Topic 2 – Overview

Human Relations, Behavioural and Social Psychological Theories

Learning Objectives
Engage critically with human relations and behavioural theories of management

Compare and evaluate the work of several prominent social scientists on worker motivation

Introduction
It was December 2015 when Guardian’s undercover reporters revealed unfair working
conditions in ‘Sports Direct’, one of the world’s biggest sport retailers (Goodley and Ashby,
2015). Although the company was accused in the past for unfair practices (Ruddick, 2015), the
allegations this time were shocking. Sports Direct was accused for a wide range of unfair
practices, varying from payments below the minimum wage, threatening practices to refrain
workers from taking sick leave, intimidating worker body searches at the end of each shift,
harsh deductions from workers’ wages for clocking in for a shift just one minute late, strict
surveillance and more.

(Source: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/28/sports-direct-staff-zero-hour-contracts)

1
As soon as the news hit the public domain, the situation reached the status of gross
misconduct. Profits have fallen sharply (http://www.bbc.com/news/36733158, 15-03-2017)
and the company’s founder Mike Ashley (also Deputy Executive Chairman) was asked to appear
before the British Parliament for a committee hearing.

(Source: https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmbis/219/219.pdf, accessed

15-03-2017).

2
The Parliament’s Business, Innovation and Skills Committee concluded that the company was
treating its workers as commodities rather than humans while some of its practices were
appalling. The executive management was turning a blind eye to the conditions at Sports Direct,
replacing human dignity with maximisation of profits. The committee’s chairman, Iain Wright,
said: [t]he evidence we heard points to a business whose working practices are closer to that of
a Victorian workhouse than that of a modern, reputable high street retailer. For this to occur in
the UK in 2016 is a serious indictment of the management at Sports Direct and Mike Ashley, as
the face of Sports Direct, must be held accountable for these failings.

Overall, although Sports Direct is by no means the only company to engage people on such
terms, what was disturbing in this case was the psychological force and cruelty characterizing
its labour processes. The working conditions were absolutely opposite to what contemporary
management practices should be. Psychological force and strict control is not expected to make
employees work these days. On the contrary, as explained in this topic overview, productivity
and hard work is often linked to employee motivation. Whereas the classical approaches
discussed in ‘Topic 1 – Overview’ were mainly concerned with the structure and mechanics of
organisations in the early to mid-20th century, this week’s topic focuses on the human factors
at work; the behaviour of people at the workplace.

Figure 2.1: Overview of how the module unfolds, Author’s Own

3
Main Analysis
As explained in the introduction, the idea of motivation is that managers can apply a number of
motivational theories to make employees work harder. ‘Human motivation studies aim, in
essence, to discover what it is that triggers and sustains human behaviour at the workplace’
(Mitchel, 1982).

For Mitchell, there are four common characteristics that underpin definitions of motivation
(Mitchell, 1982, cited in Mullins, 2007, p250). First, motivation is typified as an individual
phenomenon. Every person is unique and all the major theories of motivation allow for this
uniqueness to be demonstrated in one way or another. Second, motivation is described,
usually, as intentional. Motivation is assumed to be under the worker’s control, and behaviours
that are influenced by motivation, such as effort expended, are seen as choices of action. A
third point is that motivation is multifaceted. In other words, the two factors of greatest
importance are (i) what gets people activated (arousal), and (ii) the force of an individual to
engage in desired behaviour (direction or choice of behaviour). Finally, the purpose of
motivational theories is to predict behaviour. Motivation is not the behaviour itself and it is not
4
performance. Motivation concerns action and the internal and external forces which influence a
person’s choice of action.

At a very basic level, a simplified model of motivation suggests that a stimulus, such as hunger
(physical) or the desire for company (social) gives rise to a response. This response takes the
form of some kind of behaviour, which leads to an outcome which is either satisfactory or
unsatisfactory. Where the behaviour is appropriate, satisfaction is achieved.

Figure 2.2: A basic model of Motivation, Adapted by Cole and Kelly, 2016

5
Think Theory… food for thought
Think about a motivation issue at your current workplace and then apply the
input/process/output model to it (appearing on the previous page). Then, take a pen
and write 200 words, describing how this motive is directed towards desired ends, as
well as your behaviour towards the achievement of that end.

