herzberg two factor theory research paper

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.6(9); 2020 Sep

The application of Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation to job satisfaction in clinical laboratories in Omani hospitals

Samira alrawahi.

a Learning, Informatics, Management, and Ethics Department (LIME), Medical Management Centre (MMC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

b Pathology Department, Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, Muscat, Oman

Stina Fransson Sellgren

c Karolinska University Hospital, Affiliated to Learning, Informatics, Management, and Ethics Department (LIME), Medical Management Centre (MMC), Stockholm, Sweden

Salem Altouby

d College of Pharmacy and Nursing, University of Nizwa, Scientific Council for Nursing & Midwifery Specialties, Arab Board of Health Specialization, Cardiff University, UK

Nasar Alwahaibi

e Department of Allied Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman

Mats Brommels

f Department of Learning, Informatics, Management, and Ethics (LIME), Medical Management Centre (MMC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Job satisfaction is an important condition for staff retention in most healthcare Organizations. As a concept, job satisfaction is linked to motivation theory. Herzberg's two factor theory of motivation is used in this study to explore what motivational elements are associated with job satisfaction among medical laboratory professionals (MLPs) in Oman.

A mixed-method approach was adopted, and focus group discussions (FGDs) were used for data collection. The FGDs were conducted in the main hospitals in Oman. Data were analyzed by directed content analysis, and frequencies of statements related to factors were calculated for a comparison with the Herzberg theory.

The following job dissatisfaction factors (hygiene) were identified: health and safety, heavy workload, salary, promotion, recognition and organizational policies. The satisfaction (motivators) were: relationships with co-workers, relationship with leaders, and professional development.

Conclusions

The job dissatisfaction reported was resulted from the absence of hygiene factors and some of the motivators in accordance with Hertzberg's theory. Hospital managers need to address these factors, defined by Hertzberg, in order to improve motivation and job satisfaction.

Psychology; Social science; Occupational psychology; Job satisfaction; Motivation; Herzberg; Medical laboratories.

1. Introduction

1.1. background.

The Sultanate of Oman has reached a level of distinction in its health sector, as the Ministry of Health (MOH) established a health system framework by enrolling large numbers of expatriate healthcare professionals and by introducing a referral system throughout its healthcare organizations. The Sultanate's healthcare system requires people management strategies that consider job satisfaction an important factor underpinning of growth, productivity, human resource development, and staff retention. Such strategies must be capable of assessing the satisfaction of any group through various indicators, such as the quality of the health service provided.

The MOH is the main health service provider in Oman (80%) and accounts for 6.3% of total government expenditures ( The Department of Health Information and Statistics, 2016 ).

The Royal Hospital, Khoula Hospital and Al Nahdha Hospital Each has specialty departments that operate as referral points for patients. Additionally, the hospitals provide tertiary and general acute care. The Royal and Khoula Hospitals enjoy maximum autonomy within the MOH, while the Al Nahdha Hospital is an autonomous hospital within the Directorate Office of the Muscat Governorate. Given the status of these hospitals, it is vital that they are staffed with individuals who are committed to their jobs; as a first step, these individuals must be satisfied with their jobs. Job satisfaction is the degree of positive affect that an employee feels towards the organization. It may be a general satisfaction with the job or with specific dimensions of the job or workplace, such as promotions, pay, and relationships with coworkers ( Blaauw et al., 2013 ).

Job satisfaction is described as being key in promoting feelings of fulfillment through promotions, recognition, salaries, and the achievement of goals ( Ausloos and Pekalski, 2007 ). George and Jones (2008) defined job satisfaction as a collection of feelings that people have towards their job. Specifically, with respect to health workers, job satisfaction is known to influence motivation, staff performance, and retention, which in turn affect the successful implementation of health system reform ( Wang et al., 2017 ). Motivation among workers requires an encouraging work environment, which does not happen by chance.

A productive environment can be generated by addressing the factors that influence employee job satisfaction and then designing interventions that can be implemented by managers to include and enhance those factors ( Munyewende et al., 2014 ). Unfortunately, in the health sector, there is poor job satisfaction caused by low income, poor working conditions, and limited opportunities for career development within healthcare organizations ( Hotchkiss et al., 2015 ). A recent study reported that 75.3% of health care workers were dissatisfied with their working environment, salary, promotion and benefits, whereas the relationships with leaders and co-workers were satisfaction factors ( Verma et al., 2019 ). In an earlier study pay, promotion, training and development, relations with supervisors, poor working conditions and organizational policies were the main factors for job dissatisfaction among health workers in eastern Ethiopia ( Geleto et al., 2015 ). Lack of professional development and training opportunities reported by 90% of medical laboratory professionals as the most important factor affecting their job satisfaction ( Marinucci et al., 2013 ). On the other hand, the relationships with leaders and peers contributed most to satisfaction, whereas the salary was a dissatisfaction factor ( Lu et al., 2016 ).

Given this scenario, the purpose of this study was to determine the factors that promote job satisfaction for MLPs and to consider MLPs' work motivation in terms of Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation. This study is the first of its kind among this group of health professionals in Oman and contributes to developing an understanding of the factors involved in encouraging satisfaction and dissatisfaction in the medical laboratories of the three hospitals concerned. By paying due attention to differences in context, the findings may be generalized to other similar facilities.

1.2. Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation

Most theories discuss job satisfaction within the context of motivation ( Kian et al., 2014 ). The Herzberg theory has been used as a method to explore job satisfaction among employees ( Lundberg et al., 2009 ) According to Herzberg's theory of motivation applied to the workplace, there are two types of motivating factors: 1) satisfiers (motivators), which are the main drivers of job satisfaction and include achievements, recognition, responsibility, and work advancement, and 2) dissatisfiers (hygiene factors), which are the main causes of job dissatisfaction ( Herzberg, 1966 ) and include factors such as working conditions, salaries, relationships with colleagues, administrative policies, and supervision. Herzberg used this model to explain that an individual at work can be satisfied and dissatisfied at the same time as these two sets of factors work in separate sequences. For example, hygiene factors (dissatisfiers) cannot increase or decrease satisfaction; they can affect only the degree of dissatisfaction. Satisfiers (motivational elements) need to be harmonized with hygiene factors to achieve job satisfaction at work. Managers in healthcare organizations should understand this relationship.

In Maslow's theory of motivation, the lower needs on the proposed pyramid must be met before the higher needs; this idea can be considered parallel to that of motivational and hygiene factors because hygiene factors must be present to allow motivational factors to emerge and thereby prevent job dissatisfaction ( Maslow, 1954 , Maslow, 1954 ). Hence, the motivators in Herzberg's theory are similar to the intrinsic factors (higher needs) in Maslow's theory. The extrinsic factors in Maslow's theory resemble the hygiene factors (dissatisfiers) in Herzberg's two-factor theory.

In 1975, Rogers summarized Herzberg's two-factor theory as follows: “In other words, adequate salary, good working conditions, respected supervisors and likeable co-workers will not produce a satisfied worker; they will only produce a worker who is not dissatisfied. However, their levels must be acceptable in order for the motivation factors to become operative. In other words, like medical hygiene practices, they cannot cure an illness, but they can aid in preventing it” ( Rogers, 1975 ).

1.3. Application of Herzberg's theory in different contexts

Herzberg's two-factor theory has been widely applied in studies on staff satisfaction, but mostly in other industries and for other occupational groups than health professionals. For example, Ruthankoon and Ogunlana tested Herzberg's two factor theory and concluded that different hygiene and motivation factors are applicable in different occupations in the Thai construction industry ( Ruthankoon and Olu Ogunlana, 2003 ). In the Pakistani context, these factors reported to be a strong moderator for job satisfaction among staff in insurance companies ( Rahman et al., 2017 ). Other examples include the hospitality industry ( Hsiao et al., 2016 ) and mobile data services (( Lee et al., 2009 ). We have not found comparable studies in health care, and all types of studies on job satisfaction in clinical laboratories are scarce.

