Disclaimer: THIS IS A COMPILATION OF DIFFERENT MATERIALS FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES. THIS WAS DONE BY COPY/PASTE. THE MAJORITY INFORMATION FOUND HERE ARE NOT MY OWN WORDS. THIS PAPER WAS DONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN ASSIGNMENT. NO PROFIT WAS PLANNED TO BE MADE FROM THIS. ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT (ES24) Assignment The Hawthorne Studies Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs The Hawthorne Studies Hawthorne Studies The Hawthorne Studies are experiments which inspired Elton Mayo and others to develop the Human Relations Movement.
These were conducted by the Western Electric Company of Chicago to measure the impact of different working conditions (such as levels of lighting, payment systems, and hours of work) on output of work employees do. The researchers, Fritz Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson, concluded that variations in output were not caused by changing physical conditions or material rewards but partly by the experiments themselves. The special treatment required by experimental participation convinced workers that management had a particular interest in them.
This raised morale and led to increased productivity. The term ‘Hawthorne effect’ is now widely used to refer to the behavior-modifying effects of being the subject of social investigation, regardless of the context of the investigation. More generally, the researchers concluded that supervisory style greatly affected worker productivity. Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne Studies The Hawthorne Studies (also known as the Hawthorne Experiments) were conducted from 1927 to 1932 at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works in Cicero, Illinois (a suburb of Chicago).
This is where Professor Elton Mayo examined the impact of work conditions in employee productivity. Elton Mayo started these experiments by examining the physical and environmental influences of the workplace (e. g. brightness of lights, humidity) and later, moved into the psychological aspects (e. g. breaks, group pressure, working hours, managerial leadership) and their impact on employee motivation as it applies to productivity. The Hawthorne Effect In essence, the Hawthorne Effect, as it applies to the workplace, can be summarized as “Employees are more productive because the employees know they are being studied. Elton Mayo’s experiments showed an increase in worker productivity was produced by the psychological stimulus of being singled out, involved, and made to feel important. Additionally, the act of measurement, itself, impacts the results of the measurement. Just as dipping a thermometer into a vial of liquid can affect the temperature of the liquid being measured, the act of collecting data, where none was collected before creates a situation that didn’t exist before, thereby affecting the results.
The major finding of the study was that almost regardless of the experimental manipulation employed, the production of the workers seemed to improve. One reasonable conclusion is that the workers were pleased to receive attention from the researchers who expressed an interest in them. The study was only expected to last one year, but because the researchers were set back each time they tried to relate the manipulated physical conditions to the worker’s efficiency, the project extended out to five years. Four general conclusions were drawn from the Hawthorne studies: The aptitudes of individuals are imperfect predictors of job performance. Although they give some indication of the physical and mental potential of the individual, the amount produced is strongly influenced by social factors. • Informal organization affects productivity. The Hawthorne researchers discovered a group life among the workers. The studies also showed that the relations that supervisors develop with workers tend to influence the manner in which the workers carry out directives. • Work-group norms affect productivity.
The Hawthorne researchers were not the first to recognize that work groups tend to arrive at norms of what is “a fair day’s work,” however, they provided the best systematic description and interpretation of this phenomenon. • The workplace is a social system. The Hawthorne researchers came to view the workplace as a social system made up of interdependent parts. | | The Hawthorne Experiments and Employee Motivation Elton Mayo’s studies grew out of preliminary experiments at the Hawthorne plant from 1924 to 1927 on the effect of light on productivity.
Those experiments showed no clear connection between productivity and the amount of illumination but researchers began to wonder what kind of changes would influence output. Variables Affecting Productivity Specifically, Elton Mayo wanted to find out what effect fatigue and monotony had on job productivity and how to control them through such variables as rest breaks, work hours, temperature and humidity. In the process, he stumbled upon a principle of human motivation that would help to revolutionize the theory and practice of management.
Elton Mayo selected two women, and had those two select an additional four from the assembly line, segregated them from the rest of the factory and put them under the eye of a supervisor who was more a friendly observer than disciplinarian. Mayo made frequent changes in their working conditions, always discussing and explaining the changes in advance. Relay Assembly The group was employed in assembling telephone relays – a relay being a small but intricate mechanism composed of about forty separate parts which had to be assembled by the girls seated at a lone bench and dropped into a chute when completed.
The relays were mechanically counted as they slipped down the chute. The intent was to measure the basic rate of production before making any environmental changes. Then, as changes were introduced, the impact to effectiveness would be measured by increased or decreased production of the relays. Feedback Mechanism Throughout the series of experiments, an observer sat with the girls in the workshop noting all that went on, keeping the girls informed about the experiment, asking for advice or information, and listening to their complaints.
