Research in Higher Education, Vol. 48, No.

2, March 2007 (Ó 2006)

DOI: 10.1007/s11162-006-9042-3

EXAMINING HERZBERG’S THEORY: Improving

Job Satisfaction among Non-Academic
Employees at a University

Ryan E. Smerek*,† and Marvin Peterson†

................................................................................................
................................................................................................
This study reports the results of a survey of 2700 employees in business operations
at a large public, research university. The analysis tests Herzberg et al.’s (1959)
well-known, duality theory of motivators and hygiene factors and the impact of
personal characteristics and job characteristics on perceptions of the work
environment and job satisfaction. The results offer inconclusive support of
Herzberg’s theory although the work itself is the strongest predictor of job
satisfaction after controlling for both personal and job characteristics. The study
concludes by discussing both practical implications, for those in leadership
positions in a university, and theoretical implications for researchers interested in
exploring job satisfaction in a higher education context.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
KEY WORDS: job satisfaction; quality of worklife; work climate; administrative staff.

THE PROBLEM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This paper studies the men and women charged with the day-to-day
operations of a university—human resource professionals, financial
operations, facilities, and IT professionals. While often overlooked in
research, the Chronicle of Higher Education reports 750,000 non-
academic, full-time staff members at colleges and universities in America
(2003). By focusing on a subset of that population, business operations
employees, this study addresses three questions: (1) How influential are
personal characteristics and job characteristics on job satisfaction?

yCenter for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, The University of Michigan,
610 East University Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259, USA.
*Address correspondence to: Marvin Peterson, Center for the Study of Higher and Post-
secondary Education, The University of Michigan, 610 East University Ave, Ann Arbor, MI
48109-1259, USA. E-mail: [email protected].

229
0361-0365/07/0300-0229/0 Ó 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
230 SMEREK AND PETERSON

(2) What are the greatest predictors of job satisfaction? (3) And can
Herzberg’s duality theory of motivators and hygiene factors be verified
in a higher education context? The importance of this research is not
only in testing Herzberg’s duality theory and expanding our knowledge
of this concept in higher education, but also, in pinpointing the levers to
improve the worklife in a university. Thus, this research has both theo-
retical and practical implications for understanding higher education.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Understanding job satisfaction requires knowing some of the major
debates in the field of industrial psychology. The concept of job satisfac-
tion emerged in this area and Herzberg’s duality theory is one of its ma-
jor postulates. In higher education, job satisfaction, particularly among
administrators, has been sparsely examined, and cumulatively the stud-
ies in this area suggest there is little unity in understanding job satisfac-
tion in a college or university context. This paper begins by reviewing
Herzberg’s duality theory then summarizes the understanding of job
satisfaction in higher education.

Herzberg’s Duality Theory of Job Satisfaction

In 1968, Behling, Labowitz, and Kosmo reviewed the controversy sur-
rounding Herzberg’s duality theory and the more conventional uniscalar
approach to measuring satisfaction. The debate began with the publica-
tion of Herzberg’s book The Motivation to Work (1959), in which inter-
views with 200 engineers and accountants were outlined. Subjects were
asked to describe ‘‘any kind of story you like—either a time when you
felt exceptionally good or a time when you felt exceptionally bad about
your job’’ (1959, 35). Over the course of twelve investigations in similar
organizations, Herzberg classified the work dimensions into motivators
and hygiene factors. Motivators were the satisfying events described in
the interviews. They included achievement, recognition, work itself,
responsibility, advancement, and growth.
When employees recalled a story where they felt ‘‘exceptionally bad’’
they often spoke of the following factors: company policy and adminis-
tration, supervision, relationship with supervisor, work conditions, salary,
relationships with peers, personal life, relationships with subordinates, sta-
tus, and security. Herzberg classified these ten events as hygiene factors
and he noticed that they were primarily disruptions in the external work
context, while the motivators dealt with internal states of mind. Thus,
Herzberg concluded his duality theory of job satisfaction which
EXAMINING HERZBERG’S THEORY 231

contrasted with the traditional notion of factors impacting employees on

a uniscalar continuum. For example, traditionally it was thought you
could increase salary, supervision, or company policy and that would in-
crease an employee toward greater job satisfaction. In Herzberg’s mind
you could not improve job satisfaction by improving any of the 10 hy-
giene factors; you could only improve job satisfaction by increasing the
six motivators.
Furthermore, the absence of the motivators would not lead to job dis-
satisfaction, just not job satisfaction. For example, if an employee did
not have recognition or achievement this would not lead to job dissatis-
faction, but they were unlikely to be motivated either. Essentially, the
six motivators and ten hygiene factors were working in two different
realms in affecting job attitudes. Herzberg’s concept was a radical
departure from current thinking (Behling et al., 1968) and is summa-
rized in Herzberg’s statement that, ‘‘The opposite of job satisfaction is
not job dissatisfaction but, rather, no job satisfaction; and similarly, the
opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction, but no job dissatis-
faction’’ (1987, 4).
A number of other researchers were able to verify Herzberg’s motiva-
tor-hygiene duality, and they were summarized in his 1966 book Work
and the Nature of Man. However, Herzberg was highly criticized by psy-
chologists who said he had investigated a narrow range of jobs, and used
only one measure of job attitudes (Ewen, 1964). Researchers also argued
that Herzberg was uncovering people making themselves ‘‘look good’’ by
attributing positive events to internal factors and negative experiences to
external events (Vroom, 1964). Ultimately, the two camps of psychologist
diverged dramatically, and in the end, different results would come from
different research techniques. When Herzberg’s critical-incident method
of interviewing employees was used it gave results that supported his
duality theory. Just as consistently, research gathered using a uniscalar
model would conflict with Herzberg’s theory (Behling et al., 1968).

