Maslow’s Hierarchy of Deficiency & Insecurity

Maslow's hierarchy of needs has formed the foundation of people strategies for decades, and continues to shape how we think about leadership, employee wellbeing, engagement, rewards, and workplace culture.

But there is a misunderstanding… and it’s not insignificant.

Deficiencies

Maslow knew that some motivations are driven by growth while others are rooted in deficiency. A deficiency is the first-person experience of lacking. And what is lacking are needs.

Now this might seem like semantics, but it’s a difference that changes everything we know about wellbeing and mental health at work. A need describes what is required. A deficiency describes what it feels like when that need is not met.

And what does a deficiency feel like? Insecurity. Threat. Fear.

When we redraw the hierarchy to reflect how it feels, it reveals why so many people are struggling, and reasonably so, at work. Let’s look at each ‘need’ in turn.

Physiological needs = Scarcity "Do I have enough?"

Whether the concern is income, time, energy, workload, or resources, scarcity narrows attention toward survival. Innovation, collaboration, and long-term thinking become more difficult because the mind is focused on getting through today.

Safety = Threat "Am I safe?"

When psychological or physical safety feels uncertain, the nervous system shifts toward protection (Edmondson, 1999, 2019). Fear of speaking up, mistrust, micromanagement, and resistance to change may reflect perceived threat rather than unwillingness to engage.

Love & Belonging = Isolation "Do I belong?"

Human beings are inherently relational, and social exclusion is experienced as a genuine threat. When belonging is uncertain, people withdraw, conform, seek approval, form cliques, or disconnect.

Esteem = Inadequacy "Am I enough?"

When esteem is threatened, people protect their sense of worth. Perfectionism, defensiveness, overachievement, status-seeking, and fear of failure are often adaptive responses to feeling inadequate rather than evidence of poor character.

Self-actualization is not achieved by climbing higher on a pyramid like a checklist. It becomes possible when deficiency (insecurity) no longer drives our needs.

Wellbeing is founded upon a felt sense of security.

If this isn’t surprising enough, we know that self-actualization also means self-fulfillment, emotional maturity, psychological health, and authenticity. When physiological, safety, belonging, or esteem needs are not being met, they become prepotent. This means that they will dominate our attention and behaviour. Only when deficiency needs are reasonably resolved does self-actualization emerge.

With all this added context, many workplace behaviours and culture challenges begin to make sense. Instead of asking, "What's wrong with this person?" or "Why is our culture struggling to adapt?" we might ask, "What deficiency is unaddressed in this environment?" That shift moves us from judgment to curiosity. If we want healthier workplaces, we need to address the conditions that keep people in survival mode.

Now the implications for leaders come into frame. Might we be promoting strategies based upon inspiring people while blind to the deficiencies implicit in those messages? What would change if we mapped our talent and total reward strategies and practices against the corresponding deficiencies? Is it possible our practices are causing the very behaviours we don't want? In management terms, do we have misaligned incentives present?

Let’s use one example: recognition. "We recognize people for doing great work" is a common theme in many workplaces. Now rephrase this statement for deficiency. "If you don't do work that meets with our approval, you'll not be good enough." Or, perhaps: "We assure people that their work really is worthy in our judgment, which may impart a vague sense of job security."

Does this sound harsh? Likely, yes. We're not accustomed to being quite so open about insecurity. But here is exactly what the hierarchy of needs is saying when we understand deficiencies. And this is just a small part of what Maslow was pointing toward.

Summary

A key takeaway is to see beyond the surface goals to motivate performance or increase engagement. Look more deeply and see the insecurity driving beneath. Create conditions in which the questions of scarcity, threat, isolation, and inadequacy no longer dominate people's attention. When those are addressed, then people gain greater capacity to learn, collaborate, create, solve problems, and contribute their unique strengths.

In Fear at Work, I'll explore what that means for individuals, leadership, organizational culture, and the future of work.

Walk with me. dbestinspired.com

References

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999 ERIC

Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346 CiNii Research

Maslow, A. H. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. D. Van Nostrand Company, p. 18

Walk with me

D Best Inspired Coaching

© 2026. All rights reserved.

In the spirit of respect and truth, I honour and acknowledge that I live and work within the traditional, ancestral and unceded territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish), and səlilwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations.

Acknowledgement

Quick Links

Home

Fear at Work

Speaking

Writing

Contact

Store

Terms of Service

Privacy

Coaching