Critique of Herzberg theory and application at the workplace
Developed and proposed by the American psychologist Frederick Herzberg in 1950s, the Herzberg Theory states that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction at the workplace are independent of each other and are caused by two sets of distinct factors (Herzberg 2004).
The theory proposed the “two-factor” fundamentals, in which it states “job motivators” are the factors that produce satisfaction (positive), arising from intrinsic conditions at the workplace. They include recognition, personal growth and achievements (Herzberg 2004).
On the other hand, “hygiene factors” do not produce positive satisfaction, but their absence results into job dissatisfaction. According to the theory, hygiene factors are the extrinsic conditions at the workplace and include a number of aspects such as company practices, policies and remunerations to the company employees (Schultz & Schultz 2010).
Although this theory relates to Maslow’s theory of motivation, it has some differences since it disagrees with the previous theory in that it argues that satisfying and dissatisfying factors are not opposing forces, neither are they caused by same factors (Wilson 2002).
Herzberg’s theory is applicable in both small and large organizations. In a large organization, the applicability of this theory can be viewed from the two sets of factors. For instance, it argues that an organization has “job satisfiers” that deal with those factors that are involved in “doing the job” and another set of “job dissatisfiers” that deals with those factors that “define the context of that job” (Hackman & Oldham 2006).
For a large organization to achieve high performance, it must focus on both sets of factors. It is worth noting that a large company has different levels of management in its structure. Motivation and satisfaction must be achieved at all levels. To achieve this, the management level must initiate satisfaction and motivation by focusing on the two-factor theory.
First, the organization must focus on hygiene factors in order to avoid “unpleasantness” at the workplace. It must focus on making hygiene factors more attractive in order to ensure that employees at all levels consider them adequately. For instance, the administration and policy must be attractive to managers and their employees.
Herzberg theory at my workplace
My organization, Spectra Company, is a small organization led by a manager, two assistants and a finance officer. It has 18 employees. In such small organizations, it is much easier to apply Herzberg’s theory than in large organizations because the managerial levels are few due to a small organizational structure.
However, this is not the case in my organization, perhaps due to the managerial culture of ignoring organizational theories in their practice. In the organization, there seems to be a problem with managerial commitment to enhancing employee motivation.
For instance, some employees are complaining that they are not recognized according to their service, expedience and level of education. In addition, despite having a policy to encourage employees take academic leave, the manager does not consider establishing internal education programs to enhance employee knowledge and performance.
Recommendation
In my organization, managers or directors should be responsible for implementing a method for implementing the two sets of factors. For instance, by working close to the employees, the manager acts as a leader rather than a boss. The manager can focus on rearranging work to ensure that motivating factors take effect. For example, employees can be involved in job rotation in order to ensure that they work as a team.
In addition, the management should focus on employees’ personal interest by interacting with their subjects to know what they desire, including opportunities for development, responsibilities and sense of personal growth and achievements (Georgopolous, Mahoney, Jones & Nyle 2003).
The company must ensure that inter-personal relations are effective by providing space for horizontal and vertical communication between employees and their leaders. In addition, the supervisory method must be acceptable and appreciable in order to ensure that supervisors and employees work as a team (King 2007).
References
Georgopolous, BS, Mahoney, GM, Jones, J & Nyle, W, 2003, “A Path-Goal Approach to Productivity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 345–353
Hackman, JR & Oldham, GR, 2006, “Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 250–279
Herzberg, F, 2004, Work and the Nature of Man, World Publishing, Cleveland.
King, N, 2007, “Clarification and Evaluation of the Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction”, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 18–31.
Schultz, DP & Schultz, SE, 2010, Psychology and Work Today: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Prentice Hall, New York, NY.
Wilson, C, 2002, New Pathways in Psychology: Maslow and the post-Freudian revolution, Victor Gollancz, London.