Content area
Full Text
Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory is a popular but controversial theory of employee satisfaction. The theory was at the center of a long debate that focused on conceptual and methodological problems with the theory. Now, more than 30 years after the debate and despite multiple claims that Herzberg's theory is dead, emerging research from the field of positive psychology is surprisingly consistent with basic tenets of the motivation-hygiene theory. It may be time to resurrect Herzberg's theory. This article includes a summary of the motivation-hygiene theory, a clarification of long-standing misinterpretations of the theory, and an examination of the fit between Herzberg's theory and contemporary research on happiness, intrinsic motivation, and materialism. The benefits of returning to Herzberg's model are discussed.
Keywords: Herzberg; motivation-hygiene theory; job satisfaction; employee motivation; positive psychology
Frederick Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory (Herzberg, 1966; 1982; 1991; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959) is one of the most controversial theories in the history of management research (Behling, Labovitz, & Kosmo, 1968, p. 99; Pinder, 1998, p. 26). Herzberg challenged basic assumptions about what satisfies and motivates employees by claiming that pay contributes little to job satisfaction, all employees need to grow psychologically, and interpersonal relations are more likely to lead to dissatisfaction than satisfaction.
Although widely embraced by managers (Latham, 2007, p. 39; Miner, 2005, p. 73; Steers & Porter, 1983, p. 486), Herzberg was at the center of a 10-year academic debate where he and his colleagues (e.g., Grigaliunas & Wiener, 1974; Whitsett & Winslow, 1967) fought with a variety of critics. One set of critics attacked his research methodology, arguing that Herzberg relied too heavily on a single and biased research methodology to support his theory (e.g., Ewen, Smith, Hulin, & Locke, 1966; Vroom, 1964). Another set of critics pointed out that Herzberg was inconsistent in his use of terms. For example, King (1970) noted that at one time, there were five viable interpretations of Herzberg's theory, and it was nearly impossible to test the theory when it was not clear which version of the theory was the proper theory to test. See Bockman (1971) for a review of the "Herzberg controversy."
Now, more than 30 years after the debate and despite multiple claims that Herzberg's theory has finally died (Dunnette, Campbell,...