Alderfer's ERG theory

 

In Maslow’s hierarchy theory proposed five-level of basic needs as Physiological, Safety, love and belonging, Esteem, and self-actualization (Mohammed, 2019). The ERG Theory was developed between 1961 and  1978 (Caulton, 2012) EFD Theory expanded Maslow’s basic needs (Cheng-Liang Yang, 2011).

 

According to Mohammed (2019), Alderfer’s ERG Theory divided the motivation in to three needs. Those are,

1. Existence needs
2. Relatedness needs
3. Growth needs 

Existence:

“This level covers the first two levels of Maslow’s hierarchy (Safety & Physiological needs). It refers to the need of an individual to stay alive and safe at present as well as in the future; it suggests that when a person satisfies his existence needs he feels physically comfortable to strive for the fulfilment of other needs” (Castellanos, 2014,P.20).

 

Relatedness:

“This level covers the third and fourth levels of Maslow’s hierarchy (Social needs & Self-esteem). It suggests that when an individual feels physiologically safe and feels secure, the individual then starts looking into fulfilling the social needs, he/she suddenly becomes interested in maintaining important interpersonal relationships with other people such as friends, family, co-workers and employers. Relatedness gives the individual a sense of identity and acceptance, and thus, the individual experiences a sense of belonging within his/her immediate society” (Castellanos, 2014,P.20).

 

Growth:

“Similar to Maslow’s theory, this level covers the highest level of the hierarchy (Self- actualization). It suggests that when the individual feels safe, secure and has recognized his own identity then he can seek to grow by being creative and productive, by expressing and implementing his own ideas in the working environment making him feel that his input is an important element in the achievement of meaningful tasks within the organization” (Castellanos, 2014,P.21).

Figure 1; The concept of ERG theory                                                (Castellanos, 2014)

The theory suggested that when people are tempted to meet higher-level needs, but there is a problem with doing so, a person is more motivated to meet lower-level needs. So increasing satisfaction increases progress and being reactionary leads to difficulties (Mohammed, 2019). If the demand is met with a certain level of satisfaction, the employee can move on to the next level. However, if the same requirements are not met, instead of going to a higher level, the person will fall into lower demand. For example, he felt it was easier for him if an employee was trying to achieve his own reality. But the opportunities for growth in the company are limited or empty, he will fall back to the more relevant and social needs with his colleagues, in that regard it seems easy to meet that need. The employee will meet less demand until there is an opportunity to meet more demand (Castellanos, 2014).

 

As my personal experience I work to Information technology, biggest service support company in Srilanka Organization has provided the good salary, incentives and overtime for minor staff members to the employees as Existences needs. I believe that It was created a friendly environment to work and management held monthly gathering with the dinner at outside the office to enrich the team community. It seems that how organization try to fulfill the Relatedness needs factor. When it thinks about the growth need management has conducted the weekly meeting with their subordinates and discussed the next week support plan with them. Respect to the employee ideas. Conversely it provides special local and foreign training program under the supervision of principles and try to groomed the employee’s carrier. Management tries to get creative ideas from subordinates and try to executive those.

 

 

 

 

References:

 

Castellanos, Y. (2014) ‘An Analysis of Motivational Theories that Could Aid The College Management to Enhance Employee Engagement’, p. 75. Available at: http://trap.ncirl.ie/1828/1/yokocastellanos.pdf.

Caulton, J. (2012) ‘The development and use of the theory of erg: A literature review’, Emerging Leadership Journeys, 5(1), pp. 2–8.

Cheng-Liang Yang (2011) ‘An empirical study of the existence, relatedness, and growth (ERG) theory in consumer’s selection of mobile value-added services’, African Journal of Business Management, 5(19). doi: 10.5897/ajbm10.1586.

Mohammed, A. (2019) ‘Q : Summarize the motivation theories and its effect on the employee ’ s satisfaction .’, (September).

McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y

 

 

Dougals McGregor proposed the theory X and Theory Y in 1957 (Kopelman and Prottas, 2013). McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y explain that two type of management style is influenced by the perceptions that managers hold of employees (Byorum, 2015). McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y commonly using in the field of management, leadership and motivation (Islam and Eva, 2017)

Figure 1: Application of Mcgregor’s Theory X and Theory Y: Perception of Management toward the Employees in the Banking Industry of Bangladesh

                                                                                                (Islam and Eva, 2017,P.135)

Theory X

Theory X managers do not interesting in human issues and works based with the fact and figures (Islam and Eva, 2017). It is the traditional view of direction and control(Cunningham, 2011). Theory X Style managers believe that their employees are less intelligent, lazier than managers or work solely for sustainable income (Language, 2018).

