During the folly filled days of my youth, I once gave a student a mark of zero (yes, nada, nil, nothing, zilch) for a particular weekly homework assignment. The fact that he later married a good friend of mine and on the rare occasion that I am home, we even see each other socially is a different story altogether, but I remember exactly the reason why I gave him a big fat zero. He was asked to discuss an information systems related question, and he took the Maslow's Hierarchies of Needs approach.

Not quite what the answer scheme dictated, meaning he missed all of the key points upon which I could award marks, and being the lowest in the pecking order of academicians at that point denied me the right to award marks for creativity. But had I been given the choice, I would probably have. Because as far as modern, secular motivation theories go, I think Abraham Maslow's Pyramid of Human Needs could be suited to explain most incentivisation dilemmas. Yes, I think his theory rocks. Big time.

Maslow theory of needs

Abraham Maslow (1908 1970) was an American psychologist who developed a theory of human needs presented as a pyramid, to denote the levels of needs human beings need to achieve before ascending to the next level of needs. He contends that unless lower, base needs are satisfied, the human being would not care for or would desire the needs higher up in the pyramid.

The needs, as depicted below, are physiological needs, safety, love & belonging, esteem and actualisation. In other words, if a human being's physiological needs are not satisfied, he would not care for, or be motivated by incentives that meet his esteem or actualisation needs.




OK, so maybe this isn't the complete picture Maslow is (was) an existentialist thinker and a humanistic theorist. And Maslow did revise his theories to include neurotic elements later on; and I am not paid enough as a research student to totally branch out into psychology (hint hint) but this is the gist of his theory that management students are familiar with. (Any and all corrections from psych scholars are much appreciated).

What I think is so great about Maslow's theory is that it explains human motivation and incentive needs in almost every situation. And understanding what makes people tick is crucial when you want to rule the world. Because that's how you make people do things for you. Either that, or go buy lots of nuclear bombs and threaten to use them every other day. But I'm a peacenik. I prefer suggestive persuasion. Bottom line is, if you want to motivate people, you need to know what gets them going. You have a stick, at the end of which you want to dangle a carrot. But only by understanding the nature of the rabbit, would you then be able put the right type of carrot on the end of the stick.

The way Maslow's theory works is simple. He argues that the average human being has physiological needs first. Sleep. Food. Water. Oxygen. Once those needs are satisfied, they would then want safety. A good home. Security. Once all that has been met, would only they pay attention to finding love, or a community within which they can belong. Esteem follows that, and then, self-actualisation. And when the needs of the lower rungs perish, the need for the upper rungs perish. Like when you've been swept away at sea, floating on a random piece of wooden plank. You don't quite care about much except staying alive. The average man, Maslow contends, usually has the first three lower rungs of the pyramid down pat. The key to induce behaviour is to tap into the upper two rungs.

The way Maslow's theory is used in management, is to identify how to best reward managers for a job well done. Someone who has his basic needs satisfied, for instance, will want more than a meagre pay packet at the end of every month. He will want promotion and recognition just as much. And if you fail to see to this need, to reassure your employees that they are of worth to the corporation that's the point where you start losing them.

Motivating people

Sometimes we try to motivate people by persuading them with the more aesthetic aspects of motivation, not realising that we haven't quite cornered the market on their physiological needs, so to speak. For instance, motivating people to do things out of a sense of 'patriotism'. It's all good to say you can do things out love when all our pockets are nicely lined, but will patriotism pay one's hospital bills? OK, sure, one's insurance policy really should be covering that, but do you have enough money to take out insurance policies for you, your wife (since according to some, wives are not to be breadwinners you as the MAN should provide) and your 2.5 kids; when half your salary goes to paying for a car that should be ten times cheaper, and a lot of what is left over after bills and food go to paying for petrol? I mean, you'd take the LRT to work if you could, but not everyone lives in the heart of KL, you know?

Now I think, if you study the pyramid properly, it is really the tool with which you can take over the world. There are many things you can use to your advantage. For instance, say you are a politician, and you want to win votes. How do you tap into the hearts of the desire of the people whom you want to vote for you? Yup, just try to figure out where the majority of them lie on the pyramid. For as long as people insist on using a simple majority to decide election outcomes, all you need to think about is the majority. If you've got a constituent who's more basic needs are yet to be fully satisfied, then you're in luck. Promise them more jobs. A new clinic. More schools. Chances are, you may not even have to fulfil all the promises. After all, it's hardly ever actions that matter in politics; it's more the promise of action.

If you want to get a bit crueller, you could try some reverse psychology. Instead of offering them the basic needs, threaten them with the loss of those needs. Especially useful when dealing with groups of people who are beginning to climb into the echelons of self-esteem needs on that pyramid. If you can instil enough fear in them that by not voting for you, they will lose things like security, safety and the sort.. who knows. Maybe that's just good enough to get more 'X's next to your name on the ballot paper.

So yeah, I happen to think that Maslow's theory makes a lot of sense. If you're a fan of the tv series Lost, you can even see this in action. How being alive came first. Then shelter. Then wanting to belong. And then that's where the conflicts arise: the need for esteem boosting; wanting to be a leader. Characters who strive to be different, because that's what affects their esteem. See what I just did there? I explained Lost using Maslow's theory. I told you it can explain almost everything.

IDLAN ZAKARIA is so sleepy, it is not funny anymore.