Content uploaded by Emrah Özsoy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emrah Özsoy on Mar 31, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Marketing and Management of Innovations ISSN 2227-6718 (on-line)
Issue 1, 2019 ISSN 2218-4511 (print)
Cite as: Ozsoy, E. (2019). An Empirical Test of Herzberg's Two-Factor Motivation Theory.
Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 11-20.
http://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2019.1-01
11
UDC 316.4:331.1 JEL Classification: M10, M12
http://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2019.1-01
Emrah Ozsoy,
Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Sakarya University, Turkey
AN EMPIRICAL TEST OF HERZBERG'S TWO-FACTOR MOTIVATION THEORY
Abstract. Employee motivation is one of the most popular topics in management and organizational psychology
studies. In this direction, several motivational theories have been developed over the past 70 years. However, the
universal validity of these motivational theories is controversial. One of these motivational theories is Herzberg's Two
Factor motivation theory. The theory suggests two mains distinctions in employee motivation (i.e., motivation factors
and hygiene factors). Motivation factors are achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, advancement, and
growth. Hygiene factors are company policy and administration, supervision, relationship with supervisor, working
conditions, salary, and relationship with peers, personal relationship, relationship with subordinates, status, and
security. According to Herzberg's Two Factor motivation theory, the presence of hygiene factors does not increase
motivation, but a lack of hygiene factors leads to dissatisfaction. The absence of motivation factors leads to a decrease
in motivation, and the presence of motivation factors increase motivation. In this study, it is aimed to test Herzberg's
Two Factor motivation theory empirically. In this context, quantitative research has been designed to test the theory
and a total of 162 white-collar municipal employees participated in the study from Turkey. The theory was tested by
two separate approaches. The first was the use of a Likert scale in parallel with the studies conducted to test the two-
factor motivation theory of Herzberg. The other was the percentage distribution approach, in which the role of each
factor in the theory is determined as a percentage to test how important they are in employee motivation. According
to the results, Herzberg's two-factor theory was supported to some extent, and factors such as salary, company policy
and administration, and work conditions, which are considered as hygiene factors according to Herzberg's two-factor
theory, were found to be important motivating factors. Whereas factors such as responsibility, recognition, and growth
were found to have less motivator role than as they are supposed in Herzberg's two-factor motivation theory. In
addition, it was found that as the average monthly income of employees increased, the motivator role of "salary" factor
decreased. The findings of the study were discussed, and some future research directions were suggested.
Keywords: Herzberg two factor theory, motivation, municipal employees, theory testing.
Introduction. Motivation plays a critical role for individuals to be successful and happy in both daily
and working life. It is essential to keep the motivation level of the employees high to contribute positively
to the well-being of employees and the sustainability of organizations (Achim et al., 2013; Dobre, 2013).
There are several motivation theories developed to explain the motivation process and set of needs in the
ground of motivation. The majority of these motivational theories have been developed in Western cultures
(Iguisi, 2009). However, motivation is closely related to individual, cultural, and socio-economic factors
(Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Steers & Sanchez-Runde, 2002). For this reason, the motivation theories
proposed in developed countries should be tested in developing and underdeveloped countries. As in
many theories in social sciences, it is not possible to claim the universality of motivational theories either.
Particularly in developing countries, the background of the motivations of the employees might be different
than the developed countries (Ozsoy, 2015). Although motivation theories explain motivation in both daily
and working life to a certain extent, these theories are criticized in certain respects (Gokce et al., 2010;
Jensen, 1993; Kjeldsen, 2012). Recently an increasing number of studies started to test Herzberg's two-
factor motivation theory (Lundber et al., 2009; Ruthankoon, & Ogunlana, 2003). In explaining employee
motivation, Herzberg proposed two main factors a) motivation factors b) hygiene factors. According to this
theory, motivation factors are all directly related to work-related factors and job satisfaction. On the other
hand, hygiene factors include predominantly external factors that are not related to work itself, but they
affect employees' dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959; Herzberg, 1966). Although Herzberg's theory is
E. Ozsoy. An Empirical Test of Herzberg's Two-Factor Motivation Theory
12 Marketing and Management of Innovations, 2019, Issue 1
http://mmi.fem.sumdu.edu.ua/en
mainly supported by several types of research, especially, it is emphasized that the hygiene factors are
considered that they may actually stand for as motivation factors in some cases. Previous research has
not come to a clear conclusion about the validity of the theory in different occupations, cultures and
countries. As a consequence of these reasons, in the current study, it was aimed to test Herzberg's Two
Factor Theory in a Turkish sample (public employees in municipal organizations). In the scope of this
research, first, motivation and the motivational theories are briefly discussed. Then, the criticism of
Herzberg's Two Factor theory is presented. Finally, the findings of the study were shared and discussed.
