ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE

16, 334-349 (1976)

Measurement of Maslow's Need Hierarchy

VANCE F.
MITCHELL AND PRAVIN MOUDGILL

University of British Columbia

This paper describes a ten-item instrument for measurement of Maslow's need hierarchy. Data were obtained from 247 Certified General Accountants, 355 Chartered Accountants, and 290 Engineers and Scientists employed in public and private organizations across Canada. Responses were analyzed for five factors using oblique rotation. The factors corresponded to the security, social, esteem, autonomy, and self-fulfillment categories. Analysis for two factors resulted in separation of the security needs from the higher needs. There was no evidence for a deficiency-growth (Maslow, A. H., Toward a psychology of being. Toronto: van Nostrand, 1962) separation.

Psychologists concerned with human needs as determinants of behavior have been considerably influenced by Maslow's hierarchical theory of motivation (e.g., Argyris, 1964; Haire, 1956; McGregor, 1960; Schein, 1965). In a survey of significant contributions to management literature (Matteson, 1974), Maslow's (1943) article was ranked second among 1,694 total article citations. Roberts (Note 3) listed over 200 citations of Maslow's works in publications after 1965 in a bibliography which concerns itself with human motivation needs: Over 140 authors were represented. The topics included organizational behavior and systems, psychological needs and satisfactions, teacher education, employee needs and expectations, leadership and management, political behavior, and job performance. There are three aspects to any study of human behavior: (i) identification of variables of interest, the identification mode; (ii) discovering the relationship among them, the association mode; and (iii) manipulating certain variables (including selection of individuals based on these variables) towards a given end, the application mode. Maslow (1943, 1954) posits in the identification mode that human needs can be categorized as physiological, safety, love, esteem, and selfactualization needs. A dynamic relationship among these need categories is postulated in the association mode: a hierarchy of prepotency, with the physiological needs being most prepotent. In the application mode he suggests that facilitation of self-actualization leads to beneficial consequences both for the individual and society.
This work was supported by grants from The Institute of Industrial Relations and the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, University of British Columbia. Helpful comments by Larry L. Cummings, Edward E. Lawler, and Lyman W. Porter on an earlier draft of this paper are gratefully acknowledged. 334
Copyright 1976 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

MEASUREMENT

OF MASLOW'S

NEED HIERARCHY

335

In spite of Maslow's theory having "greatly influenced management thought and/or research" (Matteson, 1974, p. 386), there is little evidence for it in either the association or identification modes. See, e.g., a review of empirical evidence by Wahba and Bridwell (1974). In two longitudinal studies Hall and Nougaim (1968) and Lawler and Suttle (1972), for example, found little support for the view that the needs of managers can be arranged in a hierarchy of prepotency. That is, the associations suggested by Maslow do not necessarily hold. Studies by Payne (1970) and Roberts, Walter, and Miles (1971), among others, suggest that Maslow's constructs have not been adequately operationalized. In other words, it has not been possible thus far to even empirically identify (and measure) the various need categories. Because of the widespread interest in the theory and the considerable body of literature based upon Maslow's work, further empirical investigation seemed important. It was proposed to conduct separate tests of the theory in each of the three modes. The research reported here sought to obtain evidence for Maslow's theory of human needs in the identification mode.
MEASUREMENT OF MASLQW'S HIERARCHY

Maslow's constructs were first operationalized by Porter (1961) in his well-known Management Position Questionnaire. The physiological needs of the respondents were assumed to have been adequately satisfied and therefore were not included. An additional category, "autonomy," was inserted between the esteem and self-actualization categories. The security (safety), social (love), esteem, autonomy, and self-actualization needs were elicited by one, two, three, four, and three items, respectively. There have been several attempts to obtain evidence for Maslow's need categories by factor analyzing the Porter items (or modifications thereof). The studies however failed, by and large, to obtain evidence for Maslow's theory of human needs in the identification mode. Some of these are reviewed below: Webber and Hadd (Note 4) factor analyzed responses to the 13 Porter items obtained from subjects employed in 29 state and public organizations. The number of factors to be rotated was determined by Cattell's Scree Test, and orthogonal rotation used to reach a terminal solution. The factors obtained corresponded with prior security, esteem, and autonomy categories. One of the "social" items loaded on the self-actualization factor. The self-actualization items loaded on the self-actualization factor as well as other factors. Waters and Roach (1973) obtained responses to the 13 Porter items from male managerial personnel in a particular organization. The de-

