McShane & A ; Travaglione ( 2007 ), teach that organizational behavior is the analysis of what people do, believe and experience, in and around administrations. Administrations have been described by the same writers as “ groups of people who work independently towards some intent ” ( p. 5 ).
Wood, J.M., Zeffane, R., Fromholtz, M. & A ; Fitzgerald, J.A. ( 2006 ) claim that organizational behavior has strong ties to other societal and behavioral scientific disciplines including psychological science, sociology, economic sciences and political relations. Wood et. Al. suggest that:
Organizational behavior is non a inactive discipline the survey of organizational behavior is bettering our apprehension of old and new constructs likewise ; such issues as emphasis, emotional intelligence and natural thrust ( p. 5 ).
A survey of Organisational Behaviour can include such subjects as group construction, behavior of leaders and the power they can utilize, communicating between persons, the construction of groups, the development of attitudes and perceptual experiences, the procedures of alteration, occupation design, struggle direction, and work stressors ( ACAP, 2009 )
MASLOW ‘S “ HIERARCHY OF NEEDS ” Theory
Robbins, Millett, Waters-Marsh ( 2004 ) describe Maslow ‘s hypotheses as saying that within every human being there exists a hierarchy of five basic demands. Maslow ‘s theory states that as each demand becomes well satisfied, the following demand so becomes the dominant incentive for that individual ( p 164 ).
McShane and Travaglione ( 2007 ) explain “ demands ” as “ deficiencies that energise or trigger behaviors to fulfill those needs the stronger your demands, the more motivated you are to fulfill them. Conversely, a satisfied demand does non actuate ” ( p. 138 ).
Maslow ‘s five demands can be fundamentally summarised in order from the most basic to the highest as: –
Physiological: Maslow ‘s hypothesis provinces that every homo has a basic demand to fulfill hungriness, thirst, shelter, sex and other basic bodily needs, such as air, H2O, nutriment and slumber.
Safety: Once the physiological demands are met, every human so seeks security and protection from physical and emotional injury. This demand for security will be manifested in a individual ‘s desire to populate in a safe country, have equal medical insurance, enjoy comparative occupation security and to hold sufficient fiscal militias to run into ordinary life disbursals.
Sociable: Further strong demands which arise can be identified as focus oning on a individual ‘s demand for fondness, belongingness, credence and friendly relationship ; to give and to have love.
Esteems: High on the graduated table of Maslow ‘s hierarchy of demands are the human desires for liberty, self-respect, repute and accomplishment ; and external regard factors such as position, acknowledgment and attending.
Self-actualisation: The highest demand harmonizing to Maslow is the thrust to go what one is capable of going. Self-actualisation includes personal growing, accomplishing one ‘s possible and self-fulfillment. Self-actualised people have great need to make out for justness, truth, wisdom and significance in life. ( Robbins et Al, 2004 ).
Harmonizing to the Maslow ‘s “ Hierarchy of Needs ” theory, as each demand becomes satisfied the following demand becomes more dominant. For illustration, if Maslow ‘s theory is right, if a individual feels threatened with injury in any signifier, their higher demands will non have so much attending.
Maslow farther separated the five demands he identified, into lower-order demands and higher-order demands. Maslow suggests that the lower-order demands relate to those things affecting our physiology and safety, whilst the higher-order needs relate to societal, esteem and self-actualisation issues ( Robbins et Al, 2004 ).
Harmonizing to Maslow ‘s theory, an person will be motivated to travel up the stairss of the hierarchy as each consecutive demand is met. For illustration, one time a individual ‘s physiological demands are being well met, that individual will be given to be no longer motivated to strictly run into those demands, but instead will endeavor to carry through their interior thrust for safety, security and protection from physical and emotional injury. Further, harmonizing to Maslow ‘s theory, one time these two lower-order demands are well met, an person will so go motivated to carry through their interior yearning for friendly relationship, credence, fondness and a sense of belongingness, and so on up the “ stairss of the hierarchy ”. For this theory to be a feasible motivational theoretical account, directors need to be able to place what is the most urgent demand in the life of each person in the administration. In other words, harmonizing to Maslow, if a director wishes to actuate anyone, they will necessitate to understand what peculiar degree of the hierarchy stairss that individual occupies at any given clip, and concentrate on fulfilling that single ‘s demands at or above that degree.
