Explain the similarities and distinctions between Maslow's Need hierarchy and Hertzberg

Two factor theories of motivation. (10)

Citing research papers, justify your answer. According to you, which theory of motivation
is most relevant in today’s organisation?(15)

PART-I

INTRODUCTION
The concept of motivation, though commonly used, remains a subject of inquiry and
interpretation. Rooted in the interaction between individuals and their circumstances, motivation
drives goal-directed behavior, spurred by pressing needs or drives (Jaja, 2003). It is a dynamic
force that transcends individual traits and guides actions towards desired outcomes. Throughout
history, thinkers have grappled with understanding what prompts individuals to strive towards
their objectives. This essay focuses on two prominent motivational theories: Maslow’s Hierarchy
of Needs and Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory.

Maslow’s theory posits a hierarchical structure of human needs, ranging from physiological to
self-actualization, suggesting that individuals seek to fulfill these needs in a sequential order. In
contrast, Herzberg’s theory distinguishes between factors that contribute to job satisfaction
(motivators) and those that lead to dissatisfaction (hygiene factors), emphasizing the importance
of intrinsic motivators such as recognition and achievement. By comparing these theories, we
aim to determine which theory is more applicable in understanding and influencing motivation in
organizational settings.

Maslow: Hierarchy of Needs Theory

Drawing from humanistic psychology and his clinical experience, Abraham Maslow suggested
the hierarchy of needs theory. He hypothesized that within every human being, there exists a
hierarchy of motivational needs. A need an individual strives to satisfy that motivates a
behavioral pattern (Offiong, 2009). According to Badubi (2007), Maslow identified five staged
structures that ranked the needs of individuals in divergent categories.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is often depicted as a pyramid, with physiological needs at the base
and self-actualization at the top. Maslow proposed that individuals must satisfy lower-level needs
before progressing to higher-level ones. The deficiency needs, including physiological, security,
social, and esteem needs, must be met to avoid feelings of anxiety and tension. Maslow’s theory
suggests that the fulfillment of basic needs is necessary for the pursuit of higher-level needs.

However, while offering a structured framework for understanding human motivation, it has
been faulted for its perceived rigidity and oversimplified conceptual language. Critics argue that
individuals may prioritize needs differently, challenging the universal applicability of the
hierarchy's hierarchical progression. Additionally, the regimented nature of moving through the
hierarchy may not align with the nuanced variations in satisfaction levels among individuals and
across different stages of need fulfillment (Baridam, 2002; Offiong, 2013).

Herzberg: Two factor theory

Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory, influenced by Maslow, McGregor, and Argyris, aimed to

understand what people desire from their jobs. Herzberg conducted a survey of 200 engineers
and accountants to investigate attitudes and experiences in the workplace. The study sought to
identify elements that contributed to both satisfaction and dissatisfaction among employees.
Herzberg's research revealed two distinct types of needs: hygiene factors, associated with job
context and contributing to dissatisfaction, and motivators, linked to job content and enhancing
satisfaction. Employees attributed feelings of unhappiness to the job environment, while feelings
of happiness were associated with the work itself. This distinction led Herzberg to propose that
motivation comprises both hygiene factors and motivators, influencing employee performance
(Bates, 2014; Sapru, 2013; Offiong, 2009).

Herzberg's theory, despite its practical insights into workplace motivation, encounters limitations
in its application. Various factors such as age, work complexity, and cultural context influence
preferences for motivators and hygiene factors, adding layers of complexity to Herzberg's model.
Moreover, job factors like pay can evoke both satisfaction and dissatisfaction, challenging the
simplistic categorization in Herzberg's theory. Reliance on self-reports and the absence of an
overarching satisfaction measure raise doubts about the reliability of Herzberg's findings.
Additionally, Herzberg's exclusive focus on satisfaction overlooks its intrinsic connection with
productivity, and his theory is criticized for its cultural bias.

