Motivation can be considered to consist an individual’s attempt and continuity and the way of that attempt – motive is the will to execute. ( Brooks. 2009 ) Most directors have to depute because the occupation that they have is excessively large for one individual to make. In holding to work through other people it is necessary that directors understand what motivates an employee to move positively in the involvements of the organisation. ( Buckley. 2009 ) Maslow’s theory of demands tends to be treated as classical within the field of organizational behavior. being referred to as a ‘classic among classics’ ( Matteson. Ivancevich. 1989 ; Wilson. 1999 ) . However I aim to turn out that motive theory is a much broader subject than the rules of Maslow with the usage of two content theories ; ‘two-factor theory’ and ‘Theory X & A ; Theory Y’ . every bit good as procedure theories ; Expectancy Theory and Equity Theory. To farther turn out my point I will utilize Marx’s theory and Taylor’s scientific attack.
First some background – Maslow suggested persons are motivated to fulfill a set of five demands which are hierarchically ranked harmonizing to their saliency ( Brooks. 2009 ) . Physiological. safety and societal demands ( lower-order demands ) are satisfied from the context within which the occupation is undertaken. Self-esteem and self-actualization ( higher order demands ) are met through the content of the occupation. Maslow farther argued that at any one clip one demand is dominant and acts as a incentive. However one time that demand is satisfied it will no longer actuate. but be replaced by the following higher degree need which remains to be satisfied. ( Buckley. 2009 ) In order to be motivated. persons need to be given the chance to fulfill the demand at the following degree in the hierarchy. ( Brooks. 2009 ) Maslow recognised that this was non a fixed ( yet rather stiff ) hierarchy and that for some ; incentives may be at different degrees but small opportunity for divergence. Contented theories deviate from the ‘classical’ Maslow attack to motive. they attempt to place and explicate the factors which motivate people. ( Brooks. 2009 ) First Herzberg formed the ‘two factor theory’ – based on a survey designed to prove the construct that adult male has two sets of demands: his demand as an animate being to avoid hurting and his demand as a human to turn psychologically ( Herzberg. 1959 ; Brooks. 2009 ) .
He found factors that created occupation dissatisfaction ( hygiene factors – pain turning away ) were related to the context of the occupation ( extrinsic wagess ) and factors that caused occupation satisfaction ( incentives – psychological growing ) were related to the content of the occupation ( intrinsic wagess ) . ( Sankar. 1994 ) One illustration of the successful usage of incentives particularly achievement & A ; acknowledgment is in ASDA. one of the first to acknowledge it doesn’t pay its employees peculiarly good ; alternatively it lavishes them with ‘bursting with pride’ and ‘thank you’ certifications ( Gallic. 2008 ) . However the construct presents a job with semantics. for we usually think of satisfaction and dissatisfaction as antonyms ( Clark ; Chandler ; Barry. 1994 ) . However extinguishing dissatisfaction does non bring forth satisfaction because they are determined by different factors. so the antonym of satisfaction is no satisfaction and the same is said for dissatisfaction ( Sankar. 1994 ) . Hygiene factors have to be met adequately to avoid dissatisfaction. but do non actuate employees and the presence of incentives creates positive occupation satisfaction.
This contradicts Maslow’s beliefs that certain demands have to be met before the person can come on. as all these factors can be addressed at one time. Herzberg believed one manner direction could make motive is non through horizontal burden ( increasing work load ) but by vertically lading. giving people complete natural work units. ( Herzberg. 1987 ) In short the grounds of Herzberg’s theory at work suggests motive is non merely the merchandise of the hierarchy of demands being achieved. Second. the human behavior at work: Theory X ( the traditional position of way and control ) and Theory Y ( the integrating of single and organizational ends ) developed by McGregor. Theory X ‘mediocrity of the masses’ – is where workers are described as the mean human – preferring to be directed. wishing to avoid duty. hold comparatively small aspiration and want security above all. ( McGregor. 1960 ; Pugh 1984 ) . To see productivity/motivation with Theory X worker you need the deduction of coercive wagess. control and penalty. In contrast to Maslow. as this would stunt the fulfillments of his demands.
Whereas Theory Y workers are described as ; sing attempt at work as remainder or drama. work can be a beginning of satisfaction or penalty ( depending on work conditions ) and persons who seek duty. Theory Y workers achieve aims by making a working environment where it is possible to demo and develop their creativeness. ( tutor2u. 2009 ) However this theory can be seen as naive. in believing work is non a cardinal life involvement for all workers. as it is a necessity. This theory is based on the individual’s personality itself. contrary to Maslow’s thought that it is the content of the occupation. therefore broadening the sentiments on motivational theory. Procedure theories further prove motivational theory is ‘more than Maslow’ ; they focus on how a assortment of personal factors interact and influence human behavior. ( Brooks. 2009 ) First the Equity Theory created by Adams. gives us the penetration into the relationship between wagess and the likely satisfaction individual’s addition from them ( Brooks. 2009 ) . It extends beyond single ego ; it suggests that people are willing and capable to comprehend equity in their immediate environment.
