Public Organiz Rev

DOI 10.1007/s11115-017-0379-1

Testing Herzbergs Two-Factor Theory of Motivation

in the Public Sector: Is it Applicable to Public Managers?

Yongbeom Hur 1

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Abstract Given the limitations in providing monetary rewards as an incentive in the

public sector, Herzbergs Two-Factor Theory of Motivation can be promising if it is
applicable to public employees. This study identifies the effects of motivators and
hygiene factors on public managers job satisfaction, and finds out if there is difference,
compared to how private-sector employees are motivated. According to the findings, a
majority of identified motivators in the previous research showed positive effects on job
satisfaction among public managers, and public managers job satisfaction was not
affected by hygiene factor as predicted in Herzbergs study. Managerial implications are
discussed.

Keywords Satisfaction . Motivation . Hygiene . Herzbergs two factor theory of

motivation . Public managers

Introduction

Based on the general idea that bureaucratic organizations like governments are likely to
experience more bureaupathologies, which refer to maladies and sicknesses of bureau-
cracy such as inflexibility, mediocrity, and suboptimization (Caiden 1991; Wilson
1967), public bureaucracies tend to be negatively regarded, and public employees are
usually blamed for their low performance and insensitive response to citizens diverse
demands (Rainey and Steinbauer 1999).
Regardless of whether or not this blame is true, scholars and practitioners have
searched for better ways to improve governmental performance. One of suggested
approaches is to focus on the motivational level among public employees, given that

* Yongbeom Hur
hury@appstate.edu

1
Department of Government and Justice Studies, Appalachian State University, Boone,
NC 28608, USA
 Hur Y.

motivation plays a critical role in producing better performance at work (Griffin and
Moorhead 2011; Pinder 2008; Locke and Latham 2004). Although researchers identi-
fied motivational bases and related factors for public employees (Perry et al. 2010;
Pandey and Stazyk 2008; Camilleri 2007), and verified positive effects of public
employees motivation level on their job performance (Bell 2013; Leisink and Steijn
2009; Alonso and Lewis 2001), the majority of motivational theories have been
developed in the private sector with samples of employees working in the private sector.
While extrinsic rewards and working conditions such as pay, benefits, and job
security have been focused to increase the motivation level among employees by many
researchers (e.g., Stringer et al. 2011; Heneman and Werner 2005; Probst et al. 2002;
Brudney and Condrey 1993), some scholars have paid attention to the role of em-
ployees feeling at work such as achievement, recognition, and responsibility in
boosting motivation levels (Herzberg et al. 1959; Herzberg 1968). According to their
findings, employees would be better motivated and productivity could increase as a
result, when they experience these feelings at work, compared to when they are
provided with better working conditions such as high pay and job security. Given the
limitations in providing monetary rewards as an incentive in the public sector,
Herzbergs Two-Factor Theory of Motivation can bring a great deal of benefits to
public organizations if public employees can be successfully motivated when they
experience such feelings as achievement, recognition, and responsibility at work.
However, it is not certain whether or not public employees would be similarly
motivated by a set of identified motivators. Although Herzberg theory has been tested
in diverse contexts, most studies have been conducted with samples of private-sector
employees (e.g., Sanjeev and Surya 2016; Nyame-Mireku 2012; Shipley and Kiely
1988; Ewen et al. 1966). The purpose of this study is to test if Herzbergs Two-Factor
Theory of Motivation can be applicable to public employees, and to verify if there is a
different set of motivators only for public employees.

Job Satisfaction and Herzbergs Theory of Motivation

Many argue that public employees are less satisfied than their counterparts in the
private sector due to different working conditions such as lower pay, more restrictions
at work, and ambiguous goals (Wright and Davis 2003; Baldwin and Farley 2001;
Rainey 1989). However, empirical evidence does not clearly support this argument and
some studies even argued that public employees would be more satisfied than private-
sector employees (DeSantis and Durst 1996; Steel and Warner 1990).
Job satisfaction is one of major factors that can increase work motivation (Wright
2001). If employees are more satisfied at work, they would be better motivated and
could show higher work performance, all other things being equal (e.g., Emmert and
Taher 1992; Steel and Warner 1990). The need-based perspective on motivation
(Alderfer 1969; Herzberg 1968; Maslow 1954) explains how employees job satisfac-
tion can lead to their motivation. Wright (2001) explained that employees satisfaction
with types of rewards or working conditions they receive identifies Bnecessary condi-
tions for their optimal employee motivation^. Therefore, if employees experience need
deficiencies, compared to what they expect from their organizations, they may work
less to regress to a balance between their contributions to an organization (e.g., efforts,
Testing Herzberg's Theory of Motivation

