Herzberg's motivational-hygienic theory. Hygiene factors and motivation

Hygiene factors are related to the environment in which work is carried out, and motivation is related to the very nature and essence of the work. According to Herzberg, in the absence or insufficient degree of presence of hygienic factors, a person experiences job dissatisfaction.

Comparing the distinctive features between the hierarchy of needs Abraham Maslow and the two-factor hygiene theory of motivation, it should be noted that the part that corresponds to Herzberg’s hygiene factors corresponds to the lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, that is, physiological, safety and social needs. But at the same time, there is a lack of motivational content when the boss stimulates the worker, increases respect for him, his own “I” and self-realization, which can be attributed to the shortcoming of Frederick Herzberg’s motivation model.

Another model of motivation that emphasized higher-level needs was David McClelland's theory. He believed that people have three needs:

Involvement.

The need for power is expressed as a desire to influence other people. People with a need for power most often show themselves as outspoken and energetic people who are not afraid of confrontation and strive to defend their original positions. They are often good speakers and require increased attention from others. Management very often attracts people with a need for power, since it provides many opportunities to express and realize it.

In turn, the need for success is satisfied not by proclaiming the success of this person, which only confirms his status, but by the process of bringing the work to a successful completion.

People with a high need for success take moderate risks, like situations in which they can take personal responsibility for finding solutions to a problem, and want specific rewards for the results they achieve. As McClelland notes: “It doesn’t matter how strongly a person has a need for success. He may never succeed if he does not have the opportunity to do so, if his organization does not give him a sufficient degree of initiative and does not reward him for what he does."

It is worth noting that motivation based on the need for involvement according to McClelland is similar to motivation according to Maslow. People who strive for belonging are interested in the company of friends, building relationships with their colleagues, and helping others. Workers with a high need for affiliation should be attracted to work that provides them with ample opportunities for social interaction.

Process theories of motivation are associated with determining not only a person’s needs, but also with expectations of the consequences of the chosen type of behavior and the way to achieve the result of one’s activities.

The main idea of ​​Victor Vroom's theory of expectations is the answer to the question: why a person makes a choice in one way or another. Employees compare organizational goals and individual tasks with their needs and determine their personal attractiveness, as well as evaluate the means and likelihood of achieving these goals. Therefore, when organizing the labor process, the manager must achieve an understanding by the employee of the correspondence of costs, rewards and results of his work.

V. Vroom's expectancy theory examines the role of motivation in the overall context of the work environment. The theory suggests that people are motivated to work when they expect that they will be able to get what they believe is worth the reward from work. Expectancy theory introduces three concepts underlying the motivational mechanisms of human behavior.

Expectations that an employee's efforts will lead to a goal or desired result.

Instrumentality is the understanding that performing work and achieving the required result are the main condition (tool) for receiving reward.

Valence is the significance of the reward for the employee.

For example, an employee's motivation tends to decline if the results of his work are not properly rewarded by the organization, that is, if these results are not perceived as a tool for obtaining rewards. Another option is also possible: an employee may have low motivation if he already receives the highest level of pay from his company and increases in productivity and quality of his work will no longer be reflected in his pay.

V. Vroom argues that motivation is a function of all three components, that is:

Strength of motivation = Expectations x Instrumentality x Valence.

This means that motivation will be high only when valence, instrumentality, and expectations are high. This also implies that if one of the components is equal to zero, then the overall level of motivation will be equal to zero.

The idea of ​​Adams' theory of justice is the statement: until people learn to consider what they get for their work, they will not strive to improve it. Adams believes that in order to achieve this goal, it is necessary to take into account the fact that people tend to compare rewards both with the efforts expended and with the rewards of other people for the same work. A lot of explanatory work is needed, or payments are made in secret, which is not very justified.

