Her two-factor theory of motivation

Frédéric Herzberg, an American psychologist, conducted research of a number of employees of several companies in the middle of the 20th century on motivating and demotivating factors. Recipients of the experiment were 200 specialists from various fields. The results of the experiment formed the basis of his theory of motivation, which he named.

During the research, he asked the subjects what conditions provide them with the greatest and least satisfaction from the work process. The results of the survey led the scientist to the conclusion that the level of comfort is not an indicator on the scale between the extreme poles. On the contrary, the growth of dissatisfaction and satisfaction is two different processes. He concluded that the antipode of satisfaction is its absence, not dissatisfaction. And, accordingly, on the contrary. In a practical sense, this means that the appearance / disappearance of the factors of one does not necessarily lead to the progress of the other.

The uniqueness of Herzberg's model

The theory of Herzberg's motivation considers both processes separately. A number of certain factors correlate with each of them. For example, McClelland's theory of motivation knows only three of them - power, success and involvement. And here we are dealing with a much larger number of factors that are differentiated by the nature of the impact.

Two-factor theory of Herzberg's motivation - motivation and hygiene

The flesh and blood of Herzberg's model are two kinds of factors, called motivating and hygienic needs. Let's talk about them in more detail.

Motivating factors

The first group of factors relates Frederick Herzberg's motivation theory to the process of satisfaction. In general, he is guided by such things, which relate to the inner essence of the work. Among them - and the work itself, as well as some needs. For example, the need for recognition, in trust, in a professional perspective, etc. The nature of all these things has a motivating effect. Therefore, the theory of Herzberg's motivation determines them as motivating factors. They directly affect the efficiency and labor productivity.

In other words, these factors in relation to work are internal, meaningful. Herzberg's theory of motivation generally distinguishes between external and internal influences.

Hygienic factors

The second group of needs plays a role in the reverse process - dissatisfaction. By their nature, they do not bring satisfaction from work, but significantly eliminate some discomfort. The theory of Herzberg's motivation identifies the following factors of this type: the level of wages, good working conditions, and the like. Often they are considered "anesthetics", or "anaesthetising factors" because of their ability to dull the suffering from work. Therefore, according to Herzberg, they are called hygienic.

So, we can put two groups of needs on one scale in the following order: hygienic factors will be located from minus to zero. They will not lead to motivation of employees, but will only relieve them of nervous worries about this or that external issue relating to work. Further, from zero to plus, the motivating factors will be placed. They will not save employees from dissatisfaction with some things, for example low wages, but they will create an internal motivational core.

General Theory of Theory

So, what is the difference between the theory of Herzberg's theory of Maslow's needs or the McClelland motivation theory already mentioned? Here are the main provisions of the Herzberg model:

1. It is postulated that there is a clear relationship between job satisfaction and labor indicators - efficiency, productivity, etc.
2. The presence of hygiene factors is not perceived by employees as an additional motivation. Their presence is not realized and seems something self-evident. In general, these factors should ensure normal, acceptable working conditions.
3. The presence of motivating factors does not compensate for the lack of hygiene needs or compensates them partly and temporarily.
4. Therefore, in order to create the most productive working atmosphere, you must first deal with hygiene needs. When problems with them are solved, and in the working space there are no factors that cause dissatisfaction of employees, it is possible to engage in motivating factors. Such an integrated approach will provide the company with the highest possible efficiency, quality and volume of the work done.
5. To achieve such a result, according to the theory of Herzberg, managers of the middle and especially senior level must understand the essence of the work of employees and understand its essence from the inside. This will help to identify their hygiene needs and possible motivating factors.

Criticism of the theory of Herzberg

The first weakness of this theory is the subjectivism of the responses of the recipients of the research. There is a tendency, when people sense a sense of satisfaction from the work done, and with their personal qualities. And negative emotions - disappointment, etc., which causes dissatisfaction - with uncontrollable influence from outside. Therefore, it is not always possible to establish a clear correlation between hygienic and motivating factors, on the one hand, and the state of satisfaction / dissatisfaction on the other.

The theory of Herzberg's motivation was tested in some enterprises and in a number of cases gave positive results. Nevertheless, not all scientists agree with the conclusions of Dr. Herzberg.

Also, not everyone agrees with him that the material remuneration for labor is not among the motivating factors. This is true especially for countries with lagging economic development and a low standard of living. Other factors that Herzberg deprives of the status of motivators can be quite such - this is determined by the needs and requirements of each individual employee, and not by a general pattern.

Among other things, it is not always possible to establish a link between the level of job satisfaction and the productivity of labor. A person is a complex psychological phenomenon, and it can happen that other factors, for example, communication with colleagues or access to certain information, will provide high satisfaction to the employee. In this case, the indicators of labor productivity and efficiency will remain unchanged.

Conclusion

Whatever the case, the positive value of the Herzberg model can not be underestimated. If we leave behind scientific arguments, in the field of practical marketing this theory may well prove useful, we need only to use it intelligently.