Compare Maslow and Locke's theory?

[maxmannix]

Question 8
Compare and contrast the Maslow and Locke theories of motivation.
6 marks

"Maslow’s theory of motivation contends that employee needs must be considered and fulfilled to achieve motivation from them. Their needs, according to the theory, are organised in a hierarchy of importance with basic needs at the bottom, such as food, water and shelter, and self-actualisation needs at the top, such as responsibility and creative jobs, the latter causing the most motivation in employees. Maslow suggests that employers should aim to satisfy the needs in order of the hierarchy, moving up from physiological needs to safety needs, social needs, esteem needs and lastly self-actualisation needs. In contrast to this, Locke’s theory does not consider “needs” of employees at all, but instead contends that motivation can come from the setting of clear, specific and challenging, but not overwhelming, goals. This differs from Maslow’s theory as it offers a simplistic explanation behind employee motivation, stating that employees need only a direction and a sense of achievement to be motivated. The two theories are however similar in the ways that they acknowledge circumstances which can result in low levels of motivation, such as only achieving basic levels of needs, for Maslow’s theory, or setting goals that aren’t specific or difficult enough, for Locke’s theory. They are also similar in that they contend that enhanced job difficulty, within reason, can significantly motivate employees, whether it be through difficult goals (Locke) or enhanced responsibility (Maslow). Ultimately, despite these differences and similarities, both theories attempt to offer methods to increase employee motivation."


Any suggestions/feedback?

[RobDog]

Question 8
Compare and contrast the Maslow and Locke theories of motivation.
6 marks

"Maslow’s theory of motivation contends that employee needs must be considered and fulfilled to achieve motivation from them. Their needs, according to the theory, are organised in a hierarchy of importance with basic needs at the bottom, such as food, water and shelter, and self-actualisation needs at the top, such as responsibility and creative jobs, the latter causing the most motivation in employees. Maslow suggests that employers should aim to satisfy the needs in order of the hierarchy, moving up from physiological needs to safety needs, social needs, esteem needs and lastly self-actualisation needs. In contrast to this, Locke’s theory does not consider “needs” of employees at all, but instead contends that motivation can come from the setting of clear, specific and challenging, but not overwhelming, goals. This differs from Maslow’s theory as it offers a simplistic explanation behind employee motivation, stating that employees need only a direction and a sense of achievement to be motivated. The two theories are however similar in the ways that they acknowledge circumstances which can result in low levels of motivation, such as only achieving basic levels of needs, for Maslow’s theory, or setting goals that aren’t specific or difficult enough, for Locke’s theory. They are also similar in that they contend that enhanced job difficulty, within reason, can significantly motivate employees, whether it be through difficult goals (Locke) or enhanced responsibility (Maslow). Ultimately, despite these differences and similarities, both theories attempt to offer methods to increase employee motivation."


Any suggestions/feedback?

I like it. Just wondering, about that bold sentence, would it be viable to argue that Maslow and Locke are similar in the fact that "needs" are relevant in both. By that i mean Maslow says you need physiological needs etc, Locke says you need goals.
Either way i think you could argue both.

[maxmannix]

interesting take. thanks. if a question like that pops up tomorrow i'll probably just go with how i feel like justifying it at the time. its usually what i do. everything sounds like a solid argument when you're three quarters into an answer haha. doesn't matter how confused you are at the start.

[RobDog]

interesting take. thanks. if a question like that pops up tomorrow i'll probably just go with how i feel like justifying it at the time. its usually what i do. everything sounds like a solid argument when you're three quarters into an answer haha. doesn't matter how confused you are at the start.

Lol exactly. As long as you can justify it it's correct.

[maxmannix]

How do you answer questions which ask you to apply a motivation theory (say Hertzberg) for example.
The apply part throws me off

[RobDog]

Apply it to a case study provided. So pretty much how would the HR manager use a motivation theory to motivate employees.