Three Studies ofMeasures of NeedSatisfaction inOrganizations

Benjamin Schneiderand Clayton P.Alderfer

The authors acknowledge the comments ofPete Dachler, Dick Hackman, Tim Hall andEd Lawler on earlier drafts of this paper.Data analyses reported in this paper werepartially supported by the Computer ScienceCenter, University of Maryland, CollegePark Campus.

Three studies attempting to achieve convergencebetween different measures designed to assess needsatisfaction in organizations are reported.^ Study Ishowed poor convergence between two measures ofMaslow's concepts on a sample of 146 nurses. StudyII showed poor convergence between Maslow andERG measures in a sample of 217 bank employees.Study III showed some convergence where expectedbetween Maslow and ERG measures for 522 employeesin a life insurance company. Study III also showedsome meaningful correlations between Maslowmeasures and the Job Description Index measure ofjob satisfaction and a high degree of convergencebetween ERG and JDI measures. Discussion of resultsfrom the different studies concerns the effect ofdifferences in item format on construct intercorrela-tions and the need to know intermeasure convergenceprior to making interstudy comparisons of results. It issuggested that the failure to find support for Maslow'sneed categories in organizational settings is due to:(1) an inadequate conceptualization which does notreadily facilitate the development of operationalindicators, and (2) the initial orientation of Maslow'stheory which was not specifically aimed towardorganizational settings.

Of the theories describing man's psychological needs,Maslow's (1943, 1954) theory of human motivation has beenmost notable in the impact it has had on the thinking oforganizational theorists such as McGregor (1960) andArgyris (1964) and on empirical work by Porter (1961), Beer(1966), Hall and Nougaim (1968) and Lawler and Suttle(1972), although some of this research has been critical ofMaslow's theory as applied to organizational settings(Alderfer, 1972; Hall and Nougaim, 1968; Lawler and Suttle,1972), mostly on the failure to support the concept of thehierarchy of prepotency.Given the impact of the theory and the research it hasstimulated, it is surprising to note the failure to compare, inone study, relationships existing between data generated bytwo measures of the Maslow need categories or relationshipsbetween measures of two or more different orientations.Maslow's (1943, 1954) concepts and those of Alderfer (1969,1972) were the focus of the present paper which reports aseries of studies conducted over a five-year period.

NEED CATEGORIESMaslow's Need CategoriesMaslow's theory categorizes human needs into five broadgroups. Physiological needs include the classic drives, hunger,thirst, and sex as well as sensory needs such as taste, smell,and touch. Safety needs include physical illness, surgery,quarreling parents, and separation; while belongingness needsare shown when a person misses his friends, sweetheart, wife,or place in his group. Esteem needs concern each person'sdesire for a stable and high evaluation of himself. In Maslow'sview, this self-esteem is healthy when it is based upondeserved (italics his) respect from others for real competenceand capacity. Maslow (1954: 92) defines self-actualizationneeds in a number of ways; perhaps his position is bestsummarized as "the desire to become more and more whatone is, to become everything that one is capable ofbecoming."

489/ASQ

ERG Need Categories

ERG theory uses three broad categories of human needs:existence, relatedness, and growth. Existence needs includeall of the various physiological and material desires; forexample, the classic drives of hunger and thirst as well asother material needs like work-related pay, fringe benefits,and physical safety. Existence needs are characterized first bythe goal of obtaining a material substance, and second, bya person's satisfaction tending to be correlated with anotherperson's frustration, when resources are limited. Relatednessneeds concern the desires people have for relationships withsignificant others that can be characterized by a mutual sharingof thoughts and feelings. The basic quality of relatednessneeds is different from existence needs because relatednessneeds cannot be satisfied without mutuality. For all theparties in a relationship, their satisfaction (and frustration)tends to be correlated. Growth needs include desires of aperson to have creative and productive effects upon himselfand upon his environment. Satisfaction of growth needs occurswhen a person engages problems which call upon him toutilize his capacities fully and to develop new capabilities. Thepsychological sense a person has from fulfilling his growthneeds is that of a greater wholeness or fullness as a humanbeing.

Relationships Between Maslow and ERG Needs

Figure 1 shows a comparison of Maslow's categories andERG categories. Existence needs are equivalent to all of thephysiological needs but also include those aspects of safetythat are related to material ends. In his discussion of safetyneeds, Maslow groups together both such issues as illnessand physical danger and more interpersonal threats such asquarreling parents and the possibility of abandonment. TheERG framework includes the various physical threats withexistence needs and the interpersonal threats with relatednessneeds. Also, that aspect of esteem which depends upon thereactions of significant others becomes part of relatedness inthe ERG framework, while the aspect which depends upon

MaslowCategories

Physiological

Safety—material

Safety—interpersonal

Belongingness (social)

Esteem—interpersonal

Esteem—self-confirmed

Self-actualization

ERGCategories

Existence

Relatedness

Growth

Figure 1. Comparison of Maslow and ERG concepts.

490/ASQ

NEED SATISFACTION

The research studies are the product of acollaboration that began before the authorsknew each other personally or knew ofeach other's research interests. Schneiderbecame interested in developing psycho-metrically sound measures for Maslow'sconcepts as interpreted by Porter (1961)before he knew of Aiderfer's ERG theory.The data in Study I were collected beforethe actual collaboration represented inStudies M and IM was begun. Study I,therefore, was concerned strictly with thedevelopment of a new measure of theMaslow categories and a comparison ofthis new measure with the one designedby Porter (1961).

surpassing one's own internal standards of competence oreffectance (White, 1959) becomes part of growth.Belongingness needs as defined by Maslow are similar toERG'S relatedness, and self-actualization is equivalent togrowth.

