Herzberg's theories: money is a positive incentive. Hygiene factors and motivation

Hygiene factors are associated with environment, in which the work is carried out, and motivation - with 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 the hierarchy Maslow's 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 focused on needs higher levels, 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. Managers are influenced by earlier theories of human relations, which believed that satisfaction leads to better work performance or, simply put, that more satisfied workers perform 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. Lawler made a major contribution to the understanding of motivation and increased the importance of process theories of 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.

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. In this case, need is understood as 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 personnel development must be used various systems motivation 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 the 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 labor productivity;

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 becomes dissatisfied with his 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 in analyzing the causes of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction we have to consider two different groups of factors, these two feelings are not directly opposed to each other. The opposite of a feeling of job satisfaction is its absence, and 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, security needs of A. Maslow, i.e. his motivations are comparable to the needs of Maslow’s higher levels. However, Maslow viewed hygiene factors as something that causes a specific behavior strategy. 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. For effective use This theory requires making a list of hygiene and especially motivating factors and at the same time giving 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 wage is 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 possible working conditions have been created, and work is well and fairly paid. Not satisfied. There is a high staff turnover and big problems with the recruitment of personnel, since such a company has nothing to attract staff with 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 participation in innovation programs companies. 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 labor 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 the given task, the feeling that the person is performing a separate and complete 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 responsibility;

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 conditions labor. 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 classical teaching by the fact that all physiological processes at present, can generally be considered satisfied, so 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 finance as such only provides basic physiological needs, but does 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 until hygienic 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 possible 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 of 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 their perceptions of causal relationships in ways that maintain or improve their 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 sheds new light on the content work motivation. Before its advent, managers concentrated their attention mainly on hygiene factors. When faced with moral problems, the typical solution was to increase pay, 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, and 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 workers.

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 departed from the critical incident methodology 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 according to by and large the two-factor theory is not confirmed in different situations, in other words, cannot be used 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.

The next step in understanding the motivational mechanisms of work was made by Frederick Herzberg. His work had a huge impact on management practice.

Herzberg took a different path than Maslow and Alderfer. He was not interested in the content of individual motives (needs). He was interested in the result that the difference in the motivation of workers leads to - the productivity and effectiveness of their work. Herzberg assumed that job satisfaction underlies high productivity, so he tried to understand what determines whether workers are satisfied or dissatisfied with their work. "The attitude of people towards their work can determine the success or failure of any industrial concern, no matter whether its capacity is 50 or 100% utilized. In fact, in difficult times, it may turn out that the line separating whether a concern survives or not will depend on the morale within collective," wrote Herzberg.

Under Herzberg's leadership different countries world, including socialist ones, in the 60s and 70s it was carried out big number studies in which respondents were asked: “Describe a period of time or event during which you had particularly positive or particularly negative feelings towards your job. This could be the job you are currently doing or any other "Can you remember moments of such ups and downs in your attitude towards work? Please tell us about them." The responses received were analyzed and subjected to factor analysis.

The results showed that the factors responsible for professional satisfaction (motivation) differ from the factors causing professional dissatisfaction (lack of motivation). Herzberg argued that since different factors are responsible for job dissatisfaction and job satisfaction, the two conditions are not poles of the same scale. The opposite of professional satisfaction will not be dissatisfaction with work, but the absence of satisfaction, and the opposite of dissatisfaction will not be satisfaction with work, but the absence of dissatisfaction. At first glance, everything seems very confusing. Isn't it the same thing - "dissatisfaction" and "lack of satisfaction"? How to understand such expressions: “not satisfaction, but the absence of dissatisfaction” or “not dissatisfaction, but the absence of satisfaction”? However, in essence, Herzberg’s ideas are very simple, the confusion here is purely linguistic: for us, dissatisfaction and lack of satisfaction are synonymous, Herzberg found out that this is completely different states. Herzberg believed that behind the responses of survey participants were two different sets of human needs. One series can be attributed to the “animal nature of man - the innate desire to avoid pain plus all the acquired aspirations that are determined by basic biological needs. These factors are the avoidance of dissatisfaction, and for them Herzberg borrowed the concept of hygiene from medicine. “Hygiene,” according to Herzberg, “is intended for human health. This is not a treatment, but rather prevention. Modern methods waste recycling, water and air purification do not cure diseases, but without them there would be more diseases." Similarly, hygiene factors do not create satisfaction (and internal motivation), they only eliminate dissatisfaction. Hygiene factors are external to work (describe the external aspects of work , work situation) and include company policies, management practices, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions, pay, status and safety.