THE STRENGTHS OF MASLOW ‘S Theory
If Maslow ‘s theory was consistent, so there appears to be a great chance to actuate persons in the workplace in legion ways. For illustration, a workplace might supply for:
Physiological demands: By making clip for tiffin interruptions, remainder interruptions, and supplying rewards sufficient to procure necessities such as nutrient, shelter and vesture.
Safety demands: By supplying all employees with safe working conditions, retirement benefits and occupation security.
Social demands: By making a sense of community and belonging through making squad based undertakings and organizing and promoting societal events.
Esteem demands: By recognizing accomplishments so that employees feel appreciated and valued. Offering occupation rubrics can besides convey acknowledgment through “ place ” or rank within the workplace.
Self-actualisation: By supplying employees with the challenge and the chance to make their full calling potency ( Business Knowledge Centre, 2007 ).
Harmonizing to Robbins et Al ( 2004 ) :
aˆ¦Maslow ‘s demand theory has received broad acknowledgment, peculiarly among practising directors. This can be attributed to the theories intuitive logic and easiness of understanding. Unfortunately nevertheless, research does non needfully formalize [ Maslow ‘s ] theory. Maslow provided no empirical confirmation, and several surveies that sought to formalize [ his ] theory have found no support for it ( p.165 )
THE WEAKNESS IN MASLOW ‘S Theory
It would look that whilst Maslow ‘s hierarchy makes intuitive sense, there appears to be small grounds to back up his theory as fact. Not all persons are motivated in the formal manner that Maslow suggests. It is suggested that there is small grounds that implies that people are so motivated to carry through merely a individual demand at a clip as they seemingly move up Maslow ‘s ladder of “ demands ” hierarchy. It has been concluded that whilst Maslow ‘s theory lacks scientific support, his theory merely remains popular because of its intuitive entreaty, and the fact that the theory is good known and is frequently the first theory of motive a individual may go exposed to ( Business Knowledge Centre, 2007 ).
Frederick Herzberg ‘s “ MOTIVATION-HYGIENE THEORY ”
Herzberg ‘s “ motivation-hygiene theory, ” ( sometimes besides known as the two factor theory ), appears to rank among the simpler of motivational theories available to concern direction today. Harmonizing to Bassett-Jones & A ; Lloyd ( 2005 ), “ Herzberg and his confederates published “ The Motivation to Work ” in 1959, suggesting two factors act uponing motive at work – hygiene factors that de-motivate when they are inappropriate, and incentives that sustain attempt ” ( p 5 ).
Robbins et. Al. suggest that Herzberg ‘s belief was that people have a relationship to work which is basic and that an person ‘s attitude toward work appears to frequently find their success or failure within the work topographic point. In order to prove his theory, Herzberg investigated the inquiry, ‘What do people want from their occupations? ‘ Using a study integrating a twelve or more separate factors, he asked people to depict, in item, state of affairss where they felt particularly good or bad about their employment. He so tabulated and categorized the consequences ( 2004 ).
Herzberg concluded that the answers persons gave when they were experiencing good about their employment were different to those answers supplied when people were experiencing bad about their occupations. The consequences of Herzberg ‘s studies reveal that those who felt satisfied with their employment attributed their feelings to intrinsic factors like acknowledgment, the chance to take duty, personal accomplishment and the chance of occupation promotion. In the chief, those who identified with these factors credited these feelings to themselves ( Robbins et. Al. 2004 ).
