McClelland’s Need Theory

McClelland created a motivation theory that is closely linked to learning notions, according to the notion, when a person's need is strong, it motivates them to engage in activity that satisfies the need and the key theme of McClelland's thesis is that one learns needs by cooperating with one's surroundings because needs are learned, rewarded behavior is more likely to be repeated (Gibson, Ivancevich, and Donnelly, 1979, 111-112).

The desire to independently master objects, ideas, and other people, as well as to raise one's self-esteem via the exercise of one's aptitude, is known as the need for accomplishment, (Wallace, Goldstein and Nathan 1987, 289).

Some people with a great desire to succeed are more concerned with personal achievement than with the financial benefits of success. They want to do something better or more efficiently than others have done before them (Robbins, 1993).

According to Kreitner (1998), the need for power is defined as the desire to force others to behave in ways they would not otherwise, while the need for affiliation is defined as the desire for friendly and close interpersonal relationships, motivation and performance fluctuate based on the strength of one's demand for achievement, according to achievement theories.

According to McClelland’s (1961), findings, a country's level of economic growth is proportional to its total achievement motivation. High achievers are more likely to be successful entrepreneurs. (McClelland, 1961).

The need for achievement, according to Kreitner and Kinicki (1998), is described as mastering, manipulating, or organizing physical items, human beings, or ideas. Individuals who score high on this desire are not the best managers or leaders because they find it difficult to make difficult judgments without fear of being disliked (Kreitner, 1998). Because effective managers must favorably affect others, McClelland claims that top executives have a high need for power but a low need for connection (Kreitner, 1998).

McClelland’s need achievement theory postulates that some people are driven to success through seeking “personal achievement rather than rewards themselves” (Saif et al., 2012, p.1387)

Factors which reflect a high need for achievement

·         Need for Achievement

·         Need for Power

·         Need for Affiliation (McClelland and Johnson, 1984, 3).

Need for Achievement

The need for Achievement was described by McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, and Lowell (1958) as "success in competition with some criterion of excellence." That is, the purpose of some individual in the story is to be successful in terms of rivalry with some standard of perfection.

"The need for achievement is the unconscious concern for perfection in accomplishments through individual efforts," (Lussier and Achua 2007). "The desire to accomplish something difficult, achieve a high standard of success, master complex tasks, and surpass other, Individuals with an Achievement Need strive to achieve attainable but difficult goals, (Daft (2008).

Need for Power

The need for Power is defined by Daft (2008) as "the want to influence or control others, be responsible for others, and have authority over others." People who have the need for Power want to be influential and have an impact. Lussier and Achua (2007) defined the need for Power as “the unconscious concern for influencing others and seeking positions of authority''

Need for Affiliation

"Affiliation...establishing, sustaining, or repairing a positive affective relationship with another individual," (McClelland 1961). "The unconscious concern for forming, sustaining, and recovering close personal ties is the urge for affiliation" (Lussier & Achua, 2007, p. 43).  According to Daft (2008) "The desire to build intimate personal ties, avoid conflict, and establish warm friendships.

It's vital to remember that needs don't always correspond to skills; an employee can be heavily affiliation-motivated yet still be effective in a position where his affiliation needs aren't supplied (Brandon, 2015).

According to Dell (2008), Individuals' enthusiasm to function as a creator of happiness by creating items that suit people's needs and wants within a specific time frame is referred to as entrepreneurial readiness.

 

Reference

Daft, R. L. (2008). The leadership experience (4th ed.). Mason, OH: SouthWestern, Cengage Learning.

Dell, M. S. (2008). An investigation of undergraduate student self-employment intention and the impact of entrepreneurship education and previous entrepreneurial experience. Doctor of Philosophy, School of Business University, Australia

Gibson, James L., John M. Ivancevich, James H. Donnelly, Organizations; Behavior, Structure, Process, Dallas, Texas: Business Publications, Inc., 1979.

Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (1998). Organizational Behavior (4 ed.). Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Robbins, S. (1993). Organizational Behavior (6 ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2007). Leadership: Theory application, skill development (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society. New York: Free Press.

McClelland, David C. and Eric W Johnson. Learning to Achieve. Glenview, Illinois: Scotti. Foresman & Co., 1984

McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1958). A scoring manual for the achievement motive. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action, and society (pp. 179-204). Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.