In order to explore the views of medical laboratory professionals on their workplace and what factors had a positive or negative effect on their job satisfaction a series of focus group discussions (FGD) were performed. The advantage of a focus group compared to individual interviews is that the discussion among participants will help to clarify opinions, provoke more in-depth reasoning, and to disclose whether opinions are shared by many. Whilst a focus group discussion is a qualitative research approach, it also enables a semi-quantitative analysis of statements made. This study employs such a mixed-methods approach.

The FGDs were conducted from February to June 2017 at each of the three main MOH hospitals: the Royal, Al Nahdha and Khoula Hospitals.

2.1. Setting and participants

Medical laboratory professionals working in hematology, biochemistry, pathology, and microbiology laboratories including senior and junior staff from the three main hospitals participated in the FGDs: nine groups from the Royal Hospital, five groups from Khoula Hospital, and four groups from Al Nahdha Hospital. Each group had between six and eight participants ( Krueger and Casey, 2015 ).

To obtain this sample, the author sent a letter describing the purpose of the study to the supervisors of each laboratory and asking MLP volunteers. Anonymity (through the use of code names) and confidentiality were strictly observed in recognition of the need for good research ethics and the requirements of Omani and Swedish legislation, as well as to preserve personal integrity. A total of 101 medical laboratory professionals participated in the FGDs. The demography of the participants is exhibited in Appendix I, showing that the participants were representative of all laboratory staff in the three hospitals.

2.2. Focus group discussion (FGD) procedures

The FGDs were moderated by the first author with the support of an observer. The Focus Group discussions gave respondents freedom to express their feelings in order to obtain data representing the purpose of the study. The discussion was facilitated by the first author, following an interview guide, derived from Hertzberg's two factor theory. The FGD sessions lasted between 60 to 90 min. At the end of each discussion, the findings were summarized and shared with the participants (member checking), for validating the results and increasing the credibility of the study ( Birt et al., 2016 ).

2.3. Data analysis

The FGDs were recorded and stored on a USB stick accessible only by the first author. The recorded material was transcribed by the observer and checked against observational and summary notes made by the moderator immediately after each FGD. The transcriptions and additions from the notes were scrutinized by directed content analysis, guided by the Hertzberg two-factor theory. Meaning units expressing opinions of motivating and hygiene factors were identified and condensed into categories and further into themes. Eventually, “cut and paste technique” used manually with a poster and coloured pens ( Krueger, 1996 ). This process was done by the moderator and observer independently. Results were compared and consensus reached after discussions. For each theme, the opinions of FGD participants, were condensed into “statements” and their frequencies were calculated, following the example of Herzberg (1968) . This made it possible to compare the profile of motivating and hygiene factors of medical laboratory professionals with the original theory of Hertzberg.

2.4. Ethics approval and consent to participate

Personal integrity was guaranteed. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all the participants after fully disclosing the purpose of the study. Data storage and handling complied with the requirements of Swedish legislation on research ethics and personal data. The study was approved by the Research and Ethical Review and Approval Committee of MOH in Oman NO: (MH/DGP/R&S/PROPOSAL, 2016).

The FGDs recorded the participant's opinions of the individual needs and other factors that affected their job satisfaction at work; these opinions were condensed into categories and from those eight major themes emerged. (See Table 1 ). The themes are presented together with illustrative citations from the FGDs.

Table 1

Categories and themes related to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction among medical laboratory professionals at Royal, Khoula, and Al Nahdha Hospitals.

3.1. Laboratory health and safety

From participants’ perspective, the major dissatisfier in each of the three hospitals was a lack of health and safety in the laboratories. Poor ventilation and exposure to toxic chemicals were cited reasons in some departments, as well as the receipt of clinical samples without biohazard labels. The lack of biohazard labels was considered to be due to carelessness of some nurses, posing a risk to the laboratory workers.

“Some specimens are sent to the laboratory without a biohazard label, and only after processing will we know it is infectious, such as HIV” (FGD2, RH).

“We are having ventilation problems in the laboratory while processing specimens” (FGD3, NH).

“It is really not safe working in an infectious environment. I was exposed to a viral infection while processing a sample that had no biohazard sticker, and I was treated for three weeks” (FGD2, KH).

3.2. Professional status (recognition and appreciation)

The MLPs believed that there was no appreciation or recognition of their good performance even though they worked in a risky environment. They received no compensation for their commitment in the face of such risk, and felt that because they worked behind the scenes, clinicians were unaware of the time they spent processing samples or the hazards involved in their work.

“The clinicians shout at us if they need the results; in this hospital, the nurses are more recognized than we are” (FGD1, KH).

“We work behind the scenes, we are not appreciated, and we don't want to be called ‘laboratory technicians’. This name should be changed” (FGD2, RH).

“I feel undervalued in this hospital, and I dislike working in the laboratory” (FGD2, NH).

3.3. Heavy workload

FGDs participants identified workload as another dissatisfier, especially when colleagues took unplanned leave, which lead to the accumulation of samples for processing and for others to handle. In addition, the participants mentioned that the night shift workers were overloaded, irrespective of whether personnel were on leave, because samples referred from other hospitals during the day.

“The unplanned leave for staff causes shortages and heavy workload” (FGD2, RH).

“We are overloaded with a continuous flow of samples during the night shift” (FGD5, KH).

3.4. Professional development and training

Professional development emerged as a satisfaction factor for participants from all three hospitals. Indeed, some hospitals had monthly lectures to discuss interesting cases in their departments, and there were also opportunities to attend courses. The Al Nahdha Hospital MLPs expressed satisfaction with their professional development, as they were given the chance to attend training sessions.

“We have good chances for higher education in this hospital” (FGD1, KH).

“I have attended several conferences since I started the job” (FGD2, NH).

3.5. Salary and promotion

The Royal hospital MLPs also reported dissatisfaction with their salaries, believing that they deserved higher salaries and bonuses since they had to work more night shifts than MLPs in other hospitals in the country.

The MLPs in all three main hospitals (the Royal, Al Nahdha, and Khoula Hospitals) also noted that they were unhappy with the new Medical and Allied Health Personnel Executive Bylaw, introduced in 2014 for paramedical staff, which defined the rules for the employment, promotion, retention development and termination of medical and allied health personnel. At Al Nahdha Hospital, the new promotion system is by no means clear, there has been no explanation of the system by anyone, and promotions for some technologists have been delayed for a long time. At Khoula Hospital, the MLPs felt that the new Bylaw did not motivate them to work any harder, as the system does not discriminate between a hard worker and others.

At the Royal Hospital, the participants expressed dissatisfaction concerning an overall unfairness of the system, as it does not recognize workers’ formal qualifications; indeed, some of the participants had higher qualifications than others but received exactly the same salary as their less-qualified counterparts.

“The new Medical and Allied Health Personnel Executive Bylaw is unfair. I have 26 years of experience. However, I am getting less pay compared to new members of staff” (FGD6, RH).

“We do not have any risk allowance in our work” (FGD3, NH).

“I wish there was some motivation at work in this hospital. Unfortunately, after the new medical bylaw, there is NO difference between a hard worker and others” (FGD5, KH).

3.6. Organization Policies (job descriptions and appraisals)

In the Royal, Al Nahdha, and Khoula Hospitals, the formal job descriptions of MLPs were found to be a dissatisfier. MLPs complained that it was a generic description that was suitable only for junior staff and did not capture what senior staff members do. Other participants from other departments mentioned that, in fact, they did not have job descriptions at all and worked solely based on the instructions of their supervisors. Appraisals emerged as the second sub-factor mentioned in all three focus groups. All the MLPs were dissatisfied with the appraisal process because MLPs are not shown their annual evaluations, and they do not know what is reported about them central administration. MLPs can learn about their annual scores only when they apply for higher education.

“We only have an internal job description from the head of the department, and it is general for all” (FGD1, KH).

