HERZBERG S PROPOSALS AND THEIR APPLICABILITY TO THE HOTEL INDUSTRY

Transcription

1 HERZBERG S PROPOSALS AND THEIR APPLICABILITY TO THE HOTEL INDUSTRY Leonidas Chitiris Piraeus Graduate School of Industrial Studies Piraeus, Greece ABSTRACT Two implications of Herzberg s Two-Factor theory were derived and tested empirically, using data obtained from 287 people employed by twenty hotels in Greece. The results supported the hypothesis that when the organization does not allow workers the opportunity to satisfy most of their needs, hygiene factors become powerful sources of motivation, leading to improved performance and thus to productivity. On the other hand, very little contribution to productivity is due to motivators. The findings were interpreted in terms of the employment conditions in Greek hotel industry. Key Words: Hotel productivity; Hygiene factors; Motivators; Hotel employees satisfaction; Level of importance attached to certain job factors in hotels. INTRODUCTION Herzberg s theory of job satisfaction, first published in 1959 (Herzberg et all, 1959), and later extended, represents an approach to an understanding of the motivation to work. One of the major proposals of this theory is that certain job factors, when present in the work environment, lead to job satisfaction, while a different set of job factors, if not present, leads to job dissatisfaction. The first set of these factors Herzberg named &dquo;motivators&dquo;: they include achievement, recognition for achievement, the work itself, responsibility, advancement and growth. The second set he called &dquo;hygiene factors&dquo;: they include company policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relations, working conditions, salary, status and security. This theory has received widespread attention in literature (Chitiris, 1984). The results of most researchers who used Herzberg s method of collecting and analyzing data (critical incident method) support his theory (Schwartz, 1959; Gibson, 1961; Fantz, 1962; Schwartz et al, 1963; Saleh, 1964; Myers, 1964; Burke, 1966, Graen, 1966; Dunnette et al, 1967, Graen, 1968; Armstrong, 1971; Waters and Waters, 1972; Hines, 1973), while the results of studies using different methods (administered questionnaires, ranking of satisfaction level with job factors, scaling, etc.) fail to support the suggestions of the two-factor theory (Fine and Dickman, 1962; Ott, 1965; Friedlander, ; Hinrichs and Mischkind, 1967; Hulin and Smith, 67

2 1967; Levine and Weitz, 1968; Crabbs, 1973). This contraposition about Herzberg s theory is attributable mostly to the methodological inconsistencies and to the fact that different researchers have used different variables (job factors), or questioned subjects working for particular industries who differed in terms of employment conditions and qualifications. The influence of Herzberg s two-factor theory on the practice of management, on understanding motivation and establishing programs of increasing productivity through motivation, is very large. A great number of organizations base their programs of motivation on Herzberg s proposals, including job enrichment, expecting that employee motivation, and thus improved performance, can be attained through motivators. THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY. This study does not intend to present another replication of Herzberg s study in order to support or challenge his methodological approach or his results, but rather to test if his generalizations would hold up in an industry where the employment, as well as the work environment conditions, differ from those in other countries and industries where the majority of investigations of the theory have been conducted. It is perhaps appropriate at this point to clarify the status of those employed in the Greek hotel industry: more than 50% of Greek hotel employees are not professionals and join the hotel industry either because of lack of other employment opportunities or to earn extra money to supplement the income from another job (Chitiris, 1984). The existing level of job security is very low and the rate of the labor turn-over is very high (Wasmuth & Davis, 1983). Most Greek hotels set the wages paid in line with the guidelines of the National Collective Bargaining System. Most hotel workers view these wage scales as low when compared to the wages scales of workers in other industries. The actual salaries paid in hotels are considered low by most of the work force (Shamir, 1975). No incentive schemes are applied and career opportunities do not really exist for those working in these hotels (Chitiris, 1984). METHOD The Sample On the basis of a pilot survey findings (conducted by this researcher), 287 employees were chosen as subjects for this study, involving ten deluxe class hotels and ten first class hotels located in the two main hotel areas of Greece. For the particular purposes of this study, only the &dquo;productive departments&dquo; (these departments are considered productive because they are directly related to customer services, i.e. provide daily services required by guests), which employed the greatest number of employees were considered: reception, restaurant, kitchen and housekeeping. Table 1 gives the population of the sample. The Collection of Data All data are collected by the researcher who personally conducted all the 68