time, loyalty) and their organizations provided inducements (e.g., pay, job security,
benefits, career development) in a psychological contract between employees and their
organizations (Rousseau 1989; Argyris 1960).
Herzberg proposed the Two-Factor Theory of Motivation, arguing that both satis-
faction and dissatisfaction do not belong to the same dimension (Herzberg 1968;
Herzberg et al. 1959). Instead, Herzberg argued that the opposite of satisfaction is
not dissatisfaction, but no satisfaction. In other words, satisfaction and no satisfaction
are located at the opposite ends of the same continuum. Likewise, the opposite of
dissatisfaction is not satisfaction, but no dissatisfaction, and dissatisfaction and no
dissatisfaction are located at the opposite ends of the same continuum. According to
this theory, a set of factors that are related to the feeling of satisfaction are called
Bmotivators^. Additionally, a sect of factors, called Bhygiene factors^ are related to the
feeling of dissatisfaction. Herzberg explained that motivators are connected to work
itself such as recognition, responsibility, achievement, and self-development opportu-
nity, whereas hygiene factors are related to working conditions and environments such
as salary, benefits, interpersonal relationships, and company policies. Overall,
Herzbergs motivators are associated with higher-order needs, while hygiene factors
are more like lower-order needs in Maslows need hierarchy (1954). For example,
when employees are given secure job status, employees would not become satisfied.
Instead, they would be only less dissatisfied because job security is one of hygiene
factors according to Herzbergs theory of motivation.
Although Herzberg theory of motivation has been widely tested and applied in
various motivational studies (e.g., Zhang et al. 2011; Parsons and Broadbridge 2006;
Balmer and Baum 1993), this theory has not been without criticism due to a fixed
distinction between motivators and hygiene factors, regardless of differences in em-
ployees personalities or job categories (e.g., Judge et al. 2002; Furnham et al. 1999;
Locke 1976). For example, Furnham et al. (1999) argued that employees motivators
would be different, depending on their personalities, and found that extraverts put more
emphasis on motivators such as achievement and recognition at work than other types
of personality when they choose a job. Judge et al. (2002) supported Furnham et al.s
findings and concluded that employees motivation at work may vary, depending on
their personality trait (i.e., the Big Five traits) in their meta-analysis study.
Many studies have attempted to measure the difference of motivational effects
between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, based on the idea of Herzbergs Two-Factor
Theory. Only mixed results were found particularly when public and private-sector
employees were compared. Compared to private managers, some found that public
managers were better motivated by intrinsic rewards such as recognition and self-
development opportunity than by extrinsic rewards such as pay and benefits, (e.g.,
Khojasteh 1993; Wittmer 1991; Rainey 1982; Rawls et al. 1975). Others found that
public employees were less motivated by some intrinsic rewards such as responsibility
and self-development opportunity (Buelens and Van den Broeck 2007). Others also
found no difference in motivational factors between public and private-sector em-
ployees (Crewson 1997; Gabris and Simo 1995). While it is meaningful to examine
the difference between public and private-sector employees and to identify better
motivating factors, this comparative approach has limitations as identified motivators
work only relatively better, compared to the counterparts. For example, even though a
factor better motivates public employees than private employees, public employees
 Hur Y.

may not be significantly motivated by that factor because actual the motivating effect of
that factor is not guaranteed.
Khojasteh (1993) and Zhang et al. (2011) are among a few studies that have tested
Herzbergs Two-Factor Theory in the public administration literature. These studies
were conducted, based on the idea that public employees would be differently moti-
vated because public organizations are different from for-profit organizations in many
aspects (e.g., Rainey and Bozeman 2000; Perry and Rainey 1988). Khojasteh (1993)
compared public and private-sector managers with a focus on what factors would better
motivate managers, and measured perceived importance and perceived dissatisfaction
of those factors (N = 362). If both perceived importance and perceived dissatisfaction
for some factors were highly ranked, it was concluded that those factors had high
motivating potential (i.e., strong motivators). Among seven hygiene and seven moti-
vating factors, Khojasteh found that pay and job security were the top motivators for
private-sector managers, whereas recognition and interpersonal relations better moti-
vate public managers than private-sector managers. For example, if pay raise or better
job security were given to both public and private-sector managers, the latter would be
better motivated than the former. Although this study confirmed the idea that public and
private-sector managers would be differently motivated to a certain extent, the variation
in job satisfaction among managers was not clearly explained due to the nature of t-test
that was adopted in his study as Zhang et al. (2011) pointed out. Again, it is not certain
whether or not identified motivators have significant effects on managers motivation
as previously mentioned.
Zhang et al. (2011) directly tested Herzbergs Two-Factor Theory with a city
manager sample (N = 142), and confirmed Herzberg idea that employees are motivated
by one set of factors (i.e., motivators), whereas employees dissatisfaction (or frustra-
tion) is affected by another set of factors (i.e., hygiene factors). According to findings in
their study, city managers were not motivated by pay and other working conditions
(i.e., hygiene factors), but motivated by a different set of factors such as city govern-
ment performance and managers policy-making influence. Although Zhang et al.
concluded that Herzbergs Two-Factor Theory can be applied to public employees by
identifying different sects of motivators and hygiene factors for city managers, their
findings are limited in explaining a general motivating pattern for public managers
because a wide range of unique factors had to be developed to accommodate city
managers job situation as they acknowledged (673). Simply put, those sets of moti-
vators and hygiene factors developed by Zhang et al. are different from Herzbergs
original sets of factors, and may be only applicable to city managers.
Unlike previous studies in the public administration literature, this study tested
Herzbergs Two-Factor Theory of Motivation in a more direct and comprehensive
manner. With seven hygiene and seven motivating factors that are similar to
Herzbergs original sets, regression analyses were conducted with a much larger
sample, coming from diverse public organizations (N = 790). The first two hypotheses
were constructed to verify whether or not hygiene and motivating factors actually exist
for public employees, similar to those factors to private-sector employees. Other two
hypotheses were proposed to test if public employees job satisfaction would be
significantly affected by motivating factors, not by hygiene factors.
H1: There exists a set of hygiene factors for public employees, similar to those
for private-sector employees.
Testing Herzberg's Theory of Motivation