Theories of Motivation

Motivation theories can be discussed under two main categories:

1. Content theories of motivation: Those theories that attempt to explain those specific
things which actually motivate the individual at work and are concerned with identifying
people’s needs, the strength of those needs and the goals they pursue in order to satisfy
those needs. This body of theory includes ‘McGregor Theory Y and X’; Hertzberg’s
Motivation-Hygiene Theory; Alderfer’s ERG Theory; and McClelland’s Need Theory;

2. Process theories of motivation: These theories look at motivation as the outcome of a

dynamic interaction between the person and their experiences of an organisation and
its management. Such processes depend critically on the sense individuals make of their
experiences at work. This body of theory includes the so called ‘Expectancy Theory’;
‘Equity Theory’;and ‘Goal Theory’.

(Source: Cole and Kelly, 2016).

Similarly, Schein (1988), a social scientist appointed at the MIT School of Management
identified four assumptions about how managers perceive employees. His classification follows
a broadly chronological pattern as follows:

Assumption 1 – The Rational-economic model. This view of human motivation has its roots in
the economic theories of Adam Smith in the 1770s. It suggests that the pursuit of self-interest
and the maximization of gain are the prime motivators. According to Schein, this view places
human beings into two main categories: (1) the untrustworthy, money motivated, calculative
masses, and (2) the trustworthy, more broadly motivated moral elite whose task it is to
6
organize and control the masses. Such an approach is evident in the work of Taylor (1911/
2005), the Gilbreths (1914/1973), and the entrepreneurs of mass production techniques. For
more on Taylor as well as Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, see Chapter 2 in our ebook 1.

Assumption 2 – The Social model. In the ‘social model’, Schein (1988) drew heavily on the
conclusions of the Hawthorne researchers (1933). This view sees people as predominantly
motivated by social needs – the need for personal relationships. The implication for managers is
that emphasis on attending to people’s needs over the needs of the task leads to greater
productivity as well as higher morale. Such a view, according to Schein, needs to be treated
with some reservations while offering roots to the Elton Mayo’s - “Hawthorne Studies”
(discussed immediately after this section).

Assumption 3 – The Self-actualizing model. This concept is based on Maslow’s (1954) theory of
human needs (see below), which, whilst allowing for the influence of other needs, stresses as
the prime motivator individual need for self-fulfilment. The implication for managers is that
people need challenge, responsibility and autonomy in their work if they are to work
effectively. There is some research evidence to support such a view, especially amongst
professional and highly skilled employees while offering roots in Abraham Maslow’s Theory of
Human Needs and D.C. McClelland’s (1961) “Achievement Motivation”

Assumption 4 – The Complex model. Schein (1988) proposes this model of motivation as more
comprehensive than the earlier models. It presupposes that understanding people’s motivation
is a complex business in which several interrelated factors are at work. Managers in this
situation need to be sensitive to a range of possible responses to employee motivation
dependent upon the differing work and team environments. Schein himself prefers to see
motivation as a form of ‘psychological contract’ between the organization and its employees,
based on their respective expectations of each other’s contribution. Ultimately, the relationship
between an individual and his or her organization is both interactive and interdependent.
Managers must be adaptable, intelligent and sensitive to the needs of staff due to varying
situations; managers must be flexible and vary their behaviour accordingly to the situation to
the different needs and motivation of staff. Last but not least, managers diagnose motives of
employees as motives vary according to task, groups and culture.

(Source: Cole and Kelly, 2016: 45)

As with Figure 2.2 on page 5 (Figure 2.2: A basic model of Motivation, Adapted by Cole and
Kelly, 2016), Schein’s classification enables us to link major management approaches to
motivation, the basis of which is that human motives are directed towards desired ends. As

7
explained, however, differing opinions have emerged as to what constitutes these ends and
how they are best met in the work situation.

‘Human Relations’ Approaches’

The motivation theories discussed in this section are labelled ‘content theories’ of motivation.
This is because they focus on the needs, drivers or triggers of human behaviour in the
workplace (Cole and Kelly, 2016). Content theories focus on WHAT, while process theories
focus on HOW human behaviour is motivated.

The Hawthorne Experiments

As far as the Hawthorne studies are concerned, everything started at the Hawthorne plant of
the Western Electric Company in Chicago, USA by Professor Elton Mayo in 1927. Unlike Taylor
and scientific managers, the researchers at Hawthorne were primarily concerned on the
workers rather than on work. In other words, social scientists participating in the Hawthorne
plant experiments were especially interested with worker’s behaviour and their social
relationships at work (Sonnenfeld, 1985; Hassard, 2012)

Besides, this is the key characteristic of the human relation theory, that is, a shift in emphasis
from the job itself to the workers and their behaviour at that job (Gillespie, 1991). Studies and
theories in the field of human relations go beyond physical contributions to include the
creative, cognitive, and emotional aspects of workers; the importance of communication; and
the social relationships that are at the heart of organizational behavior. Within this framework,
workers communicate opinions, complaints, suggestions, and feelings to increase satisfaction
and production.