Equity theory suggests that a person constantly compares himself with other people on two variables: input and output. Employee contribution refers to the contribution that the employee himself and other people make to the work: time, work effort, volume of output, etc. The result is what the employee himself and other people get from work: pay, benefits, prestige, etc. Equity theory considers input and output as they are perceived by the employee, although they may differ from the actual (objective) input and output of work. According to equity theory, people compare the ratio of their contribution to the result obtained with the contribution-result ratio of other people. There are three possible options for assessing such comparisons:

– underpayment;

– fair payment;

- overpayment.

It should be noted that the difference between the theory of justice and the theory of expectations is that in the process of his own activities, an employee compares the assessment of his actions with the assessment of similar actions of his colleagues and ultimately draws a conclusion about the fairness of his pay. Injustice, in turn, can be expressed in the form of underpayment or overpayment, which is felt less frequently.

A synthetic model of motivation, including elements of previously discussed theories of motivation, was developed by Lyman Porter and Edward Lawler. Lyman Porter and Edward Lawler in their (comprehensive) theory of motivation reveal five elements that make up the motivational process:

Effort expended;

Perception;

Results;

Remuneration;

Degree of satisfaction.

According to this model, the results achieved depend on the efforts made by the employee, his abilities and characteristics, as well as his awareness of his role in the common cause. How much effort a person puts in depends on the value of the reward and the degree of confidence that a given level of effort will actually lead to a certain level of reward. In addition, this theory establishes a relationship between reward and results, i.e. a person satisfies his needs through rewards for achieved results.

One of the most important conclusions of the Porter-Lawler theory is that productive work leads to satisfaction. This is exactly the opposite of the opinion that most organizational leaders profess on this matter. Leaders are influenced by earlier theories human relations who believed that satisfaction leads to better results at work or, simply put, that more satisfied workers work better.

Having analyzed the expectation factors, we can conclude that with high expectations of the employee, excellent results of his work and a high degree of satisfaction with the reward received, strong motivation is observed.

Undoubtedly it must be said that the model of L. Porter-E. Lawlera made major contributions to the understanding of motivation and increased the importance of procedural theories motivation. This model shows the importance and usefulness of integrating concepts such as effort, performance, reward, ability, satisfaction and perception into a unified theory of motivation.

There is a lot of research in the field of motivation. Many of them, to one degree or another, use the basic principles of the theories described above. This is, for example, Stacey Adams' theory of equality, the idea of ​​which is that a person compares how his actions were evaluated similarly to the actions of others; concepts of goal setting (factors such as complexity, specificity, acceptability, commitment to the goal apply).

Most of the substantive sections on motivation that wander from one management textbook to another are just light modifications of the text from “Fundamentals of Management” by Michael Mescon and some other Western sources.

For a deeper analysis of the substantive and procedural theories of motivation described above, we highlight the essence of each theory and indicate its shortcomings in Table 1.5.

To study human motivation, many scientists have developed various theories of motivation that evaluate the factors influencing it. For the most part, they concentrate on studying needs and their impact on motivation, describing their content and structure.

Frederick Herzberg proposed a two-factor theory of motivation based on his experience studying labor and corporate problems.

Herzberg's theory of motivation was developed by him in 1959 with the aim of clarifying the reasons for a person's satisfaction or dissatisfaction with activities, as well as identifying the reasons for the increase and decrease in labor productivity.

For this purpose, a survey was conducted of 200 engineers and employees of one large enterprise producing paint and varnish coatings. Participants were asked to describe situations in which their attitude towards work was positive and they had a desire to work, and situations in which their attitude towards work was, on the contrary, negative, they felt dissatisfaction, and there was no desire to work at all.

The results of this study allowed Herzberg to formulate the conclusion that job satisfaction is determined by its internal and meaningful characteristics, and dissatisfaction is determined by external characteristics work and its context. Further, all factors that influence human activity in production situations were divided into hygienic and motivating.