3 69

4 interviews. All data came from primary sources, i.e. the respondents were chosen randomly (random numbers method) and interviewed individually at the work place, most of them during a break and the rest while on the job. The Questionnaires Subjects were given a questionnaire which asked them to indicate their level of satisfaction and the concomitant level of importance of certain job factors. Among these, were included hygiene factors and motivators closely related to Herzberg s terminology and which are also present in the Greek hotel industry. The set of hygiene factors included: salary, payment for overtime work, physical job demands, physical working conditions, system of supervision, job security and leadership style. The set of motivators included: merit bonuses, advancement, initiative, content of the work itself and opportunity to learn and grow. &dquo;merit bonuses&dquo; was included as a motivator rather than a hygiene factor, since by definition any merit increase serves as a recognition of performance and should, therefore, be interpreted as a motivator (D. Whitsett and G. Winslow, 1967). A different questionnaire was given to hotel managers and a third one to heads of departments containing questions about the level of their job satisfaction, the factors affecting employee motivation, the organization of the hotel and the level of productivity. Level of Measurement The level of satisfaction with certain job factors was measured on a developed scale with ranks from 1 to 5, as follows: &dquo;very satisfied&dquo; (1 ), &dquo;satisfied&dquo; (2), &dquo;fairly satisfied&dquo; (3), &dquo;not at all satisfied&dquo; (4) and &dquo;dissatisfied&dquo; (5). The level of importance attached to the same job factors ranged from value 1 (&dquo;very important&dquo;) to value 4 (&dquo;not at all important&dquo;). The productivity level was also measured on a four-point scale, with value 1 (&dquo;very good&dquo;) to value 4 (&dquo;very poor&dquo;). The managers who participated in this study, based their answers mainly on two indices which they used, among others, for measuring productivity. These indices were: Measuring productivity is not an easy task, particularly in hotels (Chitiris, 1984), but it these two widely used indices are based on reliable data, they are very useful tools for estimating employee productivity. RESULTS The analysis of the data was concerned with two major research hypotheses: (A) The First Major Research Hypothesis One of Herzberg s hypotheses was that if workers are to be motivated (to increase performance and thus increase productivity) they must be satisfied with motivators. He also held that if the hygiene factors are present, job satisfaction will 70

5 follow but it will not lead workers to increase productivity. This hypothesis may hold for professional, skilled workers, who enjoy high job security, in heavy industry, utility companies or in hospitals, as Herzberg, and those researchers who supported his theory, have confirmed (Chitiris, 1984). But it is logical to assume that unskilled, non-professional workers do not enjoy high job security. They tend to hold seasonal and temporary positions (as is the case of the Greek hotel industry), and they cannot therefore be expected to derive a sufficiently high degree of satisfaction from job-centered factors (motivators), to be motivated to improve their performance. Their predicament is, however, that they are expected to derive a high degree of satisfaction, leading to improved performance from the hygiene factors (environment-centered factors). Table 2 developed from the survey gives the sum of rankings of the satisfaction derived from hygiene factors and motivators of hotel workers in each department. Assuming that the level of workers satisfaction with job factors would affect hotel productivity, the following hypotheses were developed to test Herzberg s proposal stated earlier: (a) The null hypothesis (Ho): &dquo;the level of hotel workers satisfaction with hygiene factors will not affect hotel productivity level to an extent greater than the level of satisfaction with motivators,&dquo; and (b) The alternative hypothesis (His): &dquo;the level of hotel workers satisfaction with hygiene will affect hotel productivity level to a greater extent than the level of satisfaction with motivators.&dquo; To test the null hypothesis, a regression analysis was performed by which the hotel productivity level was considered as the dependent variable and the hygiene factors and motivators were considered as the independent (explanatory) variables. In Table 3 the results of such a regression are given. The R2 column shows the effect of hygiene factors by themselves on hotel productivity level, to be equal to 19.4 percent at a very high significance level (F value less than.0001 ), which means that hygiene factors accounted for almost 20 percent of the variation in hotel productivity levels, whereas motivators on their own, accounted for only 4.3 percent (R2= 0.043) of the variation in hotel productivity levels. This implies that hygiene factors have a greater effect on hotel productivity levels than motivators. By examining the extra explanation provided by including hygiene factors after motivators were included in the equation, it was found that the variation in hotel. productivity levels was 22.7 percent (change in R2 value =.227) at a very high significance level, (F value <.0001). Whereas examining the extra explanation provided by including motivators, after hygiene factors were included in the equation, only 7 percent (change in R 2 value = 0.071) of the variation was explained at a high significance level (F value = 0.014). Table 4 gives the values of change in R2 and the significance level. It should be noted at this point that the sum of the values of R2 due to hygiene 71

