Frederick Herzberg and Abraham Maslow became of great interest to me after reading several articles about their work in the early and mid 1900s. Their work, slightly similar but also vastly different, opened new theories and made huge advantageous contributions to the world of management. Herzberg’s ‘Two-Theory Factor’ is used throughout the world today from day-to-day management of small businesses right up to the internationally run super companies. Similarly Maslow’s theory of workers ‘Hierarchy of needs’ is used as a platform for entrepreneurs, employers and employees to build a structured and successful career along with being happy with themselves. I will explore the similarities between Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy of needs’ and Herzberg’s ‘Two-factor
…show more content…
His simple but precise theory implied that two simple factors made it possible for workers to be motivated and satisfied in the workplace. However, years later, Abraham Maslow released his research into human relations and how it he believed human behaviour was driven by needs in their lives. Maslow concluded that these needs are pursued in an hierarchy. The two theories from these influential theorists had a huge contribution to the field of management and are somewhat similar. For instance, Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy of needs’ are comparable to Herzberg’s ‘motivational’ and ‘hygiene’ factors. Starting from the bottom of Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of needs’ his physiological and security needs are somewhat correlated to Herzberg’s hygiene factors. If we compare these two aspects of these theories we see that the two theorists basically make the same point (Alanis Business Academy 2013). They insinuate that basic human needs such as food, water and security all need to be present in order to foster a motivated employee. As well as this, Maslow’s following three hierarchies of need, social needs, esteem needs, and self-actualisation are comparable to Herzberg’s motivational factor in his ‘Two-factor theory’. It is quite easy to see that the last three of Maslow’s suggested needs are crucial in motivating one-self. These aspects of both these theories have proven to be …show more content…
One critic who had a lot to debate about Maslow’s theory was Margie Lachman. Lachman admitted that Maslow offered ‘no empirical evidence for his theory. “He wanted to have the grand theory, the grand ideas and he wanted someone else to put it to the hardcore scientific test”’(Kremer and Hammond 2013).Although his ‘Hierarchy of needs’ theory demonstrated precise facts in the revolution of human relations, it seemed that his last ‘need’ of self-actualisation was one of unreachable or somewhat misinterpreted aspects. Maslow suggests that to be self-actualised we need to constantly try to be a better person. This however is impossible to complete. We can always become a better person, there is no end to the possibilities. So in theory Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy of needs’ is impossible to accomplish. “To try to grow, to become more, to fulfill its biological destiny” as said by Boeree (2006), we always try to be a better person but never reach the best. There is no grade for how good a person is or can become. Maslow suggested that only a mere two percent can complete this self-actualisation stage. As one critic poses, "What real individuals, living in what real societies, working at what real jobs, and earning what real income have any chance at all of becoming self-actualizers?" (Lethbridge, 1986, p. 90). A set-up which seems more realistic in Maslow’s theory would be that people have
His simple but precise theory implied that two simple factors made it possible for workers to be motivated and satisfied in the workplace. However, years later, Abraham Maslow released his research into human relations and how it he believed human behaviour was driven by needs in their lives. Maslow concluded that these needs are pursued in an hierarchy. The two theories from these influential theorists had a huge contribution to the field of management and are somewhat similar. For instance, Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy of needs’ are comparable to Herzberg’s ‘motivational’ and ‘hygiene’ factors. Starting from the bottom of Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of needs’ his physiological and security needs are somewhat correlated to Herzberg’s hygiene factors. If we compare these two aspects of these theories we see that the two theorists basically make the same point (Alanis Business Academy 2013). They insinuate that basic human needs such as food, water and security all need to be present in order to foster a motivated employee. As well as this, Maslow’s following three hierarchies of need, social needs, esteem needs, and self-actualisation are comparable to Herzberg’s motivational factor in his ‘Two-factor theory’. It is quite easy to see that the last three of Maslow’s suggested needs are crucial in motivating one-self. These aspects of both these theories have proven to be …show more content…
One critic who had a lot to debate about Maslow’s theory was Margie Lachman. Lachman admitted that Maslow offered ‘no empirical evidence for his theory. “He wanted to have the grand theory, the grand ideas and he wanted someone else to put it to the hardcore scientific test”’(Kremer and Hammond 2013).Although his ‘Hierarchy of needs’ theory demonstrated precise facts in the revolution of human relations, it seemed that his last ‘need’ of self-actualisation was one of unreachable or somewhat misinterpreted aspects. Maslow suggests that to be self-actualised we need to constantly try to be a better person. This however is impossible to complete. We can always become a better person, there is no end to the possibilities. So in theory Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy of needs’ is impossible to accomplish. “To try to grow, to become more, to fulfill its biological destiny” as said by Boeree (2006), we always try to be a better person but never reach the best. There is no grade for how good a person is or can become. Maslow suggested that only a mere two percent can complete this self-actualisation stage. As one critic poses, "What real individuals, living in what real societies, working at what real jobs, and earning what real income have any chance at all of becoming self-actualizers?" (Lethbridge, 1986, p. 90). A set-up which seems more realistic in Maslow’s theory would be that people have