RECOGNITION VERSUS PERFROMANCE APPRAISAL: AN …



RECOGNITION VERSUS PERFROMANCE APPRAISAL: AN EVALUATION

N. Ramanathan

President – Indian Society for Quality and Adviser –TQM, SRF Limited, India

Email: ram@

ABSTRACT

It is an axiom of Western thinking that rewarding individuals with money in exchange for performance is a pre-requisite to achieving performance. Deming’s teachings to the contrary seem to have made no impact on such thinking. Corporations, we are told, are meritocracies, as though that justifies the appraisal based reward system. Surprisingly, though, most western literature does not even define performance or defines it merely as delivering results.

The truth is that nearly all worthwhile outcomes in a company are the result of the cooperative functioning of many, and the context created over a long time. Ignoring this leads to the belief that an individual alone is wholly responsible for her results. This is like a cause-and-effect diagram with ‘man’ on all the secondary branches. Performance appraisal, or the so-called performance management system, is probably the single biggest cause of low morale in organizations and perhaps of organizational performance as well. Attrition of people has zoomed to crisis levels in economies that are doing well. Yet the protagonists of performance appraisal defend it resolutely. Odious terms such as ‘consequence management’ are now in vogue. In companies, the system is tinkered with every year and labelled as improvement, only to be reset to the original model every few years.

The alternative paradigm has to be that people contribute rather than perform. Current paradigms tend to make people money-minded, craving for ever more. In terms of Maslow’s hierarchy, they bend sideward like trees thwarted by a ledge. They thus fail to reach their potential, which is the very opposite of the desired state. Under the methods of quality based management, high performance means that the system enables people to set challenging goals for themselves, goals that are aligned to the top management policy and enabled through precise means for achieving the goals. People’s contribution has elements of maintaining, improving and transforming. Results are not seen in isolation but always as the effects of causal action. The effects are evaluated in terms of improvement, meeting plans and eventually achieving benchmarks.

ARC, an acronym for Acknowledgement, recognition and celebration, tends to pull people upwards in achieving their potential. If a person is rewarded with some money, the value of her contribution is limited. A person who is honoured instead has received something that is priceless. Honours confirm to the person that the path she has chosen is correct. They spur others to high achievement too. Honours burn the safety neuroses people might have, while performance appraisal taps into that very neurosis and strengthens it. Ultimately, ARC enables people to feel like volunteers who do the work for the love of it.

This paper aims to define what contribution means, and how it may be evaluated. It aims to develop systems of ARC that would promote truly high-performing organizations.

Key words: Performance appraisal, acknowledgement, recognition, celebration, Maslow’s hierarchy, contribution, Volunteership, quality-based management

INTRODUCTION:

Structured performance appraisal originated in the US at the time of the Second World War in the form of merit rating systems. Since then it has become the standard lore of HR professionals, and no persuasion to the contrary from either quality professionals or other researchers has had the slightest effect. Performance appraisal systems have instead got stronger and stronger, irrespective of consequences.

TYPICAL AIMS OF APPRAISAL:

The following are typically the stated aims of performance appraisal systems:

1. Provide feedback to employee on her performance

2. Identify individual training needs

3. Foster communication between superior and subordinate

4. Set goals for the employee

5. Aid in career planning and in promotion decisions

6. Create documentary evidence in the event of legal conflicts with the employee

7. Assure fairness in employee-related decisions such as pay and promotion

8. Reward performance and penalise non-performance monetarily

Though there are many goals the dominant one is to pay for performance. Identifying training needs comes a second, but this method is in reality ineffective for understanding the training needs of employees.

THE PARADIGMS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL:

Some of the assumptions that the appraisal system make are rooted in the Anglo-Saxon way of thinking about human beings. For example, the assumptions run as follows:

1. Individuals by themselves are responsible for their own performance. The effects of history, the context, the system and teamwork are treated as mere externalities at best.

2. Monetary rewards motivate individuals to perform better. This is a strongly held belief especially among the large management consulting firms. Herzberg had shown that pay can be a de-motivator, but cannot motivate, but this wisdom remains academic, unable to penetrate corporate myths.

3. The measurement of results is enough to assess any individual’s performance – there is no need to link it the causal steps taken to produce the results.

4. ‘Deadwood or free riders’ must be removed. How did they become that in the first place?

