Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Two-factor theory

The two-factor theory, also known as the motivation-hygiene theory, is a motivational framework in and that posits and dissatisfaction arise from two separate categories of factors: intrinsic motivators that drive satisfaction and achievement, and extrinsic hygiene factors that prevent dissatisfaction but do not necessarily promote motivation. Developed by American psychologist and his colleagues in 1959 through interviews with 203 engineers and accountants, and first published in their book The Motivation to Work, the theory emerged from critical incident analyses where participants described events leading to extreme satisfaction or dissatisfaction at work. Herzberg expanded on these findings in his 1968 article "One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?", emphasizing practical applications for workplace motivation. At its core, the theory distinguishes between motivators—factors associated with the nature of the work itself, such as achievement, , , and opportunities for advancement—which, when present, lead to high levels of and psychological growth. In contrast, hygiene factors include elements like company policies, supervision, working conditions, salary, and interpersonal relationships, which, if inadequate, cause dissatisfaction but only maintain a state when sufficient. This implies that addressing hygiene factors eliminates sources of discontent but does not guarantee ; true requires focusing on motivators to foster intrinsic drive. The theory's influence extends to organizational practices, informing strategies in and to enhance and performance by balancing both factor types. Empirical studies, such as those in clinical settings, have validated its relevance across generations and industries, though it has faced critiques for oversimplifying cultural or individual differences in . Overall, Herzberg's model remains a foundational for understanding dynamics, highlighting the need for enriched job designs beyond mere maintenance of .

Introduction

Definition and core principles

The two-factor theory, developed by , posits that and dissatisfaction are not opposite ends of a single continuum but rather distinct phenomena influenced by separate sets of factors. According to the theory, hygiene factors—extrinsic elements of the work environment—serve to prevent dissatisfaction when present in adequate levels but do not actively motivate employees when improved beyond that threshold. In contrast, motivator factors—intrinsic aspects related to the content of the job itself—drive satisfaction and psychological growth when fulfilled, leading to higher motivation and performance. This distinction challenges traditional views that assumed enhancing satisfaction would automatically reduce dissatisfaction, emphasizing instead two independent dimensions of employee attitudes. At its core, the theory asserts that the absence of dissatisfaction (achieved through hygiene factors) creates a neutral state, while true emerges only from the presence of motivators. Hygiene factors, such as company policies, salary, and working conditions, address and avoid pain but fail to produce lasting engagement. Motivators, including , , and , tap into higher-level needs for and fulfillment, fostering a sense of purpose in work. Herzberg illustrated this through empirical data from multiple studies, where factors causing satisfaction were predominantly motivators (81% of cases), while those causing dissatisfaction were mostly hygiene-related (69% of cases). The of the two-factor theory can be visualized as two parallel continua: one for dissatisfaction ranging from high (due to poor ) to neutral (adequate ), and another for ranging from neutral (absence of motivators) to high (presence of motivators). This framework, derived using the to analyze employee experiences, underscores that organizational efforts must target both dimensions separately for optimal outcomes.

Historical development

The two-factor theory of , also known as the motivation-hygiene theory, originated in the late 1950s through collaborative research led by psychologist , along with Bernard Mausner and Barbara Bloch Snyderman, during Herzberg's tenure as a professor of management at in , . This work built on earlier psychological inquiries into job attitudes, aiming to distinguish between factors causing and those leading to dissatisfaction among workers. The foundational publication appeared in 1959 with the book The Motivation to Work, which presented the theory's core ideas derived from extensive interviews with 203 engineers and accountants employed in Pittsburgh-area companies. In this study, participants recounted critical incidents from their work experiences, revealing distinct categories of factors—later termed (which prevent dissatisfaction) and (which promote )—that challenged prevailing views on workplace . The theory gained broader prominence through Herzberg's 1968 article "One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?" published in the , which popularized practical applications like to enhance motivator factors. This dissemination was partly influenced by Abraham theory from the 1940s and 1950s, as Herzberg adapted the idea of hierarchical fulfillment to argue that higher-level needs drive true motivation rather than mere absence of dissatisfaction. During the and , amid the human relations movement's emphasis on employee and behavioral approaches to management, the two-factor theory was widely adopted in organizational literature and consulting practices to inform strategies for improving productivity and morale. Herzberg maintained the theory's original framework without significant revisions until his death on January 19, 2000, in , , solidifying its status as a enduring contribution to motivational .

