Psychological Theories of Chronic Pain

Psychological Theories of Chronic Pain The operant approach to chronic pain was intended to concentrate upon external pain-induced responses and the social implications of the nature of feedback. The operant model has been particularly described by Fordyce et al (1968, 1976) based upon the work of other individuals in the behavioural field, for example Skinner. The operant theory implies that the genesis of the pain should be distinguished from pain behaviours and the articulation of pain.External displays of pain such as wincing may be conditioned just as any other type of behaviour. If the patient receives positive feedback in response to pain behaviours, they may remain after the usual time of healing for that ailment. There is a respectable body of evidence to justify the use of the operant model in response to chronic pain, yet there is a relatively miniscule level of consensus about why they work and the validity of their theoretical foundations. The operant theory is supported by research projects that intimate the success of behavioural treatments, but there are several problematic elements in these studies which have been recently addressed. The troubling issues include the antecedent belief that all pain behaviours are dysfunctional, the obstacles to continuing the learned behaviours subsequent to treatment and the reluctance of some chronic pain patients to embrace operant modes of treatment. Essentially, the nature of the sum of the problems is dualistic, and can either be addressed as complications with interpreting pain behaviours or the inevitable failure rate that all treatments face. These issues, salient though they are, are not exhaustive. The operant model fails to recognise the fact that the patient’s personal interpretation of their pain and the changes they are experiencing maybe important. Acknowledging this can clear the way for cognitive theories to add something to operant methods of treatment. Indeed, elements that influence behaviour in general and pain behaviour in particular are complex and multi-faceted. It is seldom evident that a single cause has led to a single effect. Although it is true that pain-related behaviours are often modified during the course of a treatment programme, it is not necessarily true that it is for the reasons uppermost in the minds of the experts monitoring them. In brief, rational thought cannot condone the notion that the operant model of chronic pain is true because treatment programmes utilising behavioural methods have been shown to alter the behaviour of patients suffering from chronic pain. A particular assertion that has come under scrutiny is the idea that patients modify their verbal expressions of pain in response to reactions from spouses. The methods and logic that lead to this conclusion are questionable and so must be their perceived contribution to the validity of the operant model. Further, some studies claiming to provide empirical support for the operant model only partially adhere to its theoretical roots. Other studies which are more methodologically sound have suspect sample gathering procedures. The findings of these studies still hold merit for the cognitive model of chronic pain, though ardent followers of the operant model will inevitably be disappointed. The fact is that the operant model of chronic pain does not have as strong a body of empirical evidence to back it up as its patrons would like. As a result of the questionable reliability of the operant theory, many researchers have begun to actively espouse the cognitive-behavioural theories of chr onic pain. Cognitive Behavioural Account of Chronic PainsThe cognitive-behavioural approach to chronic pain purported to contain the essentials of the operant account of chronic pain, but added space for human emotions, cognitions and mental coping mechanisms. This approach, like surgical and pharmacological interventions, attempt to eliminate or reduce it. Rates of failure in achieving this have led researchers to turn from attempted pain reduction to other objectives like active rehabilitation. One study compared and contrasted two behavioural treatments for ongoing pain.The first treatment focused on abandoning strivings to overcome pain and invest more energy in achieving other aims in life. The second treatment was a traditional cognitive behavioural treatment stressing the development of pain-reducing mechanisms. The treatment incorporating acceptance and re-focussing proved more successful than attempts to master the pain in patients suffering from chronic pain. Initial formulations of a cognitive behavioural approach to chronic pain were predicated upon the realisation that programmes with the behavioural label did not contain only behavioural content. Behavioural experts acknowledged the necessity of addressing the cognitive functioning of a patient as well as his or her behavioural patterns. At present, the role of cognition in reporting extremity of pain, endeavours to successfully deal with pain, emotions and level of pain-related incapacity is solidly documented. The relationship between cognitive functioning and pain has revealed a number of important themes. The way in which patients mentally interpret their pain is predictive of their response and their level of functioning. For example, patients to perceive their pain as an indication of more damage often spend more energy attempting to avoid their pain and become less able to function naturally as a result. Patients who catastrophise their pain may experience augmented levels of d epression compared with those who do not. Depression has also been linked to behavioural functioning and both of these may be affected by the patient’s attempts to predict or control his pain. The sum of the implications of these findings points to the near certainty that cognitive functioning must be considered when attempting to construct any comprehensive and effective model of chronic pain. The cognitive behavioural theory does not go as far as to suggest that certain cognitions lead to pain; the relationship is not as simplistic as that. There is substantial evidence to suggest that cognitive activity related to pain can help to create coping mechanisms that are either helpful or dysfunctional. The nature of the coping mechanisms can directly affect the degree to which chronic pain infringes on continued functioning. Some behaviourists allude to the role of cognitions in their research by referring to external or environmental factors. Strict behaviourism continues to be the preferred method of treatment and as such, willcontinue to concentrate on the transformation of overt behaviours. Evidence for the need to include cognitive and other factors in dealing with chronic pain is becoming increasingly pressing, and it must be acknowledged that including one treatment session on cognitive theory and praxis does not magically transform a behavioural programme into a cognitive behavioural programme. Even the cognitive behavioural theory itself is in need of more complete incorporation of cognitive methods.There are simple questions that can be raised in the minds of chronic pain patients that may transform the way that they think about and respond to their pain. The claims of balanced research pale in comparison to the pressing needs of patients suffering daily who could benefit from cognitive interve ntions. Treatment for chronic pain must be addressed in terms of cognition and behaviour; even if behaviour is the founding principle upon which a treatment is based, it must be recognised that behaviour acquires meaning in a cognitive sphere. There have been propositions to reformulate the theoretical construction of the cognitive behavioural approach. Modifications ofthe approach start with the conception that the issues arising from the presence of chronic pain stem from patient reactions to their pain.Reactions are conceptualised as covering the sum of cognitive processes and not merely external actions. Dividing characteristics between patients who are anxious and suffering a notable level o ncapacitation and those who are able to maintain a level of functioning despite their pain are not found in the sensations of pain experienced by the patient but in the content of the internal cognitive assessment the patient carries out about their own pain. Some cognitive behavioural appraisals of pain are primarily concerned with the meaning that the individual patient attributes to his or her pain. The reformulated cognitive behavioural model of chronic pain proposes that the interaction of various phenomenon such as internal appraisals of pain, learning history, mood, avoidance behaviours and environmental influences can become habitual to an extent that negative consequences of the pain, such as level of disability, may persist despite the removal of the sensory aspect of the pain. Motor behaviours that attempt to evade the pain in some way may continue after the pain has subsided or lessened and therefore the cognitions that prompted those beliefs continue. An acute sense of worry or anxiety may heighten safety or defence mechanisms perpetuate an autonomic arousal that maintains positive feedback for the notion that there is something wrong with the patient. Additionally, psychological dysfunction such as depression or mild panic can augment the chances of patients making calculative mistakes regarding their pain including assessing the pain as being worse than it actually i s. This will reinforce the cycles of