Saif, K.F., Nawaz, A., Jan, A. & Khan, M.I. Synthesizing the theories of job-satisfaction across the cultural/attitudinal dimensions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2012,3 (9): 1382-1396.

Wallace, Patricia, Jeffrey H. Goldstein, Peter Nathan. Introduction to Psychology. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown. 1987.

. 

The Organizational Levers of Motivation

Although fulfilling all four of employees’ basic emotional drives is essential for any company, according to the Harvard business review (July-Aug 2008), suggests that each drive is best met by a distinct organizational lever.

1.    The reward system

An organization's reward system, which successfully distinguishes between good and poor workers, attaches rewards to performance, and provides opportunities for progression to the best employees, is most easily met by the acquisition drive. (July-August 2008, Harvard Business Review). Reward management systems have a significant impact on an organization's capacity to attract, retain, and motivate high-potential individuals, resulting in great performance (Gungor, 2011). Employee remuneration is the overall compensation received in exchange for the services provided (Agustiningsih et al. 2016).

Example

When the Royal Bank of Scotland bought NatWest, it inherited a company where politics, status, and employee tenure dominated the reward system. RBS implemented a new system in which managers were held accountable for specific goals and good performance was rewarded over average performance. Former NatWest employees embraced their new company to an unusual degree following an acquisition, in part because the reward system was tough but recognized individual achievement. (Harvard business review -July-Aug 2008).

 

Another example, Sonoco, a manufacturer of industrial and consumer goods packaging, transformed itself in part by making a concerted effort to better meet the acquisition drive—that is, by establishing very clear links between performance and rewards. Historically, the company set high business-performance targets, but incentives did little to reward meeting them. Sonoco implemented a pay-for-performance system based on individual and group metrics in 1995, under Cynthia Hartley, the company's new vice president of human resources.

According to the results of a regular internal survey, employee satisfaction and engagement have improved. Sonoco was named one of the top 20 talent-management organizations in the United States by Hewitt Associates in 2005. It was one of only a few midcap companies on the list, which also included 3M, GE, Johnson & Johnson, Dell, and IBM. (Harvard business review -July-Aug 2008).

 2.    Culture.

 According to Martin (1992), the goal of studying organizational culture is to better understand organizational life. Understanding organizational life is critical since it is largely accepted that organizational cultures influence firm performance (Denison,1990; Kotter and Heskett, 1992; Truskie, 1999; Schein, 2004).

According to Boddy (2002), organizational culture has a significant and direct impact on the behavior of an organization's employees. According to Anthony (1994) Culture is an abstract and comprehensive notion that encompasses many features of organizations.

The most effective way to satisfy the desire to bond and instill a strong sense of camaraderie is to foster a culture that values teamwork, collaboration, openness, and friendship. RBS broke through NatWest's silo mentality by bringing people from both companies together to work on well-defined cost-cutting and revenue-growth projects. (Harvard business review-July-Aug 2008).

 

Example

An example for another business with an exemplary culture is the Wegmans supermarket chain, which has appeared for a decade on Fortune ’s list of “100 Best Companies to Work For.” The family that owns the business makes a point of setting a familial tone for the companywide culture. Employees routinely report that management cares about them and that they care about one another, evidence of a sense of teamwork and belonging. (Harvard business review -July-Aug 2008).

 3.    Job design

Job design is the specification of a job's processes, relationships, and contents to fulfill the job holder's organizational, technological, personal, and social needs (Armstrong, 2003). Ali and Aroosiya (2012), outline the functions of task arrangement, responsibilities, and tasks in an institutional work unit.

According to Garg and Renu (2005), the approaching relationship between goals and job planning can occasionally assist in improving performance levels, and job design can improve not just contentment but also performance worth. Designing jobs that are meaningful, interesting, and challenging is the best way to address the desire to comprehend (Harvard business review -July-Aug 2008).

For an example, despite taking a conservative approach to expenses during the NatWest integration, RBS invested heavily in a state-of-the-art business school facility adjacent to its corporate campus, to which employees had access. This move not only advanced the company's success in fulfilling the bonding drive, but it also challenged employees to consider how they could contribute to making a difference for coworkers, customers, and investors. (Harvard business review -July-Aug 2008).