Job Satisfaction in a Higher Education Context

In a higher education context, faculty job satisfaction has been the
primary focus of research (Austin and Gamson, 1983). Hagedorn (1994)
tested a causal model among faculty at different stages of career devel-
opment and found that satisfaction with salary, total work hours, and
support of colleagues affected the level of stress. The level of stress, in
turn, impacted satisfaction. Olsen, Maple, and Stage (1995) found a
direct effect between faculty job satisfaction and the intrinsic variables
of control over one’s career and satisfaction of academic work.
232 SMEREK AND PETERSON

Complementing the studies of faculty worklife, most of the research

on administrators examines particular roles such as department chairs
or academic deans. The role of the president has been comprehensively
examined—a role which differs greatly from other administrators. In re-
search about job satisfaction among administrators more generally, Vol-
kwein, Malik, and Napierski-Prancl (1998) find that perceptions of
teamwork and interpersonal work stress are the best predictors of satis-
faction. In their study, Volkwein et al. sought to assess the affect of the
regulatory climate on job satisfaction but found no direct relationship, a
notion that supports Herzberg’s theory. Instead, teamwork was posi-
tively associated with satisfaction while interpersonal work stress had a
negative link. Volkwein and Parmley (2000) found similar results in a
study comparing administrative satisfaction in public and private uni-
versities. The fact that teamwork, which could be similar to Herzberg’s
relationship with co-workers, is positively associated with satisfaction
partly disconfirms Herzberg’s duality theory.
In examining morale, Johnsrud and Rosser (1999) found that percep-
tions of recognition, discrimination, external relations, and mobility
were the best explanatory variables of job satisfaction among midlevel
administrators. Volkwein and Zhou (2003) tested a model of adminis-
trative job satisfaction and found that organizational, environmental,
and individual traits proved to be less influential than features such as
teamwork, job security, and interpersonal harmony. They concluded
that ‘‘the model suggests that overall satisfaction is the product of a
complex balance of many ingredients’’ (166). Finally, in examining un-
ion membership, Vander Putten, McLendon, and Peterson (1997) dis-
covered that union-affiliated staff members perceive the work
environment more negatively than non-union staff. In sum, these studies
give no conclusive confirmation or disconfirmation of Herzberg’s duality
theory. On par, however, they do not indicate a clear delineation as his
theory suggests.
In summarizing job satisfaction studies in higher education, Johnsrud
(2002) reviewed the recent literature devoted to both faculty and admin-
istrative worklife and grouped the studies into three categories: those
that describe and explore differences in the quality of worklife by per-
sonal characteristics (e.g. by sex, race/ethnicity, or tenure); those that
determine the impact of the quality of worklife on attitudes (e.g. stress,
morale, satisfaction, and commitment); and those that attempt to
explain behavioral outcomes caused by the quality of worklife (e.g.
turnover, productivity, and performance). This paper links the first and
second category by exploring the effects of personal characteristics on
job satisfaction and the effects of the perceived work environment on
EXAMINING HERZBERG’S THEORY 233

job satisfaction. In sum, the higher education literature does not have a
conclusive notion of what comprises job satisfaction among administra-
tors in a college or university, and this study helps build our under-
standing of this phenomenon.

CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

A conceptual model was built to visualize the interrelationships of the
variables and is based upon the preceding literature review (Spencer,
1997; Vander Putten et al., 1997; Volkwein and Zhou, 2003). The mod-
el, reflecting the literature review, contains the major constructs: per-
sonal characteristics, job characteristics, perceived work environment
(intrinsic and extrinsic) and job satisfaction (see Fig. 1). Variables with-
in each construct are identified later. Overall, the conceptual model
frames the three research questions driving the study: How influential
are personal characteristics and job characteristics on job satisfaction?
What are the greatest predictors of job satisfaction? And is Herzberg’s
duality theory of motivators and hygiene factors verified in this higher
education context?

Influences on the Work Perceived Work Outcome of Work

Environment Environment Environment

Personal Characteristics
• Gender
• Minority-status
• Age
• Length of Service
Motivators (Intrinsic)
• Recognition
• Work Itself
• Opportunity for Advancement
• Professional Growth Opportunities
• Responsibility
• Good Feelings about Organization
• Clarity of Mission
Job Satisfaction
Hygiene Factors (Extrinsic)
• Effective Senior Management
• Effective Supervisor
• Good Relationships w/ Co-Workers
• Satisfaction with Salary
• Satisfaction with Benefits
• Presence of Core Values

Job Characteristics
Work Unit
• Facilities & Op.
• Human Resources
• Finance
• Administrative IT
Union/Non-Union

FIG. 1 Model for assessing job satisfaction.

