Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory states that certain factors cause job satisfaction and other factors cause

dissatisfaction.
LEARNING OBJECTIVE
Analyze Frederick Herzberg's perspective on motivating employees through his Two-Factor Theory (also
known as Motivation-Hygiene Theory)

KEY POINTS
According to Herzberg, intrinsic motivators and extrinsic motivators have an inverse relationship:
intrinsic motivators tend to create motivation when they are present, whereas extrinsic motivators tend
to reduce motivation when they are absent.
Intrinsic motivators tend to represent less tangible, more emotional needs, such as challenging work,
recognition, relationships, and growth potential.
Extrinsic motivators tend to represent more tangible, basic needs, such as status, job security, salary,
and fringe benefits.
Extrinsic motivators are expected and so cause dissatisfaction if they are absent. Intrinsic motivators, on
the other hand, can provide extra motivation. Because of this, satisfaction and dissatisfaction are
independent; one does not necessarily increase exactly as the other decreases.
Management is tasked with differentiating when more job satisfaction is needed (providing intrinsic
motivators) and when less job dissatisfaction is needed (providing extrinsic motivators).

TERMS
Two-Factor Theory
A framework, developed by Frederick Herzberg, that suggests there are certain factors in the workplace
that can cause job satisfaction and a separate set of factors can cause dissatisfaction.
hygiene factors
Elements of life or work that do not increase satisfaction but that can lead to dissatisfaction if they are
missing.

FULL TEXT
The Two Factors: Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivators
Frederick Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory, also known as Motivation-Hygiene Theory or intrinsic vs.
extrinsic motivation, concludes that there are certain factors in the workplace that can cause job
satisfaction and a separate set of factors that can cause dissatisfaction. It is critical to emphasize that

this is not a linear relationship: the factors that cause satisfaction do not necessarily negate those that
cause dissatisfaction; one does not necessarily increase exactly as the other decreases.
Extrinsic Motivators
Extrinsic motivators tend to represent more tangible, basic needsi.e., the kinds of needs identified in
McClelland's "existence" category of needs in his ERG Theory or in the lower levels of
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Extrinsic motivators include status, job security, salary, and
fringe benefits. Managers must realize that not providing the appropriate and expected extrinsic
motivators will sow dissatisfaction and unmotivatedbehavior among employees.
Intrinsic Motivators
Intrinsic motivators tend to represent less tangible, more emotional needsi.e., the kinds of needs
identified in McClelland's "relatedness" and "growth" categories of needs in his ERG Theory and in the
higher levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Intrinsic motivators include challenging work, recognition,
relationships, and growth potential. Managers must recognize that while these needs may be outside
the more traditional scope of what the workplace should provide, they are absolutely critical in
empowering strong individual and team performance.
Herzberg's Theory in Context
Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory, McClelland's Need Theory, and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs all talk
about higher-level psychological needs such as achievement, recognition, responsibility, and
advancement. The key factor that differentiates Two-Factor Theory is the idea of expectation.
According to Herzberg, intrinsic motivators and extrinsic motivators have an inverse relationship. This is
to say that intrinsic motivators tend to inspire motivation when they are present, while extrinsic
motivators tend to reduce motivation when they are absent. This is because of expectation. Extrinsic
motivators (e.g., salary, benefits) are expected and so will not increase motivation when they are in
place, but they will cause dissatisfaction when they are missing. Intrinsic motivators (e.g., challenging
work), on the other hand, can be a source of additional motivation.
If management wants to increase employees' job satisfaction, they should be concerned with the nature
of the work itselfthe opportunities it presents employees for gaining status, assuming responsibility,
and achieving self-realization. If, on the other hand, management wishes to reduce dissatisfaction, then
it must focus on the job environmentpolicies, procedures, supervision, and working conditions. To
ensure a satisfied and productive workforce, managers must pay attention to both sets of job factors.

