Is Maslow Still Valid? Your Input... Please

Does Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs provide a good foundation for determining what motivates people?

Please take the poll because it will help me with a really good post next week.  Vote below and let me know if you think Maslow is relevant. 

As a fellow twitter friend suggested - here's a brief overview to refresh your memory.

This poll is closed. But...

UPDATE: We posted our response to this poll on February 24, 2008 - click this link to see what we had to say about Maslow!

Comments

[Heather Blume]

Maslow is still incredibly valid, especially when we're talking about not only recruiting and hiring people, but about the far more important subject of motivation and talent retention. If you take care of the bottom of the pyramid, you have one heck of a better chance at achieving the top. If you read the "Carrot" books, this is essentially what they are talking about when they talk about specific and deserved praise. That's how you meet those top two sections. But if someone can't feed their family, then your praise isn't worth anything to them. Yeah, I'd say Maslow is still valid.

[Paul Hebert]

Thanks for the input. I'm posting next week about this - it may be surprising :-)

[HR Good_Witch]

Just like back in Maslow's day, his hierarchy of needs is valid as a framework. It's a model, and a rather good one - it gives us a common language, it gives us concepts to work with. It is not however the only useful model out there... but frankly who cares? It's accessible, easily understood and I apply it in my work on a monthly basis, I would say. Sometimes, just in discussion, to illustrate a point. Sometimes, as I think through what is going on with an individual or even my own job satisfaction. Ye ol' hierarchy isn't perfect, never was, but on the whole, it works.

[Paul Hebert]

Thanks Witchy - it does everything you mentioned - and more - watch next week for a surprising post (I think - but then again - I'm actualized!)

[Hank Merkle]

If you don't believe in Maslow's hierarchy, let me put you in a vacuum. Still don't believe,
O.K. we will give you back you air, and put you in a box in the dark.
If you have employees and understand what their motivation is then you can lead them, if you don't
you will constantly be trying to "Manage" them and the only thing that does is prove how good YOU are
at ticking off your to-do list and making sure they(your employees) do what you told them to because
they will not do anything simply because they see that it should be done!

[Paul Hebert]

Gracias Hank! I agree there is a big difference between leading and managing. People are led - processes are managed. I'll be posting next week on the survey results and more.

[Gary]

Okay, it's "valid".

It's a great discussion point, it gets people thinking, it has intuitive appeal, etc.

But does it really explain or predict; which a good theory must do.

In my graduate program in industrial psych, we gave it very little consideration. As one professor said, "Maslow is to motivation as the 'Golden Rule' is to ethics. If that's all you want to know, then you can leave the program after the first week."

[Paul Hebert]

Great way to position it! I might have to borrow it next week for my post. I think we broke down your wall - glad to see you commenting again Gary - Always like to hear your opinion!

[Dan Murray]

I find the relative accessibility of Maslow's hierarchy to be double-edged. On the postive side it is easy to understand and anyone can relate to it. Unfortunately, this ease of understanding causes some people to believe that reciting the model qualifies them as practicing amatuer psychologists. Like any model, Maslow's hierarchy is a conceptual abstraction. It's mis-used when it's interpreted as a linear recipe.