Motivation can be defined as the driving forces behind the actions of an individual to achieve a
particular goal (Rabideau, 2005). Motivation is based on motives. Motives express internal situations that
drive organisms in a certain direction. There are various types of motive classifications in the literature
(e.g., primary and secondary motives). Primary motives are physiological based and unlearned (e.g.,
eating, drinking, sleeping, sexuality, etc.). Secondary motives are predominantly of psychological origin
and they are learned (e.g., achievement, recognition, dignity, cohesion, obtaining status, appreciation,
etc.) (Baysal & Tekarslan, 2004). Therefore, motives constitute the basis for behaviour in many respects
(Luthans, 2010). In order to understand the factors behind the motivation of the employees, the motives
should be analyzed in detail. There are several psychological and physiological needs that affect employee
motivation. The necessity of meeting the needs of physiological origin (both for the person and his/her
family) should be considered as an important motivating factor especially for the individuals with a low
income. However, in general, it can be argued that the motivator role of psychological needs is stronger
in employee motivation (Baysal & Tekarslan, 2004). There are various motivation theories in the literature.
Among these, theories such as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1954), Herzberg's Two Factor
Theory (Herzberg, Mauster, & Snyderman, 1959; Herzberg, 1966; Herzberg, 1971; Herzberg, 2003;
Herzberg et al., 2005), Mcclelland's Theory of Needs (McCelland, 1961; 1985; 1976). Alderfer's ERG
Theory (Alderfer, 1967; 1969) are theories that explain the set of needs that lie behind the motivation. In
addition, theories such as the Vroom's Expectancy Theory of Motivation (Vroom, 1964), Porter and Lawler
Expectancy Theory (Porter & Lawler, 1968). Adams' Equity Theory (Adams, 1963), and Locke's Goal
Setting Theory (Locke & Latham, 1990; 2006) are rather focusing on the motivation process.
Herzberg's two-factor motivation theory was developed on research conducted on 200 accountants
and engineers. The theory suggests two mains distinctions in employee motivation. These are motivation
factors and hygiene factors. Motivation factors are predominantly directly related to the job itself and these
are the factors that increase the satisfaction level of the employees. In this respect, motivation factors
were determined as achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, advancement, and growth.
Hygiene factors are not directly related to work, but they may affect employees' attitude towards work.
These factors are determined as company policy and administration, supervision, relationship with
supervisor, working conditions, salary, and relationship with peers, personal relationship, relationship with
subordinates, status, and security. According to this theory, the presence of hygiene factors does not
increase job satisfaction, but the lack of hygiene factors leads to dissatisfaction. The absence of motivation
factors leads to a decrease in job satisfaction, and the presence of motivation factors increase the job
satisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959; Herzberg, 1966; 1971; 2003). In this case, Herzberg’s motivator factors
are mainly associated with higher-order needs, while hygiene factors are more like lower-order needs in
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Hur, 2018).
Literature review. For the advancement of Herzberg's theory, there is a need for more research that
tests the theory empirically (Ruthankoon & Ogunlana, 2003). In particular, the theory must be tested on
different cultures, occupational groups, different personalities, different countries (in terms of developed,
developing, and undeveloped countries) (Gokce et al., 2010). Motivation is a very complex concept and
can be affected by many different factors and therefore different factors need to be examined in depth. In
terms of individual differences, it is important to note that the attitudes of the individuals who continue to
E. Ozsoy. An Empirical Test of Herzberg's Two-Factor Motivation Theory
Marketing and Management of Innovations, 2019, Issue 1 13
http://mmi.fem.sumdu.edu.ua/en
work in the same or similar work conditions can vary significantly (Robbins et al., 2013). This is not
surprising because individuals develop many of their attitudes towards life before they enter the working
life and it becomes difficult for individuals to change some of their attitudes after a certain age (Ozsoy,
2013). Therefore, it is very hard to generalize the theories of motivation. As with many theories in the
social sciences, a number of studies have been conducted to test Herzberg's theory and the theory has
been criticized in certain respects. It is argued that Herzberg's two-factor theory might produce different
outcomes depending on various contextual situations (e.g., personality, occupation, income, and country
difference) (Gokce et al., 2010; Lundberg et al., 2009; Ruthankoon, & Ogunlana, 2003).
