Abraham Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Theory Of Motivation
Abraham Maslow in his Classical paper “The Theory of Human Motivation published in 1943, outlined an overall theory of motivation. He analysed the relationship between human beings and organisations from the standpoint of human needs’.
Human beings become members of organisations to fulfil their needs. These needs arise in several areas. Fulfilment of these needs motivates human beings to a higher level of performance. Non-fulfilment of needs will harm the motivation of individuals to contribute to the organisation and realise the organisational objectives.
Maslow postulated that the motivational needs of an individual are structured in a hierarchy of prepotency and probability of appearance. All these needs can be arranged in a five-level triangle as given in the figure :
- Self Actualisation
- Esteem needs
- Social needs
- Safety needs
- Physiological needs
1. Physiological needs
Physiological needs are the biological needs required to preserve human life; these needs include needs for food, clothing and shelter. These needs must be met at least partly before higher-level needs emerge. They exert a tremendous influence on behaviour. They are the most powerful of motivating stimuli, for we must satisfy most of them to exist (survive). These take precedence over other needs when thwarted. As pointed out by Maslow, man lives by bread alone, when there is no bread. Physiological needs dominate when all needs are unsatisfied. Physiological needs have certain features in common:
They are relatively independent of each other. In many cases, they can be identified with a particular organ in the body (hunger stomach etc.)
Physiological needs are essentially finite. An individual demands only a particular amount of these needs. After reasonable gratification, they are no longer demanded and hence not motivational. They must be met repeatedly within relatively short time periods to remain fulfilled. Satisfaction of physiological needs is usually associated not with money itself but with what it can buy. The value of money diminishes as one goes up the hierarchy.
2. Safety needs
Once physiological needs become relatively well gratified, the safety needs begin to manifest themselves and dominate human behaviour. These include M Protection from physiological dangers (fire, accident). Economic security (fringe benefits, health, insurance programmes). The desire for an orderly, predictable environment; and The desire to know the limits of acceptable behaviour.
Maslow stressed emotional as well as physical safety. Thus, these needs are concerned with protection from hazards of life; from danger, deprivation and threat. Safety needs are primarily satisfied through economic behaviour. Organizations can influence these security needs either positively through pension schemes, insurance plans-or negatively by arousing fears of being fired or laid off. Safety needs too, are motivational only if they are unsatisfied. They have finite limits.
3. Higher-order needs
After the lower order needs have been satisfied, the social or love needs become important motivators of behaviour. Man is a gregarious being and he wants to belong, to associate, to gain acceptance from associates, to give and receive friendship and affection. Social needs tend to be stronger for some people than for other · and stronger in certain situations. Social needs have certain features in common.
They provide meaning to work life. Individuals are not treated as glorified machine tools in the production process. People congregate because of mutual feelings of being beaten by the system. Social needs are regarded as secondary because they are not essential to preserve human life. They are nebulous because they represent the needs of the mind and spirit, rather than of the physical body.
Social needs are substantially infinite. Social needs are primarily satisfied through the symbolic behaviour of psychic and social content.
4. The Esteem Needs
Esteem needs are two-fold in nature. Self-esteem needs include those for self-confidence, achievement, competence, self-respect, knowledge and independence and freedom. The second group of esteem needs are those that are related to one’s reputation needs for status, recognition, appreciation and the deserved respect of one’s fellows/associates. Esteem needs have certain features in common. They do not become motivators’ until lower-level needs are reasonably satisfied.
These needs are insatiable; unlike lower-order needs, these needs are rarely satisfied. “Satisfaction of esteem needs, produces feelings of self-confidence, worth, strength, capability and adequacy, of being useful and necessary in the world’. Thwarting them results in feelings of inferiority, weakness and helplessness, The satisfaction of esteem needs is not always obtained through mature or adaptive behaviour. It is sometimes generated by irresponsible actions, The modern organisation offers few opportunities for the satisfaction of these needs to people at lower levels in the hierarchy,
5. The Self-Actualization needs
These are the needs for realizing one’s own potentialities for continued self-development, for being creative in the broadest sense of that term. Self-actualization is the desire to become what one is capable of becoming.
