Who was Abraham Maslow?
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (not the pyramid)
Maslow’s hierarchy (the pyramid)
Self-actualisation: morality, creativity, acceptance (of facts)
Esteem: confidence, respect, achievement
Love/belonging: sexual intimacy, family, friendship
Security: security of property/house, of health, of employment
Physiological: food, water, sleep
Kaufman (2018)
Aim
Aim 1 - to show that the characteristics of self-actualization that Maslow (1950) are related to both the absence of deprivation and abundance of health, growth, well-being.
Aim 2 - to produce a new scale to measure the characteristics of self-actualisation by Maslow (1950).
Procedure
- 522 ppts completed an online survey
- some items were modified from Maslow’s original language to improve comprehensibility and reliability
- some names of the characteristics were changed to be comprehensible for modern day psychologists and the general public
The Characteristics of Self-Actualization Scale - CSAS
- It is a 30-item measure that captures 10 interrelated characteristics of self-actualization, adapted from Maslow’s (1950) characteristics of self-actualizing people.
Findings
- Scores on the CSAS positively correlated with all 5 Big Five traits e.g. Extraversion, Agreeableness, Openness to Experience.
- Scores on the CSAS correlated with work-related outcomes e.g. job performance and job satisfaction.
Application to everyday life
- CSAS is a useful tool in assessing self-actualisation in the workplace and can be used by organisations to identify their workers’ needs.
- This allows them to provide workers with needs that they lack with the goal of helping them self-actualise and thus, increase productivity, creativity.
What happens when people have a HIGH/LOW achievement need?
McClelland’s Theory of Achievement Motivation
People with HIGH achievement needs:
* Will try to succeed by avoiding low reward / low risk situations.
* Low-risk situations are avoided as success will be too easily obtained and will not be seen as a ‘real’ achievement.
* If a situation is too high risk they will see the result as luck rather than their own achievement.
People with LOW achievement needs
* avoid responsibility at work for fear of failing, so they do not try.
McClelland’s Theory of Achievement Motivation
What happens when people have HIGH/LOW affiliation needs?
McClelland’s Theory of Achievement Motivation
People with HIGH affiliation needs:
* Tend to conform to group norms, won’t challenge the group because they fear rejection
* Prefer work that leads to large amount of time spent with others
People with LOW affiliation needs
* Don’t desire social interaction
* not team players
* remain distant from others, don’t seek their acceptance
What happens when people have HIGH/LOW power needs?
McClelland’s Theory of Achievement Motivation
People with HIGH power needs:
* Want to make an impact, influence decision-making processes
* High prestige, wants viewpoint to be accepted
Two types of power individuals may need: 1. Personal power (need to control others) 2. Institutional power (need to organise a team to achieve goals set by business)
People with LOW power needs:
* Won’t seek positions of authority and influence
* Dependent on others to make decisions
* Reduce the importance of the role when speaking to others
Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)
Latham and Locke’s Goal-Setting Theory
Specific
Measurable
Achievable: reasonably achieve it within a time frame
Realistic
Time-based: set a realistic but ambitious time frame to clarify task prioritisation & increase motivation
Vroom’s Expectancy Theory
They are motivated if/there is:
* a clear relationship between effort and performance
* favourable performance is rewarded
* reward satisfies a need
* desire to satisfy the need is strong enough to make the effort worthwhile
VALENCE
- ‘strength’ of an expected reward - the perception of an outcome
- This could be the size of the reward e.g. big vs. small bonus or the type of reward e.g. intrinsic (e.g. sense of achievement) or extrinsic (e.g. money)
- rewards tailored to the employee
Instrumentality
- you believe that if you perform well, the expected outcome / reward will happen and this will match the effort put in. This is affected by:
- trust in the people who are deciding who will get the outcome or reward
- whether process of deciding who gets the reward is simple
- whether relationship between performance and outcome is clear
Expectancy
- Expectancy
- perception that effort will lead to intended performance. It is affected by:
- skill level
- whether you have the right resources to do the job
- the support you get from others
- training and mentoring can help to raise expectancy
Extrinsic Motivation at work
examples of extrinsic motivators at work:
* pay
* bonuses
* profit sharing pay
Intrinsic Motivation at work
examples of extrinsic motivators at work:
* recognition
* empowerment
* respect
Application to real life: supportive evidence from Waal and Jansen (2011) for extrinsic and intrinsic motivators
Waal and Jansen reported these findings amongst others:
However,
- Some studies demonstrate that in organisations with very high inequalities there is also a very high turnover of staff. This would suggest that any gains in productivity shown by the high performers are outweighed by the costs to the low performers.
- Research in the UK found no relationship between the size of bonus payments and performance (Fattorusso et al. 2007)
Deci and Ryan’s (1985) Self-Determination Theory (SDT)
C: Competency (need to feel effective and capable. Involves gaining mastery and understanding over your tasks)
A: Autonomy (need to feel in control of one’s own behaviours and goals)
R: Relatedness (need to feel connected to others, to love and care, and to be loved and cared for)
How can employees benefit from Latham and Locke’s goal setting theories?
Increased motivation: goal setting provides employees with clear objectives and a sense of purpose. Often more motivated to put in the effort required to achieve those goals.
Enhanced job satisfaction: When employees feel that their efforts are contributing to the accomplishment of important tasks, they tend to be more satisfied with their work.
Improved focus and prioritisation: helps prioritise tasks and focus on what matters most. This can reduce distractions and increase productivity
It’s In Earth
How can managers benefit from Latham and Locke’s goal setting theories?
Performance management: managers can use goal setting to align employee performance with organisational objectives. By setting clear performance goals, managers can ensure their employees are working hard towards common goals
Communication and alignment: setting goals throughout the organisation helps create alignment and shared sense of purpose. Improves coordination and collaboration amongst departments
Conflict resolution: when goals are clear and well-communicated, it reduces misunderstandings and conflicts related to job expectations. Can use goals as a reference point to address performance issues.
Please Come Close
Landry et al context
Landry et al context
Hypothesis 1:
- Informational & autonomy-supportive -> greater performance
- Controlling & autonomy-threatening -> lower performance
Hypothesis 2:
- Informational & autonomy-supportive -> Greater psychological needs satisfaction -> Higher intrinsic motivation
- Controlling & autonomy-threatening -> Greater psychological needs frustration -> Higher extrinsic motivation
Landry et al methodology
Methodology
- Lab experiment
- Quantitative data was produced thru the use of self-reports (questionnaires)
Landry et al sample
Sample
- 123 student volunteers (mean age = 23 yrs) were recruited thru an ‘Introduction to - Organisational Behaviour’ course at a Canadian university
- All students were randomly assigned to either the autonomy-supportive (informational) condition (n=65) or the autonomy-threatening (controlling) condition (n=58)
- 60% students female; 40% male
Landry et al procedure
All ppts read an instruction paragraph abt a task they would be asked to perform & the reward given on completion.
This paragraph was either:
Landry et al self-reports measures
Landry et al control measures