David McClelland - Human Motivation Theory

One of McClelland’s most well known theories is that human motivation, is

dominated by three needs. McClelland's theory, sometimes referred to as the three
need theory or as the learned needs theory, categorises the needs as follows;

the need for achievement ( N-Ach),

the need for power ( N-Pow) and

the need for affiliation ( N-Affil).

The importance of each of these needs will vary from one person to another. If you
can determine the importance of each of these needs to an individual, it will help you
decide how to influence that individual.

McClelland asserted that a person’s needs are influenced by their cultural background
and life experiences. He also asserted that the majority of these needs can be
classified as the needs for affiliation, achievement or power. A person’s motivation
and effectiveness can be increased through an environment, which provides them with
their ideal mix of each of the three needs (N-Ach, N-Pow and/or N-Affil).

The need for affiliation (N-Affil);

This is the need for friendly relationships and human interaction. There is a need “to
feel liked” and “accepted” by others. A person with a high need for affiliation is likely
to be a team player and thrive in a customer services environment. They will perform
best in a co-operative environment. McClelland said that a strong need for affiliation
will interfere with a manager’s objectivity. The “need to be liked” will affect a
manager’s decisions, prompting them to make decisions to increase their popularity
rather than furthering the interests of the organisation.

The need for power (N-Pow);

This is the need to lead others and make an impact.

This need can exhibit itself in two ways. The first which is the need for personal
power may be viewed as undesirable as the person simply needs to feel that they have
“power over others”. They don’t have to be effective or further the objectives of their
employer.

The second type of “need for power” is the need for institutional power. People with
the need for institutional power; want to direct the efforts of their team, to further the
objectives of their organisation.

The need for achievement (N-Ach);

This is the need to achieve, excel and succeed. A person with this type of need, will
set goals that are challenging but realistic. The goals have to be challenging so that the
person can feel a sense of achievement. However the goals also have to be realistic as

1
the person believes that when a goal is unrealistic, its achievement is dependant on
chance rather than personal skill or contribution. This type of person prefers to work
alone or with other high achievers. They do not need praise or recognition,
achievement of the task is their reward

A person with a “need for achievement” (N-Ach) needs regular job-related feedback
so that they can review their progress and achievement. Feedback includes
advancement in the person’s position in the organisation. Salary scale will also be
viewed as measure of progress. The amount of salary is not about increasing wealth
for a person with a high need for achievement. Instead this type of person is focusing
on how their level of salary symbolises their progress and achievement.

McClelland believed that people with a strong need for achievement (N-Ach), make
the best leaders for a variety of reasons including setting goals, reviewing progress
and continuously looking at how things can be done better. However they may
“expect too much” from their team as they believe that others have the same “need for
achievement” which is often not the case.

Herzberg’s motivators and hygiene factors

Herzberg’s collection of information revealed that intrinsic factors are related to job
satisfaction, whilst extrinsic factors created job dissatisfaction. In other words when
people felt satisfied and happy at work the conditions present were directly affecting
their inner feelings and self esteem. Yet dissatisfaction was created by the job
environment people worked in and the interactions within that environment. Click on
the following link for a detailed list of each of the intrinsic and extrinsic factors.
(Herberg)

This theory can be related to McClellands three need theory. N-Arch people are
interested in intrinsic job factors such as achievement, advancement and growth.
Whilst extrinsic factors are important to N-Affil individuals, extrinsic factors such as
personal life and relationship with supervisor, peers and subordinates.

McGregor’s XY Theory

It is believed that achievement-motivated people are more likely to apply theory X

(authoritarian management style).This is because achieving the task is their main
focus. Whilst N-Affil managers are likely to apply theory Y as people’s opinion of
them is important to them. N-Pow managers are believed to apply theory X because
they have a need for power; either to feel personal power or to progress organisational
objectives.

Source: http://www.learnmanagement2.com/DavidMcClelland2.htm

McClelland proposes that each of us have three fundamental needs that exist in
different balances. These affect both how we are motivated and how we attempt to
motivate others.

2
n-ach: Need for achievement:
Seeks achievement, attainment of goals and advancement. Strong need for feedback,
sense of accomplishment and progress

n-affil: Need for affiliation:

Need for friendships, interaction and to be liked.

n-pow: Need for power

Authority motivated needs to influence and make an impact. Strong need to lead and
to increase personal status and prestige.

It seems that some people have a very strong need to achieve, whilst the majority of
people are not motivated in this way. McClelland was so interested by this that he
focussed his research on the need to achieve.