5. The capability level of the organization is not a main factor in individual performance. An individual’s role is placed higher than the organization’s in producing desirable outcomes.

In the absence of a management system to promote performance (as quality based management offers), Western consultants promote the creation of the so-called ‘performance culture’ which drives ‘stretch’ targets – that is, targets that cannot really be met but in aiming for which managers would hopefully get a reasonable way ahead. This ‘culture’ then depends on tough appraisals, and in comes that odious term ‘consequence management’ (Read rewards and penalties). This system, it is believed, will produce ‘desired behaviour’ and hence performance.

TEN CONSEQUENCES OF APPRAISAL:

Some of the consequences of the appraisal system on the individuals who receive appraisal are:

1. Short term orientation – achieving quick results often at a real cost to the organization that will show up later

2. Tendency to fudge data – this is more common than it seems

3. Stonewalling for mediocre targets – the successful ones are those that succeed in negotiating easy targets

4. Manipulating the system – distorting it to achieve apparent results

5. Undermining others, impaired teamwork

6. Arguing about uncontrollable factors, or lack of resources

7. Feeling unfairly judged

8. Not attempting things outside one’s safe boundaries

9. Pushing hard on indicators that matter for rewards, even at the cost of customers or people

10. Jostling for credit even with one’s own subordinates when anything worthwhile does happen

The consequences for HR professionals and for those who have to do appraisals are not pleasant either.

1. They tire themselves out negotiating hard for setting reasonably challenging targets

2. They must exhort people for more teamwork (while wondering why it is missing)

3. They must tinker each year with the appraisal system to give it a modicum of freshness

4. They have to “moderate” appraisals from different bosses, in order to ensure reasonable consistency

5. Bosses have to be trained to give ‘feedback’, even as they resist this unpleasant annual event

6. It is always a struggle to give ‘negative’ feedback

7. There is the painful task of explaining bonus reduced or withheld to those who nevertheless feel unfairly treated

8. They must periodically defend the ‘fairness’ of the system to those who do not trust it

9. Then they must handle the task of ‘outplacement’

The consequences of performance appraisal on the organization too are mostly unintended.

1. The myth is perpetuated that individual performance can be judged in isolation of the working context. In fact, it is based on the belief, however odd, that performance depends only on the individual. It is as though some would draw a cause-and-effect diagram like Figure 1 to explain performance.

[pic]

Figure 1: Treating the individual as the only source of performance

2. Teamwork, cooperation and harmony are impaired by putting people up to competing with each other

3. Variability in outcome is mistaken for real performance change

4. Research shows that when rewarded for work that people enjoy in the first place, the quality of work actually suffers

5. Short-term orientation and quick fixes prevail over long term orientation and lasting solutions

6. People experience fear and this causes their performance to be impaired

7. The organization finds itself working on mediocre rather than the ‘stretch’ goals it sought

8. A self fulfilling prophecy that people are money-minded becomes reality

9. Leadership abilities are weakened, as paying for performance is believed to be enough

HOW PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SURVIVES:

Performance appraisal, despite its unintended consequences has not only survived but thrived without any new thought going into it. Some methodological interventions such as 360-degree appraisal have been made, but there has been no re-examination of the assumptions. The almost universal demoralization that appraisal produces each year in every organization is not recognized either.

One reason is that it is convenient to Boards to appoint CEOs who would respond to money rewards more than to their own intrinsic motivation. It is a held belief in Boards that such executives who are driven by ambition for themselves are necessary to lead companies. The CEO salary, especially in the US, should be regarded as a scandal, but it shows no sign of abating. Studies show that the CEO who downsized his organization was rewarded by more bonuses than the average CEO. Even when short-term orientation has caused irreparable damage to the company CEOs have typically got severance pays in millions of dollars. It is difficult to imagine that CEOs who are so strongly driven by money themselves would think that their people would take on challenging aims out of intrinsic desire to do so.

Performance appraisal systems are ‘improved’ each year in response to one uproar or another. After a few cycles the system reverts to its original position (like pressing a reset button) and this too is offered as an improvement. It is firmly believed that the trouble is with some flaws in implementation only and not with the system itself.