H2: There exists a set of motivating factors for public employees, similar to those
for private-sector employees.
H3: Public employees would not become satisfied even when hygiene factors are
met.
H4: Public employees become satisfied when motivating factors are met.

Methodology

Sample and Data Source

Given that management plays a central role in achieving goals and objectives of public
organizations (Moynihan and Pandey 2005; Nicholson-Crotty and OToole 2004;
Ingraham et al. 2003; Meier and OToole 2002; Lynn et al. 2000), it is important to
keep managers well motivated at work. To understand how public mangers can be
better motivated, this study used National Administrative Studies Projects (NASP III)
data that surveyed public managers in Georgia (GA) and Illinois (IL), conducted by
Bozeman and colleagues in 2005. 1 After sending 914 and 936 surveys to public
managers in GA and IL, 432 managers in GA and 358 managers in IL responded
(N = 790), which led to overall response rate 43%. Among survey participants, 56%
were male and 44% were female.

Measures

According to Herzberg et al. (1959), motivators are connected to work itself (i.e.,
recognition, responsibility, achievement, and self-development opportunity), and hy-
giene factors are related to working conditions and environments (i.e., salary, benefits,
interpersonal relationship, and company policy). In this study, seven motivators and
seven hygiene factors were chosen from the NASP III data, based on Herzbergs Two-
Factor Theory that motivators are related to intrinsic conditions of work and work
content, and hygiene factors are associated with extrinsic conditions of work and work
environments.
Regression analyses were conducted to verify the effects of hygiene factors and
motivators on public managers job satisfaction. Hygiene factors showed higher inter-
nal consistency than motivators in this study because Cronbachs Alpha values for
chosen hygiene factors and motivators were 0.77 and 0.64 respectively. According to
the guideline suggested in the literature (Nunnally 1978; Cronbach 1951), chosen
motivators may measure more than one dimension of public managers motivation
because their Cronbachs Alpha value was less than 0.7.
The dependent variable in the regression equation was public managers job
satisfaction. In the survey, public managers were asked how much they agreed
to the statement, BOverall, I am satisfied with my job^ (4 being strongly agree
and 1 being strongly disagree), and their answer to this question was used as a

1
National Administrative Studies Projects (NASP) data was first collected in 1992 and NASP III is a final
attempt at a NASP database.
 Hur Y.

job satisfaction indicator. Below are how chosen motivators and hygiene factors
were measured in the survey.

Motivators

Opportunity for Advancement (M1) Survey participants were asked how important
it was to have an opportunity for advancement within the organizations hierarchy (4
being very important and 1 being not important).

Opportunity for Training and Career Development (M2) Survey participants were
asked how important it was to have an opportunity for training and career development
at work (4 being very important and 1 being not important).

Increased Responsibility (M3) Survey participants were asked how important it was
to meet the desire for increased responsibility at work (4 being very important and 1
being not important).

Pride (M4) Survey participants were asked how much they agreed to the statement, BI
feel a sense of pride working for this organization^ (4 being strongly agree and 1 being
strongly disagree).

Authority (M5) Survey participants were asked how much they agreed to the statement, BI
do not have enough authority to determine how to get my job done^ (4 being strongly agree
and 1 being strongly disagree). Therefore, if a public manager thought he/she had enough
authority to get the job done, he/she would strongly disagree or disagree with that statement.

