The housekeeping department is considered key when it comes to the development of guests’ perceptions of a hotel and their experiences during their stay. One of the main functions of a hotel’s room attendant is to generate an essential product, the guest room, that should be presented as clean. In addition, the housekeeping staff is in charge of maintaining and cleaning the hotel’s public areas, including common areas and hallways and in many cases the handling of art objects and crafts, all are key when it comes to shaping guests’ first impression of the property. Potential guests, in their decision-making process, do factor in images of the property as well as the input of previous guests’ comments on features that are housekeeping-related tasks such as cleanliness, trustworthiness, punctuality, efficiency, consistency, and upkeep. One may easily infer from professional and personal experiences that cleanliness, staff ethical conduct and trustworthiness play a key role in guests’ satisfaction level and evaluation of their lodging experiences, on their willingness to return to the property, and to recommend the property to others (Ann & Blum, 2020). Singh & Amandeep (2017) in their research study highlighted the importance of housekeeping staff and acknowledged the housekeeping department as crucial for a hotel as it is considered its backbone with its role not only limited to maintaining clean and spotless facilities but also to covering maintenance and upkeep and being in charge of inventory positioned in rooms and the hotel’s public areas. Bhatnagar & Nim (2019) stressed on the importance of housekeeping staff as housekeepers have a challenging task to create “a home away from home.” The authors specified how guest rooms generate major revenues for hotels as they are sold repeatedly and how successful housekeeping operations can generate comfortable and clean guest rooms and facilities that attract guests as they see value in a hotel’s products and services.

Jordan is a destination in the Middle East that is known for outstanding natural, religious, and historical attractions. The Jordanian culture is influenced by Bedouin traditions and customs. One of the core aspects of Bedouin traditions is to take care of the guest. It is considered a social rule for locals to extend kindness and generosity to visitors (Jordan Direct Tours, n.d.). Therefore, hospitality is deeply ingrained in the local culture of Jordan and it is easily noticed by visitors. A female in Jordan, in general, is expected to marry at an early age and become a housewife whose tole is to take good care of her family, including doing housework such as cleaning, cooking, and managing other house-related affairs. The husband is expected to go out and work. The housewife who plays well the mentioned role is valued in society and she is perceived as a “good mother” and a “good house manager.” When still singles and living with their parents, Jordanian females, in general, are also expected to support their mothers with house-related affairs (e.g., cleaning, maintain common areas, taking care of their younger siblings, etc.). Therefore, “housekeeping” as a role within the parameters of one’s house is highly encouraged and it is not strange or unknown to women in the Jordanian culture; on the opposite, it is very well expected from females and not so from males to play such a role. However, given the conservative nature of the culture, females, in general, are not encouraged to work in hotels or in places where there is a mixing between genders and it is not well perceived for males to undertake duties that the local culture perceives more as belonging to females (Altarawmneh & al-Kilani, 2010).

Tourism plays a key role in Jordan’s economy. According to the World Travel and Tourism Council (2020), in 2019, travel and tourism constituted 15.8 percent of the total economy; the contribution of travel and tourism to Jordan’s GDP was 7,231.6 MN USD. When it comes to the contribution of travel and tourism to employment in Jordan, a total of 254,700 jobs were generated, a total of 17.7 percent of total employment in the country. In terms of economic impacts, in 2019, international tourists spent a total of 6,443.1 MN USD (40.2 percent of total exports).

Since housekeeping is considered “the invisible” department and the one that has employees who do not interact directly with guests, it did not, in general, get the deserved attention from researchers (Ann, Choi, Blum & Yu , 2014). The limited attention may also stem from the fact that housekeeping with its “image” issue, especially from potential hospitality graduates, does not encourage researchers to implement studies in this area. The country of Jordan is no exception. Not much research has been done in the area of housekeeping.

Given the importance of this department and the unique socio-cultural characteristics of Jordan that were specified in earlier sections, all add more challenges to the housekeeping department in the mentioned destination. But, at the same time, the reality demands from researchers to conduct studies in this area. It is critical to learn more and to get a realistic picture of housekeepers’ perceptions, motivations, job satisfaction/dissatisfaction, turnover intention, and career aspirations. It is not only about giving housekeepers a “space” for their opinions to be known but also for management to better understand how to tackle key issues that are meaningful to housekeepers. Any improvement in the work environment contributes to better job satisfaction, less turnover, less money wasted, and more ability to attract qualified individuals to work in the housekeeping department.

Based on the above specified facts and also the fact that housekeeping is a key department in a hotel, in terms of number of employees and its role in guest satisfaction and loyalty, the purpose of this research study is to learn about the motivation, job satisfaction, job dissatisfaction, turnover intention and career perceptions of housekeepers in selected 4 and 5 star, mostly, international full-service hotel properties in Jordan by shedding new lights on Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory.

The first objective of this research study is to examine the relationship between housekeepers’ motivation, job satisfaction, job dissatisfaction, and turnover intention by utilizing Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory. The second objective of this study is to investigate housekeepers’ most and least preferred/satisfying motivational factors. The third research objective is to retest the validity of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory. The results of this study will provide significant information for management of lodging properties in Jordan and will contribute to the literature of lodging management.

2.1. Housekeeping department and staff

In the hotel business, room sales is a key contributor to revenues and to a property’s profit margin. Previous studies (Moreno-Perdigón, Guzmán-Pérez & Ravelo Mesa, 2021; Minh et al., 2015; Rao & Sahu, 2013; Oh, 1999; Atkinson, 1988; Knutson, 1988; Lewis, 1987; Weaver & Oh, 1993) have examined determinants of customer satisfaction when it comes to guests’ lodging experiences and revealed that cleanliness is one of the top valued attributes with importance to guests. One may infer then that the housekeeping department plays a key role in shaping and influencing a guest’s experience and satisfaction level. The central role of the housekeeping department, for the most part, is to ensure that guest rooms are tidy and clean and to also take care of public areas such as fitness facilities, swimming pools, corridors, lobby, offices, and laundry rooms (Devrim Yilmaz, 2017). Despite the fact that the housekeeping department plays a critical role in generating revenues, influencing guests’ experiences, perceptions, and reviews of properties, it does suffer from an image problem. Such a reality may be a discouraging factor for potential hospitality graduates and others to pursue career opportunities in housekeeping. The work of housekeepers is largely perceived as “unskilled” and mainly carried by females who accept lower wages and do not mind being exposed to physically demanding, dirty, and repetitive tasks (Jones & Siag, 2009; Knox, 2011; Liladrie, 2010; Wood, 1997).

