1.

Abrahan maslow need& hierachy

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory in psychology, proposed
by Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper A Theory of Human
Motivation.[2]Maslow subsequently extended the idea to include his
observations of humans' innate curiosity. His theories parallel many
other theories of human developmental psychology, all of which
focus on describing the stages of growth in humans.
Maslow studied what he called exemplary people such as Albert
Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Frederick
Douglass rather than mentally ill or neurotic people, writing that
"the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens
can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy."

International Business
Understanding the strengths and weakness of Maslows hierarchy of
needs is important in the field of international business. Evaluating
the different needs, values, drives and priorities of people from
different countries - individualistic or collectivist - is incredibly
valuable in cross-cultural communications, and especially within the
workplace. It also illustrates how differences in values can greatly
affect work atmosphere and work ethic between cultures: For
example, societal cultures in many individualistic countries, such as
the United States, may lead to an advantage in technological
research and development. Many collectivistic societal cultures, such
as that in Japan, may result in an advantage in workforce
organization, quality control of products and service, and
establishment of good relationships among contractees, suppliers
and customers

Marketing
Courses in marketing teach Maslow's hierarchy as one of the first
theories as a basis for understanding consumers' motives for action.
Marketers have historically looked towards consumers' needs to

define their actions in the market. If producers design products

meeting consumer needs, consumers will more often choose those
products over those of competitors. Whichever product better fills
the void created by the need will be chosen more frequently, thus
increasing sales. This makes the model relevant to transpersonal
business studies.
2. Frederick Herzberg
The two-factor theory (also known as Herzberg's motivationhygiene theory) states that there are certain factors in
the workplace that cause job satisfaction, while a separate set of
factors cause dissatisfaction. It was developed by Frederick
Herzberg, a psychologist, who theorized that job satisfaction and
job dissatisfaction act independently of each other.

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 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 he performs
apparently have the capacity to gratify such needs as
achievement, competency, status, personal worth, and selfrealization, thus making him 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.
The theory was based around interviews with 203
American accountants and 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 that met
certain criteriaincluding 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 dissatisfiers (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)

that 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, fringe

benefits, work conditions) that do not give positive satisfaction,
though 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][5]

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

dissatisfied. Motivation factors are needed 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, although their
work has been criticized on methodological grounds.

3. Douglas McGregor
Theory X and Theory Y are theories of human motivation created
and developed by Douglas McGregor at the MIT Sloan School of
Management in the 1960s that have been used in human resource
management, organizational behavior, organizational
communication and organizational development. They describe two
contrasting models of workforce motivation.

Theory X
In this theory, which has been proven counter-effective in most modern practice, management
assumes employees are inherently lazy and will avoid work if they can and that they inherently dislike
work. As a result of this, management believes that workers need to be closely supervised and
comprehensive systems of controls developed. A hierarchical structure is needed with narrow span of
control at each and every level. According to this theory, employees will show little ambition without an
enticing incentive program and will avoid responsibility whenever they can. According to Michael J.
Papa, if the organizational goals are to be met, theory X managers rely heavily on threat and coercion
to gain their employee's compliance. Beliefs of this theory lead to mistrust, highly restrictive
supervision, and a punitive atmosphere. The Theory X manager tends to believe that everything must
end in blaming someone. He or she thinks all prospective employees are only out for themselves.
Usually these managers feel the sole purpose of the employee's interest in the job is money. They will
blame the person first in most situations, without questioning whether it may be the system, policy, or
lack of training that deserves the blame. A Theory X manager believes that his or her employees do
not really want to work, that they would rather avoid responsibility and that it is the manager's job to
structure the work and energize the employee. One major flaw of this management style is it is much
more likely to cause Diseconomies of Scale in large businesses.
[edit]Theory

In this theory, management assumes employees may be ambitious and self-motivated and
exercise self-control. It is believed that employees enjoy their mental and physical work duties.
According to Papa, to them work is as natural as play[1]. They possess the ability for creative problem

solving, but their talents are underused in most organizations. Given the proper conditions, theory Y
managers believe that employees will learn to seek out and accept responsibility and to exercise selfcontrol and self-direction in accomplishing objectives to which they are committed. A Theory Y
manager believes that, given the right conditions, most people will want to do well at work. They
believe that the satisfaction of doing a good job is a strong motivation. Many people interpret Theory Y
as a positive set of beliefs about workers. A close reading of The Human Side of Enterprise reveals
that McGregor simply argues for managers to be open to a more positive view of workers and the
possibilities that this creates. He thinks that Theory Y managers are more likely than Theory X
managers to develop the climate of trust with employees that is required for human resource
development. It's human resource development that is a crucial aspect of any organization. This
would include managers communicating openly with subordinates, minimizing the difference between
superior-subordinate relationships, creating a comfortable environment in which subordinates can
develop and use their abilities. This climate would include the sharing of decision making so that
subordinates have say in decisions that influence them. This theory is a positive view to the
employees, meaning that the employer is under a lot less pressure than some one who is influenced
by a theory X management style.
[edit]Theory

X and Theory Y combined

For McGregor, Theory X and Y are not different ends of the same continuum. Rather they are two
different continua in themselves. Thus, if managers need to apply Theory Y principles, that does not
preclude them from being a part of Theory X & Y.