Incentives (M6) Survey participants were asked how much they agreed to the state-
ment, BThere are incentives for me to work hard in my job^ (4 being strongly agree and
1 being strongly disagree). The NASP III data did not provide a clear idea as to what
kinds of incentives were offered to public mangers.

Flexibility (M7) Survey participants were asked how much they agreed to the state-
ment, BMy job offers a great deal of flexibility^ (4 being strongly agree and 1 being
strongly disagree).

Hygiene Factors

Job Security (H1) Survey participants were asked how important it was to be offered
job security at work (4 being very important and 1 being not important).

Pension and Retirement Plan (H2) Survey participants were asked how important it
was to get good pension or retirement plan from the work (4 being very important and 1
being not important).

Less Red Tape (H3) Survey participants were asked how important it was to meet
the desire for less bureaucratic red tape at work (4 being very important and 1
being not important).
Testing Herzberg's Theory of Motivation

Less Conflict (H4) Survey participants were asked how important it was to meet the
desire for low conflict work environments (4 being very important and 1 being not
important).

Benefits (Medical and Insurance) (H5) Survey participants were asked how impor-
tant it was to get good benefits (medical and insurance) from the work (4 being very
important and 1 being not important).

Family Friendly Policy (H6) Survey participants were asked how important it was to
have family friendly policies at work (4 being very important and 1 being not
important).

Salary (H7) Survey participants were asked how important it was to get a good salary
from the work (4 being very important and 1 being not important).

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation

Descriptive statistics for job satisfaction, motivators, and hygiene factors are displayed
in Table 1. Public managers job satisfaction level turned out high (i.e., 3.24 out of 4) and
more than a majority of public managers strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, BI
am satisfied with my job^. Among motivators, more than a majority of public managers
checked very important or somewhat important for the items such as opportunities for
advancement (M1), training & career development (M2), increased responsibility (M3),
and pride in working for the organization (M4). 2 More than a majority also strongly
disagreed or somewhat disagreed with the statement, BI did not have enough authority to
determine how to get my job done^ (M5).3 Among hygiene factors, more than a majority
answered that the items such as job security (H1), pension and retirement plan (H2),
benefits (H5), and salary (H7) were very important or somewhat important for them.
Less than a majority responded that less bureaucratic red tape (H3) and a low conflict
work environment (H4) were not important or somewhat unimportant.
The correlation matrix table (see Appendix 1) displays how job satisfaction, moti-
vators, and hygiene are correlated. As seen in the table, job satisfaction appears to be
significantly correlated with most motivators except opportunities for advancement.
However, no hygiene factors showed a significant correlation with job satisfaction. A
great deal of significant correlations are also found among motivators. For example,
opportunities for training and career development (M2) is positively correlated with all
other motivators except authority (M5). Flexibility (M7) is positively correlated with all
other motivators except advancement (M1). All hygiene factors are also correlated with
all other hygiene factors. For example, job security (H1) is positively correlated with all
2
Since the mean value is 2.5 when the score range is between 1 and 4, any value that is larger than 2.5
indicates that more than majority of respondents checked very important (4) or somewhat important (3) in their
answers.
3
According to this result, more than majority of public managers would strongly agree or somewhat agree that
they had enough authority to determine how to get their jobs done.
 Hur Y.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics

Variables Mean Std. Dev. Skewness

Job satisfaction 3.24 0.79 -0.92

Motivators Advancement (M1) 3.01 0.94 -0.83
Training & career development (M2) 3.18 0.81 -0.95
Desire for Increased responsibility (M3) 3.12 0.85 -0.88
Pride (M4) 3.23 0.81 -0.89
Authority (M5) 1.99 0.97 0.59
Incentives (M6) 2.14 0.97 0.30
Flexibility (M7) 2.94 0.84 -0.55
Hygiene factors Job security (H1) 3.45 0.79 -1.48
Pension & retirement plan (H2) 3.26 0.87 -1.08
Less bureaucratic red tape (H3) 2.26 1.03 0.23
Low conflict work environment (H4) 2.45 1.06 0.01
Benefits (medical, insurance) (H5) 3.37 0.84 -1.33
Family-friendly policy (H6) 2.77 1.06 -0.41
Salary (H7) 3.27 0.72 -0.85

other hygiene factors such as H2 through H7, and pension and retirement plan (H2) is
positively correlated with all other hygiene factors such as H1 and H3 through H7.
Several positive correlations also exist between motivators and hygiene factor. For
example, motivators such as opportunities for advancement (M1) and training and
career development (M2) are positively correlated with all seven hygiene factors.
Although several significant correlations exist among motivators and hygiene fac-
tors, regression analyses did not have a multicollinearity issue with these factors in this
study because the mean value of variance inflation factor (VIF) was 1.6 and the largest
VIF value for individual variable was 2.3. According to the suggested guideline (e.g.,
Hair et al. 1995; Kennedy 1992), multicollinearity is not an issue in the regression
analysis if VIF values are less than 10.

