The Enduring Impact of Great Ideas

Abstract

The ultimate measure of an idea is its resilience and enduring influence. In this paper, we examine the concepts of Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor, and Frederick Herzberg and the impact of their ideas on subsequent models of motivation, leadership and organizational design. We review the major contributions these authors have made and discuss the impact they continue to have on the practice of management. Specifically we show the connection between the ideas of Maslow, McGregor and Herzberg on the development of job design, empowerment and the evolution of transformational leadership. An integrative model is presented that shows the connections between the original ideas of Maslow, McGregor, and Herzberg and subsequent management thinkers.

Full text

“The Enduring Impact of Great Ideas”
AUTH ORS J.Lee Whittington
Bruce Evans
ARTICLE INFO J.Lee Whittington and Bruce Evans (2005). The Enduring Impact of Great Ideas.
Problems and Perspectives in Management, 3(2)
JOURNAL "Problems and Perspectives in Management"
FOUNDER LLC “Consulting Publishing Company “Business Perspectives”
NUMBER OF REFERENCES
0
NUMBER OF FIGURES
0
NUMBER OF TABLES
0
© The author(s) 2019. This publication is an open access article.
businessperspectives.org

Problems and Perspectives in Management, 2/2005
114
CHAPTER 3
GENERAL ISSUES IN MANAGEMENT
The Enduring Impact of Great Ideas
J. Lee Whittington, Bruce Evans
Abstract
The ultimate measure of an idea is its resilience and enduring influence. In this paper, we
examine the concepts of Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor, and Frederick Herzberg and the
impact of their ideas on subsequent models of motivation, leadership and organizational design.
We review the major contributions these authors have made and discuss the impact they continue
to have on the practice of management. Specifically we show the connection between the ideas of
Maslow, McGregor and Herzberg on the development of job design, empowerment and the evolu-
tion of transformational leadership. An integrative model is presented that shows the connections
between the original ideas of Maslow, McGregor, and Herzberg and subsequent management
thinkers.
Introduction
Attracting, keeping and motivating high-performers are becoming increasingly important
in contemporary organizations. The creation of work environments that provide a sense of chal-
lenge and meaningfulness for employees has become a priority. In fact, creating such a work envi-
ronment may very well be the strategic imperative of the new millennium. This perspective has
been recently articulated by Whetten and Cameron (1998) who concluded that “good people man-
agement” is more important than all other factors in predicting profitability.
Over the last twenty years a burgeoning market of popular business books has emerged to
address these concerns. This genre began with In Search of Excellence (Peters & Waterman, 1982)
and The One-Minute Manager (Blanchard & Johnson, 1983). The most recent best-selling addition
to the list is Jim Collins’ (2001) Good to Great. The plethora of books is supplemented by journals
aimed at the management practitioner. In fact, the Harvard Business Review recently began a prac-
tice of listing the most influential articles published in their journal during the previous year. The
articles on the HBR list cover topics on gaining employee commitment, attracting and retaining
top-performers, organizational structure, and leadership.
While these readings may have had some immediate impact, the real measure of an idea
is its resilience and enduring influence. In this paper, we review several ideas that we believe meet
this standard. Specifically, we review the concepts of Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor, and
Frederick Herzberg and discuss the impact of their concepts on subsequent models of motivation
and leadership.
Abraham Maslow: A Theory of Human Motivation
Arguably the most famous of management theorists, Abraham Maslow casts a long
shadow over the field of organizational behavior and the practice of management. In his classic
article, “A Theory of Human Motivation” (Maslow, 1943), he presented a “prepotent hierarchy” in
which at least five sets of needs compose the framework. The fundamental need classifications are:
physiological, safety, love, esteem, and self-actualization. Each of these needs operates at all
times, although one deficient set dominates the individual at any one time and circumstance. These
needs tend to manifest themselves in the order of their prepotency. We seek essential satisfaction
of the then prominent need by resolving basic, unconscious goals. The hierarchical nature of this
framework suggests that higher, unsatisfied needs usually appear after the satisfaction of those on