Performance appraisal is also defended on the ground that companies are meritocracies and that the competent must be rewarded, encouraged and promoted. What is meritocracy? It is a system of organization that is based on demonstrated merit or talent rather than on wealth (as in a plutocracy), family connections (nepotism), class privilege (cronyism in its many forms), popularity (democracy, for executives don’t get elected either by employees or by customers), or sheer political power. The fallacy in this argument is this: Those who oppose appraisal do not oppose meritocracy at all. (They do not defend government systems of pay and position based on length of service or on secret comments of bosses either). Sound organizations are all meritocracies. The point is that there are better ways to ensure a meritocracy than a system based on rewards and punishments, mainly monetary.

HOW COMPANIES BECOME COMMODITIES TO EMPLOYEES:

When pay is believed to be the main attractor for employees, companies compete hard with each other to retain employees based on ever rising pay levels. It is as if the companies are marketing themselves to employees on price (pay) alone, and as if they do not have differentiating factors of attraction to employees. Companies thus become commodities for employees, and the highest bidder wins. In the process companies become high-cost enterprises and tend to panic when difficult times come.

Several distorted paradigms evolve as a consequence of the skewed weightage to pay. Asking for more money begins to be seen as indicative of ‘ambition’ – supposedly a desirable trait. On the other hand those who are on a self-actualizing mode can be seen to lack drive. It is as if it is undesirable for the organization for its people to realize their potential!

WHAT IS PERFORMANCE?

Curiously, despite the plethora of literature on performance appraisal, performance is scarcely defined. It is left as a self-evident phenomenon. One definition says that performance is “delivering results that matter to shareholders, employees and customers.” A rider to it says that superior achievement means standing out above the crowd. It is surprising that with such loose definitions at best the system has survived alternative thoughts.

In English language, the word performance has theatrical and sporting connotations. Inanimate things like equipment also perform! However, in an organization, if one thinks about it, one can at best contribute to an outcome. Is there a single worthwhile outcome in an organization that an individual acting alone can deliver? This reflection should tell us that other people and the system as a whole (with its history and context) have a profound impact on outcomes. Appraisal systems treat the system as an externality that must be accounted for as a nuisance variable rather than as something fundamental to performance.

As figure 2 shows, there are three dimensions to contributing to an organization. Many things require maintenance or the preservation of status quo, without deterioration. Things need to be improved within the framework of the existing system. And then existing systems may have to be radically transformed or new systems created. Performance at the top levels also requires that more than just business results are turned out. It is necessary to accumulate the intellectual capital of the company, and that it includes organizational capability, momentum and resilience.

In quality based management, the concern is not just with results – which can sometimes be windfalls and at other times beset with misfortunes. The concern is instead with effects or outcomes, that is, results connected to what had been done to achieve them. Ends and means are viewed simultaneously in order to provide confidence that the outcome is not only sustainable, but will build the capability of the organization.

|Maintain |Preserve status quo |[pic] |

| |Prevent set-backs | |

| |Follow standards | |

|Improve |Change for the better through |[pic] |

| |a change of method, | |

| |within the framework of the | |

| |existing system | |

|Transform |Change direction |[pic] |

| |Create new systems or products, | |

| |or improve by breaking the framework | |

| |of the existing systems | |

Figure 2: MIT – the three dimensions of outcomes

In addition to outcomes performance must always be linked to raising the capability levels of the organization. This is a task of accumulating the intellectual capability such that it is not lost even through inter-generational changes.

ANOTHER SET OF PARADIGMS:

If you have a partial, truncated, fragmented map of the human being, you will have a partial, truncated, fragmented approach to business, medicine, spirituality, and so on.

¾ Ken Wilber

Clearly, if a better system to assure the performance of an organization must be evolved, then the paradigms of performance appraisal systems must yield to other paradigms.

Need Hierarchy Revisited

We first need to clear up frequent misunderstanding of Maslow’s need hierarchy. It is not as if every one of our needs must be fully satisfied before we self-actualize. Such a conception makes self-actualization an outcome of fortuitous circumstances, which is absurd. At each level, depending on the baggage of neuroses we have acquired, our need can become boundless. Thus, as V.S. Mahesh points out, we can become like a tree growing under a ledge that grows sideways towards sunlight, rather than grow straight as per our true nature, towards self-actualization. Those who do realize their potential, on the other hand, are able to apply low thresholds of satisfaction at lower levels so that they are free to move higher. For example, someone who feels insecure may not be satiated with any amount of financial security and crave for more. As Gandhi said, there is enough wealth in the world for everyone’s need but there is not enough for one man’s greed. Thus, realizing one’s potential requires an act of will to put a stop to lower order needs, and to use one’s imagination to propel oneself up.