There are other, more subtle, differences between someMaslow and ERG concepts. The relatedness need categoryrequires a listing of significant others while Maslow is lessclear in his comments about interpersonal safety or esteemneeds. Another place where the emphasis in interpersonalrelationships differs between Maslow and ERG theory is in therole of self-esteem. Maslow implies that esteem itself is abasic human need and Sherwood (1962) has made a similarassumption. ERG theory departs from the centrality of esteemin the relatedness process.

Self-actualization as Maslow uses the term seems to implyan unfolding of one's innate capacities and potentials. Growthneeds have the same general orientation with some differencein emphasis, primarily with the impact of the environment onthe individual's development. Maslow's discussion seems toimply that a person is born with what he must become. TheERG concept of growth places the source of man's potentialin closer interaction with his environment than Maslow'stheory does. Consequently, according to the ERG view, one isnever fully sure of the qualitative elements of an individual'spotential until one knows the individual's environment. Thisis a central theme of recent research in organizationalpsychology (Pugh, 1969; Schien, 1972), personnel selection(Schneider and Bartlett, 1968), and theories of careerdevelopment (Hall and Schneider, 1973).

The main objective of the studies was to explore some ofthe relationships between measures of need-related conceptsdesigned for use in organizational settings; in particular theextent to which a measure designed to operationalize theMaslow categories and one designed to operationalize ERGwould yield results similar to those shown in Figure 1.

STUDY ICollection of DataThe data for this study2 were collected as part of a largerstudy (Schneider and Olson, 1970). The subjects wereregistered nurses working in two midwestern hospitals: onegovernment, and one private and nonsectarian. Each hospitalprovided 73 respondents, giving a total of 146 (all but two ofthose contacted). Data collection was identical in bothhospitals. Telephone contact with the chief nurse in eachhospital established permission to conduct the survey. Thequestionnaires were sent to the hospitals and the chief nursesupervised the administration and collection of hersubordinates' questionnaires. Nurses were selected toparticipate by taking every other or every third name on anemployment list.

Each nurse was given an envelope with her name and place ofduty, in which to seal her completed questionnaire before shereturned it to the chief nurse's office. In the instruction sheetof the questionnaire the respondents were assured that theirforms would not be opened until they reached the Universityof Maryland, and that the results would be held in completeconfidence.

Part I of the questionnaire consisted of the scales developedby Porter (1961) based on Maslow's concepts, with the items

491/ASQ

rewritten to make them appropriate for nurses. The instructionsfor the questionnaire asked nurses to respond to the<;tatpmpnt5 hu niuinn thrpp ratinn<;'t\ji Li ic ^uCfOii i II laii ^ aoi^cu iiuiocc

Statements by giving three ratingsa. How much of the characteristic is there now connected with your

nursing position?b. How much of the characteristic do you think should be connected

with your nursing position?c. How important is this position characteristic to you?

Each rating was made on a 7-point scale, with 1 theminimum and 7 the maximum.

Part II of the questionnaire was a series of self-ratings ofeffort and performance, and Part III contained the itemsdeveloped by Schneider to operationalize Maslow's concepts.At first 100 items consistent with the Maslow categories asinterpreted by Porter were prepared; then eight raters, graduatestudents and faculty members, familiar with the Maslowconcepts, sorted the items into the categories of security,social, esteem, autonomy, and self-actualization needs. Fortyitems sorted into the same category by six or more raters wereretained for the questionnaire. From there Schneider preparedeight sets of five items, each set containing one item fromeach of the five need categories. The instructions forcompleting the items asked the respondent to "decide howapprfipriate each of the five alternatives in a given set is, onthe basis of your general feelings about your position as anurse, and indicate your decision by placing the letterrepresenting the alternative on the 15-point scale immediatelybelow the set." The response alternatives were labelled athrough e and the 15-point scale was anchored by "Not at all

Table 1

Factor Analysis of Porter Items (N = 146)

A priori Item Factorscategory I II

Security The feeling of security in my nursingposition .72 .27

Social The opportunity, in my nursing position,to give help to other people .57 .20The opportunity to develop closefriendships in my nursing position .17 .43

Esteem The feeling of self-esteem a person getsfrom being in my nursing position .27 .48The prestige of my nursing positioninside the hospital .44 .41The prestige of my nursing positionoutside the hospital -.03 .39

Autonomy The authority connected with mynursing position .48 00The opportunity for independent thoughtand action in my nursing position .26 .57The opportunity, in my nursing position,for participation in setting goals .47 .38The opportunity, in my nursing position,for participation in the determination ofmethods and procedures .50 .03

Self-Actualization The opportunity for personal growth anddevelopment in my nursing position .11 .63The feeling of self-fulfillment a persongets from being in my nursing position .02 .73The feeling of worthwhile accomplishmentin my nursing position .50 -.03

492/ASQ

NEED SATISFACTION

true" and "Very true." Respondents were making a modifiedforced-choice response which required them to make acomparison within each set of five items.

Results

Data from the Porter and Schneider items were separatelyintercorrelated, factor-analyzed by the principal-componentsmethod, and rotated by the varimax procedure. All factorswith eigenvalues greater than one were rotated.

Table 1 shows the two rotated factors resulting from thePorter satisfaction items. The score for each item was obtainedby subtracting the "how much of the characteristic is therenow" rating from the "how much of the characteristic do youthink should there be" ratings referred to above. The resultsshow that the two factors do not clearly correspond to any ofthe precoded Maslow needs. One might attempt aninterpretation of the two factors by noting that the highestfactor loading (.72) for factor 1 is the security index and thatthe highest factor loading (.73) for factor 11 is a self-actualization index.

Table 2 shows four rotated factors produced by factoring theSchneider items. The factor coming closest to being a securityfactor had three of eight a priori security items with loadingsabove .40 but also had an item from social and one fromself-actualization which had substantial factor loadings. Thefactor closest to being a social factor had two of eight esteemitems with loadings above .40, two social items with loadingsabove .40, and one autonomy item with a loading above .40.The factor closest to being an autonomy factor was alsoclosest to being a self-actualization factor. It had five of eightautonomy items with loadings above .40, seven of eightself-actualization items with loadings above .40, and oneesteem item with a loading above .40.

