Maslows Need Hierarchy Theory: Applications and Criticisms Avneet Kaur Jesus and

Mary College, University of Delhi

Maslow proposed that if people grew up in an environment in which their needs are
not meet, they would be unlikely to function healthy, well-adjusted individuals.
Research testing Maslows theory has supported the distinction between the
deficiencies and growth needs but showed that not all people are able to satisfy
their higher-order needs on the job. According the results of the research managers
from higher echelons of organisations are able to satisfy both their growth and
deficiency needs lower level managers are able to satisfy only their deficiency
needs on the job. Maslows theory has not received a great deal of support with
respect to specific notion it proposes (Greenberg &Baron 2003, p195). To them this
model is theorised to be especially effective in describing the behaviour of
individuals who are high in growth need strength because employees who are
different to the idea of increasing their growth will not realise any physiological
reaction to their jobs.
Centers & Bgental (1966, .193) in their survey carried out among a cross-section of
the working population in Los Angeles, posited background factors, altitudes and
aspirations affects workers needs, expectations and situation assessment.
According to Graham & Messner (1998, p.196) there are generally three major
criticisms directed to the need theory and other content theories of motivation. (A)
There is scant empirical data to support their conclusions, (b) they assume
employees are basically alike, and (c) they are not theories of motivation at all, but
rather theories of job satisfaction. This was supported by the views of Nadler &
Lawler (1979) in Graham &Messner (2000, p 188). Nadler & Lawler (1979) cited in
Graham & Messner (2000,p.198) where also critical of the need theory of
motivation. They argue that the theory makes the following unrealistic assumptions
about employees in general that: (a) all employees are alike (b) all situations are
alike and that (c) there is only one best way to meet needs. Another critic to this
view was Basset-Jones & Lloyd (2004, p 961). Basset-Jones & Lloyd (2004, p 961)
presents that in general, critics of the need theory argue that it is as a result of the
natural feeling of employees to take credit for needs met and dissatisfaction on
needs not met.

http://www.ripublication.com/gjmbs_spl/gjmbsv3n10_03.pdf

What Maslow Missed Out on?

Article by Dr. Pratik P. SURANA Chief Mentor and Founder, Quantum, India.
In reviews of research based on Maslows theory, little evidence has been found for
the ranking of needs that Maslow described, or even for the existence of a definite
hierarchy at all. Heres the problem with Maslows hierarchy, explains Rutledge.
None of these needs starting with basic survival on up are possible without
social connection and collaboration. Without collaboration, there is no survival. It
was not possible to defeat a Woolley Mammoth, build a secure structure, or care for
children while hunting without a team effort. Its more true now than then. Our
reliance on each other grows as societies became more complex, interconnected,
and specialized. Connection is a prerequisite for survival, physically and
emotionally. Needs are not hierarchical. Life is messier than that. Needs are, like
most other things in nature, an interactive, dynamic system, but they are anchored
in our ability to make social connections. Maslows model needs rewiring so it
matches our brains. Belongingness is the driving force of human behaviour, not a
third tier activity. The system of human needs from bottom to top, shelter, safety,
sex, leadership, community, competence and trust, are dependent on our ability to
connect with others. Belonging to a community provides the sense of security and
agency that makes our brains happy and helps keep us safe.
Dr. Pratik P. SURANA suggest that Maslows hierarchy of needs was helpful to a
certain extent in pointing out to managers why traditional managementhierarchical
bureaucracy with managers acting as controllers of individualswas unlikely to
meet the psychological needs of employees. But it offered an unrealistic route to
meeting those needs: ascension up the hierarchy of needs towards selfactualization. The truth is that not everyone wants or needs or is able to be a selfactualizing artist or leader.

https://www.google.com/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiszey
OhrHQAhVGPY8KHfp_AigQFgg0MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fxa.yimg.com%2Fkq
%2Fgroups%2F4749922%2F2002586654%2Fname%2FWhat%2BMaslow%2BMissed
%2BOut
%2Bon.pdf&usg=AFQjCNF7QV4GwAqj07lHxjCO_deQlaVwCg&bvm=bv.139250283,d.
c2I
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/positively-media/201111/social-networkswhat-maslow-misses-0

