Testing Of Herzberg’s Motivation Theory In The Construction Industry

Among the motivation theories, Herzberg’s two-factor theory (Herzberg et al., 1959) has been popular over the past 30 years. It has been widely studied and few managers are unfamiliar with its practical factors and recommendations (Steers, et al., 1996; Robbins, 2000). Since the construction industry has many unique characteristics, e.g. cost and schedule strictness, plentiful conflicts, labor-based, on-site working and short-term employment (Nave, 1968; Schrader, 1972; Laufer and Jenkins; 1982). Mr. Rathavoot Ruthankoon made a research to discover the answers in the following problems:

Problem I: Herzberg’s two-factor theory may not be valid for construction professionals. The theory should be tested.

Problem II: Herzberg’s theory may lack methodological validity. Therefore, the theory should be tested using different research instruments in the same environment.

Problems III: Relationship between job satisfaction and performance in factor classification would strengthen the theory.

Problem IV: Herzberg’ theory can be expanded to group-based work. The conclusion of the theory on project performance may be different from those stated in the original research by Herzberg.

The four research objectives were derived to answer the four research problems above. Each objective is broken down into sub-objectives providing narrow scope under main objective.

Objective I: To test Herzberg’s motivation theory in the construction industry by replicating Herbzerg’s methodology (critical incident interview). This objective is split into four parts; interview and count factors, group factors concerning effect on job satisfaction, group factors concerning effect of different positions, and compare results with Herzberg’s original study. This process is exactly the same as in Herzberg’s study to facilitate comparison

Objective II: To test the validity of Herzberg’s methodology by using another research instrument and to compare the results with the interview result. The second objective is broken down into four parts. First, Objective 2.1 is to design questionnaire using results from the interview in Objective 1. Concept of Objective 2.2 and 2.3 are the same as Objective 1.2 and 1.3 that group factors concerning effect on job satisfaction and effect of different positions. Objective 2.4 is to compare the result between interview and questionnaire to find out the differences between the two research methods.

Objective III: To group factors in the theory using job satisfaction and performance. Effects on commitment, attendance, turnover, and absenteeism are considered in Objective 3.1. Objective 3.2 is to compare the result with grouping without consideration for performance.

Objective IV: Analyze the data on performance at the project level using a construction project as the unit of analysis. Objective 4.1 is to group factors concerning effect on project performance (time, cost, and quality). Objective 4.2 is to compare the result between factors grouping with project performance and Herzberg's original result.

Conclusion

Objective 1
The result of a replication of Herzberg’s critical incident interview on construction staff shows some differences from the result of Herzberg’s study (1959). This result shows a strong evidence that the theory does not have situational validity in the Thai construction industry. In addition, some differences were found among samples of project engineers, site engineers, senior foremen, and junior foremen. It is concluded that the theory is not stable across positions.

Objective 2
The result shows that some factors from the questionnaire did not appear the same as in the results from the interview. Lack of methodological validity of Herzberg’s theory is confirmed. In addition, some differences are found among samples of project engineers, site engineers, senior foremen, and junior foremen in the questionnaire result. This also confirms that differences in position have effect on the theory.

Objective 3
The result of the third objective shows that the effect of level of satisfaction on overall job satisfaction is not necessarily the same as its effects on performance, organizational commitment, and attendance. For example, a motivation factor that leads to increase in job satisfaction may not lead to increase in performance but may lead to increase in organizational commitment. Absenteeism and tardiness are found to have no significant relationship with any factor.

Objective 4
The effects of satisfaction level on project performance are different from the result at the individual level and also different from Herzberg's result. Motivation factors are not always the same for project performance.

Her thesis abstract is copied and posted.

ABSTRACT

Four objectives are accomplished in this dissertation. The first objective is to test Herzberg's theory using a replication of Herzberg’s methodology in the construction industry. The second objective is to test methodological validity of the theory by comparing results from the replication interview with the results from a questionnaire survey designed specially for theory testing. The third objective is to use effects of factors satisfaction on employees' performance into factors grouping process. The fourth objective is to find the relationship between factor satisfaction by project team members with project performance in terms of time, cost, and quality.

The target population of this study is engineers and foremen in construction sites in the Bangkok area. A sample of 125 site staffs from 40 construction sites participated in critical incident interviews for objective 1. Results from the interviews were used for the questionnaire design for objectives 2, 3, and 4. A sample of 344 site staffs from 42 construction sites in the Bangkok area returned valid questionnaires.

The result of a replication of Herzberg’s critical incident interview on construction professionals shows some differences from the result of Herzberg’s study (1959). This result shows strong evidence that the theory does not have situational validity in the Thai construction industry. The result of second objective shows that some factors from the questionnaire did not appear the same as in the results from the interview. In addition, some differences are found among samples of project engineers, site engineers, senior foremen, and junior foremen in the questionnaire result. The result of the third objective shows that the effect of level of satisfaction on overall job satisfaction is not necessarily the same as its effects on performance, organizational commitment, and attendance. On the fourth objective, the effects of satisfaction level on project performance are different from the result at the individual level and also different from Herzberg's result. Based on the result of this study, motivation and hygiene factors are regrouped into 4 groups namely, performance-related, technical-related, position-related, and feeling-related factors according to their characteristics.