Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory Of Motivation-Hygiene赫茨伯格的动机双因素理论

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory Of Motivation-Hygiene 赫茨伯格的动机双因素理论 美国心理学家赫茨伯格1959年提出。他把企业中有关因素分为两种，即满意因素和不满意因素。满意因素是指可以使人得到满足和激励的因素。不满意因素是指容易产生意见和消极行为的因素，即保健因素。他认为这两种因素是影响员工绩效的主要因素。保健因素的内容包括公司的政策与管理、监督、工资、同事关系和工作条件等。这些因素都是工作以外的因素，如果满足这些因素，能消除不满情绪，维持原有的工作效率，但不能激励人们更积极的行为。激励因素与工作本身或工作内容有关，包括成就、赞赏、工作本身的意义及挑战性、责任感、晋升、发展等。这些因素如果得到满足，可以使人产生很大的激励，若得不到满足，也不会像保健因素那样产生不满情绪

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory Of Motivation-Hygiene 赫茨伯格的动机双因素理论

• What Is Two-Factor Theory? 什么是双因素理论？
  • The two-factor motivation theory, otherwise known as Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory or dual-factor theory, argues that there are separate sets of mutually exclusive factors in the workplace that either cause job satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1966; 1982; 1991; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Generally, these factors encourage job satisfaction and relate to self-growth and self-actualization. The two-factor motivation theory has become one of the most commonly used theoretical frameworks in job satisfaction research (Dion, 2006). To Herzberg, motivators ensured job satisfaction, while a lack of hygiene factors spawned job dissatisfaction. 双因素激励理论，也被称为赫茨伯格的激励保健理论或双因素理论，认为工作场所存在一系列相互排斥的因素，这些因素要么导致工作满意，要么导致工作不满意(赫茨伯格，1966；1982;1991;Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959)。一般来说，这些因素会促进工作满意度，并与自我成长和自我实现有关。双因素激励理论已经成为工作满意度研究中最常用的理论框架之一（Dion, 2006）。在赫茨伯格看来，激励因素确保了工作满意度，而缺乏保健因素则导致了工作不满意度。
• Frederick Herzberg’s Approach
  • Frederick Herzberg and his two collaborators, Mausner and Snyderman, developed the motivation-hygiene theory in their book Motivation to Work. Influenced by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Jones, 2011), Herzberg concluded that satisfaction and dissatisfaction could not be measured reliably on the same continuum and conducted a series of studies where he attempted to determine what factors in work environments cause satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Herzberg and his colleagues explored the impact of fourteen factors on job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in terms of their frequency and duration of impact (Bassett-Jones and Lloyd, 2005). In the first of these studies, Heizberg asked 13 laborers, clerical workers, foremen, plant engineers, and accountants to describe, in detail, situations where they felt exceptionally good or bad about their jobs (Robbins and Judge, 2013). Generally, respondents, when describing situations where they felt good about their jobs, cited factors intrinsic to their work, while those describing situations where they felt bad about their jobs cited extrinsic factors. Herzberg (1959) considers two factors that can add to or detract from job satisfaction: hygiene and motivation. While hygiene factors are related to “the need to avoid unpleasantness,” motivation factors more directly lead to job satisfaction because of “the need of the individual for self-growth and self-actualization.” The traditional view of job satisfaction entails that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction exist on the same continuum; employees who lack reasons to be satisfied with their jobs must be dissatisfied (Robbins and Judge, 2013). However, hygiene and motivational factors are distinct. To Herzberg, the opposite of job satisfaction was not job dissatisfaction but no job satisfaction. Conversely, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is no job dissatisfaction (Kacel et al., 