New Theoretical Perspectives on Job
Satisfaction and Motivation:
Challenging Herzberg and Linking with Professional
Development
paper presented at the
European Conference on Educational Research,
University of Helsinki,
Within the symposium,
Job Satisfaction and Motivation amongst European Education Professionals:
Developing Theory and Theoretical Perspectives
August 26th, 2010
by
Linda Evans
School of Education, University of Leeds, UK
l.evans@leeds.ac.uk
1
ABSTRACT
This theoretical paper presents two original perspectives on job satisfaction and motivation: a critique of
Herzberg’s (1968) motivation-hygiene theory; and a new conception of job satisfaction and motivation as
components of professional development.
In the 1960s Herzberg published his motivation-hygiene theory. Although widely criticised, this is
generally considered a seminal study and is much cited in academic texts. In this ECER symposium paper
I draw upon data from a study of English teachers’ morale, job satisfaction and motivation to identify
conceptually based flaws in the theory. These flaws are related to what I refer to as the ambiguity of job
satisfaction: that it relates both to what is satisfactory and what is satisfying.
The second part of the paper presents my original conceptualisation of professional development,
which deconstructs it into 11 components or dimensions, one of which is the motivational component.
Thus, I argue, motivation, job satisfaction and morale should be considered components of professional
development.
INTRODUCTION
It appears that in the USA teacher job satisfaction is currently at an all-time high (Anon., 2009), with
teachers being more satisfied with their jobs now than at any time in the past twenty-five years. But is this
finding mirrored in Europe? A league table published in 2007 ranks teaching 11th out of 81occupational
groups in the UK in terms of how satisfied employees feel in their jobs (Anon., 2007), representing a rise
of 43 places since 1999. But the secondary data used to compile this league table, analysed by Professor
Michael Rose of the University of Bath in England, were first gathered by the UK’s Department of Trade
and Industry between 2004 and 2005. Much has changed since then, not only in the UK but also in other
European countries, with Iceland having gone bankrupt, Greece’s financial crisis having undermined the
value and stability of the Euro, and public sector salaries being cut in the Republic of Ireland. Most
recently the new coalition government in the UK has announced drastic public sector cuts, from whose
impact the education sector will certainly not be exempt; indeed, it may expect cuts of up to 25%, to
include a freeze affecting teachers’ and lecturers’ salaries (Richardson, 2010) and £55billion cuts to school
building projects (Lyons, 2010).
It is difficult to ascertain what impact these measures will have on job satisfaction, morale and
motivation, since even if this is researched it will be some time before reliable, up-to-date (by which I
mean post-global recession) data are published in academic media. In the meantime we must make
assessments that involve guesswork, but if it is to be ‘informed’ or ‘educated’, rather than simply reflect
commonsense reasoning and assumption, our guesswork should be shaped by past research and
scholarship, including relevant theories and theoretical perspectives.
Since it was pioneered in the 1930s, the study of work-related attitudes has contributed a
substantial body of knowledge about what makes people happy or unhappy with their jobs. Employees’ job
satisfaction, motivation and morale have been recognised as enduring issues of concern since the middle
decades of the 20th century, when occupational (or work) psychology emerged as a recognisable field of
study. Indeed, academic interest in these issues proliferated around this time, prompting Locke (1969) to
estimate that, as of 1955, over 2,000 articles on the subject of job satisfaction had been published and that
by 1969 the total may have exceeded 4,000. Whilst much of the work has focused on employees in general
some has been related to specific occupations, and a relatively small proportion of this to education
professionals (e.g. Bogler, 2001, 2002; Butt and Lance, 2005; Chaplain, 2001; De Nobile & McCormick,
2008; Koustelios, 2001; Koustelios et al., 2004; Lissmann & Gigerich, 1990; Liua & Ramsey, 2008; Nias,
1980; 1989; Papanastasiou & Zembylas, 2006; Rhodes et al. 2004; Wiśniewski, 1990).
The middle decades of the twentieth century may be considered a defining period for occupational
psychology. It was at this time that Maslow (1954) published his hierarchy of human needs theory, and
2
Herzberg’s two-factor theory emerged. The latter has proved contentious and has been challenged on
several fronts (e.g. Berl et al., 1984; Evans & Olumide-Aluko, 2010; Gordon et al., 1974; Schneider &
Locke, 1971; Shipley & Kiely, 1993; Wall & Stephenson, 1970), and its applicability to contexts other
than that of 1960s white collar, male-dominated, American business has been tested, including its
applicability to education contexts (Farrugia, 1986; Nias, 1981; Young and Davis, 1983).
