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

Department of Behaviour in Organisations, University of Lancaster on theatre of operations ieavefrom the Department of Psychology, University of Melbourne on that point argon several ways of stating Herzbergs two- detailor hypothesis of motivation and all(prenominal) version atomic number 50 be running gameed in various ways. Those who concur the theory argue that researchers who fail to find support for the theory defend commonly departed from the maps used by Herzberg. There have been variations in methods of gathering data, categorizing the responses, and analysing the results. These variations whitethorn be justified on the grounds that the effectualness of whatsoever theory lies in its logic and in its ability to hold up deviations from a set method. well-nigh tests of Herzbergs theory atomic number 18 much likely to produce support than other(prenominal)s. This was confirmed in a consider of London bus crews. However it can be argued that at that place is to a greater extent than one valid test of Herzbergs two- itemor theory, though some of these argon likely to produce contradictory results.The Herzberg theory, or two-factor theory of motivation or Motivator-hygienics (M-H) theory, has given rise to a mass of investigations and experiments in industry and in many different types of organizations. Results do non always support Herzberg in fact, only ab stunned one in three do so. Donald Hebb once said that when it is a question of survival, theories be like womenfecundity is much important than purity. M-H theory has certainly been very fertileto a greater extent so perhaps than any other theory in applied sociable psychology. Many industrial psychologists have not only survived provided and so thrived on the theory. The fecundity of the theory is not in doubt only if its purity certainly is passing suspect.WHAT IS THE THEORY?The theory is in two parts, each(prenominal) of which can be stated in several ways. donation 1 p resupposes that mull over factors can be fractured into two instead distinct sets the first set consists of factors which institute to traffic blessedness and seldom if at all to job dis mirth these factors argon called Motivators. The second set consists of job factors which contri stille to jobdissatisfaction and sublimely if at all to job satisfaction these are the Hygienes. Consequently job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are separate dimensions and not the two ends of a one dimension. This is a flat contradiction of the traditionalistic view in psychology that satisfaction and dissatisfaction constitute a single dimension.The first difficulty with the theory in practice is that the data usually include a proportion of responses which do not fit this pattern. Some Motivators contribute to dissatisfaction while some Hygienes contribute to satisfaction. Within-factors reversals are far from rare and some ages bug outnumber responses in the expected direction. These inc ongruent responses are attributed to try error, which of course is begging the questionrejecting inconvenient data in graze to save the theory. The analysis and so takes the form of a relative resemblancefor Motivators we predict more satisfaction than dissatisfaction, and for Hygienes we predict more dissatisfaction than satisfaction and test for significance accordingly. What investigators fail to point out is that in doing this they are real reformulating the theory to fit their facts.The revised theory now says, in effect, that Motivators contribute more to satisfaction than to dissatisfaction while Hygienes contribute more to dissatisfaction than satisfaction. This is reasonable but it nominates nonsense of the claim that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are separate dimensions. In fact it supports the traditional view of the single continuum different job factors produce ranges of satisfaction-dissatisfaction which are to be found at different positions on the same conti nuum. plane section 2 of the theory is also in two parts. First paid more attention to Motivators (intrinsic job satisfaction or higher establish needs) will maturation satisfaction but will not expunge any dissatisfaction with the job or, utility(a)ly, improving Motivators will improve organizational talent as shown by higher productivity, go quality, better attendance and punctuality, land labour turnover in short, by improved performance. Second paying moreattention to Hygiene factors (extrinsic job satisfaction or deject order needs) will decrease dissatisfaction but will not increase general satisfaction or alternatively, there will be no improvement in performanceon the contrary, taking costs into trace there will be a lowered organizational readiness because improving Hygienes will cost the organization more money. Notice that for each part of business office 2, i.e. as regards both Motivators and Hygienes, there are alternative predictions.Increase of satisfact ion or decrease of dissatisfaction are both theoretically trivial extensions of protrude 1 of the theory trivial in that they say no more than is already contained in that model. To be fair to the M-H practitioners they do not rest their case on this alternative they are concern only with the effects on performance and organizational