A dynamic-holistic theory

Comparing Maslow's writings with the interpretations of textbook writers seems to expose some confusing misinterpretations, the most glaring being that the pyramid serving as both symbol and target of Maslow's theory does not seem to be Maslow's creation. Scouring Maslow, there appears to be no reference to or drawing of a pyramid to represent his needs theory. Koltko-Revera (2007) confirms that the pyramid "was not something of Maslow’s own devising… What Maslow proposed was a hierarchy—a conceptual entity—that others have represented through concrete metaphors of various types" (para. 2). In other words, criticisms of the rigid hierarchy seem to be justifiable criticisms of other writers' faulty attempts to frame Maslow in a triangular box, but do not seem to be valid representations of Maslow's theory.

Maslow (1987) even seems critical of attempts to represent motivations as "atomistic lists of drives" (p. 7). Rather than a rigid hierarchy, Maslow describes a "dynamic psychology" that recognizes "motivation is constant, never-ending, fluctuating, and complex" (1987, p. 7), also saying that "people can live at various levels in the motivation hierarchy" (1971, p. 236). Maslow (1987) also warned against representing needs satisfaction through rigid steps, saying people can be simultaneously satisfied in all needs categories. A "more realistic description of the hierarchy would be in terms of decreasing percentages of satisfaction as we go up the hierarchy of prepotency" (p. 26).

Calling his needs theory a "holistic-dynamic" (p. 15) theory of human motivation, Maslow (1987) asserted that human drives dynamically adjust and interact in a hierarchy of prepotency as individuals grow towards self-actualization or "full humanness". Maslow illustrates this dynamic hierarchy of prepotency by explaining how one person might be 85% satisfied in physiological needs, 70% satisfied in safety needs, 50% satisfied in love needs, 40% in esteem needs, and 10% in self-actualization needs. Important to emphasize here is that the numbers Maslow used for this illustration were "arbitrary" (p. 28); Maslow is not saying that people are only 10% self-actualized, he seems to be illustrating that people have multiple and simultaneous degrees of needs satisfaction.

In rejecting rigid lists, Maslow (1987) said that motivational drives are not arranged as "isolated, discrete members"; such rigid lists "imply mutual exclusiveness" where none exists. "It is almost impossible to separate quite clearly and sharply any one drive from any other" because drives are automatically dynamic in nature (p. 8). Given Maslow's example, a more accurate metaphor for Maslow's dynamic-holistic hierarchy of needs might be a dynamically fluctuating bar chart, like the graphic equalizer on a stereo system. Koltko-Rivera (2007) suggests a dynamic wave as a metaphor for Maslow's needs theory, but cautions, "any representation will distort some part of the concept because all metaphors ultimately fail in their representation of the underlying concept; the map is never the territory" (para. 2).

So, why did a rigid pyramid come to represent a holistic-dynamic process? The pyramid appears to be someone's attempt to represent Maslow's use of the word "hierarchy" in a concrete fashion, or perhaps an attempt to represent the relative strength of the lower-order needs, reducing in strength as the individual progresses toward self-actualization. Another possibility is that the triangle is an attempt to represent statistically the population of a third-world country, with most of the population struggling to satisfy basic needs and few able to achieve growth needs.

Regardless of the source, authors who use the pyramid to represent Maslow seem to be relying on secondary sources for their understanding of Maslow's theory. Other authors appear to rely only on Maslow's earlier statements of his theory while ignoring that he continued to develop his theory for three decades until his death in 1970--resulting in contemporary descriptions that are incomplete, inaccurate, and inadequate.