A Critical Review of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

2
A Critical Review of Maslow’s Hierarchy

of Needs
Many scholars and practitioners (e.g. Appleby 2013;

Grammatikopoulos et al. 2013) regard motivation as the most impor-
tant factor in influencing individual and organisational success.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is often presented and used as the most
popular and efficient theory to understand and influence employees’
motivation at work. Maslow proposed a set of five universal needs that
he claims to be the basis for the motivation of all employees. These
needs, starting from the base, are physiological, safety, social, esteem
and self-actualisation. Numerous empirical studies have validated this
theory. A review of these studies also points towards a few significant
criticisms. This chapter offers a critical review of the empirical evalua-
tions of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
According to Maslow, these needs, which are arranged in a hier-
archical order of importance, i.e. physiological, safety, social, esteem
and self-actualisation, are universal and thus apply to all employees
and workplaces (Adina and Medet 2012). However, the theory is criti-
cised especially for some of its claims and propositions (Viorel et al.
2009). This chapter seeks to review these criticisms. The next section
provides a discussion on the concept and importance of motivation.
© The Author(s) 2018 19

R.H.M. Fallatah and J. Syed, Employee Motivation in Saudi Arabia,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67741-5_2
20
R.H.M. Fallatah and J. Syed
Key categories, and early models, of motivation are then considered.

Then, the theory’s apparent influence and widespread applicability are
discussed, followed by a discussion of criticisms.
The Concept of Motivation and Its Importance

Although the word motivation may mean many different things, the
purpose of motivation is, in essence, to stimulate, influence, trigger or
push (Carmen and Elena 2011; Manzoor 2012). The word’s etymology
is derived from the Latin word ‘movere’ which basically means to move,
e.g. stimulate, trigger or influence the doing of something (Barikani
et al. 2013; Qayyum 2012; Syed et al. 2012). There is, however, a huge
diversity among theorists in their interpretation and definition of moti-
vation (Çeliköz 2010).
According to Gorn and Kanungo (1980), Moch (1980) and Mol
(1992), motivation is a form of total involvement. DeCenzo and
Robbins (1996), Franco et al. (2002), Pouchová (2011), Robbins
(1993) and Smithers and Walker (2000) suggest that motivation is
about having willingness. Likert (1961) and Quijano and Navarro
(1998) see motivation in terms of making an effort. For Kanfer et al.
(1994), Kreitner (1995), Locke and Letham (2004), Middleton (1994)
and Mitchell (1982), motivation is simply a psychological influence
or process. Akbas and Kan (2007) and Bartol and Martin (1998) view
motivation as power, while Berman et al. (2010), Higgins (1994),
Mowday et al. (1979) and Ruthankoon and Ogunlana (2003) define
motivation in terms of a drive. Finally, Armstrong (2001, 2006) and
Vroom (1964) define it as a goal-intended behaviour.
The literature review indicates that there is no generally agreed-upon
definition of motivation (Eliasa et al. 2012). While the concept of moti-
vation has been defined in a number of ways and thus can be utilised
in multiple ways, Haivas et al. (2014), Dye et al. (2005) and Stenmark
and Lilja (2014) interpret motivation as a priority an employee attempts
to fulfil and satisfy what influences employees’ behaviour and actions
and consequently influences their motivation.
2 A Critical Review of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
21
Much has been written on motivation in recent decades, with moti-

vation becoming ‘ranked as the second most widely written about topic,
after the topic of methodology’ (Riyono et al. 2012, p. 232). The wide
interest in the subject is because it is seen as essential for understanding
and explaining the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of an employee (Bhat and Shah 2010),
i.e. how employees can be motivated to perform their activities and why
employees behave in certain ways (Bhat and Shah 2010; Lut 2012).
Among the scholars and practitioners who are notably interested in
motivation are individuals from fields such as philosophy, sociology
and psychology (Bouwma-Gearhart 2012; Odde 2011). In these fields,
motivation has been subjected to rigorous analyses and debates based on
‘what is needed’ to motivate an employee, e.g. what makes an employee
act efficiently, how an employee can be influenced to perform produc-
tively, what motivational framework works best for a given workforce,
etc. (Bouwma-Gearhart 2012; Odde 2011).
In the fields of education, administration and social work, there is
a long tradition of interest in motivation (Çeliköz 2010; Keleş 2012;
Syed et al. 2012; Visser-Wijnveen et al. 2012). Scholars, as well as prac-
titioners, in education and administration (Çeliköz 2010; Fisher 2009),
regard motivation as the most significant factor in accomplishing work
successfully through triggering employee productivity (Keleş 2012; Syed
et al. 2012). Motivation massively contributes to employees’ satisfaction
and is therefore crucial to job commitment (Khan et al. 2011).
Scholars interested in work and organisational motivation have
devoted efforts towards finding if ‘there is any formula for motiva-
tion’ (Stanislava 2010, p. 271). As such, the development of a ‘master
motivational formula’ seems to be a vitally needed tool which scientists
and practitioners can apply in organisations to motivate the workforce
(Çınar et al. 2011).
A motivational formula, therefore, would entail various models,
approaches and techniques to create motivation among employees in
their workplace or organisation (Zaidi and Abbas 2011). The success or
failure of any organisation rests on the motivation formula, i.e. the right
technique, method and approach applied to its workforce (Aworemi
et al. 2011).
22
However, the claim of having an understanding of the right motiva-

tional approach (Nasri and Charfeddine 2012) is indeed a contentious
issue, with there being many varied opinions, views and explanations
(Gelona 2011; Netotea-Suciu et al. 2012). Obviously, the fact that there
exist a number of contrasting viewpoints of ‘what motivates employees’
(Guga 2012) would indicate that researchers and experts take diverse
philosophical perspectives on this issue (Barbača and Zekan 2011;
Nwagbara and Akanji 2012).
Many theories provide insights into motivation from different per-
spectives and are claimed to have applicability in contemporary work-
places or organisations (Frick and Drucker 2011; Gopalakrishnan
2012). The next section will discuss the concept of motivation in terms
of its two major accepted classifications or categories.
Important Classifications and Models

of Motivation
Content and Process Classifications
The concept of motivation has been addressed by numerous stud-

ies, and there exist many theories in the literature (Keleş 2012). Tuan
(2011) suggests that these theories can be classified into two main cat-
egories. The first, known as ‘content or need theories’, holds the view
that as long as an employee’s work contains enough content or needs
such as physiological and security needs, the employee will be highly
motivated and subsequently will be highly satisfied. The second cat-
egory, known as ‘process theories’, suggests that motivation and subse-
quent satisfaction are not solely the result of needs fulfilment, but also
depends on how employees analyse, evaluate and think of the pros and
cons associated with a job.
The content theories attempt to deal with and explain the content
of a given motivation. It proceeds with the assumption that employees
have needs which motivate them at work. So, content theories strive
to determine the exact motivational needs that an employee attempts
to attain or satisfy (Udechukwu 2009). Due to the focus of content
23
theories on needs to explain what motivates a given employee, they are

also known as need theories (Barikani et al. 2013).
The process theories, also known as cognitive theories, explain moti-
vation through the cognitive or thinking processes that occur within a
given employee’s mind (Gopalakrishnan 2012). Process theories under-
line the psychological processes affecting an employee’s motivation
(Çınar et al. 2011). According to these theories, motivation is ener-
gised, initiated, directed and sustained due to psychological influence.
This range of theories includes operant learning theory, Adam Smith’s
Equity Theory, Goal-Setting Theory, Reinforcement Theory, Vroom’s
Expectancy Theory and Kahler’s Drivers (Jeans and Murphy 2009;
Rowley 1996; Steyn 2002; Viorel et al. 2009).
Over the years, various theorists have attempted to create models on
what needs motivate employees at the workplace. These content or need
theorists, such as Frederick Herzberg, Douglas McGregor and Abraham
Maslow, have developed important motivational models, although these
models were all in fact built on the works of the early and existing mod-
els of motivation. In relation to this point, the next section will explore
these early models of motivation which have helped the emergence of
the need-based approach.
Models of Motivation
Over time, various models and approaches have been proposed by man-
agement theorists, with a common theme being their constant attempts
to present an all-inclusive, general or universal model of motivation
(Mawoli and Babandako 2011). The following discussion presents these
early models and their influence on motivation researchers.
Scientific Management
Proposed by Frederick W. Taylor (1856–1915), the scientific manage-

ment model argues that motivation can be obtained through financial
incentive (the carrot) (Peters et al. 2010; Scott 1987; Daft and Marcic
2008). According to Taylor (1947), the financial incentive or the carrot
24
(e.g. higher wages or salaries, rapid promotions or advancements and

generous premiums or bonuses, shorter hours of work or better working
conditions) is an impelling approach for motivating employees (Rajput
et al. 2011; Taylor 1967). He believed that for those who worked hard
enough, there should be financial rewards (the carrot), but for those
who did not, penalties (the stick) should be imposed.
Hawthorne Effect
Another breakthrough in the theory of motivation was the work of

