Frederick Herzbergs Two-Factor Motivational Theory - Coursework Example

HERZBERGS THEORY OF MANAGEMENT by Student’s name Course code+name Professor’s name University name City, State Date of submissio Thesis Statement The purpose of this essay is to examine if Frederick Herzberg’s two-factor motivational Theory still works almost fifty years after it was initially applied. The statement that will aid in acquiring this information is what makes the Theory to be such an exceptional specimen amongst a variety of motivational theories as well as what inspires employees to give ideas? Aspects like organizational rationalization and supported assurance to personnel empowerment, and fresh communication around managerial knowledge and learning organization led to the question of whether the theory of motivation to work by Herzberg continues to be valid. This research analyses the question of what has made this theory to be successful up to date and the reasons that inspires the employees in adding suggestions in their work places. The Two-factor Theory stipulates that there are some aspects in the place of work that lead to job contentment, while a different set of aspects lead to discontent. Frederick Herzberg who was a psychologist built up this theory and he put it in theory that work satisfaction as well as work dissatisfaction act separately from each other. According to Frederick Herzberg, people are not satisfied with the fulfillment of lower-order requirements at the workplace, for instance, individuals connected with least amount levels in salary or pleasant and safe working states. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article The findings of this research on the Two-factor theory of Motivation suggested that human beings have two sets of wants: his wants as an animal to shun pain as well as his wants as a man to develop psychologically. Since then, this theory has caught notice of both psychologists and industrial managers. Work-motivation plans and administration training have been put in founded on the theory of dual-factor. Psychologists have conducted considerable study on the dual-factor theory of motivation. While other theories were founded on informal assumptions of the individual formulating them as well as presumptions based on their own experiences and insights, Herzberg’s theory of motivation was conditioned from a research on satisfaction of needs and the stated effects of motivation on these fulfillments. In this article, the interviewees were initially asked to remember a time when they had considered themselves useful in their places of work. The researchers further inquired on the causes that led to their fulfillment and whether those feelings of fulfillment had any impact on their work, their individual relations with other people as well as their interests. Lastly, the series of proceedings that served to get back the employees mind-set to usual was brought out. In another set of interrogations, the similar interviewees were required to describe circumstances when they had developed negative attitudes towards their jobs that were connected to their places of work. Herzberg's study employed an original approach, supported on open questions and a small number of theories, to collect and analyze information of vital events as remembered by the study respondents. He initially employed this method throughout his doctoral lessons at the Pittsburgh University with John Flanagan who afterwards was the executive at the American Research Institute, who enhanced the Critical Incident technique in the Army Air Corps personnel selection in World War 11. Herzberg's intelligent open questioning technique gathered far extra meaningful outcomes than the conservative application of asking closed questions which are yes, no or extent-based questions/multiple-choices. This prompts or assumes a particular kind of reaction, and which by the way remain the main convenient and popular method of analyzing even nowadays - particularly amongst individuals having an exacting publicity aim or agenda. The graph on this article is supported on the entire percentages of 'First-Level' aspects happening in Herzberg's study of low and high attitude proceedings amongst two hundred accountants and engineers, surrounding long and short period’s feelings. At the same time as Herzberg's general ending were consistent and clear, the facts from Herzberg's research can be deduced in many diverse techniques in their advanced particulars, due to the profundity and layering of Frederick Herzberg's study analysis and methodology. These diverse perspectives clearly provide endless means to examine and present the outcomes; though as acknowledged, the main endings remain reliable. At the same time as the Motivator-Hygiene notion is still well looked upon, dissatisfaction and satisfaction is commonly no longer well thought-out to subsist on detached levels. The disconnection of dissatisfaction and satisfaction has been revealed as an object of the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) employed by Frederick Herzberg to record proceedings. Moreover, it has been well known that this theory does not permit for personal differences, for instance particular character traits that would have an effect on peoples' exceptional reactions to hygiene or motivating factors. Various behavioral psychologists have pointed to shortfalls in the