Motivation Theories

3.1 Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (1943)

Abraham Maslow's A Theory of Human Motivation (1943) posited that human needs form a hierarchical pyramid. Lower needs must be substantially satisfied before higher-order needs emerge as motivators.

        ┌─────────────────────┐
        │  Self-Actualisation │  ← Realising full potential; creativity; peak experiences
        ├─────────────────────┤
        │      Esteem         │  ← Self-esteem; achievement; recognition; status; respect
        ├─────────────────────┤
        │  Love/Belonging     │  ← Friendship; intimacy; family; sense of belonging
        ├─────────────────────┤
        │      Safety         │  ← Security; employment; resources; health; property
        ├─────────────────────┤
        │    Physiological    │  ← Food; water; warmth; rest; shelter; clothing
        └─────────────────────┘

Application in organisations:

• Physiological: Fair wages, rest breaks, comfortable working conditions
• Safety: Job security, safe workplace, health insurance, pension
• Social/Belonging: Team building, company picnics, open-door policy
• Esteem: Recognition programs, job titles, performance awards, autonomy
• Self-Actualisation: Challenging work, skill development, creativity, leadership opportunities

Criticisms of Maslow:

• Hierarchy is too rigid — needs may not follow fixed order (artist may prioritise self-actualisation over safety)
• Empirical validation is weak — difficult to measure needs
• Cultural bias — hierarchy reflects Western individualistic values; collectivist cultures prioritise belonging over esteem
• Alderfer's ERG Theory (1969) modified Maslow into three tiers: Existence (physiological + safety), Relatedness (social), Growth (esteem + self-actualisation), with regression (frustration can cause return to lower needs)

3.2 Herzberg's Two-Factor (Motivator-Hygiene) Theory (1959)

Frederick Herzberg surveyed 200 engineers and accountants in Pittsburgh, asking them to recall times they felt exceptionally good or bad at work. He found:

Hygiene Factors (Maintenance Factors)	Motivators
Prevent dissatisfaction when present	Create satisfaction when present
Create dissatisfaction when absent	Do not create dissatisfaction when absent
Not motivators	True motivators
Company policy and administration	Achievement
Supervision quality	Recognition
Interpersonal relationships	The work itself
Working conditions	Responsibility
Salary	Advancement
Status	Growth
Security

Key insight: Improving hygiene factors (like salary) removes dissatisfaction but does NOT create positive motivation. Only motivators (like recognition, responsibility) create genuine satisfaction and drive performance.

Application for managers:

• Ensure hygiene factors are adequate (prevent active dissatisfaction)
• Enrich jobs to provide more motivators (job enrichment — increased responsibility, challenge, growth)

3.3 McClelland's Three-Needs Theory (1961)

David C. McClelland (Motivating Economic Achievement, 1961) proposed that people have three learned needs:

Need	Symbol	Description	Best Matched To
Achievement	nAch	Desire to excel, do better, take moderate (not extreme) risks; prefer feedback on performance; personal responsibility	Entrepreneurs, sales managers, solo performers
Power	nPow	Desire to influence, control, and be responsible for others. Personal power (selfish) vs. Institutional/Socialised power (for org benefit)	Executives, politicians, military officers
Affiliation	nAff	Desire for friendly, close relationships; approval-seeking; conflict-avoiding	Team-based roles, social service, customer service

McClelland's insight for managers:

• High nAch people are not automatically good managers — they prefer to do things themselves rather than delegate
• Good managers typically have high nPow (institutional) + moderate nAff — they enjoy influencing and developing others
• All three needs can be trained and developed — unlike Maslow's innate needs

3.4 Vroom's Expectancy Theory (1964)

Victor Vroom's Expectancy Theory states motivation depends on three factors:

Motivation = Expectancy × Instrumentality × Valence (E × I × V)

• Expectancy: Belief that effort will lead to performance (0 to 1; 0 = "my effort won't improve performance")
• Instrumentality: Belief that performance will lead to reward (0 to 1; 0 = "even if I perform well, I won't get the reward")
• Valence: Value of the reward to the individual (can be negative if reward is undesired)

Implication: If any factor is zero, motivation collapses. Manager must: (1) ensure employees believe effort leads to results; (2) make reward-performance linkage clear and credible; (3) offer rewards employees actually value.

---