Table 2

Factor Analysis of Schneider Items forFormat (/V = 146, 217)

Item(Stem for "1 do things...")

Securitythat make me feel safewhen 1 am doing themwhich make me feel relaxedwhich 1 am content to dothat are easy for methat are familiarthat look like they willbenefit me in the futurewhich make me feelcomfortablewhich give me a feeling ofsecurity

Socialwith people who arecooperativewith people who arefriendly

Security

.64

.13

.14

.25

.68

.30

.37

.64

-.18

.02

(.64)(.72)(.60)(.10)(.44)

(.22)

(.73)

—

(.26)

(.28)

Maslow Needs in Forced-Choice and Likert (parentheses)

Social1

-.08.07.15.70.32

-.47

.32

-.09

.32

.73

(.13)(.14)(.07)

(-.18)(.02)

(.20)

(.23)

—

(.72)

(.80)

Social2

(.16)(.01)

(-.03)(-.09)

(.16)

(-.04)

(.13)

—

(.09)

(.00)

Esteem

.00

.19

.04

.33-.01

.18

.00

.15

.05

-.01

(-.21)(.08)

(-.10)(.33)(.14)

(-.01)

(.15)

—

(-.13)

(.04)

Autonomyself-actu-alization

.02

.04

.10

.08-.08

.23

-.15

.18

-.18

-.04

Auton-omy

(.04)(-.02)(.06)(.04)(.17)

(.05)

(.09)

—

(.17)

(.04)

Self-actual-ization

(-.16)(-.01)(.28)

(-.30)(-.28)

(.35)

(.03)

—

(-.12)

(.04)

493/ASQ

Table 2—continued

Autonomy Self-Item Social Social self-actu- Auton- actual-

Security 1 2 Esteem alization omy ization

in which 1 have theopportunity to developclose friendshipswhich are helpful to othersbest when others are aroundwhen others are aroundwhere 1 am liked by othersthat make me feelaccepted by others

Esteemthat make me feelintelligentwhere others tell me howsmart 1 amwhich give me a feelingof prestigethat give me a feeling ofself esteemthat make me feel smartfor which my accomplish-ments are recognizedthat 1 feel 1 do betterthan anyone elsewhere 1 am respected formy skills

Autonomythat 1 want to dowhere 1 can find solutionsto problems on my ownwhere 1 can determinethe way they are donewhere 1 can define theproblem to be worked onwhere 1 can be independentin which 1 have a lot ofopportunity for independentthought and actionwhere 1 have a lot ofauthoritywhere 1 can think formyself

Self-Actualizationwhere 1 can be creative1 am dedicated towhere 1 can perform upto my abilitieswhich give me a feeling ofworthwhile accomplishmentthat give me a feelingof self-fulfillmentwhere 1 can be imaginativethat allow me to realizemy potentialitieswhich give me an oppor-tunity for personal growthand development

-.05.05

-.26.20

.32

.52

.10

-.02

.33

.04-.02

.02

.22

.17

.04

-.12

.17

.27

.02

.03

.12

.11

-.04.36

.07

-.02

.22

.10

.01

.45

(.44)

(.12)(-.01)(-.03)(.46)

(.50)

(.32)

(.41)

(.44)(.51)

(.03)

(-.06)

(.08)

(-.01)

(.29)

(.12)

(.13)

(-.09)

(-.13)

(-.08)(.25)

(.25)

(.20)

(.22)

(-.20)

(.15)

—

.14

.29

.33

.41

.33

.05

-.14

-.02

-.01

-.08.21

-.32

.23

-.20

.62

-.19

-.29

.07

.06

-.14

.13

-.05

.06

.24

.03

-.08

-.11.22

.03

.01

(-.06)(.08)

(-.05)(-.04)(.32)

(.06)

(.03)

(-.03)

(.04)

(.12)

(.18)

(-.05)

(.21)

(.26)

(-.09)

(-.03)(-.08)

(.16)

(-.19)

(-.26)(-.05)

(.15)

(-.03)

(.13)(-.11)

(-.08)

—

(.47)(.00)(.86)(.54)

(-.10)

(.05)

(-.09)

(.17)

(.14)(.19)

(-.02)

(-.03)

(.00)

(.04)

(.01)

(-.09)(.00)

(.06)

(-.05)

(-.09)(.16)

(.02)

(-.01)

(-.01)(.06)

(-.04)

—

.20-.18

.53

.46

.24

.37

.65

.76

.69

.25

.76

.54

.44

.33

.08

-.05

.32

.34

.34

.03

.66

.05

.10-.04

-.13

-.13

.04

.23

.01

-.14

(-.14)(.20)(.10)(.28)(.19)

(.10)

(.55)

(.32)

(.19)(.48)

(.20)

(.78)

(.05)

(.16)

(-.07)

(-.13)(-.08)

(-.02)

(.17)

(.06)(-.06)

(-.13)

(-.01)

(.00)(.12)

(.13)

-.11.53

-.11.04

-.02

-.08

-.04

-.10

.18

.28

.01

.01

.11

.58

.09

.72

.36

.47

.56

.81

.21

.82

.51

.33

.68

.44

.75

.63

.76

.62

(-.06)(.12)

(-.06)(.42)

(-.05)

(.22)

(.10)

(-.04)

(.13)(.15)

(-.22)

(.04)

(.11)

(.49)

(.51)

(.17)(.72)

(.37)

(.16)

(.07)(.00)

(.22)

(.18)

(.18)(.12)

(-.02)

(.30)

(.18)(.07)

(-.22)(.03)

