Frederick Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory

Theories in Human Resource Management Frederick Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory Another researcher to enter into the fray of human motivation was Frederick Herzberg. Originally trained as a clinical psychologist, over the course of Herzberg’s career he switched focused and became one of the first researchers in the growing field of industrial psychology. The original notion of Frederick Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory was that traditional perspectives on motivation, like Maslow’s, only looked at one side of the coin—how to motivate people. Herzberg and his original colleagues Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. S. (1959). The motivation to work. New York, NY: Wiley, theorized that what ultimately motivated individuals to work were not necessarily the same factors that led to demotivation at work. In Herzberg’s worldview, motivation on the job should lead to satisfied workers, but he theorized that satisfaction and dissatisfaction were not opposite ends of one continuum. Instead, he predicted that the factors that lead to positive job attitudes (and thus motivation) were different from the factors that lead to negative job attitudes (and thus demotivation). For the purposes of his theory, he called the factors that led to positive job attitudes motivators and those factors that led to negative job attitudes hygiene factors. In Table 1 "Motivators and Hygiene Factors" the basic motivators and hygiene factors are listed. Notice that the motivators are all centered on ideas that are somewhat similar to the esteem needs and self-actualization needs of Abraham Maslow. On the other hand, the hygiene factors all examine the context of work. Table 1. Motivators and Hygiene Factors Motivators Hygiene Factors Achievement Policy and administration Recognition Micromanagement Advancement Relationships (Supervisor, Peers, & Subordinates) The work itself Job security Responsibility Personal life Potential for promotion Work conditions Potential for personal growth Status Salary Upon looking at Table 1 "Motivators and Hygiene Factors", you may notice that Salary is centered between both motivators and hygiene factors. In The Managerial Choice Herzberg reversed his previous thinking that salary was purely a hygiene factor, “Although primarily a hygiene factor, it [salary] it also often takes on some of the properties of a motivator, with dynamics similar to those of recognition for achievement.” Herzberg, F. (1976). The managerial choice: To be efficient and to be human. Homewood, IL: Dow-Jones-Irwin, pg. 71. Adams’ Equity Theory Adams' Equity Theory is named for John Stacey Adams, a workplace and behavioral psychologist, who developed his job motivation theory in 1963. Much like many of the more prevalent theories of motivation (such as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory ), Adams' Equity Theory acknowledges that subtle and variable factors affect an employee's assessment and perception of their relationship with their work and their employer. The theory is built-on the belief that employees become de-motivated, both in relation to their job and their employer, if they feel as though their inputs are greater than the outputs. Employees can be expected to respond to this is different ways, including de-motivation (generally to the extent the employee perceives the disparity between the inputs and the outputs exist), reduced effort, becoming disgruntled, or, in more extreme cases, perhaps even disruptive. How to Apply the Adams' Equity Theory It is important to also consider the Adams' Equity Theory factors when striving to improve an employee's job satisfaction, motivation level, etc., and what can be done to promote higher levels of each. To do this, consider the balance or imbalance that currently exists between your employee's inputs and outputs, as follows: Inputs typically include: Effort. Ability. Loyalty. Adaptability. Hard work. Flexibility. Commitment. Tolerance. Skill. Determination. Enthusiasm. Trust in superiors. Support of colleagues. Personal sacrifice. Outputs typically include: Financial rewards (such as salary, benefits, perks). Intangibles that typically include: Recognition. Praise. Reputation. Stimulus. Responsibility. Sense of advancement/growth. Sense of achievement. Job security. While obviously many of these points can't be quantified and perfectly compared, the theory argues that managers should seek to find a fair balance between the inputs that an employee gives, and the outputs received. And according to the theory, employees should be content where they perceive these to be in balance. Tip: This is similar to Frederick Herzberg's Motivation/Hygiene Theory. While Adams' Equity Theory obviously has a strong element of truth to it, it's probably fair to say that Herzberg's Motivation/Hygiene Theory has greater motivational significance. Expectancy theory Victor Vroom introduced one of the most widely accepted explanations of motivation. Very simply, the expectancy theory says that an employee will be motivated to exert a high level of effort when he or she believes that: Effort will lead to a good performance appraisal. A good appraisal will lead to organizational rewards. The organizational rewards will satisfy his or her personal goals. The key to the expectancy theory is an understanding of an individual's goals and the relationships between effort and performance, between performance and rewards, and finally, between the rewards and individual goal satisfaction. When an employee has a high level of expectancy and the reward is attractive, motivation is usually high. Therefore, to motivate workers, managers must strengthen workers' perceptions of their efforts as both possible and worthwhile, clarify expectations of performances, tie rewards to performances, and make sure that rewards are desirable. Reinforcement theory The reinforcement theory, based on E. L. Thorndike's law of effect, simply looks at the relationship between behavior and its consequences. This theory focuses on modifying an employee's on‐the‐job behavior through the appropriate use of one of the following four techniques: Positive reinforcement rewards desirable behavior. Positive reinforcement, such as a pay raise or promotion, is provided as a reward for positive behavior with the intention of increasing the probability that the desired behavior will be repeated. Avoidance is an attempt to show an employee what the consequences of improper behavior will be. If an employee does not engage in improper behavior, he or she will not experience the consequence. Extinction is basically ignoring the behavior of a subordinate and not providing either positive or negative reinforcement. Classroom teachers often use this technique when they ignore students who are “acting out” to get attention. This technique should only be used when the supervisor perceives the behavior as temporary, not typical, and not serious. Punishment (threats, docking pay, suspension) is an attempt to decrease the likelihood of a behavior recurring by applying negative consequences. The reinforcement theory has the following implications for management: Learning what is acceptable to the organization influences motivated behavior. Managers who are trying to motivate their employees should be sure to tell individuals what they are doing wrong and be careful not to reward all individuals at the same time. Managers must tell individuals what they can do to receive positive reinforcement. Managers must be sure to administer the reinforcement as closely as possible to the occurrence of the behavior. Managers must recognize that failure to reward can also modify behavior. Employees who believe that they deserve a reward and do not receive it will often become disenchanted with both their manager and company. Goal-setting theory The goal‐setting theory, introduced in the late 1960s by Edwin Locke, proposed that intentions to work toward a goal are a major source of work motivation. Goals, in essence, tell employees what needs to be done and how much effort should be expanded. In general, the more difficult the goal, the higher the level of performance expected. Managers can set the goals for their employees, or employees and managers can develop goals together. One advantage of employees participating in goal setting is that they may be more likely to work toward a goal they helped develop. No matter who sets the goal, however, employees do better when they get feedback on their progress. In addition to feedback, four other factors influence the goals‐performance relationship: The employee must be committed to the goal. The employee must believe that he is capable of performing the task. Tasks involved in achieving the goal should be simple, familiar, and independent. The goal‐setting theory is culture bound and is popular in North American cultures.If the goal‐setting theory is followed, managers need to work with their employees in determining goal objectives in order to provide targets for motivation. In addition, the goals that are established should be specific rather than general in nature, and managers must provide feedback on performance.