Staying motivated to complete our work tasks day in and day out can sometimes feel difficult. There are so many factors that influence our motivation, whether or not we procrastinate, and if we feel satisfied by the work we are completing.

Herzberg’s motivation theory is a type of content theory (a theory that focuses on what motivates people), which recognizes that these factors are both internal and external and interact in complex ways. In Herzberg’s theory, these internal and external factors are referred to as motivation factors and hygiene factors, respectively. Motivation factors, which include having responsibility, receiving recognition, or being interested in the work, all contribute to satisfaction. Hygiene factors, such as work conditions, salary, and company policies, do not necessarily cause an employee to be more satisfied, but if they are absent, they will cause an employee to be dissatisfied. Herzberg occasionally refers to hygiene factors as “KITA” factors, with KITA being an acronym for Kick In The Ass.¹² These factors motivate someone to act either through incentives or the threat of punishment. Examples include reducing time spent at work (incentive) or losing a bonus (punishment). However, they only provide short-term success. It is the motivation factors that actually determine when there is satisfaction in the job.

One novel component of Herzberg’s motivation theory is that job satisfaction is not seen as the opposite of job dissatisfaction.¹ The two are separate phenomena influenced by different factors. Dissatisfaction is impacted by hygiene factors, while satisfaction is obtained through motivators. Following this logic, the opposite of job satisfaction is no job satisfaction, according to Herzberg. 

Let’s look at an example of Herzberg’s concept as it relates to employee compensation and career growth opportunities. Suppose a company offers low salaries, poor job security, and an unpleasant work environment. These are hygiene factors, and their absence will likely cause employee dissatisfaction. If the company improves these conditions by providing fair salaries, stable contracts, and a comfortable workspace, employees will no longer be dissatisfied. However, that does not necessarily mean they will be truly satisfied or motivated. To achieve employee job satisfaction, the company needs motivating factors, such as recognizing employee achievements, offering career development opportunities, and providing meaningful, challenging work. This demonstrates Herzberg’s idea that eliminating dissatisfaction does not create satisfaction; it only brings employees to a neutral status, while true motivation comes from intrinsic factors that drive engagement and fulfillment.

The psychology of motivation is very complex and multidimensional. What we do know about it is relatively little, considering how much it impacts our lives. Herzberg’s theory is one of several theories of motivation, each one providing a different lens through which to understand human behavior and its influencing factors. 

Hygiene factors: External job conditions, such as salary, company policies, and work environment, that prevent dissatisfaction but do not actively motivate employees when improved.

Motivators: Intrinsic job elements, such as achievement, recognition, and personal growth, that directly drive job satisfaction and long-term motivation when present.

Crowding out: An economic and psychological concept where external interventions, such as government spending or extrinsic rewards, reduce or displace intrinsic motivation or private sector activity.
Overjustification effect: A psychological phenomenon where offering external rewards (such as money, prizes, or recognition) for an activity that a person already finds intrinsically rewarding reduces their original motivation to do it for its own sake.

Frederick Herzberg, born in 1923, began his career as an American clinical psychologist. He was particularly interested in mental health and believed that it was “the core issue of our times.”³ He became committed to improving mental health after visiting Dachau, the longest-operating Nazi concentration camp. When he returned from his visit, he decided to work for the U.S. Public Health service.

With a passion for mental health, Herzberg took an interest in how employee wellbeing and happiness could be improved, as he saw these as keys to unlocking greater productivity. He examined a popular theory of motivation, Maslow’s pyramid (named after its creator, American psychologist Abraham Maslow), which suggested that basic human needs (like sleep and shelter) must be fulfilled before people can address more complex needs (like finding purpose in life). When it came to the workplace, Herzberg identified the lower levels of the pyramid as basic necessities, such as salary and stable working conditions. Similar to Maslow’s pyramid, he thought these basic ‘hygiene factors’ had to be met; however, he did not think that these contributed to satisfaction, nor did he believe that they had to be met for higher motivators to be present. He did not see motivation on a continuum, but instead, proposed a theory with two independent factors: contributions to satisfaction, and contributions to dissatisfaction.⁴

Herzberg came up with his own model of motivation, often referred to as Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory. He wanted to answer the simple question: “What do people want out of their jobs?” He believed the answer was the root of motivation and tapping into it could boost employee satisfaction. Along with his colleagues, Herzberg interviewed 203 engineers and accountants working in the Pittsburgh area. He gave them a survey asking which components of their job made them happy or unhappy.⁴

Herzberg found that there was a pattern in the employees’ responses. The components that made them unhappy usually had to do with the working environment—extrinsic factors—and the components that made them happy were related to the job itself—inherent influences. As a result, Herzberg separated two influences in his motivational theory: hygiene factors and motivators.

