The two-factor theory (also known as Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory) states that there

are certain factors in the workplace that cause job satisfaction, while a separate set of factors
cause dissatisfaction. It was developed by Frederick Herzberg, a psychologist, who theorized that
job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction act independently of each other.[1]

Contents
[hide]
 1 Two-factor theory fundamentals
 2 Validity and criticisms
 3 Implications for management
 4 References
 5 Further reading

 6 External links

[edit] Two-factor theory fundamentals

Attitudes and their connection with industrial mental health are related to Maslow's theory of
motivation. His findings have had a considerable theoretical, as well as a practical, influence on
attitudes toward administration[2]. According to Herzberg, individuals are not content with the
satisfaction of lower-order needs at work, for example, those associated with minimum salary
levels or safe and pleasant working conditions. Rather, individuals look for the gratification of
higher-level psychological needs having to do with achievement, recognition, responsibility,
advancement, and the nature of the work itself. So far, this appears to parallel Maslow's theory of
a need hierarchy. However, Herzberg added a new dimension to this theory by proposing a two-
factor model of motivation, based on the notion that the presence of one set of job characteristics
or incentives lead to worker satisfaction at work, while another and separate set of job
characteristics lead to dissatisfaction at work. Thus, satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not on a
continuum with one increasing as the other diminishes, but are independent phenomena. This
theory suggests that to improve job attitudes and productivity, administrators must recognize and
attend to both sets of characteristics and not assume that an increase in satisfaction leads to
decrease in unpleasurable dissatisfaction.

The two-factor, or motivation-hygiene theory, developed from data collected by Herzberg from
interviews with a large number of engineers and accountants in the Pittsburgh area. From
analyzing these interviews, he found that job characteristics related to what an individual does —
that is, to the nature of the work he performs — apparently have the capacity to gratify such
needs as achievement, competency, status, personal worth, and self-realization, thus making him
happy and satisfied. However, the absence of such gratifying job characteristics does not appear
to lead to unhappiness and dissatisfaction. Instead, dissatisfaction results from unfavorable
assessments of such job-related factors as company policies, supervision, technical problems,
salary, interpersonal relations on the job, and working conditions. Thus, if management wishes to
increase satisfaction on the job, it should be concerned with the nature of the work itself — the
opportunities it presents for gaining status, assuming responsibility, and for achieving self-
realization. If, on the other hand, management wishes to reduce dissatisfaction, then it must focus
on the job environment — policies, procedures, supervision, and working conditions[1]. If
management is equally concerned with both (as is usually the case), then managers must give
attention to both sets of job factors.

The theory was based around interviews with 203 American accountants & engineers in
Pittsburgh, chosen because of their professions' growing importance in the business world. The
subjects were asked to relate times when they felt exceptionally good or bad about their present
job or any previous job, and to provide reasons, and a description of the sequence of events
giving rise to that positive or negative feeling.

Here is the description of this interview analysis:

Briefly, we asked our respondents to describe periods in their lives when they were exceedingly
happy and unhappy with their jobs. Each respondent gave as many "sequences of events" as he
could that met certain criteria—including a marked change in feeling, a beginning and an end,
and contained some substantive description other than feelings and interpretations…

The proposed hypothesis appears verified. The factors on the right that led to satisfaction
(achievement, intrinsic interest in the work, responsibility, and advancement) are mostly
unipolar; that is, they contribute very little to job dissatisfaction. Conversely, the dis-satisfiers
(company policy and administrative practices, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working
conditions, and salary) contribute very little to job satisfaction[3].

Two-factor theory distinguishes between:

 Motivators (e.g., challenging work, recognition, responsibility) that give positive

satisfaction, arising from intrinsic conditions of the job itself, such as recognition,
achievement, or personal growth[4], and

 Hygiene factors (e.g. status, job security, salary and fringe benefits) that do not give
positive satisfaction, though dissatisfaction results from their absence. These are extrinsic
to the work itself, and include aspects such as company policies, supervisory practices, or
wages/salary[4].

Essentially, hygiene factors are needed to ensure an employee is not dissatisfied. Motivation
factors are needed to motivate an employee to higher performance, Herzberg also further
classified our actions and how and why we do them, for example, if you perform a work related
action because you have to then that is classed as movement, but if you perform a work related
action because you want to then that is classed as motivation.

Unlike Maslow, who offered little data to support his ideas, Herzberg and others have presented
considerable empirical evidence to confirm the motivation-hygiene theory, although their work
has been criticized on methodological grounds.
[edit] Validity and criticisms
In 1968 Herzberg stated that his two-factor theory study had already been replicated 16 times in
a wide variety of populations including some in Communist countries, and corroborated with
studies using different procedures that agreed with his original findings regarding intrinsic
employee motivation making it one of the most widely replicated studies on job attitudes.

While the Motivator-Hygiene concept is still well regarded, satisfaction and dissatisfaction are
generally no longer considered to exist on separate scales. The separation of satisfaction and
dissatisfaction has been shown to be an artifact of the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) used by
Herzberg to record events [5]. Furthermore, it has been noted the theory does not allow for
individual differences, such as a particular personality traits, which would affect individuals'
unique responses to motivating or hygiene factors [4].

A number of behavioral scientists have pointed to inadequacies in the need hierarchy and
motivation-hygiene theories. The most basic is the criticism that both of these theories contain
the relatively explicit assumption that happy and satisfied workers produce more. Another
problem is that these and other statistical theories are concerned with explaining "average"
behavior and, on the other hand, if playing a better game of golf is the means he chooses to
satisfy his need for recognition, then he will find ways to play and think about golf more often,
perhaps resulting in an accompanying lower output on the job. Finally, in his pursuit of status he
might take a balanced view and strive to pursue several behavioral paths in an effort to achieve a
combination of personal status objectives.

In other words, this individual's expectation or estimated probability that a given behavior will
bring a valued outcome determines his choice of means and the effort he will devote to these
means. In effect, this diagram of expectancy depicts an employee asking himself the question
posed by one investigator, "How much payoff is there for me toward attaining a personal goal
while expending so much effort toward the achievement of an assigned organizational
objective?" [6] The Expectancy theory by Victor Vroom also provides a framework for
motivation based on expectations.

This approach to the study and understanding of motivation would appear to have certain
conceptual advantages over other theories: First, unlike Maslow's and Herzberg's theories, it is
capable of handling individual differences. Second, its focus is toward the present and the future,
in contrast to drive theory, which emphasizes past learning. Third, it specifically correlates with
behavior to a goal and thus eliminates the problem of assumed relationships, such as between
motivation and performance. Fourth, it relates motivation to ability: Performance =
Motivation*Ability.

That said, a study by the Gallup Organization, as detailed in the book "First, Break All the Rules:
What the World's Greatest Managers Do" by Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman, appears to
provide strong support for Herzberg's division of satisfaction and dissatisfaction onto two
separate scales. In this book, the authors discuss how the study identified twelve questions that
provide a framework for determining high-performing individuals and organizations. These
twelve questions align squarely with Herzberg's motivation factors, while hygiene factors were
determined to have little effect on motivating high performance.

To better understand employee attitudes and motivation, Frederick Herzberg performed studies
to determine which factors in an employee's work environment caused satisfaction or
dissatisfaction. He published his findings in the 1959 book The Motivation to Work.

The studies included interviews in which employees where asked what pleased and displeased
them about their work. Herzberg found that the factors causing job satisfaction (and presumably
motivation) were different from those causing job dissatisfaction. He developed the motivation-
hygiene theory to explain these results. He called the satisfiers motivators and the dissatisfiers
hygiene factors, using the term "hygiene" in the sense that they are considered maintenance
factors that are necessary to avoid dissatisfaction but that by themselves do not provide
satisfaction.