The specific form that these needs take will vary greatly from person to person. In one person it may be expressed materially, in still another, aesthetically. Self-realization is not necessarily a creative urge. It does not mean that one must always create poems, novels, paintings and experiments. In a broad sense, it means creativeness in realizing to the fullest one’s own capabilities; whatever they may be. The way self-actualization is expressed can change over the life cycle. For example, John Borg, Rod Laver, switched over to coaching after excelling in their respective fields. These needs are continuously motivational, for example scaling mountains, winning titles in fields like tennis, cricket, hockey etc. The need for self-realization is quite distinctive and does not end in satisfaction in the usual sense.
These needs are psychological in nature and are substantially infinite. The conditions of modern life give only limited opportunity for these needs to obtain expression.
Criticism Of Need Hierarchy Theory
Although of great societal popularity, need hierarchy as a theory continues to receive little empirical support: The available research certainly generates a reluctance to accept the implications of Maslow’s theory unconditionally :
1. Theoretical difficulties
The need hierarchy theory is almost non-testable. It defies empirical testing, and it is difficult to interprét and operationalize its concepts.
2. Research methodology
Maslow’s model is based on a relatively small sample of subjects. It is a clinically derived theory and its unit of analysis is the individual. Maslow, recognizing these limitations, presented the model “with apologies to those who insist on conventional reliability, validity, sampling etc’.
3. Superfluous classification scheme
The need classification scheme is somewhat artificial and arbitrary. Needs cannot be classified into neat watertight compartments or a neat five-step hierarchy. The model is based more on wishes of what man should be than what he actually is.
4. Chain of causation in the hierarchy
There is no definite evidence that once a need has been gratified, its strength diminishes. It is also doubtful whether the gratification of one need automatically activates the next need in the hierarchy.
5. Needs-crucial determinants of behaviour
The assumption that needs are the crucial determinants of behaviour is also open to doubt. Behaviour is influenced by innumerable factors (not necessarily by needs alone). Moreover, there is ample evidence to show that people seek objects and engage in behaviour that is in no way connected to the gratification of needs.
Individual differences: Individuals differ in the relative intensify of their various needs. Some individuals are strongly influenced by love needs despite having a flourishing social life and satisfying family life; some individuals have a great and continued need for security despite continued employment with enormous fringe benefits.
Evaluation Of Need Hierarchy Theory
Maslow’s model should be viewed at best as a general description of the average individual at a specific point in time; it must be viewed as a general theoretical statement, rather than an abstraction from field research. Even in its awkward form, the model seems to apply to underdeveloped countries. A survey of 200 factory workers in India points out that they give top priority to lower-level needs. According to other studies, the model seems to apply to managers and professional employees in developed countries like U.K., USA.
The need priority model is useful because of its rich and comprehensive view of needs. The theory is still relevant because needs no matter how they are classified, are important for understanding behaviour. It is simple to understand that it has a common-sense appeal for managers. It has been widely accepted-often uncritically, because of its immense intuitive appeal only. It has survived, obviously more because of its aesthetics than because of its scientific validity.
Fredrick Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory
Frederick Herzberg is a distinguished Professor of Management at the University of Utah. After training as a psychologist he studied industrial mental health, For many years he has been conducting a programme of research and application on human motivation in the work situation and its effects on the individual’s job satisfaction and mental health.
While Maslow propounded a theory of intrinsic motivation Frederick Herzberg extended the work of Maslow and developed a theory of external motivation’, where he holds the manager responsible for employee motivation.
Herzberg theory of motivation can be better understood by analysing the following concepts :
- Herzberg’s criticism of the Classical Theory of Motivation.
- The Two Factor Theory (Hygiene-Motivation or Maintenance Motivation theory).
- Job enrichment.
