HERZBERG`S DUAL-FACTOR THEORY OF JOB

HERZBERG'S DUAL-FACTOR THEORY OF JOB
SATISFACTION AND MOTIVATION: A REVIEW OF
THE EVIDENCE AND A CRITICISM
ROBERT J. HOUSE and LAWRENCE A. WIGDOR
Bernard M. Baruch School of Business and Public Administration
In. 1959, Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman reported research findings that suggested that man has two sets of needs:
his need as an animal to avoid pain, and his need as a human to
grow psychologically. These findings led them to advance a
"dual factor" theory of motivation. Since that time, the theory
has caught the attention of both industrial managers and psychologists. Management training and work-motivation programs have been installed on the basis of the dual-factor
theory. Psychologists have both advanced criticisms and conducted substantial research relevant to the dual-factor theory.
The purpose of this paper is to review the theory, the criticisms, and the empiric investigations reported to date, in an
effort to assess the validity of the theory.
Whereas previous theories of motivation were based on
causal inferences of the theorists and deduction from their
own insights and experience, the dual-factor theory of motivation was inferred from a study of need satisfactions and the
reported motivational effects of these satisfactions on 200
engineers and accountants.
The subjects were first requested to recall a time when they
had felt exceptionally good about their jobs. The investigators
sought by further questioning to determine the reasons for
their feelings of satisfaction, and whether their feelings of
satisfaction had affected their performance, their personal relationships, and their well-being. Finally, the sequence of
events that served to return the workers' attitudes to "normal"
was elicited.
In a second set of interviews, the same subjects were asked
to describe incidents in which their feelings about their jobs
were exceptionally negative—cases in which their negative
feelings were related to some event on the job.
369
370
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Herzberg and his associates concluded from their interview
findings that job satisfaction consisted of two separate independent dimensions: the first dimension was related to job
satisfaction, and the second dimension to job dissatisfaction.
These dimensions are not opposite ends of the same continuum, but instead represent two distinct continua. High satisfaction is not in the main brought about by the absence of
factors that cause dissatisfaction. Those job characteristics
that are important for, and lead to, job satisfaction but not to
job dissatisfaction are classified as "satisfiers," while those
that are important for, and lead to, job dissatisfaction but not
to job satisfaction are classified as "dissatisfiers." A few job
characteristics functioned in both directions.
According to the theory, the satisfiers are related to the
nature of the work itself and the rewards that fiow directly
from the performance of that work. The most potent of these
are those characteristics that foster the individual's needs for
self-actualization and self-realization in his work. These workrelated or intrinsic factors are achievement, recognition, work
itself, responsibility, and advancement.
A sense of performing interesting and important work (work
itself), job responsibility, and advancement are the most important factors for a lasting attitude change. Achievement,
more so than recognition, was frequently associated with the
long-range factors of responsibility and the nature of the work
itself. Recognition that produces good feelings about the job
does not necessarily have to come from superiors; it might
come from peers, customers, or subordinates. Where recognition is based on achievement, it provides more intense satisfaction.
The dissatisfaction factors are associated with the individual's relationship to the context or environment in which he
does his work. The most important of these is company policy
and administration that promotes ineffectiveness or inefficiency within the organization. The second most impotant is
incompetent technical supervision—supervision that lacks
knowledge of the job or ability to delegate responsibility and
teach. Working conditions, interpersonal relations with supervisors, salary, and lack of recognition and achievement can
also cause dissatisfaction.
HOUSE AND WIGDOR
371
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. In his most recent book, Herzberg (1966, p. 75)
advances the following analogy to explain why the satisfier
factors or "motivators" affect motivation in the positive direction.
When a child learns to ride a bicycle, he is becoming more competent,
increasing the repertory of his behavior, expanding his skills—psychologically growing. In the process of the child's learning to master the bicycle,
the parents can love him with all the zeal and compassion of the most devoted mother and father. They can safeguard the child from injury by
providing the safest and most hygienic area in which to practice; they can
offer all kinds of incentives and rewards; and they can provide the most
expert instructors. But the child will never, never learn to ride the bicycle—
unless he is given a bicycle! The hygiene factors are not a valid contributor
to psychological growth. The substance of the tasks is required to achieve
growth goals. Similarly, you cannot love an engineer into creativity, although by this approach you can avoid his dissatisfactions with the way
you treat him. Creativity will require a potentially creative task to do.