Theoretical Components

Hygiene factors

Hygiene factors, according to Herzberg's two-factor theory, refer to extrinsic elements of the job environment that do not directly motivate employees but are crucial for preventing dissatisfaction. These factors address basic needs to avoid unpleasant conditions, ensuring a neutral state of employee well-being when present; however, their absence leads to active dissatisfaction. The key characteristics of hygiene factors emphasize their environmental and contextual nature, focusing on aspects external to the core job tasks themselves. They are essential for maintaining baseline but lack the power to inspire higher or intrinsic , serving instead as prerequisites to eliminate sources of demotivation. In contrast to motivator factors, hygiene factors function independently to avert negativity rather than promote positivity. Prominent examples of hygiene factors include company policies and administration, where overly rigid or unfair rules can foster resentment and a sense of among employees; supervision quality, as inadequate or authoritarian oversight erodes and feelings of support; working conditions, such as unsafe, uncomfortable, or poorly equipped workspaces that heighten stress and physical discomfort; , with insufficient compensation leading to perceptions of inequity and financial strain; interpersonal relations, where poor colleague or peer dynamics create a hostile atmosphere and ; , the absence of which diminishes employees' sense of importance and belonging; and , uncertainty in which generates anxiety and reluctance to commit. Deficiencies in any of these areas directly contribute to dissatisfaction by failing to meet fundamental expectations of fairness and stability in the . In Herzberg's original empirical studies involving 200 engineers and accountants, hygiene factors accounted for 69% of the reported cases of job dissatisfaction, highlighting their dominant role in explaining employee discontent and the necessity for managers to prioritize their maintenance as a foundational step in organizational health.

Motivator factors

Motivator factors, also referred to as satisfiers in Herzberg's two-factor theory, are intrinsic elements inherent to the job itself that promote psychological growth, high performance, and genuine job satisfaction when present. Their absence does not cause dissatisfaction but rather results in a neutral state of unremarkable work experiences. Developed through critical incident interviews with professionals, these factors address higher-level needs aligned with theories like Maslow's esteem and self-actualization, fostering a sense of purpose and fulfillment in the workplace. These factors are characterized by their deep connection to the core content of the work, distinguishing them from extrinsic elements. They encourage long-term by enabling employees to experience meaningful challenges, , and , which in turn sustain engagement and drive superior effort over time. By focusing on the intrinsic rewards of the job, motivators create a positive psychological that supports ongoing professional and innovation. Key examples of motivator factors include:
  • Achievement: The feeling of accomplishment from mastering complex tasks or reaching significant milestones, often cited as the top contributor to in professional roles.
  • Recognition for accomplishment: Formal or informal acknowledgment of successes, such as praise from superiors or public awards, which reinforces self-worth and encourages repeated high .
  • The work itself: The inherent , , and meaningfulness of job duties, where employees derive from engaging in tasks they find stimulating and valuable.
  • Responsibility: Opportunities to take ownership of outcomes and , illustrated by cases where granting task enhances intrinsic , as seen in empowered teams reporting higher and .
  • Advancement: Clear paths for and progression, providing a sense of forward momentum and reward for sustained effort.
  • Growth opportunities: Access to learning, skill-building, and , such as training programs that align with individual aspirations and lead to expanded capabilities.
These manifestations highlight how motivators operate through the job's substantive elements to elevate employee experiences. Within the two-factor theory, motivator factors explain the bulk of reported instances, with empirical analysis from the foundational study showing they accounted for 81% of positive contributing elements among interviewed engineers and accountants. This dominance underscores their pivotal impact, shifting emphasis toward strategies like vertical job loading—adding depth through greater responsibility and challenge—rather than horizontal expansions that merely increase task variety without intrinsic enrichment. Such insights affirm motivators' role in cultivating enduring and by targeting the core drivers of human fulfillment at work.