avoidance that the patient has previously used. This particular reconfiguration of the cognitive behavioural model further accepts that anxiety and other maladaptive behaviours such asmisusing medica tion can easily invoke arousal encourage the continuance of maladaptive behaviours. The model also takes into account the drive for the patient to seek reassurance about their pain and they ways that they deal with it. They attempt to reconcile any feedback received with their own beliefs about their pain and its related effects. Many chronic pain patients live with the trepidation that the continued existence of chronic pain indicates that further damage is being done to their bodies, which will in turn exacerbate the pain they experience. This may raise their levels of anxiety, which affects their ability to think rationally and calmly about their pain. They may request more medical procedures—tests or treatments—to provide empirical evidence to themselves about the state of their bodies. The reconceptualised model ind icates that the response of medical professionals in these situations may unknowingly encourage this kind of cognitive presumption and therefore positively reinforce incapacity or a passive response to chronic pain. The model articulated above is extensively based upon other cognitive behavioural models of chronic pain and can even take into account theories about the nature of the meta-cognitions of the patient. If, for example, the patient cognitively interprets the pain or cognitions related to the pain indicate something negative about them as a person, then they may make efforts to overcome or control such thoughts in attempts to protect themselves from further negative consequen ces. For example, if the patient fears that thinking about his or her pain is going to make them ‘crazy’ then they may make strong efforts to alter their thoughts about the pain in order to stop themselves from descending into mental illness. This may stem from a fear that since their physical health has deteriorated, their mental health is under threat as well. In addition, some patients may think that the more time they spend thinking about their pain, the more serious and damaging it will be. The mo del asserts that the more cognitive energy is spent trying not to have pain-related thoughts, the more frequent they may become and the anxiety levels of the patient may continue to rise, prompting more and more pain-related cognitions. These thoughts may increase and the patient may feel that the more they have these thoughts, the more damage they are doing to themselves. Patients can end up caught in a web of cognitive gymnastics about their chronic pain, which diverts energy from dealing with the pain in constructive ways and maintaining a satisfactory level of functioning. The cognitions that a patient may develop concerning their chronic pain are the product of complex and intricate synthesis of experiences, cultural forces and even childhood learning. Patients do not interpret their pain only in terms of their immediate situation, but bring a variety of other elements to bear upon the way that they translate their ideas about pain and what it means into their responses to their own pain. If they have had pain in the past, or have had close relationships with individuals who have suffered pain, the express and null curriculum of their experiences will provide them with a set of beliefs about pain, what it means and what can be done about it. Cultural ideas about how to respond to pain will also affect their evaluations about the role of pain in the life of an individual. Spouseresponses can also be important factors in interpreting chronic pain.It can also be said that behaviour that demonstrates acceptance of chronic pain stems from the collaboration of past and present circumstances, as well as the emotive and interpersonal influences of the present. The way that the spouse expresses his or her beliefs about pain can either reinforce or contradict the beliefs of the patient. If the patient believes that his condition or experience of chronic pain has made him incapacitated and the spouse behaves solicitously, the patient’s beliefs about his incapacitation can be confirmed and may override any other input about the patient’s ability to function normally. The cognitive behavioural approach has built into its tenets the capacity for the patient to learn new coping strategies and introduce new cognitions without an awareness of the reality of his or her situation. This may be particularly pertinent in the area of medication, where any form of relief from pain, whether it is actual or perceived, may be a response to thoughts that the pain is out of control and the patient is unable to carry on without the presence of medication. The cognitive behavioral approach also asserts that these types of cognitions and resulting actions are cemented together and work in partnership to perpetuate one another. If a patient thinks that performing a particular action will lead to further damage and pain, he will avoid that action. Thus, he will not discover any information to the contrary and will continue to believe that the presence of pain means that he should not engage in such an activity. Even when patients try to accomplish certain activities, if they do so utilising protective methods, they may only confirm the danger of the activity in their minds and become dependent upon the protective measure instead of achieving their full potential in functioning. It is becoming more and more accepted that it is prudent to explore chronic pain from a cognitive behavioral approach. There are a number of reasons for this growing confidence. First, it has been asserted that the reformulated cognitive model explains the breadth of evidence more extensively than other models. Second, the hypotheses that are put forth by the model may easily be empirically tested in order to determine whether they are statistically supported and theoretically sound. This makes them infinitely more useful for the practical work of treatment, as they can offer statistically supported predictions for the type of treatment that will be most useful in various situations.Obtaining the ability to pinpoint pivotal cognitive functions should lead to accurate treatments in place of the relatively arbitrary approach sometimes implemented by professionals. For several years, the research and treatment of chronic pain concentrated on coping mechanisms as the pre-eminent behavioural factor in adjustment. Yet when coping approaches began to be compared with other types of behavioural approaches such as acceptance of chronic pain, significant conclusions were reached regarding the potential of the respective approaches to predict disability and distress. It has been asserted that there are fundamental problems with coping as a comprehensive adjustment mechanism. The issues with coping are conceptual and empirical in nature and stem from its reliance upon cognitive responses. An empirical study demonstrated that acceptance of chronic pain led to decreased intensity of symptoms and a better quality of life. Acceptance of pain was conclusively shown to be superior to attempting to cope with pain. It is possible that acceptance of pain may be accomplished through a variety of methods. Some of the treatments currently in use, such as those involving cognitive-behavioural methods can help to make pain more acceptable. This is true even for those cognitive-behavioural methods that focus on mastering pain. For example, it could be that diminished avoidance and augmented experience of pain as a result of more control that help patients to accept the pain in their lives. If patients are exposed to more pain they may develop diminished emotional reactions and begin to understand that pain intensity is different in various situations. This understanding can teach them that the pain they suffer is not as intense as they first thought. In addition, teaching methods of behavioural control can result in alternations to the patient’s internalised definition of a painful event, making it easier to endure. The role of values in a contextual cognitive-behavioural approach has been assessed in terms of the relationships between the values of chronic pain patients and the success of following their daily routines. It is often easy for chronic pain patients to expend great amounts of effort struggling with pain rather than focusing their energies on living according to their values. Living according to values was defined in this particular study as acting according to what they care most about and what they want their life to stand for. If pain is not then reduced, the patient may feel that not only have their limited amounts of energy been wasted, but they have also neglected their core purposes in life, which may result in further angst and anxiety. In a study examining the process of living according to personal values while suffering from chronic pain, 140 pain patients completed an inventory of values including categories such as family, friends, health, work and growth. The patients were also asked to record information regarding their pain, anxiety and depression. The results showed that the highest values for the patients were family and health, and the values of least importance overall were friends, growth and learning. The patients generally did not feel satisfied that they were living life according to their values, and this could be because of their level of physical and emotive functioning. The