as motivators and demotivators (Dartey, 2011). One category is related to ‘the need for growth or self-actualization', which have been recognized as motivation factors. Besides, motivation factors included achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, advancement, and the possibility for growth (Herzberg, 1966; Herzberg, 2003).

Conversely, other motivational factors associate with ‘the need to avoid unpleasantness’ which also introduces as the hygiene factors. Hygiene factors enclosed company policies and administration, relationship with supervisors, social relations, operating conditions, and regular salary payments (Herzberg, 1966; Herzberg, 2003). Furthermore, motivation factors like light-emitting diode to positive job attitudes and hygiene factors enclose the ‘doing’ of the employment (Herzberg et al., 1959; Stello, 2011). Consequently, Herzberg et al. (1959) explain that the main difference between the hygiene and motivators are that the hygiene factors involve with physical and psychological pain avoidance while motivator factors all involve with psychological growth.

Below figure 1.0 illustrates how to apply this two-factor theory for an organization.

Figure 1.0(Herzberg two factor theory)

 Source: (Balogh, 2015)

According to Ruthankoon (2003) hygiene factors and employees’ dissatisfaction may occur as a consequence of salary, company policies, job security, personal or work relationships and balancing work with personal life.

For instance, in the company which I work, top management has to manage hygiene and motivator factors in order to maintain employee motivation. Thus, they initiate and act out different strategies to eliminate job dissatisfaction of the employees. Within the company hierarchy different levels can be identified as Branch Managers, Program Managers, Lecturers, Assistant lecturers, Tutors, Instructors and other administrative staff. Accordingly, every employee receives a salary based on the industry standards. Moreover, within the organization job status has been constructed by giving meaningful work for all the positions. Simultaneously, during the process of avoiding dissatisfaction, the Top management has reassessed the company policies and fixed poor and obstructive policies. Company policies are fair and clear. Besides, company policies provide good physical environment to stay and work with good furniture. Additionally, it includes providing dinning area facilities to have meals and providing a morning and evening tea as refreshments.

Dartey (2011) attests that motivator factors straightly affect the work of the employee, and it is the pleasure that an employee gains through engaging in duties and responsibilities relating to the job or the job role.

In my workplace, every employee has the opportunity to get promotions through performing. Simultaneously, employees can get promotions by upgrading their qualifications and achieving their official targets as well. Each member has a clear idea about their Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Moreover, within the workplace, employees get the benefit of special offers to continue with their higher education which opens opportunities for employees for personal growth. Additionally, special training and development sessions are arranged for the employees to improve their knowledge as well.  Thus, it is evident within the workplace, they give responsibilities and freedom to work. According to Robbins (2009) degree of freedom can be explained as the opportunity that an employee gets to make decisions on his own and implement new ideas without intervention. For instance, when management wants to restructure some courses, they appoint a module leader and let them to work with their new ideas. Thus, the module leaders get the responsibility to make changes and complete the work under being micromanaged. When the work is completed with the expected level, they will be appreciated and recognized within the organization by the management and the peers. 

References 

Balogh, L. (2015). Sport-Culture-Sports Culture. Szeged: Foundation for Youth Activity and Lifestyle.

Dartey, B. (2011) Application of Frederick Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory in assessing and understanding employee motivation at work. European Journal of Business and Management, Vol 3.

 

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. & Snydermann B. (1959) The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.

Herzberg, F. (1966) Work and the nature of man. New York: World Publishing.

Herzberg, F. (2003) One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 81(1), 86.

Ruthankoon, R. & Ogunlana, S. O. (2003) Testing Herzberg’s two-factor theory in the Thai construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 10(5), 333–341.

Robbins, S.P. (2009) Organizational Behavior: International Version, 13/E. Pearson Higher Education.

Stello, C. M. (2011) Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction: An integrative literature review. Journal of Education and Human Development, 1-32.