In this article, we will learn about Theories of Motivation in Management.

  1. Theories of Motivation
  2. Employee Motivation Theories
  3. Motivational Theories in the Workplace
  4. Types of Motivational Theories
  5. Motivational Theories in Organizational Behaviour
  6. Herzberg Motivation Theory

Answer 1. Theories of Motivation in Management:

Motivational theories can be broadly classified into two types – content theories and process theories (cognitive theories). Content theories explain what motivates and what does not motivate, the process theories examine the variables that go into the motivational process taking place within an individual.

Some of these theories are explained below:

1. Theory X and Theory Y:

Douglas McGregor expressed his views of human behaviour in two sets of assumptions. It is popularly known as Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X stands for set of traditional beliefs. Theory Y stand for the set of beliefs based upon researches in behavioural science which is concerned with modern social views on man at work.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

These two theories represent the extreme ranges of assumptions:

A. Theory X:

It represents the conventional concept and is based on following assumptions. It has pessimistic and rigid view of human nature.

1. Individuals inherently dislike work and whenever possible will try to avoid it.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

2. Most people are basically lazy, have little ambition, prefer to avoid responsibility and desire security as a major goal and prefer to be directed or led.

3. The typical worker is self centred and has little concern for organization goal.

4. He is by nature resistant to change.

5. He is gullible, not very bright.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Managers who accept this assumptions, put emphasis on discipline, incentive programmes, welfare measures, close supervision and other benefit programmes. They feel that external control is clearly appropriate for dealing with irresponsible, unreliable and immature people if work is to be got from them.

B. Theory Y:

It has optimistic, dynamic and flexible views about employees.

The assumptions on which the theory is based are as follows:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

1. Work is a like a play for them. People do not have a natural dislike for work.

2. People are internally motivated and external control is not the only means for motivating them.

3. A large percentage of population has a high degree of imagination and creativity.

4. The intellectual potentiality of the average human being are only partially utilized.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

5. Close control and threats of punishment are not the only ways to get people to do things.

6. Management is responsible for organizing the elements of productive enterprise in the interest of economic ends.

In essence, the workers will do far more than expected if treated like human beings and permitted to experience personal satisfaction on the job. The managers who believe in this theory put emphasis on consultation, participation, motivation, communication, opportunities in formulating managerial and personnel policies.

2. Abraham Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Theory:

Abraham Maslow has propounded this need hierarchy theory in 1943. He points out that human beings have divergent needs and they strive to fulfill those needs. The behaviour of an individual is determined by such needs. These needs range from biological needs at lower level to psychological needs at the highest level.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Further, these needs arise in an order of hierarchy or priority such that lower level needs must be satisfied before higher level needs become important for motivation. He postulates five basic needs arranged in a needs at the highest level. Further, these needs arise in an order of hierarchy or priority such that lower level needs must be satisfied before higher level needs become important for motivation.

He postulates five basic needs arranged in a hierarchy as follows:

Self-actualization Needs → 5

Esteem Needs → 4

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Social Needs → 3

Safety and Security Needs → 2

Physiological Needs → 1

The first three levels of needs at the bottom are known as lower order needs as they are related to one’s existence and security. The top two levels of needs are called higher order needs as they are concerned with personal development’ and realization of one’s potential.

The needs are explained below:

1. Physiological Needs:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

These are the needs arising out of biological tensions created as a result of deprivation of food, water, shelter, etc. If these basic needs are fulfilled, then the next level needs emerge and act as motivators.

2. Safety and Security Needs:

These safety and security needs arise out of the concern for the fulfillment of physiological needs in the future. An individual seeks economic or social protection against future threats and dangers that he is exposed to. If once these needs are gratified one moves on to the next level needs and strives for their fulfillment.

3. Social Needs:

An individual cannot live in isolation rather in association with others. A sense of affiliation becomes important for a meaningful life. These needs include the need for love, affection, companionship and social interaction.’ For example, at home the child needs the love of parents and at school he needs the friendship of his classmates.

4. Esteem Needs:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

It is an urge for status, prestige and power. Self-respect is the internal recognition while respect from others is the external recognition. People that are able to fulfill this need feel that they are useful and have some positive influence on their surrounding environment.

5. Self-Actualization Needs:

It is the need to develop and realize one’s capacities and potentialities to the fullest extent possible. This need acts as motivator when all other needs have been reasonably fulfilled. At this level, the person wants to excel in the skills and abilities that he is endowed with. As a result, he seeks challenging work assignments that require creativity and talent.

To conclude, it may be said that Maslow’s model explains human behaviour in general. It has nothing to do with the employee motivation at the work place. Further, human needs may not necessarily have the hierarchy as shown by him. Maslow provided no empirical substantiation. Several studies that sought to validate the theory found no support.

3. Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory:

Frederick Herzberg has developed the two -factor theory in 1950. He developed it on the basis of his survey of 200 engineers and accountants. In his survey the respondents were required to describe a situation in which they felt happy and a situation in which they felt bad about their jobs.

Based upon the answers, he concluded that there are some characteristics or factors that are related to job satisfaction and there are other factors that are related to job dissatisfaction. The factors related to job satisfaction are motivators and those related to job dissatisfaction are maintenance factors or hygiene factors.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

These two factors are explained below:

1. Motivators:

The set of motivators are related to the nature of work and are intrinsic to the job itself. These factors positively contribute for satisfaction and increase performance.

According to Herzberg, the motivators are:

i. The Job Itself:

To get motivated, people must like and enjoy their jobs. Then, they are likely to be committed to goal achievement. They do not mind working late hours and undergoing other inconveniences to complete the work. Their morale remains high and they try to avoid absenteeism.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

ii. Recognition:

An employee looks for recognition of his good performance by management. It gives him a feeling of worth and increases his self-esteem. It is but natural to be happy when you are appreciated by anyone.

iii. Achievement:

A sense of achievement gives a great feeling to an employee. To have this sense of achievement the task must be challenging, requiring initiative and creativity. Therefore, jobs are to be designed in such a way as to make available to the employees a sense of pride when such jobs are performed.

iv. Responsibility:

The higher the level of responsibility, the more satisfaction and motivation the employee gets.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

v. Growth and Advancement:

Promotions, higher responsibility, participation in decision-making and executive benefits are all indicators of growth and advancement that add to the satisfaction of employees.

2. Hygiene Factors:

Unlike motivators, hygiene factors do not motivate employees. The absence of these factors, may lead to job dissatisfaction which the organization cannot afford. The elimination of dissatisfaction does not mean satisfaction.