The following table presents the top seven factors causing dissatisfaction and the top six factors causing
satisfaction, listed in the order of higher to lower importance.

Leading to satisfaction Leading to dissatisfaction

 Achievement  Company policy
 Recognition  Supervision

 Work itself  Relationship with boss

 Responsibility  Work conditions
 Advancement  Salary

 Growth  Relationship with peers

 Security

Herzberg reasoned that because the factors causing satisfaction are different from those causing
dissatisfaction, the two feelings cannot simply be treated as opposites of one another. The
opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, but rather, no satisfaction. Similarly, the opposite
of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction.

While at first glance this distinction between the two opposites may sound like a play on words,
Herzberg argued that there are two distinct human needs portrayed. First, there are physiological
needs that can be fulfilled by money, for example, to purchase food and shelter. Second, there is
the psychological need to achieve and grow, and this need is fulfilled by activities that cause one
to grow.

From the above table of results, one observes that the factors that determine whether there is
dissatisfaction or no dissatisfaction are not part of the work itself, but rather, are external factors.
Herzberg often referred to these hygiene factors as "KITA" factors, where KITA is an acronym
for Kick In The Ass, the process of providing incentives or a threat of punishment to cause
someone to do something. Herzberg argues that these provide only short-run success because the
motivator factors that determine whether there is satisfaction or no satisfaction are intrinsic to the
job itself, and do not result from carrot and stick incentives.

In a survey of 80 teaching staff at Egyptian private universities, Mohamed Hossam El-Din

Khalifa and Quang Truong (2009), has found out that Perception of Equity was directly related
to job satisfaction when the outcome in the equity comparison was one of Herzberg's Motivators.
On the contrary, perception of equity and job satisfaction were not related when the outcome in
the equity comparison was one of Herzberg's Hygiene Factors. The findings of this study provide
a kind of an indirect support to Herzberg's findings that improving Hygiene Factors would not
lead to improvement in an employee's job satisfaction.

[edit] Implications for management

If the motivation-hygiene theory holds, management not only must provide hygiene factors to
avoid employee dissatisfaction, but also must provide factors intrinsic to the work itself for
employees to be satisfied with their jobs.

Herzberg argued that job enrichment is required for intrinsic motivation, and that it is a
continuous management process. According to Herzberg:

 The job should have sufficient challenge to utilize the full ability of the employee.
 Employees who demonstrate increasing levels of ability should be given increasing levels
of responsibility.
 If a job cannot be designed to use an employee's full abilities, then the firm should
consider automating the task or replacing the employee with one who has a lower level of
skill. If a person cannot be fully utilized, then there will be a motivation problem.

Critics of Herzberg's theory argue that the two-factor result is observed because it is natural for
people to take credit for satisfaction and to blame dissatisfaction on external factors.
Furthermore, job satisfaction does not necessarily imply a high level of motivation or
productivity.

Herzberg's theory has been broadly read and despite its weaknesses its enduring value is that it
recognizes that true motivation comes from within a person and not from KITA factors.(French,
2008)

[edit] References
1. ^ a b Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. & Snyderman, B.B. 1959, The Motivation to Work. John Wiley.
New York.
2. ^ Frederick Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man (Cleveland: World Publishing, 1966); F.
Herzberg et al., The Motivation to Work, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959).
 3. ^ Herzberg, "The Motivation-Hygiene Concept and Problems of Manpower", Personnel
Administration (January-February 1964), pp. 3–7.

4. ^ a b c Hackman J. R., & Oldham, G. R., 1976, "Motivation through design of work",
Organizational behaviour and human performance, vol. 16, pp. 250–79.

5. ^ King, N. 1970, 'Clarification and Evaluation of the Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction',
Psychological Bulletin, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 18-31.

6. ^ Basil S. Georgopolous, Gerald M. Mahoney, and Nyle W. Jones, Jr., "A Path-Goal Approach to
Productivity", Journal of Applied Psychology 41 (December 1957), p. 346.

[edit] Further reading

 Herzberg, F. 1968, "One more time: how do you motivate employees?", Harvard
Business Review, vol. 46, iss. 1, pp. 53–62.

 Mohamed Hossam El-Din Khalifa and Quang Truong, "The Relationship between
Employee Perceptions of Equity and Job Satisfaction in the Egyptian Private
Universities”, in Management Challenges in an Environment of Increasing Regional and
Global Concerns, E. Kaynak and T.D. Harcar (eds.), Eighteenth World Business
Congress, Vol. XVIII, 2009, pp. 405–413.

[edit] External links

Motivation Theory

Motivation

View Comments

Joe Kelly (How Managers Manage) presents a simple model that illustrates the process of
motivation.

Needs – drives – behaviour – goals – reduction or release of tension

Behaviour is both directed to, and results from, unsatisfied needs. The word unsatisfied is most
important. As Maslow says,

“If we are interested in what actually motivates us and not what has or will, or might motivate us,
then a satisfied need is not a motivator.”

Kelly’s model of motivation presents a sort of chicken-egg dilemma. Which comes first, the goal
or the need? When we talk about behaviour being goal-oriented, we mean that individuals feel a
need, want, desire or drive to do something that leads to the achievement of a goal. But is the
goal, as part of the self, already there? Is it the factor that stimulates the need? Are goals and
needs the same thing?

It is useful to separate the two concepts. We can define a goal as that outcome which we strive to
attain in order to satisfy certain needs. The goal is the end result, the need the driving force that
spurs us towards that result. A student might have a goal to get an A in a course, but this goal
may reflect a number of different needs. He or she may feel a need to confirm his or her
competence; friends may all be getting A’s; he or she may wish to have the esteem of others;
simply to do the best possible: to keep a scholarship. It is difficult to infer needs from goals.

We talk about money as a motivator. Money represents so many different things to different
people that saying that individuals “work for money” is meaningless. What we have to know is
what needsthe money is satisfying. Is it survival, status, belonging, achievement, a convenient
scorecard for performance? Remember, behaviour is both directed to, and results from,
unsatisfied needs.

Every individual has a number of needs which vie for satisfaction. How do we choose between
these competing forces? Do we try to satisfy them all? Much like a small child in a candy store,
faced with the dilemma of spending his or her allowance, we are forced to decide what we want
the most; that is, we satisfy the strongest need first.

Although there is general agreement among psychologists that man experiences a variety of
needs, there is considerable disagreement as to what these needs are – and their relative
importance. There have been a number of attempts to present models of motivation which list a
specific number of motivating needs, with the implication that these lists are all-inclusive and
represent the total picture of needs. Unfortunately, each of these models has weaknesses and
gaps, and we are still without a general theory of motivation.

In this article, I will describe the four main theories of motivation. These are Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs, Herzberg’s Dual-Factor Theory, The Need for Achievement and David
McClelland’s work and Vroom’s Expectancy Motivation Theory.

Hierarchy of Needs – Abraham Maslow

One model of motivation that has gained a lot of attention, but not complete acceptance, has been
put forward by Abraham Maslow. Maslow’s theory argues that individuals are motivated to
satisfy a number of different kinds of needs, some of which are more powerful than others (or to
use the psychological jargon, are more prepotent than others). The term prepotency refers to the
idea that some needs are felt as being more pressing than others. Maslow argues that until these
most pressing needs are satisfied, other needs have little effect on an individual’s behaviour. In
other words, we satisfy the most prepotent needs first and then progress to the less pressing ones.
As one need becomes satisfied, and therefore less important to us, other needs loom up and
become motivators of our behaviour.

