Content uploaded by Navreet Kaur
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Navreet Kaur on Nov 21, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Navreet Kaur and Anmol Sandhu, International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences,
ISSN 2250-0588, Impact Factor: 6.565, Volume 09 Issue 04, April 2019, Page 278-285
http://indusedu.org Page 278
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
The Effect of Organizational Hierarchy on
Fulfilment of Employee Needs in an Indian
Organization
Dr. Navreet Kaur1 and Anmol Sandhu2
1(Associate Professor, Chitkara Business School, Chitkara University, Punjab)
2(Research Scholar, Chitkara University, Punjab)
Abstract: The present research aims to investigate perceived deficiencies in need fulfilment and perceived need
importance as a function of hierarchical position within the organization. 120 respondents (40 each from upper,
middle, and lower management levels) were chosen randomly from a public sector telecommunications firm
manufacturing a wide range of telecom products. Data was collected using Porter’s 15-item Need Satisfaction
Questionnaire which is based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Results revealed that except social needs,
perceived deficiency in need fulfilment is lesser at the upper management level. The satisfaction in regard to
security, social, and autonomy needs reflected unique patterns across the 3 subgroups of respondents. The
study has implications for human resource management and employee engagement.
Keywords: Needs, Organizational hierarchy, Need fulfilment, Need importance, Employees
I. INTRODUCTION
The interaction of the working environment with motivational variables, value systems, and attitudes is
an integral part of the study of human behaviour at work. Motivation plays a very important role in work
behaviour. Work motivation has three major components (Steers and Porter, 1975; McCormick and Ilgen, 1984)
viz. energizing component, directing component, maintaining or sustaining component. Employees once hired
are expected to maintain high attendance and good performance, hence, the third function of motivation is
particularly important to work settings.
Unlike the process theories, the need or content theories of motivation focus on the structure and the
variety of human needs: the primary driving forces behind employee behaviour in organizational settings.
Practically, the effectiveness of an incentive system will increase if the need structure of the employees is kept
in mind.
Maslow’s (1943), much popular theory in organizational literature:
a) Identifies the needs which are the basis of motivation.
b) Explains how these needs are related to each other.
His model consists of two fundamental premises:
1. Human beings seldom reach a state of complete satisfaction except for a short time and, hence, are
continuously in a motivational state. Once a certain need is satisfied, it loses its potency as a
motivational force and the next higher level of needs is activated. Many of the needs are cyclical and
the nature of motivation is fluctuating and complex. There are 5 sets of needs that individuals are
driven by or pursue, in varying degrees: Physiological, safety, belongingness, esteem, and self-
actualization.
2. The above needs are universal and are arranged in a hierarchical form with those lower in the hierarchy
being pre-potent i.e. taking precedence over those higher.
The misinterpretation that the lower order needs had to be satisfied before higher order needs (the
component of self-esteem emanating from within and the need for self-actualization) began to operate was
clarified by Maslow (1970). He stated that the lower order needs are generally satisfied to a greater extent than
those higher in the hierarchy, but there can be a possibility of the two types of needs operating at the same time.
Also, there can be individual exceptions to the theory, such as individuals who would forego all their wants and
give up their life for their ideas and convictions (Locke, 1976).
In sum, various needs are interdependent. Individuals may re-order the needs violating a strict
adherence to the hierarchy. Maslow also talked about the unconscious character of needs. He did emphasize that
human behaviour is multi-determined and multi-motivated.
McGregor (1960) in his book: ‘The Human Side of Enterprise’ adapted Maslow’s theory to
management and modified the labels attached to the various need categories viz. pay (basic needs); seniority
plans, union, health insurance, employee assistance plans, pension (security needs); formal and informal work
groups (social needs); titles, status symbols, promotions (ego/esteem needs); personal growth and realization of
potential (self-actualization).
Navreet Kaur and Anmol Sandhu, International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences,
ISSN 2250-0588, Impact Factor: 6.565, Volume 09 Issue 04, April 2019, Page 278-285
http://indusedu.org Page 279
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Research on Maslow’s Model:
There are two sorts of studies: Those that support the hierarchical concept and those that don’t.A
number of studies are directly and indirectly related to the hierarchical concept and support the importance of
satisfying lower order needs (biological and safety) before higher order needs emerge as motivators of
behaviour (e.g. Hampton et al. 1973; Cofer and Appley, 1964).Studies show that it is not necessary for
socialization needs to be satisfied before higher order needs become important. The needs for socialization, self-
esteem and self-actualization can become simultaneously important after the satisfaction of lower order needs.
