Content Theory vs. Process Theory

Motivation is the force that causes one to repeat a certain behavior or a person’s direction towards particular behavior (Ellliot & Covington, 2001). It is a goal directed behavior or a desire to do something. Motivation directs somebody to behave in a certain manner whether they are conscious of it or not. Motivation is an important factor that makes people to achieve their goals. It makes people stay focused towards achieving their goals whether in personal lives or professional lives. In a work place, motivated employees will perform better than the employees who are not motivated (Afful-broni, 2012). Motivation can be intrinsic meaning it is derived from within the person and they could be described as biological or psychological, for example hunger makes someone to eat. It could be extrinsic meaning it comes from external to the person, for example factors in the work environment like career growth or rewards like wages which makes an individual to undertake particular actions (Mankoe, 2006). Many researchers have been studying motivation and work performance over the years and have indicated there is a connection between motivation and performance (Katzell & Thompson, 1990). The motivation theories have been developed by scholars offer managers a wealth of knowledge and information they can tap from to increase work performance. This paper will discuss content theories and highlight the differences between content and process theory of motivation. It will further discuss Maslow’s, Hertzberg’s theories of motivation and their criticism and McGregor’s work theory. It will then summarize with examples from Hofstede’s work through to the theories of motivation.

 Content theories or need theories differ from process theories of motivation in that content theories focus on factors determining motivation while process theories focus on the process of how people identify their motivators and the goals related with these motivators. Content theories try and understand what it is that people really need. At the work place, this knowledge is important as it helps employers devise ways to meet these needs and thus motivate employees. Process theories however analyze the thought processes of people who are considered to be motivated as motivation is viewed as a rational process (Steers, Mowday & Shapiro, 2004).

Content theories focus on motivation factors or needs while process theories focus on interrelationship between needs, behavior and rewards (Lewis, Packard & Lewis, 2011). From the 1960s, the focus on motivation started to shift to the processes that underlie work motivation. Content theories were based on factors related to motivation in a static environment. Process theories view the work environment from a dynamic perspective viewing the relationships of time and events as they affect motivation at the work place. For example the cognitive theories attempt to understand the thought processes of people as they choose their actions at the work place (Steers, Mowday & Shapiro, 2004).

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Examples of these theories of motivation include Maslow, Herzberg and McClelland theories. All these theories together represent a list of motivation factors. Examples of these factors are desire to earn wages, need for social status, belong and earn respect, achievement and power among others (Hendriks, 1999). This discussion will focus on Maslow’s, Hertzberg’s and McGregor’s theories.

According to this theory, humans have needs that can be hierarchically ranked, forming a pyramid. Individuals have to satisfy the lower needs in the pyramid and once they satisfy these needs they cannot motivate them. These needs ranked form the bottom of the pyramid include physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs and self actualization needs at the top of the pyramid. The lower level needs are also called deficiency needs and these are physiological needs, safety needs and the love and belongingness needs. The higher level needs are also the growth needs and include esteem needs and self actualization needs. It is only when the deficiency needs are adequately satisfied that the person can advance to meet the growth needs (Noltemeyer, Bush, Patton & Bergen, 2012).

The needs have differences of strength and thus arranged in a pyramid to show which needs must be satisfied before the other needs. The motivation is for individuals to meet the needs at the bottom of the pyramid before those needs that are higher on the pyramid. Knowledge of where individuals are on the pyramid of needs is important in order to know how to motivate them at that level (Robbins, 2001).  The figure below shows Maslow’s pyramid hierarchy of needs.

Figure 1: Maslow’s Needs Hierarchy. Source: Kenrick, Griskevicius, Neuberg & Schaller (2010).

These needs are also called physiological needs and are the beginning of the motivation theory. There are many physiological needs and the list can be very long depending on how specific the description is. They may include food, sleep, oxygen, drinking water, shelter and many others. These are said to be the most important needs for humans. This means if any human being is missing everything in life, then their main motivation will be the physiological needs above any others (Kaur, 2013).