Testing Hypotheses 1 & 2

Factor analysis was conducted to identify a possible number of dimensions4 that may exist in
chosen sets of seven hygiene factors and seven motivators. Cronbachs alpha values were also
calculated to check whether or not there exists sufficient internal consistency among those
hygiene and motivating factors. According to Kaiser (1960) who provided a commonly used
guideline for confirming possible number of dimensions that may exist among a number of
variables, a unique dimension exists when its eigenvalue is greater than 1. Among seven
hygiene factors in this study, only one dimension passed this criteria (i.e., 2.64). Likewise,
among seven motivators in this study, only one dimension had greater than 1 eigenvalue (i.e.,
1.60). However, when we look at the second largest eigenvalue in these motivating and

4
The term, dimension is used in this study instead of factor that is the original term, to avoid confusion with
hygiene and motivating factors.
Testing Herzberg's Theory of Motivation

hygiene factors, a set of motivating factors had a relatively high eigenvalue (0.91), compared
to hygiene factors (0.56). This indicates that another dimension may exist among a set of
chosen motivating factors for public managers. Cronbachs alpha values supported this
conjecture because hygiene factors had 0.77 and motivators had 0.64 for their internal
consistency. According to widely used rules of thumb (Nunnally 1978), 0.70 is a threshold
alpha value for acceptable internal consistency. Therefore, internal consistency among those
seven motivators were not sufficient, whereas hygiene factors are internally consistent in one
dimension. Overall, it is safe to conclude that there exists a unique set of hygiene factors for
public managers that is similar to those factors for private-sector employees (H1 is supported).
For motivating factors, public managers may be a little bit differently motivated, compared to
private-sector employees, given that the second largest eigenvalue for a set of chosen
motivating factors was 0.91, and Cronbachs alpha was 0.64. Therefore, H2 is not supported.

Testing Hypotheses 3 & 4

When the regression analysis was conducted with hygiene factors only (see
Model 1 in Table 2), the variation of public managers job satisfaction was not
Table 2 Regression analysis for the effects of motivators/hygiene factors on job satisfaction

Factor category Variables Dependent variable:Satisfaction level

Model 1 Model 2

Hygiene factors Job security -0.01 .01

Pension & 0.00 -.04
retirement plan
Less Red tape 0.00 -.02
Less conflict 0.03 .02
Benefits (medical & -0.05 .07+
insurance)
Family friendly 0.05 .00
policy
Salary -0.01 -.03
Motivators Advancement -.00
Training and career -.05
development
Responsibility .02
Pride .41***
Authority .15***
Incentives (i.e., .12***
recognition)
Flexibility .13***
Number of 737 733
observations
R-squared .01 .42
F-value .85 36.9

Unstandardized coefficients are displayed + p< .10 * p< .05, ** p< .01, ***p< .001
 Hur Y.

explained at all because R-squared value was almost zero (R 2 = 0.01).

According to this finding, no hygiene factors significantly affected job
satisfaction level for public managers, and their internal consistency among
hygiene factors was acceptable (i.e., Cronbachs Alpha: 0.77). Since hygiene
factors were chosen, based on Herzbergs theory, in this study, it is safe to
conclude that there exists a set of hygiene factors, similar to those for private-
sector employees, and job satisfaction among public managers are not influ-
enced by hygiene factors as in Herzbergs study with private-sector employees
sample (i.e., H3 is supported).
However, when motivators were added to the Model 1 (see Model 2), several
motivators showed significant effects on public managers job satisfaction, and
Model 2 significantly explained variation of job satisfaction among public man-
agers (R-squared value: 0.42). According to these findings, significantly higher job
satisfaction was found among those who felt a sense of pride, those who thought
they had enough authority to determine how to get their jobs done, those who
found any kinds of incentives for them to work hard in their jobs, and those who
found a great deal of flexibility at work. In Model 2, benefits - one of hygiene
factors - showed a positive effect on job satisfaction (p < 0.10), but some
motivators such as advancement, training and career development, and increased
responsibility did not show any significant effects on job satisfaction among public
employees. Cronbach Alpha value for chosen motivators did not meet the accep-
tance criteria for having a single dimension (i.e., 0.7) and second largest eigenval-
ue for motivators was close to one (0.91) therefore H2 was not supported, but
majority of the chosen motivators showed significant effects on public employees
job satisfaction. Therefore, H4 is partially supported.

