If I understand the whole idea of mental models and the usefulness/use of
dialog techniques in examining these mental models, Maslow's model and
work should not create much of a problem because it will not be seen as
THE definitive work on human motivation. Rather, it is simply one
perspective on a very complex area.
If we use dialog techniques to suspend our mental models for examination
from a variety of perspectives, then we can do the same with human
motivation. Maslow's model represents only one such perspective.
Herzberg's represents another perspective, and so on.
No one model can adequately capture the entirety the dynamics of human
motivation. That means that we may have to use more than one model and
synthesize or integrate the salient and relevant aspects of each as we
attempt to analyze a situation. Any other analysis may require a slightly
different synthesis and integration. This is similar to the
psychotherapist who uses classical Freudian analysis, Object Relations, or
any of the other psychoanalytical techniques when dealing with different
patients. One technique may be useful for one patient but not for
another. That doesn't mean that any one is totally right or totally
wrong. They each have their strengths and areas of validity.
I, personally, think that the primary motivator for people is power and
control. We each seek control over our world and reality. For some, this
means having the power to control others all around them. For still
others, this means simply being able to predict what will happen to them.
This isn't a complete viewpoint, but it allows some analysis into human
behavior in various situations, especially on a large scale. When paired
with any other perspective or model, thingsd become very interesting. But
this is only one of my takes on this whole subject.
Just a few thoughts.
--Clyde Howell orgpsych@augusta.net
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>