“I don't have a job description; I have to work only according to my supervisor's orders” (FGD5, RH).

“We do not see the annual evaluations; the head of the department and the supervisor are allowed to revise them and then send them to the administration” (FGD2, NH).

3.7. Relationships with leaders

In all three hospitals, the relationships between supervisors and MLPs were good.

“There is a good relationship between us and our head of the department, and this makes me happy in this laboratory” (FGD3, RH).

3.8. Relationships with coworkers

The MLPs expressed satisfaction with the relationships between co-workers in the laboratories.

“Everybody is cooperative in the laboratory; we help each other” (FGD1, KH).

The themes derived correspond in most instances with the factors of the Hertzberg theory. Laboratory health and safety in this study corresponds to Herzberg's factors” working condition”. Professional status (recognition and appreciation) is an expression of “recognition” as a job satisfier. The heavy workload in this study represent the “responsibility” in Herzberg's study as a hygiene factor. The “possibility of growth” in Herzberg's study is presented by professional development in this paper. Salary is a hygiene factor. “Advancement” corresponds to promotion. Organization Policies are an expression of “Company policies and administration” and defines the organizational context. Relationships with leaders are equal to “relationships with supervisors” in Herzberg's theory. Also “relationships with peers” in the theory correspond to relationships with co-workers in this study.

As in Hertzberg's theory, the categories identified in the content analysis were could be categorized as hygiene factors motivators; with considerable overlaps, as categories contributed to both satisfaction and dissatisfaction to varying degrees. This is shown in Figure 1 , where the frequencies of all statements derived from the FGDs are displayed, and compared to Hertzberg's original distribution of factors across the motivator and hygiene factor continuum ( Herzberg, 1968 ). The frequencies, specified as percentages, are to be found in ( Table 2 ).

Comparison of hygiene factors and motivators between Herzberg and the MLPs ( Herzberg, 1968 ).

Table 2

The percentage of each factor appearing in the satisfying and dissatisfying sequences from FGDs.

As explained by Herzberg's two-factor theory, the results demonstrated that the MLPs were not well motivated by their work environment (see Figure 1 ).

4. Discussion

The absence of health and safety in all laboratories was the most frequently mentioned source of job dissatisfaction among medical laboratory professionals (dissatisfied 16 per cent, and satisfied.

2 per cent). This is in agreement with Herzberg's theory. The dissatisfaction among the research population echoes the results found in a previous study with health workers demonstrating that the health and safety hazards that the workers encountered in their work had negative impacts on them 438 ( Altmaier and Hansen, 2012 ). Exposure to multiple hazards is known to affect the health of groups of workers, as noted by Danna and Griffin (1999) , who found, for example, that allergies and respirator system diseases were 40–50% higher among workers who worked in a poorly ventilated environment.

Maslow's theory of motivation suggests that safety is a lower-order need that must be met before higher-order needs can be satisfied. Likewise, in Herzberg's two-factor theory, hygiene factors (dissatisfiers) must be met in order to prevent dissatisfaction, in this case, within a healthcare institution ( Dieleman et al., 2003 ).

A heavy workload quite understandingly leads to job dissatisfaction (dissatisfied 15 per cent, and satisfied 7 per cent). Consequently, it is a hygiene factor, not a motivator as predicted in the Herzberg theory. That this theme is a dissatisfier for health workers was also found in a recent study from Africa ( Temesgen et al., 2018 ).

Salary and promotion seem to play a significant role in demotivating the medical laboratory professionals in the three hospitals (dissatisfied 14 per cent, and satisfied 5 per cent, 8 per cent respectively). They expressed that the new Medical and Allied Health Personnel Bylaw recently introduced was unjust since it does not differentiate between old and new employee as to rewards, and promotion is no longer automatically received, but requires that a new position is established.

Herzberg's two-factor theory suggests that salary is a motivator, but that after some time, it tends to become a dissatisfier (hygiene factor) for employees. In our study, salary is defined as a dissatisfaction factor, while promotion (advancement) is appreciated by participants in our groups of medical laboratory professionals.

Herzberg highlighted the importance of promotion opportunities as a motivating factor among employees ( Herzberg et al., 1959 ). The way workers are rewarded effects productivity and, therefore, the quality of care that must be monitored in health organizations ( WHO, 2006 ).

Consequently, the creation of new positions is important to encourage and retain workers ( Timmreck, 2001 ). This result is consistent with the findings of another study regarding the dissatisfaction of healthcare professionals due to low salaries and poor working conditions ( Wang et al., 2017 ). The finding is similar to those of a previous study conducted in Oman among healthcare professionals in a regional hospital ( Al Maqbali, 2015 ) and of other studies carried out with healthcare workers in Africa ( Deriba et al., 2017 ) and in Pakistan ( Tasneem et al., 2018 ).

The findings regarding the participants’ feelings are consistent with those reported in a previous study performed at the University Hospital in Oman ( Alrawahi et al., 2018 ). As noted by Kosteas (2010) , promotions are the main mechanism for achieving worker retention and satisfaction.

In this study, recognition and organizational policies were mostly a hygiene factor with more dissatisfied than satisfied (12 per cent vs 3 per cent and 6 per cent respectively). How recognition is perceived by the medical laboratory professionals seem to contradict Herzberg's theory, being a hygiene rather than a motivator factor. Organizational policies, on the other hand were in line with the theory.

All of these findings are consistent with those of an earlier study of clinical laboratories ( Doig and Beck, 2019 ). According to Herzberg's two-factor theory, recognition is an important motivator for employees ( Bassett-Jones and Lloyd, 2005 ), but in this study, its importance was reflected in the lack of recognition being a cause of dissatisfaction, There is clear potential for exploitation in such situations. Indeed, the participants with job descriptions complained that they did much more in their laboratories than what the job description outlined and was thus expected of them.

This means that participants have no idea whether they are considered to be performing adequately or well. In addition to complaining about the secrecy of the process, some MLPs also claimed that the head of the department being the evaluator is not appropriate since he or she has no direct contact with them and hence is not in a position to make an objective judgment. This shortcoming was reported in another study with nurses in South Africa ( Pillay, 2009 ).The WHO reported in 2006 that to improve the competence and quality of healthcare workers, their supervision should be enhanced by the provision of clear job descriptions and feedback on performance for junior staff. Any improvement in this respect would serve to motivate MLPs. consequently, the administration should incorporate rather than prevent motivational factors in laboratories.

Relations with co-workers, relation with leaders and professional development are three factors seen as important motivating factors, high on the positive end of the continuum (satisfied 26 per cent, 21 per cent, and 22 per cent respectively. As reported in the study by McAuliffe et al. (2013) , if supervisors are supportive and work cooperatively with subordinates to solve work problems, workers' job satisfaction and motivation can be improved. Hence, Herzberg's proposal that harmonious relationships with work colleagues can prevent dissatisfaction is confirmed ( Byrne, 2006 ). However, in other studies conducted elsewhere, MLPs have been found to be dissatisfied with training and development opportunities. Such findings have been reported in Kuwait ( Al-Enezi et al., 2009 ) and China ( Wang et al., 2017 ).

5. Methodological considerations

This was a qualitative study, utilizing focus group discussions, to throw light on Omani medical laboratory professionals' views of factors related to their job satisfaction, interpreted through the lens of Hertzberg's two-factor theory. As such, the findings cannot be generalized to the whole population of MLPs, although the number of participants was large, and the participants were well representative of the laboratory staff of the three hospitals involved. This made the semi-quantitative analysis, which was used to compare how well the findings corresponded with Hertzberg's theory, possible and defendable. The use of three hospitals as a basis for participant recruitment adds to the trustworthiness of the results. The fact that there were large consistencies in opinions between the groups from the different hospitals reduces the risk that the patterns observed were distorted by the use of the interview method.

