Herzberg Two-factor Theory Ppt Download
Sacha Weakland
Herzberg conducted his formative motivation theory research at a time when organizations tended to be rigid and bureaucratic. As organizations shifted away from focusing on mass production and toward innovation, new theories of motivation, such as those based on behaviorism, evolved (Bassett-Jones and Lloyd, 2005).
The dating of the two-factor theory is believed to be particularly important. Like Maslow, Herzberg established his theory in the 1960s, a time where the culture believed that people were mostly motivated by money. Herzberg rebuked this traditional idea, believing that it was actually the content, not the context, of a job that caused satisfaction. If a corporation is looking to develop new products and expand into new areas, they need to understand what motivates people to be more productive. They can begin with looking at the intrinsic needs of workers:
Like the hygiene factors, the motivation factors do not lower the level of dissatisfaction. Even if employees are motivated to work on new projects, they are still affected by extrinsic needs. Potential problems, such as pay rate or low amounts of office supplies, still need to be addressed. This is why both factors are necessary in the two-factor theory.
In the late 1950s, Frederick Herzberg, considered by many to be a pioneer in motivation theory, interviewed a group of employees to find out what made them satisfied and dissatisfied on the job. He asked the employees essentially two sets of questions:
To apply Herzberg's theory to real-world practice, let's begin with the hygiene issues. Although hygiene issues are not the source of satisfaction, these issues must be dealt with first to create an environment in which employee satisfaction and motivation are even possible.
Achievement. One premise inherent in Herzberg's theory is that most individuals sincerely want to do a good job. To help them, make sure you've placed them in positions that use their talents and are not set up for failure. Set clear, achievable goals and standards for each position, and make sure employees know what those goals and standards are. Individuals should also receive regular, timely feedback on how they are doing and should feel they are being adequately challenged in their jobs. Be careful, however, not to overload individuals with challenges that are too difficult or impossible, as that can be paralyzing.
While there is no one right way to manage people, all of whom have different needs, backgrounds and expectations, Herzberg's theory offers a reasonable starting point. By creating an environment that promotes job satisfaction, you are developing employees who are motivated, productive and fulfilled. This, in turn, will contribute to higher quality patient care and patient satisfaction.
The two-factor theory (also known as Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory and dual-factor theory) states that there are certain factors in the workplace that cause job satisfaction while a separate set of factors cause dissatisfaction, all of which act independently of each other. It was developed by psychologist Frederick Herzberg.[1]
Feelings, 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 lower-order 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 a need 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 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:
According to Herzberg, the absence of hygiene factors causes dissatisfaction among employees in the workplace. However, their presence does not ensure satisfaction entirely. 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.[6] 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. Satisfaction of the employees can have multiple positive effects for the organization. For example, when the employees share their knowledge, they satisfy their social needs and gain cohesion within the group. Also, sharing knowledge helps others to create new knowledge, which also can reinforce the motivating factors.[7] By sharing knowledge, the employees feel satisfied and with the new knowledge it can increase the organizations innovation activities. [8]
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.[citation needed]
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][10]
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 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.[11]
While the Motivator-Hygiene concept is still well regarded, satisfaction and dissatisfaction are generally[who?] 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.[12] 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]
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?"[13] 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's theories, it is capable of handling individual differences.[citation needed] Second, its focus is toward the present and the future, in contrast to drive theory, which emphasizes past learning.[citation needed] Third, it specifically correlates behavior to a goal and thus eliminates the problem of assumed relationships, such as between motivation and performance.[citation needed] Fourth, it relates motivation to ability: Performance = Motivation*Ability.[citation needed]
3a7c801d34