Adam believes if an employee’s outputs received for a peculiar input are equal to. or exceeds. those received by co-workers ; they see the state of affairs as just. therefore making motivation/work harder. ( businessballs. 2007 ) . However if employees see themselves as under-rewarded compared to others. a sense of unfairness is felt. and they so have to do a ‘cognitive adjustment’ in order to cover with this. They may make up one’s mind to take down their inputs. their work part. or effort to raise their results like wage. ( Wilson. 1999 ) This is supported by Lord and Hohenfeld ( 1979 ) and Prichard et Al. ( 1972 ) – underpayment leads to take down occupation public presentation. ( Wilson. 1999 ) One illustration of moving on raising result is Bridget Bodman who found out her male replacement had a higher wage ( ?8000 ) . and assorted extra benefits of which she did non have. as a consequence she received ?25000. ( Gallic. 2008 ) Of which I have besides experienced during my occupation at Tesco. being paid the booth pay ( lower ) when working on forepart desk. This theory challenges Maslow as it bases the incentive as entirely pecuniary addition. whereas Maslow identifies assorted incentives. proposing motivational theory is more complex than merely Maslow.
The 2nd procedure theory is Vroom’s Expectancy theory. which focuses merely on wages. Vroom acknowledges persons may hold different set ends. but postulates that the motivational force for an person is a map of anticipation that certain results will ensue from their behavior and the valency or desirableness of these results. ( Wilson. 1999 ) To accomplish this direction must place valency – whether their employee’s emotional orientation leads them to value extrinsic or intrinsic wagess. anticipation – the sensed first-level result ( public presentation ) obtained from input – this public presentation is achieved with the usage of preparation. so as the employees have a degree of assurance in their ain capableness and instrumentality – guaranting employees believe employers that first-level results ( public presentation ) lead to second-level outcomes/rewards. ( Sankar. 1994 ) Vroom believes when these factors are achieved they interact psychosocially to make a motivational force such that the employee acts in a manner that brings pleasance and avoids hurting. ( IFM. 2007 )
This theory is complicated. the theoretical account assumes that people are rational and nonsubjective ; non taking into history other affectional factors that could be impacting their determinations. ( Brooks. 2009 ) One illustration of the Expectancy theory at work is apparent in the RAC administration that decided to reorganize due to a diminution in market portion. In the reorganization they introduced wagess for public presentation and more equal preparation and as a consequence found immediate betterments of 20 % addition in productiveness over the first. three – four months. ( Hutchinson. 2000 ) This narrows the demand to actuate the employee down to strictly psychological. unlike the broader demands ( physiological etc. ) of Maslow. once more turn outing motive theory is non merely Maslow. To farther support my statement that there is decidedly more than one mentality on motivational theory. Marx & A ; Taylor’s theories are briefly discussed. Marx has a theory that people are of course motivated to work. We are societal animate beings and have a natural desire to transform the universe around us. we have built-in creativeness and desire to work and we strive for cognition and acquisition from our experiences. ( Slides on motive ) This non merely contrasts Maslow’s theory but most other theories of motive. as it suggests motive is unconditioned and does non necessitate to be created.
Laslty. the scientific attack of Taylor. believing directors need to actuate workers ( as they are inherently lazy ) to bring forth on a systematically high degree. e. g. by utilizing coercive measurings such as low basic rewards and high inducement payments for transcending marks. This can be seen in auto production assembly lines of many motor makers – where workers are set one specified undertaking on the production line. The attack did better productiveness enormously at mills where introduced. it besides introduced major labor jobs – fruitful evidences for trade brotherhoods seeking new members. ( Buckley. 2009 ) This shows the theory whilst doing advancement in some countries of motive. wholly neglects other countries. Another defect of this theory is ‘what can’t be step isn’t deserving doing’ therefore once more losing out other cardinal incentives at work. ( Donkin. 2001 ) This contradicts Maslow’s belief that motive is achieved through the context and content of the occupation. as Taylor has shown pecuniary wagess are besides a beginning of motive.
