It true, that to get closer to the understanding of the motivation must be into consideration the socio-cultural aspect of society where unfolds the worker and on the other hand, individuality, as well as the organizational culture of the company, the achievement deltrabajador needs, their behavior, aspirations.Take into account, what happens that what a person believes reward important, another person could consider it as useless. Therefore, people differ greatly in the concept and the way they perceive opportunities to succeed on the job. Therefore, should not surprise us, that many are executives, managers who intend to improve productivity by increasing the wages of the workers, under the concept you pay more so that you produzcas more; However, has been shown in various investigations that the effect of the increase in wages does not necessarily raises productivity. In this regard, Herzberg says that the needs of low level, the salary between them, are satisfied quickly, and once they are satisfied, the only way to motivate it is offering more of the same. It therefore becomes a never-ending vicious circle. Very significant when it points out that one of the problems that face the programs or motivational activities, is is usually obvious something fundamental: know or identify those factors that really motivate the person individually and collectively. Consider as well Walter Arana, concerns so that all we are different, we want and we want different things. Satisfy us and motivate different things.

For example, the meaning of money is totally different for each one. While for some it is an important means to achieve ends, for others does not have any relevance, for others it is a resource, others consider that it is an end in itself, there are those who perceive it as a drug, for others is the greatest motivator, and so on. Consequently, trying to motivate staff to improve productivity without considering their individuality, is a fallacy.