Hygiene factors

Hygiene factors, or health factors, are those factors that are associated with the environment in which the work itself takes place. Among the most important hygiene factors are the following:

• Company and administration policy;
• Comfortable working conditions;
• Safety;
• Acceptable lighting, heating, etc.;
• Salary;
• Schedule;
• Availability of paid sick leave;
• Availability of paid holidays;
• Carrying out activities on social security, healthcare and other social programs;
• Relationships with management and colleagues;
• Level of direct control.

Hygiene factors practically do not cause a complete feeling of satisfaction and do not have an activating effect on human activity. But thanks to their presence, feelings of dissatisfaction can be prevented; if they are absent, this may cause feelings of dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction or irritation among staff.

The presence of this group of factors leads to a state where there is no job dissatisfaction as such, but there is also no job satisfaction, since positively characterized hygiene factors are something that goes without saying. Negatively characterized hygiene factors can, in turn, lead to complete job dissatisfaction.

From this we can conclude that the conditions in which work is carried out cannot be considered as motivating factors. Probably, most of people would work with pleasure in a pleasant environment, but, based on this theory, a clean shop can hardly become a substitute for the work itself, from which a person receives pleasure or recognition of his merits.

According to Herzberg's theory, employers seeking to increase staff motivation by increasing pay will ultimately be disappointed, since after employees get used to the new level of material reward, they will most likely view it as a hygiene factor. From now on, increased payments will no longer motivate people. Human psychology is such that he is motivated more by the desire to have something than by the fact that he already has it.

Motivating factors

Motivating factors, or motivators, are directly related to the essence and nature of the activity itself. They contribute to increased job satisfaction and are seen as independent group needs, which can generally be called growth needs.

Key motivators include the following:

• Public acceptance;
• Degree of responsibility;
• Success;
• Availability of opportunities to grow professionally;
• Interesting activity content;
• Official position.

Social recognition can give a person a sense of self-respect and dignity, which means the manager should communicate the need to communicate feedback to the employee about a job well done. Another significant factor is the employee’s activity itself. It should be borne in mind that monotonous work usually does not bring satisfaction, but varied in content and creative activity, on the contrary, stimulates growth, prevents absenteeism and tardiness. Besides this, for most people good motivator is career growth or additional responsibility.

Advantages and disadvantages of the theory

So, in the process of research, Herzberg formulated the following conclusions:

• Satisfaction and dissatisfaction with activities are two independent measurements that can be clearly displayed on two different graphs;
• There is a whole group of factors that influence the first graph “satisfaction with activity – no satisfaction with activity”, and a group of other factors that affect the second graph “dissatisfaction with activity – no dissatisfaction with activity”.

The formula formulated by Herzberg looks like this: Working conditions and work environment + motivating factors = state of satisfaction. He also derived another equation: Working conditions and environment – ​​motivating factors = zero effect

Between F. Herzberg's two-factor theory, some parallels can be drawn with Maslow's pyramid: hygienic needs correspond to the lower levels of Maslow's needs, and, accordingly, motivating factors correspond to the highest levels of needs.

Two-factor motivation theory Herzberg is a new explanation of the mechanisms of motivation of people in the process of their labor activity. Previously, to increase the motivation of subordinates, attempts were made to improve working conditions, increase wages, provide special benefits, in other words, attention was focused on hygiene factors. But such attempts and solutions did not produce the necessary results, since they had no effect on the motivation of employees. Many organizations subsequently began attempting to apply the basic principles of Herzberg's theory, which in fact showed their effectiveness.

However, even with the effective experience of many organizations applying Herzberg's theory in practice, a number of criticisms have been leveled at the theory:

• Both motivating and hygiene factors can act as a source of motivation, which is determined by the needs of a particular person;
• A lack of motivators can lead to a state of dissatisfaction with the activity, and hygiene factors, when used successfully, can lead to a state of satisfaction, which also depends on the specific situation;
• Not in all cases, a state of satisfaction leads to increased productivity, which significantly diverges from Herzberg’s opinion;
• The motivation growth system should be built taking into account the possible behavioral characteristics of a person and the characteristics of the external environment.

