Maslow’s Heirarchy Of Needs
5. SELF-FULFILLMENT
4. SELF-ESTEEM
3. SOCIAL
2. SAFETY
1. PHYSICAL
There are few criticisms of Maslow’s needs theory, the main argument is that of the sample population. This was small and limited to a group of professionals. The study applies only to middle management professionals (the original sample consisted of 200 middle management professionals). Maslow placed such constraints on self-actualization
In nature, things, beings try to grow, become more, to fulfill its biological destiny. Maslow limits this to something only two percent of the human race achieves.
We also have the example of a number of people who were creative in some fashion, even while in concentration camps. Trachtenberg, for example, developed a new way of doing arithmetic in a camp. Viktor Frankl developed his approach to therapy while in a camp.
Frederick Hertzberg tackled the question of employee motivation directly, as Maslow’s theory tackled individuals and groupings. Hertzberg’s results indicated that the factors that motivate people to work fall into two distinct categories, hygene factors and motivation factors. Hygene factors, in Hertzberg’s opinion, do not provide positive motivation but their absence causes dissatisfaction, in the same way that hygiene prevents disease rather than increasing wellbeing. Motivation factors relate to people’s higher needs and do produce positive satisfaction.
The hygiene factors that Hertzberg identified are features of the workplace,or the organization itself, that help to make the employees feel good about themselves, and include:
- wage or salary paid
- bonuses/commissions paid
- working conditions
- quality of supervision
- the working environment
- job security
Hertzberg’s motivators are concerned with the work that the
employees undertake and their performance within each task. An employee cannot be motivated if the organization is not offering them any of the following,
- attainment
- advancement
- responsibility
There are few flaws in this theory, one major flaw is that job satisfaction does not necessarily lead to high motivation.
Hertzberg’s theory tends to lean towards being bias in certain situations, as people may want to perceive and blame certain features of the work setting as the causes of their job dissatisfaction, even if it is not true.
The theory also obscures the distinction between satisfaction and motivation. An example of this : two motivators related to satisfaction according to the theory, also influences job dissatisfaction.
Process theories of motivation look at what people are thinking about when they decide whether or not to put effort into a particular activity. We will be examining two major process theories, that of Adam’s Equity Theory and the Expectancy Theory.
Adam’s Equity Theory
Adam's argues that people are motivated by "inequity". That means that a person looks at others who are doing the same or similar jobs to them and compare how much effort that they put into the job and how much they are rewarded for their work.
For example a person who was working very hard in a job may see a colleague who does not put in much effort at all has the same rewards of salary, prestige, promotion etc. This would probably be a negative motivator, discouraging that person from working so hard. There are, on the other hand, positive motivators where a person feels that they receive more than others in the same job and so feel that they are being rewarded for their efforts.
John Stacy Adam’s Equity Theory Diagram
Copyright 2002 Alan Chapman, Based on JS Adam’s Equity Theory, 1963
www.businessballs.com
In conditions where employees are underpaid conditions are generally consistent with the original prediction, though in conditions where overpayments occur the results tend to be inconsistent
The Expectancy Theory, that of Victor Vroom deals with motivation and management. Vroom's theory assumes that behavior results from conscious choices amongst alternatives whose function it is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Vroom suggested that the relationship between people's behavior at work and their goals were not as simple as first imagined. Vroom realized that an employee's performance is based on an individuals qualities such as personality, skills, knowledge, experience and abilities.
The expectancy theory says that individuals have different sets of goals and can be motivated if they believe that:
- Favorable performance will result in a desirable reward,
- The reward will satisfy an important need,
- The desire to satisfy the need is strong enough to make the effort worthwhile.
This theory is based upon the following :
Valence (Valence refers to the emotional orientations people hold with respect to outcomes [rewards]. The depth of the want of an employee for extrinsic [money, promotion, time-off, benefits] or intrinsic [satisfaction] rewards). Management must discover what employees value.
Expectancy (Employees have different expectations and levels of confidence about what they are capable of doing). Management must discover what resources, training, or supervision employees need.
Instrumentality (The perception of employees whether they will actually get what they desire even if it has been promised by a manager). Management must ensure that promises of rewards are fulfilled and that employees are aware of that.
There are many faults with the Expectancy theory, as there are with the previous theories discussed. They are as follows :
- There are problems in trying to ‘prove the model’ in research terms
- The theory relies too much the thought processes, that you or I go through when we decide to " go for things" or choosing a level of effort or performance.
- Effort is not clearly specified or measured
- Operates under the assumption that all motivation is conscious
- An unpleasant outcome reverses motivation to one of avoidance
Content theories of motivation focus on what needs a person is trying to satisfy and on what features of the work environment seem to satisfy those needs., where as process theories of motivation deal with the way different variables combine to influence the aamount of effort people put forth.
