AN EMPIRICAL TEST OF THE HERZBERG THEORY ABOUT JOB SATISFACTION

Transcription

1

2 Tohoku Psychologica Folia 1981, 40 (1-4), AN EMPIRICAL TEST OF THE HERZBERG THEORY ABOUT JOB SATISFACTION By YUTAKA K 0 BAY ASH I (/}i* m)l (Department of Psychology, Tohoku University, Sendai) and HITOSHI I GAR ASH I (11.+Jit {:)2 (Department of Psychology, Tohoku University, Sendai) The purpose of this study was to test the validity of the Motivator-Hygiene (M-H) theory using a questionnaire which followed the outline of the Herzberg's original study. The results did not necessarily hold up the theory. The motivator factors operate not only as the satisfiers frequently, but also as the dissatisfiers, while most of the hygiene factors operate as the dissatisfiers but not so frequently as the motivator factors. With respect to the factors themselves, achievement and responsibility of motivator factors and supervision-technical of hygiene factors were found to be significantly unidirectional in the direction predicted in the theory. INTRODUCTION The M-H theory proposed by Herzberg et al. (1959) has greatly influenced recent studies about job satisfaction. While there are criticisms against the theory that the formulations are not presented clearly and in testable ways, according to Herzberg (1965; 1966) the theory can be summarized as follows: (1) Job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are not the obverse of each other, rather they are best viewed as two separate and parallel continua. (2) The opposite of job satisfaction is no job satisfaction, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is no job dissatisfaction. (3) Job satisfaction is determined by the feelings that individual has to the content of his job. These aspects of the job, satisfiers, serve to provide for the human need to exercise one's capacity and are called "motivator" factors, for the function, by these feelings derived, to make one's attitude to his job more active and to stimulate his morale on the job. (4) Job dissatisfaction is determined by the feelings the individual has to the context or the environment in which his task is accomplished. The context 1. Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University, Kawauchi, Sendai, 980 Japan. 2. Now at Nippon Recruit Center Co. Ltd., Ginza, Tokyo, Japan.

3 Test of the Herzberg Theory about Job Satisfaction 75 factors of the job operate to satisfy the need to prevent unpleasant environments. Dissatisfiers are called "hygiene" factors. Herzberg asserted that these propositions of the M-H theory are valid regardless of subject's age, sex, job classification and cultural background (Herzberg, 1966). In his book of 1966, 10 empirical studies including original study (1959) are cited as those supporting the M-H theory. While most of these investigations were administered using methods of the same form as that of original study, some of them based on questionnaires which follow the same form as the interview. The subjects were diverse in their jobs, job levels and types of organizations to which they belonged. Also included were different samples in their social and cultural backgrounds. Relying on the results of these results, Herzberg asserted the generality of his theory to be testified, against the criticism that the theory is unqualifiedly claimed to be generalized. Since the publication of the theory, a number of studies also have been reported which are inconsistent with it. While Herzberg has used the critical incident method and the factor coding method, most of those studies have utilized questionnaires which include rating, ranking, choice methods and so on, and analyzed the data using statistical methods such as correlational analysis, analysis of variance, factor analysis. Wernimont (1966) studied samples of accountants and engineers as to their past experiences, utilizing the forced choice method with pairs of items in which one item was motivator-related and the other was hygiene-related, and indicated that the motivator factors were important for both of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in both of the groups. Ewen et al. (1966) tested the hypotheses for which the M-H theory and the traditional theory of job satisfaction make different predictions. The results supported neither of the theories, but the motivator factors were found to be important in both of overall job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Utilizing a similar method, Graen (1968) reported results supporting the traditional theory of job satisfaction. Hulin, & Smith (1967) tested the theory by measuring overall job satisfaction and dissatisfaction separately, and reported that the results did not support the two-factor theory. Malinovsky, & Barry (1965) tried to test the theory using factor analyses based on the ratings by blue colour workers and indicated that though there appeared two sets of factors comparable to the motivator and hygiene ones, both of them positively related to overall job satisfaction contrary to the prediction derived from the theory. Graen (1966) performed factor analyses, based on the importance ratings to the items written to cover the content of Herzberg's 16 dimmensions, and concluded that the factors proposed by Herzberg did not constitute homogeneous groupings, for they did not correspond to the factors extracted. Diversity of the results depending on the methods used seems to be partly due to the difference of the concept "satisfaction" between that implied in Herzberg theory and that measured by the other methods. Herzberg has never defined the concept "satisfaction" explicitly, but as far as we conceive from the theory, it is neither the overall job satisfaction nor the feeling when some needs are fulfilled, but the feeling

