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

Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation was developed in 1959 and is actively used in modern management. It is based on hygiene and motivating factors to help improve productivity using the concept of job enrichment.

From this article you will learn:

• what underlies Herzberg's theory of motivation;
• what conclusions are included in Herzberg’s theory of motivation;
• how to apply Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation in human resource management practice.

What is the basis of Herzberg's theory of motivation?

Based on the study of motivation theory, scientists have developed various techniques. All of them were created based on a long-term analysis of motivating factors that help increase productivity. The theory of motivation of the American psychologist Frederick Herzberg is different from all existing ones. In 1959, Frederick Herzberg and his colleagues identified the reasons for employee satisfaction and dissatisfaction with their work activities. This made it possible to identify the main reasons for decreased productivity labor.

How the study was conducted

During the study, scientists interviewed about two hundred engineers and employees of a large company. Study participants were asked to describe situations when they wanted to work, their attitude towards labor activity was positive. And tell in detail about those situations when the desire to work fully disappeared completely, and dissatisfaction from professional activity was felt.

Herzberg's theory of motivation was developed based on this conclusion. The scientist came to the conclusion that job satisfaction depends on content and internal characteristics. Dissatisfaction is caused external characteristics and their context. All factors were divided into hygiene and motivating.

Read also in the electronic magazine:

How Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation describes hygiene and motivating factors

Hygiene factors theory

Based on Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation, hygiene factors include everything that affects the health of a person operating in certain conditions. The term was borrowed from medicine. Such factors may be aimed solely at maintaining the health of employees, but are not intended to improve it.

Among the main hygiene factors The following are distinguished:

• creating conditions for safety labor;
• maintaining favorable and comfortable policies of the organization;
• arrangement good lighting and heating;
• setting a comfortable work schedule for staff;
• systematic payment of labor without delays;
• payment for working holidays and holidays at an increased rate;
• payment of sick leave;
• development of a social security system and social programs;
• creating favorable conditions for maintaining relationships with colleagues and company management;
• ensuring direct quality control of work performed.

Hygiene factors are not aimed at inducing a feeling of complete satisfaction. They do not affect the activation of labor processes and the increase in labor productivity. But with their help it is possible to prevent manifestations of feelings of dissatisfaction, irritation, and dissatisfaction among staff.

Using HERZBERG's theory, you can check the motivation system in the company, identify what is wrong with it, and outline what factors need to be worked on.

The presence of hygiene factors in Herzberg's theory of motivation leads to a state where employees are not satisfied or dissatisfied. Why then do they need to be included in the motivation system? The answer to this question is very simple. Negative hygiene factors will lead to complete dissatisfaction of staff with work. Changing this will be quite difficult.

Motivating factors of the theory

The main motivators include:

• degree of responsibility assigned;
• official position.

Public recognition allows you to experience self-respect and dignity. The manager informs the employee about the quality of work performed on the general meeting team. Creative and varied activities stimulate professional growth. At the same time, monotonous activity does not bring satisfaction. Additional responsibility and the opportunity for career growth serve as a good motivator.

What conclusions are included in Herzberg’s theory of motivation?

According to Herzberg's theory of motivation, employers who plan to increase employee motivation by increasing salaries will be disappointed. As soon as the staff gets used to the increase in payments, this component of motivation will cease to operate. Psychologists say that only what you can get motivates you. And the presence of something permanent ceases to serve as a motivating factor.

Many managers are of the opinion that a carefully designed reward system will serve as a motivation enhancer. The employee will begin to work with full effort, and labor productivity will increase. Frederick Herzberg's theory of motivation refutes this approach. The psychologist claims that any reward-based motivation system is taken for granted. It maintains a feeling of contentment, but does not create it.

F. Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation was created according to different principles. In the process of lengthy research, the scientist came to the following conclusions:

• satisfaction and dissatisfaction with activities refer to two independent dimensions;

• the state of satisfaction is caused by a combination of factors such as a favorable environment at work, acceptable working conditions, plus motivating factors;

• the state of dissatisfaction is caused by poor-quality working conditions, a negative work environment, and the absence of any motivating factors.