In a famous experiment, people were asked to throw rings over a peg (like at a fair).
The distance that one should throw from was not specified, and as a result most
people threw their rings from random distances. However, people with a high need for
achievement chose their location carefully so that they stood a realistic chance of
getting the ring on the peg, but that it was not too easy. They set an achievable goal
that would stretch them.

This seems to be the nub of the whole thing - achievement motivated people set goals
where they feel that they can influence the outcome and ensure that those goals are
balanced between challenge and realism.

An achievement motivated person sees the achievement of a goal as the reward; it is

more satisfying than praise or monetary reward. Money is seen as good only in that it
is seen as a measure of their achievement. This idea of feedback is essential to the
achievement motivated person: the feedback needs to be informative to enable them
to use it to improve their achievement. In addition there is an element of competition
- it is important for the individual to be able to compare their achievement against
others.

The key differentiator between this group and others is that achievement motivated
people frequently spend time thinking how things could be improved.

Rather than being the preserve of a privileged few with these characteristic, Mclelland
believed that these characteristics could be taught and developed training
programmes.

Dave is someone who has a high need for achievement and I must admit that it does
explain a lot to me. I can normally see very quickly how to improve a system, and
struggle to understand why others might not want to improve it too. I also find it
difficult to understand why people do the things that they do more generally. Maybe it
is because rather than wanting to make everything as good as it can possibly be they
have higher needs for power or affiliation.

It seems that I might not be alone in my difficulties as although n-ach people make
good business leaders and entrepreneurs their management style can suffer because
they expect everyone to be motivated in the same way as themselves.

However, it is the need for power that I have the most difficulty with. It seems very
destructive to have a need for power without a strong need to achieve as well. Surely
having a strong motivation to increase personal status and prestige will always lead to
destructive and competitive tendencies?

3
Frederick Herzberg proposed a theory of motivation based on the idea that some
factors motivate and some demotivate.

This is interesting because other theories saw motivation and demotivation occurring
when the same single factor was changed.

Herzberg instead saw that hygiene factors caused dissatisfaction by their absence, but
did not cause motivation by their increased presence. Imagine the office was too cold.
This will dissatisfy you. However making the office exactly the right temperature will
not motivate you positively.

Conversely, motivation factors include things such as achievement, growth and

crucially work itself.

Hygiene factors include interpersonal relationships, work conditions, salary, status,

etc

The expectancy theory of motivation is suggested by Victor Vroom. Unlike Maslow and
Herzberg, Vroom does not concentrate on needs, but rather focuses on outcomes.

Whereas Maslow and Herzberg look at the relationship between internal needs and
the resulting effort expended to fulfil them, Vroom separates effort (which arises from
motivation), performance, and outcomes.

Vroom, hypothesises that in order for a person to be motivated that effort,

performance and motivation must be linked. He proposes three variables to account
for this, which he calls Valence, Expectancy and Instrumentality.

Expectancy is the belief that increased effort will lead to increased performance i.e. if
I work harder then this will be better. This is affected by such things as:

1. Having the right resources available (e.g. raw materials, time)

2. Having the right skills to do the job
3. Having the necessary support to get the job done (e.g. supervisor support, or
correct information on the job)

Instrumentality is the belief that if you perform well that a valued outcome will be
received i.e. if I do a good job, there is something in it for me. This is affected by
such things as:

1. Clear understanding of the relationship between performance and outcomes –

e.g. the rules of the reward ‘game’
2. Trust in the people who will take the decisions on who gets what outcome
3. Transparency of the process that decides who gets what outcome

4
Valence is the importance that the individual places upon the expected outcome. For
example, if I am mainly motivated by money, I might not value offers of additional
time off.

Having examined these links, the idea is that the individual then changes their level of
effort according to the value they place on the outcomes they receive from the
process and on their perception of the strength of the links between effort and
outcome.

So, if I perceive that any one of these is true:

1. My increased effort will not increase my performance

2. My increased performance will not increase my rewards
3. I don’t value the rewards on offer

...then Vroom’s expectancy theory suggests that this individual will not be motivated.
This means that even if an organisation achieves two out of three, that employees
would still not be motivated, all three are required for positive motivation.

Here there is also a useful link to the Equity theory of motivation: namely that people
will also compare outcomes for themselves with others. Equity theory suggests that
people will alter the level of effort they put in to make it fair compared to others
according to their perceptions. So if we got the same raise this year, but I think you
put in a lot less effort, this theory suggests that I would scale back the effort I put in.

Crucially, Expectancy theory works on perceptions – so even if an employer thinks

they have provided everything appropriate for motivation, and even if this works with
most people in that organisation it doesn’t mean that someone won’t perceive that it
doesn’t work for them.