4 76 Y. Kobayashi and H. Igarashi about the experiences by which motivation to one's job is heightened. As to the studies about the cross-cultural generality of the M-H theory, there are several investigations which have been administered outside U.S.A., besides those introduced in Herzberg (1966) (Hines, 1971; Lahiri & Srivasta, 1967). Though the studies which intended to test the theory were performed also in Japan, the methods of the same form as that of original study were not utilized in them (Nishikawa, 1971; 1975). Even under different cultures, the studies using the same method as that of Herzberg gave support to the theory, but clearly consistent results were not found when alternative methods were used. The purpose of this study is to test the M-H theory utilizing the method which follows that used in the original study as far as possible. And also were administered the questionnaires used in Nishikawa (1971), though they seemed to have some defects as the method for testing the theory. The results were compared with those obtained in the former method. The hypotheses tested in this research are as follows. Hypothesis 1: Among the job factors, it is the motivator factors that operate frequently toward heightening satisfaction, and the hygiene factors that operate to cause dissatisfaction frequently. Hypothesis 2: Hypothesis 1 is not influenced by differences in subject's sex, job, job level, and organization to which he belongs. Subjects METHOD (1) 99 employees in "T" office which is a local bureau of a Ministry of the Japanese Government. The mean age is 38.4 yrs. As to school careers, 59% are graduates of high schools and 26% are bachelors. Managerial positions are held by 27 Ss. All of the Ss are male and their jobs are clerical work. (2) 73 employees in "R" company of information survice industory. The mean age is 24.3 yrs. As to school careers, 41% are graduates of high schools and 49% are bachelors. In the Ss are included 4 males of managerial positions and 26 females whose jobs are clerical work. Jobs of male Ss are clerical work, business and technical work. (3) 51 employees in "S" and "Y" companies both of distribution industry. The mean age is 26.1 yrs. As to school careers, 57% are graduates of high schools and 33% are bachelors. Managerial positions are held by 27 Ss. Jobs of 17 female Ss are clerical work, and those of males are clerical work and business. (4) 30 blue colour workers in "K" firm, a maker of electric wires. The mean age is 34.4 yrs. As to school careers, 47% are graduates of junior high schools, and 53% are those of high schools. All Ss are male. Their jobs are various works in manufacturing processes The data are from the second author (1980). except for that of subjects (4).

5 Test of the Herzberg Theory about Job Satisfaction 77 Questionnaire The data were derived from a questionnaire which consists of following four parts. (1) Items concerning demographic characteristics of the Ss. (2) Items of questions based on the critical incident method of Herzberg. Pariods when incidents of satisfaction and dissatisfaction took place, degrees of influences of them, and the causes of them were asked. (3) Slightly modified version of the questionnaire developed by Nishikawa (1971). This questionnaire consists of 80 items in which two items about the factor of "welfare" considered important in Japan by him are added to the items concerning 16 factors based on Herzberg et al. (1959). The items are written in both forms of pleasant and unpleasant experiences for each of the factors. Ss were asked to choose the items which they had ever experienced and to rate the degrees of satisfaction (dissatisfaction) derived from the experiences in 3-point scale. Procedure The responses to the questions (2) were coded to the factors according to Herzberg et al. (1959), Herzberg (1965; 1966). In this study, however, three hygiene factors of Table 1. Percentages of each factors appearing in pleasant and unpleasant experiences. (%) Pleasant experiences Factors I (1) I (2) I (3) Recognition Achievement 35.7**, 66.7** 63. 6** I 17.1 Possibility of growth 13.1 I Advancement Responsibility 13.1** The work itself , Salary Interpersonal relations-supervisor Interpersonal relations-peers Interpersonal relations-subordinates 2.4 Interpersonal relations-customers or users Supervision -technical 19.7** Company policy and administration Working conditions Job security Factors in personal life Welfare I Status 2.9 Labour union Uncodable [ID I u:::ealan~2~xplrie~~es N I I ** p<o.ol t (1): "T" office (all Ss), (2): "R" company (all S8), (3): "S" + "Y" companies (all Ss). tt Excluding the Ss in "K" film because of the smallness of the sample.

6 78 Y. Kobayashi and H. Igarashi "welfare", "interpersonal-relations with customers or users" and "labor union" were newly established in addition to the 16 factors. For the responses to the questions (3), frequencies of pleasant and unpleasant experiences and averaged degrees of satisfaction (dissatisfaction) were computed as to each of the factors. RESULTS The results of the analysis based upon the critical incident method are presented in Table 1. For "T" office, significant factors in either pleasant or unpleasant experiences were achievement, responsibility and supervision-technical, and they all pointed to the directions consistent with the theory. For "R" company and "S" + "Y" companies, achievement alone was a significant factor and it appeared frequently in pleasant expenences. Pleasant experiences (%) Unpleasant experiences (%) 'T" office (all Ss) N: 84 Hygienes N :7 6 "R" company (all Ss) N: 51 Hygienes N :3 7 "R" company (males) N: 35 Hygienes N :2 2 "R" company (females) N: 16 Hygienes N: 1 5 "S"+'Y" companies (all Ss) N: 22 Hygienes N: 3 5 "S"+'Y" companies (males) N: 18 - Hygienes N :2 4 'K" firm (all Ss) N:lO Hygienes N: 1 6 Fig. 1. Percentages of Motivator incidents and Hygiene incidents in pleasant and unpleasant experiences.

