I had to review an abstract about Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory. According to the website, he called the:

quote:

satisfiers motivators and the dissatisfiers "hygiene" factors, using the term "hygiene" in the sense that they are considered maintenance factors that are necessary to avoid dissatisfaction but that by themselves do not provide satisfaction.

Have you ever seen "hygiene used this way? Perhaps the author of the theory just took some liberties, or is this a legitimate use of the word? When I look it up, it is derived from the the Greek word "hygies" meaning "healthy" or "living well." There apparently is a goddess named "Hygieia", who I hadn't known about. But I see nothing about it being used to mean "maintenance."

I'm going to guess he's making aparallel to the way fighting germs keeps the immune system healthy?

I'd use prophylaxis, I think - IF I knew what he was talking about.

Or why doesn't he just call them "maintenance factors," and be done with it? Why make it all flowery and confusing?

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Or why doesn't he just call them "maintenance factors," and be done with it? Why make it all flowery and confusing?

Because if academics write in language that the layman can readily understand the layman might get the idea that maybe academics aren't as clever or as important as they pretend to be.

Do you remember this post from a few years ago.

https://wordcraft.infopop.cc/ev...=147109618#147109618

Frederick Herzberg's Hygiene/Motivation theory is a long established one and I have used it in training for at least 30 years. I used to have trouble explaining to groups as to why Herzberg used the word "hygiene" and eventually settled on this explanation.

Hygiene is something that, if it is absent, will allow disease to start. Correct the lack of hygiene and you won't get the disease. The analogy with motivation is a perfect one: if any one of the hygiene factors is absent, then staff will get demotivated; correct the problem and they will no longer be demotivated.

But, as with medical hygiene, once the problem is corrected, further hygiene measures are pointless; you can't get doubly well by taking double the amount of medication. So, if staff are demotivated because, say, the office only has bare floors and they are cold and clinical, carpeting the floor will correct that source of demotivation. But you'll not motivate staff more by having two carpets; once the hygiene factor is corrected, further correction is impossible.

To motivate staff you need to consider completely different factors, which, by their absence might not demotivate but by the presence will motivate.

Herzberg had a whole range of hygiene factors, and his famous grid - fficial&biw=1024&bih=625&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnsb&tbnid=CN9hto4dauWMkM:&imgrefurl=http://www.managementcentre.co.uk/knowledge_base_detail.php/603/Management:%2520Unlocking%2520Motivation&docid=n6Whpxmt25b9OM&imgurl=http://www.managementcentre.co.uk/data/images/pages/campaign_buttons/motivation_graphh.jpg&w=1506&h=919&ei=KkaFT4j1NM648gOWibDcBw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=364&vpy=337&dur=787&hovh=175&hovw=288&tx=136&ty=113&sig=115630316242934946729&page=3&tbnh=107&tbnw=176&start=35&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:15,s:35,i:197" target="_blank">http://www.google.co.uk/imgres...:429,r:15,s:35,i:197 - shows them. There have been many redrawings of Herzberg's grid but this is the nearest I have managed to find to the original (and if I knew a way of reducing the size of the link I would do it!) This shows, as a bar graph, the degree to which each factor motivates or demotivates. Notice that salary is neither a significant motivator nor a significant demotivator. Giving someone more money might help a bit, but not a lot.

Probably the most significant lesson to learn from Herzberg's work is clear from the grid. The main reason for staff demotivation is bad company policy and administration (most people leave their jobs because they don't get on with their boss) and the highest motivating factor is a sense of achievement (in other words, if the job is a rewarding and worthwhile one). But the second most important motivating factor is the one that is in every manager's control - recognition. Managers who recognise their staff's achievements and praise them for what they have done, will have far more motivated staff.

I could go on - but the point makes itself - very few managers have even heard of the work of Herzberg (and Maslow and Mayo) and then wonder why their staff don't seem to work as hard as they would expect them to.