Fundamentals[edit]
Attitudes and their connection with industrial mental health are related to Abraham Maslow's theory of
motivation. His findings have had a considerable theoretical, as well as a practical, influence on attitudes
toward administration.[1][2] According to Herzberg, individuals are not content with the satisfaction of lowerorder needs at work; for example, those needs associated with minimum salary levels or safe and
pleasant working conditions. Rather, individuals look for the gratification of higher-level psychological

needs having to do with achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, and the nature of the
work itself. This appears to parallel Maslow's theory of aneed hierarchy. However, Herzberg added a new
dimension to this theory by proposing a two-factor model of motivation, based on the notion that the
presence of one set of job characteristics or incentives leads to worker satisfaction at work, while another
and separate set of job characteristics leads to dissatisfaction at work. Thus, satisfaction and
dissatisfaction are not on a continuum with one increasing as the other diminishes, but are independent
phenomena. This theory suggests that to improve job attitudes and productivity, administrators must
recognize and attend to both sets of characteristics and not assume that an increase in satisfaction leads
to decrease in unpleasurable dissatisfaction.
The two-factor theory developed from data collected by Herzberg from interviews with
203 engineers and accountants in the Pittsburgh area, chosen because of their professions' growing
importance in the business world. Regarding the collection process:

Briefly, we asked our respondents to describe periods in their lives when they were
exceedingly happy and unhappy with their jobs. Each respondent gave as many
"sequences of events" as he could that met certain criteriaincluding a marked change
in feeling, a beginning and an end, and contained some substantive description other
than feelings and interpretations...
The proposed hypothesis appears verified. The factors on the right that led to
satisfaction (achievement, intrinsic interest in the work, responsibility, and advancement)
are mostly unipolar; that is, they contribute very little to job dissatisfaction. Conversely,
the dis-satisfiers (company policy and administrative practices, supervision,
interpersonal relationships, working conditions, and salary) contribute very little to job
satisfaction.

Herzberg, 1964[3]

From analyzing these interviews, he found that job characteristics related to what an individual does
that is, to the nature of the work one performs apparently have the capacity to gratify such needs as
achievement, competency, status, personal worth, and self-realization, thus making him happy and
satisfied. However, the absenceof such gratifying job characteristics does not appear to lead to
unhappiness and dissatisfaction. Instead, dissatisfaction results from unfavorable assessments of such
job-related factors as company policies, supervision, technical problems, salary, interpersonal relations
on the job, and working conditions. Thus, if management wishes to increase satisfaction on the job, it
should be concerned with the nature of the work itself the opportunities it presents for gaining status,
assuming responsibility, and for achieving self-realization. If, on the other hand, management wishes to
reduce dissatisfaction, then it must focus on the job environment policies, procedures, supervision, and
working conditions. If management is equally concerned with both, then managers must give attention to
both sets of job factors.
Two-factor theory distinguishes between:

Motivators (e.g. challenging work, recognition for one's achievement, responsibility, opportunity to
do something meaningful, involvement in decision making, sense of importance to an organization)
that give positive satisfaction, arising from intrinsic conditions of the job itself, such as recognition,
achievement, or personal growth, and

Hygiene factors (e.g. status, job security, salary, fringe benefits, work conditions, good pay, paid
insurance, vacations) that do not give positive satisfaction or lead to higher motivation, though
dissatisfaction results from their absence. The term "hygiene" is used in the sense that these are
maintenance factors. These are extrinsic to the work itself, and include aspects such as company
policies, supervisory practices, or wages/salary. Herzberg often referred to hygiene factors as "KITA"
factors, which is an acronym for "kick in the ass", the process of providing incentives or threat of
punishment to make someone do something.

According to Herzberg, hygiene factors are what causes dissatisfaction among employees in a
workplace. In order to remove dissatisfaction in a work environment, these hygiene factors must be
eliminated. There are several ways that this can be done but some of the most important ways to
decrease dissatisfaction would be to pay reasonable wages, ensure employees job security, and to
create a positive culture in the workplace. Herzberg considered the following hygiene factors from highest
to lowest importance: company policy, supervision, employee's relationship with their boss, work
conditions, salary, and relationships with peers. Eliminating dissatisfaction is only one half of the task of
the two factor theory. The other half would be to increase satisfaction in the workplace. This can be done
by improving on motivating factors Motivation factors are needed to motivate an employee to higher
performance. Herzberg also further classified our actions and how and why we do them, for example, if
you perform a work related action because you have to then that is classed as "movement", but if you
perform a work related action because you want to then that is classed as "motivation". Herzberg thought
it was important to eliminate job dissatisfaction before going onto creating conditions for job satisfaction
because it would work against each other.
According to the Two-Factory Theory there are four possible combinations:
1. High Hygiene + High Motivation: The ideal situation where employees are highly motivated and
have few complaints.
2. High Hygiene + Low Motivation: Employees have few complaints but are not highly motivated.
The job is viewed as a paycheck.
3. Low Hygiene + High Motivation: Employees are motivated but have a lot of complaints. A
situations where the job is exciting and challenging but salaries and work conditions are not up to
par.
4. Low Hygiene + Low Motivation: This is the worst situation where employees are not motivated
and have many complaints.
Unlike Maslow, who offered little data to support his ideas, Herzberg and others have presented
considerable empirical evidence to confirm the motivation-hygiene theory, although their work has been
criticized on methodological grounds.

