on debunking the pyramid

7/28/2019 On Debunking the Pyramid

1/5

Debunking the pyramid 1

Ray S. Jones

Debunking the Pyramid: On Not Overstating Maslows Hierarchy of Needs

Ray S. Jones

Over a number of years during class room discussions on the topic of motivation,

inevitably a student offers into evidence Maslows Hierarchy of Needs. This evidence is

usually offered as a demonstration of mans determined character in contact with naturesimplacable willman struggles to overcome the basic needs to live so that he may

achieve the pleasures of love, esteem, and self-actualization, despites the harsh realities

of a world requiring greater and greater effort from man. I usually use this as anopportunity to explore the effects of Theory X on motivation, and gently (I hope)

disabuse my students of a James Fenimore Cooper notion of a heroic man versus nature

in the organization. It is also an opportunity to discuss Frederick Herzbergs motivation

ideas, which do draw from Abraham Maslows work (Whittington & Evans, 2005). So,in a sense no teachable moment is lost, nonetheless, I have remained troubled by the

recurring references to Maslows hierarchy of needs because, as I have repeatedly

discovered, the true point of Maslows work is seldom found in the learned repertoire of

my students. Thus, I am concerned that across our discipline we have incorrectlyportrayed what Abraham Maslow was trying to teach us.

Recently I returned to the textbooks that are being used in graduate and

undergraduate business courses for Organizational Behavior to review the content on

Maslows hierarchy of needs. Some few were better than others, but like most texts, theydistill truth to word-bites for the masses. I present the following which is an example of a

particularly misleading treatment of Maslow: In 1943, psychologist Abraham Maslow

published his now famous need hierarchy theory of motivation. Although the theory was

based on his clinical observation of a few neurotic individuals, it has subsequently beenused to explain the entire spectrum of human behavior (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2007, p.

237). This statement is incorrect on two counts. First, Maslow was an experimentalpsychologist who studied under Edward Thorndike, and was well versed in the scientificmethod. During the 1930s he studied primates and the sexual behaviors of women

undergraduates, producing papers on both topics and referring to both areas in a number

of his works (see Nicholson, 2001, for a discussion). His early study is somewhatparadoxical in more ways than the obvious. There are a number of articles that take issue

with his treatment of gender in his theories (Coy & Kovaks-Long, 2005; Cullen & Cotell,

2002; Nicholson, 2001). Nevertheless, Maslow is recognized as a humanist theorist for

his perspectives on the hopefulness of the human condition. Factually, Maslows theoryof needs was not solely based on his clinical observation of a few neurotic patients. His

primate work, his work with women undergraduates, and his strong humanistic

perspectives contributed to this early statement of theory.

Second, the text book authors do Maslow a great discredit by failing to mention

the work on his theory of personality that continued beyond the publishing of the 1943paper on needs. Regrettably, some in the Organizational Behavior field have become

stuck in 1943, which is where these authors present a grievous error. The hierarchy of

needs never attempted to explain the entire spectrum of human behavior as Kreitner

and Kinicki (2007, p. 237) state that it has subsequently been used to explain the entire


2/5


Ray S. Jones

spectrum of human behavior. As Payne (2000, pp. 219-220) wrote, Maslow set out to

research and understand people who were abnormally normal, i.e. super healthy in a

psychological sense. He sought out people who were achieving a lot, were happy withthemselves and their lives, and who were fully functioning. . .Maslow observed that

many people spend their lives struggling to satisfy the lower order needs and never get

the opportunity to satisfy their higher order needs for self-esteem and self-actualisation.This intent is reflected in Maslows beliefs that self-actualization is a process that is not

contained in a bounded hierarchy as he explains in later writings (1971). I argue that this

intent was apparent in his 1943 article, and was the thread that bound his ideasthroughout his life. Indeed, Hoffman (1999) suggests such in his biography of Maslow.

Therefore, the crux of the issue is that textbook authors and mangers who find the

simplicity of the hierarchy of needs attractive and fail to understand the context in which

it was offered, use and cite something which in fact is non-existent. Maslow (1943, p. 2)made the tenuousness of his objective perfectly clear when he wrote The present theory

then must be considered to be a suggested program or framework for future research and

must stand or fall, not so much on facts available or evidence presented, as upon

researches to be done, researches suggested perhaps, by the questions raised in thispaper. Kreitner and Kinicki (2007) perpetuate the error by not disabusing it with the

considerable evidence that Maslows hierarchy was not intended as encompassing theory.

The hierarchy of needs was never theory in the Kuhnian sense, but a propositional

idea, despite the title of the paper. One must read the paper to understand this point.That some did use the hierarchy as a model for human behavior is not surprising, many

fads have come and gone in business. It is our responsibility as scholars to see through

these. Maslows hierarchy is not behavioral; he was a humanist, opposed to Skinners

obsession with behavior. Maslow spent his theoretical life trying to demonstrate thehopefulness of mans potential. Yet he is taken out of context by some organizational

behaviorists. Consider the following quote:

The needs that are usually taken as the starting point for motivation theory are

the so-called physiological drives. . .Homeostasis refers to the body's automatic

efforts to maintain a constant, normal state of the blood stream. . .it seemsimpossible as well as useless to make any list of fundamental physiological needs

for they can come to almost any number one might wish. . .they are relatively

independent of each other, of other motivations. . .the person who thinks he is

hungry may actually be seeking more for comfort. . .or dependence[but] the manwho is extremely and dangerously hungry, no other interests exist but food.

(Maslow, 1943, p. 2-3).