According to Herzberg, the hygiene factors are:

i. Wage and salary.

ii. Company policies and practices.

iii. Interpersonal relations with peers, superiors and subordinates.

iv. Working conditions.

v. Job security.

The hygiene factors are intended to avoid possible dissatisfaction on the part of employees. These factors do not stimulate employees towards satisfaction or performance. Hence, the managements should take care of hygiene factors as well.

Herzberg’s model has been criticized since the results were based primarily on the responses of white collar employees which do not reflect the opinions of blue collar workers’ who may consider some hygiene factors as motivators. In fact, in some of the subsequent studies some hygiene factors proved to be motivators e.g., salary. Indisputably workers get motivated by financial rewards and sometimes by work environment also.

In spite of these limitations, the study of Herzberg is found relevant and useful as it is a model developed specifically to explain employee motivation at work place unlike Maslow’s model that explains human behaviour in general.


Answer 2. Employee Motivation Theories:

Number of theories has been developed by management scientists about how managers can motivate their employees. These theories are very important to know the behaviour of employees.

These theories are classified into two categories:

(1) Content or need theories which are mainly depending upon needs determine that motivates that drive individual behaviour.

(2) The process theories of motivation which focus on dynamics of motivation and how the motivation process takes place.

(1) Content Theory of Motivation:

These theories are proposed by Abraham Maslow, Fredrick Herzberg, Clayton Alderfer and David Mc Cleland. These theories play a very important role in management.

i. Maslow’s Needs Hierarchy Theory:

Abraham H. Maslow, an eminent American psychologist, developed a general theory of motivation known as the ‘Need hierarchy theory’.

The main features of this theory are as follows:

1. Human needs are multiple, complex and interrelated.

2. Human needs form a particular structure or hierarchy.

3. Lower-level needs must at least partially be satisfied before higher level needs emerge.

4. As soon as one need is satisfied, another need emerges.

5. A satisfied need is not a motivator.

6. Various needs levels are inter-dependent and overlapping.

There are five categories of needs which are explained below:

1. Physiological Needs

2. Safety Needs

3. Social Needs

4. Esteem Needs

5. Self-Actualization Need

1. Physiological Needs:

Physiological needs are the basic needs for food, clothing and shelter. An organization helps in satisfying the physiological needs of its employees by offering them adequate wages. According to Maslow’s theory, until these needs are satisfied to the degree necessary to maintain life, other needs will not motivate an individual.

2. Safety and Security Needs:

Once the physiological needs of an individual are met, the individual aims to satisfy his safety and security needs. These needs include the need to be free from the fear of physical, psychological or financial harm. Once the individual feels reasonably safe and secure, he/she turns his/her attention to developing relationships with others.

3. Social Needs:

Social needs are also called belongingness needs or need for love. They involve the desire to affiliate with and be accepted by others. Managers can satisfy this need of employees by allowing social interaction between them by means of appropriate office layout, coffee breaks and by providing them lunch and recreational facilities.

4. Esteem Needs:

This level represents the higher needs of humans. They include the desire to have a positive self-image and obtain respect and recognition from others. An organization may appreciate an employee’s performance by rewarding him with a pay hike, a promotion, a well-furnished office, a car, a personal assistant and other benefits such as stock options, club memberships, etc.

5. Self-Actualization Needs:

These comprise the highest level needs in Maslow’s needs hierarchy theory. Self- actualization needs are an individual’s need to realize his full potential through continuous growth and self-development. Here, the individual is concerned with matters such as the freedom to express his creativity and translate innovative ideas into reality, pursue knowledge and develop his talents in uncharted directions.

Most management experts feel that employees’ need for self-actualization can be satisfied by allowing them to participate in decision-making and giving them the power to shape their jobs.

Criticism:

However, this theory is widely criticized for the following reasons:

1. Needs are not the only determined of behaviour.

2. This classification of needs is somewhat artificial and hence, this theory may not have universal validity.

3. The hierarchy and needs is not always fixed.

4. This theory is based on a relatively small sample.

In spite of above limitations this theory is having more acceptability in understanding the behaviour of people in organization.

ii. Fredrick Herzberg Motivation Hygiene Theory:

According to Herzberg, maintenance or hygiene factors are necessary to maintain a reasonable level of satisfaction among employees. These factors do not provide satisfaction to the employees but their absence will dissatisfy them. Therefore, these factors are called dissatisfiers. These are not intrinsic parts of a job but they are related to conditions under which a job is performed.

They are environmental factors (extrinsic to the job) and are given below:

Maintenance Factors:

i. Company Policy and Administration

ii. Technical Supervision

iii. Inter-personal relationship with peers

iv. Inter-relationship with supervisors

v. Inter-relationship with sub-ordinates

vi. Salary job Security

vii. Personal life

viii. Working conditions

ix. Status

Motivating Factors:

i. Achievement

ii. Recognition

iii. Advancement

iv. Opportunity for growth

v. Responsibility

vi. Work itself

On the other hand, motivational factors are intrinsic parts of the job. Any increase in these factors will satisfy the employees and help to improve performance. But a decrease in these factors will not cause dissatisfaction.

Herzberg noted that the two factors are un-dimensional, i.e., their effect can be seen in one direction only. He admitted that the potency of any of the job factor is not solely a function of the factor itself. It is also related to the personality of the individual who may be either a motivation seeker or a maintenance seeker. A motivation seeker is motivated primarily by the nature of the task and high tolerance for poor environmental factors.

On other hand, maintenance seeker is motivated primarily by the nature of his environment and tends to avoid motivation opportunities. He is dissatisfied with maintenance factors surrounding the jobs. He shows little interest in the kind and quality of work.

Herzberg’s theory has been criticized on the following grounds:

(i) The theory is based on a small sample of 200 accountants and engineers which is not representative of the work force in general. Therefore, the theory is not universally applicable.

(ii) Herzberg’s model is method bound and is limited by the critical incident method used to obtain information. Therefore, the empirical validity of the theory is doubtful.

(iii) The theory focuses too much attention on satisfaction rather than on performance level. There is no direct link between satisfaction, motivation and performance. Therefore, Herzberg’s two-factor theory is a grossly oversimplified portrayal of the process of motivation.

(iv) The distinction between maintenance factors and motivating factors is not fixed.