However, the choice of FGDs as the primary data collection approach and the quantitative comparison of the distribution of hygiene factors and satisfiers with the original findings of Hertzberg, need to be scrutinized. Hertzberg's study, used as the reference in this analysis, applied the “critical incident technique” (CIT), originally designed by Flanagan, 1954, and collected its data by individual interviews ( Herzberg, 1968 ).

When applying the original CIT approach an interviewee is asked to reflect on a situation (i.e. which led to job dissatisfaction) and to describe how that was related to the outcome. However, later the technique has been developed to engage groups (usually of experts) that identify such critical incidents and formulate those as “statements” ( Gordon, 2014 ). Focus group interviews of MLPs were thus chosen as the main data collection method in order to capitalize on the strengths of that method. The main advantage is that the discussion initiated will increase the probability that different perspectives and opinions are expressed. A focus group of peers will also increase the possibility that more important issues are separated from less important ones, and whether there is agreement or disagreement, thus resembling the process of an expert group involved in a CIT exercise or a consensus producing nominal group ( Tausch and Menold, 2016 ). On the other hand, the disadvantages of using FGDs must also be raised, such as participants being more or less vocal, and that sensitive topics might be less easy to comment when in a group, and that group pressure might silence participants. We have to acknowledge that those risks might have materialized during the FGD sessions, potentially distorting the results. However, we reasoned that the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages, and enable us to perform both the content analysis of the material and the quantitative comparison with Hertzberg's original profile of factors.

6. Conclusions

Several important conclusions can be drawn based on the review of the literature related to job satisfaction in general and in healthcare specifically and the empirical study with MLPs from the three main hospitals in Oman. In particular, this study suggests that the main source of dissatisfaction is a lack of laboratory health and safety; heavy workloads; the promotion system, which is perceived as unfair and unworkable; poor salaries; certain organizational policies (namely, the appraisal system and inappropriate job descriptions); and the lack of recognition for the professional status of the MLPs by other colleagues outside of the laboratories, who have no appreciation of the work that MLPs perform.

To address these dissatisfiers, these hospitals must be acknowledged as referral hospital that receive more samples than other hospitals, and, consequently, to safe-guard a greater laboratory workforce to ensure that MLPs are not overloaded. Additionally, the issue of wider-scale awareness within the hospitals of the value of MLPs should be considered.

Additionally, as the MLPs were dissatisfied with the opportunities for promotion resulting from the newly introduced Medical and Allied Health Personnel Executive Bylaw, policy-makers should consider to re-evaluate that legislation.

A decline in the recognition of MLPs’ efforts brought less productivity and commitment, whereas an increase in the recognition of their work and professionalism will promote satisfaction.

MLPs' unhappiness with their overall conditions, and especially with the level of health and safety in the laboratories, function as dissatisfiers, yet improvements in their relationship with leaders (through the recognition of their worth) will increase their satisfaction. The dissatisfaction experienced by the research population is a result of the absence of factors that cause satisfaction, and consequently, it is the responsibility of hospital administrations to develop good systems to improve MLPs’ job satisfaction. Effective cooperation between the laboratory managers and hospital administrations will enable the achievement of job satisfaction among MLPs.

Therefore, it is essential that hospital management pays attention to hygiene factors of importance to this group of healthcare professionals to avoid job dissatisfaction and simultaneously provide motivators within the working environment to achieve job satisfaction.

This study is one of the few analyzing factors of importance for the job satisfaction of medical laboratory professionals. It was performed in three hospitals in Oman, and the results cannot necessarily be generalized to other contexts. It did, though, highlight which factors of a widely used theory on staff motivation that promote or reduce job satisfaction in this specific group of health professionals. Applying those insights, carefully tailored to the organizational context in question, might lead to improved working conditions in medical laboratories beyond our study setting also.

Most, but not all, of the factors of Herzberg's Motivation Theory were identified in our study. Depending on different contexts, the motivation figure of employees will vary from one setting to another. Since what is recognized as a motivator in one culture may be a de-motivator in another culture ( Al-Akeel and Jahangir, 2020 ). Comparative studies could shed light on how Herzberg's theory is best applied in different organizational contexts.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

S. A. Al Rawahi: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

S. Fransson Sellgren, M. Brommels: Analyzed and interpreted the data; Wrote the paper.

N. Al Wahaibi, S. Al Touby: Analyzed and interpreted the data.

Funding statement

This work was supported by the Ministry Of Higher Education, Research and Innovation Sultanate of Oman, his Majesty Sultan Qaboos Grant.

Competing interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the participants of medical laboratory professionals and the leaders in the Royal, Al Nahdha, and Khoula hospitals for their cooperation in order to carry out this study.

Appendix I. 

Table 3.

Sociodemographic variables of the medical laboratory professionals at Royal Hospital

Table 4

Sociodemographic variables of the medical laboratory professionals at Al Nahdha Hospital

Table 5

Sociodemographic variables of the medical laboratory professionals at Khoula Hospital