[pic]

Figure 3: The hierarchy of needs with sideways distraction

Clearly, organizations need to find ways of developing their people to potential, but they cannot hope to succeed if they stoke rather than quench the burning insecurities of people through money-minded lures or penalties.

The Needs of Employees

The second set of paradigms relate to what people really need from organizations. It is fashionable to talk of performance as meeting stakeholder needs, including those of employees, but what do employees need? Figure 4 lays out a simple triangular model. People need to experience (going by the need hierarchy) safe working conditions, fairness and justice, and then good relationships, recognition and a sense of pride in the organization. People need to experience joy in the organization. The second vertex of the triangle is learning. People have a need to feel that they are learning and rising in their competence; they need opportunities to learn and be guided by their bosses. Life-long learning of its people should be an organizational goal. Third, people need to contribute to the organization. Hordes of professionals have spent their lifetimes to coax and coerce people to perform, and it turns out that one of the fundamental needs of people is to make meaningful contributions. If they are thwarted from doing this, and many organizations are adept at this, then of course dysfunctional behaviour results. This is a huge paradox. People have a need to contribute, and organizations require that they do. It should have been a perfect win-win. Why is it not? The whole Anglo-Saxon view of the human being is in question here. The fourth need is a temporal dimension – growth – in economic well-being, responsibility and of course in all dimensions.

It is time HR professionals define employee needs and find ways to satisfy them, even it means jettisoning their myths about money motivating employees.

[pic]

Figure 4: The Needs of Employees

The System Defines Performance

Despite Deming, Senge and others demonstrating that it is the system rather than the individual effort that matters most in getting organizational performance, the current label, Performance Management System (PMS) applies pressure entirely on so-called individual outputs. One probable reason is that quality based management has penetrated the HR profession the least. In the absence of a mechanism to raise organizational performance, misdirected attempts persist. Also, it is assumed that people performance equals organizational performance. The performance of individuals, assuming that it can be measured, may show a Normal distribution. Even if all the employees were replaced by another set, the distribution cannot be wished away. So any improvement in performance must shift the curve itself, that is, change the system that produces the current mean. This can be done when organizational capability is raised through systematic quality based efforts by all members of an organization. Figure 5 shows the effect of shifting the mean.

[pic]

Figure 5: Organizational and people capability

ACHIEVING INCREDIBLE PERFORMANCE:

The goal is to achieve extraordinary performance. The entire body of knowledge in quality-based management has this single-minded focus. What is more, it is a management technology that has been proven in diverse cultures and continents – in Japan, India, Europe, USA and elsewhere. In this paper, we shall deal with how quality-based management deals with issues of performance, and how recognition is a key motivator.

Setting Challenging Goals

Performance appraisal involves a constant battle against the tendency towards mediocre goals. It is obvious that an organization where all employees strive towards aligned and challenging goals will be a winner. What an organization must achieve is something that clearly arises from what the environment demands of it and what the strategies call upon it to do. However what level of achievement should be targeted? One debate that always takes place in organizations is whether the target values should arise from the needs of the organization or on the feasibility of achieving the target. In quality-based firms, the answer is clear: the goals must challenge the current abilities and require pushing beyond current boundaries, but there must be a measure of persuasiveness about it such that the goal is not unachievable (Non-achievability is a requirement, according to some Western consultants). Goals must be challenging, yet they are meant to be achieved. Employees should not by design be subjected to repeated failure experiences.

How can challenge become the norm in a company? In quality based companies, reviews throughout the year focus on causes and not just the results. Problem solving skills are constantly raised. Participation of employees is near total. Top down and bottom up issues are gathered and prioritised as part of policy management. A system exists for deploying goals to all parts of the organization, with clear means for achieving them. The fact that goals are supported by prioritised means based on deep analysis of causes makes them so much more concrete and within sight. If the selected means do not work out, alternative means can be adopted without changing the goals themselves. Over time, the confidence level of the organization to take on challenging goals rises. Also, as there is no threat or fear of ‘consequences’ of failure, managers can give off their best without holding themselves back.

