Unstacking Maslow's Hierarchy

In a brainstorming session in which I was attempting to explore the needs that drove a customer to purchase a specific product, I was abruptly interrupted by someone who declared, "Maslow was a communist."  My sense is that, given the source, it was simply a derailler but it seemed entirely inappropriate.  To suggest that someone's theories should be dismissed wholesale because of their political affiliation is as inappropriate as suggesting they should be dismissed because of their gender or their race.   But the more I think about it, the more I sense that there may be some substance to that remark - so this post is my way of mulling it over.

The Core Theory 

Maslow's hierarchy has always been a bit problematic, which his likely the reason so many people have attempted to tinker with it - reordering the layers and adding one or two new ones of their own.   As a quick refresher, consider the original theory: human beings have multiple concurrent needs but can only do one thing at a time, so in deciding what they do, they prioritize their needs according to a hierarchy, which according to Maslow is:

1. Physiological (Survival) - Addressing immediate threats to life and health 
2. Safety (Maintenance) - Securing what is needed for the future
3. Social (Belonging) - Establishing and maintaining relationships
4. Esteem (Prestige) - Being regarded as important/worthwhile
5. Self-Actualization (Growth) - Defining and fulfilling one's individual purpose

In essence, this hierarchy tells us that a person who is being chased by a bear has very little interest in mulling over what is his purpose in life and if he is achieving it.   And in general it makes good sense.   While there's the counter-argument that people aren't always calculated and rational, it's found that in a majority of everyday normal-life situations there is a sense of order and logic in choosing our pursuits.

Common Objections/Revisions

There is generally little argument over the first two levels of Maslow's original hierarchy: a person is generally most concerned with immediate threats to their survival and if they are not endangered at the moment they generally turn to ensuring their long-term survival by amassing the things they need to survive in the near-term. Regarding the original criticism, it's also worth noting that this concept is decidedly anti-communist, as the collectivist agenda is based on the sacrifice of the individual (even his life) for the welfare of the group.

But the top three levels of the hierarchy are less objective and universal.   In introverted person prioritizes personal growth over achieving prestige in the eyes of other people, and an extraverted person will often damage his relationships with others in order to gain personal esteem.   So it does seem that this section of Maslow's hierarchy reflects the political agenda of communism, or at least collectivism, and I can understand who some would find it objectionable.

It's also suggested that the top three levels are merely subcategories of the second level: that a person seeks personal growth or connectedness to others as a means of increasing his ability to secure what he needs to maintain his existence.  Self-actualization increases man's ability to provide for his own needs and social connections do the same by enabling him to count upon the cooperation and assistance of others to provide for him.  That is, they are means to serve a need, but not a need in themselves.   And this is an entirely valid criticism.

It is also the reason that one might label Maslow a communist or collectivist and suggest that his ideas have no validity in a capitalist-individualist society.  Unfortunately, that is binary thinking and an extremist oversimplification of the theories - collectivists acknowledge the importance of the individual and individualists recognize the value of the collective.   My sense is that it's necessary to consider the character and values of an individual to determine how he prioritizes his needs in the context of a specific situation.

Unstacking the Hierarchy

I don't favor completely dismissing Maslow, as his core theory explains much of human behavior under normal circumstances - which is at the same time to concede that it does not explain all of human behavior under all circumstances.   No theory does, but if we abandon theory altogether, we're left paralyzed.   The priorities of some people correspond very neatly to the hierarchy, but for others it simply needs to be adjusted.

It is entirely sensible and commonplace for an introverted individualist to be indifferent to what others think of him and thus pursue self-actualization over esteem whereas an extravert would value earning prestige in the eyes of others over achieving his personal objectives (or more aptly, prestige is his objective) - and both may at times show indifference to maintaining social relationships in pursuit of their primary goal, while at other times setting aside their primary goal for the sake of maintaining social relationships.

The shuffled hierarchy does mean that we cannot treat people all the same in all situations, which lacks the neatness and precision that we often seek in theories, but if it is to be of any practical use, it's necessary to abandon cleanliness for applicability.  We must consider the individual and his context to determine which of the third-tier needs he is likely to prioritize in the context of a given situation - and in so doing avoid the prejudice and bias that comes with the assumption that there is a default order.

Room for Improvement

In this exercise, I've simply unstacked Maslow's hierarchy of needs, preserving them in the same way that Maslow defined them.  My sense is that this is not quite enough due to the conflict between individual and collective orientations.   Both the introvert and the extravert may prioritize their personal agenda (to gain prestige or personal growth) over their interest in establishing and maintaining social connections.

I have noticed that the binary characterization of introversion and extraversion is being challenged more often these days: there are social introverts and sociopathic extraverts, and it may be necessary for that topic to be hashed out in more detail before returning to the hierarchy of needs and motivations.   But my sense is that for practical application, brainstorming the needs that a given product addresses, would include a more specific consideration of prospect and context and will sort this out rather neatly in a given selling situation.