In this paper I present yet another critique of Herzberg’s theory. In doing so, I examine the concept
of job satisfaction, and this conceptual analysis then leads me to examine the relationship between job
satisfaction and professional development. Combining these two elements, the paper as a whole presents a
new theoretical perspective on job satisfaction and motivation. I begin by outlining Herzberg’s theory.
HERZBERG’S MOTIVATION-HYGIENE THEORY
Herzberg’s research focused on the job satisfaction and motivation of engineers and accountants in
Pittsburgh. Despite being a contentious study which has been criticised on methodological grounds, it is
generally regarded as seminal and has drawn considerable attention from other researchers in the
occupational psychology field. In the UK it remains widely used (or at least referred-to) in leadership and
management training and development in the business and industry sectors.
From analysis of his research findings Herzberg formulated a theory, which he called his
motivation-hygiene theory, or, as it is also known, the two factor theory. His findings revealed two distinct
sets of factors: one set which motivates, or satisfies, employees, and one set which may de-motivate or
create dissatisfaction. According to Herzberg five features of work which motivate people or which are
capable of providing job satisfaction, are: achievement; recognition (for achievement); the work itself;
responsibility; and advancement (which equates to what is known as ‘promotion’ in current UK English).
Herzberg refers to these as motivation factors, and they all share the distinction of being factors that are
intrinsic to the work. Those features that Herzberg identifies as capable of de-motivating or creating
dissatisfaction are labelled hygiene factors and are all extrinsic to the work. These are listed as: salary;
supervision; interpersonal relations; working conditions; and policy and administration (the latter of which
is generally known in the UK as management).
The essential point of Herzberg’s theory is that hygiene factors are not capable of motivating or
satisfying people, even though they may be sources of dissatisfaction. Herzberg contends that removing
hygiene factors that are creating dissatisfaction does not – indeed, cannot - create job satisfaction because
hygiene factors are incapable of doing so (except, as he points out, in the cases of a minority of individuals
who are ‘hygiene seekers’). So, for example, if employees are dissatisfied with, or de-motivated by, the
salary they receive, giving them a pay rise will not motivate or satisfy them, it will merely ensure that they
are not dissatisfed with their pay. Herzberg likens a pay rise to ‘a shot in the arm’, which may offer a
temporary boost, but whose effects are short-lived. According to him, removing sources of dissatisfaction
does not ensure job satisfaction: only the intrinsic factors – the five motivation factors – are able to do that:
In summary, two essential findings were derived from this study. First, the factors
involved in producing job satisfaction were separate and distinct from the factors that
led to job dissatisfaction. Since separate factors needed to be considered, depending on
whether job satisfaction or job dissatisfaction was involved, if followed that these two
feelings were not the obverse of each other. Thus, the opposite of job satisfaction
would not be job dissatisfaction, but rather no job satisfaction; similarly, the opposite
of job dissatisfaction is no job dissatisfaction, not satisfaction with one’s job. The fact
that job satisfaction is made up of two unipolar traits is not unique, but it remains a
difficult concept to grasp (Herzberg, 1968, pp.75-76).
My criticism of Herzberg’s theory is both conceptually- and methodologically-based. I outline it in
the next section.
3
A CRITIQUE OF HERZBERG’S THEORY
An important issue is that, in the English language, the word ‘satisfaction’ is ambiguous. It refers both to
that which is satisfactory – which means acceptable or perfectly okay – and that which is satisfying –
which means fulfilling or intrinsically rewarding. The distinction continues with the use of preposition:
‘satisfactory’ is the term used to describe something that one is satisfied with, but not by; conversely,
‘satisfying’ is the term used to describe something that one is satisfied by, but not with. This distinction is
a key element of my critique. Herzberg’s hygiene factors are those which would generally influence how
satisfactory a job is considered, whereas motivation factors relate more to the extent to which work is
satisfying. There is no evidence that Herzberg acknowledges this. His theory emphasises – indeed, is
based upon - what has often been regarded as a revelation; that the opposite of satisfaction is not
dissatisfaction, but ‘no satisfaction’, and that the opposite of dissatisfaction is not satisfaction, but ‘no
dissatisfaction’. The issue is, I believe, much more simple and straightforward. Since one category relates
to factors which are capable only of making things satisfactory, and the other to factors which are capable
of satisfying, then clearly they are distinct and separate. But realisation of this should not form the basis
of a theory; it merely follows on from awareness that there are separate, but related, components of what
has tended to be regarded as a single concept. Herzberg’s ‘theory’ is no more revelatory than is the
statement that, although they are both fruits, an apple is not the same as a pear.