Workarounds
Herzberg's theory concentrates on the importance of internal job factors as motivating forces for
employees. He designed it to increase job enrichment for employees. Herzberg wanted to create the
opportunity for employees to take part in planning, performing, and evaluating their work. He suggested to
do this by:[4][5][9]

Removing some of the control management has over employees and increasing the accountability
and responsibility they have over their work. Which would in return increase employee autonomy.

Creating complete and natural work units where it is possible. An example would be allowing
employees to create a whole unit or section instead of only allowing them to create part of it.

Providing regular and continuous feedback on productivity and job performance directly to employees
instead of through supervisors.

Encouraging employees to take on new and challenging tasks and becoming experts at a task.

Validity and criticisms

In 1968 Herzberg stated that his two-factor theory study had already been replicated 16 times in a wide
variety of populations including some in Communist countries, and corroborated with studies using
different procedures that agreed with his original findings regarding intrinsic employee motivation making
it one of the most widely replicated studies on job attitudes.
One such replication was done by George H. Hines and published in December 1973 in the Journal of
Applied Psychology. Hines tested Herzberg's two-factor motivation theory in New Zealand, using ratings
of 12 job factors and overall job satisfaction obtained from 218 middle managers and 196 salaried
employees. Contrary to dichotomous motivator-hygiene predictions, supervision and interpersonal
relationships were ranked highly by those with high job satisfaction, and there was strong agreement
between satisfied managers and salaried employees in the relative importance of job factors. Findings
are interpreted in terms of social and employment conditions in New Zealand.
While the Motivator-Hygiene concept is still well regarded, satisfaction and dissatisfaction are generally no
longer considered to exist on separate scales. The separation of satisfaction and dissatisfaction has been
shown to be an artifact of the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) used by Herzberg to record
events.[11] Furthermore, it has been noted the theory does not allow for individual differences, such as
particular personality traits, which would affect individuals' unique responses to motivating or hygiene
factors.[4]
A number of behavioral scientists have pointed to inadequacies in the need for hierarchy and motivationhygiene theories. The most basic is the criticism that both of these theories contain the relatively explicit
assumption that happy and satisfied workers produce more, even though this might not be the case. For
example, if playing a better game of golf is the means chosen to satisfy one's need for recognition, then
one will find ways to play and think about golf more often, perhaps resulting in a lower output on the job
due to a lower amount of focus. Another problem is that these and other statistical theories are concerned
with explaining "average" behavior, despite considerable differences between individuals that may impact

one's motivational factors. For instance, in their pursuit of status a person might take a balanced view and
strive to pursue several behavioral paths in an effort to achieve a combination of personal status
objectives.
In other words, an individual's expectation or estimated probability that a given behavior will bring a
valued outcome determines their choice of means and the effort they will devote to these means. In
effect, this diagram of expectancy depicts an employee asking themselves the question posed by one
investigator, "How much payoff is there for me toward attaining a personal goal while expending so much
effort toward the achievement of an assigned organizational objective?" The expectancy theory by Victor
Vroom also provides a framework for motivation based on expectations.
This approach to the study and understanding of motivation would appear to have certain conceptual
advantages over other theories: First, unlike Maslow's and Herzberg'stheories, it is capable of handling
individual differences. Second, its focus is toward the present and the future, in contrast to drive theory,
which emphasizes past learning. Third, it specifically correlates behavior to a goal and thus eliminates the
problem of assumed relationships, such as between motivation and performance. Fourth, it relates
motivation to ability: Performance = Motivation*Ability.
That said, a study by the Gallup Organization, as detailed in the book First, Break All the Rules: What the
World's Greatest Managers Do by Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman, appears to provide strong
support for Herzberg's division of satisfaction and dissatisfaction onto two separate scales. In this book,
the authors discuss how the study identified twelve questions that provide a framework for determining
high-performing individuals and organizations. These twelve questions align squarely with Herzberg's
motivation factors, while hygiene factors were determined to have little effect on motivating high
performance.