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

Department of conduct in Organisations, University of Lancaster on study ieavefrom the Department of Psychology, University of Melbourne at that place ar several ways of stating Herzbergs devil- particularor possible action of motivation and each version raise be testifyed in various ways. Those who defend the possibleness argue that researchers who fail to find foul for the surmisal have usually departed from the procedures used by Herzberg. There have been variations in methods of gathering data, categorizing the responses, and analysing the results. These variations may be justified on the grounds that the qualification of either possibility lies in its logic and in its ability to withstand deviations from a set method. almost tests of Herzbergs conjecture atomic number 18 much apt(predicate) to produce bread and butter than a nonher(prenominal)s. This was confirmed in a study of London bus crews. However it croup be argued that there is to a greater extent than wiz legitimate test of Herzbergs twain-factor surmise, though some of these argon likely to produce contradictory results.The Herzberg hypothesis, or two-factor system of motivation or Motivator-Hygiene (M-H) possibility, has given rise to a mass of investigations and experiments in industry and in some different types of organizations. Results do not always support Herzberg in fact, however ab step up one in three do so. Donald Hebb once said that when it is a question of survival, theories ar like womenfecundity is more(prenominal) than important than purity. M-H surmisal has sure enough been very copiousmore so perhaps than any separate theory in applied social psychology. numerous industrial psychologists have not only survived plainly indeed thrived on the theory. The fecundity of the theory is not in doubt besides its purity certainly is exceedingly suspect.WHAT IS THE THEORY?The theory is in two parts, each of which can be stated in several ways. re veal 1 says that theorize factors can be fragmentd into two quite evident sets the first set consists of factors which contri unlesse to prank blessedness and r bely if at all to line of business dis contentment these factors atomic number 18 called Motivators. The second set consists of job factors which contri furthere to jobdis satisfaction and r atomic number 18ly 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 adept dimension. This is a flat contradiction of the traditional pur dupe 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. many Motivators contri scarcelye to dissatisfaction darn some Hygienes open to satisfaction. Within-factors reversals are far from rare and some clock times awaynu mber responses in the expected direction. These incongruent responses are attri just nowed to sampling error, which of track down is begging the questionrejecting inconvenient data in launch to save the theory. The analysis then takes the solve of a coition comparisonfor Motivators we predict more satisfaction than dissatisfaction, and for Hygienes we predict more dissatisfaction than satisfaction and test for significance accordingly. What tecs fail to point bug out is that in doing this they are really reformulating the theory to fit their facts.The rewrite theory now says, in effect, that Motivators contri bute more to satisfaction than to dissatisfaction while Hygienes contribute more to dissatisfaction than satisfaction. This is comely but it makes nonsense of the call for 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 whi ch are to be found at different positions on the same continuum. percent 2 of the theory is too in two parts. First paying more attention to Motivators (intrinsic job satisfaction or higher(prenominal) order needs) will add-on satisfaction but will not affect any dissatisfaction with the job or, alternatively, amend Motivators will improve organizational force as shown by higher productivity, bankrupt quality, collapse attendance and punctuality, lower labour turnover in short, by improved murder. Second paying moreattention to Hygiene factors (extrinsic job satisfaction or lower order needs) will decrease dissatisfaction but will not increase boilersuit satisfaction or alternatively, there will be no improvement in performanceon the contrary, taking costs into account there will be a lowered organizational efficiency because improving Hygienes will cost the organization more money. bank bill that for each part of Part 2, i.e. as regards both Motivators and Hygienes, there a re alternative predictions.Increase of satisfaction or decrease of dissatisfaction are both theoretically visionary extensions of Part 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 concerned 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 cheer system in which they operate but it in no way detracts from the validity of this method of exam their theory. One problem must now be faced. Does Part 2 of the theory depend on Part 1? According to House & Wigdor (1967, p.385) if the satisfaction-dissatisfaction duality is false then Part 2 is highly suspect.I would argue that if Part 1 is false then Part 2 is distant or must be argued on other grounds. If and only if Part 1 is true, then Part 2 can be tested victimizatio n the concepts established by Part 1. Another good difficulty for exam 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 some other 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 weight unit 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 excessively predicts, may surprise industrial welfare advocates but not cynical managers.In general terms, statements describing the theory are superficially similar 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 explicit from those factors that contribute to satisfaction. bliss 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 assumption 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 do es not square with the evidence. scarcely though general statements are similar, precise statements, if make 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 name 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 un sure 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 rank order of vastness 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 refinement that makes for extra complications when testing validity. Whitsett & Winslow (1967) accuse Burke (1966) of A unique misapprehension 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 car park and persistent misinterpretations of the Motivation-Hygiene (M-H) theory is the start out 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 circumstantial incidents at work (revealing satisfaction an d hence Motivators) and for bad critical incidents (revealing dissatisfaction and hence Hygienes). Perhaps the most systematic attempt to sort out what the theory really says was make by King (1970) who identified five distinct versions of Part 1 of the theory. Some versions are stronger than others because they inculpate 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 distant 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.