Comparing and Contrasting Maslow and Hertzberg Motivation Theories - Case Study Example

Maslow and Hertzberg Motivational Theories Name & ID Course Name & Code Instructor’s Name 26th March 2010 Introduction The activation or energisation of goal oriented behaviour or willingness to exert effort is referred to as motivation (Gallagher & Einhorn, 1976). It can be either intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation comes from within the individual; it has been found that intrinsic motivation is usually associated with high educational achievements and enjoyment by students (Lepper, Green, and Nisbett, 1973). Extrinsic motivation on the other hand comes from without, and is usually associated with environmental factors, for example, money and coercion are extrinsic motivations. There are several motivation theories some of which includes Maslow, Erg, Hertzberg and McClelland motivation theory. Thus, the aim of this paper is comparing and contrasting Maslow and Hertzberg motivation theories highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, the paper views the relevance of these theories from the perspective of managers (Gallagher & Einhorn, 1976). Maslow motivational theory Abraham Maslow postulated Maslow theory. In his theory, Maslow postulated a hierarchy of needs within people in which behaviour is determined by the lowest unmet need. Physiological needs such as hunger, sleep and sex are the first or lowest in the Maslow motivational hierarchy (Lepper, Green, and Nisbett, 1973). These needs if left unattended to, will dominate and direct behaviour in effort to reduce the internal discomfort. Security or safety is second in command after physiological needs in the Maslow motivational theory. Once the physiological needs are satisfied security needs dominates determination of people’s behaviour (Buhler). The need of predictable future with familiar events being more frequent in comparison to unfamiliar ones is the driving force behind the need for security. Personal security, financial security, health, well-being, safety net against accidents/illness, and their adverse impacts are the safety and security needs. In the third place according to Maslow theory, is the need for love and sense of belonging. Once security is achieved, affection and meaningful interpersonal relationship is sought. This involves emotional based relationships such as friendship, intimacy and family. This may come from a large social group or a small social connection. Large social groups may include among others clubs, office culture and religious groups (Gallagher & Einhorn, 1976). Small social connections include family members, mentors and intimate partners. At this stage of hierarchy, humans seek to love and to be loved either sexually or non-sexually by others. Lack of these may result in behaviours such as loneliness, social anxiety and clinical depression. The need of control and belonging can often overcome physiological and security needs (Halepola, 2005). In the fourth hierarchy is the need for self-esteem in the Maslow theory of motivation. This involves the need to be respected and to have self-esteem and self-respect. It is also referred to as belonging need. There are two types of esteem needs. First is the striving for regard from others. This may be in the form of prestige or recognition and status. The second type of esteem is the desire for mastery and competence for independence (Gallagher & Einhorn, 1976). At the pinnacle of Maslow theory, is the self-actualization need. People spend their lives trying to reach self-actualization stage. It includes those impulses that direct a mature, well-ordered personality (Deci, 1972). Self-actualization personality is motivated by the desire to become more and more what one is and to become everything that one is capable of becoming. Self-actualization components are not deficit needs but are growth needs. Self-actualized people tend to see human nature in all good and evil without the distortion from false social norms. They are usually good and lusty at the same time. They tend to enjoy their life fully without regretting. Thus, self-actualization is characterized by morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, and lack of prejudice and acceptance of facts, as they are (Gallagher & Einhorn, 1976). Hertzberg’s motivational theory Hertzberg motivation theory is a two-factor theory, which was proposed by Fredrick Hertzberg. It is also known as the motivator-hygiene theory. In his theory, Hertzberg proposed that the opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction and the opposite of satisfaction is no satisfaction (Gallagher & Einhorn, 1976). Therefore, he proposed that to move people from dissatisfaction to satisfaction requires motivator (job enrichment factor) and hygiene (de-motivation) factors. Hygienes are factors, which are external to work itself while motivators are factors, which are intrinsic to work. Motivators include factors such as increased autonomy or responsibility such as achievement, recognition, responsibility, freedom, and advancement. For instance, if an employee is given a difficult task and requested to do it in his or her on way, this creates confidence (Gallagher & Einhorn, 1976). In case such an employee is rewarded for instance through recognition he or she will be willing to take such tasks in the future and to try his or her best to accomplish them. Hygienes include physical work conditions such as policies, administrative efficiency, style of supervision, and relationship between employees. These