2005). These two separate continua of job satisfaction and job satisfaction support the possibility that someone can be content with certain aspects of their jobs but discontent with others. Perhaps more pessimistically, this also implies that simply eliminating “dissatisfiers” would not necessarily lead to job satisfaction as much as placation (motivational concepts). These so-called “satisfiers” (motivational factors) and “dissatisfiers” (a lack of hygiene factors) are dynamic, constantly interacting, highly subject to change, and relative to the employee (Misener and Cox, 2001). Certain satisfiers or dissatisfiers may be more important than others depending on personal and professional contexts. According to Herzberg, whether or not dissatisfiers outweigh satisfiers predict whether employees find their job interesting and enjoyable and their likelihood of remaining at their current jobs (Kacel et al., 2005). Frederick Herzberg和他的两位合作者，Mausner和Snyderman，在他们的著作《工作动机》中发展了动机保健理论。受马斯洛需求层次（Jones, 2011）的影响，赫茨伯格得出结论，满意和不满意不能在同一个连续体上可靠地测量，并进行了一系列研究，他试图确定工作环境中的哪些因素会导致满意或不满意。Herzberg和他的同事从影响频率和持续时间的角度探讨了14个因素对工作满意度和不满意度的影响（basset - jones and Lloyd, 2005）。在第一项研究中，赫茨伯格要求13名劳动者、文员、领班、工厂工程师和会计师详细描述他们对工作感到特别好或特别坏的情况（罗宾斯和贾奇，2013）。一般来说，受访者在描述他们对工作感觉良好的情况时，提到了工作的内在因素，而那些描述他们对工作感觉不好的情况时，提到了外在因素。Herzberg（1959）认为两个因素可以增加或减少工作满意度：保健和动机。虽然保健因素与“避免不愉快的需要”有关，但激励因素更直接地导致工作满意度，因为“个人对自我成长和自我实现的需要”。传统的工作满意度观点认为，工作满意度和工作不满意度存在于同一连续体上；缺乏对工作感到满意的理由的员工一定是不满意的（罗宾斯和贾奇，2013）。然而，保健和动机因素是不同的。在赫茨伯格看来，工作满意的对立面不是工作不满意，而是没有工作满意。相反，与工作不满意相反的是没有工作不满意（Kacel et al., 2005）。这两个独立的连续的工作满意度和工作满意度支持这样一种可能性，即某人可能对工作的某些方面感到满意，但对其他方面不满意。也许更悲观的是，这也意味着简单地消除“不满意者”并不一定会像安置那样带来工作满意度（动机概念）。这些所谓的“满意因素”（激励因素）和“不满意因素”（缺乏保健因素）是动态的，不断相互作用，高度受变化影响，相对于员工（Misener和Cox， 2001）。根据个人和职业背景，某些满意因素或不满意因素可能比其他因素更重要。根据赫茨伯格的说法，不满意者是否超过满意者，可以预测员工是否觉得自己的工作有趣和愉快，以及他们留在当前工作岗位的可能性（Kacel等人，2005）。
• Motivation Factors 激励因素
  • Herzberg et al. (1959) argue that motivation factors are necessary to improve job satisfaction. According to Herzberg, these motivators are intrinsic to the job and lead to job satisfaction because they satisfy the needs for growth and self-actualization (Herzberg, 1966). In his original paper, Herzberg examines 14 motivational and hygiene factors, of which there are notable examples: 1. Advancement: Herzberg defined advancement as the upward and positive status or position of someone in a workplace. Meanwhile, a negative or neutral status at work represents negative advancement (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017). 2. The work itself: The content of job tasks can positively or negatively affect employees. The job’s difficulty and level of engagement can dramatically impact satisfaction or dissatisfaction in the workplace (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017). 3. Possibility for growth: Possibilities for growth exist in the same vein as Maslow’s self-actualization; they are opportunities for a person to experience personal growth and promotion in the workplace. Personal growth can result in professional growth, increased opportunities to develop new skills and techniques, and gaining professional knowledge (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017). 4. Responsibility: Responsibility encompasses both the responsibilities held by the individual and the authority granted to the individual in their role. People gain satisfaction from being given the responsibility and authority to make decisions. Conversely, a mismatch between responsibility and level of authority negatively affects job satisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017). 5. Recognition: When employees receive praise or rewards for reaching goals or producing high-quality work, they receive recognition. Negative recognition involves criticism or blame for a poorly done job (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017). 6. Achievement: Positive achievement can involve, for example, completing a difficult task on time, solving a job-related problem, or seeing positive results from one’s work. Negative achievement includes failure to progress at work or poor job-related decision-making (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017). Herzberg et al.（1959）认为激励因素是提高工作满意度的必要因素。赫茨伯格认为，这些激励因素是工作内在的，因为它们满足了成长和自我实现的需要，所以会导致工作满意度（赫茨伯格，1966）。在他最初的论文中，赫茨伯格考察了14个动机和健康因素，其中有一些值得注意的例子： 1.晋升：赫茨伯格将晋升定义为某人在工作场所的向上和积极的地位或位置。同时，消极或中性的工作状态代表消极的进步（Alshmemri et al., 2017,2017）。 2.工作本身：工作任务的内容会对员工产生积极或消极的影响。工作的难度和投入程度会极大地影响工作场所的满意度或不满意度（Alshmemri等人，2017,2017）。 3.成长的可能性：成长的可能性与马斯洛的自我实现是一样的；它们是一个人在工作场所体验个人成长和晋升的机会。个人成长可以导致专业成长，增加发展新技能和技术的机会，并获得专业知识（Alshmemri等人，2017,2017）。 4.责任：责任既包括个人承担的责任，也包括个人在其角色中被授予的权力。人们从被赋予做决定的责任和权力中获得满足感。相反，责任和权力水平之间的不匹配会对工作满意度产生负面影响（Alshmemri等人，2017,2017）。 5.认可：当员工因达到目标或完成高质量的工作而获得表扬或奖励时，他们得到了认可。负面认知包括对工作做得不好的批评或指责（Alshmemri等人，2017,2017）。 6.成就：积极的成就可以包括，例如，按时完成一项困难的任务，解决与工作有关的问题，或者从工作中看到积极的结果。消极成就包括在工作中未能取得进展或与工作相关的决策不佳（Alshmemri等人，2017,2017）。
• Hygiene Factors 保健因素
  • Hygiene factors are those which decrease job dissatisfaction. Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman used the term hygiene as “medical hygiene…[which] operates to remove health hazards from the environment” (1959; Alshmemri et al., 2017). Herzberg also states that hygiene factors are extrinsic to the job and function in “the need to avoid unpleasantness” (Herzberg, 1966). Hygiene factors, rather than relating to the content of the job in itself, tend to relate to contextual factors such as interpersonal relations, salary, company policies, and administration, relationship with supervisors, and working conditions: 1. Interpersonal relations: Interpersonal relationships involve the personal and working relationships between an employee and his supervisors, subordinates, and peers. This can manifest in, for example, job-related interactions as well as social discussions in both the work environment and during informal break times. 2. Salary: Salary includes wage or salary increases and negative unfulfilled expectations of wage or salary increases (Alshmemri et al., 2017). 3. Company policies and administration: Company policies and administration include factors such as the extent to which company organization and management policies and guidelines are clear or unclear. For example, a lack of delegation of authority, vague policies and procedures, and communication may lead to job dissatisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017). 4. Supervision: Supervision involves an employee’s judgments of the competence or incompetence and fairness or unfairness of the supervisor or supervision. For example, this could include a supervisor’s willingness to delegate responsibility or teach and their knowledge of the job. Poor leadership and management can decrease job satisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017). 5. Working conditions: Finally, working conditions involve the physical surroundings of the job and whether or not they are good or poor. Factors leading to a good or poor workspace could involve the amount of work, space, ventilation, tools, temperature, and safety (Alshmemri et al., 2017). 保健因素是那些减少对工作不满意的因素。赫茨伯格、莫斯纳和斯奈德曼将保健一词定义为“医疗保健……旨在消除环境对健康的危害”(1959；Alshmemri et al., 2017)。赫茨伯格还指出，保健因素是工作的外在因素，在“避免不愉快的需要”中起作用（赫茨伯格，1966）。保健因素，而不是与工作本身的内容有关，往往与环境因素有关，如人际关系，工资，公司政策，管理，与主管的关系，以及工作条件。 1.人际关系：人际关系包括员工与上级、下属和同事之间的个人关系和工作关系。这可以表现在，例如，与工作有关的互动，以及在工作环境和非正式休息时间的社会讨论。 2.工资：工资包括工资或加薪以及对工资或加薪的负面未实现预期（Alshmemri et al., 2017）。 3.公司政策和管理：公司政策和管理包括公司组织和管理政策和指导方针明确或不明确的程度等因素。例如，缺乏权力授权，模糊的政策和程序，以及沟通可能导致工作不满（Alshmemri等人，2017）。 4.监督：监督包括员工对主管或监督的能力或不能力、公平或不公平的判断。例如，这可能包括主管是否愿意委派责任或教学，以及他们对工作的了解。领导和管理不善会降低工作满意度（Alshmemri et al., 2017）。 5.工作条件：最后，工作条件涉及工作的物理环境，以及它们是好是坏。导致工作空间好坏的因素可能涉及工作量、空间、通风、工具、温度和安全性（Alshmemri等人，2017）。