(.41)

(.16)

(.55)

(.43)(.39)

(.35)

(.09)

(.20)

(.18)

(.28)

(.22)(.30)

(.60)

(.61)

(.71)(.42)

(.63)

(.61)

(.76)(.80)

(.70)

494/ASQ

NEED SATISFACTION

Table 3 shows the correlations between the a priori Porterscales and the a priori Schneider scales for each of the fiveneed categories. All scales were developed for this andsubsequent analyses by assigning unit weights to items. Theupper part of the table contains the correlations betweenPorter fulfillment scales—sum of "how much of thecharacteristic is there now" items only—and the Schneiderscales. There are several significant relationships in the matrix,but no meaningful convergence in concepts. In the lower partof the table the Porter satisfaction scales—"should be" minus"is now"—show even fewer significant correlations with theSchneider scales than the fulfillment scales. Only one of thethree significant correlations is between two measures of thesame category, self-actualization.

Table 3

Correlations Between A Priori Porter Measures ofMeasures of Maslow Categories (/V=146)

Porter scales

FulfillmentSecuritySocialEsteemAutonomySelf-Actualization

SatisfactionSecuritySocialEsteemAutonomySelf-actualization

•p<.05"p < .01

Schneider scales

Security

.13

.08

.08

.01

.01

.05

.01

.00

.13

.02

Social

-.04.15.09.05.10

.19-.01

.09

.10

.12

Maslow Categories and A Priori

Esteem

.09

.10

.13

.10

.15

.21*

.02

.04

.14

.02

Autonomy

.24"

.35"

.18*

.19*

.06

.00

.02

.06

.01

.00

Schneider

Self-actualization

.17*

.32"

.11

.04

.14

.06

.09

.13

.07

.21*

Discussion

There are a number of possible explanations for the lack ofmeaningful relationships in Table 3. Deductively, the fivecategories should show at least significant relationships if, infact, they are measuring similar concepts. The Schneider itemswere reliably presorted into the five categories by peoplefamiliar with the Maslow theory. One possibility, then, is thatin responding to the items in questionnaire format, respondentsdid not see enough similarity in the items representing thevarious concepts to enable them to make similar patterns ofchoices between items in each set. This may be due to theparticular item format which required a modified forced-choiceamong items, which had not been precoded for socialdesirability or preference index (Bartlett, 1960). A secondpossibility is that the precoding by "experts" bears littleresemblance to the layman respondent's way of categorizinghis descriptions of personal satisfactions. A third possibility isthat the Maslow categories do not adequately conceptualizethe phenomena of human needs. Whatever the explanation,one indication of failure for the a priori categories not beingrelevant would be low internal consistency of the categories;this is obviously the case in the results of the factor analysespresented in Table 2. The factor analysis for the Portersatisfaction items is no more encouraging, as is shown inTable 1.

495/ASQ

Other methodological problems might have affected theresults. First, the range of work experience is probablyrelatively narrow among the nurse sample. This restriction ofjob experiences could reduce the variance in some variables,thereby reducing some correlations among items. That wouldclearly affect the results of a factor analysis. Second, thenurse sample was all women. Third, while Schneider's itemsand questionnaire format did seem to improve upon thedimensionality of the Porter scales, both the items and theresponse format differed from Porter's and from ERG format(Alderfer, 1967). Because the item and response formatdifferences could account for some of the lack of relationshipfound between the Porter and Schneider measures. Study IIutilized the same response format for the Schneider andAlderfer items designed to operationalize the Maslow andERG conceptualizations.

Disregarding the Maslow conceptualization and looking justat the two most interpretable factors from the Schneider scales,one finds strong support for an "esteem from others" conceptand an "autonomy-self-actualization" construct. Both theseconcepts fit readily into the ERG framework. The esteem fromothers factor would be relatedness without specification of thesignificant others. The autonomy-self-actualization factorwould be very similar to the growth category in the ERGframework. These relationships were examined in Study II.

STUDY IISample and MethodA study to attempt a replication of the ERG factor structure(Alderfer, 1967) and to test a revision of the Maslow itemsconstructed by Schneider was designed to meet themethodological questions raised in Study I. A larger samplesize (A/ = 217), more completely described by Alderfer (1972)was obtained in hopes of increasing the reliability ofintercorrelations submitted to factor analyses. The sample wasrandomly selected and included males and females from alljobs in a bank, increasing the chances of obtaining a widerange of job experiences. Schneider's format was turned intothe 6-point Likert scale procedure (1 = strongly agree,6 = strongly disagree, with no neutral point) utilized in theERG (Alderfer, 1967) questionnaires by making statementsfrom the "I do things . . . " series and adding the variousprecoded stems. All of the subjects in this study were givenboth a set of ERG items and a set of the Maslow items, bothsets being presented in the Likert scale format intermixedwithin one questionnaire.The subjects received their questionnaires directly from theinvestigator in groups of 8-10, or after a personal interview.Most of the ERG items used were either identical to or veryclose to the ones used earlier by Alderfer (1967); one objectiveof this study was to see whether the earlier factors would bereplicated. ERG theory was also used to predict how sets ofnew items would form new factors. Items for two new factorswere designed: (1) safety from physical harm, because itrepresented a different material end than either pay or fringebenefits; and (2) respect from customers, because itrepresented a set of significant others different from superiorsor peers.

ResultsThe same factor analytic procedures used in Study I were usedin Study II. Since the factor structure which resulted from the

496/ASQ

NEED SATISFACTION

ERG items was reported by Alderfer (1972), these data are notpresented again. Table 4 presents the factor patterns for thefour items written to assess respect from customers and forthe two items designed to assess physical danger. It is clearthat the a priori categorization was substantiated.