Critique Of The Classical Theory
Herzberg vehemently criticised the classical theory of motivation which implies the “Carrot and Stick Policy”,
He opined that the traditional concept of motivation proposed the direct action manager who believes in the policy that “the surest and least circumlocuted ways of getting someone to do something is to kick him in the pants—give him what might be called as the Kita”. He identifies various forms of Kita namely
1. Negative Psychological Kita: This relates to the use of psychological force to get things done.
2. Negative Physical Kita: This relates to the use of actual physical force to get things done. Herzberg feels that Negative Kita with its emphasis on the ‘stick’ does not lead to motivation but ‘movement’. Having realised these managers have started using what he calls as “Positive Kita’.
Kita’ can be identified with the ‘Carrot’ in the ‘Carrot and Stick’ policy. It implies getting things done by offering rewards and incentives in the form of more status and promotions etc. Herzberg criticises the use of both Negative Kita and Positive Kita and postulates that the use of both leads only to short term results and not long term motivation. While highlighting the limitations of the industrial theory of motivation, Herzberg has proposed an alternative theory which is widely known today as the ‘Two Factor Theory.
The Two Factor Theory
Herzberg and his colleagues surveyed two hundred engineers and accountants representing a cross-section of a Pittsburg industry. These men were asked to remember times when they felt exceptionally good about their jobs, the investigators probed for the reasons why they felt as they did, asking for a description of the sequence of events that gave that Teeming. The questions were then repeated for sequences of events that made them feel exceptionally bad about their jobs. The responses were then classified to determine what type of events led to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction.
In analysing the data from these interviews, Herzberg concluded that people have two different categories of needs that are essentially independent of each other and affect behaviour in different ways. He classified these needs into :
Adam (Animal) Needs :
These are the set of needs stemming from man’s overriding need to avoid physical and social deprivation. Using a biblical analogy Herzberg relates these to Adam’ conception of the nature of man. when Adam was expelled from the ‘garden of Eden he was immediately faced with the task of satisfying the needs which stem from his animal nature; viz. the needs for food, warmth, avoidance of pain, safety, security, belongingness etc. These factors have been labelled as ‘Hygiene’ factors by Herzberg. Hygiene factors as stated in the above context represent the need to avoid pain from the environment. They are not an intrinsic part of the job but they are related to the context under which a job is performed. They are associated with negative feelings and are environment’ related factors. They must be viewed as preventive measures that remove sources of dissatisfaction from the environment. Like physical hygiene, they do not lead to growth but only prevent deterioration. Herzberg believes that hygiene factors create a zero level of motivation but they have to be maintained at the proper level to prevent negative motivation. Hence he has also called these hygiene factors ‘maintenance’ factors. The presence of these prevents dissatisfaction but does not lead to satisfaction.
Abraham (Human) Needs :
These are the factors associated with job satisfaction and are those that stem from man’s needs to relate his human potential for perfection. In biblical terms this is the “Abraham’ conception of the nature of man, Abraham was created in the image of God was capable of great accomplishments, of development, of growth, of transcending his environmental limitations, of self-realisation etc. According to Herzberg, it is the satisfaction on these needs that motivates a person and Herzberg has rightly labelled them as motivators.
Motivators are associated with positive feelings of the employees about the job. related to the content of the job. They make people satisfied with their job.
Hygiene (Maintenance) Factors and Motivational Factors in Organisations:
Herzberg two factor theory identified five strong determinants of job satisfaction and five of job dissatisfaction which is presented in the following chart:
Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Job Dissatisfaction:
Herzberg postulates a drastically opposite view of the traditional view of the relationship between satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Traditionally ‘satisfaction’ and `dissatisfaction’ have been viewed as opposite ends of a single continuum i.e. when certain factors like good pay, the opportunity for growth, healthy working environment are present in the job the employee will be satisfied. When they are absent’ he is dissatisfied’. Thus traditionally the absence of dissatisfaction is satisfaction and vice versa.