Several studies (Boon, 2007; Faulkner & Patiar, 1997; Wood, 1999; Devrim Yilmaz, 2017) investigated room attendants’ perceptions of their work environment, motivations, and turnover intentions. The studies revealed prevalent perceptions among room attendants of their work characterized by low social esteem and personal fulfilment, undervalued, hard, poorly paid, dirty, invisible, and offers limited promotional opportunities. Studies also revealed housekeepers’ poor connection with management on all specified accumulating factors which leads, in most cases, to turnover.

2.2. Housekeeping Department and staff of the lodging industry in Jordan

According to the Jordan Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities (MOTA) (2019), There are currently 604 lodging properties in Jordan. The number of four and five star properties in Jordan are seventy-two with a total of 13,333 rooms. The overall total average occupancy rate for hotels in Jordan was 40.8 percent. However, five star hotels in Jordan experienced 51.2 percent occupancy rate while the four star ones experienced 43.9 percent. According to MOTA, in 2018, hotels in Jordan accommodated a total of 7,036,208 guests. The majority of guests were Europeans followed by Jordanians, Middle Easterners, Asians and Asians Pacific, and from the Americas. According to the Jordan Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities (MOTA, 2018), the lodging sector in Jordan employed 20,500 individuals of which 18,060 are Jordanians and 2,440 are non-Jordanians. The four and five star properties employed 13,426 of which 12,183 are males and 1,220 are females. Of those employed in 4 and 5 star properties, 12,292 are Jordanians and 1,111 are non-Jordanians. There has been a slight increase in the number of total employees in Jordan’s lodging sector (1 percent) from the previous year as the tourism industry in the destination has been recovering from negative happenings (e.g., the war in neighbouring Syria). According to MOTA (2018), female participation in the hospitality and tourism workforce is noticeably low (27 percent in travel agencies, 8 percent in hotels, and 7 percent in restaurants). From the percentages specified above, it is obvious to notice the low percentage of females employed in the lodging sector in Jordan. Such a reality is also reflected in the low number of females that join hospitality and tourism educational programs in Jordan (Altarawmneh & al-Kilani, 2010). The conservative nature of the local culture, in general, does not favour females working in hotels. The industry faces major local cultural and social barriers in different ways. Families in Jordan, in general, and in the first place tend to favour a female adult having the role of a “housewife” and they do not see a woman working or dedicating her time to a career path. And in the hospitality industry in Jordan, the cultural and social restrictions become even more strict when it comes to a female joining the field; there is a general perception among the local public that lodging facilities have more of a “liberal” socio-cultural orientation with higher possibilities of interactions and mixing between individuals of the opposite sex. Given the social and cultural challenges specified above related to attracting females to work in hotels, hoteliers in Jordan face an “additional” challenge when recruiting males to work in the housekeeping department. In the local culture, males are not supposed to and are discouraged from undertaking roles that are traditionally perceived as “belonging to females.” (Al-Ma’aitah & Gharaibeh, 2000). At homes, in general, males are not supposed to cook and clean; the mother, the sister or the wife is supposed to assume such a role. Therefore, housekeeping-related duties in hotels fall within that spectrum. Males in Jordan are looked down upon and discouraged by their social groups from working in housekeeping. Such social and cultural barriersmake it difficult for hotels to recruit housekeepers and lead some managers to rely on foreign labour.

Limited job opportunities in other sectors in Jordan coupled with a negative economic situation characterized by a high unemployment rate have actually offered housekeeping departments the advantage to be able to attract males to join them (Altarawmneh & al-Kilani, 2010). For some employees, they already have the passion and may have used the limited or lack of job opportunities in other industries as an excuse to be in a hotel and work in housekeeping. For others, they are in it, not happy about what they do, but they joined it to escape unemployment or a previous job that paid much less. According to the Jordan Hotels Association (2017), major efforts have been undertaken by various parties such as non-government organizations and the public and private sectors to educate Jordanian citizens on hospitality and tourism and to change existing negative perceptions. They are also reaching out to areas of the country with a lower level of education and a higher level of unemployment. The goal is to give the opportunity for the young to join vocational schools, to get educated and trained, and then join the industry. Their efforts have been materialized with fairly positive outcomes. It is important to note that the image of housekeeping and the difficulties associated with its ability to attract potential employees may be considered, to a certain extent, a universal challenge.

2.3. Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory

Herzberg’s Two-Factor motivation theory was designed in 1959 based on a study the scholar conducted in which he interviewed two hundred engineers and accountants in the United States about their personal feelings when it comes to their work environments (Robbins & Judge, 2009). Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory consisted of two dimensions that are separate and independent: the first dimension (motivators) was related to job satisfaction while the second dimension (hygiene factors) was related to job dissatisfaction (House & Wigdor, 1967). Herzberg presented two sets of factors, motivators and hygiene factors, that influence employees’ attitudes toward their work and their performance level (Robbins & Judge, 2009). The two dimensions specified above are not opposite ends of the same continuum, but instead represent two distinct continua. For example, the opposite of job satisfaction is “no job satisfaction” and the opposite of job dissatisfaction is “no job dissatisfaction” (House & Wigdor, 1967).

Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory (1966) specified six factors (motivators) that motivate employees at work and are related to the job satisfaction/no job satisfaction dimension; the six motivators are the following: achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, growth, and advancement. The presence of the above factors in an employee’s work environment would lead to job satisfaction; employees in such a case would exhibit more efforts and more involvement in their work which may lead to a higher productivity level. In other words, employees have to have work with added responsibilities that keep them interested. In addition, they also need to have a sense of achievement, to feel that their efforts are properly acknowledged, to feel they are being evaluated fairly and advanced and promoted accordingly with a sense of personal and career growth. Whereas the absence of such factors in an employee’s work environment would simply lead to a state of “no job satisfaction”. When the latter state prevails, employees may not necessarily exhibit a state of reduced productivity, but they would simply invest less in their work efforts and they, therefore, become less involved (Yusoff, Kian & Idris, 2013).

In addition to the above motivators, as specified earlier, Herzberg’s theory is based on the second dimension that is related to job dissatisfaction/no job dissatisfaction which consists of hygiene factors that are extrinsic to the employee’s job (Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959). The following are the hygiene factors: interpersonal relationships with peers, subordinates and supervisors, security, working conditions, salary, status, supervision, company policy and administration, and personal life. According to Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman(1959), the presence of hygiene factors in an employee’s work environment would simply avert a state of job dissatisfaction but would, however, not generate a state of job satisfaction. In other words, when employees enjoy strong interpersonal relationships with peers, subordinates, and supervisors, a strong sense of security at work, decent working conditions and salary level, a beneficial level of supervision, fair company policies and administration, and a decent personal life, they would simply become “not dissatisfied.” In other words, the positive existence of the hygiene factors would not lead to job satisfaction (Herzberg, 1966).

According to Dahlqvist & Matsson (2013), job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction play a role in influencing employee performance level. Job satisfaction may be elevated by intrinsic motivational factors such as work itself, opportunities to advance, achievements, growth and recognition (Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman 1959; Herzberg, 1966). Factors, which may decrease job dissatisfaction level, are positive working conditions, organization policies, job security, supervision, relationship with peers and financial compensation (Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman 1959; Herzberg et al., 1966). According to the researchers, job satisfaction may increase the employee’s satisfaction level while job dissatisfaction may decrease the employee’s satisfaction that may lead to poor productivity. Hence, we hypothesize that:

H1. The lower the level of job dissatisfaction of housekeeping staff is, the higher the level of job satisfaction is.

Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman et al., (1959) found that the lack of positive hygiene factors in employees’ work environment may lead to a reduced state of their productivity level. Therefore, in order to avert reduced productivity, hygiene factors have to be present in employees’ work environment. On the other hand, the absence of motivators (satisfaction/no satisfaction) may not necessarily lead to a state of reduced productivity (Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959). Hence, we hypothesize that:

H2. The lower the level of job dissatisfaction of housekeeping staff is, the higher the level of work motivation is.

Job Dissatisfaction is understood as a reaction to a deterioration of one’s quality of work and professional. The negative impacts are not only limited affecting the employee but also affect the organization as well. The latter is impacted by the employee dissatisfaction with the prevalence of poor service and products, including inconsistencies and discrepancies and leading to customer complains (Jiang, Baker & Frazier, 2009). While employee dissatisfaction may lead organizations to reverse negative scenarios and conditions (Van Gundy, 1987) and to adapt more creative and innovative strategies (Ohme & Zacher, 2015), dissatisfaction often leads to negative behavior from the employee part or the organization side and it ends with turnover (Zhou & George, 2001). Tett & Meyer, (1993) define turnover intention as “a conscious and deliberate wilfulness to leave the organization”. Hence, we hypothesize that:

H3. The lower the level of job dissatisfaction of housekeeping staff is, the lower the level of turnover intention is.

Having the two distinguished dimensions of job satisfaction is what make Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory very unique from the traditional approach which views job satisfaction and dissatisfaction as opposite ends of the same continuum in the motivation theory research field (Herzberg, 1966; Jaworski et al., 2018). Job satisfaction would not be the opposite of job dissatisfaction, but rather “no job satisfaction,” and job dissatisfaction would be the opposite of “no job dissatisfaction,” not job satisfaction. The two are not explained as opposites of each other. They are two separate unipolar traits that explains the concepts of job satisfaction. Hence, we hypothesize that:

H4. Job dissatisfaction has a significantly negative relationship with job satisfaction.

2.3.1. Validity of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory

Numerous studies in the field of hospitality management incorporated Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory and investigated the motivation level of employees and their job satisfaction level with mixed results. Holston-Okae & Mushi (2018) assessed the relationship between employee turnover intention and job satisfaction, employee compensation, employee engagement, employee motivation, and work environment. Surprisingly, their study findings revealed that motivation was not a significant predictor of employees’ turnover intentions. However, the study drew attention to the importance of job satisfaction, employee compensation, employeeengagement, and work environment as key factors when it comes to reducing employee turnover in the hospitality industry. One may conclude from the results of the study that having employees who are not satisfied may not contribute positively to stability as it relates to reducing turnover rate and productivity.

Harris et al., (2017) in their research study measured restaurant employees’ and managers’ motivations to comply with specified food safety regulations. The researchers integrated Herzberg’s motivational attributes (intrinsic and extrinsic) with Vroom’s Expectancy theory and the relatedconstructs of valence, instrumentality, and expectancy. They used constructs and developed a framework of motivation that is uniqueto the domain of food safety compliance. Although the results of their study supported the Expectancy theory in relation to employees’ perceptions of food safety regulations, there was no support when it comes to employees’ following them. When it comes to the relationship between extrinsic valence and motivation, it was rather determined by the employee’s length of time of their work in the restaurant field.

Zhang et al. (2015) in their exploratory study of customer satisfaction with cruise-line services and their evaluation of attributes considered key to customers tested the validity of the Two-Factor theory. The results of their study confirmed the validity of the Two-Factor theory as it relates to customer satisfaction in the cruise-line sector. Given the fact that the relationship of certain attributes is not identical, the researchers were able to identify satisfiers, dissatisfiers, and hybrid factors.

2.4. Work Motivation, Job satisfaction, Job dissatisfaction and turnover intention

Work motivation has been the center ofresearch in the area of management for several decades and its importance should not be overlooked. Work motivation is defined as “how much a person tries to work hard and work well - to the arousal, direction, and persistence of effort in work settings” (Rainey, 2001, 20). Numerous theories of work motivation confirmed that job factors contribute to work motivation. Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory is one of those and it argues that work motivation is linked to motivational factors (Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl, & Maude, 2017; Yang & Guy, 2006).

Megginson, Mosley, & Pietri (1982) specified that the satisfaction which individuals experience at their workplace stems from positive feelings they have about their work, their heightened proficiency and their recognition of their success for handling their work. The relationship between work motivation and job satisfaction is asserted by Hoole & Vermeulen (2003) who concluded in their study that the level of motivation which individuals get from their work position and grade level is positively associated with their job satisfaction or negatively associated with the job dissatisfaction.Hence, we hypothesize that:

H5. Job dissatisfaction has a significantly negative relationship with work motivation.

The Mobley Model (1977) shed light on the effects of job dissatisfaction and how it leads to employee turnover. The model presents the different stages an employee goes through before reaching the decision to quit and eventually the turnover decision taking place. The different stages involve “thinking about quitting” which leads the individual to “evaluate the expected utility of searching for another job” and the costs involved with quitting the present position leading to developing the intention to search for another job and then to the actual search taking place which leads to the evaluation of alternatives and comparing them with their present job resulting in the final stage when the decision to quit may be reached and, therefore, turnover taking place.

Previous studies (Hom & Griffeth, 1991; Hom & Kinicki, 2001; Kankaanranta et al., 2007; Wheeler et al., 2007) have reported consistent findings on the negative consequences of job dissatisfaction with one of its major effects that lead to supporting turnover intentions. Additional studies presented the negative consequences of job dissatisfaction in the workplace such as resentment feelings towards the leadership (Fitzgerald et al., 2003) and reduced working morale (Schaefer & Moos, 1996).

Blau & Lunz (1998) in their research study on one’s intent to leave their profession found that dissatisfaction had a positive relationship with turnover; less satisfied and younger individuals are more likely to quit. Their study also revealed that gender and professional commitment influenced their decision; men and professionally more committed individuals are more likely to quit. Hence, we hypothesize that:

H6. Job dissatisfaction has a significantly positive relationship with employee turnover intention.

Luthans (1998) specified that motivation leads to the arousal, the energizing, and the direction of behaviour and achievement. Motivation stimulates individuals to undertake actions and to accomplish the preferred outcomes. When organizations undertake efficient motivational methods, they get positive outcomes and one of them is having employees that are more satisfied and attached to their current positions with a higher level of commitment. Money, although considered as an important variable, it is not viewed as the sole motivating factor as there are other incentives that serve as motivators (e.g., attitude).

Ayub & Ratif (2011) in their research study explored the relationship between work motivation and job satisfaction and concluded that the two complement each other and are influenced by various organizational factors such as productivity and conditions in the work place. The researchers pinpointed that job satisfaction is dependent on individuals’ judgment and way of behaving in the organization which is influenced by intrinsical and extraneous needs as well as by their perceptions of several work-related and company-related attitudes. Spector (2003) suggested an array of factors that play a role in motivating individuals; some are considered as abstract such as financial compensation while others may be considered as intangible such as sense of accomplishment.

In the research field of organizational behaviour, it is a general presumption that work motivation and job satisfaction have a positive relationship. Hence, we hypothesize that:

H7. Work motivation will have a positive relationship with job satisfaction.

Motivation may contribute to heightening employees' performance and satisfaction levels which may play a role in lessening their turnover intentions.

Iqbal et al., (2013) examined in their study staff members’ motivation impact on their organizational improvement. The study revealed that keys factors such as employee empowerment and recognition play a vital role in improving staff members’ motivation which in turn makes impact on organizational improvement. Growth is achieved when smartly designed principles and directions do not only allow a positive environment for employees to function in and have a higher productivity level but it also allows organizations to better recognize and appreciate their employees’ professional achievements. Such a positive state of motivation leads to a higher level of employee satisfaction which in fact lowers employees’ turnover intentions.

Alfandi (2020) investigated hotel factors at four-star properties in Jordan that may have influenced employee performance (EP). The results of the research study revealed that empowerment (EM), manager attitude (MA), and training culture (TC) were the strongest predictors of employee performance (EP). On the other hand, organization structure (OS) and organization culture (OC) did not have impact on employee performance (EP).

Alarawmneh & al-Kilani (2010) investigated the increase in high turnover rate in hotels in Jordan and explored the possible impacts of human resource management (HRM) practices on such a development. The outcomes of their research study revealed that among the different HRM practices tested, job analysis was the only one that carried a significant impact on employees’ turnover intention. Their research study also revealed that more than half of participating employees conveyed their intentions to quit their jobs. Interestingly, the researchers found that employees at international four and five star properties expressed less desire to quit their jobs than those who worked at local properties in lower categories.

Al-Sabi, Al-Ababneh, & Masadeh (2019) investigated the impact of employees’ motivation level on job satisfaction and turnover intentions. The results of their research study revealed that work motivation had a positive impact on employees’ job satisfaction and their innovation performance at five-star hotels in Jordan and it also had a negative relationship with their turnover intention.Hence, we hypothesize that:

H8. Work motivation will have a negative relationship with turnover intention.

Job satisfaction is considered a key factor in organizational psychology research due to its tremendous impact on employees and the workplace (Kinicki et al., 2002). Job satisfaction has been attributed to certain positive outcomes such as job motivation (Kinicki et al., 2002), employee productiveness (Hater & Bass, 1988 and an increase in the willingness for employees to do more than what their job requires (LePine, Erez & Johnson 2002).

Numerous studies have revealed findings that show steady and negative relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intention (e.g., Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Bluedorn, 1982; Mobley, 1982). The findings asserted the fact that satisfied individuals are more likely to stay and less likely to leave their present organizations and positions than the dissatisfied ones.

Koh & Goh (1995) analysed the factors affecting the turnover intention of non-managerial clerical staff revealed that job satisfaction is significantly associated with turnover intention. Their study revealed that employees’ satisfaction is heavily based on career future, the organization’s identity, and financial compensation. Hence, we hypothesize that:

H9. Job satisfaction will have a negative relationship with turnover intention.