At first glance this theory would seem most applicable to a traditional-attitude work
situation where how motivated the employee is depends on whether they want the
reward on offer for doing a good job and whether they believe more effort will lead to
that reward.

However, it could equally apply to any situation where someone does something
because they expect a certain outcome. For example, I recycle paper because I think
it's important to conserve resources and take a stand on environmental issues
(valence); I think that the more effort I put into recycling the more paper I will
recycle (expectancy); and I think that the more paper I recycle then less resources
will be used (instrumentality)

Thus, this theory of motivation is not about self-interest in rewards but about the
associations people make towards expected outcomes and the contribution they feel
they can make towards those outcomes.

Other theories, in my opinion, do not allow for the same degree of individuality
between people. This model takes into account individual perceptions and thus
personal histories, allowing a richness of response not obvious in Maslow or
McClelland, who assume that people are essentially all the same.

Expectancy theory could also be overlaid over another theory (e.g. Maslow). Maslow
could be used to describe which outcomes people are motivated by and Vroom to
describe whether they will act based upon their experience and expectations.

Source: http://www.arrod.co.uk/archive/concept_vroom.php

5
Two-factor theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_factor_theory)

Two-factor theory (also known as Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory) was

developed by Frederick Herzberg, a psychologist who found that job satisfaction and
job dissatisfaction acted independently of each other. Two Factor Theory states that
there are certain factors in the workplace that cause job satisfaction, while a separate
set of factors cause dissatisfaction [1].

Two-factor theory fundamentals

Attitudes and their connection with industrial mental health are related to Maslow's
theory of motivation. His findings have had a considerable theoretical, as well as a
practical, influence on attitudes toward administration[2]. According to Herzberg,
individuals are not content with the satisfaction of lower-order needs at work, for
example, those associated with minimum salary levels or safe and pleasant working
conditions. Rather, individuals look for the gratification of higher-level psychological
needs having to do with achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, and
the nature of the work itself. So far, this appears to parallel Maslow's theory of a need
hierarchy. However, Herzberg added a new dimension to this theory by proposing a
two-factor model of motivation, based on the notion that the presence of one set of job
characteristics or incentives lead to worker satisfaction at work, while another and
separate set of job characteristics lead to dissatisfaction at work. Thus, satisfaction
and dissatisfaction are not on a continuum with one increasing as the other
diminishes, but are independent phenomena. This theory suggests that to improve job
attitudes and productivity, administrators must recognize and attend to both sets of
characteristics and not assume that an increase in satisfaction leads to an decrease in
unpleasurable dissatisfaction.

The two-factor, or motivation-hygiene theory, developed from data collected by

Herzberg from interviews with a large number of engineers and accountants in the
Pittsburgh area. From analyzing these interviews, he found that job characteristics
related to what an individual does — that is, to the nature of the work she performs —
apparently have the capacity to gratify such needs as achievement, competency,
status, personal worth, and self-realization, thus making her happy and satisfied.
However, the absence of such gratifying job characteristics does not appear to lead to
unhappiness and dissatisfaction. Instead, dissatisfaction results from unfavorable
assessments of such job-related factors as company policies, supervision, technical
problems, salary, interpersonal relations on the job, and working conditions. Thus, if
management wishes to increase satisfaction on the job, it should be concerned with
the nature of the work itself — the opportunities it presents for gaining status,
assuming responsibility, and for 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 [1]. If
management is equally concerned with both (as is usually the case), then managers
must give attention to both sets of job factors.

6
The theory was based around interviews with 203 American accountants & engineers
in Pittsburgh, chosen because of their professions' growing importance in the business
world. The subjects were asked to relate times when they felt exceptionally good or
bad about their present job or any previous job, and to provide reasons, and a
description of the sequence of events giving rise to that positive or negative feeling.

Here is the description of this interview analysis:

Briefly, we asked our respondents to describe periods in their lives when they were
exceedingly happy and unhappy with their jobs. Each respondent gave as many "sequences of
events" as he could which met certain criteria including a marked change in feeling, a
beginning and an end, and contained some substantive description other than feelings and
interpretations…

The proposed hypothesis appears verified. The factors on the right that led to satisfaction
(achievement, intrinsic interest in the work, responsibility, and advancement) are mostly
unipolar; that is, they contribute very little to job dissatisfaction. Conversely, the dis-satisfiers
(company policy and administrative practices, supervision, interpersonal relationships,
working conditions, and salary) contribute very little to job satisfaction[3].

