Imagine two employees being offered the same promotion. One welcomes the chance to lead a team. The other thinks about the longer hours, unfamiliar duties, and evenings lost with family. The offer carries the same title, yet it represents a different life for each person.

We may assume that more money, greater responsibility, or public recognition will motivate someone because we would welcome it. Their response depends on what the opportunity would provide and what accepting it would require. Understanding that response means looking beyond the reward itself.

Bhavya Nain’s model brings attention to these differences, particularly at work. It offers six categories for discussing necessities and aspirations, together with a proposed hierarchy. Examining the model alongside broader research helps us ask a more useful question: how well does an opportunity meet a person’s needs within the life they actually lead?

What the Nain Model Proposes

In his June 2013 manuscript, Nain proposes an alternative to Maslow’s hierarchy and Alderfer’s ERG theory. He argues that general accounts of motivation can overlook individual circumstances. Someone may decline a more powerful position because its responsibilities are unwelcome, even when greater influence initially appears attractive (Nain, 2013).

The model distinguishes survival needs, wants, office survival needs, desires, wishes, and whims. Nain gives these familiar terms particular meanings and suggests learning about a person’s priorities through conversation and interviews. The account below follows that manuscript, which presents conceptual arguments and examples rather than an empirical test of the model (Nain, 2013).

The Six Categories of Needs and Wants

The categories separate outcomes according to their perceived necessity and importance. Their boundaries depend partly on the individual: something considered optional by one person may be treated as essential by another. The following descriptions summarize Nain’s definitions (Nain, 2013).

Survival Needs

Survival needs include food, clothing, and shelter. Nain observes that the resources required to obtain them differ across people and circumstances. For an employee considering a promotion, additional pay might help meet urgent household expenses. The practical significance of the offer would depend partly on those material demands.

Wants

Wants are things that have become necessities through changes in circumstances or lifestyle, although they might once have been considered optional. Nain uses air conditioning as an example. His definition asks us to consider how a resource becomes important within someone’s daily life.

Office Survival Needs

Office survival needs are the resources necessary to perform a job. Nain’s example is access to basic research tools. Applied to the promotion example, this category directs attention to whether the employee would have the information, equipment, and support required for the new responsibilities.

Desires

Desires add value to life without being indispensable in Nain’s definition. He illustrates this with an employee who can drive to work but would appreciate an employer-provided driver. The category distinguishes managing adequately from enjoying an improvement.

Wishes

Wishes are less immediate aspirations that the person does not currently consider themselves entitled to receive regularly or at all. Nain’s example is a company-funded overseas trip that an employee imagines becoming deserving of through greater effort. His definition therefore includes the person’s judgment about deservingness.

Whims

Whims are more remote imagined possibilities. Nain describes a lower-level manager imagining an immediate appointment to a company’s board for above-average performance. The example places a passing fantasy at a distance from an everyday requirement.

Evaluating the Nain Model

Individual Priorities and the Proposed Order

The model’s practical appeal is its invitation to examine assumptions. An employer might offer recognition when an employee needs usable equipment. A person might pursue a prestigious role before considering whether its daily activities fit the life they want. Nain’s examples draw attention to the difference between an attractive offer and its significance to the recipient (Nain, 2013).

However, the manuscript also proposes an order: survival needs, wants, office survival needs, desires, wishes, and finally whims. Nain argues that addressing lower categories should take priority over appealing to higher ones (Nain, 2013). His framework therefore combines individualized priorities with a generalized sequence.

The reasoning is understandable when a distant reward leaves an immediate obstacle unresolved. Yet two claims need to be distinguished. A conversation may help identify what matters to someone. Establishing that people generally pursue these six categories in the proposed order requires additional evidence.

Comparison With Maslow and ERG Theory

Maslow’s hierarchy is often remembered as a staircase on which each need must be completely satisfied before another can matter. His original paper was more qualified. Maslow described exceptions to the usual ordering and explained that people can be partly satisfied and partly dissatisfied in several needs at the same time (Maslow, 1943).

The familiar pyramid has its own history. Bridgman, Cummings, and Ballard (2019) found that Maslow did not create the pyramid used to represent his theory. A fair evaluation of Nain’s criticism needs to address Maslow’s fuller account, including the flexibility that simplified diagrams can obscure.

Alderfer’s ERG theory groups needs into existence, relatedness, and growth. The abstract of his original 1969 paper explicitly states that satisfaction of lower needs is not required before higher needs emerge. Nain’s characterization of ERG as having that requirement is therefore questionable (Alderfer, 1969). Recognizing these earlier qualifications helps identify what a proposed alternative actually adds.

What the Available Evidence Establishes

The Nain manuscript defines categories and offers examples, but it reports no participant sample, measurement study, or statistical test of the hierarchy. Its contribution is a conceptual proposal. The manuscript does not establish whether different observers could apply its categories consistently or whether its sequence predicts behavior beyond existing accounts of motivation (Nain, 2013).

The definitions also require interpretation. Wants, desires, and wishes can overlap in ordinary language. The inclusion of deservingness in wishes makes a person’s expectations part of the classification. These are features of Nain’s terminology, rather than established standards for deciding what someone ought to receive.

Broader research can help evaluate the questions his proposal raises without validating the proposal itself. For example, Tay and Diener (2011) found associations between need fulfillment and well-being across 123 countries. The contributions of specific needs were largely independent of whether other needs had been fulfilled. This challenges an all-or-nothing reading of need fulfillment, while leaving Nain’s six categories untested by that study.