 4.    Performance-management and resource allocation processes

Organizational effectiveness relies heavily on performance management (Cardy, 2004). The performance management process aids them in increasing their performance, and employee satisfaction surveys consistently place performance management as one of the lowest topics (Pulakos, 2009). Many firms have refocused their attention on their performance management systems and explored strategies to increase employee performance as a result of the current issues they face (Buchner, 2007)

According to Verweire and Van Den Berghe (2004), performance management is only useful if all of the system's components are in sync. Increased performance (both task and contextual) might be considered a distal effect of the process, even if it is the ultimate goal of performance management. The cognitive, emotional, and conative outcomes that precede improvements in performance are more proximal results. (Borman and Motowildo 1993)

Processes for performance management and resource allocation that are fair, trustworthy, and transparent help to meet people's desire to defend. Employees may disagree with a given outcome, but they may understand why the choice was made. New technological initiatives are undertaken by teams from various business units that make decisions based on specific criteria, such as the influence on the company's financial success. (July-August 2008, Harvard Business Review).

 

 Example

Aflac, another perennial favorite on Fortune ’s “100 Best Companies to Work For,” exemplifies how to match organizational levers with emotional drives on multiple fronts. (For concrete ways your company can use its motivational levers, see the exhibit “How to Fulfill the Drives That Motivate Employees.”) Stellar individual performance is recognized and rewarded in highly visible ways at Aflac, thereby targeting people’s drive to acquire. (Harvard business review -July-Aug 2008).

That’s a major competitive advantage for a company in terms of employee satisfaction, engagement, commitment, and reluctance to quit. (Harvard business review -July-Aug 2008).

 

For a better understanding, enclosing below 

 

Saurce – Harvard Business Review (2008)

 

Reference

Agustiningsih, H. N., Armanu T., Djumilah H., Noermijati N., (2016). The effect of remuneration, job satisfaction and OCB on the employee performance. Science Journal of Business and Management, 4(6), 212-222.

Ali, H., & Aroosiya, M. (2012). Impact of job design on employees’ performance. Journal of Management, 8(1), 33-41.

Armstrong. K, (2003), ‘Job Analysis and Job Design’, Human Resource and Personal Management, 4th Edition, 93-125, India: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited.

Anthony, P. (1994). Managing Culture. Open University Press.

Boddy, D (2002). Management. 2nd ed. Pearson Education Limited, Essex UK.

Borman, W. C., & Motowildo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71−98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Buchner, T. W. (2007). Performance management theory: A look from the performer's perspective with implications for HRD. Human Resource Development International, 10, 59−73

Cardy, R. L. (2004). Performance management: Concepts, skills, and exercises. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe

Denison, D. (1990). Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness. John Wiley & Sons: New York

Grag, P., & Rastogi, R. (2005). A New Model for Job Design: Motivating employee’s Performance. Journal of Management Development, 25(6), 572–587. 

Gungor, P. (2011). The relationship between reward management system and employee performance with the mediating role of motivation: A quantitative study on Global Banks. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 24, 1510-1520.

Harvard business review (July–august 2008 page 3, Page 4) Employee Motivation A Powerful New Model by Nitin Nohria, Boris Groysberg, and Linda-Eling Lee

Kotter, P., Heskett, L. (1992). Corporate Culture and Performance. New York: Macmillan.

Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in Organizations. Oxford University Press

Pulakos, E. D. (2009). Performance management: A new approach for driving business results. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership. 3rd ed. USA: John Wiley and Sons Inc

Truskie, S. (1999). Leadership in High-performance Organizational Cultures. Quorom Books

VerWeire, K., & Van Den Berghe, L. (2004). Integrated performance management: New hype or new paradigm? In K. Verweire & L. Van Den Berghe (Eds.), Integrated performance management (pp. 1−14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Importance Of Employee Motivation At The Work Place

If employees are treated fairly well but have little favorable attitudes toward their work and are unwilling to go above and beyond for the company, the company has a motivation problem (Herzberg 1976, 94).

A competent manager must understand what inspires people to work hard and how to meet their requirements (Ferguson 1987, 149).

Managers need to comprehend what energizes human behavior, in order to understand how to motivate their employees (Hamner and Organ 1978, 146).

We must recognize that different people expect different things from their jobs, and different leadership styles exist; no single approach of motivation can please everyone (Stanton 1983, 208).

