Comparing and Contrasting Herzberg s Tw

Kaisit Udomkunnatum
9 June 2014

Comparing and Contrasting Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory with Vroom’s Expectancy Theory Being a leader in modern day society, coupled with the competition and constant changes in your environment, one is required to not only be an expert in one’s job, but to be a motivator of man and women. Passive leadership skills supported by staff-focused company policies are now prerequisites in becoming a successful leader. Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (Motivation Hygiene Theory) and Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory are 2 examples that leaders use in today’s society to motivate and influence staff, as well as to drive up production and/or output. Both theories have been tested and used by many companies and organizations, and both theories have their pros and cons which requires understanding of their limitations when being used. Herzberg’s Motivation Hygiene Theory disseminates an employee’s needs and wants into 2 categories, namely Hygiene Factors and Motivators. Hygiene Factors are factors that do not have any motivational value when present, but causes de-motivational value otherwise. These factors are extrinsic to the work itself. Hygiene Factors either provide Dissatisfaction or No dissatisfaction to the employees. Hygiene Factors include company policies and administration, supervision, interpersonal relationship, salary, status, job security, personal life, and working conditions. Motivators are factors that actually motivate an individual and yields positive satisfaction. These factors find their roots within the work itself. Motivators provide either Satisfaction or No Satisfaction to the employees. Motivators include achievement, recognition, growth possibilities, career advancement, level of responsibility, and the job itself. Herzberg’s theory is a very effective model as it understands that there are other factors that contribute to an employee’s job motivations aside from their work requirements/challenges, and the Hygiene Factors clearly addresses these factors. Placating (No Dissatisfaction) an employee through working conditions, pay, etc…, allows for the organization to focus their efforts to push output through intrinsic work factors (Satisfaction) which are the Motivators. However, there are a few issues that the Motivation Hygiene theory fails to address which are crucial to an organization. Firstly, this theory focuses completely on employees’ needs and wants and tries to satisfy them, but does not equate the organization’s requirements into the equation. This theory assumes that happy employees are more productive. Secondly, this theory assumes that a motivator for one person is also a motivator for another person. This might not hold true in many situations. Thirdly, depending on a person’s character traits, he or she could have different reactions or response to a Hygiene or Motivator factor. Lastly, the theory assumes that the relationship between each category within the Motivators and within the Hygiene factors is positive. It might not be the case, as a person might be happy with the amount of responsibility, but not receive enough recognition. Likewise for Hygiene factors, a person could be happy with the pay, but not if the increase in pay comes with less flexible hours. Vroom’s Expectancy theory is different from Herzberg’s Motivation Hygiene Theory in that Vroom’s theory does not provide specific suggestions on what motivates organization members. Instead, Vroom’s theory identifies different factors that can be done to motivate employees through 3 different scenarios, namely effort-to-performance, performance-to-reward, and reward valences. Vroom’s Expectancy theory believes that a person (employee) is motivated to various degrees based on the belief that effort will lead to acceptable performance (Expectancy), which will lead to rewards (Instrumentality), and the rewards will vary accordingly (Valence). People will be motivated if they believe that their efforts will lead to better performances, and this in turn will lead to better / desired rewards. This theory theoretically assumes that there is a positive correlation between effort, performance, and rewards. A formula is derived by from this theory:
Motivation = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valence
In the event that a person feels negatively towards a factor such as instrumentality (value =0), then the Motivation value is 0, meaning he/she has no motivation to do the work. Vroom’s theory is a simple yet highly effective method of motivating people, as it identifies what a person wants / needs, and allows an organization to structure its goals and rewards to suit those needs. This also allows the organization to stretch output targets as well as assessing both employee potential and limitations. However, there are a few issues that the theory fails to address. Firstly, every person’s expectancy is different, including their instrumentality and valences. Hence, satisfying all individuals in a group becomes extremely different. Secondly, for this theory to be successful, an organization needs to identify what the valence for each individual is, then allocating the required expectancy and instrumentality accordingly. This becomes increasingly difficult as more time passes, as each individual’s experiences changes with time. Lastly, by tying in valence with motivation, this could create an organizational culture of being motivated only when valence is satisfactory. Also, the costs are borne by an organization, which if not kept in check, could develop into another altogether different problem.
I feel that both Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction and Vroom’s Expectancy Theory, despite both being theories of motivation, are very different in nature. In my opinion, it is not feasible to use strictly just one type of theory as the cons of each theory could prove detrimental to the organization. Herzberg’s theory focuses on the individual’s satisfaction at work with no regards to actual output monitoring, whereas Vroom’s theory assumes that an individual’s performances are related to their perceived rewards with no correlation to his or her surroundings or working environment. I believe that a combination of both theories is more practical and sustainable in the long run. By using Herzberg’s Hygiene factors, we can control the extrinsic aspects of the work environment, ensuring that the employees have “No Dissatisfaction”. We can then use a mixture of Herzberg’s Motivational factors with Vroom’s Expectancy theory to create a self actualization and valence oriented culture which offers both personal achievement and recognition, as well as goals and rewards in return.
The culture of the company that I work for is very much based on Vroom’s Expectancy theory. Our company sets extremely challenging goals, and rewards the employees accordingly. However, over time, the employees become valence dependent, and the reward directly indicates the quality of the work. With no other alternatives, and especially given the neglect to the Hygiene factors (being almost non-existent), we are forced to go along with this system, which leads to burgeoning costs and expenses with diminishing returns. The implementation of Herzberg’s Hygiene and Motivational factors coupled with the existing Vroom’s Expectancy theory will help create a balance between employee needs and organization wants.