Differences in personality traits: although there is no clear consensus on the definition of personality,
it can be defined as a “quite permanent feelings, thought, and behaviour tendencies that distinguish the
individual from others" (Buchanan & Huczynski, 1997). However, personality traits mostly develop at the
stage before the individual gets involved in the working life. Also, some of the personality traits are already
inherited (Burger, 2006; Luthans, 2010; Robbins et al., 2013). Especially temperament characteristics are
closely related to heredity (Rowe, 1997). In the period from birth to adolescence, it is claimed that a large
part of the personality traits is shaped. In the childhood period, it is not really possible to make choices on
many subjects (such as the choice of parents and income level, etc.). However, as Freud states, these
factors can have a significant impact on what kind of a person a child will be (as personality) in the future.
In addition, personal experiences are also closely related to individual attitudes and behaviours (Burger,
2006). Thus, it makes it difficult to explain the differences in attitudes of the individuals who enter the
working life. Personality traits affect not only the issues such as job satisfaction and motivation, (Furnham
et al., 1999; Judge & Ilies, 2002; Judge et al., 2002) but also the attitudes towards many other factors
(Burger, 2006). For example, a person who has a quick temper, raised under difficult conditions, and
experienced deep traumas in his/her life can't really have the same work-related attitudes with a person
who has a cheerful temperament, extroverted and raised under good conditions (Ozsoy & Yıldız, 2013).
This situation can significantly affect the background of these two people’s motivation, even if they work
under the same conditions (work environment, work itself, salary). This example emphasizes how
personality traits are critical in understanding employees’ work-related attitudes and motivation.
Occupational differences: Occupations might differentiate the expectations of employees from the
work and organization (Jaiswal et al., 2014; Kjeldsen, 2012). Thus, depending on the occupations,
employees’ motivation might be different (Myers, 1964). Especially in some jobs, factors such as
autonomy, freedom, and flexibility might motivate employees more than factors such as wage, statues,
and organizational policy. In addition, it may not be difficult for qualified employees to find jobs in different
cities and countries. On the other hand, it is more likely to be unemployed in jobs where quality and formal
education are not needed (Ozsoy, 2019).
Country differences: Country differences can affect not only the cultural context but also the motivation
of employees according to the economic development level of countries. It can be claimed that it is more
difficult to find jobs in countries with low levels of economic development. Therefore, the expectations of
people can also be different as people in underdeveloped and developing countries (Gokce et al., 2010).
Therefore, according to Maslow's theory (Maslow, 1954), it could be expected that people with low-income
levels would be motivated more with financial factors.
In the previous research, which was conducted to test Herzberg' motivation theory, the findings were
not fully coherent with each other. Zhang et al. (2011) found that motivation and hygiene factors have
partly consisted of Herzberg's theory in their study on city managers. In their research on seasonal workers
in hospitality and tourism (Lundberg et al., 2009), Herzberg’s theory was supported. However, the
motivation and hygiene factors involved in Herzberg’s theory in many other studies (Hur, 2018; Jensen,
1993; Ruthankoon & Ogunlana, 2003; Sithiphand, 1983; Williams, 1992) were not totally found to be
consistent with the assumptions of Herzberg’s theory. This reveals that the theory should be still tested in
E. Ozsoy. An Empirical Test of Herzberg's Two-Factor Motivation Theory
14 Marketing and Management of Innovations, 2019, Issue 1
http://mmi.fem.sumdu.edu.ua/en
different cultures and samples (personality, income, sector, country, profession differences). Based on the
reasons such as the contradiction of the findings obtained in the research conducted for the testing of the
two factor theory and the fact that motivation is affected by many factors (as outlined above), in the current
research, it is aimed to test Herzberg's Two Factor Theory on a sample of Turkish public workers.
Methodology and research methods. The data were collected with the participation of the
employees of the municipalities operating in Sakarya (Turkey). A questionnaire form which was designed
to test the Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory was distributed to each participant (paper-pencil). After
eliminating incomplete and sloppy questionnaire forms, 162 valid questionnaires were obtained.
