Annals of Data Science

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 155–173 | Cite as

Two Factor Theory of Motivation and Satisfaction: An Empirical Verification

  • M. A. SanjeevEmail author
  • A. V. Surya


Effective talent management is imperative for organisational success. This involves acquiring, deploying, developing, engaging and retaining talent in the organisation there by providing a stable staff for achieving organisational objectives. Herzberg’s two factor theory of motivation and satisfaction was proposed in 1959 and has been widely tested empirically with mixed results. The purpose of this research is to verify the ‘two factor theory’ in the modern day context using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The study is done among pharmaceutical sales and marketing professionals. The findings confirm the existence of two factor structure of motivation and satisfaction. The employees are satisfied in the presence of motivating factors only and hygiene factors do not have any influence on satisfaction levels. The motivating factors however, are not fully intrinsic in nature and consists of certain extrinsic elements also as classified by Herzberg. The factors are also not fully independent with a high amount of shared variance between them.


Two-factor theory Motivation Hygiene factor Motivating factor Factor structure Empirical verification  Factor analysis 


  1. 1.
    Atchison TJ, Lefferts EA (1972) The prediction of turnover using Herzberg’s job satisfaction technique. Pers Psychol 25(1):53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Behling O, Labovitz G, Kosmo R (1968) The Herzberg controversy: a critical reappraisal. Acad Manag J 11(1):99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bockman V (1971) The Herzberg controversy. Pers Psychol 24(2):155–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brenner V, Carmack C, Weinstein M (1971) An empirical test of the motivation-hygiene theory. J Account Res 9(2):359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2008) (3rd edn.), Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chary S, Gupta T (2014) A study on field force attrition and the response of consulting doctors in Greater Mumbai. Express Pharma. Retrieved from Accessed 9 Apr 2015
  7. 7.
    Crocker L, Algina J (1986) Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DeShields Oscar W Jr, Kara Ali, Kaynak Erdener (2005) Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: applying Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Int J Educ Manag 19(2):128–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dunaway L, Running A (2009) Job satisfaction as self-care within a restrictive regulatory environment: Nevada’s study. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 21(10):557–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ewen R, Smith P, Hulin C, Locke E (1966) An empirical test of the Herzberg two-factor theory. J Appl Psychol 50(6):544–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farr R (1977) On the nature of attributional artifacts in qualitative research: Herzberg’s two- factor theory of work motivation. J Occup Psychol 50(1):3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gaziel H (1986) Correlates of job satisfaction: a study of the two factor theory in an educational setting. J Psychol 120(6):613–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hackman JR, Oldham GR (1976) Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Org Behav Hum Perform 16(2):250–279. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herzberg F (1965) The motivation to work among Finnish supervisors. Pers Psychol 18(4):393–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herzberg F (1968) One more time: how do you motivate employees? Harvard Bus Rev 46(1):53–62Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hines GH (1973) Cross-cultural differences in two-factor motivation theory. J Appl Psychol 58(3):375–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6(1):1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jöreskog K, Sörbom D (1993) LISREL 8: structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    King N (1970) Clarification and evaluation of the two-factor theory of job satisfaction. Psychol Bull 74(1):18–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kodgule MM (2012) Growth of Indian pharmaceutical industry: impact of Indian, US & European patent laws and regulatory requirements. Pharma Times 44(7):45–49Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lawler E (1970) Job attitudes and employee motivation: theory, research, and practice. Pers Psychol 23(2):223–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lindsay C, Marks E, Gorlow L (1967) The Herzberg theory: a critique and reformulation. J Appl Psychol 51(4):330–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Locke EA, Whiting RJ (1974) Sources of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among solid waste management employees. J Appl Psychol 59(2):145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lodahl T (1964) Patterns of job attitudes in two assembly technologies. Adm Sci Quart 8(4):482–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mazumdar M (2013) Performance of pharmaceutical companies in India, contributions to economics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. doi: 10.1007/978-3-7908-2876-4_2
  26. 26.
    Macarov D (1972) Work patterns and satisfactions in an Israeli kibbutz: a test of the Herzberg hypothesis. Pers Psychol 25(15):483–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM (1996) Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods 1(2):130–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maidani E (1991) Comparative study of Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction among public and private sectors. Public Pers Manag 20(4):441–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mathew, C Joe (2013, June, 5) Indian Pill Brigade: Medical Reps must evolve if they want to keep up with times. Accessed 1 Dec 2014
  30. 30.
    Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. (2010). 8th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford: UKGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rathavoot R, Ogunlana SO (2003) Testing Herzberg’s two-factor theory in the Thai construction industry. Eng Constr Archit Manag 10(5):333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rosenberg MJ, Hovland CI (eds) (1960) Cognitive, affective and behavioural components of attitudes. In: Attitude organization and change: an analysis of consistency among attitude components. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schultz DP, Schultz SE (2010) Psychology and work today: an introduction to industrial and organizational psychology, 10th edn. Prentice Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schwab D, DeVitt W (1971) A test of the adequacy of the two factor theory as a predictor of self-report performance effects. Pers Psychol 24(2):293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Slavec A, Drnovsek M (2012) A perspective on scale development in entrepreneurship research. Econ Bus Rev 14(1):39–62Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Smerek R, Peterson M (2007) Examining Herzberg’s theory: Improving job satisfaction among non-academic employees at a university. Res High Educ 48(2):229–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tutor FD (1986) ‘The relationship between perceived need deficiencies and factors influencing teacher participation in the tennessee career ladder. Doctoral dissertation, Memphis State University, Memphis, TNGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wheaton B, Muthen B, Alwin DF, Summers G (1977) Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociol Methodol 8(1):84–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jaypee Business SchoolNoidaIndia
  2. 2.IMRB International, SRI DivisionNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations