Sociology

Motivation is a widely discussed and researched organizational phenomenon. It refers to the process that accounts for an individuals intensity, direction and persistence of effort towards goal attainment (Stephens,  Judge, 2007, p. 187). Intensity refers to how hard a person works, direction connotes the line along which the persons effort is channeled and persistence measures the duration of application of effort (Stephens,  Judge, 2007, p. 186). A number of theories have been formulated to understand and improve employee motivation in organizations. Included among these theories are the hierarchy of needs theory developed by Abraham Maslow and two-factor or motivation-hygiene developed Frederick Herzberg (Stephens,  Judge, 2007, p. 187, 189). The two theories share a number of commonalities but also differ on multifarious accounts. This paper provides a comparison and contrast of the two theories along with the reasons for their managerial appeal or dislike. 

Maslows Hierarchy of Needs Theory
Abraham Maslow proposed the hierarchy of needs theory in 1950s. Maslow proposed that a hierarchy of five needs exists within all human beings (Stephens,  Judge, 2007, p. 187). These needs include physiological, safety, social, esteem and self-actualization needs. Physiological needs include bodily needs such as hunger and shelter (Stephens,  Judge, 2007, p. 187). Safety needs consist of protection from physical and emotional harm. Social needs are reflective of an individuals desire for affection, acceptance and friendship. Esteem needs are divided into internal esteem needs such as autonomy and self-respect and achievement and external esteem needs like status and recognition (Stephens,  Judge, 2007, p. 187). Lastly, self-actualization needs indicate individual desires to grow and fulfill his maximum potential. Physiological, safety and social needs are collectively termed as low-order needs while esteem and self-actualization are categorized as high-order needs (Stephens,  Judge, 2007, p. 187).

Herzbergs Two-Factor Theory
Two-Factor theory or motivation hygiene theory, developed by Frederick Herzberg, is formulated on the assumption that an individuals relation to work is basic and his attitude towards work determines his success or failure (Stephens,  Judge, 2007, p. 189). In this theory, Herzberg sought to identify the factors and situations that make people feel good or bad about their jobs (Stephens,  Judge, 2007, p. 189). These factors are divided into two categories, hygiene factors and motivators. Hygiene factors are factors whose presence placates workers and ensures that workers are not dissatisfied. They include company policy and administration, salary, supervision, relationship with supervisor etc (Stephens,  Judge, 2007, p. 191). Hygiene factors, however, do not guarantee job satisfaction. Factors that are consistent with job satisfaction are known as motivators. Motivators consist of intrinsically rewarding factors such as achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement and growth (Stephens,  Judge, 2007, p. 191). According to Herzberg, job satisfaction is not the converse of job dissatisfaction. Factors eliminating job dissatisfaction will not lead to job satisfaction since its influencing factors are distinct from those causing dissatisfaction.

Similarities between the Two Theories
Maslows hierarchy of needs theory and Herzbergs two-factor theory have a number of common characteristics. Both theories belong to the class of content theories of motivation. They both were developed in 1950s (Stephens,  Judge, 2007, p. 186). The two theories belong to the category of motivational theories and explore the same relationship i.e. what motivates an individual (Newstrom, 2006). These theories also share the concept of self-actualization (Adiar, 1990, p. 55). Both the theories provide specific criteria as to what motivates an individual. Hygiene factors, part of the motivation-hygiene theory, are similar to Maslows low order needs, namely physiological, safety and social needs. Further, some esteem needs and all self-actualization needs from Maslows theory are similar to Herzbergs motivators. Each of these two theories presents a simple view of motivation that is easy to understand (Newstrom, 2006 Sudan,  Kumar, 2004, p. 298). These facets also help these motivational theories to acquire wide acceptance in the professional world. The two still constitute two of the most popular theories of motivation (Stephens,  Judge, 2007, p. 186).
   
Each of the aforementioned theories assumes that individuals behave as they do because of their attempt to satisfy internal needs. The two theoretical models assume that specific needs energize behavior (Sudan,  Kumar, 2004, p. 298). Unsatisfied needs motivate individuals and govern their behavior in the direction of fulfillment of the needs. Popular interpretations of Maslow and Herzbergs theories suggest that many workers in modern societies have already satisfied their needs. As a result of this, these workers are primarily motivated by high-order needs and motivators (Newstrom, 2006, p. 109). The two models also provide a foundation for understanding and application of behavioral modification. They suggest that before managers attempt to administer a reward, they will find it useful to discover the employee need dominant at that particular instance (Newstrom, 2006, p. 109). The two theories lack empirical support, a common criticism directed at them (Stephens,  Judge, 2007, p. 188, 191). They have also been blamed for oversimplifying the motivation process. Hierarchy of needs and motivation-hygiene theory fail to provide an appropriate link between organizational goals and individual need satisfaction (Sudan,  Kumar, 2004, p. 298). Further, they do not take individual differences into consideration. Lastly, the compatibility between these theories underlies their popularity.