The distinction is similarly implicit where there are identified other categories of job satisfaction
factors than those which Herzberg uses. Farrugia (1986), for example, uses Herzberg’s categories of
‘extrinsic’ and ‘intrinsic’ factors, and adds a third, ‘interjacent’ factors. Nias (1981) refers to ‘satisfiers’,
‘dissatisfies’ and ‘negative satisfiers’, and Lortie (1975 p.101) identifies ‘psychic’, ‘ancillary’ and
‘extrinsic’ rewards. However, since, in all cases, all of the categories are identified as components of job
satisfaction, which, as a result, becomes an umbrella term, there is no evidence that the basis of the
distinction between satisfactory and satisfying is recognised.
While some writers evidently interpret job satisfaction as encompassing both what is satisfying and
what is satisfactory, there are those whose interpretation of the term is apparently narrower and concerned
only with what is satisfying. A key conceptual flaw in Herzberg’s work is his failure to define what he
means by ‘job satisfaction’ and ‘motivation’, and moreover, his evident use of them interchangeably, as if
they are synonymous. There is nevertheless evidence that he interprets job satisfaction to include only
what is satisfying (rather than what is both satisfying and satisfactory), since his theory emphasises that
dissatisfaction is not the same as no satisfaction. This suggests that he considers ‘dissatisfaction’ to mean
‘unsatisfactory’, which does not fall within the parameters of what he relates to job satisfaction, and that he
considers ‘no satisfaction’ to mean ‘lacking the capacity to be satisfying’.
In some cases interpretations of job satisfaction as being concerned only with what is satisfying,
and excluding that which is satisfactory only, are evident in the selections of specific job satisfaction
factors identified. Chapman (1983), for example, identifies ‘recognition by administration and
supervision’, and ‘achievement in learning new things’, as significant influential factors. Sergiovanni
(1968) similarly identifies ‘opportunities for success’, ‘achievement’ and ‘responsibility’ as ‘the really
potent factors ... the real determiners of job satisfaction’.
There is, of course, a danger in drawing inferences about interpretations of job satisfaction by
examining the influential factors identified. The danger lies in the unreliability of making assumptions
about what is either satisfying or satisfactory to others. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to assume that
those who identify job satisfaction factors such as ‘feeling competent’, ‘being able to meet a challenge’ or
‘feeling that I've “reached” a child’ hold an interpretation of job satisfaction which is different from, and
narrower than, that of those who include factors such as ‘physical setting’ or ‘long holidays’.
One problem with much work on job satisfaction is that, by referring to satisfaction without
defining or clarifying one’s interpretation of the term, it fails to make clear whether what is reported are
satisfying or satisfactory elements of work. Another problem is that, since the simple ambiguity of the
word ‘satisfaction’ is overlooked when interpretations or definitions of job satisfaction are offered, they
4
fail to incorporate recognition of its ambiguity, or duality, and there is a danger that the research process of
data collection, analysis and presentation is, throughout, inconsistent with the definition used.
Whilst it has made an invaluable contribution to the study of teachers’ working lives, the work of
Jennifer Nias (1981; 1989) is an example of work which is flawed in this way. Nias (1989, p.84) reports
how, through semi-structured research interviews, she sought information from teachers about their job
satisfaction:
In the first [set of interviews] I simply enquired: What do you like about your job?
What plans do you have for the future, and why? In the second, I used these
questions, but also asked those who said they liked their jobs to tell me half a
dozen things they enjoyed doing and to give their reasons.
Threats to construct validity arise out of the inconsistency between how Nias defines job satisfaction
(1989, p.83) and how she asks interviewees about their job satisfaction. Each involves different
terminology. Her definition focuses on the ‘rewards of teaching’. Indeed, she interprets teachers’ selfreports of personally rewarding aspects of their work as being synonymous with chief sources of job
satisfaction (1989 p.83), which indicates her equating it with fulfilment: that which is satisfying, but not
satisfactory. Her interview questions, however, incorporate reference to ‘enjoyable’ and ‘likeable’ aspects
of teaching – indicating an equation of job satisfaction with satisfactoriness: being satisfied with, but not
by, something - and the implication of her own report of her interviewing is that she did not use the terms
‘rewards’ or ‘rewarding’. Herein, then, lies evident confused and inconsistent conceptualisation and
terminological usage. Moreover, Nias’s interviewees may not have shared her interpretation that
‘likeable’ or ‘enjoyable’ are synonymous with ‘rewarding’. Her claim (1989, p.84) that the questions used
in her interviews were consistent with what she identifies as her ‘loose definition’ of job satisfaction is
highly questionable.