Elton Mayo (1880–1949) (Hunter 2012; John et al. 2012). Mayo con-
ducted the Hawthorne Studies which gave new insights into how to
better motivate employees (Khan et al. 2011). These studies concluded
that the emphasis should be put on understanding and meeting the
needs of employees to motivate them (Saefullah 2012). This conclu-
sion further signalled a shift in the theories of motivation by treating
the need of employees as an important issue (Çınar et al. 2011). The
Hawthorne Studies revealed that while financial incentives are of con-
cern for employees as per Taylor’s scientific management approach, peo-
ple would be much better motivated by having their needs met at work
(Sandhya and Kumar 2011).
Having identified these early influential models of motivation, a con-
sideration of some need theorists is now appropriate.
The Emerging Need Theories
The knowledge gained from the early studies shaped the thinking of
motivational theorists (Hunter 2012). The content theories were devel-
oped to link worker motivation with needs satisfaction (Peters et al.
2010, p. 2). As the early studies argued to have given rise to the moti-
vational need-based approach (Dwivedula and Bredillet 2010), need
theorists (e.g. Herzberg, Alderfer, McGregor, McClelland and Maslow)
embraced and built the need approach (Rajput et al. 2011).
For example, Frederick Herzberg (1923–2000) developed the Motivation-
Hygiene theory, which proposes that the motivation of employees
25
tends to be influenced by specific sets of needs (Moore 1992). The theory

argues that motivation is the result of two basic needs: lower level needs and
higher level needs (Miner 2005). Higher level needs can lead to a positively
motivated or satisfied motivation—these are termed motivators or satisfiers.
Such needs which motivate employees may include the job itself, achieve-
ments and recognition for the achievements. Lower level needs produce
negative motivation or dissatisfied motivation—these are termed as hygiene
factors or dissatisfiers. These needs which dissatisfy individuals include a poor
work environment and working conditions (e.g. lack of job security, low sal-
ary, poor lighting and ventilation) (Miner 2005; Taylor 1947).
Clayton Alderfer (1940–2015) suggests the ERG (existence, relat-
edness and growth) theory of motivation, which describes motivation
as being derived from three needs—existence, relatedness and growth
(Alderfer and Guzzo 1979). Existence needs include the basic human
needs of existence, such as physiological and safety needs (Arnolds and
Boshoff 2002). Thus, existence needs are mainly concerned with essen-
tial aspects, such as money, air, water and food (Alderfer and Guzzo
1979). Relatedness needs are concerned with interpersonal aspects, such
as social acceptance, belongingness and status. Finally, growth needs are
concerned with peoples’ desires for an improved ecological setting, self-
development, self-fulfilment and self-actualisation (Alderfer and Guzzo
1979; Arnolds and Boshoff 2002).
Douglas McGregor (1906–1964) offered another theory of motiva-
tion, called Theory X and Theory Y. He believed that an employee is
motivated by two basic sets of needs (lower order X and higher order
Y ). Thus, there are two approaches for understanding and motivating
employees. One approach is that of Theory X which sees the individual
as indolent and lacking ambition, responsibility and direction (Carson
2005; McGregor 1960b). Motivation can then be obtained by the use
of hard or strong motives, such as coercion, punishment and threats
(McGregor 1960a; Taylor 1947). The basic argument of Theory Y is
that an employee is by nature a responsible one and accepts responsi-
bility, as well as being self-directed and seeks to accomplish things
(Hofstede 1994; Taylor 1947). Motivation can, therefore, be obtained
by the use of soft or weak motives, such as satisfying peoples’ demands
through money, training etc. (McGregor 1960a).
26
David McClelland’s (1917–1998) principal theory of motivation

postulates that an employee is motivated by the three basic needs:
achievement, power and affiliation (Smits et al. 1993). According to
him, the individual who is motivated by achievement aspires to advance
his/her own personal development, improvement and excellence by tak-
ing difficult and competitive tasks and assignments (McClelland and
Burnham 1976; Smits et al. 1993). Likewise, another individual may be
inclined towards affiliation needs by being concerned with social inter-
actions, i.e. affection, friendships, prestige, recognition, dialogue, etc. to
further interpersonal relationships, as well as acceptance and approval of
their own views by others (Fort 1996; Mata Toledo and Unger 1985).
Similarly, an individual with a need for power desires to control, influ-
ence and lead. This need for power means that employees are potentially
motivated when allowed to be in full control to lead, direct and control
their own environment and destiny (Smits et al. 1993).
Khan et al. (2011) and Marques (2011) consider this theory to be the
best known and most influential theory of motivation. Maslow’s theory
has, in fact, had an immense influence to the point that many believe
‘most content-based motivation theories are based on Maslow’s (1954a)
Hierarchy of Needs…’ (Barbuto JR and Story 2011, p. 25).
Maslow’s Theory
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Maslow argues that motivation is best understood in terms of a

Hierarchy of Needs, which for him are physiological, safety, love,
esteem and self-actualisation (Bagozzi et al. 2003).
Physiological Needs
The starting point for the Hierarchy of Needs model is the basic physi-
ological needs, e.g. oxygen, food, shelter, water, rest, etc. (Netotea-Suciu
et al. 2012). According to Maslow, physiological needs are the most
27
important to employees and without those, it is impossible to motivate

and satisfy them (Khan et al. 2011).
Physiological needs are presumed to be igniting the process of satis-
faction (Kenrick et al. 2010), with the other basic needs in the hierarchy
being derived from the satisfaction of the physiological needs (Maslow
1954a). Thus, they ‘serve as channels for all sorts of other needs as well’
(Maslow 1943, p. 373). What this means is that the major motivation
first and foremost would undoubtedly result from the physiological
needs—the most prepotent of all human basic needs (Raus et al. 2012).
All of the other needs such as getting out of danger (safety/security
needs), affiliating with others and being accepted (belongingness and
love needs), achieving, being competent and gaining approval and rec-
ognition (esteem needs), and problem-solving and personal growth
(self-actualising needs) become secondary (Maslow 1943).
Maslow (1954a, p. 82) explained that ‘a person who is lacking food,
safety, love, and esteem would probably hunger for food more strongly
than for anything else’ (Stoll and Ha-Brookshire 2012, p. 152). Maslow
further claimed that:
The urge to write poetry, the desire to acquire an automobile, the interest
in American history, the desire for a new pair of shoes is, in the extreme
case, forgotten or become of secondary importance. For the man who is
extremely and dangerously hungry, no other interests exist but food. He
dreams food, he remembers food, he thinks about food, he emotes only
about food, he perceives only food and he wants only food. The more
subtle determinants that ordinarily fuse with the physiological drives in
organising even feeding, drinking or sexual behaviour, may now be so
completely overwhelmed as to allow us to speak at this time (but only at
this time) of pure hunger drive and behaviour, with the one unqualified
aim of relief. (Maslow 1943, pp. 373–374)
Employees have basic physiological needs that they seek to satisfy and
are specifically necessary for their motivation at work. It is a fair state-
ment to make that many employees ‘suffer from serious physiological
disorders that can be manifested by widespread poverty, hunger and
malnutrition, diseases, deprivation, and even political disturbances and
28
instability’ (Yawson et al. 2009, p. 953). In other words, an employing

organisation incapable of tackling these physiological disorders for its
employees won’t succeed effectively in motivating its own employees,
and thus, its survival is threatened (Yawson et al. 2009). In this sense,
offering employees a place in their work environment that is stocked
with food and drink, a place of higher standards of hygiene where
employees can breathe clean fresh air and a competitive wage or salary
to afford good accommodation and clothing helps employees meet their
survival, i.e. of basic physiological needs (Pulasinghage 2010; Sadri and
Bowen 2011).
Only when the physiological needs are fully satisfied do they become
unimportant in motivating the employees at work. Thus, they cease
to exist and they are no longer a determinant of the motivation of an
employee (Maslow 1943). Under these circumstances, a new need
emerges, namely safety needs. With these safety needs becoming the
dominant motivation factor, every other need thereby becomes less
important. In this sense, the motivation becomes the outcome of a non-
satiated need that is wholly dominated by safety needs (ibid.).
Safety Needs
At this second level, security or safety is the major pursuit of needs, such
as a fear of job instability (Aworemi et al. 2011; Khan et al. 2011). All
other needs become less important, including the physiological ones
given that they have now been satisfied (Maslow 1943).
The appearance of the safety needs (e.g. due to a risk or of being
harshly or roughly treated at work by bosses, or a threat or danger
of dropping out of work or of losing the job) is a key reason for any
employee being motivated at work (Maslow 1943, 1954a). The need for
safety, security and protection at work dominates, mobilises and moti-
vates the employee as long as the individual worker feels persistently
frightened—especially during bad economic situations (ibid.).
In order to work at their best, certainty becomes an inevitable safety
need that an employee seeks to fulfil, and thus plays a significant role
in driving the employee to their optimum performance level (ibid.).
29
The employee behaves as if a great work catastrophe (e.g. redundancy)

is almost always inevitable or impending. Thus, the employee’s motiva-
tion is based on the safety need until it becomes fully gratified, at which
point a new set of needs will emerge—of love, affection and belonging-
ness (Maslow 1943).
Social Needs
The absence of friendship, encouragement and support of fellow work-

ers and managers makes the employee feel motivated, as never before, to
attain this need with great intensity. So, love and belongingness become
the paramount need for the employee at work. Further, this level of the
Hierarchy of Need lays a greater emphasis on emotional and social sup-
port (Pulasinghage 2010).
According to Yawson et al. (2009), receiving help in dealing with
work problems and pressures, support to cope with a work injury,
advice and guidance on work performance, support during interper-
sonal conflicts and anxieties, financial support or general career advice
and support for confidence building all primarily facilitate the desire of
an employee in promoting and maintaining the optimal level of moti-
vation in the work environment based on care, companionship and
deeper relationships.
According to Maslow (1943, p. 378), ‘also not to be overlooked, [is]
the fact that the love needs involve both giving and receiving’ for the
employee. Dominated by these love needs, the employing company is a
vital base for support, confidence, love, etc. as well as the maximisation
of satisfaction for the employee by fulfilling not only their non-satiated
security needs but also their non-satiated love and belongingness needs
(Sadri and Bowen 2011).
In the situation of when the need for safety and security at work
is more active and powerful, the employees forget about the need for
friendship, understanding and affection (Maslow 1943). Once those
former needs are met, there is then an emergence of a new need for bet-
ter work arrangements in which kindness and empathy rule the moti-
vation of the employee (Maslow 1954b). In this sense, the need for
30
quality work relations ‘more than anything else in the world’ (Maslow
1943, p. 381) becomes dominant until the gratification point is met. At
that point, the next stage of the hierarchy is reached that of the needs of
esteem.
Esteem Needs
Esteem needs indicate a need to respect one’s rights, appreciation of

one’s ability and capacity, acknowledgement of one’s achievement and
recognition of one’s autonomy and independence (Anyim et al. 2012;
Stoll and Ha-Brookshire 2012). In this type of need, employees at work
are driven by their need for prestige or reputation, attention, recogni-
tion, appreciation or importance (Maslow 1943; Mujah et al. 2011;
Saefullah 2012). The employee motivation is shaped by those esteem
needs (Maslow 1954b).
It is therefore highly significant for the organisation to recognise and
meet the esteem needs of its employees (Netotea-Suciu et al. 2012).
Indeed, not acknowledging such esteem needs of an employee on the
part of the employing organisation could likely result in dissatisfaction,
helplessness, discouragement, inferiority, weakness or inability, and thus
a demotivated employee at work (Netotea-Suciu et al. 2012; Sandhya
and Kumar 2011). The work environment is apparently a major source
of need fulfilment for the employee in which they are able to achieve
or accomplish things, such as obtaining financial rewards and societal
recognitions (Benson and Dundis 2003; George and Sabapathy 2011).
The enhancement and strengthening of employee satisfaction could
be assured through being rewarded, praised and recognised, or being
presented with the opportunity to feel successful, accomplished and
well-reputed (Benson and Dundis 2003; Sadri and Bowen 2011). Such
an enhanced and strengthened satisfaction is created for assuring con-
tinued hard work by the employee (Sadri and Bowen 2011, p. 47).
Indeed, the esteem needs, such as rewards, titles (e.g. employee of the
month), promotions, etc., are the main reasons for joining, staying with
or working for the employing organisation (Riyono et al. 2012; Sadri
and Bowen 2011).
31
Thus, the employee at work is motivated and keen to satisfy the