On the other manus Herzberg found that those who were dissatisfied with their employment tended to fault extrinsic factors such as defeat with company policy or disposal, workplace supervising, rates of wage and working conditions ( Bassett-Jones & A ; Lloyd, 2005 ).
What Herzberg ‘s information does propose nevertheless, is that contrary to popular belief, taking those things which people find dissatisfying about their employment does non needfully do for more satisfied employees. In other words, the antonym of ‘Satisfaction ‘ is ‘No Satisfaction ‘ and the antonym of ‘Dissatisfaction ‘ is ‘No Dissatisfaction ‘. What this means, Herzberg concluded, is that those factors which generate occupation satisfaction are distinguishable and separate from those factors which might find a individual ‘s dissatisfaction with their employment. It is besides suggested hence that directors who attempt to extinguish those factors which create dissatisfaction do non needfully make an environment where people feel motivated to work. Simply pacifying the work force by “ hygienically ” taking inauspicious factors is non, in itself, sufficient to raise degrees of single or corporate motive ( Robbins et.al. 2004 ).
Interestingly, Herzberg ‘s surveies tend to uncover a double continuum that shows that when things are running smooth in a individual ‘s life and they are satisfied with their employment, they tend to take the recognition themselves for that state of affairs. On the other manus, people tend to fault their dissatisfaction on their external environment, i.e. extrinsic factors. However, when such factors as work supervising, rates of wage, company policies, physical working conditions, dealingss with others, and occupation security are “ cleaned up ” ( i.e. the ‘hygiene ‘ factor ) or made more equal, people can still be given to be neither satisfied nor disgruntled. Herzberg suggested that the things employees find per se honoring are promotional chances, chances for personal growing, acknowledgment, duty and accomplishment ( Robbins et.al. 2004 ).
THE STRENGTHS OF HERZBERG ‘S “ TWO-FACTOR THEORY ”
Obviously “ cleaning up ” a work topographic point or direction factors which people find de-motivating or disappointing will be seen as a positive thing. Removing negative factors in the work topographic point environment must travel some manner toward supplying a more hearty and possibly even safer and more unafraid employment environment. Others have built on Herzberg ‘s findings, and have identified nucleus occupation features that have the capacity to bring forth, under the right conditions, employees that are more motivated and satisfied ( ACAP, 2009b ).
THE DOWNSIDE OF HERZBERG ‘S “ TWO-FACTOR THEORY ”
Herzberg ‘s theory assumes a touchable, possibly even mensurable relationship between overall satisfaction and personal productiveness. As such, Herzberg ‘s research methodological analysis concentrated on the topic ‘s satisfaction degrees more than on their productiveness end product. Therefore to do Herzberg ‘s “ hygiene theory ” relevant, one must presume a strong correlativity between a individual ‘s satisfaction and their general productiveness. It is now nevertheless, by and large accepted that “ the two factor ” theory does non adequately take into history situational variables which may be present in each person ‘s life. Each situational variable has the capacity to pollute the decisions a director might come to, should they trust on Herzberg ‘s motivational theory in their desire to correctly actuate their employees ( Robbins et. Al, 2004 ).
The two motivational theories discussed in this paper appear to incorporate important countries of lack. Though both theories have been around for an drawn-out period of clip and are hence good known by direction squads everyplace, unluckily neither theory holds up good under close scrutiny. Maslow ‘s theory is utile in placing assorted countries where a workplace might supply many positive countries and chances for personal promotion ; nevertheless those factors entirely appear non to be sufficient in many instances to actuate persons toward higher and more efficient productiveness.
Herzberg ‘s theory is similarly utile in being able to place countries of possible betterment in any environment where “ un-hygienic ” state of affairss might make feelings of negativeness and de-motivation in either persons or groups. However, merely as Moslow ‘s theory does non needfully indicate to uncontaminated steps from measure one to step five in each or any single, Herzberg ‘s theory besides falls short in the modern workplace in that the relationship between personal satisfaction and healthy motive in the workplace is non ever apparent ( Robbins et.al. 2004 ).