The motivation factors of Herzberg's two factor motivation theory (i.e., achievement, recognition, work,
responsibility, advancement, and growth) and hygiene factors (hygiene factors; i.e., company policy and
administration, supervision, relationship with supervisor working conditions, salary, relationship with peers,
personal relationship, relationship with subordinates, status, and security) were measured with the method
inspired by Lundberg et al. (2009). To do that, all the factors (totally 16; 6 for motivation factors and 10 for
hygiene factors) were measured with a 5-point Likert scale format (ranging from 1-not at all important to
5-very important). A sample item for motivation factor (e.g., recognition; "How important is recognition for
you to do a good job?") and for hygiene factors (e.g., relationship with subordinates; "How important is the
quality of relationship with subordinates for you to do a good job?"). For the rest of the factors, the same
approach was adopted.
In addition, the participants were asked to distribute 100 points to 16 factors consisted of Herzberg's
Theory and to indicate what per cent each factor was effective in their motivation. It was stated that the
points assigned to these 16 factors had to be exactly 100 in total. This approach strengthens the current
research by providing additional findings on testing Herzberg's two-factor theory. This way, it was possible
to reveal a percentage distribution (Figure 1) of which factor plays a stronger role in employee motivation.
77.8% of the participants were male, 74.1% were married. The distribution of participants' educational
status was as follows; 4.9% primary school graduates, 18.5 % high school graduates, 18.5% associate
degree and the majority of (51.9 %) the participants held a bachelor’s degree while 6.2% had a
postgraduate degree. Age (mean = 26.41; sd = 7.43), average monthly income (mean = 3773.84 Turkish
Liras; sd = 838.53), (with the current exchange rate (24.01.2019), the average monthly income equals to
714 dollar).
Results. Firstly, the reliability of the scale (in terms of Cronbach's Alpha internal consistency) was
calculated. The reliability value of 16 items Likert-scale was α =0.79. This score shows that the
measurement tool was reliable. Mean values for motivation and hygiene factors are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics
Motivation Factors
Mean
SD
Hygiene Factors
Mean
SD
Achievement
4.62
0.78
Company policy and administration
4.46
0.82
Recognition
3.94
1.03
Supervision
4.21
0.80
Work itself
4.62
0.51
Relationship with supervisor
4.22
0.95
Work conditions
4.47
0.73
Responsibility
3.90
1.30
Salary
4.75
0.60
Relationship with peers
4.20
0.92
Advancement
4.33
0.94
Personal life
4.25
0.98
Relationship with subordinates
3.94
1.08
Growth
4.21
1.10
Status
4.01
0.97
Security
3.89
0.99
Sources: developed by the author.
E. Ozsoy. An Empirical Test of Herzberg's Two-Factor Motivation Theory
Marketing and Management of Innovations, 2019, Issue 1 15
http://mmi.fem.sumdu.edu.ua/en
When it is evaluated in general, the mean values of each 16 factors are quite high. The highest score
was found to be the salary factor (4.75 out of 5). Following the salary, the average scores ranged from
highest to lowest are as follows; achievement, work itself, working conditions, company policy and
administration, advancement, personal life, relationship with supervisor, supervision, growth, relationship
with peers, status, relationship with subordinates, recognition, responsibility, and finally security. In fact,
one of the critical points that need to be drawn attention here is that in comparison to the other factors,
salary factor had the highest points. Therefore, for the sample included in the current research, it is difficult
to claim that salary is a hygiene factor as suggested in Herzberg's theory. In addition, in Herzberg's theory,
responsibility is a motivation factor, but in the current research, it received almost the lowest mean value.
Further examination of Herzberg's theory was conducted in detail. In this context, participants were
asked to evaluate a total of 16 different factors (i.e., motivation and hygiene factors) over 100 points. The
findings are listed from highest percentage to the lowest; Salary 17.46 %, work itself 9.12 %, achievement
7.46 %, company policy and administration 7.23%, work conditions 7.08 %, relationship with supervisor
6.32 %, supervision, 5.78 %, relationship with peers, 5.46%, advancement 5.40 %, personal life 5.17 %,
growth 5.10 %, status, 4.06 %, recognition 3.95 %, relationship with subordinates 3.74 %, responsibility
3.45 %, and security 3.24 % (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Percentage Distribution on Herzberg’s Factors
Sources: developed by the author.