Maslow represents this prepotency of needs as a hierarchy. The most prepotent needs are shown
at the bottom of the ladder, with prepotency decreasing as one progresses upwards.
  SELF-ACTUALISATION – reaching your maximum potential, doing you own best thing
 ESTEEM – respect from others, self-respect, recognition

 BELONGING – affiliation, acceptance, being part of something

 SAFETY – physical safety, psychological security

 PHYSIOLOGICAL – hunger, thirst, sex, rest

The first needs that anyone must satisfy are physiological. As Maslow says:

“Undoubtedly these physiological needs are the most prepotent of all needs. What this means
specifically is that in the human being who is missing everything in life in an extreme fashion, it
is most likely that the major motivation would be the physiological needs rather than any others.
A person who is lacking food, safety, love and esteem would probably hunger for food more
strongly than anything else”.

Once the first level needs are largely satisfied, Maslow maintains, the next level of needs
emerges. Individuals become concerned with the need for safety and security – protection from
physical harm, disaster, illness and security of income, life-style and relationships.

Similarly, once these safety needs have become largely satisfied, individuals become concerned
with belonging – a sense of membership in some group or groups, a need for affiliation and a
feeling of acceptance by others.

When there is a feeling that the individual belongs somewhere, he or she is next motivated by a
desire to be held in esteem. People need to be thought of as worthwhile by others, to be
recognised as people with some value. They also have a strong need to see themselves as
worthwhile people. Without this type of self-concept, one sees oneself as drifting, cut off,
pointless. Much of this dissatisfaction with certain types of job centres around the fact that they
are perceived, by the people performing them, as demeaning and therefore damaging to their
self-concept.

Finally, Maslow says, when all these needs have been satisfied at least to some extent, people are
motivated by a desire to self-actualise, to achieve whatever they define as their maximum
potential, to do their thing to the best of their ability. Maslow describes self-actualisation as
follows:

“A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately
happy. What a man can do, he must do. This need we may call self-actualisation … It refers to
the desire for self-fulfilment, namely the tendency for one to become actualised in what one is
potentially. This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one is,
to become everything that one is capable of becoming.

The specific form these needs take will of course vary greatly from person to person. In one
individual it may be expressed maternally, as the desire to be an ideal mother, in another
athletically, in still another aesthetically, the painting of pictures, and in another inventively in
the creation of new contrivances. It is not necessarily a creative urge although in people who
have any capabilities for creation it will take this form.”

Several points must be made concerning Maslow’s model of motivation. First, it should be made
clear that he does not mean that individuals experience only one type of need at a time. In fact,
we probably experience all levels of needs all the time, only to varying degrees. In many parts of
the world, hunger is a genuine reality but we have all experienced the phenomenon of not being
able to concentrate upon a job because of a growling stomach. Productivity drops prior to lunch
as people transfer their thoughts from their jobs to the upcoming meal. After lunch, food it not
uppermost in people’s minds but perhaps rest is, as a sense of drowsiness sets in.

Similarly, in almost all organisational settings, individuals juggle their needs for security (“Can I
keep this job?”) with needs for esteem (“If I do what is demanded by the job, how will my peers
see me, and how will I see myself?”) Given a situation where management is demanding a
certain level of performance, but where group norms are to produce below these levels, all these
issues are experienced.

If the individual does not produce to the level demanded by management, he or she may lose the
job (security). But if he or she conforms to management’s norms rather than those of the group,
it may ostracise him or her (belonging) while the individual may see him or herself as a turncoat
(esteem) and may have a feeling of having let the side down (self-esteem.) We do not progress
simply from one level in the hierarchy to another in a straightforward, orderly manner; there is a
constant, but ever-changing pull from all levels and types of needs.

A second point that must be made about Maslow’s hierarchy is that the order in which he has set
up the needs does not necessarily reflect their prepotence for every individual. Some people may
have such a high need for esteem that they are able to subordinate their needs for safety, or their
physiological or belonging needs to these. The war hero springs to mind. There is little concern
for safety or physical comfort as the seeker of glory rushes forward into the muzzle of
destruction.

A third, and very important point to be made about Maslow’s hierarchical model is the assertion
that once a need is satisfied it is no longer a motivator – until it re-emerges. Food is a poor
motivator after a meal. The point in this is clear for management. Unfortunately, many
organisations and individuals still fail to get the message. Most incentive schemes are based
upon needs that have already been largely satisfied. If management placed emphasis on needs
that have not been satisfied, employees would be more likely to be motivated towards achieving
the goals of the organisation. Human behaviour is primarily directed towards unsatisfied needs.

Finally, an important aspect of Maslow’s model is that it provides for constant growth of the
individual. There is no point at which everything has been achieved. Having satisfied the lower
needs, one is always striving to do things to the best of one’s ability, and best is always defined
as being slightly better than before.

There has been a great deal of debate over Maslow’s hierarchical concept of motivation. It has a
basic attraction to most people because it seems to be logical, to make sense.
Dual-Factor Theory – Frederick Herzberg
Frederick Herzberg and his associates began their research into motivation during the 1950′s,
examining the models and assumptions of Maslow and others. The result of this work was the
formulation of what Herzberg termed the Motivation-Hygiene Theory (M-H). The basic
hypotheses of this theory are that:

1. There are two types of motivators, one type which results in satisfaction with the job, and the
other which merely prevents dissatisfaction. The two types are quite separate and distinct from
one another. Herzberg called the factors which result in job satisfaction motivators and those that
simply prevented dissatisfaction hygienes

2. The factors that lead to job satisfaction (the motivators) are:

 achievement
 recognition

 work itself

 responsibility

 advancement

3. The factors which may prevent dissatisfaction (the hygienes) are:

 company policy and administration

 working conditions

 supervision

 interpersonal relations

 money

 status

 security

Hygienes, if applied effectively, can at best prevent dissatisfaction: if applied poorly, they can
result in negative feelings about the job.

Motivators are those things that allow for psychological growth and development on the job.
They are closely related to the concept of self-actualisation, involving a challenge, an
opportunity to extend oneself to the fullest, to taste the pleasure of accomplishment, and to be
recognised as having done something worthwhile.
Hygienes are simply factors that describe the conditions of work rather than the work itself.
Herberg’s point is that if you want to motivate people, you have to be concerned with the job
itselfand not simply with the surroundings.

In a medical sense, growth, healing and development occur as natural internal processes. They
are the result of proper diet, exercise, sleep etc. Hygienic procedures simply prevent disease from
occurring. They do not promote growth per se. Herzberg says that we should focus our attention
on the individuals in jobs, not on the things that we surround them with. He maintains that we
tend to think that growth and development will occur if we provide good working conditions,
status, security and administration, whereas in fact what stimulates growth (and motivation to
grow and develop) are opportunities for achievement, recognition, responsibility and
advancement.

Once again, this theory has a basic attraction. As Joe Kelly puts it,
however:

“It is always as well to bear in mind that academics, who place considerable value on autonomy
and inner direction, have an obsession about making work meaningful. The notion that it is
possible to realise man’s true nature through creative work which is its own reward is an
exceedingly attractive proposition to the learned don which is rarely fully shared by his wife”.

Herzberg goes further than Maslow, cutting the hierarchy off near the top and maintaining that
motivation results only from some elements of esteem needs and self-actualisation.

The Need for Achievement – David McClelland

The one single motivating factor which has received the most attention in terms of research, is
theneed for achievement (n-ach). As a result, we know more about n-ach than any other
motivational factor. Much of this knowledge is due the work of David McClelland of Harvard.
To illustrate what he means by the need for achievement, McClelland cites the following
example:

“Several years ago, a careful study was made of 450 workers who had been thrown out of work
by a plant shutdown in Erie, Pennsylvania. Most of the unemployed workers stayed at home for a
while and then checked with the employment service to see if their old jobs or similar ones were
available. But a small minority among them behaved differently; the day they were laid off, they
started job hunting. They checked both national and local employment offices; they studied
theHelp Wanted sections of the papers; they checked through their union, their church and
various fraternal organisations; they looked into training courses to learn a new skill; they even
left town to look for work, while the majority when questioned said they would not under any
circumstances move away to obtain a job. Obviously the members of the active minority were
differently motivated”.