234 SMEREK AND PETERSON

The dependent variable in the model is job satisfaction which is com-

prised of (1) whether a job meets expectations, (2) is close to an ideal
job, and (3) how satisfied a person is with their job. To conceptualize
the impact on this dependent variable, the framework delineates the
influence of personal characteristics on job satisfaction by addressing
the impact of gender, minority-status, age, and length of service. Addi-
tionally, the effect of each of the personal characteristics is assessed on
the 13 perceived work environment dimensions. Second, the influences
of job characteristics (work unit and union-status) are examined on
both job satisfaction and the perceived work environment. Finally, con-
trolling for the influence of personal and job characteristics, the concep-
tual model partitions the 13 work environment dimensions into
Herzberg’s motivators and hygiene factors to examine their relative
influence on the outcome variable.
One limitation of the model is that the effects of environmental con-
ditions such as state policy and economic climate are not considered.
The effect of the external environment was recently examined by
Volkwein and Parmley (2000) who examined whether administrators in
public higher education had different levels of job satisfaction from
their counterparts at private colleges and universities. By excluding the
environment, the model is essentially a closed-system view of the orga-
nization (Scott, 2002). Mitigating this limitation are two consider-
ations. First, this study is primarily interested in the internal aspects of
an organization and the psychological states that carry the most pre-
dictive weight on job satisfaction, rendering the environment of sec-
ondary importance. Second, the population of business operations is
not likely to be in direct contact with the external environment com-
pared with development officers, admissions staff, and senior adminis-
trators. However, increases in accounting standards in the earlier half
of this decade may have influenced financial employees within this
sample.
An additional limitation of the research is that although demographic
differences are examined, the impact of personality on job satisfaction is
not included. Therefore, the effect of temperamental predispositions to
attitudinal outcomes in a work context is unknown. It is likely that pre-
vious life experiences—including socialization before entering the labor
market as well as past work experience—influence a person’s evaluation
of their job satisfaction. Finally, there is no variable to address differ-
ences caused by administrative rank. On average, managers may have
different predictors of job satisfaction in comparison to technical
employees. However, age and unionization may act as proxies for this
variable in the conceptual model.
EXAMINING HERZBERG’S THEORY 235

METHODOLOGY
Research Approach & Instrument
To test the conceptual model and research questions a survey was
conducted of the business operations employees at a large, public re-
search university. The survey was distributed primarily online although
paper surveys were available and completed by a small percentage of
the sample. The 109 questions of the survey were written by an internal
team which was led by an organization development specialist in busi-
ness operations along with a customer satisfaction consulting firm.
The survey covered the topics of training and development; recogni-
tion and praise; collaboration and teamwork; communication; alignment
with mission and goals; and feelings about one’s job (a complete survey
is available from the author upon request). The questions ranged from
strongly disagree to strongly agree on a 10-point Likert scale. In addi-
tion to the 109 questions, the following six demographic items were in-
cluded: area of employment, union membership, sex, age, being a
member of a racial or ethnic minority, and length of service at the
university.

Population and Sample

The survey was administered to the business operations division com-
prised of 36 units that report to an executive vice president. Totaling
2754 employees in the administrative division, the overall response rate
was 79% (N = 2180). The response rates varied by unit, from 66% in
facilities & operations to 86% in human resources, with 193 respondents
not indicating a unit. Removing non-responders of work unit reduced
the usable response rate to 77.6%. With a relatively high response rate,
the non-respondent bias is likely negligible.
It should be noted that the specific population used in this study,
business operations, is likely to vary from different subcultures in the
university. Therefore, the sample population may represent a different
sensitivity to job satisfaction predictors than individuals in different uni-
versity departments. Although this would contradict the universality of
Herzberg’s theory, the study does not address this concern. For exam-
ple, employees in academic affairs may show a greater sensitivity to pro-
fessional growth opportunities impacting their job satisfaction, while
employees in business operations may be more sensitive to effective se-
nior management. Thus, the predictors of job satisfaction may be partly
contingent upon the subculture of the university department (Table 1).
236 SMEREK AND PETERSON

TABLE 1. Response Rates by Work Unit

Work Unit # of Emp. % by Job Class. # of Resp. Response Rate

Finance 550 20% 430 78%

Facilities & operations 1702 62% 1127 66%
Human resources 176 6% 152 86%
Administrative IT 326 12% 278 85%
Total 2754 100% 2180 79%
Unidentifiable (removed) (193) (193)
Total working sample 2561 1987 77.6%

Analysis
The first stage of analysis was data reduction through principle com-
ponent analysis (PCA) with a direct oblimin rotation on the job satis-
faction and perceived work environment questions. This process was
conducted to identify factors approximate to Herzberg’s work environ-
ment dimensions and resulted in 13 factors. A questionnaire item was
included into a factor for which it had the highest loading and if the
loading was above .4. The 13 factors that resulted are displayed in
Table 2. Values for each factor were put on a consistent scale by tak-
ing the sum of the scores on the items multiplied by the factor load-
ings and dividing it by the sum of the loadings. Dividing the weighted
total of the items by the sum of the loadings puts the factors on a
consistent 1–10 scale and allows for comparison. Overall, 75 of the
109 questions converged into the 13 factors. For all of the factors a
higher score indicates a more positive response. Reliability tests were
conducted for each of the 13 factors, and they range from .76 to .97,
with an average reliability of .89. The reliability of each factor is also
reported in Table 2.
In addition to the 13 perceived work environment factors, three items
converged into a job satisfaction index. The three questions that con-
verged were: (1) Imagine your ideal job. How well does your current
position compare to that ideal job? (2) Overall, how satisfied are you
with your job? (3) Consider all the expectations you had when you star-
ted your current job. To what extent does your current job fall short or
exceed those expectations? The factor loadings of these items and the
reliability of the dependent variable is reported in Table 2.
Table 3 illustrates the connection of the factors found in the
survey with Herzberg’s motivators and hygiene factors. Of Herzberg’s
EXAMINING HERZBERG’S THEORY 237