esteem (or self-esteem) needs which will give rise to their motivation
in terms of boosting their self-confidence and morale, feeling of worth
and usefulness, demonstrating their own capability and achievement of
potential (Forbes 2011; Maslow 1943). Once the satisfaction of these
needs is fulfilled, it in turn gives rise to the need for self-actualisation to
be created and become dominant (Maslow 1943).
Self-actualisation Needs
Self-actualisation refers to the need for self-fulfilment, i.e. the need for
an individual to reach their full potential, or be everything that a per-
son is striving to be. Conditioned upon prior gratification and satia-
tion of the physiological, safety, love and esteem needs, motivation at
work will be mobilised and taken over by the need for self-actualisation
(ibid.). Self-actualisation needs, according to Maslow, are the ultimate
needs and the highest stage of any employee experience (Stoll and
Ha-Brookshire 2012).
It is a condition whereby the employee at work seeks to satisfy her or
his need to have a sense of professional maturity and career growth; the
purpose of work remains fulfilled and the person ends up motivated at
the workplace (George and Sabapathy 2011; Netotea-Suciu et al. 2012).
The occurrence of satisfaction and fulfilment to an employee is possible
through motivation by which they express or achieve the full potential of
their ability (Benson and Dundis 2003; Forbes 2011; Kenrick et al. 2010).
Maslow claims that ‘we shall call people, who are satisfied in these
needs, basically satisfied people, and it is from these, that we may expect
the fullest (and healthiest) creativeness’ (Maslow 1943, p. 383). Sadri
and Bowen (2011, p. 47) also agree with Maslow in making a similar
claim that ‘there is a sense that once these needs are engaged, they likely
will become stronger as they are fed and satisfied. Therefore, this layer
within the hierarchy is used to inspire employees and to help them per-
form at their highest levels’.
Most employees seek to express and exercise their exceptional tal-
ents and problem-solving skills, as well as show their creative work
32
performance approaches (Forbes 2011; Sandhya and Kumar 2011). This

is only when, according to Benson and Dundis (2003), work becomes
fulfilling and pleasurable where motivation is merged and satisfied with
work.
Having said that, it must be emphasised that self-actualisation varies
greatly from one employee to another. A musician would pursue music,
an artist would pursue painting and a researcher would pursue knowl-
edge in a specific area (Kenrick et al. 2010, p. 294).
It might be that a need for one person is to be the most competent
employee to reap financial rewards, or for another, it will be the need
to be the most creative worker and a logical candidate for promotion
(Maslow 1943). More importantly, another motivation might be a need
to devote the work to something that is considered precious for that
given employee. This could be considered as a need to devote motiva-
tion at work to ‘some calling or vocation in the old sense, the priestly
sense’ (Maslow 1975, p. 43). As such, this need becomes a major means
of motivation and the essence of creating joy and satisfaction for an
orthodox employee (Maslow 1975).
What this basically means is that the motivated employee is no
longer concerned with the physiological, esteem, love and safety needs.
Instead, the only thing that motivates an employee is to create a par-
ticular self-actualised human behaviour that ‘comes to know what his
destiny is’ (Maslow 1943, 1975). This demonstrates that the higher self-
actualisation towards full human growth, and doing what is meaning-
ful and worthwhile, is as important as the person’s lower needs (Maslow
1975). This higher need supplies the employee with what they want or
need in order for them to be motivated (Maslow 1954b).
In considering the influence of the need hierarchy, the present
research examines the applicability of Maslow’s theory. Therefore, it
is crucial to illustrate the widespread application and influence of this
hierarchy in order to justify why this research has taken an interest in
it as a theory of motivation. To this end, the following discussions will
demonstrate this widespread application and influence through portray-
ing how it influenced the development of other need theories, as well as
portraying the popularity of the theory itself.
33
Maslow’s Influence on Need Theorists
Various theories have been proposed as being universal for predicting

and understanding the categories of the needs that employees strive for
within their motivation (Mohan and Ahlemann 2011), and which they
aspire to fulfil as an indicator of prepotency or priority within their jobs
(Gomes 2011). The content theories include Motivation-Hygiene by
Herzberg, ERG by Alderfer, X and Y by McGregor and the three needs
by McClelland, as mentioned above. While these theorists apparently
propose differing universal theories or models of needs, most of them
are connected and share commonality in many ways to the Hierarchy
of Needs theory (Chiu and Lin 2004; Steel and König 2006). This is
attributed to the fact that these models tend to provide a similar con-
tent in their assessments of employee needs (ibid.), and which is because
they were restated, adopted, developed or modified from Maslow’s
model (Brown and Cullen 2006). Thus, it is essential to analyse the
similarities of these theories with Maslow’s in order to have a clearer
understanding.
Herzberg’s Model
Sandhya and Kumar (2011) note that Herzberg’s model reveals a strong
relation and similarity to that of Maslow’s. Indeed, some of the needs
identified by Herzberg indicate an obvious parallel with those identi-
fied by Maslow (Vránová 2011). For example, the hygiene needs in
Herzberg correspond to Maslow’s lower order needs. Likewise, the
motivator needs in Herzberg represent the higher order needs in
Maslow’s model (Sahoo et al. 2011).
So, specifically, it cannot be said that the motivator needs that
Herzberg identified in his model (e.g.  recognition, achievement
and growth) are compatible with the higher order needs in Maslow
(e.g. esteem and self-actualisation) (Marques 2011). However, while
Maslow’s model was developed horizontally, Herzberg worked and
extended Maslow’s model vertically (Hunter 2012; Marques 2011).
Such identified parallelism between the two models indicates the strong
34
influence of Maslow on Herzberg’s model, given the connection and

similarity between the two proposed frameworks (Carrigan 2010).
Alderfer’s Need Theory
Another model that bears resemblance to that of Maslow in its critique,

development and description of needs is Alderfer’s (Alderfer 1977; Alderfer
and Guzzo 1979). By collapsing Maslow’s model of five needs into three
(Gopalakrishnan 2012), Alderfer rearranged the concepts as ERG: E for
existence, R for relatedness and G for growth (Jindal-Snape and Snape 2006).
Existence needs, such as air, money and hunger, are the equivalent of
Maslow’s physiological and safety needs. Relatedness needs, such as affil-
iation and friendships, correspond to Maslow’s love and belongingness
needs (Pettijohn II et al. 2012; Sahoo et al. 2011). Growth needs, such
as the need to be creative and to attain full potential, represent Maslow’s
self-actualisation needs (Anyim et al. 2012; Sahoo et al. 2011).
Thus, Alderfer’s need theory follows Maslow’s need theory in its
development by attempting to regroup the latter’s model (Ajang 2001;
Anyim et al. 2012; Sahoo et al. 2011).
Douglas McGregor Theory of X and Y
Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Y proposes another model of need

that alludes to similarities with that of Maslow (Harell and Daim 2010;
Hunter 2012). For instance, the ‘lower order X ’ motive of McGregor
proposes an approach similar to that of Maslow, which can be obtained
by the deprivation of safety (security) needs (Maslow 1969; Taylor
1947). The Theory X assumes the lower order needs in Maslow’s
model are dominant among the employees (Barbača and Zekan 2011).
Likewise, the ‘higher order Y ’ motive can be achieved through recog-
nising the esteem needs that employees strive to fulfil as per Maslow,
such as the need to be treated responsibly and to accomplish things
(Hofstede 1994; Taylor 1947). The Theory Y, therefore, assumes the
higher order needs in Maslow’s model are dominant among employees
(Barbača and Zekan 2011).
35
McClelland’s Need Theory
Finally, the model of needs which David McClelland offered to explain

employee motivation seems to be consistent with, and similar to, that
of Maslow (Taormina and Lao 2007). McClelland seems to have built
on Maslow’s work because his theorised need for affiliation could be
characterised as Maslow’s need for belonging and love (Jindal-Snape and
Snape 2006; Mobbs and McFarland 2010; Yang 2011). Furthermore,
McClelland’s need for achievement could be viewed in a number
of ways as a need that is to do with self-esteem or self-actualisation
(Van Raaij and Wandwossen 1978). This is why scholars state that
McClelland’s need theory is another model that was influenced strongly
by Maslow (Hunter 2012).
The discussion and examination of the suggested models of need have
revealed that they tend to relate, to a large extent, to the need model
proposed by Maslow (Gee and Burke 2001; Jindal-Snape and Snape
2006; Sahoo et al. 2011). This suggests that Maslow’s hierarchy is a
highly influential model of employee motivation. As such, it is a ration-
ale for why the present book focuses on critical applicability of Maslow’s
theory.
The next section discusses and sheds light on the contribution, popu-
larity and application of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in the fields of
social sciences and management.
Maslow’s Popularity in Social Sciences
A review of Maslow’s works reveals extensive contributions in social

sciences (Cooke et al. 2005) including studies that are most often ref-
erenced (Puttick 1997). Indeed, his contributions, particularly the
Hierarchy of Needs, have informed and pervaded a wide range of lit-
erature, concerning developments (Bailey 2005), dispute resolutions
(Duffy and Thomson 1992), terrorism (Schwing 2002), migration
(Nicholson-Lord 2004), cross-cultural issues (Kickul et al. 2004), cor-
porate reputations (Berens and von Riel 2004) and corrections among
recidivists (Jones 2004). The model is applied in scholarly and media
36
publications (Dye and Weatherbee 2005; Porat 1977; Seeley 1992).