According to Language (2018) Theory X Leadership assumes as follows, 

• Leadership assumes that money is only motivation for the employees, and they will attempt to avoid work whenever possible.
• Most people are not ambitious, have little desire for responsibility, and dislike the work.
• Most people have little aptitude for creativity in solving organizational problems. Motivation occurs only at the physiological and security levels of Maslow's Needs Hierarchy.
• 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. The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it. Most people must be coerced, controlled, directed, and threatened with punishment. The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, wants security.
• Centralized control. Can be categorized into unskilled labor 

 

Theory Y

Theory Y managers make the employee internally motivated and enjoy their work themselves without a direct “reward’ in return (Language, 2018). Responsibility of the Theory Y managers are providing opportunities for employee development and   drive the employed to achieve the organizational objectives (Kopelman and Prottas, 2013).

According to Cunningham (2011)Theory Y is based on the assumptions as follows,  

• The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest. The average human being does not inherently dislike work. Depending upon controllable conditions, work may be a source of satisfaction, or a source of punishment.
• External control and the threat of punishment are not the only means for bringing about effort toward organizational objectives. People will exercise self-direction and self-control in the service of objectives to which they are committed.
• Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement. The most significant of such rewards, e.g. the satisfaction of ego and self-actualization needs, can be direct products of effort directed towards organizational objectives.
• The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept but to seek responsibility. Avoidance of responsibility, lack of ambition, and emphasis on security are generally consequences of experience, not inherent human characteristics.
• The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity in the the solution of organizational problems is widely, not narrowly, distributed in the population.
• Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average human being are only partially utilized. Theory Y assumptions can lead to more cooperative relationships between managers and workers. A Theory Y management style seeks to establish a working environment in which the personal needs and objectives of individuals can relate to, and harmonies with, the objectives of the organization.

In my personal experience organization, one of the reputed IT service company in Sri Lanka. General Manager to the mentioned Engineering Division suddenly decided to t retire before the age level.  I believe that he was Y type manager because he respects all the team subordinates and trusts their work. he drives the team to the organizational goal. All the subordinate were participate in the decision making at his management. With hit retirement, Assitant General Manage promoted to the relevant position by the senior management, and I believe his management style was X type. He is not the truest of the subordinates.  He is an owned decision-maker not listing to subordinate's ideas. He does not focus on the goal of the organization. Finally, the result was 6 employees leave the company within one-two months period and Gross drastically setting down from 21Mn. / Month to 9Mn./Month.

References:

Byorum, S. E. (2015) ‘Management Theory: X, Y, Z and Maslow’, Human Dynamics in Business, (April), pp. 47–48. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5744ee130442626ff0b342e9/t/57521d7960b5e9c65003cebe/1464999289982/Management+Theory+-+X-Y-Z-Maslow.pdf.

Cunningham, R. A. (2011) ‘Douglas Mcgregor - a Lasting Impression’, McGregor’s theory X and theory Y, p. 1. Available at: http://libra.naz.edu/docview/912503038?accountid=28167%5Cnhttp://linksource.ebsco.com/linking.aspx?sid=ProQ:abiglobal&fmt=journal&genre=article&issn=&volume=&issue=&date=2011-09-01&spage=N_A&title=Ivey+Business+Journal+Online&atitle=DOUGLAS+MCGREGOR+-+A+L.

Islam, S. and Eva, S. A. (2017) ‘Application of Mcgregor’s Theory X and Theory Y: Perception of Management toward the Employees in the Banking Industry of Bangladesh’, The International Journal Of Business & Management, 5(11), pp. 135–145. Available at: www.theijbm.com.

Kopelman, R. E. and Prottas, D. J. (2013) ‘Theory X and Theory Y’, Sage Encyclopedia of Management Theories, pp. 874–878.

Language, E. (2018) ‘54. Hrushi Zendage’, (48612).

Vroom's Expectancy Theory

 Vroom’s Expectancy theory was introduced by Professor Victor H. Vroom of Yale school of management in 1964. It looks at the cognitive processes that affect the motivation of the employee (Parijat and Shilpi, 2014). Vroom’s Expectancy theory explains that monetary incentive and some other stimulations such as promotions job satisfaction prides of achievements can drive the person better (Stephen Pembi, 2019).

 

The reason of the employee works in the organization is fulfilling their personal goals, these goals can be met by the organizational rewards or work outcomes. Therefore the relationship between personal goals, organizational rewards or work outcomes is more important (Parijat and Shilpi, 2014). 

People’s motivation explained the combination of three factors, which are Expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. According to Nemati ( 2016) “ Expectancy Theory is a the multiplicative function of valence, instrumentality, and expectancy”. 

Figure 1: E x I x V = Motivation                                                                        (Fremstad, 2013)

According to Nemait (2016) these three variables explain as, 

Expectancy:

Expectancy can be described as the belief that higher or increased effort will yield better performance. This can be explained by the thinking of "If I work harder, I will make something better". Conditions that enhance expectancy includes having the correct resources available, having the required skill set for the job at hand, and having the necessary support to get the job done correctly.

Instrumentality:

Instrumentality can be described as the thought that if an individual performs well, then a valued outcome will come to that individual. Some things that help instrumentality is having a clear understanding of the relationship between performance and the outcomes, having trust and respect for people who make the decisions on who gets a what reward, and seeing transparency in the process of who gets what reward.

