Introduction
Any social culture built on interactions between people, including the corporate environment, seeks to be able to motivate subordinate individuals to conform to expected behavior. A department head wants their employees to show high performance, adhere to ethical standards, and build positive relationships with co-workers. A parent wants a child to obey and not engage in forbidden and unhealthy behaviors and actions. Examples of these cultures and environments abound, but there is a need for a motivational framework in almost every one of them. Motivational theories are a set of psychological constructs that attempt to explain patterns of human behavior: they attempt not only to identify the causes of specific actions but to predict how those actions can be managed in the future (Cafferky, 2017; Park, 2018). Understanding motivational drivers gives power to decision-makers and allows them to inspire individuals in ways that achieve desired outcomes.
In this paper, the focus is specifically on the corporate environment in which the leader has an interest in ensuring that their employees are productive, complete assigned tasks, follow the rules, and, most importantly, bring value to the company. Of course, any motivational theory is only an explanatory tool, and the consequences of its use depend on what the leader’s intentions are. Threats to human dignity when using motivational theories are particularly relevant in the synthesis with the Human Dignity-Centered Framework (HDCF) proposed by Mea and Sims (2019). According to the authors, “HD [HDCF] is the idea that every human being has a transcendent value that resides within his or her essence…it is an indispensable aspect of what makes a human a person” (Mea & Sims, 2019, p. 55). This paper proposes an emphasis on the ethical and legal foundations of the theory but also offers a critical discussion of any threats and problems from motivating subordinates for immoral purposes.
The significance of this research paper is built on an understanding of the benefits of motivation and, thus, a careful consideration of its potential attributes. The benefits of motivation seem obvious: inspired and directed employees perform better, find themselves more engaged in work tasks, and create a positive corporate climate (Paais & Pattiruhu, 2020). When an employee is motivated to work, it also means that they are unlikely to want to quit or miss a workday, which means department productivity can improve in the long run. The reputational attribute should not be ignored either: such employees increase the attractiveness of the workplace, which creates better opportunities for talent acquisition and outside investment. To put it another way, corporate motivation is a vital part of working with subordinates, which is why its detailed and critical examination makes sense both in academic discourse and in this research paper.
To concretize the research, this paper chose Maslow’s motivational theory of needs, which explained the pyramidal hierarchy of needs. Specifically, Maslow created the construct that an individual’s needs are lined up in a hierarchical (pyramidal) order, and only when the lower levels are met can an individual be motivated to move to higher-order needs (Hale et al., 2019; Mcleod, 2023). In other words, American psychologist Abraham Maslow conceptualized this hierarchy in 1943 by designating that a person cannot experience high-level needs until the lower needs are met (Selvam & Gomathi, 2022). Thus, an employee with a severe need for safe housing and quality food, living in low-budget hostels, and eating highly unhealthy fast-cooked food will hardly think about developing new job skills, research, aesthetic enjoyment, and self-actualization. In the context of the corporate environment, this theory can help a leader identify opportunities to motivate subordinates based on an understanding of the level at which they are.
Maslow’s theory of motivation is directly related to HDCF because both constructs address the importance of considering the needs of the employee. In fact, HDCF creates ethical constraints on the applicability of Maslow’s theory by directing the leader to follow the rules of morality when making decisions about motivating a subordinate. Thus, any needs-based motivation must focus on the short- and long-term consequences that decisions will bring to the employee and the concern that those consequences will not be harmful.
The organizational structure of this research paper is built on a detailed study of the ethical and legal foundations of Maslow’s theory of needs, demonstrating examples of its applicability in the scriptures as evidence for the HDCF and identifying the deeper connection between the chosen motivational theory and the HDCF. The scholarly basis of this work is built on the use of academic sources and Sacred texts, allowing the material to be viewed as some generalization of the available evidence. The scholarly work proves helpful to students and anyone interested in learning more about the attributes of Maslow’s theory, its practical application to corporate environments, and its ethical facets.
Ethical and Legal Foundations of Theory
Conceptualizing Maslow’s Theory
In order to analyze the ethical and legal foundations of motivation theory, it is paramount to outline the essence of Maslow’s theory in more detail. As shown in Figure 1, the hierarchy model is a pyramid, at the base of which are the primary and most essential, in some sense, even animal needs. These include the needs for food, shelter, reproduction, and other essential biological needs of the individual. After closing these needs, the individual moves to the level of the need for security, which includes a sense of social attachment, the availability of sufficient resources, including financial and health, and a safe life without crime. The third step of the pyramid is the need for love and belonging: these are no longer strictly biological needs but rather a product of the individual’s social life. This level includes the need for friendship, romantic and intimate relationships, and family formation. It is important to note that these attributes of social life are not equally necessary for all people since, for some individuals having only a love partner or one friend is enough, while more extroverted individuals create around themselves a circle of loved ones with whom they keep in constant touch (Helm et al., 2021; Yang & Hsu, 2020). Moreover, the need for a family does not correspond to its unambiguous formation because an individual may decide for themselves that they want to build a career, not a family, and abandon any attempts to create it. In other words, the above examples should not be taken as obligatory attributes of any person’s life in Maslow’s paradigm, but instead, they should be seen as issues that each person must decide for themselves.
