Katsura (2012) stated that the success of every company depends on motivated employees. However, there is no secret formula for motivating employees and there is no sheet to fill out. Motivation is just like an individual employee. This means that one motivational strategy is not suitable for all employees. It would always be different for each individual. An employee might be motivated by recognition for a job well done. The other might be motivated to get a promotion and many are motivated by a salary increase, additional benefits and incentive packages. The best technique for motivating employees according to Issa (2014) is to find out what your employee wants and give it to him or find ways to allow him to earn it. For example, incentivize teams for their results. Incentives are good motivating factors to reward workers for achieving their goals. The author also suggests that determining how to motivate employees or workers varies from region to region. For example, people in the MENA region are generally motivated by a good work-life balance. From the article "The Power of Motivating Employees" (2014), a good tactic for motivating employees is highlighted and that is rewarding a good result. Recognizing a job well done will improve the person's self-image, increase their self-esteem and motivate them to do even better in the future. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivationSimply the theory states that in the workplace there are two opposite factors that can make the employee satisfied and dissatisfied. These two opposing factors are those tangible and intangible things that can make the employee happy when he experiences them, or that can make him dissatisfied when he receives them. Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory is also called two-factor theory due to the presence of two factors, one is the set of motivation and the other is the set of hygiene factors. Motivational factors are: recognition for a good deed, stimulating work, sense of importance, personal growth, etc. For hygiene factors they are: job security, salary, employment status, working conditions, good pay, etc. There are four possible combinations of these factors that determine employee satisfaction and dissatisfaction. High hygiene plus high motivation = employees are undoubtedly satisfied. Low hygiene plus high motivation = you will hear complaints from those who feel dissatisfied. High hygiene plus low motivation = again, many would complain. Low hygiene plus low motivation = there is no doubt that employees are dissatisfied because this is the worst combination of factors permeating the workplace. Motivated employees are responsible for the success of every company. In reality, however, there is no formula for the best motivating technique. Furthermore, there is no sheet of paper to fill in to enlist the employee and the motivation that suits him. Just like an individual employee, motivation and its technique do not fit a single employee. This means that every employee has their own dose of motivation. While an employee may see that the recognition of their job well done is enough to motivate them, others may still be dissatisfied unless they get a promotion. Others may be happy to receive a pay rise. According to Issa (2014), the best motivation for employees is something they earn because it would be sweeter to receive when you give your best for it. As for the question abouthow management can use this theory to improve employee performance is true as mentioned above. The individual employee has his own needs, so what the manager must do first is to find out these needs and factors to motivate him. However, since Herzberg's theory is also called Two Factor Theory, the manager must give the employee the motivation and hygiene factor just what the combinations show. The theory might be more effective if management, while providing the employee with challenging work (motivation), at the same time provides the employee with good working conditions or a good salary (hygiene factor). Employee A, for example, was rewarded for leading the sales team to meet their monthly quota. In this sense, he and his team members received a trip to the island of Bali for 3 days. This will definitely motivate Employee A and his team to strive to meet their quota the next time they are assigned a similar task. Since the two motivation factors must go hand in hand, this type of theory is ineffective or less effective if only one factor is provided to the employee. For example, the employee has a good working condition but his salary is very low, so we cannot say that he is satisfied. In short, to satisfy the employee, the combination of high motivation and high hygiene must go hand in hand to fully satisfy the employee. Furthermore, if Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory fails to improve employee performance, there are likely other needs that the employee wants or needs in addition to motivation and hygiene factors. The best way is for the manager to approach the particular employee and ask him what can satisfy him. If the things he wanted could be given to him by a company that was adequately commensurate with his services, then the manager will give them to him if he can satisfy him. There is no better way to learn about employee needs than communicating with them face-to-face as much as possible. An organization must be generous in giving employees what they want and what will make them happy as long as the "gift" is given appropriately. McClelland's Acquired Needs Theory This theory of motivation is proposed by David McClelland in 1961 explaining that an individual's needs in the workplace are shaped by his or her daily experiences. Man's motivation to improve his work performance depends on how his experiences can give him recognition for his achievements, improve his affiliation with others and how his experiences can make his influence felt in the work environment. Work. The man would like to gain recognition, belonging to others and become influential. When one of these results is achieved, only then can we say, according to McClelland, that a person will be motivated. This means that at least one individual must acquire one of these courses to be effective in the workplace (McClelland and Acquired Needs Motivation Theory, 2014). Furthermore, this theory is based on the concept that every individual is "achievement motivated". Man wants to achieve something in order to also demonstrate his worth. When he successfully achieves something and people around him recognize that achievement, he is more motivated to improve more and take on the most difficult challenge and prove once again that he can do it. Furthermore, the theory explains that an individual wants to achieve power. An individual wants to be authority so he can demonstrate his influence and better if he can show his leadership through that power. He wants to lead others individually and also wants to lead the larger group. If he can do this successfully, the man is more motivatedto improve their performance, especially in the workplace. Finally, McClelland's acquired needs theory of motivation also explains that an individual is a social being who desires affiliation or better relationships. In short, man is 'motivated by affiliation' because he wants to improve his relationships within his belonging needs similar to those of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. McClelland's acquired needs theory is applicable in the workplace or corporate organizational context because this is true of man that man in the strictest sense of the phrase is a man who seeks success, power/authority and seeks affiliation or relationships because they are all factors that motivate him to improve his work performance. Based on McClelland's theory that man becomes motivated in the workplace if his needs for success, power/authority and affiliation are satisfied through his daily experiences, management can take advantage of this theory by ensuring that employees improve their performance at work. As for results, man desires more results if he acquires something he desires. His desire to achieve greater results is infinite and therefore, along this line, for example, the manager should give those who have great results more stimulating projects but with achievable objectives. For example, employee A is able to complete his special project on time and on budget. He deserves recognition from management and probably a bonus and next time he should be given a more challenging project since he is able to accomplish the first one effectively and efficiently. In this example, the bonus in terms of monetary reward is nothing but what is more important is the positive feedback which can motivate the individual more to perform even the most difficult task. Regarding the individual need for affiliation, management must place this individual in teams or cooperative enterprises. This type of individual works best with teams since by being affiliated with others and gaining good relationships, the individual will likely improve his or her work performance more. Finally, management should help the individual gain power or authority. For example, the supervisor offers the individual the opportunity to lead a group or team to accomplish a special project. By being able to accomplish a task through his leadership, the individual will be more motivated to improve his work performance next time. However, there are limits to McClelland's theory. In some cases, the theory may become less effective or ineffective. For example, when achievement-motivated people are placed among high achievers, their achievements may be overshadowed by others and this would lead to demotivation. With other people achieving more than you, you tend to be inferior and once again you become an ordinary achiever and even worse, this time you would even become an underachiever. As for individuals who gain power or authority as a motivation, they may be less effective when directing others, especially these others also wish to become an authority or influential in their own rights. This means that there would be the possibility of a conflict of “power needs”. As for affiliation, this may be less effective with work contexts that already have significant personal interaction. This means that the individual could no longer demonstrate his ability to improve his relationships since a good and established relationship already exists between the groups. When this happens, the individual could not acquire this 'affiliation need' and this.