results of the study further demonstrated that those who achieved more succ ess atliving according to their values reported higher levels of acceptance, although acceptance could not reliably account for the sum of the success. Although patients felt that overall they were not living according to their values, there was a significantly higher rate of success at living according to family values than maintaining health. In practical terms, this means that out of the areas that patients value most, they were able to achieve much more success in one area, family than the other, health. Approaches to chronic pain that are contextually based deal with cognitive issues in a different manner than normalcogn itive-behavioural approaches. Approaches that are contextually based seek to change the operation of negative thoughts and the way in which they are experienced, which affects other behaviours. A large quantity of the work devoted to these types of approaches involves releasing maladaptive cognitive forces on behaviour and intensifying behavioural elasticity through cognitive de-fusion. Approaches that are founded upon values add an aspect to this type of treatment.Articulating values during treatment for chronic pain is equivalent to adding cognitive influences to behaviour sequences. On a practical level, the conceptualisations of the cognitive behavioural model of chronic pain can help to explain how patients deal with their pain, particularly the cognitive and meta-cognitive interactions they have with their symptoms and other factors thatinfluence their quality of life and their approach to their pain. If,for example, the patient is in the situation where the pain persists and further tests and treatments prove unsuccessful, it may be easy for the cognitive components of the mind of the patient to feel defeated and to acquire a learned helplessness. The patient may subconsciously or even consciously feel that all of their cognitive efforts to this point have proved futile and therefore they may be paralysed by the notion that whatever cognitive energy they put into dealing with their pain will be to no avail. They may even come to believe that any further medical intervention will be of no use to them. These types of thoughts can affect the effort that patient s put into their treatment.They may be less participatory and become increasingly passive even in the face of extensive medical procedures. They may cease to be emotionally and mentally invested in working with the medical professionals to achieve the best outcome possible for their situation.If patients feel that treatment will be useless and they make less effort, their treatment may not be as effective as it could have been. A treatment outcome that is less than optimal will only reinforce the patient’s sense of helplessness and they may even be dismissed as unhelpful or disengaged by medical staff. If these patients are viewed from the perspective of the cognitive behavioural model of chronic pain, however, they will be perceived not as unmotivated but as individuals with maladaptive cognitions. This understanding of their behaviour would make them prime candidates for cognitive interventions,where their chances of improvement would be quite high. There is much empirical support for the cognitive behavioural model, and it has been found consistent with a wide scope of researchout comes. There is particularly strong support for the idea that when patients worry about their pain, they are more likely to scrutinise their pain, which removes effort and thought from other activities and may make the pain worse than it is. These findings offer support for the cognitive theory that hypervigilance and anxiety are closely related. In other studies, anxiety and stress have been found to predict ambiguous ailments in patients suffering from chronic pain, which supports the theory that hypervigilance may create or exacerbate the ill health of the patient or at least the patients perception of the state of their health. In addition, pain-related trepidation was discovered to predict evading strategies more accurately than the intensity of the pain or the physical ailment. Here, the researchers concluded that their findings were not as supportive of the operant model of chronic pain as the cognitive behavioural model. Further, evidence exists that supports the notion that striving to avert pain-related cognitions may actually intensify pain sensations. Though it is advisable to treat this particular study with some caution, there is more substantial research to support the related notion that trying to block pain-related thoughts is counterproductive and will worsen anxiety. Related to this are the theories surrounding autonomic arousal, which have also received empirical backing. It has been asserted that patients suffering from chronic pain do not respond to pain in the same ways as patients whose pain is not chronic. This is true despite the fact that they do not demonstrate significant difference s from non-chronic pain patients in other areas. When the responses of chronic pain patients are measured with regard to distressing activities, the pain levels measured increased dramatically. This was not true for normal activities. Therefore, it seems safe to adhere to a model of chronic pain in which the state of arousal prompted by particular activities directly affects the pain experienced by the patient. Other elements in the cognitive behavioural model have also received support. In particular the role of medication and the appropriateness of use can affect patients’ complaints regarding symptoms and level of incapacity. One study examined the contrasting characteristics of chronic pain for patients whose pain could be justified by medical explanations and those whose pain could not be explained in medical terminology. The authors found remarkable variations in a number of variables, such as excessive prescribing and internal processing in the group of patients whose pain could not be medically explained. They went on to assert that when medical professionals in this type of situation intimate that it could be psychosomatic, they reinforce the patient’s self-concept of an ill person, if not physically, then mentally. Reacting in this fashion often fails to convince the patient that there is nothing wrong and instead, motivates their search for a plausible explanation f or their pain. They may demand more tests and interventions in search of legitimising their pain. The important point here is that the responses of medical professionals to patient expressions of pain can have a significant impact on pain-rel atedcognitions and thus on their responses to treatment. The sum of this evidence provides legitimisation for approaching chronic pain in a way that is much like the way that anxiety and obsessions are approached. This suggests that if obsessions can be treated, then so can maladaptive pain-related cognitions and behaviours. While the need for further research remains in certain areas, such as the clarification of the significance of safety behaviours and the effectiveness of specific cognitive behavioural intervention programmes, there is strong evidence that cognitive behavioural treatments will overtake operant treatments as the preferred method for addressing chronic pain. Sharp (2001) concludes his discussion of psychological theories of chronic pain by arriving at the destination of cognitive behavioural models akin to those used to treat anxiety. He regards the operant model as having too many problematic issues to be considered a reliable source of chronic pain treatment. He goes even further, to suggest that many of the cognitive behavioural modes currently in use are hampered by the fact that they continue to espouse behavioural principles that have outlived their usefulness. According to Sharp, reformulated cognitive theories are needed in order to satisfactorily assess patient cognitions regarding their pain. While behavioural factors should not be completely ignored, they should nonetheless always be considered within a cognitive framework. The concept of reformulating cognitive models is supported by the evidence and appears to be more helpful in finding real scientific meaning therein. Treatments involving cognitive behaviour therapy and behaviour therapy for chronic pain in adults have been the subject of meta-analysis. The researchers recognised that there is persuasive data for the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in augmenting the functioning ability of patients suffering from chronic pain. There is also conclusive evidence that CBT can enhance emotional states, reduce discomfort and minimise behaviour that stems from a sense of being incapacitated. However, it has been noted that in a clinical treatment context, CBT is not often presented as an option for individuals suffering from chronic pain. Physical, pharmacological and medical treatments are provided as options even though there is often less empirical evidence for their success. This study sought to do a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials in this area.The researchers indentified 25 trials that were appropriate candidates for meta-analysis and compared the effica cy of CBT with various other treatments. In this study, the experts were concerned primarily with two issues. The first was whether or not CBT is an effective treatment for chronic pain in the sense that it is better to undergo CBT than to have no treatment at all. The second issue was whether CBT