The experiment began by introducing various changes, each of which was continued for a test period of four to twelve weeks. The results of these changes are as follows: Work Conditions and Productivity Results Under normal conditions with a forty-eight hour week, including Saturdays, and no rest pauses. The girls produced 2,400 relays a week each. 1. They were then put on piecework for eight weeks. • Output increased 2. They were given two five-minute breaks, one in the morning, and one in the afternoon, for a period of five weeks. • Output increased, yet again . The breaks were each lengthened to ten minutes. • Output rose sharply 4. Six five-minute breaks were introduced. • The girls complained that their work rhythm was broken by the frequent pauses • Output fell only slightly 5. The original two breaks were reinstated, this time, with a complimentary hot meal provided during the morning break. • Output increased further still 6. The workday was shortened to end at 4. 30 p. m. instead of 5. 00 p. m. • Output increased 7. The workday was shortened to end at 4. 00 p. m. • Output leveled off 8.
Finally, all the improvements were taken away, and the original conditions before the experiment were reinstated. They were monitored in this state for 12 more weeks. • Output was the highest ever recorded – averaging 3000 relays a week Elton Mayo’s Conclusions on Job Performance Elton Mayo came to the following conclusions as a result of the study: • The aptitudes of individuals are imperfect predictors of job performance. Although they give some indication of the physical and mental potential of the individual, the amount produced is strongly influenced by social factors. Informal organization affects productivity. The researchers discovered a group life among the workers. The studies also showed that the relations that supervisors develop with workers tend to influence the manner in which the workers carry out directives. • Work-group norms affect productivity. The Hawthorne researchers were not the first to recognize that work groups tend to arrive at norms of what is “a fair day’s work. ” However, they provided the best systematic description and interpretation of this phenomenon. • The workplace is a social system.
The researchers came to view the workplace as a social system made up of interdependent parts. The worker is a person whose attitudes and effectiveness are conditioned by social demands from both inside and outside the work plant. Informal group within the work plant exercise strong social controls over the work habits and attitudes of the individual worker. • The need for recognition, security and sense of belonging is more important in determining workers’ morale and productivity than the physical conditions under which he works.
The major finding of the study was that almost regardless of the experimental manipulation, worker production seemed to continually improve. One reasonable conclusion is that the workers were happy to receive attention from the researchers who expressed an interest in them. Originally, the study was expected to last one year, but since the findings were inexplicable when the researchers tried to relate the worker’s efficiency to manipulated physical conditions, the project was incrementally extended to five years. Looking Back on the Experiments
For decades, the Hawthorne studies provided the rationale for human relations within the organization. Then, in 1978, R. H. Franke and J. D. Kaul used a new procedure called “time-series analyses” with the original data and variables, including the Great Depression and the instance of a managerial discipline in which two insubordinate and mediocre workers were replaced by two different, productive workers. They discovered that production was most affected by the replacement of the two workers due to their greater productivity and the effect of the disciplinary action on the other workers.
The occurrence of the Depression also encouraged job productivity, perhaps through the increased importance of jobs and the fear of losing them. Rest periods and a group incentive plan also had a somewhat positive smaller effect on productivity. These variables accounted for almost all the variation in productivity during the experimental period. Social science may have been too ready to embrace the original Hawthorne interpretations since it was looking for theories of employee motivation that were more humane and democratic. Modern Management Lessons
What seemed to be most impactful during the experiments was that six individuals became a team and the team gave itself wholeheartedly and spontaneously to cooperation in the experiment. Consequently, they felt as if they were participating freely and were happy in the knowledge that they were working without coercion from above or limitation from below. The experimental group had considerable freedom of movement. With the observer overseeing them, rather than their previous Theory X managers, they weren’t pushed around or micromanaged.
They were satisfied with the result of working under less pressure than ever before. In fact, regular medical checks showed no signs of cumulative fatigue and absence from work declined by 80 percent. Under these conditions, they developed an increased sense of responsibility. Instead of receiving discipline from higher authority, it emerged from within the group. Applying the Hawthorne Effect to Employee Motivation Suppose you select a management trainee and provide specialized training in management skills not currently possessed.
Without saying a word, you’ve given the trainee the feeling that she is so valuable to the organization that you’ll spend time and money to develop her skills. She feels she’s on a track to the top, which, in turn, motivates her to work harder and more effectively. This form of employee motivation is independent of any particular skills or knowledge she may have gained from the training session. That’s the Hawthorne Effect at work. In a way, the Hawthorne Effect can be construed as an enemy of the modern manager.
Carrying the theory further toward cynicism, it could be said that it doesn’t matter how you manage, because the Hawthorne Effect will produce the positive outcome you want. Tracking Process Improvements – Gathering Performance Metrics Unfortunately, the measurement of performance can unintentionally affect the performance itself. In order to determine the impact of a new or modified process, someone needs to subtly observe workers on the job and monitor production. Occasionally, managers object, saying that observation isn’t a valid test, “Of course they’ll perform better, and you’re watching them. “
The power of the social setting and peer group dynamics was reinforced for Elton Mayo later in the Hawthorne Studies, when he saw an unusual reaction to his original experiments. A group of 14 men participating in a similar study restricted production because they were distrustful of management and thought that their quotas would be artificially elevated if they were to perform beyond the norm during these studies. If workers suddenly sense an environmental shift from a Theory X organization to a Theory Y organization, this can trigger false positives from nearly any otherwise meaningless or even slightly detrimental process change.