Hygiene factors include company and administrative policies, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations, work conditions, and job security.¹ These components refer to the context under which the work is conducted and are necessary to prevent employees from feeling dissatisfied, although they won’t motivate them further than a base level. Motivators, on the other hand, include achievement, recognition, inherent interest in the work itself, responsibility, and opportunities for growth. These components refer to the work itself, not the context,¹ and allow employees to feel satisfied. Motivators and hygiene factors are therefore completely independent influences on overall employee happiness and motivation, and each is concerned with a different set of needs.

Herzberg published his motivation theory in a now-famous 1968 Harvard Business Review article, “One more time: how do you motivate employees?”. In this article, he also coined the term ‘job enrichment,’ suggesting managers include motivators for their employees.³ Herzberg is regarded as one of the pioneers of employee well-being strategies.⁵

So, over half a century later, is Herzberg’s theory still relevant to our modern workplaces? Research suggests that the answer is yes. In a systematic review of the applicability of Herzberg’s theory in various 21st-century workplaces, including correctional facilities, the retail sector, and the telecommunications industry, it was found that the strongest predictors of employees’ perceived job satisfaction included the nature of the work, in addition to recognition and achievement.¹³

However, Herzberg’s theory may not translate well across generations. One study by Daniel Bevins explored Herzberg’s theory through the lens of generational differences, exploring how motivational factors may vary across different age cohorts.¹⁴ Bevins found that millennials, people born between 1981 and 1997, tend to view salary as a motivator, associating it with personal achievement and recognition. This contrasts with Herzberg’s original classification of salary as a hygiene factor, which he believed prevented dissatisfaction but did not contribute to long-term satisfaction. Another study found that millennial employees placed great importance on both hygiene and motivator factors in their motivational needs.¹⁵ 

Frederick Herzberg

American psychologist and influential figure in business management, best known for developing the Two-Factor Theory of Motivation, also known as Herzberg’s Motivation Theory, and coining the term ‘job enrichment.’ His work has stood the test of time and has been used to enhance employee motivation and satisfaction in diverse workplaces across the globe. 

Abraham Maslow

American psychologist who specialized in humanistic psychology and later in his career, self-transcendence. Maslow’s work emphasized personal growth, free will, and positive human potential, challenging the dominant behaviorist and psychoanalytic approaches of his time. He is considered one of the early pioneers in the study of human motivation. 

David McClelland

American psychologist working in the field of human motivation, leadership, and organizational behavior. He is best known for his Achievement Motivation Theory, or Three Needs Theory, which explains how individuals are motivated by three primary psychological needs.

Herzberg’s theory suggests that simply giving your employees a salary raise will not increase their satisfaction. Subsequently, he came up with the acronym KITA (Kick in the Ass) to show that personnel practices focused on extrinsic motivation do not solve long-term satisfaction issues.³ While an employee’s dissatisfaction levels are temporarily diminished, their satisfaction levels will not rise.

The idea that external rewards diminish intrinsic motivation is supported by the overjustification effect and the theory of crowding out. Both theories describe our tendency to become less motivated to partake in an activity we inherently enjoy after an offer of external motivation, such as money. This happens because the external reward shifts our focus from internal satisfaction to external gain, changing the way we perceive the activity itself.

The overjustification effect suggests that when we are rewarded for doing something we already enjoy, we may start to attribute our motivation to the reward rather than to our own interest. As a result, when the reward is removed, our desire to continue the activity often drops. Similarly, the crowding out theory (from behavioral economics) argues that external incentives can “crowd out” internal motivation by making the task feel controlled or transactional rather than freely chosen.

For example, someone might feel highly motivated to go to the gym after seeing rapid progress in the first few weeks. But as their body adapts and the visible changes slow down, the lack of immediate results—initially an external motivator—can lead to a drop in motivation, even if they initially enjoyed the routine.

All three theories suggest managers should focus on increasing inherent motivation for long-term effect, though basic hygiene should first be met. Managers can increase motivators by emphasizing positive feedback, the value of the work, and the importance of employee contributions.⁶ These solutions often cost little to nothing, which means money can be reserved for maintaining hygiene factors.