In this quote, Maslow does state that a man extremely and dangerously hungry is

obsessed with food. Yet, absent the dangerously hungry condition, there is considerable

room for hunger to be misinterpreted by the observer. Furthermore, as Maslow observed[e]mergency conditions are, almost by definition, rare in the normally functioning

peaceful society (1943, p. 4).


3/5


Ray S. Jones

Deprivation of food triggers hunger, but we must consider Maslows (1943, p. 4)

words that gratification becomes as important a concept as deprivation in motivation

theory. Thus, people are free to pursue more socially oriented goals. Maslowconsidered freedom to pursue goals a desirable end event as opposed to a condition of

existence. All people in our society (with a few pathological exceptions) have a need or

desire for a stable, firmly based, (usually) high evaluation of themselves, for self-respect,or self-esteem, and for the esteem of others. (Maslow, 1943, p. 7). Here, Maslow

hypothesizes that when deprived of self-esteem gratification the individual [suffers]

feelings of inferiority, of weakness and of helplessness. These feelings in turn give rise toeither basic discouragement or else compensatory or neurotic trends. (Maslow, 1943, p.

7). This hypothesis is common within humanistic psychology, but has been ignored by

the hierarchical needs theorists who have instead focused on the belief that failure to

gratify the esteem needs will stall an individual and prevent movement into selfactualization. This misses a key element of Maslows idea. Even if all these needs are

satisfied, we may still often (if not always) expect that a new discontent and restlessness

will soon develop, unless the individual is doing what he is fitted for. (Maslow, 1943, p.

7). In other words, man is continually seeking self-improvement. More importantly,those individuals in whom a certain need has always been satisfied who are best

equipped to tolerate deprivation of that need in the future, and that furthermore, thosewho have been deprived. . .in the past will react differently to current satisfactions than

the one who has never been deprived. (Maslow, 1943, p. 8). Individuals will, according

to Maslow seek self-improvement continuously and in a dynamic manner, moving up anddown the hierarchy reacting differently depending on their prior exposure to need.

Kreitner & Kinicki (2007, p. 237) are most clearly uninformed in their

prescription for the use of the need hierarchy. [Maslow] believed human needs emergein a generally predictable stair-step fashion . . .[o]nce a need is satisfied it activates the

next higher need. . .this continues until the need for self actualization is activated.

Therefore, managers are advised to motivate employees by devising programs orpractices aimed at satisfying emerging or unmet needs. As I have described above,

Kreitner & Kinicki have missed Maslows point. But to make it clear, I quote Maslow

again: We have spoken so far as if this hierarchy were a fixed order but actually it is notnearly as rigid as we may have implied. (Maslow, 1943, p. 9). In the summary to his

paper he suggested the areas that need further exploration before his hierarchy can be

applied:

Certain other basic problems have not been dealt with because of limitations of

space. Among these are (a) the problem of values in any definitive motivation

theory, (b) the relation between appetites, desires, needs and what is 'good' for theorganism, (c) the etiology of the basic needs and their possible derivation in early

childhood, (d) redefinition of motivational concepts, i. e., drive, desire, wish,

need, goal, (e) implication of our theory for hedonistic theory, (f) the nature of theuncompleted act, of success and failure, and of aspiration-level, (g) the role of

association, habit and conditioning, (h) relation to the [p. 396] theory of inter-

personal relations, (i) implications for psychotherapy, (j) implication for theory of

society, (k) the theory of selfishness, (l) the relation between needs and cultural


4/5


Ray S. Jones

patterns, (m) the relation between this theory and Alport's theory of functional

autonomy. These as well as certain other less important questions must be

considered as motivation theory attempts to become definitive. (Maslow, 1943,p. 14).

I suggest, that when our students propose Maslows hierarchy of needs as amotivation theory, or a textbook that we are using contains the inevitable Maslow

pyramid, we as scholars offer the following responses:

a. Maslow was generally not well understood in the management world and isoften not correctly represented in textbooks. He was a Humanist Psychologist

who can be studied in terms of the philosophy of hopefulness for humankind.

Alderfer (1969) and McClelland (1961) directly used his ideas to create

management theories based on needs. These are better representations of needstheories for students of management.

b. Herzberg (1959) based some of his motivation theory on Maslow, and provides

a testable and commonly used theory in management. Herzbergs theory is not a

needs theory, and provides a good contrast to Alderfer and McClelland.

References:

Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 4, 142-175.

Coy, D. R. & Kovaks-Long, J. (2005). Maslow and Miller: An exploration of gender and

affiliation in the journey to competence. Journal of Counseling and Development, 83,138-145.

Cullen, D. & Gotell, L. (2002). From orgasm to organizations: Maslow, womenssexuality, and the gendered foundations of the needs hierarchy. Gender, Work, and

Organization, 9(5), 537-555.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New

York: Wiley. [Note: This is a seminal work. Add more current writings]

Hoffman, E. (1999). The right to be human: A biography of Abraham Maslow. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Kreitner, R. & Kinicki, A. (2007). Organizational Behavior (7th Ed.). New York:McGraw-Hill.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396. Obtained from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm.

Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Viking Press.


5/5


Ray S. Jones

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. [note:

This is a seminal work.]

Nicholson, I. A. M. (2001). Giving up maleness: Abraham Maslow, masculinity, and

the boundaries of psychology. History of Psychology, 4(1), 79-91.

Payne, R. L. (2000). Eupsychian management and the millennium. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 15(3), 219-226.

Whittington, J. L. & Evans, B. (2005). The enduring impact of great ideas. Problems and

Perspectives in Management, 2, 114-122.

on debunking the pyramid

Documents