Learn in your language
Skip to content
A Level · Cambridge (CIE) · 9990

Compare need theories of work motivation

Apply Maslow’s five-level needs model and McClelland’s achievement, affiliation and power needs while evaluating what Saeednia’s scale study can and cannot show.

Section Paper 3 · Specialist Options: Approaches, Issues and Debates

Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 · Organisational Psychology · 2028–2030 · Version 1 · OPTION-OR-4.1.1

Original StudyForA teaching mapped to Cambridge 9990 Organisational Psychology section 4.1, 2028–2030 Version 1. Example studies illustrate the syllabus and are not official Cambridge materials or mark schemes.

Before you begin

  • This lesson covers Cambridge Psychology 9990 Organisational Psychology section 4.1.1. Need theories describe possible motives; a study’s sample and measures limit how far its findings can be applied.

Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.

Quick readiness check

Which set lists McClelland’s three needs?

What you will learn

  • Maslow’s five-level hierarchy of needs; Saeednia (2011)
  • McClelland’s needs for achievement, affiliation and power

Maslow proposed five broad categories of needs

Maslow’s hierarchy is commonly presented from lower to higher needs: physiological needs, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualisation. The model suggests that unmet needs can draw attention and that growth needs may become more salient when basic needs are reasonably met. In a workplace, fair pay and rest may support physiological needs; safe conditions support security; collegial relationships support belonging; respect and responsibility can support esteem; and meaningful opportunities may support development.

The hierarchy is a framework for asking what may matter to a person, not a checklist that every worker must climb in the same order. People can pursue several needs at once, and culture, personal circumstances and the job situation can change what matters. A worker may seek mastery while also needing income or belonging.

Saeednia (2011) developed a Basic-Needs-Satisfaction Scale for young children. The exploratory study interviewed 13 people and then administered a scale to 300 children. It examined how needs could be measured; it did not test a workplace intervention or prove that all five needs must be satisfied in a fixed sequence. The sample and child-focused instrument limit its direct application to employees.

McClelland focused on three learned motives

McClelland’s theory distinguishes need for achievement (nAch), affiliation (nAff) and power (nPow). A person high in achievement may prefer challenging but manageable tasks, personal responsibility and feedback. A person high in affiliation may value warm relationships and acceptance. A person high in power may seek influence; power can be used to coordinate and support a group or to control others.

These are relative motives rather than fixed personality boxes. A person may show more than one motive, and the role, culture and current situation can affect which motive is expressed. A team can need different contributions, so a manager should not label someone from one behaviour or assign a job using an unsupported questionnaire.

Unlike Maslow’s broad categories, McClelland describes differences in the kinds of incentives that may attract people. Neither theory alone explains every work choice: pay, job design, access, fairness, health and social conditions can also matter.

Use the models as questions, not prescriptions

A need-theory application starts with evidence about the person and setting. Ask whether workers can meet basic needs, feel safe and included, receive respect, and develop their abilities. Then consider whether achievement, affiliation or influence is important to a particular task. Voluntary conversations and fair access to options are safer than assuming what a group needs.

Individual explanations emphasise motives or priorities; situational explanations emphasise pay, safety, workload, team norms and opportunity. A holistic explanation considers their interaction. Cultural differences and unequal power can shape which needs can be expressed. A single satisfaction rating is not a complete measure of motivation or job quality.

Sources for this lesson

Pause and explain

What is a key limit of using Saeednia (2011) to make claims about employees?

Put the idea to work

Worked example

A supervisor offers every employee a competitive individual target, but some workers ask for a stable schedule and others for more team contact. Use Maslow and McClelland to explain why one target may not motivate everyone.

Show the worked solution
  1. Identify at least two possible needs in the workers’ requests without assuming one fixed order.
  2. Apply achievement, affiliation or power only where the evidence supports the interpretation.
  3. Include situational factors such as schedule control, pay and workload.

Answer A stable schedule may matter for safety or security, while team contact may support belonging or affiliation. A challenging target with feedback may appeal to achievement for some workers, but a uniform target does not establish each person’s motive. The supervisor should ask workers about preferences and consider workload, fairness and choice before changing the reward system.

Try a topic test

Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.

Test this topic →

From guided practice to a new situation

Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.

1 · Guided

A new worker is worried about unsafe equipment, wants to be accepted by the team and asks for challenging work. Apply Maslow and McClelland without forcing the evidence into one category.

Give me a hint

Separate the five broad categories from the three learned motives, and allow more than one need to matter.

Compare my reasoning
  1. Unsafe equipment may threaten safety; acceptance may relate to belonging or affiliation.
  2. Challenging work could appeal to achievement, depending on the worker’s own goals.
  3. More than one need or motive may be active at the same time.
  4. Ask the worker and address the objective safety issue rather than treating motivation as a personality label.

The concern about equipment relates to safety in Maslow’s framework, and wanting team acceptance may relate to belonging and McClelland’s affiliation motive. The request for challenging work may be consistent with achievement, but the worker should be asked rather than classified. The employer must fix the safety concern regardless of its motivational interpretation.

Look for these in your work

  • Two theories applied
  • Multiple motives allowed
  • Safety issue treated as real, not a label
2 · Independent

Evaluate the claim that Saeednia (2011) proved managers should satisfy lower needs before offering development opportunities.

Give me a hint

Report the study’s population and purpose, then compare the conclusion with the evidence collected.