TABLE 2. Factors and Items Resulting from Factor Analysis of Perceived Work
Environment and of Job Satisfaction

Loading

Job Satisfaction (a = .874)

Imagine your ideal job. How well does 0.690
your current position compare to that ideal job?
Overall, how satisfied are you with your job? 0.670
Consider all the expectations you had 0.662
when you started your current job.
To what extent does your current job fall short
or exceed those expectations?
Motivators
Recognition (a = .823)
My customers recognize my good work 0.715
My contributions are valued by members of the 0.635
Univ. community outside of business & operations
In the last 7 days I have received recognition or 0.528
praise for doing good work
I get appropriate recognition when I have done 0.446
something extraordinary
Expressions of thanks and appreciation are common 0.405
in my unit/department
Work Itself (a = .920)
I enjoy the type of work I do 0.758
My job is interesting 0.731
My job gives me a sense of accomplishment 0.633
I make a difference in my unit/department 0.507
Opportunities for Advancement (a = .920)
Opportunities for advancement or promotion 0.798
exist within the University
I know what is required of me to advance 0.797
within the University
Internal candidates receive fair consideration 0.650
for open positions
Information about job vacancies within the 0.528
University is readily available
Professional Growth Opportunities (a = .893)
My unit/department offers the training or education 0.823
that I need to grow in my job
I have received the necessary training to do my job well 0.768
I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow in the past year 0.748
There is someone at work who encourages my development 0.702
Someone has talked to me about my progress in the past year 0.666
238 SMEREK AND PETERSON

TABLE 2. (Continued )

Loading

Responsibility (a = .870)
I have control over how I do my work 0.699
My opinion counts at work 0.590
I have a say in decisions that affect my work 0.640
The physical environment allows me to do my job 0.624
I have the necessary resources, tools or 0.613
equipment to do my job
Good Feelings about Organization (a = .946)
I feel a strong sense of belonging to the University 0.817
I enjoy discussing the University with people 0.810
who do not work here
I have a strong commitment to the University 0.776
I am proud to work for the University 0.751
I care about the future of the University 0.730
Clarity of Mission (a = .913)
I understand how my work supports 0.754
the mission of business operations
I understand how my work supports 0.745
the University’s mission of research, teaching and service
I understand how my work supports 0.701
the mission of my unit/department
I know what is expected of me at work 0.535
Work is organized so that each person can see 0.519
the rel. between his/her job and the goals of the org.
The goals of my unit/department are clear to me 0.435
Hygiene Factors
Effective Senior Management (a = .955)
Senior management keeps employees informed 0.764
Senior management effectively communicates 0.722
the goals and strategies of our unit/department
Senior management demonstrates leadership practices 0.689
that are consistent with the stated values of our unit/department
Effective Supervisor (a = .970)
My supervisor communicates well 0.891
My supervisor manages people effectively 0.878
My supervisor is an effective decision-maker 0.858
Overall, how would you rate your supervisor? 0.851
My supervisor creates an environment that fosters trust 0.836
My supervisor is approachable and easy to talk with 0.819
My supervisor cares about me as a person 0.766
EXAMINING HERZBERG’S THEORY 239

TABLE 2. (Continued )

Loading

My supervisor is ethical in day-to-day practices 0.764

My supervisor gives me constructive feedback 0.749
on my performance
My supervisor deals effectively with poor performance 0.748
My supervisor treats me with respect 0.743
My supervisor recognizes me for doing good work 0.697
My supervisor considers my ideas 0.682
My supervisor trusts me 0.649
My supervisor has a clear view of where our 0.567
department is going and how to get there
Good Relationships with Co-workers (a = .933)
I trust my co-workers 0.904
I am consistently treated with respect by my co-workers 0.888
I can count on my co-workers to help out when needed 0.882
My co-workers and I work as part of a team 0.849
People care about each other in my unit/department 0.787
Someone in my unit/department cares about me as a person 0.586
When I joined my unit/department, I was made to feel welcome 0.566
My workgroup collaborates effectively with other 0.525
workgroups or departments
Satisfaction with Salary (a = .833)
My salary/pay rate is competitive when 0.860
compared to similar jobs at other organizations
I am fairly paid for the work I do 0.846
Salary/pay increases are appropriate 0.795
I understand how my base salary is determined 0.636
My salary/pay rate is a significant factor in my decision 0.617
to stay at the University
Satisfaction with Benefits (a = .840)
The University’s benefits package meets my needs 0.855
My costs associated with the benefits plan 0.796
(co-pays, deductibles, premiums) are reasonable
The benefits package is a significant factor in 0.761
my decision to stay at the University
The University’s benefits package has been adequately explained to me 0.636
Presence of Core Values (a = .756)
Ignoring business & operations core values 0.826
at work will get you in trouble
There is a clear and consistent set of values 0.648
that governs the way we do business.
All units/departments of business & operations share common values 0.514
240 SMEREK AND PETERSON

TABLE 3. Comparison of Herzberg’s Classification and Factors Resulting from

Factor Analysis

Factor Indices Found

in Factor Analysis (See Table 2
Herzberg’s Classifications for Questions Included in Each Factor)

Motivators
Recognition Recognition
Work Itself Work Itself
Advancement Opportunity for advancement
Growth Professional growth opportunities
Responsibility Responsibility
Achievement No related questions on survey
Non-matching Motivators Clarity of mission
Found in Survey Good feelings about organization
Hygiene Factors
Company Policy Effective senior management
and Administration Satisfaction with benefits
Supervision/Relationship Effective supervisor
with Supervisor
Salary Satisfaction with salary
Relationship with Peers Good relationships with co-workers
Personal Life No comparable factor emerged
Status No related questions on survey
Security No related questions on survey
Relationship with Subordinates No related questions on Survey
Work Conditions No comparable factor emerged
Non-matching Hygiene Factor Presence of core values
Found in Survey

motivators, five of the six dimensions were found by completing PCA.