Table Hygiene factors according to Herzberg.

According to Herzberg, all these elements, if unfavorable, can cause a person to feel dissatisfied or dissatisfied with work. At the same time, the good state of these factors will not lead to high motivation of workers, but will only cause a lack of dissatisfaction.

Another set of needs (which, according to Herzberg's research, were behind the factors determining people's satisfaction with their work) is associated with the unique human characteristic- the ability for self-actualization, achievement and psychological growth. It is common for a person to look for ways of self-realization in all areas of his life, and work is one of the most important areas. The conditions in which he performs his work cannot provide him with high satisfaction. Opportunities for growth only appear when there is work environment growth factors. Growth factors (which are internal to work), or motivators, are:

1. Achievements. The achievement factor was most often found in descriptions related to the experience of high satisfaction (41%). The stories included in this group center on the facts of successful completion of a work task, solving new work problems, and introducing new systems. The achievement factor can serve as a source of positive feelings regardless of recognition.

2. Recognition is the second most frequently mentioned factor, appearing in a third of the stories associated with a positive attitude towards work (33%). Sources of recognition can be: management, colleagues, clients or subordinates. An important aspect The effectiveness of recognition in creating a positive attitude at work is the presence of some kind of achievement, that is, recognition associated with the experience of high satisfaction is rarely found without an accompanying achievement.

4. Responsibility. These included topics such as being able to work without constant supervision from superiors, being able to take responsibility for one's own actions, becoming responsible for the work being done by others, and taking on more responsible work without formal promotion.

5. Promotion up the career ladder. Promotion in terms of increased satisfaction is often associated for respondents with a feeling of professional and personal growth, recognition, success and responsibility.

Herzberg showed that of all the factors contributing to job satisfaction, 81% were motivators, and of all the factors contributing to employee dissatisfaction with their jobs, 69% were hygiene factors.

Summarizing the results of his research, Herzberg made a number of conclusions:

1. Poor hygiene factors lead to job dissatisfaction.

2. A good state of motivators can only partially and incompletely compensate for the unfavorable state of hygiene factors.

3. Under normal conditions, a good state of hygiene factors is perceived as natural and does not have a motivating effect.

4. Maximum positive motivational impact is achieved through good condition motivators with a satisfactory state of hygiene factors.

Unlike Maslow's theories, Herzberg’s two-factor theory does not imply a hierarchical organization of motives (needs), that is, true (internal) motivation, the desire of an employee to work with full dedication, according to Herzberg, does not depend on the satisfaction of hygienic needs. Herzberg writes: “It must be remembered that two groups of factors work to satisfy the employee’s needs, but it is the “motivators” that are the main sources of job satisfaction and cause the very improvements in productivity and quality of work that industry is trying to achieve from work force. By satisfying the hygiene needs of the employee, we can only hope to eliminate the possibility of disappointment in work and a decrease in the quality of work performed."

Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation allowed us to draw the following conclusions for management practice:

1. Many organizations are more concerned full use human resources at their disposal, they go to great expense in order to create good working conditions in the organization, believing that in this way they can increase the satisfaction of employees with their work in the organization and increase their motivation. However, it should be borne in mind that such a policy can only achieve a reduction in employee dissatisfaction with their work, eliminating sources that can cause this dissatisfaction.

2. To effectively influence the motivation of workers, to increase their willingness to work hard in the interests of the organization, it is necessary not only to address hygiene factors, but also to influence workers through factors related to the group of motivators, creating better conditions to recognize achievements, professional and job growth, offering more responsible, promising and meaningful work.

Herzberg proposed a way to move from "hygiene" to motivation through a process he called "job enrichment." He assumes that the only way to motivate workers is to make work more meaningful and interesting for workers. If the work they do is boring and uninteresting, then it needs to be enriched.

The approaches of Maslow, Alderfer and Herzberg essentially have a single basic structure: the main elements of each of the theories are based on the same questions, but grouped differently.

Herzberg's theory, which is based on 2 varieties human needs with motivating and hygiene factors. The two-factor theory was called by Frederick Herzberg, an American psychologist in 1959.