Given below is the comparison between the two theories:

Maslow:

1. This theory is based on general observation of human behaviour.

2. Under this theory needs are arranged in hierarchy, starting from lower-order needs to higher-order needs.

3. Motivators satisfy the strongest need of the individual.

4. Same factors can be hygiene or motivation factors depending on the need perception of individuals.

5. He identifies the needs of a person that motivate his behaviour.

Herzberg:

1. This theory is based on empirical findings.

2. Here needs are not arranged in hierarchy.

3. Motivators satisfy the higher order needs of individuals.

4. Hygiene factors and motivators are categorised as two sets of factors.

5. He identifies the factors that satisfy those needs.

iii. David McClelland’s Needs Theory:

David C. McClelland has contributed to the theories of motivation by highlighting the importance of three basic needs to understand motivation. They are achievement needs, affiliation needs and power needs. McClelland s initial work cantered on the need for achievement.

Need for Achievement:

Achievement-motivated people thrive on pursuing and attaining goals. People with a high need for achievement have an intense desire for success. They typically seek competitive situations in which they can achieve results through their own efforts and which allow them to obtain immediate feedback on how they are doing. They take a realistic approach to risk. People with high need for achievement are characterized by restlessness and willingness to work long hours.

Individuals with high need for achievement can be a valuable source of creativity and innovative ideas in organizations. Supervisors who want to motivate achievement-oriented employees need to set challenging, but reachable goals and provide immediate feedback about their performance.

Need for Affiliation:

Need for affiliation refers to the desire to maintain warm, friendly relationships with others. Affiliation-motivated people are usually friendly and like to socialize with others. They suffer pain when they are rejected.

They usually exhibit the following characteristics:

(i) They strive to maintain pleasant social relationships.

(ii) They enjoy a sense of intimacy and understanding.

(iii) They are ready to console and help others in trouble.

(iv) They love to engage in friendly interaction with others.

To motivate individuals with a high need for affiliation, managers should provide them with a congenial and supportive work environment in which they can meet both corporate goals and their high affiliation needs by working with others. In situations that require a high-level of cooperation with and support of others, including clients and customers, individuals with a high need for affiliation prove to be assets for an organization.

Need for Power:

The need for power refers to the desire to be influential and to have an impact on a group. Power-motivated individuals see almost every situation as an opportunity to seize control or dominate others. They are willing to assert themselves when a decision needs to be made. The power motive has significant implications for organizational leadership and for the informal political aspects of organizations.

The need for power is manifested in two forms- Personal and institutional. People with high need for personal power try to dominate others by demonstrating their ability to wield power. They often run into difficulties as managers because they attempt to use the efforts of others for their own benefits. In contrast, individuals with a high need for institutional power focus on working along with others to solve problems and achieve organizational goals.

McClelland’s work suggests that individuals with a high need for institutional power become the best managers, because they are able to coordinate the efforts of others to achieve long-term organizational goals.

Thus, it is suggested that the need profile of successful managers, at least in a competitive environment, consists of:

(1) A moderate to high need for institutional power,

(2) A moderate need for achievement (this motivates individuals to contribute towards attainment of organizational goals early in their career and drive the organization to develop a competitive edge as they progress towards higher levels) and

(3) At least a minimum need for affiliation (this contributes to maintenance of pleasant social relationships in organizations).

According to McClelland, individuals without the appropriate need profile can increase their needs through training. While this may be true for the need of achievement and the need for institutional power, it may be difficult to develop the need for affiliation through training.

Critical Appraisal of the Theory:

This theory however, suffers from the following limitations:

1. Persons with high needs for achievement expect similar results from others. As a result they may lack human skill and patience of being effective managers.

2. The research evidence in support of the achievement motivation theory is fragmentary and doubtful.

3. There are protective techniques of developing achievement motive is objectionable.

4. The theory does not deal fully with the process of motivation and how it really takes place.

5. Achievement motivation trainees, through promising, is the time consuming and expensive.

Despite these limitations, the theory is useful for work motivation.

iv. Alderfer’s ERG Theory:

Alderfer suggested that needs can be classified into three groups of core needs — existence, relatedness and growth (hence the theory is referred to as ERG theory). Existence needs are concerned with physiological well-being of an individual. The relatedness needs pertain to the desire to establish and maintain interpersonal relationships. The growth needs pertain to the desire to be creative, make useful and productive contributions and have opportunities for personal development.

Alderfer viewed these needs as a continuum rather than as discrete categories arranged in a hierarchical manner. According to the ERG theory, different needs can emerge simultaneously and people can move backward and forward through the needs continuum as circumstances change. There is every possibility that a higher-level need may assume greater significance over a lower-level need.

The ERG theory too, is not supported by adequate empirical evidence. However, the ERG theory is considered a better and more correct explanation of people’s motivation than Maslow’s theory.

(2) Process Theories of Motivation:

The content theories of motivation only identify the needs that drive the behaviour of individuals. They fail to explain the process through which behaviour is energized, directed and sustained. On the contrary, process theories of motivation attempt to explain the thought process of individuals when they decide whether or not to behave in a certain way. These theories are also called cognitive theories.

Some of these theories are discussed below:

i. Vroom’s Expectancy Theory:

The expectancy theory of motivation was originally proposed by victor H. Vroom.

He contends that before putting in the effort to perform at a given level, individuals consider the following three issues:

i. What is the probability that the performance will be up to the required level?

ii. What is the probability that the performance will lead to the desired outcomes?

iii. What is the value assigned by the individual to the potential outcomes?

Valence:

Valence implies the strength of a person’s desire or preference for a particular outcome. It is importance or value that an individual places on the potential outcomes or reward. For example, a person desires promotion and feels that superior performance is a very strong factor in achieving his goal. His first level outcome is superior performance and his second level outcome is promotion.

The first level outcome of high performance thus acquires a positive valence by virtue of its expected relationship to the preferred second level outcome of promotion. A person would be motivated towards superior performance because of the valence for promotion.

Expectancy:

It implies the extent to which a person believes that his effort will lead to high performance. It is the possibility that a particular action will lead to the first level outcome. Managers can improve expectancy by matching jobs to people.

Instrumentality:

It implies the degree to which a first level outcome will lead to a desired second level outcome. Superior performance is being seen as instrumentality in getting promotion. Instrumentality is the relationship between first level outcome (performance) and second level outcome (promotion). On the other hand, expectancy is the relationship between efforts and first level outcome.

Vroom’s concept of force is equivalent to motivation. Willingness to expend effort depends on the positive or negative value attached to an outcome. Thus, according to Vroom’s theory, motivation is the sum of the product of valence, expectancy and instrumentality.

Motivation (force) = Valence x Expectancy x Instrumentality

Some of the managerial implications of expectancy theory are:

(a) The theory emphasizes expected behaviours.

(b) Rewards should be tied to performance

(c) Rewards should be equitable.

(d) Focus is on payoffs. People make choice based on what they think they will get rather what they got in the past.