Criticisms of the Two-Factor Theory
The theory has been criticized on several grounds: first, that
it is methodologically bound; second, that it is based on faulty
research; and third, that it is inconsistent with past evidence
concerning satisfaction and motivation. Each of these criticisms will be reviewed here.
Methodological Bounds of the Theory. Vroom (1964) has
argued that the storytelling critical-incident method, in which
the interviewee recounts extremely satisfying and dissatisfying
job events, accounts for the associations found by Herzberg
et al. and that other methods are required to adequately test
the theory.
It is . . . possible that obtained differences between stated sources of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction stem from defensive processes within the
individual respondent. Persons may be more likely to attribute the causes
of satisfaction to their own achievements and accomplishments on the
job. On the other hand, they may be more likely to attribute their dissatisfaction not to personal inadequacies or deficiencies, but to factors in the
work enviroiunent; i.e., obstacles presented by company policies or supervision. (Vroom, 1964, p. 129)
"People tend to take the credit when things go well, and
enhance their own feeling of self-worth, but protect their self-
372
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
concept when things go poorly by blaming their failure on the
environment" (Vroom, 1966, pp. 7, 8). He further states, "If
you grant the assumption about the way in which biases operate, it follows that the storytelling methods may have very
little bearing on the actual consequence of managerial practice." (Vroom, 1966, p. 10).
Faulty Research Foundation. Not only has it been argued
that the theory is method bound, but it is also argued that the
research from which it was inferred is fraught with procedural
deficiencies.
The most important criticism involves the utilization of
Herzberg's categorization procedure to measure job dimensions, the satisfiers and "hygiene factors." The coding is not
completely determined by the rating system and the data, but
requires, in addition, interpretation by the rater. For example,
the dimension of supervision encompasses, among others, the
categories: (a) "supervisor competent," (b) "supervisor incompetent," and (c) "supervisor showed favoritism." The
three classifications all require an interpretation of the supervisor's behavior. If the respondent offers the evaluation, no
interpretation by the rater is required. However, if the subject
merely describes the supervisor's behavior, an evaluation by
the rater is necessary.
The necessity for interpretations of the data by a rater may
lead to contamination of the dimensions so derived. Employing
one of Herzberg's own incidents to illustrate the dimension of
recognition, Vroom (1964) pointed out the way in which the
dual-factor theory may contaminate the coding procedure. The
dimensions in the situation can quite possibly refiect more the
rater's hypothesis concerning the compositions and interrelations of dimensions than the respondent's own perceptions. A
more objective approach, to minimize the possibility of learning more about the perceptions of raters than those of interviewees, would be to have the respondents do the rating and
perform the necessary evaluations (Graen, 1966).
Second, and closely related to the first methodological problem, is the inadequate operational definitions utilized by Herzberg and associates to identify satisfiers and dissatisfiers. Numerous critics (Malinovsky & Barry, 1965; Burke, 1966;
Ewen, 1964; Dunnette, 1965) have questioned the mutual
HOUSE AND WIGDOR
373
exclusiveness of these dimensions. Malinovsky and Barry
(1965) reported that it is possible that correlations between
motivator items and between hygiene items in the evaluations
of factors resulted from response-set effects—the tendency of
the workers to respond in the same manner to like-worded
statements.
The original study has also been criticized because it contains no measure of overall satisfaction (Ewen, 1964). However, such a measure is important if a factor is to be called a
satisfier or dissatisfier. There is no basis for assuming that the
factors described as hygiene or motivators contribute to respondent overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
Smith and Kendall (1963) have shown that a worker may
dislike some aspects of his job, yet still think it is acceptable.
Similarly, workers may dislike the job despite many desirable
characteristics. Smith and Kendall (1963) propose that job
satisfaction is a function of the perceived characteristic of a
job in relation to an individual's frame of reference. A particular job condition can be a satisfier or dissatisfier.
Other procedural criticisms concern the lack of reliability
data for the critical-incident method, and the fact that the
research was not based solely on current satisfaction with a
presently existing job situation. As a result, there is no control
over the sampling time for the data, and no basis for drawing
inferences about the relative contribution of various job factors to overall job satisfaction.
Inconsistency With Previous Evidence. If the dual-factor
theory were correct, we should expect highly satisfied people
to be highly motivated and to produce more. Based on a rather
exhaustive review of the empiric research up to 1955, Brayfield
and Crockett (1955) concluded that one's position in a network of relationships need not imply strong motivation for
outstanding performance within the system, and that productivity may only be peripherally related to many of the goals
toward which the industrial worker is striving. Herzberg et al.