Discussion

This study generally confirms that Herzbergs two factor theory of motivation
can be applied to the public managers. As Herzberg argued, we can say that
public managers job satisfaction is generally affected by feeling related to
work itself, not by working conditions and environments. According to the
findings, hygiene factors for public managers were similar to those for private-
sector employees and job satisfaction among public managers was not affected
by these hygiene factors. However, motivators for public managers may be
different from those for private-sector employees. Among seven motivators,
selected based on Herzbergs two-factor theory, advancement, training & career
development, and increased responsibility did not significantly increase job
satisfaction unlike the prediction in Herzberg study. Although another investi-
gation is warranted to explain why public managers may not be well motivated
by these three factors in this study, below are some possible reasons.
Since public organizations usually rely on strict hierarchy for their operation,
public employees are usually motivated by expecting that they can advance to a
higher level position (Rainey 2014; Kettl and Fesler 2009). However, for public
managers (i.e., samples of this study) advancement opportunity may not be the
most important factor because they already hold managers positions and some of
Testing Herzberg's Theory of Motivation

them may have already reached the highest position of their career. If this is the
case, significant motivating effects may not be found in advancement opportunities.
Opportunities for training and career development are related to human
beings growth need that should play as a critical motivator (e.g., Herzberg
1968; Maslow 1954). However, if individuals are assigned to training or career
development opportunities, not based on their needs, but due to legal require-
ment or any other reasons, these opportunities may not contribute to individ-
uals growth, as well as to organizational effectiveness (Ford 2014). In addition,
if organizations do not support transferring learned knowledge and skills to
work (Cormier and Hagman 2014), we may not find significant motivating
effects in those opportunities.
With regards to responsibility, public managers do not have enough power
and authority to get their jobs done in addition to following a large set of rules
and procedures, when compared to the counterparts in the private sector (e.g.,
Boyne 2002; Gore 1993). If public managers are given more responsibility
without improving these conditions (e.g., giving more power and authority to
public managers), they would not be successfully motivated. In addition, unlike
in the private sector, if more financial rewards are not guaranteed to public
managers who take more responsibility, increased responsibility would not
motivate public managers. In fact, this finding is consistent with what
Khojasteh (1993) found. In his study, Kojasteh concluded that increased re-
sponsibility had only uncertain motivating potential for public managers.
The findings that hygiene factors did not contribute to increasing public
managers job satisfaction are consistent with previous research findings. That
is, public managers are less materialistic, and pay does not successfully moti-
vate public managers (Zhang et al. 2011; Boyne 2002; Khojasteh 1993; Alban
Metcalfe 1989; Rainey 1982). Given that monetary rewards are very limited,
compared to the private sector, and improving working conditions may not be
practically possible due to a tight budget, some important managerial implica-
tions are drawn. While making a reasonable effort to address issues related to
hygiene factors that would increase dissatisfaction among employees, more
attention needs to be paid to motivating factors because it does not require
tremendous budget to take care of motivating factors. For example, to give
public managers more authority and flexibility, we may need to change orga-
nizational structure and policies. New organizational culture can also help
public managers and employees take more pride in what they achieve, and
good work can be better recognized and appreciated in a new culture.
Overall, this study confirms that Herzbergs Two-Factor Theory of
Motivation can be generally applied to public managers, and helps figure out
how to practically motivate public managers. However, in-depth case studies
should be also conducted to explain why motivators such as advancement,
training and career development opportunities, and increased responsibility did
not motivate public managers. We also should to be cautious in applying what
was found in this study to general public employees because only public
managers were focused in this study. We are not sure whether or not rank-
and-file members in pubic organizations would show a similar pattern of
motivation.
Appendix 1

Correlation matrix

M: Motivators H: Hygiene factors Job Satis-faction M 1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7

