Maslow wasn’t the first psychologist to develop a theory of human needs. Photo by AdiniMalibuBarbie/Getty Images
Abraham Maslow’s iconic pyramid of needs is one of
the most famous images in the history of management studies. At the base
of the pyramid are physiological needs, and at the top is
self-actualization, the full realization of one’s unique potential.
Along the way are the needs for safety, belonging, love, and esteem.
However, many people may not realize that during the last few years of his life Maslow believed self-transcendence, not self-actualization, was the pinnacle of human needs. What’s more, it’s difficult to find any evidence that he ever actually represented his theory as a pyramid.
On the contrary, it's clear from his writings that he did not view his
hierarchy of needs like a video game-- as though you reach one level and
then unlock the next level, never again returning to the “lower”
levels. He made it quite clear that we are always going back and forth
in the hierarchy, and we can target multiple needs at the same time.
If Maslow never built his iconic pyramid, who did? In a 2019 paper,
Todd Bridgman, Stephen Cummings, and John Ballard trace the true
origins of the pyramid in management textbooks, and lay out the
implications for the amplification of Maslow's theory, and for
management studies in general. In the following Q & A, I chat with
the authors of that paper about their detective work.
Why did you set out to answer the question: Who built “Maslow’s Pyramid”?
My colleague Stephen Cummings and I have long been
interested in how foundational ideas of our field, management studies,
are represented in textbooks. Textbooks often present ideas very
differently than in the original writings. We’re interested in
understanding how and why this happens. We’ve taught Maslow’s hierarchy
of needs for many years and were aware the pyramid did not appear in his
most well-known works, so were interested in delving deeper. We
contacted John Ballard, who knew Maslow’s work better than we did and
who shared our concern about Maslow’s theory being misrepresented.
Thankfully, he agreed to join us on the project.
Do you think the popularity of Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs is due in part to the iconic appeal of the pyramid
that became associated with it?
Yes, absolutely. Maslow wasn’t the first
psychologist to develop a theory of human needs. Walter Langer presented
a theory with physical, social and egoistic needs that appeared
alongside Maslow’s in an early management textbook. And Maslow’s theory
generally hasn’t performed well in empirical studies (although I’m aware
of your research which
challenges this). In fact, this lack of empirical support is one of the
main criticisms of the theory made by textbook authors. So why do they
continue to include it? The pyramid. We know from having taught
management courses for 20 years that if there’s one thing that students
remember from an introductory course in management, it’s the pyramid.
It’s intuitively appealing, easy to remember and looks great in
PowerPoint. Students love it and because of that, so do textbooks
authors, teachers, and publishers.
So what’s your problem with the pyramid?
It’s described as ‘Maslow’s pyramid’ when he did not
create it and it’s just not a good representation of Maslow’s hierarchy
of needs. It perpetuates unfair criticisms of the theory. For example,
that people are only motivated to satisfy one need at a time, that a
need must be 100% satisfied before a higher-level need kicks in, and
that a satisfied need no longer affects behavior. Another is the view
that everyone has the same needs arranged and activated in the same
order. In his 1943 article in Psychological Review
Maslow anticipates these criticisms and says they would give a false
impression of his theory. Maslow believed that people have partially
satisfied needs and partially unsatisfied needs at the same time, that a
lower level need may be only partially met before a higher-level need
emerges, and that the order in which needs emerge is not fixed.
How did this inaccurate interpretation of the hierarchy of needs become established in management textbooks?
It’s a complicated story and one we address fully in
the paper. Douglas McGregor is a key figure, because he popularized
Maslow within the business community. McGregor saw the potential for the
hierarchy of needs to be applied by managers, but for ease of
translation he deliberately ignored many of the nuances and
qualifications that Maslow had articulated. To cut a long story short,
McGregor’s simplified version is the theory that appears in management
textbooks today, and most criticisms of Maslow’s theory are critiques of
McGregor’s interpretation of Maslow.
Did McGregor create the pyramid? Or if not, who did?
