**This post includes an addendum that isn’t in the recording (plus a bonus tip for individuals about how they can apply this heuristic to their own professional lives).**
I will take any opportunity to talk about one of my favorites, Herzberg’s two factor theory of motivation, because while so much research about leadership and organizations is context-dependent, some things (such as reducing frustration for our high flyers, as we discussed in the last post about stay interviews) are just easy to use and implement in nearly any setting.
They’re great little heuristics for our complex and busy world, though they do require some nuanced approaches.
Herzberg’s two factor theory is one such heuristic. Let’s set it in the context of employee retention: Job satisfaction is one aspect of retention, so it’s helpful to understand what satisfies people and what contributes to dissatisfaction.
Basically, Herzberg says job satisfaction comes down to stuff that falls into two buckets: Motivation and Hygiene.
Motivators create satisfaction: They fulfill needs for meaning and growth and include things like recognition, advancement, and achievement.
Hygienics (my made-up term because I like to bookend it with “motivators.” The literature refers to “hygiene factors”) do not create satisfaction and they do not create motivation. They matter when they’re absent: Things like salary, policy, and supervision.
(And, I daresay, parking.)
But here’s the thing about application, which you already know: The differences in motivators and hygienics come down to the specific environment in which we’re applying these ideas and the people occupying that environment.
For example, in one study in healthcare, the motivators were relationships with colleagues and leaders and professional development, while the hygienics were health and safety, workload, salary, promotion, policy, and recognition (Alrawahi et al., 2020).
That means that something like “health and safety” doesn’t lead to job satisfaction when those matters are handled well. But when they are NOT handled well, they lead to job dissatisfaction. They’re sort of like preventative maintenance matters.
And interestingly, in that study, what might often appear as a motivator (“recognition”) served as a hygienic with this population. Recognition didn’t motivate anyone, but the lack of recognition led to job dissatisfaction.
In another setting, diversity resident librarians were far more satisfied with their jobs when they had “knowledge of who the residents are, what the residency is, and why it was established” as well as substantive feedback and opportunities to engage in meaningful, challenging work. Those are motivators in that setting (Alston, 2017).
Already you might be sensing some dispositional elements at play here: Who are the people drawn to the work of diversity resident librarian positions, and are they qualitatively different from the people drawn to healthcare?
(Hypothesis: Yes.)
Thus, it’s important to understand our unique contexts before attempting to overlay Herzberg’s handy heuristic, though I will share that some overarching principles can work for us.
For example, let’s talk salary. Salary typically isn’t a motivator; it’s a hygienic. In practice, a low salary will make someone dissatisfied with their job but a high one will not necessarily make them more motivated or more satisfied.
(That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pay people competitively. If we’re paying them competitively, though, it won’t always be more pay that motivates them to stay, typically, though again, that’s likely context dependent.)
Leadership is also a hygienic: The presence of a poor leader reduces job satisfaction, but the presence of a good leader generally does not increase it.
(Sorry. I know that’s probably disappointing.)
Herzberg is one reason I say that it’s more important to avoid hiring bad leaders than it is to hire fantastic ones.
Just hire someone with good people and communication skills who won’t burn the place down along with the people in it because by and large, supervision and leadership are hygienics.
Some specific leader behaviors are hygeinics, too: Communication, for example. When it’s not there, we see dissatisfaction. When it’s there, it serves as preventative maintenance. But again, your mileage can vary.
Application
We can consider using Herzberg as a nice framework when we’re engaged in those Stay Interviews we discussed in the last post. Listening carefully for the responses to “what makes you stay here” or “what makes you want to come to work” can help us identify the motivators, and the questions about frustrations and challenges can help us identify the hygienics.
I’d then look for overlaps across responses to develop a nice model to help us manage the environment. If we know, for example, that parking frustrates everyone, we need to solve the issue or make space to complain about it, and we can do that by making it a bit of a joke:
If we’re all working in the same space, I might post a “Today’s Parking Frustrometer” board, where I can share that today, I am a 10/10 in my frustration about parking, or a 3/10 because I found a close spot1.
I know of another environment where people post a “word of the day” and its definition. It’s an inside joke among employees because that word always refers in some way to one of their primary frustrations, and the use of creative vocabulary and subtextual humor helps them deal with it.
(And hey, as a words person, I wholly support any vocabulary-building endeavors!)
That simple, goofy approach allows people to vent their frustration about a problem that can’t be solved in a manner that makes them feel heard and supported. Remember, in our last discussion, we emphasized perceived organizational support.
Making those frustrations visible and addressing them is an important part of ensuring they don’t become influential as hygienics.
Bonus Tip
One good activity for individuals is to consider their own motivators and hygeinics because this framework can help us select the work environments that can bring us the most satisfaction: Understanding Herzberg can help us draft our response to “do you have any questions for us” part of the interview process.
Often, it’s the small stuff that matters most.
Addendum because sometimes you listen to your own podcast and learn something.
As I was reviewing the recording, it occurred to me that this perceived organizational support idea aligns with one of the complaints women partnered with men in their personal lives often share:
I don’t need you to solve a problem, necessarily. I just need you to listen and to validate my perspective because doing so demonstrates that you care.
(It’s not always gendered, of course. I’m not essentializing here.)
In our current era, I think (hope?) people are learning that it’s okay to ask, “Do you want me to help you solve this, or do you just need me to listen?”
I already have enough data and information to convince me that organizations are driven by masculinist logics, and I think the idea of perceived support is another example:
Who has the patience, willingness, and interest in simply hearing complaints about issues that can’t be solved? Who recognizes the value to the social fabric of organizations of just allowing people to share their frustrations openly and routinely?
Who is able and willing to sit with the emotions of others, to just experience their pain (to whatever degree!) and empathize? Where is space for those processes built into the bureaucracy?
Who sees the activity of sharing frustrations that can’t be solved as whining or b*tching (*I chose this term deliberately*) instead of important social processes that contribute to perceived organizational support?
Leadership: A way of being and a way of seeing, and the best of it is often at odds with the logics of organizations and the individual logics of those in charge.
Getting a new insight from your own podcast is something, my friends, but it’s in total alignment with Weick’s sensemaking: How do I know what I think until I see what I say?
Both the parking and word of the day examples illuminate one of the many things that makes leadership so difficult to teach. Activities like these must emerge organically and be appropriate for context and participants; I would never say “pick up the parking frustrometer and dump it into your environment.” That’s now how it works.
Leadership is a way of being and seeing, much like teaching, and taking an opportunity to build in a funny way to manage frustrations requires a certain level of emotional acumen, situational awareness, and theoretical knowledge. That’s one reason I wanted to talk about Herzberg: Anyone can understand how motivators and hygienics function, and when we’re attuned to this framework, we can situate dynamics more effectively and create solutions that work for our unique environments and populations, recognizing organic opportunities when they emerge.
Share this post