Is There a Valid Test of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory? Essay

Division of Conduct in Organisations, University of Lancaster; in study ieavefrom the Office of Psychology, University of Melbourne There are several ways of declaring Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation every version can be tested in several ways. Individuals who defend the theory argue that researchers who fail to find support for the idea have usually departed through the procedures utilized by Herzberg.

There have been variations in methods of gathering data, categorizing the responses, and examining the effects. These variations may be validated on the grounds that the strength of any theory lies in it is logic and in its ability to withstand deviations from a set technique. Some testing of Herzberg’s theory may produce support than others. This was proved in a study of Greater london bus crews. However it could be argued that there is more than one valid test of Herzberg’s two-factor theory, though some of these probably produce contradictory results.

The Herzberg theory, or two-factor theory of motivation or Motivator-Hygiene (M-H) theory, provides given rise to a mass of investigations and experiments in industry and many different types of agencies. Results tend not to always support Herzberg; in fact , only about one in three do it. Donald Hebb once said that when it is a question of your survival, theories are just like women—fecundity is more important than purity. M-H theory has certainly recently been very fertile—more so most likely than some other theory in applied cultural psychology. Many industrial psychologists have not only survived although indeed thrived on the theory.

The fecundity of the theory is not really in doubt but its purity absolutely is highly suspect. WHAT IS THE IDEA? The theory is within two parts, each of which can be set by several ways. Part one particular says that job elements can be segregated into two quite distinctive sets: in your first set consists of elements which play a role in job satisfaction and hardly ever if at all to job discontentment; these elements are called ‘Motivators’. The second arranged consists of work factors which contribute to job dissatisfaction and seldom if at all to job satisfaction; these are the ‘Hygienes’.

Subsequently job satisfaction and discontentment are independent dimensions rather than the two ends of a single dimension. This is a flat contradiction of the classic view in psychology that satisfaction and dissatisfaction comprise a single sizing. The 1st difficulty with all the theory in practice is that the data usually will include a proportion of responses that do not effectively fit this kind of pattern. Some Motivators contribute to dissatisfaction while many Hygienes bring about satisfaction.

Within-factors reversals is much from exceptional and sometimes exceed responses inside the expected course. These incongruent responses will be attributed to sampling error, which usually of course is begging the question—rejecting inconvenient data to save lots of the theory. The analysis in that case takes the proper execution of a comparative comparison—for Motivators we  predict more fulfillment than unhappiness, and for Hygienes we predict more dissatisfaction than satisfaction and test for value accordingly. What investigators are not able to point out is that in doing this they are really reformulating the theory to slip their specifics.

The revised theory at this point says, in place, that Motivators contribute more to satisfaction than to dissatisfaction when Hygienes lead more to dissatisfaction than satisfaction. This really is reasonable but it makes nonsense of the claim that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are separate dimensions. In fact that supports the regular view of the single continuum; different task factors produce ranges of satisfaction-dissatisfaction that are to be found by different positions on the same procession. Part a couple of of the theory is also in two parts.

First: paying more attention to Motivators (intrinsic job satisfaction or higher order needs) will increase satisfaction but will not affect any dissatisfaction while using job; or, alternatively, increasing Motivators will be better organizational performance as shown by larger productivity, better quality, better attendance and being on time, lower labour turnover… in a nutshell, by better performance. Second: paying more attention to Cleanliness factors (extrinsic job fulfillment or reduce order needs) will decrease dissatisfaction but will not enhance overall satisfaction; or on the other hand, there will be simply no improvement in performance—on the contrary, currently taking costs into mind there will be a lowered organizational efficiency because improving Hygienes will cost the organization more money.

Observe that for each component to Part two, i. electronic. as regards both Motivators and Hygienes, you will find alternative forecasts. Increase of satisfaction or decrease of dissatisfaction are both in theory trivial plug-ins of Part 1 of the theory; trivial in this they say only is already found in that model. To be fair to the M-H practitioners they cannot rest their particular case about this alternative; they may be concerned just with the results on functionality and company efficiency.

Job satisfaction is either a by-product or a step towards better efficiency. This might tell us something about the value system in which they operate nonetheless it in no way detracts from the validity of this way of testing their very own theory. One problem must now be encountered. Does Component 2 in the theory depend on Part one particular?