The beginning of Human Relations theories, moreover, can be located in the Hawthorne
studies. There were four main phases to the Hawthorne experiments as follows:

First stage: lighting study (1924-1927)

The lighting study was designed to test the effect of lighting intensity on productivity. The
equipment was sponsored by an electricity company. Two groups of similar performance were
isolated from the rest and located in separate parts of the plant. One group, the control group,
had a consistent level of lighting; the other group, the experimental group, had its lighting
varied. The overall finding was the impact of human relationships on work behavior as the
8
output of both groups increased. The company then sought the help of Elton Mayo (1933) and
his Harvard colleagues.

Stage 2 Relay Assembly Test Room (1927-1929)

This phase was detailed in terms of the effect of physical conditions on productivity. Production
and satisfaction increased regardless of research team interventions in making conditions
better or worse. Workers’ increased production and satisfaction were related to supervisory
practices. Once again, the outcome was that human interrelationships are important
contributing factors to worker productivity.

Stage 3: Interviewing Program (1928-1930)

20,000 interview were carried out during this phase. The aim was to investigate employees’
attitudes to working conditions, their supervision and their jobs. Employees expressed their
ideas and feelings while the processes of the interviews became less formal over time. It
emerged that relationships with other people were an important factor in attitudes of
employees

Stage 4: Bank Wiring Room Observation Study (1932)

In this phase, 14 men on bank wiring were removed to a separate observation room, where,
apart from a few differences, their principal working conditions were the same as those in the
main wiring area. The aim here was to observe the behaviour of a group working under more
or less formal conditions over a period of 6 months or so. Interestingly, the group soon
developed its own rules and behaviour. The focus of this phase was on counselling (employees
sharing their work problems and concerns) and the results led to improvements in employee-
supervisor and employee-management relations.

Overall, the social scientists participating in the Hawthorne experiments concluded that people
are social animals, both at the workplace and outside it (Cole and Kelly, 2016). Therefore,
individuals should not be viewed in isolation but rather as part of group. In fact, the importance
of belonging to a group is as important as financial incentives or physical working conditions.
Social groups, moreover, can influence production and individual work behavior.

As explained earlier, Elton Mayo popularised the Hawthorne experiments (Mayo, 1933) but
Roethlisberger (Harvard) and Dickson (company’s own researcher) wrote up the official account
(Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939). The Hawthorne experiments were flawed as a number of
critiques of (for example) the part played by Elton Mayo (1933) and his beliefs have been
advanced. But they nevertheless acted as an important catalyst for a consideration of the

9
human aspects of organisations. Also, the Hawthorne studies were the origins of the idea of the
‘informal organisation’. This movement, spanned the period from the mid-1920s to the mid-
1950s, after which there was a gradual trend away from the social model towards the complex
model, where people operate in highly variable organizational environments (Cole and Kelly,
2016).

Social Psychological School of Motivation

The shift in emphasis from the job itself to the workers and their behaviour continued by
scholars of the social psychological school of motivation. This body of scientists recognized that
people have not only physical and social needs but also a desire for self-actualization. The most
influential contributors in the social psychological school are the American social scientists
Maslow (1954), McGregor (1966), Herzberg (1059), Likert (1967), Argyris (1957) and McClelland
(1961).

Maslow Hierarchy of Needs

Abraham Maslow’s (1957) theory of motivation was first published in 1954. It was based on a
hierarchical set of human needs, with basic needs at the bottom and higher needs at the top:

Figure 2.3: Maslow (1954) Hierarchy of Needs. Source: adapted by Cianci and Gambrel, 2003.

10
This theory is better illustrated as a pyramid. As indicated in the previous page, satisfaction of
needs begin from the bottom, starting with physiological needs and moving upwards until
needs have been satisfied.

Suggested Reading 1 - Visit the Maslow Hierarchy of Needs ‘home’ at:

http://hierarchybymaslow.weebly.com/

Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y

Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y are sets of assumptions about behaviour. He ended
up with two contrasting sets of assumptions made by managers about their workers
(McGregor, 1966; 1969).

