This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: obic and Davis A Kind Word for Theory X more integrated and less split, more open for experience, more idiosyncratic, more perfectly
expressive or spontaneous, or fully functioning, more creative, more humorous, more egotranscending. . . . (Maslow 1999, 106 [emphasis added]) Innovativeness was, for Maslow, the essential characteristic of a self-actualized person
(1998, 229–30). Self-actualized people were far more likely to be creative, to ﬁnd new solutions to problems than people at lower levels of the hierarchy (Maslow 1970, 170–71).
Self-actualization, then, represented the peak of one’s creative potential. This point was not
lost on McGregor.
The Concept of Creativity McGregor believed that the real problem with modern employment was that it stiﬂed human
creativity (1960, 55–56; 1966, 55–56), which in turn hindered motivation. Central to McGregor’s (and Maslow’s) understanding of motivation and behavior is an assumption that all
people are inherently creative and innovative:
The key question isn’t “what fosters creativity?” but it is why in God’s name isn’t everyone
creative? Where was the human potential lost? How was it crippled? I think therefore a good
question might be not why do people create? But why do people not create or innovate?
(Maslow 1998, 13 [emphasis added]) For Maslow, creativity means the ability to innovate. This is demonstrated in his deﬁnition
of self-actualization. One can clearly see the link between creativity and innovation within
self-actualizers throughout Maslow’s works:
• Self-actualizers are “less bound, less enculturated. They are more spontaneous,
more natural, more human” (1970, 171).
• Enlightened management assumes everyone prefers to be a prime mover rather
than a passive helper (1998, 29).2
• “We learn from the T-Group experiences that creativeness is correlated with the
ability to withstand the lack of structure, the lack of future, the lack of predictability, of control, the tolerance for ambiguity, for planlessness” (1998, 220).
View Full Document