If all the needs on the pyramid of needs are not satisfied, the organism will only be motivated by physiological needs and all other needs will either become nonexistent or will be pushed to the background. All efforts will be geared towards satisfying these needs for example hunger. The abilities of the organism that are not useful for meeting this need will lie dormant or will be pushed to the background. All other needs are forgotten or they become less important. This person tends to think that once hunger is satisfied, they will not need anything else. Anything else is viewed as less important and the best thing for such a human being is just food.

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory

When this need is met, a higher need emerges and starts to dominate the organism. When this is met, yet another higher need emerges and so on. Thus even the basic human needs are arranged hierarchically in order of their importance. The physiological needs once met cease to become determinants of behavior. The behavior will be determined only by the unsatisfied needs. The figure below is a summary of the needs theory by Maslow.

Figure 2: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Application. Source: Ozguner & Ozguner, (2014).

After the physiological needs have been relatively well met the immediate next level of needs emerges classified as safety needs. Every other need may seem least important, including the physiological needs that have been gratified. The person in this state may seem to live only for the safety needs alone. The safety needs can particularly be well observed in infants, as adults have learnt how to inhibit these needs.

Children prefer a certain routine which is not interrupted or disrupted.  Any disruptions make the child feel unsafe. Infants will react in a certain manner if they feel endangered or they are disturbed. Family then becomes very important for a child when growing up. Children will generally prefer a safe orderly world and are not comfortable with new and unfamiliar situations as it elicits absence of safety in them. Thus they tend to cling to their parents in need of safety and protection. 

Modern society generally makes it safe for adults to live without fear of wild animals, criminals and any extremes of danger. In such cases, safety may not be a real motivator. This need is seen in situations like work places where people will prefer security of tenure, for protection, insurance that covers people for various illnesses, unemployment, disability or old age and others. Other items like religion or world philosophy also tend to be motivated by some form of safety needs. Employees also need to work in environments that are free from any danger or harm to be productive (Kaur, 2013).

After both the physiological and safety needs are relatively well met, another set of needs will emerge, the need for love/affection or belongingness. The person will now start to feel need for friends, or a partner and children. The person will yearn for close relations with people and seek for a place to belong in a group (Maslow, & Mittelmann, 1941).  The person forgets completely about the physiological and safety needs and focuses all energies to achieve the love and belongingness needs. The love needs imply not just receiving but also giving out love (Freud, Sprott, & Strachey, 1933). Individuals need to feel loved and accepted at the work place. Organizations can arrange for social events where people interact and thus enhance the love and acceptance of one another (Kaur, 2013).

McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y

People have a desire and a need for high self evaluation and respect of themselves and of others. The individual has the desire to achieve, have confidence, independence and also freedom (Goldstein, 1939). People also have a need for prestige or need for a good reputation or the feeling of importance or appreciation by others. When these needs are met, people tend to feel more confident, and the feeling of being more useful in the world. If the needs are not met, there is feeling of unworthiness or helplessness. The person may feel weak or discouraged when these needs are not met. Awards at the work place recognize achievements of employees and thus assist in meeting this need (Kaur, 2013).  

Even if all the other needs in the pyramid are met, an individual will still not be content unless they are doing what they are fitted to for example a musician has to make music in order to be fully happy. This need is called the self actualization need. It refers to that desire for people to be self fulfilled. This is a desire for one to become everything that they can possibly become (Kaur, 2013). At this stage, the individual gains meaning to life and why it is important to them. Due to the uniqueness of people, the desire for self actualization makes people head to different directions (Kenrick et al., 2010).

Different people express this need differently. It does not necessarily take the form of creative abilities but can be expressed in other ways. But for people who possess some creative talents, they express this need that way or in some form of inventions (Kardiner, 1939). It requires satisfaction of the other lower needs in the hierarchy to reach this level of needs. People who satisfy these actualization needs are referred to as satisfied people. In society, not many people reach this level of needs and thus not many people are fully satisfied.