Motivation is important because it directs and intensifies human behavior, (Frymier 1974)

As a result, when people believe in something, they will be tremendously motivated

1.    Their behavior will lead to certain rewards

2.    These rewards are worthwhile and valuable

3.    They are able to perform at a level that will result in the attainment of the rewards

 (Burke 1987, 34).

Our immediate problem will not be a lack of opportunities for the truly motivated, but a lack of motivated people willing and able to seize those opportunities (Rogers and Levey 1987, 10).

As people grow older, respect and self-actualization tend to become increasingly important, according to Hersey (Hersey and Blanchard 1982, 56).

According to Hamner (1978), the energizing force of behavior alters during the course of a person's career, therefore in order to encourage older workers, higher level requirements must be met.

If worker unhappiness is identified as a big issue, the hygiene elements must be addressed; nevertheless, in order to increase performance, the management must address the motivators, which may entail changing the nature of the task to make it more demanding and intrinsically gratifying (Tosi, Rizzo, and Carroll 1986,223).

The elements of an organizational incentive system, such as money, fringe benefits, and promotion, must be desired by the employee; in other words, they must be positively valent in the employee's preference hierarchy. Variances in performance level will result in variations in the amount of award earned, the employee must understand (Hamner and Organ 1978, 146)

Money, as a motivation, is explained by Herzberg as follows: "Salary is widely used as both a motivator and a hygiene because of its widespread character. Although it is largely a hygienic component, it can also operate as a motivator, with dynamics that are comparable to those of accomplishment acknowledgment." (Herzberg, 1976, p. 71)

Hersey said it clearly when he stated, "Management by direction and control may not succeed because it is a questionable method for motivating people whose physio-logical and safety needs are reasonably satisfied and who’s social, esteem, and self-actualization needs are becoming predominant."(Hersey 1982, 48).

Employees must understand that varying levels of performance will result in varying amounts of compensation (Hamner and Organ 1978, 146).

Pay raises, promotions, and fringe perks are examples of extrinsic consequences. Extrinsically motivated employees often feel powerless over their work conduct (Aldag1979, 21).

Pay raises, promotions, and fringe perks are examples of extrinsic consequences. Extrinsically motivated employees often feel powerless over their actions on the job (Aldag1979, 21).

People management comprises two issues: good management of hygienic needs and proper management of motivators, because human beings aim to meet two primary need systems (Herzberg 1976, 84).

Managers must develop innovative strategies to keep their personnel as motivated as possible on a regular basis. Because of the benefits that motivation may provide, it is extremely vital for any firm. (International journal of engineering technology, management and applied sciences November 2014).

 

 

Reference

Aldagi Ramon J.Task Design and Employee Motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1979.

Burke, W. Warner. Organizational Development.  Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1987.

Frymier, Jack R. Motivation and Learning in School. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.1974.

Ferguson, Diane B. Management Styles and Employee Motivation. Edited by R. Wilkins. Vol. II, Administrative Manual. Arlington, VA:  American Association of Blood Banks.1987.

Hamner, W. Clay and D. Organ. Organizational Behavior An A22242cipscholoiroach.Dallas: Business Publ cations.1978.

Hersey, Paul and Ken Blanchard. Management of Organiza-tional Behavior Utilizing Human Resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prent ce-Hall.1982.

Herzberg, Fredrick. Work and The Nature of Man. NewYork: Thomas Y. Crowell Co.1966.

Herzberg, The Managerial Choice, To be efficient and to be Human. Homewood, IL: Dow J3nes-Irwin.1976. 

Herzberg, Frederick; Bernard Mausner; and Barbara Snyderman. The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley, 1959.

International journal of engineering technology, management and applied sciences Vinay Chaitanya Ganta, junior research fellow (ph.d.,) Department of commerce and management studies Andhra university, Visakhapatnam – 530003 November 2014, volume 2 issue 6, Issn 2349-4476

Rogers, Francis G. and Irving N. Levey. 1987.Getting the Best out of Yourself and Others. New York: Harper &Row.

Tosi, Iepry L., John Rizzo, Stephen J. Carroll. Managing Organizational Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.1986.

 

 

Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene (Two-factor) Theory

According to the two-factor motivation theory, there are two sets of mutually exclusive elements that create job satisfaction or dissatisfaction in the workplace (Herzberg, 1966; 1982; 1991; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Herzberg's Two-factor theory, also known as Motivator-Hygiene, arose from a study of accountants and engineers to understand what makes people happy or unhappy at work (Saif et al., 2012).