336

MITCHELL AND MOUDGILL

ficiency scores on these 13 items plus three other noncategorized items were analyzed using varimax rotation. The four factors obtained did not correspond to the modified Maslow need categories. Herman and Hulin (1973) factor analyzed responses to the 13 Porter items using four sets of subjects sampled from four different populations. They analyzed deficiency scores, "is now," "should be," and "importance" responses, and deficiency scores weighted by importance responses. Varimax and oblimax criteria were used to rotate the first five factors in each case. The resulting factors did not correspond to the five need categories in any of the analyses. Schneider and Alderfer (1973) factor analyzed the 13 Porter items modified for use with nurses. Factors with an eigenvalue ~> 1.00 were rotated using the varimax criterion. The two factors obtained showed little similarity to Maslow's need categories. Another instrument for measuring Maslow's need categories was designed and tested by Roberts et al. (1971). Using 12 variables to operationalize the hierarchy (six of which were modifications of Porter items) they analyzed de ficiency scores and "importance," "should be," and "is now" responses. In all cases they found that factors obtained by orthogonal rotation did not conform to Maslow's conceptually derived need categories. Payne (1970) factor analyzed responses to 8 of the 13 Porter items (modified wording) using orthogonal rotation. Using two sets of subjects sampled from two different populations, the study failed to establish the descriptive validity of Maslow's need classification scheme. The foregoing studies had the following in common: First, they used Porter items in either the original or a modified form. Second, with the exception of the Webber and Hadd (Note 5) study, the data were limited to organizational samples; the studies focused on respondents within particular organizations. Finally, factor analysis was used to identify the constructs, and with the exception of the use of the oblimax criterion of rotation by Herman and Hulin (1973), orthogonal rotation was used to reach a terminal solution. Though reasons for choice of factor analysis as a technique were not made explicit by the researchers, the technique is in fact suitable for theory testing in the present context. Among its many applications (see Rummel, 1970, for details) factor analysis has (i) confirmatory uses--the testing of hypotheses about structuring of variables in terms of the expected number of significant factors and factor loadings; and (ii) is also used as a measuring device--the construction of indices to be used as new variables in later analysis. The studies cannot therefore be faulted for the choice of factor analysis as the multivariate analytic technique for obtaining evidence for Maslow's theory in the identification mode.

MEASUREMENT OF MASLOW'S NEED HIERARCHY

337

Orthogonal rotation is a technique which forces independent factors. Use of this technique is justified when there is prior reason to believe that (i) the constructs under measurement are conceptually independent, and (ii) it is possible for them to vary independently. Most desires and drives do not meet either requirement. It may be noted that ascription of different labels does not insure separation of constructs, but that independence depends rather upon the nature of the phenomena themselves. Thus even though they may exhibit similar empirical intercorrelation, the constructs "teen-agers" and "young adults," for example, are less conceptually independent than, say, the constructs age and weight. It is suggested that Maslow's need categories are not conceptually totally independent. "There is usually such an overlapping that it is almost impossible to separate quite clearly and sharply any one drive from any other" (Maslow, 1954, p. 71). This interdependence is also emphasized by Alderfer (1969):
At a purely conceptual level it is not clear where safety needs depart from physiological needs, on the one hand, and love needs on the o t h e r . . . A similar point may be made regarding esteem needs. In this case the overlap seems to be between love needs and self-actualization needs (p. 145; emphasis added).