(1959) cited 27 studies in which there was a quantitative relationship between job attitude and productivity. Of these, only
14 revealed a positive relationship. In the remaining 13, job
attitudes and productivity were not related. In 1964, Vroom
examined 20 studies dealing with strength between job satis-
TOTALS
PERSONNEL
o
PSYCHOLOGY
CO
m
5-1
374
1-1
Cd
fk
It
X X X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
K
• oi
i
X
Finn
Supr.
X X X X X
Pre
X
Fem.
Assem.
X X
il
X X
Mfg.
Supi
HERZBERG
o
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XI Xi
X
SALE
M
X
X
Cfl
urs. Eng.
Sci.
K
M
J;
<
^1
X I XI
a S
XI
XI
XI
I
X
XI
XI
X
XI
X
X
XI
XI
H
Prof.
Women
^ >
X X
X X
X
X X X X
X
X X
X
X
X
Eng.
WALT
SCHfl
<
X X X X
X
X
X
I
<
X X
X
X
X
1
1
O
'3
•<
M
i s ll
•§
o
11
II
02
•3 .
ii
X
X
lterper sonal
relat.-]peers
1
0. Pol.
Adm.
1
X X
-uon
[GATOR 1
n
ehievei
tion
elt
ibility
M .
m <
Popul ation
Fac tor
^ ^
•3
.
11
375
HOUSE AND WIGDOR
faction and job performance. Seventeen studies revealed a
positive relationship with a medium correlation of .14, while
3 studies revealed a negative relationship. At the present time,
there seems to be general agreement among most researchers
that the effect of satisfaction on worker motivation and productivity depends on situational variables yet to be explicated
by future research. Furthermore, as Friedlander (1966a, p.
143) reported, no data are presented by Herzberg to indicate
a direct relationship between incidents involving intrinsic job
characteristics and incidents containing self-reports of increased job performance. According to the Protestant ethic,
it is conceivable that self-reports of increased job performance
may be nothing more than moral justification for increased
job enjoyment.
Vroom (1966, p. 11) summarizes these arguments succinctly: "In discussing the administrative implication of his
findings, Herzberg loses sight of the distinction between recall
of satisfying events and actual observation of motivated behavior. He appears to be arguing that the satisfiers are also
motivators; i.e., that those job content conditions which produce a high level of satisfaction also motivate the person to
perform effectively on his job."
If one reflects on the kinds of conditions necessary for productive work, it becomes quite clear that motivation is only
one of them. Clearly, when working conditions, the quality of
TABLE 2
Frequency of Reports for Satisfiers And Dissatisfiers Out of Total Number
of 1,ZZO People in Six Studies Reported by Herzberg (1966)
Factor
Achievement
Recognition
Advancement
Responsibility
Work itself
Policy and administration
Supervision
Work conditions
Relations with superior
Relations with peers
Satisfier
Dissatisfier
Total Number
of People
440
309
126
168
175
55
22
20
15
9
122
110
48
35
75
337
182
108
59
57
1,220
1,220
1,220
1,220
1,220
1,220
1,220
1,220
1,220
1,220
376
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
a
IS
"i a
•a
O
^1
o o
c
O .2
d be
CO
0)
to
^H
_J
"^
O
••3
o « "!i S 2
o
^S
5s •-•
03
., 2 s '^
•^ 2 s a
o o o ^5 ^
C
O
(^
^
ft
M
S •'
s
m .g .2
-;3 ..D
03
ale
O
':3 --^
bo
•S
o
-o
<D
o
bU
O
a"-.
03
p!
02
.^ g ft
-a
03
indu
03
and
o
o
3e
ege
03
^
Qi
ployed
female'
W
2
t. -S 3 - 5
e
03
bo
'3 £ fe »
3
o
W
a
•Si
aj
"2 "S
3
EH
O
a §.°
'
ft-r
+s
03
•^ ^
m so g ° 05
o c
_<
' ^
Ilil!
I
- - S
lisp
a
o
03 fJ^
• r/^
02
(H
1
TO
T3
s a 73
ca
o CM"^ a
O
oS
03
^
1
m O o
" 0.