Table 4

Factor Structure for Two

Additional ERG factors

Additional

Pay

ERG Factors (/V=

Fringebenefits

Physicalharm

217)

Respectfromsuperiors

Respectfrompeers

Respectfromcustomers Growth

Physical dangerI feel completely safe from physicalharm in the work that I do (Agree) -.06I sense that my physical well-beingis sometimes in danger in mywork (Disagree) .01

Respect from customersI find some customers extremelyrespectful of me (Agree)I am unable to be very open withcustomers (Disagree)I find some customers rarelyunderstand my point of view(Disagree)I find that I am really able to bemyself with customers (Agree)

.11

.01

.86

.78

.03

.14

-.18

.00

.04

.16

.04

.03

-.22

.10

-.04

-.06

.05

-.07

.22

-.07

-.08

.04

.19

-.12

.12

.11

.16

-.04

.01

.07

.00

-.18

.54

.81

.61

.59

-.09

-.12

-.11

-.06

Table 5

Table 2 shows the results of factor analyzing the Maslowitems administered in the Likert format. The items seemsomewhat clearer in factor structure than in Study I. Forexample, five of seven security items load appropriately on thesecurity factor, although two social items and one esteem itemalso have factor loadings above .40 on this factor. For the apriori social factor, two independent factors are obtained, onedefined primarily by friendly and cooperative people (calledSocial 1), the other more general in the reference to others(called Social 2). Only two esteem items, and three autonomyitems factored as expected while all the self-actualization itemsloaded on the appropriate dimension.

Correlations Between ERG Scales and Factor-Based Maslow Scales and A Priori SchneiderMeasures of Maslow Categories (in Parentheses) (/V=217)

ERG scales Maslow scales

PayFringeBenefitsPhysicalDangerSuperiorsPeersGrowth

Security.01

.09

.05

.15*-.03-.03

(-.02)

(.14*)

(.04)(.13)

(-.09)(-.04)

Social1.04

.14*

.13.18".22".06

(.07)

(.14')

(.17")(.24")(.23")(.06)

Social2

.03

.10

.02

.01

.15"-.03

Esteem.18

.13

.10

.19.10.34

(-.02)

(.02)

(.08)(.02)

(-.05)(.13)

Autonomy.16*

.02

.13

.22".20".45"

(.02)

(.02)

(.09)(.08)(.04)(.23")

Self-actualization.31"

.08

.20"

.33"

.32"

.68"

(.32")

(.11)

(.21")(.31")(.32")(.67")

The Schneider items chosen were those underlined in Table 2.•p < .05"/D < .01

497/ASQ

Table 5 shows the correlations among the ERG measures andSchneider's Maslow measures, each scored on the basis of thea priori, not factored (for ERG they are the same); and thesame intercorrelations based on the obtained factors of theMaslow items are reported.

It is clear from this table that the kind of security beingmeasured by the Maslow items has little in common with theexistence needs of fringe benefits and physical danger beingassessed in ERG theory. An inspection of the items assessingthese constructs shows little overlap. On the social factors,there is some convergence in the table, but the magnitude ofthe relationships does not seem to indicate a sufficient degreeof similarity to inspire confidence that the same concept isbeing measured. Only one of five or six scales showed overlapwhere expected, self-actualization-autonomy and growth.

Discussion

The results of factor-analyzing the ERG satisfaction itemsessentially replicated the findings of the earlier study byAlderfer (1967). The factor analysis of the bank data indicatedthe existence of two new factors, physical harm and respectfrom customers, as had been expected. This replication andextension of the previous factor analytic findings providessupport for the scales based on the ERG model.

Overall, the operationalization of the Maslow concepts seemedto emerge with somewhat greater clarity in Study II than inStudy I; however, with the exception of the self-actualizationand growth, there was little correspondence observed betweenthe Maslow and ERG measures. It was reasoned that twomethodological issues might account for the failure to achieveconvergence.

First was the format of the items. For Study II, the itemsdesigned to assess the Maslow constructs were presented inthe same response format (Likert) as those assessing ERG butthe Schneider items themselves all began with "I dothings. . . . , " while the ERG items had many differentbeginnings. Perhaps this variation in format between the twoconstruct systems could explain some of the lack of correlationbetween ERG and Maslow scales where expected. Thisexplanation could not have been too potent, however, becauseit did not prevent high convergence between self-actualizationand growth measures. The change from the modifiedforced-choice format used for the Maslow items in Study I tothe Likert approach used in Study II may explain why theStudy II factors were more consistent with the a priori Maslowcategories and resulted in considerably more simple structurethan in Study I. Perhaps asking respondents to make forcedchoices to items of unequal social desirability in Study Icontributed to the relatively poor factor structure found inthat study. Examination of the mean items values obtainedfrom the Likert format showed that of the eight original setsof items in Study I, only one could be considered to be madeup of items with equivalent social-desirability indices.

A second methodological issue noted in reviewing data fromStudy I was that, generally speaking, the Maslow itemsappeared more abstract than the ERG items. This may havebeen a function of the general setting in which Masloworiginally stated his theory and the more specific organizationalsettings in which Alderfer (1972) worked. One might notexpect convergence in concepts when the items for twotheories are written at two different levels of abstraction. In

498/ASQ

NEED SATISFACTION

rewriting both sets of items for Study III, it was considerednecessary to include items for the ERG constructs that were asgeneral in their frame of reference as the Maslow items seemedto be. Having more general items for operationalizing the ERGconstructs made it possible to examine the extent to which themultiple factors of the existence construct, for example, werein fact related to a more abstract existence construct.

The rationale for identifying the level of abstractness used asa frame of reference in the writing of questionnaire itemscomes from the research of Schneider (1973, in press) andothers (Schneider and Hall, 1972; Hall and Schneider, 1973),who hypothesized that the general conclusions people reachabout their work environment are based on specific events andexperiences they have. Schneider proposed the hierarchicalorganization of perceptions as a means for understanding theperception of organizational climate and assumed that thecognitive model extended to abstractions about otherexperiences, including satisfaction.

