Herzberg vs Maslow: Comparing Two Classic Motivation Theories

Few theories appear more frequently in CIPD assignments than Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Herzberg's two-factor theory. Both emerged in the mid-twentieth century and both attempt to explain what motivates people at work. Yet they approach the question differently and offer distinct implications for HR practice. Understanding both frameworks—and knowing when to apply each—demonstrates the theoretical grounding CIPD assessors value.

These theories have faced criticism over the decades, and contemporary research has moved beyond them in many ways. However, they remain useful frameworks for thinking about motivation, and their continued presence in professional education reflects their enduring practical value. The key is using them thoughtfully rather than mechanically.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Abraham Maslow proposed his hierarchy of needs in 1943, arguing that human behaviour is driven by the pursuit of need satisfaction. He organised needs into five levels, suggesting that lower-level needs must be substantially satisfied before higher-level needs become primary motivators.

At the base of the hierarchy are physiological needs—the fundamental requirements for survival including food, water, shelter, and rest. In a work context, this translates to adequate pay to meet basic living expenses and reasonable working conditions. Until these needs are met, higher concerns barely register.

Safety needs occupy the second level, encompassing security, stability, and freedom from fear. At work, this includes job security, safe working conditions, predictable policies, and protection from arbitrary treatment. Employees worried about losing their jobs or facing unpredictable management decisions focus on these concerns rather than higher aspirations.

Social needs—the desire for belonging, friendship, and connection—form the third level. Workplaces satisfy social needs through team membership, collaborative relationships, and organisational belonging. Isolated employees or those experiencing workplace conflict find this need frustrated.

Esteem needs divide into two types: self-esteem (confidence, achievement, competence) and esteem from others (recognition, status, respect). Work provides opportunities for both through accomplishment and acknowledgment. Employees whose contributions go unrecognised or who feel undervalued experience esteem frustration.

Self-actualisation sits at the hierarchy's peak—the drive to fulfil one's potential and become everything one is capable of becoming. At work, this manifests as desire for creativity, growth, meaningful contribution, and personal development. Not everyone reaches this level, and for those who do, its expression varies widely.

Applying Maslow at Work

The hierarchy suggests that motivation strategies must match where employees currently sit. Offering self-actualisation opportunities to workers worried about job security misses the point—their attention is elsewhere. Conversely, focusing solely on pay and conditions for employees whose lower needs are satisfied fails to engage them fully.

The theory implies that as societies become wealthier and basic needs are reliably met, higher-level needs become more important motivators. Contemporary employees in developed economies often take physiological and safety needs for granted, focusing instead on social, esteem, and self-actualisation concerns. This may explain why engagement and meaningful work receive so much attention in current HR practice.

Critics point out that the hierarchy oversimplifies human motivation. People don't neatly progress through levels—they pursue multiple needs simultaneously, and the hierarchy's ordering doesn't hold universally across cultures or individuals. Someone might sacrifice safety for esteem, or prioritise self-actualisation despite unmet social needs. The theory describes general tendencies rather than iron laws.

Despite limitations, Maslow's framework offers useful questions. What needs are most salient for this employee or workforce? Are lower-level needs adequately addressed before expecting higher-level engagement? Are our motivation strategies matched to where people actually are?

Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory

Frederick Herzberg developed his two-factor theory in 1959 based on research asking employees about times they felt particularly good or bad about their work. He found that factors causing satisfaction differed from factors causing dissatisfaction, leading him to propose two distinct dimensions rather than a single continuum.

Hygiene factors (also called maintenance factors) prevent dissatisfaction when adequate but don't create satisfaction when excellent. These include company policy, supervision, working conditions, salary, job security, and relationships with colleagues. Poor hygiene factors make people unhappy; good hygiene factors merely prevent unhappiness. They're necessary but not sufficient for motivation.

Motivators (also called growth factors) create satisfaction and motivation when present. These include achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, advancement, and personal growth. Their absence doesn't necessarily cause dissatisfaction—employees simply aren't positively motivated. Their presence generates the engagement and effort organisations seek.

