I am a professional in the consulting industry and have significant experience working with clients from Fortune 50 and FTSE 100 companies in the UK and USA. I have an MBA from Said Business School, Oxford University in Finance and Marketing and a bachelors degree in Engineering and Economics. I have a passion for writing and enjoy writing on various topics related to business, economics, marketing, finance, operations management, engineering and international studies.

Sample

Describe one theory of motivation (preferably not Maslow's hierarchy of needs), and discuss it in relation to management functions within organizations.

Introduction

The term "motivation" has been defined by physiologists in a variety of ways. According to "world book dictionary" it means the act or process of furnishing with an incentive or inducement to action. M.R. Jones (1955) has stated that: "Motivation is concerned with how behavior gets started, is energized, is sustained, is directed, is stopped, and what kind of subjective reaction is present in the organism while all this is going on" (Edward E. 1973: p.3). Before the Hawthorne Studies, conducted by Elton Mayo from 1924 to 1932 (Dickson, 1973), employees were considered just another input into the production of goods and services. Hawthorne studies changed this way of thinking. The result of this study found the employees are not motivated just by money; employee behavior is linked to their attitudes (Dickson, 1973). Hence the Hawthorne studies began the human relations approach to management, whereby the needs and motivation of employees became the primary focus of managers (Bedeian, 1993).

Motivation is a very important process in understanding behavior. In an organization, the effectiveness of a manager can be determined from his leadership ability in order to achieve personal and organizational goals. In simple words, motivation is to understand the 'why' of a human behavior. Another definition according to J Stoner is, motivation is the factors that cause, channel and sustain an individual's behavior. In the context of management, motivation is one of the factors apart from ability and work environment that determines individuals' performance. In companies, we always hear “He/ She has the ability but just won't apply himself/herself”, so we know an individual's performance at work depends not only on ability but also on motivation. Individuals who are low in motivation would not be able to perform well even though he or she has the ability or skill and the right work environment. This is because he or she is unable to utilize the ability that he or she posses. Because of its significant important as a determinant of performance, the managers have no choice but to address the issue. As a manager, the most important thing is to find some good ways to motivate his/her employees into working hard and effectively. The question of what motivates workers to perform effectively is not an easy one to answer.

Theories

Understanding what motivated employees and how they were motivated was the focus of many researchers following the publication of the Hawthorne Study results (Terpstra, 1979). Following that, two major categories of theories emerged: content theories and process theories (Campbell et al.). Content theories focus on the factors within the person that energize, direct, sustain, and stop behavior (Gibson & Donnelly, 1997). They attempt to determine the specific needs that motivate people. Maslow's need hierarchy, Alderfer's ERG theory, Herzberg's two-factor theory and McCelland's learned needs theory are four important content theories of motivation. Managers need to be aware of differences in needs, desires and goals because each individual is unique in many ways. Process theories describe and analyze how behavior is energized, directed, sustained and stopped by factors primarily external to the person. Expectancy theory, Equity theory, Goal-setting theory and Procedural Justice Theory are four process theories of motivation. Managers need to understand the process of motivation and how individuals make choices based on preferences, rewards and accomplishments.

In this essay, we will focus at Hertzberg's two-factor theory. Most of us would like a job that is stimulating, untroubled and provides personal satisfaction. However, this needs to be balanced against productive output requirements, individual capabilities and the overall corporate culture. The mechanics of such needs in relation to satisfaction and job prosperity was vague until Frederick Hertzberg in 1959, and unlike Maslow where he discussed the human needs to motivation as a form of hierarchical pyramid, dissected such needs in his two factors theory of job satisfaction, the Hygiene theory and the Motivation theory.

Hertzberg’s Two Factors Theory

Hertzberg's (2003) theory says that there are two kinds of factors that influence the motivation of employees - hygiene factors and motivating factors. The factors came to life as a result of Hertzberg’s research on engineers as he discovered that motivation is derived from two sets of factors. He termed experiences that made the engineers feel good about their job as motivators, which include recognition, advancement, achievement and other factors. Experiences that caused dissatisfaction with a job, such as working conditions, salary and relationships with peers, did not correspond to motivators and so, were named hygiene factors. What struck Hertzberg the most was that these were separate groups with separate evaluation, and not a part of the same continuum. Thus if the company resolved the dissatisfiers, they would not create satisfaction.

Some of the responses during his research were as follows: “I need to be paid on time each month so I can pay my bills. If I am not paid on time, I get really unhappy. But when I get paid on time, I hardly notice it.” Hence this correlates to the hygiene theory, where being paid on time would make the employee perform as normal and would not increase his performance. However, not being paid on time would dissatisfy the employee who would then perform poorly. On the other hand, other responses Hertzberg observed included when a certain employee’s boss gave him a pat on the back, he would feel good, as the employee didn't expect this every day and didn’t especially miss not having praise all of the time. Hence this correlates to motivation factors where pat on the back would actually increase the employee self esteem and allow him/her perform better (Hertzberg, 1982).