• Al Maqbali M. Job satisfaction of nurses in a regional hospital in Oman. J. Nurs. Res. 2015; 23 (3):206–216. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Akeel N., Jahangir S. Relationship between employees’ cultural background and work motivation (according to McClelland’s need theory of motivation) Int. J. Psychosoc. Rehabil. 2020; 24 (Special Issue 1):156–163. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Enezi N., Chowdhury R., Shah M., Al-Otabi M. Job satisfaction of nurses with multicultural backgrounds: a questionnaire survey in Kuwait. Appl. Nurs. Res. 2009; 22 (2):94–100. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alrawahi S., Sellgren S., Alwahaibi N., Altouby S., Brommels M. Factors affecting job satisfaction among medical laboratory technologists in University Hospital, Oman: an exploratory study. Int. J. Health Plann. Manag. 2018; 34 (1):e763–e775. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Altmaier E., Hansen J. first ed. Oxford University Press; New York: 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Counseling Psychology. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ausloos M., Pekalski A. Model of wealth and goods dynamics in a closed market. Phys. Stat. Mech. Appl. 2007; 373 :560–568. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bassett Jones N., Lloyd G. Does Herzberg's motivation theory have staying power? J. Manag. Dev. 2005; 24 (10):929–943. [ Google Scholar ]
• Birt L., Scott S., Cavers D., Campbell C., Walter F. Member checking. Qual. Health Res. 2016; 26 (13):1802–1811. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blaauw D., Ditlopo P., Maseko F., Chirwa M., Mwisongo A., Bidwell P. Comparing the job satisfaction and intention to leave of different categories of health workers in Tanzania, Malawi, and South Africa. Glob. Health Action. 2013; 6 (1):19287. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byrne M. The implications of Herzberg's "Motivation-Hygiene" theory for management in the Irish health sector. Health Care Manag. 2006; 25 (1):4–11. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Danna K., Griffin R. Health and well-being in the workplace: a review and synthesis of the literature. J. Manag. 1999; 25 (3):357–384. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deriba B., Sinke S., Ereso B., Badacho A. Health professionals’ job satisfaction and associated factors at public health centers in West Ethiopia. Hum. Resour. Health. 2017; 15 (1) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dieleman M., Cuong P., Anh L., Martineau T. Identifying factors for job motivation of rural health workers in North Viet Nam. Hum. Resour. Health. 2003; 1 (1) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doig K., Beck S. Factors contributing to the retention of clinical laboratory personnel. Clin. Lab. Sci. 2019; 18 (1) [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geleto A., Baraki N., Atomsa G., Dessie Y. Job satisfaction and associated factors among health care providers at public health institutions in Harari region, eastern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Res. Notes. 2015; 8 (1) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• George J., Jones G. fifth ed. Pearson Education; Upper Saddle River, NJ: 2008. Understanding and Managing Organizational Behavior. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gordon L. LR Gordon, Incorporated; 2014. Critical Incident Technique; pp. 1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Herzberg F. first ed. World Publishing Company; Cleveland: 1966. Work and the Nature of Man. [ Google Scholar ]
• Herzberg F. One more time:How do you motivate employee? Harv. Bus. Rev. 1968; 46 (January-February):53–62. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herzberg F., Mausner B., Snydermann B. second ed. John Wiley & Sons; New York: 1959. The Motivation to Work. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hotchkiss D., Banteyerga H., Tharaney M. Job satisfaction and motivation among public sector health workers: evidence from Ethiopia. Hum. Resour. Health. 2015; 13 (1):83–94. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsiao A., Ma E., Auld C. Organizational ethnic diversity and employees’ satisfaction with hygiene and motivation factors—a comparative IPA approach. J. Hospit. Market. Manag. 2016; 26 (2):144–163. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kian T., Wan W., Rajah S. European journal of business and social sciences. Eur. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2014; 3 (2):94–102. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kosteas V. Job satisfaction and promotions. Ind. Relat.: J. Econ. Soc. 2010; 50 (1):174–194. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger R. In: 2d edition. Krueger Richard A., editor. Vol. 13. Sage Publications, Inc.; Thousand Oaks, CA: 1996. pp. 273–274. (Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research). 1994. 255 + xiv pages. $21.50. Journal Of Product Innovation Management. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger R., Casey M. SAGE; Los Angeles: 2015. Focus Groups. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee S., Shin B., Lee H. Understanding post-adoption usage of mobile data services: the role of supplier-side variables. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. Online. 2009; 10 (12):860–888. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lu Y., Hu X., Huang X., Zhuang X., Guo P., Feng L. Job satisfaction and associated factors among healthcare staff: a cross-sectional study in Guangdong Province, China. BMJ Open. 2016; 6 (7) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lundberg C., Gudmundson A., Andersson T. Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of work motivation tested empirically on seasonal workers in hospitality and tourism. Tourism Manag. 2009; 30 (6):890–899. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marinucci F., Majigo M., Wattleworth M., Paterniti A., Hossain M., Redfield R. Factors affecting job satisfaction and retention of medical laboratory professionals in seven countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. Hum. Resour. Health. 2013; 11 (1) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslow A. first ed. Harper & Brothers; New York: 1954. Motivation and Personality. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslow A. The instinctoid nature of basic Needs1. J. Pers. 1954; 22 (3):326–347. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McAuliffe E., Daly M., Kamwendo F., Masanja H., Sidat M., de Pinho H. The critical role of supervision in retaining staff in obstetric services: a three country study. PloS One. 2013; 8 (3) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Munyewende P., Rispel L., Chirwa T. Positive practice environments influence job satisfaction of primary health care clinic nursing managers in two South African provinces. Hum. Resour. Health. 2014; 12 (1) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pillay R. Work satisfaction of professional nurses in South Africa: a comparative analysis of the public and private sectors. Hum. Resour. Health. 2009; 7 (1) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rahman K., Akhter W., Khan S. Factors affecting employee job satisfaction: a comparative study of conventional and Islamic insurance. Cogent Business & Management. 2017; 4 (1) [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers R. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J. Psychol. 1975; 91 (1):93–114. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruthankoon R., Olu Ogunlana S. Testing Herzberg’s two-factor theory in the Thai construction industry. Eng. Construct. Architect. Manag. 2003; 10 (5):333–341. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tasneem S., Cagatan A., Avci M., Basustaoglu A. Job satisfaction of health service providers working in a public tertiary care hospital of Pakistan. Open Publ. Health J. 2018; 11 (1):17–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tausch A., Menold N. Methodological aspects of focus groups in health research. Global Qualitative Nursing Res. 2016; 3 233339361663046. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Temesgen K., Aycheh M., Leshargie C. Job satisfaction and associated factors among health professionals working at Western Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Health Qual. Life Outcome. 2018; 16 (1) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The Department of Health Information and Statistics . Ministry of Health; 2016. Annual Health Report 2016. https://www.moh.gov.om/en/web/statistics/-/20-44 Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
• Timmreck T. Managing motivation and developing job satisfaction in the health care work environment. Health Care Manag. 2001; 20 (1):42–58. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Verma M., Singh T., Kaur M., Kumar R. Job satisfaction among health care providers: a cross-sectional study in public health facilities of Punjab, India. J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care. 2019; 8 (10):3268. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang H., Tang C., Zhao S., Meng Q., Liu X. Job satisfaction among health-care staff in township health centers in rural China: results from a latent class Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health. 2017; 14 (10):1101. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• WHO The World Health Report 2006 - working together for health. 2006. https://www.who.int/whr/2006/en/ Retrieved from. [ PubMed ]

Web References

• The Department of Health Information and Statistics Annual health report 2016. 2016. Retrieved from https://www.moh.gov.om/en/web/statistics/-/20-44 .
• WHO The world health report 2006 - working together for health. 2006. https://www.who.int/whr/2006/en/ Retrieved from. [ PubMed ]

Two Factor Theory of Motivation and Satisfaction: An Empirical Verification

• Published: 30 March 2016
• Volume 3 , pages 155–173, ( 2016 )

Cite this article

• M. A. Sanjeev   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6309-0758 1 &
• A. V. Surya 2  

12k Accesses

20 Citations

Explore all metrics

Effective talent management is imperative for organisational success. This involves acquiring, deploying, developing, engaging and retaining talent in the organisation there by providing a stable staff for achieving organisational objectives. Herzberg’s two factor theory of motivation and satisfaction was proposed in 1959 and has been widely tested empirically with mixed results. The purpose of this research is to verify the ‘two factor theory’ in the modern day context using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The study is done among pharmaceutical sales and marketing professionals. The findings confirm the existence of two factor structure of motivation and satisfaction. The employees are satisfied in the presence of motivating factors only and hygiene factors do not have any influence on satisfaction levels. The motivating factors however, are not fully intrinsic in nature and consists of certain extrinsic elements also as classified by Herzberg. The factors are also not fully independent with a high amount of shared variance between them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Testing Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Motivation in the Public Sector: Is it Applicable to Public Managers?

The concept of the trichotomy of motivating factors in the workplace.

Towards a neo-configurational theory of intrinsic motivation

Atchison TJ, Lefferts EA (1972) The prediction of turnover using Herzberg’s job satisfaction technique. Pers Psychol 25(1):53–64

Article   Google Scholar  

Behling O, Labovitz G, Kosmo R (1968) The Herzberg controversy: a critical reappraisal. Acad Manag J 11(1):99–108

Bockman V (1971) The Herzberg controversy. Pers Psychol 24(2):155–189

Brenner V, Carmack C, Weinstein M (1971) An empirical test of the motivation-hygiene theory. J Account Res 9(2):359–366

Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2008) (3rd edn.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Chary S, Gupta T (2014) A study on field force attrition and the response of consulting doctors in Greater Mumbai. Express Pharma. Retrieved from http://archive.expresspharmaonline.com/sections/pharma-life-2/3954-a-study-on-field-force-attrition-and-the-response-of-consulting-doctors-in-greater-mumbai . Accessed 9 Apr 2015

Crocker L, Algina J (1986) Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Orlando

Google Scholar  

DeShields Oscar W Jr, Kara Ali, Kaynak Erdener (2005) Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: applying Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Int J Educ Manag 19(2):128–139

Dunaway L, Running A (2009) Job satisfaction as self-care within a restrictive regulatory environment: Nevada’s study. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 21(10):557–564

Ewen R, Smith P, Hulin C, Locke E (1966) An empirical test of the Herzberg two-factor theory. J Appl Psychol 50(6):544–550

Farr R (1977) On the nature of attributional artifacts in qualitative research: Herzberg’s two- factor theory of work motivation. J Occup Psychol 50(1):3–14

Gaziel H (1986) Correlates of job satisfaction: a study of the two factor theory in an educational setting. J Psychol 120(6):613–626

Hackman JR, Oldham GR (1976) Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Org Behav Hum Perform 16(2):250–279. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7

Herzberg F (1965) The motivation to work among Finnish supervisors. Pers Psychol 18(4):393–402