Oh, and if anyone reading this says - as so many of my trainees have said, "This is just common sense" then I would ask the question, "If it's common sense why aren't you doing it?"

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
Because if academics write in language that the layman can readily understand the layman might get the idea that maybe academics aren't as clever or as important as they pretend to be.

As usual Bob is much too cynical. It's just jargon.

And what is the purpose of jargon if not to maintain the barrier between the initiated and the uninitiated?

Cynical Bob

And what is the purpose of jargon if not to maintain the barrier between the initiated and the uninitiated?

The purpose of jargon is to communicate effectively with one's peers and colleagues. It's only when we are overheard by outsiders who think they should be let in on the conversation that accusations of obfuscation come up. In fact, you can obfuscate without using jargon at all.

Very cynical Jim.

OK, please let this outsider in on this stuff. What the hell were they saying in Kalleh's OP???

quote:

There’s an old phrase: "the chief use of slang is to show you’re one of the gang". And jargon is a kind of slang. It has the same purpose. “In our community we all talk in the same way.” Everybody understands it fine, but as soon as ONE person from outside comes in and doesn’t understand it, it’s the responsibility of the organisation to recognise that they have a different communicative level to achieve. And of course, some of these guys are SOO jargon trained that they can’t do that, and they just “shpiel” it out. That’s when jargon gets bad press.

David Crystal

In the interests of full disclosure, I am quoting out of context and in an earlier paragraph he does say,

quote:

Jargon is another thing that has had a very bad press. Why? Because the people who use it, use it stupidly – that is, they use it in contexts where it shouldn’t be used. If I speak jargon to you, why am I doing that? If you’re in my business, then my jargon is the same as yours. We get on fine, and jargon is a very convenient way of communication amongst people who are in the same business. If every time, instead of saying BBC to you, I said British Broadcasting Corporation, then we would have wasted so much time. But if we’re in the same business we can use the same jargon and not have a problem.

But ONE purpose of jargon is to exclude the outsider, though perhaps not the primary purpose.

I once heard Crystal speak on a similar topic and he was very persuasive that, from good or bad intentions, one effect of jargon is to identify the in-group from the out-group. By speaking jargon to me without knowing who I am you can rapidly identify whether I am "in" or "out" by my responses.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:

But ONE purpose of jargon is to exclude the outsider, though perhaps not the primary purpose.

I once heard Crystal speak on a similar topic and he was very persuasive that, from good or bad intentions, one effect of jargon is to identify the in-group from the out-group. By speaking jargon to me without knowing who I am you can rapidly identify whether I am "in" or "out" by my responses.

I agree with all this, but it's a far cry from this to saying that academics use jargon because they want people to think they're clever and important.

I sometimes wonder why people ascribe so much importance to my throw away comments. As you yourself noted, I am known for my cynicism. You should in no way allow my views to influence yours.

Well, in this case I don't consider it "jargon" anyway. To me, jargon is the use of terms in the profession that have been there for awhile and you really need to use the terms to communicate about it with your peers. For example, the patient's "RBCs will increase with a dose of erythropoitin , but the platelets will blah, blah blah." That's acceptable jargon for the professionals working in that discipline.

In this case, the author named his theory and redefined a word (or words) to do it. That's not jargon, to me, but instead it's a deliberate attempt to confuse. That is apparent by his having to define his own term when discussing the theory. Had he been clear and articulate, he wouldn't have had to. So, I don't agree that this is just "jargon."

It reminds me of a post from some time ago about Rosemarie Parse's Human Becoming Theory. (I tried to link to my original post, but the link to Parse is broken.) It took Parse's students a long time to just understand her verbiage, rather than what was meant. To me, that made her theory superficial because everyone got caught up in the language of it. For example, here is nursing, according to Parse:

quote:

Nurses live the art of humanbecoming in true presence with the unfolding of illuminating meaning, synchronizing rhythms, and mobilizing transcendence.