Hence, hygiene factors were factors that would de-motivate if they were not in place, like paying wages on time was not a motivator, but it would de-motivate if it were not taken care of. They described hygiene as a form of preventative medicine, i.e. this will stop the person from getting sick but doesn't contribute in getting any healthier. Hence it is important for them to be there to stop the employee from getting de-motivated, for instance, having a toilet in a work place is considered normal and the employee would expect that, however not having a toilet in a work place would definitely de-motivate employees as the essential ingredient for any work place, or anywhere for that matter, is not available. In a management context this means that hygiene factors don't motivate people to do their very best but they are needed to stop people becoming dissatisfied with their jobs.

Motivating factors on the other hands are more aspirational, like responsibility, growth, recognition etc. Hertzberg suggests that these factors are the ones which encourage people to strive to do well, in other words to motivate them to do their best. Some may consider a clear career path as a motivator, others may consider a simple pat on a back as a motivator. Basically, motivational factors are the most important in inducing employees to achieve better work performance. Hygienic factors must be controlled to keep dissatisfaction to a minimum.

The first part of the motivation theory involves the hygiene theory and includes the job environment. The hygiene factors generally include:

• The company
• Policies and administration
• Supervision which people receive while on the job
• Working conditions
• Interpersonal relations
• Salary
• Status
• Security

These factors do not lead to higher levels of motivation but without them there is dissatisfaction. The second part of Hertzberg's motivation theory involves what people actually do on the job. The motivators are:

• achievement
• recognition
• growth / advancement
• Interest in the job.

These factors result from internal generators in employees, yielding motivation rather than movement.

Hertzberg believed that these two levels of needs were equally important for job satisfaction, however they worked in different ways. If the lower needs are inadequate workers will quickly become dissatisfied, however, as these needs are satisfied trying to motivate staff by just adding more hygiene factors such as wages or work hours is an inefficient and short term solution. A better way would be to appeal to their higher level needs by giving them more responsibility or giving them greater scope for advancement. In this way the individual’s goals are satisfied as well as those of the organization. Job enrichment programs are where jobs are redesigned to incorporate these motivating factors.

Critiques

As mentioned earlier, Hertzberg was very particular in voicing that the two groups he experimented with in his research were separate and of not the same continuum. Hence, this indicates all the factors he came up with for hygiene and for motivation are separate and cannot be one for the other. For example, if salary and wages are of hygiene factors, than according to his findings, they cannot be motivators.

However Bellot and Tutor (1990) cited research conducted by Tutor (1986) regarding the Tennesse Career Ladder program. Bellott and Tutor believe that the data from the study clearly indicates that the Level I participants were as influenced by motivation factors as by hygiene factors, contrary to Herzberg's position that hygiene factors do not motivate. The survey asked classroom teachers, "To what extent did salary influence your decision to participate in the (TCLP) program?" Teachers responded using a scale of from 1 (little influence on deciding to participate in the program) to 7 (large influence). The results indicated that most teachers viewed salary as a strong motivating factor.

On Hertzberg's five motivation factors, shown above, achievement ranked as the most important one. However, the overall conclusion drawn from the research is that salary was the single most important influence on the teachers' decisions to participate in TCLP, regardless of level in the organization. The teachers perceived the amount of salary increase to be tied to achievement and the other motivation factors. (Gawl, 1999). This could indicate that Hertzberg research is too old, and as time passes people needs change. For one person who thought that money is not a motivator; another person would probably rank it among the most important factors of motivators.

In the case of Tutor’s research, teachers seem to find salary is the most important motivation factor. This could be due to the fact that teachers’ salary is low to begin with, and so it acts as a motivator as opposed to hygiene. For example, one can conclude that the two factors theory of Hertzberg is interchangeable depending on the job in question. For instance, a company where the employees are used to its corrupted policies and procedure, can be argued that attending the fix the same doesn't necessarily rank or place the company policy and procedure among the hygiene factors. This could be due to the fact that employees are so used to the policy that a big amendment on it could actually motivate them and make them perform better, hence being placed in the motivation factors paradigm.

There are several researches in the industry that was based on Hertzberg two factor theory and many of them seem to conclude that the two factors are not necessarily separate. For instance, the theory was applied to Seasonal Workers in a Swedish Ski-Resort Tourism, which is strongly steered by seasonality (Gudumondson, Landberg, Anderson, 2000). The data was collected by means of in-depth interviews and a mail survey to seasonal workers. The results showed that the seasonal workers were motivated by the motivation factors, which consisted of responsibility, information, feedback, knowledge and training. However, the Hygiene Factors, which consisted of wage level, rewards and interpersonal relations, did not have an influence on work motivation.

Other results indicated that there were some differences between the residents working as seasonal workers and the in-migrants who moved to the region to work during the season. The residents were significantly more concerned about their wage level than their counterparts in the in-migrant group. On the other hand, the in-migrants were significantly more concerned about personal relations. From the above study, it can also be seen that motivation and job satisfaction depends mainly on the situation that employees are subjected to. Some may consider personal relations as their main motivators and others simply put wages in their top priority.