Problems and Perspectives in Management, 2/2005 115
the lower level. Thus for Maslow, need gratification is as important as deprivation in motivation.
At the base, the satisfaction of physiological needs “permits the emergence of other more social
goals.” In fact, satisfied needs are no longer motivators and for all practical purposes can be
viewed as nonexistent unless re-opened due to subsequent deprivation.
Maslow’s model has a wide appeal because of its conceptual clarity and simplicity. De-
spite this appeal the model has been criticized for several reasons (cf, Szilagyi & Wallace, 1990;
George & Jones, 2002). First, there is concern over the content of the hierarchy. Some research
suggests that there is no evidence for the five-need hierarchy, while others collapse the hierarchy
into two clusters, where both biological and safety groupings encompass what is deemed to be
lower level needs, and a global set that includes the higher order needs. Maslow was not locked
into only five needs. He considered the full range of cognitive needs. He did, however, view self-
actualization as the ultimate need. For those who reach this highest level, it involves being what
you are most capable of being: “a person becomes what he is most capable of becoming. What a
man can be, he must be” (Maslow, 1943, p. 370).
A second criticism of Maslow’s theory is that the needs of individuals should be viewed
as dynamic rather than static. The needs of individuals vary constantly as a function of the situa-
tions in which individuals are involved. Third, more than one level of need may be operating at
any given time. Finally, the theory states that an essentially satisfied need is not a motivator. This
may be valid in a general sense, but needs are never fully or permanently satisfied. Because needs
are perceived and reflect psychological or physiological deficiencies they must be continually and
repeatedly satisfied. If multiple needs are operating simultaneously, then it is not realistic to expect
the needs to be satisfied in a hierarchical order. This criticism may reflect the negligence of text-
book writers who have failed to recognize Maslow’s discussion of the fact that individuals may
flow back and forth along the hierarchy as time and circumstances impact the satisfaction or depri-
vation of needs.
Despite these criticisms, Maslow’s model continues to have an impact. It is still included
in management and organizational behavior texts. His theory continues to generate a common
sense appeal to practicing managers. Indeed, a recent publication stated that the application of
need driven behavior remains the foundation for most behavioral studies today (Anonymous,
2003). Maslow’s theory guides managers to recognize individual differences among employees
and thus provides a foundation for understanding human behavior.
Douglas McGregor: The Human Side of Enterprise
Maslow’s views of human motivation impacted the work of Douglas McGregor who be-
lieved that people worked hard to achieve deeply felt needs. According to McGregor (cited in Heil,
Bennis, & Stephens, 2000),
“All human behavior is directed toward the satisfaction of needs. From birth to
death, the individual is engaged in a constant attempt to satisfy his varied, complex, and
sometimes conflicting needs. Any given behavior is a resolution of forces arising in part
within him and in part in the environmental situation.”
McGregor proposed that managers use their authority in a positive manner to create an
environment that would augment employees’ natural desire to satisfy their needs. In order to create
such an environment, managers should examine their core assumptions about human nature to see
how these cognitions impacted their managerial behaviors. For McGregor, managers are only able
to change how they lead by first changing their thinking.
In his book The Human Side of Enterprise, McGregor (1960) identified two sets of as-
sumptions held by managers. The conventional view, labeled Theory X, stated that employees
inherently dislike work and, whenever possible, will attempt to avoid it. Since employees dislike
work, they must be coerced, controlled, or threatened with punishment to achieve goals. Further-
more, these employees will shirk responsibility and seek formal direction whenever possible. Most
workers place security above all other factors associated with work and will display little ambition.

