Few psychological theories are as integrated into popular culture as the theories behind the concept of motivation. Put simply, Motivation is the driving force behind the actions of a person, it is a considerable factor and determinant of a persons behaviour and is highly variable from person to person. Motivational theories can be utilised to categorise and analyse common motivators and as such provide a useful basis for management to optimise their workforce, maximising employee efficiency, persistence and dedication through the careful stimulation of their motives; By offering incentives which appeal to employee motives, the behaviour of an employee can be influenced by management, therefore, the study of motivational psychology, especially by corporations is imperative. Management must attain a comprehensive understanding of motivation in order to have a truly efficient and productive workforce. They must recognise that it is not the sole determinant of performance, and also recognise that financial gain is not the sole motivating factor of an employee. In this essay I hope to evaluate both Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Herzberg’s Theory of Motivation through evidence of their efficacy in real workplace scenarios, investigative studies and through a critical analysis of the theories themselves.
(Maslow, 1943) hypothesised that human needs could be broken into a ladder consisting of a series of five categories which managers could utilise to motivate their employees. Physiological needs occupy the first and lowest rung, the most basic of human needs, consisting of housing, clothing and adequate food and water. The second rung is comprised of security needs, these include the needs for social security, freedom from fear and predictability. On the third rung there are love and belonging needs, the desire to give and receive affection, love and friendship. The fourth rung in Maslow’s hierarchy holds esteem needs, this is the desire to attain recognition, respect, prestige and to enjoy general esteem from others. On the fifth and final rung there is the need for self-actualisation, the realisation of ones full potential. Maslow argued that in order for an employee to progress up this ladder and reach ones full potential, the need on the previous rung must be satisfied, at which point the subsequent need becomes the primary motivator.
While Maslow’s theory is compelling initially, further research has led to me to realise that while it provides an intuitive framework for managers to work within, it fails to consider the scope of human experience and the dynamic nature of needs, both of which have a bearing on an individuals motives. Maslow’s theory assumes all human needs follow the same order of importance, and that humans pursue these needs sequentially instead of simultaneously. In her study of Maslow’s Need Hierarchy with Three Social Class Groups (Gratton, 1980) explores the consequences of this assumption. She emphasises Malsow’s oversight of “the interaction between satisfaction and frustration of the needs, and the evolution of such needs from the individual's environment and psychological characteristics”. Her study emphasises the importance of an individuals past and current environment as a determining factor of their motives and goals, for example an individual who grew up isolated and neglected, is more likely to be motivated by the promise of fulfilling relationships than by the promise of status and prestige or self-actualisation, despite the latter needs being ranked of a higher importance by Maslow. Similarly, in a study carried out by (Tay and Diener, 2011) it was noticed that while numerous people across many regions had satisfied their love and belonging needs only a fraction of these had satisfied their physiological and security needs, a situation which deviates completely from Maslow’s hierarchical order. While Maslow’s theory is clearly flawed, it is not without it’s merits. In Tay and Diener’s study, data from 60,000 people, spanning 123 countries was analysed and it was found that of the people surveyed, 80% identified their well-being as dependent on the fulfilment of the needs outlined by Maslow. I believe that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs can be of great utility to corporate management if it is applied prudently. Through these studies I have come to realise that Maslow has identified what motivates people, and in turn what incentivises people to work, however, Maslow’s theory also perpetuates the idea that needs operate independently of one another in a hierarchical order. If a manager were to follow Maslow’s Hierarchy implicitly, they would neglect all but a single one of their employees’ needs, which I believe would be detrimental to their motivation. I believe that by attending to as many of the needs outlined by Maslow as possible, simultaneously, a manager can efficiently motivate their workforce.