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 associated with environment, in which work is carried out, and motivation is associated with 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 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 higher levels Maslow. 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 between superiors and 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 staff 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 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 connected to 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 various incentives and, when the needs of the lower level are sufficiently satisfied, 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 where they paid higher wages, offered an excellent package of additional benefits, provided very good working conditions, and the motivation of workers 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.

Herzberg's two-factor theory

Herzberg's theory suggests a strong relationship between job performance and job satisfaction. Herzberg believed that a person's attitude towards his work is determined by two groups of factors. The first group includes hygiene factors, in the second - motivating. Hygiene factors relate to the external environment in which work is performed; motivating - with the content of the work itself.

According to the two-factor theory, negative hygiene factors cause job dissatisfaction in a person. However, if these factors are positive, then by themselves they do not cause a state of satisfaction and cannot motivate a person to productive work. Research conducted by Herzberg allowed him to establish that the main hygienic factors are: favorable conditions labor; stable salary; a good relationship with your boss, colleagues and subordinates; openness of information about the state of affairs in the organization; flexible pace and work schedule; lack of strict current control; availability of social benefits.

Unlike hygiene factors, the absence or inadequacy of motivating factors does not lead to job dissatisfaction. But their presence causes job satisfaction and motivates workers to improve the efficiency of their work. According to Herzberg, the main motivating factors are: the opportunity for career growth; connection of rewards with labor results; creative nature of the work; complexity of the problems being solved; participation in decision making; high degree of responsibility.

To effectively use Herzberg's theory in practice, the manager must first find out whether employees have a feeling of dissatisfaction. If there is such a feeling, then the manager needs to eliminate the sources of dissatisfaction, making every effort to ensure the proper level of hygiene factors. Then, to motivate subordinates to work productively, the manager must put in place motivating factors that increase the individual's degree of satisfaction with his job.

All 4 considered theories of motivation focus on the analysis of the factors underlying motivation, but a person’s motivation depends not only on these factors, but also on the motivational process itself, on time, and the duration of the motivational impact. Thus, theories of motivation were complemented by theories of the motivation process.

1. Theory of Justice (Stacy Adams)

According to this theory, employees always compare the remuneration received for their work with the remuneration of other people doing similar work. The prerequisite for such a comparison is a person’s desire for social equality.

If an employee believes that his work contribution is valued approximately in the same way as other people who have achieved similar results, then he develops a feeling of fair treatment and a sense of satisfaction. Equality of remuneration is determined by the employee subjectively based on the ratio of labor costs and a generalized assessment of one’s labor contribution. IN labor costs an employee usually includes not only direct work in the workplace, but also previous labor efforts associated with obtaining education and advanced training, work experience, social status, abilities, age, etc. In its turn, assessment of labor contribution contains both a material part in the form of salaries, bonuses, profit sharing, and an intangible part in the form of official position, recognition of merit, trust, respect and other similar positive reinforcements.

If an employee comes to the conclusion that his labor contribution is undervalued in comparison with the labor contribution of the people whom he has chosen as an object of comparison, then he experiences a feeling of injustice and psychological stress.

To relieve this tension, people use following methods: reduction of labor effort; an attempt to increase remuneration; adjusting ideas about justice; reassessment of one's capabilities; moving to another job.

Research shows that in most cases, when people perceive their work to be undervalued, they reduce their effort. A third option is also possible - when the employee considers that his labor contribution is overvalued. In this case, he can increase the intensity of labor efforts and the quality of work, try to get additional education and even take steps to reduce the amount of rewards you receive.

The theory of justice allows us to draw several important conclusions for management practice:

· the remuneration system must give each employee a clear understanding of the relationship wages with the quantity and quality of labor at various workplaces;

· information about one-time remunerations must be complete and accessible;

· evaluation of rewards by people is subjective, so managers must find out to what extent certain rewards correspond to the employee’s ideas about their value;

· remuneration amounts must be balanced with the labor contribution of individual employees.