7 Test of the Herzberg Theory about Job Satisfaction 79 Next, percentages in which motivator and hygiene factors playas the factors III pleasant and unpleasant experiences were presented in Fig. 1. Though the motivator factors appeared significantly in pleasant experiences for all groups, hygiene factors were not significant in unpleasant experiences. The function of the motivator factors in pleasant experiences was consistent with the prediction derived from the theory, but that of the hygiene factors in unpleasant experiences was not. Hence, these results of this study do not seem to fully support the theory. Rather these results can be said to prove that the motivator factors are important in both of pleasant and unpleasant experiences, and this finding has been indicated in some previous studies. Next, the results based on choice method and rating method are examined. From these methods derived two sets of data; rates of agreement with the factors (rates of frequencies of pleasant and unpleasant experiences concerning the factors) and ratings of degrees of satisfaction and dissatisfaction for the factors. In this section, data on three groups of "T" office (non-managerials), "R" company (males) and "8"+"Y" companies (males) were examined. At first, the percentages of Ss agreed with the experiences concerning each of the factors for each of the groups are presented in Table 2. When differences between the rates of agreement with pleasant and unpleasant experiences were tested, frequencies of pleasant experiences were significantly higher than those of unpleasant ones for most of the factors, and the factors for which inverse results were found were "salary" for Table 2. Pleasant and unpleasant experiences for the three groups. (%) Factors Recognition ** Achievement 63.9** ** Possibility of growth 52.8** 72.3** 47.1** Advancement Responsibility 69.4** 68.1** 61. 8** The work itself 70.8** 85.1** Salary ** 1l ** ** Interpersonal relations-supervisor 86.1** 89.4** Interpersonal relations-peers 87.5** 97.9** 82.4** Interpersonal relations-subordinates 31. 9** 27.7** 44.1** Supervision-technical 79.2** 91. 5** 76.5** Company policy and administration 73.6** 78.7** Working conditions Factors in personal life Status ** Job security 76.4** 44.7** 47.1** Welfare ** 1 N _ 34 ** p<o.oi t (1): "T" office (nonmanagerials), (2): "R" company (males), (3): "S"+"R" companies (males).

8 80 Y. Kobayashi and H. Igarashi "T" office and "8" + "R" companies and "welfare" for "8"+"Y" companies. Oorrelations for the profiles of the three groups are presented in Table 3. Oorrelations for unpleasant experiences were relatively low. Especially, correlations between the profile for "R" company and the profiles for "T" office and "8" + "Y" companies were lower than the correlation between the profiles for latter two groups, which indicate that the profile for "R" company is relatively different from the others for unpleasant experiences. Table 4. presents averaged degrees of satisfaction and dissatisfaction which were rated in 3-point scale for agreed experiences concerning each of the factors. The factors in which significant differences between the degrees of satisfactions and those of dissatisfactions were found were "recognition," "achievement" and "status" in "R" Table 3. Correlations of profiles of pleasant and unpleasant experiences. Groups Pleasant experiences Unpleasant experiences (1)-(2) 792** 591 (1) -(3) 924** 876** (2)-(3) 857** 668** ** p<o.oi t (1): "T" office (nonmanagerials) (2): "R" company (males) (3): "S"+"Y" companies (males). Table 4. Mean satisfaction and dissatisfaction for the three groups. Factors Recognition ** Achievement ** Possibility of growth Advancement Responsibility The work itself Salary Interpersonal relations supervisor Interpersonal relations peers Interpersonal relations subordinates Supervision. technical Company policy and administration Working conditions Factors in personal life Status ** Job security Welfare ** p<o.oi (1): "T" office (nonmanagerials), (2): "R" company (males), (3): "S"+"Y" companies (males).