Individuals with a high n-ach have a number of distinctive characteristics which separate them
from their peers. First of all, they like situations where they can take personal responsibility for
finding solutions to problems. This allows them to gain personal satisfaction from their
achievements. They do not like situations where success or failure results from chance. The
important thing is that the outcome be the result of their own skill and effort.

A second characteristic of high n-ach people is that they like to set moderately high goals for
themselves. These goals are neither so low that they can be achieved with little challenge, nor so
high that they are impossible. High n-ach individuals prefer goals that require all-out effort and
the exercise of all their abilities. Once again, the achievement of this type of objective results in
greater personal satisfaction. This phenomenon can be observed in very young children. A child
may be given a game of ring toss, told that he or she scores whenever a ring lands over the peg
and then left alone to play the game. McClelland comments:

“Obviously children who stand next to the peg can score a ringer every time; but if they stand a
long distance away, they will hardly ever get a ringer. The curious fact is that children with a
high concern for achievement quite consistently stand at moderate distances from the peg where
they are apt to get achievement satisfaction … The ones with low n-Achievement, on the other
hand, distribute their choices of where to stand quite randomly over the entire distance. In other
words, people with high n-Achievement prefer a situation where there is a challenge, where there
is some real risk of not succeeding, but not so great a risk that they might not overcome it by
their own efforts”.

A third distinctive characteristic of high achievers is that they want concrete feedback on their
performance. Only certain types of jobs provide this kind of feedback, however, and so some
kinds of jobs are unattractive to high achievers. For instance, teachers receive only imprecise,
hazy feedback as to the effectiveness of their efforts while production managers have a daily
output chart to look at with either joy or disappointment.

There are some additional minor characteristics possessed by high achievers. They tend to enjoy
travel, are willing to give up a bird in the hand for two in the bush and prefer experts to friends as
working partners. The image is clear; the high achiever is a personality type suited admirably to
certain jobs and not others. It would be wrong to treat all individuals as high achievers and
attempt to motivate them by offering them challenging jobs, rapid and objective feedback on
performance and personal responsibility for success or failure.

The need for affiliation and the need for power

McClelland has also identified two other types of need, the need for affiliation (n-affil) and the
need for power (n-pow). His testing procedure is concerned with the application of what is
known as theThematic Apperception Test (TAT), a series of pictures which are presented to a
subject, one at a time. The individual is asked to tell a story about each picture. The underlying
assumption of the TAT procedure is that it will reveal the dominant thoughts and attitudes of
subjects. For instance, an individual with high n-ach will formulate stories concerned with
getting things done, challenging situations, feelings of satisfaction at having done a good job and
so on. The individual with a high need for affiliation (n-affil) will reflect sensitivity to the
feelings of others, a desire for friendly relationships and a reference to situations which involve
human interactions. High n-power subjects will relate stories reflecting the process of
influencing others, controlling and manipulating others.
The need for affiliation
The need for affiliation is similar to Maslow’s need to belong. It can be a dominant motivating
force affecting behaviour and may manifest itself in many different ways. The novelist John
O’Hara was supposedly obsessed with the fact that, not having a college degree, he was excluded
from membership of certain clubs and societies. At the other end of the spectrum, James Coyne,
a former Governor of the Bank of Canada, was described as the most unclubbable man in the
country, as he held an aversion to joining groups. In its most straightforward form, a need for
affiliation manifests itself in a desire to be liked by others, to be part of a group, to enter into
warm, personal relationships. High n-affil people value relationships over accomplishments, and
friendship over power.

The need for power

In studying the motivational profiles of North American managers, McClelland noticed that
many of those who reach the top of organisations and are rated as highly effective in their
positions, demonstrate a concern for influencing people. This is, in McClelland’s terms, a need
for power. This need is not simply seen as the raw desire to control others or simply to exert
authority. McClelland makes the point that:

“… this need must be disciplined and controlled so that it is directed toward the benefit of the
institution as a whole and not toward the manager’s personal aggrandisement. Moreover, the top
manager’s need for power ought to be greater than his or her need for being liked by people.”

Power motivation refers not to autocratic, tyrannical behaviour but to a need to have some
impact, to be influential and effective in achieving organisational goals.

Results
McClelland examined the motivational needs of a large group of managers whose units
demonstrated varying degrees of morale. The most important factor, in predicting whether a
manager’s subordinates would exhibit high morale, turned out to be how their need for power
related to their need for affiliation. Teams which exhibited higher morale were those in which the
manager’s need or power exceeded their desire to be liked. McClelland puts forward the
following explanation:

“Sociologists have long argued that, for a bureaucracy to function effectively, those who manage
it must be universalistic in applying rules. That is, if they make exceptions for the particular
needs of individuals, the whole system will break down. The manager with a high need to be
liked is precisely the one who wants to stay on good terms with everybody and therefore is the
one most likely to make exceptions in terms of in terms of particular needs. …Sociological
theory and our data both argue … that the person whose need for affiliation is high does not
make a good manager.”
Organisation man?
Power-motivated managers, like achievement orientated managers and the affiliators,
demonstrate distinct characteristics:

They are highly organisation-minded. They feel responsible for building organisations to which
they belong. They believe strongly in centralised authority.

They like to work. This is different from the high achiever who likes to minimise work by
becoming more efficient. While the high achiever minimises effort and maximises output, the
power-motivated manager enjoys work for its own sake.

They are willing to sacrifice some of their own self-interest for the good of the organisation.

They have a strong sense of justice, feeling that hard work and sacrifice should be rewarded.

The picture of McClelland’s power-motivated manager is reminiscent of the organisation

mancaricatured by William Whyte. The message seems to be that if one is dedicated to the
institution, committed to the work ethic and unflagging in energy and devotion, success will
follow. However, the increasing popularity of switching jobs as a method of rapid advancement
and the rapidity of change in organisations somewhat contradicts this type of thinking.

Expectancy Theory of motivation – Victor Vroom

Victor Vroom, of Carnegie-Mellon in Pittsburgh, has challenged the assertion of the human
relationists that job satisfaction leads to increased productivity. (This theory has been called
thecontented cow approach to management.) The assumption is that if management keeps
employees happy, they will respond by increasing productivity. Herzberg, in a delightful film of
motivation, highlights the fallacy of this assumption with an interview between a manager and a
secretary. The secretary is complaining about the job, and the manager lists all the things that
have been done for the secretary – increases salary, new typewriter, better hours, status and so on
– at the end of which she looks straight at him and asks, So what have to done for me lately?

The point may be made that satisfied needs do not motivate people Hygienes simply keep
employees quiet for a time. For an individual to be motivated to perform a certain task, he or she
must expect that completion of the task will lead to achievement of his or her goals. The task is
not necessarily the goal itself but is often the means of goal attainment. Vroom defines
motivation as:

“A process governing choices, made by persons or lower organisms, among alternative forms of
voluntary behaviour.”

In organisational terms, this concept of motivation pictures an individual, occupying a role, faced
with a set of alternative voluntary behaviours, all of which have some associated outcomes
attached to them. If the individual chooses behaviour 1, outcome A results; if 2 then B results
and so on.

Knowing that individuals choose behaviours in order to obtain certain outcomes is nothing new.
The question is why they choose one outcome over another. The answer provided by the
motivational theories in the other articles in this short series (Maslow, Herzberg, McClelland) is
that the choice reflects the strength of the individual’s desire or need for a specific outcome at a
certain time.

However, Vroom makes the point that task goals (productivity, quality standards or similar goals
attached to jobs) are often means to an end, rather than the end in itself. There is a second level
of outcomes which reflect the real goals of individuals and these may be attained, in varying
degrees, through task behaviour.