Longitudinal studies provide no support to the theory. Lawler and Suttle (1972) found that the
satisfaction of lower order needs was inversely related with their importance. But no such relationship wasfound
for socialization and higher order needs. The hierarchical nature of the theory simply does not hold. Hall and
Nougaim (1968) found that as managers advanced in organizations, their need for safety decreased with an
increase in their needs for social interaction, achievement and self-actualization. They followed executives over
several years with the hypotheses that as a need became satisfied, its importance should drop. But just the
opposite occurred. The more satisfied the respondents were with a particular need, the more important it was
seen to be. However, later Maslow did clarify his position on the point saying that the gratification of the self-
actualizing need of growth-motivated individuals can actually increase rather than decrease the need.
Alderfer (1969), Goodman (1968), and Porter (1961) have shown that workers at the lower levels of
the organization tend to be more concerned with lower order needs especially job security, while managers at
the higher-levels are more concerned with higher order needs.
Positive Psychology lies at the heart of Maslow’s theory but as indicated by research findings, it is not
the final answer in explaining work motivation. It does, despite criticism, make the employer aware that the
employees have diverse needs at work, some of which are “high level”.
Porter’s Research:
In the early 60s a series of cross sectional studies were conducted by Porter on various work groups. In
general, it was found that managers reported better satisfied lower order needs and a bigger concern for higher
order needs as compared to workers. The studies lend partial support to Maslow’s model in an industrial setting.
Porter (1961) conducted a survey on 64 bottom level managers (foreman) and 75 middle level managers from 3
different companies. Based on need fulfilment deficiency scores and need importance scores of the respondents,
he concluded that security, esteem and autonomy needs were more satisfied in the middle than in bottom
management level whereas higher order psychological needs were least satisfied at both levels. The latter were
perceived as more important along with security needs by both categories of respondents.
The responses of a nation-wide sample of managers and executives from 5 different management levels
showed that majority of the cases felt that there should be more opportunity for various needs to be fulfilled than
actually existed (Porter, 1962). The needs for self-actualization and autonomy were consistently the least
fulfilled needs at all levels of management. The needs for esteem, autonomy and self-actualization emerged as
particularly central to the study.
In terms of need-importance, higher level managers placed more emphasis on self-actualization and
autonomy needs than lower level managers did (Porter, 1963 a). Differences between various employee groups
on the two motivational constructs viz. need fulfilment deficiency and need importance were smaller due to
horizontal organizational structure than due to vertical organizational structure (Porter, 1963 b).
Another variable examined by Porter (1963 c) was the size of the organization. In smaller companies,
managers at lower levels were more satisfied than those in larger companies. The reason being that in large
companies there are greater number of silos above a bottom level manager thus preventing him to exercise
control. The present study is a replication of Porter’s work in the Indian industrial setting.
II. NEED FOR THE STUDY
Very few studies on Maslow’s need-hierarchy have been conducted in the Indian setting. The study is
an attempt at investigating this widely acclaimed theory of work motivation.
Objectives
a. To study the impact of the organizational hierarchy on need fulfilment.
b. To study the importance attributed to each of the needs in Maslow’s theory at different levels of the
organizational hierarchy.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis (i): The higher order psychological needs of esteem and autonomy will be satisfied to a greater
extent at middle and upper management levels as compared to bottom management level.
Hypothesis (ii): The highest order need of self-actualization will be fulfilled to a greater extent at the upper
management level as compared to bottom and middle management level.
Hypothesis (iii): Upper management personnel will perceive the highest order need of self-actualization as
more important as compared to bottom and middle management personnel.