Further, it logically stands to reason that fulfillment of a particular need is influenced by fulfillment of a lower order need. For example, fulfillment of the need for self-esteem is influenced by fulfillment of the need for an opportunity to give help to other people. That is, the more able one is to help others, the greater the esteem for one's self. Similarly esteem is also affected by the fulfillment of a higher need; e.g., authority. The greater the authority the greater the esteem. Thus we conclude that the nonphysiological needs are interdependent, both conceptually and as empirically indicated by previous studies. It is suggested, therefore, that in view of the overlap among needs, attempts to obtain Maslow's need categories through independent factors are conceptually erroneous. Identification of factors through oblique rotation, a technique which allows for interdependence among the underlying constructs, is believed to be methodologically more appropriate. Herman and Hulin (1973) were the first to depart from the tradition of orthogonal rotation. The oblimax criterion used by them yields an oblique solution. It is suggested however, that this too is inappropriate for the type of data under analysis:
Oblimax yields an oblique solution very close to an intuitive graphical solution if the data have a clean simple structure, In geometric terms, if the variable-points fall into clusters close to each axis, then oblimax will determine a highly satisfactory oblique structure. If, however, the data are highly complex-- the variable-points are spread throughout the space without clear breaks----oblimax may be unsatisfactory (Rummel, 1970, p. 412; emphasis in the original).

As will be discussed later, syndrome data (Maslow, 1954) do not neces-

338

MITCHELL

AND MOUDGILL

sarily possess a clean simple structure. Use of a technique which presumes natural clustering is not expected to obtain "clean" factors with complex data, especially when the prior classification is itself somewhat arbitrary. In view of the nature of the data and the shortcomings of rotation techniques which presume independence or a clean simple structure, it was decided to use an oblique rotation technique appropriate for analysis of complex data. As noted earlier, the studies reviewed above used data limited to intraorganizational samples in addition to using inappropriate rotation techniques. It is possible that measurement of the hierarchy was confounded by organizational factors. The relative success of the Webber and Hadd (Note 5) study tends to support this conclusion. Maslow (1954) warned that any theory of motivation must take into account the environment. He stressed "behavior is determined by several classes of determinants of which motivation is one and environmental forces is another" (p. 75). Thus in order to avoid possible contamination, it was decided to control for organizational variables by random selection of subjects across organizations. The six studies reviewed above used Porter items in the original or modified form to measure need fulfillment. The Porter items have a certain face validity. There are no prior reasons why they may be inappropriate for operationalization of Maslow' s need hierarchy. In view of lack of evidence to the contrary it was decided to continue to use a modified form of the Porter items together with additional items to test the theory in the association mode.
METHOD The data for the present study were obtained by mailing a questionnaire to Canadian Certified General Accountants (CGAs), Chartered Accountants (CAs), and Engineers and Scientists (ENGRs). The population was stratified by province, and an equal proportion of subjects were selected at random within each province. Responses were obtained from 247 CGAs, 355 CAs, and 290 ENGRs. The response rate was 58, 53, and 64%, respectively. The respondents were either self-employed, or worked in positions ranging from nonsupervisory to top management in industrial, service, commercial, and public organizations throughout Canada. The organizations represented employed from a minimum of one to a maximum of more than 100,000 employees and varied in scope from local establishments to operation on an international scale. The respondents were between 20 to 60 years of age, and varied in educational background from some secondary school education to postgraduate degrees. Most of the functions of an organization were represented.