Research Methodology

Critical incident technique

The Critical Incident Technique (CIT) is a method originally developed by John C. Flanagan in 1954 as a set of procedures for collecting factual reports of human behavior in situations where the actions or events have a clear, observable impact—either positive or negative—on achieving a defined objective. In the development of the two-factor theory, and colleagues adapted this retrospective interviewing approach to elicit participants' recollections of specific job-related events that elicited particularly high or low feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Participants were instructed to focus on concrete incidents rather than abstract opinions, ensuring the data captured authentic experiences without reliance on hypothetical scenarios. The process begins with semi-structured interviews where subjects describe the incident in detail, including the preceding events, contextual factors, their actions or those of others involved, and the resulting emotional responses. In Herzberg's study, detailed in the book The Motivation to Work, this involved interviewing 200 engineers and accountants from the area, prompting them with open-ended questions such as "Tell me about times when you felt exceptionally good or bad about your job" and requiring detailed narratives without suggestive prompts from the interviewer. Responses were transcribed verbatim, then independently analyzed and coded by multiple researchers into thematic categories based solely on the content provided by participants, such as references to work conditions, interpersonal dynamics, or personal achievements. This coding emphasized first-level thought units (initial descriptions) before higher-level interpretations, yielding over 1,600 incidents for systematic review. The rationale for employing CIT in this context lies in its ability to minimize response biases inherent in general or speculative questioning, as it grounds responses in verifiable, real-world events recalled from . By prioritizing actual experiences, the method uncovers unprompted causal factors influencing attitudes toward work, providing a more reliable basis for distinguishing between elements that prevent dissatisfaction and those that foster true . This approach proved particularly advantageous for revealing intrinsic and extrinsic influences on job attitudes that might otherwise remain obscured by preconceived survey structures.

Empirical studies and findings

The seminal empirical investigation supporting the two-factor theory was conducted by Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman in , involving structured interviews with 200 engineers and accountants from the area using the . This yielded 1,685 incidents describing periods of extreme job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Analysis of these incidents demonstrated a clear distinction: hygiene factors, such as company policies and working conditions, accounted for 69% of the dissatisfaction cases, while motivator factors, including and , comprised 81% of the satisfaction cases. Within the dissatisfaction incidents, hygiene factors dominated, with company policy and administration cited in approximately 21% of cases, in 17%, and interpersonal relations with supervisors in 13%, collectively highlighting contextual elements as primary drivers of negative job attitudes. In contrast, satisfaction incidents were overwhelmingly tied to motivators, where featured in 26% and in 22% of reports, emphasizing intrinsic job content as key to positive outcomes. These patterns illustrated the theory's core premise that satisfaction and dissatisfaction arise from separate factor sets rather than a single . Subsequent replications reinforced these distinctions across diverse samples. For instance, Wernimont's 1966 study examined intrinsic and extrinsic factors among blue-collar workers, finding that extrinsic elements (analogous to hygiene factors) were predominantly associated with dissatisfaction, while intrinsic aspects (motivators) linked to , thus extending the original findings beyond professional roles. A review by Schneider and in 1971 analyzed multiple empirical tests, including their own data from critical incidents, confirming the factor separation in over a dozen studies while suggesting refinements to incident classification; overall, these efforts upheld the theory's validity without overturning its foundational results. Across these and other studies, a consistent quantitative emerged: satisfaction and dissatisfaction scores exhibited no significant inverse (typically r < 0.20), supporting the independence of the two dimensions rather than their opposition.

Practical Applications

Organizational

Organizations utilize Herzberg's two-factor theory to diagnose sources of employee through structured assessments, such as surveys and interviews, which help pinpoint hygiene factors like inadequate , poor working conditions, or ineffective that may be causing unrest. This diagnostic approach allows managers to prioritize the maintenance of hygiene factors—ensuring fair pay structures, safe environments, and clear company policies—before focusing on motivator enhancements, as unresolved hygiene issues can undermine overall efforts. Workplace strategies informed by the theory include regular audits of hygiene elements to identify and rectify deficiencies, such as reviewing compensation or supervisory practices to prevent dissatisfaction from escalating. To foster motivators, organizations assign challenging tasks that promote and , enabling employees to experience and in their roles. Implementing these principles yields organizational benefits, including enhanced and ; for instance, in settings like the Ogden Air Logistics Center's 1973-1975 program, policy reforms addressing factors alongside motivator opportunities reduced turnover and generated $200,000 in annual savings through improved output among 359 workers. The theory integrates into practices by informing performance appraisals, where feedback emphasizes motivator elements like accomplishment, and team , through supervisors to balance hygiene maintenance with opportunities for advancement. In the , firms such as those studied in Herzberg's early tests involving 1,220 participants across industries adopted the theory for motivation programs, leading to measurable gains in and .