According to Golshan et al. (2011), It fails to distinguish between physical and psychological components, to explicitly explain what motivators are and how they differ from hygienic considerations, and to convey the degrees of satisfaction and discontent as a metric rather than using numbers.

Frederick Herzberg (1966) provided a further insight into motivation. His original research involves interviewing some 203 accountants and engineers; who were asked to identify those issues in their job that made them feel exceptionally or extremely good or bad. Herzberg was interested in knowing what people want from their jobs. When interpreted, these responses revealed that two different sets of factors affect motivation and work.

Motivators and Hygiene Factors are two sets of factors mentioned by Herzberg in determining an employee's working attitude and level of performance (Robbins, 2009)

                

Herzberg's motivation factors (Ruthankoon 2003).

 1.    Achievement 

If an employee completes a work or project ahead of schedule and     receives excellent feedback, this is an example of positive achievement (Ruthankoon 2003).

2.            Recognition 

Employee satisfaction will rise when they receive the recognition, they deserve for a job well done. It will have the reverse effect if the employee's work is neglected or condemned (Ruthankoon 2003).

 3.             Work Itself 

The content of job tasks in itself can have positive or negative effects on employees. The job’s difficulty and level of engagement can dramatically impact satisfaction or dissatisfaction in the workplace (Alshmemri et al., 2017).

 4.            Responsibility 

The term "responsibility" refers to the individual's responsibilities as well as the authority given to them in their role. When people are given the responsibility and authority to make decisions, they feel fulfilled. A mismatch between responsibility and authority, on the other hand, has a detrimental impact on job satisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

 5.            Advancement 

This relates to the prospect of promotion, which may be expected or unexpected. If an employee is not promoted or demoted as planned, this is an example of negative advancement. (Ruthankoon 2003).

 6.            Possibility of Growth 

Possibilities for growth are similar to Maslow's concept of self-actualization in that they are opportunities for a person to achieve personal growth and advancement at work. Professional development, increasing opportunity to develop new skills and procedures, and gaining professional knowledge can all result from personal growth (Alshmemri et al., 2017, 2017).

 

Herzberg's Hygiene factors

Hygiene factors that do not increase motivation but lead to dissatisfaction if they are not prearranged in an organization (Herzberg et al. 1959).

1.    Company policy

The level of dissatisfaction that an employee feels depends on whether or not the policies in place are good or bad, or whether or not they are fair (Ruthankoon 2003).

2.    Supervision 

This refers to the interactions one has with their bosses, coworkers, and subordinates. Dissatisfaction can also be influenced by how someone thinks about the interactions and debates that take place in the workplace (Ruthankoon 2003).

3.    Salary 

This component is quite straightforward; an increase or decrease in wage or income has a significant impact on employee unhappiness (Ruthankoon 2003).

4.    Relationship with peers 

Even though people try to keep job and personal life distinct, it is unavoidable that one will have an impact on the other (Ruthankoon 2003).

5.    Status and security 

This is a very important factor. Dissatisfaction is linked to a sense of job security within a position or an organization as a whole (Ruthankoon 2003).                              

Example

A research study of attempted to determine the relevance of motivator-hygiene theory of job satisfaction in a sample of industrial salespeople of 82 British firms. The results of the investigation reflected that applicability of Herzberg’s model of job satisfaction is not perfectly applicable to industrial salespersons in Britain. Many study variables like “improve quality of life”, “meet family responsibilities”, both being money related “acknowledgement”, “promotion opportunities” and “job security” were found to be determinants of both motivation and dissatisfaction This led the researchers to express their concern on the existence of the dichotomous nature of the aforementioned job facets Herzberg treated “work itself” as a motivator, but study respondents rated “tasks performed in the job itself” and “job responsibilities” as dissatisfiers. However few study variables including “job status'' and “company policy'' were in line with Herzberg's findings. Many other empirical investigations, presented underneath, revealed mixed findings suggesting Herzberg’s theoretical predictions as highly controversial (World Applied Sciences Journal 24 (8): 1031-1036, 2013)

 

Reference

Alshmemri, M., Shahwan-Akl, L., & Maude, P. (2017). Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Life Science Journal, 14(5), 12-16.