was better than other available treatments which involve activity as part of the curriculum. The outcomes of the study indicated that CBT that are active in nature are effective. CBT made marked improvements in emotional state, intensity of pain and cognitive measures of coping with the pain. Additionally, pain-related behaviour and level of functioning, both in an individual and a social context were improved. The results of this study led to the conclusion that CBT is indeed an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults. So, too, is behavioural therapy. The study raised certain issues which would be best considered in other studies, because attempting to treat chronic pain from apsychological perspective is quite a difficult endeavour. The outcomes of such treatment cannot always be broken down to determine which variable caused or helped to cause a particular outcome. Especially where psychological methodologies and cognitive evaluations are concerned, there is an ambiguity in proving the cause and effect of research methods that is not easily overcome. The treatment of chronic pain must be recognised as an ongoing and complex process with a significantly complicating number of variables involved. Even when the greatest efforts are made to ensure the independent performance of professionals and to shield the patients from any hint of bias, the narrowing of treatment and research cond itions is extremely difficult. The acceptance of chronic pain involves intentionally allowing pain, with all of its cognitive and emotional implications, to be present in one’s life, when the willingness results in increased functioning capabilities for the patient. Acceptance means responding to pain without attempting to avoid or control it and continuing to function regardless of the presence of chronic pain. Acceptance is especially pertinent when previous attempts at control or avoidance have limited the quality of the patient’s life. Patients suffering from chronic pain who take steps to accept it report fewer instances of anxiety, medical intervention and depression. Two elements are needed to produce acceptance: pain willingness and activity engagement. The development of acceptance is an ongoing process that progresses with experience of pain and relevant social factors. Further, acceptance of chronic pain involves choosing not to become embroiled in fruitless internal struggles that may inc rease the intensity of the pain and its ability to disrupt active functioning. Acceptance is a new psychological approach and conceives human suffering in new terms.Acceptance is located in the cognitive and behavioural approaches and therefore has empirical psychological traditions to lend it credibility. One study demonstrated that diminishing anxiety and augmented acceptance of chronic pain might transfer sufferers from a dysfunctional coping approach to a successful one. The study empirically categorised patients suffering from chronic pain into three categories: dysfunctional, interpersonally distressed or adaptive copers. The researchers in the study believed that identifying the characteristics that distinguish one group from another may help to crystallise the behavioural mechanisms that facilitate acclimation to pain. The subjects in the study were classified according to the Multidimensional Pain Inventory and relative scores on pain acceptance and pain-related anxiety were examined. The results demonstrated that patients in the dysfunctional group cited more anxiety related to their chronic pain as well as lower acceptance of pain than those who were interpersonally distressed or copers. Add

Motivation Case Study on Gp Essay

When people join an organization, they bring with them certain drives and needs that affect their on-the-job performance. Sometimes these are immediately apparent, but often they not only are difficult to determine and satisfy but also vary greatly from one person to another. Understanding how needs create tensions which stimulate effort to perform and how effective performance brings the satisfaction of rewards is useful for managers. Several approaches to understanding internal drives and needs within employees are examined in the chapter. Each model makes a contribution to our understanding of motivation. All the models share some similarities. In general, they encourage managers not only to consider lower-order, maintenance, and extrinsic factors but to use higher-order, motivational, and intrinsic factors as well. Behavior modification focuses on the external environment by stating that a number of employee behaviors can be affected by manipulating their consequences. The alternative consequences include positive and negative reinforcement punishment, and extinction. Reinforcement can be applied according to either continuous or partial schedules. A blending of internal and external approaches is obtained through consideration of goal setting. Managers are encouraged to use cues—such as goals that are accepted, challenging, and specific—to stimulate desired employee behavior. In this way, goal setting, combined with the reinforcement of performance feedback, provides a balanced approach to motivation. . : . Additional approaches to motivation presented in this chapter are the expectancy and equity models. The- expectancy model states that motivation is a product of how much one wants something-and the probabilities that effort will lead to task accomplishment and reward. The formula is valence X expectancy X instrumentality = motivation. Valence is the strength of a person’s preference for an outcome. Expectancy is the strength of belief that one’s effort will be successful in accomplishing a task. Instrumentality is the strength of belief that successful performance will be followed by a reward. The expectancy and equity motivational models relate specifically to the  employee’s intellectual processes. The equity model has a double comparison in it a match between an employee’s perceived inputs and outcomes, coupled with a comparison with some referent person’s rewards for her or his input level. In addition, employees use the procedural justice model to assess the fairness of how rewards are distributed. Managers are encouraged to combine the perspectives of several models to create a complete motivational environment for their employees. Motivation: Motivation is the set of internal & external forces that cause an employee to choose a course of action and engage in certain behavior. A Model of Motivation : Although a few spontaneous human activities occur without motivation, nearly all conscious behavior is motivated or caused. Growing hair requires no motivation, but getting a haircut does. Eventually, anyone will fall asleep without motivation (although parents with young children may doubt this), but going to bed is a conscious act requiring motivation manager’s job is to identify employees’ drives and needs and to channel their behavior, to motivate them, toward task performance. The role of motivation in performance is summarized in the model of motivation in Figure 5.1. Internal needs and drives create tensions that are affected by one’s environment. For example, the need for food produces a tension of hunger. The hungry person then Environment Opportunity Needs and drive Tension Effont Performance Rewards Goals and incentive Ability Need satisfaction FIGURE 5.1 A Model of Mitivation examines the surroundings to see which foods (external incentives) are available to satisfy that hunger. Since environment affects one’s appetite for particular kinds of food a South Seas native may want roast fish, whereas a Colorado rancher may prefer grilled steak. Both persons are ready to achieve their goals, but they will seek different foods to satisfy their needs. This is an example of both individual differences and cultural influences in action. As we saw in the formulas in Chapter 1, potential performance (P) is a product of ability (A) and motivation (M). Results occur when motivated employs are provided with the opportunity (such as the proper training) to perform and the resources (such as the proper tools) to do so. The presence of goals and the awareness of incentives to satisfy one’s needs are also powerful motivational factors leading to the release of effort. When an employee is productive and the organization takes note of it, rewards will be distributed. If those rewards are appropriate in nature, timing, and distribution, the employee’s original needs and drives are satisfied. At that time, new needs may emerge and the cycle will begin again. It should be apparent, therefore, that an important starting point lies in understanding employee needs. Several traditional approaches to classifying drives and needs are presented first; these models attempt to help managers understand how employees’ internal needs affect their subsequent behaviors. These historical approaches are logically followed by a discussion of a systematic way of modifying employee behavior thought the use of rewards that satisfy those needs. Achievement Motivation Achievement motivation is a drive some people have to pursue and attain goals. An individual with this drive wishes to achieve objectives and advance up the ladder of success. Accomplishment is seen as important primarily for its own sake, not just for the rewards that accompany. A number of characteristic define achievement-oriented employees. They work harder when they perceive that they will receive personal credit for their efforts, when the risk of failure