Job enrichment strategies

Job enrichment refers to the vertical expansion of job roles by integrating motivator factors from Herzberg's two-factor theory, such as responsibility, achievement, and growth opportunities, to enhance employee and . This approach contrasts with , which involves horizontal expansion by adding more tasks of the same level without increasing depth or , often leading to rather than fulfillment. Key strategies for job enrichment focus on embedding these motivators into daily work. Increasing and decision-making empowers employees to handle responsibilities independently, such as allowing them to set their own schedules or choose methods for task completion. Providing direct enables workers to receive immediate performance insights from their outputs or clients, rather than through intermediaries. Assigning whole units of work gives individuals over complete processes, from start to finish, fostering a of accomplishment. Personalizing tasks for involves tailoring roles to align with employees' skills and aspirations, such as introducing challenging assignments that build expertise. Herzberg outlined seven specific principles to guide job redesign, emphasizing vertical loading to incorporate motivators while maintaining hygiene factors as a baseline. These include: removing some controls while retaining ; increasing the of individuals for their own work; giving a person a complete natural (module, division, area, and so on); granting additional to employees in their activity (); making periodic reports of their own directly available to the workers rather than to supervisors; introducing new and more difficult tasks not previously handled; and assigning individuals specific or specialized tasks, allowing them to become experts. Implementation typically begins with assessing current jobs through employee surveys to identify motivator deficiencies and hygiene issues, ensuring the latter are addressed first to prevent dissatisfaction. Redesign follows by applying Herzberg's principles, such as pilot programs that test enriched roles in select teams. Evaluation involves measuring outcomes like productivity and satisfaction before full rollout, with adjustments based on feedback to sustain motivation. A notable example is AT&T's job enrichment program in the 1970s, where roles for service representatives were vertically expanded to include greater and direct customer handling, resulting in reduced , turnover, and substantial cost savings. In modern contexts, including environments, adaptations of these strategies leverage digital tools to enhance and provide feedback, maintaining motivator effects in distributed settings, as autonomy weighs more heavily for remote workers in studies applying Herzberg's theory.

Criticisms and Validity

Methodological limitations

The original research supporting Herzberg's two-factor theory was based on interviews with a sample of 203 white-collar professionals, primarily male engineers and accountants from 9 companies in , , which severely limits the generalizability of the findings due to the absence of in , cultural backgrounds, occupational roles (such as blue-collar workers), and geographic representation. This homogeneous sample has been widely criticized for failing to capture variations in across broader populations, potentially biasing the identification of and motivator factors toward the experiences of a specific professional group. The employed in the study, which involves participants recalling specific work events leading to extreme or dissatisfaction, is susceptible to memory distortion, as individuals may inaccurately remember or reconstruct past incidents over time. Furthermore, this self-reporting method is prone to , where respondents might describe events in a socially acceptable manner rather than objectively, influencing the reported factors. The subsequent coding of these incidents by researchers introduces additional subjectivity, as the classification into motivator or hygiene categories lacked standardized assessments, raising concerns about the consistency and objectivity of the analysis. The methodology's dichotomous framing, which requires sorting incidents strictly into satisfaction-inducing or dissatisfaction-inducing categories, imposes an artificial binary structure on job attitudes that disregards potential nuances, such as toward factors or their varying impacts based on situational contexts. This approach may overlook how a single factor, like company policy, could contribute to both satisfaction and dissatisfaction depending on individual circumstances, thus constraining the theory's ability to reflect the complexity of human motivation. Subsequent replication studies attempting to validate the two-factor theory often relied on small sample sizes, typically ranging from 100 to 300 participants, which reduced statistical power and increased vulnerability to sampling errors. Moreover, the absence of longitudinal data in both the original and follow-up prevents assessment of how and motivator factors influence and satisfaction over extended periods, limiting insights into dynamic or evolving job attitudes.

