ndustrial area 40 years later, have extended Maslow's explanation by reminding managers about the power of motivation found in work itself rather than mere financial rewards (Fulop & Linstead, 1999; Hodgetts, 1990; Huczynski & Buchanan, 2001). Hertzberg professed that 'the opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction, but, rather, no job satisfaction; and similarly, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction, but no job dissatisfaction' (Hertzberg, 1996, p. 79). Generally, it provides a framework that allows manager to reflect on tangible and intangible factors that can be used to motivate staffs (Vecchieo, 1994) by taking into account that these factors are actually complementary rather than contradicting factors (Fulop & Linstead, 1999).
             Secondly, since both theories evolved from the same approach, which is content processes of motivation, Maslow and Hertzberg have assumed that individuals rely on internal elements to process their experience before initiating, energizing, directing and sustaining their behavior in doing certain task (Steers, Porter & Bigley, 1991; Gibson, Ivancevich & Donnelly, 2000). In other words, individuals have the tendency to prioritize their needs based on personal characteristics and preferences (Steers, Porter & Bigley, 1991). However, the difference here was that Maslow felt that individuals have universal needs and motivation can operates along a single continuum of needs whereas Hertzberg conceded that individual's needs are different and motivation can actually operates along two different and independent continuums, which are hygiene factors (environment) & motivation factors (work itself) (Bartol & Martin, 1991; Coles, 1998). Many researchers have come to agreed that Hertzberg and Alderfer, another motivation theorist, have refine Maslow's theory through the emphasis of higher flexibility to deal with individuals' changing needs at differe...