Valence:

Valence means "value" and refers to beliefs about outcome desirability (Redmond, 2010). There are individual differences in the level of value associated with any specific outcome. For instance, a bonus may not increase motivation for an employee who is motivated by formal recognition or by increased status such as promotion. Valence can be thought of as the pressure or importance that a person puts on an expected outcome.

                                                                                                                (Nemati, 2016)

In my personal experience at one of the well-known organizations related to IT support it was received the government project which needs to do the fill solution installation for 150 locations in 6 districts within three months’ time. According to the management forecast it was not easy to complete the current resources. Management sleeted twelve employees with the relevant skillset and given a target to complete the project within the agreed time and if it will achieve management promised to provide the incentive for each and every individual according to the performance. Conversely, it was given the rewards based on the competition of each and every district. Once it completed the district on or before targeted time all the team was afforded a dinner at a star class hotel with employee's family members. Team members were worked 24 X 7 and However total project was completed two days before the deadline.  

References:

Fremstad, J. (2013) ‘The Expectancy Theory: Teachers’ Perspectives of Motivation and Compensation’, (August).

NEMATI, S. K. (2016) Work Attitudes and Job Motivation Home - Kayla Weaver (FA16 002), Atlassian Confluence. Available at: https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/PSYCH484/4.+Expectancy+Theory.

Parijat, P. and Shilpi, B. (2014) ‘Motivationvroom’, International Journal of Business and Management, VII(9), pp. 1–8.

Stephen Pembi (2019) ‘Vroom’s Expectancy Theory and its Application in Management of Incentives Scheme in Adamawa Plastic Company, Yola, Nigeria’, International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 3(5), pp. 334–339.

Herzberg’s two-factor theory

 

Herzberg’s two-factor theory was first published in 1959 based on two hundred engineers and accountant feedback and it was mainly focused on the individual in the workplace, but the theory has been popular among the manager as it also emphasized the important knowledge and experience (John Adair, 2009). There are two factors that effected on job satisfaction which is the motivation factor and the hygiene factor are the main concept of this theory (Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl, and Maude, 2017). When it considered  individual job satisfaction  Hygiene factors are more important than  motivation factors (Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl, and Maude, 2017)

This theory is very closely related to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theory. It introduced more factors and details to measure how individuals are motivated in the work environment than Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Fauziah et al., 2013). The Presence of motivational factors can produce job satisfaction and if it is absent leads to no job satisfaction but a poor hygiene factor can cause job dissatisfaction (Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl and Maude, 2017). 

Figure 1: Different views between traditional motivation and Herzberg’s two-factor theory.

                                                                                                            (Chu and Kuo, 2015)

According to Yousaf (2020) Motivation factors are,

• Advancement
• Work itself
• Possible of growth
• Responsibility
• Recognition
• Achievements 

And the Hygiene factors are, 

• Interpersonal relationship
• Salary
• Policies and administration
• Supervision
• Working condition

  

Table 1: Comparisons between the Two Factors of Herzberg’s Theory                                                                                                        (Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl and Maude, 2017)

In one of the organizations which I worked for leading IT support services providing, the facilities provided by the organization management,

 

Motivational factors

All employees get an extra amount of money through an incentive scheme based on the department's performance. The organization held the recognition program to motivate their employees such as Engineer of the month, helpdesk coordinator of the month. It was a good working environment to work and employees get the chance to implement their own ideas.

 

Hygiene Factors

It was introduced a new helpdesk system and helps to efficient all works. Supervisors have good relationships with their subordinates. It provides a good working condition and some other facilities such as food allowance, transport, medical coverage. For minor staff members get special school books for his/ her kids. 

References:

 

Alshmemri, M., Shahwan-Akl, L. and Maude, P. (2017) ‘Herzberg’s two-factor theory’, Life Science Journal, 14(5), pp. 12–16. doi: 10.7537/marslsj140517.03.Keywords.

Chu, H.-C. and Kuo, T. Y. (2015) ‘Testing Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory in Educational Settings in Taiwan’, The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 11(1), pp. 54–65. Available at: http://www.hraljournal.com/Page/10 HuichinChu&TsuiYangKuo.pdf.

Fauziah, W. et al. (2013) ‘HERZBERG ’ S TWO FACTORS THEORY ON WORK MOTIVATION : DOES ITS WORK FOR TODAYS ENVIRONMENT ?’, 2(5), pp. 18–22.

John Adair (2009) ‘Frederick Herzberg: Hygiene Motivation Theory thinker’, Chartered Management Institute, pp. 1–4. Available at: https://www.bl.uk/people/frederick-herzberg.

Yousaf, S. (2020) ‘Dissection of Herzberg ’ s Two -Factor Theory to Predict Job Satisfaction : Empirical Evidence from the Telecommunication Industry of Pakistan’, 2(Spring), pp. 85–128.