If Your Incentive Company Brings Up Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – Fire Them!

Last week I ran a decidedly unscientific poll asking if Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs was still a valid model for motivation.  In other words, do people follow the hierarchy - and by extension, can you provide motivation by creating opportunities at each level for your employees, channel or customers?

The Poll Results

72% of you said Maslow’s theory is a good model for motivation and 28% said it wasn’t.  Truthfully, I thought it skew even higher on the “YES” side.

I’m not surprised that a majority of you thought Maslow was a good model considering that Maslow’s point of view has been in almost every marketing and management book since he came up with the idea in 1943.  It is probably one of the most cited motivational models of all time. 

Unfortunately – and I know a lot of you won’t like it.  It’s BS. 

Yep… it doesn’t apply today and more importantly – it has really never been applicable.

Maslow has nothing to do with your motivation problems today…

When I started Incentive Intelligence over two years ago, there were very, very few blogs on incentives.  However, I am running into some companies that sell award fulfillment that have started blogging.  But I’m concerned because I’m seeing a lot of posts on “because of the economy you need an award program to take advantage of the principles of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs” or “due to reduction in bonuses and commissions you need rewards and recognition because of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.”

But anyone using Maslow as their justification for an incentive program is not working in your best interest – they are working in their best interest.

If your rewards supplier says you need rewards because of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs then you’re dealing with someone who: a.) doesn’t understand what Maslow proposed with his theory, b.) doesn’t care about you, or your audience’s success, c.) is too lazy to look at your specific business issues and wants to borrow credibility from a 60 year-old “theory” in order to make quick buck.

None of those options are good for you.

Maslow Was Good – Just Not Perfect

Maslow’s theory is good – it, on the surface, tries to explain a lot – but it also leaves a lot on the table. To use one “theory” (and I put quotes around it because many who study these things don’t believe Maslow is a good foundational theory for motivation) to justify spending money on awards isn’t good. 

What Maslow Has is Stickiness

If you haven’t read “Made To Stick” by the Heath brothers – now would be a good time.  I think it accurately shows why Maslow’s Hierarchy has stuck with us for so long – even with its flaws.

In their book, the Heath brothers outlined six things a story has to have in order to stick:  Simplicity, Unexpectedness, Concreteness, Credibility, Emotions, and Stories. 

Let’s take a look at Maslow through this lens.

• Simple – what is simpler than the idea that we are motivated based on 5 things – very, very simple to understand.
• Unexpected – the unexpected part of this is that it is so simple.  We expect humans to be complex but this theory makes it very simple – and that is unexpected.
• Concreteness – think pyramid – nothing is more concrete than a pyramid – heck they’ve been in Egypt for thousands of years – everyone knows how concrete that image is.
• Credibility – it comes from Maslow so it must be right!
• Emotions – the theory hits very close to home for many people – they can remember their first trophy or the first time they received public recognition – it resonates with them.
• Stories – it is very easy to tell the story of someone who is starving needing food and then needing shelter – and then needing recognition – the story builds on itself – creating the linkages that are familiar and easy to grasp.

Maslow’s Hierarchy fits this formula to a tee – and I suggest – one of the many reasons it has stayed in our heads and driven a lot of our HR decisions for so many years.

But Maslow’s Theory has Some Big Big Holes

Maslow’s theory has some issues.  And the issues should make you think twice about using it as the cornerstone for your motivation programs – or for choosing a company to supply your reward strategy.  If they are using Maslow as their proof – they are simply selling awards.

The Issues:

It is a theory looking for data…

The theory has never, repeat, never been proven empirically.  Maslow himself said it was an idea he put out there for future study and analysis – but had no proof of his own.  So in effect – based on his analysis of a few people – he said – “here’s an idea – go see if it makes sense.”  In Maslow’s own words…

“'My fellow scientists can proceed with less passion, personal involvement, and heat—in the cool manner of science—to check whether I was right or not' (Maslow’s Theory of Motivation and Hierarchy of Human Needs: A Critical Analysis, Allison Ruby Reid-Cunningham, MSW, School of Social Welfare - University of California – Berkeley)"

Once satisfied, lower level needs do not need further reinforcement…

According to Maslow, the lower level needs (those below Self Actualization) are called “D – Needs” or deficiency needs.  These needs are only predominate when they are absent.  Once fulfilled, they do not exert much, if any influence on our motivations.  Therefore, once I’m clothed, I will not be motivated to get more clothes as much as I will be motivated for the next level of need.  Only the top level need – Self Actualization” is constantly driving behavior (but only after the lower levels are satisfied) and are called “B – needs” or Being needs.  That level of motivation is “unsatisfiable” – or continues to drive behavior because it is focused on growth – the journey – not a specific destination or result like the lower level needs (hunger, thirst, etc.) 