is only moderate, and when they receive specific feedback about their past performance,. People with a high drive  for achievement take responsibility for their actions and results, control their destiny, seek regular feedback, and enjoy being part of a winning achievement through individual or collective effort. As managers, they tend to export that their employees will also be oriented toward achievement. These high expectations sometime make it difficult for achievement-oriented managers to delegate effectively and for â€Å"average† employees to satisfy their manager’s demands. Affiliation Motivation : Affiliation motivation is a drive to relate to people on a social basis. Comparisons of achievement-motivation employees with affiliation-motivation employees illustrate how the two patterns influence behavior. Achievement-oriented people work harder when their supervisors provide detailed evaluations of their work behavior. But people with affiliation motives work better when they are compli9mentions of their work behavior. But people with affiliation motives work better when they are complimented for their favorable attitudes and cooperation. Achievement-motivated people select assistants who are technically capable, with little regard for personal feelings about them; those who are affiliation-motivated tend to select friends and likable people to surround them. They receive inner satisfactions from being with friends, and they want the job freedom to develop those relationships. Managers with strong needs for affiliation may have difficulty being effective managers. -Although a high concern for positive social relationships usually results in a cooperative work environment where employees genuinely enjoy working together, managerial overemphasis on the social dimension may interfere with the vital process of getting things done-. Affiliation-oriented managers may have difficulty assigning challenging tasks, directing work activities, and monitoring work effectiveness. Power Motivation Power motivation is a drive to influence people, take control, and change situations. Power-motivated people wish to create an impact on their organizations and are willing to take risks to do so. Once this power is obtained, it may be used either constructively or destructively. Power-motivated people make excellent managers if their drives are for  institutional power instead of personal power. Institutional power is the need to influence others’ behavior for the good of the whole organization. People with this need seek power through legitimate means, rise to leadership positions through successful performance, and therefore are accepted by others. However, if an employee’s drives are toward personal power, that person tends to lose the trust and respect of employees and colleagues and be an unsuccessful organizational leader. Managerial Application of the Drives Knowledge of the differences among the three motivational drives requires managers to think contingently and to understand the work attitudes of each employee. They can then deal with employees differently according to the strongest motivational drive that they identify in each employee. In this way, the supervisor communicates with each employee according to that particular person’s needs. As one employee said, â€Å"My supervisor talks to me in my language.† Although various tests can be used to identify the strength of employee drives, direct observation of employees’ behavior is one of the best methods for determining what they will respond to. HUMAN NEEDS When a machine malfunctions, people recognize that it needs something. Managers try to find the causes of the breakdown in an analytical manner based on their knowledge of the operations and needs of the machine. Types of Needs Needs may be classified in various ways. A simple classification is (1) basic physical needs, called primary needs, and (2) social and psychological needs, called secondary needs. The physical needs include food, water, sex, sleep, sir, and reasonably comfortable temperature. These needs arise from the basic requirements of life and are important for survival of the human race. They are, therefore, virtually universal, but they vary in intensity from one person to another. For example, a child needs much more sleep than an older person., . Needs also are conditioned by social practice. If it is customary to eat three meals a day, then a person tends to become hungry for three, even  though two might be adequate. If a coffee hour is introduced in the morning, then that becomes a habit of appetite satisfaction as well as a social need. Secondary needs are more vague because they represent needs of the mind and spirit rather than of the physical body. Many of these needs are developed as people mature. Examples are needs that pertain to self-esteem, sense of duty, competitiveness, self-assertion, and lo giving, belonging, and receiving affection. The secondary needs are those that complicate the motivational efforts of managers. Nearly any action that management takes will affect secondary needs; (here/ore, managerial planning should consider the effect of any proposed action on the secondary needs of employees, Here are seven key conclusions about secondary needs. They: 0 Are strongly conditioned by experience 1 Vary in type and intensity among people 2 Are subject to change across time within any individual 3 Cannot usually be isolated, but rather work in combination and influence one another. 4 Are often hidden from conscious recognition 5 Are vague feelings as opposed to specific physical needs 6 Influence behavior in powerful ways Whereas the three motivational drives identified earlier were not grouped in any particular pattern, the three major theories of human/needs -presented in the following sections attempt to classify those needs. At least implicitly, the theories of Maslow, Hertzberg, and Alerter build on the distinction between primary and secondary needs. Also, there are some similarities as well as important differences among the three, approaches. Despite their limitations, all three approaches to human needs help create an important basis for the more advanced motivational models to be discussed later. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs According to A. H. Maslow, human needs are not of equal strength, and they emerge in a definite sequence. In particular, as the primary needs become reasonably well satisfied, a person places more emphasis on the secondary needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs focuses attention on five levels.This  hierarchy is briefly presented and then interpreted in the following sections. Lower-Order Needs First-level needs involve basic survival and include physiological needs for food, air, water, and sleep. The second need level that tends to dominate is bodily safety (such as freedom from a dangerous work environment) and economic security (such as a no-layoff guarantee or a comfortable retirement plan). These two need levels together are typically called lower-order needs, and they are similar to the primary no discussed earlier. Higher-Order Needs There are three levels of higher-order needs. The third level ia the hierarchy concerns love, belonging, and social involvement at work (friendships and compatible associates). The needs at the fourth level encompass those for esteem and status, including one’s feelings of self-worth and of competence. The feeling of competence, which derives from the assurance of others, provides status. The fifth-level need is self-actualization, which means becoming all that one is capable of becoming, using one’s skills to the fullest, and stretching talents to the maximum. Interpreting the Hierarchy of Needs Maslow’s need-hierarchy model essentially says that people have needs they wish to satisfy and that gratified needs are not as strongly motivating as unmet needs, Employees are more enthusiastically motivated by what they are currently seeking than by receiving more of what they already have. A fully satisfied need will not be a strong motivator. Interpreted in this way, the Maslow hierarchy of needs has had a powerful impact on contemporary managers, offering some useful ideas for helping managers think about motivating their employees. As a result of widespread familiarity with the model, today’s managers need to: ‘ Identify and accept employee needs 7 Recognize that needs may differ among employees  8 Offer satisfaction for the particular needs currently unmet 9 Realize that giving more of the same reward (especially one which satisfies lower-order needs) may have a diminishing impact on motivation. The Maslow model also has many limitations, and it has been sharply criticized. As a philosophical framework, it has been difficult to study and has not been fully verified. From a practical perspective, it is not easy to provide opportunities for self-actualization to all employees. In addition, research has not supported the presence of all five need levels as unique, nor has  the five-step progression from lowest to highest need levels been established. There is, however, some evidence that unless the two lower-order needs (physiological and security) are basically satisfied, employees will not be greatly concerned with higher-order needs. The evidence for a more limited number of need levels is consistent with each of the two models discussed next. Hertzberg’s Two-Factor Model On the basis of research with engineers and accountants, Frederick Hertzberg, in the 1950s, developed a