The above remarks are evidence that motivation should be considered as a plausible process. What will motivate one person in a certain situation may not have any effect on him in another situation or on another person in a similar situation.

Frederick Herzberg's theory of motivation

Encouraging employees of an enterprise to achieve the goals and objectives set for them is an objective necessity. Incentive is carried out through labor motivation. Motivation is one of the most important functions of personnel management. Motivation of an employee or their group to achieve the goals of the enterprise is carried out through the satisfaction of their own needs. Motivation is based on two categories - motive and incentives.

Motive is an internal driving force; desire, attraction, orientation, internal attitude.

Incentive - material, moral or other encouragement (reward).

The essence of motivation (stimulation) is the choice for an employee or their groups of optimal incentives at a particular stage that correspond to the motives of people’s behavior. Thus, the basis of motivation is to identify the employee’s motives. Modern theories motivations are based on the results of psychological and sociological research and are aimed at determining the list and structure of people for a specific production. Under the need for in this case is understood as the awareness of the absence of something essential for the individual that motivates action.

There are many theories and systems of motivation. It should be noted that they all have their advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, each of the systems can be effectively implemented under certain conditions. Often on different stages For personnel development, it is necessary to use various motivation systems or a combination of them. Consider Herzberg's two-factor theory.

Frederick Herzberg in the second half of the 1950s. developed a need-based motivation model. In this model, he identified two broad categories, calling them “hygiene factors” and “motivation.”

According to Herzberg's theory, these two groups of factors lead to different results. If motivation factors lead to job satisfaction, then hygiene factors lead only to the absence of dissatisfaction. Following Herzberg's theory, a manager must first ensure the presence of hygiene factors and then motivation factors. And then the staff will feel complete satisfaction with their work. Hygiene factors are related to the environment in which work is carried out, and motivation is related to the very nature and essence of the work.

According to Herzberg's theory, the normal level of these factors does not enhance the positive motivation of work behavior. Dissatisfaction with any of these factors weakens motivation. From this theory it follows that one must first strive to eliminate dissatisfaction with the factors of the second group, and then use positive motives in stimulation by influencing the factors of the first group.

First group:

Labor successes.

Recognition of merit.

The labor process itself.

Degree of responsibility.

Career growth.

Professional growth, these factors enhance positive motives for work behavior.

Second group:

Job security guarantee.

Social status.

Dissatisfaction with the company's labor policy.

Working conditions.

Attitude of the immediate superior.

Personal inclinations.

Interpersonal relationships.

Wage.

The main provisions of Herzberg's theory are as follows:

1)needs are divided into hygiene and motivating factors. The first group of factors (hygiene factors) is related to the environment in which work is carried out. The second group (motivation factors) is related to the nature and essence of work. Each of the groups is, as it were, on its own measurement scale, where the first group operates in the range from minus to zero, and the second - from zero to plus;

2)there is a strong correlation between job satisfaction and job performance;

3)Lack of hygiene factors leads to job dissatisfaction. Under normal conditions, the presence of hygiene factors is perceived as something natural, which only leads to a state of lack of dissatisfaction and does not have a motivational effect;

4)the presence or absence of motivating factors actively influences human behavior, causing a state of satisfaction (or lack of satisfaction);

5)In order for staff to be completely satisfied with their work, it is necessary to first ensure the presence of hygiene factors (a state of lack of dissatisfaction), and then ensure the presence of motivation factors (a state of satisfaction). The lack of hygiene factors can only be partially and incompletely compensated by the presence of motivating factors;

6)In order to effectively motivate subordinates, the manager himself must understand the essence of the work.

According to Herzberg, 69% of the reasons that determine staff disappointment in their work belong to the group of hygiene factors, while 81% of the conditions affecting job satisfaction are directly related to motivating factors.