How to Judge an Outcome

In quality based management, a result is never to be seen on its own. Rather it is to be seen as an outcome of some actions and both must be seen together. Positive trends or good absolute values are signs of good outcome. If the plan is met as well, it is doubly desirable. If the outcome meets existing benchmarks or sets new ones as well then the performance is obviously a peak. Of course the approach taken to achieve the result is of vital importance. Gaps between plans and actual outcomes are to be analysed and countermeasures taken even if the gap is positive. When positive gaps are achieved through effort, institutionalizing the methods and applying it elsewhere becomes important.

| | | |

|Level 1 |Improving trend or |[pic] |

| |absolute good value | |

| | |[pic] |

|Level 2 |Meeting the plan | |

| | | |

| | |[pic] |

|Level 3 |Meeting benchmarks | |

|Means |At each level, performance counts only where the means (based on causes) are |

| |demonstrated to have been implemented. Good luck or bad luck do not count for |

| |much |

| | |

Figure 6: Judging outcomes

Reviews with Individuals

Evaluation of individuals, for purposes of development and promotion decisions, needs to be systematised. When reviews are based on causal factors and countermeasures and when documentation is at high levels, then there are really no year-end surprises. Also, good Daily Management involves clear definition of everyone’s business objectives and the responsibilities involved in achieving the objectives. Since the outcome is always connected to the means, a typical evaluation can be as in Figure 7. The evaluation is based on improvements and the effects produced, weighted with obstacles overcome (always documented in a quality based organization), teamwork and the development of subordinates through standardised methods such as skill matrices and on-the-job training.

|No. |Item |Explanation |Evaluation |

|1 |Improvements |Important and documented improvements made |Judge by the level of the person e.g. innovation and |

| | | |difficulty |

|2. |Teamwork |Support given, help sought, participation |Take specific instances, and take opinions |

| | |in teams | |

|3. |Subordinate development |OJT plans and actuals, long term cumulative|Rate effectiveness of training of subordinates, judge not |

| | |effects |just current but sustained effort |

|4. |Obstacles overcome |Documented means by which hurdles were |Look for reflection of resourcefulness, commitment in the |

| | |overcome |face of odds |

|5. |Effects |Results clearly connected to the means |Not concerned with results per se but effects of work done|

| | |adopted | |

Figure 7: A possible model for evaluation of individuals

Toyota uses, according to Satoshi Hino, the following criteria for evaluating its managers:

Task creativity 20%

Task execution 30%

Organizational management 20%

Use of human resources 20%

Popularity 10%

One must be careful in copying Toyota because they have definitions for everything and a thorough way of executing it, which cannot be matched by mere observation.

ARC – ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, RECOGNITION AND CELEBRATION:

The key message of this paper is about the power of recognition in comparison with appraisal. ARC is an acronym for acknowledgement, recognition and celebration, three elements of a package that really go together. The following table defines the three terms.

|ARC |Meaning |Some Examples |

|Acknowledgement |Valuing people for what they are, |Long Service Awards |

| |unconditionally |Facilities – Gym, crèche… |

| | |Equality – canteen, uniforms, Christmas gifts… |

|Recognition |Honouring people for the wonderful work they |Appreciation - verbal or written |

| |do |Presenting work to visitors |

| | |Ceremonial presentations – medals, plaques |

|Celebration |Rejoicing together over achievement, or for |Get-togethers with spouses over successes |

| |no reason at all |Innovative group events |

| | |Family picnics of QC circles |

Figure 8: The Meaning of ARC

Acknowledgement is independent of performance of any kind. Some toxic organizations deny their people even simple acknowledgement of their existence. In evolved communities, members are valued simply as they are and trusted. Even greetings every morning can improve the climate of acknowledgement. Recognition, on the other hand, is typically related to a good achievement, from a simple kaizen by an operator to an innovation in product design by senior engineers. Celebrations are sometimes tied to recognition events and at other times to acknowledgement, as with Christmas parties or Deepavali fairs. In each of the three there are infinite ways of doing it, and therefore perpetual surprise is a requirement.

THE POWER OF RECOGNITION:

Recognition taps into the belongingness need in the hierarchy of Maslow. Its power stems from the fact that no monetary value can be ascribed to it. It is priceless. Money rewards cap the value of an achievement in money terms. Recognition puts it at infinity. A person stands honoured by a reward. The honour affirms to him that the path he chose is valued. Honours spur others to strive towards excellence. Recognition motivates people to move out of their comfort zones, to push beyond the boundaries they have set for themselves, and to challenge difficult aims. Is this not what organizations really seek? Furthermore, honours promote learning at the individual level, even as persons strive upwards on the need hierarchy.