The hierarchical organization of abstractions suggested, forexample, that items designed to assess the differentcomponents of the larger concept of existence needs (pay,fringe benefits, and physical harm) may be independent ofeach other at the specific level but that they would be relatedto a more abstract conception of the existence construct. Thismore abstract construct, it was reasoned, might be related tothe Maslow notion of security as the two theories wouldpredict.

Closely related to the two issues of item format and itemframe of reference (specific or abstract) is the conceptual oneof how satisfaction should be defined operationally. Porter(1961), for example, made a distinction between fulfillmentand satisfaction. The fulfillment measure consisted of havingthe respondent mark "how much of the characteristic is therenow" on a 7-point scale, while the satisfaction scaleconsisted of a difference score between "how much of thecharacteristic there is" and "how much of the characteristicthere should be". The statistical problems with the reliabilityof difference scores are well known and may partly explainwhy the Porter satisfaction scales showed so few significantcorrelations with the Schneider scales in Study I.

Our view is that satisfaction may be properly conceptualizedas a discrepancy, but that this discrepancy need not be madeexplicit to the respondent; whereas in the Porter scales therespondent is made to be explicit about the discrepancy. Theitem format used in Study II assumed that the respondentemployed an implicit subtraction in responding; but asking therespondent to indicate his own frame of reference in thequestion "how much of the characteristic should there be?"leads to a response whose frame of reference in turn is notknown. By asking a respondent to say how he experienceshis work life in a Likert scale format, the discrepancy part ofsatisfaction remains a hypothetical construct, but the scalesthat result may be more reliable than difference scores.Similar arguments have been put forth by Locke (1968) andSmith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969). The issue of howsatisfaction (of any type, not just needs) should be measuredis a complex one, that is just beginning to be treatedsystematically in the empirical literature (Evans, 1969;Wanous and Lawler, 1972). In Study III satisfaction wasassumed to be an expression of personal feelings about eventsand experiences. By explicitly orienting the respondent tofeelings about events rather than a simple description of

499/ASQ

events, perhaps more appropriately considered climate(Schneider, 1973), it was thought that the affect whichsatisfaction implied could be assessed directly, avoidingsubtractive models, either implicit or explicit.

STUDY III

Sample and Method

The sample for Study III consisted of 522 employees from 50agencies of a large, multiple-line, life insurance company.Subjects were male (/\/ = 430) and female (A/= 250), agenttrainees (/V=152) and agency clerical personnel {N = lb).More details about this sample can be found in Schneider(1973). Questionnaires were administered by mail, 70 percentof them returned, with one follow-up. A letter from thecompany vice president, a promotional announcement in thecompany newspaper, and a presentation to agency managersby the researchers preceded the mailing of the questionnaire.The questionnaires required complete identifying informationincluding names. As in other studies (Schneider, 1973) a lowresponse rate (50 percent) was obtained with agent trainees,introducing a systematic bias.

The measures for Study III included one designed to assessthe Maslow categories, one to assess ERG (including newitems of a more abstract nature), and the Job DescriptionIndex developed by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969), whichwas included as a frame of reference for interpreting the datadeveloping out of the need-satisfaction theories. The itemsfor Maslow and ERG loading on a factor in both Studies Iand II were retained in Study III. The Maslow items werefurther changed to drop the "I do things . . . " from each itemand to orient the respondents to their feelings ("Indicate yourfeelings of satisfaction about various experiences you have asan employee or agent.").

All negatively worded items were reverse-scored and itemswere presented in random order. Respondents were asked touse a 5-point scale as a frame of reference for indicating"how accurately [the statement] represents your feelings(1 = totally accurate, 5 = not at all accurate)."

Results

Table 6 gives the Maslow and ERG scale intercorrelationswith internal consistency reliability estimates. Reliabilityestimates were calculated on the basis of mean inter-itemcorrelations corrected by the Spearman-Brown prophecy

Table 6

Correlations* Between Maslow Scales and ERG Scales forStudy III (/V = 522)

Maslow ERG scales Internalscales Existence Relatedness Growth consistency

SecuritySocialEsteemAutonomySelf-actualizationInternalconsistency

.37

.19

.07

.29

.29

.41

.37

.48-

.17

.56-

.49-

.79

.18

.13

.12

.42-

.61-

.66

.67

.34—.55

.73

—

All correlations except existence-esteem are significant a t p < . 0 1 .

500/ASQ

NEED SATISFACTION

formula for the number of items in the scale (Guilford, 1950).Some convergence in Maslow and ERG concepts seems tohave been obtained. Security is equally related to existenceand relatedness (/•= .37, p < .01); social and relatedness aremore strongly related (/•=.48, p<.01); autonomy is relatedstrongly to relatedness (/•=.56, p<.01) and growth (/•=.42,p < .01), while self-actualization related appropriately togrowth ( A = . 6 1 , p<.01) and also to relatedness (/•=.49,p < .01). Esteem, because of the use of only one item, is notstrongly related to the ERG scales.

The items written as more global items for the ERG measuresseem to have served their purpose in bringing together thepreviously specific factors in each need area. Thus, the threeitems for the existence dimension, one each referring specifi-cally to pay, fringe benefits, and physical safety, had a meaninter-item correlation of .07. However, each of the three itemswas correlated with the more abstract item "My job gives mea feeling of security by providing me with the basic needs" at.30, .22, and .15 for pay, fringe benefits, and physical safety,respectively. While the levels of these correlations with theglobal existence item are not as high as desired, they dosuggest the potential for creating more inclusive constructsby using items of an "umbrella" sort. A better example of thepotential of this procedure is provided by the three itemsadded to the relatedness factor; one summary item each forrelationships with peers and superior and one umbrella item.The good internal consistency for this dimension (.79) moreclearly suggests the potential for clustering specific conceptsinto more abstract concepts.