According to Herzberg, in the absence or insufficient degree of hygiene factors, a person experiences dissatisfaction own work. But if they are sufficient, then in themselves they do not cause job satisfaction and are not able to motivate a person to do anything. Herzberg described the relationship between job satisfaction and dissatisfaction as follows: “The results of our research, as well as the results I obtained in discussions with other specialists who used completely different methods, lead to the conclusion that the factors that caused job satisfaction and provided adequate motivation were: other and significantly different factors than those that cause job dissatisfaction. Since two different groups of factors have to be considered in analyzing the causes of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction, these two feelings are not directly opposite each other to a friend. The opposite of job satisfaction is its absence, not dissatisfaction. The opposite of the feeling of dissatisfaction is, in turn, its absence, and not satisfaction with work." These factors correspond to the physiological needs and safety needs of A. Maslow, that is, his motivations are comparable to the needs of the higher levels of Maslow. However, Maslow considered hygiene factors as something causing a certain strategy of behavior. If the manager gives the opportunity to satisfy one of these needs, then the worker will work better in response to this. Herzberg, on the contrary, believed that the worker begins to pay attention to hygiene factors only when he finds their implementation inadequate or unfair . According to Herzberg's theories, hygiene factors do not motivate workers, but only reduce the possibility of feelings of job dissatisfaction. In order to achieve motivation, the manager must ensure the presence of motivating factors. To effectively use this theory, you need to make a list of hygiene and especially motivating factors and at the same time time to give the employee the opportunity to determine and indicate what he prefers and take into account his desire.

Herzberg's hygiene factors:

1.company and administration policy;

2.working conditions;

Earnings;

.interpersonal relationships bosses with subordinates;

.degree of direct control over work.

It should be noted that Herzberg made the paradoxical conclusion that wages are not a motivating factor. Indeed, salary is in the category of factors leading to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

Practical orientation of the theory

What happens in the organization depending on the degree of satisfaction with hygiene and motivating factors is shown in Table 1.

motivation staff Herzberg

Table 1. Satisfaction with hygiene and motivating factors in the organization

Motivating Factors Not SatisfiedSatisfiedHygiene Factors SatisfiedHigh percentage of staff with avoidance motivation. Specialists with achievement motivation are less likely to get into this organization, but not for long. The staff strives to minimize their labor efforts (it’s warm, it’s light, they pay well - why else work?) This is a harmonious system of staff motivation. All created possible conditions for work, and the work is well and fairly paid. Not satisfied. There is a high turnover of personnel and big problems with recruitment, since such a company has nothing to attract personnel and, moreover, nothing to retain them. Mostly specialists with achievement motivation and insufficient work experience work here. Such a company is attractive as a stage in professional growth, as it is associated with achievements, self-realization, professional, and perhaps career growth. The disadvantages are that the stage is short. The employee “grew up” and went to earn money in another company

The practical orientation of Herzberg's theory is that manipulation of labor factors makes it possible to influence staff satisfaction with their work. In order to effectively use F. Herzberg's theory, it is necessary to draw up a list of hygiene and, especially, motivating factors and give employees the opportunity to determine and indicate what they prefer. Activation of motivating factors can ensure the maximum possible participation of personnel in the affairs of the company: from making independent and responsible decisions at their workplace to participating in the company’s innovative programs. Many organizations have tried to implement Herzberg's theoretical conclusions through job enrichment programs, where work is restructured and expanded to bring more satisfaction and reward to the person doing it. Labor enrichment is aimed at structuring work activity in such a way as to make the performer feel the complexity and significance of the task entrusted to him, independence in choosing decisions, the absence of monotony and routine operations, responsibility for a given task, the feeling that a person is performing a separate and complete task. independent work. There is an assumption that a hygiene factor such as money can compensate for most other hygiene factors. For example, the distance of work from home is fully compensated by a salary that is satisfactory for the employee, as well as working conditions, work schedule, etc., provided that these issues are not fundamental for the employee. What about motivating factors? this is something that is associated with deeper human needs, and replacing their satisfaction (if the employee has achievement motivation) is possible only for a short time. However, many of the motivating factors are also directly related to money, as a material expression of the assessment of professional success, degree of responsibility, etc. Motivating factors can only partially and briefly compensate for the lack of hygiene factors (see Table 1).

