Initially published in 1943, the title of Maslow’s paper is “A Theory of Human Motivation” (Maslow, 1943a). The theory contains four parts in 26 pages. The second of his four parts is subtitled “The Basic Needs.” This is where Maslow introduced a hierarchically organized list of needs, with the hierarchy organized through recognition of his principle of prepotency. In the 70-plus years since its initial publication, it is only this second part of Maslow’s original four-part context that is commonly recognized and generally accepted or understood as being Maslow’s theory of motivation. Generally speaking, the balance of his theory, the context of the other three parts, has been abandoned. At least one practical implication of this is that only the second part of his theory has come to be so widely recognized as “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.”
Turning now to Maslow’s mystery, as originally published in 1943, the first section of Maslow’s four-part theory is the two-page introduction. He wrapped up that introduction with the following:
It is far easier to perceive and to criticize the aspects in motivation theory than to remedy them. Mostly this is because of the very serious lack of sound data in this area. I conceive this lack of sound facts to be due primarily to the absence of a valid theory of motivation. The present theory then must be considered to be a suggested program or framework for future research and must stand or fall, not so much on facts available or evidence presented, as upon researches yet to be done, researches suggested perhaps, by the questions raised in this paper [bold added for emphasis]. (Maslow, 1943a, p. 371)
This passage from the end of his introduction suggests that, at least at the time Maslow wrote the theory, he saw it as a project that was somewhere between barely begun and far from finished. What were those researches that were yet to be done and what were those questions raised by his paper? Why haven’t we heard more about those? Why hasn’t his paper been the springboard to progress that he seemed to hope it would be when he wrote it? He labeled his paper a theory, but in wrapping up his introduction, he describes its intended role or function in terms that are at least equally if not more suited to a hypothesis than a theory. If he is describing the function of a theory, then we might agree that it must be a very early-stage theory, perhaps germinal. Then, 20 years after publication of his theory, I believe Maslow wondered about the same issues raised in this paragraph, but when he wrote in his personal journal it read more like this:
They spend so much time on so much crap. Why not spend some time on something critically important? I just don’t understand it. My motivation theory was published 20 years ago, & in all that time nobody repeated it, or tested it, or really analyzed it or criticized it. They just used it, swallowed it whole with only the most minor modifications. (cited in Lowry, 1979, p. 190)
This journal entry indicates a suspicion on Maslow’s part that, even allowing for the fame and acclaim accrued to his theory by that time (11 reprints later), there were somehow things related to it, things Maslow believed to be critically important, that were not gaining attention or being pursued to the extent he thought they should be. What was it about the reception to Maslow’s theory that, even after 20 years of evident success, left him fretting over his failure to understand? It seems he too may have been wondering about the failure of the audience to line up the researches suggested and wrestle the questions he believed were raised by his paper. What might have gone missing between him and the rest of us, and how might the communication loop be flawed? Or, if the loop is not necessarily flawed, perhaps it is just incomplete.
Regarding the relative completion or incompletion of a communication loop, for our end of the loop we have largely neglected (to a point of practical abandonment) over half of what Maslow gave us in his motivation theory to begin with. He may have failed to realize our partial abandonment in the coming, even as he lived through the earlier stages of it. My guess is, were Maslow here and updating his journal entry today, his perception of our reception might not be any clearer than it was at the time of his journal entry, which at the time of this, my own writing, is now 50-plus years ago.
In the quotation cited from Maslow’s journal, the third sentence sums it up. Twenty years following initial publication of his theory, he recognized some kind of misconnection between his work and its audiences; yet, it was a misconnection he couldn’t quite identify and didn’t understand. Presumably, the date of that journal entry would not have been the first time in 20 years that Maslow paused to wonder about the communication loop between his work and its audiences. Even while wondering about a suspected misconnection, it evidently still never occurred to him that we had vastly if not completely missed at least some key aspects of his theory that he recognized as being “critically important.” The reason we weren’t responding to those aspects of his theory was simple enough: We had missed them. I think the sheer magnitude of misconnection escaped him almost entirely.
The greater awareness one has for the historical significance of Maslow’s theory, the more likely it is that my claims will initially seem absurd. But despite the acclaim long since accrued to Maslow’s theory, I risk a suggestion that we have been—and are until now—missing the very aspects that he believed made it most valuable. To elaborate in brief, the hierarchy of needs is somewhat recognized for the contribution that it represents. But it cannot be fully appreciated or properly valued apart from the challenges and resulting opportunities it helps to establish. The greatest value, and the one generally missed from Maslow’s theory, resides in the challenging opportunities that the other three parts of his theory are able to pose by way of the hierarchy of needs from his second part. In simpler if less precise terms, it’s impossible to properly value the second part of Maslow’s four-part paper without the context of the other three parts. And the other three parts have been all but abandoned.
References
Lowry, R. J. (Ed.). (1979). The journals of A. H. Maslow (Vol. 1, p. 190). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Maslow, A. H. (1943a). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.