Involving your workers in setting their own direction, showing them that you care about how their job is progressing, and fostering a more positive relationship will create beneficial productivity impacts. Conversely, if your environment one of mistrust and fear, and the workers unite in rebellion of management’s efforts to control and oppress them, there will be little a manager can do to effect positive change without first handling this toxic situation. Someone Really Cares About Me? Benefits of the Hawthorne Effect Elton Mayo realized that the women, exercising a freedom they didn’t have on the factory floor, had formed a social atmosphere that also included the productivity-tracking observer. They talked and joked with one another. They began to meet socially outside of work. When these women were singled out from the rest of the factory workers, it raised their self-esteem. When they were allowed to have a friendly relationship with their supervisor, they felt happier at work.
When he discussed changes in advance with them, and allowed them a form of participation, they felt like part of the team. Elton Mayo had secured the girls cooperation and loyalty. This explains why productivity rose even when he took away their rest breaks. There’s nothing wrong with intentionally using the Hawthorne Effect to reach your goals. In fact, the Hawthorne Effect has also been called the ‘Somebody Upstairs Cares’ syndrome. When people spend a large portion of their time at work, they require a sense of belonging, of being part of something bigger than themselves.
When they do, they are more effective. This effect has been described as the reward you reap when you pay attention to people. The mere act of showing people that you’re concerned about them usually spurs them to better job performance. That’s the true Hawthorne Effect. THEORY X AND THEORY Y Theory X The Theory X is a management theory developed by Douglas McGregor, stating that managers must coerce, cajole, threaten, and closely supervise subordinates in order to motivate them. Theory X is an authoritarian supervisory approach to management. Theory Y
Beliefs, in contrast to Theory X, the Theory Y is held by some managers that given the right conditions and rewards, the average employee finds work to be a source of satisfaction, will exercise self-direction toward goals he is committed to, seeks responsibility, and is creative. Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y Douglas McGregor developed a philosophical view of humankind with his Theory X and Theory Y in 1960. These are two opposing perceptions about how people view human behavior at work and organizational life. Theory X – With Theory X assumptions, management’s role is to coerce and control employees. People have an inherent dislike for work and will avoid it whenever possible. • People must be coerced, controlled, directed, or threatened with punishment in order to get them to achieve the organizational objectives. • People prefer to be directed, do not want responsibility, and have little or no ambition. • People seek security above all else. Theory Y – With Theory Y assumptions, management’s role is to develop the potential in employees and help them to release that potential towards common goals. • Work is as natural as play and rest. People will exercise self-direction if they are committed to the objectives (they are NOT lazy). • Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement. • People learn to accept and seek responsibility. • Creativity, ingenuity, and imagination are widely distributed among the population. People are capable of using these abilities to solve an organizational problem. • People have potential. Theory X and Theory Y represent two sets of assumptions about human nature and human behavior that are relevant to the practice of management.
Theory X represents a negative view of human nature that assumes individuals generally dislike work, are irresponsible, and require close supervision to do their jobs. Theory Y denotes a positive view of human nature and assumes individuals are generally industrious, creative, and able to assume responsibility and exercise self-control in their jobs. One would expect, then, that managers holding assumptions about human nature that are consistent with Theory X might exhibit a managerial style that is quite different than managers who hold assumptions consistent with Theory Y.
The first section explains the development of Theory X and Theory Y. Second, the effect of Theory X and Theory Y on management functions is discussed. Third is a criticism of Theory Y followed by the concluding section, Theory X and Theory Y in the twenty-first century. Conceptualization and Development After the Hawthorne experiments and the subsequent behavioral research of the 1930s and 1940s, the human relations approach to management joined the classical perspective as a major school of management thought.
Whereas the classical school as espoused by management pioneers such as Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol focused on principles of management, scientific selection and training, and worker compensation, the human relations approach emphasized behavioral issues such as job satisfaction, group norms, and supervisory style. The human relations model was hailed as a more enlightened management paradigm because it explicitly considered the importance of individual and how managers could increase productivity by increasing workers’ job satisfaction.
The end goal for management increased employee productivity; the assumption was that satisfied workers would be more productive compared with workers who felt antagonized by the companies they worked for. In the 1950s, Douglas McGregor (1906-1964), a psychologist who taught at MIT and served as president of Antioch College from 1948-1954, criticized both the classical and human relations schools as inadequate for the realities of the workplace. He believed that the assumptions underlying both schools represented a negative view of human nature and that another pproach to management based on an entirely different set of assumptions was needed. McGregor laid out his ideas in his classic 1957 article “The Human Side of Enterprise” and the 1960 book of the same name, in which he introduced what came to be called the new humanism. McGregor argued that the conventional approach to managing was based on three major propositions, which he called Theory X: 1. Management is responsible for organizing the elements of productive enterprise-money, materials, equipment, and people-in the interests of economic ends. 2.