Navreet Kaur and Anmol Sandhu, International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences,
ISSN 2250-0588, Impact Factor: 6.565, Volume 09 Issue 04, April 2019, Page 278-285
http://indusedu.org Page 280
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
III. METHODOLOGY
Sample
120 respondents (40 each from upper, middle, and lower management levels; 38% females and 62%
males) were chosen randomly from a public-sector telecommunications firm (near Chandigarh city) catering to
the diverse communication needs of a wide spectrum of telecom users in government, semi-government, and
private sectors. It is a multi-product company manufacturing a wide range of sophisticated multiplexing,
switching and transmission products (such as FAX machines, digital radios, telephone wires etc.). The company
also offers a wide range of software packages customized for communication projects. The upper management
personnel (mean age= 44.2 years) comprised of joint managers and senior managers. Middle management
(mean age= 31.6 years) included materials officers, accounts officers, junior officers and engineers. Lower level
(mean age= 25.4 years) personnel were essentially typists and assistants.
Test Material
Porter’s 15-item Need Satisfaction Questionnaire developed by Porter (1961) was used as a
measuring instrument. It has been widely used by researchers. 13 items typically pertain to Maslow’s 5 need
categories: basic, security, social/belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization. In addition Porter has included
an ‘autonomy category’ comprising of 2 items and inserted it between esteem and self actualization need
categories. The reason being that autonomy is closely associated with self esteem. Deficiency in basic needs is
assessed in terms of pay and special wage increases; security needs in terms of job security; social needs
through the opportunity to help others and develop friendships at work; esteem needs with regard to the feeling
of self esteem at work, the prestige attached to it both inside and outside the company and recognition given to
efficient employees; autonomy is measured through degree of authority and opportunity for independent
decision making at the respective job level; self actualization through the opportunity for personal development,
a feeling self fulfilment and worthwhile accomplishment resulting in pride in one’s work.
The respondents are required to answer three questions for every item, on a 7-point rating scale. For
instance, the opportunity for independent thought and action in my management position (need for autonomy,
item no. 11):
a. How much is there now?
b. How much should there be?
c. How important is this to me?
Two types of scores are obtained:
i. Perceived need deficiency (obtained by subtracting the rating on part a. from that on part b. of each
item. A positive score indicates deficiency and ,therefore, need dissatisfaction)
ii. Perceived need importance (obtained by responses on part c. of each item)
Data Analysis
After having obtained the scores on perceived deficiency in need fulfilment and perceived need
importance, average ratings on these two motivational constructs were calculated for the 6 need categories for
each of the 3 subgroups of respondents.
These were further ranked. The need category for which the need-fulfilment deficiency score was the
highest was accorded a rank of 1 which indicates that the particular need is perceived as least fulfilled. The
higher the rank, the lesser is the need satisfied. Similarly, the average need importance scores were ranked. The
need category for which the need importance score was the highest was accorded a rank of 1, which indicates
that the particular need is perceived as most important. The higher the rank, the more important the need.
IV. RESULTS
Table 1: Item-wise mean ratings depicting the degree to which there is an opportunity within the organization
for the fulfilment of each of the needs (obtained from answers to question a. of the questionnaire) at the three
management levels
Need Category
Item
Upper Management
Middle
Management
Lower Management
Basic
1
2
4.20
4.86
3.71
3.62
2.63
2.51
Security
3
5.54
2.83
2.72
Social
4
5
2.52
2.84
3.01
3.62
5.82
5.21
Esteem
6
7
8
9
5.68
6.03
5.01
4.08
4.02
4.12
4.20
3.93
1.82
2.43
2.02
2.84
Autonomy
10
5.81
3.41
2.41
Navreet Kaur and Anmol Sandhu, International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences,
ISSN 2250-0588, Impact Factor: 6.565, Volume 09 Issue 04, April 2019, Page 278-285
http://indusedu.org Page 281
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
11
5.01
3.01
2.01
Self-Actualization
12
13
14
15
5.21
5.02
5.45