Achievement, the missing motivator, did not have related questions in
the survey. In addition, clarity of mission and good feelings about the
organization emerged within the results of PCA and were classified as
intrinsic factors. Regarding Herzberg’s hygiene factors, less congruence
was found between the survey and his classification. No approximation
was found for personal life, status, security, relationship with subordi-
nates, and work conditions. Of these five hygiene factors, three dimen-
sions—status, security, and relationship with subordinates—did not have
related questions in the survey. The survey contained comparable ques-
tions about an employee’s personal life and work conditions, but they did
not emerge into a robust, single factor. Presence of core values was a
EXAMINING HERZBERG’S THEORY 241

latent factor that converged in the PCA and was included as a hygiene
factor because the three items comprising core values do not seem to
intrinsically lead to a satisfying work environment, but the absence
of them, and the unethical behavior that would ensue, could lead to a
dissatisfying environment.
In Table 4 personal characteristics were first analyzed to investigate
the research questions of the conceptual model. T-tests were used to
identify the significant differences among the categorical variables of
gender and minority status with the 13 work environment factors and
job satisfaction. Second, the continuous variables of age and length of
service were correlated with the 13 work environment dimensions and
job satisfaction.
In Table 5 the impact of job characteristics is analyzed. First, ANO-
VA assesses the mean of the 13 work environment factors and job satis-
faction among the four work units of finance, human resources, facilities
& operations, and administrative information technology. Second,
T-tests examine the mean differences among the 13 work environment
factors and job satisfaction by the categorical variable of union-status.
Finally, in Table 6 the relative impact of the 13 factors controlling
for personal and job characteristics is assessed using a multiple regres-
sion model to evaluate the predictive weight of the constructs in the
conceptual model. In the regression analysis, cases were excluded list-
wise to be most conservative, resulting in an N = 1132, and facilities
& operations is used as the baseline category for work unit in the
regression model.

RESULTS
This study examines relationships between an employee’s personal
characteristics, job characteristics, perceived work environment, and job
satisfaction. The results are presented in the order of the research ques-
tions: (1) How influential are personal characteristics and job character-
istics on job satisfaction? (2) What are the greatest predictors of job
satisfaction? (3) And can Herzberg’s duality theory of motivators and
hygiene factors be verified in a higher education context?

Personal Characteristics
Table 4 reports the relationship between the characteristics of gender,
minority-status, age, and length of service on job satisfaction. Regarding
gender differences, females are more satisfied on 12 of the 13 work
242
TABLE 4. T-tests and Correlations of Personal Characteristics with Perceived Work Environment and Job Satisfaction

Age Length of
Service

Factor Male Female T-test Non-minority Minority T-test r Sig. N r Sig. N

Motivators
Recognition 6.0 6.5 ** 6.3 5.9 * 0.01 1756 )0.06 * 1798
Work Itself 7.9 8.1 * 8.1 7.4 ** 0.11 ** 1805 0.05 * 1851
Advancement 6.3 7.0 ** 6.7 6.0 ** )0.04 1497 )0.05 * 1540
Professional Growth Opportunities 5.9 7.1 ** 6.5 6.0 ** )0.05 * 1770 )0.11 ** 1813
Responsibility 6.9 7.4 ** 7.2 6.8 ** )0.01 1787 )0.04 1833
Good Feelings about 8.1 8.5 ** 8.3 8.0 ** 0.03 1790 )0.01 1836
Organization
Clarity of Mission 7.4 8.0 ** 7.7 7.4 ** 0.04 1779 0.01 1825
Hygiene Factors
Effective Senior Management 5.5 6.3 ** 6.0 5.4 ** )0.04 1784 )0.07 ** 1828
Effective Supervisor 6.7 7.1 ** 6.9 6.6 * )0.02 1686 )0.05 * 1729
Good Relationships 7.3 7.8 ** 7.6 6.9 ** )0.01 1754 )0.02 1796
with Co-Workers
Satisfaction with Salary 5.6 5.5 – 5.7 5.1 ** 0.04 1758 )0.01 1806
Satisfaction with Benefits 7.0 8.0 ** 7.6 7.1 ** )0.07 ** 1787 )0.10 ** 1837
Presence of Core Values 6.2 6.5 ** 6.3 6.1 – )0.01 1722 )0.09 ** 1764
Job Satisfaction 5.9 6.1 * 6.1 5.4 ** 0.08 ** 1808 )0.01 1735
N = 1031 N = 835 N = 1522 N = 277
55% 45% 85% 15%

1 = Strongly Disagree; 10 = Strongly Agree; *p < .05 (2-tailed); **p < .01 (2-tailed).
SMEREK AND PETERSON
TABLE 5. ANOVA of Work Unit and T-test of Union-status with Perceived Work Environment and Job Satisfaction

Factor Finance Facilities & Op. Human Res. Admin. IT Welch F* Sig. F Non-union Union T-test

