The best-known theory of motivation is Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs,2 which hypothesizes that within every human being there is a hierarchy of five needs. Recently, a sixth need has been proposed for a highest level—intrinsic values—which is said to have originated from Maslow, but it has yet to gain widespread acceptance.3 The original five needs are:

1. Physiological. Includes hunger, thirst, shelter, sex, and other bodily needs.

2. Safety-security. Security and protection from physical and emotional harm.

3. Social-belongingness. Affection, belongingness, acceptance, and friendship.

4. Esteem. Internal factors such as self-respect, autonomy, and achievement, and external factors such as status, recognition, and attention.

5. Self-actualization. Drive to become what we are capable of becoming; includes growth, achieving our potential, and self-fulfillment.

According to Maslow, as each need becomes substantially satisfied, the next one becomes dominant. So if you want to motivate someone, you need to understand what level of the hierarchy that person is currently on and focus on satisfying needs at or above that level. We depict the hierarchy as a pyramid in Exhibit 7-1 since this is its best-known representation, but Maslow referred to the needs only in terms of levels.

Maslow’s theory has received long-standing wide recognition, particularly among practicing managers. It is intuitively logical and easy to understand, and some research has validated it.4 Unfortunately, however, most research has not, especially when the theory is applied to diverse cultures,5 with the possible exception of physiological needs.6 But old theories, especially intuitively logical ones, die hard. It is thus important to be aware of the prevailing public acceptance of the hierarchy when discussing motivation.

Believing an individual’s relationship to work is basic, and that the attitude toward work can determine success or failure, psychologist Frederick Herzberg wondered, “What do people want from their jobs?” He asked people to describe, in detail, situations in which they felt exceptionally good or bad about their jobs. The responses differed significantly and led Herzberg to his two-factor theory (also called motivation-hygiene theory, but this term is not used much today).7

According to a recent survey reported in the Harvard Business Review which identified thousands of events that lead to extreme satisfaction and dissatisfaction.8

Conditions such as quality of supervision, pay, company policies, physical work conditions, relationships with others, and job security are hygiene factors. When they’re adequate, people will not be dissatisfied; neither will they be satisfied. If we want to motivate people on their jobs, we should emphasize factors associated with the work itself or with outcomes directly derived from it such as promotional opportunities, personal growth opportunities, recognition, responsibility, and achievement. These are the characteristics people find intrinsically rewarding. Note that Herzberg proposed a dual continuum: The opposite of “satisfaction” is “no satisfaction,” and the opposite of “dissatisfaction” is “no dissatisfaction” (see Exhibit 7-2).

Two-factor theory has not been well supported in research. Criticisms center on Herzberg’s original methodology and his assumptions, such as the statement that satisfaction is strongly related to productivity. Subsequent research has also shown that if hygiene and motivational factors are equally important to a person, both are capable of motivating.

Regardless of the criticisms, Herzberg’s theory has been quite influential and is currently very much in use in research in Asia.9 Most managers worldwide are familiar with its recommendations.

You have one beanbag and five targets set up in front of you, each farther away than the last. Target A sits almost within arm’s reach. If you hit it, you get $2. Target B is a bit farther out and pays $4, but only about 80 percent of the people who try can hit it. Target C pays $8, and about half the people who try can hit it. Very few people can hit Target D, but the payoff is $16 for those who do. Finally, Target E pays $32, but it’s almost impossible to achieve. Which would you try for? If you selected C, you’re likely to be a high achiever. Why? Read on.

McClelland’s theory of needs was developed by David McClelland and his associates.10 As opposed to Maslow’s hierarchy, these needs are more like motivating factors than strict needs for survival. There are three:

• Need for achievement (nAch) is the drive to excel, to achieve in relationship to a set of standards.

• Need for power (nPow) is the need to make others behave in a way they would not have otherwise.

• Need for affiliation (nAff) is the desire for friendly and close interpersonal relationships.

McClelland and subsequent researchers focused most of their attention on nAch. High achievers perform best when they perceive their probability of success as 0.5—that is, a 50–50 chance. They dislike gambling with high odds because they get no achievement satisfaction from success that comes by pure chance. Similarly, they dislike low odds (high probability of success) because then there is no challenge to their skills. They like to set goals that require stretching themselves a little. The view that high nAch acts as an internal motivator presupposes two cultural characteristics—willingness to accept a moderate degree of risk (which excludes countries with strong uncertainty-avoidance characteristics, see Chapter 5), and concern with performance (which applies to countries with strong achievement characteristics). This combination is found predominantly in Anglo-American countries such as the United States, Canada, and Great Britain, and much less in collectivistic countries like Chile and Portugal.

The three needs are linked to important job outcomes. First, when jobs have a high degree of personal responsibility and feedback, along with an intermediate degree of risk, high achievers are strongly motivated. Second, high nAch does not necessarily make someone a good manager, especially in large organizations. People with high nAch are interested in how well they do personally, and not in influencing others to do well. Third, the most effective leaders are high in nPow and nAff, according to recent research11—the “rough edges” of nPow may be tempered by the nAff desire to be included.

McClelland’s theory has research support, particularly cross-culturally (when cultural dimensions including power distance [see Chapter 5] are taken into account).12 First, the concept of nAch has received a great deal of research attention and acceptance in a wide array of fields, including organizational behavior (OB), psychology, and general business.13 Second, the nPow concept also has research support, but it may be more familiar to people in broad terms than in relation to the original definition.14 We will discuss power much more in Chapter 13. Third, the nAff concept is well established and accepted in research. Although it may seem like an updated version of Maslow’s social need, it is actually quite separate. Many people take for granted the idea that human beings have a drive toward relationships, so none of us may completely lack this motivation. Fourth, personality characteristics influence our need pursuit, too. Recent research of Cameroonian and German adults indicates high neuroticism may constrain the drive toward establishing relationships (see Chapter 5). Agreeableness supports our pursuit of affiliation, while extraversion has no significant effect.15