2. Expectancy theory (Victor Vroom)

The author of the theory believed that the presence of an active need is not a determining condition for motivating an individual to achieve a certain goal. The individual must also expect that the type of behavior he chooses will lead to the result he desires.

Expectations reflect a person’s ideas about the likelihood of a certain event occurring.

For example, students typically expect that graduating from university will enable them to get a good job.

According to expectancy theory, a person is motivated to work productively if he expects three relationships to be realized:

· Labor inputs - labor results. A person expects that a certain level of effort will lead to certain work results.

· Labor results - reward. A person expects that the results of work will contribute to receiving rewards.

· Reward - satisfaction with reward. A person expects that the reward for the results of his work will have a certain value for him.

An individual’s expectations depend on his life experience, education, analytical skills, self-confidence, qualifications and a number of other factors. The probabilistic nature of expectations has a direct impact on the behavior of employees in the organization. Almost every one of them asks themselves the following questions:

· how intensely does he have to work to achieve certain results?

What is the probability of achieving them?

· what reward is he likely to receive if he achieves these results?

How attractive is this reward for him?

By answering these questions, the employee assesses the probability of the occurrence of the corresponding event and determines for himself how intensively he must work for this event to occur. If he feels that there is no direct connection between the intensity of the effort expended and the occurrence of desired events, then, according to the theory of expectations, his motivation to work will weaken.

A feature of the theory of expectations is the emphasis on the individuality of human perception. The level of an individual’s work effort is determined by him on the basis of his own assessment of the likelihood of achieving the desired results of work and his own ideas about the desired reward within the framework of his personal scale of values. Therefore, managers must:

· Firstly, achieve compliance between the expectations of subordinates and the requirements of specific work assignments;

· Secondly, introduce remuneration systems that encourage workers to achieve the required results.

Control function

The concept of control comes from French and there is no complete semantic analogue in the Russian language. The translation allows for the following interpretation of the concept of “control”: 1. Checking someone or something to ensure compliance with something; 2. Supervision, observation for verification purposes; 3. Testing knowledge or properties to determine their suitability in practice.

Control is carried out through special structures endowed with special control powers.

From a management point of view, control is the privilege of the subject of management, i.e. control subsystem. The control effect of control is manifested primarily in the fact that under its influence the behavior of the controlled subsystem changes within the framework of a given goal, the requirements of standards, and programs.

During historical development control as a management function, a certain category of people was gradually formed - a social stratum of those who were professionally engaged in control activities. In Russia, the first mentions of control as a special type management activities date back to the 50s of the 16th century, when the Order of Secret Affairs was created, this order was given the role of monitoring the implementation of the boyars job responsibilities, checking their activities. And at the beginning of the 17th century, the position of controller first appeared in Russia; the position was established in the St. Petersburg port customs office to control the collection of trade duties. An interesting fact is that Peter I, when establishing the forest guard, ordered inspectors to pay minimum salaries, because the position of a thief. Today they perform control function great amount civil servants, however, it is known from real management practice that the implementation of any legal norms, for example legislation, leaves much to be desired.

Essential features of control or why it is necessary.

There are several reasons that determine the emergence, need and development of control in various areas of life. These reasons primarily include uncertainty external environment and risks related to the further development and functioning of the management system. The very explanation of the phenomenon of uncertainty in the management environment may include factors such as scientific and technological progress, development legislative framework, various random fluctuations in people's life. The situation of uncertainty is expressed very pessimistically in Murphy's laws: if something bad can happen, it will certainly happen. Thus, the reason for the appearance of control is:

1. Environmental uncertainty(factors: laws, competition, state of social and cultural values). Uncertainty factors constantly influence plans and programs for the development of any management system. In order to promptly respond to changes in the external environment and take adequate measures, management needs necessary analysis influencing variables and evaluation of these variables.

2. Uncertainty associated with the operation of other control systems. Competitive influence always puts pressure on the management system, forcing it to constantly monitor its development.