With respect to people, this is a process of directing their efforts, motivating them, controlling their actions, and modifying their behavior to fit the needs of the organization. 3. Without this active intervention by management, people would be passive-even resistant-to organizational needs. They must therefore be persuaded, rewarded, punished, and controlled. Their activities must be directed. Management’s task was thus simply getting things done through other people. According to McGregor, these tenets of management are based on less explicit assumptions about human nature.
The first of these assumptions is that individuals do not like to work and will avoid it if possible. A further assumption is that human beings do not want responsibility and desire explicit direction. Additionally, individuals are assumed to put their individual concerns above that of the organization for which they work and to resist change, valuing security more than other considerations at work. Finally, human beings are assumed to be easily manipulated and controlled. McGregor contended that both the classical and human relations approaches to management depended this same set of assumptions.
He called the first style of management “hard” and identified its methods as close supervision, tight controls, and coercion. The hard style of management led to restriction of output, mutual distrust, unionism, and even sabotage. McGregor called the second style of management “soft” and identified its methods as permissiveness and need satisfaction. McGregor suggested that the soft style of management often led to managers’ failure to perform their managerial role. He also pointed out that employees often take advantage of an overly permissive manager by demanding more but performing at lower levels.
McGregor drew upon the work of Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) to explain why Theory X assumptions led to ineffective management. Maslow had proposed that man’s needs are arranged in levels, with physical and safety needs at the bottom of the needs hierarchy and social, ego, and self-actualization needs at upper levels of the hierarchy. Maslow’s basic point was that once a need is met, it no longer motivates behavior; thus, only unmet needs are motivational. McGregor argued that most employees already had their physical and safety needs met and that the motivational emphasis had shifted to the social, ego, and self-actualization needs.
Therefore, management had to provide opportunities for these upper-level needs to be met in the workplace, or employees would not be satisfied or motivated in their jobs. Such opportunities could be provided by allowing employees to participate in decision making, by redesigning jobs to make them more challenging, or by emphasizing good work group relations, among other things. According to McGregor, neither the hard style of management based on the classical school nor the soft style of management inspired by the human relations movement were sufficient to motivate employees.
Thus, he proposed a different set of assumptions about human nature as it pertains to the workplace. McGregor put forth these assumptions, which he believed could lead to more effective management of people in the organization, under the rubric of Theory Y. The major propositions of Theory Y include the following: 1. Management is responsible for organizing the elements of productive enterprise-money, materials, equipment, and people in the interests of economic ends. 2. People are not by nature passive or resistant to organizational needs. They have become so as a result of experience in organizations. . The motivation, potential for development, capacity for assuming responsibility, and readiness to direct behavior toward organizational goals are all present in people-management does not put them there. It is a responsibility of management to make it possible for people to recognize and develop these human characteristics for themselves. 4. The essential task of management is to arrange organizational conditions and methods of operation so that people can achieve their own goals by directing their efforts toward organizational objectives.
Thus, Theory Y has at its core the assumption that the physical and mental effort involved in work is natural and that individuals actively seek to engage in work. It also assumes that close supervision and the threat of punishment are not the only means or even the best means for inducing employees to exert productive effort. Instead, if given the opportunity, employees will display self-motivation to put forth the effort necessary to achieve the organization’s goals. Thus, avoiding responsibility is not an inherent quality of human nature; individuals will actually seek it out under the proper conditions.
Theory Y also assumes that the ability to be innovative and creative exists among a large, rather than a small segment of the population. Finally, it assumes that rather than valuing security above all other rewards associated with work, individuals desire rewards that satisfy their self-esteem and self-actualization needs. Although McGregor did not believe that it was possible to create a completely Theory Y-type organization in the 1950s, he did believe that Theory Y assumptions would lead to more effective management.
He identified several approaches to management that he felt were consistent with the precepts of Theory Y. These included decentralization of decision-making authority, delegation, job enlargement, and participative management. Job enrichment programs that began in the 1960s and 1970s also were consistent with the assumptions of Theory Y. In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, McGregor’s conceptualization of Theory X and Theory Y were often used as the basis for discussions of management style, employee involvement, and worker motivation.
Empirical evidence concerning the validity of Theory X and Theory Y, however, was mixed. Some writers suggested that organizations implementing Theory Y tended to revert back to Theory X in tough economic times. Others suggested that Theory Y was not always more effective than Theory X, but that the contingencies of each managerial situation determined which of the approaches was more appropriate. Still others suggested extensions to Theory Y. One of these, William Ouchi’s Theory Z, attempted to combine the strength of American management philosophies based on Theory Y with Japanese management philosophies.
Along with writers such as Argyris and Likert, McGregor was one of several important humanist writers of the mid-twentieth century who argued that traditional organizational hierarchies create a state of dependence between subordinates and their managers and served as a bridge between the human relations school and a new form of organizational humanism based on Theory Y. Effect on Management Functions In their well-known textbook, Harold Koontz and Cyril O’Donnell illustrated how the managerial functions of planning, leading, and controlling might be affected by Theory X and Theory Y assumptions.