MEASUREMENT OF MASLOW'S NEED HIERARCHY

339

A large number of questions were generated from Maslow's descriptions of various needs and behaviors which reflect these needs. Twentyfour management position characteristics (including the 13 original Porter items), 21 of which were concerned with need satisfaction, were selected from the larger set by three panels of judges. Each panel was comprised of

TABLE 1 MASLOW CATEGORIES AND ITEMS SUPPOSEDLY MEASURING THEM Item designation SEC 1 SEC 2 SEC 3 SEC 4 SEC 5"

Maslow category Security needs

Items to measure The amount of predictability and order in one's position The amount of ambiguity (that is, the extent to which one is uncertain just what is expected of one]' The amount to which the job interferes with one's personal lifeb The threat of change which could make one's present skills or knowledge obsolete b The feeling of insecurity associated with one's positionb

Social needs

The opportunity to give help to other people SOC Ia The opportunity for conversation and exchange of ideas with colleagues and co-workers SOC 2 The opportunity to meet others outside the work group SOC 3 The opportunity for developing close friendships SOC 4~ The feeling of self-esteem a person gets in one's position Prestige inside the organization (i.e., regard received from others within the organization) Prestige outside the organization (i.e., regard from others n o t in the organization) Recognition or credit from co-workers when one does a good job The opportunity for independent thought and action The opportunity for participating in the determination of methods and procedures The authority connected with one's position The opportunity for participating in the setting of goals EST Ia EST 2a EST 3a EST 4 AUT 1a AUT 2a AUT 3a
AUT 4a

Esteem needs

Autonomy needs

Self-fulfillment (Self-actualization) needs

The opportunity for personal growth and development S E L I a The feelings of worthwhile accomplishment associated with one's position SEL 2~ The opportunity for doing original or creative work SEL 3 The feeling of self-fulfillment a person gets in one's position SEL 4a

a Items which correspond to the Porter Questionnaire. b Reverse scored.

340

MITCHELL AND MOUDGILL

three members of the Faculty of Commerce, University of British Columbia. Items on which there was complete unanimity regarding the category of need tapped were retained. The items were arranged randomly within the respective parts of the questionnaire, but are presented systematically according to their respective need categories in Table 1. Instructions to the respondents were similar to tho se in Porter (1961). "Is now," ' should be," and "importance" responses were obtained. The direct oblimin criterion of rotation with delta = - 0 . 5 is appropriate for analysis of moderately complex data and is biased towards moderate interfactor correlations (see Rummel, 1970, for further details). Based on the assumption that the data were at least moderately complex the above criterion was selected for rotation to obtain a terminal solution. Multiple r ~ were used to obtain communality.
RESULTS The "is now" responses to the 21 items were analyzed for five factors by bypassing the eigenvalue control. The results of the analysis for the

TABLE 2 FACTOR ANALYSIS OF RESONSES OF CGAs (N = 247)

Item designation
SEC 1 SEC 2 SEC 3 SEC 4 SEC 5 SOC 1 SOC 2 SOC 3 SOC 4 EST 1 EST 2 EST 3 EST 4 AUT 1 AUT 2 AUT 3 AUT 4 SEL 1 SEL 2 SEL 3 SEL 4

Security
0.46 0.65 0.32 0.45 O.65

Social

esteem

Autonomy

Self-fulfillment

0,48 0.67 0.38 0.34 0.57 0.59 0.68 0.44 0.64 0.56 0.71 0.50 0.33 0.56 0.40 0.55 0.52 7.48 35.6 62.0

Eigenvalue Percent variance Cumulative percentage

2.13 10.2 10.2

1.35 6.4 16.6

0.96 4.6 21.2

1.09
5.2 26.4

MEASUREMENT OF MASLOW'S NEED H I E R A R C H Y

341

CGAs and CAs are presented in Tables 2 and 3. It was not possible to obtain levels of statistical significance for factor loadings for oblique rotation. Such information was available however for orthogonal solutions, and loadings ~> 0.30 were significant at o~ = 0.001. Consequently it was decided to report factor loadings ~> 0.30 only. The loading pattern displayed close correspondence with Maslow's classification in the case of the CGAs. While 5 of the 21 items loaded on two factors each and 2 security items loaded on the esteem factor in the case of the CAs there was some correspondence to the Maslow categories. An attempt was made to improve correspondence with Maslow categories by discarding items which did not load as expected. Two items each were selected from each category, and the "is now" responses of the CGAs and CAs were analyzed for five factors. The loading pattern of the ten items displayed close correspondence with the Maslow categories. This suggests that they did in fact measure the "is now" aspect of the five nonphysiological needs. In order to obtain further support for the instru-

