Replying to LO14144 --
And I must respond to Lee Holmer -- I decided to put an edge on my previous
message to see who would bite!! Hope I didn't go too far and hurt
feelings of Maslow advocates --apologies if I did....
>Sherri's question brings to mind a wonderful Deming quote I picked up off
>of this list--
>
> "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
Good point!
>I believe Maslow's model remains in frequent use and reference, despite
>its weaknesses, because it's larger meaning and essential dynamics have
>much validity, and because Maslow provided a much-needed reframing of the
>issue of human motivation. Maslow wrote at a time when psychologists were
>inclined to treat human motivation as essentially the same as animals,
>(i.e. variations of carrot-stick) and his larger point was that we needed
>a more complex model to capture the essentials of human motivation.
My understanding is a little bit different. Perhaps someone can correct
me but it seemed that Maslow took a middle road bewtween the Skinnerian
viewpoint of external determination of personality (the carrot -stcik) and
the (I realize this is simply put) internal determination of personality
as represented by Freud. Maslow seemed to represent both views --
external determines drives until basics are satisfied and then we can turn
to internal motivations. And I think McClelland simply stated the same
thing -- that we need a more complex model than Maslow.
>Whether or not we now wish to argue the fine points of sequence and
>exclusivity, Maslow's identification of social, esteem, ego, and
>self-actualization needs became a cornerstone of the human-relations
>movement in management theory (McGregor based his entire explication of
>Theory X and Y on Maslow), and set off a revolution in thinking about
>organizations.
No doubt Maslow's work was and is powerful and influential. I run into
people all of the time who believe it is true and accurate. Which is a
problem for them because they miss so much about other people.
>We continue to refer to Maslow because his ideas are still useful and will
>continue to be so as long as human beings are inclined to operate on the
>basis of Theory X assumptions about others. This is very similar to the
>Freudian phenomenon in which, although Freud's particular focus on
>sexuality has been largely rejected, the larger dynamics of his model
>(involving conscious and unconscious intrapsychic processes) continue to
>dominate our thinking. This because these concepts are extremely useful,
>and because they presented a significant departure from past thinking.
I wonder what makes you assume that human beings are inclined to think
along theory x assumptions... Every cook has added to the stew we call
psychology but one would hope we would continue to grow from there. I
just see people getting stuck in a particular mindset because they believe
something to be true. Giving food to a starving person who wants to be
respected and powerful will have negative consequences for the benefactor.
This is essentially what McClelland discovered.
>I suppose we ignore McClelland's work on motivation because, in relation
>to Maslow, it does not add that much and does not invalidate the most
>significant aspects of Maslow.
If McClelland's work had been ignored as you state, then it is no wonder
that so many organizations struggle with rewards. Very simply put --
money has a short shelf life for providing motivation. I think
McClelland's work IS significant but I also think some of it too is
outdated. We continue to learn about ourselves. I mean Maturana's
statement that reality is not seperate from the observer tends to make all
models obsolete and true at the same time -- depending of course on your
version of reality. So you can go around working with people and viewing
the world with Theory X or Maslow or whatever and people will still report
that from 20 to 80% of the time they are unsuccessful at influencing other
people. Why? Because human motivation is very difficult to assess and if
I don't even think about what motivates you (or I try to asses you
according to Maslow's model and am way off) then I will have a hard time
influencing you.
>Finally, with respect to the issue of linear thinking, the need to decide
>whether a model is "right" or "wrong" is itself a most extreme form of
>linearity. One of the important aspect of creative thinking, and, I might
>add, of learning organizations, is the ability to "take what you like and
>leave the rest."
Oh -- slap my face! Actually -- I was amazed because it seemed as if
people had a need to fix the model instead of looking at it as a
significant piece in our understanding of ourselves and what drives us.
It seems as if motivation is too complex for a model but models do give us
a common language. The question is: what model of human motivation is
accurate for the 1990's as we progress into the year 2000 and beyond? And
is Maslow's model really a good starting point or is there more available?
Do we box ourselves in if we simply try to fix someone else's model?
One that I like which is representative of the work of many is the
thought-action-results model. You can start anywhere in this model
depending upon the particular brand of psychology that you happen to
believe in and make it work! So if you believe that motivation begins
with how a person thinks then you begin working with the thought
processes, if it is behavior based and you believe that people need to
take action then you start there -- or if you believe that it is is
environmental then you can start with the results end of the model. It
makes everyone happy! Of course I happen to like the gestalt of the model
and have no particular loyalties. In some situations my mindset is
critical, in others I need to focus a lot more on my actions and then in
others the results are critical. And then of course there are a number of
possible combinations.
Sherri
sherri@maloufinc.com Tel:603-672-0355
LMA, Inc Fax:603-673-7120
--Sherri Malouf <sherri@maloufinc.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>