Discussion: View Thread

Just a few thoughts on the Maslow thread (these come from memory and may
not be exact). I've missed some of this thread, so if what follows is
redundant, I apologize.

As was suggested by at least one recent posting, much of Maslow's later
work focused on self-actualizing individuals. However, Maslow was
initially trained as a Freudian psychologist and studied primate behavior,
working with Harry Harlow in the primate lab at the University of
Wisconsin. Consistent with the Freudian view that basic drives, such as
hunger and sex, were central to the understanding of human behavior, Maslow
studied things such as dominance and "mounting behavior" in primates, and
the like. One thing that interested him was that the same behavior that
reflected aggression at one level of the primate hierarchy might have a
different meaning, such as protection, at another.

This (somehow) led Maslow to conduct interviews with higher-level primates,
female college students. In those interviews, he studied women's sexual
behavior, including sexual creativity. His findings suggested that
"id-like" personality factors seemed to play a role in predicting such
behavior but that, interestingly to him, those factors didn't seem to be
very important predictors of sexual behaviors for women who were self
assured and self confident (that is, who were "psychologically healthy").
This suggested to Maslow that psychological health may actually transcend
lower drives and got him thinking about "higher-order" needs such as
self-actualization.

In my view, Maslow's greatest contribution was in encouraging us to look at
the upper reaches of the human psyche, at positive psychological health,
rather than to focus more narrowly on neuroses and psychoses, as was the
norm at the time of his work (now more than half a century ago). In
presenting his hierarchy, Maslow clearly intended it as a work in progress,
or as a set of hypotheses to be tested and refined. I've always liked the
fact that Maslow, unlike some others, was very self critical and
continually challenged others to look with a similarly critical eye at his
work. He explicitly stated that his work was not based on a "normal"
population but on observations of neurotic and psychotic individuals and
that generalization was dangerous. He also repeatedly called for testing
of the theory, saying that he was concerned that the need hierarchy "was
being swallowed whole by all sorts of enthusiastic people, who really
should be a little more tentative in the way that I am."

I do think Maslow set down some useful initial "hypotheses" (e.g., needs
fall into identifiable clusters, there are five of those clusters, the
clusters are arranged in a hierarchy, there is "satisfaction progression"
in the sense that we move "up" the hierarchy as needs at a certain stage
are satisfied, and a satisfied need is not a motivator). While subsequent
testing hasn't fully supported those hypotheses, the hypotheses led to
improved content theories of motivation (such as Alderfer's work, which
could be viewed as a revision of Maslow's hierarchy to make it more
consistent with research findings).

None of this, of course, is meant to suggest that process theories of
motivation aren't as important, or more important, than content theories.
Again, though, I tend to have a positive reaction to Maslow's contributions
to the field. The problem is that, like an urban legend, a compelling
initial story often gets retained and accepted long after it has been
disproven. That, though, isn't Maslow's fault.

Ray Aldag
Ramon J. Aldag
Pyle Bascom Professor of Business Leadership
Chair, Department of Management and Human Resources
School of Business, University of Wisconsin
3112 Grainger Hall
975 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706-1323
Phone: (608) 263-3771
Fax: (608) 263-0477
E-mail: RJALDAG@FACSTAFF.WISC.EDU
Web address: http://www.wisc.edu/mhr/faculty/aldag/index.html

Thanks, Ray, for a very informative, insightful, and valuable contribution
to this thread. Thanks also for taking the time to write (I know how busy
you are!).

Best,

Larry


At 05:23 PM 3/25/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Just a few thoughts on the Maslow thread (these come from memory and may
>not be exact). I've missed some of this thread, so if what follows is
>redundant, I apologize.
>
>As was suggested by at least one recent posting, much of Maslow's later
>work focused on self-actualizing individuals. However, Maslow was
>initially trained as a Freudian psychologist and studied primate behavior,
>working with Harry Harlow in the primate lab at the University of
>Wisconsin. Consistent with the Freudian view that basic drives, such as
>hunger and sex, were central to the understanding of human behavior, Maslow
>studied things such as dominance and "mounting behavior" in primates, and
>the like. One thing that interested him was that the same behavior that
>reflected aggression at one level of the primate hierarchy might have a
>different meaning, such as protection, at another.
>
>This (somehow) led Maslow to conduct interviews with higher-level primates,
>female college students. In those interviews, he studied women's sexual
>behavior, including sexual creativity. His findings suggested that
>"id-like" personality factors seemed to play a role in predicting such
>behavior but that, interestingly to him, those factors didn't seem to be
>very important predictors of sexual behaviors for women who were self
>assured and self confident (that is, who were "psychologically healthy").
>This suggested to Maslow that psychological health may actually transcend
>lower drives and got him thinking about "higher-order" needs such as
>self-actualization.
>
>In my view, Maslow's greatest contribution was in encouraging us to look at
>the upper reaches of the human psyche, at positive psychological health,
>rather than to focus more narrowly on neuroses and psychoses, as was the
>norm at the time of his work (now more than half a century ago). In
>presenting his hierarchy, Maslow clearly intended it as a work in progress,
>or as a set of hypotheses to be tested and refined. I've always liked the
>fact that Maslow, unlike some others, was very self critical and
>continually challenged others to look with a similarly critical eye at his
>work. He explicitly stated that his work was not based on a "normal"
>population but on observations of neurotic and psychotic individuals and
>that generalization was dangerous. He also repeatedly called for testing
>of the theory, saying that he was concerned that the need hierarchy "was
>being swallowed whole by all sorts of enthusiastic people, who really
>should be a little more tentative in the way that I am."
>
>I do think Maslow set down some useful initial "hypotheses" (e.g., needs
>fall into identifiable clusters, there are five of those clusters, the
>clusters are arranged in a hierarchy, there is "satisfaction progression"
>in the sense that we move "up" the hierarchy as needs at a certain stage
>are satisfied, and a satisfied need is not a motivator). While subsequent
>testing hasn't fully supported those hypotheses, the hypotheses led to
>improved content theories of motivation (such as Alderfer's work, which
>could be viewed as a revision of Maslow's hierarchy to make it more
>consistent with research findings).
>
>None of this, of course, is meant to suggest that process theories of
>motivation aren't as important, or more important, than content theories.
>Again, though, I tend to have a positive reaction to Maslow's contributions
>to the field. The problem is that, like an urban legend, a compelling
>initial story often gets retained and accepted long after it has been
>disproven. That, though, isn't Maslow's fault.
>
>Ray Aldag
>Ramon J. Aldag
>Pyle Bascom Professor of Business Leadership
>Chair, Department of Management and Human Resources
>School of Business, University of Wisconsin
>3112 Grainger Hall
>975 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706-1323
>Phone: (608) 263-3771
>Fax: (608) 263-0477
>E-mail: RJALDAG@FACSTAFF.WISC.EDU
>Web address: http://www.wisc.edu/mhr/faculty/aldag/index.html
>

