The Hawthorne Effect

During the 1920s, a series of studies were conducted by Elton Mayo at the Hawthorne Plant of Western Electric Company in Illinois. These studies marked a change in the direction of motivational and managerial theory. Previous research, such as Frederick Taylor’s work, took a “man as machine” view and focused on improving individual performance. Hawthorne, however, sets the individual in a social context, arguing that employees’ performance is influenced by work surroundings and coworkers as much as by employee ability and skill. The Hawthorne studies focus managerial strategy on the socio-psychological aspects of human behavior in organizations.

Initially, the Hawthorne study looked at the effects of physical conditions on productivity. Are workers more responsive and work more efficiently under certain environmental conditions, such as improved lighting? Mayo found that workers were more responsive to social factors—such as their manager and coworkers than physical factors (lighting, etc.). Worker productivity improved when the lights were returned to their previous level. All other aspects were returned to pre-experiment, factory productivity reached its highest level, and absenteeism plummeted.

Mayo discovered that, during the study, workers were highly responsive to the additional attention they received from their managers. They felt their managers cared about them and were interested in their work. The studies also found that although financial incentives are essential to worker productivity, social factors are equally important.

Several other experiments were conducted in the Hawthorne studies, including one in which two women were chosen as test subjects and were then asked to choose four other workers to join their test group. Together, the women assembled telephone relays in a separate room. Over five years (1927–1932), their output was measured—at first in secret. Their outputs were measured two weeks before moving the women to an experiment room and continued throughout the study. They were assigned to a supervisor in the experiment room who discussed changes with them and sometimes integrated the women’s suggestions. Over the five years, the researchers measured different variables and how the variables affected both the group’s and the individuals’ productivity. Some variables included giving two five-minute breaks (after discussing the best length of time) and then changing to two ten-minute breaks (not the group preference).

Changing a variable usually increases productivity, even if the variable was just a change to the original condition. Researchers concluded that the employees worked harder because they thought they were being monitored individually. Researchers hypothesized that choosing one’s coworkers, working as a group, receiving special treatment (as evidenced by working in a separate room), and having a sympathetic supervisor were the real reasons for the productivity increase.

The Hawthorne studies showed that people’s work performance depends on social issues and job satisfaction. The studies concluded that tangible motivators, such as monetary incentives and good working conditions, are generally less important in improving employee productivity than intangible motivators, such as meeting individuals’ desire to belong to a group and inclusion in decision-making and work.

Need-Based Theories

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Human motivation can be defined as the fulfillment of various needs. These needs can encompass a range of human desires, from essential, tangible survival needs to complex, emotional needs surrounding an individual’s psychological well-being.

A social psychologist, Abraham Maslow, was interested in a broad spectrum of human psychological needs rather than individual psychological problems. He is best known for his hierarchy of needs theory. Depicted in a pyramid (Figure 1), the theory organizes the different levels of human psychological and physical needs in order of importance.

The needs in Maslow’s hierarchy include physiological needs (food and clothing), safety needs (job security), social needs (friendship), self-esteem, and self-actualization. Leaders can use this hierarchy to understand employees’ needs and motivation better and address them in ways that lead to high productivity and job satisfaction.

At the bottom of the pyramid are the physiological (or primary) human needs required for survival: food, shelter, water, sleep, etc. The body cannot continue to function if these requirements are not met. Faced with a lack of food, love, and safety, most people would probably consider food their most urgent need.

Once physical needs are satisfied, security (sometimes referred to as individual safety) takes precedence. Security and safety needs include personal, financial, and health and well-being. These first two levels are essential to the physical survival of the person. Once individuals have basic nutrition, shelter, and safety, they seek to fulfill higher-level needs.

The third level is social needs, which include love and belonging; when individuals have taken care of themselves physically, they can address their need to share and connect with others. Deficiencies at this level, on account of neglect, shunning, ostracism, etc., can impact an individual’s ability to form and maintain emotionally significant relationships. Humans need to feel a sense of belonging and acceptance, whether from a large social group or a small network of family and friends. Other sources of social connection may be professional organizations, clubs, religious groups, social media sites, etc. Humans need to love and be loved (sexually and non-sexually) by others. Without these attachments, people can be vulnerable to psychological difficulties such as loneliness, social anxiety, and depression. These conditions, when severe, can impair a person’s ability to address basic physiological needs such as eating and sleeping.

The fourth level is esteem, which represents the normal human desire to be valued and validated by others through, for example, the recognition of success or status. This level also includes self-esteem, which refers to the regard and acceptance one has for oneself. Imbalances at this level can result in low self-esteem or an inferiority complex. People suffering from low self-esteem may find that external validation by others—through fame, glory, accolades, etc.—only partially or temporarily fulfills their needs at this level.

At the top of the pyramid is self-actualization. At this stage, people feel that they have reached their full potential and are doing everything they’re capable of. Self-actualization is rarely a permanent feeling or state. Instead, it refers to people’s ongoing need for personal growth and discovery. Self-actualization may occur after reaching an important goal or overcoming a particular challenge, and a new sense of self-confidence or contentment may mark it.