Summarizing the results of his research, F. Herzberg made several conclusions:

· lack of hygiene factors leads to job dissatisfaction;

· the presence of motivating factors can only partially compensate for the lack of hygiene factors;

· under normal conditions, the presence of hygiene factors is perceived as natural and does not have a motivational effect;

· the greatest positive motivational impact is achieved with the help of motivating factors in the presence of hygiene factors.

1.It is necessary to draw up a list of hygiene and especially motivating factors and allow subordinates to independently determine the most preferable ones.

2.Managers must take a differentiated and cautious approach to the use of different incentives and when the needs lower level sufficiently satisfied, do not rely on hygiene factors as the main ones.

.Managers should not waste time and money on using motivating factors until the hygiene needs of employees are met.

.Motivating factors are effectively used under the following conditions:

o if employees regularly receive information about the positive and negative results of their work;

o if conditions have been created for them to grow their own self-esteem and respect (psychological growth);

o if employees are allowed to set their own work schedule;

o if subordinates bear a certain financial liability;

o if they can communicate openly and pleasantly with managers at all levels of management;

o if subordinates report for work in the area entrusted to them.

5.After conducting a survey among employees, Frederick Herzberg identified two types of factors that influence labor productivity. He designated the first group as hygienic (supporting) factors. They do not create motivation, but only provide the most comfortable working conditions. This group does not provide job satisfaction, but it does affect the emotional perception of it. Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation includes factors such as relationships with superiors, the amount of remuneration received, working conditions (both hygienic and psychological), etc., to the group of hygiene motives.

6.Much more important is the second group of motives, namely, motivators (satisfied). They contribute to achieving goals and obtaining satisfaction from work. This group includes such motives as achieving goals, recognition, and enjoying work as such.

.Thus, Herzberg’s theory of motivation proves the presence in a person’s life of two types of independent factors: hygienic and motivational. The author justified some reduction of the classical teaching by the fact that all physiological processes can now basically be considered satisfied, thus, it is advisable to consider only social needs as motivating factors. It is interesting that the author attributed financial reward to hygienic factors, explaining this opinion by the fact that finances as such only provide basic physiological needs, but do not allow a person to feel significant, primarily in his own eyes.

.Interesting conclusions from the described theory: managers are asked to very carefully monitor the methods of stimulating employees, determining what type of needs this or that encouragement relates to, and not offer incentives to the second group before hygiene needs are satisfied.

.Speaking in simple language, if you have not provided good wages and comfortable working conditions, you should not talk to the employee about the possibility personal growth. And on the contrary: if all his basic needs are provided, ALWAYS open up to him the prospects and delights of further self-improvement - this is how you can formulate the main idea of ​​Herzberg’s theory of motivation.

Criticisms to Herzberg's theory

Herzberg's model leaves room for criticism.

.At first glance, this approach resembles a slightly modified hedonism (seek pleasure, avoid pain), where the concept of pleasure is replaced by self-expression. The traditional objection to hedonism (for example, that we cannot directly seek pleasure or avoid pain, but can only seek a course of action that would result in pain or pleasure) seems less relevant in this case, since Herzberg precisely defines those conditions , which cause suffering or psychological growth.

.N. King argues that the controversy over Herzberg's two-factor theory is largely caused by the author's insufficiently clear formulations.

According to King, the most likely version is this: All motivators taken together contribute more to job satisfaction than the totality of hygiene factors, and all hygiene factors taken together contribute more to job dissatisfaction than the totality of motivators.