TABLE 3 FACTOR ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES OF C A s (N = 355)

Item designation
SEC 1 SEC 2 SEC 3 SEC 4 SEC 5 SOC 1 SOC 2 SOC 3 SOC 4 EST 1 EST 2 EST 3 EST 4 AUT 1 AUT 2 AUT 3 AUT 4 SEL 1 SEL 2 SEL 3 SEL 4

Security

Social

Esteem
0.36 0.31

Autonomy

Self-fulfillment

0.42 O.49 0.57 0.39 0.39 0.58 0.60 0.37 0.61 0,40 0.42 0.90 0,31 0,52

-0.32

0.33

0.45

0.41

0.43 1.68 8.0 89.0 1.41 6.7 14.7 1.21 5.7 20.4

Eigenvalue Percent variance Cumulative percentage

1.06
5.0 25.4

0.40 0.53 0.32 0.57 6.63 31.6 57.0

342

MITCHELL

AND MOUDGILL

ment, the deficiency ("should b e " - - " i s now") and "importance" scores were also factor analyzed. Again there was close correspondence with the need categories. The ten-item instrument was then tested for validity by factor analyzing the three sets of scores obtained from the ENGRs. The factor pattern corresponded with the prior categories in each case. The factor structures were tested for stability by a split-sample stability check. The canonical correlations between the two sets of factors in each of the three sets of scores for each of the three samples were highly significant. The ten items loading on five factors explained from 72.8 to 80.3% of the total variance in the above nine analyses. The analyses are presented in Tables 4, 5, and 6. In order to further justify choice of direct oblimin over the orthogonal or oblimax criteria of rotation, the ten items above were also analyzed for five factors by using the varimax and oblimax criteria. The eigenvalue control was bypassed. The factors obtained did not correspond to Maslow's need categories in any instance. The factor correlation matrices were examined for structure--the patterns and degree of complexity of the data. (The matrices are presented in Table 7.) It may be noted that the social, esteem, autonomy, and selffulfillment needs display a tendency to cluster, with a "natural cleavage" between these and the security needs. The raw data were analyzed for two factors to confirm this tendency. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 8: all the high-order needs tend to load on one factor, while the security items either do not load at all or else load on the second factor.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Two-Way Classification
Barnes (Note 1), Harrison (Note 2), and Lawler (1973) have proposed a two-step hierarchy of human needs. Wahba and Bridwell (1974) found indications that low-order and high-order needs may form some sort of hierarchy (p. 518). Maslow himself suggested t h a t " t h e lower needs are far more localized, more tangible, and more limited than are the higher needs" (1954, p. 150). Our analysis tends to support this distinction. Evidence for a two-way classification does not however constitute evidence against a five-way classification: As explained below the two are not mutually exclusive. It must be remembered that the number of factors rotated, five and two, was arbitrarily determined (based on some prior considerations, of course). The variables could just as easily have been analyzed for three or four factors. The fact that a two-factor analysis can be successfully interpreted does not mean that the same data cannot be analyzed for five factors.

TABLE 4 FACTOR ANALYSIS OF ~S NOW SCORES CAs (N = 355) E N G R s (N = 290)

CGAs (N = 247)

Item designation Security Social Esteem A u t o n o m y Self-fulfillment Security Social Esteem A u t o n o m y Self-fulfillment Security Social Esteem A u t o n o m y Self-fulfillment 0.76 0,48 0.49 -0.47 0.32 0.80 0.42 0.72 0.69 4.29 42.9 80.3 13.7 22.9 30.5 40.1 76.9 13.7 9.2 7.6 9.6 36.8 1.37 0.92 0.76 0.96 3.68 0.42 0.73 0.67 1.33 13.3 13.3 0.76 7.6 30.9 0.86 8.6 29.5 0.69 0.47 0.33 0.68 0.65 0.38 0.31 0.40 0.66 0.74 0.62 0.73 0.89 8.9 38.4 3.88 38.8 77.2 0.62 0.48 Z ,q