Job Satisfaction 1 0.06 .093* .115** .584** -.402** .426** .352** -0.01 -0.01 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.00
** ** ** *
M 1 (Advancement) 0.06 1 .556 .330 .136 -0.01 .077 0.02 .270** .270** .192** .171** .208** .208** .217**
M 2 (Training & development) .093* .556** 1 .322** .211** -0.07 .114** .087* .294** .280** .183** .191** .236** .236** .202**
** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** **
M 3 (Responsibility) .12 .330 .322 1 .176 0.02 .223 .096 0.05 .086 .226 .186 .203 .203 .200**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** * *
M 4 (Pride) .58 .136 .211 .176 1 -.367 .455 .299 0.01 0.04 .074 .077 0.06 0.06 0.03
M 5 (Authority) -0.40** -0.01 -0.07 0.02 -.367** 1 -.273** -.262** .075* 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
M 6 (Incentives) .43** .077* .114** .223** .455** -.273** 1 .329** -0.05 -0.04 0.05 0.02 .080* .080* 0.05
M 7 (Flexibility) .35** 0.02 .087* .096** .299** -.262** .329** 1 -0.04 -.096** 0.06 0.04 .136** .136** -0.03
** ** * ** ** ** **
H 1 (Job Security) -0.01 .270 .294 0.05 0.01 .075 -0.05 -0.04 1 .477 .169 .277 .258 .258** .166**
** ** * ** ** ** ** ** **
H 2 (Pension & retirement plan) -0.01 .270 .280 .086 0.04 0.02 -0.04 -.096 .477 1 .282 .268 .297 .297 .267**
** ** ** * ** ** ** ** **
H 3 (Less red tap) 0.04 .192 .183 .226 .074 0.01 0.05 0.06 .169 .282 1 .538 .356 .356 .209**
** ** ** * ** ** ** ** **
H 4 (Low conflict) 0.05 .171 .191 .186 .077 0.03 0.02 0.04 .277 .268 .538 1 .442 .442 .201**
** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** **
H 5 (Benefits) -0.01 .264 .272 .112 -0.02 .089 -0.07 -.125 .488 .683 .218 .294 1 .381 .285**
** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** **
H 6 (Family friendly policy) 0.06 .208 .236 .203 0.06 0.00 .080 .136 .258 .297 .356 .442 .381 1 .223**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
H 7 (Salary) 0.00 .217 .202 .200 0.03 0.00 0.05 -0.03 .166 .267 .209 .201 .223 .223 1

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

Hur Y.
Testing Herzberg's Theory of Motivation

References

Alban Metcalfe, B. (1989). What motivates managers: an investigation by gender and sector of employment.
Public Administration Quarterly, 67, 95108.
Alderfer, C. P. (1969). Empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 4(2), 142175. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(69)90004-x.
Alonso, P., & Lewis, G. B. (2001). Public service motivation and job performance evidence from the federal
sector. The American Review of Public Administration, 31(4), 363380.
Argyris, C. (1960). Understanding organizational behavior. Homewood: Dorsey Press.
Baldwin, J. N., & Farley, Q. A. (2001). Comparing the public and private sectors in the United States: a review
of the empirical research. Public Administration and Public Policy, 94, 119130.
Balmer, S., & Baum, T. (1993). Applying Herzbergs hygiene factors to the changing accommodation
environment. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 5, 3235.
Bell, N. (2013). Experimental evidence on the relationship between public service motivation and job
performance. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 143153.
Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: Whats the difference? Journal of Management Studies,
39(1), 97122. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00284.
Brudney, Jeffrey L, and Stephen E Condrey. (1993). Pay for performance: Explaining the differences in
managerial motivation. Public Productivity & Management Review, 17(2):129144.
Buelens, M., & Van den Broeck, H. (2007). An analysis of differences in work motivation between public and
private sector organizations. Public Administration Review, 67(1), 6574. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
6210.2006.00697.x.
Caiden, G. E. (1991). What really is public maladministration? Public Administration Review, 51(6), 486493.
Camilleri, E. (2007). Antecedents affecting public service motivation. Personnel Review, 36(3), 356377.
Cormier, Stephen M, and Joseph D Hagman. (2014). Transfer of learning: Contemporary research and
applications. Cambridge: Academic Press.
Crewson, P. E. (1997). Public service motivation: building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 499518.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297334.
DeSantis, V. S., & Durst, S. L. (1996). Comparing job satisfaction among public and private sector employees.
American Review of Public Administration, 26, 327343.
Emmert, M. A., & Taher, W. A. (1992). Public sector professionals: the effects of public sector jobs on
motivation, job satisfaction and work involvement. American Review of Public Administration, 22(1), 37.
Ewen, R. B., Smith, P. C., & Hulin, C. L. (1966). An empirical test of the Herzberg two-factor theory. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 50(6), 544.
Ford, J. K. (2014). Improving training effectiveness in work organizations. Hove: Psychology Press.
Furnham, A., Forde, L., & Ferrari, K. (1999). Personality and work motivation. Personality and Individual
Differences, 26, 10351043.
Gabris, G. T., & Simo, G. (1995). Public sector motivation as an independent variable affecting career
decisions. Public Personnel Management, 25, 3351.
Gore, Al. 1993. From red tape to results: creating a government that Works Better & Costs Less. Report of the
National Performance Review.
Griffin, Ricky W., and Gregory Moorhead. 2011. Organizational Behavior: Managing people and organiza-
tion: OH: south-western.
Hair Jr., J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis (3rd ed.).
New York: Macmillan.
Heneman, R. L., & Werner, J. M. (2005). Merit pay: Linking pay to performance in a changing world. : IAP.
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: how do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 46, 5362.
Herzberg, F. A., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.
Ingraham, P. W, P. G. Joyce, and A. K. Donahue. (2003). Government performance: Why management
matters. : Taylor & Francis.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: a meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530541. doi:10.1037/0021.9010.87.3.530.
Kaiser, Henry F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and psycho-
logical measurement.
Kennedy, P. (1992). A Guide to Econometrics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kettl, D., & Fesler, J. (2009). The politics of the administrative process (4th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
 Hur Y.