-a g r2
§- • a 3 -^
s^s
2 °5 3 T3
£ -3 - ^ S . 2
Ills
O
O
CO
3
I £ I gII
03
03
«
"S
O<D
bC
3
m
T3
3
Q
ca
£
rS
d
•'^
C3
03
377
HOUSE AND WIGDOR
ie
£ -a T3
B fi »
3) o3 m
03..
"^
gi
£
a^l
s
m
I ^I
US o
;
P o3
b
.il
rt
J.
=a
» § §
» ^
-
a
•^ g O
:=i
g
02
I
03
3 -2
>•
bc
^•3
o fi
P d
"
02
O
'+3
c3
m
S g
-o
'oao
wen.
- ^ -*^ 3
02
CO
CO
03
fi"
o
W
o
378
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
2
m
K
X
02
02
'
J3
'i^
o
& m C S
03
CO
1| l l
03
"a
om
CO
ts
"I
&
CO
^ - ^
a^-gl^
a; -.zi
m 5 T3 ^
"
•> - s g § I
HOUSE AND WIGDOR
ft
« '
III
O
o
379
-a
<2
03
03
O
2
0^
an
Oi
bC
c
fi
a
QJ
Oi
CO
33
g
1!
Oi
1
o
02
Qi
3
'g •2*'o
cr ' > .
^ "5
O
'<
w
P
fi
2
SE
"3 ',3
O5
fi
.fi
M
1
s
bC
C
ft «)
c
fi
03
o
j2
a
CO
fi
ft
UH
K
"3
Oi
"^ 13
o
-(^
3
•d
o3
M
Oi
bC
Oi
bt
fi
d
. 1 . - ,
%
Ci
03
CO
P!
•2
01
*-^
Findings
b satisfaction was self-ac0 Herzberg, the category of
-ion was s imilar to his achievement
asibilit-if categories. Major source
itis:faction was action of supervisors
b e .on text, each of which did not conto job sat isf action.
we] :e equa!Ily well satisfied with both
ator an d hygiene aspects of their
motiv ators contributed signifirerall satisfaction than did
urc
03
-^-fi"
CD
ilth depends to a major deevelopi ng an orientation toward
-actiual iz ation , achievements, responsid goal-directed effort. Improved
tained 1ligher motivator and lower
ores thim the unimproved. College
obtaine d higher motivator and
iene sc ores than the two schizo
0
'^
actii
02
"o
XG
o
ai
£
CO
OJ
''3
3
13
Oi
Ci
1
a
tH
I
a
g
zed
'O
^
i>
o
'-*3 ai
•
i
"S o
'> tH
bo
!3
C:D
4^
bC X
*^
o
.13
CO
tH
tH
g
o
^fi ft ft
2- £
Stu
-£ £
o
OJ
i -a£ •2 IT '3
O
£ S
o g
tie:
3
o
E>2
<H-<
•s
ked
H
o
ced-ch
ure ;
ivator
"S
o:j
03
fi
with 1'our
iene :
satis fac-
S ,fi S
Jtisfac
1, four
overall
ponde:
IS
m
atings 0
motivai
tors, ai
tion on
job
)-item
questio
choice-]
Oi
bJ3
s
o
-oni
>—1
to
o
69 su
tH
Oi
bC-O
o
;i96
3
H
ai
llin
(fl
<D
itionn aire
and rlon-
Ci
+^
coll
Oi
+->
cn
the
tD
iing at an effortful task was
e the approach motivation of the
ject 0 participate in future activities
mpting to improve motivation by
iks a c ontextual relationship rethe motiva.tion to one of avoidance of
ire actiivi ties.