5.34
4.20
3.21
3.50
3.02
1.91
2.02
2.40
2.80
Table 2: Mean ratings depicting the degree to which there is an opportunity within the organization for the
fulfilment of each of the needs at the three management levels
Need Category
Upper Management
Middle Management
Lower Management
Basic
4.53
3.67
2.57
Security
5.54
2.83
2.72
Social
2.68
3.32
5.52
Esteem
5.20
4.07
2.28
Autonomy
5.41
3.21
2.21
Self-Actualization
5.26
3.48
2.28
Table 3: Item-wise mean need-fulfilment deficiency ratings (based on responses to questions a. and b. of the
questionnaire) for each need category at the three management levels
Need Category
Item
Upper Management
Middle
Management
Lower Management
Basic
1
2
1.25
1.40
3.01
3.07
3.75
4.00
Security
3
0.40
4.02
3.84
Social
4
5
4.82
4.01
2.80
3.03
0.25
0.40
Esteem
6
7
8
9
1.35
0.50
0.55
1.80
3.00
2.28
3.90
3.00
4.02
4.01
3.80
3.82
Autonomy
10
11
1.02
0.09
4.04
3.99
5.21
5.01
Self-Actualization
12
13
14
15
1.58
1.67
1.01
1.03
3.02
3.80
4.01
3.56
5.02
4.82
4.00
4.01
Table 4: Mean need-fulfilment deficiency ratings and the corresponding rank order for each of the six need
categories at the three management levels
Management Level
Basic
Needs
Security
Needs
Social
Needs
Esteem
Needs
Autonomy
Needs
Self-actualization
Needs
Upper
Management
1.32
0.40
4.42
1.05
0.56
1.32
Rankings
2.5
6
1
4
5
2.5
Middle
Management
3.04
4.02
2.99
3.04
4.02
3.60
Rankings
4.5
1.5
6
4.5
1.5
3
Lower
Management
3.88
3.84
0.33
3.91
5.11
4.46
Rankings
4
5
6
3
1
2
Table 5: Item-wise mean need-importance ratings (based on responses to question c. of the questionnaire) for
each need category at the three management levels
Need Category
Item
Upper Management
Middle Management
Lower Management
Basic
1
2
5.90
5.70
6.25
6.35
6.20
6.40
Security
3
6.10
6.20
6.45
Social
4
5
5.95
6.05
5.90
6.10
6.05
5.95
Esteem
6
6.35
6.40
6.30
Navreet Kaur and Anmol Sandhu, International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences,
ISSN 2250-0588, Impact Factor: 6.565, Volume 09 Issue 04, April 2019, Page 278-285
http://indusedu.org Page 282
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
7
8
9
6.30
6.25
6.55
6.45
6.35
6.30
5.85
5.70
6.30
Autonomy
10
11
5.85
6.10
5.90
5.85
6.10
6.30
Self-Actualization
12
13
14
15
6.00
6.20
6.35
6.45
5.85
5.95
6.25
6.10
5.85
6.05
5.65
5.90
Table 6: Mean need-importance ratings and the corresponding rank order for each of the six need categories at
the three management levels
Management Level
Basic
Needs
Security
Needs
Social
Needs
Esteem
Needs
Autonomy
Needs
Self-actualization
Needs
Upper
Management
5.80
6.10
6.00
6.36
5.98
6.25
Rankings
6
3
4
1
5
2
Middle
Management
6.30
6.20
6.00
6.38
5.88
6.04
Rankings
2
3
5
1
6
4
Lower
Management
6.30
6.45
6.00
6.04
6.20
5.86
Rankings
2
1
5
4
3
6
Perceived Deficiencies in Need Fulfilment:
Tables 1 and 2 show that the degree to which the organization satisfies different employee needs varies
between the 3 subgroups of respondents viz. upper, middle, and lower management. An examination of Tables 3
and 4 shows that except for security and social needs, perceived deficiencies in need fulfilment tend to increase
as one moves from upper to lower management level. The trend for social needs, however, is the reverse with
need fulfilment deficiencies increasing from lower (mean rating=0.33) to upper levels of management (mean
rating=4.42). In other words, the upper management personnel perceived a greater deficiency in the fulfilment
of social needs. Furthermore, the middle level managers perceived greatest job insecurity. The deficiency in the
fulfilment of security needs in the middle management (mean rating=4.02) was even higher than lower level
employees (mean rating=3.84).
Table 4 shows ranking of the 6 needs in terms of the size of the mean need fulfilment deficiencies
within each of the 3 groups of respondents. Higher the rank, greater is the perceived need fulfilment deficiency
(or lesser is the perceived need fulfilment).
In the upper management, the security needs were most satisfied followed by autonomy and esteem
needs. Esteem needs of the upper management personnel were reasonably satisfied (mean rating= 1.05) as
compared to their counterparts (middle level=3.04, lower level=3.91). The middle managers do perceive
dissatisfaction in terms of the amount of self-esteem they get at their hierarchical level. Autonomy needs were
least fulfilled in the other two groups viz. middle (mean rating= 4.02) and lower (mean rating= 5.11). Therefore,
hypothesis (i) that the higher order psychological needs of esteem and autonomy will be satisfied to a greater
extent at middle and upper management levels as compared to bottom management level is partially supported.