SIMILARITIES
Despite originating from different theorists with distinct frameworks, linkages between Maslow's
hierarchy of needs and Herzberg's two-factor theory can be identified.
Based on the data provided by Atiwel Murato (2015) & Ummamina (2010), the similarities
between Maslow’s and Herzberg’s theories of motivation can be summarized as follows:
1. Hierarchical Scale: Both theories utilize a hierarchical framework where individuals must
fulfill lower-level needs before progressing to higher-level ones. This implies a sequential
progression in motivation.
2. Internal Needs: Both theories assert that human behavior is driven by the desire to fulfill
internal needs. Individuals are motivated by the pursuit of satisfaction in various aspects
of their lives.
3. Criteria for Motivation: Both theories specify criteria for what motivates people.
Maslow’s hierarchy outlines different categories of needs, while Herzberg’s theory
distinguishes between hygiene factors and motivators. Despite variations in terminology,
both theories identify factors that influence motivation.
4. Correspondence of Factors: There is correspondence between Herzberg’s hygiene factors
and Maslow’s lower-level needs (e.g., physiological, safety, belongingness), as well as
between Herzberg’s motivators and Maslow’s higher-level needs (e.g., esteem,
 self-actualization). This suggests overlap in the types of factors that drive motivation in
both theories.
5. Environmental Influence: Both theories acknowledge the influence of environmental
conditions and employee attitudes on motivation. External factors such as work
conditions, recognition, and growth opportunities impact an individual’s motivation and
performance.
In essence, while Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory may employ
different terminology and conceptual frameworks, their underlying principles converge on the
understanding that motivation is intricately linked to the fulfillment of internal needs and
external environmental factors.

DIFFERENCES
In comparing Maslow’s Theory of Needs with Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, Gaurav Akrani
(2011) delineated several distinctions:
1. Meaning: Maslow’s theory revolves around human needs and their fulfillment, whereas
Herzberg’s theory focuses on motivators such as achievement, recognition, and
opportunities for growth.
2. Basis of Theory: Maslow’s theory is structured around a hierarchy of human needs, while
Herzberg’s theory distinguishes between hygiene factors (dissatisfiers) and motivating
factors (satisfiers) without a hierarchical arrangement.
3. Nature of Theory: Maslow’s theory is descriptive and based on long-term observations,
while Herzberg’s theory is prescriptive, offering specific suggestions based on empirical
data collected from interviews.
4. Applicability of Theory: Maslow’s theory is widely cited and applicable across various
contexts, especially in poorer or developing countries where financial incentives are
crucial. Conversely, Herzberg’s theory is viewed as an extension of Maslow’s, more
applicable in affluent or developed countries where non-financial factors hold greater
significance.
5. Descriptive or Prescriptive: Maslow’s theory describes human needs and their
progression, while Herzberg’s theory prescribes specific motivators to enhance job
satisfaction.
 6. Motivators: In Maslow’s model, any unsatisfied need can serve as a motivator, whereas
Herzberg’s model posits that only higher-order needs, such as achievement and
recognition, act as motivators, while hygiene factors do not.

In essence, while both Maslow's and Herzberg's theories offer valuable insights into human
motivation, they diverge in their approaches and applications, reflecting the multifaceted nature
of motivation in organizational contexts.

PART-II

INTRODUCTION
In light of the comparisons drawn between Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Herzberg's
Two-Factor Theory, it becomes apparent that each theory offers unique insights into the
complexities of motivation within organizational contexts. These distinctions set the stage for a
deeper exploration of each theory's relevance in contemporary organizational settings. Herzberg's
emphasis on intrinsic motivators and the role of job design in fostering employee engagement
aligns with contemporary research and organizational practices aimed at enhancing employee
satisfaction, productivity, and well-being. Specific examples of hygiene factors are
organizational policy, guaranteed retirement fund, interpersonal relations, career stability,
supervision, and job conditions. Therefore we believe that Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory holds
more relevance in organizations today and will be justifying this in the following sections.