Now that's clear!

quote:

In this case, the author named his theory and redefined a word (or words) to do it. That's not jargon, to me, but instead it's a deliberate attempt to confuse. That is apparent by his having to define his own term when discussing the theory. Had he been clear and articulate, he wouldn't have had to. So, I don't agree that this is just "jargon."

I find it hard to think of a better word than hygiene (maintenance, whilst possible, doesn't to me have quite the same connotations. And would it have been any clearer?). Herzberg's two-factor theory has been part of motivation theory since 1959 and the term is, or should be, well understood. That it is not is more a reflection on the lack of training of most managers, not of the theory.

The use of medical terms to describe non-medical items or events is not uncommon. For example, in railways the tracks are divided into sections and signalling systems are designed to ensure that no two trains can occupy the same or adjacent sections of track at the same time; there must be at least one unoccupied section between each train. When one train enters a section of track the adjacent previous section cannot be entered until the previous train has exited its own section. The section that is thus closed is said to be "sterilised". The analogy with medical sterilisation is obvious.

I see nothing wrong with using terms from different disciplines where these work well; the alternative - maybe to create a new word - is surely more complex and would require even more explanation.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. My issue is not that it's a "medical" word; I agree many other medical words are used in every-day meanings. My issue is that the meaning of the word is not consistent with how it's being used. They might have well as used the word "tobacco" or " house," as far as I am concerned. While I respect your view, Richard, I think it's because you ascribe to the theory. My issue is with the word, and not the theory. I don't care either way about the theory.

quote:

My issue is that the meaning of the word is not consistent with how it's being used. They might have well as used the word "tobacco" or " house," as far as I am concerned.

Then I obviously haven't made myself clear.

In common parlance, hygiene is a condition promoting sanitary practices. If an environment is hygienic then those in it will be less likely to become ill. If the environent is not hygienic, then those in it will be more likely to fall ill. But once an environment is adequately hygienic then that's it. Making it even more hygienic can't make people even better than "not ill".

In a business sense, a hygienic environment is one where proper conditions exist for staff. People are looked after physically and mentally; they are safe; their work conditions are appropriate. In an unhygienic environment one or more of these conditions are not met. Staff might, for example, not have good washing toilet facilities; the place could be too hot or too cold; there might be no car parking; there might be an unsafe walk up dangerous stairs; the boss might be a thoroughly nasty character who shouts at the men and gropes the women. All of these factors will upset people and they are likely to become demotivated - the working equivalent of being unwell (indeed, sufficiently demotivated people can get genuinely ill; depression is common amongst those who hate their work).

And as with medical hygiene, once the business hygiene factors are corrected then people will be less likely to be demotivated. But you can't make them better than "not demotivated" by correcting the hygiene factors; once the dangerous stairs are sorted out, that's it. To actively motivate people you need to use motivating factors and again the parallel with medicine is clear.

There's no point in talking about improving someone's overall health unless you have first corrected the hygiene factors; drugs will cure an infected foot, but if the owner of the foot walks around without shoes on a filthy floor then the infection will reoccur. The hygiene must be sorted out or the medicine will not work.

As I wrote, by all means suggest a better word - but you certainly couldn't use the word "tobacco" or "house" in the explanation. Herzberg could have invented a word of his own, of course, but had his theory been entitled the "Gezetsenplaz/motivation" theory instead of the "hygiene/motivation" theory, would than have made it any more understandable?

As I wrote, Herzberg's two factor theory is over half a century old and is accepted by most management theorists as being essentially correct. The fact that most managers have never heard of it is a reflection on their training, not the theory.

It is well over a century since Fayol came up with his theory of management process and nearly a century since Mayo did his work on motivation in Chicago's Hawthorn works - but it is an observable fact that most managers have no idea how to motivate their staff. They believe they do, of course - but believing is not always the same as accuracy.

And I would add, Kalleh, that although you comment that you "...don't care either way about the theory..." I am sure you know very well the effects on staff of those managers who don't know or use it.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
\My issue is that the meaning of the word is not consistent with how it's being used.