In regard to hypothesis (ii) it is seen that that the mean need deficiency score for the self-actualization need is
1.32 at the upper management level which is considerably lesser than 3.60 at the middle and 4.46 at the lower
management levels. There is a trend for deficiencies in this need category to decrease with increasing levels of
the organizational hierarchy. The hypothesis that the highest order need of self-actualization will be fulfilled to a
greater extent at the upper management level as compared to bottom and middle management level is, thereby,
supported.
Perceived Importance of Needs:
Tables 5 and 6 show the mean importance of each of the needs for each subgroup of respondents
classified by management level. The larger the mean, the greater the perceived need importance. A look at the
tables shows that the average need importance scores for the various need classes are comparable within a
subgroup as well as between the three subgroups. This indicates that all the 6 needs are perceived as almost
equally important by the respondents belonging to the 3 management levels.
Table 6presents the ranking of mean importance for the 6 need categories within each subgroup of
respondents. Higher ranks indicate greater importance.
Navreet Kaur and Anmol Sandhu, International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences,
ISSN 2250-0588, Impact Factor: 6.565, Volume 09 Issue 04, April 2019, Page 278-285
http://indusedu.org Page 283
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For the upper management level, esteem needs ranked one in importance followed by the self-
actualization need. The security need ranked third in importance followed by the social and autonomy needs.
The basic needs were perceived as least important.
Esteem needs were again of prime importance for the middle management personnel followed by basic
and security needs. The self-actualization need ranked fourth in order of importance followed by social and
autonomy needs.
Self-actualization needs were the least important for the lower management personnel whereas security
needs were of prime importance followed by the basic needs. Autonomy needs ranked third followed by esteem
and social needs.
The upper management personnel do perceive the highest order need of self-actualization as relatively
more important as compared to bottom and middle management personnel. However, in general there is more
homogeneity among the different subgroups of respondents in terms of the degree of importance they attach to
the various psychological needs. The same is not true in case of the degree of perceived satisfaction they
ascribed to the same needs. The results on perceived need importance, thus, lend only partial support to
hypothesis (iii).
V. DISCUSSION
This research study explores the relevance of Maslow’s theory of work motivation to work settings. In
accordance with the theory it was expected that the higher an individual is in an organization, the more he is
able to satisfy higher-order needs especially those pertaining to self-actualization. The study centred around two
motivational variables: perceived deficiency in need fulfilment and perceived need importance. It was carried
out on an Indian manufacturing-sector firm and was essentially based on Porter’s extensive work in the
1960s.The inferences drawn from the research and the plausible explanations for the same are given in the
forthcoming paragraphs.
At the top of the management hierarchy, most of the existence needs were satisfied followed by
autonomy and esteem needs, as shown by average ratings on need fulfilment deficiency. The conditions at the
top level are conducive to set into motion the process of “becoming.” However, the middle managers did
perceive dissatisfaction in terms of the amount of self-esteem they get at their job level. Autonomy needs were
least fulfilled in the other two groups viz. middle and lower lending only partial support to Hypothesis (i).
Furthermore, the middle level managers perceived greatest job insecurity. The deficiency in the fulfilment of
security needs in the middle management was the maximum out of the three subgroups.
Studies reveal unique psychological pressures faced be middle managers due to their structural
position. According to the Boston Consulting Group (Caye et al., 2010) middle management is a neglected yet
critical group that contributes to organizational performance in a big way. Anicich and Hirsh (2017) report that
middle managers experience a considerable amount of role stress and are torn between deferential low-power
behavioural style, when interacting with superiors and assertive high-power behavioural style when interacting
with subordinates. Thus they face conflicting demands from various stakeholder groups. The conflicting role
expectations impinge upon the satisfaction of their autonomy needs at work. Also they are often faced with the
dangers of downsizing partly due to outsourcing (Frankel, 1995) and the influx of information technology
(Pinnsonneault and Kraemer, 1997). As reported in Essays, U.K. (2018), one out of five middle level workers is
faced with job insecurity which explains the low satisfaction of security needs.