Thank you for this most educational post. Thanks for the altruistic
spirit and the time this obviously took.

Best wishes for continued success.

Ed
Drive On!

>>> Ray Aldag <rjaldag@FACSTAFF.WISC.EDU> 03/25 6:23 PM >>>
Just a few thoughts on the Maslow thread (these come from memory and
may
not be exact). I've missed some of this thread, so if what follows is
redundant, I apologize.

As was suggested by at least one recent posting, much of Maslow's
later
work focused on self-actualizing individuals. However, Maslow was
initially trained as a Freudian psychologist and studied primate
behavior,
working with Harry Harlow in the primate lab at the University of
Wisconsin. Consistent with the Freudian view that basic drives, such
as
hunger and sex, were central to the understanding of human behavior,
Maslow
studied things such as dominance and "mounting behavior" in primates,
and
the like. One thing that interested him was that the same behavior
that
reflected aggression at one level of the primate hierarchy might have
a
different meaning, such as protection, at another.

This (somehow) led Maslow to conduct interviews with higher-level
primates,
female college students. In those interviews, he studied women's
sexual
behavior, including sexual creativity. His findings suggested that
"id-like" personality factors seemed to play a role in predicting such
behavior but that, interestingly to him, those factors didn't seem to
be
very important predictors of sexual behaviors for women who were self
assured and self confident (that is, who were "psychologically
healthy").
This suggested to Maslow that psychological health may actually
transcend
lower drives and got him thinking about "higher-order" needs such as
self-actualization.

In my view, Maslow's greatest contribution was in encouraging us to
look at
the upper reaches of the human psyche, at positive psychological
health,
rather than to focus more narrowly on neuroses and psychoses, as was
the
norm at the time of his work (now more than half a century ago). In
presenting his hierarchy, Maslow clearly intended it as a work in
progress,
or as a set of hypotheses to be tested and refined. I've always liked
the
fact that Maslow, unlike some others, was very self critical and
continually challenged others to look with a similarly critical eye at
his
work. He explicitly stated that his work was not based on a "normal"
population but on observations of neurotic and psychotic individuals
and
that generalization was dangerous. He also repeatedly called for
testing
of the theory, saying that he was concerned that the need hierarchy
"was
being swallowed whole by all sorts of enthusiastic people, who really
should be a little more tentative in the way that I am."

I do think Maslow set down some useful initial "hypotheses" (e.g.,
needs
fall into identifiable clusters, there are five of those clusters, the
clusters are arranged in a hierarchy, there is "satisfaction
progression"
in the sense that we move "up" the hierarchy as needs at a certain
stage
are satisfied, and a satisfied need is not a motivator). While
subsequent
testing hasn't fully supported those hypotheses, the hypotheses led to
improved content theories of motivation (such as Alderfer's work,
which
could be viewed as a revision of Maslow's hierarchy to make it more
consistent with research findings).

None of this, of course, is meant to suggest that process theories of
motivation aren't as important, or more important, than content
theories.
Again, though, I tend to have a positive reaction to Maslow's
contributions
to the field. The problem is that, like an urban legend, a compelling
initial story often gets retained and accepted long after it has been
disproven. That, though, isn't Maslow's fault.

Ray Aldag
Ramon J. Aldag
Pyle Bascom Professor of Business Leadership
Chair, Department of Management and Human Resources
School of Business, University of Wisconsin
3112 Grainger Hall
975 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706-1323
Phone: (608) 263-3771
Fax: (608) 263-0477
E-mail: RJALDAG@FACSTAFF.WISC.EDU
Web address: http://www.wisc.edu/mhr/faculty/aldag/index.html