Literature Review On Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs

Chapter 2

Introduction

In this chapter, the proposed model is supported by theory of Maslow, Herbage’s theory and etc. Literature reviews related to the research and with theories supporting this study. Hypotheses were derived from the proposed model.

2.1 Literature Review

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Starting point from Abraham Harold Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need, people progress through a series of five stages of needs and that they are motivated by achieving the next highest needs. Maslow (1954) maintained that humans have at least five basic needs: physiological, safety, love, esteem, and self-actualization. He contended that within an organization, employees are motivated by their desire to maintain or achieve certain conditions upon which

They describe an individual’s relationship to what he or she does, the content of the job and were labeled ‘motivators.’ Another cluster of factors describes the situation, the context or the environment, in which the job is done. These factors can prevent or cause dissatisfaction, but not cause satisfaction. Herzberg et al. term these factors ‘hygiene factors’ or ‘dissatisfafiers,’ in a later publication also ‘maintenance factors’ (Herzberg, 1966). According to Herzberg’s (Herzberg et al., 1959; Herzberg, 1996) Motivation-Hygiene theory, job satisfaction differs according to a variety of personal characteristics. Kinicki et al. (2002) and Cote and Morgan (2002) also suggest that personal characteristics can have a significant impact on job satisfaction. Other factors found to be significantly associated with job-satisfaction include gender, length of service, and education (Clark, 1997). Furthermore, researchers have also stressed that individuals from different occupations desire different outcomes from their jobs and that these preferences tend to remain consistent within occupational groups (Lawler and Porter, 1967). They also found that the higher the occupational members the higher the satisfaction. This clearly suggests that occupational differences are important determinants of work

Later studies using the same data collection method found similar evidence and, depending on the researched population, additional evidence for other hypothesized factors of the original coding scheme (Herzberg, 1966).

While deemed useful for workplace design and other practical purposes, and substantiated in applied research, Herzberg et al.’s seminal work has also been criticized, particularly for the data collection method, supposedly being too suggestive in leading to two separate sets of factors. Another discussion point evolves around the researched population. Whether this theory applies to low level, general labour-type jobs is still discussed, because many studies were done with supervisory, managerial, or professional employees. But Herzberg (1966) cites studies with unskilled workers, such as hospital workers and housekeeping workers, which strongly support the