Empirical evidence and theoretical critiques

Empirical evidence for Herzberg's two-factor theory has accumulated since its inception, with meta-analyses and extensions providing partial support for the distinction between hygiene and motivator factors. For instance, Hackman and Oldham's 1980 Job Characteristics Model builds directly on Herzberg's by emphasizing intrinsic motivators like skill variety and task to enhance internal and , with empirical tests showing these elements predict higher in redesigned . Recent studies in Asian contexts, such as a 2012 survey of over 2,300 Taiwanese employees, confirmed the separation of factors in approximately 65-75% of responses, where motivators like drove while hygiene issues like policy caused dissatisfaction. Similarly, a 2022 analysis across industries in found both factor types significantly influenced overall , with the factors collectively explaining 61% of the variance in positive outcomes. However, challenging evidence reveals inconsistencies, particularly in demanding settings like healthcare. A 2020 study of medical professionals found factors dominated the sources of dissatisfaction, with motivators ineffective without basic . House and Wigdor's 1967 review of 20 studies concluded that factors often overlap, with the same element (e.g., pay) causing both and dissatisfaction for different individuals, undermining the theory's binary separation. Mixed results persist in cross-cultural applications, where non-Western samples show blurred factor distinctions due to values prioritizing relational over individual achievement. Theoretical critiques highlight the model's limitations in assumptions and scope. The theory overlooks individual differences, such as personality traits (e.g., extraversion amplifying motivator effects) and cultural variations (e.g., collectivist societies in valuing group harmony as a hybrid factor), leading to universalist biases unsupported by diverse data. It assumes static, context-independent factors, ignoring dynamic interactions with cognitive models like Vroom's , where motivation depends on perceived effort-reward links rather than fixed categories. Critics argue this static view neglects evolving needs over time or career stages, reducing explanatory power in fluid work contexts. In modern relevance, the theory has seen partial integration into , where motivators align with concepts like and to foster , as explored in a 2005 analysis linking it to strengths-based interventions. Yet, post-2020 applications reveal gaps in remote and digital work; studies on models show traditional factors (e.g., office policies) lose salience, while new challenges like digital isolation blur motivator impacts, necessitating adaptations for virtual .