Table 7 reports the matrix of correlations for the Maslow andERG scales with the five scales (work, pay, promotion op-portunity, supervision, and coworkers) from the JDI. TheJDI-ERG strongest convergent relationships are for work andgrowth (/•=51), pay and existence (/• = 46), promotion oppor-tunities and growth (/•=.41), supervision and relatedness(/• = .6O), and coworkers and relatedness (/-=.44).

The strongest convergent correlations between JDI andMaslow scales are for work and security (/•= .48) and workand self-actualization (/•=.47), pay and self-actualization{r=.23), promotion opportunity and self-actualization (/•=.51),supervision and autonomy (A=.4O), and coworkers and social(r=.38).

Table 7

Intercorrelations*

Scales

ERGExistenceRelatednessGrowth

MaslowSecuritySocialEsteemAutonomySelf-actualization

for Job Description Index, ERG,

Job description index

Work183151

4806083247

Pay461911

1709

-011423

and Maslow

Promotion203141

3008093551

Scales (/V=522)

Supervision306026

3626014034

Coworkers244420

2438041522

A correlation of .09 is significant ax p< .05; a correlation of .12 is significant at p < .01.For this table the signs of the correlations have been changed so that in all cases a higher score indicateshigher satisfaction.

501/ASQ

Discussion

Study III suggests that when items designed to represent theconcepts of Maslow and Alderfer are written in similar lan-guage with more or less similar abstract frames of reference,some convergence in concepts may occur. Even after threestudies, however, the generally low levels of relationshipbetween the different measures suggest the necessity for carein drawing conclusions from two studies using differentmeasures for assessing similar constructs. Indeed correlationsbetween Maslow, ERG, and JDI revealed that the two meas-ures derived from need satisfaction theories correlated ashighly with JDI as they did with each other. Perhaps onebenefit to be derived from Study III is the information aboutthe need-theory aspects of the JDI, a lack noted by otherauthors (Smith, etal.. 1969: 70-71).

It seems important to note, for example, that JDI pay is relatedprimarily to ERG existence (A=.46) while JDI promotionopportunity is more closely related to ERG growth (/•=.41)than ERG existence (/•=.2O); from a need-satisfaction vantagepoint, pay and promotion opportunity are different.

The problem of scale intercorrelations within each measurerequires some attention. The three ERG scales are intercorre-lated as follows: existence to relatedness, A= .37; existence togrowth, /• = .18; relatedness to growth, /• = .4O. The Maslowscale intercorrelations were: security to social, r= .15, securityto esteem, /•= .16; security to autonomy, r= .49; security toself-actualization, /•=.64; social to esteem, r=.O4; social toautonomy, /•= .19; social to self-actualization, r= .13; esteemto autonomy, /•=.13; esteem to self-actualization, /•=.11;autonomy to self-actualization, /•=.55.

The intercorrelations for ERG scales seem to suggest inde-pendence, while those for the Maslow scales seem somewhathigh. For example, the relationships between Maslow self-actualization and security, and self-actualization and autonomyare all around .50-.60. Furthermore, on intuitive grounds, theERG scales seem to be more meaningfully related to the JDIscales than the Maslow scales are. In addition, the ERG-JDIintercorrelations are "purer"; there is a greater tendency for anumber of Maslow scales to be strongly related to each JDIscale. This seems to be a function of low interscale correlationsfor JDI and ERG but relatively strong interscale agreement forMaslow. In this same context, the low reliability estimates ofinternal consistency for Maslow social ( = .34) and ERG-existence (r=.41) should be noted. Although both dimensionsseem to be correlated as expected with JDI scales and scalesfrom the appropriate theoretical orientation, increased internalconsistency should be sought in future investigations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONThe scales for assessing the Maslow constructs other thanself-actualization did not emerge with consistent clarity in anyof the studies. Efforts to measure "lower order needs" such asthose pertaining to material ends or human relationships asdefined by the Maslow system showed no regular pattern ofreliability or validity across the three studies. On the otherhand, the ERG scales at all need levels, in Study II and asmodified in Study III, replicated and extended Aiderfer's(1967, 1972) earlier work and correlated with the Job De-scription Index in meaningful ways. Perhaps it was not themeasures which have kept the Maslow concepts from receiv-ing empirical validation in the organizational literature (Hall

502/ASQ

NEED SATISFACTION

and Nougaim, 1968; Alderfer, 1969, 1972; Lawler and Suttle,1972), but the constructs themselves which were inadequatelydefined and not specifically designed to be tested with itemsreferring to outcomes from organizational participation. Thus,Maslow (1943, 1954) initially proposed his theory as a generalstatement about personality development, and others, mostnotably McGregor (1960), attempted to utilize the generalstatement and show its relevance for organizational settings.Later, Maslow (1965) himself also applied his need conceptsto understanding organizational behavior. Perhaps the mostappropriate empirical tests of the theory should be done de-velopmentally on individuals without regard to any particularenvironment. The data in these three studies were addressedonly to organizational settings.

But what has been learned about need satisfaction in organi-zational settings as a result of the three studies? First, Maslow'scategories appear to be difficult to operationalize in organi-zations. Porter's (1961) measure and the three attempts withSchneider's items reported in this paper were not very suc-cessful. It appears that each researcher has his own idea aboutthe components of the needs. Indeed one is struck by thefailure to simply ask people how satisfied they are with respectto each hypothesized need. The failure to ask a question asbroad as it would have to be—perhaps even a paragraph de-scribing the need—may be attributed to (1) the desire to seekinternal consistency in scales resulting in the asking of manyquestions and (2) the attempt to infer satisfaction of a needby analyzing responses to questions which ask about satis-faction with phenomena one thinks are components of theneed. Unfortunately, evidence is rarely available to indicatethat the specific items are in fact components of the generalconstruct.