Alderfer’s ERG Theory

Clayton Paul Alderfer is an American psychologist who developed Maslow’s hierarchy of needs into his own theory. Alderfer’s ERG theory suggests that there are three groups of core needs: existence (E), relatedness (R), and growth (G)—hence the acronym ERG. These groups align with Maslow’s levels of physiological needs, social needs, and self-actualization needs, respectively.

Existence needs concern our basic material requirements for living. These include what Maslow categorized as physiological needs (such as air, food, water, and shelter) and safety-related needs (such as health, secure employment, and property).

Relatedness needs have to do with the importance of maintaining interpersonal relationships. These needs are based in social interactions with others and align with Maslow’s levels of love/belonging-related needs (such as friendship, family, and sexual intimacy) and esteem-related needs (gaining the respect of others).

Finally, growth needs to describe our intrinsic desire for personal development. These needs align with the other portion of Maslow’s esteem-related needs (self-esteem, self-confidence, and achievement) and self-actualization (such as morality, creativity, problem-solving, and discovery).

Alderfer proposed that when a specific category of needs isn’t being met, people will redouble their efforts to fulfill needs in a lower category. For example, if someone’s self-esteem is suffering, he or she will invest more effort in the relatedness category of needs.

McClelland’s Acquired Needs Theory

Psychologist David McClelland’s acquired needs theory splits the needs of employees into three categories rather than the two we discussed in Herzberg’s theory. These three categories are achievement, affiliation, and power.

The desire for mastery drives employees who are strongly achievement-motivated. They prefer working on tasks of moderate difficulty in which outcomes result from their effort rather than luck. They value receiving feedback on their work.

Affiliation-motivated employees are driven by the desire to create and maintain social relationships. They enjoy belonging to a group and want to feel loved and accepted. They may not make influential leaders because they may worry too much about how others will feel about them.

Power-motivated employees are driven by the desire to influence, teach, or encourage others. They enjoy work and place a high value on discipline. However, they may take a zero-sum approach to group work—for one person to win or succeed, another must lose or fail. If channeled appropriately, this approach can positively support group goals and help others feel competent.

The acquired-needs theory doesn’t claim that people can be neatly categorized into one of three types. Instead, it asserts that all people are motivated by these needs in varying degrees and proportions. An individual’s balance of these needs forms a profile that can be useful in creating a tailored motivational paradigm for her. It is important to note that needs do not necessarily correlate with competencies; an employee can be strongly affiliation-motivated, for example, but still be successful when her affiliation needs are unmet.

McClelland proposes that those in top management positions generally have a high need for power and a low need for affiliation. He also believes that although individuals needing achievement can make good managers, they are not generally suited to top management positions.

McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y

Douglas McGregor, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology management professor, initially proposed that a manager’s attitude impacts employee motivation. In his 1960 book, The Human Side of Enterprise, McGregor proposed two theories by which managers perceive and address employee motivation. He referred to these opposing motivational methods as Theory X and Theory Y management. Each assumes the manager’s role is to organize resources, including people, to benefit the company best. However, beyond this commonality, their attitudes and assumptions are quite different.

Theory X

According to McGregor, Theory X management assumes the following:

• Work is inherently distasteful to most people, and they will attempt to avoid work whenever possible.
• Most people are not ambitious, have little desire for responsibility, and prefer to be directed.
• Most people have little aptitude for creativity in solving organizational problems.
• Motivation occurs only at the physiological and security levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
• Most people are self-centered. As a result, they must be closely controlled and often coerced to achieve organizational objectives.
• Most people resist change.
• Most people are gullible and unintelligent.

Essentially, Theory X assumes that the primary source of employee motivation is monetary, with security as a strong second. Under Theory X, one can take a hard or soft approach to getting results.

The challenging approach to motivation relies on coercion, implicit threats, micromanagement, and tight controls— essentially an environment of command and control. The soft approach, however, is to be permissive and seek harmony in the hopes that, in return, employees will cooperate when asked. However, neither of these extremes is optimal—the challenging approach results in hostility, purposely low output, and extreme union demands. The soft approach results in a growing desire for greater reward in exchange for diminished work output.

It might seem that the optimal approach to human resource management would lie somewhere between these extremes. However, McGregor asserts neither approach is appropriate since the basic assumptions of Theory X are incorrect.

Drawing on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, McGregor argues that a need, once satisfied, no longer motivates. The company uses monetary rewards and benefits to satisfy employees’ lower-level needs. Once those needs have been satisfied, the motivation disappears. Theory X management hinders the satisfaction of higher-level needs because it doesn’t acknowledge that those needs are relevant in the workplace. As a result, the only way that employees can attempt to meet higher-level needs at work is to seek more compensation, so, predictably, they focus on monetary rewards. While money may not be the most effective way to self-fulfillment, it may be the only way available. People will use work to satisfy their lower needs and seek to satisfy their higher needs during their leisure time. However, employees can be most productive when their work goals align with their higher-level needs.