Another finding peculiar to the study was that the bottom level employees were highly satisfied on
social needs while the upper management perceived a greater deficiency in the fulfilment of social needs. The
trend for social needs, thus, was reverse with need fulfilment deficiencies increasing from lower to upper levels
of management. Social need area is the area of smallest deficiency at the lower level. This could be explained in
terms of fewer opportunities for social interaction, a lack of horizontal communication, and the existence of
formal, authority relationships at the top of the management hierarchy (Hackman and Lawler, 1971). Reif and
Luthans (1972) found that unskilled workers prefer jobs that provide them with opportunities to socialize.
The satisfaction of the need for self-actualization was found to be greater at the upper rung of the
hierarchy, supporting Hypothesis (ii). Maslow (1970) stated that growth needs require better outside conditions
(economic and educational etc.) to make them possible. The upper management has opportunities for greater
autonomy, responsibility and personal growth enabling the employees to move towards higher order need
satisfaction.
Perceived deficiencies in need fulfilment, in general, tended to increase from upper to lower
management level. The increasing dissatisfaction at lower levels of management represents the increasing
difference between what is expected and what is obtained. The largest deficiencies were found in regard to the
two higher-order need categories ofautonomy and self-actualization, followed by esteem, basic, and security
need areas. The reason being, thata worker at the bottom of a large organization has a much larger
superstructure of organizational levels above him, has more bosses above him and has less absolute influence on
his work situation. This sort of scenario is also not conducive for realizing ones full potential. There is an
Navreet Kaur and Anmol Sandhu, International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences,
ISSN 2250-0588, Impact Factor: 6.565, Volume 09 Issue 04, April 2019, Page 278-285
http://indusedu.org Page 284
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
absence of a motivational climate lacking in variety, autonomy, responsibility and voice efficacy. This might
result in psychological withdrawal from work, low job involvement and deteriorating work outcomes.
Also, the data obtained shows that the employees in the lower rungs of the organization experience a
relatively higher dissatisfaction of basic needs. There is a link between these needs and the other needs in
Maslow’s hierarchy. The amount of pay one receives seems to satisfy both security and esteem needs and is also
a means of satisfying primary physiological needs (e.g. Opsahl and Dunnette, 1966). The findings of this study
do not completely support Porter’s inferences. Generally, the point is made that most organizations tend to
“pay” the worker in physical or security need areas rather that in higher-order areas such as social, esteem or
self-actualization. In the Indian context, however, the need for economic security of the lower level workers
(particularly in the manufacturing sector) is not fulfilled. Indian manufacturing sector is marked by low wages
(Chandrasekhar and Ghosh, 2018) and also wage disparity (Khan, 2019).
The results in regard to perceived need importance reveal that there is very little difference in the
importance attached to the various needs by the respondents. All the needs seem to be about equally important.
The upper management personnel do perceive the highest order need of self-actualization as relatively more
important as compared to bottom and middle management personnel. Greater satisfaction of this need increases
its importance as contended by Maslow. Hypothesis (iii) is, thus, partially supported.
In the Indian setting, there is gross deprivation in regard to the basic needs at the lower level. These
then tend to dominate a worker’s personality and assume greater importance. This inhibits the employee’s
sensitization to higher order needs. According to Porter and Lawler (1965), pay and other deficiency needs are
more important to workers than managers. The average worker ranks job security as first in importance among
16 job factors closely followed by pay (Lawler, 1971), Herzberg et al., 1957). The studies are not very recent
but prevail in the Indian set up.
In general, the results for importance show less definite trends of systematic changes from higher to
lower levels of management as compared with the results for need fulfilment deficiencies. It can be concluded
that the overall relationship between job level and the differential importance of needs appears to be definitely
less strong than the relationship between job level and the degree of perceived fulfilment of needs. Research
indicates that satisfaction of particular needs may not decrease their importance in the hierarchy.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
Taking all the evidence together, the present study offers partial support to Maslow’s contention about
human motivation. In an absolute sense, dissatisfaction in regard to all the need areas can be seen at all levels
indicating that there is scope for streamlining organizational policies and practices. Since the present research
was on a single organization, there are issues pertaining to generalization of results. Future research must focus
on different industrial sectors and include other organizational and employee variables to derive more
meaningful correlations.
