Maslow's labels for "self-esteem" and "self-actualization" (as replacements for his earlier "dominance-feeling" and "ego-level" terms for the confident leader, in sharp contrast to the "slinking cowardice" of lower-status followers) originally emerged from his (mis-)interpretations neither of therapy patients -- he didn't have patients -- nor of unusually accomplished people, but rather of primate colonies at a zoo in Madison, Wisc.
See, for example, Frans de Waal (Chronicle of Higher Ed., April 10, 1998) and Dallas Cullen (Organization, August 1997), who argue compellingly that Maslow fundamentally misunderstood what he saw in those 40's monkey colonies, with the result that the motivation chapters of our textbooks continue to emphasize issues of hierarchical power, autonomy and domination and underemphasize social interaction, interdependency, coalition-building, collaboration and political alliances.
These critical studies, now added to a half-century of failed searches for signs of explanatory value, make one wonder how long we'll continue to make his name and his ideas the only ones our alumni recognize....
J
At 15:46 -0600 3/24/99, Bernard Liebowitz, PhD wrote:
>Several people have commented about Maslow (not "Masloff") basing his
>theory of motivation on his experience with therapy patients. I don't
>believe he ever was a therapist, nor do I think he ever claimed he was.
>His writings were based on research with people who demonstrated (at
>least to him) a satisfaction with self and life that often resulted in
>unusual accompllishments, i.e., from his point of view, they were
>"self-actualizers". He wanted to present an alternative to the
>"problem-oriented" psychology heavily dominated at that time by
>psychoanalytic thinking that focused exclusively on weakness and
>illness. His approach highlighted people's strengths and resources, a
>theme that characterized the Humanistic movement of the 60's which he
>supported.
>
>As Larry Pate underscored in his comments, Maslow was an ardent
>proponent of research, both of his and competing theories. And, in
>fact, he argued in class that the function of theory was to motivate
>(that word again) others to produce research in support of or in
>opposition to stated theory. Whether his theory has explanatory value
>or not,
>an effect it still has, as evidenced by recent comments in these
>postings, is to stimulate thinking about motivation.
>
>In agreement with many comments made, I also believe that his theory of
>motivation is only a piece of the puzzle and, no doubt, a small piece.
>However, have we really considered Maslow's zeitgeist as backdrop to his
>theories? If I recall that period when I was in undergraduate
>(Brandeis) and graduate school, system thinking in psychology was only
>beginning to emerge, process theories were only forming, psychoanalysis
>was the rage, and life was simple (at least in retrospect). It seems to
>me that zeitgeist contributes to the framing of theory (both content and
>process) and that successive zeitgeists reframe old theory and the
>issues they attempt to explain.
>
>For that time and for the trends Maslow was exposed to, his theory made
>sense. That it lacks explanatory power today ..... well, what theory in
>social science does persist in its original form?
>
>--
>Bernard Liebowitz, PhD
>Consultant & Advisor to Businesses
>980 No. Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1400
>Chicago, Il 60611
>tel} 773/334-2003
>fax} 773/334-2004
>email}
bernie@liebowitzassoc.com
>web}
www.liebowitzassoc.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
John A. Miller
C. R. Lindback Professor of Management
Bucknell University
Lewisburg, PA 17837
email:
jmiller@bucknell.edu
http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/jmiller/
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/management/courses/mgmt101/
Phone: 570 577 1303 Fax: 570 577 1338