It has been referred to in a wide range of publications from Public
Administration Review, the Journal of Research in Personality, Operations
Research and Engineering Management Journal to the Wall Street Journal
and Forbes as well as Sports Illustrated (Strickland and Vaughan 2008).
The popularity and use of Maslow’s model to numerous social topics
has resulted in it being adopted within numerous diversified branches
of knowledge such as psychology (Oleson 2004; Puttick 1997; Saeednia
2011; Trigg 2004; Yount 2009), education (Chew et al. 2008; Puttick
1997; Saeednia 2011) and economics (Oleson 2004; Trigg 2004). The
upcoming discussion highlights Maslow’s particular popularity across
the field of business management.
Maslow’s Popularity in Business Management
Maslow’s model has gained particular interest in the field of business

management. It has been part of many studies related to business ethics
(Hatwick 1986), moral developments (Huang 2004), management of
information technology (Coffee 2002; Pisello 2003), customer relations
(Gentle 2003), managerial perspectives (Lucey et al. 2004), manufac-
turing and material practices of industrial societies (Luke 2004), man-
agement of health caring (Bardwell 2004), marketing decisions (Pincus
2004; Ritson 2004), allocation of organisational resources (Ivashchenko
and Novikov 2006) and organisational behaviour (Cullen and Gotell
2002; Johns and Saks 2005; McShane 2004; Robbins and Langton
2003).
The model has been used to investigate issues of motivation across
a wide spectrum. For example, among information technology profes-
sionals, the model was used to demonstrate that money itself is not suf-
ficient motivator for IT professionals and thus their motivation can be
highly improved and perfected by the provision of those needs advo-
cated by Maslow and in particular the self-esteem need (Santosus 2004).
It was also used to explain motivational differences to analyse work
satisfaction among IT personnel with regard to key characteristics (e.g.
as age, marital status and annual salary) (Kuo and Chen 2004).
37
As Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs proposes a powerful means to moti-

vation in which higher level needs, such as esteem and self-actualisation,
can be designed and implemented for motivation, it was additionally
employed to devise motivational mechanics for CEOs, seniors and
directors of management corporations (Senter 2004). Again, Maslow’s
hierarchy has been seen as highly useful in offering a motivational
framework that will get the Generation-Y workers to perform enthusi-
astically and deliver their best efforts, and it was similar to the study of
Senter (2004) used to facilitate the motivation of a specific generation
of employees (Focus 2004).
The discussion and examination of the model reveal its immense pop-
ularity (Aworemi et al. 2011). A review of the literature gives a strong
indication of the apparent face-validity (Rausch et al. 2002) and testi-
mony to the applicability and pervasiveness of this model into multi-
disciplinary research fields such as psychology, public administration
and business management (Dye and Weatherbee 2005; Strickland and
Vaughan 2008). Many articles in the social science disciplines indi-
cate, and are testimony to, the wide acceptance and strong validity of
Maslow’s model of need (Benson and Dundis 2003; Kenrick et al. 2010).
Due to such recognition and acceptance of Maslow’s work, many
researchers and practitioners have maintained and applied the model on
the grounds that it provides a universal theory of motivation (Nwagbara
and Akanji 2012; Matheson 2012). However, despite its wide acceptance,
the theory has some limitations which are presented in the next section.
Criticisms of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

The wide popularity and applicability of Maslow’s theory is attributed
to its simplicity and ease of application. However, counter-evidence
paved the way for criticisms. Thus, this section aims to shed light on
some of these limitations, namely:
1. deprivation/domination,
2. gratification/activation, and
3. self-actualisation.
38
Deprivation/Domination
A key criticism directed at Maslow’s proposition is regarding depriva-

tion/domination (Berl et al. 1984; Wahba and Bridwell 1976; Wicker
et al. 1993). This proposition states that a greater or increased depriva-
tion would lead to a greater or increased strength in a need. With this
proposition in mind, there is an implicit claim that deficient needs will
have dominance as long as they have not been satiated (Rajagopal and
Abraham 2009; Van Raaij and Wandwossen 1978; Wicker et al. 1993).
However, many reviewers of this proposition could not find evidence
of it (Berl et al. 1984; Wahba and Bridwell 1976). For example, some
studies conducted between 1966 and 1973 attempted to test this prop-
osition. Their findings showed that the deprivation/dominance con-
cept either only enjoys partial support (i.e. when self-actualisation was
treated as the central level of need) or no support (when applied to the
other needs of security, social and esteem) (Berl et al. 1984; Wahba and
Bridwell 1976).
The Need Strength Operationalisation
Studies on ‘need strength operationalisation’ in respect of the

deprivation/dominance proposition attempted to measure the strength
of a need through importance or intention (e.g. Alderfer 1969; Graham
and Balloun 1973). The studies of Alderfer (1969) and Graham and
Balloun (1973) particularly sought to illustrate the measure of the
strength of a need through desire.
Alderfer’s study attempted to test the needs theory of motivation
(ERG theory) against Maslow’s proposition (Alderfer 1969; Wahba and
Bridwell 1976). Both Alderfer and Graham and Balloun used correla-
tion to measure the strength or the satisfaction of a given need, with
the former using cross-lagged correlations that yielded a significant indi-
rect relation. Though the correlations were in the right direction, there
was more support for the ERG theory of Alderfer than of Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs (ibid.). In contrast, the study conducted by Graham
and Balloun indicated a minor support for the proposition that if there
39
is greater satisfaction of a need, the strength of that need becomes

declines.
Hall and Nougaim (1968) attempted to test the strength of a need
through a rating of importance to reduce the likelihood of measur-
ing satisfaction. Therefore, they performed a study that utilised a lon-
gitudinal approach on a group of 49 trainee managers of AT&T (an
American-based corporation), through interviewing them annually for
a period of five years (Hall and Nougaim 1968; Wahba and Bridwell
1976). They found no strong evidence for the stated proposition of
Maslow of there being a positive correlation between the satisfaction
of a need and the importance of a need (Berl et al. 1984; Wahba and
Bridwell 1976).
In addition, Hall and Nougaim’s study attempted to test longitudi-
nal changes concerning the satisfaction and importance of Maslow’s five
needs, with the expectation that the need satisfaction increases year-on-
year and with a decrease in the importance of the need. However, they
could not find support for this claim.
The longitudinal study of Lawler III and Suttle (1972), to test and
validate the stated proposition of Maslow, was an attempt to address
shortcomings in the study of Hall and Nougaim (1968). Their study
attempted a causality test of correlation by administering Porter’s Need
Satisfaction Questionnaire to 187 managers in two corporations, so as
to measure their need satisfaction and level of importance. This was a
larger sample size than that used by Hall and Nougaim. The managers
were split into two groups, and with the questionnaire being adminis-
tered in two phases. It was applied to the first group at the beginning
and then 6 months later, and to the second group at the beginning but
then 12 months later.
Bearing in mind this study of Lawler III and Suttle was a longitu-
dinal one, it was able to successfully compute both static and dynamic
correlations, as well as cross-lagged correlation analysis. Overall, it
showed no support for the stated proposition of Maslow (Berl et al.
1984; Lawler III and Suttle 1972; Wahba and Bridwell 1976).
Wicker et al. (1993) criticised studies such as those of Alderfer
(1969) and Graham and Balloun (1973) for their utilisation of the
measure of importance. According to Wicker et al. (1993), the findings
40
of those studies did not provide clear-cut results supporting the propo-
sition that a need becomes stronger with increased deprivation due to
some problematic methodological issues, which decreased and limited
the significance and findings of those studies. To overcome such limita-
tions, Wicker utilised different measures with the intention of testing
the strength of a need via other appropriate measurements, such as the
rating of intention rather than just solely relying on the traditional rat-
ing of importance. So the relationship between the strength of a need
and the satisfaction of that need was measured and intended, e.g. to
contrast ratings of importance with other ratings to find either correla-
tions or partial correlations in support of the stated proposition. To do
so, deprivation was measured inversely through ratings criteria of attain-
ment, and the need strength or domination was represented directly by
ratings criteria of importance, intention, concern and urgency.
The findings showed support for the stated proposition of Maslow
in relation to the use of a measure of an intention rating. Thus,
this contradicted the above studies that had concluded there was
no strong empirical evidence for Maslow’s theory of motivation.
However, as the support was exclusive to the utilisation of intention
ratings not importance ratings, Wicker et al. (1993) warned against
the certainty of the findings. Importantly, they did draw attention to
some of the methodological issues that they had encountered in their
study, such as in relation to bias to ratings for being based on self-
reported data.
The above discussion explained the first limitation on the need
strength operationalisation. The following section focuses on the lack of
establishing causality.
Causality
According to Wahba and Bridwell (1976), the assessment of the

deprivation/dominance is one of causality. However, the studies dis-
cussed above, of Alderfer (1969), Graham and Balloun (1972), Hall and
Nougaim (1968) and Lawler III and Suttle (1972), used correlation-
type analyses, with limited validity.
41
With this limitation in mind, Wicker and Wiehe (1999) attempted

a study based on an experimental approach to find support for the
deprivation/dominance proposition. For their research, they formed
forty students into two groups. The students in the first group each
wrote an essay describing a past event in which they felt close to
another individual. For the second group, the task was to write an essay
that described a period of time in which each student wanted to get
close to some individuals but was unsuccessful in doing so. For testing
the effect of the essays on these students’ needs, three measures were
used, namely prior attainment, intention and importance. The results
of this experimental study did indeed show support for Maslow’s stated
proposition.
Gratification/Activation
The First Operationalisation of the Gratification/Activation

Proposition
Another proposition that Maslow made is that of

gratification/activation, which indicates that a satisfied or gratified
need would prompt the activation of the next need (Van Raaij and
Wandwossen 1978; Wahba and Bridwell 1976). The operationalisa-
tion of this proposition was hypothesised in two ways. First, the greater
or increased is the satisfaction with a given need, then the lesser is the
importance and, second, the greater or increased is the level of impor-
tance of the next need (Berl et al. 1984).
However, studies that used this operationalisation yielded inconclu-
sive results (Berl et al. 1984; Wahba and Bridwell 1976). The longitudi-
nal research of Hall and Nougaim (1968) and of Lawler III and Suttle
(1972) found no correlation between the gratification of a certain lower
need and the strength of the other need.
As previously mentioned, Hall and Nougaim studied a group of
managers for a period of five years. Changes in the need satisfaction of
the subjects were measured on a yearly basis. The approach followed
was a correlation of the current year’s change with the succeeding year’s
42
change (i.e. from one given year to the next one) pertaining to the
need satisfaction and the strength of the next level of need in the same
time frame (Berl et al. 1984; Wahba and Bridwell 1976). This study
revealed that there was a low correlation, which indicated that there
was no evidence for the greater or increased need satisfaction or for the
greater or increased strength of need for the next level. Therefore, Hall
and Nougaim rejected Maslow’s proposition of gratification/activation.
However, given that their study was of a small size, and that the inter-
view was not specifically designed to test Maslow’s assumptions, their
findings should be interpreted in the light of these shortcomings (Berl
et al. 1984; Wahba and Bridwell 1976).
Lawler III and Suttle (1972) hypothesised that the increase in
need satisfaction at a given time that is in one period should lead to
a decrease in the importance of that need in another period, together
with an increase in the need importance for the next higher level of
need. But the findings were not significant and they, along with Hall
and Nougaim, ultimately concluded that there was no support for
the gratification/activation proposition (Berl et al. 1984; Wahba and
Bridwell 1976).
The Second Operationalisation of the Gratification/Activation

