Maslow’s need theory
Employee engagement is one of the major factors to be considered by the contemporary business organizations in achieving the business excellence. This is due to the reason that the more will be the engagement level of the employees in their workplace, the more will be the organizational productivity and effectiveness. In addition, high level of employee engagement will also cause fewer employee related issues in the workplace. Thus, more business organizations are trying to figure out the most effective strategy in enhancing the motivation level of the employees and engaging them in the workplace (Dobre 2013). There are number of popular motivation theories being practiced by the organizations for motivating their employees. Some of them are Maslow’s need theory, expectancy theory, learner need theory and four drive theory. All these theories are having different elements, which can help in motivating the employees. However, it should be noted that each of these motivational theories are effective in different business situations and thus they may be successful with a few business entities or not.
It is important for the business organizations to have the idea and understanding about how each of these theories can help the managers in engaging their employees. This essay will discuss and critically analyze the relevancy of these theories and how they can be used in motivating the employees. Different opinions given by different sets of authors will be used for the analysis.
This theory is one of the most popular and widely motivational theories being practiced by the contemporary business managers. According to this theory, there are majorly five steps or stages of needs that should be considered by the managers in motivating the employees. According to Lester (2013), the most primary need stated in this theory is the psychological need, which refers to the basic needs such food, water and shelter. Thus, if the employees cannot have these needs getting fulfilled, then they will not be motivated to work. For instance, in any small business organizations, employees working on the basis of daily wages are only getting motivated if they can fulfill these needs. It is also being stated by the authors that if the employees cannot get enough money from the organization to meet these basic needs, then it is unlikely that they will be motivated in the workplace. Furthermore, Jerome (2013) stated that the next need that should be fulfilled by the managers is safety needs, which refers to the safety and security of the employees. Thus, as per the authors, it is the responsibility of the managers to ensure the job security of the employees and provide them safe working environment. If the employees cannot have safe working environment, then they will more likely to stay demoralized and will seek changes. Thus, offering safe working place can be a motivational force for the employees.
According to Salado and Nilchiani (2013), employees can also be motivated if their contribution in the organization is being recognized and awarded and offering challenging job roles. This is due to the reason that employees will be more motivated to perform better if they are being rewarded for their good performance. According to the authors, they will feel more engaged to get recognized again. As per the esteem needs of the Maslow’s need theory, employees will be motivated by the sense of prestige and accomplishments. In addition, the authors have also stated that offering challenging roles can also be a motivational factor for the employees. This is due to the reason that employees will have the sense of importance if they are being offered challenging roles. Thus, it can be concluded that as per the Maslow’s need theory, fulfillment of these factors can help the business managers in motivating the employees. In the case of Apple, the employees of them are mainly motivated due to the challenging working environment being offered to them. They carry a certain sense of pride in working with Apple. In addition, the offering proper remuneration to the employees is also ensuring that all the basic need of them is getting fulfilled. This is in turn helping Apple in having the motivated and engaged employees in place.
Learned need theory
However, on the other hand, there are number of criticism also being raised by different authors regarding the effectiveness of Maslow’s need theory. According to Taormina and Gao (2013), the needs given in this model cannot be aligned with the real world situation. This is due to the reason that in the real situation, each of the employees may have different sets of needs, which cannot be fulfilled by following singular approach. In addition, it is also stated by Datta (2014) that in the current scenario of multinationals, workforce is more diverse in nature and thus, the needs will also be different. For instance, not all the employees will get motivated by having challenging job roles. Thus, it can be concluded that Maslow’s need theory is not well aligned with that of the current business scenario, but the approaches discussed in this theory can help the business managers in motivating the employees in different manners.
Unilever is one of the leading multinationals in the current time and they are having employees from different social and cultural groups across the world. Employee from one region may be get motivated by having only remuneration while on the other hand; employees from another region may get motivated by having recognition in the workplace. Hence, multinationals should have different approaches stated in this theory for employee engagement. This is also evident in the people management of Unilever, where employees are being given proper remuneration as well as productive working environment and meeting the requirements of them.