An individual is motivated to behave in a certain manner because (a) he or she has a strong
desire for a certain task outcome and a reasonable expectation of achieving that outcome and (b)
because he or she also expects that the achievement of the task outcome will result in reward in
terms of pay, promotion, job security, or satisfaction of individual needs – physiological, safety,
esteem and so on.

Let us take a look at how the model works. Imagine a manager has as a task goal, receive good
ratings for internal customer service. The choice of this task goal reflects three things:

 The strength of the need for good ratings versus some other goal.
 The expectation that this goal can be achieved.

 The expectation that the achievement of this task goal will lead to desired rewards – promotion,
increased security and so on.

Vroom would maintain that we do things in our jobs in order to achieve second level rewards:

“If a worker sees high productivity as a path leading to the attainment of one or more of his or
her personal goals, he or she will tend to be a high producer. Conversely, if he or she sees low
productivity as path to the achievement of his or her goals, he or she will tend to be a low
producer”.

Certainly Vroom has hit on an important aspect of motivation. We do not attempt simply to
satisfy a need or even a set of needs in a straightforward, “If I do this, then I will achieve that”
manner. We work with a chain of goals and rewards, where goals in one area are only a means of
achieving goals in another.

Article by Robin Stuart-Kotze from www.managementlearning.com

Tags: motivation theory


Fredrick Herzberg's Theory of Human Motivation.

Fredrick Herzberg's theory of motivation is also called 'Two Factor Theory', 'Dual Factor Theory' and 'Hygiene /
Maintenance Theory of Motivation'. This theory is based on the information collected by him and his associates (in
the USA in 1959) by interviewing two hundred engineers and accountants. The information collected relates to the
attitude of people towards work. This attitude towards work depends on two sets of factors namely hygiene or
maintenance factors and the motivating factors.

2. Hygiene Factors of Two Factor Theory.

According to Herzberg, the hygiene factors do little contribution to provide job satisfaction. He called them
"dissatisfiers' as their absence cause dissatisfaction but their presence is not motivating but only prevent
dissatisfaction. The hygiene factors meet man's needs to avoid unpleasantness but do not motivate them to take
more interest in the work. Hygiene factors (when provided) create a favorable environment for motivation and
prevents job dissatisfaction. They are not an intrinsic part of a job, but they are related to the conditions under which
 a job is performed. When employer is unable to provide enough of these factors to his employees, there will be job
dissatisfaction. However, ff they are provided, they will not necessarily act as motivators. They will just lead
employees to experience no job dissatisfaction. Such hygiene factors are as noted below.

1. Company's Policies and Administration,

2. Supervision,

3. Working Conditions,

4. Interpersonal Relations with superiors and other subordinates,

5. Salary,

6. Job Security,

7. Status,

8. Personal Life, and

9. Employee Benefits.

3. Motivating Factors of Two Factor Theory.

Motivating factors act as forces of job satisfaction. They create positive and a longer lasting effect on employee’s
performance and are related to work itself. Adequate provision of such factors (called satisfiers) make people happy
with their jobs because they serve man's basic needs for psychological growth. In addition, they also motivate
employees in their work. Such factors are five and are called motivators by Herzberg. The motivating factors are:

1. Achievement,
2. Recognition for Accomplishment,

3. Increased Responsibility,

4. Opportunity for Growth and Development,

5. Creative and Challenging Work.

These factors motivate subordinates to take more interest in the work. They raise efficiency and productivity of
employees. According to Herzberg, motivating factors are essential in order to provide job satisfaction and in order to
maintain a high level of job performance. Employees will not have job satisfaction if the motivating factors are not
provided in sufficient quality by the employer.
According to Herzberg, these two sets of factors are quite independent of each other. It may be noted that hygiene
factors, when satisfied, tend to eliminate dissatisfaction but do not motivate an individual employee for better
performance. The motivating factors will permit an individual to grow and develop in a natural way. In brief, hygiene
factors affect an individual's willingness to work while motivating factors affect his ability and efficiency to work. This
theory can be compared to Maslow's theory of human needs as both the theories refer to needs and their role in
motivation. In addition, the assumptions in both the theories are identical.

Herzberg's theory has many limitations. They are related to research methodology used, empirical validity and
assumptions in the theory. His theory is criticized on many grounds. Many have found the theory to be an
oversimplification. Despite such criticism, Herzberg's two factor theory has made a significant contribution towards
improving manager's basic understanding of human behavior. His theory is simple to grasp, based on some empirical
data and guides managers to improve employee

Theories of Motivation

Theories of Motivation
(Part - 3 of Motivation - Ken Shah & Prof. Param J. Shah)
[TYPES OF MOTIVATION (Part - 2)Theories of Motivation (Part - 3)BEING A MOTIVATING
MANAGER (Part - 4) ]

1) Contribution of Robert Owen :

Though Owen is considered to be paternalistic in his view, his contribution is of a considerable

significance in the theories of Motivation. During the early years of the nineteenth century,
Owen’s textile mill at New Lanark in Scotland was the scene of some novel ways of treating
people. His view was that people were similar to machines. A machine that is looked after
properly, cared for and maintained well, performs efficiently, reliably and lastingly, similarly
people are likely to be more efficient if they are taken care of. Robert Owen practiced what he
preached and introduced such things as employee housing and company shop. His ideas on this
and other matters were considered to be too revolutionary for that time.
2) Jeremy Bentham’s “The Carrot and the Stick Approach” :

Possibly the essence of the traditional view of people at work can be best appreciated by a brief
look at the work of this English philosopher, whose ideas were also developed in the early years
of the Industrial Revolution, around 1800. Bentham’s view was that all people are self-
interested and are motivated by the desire to avoid pain and find pleasure. Any worker will
work only if the reward is big enough, or the punishment sufficiently unpleasant. This view - the
‘carrot and stick’ approach - was built into the philosophies of the age and is still to be found,
especially in the older, more traditional sectors of industry.

The various leading theories of motivation and motivators seldom make reference to the carrot
and the stick. This metaphor relates, of course, to the use of rewards and penalties in order to
induce desired behavior. It comes from the old story that to make a donkey move, one must
put a carrot in front of him or dab him with a stick from behind. Despite all the research on the
theories of motivation, reward and punishment are still considered strong motivators. For
centuries, however, they were too often thought of as the only forces that could motivate
people.

At the same time, in all theories of motivation, the inducements of some kind of ‘carrot’ are
recognized. Often this is money in the form of pay or bonuses. Even though money is not the
only motivating force, it has been and will continue to be an important one. The trouble with
the money ‘carrot’ approach is that too often everyone gets a carrot, regardless of performance
through such practices as salary increase and promotion by seniority, automatic ‘merit’
increases, and executive bonuses not based on individual manager performance. It is as simple
as this : If a person put a donkey in a pen full of carrots and then stood outside with a carrot,
would the donkey be encouraged to come out of the pen ?

The ‘stick’, in the form of fear–fear of loss of job, loss of income, reduction of bonus, demotion,
or some other penalty–has been and continues to be a strong motivator. Yet it is admittedly not
the best kind. It often gives rise to defensive or retaliatory behavior, such as union organization,
poor-quality work, executive indifference, failure of a manager to take any risks in decision
making or even dishonesty. But fear of penalty cannot be overlooked. Whether managers are
first-level supervisors or chief executives, the power of their position to give or with hold
rewards or impose penalties of various kinds gives them an ability to control, to a very great
extent, the economic and social well-being of their subordinates.

3) Abraham Maslow’s “Need Hierarchy Theory” :

One of the most widely mentioned theories of motivation is the hierarchy of needs theory put
forth by psychologist Abraham Maslow. Maslow saw human needs in the form of a hierarchy,
ascending from the lowest to the highest, and he concluded that when one set of needs is
satisfied, this kind of need ceases to be a motivator.