(e) Managers should design jobs for performance keeping in view the situational differences.

However, the theory suffers from the following limitations:

(a) The theory is difficult to research and apply in practice.

(b) The theory has not been fully tested empirically.

(c) It is covered rational as it is based upon a rational economic view of people.

(d) The predictive accuracy of the theory is doubtful.

ii. Equity Theory:

J Stacy Adams is the proponent of the equity (or inequity) theory. His theory of motivation focuses on people’s sense of fairness of justice. The equity of theory refers to the subjective Judgment of an individual about the fairness of his reward, relative to the inputs (which include many factors such as effort, experience, education, etc.) in comparison with the reward of others.

The essential aspects of the equity theory may be shown in an equation as follow:

The main postulates of the equity theory are as follows:

(a) Perceived inequity creates tension in the individual.

(b) The amount of tension is proportional to the magnitude of the inequality.

(c) The tension created in the individual motives him/her to reduce it.

(d) The degree of motivation is proportional to the perceived inequity.

Merits:

1. It tells managers that equity motive is one of the important motives of employees.

2. Perceptions or feelings are as important in motivation as facts.

3. While determining the wage and salary structure in the organization managers must pay attention to equity considera­tion.

Demerits:

Equity theory suffers from several limitations:

1. The theory is somewhat narrow in its emphasis on visible rewards and overstressed conscious processes.

2. The theory is easily understood but its application is difficult. There are no good measures to assess the perceptions of inequity tension in an individual. Therefore, it is very difficult to operationalise the concepts of this theory.

3. One of the weakest elements of equity theory is its analysis of the process by which individuals choose comparison with others. The process by which individual decide whom to compare themselves with is not clear.

4. Equity theory is not a complete theory of motivation but deals only with one particular aspect (equity) of motivation.

In spite of these drawbacks, equity theory is useful particularly in the formation of compensation policies and practices.

iii. McGregor’s Theory of X and Y:

The human side of enterprise. In order to explain the nature of people, he identified two sets of assumptions known as theory X assumptions and theory Y assumptions. He believed that these assumptions typified managerial views of employees. He suggested that in order to manage, managers should begin by asking themselves the basic questions how they see themselves in relation to others.

These assumptions are discussed below:

Theory X:

This is the traditional theory of human behaviour. In this theory, McGregor has certain assumptions about human behaviour.

In his own words, these assumptions are as follows:

1. Management is responsible for organizing the elements of productive enterprises – money, materials, equipment, peoples in the interest of economic ends.

2. With respect to people, this is a process of directing their efforts, motivating them, controlling their actions, modifying their behaviour to fit the needs of the organizations.

3. Without this active intervention by management, people would be passive-even resistant – to organizational needs. They must be persuaded, rewarded, punished, controlled, their activities must be directed. This is management’s task. We often must be directed. This is management’s task. We often sum it up by saying that management consists of getting things done through other people.

4. The average man is by nature indolent – he works as little as possible.

5. He lacks ambition, dislikes responsibility and prefers to be led.

6. He is inherently, self centred, indifferent to organizational needs.

7. He is by nature resistant of change.

8. He is gullible, not very bright, the ready dupe of charlatan and the demagogue.

Of these assumptions, last five deal with the human nature and first three with managerial actions. These assumptions about human nature are negative in their approach, however much organizational processes have developed on these assumptions, managers subscribing these views about human nature attempt to structure, control and closely supervise their employees. They feel that external control is most appropriate for dealing with irresponsible and immature employees.

McGregor believes that these assumptions about human nature have not changed drastically through there is a considerable change in behavioural pattern. He argues that this change is not because of changes in the human nature, but because of nature of industrial organization, management philosophy, policy and practice.

Theory Y:

The assumptions of Theory Y are described by McGregor in the following words:

1. The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is natural as play or rest. The average human being does not inherently dislike work. Depending upon controllable conditions, work may be a source of satisfaction or a source of punishment.

2. External control and the threat of punishment are not the only means for bringing about efforts towards organizational objectives. Man will exercise self-direction and self-control in the service of objectives to which he is committed.

3. Commitment to objectives is a function of the reward associated with their achievement. The most significant of such award, e.g., the satisfaction of ego and self-actualization needs, can be direct product of effort directed towards organizational objectives.

4. The average human being learns under proper conditions not only to accept, but a seek responsibility. Avoidance of responsibility, lack of ambition and emphasis on security are generally consequences of inherent human characteristics.

5. The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, ingenuity and creativity in the solution of organizational problems is widely, not narrowly, distributed in the population.

6. Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potential potentialities of the average human being are only partially utilized.

Thus, the assumptions of theory Y suggest a new approach in management.

Comparison of Theories X and Y:

Both theories have certain assumption about human nature. In fact they are revere side of a coin, one representing head and the other representing tail. Thus, these assumptions seem to be mutually exclusive.

The differences between two sets of assumptions can be visualized as follows:

1. Theory X assumes human beings to be inherently distasteful towards work. Theory Y assumes that for human beings work is as natural as play.

2. Theory X emphasizes that people do not have ambition try to avoid responsibilities in jobs. The assumptions under theory Y are just the reverse.

3. According to Theory X, most people have little capacity for creativity while according to Theory Y; the capacity for creativity is widely distributed in the population.

4. In Theory X, motivating factors are the lower needs. In Theory Y higher order needs are more important for motivation thought unsatisfied lower needs are also important.

5. In Theory X, people lack self-motivation and require be externally controlling and closely supervising to get maximum output from them. In theory Y, people are self-directed and creative and prefer self-control.

6. Theory X emphasizes scalar system and centralization of authority in the organization while Theory X emphasizes decentralization and greater participation in the decision making process.

iv. Theory Z:

Criticizing the contradictory assumption under Theory X and Y, Lyndall F. Urwick proposed another theory of human behaviour at work-place which he has called theory Z. Unwick has viewed that the primary task of every manager is to make of distribute goods or services at prices which he consumers are able and willing to pay. And it is to this end that he must direct the efforts of those associated with him.

In this context, he has given the following propositions:

1. Management is responsible for organizing the elements of productive enterprises money, material, equipment, people in the interest of economic ends.

2. In a free society, economic ends are determined by the choice of innumerable individuals in their capacity as consumer.

3. This involves a network of decision and communications through which management postulates leadership.

4. Management so group these choices as-

(a) To facilitate economic production and distribution

(b) To enable these same people in their capacity as production or distributors, to satisfy their needs.

