Is the Anti-Maslow Movement Gaining Strength?

Loyal readers know I have an unnatural attraction to Abraham Maslow and his theory of motivation.

Not the positive attraction that is pretty common on the web in posts about motivation written by those selling a product and not really worried about motivation.  It’s a pretty negative attraction.  For those interested in history check the following links…all others jump to the next headline…

My anti-Maslow sentiment isn’t new.  I checked my blog history and I first posted October 2006 asking if Maslow was a non-issue in today’s business environment:

"My question is this… if we are outsourcing life maintenance, and some of the higher level things in our lives – does Maslow still apply?  Is the entire $29 billion incentive industry supported by a false premise?"

I then asked in February of 2009 whether readers thought Maslow was still a valid motivation theory – BTW 72% did.  A few days later with this:  “If Your Incentive Company Brings Up Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – Fire Them!”

Maslow Is Out of Date and Out of Touch 

Yesterday, while checking twitter – Chip Conley –Founder and CEO of Joie de Vivre Hospitality and Author, PEAK: How Great Companies Get Their Mojo from Maslow, tweeted out a link to this article:  Maslow’s Pyramid Gets a Makeover.  

Some of the interesting points from the article include:

• The new pyramid is based on the premise that our strongest and most fundamental impulse, which shapes our day-to-day desires on an unconscious level, is to survive long enough to pass our genes to the next generation. According to this school of thought, backed by considerable — though not irrefutable — evidence, all our achievements are linked in one way or another to the urge to reproduce.
   
• Despite the pyramid’s (Maslow’s) continuing popularity, Kenrick and his colleagues — Vladas Griskevicius, Steven Neuberg and Mark Schaller — note some modern researchers consider it “quaint” and largely irrelevant.  
   
• But they also found several problems with the pyramid. We now know that needs, once they are met, don’t simply disappear; rather, they reappear when prompted by certain environmental cues. Watching a news report about a crime spree will trigger fears for our own safety, which can influence our opinions and behaviors even if that need is being effectively met. (More fancifully, Kenrick notes that many well-fed people love to watch cooking shows. Having a full belly doesn’t negate our fascination with food.)
   
• So Kenrick and his colleagues revised the hierarchy to reflect this selfish-gene hypothesis. While their bottom four levels are highly compatible with Maslow’s — immediate psychological needs, self-protection, affiliation, status/esteem — their top three differ enormously. They are mate acquisition, mate retention and parenting.

Connecting This to Your Employees

Now – while I’m a fan just because someone with more initials after their names also thinks Maslow needs updating – it also drew me in because I’ve longed believed that great managers think in terms the “family” dynamic and should engage, guide and discipline employees as they would a child in their own family (not treat them like children but use similar themes/tools to guide behavior.)

So I’m thinking this…

Once you have the basics out of the way – income, insurance, future retirement, environment, etc. you need to look at how you can help your employees begin to mentor and guide the behavior of others.  In other words – if in fact parenting (via reproduction) is a goal/driver of behavior – is the business analog to that being a manager?  Is it this drive to parent and perpetuate ones value in an organization that drives us?  

I’m thinking it has some validity.  How many employees would say – “I don’t want to impact another person in company.  Just let me sit here and punch through spreadsheets or shoot screws all day and leave me alone.”

I’m sure there are a few.  But the vast majority of employees want to be managers, supervisors, mentors, leaders – whatever.  And I’m guessing it’s not so much driven by the new business cards, or the money (they do have impact) but more so by their internal drive to propagate their knowledge throughout the company and to create a positive legacy.  

Isn’t that what all parents want?

Where I think There Are Flaws

Nowhere in the article do the contributors make any reference to differences in the theory relative to sexes (male vs. female.)  I think, from an evolutionary perspective, there would be some.  Men typically focus on trying to make as many offspring as possible (assuming they don’t have to care for them later), women are more concerned with taking care of the ones they have (limiting the number they would want/should have IMHO.)  So there needs to be some discussion here on that.

Second of all – not everyone wants to be a parent (maybe this is where the spreadsheet jockeys come in) and therefore it isn’t a motivational “Unified Theory” – but I’m convinced after 25 years doing this a unified theory doesn’t exist.

Net-Net

An interesting article that points out Maslow may have less relevance than we think and that if you are planning on designing any incentive and reward program you may not want to use “the pyramid” as your starting point.

What say you – any thoughts on “parenting” and “reproduction” as key drivers of behavior within an organization?  I’m thinking it could make for a very interesting work place.