Contrast between Maslow and Herzbergs Theories
Despite the multifarious similarities between Maslows hierarchy of needs theory and Herzbergs two-factor theory, the two greatly differ from each other. In terms of order of needs, Maslows theory presents a sequential or hierarchical model of needs. According to Maslow a need will motivate an individual only after its lower level needs have been completely or largely satisfied (Stephens,  Judge, 2007, p. 188). Herzbergs theory, on the other hand, emphasizes no such hierarchical relationship (Sudan,  Kumar, 2004, p. 299). As regards the model emphasis, Maslows theory is descriptive in nature proving information on the needs present in every human being. Conversely, Herzbergs theory is prescriptive, suggesting the factors to managers must eliminate and promote to lower job dissatisfaction and promote job satisfaction (Sudan,  Kumar, 2004, p. 299). Maslows theory takes into consideration only internal needs of employees. Motivation hygiene theory considers both internal needs and external job content or context that must be present for need satisfaction (Newstrom, 2006, p. 109). The essence of Maslows theory is that unsatisfied needs energize behavior which, in turn, causes performance. Herzbergs theory in essence suggests that gratified needs cause performance (Sudan,  Kumar, 2004, p. 299). In Maslows model, any need including hunger, thirst, protection and other low-order needs, can act as motivator provided its lower level needs are largely satisfied. In Herzbergs theory low-order needs or hygiene factors cannot act as motivators at all (Sudan,  Kumar, 2004, p. 299). Only higher-order needs can serve this purpose. Maslows theory is more general and universally applicable than Herzbergs two-factor theory. While the former takes a general view of motivational problems of all workers, the latter restricts itself to a micro-view of motivational problems of only professional workers (Sudan,  Kumar, 2004, p. 299). Lastly, Herzbergs theory takes a temporal bias towards dichotomizing while Maslows theory was developed with a predominantly holistic bias (Adiar, 1990, p. 56).

Understanding the managerial Appeal of the Two Theories
Maslows hierarchy of needs theory appeals to managers for a number of reasons. Firstly, the terms are so highly publicized that they are incorporated in every day language. The term self-actualization has found its way into dictionaries (Furnham, 2005, p. 288). Familiarity with terms encourages managers to incorporate them in their motivational strategies. Secondly, the theory has humanistic appeal, is simple and easy to understand. Its treatment of human needs is sympathetic (Furnham, 2005, p. 289). It accurately explains the reasons for failure of certain work incentives. Thirdly, management prefers group interventions to individually-oriented theories as the former achieve widespread motivation (Furnham, 2005, p. 289). By ignoring individual differences, the theory facilitates development of effective group interventions. For instance, in time of instability and high unemployment, permanent job positions in the company can satisfy the safety needs for hundreds of employees. The ability to provide ways for motivational group interventions carries tremendous appeal for managers (Furnham, 2005, p. 289). Further, it reduces the complex process of motivating employees to mere identification of their needs and alignment of rewards with these needs. This convenience underlies the theorys popularity in the business world. On the flip side, the theorys inability to incorporate socio-cultural context in employee motivation and little regard for the fact that individuals are the result of their particular cultures, make many manager dislike the theory (Newstrom, 2006).
   
Motivation-hygiene theory appeals to management because of its clarity and simplicity, much like Maslows theory. Its compatibility with Maslows theory also adds to its managerial appeal. Further, the fact that salary, fringe benefits and work conditions yield benefits only up to a certain point carries tremendous appeal for cost-conscious managers (Miner, 2007, p. 53). Like Maslows hierarchy of needs, the lack of incorporation of socio-cultural context lessens its worth for some managers. Absence of empirical evidence may also demote its use.
   
To summarize, hierarchy of needs and two-factor theories, are two popular motivational theories that identify the needs and factors that motivate individuals. The two theories are similar in many regards but also very different from one another. The ease of understanding of both theories makes them highly appealing to managers the world over.