two-factor model of motivation. He asked his subjects to think of a time when they felt especially good about their jobs and a time when they felt especially bad about their jobs. He also asked them to describe the conditions that led to those feelings. Hertzberg found that employees named different types of conditions that produced good and bad feelings. That is, if a feeling of achievement led to a good feeling, the lack of achievement was rarely given as cause for bad feelings. Instead, some other factor, such as company policy, was more frequently given as a cause of bad feelings. Maintenance and Motivational Factors Hertzberg concluded that two separate sets of factors influenced motivation. Prior to that time, people had assumed that motivation and lack of motivation were merely opposites of one factor on a continuum. Hertzberg upset the traditional view by stating that certain job factors, such as job security and working conditions, dissatisfy employees primarily when the conditions are absent. However, their presence generally brings employees only to a neutral state. The factors are not strongly motivating. These potent dissatisfies are called hygiene factors, or maintenance factors, because they must not be ignored, They are necessary for building a foundation on which to create a reasonable level of motivation in employees. Other job conditions operate primarily to build this motivation, but their absence rarely is strongly dissatisfying. These conditions are known as motivational factors, motivators, or satisfiers. For many years managers had been wondering why their custodial policies and wide array of fringe benefits were not increasing employee motivation. The idea  of separate motivational and maintenance factors helped answer their question, because fringe benefits and personnel policies were primarily maintenance factors, according to Hertzberg. Job Content &Context: Motivational factors such as achievement and responsibility are related, for the most part, directly to the job itself, the employee’s performance, and the personal recognition and growth that employees experience. Motivators mostly are job-centered; they relate to job content. On the other hand, maintenance factors are mainly related to job context, because they are more related to the environment surrounding the job. This difference between job content and job context is a significant of is. It shirrs that employees are motivated primarily by what they do for themselves. When they take responsibility or gain recognition through their own behavior, they are strongly motivated. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivators The difference between job content and job context is similar to the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivators in psychology. Intrinsic motivators are internal rewards that a person feels when performing a job, so there is a direct and often immediate connection between work and rewards. An employee in this situation is self-motivated, Extrinsic motivators are external rewards that occur apart from the nature of work, providing no direct satisfaction at the defter the work is performed Examples are retirement plans, health insurance, and vacations. Although employees value these items, fey are not effective motivators. Interpreting the Two-Factor Model Harrier’s model provides a useful distinction between maintenance factors, which are necessary but not sufficient, and motivational factors, which have the potential for improving employee effort. The two-factor model ‘ broadened managers’ perspectives by showing the potentially powerful role of intrinsic rewards that evolve from the work itself. (This conclusion ties in with a number of other important behavioral developments, such as job enrichment, empowerment, self-leadership, and quality of work life, which are. discussed in later chapters.) Nevertheless, managers should now be aware that they cannot neglect a wide rare. go of facers that create at least a neutral work environment. In addition, unless hygiene factors are reasonably adder; their absence will serve as significant distractions to workers. The Hertzberg model, like Maslow’s, has been widely criticized. It is not universe applicable, because it was based on and applies best to  managerial, professional, an; upper-level white-collar employees. The model also appears to reduce the motivation* importance of pay, status, and relations with others, since these are maintenance facto; This aspect of the model is counterintuitive to many managers and difficult for them k , accept. Since there is no absolute distinction between the effects of the two major factors the model outlines only general tendencies,† maintenance factors may be motivators to some people, and motivators may be maintenance factors to others. Finally, the model also seems to be method-bound, meaning that only Hertzberg’s approach (asking for self-reports of favorable and unfavorable job experiences) produces the two-factor model. In short, there may be an appearance of two factors when in reality there is only one factor. Alderfer’s E-R-G Mode: Building upon earlier need models (primarily Maslow’s) and seeking to overcome some their weaknesses, Clayton Alderfer proposed a modified need hierarchy—the E-R-G model—with just three levels three levels. He suggested that employees are initially interested in satisfying their existence needs, which combine physiological and security factors. Pay, physical working conditions, job security, and fringe benefits can all address these needs. Relatedness needs are at the next level, and these involve being understood and accepted by people above, below, and around the employee at work and away Growth needs are in the third category; these involve the desire for both self-esteem at self-actualization. The impending conversation between the president and the marketing manager could be structured around Alderfer’s E-R-G model. The president may first wish to identify which level or levels seem to be satisfied. For example, a large disparity between their salaries could lead the marketing manager to be frustrated with his existence needs, despite a respectable salary-and-bonus package. Or his immersion in his work through long hours and heavy travel as the stores prepared to open could have left his relatedness needs unsatisfied. Finally, assuming he has mastered his present job assignments, he may be experiencing the need to develop his no marketing capabilities and grow into new areas. In addition to condensing Maslow’s five need levels into three that are more consistent with research, the  E-R-G model differs in other ways. For example, the E-R-G model does not assume as rigorous a progression from level to level. Instead, it accepts the likelihood that all three levels might be active at any time—or even that just one of the higher levels might be active. It also suggests that a person frustrated at either of the two higher levels may return to concentrate on a lower level and then progress again. Finally, whereas the first two levels are somewhat limited in their requirements for satisfaction, the growth needs not only are unlimited but are actually further awakened each time some satisfaction is attained. Comparison of the Maslow, Hertzberg, and Alderfer Modes The similarities among the three models of human needs are quite apparent,but there are important contrasts, too. Maslow and Alderfer focus on the internal needs of the employee, whereas Herzberg also identifies and differentiates the conditions (job content or job context) that could be provided for need satisfaction. Popular interpretations of the Masiow and Herzberg models suggest that in modern societies many workers have already satisfied their lower-order needs, so they are now motivated mainly by higher-order needs and motivators. Alderfer suggests that the failure to satisfy related-ness or growth needs will cause renewed interest in existence needs. Finally, all three models indicate that before a manager tries to administer a reward, he or she would find it useful to discover which need or needs dominate a particular employee at the time. In this way, all need models provide a foundation for the understanding and application of behavior modification. BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION The models of motivation that have been discussed up to this point are known as content theories of motivation because they focus on the content (nature) of items that may motivate a person. They relate to the person’s inner self and how that person’s internal state of needs determines behavior. The major difficulty with content models of motivation is that the needs people have are not subject to observation by managers or to precise measurement for monitoring purposes. It is difficult, for example, to measure an employee’s esteem needs or to assess how they change over time. Further, simply knowing about an employee’s-needs does not directly suggest to managers what they  should do with that information. As a result, there has been considerable interest in motivational models that rely more heavily on intended results, careful measurement, and systematic application of incentives. Organizational behavior modification, or OB Mod, is the application in organizations of the principles of behavior modification, which evolved from the work of B. F. Skinner. OB Mod and the next several models are process theories of motivation, since they provide perspectives on the dynamics by which employees can be motivated.