Problems and Perspectives in Management, 2/2005
116
In contrast to the then (and now?) conventional view of the manager’s role, McGregor in-
troduced a “new theory of management,” labeled Theory Y. According to this view, employees
can view work being as natural as rest or play. People will exercise self-direction and self-control
if they are committed to their objectives. The average person can learn to accept, and even seek,
responsibility. The ability to make innovative decisions is widely dispersed throughout the popula-
tion and is not necessarily the sole province of those in management positions.
McGregor’s “new theory” is based on the higher needs of Maslow’s framework. In this
approach the job of management is to “create opportunities, release potential, remove obstacles,
encourage growth, and provide guidance.” McGregor identified several “innovative ideas” that
were “entirely consistent with Theory Y.” These included decentralization and delegation to create
flatter organizations of truly empowered employees. He advocated job enlargement that encour-
aged acceptance of responsibility which would provide intrinsic motivation. McGregor prescribed
a participative and consultative approach to management that would unleash the creative potential
of employees throughout the organization. He also advocated a participatory approach to goal-
setting in which the employee accepted responsibility in the performance planning and appraisal
process. These “new ideas” have found contemporary expression in a wide variety of motivational
and leadership strategies including job enrichment, goal-setting, and transformational leadership.
Douglas McGregor was a distinct prophet in our field. He envisioned a management fu-
ture where employees could perform because they wanted to. When managers in McGregor’s day
asked “Why don’t employees work as hard as I do?” McGregor’s answer would have been “Why
would they?” What needs are being fulfilled if an individual is being told what to do, how to do it,
and when prescribed results are required? This pillar in organizational behavior opened our minds
to motivated workers who perform because they want to. They are turned on by a work position
that taps their unmet, higher needs. Their supervisor is supportive and explains why certain work
activities are happening. This manager’s mind opens to new ideas about the workplace and under
appropriate conditions a tremendous amount of creative human energy can be unleashed through-
out organizations. Agreeing with Maslow, the key to motivated behavior is activating driven, un-
satisfied higher order needs.
Parenthetically, it is sad to discover that many managers espouse McGregor’s thinking,
yet treat workers in a manner that is consistent with Theory X. This disguised reversal to earlier
times is usually maintained with performance management programs where a check mark on a
specified work activities chart indicates compliance with higher-level managers’ expectations. The
employee is described as a subordinate (check the Latin derivation of this pejorative word to un-
derstand its compliance source) instead of being elevated as a team member, colleague, or associ-
ate. This wolf in sheep’s clothing approach to managing people does a huge disservice to both
Maslow’s and McGregor’s far-reaching management concepts.
Frederick Herzberg: One More Time…How Do You Motivate Em-
ployees?
Frederick Herzberg (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman 1959; 1974) simplified Maslow’s
need hierarchy into two distinct dimensions: hygiene factors and motivators. The hygiene factors
consisted of a set of extrinsic job conditions that included job security, wages, benefits, working
conditions, company policies, quality of technical supervision, and the quality of interpersonal
relations in the work place. According to Herzberg these factors were associated with dissatisfac-
tion. If they were not acceptable, employees would be dissatisfied. Yet if they were present in the
workplace they did not lead to motivation or satisfaction, but only to a state of no dissatisfaction.
The hygiene factors parallel the lower-level needs of Maslow’s hierarchy: physiological, safety,
and social needs.
In contrast to these, Herzberg identified a set of intrinsic job conditions that were associ-
ated with motivation. These factors were labeled motivators and included achievement, recogni-
tion, personal growth, responsibility, personal development, and career advancement. These fac-
tors correspond to most of the higher-level needs on Maslow’s hierarchy. If and only if, these fac-

Problems and Perspectives in Management, 2/2005 117
tors were present would employees be satisfied and motivated. The absence of these factors re-
sulted in a state of no satisfaction.
Maslow
xHerzberg
Job Characteristics
As “motivators”
haracteristics
xMcGregor
Performance appraisal,
participatory
management, delegation
& decentralization, job
enlargement
xBurns
Transforming
leadership
Contemporary
Motivational, Leadership,
and Organizational
Strategies
xJob design & redesign
xJob enrichment
xGoal-setting
xOrganic structures
xEmpowerment
xFlat organizations
xTeam-based organizations
xTransformational
leadership
xFull range of leadership
Fig. 1. Maslow’s Legacy: The Enduring Impact of Great Ideas
Job Enrichment and the Job Characteristics Model
Herzberg’s ideas of intrinsic motivators that existed inside the job itself led to the devel-
opment of job design as a motivational strategy. Perhaps the most representative model of this
approach was created by Hackman and Oldham (1976, 1980). They developed a model of task
design that identified five core job dimensions: task variety, task identity, task significance, auton-
omy, and feedback. Jobs that have these dimensions are said to be enriched and have a high moti-
vating potential (Oldham, Hackman, & Pearce, 1976). According to their model, the presence of
these core dimensions produces three critical psychological states: a sense of meaningfulness in
the work, a sense of responsibility for the work, and knowledge of the results of one's work
(KOR). These critical psychological states in turn produce a variety of positive individual and or-
ganizational outcomes. Among these are high internal motivation, high quality of work perform-
ance, high satisfaction with the work, and low levels of absenteeism and turnover. Thus, the im-
pact of the core job dimensions on these outcomes is mediated by the critical psychological states.
An important element of Hackman and Oldham’s original model that is often overlooked
in contemporary textbooks is the moderating role of individual growth need strength and satisfac-
tion with the general working conditions. According to Hackman and Oldham’s model, the rela-
tionship between the core job dimensions and the critical psychological states, and the relationship
between the critical psychological states and the outcomes are both moderated by two additional
variables: satisfaction with the general working conditions and the individual employee's growth
need strength. This element suggests that essential satisfaction of Herzberg’s hygiene factors is a
necessary prerequisite to the potentially motivating impact of job enrichment efforts. Thus, jobs
that have been enriched through redesign efforts will only produce the critical psychological states
and favorable outcomes if the general working conditions are favorable and the employee has a
high level of growth need strength.
Using the Hackman and Oldham (1976, 1980) job characteristics model, Griffin (1991)
examined the relationships between task design and job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and performance in a longitudinal field experiment. In his study, Griffin combined five task char-
acteristics (task variety, identity, significance, autonomy, and feedback) into an overall motivating
potential score, or MPS. The relationship between MPS and the criterion was examined four times
over a forty-eight month period. At each point, the MPS was significantly and positively related to
job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In the third and fourth periods, MPS also had a
significant and positive relationship with performance. It is important to note that Griffin (1991)
found these significant relationships without examining the moderating impact of the employee’s
growth need strength and contextual satisfaction on the relationship between MPS and the crite-