CRITICISM OF MASLOW’S THEORY

Maslow's theory proposes that individuals have a hierarchical structure of needs, ranging from
basic physiological needs to higher-order needs like self-actualization. According to Maslow,
individuals strive to satisfy lower-level needs before moving on to higher-order needs. While
Maslow's theory has influenced organizational psychology for decades, recent research has
provided mixed support for its applicability in contemporary workplaces. Some studies have
found support for certain aspects of Maslow's theory. For example, research by Wahba and
Bridwell (1976) found evidence supporting a hierarchical structure of needs among employees,
with lower-level needs (such as safety and belongingness) needing to be satisfied before
higher-level needs (like esteem and self-actualization) become motivating factors.

However, critics argue that Maslow's theory oversimplifies human motivation and fails to
account for individual and cultural differences. Recent research has highlighted the limitations of
the strict hierarchical structure proposed by Maslow, suggesting that needs may be more fluid
and dynamic than originally conceptualized (Chen & Silverthorne, 2005). In addition, Salancik
and Pfeffer (1977) have suggested that methodological artifacts, such as consistency bias and
priming effects, might confound results obtained in studies testing Maslow’s theory. These biases
can lead to distorted interpretations of data, potentially inflating the apparent support for the
theory. Moreover, in today's diverse and rapidly changing workplaces, employees may prioritize
different needs at different times, challenging the rigid hierarchy proposed by Maslow.

In their examination of managers within two companies, Lawyer and Suttle (1972) discovered
limited evidence to support the existence of a hierarchical structure of needs. Additionally, they
contested the notion that only one level of need is active at any given time, challenging Maslow's
perspective on human needs as static. Contrary to Maslow's portrayal, human needs are dynamic
in reality. Furthermore, while Maslow's theory implies that a fulfilled need does not act as a
motivator, Baridam (2002) asserts that individual needs are never entirely or permanently
satisfied.

Longitudinal studies conducted by Hall and Nougaim (1968) and Rauschenberger et al. (1980)
have provided robust support for contradictory results for Maslow’s model. Contradictory
findings, such as those indicating positive correlations between need scores across categories
rather than negative ones as predicted by Maslow’s principle of need dominance, challenge the
fundamental assumptions of the hierarchy of needs theory. Ultimately, Betz’s (1984) research,
which found only partial support for Maslow’s theory concerning the relationship between need
importance and life satisfaction, further underscores the limitations of the framework.
Collectively, these criticisms raise doubts about the validity and applicability of Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs in comprehensively explaining human behavior across diverse contexts and
populations.
RELEVANCE OF TWO FACTOR THEORY

Due to globalization, organizations are increasingly composed of employees from diverse

cultural backgrounds and ethnicities. As such, the order in which the hierarchy is arranged has
been criticized as being ethnocentric by Hofstede (1984). It does not adequately address the
distinction between the social and intellectual needs of individuals raised in individualistic
societies versus collectivist societies. In individualistic cultures, there is a greater emphasis on
self-centered goals, prioritizing self-improvement and self-actualization. Meanwhile, in
collectivist cultures, the importance of acceptance and community surpasses the value placed on
personal freedom and individuality (Cianci & Gambrel, 2003).

Research suggests that certain aspects of Herzberg's theory reflect universal human needs that
transcend cultural and demographic differences. A study by Hofstede (1980) found that factors
related to job satisfaction, such as recognition and achievement, were consistently valued across
cultures. This implies that motivator factors identified by Herzberg may resonate with employees
from diverse backgrounds, regardless of cultural differences.

Research conducted by Sai (2022) compared the impact of motivation theories on employee
performance, revealing that the implementation of Herzberg's motivational theory in
organizational practices led to significant improvements in performance compared to
pre-motivational techniques. Herzberg's two-factor theory emphasizes that money alone is not a
motivator, particularly in today's digitally literate and skilled workforce. As individuals in
knowledge-based roles prioritize higher-level needs such as esteem and self-actualization once
their basic physiological and social needs are met, Herzberg's theory appears more applicable in
motivating modern knowledge workers. This contrasts with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which
has been criticized for its rigidity and oversimplified conceptual language, especially in diverse
organizational settings. Herzberg's focus on creating stimulating and challenging job roles aligns
with the evolving demands of today's workforce, suggesting that his theory offers more practical
insights for motivating employees in contemporary organizations.