Nias’s (1981, 1989) reports of how she applied Herzberg’s (1968) two-factor theory to her own
research provide a further illustration of the problems arising out of lack of recognition of the ambiguity of
the term ‘job satisfaction’. She identifies (1989, pp.88-9) as ‘satisfiers’ factors which may be considered to
be intrinsic to the job, which are concerned with the work itself and with opportunities for personal
achievement, recognition and growth. These findings, she suggests, corroborate Herzberg’s findings. She
then presents findings which, she suggests, are inconsistent with Herzberg’s theory:
However, nearly a quarter of these teachers also derived satisfaction from extrinsic
factors. Ten liked the hours and the holidays, two thought they did not have to
work very hard, one enjoyed the physical setting provided by his new open-plan
building. Twelve (all women) enjoyed the comradeship they found in staffrooms
(1989, p.89).
In fact, whilst they do not support his theory entirely, these findings correlate with Herzberg’s since he too
found evidence of those whom he referred to as ‘hygiene seekers’, and whom he dismissed as deviant.
However, what I consider is more likely than Nias’s findings failing to corroborate Herzberg’s, is that her
and Herzberg’s interpretations of the concept of job satisfaction differ, and that those of Nias’s teachers
who reported deriving satisfaction from extrinsic factors were actually satisfied with them, rather than by
them. Alternatively, the source of incongruence may have lain with their research subjects rather than with
the researchers themselves; some of their respective research subjects may have misunderstood what was
intended by the terminology used in the data collection tools.
Since Herzberg fails to make explicit his interpretation of job satisfaction it is only possible to
make assumptions. I have already suggested that he interprets it narrowly, confining job satisfaction to
involving satisfying elements of work. His exclusion of extrinsic factors, such as salary and working
conditions, as satisfiers supports this assumption. Those specific extrinsic factors which Nias (1989, p.89)
identifies as satisfiers would have been excluded by Herzberg because they fall outside the parameters of
what, to him, job satisfaction is all about. They may be satisfactory (or unsatisfactory) to teachers but they
are unlikely to be capable of satisfying. Nias’s interpretation of job satisfaction is evidently wider, though,
5
and incorporates both satisfactory and satisfying elements. The extrinsic factors that she identifies as
satisfiers lie within the parameters of her interpretation of the concept. Thus, what are interpreted as, and
presented by, one researcher as research findings which fail to corroborate those of another researcher,
may, in fact, be nothing of the sort. Herzberg’s theory is challenged and its applicability to education
settings questioned when, all the time, the lack of agreement is much more likely to be conceptual. If this
is, indeed, the case, then the misconception has its origins first in the failure (on Herzberg’s part) to define
the key concept under study and, second, in failure to recognise the ambiguity associated with the concept.
Testing the ambiguity issue
It was in the course of my own research into teacher morale, job satisfaction and motivation (carried out in
the late 1980 and early 1990s) that I was able to test whether my reasoning over the ambiguity issue holds
water. My research design involved interviews with nineteen English teachers employed in four different
primary schools. These interviews were carried out in batches, as four separate studies.
In the first batch of interviews, in which I asked teachers to identify those aspects of their work
which were sources of satisfaction, some responses focused exclusively on the kinds of factors which fall
into Herzberg’s (1968) ‘intrinsic’ category; working with children and watching them progress, organising
in-service training days for colleagues, feeling that individual children's learning needs were being
accommodated. Some also included references to ‘hygiene’ (Herzberg, 1968) factors, such as internal
decor of the school, room size, resources, and proximity of the school to home. By the time of the second
batch of interviews, over a year later, I had analysed the first set of data, given extensive consideration to
the possible reasons why some of my findings were inconsistent with those of Herzberg (1968), and was in
a position to be able to test what had emerged as a possible explanation for the discrepancy, not only
between Herzberg’s findings and mine, but between those of other researchers. In order to test the
ambiguity issue, I altered the key terminology used in my questioning and asked interviewees two separate
questions relating to satisfaction. I first asked them to identify sources of fulfilment and, second, to identify
aspects of their work which could not be categorised as fulfilling, but which were satisfactory. I summed
up this second question: ‘Tell me about the things that you are satisfied with but not satisfied by’. Finally, I
asked teachers to focus on unfulfilling and unsatisfactory aspect of their work. Without exception, this
resulted in the identification of two separate, distinct categories of factors, broadly consistent with
Herzberg’s (1968) two factors, but which some teachers in the first batch of interviews had
indiscriminately identified as sources of satisfaction.