This distinction challenges common assumptions. Many organisations focus reward strategies heavily on hygiene factors, assuming that better pay, nicer offices, or improved benefits will increase motivation. Herzberg's research suggests otherwise. These investments reduce dissatisfaction and complaints, but positive motivation requires attention to motivators—the nature of work itself.

Applying Herzberg at Work

The two-factor theory suggests a two-pronged approach to motivation. First, ensure hygiene factors are adequate to prevent dissatisfaction. Pay should be competitive, policies fair and consistently applied, supervision supportive, and conditions reasonable. Neglecting hygiene factors creates grievances that distract from everything else.

Second, build motivators into work to generate positive engagement. Job design that provides variety, autonomy, and meaningful tasks addresses the work itself. Recognition programmes acknowledge achievement. Development opportunities enable growth. Career progression provides advancement. These elements transform a job from tolerable to engaging.

The theory has practical implications for job design. Rather than simplifying jobs for efficiency, Herzberg advocated job enrichment—building more responsibility, variety, and growth opportunity into roles. Enriched jobs satisfy motivators; impoverished jobs merely require hygiene factors to be tolerable.

Critics note that Herzberg's research methodology may have created the two-factor finding. When people describe positive experiences, they tend to attribute them to themselves (motivators); when describing negative experiences, they blame external factors (hygiene). The distinction might reflect attribution bias rather than genuine motivation dynamics. Subsequent research has produced mixed support for the theory.

Comparing the Two Frameworks

Maslow and Herzberg address similar territory but organise it differently. Maslow's lower-level needs (physiological, safety, social) correspond roughly to Herzberg's hygiene factors—they're necessary foundations but limited motivators. Maslow's higher-level needs (esteem, self-actualisation) align with Herzberg's motivators—they generate positive engagement when addressed.

The theories differ in structure. Maslow proposes a hierarchy where lower needs must be satisfied before higher needs emerge as motivators. Herzberg proposes two independent dimensions operating simultaneously—hygiene factors and motivators work in parallel rather than sequence.

Both theories emerged from mid-twentieth century Western contexts and may not generalise fully across cultures or contemporary conditions. Yet both continue to inform HR thinking because they capture something genuine about workplace motivation, even if imperfectly.

Using Both in CIPD Assignments

CIPD assessors expect you to know both theories and apply them appropriately. Several approaches work well.

Using them complementarily acknowledges that both offer useful perspectives. Maslow helps diagnose which needs are most salient for a particular workforce; Herzberg guides intervention design by distinguishing what prevents dissatisfaction from what creates engagement. Together they provide richer analysis than either alone.

Comparing them explicitly demonstrates knowledge of both and ability to think critically. You might note how the theories align, where they differ, and what each uniquely contributes to understanding a particular situation. This comparison shows analytical sophistication.

Acknowledging limitations while still using the theories constructively demonstrates critical thinking. Note that both have faced empirical challenges and that motivation is more complex than either model suggests, then explain why the frameworks remain useful for practical analysis. This balanced approach impresses assessors more than either uncritical acceptance or wholesale rejection.

Apply the theories specifically to your case. What would Maslow's hierarchy suggest about this workforce's primary needs? What does Herzberg's distinction between hygiene factors and motivators imply for intervention design? Specific application demonstrates deeper understanding than generic description.

Beyond Maslow and Herzberg

Contemporary motivation research has moved beyond these classic theories while building on their insights. Self-determination theory emphasises autonomy, competence, and relatedness as fundamental human needs. Goal-setting theory focuses on the motivational power of specific, challenging goals. Expectancy theory examines the cognitive calculations underlying effort decisions.

When assignments allow, demonstrating awareness of these contemporary perspectives alongside the classics shows breadth of knowledge. However, Maslow and Herzberg remain valid starting points—their intuitive appeal and practical accessibility explain their continued presence in professional education. Use them as foundations while acknowledging that motivation science has continued to develop.