McGregor makes the point that a command-and-control environment is not effective because it relies on lower needs for motivation, but in modern society those needs are mostly satisfied and thus are no longer motivating. In this situation, one would expect employees to dislike their work, avoid responsibility, have no interest in organizational goals, resist change, etc.—creating, in effect, a self-fulfilling prophecy. To McGregor, a steady supply of motivation seemed more likely to occur under Theory Y management.

Theory Y

The higher-level needs of esteem and self-actualization are ongoing needs that, for most people, are never completely satisfied. As such, it is these higher-level needs through which employees can best be motivated.

In strong contrast to Theory X, Theory Y management makes the following assumptions:

• Work can be as natural as play if the conditions are favorable.
• People will be self-directed and creative to meet their work and organizational objectives if they are committed to them.
• People will be committed to their quality and productivity objectives if rewards are in place that address higher needs such as self-fulfillment.
• The capacity for creativity spreads throughout organizations.
• Most people can handle responsibility because creativity and ingenuity are common in the population.
• Under these conditions, people will seek responsibility.

Under these assumptions, there is an opportunity to align personal goals with organizational goals by using the employee’s own need for fulfillment as the motivator. McGregor stressed that Theory Y management does not imply a soft approach.

McGregor recognized that some people may not have reached the level of maturity assumed by Theory Y and may initially need tighter controls that can be relaxed as the employee develops.

If Theory Y holds true, an organization can apply the following principles of scientific management to improve employee motivation:

• Decentralization and delegation: If firms decentralize control and reduce the number of levels of management, leaders will have more subordinates and consequently need to delegate some responsibility and decision making to them.
• Job enlargement: Broadening the scope of an employee’s job adds variety and opportunities to satisfy ego needs.
• Participative management: Consulting employees in the decision-making process taps their creative capacity and provides them with some control over their work environment.
• Performance appraisals: Having the employee set objectives and participate in the process of self-evaluation increases engagement and dedication.

If properly implemented, such an environment can increase and continually fuel motivation as employees work to satisfy their higher-level personal needs through their jobs.

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory

American psychologist Frederick Herzberg is regarded as one of the great original thinkers in management and motivational theory. Herzberg set out to determine the effect of attitude on motivation, by simply asking people to describe the times when they felt really good, and really bad, about their jobs. What he found was that people who felt good about their jobs gave very different responses from the people who felt bad.

The results from this inquiry form the basis of Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory (sometimes known as Herzberg’s “Two Factor Theory”). Published in his famous article, “One More Time: How do You Motivate Employees,” the conclusions he drew were extraordinarily influential, and still form the bedrock of good motivational practice nearly half a century later. He’s especially recognized for his two-factor theory, which hypothesized that are two different sets of factors governing job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction:  “hygiene factors,” or extrinsic motivators and “motivation factors,” or intrinsic motivators.

Hygiene factors, or extrinsic motivators, tend to represent more tangible, basic needs—i.e., the kinds of needs included in the existence category of needs in the ERG theory or in the lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Extrinsic motivators include status, job security, salary, and fringe benefits. It’s important for managers to realize that not providing the appropriate and expected extrinsic motivators will sow dissatisfaction and decrease motivation among employees.

Motivation factors, or intrinsic motivators, tend to represent less tangible, more emotional needs—i.e., the kinds of needs identified in the “relatedness” and “growth” categories of needs in the ERG theory and in the higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Intrinsic motivators include challenging work, recognition, relationships, and growth potential. Managers need to recognize that while these needs may fall outside the more traditional scope of what a workplace ought to provide, they can be critical to strong individual and team performance.

The factor that differentiates two-factor theory from the others we’ve discussed is the role of employee expectations. According to Herzberg, intrinsic motivators and extrinsic motivators have an inverse relationship. That is, intrinsic motivators tend to increase motivation when they are present, while extrinsic motivators tend to reduce motivation when they are absent. This is due to employees’ expectations. Extrinsic motivators (e.g., salary, benefits) are expected, so they won’t increase motivation when they are in place, but they will cause dissatisfaction when they are missing. Intrinsic motivators (e.g., challenging work, growth potential), on the other hand, can be a source of additional motivation when they are available.

If management wants to increase employees’ job satisfaction, they should be concerned with the nature of the work itself—the opportunities it presents employees for gaining status, assuming responsibility, and achieving self-realization. If, on the other hand, management wishes to reduce dissatisfaction, then it must focus on the job environment—policies, procedures, supervision, and working conditions. To ensure a satisfied and productive workforce, managers must pay attention to both sets of job factors.

CC licensed content, Original

• Introduction to Motivation in Organizational Behavior. Authored by: Freedom Learning Group. Provided by: Lumen Learning. License: CC BY: Attribution