The second batch of interviews related to the second of my four studies and used a different sample
from that upon which the first interviews focused. However, of greater significance with respect to the
implications of the ambiguity issue are data collected during follow-up interviews with the same sample of
teachers as was used in the first study. These follow-up interviews, with the teachers of Rockville County
Primary School1, and which incorporated the revised form of questioning, resulted in specific teachers
distinguishing between factors which they identified as fulfilling and those which they identified as
satisfactory, but which, in their initial interviews, had all been reported indiscriminately as sources of
satisfaction. Moreover, this testing of the ambiguity issue by clarifying people’s understanding of the term
‘satisfaction’ and, more specifically, ‘job satisfaction’, has recently been repeated in recent years with
three separate cohorts of education professionals registered on master’s courses at the University of Leeds.
Each test’s results corroborate those of the tests on my research samples in the early 1990s, supporting my
reasoning that the ambiguity of the term and lack of clarification of how it is defined are the bases of
inconsistent and diverse interpretations of job satisfaction and hence of the factors that influence it.
1
Pseudonyms are used in all references to names of people and places in my research.
6
Addressing the problems
What is needed, I decided, is either a definition of job satisfaction which incorporates and clarifies the
ambiguity of the term, or a bifurcation of both terminology and definition.
Re-conceptualising and re-defining
Findings from my studies of teacher morale, job satisfaction and motivation (Evans, 1998, 1999) revealed
heterogeneity amongst teachers with respect to what they found satisfying and/or satisfactory, but the key
distinguishing constituent, common to all, was whether or not a sense of personal achievement was
associated with the factors. Thus, good staff relations may be satisfactory to some teachers but would only
be satisfying to individuals who felt they had contributed towards achieving them by, for example,
introducing policy or practice that encouraged collegial harmony and camaraderie.
To clarify the distinction between factors from which individuals may or may not derive a sense of
achievement, I suggest two distinct terms, job comfort and job fulfilment. Job comfort relates to the extent
to which the individual feels comfortable in his/her job. More specifically, it is about the extent to which
the individual is satisfied with, but not by, the conditions and circumstances of his/her job. In his
ethnographic study of the working life of Ed Bell, an American school principal, Wolcott (1973, p.293)
includes, in what he identifies as topics which ‘represent recurring themes whenever … teachers discussed
their school …’ reference to ‘a “comfortable” school’:
I have been real comfortable at this school in that I’ve been allowed to do as I
wanted…
One of Ed’s real strong points is making almost anyone who comes in here feel
comfortable and feel relaxed and feel wanted and needed.
I had a real comfortable feeling here last year, even though it was my beginning
year. The cooperation was extremely high. I think it’s probably even more so this
year (Wolcott, 1973, p.293)
It is factors such as these, identified by Wolcott’s teachers that constitute what I identify as job comfort
factors – (though to the principal, Ed, himself, if he were aware of the kinds of sentiments expressed by his
teachers and of his own part in fostering them, having created a comfortable school in which staff feel
relaxed and needed may be identified as satisfying, rather than merely satisfactory).
Job fulfilment, on the other hand, involves the individual’s assessing how well s/he performs
her/his job. This self-assessment may be influenced by the assessments of others - such as, in the case of
teachers, headteachers, colleagues, and parents - but essentially it is a ‘return’ on job performance. In this
sense, job fulfilment is a reciprocation. It is dependent upon the perception of having achieved something
which is considered sufficiently worthwhile to enhance job-related, achievement-related, self-esteem. I
define job fulfilment as: a state of mind encompassing all of the feelings determined by the extent of the
sense of personal achievement which the individual attributes to his/her performance of those components
of his/her job which s/he values.
I suggest that re-examination of Herzberg’s (1968) two-factor theory reveals that all of his
motivation factors are tributaries of what he includes as one of his motivation factors: achievement. Some,
such as ‘the work itself’, are contributory and some, such as ‘recognition (for achievement)’, are
reinforcers, but the essential point is that they may all be reduced to one single factor which is the key
constituent of what I refer to as job fulfilment and what Herzberg (1968) labels ‘job satisfaction’. To be
more accurate, job fulfilment is ultimately about individuals’ self-perceptions of achievement, rather than
more objective evaluations of whether or not achievement has occurred.