The first criticism is the implication that the lower needs must be relatively well gratified before people can actualize which may not always be the case. For example, is noted that in some cultures where people may be poor, it is possible for such people of gratification of higher order needs which include love or belongingness (McLeod, 2007).   

Research has shown that not all people achieve their higher needs in the hierarchy at the work place. It has also been shown  that managers at the higher levels are able to achieve the deficiency and growth needs while the lower level manager only satisfy the deficiency needs at the job. Employees who are indifferent about growth on their jobs are unlikely to be motivated beyond the physiological needs on the job (Kaur, 2013).     

Applying Theories of Motivation in the Workplace

According to Graham and Messner (1998), there have been other important criticisms of Maslow’s theory. First is that there is little empirical data to prove the conclusions of the theory. The theory also assumes that all employees and all situations are alike which may not be true. It also supposes that there is only one best way to satisfy needs which may not be the case. Another criticism is that this theory is not about motivation but job satisfaction (Graham and Messner, 1998).

The theory has also been criticized as being culture centered while other people have criticized it as being gender biased (Cullen & Gotell, 2002). Some critics have argued that the physiological needs may not be in the position in the hierarchy as described by Maslow (Taormina & Gao, 2013). An example is given where in some cultures people may postpone having food until the guest of honor comes to the event implying that the physiological need for of food may not be as critical to them need for relationship (Nevis, 1983). In defense of this, Maslow explained that in modern world it is unlikely for most people to be faced by death as a result of hunger with as there are advancements in agriculture and food availability (Maslow, 1943). 

Despite the criticism of the need theory, it has been a good contribution to management of organizations. It has been useful especially in relation to motivation of employees and has been a great contribution in work environments. It has also been of major discussions by researchers over the years (Kaur, 2013).    

This theory focuses on the differences between motivation and maintenance/hygiene factors. The theory is also called the dual/two factor or the motivation-maintenance theory. According to this theory, individual satisfaction is determined by motivators which are intrinsic to a job while their dissatisfaction is dependent on hygiene factors which are extrinsic to a job (Ozguner & Ozguner, 2014). Hygiene factors affect motivation in a negative way. They do not motivate behavior by their presence but their absence may lead to dissatisfaction or reduced motivation. According to Herzberg, hygiene factors include the following salary, work conditions, interpersonal relations and status. If present they will not motivate behavior but their absence will lead to reduced motivation (Malik & Naeem, 2013). The figure below shows the connection between hygiene and motivational factors.

Figure 3: Relationship between hygiene and motivational factors. Source: Ozguner & Ozguner (2014).

Herzberg identifies examples of motivator factors to include work challenge, opportunities for promotion, achievement at work, recognition for a good job done and having a sense of responsibility. These factors according to this theory lead to motivation at work place. If these factors are absent, they will not lead to job satisfaction but it does not imply they will decrease motivation. According to Herzberg, motivation is internally generated and not from external incentives (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005). The figure below shows Herzberg’s two-factor theory.

Figure 4: Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Source: Hendriks, 1999.

According to this theory, job context factors affect are dissatisfiers also called hygiene factors while the job content factors are satisfiers also called motivators. Motivating factors cause job satisfaction while hygiene factors connect to job dissatisfaction. Hygiene factors deal with lowering job dissatisfaction as they also relate to the job environment. The motivators are necessary for improvement and making of the work better (Ozguner & Ozguner, 2014). It is important to note that according to Herzberg theory, satisfaction is not the opposite of dissatisfaction at work, but they are two separate items. For example, the opposite of satisfaction may not be dissatisfaction but it is no satisfaction while opposite of dissatisfaction may not be satisfaction but likely no dissatisfaction (Aldag and Stearns, 1987). The figure below represents the summary of the two-factor theory.

