Early Theories Of Motivation Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory -lower-order needs-largely satisfied externally plysiollogicall-food,drink,shelter,sexual satisfaction s-security and protection from physical and emotional harm assurance that physiological needs will be satisfied Higer-order needs-largely satisfied internally osocial-affection,belongingness,acceptance oeeem-internal factors like self-respect,autonomy -external factors like status,recognition,attention selfactuallization -achieving one's potential ©Prentice Hall,2002 16-6
Early Theories Of Motivation Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory – lower-order needs - largely satisfied externally • physiological - food, drink, shelter, sexual satisfaction • safety - security and protection from physical and emotional harm – assurance that physiological needs will be satisfied – Higher-order needs - largely satisfied internally • social - affection, belongingness, acceptance • esteem - internal factors like self-respect, autonomy – external factors like status, recognition, attention • self-actualization - achieving one’s potential © Prentice Hall, 2002 16-6
Early Theories Of Motivation (cont.) Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory (cont.) -each level in hierarchy must be satisfied before the next is activated once a need is substantially satisfied it no longer motivates behavior - theory received wide recognition little research support for the validity of the theory ©Prentice Hall,2002 16-7
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory (cont.) – each level in hierarchy must be satisfied before the next is activated • once a need is substantially satisfied it no longer motivates behavior – theory received wide recognition – little research support for the validity of the theory Early Theories Of Motivation (cont.) © Prentice Hall, 2002 16-7
Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs Self- Actualization Esteem Social Safety Physiological ©Prentice Hall,2002 16-8
Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs Physiological Safety Social Esteem SelfActualization © Prentice Hall, 2002 16-8
Early Theories Of Motivation (cont. MeGregor's Theory X and Theory Y -assumes that workers have little ambition, dislike work,want to avoid responsibility,and need to be closely controlled assumed that lower-order needs dominated mcom -assumes that workers can exercise self- direction,accept and actually seek out responsibility,and consider work to be a natural activity assumed that higher-order needs dominated no evidence that either set of assumptions is valid 一 no evidence that managing on the basis of Theory Y makes employees more motivated ©Prentice Hall,2002 16-9
Early Theories Of Motivation (cont.) McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y – Theory X - assumes that workers have little ambition, dislike work, want to avoid responsibility, and need to be closely controlled • assumed that lower-order needs dominated – Theory Y - assumes that workers can exercise selfdirection, accept and actually seek out responsibility, and consider work to be a natural activity • assumed that higher-order needs dominated – no evidence that either set of assumptions is valid – no evidence that managing on the basis of Theory Y makes employees more motivated © Prentice Hall, 2002 16-9
Early Theories Of Motivation (cont. Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory -intrinsic characteristics consistently related to job satisfaction omotyior factors energize employees extrinsic characteristics consistently related to job dissatisfaction ogiene factors don't motivate employees proposed dual continua for satisfaction and dissatisfaction theory enjoyed wide popularity influenced job design theory was roundly criticized ©Prentice Hall,2002 16-10
Early Theories Of Motivation (cont.) Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory – intrinsic characteristics consistently related to job satisfaction • motivator factors energize employees – extrinsic characteristics consistently related to job dissatisfaction • hygiene factors don’t motivate employees – proposed dual continua for satisfaction and dissatisfaction – theory enjoyed wide popularity • influenced job design – theory was roundly criticized © Prentice Hall, 2002 16-10