Problems and Perspectives in Management, 2/2005
118
rion. These results suggest that the relationship between task characteristics, as measured by MPS,
and a variety of criterion variables is more direct than previously discussed. Thus, enriched jobs
are positively related to a wide variety of positive outcomes, including employee job satisfaction,
commitment to the organization, and performance.
Goal-Setting
Maslow’s need theory and McGregor’s Theory Y provide the foundation for goal-setting,
which is perhaps the most powerful of all motivational models (Locke & Latham, 1990). Fore-
shadowed by Maslow (1943) who observed that individuals tend to create goals that will satisfy
their unmet needs, the impact of goal setting on employee performance has been documented on a
wide variety of tasks in both laboratory and field settings (Locke & Latham, 1990; Mento, Steel, &
Karren, 1987). The robustness of the relationship prompted Mento et al. (1987, p. 74) to conclude
that "if there is ever to be a viable candidate from the organizational sciences for elevation to the
lofty status of a scientific law of nature, then the relationships between goal difficulty, specificity/
difficulty, and task performance are most worthy of serious consideration. Certainly, if nothing
else, the evidence from numerous studies indicates that these variables behave lawfully." The
"lawful" nature of the impact of goal setting has been described as the high performance cycle
(Locke & Latham, 1990). The process begins with a high level of challenge in the form of specific,
difficult goals. When employees are committed to these goals, receive adequate feedback, possess
high self-efficacy and suitable task strategies, high performance will result. If high performance
leads to desired intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, employees will experience high levels of satisfac-
tion. High job satisfaction is, in turn, strongly related to commitment, and consequently high inten-
tions to remain in an organization. Employees who are satisfied and committed are then ready to
accept additional challenges. Thus, the cycle repeats itself. The high performance cycle may lead
to performance beyond expectations, extra-role behaviors, and commitment to the organization.
Empowerment
Perhaps the most popular motivational strategy to emerge over the past twenty years is
empowerment. For many managers this technique was simply delegating authority or engaging in
a more participative decision-making and leadership style. These interpretations rang hollow and
have been heavily criticized (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer and Quinn, 2001). When prac-
ticing in this way employees experience a bogus empowerment (Ciulla, 1998) that promises em-
ployees the freedom and resources to act on their judgments, but fails to deliver. Spreitzer and
Quinn identify five reasons for the failure of most attempts to embrace empowerment: ambiva-
lence, bureaucratic cultures, conflicts within the organization, personal time constraints, and a fun-
damental misunderstanding of how empowerment is achieved.
In contrast to these failed approaches, Conger and Kanungo (1988) define empowerment
as a process of enhancing feelings of self-efficacy. This is done by identifying and removing the
conditions that foster powerlessness and through formal organizational practices and informal
techniques of providing efficacy information. This process is echoed in the work of Spreitzer and
Quinn (2001) who claim that genuine empowerment requires a change in the mindset of authority
to figures. This shift requires the creation of leaders who have the courage to give up control and
trust empowered people to do the right thing. The result is employees who experience the four
psychological dimensions at work. First, empowered employees will experience meaning. Mean-
ing refers to having a personal connection to work. As such this is similar to the significance di-
mension of the job characteristics model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). The second dimension is
self-determination which refers to having freedom and discretion. This dimension parallels the
characteristic of autonomy in the job characteristics model. The third dimension is competence
which refers to an individual’s confidence about their abilities. This dimension is consistent with
Conger and Kanungo’s view of empowerment as increasing self-efficacy. The final dimension is
impact which refers to the experience of making a difference. This parallels the sense of meaning-

