Theories of the needs and the motivations

The theories of the needs and the motivations are a plural whole of sociological paradigms concerning the influence of the needs on the man, the nature and the role of the motivation (in particular at the Homme with work), and the relationship between the two concepts. The famous theorists of these paradigms are Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor, or Frederick Herzberg.

Context

Taylorism and school of the human relations shares a decisional model which constrained the Homme with work. The first answer utilizes a vision naturalist of the man: the worker has nature's needs, which should be skilfully satisfied in order to improve its results.

Hierarchy and ambivalence

A first approach consisted in establishing a hierarchisation of the needs. Thus, Maslow defines a Pyramide of the needs, which generate motivations, also treated on a hierarchical basis. The organic needs are the base of the pyramid; follow safety, love and membership, estimates and finally Réalisation of oneself. Certain needs, as the regard, have at the same time an individual dimension (estimates self) and social (prestige). Maslow draws this hierarchy from pragmatic observations, which encourage it however to give a premium to the individual because, according to him, so that a group progresses on the pyramid of the needs, each one of its members must be satisfied for all the levels lower at the level aimed by the group. In practice, Maslow recommends to support the interest with work and to replace the money in its right place. The theory of the needs for Maslow however expresses in social terms the individual psychological functions, and as the needs are from the start hierarchical, it cannot avoid some major distortion with reality.

Douglas McGregor launches out then on another track, and comes from there to stress the importance of the implicit prejudices on the human nature and the individual behaviors in the choices operated by the leaders and the style of authority of the executives. It summarizes its sights by a Théorie X:

the average individual is against the idea to work (concept of avoidance);
the average individual must be controlled and threat of sanction;
the average individual prefers directed being and flees the responsibilities.

This theory takes up on its account the idea of Pré-notion S fundamental, McGregor estimating that only these principles are accepted by the directions, when well even these of it are not conscious. However, it explains not reasons of this ideology and cause of its importance, in particular because it did not wish to approach it as the rationalization of a practice which would not be natural, but indeed built. Its Théorie Y into negative gave however the index of it. It will be necessary for that to await the strategic Analyze.

Myth with work

Frederick Herzberg raises as for him two religious myths that it estimates founders in occupational psychology: Adam and Abraham. Adam symbolizes the man who must escape the evils due to his medium from life, while Abraham is that which aspires to the development by its achievements. These two contradictory needs, namely to escape the pain and to grow psychologically, cohabit and give rise to factors of various satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Herzberg explains this cohabitation by the Théorie of the two factors.

Herzberg releases five factors of satisfaction:

the achievement ,
recognition of the achievement ,
work itself ,
the responsibility ,
social progression .

The factors of dissatisfaction touch more with the environment than with the relations between the men: the policy of the administration, the person of the superior, remuneration, relations with the colleagues, work conditions… Herzberg preaches the job enrichment, to increase the interest with work, and autonomy, in a theory of the develop-environment which seeks to balance a natural power struggle. But just like Maslow, it considers that the realization of oneself is the most important objective for the worker, and thus does a priori work the vector of a life successful by attaching perhaps too hastily about it study its starting assumptions.

Contributions and limits

The theory of the needs and the motivations thus takes several forms. It introduces like principal element the Motivation and seeks to make pass near the leaders the idea that excesses of the Division of the labor must be controlled, by being based on natural characteristics of the Homme to work. So the theorists of these paradigms touched the heart of the organizations, not only work within the existing structures.

However, the theory is ambiguous. Like it appears above all in the circles of direction, it reinforces sometimes the capacity taylorien: the installation of the work conditions, for example, is carried out by an agent external with the group of the workers, agent which wants of course to satisfy the direction in place. The results thus do not go inevitably in the direction of a “realization of oneself to work. ” In fact, Realization of oneself and Satisfaction appears distinct. In addition, the satisfaction, measured by the direction, does not involve necessarily a rise of the Productivité, which is then the traditional measuring instrument. In fact, satisfaction does not act inevitably in the direction of an individual motivation favorable to the organization, whereas it is the motivation which determines primarily the productivity. By its deficiencies, the theory of the needs and motivations stress the importance of the strategic reactions and the ambiguity of a vision purely naturalist of the Sociologie.

Random links: