Misinterpretations from beneath a pyramid

The cliché pyramid that came to represent Maslow's relative prepotency of needs became a frequent target of criticism. Texts typically represent Maslow's needs theory as a pyramid to show how a person must meet a lesser need before stepping to a higher need. A freshman student might find that the concepts in Maslow's hierarchy of needs make intuitive sense. However, this same student might also recognize that the rigid pyramid automatically removes the theory from consideration because needs satisfaction is not a rigid step-like progression toward perfection, but that needs dynamically fluctuate as the person and the environment change. Students can find ample support for this observation throughout their academic careers.

In psych class, the student may see Wade and Tavris (2008) describe the pyramid saying, "Maslow argued that your needs must be met at each level before you can even think of the matters posed by the level above it" (p. 475). Wade and Tavris add that the research does not support the rigid hierarchy because needs are simultaneous, not progressive. In organizational psychology class, the student might read Jex's (2002) assessment of the pyramid as "intuitively appealing" and as "an insightful statement about human nature"; however, he adds a caveat that the pyramid is only of historical value due to a lack of research supporting its rigidity (p. 212).

In organizational behavior class, the student might find Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn (2002) representing the theory as stacked building blocks, while confirming that research fails to support a rigid hierarchy; arguing that needs operate in a flexible hierarchy. Mc Shane and Von Glinow (2005) add that, while Maslow's hierarchy is "the best known organizational behavior theory," the pyramid is "too rigid" to explain accurately the dynamic and unstable nature of human needs (p. 141).

In management class, Bateman and Snell (2004) declare the pyramid "simplistic and not altogether accurate", echoing that people do not progress up a rigid hierarchy (p. 406). In consumer behavior class, the student might read a warning from Hawkins, Best, and Coney (2004) that Maslow is not correct because people have multiple simultaneous needs. In advertising, Belch and Belch (2004) repeat the now-familiar note that "it is unlikely people move through the hierarchy in a stair-step manner" (p. 109) as the pyramid suggests.

Finally, in developmental psychology class, the student might read Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) argue that Maslow's theories fell short of their "enormous promise" because they focused on developing the individual, not the collective, lacked empirical support, and led to conspicuous "self-help movements" that do not meet scholarly standards. Seligman and Scikszentmihali then provide the student with hints about why academics reject Maslow, suggesting that Maslow may have been ahead of his time. They propose that Maslow's original vision had flaws, and observing "overly enthusiastic followers" who turned Maslow's' vision into shelves of self-help books on "crystal healing, aromatherapy, and reaching the inner child" (p. 7).

After getting used to seeing Maslow's seemingly ubiquitous presence and dismissal in psychology, marketing, management, and organizational behavior books, the student might be surprised to see Maslow missing in human development textbooks (Goldhaber, 2000; Lerner, 2002; Watson, 2002); but may conclude that the almost universal rejection of the rigid pyramid justifies the criticism and shunning of Maslow. That is unless the student decides to stop relying on secondary sources and actually read Maslow.