3.1. Data Collection

The population of this research study is individuals who work in a housekeeping department at a hotel. The sample for this research study is individuals who work in housekeeping departments at full-service four and five star international hotels in Jordan. The researchers visited a total of ten hotels, four and five star, mostly international full-service properties, located in Amman, the Dead Sea, and Aqaba in Jordan with the purpose to collect data. Hotel managers were contacted in advance to make sure that they understood the purpose of the research study, the data collection process, and to secure approval for site visits and data collection. Since the survey instrument with its items may trigger a sensitive issue for management, it was forwarded to each manager in advance in two versions, Arabic and English. The purpose was clarified to managers and confidentiality was assured. Once on site, the researchers explained the purpose of the survey to participants, gave clear instructions, and assured confidentiality. Researchers were present at each site during the whole process of data collection. A total of 178 surveys were distributed and collected by the researchers. Due to missing or incomplete information, a total of 158 valid and completed surveys were used for data analysis.

3.2.  Measurement  

A survey design was implemented in this research study. The first section of the survey instrument included the introduction and questions   on participants’ career backgrounds: work experience, employee status, and work positions. The second section of the survey instrument included items measuring motivators, hygiene factors, job satisfaction, job dissatisfaction, and turnover intention. The research instrument included 29 items measuring six motivators, 40 items measuring hygiene factors, three items measuring work motivation, five items measuring job satisfaction, four items measuring job dissatisfaction, and three items measuring turnover intention. For all items, responses were scored on a Likert five-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). All items measuring motivator, hygiene factor, job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction were adopted from Ann & Blum (2020), and Turnover intention (3 items) and work motivation (five items) were adopted from Carr (2005). The researchers confirmed the reliability and validity of the survey items in their research as Cronbach’s alpha value was between 0.70 and 0.90 (Cronbach, 1951). The last section of the survey included questions related to participants' demographic information, including gender, age, income level and education. Please see the appendix for the survey measurement used for this study.   

3.3.  Data analysis  

Cluster analysis is beneficial “to group entities on the basis of their similarity with respect to selected variables, so that members of the resulting groups are as similar as possible to others within their group (high within-group homogeneity) and as different as possible to those in other groups (low between-group homogeneity)” (Clatworthy et al., 2005, 335). Two step clusters method was used to cluster groups based on the mean values of job dissatisfaction. As job dissatisfaction is a unique concept that explains Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory and also work-related behaviour of employees, job dissatisfaction was selected as a variable to classify the participants into a high job-dissatisfied group and a low job-dissatisfied one. Once again, having a separate job dissatisfaction construct in a research study is a very unique concept that Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory (1959) developed and which also contributes to this study’s uniqueness and originality. By using the extracted clusters, correlation and t-test were utilized for data analysis. Descriptive statistics such as frequencies, means, and standard deviation were also utilized to obtain an overall representation of the sample and to determine the preferred/satisfied motivational factors. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0 was utilized.

Table 1 presents the demographics of respondents. The proportion of female and male respondents was 15.2% and 82.3% respectively. The majority of respondents were in the range of 20 to 29 years old (51.3%) and 30 to 39 (27.8%). About 81.0% of the respondents were of Middle Eastern origin and 16.5% of the respondents were Asians. In terms of Language, 82.9% of the respondents’ first language was Arabic, while 31.6% of the respondents’ second language was English. Lastly, 52.5% of the respondents were married. Regarding education, 51.9% of the respondents did not complete high school level education, while 13.9% held university degree or license. In terms of marital status, 52.5% of respondents were single and 43.7% were married. The majority of respondents (80.4%) had an annual household income that was in the range of Less than 7,000JD (9,872 USD).

Table 1:

Respondents’ characteristics	Frequency	Percentages
Gender (n=154)
Male	130	82.3%
Female	24	15.2%
Age (n=142)
Less than 20	11	7.0%
20-29	81	51.3%
30-39	44	27.8%
40-49	4	2.5%
50-59	2	1.3%
60 and older	0	0%
Race (n=156)
Middle Eastern	128	81.0%
Asian	26	16.5%
Black/African	2	1.2%
White	0	0%
Others	0	0%
Language (n=158)
English	1	0.6%
Tagalog	25	15.8%
Arabic	131	82.9%
Others (Bengali)	1	0.6%
*50 participants selected English as their second language.
Education (n=153)
High school – not completed	82	51.9%
High school diploma or equivalent	19	12.0%
Vocational or technical school	18	11.4%
University – not completed	11	7.0%
University degree or license	22	13.9%
Post graduate degree	1	0.6%
Others	0	0%
Marital Status (n=155)
Now married	69	44.5%
Widowed	1	0.10%
Separated	2	1.3%
Single	83	53.5%
Household Income (n=151)
Less than 7,000JD (9,872 USD)	127	80.4%
7,000 – 14,000 JD (9,873 - 19,746 USD)	17	10.8%
14,001 – 21,200 JD (19,747 - 29.901 USD)	4	2.5%
21,201 – 28,300 JD (29,902 - 39,915 USD)	2	1.3%
More than 28,300 JD (39,916 USD)	1	0.6%

Two-Step cluster analysis was conducted to extract groups and memberships based on the mean values of job dissatisfaction (Job Dissatisfaction Mean = JDM). The job dissatisfaction variable was used to create groups because Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman (1959) was the first to create Job dissatisfaction in his Two-Factor theory, a separate construct from Job satisfaction and also emphasized the importance of Job dissatisfaction. As the existence of Job dissatisfaction has been one of the greatest arguments for more than several decades, it would be interesting to group participants based on job dissatisfaction and to compare the groups’ work-related characteristics and behaviours.