Figure 5: Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory. Source: Ozguner & Ozguner (2014)

According to this theory, people have bad feelings about their jobs based on the context of the job, for example company policies, salary, work conditions or their supervision. These context factors were therefore called the dissatisfiers or the hygiene factors. Herzberg noted that the focus for a long time was on these hygiene factors that only reduce dissatisfaction but they do not motivate. According to this theory, to motivate workers, the focus should be on the motivators like making the jobs more meaningful to people and thus satisfying. To motivate people therefore, jobs need to offer more potential for job growth, personal satisfaction in the job or the accomplishments in the job among other motivating factors (Ozguner & Ozguner, 2014).

Herzberg’s theory and Maslow’s theory are closely related. Herzberg’s hygiene factors compare closely to lower needs in Maslow’s pyramid and they need to be dealt with in order to avoid dissatisfaction. These job context factors cannot be ignored like salaries and other benefits as this would cause dissatisfactions. Once these needs are satisfied, the job content factors are now the motivating factors. Leaders of organizations need to remove dissatisfiers by providing enough of the hygiene factors for employees to meet their basic needs. Thereafter they can utilise the motivating factors to meet the higher level needs and enhance employees higher performance and achievement thus leading to organization better performance (Ozguner & Ozguner, 2014). The figure below shows the relations between Maslow’s theory and Herzberg’s theory of motivation.

Figure 6: Relations between Maslow and Herzberg Theories. Source: Ozguner & Ozguner, (2014).

Criticism of Herzberg theory asserts that there are different reasons for job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The critics question the assumption that people’s needs operate in one single direction. They also say that individual differences were not considered in this theory disregarding differences like gender and age among others. A study reported by Wiley (1997) showed that motivational factors and preferences change over time depend on demographic background of people. For example, full time workers were seen to value personal loyalty as an important motivator while part time employees considered good working conditions as an important motivator. Women also preferred good working conditions and being appreciated while men preferred interesting work as motivating. In this same study, pay was considered a motivating factor as opposed to Herzberg who considered it as a hygiene factor.

The assumption that human biological and psychological processes operate without interaction with one another has been questioned. It was noted that there is overlapping relationship between both the physical and psychological needs for example eating food will diminish hunger and at the same time give bodily pleasure to the individual (Malik & Naeem, 2013).

The scope that was used in the study of 203 accountants and engineers has been criticized as narrow with likelihood that the workers experienced similar problems (Malik & Naeem, 2013). The uniqueness of human beings was also not considered for example in their individual values. A study conducted by Spillane (1973), showed that intrinsic factors had effect on both job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. This contrasted with Herzberg’s theory that implied that intrinsic factors do cause job satisfaction but does not cause  job dissatisfaction.

Despite the criticism, Herzberg’s theory has been widely used by manager and by psychologists due to its simplicity (Malik & Naeem, 2013). The theory is still valid and used by leaders in the work place as a guide to identify what motivates employees.  It is important to find out what satisfies and what dissatisfies employees in order to formulate changes to motivate people for them to perform better and retain them for the related benefits. Most managers tend to focus only on the hygiene factors of a job since they are more tangible and easy to implement. To achieve success, organizations must strive to provide both the hygiene and motivator needs of the workers (Ramlall, 2004).

McGregor developed theory X and Y which assumes that managers’ leadership style is based on what they think drives employees’ behavior. Thus one manager may tend to believe what drives behavior are the concepts in theory X while another manager may believe in theory Y. In practical sense however, people tend to oscillate between the concepts from the two theories (Fisher, 2009).

Theory X assumes that human beings hate work and are naturally irresponsible. They will therefore avoid work whenever they can. Due to their dislike of work, they are only motivated by self interest on by coercion. People must therefore be controlled or threatened for them to work well enough. The theory also assumes that human beings like to be directed and dislike any responsibility while they desire security (McGregor, 1960).  

According to McGregor, any manager who believes in this theory uses reward and punishment as the motivators. They will also create many rules, processes and procedures to guide people to compliance. These types of managers are mistrusting and so they are always looking out for mistakes (Fisher, 2009). The employees are only expected to conduct themselves in an expected fashion and deviation from the laid down rules may lead to punishment.