Google Company Essay

Thesis Statement: It is true that google company is the greatest place to work. What the company proud ,therefore, is that the great contributions Googlers make to the communities in which they live and work. Topic Sentence: Google Company provides its employees all kinds of perks to make them more productive and cooperative.   Supporting Details(1): There are lots of benefits for employees in google company. Question Details How is employees’ life in the Google company? Workplace at Google has a labyrinth of play areas; cafes, coffee bars and open kitchens; sunny outdoor terraces with chaises; gourmet cafeterias that serve free breakfast, lunch and dinner; Broadway-theme conference rooms with velvet drapes; and conversation areas designed to look like vintage subway cars. (2013) Google offers child care service in its Mountain View campus and also back-up child care to help California parents when their regularly scheduled child care falls through (About.com 2009). Google provides 100% health care coverage for its employees and their family. In addition onsite physicians and dentists are available at Mountain View and Seattle campuses (Google.com 2009). Google is very unique in its policy that allows employees to bring their pets to work on condition that pets are reasonably well behaved and house trained. However, the pet will have to be taken home upon the first complaint (Cosser 2008). Summary At google,there is not only cafeterias providing free three meals but cafes,coffee bars and open kitchens.What unique feature is google’s conference rooms and conversation areas which are with the subject of Broadway and are shaped as vintage of car(2013).To ensure employees and their family’s health,google has complete medical insurance.Besides,physicians and dentists work at Mountain View and Seattle campuses just in case of the people’ needs(Google.com 2009). Also,company offers service of children care and buck-up child care to help parents while they are working(Google.com 2009). Furthermore,google allows its employees to bring pets to workplace(Cosser 2008). Source(1): Website Author:James B. Stewart Publisher:James B. Stewart Reference:Stewart,JB 2013, ‘A Place to Play for Google Staff’,The New York Edition,p.B1,viewed 5 June 2014, retrieved from NYTimes Online,. Source(2):Online Author:Laura Schneider Reference:Schneider,L 2009, ‘Company Culture and History’,viewed 9 June 2014, retrieved from About.com: Tech careers,. ! Source(3):Online Author:Cosser,S Reference:Cosser,S 2008, ‘Google Sets the Standard for a Happy Work Environment’,viewed 10 June 2014,retrieved from Ezine Articles,. Supporting details(2):It is interesting that the Googlers do not working traditionally. Question Details How do the employees work in their office? Google lets many of its hundreds of software engineers, the core of its intellectual capital, design their own desks or work stations out of what resemble oversize Tinker Toys. Some have standing desks, a few even have attached treadmills so they can walk while working. Employees express themselves by scribbling on walls. The result looks a little chaotic, like some kind of high-tech refugee camp, but Google says that’s how the engineers like it(2013). In Googelplex People’s workspaces are full of individuality, and the atmosphere is relaxed. There is neither dress code nor formal daily meetings. Googlers can play beach volleyball, foosball, videogames, pool tables, table tennis, or even roller hockey on the campus, which makes this young population feel like they are still at a college campus rather than being in an office( Lashinsky, 2007a ). Summary Many software engineers who are core of intellectual capital are allowed to design their desk and even can have treadmills. Employees are able to scribbling on the walls to express themselves(2013). What is more, people in Googelplex do not have the need for dress code and daily meeting. Googlers have a lot of entertainment ways such as playing ball games, videogames, pool tables, table tennis, or even roller hockey on the campus(Lashinsky, 2007a ). Source(1):Online Author:James B. Stewart Publisher:James B. Stewart Reference:Stewart,JB 2013, ‘A Place to Play for Google Staff’ , The New York Edition,p.B1,viewed 5 June 2014, retrieved from NYTimes Online,.Source(2):Online Author:Adam Lashinsky Reference:Lashinsky,A 2009, ‘The perks of being a Googler’,viewed 8 June 2014,retrieved from Fortune,. Supporting Details(3):Google company provides its employees development opportunity and comfortable living place. Question What does google company offer for its employees? Details Allison Mooney, 32, joined Google two years ago from the advertising giant Omnicom Group, and the difference is â€Å"night and day,† she said. â€Å"I came here from the New York agency model, where you work constantly, 24/7. You answer every e-mail, nights and weekends. Here, you don’t have to show you’re working, or act like you’re working. The culture here is to shut down on weekends. People have a life.†she mentioned subsidized massages (with massage rooms on nearly every floor); free once-a-week eyebrow shaping; free yoga and Pilates classes; a course she took called â€Å"Unwind: the art and science of stress management†; a course in advanced negotiation taught by a Wharton professor; a health consultation and follow-up with a personal health counselor; an a uthor series and an appearance by the novelist Toni Morrison; and a live interview of Justin Bieber by Jimmy Fallon in the Google office(2013). Google Mountain View campus also includes services such as hair dressing,car wash, and oil change. The company also offers its employees personal development opportunities like foreign language classes (Google.com 2009). Summary Google’s employees have flexible working hours.There is no need to show they are working or pretend like they are working .At weekends,the culture in google is to shut down.Of course, google give its employees proper subsidy includes body cares and skill courses(2013).In addition google has a series of services,consisting of hair dressing,car wash,oil change. Employees can participate in foreign language courses to purchase development opportunities(Google.com 2009). Source(1):Online Author:James B. Stewart Publisher:James B. Stewart Reference:Stewart,JB 2013, ‘A Place to Play for Google Staff’ ,The New York Edition,p.B1,viewed 5 June 2014, retrieved from NYTimes Online,. ! Source(2):Online Reference:Google(2009), ‘The Best Place to Work. Retrieved 2009’,viewed 8 June 2014, retrieved from Google Diversity and Inclusion,. Thesis Statement: It is true that google company is the greatest place to work. What the company proud ,therefore, is that the great contributions Googlers make to the communities in which they live and work. Topic Sentence: Google Company provides its employees all kinds of perks to make them more productive and cooperative. At google,what unique feature is google’s conference rooms and conversation areas which are with the subject of Broadway and are shaped as vintage of car(2013).To ensure employees and their family’s health,google has complete medical insurance.Besides,physicians and dentists work at Mountain View and Seattle campuses just in case of the people’ needs(Google.com 2009). Also,company ! 