5. In a handicraft economy the consumer communicates direct with the producer, while in modern machine economy, there are at least eight points at which consumer choices may be miss- interpreted in terms of procedure/distributer needs. Man has to move from point all round to Z, instead of direct contact.

6. Man as a consumer insists that the latest product of science and technology are at his disposal, he seeks change.

7. Man as a producer or distributor, is not resistant to organization needs. But change threatens his human needs if it suggest-

(a) Loss of employment – physical and safety needs,

(b) Change of working pattern- social needs,

(c) Elimination of position to which he may have aspired- egoistic and self-fulfilment needs.

8. Management can overcome these difficulties of complex communication by devoting more attention to morale.

This involves:

(a) Discipline that is the system of communication is precise and accepted by all concerned.

(b) Confidence, that is, ‘each individual is assured that the institution is beneficent and will safeguard his/her needs’.

In order to clarify his propositions on human behaviour, Urwick has given a model which is in the shape of Z; hence it is known as Z theory.

Urwick indicates that the individual would be ready to direct their behaviour towards organizational goals under two conditions:

(i) Each individual should know the organizational goal and precise the contribution which his attempts are making towards the realization of these,

(ii) Each individual should be confident that the realization of organizational goals is going to affect his need satisfaction positively and that none of his needs are threatened or frustrated by membership of the organization.

Theory Z takes into account the organizational variables in shaping the behaviour of individuals. Thus, a particular individual may behave differently in different organizational conditions. From this point of view, the theory present more realistic picture of human behaviour in the organization, rather than assumptions about human behaviour. Thus the success of any organization depends ultimately on the morale of all those engaged in it.


Answer 3. Motivational Theories in the Workplace:

1. Framework for Understanding Human Behaviour (Maslow’s Theory of Human Motivation):

The psychologist A. H. Maslow has developed a widely acclaimed conceptual framework for understanding human motivation. According to Maslow, human needs tend to follow a basic hierarchical pattern from the most basic needs to the highest level needs. Until the more basic needs are ful­filled, person will not try to meet his higher level needs.

Human needs tend to follow the classification of five categories of needs:

i. Physiological needs e.g. hunger for survival at the base;

ii. Safety needs, e.g. security, order;

iii. Social needs;

iv. Egoistic (esteem) needs e.g., prestige, self-respect; and

v. Self-fulfillment (growth) needs.

The hierarchical nature of human wants enables us to understand why people behave as they do. If a person has survival needs such as food, shelter and water, his entire energies are devoted to maintain his body and soul together or to eke out an existence. Generally, when lower level needs are duly satisfied, the next higher level needs become relatively more important as motivators of human behaviour.

Each need grows in urgency as the other most basic needs are to some degree satisfied. A man, who is hungry, will not be interested in status, prestige, or creati­vity. A man whose stomach is satisfied by a secured supply of food now becomes conscious of needs at a higher level.

He seeks to feed his ego, which is almost insatiable, and to achieve a richer sense of his own identity. Please note that mind and soul become hungry and demand satisfaction only when we have no economic problems. Maslow’s work indicates a basic motivational principle, viz., A satisfied need is not a motivator.

Nature of Human Needs:

Man is a wanting animal, a creature of ever-expanding wants. As soon as one of his wants is satisfied, another appears in its place. Our wants are unlimited and this pro­cess of need satisfaction is unending. It continues from the cradle to the grave. A Human being continuously puts forth effort- work, if you please- to satisfy his pressing needs.

All of his life is a struggle to satisfy numerous wants that everyone has, and it is a never-ending struggle because the human being is built in such a way that as soon as he partially satis­fies one or two pressing needs, several others are pressing on him and demanding his attention. Hence, our needs are the determiners of our behaviour and provide the necessary moti­vating or driving forces inducing us to work.

Maslow’s motivation framework emphasizes three basic premises:

i. Man is a wanting animal. He always wants and he wants more.

ii. A satisfied need can never be a motivator of human behaviour. Only needs not yet satisfied can influ­ence his behaviour.

iii. Man’s needs are arranged in a hierarchy of importance, i.e., in a series of preferences.

Once a lower level need is satisfied, another higher level need emerges, and demands satisfaction.

Conventional approach to management of people ignored this basic truth. Man’s goals associated with his physical, safety, and social needs are largely achieved by means of extrinsic rewards that are controlled and manipulated by others, i.e., by management, Goals associated with esteem or ego needs, such as status, recognition, are also achieved by extrin­sic rewards.

But goals associated with other ego needs, such as achievement of knowledge and skill, of autonomy, of self-respect, are achieved by intrinsic rewards—the reward is the achievement of the goal.

Physiological and safety needs are innate or, natural needs. Others are acquired needs. Most organisations succeed in satisfying lower-level needs. Salaries and fringe benefits satisfy primary needs like food, shelter and clothing as well as safety and security needs. Interpersonal interactions and associations on the job (informal communications) provide satisfaction of some social needs.

But under theory X manage­ment style satisfaction of higher level needs, such as esteem (egoistic) and self-actualisation received little attention and the job contents as well as work environment rarely recognis­ed psychological needs of employees. This led to general frustration of employees.

Maslow’s theory of human motivation has attained: broad acceptance in the management world. There is strong accept­ance of his basic tenets of a plural, shifting or dynamic need structure. The notion that a person does have a need hierarchy is also accepted by management.

The catalogue of human needs and goals increases in number and variety as an indi­vidual ascends the ladder of wants from belly to brain. Management must at all levels be sensitive to the changing needs of subordinate groups and individuals in order- to pro­vide the atmosphere for productivity and satisfaction.

2. Two-Factor Theory of Work Motivation (Herzberg):

F. Herzberg developed a two-factor theory of motivation. He says that man has two sets of needs. One is the lower-level set. It denotes hygiene, maintenance or environmental factors which do not motivate satisfaction, but their absence causes dissatisfaction.

The other higher-level needs are termed as motivators because they are the real causes of job satisfac­tion and they lead to better performance. The work factors which lead to job satisfaction and motivation (the so-called motivators) are different from those (so-called hygiene or maintenance items) which lead to job dissatisfaction.

3. Expectancy Theory of V.H. Vroom:

Vroom combined a number of variables into his theory. He emphasized the role of expectation in motivating the employees of an enterprise to higher levels of individual per­formance or productivity.

Vroom’s theory gave stress on five elements. These five elements interact in the chain. Activities or behaviour of a worker is linked to the goal of an organisation.

The Five variables:

i. Individual activity or behaviour;

ii. Orga­nisational reward;

iii. Individual performance;

iv. Individual goal;

v. Organisational goal.

Force (Motivation) = Expectancy X Valance (attitude/ incentive).