The first assumption is Theory X, is where the manager assumes that their employees are lazy,
require control, need to be coerced and threatened, they avoid responsibility and seek security
above all else. This is a more scientific management approach (see ‘Topic 1 – Overview’). At the
same time, it is reminiscent of the methods used by Sports Direct in the introductory example.
It is, in fact, a theory which materially influences managerial strategy in a wide sector of
industries around the globe.

The second assumption, named as Theory Y, is where the manager assumes that their
employees like work (as natural as rest and play), do not need to be controlled or coerced when
committed to organisational objectives; will accept and seek responsibility in the right
11
conditions; exercise imagination and ingenuity in accomplishing work. Theory Y (compared to
Theory X) is rather an alternative model: ‘an invitation to innovation’ (Lorsch and Morse, 1970).

Overall, McGregor’s Theories present two opposing, extreme management styles; a rather
problematic choice of either black or white. It seems that today, rather than black or white, real
management contexts create demand for a mixture of these and other approaches. McGregor’s
ideas remain influential as they are associated with development of self-managed teams and
attempts to empower workers (Van Maurik, 2001).

Think Theory… food for thought

Think about a manager you have worked for (or teacher who has taught you; or a
priest) and try to identify behaviours where the manager exhibited Theory Y and then
Theory X. Then, take a pen and write 200 words, explaining in a specific manner what
did the manager do or say that could justify links to Theory Y and Theory X. Please be
advised that being specific and providing the reader with clear, tangible (usually
referenced to demonstrate that it is NOT your opinion) evidence is a major
requirement for your summative essay (due in week 8).

Frederick Herzberg’s Motivation - Hygiene Theory (also 2-factor Theory)

Herzberg’s studies of the mid-twentieth century concentrated on satisfaction at work. About

200 engineers and accountants took part in the study. They were asked to recall when they had
experienced satisfactory and unsatisfactory feelings about their jobs. The study later expanded
to include clerical and manual occupations. Following the interviews, the study concluded that
some factors lead to job satisfaction (the so called motivators), whilst other factors led to
dissatisfaction (the so called hygiene factors). Removing/addressing hygiene factors remove
dissatisfaction rather than contributing positively to job satisfaction

The most important motivators, or satisfiers, to emerge were the following:

Achievement;

recognition;

work itself;
12
 responsibility;

advancement.

The most important hygiene factors, or dissatisfiers, were as follows:

company policy and administration;

supervision – the technical aspects;

salary;

interpersonal relations – supervision;

working conditions.

Short Video Suggestion: please copy and paste the following URL in your browser:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o87s-2YtG4Y

13
Chis Argyris’ Immaturity – Maturity Theory

While at Yale University, Argyris (1957, cited in Cole and Kelly, 2016) was interested in the
relationship between people’s needs and the needs of the organization. He suggested the
worker apathy is not attributed to laziness, but rather because people were being treated like
children. People are expected to be passive, dependent and subordinate in ‘classical’
organisations (immature behaviour); and this leads to apathy, frustration, resentment and
working against the organization.

Table 2.1: Immaturity, Maturity Theory. Source: adapted by Cole and Kelly, 2016

This led to what he called the immaturity-maturity theory, which suggests that the human
personality develops from immaturity to maturity in a continuum, in which a number of key
changes take place. If, however, the goals of the organization and the goals of workers are
brought together, the resulting behaviour will be cooperative rather than dichotomized or
antagonistic (Argyris, 1957, cited in Hersey, 2001).

David McClelland’s Achievement Motivation

McClelland (1961) and his team focused on three sets of needs:

1. The need for achievement (n-Ach);

2. The need for power (n-Pow);

3. The need for affiliation, or belonging.

14
‘n-Ach’ is a key human motive, influenced by personality and the environment. Individuals with
high need of achievement (n-Ach) tend to have the following characteristics

Consistent need for achievement;

Seek tasks in which they can exercise personal responsibility;

Prefer tasks which provide a challenge without being too difficult and which they see as
within their mastery;

Want feedback on their results;

Less concerned about their social or affiliation needs.

The major disadvantage of persons with high n-Ach, however, is that they are highly task-
oriented and less concerned with relationships. As a result, they are not always suitable for
managerial or supervisory positions, even teamwork.