The findings are consistent with the descriptive statistics presented in Table 1. As seen in Figure 1,
similar to Likert type measurement, salary has the highest score in percentage distribution. In addition, the
results obtained with the percentage distribution were incompatible with the motivation and hygiene factors
that Herzberg proposes. According to Herzberg's motivation theory, factors such as salary, work
conditions, relationship policy and administration, relationship with supervisor are all considered as
hygiene factors, but in the current study they had a higher score than any other motivation factors
suggested in Herzberg's motivation theory (e.g., responsibility, recognition, advancement, and growth).
Gender differences: In order to provide additional support for testing Herzberg's theory, independent
samples T-test and Hedges' g test were used to test whether the average values of the factors in
Herzberg's motivational theories differ according to gender. According to T-test findings, only the levels of
advancement, growth, and salary dimensions were higher in females. In general, it is seen that the results
do not show significant differences depending on gender. This finding shows that Herzberg's theory is
E. Ozsoy. An Empirical Test of Herzberg's Two-Factor Motivation Theory
16 Marketing and Management of Innovations, 2019, Issue 1
http://mmi.fem.sumdu.edu.ua/en
largely consistent with the gender factor. Additionally, Hedges' g test was also performed in order to obtain
additional findings in gender differences. Statistically, Independent Samples T-test does not consider
sample size differences in comparing mean values of two different groups, however, at Hedges' g test
sample size differences are taken into account. Since the sample size differences are quite high (n = 126
for men and n= 36 for women) in the current study, it is considered that conducting Hedges’ g test might
provide detailed findings. As it is seen in Table 2, Hedges’ g scores were higher than 0.30 for the factors
such as achievement, recognition, work itself, advancement, growth, company policy and administration,
salary, and relationship with subordinates. These findings show that females mainly highlight motivation
factors more than males, however, the effect size differences are not high enough to consider females'
scores markedly higher than males' in Herzberg's factor. Therefore, it could still be concluded that the
preference of males and females were found to be similar.
Table 2. Gender Differences: Independent Samples T-Test and Hedges’ g Test
Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; (n = 126 for Male and n= 36 for Female).
Sources: calculated by the author.
Role of income in motivation: In order to test Herzberg's two-factor theory in more detail, the
relationship between the average monthly income of the participants and both motivation and hygiene
factors were examined by correlation analysis. There are two main findings in this context that need to be
Variables
Gender
Mean
SD
t
g
Motivation Factors
Achievement
Male
4.56
0.86
-1.97
.35
Female
4.83
0.38
Recognition
Male
3.86
1.08
-1.56
.35
Female
4.22
0.81
Work itself
Male
4.57
0.53
-1.71
.41
Female
4.78
0.43
Responsibility
Male
3.84
1.33
-0.83
.21
Female
4.11
1.18
Advancement
Male
4.25
1.02
-2.05**
.39
Female
4.61
0.50
Growth
Male
4.08
1.20
-3.11**
.54
Female
4.67
0.49
Hygiene Factors
Company policy and administration
Male
4.38
0.87
-1.96
.41
Female
4.72
0.58
Supervision,
Male
4.22
0.79
0.25
.06
Female
4.17
0.86
Relationship with supervisor
Male
4.24
0.96
0.52
.13
Female
4.11
0.90
Work conditions
Male
4.43
0.71
-0.90
.24
Female
4.61
0.78
Salary
Male
4.70
0.66
-2.45**
.40
Female
4.94
0.24
Relationship with peers
Male
4.19
0.90
-0.33
.10
Female
4.28
1.02
Personal life
Male
4.24
1.01
-0.16
.09
Female
4.28
0.90
Relationship with subordinates
Male
3.81
1.15
-2.85**
.55
Female
4.39
0.61
Status
Male
3.98
0.98
-0.49
.14
Female
4.12
0.94
Security
Male
3.83
0.99
-1.10
.28
Female
4.11
0.96
E. Ozsoy. An Empirical Test of Herzberg's Two-Factor Motivation Theory
Marketing and Management of Innovations, 2019, Issue 1 17
http://mmi.fem.sumdu.edu.ua/en
discussed. The first one is that there is a negative relationship between average monthly income and
salary factor (p <0.001). According to this finding, as the average monthly income level increases, the
motivator role of salary decreases. The other one is that although not statistically significant, monthly
income is negatively associated with all hygiene factors. This finding shows the possibility of decreasing
the motivator role of hygiene factors as income increases (Table 3).