S King-Hill - 2015
Maslows Hierarchy of Needs (HON) is a developmental psychology theory proposed
by Maslow (1943). This theory puts forward the idea that individuals move through
a fundamental number of hierarchical motivations, in a unique order, based upon
both physiological and psychological needs. These needs to which Maslow
referred, in order of importance, are: physiological, safety, belongingness, love, selfesteem, self-actualization and self-transcendence (1954, 1943). It is useful to note,
at this point, that the Hierarchy of need is often represented in literature as a
pyramid, yet within his writing, Maslow did not use this representation. The stages
in the HON are not mutually exclusive and may overlap based upon which need
dominates and motivates the individual at any one time dependent upon individual
psychological and physical circumstances. Whilst the researcher have found
awareness of the HON useful in his teaching there are criticisms to this approach
that need consideration. Wahba and Bridwell (1976) carried out an in-depth review
of the HON which concluded that the evidence for the hierarchical order of the
needs proposed by Maslow is sparse. Whilst acknowledging that human beings do
have needs to be met, the existence of a rigid order of needs for every individual is
questioned. Hofstede (1984) built upon this premise, asserting that the hierarchy
was steeped in ethnocentricity and based upon a Western ideology. Hofstede (1984)
goes on to state that the HON alone does not account for differences in the cultural
needs of societies and their unique social and intellectual needs. Hofstede (1984)
uses the example of collectivist and individualistic societies to illustrate his

assertion, stating that the needs of individualistic societies reflect the needs for selfactualisation and self-fulfilment, whereas a collectivist society is focused upon the
community and acceptance and belonging within this structure. The position of sex
within the HON has also come under criticism as it is categorised alongside
breathing and food. Hofstede (1984) asserts that bracketing sex in this category
forms an individualistic perspective that does not acknowledge the emotional and
psychological impacts that this has upon an individual. Cianci and Gambrel (2003)
have criticised the HON as too simplistic and suggest that it does not account for
societal needs at a particular time, such as recession and war. Also studies such as
those by Tay and Diener (2011) have demonstrated that the ranking of needs varies
with age and does not appear to be the same across all age groups. Other criticisms
of the HON discuss the methodology as unrepresentative as Maslow used the top
1% achievers of college populations and referred to well known academics and high
achievers, such as Einstein in his research, making it impossible to generalise his
findings to the wider population (Mittleman, 1991).
http://eprints.worc.ac.uk/4061/3/King-Hill%2520Final%2520HON-1.pdf
Bob Dick (2001) Maslow revis(it)ed: Maslows hierarchy of needs examined and
reformulated. A discussion paper originally written in the 1980s, revised 1990,
1993. This version 2001.
One of the striking aspects of Maslows theory is the contradiction apparent in its
high and continuing popularity, and the almost complete absence of empirical
support. Of several scores of studies which have been conducted a handful provide
some measure of support. The remainder are either ambivalent or negative. Wahba
and Bridwell (1976) summarise the research. They also acknowledge that the theory
is almost untestable (p234). One of the reasons may be the wide gap which exists
between experimental and practical psychology. Therefore many of the people who
use the theory may not be in the habit of reading the experimental literature.
Indeed, many of them might well regard it as irrelevant to many aspects of the
practical world. A second possible reason is that the theory is intuitively satisfying.
It accords with peoples experience that physiological needs are pressing when not
met, but otherwise almost completely disregarded. A third reason may be found in
the practical implications which can be drawn from the theory, and which again

accord with experience. As people become more mature (in the work force, for
example) they do often switch their attention from physiological to security needs,
and then in turn to social and esteem needs. In the face of such an overwhelming
body of disconfirming evidence, however, one would by now have expected the
theory to fade into misuse. It has not. Perhaps it has something to offer, and is
worth a reexamination. There are at least three grounds on which a reexamination
might be carried out. One is the adequacy of the research itself. In view of the
extent of the research, and the high proportion of negative findings, this seems
unlikely to be fruitful. Another is the appropriateness of the research to the nature
of the theory. In this respect I argue that it is the sort of theory which is not easily
amenable to crucial test, as Wahba and Bridwell accept. This would usually be seen
as a shortcoming. I here argue that, on the contrary, it is one of the qualities which
gives the theory its power. The third ground is that the theory itself can be refined.
A series of modifications are later proposed. The remainder of the paper works
through a number of stages. The general nature of Maslows hierarchy is first
examined. A the same time the adequacy of current research methods to test it is
assessed. Then follows a more detailed analysis of the theory.
http://www.aral.com.au/DLitt/DLitt_P02masrev.pdf