Practical Implications
Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory is relevant in today’s business organizations and has a
direct bearing on the management of human resources. The reward systems and compensation policies must be
equitable so as to create an organizational environment that is conducive to employee motivation.
Understanding that the employees are growth motivated and have a need to self-actualize will enable
organizations to build a unique corporate culture resulting in workplace synergy and organizational excellence.
Living at the higher need level results in greater biological efficiency, subjective well-being and consequently
improved work performance.
VI. REFERENCES
1. Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Performance, 4(2), 142-175.
2. Anicich, E. M., & Hirsh, J. B. (2017). The psychology of middle power: Vertical code-switching, role conflict, and behavioral
inhibition. Academy of Management Review, 42(4), 659-682.
3. Caye, J. M., Strack, R., Orlander, P., Kilmann, J., Espinosa, E. G., Francoeur, F., &Haen, P. (2010). Creating a new deal for
middle managers. Boston: Boston Consulting Group. https://www.bcg.com/documents/file52425.pdf
4. Chandrashekhar, C. P., &Ghosh, J. (2018, August 13). Industrial employment: Jobs go up but wages don’t.
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/-opinion/columns/c-p-chandrasekhar/industrial-employment-jobs-go-up-but-wages
dont/article24681015.ece#
5. Cofer, C. N., &Appley, M. H. (1964). Motivation: Theory and research. John Wiley.
6. Essays, UK. (2018, November 5). Job Insecurity and outcomes psychology essay.
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/job-insecurity-and-outcomes-psychology-essay.php?vref=1
7. Frankel, R. (1995, March 19). Downsizing’s effects on middle managers.https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-03-19-
me-44553-story.html
8. Goodman, R. A. (1968). On the operationality of the Maslow need-hierarchy. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 6(1), 51-57.
9. Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(3), 259-
286.
10. Hall, D. T., &Nougaim, K. E. (1968). An examination of Maslow's need hierarchy in an organizational setting. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 3(1), 12-35.
Navreet Kaur and Anmol Sandhu, International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences,
ISSN 2250-0588, Impact Factor: 6.565, Volume 09 Issue 04, April 2019, Page 278-285
http://indusedu.org Page 285
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
11. Hampton, D.R., Summer, C.E., & Webber, R.A. (1973). Organizational behaviour and the practice of management. Scott,
Foresman and Company.
12. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. D., &Capwell, D. F. (1957). Job attitudes: Review of research and opinions. Pittsburgh:
Psychological Service.
13. Khan, A. (2019, August 13). Why minimum wage won’t fix India’s woes. https://www.livemint.com/news/india/why-minimum-
wage-won-t-fix-india-s-woes-1565619815429.html
14. Lawler, E. E., &Suttle, J. L. (1972). A causal correlational test of the need hierarchy concept. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 7(2), 265-287.
15. Lawler, EE. (1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view. McGraw-Hill.
16. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1343). Rand McNally.
17. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
18. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). Harper & Row.
19. McCormick, E. J., &Ilgen, M. H. (1984). Industrial psychology. Prentice-Hall International.
20. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill.
21. Opsahl, R. L., &Dunnette, M. D. (1966). Role of financial compensation in industrial motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 66(2),
94-188.
22. Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. L. (1997). Middle management downsizing: An empirical investigation of the impact of
information technology. Management Science, 43(5), 659-679.
23. Porter, L. W. (1961). A study of perceived need satisfactions in bottom and middle management jobs. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 45(1), 1-10.
24. Porter, L. W. (1962). Job attitudes in management: I. Perceived deficiencies in need fulfilment as a function of job level. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 46, 375-384.
25. Porter, L. W. (1963a). Job attitudes in management: II. Perceived importance of needs as a function of job level. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 47(2), 141-148.
26. Porter, L. W. (1963b). Job attitudes in management: III. Perceived deficiencies in need fulfillment as a function of line versus
staff type of job. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47(4), 267-275.
27. Porter, L. W. (1963c). Job attitudes in management: IV. Perceived deficiencies in need fulfilment as a function of size of
company. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47(6), 386-397.
28. Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1965). Properties of organization structure in relation to job attitudes and job
behaviour. Psychological Bulletin, 64(1), 23-51.
29. Reif, W. E., &Luthans, F. (1972). Does job enrichment really pay off? California Management Review, 15(1), 30-37.
30. Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1975). Motivation and work behaviour. McGraw Hill.