King argues that further research into crisis detection should show that in general, motivators are mentioned in situations of greatest satisfaction more often than in general hygiene factors, and hygiene factors in general are mentioned in situations of greatest dissatisfaction more often than in general all motivators . Even if we agree that such conclusions are possible, to what extent do they confirm the hypothesis? The fact that generally similar results were obtained when Herzberg's method was repeated simply confirms the validity of the original results, but tells us little about the validity of the thesis. Indeed, the results of other studies, obtained in particular by K. Lindsay, E. Marx and I. Gorlow, Hewlin and A. Smith, prove that motivators And hygienic factors can cause both job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction.

King, in any case, points out that the version that Herzberg seems to favor has not been confirmed in studies conducted using methods different from the method critical situations , and that Herzberg's theory may simply reflect the subjectivity and bias inherent in introspection methods. Managers, if asked to describe exceptionally favorable situations, will naturally take the opportunity to talk about their successes; at the same time, if asked about exceptionally unfavorable situations, they will tend to blame other people for their failures or refer to objective circumstances . This is consistent with the theory that people tend to change perceptions causal connections in a way that maintains or improves your self-esteem; When people succeed in a task, they believe that they owe their success to themselves, but they are not inclined to attribute failure to their own mistakes.

.Finally, D. Schwab and L. Cumings point out that the evidence used to justify the premise satisfaction leads to action , were not experimental.

Herzberg's two-factor theory shed New World on the content of work motivation. Before its advent, managers concentrated their attention mainly on hygiene factors. When colliding with moral problems the typical solution was to increase wages, increase fringe benefits, and improve working conditions. However, it was discovered that such simplified solutions did not actually work. This fact led managers to a dead end situation when they paid higher salaries, offered an excellent package of additional benefits, provided very good conditions labor, and employee motivation remained at the same level. Herzberg's theory offers an explanation for this problem - by focusing solely on hygiene factors, managers are not motivating their staff. Few workers or managers probably think they don't deserve a raise. On the other hand, many dissatisfied workers and managers feel that they have not received enough promotion.

This simple observation shows that hygiene factors are important in eliminating dissatisfaction but do not lead to satisfaction. Herzberg was probably the first to formulate the idea that hygiene factors are absolutely necessary to preserve the human resources of an organization. However, in accordance with Maslow’s understanding, when dissatisfaction is relieved by satisfying hygiene needs, which is typical for most modern organizations, these factors cease to motivate employees.

According to Herzberg's theory, employees will only be motivated by work that requires some effort and provides opportunities for achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement and growth. Although Herzberg's two-factor theory is widely used in educational literature and is important for practitioners, from an academic point of view, it undoubtedly oversimplifies the motivation of work activity.

When researchers deviated from methodology critical situation, used by Herzberg, they were unable to identify two groups of factors. It turns out that there are job-related factors that cause both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. These studies indicate that, by and large, the two-factor theory is not confirmed in various situations, in other words, it cannot be applied as a universal one.

Bibliography

1) Meskon M.H., Albert N., Khedouri F. Fundamentals of management. - M.: Delo, 1992. - 973 p.

)Kasyanov V.V. Management: exam answers. - Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 2004. - 288 p.

3) Lukash Yu.A. Russian legislation. Explanatory dictionary for students. - M.: Grossmedia ROSBUKH, 2008. - 448 p.

4) Nagimova Z.A. Personnel management in hotel business enterprises. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2004. - 144 p.: ill.

)Falmer R.M. Encyclopedia of modern management. T1,3. - M.: 1992.

Two-factor (motivational-hygienic) theory of F. Herzberg

Herzberg's theory was derived from a study involving 200 engineers and accountants. They were all asked two questions: “Can you describe in detail a time when you feel exceptionally good at work?” and “Can you describe in detail when you feel exceptionally bad at work?”

Herzberg found two clearly distinguishable groups of needs in the responses.

He called the first hygienic or supporting factors. This group included those factors or conditions in the absence of which employees did not receive job satisfaction. These hygiene factors include company and management policies, relationships with superiors, working conditions, size wages, relationships with colleagues, personal life, status and security. These factors are only valuable if the employee also receives an additional reward upon completion of the job.