No pyramid appears in McGregor’s writing. Keith
Davis wrote a widely-used management textbook in 1957 that illustrated
the theory in the form of a series of steps in a right-angled triangle
leading to a peak. The top level shows a suited executive raising a
flag, reminiscent of the flag-raising at Iwo Jima. But this
representation of the theory did not catch on. We traced the pyramid
that we associate with the hierarchy of needs today to Charles McDermid,
a consulting psychologist. It appeared in his 1960 article in Business Horizons
‘How money motivates men’ in which he argued the pyramid can be applied
to generate “maximum motivation at the lowest cost”. We think
McDermid’s pyramid was inspired by Davis’ representation, but it was
McDermid’s image that took off. If there is an earlier pyramid, we did
not find it.
Is it right that you actually found no trace
of Maslow framing his ideas in pyramid form? Where did you look, and
how comprehensive was your search?
That’s correct. It was a comprehensive search.
Maslow was a prolific writer. We examined all of his published books and
articles that we could identify, as well as his personal diaries, which
are published. John immersed himself in the Maslow archives at the
Centre for the History of Psychology at the University of Akron in Ohio
and examined many boxes of papers, letters, memos, and so forth. We
found no trace of the pyramid in any of Maslow’s writings. Additionally,
John went through pre1960 psychology textbooks for any discussions of
Maslow. Most psych books in those times did not even mention Maslow.
Why didn’t Maslow argue against the Pyramid
once he saw it? He could have criticized it, right? I heard from someone
who knew Maslow that he actually thought the pyramid on the back of the
$1 bill was a fair representation of his theory. Also, one of his
students who took his course at Brooklyn College told me he would
include a slide of the pyramid when he described his theory in class. So
perhaps he was pleased with the iconic pyramid even if he didn't invent
the depiction himself?
Those are interesting questions. Maslow lived for 10
years after McDermid presented the pyramid. We found no evidence of
Maslow challenging the pyramid at any time. We don’t think that’s
because he regarded pyramid as an accurate representation. A more
plausible explanation, which comes from our analysis of his personal
diaries, is that aspects of his professional life were unravelling. He
felt underappreciated in psychology. The major research journals in
psychology had been taken over by experimental studies, which depressed
Maslow for their lack of creativity and insight. He also had more
pragmatic concerns, suffering periods of ill health and financial
difficulties. Key figures in the management community saw him as a guru
and rolled out the red carpet. They gave him the recognition he felt he
deserved. Furthermore, through speaking engagements and consulting, he
could generate additional income. Seen in that light, it’s not
surprising he went along with it.
Some people have argued that Maslow based
his pyramid on the tipi of First Nations people the Blackfoot, following
a summer he spent with the tribe in 1938. What do you think of this
theory?
The claim that Maslow stole the idea for his pyramid
from the Blackfoot has gained attention on social media, but if Maslow
did not create the pyramid, he could not have taken it from the
Blackfoot. There is no doubt that Maslow’s fieldwork with the Blackfoot
were insightful for him. He discussed his observations with the
Blackfoot briefly in his 1954 book. Maslow’s biographer, Ed Hoffman,
devoted an entire chapter to Maslow’s fieldwork. While Maslow learned
much about these proud people, there is nothing in these writings to
suggest he borrowed or stole ideas for his hierarchy of needs.
Where do we go next? Are you calling for the pyramid to be dropped in new editions of management textbooks?
We are recommending, as some have before us, that a
ladder is a better visual representation of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
The pyramid is shown with horizontal lines demarcating the different
levels. This makes it difficult to imagine a person simultaneously being
affected by different needs. When one is on a ladder, multiple rungs
are occupied by the feet and hands. Other rungs may be leaned on as
well. Also, a ladder does a better job of conveying Maslow’s idea that
people can move up and down the hierarchy. Prominent management
historian Daniel Wren described Maslow’s theory as a ladder of needs in
early editions of his book The Evolution of Management Thought.
That description eventually dropped out, but we believe removing the
pyramid from management textbooks and replacing it with a ladder would
be a step forward. Dan Wren has been in touch with us since the paper
was published and agrees.