3. Uncertainty of people's values ​​and behavior. Development plans and programs are adopted and developed by people. A person always adheres to behavior that is preferable for him and does not always meet the requirements labor discipline, instructions and more.

Control in a management system is the process by which managers monitor the activities of the management system and ensure that these activities comply with specified goals and plans.

Control in the control system is carried out using direct and feedback connections between the subject and the control object.

 Direct connections exert direct control over the control object.

 Feedback carries certain information about the validity of the measures and control procedures taken, about the behavior and interests of the control object.

Establishing standards and criteria for the management system, which are selected at the planning stage from numerous goals and development strategies; Standards are measurable indicators that can be used to determine how far the management system has progressed in achieving the planned goal;

Collection, processing and analysis of information about the actual state of affairs. Here the method of scientific observation of employees, collection statistical information, reflecting the dynamics of controlled indicators, oral and written reports;

Comparison of the obtained data with planned indicators, regulations and standards;

Identification of deviations, violations and analysis of the reasons for their occurrence;

Development of a system of corrective actions and measures in order to change the behavior of an object within a given goal. Based on an analysis of actual results with established standards, the manager chooses one of 3 options for corrective actions: do nothing; take measures to bring actual indicators in accordance with standards (such measures may be: reorganization of the structure of the management system, redistribution of work assignments, modernization of production, retraining of personnel); review standards.

Effectively organized control is primarily aimed at efficiency, which means that its main features should be the following:

 compliance with the work performed;

 timeliness;

 profitability;

 simplicity;

 result orientation;

 it is people’s voluntary compliance with certain restrictions that regulate behavior. M. Weber believed that people voluntarily observe certain restrictions on freedom of action because they believe in legitimacy existing system authorities.

 Interrelation of control and responsibility. This relationship suggests the existence of 2 types of control: negative - comes down only to the detection of errors and the requirement to correct them, and positive - system control activities aimed at preventing possible deviations from specified standards.

As a category of management theory, control is a special type managerial relations, which begin to form at the moment of legal consolidation of the subject of control and include: collection and processing of information about the trajectory of the controlled object, comparing it with specified parameters, identifying deviations, analyzing the causes of deviations and taking corrective actions.

Based on this understanding of the essence of control, we can distinguish the following types control according to the form of implementation in the management system:

1. Preliminary control is carried out before the actual commencement of actions and focuses on:

Human resources (professional knowledge, skills, qualifications, health status),

Material resources(establishing quality standards for materials used in the production of goods or services);

Financial resources(budgeting, setting cost limits for specific types activities).

2. Current control is carried out during the work. There are 2 types: directing current control - allows you to constantly monitor and manage the progress of actions or various operations; filtering current control – allows you to install intermediate “filters”, after passing which the action can be stopped or continued.

3. Final control – control based on results. Carried out when the work is completed based on a comparison of its results and various characteristics With existing standards control. This type control gives management information about the degree of realism of the plans they have drawn up, allows them to analyze problems and make adjustments to new plans; assess the degree of efficiency of various departments and distribute rewards based on the results of work.

In management practice, formal and real control are also distinguished.

Formal control - is carried out to maintain external form, order, is focused on private, individual elements in the structure of the object of control, evaluates completed activities.

Real control is control of genuine conditions of reality, facts, focused on the entire object of control as a whole and its development in the future.

Health factors Company and administration policy	Motivating factors
Working conditions	Career advancement
Earnings	Recognition and approval of work results
Interpersonal relationships with superiors and subordinates	High degree of responsibility
Degree of direct control over work	Opportunities for creative and business growth

F. Herzberg's theory of motivation has much in common with A. Maslow's theory. F. Herzberg's health factors correspond to physiological needs, needs for safety and confidence in the future. His motivating factors are comparable to the needs of the higher levels of A. Maslow (see Fig. 6.3). But there is one point where these two theories diverge sharply. A. Maslow considered health factors as something that causes one or another line of behavior. If a manager gives a worker the opportunity to satisfy one of these needs, the worker will perform better in response. F. Herzberg, on the contrary, believes that an employee begins to pay attention to health factors only when he considers their implementation inadequate or unfair.