The last two levels of Maslow’s pyramid are represented by evaluation and self-actualization. Individuals need to be sure that they have respect and recognition, can assess themselves, including noticing weaknesses, form for themselves an understanding of freedom, and determine the framework within which they want to exist, if any. For example, an employee consciously wants a promotion, and demonstrates themselves to their superiors as a responsible and executive individual, performing more norms of tasks and taking the initiative — this is personal freedom and the employee’s choice, and so the previous needs have been covered. Finally, the top of the pyramid is self-actualization, represented by personal growth, the desire to discover one’s potential and find meaning in life. For the human being, who is a biosocial being, self-actualization, according to Maslow, represents the highest point of needs, that is, some ideal to strive for, which is not always attainable (Hale et al., 2019; Mcleod, 2023; Rodrigues, 2022). This means that some people may never reach the upper levels and spend their entire lives trying to meet only the lower existential needs of the biological type.
An essential feature of this model is the lack of strict adherence to needs: depending on personal experience and quality of life, individuals may “jump” between the rungs of the pyramid. For example, it is possible that some employees will need career growth and recognition of their corporate significance more than they will need safe and comfortable housing. In addition, it is possible that if a person has closed the lower needs, they really need to satisfy the upper needs. A fed and awake employee will not necessarily want promotion, recognition, or professional development, and their current level of existence may be sufficient. In other words, Maslow’s theory is a valuable practical concept, but it cannot be used as a universal motivational tool.
The Ethical Foundations of the Theory
Identical to Maslow’s theory is an understanding of ethics that differs according to the level of closed needs of the individual is at. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, ethics should be understood as “a system of accepted beliefs that control behavior, especially such a system based on morals” (CD, 2023, para. 1). In simple terms, ethics guides an individual’s behavior according to what is moral and right in a particular community. From this perspective, it is understandable that the ethical views of individuals at different levels of Maslow may differ from one another (Spillane & Joullié, 2022). An individual who needs to satisfy basic needs, namely, to find food and shelter, can shamelessly steal bread from stores or things from the pockets of passersby because in a dilemma between survival and adherence to social norms of morality, for such an individual, the former is much more critical. At the second level of the pyramid, when basic physiological needs are closed, the individual needs security and resources — ethics, in this sense, may be about how the individual is able to protect the resources they have. If, for example, someone unfamiliar wants to break into a person’s home or steal food, money, or possessions, the ethical dilemma for the individual is to perform measures to protect their resources, whether by violence, negotiation, or withdrawal from conflict, depending on what is ethically valuable to the individual (Giudici, 2020). For example, at the third level of social needs, an individual may have their own moral compass that encourages them to embark on a career and forgo any solid social ties or, conversely, to prioritize the development of a personal life and use work only as a way to earn a living. It follows from the above that the ethical foundations for Maslow’s pyramid are dynamic concepts and dilemmas that are born individually and differ between levels. Individuals at levels one and five are unlikely to face the same ethical issues, so their areas of interest are unlikely to overlap.
There is also an alternative possibility to look at Maslow’s motivational theory from the perspective of axiological ethics. In particular, the highest need, according to the psychologist, is defined in self-actualization and the search for the meaning of life, which is associated with the ethical principle of autonomy (Papaleontiou-Louca et al., 2022). According to this principle, a person has the right and dignity to make personal, independent choices and the freedom to follow these choices. From this, one can conclude that this motivational theory is based on the principle of autonomy and recognizes the importance of such a moral right for each individual. However, the ethical principle of unconditional respect for the individual can also be applied to Maslow’s theory since each person has some innate, inherent physiological needs that allow for the formation of understanding between them (Gerger et al., 2020). For example, people tend to have compassion for the homeless and hungry members of society because they can understand the pain they are going through. It can be assumed that respect and compassion as ethical foundations are the motivating force for the creation of charitable organizations whose activities are aimed at helping those in need (Reich, 2020). Thus, from this perspective, Maslow’s theory has ethical foundations in the form of autonomy, respect, and compassion.