Process Theories of Motivation

The motivation theories discussed in the foregoing analysis are labelled ‘content theories’ of
motivation. This is because they focus on the needs, drivers or triggers of human behaviour in
the workplace. In the following sections, analysis presents and discusses (briefly) the so called
‘Process Theories of Motivation. These theories look at motivation as the outcome of a dynamic
interaction between the person and their experiences of an organisation and its management.
Such processes depend critically on the sense individuals make of their experiences at work
(Cole and Kelly, 2011).

Expectancy Theory

The Expectancy Theory is based on the presupposition that an individual’s behaviour is formed
not on objective reality but on his or her subjective perception of that reality (Vroom, 1967).
Therefore, the motivation of individuals (and their behaviour) is based on their perception of
appropriateness of goals, and whether their actions lead to desirable outcomes (rewards). The
theory concluded that there were three factors involved in stimulating an individual to put
effort or accomplish a goal. These factors are were:

15
 1. EXPECTANCY, i.e. the extent of the individual’s perception, or belief, that a particular act
will produce a particular outcome;

2. INSTRUMENTALITY, i.e. the extent to which the individual perceives that effective
performance will lead to desired rewards;

3. VALENCE, i.e. the strength of the belief that attractive rewards are potentially available.

Figure 2.4: Expectancy Theory

Effort alone, however, may not necessarily lead to effective performance. Other factors include
an individual’s own characteristics, such as personality, knowledge and skills, as well the way in
which the individual perceives his/her role (Holdford and Lovelace-Elmore, 2001). The
individual’s perception, of course, also expands to include the types of rewards. Rewards are
classified into two categories:

Intrinsic: personal needs, self-esteem, growth (some exercise of control by individual)

and

Extrinsic: provided by organisation – pay, promotion (not controlled by individual)

Overall, Expectancy Theory takes a comprehensive view of the motivational process. It indicates
that individuals will only act when the have a reasonable expectancy that their behaviour will
lead to the desired outcomes. At the same time, it stresses the importance of individual
perceptions of reality in the motivational process and it implies that job satisfaction follows
effective job performance rather than the other way round (Cole and Kelly, 2011; p.60).

16
John Stacey Adams’ Equity Theory

Equity Theory focuses on people’s feelings in relation to fairness. In other words, how would
you feel if a colleague’s benefits were better than yours for doing the same or less work? Equity
theory is about the perception of a lack of fairness or equity in the way employees are treated.
Moreover, when people perceive an unequal situation, they experience ‘equity tension’, which
they attempt to reduce by modifying behaviour (e.g. positively by working to improve
performance; negatively by working more slowly).

There are 4 referent comparisons an employee can use:

self-inside: an employee’s experience in a different position inside his or her current

organisation;

self-outside: an employee’s experiences in a situation or position outside his or her

organisation;

Other-inside: another individual or group of individuals inside the employees

organisation;

Other outside: another individual or group of individuals outside the employees

organization.

Short Video Suggestion: please copy and paste the following URL in your browser:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

17
Goal-Setting theory

Goal-setting theory has become one of the dominant motivational theories in organizational
behaviour (Fried and Slowik, 2004, cited in Cole and Kelly, 2016). Given that goals guide
people’s actions, this theory is based on the premise that people’s goals play an important part
in determining their behaviour.

Edwin Locke (1967) first proposed the idea that working towards goals is a motivator. His
research indicated that performance improved when individuals set themselves specific rather
than vague goals. When these specific goals were demanding, performance was even better.

Conclusions
Motivation has been a key theme for management theorists since the emergence of the Human
Relations School. Motivation is influenced by a range of complex factors; depends on types of
individuals, work environments, career stages/ maturity and more. Moreover, although
motivation theories provide rich, diverse and useful frameworks to consider what guides
behaviour in work, there is no comprehensive, explanatory theory that predicts all human

18
behaviour. First, content offer a focus on the specific factors that motivate people in work
environments. Process theories, then, reveal dynamic interactions of factors, including
individuals, peer groups and organizational). From a management and practice perspective, the
challenge is to engage with theories and deploy relevant elements according to organisational
settings, organisational and individuals’ needs.

