Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 53:
Herzberg's model has stimulated much research. In the 1970s, researchers were unable to reliably empirically prove the model however, with Hackman & Oldham suggesting that Herzberg's original formulation of the model may have been a methodological artifact.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976"/>
The theory has been criticized because it does not consider individual differences, conversely predicting all employees will react in an identical manner to changes in motivating/hygiene factors.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976"/> The model has also been criticised in that it does not specify how motivating/hygiene factors are to be measured.<ref name="HackmanOldham1976"/> Most studies use a quantitative approach by for example using validated instruments such as the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire.<ref>[[David J. Weiss|Weiss, D. J.]], Dawis, R. V., & England, G. W. (1967). "Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire." Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 22, 120.</ref> There are also studies that have utilized a qualitative methodology such as by means of individual interviews.<ref>Holmberg, C., et al. (2017) "Job satisfaction among Swedish mental health nursing personnel: Revisiting the two-factor theory." International Journal of Mental Health Nursing. {{DOI:|10.1111/inm.12339}}.</ref>
=== Job characteristics model ===
| |||