The principles of this theory have given guidance to some of the organization way of doing things. It gives rise to tough management styles with very strict controls and punishments to employees who fail to follow the rules and procedures. It also gives rise to soft management in order to create some harmony at work place (McGregor, 1960). Managers who work based on these assumptions may create an environment of control where the subordinates are not given room for creativity and input of their own new ideas.  

The critics of this style of management fault these assumptions because human beings have higher motivation like the need for fulfillment. They also need much more that finance rewards at the work place. A manager therefore may need to give autonomy to the employees for them to perform to their best of their abilities (Baard, Deci & Ryan, 2004).

Theory Y on the hand has a different view that work is natural and that human beings generally want to work. According to this theory, human beings are creative and can creatively solve problems. They are thus motivated more by self actualization and not rewards and punishments. The theory assumes that work is natural just like play and rest. The theory assumes that human beings will direct themselves if they are committed to the organization. Humans will also commit to the organization if the job is satisfying to them (McGregor, 1960).  

The theory also assumes that the average person under proper conditions will accept and also seek for responsibilities. Most of the employees can use their creativity and imagination to solve most of the problems at work. In the modern industrial life, only part of the average person’s intellectual capabilities are utilized. With the right work conditions, employees therefore can use their capabilities to come up with the best ideas to improve work (McGregor, 1960).

Managers who believe in this theory create an environment for employees to be creative and growth and trust them to do the work creatively (Fisher, 2009). Punishment or control are therefore not the only way to drive people to work as assumed in theory X. These managers may allow employees room for creative thoughts and ideas and do not have to follow stringent rules and regulations nor face punishments and rewards for them to be motivated or directed to work. The figure below summarizes McGregor’s theory X and Y.

Figure 7: McGregor’s Theory X and Y

According to McGregor, the two theories can be applied in different work situations. For example, theory Y can be used in the management of managers and other professionals. It may be used in management of promotions and salaries for the highly effective managers and their development. It is also appropriate for problem solving that requires participation. Theory X on the other hand may be more applicable for use at the shop floor of mass operations (McGregor, 1960).   

In general, the managers must exercise authority in their role. Sometimes, this may be the only viable option especially when the reportees do not agree with the desirable end. However, it is always important to explain to the workers for them to understand the purpose of a job and gain their commitment. In this case then they are likely to be self controlled towards achievement of the objectives they understand instead of undertaking orders they do not fully grasp. According to McGregor, employees will become more productive to an organization if they are treated as important and valuable (McGregor, 1960).

According to Peters, Abraham & Crutzen (2015), the way behavior research is reported and organized impedes behavior science research and holds back scientific progress. When a study is completed only the results are published. Items that are rarely published include the questionnaires, intervention manuals and other relevant tools that were used to come up with the results. The readers of the research results also do not have access to the statistical analysis or the complete data sets that are needed to replicate the analysis. This results in difficulties in documenting the science of behavior (Peters, et al., 2015).

One consequence is that it is impossible to critically evaluate the results of research and determine if the analysis of these results and subsequent interpretation is correct. Another challenge is that it is difficult or sometimes improbable to replicate this research. Data synthesis is also difficult and some studies have to be excluded due to unavailability of original data and procedures and thus possibility of using incorrect assumptions (Peters, et al., 2015).

Behavior research desires maximum scrutiny because it is possible to make mistakes in analysis and interpretation of data. In case even the reviewers of the research are not very competenct, errors may end up even in publications (Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom & Van Der Maas, 2011).  Proper scrutiny before the peer review before publication enables correction of any errors that may be discovered thus ending up with better research. Due to the many choices that researchers have to make that are not usually disclosed, it might result in biases. Enhanced disclosure and scrutiny would enable detection of these biases (Peters, et al., 2015).

For progress in scientific research, replication is necessary to strengthen the evidence of a certain theory or model and if replication is not successful, it can falsify previous theories or models. If a research cannot be replicated, then this may be classified as knowledge and the claims can be challenged. Inability to replicate data makes behavior scientists unable to select between better or worse models or even better ways to approach realities of the world (French, 2012).

