Towhat extent does Mayo’s human relations movement correlate with themotivational perspective of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs? Justifyyour conclusions?
Accordingto the findings of Mayo, social recognition is an importantmotivation goal (Korzynski, 2013). As such employees posses the needto believe that their jobs are important, therefore, unlike Taylorismor scientific management people are given an opportunity to besuccessful in their position. On the hand, Maslow sets up a level ofneeds that are arrange in a hierarchy, whereby, the basic needs areprioritized over social status (Bell and Muir, 2014). For instance,people might like public recognition however, in instances wherethey are hungry, the need for food over shadows the rest. Mayo’sneed for social recognition is parallel to that of Maslow’s higherneeds. Research has shown managers that provide for social needappear to more productive workers, nevertheless, these supervisorneed to ensure the basic needs are first meet (Pirson and Lawrence,2010).
Accordingto VanBuren, Greenwood, and Sheehan(2011), research psychologists have come up with the notion thathumans are guided by a desire to feel good, which they refer to asthe pleasure principle. In line with this principle, people focus onmaximizing their pleasure and minimizing their pain. As such, theexcess of positive over negative feelings can weigh the quality of anindividual’s life (Velnampy,ND).However, it is important to note that over emphasizing the factorsput across by Mayo and Maslow makes people feeling like cogs in amachine, as such, different theorists have developed approaches thatseem to focus on the employee’s own views and having an emphasizesfor respect of an individual. Mayo’s contribution to behavioralmanagement theory kicks in especially in the Hawthorne studies thathuman relations and the social needs granted to employees are a vitalfeature of any business management. Likewise, Maslow in developed thenotion that human needs influence behavior, as such it appears to bepurposeful and it driven by a need for satisfaction, as such Maslowplays part in helping managers visualize employee motivation (Çınar,Bektaş, and Aslan, 2011).
5q1eg(Restatement of Question)
Question: Towhat extent does Mayo’s human relations movement correlate with themotivational perspective of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs? Justifyyour conclusions?
Maslowhierarchy correlates with Mayo in regards to motivationalperspective, examining factors that are influential to productivityand the basic needs of the workers. Mayo developed the notion thatmost workers will develop a social alliance a productive cooperationwith each other. In addition, the suggestion of an alteration of theworkers the environment improves mental health and satisfaction tothe employees. Both Mayo and Maslow are in terms that conflict is nothuman nature, but comes up because of social organization, whileinspiration relating to productivity may be an attribution of theworkers environment (Sarachek, 1968). In the study by Maslow, he laysan attempt that describes human motivation patters, with thepsychological needs being the most fundamental of all needs, whilepursuing an individual’s talent is given list priority(Ciprian-Dumitru, 2013). Maslow describes self-actualization as whenan employee has attained full potential, with the desire being morethan just a worker and attaining their potential. As such companiesmust meet and respect the needs, offering proper welfare, education,and training. Organization looking to improve long-term developmentorganization need to meet basic survival requirement and improveworkers rights (Ciprian-Dumitru, 2013).
Mayo’shuman relations movement correlates with the Maslow hierarchy ofneeds in that in both instances human relations and social needs ofworkers are a vital aspect of managing behavior (Novicevic,Hayek, and Fang 2011).Economic incentives have been used before to motivate people to workhard, however, with developments from Mayo and such psychologist asMaslow has change this notion as human behavior has been analyzedfrom a different angle where needs have been classified according toneeds. As such, in order to be motivational say to employees,managers need first meet their basic or physiological needs and thenprogress to meet safety needs (DeChurchand Mesmer-Magnus, 2010).In the same line, a better understanding of human relations calls fora better understanding of different human behaviors, for instance,motivation, individual and group conflicts, related group dynamics,and improved productivity. As such both Maslow and Mayo viewemployees as individuals or resource assets that requires developmentand are not to be treated as machines (Bruceand Nyland, 2011).Therefore, paying attention to workers can work towards improvingtheir behavior, as such advocating for employees to be treated in ahuman way.
5q2sj(Restatement of Question)
Question:Compare and contrast expectancy theory and goal-setting theory.Which has the better application to modern management and why?
Accordingto Locke and Latham (2002), goal setting have been found to be fullyconsistent with social-cognitive and expectancy theory since theyboth underline the importance of consistency set goals and selfefficiency. Locke and Latham (2006) were of the notion that goalsetting defines and sets in place the process of defining the levelof performance indented to be put in place in order to attain thedesired results. In performance, the expectancy theory is linearlyrelated to performance the same as a direct linear relationshipbetween goal difficulty, the level of performance, and the effort putacross. Radosevich et al, (2009) has it that expectancy theory isquite useful in the evaluation goal revision processes wheninconsistencies are witnessed in the observations or results. From agoal setting perspective, the higher the difficult the goal, thehigher the proportional effort put across increasing performancetowards goal attainment and destructing factors are highly avoided.Locke, Motowildo, and Bobko (1986), argued that a higher expectancymight lead to a higher performance where goal levels are constant, ifnot so the individual motivational factor may decrease. Additionally,the two theories tend to differ in their emphasis, whereby in goalsetting goal setting, self efficiency is directed towards goalaccomplishment, while as, in expectancy theory self-efficiency isgeared towards rewards (Locke and Latham, 2002).
Boththe expectancy and goal setting theories towards work attain supportfrom subsequent research, as such, they have proved to be quiteinfluential in the way companies motivate their employees, throughsuch things as incentive schemes and objective geared exercises.Nevertheless, it has been observed, they a few limitations and posecontrasting results in different aspects. According to Hu,and Liden(2011), the two theories have been found to be consistent since theyboth focus on the importance of setting goals consciously andself-efficacy. Lord et al (2010) spotted out some differences whereby expectancy theory is of the notion that setting rather difficultgoals may act as a demoralizer to the workers who envision they arenot capable of meeting this targets, while on the other hand Locke’stheory proposes that tougher targets or goals influence the worker towork even harder as such increasing performance. As such the mostefficient theory has been suggested to that, which puts together boththe expectancy and goal setting theories. The expectancy theory, isseen as being in a position to help explain the level of commitmentthat workers bear in different goals, as such managers are able todetermine how much effort their employees would put in place and howtheir performance is expected (Bamberg et al,2011).
Bamberg,S., Fujii, S., Friman, M., & Gärling, T. (2011). Behaviourtheory and soft transport policy measures. Transportpolicy,18(1),228-235.
Bruce,K., & Nyland, C. (2011). Elton Mayo and the deification of humanrelations. OrganizationStudies,32(3),383-405.
Çınar,O., Bektaş, Ç., & Aslan, I. (2011). A motivation study on theeffectiveness of Intrinsic and Extrinsic factors. Economicsand Managment,16,690-695.
DeChurch,L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinningsof effective teamwork: a meta-analysis. Journalof Applied Psychology,95(1),32.
Hu,J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and teameffectiveness: an examination of goal and process clarity andservant leadership. Journalof Applied Psychology,96(4),851.
Lord,R. G., Diefendorff, J. M., Schmidt, A. M., & Hall, R. J. (2010).Self-regulation at work. Annualreview of psychology,61,543-568.
Novicevic,M. M., Hayek, M., & Fang, T. (2011). Integrating Barnard`s andcontemporary views of industrial relations and HRM. Journalof Management History,17(1),126-138.
VanBuren III, H. J., Greenwood, M., & Sheehan, C. (2011). Strategichuman resource management and the decline of employee focus. HumanResource Management Review, 21(3),209-219.
Velnampy,T. Rewards and Employee Motivation.