The working of the chain of five variables:

(1) The individual activity leads to individual perform­ance through motivation.

(2) The individual performance seeks (expects) organisa­tional reward.

(3) The organisational reward (actual) conditions the activities of the individual.

If an individual wants to be promoted (personal goal), his motivation to perform well is directly influenced by the degree to which he believes high productivity (the goal of the organisation) will assist him in being promoted.

Thus the more a person is convinced that promotion is both desir­able and likely to result from his good performance, the greater will be his motivation to increase his productivity.

Activity, motive and performance are the three compo­nents of the total chain and these variables form a loop which works in a circular manner either strengthening or weaken­ing the direct movement of the chain > (Activity—Motive —Performance).

There is also a subloop, (Activity — Motive — Reward) within the main loop. The activity is linked to motive through reward—expected and actual reward.

Please note that the individual performance is directed to accomplish the individual goal. Then again, the organisational goal must be reached through the individual goal. This link clearly points out that the individual objective should match or coincide with the organisational (managerial) goal. Simi­larly, group goals must match with the enterprise goals in order to secure high group performance, and thereby high producti­vity.

Vroom’s theory takes into account the person’s expectations regarding^ the accomplishment of the task. If a person sees that effort will lead to accomplishing task and if that person sees that accomplishing task leads to important outcome (such as satisfying a need for a status, pay raise, promotion, recog­nition, etc.), then motivation takes place and the person is induced to show the maximum performance or productivity.

Individual performance is conditioned by the expectation of its contribution to his personal goal. Thus it is clear that productivity or high performance is not an end but it is merely a means to an end (the end is personal goal)

If the employee is convinced and strongly believes (ex­pects) that his performance will lead to achievement of his goal, i.e., his expected reward and advancement, he shall be motivated to put in maximum efforts and achieve the planned performance.

The chain of high performance-high reward- rising degree of motivation, will be continued as long as the expected performance or contribution secures accomplishment of the personal goal, i.e., expected reward.

Vroom’s theory is in line with the concept of harmony of objective and it fits with the fundamental principle of leadership, viz., integration of organisational objective and in­dividual goal for getting optimum performance or productivity. Individual goals can be harmonised with organisational ob­jective.

This is the challenge to leadership. Vroom’s theory of motivation is completely in agreement with the entire system of management by objective. Theory Y of McGregor also em­phasises the integration of individual and organisational objectives.

If the interest of the group (to which an individual be­longs) is against organisational goal of high productivity (for example, the group feels that moderate productivity will .help larger employment), productivity may not really improve through monetary reward (productivity bonus) or through sa­tisfaction of other traditional needs indicated in Maslow’s need- hierarchies.

The need for harmony of individual group goals and organisational objective clearly indicates the importance of informal organisation and the need to integrate formal and informal organisation goals. Vroom’s theory is also a contin­gency model of motivation.

4. Motivation Model of Smith and Cranny:

Smith and Cranny have proposed a simple three way relationship among:

i. Effort

ii. Satisfaction

iii. Reward

The three variables in the process of motivation. Each variable occupies the corner of a triangle. Each variable has a causal effect on the other, either individually, or in combination. For instance, praise or appreciation from a manager (reward) may lead to enhanced satisfaction or morale, or a satisfied employee doing the job very efficiently may invite praise or recognition from the manager.

The real key to this model lies in the concept of effort. Performance is affected only by effort, not by reward or sa­tisfaction. Performance occupies the central area of the model. Performance can influence both the rewards and satisfaction; but it in itself can be influenced only by effort.

This model is easy to understand and apply. It emphasises that manager’s responsibility is to administer rewards but it clearly point out this alone does not have a direct impact on performance. Effort satisfaction and rewards are interrelated and also interdependent. But it is only effort (not reward or satisfaction) that directly affects performance.

5. Theory X vs. Theory Y (Human Behaviour):

Assumptions about People:

Douglas McGregor in his The Human Side of Enterprise has developed two theories to ex­plain human behaviour and two sharply opposite concepts of leadership and management style for motivation and human behaviour which he calls Theory X and Theory Y. Essentially, Theory X builds on the lower order of human needs. Theory Y assumes that once these are met, they no longer can act as motivators.

Human behaviour is based on the three interrela­ted assumptions:

i. Behaviour is caused.

ii. Behaviour is motivated.

iii. Behaviour is goal directed.

Assumptions of Theory X:

Theory X indicates the conventional approach to mana­gerial motivation and control. It is based on the traditional assumptions about human behaviour, i.e. behaviour of an eco­nomic man. Theory X visualises the workers as inherently lazy, passive and unambitious.

The assumptions of human be­haviour under theory X are given below:

i. The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if he can.

ii. Because of the human characteristic of dislike of work, most people must be coerced, controlled, directed, mo­tivated by fear or threat of punishment or threat of unem­ployment to get them put in adequate effort toward the achieve­ment of organisational objectives. Some kind of carrot and stick or club has to be held over their heads to make sure that
they do work as per plans.

iii. The average human being pre­fers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, and wants security above all.

These negative assumptions underlie the assembly line and mechanisation of people as well as processes. The world is supposed to be full of peons and messengers and managing them is largely a matter of vigilance and strict supervision. Management merely thinks of catering to their physical and safety needs with some fringe benefits, keeping the implied threat of punishment or unemployment handy in case of need.

Theory X is built on the least common human denomina­tor the factory ‘Hand’ of the past, who could be hired and fired, used and discarded just like any other commodity by manage­ment. The management adopted the carrot and stick tech­nique for human motivation.

Theory X represented the auto­cratic managerial style. The leadership practices attributed to the scientific management advocates are thought to be based on the Theory X assumptions. The customary management pyramid describing superior-subordinate relationship reflects Theory X.

Theory Y:

The central principle of organisation based on Theory X is that of direction and control through autocratic and or bureaucratic management, i.e., through the exercise of autho­rity-responsibility indicated by the chain of command and the scalar principle. Theory X is associated with mental sickness, while Theory Y with mental health.

Theory X believes in nega­tive motivation, while Theory Y believes in positive and intri­nsic motivation. Theory X believes in bureaucracy, while Theory Y believes in democracy. Mentally healthier people will opt for Theory Y while sick will prefer Theory X.

Assumptions of Theory Y are derived from facts of life uncovered by objective behaviour and research. It recognises the interdependence of the leader and the led and reflects the current scientific understanding of what people at work are really like—organisational behaviour or dynamic nature of people.