0,66 0.61

0.52 0.72

0.41 0.76

SEC 4 SEC 5 SOC 1 SOC 2 EST 1 EST 2 AUT 2 AUT 4 SEL 2 SEL 4

0.59 0.71

1.48

0.95

0.62

0.69

14.8

9.5

6.2

6.9

Eigenvalue Percent variance Cumulative percentage Canonical correlation (factor stability check 0.93 0.98 0.96 0.87 0.99 0.99

14.8

24.3

30.5

37.4

0.85

0.99

0.99

0.99

0.98

0.92

0.97

0.99

0.99

4~ tad

TABLE 5
FACTOR ANALYSIS OF IMPORTANCE SCORES

C G A s (N = 247)

CAs (N = 355)

E N G R s (N = 290)

Item designation Security Social Esteem A u t o n o m y Self-fulfiUment Security Social Esteem A u t o n o m y Self-fulfillment Security Social Esteem A u t o n o m y Self-fulfillment 0.67 0,69 0.51 0.63 0.55 0.62 0.60 0.77 0.69 0.83 0.60 0.71 1,46 14.6 14,6 24.2 34,6 61.7 9.6 10.4 27.1 0.96 1.04 2.71 1.21 12.1 73.8 1.09 10.9 10.9 0.60 6.0 16.9 0.80 8.0 24.9 4.62 46.2 71.1 0.75 0.44 0.73 0.43 0.69 0.46 0.76 0.38 0.75 0.44 0.84 8.4 79.5 ,q t--' Z ~7 0

0.75 0.67

0.64

0.47 0.70

SEC 4 SEC 5 SOC 1 SOC 2 EST 1 EST 2 AUT 2 AUT 4 SEL 2 SEL 4

0.48 0.80

1.50 10.3 74.8

0.79

1.01

3.15

1.03

15.0

7.9

10.1

31.5

15.0

22.9

33.0

64.5

Eigenvalue Percent variance Cumulative percentage Canonical correlation (factor stability check) 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.65 0.79

0.98

0.99

0.99

0,83

0.99

0.98

0.49 ~ 0.97

0.99

0.99

TABLE 6 FACTOR ANALYSIS OF DEFICIENCY SCORES CAs (N = 355) E N G R s (N = 290)

CGAs (N = 247)

Item designation Security Social Esteem A u t o n o m y Self-fulfillment Security Social Esteem A u t o n o m y Self-fulfiUment Security Social Esteem A u t o n o m y Self-fulfillment r~ 0.50 0,37 0.63 0.51 0.54 0.36 0.63 0.77 0.72 0.60 1.03 3.46 34.6 72.8 10.3 10.3 21,8 29.7 38.2 11.5 7.9 8.5 1.15 0.79 0.85 1.26 12.6 12.6 0.75 7.5 20.1 1.05 10.5 30.6 9.84 8.4 39.0 3.66 36.6 76.4 0.43 0.78 0.58 0.55 0.72 0.56 0.48 0.77 0.58 0.65 3.59 35.9 74.9 0.66 0.41 > t-

0.55 0.42

0.53 0.73

0.62 0.68

SEC 4 SEC 5 SOC 1 SOC 2 EST 1 EST 2 AUT 2 AFT 4 SEL 2 SEL 4

0.35 0.75

1.11

1.27

0.85

0.75

11.1

12.7

8.5

7.5

11.1

23,8

32.3

39.8

~7
(3

Eigenvalue Percent variance Cumulative percentage Canonical corrlation (factor stability check) 0,91 0.99 0.99 0,99 0.96 0.31

0.99

0.99

0.35

0.95

0.99

0.99

0.44

0.94

0.99

346

MITCHELL

AND MOUDGILL

TABLE 7
CORRELATION MATRIX OF THE FACTORS OBTAINED IN TABLES 4, 5, AND 6 a

Security Security Social Esteem Autonomy Self-fulfillment Security Social Esteem Autonomy Self-fulfillment Security Social Esteem Autonomy Self-fulfillment 1.00 .01 b .12(7) -.05(3) .11(6) 1.00 -.11(6) -. 10(6) -.13(7) -.13(7) 1.00 .03(2) .07(4) .09(5) .12(7)

Social

Esteem

Autonomy

Self-fulfillment

Is now 1.00 .32(19) 1.00 .39(23) .32(19) .38(22) .46(27) Importance 1.00 .30(18) 1.00 .45(27) .28(16) .27(16) .32(19) Deficiency 1.00 .27(16) 1.00 .32(19) .37(22) .33(19) .46(27)

1.00 .42(25)

1.00

1.00 .39(23)

1.00

1.00 .47(28)

1.00

a The figures reported are averages of the factor correlations for the CGAs, CAs, and ENGRs. b The numbers in brackets are the angles between two factors expressed in degrees of deviation from 90. The angle between the social and security factors in the case of "is now," e.g., is 90 - 1 = 89, while that between autonomy and security is 90 + 3 = 93.

It must also be u n d e r s t o o d that while dealing with syndrome data (Maslow, 1954), classification o f needs is based on the fundamental concept o f " b e i n g contained within" rather than " b e i n g separate f r o m " ; analogous to that used for classifying material on a histological slide under a microscope. The required level of abstraction of generality is arbitrarily determined. (See, e.g., discussion in Lawler, 1973: pp. 3 1 - 3 2 . ) The need categories do not imply mutual exclusiveness. The n u m b e r o f categories obtained d e p e n d s u p o n the level o f " m a g n i f i c a t i o n " desired. Porter (1961), for example, identified six categories o f needs, while Huizinga (1970) identified seven in contrast to the five originally postulated by Maslow. Schneider (Note 4) reported that the five nonphysiological needs loaded on three factors as follows: self-actualization and autonomy, security and social, and esteem. While natural lines of cleavage or cluster boundaries provide initial clues, the n u m b e r of categories is determined in the final analysis by the level o f specificity desired. Discussion o f a t w o - w a y classification versus a

TABLE
OF RESPONSES FOR

8
USING OBLIQUE ROTATION

ANALYSIS

Two
FACTORS

Item Deficiency 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Is n o w Deficiency Is n o w

Is n o w

CGAs Importance CAs Importance

ENGRs Importance 2

Deficiency I 2

designation

* *
* * ~ *

* *
*

SEC SEC SOC SOC EST EST

* * * * * * * ~ * *

4 5 1 2 1 2

* * * *

* * * *

* ,g

AFT

AFT
* * * *

*
*

SEL 2 SEL 4

* *

* *

a A b s o l u t e v a l u e o f the l o a d i n g o n the f a c t o r p a t t e r n m a t r i x 1> 0 . 3 0 .

t~a 4~ --..I

348

MITCHELL

AND MOUDGILL

five-way classification is therefore not profitable. What is interesting is that analysis for two factors resulted in a separation of the security needs from the higher needs. Maslow (1962) had suggested a two-level deficiency-growth hierarchy. The physiological, safety, love, and esteem needs were perceived as deficiency needs while the need for self-actualization was a growth need. Separation of the self-actualization needs from the rest was therefore to be expected. Our data, however, failed to support the deficiency-growth classification. The security needs were more "different" from the remaining higher needs than the self-actualization needs were from the deficiency needs. It must be remembered however that a truly self-actualized individual is more of an exception than the rule in the organizational context. Maslow himself was able to isolate in his clinical sample, only three fairly sure and two highly probable self-actualized contemporaries, five contemporaries who fairly certainly fell short somewhat but who could be used for the study, and 20 younger people who seemed to be developing in the direction of self-actualization. (See Maslow, 1954, pp. 200-203.) In a later publication (1970, p. xx) Maslow stated categorically that selfactualization does not occur in young people and confined the concept very definitely to older people. Most of the employees in a traditional w o r k organization would thus fail to m e e t his definition of selfactualization. It is not surprising therefore that analysis of data obtained from a population which was probably not self-actualized failed to result in a deficiency-growth classification.

Five-Way Classification
The factors obtained through oblique rotation corresponded to the conceptually derived categories for all three samples for all three sets o f scores (i.e., "is now," "importance," and deficiency). Based on the logic of inherent interdependence of needs in the need hierarchy, the ten-item revised instrument (containing eight original Po~er items) is therefore presented as a reasonably successful operationalization of Maslow's constructs. Wahba and Bridwell (1974) in their review and evaluation of empirical research related to Maslow's Need Hierarchy Theory concluded that (i) descriptive validity of Maslow's need classification scheme is not established (identification mode); and that there is no strong evidence for the (ii) deprivation/domination and the (iii) gratification/activation propositions (association mode). It is not possible to systematically and rigorously test these two propositions unless construct validity of the Maslow conceptual framework is established first. It is believed that the present instrument will permit a more rigorous analysis of the dynamics of Maslow's theory than has been possible in the past.

MEASUREMENT OF MASLOW'S NEED HIERARCHY

349

REFERENCES
Alderfer, C. P. An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and ttuman Performance, 1969, 4, 142-175. Argyris, C. Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: Wiley, 1964. Hake, M., Psychology in management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Hall, D. T., & Nougaim, K. E. An examination of Maslow's need hierarchy in an organizational setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1968, 3, 12-35. Herman, J. B., & Hulin, C. L. Managerial satisfactions and organizational roles: An investigation of Porter's Need Deficiency Scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 57, 118-124. Huizinga, G. Maslow's need hierarchy in a work situation. The Netherlands: WoltersNoordhoff nu Groninger, 1970. Lawler, E. E., & Suttle, J. L. A causal correlational test of the need hierarchy concept. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, 7, 265-287. Lawler, E. E. Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1973. McGregor, D. The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. Maslow, A. H. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 1943, 50, 370-396. Maslow, A. H. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper, 1954. Maslow, A. H. Toward a psychology of being. Toronto: Van-Nostrand, 1962. Maslow, A. H. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper, 1970. 2rid Ed. Matteson, M. T. Some reported thoughts on significant management literature. Academy of Management Journal, 1974, 17, 386-389. Payne, R. Factor analysis of a Maslow-type need satisfaction questionnaire. Personnel Psychology, 1970, 23, 251-268. Porter, L. W. A study of perceived need satisfactions in bottom and middle management jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, 45, 1-10. Roberts, K. H., Walter, G. A., & Miles, R. E. A factor analytic study of job satisfaction items designed to measure Maslow's need categories. Personnel Psychology, 1971, 24, 205-220. Rummel, R. J. Applied factor analysis. Evanston: Northwestern Univ. Press, 1970. Schein, E. H. Organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1965. Schneider, B., & Alderfer, C. P. Three studies of measures of need satisfaction in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1973, 18, 489-505. Wahba, M. A., & Bridwell, L. G. Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1974, 514-520. Waters, L. K., & Roach, D., A factor analysis of need-fulfillment items designed to measure Maslow need categories. Personnel Psychology, 1973, 26, 185-190.

REFERENCE NOTES
1. Barnes, L. B. Organizational systems and engineering groups. Boston: Harvard Graduate School of Business, 1960. 2. Harrison, R. A conceptual framework for laboratory training. Unpublished manuscript, 1966. 3. Roberts, T. B. Maslow's human motivation needs hierarchy: A bibliography. De Kalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University, 1972. 4. Schneider, B. Personal communication reported in Alderfer (1969). 1968. 5. Webber, R. J., & Hadd, T. A factor analytic examination of the internal structure of a Maslow-type Need Satisfaction Instrument. Paper presented at the 82nd Annual Convention of the APA, 1974. RECEIVED: November 25, 1974