Few psychological constructs are so universally recognized and studied outside their disciplines as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. What is less known about his theory is that Maslow approached his research from a fresh perspective. Previous studies in psychology developed as the result of research on pathology; Freud and others exclusively concentrated on neurotic individuals and dysfunction in anecdotal case studies to construct their work.  In fact few of Freud’s stipulations has statistical validity.

Maslow took a different route. He wanted to identify and define healthy individuals. He believed that defining our psychology or state of mind by researching the sick or maladjusted did not produce a holistic or accurate picture; health is not the absence of sickness.

He set out on a mission. He researched some of the most famous and historic figures through history. He researched their pasts, relationships, acquaintances and writings to determine if they exhibited any neuroses. If they did, he struck them off his list. He ended up with a list of highly influential people (Spinoza, Lincoln, Einstein, etc.).

Through his research, he found these people shared similar traits which became the Hierarchy of Needs.  They are interlocking components of physiology, safety, belonging, esteem and actualization.  They quickly became some of the most researched constructs in psychology, and colleagues set out to discover more characteristics of the celebrated pyramid. That research clarified some common misconceptions.

First, there is really no statistical basis for characterizing the Needs as hierarchical[i]. Many depressives do not eat. Many rich or famous people suffer from issues of self-esteem or derive little satisfaction from their work.  So the pyramid structure is inaccurate.  The Needs are inter-causal.

Second, the Hierarchy of Needs do not explain behavior, as Maslow himself has explained[ii].  To drive the point home further, attempts to find relationships between fulfilling needs and life satisfaction have met with only partial success[iii].  There seems to be a missing component.

Logotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy, both foundationally successful developments since Maslow, identify that core missing element.  Philosophy and religion identified it long ago.  It is purpose or meaning, suffusing itself throughout the acclaimed pyramid.  We gain fulfillment through purpose beyond our needs and wants and desires and inner metaphysical diatribes.

These findings imply the reconstituted circular diagram below which illustrates Need inter-dependence.  It is more accurate and descriptive.  It describes the multi-dimensional aspect of our existence while acknowledging inter-causality.

The Reconstituted circular diagram also illustrates a linkage forming an indelible whole.  Each element is necessary to a fully formed, well-rounded individual. It provides a model for productive engagement.  By inherent implication, missing an element precludes actualization.

Organizational Needs

Readers will notice that for organizations, individuals or sentient complex systems themselves, the diagram outlines the basis of an organizational structure that maximizes potential.  Ignoring one of these needs hampers the organization.  Examples are in order:

1. Lack of safety hampers the ant colony’s existence and purpose, just as psychological or physical danger hampers Associate effectiveness in an organization.
2. A person without purpose is unfulfilled and without direction.  An Associate unclear or disconnected from an organization’s mission is a disengaged employee.
3. An Associate without the consideration of her colleagues, discouraged from participating according to their strengths, is inherently hampered by issues to esteem, leading to team disaffection.
4. Our sense of belonging requires social and external relationships that affirm and motivate us, but also form bridges to the changing external environment.  Likewise, every team in an organization requires formal external relationships in order to increase its effectiveness, its sense of belonging, and its maturation.  This requirement is hardly the sole exercise of sales people.

Needs and Complexity

Armed with this new diagram, the result of man years of research, we notice a peculiar and intensely interesting phenomenon.  The elements of the Hierarchy describe virtually any complex system.  They share the characteristics or structure of nature’s answer to creativity and survival.  Upon reflection, this similarity can hardly be too surprising.  Complex systems share certain characteristics; adaptability, creativity, and robustness or reliability.  It seems logical then that the structure of complex systems is replicated in every instance; social structures, our psychological constructs, combinations of physical and mental functions, teams, networks, etc.  Sentience would make no difference other than in complimentary fashion.

Further, our mental and metaphysical constructs are extensions of the evolution of complex systems.  They mirror complex systems because they are extensions of them.  After all, our brain functions and our sentience are extensions of our reptilian brain stems, which we share with virtually every mammal.  We are the product of evolution.  And evolution is the product of complex systems.

This phenomenon has a foundational implication though.  It means that psychology is the study of effective complex systems.  It means that the language of complex systems and psychology share a common purpose.  In many cases, those languages can be mapped onto each other.  They are virtual synonyms.  The multi-disciplinary implication forms the basis of an integrative view of any complex system and the secrets of its success.  In psychology we call that ‘success’ actualization.  In complex systems, we call it effectiveness or survival.  In management science we call it productivity, effectiveness or profitability.

The next steps or implication of this phenomenon provides a vastly rich field to plow.  It gives us a re-centered, integrative approach to effectiveness. For we can bring the research and perspectives of these disciplines to bear on increasing the reliability, creativity and adaptability of any complex system merely by ensuring their structural ingredients are present and nurtured in every instance.

Endnotes

---

[i] M Wahba and L Bridwell, “Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 15, no. 2 (4, 1976): 212-240, http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1976-26106-001.

[ii] Abraham Harold Maslow, Motivation and Personality, 3rd ed. (HarperCollins Publishers, 1987), 27-28.

Motivation and Personality Abraham Harold Maslow

[iii] Frank K. Gibson and Clyde E. Teasley, “The Humanistic Model of Organizational Motivation: A Review of Research Support,” Public Administration Review 33, no. 1 (February 1973): 89-96, http://www.jstor.org/stable/974790.