Motivators
Recognition 6.6 5.8 7.3 6.6 31.1 ** 6.6 5.4 **
Work Itself 8.1 7.8 8.7 8.1 13.7 ** 8.1 7.6 **
Advancement 7.3 6.1 7.3 6.7 32.0 ** 7.0 5.4 **
Prof. Growth Opportunities 7.5 5.7 7.3 7.2 79.8 ** 7.1 5.0 **
Responsibility 7.7 6.7 7.8 7.5 39.6 ** 7.5 6.4 **
EXAMINING HERZBERG’S THEORY

Good Feelings about Org. 8.6 8.0 8.7 8.6 15.6 ** 8.5 7.7 **
Clarity of Mission 8.3 7.3 8.2 7.9 37.5 ** 8.0 6.9 **
Hygiene Factors
Effective Senior Management 6.9 5.1 6.9 7.0 74.7 ** 6.6 4.4 **
Effective Supervisor 7.2 6.5 7.5 7.3 19.2 ** 7.2 6.3 **
Good Rel. with Co-workers 8.0 7.1 8.2 8.1 39.8 ** 7.9 6.8 **
Satisfaction with Salary 5.4 5.4 6.1 6.1 9.9 ** 5.6 5.5 –
Satisfaction with Benefits 8.0 7.0 8.5 8.1 58.5 ** 8.0 6.4 **
Presence of Core Values 6.8 6.1 6.6 6.3 14.7 ** 6.5 5.9 **
Job Satisfaction 6.1 5.8 6.5 6.0 6.2 ** 6.1 5.6 **
N = 430 N = 1127 N = 152 N = 278 N = 1313 N = 551
22% 57% 8% 14% 70% 30%

*Note: Unequal group sizes violated the assumption of homogeneity of variance. Therefore, Welch F-ratio was used.
**p < .01 (2-tailed).
243
244 SMEREK AND PETERSON

TABLE 6. Predictors of Job Satisfaction (N = 1132)

B SE B Beta Sig.

Constant 0.24 0.46

Personal Characteristics
Gender 0.00 0.11 0.00
Minority )0.17 0.14 )0.03
Age 0.14 0.05 0.07 *
Job Characteristics
Finance Dummy Variable )0.06 0.13 )0.01
Human Resources Dummy Variable )0.16 0.18 )0.02
Administrative IT Dummy Variable )0.24 0.15 )0.04
Union )0.09 0.14 )0.02
Motivators
Recognition 0.02 0.03 0.02
Work Itself 0.36 0.03 0.35 *
Opportunity for Advancement 0.14 0.03 0.15 *
Professional Growth Opportunities 0.05 0.03 0.06
Responsibility 0.15 0.04 0.14 *
Good Feelings about Organization )0.02 0.03 )0.02
Clarity of Mission )0.14 0.04 )0.13 *
Hygiene Factors
Effective Senior Management 0.08 0.02 0.10 *
Effective Supervisor 0.15 0.03 0.16 *
Good Relationships with Co-Workers )0.02 0.03 )0.02
Satisfaction with Salary 0.11 0.02 0.12 *
Satisfaction with Benefits )0.03 0.03 )0.03
Presence of Core Values 0.00 0.03 0.00
R2 = .46

*p < .001.

environment dimensions with salary being the only variable where wo-
men are not more satisfied. These results mirror Spencer’s finding that
business operations at a university had the greatest number of signifi-
cant differences based on gender (1997, 100). Of the 13 factors, the
greatest difference between men and women is in their perception of
professional growth opportunities, with women being substantially higher
in this perception. Overall, the results suggest that females in business
operations are much more satisfied with their work experience.
Regarding minority perceptions of the work environment, minorities
are significantly lower on 12 of the 13 dimensions. The three greatest
perceived differences between minorities and non-minorities are in
advancement, relationships with co-workers, and the work itself. The only
EXAMINING HERZBERG’S THEORY 245

area where minorities and non-minorities are not significantly different

is in the perception of the presence of core values. Overall, minorities
have significantly lower job satisfaction with a mean of 5.4 compared to
6.1 for non-minorities.
Age has a significant positive correlation (although of a small magni-
tude) with the work itself and job satisfaction. The results suggest that
older employees are well-adjusted to their job and obtain more intrinsic
rewards from it. There is also a significant negative correlation
(although of a small magnitude) between age and the perception of pro-
fessional growth opportunities and satisfaction with benefits.
Length of service is not significantly correlated with job satisfaction
although there are seven negative correlations that are significant with
the 13 perceived work environment dimensions (although of a small
magnitude.) Therefore, as length of service increases the following per-
ceptions decrease: recognition, advancement, professional growth opportu-
nities, effective senior management, effective supervisor, satisfaction with
benefits, and presence of core values. The only positive and significant
correlation is between length of service and the work itself.

Job Characteristics
Table 5 reports the second aspect of the conceptual model—the effect
of job characteristics on the 13 work environment dimensions and job
satisfaction. Regarding the influence of work unit, employees in facilities
& operations are less satisfied than people in finance, human resources,
and information technology. In fact, facilities & operations ranks lower
on all 13 work environment factors with the largest difference being
their perceptions of senior management’s effectiveness, advancement, and
professional growth opportunities. Table 5 also indicates that human re-
source employees are the most satisfied on 8 of the 13 factors and in
overall job satisfaction. Relatively speaking, they are the most satisfied
with recognition and benefits. The item with the most parity among the
four work units is in satisfaction with salary.
Regarding union-status, Table 5 reports that unionized employees are
less satisfied than non-union members. In fact, union workers rank be-
low non-union staff on all 13 of the work environment dimensions. The
low level of satisfaction among union members replicates the finding of
Vander Putten et al. (1997). Perhaps not surprisingly, the largest differ-
ence between the 13 factors is in the perception of the effectiveness of se-
nior management. Union members have a 4.4 rating while non-union
members average 6.6. It is unclear whether the perception of ineffective
management forms unions or being in a union creates this perception.
246 SMEREK AND PETERSON

Both factors probably have an influence. Similar to work unit and gen-
der, the only area of equal perceptions between union and non-union
members is in satisfaction with salary.