Problems and Perspectives in Management, 2/2005 119
fulness that results from the variety, identity, and significance dimensions of the job characteristics
model.
The elements of authentic empowerment developed by Conger and Kanungo (1988) and
Spreitzer and Quinn (2001) are rooted in the Theory Y assumptions advocated by McGregor.
These elements are also in alignment with Herzberg’s suggestions for motivating employees. The
result of these practices will lead to satisfaction of the higher order needs identified by Maslow.
Transformational Leadership
The work of Maslow also impacted Pulitzer prize-winning historian and political scientist
James McGregor Burns’ thinking on leadership. Recently Burns (2003) discussed the impact of
Maslow’s approach to motivation regarding the development of transforming leadership:
“Few other motivational theories matched Maslow’s in boldness and intellectual
creativity. His theory had the virtues of clarity, economy, and flexibility, without sacrifice
of comprehensiveness. Like the behaviorists, Maslow began with survival wants, yet he saw
the higher wants as more than the mere compounding of the lower-order motivations. Peo-
ple were qualitatively transformed as they proceeded up the hierarchy of wants, and this
motivation for continual betterment was at the heart of Maslow’s idea of human nature.
Unlike the Freudians, Maslow was above all an optimist. Not only did he describe ultimate
human potential in the most generous terms of self-actualization, he held that people were
powerfully motivated to achieve that potential. A theorist of leadership found in Maslow’s
ideas an account of progressive change grounded squarely in the motivations of leaders
and followers alike” (pp. 148-149, italics in the original).
According to Burns (2003), Maslow’s model had a striking appeal because of the poten-
tial link between Maslow’s drive for self-actualization and the motivation for leadership. Burns
saw that the creativity, capacity for growth and learning, flexibility and openness that character-
ized self-actualization were near to the characteristics of leadership. Burns did, however, make a
crucial distinction between self-actualizing individuals and leadership self-actualization. While
self-actualizing individuals were self-contained and autonomous, “leadership self-actualization is
pursued through a process of mutual actualization with others” in a commitment to a purpose that
transcends the individual (Burns, 2003, p. 143).
For Burns (1978) power and leadership are relationships that must be analyzed in a con-
text of human motives and physical constraints. For Burns, power is a process “in which power
holders, possessing certain motives and goals, have the capacity to secure changes in the behavior
of a respondent.” This power relationship consisted of three elements: the motives and resources of
power holders, the motives and resources of power recipients, and the relationship among all three.
Building on this definition of power, Burns drew a sharp distinction between leaders and
power wielders. Power wielders use the resources of their power bases that are relevant to the at-
tainment of their own purposes. In contrast, Burns defines leadership as a process that takes place
in the context of a relationship between leaders and followers. Through this process leaders induce
followers to achieve goals that represent the values, motivations, wants, needs, aspirations and
expectations, of both leaders and followers. Thus, leadership is viewed as a mutually beneficial
and reciprocal relationship. As such, leadership, unlike naked power wielding, is thus inseparable
from followers’ needs and goals. According to Burns, “power wielders may treat people as things,
but leaders may not. All leaders are actual or potential power holders, but not all power holders are
leaders.” This understanding of power is consistent with McGregor’s Theory Y assumptions about
people.
According to Burns, leadership can take two fundamentally different forms: transactional
and transformational. Transactional leadership takes the initiative in making contact with others
for the purpose of an exchange of valued things. This type of leadership is based on a contractual
ethic that emphasizes contingent rewards. While a leadership act may take place, it is not necessar-
ily one that builds leader and follower together in a mutual and continuing pursuit of a higher pur-
pose. In contrast to transactional leadership, Burns presents transforming leadership. According to
Burns transformational leadership occurs when leaders and followers interact with each other in

