Compare and contrast herzberg s two factor theory with vroom s expectancy theory

Maslow argues that there were five main categories of needs, which were arranged in a hierarchy. Physiological needs are the most basic requirements of human existence, such as food, water and rest.

This theory to significant number of people and situations, might fail to apply. It is clear that, while Vroom believes that individual differences have an effect on motivation; Herzberg assumes that everyone is motivated in the same way. By carefully handling these factors, an organization can avoid the dissatisfaction of its employees, but cannot satisfy or motivate them.

Once a person has fulfilled these social needs, they begin to desire esteem needs. Hygiene factors, also called dissatisfiers, are the factors that cause to dissatisfy or demotivate the employees of an organization.

The first similarity is that both of these theories suggest that motivators have to be in place for employees to be motivated.

Compare and Contrast Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory with Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation

The five main attributes that Herzberg suggested were motivators are, recognition, achievement, responsibility, advancement and the nature of work itself. Managers can do this by giving staff tasks where they can be independent and have responsibility of their actions.

On the other hand, in expectancy theory money is one of the main motivating factors. The first needs to be fulfilled were physiological needs, followed by security needs, social needs, esteem needs and finally the need for self-actualization.

This becomes clearer when looking more closely at the two theories theory. The valence model attempts to capture the perceived attractiveness, or valence, of an outcome by aggregating the attractiveness of all associated resultant outcomes.

There are some further similarities when considering de-motivation. Furthermore, managers are required to utilize organizational structure that hold rewards and performance together as well as ensuring rewards are worthy to employees, and should involve in training to improve employees ability and understanding that extra effort yields good performance.

In addition, both theories allows an individual to establish which results are most likely to motivate people and this will dictate the best measures to take as factors of their experiences and expectations.

There are two types of theories concerning motivation of employees. The second factor is instrumentality. Satisfied employees of an organization tend to be self-motivated while dissatisfied employees will not motivate to achieve organizational objectives.

Managers in businesses would use these theories of motivation in an attempt to motivate staff to provide them with job satisfaction and in return receive better task performance.

Similarly, both agree that there is a point where there is no motivation and no de-motivation. The most common of these is performance related paywhere employees receive higher pay for reaching targets.

Both Vroom and Herzberg agree that there are factors, separate from those that cause motivation, which cause people to be de-motivated, although they are not the same. A person is a wanting being — he always wants, and he wants more.

For example, if cash motivates someone, then taking leave would not be valuable to this person because he is not making money. It is clear that while Herzberg believed that when motivators are manipulated in the design of jobs, then this will result in feeling of satisfaction for those doing the job, expectancy theory is based on the perceptions of the employee, rather than the motivators put in place by management.

However, expectancy theory is based on a cognitive thought process. The first difference, which is important to understand, is that the two theories are based on different premise. Similarly, both theories also agree on many of the factors that motivate staff, such as recognition put in any other examples here too as you have said they agree on many factors.

Another difference is that while Herzberg suggests a wide range of hygiene factors that cause motivation in the work place, Vroom neglects to mention many factors that are not performance related that could cause de-motivation, such as relationships with other staff or working conditions.

In just about everything we do there is something that moves us to perform the action which involves some motivation allowing us to perform tasks or actions which produces some type of personal benefit as a result. In an organization, employees may be at different levels of the need hierarchy and, therefore, before planning the motivational strategies, an organization should identify in which level the current requirements of employees have been positioned.

Difference Between Maslow and Herzberg Theory of Motivation

Promotion is only going to act as a motivator to those who want to be promoted. Motivation is usually stimulated by a want where there is a gain to be had as a result of performing a certain task.

This is where an employee determines how likely it is that performance is going to lead to the completion of a personal goal. In more monotonous jobs where motivators are hard to implement, the relationship between staff and supervisors has been seen as key in increasing morale.

If an employee values recognition then it is important that this is put in place when an employee completes a task.

Hygiene factors include, supervision, salary, the work environment, company policies and relationships with colleagues. Herzberg uses hygiene factors to describe what de-motivates people at work. There are content theories which assume that people have the same needs and process theories which suggest people are motivated by different things.

On the other hand, the companies can motivate its employees by providing opportunities in career development, job recognition, responsibility, etc. The first of these is that Herzberg suggests that wages are a hygiene factor, so increasing wages cannot increase motivation.

The underlying difference in the source of motivation results in a major contrast between these theories. These can be very effective in motivating employees as long as targets are realistic and the reward in place is valued by staff.Transcript of Comparing and Contrasting Maslow vs.

Herzberg vs. McClelland THEORY OF NEEDS TWO FACTOR THEORY 1. There are specific levels as to which need has to come first or last.

Comparison of Maslow and Herzberg Theory of Motivation

2. Maslow's lower levels (physiological and security needs) are basically the - Theory of needs is like Herzberg’s motivators. Two Factor Theory. Herzberg's Two Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction (Hygiene factors - Motivators) and also of Vroom's Expectancy Theory.I shall then attempt to compare and contrast the two theories determining answer whether in general cases the two should or should not be combined and applied together with reasons.

At the end a direct discussion of the two theories and my business will be. Maslow vs Herzberg Theory of Motivation Difference between Maslow and Herzberg theory of motivation is that, Maslow’s theory is concerned about different levels of needs which affect the motivation levels of the employees; Herzberg’s two factor theory is concerned about the relationship between the employee satisfaction and motivation levels.

Both these theories are concerned about. Similarities and Differences Between the Theories of Motivation Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Alderfer's ERG Theory Herzberg's Two Factor Theory McClelland's Acquired Needs Theory.

Motivation Theory and Practice: Equity Theory vs. Expectancy Theory Theories such as John Stacy Adams’ Equity theory and Victor Vroom’s’ Expectancy (): Does Herzberg’s. Herzberg's two factor theory is a content theory, while Vroom's expectancy theory is a process theory.

Compare and Contrast Maslow’s Theory of Needs with Vroom’s Expectancy Theory

This is the source of many of differences between two theories. These differences, as well as others, will be looked at throughout this essay.

Download
Compare and contrast herzberg s two factor theory with vroom s expectancy theory
Rated 3/5 based on 99 review