6 72

7 73

8 factors and motivators on their own, should be equal to the total variation of the explanator variables when taken together (total R2= 0.270). But this was not the case, since: = R12+R = < (Table 3). The reason why total R2 was greater than the sum of the two individual R2 was that one, at least, of the explanatory variables was negatively correlated to hotel productivity level (Job security -0.26). When an explanatory variable is negatively correlated to the dependent variable such a case may exist (Johnston, 1972). Thus on the results of the regression analysis (Ho) had to be rejected in favor of (H1). Hotel productivity is more affected by the level of workers satisfaction with hygiene factors than by motivators. (B) The Second Major Research Hypothesis Herzberg held that if workers were to be motivated, management should place more emphasis on improving job-centered factors (motivators) than on improving even more hygiene factors, since workers derive positive satisfaction (motivation) from motivators than from hygiene factors. Such a proposal implies that workers would rate motivators higher than hygiene factors, in terms of importance in their job satisfaction. If this was the case for the subjects in Herzberg s research and in those of investigators supporting Herzberg s theory, who were for the most part, as stated earlier, professionals and enjoying high job security, then what about the blue-collar and unskilled hotel workers, who hold seasonal and temporary positions and whose level of salary is considered to be low and not rewarding of their efforts? To answer this question the following hypotheses were developed, by which Herzberg s proposal, stated above, would be tested if it holds in the Greek hotel industry. First, the null hypothesis (Ho): &dquo;regarding their job satisfaction, hotel workers will not tend to significantly rate hygiene factors as being more important than motivators.&dquo; Second, the alternative hypothesis (H1): &dquo;hotel workers will tend to significantly rate hygiene factors as being more important than motivators.&dquo; In order to test the null hypothesis (Ho) an extended Mann-Whitney test (x = O,S.D. = 1) was applied. Both hygiene factors and motivators were considered in terms of the level of importance that workers attached to them. The means (x) of importance for each individual factor of both sets (hygiene factors and motivators) were used to rank these factors in order of importance (Table 5) in each of the four departments. The sum of these ranks for each set of factors were then compared by using the formula: 74

9 75

10 where Ri is the rank of each factor in the four departments; ki is the hygiene factors set (number of factors); k2 is the motivators set (number of factors); the formula under the square root is the variance; and b is the numberof departments. The computation yielded a value of Z (critical value of normal distribution ) equal to That value was significant at the 0.1 percent level (.00126). On the basis of that value, the null hypothesis (Hg) was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis (H1), that hotel workers will tend to rate hygiene factors as being significantly more important than motivators. Such a result is in line with Maslow s theory of motivation according to which, if hygiene factors are below a neutral of acceptable level, then more attention is given to them than to any motivator. CONCLUSIONS From the analysis of the data, the following conclusions can be made. Herzberg s view that motivators should lead to motivation and to improved performance and hence to increased productivity was not supported in the case of the Greek hotel industry. If hotel productivity level is to be increased, the fact that hygiene factors account for a large variation in productivity level should be taken into consideration when motivating schemes are to be applied. It can be implied from rejecting the second null hypothesis that Herzberg s proposal to managers for motivating workers through motivators could not have a significant result in the Greek hotel industry, since, due to conditions existing in that industry, workers are still much more interested in hygiene factors than in motivators. In other words, when hygiene factors are not present, or are below an acceptable level, hotel managers should consider these factors as motivating agents. Motivation of hotel staff can be stimulated by providing workers with more opportunities to satisfy those needs which are gratified through hygiene factors, than by providing more motivators. On the basis of the results of this study, such a suggestion seems to hold, since not all of the hotel jobs are of such a nature as to provide more motivators, i.e. work in the restaurant, kitchen and housekeeping departments. The staff in all these areas seem to be concerned with such aspects as the hygiene factors, in deriving more job satisfaction. In general, the findings of this study shed some light on the issues of hotel work and productivity and have implications for other countries with similar employment and work environment conditions. In a non-need satisfying environment hygiene factors do play an important role in the level of hotel employees satisfaction and in the amount of effort they exert to increase productivity. If the organization does not provide adequately for the satisfaction of all kinds of needs, employees become more concerned about their hygiene needs than their motivator needs. In hotels, the human element constitutes the basic determining factor for effective performance. Because of this reason, hotel management should increase employees interest in their work and develop such organizational structure and management policies as to create need-satisfying environment in which a wider range of employee needs than merely the simple hygiene needs could be satisfied. 76