Proposition
The second operationalisation of the gratification/activation proposition

based on the review of 23 studies from 1962 to 1973 found that a move
upwards on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs would be associated with a
decrease in need satisfaction (Berl et al. 1984). They found that secu-
rity and self-actualisation emerged as the least satiated needs, while the
social one emerged as the most gratified need. The extent of the satisfac-
tion of the other needs varied. On the basis of this variability, the results
indicated no pattern. Consequently, they concluded that the findings
are not consistent with Maslow’s proposition of gratification/activation
(Wahba and Bridwell 1976).
Thus, the gratification/activation proposition is not supported, with
there being no evidence to support the theory that an increased need
43
satisfaction should lead to an increase in need strength in the next

higher level of need. Berl et al. (1984) also argued strongly that care
must be taken when considering the findings of the above studies.
The first caution surrounds the fact that gratification/activation oper-
ationalisation is not an accurate measure of the Hierarchy of Needs,
since such an operationalisation was not made by Maslow. The second
caution relates to the Porter’s NSQ survey. This survey was intended
primarily to measure the difference in the perceived deficiency in need
fulfilments. According to Berl et al. (1984), this approach undermines
validating Maslow’s theory of motivation. With these limitations in
mind, the focus of the next section is to discuss the issue of the exist-
ence of a distinct Hierarchy of Needs.
The Self-actualisation Need Complex
There seems to be confusion and criticism surrounding the motivational

suitability of the self-actualisation need. The first doubt relates to con-
cern that the concept is ill-defined and based on sheer wishful thinking
on what an employee should be like. Part of this doubt is, in fact, illus-
trated in Maslow’s own statement as follows:
In actual fact, most members of our society who are normal are partially
satisfied in all their basic needs and partially unsatisfied in all their basic
needs at the same time. A more realistic description of the hierarchy
would in terms of decreasing percentages of satisfaction as we go up the
hierarchy of prepotency. For instance, if I may assign arbitrary figures for
the sake of illustration, it is as if the average citizen is satisfied perhaps 85
per cent in his physiological needs, 70 per cent in his safety needs, 50 per
cent in his love needs, 40 per cent in his self-esteem needs, and 10 per
cent in his self-actualisation needs. (Maslow 1970, pp. 53–54)
This confusion and doubt led to the criticism of the concept of self-
actualisation. There was nothing normal in Maslow’s approach in the
selection of self-actualisers, let alone the slim and hard to reach 10%
of actualisation (Robert et al. 1984). An obvious interpretation of
Maslow’s statement is that self-actualisation is an exclusive concept and
44
only applicable to the highly privileged who are perceived to be capa-

ble, theoretically, of self-actualising. Indeed, the approach of Maslow is
a testimony to the ill definition, i.e. that of exclusiveness.
The definition of self-actualisation according to Maslow means max-
imising one’s potential, capabilities and talents (Buttle 1989). Self-
actualisation is to be everything a person is capable of becoming. The
self-actualiser has a perfect understanding of reality and does not have
further needs. It is something that every individual would want to be
and believe in. Though in applying the concept of self-actualisation to
the work environment, Maslow never gave any justification of why he
had selected highly evolved figures to explain what they understood by
such a concept (Buttle 1989; Gibson and Teasley 1973).
With respect to the selection of self-actualisers, Maslow chose indi-
viduals who happened to be exceptionally fulfilled and were achievers
with creativity. Such a selection includes figures like Abraham Lincoln,
Eleanor Roosevelt, Einstein and Spinoza (Littrell 2011; Neher 1991).
Obviously, the selection of self-actualisers was predetermined and lim-
ited to a favoured proportion of the American population on the basis
of their distinguished traits (ibid.). This predetermined and favoured
selection, according to Neher (1991), has had a bearing on the concept
of self-actualisation and has undermined its suitability.
While the selection of the highly fulfilled individuals was predeter-
mined and biased, from a methodological perspective nothing was sci-
entific in terms of investigating these individuals with the aim of the
formulation of the concept of self-actualisation. Maslow’s illustrations
of self-actualising persons were based on talking to, and reading the
biographies of, a few famous and highly educated figures (e.g. Abraham
Lincoln and Eleanor Roosevelt). There can also be concern about the
small sample size. For the critics, there is nothing scientific about the
validity of self-actualisation (Littrell 2011; Neher 1991). Thus, Wahba
and Bridwell (1976) refer to Maslow’s theory as a derived one.
Finally, many are critical of the shape of the Hierarchy of Needs with
self-actualisation being described as the apex of the hierarchy. This cho-
sen hierarchy is a clear demonstration of those individuals who embrace
individualist perspectives (Hofstede 1984; Kenrick et al. 2010; Pearson
45
and Podeschi 1999). Indeed, only individuals raised in individualistic

societies would regard the need of self-actualisation as an ultimate need.
The excessive individualism would make such a hierarchy largely only
relevant to individualistic societies, particularly the USA where Maslow
was born and where he carried out his research, and other societies
such as the UK (ibid.). Consequently, critics often see the Hierarchy of
Needs as something representing Western cultural values and that may
be in conflict with non-Western ones, i.e. Eastern cultural values. This is
indeed a highly decisive factor in undermining the Hierarchy of Needs
(Hofstede 1984).
Chapter Summary
This chapter has offered a critical review of Maslow’s Hierarchy of
Needs theory and its various limitations. Among the numerous theo-
ries of motivation, it has shown that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs has
received a great deal of acknowledgement and acceptance. The hierarchy
assumes that employees have needs at work and attempt to satisfy them.
As a consequence of this, the motivation of an employee is dependent
on the satisfaction of the needs (Travieso 2014).
According to Maslow, the needs are arranged in a hierarchical order
of importance (physiological, safety, social, esteem and self-actual-
isation). Maslow further makes the claim that these needs are univer-
sal (Noltemeyer et al. 2012; Tay and Diener 2011). In addition, there
are certain propositions and claims about the needs such as depri-
vation/domination, gratification/activation and of the apex being
self-actualisation.
Wahba and Bridwell’s (1976) review of the results of 10 studies, with
the purpose of empirically testing the proposition of deprivation/domi-
nation, found largely no empirical evidence for the claim that the need
with the utmost deficiency tends to be the need with the utmost domi-
nation (Berl et al. 1984).
However, when self-actualisation was treated as the central and
important need, partial support for Maslow’s theory was obtained. In
46
turn, the end results yielded an uncritical acceptance of the deprivation/

domination concept when applied to some of the needs of Maslow’s
Hierarchy (i.e. of esteem, social and security) (Berl et al. 1984; Wahba
and Bridwell 1976).
In addition to reviewing those studies, Wahba and Bridwell (1976)
reviewed Maslow’s actual proposition of gratification/activation, which
was operationalised in two different ways. With respect to the first oper-
ationalisation, i.e. that a satisfied need decreased in its importance and
causing an increase in importance of the next need, their results indi-
cated that there is no correlation between the satisfaction of a certain
need and the increase in the importance of the next (Berl et al. 1984).
With the second operationalisation, i.e. that moving towards a higher
level of need on Maslow’s Hierarchy would result in a decrease in the
mean level of need satisfaction, the results again were not in agreement
with the gratification/activation proposition as no pattern was detected
due to variations in the satisfaction of the needs (Berl et al. 1984;
Wahba and Bridwell 1976).
Finally, for many critics, self-actualisation is nothing but wishful
thinking. For Neher (1991), Maslow has endorsed self-actualisation as
something that everybody should aspire for simply because it is wor-
thy of attainment. The type of self-actualised people Maslow cited in his
sample indicates strongly the exclusiveness of the concept to elitist and
highly individualistic cultures. Thus, due to this exclusivity, many peo-
ple have raised questions about the suitability of this motivator as well
as the existence of five universal needs that are ordered in a hierarchical
manner (Van Raaij and Wandwossen 1978; Wahba and Bridwell 1976).
These studies suggest that at least a few of Maslow’s propositions
do not have sufficient empirical grounding. As such, his Hierarchy of
Needs has been challenged on various fronts, not in the least because
it just reflects a Western-oriented point of view. Despite this, Maslow’s
model seems to be hugely popular in academic texts and managerial
practice and has considerable influence on need theories and social sci-
ences. Due to lack of critical contextual investigations, it is also popular
and influential in Arab states. In fact, there is a lack of critical evalua-
tion of this model in Arabic literature. The present research addresses
this gap.
47
Indeed, it is the limited empirical evidence of the universality of

Maslow’s model which should be of particular concern to researchers
of motivation. Satisfaction is a relative concept which differs from per-
son to person and context to context. Therefore, it is imperative that
such researchers undertake empirical verification of Maslow’s hierarchi-
cal order of needs in diverse national, industrial and organisational con-
texts. This is important given that the majority of the empirical studies
on Maslow, which have actually been undertaken, have been done in
Western organisations and contexts. Therefore, it would be benefi-
cial for there to be a future focus on organisations which are located in
developing and underdeveloped countries.
References
Adina, N., & Medet, Y. (2012). Cultural Tourism Motivation—The Case of
Romanian Youths. Economic Science Series, 21(1), 548–553.
Ajang, P. E. (2001). Assessing the Role of Work Motivation on Employee
Performance. Umeå School of Business and Economics. C-Level Thesis.
Akbas, A., & Kan, A. (2007). Affective Factors that Influence Chemistry
Achievement (Motivation and Anxiety) and the Power of these Factors to
Predict Chemistry Achievement-II. Journal of Turkish Science Education,
4(1), 10–19.
Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs.
Organizational behavior and human performance, 4(2), 142–175.
Alderfer, C. P. (1977). A Critique of Salancik and Pfeffer’s Examination of
Need-Satisfaction Theories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 658–669.
Alderfer, C. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1979). Life Experiences and Adults’ Enduring
Strength of Desires in Organisations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24,
347–361.
Anyim, C. F., Chidi, O. C., & Badejo, A. E. (2012). Motivation and
Employees’ Performance in the Public and Private Sectors in Nigeria.
International Journal of Business Administration, 3(1), 31–40.
Appleby, M. (2013). Maintaining Motivation. Collector (0010082X), 79(3),
18–20.
Armstrong, M. (2001). A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice
(8th ed.). London: Kogan Page Limited.
48
Armstrong, M. (2006). Motivation—A Handbook of Human Resource