According to accommodate & Wigdor (1967, g. 385) in case the satisfaction-dissatisfaction dichotomy is false then Component 2 is usually ‘highly suspect’. I would argue that if Component 1 is definitely false then simply Part a couple of is irrelevant or must be argued upon other grounds. If and only if Component 1 applies, then Component 2 can be tested using the concepts structured on Part 1 . Another significant difficulty pertaining to testing the validity with the theory is the fact that both parts stand on two legs.

Simply 1, 1 leg pinpoints Motivators as the other determines Hygienes; partly 2 1 leg predicts the effects of raising the potency of Motivators while the different leg deals with changes in Hygienes. Does the theory claim that every part can stand on a single leg at the same time? If a single investigator verifies the Motivator leg however, not the Cleanliness leg, truly does Part one of the theory stand or land?

And if one other investigator employs with the opposite result, credit reporting Hygienes however, not Motivators, does this increase or diminish each of our confidence inside the theory? Likewise for Part 2 of the theory. In any case, testing the result of putting more weight around the Motivators can be described as dubious method if this is the only change.

The results are not genuinely surprising. The relative ineffectiveness of spending resources in Hygienes, which can be what the theory also anticipates, may big surprise industrial well being advocates although not cynical managers. In general terms, statements talking about the theory happen to be superficially similar and do not fluctuate greatly through the way placed above. As an example: Whitsett & Winslow (1967, p. 393) in outlining M-H theory say ‘dissatisfaction and those factors that bring about dissatisfaction happen to be separate and distinct via those factors that bring about satisfaction.

Satisfaction is not really opposite coming from dissatisfaction for they operate on distinct continua… This is different from traditional thinking…’ As regards Part two, House & Wigdor (1967, p. 371) say ‘The second main hypothesis in the dual-factor theory of inspiration is that the satisfiers are effective in motivating the individual to remarkable performance and effort, but the dissatisfiers are not’. Later they add (p. 373) ‘If the dual-factor theory had been correct, we should expect extremely satisfied people to be highly motivated and to produce more’ which because they point out would not square with all the evidence.

Nevertheless though standard statements are similar, precise assertions, if made at all, are generally inconsistent or perhaps at difference with each other. At times there is no argument—an author presumes that his understanding of the idea is the same as that of others. Or the research design and style indicates an underlying interpretation of the theory which may be similar to or quite different from that of an additional study that this author can be supporting or perhaps refuting; but authors appear to be unaware of this. Arguments as to what the theory says may be unspoken and have to become inferred. Nevertheless , sometimes interpretations of the theory are decide in a way that allows comparisons with other interpretations.

Such as. House & Wigdor (1967) include a rank order worth addressing for the Motivators as well as for the Hygienes as part of the theory. This shows the infiuence of Maslow upon Herzberg and may certainly be a reasonable meaning of Herzberg’s intention.

Overall it seems an unnecessary processing that makes for added complications when ever testing quality. Whitsett & Winslow (1967) accuse Burke (1966) of ‘A unique misinterpretation in the M-H theory… since M-H theory makes no declare that there will need to be any fixed order of importance among either motivator or perhaps hygiene factors’ (p. 41O). As it happens Burke makes no this kind of claim either.

Is total job pleasure part of the theory? Not relating to Whitsett & Winslow (1967) who also say: ‘One of the most prevalent and persistent misinterpretations of the Motivation-Hygiene (M-H) theory is the attempt to use measures of overall job pleasure to make transactions purporting to become derived from the idea. The theory will not, and intentionally does not, help to make statements regarding overall task satisfaction’ (p.

395). In stating that job thinking must be checked out twice (p. 396) they may be emphasizing Herzberg’s procedure of conducting separate sets of interviews once and for all critical occurrences at work (revealing satisfaction and so Motivators) as well as for bad essential incidents (revealing dissatisfaction and hence Hygienes). Possibly the most systematic attempt to fix what the theory really says was made by King (1970) who determined five specific versions of Part one of the theory. A few versions are stronger than others because they include them.

Ruler is never sure that Herzberg was aware of these editions or which ones Herzberg was claiming to support. King classifies the evidence in respect to whether it really is irrelevant or relevant to these types of theories, after which subdivides the kind of studies into those which support and those which usually refute any one of thesefivetheories. Stand 1 aims King’s five distinct versions of Herzberg’s two-factor theory.