One of the biggest advantages of Herzberg’s motivation theory compared to other theories, including Maslow’s pyramid, is that it is prescriptive rather than descriptive. It addresses specific actions, whilst Maslow’s theory describes motivation rather than providing actionable items.⁴

Although Herzberg’s motivation theory has garnered a lot of support, like any popular theory, it has had its fair share of criticisms. Critics point out that when satisfaction is high, people tend to attribute their good fortune to the enjoyable aspects of their job. However, when satisfaction is low, they tend to blame external factors. This suggests a continuum between satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Contrary to Herzberg’s theory, external factors might need to be tackled first—if employees are unsatisfied with external factors, they are unable to gain satisfaction from changes to internal factors.⁷

Another criticism is that Herzberg’s theory conflates satisfaction and productivity. While it might be true that being more satisfied can make you work harder, Herzberg only investigated satisfaction levels, not work output.⁷ Critics argue that productivity is influenced by a complex set of variables, including skills, technology, team dynamics, physical environment,¹⁸ managerial effectiveness, and even happiness,¹⁹ which Herzberg’s framework does not fully address. Therefore, while the theory remains valuable for understanding job satisfaction, it should not be used in isolation to predict or drive workplace performance.

There is also some controversy as to whether or not the theory applies to all professions. A 1996 study by Joseph Gawel showed that the theory did not hold up for teachers: schools were losing teachers to higher-paying jobs, which suggested salary acts as a key motivator (not a hygiene factor).⁸ Similarly, conflicting results have been found in Turkish public high schools. Researchers from Isparta Province examined the job satisfaction and motivational levels of social studies and science studies high school teachers in the region working with grades 9-12. They concluded that the teachers’ motivation was mostly dependent on both the fulfillment of hygiene and motivator factors, but that their motivation was more influenced by hygiene factors.¹⁶ 

Another popular management motivation theory is the Three Needs Theory, or simply Need Theory. Developed by psychologist David McClelland in the 1960s, the theory suggests that there are only three motivators: a need for achievement, a need for affiliation, and a need for power.⁹ It does not separate context and inherent motivators as starkly as Herzberg’s motivation theory. For example, achievement can include receiving regular feedback and a desire to work alone.⁹ The former would fall under Herzberg’s motivators, whilst the latter would fall under hygiene factors.

Moreover, Herzberg’s motivation theory does not account for cultural differences. Research has shown that a person's motivations are influenced by whether they live in a collectivist or individualist country.¹⁷ Individualist countries tend to emphasize individual success, which might mean satisfaction is tied to motivators. Alternatively, collectivist countries are more attentive to the needs of others, which might result in the work environment being a greater source of satisfaction. McClelland’s Need Theory, although suggesting that the three motivators are true regardless of culture, takes cultural differences into account by stating that one’s culture will impact which of the three takes dominance.⁹

Job Satisfaction Amongst Laboratory Professionals

Samira Alrawahi, a researcher in the pathology department at a university hospital in Oman, recognized that job satisfaction was an important condition for staff retention in many healthcare organizations.¹⁰ Staff retention is especially important for hospitals in Oman, as they often have to recruit expatriates, which means it can be difficult to find replacements. Along with her colleagues, Alrawahi wanted to examine whether the motivational elements identified by medical laboratory professionals would correspond to Herzberg’s motivation theory.

Alrawahi and her team wanted to explore the motivational elements associated with job satisfaction among medical laboratory professionals in Oman. She hosted a series of focus group discussions with medical laboratory professionals working in hematology, biochemistry, pathology, and microbiology from three main hospitals in Oman. Respondents were encouraged to express their feelings through open-ended questions posed by a facilitator.¹⁰

In line with Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation, Alrawahi found that the factors contributing to job satisfaction among medical laboratory professionals in Oman were different from those causing job dissatisfaction.¹⁰ However, the divide did not perfectly correspond to Herzberg’s motivator versus hygiene differentiation. Medical laboratory professionals reported higher satisfaction from their professional development and their relationships with co-workers and leaders. At the same time, they reported that health and safety, professional status, workload, and poor salary contributed to dissatisfaction.¹⁰ The dissatisfaction factors correspond to Herzberg’s motivation, which suggests that there may be similar motivators between certain professions.

Tesco’s Success

Tesco, a British grocery store chain, has greatly expanded since its foundation in 1919. The founder, Jack Cohen, began the business as a market stallholder, but today, Tesco is one of the largest retailers in the country, with over 2,200 stores.¹¹ Tesco partially attributes its success and growth to its motivated, flexible, and well-trained employees. In return, Tesco aims to ensure that its employees feel supported by the company and motivated to work. Tesco has explored multiple motivational theories to tackle its goal, including Herzberg’s motivation theory.