Herzberg's theory briefly consisted of identifying a person's dissatisfaction and satisfaction during work activity, the basis for a decrease and increase in productivity, and the return of labor.

Herzberg's theory in brief

Scientists led by F. Herzberg conducted a survey of a large team (200 people) of employees and engineers who worked in a fairly large paint and varnish company.

Participants had to describe detailed situations: in which case, they had a desire to work and positive emotions. Another case when there was no desire to work and dissatisfaction was felt.

In conclusion, the research revealed that there are:

• hygiene factors, when satisfaction from a task depends on its content and internal characteristics.
• motivating factors when a person’s dissatisfaction depends on its content and external characteristics assignments, work.

Herzberg theory of motivation

Motivating circumstances directly connected with the work, with his character, and hygienic- with the surrounding world, the environment where the work is performed.

The hygiene factor gets its name from the noun “hygiene”, taken from the medical dictionary, which means “prevention”.

Hygienic circumstances should help to maintain the health of working people, but improvement is not required.

The main hygiene factors include:

• The manager's interest in the employee;
• Convenient work schedule;
• Social presence package;
• Decent payment for work;
• Compliance with occupational safety regulations;
• Carrying out planned activities in the field of social and production programs: health care, equipment renewal;
• Standard working shift conditions (lighting, air humidity, heating);
• Friendly work atmosphere (with colleagues, management);
• Additional control of work.

The presence of the listed “health” circumstances partially relieves dissatisfaction with the job itself.

In practice, hygienic circumstances never cause complete satisfaction.

Motivating factors
In another way, these factors are called enabling factors, which encourage the employee to improve the performance of his duties, the human need for increased personal growth.

"Motivators" include:

• Labor success;
• Highly professional lift;
• Position in society;
• Interesting and favorite work activity;
• Responsibility for the work done;
• Promotion, increase in rank.

Recognition of the team and management of you as a specialist gives the employee a sense of self-respect and dignity. It is important to hear words of gratitude from the manager about the quality of the task performed by the employee.

Stimulates personal growth meaningful and creative work, but monotonous work will not bring admiration.

Herzberg theory of motivation

Herzberg's theory of motivation is based on 2 main phenomena: hygienic and motivating.

If there are no hygienic reasons or there are not enough of them, the employee becomes dissatisfied with the task or work.

And if there are enough hygiene factors, then they do not themselves cause pleasure at work and will not be able to motivate the employee to improve results.

The main thing is that they cause great pleasure, create a motive for increasing efficiency at work, and only if there are sufficient hygienic factors.

If an employee is not satisfied with hygienic conditions, he has no desire to do work.
If he is satisfied with the hygienic circumstances, then he works serenely. But there is no motivation to work with full dedication.

Consequently, positive hygiene factors keep the employee at previous job. Negative hygiene factors lead to complete dissatisfaction with the task or work.

A number of motivating phenomena imply that any employee is able to work motivatedly when the goal is visible and considers it feasible. Inadequacy or deprivation of motivating phenomena does not lead to task dissatisfaction. But the presence of reasons for motivation gives pleasure and directs a person towards the most productive labor process.

Psychology of the Human Mind

Herzberg's theory of motivation, his opinion on increasing wages for employees, interprets: employers will be disappointed, try to increase the motivation of employees, who over time will get used to the new salary, and will regard it as hygienic circumstances.

The employer believes that the reward system is a specific motivational enhancer. Such a system will become a habit, for granted. Of course, satisfaction will be felt, but the employee will soon cease to be motivated.

Herzberg and Maslow's theories of motivation

Scientists all over the world have studied theories of motivation, and they have their own versions. The main task is to motivate people to work. The developers focused on studying needs and motivational influences, depicting the essence and their structure.

F. Herzberg called his theory “The Theory of Job Satisfaction.” He was an authoritative person in the field of business and its management and was involved in labor issues and company activity.

F. Herzberg’s theory of motivation and Maslow’s spiral of needs have much in common. According to Herzberg's theory, hygienic requirements are compared to the smallest stage of Maslow's needs. Motivating circumstances are correspondingly related to high degree needs.