Curtis and Jayashankar Reddy's study(2020) aligns with the principles of Herzberg's Two-Factor
Theory amidst the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Their research suggests that
leadership skills and knowledge sharing serve as subtle motivators, fostering productivity in
remote work scenarios. These findings align with Herzberg's notion that factors beyond
monetary incentives, such as effective leadership and collaborative relationships, significantly
influence employee motivation and engagement, especially during unprecedented times.

Herzberg's theory distinguishes between hygiene factors, which prevent dissatisfaction but do not
directly contribute to motivation, and motivators, which directly influence job satisfaction and
motivation. Hygiene factors include aspects of the work environment such as salary, working
conditions, and company policies, while motivators encompass factors like recognition,
achievement, and growth opportunities. Herzberg’s distinction between maintenance factors and
motivational factors underscores the importance of creating environments that go beyond basic
necessities to foster employee engagement and effort. For instance, modern businesses,
particularly in the digital realm, emphasize aspects like flexible dress codes, customizable
workspaces, and opportunities for job enrichment to enhance employee satisfaction and
productivity (Reck, 2001).

Research on Herzberg's theory has provided substantial support for its relevance in contemporary
organizations. For example, studies by Hackman & Oldham (1976) and Lawler (1973) found that
factors such as challenging work, recognition, and opportunities for advancement were strongly
associated with employee motivation and job satisfaction. Herzberg's theory has also been
instrumental in shaping organizational practices related to job design, employee engagement, and
performance management.

Herzberg's theory has practical implications for job design and the creation of motivating work
environments. By emphasizing the importance of meaningful work and opportunities for growth,
Herzberg's theory encourages organizations to design jobs that are intrinsically rewarding and
aligned with employees' interests and abilities. Research by Hackman and Oldham (1980) on job
characteristics theory supports Herzberg's contention that challenging and meaningful work
contributes to employee motivation and satisfaction.

Moreover, contemporary research has highlighted the importance of intrinsic motivators,

aligning with Herzberg's emphasis on motivators as key drivers of employee satisfaction and
performance (Deci et al., 2017). In today's knowledge-based economy, organizations
increasingly recognize the significance of providing employees with meaningful work,
autonomy, and opportunities for growth and development. According to Golshan, Kaswuri,
Agashahi, and Ismail (2011), organizations are progressively adopting Herzberg's theory to foster
personal development, enrichment, and acknowledgment among their workforce. They advocate
for promotions based on career milestones, recognition for notable achievements, such as
outstanding performance in their respective fields, and entrusting employees with the autonomy
to manage job-related tasks as part of their responsibilities.

EXAMPLES OF ORGANISATIONS ADOPTING HERZBERG’S PRINCIPLES:

Many contemporary organizations have adopted practices that reflect Herzberg's emphasis on
motivators. These include initiatives such as employee recognition programs, skill development
opportunities, and job enrichment strategies.

Google is known for its innovative and employee-centric culture, which aligns with Herzberg's
emphasis on intrinsic motivators. Research conducted by the Great Place to Work Institute
consistently ranks Google as one of the best places to work, attributing its success to factors such
as meaningful work, autonomy, and a culture of innovation. Google's "20% time" policy, which
allows employees to spend a portion of their workweek on projects of their choosing, reflects
Herzberg's emphasis on autonomy and creativity. Additionally, Google's employee recognition
programs and emphasis on personal and professional growth align with Herzberg's motivator
factors.

Microsoft has transformed its organizational culture in recent years, focusing on employee
engagement and empowerment. Research by PwC's Strategy found that Microsoft's shift towards
a growth mindset culture, emphasizing continuous learning and development, has significantly
impacted employee motivation and job satisfaction. This aligns with Herzberg's motivator factors
such as opportunities for advancement and personal growth. Microsoft's emphasis on fostering a
culture of collaboration and innovation also reflects Herzberg's principles of meaningful work
and recognition.
Amazon, despite its reputation for demanding work culture, has made efforts to enhance
employee satisfaction and engagement. Research by Harvard Business Review found that
Amazon's focus on providing challenging assignments and opportunities for skill development
has a positive impact on employee motivation. Additionally, Amazon's investments in employee
training and career advancement align with Herzberg's motivator factors. While the company
continues to face criticisms regarding work conditions, its efforts to address employee concerns
demonstrate recognition of Herzberg's hygiene factors.