Herzberg’s findings undertake that dissatisfaction is not simply the opposite of satisfaction. Using the motivation Hygiene approach we can say the presence of ‘Hygiene’ factors like salary, supervision and working conditions will only lead to the absence of dissatisfaction but will not to satisfaction. Similarly, the absence of achievement, recognition and other motivators will only lead to the absence of satisfaction’ but will not lead to dissatisfaction. DO
Thus according to Herzberg job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are independent dimensions and are not two opposite poles on the same continuum. Satisfaction is affected by motivators and dissatisfaction by hygiene factors.
In summary, we can conclude that the factors involved in producing job dissatisfaction are separate and distinct from the factors that lead to job satisfaction. Thus the opposite of job satisfaction would not be job dissatisfaction but rather ‘no job satisfaction’ similarly the opposite of job dissatisfaction is ‘no job satisfaction’ not satisfaction’ with one’s job. Job satisfaction is thus made up of two unipolar traits.
To explain the above concept Herzberg traces an analogy to human ‘vision’ and ‘hearing’. To quote Herzberg “job satisfaction is vision and job dissatisfaction is hearing”. From the above statement, it can be readily seen that we are dealing with two separate dimensions. The stimulus for ‘vision’ is “light’ and increasing and decreasing light shall not affect man’s hearing, A stimulus for ‘audition’ is ‘sound’ and similarly, increasing or decreasing sound, will not affect vision.
Administrative Implications Of Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory
The Concept Of Job Enrichment
After analysing the different factors Herzberg gives a solution to administrators on motivating their employees. Herzberg criticises the traditional job enlargement and job rotation concepts that were practised by administrators. He feels that a mere change like the job or rotation within similar jobs does not lead to motivation. Herzberg postulates the concept of job enrichment to motivate the employees.
Job enrichment according to Herzberg is deliberate upgrading of responsibility, scope and challenges in work. This he calls “vertical job loading’ where the opportunities for achievement, responsibility, recognition, growth and learning are interwoven into the job.
Job enrichment implies looking for ways of removing some controls while retaining or increasing an individuals accountability for his own work; giving a person a complete natural unit of work; granting additional authority to an employee in his job; increasing job freedom; making reports directly available to the man himself rather than to the supervisor; introducing new and more difficult tasks not previously undertaken etc.
Thus according to Herzberg, Job Enrichment can be achieved by increasing maintenance factors (or at least keeping them constant at the required levels) and at the same time increasing the motivators. To quote Herzberg “For management the challenge is task organisation, to call out the motivators, and task support to provide adequate conditions, etc., thus satisfying both the Adam and the Abraham natures of man in work.
Criticism Of Herzberg’s Theory
Herzberg’s theory has been as controversial as it has been influential. The major limitations are :
1. Limitations of Research Methodology
Herzberg’s model has been criticised as a method be bound’. The theory has been attacked because it is limited by the critical incident method’ which takes into consideration only the extremely satisfying and dissatisfying job experiences
2. Lacks Objectivity
Herzberg’s methodology has been criticised as a subjective methodology that has an inbuilt scope for bias. Critiques have opined that using the critical incident BME 2 method may cause people to recall only recent experiences. Moreover, when the researcher aims to evaluate the responses himself there is a large scope for subjectivity.
3. Limited Applicability
Empirical evidence has shown that the theory is most applicable to the higher-level workers i.e., managers, accountants, engineers, Studies of manual workers are less supportive of the theory. Herzberg study hence is not regarded as representative of the workforce in general.
4. Mis-interpretation of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction
The theory has been criticised for dot having focussed too much attention on satisfaction and dissatisfaction rather than on the performance level of the subordinates. Empirical evidence has shown that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are two opposite poles of the same continuum. Individuals on the job are affected by any change either in the job context or in the content.
Summing Up
Despite these criticisms, Herzberg’s two-factor theory has made a significant contribution towards enhancing the administrator’s basic understanding of human behaviour. He advanced a theory that was simple to grasp based on the same ’empirical data and equally significant — he offers specific action recommendations for administrators to improve employee motivational levels. He drew the attention of practising administrators to the much-neglected job content’ factors.