Table 2:

	N	Percent	Mean of JD*	SD**	T-value	Probability
Cluster 1: Low JD*	66	49.5%	1.76	.57918	-18.76	.000***
Cluster 2: High JD*	68	50.7%	3.86	.70884
TOTAL	134	100%

Table 2 displays the results of Two-Step cluster analysis and groups’ statistics. The two groups were extracted; low job dissatisfaction group (JDM = 1.762 out of 5.00), and high job dissatisfaction group (JDM = 3.857 out of 5.00). “Ratio of sizes” value of cluster sizes was 1.03, which is a great indicator of a cluster size and membership, meaning that the cluster size is in balance, the membership of the two groups is similar in numbers (Figure 1). The two groups’ memberships are balanced, meaning that it is suitable to compare. The “Cluster quality” value, which is a measure of cohesion and separation, was 0.7, and falls in a good quality range (between 0.5 - 1.0). Therefore, the two clusters extracted based on JDM are pertinent to use for this research to meet its purposes and test hypotheses.

Figure 1

Two-Step Cluster ratio and Cluster quality

Size of small cluster	66 (49.3%)
Size of large cluster	68 (50.7%)
Ratio of sizes: Largest cluster to smallest cluster	1.03
Cluster Quality	0.7

An independent samples t-test was conducted to confirm the qualification of job dissatisfaction as a standard variable in order to examine the differences between the two groups and to test the hypothesis. As shown in Table 3, the JDM for the low dissatisfied group was 1.76, and the JDM for the highly dissatisfied group was 3.86. In comparing the two means, we found a significant difference in the mean of job dissatisfaction between low dissatisfied and highly dissatisfied groups. Therefore, the two clusters extracted from job dissatisfaction are appropriate to evaluate the proposed hypotheses in this study.

Hypotheses tests

To test the hypotheses, independent samples t-tests were conducted for job satisfaction, work motivation, and turnover intention, by using the two clusters extracted from mean values of job dissatisfaction. Table 3 displays the results of t-tests that are used to compare means for Job dissatisfaction, Job satisfaction, Work Motivation, and Turnover Intention, between low dissatisfied and highly dissatisfied respondents.

Table 3. Comparison of means for Job dissatisfaction, Job satisfaction, Work Motivation, and Turnover Intention, between the low dissatisfied and highly dissatisfied respondents

Table 3:

Comparison of means for Job satisfaction (Hypothesis 1)
Groups	N	Mean	SD*	T-value	Probability
Low Dissatisfied	64	3.93	.98851	-.416	.678
Highly Dissatisfied	62	3.99	.85543
Comparison of means for Work motivation (Hypothesis 2)
Groups	N	Mean	SD*	T-value	Probability
Low Dissatisfied	63	4.11	.85593	-.297	.767
Highly Dissatisfied	63	4.15	.69812
Comparison of means for Turnover intention
Groups	N	Mean	SD*	T-value	Probability
Low Dissatisfied	64	2.39	1.10350	-5.037	.000**
Highly Dissatisfied	66	3.39	1.16587

H1. The lower the level of job dissatisfaction of housekeeping staff is, the higher the level of job satisfaction is.

As seen in Table 3, in comparing the two means, the mean of job satisfaction for the low dissatisfied groups was 3.93 and the mean of job satisfaction for the highly dissatisfied group was 3.99. In comparing the two means, there was no significant difference in the mean of job dissatisfaction between low dissatisfied and highly dissatisfied groups. Therefore, the results do not support hypothesis 1; the results do not support Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory.

H2. The lower the level of job dissatisfaction of housekeeping staff is, the higher the level of work motivation is.

As seen in Table 3, in comparing the two means, the mean of work motivation for the low dissatisfied group was 4.11 and the mean of work motivation for the highly dissatisfied group was 4.15. In comparing the two means, there was no significant difference in the mean of work motivation between low dissatisfied and highly dissatisfied groups. Therefore, the results do not support hypothesis 2, meaning that the results do not support Herzberg’s Two-factor theory.

H3. The lower the level of job dissatisfaction of housekeeping staff is, the lower the level of turnover intention is.

As seen in Table 3, in comparing the two means, the mean of turnover intention for the low dissatisfied groups was 2.39 and the mean of turnover intention for the highly dissatisfied group was 3.39. In comparing the two means, there was a significant difference in the mean of turnover intention between low dissatisfied and highly dissatisfied groups. Therefore, the results do support hypothesis 3; meaning that the results support Herzberg’s Two-factor theory.

Table 4 displays the whole group’s mean values for all the factors, including the two groups. Among all of the 14 motivational factors, achievement and work itself ranked at the top. For the highly dissatisfied group, work itself ranked number one satisfied or preferred factor while achievement ranked number one satisfied/preferred factor for the low dissatisfied group. For all three groups, salary ranked last.

Table 4:

Factors	The Whole group		Low Dissatisfied Group		Highly Dissatisfied Group
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation
Motivators
Achievement	4.24	.80	4.26	.83	4.31	.61
Work itself	4.25	.88	4.24	.88	4.35	.74
Recognition	3.93	.91	3.93	.93	4.04	.75
Advancement	3.67	.98	3.72	1.05	3.66	.95
Responsibility	3.86	.97	3.87	.99	3.94	.96
Growth	4.03	.99	4.05	1.08	4.13	.81
Hygiene Factors
Supervision	4.02	.99	4.07	.98	4.02	.98
Company Policy & Administration	3.91	1.03	3.86	1.13	3.99	.91
Relationship with Co-workers	4.05	.98	3.98	1.02	4.14	.92
Security	4.00	.91	3.98	.87	4.00	.98
Salary	3.43	1.12	3.35	1.18	3.56	1.04
Status	3.95	.92	3.88	1.03	4.06	.81
Working Conditions	3.87	.97	3.85	.99	3.89	.94
Personal Life	3.61	1.01	3.56	1.02	3.75	.94

H4. Job dissatisfaction has a significantly negative relationship with job satisfaction.

H5. Job dissatisfaction has a significantly negative relationship with work motivation.

H6. Job dissatisfaction has a significantly positive relationship with employee turnover

intention.

H7. Work motivation will have a positive relationship with job satisfaction.

H8. Work motivation will have a negative relationship with turnover intention.

H9. Job satisfaction will have a negative relationship with turnover intention.