Both job comfort and job fulfilment are determined by the individual’s evaluation of the diverse
conditions and circumstances into which her/his job may be compartmentalised. Where these conditions
and circumstances are not perceived by the individual as the results of his/her achievement, job comfort
applies and, depending upon how satisfactory individual conditions and circumstances are perceived to be,
7
it ranges from high to low. However, where the individual perceives him/herself to have influenced, or
effected, specific job-related conditions and circumstances which s/he values and perceives as important,
job fulfilment applies. As with job comfort, job fulfilment may range from high to low.
Both job comfort and job fulfilment are components of job satisfaction, which I define as: a state of
mind encompassing all of those feelings determined by the extent to which the individual perceives her/his
job-related needs to be being met. Moreover, I share Sergiovanni’s (1968) view that there appears to be a
link between Maslow’s (1954) theory of human motivation, which distinguishes between lower order and
higher order needs, and Herzberg’s (1968) theory. This link requires further exploration and testing but a
tentative suggestion, and one which incorporates my own re-appraisal of Herzberg’s theory, is that what I
identify as ‘job comfort’ concerns the extent of individuals’ lower order, job-related needs’ fulfilment and
that ‘job fulfilment’, as I interpret it, relates to the extent of individuals’ higher order, job-related needs’
fulfilment.
To summarise: my critique of Herzberg’s work is that it is conceptually flawed by his failure not
only to define his key terms (job satisfaction and motivation), but also to recognise the ambiguity of the
tem ‘job satisfaction’. This threatened the construct validity of his study, since his research subjects may
not have shared his interpretation of job satisfaction. Representing lack of analytical depth, his
categorisation is also flawed insofar as the factors that he identifies as motivators represent different
classificatory levels: four of them are able to be subsumed within the fifth: achievement. Finally, what he
presents as a theory is revealed to be nothing more than an observation once the ambiguity of job
satisfaction is accepted, since its ambiguity exposes it to be a common term for two distinct and separate
concepts. This distinction and separateness is the basis of Herzberg’s two factor theory – hence its name.
But if two things are indeed recognised as ontologically or essentially or quidditatively quite separate and
distinct then the ‘revelation’ that they are so does not constitute a theory, rather, it constitutes stating the
obvious.
Herzberg’s work has nevertheless made a key contribution to the field of occupational (or work)
psychology, for although he failed to recognise the conceptual ambiguity of one of the concepts that was
his focus, he effectively – without realising it – identified that ambiguity though his two factors:
motivation and hygiene factors. These equate to what I have labelled ‘job fulfilment’ and ‘job comfort’.
Without his pioneering work I, for one, would not have investigated the reason why my findings showed
some inconsistency with his: an investigation that was to lead me to identify the ambiguity issue. I am
grateful to Herzberg for loosening the cover on this issue, which allowed me the more easily to go on to
remove it.
More recently I have revisited my earlier conceptual work on job satisfaction, morale and
motivation and located it within the framework of my conceptualisation of professionalism and
professional development. I outline this process in the next section.
RE-LOCATING JOB SATISFACTION, MORALE AND MOTIVATION
Quite separately – or so I first thought – I have formulated a conceptual analysis of professional
development. This has been a lengthy and circuitous process, involving my defining processional
development as: ‘the process whereby people’s professionality and/or professionalism may be considered
to be enhanced’ (Evans, 2008, p. 30) to which I have more recently added ‘… with a degree of permanence
that exceeds transitoriness’ (Evans, 2009, p.3). This definition led logically to my analysing conceptually
both ‘professionality’ and ‘professionalism’, since it is the process of their enhancement that, according to
my definition as it currently stands, constitutes professional development. From my conceptual analysis of
professionalism I developed a model of its componential structure, which reflects my interpretation of it as
being about what practitioners do (in the context of their working lives); how they do it; what they know
and understand; where and how they acquire their knowledge and understanding; what (kinds of) attitudes
8
they hold; what codes of behaviour they follow; what their function is: what purposes they perform; what
quality of service they provide; and the level of consistency incorporated into the above. Since I contend
that it is the enhancement of these components of professionalism that constitutes professional
development, then it follows that my conceptualisation of professional development incorporates the very
same components. In diagram form, this conceptualisation may be represented as a two-tier model, shown
in figure 1.
professional
development
behavioural
development
attitudinal
development
intellectual
development
processual
change
perceptual
change
epistemological
change
procedural
change
evaluative
change
rationalistic
change
productiv e
change
motivational
change
comprehensiv e
change
analytical
change
competential
change
Figure 1: the componential structure of professional development
Below I explain in outline my interpretation of each of the components within my model as it currently
stands, but I emphasise that both my conceptualisation and the model that represents it are work-inprogress and may be modified.
