When motivators were present in the workplace, this resulted in recognisable states of motivation amongst employees, whereas in their absence, on the other hand, did not lead to dissatisfaction. As for hygiene factors they produced an acceptable environment to work in and did not increase job satisfaction. Their absence was shown to cause job dissatisfaction. (Fincham & Rhodes, 2005).Herzberg argued that eliminating the causes of dissatisfaction through the hygiene factors would not result in job satisfaction, but would result in a neutral state. Motivators showed that individuals need for self actualisation and hygiene factors were concerned with the avoidance of pain. Self actualisation emanates from the goal to realize our potential through perpetual psychological growth whilst Hygiene factors show that our needs originate from our basic drives as animals. As a result, Herzberg (1966) concluded that hygiene factors and motivators had separate origins. Fincham and Rhodes (2005).There are certain similarities and differences with the two motivation theories which make up the next part of this exercise. According to Ramlall (2004) most motivation requires the passion to act, a capability to act and having a goal to achieve. Furthermore that motivation occurs as a result of the utilization of motivators and that the difference between the motivation theories lies mainly on the actual need that the individual is trying to fulfil.