CD
O
wo:
fore
,-t
[ mot:
J fi
-
800 0
-o
iterpose
asks b
and aft
tion. M eas ured e
vening
iables
ilatedn
ining
student
ies of f
penmei
ontent a yses oi
on rela1 ; satisf
satisfyi
experii
•
59)
h-t
tud nts
o
UI.lf
1 Colle
HH
Procedu
I
I
ject
380
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
go
bO
sa
oa
o
bC Xi
'3
1i
PH
is
§
ft
.a
H - J
tH
C2
B
fi
bC
CO
ti
^ o
S bo
ai
s
CO
a •g
Q
0
0
1 -a
.a
ca
n
3
CO
"3
fi
t-i
0
03
.3
03
W
Ci
0
1
ft ft
o3
£H
1
e
CO
^
^a
ciai
1
CO
fi
ft 3
09
a
0
^^
ca
u
ai
0
fli
'•3
g •w
a
•s '3
§
tH
_o
0
fi
tH
03
_Ci
a
J
01
bf)
-S
CO
I—(
02
J
"13
-2
Oi
a
03
1
3
CO
w
fi
a
ai
pH
a
0
•
0
0
3
fi .a
a -S
very
in coi
re st ated
r subjects
ition to be
'hile t;hose
5h in
sing level
3ati sfacti
re not
t inion
3 tors
laly-
5 be-
etors seen
o3
0
0
1
- H
'+3
ai
03
•3
?^
Oi
cS
>
> fi
'-3 0
'"..'SD
'« ..a
.S
ai
fi
b£ J3
.SS
ag
erzb
.E:
ir and larger v
resp ond ents' overall 1(
ions of j ob sat isf
long separate
ibute
ract i
variety of wa
:tract
from the first
e composed of
Bms. Overall
th hygiene anc
eristics grou]
otiva tor- hygiene dich
5rg motivator
Herzberg me
rators and hyj
different job
. The female
fferer -om the four 1
a sex factor. I
Lt from the he
lurly
ale assembler
stmg
ob-level facto
ai
03
0
Ui
0
analys
o3
ai
atti1
c
a
1 coniDrib'uting to negai
0
isfac
1 frequency b;
n the overall
proportion of
ensions (moti
Ci
lalysis
f 40-ite
nnaire
tor ai
tH
?ith
"fi
e atti
ith ei
)sitio
motivations.
0
ca
oS
ontei
type
a"
•^
'S
cc
o3
1 to OVi
/•oida
3
"^
ai
actor
orde
ques
moti
item
?
2
.a
03
spon
tH
ctors
sohii
CQ
XI
uT
a 0K
le sci
eers,
ervis
ians.
ourb
ft
'—^ .
1
outh
.5
03
0
0
watc
<!
2
i96
qo.
1
Xi
OQ
i conce rni
;ati
ai
mal e mai
.2
M
C3
fluet
a
of
4^
a
C5
(196
-a
.2
«*.H
a
ap
>IS
03
s
bC
tterr
-end
C3
aotivatlOB
'S
a
0
ihkir
ai
a
-a xi
I and I
fi
SS.
bO
seal
I significant t«
ligh in motiva
a approach mo
giene oriental
a 2
jectf
ontei
Oi
0
ventor^
loice-m oti
indu
tH
engi neeri;
toward
£
ai
The
Han
.ttitu
situi
ai
•I
£
ric
elf
.2 _o
a
'.^
a
*
| |
.a ^^
ll
a^
Q
0
ll
1-5
^co
'>
-M
a
"^
>>
'&
,
ai
0)
CQ^
_M
-g
cS
S3
"g
02
s
1
.£: §
*p
ai ^
"ca
I
like
Difl 'erenlJ job
iter istic con;uraition was
;uratiions,
itors
and
10ns, sug-
jiene
ors.
into
3 ver,
-sip'
OS
a]
aou
[Oil
• elei^enth
; Stud
o
)4)
HOUSE AND WIGDOR
381
0
sI
ai * 3
-*^ c
fi
ca
ca
ca a ft Ci
0
to
w^
g U
bc
a)
K
0
CO
-2
0
Oi
-^
IB
03
tH
Q
§ '-5 .2 " "
-2 ^ a .a ^
oi
^
_£1 •^^
^
I s *^
s ^>
|-^
§ ^
3
^
0
3
1
0
03
bo Oi
Oi
382
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
•n
a
03
Oi
fi
S o .2
.2 m
II
a o
ll ^
a "S a
• "
tH
1^
t»
CO
03 X>
3
K
T3
«
Oi
0^
Ia
. « J 'I 2
§•
a §>
>
bC
03
^3
•-H
Xi
s
cn
o
PH
co" o
Oi
bO
o3
Si
03
"ft
fi
i
ca
1g
aa
"O
00
<D
•4-H
383
HOUSE AND WIGDOR
03
CO
fi '-5
£
V^ o
03
E
C
CQ
o3
>
03
a -^ a
CO
'+:>
o3
'•B
X3
1. Bot
and
Ci
^VH
job s
^02
£ g
1 S
al
.2 ° '
CO
02
a
'3
ft
§ s2
S bo
en
fi
Oi ' 0 ai TS
-^
3
g §
II
^.2
w ^
I I
.§ "3
""a
0 £
+^ o
01 - ^
•3 I
o ai
ca ft
o xi
'43 g.
t»
?3
c?