The motivational theory (Herzberg, 1966) proposed follows the same core anatomy as Maslow’s, the notion that people have both higher and lower order needs and that simply satisfying basic needs will not be sufficient in motivating a workforce. Herzberg postulated that employee needs could be categorised into two sets of factors: hygiene factors and motivation factors. Hygiene factors are comprised of factors relating to the work environment, for example: working conditions, company policies, supervisor quality and salary. Herzberg argues that the satisfaction of these needs will reduce an employees dissatisfaction however it will not contribute towards an employees job satisfaction as that is determined by the “motivation factors”. Motivation factors relate to the nature of the work itself, for example if an employee feels the work they do is meaningful, that they are recognised for their role in the company, and that there are opportunities to advance to higher positions within the company, their job satisfaction will rise, and thus their motivation will increase (Chanmugham, 2016). A key principle of Herzbergs Theory is that satisfaction and dissatisfaction need not be bound by one another, that an increase in satisfaction won’t necessarily lead to a decrease in dissatisfaction.
While Herzberg’s theory of motivation is theoretically quite plausible it’s functionality in practice is somewhat questionable. (Bellott and Tutor, 1990) as cited by (Gawal, 2008) conducted a practical assessment of Herzberg’s theory of motivation which yielded interesting results. Their study utilised data gathered by (Tutor, 1986) on the Tennessee Career Ladder Program, which surveyed 30,000 teachers. Among numerous other questions the survey asked “To what extent did salary influence your decision to participate in the program?’. Teachers could respond using a scale of 1 to 7 to indicate the degree to which an increase in salary affected their decision. The results were indicative that teachers found salary to be a strong motivator, in fact salary was found to be the strongest influencing factor on the teachers’ decision to participate! Furthermore, the study found that teachers believed the amount by which their salary increased to be linked to the level of their achievement.
In conclusion, both Maslow and Herzberg bring unique perspectives to the table, on the notion that motivation is driven by the fulfilment of not only our most essential human needs, but also the more complex needs we all possess, the needs which are fundamental to our satisfaction with our work and our lives. Where I notice Herzberg differs to Maslow is in his belief that it is only the satisfaction of higher order needs that drives motivation and that the satisfaction of lower order needs merely reduces dissatisfaction. Maslow on the other hand, believed higher & lower order human needs formed a continuum, that the promise to satisfy all and any needs contributes to an employees motivation. From my studies I have come to realise that both of these theories contain significant flaws and cannot be solely relied upon to motivate a workforce, however that is not to say that they don’t provide an intuitive framework from which management can develop their motivational strategy.
My studies of these theories have proven enlightening, especially with regards to what is motivating me and my studies in university. University is a dramatic change from secondary school and in my few weeks in 3rd level education I have come to realise how integral self-motivation is to my success here. Since my childhood I’ve maintained a very abstract visualisation of my future, I never knew what I wanted to become or what my role in the world was. Resultantly I’ve always sought to play to my strengths and to keep my options open and this is largely why I decided to study International Business & Spanish. So now that I’m here, what’s motivating me? Prior to this essay I would’ve been insistent that financial abundance and a prosperous career were the major forces behind my motivation. Now my perspective has changed. Herzberg’s ‘Motivator’ factors in particular have re-introduced the importance of recognition, achievement and pride in ones work to me. While I still seek to earn a comfortable living I have been reminded financial incentive alone will not bring me fulfilment nor lead me to a promising career. I’ve realised that my main motivators are to achieve, receive recognition and to excel in everything I apply myself to, and that is exactly what I am striving to do here in DCU. Perhaps to this extent I am motivated by my “esteem needs” or indeed my “self-actualisation needs”? While I can’t apply either of the two motivational theories I’ve studied to my own life in their entirety, elements of both pervade it. For example, I am largely following the hierarchy of needs set out by Maslow. However the fulfilment of my lower order needs simply makes my university life more tolerable, it doesn’t empower me to work harder. In this regard my experiences are aligned with Herzberg’s Theory that hygiene factors do not motivate. To this end I’ve realised just how indefinite and fluid the nature of motivation is, and how futile it is to attempt to apply a single theory to the incomprehensibly diverse collection of people that compose the modern workforce. However I do find it fascinating how both of these theories attempt to make sense of human nature and the internal factors that play a part in every decision we make.