Predicting Job Satisfaction

After determining that several personal characteristics and both job
characteristics have a significant relationship with most dimensions of
the perceived work environment and with job satisfaction, the second
research question explores what relative influence personal characteris-
tics, job characteristics, and the perceived work environment have on
job satisfaction. The regression model helps answer this question and
the results are reported in Table 6. The model accounts for a robust
amount of the variance in explaining job satisfaction with an
R2 = .46. Among the personal characteristics, the only variable that
has a significant positive coefficient is age. Gender and minority-status
no longer exhibit an influence in comparison to the other variables.
The length of service variable is not included in the regression model
because the previous analysis indicated it did not have a significant
correlation with the dependent variable. Regarding job characteristics,
both work unit and union-status do not have significant coefficients
with job satisfaction.
Concerning the perceived work environment dimensions, the work
itself is the most significant and powerful predictor of job satisfaction
with a b = .35. Of the seven motivators three variables have positive
and significant coefficients: the work itself, opportunity for advancement
and responsibility. One of the motivators, clarity of mission, has a nega-
tive and significant beta of ).13. Of the six hygiene factors three are sig-
nificant and positive predictors of job satisfaction: effective senior
management, effective supervisor, and satisfaction with salary. In sum,
the results indicate that the perceived work environment variables are
more important than personal characteristics or job characteristics in
predicting job satisfaction. Furthermore, the results do not indicate a
clear distinction of job satisfaction predictors as Herzberg’s theory
suggests, although the work itself does have the most predictive power.

DISCUSSION
Practical Implications
Given that job satisfaction is important to the effectiveness and vital-
ity of an institution, there are numerous practical implications of this
EXAMINING HERZBERG’S THEORY 247

research. First, job satisfaction is important, not only because of a

humanistic desire to improve the quality of worklife, but also its poten-
tial impact on outcomes such as productivity and turnover (Johnsrud,
Heck, and Rosser, 2000). Thus, administrators concerned with the effec-
tiveness and vitality of their institution would be concerned with this
phenomenon, and given the resource constraints at every college and
university, wisely using money to impact job satisfaction will aid in their
overall functioning.
Therefore, given limited resources, administrators should focus on
two factors. First, although difficult to directly impact, improving the
work itself is paramount. It is the strongest predictor in the model and
past research has shown it has the greatest impact. The ability to
change this variable is difficult, but job redesign offers a viable frame-
work for this endeavor (Hackman, Oldham, Janson, and Purdy, 1975;
Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Second, both effective supervisors and se-
nior management are significant predictors of job satisfaction. There are
15 items in the supervisor factor, and its impact is second only to the
work itself. Thus, supervisor training to improve communication, man-
agement, and decision-making is a significant lever to impact job
satisfaction in this context.
In addition to the perceived work environment four personal charac-
teristics and two job characteristics were explored. The regression model
indicates that age is the most significant predictor of job satisfaction.
Janson and Martin (1982) suggest the positive association between age
and satisfaction is caused by the declining expectations of older work-
ers. In support of this hypothesis, both age and length of service are
negatively correlated with professional growth opportunities. These re-
sults replicate the findings of more comprehensive studies of worker dis-
satisfaction due to the structure of opportunity (Kanter, 1977), and are
likely a byproduct of non-faculty members employed in a professional
bureaucracy (Mintzberg, 1979). This perception was most pervasive in
facilities & operations, whose jobs are very technical in nature and offer
few avenues for professional growth.
In the regression model of Table 6, the implications of examining per-
sonal and job characteristics suggest only one factor remains significant
while the perceived work environment has a much greater influence.
This is good news for those trying to improve job satisfaction, because
this research implies that it is primarily influenced by perceptual factors
(which are somewhat controllable) and less influenced by the more
immutable determinants like personal and job characteristics.
248 SMEREK AND PETERSON

Theoretical Implications
In examining the differences between Herzberg’s motivators and
hygiene factors, this research duplicate Ewen’s study that found only
one factor, the work itself, acted in accordance with Herzberg’s concep-
tualization (1966). While none of the hygiene factors in the model are as
powerful as the work itself, the results do not support a clear delinea-
tion between intrinsic and extrinsic dynamics as Herzberg’s theory sug-
gests. Based on this result there are two theoretical implications to be
learned.
First, Herzberg’s duality theory is intriguing precisely because it is
simple and general, but in this context it was not accurate in predict-
ing a clear delineation of job satisfaction determinants. Researchers
have moved toward more complex formulations of job satisfaction
that forgo the simplicity of Herzberg’s theory. For example, Kalleberg
(1977) delineates the job environment into six dimensions: (1) the
intrinsic dimension, which refers to characteristics associated with the
task itself; (2) the convenience dimension, which refers to good hours,
pleasant physical surroundings, and convenient travel; (3) the financial
dimension which includes items such as pay, fringe benefits, and job
security; (4) relationships with co-workers and whether there are chan-
ces to make friends and meet social needs; (5) a career dimension that
includes items such as whether the chances for promotion are good;
and (6) resource adequacy which refers to whether there is enough
help, equipment, and information required to adequately complete the
job.
This example illustrates that as we move toward greater complexity in
describing job satisfaction we lose simplicity. This reflects Thorngate’s
(1976) postulate that it is impossible for a theory of social behavior to
be simultaneously general, accurate, and simple. Researchers can secure
two of the three virtues, but automatically concede the third (Weick,
1979). For example, case studies are both accurate and simple but forgo
being generalizable. While psychoanalytic theory is general and accurate
but certainly not simple. Herzberg’s theory demonstrates simple-general
research, but what use is a theory if it is not accurate? Metaphors
and theories such as loose coupling (Weick, 1976) and Garbage Cans
(Cohen, March, and Olsen, 1972) are useful because they help us talk
about complex phenomena is simple ways. Yet, when pressed they
seemingly can be applied to everything, yet do not precisely explain any-
thing. Herzberg’s theory asks us to question whether the determinants
of job satisfaction lie solely in the job itself (the ‘‘intrinsic’’ view), or
whether satisfaction is the consequence of an interaction between the
EXAMINING HERZBERG’S THEORY 249