Golshan, N. M., Kaswuri, A.H., Agashahi, B, Amin, M, & Ismail, W.K.W. (2011). Effects of Motivational Factors on Job Satisfaction

Herzberg, Frederick; Mausner, Bernard; Snyderman, Barbara B. (1959): The motivation to work. 2. ed. New York, London: Wiley; Chapman & Hall.

Herzberg, F. I. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man.

Herzberg, F. I. (1982). The managerial choice: To be efficient and to be human (2nd ed., Rev.). Salt Lake City, UT: Olympus.

Herzberg, F. I. (1991). Happiness and unhappiness: A brief autobiography of Frederick I. Herzberg. Unpublished manuscript, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Herzberg, F. I., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.

Robbins, P. S (2009) Organizational Behavior, Dorling Kindersly (India) Pvt. Ltd

Ruthankoon, R., & Ogunlana, S.O. (2003). Testing Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory in the Thai Construction Industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 10(5), 333-342.

Saif, K.F., Nawaz, A., Jan, A. & Khan, M.I. Synthesizing the theories of job-satisfaction across the cultural/attitudinal dimensions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2012,3 (9): 1382-1396

World Applied Sciences Journal 24 (8): 1031-1036, 2013 ISSN 1818-4952 © IDOSI Publications, 2013 Towards Understanding Controversy on Herzberg Theory of Motivation, Dean, Faculty of Economics and Management Sciences. Director, 1 Institute of Business Administration (IBA)/Director General, Gujranwala Campus, University of the Punjab, Lahore (Pakistan) COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT) Lahore Campus, Pakist 

Employee Motivation Theories

Motivation is derived from the Latin word movere, which means "to move" (Kretiner, 1998). Motivation is defined as "those psychological processes that cause the arousal, direction, and persistence of goal-oriented voluntary actions" (Mitchell, 1982, p.81).

According to Robbins (1993), motivation is the "willingness to exert high levels of effort toward organizational goals, conditioned by the effort's ability to satisfy some individual need." In this context, a need is an internal state that makes certain outcomes appear appealing. An unsatisfied need creates tension, which stimulates the individual's drives.

These drives then cause a search behavior to find specific goals that, if achieved, will satisfy the need and lead to a reduction in tension (Robbins, 1993).

Job satisfaction, according to Kumar and Singh (2011, p.12), is determined by the employee's judgment of how well his work delivers the outcomes he wishes, as well as how well expectations are fulfilled or even exceeded.

According to David and Anderzej (2010), motivation can be defined as cognitive decision-making with the intention of initiating and monitoring behavior targeted at reaching a specific objective.

There are three main theory categories, content theories, process theories and contemporary theories (Saif, Nawaz, Jan & Khan, 2012).

Maslow's hierarchy of requirements, Herzberg's motivator-hygiene (or two-factor) theory, Alderfer's Existence, Relatedness, and Growth theory, and McClelland's needs theory are all examples of these theories. (International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development - School of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, P.R. China)

Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Theory

According to Maslow (1943), people, including employees in organizations, are motivated by the desire to achieve or maintain the various conditions upon which these basic satisfactions rest, as well as by certain more intellectual desires.

Humans are a perpetually desirous species. Normally, satisfying these desires is not entirely mutually exclusive, but only tends to be. The average member of society is frequently partially satisfied and partially unsatisfied in all of his or her desires (Maslow, 1943).

According to Smith & Cronje (1992), Maslow's theory is explained based on the notion that people aspire to achieve more in life, and their demands are prioritized according to their importance.

It consists of five types of reasons, with lower-level demands at the bottom that must be met first before higher-level needs may be addressed (Wallace, Goldstein and Nathan 1987, 277).

Maslow's need hierarchy can be used to deduce two fundamental postulates.

They are,

  1.     A satisfied need is not a motivator of behavior

  2.  To the extent that lower-order needs become satisfied

The most powerful determinant of behavior is the next higher-order level of requirements (Hamner and Organ 1978, 139).

The ability of jobs to motivate people is determined by the extent to which they include aspects that meet higher-order human wants (Imel 1982, 3).

The hierarchy of needs is directly tied to a person's level of aspiration (Haimann 1973, 217), the individual method that a person takes to satisfy his requirements will be determined by his or her attitudes (Haimann 1973, 219).

