Register to read the introduction…
McClelland, professor of psychology at Harvard University, is also credited with extensive contributions to motivation theory. McClelland identifies three needs:
1. NEED FOR ACHIEVEMENT. The desire to accomplish some goal or task more effectively than has been the case in the past.
2. NEED FOR AFFILIATION. The desire to have close, amenable relations with other people.
3. NEED FOR POWER. The desire to be influential and to have impact on a group.
Much of McClelland's early work suggested that the need for achievement was important to business people, scientists, and professional persons. A later report restricted to managers concluded that the need for power was most important to management. McClelland identifies three types of …show more content…
Herzberg model underpins the importance of intrinsic factors in the job and lead to the need to improve job-related content, re-design or re-structure the current job in order to improve motivation and job satisfaction.
The motivators are typically intrinsic factors, largely administered by the employee. The hygiene factors are extrinsic factors, under the control of the supervisor or someone else other than the employee.
CRITICISMS OF THE HERZBERG'S TWO-FACTOR THEORY
1. Herzberg implies that satisfaction and motivation are essentially the same. We know, though, that motivation is often the result of dissatisfaction. So, it is dangerous to draw conclusions about what motivates employees on the basis of what satisfies them.
2. Herzberg's findings appear to be tied to his critical-incidents methodology. That is, the two factors revealed by Herzberg only-show up when employees are asked to recall satisfying and dissatisfying events. We are likely to attribute good things to internal factors and bad things to external factors. Herzberg's results may just be a reflection on this self-serving bias.
3. Herzberg classified items as satisfiers or dissatisfiers on the basis of the relative number of times they were mentioned as causing satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
COMPARING HERZBERG'S AND MASLOW'S …show more content…
A close examination of Herzberg's ideas indicates that what he actually is saying is that some employees may have achieved a level of social and economic progress such that the higher-level needs of Maslow (esteem and self-actualization) are the primary motivators. However, they still must satisfy the lower-level needs for the maintenance of their current state. So we can see that money might still be a motivator for non management workers (particularly those at a low wage level) and for some managerial employees. In addition, Herzberg's model adds to Maslow's model, because it breaks down the five need levels into two job-oriented categories: maintenance and
1. NEED FOR ACHIEVEMENT. The desire to accomplish some goal or task more effectively than has been the case in the past.
2. NEED FOR AFFILIATION. The desire to have close, amenable relations with other people.
3. NEED FOR POWER. The desire to be influential and to have impact on a group.
Much of McClelland's early work suggested that the need for achievement was important to business people, scientists, and professional persons. A later report restricted to managers concluded that the need for power was most important to management. McClelland identifies three types of …show more content…
Herzberg model underpins the importance of intrinsic factors in the job and lead to the need to improve job-related content, re-design or re-structure the current job in order to improve motivation and job satisfaction.
The motivators are typically intrinsic factors, largely administered by the employee. The hygiene factors are extrinsic factors, under the control of the supervisor or someone else other than the employee.
CRITICISMS OF THE HERZBERG'S TWO-FACTOR THEORY
1. Herzberg implies that satisfaction and motivation are essentially the same. We know, though, that motivation is often the result of dissatisfaction. So, it is dangerous to draw conclusions about what motivates employees on the basis of what satisfies them.
2. Herzberg's findings appear to be tied to his critical-incidents methodology. That is, the two factors revealed by Herzberg only-show up when employees are asked to recall satisfying and dissatisfying events. We are likely to attribute good things to internal factors and bad things to external factors. Herzberg's results may just be a reflection on this self-serving bias.
3. Herzberg classified items as satisfiers or dissatisfiers on the basis of the relative number of times they were mentioned as causing satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
COMPARING HERZBERG'S AND MASLOW'S …show more content…
A close examination of Herzberg's ideas indicates that what he actually is saying is that some employees may have achieved a level of social and economic progress such that the higher-level needs of Maslow (esteem and self-actualization) are the primary motivators. However, they still must satisfy the lower-level needs for the maintenance of their current state. So we can see that money might still be a motivator for non management workers (particularly those at a low wage level) and for some managerial employees. In addition, Herzberg's model adds to Maslow's model, because it breaks down the five need levels into two job-oriented categories: maintenance and