factors are demotivators to employees. For instance, an employee who has made certain achievements, but is not recognized, for example in form of pay rise or recognition, will not be willing to take another task enthusiastically. Thus, these factors have negative impact on employees’ motivation (Deci, 1972). Hertzberg’s theory is very essential in construction management toward identification and fixing dissatisfies, which can derail the growth of an organization (Lepper, Green, and Nisbett, 1973). Application of this theory can help management create conducive environment for introducing motivation-maintenance as a mechanism for achieving the goals of an organization’s by providing opportunities for employees to achieve personal goal (Gallagher & Einhorn, 1976). Comparison and contrast of Maslow and Hertzberg’s motivational theory Pleasure from successful achievement, the exercise of personal skill and the acceptance of responsibility fulfils the self-esteem and actualization needs in Maslow. These are similar to motivator factors such as achievement, recognition, responsibility, freedom, and advancement highlighted by Hertzberg’s theory. In both theories these factors results in increased productivity. Both theories give much emphasis on the need for intrinsic rewarding of employees for the good work done independently. Unlike Hertzberg’s theory which has only two factors: motivators and hygiene’s factors, Maslow has five levels of needs: physiological, safety, social, esteem ant self-actualization. Self-actualization need is arguably difficult to measure as opposed to the two factors proposed by Hertzberg. Unlike Hertzberg’s theory, which has no order of meeting the needs, Maslow emphasise orderly satisfaction of needs, which raises questions to whether, this should be the case. In addition, Hertzberg’s theory is based on empirical evidence while Maslow has little if any empirical support. It is possible to challenge an employee to perform a certain task autonomously and measure the outcome of this challenge, but it is very difficult to measure whether an employee is being motivated to work for any of the five needs outlined in Maslow. As opposed to Hertzberg’s theory, which is truly motivational theory, Maslow is more descriptive of life than theory of motivation in the workplace. For instance, Hertzberg highlights the need for motivation while Maslow concentrates on the stages of needs of the employee. Maslow does not clearly indicate the role of the employer in motivation of the employee (Gallagher & Einhorn, 1976). Maslow theory is mainly intrinsic motivation while Hertzberg’s theory has both intrinsic and extrinsic factors in place. For instance, it takes self-effort for one to reach self-actualization level in the Maslow theory (Lepper, Green, and Nisbett, 1973). However, in Hertzberg’s theory both self-effort and the effort of the managers are required. Maslow theory has very little industrial applicability since it lacks sufficient specificity to guide behaviour while Hertzberg’s theory has strong industrial applicability since it provides a rational basis for why people expend effort, although not all behaviour is as consciously determined as postulated (Gallagher & Einhorn, 1976). Ability of Maslow and Hertzberg’s motivational theory to appeal to managers Managers are likely to adopt Maslow theory in jobs, which require no academic skills. This is because the drive to satisfy physiological needs may motivate workers to do more for less pay. Managers are less likely to use Hertzberg’s theory in such situations because fewer skills are required (Lepper, Green, and Nisbett, 1973). In challenging jobs, which require more of academic skills, managers are likely to use Hertzberg’s theory. This could be done by challenging the employee to perform a certain difficult job autonomously with a small such as recognition. This makes the job attractive to the employee and ensures high output. Maslow theory may be applied here in case the employee has satisfied the four levels and is striving to reach self-actualization (Gallagher & Einhorn, 1976). In start up companies, which have fewer resources, managers may use Hertzberg’s theory through recognition of hard working employees. This encourages employees to stick to in the company for advancement of work force. Generally, motivation is the urge that forces employees towards certain direction. Numerous motivational theories exist that try to explore motivation, and it includes Maslow theory, and Hertzberg’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory. These theories come with different philosophies and ideologies that make them differ; however, the main aim of motivational theories from the view of managers is to ensure optimisation of human resource skills. References Buhler, P.M. Managing in the new millennium: understanding the manager’s motivational tool bag. pp. 20-22. Deci, E., 1972. Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 22, 1, pp. 113–120. Gallagher, W. E. &Einhorn, H. J. 1976. Motivation theory and job design. Journal of Business, 49, 3, pp. 358-373 Halepota, H. A., 2005., Motivational theories and their application in construction. Cost Engineering, 47, 3, pp. 14-18. Lepper, M. R., Greene, D. & Nisbett, R. E., 1973. Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: A test of the over justification hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 1, pp. 129-137. Wilkinson, H. E., Orth, C. D., & Benfi, R. C. 2001. Motivation theories: an integrated operational model. Sam Advanced Management Journal. pp. 24-31. Read More