• Examples 举例
  • Nursing Empirical studies of job satisfaction in nurses, such as those of Kacel et al. (2005) and Jones (2011), support Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory by asserting that hygiene factors are less important to job satisfaction, while motivational factors lead to job satisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017). In one such study, Kacel et al. (2005) used Herzberg’s theory as a framework for qualitatively studying job satisfaction among 147 nurse practitioners in the Midwest of the United States. Kacel et al. noticed a Koelbel, Fuller, and Misener (1991) study that suggested that nurses often become nurse practitioners because of dissatisfaction with their staff nursing position and a desire to use their abilities to their fullest potential — to fulfill what Herzberg would call motivation factors. In particular, nurses become nurse practitioners, according to Kacel, because of the role’s challenge and autonomy (2005). The researchers devised the Misener Nurse Practitioner Job Satisfaction Scale (Misner and Cox, 2001). This is a 44-item questionnaire that focuses on six of Herzberg’s motivational and hygiene factors: collegiality, autonomy, professional social and community interaction, professional growth, time, and benefits and compensation (Kace et al., 2005). The study described which factors were the most strongly associated with satisfaction and dissatisfaction and found that salary and administrative policies, in particular, influence nurses’ job dissatisfaction (Kacel et al., 2005). 护理学 关于护士工作满意度的实证研究，如Kacel等人（2005）和Jones（2011）的研究，支持赫茨伯格的动机-保健理论，认为保健因素对工作满意度的重要性较低，而动机因素会导致工作满意度（Alshmemri等人，2017）。在一项这样的研究中，Kacel等人（2005）使用赫茨伯格的理论作为框架，对美国中西部147名护士从业人员的工作满意度进行了定性研究。Kacel等人注意到Koelbel、Fuller和Misener（1991）的一项研究表明，护士之所以成为执业护士，往往是因为对自己的护理岗位不满意，并希望充分发挥自己的能力，以实现赫茨伯格所说的激励因素。根据Kacel的说法，特别是护士成为护士从业者，因为这个角色的挑战和自主性（2005）。研究者设计了Misener护士从业人员工作满意度量表（Misner and Cox, 2001）。这是一份包含44个项目的问卷，主要关注赫茨伯格提出的6个动机和健康因素：同僚关系、自主性、专业社会和社区互动、专业成长、时间、福利和薪酬（Kace et al., 2005）。该研究描述了哪些因素与满意度和不满意度最密切相关，并发现工资和行政政策尤其会影响护士的工作不满意度（Kacel等人，2005）。
  • Mid-Level Manager Job Satisfaction in India Although heavily critiqued, Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory still greatly influences current methodology, particularly in several modern Asian workplace studies (Robbins and Judge, 2013). Vijayakumar and Saxena (2015) conducted one such study in India. Attempting to address the controversy over whether monetary compensation motivates poor hygiene, the researchers used a questionnaire to ask 144 mid-level managers about what factors influenced their job satisfaction most. Ultimately, the researchers concluded that job satisfaction was determined most by job content, organizational context, and rewards and working conditions, with monetary compensation as a separate factor altogether (Vijayakumar and Saxena, 2015). 印度中层管理者的工作满意度 尽管受到严厉批评，赫茨伯格的动机卫生理论仍然极大地影响了当前的研究方法，特别是在一些现代亚洲工作场所研究中（罗宾斯和贾奇，2013）。Vijayakumar和Saxena（2015）在印度进行了一项这样的研究。为了解决金钱补偿是否会导致低保健的争议，研究人员使用了一份调查问卷，询问了144名中层管理人员，哪些因素对他们的工作满意度影响最大。最终，研究人员得出结论，工作满意度主要由工作内容、组织环境、奖励和工作条件决定，货币报酬是一个单独的因素（Vijayakumar和Saxena， 2015）。
  • 子主题