7 offers service of children care and buck-up child care to help parents while they are working(Google.com 2009). Furthermore,google allows its employees to bring pets to workplace(Cosser 2008).Many software engineers who are core of intellectual capital are allowed to design their desk and even can have treadmills. Employees are able to scribbling on the walls to express themselves(2013). What is more, people in Googelplex do not have the need for dress code and daily meeting. Googlers have a lot of entertainment ways such as playing ball games, videogames,or even roller hockey on the campus(Lashinsky, 2007a ).Google’s employees have flexible working hours.There is no need to show they are working or pretend like they are working .At weekends,the culture in google is to shut down.Of course, google give its employees proper subsidy includes body cares and skill courses(2013).In addition google has a series of services,consisting of hair dressing,car wash,oil change. Employees can participate in foreign language courses to purchase development opportunities(Google.com 2009).

Who was Louis I. Kahn About the Modernist Architect

Louis I. Kahn is widely considered one of the great architects of the twentieth century, yet he has few buildings to his name. Like any great artist, Kahns influence has never been measured by the number of projects completed but by the value of his designs. Background: Born: February 20, 1901 in Kuressaare, in Estonia, on Saaremmaa Island Died: March 17, 1974 in New York, N.Y. Name at Birth: Born Itze-Leib (or, Leiser-Itze) Schmuilowsky (or, Schmalowski). Kahns Jewish parents immigrated to the United States in 1906. His name was changed to Louis Isadore Kahn in 1915. Early Training: University of Pennsylvania, Bachelor of Architecture, 1924Worked as a senior draftsman in the office of Philadelphia City Architect John Molitor.Traveled through Europe visiting castles and medieval strongholds, 1928 Important Buildings: 1953: Yale University Art Gallery and Design Center, New Haven, CT1955: Trenton Bath House, New Jersey1961: The Margaret Esherick House, Philadelphia, PA1961-1982: Jatiyo Sangsad Bhaban, National Assembly Building, Dhaka, Bangladesh1962: Richards Medical Research Laboratories, University of Pennyslvania, Philadelphia, PA1965: Jonas Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, CA1966-1972: Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, TX1974: Yale Center for British Art, New Haven, Connecticut 2010-2012: FDR Memorial Four Freedoms Park, Roosevelt Island, New York City (Read The Genius of Louis Kahns Connected, Contemplative Roosevelt Memorial — and How Builders Avoided the Usual Perils of Posthumous Architecture by Paul Goldberger, Vanity Fair, October 19 2012.) Who Kahn Influenced: A young Moshe Safdie apprenticed with Kahn in 1963.Metabolist Architects Major Awards: 1960: Arnold W. Brunner Memorial Prize, American Academy of Arts and Letters1971: AIA Gold Medal, American Institute of Architects1972: RIBA Gold Medal, Royal Institute of British Architects1973: Architecture Gold Medal, American Academy of Arts and Letters Private Life: Louis I. Kahn grew up in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the son of poor immigrant parents. As a young man, Kahn struggled to build his career during the height of Americas Depression. He was married but often became involved with his professional associates. Kahn established three families that lived only a few miles apart in the Philadelphia area. Louis I. Kahns troubled life is explored in , a 2003 documentary film by his son, Nathaniel Kahn. Louis Kahn was the father of three children with three different women: Sue Ann Kahn, daughter with his wife, Esther Israeli KahnAlexandra Tyng, daughter with Anne Griswold Tyng, associate architect at Kahns firmNathaniel Kahn, son with Harriet Pattison, landscape architect The influential architect died of a heart attack in a mens restroom in Pennsylvania Station in New York City. At the time, he was deep in debt and juggling a complicated personal life. His body was not identified for three days. Note: For more information about Kahns children, see Journey to Estonia by Samuel Hughes, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Digital Edition, Jan / Feb 2007 [accessed January 19, 2012]. Quotes by Louis I. Kahn: Architecture is the reaching out for the truth.Consider the momentous event in architecture when the wall parted and the column became.Design is not making beauty, beauty emerges from selection, affinities, integration, love.A great building must begin with the unmeasurable, must go through measurable means when it is being designed and in the end must be unmeasurable. Professional Life: During his training at the Pennsylvania School of Fine Arts, Louis I. Kahn was grounded in the Beaux Arts approach to architectural design. As a young man, Kahn became fascinated with the heavy, massive architecture of medieval Europe and Great Britain. But, struggling to build his career during the Depression, Kahn became known as a champion of Functionalism. Louis Kahn built on ideas from the Bauhaus Movement and the International Style to design low-income public housing. Using simple materials like brick and concrete, Kahn arranged building elements to maximize daylight. His concrete designs from the 1950s were studied at Tokyo Universitys Kenzo Tange Laboratory, influencing a generation of Japanese architects and stimulating the metabolism movement in the 1960s. The commissions that Kahn received from Yale University gave him the chance to explore ideas hed admired in ancient and medieval architecture. He used simple forms to create monumental shapes. Kahn was in his 50s before he designed the works that made him famous. Many critics praise Kahn for moving beyond the International Style to express original ideas. Learn More: You Say to Brick: The Life of Louis Kahn by Wendy Lesser, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2017 Sources: NY Times: Restoring Kahns Gallery; Philadelphia Architects Buildings; Yale Center for British Art[Accessed June 12, 2008]