To test hypothesis 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, a correlation analysis was conducted. Interestingly, there was no relationship between job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. Also, no relationship was found between job satisfaction and turnover intention. Only work motivation is significant and positively correlated with job satisfaction. Job dissatisfaction and turnover intention have a significant positive relationship when there is no relationship between job dissatisfaction and work motivation. No significant relationship was found between turnover intention and work motivation. All the 14 factors have a significant positive relationship with job satisfaction, while only two factors have a significant positive relationship with job dissatisfaction; relationship with co-workers, and status. The two factors are the hygiene factors, based on Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory (1959). Among the fourteen motivational factors, there was no factor that has a relationship with turnover intention. But all fourteen factors were significantly and positively related to work motivation. Table 5 displays the results of correlation analysis.

5.1. The fourteen motivational factors’ mean values and factor ranking

The results of this research study revealed interesting information related to motivational factors that are considered the most and least satisfied/preferred ones by surveyed housekeeping staff members in Jordan. The mean values of the factors were analysed and compared for the whole group, including low and highly dissatisfied ones, in order to investigate which factor was the most and also the least satisfied/preferred one. Among all of the fourteen motivational factors, work itself (4.25 out of 5.00) and achievement (4.24 out of 5.00) were ranked at the top in this research study. These findings are consistent with the ones of Herzberg and those of other respectable previous research studies (Kovach, 1995). It is recommended for the management of hotels in Jordan to make work interesting and enjoyable for their staff, and to also regularly check on their employees’ satisfaction with it (Ann & Blum, 2020; Chuang, Yin & Dellmann-Jenkins, 2009).

For the highly dissatisfied group, work itself ranked as the number one satisfied/preferred factor while achievement is ranked as the number one satisfied/preferred one for the low dissatisfied group. One may infer, given the socio-economic and cultural aspects of Jordan's environment, that employees are valuing the work itself and achievement, although some may be dissatisfied, due to the fact that many have a sense of pride which stems from the fact that they achieved something unique and were able to work for well-respected hotel brands, as the majority are international properties and enjoy a strong image among locals. It may also be due to their previous personal experiences and/or the word of mouth effect; they are aware of the major gap that exists between full-service international hotel categories and other hotel categories in Jordan in regard to the previously specified factors. In their current environment, they are satisfied with an organization that infuses professionalism, joy, and excitement into their work and that sensitizes them and gives them a sense of achievement. Last, but not least, the satisfaction with the specified factors may also stem from the scarcity and limited options in their own environment when it comes to organizations that offer similar ones and it also shows the huge gap between hotel categories when it comes to the level and quality of human resource management practices.

For all three groups, salary was the least satisfied/preferred factor in this research study; the whole group - 3.43 out of 5.00, the low Dissatisfied group - 3.35 out of 5.00, and the highly Dissatisfied group - 3.56 out of 5.00. Ann et al., (2014) also found that housekeeping staff working in a full-service international hotel in South Korea were not satisfied with their salary factor at the workplace. The five questions on the current status of salary factors are the following: 1) I am encouraged to work harder because of my salary, 2) I believe my salary is fair for the work that I do, 3) I understand how my base salary is determined, 4) My salary rate is a significant factor in my decision to stay in this organization, and 5) My salary is competitive when compared to similar jobs at other organizations. Most housekeepers in Jordan, in general, do not have a high level of education. In fact, most respondents have only achieved secondary education or even less. Our data represent the population very well as 51.9% of respondents did not complete high school and only 12% of respondents had a high school degree. And, 13.9% of respondents had undergraduate degree. Given the specified facts, employers tend to justify their low pay of the mentioned segment. Such a case is also connected with the country's socio-cultural reality that does not extend much status or respect to housekeepers. In addition to the specified factors, difficult economic conditions and high unemployment in Jordan give employers more freedom to manipulate such a component as employees face limited employment choices. Although dissatisfied, employees tend to stick to their present jobs. Optimism may keep them going hoping that their practical background with a well-known hotel might open the door to better future prospects, including a better paid job.

5.2. Correlation analysis and the results

As shown in the results of the correlation analysis, all of the motivators and hygiene factors are highly correlated with job satisfaction in this research study. The results are highly consistent with previous research studies. Maidini’s research study (1991) and Chuang, Yin & Dellmann-Jenkins (2009) tested the applicability of Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory. The outcomes of the research study revealed that both motivators and hygiene factors contributed to the satisfaction level of employees, which contradicts Herzberg’s theory.

The results of correlation analysis in this research study revealed that only two factors have a significant positive relationship with job dissatisfaction; relationship with co-workers, and status. The two factors are the hygiene factors that are based on Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory (1959). The findings partially support Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory as Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman (1959) argued that there are eight hygiene factors at work that affect job dissatisfaction. The reason that the two hygiene factors are highly correlated with job dissatisfaction may be due to Jordan's unique socio-cultural and economic characteristics. There is a dominant cultural reality that gives, in general, less respect and value to the profession of housekeeping. Housekeepers at hotels in Jordan may feel not getting enough respect from other employees in the same organization which may generate, in many cases, a feeling of inferiority and job dissatisfaction. The problem may also be attributed to the unequal treatment by management of housekeepers versus other employees from other departments; the latter may feel more privileged and superior. It may also be attributed to the fact that there is, in many cases, a major socio-cultural gap between housekeepers and non-housekeepers with the latter coming, in general, from a more educated background and a more developed urban environment. Please see the appendix for the questions measuring the two factors, relationship with co-workers and status.

This research study finds, from a socio-cultural perspective, that lines between social classes tend to be drawn more intensely in some cultures than others. Although education, professional positions and money draw the lines between individuals in many countries and cultures, they tend to be more dominant in a Middle Eastern country such as Jordan. Therefore, understanding such a reality helps to better understand the unique findings of the current research study in relation to job dissatisfaction due to status, relationship with co-workers, and salary.

Among the fourteen motivational factors, there was no factor that had a relationship with turnover intention. But all of the fourteen factors were significant and positively related to work motivation. These results confirm that motivational factors are affecting work motivation directly, and work motivation is significantly related to job satisfaction.

