1
Diffusion of theory of work adjustment, two-factor theory and Elton Mayo’s Hawthrone
Effect Theory
Theory of Work Adjustment
The theory of work adjustment is also termed as the Person–Environment Correspondence
Theory and was developed in 1964 by René Dawis, George England and Lloyd Lofquist from
the University of Minnesota. The theory focuses on the abilities of employee, such as
knowledge, attitude, skills, experience, and how the abilities match with job requirements and
organizational objectives (Weiss, 2014). The theory states that the more closely the
employees’ abilities match with the requirements of a particular task or the organizational
goals, the more likely it is that the employees would effectively achieve the organizational
goals, hence satisfying the employer.
In addition, the more the supervisors’ reward and support the employees, the more likely it is
that the employees will be satisfied in their workstations (Robertson, 2012). However,
employees seek to satisfy six significant values which include achievement of conditions that
facilitates progress and achievement of organizational objectives, safety conditions that
support stability, status conditions that value recognition, comfort conditions that ensure
employees are stress free, altruism conditions that enhance harmony, and autonomy
conditions that ensure employees have personal control and initiative (Starik, 2015).
Flexible workplace environment in organizations is significant since it allows the employees
to relate effectively with abilities and their supervisors. Flexibility varies from one person to
another and from environment to environment. Flexibility is affected by both internal factors,
such as organizational culture, and external factors, such as the availability of alternative
opportunities (Sweet, 2014). From an organizational viewpoint, a factor essential to successful
work adjustment is an employee’s ability to engage in work relationships to fit with the
corporate culture, which is demonstrated in work behavior and evaluated in work performance
(Alvesson, 2015). In relation to the study, the theory relates to the independent variable of
supervisor support.
Two-Factor Theory
The Two-Factor Theory was advanced by Frederick Herzberg (1959) and it focuses on
workplace motivation. This theory discusses two factors, which include motivator factors and
hygiene factors, to address the issue of job satisfaction. The theory argues that motivators in
2
an organization results to increase in job satisfaction while lack of hygiene factors leads to
dissatisfaction.
According to Herzberg (2014) the conditions were categorized into motivators and hygiene
factors or maintenance factors. Employees are motivated by motivators such as career
advancement, recognition, achievement, job itself, and growth possibilities. On the other
hand, hygiene factors lack any motivational value when present but lack of them lowers
employees’ morale hence influencing the organizational performance. Both motivators and
hygiene factors are extrinsic to the job itself and hence it significant for the study of
workplace environment. Public University management must make available enough hygiene
factors and build motivators in the workplace environment so that employees perform well. In
view of this study, the theory relates to ergonomics, supervisor support and job aid variables
on organizational performance of public universities.
Elton Mayo's Hawthorne Effect Theory
Hawthorne studies were conducted between 1927 and 1932 at the Western Electric
Hawthorne Works in Chicago, where Elton Mayo examined productivity and work
conditions. Elton Mayo's Hawthorne effect theory focused on individuals in a social context
and established that employees’ performance is influenced by their workplace environment
and by the persons that they are employed with as much as by their own inherent abilities.
The theory implies that workplace conditions influence productivity and performance of
employees as well as organizational performance. The aptitudes of employees are imperfect
predictors of job performance but the amount manufactured is strongly influenced by factors
which are social in nature (Mayo, 2013).
In the context of this study, the theory relates to ergonomics and supervisor support variables.
The support provided by supervisors to employees has work related outcome like job stress or
satisfaction. It assists employees in motivation and guidance hence employees have less stress
hence influencing organizational performance.
3
REFERENCES
Aaltonen, D. (2017). Human Resource Management in Context, London, CIPD. Journal
of Public Administration, 3(1), 1-14.
Agunyai, S. C. (2015). Manpower Development, Capacity Building and Service
Delivery in Ife-East Local Government Area, Osun State, Nigeria. Journal of
Public Administration and Policy Research, 7(1), 1-14.
Alvesson, M. S. (2015). Changing Organizational Culture. London: Routledge. Journal
of Policy Research, 7(6),334-360.
Arnold, K. T. (2011). The Swiss-model Workspace. A Web-based Environment for
Protein Structure Homology Modelling Bioinformatics, 22(2), 195-201.
Atambo, W., & Nyamwamu, W. (2013). Enhancing the Role of Employee Recognition
towards improving Performance: A survey of Kenyatta National Hospital,
Kenya. ILO, 1(7), 95-109.
Anyango J. N. (2012). Assessment of the Relationship between Quality Management
Practices and Performance of manufacturing firms in Nairobi. African Journal of
Business and Management, 2, 20-12.
Babbie, E. (2012). Survey Research Methods. Journal of Research Methods, 45 (2), 255-
260.
Baldwon, J. E. (2014). Employee Development: Issues in Construct Definition and
Investigation of Antecedents. Improving Training Effectiveness in Work
Organizations, ed. JK Ford, SWJ Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas, and MS
Teach out ,153-189.
Barney, J. B. (2007). ‘Is the Resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for Strategic
Management Research? Yes’, Academy of Management Review, 26, 102-105.
Baruch, Y. (2004). Transforming careers: From linear to multidirectional career paths:
Organizational and Individual Perspectives. Career Development International,
9(1), 58-73.
Baruch, Y. (2004). Managing Careers: Theory and Practice. Journal of Business and
Management, 2, 14-18.
Baruch, Y. (2016). Organizational Career Systems. Business Journal, 5, 30-40.
Bates, S. Y. (2011). Investigating the structural relationships among organizational
support, learning flow, learners' satisfaction and learning transfer in corporate e‐
learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 973-984.
4
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (2010). Development of leader-member
exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal,
39(6), 1538-1567.
Beautyman, M. (2006). Office Design Effects, Innovation, Collaboration, and Creativity.
Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1538-1567.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidho, S.J. (2010). Expanding the Criterion domain
to include elements of Contextual Performance. Personnel Selection
in Organizations New York Journal, 35 (2), 254- 300.
Bryson, A. (2015). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–833.
Bryman, A. E. (2015). Business Research Methods. Oxford University Press, USA.
Journal of Research Methods, 2(7), 9–33.
Cavanaugh, C. R. (2011). The effects of Distance Education on K-12
student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Learning Point Associates/North
Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL).
Chandrasekhar, V. (2011). Workplace Environment and its impact on
Organizational Performance. Physical Review Letters, 107(5),
56802.
Chi, C. G., & Gursoy, D. (2008). Employee Satisfaction, firm’s
Performance, and Financial Performance: An empirical examination.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28 (2), 245–253.
Clements, K. M. (2013). Attempted Suicide among Transgender Persons:
The influence of gender-based discrimination and victimization.
Journal of Development, 51(3), 53-69.
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2014). International Edition: Journal
Business Research Methods, 2(1), 41-66.
Cox, T., & Rial-Gonzalez, E. (2012). Work-related stress: The European picture.
Magazine of the European Agency for Safety and Health at work, 5, 4-6.
Cromwell, J., & Kolb, L. M. (2011). Pay for Performance in Health Care.
Journal of Health Care, 3(2), 324- 350.
Cunneen, Y. (2010). The impact of Performance Management System on
Employee Perfomance-Analysis with WERS 2004 (Master's thesis,
University of Twente).
Doman, C. Y. (2010). Comparison between Indoor and Outdoor air
contaminant levels in residential buildings from passive sampler
5
study. Journal of Building and Environment, 36(9), 999-1007.