Management Practice. London: Kogan Page Limited.
Arnolds, C. A., & Boshoff, C. (2002). Compensation, Esteem Valence and
Job Performance: An Empirical Assessment of Alderfer’s ERG Theory.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(4), 697–719.
Aworemi, J. R., Abdul-Azeez, I. A., & Durowoju, S. T. (2011). An Empirical
Study of the Motivational Factors of Employees in Nigeria. International
Journal of Economics & Finance, 3(5), 227–233.
Bagozzi, R. P., Bergami, M., & Leone, L. (2003). Hierarchical Representation
of Motives in Goal Setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 915–943.
Bailey, C. R. (2005). Winning the Hearts and Minds: Providing the Basic Needs
First. Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College.
Barbača, D. B., & Zekan, S. B. (2011). Personal Finances and Hierarchy of
Human Needs. Economy Transdisciplinarity Cognition, 14(1), 337–349.
Bardwell, P. L. (2004). A Challenging Road toward a Rewarding Destination.
Frontiers of Health Services Management, 21(1), 27–34.
Barikani, A., Javadi, M., Mohammad, A., Firooze, B., & Shahnazi, M. (2013).
Satisfaction and Motivation of General Physicians toward their Career.
Global Journal of Health Science, 5(1), 166–173.
Barbuto JR., J. E., & Story, J. S. P. (2011). Work Motivation and
Organisational Citizenship Behaviours. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1),
23–34.
Bartol, K. M., & Martin, D. C. (1998). Management (3rd ed.). New York:
McGraw Hill.
Benson, S. G., & Dundis, S. P. (2003). Understanding and Motivating Health
Care Employees: Integrating Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Training and
Technology. Journal of Nursing Management, 11(5), 315–320.
Berens, G., & von Riel, C. B. M. (2004). Corporate Associations in the
Academic Literature: Three Main Streams of Thought in the Reputation
Measurement Literature. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(2), 161–178.
Berl, R., Williamson, N., & Powell, T. (1984). Industrial Salesforce
Motivation: A.
Berman, E. M., Bowman, J. S., West, J. P., & Wart, M. R. V. (2010).
Motivation: Possible, Probable or Impossible? Human Resource Management in
Public Service: Paradoxes, Processes and Problems. California: Sage.
Bhat, S., & Shah, H. (2010). Managing Work Motivation at the Bottom—A
Case from Footwear Manufacturing Organisation in India. Vilakshan: The
XIMB Journal of Management, 7(1), 141–156.
49
Bouwma-Gearhart, J. (2012). Research University STEM Faculty Members’

Motivation to Engage in Teaching Professional Development: Building
the Choir through an Appeal to Extrinsic Motivation and Ego. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 21(5), 558–570.
Brown, K., & Cullen, C. (2006). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Used to
Measure Motivation for Religious Behaviour. Mental Health, Religion &
Culture, 9(1), 99–108.
Buttle, F. (1989). The Social Construction of Needs. Psychology & Marketing,
6(3), 197–210.
Carmen, R., & Elena, D. (2011). Motivation and Sports Games in the
Physical Education Sports Lesson a Student from the University of
Medicine and Pharmacy ‘Carol Davila’. Journal of Social Sciences, 7(4),
485–494.
Carson, C. M. (2005). A Historical View of Douglas McGregor’s Theory Y.
Management Decision, 43(3), 450–460.
Carrigan, M. D. (2010). Economic Uncertainty and the Role of
Organisational Development. Journal of Business & Economics Research,
8(4), 99–104.
Çeliköz, N. (2010). Basic Factors that Affect General Academic Motivation
Levels of Candidate Preschool Teachers. Education, 131(1), 113–127.
Chew, E., Jones, N., & Turner, D. (2008). Critical Review of the Blended
Learning Models Based on Maslow’s and Vygotsky’s Educational Theory. In
J. Fong, R. Kwan, & F. L. Wang (Eds.). ICHL, LNCS 5169, 40–53.
Chiu, H. C., & Lin, N. P. (2004). A Service Quality Measurement Derived
from the Theory of Needs. The Service Industries Journal, 24(1), 187–204.
Çınar, O., Bektaş, Ç., & Aslan, I. (2011). A Motivation Study on the
Effectiveness of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors. Economics & Management,
16, 690–695.
Coffee, P. (2002). The Hierarchy of Needs in High Tech. eWeek 19, 27–43.
Cooke, B., Mills, A. J., & Kelley, E. S. (2005). Situating Maslow in Cold
War America: A Recontextualisation of Management Theory. Group and
Organisation Management, 30(2), 129–152.
Cullen, D., & Gotell, L. (2002). From Orgasms to Organisations: Maslow,
Women’s Sexuality and the Gendered Foundations of the Need Hierarchy.
Gender, Work and Organisation, 9(5), 537–555.
Daft, R. L., & Marcic, D. (2008). Understanding Management (6th ed).
Cengage Learning.
DeCenzo, D. A., & Robbins, S. P. (1996). Human Resources Management. New
York: Wiley.
50
Duffy, K. G., & Thomson, J. (1992). Community Mediation Centers:

Humanistic Alternatives to the Court System. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology, 32, 101–114.
Dwivedula, R., & Bredillet, C. N. (2010). Profiling Work Motivation of
Project Workers. International Journal of Project Management, 28(2),
158–165.
Dye, K., Mills, A. J., & Weatherbee, T. (2005). Maslow: Man Interrupted:
Reading Management Theory in Context. Management Decision, 43(10),
1375–1395.
Eliasa, S. M., Smith, W. L., & Barneya, C. E. (2012). Age as a Moderator
of Attitude Towards Technology in the Workplace: Work Motivation
and Overall Job Satisfaction. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(5),
453–467.
Fisher, E. A. (2009). Motivation and Leadership in Social Work Management:
A Review of Theories and Related Studies. Administration in Social Work,
33(4), 347–367.
Focus, H. R. (2004). How to Get ‘Buy-In’ from the Newest Generation of
Employees. HR Focus, 81(11), 5.
Forbes, D. L. (2011). Toward a Unified Model of Human Motivation. Review
of General Psychology, 15(2), 85–98.
Fort, T. L. (1996). Business as a Mediating Institution. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 6(2), 149–164.
Franco, L. M., Bennett, S., & Kanfer, R. (2002). Health Sector Reform and
Public Sector Health Worker Motivation: A Conceptual Framework. Social
Science and Medicine, 54, 1255–1266.
Frick, D., & Drucker, P. (2011). Motivating the Knowledge Worker. Defense
Acquisition Research Journal, 18(4), 368–387.
Gee, C., & Burke, M. E. (2001). Realising Potential: The New Motivation
Game. Management Decision, 39(2), 131–136.
Gelona, J. (2011). Does Thinking about Motivation Boost Motivation Levels?
The Coaching Psychologist, 7(1), 42–48.
Gentle, M. (2003). CRM: Ready or Not? Computerworld, 37(33), 40–42.
George, L., & Sabapathy, T. (2011). Work Motivation of Teachers:
Relationship with Organisational Commitment. Canadian Social Science,
7(1), 90–99.
Gibson, F. K., & Teasley, C. E. (1973). The Humanistic Model of
Organizational Motivation: A Review of Research Support. Public
Administration Review, 23(1), 89–96.
51
Gomes, O. (2011). The Hierarchy of Human Needs and Their Social

Valuation. International Journal of Social Economics, 38(3), 237–259.
Gopalakrishnan, G. (2012). Evaluating Motivational Levels of Employees
at Malayan Railways Limited/ Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB).
Global Management Journal, 4(1/2), 53–63.
Gorn, G., & Kanungo, R. (1980). Job Involvement and Motivation: Are
Intrinsically Motivated Managers More Job Involved? Organisational
Behaviour & Human Performance, 26(2), 265–277.
Graham, W. K., & Balloun, J. (1973). An Empirical Test of Maslow’s Need
Hierarchy Theory. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 13, 97–108.
Grammatikopoulos, I., Koupidis, S., Moralis, D., Sadrazamis, A., Athinaiou,
D., & Giouzepas, I. (2013). Job Motivation Factors and Performance
Incentives as Efficient Management Tools: A Study among Mental Health
Professionals. Archives of Hellenic Medicine/ Arheia Ellenikes Iatrikes, 30(1),
46–58.
Guga, L. (2012). Evaluation and Motivation of Human Resources. Economic
Sciences, 5(1), 93–100.
Haivas, S., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (2014). What Motivates You Doesn’t
Motivate Me’: Individual Differences in the Needs Satisfaction-Motivation
Relationship of Romanian Volunteers. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 63(2), 326–343.
Hall, D. T., & Nougaim, K. E. (1968). An Examination of Maslow’s Need
Hierarchy in an Organisational Setting. Organisational Behaviour and
Human Performance, 3(1), 12–35.
Harell, G., & Daim, T. (2010). HDM Modeling as a Tool to Assist
Management with Employee Motivation: The Case of Silicon Forest.
Engineering Management Journal, 22(1), 23–33.
Hatwick, R. E. (1986). The Behavioural Economics of Business Ethics. Journal
of Behavioural Economics, 15, 87–101.
Higgins, J. M. (1994). The Management Challenge (2nd ed.). New York:
Macmillan.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia
Pacific journal of management, 1(2), 81–99.
Hofstede, G. H. (1994). Management Scientists are Human. Management
Science, 40(1), 4–13.
Huang, J. (2004). The Science of Good and Evil. The Humanist, 64(6), 38.
52
Hunter, M. (2012). How Motivation Really Works: Towards an Emoto-