As per his theory this needs are :

(i) Physiological needs :

These are important needs for sustaining the human life. Food, water, warmth, shelter, sleep,
medicine and education are the basic physiological needs which fall in the primary list of need
satisfaction. Maslow was of an opinion that until these needs were satisfied to a degree to
maintain life, no other motivating factors can work.

(ii) Security or Safety needs :

These are the needs to be free of physical danger and of the fear of losing a job, property, food
or shelter. It also includes protection against any emotional harm.

(iii) Social needs :

Since people are social beings, they need to belong and be accepted by others. People try to
satisfy their need for affection, acceptance and friendship.

(iv) Esteem needs :

According to Maslow, once people begin to satisfy their need to belong, they tend to want to
be held in esteem both by themselves and by others. This kind of need produces such
satisfaction as power, prestige status and self-confidence. It includes both internal esteem
factors like self-respect, autonomy and achievements and external esteem factors such as
states, recognition and attention.

(v) Need for self-actualization :

Maslow regards this as the highest need in his hierarchy. It is the drive to become what one is
capable of becoming, it includes growth, achieving one’s potential and self-fulfillment. It is to
maximize one’s potential and to accomplish something.
As each of these needs are substantially satisfied, the next need becomes dominant. From the
standpoint of motivation, the theory would say that although no need is ever fully gratified, a
substantially satisfied need no longer motivates. So if you want to motivate someone, you need
to understand what level of the hierarchy that person is on and focus on satisfying those needs
or needs above that level.

Maslow’s need theory has received wide recognition, particularly among practicing managers.
This can be attributed to the theory’s intuitive logic and ease of understanding. However,
research does not validate these theory. Maslow provided no empirical evidence and other
several studies that sought to validate the theory found no support for it.

TOP

4) “Theory X and Theory Y” of Douglas McGregor :

McGregor, in his book “The Human side of Enterprise” states that people inside the
organization can be managed in two ways. The first is basically negative, which falls under the
category X and the other is basically positive, which falls under the category Y. After viewing the
way in which the manager dealt with employees, McGregor concluded that a manager’s view of
the nature of human beings is based on a certain grouping of assumptions and that he or she
tends to mold his or her behavior towards subordinates according to these assumptions.

Under the assumptions of theory X :

 Employees inherently do not like work and whenever possible, will attempt to avoid it.

 Because employees dislike work, they have to be forced, coerced or threatened with
punishment to achieve goals.
  Employees avoid responsibilities and do not work fill formal directions are issued.

 Most workers place a greater importance on security over all other factors and display
little ambition.
In contrast under the assumptions of theory Y :

 Physical and mental effort at work is as natural as rest or play.

 People do exercise self-control and self-direction and if they are committed to those
goals.

 Average human beings are willing to take responsibility and exercise imagination,
ingenuity and creativity in solving the problems of the organization.

 That the way the things are organized, the average human being’s brainpower is only
partly used.
On analysis of the assumptions it can be detected that theory X assumes that lower-order
needs dominate individuals and theory Y assumes that higher-order needs dominate
individuals. An organization that is run on Theory X lines tends to be authoritarian in nature, the
word “authoritarian” suggests such ideas as the “power to enforce obedience” and the “right to
command.” In contrast Theory Y organizations can be described as “participative”, where the
aims of the organization and of the individuals in it are integrated; individuals can achieve their
own goals best by directing their efforts towards the success of the organization.

However, this theory has been criticized widely for generalization of work and human behavior.

5) Contribution of Rensis Likert :

Likert developed a refined classification, breaking down organizations into four management
systems.

1st System – Primitive authoritarian

2nd System – Benevolent authoritarian
3rd System – Consultative
4th System – Participative

As per the opinion of Likert, the 4th system is the best, not only for profit organizations, but
also for non-profit firms.

6) Frederick Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory :

Frederick has tried to modify Maslow’s need Hierarchy theory. His theory is also known as two-
factor theory or Hygiene theory. He stated that there are certain satisfiers and dissatisfiers for
employees at work. In- trinsic factors are related to job satisfaction, while extrinsic factors are
associated with dissatisfaction. He devised his theory on the question : “What do people want
from their jobs ?” He asked people to describe in detail, such situations when they felt
exceptionally good or exceptionally bad. From the responses that he received, he concluded
that opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction. Removing dissatisfying characteristics from a
job does not necessarily make the job satisfying. He states that presence of certain factors in
the organization is natural and the presence of the same does not lead to motivation. However,
their nonpresence leads to demotivation. In similar manner there are certain factors, the
absence of which causes no dissatisfaction, but their presence has motivational impact.

Examples of Hygiene factors are :

Security, status, relationship with subordinates, personal life, salary, work conditions,
relationship with supervisor and company policy and administration.

Examples of Motivational factors are :

Growth prospectus job advancement, responsibility, challenges, recognition and achievements.

TOP

7) Contributions of Elton Mayo :

The work of Elton Mayo is famously known as “Hawthorne Experiments.” He conducted

behavioral experiments at the Hawthorne Works of the American Western Electric Company in
Chicago. He made some illumination experiments, introduced breaks in between the work
performance and also introduced refreshments during the pause’s. On the basis of this he drew
the conclusions that motivation was a very complex subject. It was not only about pay, work
condition and morale but also included psychological and social factors. Although this research
has been criticized from many angles, the central conclusions drawn were :

 People are motivated by more than pay and conditions.

 The need for recognition and a sense of belonging are very important.

 Attitudes towards work are strongly influenced by the group.

8) Vroom’s Valence x Expectancy theory :

The most widely accepted explanations of motivation has been propounded by Victor Vroom.
His theory is commonly known as expectancy theory. The theory argues that the strength of a
tendency to act in a specific way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be
followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual to
make this simple, expectancy theory says that an employee can be motivated to perform better
when their is a belief that the better performance will lead to good performance appraisal and
that this shall result into realization of personal goal in form of some reward. Therefore an
employee is :

Motivation = Valence x Expectancy.

The theory focuses on three things :

 Efforts and performance relationship

 Performance and reward relationship

 Rewards and personal goal relationship

This leads us to a conclusion that :
9) The Porter and Lawler Model :

Lyman W. Porter and Edward E. Lawler developed a more complete version of motivation
depending upon expectancy theory.

Actual performance in a job is primarily determined by the effort spent. But it is also affected by
the person’s ability to do the job and also by individual’s perception of what the required task
is. So performance is the responsible factor that leads to intrinsic as well as extrinsic rewards.
These rewards, along with the equity of individual leads to satisfaction. Hence, satisfaction of
the individual depends upon the fairness of the reward.

10) Clayton Alderfer’s ERG Theory :

Alderfer has tried to rebuild the hierarchy of needs of Maslow into another model named ERG
i.e. Existence – Relatedness – Growth. According to him there are 3 groups of core needs as
mentioned above. The existence group is concerned mainly with providing basic material
existence. The second group is the individuals need to maintain interpersonal relationship with
other members in the group. The final group is the intrinsic desire to grow and develop
personally. The major conclusions of this theory are :

1. In an individual, more than one need may be operative at the same time.

2. If a higher need goes unsatisfied than the desire to satisfy a lower need intensifies.

3. It also contains the frustration-regression dimension.

11) McClelland’s Theory of Needs :

David McClelland has developed a theory on three types of motivating needs :

1. Need for Power

2. Need for Affiliation

3. Need for Achievement

Basically people for high need for power are inclined towards influence and control. They like to
be at the center and are good orators. They are demanding in nature, forceful in manners and
ambitious in life. They can be motivated to perform if they are given key positions or power
positions.