•3 13
iii
o
i §
§
=^ §
o '-3
ta 'S
~
Ci
III
5
tH
ft
5^
.9 -.H
-a
o
« tt» t i
tH
•O
03
fi S P . _
<s a S"
III
>
T3
fi
o3
ce
a ^'
a)
V
a
PJ
I
bO
CQ
ai
Ts
-2
C3
o3
384
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
leadership, the suitability of supplies and equipment, the efficiency of scheduling and coordinating procedures, or the abilities of the members of the work force are found deficient,
highly motivated behavior may have either little effect on
productivity or even possibly the effect of causing frustration
which interferes with productivity.
Empiric Research Based on Critical-Incident Methodology
In Work and the Nature of Man, Herzberg (1966) reports
the results of 10 critical-incident studies on 17 different populations. He asserts that these studies support the dual-factor
theory in 97% of the cases. Table 1 is taken from Herzberg's
1966 book and summarizes the results of these studies. Each
X in the table represents a correct prediction for a factor, while
a dash indicates an incorrect prediction. The blank spaces suggest no significant evidence either way because of (a) failure
of an investigator to include the factor in the analysis, (b) the
scoring of only major factors in the events, (c) the general
rarity of a factor occurring, or (d) occasional moderate frequency of a factor to be associated with both satisfaction and
dissatisfaction.
The chart shows that theoretical predictions, when made
for each separate study, were valid in 97 percent of the cases.
However, compilation of the number of people mentioning
one of Herzberg's ten factors as a satisfier or dissatisfier yields
Table 2.'
From this table it can be observed that achievement is seen
by most respondents as more of a dissatisfier than Relations
with supervisors or Working conditions. In fact. Achievement
can be considered the third major dissatisfier. Recognition is
also found to be more of a dissatisfier than both Working
conditions and Relations with superiors. Using these data from
Table 2, one can rank dissatisfiers as follows:
' This analysis is restricted to those factors mentioned more than four times.
By restricting this analysis to those factors, several factors are excluded. The
excluded factors are Opportunity for growth. Interpersonal relations with
subordinates. Status, Personal life. Security and Salary. With the exception
of Opportunity for growth, these excluded factors are peripheral to the TwoFactor theory, and their inclusion in this analysis would not change the major
conclusion suggested by the analysis.
HOUSE AND WIGDOR
385
Company policy and administration
Supervision
Achievement
Recognition
Working conditions
Work itself
Relations with superior
Advancement
Responsibility
This ranking can be partially explained by considering the fact
that every factor did not appear in every study reported by
Herzberg. However, in all studies, each factor had an equal
chance of occurring and did not because of failure of respondents to mention incidents relating to all factors.
Evidence Based on Methods other than the Critical-Incident
Method
Since the publication of the original research by Herzberg,
Mausner, and Snyderman in 1959, several studies based on
different research methods have been reported in the literature.
These studies are described in brief detail in Exhibit 1.
Conclusions
Our secondary analysis of the data presented by Herzberg
(1966) in his most recent book yields conclusions contradictory
to the proposition of the Two-Factor theory that satisfiers and
dissatisfiers are unidimensional and independent. Although
many of the intrinsic aspects of jobs are shown to be more frequently identified by respondents as satisfiers, achievement
and recognition are also shown to be very frequently identified
as dissatisfiers. In fact, achievement and recognition are more
frequently identified as dissatisfiers than working conditions
and relations with the superior.
Since the data do not support the satisfier-dissatisfier dichotomy, the second proposition of the Two-Factor theory,
that satisfiers have more motivational force than dissatisfiers,
appears highly suspect. This is true for two reasons. First, any
attempt to separate the two requires an arbitrary definition of
the classifications satisfier and dissatisfier. Second, unless such
386
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
an arbitrary separation is employed, the proposition is untestable.
Turning to our review of previous studies based on methods
other than the storytelling method (Exhibit 1), four important conclusions emerge concerning the operation of, and
variables associated with, the various job characteristics pertinent to satisfaction or dissatisfaction. These four conclusions
are:
1. A given factor can cause job satisfaction for one person
and job dissatisfaction for another person, and vice versa.
Job satisfaction is a function of the perceived characteristics of a job in
relation to an individual frame of reference. A particular job condition on
the basis of this theoretical, can be a satisfier, dissatisfier or irrelevant
depending on conditions in comparable jobs, conditions of other people, of
the qualifications and past experience of the individual as well as on numerous situational variables of the present job. Thus, job satisfaction is
not an absolute phenomena but is relative to the alternatives available to
the individual. (Smith & Kendall, 1963, p. 14.)