Ultimately, at a certain level of personal growth, people go beyond the need for recognition, though most will continue to need it. Organizations do need people who have evolved above the need for recognition. They must know how they can be managed. They are truly volunteers in spirit. They need plenty of space within which to work. They cannot be managed by typical review systems. Their sense of ownership should at no cost be undermined by ill-conceived interventions. A reflection from Taiichi Ohno, who created the Toyota Production System, is revealing.

For my part I never had to say “I’d like to do this.” Or “Please let me do that.” I just did everything I thought had to be done. Had I asked permission, my resolve would have weakened because of the pressure to prove what I was doing. Had either side said anything, the relationship would have collapsed.”

‘Pay-for-performance’ types of systems, on the contrary, tap into the neuroses of individuals at the safety level. It corners them within their safe zones and causes them to indulge in manipulative and dysfunctional behaviour. It accesses only their extrinsic motivation and causes their intrinsic motivation, over time, to atrophy. It also suppresses the upward striving of the individual towards realizing potential, even as he seeks to do just what would yield more incentive, sometimes wilfully and at great cost to the organization. He becomes competitive with his peers and suffers poor relationships.

VOLUNTEERSHIP:

What is the difference, really, between volunteers and employees? They both want to contribute. It seems that employees are more often thwarted from contributing than are volunteers! Both have intrinsic motivation, but that of employees is undermined frequently by flawed people paradigms. Volunteers too have high standards of work expected after them. It is possible to create a space in every organization such that employees are treated exactly as volunteers and feel as though they are volunteers. They would thrive on ARC as long as their pay is not at the level of being a de-motivator.

MOTIVATION BEYOND HYGIENE:

Pay is only a hygiene factor – this has been known for long. What motivates people? Here is a tiny and partial list.

1. Clear roles

2. Role matches talent

3. Challenging goals

4. Resources, support, guidance

5. Not being told, can propose what to do

6. Improvements count

7. Honoured

8. Acknowledged

9. Helped in crises

10. Can learn a lot

11. Increasing responsibilities

12. Good peers to work with

13. Contribution is expected, valued

14. Celebrations and surprises

There is no shortage of motivators. To the extent companies have existed and done well they have practiced some or all of these. Yet small-mindedness has caused untold damage to economies, companies and people. The better way is also the happier one for all. Will the world rise to it?

REFERENCES

Deming, W.E. (1986) Out of the Crisis Productivity Press, Chennai

Hino, Satoshi (2006) Inside the Mind of Toyota, Productivity Press, New York

Fischer, Louis (2002), The Essential Gandhi, Vintage Spiritual Classics, NY

Joiner, Brian L. (1994) Fourth Generation Management, McGraw Hill

Katzenbach Jon R. (1996) Real Change Leaders, Three Rivers Press, New York

Kohn, Alfie, (1993) Punished by Rewards, Houghton Mifflin Company

Mahesh, V.S. (1993) Thresholds of Motivation, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi

Maslow, Abraham, (1957) Motivation and Personality, Addison Wesley

McGregor, Douglas (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw Hill

Ohno, Taichi, with Mito, Setsuo (1988) Just-in-time for Today and Tomorrow, Productivity Press

Scholtes, Peter R. (1998) The Leader’s Handbook, McGraw Hill

Senge, Peter M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday Currency

Wilber, Ken (2000), A Brief History of Everything, Shambhala, Boston

A Note

The views expressed in this paper are personal and not necessarily those of the organizations I represent.

………………………………………….

-----------------------

Growth

Benchmark

3

2

1

Experiencing

(Joy, pride, safety……)

Contributing

(Space and resources)

Learning

(Life-long)

Growth

Organizational Capability

Organizational Performance

Self-

actualization

People Performance

Indefinitely stretchable. Pulls away from self-actualization. Low threshold of satisfaction is necessary.

We propel ourselves through imagination and will

Physiological

Safety

Self Esteem

Belongingness

C

Man

Man

Man

Man

Man

Man

Man

Man

Man

Result =

Performance

B

A

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download