It is also not unimportant to consider the use of motivational theory from the perspective of the corporate leader in the context of ethics. It is understandable that a leader can assess the needs of their subordinates and determine which interests are a priority for them. For employees at the lower levels, the most important may be salary and the increase in its size, allowing them to survive more effectively, while for employees at the higher levels of the pyramid, the central axiological values are career advancement, recognition of their importance, or the opportunity to make serious decisions in the workplace (Peters, 2019). An effective manager considers the differences in employees’ needs and interests and, using Maslow’s concept, offers them appropriate motivations, encouraging them to perform certain behaviors. In this context, the manager’s actions and intentions are related to trying to embed a culture of ethics in the corporate environment. It is appropriate to quote Keller and Alsdorf (2012), who said that “the way to serve God is to work from a Christian motivation to glorify God, seeking to engage and influence culture to that end” (p. 19). Influencing culture in this sense is the manager’s use of motivational theory to promote ethical behavior at work. Thus, when a supervisor knows exactly what needs a subordinate has and offers resources to meet those needs, this can be a predictor of increased employee satisfaction, which in turn encourages ethical behavior (Paais & Pattiruhu, 2020; Yousaf et al., 2019). At the same time, this strategy allows for a mutually beneficial collaborative environment in which each party — supervisor and subordinate — receives the desired outcome, which means that their needs are met, and importance is emphasized.
It is not excluded that the manager can use the motivational theory for unethical, manipulative purposes. If the manager knows what interests and needs are relevant to the employee and uses this for self-serving purposes while not motivating and inspiring but forcing and blackmailing, this is an example of unethical use of Maslow’s theory. The difference between ethical and unethical use is only that the supervisor recognizes the absolute value and importance of the employee, acts only within the limits of available authority, and does not manipulate the behavior of subordinates for their own purposes. Including the use of this theory should imply that the supervisor recognizes employees’ cultural differences, implements social responsibility practices, and uses organizational resources to take care of subordinates (Kimotho, 2019). It follows from all of the above that ethical foundations are inextricably linked to the implementation of Maslow’s hierarchical theory, and the application of the latter in a corporate environment cannot be practical without the use of the former.
The Legal Foundations of the Theory
Although Maslow’s conceptual theory is not a legal obligation for companies, its implementation involves several issues lying in the legal realm. The most obvious seems to be the violation of employees’ rights when manipulative techniques are used by a supervisor. For example, if a supervisor blackmails their subordinates with resources to force them to act in a certain way, this could be considered a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA ensures that every employee should not be paid below the minimum wage and that any overtime work should be paid (US DOL, 2022). Violation of these rules by a supervisor using Maslow’s theories is a severe labor offense. For example, according to this act, the minimum wage in the United States is $7.25 per hour and manipulating this level (“If you do not do the job, I will lower your wage”) is a legal violation. To ensure that employees are not subject to such manipulation and ways to be objectively evaluated, the U.S. has an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which limits employers’ ability to use evaluation criteria inappropriately and inappropriately (US EEOC, 2021). Thus, it is legally regulated that the use of Maslow’s theory must be legitimate, valuing the dignity of the employee and in good faith.
It is fair to recognize that the implementation of Maslow’s theory in the context of the legal framework is not only appropriate to consider in terms of misconduct and deviance. For example, American employees with disabilities are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which ensures that every such employee should not be discriminated against and can have vital devices and equipment to perform job tasks (US DJCRD, 2022). Accordingly, it is the supervisor’s responsibility to cover the needs of disabled employees and give them opportunities to exercise their job skills.
Biblical Examples
In the context of humanistic management, the use of Christian examples of beneficence seems necessary. Keller and Alsdorf (2012) postulated a connection between Christian vocation and employee professional performance, and Cafferky (2017) provided several examples of biblical demonstrations of motivational theories. An example of a biblical interpretation of Maslow’s theory would be when Jesus was able to protect his disciples during a storm that struck them suddenly: satisfying the need for safety allowed them to focus on the purpose of their journey (NIV, 2011, Mark 4:35-41). The fulfillment of the need for social attachment and relationship building is also evident in the story of Ruth, who decided to stay with her mother-in-law after her husband died, and together they were able to survive the grief as they created a social bond: “where you go, I will go, and where you stay, I will stay” (NIV, 2011, Ruth 1:16). Proverbs 22:1 also emphasizes the importance of meeting needs for respect and recognition, namely “a good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold” (NIV, 2011, Proverbs 22:1). What is particularly interesting in this quote is the comparison between tangible and intangible goods, which fits perfectly with Maslow’s hierarchy, in which material resources appear lower in importance than recognition, respect, and self-actualization. Self-actualization, however, is more prominent in the following passage, “…I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus” (NIV, 2011, Philippians 3:13-14). This quote emphasizes the importance of striving toward higher goals and achieving fundamental vocation. Thus, the scriptures contain much supporting evidence for Maslow’s motivational theory, and only a tiny portion of it has been examined. This leads to the conclusion that ethical management of subordinates cannot but be linked to biblical examples.