Problems and Perspectives in Management, 2/2005
120
such a way that they raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. It becomes
moral in that it raises the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both leader and led, and
thus has a transforming effect on both. Thus, transformational leadership is rooted in a covenant
relationship, rather than a contractual one. Thus, transforming leadership creates a relationship
between the leader and the follower that is characterized by reciprocity of influence and mutual
vulnerability.
Burns’ concept of transforming leadership has been operationalized as transformational
leadership in the work of Bass and his associates (e.g. Bass, 1985; Avolio, 1999). Transforma-
tional leadership is distinguished from transactional leadership behavior in several ways. Transac-
tional leadership emphasizes the transactions or exchanges that take place between leaders and
their followers. These exchanges are based on the leader’s identification of performance require-
ments and clarification of the conditions and rewards that are available for meeting those require-
ments. Transformational leaders do more with their followers than simply develop conditional
exchanges and agreements. Although transformational leaders may exhibit transactional behaviors
(Wofford, Goodwin, & Whittington, 1998), their leadership style also includes one or more of the
following behaviors: ascribed charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and in-
dividualized consideration (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Avolio, 1999). Through these behaviors an envi-
ronment is created that allows employees to do more than initially expected. When this occurs, the
employees report higher levels of satisfaction and commitment to their organization (Bass, 1997;
Avolio, 1999; Whittington, 2003).
The Present Challenge
Facing the reality found in many organizations today, where downsizing has severed em-
ployee relationships, and where today's managers are focused on immediate financial results, indi-
viduals are regularly denied the motivational forces found in the Maslow-McGregor-Herzberg
triad. The current economic conditions, parlayed into hygienic environments, are sucking away the
positive motivational contributions that our pillar authors have described. Sound theory remains
sound, however.
Despite current economic conditions, attracting, keeping and motivating high-performers
are increasingly important in contemporary organizations. The creation of work environments that
provide a sense of challenge and meaningfulness for employees has become the strategic impera-
tive of the new millenium. This perspective has been recently articulated by Whetten and Cameron
(1998) who concluded that “good people management” is more important than all other factors in
predicting profitability. It is interesting to note that this strategic imperative was foreshadowed in
the works of Maslow and McGregor.
In support of this perspective, Pfeffer (1998) sees people as the only remaining source of
sustainable competitive advantage. He advocates the creation of new organizations that emphasize
seven characteristics: employment security, selective hiring of new personnel, self-managed teams
and decentralized decision making as the basic principles of organizational design, comparatively
high compensation that is contingent upon organizational performance, extensive training, reduced
status distinctions and barriers, and extensive sharing of financial and performance information
throughout the organization. These practices certainly reflect the Theory Y perspectives advocated
by McGregor.
The development and implementation of Pfeffer’s keys to organizational effectiveness re-
quires a “new” mindset. According to Lawler (2000) a new form of managing and organizing must
be created that addresses three vital issues: how will individuals know what to do, how will they
be trained and developed, and what will motivate them to do it? To address this need, Lawler ad-
vocates a “new logic” organization built around six principles. First, effective organization can be
the ultimate competitive advantage. This principle suggests that management systems, processes,
and structures are the foundation that must be laid to create a competitive advantage that allows
the organization to perform in ways that competitors cannot.
Second, employee involvement is the most effective source of control. Involvement cre-
ates intrinsic controls because the employees have a sense of ownership and the employees focus