Thus we have partially answered our second question aboutthe more general issue of need satisfaction in organizations;that is, need satisfaction is perhaps most appropriately con-ceptualized as a global construct, in the Gestalt sense, ageneral state of the organism which may be greater than thesum of the parts. If this is true then assessment must be of theGestalt, rather than just of the parts.

However, this is only part of the problem, because the taskof specifying the state of need satisfaction still remains: whatare the sensations, the feelings that are associated with thevarying levels of the satisfied state? Alderfer (1972, 7)defined the connection between individual reactions andsatisfaction for people in organizational settings. McGregor,however, in translating Maslow's theory to organizations, didnot specify states of the individuals; he specified the organiza-tional conditions he believed were necessary for need satis-faction—and then primarily for satisfaction of a self-actualization need—and failed to specify the way in which theindividual would feel. This has led to the assessment oforganizational conditions rather than the assessment of per-sonal states. Schneider (1973) has discussed this distinctionbetween the assessment of personal and organizational states,calling the former the assessment of satisfaction, the latter theassessment of climate. What is important in the present con-text is that need satisfaction is clearly a state of the individual,and this state should be assessed directly; to do this requirescareful and clear definitions of the states.

Given careful specification of the experiences individuals mayhave when satisfied at different levels and with different needs

503/ASO

it should be an easier task to derive measures that relate toeach other in expected ways. It should be noted, however,that seemingly minor changes in wording, format, directionsfor responding and so forth for the different measures maylead to unexpected failure to support hypotheses. Further,this caution also points up the problem of generalizing resultsobtained in one study with a given measure to the resultsobtained in another study with a different measure of the(hypothetically) same constructs.

Benjamin Schneider is associate professor ofpsychology and business administration at theUniversity of Maryland and visiting associate pro-fessor of industrial-organizational psychologyfor 1973-1974 at Bar-llan University, Ramat Gan,Israel.

Clayton P. Alderfer is associate professor in theDepartment of Administrative Sciences at YaleUniversity.

REFERENCES

Alderfer. Clayton P.1967 Convergent and discriminant

validation of satisfaction anddesire measures with andwithout preceding interviews.Journal of AppliedPsychology, 51: 509-520.

1969 An empirical test of a newtheory of human needs.Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 4:142-175.

1972 Human Needs inOrganizational Settings. NewYork: The Free Press ofGlencoe.

Argyris, Chris1964 Integrating the Individual and

the Organization. NewYork: Wiley.

Bartlett, C. J.1960 Factors affecting forced-

choice response. PersonnelPsychology, 13; 399-406.

Beer, Michael1966 Leadership, employee needs,

and motivation. Columbus,Ohio; Ohio State UniversityDivision of Research.

Evans, Martin G.1969 Conceptual and operational

problems in the measurementof various aspects of jobsatisfaction. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 53;93-101.

Guilford, J. P.1950 Fundamental Statistics in

Psychology and Education.New York; McGraw-Hill.

Hall, Douglas T., and K. E.Nougaim1968 An examination of Maslow's

need hierarchy in anorganizational setting.Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 3;12-35.

Hall, Douglas T., and BenjaminSchneider1973 Organizational Climates and

Careers; The Work Lives ofParish Priests. New York;Seminar Press.

Lawler, E. E., and J. L. Suttle1972 A causal correlational test of

the need hierarchy concept.Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 7;265-287.

Locke, E. A.1968 Toward a theory of task

motivation and incentives.Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 3;157-189.

Maslow, Abraham H.1943 A theory of human

motivation. PsychologicalReview, 50; 390-396.

1954 Motivation and Personality.New York; Harper.

1965 Enpsychian Management.Homewood, Illinois; Dorsey.

McGregor, Douglas M.1960 The Human Side of

Enterprise. New York;McGraw-Hill.

Porter, Lyman W.1961 A study of perceived need

satisfaction in bottom andmiddle management jobs.

Journal of AppliedPsychology, 45; 1-10.

Pugh, D.1969 Modern organization

theory; A psychological andsociological study. Pp. 24-42in L. L. Cummings and W.E. Scott (eds.) Readings in

Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance.Homewood, Illinois; Irwin.

Schein, Edgar H.1972 Organizational Psychology.

(2nd ed.) Englewood Cliff's,N.J.; Prentice-Hall.

Schneider, Benjamin1973 The perception of

organizational climate; TheCustomer's view. Journal ofApplied Psychology, inpress.

1973 The Perceived EnvironmentOrganizational climate.Working paper. Departmentof Psychology, University ofMaryland.

Schneider, B., and C. J.Bartlett1968 Individual differences and

organizational climate I; Theresearch plan andquestionnaire development.Personnel Psychology, 21 ;323-333.

Schneider, Benjamin, andDouglas T. Hall1972 Toward specifying the

concept of work climate; Astudy of Roman Catholicdiocesan priests. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 56;447-455.

504/ASQ

Schneider, B., and L. K. Olson1970 Effort as a correlate of

individual values andorganizational rewardsystem. PersonnelPsychology, 23; 313-326.

Sherwood, J. J.1962 Self-Identity and Self-

Actualization; A Theory andResearch. Unpublished

NEEDS SATISFACTION

doctoral dissertation.University of Michigan.

Smith, P. C , L. M. Kendall,and C. L. Hulin1969 The Measurement of

Satisfaction in Work andRetirement; A Strategy forthe Study of Attitudes.Chicago; Rand McNally.

Wanous, J. P., and E. E. Lawler

1972 Measurement and meaningof job satisfaction. Journalof Applied Psychology, 56;95-105.

White, Robert W.1959 Motivation reconsidered;

The concept of competence.Psychological Review, 66;297-333.

505/ASO