worker and his/her work environment. This is a simple, yet important

distinction, and illustrates that testing a theory is not always an appro-
priate means to determining its value.
The second theoretical implication, and one that past research on job
satisfaction has shown, is that methodology profoundly affects the re-
sults obtained. Past studies of job satisfaction indicate that using Herz-
berg’s critical-incident method supports his conclusions, while uniscalar
surveys of satisfaction do not support his theory (Behling et al. 1968).
The distinction between the two approaches is researching an ‘‘incident’’
that leads to satisfaction versus a stable, attitudinal entity called ‘‘job
satisfaction.’’ An ‘‘event’’ and a ‘‘stable attitude’’ are different psycho-
logical phenomenon. Therefore, taking a theory that describes ‘‘events’’
that are motivating or dissatisfying and applying it to the ‘‘stable atti-
tude’’ of job satisfaction has dubious worth. Therefore, an implication
of this study is to be mindful of the approach you are taking because
theoretical findings are highly contingent upon the method used, more
so than many social scientists might want to believe.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank Eric Dey for his generous comments on
earlier drafts of this paper.

REFERENCES

Austin, A. E., and Gamson, Z. F. (1983). Academic workplace: New demands, heightened
tensions. ASHE/ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 10. Washington, DC:
American Association for Higher Education.
Behling, O., Labovitz, G., and Kosmo, R. (1968). The Herzberg controversy: A critical
reappraisal. Academy of Management Journal 11(1): 99–108.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., and Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational
choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 17: 1–25.
Ewen, R. (1964). Some determinants of job satisfaction: A study of the generality of Herzberg’s
theory. Journal of Applied Psychology 48(3): 161–163.
Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G. R, Janson, R., and Purdy, K. (1975). A new strategy for job
enrichment. California Management Review 17(4): 59–76.
Hackman, J. R., and Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work Redesign Reading, Addison-Wesley, MA.
Hagedorn, L. S. (1994). Retirement proximity’s role in the prediction of satisfaction in academe.
Research in Higher Education 35(6): 711–728.
Herzberg, F. (1987). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review
September–October, 109–120.
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man, World Pub. Co, Cleveland.
250 SMEREK AND PETERSON

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., and Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The Motivation to Work (2nd edn).
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Janson, P., and Martin, J. K. (1982). Job satisfaction and age: A test of two views. Social Forces
60: 1089–1102.
Johnsrud, L. K. (2002). Measuring the quality of faculty and administrative worklife:
Implications for college and university campuses. Research in Higher Education 43(3):
379–395.
Johnsrud, L. K., and Rosser, V. J. (1999). College and university mid-level administrators:
Explaining and improving their morale. Review of Higher Education 22(2): 121–141.
Johnsrud, L. K., Heck, R. H., and Rosser, V. J. (2000). Morale matters: Midlevel
administrators and their intent to leave. Journal of Higher Education 71(1): 34–59.
Kalleberg, A. (1977). Work values and job rewards: A theory of job satisfaction. American
Sociological Review 42: 124–143.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic, New York.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Olsen, D., Maple, S. A., and Stage, F. K. (1995). Women and minority faculty job satisfaction:
Professional role interests, professional satisfactions, and institutional fit. Journal of Higher
Education 66(3): 267–293.
Scott, W. R. (2002). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (5th edn). Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Spencer, M. (1997). Non-instructional staff perceptions of a quality-oriented work environment
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International,
58, 3859.
Thorngate, W. (1976). ‘‘In general’’ vs. ‘‘it depends’’: Some comments on the Gergen-Schlenker
debate. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2: 404–410.
Putten, J.Vander, McLendon, M., and Peterson, M. W. (1997). Comparing union and
nonunion staff perceptions of the higher education work environment. Research in Higher
Education 38(1): 131–149.
Volkwein, J. F., Malik, S. M., and Napierski-Pranel, M. (1998). Administrative satisfaction and
the regulatory climate at public universities. Research in Higher Education 39(1): 43–63.
Volkwein, J. F., and Parmley, K. (2000). Comparing administrative satisfaction in public and
private universities. Research in Higher Education 41(1): 95–116.
Volkwein, J. F., and Zhou, Y. (2003). Testing a model of administrative job satisfaction.
Research in Higher Education 44(2): 149–171.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative
Science Quarterly 21: 1–19.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing (2nd edn). Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.

Received June 9, 2006.