Maslow's hypothesis is widely recognized, according to Ajila (1997) and Kamalanabhan et al. (1999). When making decisions about space, lighting, and overall working conditions, safety in terms of work practices, love in terms of forming cohesive work teams, esteem through responsibility and recognition, and self-actualization in terms of opportunities for creative and challenging jobs/tasks are all taken into account.

                              

                                    
                                                                   FIGURE 1: MASLOW (1943) 

 

Examples

In developing countries, this is especially true. Employees at four Nigerian manufacturing companies ranked meeting lower-order growth demands first, followed by higher-order growth needs (Ajila 1997).

Among bank employees in India, officers attached greater importance to growth needs than did clerks (Rao & Kulkarni 1998).

Another implication was for organizations to implement support programs and focus groups to assist employees in dealing with stress, particularly during more difficult times, and to take the time to understand the needs of the respective employees (Kreitner, 1998).

When the concept of need hierarchy is applied to work organizations, the implications for managerial actions become clear. Managers are responsible for creating an environment in which employees can reach their full potential. Failure to create such an environment would theoretically increase employee frustration, potentially leading to poorer performance, lower job satisfaction, and increased withdrawal from the organization (Steers & Porter, 1983, p.32).

It consists of five types of reasons, with lower-level demands at the bottom that must be met first before higher-level needs may be addressed (Wallace, Goldstein and Nathan 1987, 277).

Maslow (1987) also emphasized that most action is multi-motivated, stating that "any conduct tends to be determined by several or all of the basic wants at the same time, rather than by just one of them"

According to Maslow (1943), Individuals must first satisfy lower-level deficit wants before moving on to higher level growth requirements, he later explained that meeting a need is not a "all-or-nothing" situation, noting that his earlier words may have created "the mistaken impression that a need must be completely met before the next need occurs".

 

Reference

Ajila CO. 1997. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory: applicability to the Nigerian industrial setting. IFE Psychol. 5:162–74

David, A. and Anderzej, A. Organizational Behavior. 7th ed. London: Pearson, 2010.

Haimann, Theo. Supervisory Management For Health Care Institutions. St. Louis: The Catholic Hospital Association. 1973.

Hamner, W. Clay and D. Organ. Organizational Behavior And psychological approach Dallas: Business Publications. 1978.

Imel, Susan. Quality Circles: Implications for Training. Columbus: 1982. ERIC. ED 237 810.

Kamalanabhan TJ, Uma J, Vasanthi M. 1999. A dephi study of motivational profile of scientists in research and development organizations. Psychol. Rep. 85:743–49

Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (1998). Organizational Behavior (4 ed.). Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Kumar, N. & Singh, V., Job satisfaction and its correlates [J]. International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences, 2011,1 (2): 11-24.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 394-395.

Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). Delhi, India: Pearson Education. (1987, p.71).

Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). Delhi, India: Pearson Education (1987, p. 69).

Mitchell, T. R. (1982). Motivation: New Direction for Theory, Research, and Practice. Academy of Management Review, 81.

Reuben M. Badubi, International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development - School of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, P.R. China) Volume 3 Issue 3 August, 2017 Pages 44-51

Rao PUB, Kulkarni AV. 1998. Perceived importance of needs in relation to job level and personality make-up. J. Indian Acad. Appl. Psychol. 24:37–42

Robbins, S. (1993). Organizational Behavior (6 ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Saif, K.F., Nawaz, A., Jan, A. & Khan, M.I. Synthesizing the theories of job-satisfaction across the cultural/attitudinal dimensions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2012,3 (9): 1382-1396.

Smith, P.J., & Cronje, G.J. Management principles. A Contemporary South African edition. Kenwyn: Juta & ltd, 1992.

Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1983b). Motivation and Work Behavior (Third ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Wallace, Patricia, Jeffrey H. Goldstein, Peter Nathan. Introduction to Psychology. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown. 1987.

 

The Four Drives That Encourages Employee Motivation

 According to the Harvard business review (July-Aug 2008), Individual managers must address the four fundamental emotional drives as well as the organization as a whole. Employees may be constrained by organizational norms, but they are astute enough to recognize that their immediate superiors have some leeway. In fact, our research shows that individual managers have as much influence on overall motivation as any organizational policy, as well as the levers managers can use to address them and the "local" strategies that can boost motivation despite organizational constraints.