Assumptions of Theory ‘Y’:

(1) The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as in play or rest. Work, if meaningful, should be a source of satisfaction and it can be voluntarily performed. There is no inherent like or dislike of work. A man develops an attitude toward it on his personal experience with it.

(2) Man will exercise self-control and self-direction in the service of objectives to which he is committed. External con­trol or threat of punishment is not the only means of moti­vating people to work and achieve company goals. Authorita­rian methods are not the only methods for getting things done. There is nothing inevitable about them, and their undesirable side effects do not have to be tolerated.

(3) Commitment to objectives is a result of the rewards associated with their achievement. The most significant of such rewards, e.g., the satisfaction of ego and self-develop­ment needs, can be the direct result of effort directed toward company objectives.

People select goals for themselves if they see the possibility of some kind of reward, be it material or purely psychic (mental). Once they have selected their goal they will pursue it even without close supervision and control.

(4) The average human beings, under proper conditions, do not shun responsibility, but learn not only to accept res­ponsibility but also to seek it.

(5) The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of orga­nisational problems is widely, not narrowly distributed in the population. Management cannot monopolise initiativeness and creativity.

(6) Under conditions of modern industrial life, the intel­lectual potentialities of people are only partially utilised. In reality men and women have unlimited potential.

The psychological foundations on which these assump­tions rest, include the well-known formulation of hierarchy of human needs developed by A. H. Maslow. Theory Y re­presents democratic or participative management. It is an invitation to innovation. After having satisfaction of basic needs, people tend to be motivated by higher level needs and by the intangible rewards offered by those needs.

It is these motivating forces that Theory Y management proposes to tap. In other words. Theory Y management aims at integrating goals of individual workers with those of the enterprise and at making the job the principal means through which each member can enlarge his competence, self-control, and sense of achievement. In such an atmosphere, Theory Y holds that the employees (operatives and executives) are likely to identify with the goals of the organisation because the orga­nisation identifies with their goals.

The operative, the mana­ger and the organisation are seen as mutually supportive. In effect the organisation is set into motion by the motivation of its various members, whose individual contributions combine to achieve overall company goals. Theory Y is a challenge to enlightened management to provide the right atmosphere for the development, motivation, the full use of human resources which have immense potential.

Theory Y points out that management can create self-propelled, self- disciplining kind of organisation wherein the satisfaction of one’s activated needs occurs as an integral part of the process of achieving the company’s goals. Theory Y emphasizes in­tegrative leadership, i.e., democratic and participative leader­ship where the manager will be more of a coach and coun­sellor, less of a commander, supervisor or a judge. Direction and command have outlived their utility under Theory Y management.

Once the manager recognises the worker as potentially energetic, self-disciplined, aspiring, self-responsible, and innovative, (Theory ‘Y’), then he can construct a work situa­tion that features-

(1) General supervision,

(2) Active partici­pation of labour in decision making process,

(3) Job enrich­ment,

(4) Job rotation,

(5) Work group autonomy, and

(6) Management by objectives, all designed to enlist the em­ployee’s higher level needs such as egoistic and growth needs (esteem and self-realisation) as principal motivators.

Manage­ment wants the individual to participate in setting goals for himself and for the organisation in an integrated manner.

Theory Y management can work wonders under the following conditions:

(1) People are literate, well-informed, intelligent, competent to participate in management with zeal and enthu­siasm to satisfy their higher level wants, particularly psychic wants.

(2) People have duly and reasonably satisfied their basic needs such as physiological needs, safety needs, as well as social needs, according to their general standard of living.

Once, they have no burning economic problems, only non- financial incentives become important motivators. Such con­ditions are prevalent in the affluent countries like, the U.S.A. the U.K., and many other European countries.

In undeveloped or developing countries, national income is low, standard of living is low, poverty is universal, population may be too large, people are illiterate and ignorant, labour is unorganised. Under such conditions, as long as the stomach is semi-empty, what is the use of igniting higher level wants. In such countries 70 p.c. of human energy is essential just to keep the body and soul together and to solve the problem of physical survival.

To such people satisfaction of egoistic wants is just an unrealisable dream. In India due to poverty God is food. Financial incentives are naturally greatest motivators or satisfiers. Belly must be satisfied before brain.

In a developing country like India, however, gradually we are witnessing favourable conditions (particularly for know­ledge workers) for Theory Y management. But for a few decades at least, we cannot practice the ideals of Theory Y on a large scale.

At present, there are lakhs of people in India who need external discipline from a manager for getting things done through them. Till then, we may have to tolerate conventional managerial style viz. Theory X with suitable and necessary modifications, e.g.,- recognition of human factor in industry, consultative management, use of non- financial incentives particularly for managerial group, etc.

As a long-term goal, Theory Y or Management by Inte­gration of individual and organisation goals should be ideal to be nourished by managers. Economic development is only a means to an end, the end being all round development of every human being. No doubt the journey is very tedious. The road is long, steep and also slippery. We have to go through clouded atmosphere.

However, there is no substitute for demo­cratic management based on the assumptions of Theory Y. Theory Y also fits in admirably into the systems concept and approach now being applied to business. Industrial organisa­tion is a socio-technical system. It is also an open, organic system.

Five M’s (men, money, materials, machinery and management) as well as social, economic political and cultural forces, constitute the inputs. The outputs are products, ser­vices and rewards to the members of the business system. It can be definitely said that Theory Y offers motivators such as achievement, recognition, status, the work itself, creativity, and higher responsibility. It can develop a better lovable, admirable and matured person. Human resource management prefers Theory Y.

Theory Y suggests a new style of managing by integration and self-control. Individual objectives should be integrated with organisational objectives. MBO would assure self-control and self-direction by subordinates.

Self-control means stronger motivation: a desire to do much better than just enough to get by. Self-control means higher performance goals and broader vision. MBO is both the process of motivation as well as the process of control.

Herzberg Vs. McGregor:

The dissatisfiers of Herzberg roughly tally with theory X of McGregor. Management of employees in terms of removing those things which cause job dissatisfaction represents basic items of theory X supervision. Theory X gives importance only to the factors surrounding the job and conveniently ignores the nature of the work itself or job contents, i.e., motivators.

The theory Y conclusions are similar to the motivators or satisfiers of Herzberg. Theory Y assumptions lead to an emphasis upon the motivators of Herzberg, such as job contents, challenging work, achievement, recognition and advancement.

Maslow’s higher level needs, Herzberg’s motivators and the assumptions of theory Y of McGregor are comparable and similar. They emphasize intrinsic incentives and ego needs demanding satisfaction.

Beyond Theory Y (Contingency Theory):

Contingency theory emphasizes the fit between:

i. Task,

ii. Organisation, and

iii. People.