Compare my reasoning
  1. The study developed a Basic-Needs-Satisfaction Scale for young children.
  2. It used interviews with 13 people and administered the resulting measure to 300 children.
  3. It did not test employees, workplace opportunities or the order in which needs motivate behaviour.
  4. It cannot prove a universal sequence for managers to apply; the hierarchy remains a theory to evaluate.

The conclusion overstates the study. Saeednia developed and assessed a child needs-satisfaction scale; the work did not manipulate workplace opportunities or test a fixed sequence of employee needs. Managers can consider basic conditions and development together and should use employee feedback and relevant outcome evidence.

Look for these in your work

  • Study purpose stated
  • Sample described
  • Unsupported workplace sequence rejected
3 · Transfer

A company wants to redesign jobs for a team with varied roles. Propose a fair needs-informed approach and explain how you would evaluate it.

Give me a hint

Offer meaningful choice, include situational conditions and measure outcomes over time rather than assigning assumed motives.

Compare my reasoning
  1. Ask employees about safety, scheduling, belonging, recognition, development and influence, using accessible ways to respond.
  2. Offer a range of options where operationally possible instead of labelling staff by presumed need.
  3. Check fairness, workload, pay and access so that basic workplace conditions are not replaced by motivational extras.
  4. Compare baseline and follow-up outcomes such as voluntary feedback, attendance or retention, alongside interviews; account for other changes.

A fair redesign would consult employees, protect safe and reasonable working conditions, and offer varied routes for development, team connection and influence where feasible. Evaluate implementation, access and relevant outcomes at baseline and follow-up, and combine quantitative indicators with employee feedback. A change in one measure would not prove that a single need caused the result.

Look for these in your work

  • Employee choice included
  • Working conditions considered
  • Evaluation includes comparison and limits

Common mistakes

  • Treating Maslow’s levels as a universal, rigid sequence
  • Assuming one employee can have only one McClelland motive
  • Using Saeednia’s child scale as proof about workplace motivation
  • Treating a need category as a diagnosis or a reliable way to assign jobs
  • Ignoring culture, working conditions and unequal access to rewards
Recall without your notes

What can you explain now?

What did Saeednia (2011) investigate, and what does it not prove about work?

Compare with the explanation

The study developed and tested a basic-needs-satisfaction scale with young children. It did not test employee motivation or prove that needs must be satisfied in one fixed order at work.

Match the population and outcome of a study to the claim you make.

After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.

Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.

Make it stick

Compare Maslow’s five need categories with McClelland’s achievement, affiliation and power motives, then use Saeednia’s sample to set a limit on workplace claims.

If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.

Keep learning Psychology

Course scope and assessment

Seven original lessons map all 15 AS research-method and methodological-concept sections to explained Guided, Independent and Transfer practice. All 12 compulsory AS core studies have original study-specific teaching and staged practice; five additional A Level methodology lessons cover research design and validity. All 15 Clinical, all 15 Consumer (2.1.1–2.5.3) and all 15 Health (3.1.1–3.5.3) Psychology sections link to original teaching and staged practice. All 15 Organisational Psychology sections 4.1–4.5 now have original teaching and explained staged practice; the six new 4.4–4.5 lessons bring the planning map to 92 of 92 indexed sections. Consumer lessons cover physical and psychological environments; decision models, heuristics and mistakes; packaging, selling and buying; advertising, self-monitoring, product placement, brand recognition and slogans. Evaluation boundaries are explicit: studies use particular products, samples, tasks and settings; gaze, recall, self-report, EEG indices, ratings, choices and purchases are different outcomes. Health evidence is bounded: Laba et al. measured hypothetical preferences; Riekert and Drotar raise a non-response concern; Chung and Naya's cap tracked openings, not swallowing; Chaney et al. was a short caregiver-reported pilot; Yokley and Glenwick examined immunisation attendance in one public-health setting. MacLachlan et al. report one patient, not a controlled treatment effect; Brudvik et al. compared separate child, parent and physician ratings in one emergency department. Chandola et al. found a cohort association; Wang et al. measured responses during a monitored arithmetic task; Evans and Wener observed commuters; Bridge et al. found mixed self-rated outcomes in radiotherapy. Janis and Feshbach measured short-term self-reports in one school; Lewin et al. tested a rehabilitation package, not information alone. Tapper et al. and Fox et al. studied bounded school and worksite programmes; incentive effects do not establish transfer or rule out reporting effects. Weinstein measured comparative expectations, while Seligman’s framework is conceptual and Shoshani and Steinmetz used a school-level comparison. These findings do not establish universal health effects or diagnose individuals. Need-theory examples use a child measurement study, not a workplace test; SMART is a practical checklist, not a motivational theory. Landry et al. compared reward framing with student volunteers in a lab; this does not establish universal effects in workplaces. Cuadrado et al. (2008) measured undergraduate evaluations of presented leaders, not workplace performance or hiring; this does not establish a universal gender effect. The historical 1995 Munchausen criteria are not a current diagnostic checklist. Cambridge’s 2028–2030 Reference List treats Oruč et al. (1997) as an example of genetic explanation although its participants had bipolar I; gambling disorder is listed in Cambridge’s Clinical topic but classified under addictive behaviours in ICD-11. Candidates choose two options, but all four remain listed so schools can select a route. The 92-section count is a planning index, not a Cambridge score. Remaining work is deeper coverage review, separate-year syllabus reconciliation, timed-paper practice and human subject-expert review. The separate 2027 and 2024–2026 syllabuses are not reconciled into this route. Practice is not official grading, a timed-paper simulation or human subject-expert review.

StudyForA · Learn with understanding

Original teaching content and links to official sources. Check your exam year and qualification before using a resource.