efficiency. Job satisfaction is either a by-product or a step towards better efficiency. This may tell us something about the value system in which they operate but it in no way detracts from the validity of this method of testing their theory. bingle problem must now be faced. Does conk out 2 of the theory depend on Part 1? consort to rest home & Wigdor (1967, p.385) if the satisfaction-dissatisfaction dichotomy is false thusly Part 2 is extremely suspect.I would argue that if Part 1 is false then Part 2 is irrelevant or must be argued on other grounds. If and only if Part 1 is true, then Part 2 can be tested using the concepts established by Part 1. Another serious difficulty for testing the validity of the theory is the fact that both parts stand on two legs. In Part 1, one leg identifies Motivators while the other identifies Hygienes in Part 2 one leg predicts the effects of increasing the potency of Motivators while the other leg deals with changes in Hygienes. Does the theory claim that each part can stand on one leg at a time?If one investigator confirms the Motivator leg but not the Hygiene leg, does Part 1 of the theory stand or fall? And if another investigator follows with the opposite result, confirming Hygienes but not Motivators, does this increase or diminish our confidence in the theory? Similarly for Part 2 of the theory. In any case, testing the effect of putting more burthen on the Motivators is a dubious procedure if this is the only change. The effects are not really surprising. The relative ineffectiveness of spending resources on Hygienes, which is what the theory also predicts, may surprise indust rial welfare advocates but not cynical managers.In general terms, statements describing the theory are superficially mistakable and do not differ greatly from the way set out above. For instance Whitsett & Winslow (1967, p.393) in explaining M-H theory say dissatisfaction and those factors that contribute to dissatisfaction are separate and distinct from those factors that contribute to satisfaction. Satisfaction is not opposite from dissatisfaction for they operate on separate continua This is different from traditional thinking As regards Part 2, House & Wigdor (1967, p.371) say The second major hypothesis of the dual-factor theory of motivation is that the satisfiers are effective in motivating the individual to superior performance and effort, but the dissatisfiers are not. Later they add (p.373) If the dual-factor theory were correct, we should expect highly satisfied people to be highly motivated and to produce more which as they point out does not square with the evidence.Bu t though general statements are similar, precise statements, if made at all, are usually inconsistent or at variance with each other. Sometimes there is no argumentan author assumes that his understanding of the theory is the same as that of others. Or the research design indicates an underlying interpretation of the theory which may be similar to or quite different from that of another study which the author is supporting or refuting but authors seem to be unmindful(predicate) of this. Arguments about what the theory says may be unspoken and have to be inferred. However, sometimes interpretations of the theory are set out in a way that makes possible comparisons with other interpretations. For example. House & Wigdor (1967) include a direct order of importance for the Motivators and for the Hygienes as part of the theory. This reflects the infiuence of Maslow upon Herzberg and may be a reasonable interpretation of Herzbergs intention.On the whole it seems an unnecessary gloss th at makes for extra complications when testing validity. Whitsett & Winslow (1967) accuse Burke (1966) of A unique misunderstanding of the M-H theory . . . since M-H theory makes no claim that there should beany fixed order of importance among either motivator or hygiene factors (p.41O). As it happens Burke makes no such claim either. Is overall job satisfaction part of the theory? Not according to Whitsett & Winslow (1967) who say One of the most common and persistent misinterpretations of the Motivation-Hygiene (M-H) theory is the feat to use measures of overall job satisfaction to make statements purporting to be derived from the theory. The theory does not, and purposely does not, make statements about overall job satisfaction (p.395).In stating that job attitudes must be looked at twice (p.396) they are emphasizing Herzbergs procedure of conducting separate sets of interviews for good critical incidents at work (revealing satisfaction and wherefore Motivators) and for bad cr itical incidents (revealing dissatisfaction and hence Hygienes). Perhaps the most systematic attempt to sort out what the theory really says was made by world-beater (1970) who identified five distinct versions of Part 1 of the theory. Some versions are stronger than others because they entail them. King is not always sure that Herzberg was aware of these versions or which of them Herzberg was claiming to support. King classifies the evidence according to whether it is irrelevant or relevant to these theories, and then subdivides the relevant studies into those which support and those which refute any of thesefivetheories. Table 1 sets out Kings five distinct versions of Herzbergs two-factor theory.