The non disclosure convention where researchers publish only results and not the data developed over time due to a number of reasons. This was because publishing journals had many limitations. First is that before the internet, publication and distribution of journals were very expensive.  Due to the expenses, there was need to publish as brief the content as possible leaving out the appendices. With the use of the internet, most journals are now published online. This makes it cheaper as the cost of storing material in servers is low and yet they can be accessed from anywhere. With popularity of online journals, it is now possible to publish not just the report but everything else used in a study (Peters, et al., 2015).   

Even though most of these constraints are now dealt with, there is still a challenge with full disclosure. Behavior science researchers have been challenged to publish full disclosure of data and materials used. Despite the very low costs researchers still do not publish everything citing various reasons which include protection of their data, fear of competition, the need to commercially share the information and a fear of errors being pointed out in the work among other reasons (Peters, et al., 2015). 

Some of the previous theories and models have faced criticism over the years. For example, Hofstede’s model on national cultural differences has been faulted on both the theory and methodology (Ailon, 2008). Another critic McSweeney, claimed that Hofstede’s work contained fundamental flaws in the methodology (McSweeney, 2002). Other critics of Hosftede’s work include Brewer & Venaik, (2012) who claim that the correlations of the cultural variables are significant if aggregated at the national level but cannot at the individual level.

The motivation theories have also faced criticism including Maslow’s needs theory and Herzberg’s theory discussed above. For example, Maslow’s theory has been criticized as having little empirical data to prove the conclusions of the theory (Graham and Messner, 1998). Herzberg’s theory has also been criticized that the scope that was used in the study of 203 accountants and engineers was narrow with likelihood that these workers would have experienced similar problems (Malik & Naeem, 2013). As result of these critiques other researchers can add to the knowledge and come up with better theories and models to solve current problems.

Conclusion

In conclusion, employee motivation has been an area of focus not just from researchers but also from managers all in an effort to identify the best ways to keep employees motivated and thus more productive at work. A number of theories are documented starting with the content theories followed by the process theories. While the content theories focused on factors determining motivation the process theories focus on the process of how people identify their motivators. This paper has discussed some of the differences between content and process theories. It has also discussed some content theories of motivation including Maslow’s theory and Herzberg’s theory and their criticisms. It also discussed McGregor;s theory X and Y. The paper has concluded by discussing behavioral Science Research Criticism with some examples from the motivation theories to Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and suggested ways to make research better by application of near full disclosure of research data to enable proper critique of the research results.

References

Afful-Broni, A. (2012). Relationship between Motivation and Job Performance at the University of Mines and Technology, Tarkwa, Ghana: Leadership Lessons. Creative Education, 3(03), 309.

Ailon, G. (2008). Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Culture’s Consequences in a Value Test of its own Design. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 885-904.

Aldag, R. &  Stearns, T., (1987). Management. Ohio: South-Western Publishing Co.

Baard, P., Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (2004). Intrinsic Need Satisfaction: A Motivational Basis of Performance and Well?being in Two Work Settings. Journal of Applied Social psychology, 34(10), 2045-2068.

Bassett-Jones, N., & Lloyd, G. (2005). Does Herzberg’s Motivation Theory have Staying Power?. Journal of Management Development, 24(10), 929-943.

Brewer, P. & Venaik, S. (2012). On the Misuse of National Culture Dimensions. International Marketing Review, 29(6), 673-683.

Cullen, D., & Gotell, L. (2002). From Orgasms to Organizations: Maslow, Women’s Sexuality and the Gendered Foundations of the Needs Hierarchy. Gender, Work & Organization, 9(5), 537-555.

Ellliot, A. & Covington, M. (2001). Approach and Avoidance Motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13.

Fisher, E. (2009). Motivation and Leadership in Social Work Management: A Review of Theories and Related Studies. Administration in Social work, 33(4), 347-367.

French, C. (2012). Precognition Studies and the Curse of the Failed Replications. Guardian Newspaper.