Herzberg called the second group of factors motivators or satisfiers. These are working conditions under which a high level of employee motivation and job satisfaction is achieved. In the absence of these conditions, it is impossible to obtain either effective motivation or satisfaction. Motivators include goal achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, career advancement, and opportunities for personal growth.

So, Herzberg's works provide evidence that there are two completely various types factors that can cause the desired goal-directed behavior:

1. Hygiene factors, in best case scenario, can only produce a satisfactory level of motivation.

2. Motivators can be used to stimulate more high level motivation if hygiene needs, in turn, are sufficiently satisfied.

The main implication of the two-factor theory is that managers must be very careful not to emphasize hygiene factors as primary ones when satisfying needs when lower-level needs have already been sufficiently satisfied. Conversely, managers should not waste time and money offering their employees various motivators before hygiene needs are satisfied.

Perhaps the most surprising and unexpected discovery obtained as a result of Herzberg's research was the fact that money was clearly classified as a hygiene factor, and not at all a motivator. Money is important to most employees, both because of its purchasing power and the status that it holds. However, managers do themselves and their organizations a disservice when they perceive money as the perfect means to satisfy all the needs that employees may have.

Managers who are trying to develop a job enrichment program should keep in mind six conditions necessary for their success:

1. People should regularly learn about the positive and negative results of their work.

2. They must set their own work schedule.

3. They need to be given opportunities for psychological growth.

4. They must bear a certain financial responsibility.

5. They should be able to communicate openly and pleasantly with superiors at all levels of management.

6. They must be accountable for the performance of the area they control.

Motivation according to Herzberg should be perceived as a probabilistic process. What motivates this person in a particular situation may have no effect on him at another time or on another person in a similar situation. Therefore, Herzberg's theory does not take into account many variables that determine situations related to the motivation of work activity. In order to explain the mechanism of motivation, it is necessary to consider numerous aspects of people’s behavior in the process of activity and parameters environment. The implementation of this approach led to the creation of process theories of motivation.

This is a psychological theory of motivation created in the late 1950s by American Frederick Herzberg.

F. Herzberg studied many factors that influence employee motivation. As a result, he divided all the factors into two categories.

Herzberg's Theory of Motivation: Briefly

1) Hygiene factors- factors that keep you at work. These are factors that encourage you to take this particular job and not look for another.

2) Motivating factors - factors directly motivating to achieve results

Hygienic factors according to Herzberg are:

• wage
• working conditions (comfortable workplace, office near the metro, etc.)
• interpersonal relationships with colleagues, boss, subordinates
• degree of direct control over work
• administrative policy of the company
• influence of work on personal life

As Herzberg found out, all these factors only keep employees at work, but are not motivating.

Herzberg's motivational factors are:

• achieving results, success
• recognition and approval of results (from management or other employees)
• interesting tasks
• responsibility (for completing these interesting tasks)
• career advancement
• professional growth

The essence of Frederick Herzberg's theory of motivation:

Briefly, the main provisions of Herzberg’s theory can be conveyed as follows:

From Herzberg's point of view, hygiene factors do not motivate employees to improve results, to achieve breakthroughs in their work.

Hygiene factors only affect the employee's job satisfaction.

• If an employee is dissatisfied with hygiene factors, then he does not want to get up in the morning and go to this job.
• If he is satisfied, he calmly goes and works. But this is not a motivation for him to work better.

In other words, the presence of positive hygiene factors influences employees not to look for another job, but to continue working in the same company

Herzberg's theory of motivation in practice

According to Herzberg's theory, motivating factors act just the opposite. The absence of these factors does not cause dissatisfaction, but their presence causes a motivating effect and forces employees to try to achieve better results.

It is important to note that in motivation according to Herzberg - salary is not a motivating factor. That is, having a good fixed salary affects employee satisfaction, but does not directly motivate him to achieve excellent results.

Video on Herzberg's theory:

See other short video on Herzberg's theory of motivation