Also, the “D – needs” gravitate toward stability.  That is, we all try to get to a point of “homeostasis” at those levels.  In other words, we’ll work (be motivated) to get to a point where we’re comfortable and balanced, neither too hungry nor too full, neither too hot or too cold – we get comfortable.  That need is then met and we move on.  Therefore, if your audience has a house, clothes, car, and all the other stuff we call “staples” they are less influenced than you think to earn awards – merchandise or any others.  I’m not saying people aren’t motivated to earn awards – I’m saying they are less motivated once they hit that level of homeostasis.

And, according to Maslow, this applies all the way up to the fourth level – esteem needs.  If I have a house, car, clothes, food, a loving family, a great group of friends and co-workers, a good job and regularly have someone comment on my work – I’m good to go. 

No further intervention necessary – nor will any additional survival, belonging or esteem juice make me more motivated.

We now flip the coin – Some say Lower Level Needs Are Never Satisfied…

The previous statement said that once satisfied, deficiency needs do not motivate as well.  However, there are those that propose due to ever changing environments, we constantly bounce back and forth between needs.  As my family changes, my needs change – as the economy changes, my needs change.

As an example, in today’s world many people who relied on commissions and bonuses to fund their lives will be sorely out of “homeostasis” now that their income dropped.  They need to get back into balance.  Cash and income are paramount to establishing their lower level of needs.  I’ve seen posts that say because these people have reduced income they need more recognition (the next level up)!  How would that work?  Sorry you can’t make your mortgage but here’s a pat on the back.  C’mon folks… this economy is pushing people lower on Maslow’s Hierarchy – not higher.  I need to get some stability in the lower levels before I start worrying about social validation.

Don’t take my word for it…

I bounced this idea around with Dr. Nathan Bowling whom I connect with regularly on these things – he’s Assistant Professor of Psychology at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio.  You may remember him from a post where I referenced Scott McArthur's post on Dr. Bowling's research into employee satisfaction and company performance (hint:  not connected.)

His comments back to me where pretty succinct:

“A few problems I see with it(Maslow’s Hierarchy):

1. Data generally don't support it
2. Much of the theory may not be testable (e.g., what exactly is "self-actualization?"),
3. Most workers (at least in the U.S.) have their biological and safety needs already satisfied, so a big part of the Maslow's model isn't all that relevant, and
4. People may actually focus their attention away from needs that are consistently left unsatisfied (this is a possibility that Maslow doesn't allow for)

I typically spend a little time talking about Maslow's theory in my undergrad industrial and organizational psychology course.  I tell my students that it is a historically important theory, but that the vast majority of current researchers don't accept it.”

So… Where does that leave us?

There is no evidence the theory is correct, we have conflicting points of view on the lower level needs -in one case we get satisfied and won’t be motivated by additional intervention at those levels - in the other case, we’re never satisfied and are constantly catching up – so we never get to the higher levels.  We have a PhD saying it really isn’t testable, nor relevant it today’s environment.

Net Net

There are a variety of theories about what motivates people, Vroom’s Expectancy Theory, McClelland’s Three-Need Theory, the Four-Drive Theory, and many others - all of them difficult to prove and more difficult to disprove.

Here’s the bottom line – all these theories probably have some truth to them – and we should try to incorporate some of that thinking into our structures and strategies as we build initiatives to influence behavior.  Just don’t get caught in the trap of following a theory that supports someone’s product line – normally – that’s a dead end. 

For you that is…not them.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Is Maslow Still Valid? Your Input... Please (incentive-intelligence.typepad.com)
• The One Thing You Must Do in 2009 to Increase Enagement with Employees and Channel Partners (incentive-intelligence.typepad.com)
• Love Your Job? That Doesn’t Mean You’re Better at It (freakonomics blog)

Comments

[Gary]

Good thinking Paul.

As one that voted in the minority (Maslow does not have relevance), I agree with your blog. More importantly, I agree that now, more than ever, performance improvement programs must be well-conceived, well-designed and well-executed.

And that takes more than a convenient "theory" of motivation.

[Paul Hebert]

Thanks for voting - and the vote of confidence that I'm not just becoming Andy Rooney with this stuff. I think it is telling that of the 1,000 or so subscribers and hits I get on this blog that there isn't any push-back. Either that means I've changed some minds... or they weren't committed to their way of thinking in the first place. I'm a big believer in the fact that we're very complicated beasts, us humans, and any one theory of why we do what we do would do us a disservice in explaining our actions. Thanks for commenting and we'll see if this gets any more activity.

By the way - did you like the cartoon? That's a collaboration with a friend of mine from high school - we're hopefully going to be doing many more related to management, incentives and marketing.