You wrote: “Inspiring the study of
management and its relationship to creativity and the pursuit of the
common good would be a much more empowering legacy to Maslow than a
simplistic, 5-step, one-way pyramid.” I agree! It seems like Maslow’s
original thinking about self-actualization is at odds with how business
leaders treated the concept, right?
Definitely. Following the publication of Motivation and Personality
in 1954, Maslow emerged as one of the few established psychologists to
challenge the prevailing conformism of the 1950s. He spoke out on how
large organizations and social conformity stifled individual
self-expression. At times he was frustrated that the business community
treated his theory of human nature as a means to a financial
end--short-term profits--rather than the end which he saw, a more
enlightened citizenry and society. It would be great if students were
encouraged to read what Maslow in the original. Students would better
understand that motivating employees to be more productive at work was
not the end that Maslow desired for the hierarchy of needs. He was
concerned with creativity, freedom of expression, personal growth and
fulfillment – issues that remain as relevant today in thinking about
work, organizations, and our lives as they were in Maslow’s time. We
think there’s an opportunity to create a new Maslow for management
studies by returning to Maslow’s original ideas.
Maslow never offered an elitist
conceptualization of self-actualization, right? My reading is that he
argued that everyone is capable of self-actualizing, but are blocked by
deficiencies in our most basic needs.
Well that depends. Most of his life and in his
writings Maslow was very clear that every newborn had the potential to
eventually be self-actualized, given the right environment. But he felt
very few people truly reached their potential, a belief that grew
stronger over the years. In his final years he wondered if there might
be a genetic component that favors self-actualization in some more than
others. He mused about the possibility of a “biological elite”, people
with a higher probability of becoming self-actualized. To our knowledge
he never developed this idea. This was probably a reaction to meeting
too few people whom he would consider self-actualized.
What is the right environment?
Maslow had preconditions for his need hierarchy to
work. This is frequently overlooked. Freedom to speak, to express one’s
self, to live in societies with fairness and justice, these are some of
his preconditions. Censorship, dishonesty, inability to pursue truth and
wisdom work against us. Even still, he acknowledged there are
exceptions where people rise above their circumstances.
You argue that management textbooks could do
a better job of representing the past, more generally. What are some
other big textbook misrepresentations as you see it?
Were they alive today, our field’s founders such as
Adam Smith, Max Weber, Kurt Lewin and even Douglas McGregor himself
would have difficulty recognizing the ways in which their ideas are
presented in textbooks. In A New History of Management by
Stephen Cummings, John Hassard, Michael Rowlinson, and me we try to
address some of those misinterpretations. But the problem goes beyond
the misrepresentation of ideas. We are also interested in examining
people and ideas usually excluded from management textbooks. We need to
more closely examine the contributions of women, contributions from
non-Western cultures, contributions from people of different
ethnicities.
What are the broader implications of your research for management education?
We hope our research generates debate about what has
come to be regarded as the foundations of management studies and how
those foundations are taught to students. We advocate a
critical-historical approach which involves seeing ‘history’ as a
subjective narrative of past events that is shaped by the perspectives
and values of those who write these narratives. Management studies has
had long-standing ideological commitments to free-market capitalism and
managerial hierarchies. It’s a legitimate perspective but one that has
been overly dominant. Recognizing this opens the possibility of creating
new histories of management from different perspectives – of different
places, times, people and ideas. This would both provide students with a
richer understanding of our field but could also help them generate
genuinely novel ways of thinking about managing and organizing.
Scott
Barry Kaufman, Ph.D., is a humanistic psychologist exploring the depths
of human potential. He has taught courses on intelligence, creativity,
and well-being at Columbia University, NYU, the University of
Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. He hosts The Psychology Podcast, and is author and/or editor of 9 books, including Transcend: The New Science of Self-Actualization, Wired to Create: Unravelling the Mysteries of the Creative Mind (with Carolyn Gregoire), and Ungifted: Intelligence Redefined. In 2015, he was named one of "50 Groundbreaking Scientists who are changing the way we see the world" by Business Insider. Find out more at http://ScottBarryKaufman.com. He wrote the extremely popular Beautiful Minds blog for Scientific American for close to a decade.
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22304476/Headshot_Photo.jpg)