Motivation Paradigm. Economics, Management & Financial Markets, 7(4),
138–196.
Ivashchenko, A., & Novikov, D. (2006). Model of the Hierarchy of Needs.
Automation and Remote Control, 67(9), 1512–1517.
Jeans, R., & Murphy, L. (2009). Investigating Academic’s Motivation to
Pursue Research Activity. Newport CELT Journal, 2, 17–28.
Jindal-Snape, D., & Snape, J. B. (2006). Motivation of Scientists in a
Government Research Institute, Scientists’ Perceptions and the Role of
Management. Management Decision, 44(10), 1325–1343.
John, A., Francis, A., & Innocent, C. (2012). Improving Sales Performance
through Sales Force Motivation Strategies: A Study of Pharmaceutical
Firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Business Management & Economic
Research, 3(5), 620–626.
Johns, G., & Saks, A. (2005). Organisational Behaviour (6th ed.). Toronto:
Pearson.
Jones, M. (2004). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Can Lower Recidivism.
Corrections Today, 66(4), 18–21.
Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., Murtha, T. C., Dugdale, B., & Nelson, L. (1994).
Goal Setting, Conditions of Practice, and Task Performance: A Resource
Allocation Perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 826–835.
Keleş, H. (2012). An Investigation of the Relationship Between Motivation
and Academic Achievement of Business Administration Students: An
Empirical Study in Turkey. European Journal of Social Science, 30(4),
612–617.
Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. (2010).
Renovating the Pyramid of Needs: Contemporary Extensions Built Upon
Ancient Foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 292–314.
Kickul, J., Lester, S. W., & Belgio, E. (2004). Attitudinal and Behavioural
Outcomes of Psychological Contract Breach: A Cross Cultural Comparison
of the United States and Hong Kong Chinese. International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 4(2), 229–253.
Khan, O. U., Khan, S., & Saeed, T. (2011). Does Hygiene and Motivators
Classified by Herzberg are same for Middle Managers and Direct Labor?
(Petroleum Sector of Pakistan). Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary
Research in Business, 2(11), 280–295.
Kreitner, R. (1995). Management (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
53
Kuo, Y.-F., & Chen, L.-S. (2004). Individual Demographic Differences and
Job Satisfaction among Information Technology Personnel: An Empirical
Study in Taiwan. International Journal of Management, 21(2), 221–231.
Lawler, E. E., III, & Suttle, J. L. (1972). A Causal Correlational Test of
the Need Hierarchy Concept. Organisational Behaviour and Human
Performance, 7(2), 265–287.
Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Littrell, R. F. (2011). Motivation by Maslow: What Maslow Really Said,
Change and Control: Perspectives from Business and Labour History.
Proceedings and Abstracts of the Third Annual Conference of the Academic
Association of Historians in Australian and New Zealand Business Schools.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2004). What Should we Do about Motivation
Theory? Six Recommendations for the Twenty-First Century. Academy of
Management Review, 29(3), 388–403.
Lucey, J., Bateman, N., & Hines, P. (2004). Achieving Pace and Sustainability
in a Major Lean Transition. Management Services, 48(9), 8.
Luke, J. E. (2004). A Polyester Saga. Geography and All. Textile World, 154(9),
70.
Lut, D. M. (2012). Connection between Job Motivation, Job Satisfaction and
Work Performance in Romanian Trade Enterprises. Fascicle I: Economics and
Applied Informatics, 1(3), 45–50.
Manzoor, Q. (2012). Impact of Employees Motivation on Organisational
Effectiveness. Business Management & Strategy (BMS), 3(1), 1–12.
Marques, J. (2011). Turning Inward to Connect Outward: Interbeing as
Motivational.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review,
50, 370–396.
Maslow, A. H. (1954a). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper.
Maslow, A. H. (1954b). The Instinctoid Nature of Basic Needs. Journal of
Personality, 22(3), 326–347.
Maslow, A. H. (1969). The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. Journal of
Transpersonal Psychology, 1, 1–9.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality. 2nd ed. Harper and Row.
Maslow, A. H. (1975). The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. Viking Press.
Mata Toledo, R. A., & Unger, E. A. (1985). Another Look at Motivating Data
Processing Professionals. Computer Personnel, 10(1), 1–7.
Matheson, C. (2012). The Motivation of Public Sector Employees: An Outline
of Six Orientations to Work. Administration & Society, 44(2), 207–237.
54
McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. (1976). Power is the Great Motivator.

Harvard Business Review, 25, 159–166.
McGregor, D. (1960a). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
McGregor, D. (1960b). Theory X and Theory Y. In D. S Pugh, (Ed.).
Organisation Theory: Selected Readings. London: Penguin.
McShane, S. (2004). Canadian Organisational Behaviour. Toronto: McGraw-
Hill Ryerson.
Middleton, V. T. C. (1994). Marketing in Travel and Tourism. Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann.
Miner, J. B. (2005). Organisational Behaviour One: Essential Theories of
Motivation and Leadership, Volume One of Organisational Behaviour. New
York: M.E. Sharpe.
Mitchell, T. R. (1982). Motivation: New Directions for Theory, Research, and
Practice. The Academy of Management Review, 7, 80–88.
Mobbs, D., & McFarland, W. (2010). The Neuroscience of Motivation. Neuro
Leadership Journal, 3, 1–10.
Moch, M. K. (1980). Job Involvement, Internal Motivation, and Employees’
Integration into Networks of Work Relationships. Organisational Behaviour
& Human Performance, 25(1), 15–31.
Mohan, K., & Ahlemann, F. (2011). What Methodology Attributes are
Critical for Potential Users? Understanding the Effect of Human Needs.
In H. Mouratidis & C. Rolland (Eds.). Springer Proceedings of the 23rd
International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering
(CAiSE’11), 314–328. Springer-Verlag, Berlin: Heidelberg.
Mol, A. (1992). Motivating Subordinates. IPM Journal, 11(2), 19–22.
Moore, L. (1992). Improving Workforce Basic Skills: The Foundation for
Quality. (Ed.). D. Publisher Quality Resources. Indiana University.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The Measurement of
Organisational Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 14, 224–247.
Mujah, W., Abdul Samad, R. R., Singh, H., & D’Cruz, O. T. (2011).
Meaning of Work and Employee Motivation. Terengganu International
Management and Business Journal, 1(2), 18–26.
Nasri, W., & Charfeddine, L. (2012). Motivating Salespeople to Contribute
to Marketing Intelligence Activities: An Expectancy Theory Approach.
International Journal of Marketing Studies, 4(1), 168–175.
Neher, A. (1991). Maslow’s Theory of Motivation: A Critique. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 31(3), 89–112.
55
Netotea-Suciu, V. P., Manolescu, A., & Dorobanţu, M. R. (2012).

Applications of the Motivation Theories in the Management of the
Romanian Police. EIRP Proceedings, 7(1), 1012–1019.
Nicholson-Lord, D. (2004). Exodus: The Great British Migration. New
Statesman, 17(818), 16.
Noltemeyer, A., Bush, K., Patton, J., & Bergen, D. (2012). The Relationship
among Deficiency Needs and Growth Needs: An Empirical Investigation of
Maslow’s Theory. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(9), 1862–1867.
Nwagbara, U., & Akanji, B. O. (2012). The Impact of Work-Life Balance on the
Commitment and Motivation of Nigerian Women Employees. International
Journal of Academic Research in Business & Social Sciences, 2(3), 38–47.
Odde, D. (2011). Motivation and Existence. Existential Analysis: Journal of the
Society for Existential Analysis, 22(1), 56–69.
Oleson, M. (2004). Exploring the Relationship between Money Attitudes and
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
28(1), 83–92.
Pearson, E. M., & Podeschi, R. L. (1999). Humanism and individualism:
Maslow and his critics. Adult Education Quarterly, 50(1), 41–55.
Peters, D., Chakraborty, S., Mahapatra, P., & Steinhardt, L. (2010). Job
Satisfaction and Motivation of Health Workers in Public and Private
Sectors: Cross-Sectional Analysis from Two Indian States. Human Resources
for Health, 8, 27–37.
Pettijohn, T., II, Ahmed, S., & Pettijohn, T. (2012). Hunger and Social
Motivation: Hungry People are Less Interested in Social Activities than
Satiated People. Current Psychology, 31(1), 1–5.
Pincus, J. (2004). The Consequences of Unmet Needs: The Evolving Role of
Motivation in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(4),
375–387.
Pisello, T. (2003). Anticipating IT Needs in Pyramidal Steps. Computerworld,
37(34), 49–50.
Porat, A. B. (1977). Guttman Scale Test for Maslow Need Hierarchy. The
Journal of Psychology, 97(1), 85–92.
Pouchová, L. (2011). Work Motivation and Satisfaction in the Context of
Economic Crisis. Scientific Papers of the University of Pardubice, Series D,
Faculty of Economics & Administration, 16(21), 151–160.
Pulasinghage, C. (2010). Employee Motivation: What Factors Motivate
Employees to Work in Nongovernmental Organisations (NGO) in
Sri Lanka: A Study according to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Model.
International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5(4), 198–211.
56
Puttick, E. (1997). A New Typology of Religion Based on Needs and Values.

Journal of Beliefs and Values, 18(2), 133–145.
Qayyum, A. (2012). An Empirical Analysis of Employee Motivation and the
Role of Demographics: The Banking Industry of Pakistan. Global Business
& Management Research, 4(1), 1–14.
Quijano, S. D., & Navarro, J. (1998). A Comprehensive Model of Work
Motivation: Conceptualisation and Measurement. Revista de Psicología del
Trabajo y de las Organisaciones, 14, 193–216.
Rajagopal, N., & Abraham, S. (2009). Prominence of Higher Order Needs:
An Indian IT Sector Experience. Vilakshan: The XIMB. Journal of
Management, 6(2), 15–28.
Rajput, A., Abu Bakar, A., & Ahmad, M. S. (2011). Motivators Used by
Foreign and Local Banks in Pakistan: A Comparative Analysis. International
Journal of Academic Research, 3(2), 550–555.
Raus, A., Haita, M., & Lazăr, L. (2012). Hierarchy of Needs, Perception and
Preference for Leadership Styles within a Police Educational Institution.
Journal: Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 35, 238–255.
Rausch, E., Sherman, H., & Washbush, J. (2002). Defining and Assessing
Competencies for Competency-Based, Outcome-Focused Management.
The Journal of Management Development, 21(3/4), 184–201.
Ritson, M. (2004). Why are Brand Positionings Made So Complex?
Marketing, 21.
Riyono, B., & Himam, F. (2012). In Search for Anchors The Fundamental
Motivational Force in Compensating for Human Vulnerability. Gadjah
Mada International Journal of Business, 14(3), 229–252.
Robbins, S. (1993). Organisational Behaviour (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
Robbins, S. P. & Langton, N. (2003). Organisation Behaviour: Concepts,
Controversies, Applications. 3rd Canadian ed. Toronto: Prentice-Hall.
Robert, B., Williamson, N., & Powell, T. (1984). Industrial Salesforce
Motivation: A Critique and Test of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 4(1), 33–39.
Rowley, J. (1996). Motivation and Academic Staff in Higher Education.
Quality Assurance in Education, 4(3), 11–16.
Ruthankoon, R., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2003). Testing Herzberg’s Two-Factor
Theory in the Thai Construction Industry. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 10(5), 333–341.
57
Sadri, G., & Bowen, R. (2011). Meeting Employee Requirements: Maslow’s