Rice. 6.3. Correlation between the theories of needs of A. Maslow and F. Herzberg

According to F. Herzberg's theory, the presence of health factors will not motivate workers. It will only prevent feelings of job dissatisfaction. In order to achieve motivation, the leader must ensure the presence of not only health factors, but also motivating factors. Many organizations have attempted to implement these theoretical insights through job enrichment programs, where work is redesigned and expanded to provide greater satisfaction and reward to the individual doing the job. 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 the given task, the feeling that the person is performing separate and completely independent work.

The main characteristics of the models of A. Maslow, K. Alderfer, D. McClelland and F. Herzberg are compared in table. 6.2.

Table 6.2

Comparison of the theories of Maslow, Alderfer, McClelland and Herzberg

A. Maslow's theory

Needs are divided into primary and secondary and represent a five-level hierarchical structure in which they are arranged according to priority

Human behavior is determined by the lowest unsatisfied need of the hierarchical structure

Once the need is satisfied, its motivating influence ceases

K. Alderfer's theory

Three needs that motivate a person - the needs of existence, connection and growth

The movement from need to need goes in both directions: upward, if the need of the lower level is satisfied, and downward, if it is not possible to satisfy the need of the higher level.

The process of moving up the level of needs is the process of satisfying needs, and the process of moving down is the process of defeat in the desire to satisfy the need.

D. McCelland's theory

Three needs that motivate a person - the need for power, success and belonging (social need)

Today, these higher-order needs are especially important, since the needs of the lower levels, as a rule, have already been satisfied

Theory of F. Herzberg

Needs are divided into health factors and motivating factors

The presence of health factors only prevents the development of job dissatisfaction

Motivating factors, which roughly correspond to the needs of higher levels according to A. Maslow and D. McClelland, actively influence human behavior

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

In order to effectively use F. Herzberg's theory, it is necessary to draw up a list of health factors and, especially, motivating factors and give employees the opportunity to determine and indicate what they prefer.

Although F. Herzberg's theory was effectively used in a number of organizations, there were also criticisms addressed to it. They were mainly related to research methods. Indeed, if people are asked to describe situations when they felt good or bad after doing work, then they instinctively associate favorable situations with the role of their personality and objects that they control, and unfavorable ones with the role of other people and things that are objectively unknown to the respondents. depend. Thus, the results obtained by F. Herzbert were, at least in part, due to the way he asked questions.

Both health factors and motivating factors can serve as a source of motivation, depending on the needs of specific people. Since different people different needs, then different factors will motivate different people.

In addition, F. Herzberg assumed a strong correlation between job satisfaction and labor productivity. As other studies show, such a correlation does not always exist. For example, a person may love his job because he considers his colleagues to be friends and, by communicating with them, he satisfies his social needs. This person may consider everyday conversations with colleagues more important matter than doing the work assigned to him. Thus, despite high job satisfaction, productivity may remain low. Due to the fact that social needs play a very important role, the introduction of such motivating factors as increasing responsibility for the assigned task may not have a motivating effect and will not lead to increased productivity. This will be exactly the case, especially if other workers perceive the increase in the worker’s productivity as a violation of unspoken production standards.

Criticisms addressed to F. Herzberg's theory clearly show that motivation must be perceived as a probabilistic process. What motivates a given person in a particular situation may not have any effect on him at another time or on another person in a similar situation. Thus, although F. Herzberg made important contributions to the understanding of motivation, his theory does not take into account many variables that determine the situations associated with it. Subsequently, researchers realized that in order to explain the mechanism of motivation, it is necessary to consider numerous behavioral and environmental aspects. The implementation of this approach led to the creation of process theories of motivation: expectancy theory, equity theory and the Porter-Lawler complex model of motivation.

This psychological theory motivation created in the late 1950s by the 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