Freud, S., Sprott, W., & Strachey, J. (1933). New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-analysis (Vol. 22). New York: Norton. Retrieved September 16, 2017 from: https://manhattanpsychoanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/readings/Subramanian_Freud_II_upload/Freud_New_Introductory_Lectures_On_Psycho_Analysis.pdf

Goldstein, K. (1939). The organism: A Holistic Approach to Biology Derived from Pathological Data in Man. New York: American Book Co.

Graham, M. & Messner, P. (1998). Principals and Job Satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Management, 12(5), 196-202.

Hendriks, P. (1999). Why Share Knowledge? The influence of ICT on the Motivation for Knowledge Sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 91.

Kardiner, A. (1939). The Traumatic Neuroses of War. New York: Hoeber

Kenrick, D., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S., & Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the Pyramid of Needs: Contemporary Extensions built upon Ancient Foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 292-314.

Kenrick, D., Neuberg, S., Griskevicius, V., Becker, D., & Schaller, M. (2010). Goal-driven Cognition and Functional Behavior: The Fundamental-motives Framework. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 63-67. 

Katzell, R. & Thompson, D. (1990). Work Motivation: Theory and Practice. American Psychologist, 45(2), 144.

Kaur, A. (2013). Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Theory: Applications and Criticisms. Global Journal of Management and Business Studies, 3(10), 1061-1064.

Lewis, J., Packard, T., & Lewis, M. (2011). Management of Human Service Programs. Cengage Learning.

Malik, M., & Naeem, B. (2013). Towards Understanding Controversy on Herzberg Theory of Motivation. World Applied Sciences Journal, 24(8), 1031-1036.  

Mankoe, J. (2006). Educational Administration and Management in Ghana (revised ed.). Kumasi: Payless Publication Ltd.

Maslow, A. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370. Retrieved Sept 16, 2017 from: https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/34195256/A_Theory_of_Human_Motivation_-_Abraham_H_Maslow Psychological_Review_Vol_50_No_4_July_1943.pdf

 Maslow, A. & Mittelmann, B. (1941). Principles of Abnormal Psychology. Oxford, England: Harper. Retrieved Sept 16, 2017 from: https://psycnet.apa.org

McGregor, D. (1960). Theory X and Theory Y. Organization Theory, 358-374.

McLeod, S. (2007). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Simply Psychology, 1.

McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith-a Failure of Analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89-118.

Nevis, E. (1983). Using an American Perspective in Understanding another Culture: Toward a Hierarchy of Needs for the People’s Republic of China. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19(3), 249-264.

Noltemeyer, A., Bush, K., Patton, J. & Bergen, D. (2012). The Relationship among Deficiency Needs and Growth Needs: An Empirical Investigation of Maslow’s Theory. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(9), 1862-1867.

Ozguner, Z. & Ozguner, M. (2014). A managerial point of view on the relationship between of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Herzberg’s dual factor theory. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(7).

Peters, G., Abraham, C. & Crutzen, R. (2015). Full Disclosure: Doing Behavioral Science Necessitates Sharing. European Health Psychologist, 14(4), 77-84.

Ramlall, S. (2004). A Review of Employee Motivation Theories and their Implications for Employee Retention within Organizations. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 52-63.

Robbins, S. (2001). Organizational Behavior. Pearson Education India.

Spillane, R. (1973). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Job Satisfaction and Labor Turnover: A Questionnaire Study of Australian Managers. Occupational Psychology.

Steers, R., Mowday, R. & Shapiro, D. (2004). Introduction to Special Topic Forum: The Future of Work Motivation Theory. The Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 379-387.

Taormina, R. & Gao, J. (2013). Maslow and the Motivation Hierarchy: Measuring Satisfaction of the Needs. The American Journal of Psychology, 126(2), 155-177.

Wagenmakers, E., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D. & Van Der Maas, H. (2011). Why Psychologists Must Change the Way they Analyze their Data: the Case of Psi: Comment on Bem (2011). American Psychological Association.

Wiley, C. (1997). What Motivates Employees According to over 40 Years of Motivation Surveys. International Journal of Manpower, 18(3), 263-280.