Because it's being used a different way.

quote:

then those in it will be more likely to fall ill.

Ah, but we all know that "hygiene" has nothing to do with many illnesses.

quote:

I am sure you know very well the effects on staff of those managers who don't know or use it.

I'd have to study the theory in a whole lot more depth were I to espouse to it. From the surface, it seemed reasonable, but I've studied many similar theories that are nothing but a bunch of hot air. Look at the one I posted about.

quote:

Because it's being used a different way.

Yep, that's the point, goofy. As I see it, you could slip any word into that slot, as I said above. From my reading about the word "hygiene," I don't see any rationale explanation about why it was used. That means that I could say: "Bluff canopy eaten fusilage telescopic hinge" and mean whatever I wanted. While, goofy, I agree that words "evolve" and "change" and have "different meanings," I don't believe that's the case in this situation. I think the author of the theory just selected a word he liked, but which made no sense at all.

Again...we'll have to agree to disagree on this one...unless someone can find a different use of "hygiene," much like people here have asked me for evidence for the use of "epicaricacy."

quote:

Ah, but we all know that "hygiene" has nothing to do with many illnesses.

Of course, not - but it has a lot to do with many others. Just think of the mortality rates in hospitals prior to the introduction of hygienic practices.

quote:

I'd have to study the theory in a whole lot more depth were I to espouse to it. From the surface, it seemed reasonable, but I've studied many similar theories that are nothing but a bunch of hot air.

If you check Herzberg's graph, you will see which hygiene factors Herzberg found (and he did research this in great depth - it wasn't just somethng he dreamt up) were the most important. And you will see that he found that the two most powerful hygiene factors were company policy and administration, and supervision. If you have never been demotivated by the actions or inactions of your superior(s) or of your company's policies then I would be more than surprised - I would be astounded.

In case my link didn't work I have tried another one - http://www.managementcentre.co...otivation_graphh.jpg - which seem to work for me.

Some commentators have tried to find words to replace hygiene, and in the grid I link to the commentators has used the expression: "factors leading to extreme dissatisfaction/satisfaction". Maybe better but certainly more clumsy.

Herzberg's is not a new theory and, unlike "Parse's Humanbecoming School of Thought" is written in proper English and is properly researched. I agree that some management theories are just tosh - but a theory like Herzberg's, which has been generally accepted by management theorists for over half a century should not be lightly set aside simply because he used a descriptor that some might not immediately understand.

If you need a simple expanation if his theory, this one - http://www.managementstudyguid...heory-motivation.htm - which is but a single page and which contains no "Parse-speak" will give you all the important details.

quote:

unless someone can find a different use of "hygiene," much like people here have asked me for evidence for the use of "epicaricacy."

The term does appear in several business dictionaries, including this one - http://www.businessdictionary....hygiene-factors.html

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

"Hygiene" is what you say when you meet Mr. Hackman.

Actually, if you recall, my only argument with the theory was the ridiculous "hygiene" term. The Business Dictionary just cited Hertzberg's use of the "hygiene," which hardly counts. No one has not presented me a bit of linguistic data (historical data on the word, etymology, or similar word uses) to show that the "hygiene" word is acceptable. I find it confusing and distracting.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Well, it is a business use, not a medical use. Would you disagree with the use of the term "sterilise" in railway parlance?

Words have always been borrowed by one discipline from another discipline and those who are not familiar with the borrowing discipline might wonder about their use.

If you want etymological justification, here's what the Online etymological dictioary has to say:

1670s, from Fr. hygiène, ultimately from Gk. hygieine techne "the healthful art," from hygies "healthy," lit. "living well" (personified as the goddess Hygieia), from PIE *eyu-gwie-es- "having a vigorous life." The Greek adjective was used by Aristotle as a noun meaning "health."

Nothing specifically medical about the early etymology - just "living well".