In regard to planning, Theory X assumptions might lead to the superior setting of objectives with little or no participation from subordinates. Theory Y assumptions, conversely, should lead to cooperative objectives designed with input from both employees and managers, resulting in a higher commitment by subordinates to accomplish these shared objectives. Under Theory X, managers’ leadership styles are likely to be autocratic, which may create resistance on the part of subordinates. Communication flow is more likely to be downward from manager to the subordinates.
In contrast, Theory Y may foster leadership styles that are more participative, which would empower subordinates to seek responsibility and be more committed to goal achievement. Theory Y leadership should increase communication flow, especially in the upward direction. In regard to control, Theory X is likely to result in external control, with the manager acting as a performance judge; the focus is generally on the past. Conversely, Theory Y should lead to control processes based on subordinates’ self-control.
The manager is more likely to act as a coach rather than a judge, focusing on how performance can be improved in the future rather than on who was responsible for past performance. Although the conceptual linkages between Theory X and Theory Y assumptions and managerial styles are relatively straightforward, empirical research has not clearly demonstrated that the relationship between these assumptions and managers’ styles of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling is consistent with McGregor’s ideas.
Criticism of Theory Y The goal of managers using Theory X management styles was to accomplish organizational goals through the organization’s human resources. McGregor’s research suggested that when work was better aligned with human needs and motivations, employee productivity would increase. As a result, some critics have suggested that, rather than concern for employees, Theory Y style managers were simply engaged in a seductive form a manipulation.
Even as managers better matched work tasks to basic human motivational needs through participative management, job rotation, job enlargement, and other programs that emerged at least partly from McGregor’s work, managers were still focusing on measures of productivity rather than measures of employee well-being. In essence, critics charge that Theory Y is a condescending scheme for inducing increased productivity from employees, and unless employees share in the economic benefits of their increased productivity, then they have simply been duped into working harder for the same pay.
Theory X and Theory Y in the Twenty-First Century McGregor’s work on Theory X and Theory Y has had a significant impact on management thought and practice in the years since he first articulated the concepts. In terms of the study of management, McGregor’s concepts are included in the overwhelming majority of basic management textbooks, and they are still routinely presented to students of management. Most textbooks discuss Theory X and Theory Y within the context of motivation theory; others place Theory X and Theory Y within the history of the organizational humanism movement.
Theory X and Theory Y are often studied as a prelude to developing greater understanding of more recent management concepts, such as job enrichment, the job-characteristics model, and self-managed work teams. Although the terminology may have changed since the 1950s, McGregor’s ideas have had tremendous influence on the study of management. In terms of the practice of management, the workplace of the early twenty-first century, with its emphasis on self-managed work teams and other forms of worker involvement programs, is generally consistent with the precepts of Theory Y.
There is every indication that such programs will continue to increase, at least to the extent that evidence of their success begins to accumulate. Hierarchy of Needs Hierarchy of Needs Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a theory of motivation and personality developed by the psychologist Abraham H. Maslow (1908-1970). Maslow’s hierarchy explains human behavior in terms of basic requirements for survival and growth. These requirements, or needs, are arranged according to their importance for survival and their power to motivate the individual.
The most basic physical requirements, such as food, water, or oxygen, constitute the lowest level of the need hierarchy. These needs must be satisfied before other, higher needs become important to individuals. Needs at the higher levels of the hierarchy are less oriented towards physical survival and more toward psychological well-being and growth. These needs have less power to motivate persons, and they are more influenced by formal education and life experiences.
The resulting hierarchy of needs is often depicted as a pyramid, with physical survival needs located at the base of the pyramid and needs for self-actualization located at the top. Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs In 1943, Dr. Abraham Maslow ‘s article “A Theory of Human Motivation ” appeared in Psychological Review, which were further expanded upon in his book: Toward a Psychology of Being In this article, Abraham H. Maslow attempted to formulate a needs-based framework of human motivation and based upon his clinical experiences with people, rather than as did the prior psychology theories of his day from authors such as Freud and B.
F. Skinner, which were largely theoretical or based upon animal behavior. From this theory of motivation, modern leaders and executive managers find means of motivation for the purposes of employee and workforce management. Abraham Maslow’s book Motivation and Personality (1954), formally introduced the Hierarchy of Needs. The basis of Maslow’s motivation theory is that human beings are motivated by unsatisfied needs, and that certain lower factors need to be satisfied before higher needs can be satisfied.
According to Maslow, there are general types of needs (physiological, survival, safety, love, and esteem) that must be satisfied before a person can act unselfishly. He called these needs “deficiency needs. ” As long as we are motivated to satisfy these cravings, we are moving towards growth, toward self-actualization. Satisfying needs is healthy, while preventing gratification makes us sick or act evilly. As a result, for adequate workplace motivation, it is important that leadership understands the active needs active for individual employee motivation.