Table 3. The correlates of income with motivation and hygiene factors
Variables
Average Monthly Income
Motivation Factors
Achievement
.02
Recognition
-.06
Work itself
.21
Responsibility
.17
Advancement
.21
Growth
.11
Hygiene Factors
Company policy and administration
-.12
Supervision,
-.10
Relationship with supervisor
-.01
Work conditions
-.22
Salary
-.48***
Relationship with peers
-.13
Personal life
-.18
Relationship with subordinates
-.10
Status
-.11
Security
-.12
Sources: developed by the author.
Discussion and conclusion. According to the findings of the study, the basic assumptions related to
Herzberg's Two Factor theory was partially supported in the sample of Turkish public sector employees
(white-collar employees working in municipalities). Some of the factors considered as hygiene factors in
Herzberg's theory were found to be important motivating factors. According to Herzberg's theory factors
such as salary, working conditions, company policy and administration, and relationship with supervisor
were considered as hygiene factors. However, in the current study, they all were found to be significant
motivators. Nevertheless, according to Herzberg's theory, factors such as recognition and responsibility
are considered as motivators but their percentages in representing employee' motivation were found to be
quite low. Therefore, these findings did not support Herzberg's theory. On the other hand, the findings
obtained from some of the factors such as achievement, work itself, security, relationships with
subordinates, and advancement partially supported Herzberg' theory.
First of all, it should be questioned why the salary factor, which is considered to be a hygiene factor
according to Herzberg's theory, was found to be the strongest motivating factor in the current study. It is
necessary to examine this finding from a sociological, economic and individual point of view. Employee
motivation does not work the same way for each society, economic development level, and individual
differences, because people are motivated by the meeting of predominantly unmet needs (Maslow, 1954).
Most people, especially in underdeveloped and developing countries, are attached to the physiological
and security needs of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. According to research, 40.3 % of the employees
(around 12 million employees) work for minimum wage in Turkey (Boyacıoglu, 2017). For this reason, it is
not surprising that the salary factor received the highest score in motivating employees rather than the
needs that are at the higher levels of the hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1954) such as status, recognition,
and responsibility. Although the average monthly income of employees participated in the study could be
E. Ozsoy. An Empirical Test of Herzberg's Two-Factor Motivation Theory
18 Marketing and Management of Innovations, 2019, Issue 1
http://mmi.fem.sumdu.edu.ua/en
considered as moderate considering the living standards in Turkey, the salary was still found to have the
highest score in motivating employees. As individuals meet the low levels of needs in the hierarchy of
needs over time, the motivation (motivator role?) of the income will decrease and instead, factors such as
recognition, responsibility, growth and advancement will increase.
There are some limitations that need to be addressed in the current research. The first one is the
limited number of sample size. An important issue in theory testing is the inclusion of a heterogeneous
sample (preferably a rather large sample size) into the research. However, Herzberg’s theory was tested
by a homogenous sample (participants were all public employees, the standard deviation of income
distributions were low and all of them were white-collar employees and working under similar conditions).
If data could have been collected through a larger and heterogeneous sample, it would be possible to
make comparisons among employee categories. In the current study, there are also limitations related to
measurement. Indeed, Herzberg's initial study and the sample group are also still being criticized. Although
the theory was tried to be tested with two different approaches on the same sample (i.e., Likert-type
measurement and percentage distribution), an additional in-depth interview method would lead to more
comprehensible findings to understand dynamics of motivation. Finally, although the motivation is closely
related to individual differences (especially personality traits), differences in personality traits of the
participants were not measured in the current study.
It is expected that more empirical research on the limitations of this study will contribute to the field in
future research. First of all, there is a need for a valid measurement tool which can test Herzberg's theory
in different samples and cultures. Every single study applies different approaches while testing Herzberg’s
theory and this makes it harder to compare the empirical findings of all these researches. Therefore, a
scale needs to be developed on this subject matter and it may increase the numbers and quality of the
research to be carried out. The theory should then be tested in different sample groups (preferably by
comparing the low, medium and high-income profession groups), especially within the same country.
Furthermore, the comparison of Herzberg's motivation and hygiene factors in cross-culturally (preferably
including samples from the developed, developing, and underdeveloped countries) plays a critical role in
the improvement of the theory. One of the other critical points that needs be taken into consideration in
future research is to examine the differences in personality traits of the participants involved in the
research, as motivation and job satisfaction are closely related to personality traits (Judge et al., 2002).
