This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: nd
differently than those moving up. For example, a person who has satisﬁed his or her esteem
needs will continue to be self-motivated even when facing problems with lower-order needs
satisfaction (Rowan 1999, 129–30). Alternatively, another person in similar circumstances
may be overly anxious about the possibility of the loss of esteem-needs satisfaction and engage in unproductive behavior.6 Simply because the work environment of the 1990s and
into the twenty-ﬁrst century is more uncertain than that of the 1960s, this does not imply that
workers will then require a more or less directive style of management in order to generate
It has been argued that because Maslow consciously rejected standard scientiﬁc methods in developing his theory, any criticisms based on scientiﬁc ﬁndings are reductionist.
This argument is disingenuous on two levels. First, it misinterprets Maslow’s intent. Maslow
always intended his work to be scientiﬁc or, at least, subsequently supported by empirical
work (1968, 220; 1998, 70–71), but he knew he was dealing with a new, relatively unexplored topic (Heylighen 1992). He chose a methodology that was “primitive,” not “unscientiﬁc” or “metascientiﬁc.” He anticipated that social science would evolve new methods
with which to explore and (he hoped) validate his theory. Second, by denying that his work
is scientiﬁc, one neatly sidesteps the very real problem that scientiﬁc evidence simply does
Rowan does not make this point in his article, but it is logically implied by his discussion and certainly by
6 Bobic and Davis A Kind Word for Theory X not conﬁrm Maslow’s hypotheses. Even if Maslow intended his model to be a holistic approach to human motivation, scientiﬁc veriﬁcation is at least a part of holistic theory.
Maslow’s critics do not challenge the notion that people are motivated by a drive to satisfy needs. Nor do they challenge the particular needs identiﬁed in Maslow’s hier...
View Full Document