I define behavioural development as: the process whereby people’s professional behaviour or
performance are modified with the result that their professionalism, professionality or professional
practice may be considered to be enhanced. My definitions of attitudinal and intellectual development
differ from this only by the replacement of the words ‘professional behaviour or performance’ with,
respectively, ‘work-related attitudes’ and ‘professional-related knowledge, understanding or reflective or
comprehensive capacity or competence’.
In relation to second tier dimensions, my labels are intended to be generic, umbrella, labels rather
than narrowly stipulative. By epistemological change I mean change in relation to the bases of what people
know or understand and to their knowledge structures. Rationalistic change is about change to the extent
and nature of the reasoning that people apply to their practice. Analytical change refers to change to the
degree or nature of the analyticism that people apply to their working lives. Comprehensive change
involves the enhancement or increase of knowledge and understanding. Perceptual change refers to
changes in perceptions, viewpoints, beliefs and mindsets. By evaluative change I mean changes to people’s
professional- or practice-related values, including the minutiae of what they consider important: that is,
what matters to them. Motivational change refers to increased motivation and levels of job satisfaction and
morale. Processual change is about change to the processes that constitute people’s practice – how they
9
‘do’ or ‘go about’ things. Procedural change similarly relates to changes to procedures within practice.
Competential change involves the increase or enhancement of skills and competences. Finally, productive
change refers to increase of people’s output: to how much they achieve, produce or ‘do’.
The key point for this paper is that I locate morale, job satisfaction and motivation within my
conceptualisation of professional development, just as I locate them within my conceptualisation of
professionalism. Essentially, I contend that people’s morale, job satisfaction and motivation levels are
constituents of their professionalism, which I define as: ‘professionality-influenced practice that is
consistent with commonly-held consensual delineations of a specific profession and that both contributes
to and reflects perceptions of the profession’s purpose and status and the specific nature, range and levels
of service provided by, and expertise prevalent within, the profession, as well as the general ethical code
underpinning this practice’ (Evans, 2008, p. 29). It is therefore a key feature of the professionalism of, say,
teachers, if their morale is low or if they are demotivated and derive little satisfaction from their work.
Developing teachers professionally, according to my definition of professional development, therefore
involves enhancing their job-related attitudes: morale, job satisfaction and motivation.
Locating job-related attitudes such as morale, job satisfaction and motivation under the umbrella of
professional development – indeed, identifying them as, collectively, one of its components or dimensions
- represents a rather novel conceptualisation. It stems not from concern over how morale, job satisfaction
and motivation are categorised or into which conceptual drawer they are filed away, but, rather, from
concern over the narrowness with which professional development evidently tends to be conceived,
particularly by professionals – or practitioners – themselves. My point in developing my conceptualisation
was to widen the parameters of what is conceived as professional development; to demonstrate and clarify
its multidimensionality and, above all, to emphasise that developing people professionally is not only
about changing their behaviour, it is also about changing attitudes and intellectual capacity. Though they
are often neglected or overlooked, attitudinal and intellectual development are thus as important
components or dimensions of professional development as is behavioural development. Raising morale,
increasing job satisfaction and motivating people are key dimensions of attitudinal development since they
are fundamental to people’s behaviour and, more specifically, to the manner in which they go about their
work. Locating these attitudes within the parameters of professional development may serve to raise
awareness of how essential they are to the education workforce as it faces head-on the current challenges
posed by the economic context that affects teachers, headteachers and academics across Europe.
REFERENCES
Anon. (2007) Teachers’ job satisfaction rises, study shows. Press release, University of Bath website,
retrieved July 15th 2010 from http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2007/8/6/jobsatisfaction.html
Anon. (2009) MetLife Survey shows teacher job satisfaction at an all-time high. HR Exchange, 15 (6).
http://www.tasb.org/services/hr_services/hrexchange/2009/April09/metlife_survey.aspx
Berl, R., Powell, T. & Williamson, N. C. (1984) Industrial salesforce satisfaction and performance with
Herzberg's theory. Industrial Marketing Management, 13(1), 11-19.
Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 37(5), 662-683.
Bogler, R. (2002). Two profiles of schoolteachers: A discriminant analysis of job satisfaction. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 18(6), 665–673.
10
Butt, G. & Lance, A. (2005). Secondary teacher workload and job satisfaction: Do successful strategies for
change exist? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 33(4) 401–422.
Chaplain, R. P. (2001). Stress and job satisfaction among primary headteachers: A question of balance?
Educational Management & Administration, 29(2), 197–215.
Chapman, D.W. (1983). Career satisfaction of teachers, Educational Research Quarterly, 7(3), 40-50.