5.3. Hypothesis testing and the results

The findings of this research study were able to examine the complicated relationship between motivation, job satisfaction, job dissatisfaction, and turnover intention by utilizing Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory. As the results of testing hypothesis 1 and 4 show, there was no relationship between job dissatisfaction and job satisfaction of the housekeeping staff at four and five star hotels in Jordan. This is a unique finding of this research study and also a totally opposite one from that of some researchers who argued about the high correlation between job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction (Waters & Waters 1969). This finding support Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory (1959), job dissatisfaction and job satisfaction are the two different continua that explain work-related behaviour. The lack of relationship between Job dissatisfaction and Job satisfaction may be a reflection of the unique socio-cultural and economic environment of Jordan. The high unemployment rate coupled with the existence of limited local professional opportunities that offer recognition and clear job guidelines may have induced employees to convey a sense of job satisfaction.

As the results of testing hypothesis 2 and 5 show, there was no significant relationship between job dissatisfaction and work motivation in this research study, which is not supporting previous findings of other researchers (Furnham, Eracleous & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2009; Mullins, 2007). Most researchers strongly argued about the negative relationship between job dissatisfaction and work motivation. The lack of significant relationship between job dissatisfaction and work motivation may also be interpreted through the unique socio-cultural and economic environment of Jordan. Although work motivation may not be existent, employees may get a lesser state of dissatisfaction or no dissatisfaction due to the comparative advantage of their current position’s offerings with perks not easily found at other local organizations in their area. For example, meals and accommodation may fill the gap from their part when it comes to their perceptions of lack of motivation. Meals and accommodation may mean much more to an individual living in an environment with widespread poverty than someone living in an economically prosperous area. We may also examine the situation from an opposite angle; the noticeable work motivation techniques exercised by international organizations with respected brands and very well acknowledged by local associates may be absent or hard to find, based on employees’ previous experiences, in local organizations. The extreme differences may magnify the attainable positive, either on the work motivation side or the dissatisfaction side and, therefore, making the known negative relationship between the mentioned factors not seen in Jordan’s unique environment.

However, there was a positive relationship between job satisfaction and work motivation as shown under the results of testing hypothesis 7. This finding supports the underlying presumption of the significant positive relationship between job satisfaction and work motivation (Sledge et al., 2008; Sorge & Warner 1997; Vroom 1964). However, it was found in this research study that job satisfaction only affects work motivation between the two continua which explains the concept of job satisfaction based on Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory.

Within the results of testing hypothesis 3 and 6, one more interesting result was the significantly positive relationship between job dissatisfaction and turnover intention. This finding supports Herzberg’s and many previous researchers’ findings - the positive relationship between job dissatisfaction and turnover intention (Kim & Jogaratnam, 2010; Porter & Steers 1973). More importantly, Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman (1959) explained that job dissatisfaction must be satisfied at work first before job satisfaction materializes. Until job dissatisfaction is satisfied, job satisfaction does not start to materialize. Once job dissatisfaction is satisfied at a certain level, then the next step becomes available for job satisfaction to take place and to materialize. Our sample’s characteristic supports Herzberg’s argument. Thirty five percent of respondents worked less than a year and 35.7% of them worked between 1 - 5 years at their current workplace. According to Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman (1959), when individuals just started to work and during their early career stage, their turnover intention level is very low. In addition, Herzberg argued that when individuals are in their 20s, they tend to stick to their current workplace, meaning having a very low turnover intention. Fifty one percent of respondents were in the age range of 20-29. As it was confirmed in our research study, hotel managers in Jordan must consider how to lower the job dissatisfaction level of employees first in order to control employee’s turnover intention.

No relationship was found between work motivation and turnover intention based on the results of testing hypothesis 7. The lack of relationship between turnover and work motivation is interesting and may be interpreted that job satisfaction and/or job dissatisfaction must exist as a mediator between work motivation and turnover intention. In this research study, job satisfaction and turnover intention are unrelated based on the results of testing hypothesis 8. The lack of relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intention is a very unique finding and contradicts the findings of previous researchers (Ann & Blum, 2020). Also, for several decades, there has been an underlying assumption that job satisfaction is the best predictor of turnover intention. In a recent research study, Ann & Blum (2020), using SEM and Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory, confirmed the negative relationship between job satisfaction and turnover by using the sample of 524 American baby boomers employed in the hospitality and tourism industry. However, the outcomes of their research study do not support the previously specified argument. The results may be attributed to the unique socio-cultural and economic characteristics of Jordan and their impacts on the workplace. Given the difficult economic situation and the lower pay level, in general, in Jordan and the fact that housekeepers shifted jobs or careers to better their financial means, they are ready, regardless of how satisfied they are with their current jobs, to quit for another higher paid job opportunity.

In this research study, the validity and applicability of Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory were confirmed by identifying the two relational pairs of work motivation, job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction, and turnover intention. Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman (1959) strongly argued that there are two separate continua that explain the concept of job satisfaction; the two separate continua are job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. Work motivation is positively related to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction is highly and positively related to turnover intention. Therefore, the management of Jordan’s lodging industry needs to make sure to maintain a high level of employees’ work motivation in order for satisfaction to take place. In addition, management needs to understand the importance of job dissatisfaction as it is the only determinant of turnover intention.

5.4. Limitations and future studies

We found that only two hygiene factors, relationship with others and status had a significant positive relationship with job dissatisfaction. In addition, it was identified that all of the six motivators and eight hygiene factors were highly and positively correlated with job satisfaction. However, Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman (1959) argued that there is a total of eight hygiene factors that affect job dissatisfaction and a total of six motivators that influence job satisfaction. In future research studies, regression analysis might be the solution to examine which factors have the most significant effect on job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction.

No relationship between turnover and work motivation was found in this research study. It can be assumed that job satisfaction and/or job dissatisfaction must exist as a mediator between work motivation and turnover intention. Another statistical analysis such as Structural Equation Model (SEM) may explain such a complicated relationship and may be a mediating effect; it may be an interesting future research project.