Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory: A Literature Review Essay.

You will research and write a Literature Review (excluding the title page, abstract, and references page) on a topic you will select from a list provided by your instructor. Your paper must be written in strict conformance to current APA format and must reference at least 12 scholarly research articles. For assistance on how to identify scholarly sources

Discussion - Literature Review

The purpose of the study is to give a literature review on the two factor theory of Herzberg. The entire course of the discussion critically analyses Herzberg’s theory from different perspectives. While conducting the literature review on the chosen topic, several themes had been figured out and then applied in the whole course of the discussion. The discussion begins by shedding light on the historical background of the theory, as to what the different literatures has opined. The paper then goes on with elaborating several literatures under different themes like hygiene factor, motivational factor and methodology.  The two factor theory is mostly popular by Herzberg’s dual factor theory or Herzberg’s hygiene theory (Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl & Maude, 2017, pp. 13). Whether it is hygiene theory or dual factor theory, the theory states the existence of certain factors within workplace. While some of the factors are reasons behind job satisfaction, some factors are also there that cause job dissatisfaction. The psychologist Frederick Herzberg is generally considered as the maker of the theory for which the theory is named as Herzberg’s theory. As per Herzberg, factors of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are correlated with each other.

In accordance with, the two factor theory is mainly known as Herzberg’s dual factor theory or Herzberg’s hygiene theory. Irrespective of its names, the theory states the existence of certain factors within workplace (Ghazi, Shahzada & Khan, 2013, pp. 445). While some of the factors cause job satisfaction, some factors are also there which cause job dissatisfaction the psychologist Frederick Herzberg is generally regarded as the innovator of the theory thus the theory is named as Herzberg’s theory. As per Herzberg, factors of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are correlated with each other.

Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl and Maude (2017), stated “in 1959, Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman published the two-factor model of work motivation and developed the motivation-hygiene theory, which was influenced by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Herzberg created a two-dimensional paradigm of factors influencing people’s attitudes towards work” (p. 15). As per Yusoff, Kian and Idris (2013), Herzberg proposed the theory in the year of 1959 (p. 20). After conducting a research over a group of people regarding their experience at work Herzberg penned down the theory based on his research. His research was conducted By Herzberg and his associates on carried a survey over 200 engineers as well as accountants working in different firms of Pittsburgh area of the United States of America. Herzberg (2017) further explained that with the purpose to figuring out the impact of several factors on employees including both the positive as well negative (p. 65). The surveyed people were asked about their previous experience and then Herzberg along with his other associates categorized their experiences into two sections namely, positive and negative. According to Tilekar and Pachpande (2014), based upon the survey result, Herzberg came up with the conclusion about the existence of influential factors within workplace in relation with job satisfaction as well as job dissatisfaction (p. 897). The very last of the job conditions has been regarded as the maintenance or hygiene factors by Herzberg while the very fast conditions have been regarded as the motivational factors by him (Ozguner & Ozguner 2014, pp. 26). In this regard, Herzberg stated that motivational factors are intrinsic in nature and the hygiene factors are extrinsic in nature.

Herzberg’s Two-factor Motivation Theory

Hygiene factors: According to Chien (2013), the hygiene factors generally cannot motivate or encourage the employees, rather they generally provide prevention while maintaining status quo (p. 1434). Hence, it is said that these factors cannot generate positive result but are can prevent the negative results. In case of absence of these factors, employees are seen with job dissatisfaction. As opined by Chu and Kuo (2015), in a clearer way, these factors do not provide satisfaction rather it helps in eliminating dissatisfaction (p. 59). However, it has been opined that these factors maintain a zero level in terms of motivation instead of being motivating factors. Herzberg has identified ten crucial components as hygiene factors as hygiene factors. The factors are: company policy and administration, job security, personal life, status, working condition, salary, strong interpersonal relation with subordinates, and internal personal relation with supervisors, inter personal relation with peers and technical supervision (Malik & Naee, 2013, pp. 1035). As per Sanjeev and Surya (2016), Herzberg adopted the term hygiene from medical science in the context with meaning of taking preventions in order to maintain health (p. 160). However, the term hygiene does not refer to the notion of improvement in the medical science.

