Misapplying Maslow and Pay as a Throwaway

From all appearances, Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is generally accepted throughout the business world as "concrete, unwavering fact."  This was confirmed a few years ago in an informal poll taken by Paul Hebert at Symbolist, which showed that 72% of those surveyed responded "yes" -- that Maslow's theory is a good model for motivation.

Of course.  What a shock that a simplistic, linear explanation of human motivation is enthusiastically embraced by the masses and accepted as unquestionable fact.  I suspect that this may even be particularly true in HR.

Problem is, as psychologist and organizational consultant Susan David argues in her recent HBR blog post on the topic, Maslow never structured human needs as a pyramid.  That was an invention for textbooks, an adaptation imposed on his ideas that ultimately skewed his theory.

From David's post:

People latched onto this pyramid structure immediately. But, in doing so, they forgot Maslow’s many notes about the dynamic messiness of human motivation, which we usually experience in one conscious stream rather than small parts. “We have spoken so far as if this hierarchy were a fixed order but actually it is not nearly as rigid as we may have implied,” Maslow wrote. He would probably be appalled at how we use his theory today.

Not long ago, a team of evolutionary psychologists led by Douglas Kenrick of Arizona State University examined Maslow's Pyramid of Needs and put forth the argument that this iconic diagram -- while elegant, approachable and uplifting -- is at best out of date.

From a summary of the team's work in a Pacific Standard article (hat tip to Paul Hebert on this):

Despite the pyramid’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 during the years they spent studying deep-seated human motivations from an evolutionary perspective, Kenrick and his colleagues realized many of their findings lined up quite nicely with Maslow’s concepts. The lower rungs of his hierarchy — immediate physiological needs, safety and, a bit higher up, esteem — appeared quite solid in light of this new evidence.

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.)

As with all behavioral theories, I suspect, Maslow's contains its share of insights and truth but also its share of fallible constructs and conclusions.  In the field of rewards, Maslow's theory has served a good purpose in reminding us that compensation is not the solution to all motivation problems, much as we (and our customers/managers) might wish it to be so.  On the other hand, however, I can't help but smile at some of Susan David's comments about pay.  Similar to many experts in other fields (Dan Pink is also guilty of this), she appears to view pay as a simply throwaway.  Pay reasonably well, she suggests, and then focus your managerial concerns on whether your employees' emotional needs are being met.  Good thing that providing reasonable compensation is such a clear and simple task, completely unconnected from employee emotion, huh?

But I digress...

Bottom-line is this: it is long past time we stopped referencing Maslow's hierarchy as if it spoke gospel truth and embrace the notion that human motivation is complex and messy.  One more reason that immersing yourself in that messy human organizational system and working to tease out some insights and understanding is the only way to ultimately design reward programs that deliver results.

That's what I think.  You?

Ann Bares is the Founder and Editor of the Compensation Café,  Author of Compensation Force and Managing Partner of Altura Consulting Group LLC, where she provides compensation consulting to a range of client organizations.  Ann and fellow Compensation Café writers, Margaret O’Hanlon and Dan Walter will soon be releasing a new book on communicating compensation - stay posted! Ann serves as President of the Twin Cities Compensation Network (the most awesome local reward network on the planet) and is a member of the Advisory Board of the Compensation & Benefits Review.  She earned her M.B.A. at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School, is a foodie and bookhound in her spare time. Follow her on Twitter at @annbares.

Creative Commons image "Human Pyramid 2010" by rkramer62

Comments

[Trevor Norcross]

Hi Ann,
Great post. Yes, motivation is messy and that is what makes our roles so interesting. There has to be a holistic approach to motivation to meet all needs.

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Simplifications are essentially limited outlines of complex interrelations. Believe Gerry Ledford commented that the same thing happened with Herzberg's subtle modifications to Mazlow's hierarchy (termed "the Pyramid"). F.H.'s Motivators and Hygiene factors were similar oversimplifications of research that was dumbed down and reformatted for enhanced general public acceptance, as I recall.

Since people love simple explanations, there really should be a great market for my proposed major opus, "The Compensation Cookbook" (http://www.compensationcafe.com/2012/04/the-compensation-cookbook.html). If I could only find a publisher....

[Tony]

Totally agree with the thrust of this blog however we cannot blame managers when business academics still use it in all major management and HR texts. Which is why it was refreshing to find no mention of him in Kafner and Pritchards latest book on Work Motivation.

Work motivation is messy with dozens of behaviours, drivers, emotions and goals at play although I am yet to find real evidence (not supplied by Reward experts or behaviourists) that money has any place in motivation.

Money is a key driver of the needs for security, status and getting it wrong can be a disaster but relying on it to motivate your people beyond that is folly. Getting it right is very simple, although not easy, make sure your rewards are market competitive and internally equitable, transparent and flexible and you will be fine (as I said not easy ). However getting the motivational drivers and person fit right that is another story.

[Windsor Lewis]

I've always liked the simplification of Herzberg and Maslow's theories as a way to *START* a conversation about motivation and rewards for a given scenario. It should be self-evident that neither theory is the end-all be-all; they're just tools to help an organization to dig deeper.

[Ann Bares]

Trevor, Jim, Tony and Windsor -

Thanks, all for your comments and observations. Yes, motivation is messy and complication and - particularly to Jim's and Windor's points - there are benefits to having a simple "heuristic" to guide our problem definition and solving efforts, as long as we can keep some sense of perspective about its unwavering applicability (or even truth). Unfortunately, the lure of the easy answer sometimes overwhelms all intentions to explore and understand more deeply.