In this manner, Maslow’s model indicates that fundamental, lower-order needs like safety and physiological requirements have to be satisfied in order to pursue higher-level motivators along the lines of self-fulfillment. As depicted in the following hierarchical diagram, sometimes called ‘Maslow’s Needs Pyramid’ or ‘Maslow’s Needs Triangle’, after a need is satisfied it stops acting as a motivator and the next need one rank higher starts to motivate. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is often portrayed as a pyramid Types of Needs
Maslow believed that these needs are similar to instincts and play a major role in motivating behavior. Physiological, security, social, and esteem needs are deficiency needs (also known as D-needs), meaning that these needs arise due to deprivation. Satisfying these lower-level needs is important in order to avoid unpleasant feelings or consequences. Maslow termed the highest-level of the pyramid as growth needs (also known as being needs or B-needs). Growth needs do not stem from a lack of something, but rather from a desire to grow as a person.
Five Levels of the Hierarchy of Needs There are five different levels in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: 1. Physiological Needs: Food, shelter, sexual satisfaction i. e. those needs needed for basic survival. Physiological needs are those required to sustain life, such as: a. Air b. Water c. Food d. Sleep These include the most basic needs that are vital to survival, such as the need for water, air, food and sleep. Maslow believed that these needs are the most basic and instinctive needs in the hierarchy because all needs become secondary until these physiological needs are met.
According to this theory, if these fundamental needs are not satisfied then one will surely be motivated to satisfy them. Higher needs such as social needs and esteem are not recognized until one satisfies the needs basic to existence. 2. Security Needs: The need to feel safe within your environment. Also refers to emotional and physical 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 • Medical insurance • Job security Financial reserves These include needs for safety and security. Security needs are important for survival, but they are not as demanding as the physiological needs. Examples of security needs include a desire for steady employment, health insurance, safe neighborhoods and shelter from the environment. According to the Maslow hierarchy, if a person feels threatened, needs further up the pyramid will not receive attention until that need has been resolved. 3. Social Needs: The need for love, friendship and belongingness. Once a person has met the lower level physiological and safety needs, igher level motivators awaken. The first levels of higher level needs are social needs. Social needs are those related to interaction with others and may include: • Friendship • Belonging to a group • Giving and receiving love These include needs for belonging, love and affection. Maslow considered these needs to be less basic than physiological and security needs. Relationships such as friendships, romantic attachments and families help fulfill this need for companionship and acceptance, as does involvement in social, community or religious groups. 4.
Esteem Needs: The need for self respect, status and recognition from others. After a person feels that they “belong”, the urge to attain a degree of importance emerges. Esteem needs can be categorized as external motivators and internal motivators. Internally motivating esteem needs are those such as self-esteem, accomplishment, and self respect. External esteem needs are those such as reputation and recognition. Some examples of esteem needs are: • Recognition (external motivator) • Attention (external motivator) • Social Status (external motivator) • Accomplishment (internal motivator) Self-respect (internal motivator) Maslow later improved his model to add a layer in between self-actualization and esteem needs: the need for aesthetics and knowledge. 5. Self-actualizing Needs: The point of reaching ones full potential. Are you capable at excelling yourself? Self-actualization is the summit of Maslow’s motivation theory. It is about the quest of reaching one’s full potential as a person. Unlike lower level needs, this need is never fully satisfied; as one grows psychologically there are always new opportunities to continue to grow. Self-actualized people tend to have motivators such as: Truth • Justice • Wisdom • Meaning Self-actualized persons have frequent occurrences of peak experiences, which are energized moments of profound happiness and harmony. According to Maslow, only a small percentage of the population reaches the level of self-actualization. Maslow said that needs must be satisfied in the given order. Aims and drive always shift to next higher order needs. Levels 1 to 4 are deficiency motivators; level 5, and by implication 6 to 8, are growth motivators and relatively rarely found. The thwarting of needs is usually a cause of stress, and is particularly so at level 4.
Examples in use: You can’t motivate someone to achieve their sales target (level 4) when they’re having problems with their marriage (level 3). You can’t expect someone to work as a team member (level 3) when they’re having their house re-possessed (level 2). Maslow’s Self-Actualizing Characteristics Maslow believes that the only reason that people would not move through the needs to self-actualization is because of the hindrances placed in their way by society. For example, education is often a hindrance with imposed ideas of the culture.