This theory is being stated by David McClelland and according to this theory; there are majorly three dominant motivators by which the employees can be motivated. These three motivators are need for achievement, need for affiliation and need for power. It is stated by Van den Broeck et al. (2016) that some employees will have the preferences for achievement and these employees can be motivated by providing challenging roles and recognizing their contribution. It is also being stated by the authors that the employees getting motivated by means of achievement should be given more responsibility in the workplace. It is also the responsibility of the business managers to segregate the employees on the basis of these needs. This is due to the reason that each of the group of the employees will have different sets of needs.
Lazaroiu (2015) further stated that compared to the Maslow’s theory of motivation, learned need theory is more effective for the contemporary business organizations. This is due to the fact that this theory stated about the presence of the different motivators among the individuals and it is also stated that the dominant motivators should be identified. Thus, according to the authors, it will be easier for the managers to divide the entire workforce based on these motivators and initiate strategies accordingly. For instance, Coles can identify the employees with having the need for achievement based on the cultural dimensions of their society and offer them more challenging roles and provisions of achievement compared to other sets of employees.
The next need in this theory is the need for affiliation. According to Guss, Burger and Dorner (2017), there are certain sets of employees who prefer more collaborative culture in the workplace and unlike the previous sets of employees; they do not get in to competition and uncertainty. Thus, as per the authors, more social and collaborative approach in the organization will help the business managers to motivate these types of employees. It is also being stated that team work concept is the most ideal strategy for motivating this employee group. This is due to the reason that in the team, they will be able to work in more coordinated and cooperative manner and will have collective risks.
However, on the other hand, it is stated by Ranasinghe and Dharmadasa (2013) that employees with having the need for affiliation should also have the provision for getting noticed among the team members in order to stay motivated. This is due to the fact that this set of employees is having the preferences of getting cared and noticed by others. Thus, the work environment and approach should be designed in such a way that the employees will be motivated in working with the team. In addition, the authors have also stated that the more care and notice will be received by the employees, the more they will feel involved in the workplace, which will lead to the enhancement of their engagement level.
The last motivator of this theory is need for power. According to Deci and Ryan (2014), certain sets of employees want to have control and authority in the workplace. They also enjoy competition and achievement but by staying in command. Thus, as per the authors, these employees can be motivated in their workplace by providing them authority and power over others. However, it is stated by Uduji and Ankeli (2013) that these employees should be managed more carefully over others due to the fact that they are not effective in any organizational situation such as in the team. Employees with having the need for power will pose challenge in the consensus based team activities. Thus, it is the responsibility of the managers to allocate job roles accordingly. For instance, managers can place these employees in the area where the revenue is getting low and more authoritative role is required. These employees can help in taking the entire responsibility and manage the situation in their way. The authors have also stated that these employees are preferable by the organizations with having the intention for aggressive business development.
Liu and Wohlsdorf Arendt (2016) stated that even though this theory is more effective for the contemporary business organizations than the Maslow’s need theory, but still a few issues can get generated. One of the major issues will be the segregation of the employees. According to this theory, dominant motivators of the employees can be determined by their cultural and social groups, but it is not obvious that employees from the same cultural group will have same sets of preferences and need. Thus, in this case, the manager will not be able to initiate strategies for employee engagement as per the learned need theory.
This theory is one of the newest iterations in motivating the employees in the workplace. According to this theory, there are four major drives relevant in motivating the employees and each of these drives are important to be considered in engaging the employees. It is stated by Corr, DeYoung and McNaughton (2013), each one of these drives should be considered by the managers in having a holistic approach of employee engagement strategy. The first and most common drive for employee motivation is the drive to acquire and achieve. This refers to the providence of extrinsic incentives and benefits to the employees. It is a well know fact that financial benefits and remuneration can significantly motivate the employees in the workplace. Thus, this drive should be practiced as the primary approach in the workplace.