Because the four drives are hardwired into our brains, the degree to which they are satisfied directly affects our emotions and, by extension, our behavior. Let’s look at how each one operates (Harvard business review, July-Aug 2008).

1.      The drive to acquire 

We are all compelled to obtain scarce goods that enhance our sense of well-being. When this drive is satisfied, we are delighted; when it is not, we are dissatisfied. This phenomenon applies not only to physical goods such as food, clothing, housing, and money, but also to experiences such as travel and entertainment, not to mention events that improve social status such as being promoted and receiving a corner office or a seat on the corporate board. The desire to acquire is both relative (we constantly compare what we have to what others have) and insatiable (we always want more). That explains why people are always concerned not only with their own pay packages, but also with those of others. It also explains why salary caps are difficult to implement. (Harvard business review, July-Aug 2008)

 2.      The drive to bond 

Many animals form attachments to their parents, kinship group, or tribe, but only humans extend that bond to larger collectives such as organizations, associations, and nations. When the desire to bond is satisfied, it is associated with strong positive emotions such as love and caring, and when it is not, it is associated with negative emotions such as loneliness and anomie. At work, the desire to bond accounts for both the enormous boost in motivation that occurs when employees feel proud to be a part of the organization and the loss of morale that occurs when the institution betrays them. 

It also explains why employees struggle to break free from divisional or functional silos: People form attachments to their immediate cohorts. However, the ability to form attachments to larger collectives can lead to employees caring more about the organization than their local group within it. (Harvard business review, July-Aug 2008). 

 3.      The drive to comprehend 

We want to make sense of the world around us, to develop scientific, religious, and cultural theories and accounts that make events understandable and suggest reasonable actions and responses. We are frustrated when things don't make sense, and we are usually energized by the challenge of figuring out answers. The desire to make a meaningful contribution in the workplace is accounted for by the drive to comprehend. Employees are motivated by jobs that challenge them and allow them to grow and learn, while those that appear monotonous or lead to a dead end demotivate them. Talented employees who feel trapped often leave their companies in search of new challenges. (Harvard business review, July-Aug 2008)

 4.      The drive to defend 

We all have a natural instinct to defend ourselves, our property and accomplishments, our family and friends, and our ideas and beliefs against external threats. This drive is based on the basic fight-or-flight response shared by all animals. It manifests itself in humans not only as aggressive or defensive behavior, but also as a desire to establish institutions that promote justice, have clear goals and intentions, and allow people to express their ideas and opinions. Fulfilling the desire to defend produces feelings of security and confidence, failing to do so produces strong negative emotions such as fear and resentment. (Harvard business review, July-Aug 2008)

The desire to defend reveals a lot about people's resistance to change, it's one reason why employees can be devastated by the prospect of a merger or acquisition an especially significant change even if the deal represents the organization's only hope for survival. So, for example, you could be told one day that you're a high performer and essential to the company's success, and the next that you're being let go due to a restructuring a direct challenge, in its arbitrary nature, to your drive to defend. It's no surprise that headhunters frequently target employees during such transitions, knowing that employees are vulnerable and at the mercy of managers who appear to make arbitrary personnel decisions. (Harvard business review, July-Aug 2008)

Each of the four drives we've discussed operates independently; they cannot be ordered hierarchically or substituted for one another. You can't just pay your employees well and expect them to be enthusiastic about their work in an organization where bonding isn't encouraged, work seems meaningless, and people feel defenseless. (Harvard business review, July-Aug 2008)

It is also insufficient to help people bond as a tight-knit team when they are underpaid or working in deathly boring jobs. You can certainly get people to work under such conditions; they may need the money or have no other current prospects; however, you will not get the most out of them, and you risk losing them entirely if a better offer comes along. To fully motivate your employees, you must address all four motivational factors. (Harvard business review, July-Aug 2008)

 

Reference

Employee Motivation: Harvard business review July–august 2008 page 3, Page 4  

Nitin Nohria (nnohria@hbs.edu) is the Richard P. Chapman Professor of Business Administration 

Boris Groysberg (bgroysberg@hbs.edu) is an associate professor, at Harvard Business School in Boston.  

Linda-Eling Lee (llee@hbs.edu) is a research director at the Center for Research on Corporate Performance in Cambridge, Massachusetts.