Hierarchy of Needs is still a Reliable Guide to Motivating Staff’. Industrial
Engineer, 43(10), 44–48.
Saeednia, Y. (2011). Generating a Scale Measuring Hierarchy of Basic Needs.
Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 15, 3084–3094.
Saefullah, U. (2012). Work Motivation in Islamic Educational Institutions.
Advances in Natural & Applied Sciences, 6(8), 1562–1567.
Sahoo, F. M., Sahoo, K., & Das, N. (2011). Need Saliency and Management
of Employee Motivation: Test of an Indigenous Model. Vilakshan: The
XIMB. Journal of Management, 7(3), 21–36.
Sandhya, K., & Kumar, D. (2011). Employee Retention by Motivation. Indian
Journal of Science & Technology, 4(12), 1778–1782.
Santosus, M. (2004). They don’t Care Too Much for Money; Once Again, It
Behooves CIOs to Reward their Star Performers. But how will they Do it?
Cutting Bonus Checks Would Be the Wrong Answer. CIO, 17(23), 1.
Schwing, R. (2002). A Mental Model Proposed to Address the Sustainability
and Terrorism Issues. Risk Analysis, 22(3), 415–420.
Scott, W. R. (1987). Organisations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (2nd
ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Seeley, E. (1992). Human Needs and Consumer Economics: The Implications
of Maslow’s Theory of Motivation for Consumer Expenditure Patterns. The
Journal of Socio-Economics, 21(4), 303–324.
Senter, A. (2004). An Embarrassment of Riches. Director, 58(4), 96.
Smits, S. J., McLean, E. R., & Tanner, J. R. (1993). Managing High-
Achieving Information Systems Professionals. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 9(4), 103–120.
Smithers, G. L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2000). The Effect of the Workplace on
Motivation and Demotivation of Construction Professionals. Construction
Management and Economics, 18(7), 833–841.
Stanislava, S. (2010). From Motivation to Well-Being. Studies in Business &
Economics, 5(3), 270–276.
Steel, P., & König, C. (2006). Integrating Theories of Motivation. Academy of
Management Review, 31(4), 889–913.
Stenmark, P., & Lilja, J. (2014). Designing for the Satisfaction of High-Level
Needs: Introducing the Ideation Need Mapping (INM) Methodology. The
TQM Journal, 26(6), 639–649.
Steyn, G. M. (2002). A Theoretical Analysis of Educator Motivation and
Morale. Educare, 31(1&2), 82–101.
58
Stoll, E. E., & Ha-Brookshire, J. E. (2012). Motivations for Success: Case of

U.S. Textile and Apparel Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Clothing &
Textiles Research Journal, 30(2), 149–163.
Strickland, R. A., & Vaughan, S. K. (2008). The Hierarchy of Ethical Values
in Non-Profit Organisations: A Framework for an Ethical Self-Actualised
Organisational Structure. Public Integrity, 10(3), 233–325.
Syed, A., Anka, L., Jamali, M., & Shaikh, F. (2012). Motivation as a Tool
for Effective Staff Productivity in the Public Sector: A Case Study of Raw
Materials Research and Development Council of Nigeria. Asian Social
Science, 8(11), 85–95.
Taormina, R. J., & Lao, S. K.-M. (2007). Measuring Chinese Entrepreneurial
Motivation: Personality and Environmental Influences. International Journal
of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 13(4), 200–221.
Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and Subjective Well-Being around the
World. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 354–365.
Taylor, F. W. (1947). Scientific Management. A Volume of Two Papers.
Originally Published in 1903 and 1911 and a Written Testimony for a
Special House Committee in the USA in 1912. New York: Harper and
Row.
Taylor, F. W. (1967). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York:
Norton.
Travieso, D. (2014). Getting Employees to Want to Come to Work.
Supervision, 75(1), 3–5.
Trigg, A. B. (2004). Deriving the Engel Curve: Pierre Bourdieu and the
Social Critique of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Review of Social Economy,
LXII(3), 393–406.
Tuan, L. T. (2011). Convergence of Antecedents on Work Motivation and
Work Outcomes. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 54–64.
Udechukwu, I. I. (2009). Correctional Officer Turnover: Of Maslow’s Needs
Hierarchy and Herzberg’s Motivation Theory. Public Personnel Management,
38(2), 69–82.
Van Raaij, W. F., & Wandwossen, K. (1978). Motivation-Need Theories and
Consumer Behaviour. Advances in Consumer Research, 5(1), 590–595.
Viorel, L., Aurel, M., Virgil, M., & Stefania, P. (2009). Employees Motivation
Theories Developed at an International Level. Economic Science Series,
18(4), 324–328.
Visser-Wijnveen, G. J., Stes, A., & Petegem, P. V. (2012). Development
and Validation of a Questionnaire Measuring Teachers’ Motivations for
59
Teaching in Higher Education Higher Education. Higher Education, 64(3),

421–436.
Vránová, Š. (2011). Identification of Specific Motivational Factors for
Different Categories of Staff and its Importance. Proceedings of the European
Conference on Management, Leadership & Governance, 524–532.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.
Wahba, M. A., & Bridwell, L. G. (1976). Maslow Reconsidered: A Review
of Research on the Need Hierarchy Theory. Organisational Behaviour and
Human Performance, 15, 212–240.
Wicker, F. W., Brown, G., Wiehe, J. A., Hagen, A. S., & Reed, J. L. (1993).
On Reconsidering Maslow: An Examination of the Deprivation/
Domination Proposition. Journal of Research in Personality, 27(2), 118–133.
Wicker, F. W., & Wiehe, J. A. (1999). An Experimental Study of Maslow’s
Deprivation-Domination Proposition. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88(3c),
1356–1358.
Yang, F. (2011). Work, Motivation and Personal Characteristics: An In-Depth
Study of Six Organisations in Ningbo. Chinese Management Studies, 5(3),
272–297.
Yawson, D. O., Armah, F. A., & Pappoe, A. N. M. (2009). Enabling
Sustainability: Hierarchical Need-Based Framework for Promoting
Sustainable Data Infrastructure in Developing Countries. Sustainability,
1(4), 946–959.
Yount, W. (2009). Transcendence and Aging: The Secular Insights of Erikson
and Maslow. Journal of Religion, Spirituality & Aging, 21, 73–87.
Zaidi, F. B., & Abbas, Z. (2011). A Study on the Impact of Rewards on
Employee Motivation in the Telecommunication Sector of Pakistan.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(3),
978–998.
http://www.springer.com/978-3-319-67740-8

A Critical Review of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

A Critical Review of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

A Critical Review of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

2

A Critical Review of Maslow’s Hierarchy

Many scholars and practitioners (e.g. Appleby 2013;

© The Author(s) 2018 19

Key categories, and early models, of motivation are then considered.

The Concept of Motivation and Its Importance

Much has been written on motivation in recent decades, with moti-

However, the claim of having an understanding of the right motiva-

Important Classifications and Models

The concept of motivation has been addressed by numerous stud-

theories on needs to explain what motivates a given employee, they are

Proposed by Frederick W. Taylor (1856–1915), the scientific manage-

(e.g. higher wages or salaries, rapid promotions or advancements and

Another breakthrough in the theory of motivation was the work of

The Emerging Need Theories

tends to be influenced by specific sets of needs (Moore 1992). The theory

David McClelland’s (1917–1998) principal theory of motivation

Maslow argues that motivation is best understood in terms of a

important to employees and without those, it is impossible to motivate

instability’ (Yawson et al. 2009, p. 953). In other words, an employing

The employee behaves as if a great work catastrophe (e.g. redundancy)

The absence of friendship, encouragement and support of fellow work-

Esteem needs indicate a need to respect one’s rights, appreciation of

Thus, the employee at work is motivated and keen to satisfy the

performance approaches (Forbes 2011; Sandhya and Kumar 2011). This

Maslow’s Influence on Need Theorists

Various theories have been proposed as being universal for predicting

influence of Maslow on Herzberg’s model, given the connection and

Alderfer’s Need Theory

Another model that bears resemblance to that of Maslow in its critique,

Douglas McGregor Theory of X and Y

Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Y proposes another model of need

McClelland’s Need Theory

Finally, the model of needs which David McClelland offered to explain

Maslow’s Popularity in Social Sciences

A review of Maslow’s works reveals extensive contributions in social

publications (Dye and Weatherbee 2005; Porat 1977; Seeley 1992).

Maslow’s Popularity in Business Management

Maslow’s model has gained particular interest in the field of business

As Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs proposes a powerful means to moti-

Criticisms of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

A key criticism directed at Maslow’s proposition is regarding depriva-

The Need Strength Operationalisation

Studies on ‘need strength operationalisation’ in respect of the

is greater satisfaction of a need, the strength of that need becomes

According to Wahba and Bridwell (1976), the assessment of the

With this limitation in mind, Wicker and Wiehe (1999) attempted

The First Operationalisation of the Gratification/Activation

Another proposition that Maslow made is that of

The Second Operationalisation of the Gratification/Activation

The second operationalisation of the gratification/activation proposition

satisfaction should lead to an increase in need strength in the next

The Self-actualisation Need Complex

There seems to be confusion and criticism surrounding the motivational

only applicable to the highly privileged who are perceived to be capa-

and Podeschi 1999). Indeed, only individuals raised in individualistic

turn, the end results yielded an uncritical acceptance of the deprivation/

Indeed, it is the limited empirical evidence of the universality of

Armstrong, M. (2006). Motivation—A Handbook of Human Resource

Bouwma-Gearhart, J. (2012). Research University STEM Faculty Members’

Duffy, K. G., & Thomson, J. (1992). Community Mediation Centers:

Gomes, O. (2011). The Hierarchy of Human Needs and Their Social

Hunter, M. (2012). How Motivation Really Works: Towards an Emoto-

A Critical Review of Maslow’s Hierarchy

The Concept of Motivation and Its Importance

Important Classifications and Models

instability’ (Yawson et al. 2009, p. 953). In other words, an employing

Maslow’s Influence on Need Theorists

Douglas McGregor Theory of X and Y

Maslow’s Popularity in Social Sciences

Maslow’s Popularity in Business Management

Criticisms of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

The First Operationalisation of the Gratification/Activation

The Second Operationalisation of the Gratification/Activation