On the other hand respectful teaching promotes personal growth. Maslow indicated that educational process could take some of the steps listed below to promote personal growth: • Keen sense of reality – aware of real situations – objective judgment, rather than subjective • See problems in terms of challenges and situations requiring solutions, rather than see problems as personal complaints or excuses • Need for privacy and comfortable being alone • Reliant on own experiences and judgment – independent – not reliant on culture and environment to form opinions and views Not susceptible to social pressures – non-conformist • Democratic, fair and non-discriminating – embracing and enjoying all cultures, races and individual styles • Socially compassionate – possessing humanity • Accepting others as they are and not trying to change people • Comfortable with oneself – despite any unconventional tendencies • A few close intimate friends rather than many surface relationships • Sense of humor directed at oneself or the human condition, rather than at the expense of others • Spontaneous and natural – true to oneself, rather than being how others want Excited and interested in everything, even ordinary things • Creative, inventive and original • Seek peak experiences that leave a lasting impression The Hierarchical Effect A key aspect of the model is the hierarchical nature of the needs. The lower the needs in the hierarchy, the more fundamental they are and the more a person will tend to abandon the higher needs in order to pay attention to sufficiently meeting the lower needs. For example, when we are ill, we care little for what others think about us: all we want is to get better.
With Maslow’s theory, an employee’s beginning emphasis on the lower order needs of physiology and security makes sense. Generally, a person beginning their career will be very concerned with physiological needs such as adequate wages and stable income and security needs such as benefits and a safe work environment. We all want a good salary to meet the needs of our family and we want to work in a stable environment. Employees whose lowest level needs have not been met will make job decisions based on compensation, safety, or stability concerns.
Also, employees will revert to satisfying their lowest level needs when these needs are no longer met or are threatened (such as during an economic downturn). This places an extra obligation on managers to act humanely when difficult organizational decisions such as staff reductions have to be implemented. Callous implementation of difficult decisions will cause the remaining employees in the organization to feel threatened about the ability or desire of the organization to continue to meet their physiological and security needs.
Once these basic needs are met, the employee will want his “belongingness” (or social) needs met. The level of social interaction an employee desires will vary based on whether the employee is an introvert or extrovert. The key point is that employees desire to work in an environment where they are accepted in the organization and have some interaction with others. This means effective interpersonal relations are necessary. Managers can create an environment where staff cooperation is rewarded. This will encourage interpersonal effectiveness.
Ongoing managerial communication about operational matters is also an important component of meeting employee’s social needs. Employees who are “kept in the dark” about operational matters and the future plans of the organization often feel like they are an organizational outsider. (This last point is especially important for virtual employees whose absence from the office puts an extra obligation on managers to keep these employees engaged in organizational communications. ) With these needs satisfied, an employee will want his higher level needs of esteem and self-actualization met.
Esteem needs are tied to an employee’s image of himself and his desire for the respect and recognition of others. Even if an individual does not want to move into management, he probably does not want to do the same exact work for 20 years. He may want to be on a project team, complete a special task, learn other tasks or duties, or expand his duties in some manner. Cross-training, job enrichment, and special assignments are popular methods for making work more rewarding. Further, allowing employees to participate in decision making on operational matters is a powerful method for meeting an employee’s esteem needs.
Finally, symbols of accomplishment such as a meaningful job title, job perks, awards, a nice office, business cards, work space, etc. are also important to an employee’s esteem. The important consideration for managers is that they must provide rewards to their employees that both come from the organization and from doing the work itself. Rewards need to be balanced to have a maximum effect. With self-actualization, the employee will be interested in growth and individual development. He will also need to be skilled at what he does.
He may want a challenging job, an opportunity to complete further education, increased freedom from supervision, or autonomy to define his own processes for meeting organizational objectives. At this highest level, managers focus on promoting an environment where an employee can meet his own self-actualization needs. The basic idea of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is that our needs are constantly changing. As one need is met, we desire other needs. This makes sense. Will the raise we received 3 years ago motivate us for the next 10 years?
Will the challenging job we began 5 years ago have the same effect on us today? Will the performance award we received last year completely satisfy our need for recognition for the rest of our lives? The answers to all of these questions is clearly, no. This is the beauty of Maslow’s theory of motivation. Employee needs change with time. This means that managers must continually adapt to employees’ changing needs if they want to keep their workforce motivated. Maslow understood these truths! Applying Maslow’s Needs Hierarchy – Business Management Implications
If Maslow’s theory is true, there are some very important leadership implications to enhance workplace motivation. There are staff motivation opportunities by motivating each employee through their style of management, compensation plans, role definition, and company activities. • Physiological Motivation: Provide ample breaks for lunch and recuperation and pay salaries that allow workers to buy life’s essentials. • Safety Needs: Provide a working environment which is safe, relative job security, and freedom from threats. Social Needs: Generate a feeling of acceptance, belonging, and community by reinforcing team dynamics. • Esteem Motivators: Recognize achievements, assign important projects, and provide status to make employees feel valued and appreciated. • Self-Actualization: Offer challenging and meaningful work assignments which enable innovation, creativity, and progress according to long-term goals. Remember, everyone is not motivated by same needs. At various points in their lives and careers, various employees will be motivated by completely different needs.
It is imperative that you recognize each employee’s needs currently being pursued. In order to motivate their employees, leadership must be understand the current level of needs at which the employee finds themselves, and leverage needs for workplace motivation Viewpoints Maslow’s theory and the other humanistic theories have had an important impact on psychology as well as in other fields. By emphasizing positive aspects of human behavior, these theories provide a framework for understanding human behavior outside the context of mental illness and dysfunction.