The above two studies are among many others that shows Hertzberg notion that the two factors are separate is void. This could be due to the fact his research was done long time ago, or to the poor collection of empirical data. Campbell (1970) states that "While Hertzberg's two-factor theory generated considerable research, repeated factor analytic studies of job attitudes have failed to demonstrate the existence of two independent factors corresponding to motivators and hygiene's".

The importance of motivation in organization

Approach to motivation in organization is challenging because of the complexity of the problem. Part of the complexity is that every individual has different needs, different objectives and different values on the outcomes. Furthermore, the organizations vary in the kinds of products they produce, the kind of customers they serve and the kinds of financial structure they have.

Hezberg’s two factor theory and other theories have outlined some common elements that motivate people such as salary, pension plan, working environment, achievement, responsibilities etc. Most managers in work organizations try to provide these common elements to influence their behavior. This method is the most simple and straightforward for managers. The two things that the managers have to do are to provide basic necessities such as employee benefit, employee compensation, etc and to impose strategies that will realize workers self actualization, such as job empowerment, participation, job enrichment, flexible working schedules, etc. The following are examples of some companies that have successfully used the techniques:

1. In 1994 Continental Airlines CEO, Gordon Bethune changed the structure of the company by directing the company policy towards more employees concern. He changed the pay system for pilots, restored wages to employees that had been previously cut, set up toll-free numbers for employees to call with complaints and problems, created committees to respond to every call within forty-eight hours and gave $65 and $100 per employee per month if the company achieved the top five and top three respectively. This turned Continental Airlines around from having the poorest reputation of any carrier in the airline industry to being one of the 100 best companies rated by fortune magazines.
2. In the early 1900s, Henry Ford aided his employees in satisfying basic needs by paying them $5 a day - twice the going wage. (Louis Boone & David Kurtz, 1996 : p 220).
3. The vice president of UPS courier services for Asia region has used the slogan: "All employees are the most valuable assets of the company" to make their employees feel their importance. Later on UPS transformed as one of the leading courier services in Asia. (CNN Interview with the vice president of UPS).
4. Autoworkers at the Fremont California assembly plant operated as a joint venture between GM and Toyota are referred to as team members. Team members rotate jobs and work together in an atmosphere of "mutual trust". They produce almost defect free cars. (Louis Boone & David Kurtz, 1996: p 220).

In order to help managers motivate their workers more effectively they should know that people have their own drives, aspirations and needs as human beings. Since the manager works with and through people, he must recognize these needs in order to motivate his subordinates to work to the best of their abilities. Otherwise the efficiency of the whole firm may be affected. It’s important to note that job satisfaction is not only about making people work and perform better, but also about stopping people from not performing well. And although performing better not necessarily always correlates to job satisfaction, but pinning the underline causes via consistent research is as important. Some management may discover that enhancing performance for one employee differs for another, but obtaining this data could be rewarding.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Hezberg’s two factor theory, like other theories. is venerable, but not perfect. The theories only provide insights, but not necessarily all the answers and certainly not blueprints. The success of any new policies will depend hugely on the history of trust, or the lack of it, in the workplace. Successful change in the factors involved in motivation may be very difficult and slow to achieve. There are no magic solutions. No single theory of motivation provides a satisfactory answer to the question of how to get the best out of people at work. Creating a motivated workforce seems to be the best result of interactions between individuals, group members, their jobs, their managers and the organization itself.

References:

Anna Gudmundson, Christine Lundberg, Tommy Andersson (2000), "The Nature of Work Motivation- Hertzberg two factor theory applied to seasonal workers in a Swedish ski resorts". Etour Publication, WP 2000:10

Bellott, F.K., & Tutor, F.D. (1990). "A Challenge to the Conventional Wisdom of Herzberg and Maslow Theories". Paper presented at the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA

Bedeian, A. G. (1993). "Management", (3rd ed.). New York: Dryden Press.

Campbell, J. P., et al. 1970. "Managerial Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness". New York: McGraw-Hill

David, Mclleland (2005), "Employee motivation, the organization environment and productivity". Accel-Team.com

Dickson, W. J. (1973). "Hawthorne experiments". The encyclopedia of management, 2nd ed. (pp. 298-302). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Edward E. Lawler. 1973. Motivation in work organization. California. Wadsworth Publishing

Griffin. 2002. Management (7th Edition- Chapter 16). Boston. Houghton Mifflin.

Hertzerg, F. (2003), "One more time: How do you motivate employees?". Harvard Business Review. Best of HBR, January, 2003

Josepth, Gawl (1999), "Herzberg's Theory of Motivation and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs". EricDigest.com

Louis Boone & David Kurtz. 1996. Contemporary Business (8th Edition- Chapter 9) . Forth Worth. Dryden Press.

Michael Syptak (1999), "Job Satisfaction: Putting Theory Into Practice", American Academy of Family Physicians.

Terpstra, D. E. (1979). "Theories of motivation: borrowing the best". Personnel Journal, 58. 376.

Tutor, F. D. (1986), "The Relationship between Perceived Need Deficiencies and Factors Influencing Teacher Participation in the Tennessee Career Ladder". Doctoral dissertation, Memphis State University, Memphis, TN.