INTEGRATED APPROACH TO ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR

There has been literature that integrates both Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Herzberg's
Two-Factor Theory offering a nuanced approach to understanding and addressing employee
motivation within organizational contexts. Boerner's (2015) research underscores the
significance of Herzberg's theory in emphasizing intrinsic motivators such as recognition and
challenging tasks. However, Herzberg's theory alone may overlook certain aspects of human
needs addressed by Maslow's framework, such as the hierarchical progression of needs and the
influence of external factors. Similarly, More & Padmanabhan's (2017) study highlights the value
of using both Herzberg and Maslow's theory in delineating the hierarchy of human needs and its
relevance in informing HR policies. This approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of
the multifaceted nature of employee needs and motivations, enabling organizations to tailor
strategies that address both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators effectively.

CONCLUSION

While both Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory have influenced
organizational practices and management strategies, empirical evidence suggests that Herzberg's
theory may be more relevant in today's organizations. Herzberg's emphasis on intrinsic
motivators and the role of job design in fostering employee engagement aligns with
contemporary research and organizational practices aimed at enhancing employee satisfaction,
productivity, and well-being. However, it's essential to recognize that the relevance of these
theories may vary based on organizational context, industry, and individual differences,
emphasizing the importance of a nuanced and evidence-based approach to understanding
employee motivation in modern workplaces.
 References

Albers, H.H., (1982): Management, the Basic Concepts, Second Edition. Robert E. Krieger

Publishing Company, Western Illinois University, 218-219.

Aldag, R.J.., Stearns, T.M., (1987): Management. South-Western Publishing Co., 442-443.

Akrani, G. (2011). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory and Herzberg’s Two-Factor

Theory. Business Jargons.

https://www.businessjargons.com/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-theory-and-herzbergs-

two-factor-theory/

(Ph.D), D. C. E. (2021, February 6). A critical review and comparism between Maslow,

Herzberg and McCLELLAND’s theory of needs. LinkedIn.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/critical-review-comparism-between-maslow-herzber

g-enyia-acipm-hrpl-

Badubi , R. (2017, August). Compare and contrast the management theories. Theories of

Motivation and Their Application in Organizations: A Risk Analysis.

https://www.ijltemas.in/DigitalLibrary/Vol.3Issue5/01-03.pdf

Badubi, R. (2007). A review of motivation theories. African Journal of Economic and

Management Studies, 2(2), 156-171.

Baridam, D. M. (2002). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and psychological health. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 434–446.

Bates, S. (2014). Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction: An integrative literature

review. North American Journal of Psychology, 16(2), 621-634.

Betz, M. (1984). Maslow’s concept of self-actualization. Journal of Humanistic

Psychology, 24(2), 95–107.

Boerner, S. (2015). Job satisfaction and Herzberg’s two-factor theory: A review of the

evidence. European Journal of Social Sciences, 49(5), 645–656.

Brenner, V.C.; Carmack, C.W.; Weinstein, M.G., (1971): An Empirical Test of the

Motivation-Hygiene Theory, Journal of Accounting Research, 359-366.

Campbell, J. P., & Pritchard, R. D. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and

organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology (pp. 63-130). Rand McNally College Publishing Company.

Chen, Z., & Silverthorne, C. (2005). Leadership effectiveness, leadership style and

employee readiness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(4),

280–288.

Cianci, R., & Gambrel, P. A. (2003). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: Does it apply in a

collectivist culture. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 8(2),

143–161.

Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work

organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology

and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43.

Daft, R.L., (1997): Management, Fifth Edition. The Dryden Press, A Division of Harcourt

Collage Publisher, 539-542.

Golshan, B., Kaswuri, A. H., Agashahi, B., & Ismail, R. (2011). Employees’ motivational

practices during COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Business and Social

Science, 2(21), 8-14.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a

theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hall, D. T., & Nougaim, K. E. (1968). An examination of Maslow’s need hierarchy in an

organizational setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3(1),

12–35.

Hodgetts, R.M., (1986): Management Theory, Process and Practice, Fourth Edition. Florida

International University, Academic Press College Division, 477-488.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related

values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related

values. London: Sage Publications.

Jaja, M. A. (2003). Motivation: A Complex Phenomenon. Management in Education,

17(1), 30–32.
Lawler, E. E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Pub.

Co.

Lawyer, P. J., & Suttle, J. L. (1972). A reevaluation of the Maslowian hierarchy of needs.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7(1), 27–40.

Luthans, F. (2008). Organizational behavior. McGraw-Hill.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology, 1(1), 1297-1349.

Marsh, E.R., (1978): Maslow's Implied Matrix: A Clarification of The Need Hierarchy

Theory, Social Behavior and Personality, Kent State University, 6 (1): 113-116.

Mondy, R. W., Holmes, R. E., Flippo, E.B., (1940): Management: Concepts and Practices.

Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 269-276.

More, E., & Padmanabhan, P. (2017). A study on motivational theories of employees in an

organization. International Journal of Management, IT and Engineering, 7(11), 44–56.

Muchinsky, P. M. (2005). Psychology applied to work. Wadsworth.

Murato, A. (2015). Motivation at Work: A Literature Review. Journal of Economic and

Social Development, 2(1), 115-132.

Offiong, D. A. (2009). Theories of motivation. Longman Nigeria.

Orobosa Ihensekhien, Ph. D. (2023, June 28). Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and

Frederick Herzberg’s Two-Factor Motivation Theories: Implications for

Organizational Performance.
 https://www.academia.edu/103988232/Abraham_Maslows_Hierarchy_of_Needs_and

_Frederick_Herzbergs_Two_Factor_Motivation_Theories_Implications_for_Organiza

tional_Performance

Osameke, M. (2017). Critical review and comparism between maslow, ... fujabf.org.

https://www.fujabf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Critical-Review-and

Reck, R. F. (2001). The reinvention of work: A new vision of livelihood for our time. San

Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Rauschenberger, J., Schmitt, N., & Hunter, J. E. (1980). An examination of Maslow’s need

hierarchy with particular reference to the need for esteem. Journal of Research in

Personality, 14(3), 398–404.

Rauschenberger, J., Schmitt, N., & Hunter, J. E. (1980). A note on the relationship between

need strength and need satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 26(2), 376-386.

Robbins, S.P., De Cenzo, D.A., (1998): Fundamentals of Management, Essential Concepts

and Application, Second Edition. A Simon & Schuster Company, 359-365.

Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A., & Campbell, T. T. (2016). Organizational behaviour. Pearson.

Ronen, S., Kraut, A. I., Lingoes, J. C., & Aranya, N. (1979). Individual and collective

behavior in organizations: A multi-level framework. Academy of Management

Review, 4(3), 437-456.

Rue, L.W., Byars, L.L., (1986): Management: Theory and Application, Fourth Edition. IR

WIN,358-362.

Sai, M. M. V. (2022). Scholarly Research Dissemination. The Journal of Contemporary

Issues in Business and Government.

https://cibgp.com/au/index.php/1323-6903/article/view/2440/2444

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). An examination of need-satisfaction models of job

attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(3), 427-456.

Sapru, R. K. (2013). Administrative Theories and Management Thought. PHI Learning Pvt.

Ltd.

Scanlan, B., Keys, B., (1987): Management &Organizational Behavior, Second Edition.

Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, 224-239.

Schermerhorn, J.R, (2001): Management, Six Edition. John Wiley Sons, Inc., 285-287.

Udechukwu, I.I., (2009): Correctional Officer Turnover: Of Maslow's Needs Hierarchy

And Herzberg's Motivation Theory, Public Personnel Management, Volume 38 No.2,

69-82.

Wahba, M. A., & Bridwell, L. G. (1976). Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on

the need hierarchy theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15(2),

212-240.
Weiner, N. (1980). The role of the job in determining the relationship between need

strength and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17(2),

240-255.