11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This article is based on a Ph.D. thesis submitted to the University of Kent, U.K., in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Ph.D. degree. The author expresses his gratitude and thanks to his supervisor, A.D.J. Flowerdew, professor of Management Science, University of Kent, at Canterbury, U.K. REFERENCES Armstrong, T. B "Job Content and Context Factors Related to Satisfaction for Different Occupational Levels." Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, Burke, R "Are Herzberg s Motivators and Hygienes Unidimensional." Journal of Applied Psycholody, 50, Chitiris, L "Management and Motivation in the Greek Hotel Industry. Testing Herzberg s Two-factory Theory." Doctoral thesis, University of Kent, U.K. Crabbs, R. A "Employee Motivation in the Panama Canal Company, A Replication of Herzberg s Motivation-Hygiene Theory." The George Washington University. Dunnettee, M. D., J. P. Cambell and M. D. Hakel 1967 "Factors Contributing to Job Satisfaction and Job Dissatisfaction in Six Occupational Groups." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2, Fantz, R "Motivational Factors in Rehabilitation." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Reserve University. Fine, S. and R. Dickman 1962 "Satisfaction and Productivity," Paper presented at a meeting of the American Psychological Association. Friedlander, F "Motivation to Work and Organizational Performance." Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, Friedlander, F "Comparative Work Value Systems." Personnel Psychology, 18,

12 Friedlander, F "Job Characteristics as Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers." Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, Gibson, J. W "Sources of Job Satisfaction and Job Dissatisfaction as Interpreted from Analysis of Write-in-Response." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Reserve University. Graen, G. B "Testing Traditional and Two-Factor-Hypotheses Concerning Job Satisfaction." Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, Graen, G. B "Motivator and Hygiene Dimensions for Research and Development Engineers." Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, Herzberg, F., B. Maunser and B. Snyderman 1959 "The Motivation to Work." John Wiley and Sons, New York. Hines, G. H "Cross-Cultural Differences in Two-Factor Motivation Theory." Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, Hinrichs, J. R. and L. A. Mischkind 1967 "Empirical and Theoretical Limitations of the Two-Factor Hypothesis of Job Satisfaction." Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, Hulin, C. L. and P. A. Smith 1967 "An Empirical Investigation of Two Implications of the Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction." Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, Johnston, J "Econometric Methods." International Student Edition, London. Levine, E. L. and J. Weitz 1968 "Job Satisfaction Among Graduate Students: Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Variables." Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, Myers, S. M "Who Are Your Motivated Workers." Harvard Business Review, 42, Ott, D. C "The Generality of Herzberg s Two-Factor Theory of Motivation." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Ohio State University. Saleh, S. D "A Study of Attitude Change in the Pre-Retirement Period." Journal of Applied Psychology, 48,

13 Schwarz, P "Attitudes of Middle Management Personnel." Pittsburgh: American Institute of Research. Schwartz, M., E. Jenusaitis and H. Stark 1963 "Motivational Factors Among Supervisors in the Utility Industry." Personnel Psychology, 16, Shamir, B "A Study of Working Environments and Attitudes to Work in a Number of British Hotels." Doctoral thesis University of London. Wasmuth, W. J. and St. W. Davis 1983 "Managing Employee Turnover." The Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly, Waters, K. L. and C. W. Waters 1972 "An Empirical Test of Five Versions of the Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction." Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 7, Winslow, E. K. and D. A. Whitsett 1967 "An Analysis of Studies Critical of the Motivator-Hygiene Theory." Personnel Psychology, 20,