Maslow's hierarchy of needs suggests that human needs exist in a hierarchy consisting of physiological needs, safety needs, belongingness needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization needs. Lower level needs like physiological and safety must be met before higher level needs can motivate behavior. Applications to the workplace include ensuring safe working conditions, adequate pay, and job security to motivate employees to take on more responsibilities. However, the theory has received little research support and is not very useful in practice.

1. MASLOW'S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS.
Abraham Maslow developed the hierarchy of needs, which suggests that individual needs
exist in a hierarchy consisting of physiological needs, security needs, belongingness needs,
esteem needs, and self-actualization needs. Physiological needs are the most basic needs for
food, water, and other factors necessary for survival. Security needs include needs for safety
in one's physical environment, stability, and freedom from emotional distress. Belongingness
needs relate to desires for friendship, love, and acceptance within a given community of
individuals. Esteem needs are those associated with obtaining the respect of one's self and
others. Finally, self-actualization needs are those corresponding to the achievement one's own
potential, the exercising and testing of one's creative capacities, and, in general, to becoming
the best person one can possibly be. Unsatisfied needs motivate behavior; thus, lower-level
needs such as the physiological and security needs must be met before upper-level needs such
as belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization can be motivational.
Applications of the hierarchy of needs to management and the workplace are obvious.
According to the implications of the hierarchy, individuals must have their lower level needs
met by, for example, safe working conditions, adequate pay to take care of one's self and
one's family, and job security before they will be motivated by increased job responsibilities,
status, and challenging work assignments. Despite the ease of application of this theory to a
work setting, this theory has received little research support and therefore is not very useful in
practice.
Read more: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Mar-No/Motivation-and-
Motivation-Theory.html#ixzz3F3tnRV00
Content Theories
Gross (1992) suggests Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is based on a central concept that
suggests humans are motivated to satisfy their needs before progressing to a higher
stage. These are categorised in three deficiency and two growth needs, following a
hierarchy of; psychological (relating to survival); safety and security (for example job
security); belongingness (for instance a desire for acceptance); this is turn leads to
esteem and ego (for example, greater concern for the job); and finally peaks with self-actualisation
(realisation of the person’s full potential).
Alderfer’s ERG theory argued that there need not be five needs and reduced them to
three: existence [E], relatedness [R] and growth [G] (Porter et al 2003). However the two
theories could be said to be analogous; existence relates to survival and safety;
relatedness to belonging and self-esteem (and ego); and growth to the development
of human potential as in self-actualisation (Buchanan and Huczynski 1997). Where
Alderfer did add to Maslow was in the recognition that not only was there a
satisfaction/progression relationship, there was also one of frustration/regression. This
could mean, for instance, that an employee could reach a sense of high self-esteem,
lose their job and regress to survival mode, in other words, one state does not
necessary lead to another, the element of the hierarchy can change, retrench, regress,
and also co-exist (Porter et al 2003).

2. Although, it could be argued Maslow’s and Alderfer’s theories are not fully ef fective at
explaining employees needs (Porter et al 2003), they appear to still resonate with
several concepts in HRM. For example, the emphasis on the needs of an individual
employee for security and for a sense of belonging may lead to identification wi th the
company. This could be said to be further reinforced by the fact that within a secure
environment the individual is encouraged, and feels safe, to grow to their full potential,
and therefore enhances and add to the corporate identity (Mabey and Salaman 1995).
A closer fit with HRM may be McGregor’s Y theory which states that if the working
conditions are favourable, employees will be motivated to perform efficiently, growing
and developing with the organisation to fulfil their potential (Armstrong 2002),
however Evans (1999) argues that maybe McGregor puts too much emphasis on the
importance of work in a person’s life and does not take into account how outside
interests could fulfil their psychological needs. McGregor however does appear to
recognise this in his X Theory, which assumes the opposite from Theory Y, suggesting
people do not like work and can only be made to do so by coercion and threats
(Armstrong 2002). It could argued, as HRM accepts no alternative view to the
company voice in setting employment policy, there is a degree of control implied in
accepting terms and conditions that could undermine employee rights and be
interpreted as coercive (Redman and Wilkinson 2001).
Although motivation was an important consideration in the theories mentioned above,
it is generally considered that until Herzberg, there were few people who were calling
attention to the need for increased understanding of motivation’s specific importance
in the workplace (Porter et al 2003). Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory, also called
the Two-factor theory, looked at employees’ levels of job satisfaction within an
organisation (Hersey and Blanchard 1993), or more precisely the nature of the work
itself and how it has the potential for arousing both satisfaction and
dissatisfaction. Motivators arousing satisfaction include factors such as achievement,
recognition and responsibility. Discrepancies in motivators, which led to employee
discontent, or hygiene factors as Herzberg termed them, could include things such as
company policy, salary, managerial style, and relations with work colleagues (Porter et
al 2003). In terms of HRM, if achievement and recognition were within the corporate
goals, then responsibility could be said to equate with identification. The concept of
hygiene factors could also work well with an HRM model as it would be the managerial
task to focus on the work the employee is expected to do, and where there is
discontent, for example because of routine or boredom, to strive to achieve a
motivational atmosphere, for instance, by introducing multi-tasking or changing the
conditions in some other way (Mabey and Salaman 1995).
The final content theory, which departs from those above in some ways, is McClelland’s
Learned Needs theory, which, as a psychological principle, advocates nurture to be as
important as nature; in other words the circumstances encountered, and activities
experienced are equally as important as whatever qualities you are born with (Porter et
al 2003). Briefly, the theory comprises of the need for achievement, n ach, need for
power, n pow and the need for affiliation n aff. It could be argued that the first two

3. elements of McClelland’s theory fit well with the HRM: for example, n ach is said to see
achievement from an organisational standpoint where challenge triggers motivation
and calculated risks are taken to achieve goals, for example, the job description is
exceeded; and n pow recognises a need to follow leader-follower relations and to
control the environment, such as, managerial control over corporate action (Porter et al
2003, Redman and Wilkinson 2001, Mabey and Salaman 1995); however n aff promotes
a tendency to conform and a strong need for approval, thus, indicating a motivation
that is less proactive and pluralist as opposed to unitary nature of HRM (Farnham and
Pimlott 1994).