According to Fareed and Jan (2016), in a similar manner Herzberg has also used the term hygiene so that it can provide prevention of damage to efficiency and not to increase growth (p.34). Hence, these factors are termed as dissatisfies. The hygiene factors, by and large, cannot spur or energize the representatives, rather they, for the most part, give aversion while keeping up business as usual. On the other hand Mitchell (2013) states that consequently, it is said that these components cannot produce positive outcome however are can keep the negative consequences (p. 32). If there should arise an occurrence of nonattendance of these elements, workers are seen with employment disappointment. In a more precise way, these variables do not give fulfillment somewhat it helps in disposing of disappointment. Anyway, it has been opined by Sinha and Trivedi (2014) that these variables keep up a zero level regarding inspiration as opposed to being rousing components (p. 27). Herzberg has distinguished ten significant parts as hygiene factors as hygiene factors. As per Hur (2018), the components are organization arrangement and organization, employer stability, individual life, status, working condition, compensation, stable relational connection with subordinates, individual interpersonal relationship with supervisors, individual connection with associates and specialized supervision (p. 530). In accordance with Holmberg, Caro and Sobis (2018), Herzberg received the term hygiene from restorative science in the setting with the significance of taking preventions keeping in mind the end goal to look after wellbeing (p. 582). However, the term hygiene does not allude to the thought of change in the medicinal science. In a comparative way, Herzberg has additionally utilized the term hygiene with the goal that it can give anticipation of harm to effectiveness and not to build development. Thus, these components are named as disappoints.

Brief history about Herzberg’s motivation theory

Motivational factors: While hygiene factors are extrinsic in nature, the motivational factors are intrinsic by nature as well as are connected to the job (Hur, 2018, pp. 530). Unlike hygiene factors, the motivational factors have exclusively positive impact on job satisfaction and often conclude with the increase in the entire output. Therefore, Sinha and Trivedi (2014) suggests that the aspects inclusive of satisfaction, productivity, efficiency and morale are highly influenced by the motivational factors (p. 27). According to Herzberg, there are six factors that can motivate the employees. The motivational factors are: responsibility, recognition, achievement, growth possibility, advancement and self work. The improvement or increasement of these factors results towards the improvement of satisfaction level. Hence, In accordance with Mitchell (2013), Herzberg suggested that these factors can be utilized in order to encourage the employees (p. 32). The research provides a strong base to the statement of Herzberg as he says these factors have not been receiving crucial attention from the managers with an aim of encouraging the employees so that they can put maximum effort at work. As a result, the managers were seen to have failed in receiving the desired outcome from the employees. As per Fareed and Jan (2016), for the purpose of increasing the employee motivation, Herzberg has stated that the managers need to give essential attention to the motivational factors (p. 24). While hygiene factors are outward in nature, the motivational elements are inherent commonly and additionally are associated with the activity.

According to Fareed and Jan (2016), dissimilar to hygiene factors, the motivational components have the sole positive effect on employment fulfillment and regularly finish up with the expansion in the gross yield. In this way, the angles comprehensive of accomplishment, profitability, effectiveness and resolve are very impacted by the motivational variables. Sanjeev and Surya (2016) further states that as per Herzberg, there are six factors that can persuade the workers (p. 160). The motivational variables are duty, acknowledgement, accomplishment, development plausibility, progression and self-work. The change or increasement of these elements results towards the shift in the fulfillment level. Thus, as per Malik and Naeem (2013, p. 1035), Herzberg proposed that these components can be used keeping in mind the end goal to energize the workers. The research gives a solid base to the theory of Herzberg as he says these variables have not been receiving critical consideration from the administrators with an aim of empowering the representatives so that they can put maximum exertion at work (Chu & Kuo, 2015, pp. 55). Subsequently, the supervisors apparently had flopped in receiving the coveted result from the workers. To increase the worker inspiration, Herzberg has expressed that the supervisors need to give fundamental consideration regarding the motivational components.

Hygiene factors

Methodology: Chien (2013) has appreciated Herzberg’s theory of motivational theory on the context  that the theory gives an insight into the activities of motivation through drawing the attention to the factors in relation with job that are often been overlooked by managers within a company (p.1436). In accordance with Ozguner and Ozguner (2014), the theory of Herzberg’s motivation gives value in terms of job enhancement in motivation (p. 26). The whole idea of Herzberg’s theory was to make the employees valued at work and indirectly pave the way for business growth. On the other hand, the theory has been generated with the aim of providing assistance to the managers so that they can identify the reasons behind their failure in order to motivate the employees. The two-factor theory is essentially known as Herzberg's double factor theory or Herzberg's hygiene theory (Tilekar and Pachpande, 2014, pp. 897). Regardless of its names, the theory expresses the presence of specific factors inside the work environment. While a portion of the components causes work fulfillment, a few elements are additionally there that reason work disappointment (Herzberg, 2017, pp. 88). The analyst Frederick Herzberg is widely viewed as the trend-setter of the theory consequently the theory is named as Herzberg's hypothesis.

Yusoff, Kian and Idris (2013) states that according to Herzberg, components of employment fulfillment and occupation disappointment are associated with one another (p. 20). Several critics were of opinion that Herzberg’s theory of motivation is not free from limitations. The theory is not conclusive since a significant portion of employees or workers can even expect more responsibilities or challenges at work (Park & Ryoo, 2013, pp. 165). At the same time, some employees can even motivated by other benefits like extra payment or leave, etc. The impact of motivational theories including the hygiene factors as well as motivational factors might completely be reverse on some other categories on different categories of employees.

In accordance with Ghazi, Shahzada and Khan (2013), Herzberg proposed the theory in the year of 1959 (p. 445). In the wake of leading an examination over a gathering of individuals with respect to their involvement with work Herzberg wrote down the theory in view of his exploration. As per Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl and Maude (2017), the investigation was led By Herzberg and his associates on conveyed an overview of more than 200 professionals and also bookkeepers working in various firms of Pittsburgh territory of the United States of America (p. 445). With the reason to making sense of the effect of a few factors on representatives including both the positive also negative. The studied individuals were asked about some information about their past, and afterwards, Herzberg alongside his different partners sorted their encounters into two segments to be specific, positive and negative (Ghazi, Shahzada & Khan, 2013, pp. 445). As per Park and Ryoo (2013), in light of the study result, Herzberg thought of the decision about the presence of compelling variables inside work environment in connection with employment fulfillment and also works disappointment (p. 165). The specific list of the activity conditions has been viewed as the support or hygiene factors by Herzberg while the simple, quick conditions have been regarded as the motivational factors by him. In such manner, Herzberg expressed that motivational variables are inherent in nature and the hygiene factors are outward in view.

Motivational factors

Chu and Kuo (2015) stated “Herzberg identified motivators as factors that motivate employees to work. These motivators result in job satisfaction. Motivation factors are based on an individual's need for personal growth”(p. 57).  In a more transparent way, these variables do n0t give fulfillment instead it helps in killing disappointment. It has been opined by Herzberg (2017) that these elements keep up a zero level as far as inspiration as opposed to being spurring factors (p. 34). Herzberg has distinguished ten essential segments as hygiene factors as hygiene factors. The variables are organization arrangement and organization, professional stability, individual life, status, working condition, compensation, solid relational connection with subordinates, inside close to home connection with supervisors; bury individual connection with companions and specialized supervision (Tilekar & Pachpande, 2014, pp. 897).

As per Ozguner and Ozguner (2014), Herzberg received the term hygiene from restorative science in the setting with the significance of taking preventions keeping in mind the end goal to look after wellbeing (p. 26). However, the term hygiene does not allude to the thought of change in the restorative science. In a comparable way, Herzberg has likewise utilized the term hygiene with the goal that it can give anticipation of harm to proficiency and not to expand development (Chien, 2013, pp. 1456). Henceforth, these variables are named as disappoints. The hygiene factors, all around, cannot goad or stimulate the delegates, rather they, generally, surrender abhorrence while keeping nothing new. Thus, it has been stated by Chu and Kuo (2015) that these parts cannot create positive result anyway are can keep the negative outcomes (p.56). On the off chance that there ought to emerge an event of nonattendance of these components, laborers are seen with business dissatisfaction. In a more exact manner, these factors don't give satisfaction fairly it helps in discarding dissatisfaction. Malik and Naeem, (2013) stated that these factors keep up a zero level viewing motivation instead of being energizing segments (p. 21) Herzberg has recognized ten unique parts as hygiene factors as hygiene factors. The segments are association course of action and association, manager soundness, single life, status, working condition, remuneration, stable social association with subordinates, individual, relational association with administrators, singular association with partners and concentrated supervision (Sanjeev & Surya, 2016, pp. 160). As opined by Fareed and Jan, (2016), Herzberg got the term hygiene from remedial science in the setting with the centrality of taking preventions remembering the ultimate objective to care for prosperity (p. 34). In any case, the term hygiene does not suggest the prospect of progress in therapeutic science. Mitchell (2013) further states that Herzberg has furthermore used the term hygiene with the objective that it can give an expectation of mischief to adequacy and not to assemble advancement. In this manner, these parts are named as baffles (p. 32).

The motivational element has the solely positive effect on employment fulfillment and regularly finishes up with the expansion in the whole yield (Sinha & Trivedi, 2014, pp. 27). Along these lines, the angles comprehensive of fulfillment, profitability, productivity and confidence are profoundly affected by the motivational variables. As per Herzberg, there are six factors that can propel the representatives. The motivational components are obligation, acknowledgement, accomplishment, development probability, progression and self-work. The change or increasement of these components results towards the change of fulfillment level. Herzberg recommended that these components can be used keeping in mind the end goal to energize the workers (Hur, 2018, pp. 530). The research gives a solid base to the announcement of Herzberg as he says these variables have not been receiving vital consideration from the administrators with a point of empowering the representatives so they can put maximum exertion at work.