Two-factor theory distinguishes between:

• Motivators (e.g. challenging work, recognition, responsibility) which give

positive satisfaction, arising from intrinsic conditions of the job itself, such as
recognition, achievement, or personal growth[4], and

• Hygiene factors (e.g. status, job security, salary and fringe benefits) which do
not give positive satisfaction, although dissatisfaction results from their
absence. These are extrinsic to the work itself, and include aspects such as
company policies, supervisory practices, or wages/salary[4].

Essentially, hygiene factors are needed to ensure an employee is not dissatisfied.

Motivation factors are needed in order to motivate an employee to higher
performance, Herzberg also further classified our actions and how and why we do
them, for example, if you perform a work related action because you have to then that
is classed as movement, but if you perform a work related action because you want to
then that is classed as motivation.

Unlike Maslow, who offered little data to support his ideas, Herzberg and others have
presented considerable empirical evidence to confirm the motivation-hygiene theory.
Their work, however, has been criticized on methodological grounds. Nevertheless,
Herzberg and his associates have rendered a valuable service to science and to
management through their efforts to apply scientific methods to understanding
complex motivational problems at work and have stimulated others to continue the
search.

[edit] Validity and criticisms

In 1968 Herzberg stated that his two-factor theory study had already been replicated
16 times in a wide variety of populations including some in Communist countries, and

7
corroborated with studies using different procedures which agreed with his original
findings regarding intrinsic employee motivation making it one of the most widely
replicated studies on job attitudes.

While the Motivator-Hygiene concept is still well regarded, satisfaction and

dissatisfaction are generally no longer considered to exist on separate scales. The
separation of satisfaction and dissatisfaction has been shown to be an artifact of the
Critical Incident Technique (CIT) used by Herzberg to record events [5]. Furthermore,
it has been noted the theory does not allow for individual differences, such as a
particular personality traits, which would affect individuals' unique responses to
motivating or hygiene factors [4].

A number of behavioral scientists have pointed to inadequacies in the need hierarchy

and motivation-hygiene theories. The most basic is the criticism that both of these
theories contain the relatively explicit assumption that happy and satisfied workers
produce more. Another problem is that these and other statistical theories are
concerned with explaining "average" behavior and, on the other hand, if playing a
better game of golf is the means he chooses to satisfy his need for recognition, then he
will find ways to play and think about golf more often, perhaps resulting in an
accompanying lower output on the job. Finally, in his pursuit of status he might take a
balanced view and strive to pursue several behavioral paths in an effort to achieve a
combination of personal status objectives.

In other words, this individual's expectation or estimated probability that a given

behavior will bring a valued outcome determines his choice of means and the effort he
will devote to these means. In effect, this diagram of expectancy depicts an employee
asking himself the question posed by one investigator, "How much payoff is there for
me toward attaining a personal goal while expending so much effort toward the
achievement of an assigned organizational objective?" [6] The Expectancy theory by
Victor Vroom also provides a framework for motivation based on expectations.

This approach to the study and understanding of motivation would appear to have
certain conceptual advantages over other theories: First, unlike Maslow's and
Herzberg's theories, it is capable of handling individual differences. Second, its focus
is toward the present and the future, in contrast to drive theory, which emphasizes past
learning. Third, it specifically relates behavior to a goal and thus eliminates the
problem of assumed relationships, such as between motivation and performance.
Fourth, it relates motivation to ability: Performance = Motivation*Ability.

That said, a study by the Gallup Organization, as detailed in the book "First, Break
All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do" by Marcus Buckingham and
Curt Coffman, appears to provide strong support for Herzberg's division of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction onto two separate scales. In this book, the authors
discuss how the study identified twelve questions which provide a framework for
determining high-performing individuals and organizations. These twelve questions
align squarely with Herzberg's motivation factors, while hygiene factors were
determined to have little effect on motivating high performance.

To better understand employee attitudes and motivation, Frederick Herzberg

performed studies to determine which factors in an employee's work environment

8
caused satisfaction or dissatisfaction. He published his findings in the 1959 book The
Motivation to Work.

The studies included interviews in which employees where asked what pleased and
displeased them about their work. Herzberg found that the factors causing job
satisfaction (and presumably motivation) were different from those causing job
dissatisfaction. He developed the motivation-hygiene theory to explain these results.
He called the satisfiers motivators and the dissatisfiers hygiene factors, using the term
"hygiene" in the sense that they are considered maintenance factors that are necessary
to avoid dissatisfaction but that by themselves do not provide satisfaction.