Therefore, not only the variables such as a workgroup, employee category, and sector but also the
personality traits should also be measured in testing the theory. For example individuals with Type A
personality traits who are characterized by ambition, competitiveness and perfectionism (Luthans, 2010),
may be more likely to be motivated to a greater extent in terms of recognition, strengthening, and taking
responsibility. To sum up, this study tested Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory of Motivation in a sample of
municipal employees in Turkey and the theory was partially supported, however it was specifically not
supported in terms of salary factor. It is expected that the empirical studies will be carried out within the
scope of future research suggestions proposed in the context of the current research and that will
contribute to the development of Herzberg's theory.
References
Achim, I., Dragolea, L., & Balan, G. (2013). The Importance of Employee Motivation to Increase Organizational Performance,
Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 15(2), 685-691.
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 67, 422-436.
Alderfer, C P. (1969). An Empirical Test of a New Theory of Human Needs, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance,
4, 142–75.
Alderfer, C. P. (1967). Convergent and Discriminant Validation of Satisfaction and Desire Measures by Interviews and
Questionnaires, Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(6), 509–20.
Baysal, A. C., & Tekarslan, E (2004). Davranış Bilimleri. 4. Edition. Avcıol Basım Yayın. İstanbul.
E. Ozsoy. An Empirical Test of Herzberg's Two-Factor Motivation Theory
Marketing and Management of Innovations, 2019, Issue 1 19
http://mmi.fem.sumdu.edu.ua/en
Boyacıoglu, H. (2017). http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/12-milyon-calisanin-maasi-3-bin-tlnin-altinda-yuzde-40-asgari-
ucretli-40680624 (access date 14.01.2019).
Buchanan, D., & Huczynski, A. (1997). Organizational behaviour. An introductory text. 3. Edition. Prentice Hall International.
Burger, J. M. (2006). Kişilik (Personality). (Translated by Erguvan Sarıoglu, İ. D.). Kaknüs Yayınları, İstanbul.
Dobre, O. I. (2013). Employee motivation and organizational performance. Review of Applied Socio-Economic Research, 5(1),
1-8.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social–cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95,
256–273.
Furnham, A., Forde, L., & Ferrari, K. (1999). Personality and work motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(6),
1035–1043.
Gokce, G., Şahin, A., & Bulduklu, Y. (2010). Herzberg’ in cift faktOr kurami ve alt gelir gruplarinda bir uygulama: Meram tip
fakültesi Ornegi. Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 14(20), 234-246.
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World Publishing Company.
Herzberg, F. (1971). Work and the nature of man. New York: World Publishing.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Bloch Snyderman, B. (2005). The motivation to work. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Herzberg, F., Mauster, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York, Wiley.
Herzberg, H. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 81(1), 87–106
Hur, Y. (2018). Testing Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory of motivation in the public sector: Is it applicable to public managers?
Public Organization Review, 18, 329–343.
Iguisi, O. (2009). Motivation-related values across cultures. African Journal of Business Management. 3(4), 141-150.
Jaiswal, P., Singhal, K. A., Gadpayle, A. K., Sachdeva, S., Padaria, R. (2014). Level of motivation amongst health personnel
working in a tertiary care government hospital of New Delhi, India. Indian Journal Community Medicine, 39(4), 235-40.
Jensen, B. A. (1993). Job satisfaction of public school superintendents in the United States, dissertation, University of South
Dakota, Vermillion, SD.
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 797–807.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541.
Kjeldsen, A. M. (2012). Sector and occupational differences in public service motivation: A qualitative study. International
Journal of Public Administration, 35, 58–69.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15,
265-268.
Lundberg, C., Gudmundson, A., & Andersson, T. D. (2009). Herzberg’s two-factor theory of work motivation tested empirically
on seasonal workers in hospitality and tourism. Tourism Management, 30, 890-899
Luthans, F. (2010). Organizationa Behaviour. An Evidence Based Approach, Mcgrow Hill. N.Y.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
McCelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York., NY.
McClelland, D. C. (1976). The achieving society. New York, NY: Irvington Publishers.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human Motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman & Co.
Myers, M. S. (1964). Who are your motivated workers? Harvard Business Review, 42, 73-88.
Ozsoy, E. (2013). A research on determining the relationship between Type A and Type B personality and job satisfaction.
Unpublished Master Thesis, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey.