Humanistic approaches to behavior allow for the possibility of growth and achievement, in addition to providing useful explanations for some forms of maladjustment that do not fit the traditional understanding of neurosis and mental illness. The humanistic viewpoint has been very influential on psychotherapy and counseling, and many therapists identify themselves as humanistic in orientation. Maslow’s need hierarchy provides a helpful way to understand human motivation in many settings. Maslow proposed many changes in business management in order to make workplaces more responsive to the needs of workers.
He called his ideas “eupsychian management,” emphasizing the potential for human growth in the workplace. A small body of research has shown modest support for some of Maslow’s concepts. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is also used in medical and social welfare settings, providing a set of theoretical guidelines for understanding the concerns of people suffering from physical illness, disabilities, or other life problems. In addition to these settings, the theory is frequently applied in educational and career counseling, in which it is used to help clients select appropriate goals for their lives.
Professional Implications Maslow’s understanding of human motivation has had an important influence in the fields of nursing and allied health. The needs hierarchy provides a useful framework for understanding patients, and this framework has been incorporated into several important theories of medical and nursing care. One major approach to nursing theory has been described as a “needs” approach and it relies on Maslow’s need hierarchy as well as the developmental theories of Erik Erikson. Needs-oriented theories emphasize the nurse’s role in helping the patient to meet his or her physiological and psychosocial needs.
Although more recent theories have moved away from this position, the needs hierarchy has been useful in helping care providers look for the “big picture” of a given patient’s situation. A description of Maslow’s needs hierarchy is still included in many textbooks for students of nursing and allied health. As the realities of health care in a managed care environment have affected medical professionals, Maslow’s theory has also found a role in human resource management for health care. The needs hierarchy offers one approach to such human resource issues as quality assurance, employee burnout, and job satisfaction.
By understanding the larger set of needs that health care providers bring to their professions, human resource managers can do a better job of coping with and planning for problems that arise in the medical workplace. Maslow’s ideas remain influential because they make sense of a certain range of human behavior. On the other hand, Maslow’s emphasis on a strict hierarchical ordering of human needs has not held up well in other respects because it has never been empirically substantiated. The connections between motivation and external behavior in human beings are more complex than Maslow’s theory allows.
People strive to satisfy simultaneous needs for love, safety, self-esteem, etc. Moreover, people who have their “lower” needs met in a satisfactory fashion do not invariably seek the fulfillment of “higher” needs, as the behavior of many wealthy or famous individuals indicates. In addition, the drive to satisfy “higher” needs takes precedence over “lower” needs more frequently than Maslow thought. In sum, human beings are influenced by a wide range of needs and motives. For some people, love, safety, and security are paramount values, while others are motivated by desires for power and dominance.
Lastly, human beings are shaped to a considerable extent by their cultures, and cultures differ widely in the sets of values that they emphasize and transmit to their members. For example, the very notion of a “self” is more consistently individualistic in Western societies, whereas it incorporates family relationships in Eastern cultures. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs reflects the values of twentieth-century Western middle-class males; it is not culture-neutral and is therefore not universally applicable to all periods of human history or to all contemporary societies. Maslow’s Theory – Limitations and Criticism
Maslow’s theory has been criticized because it is difficult to evaluate objectively. Many of the phenomena that Maslow describes are subjective and difficult to quantify. Most studies rely on self-reported data, which are notoriously subject to distortion and inaccuracies. Because studies based on Maslow’s concepts often focus on value-laden topics, it is also difficult for researchers to remain objective. Maslow acknowledged these difficulties himself, but thought that human potential was so important that it should be explored without regard to current limitations of scientific accuracy.
The field of personality theory has changed considerably over the 30 years since Maslow’s death in 1970. The cognitive behaviorist approach has become increasingly influential, answering some of Maslow’s criticisms of earlier psychoanalytic and behaviorist theories. Humanistic theories have become less popular in academic and research settings, with newer approaches generating more research topics. Nonetheless, Maslow’s theory, with its positive emphasis, remains influential, particularly in such applied settings as counseling, industrial management, and health care.
Though Maslow’s hierarchy makes sense intuitively, little evidence supports its strict hierarchy. Actually, recent research challenges the order that the needs are imposed by Maslow’s pyramid. As an example, in some cultures, social needs are placed more fundamentally than any others. Further, Maslow’s hierarchy fails to explain the “starving artist” scenario, in which the aesthetic neglects their physical needs to pursuit of aesthetic or spiritual goals.
Additionally, little evidence suggests that people satisfy exclusively one motivating need at a time, other than situations where needs conflict. While scientific support fails to reinforce Maslow’s hierarchy, his theory is very popular, being the introductory motivation theory for many students and managers, worldwide. To handle a number of the issues of present in the Needs Hierarchy, Clayton Alderfer devised the ERG theory, a consistent needs-based model that aligns more accurately with scientific research.