De Nobile, J. J. & McCormick, J. (2008). Job satisfaction of Catholic primary school staff: A study of
biographical differences. International Journal of Educational Management, 22(2), 135-150.
Evans, L. (1998). Teacher Morale, Job Satisfaction and Motivation. London, Paul Chapman.
Evans, L. (2008). Professionalism, professionality and the development of education professionals. British
Journal of Educational Studies, 56, (1), 20-38.
Evans, L. (2009) Theory to Practice in Professional Development: Illustrating and Testing an Essentialist
or Quidditative Model through Practical Examples, paper presented within the symposium,
Examining Teachers’ Professional Development: perspectives from the UK, Switzerland and
Belgium, at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Vienna, September
30th
Evans, L. and Olumide-Aluko, K. (2010). Teacher job satisfaction in developing countries: a critique of
Herzberg’s two-factor theory applied to the Nigerian context, International Studies in Educational
Administration, 38(2), in press.
Farrugia, C. (1986). Career-choice and sources of occupational satisfaction and frustration among teachers
in Malta. Comparative Education, 22(3), 221-231.
Gordon, M. E., Pryor, N. M. & Harris, B. V. (1974) An examination of scaling bias in Herzberg's theory of
job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11(1), 106-121.
Herzberg, F. (1968) Work and the Nature of Man. London: Staples Press.
Koustelios, A. D. (2001). Personal characteristics and job satisfaction of Greek teachers. The International
Journal of Educational Management, 15(6/7), 354-358.
Koustelios, A. D., Theodorakis, N. & Goulimaris, D. (2004). Role ambiguity, role conflict and job
satisfaction among physical education teachers in Greece. The International Journal of Educational
Management, 18(2/3), 87-92.
Lissmann, H. J. & Gigerich, R. (1990). A changed school and educational culture: Job orientation and
teacher satisfaction at Gesamtschulenin the state of Hessen, West Germany - some international
comparisons. Comparative Education, 26(2), 277-281.
Liua, X. S. & Ramsey, J. (2008). Teachers’ job satisfaction: Analyses of the Teacher Follow-up Survey in
the United States for 2000–2001. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1173–1184.
Locke, E. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309-336.
Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lyons, J. (2010). Michael Gove faces increasing calls to quit after new school cuts gaffe. Mirror.co.uk
News, retrieved from: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/07/13/michael-gove-facesincreasing-calls-to-quit-after-new-school-cuts-gaffe-115875-22409025/#ixzz0tnBUrVx8 on July
15th 2010.
Maslow, A.H. (1954) Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.
11
Nias, J. (1980). Leadership styles and job satisfaction in primary schools. In: T. Bush, R. Glatter, J. Goodey
& C. Riches (Eds.) Approaches to school management. London: Harper and Row, 255-273.
Nias, J. (1981). Teacher satisfaction and dissatisfaction: Herzberg’s ‘Two-Factor’ hypothesis revisited,
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 2(3), 235-246.
Nias, J. (1989). Primary teachers talking: A study of teaching as work. London: Routledge.
Papanastasiou, E. C. & Zembylas, M. (2006). Job satisfaction variance among public and private
kindergarten school teachers in Cyprus. International Journal of Educational Research 43(3), 147167.
Rhodes, C., Nevill, A. & Allan, J. (2004). Valuing and supporting teachers: A survey of teacher
satisfaction, dissatisfaction, morale and retention in an English local education authority. Research
in Education, 71, 14-80.
Richardson, H. (2010). Budget: Education spending faces 25% cut. BBC news, retrieved from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10378384 on July 15th 2010.
Schneider, J. & Locke, E. A. (1971) A critique of Herzberg's incident classification system and a suggested
revision. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6 (4), 441-457.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1968). New evidence on teacher morale: a proposal for staff differentiation. North
Central Association Quarterly, 42, 259-266.
Shipley, D. & Kiely, J. (1993). Motivation and dissatisfaction of industrial salespeople -how relevant is
Herzberg’s theory? European Journal of Marketing, 22(1), 17-30.
Wall, T.D. & Stephenson, G. M. (1970). Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job attitudes: a critical evaluation
and some fresh evidence. Industrial Relations Journal, 1(3), 41-65.
Wiśniewski, W. (1990). The job satisfaction of teachers in Poland. Comparative Education, 26(2), 299306.
Wolcott, H.(1973) The Man in the Principal’s Office: an ethnography, New York, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston
Young, I.P. and Davis, B. (1983). The applicability of Herzberg's Dual Factor Theory(ies) for public school
superintendants. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 16(4), 59-66.
12