Ozsoy, E. (2019; in press). Kariyer Başarısı (Career Succes). (Ed. Kaygın, E.) In. Kariyer. Gazi Kitabevi, Ankara, Turkey.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press and Richard D. Irwin.
Rabideau, S. T (2005). Effects of achievement motivation on behavior. Available: http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/
rabideau.htm
Robbins, S. P., Decenzo, D. A., & Coulter, M. (2013). YOnetimin esasları (Ceviri editOrü: Adem Ogüt), Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
Rowe, D. C. (1997). Genetics, temperament, and personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of
personality psychology (pp. 367-386). San Diego, CA. Academic Press
Ruthankoon, R., & Ogunlana, S. (2003). Testing Herzberg's Two-factor Theory in the Thai construction industry. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 10, 333–342.
Sithiphand, C. (1983). Testing employee motivation based on Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory in selected Thai
commercial banks, ED.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University, OK.
Steers, R. M., & Sanchez-Runde, C. J. (2002). Culture, motivation, and work behaviour. In The Blackwell Handbook of Principles
of Cross-cultural Management, ed. MJ Gannon, KL Newman, pp. 190–216. Bodmin, UK: MPG Books
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Williams, O. M. (1992). Job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction experiences by teachers in the Detroit public school system.
dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.
E. Ozsoy. An Empirical Test of Herzberg's Two-Factor Motivation Theory
20 Marketing and Management of Innovations, 2019, Issue 1
http://mmi.fem.sumdu.edu.ua/en
Е. Озсой, Ph.D., Університет Сакар’я (Туреччина).
Емпіричний аналіз двофакторної мотиваційної теорії Герцберга
Мотивація співробітників є одним із найбільш актуальних питань теорії менеджменту та
організаційної психології. Так, за останні сімдесят років у цьому напрямі було розроблено декілька
мотиваційних теорій. При цьому наразі відсутня універсальна та загальноприйнята теорія
мотивації. У рамках даного дослідження автор розглядає двофакторну теорію мотивації Герцберга,
що передбачає розподіл мотиваційних факторів на дві групи: мотиваційні та гігієнічні фактори.
Згідно даної теорії, до мотиваційних факторів відносяться наступні чинники: досягнення; визнання
успіху; інтерес до роботи; відповідальність; кар’єрне зростання та розвиток. У свою чергу, до
гігієнічних факторів відносяться: політика компанії і менеджменту; міжособистісні відносини з
керівництвом, колегами та підлеглими; умови праці; заробітна плата; вплив роботи на особисте
життя; статус та безпека. Відповідно до концепції двофакторної теорії мотивації Герцберга,
наявність гігієнічних факторів не сприяє підвищенню рівня мотивації, однак їх відсутність породжує
незадоволення серед працівників. З іншої сторони, відсутність мотиваційних факторів сприяє
зниженню рівня мотивації, тоді як їх наявність підвищує її рівень. Таким чином, метою статті є
емпіричний аналіз двофакторної теорії мотивації Герцберга. У рамках даного дослідження автором
перевірено адекватність двофакторної теорії мотивації Герцберга, використовуючи методи
кількісного аналізу. Детерміновану вибірку даних сформовано на основі результатів опитування 162
респондентів (муніципальні службовці в Туреччині). Методологію даного дослідження засновано на
двох методичних підходах: метод сумарних оцінок – шкала Лайкерта; метод відсоткового розподілу.
З метою перевірки ступеню впливу кожного фактору теорії на рівень мотивації співробітників,
застосовано метод відсоткового розподілу, в якому роль кожного із факторів теорії мотивації
Герцберга визначається у відсотковому відношенні. Результати дослідження свідчать, що
двофакторна теорія мотивації Герцберга підтверджується частково. Так, такі гігієнічні фактори
мотиваційної теорії Герцберга, як заробітна плата, політика компанії та менеджменту, умови праці
мають статистично значимий вплив на рівень мотивації співробітників. При цьому визначено, що
такі фактори мотивації, як відповідальність, визнання успіху та кар’єрне зростання у меншій мірі
мотивують працівників, ніж це передбачено теорією мотивації Герцберга. Окрім цього, у ході
дослідження автором встановлено, що з підвищенням середньомісячної заробітної плати, її роль, як
мотиваційного фактору, знижується.
Ключові слова: двофакторна теорія мотивації Герцберга, мотивація, муніципальні службовці, теорія.
Manuscript received: 09.10.2018.
© The author(s) 2019. This article is published with open access at Sumy State University.