Khojasteh, M. (1993). Motivating the private vs. public sector managers. Public Personnel Management,
22(3), 391.
Leisink, P., & Steijn, B. (2009). Public service motivation and job performance of public sector employees in
the Netherlands. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(1), 3552.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and Organisational psychology (pp. 12971349). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2004). What should we do ab out motivation theory? Six recommendation for
the twenty-first century. Advances in motivation and achievement, 10, 175412.
Lynn, L., Heinrich, C., & Hill, C. (2000). Studying governance and public management: why? How?,
governance and performance: new perspective. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Meier, K. J., & OToole Jr., L. J. (2002). Public management and organizational performance: the impact of
managerial quality. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(4), 629643.
Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2005). Testing how management matters in an era of government by
performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 421439.
Nicholson-Crotty, S., & OToole, L. J. (2004). Public management and organizational performance: the case
of law enforcement agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(1), 118.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nyame-Mireku, M. N. (2012). Determinants of job satisfaction among hospital pharmacists and their intent
to leave using Herzbergs two-factor theory. Minneapolis: Capella University.
Pandey, S. K. and E. C. Stazyk (2008). Antecedents and correlates of public service motivation. In: J. L. Perry
and A. Hondeghem (Eds), Motivation in public management: The call of public service, (pp. 101-117).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Parsons, E., & Broadbridge, A. (2006). Job motivation and satisfaction: unpacking the key factors for charity
shop managers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 13(2), 121131. doi:10.1016/j.
jretconser.2005.08.013.
Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The publicprivate distinction in organization theory: a critique and
research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13, 182201.
Perry, J. L., Hondeghem, A., & Wise, L. R. (2010). Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: twenty
years of research and an agenda for the future. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 681690.
Pinder, C. (2008). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Probst, T. M., Brett, J. M., Drasgow, F. (2002). The impact of job insecurity on employee work attitudes, job
adaptation, and organizational withdrawal behaviors. In: J. Brett and F. Drasgow (Eds), The psychology of
work: Theoretically based empirical research, (pp. 141-168). Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.
Rainey, H. (1982). Reward preferences among public and private managers: in search of the service ethic.
American Review of Public Administration, 16, 288302.
Rainey, H. G. (1989). Public management: recent research on the political context and managerial roles,
structures and behaviors. Journal of Management, 15, 229250.
Rainey, H. (2014). Understanding and managing pubic organizations. 5th ed. : Jossey-Bass.
Rainey, H. G., & Bozeman, B. (2000). Comparing public and private organizations: empirical research and the
power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 447469.
Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: developing elements of a theory of effective
government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(1), 132.
Rawls, J., Ullrich, R., & Nelson, O. (1975). A comparison of managers entering or reentering the profit and
nonprofit sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 616623.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, 2, 121139.
Sanjeev, MA, & Surya, A. V. (2016). Two factor theory of motivation and satisfaction: an empirical
verification. Annals of Data Science, 3(2):119.
Shipley, D., & Kiely, J. (1988). Motivation and dissatisfaction of industrial salespeople-how relevant is
Herzbergs theory? European Journal of Marketing, 22(1), 1730.
Steel, B. S., & Warner, R. L. (1990). Job satisfaction among early labor force participants: unexpected
outcomes in public and private sector comparisons. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 10, 422.
Stringer, C., Didham, J., & Theivananthampillai, P. (2011). Motivation, pay satisfaction, and job satisfaction of
front-line employees. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(2), 161179.
Wilson, J. Q. (1967). The bureaucracy problem. The Public Interest, 6, 3.
Wittmer, D. (1991). Serving the people or serving for pay: reward preferences among government, hybrid
sector and business managers. Public Productivity and Management Review, 14, 369383.
Testing Herzberg's Theory of Motivation

Wright, B. E. (2001). Public-sector work motivation: a review of the current literature and a revised conceptual
model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(4), 559586.
Wright, B. E., & Davis, B. S. (2003). Job satisfaction in the public sector the role of the work environment.
The American Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 7090.
Zhang, Y., Yao, X., & Cheong, J. O. (2011). City managers job satisfaction and frustration: factors and
implications. American Review of Public Administration, 41(6), 670685. doi:10.1177
/0275074010392212.

Dr. Hur is an associate professor in the Department of Government and Justice Studies at Appalachian State
University in Boone, North Carolina. His research interests include human resource management and
quantitative approaches to organizational issues in the public sector.