In addition, it is stated by Lepper and Greene (2015) that apart from offering financial benefits and incentives to the employees, there are other factors also being relevant in the current business situations. One of these factors is the drive for bonding and belonging. This states that employees can also be motivated by having effective relationships with them and by guiding them in adhering to the organizational culture. The authors have also stated that even if the remuneration is favorable then also the employees will not get motivated and engaged in their workplace if they cannot relate to the culture being practiced. For instance, Google is known for their effective people management systems and heir induction program is also well known and critically acclaimed. The induction program of Google involves communicating the new employees about the culture being followed in the workplace and how they can get adhered to it. In addition, they are given the provision for getting known to each other building rapport. This creates a positive impression among the new employees and they start their job by being engaged. The authors have also stated that this drive should be maintained as the second approach after the implementation of the drive for acquire and achieve.
Cerasoli and Ford (2014) stated about the next drive of create and challenge. This drive states about the provision for challenging the employees in the workplace. According to the authors, employees will be able to show their creativity and will also be able to learn new ideas if they are being challenged in the workplace. Thus, offering challenging workplace will help the managers to have the maximum outcome from the employees along with having their maximum sets of involvement in place. It is also stated that employees will be engaged if they are being involved in all the time and are not idle in their workplace. A sense of contribution will work and further motivate them. Apart from the providence of the remuneration, outcome of the employees can be enhanced by challenging their existing skill sets and expertise. The sales target being followed by the majority of the service sector firms for their executives is one of prime example of providing challenging job roles to the employees. This is due to the fact that sales executive gets always involved in their job only to meet the given targets and thus they will go beyond their comfort zone to achieve the target, which will in turn increase their productivity and expertise.
According to Raynor (2013), the last drive of this theory is drive to define and defend. This refers to the need for the employees to relate with the company culture and objectives. Thus, the employees should have the positive impression regarding their job roles and organizational objectives. This is also a major determining force in employee engagement due to the reason that even if the employees are getting proper remuneration and incentives for their job, but still their engagement may be limited as some of them will work just for benefits and not out of their satisfaction. Thus, it is stated that managers should be responsible enough in initiating the sense of pride among the employees in doing job for the particular organization. The authors have also stated that this will enhance the organizational citizenship of the employees. For instance, employees working in the NGOs are having the pride of doing good for the society and thus they may be motivated and engaged enough if incentives and benefits are not being paid.
According to the expectancy theory, employees will be motivated only when they have the expectation about certain positive outcome to be generated from their action. It is stated by Parijat and Bagga (2014) that certain of motivation of the employees is depended on their individual approaches. This is due to the reason that if the employee is not having the expectation of achieving something for the lack of skill and expertise, then they cannot be motivated even after providing benefits and incentives. Thus, according to the authors, it is important for the managers to have the fair understanding about the expectations of the employees and initiate strategies accordingly. For instance, if the employees are not having positive expectations for the lack of expertise and skills then the training program should be initiated, which will instill confidence among them. Their positive expectations will motivate them in their workplace even without the need of any extrinsic benefits.
It is further stated by Hsu, Shinnar and Powell (2014) that instrumentality also determines the level of motivation of the employees. This is due to the reason that if the employees are having the clear understanding about the outcome from their actions, then they will act accordingly. Thus, according to the authors, managers should properly communicate with the employees about the outcome from certain actions and how they are going to get benefited from it. This will create positive expectations among the employees and will further motivate them to work better. The more will be the expectations of the employees about having benefits, the more will be their level of engagement in performing the particular job.
Ghoddousi et al. (2014) stated that valence also determines the engagement level of the employees in their workplace. This is due to the reason that different employees will have different sets of motivators as their preferences. For instance, some of the employees will have preferences for the financial benefits and they can only be motivated by providing extrinsic benefits and not by providing recognition in the workplace. On the other hand, employees having preferences for the workplace recognition and challenging job roles will not get motivated just by having the financial benefits. Hence, it is stated by the authors that managers should identify the preferences of the employees and classify them on the basis of their motivators. The strategies should be initiated accordingly. It will help in engaging the employees in their workplace and each of the employees will be satisfied by the fulfillment of their preferences and expectations.