Herzberg F (1968) One more time: how do you motivate employees? Harvard Bus Rev 46(1):53–62

Hines GH (1973) Cross-cultural differences in two-factor motivation theory. J Appl Psychol 58(3):375–377

Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6(1):1–55

Jöreskog K, Sörbom D (1993) LISREL 8: structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International Inc, Chicago

King N (1970) Clarification and evaluation of the two-factor theory of job satisfaction. Psychol Bull 74(1):18–31

Kodgule MM (2012) Growth of Indian pharmaceutical industry: impact of Indian, US & European patent laws and regulatory requirements. Pharma Times 44(7):45–49

Lawler E (1970) Job attitudes and employee motivation: theory, research, and practice. Pers Psychol 23(2):223–237

Lindsay C, Marks E, Gorlow L (1967) The Herzberg theory: a critique and reformulation. J Appl Psychol 51(4):330–339

Locke EA, Whiting RJ (1974) Sources of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among solid waste management employees. J Appl Psychol 59(2):145–156

Lodahl T (1964) Patterns of job attitudes in two assembly technologies. Adm Sci Quart 8(4):482–519

Mazumdar M (2013) Performance of pharmaceutical companies in India, contributions to economics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. doi: 10.1007/978-3-7908-2876-4_2

Macarov D (1972) Work patterns and satisfactions in an Israeli kibbutz: a test of the Herzberg hypothesis. Pers Psychol 25(15):483–493

MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM (1996) Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods 1(2):130–149

Maidani E (1991) Comparative study of Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction among public and private sectors. Public Pers Manag 20(4):441–448

Mathew, C Joe (2013, June, 5) Indian Pill Brigade: Medical Reps must evolve if they want to keep up with times. http://www.businessworld.in/news/business/pharma/the-pill-brigade/911437/page-1.html . Accessed 1 Dec 2014

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. (2010). 8th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford: UK

Rathavoot R, Ogunlana SO (2003) Testing Herzberg’s two-factor theory in the Thai construction industry. Eng Constr Archit Manag 10(5):333–341

Rosenberg MJ, Hovland CI (eds) (1960) Cognitive, affective and behavioural components of attitudes. In: Attitude organization and change: an analysis of consistency among attitude components. Yale University Press, New Haven

Schultz DP, Schultz SE (2010) Psychology and work today: an introduction to industrial and organizational psychology, 10th edn. Prentice Hall, New York

Schwab D, DeVitt W (1971) A test of the adequacy of the two factor theory as a predictor of self-report performance effects. Pers Psychol 24(2):293–303

Slavec A, Drnovsek M (2012) A perspective on scale development in entrepreneurship research. Econ Bus Rev 14(1):39–62

Smerek R, Peterson M (2007) Examining Herzberg’s theory: Improving job satisfaction among non-academic employees at a university. Res High Educ 48(2):229–250

Tutor FD (1986) ‘The relationship between perceived need deficiencies and factors influencing teacher participation in the tennessee career ladder. Doctoral dissertation, Memphis State University, Memphis, TN

Wheaton B, Muthen B, Alwin DF, Summers G (1977) Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociol Methodol 8(1):84–136

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Jaypee Business School, JIIT, A-10, Sector – 62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, 201307, India

M. A. Sanjeev

IMRB International, SRI Division, Kalkaji, New Delhi, 110019, India

A. V. Surya

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. A. Sanjeev .

Annexure 1: Motives (Job Attributes) and Their Functional Definition

Annexure 2: survey instrument.

Kindly tick the appropriate response on each statements given below as

1: Strongly agree 2: Agree 3: Neither agree or disagree 4: Disagree 5: Strongly disagree

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sanjeev, M.A., Surya, A.V. Two Factor Theory of Motivation and Satisfaction: An Empirical Verification. Ann. Data. Sci. 3 , 155–173 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40745-016-0077-9

Download citation

Received : 03 March 2016

Revised : 08 March 2016

Accepted : 17 March 2016

Published : 30 March 2016

Issue Date : June 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40745-016-0077-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Two-factor theory
• Hygiene factor
• Motivating factor
• Factor structure
• Empirical verification
• Factor analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory Of Motivation-Hygiene

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

• The two-factor theory (also known as Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory) argues that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction exist in two different ways, each with its own set of factors.
• This contradicts the traditional view of job satisfaction, which posits that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are interdependent.
• Herzberg and his collaborators investigated fourteen factors relating to job satisfaction in their original study, classifying them as either hygienic or motivational factors. Motivation factors increase job satisfaction, while hygiene factors prevent job dissatisfaction.
• Although largely replaced by newer theories of motivation in academia, the two-factor motivation theory continues to influence popular management theory and the methodology of studies in some areas of the world.

What Is Two-Factor Theory?

The two-factor motivation theory, otherwise known as Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory or dual-factor theory, argues that there are separate sets of mutually exclusive factors in the workplace that either cause job satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1966; 1982; 1991; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959).

Generally, these factors encourage job satisfaction and relate to self-growth and self-actualization.

The two-factor motivation theory has become one of the most commonly used theoretical frameworks in job satisfaction research (Dion, 2006).

To Herzberg, motivators ensured job satisfaction, while a lack of hygiene factors spawned job dissatisfaction.

The major mid-twentieth century researchers in motivation — Maslow (1954), Herzberg, Vroom (1964), Alderfer (1972), McCalland (1961), and Locke et al. (1981) — devised research which Basset-Jones and Lloyd argue can be divided into content and process theories of motivation.

Content theories, such as Herzberg et al. (1959), assume a complex interaction between internal and external factors and explore how people respond to different internal and external stimuli.

Meanwhile, process theories, such as that of Vroom (1964), consider how factors internal to the person lead to different behaviors.

Frederick Herzberg’s Approach

Frederick Herzberg and his two collaborators, Mausner and Snyderman, developed the motivation-hygiene theory in their book Motivation to Work .

Influenced by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Jones, 2011), Herzberg concluded that satisfaction and dissatisfaction could not be measured reliably on the same continuum and conducted a series of studies where he attempted to determine what factors in work environments cause satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

Herzberg and his colleagues explored the impact of fourteen factors on job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in terms of their frequency and duration of impact (Bassett-Jones and Lloyd, 2005).

In the first of these studies, Heizberg asked 13 laborers, clerical workers, foremen, plant engineers, and accountants to describe, in detail, situations where they felt exceptionally good or bad about their jobs (Robbins and Judge, 2013).

Generally, respondents, when describing situations where they felt good about their jobs, cited factors intrinsic to their work, while those describing situations where they felt bad about their jobs cited extrinsic factors .

Herzberg (1959) considers two factors that can add to or detract from job satisfaction: hygiene and motivation.

While hygiene factors are related to “the need to avoid unpleasantness,” motivation factors more directly lead to job satisfaction because of “the need of the individual for self-growth and self-actualization.”

The traditional view of job satisfaction entails that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction exist on the same continuum; employees who lack reasons to be satisfied with their jobs must be dissatisfied (Robbins and Judge, 2013).

However, hygiene and motivational factors are distinct. To Herzberg, the opposite of job satisfaction was not job dissatisfaction but no job satisfaction. Conversely, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is no job dissatisfaction (Kacel et al., 2005).

These two separate continua of job satisfaction and job satisfaction support the possibility that someone can be content with certain aspects of their jobs but discontent with others.

Perhaps more pessimistically, this also implies that simply eliminating “dissatisfiers” would not necessarily lead to job satisfaction as much as placation (motivational concepts).

These so-called “satisfiers” (motivational factors) and “dissatisfiers” (a lack of hygiene factors) are dynamic, constantly interacting, highly subject to change, and relative to the employee (Misener and Cox, 2001).

Certain satisfiers or dissatisfiers may be more important than others depending on personal and professional contexts.