Accordingly, the directors had flopped in receiving the coveted result from the workers. To increase the worker inspiration, Herzberg has expressed that the directors need to give fundamental thoughtfulness regarding the motivational elements. According to Holmberg, Caro and Sobis (2018), while hygiene factors are outward in nature, the motivational components are inborn ordinarily and furthermore are related with the movement (p. 590). Unlike hygiene factors, the motivational parts have the sole constructive outcome on work satisfaction and routinely completes up with the development in the gross yield. Along with these the edges thorough of achievement, productivity, adequacy and resolve are exceptionally affected by the motivational factors (Hur, 2018, pp. 530). According to Herzberg, there are six factors that can influence the laborers. As per Sinha and Trivedi (2014), the motivational factors are obligations, affirmations, achievement, advancement credibility, movement and self-work (p. 27). The change or increasement of these components results towards the move in the satisfaction level. Therefore, Herzberg suggested that these segments can be utilized remembering the ultimate objective to stimulate the laborers. According to Mitchell (2013), the exploration gives a strong base to the theory of Herzberg as he says these factors have not been getting basic thought from the overseers with a point of engaging the delegates so they can put most extreme effort at work (p. 32). In this way, the chiefs obviously had floundered in getting the desired outcome from the specialists.

Thus, in order to conclude, it is apt to assert that the aim of the paper was to give a literature review on the two factor theory of motivation of Herzberg. The whole course of the study basically investigated Herzberg's theory of motivation from different point of views. The discussion started by revealing insight into the authentic foundation of the theory. The paper at that point went ahead with expounding a few literary works under various subjects like hygiene factor, motivational factor and system. The two factor theory is predominantly mainstream by Herzberg's double factor theory or Herzberg's hygiene hypothesis. Irrespective of whether it is hygiene theory or double factor theory, the study expressed the presence of specific factors inside workplace environment. While a portion of the variables are explanations for employment fulfillment, a few elements are likewise there that reason work disappointment. The psychologist Frederick Herzberg is by and large considered as the creator of the theory for which it has been named after him. According to Herzberg, elements of employment fulfillment and employment disappointment are corresponded with one another.

References

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

Chien, J. (2013). Examining Herzberg’s two factor theory in a large Chinese chemical fiber company. International Science Index, 7(6), 1433-1438.

Chu, H. C., & Kuo, T. (2015). Testing Herzberg’s two-factor theory in educational settings in Taiwan. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 11(1), 54-65.

Fareed, K., & Jan, F. A. (2016). Cross-Cultural Validation Test of Herzberg's Two Factor Theory: An Analysis of Bank Officers Working in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Journal of Managerial Sciences, 10(2).

Ghazi, S. R., Shahzada, G., & Khan, M. S. (2013). Resurrecting Herzberg’s two factor theory: An implication to the university teachers. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(2), 445.

Herzberg, F. (2017). Motivation to work. Routledge.

Holmberg, C., Caro, J., & Sobis, I. (2018). Job satisfaction among Swedish mental health nursing personnel: Revisiting the two?factor theory. International journal of mental health nursing, 27(2), 581-592.

Hur, Y. (2018). Testing Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Motivation in the Public Sector: Is it Applicable to Public Managers?. Public Organization Review, 18(3), 329-343.

Malik, M. E., & Naeem, B. (2013). Towards understanding controversy on Herzberg theory of motivation. World Applied Sciences Journal, 24(8), 1031-1036.

Mitchell, G. (2013). Selecting the best theory to implement planned change. Nursing Management (through 2013), 20(1), 32.

Ozguner, Z., & Ozguner, M. (2014). A managerial point of view on the relationship between of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Herzberg's dual factor theory. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(7).

Park, S. C., & Ryoo, S. Y. (2013). An empirical investigation of end-users’ switching toward cloud computing: A two factor theory perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 160-170.

Sanjeev, M. A., & Surya, A. V. (2016). Two factor theory of motivation and satisfaction: an empirical verification. Annals of Data Science, 3(2), 155-173.

Sinha, K., & Trivedi, S. (2014). Employee engagement with special reference to Herzberg two factor and LMX theories: A study of IT sector. SIES Journal of Management, 10(1), 22-35.

Tilekar, P., & Pachpande, A. (2014). A Study on Employee Motivation of Manufacturing, Banking & IT Sector WRT Herzberg's Two Factor Theory. International Journal of Organizational Behaviour & Management Perspectives, 3(2), 897.

Yusoff, W. F. W., Kian, T. S., & Idris, M. T. M. (2013). Herzberg’s two factors theory on work motivation: does its work for todays environment. Global journal of commerce and Management, 2(5), 18-22.