Concept Discussion
HDCF recognizes the value and importance of employees in all business practices and ensures that these subordinate attributes are followed by any manager regardless of the situation. The formation of this concept was an academic response to society’s growing need for a socially responsible, ethical business that prioritizes respect for the employee (Mea & Sims, 2019). The authors of the HDCF emphasized that the concept is built on four tenets, namely (i) respect for the dignity and (ii) responsibility to protect rights, (iii) recognition of vulnerabilities, and (iv) promotion of prosperity. Thus, any socially responsible business should build on these foundations and implement HDCF practices.
It is not difficult to draw a parallel between HDCF and Maslow’s hierarchical theory of motivation. On the one hand, the theory fully supports the HDCF, as it points to the importance of meeting human needs, recognizing their differences, and the importance of self-actualization. From this perspective, an ethical manager using Maslow’s theory accepts the importance of each employee and implements business practices and decisions that promote a sense of importance. On the other hand, there may be contradictions between Maslow’s theory and the HDCF. First, if a manager behaves unethically, manipulates employees, and violates labor laws, this is an example of implementing Maslow’s theory because it prioritizes need satisfaction but does not conform to the HDCF concept that recognizes the dignity of human life. Second, hierarchical theory can seem overly simplistic and uniform, which prevents managers from applying it to culturally diverse work groups (Kimotho, 2019; Papaleontiou-Louca et al., 2022). This, in turn, can create room for discrimination against some employees over others. To summarize, Maslow’s theory combines and does not combine with the HDCF simultaneously, as the extent to which they are linked depends primarily on the intentions and actions of the decision-maker and the external factors of the corporate environment.
References
Cafferky, M. E. (2017). Management & leadership theories in scripture narratives: An editor’s outline of opportunities for further study [PDF document]. Web.
CD. (2023). Ethic. Cambridge Dictionary. Web.
Gerger, H., Nascimento, A. F., Locher, C., Gaab, J., & Trachsel, M. (2020). What are the key characteristics of a ‘good ‘psychotherapy? Calling for ethical patient involvement. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 1-8. Web.
Giudici, D. (2020). Conflict management — I don’t get angry anymore! Aloha SRL.
Hale, A. J., Ricotta, D. N., Freed, J., Smith, C. C., & Huang, G. C. (2019). Adapting Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as a framework for resident wellness. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 31(1), 109-118. Web.
Helm, S., Kemper, J. A., & White, S. K. (2021). No future, no kids – no kids, no future? An exploration of motivations to remain childfree in times of climate change. Population and Environment, 43, 108-129. Web.
Keller, T., & Alsdorf, K. L. (2012). Every good endeavor: Connecting your work to God’s work. Dutton.
Kimotho, S. G. (2019). Cultural implications of western motivational theories on organizations from other cultures [PDF document]. Web.
Mcleod, S. (2023). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory. Simply Psychology. Web.
Mea, W. J., & Sims, R. R. (2019). Human dignity-centered business ethics: A conceptual framework for business leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(1), 53-69. Web.
NIV. (2011). Bible Gateway. Web.
Paais, M., & Pattiruhu, J. R. (2020). Effect of motivation, leadership, and organizational culture on satisfaction and employee performance. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(8), 577-588. Web.
Papaleontiou–Louca, E., Esmailnia, S., & Thoma, N. (2022). A critical review of Maslow’s theory of spirituality. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 24(4), 327-343. Web.
Park, S. W. (2018). Motivation theories and instructional design. Foundations of learning and instructional design technology. BYU.
Peters, R. (2019). Solving bio/pharma employee career advancement demands: Keeping valuable employees happy — and on the job — may test bio/pharma business decisions. Pharmaceutical Technology, 43(1), 24-26.
Reich, R. (2020). Just giving: Why philanthropy is failing democracy and how it can do better. Princeton University Press.
Rodrigues, V. J. F. (2022). Experiential consciousness and the nature of human identity. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Selvam, P. M., & Gomathi, A. (2022). An analysis of Maslow hierarchy approaches and impact of self-esteem among adolescents [PDF document]. Web.
Spillane, R., & Joullié, J. E. (2022). Justifying ethical values: A purposive ethics for managers. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 31(4), 1185-1192. Web.
US DJCRD. (2022). Laws, regulations & standards. U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Web.
US DOL. (2022). Wages and the Fair Labor Standards Act. US Department of Labor. Web.
US EEOC. (2021). Overview. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Web.
Yang, S. C., & Hsu, C. W. (2020). Personality test social application system construction-the influence of community platform on personality trait extroversion, real and virtual interpersonal relationship [PDF document]. Web.
Yousaf, K., Abid, G., Butt, T. H., Ilyas, S., & Ahmed, S. (2019). Impact of ethical leadership and thriving at work on psychological well-being of employees: Mediating role of voice behaviour. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 17(2), 194-217. Web.