According to Herzberg, whether or not dissatisfiers outweigh satisfiers predict whether employees find their job interesting and enjoyable and their likelihood of remaining at their current jobs (Kacel et al., 2005).

Motivation Factors

Herzberg et al. (1959) argue that motivation factors are necessary to improve job satisfaction.

According to Herzberg, these motivators are intrinsic to the job and lead to job satisfaction because they satisfy the needs for growth and self-actualization (Herzberg, 1966).

In his original paper, Herzberg examines 14 motivational and hygiene factors, of which there are notable examples:

Meanwhile, a negative or neutral status at work represents negative advancement (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

The job’s difficulty and level of engagement can dramatically impact satisfaction or dissatisfaction in the workplace (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

Personal growth can result in professional growth, increased opportunities to develop new skills and techniques, and gaining professional knowledge (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

People gain satisfaction from being given the responsibility and authority to make decisions. Conversely, a mismatch between responsibility and level of authority negatively affects job satisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

Negative recognition involves criticism or blame for a poorly done job (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

Negative achievement includes failure to progress at work or poor job-related decision-making (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

Herzberg’s Hygiene Factors

Hygiene factors are those which decrease job dissatisfaction. Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman used the term hygiene as “medical hygiene…[which] operates to remove health hazards from the environment” (1959; Alshmemri et al., 2017).

Herzberg also states that hygiene factors are extrinsic to the job and function in “the need to avoid unpleasantness” (Herzberg, 1966).

Hygiene factors, rather than relating to the content of the job in itself, tend to relate to contextual factors such as interpersonal relations, salary, company policies, and administration, relationship with supervisors, and working conditions:

This can manifest in, for example, job-related interactions as well as social discussions in both the work environment and during informal break times.

• Salary : Salary includes wage or salary increases and negative unfulfilled expectations of wage or salary increases (Alshmemri et al., 2017).

For example, a lack of delegation of authority, vague policies and procedures, and communication may lead to job dissatisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017).

For example, this could include a supervisor’s willingness to delegate responsibility or teach and their knowledge of the job.

Poor leadership and management can decrease job dissatisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017).

Factors leading to a good or poor workspace could involve the amount of work, space, ventilation, tools, temperature, and safety (Alshmemri et al., 2017).

Empirical studies of job satisfaction in nurses, such as those of Kacel et al. (2005) and Jones (2011), support Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory by asserting that hygiene factors are less important to job satisfaction, while motivational factors lead to job satisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017).

In one such study, Kacel et al. (2005) used Herzberg’s theory as a framework for qualitatively studying job satisfaction among 147 nurse practitioners in the Midwest of the United States.

Kacel et al. noticed a Koelbel, Fuller, and Misener (1991) study that suggested that nurses often become nurse practitioners because of dissatisfaction with their staff nursing position and a desire to use their abilities to their fullest potential — to fulfill what Herzberg would call motivation factors.

In particular, nurses become nurse practitioners, according to Kacel, because of the role’s challenge and autonomy (2005).

The researchers devised the Misener Nurse Practitioner Job Satisfaction Scale (Misner and Cox, 2001). This is a 44-item questionnaire that focuses on six of Herzberg’s motivational and hygiene factors: collegiality, autonomy, professional social and community interaction, professional growth, time, and benefits and compensation (Kace et al., 2005).

The study described which factors were the most strongly associated with satisfaction and dissatisfaction and found that salary and administrative policies, in particular, influence nurses’ job dissatisfaction (Kacel et al., 2005).

Mid-Level Manager Job Satisfaction in India

Although heavily critiqued, Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory still greatly influences current methodology, particularly in several modern Asian workplace studies (Robbins and Judge, 2013).

Vijayakumar and Saxena (2015) conducted one such study in India. Attempting to address the controversy over whether monetary compensation motivates poor hygiene, the researchers used a questionnaire to ask 144 mid-level managers about what factors influenced their job satisfaction most.

Ultimately, the researchers concluded that job satisfaction was determined most by job content, organizational context, and rewards and working conditions, with monetary compensation as a separate factor altogether (Vijayakumar and Saxena, 2015).

PLAY Heuristics and Herzberg’s Theory Applied to Video Games

Straat and Warpefelt (2015) applied Herzberg’s theory to Desurvire and Wiberg’s (2009) PLAY heuristics by viewing hygiene factors as ensuring a functional and enjoyable play experience.

In general, Straat found that video games determined to be of low quality — with a low average rating on a popular review website — tended to have more usability design issues; however, users tended to express more opinions about game aesthetics, narrative, or storyline than usability issues in their reviews (Straat and Verhageen, 2014).

The PLAY heuristic, as developed by Desurvire and Wiberg (2009), listed several factors in categories such as gameplay, emotional immersion, usability, and game mechanics.

This heuristic includes factors such as “Players feel in control,” “The game goals are clear,” and “there is an emotional connection between the player and the game world,” which parallel Herzberg’s workplace factors.

The researchers then categorized each item in this heuristic as a hygienic or motivational factor according to participant responses (Straat and Warpefelt, 2015).

Critical Evaluation

The two-factor theory has not been well supported by research. Generally, criticisms of the theory focus on Herzberg’s methodology and assumptions.

Critics have also noted that if hygiene and motivational factors are equally important to a person, both should be capable of motivating employees (Robbins and Judge, 2013).

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).

A large number of replication studies emerged following Herzberg’s results. Those using Herzberg’s methodology — the critical incident framework — were consistent with his original results, while research that used methods such as surveys supported the traditional idea that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction exist on the same continuum (Bassett-Jones and Lloyd, 2005).

Soon after Motivation at Work’s publication, Vroom (1964) offered a notable critique of this phenomenon: people would naturally be inclined toward protecting their egos when asked to recall good and bad work moments, thus attributing good moments to their personal achievement and capability and bad moments to work (Basset-Jones and Lloyd, 2005).

Thus, in Herzberg’s original qualitative study involving about 200 participants, participants may have been biased when thinking about times in the past when they felt good or bad about their jobs.

Nonetheless, critics struggled to grapple with how Herzberg’s methodology produced results with such consistency.

Nonetheless, critics continued attributing Herzberg’s results to factors such as social desirability bias (Wall, 1973) and personality (Evans and McKee, 1970).

What is Herzberg two factor theory?

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory proposes that two sets of factors influence job satisfaction: hygiene factors and motivators.

Hygiene factors, like salary and working conditions, don’t motivate but can cause dissatisfaction if inadequate.

Motivators, like achievement, recognition, and growth, can create satisfaction and enhance motivation when present.

According to Herzberg, what would be considered “motivators”?

According to Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, “motivators” are factors that lead to job satisfaction and motivate employees to perform better. These include meaningful work, recognition, responsibility, opportunities for growth, achievement, and advancement.

These factors are intrinsic to the work and are related to an individual’s need for personal growth and self-fulfillment.

According to Herzberg’s two-factor theory, which factor would motivate individuals the most?

According to Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, the “motivators” are the most potent in driving job satisfaction and motivation.

These include intrinsic aspects such as achievement, recognition, work, responsibility, advancement, and growth opportunities.

Herzberg suggests these factors promote higher performance as they fulfill individuals’ deep-seated needs for personal growth and self-fulfillment.

However, the exact factor motivating most would vary based on the individual’s values and personal needs.

Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational settings.

Alshmemri, M., Shahwan-Akl, L., & Maude, P. (2017). Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Life Science Journal, 14(5), 12-16.

Bassett‐Jones, N., & Lloyd, G. C. (2005). Does Herzberg’s motivation theory have staying power? Journal of management development.

Desurvire, H., & Wiberg, C. (2009). Game usability heuristics (PLAY) for evaluating and designing better games: The next iteration. Paper presented at the International conference on online communities and social computing.

Dion, M. J. (2006). The impact of workplace incivility and occupational stress on the job satisfaction and turnover intention of acute care nurses: University of Connecticut.