Management should deve­lop a proper organisation which will depend on the nature of the work to be done and on the particular pattern of the employees involved in the work.

If management evolves appropriate organisation which will satisfy both the needs of the job and the needs of the people, we shall have maximum motivation and productivity. J. Morse and J. Lorsch suggest a contingency theory which stresses that the most suitable pattern of ‘Organisation-Task Fit’ is contingent or dependent upon the nature of work to be done and on the particular needs (motivators) of the individual involved.

In short, we need a fit or balance not merely between organisation and task or work, but also bet­ween:

i. Organisation and people as well as between

ii. Task and people.

Management must tailor the organisation to fit the task and the people.


Answer 4. Types of Motivational Theories:

1. Instinct Theory:

Freud, James Mcdougall and other psychologists added two more factors of ‘Instinct’ and ‘Unconscious Motivation’ to the earlier factors of man seeking work for pleasure or avoiding it when it causes pain. It was suggested that irrational behaviour of an employee may be due to his instincts.

Since there are a large number of instincts—some predictable and some unpre­dictable—it becomes difficult under this theory to work out motivational factors. Further, it is difficult to state categorically, whether instinctive behaviour is a learned behaviour or an invol­untary instinct.

2. Drive Theory:

According to Woodworth (1918), the drive is the reservoir of energy, which impels an individual to behave in a certain way towards or away from a goal. Canon (1939) introduced the concept of ‘Homeostatic’ to describe a state of disequilibrium which exists in a person whenever internal conditions deviate from their normal state.

In the state of disequilibrium an individual is motivated by his internal drive to reduce the disequi­librium and to return to a normal state. According to Hill (1943), the greater the extent of depri­vation, greater is the intensity of achievement-effort to remove the deprivation.

3. Cognitive Theory:

Major determinants of human behaviour under this approach are beliefs, expectations and anticipation concerning future events. Behaviour is considered as being purposeful, goal-directed and conscious. According to this approach, motivation is a function of expectancies (beliefs about causal effect of action and outcome) and valences (value placed on outcomes by an individual).

Thus, if an individual places a high value on a particular outcome, he would work hard for getting that outcome. Under this approach, attitudinal orientation in values is necessary for greater motivation. Knowledge of value system of an employee would be helpful in deciding as to what motivates him.

4. Needs Theory:

According to Mallow (1954), everyone has a hierarchy of needs and he works for satisfying these needs.

Five need-levels brought out by Mallow are as follows:

1. Basic Physical Needs- Food, clothing, shelter, sex, rest, etc.

2. Safety or Security Needs- Security from physical attack, job-security etc.

3. Social Needs- These are needs of association, i.e., belonging to a group.

4. Esteem Needs- These are felt needs for recognition, status, achievement etc. They are ego-needs related to one’s feeling for one’s own worth and importance.

5. Self-Actualisation Needs- These are higher order needs, relating to self-expression and developing the potential within individuals to the fullest.

According to Mallow, the lower order needs are activated first. When these are satisfied, next higher order needs are activated. There is a progression of need-satisfaction. However, it appears that different needs are active in some degree at all times.

Satisfaction of lower order needs is a prime motive for work for those who are at low wage employment; while those at high wage employment level are better motivated by group pressure or by recognition or by self-satisfaction. Reward system does not motivate them as much.

5. Job Enrichment Theory:

In the 50s, Frederick Herzberg (1959) and his team interviewed about 2000 accountants and engineers working in industrial firms in Pittsburg area to find as to when they felt enthusiastic or dissatisfied with their work.

On the basis of these studies, Herzberg found that:

A. Work situations which people find most satisfying for perfor­mance, in order of priority, are those which provide for-

i. opportunity for achievement

ii. recognition

iii. challenge of work itself

iv. genuine responsibility and scope for the individual

v. scope for advancement

Herzberg called them ‘Job Satisfiers’ or ‘Motivators’.

B. Work situations which people find most dissatisfying generally arise from unhelpful nature and inadequacy of the organisation relating to-

i. company policy and administration

ii. supervision

iii. salary, status and security

iv. inter-personal relationships

v. working conditions

Herzberg called them ‘Job Dissatisfiers’ or ‘Hygiene-Factors’.

Reduction of job dissatisfiers does not have as much power in motivating employees as does an increase in job-satisfiers. According to Herzberg, major job-satisfiers like achievement, recognition, responsibility and advancement are connected with the task itself and hence they are better motivators.

They enrich the job content and thereby increase the job-interest of employees. Job satisfiers are non-monetary in nature and are intrinsic to the job. Job-dissatisfiers like company policy, super­vision and human .relationships relate to job context or job environment and are extrinsic to the job.

According to Herzberg, “the promise of money can move a man to work, but it cannot motivate him. Motivation means an inner desire to make an effort”. According to him, motivational effort should be directed for getting improvements in job satisfiers without allowing job dissatisfiers to worsen. Like Mallow’s theory, Herzberg’s theory also does not recognise individual differences arising out of personal, social and cultural factors.

Further, there is only a semantic difference between effect of increase in job satisfiers or decrease in job dissatisfiers. Yet, Herzberg’s work remains seminal. Problem areas in this approach relate to lack of opportunities for personal achievement in government; rigid promotion rules and status-quoism having high value.

6. McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y:

According to McGregor (1960), supervisors motivate either by addressing to the lower order needs, or to the higher order needs, depending on their own perceptions of their employees’ needs. If in the supervisor’s view, people do better when they are properly paid and feel secure, he would appeal to lower needs.

On the contrary, he would address to the higher order needs of recog­nition and self-actualisation, if he thought that employees are bothered about higher order needs. McGregor called the first approach as Theory X and the second as Theory Y. These theories are based on the following assumptions about human nature.

Theory X or Theory Y are ideal constructs. Use of Theory Y in motivation can lead to better results, as it is built on participation, trust and appreciation of role of employees in an organisation.

Theory X treats employees as pawns in the hands of the supervisor to be dealt with in the way he thinks proper. This may lead to conflict, withdrawal, and disinterestedness on the part of employees.

7. McClelland’s Need Theory:

McClelland (1961) lists three categories of needs for individuals-

1. Affiliation Needs

2. Achievement Needs

3. Power Needs

Those who have high achievement needs are self-confident and have high risk-taking capacity. Such persons are not motivated as much by incentives as by perceived challenges and the thrill of achievement.

Those who have low achievement needs require monetary incentive to reinforce their view that they are doing well. Those with high affiliation needs would be more bothered with social relations on the job and would perform better in a non-competitive group-task.