9 Test of the Herzberg Theory about Job Satisfaction 81 company. For all of these factors, degrees of dissatisfaction were greater than those of satisfaction. Hypothesis 1 DISCUSSION The results of this study support the part of the Hypothesis 1 that the satisfiers are the motivator factors. That is, the motivator factors contributed significantly more to satisfaction than the hygiene factors for all groups. But the part of the hypothesis that the dissatisfiers are hygiene factors were not given clear support. As to unidirectionality of functions of both sets of the factors, the results did not fully support the theory. While the motivator factors were not necessarily unidirectional, the hygiene factors were found to be so for almost of all groups. As to the results for "T" office (all 8s), "R" company (all 8s) and "8"+"Y" companies (all 8s), both sets of the factors operate unidirectionally in the directions predicted by the theory, except for the motivator factors in "8" + "Y" companies. Based on the analyses above, it is concluded that while the motivator factors are not only very important as the satisfiers but also influential on unpleasant experiences, hygiene factors contribute to unpleasant experiences exclusively but not so influentially as the motivator factors. As to each of the factors, it is noticeable that achievement of the motivator factors are significant in the direction predicted by the theory for all of the three groups. Among the motivator factors, responsibility also appeared in significant frequency in the predicted direction. And for the hygiene factors only one is significant factor in unpleasant experiences. Though small in number, factors in which there were significant differences between percentages in pleasant and unpleasant experiences appeared unidirectionally in the predicted directions. It seems that the rarity of the significant factors is partly due to the smallness of the number of samples and the fact that we have not related so many factors to one incident as in a line of studies of Herzberg. Hypothesis 2 It is thought to follow that the validity of the Hypothesis 2 can not be discussed unless the Hypothesis 1 is verified. However, we can examine the diversity of the results by the subject's sex, job, job level and the group to which he belongs, even if the results were not consistent with the Hypothesis 1. As to this point, the finding that the motivator factors were relatively important in both pleasant and unpleasant experiences and that the hygiene factors operate unidirectionally were common regardless of the variables mentioned above. Analysis based on Nishikawa's questionnaire Nishikawa (1971; 1975) arranged coincidence of the results based on his method with Herzberg theory. Our results also were arranged according to them (Table 5).

10 82 Y. Kobayashi and H. Igarashi Table 5. Coincidence of the results in the present study with Herzberg theory. Group Analysis Satisfier Positive Coincidence I Dissa tisfier Satisfier I Negative Dissatisfier Achievement, Pos- Salary Interpersonal sibility of growth, relations-(supervisor, Responsibility, The Peers, Subordinates), (A) work itself Supervision -technical, (1) Company policy and administration, Job security (B) (2) Recognition, Salary, Interpersonal Possibility of growth, relations-(supervisor, (A) Responsibility, Work Peers, Subordinates), itself Supervision -technical, Job security, StatuB (B) Status Recognition, Achievement (3) (A) (B) Achievement, Pos- Salary, Interpersonal relasibility of growth, Welfare tions-(subordinates, Responsibility Peers), Supervisiontechnical, Job security t (1): "T" office (nonmanagerials), (2): "R" company (males), (3): "S"+"Y" companies (males). tt (A): Analysis based on frequencies of pleasant and unpleasant experiences. (B): Analysis based on degrees of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. We can not discuss the validity of the theory, based only on either one of the results of the "frequencies of experiences" approach or the "degrees of satisfaction (dissatisfaction)" approach. Rather the satisfiers or dissatisfiers which were found to be significantly important in both of the approaches could have been used to test the theory. But such factors were not found in this study. As reported above, the results of this investigation in Japan indicated the M-H theory to be only partly true. Yet, these results were not consistent with the view implied in discussions on the Japanese management that Japanese find their job satisfaction in interpersonal relationships or unification with organizations. Rather, the hygiene factors were found to operate unidirectionally in the direction predicted in the theory. And the finding that the motivator factors were important as both the satisfiers and the dissatisfiers corresponded with those of some studies in U.S.A.

11 Test of the Herzberg Theory about Job Satisfaction 83 REFERENCES Ewen, R.B., Smith, P.C., Hulin, C.L. & Locke, E.A An empirical test of the Herzberg two -factor theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 6, Graen, G.B Motivator and hygiene dimensions for research and development engineers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 6, Graen, G.B Testing traditional and two-factor hypotheses concerning job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 5, Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B.B The motivation to work. New York: Wiley. Herzberg, F The motivation to work among Finnish supervisors. Personnel Psychology, 18, Herzberg, F Work and the nature of man. New York: World Press. Hines, G.H Cross-cultural differences in two-factor motivation theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 3, Hulin, C.L. & Smith, P.A An empirical investigation of two implications of the twofactor theory of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 5, Igarashi, H An empirical study of job satisfaction in work motivation: a test of the Herzberg theory. Unpublished bachelor's thesis, Tohoku University. (In Japanese) Lahiri, D.K. & Srivasta, S Determinants of satisfaction in middle-management personnel. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 3, Malinovsky, M.R. & Barry, J.R Determinants of work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 6, Nishikawa, K A study of job satisfaction: an empirical test of the Herzberg theory. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 41, 6, (In Japanese with English summary) Nishikawa, K Job satisfaction of female in retailing. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 46, 1, (In Japanese with English summary) Wernimont, P.F Intrinsic and extrinsic factors in job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 1, (Received October 31, 1981)