Problems and Perspectives in Management, 2/2005 121
their energy and creativity on the improvement of organizational processes. Third, when employ-
ees are involved in their work it is possible for all employees to add significant value to the or-
ganization. The fourth principle is that lateral processes are the keys to achieving organizational
effectiveness.
The fifth principle states that team-based work designs are necessary and that the various
organizational subsystems, such as reward and performance evaluations, must be aligned to sup-
port this structure. Lawler suggests that this team-based approach to organizing should be centered
on products and customers rather than the traditional functions of the organization.
Finally, Lawler calls for transformational leadership that impacts the organization’s effec-
tiveness by setting direction, defining the agenda, adjusting strategy to address the changing busi-
ness environment, and serving as a role model for leaders throughout the organization.
While the practices suggested by Pfeffer (1998) and Lawler (2000) are labeled as “new”,
they actually reflect the higher-order needs of Maslow and are based on the Theory Y perspective
advocated by McGregor.
The legacy of Abraham Maslow can be seen directly in the works of Douglas McGregor
and Frederick Herzberg. The impact of their ideas extends into the motivational models of job en-
richment, goal-setting, empowerment, and the transformational model of leadership that has domi-
nated recent research and practice. In many ways, the “new thinking” suggested by contemporary
management scholars is really an extension of the work of Maslow and his disciples. Thus the road
to building high-commitment organizations requires the solid foundation laid by Maslow,
McGregor, and Herzberg.
References
1. Anonymous (2003). “Rules of engagement,” Bulletin to Management, Vol. 54, 2, Jan. 9,
2003, p. 9f.
2. Avolio, B. (1999). Full Leadership Development. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
3. Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: The Free
Press.
4. Bass, B. (1990). Bass and Stodgill’s Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press.
5. Bass, B. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130-139.
6. Bass, B. & Avolio, B. (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Trans-
formational Leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
7. Blanchard, K. & Johnson, S. (1983) The One-Minute Manager. New York: Penguin-
Putnam.
8. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
9. Burns, J. M. (2003) Transforming Leadership. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
10. Ciulla, J. 1998. Leadership and the problem of bogus empowerment. In J. Ciulla (Ed.),
Ethics: The Heart of Leadership. Westport, CN: Praeger.
11. Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. New York: Harper Collins.
12. Conger, J. & Kanungo, R. 1998. The empowerment process: Integrating theory and prac-
tice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3): 471-482.
13. George, J. & Jones, G. (2002). Understanding and Managing Organizational Behavior, 3rd
Edition. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
14. Griffin, R. (1980) Task Design: An Integrative Approach. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman,
& Company.
15. Griffin, R. (1991). Effects of work redesign on employee perceptions, attitudes and be-
haviors: A long-term investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 425-435.
16. Hackman, J. & Oldham, G. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a the-
ory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
17. Hackman, J. & Oldham, G. (1980). Work Design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
18. Heil, Bennis, & Stephens (2000). Douglas McGregor, Revisited: Managing the Human
Side of Enterprise. New York: Wiley.

Problems and Perspectives in Management, 2/2005
122
19. Herzberg, F. (1974) One more time…how do you motivate employees? Harvard Business
Review.
20. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Snyderman, B. (1959). The Motivation to Work, 2nd Edition.
New York: Wiley.
21. Lawler, E. (2000). From the Ground Up: Six Principles for Building the New Logic Cor-
poration. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
22. Locke, E. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 662-674.
23. Locke, E. & Latham, G. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
24. Maslow, A. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
25. Maslow, A.(1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper.
26. McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
27. Mento, A., Steel, R., & Karren, R. (1987). A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal
setting on task performance: 1966-1984. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 39, 52-83.
28. Oldham, G., Hackman, J., & Pearce, J. (1976). Conditions under which employees re-
spond positively to enriched work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 395-403.
29. Peters, T. & Waterman, R. (1982) In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s best-
run Companies.New York: Harper &Row.
30. Pfeffer, J. (1998). The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First.
Boston:Harvard Business School Press.
31. Spreitzer, G. & Quinn, R. (2001). A Company of Leaders: Five Disciplines for Unleash-
ing the Power in Your Workforce. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
32. Szilagyi, A. & Wallace, M. (1990). Organizational Behavior and Performance, 5th Edi-
tion. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing.
33. Whetten, D.A. and Cameron, K.S. (1998) Developing Management Skills, Third Edition.
HarperCollins, New York.
34. Whitsett, D. & Winslow, E. (1967). “An analysis of studies critical of the motivator – hy-
giene theory,” Personnel Psychology, 391-416.
35. Whittington, J. L. (2003) “Motivational strategies for a new millenium: An integrative
model of transformational leadership, followership, job enrichment and goal-setting” in
B. Pattanayak and V. Gupta (Eds.) Creating Performing Organizations, New Dehli: Sage
Publications.
36. Wofford, J. C., Goodwin, V. L., & Whittington, J. L. 1998. A field study of a cognitive
approach to understanding transformational and transactional leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly,9(1), 55-84.