Based on Herzberg’s motivation theory, Tesco’s management identified the components that lead to employee satisfaction: achievement, responsibility, advancement, a sense of challenge, and enjoyment.¹¹ As a result, Tesco focused on setting achievable goals for employees and creating an interesting work environment based on these components. They also recognized that rewards should go beyond pay increases, which led to the development of Tesco’s Employee Reward Programme. The program rewards workers through discounts, gym memberships, and free shares, among other perks. Tesco also helps its employees create a personal development plan for professional and personal growth. The plan focuses on the individuality of each employee and allows staff to take a greater interest in their own career journey. Managers also review the employee’s personal development plans with them, which allows for recognition of achievement.¹¹

The Science of Reward

Although Herzberg’s motivation theory suggests that monetary incentives do not increase motivation levels, there is a growing body of research which suggests that performance-related pay can in fact improve performance. On the other hand, multiple cognitive biases, like the overjustification effect, prove the opposite. In this article, The Decision Lab tackles all the advantages and disadvantages of monetary rewards.

The Stages of Change: How to Motivate, Facilitate, and Reinforce Desired Behaviors

Finding ways to motivate oneself or one’s employees is not usually a one-size-fits all task. It can be difficult to change someone’s behavior, as we are creatures of habit. In this article, our writer Karine Lacroix examines the three different stages of creating change: motivation, facilitation, and reinforcement. Lacroix suggests that it is important to know which stage of change you are tackling when deciding on the optimal behavior-change strategy, as this will impact its effectiveness.

1. Denis. (2019, November 7). Herzberg’s Motivation Theory – Two Factor Theory. Expert Program Management. https://expertprogrammanagement.com/2018/04/herzbergs-motivation-theory-two-factor-theory/
2. Zeeman, A. (2017). Frederick Herzberg. ToolsHero. https://www.toolshero.com/toolsheroes/frederick-herzberg/
3. Frederick Herzberg: The Hygiene Motivation Theory Thinker. (n.d.). studylib. from https://studylib.net/doc/18610546/frederick-herzberg-the-hygiene-motivation-theory
4. Surbhi, S. (2020, July 11). Difference Between Maslow and Herzberg’s Theories of Motivation. Key Differences. https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-maslow-and-herzberg-theories-of-motivation.html
5. Chapman, A. (2017, November 29). Frederick Herzberg - Motivation Theory. Business Balls. https://www.businessballs.com/improving-workplace-performance/frederick-herzberg-motivation-theory/
6. Syptak, J. M., Marsland, D. W., & Ulmer, D. (1999, October 1). Job Satisfaction: Putting Theory Into Practice. American Academy of Family Physicians. https://www.aafp.org/fpm/1999/1000/p26.html
7. Herzberg's Motivators and Hygiene Factors. (n.d.). Management Training and Leadership Training. Retrieved June 3, 2021, from https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/herzberg-motivators-hygiene-factors.htm
8. Gawel, J. E. (n.d.). Herzberg's Theory of Motivation and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation:, 5(1996). https://doi.org/10.7275/31qy-ea53
9. McClelland's Human Motivation Theory. (n.d.). Mind Tools. Retrieved June 3, 2021, from https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/human-motivation-theory.htm
10. Alrawahi, S., Sellgren, S. F., Altouby, S., Alwahaibi, N., & Brommels, M. (2020). The application of Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation to job satisfaction in clinical laboratories in Omani hospitals. Heliyon, 6(9), e04829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04829
11. Motivational theory in practice at Tesco. (2019, September 20). Business Case Studies. Retrieved June 3, 2021, from https://businesscasestudies.co.uk/motivational-theory-in-practice-at-tesco/#axzz4Zid0HLsr
12. Herzberg, F. (2003, January). One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2003/01/one-more-time-how-do-you-motivate-employees
13. Mitsakis, M. and Galanakis, M. (2022). An Empirical Examination of Herzberg’s Theory in the 21st Century Workplace. Organizational Psychology Re-Examined. Psychology, 13, 264-272. doi: 10.4236/psych.2022.132015.
14. Bevins, D. (2018). Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory of Motivation: A Generational Study. Eastern Kentucky University. https://encompass.eku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1547&context=honors_theses
15. Baldonado, A. (2013). Motivating Generation Y and Virtual Teams. Open Journal of Business and Management, 1, 39-44. doi: 10.4236/ojbm.2013.12006.
16. Atalıç, H., & Can, A. (2016). Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory Applied to High School Teachers in Turkey. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(4). 
17. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
18. Kamarulzaman, N. et al. (2011). An Overview of the Influence of Physical Office Environments Towards Employees. Procedia Engineering, 20, 262-268. 
19. University of Oxford. (2019, October 2019). Happy workers are 13% more productive. University of Oxford. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-10-24-happy-workers-are-13-more-productive