Also, it is important to mention that most of the theories and concepts presented in ‘Topic 2 –
Overview,’ and indeed throughout this module, are often based on Western European/North
American theorists. This is because many western societies were rich enough to invest in
universities which generated knowledge. Often, especially for Western Europeans, their wealth
emerged out of colonization; a process whereby wealth was extracted from satellite colonies
and sent to the metropolis (Perelman, 2000; 2001). After the Second World War, of course,
many theories began to emerge out of Universities and business practice located in different
parts of the world as growing economies could invest in knowledge production. Today, for
example, we see growing investment in PR China and Asia and will no doubt see the rise of
theories based on different cultural norms and ideas. These seminal motivational theories are
still important of course and can be often recognized as part of “employee engagement” in
contemporary organizations.

Short Video Suggestion: please copy and paste the following URL in your browser:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lhVUedc1a4

19
 Think Theory… food for thought
As discussed in the video, the “one size” does not fit all. Unleashing motivation at the
workplace is indded important. You are invited to think and to come up with
examples based on your own experience and opinions as an employee. Try to find
tangible, detailed evidence of how your organization motivates you (use examples
from company HR policy, company website, reqards and more).

What matters is the EVIDENCE, not the opinion. Besides, this module helps you to
understand how to critically evaluate theory and apply it to practice in preparation
for in-depth summative assessments.

References
Alderfer, C. (1972) ‘Existence, Relatedness and Growth’, Collier Macmillan.

Argyris, C. (1957) Personality and Organisation: The Conflict between System and the Individual,
Harper & RowBlake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S. (1964) The Managerial Grid, Houston TX.: Gulf.

Buchanan, D. and Huczynski, A. (2010) Organizational Behaviour, 7th edn, Financial Times Press.

Cianci, R.; Gambrel, P. A. (2003). "Maslow's hierarchy of needs: Does it apply in a collectivist
culture". Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship. 8 (2): 143–161.

Cole. G. A. and Kelly, P. (2016) Management Theory and Practice (Custom Edition), Cengage.

Gillespie, R. (1991) Manufacturing Knowledge: A History of the Hawthorne Experiments.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodley, S. and Ashby, J. (2015) ‘Revealed: how Sports Direct effectively pays below minimum
wage’. The Guardian Newspaper, 9-December-2015. On-line at:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/09/how-sports-direct-effectively-pays-
below-minimum-wage-pay, accessed 15-03-2017.

Hassard, J S. (2012), ‘Rethinking the Hawthorne Studies: The Western Electric research in its
social, political and historical context’, Human Relations 65(11): 1431–1461.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. And Snyderman, B. (1959) The Motivation to Work, Transaction
Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

20
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H. and Johnson, D.E. (2001) Management of Organizational Behavior.
Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Holdford DA, Lovelace-Elmore B. (2001) Applying the principles of human motivation to

pharmaceutical education. J Pharm Teach. 8:18.

Kelley, H. (1973) ‘The processes of causal attribution’, American Pscyhologist, 28 (2), Feb. 1973,
pp. 107-128.

Likert, R. (1967). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Locke, E. (1967) ‘Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives’, Organizational Behaviour
and Human Performance, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp. 157-189.

Lorsch, J. and Morse, J., (1970) Beyond Theory Y”, Harvard Business Review, May–June 1970.

Maslow, A. (1954) Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row, New York.

Mayo, E. (1933) The Human Problems of Industrial Civilization, Viking Press, New York.

McClelland, D.C. (1961) The Achieving Society. Free Press, New York.

McGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise, New York: McGraw Hill.

McGregor, D., (1966; 1969) Leadership and Motivation: Essays, MIT Press.

Mitchell, T. R. (1982) Motivation: New directions for theory, research, and practice. Academy of
Management Review, 7, 80–88.

Perelman, M. (2000). The Invention of Capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Perelman, M. (2001). The Secret History of Primitive Accumulationand Classical Political

Economy. The Commoner, 2(9), 1-21.

Ruddick, G. (2015) ‘Sports Direct denies ‘Dickensian Practices’ in face of investor revolt’. The

Roethlisberger, F. and Dickson, W. (1939) Management and the Worker: An Account of a

Research Program conducted by the Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works, Chicago,
Wiley & Sons, New York.

Guardian Newspaper, 9-Septeber-2015. On-line at:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/09/sports-direct-investors-revolt-against-
chairman-and-pay-policy, accessed 15-03-2017.

21
Schein, E. (1988) Organizational Psychology, 3rd edn, Prentice- Hal.

Sonnenfeld. J.A. (1985) "Shedding Light on the Hawthorne Studies," Journal of Occupational
Behavior, Vol. 6.

Van Maurik, J. (2001) Writers on Leadership, London: Penguin.

Vroom, V. (1964) Work and Motivation.

22