With the two-factor theory, Herzberg introduced new explanations of human motivation in the work process. Attention was mainly paid to the 1st group of phenomena: hygienic. By increasing earnings, personal benefits, improving working conditions. But intentions and efforts did not produce achievements, because this motivation did not influence the workers. But many enterprises accepted the basic points of Herzberg’s theory, which brought their effectiveness.

Crucial notes to address motivational theory Herzberg were nominated by many companies:

• Depending on the needs of a particular employee, the motivating principle can be both hygienic and motivating phenomena;
• An insufficient number of “motivators” can lead to dissatisfaction at work, and the formed hygienic circumstances can increase job satisfaction, if we consider a certain condition;
• Not all states of satisfaction with work activity increase the percentage of work productivity, which differs from Herzberg’s theory;
• The system of increased motivation must be considered taking into account the behavioral actions of people and the characteristics of the work environment.

With his theory of motivation, Herzberg made some contribution to the perception of employee motivation, but did not take much into account. Subsequently, other scientists began to formulate procedural theory motivation.

In his theory of motivation, Herzberg relied on the system of needs of the “social person,” the foundations of which were developed within the framework of the theory of human relations.

Having processed data from more than 200 experts (an interview method was used, which covered workers belonging to different professional groups in different countries), Herzberg identified two groups of factors influencing the behavior of organizational members - hygienic and motivational.

This theory emerged due to the growing need to understand the influence of tangible and intangible factors on human motivation.

Frederick Herzberg created a two-factor model that measures job satisfaction.

Table 2.1

Factors influencing job satisfaction

The first group of factors (hygiene factors) is related to the environment in which work is carried out. The second group of motivation factors is related to the nature and essence of work. The manager here must remember the need to generalize the content of the work.

F. Herzberg's hygiene factors appear to correspond to physiological needs, the need for safety and confidence in the future. However, the mechanism of influence of motivating factors differs between Maslow and Herzberg.

Hygiene factors prevent the emergence of disappointment in work, are the basis for the reproduction of the vital and creative forces of workers, and help relieve tension during work. This determines their hygienic function. Hygiene factors correspond to lower level needs. These include: leadership style; management policy of the organization; wage; working conditions; interpersonal relationships; social status of the employee; job security guarantees; the impact of the work process on the personal life of a member of the organization.

These factors are external to the job itself, but relate to the employee’s environment. For this reason, they do not in themselves contribute to job satisfaction, but they create conditions that prevent employees of the organization from having a negative attitude towards their work. Just as a lack of proper hygiene can cause illness, although this in itself will not ensure health, so a lack of work hygiene will cause dissatisfaction with the content of work, but in itself it will not cause a state of satisfaction.

Motivational factors constitute the second group of factors. Their action is motivating in relation to the behavior of employees; they act as active motivational forces. Motivational factors (motivators) correspond to higher needs.

These factors primarily include: the employee’s labor success; recognition of the employee’s merits for high-quality tasks performed based on the principle of fairness; providing the employee with independence in the performance of production tasks; ensuring career growth; professional development; enrichment of labor with elements of creativity.

The presence of one, two, three or all six factors in the work process increases a person’s degree of job satisfaction and, therefore, increases his motivation. At the same time, for many workers, job satisfaction is most often ensured by the content of work.

The presented factors interact quite closely with each other: if hygiene factors are presented weakly, then work motivation weakens, and if hygiene factors are fully manifested, then work motivation increases. However, there is no direct relationship between these two groups of factors. Thus, high wages will not force the employee to work with great stress, but low wages will make him want to moderate his work ardor or push him to look for a new job.

According to A. Maslow's theory, any influence aimed at satisfying needs has a motivating effect. According to Herzberg, there is a certain threshold value, a certain minimum set, a kind of critical mass of conditions, only upon reaching which motivating factors begin to operate.

In order to effectively use Herzberg's theory, it is necessary to identify (make a list) all motivational and hygiene factors and allow members of the organization or its division to determine for themselves which of these factors they consider the most important for themselves. This will allow you to avoid mistakes that are often made by organizational leaders who identify the needs of subordinates based on their own experience.

The main disadvantages of Herzberg's theory are the following:

lack of consideration of the individual characteristics of organization members when taking actions aimed at motivating their behavior;

the assumption that there is a close connection between job satisfaction and labor productivity, which is not confirmed by numerous modern studies (in particular, motives associated with communication, the desire for power, and interaction between individuals and social institutions are not taken into account).