Exploring Horticultural Employees' Attitudes Toward Their Jobs: A Qualitative Analysis Based on Herzberg's Theory of Job Satisfaction

Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Dec 2005 by Bitsch, Vera, Hogberg, Michael

Each interview was analyzed by two independent coders: the main investigator and the graduate student who had interviewed most of the employees. After an initial round of coding, codes were discussed and code definitions clarified. In a second round, all interviews were recoded based on the final coding scheme by each coder. In the third round of analysis, coders met and discussed the coding and interpretation of each speech turn until consensus about the meaning of each citation and the appropriate code was reached. In addition, an independent researcher spot checked the coding of all interviews.

Results

Results are presented in three sections: (1) aggregated findings regarding the motivators versus hygiene factors theory, (2) specific results for each motivator and hygiene factor based on Herzberg's theory, and (3) additional findings that emerged during the analysis process, suggesting additional factors to be considered for the researched population. Results are presented in percentages of total citations aggregated across all interviewees. Percentages reported should be interpreted as trends, showing the job attitudes of the researched group. Specific percentages cannot be generalized to the population of agricultural employees because the number of interviewees is relatively small.

Aggregated Findings Regarding the Motivator Versus Hygiene Factors Theory

Table 2 shows the aggregated analysis results for both motivators and hygiene factors. The percentages reported in the table are based on the sum of all statements coded as one of the job factors outlined in Herzberg's theory (Table 1). They are interpreted with respect to the general hypothesis: (a) for all motivators, combined satisfaction is higher than dissatisfaction; and (b) for all hygiene factors combined, dissatisfaction is higher than satisfaction. While the data support part (a) of the general hypothesis, with positive remarks being 42% more frequent than negative remarks referring to motivators, part (b) could not be corroborated. Positive remarks referring to hygiene factors were also more frequent, a result that contradicts findings referenced by Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman and by Herzberg (1966). Overall, the researched group of employees was two times more likely to talk about positive feelings of job satisfaction (63%) than negative feelings of dissatisfaction (31%). Four percent of all motivator citations and 5% of all hygiene factor citations were ambiguous.

While evidence presented in Table 2 does not support the hygiene-factor part of the general hypothesis, it offers some support for the weaker hypothesis set forth by Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman that two different groups of factors cause satisfaction and dissatisfaction on the job. All signs reported in Table 2 have the expected direction, except for the difference between satisfaction and dissatisfaction for hygiene factors: satisfaction is mentioned more frequently referring to motivators than to hygiene factors; dissatisfaction is mentioned more frequently referring to hygiene factors than to motivators. In addition, the difference between positive statements and negative statements regarding hygiene factors is smaller than for the motivators. As a group, hygiene factors are less frequently related with satisfaction than motivators and more frequently related with dissatisfaction. However, differences are much smaller than expected.