motivation-hygiene as well as the need hierarchy assumptions. The most essential is the disapproval that these two theories contain the moderately clear assumption that satisfied and happy employees generate more. Another crisis is that these theories are linked with clearing up "average" performance and, at the same time, if participating in an improved golf game is the way preferred to please an individual’s need for appreciation, then a person will look for ways of playing and thinking of golf frequently. This may result in an associated poorer productivity on work. Lastly, in an individual’s chase of position a person may take an unbiased analysis and do their best to follow more than a few behavioral trails in an attempt to accomplish an arrangement of individual position objectives. To explain this further, a person's beliefs or anticipated likelihood that certain behaviors will convey esteemed outcomes determine his choices of income and the dedication he will apply to these ways. In result, this illustration of expectancy portrays a worker pondering on himself the query created by a researcher, "How much money is present for me in the direction of achieving a personal objective while using up so much effort in the accomplishment of an allocated organizational purpose?" This article of the Two-Factor Theory has various limitations. First, this theory fails to notice some situational inconsistent. Herzberg presupposed a connection between productivity and satisfaction. However, the study carried out by Herzberg had its stress on satisfaction and on the same time disregarded productivity. The reliability of this theory is doubtful. Investigation has to be carried out by those carrying out the rating function. The raters might mess up the conclusion by examining same reactions in diverse ways. No complete evaluation of approval was employed. A member of staff may discover that his job is suitable in spite of the fact that he might not fully agree to some parts of his work. The two-factor assumption is not free from prejudice as it is founded on the common response of workers when they are asked the basis of satisfaction as well as dissatisfaction at their places of work. They tend to blame discontent on the outside aspects for instance structure of the salary, company guiding principles as well as peer influences. In addition, the workers will praise themselves for the contentment aspect at their place of work. This theory pays no attention to manual workers. Regardless of these limits, the theory is accepted generally. Other Sources Lawler (1970) felt that satisfaction is a sign of a worker’s inspiration to work, contentment has an influence on the enthusiasm to execute an employment efficiently simply not directly, and that achievement can have an influence on contentment directly in certain circumstances. In analyzing performance and satisfaction in this outline of suggestion, their connection is vital and ought to be observed not to verify if contentment leads to achievement, but since it informs something on how rewards, both extrinsic and intrinsic, are being offered in an association. On the other hand, Lodahl (1964) thinks that the connection involving job motivation and satisfaction was not profound and carried out a research intended to gauge job outlooks on a wide level by establishing the basic arrangement and then transmit that arrangement to capacity of the work carried out. He concluded that his research was made up a duplication of Herzberg’s results via different techniques and a diverse sample, signifying that there might be a general view in Herzberg’s results across an extensive variety of people and technologies. My Point of View The Herzberg Two-Factor theory entails that the administrators in organizations have to put extra pressure on assuring the sufficiency of the hygiene aspects to shun dissatisfaction of employees in their places of work. This is crucial as it ensures maximum output from individual employee, thus higher profitability levels in both the short and long run. In addition, the administrators have to ascertain that the employment is motivating and satisfying so that the human resources are inspired to work and achieve better and harder. This assumption gives emphasis on job-enrichment to encourage the workers. The work should make use of the employee’s competencies and skills to the maximum. Giving attention on the factors of motivation can develop the quality of work for employees at all levels of organization, thus higher levels of profits and strong balance sheets. Reference List Bassett-Jones, N & Lloyd, G. C., 2005. Does Herzberg's motivation theory have staying power? Emerald Publisher, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 929 – 943 Herzberg, F. 1966. Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: World Publishing Herzberg, F., Lausner, B., Snyderman, B. B., 1993. The Motivation to Work. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers Jones, B., Lloyd, N., Geoffrey, C. 2005, Does Herzberg’s motivation theory have staying power? The Journal of Management Development, p.929 Lawler, E. 1970, Job attitudes and employee motivation: Theory, research, and practice. Journal of Personnel Psychology, vol. 23, no. 2, pp 223-237. Lodahl, T. 1964 Patterns of job attitudes in two assembly technologies. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 482-519. Read More