The following table presents the top six factors causing dissatisfaction and the top six
factors causing satisfaction, listed in the order of higher to lower importance.

Leading to satisfaction

• Achievement
• Recognition
• Work itself
• Responsibility
• Advancement
• Growth

Leading to dissatisfaction

• Company policy
• Supervision
• Relationship with boss
• Work conditions
• Salary
• Relationship with peers

Herzberg reasoned that because the factors causing satisfaction are different from
those causing dissatisfaction, the two feelings cannot simply be treated as opposites of
one another. The opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, but rather, no
satisfaction. Similarly, the opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction.

While at first glance this distinction between the two opposites may sound like a play
on words, Herzberg argued that there are two distinct human needs portrayed. First,
there are physiological needs that can be fulfilled by money, for example, to purchase
food and shelter. Second, there is the psychological need to achieve and grow, and
this need is fulfilled by activities that cause one to grow.

From the above table of results, one observes that the factors that determine whether
there is dissatisfaction or no dissatisfaction are not part of the work itself, but rather,
are external factors. Herzberg often referred to these hygiene factors as "KITA"
factors, where KITA is an acronym for Kick In The A..., the process of providing
incentives or a threat of punishment to cause someone to do something. Herzberg
argues that these provide only short-run success because the motivator factors that

9
determine whether there is satisfaction or no satisfaction are intrinsic to the job itself,
and do not result from carrot and stick incentives.

In a survey of 80 teaching staff at Egyptian private universities, Mohamed Hossam

El-Din Khalifa and Quang Truong (2009), has found out that Perception of Equity
was directly related to job satisfaction when the outcome in the equity comparison
was one of Herzberg's Motivators. On the contrary, perception of equity and job
satisfaction were not related when the outcome in the equity comparison was one of
Herzberg's Hygiene Factors. The findings of this study provide a kind of an indirect
support to Herzberg's findings that improving Hygiene Factors would not lead to
improvement in an employee's job satisfaction.

Implications for management

If the motivation-hygiene theory holds, management not only must provide hygiene
factors to avoid employee dissatisfaction, but also must provide factors intrinsic to the
work itself in order for employees to be satisfied with their jobs.

Herzberg argued that job enrichment is required for intrinsic motivation, and that it is
a continuous management process. According to Herzberg:

• The job should have sufficient challenge to utilize the full ability of the
employee.
• Employees who demonstrate increasing levels of ability should be given
increasing levels of responsibility.
• If a job cannot be designed to use an employee's full abilities, then the firm
should consider automating the task or replacing the employee with one who
has a lower level of skill. If a person cannot be fully utilized, then there will be
a motivation problem.

Critics of Herzberg's theory argue that the two-factor result is observed because it is
natural for people to take credit for satisfaction and to blame dissatisfaction on
external factors. Furthermore, job satisfaction does not necessarily imply a high level
of motivation or productivity.

Herzberg's theory has been broadly read and despite its weaknesses its enduring value
is that it recognizes that true motivation comes from within a person and not from
KITA factors.(French, 2008)

References
1. ^ a b Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. & Snyderman, B.B. 1959, The Motivation to
Work. John Wiley. New York.
2. ^ Frederick Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man (Cleveland: World
Publishing, 1966); F. Herzberg et al., The Motivation to Work, 2nd ed. (New
York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959).
3. ^ Herzberg, "The Motivation-Hygiene Concept and Problems of Manpower",
Personnel Administration (January-February 1964), pp. 3–7.

10
 4. ^ a b c Hackman J. R., & Oldham, G. R., 1976, "Motivation through design of
work", Organizational behaviour and human performance, vol. 16, pp. 250–
79.
5. ^ King, N. 1970, 'Clarification and Evaluation of the Two-Factor Theory of
Job Satisfaction', Psychological Bulletin, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 18-31.
6. ^ Basil S. Georgopolous, Gerald M. Mahoney, and Nyle W. Jones, Jr., "A
Path-Goal Approach to Productivity", Journal of Applied Psychology 41
(December 1957), p. 346.

Further reading
• Herzberg, F. 1968, "One more time: how do you motivate employees?",
Harvard Business Review, vol. 46, iss. 1, pp. 53–62.

• Mohamed Hossam El-Din Khalifa and Quang Truong, "The Relationship

between Employee Perceptions of Equity and Job Satisfaction in the Egyptian
Private Universities”, in Management Challenges in an Environment of
Increasing Regional and Global Concerns, E. Kaynak and T.D. Harcar (eds.),
Eighteenth World Business Congress, Vol. XVIII, 2009, pp. 405-413.

11