Conclusion
Thus it can be concluded that each of the four motivational theories being discussed in this essay are having different utilities for the business entities. In addition, it is also identified that these theories are having effectiveness for different sets of employees also. However, on the other hand, a few criticisms are also being identified and discussed in this essay regarding the theories, which stated about their limits. It can be concluded that different employees are having different sets of expectations and dominant motivators and thus it is important to engage them on the basis of different factors. Practicing a singular approach of motivating employees will not work in the current scenario of diversified workforce.
Reference
Cerasoli, C.P. and Ford, M.T., 2014. Intrinsic motivation, performance, and the mediating role of mastery goal orientation: A test of self-determination theory. The Journal of psychology, 148(3), pp.267-286.
Corr, P.J., DeYoung, C.G. and McNaughton, N., 2013. Motivation and personality: A neuropsychological perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), pp.158-175.
Datta, Y., 2014. Maslow’s hierarchy of basic needs: An ecological view. Oxford Journal: An International Journal of Business & Economics, 8(1).
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M., 2014. The importance of universal psychological needs for understanding motivation in the workplace. The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory, pp.13-32.
Dobre, O.I., 2013. Employee motivation and organizational performance. Review of Applied Socio-Economic Research, 5(1).
Ghoddousi, P., Bahrami, N., Chileshe, N. and Hosseini, M.R., 2014. Mapping site-based construction workers’ motivation: Expectancy theory approach. Construction Economics and Building, 14(1), pp.60-77.
Güss, C.D., Burger, M.L. and Dörner, D., 2017. The role of motivation in complex problem solving. Frontiers in psychology, 8, p.851.
Hsu, D.K., Shinnar, R.S. and Powell, B.C., 2014. Expectancy theory and entrepreneurial motivation: A longitudinal examination of the role of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 26(1), pp.121-140.
Jerome, N., 2013. Application of the Maslow’s hierarchy of need theory; impacts and implications on organizational culture, human resource and employee’s performance. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 2(3), pp.39-45.
Lazaroiu, G., 2015. Work motivation and organizational behavior. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 7(2), p.66.
Lepper, M.R. and Greene, D. eds., 2015. The hidden costs of reward: New perspectives on the psychology of human motivation. Psychology Press.
Lester, D., 2013. Measuring Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Psychological Reports, 113(1), pp.15-17.
Liu, Y.S. and Wohlsdorf Arendt, S., 2016. Development and validation of a work motive measurement scale. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(4), pp.700-716.
Parijat, P. and Bagga, S., 2014. Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory of motivation–An evaluation. International Research Journal of Business and Management, 7(9), pp.1-8.
Ranasinghe, S.B. and Dharmadasa, P., 2013. Intention to knowledge sharing: from planned behavior and psychological needs perspectives. International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), 9(4), pp.33-50.
Raynor, J.O., 2013. Future orientation and achievement motivation: Toward a theory of personality functioning and change. In Cognition in human motivation and learning (pp. 213-246). Psychology Press.
Salado, A. and Nilchiani, R., 2013. Using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to define elegance in system architecture. Procedia Computer Science, 16, pp.927-936.
Taormina, R.J. and Gao, J.H., 2013. Maslow and the motivation hierarchy: Measuring satisfaction of the needs. The American journal of psychology, 126(2), pp.155-177.
Uduji, J.I. and Ankeli, M.O., 2013. Needs for Achievement, Affiliation, and Power: the Possible Sales Manager’s Actions for Exceptional Salesforce Performance. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 4(9), pp.96-103.
Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D.L., Chang, C.H. and Rosen, C.C., 2016. A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), pp.1195-1229.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