In the second category are the people who are social in nature. They try to affiliate themselves
with individuals and groups. They are driven by love and faith. They like to build a friendly
environment around themselves. Social recognition and affiliation with others provides them
motivation.

People in the third area are driven by the challenge of success and the fear of failure. Their
need for achievement is moderate and they set for themselves moderately difficult tasks. They
are analytical in nature and take calculated risks. Such people are motivated to perform when
they see atleast some chances of success.

McClelland observed that with the advancement in hierarchy the need for power and
achievement increased rather than Affiliation. He also observed that people who were at the
top, later ceased to be motivated by this drives.

12 ) Equity Theory : 

As per the equity theory of J. Stacey Adams, people are motivated by their beliefs about the
reward structure as being fair or unfair, relative to the inputs. People have a tendency to use
subjective judgment to balance the outcomes and inputs in the relationship for comparisons
between different individuals. Accordingly :

If people feel that they are not equally rewarded they either reduce the quantity or quality of
work or migrate to some other organization. However, if people perceive that they are
rewarded higher, they may be motivated to work harder.

13) Reinforcement Theory :

B.F. Skinner, who propounded the reinforcement theory, holds that by designing the
environment properly, individuals can be motivated. Instead of considering internal factors like
impressions, feelings, attitudes and other cognitive behavior, individuals are directed by what
happens in the environment external to them. Skinner states that work environment should be
made suitable to the individuals and that punishments actually leads to frustration and de-
motivation. Hence, the only way to motivate is to keep on making positive changes in the
external environment of the organization.
14) Goal Setting Theory of Edwin Locke :

Instead of giving vague tasks to people, specific and pronounced objectives, help in achieving
them faster. As the clearity is high, a goal orientation also avoids any misunderstandings in the
work of the employees. The goal setting theory states that when the goals to be achieved are
set at a higher standard than in that case employees are motivated to perform better and put in
maximum effort. It revolves around the concept of “Self-efficacy” i.e. individual’s belief that he
or she is capable of performing a hard task.

15) Cognitive Evaluation Theory :  

As per these theory a shift from external rewards to internal rewards results into motivation. It believes
that even after the stoppage of external stimulus, internal stimulus survives. It relates to the pay
structure in the organization. Instead of treating external factors like pay, incentives, promotion etc and
internal factors like interests, drives, responsibility etc, separately, they should be treated as
contemporary to each other. The cognition is to be such that even when external motivators are not
there the internal motivation continues. However, practically extrinsic rewards are given much more
weightage.

TASK TO BE PERFORMED :

DEBATE :

LIST 10 STRONG POINTS OF YOUR PERSONALITY

LIST 10 NEGATIVE POINTS OF YOUR PERSONALITY
ARE THIS 20 POINTS DEBATABLE ?
TRY CHANGE THE NEGATIVE TO POSITIVE
“Ask yourself :

1. What sort of manager would you like to be managed by ?

2. Are you that sort of person ?

This are two basic questions conducive to a healthy management style.”

. 
  

    Motivation Theory  
  

  

  
 Frederick Taylor and Scientific Management
 A summary of the work of Frederick Taylor, including the famous time and motion studies and
Taylor's principles of scientific management.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

An introduction to Maslow's Hierarchy, its limitations, and implications for management.

ERG Theory
A discussion of Clayton Alderfer's ERG theory, including similarities and differences
compared to Maslow's hierarchy.

Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory

Discusses Herzberg's two-factor theory, including his findings of the more important factors
affecting employee attitudes.

McClelland's Theory of Needs

The acquired-needs theory as proposed by David McClelland, including the three needs of
acheivement, affiliation, and power.

Theory X and Theory Y

A comparison of these two very different theories as proposed by Douglas McGregor.

Frederick Taylor and Scientific Management  Top

In 1911, Frederick Winslow Taylor published his work, The Principles of Scientific
Management, in which he described how the application of the scientific method to the
management of workers greatly could improve productivity. Scientific management methods
called for optimizing the way that tasks were performed and simplifying the jobs enough so
that workers could be trained to perform their specialized sequence of motions in the one "best"
way.

Prior to scientific management, work was performed by skilled craftsmen who had learned
their jobs in lengthy apprenticeships. They made their own decisions about how their job was
to be performed.

Scientific management took away much of this autonomy and converted skilled crafts into a
series of simplified jobs that could be performed by unskilled workers who easily could be
trained for the tasks.
 
Taylor became interested in improving worker productivity early in his career when he observed
gross inefficiencies during his contact with steel workers.
 
 

Soldiering

Working in the steel industry, Taylor had observed the phenomenon of workers' purposely
operating well below their capacity, that is, soldiering. He attributed soldiering to three
causes:

1. The almost universally held belief among workers that if they became more productive,
fewer of them would be needed and jobs would be eliminated. 
2. Non-incentive wage systems encourage low productivity if the employee will receive
the same pay regardless of how much is produced, assuming the employee can convince
the employer that the slow pace really is a good pace for the job. Employees take great
care never to work at a good pace for fear that this faster pace would become the new
standard. If employees are paid by the quantity they produce, they fear that management
will decrease their per-unit pay if the quantity increases. 

3. Workers waste much of their effort by relying on rule-of-thumb methods rather than
on optimal work methods that can be determined by scientific study of the task.
 

To counter soldiering and to improve efficiency, Taylor began to conduct experiments to

determine the best level of performance for certain jobs, and what was necessary to acheive this
performance.
 
 

Time Studies

Taylor argued that even the most basic, mindless tasks could be planned in a way that
dramatically would increase productivity, and that scientific management of the work was
more effective than the "initiative and incentive" method of motivating workers. The
initiative and incentive method offered an incentive to increase productivity but placed the
responsibility on the worker to figure out how to do it.

To scientifically determine the optimal way to perform a job, Taylor performed experiments that
he called time studies, (also known as time and motion studies). These studies were
characterized by the use of a stopwatch to time a worker's sequence of motions, with the goal of
determining the one best way to perform a job.

The following are examples of some of the time-and-motion studies that were performed by
Taylor and others in the era of scientific management.
 

Pig Iron
If workers were moving 12 1/2 tons of pig iron per day and they could be incentivized to try to
move 47 1/2 tons per day, left to their own wits they probably would become exhausted after a
few hours and fail to reach their goal. However, by first conducting experiments to determine
the amount of resting that was necessary, the worker's manager could determine the optimal
timing of lifting and resting so that the worker could move the 47 1/2 tons per day without
tiring.

Not all workers were physically capable of moving 47 1/2 tons per day; perhaps only 1/8 of the
pig iron handlers were capable of doing so. While these 1/8 were not extraordinary people who
were highly prized by society, their physical capabilities were well-suited to moving pig iron.
This example suggests that workers should be selected according to how well they are suited
for a particular job.
 

The Science of Shoveling

In another study of the "science of shoveling", Taylor ran time studies to determine that the
optimal weight that a worker should lift in a shovel was 21 pounds. Since there is a wide range
of densities of materials, the shovel should be sized so that it would hold 21 pounds of the
substance being shoveled. The firm provided the workers with optimal shovels. The result was a
three to four fold increase in productivity and workers were rewarded with pay increases.
Prior to scientific management, workers used their own shovels and rarely had the optimal one
for the job.
 

Bricklaying
Others performed experiments that focused on specific motions, such as Gilbreth's bricklaying
experiments that resulted in a dramatic decrease in the number of motions required to lay bricks.
The husband and wife Gilbreth team used motion picture technology to study the motions of the
workers in some of their experiments.

Taylor's 4 Principles of Scientific Management

After years of various experiments to determine optimal work methods, Taylor proposed the
following four principles of scientific management:

1. Replace rule-of-thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the
tasks.
2. Scientifically select, train, and develop each worker rather than passively leaving
them to train themselves.
 3. Cooperate with the workers to ensure that the scientifically developed methods are
being followed.

4. Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the managers
apply scientific management principles to planning the work and the workers actually
perform the tasks.
 

These principles were implemented in many factories, often increasing productivity by a factor
of three or more. Henry Ford applied Taylor's principles in his automobile factories, and families
even began to perform their household tasks based on the results of time and motion studies.
 
 

Drawbacks of Scientific Management

While scientific management principles improved productivity and had a substantial impact on
industry, they also increased the monotony of work. The core job dimensions of skill variety,
task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback all were missing from the picture of
scientific management.

While in many cases the new ways of working were accepted by the workers, in some cases they
were not. The use of stopwatches often was a protested issue and led to a strike at one factory
where "Taylorism" was being tested. Complaints that Taylorism was dehumanizing led to an
investigation by the United States Congress. Despite its controversy, scientific management
changed the way that work was done, and forms of it continue to be used today.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs  Top

If motivation is driven by the existence of unsatisfied needs, then it is worthwhile for a manager
to understand which needs are the more important for individual employees. In this regard,
Abraham Maslow developed a model in which basic, low-level needs such as physiological
requirements and safety must be satisfied before higher-level needs such as self-fulfillment
are pursued. In this hierarchical model, when a need is mostly satisfied it no longer motivates
and the next higher need takes its place. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is shown in the
following diagram:
 

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

 Self-Actualization

Esteem Needs

Social Needs

Safety Needs

Physiological Needs

Physiological Needs

Physiological needs are those required to sustain life, such as:

 air
 water

 nourishment

 sleep

According to Maslow's theory, if such needs are not satisfied then one's motivation will arise
from the quest to satisfy them. Higher needs such as social needs and esteem are not felt
until one has met the needs basic to one's bodily functioning.
 
 

Safety

Once physiological needs are met, one's attention turns to safety and security in order to be free
from the threat of physical and emotional harm. Such needs might be fulfilled by:

 Living in a safe area

work done, inequity may exist. Adams (1965) stated employees will attempt to restore
equity through various means, some of which may be counter- productive to
organizational goals and objectives. For instance, employees who feel their work is not
being appreciated may work less or undervalue the work of other employees.

This final example compares the two highest motivational factors to Herzberg's two-
factor theory. The highest ranked motivator, interesting work, is a motivator factor. The
second ranked motivator, good wages is a hygiene factor. Herzberg, Mausner, &
Snyderman (1959) stated that to the degree that motivators are present in a job,
motivation will occur. The absence of motivators does not lead to dissatisfaction.
Further, they stated that to the degree that hygienes are absent from a job,
dissatisfaction will occur. When present, hygienes prevent dissatisfaction, but do not
lead to satisfaction. In our example, the lack of interesting work (motivator) for the
centers' employees would not lead to dissatisfaction. Paying centers' employees lower
wages (hygiene) than what they believe to be fair may lead to job dissatisfaction.
Conversely, employees will be motivated when they are doing interesting work and but
will not necessarily be motivated by higher pay.

The discussion above, about the ranked importance of motivational factors as related to
motivational theory, is only part of the picture. The other part is how these rankings
compare with related research. A study of industrial employees, conducted by Kovach
(1987), yielded the following ranked order of motivational factors: (a) interesting work,
(b) full appreciation of work done, and (c) feeling of being in on things. Another study
of employees, conducted by Harpaz (1990), yielded the following ranked order of
motivational factors: (a) interesting work, (b) good wages, and (c) job security.

In this study and the two cited above, interesting work ranked as the most important
motivational factor. Pay was not ranked as one of the most important motivational
factors by Kovach (1987), but was ranked second in this research and by Harpaz
(1990). Full appreciation of work done was not ranked as one of the most important
motivational factors by Harpaz (1990), but was ranked second in this research and by
Kovach (1987). The discrepancies in these research findings supports the idea that
what motivates employees differs given the context in which the employee works. What
is clear, however, is that employees rank interesting work as the most important
motivational factor.

Implications for Centers and Extension

The ranked importance of motivational factors of employees at the centers provides

useful information for the centers' director and employees. Knowing how to use this
information in motivating centers' employees is complex. The strategy for motivating
centers' employees depends on which motivation theories are used as a reference
point. If Hertzberg's theory is followed, management should begin by focusing on pay
and job security (hygiene factors) before focusing on interesting work and full
appreciation of work done (motivator factors). If Adams' equity theory is followed,
management should begin by focusing on areas where there may be perceived
inequities (pay and full appreciation of work done) before focusing on interesting work
and job security. If Vroom's theory is followed, management should begin by focusing
on rewarding (pay and interesting work) employee effort in achieving organizational
goals and objectives.

Regardless of which theory is followed, interesting work and employee pay appear to be
important links to higher motivation of centers' employees. Options such as job
enlargement, job enrichment, promotions, internal and external stipends, monetary,
and non-monetary compensation should be considered. Job enlargement can be used
(by managers) to make work more interesting (for employees) by increasing the
number and variety of activities performed. Job enrichment can used to make work
more interesting and increase pay by adding higher level responsibilities to a job and
providing monetary compensation (raise or stipend) to employees for accepting this
responsibility. These are just two examples of an infinite number of methods to
increase motivation of employees at the centers. The key to motivating centers'
employees is to know what motivates them and designing a motivation program based
on those needs.

The results presented in this paper also have implications for the entire Cooperative
Extension Sysyem. The effectiveness of Extension is dependent upon the motivation of
its employees (Chesney, 1992; Buford, 1990; Smith, 1990). Knowing what motivates
employees and incorporating this knowledge into the reward system will help Extension
identify, recruit, employ, train, and retain a productive workforce. Motivating Extension
employees requires both managers and employees working together (Buford, 1993).
Extension employees must be willing to let managers know what motivates them, and
managers must be willing to design reward systems that motivate employees. Survey
results, like those presented here, are useful in helping Extension managers determine
what motivates employees (Bowen & Radhakrishna, 1991). If properly designed reward
systems are not implemented, however, employees will not be motivated.

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.

Bedeian, A. G. (1993). Management (3rd ed.). New York: Dryden Press.

Bowen, B. E., & Radhakrishna, R. B. (1991). Job satisfaction of agricultural education

faculty: A constant phenomena. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32 (2). 16-22.
Buford, J. A., Jr., Bedeian, A. G., & Lindner, J. R. (1995). Management in Extension (3rd
ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Extension.

Buford, J. A., Jr. (1990). Extension management in the information age. Journal of
Extension, 28 (1).

Buford, J. A., Jr. (1993). Be your own boss. Journal of Extension, 31 (1).

Chesney, C. E. (1992). Work force 2000: is Extension agriculture ready? Journal of

Extension, 30 (2).

Dickson, W. J. (1973). Hawthorne experiments. In C. Heyel (ed.), The encyclopedia of

management, 2nd ed. (pp. 298-302). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Harpaz, I. (1990). The importance of work goals: an international perspective. Journal

of International Business Studies, 21. 75-93.

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

Higgins, J. M. (1994). The management challenge (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Kovach, K. A. (1987). What motivates employees? Workers and supervisors give

different answers. Business Horizons, 30. 58-65.

Kreitner, R. (1995). Management (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, July 1943.

370-396.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Free Press.

Smith, G. P. (1994). Motivation. In W. Tracey (ed.), Human resources management and

development handbook (2nd ed.).

Smith, K. L. (1990). The future of leaders in Extension. Journal of Extension, 28 (1).

Terpstra, D. E. (1979). Theories of motivation: borrowing the best. Personnel Journal,

58. 376.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property
of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or
training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale
distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-
ed@joe.org.

If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support

© Copyright by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Copyright Policy