In decision the extended research above into content and procedure theories of Motivation and how they work in the existent workplace. has decidedly answered the inquiry that motive is ‘more than Maslow’ . Particularly by showing the deficiency of empirical grounds presented with the hierarchy of demands. whilst other theories have a batch of back uping grounds. Overall. I have materialised a unequivocal supporting statement to my inquiry and have found that most motivational theories interlink in one manner or another but have extra variables to make motive within the workplace. therefore Maslow may be a ‘classic’ theory of motive. but is by no means the merely. as although it may complect with other theories. they are wholly contrasting. Two sets of theories are compatible ; in fact when combined they provide considerable penetration to motive in the workplace. ( Brooks. 2009 ) The above has non merely identified that motive is non merely Maslow. but motive is non merely one of any of the above theories – we are all alone. rich and complex – no any one theory can capture this – once more repeating the fact that motive is ‘ more than Maslow’ . Part Bacillus:
Junction Hotel went through a recent managerial restructure when Adam Chance decided he wanted to step back from daily engagement. ( Seminar 2. Booklet 2 ) three campaigners emerged for his replacing. nevertheless when sing who to use. the leading qualities have to complect with the current motivational theory in pattern. so as non to further upset an already altering concern and its employees. One campaigner was Autocratic. so would outdo tantrum with a motivational attack that is slightly scientific/Taylorism. as this requires stiff instructions from direction and coercive measurings to run into marks. nevertheless in the long-term this may really curtail the employees creativity/motivation. Another campaigner was democratic. so would suit in with Maslow’s theory as it helps employees better themselves. listens to what they have to state etc. However with the usage of this attack objectives may go ill-defined. This shows how in different facets of concern. motivational theory has to be carefully selected for the civilization of the concern to guarantee fluidness and coherence. Junction Hotel had staff ailments when their new uniforms had arrived. particularly as the female staff felt that their uniform was ‘more revealing’ than those worn by work forces. ( Seminar 5. Booklet 2 ) Here you can see the Equity theory in pattern.
The male and female staff have the same input at work. nevertheless the female staff are being rewarded with new uniforms. that make them experience uncomfortable. making a sense of unfairness. Therefore if the uniforms are kept. the women’s sense of uncomfort will negatively impact their motivation/performance. However the new director is in struggle with what to make. does she alter the uniform to guarantee the comfort and motive of her staff. or does she follow caput offices orders that the new uniform reflects the company slogan: ‘luxurious. gracious. dependable’ ? This is another illustration of how motivational theory can non be merely one construct. because they all challenge each other. merely like existent life events. Therefore it would look more than one motivational theory demands to be applied when covering with a state of affairs endangering employee motive. One last job Junction Hotel faces in regard to motive. is the eating house is marketed as ‘Effingham’s’ so as to merchandise on the repute of the chef ( Seminar 5. Booklet 1 ) .
However Effingham has been alleged to do staff call and have blazing rows with them. Junction Hotel has the quandary of turn toing Effingham and possibly losing his business/valuable beginning of gross but with possible consequences of improved communications. team-work. motive of his subsidiaries and finally an even better nutrient service to fit the excellence of his nutrient. This demonstrates the hazards and forfeits that may hold to be made within concern to accomplish the motive of its employees. It shows bettering the motive of employees may non ever better other facets of concern life but really compromise them ; once more back uping the fact that motivational is complex and decidedly ‘more than Maslow’ .
Brooks. I. . 2009. Organizational Behavior: Persons. Groups and Organisation. 5th erectile dysfunction. Harlean carpenter: Pearson. Buckley. M. . 2009. Business Studies.
3rd erectile dysfunction. Harlean carpenter: Pearson. Clark. H. . Chandler. J. . Barry. J. . 1994. Administration and individualities: Text and readings in organizational behavior. Oxford: Chapman & A ; Hall. Donkin. R. . 2001. Blood. Sweat and Tears: The Evolution of Work. London: Texere. French. R. et Al. . 2008. Organizational Behaviour. Chichester: John Wiley & A ; Sons. Pugh. D. . 1984. Organization Theory. 2nd erectile dysfunction. Middlesex: Penguin Group. Sankar. Y. . 1994. Organizational Behaviour. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc. Wilson. F. . 1999. Organizational Behaviour and Work: A critical Introduction. 2nd erectile dysfunction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Herzberg. F. . 1987. HBR authoritative: one more clip: how do you actuate employees? Harvard Business Review. 65 ( 5 ) [ 16 April 2012 ] Hutchinson. J. . 2000. Evolving high committedness direction and the experience of the RAC call Centre. HR Management Journal. 10 ( 1 ) [ 16 April 2012 ]
2009 [ online ] Available at: & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //tutor2u. net/business/people/motivation_theory_mcgregor. asp & gt ; [ 22 April 2012 ] . 2007 [ online ] Available at: & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. businessballs. com/adamsequitytheory. htmhttp: //www. ifm. eng. Cam. Ac. uk/dstools/paradigm/vroom. hypertext markup language & gt ; [ 23 April 2012 ] . 2007 [ online ] Available at: & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. ifm. eng. Cam. Ac. uk/dstools/paradigm/vroom. hypertext markup language & gt ; [ 23 April 2012 ]