Variables that partially determine whether a given factor
will be a source of satisfaction or dissatisfaction on the job
were shown to be:
Job or occupational level: Centers and Bugental (1966),
Myers (1964), Rosen (1963), Friedlander (1966b),
Dunnette (1965).
Age of respondents: Singh and Baumgartel (1966), Saleh
(1964), Friedlander (1966b), Wernimont (1966).
Sex of respondents: Centers and Bugental (1966), Gibson
(1961), Myers (1964).
Formal education: Singh and Baumgartel (1966).
Culture: Turner and Lawrence (1965), Ott (1965).
Time-dimension variable: Ewen (1964), Wernimont
(1966).
Respondent's standing in his group: Eran (1966).
2. A given factor can cause job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in the same sample (Dunnette, 1965; Ewen, 1964;
Gordon, 1965; Burke, 1966; Ewen, Smith, Hulin & Locke,
1966; Friedlander, 1963; Wernimont, 1966; Halpern, 1966;
Ott, 1965; Hinrichs & Mischkind, 1967; Graen, 1966; Malinovsky & Barry, 1965).
3. Intrinsic job factors are more important to both satisfy-
HOUSE AND WIGDOR
387
ing and dissatisfying job events (Dunnette et al., 1967; Wernimont, 1966; Ewen, Smith, Hulin & Locke, 1966; Graen, 1966;
Friodlander, 1964).
4. These conclusions lead us to agree with the criticism advanced by Dunnette, Campbell and Hakel (1967) that the
Two-Factor theory is an oversimplification of the relationships
between motivation and satisfaction, and the sources of job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
References
BRAYFIBLD, A . H . AND CROCKETT, W . H . "Employee Attitudes and Employee
Performance." Psychological Bulletin, LII (1955), 396-424.
BDBKE, R . "Are Herzberg's Motivators and Hygienes Unidimensional?"
Journal of Applied Psychology, L (1966), 317-321.
CENTEBS, R . AND BUGBNTAL, D . E . "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Job Motivations
among Different Segments of the Working Population." Journal of Applied
Psychology, L (1966), 193-197.
DUNNETTE, M . D . "Factor Structure of Unusually Satisfying and Unusually
Dissatisfying Job Situations for Six Occupational Groups." Paper read at
Midwestern Psychological Association. Chicago, April 29-May 1, 1965.
DUNNETTE, M . D . , CAMPBELL, J. P., AND HAKEL, M . D . "Factors Contributing
to Job Satisfaction and Job Dissatisfaction in Six Occupational Groups."
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, II (1967), 143-174.
EEAN, M . "Relationship Between Self-Perceived Personality Traits and Job
Attitudes in Middle Management." Journal of Applied Psychology, XLIX
(1966), 424-430.
EWEN, R . B . "Some Determinants of Job Satisfaction: A Study of the Generality of Herzberg's Theory." Journal of Applied Psychology, XLVIII
(1964), 161-163.
EWEN, R . B . , SMITH, P. C , HULIN, C . L . , AND LOCKE, E . A. "An Empirical
Test of the Herzberg Two-Factor Theory." Joumal of Applied Psychology,
L (1966), 544-550.
FANTZ, R . "Motivational Factors in Rehabilitation." Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis. Western Reserve University, 1962.
FINE, S. AND DICKMAN, R . "Satisfaction and Productivity." Paper presented
at the American Psychological Association Convention, St. Louis, Missouri, September, 1962.
FouHNET, G. P., DisTEFANO, M. K., J B . , AND PBTEB, M . "Job Satisfaction:
Issues and Problems." Personnel Psychology, XIX (1966), 165-183.
PBIEDLANDEB, F . "Underlying Sources of Job Satisfaction." Journal of Applied
Psychology, XLVII (1963), 246-250.
FBIEDLANDEB, F . "Job Characteristics as Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers." Journal
of Applied Psychology, XLVIII (1964), 38&-392.
FBIEDLANDEB, F . "Motivation to Work and Organizational Performance."
Journal of Applied Psychology, L (1966), 143-152. (a)
FBIEDLANDEB, F . "Importance of Work Versus Nonwork among Socially and
Occupationally Stratified Groups." Journal of Applied Psychology, L
(1966), 437-441. (b)
388
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
FBIEDLANDEB, F . AND WALTON, E . "Positive and Negative Motivations toward Work." Administrative Science Quarterly, IX (1964), 194-207.