Evans, M., & McKee, D. (1970). Some effects of internal versus external orientations upon the relationship between various aspects of job satisfaction. J Appl Psychol, 2(1), 17-24.

Herzberg, F. I. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man.

Herzberg, F. I. (1970). Avoiding pain in the organization. Industry Week. Dec, 7.

Herzberg, F. I . (1971a). More on avoiding pain in the organization. Industry Week. Jan. 18.

Herzberg, F. I. (1974). The wise old Turk. Harvard Business Review, 54(5), 70-80.

Herzberg, F. I. (1982). The managerial choice: To be efficient and to be human (2nd ed., Rev.). Salt Lake City, UT: Olympus.

Herzberg, F. I. (1991). Happiness and unhappiness: A brief autobiography of Frederick I. Herzberg. Unpublished manuscript, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Herzberg. F. I., & Hamlin, R. M. (1961). A motivation-hygiene concept of mental health. Mental Hygiene, 45 , 394-401.

Herzberg, F. I., Mausner, R., Peterson, R., & Capwell, D. (1957). Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Services of Pittsburgh.

Herzberg, F. I., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.

Jones, T. L. (2011). Effects of motivating and hygiene factors on job satisfaction among school nurses. Walden University.

Kacel, B., Miller, M., & Norris, D. (2005). Measurement of nurse practitioner job satisfaction in a Midwestern state. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 17(1), 27-32.

Koelbel, P. W., Fuller, S. G., & Misener, T. R. (1991). Job satisfaction of nurse practitioners: an analysis using Herzberg’s theory. The Nurse Practitioner, 16 (4), 43, 46-52, 55.

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90 (1), 125.

Further Reading

• Resurrecting the MotivationHygiene Theory: Herzberg and the Positive Psychology Movement
• Behling, O., Labovitz, G., & Kosmo, R. (1968). The Herzberg controversy: A critical reappraisal. Academy of Management Journal, 11(1), 99-108.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF HERZBERG’S TWO-FACTOR THEORY

2013, Nigerian Journal of Management Technology & Development

Related Papers

Epiphany Odubuker Picho , george lukwago

An exploratory study has been undertaken to understand possible factors related to motivation of researchers in Sub-Saharan Africa's (SSA) agricultural research context. This is part of a large study aimed to develop construct validity under Herzberg's theory for motivation of employees in the National Agricultural Research Organization in Uganda. In this exploratory study, publications related to motivational factors in SSA agricultural research systems have been reviewed. Institutionalization of incentives, service conditions, job security and salary packages have been identified as key hygiene factors. On the other hand recognition, meaningful work, flexibility, career development, self-drive, freedom and work overload are critical motivators.

Muhammad Yusuf , Aminu Ahmad

Ibrahim Antwi , Richard Lamptey Bruce

Paper presented at the ILA/TISS 2008 International Platinum Jubilee Conference on Knowledge for All: Role of Libraries and Information Centres, Mumbai.

Dr. Kanwal Ameen (T.I.) Prof. Emeritus

Abstract This paper analyzes the opinion of LIS professionals about their motivational preferences on work place in Pakistani Universities. Questionnaire survey was used as data gathering instrument. The main objective of study is to explore the preferred motivators of LIS professionals and the relevancy of Herzberg Hygiene-Motivational theory to Pakistani context.

Nur Atikah Asmidar Binti Mohd Zin

HARSHAL KUMAR

Szilveszter Fekete

Our paper focuses on accounting professionals in Romania as being a significant element when considering a national accounting system that went through complex accounting reforms of more than two decades. Since accounting policy represents an area of social and economic policy we must also consider the five decades of communist regime leaving their fingerprint on the Romanian society. It is

Tomisin Sotubo

Employee Retention and Loyalty has become a major concern for organisations and Human Resource (HR) practitioners. Retaining employees might seem impossible on jobs that are de-motivating, monotonous, unchallenging, boring and requires a great amount of emotional labour. This research seeks to discover practices that significantly impact employee retention and loyalty in a call centre context. Another context of study is the location of the case study - Nigeria. This study further examines if the economy significantly impact employee retention and loyalty. To achieve this, existing literature on employee retention and loyalty have been examined. Theories of motivation and job satisfaction are also important in this research because of the nature of work in the call centers. Human Resource Management and the economy in developing countries are vital aspects to also examine , considering that the case study is in Nigeria, a developing country in West Africa. After examining, reviewing and exploring existing literature along with past researches, and subsequently analyzing the response of t employees, it was discovered that the major factors that contribute to employee retention and loyalty in Etisalat, a telecommunications company are, Wages and Benefits. The most relevant theoretical frameworks in this research are Adverse-selection and Labour Turnover models of Efficiency Wage Theory and Herzberg Two-Factor theory.

RELATED PAPERS

Benson James Lyimo

YOGESH SINGH

Amanpene Foster Blankson

Transstellar journal

TJPRC Publication

Vimalkumar S Prajapati

Anuary Mgalu

Industrial Relations Journal

IJSRP Journal

Kiza Moses Mbozi

Dr. Julio Warner Loiseau, JD, PhD

Alexander Decker

UGOCHUKWU ABASILIM

Yew Chee Chew

Norma Nance

Aznur Kaswuri

Fazlul Hoque , John Adanse , Sauda Afrin Anny

Edward Nii Amar Amarteifio

Abdikarin Adan fagaase

Ross Thorburn

African Journal of Business Management

Herbert Kanengoni

Marjan Bojadziev

Joshna Bhurtun

olusegunsteve adegoke , Elebute Abideen

Ayesha Safiullah

Bandula Lekamge

Personnel Psychology

Raphael Blaboe

Oanh NGUYEN

Odunayo Salau

Dr Riaz A Mangi , Akhtiar Ghumro

Management and Administrative Sciences Review ISSN: 2308-1368

Voluntary Sector Review

Melinda Weisberg , Eric Dent

Journal ijmr.net.in(UGC Approved)

Ezzatullah Sadiqi

Mousaion: South African Journal of Information Studies

Liah Shonhe

Journal of Agricultural Education

Emmanuel Oluwaseun

Pritesh Khurdia

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• < Previous

Home > Student Scholarship > HONORS_THESES > 530

Honors Theses

Herzberg's two factor theory of motivation: a generational study.

Daniel T. Bevins , Eastern Kentucky University Follow

Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory of Motivation: A Generational Study

Daniel T. Bevins

Dr. Beth Polin

Department of Management, Marketing, and International Business

This study attempts to fully investigate the well-researched and world-renowned theory—The Two Factor Theory of motivation by Frederick Herzberg. One might notice after being engulfed in the plentiful research of the theory that there is a gap in the research. There is no research on how the Two Factor theory differs among varying generations. This research paper attempts to fill that void by diving into a targeted study of Baby Boomers and Millennials. This study is focused on comparing and contrasting the first level factors that are identified as Motivators and Hygiene factors by each generation listed above. By uncovering a difference at this initial level of the theory, it will lay the foundation for future research into the more complex ideas surrounding the Two Factor theory. The study was conducted closely to Herzberg’s original method in order to determine if generation is the variable causing any differences in the data that might be collected. By conducting the study in this way, some personal biases that might occur in the execution of the study will be eliminated. All of this is done with the intent to better tailor the Two Factor theory to employees of each respective generation within the workforce in order to boost motivation within companies.

Semester/Year of Award

Spring 2018

Mentor Professional Affiliation

Management, Marketing, and International Business

Access Options

Open Access Thesis

Document Type

Bachelor Thesis

Degree Name

Honors Scholars

Degree Level

Department name when degree awarded, irb approval number (if applicable), recommended citation.

Bevins, Daniel T., "Herzberg's Two Factor Theory of Motivation: A Generational Study" (2018). Honors Theses . 530. https://encompass.eku.edu/honors_theses/530

Since November 04, 2018

• Collections
• Disciplines

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS

Author Corner

• Author Rights/Copyright
• Submit Research
• EKU Honors Program

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright