Mike Smith's reply to >John Woods comments on the "bottom" part of
Maslow's hierarchy, and the need to address survival needs in order to
move up the hierarchy.
Mike said
>I have recently begun to wonder if one can address survival by focusing on
>survival. In our current situation, it may require that we focus on the
>"top" of the hierarchy in order to accomplish survival.
Although I believe it is possible for us to look at Maslow's hierarchy not
as a series of steps that happen one 'after' the other, but a sort of
looping spiral that makes it possible for an individual to be in two
places at the same time. Moving toward self actualization and having the
need for security in order function at the highest levels. Now taking
into account what I believe is possible, I keep returning to the research
study that Lawler and Suttle did that indicated that the hierarchy may be
two steps. Security needs must be satisfied before the others become
active!!!
As companies move to reducing the employee population of their companies
and clearly indicate to employees they need to make themselves useful and
more employable regardless of their length of service (not sure what the
responsibility the company has around continuous learning of employees --
in lots of places lip service seems to be the norm) it will, I believ,
spawn a new, but very different form of employee organizing. A new, and
possible more powerful than the past, "unionism" with form. The security
issues will be addressed, what form that takes may be in the hands of
enlightened managerial leadership.
-- Joe DiVincenzo NEANY@aol.com