References

  1. [1]
    The application of Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation to job ...
    Sep 6, 2020 · Herzberg's two factor theory of motivation is used in this study to explore what motivational elements are associated with job satisfaction among medical ...
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
    Herzberg's two-factor theory in project management - Wrike
    Dec 17, 2024 · Herzberg's two-factor theory is a concept that states the factors that affect an individual's satisfaction and motivation level.
  4. [4]
    [PDF] Herzberg's Two Factor Theory of Motivation: A Generational Study
    This study is focused on comparing and contrasting the first level factors that are identified as Motivators and Hygiene factors by each generation listed above ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] One More Time
    When Frederick Herzberg researched the sources of employee motivation during the 1950s and. 1960s, he discovered a dichotomy that stills in- trigues (and ...
  6. [6]
    The Motivation to Work - Google Books
    When first published, The Motivation to Work challenged the received wisdom by showing that worker fulfillment came from achievement and growth within the job ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  7. [7]
    [PDF] Herzberg's Motivation Theory in Workplace - David Publishing
    According to their research data, the original hypothesis of the. Herzberg's study was restated and then changed to the two-factor theory of job satisfaction.
  8. [8]
    [PDF] Herzberg's Theory of Motivation and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
    Nov 11, 1997 · Herzberg (1959) constructed a two-dimensional paradigm of factors affecting people's attitudes about work. ... been based on Maslow's needs ...
  9. [9]
    [PDF] The Motivation to work, by F. Herzberg, B. Mausner and B.
    The Motivation to work, by F. Herzberg, B. Mausner and B.-C. Snyderman, John Wiley & Sons, New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1959. · 500 Citations · Related Papers ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  10. [10]
    One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?
    One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? Forget praise. Forget punishment. Forget cash. You need to make their jobs more interesting. by Frederick Herzberg.
  11. [11]
  12. [12]
    [PDF] THE HERZBERG THEORY: - American Psychological Association
    This hypothesis [the two-factor motivator-hygiene hypothesis] suggested that the factors involved in producing job satisfaction were separate and distinct from ...
  13. [13]
    Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory Of Motivation-Hygiene
    Apr 18, 2025 · Herzberg's two-factor theory suggests that job satisfaction is influenced by two factors: motivators and hygiene factors.Core Idea of Two Factors · Motivation Factors · Hygiene Factors · Four Outcomes
  14. [14]
    Frederick Herzberg's Two Factor Motivation Theory - BusinessBalls
    Frederick Herzberg's theory of motivation and hygiene factors to improve satisfaction and avoid dissatisfaction explained clearly with diagrams and graphs.Missing: death | Show results with:death
  15. [15]
    Page Not Found
    No readable text found in the HTML.<|control11|><|separator|>
  16. [16]
    None
    Summary of each segment:
  17. [17]
    Herzberg's Two Factor Theory of Motivation - Economics Discussion
    In the late fifties, interviews of 200 engineers and accountants of Pittsburg area of U.S. were conducted by an American psychologist Frederick Herzberg and his ...
  18. [18]
    [PDF] Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction - DTIC
    Hersberg addrezc,- the problem of job satisfaction in terms of those factors which cause satisfaction (moti- vators) and those which cause dissatisfaction ( ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Implementation of Motivational Strategies in the Manufacturing ...
    Herzberg's two-factor theory specifies that intrinsic and extrinsic factors demonstrated by employees within the workplace might result in an employee ...
  20. [20]
    Job Enrichment Pays Off
    Job enrichment seeks to improve both task efficiency and human satisfaction by means of building into people's jobs, quite specifically, greater scope for ...<|separator|>
  21. [21]
    [PDF] THE CORRELATION OF EMPLOYEES INVOLVEMENT - CORE
    Moreover, both turnover and absenteeism dropped. In addition, substantial cost savings was achieved. In short, managers at AT&T experimented with these changes ...
  22. [22]
    Herzberg at work: the remote vs. in-person tale - ResearchGate
    Oct 10, 2025 · This brief report details an empirical reconsideration of job satisfaction through the lens of Herzberg's Two Factor Theory by investigating ...
  23. [23]
  24. [24]
    Herzberg's Dual-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction and Motivation
    Aug 6, 2025 · House & Wigdor (1967) criticized that Herzberg's theory did not take into account individual differences and cultural contexts, which could ...
  25. [25]
    EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL LIMITATIONS OF THE TWO ...
    Oct 1, 2025 · Early critiques of the theory and accumulated evidence were unfavorable to Herzberg's theory (e.g., Hinrichs & Mischkind, 1967; House & Wigdor, ...
  26. [26]
    [PDF] Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory - MIT
    The Herzberg theory specifies that a job will enhance work motivation and satisfaction only to the degree that "motivators" are designed into the work itself.
  27. [27]
    [PDF] Examining Herzberg-s Two Factor Theory in a Large Chinese ...
    Abstract—The validity of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of. Motivation was tested empirically by surveying 2372 chemical fiber employees in 2012.
  28. [28]
    Analyzing Determinants of Job Satisfaction Based on Two-Factor ...
    It was found that (1) both motivation and hygiene factors had a substantial effect on job satisfaction over all industries.
  29. [29]
    HERZBERG'S DUAL‐FACTOR THEORY OF JOB SATISFACTION ...
    Herzberg's dual-factor theory of job satisfaction and motivation: a review of the evidence and a criticism.
  30. [30]
    Adapting Herzberg's Two Factor Theory to the Cultural Context of ...
    Jun 7, 2016 · The present paper aims to test the validity of Herzberg's Two Factor Theory for Romania and to adapt it (if necessary) to the Romanian cultural context.
  31. [31]
    (PDF) Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory on Work Motivation: Does it ...
    Second, Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory categorizes work factors into two distinct groups: motivator factors, which include achievement, recognition, and personal ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] Work motivation: an evidence review | CIPD
    House, R. J., and Wigdor, L. A. (1967) Herzberg's dual‐factor theory of job satisfaction and motivation: A review of the evidence and a criticism. Personnel ...
  33. [33]
    Evaluating Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory: Contributions and ...
    Jan 30, 2024 · His research relied heavily on the “critical incident technique,” where employees were asked to recall times when they felt particularly good or ...
  34. [34]
    (PDF) Resurrecting the Motivation-Hygiene Theory: Herzberg and ...
    Within the QWL-Satisfaction-Engagement framework, hygiene factors can be seen as the foundation that ensures employees are not dissatisfied with their work ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  35. [35]
    [PDF] Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory and its application in hybrid work model
    Remote work programs, which allow employees to work outside the office, have become popular among companies (Smite et al., 2023). The increasing adoption of ...Missing: enrichment | Show results with:enrichment