HERZBERG’S TWO-FACTOR MODEL

The two-factor model of satisfiers and dissatisfiers was developed by Herzberg et al (1957) following an investigation into the sources of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of accountants and engineers. It was assumed that people have the capacity to report accurately the conditions that made them satisfied and dissatisfied with their jobs. Accordingly, the subjects were asked to tell their interviewers about the times during which they felt exceptionally good and exceptionally bad about their jobs and how long their feelings persisted. It was found that the accounts of ‘good’ periods most frequently concerned the content of the job, particularly achievement, recognition, advancement, autonomy, responsibility, and the work itself. On the other hand, accounts of ‘bad’ periods most frequently concerned the context of the job. Company policy and administration, supervision, salary and working conditions more frequently appeared in these accounts than in those told about ‘good’ periods. The main implications of this research, according to Herzberg, are that:

The wants of employees divide into two groups. One group revolves around the need to develop in one’s occupation as a source of personal growth. The second group operates as an essential base to the first and is associated with fair treatment in compensation, supervision, working conditions and administrative practices. The fulfilment of the needs of the second group does not motivate the individual to high levels of job satisfaction and to extra performance on the job. All we can expect from satisfying this second group of needs is the prevention of dissatisfaction and poor job performance.

These groups form the two factors in Herzberg’s model: one consists of the satisfiers or motivators, because they are seen to be effective in motivating the individual to superior performance and effort. The other consists of the dissatisfiers, which essentially describe the environment and serve primarily to prevent job dissatisfaction, while having little effect on positive job attitudes. The latter were named the hygiene factors in the medical use of the term, meaning preventive and environmental.

Reservations about Herzberg’s theory 

Herzberg’s two-factor model has been attacked. The research method has been criticized because no attempt was made to measure the relationship between satisfaction and performance. It has been suggested that the two-factor nature of the theory is an inevitable result of the questioning method used by the interviewers. It has also been suggested that wide and unwarranted inferences have been drawn from small and specialized samples and that there is no evidence to suggest that the satisfiers do improve productivity. 

In spite of these criticisms (or perhaps because of them, as they are all from academics), the Herzberg theory continues to thrive; partly because for the layman it is easy to understand and seems to be based on ‘real-life’ rather than academic abstraction, and partly because it fits in well with the highly respected ideas of Maslow (1954) and McGregor (1960) in its emphasis on the positive value of the intrinsic motivating factors. It is also in accord with a fundamental belief in the dignity of labour and the Protestant ethic – that work is good in itself. As a result, Herzberg had immense influence on the job enrichment movement, which sought to design jobs in a way that would maximize the opportunities to obtain intrinsic satisfaction from work and thus improve the quality of working life. His emphasis on the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is also important.