GIBSON, J. W. "Sources of Job Satisfaction and Job Dissatisfaction as Interpreted from Analysis of Write-in Responses." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis.
Western Reserve University, 1961.
GORDON, G. G. "The Relationship of Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers to Productivity, Turnover, and Morale." Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, Chicago, Illinois, September 1965.
GBAEN, G. "Motivator and Hygiene Dimensions for Research and Development Engineers." Journal of Applied Psychology, L (1966), 563-566.
GRAGLIA, A . AND HAMLIN, R . "Effect of Effort and Task Orientation
on Activity Preference." Paper presented at Eastern Psychological Association Meeting, Philadelphia, 1964.
HAHN, C . "Dimensions of Job Satisfaction and Career Motivation."
Unpublished manuscript, 1959.
HALPBRN, G . "Relative Contributions of Motivator and Hygiene Factors to
Overall Job Satisfaction." Journal of Applied Psychology, L (1966), 198200.
HAMLIN, R . M . AND NEMO, R . S. "Self-Actualization in Choice Scores of Improved Schizophrenics." Journal of Clinical Psychology, XVIII (1962),
51-54.
HAYWOOD, H . C . AND DOBBS, V. "Motivation and Anxiety in High School
Boys." Journal of Personality, XXXII (1964), 371-379.
HEBZBEBG, F . Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: World Publishing
Company, 1966.
HBBZBEBG, F . , MAUSNEB, B . , PETERSON, R . , AND CAPWELL, D . F . Job Atti-
tudes: Review of Research and Opinion. Pittsburgh: Psychological Services
of Pittsburgh, 1957.
HEBZBERG, F . , MAUSNEK, B . , AND SNYDEBMAN, B . The Motivation to Work
(Second Edition). New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959.
HINRICHS, J. R. AND MISCHKIND, L . A. "Empirical and Theoretical Limitations of the Two-Factor Hypothesis of Job Satisfaction." Journal of
Applied Psychology, LI (1967), 191-200.
KuHLEN, R. G. "Needs, Perceived Need Satisfaction Opportunities, and
Satisfaction with Occupation." Journal of Applied Psychology, XLVII
(1963), 56-64.
MALINOVSKY, M . R . AND BABBY, J. R. "Determinants of Work Attitude."
Journal of Applied Psychology, XLIX (1965), 446^51.
M Y E B S , M . S. "Who Are Your Motivated Workers?" Harvard Business Review,
XLII (1964), 73-88.
OTT, D . C . "The Generality of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of Motivation."
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. The Ohio State University, 1965.
PoBTEB, L. W. "Job Attitudes in Management: I. Perceived Deficiencies in
Need J^ulfiUment as a Function of Job Level." Journal of Applied Psychology, XLVI (1962), 375-384.
ROSEN, H . "Occupational Motivation of Research and Development Personnel." Personnel Administration, XXVI (1963), 37-43.
SALEH, S . "A Study of Attitude Change in the Pre-Retirement Period."
Journal of Applied Psychology, XLVIII (1964), 310-312.
SANDVOLD, K . "The Effect of Effort and Task Orientation on the Motivator
HOUSE AND WIODOR
389
Orientation and Verbal Responsivity of Chronic Schizophrenic Patients
and Normals." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Illinois, 1962.
ScHWABz, p . Attitudes of Middle Management Personnel. Pittsburgh: American
Institute for Research, 1959.
SINGH, T . M . AND BAUMGARTEL, H . "Background Factors in Airline Mechanics'
Work Motivations." Journal of AppUed Psychology, L (1966), 337-339.
SMITH, P. C. AND KENDALL, L . M . "Cornell Studies of Job Satisfaction."
Unpublished manuscript, 1963.
TURNER, A. N. AND LAWRENCE, P. R. Industrial Jobs and the Worker. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration,
1965.
VROOM, V. H. Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964.
VHOOM, V. H. "Some Observations Regarding Herzberg's Two-Factor
Theory." Paper presented at the American Psychological Association
Convention, New York, September, 1966.
WERNIMONT, P. F. "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors in Job Satisfaction."
Journal of Applied Psychology, L (1966), 41-50.
YADOV, V. A. "The Soviet and American Worker: Job Attitudes." Soviet Life
January, 1965.