When a Reward Does Not Meet a Need

Needs and Ways of Meeting Them

Wanting a promotion is different from needing a say in our work, feeling capable, or feeling connected to others. In self-determination theory, these experiences concern autonomy, competence, and relatedness. A promotion might help meet those needs, but other paths might serve them too. The strength of a desire alone does not show that its object is necessary for well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

This distinction allows room for both shared needs and individual differences. Autonomy concerns acting with volition and personal endorsement, competence involves feeling effective, and relatedness involves connection with others. The goals and circumstances through which people experience their satisfaction can vary (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 2008).

A promotion is one possible route to greater discretion or learning. It is not itself a basic psychological need. Another assignment might provide those experiences with fewer unwanted demands. Likewise, someone may pursue advancement because the work matters to them or because refusing it seems likely to disappoint a person whose approval matters. The visible goal alone does not tell us why it is being pursued (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Deci and Flaste (1996) explain autonomy support as taking another person’s perspective while encouraging initiative and providing appropriate structure. Maslow’s later reflections also consider work that expresses a person’s capacities and values (Maslow, 1993). Together, these perspectives invite attention to what an opportunity means, rather than assuming its title explains its appeal.

What a Job Provides and Demands

Two questions help us examine whether a job suits someone: does it provide what the person needs, and can the person meet its demands? Researchers studying person-environment fit call these needs-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit. A role can suit someone’s interests while requiring skills they have not yet developed, or match their abilities while leaving important needs unmet (De Cooman & Vleugels, 2022).

An employee might want the new role but need training to carry it out. Another might be fully capable of doing the work while finding its schedule incompatible with important responsibilities. The first situation raises a question about preparation and support. The second raises a question about what the role would provide and require within that person’s life. Treating both responses as a lack of ambition would conceal the practical difference.

An opportunity can also involve gains and losses at the same time. Conservation-of-resources theory examines people’s efforts to acquire and protect valued resources, including material resources, skills, and important conditions of life. Hobfoll and colleagues (2018) emphasize the significance of threatened or actual resource loss in organizational stress.

Through this perspective, declining additional responsibility could reflect concern about losing valued resources, such as time available for existing commitments. That is a possible interpretation to explore, not an explanation we can assign from the decision alone. The person may see costs that are absent from an employer’s description of the reward.

Motivation and Workplace Outcomes

Enjoying a task and responding to a reward can both relate to how well someone performs. Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford (2014) reviewed 183 studies involving 212,468 people in school, work, and physical activities. Intrinsic motivation, or doing something because it is interesting or enjoyable, was more closely tied to the quality of performance. External incentives were more closely tied to how much people produced. These were patterns of prediction across studies, rather than a guarantee about what a particular reward will cause.

These findings support considering the type of task, the incentive arrangement, and the outcome being measured. They do not justify a blanket conclusion that incentives undermine performance or that material rewards can be ignored. They also do not establish that the same pattern applies identically to every workplace or person.

Well-being is a further outcome. Tay and Diener (2011) examined life evaluations and positive and negative feelings, rather than employee output. Basic needs were most closely associated with life evaluation, while social and respect needs were most closely associated with positive feelings. Their observational findings do not establish causation, but they help explain why a single measure of success is insufficient.

A person might produce more work while disliking the conditions under which it is done. An improved working condition might benefit the person without immediately increasing output. Nain himself observes that providing lunch need not make employees work harder (Nain, 2013). Meeting a legitimate need deserves consideration beyond whether it generates an immediate performance gain.

Applying the Ideas Thoughtfully

We can return to the promotion example with three questions. They combine ideas from the research discussed above; they are reflection prompts, not a validated Nain assessment.

First, what would the opportunity provide? Ask the employee what attracts them to it and what concerns them. Additional income may matter because of household expenses. Greater discretion may matter because the person wants more influence over their work. Identifying the particular aim makes it possible to consider whether the offer actually serves it.

Second, what would accepting it require or jeopardize? Clarify the duties, expected hours, training, and available support. Consider what the employee would have to give up as well as what they would gain. A person may need better information before making a decision, or the role may need to change before it becomes workable.

Third, could the underlying aim be met another way? If learning is the priority, a supported project might be useful. If control over working time matters, a different arrangement might help more than a title. These possibilities illustrate alternatives to explore together. They do not guarantee that an employer can offer a suitable alternative.

The conversation also raises a question of authority. Who gets to call a request a necessity, a wish, or a whim? A label should not replace an examination of what the request would accomplish. Someone’s belief that they do not deserve support does not, by itself, establish that the support is unnecessary. An ambitious goal also needs to be evaluated on its circumstances rather than dismissed by its distance from the present.

For a manager, this means discussing practical barriers and being clear about the choices genuinely available. Autonomy support can include expectations and limits while allowing the employee’s perspective to influence the discussion (Deci & Flaste, 1996). For the person considering a goal, it means asking whether the path still serves the aim that made it attractive.

Some barriers require changes to the situation. Missing equipment, inadequate pay, or excessive demands cannot be resolved simply by placing them in a category. The purpose of understanding needs is to improve the decision and, where possible, the conditions under which action takes place.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

The employee who welcomes a promotion and the employee who declines it may both have considered their lives carefully. Their answers can reflect different responsibilities and hopes, along with different judgments about what the opportunity would make possible.

Nain’s framework offers language for beginning that discussion. Its categories remain proposals to examine, while broader research helps us distinguish a need from a preferred route to meeting it. Before deciding that someone should want what we are offering, we can ask what it would actually provide and what accepting it would mean for the life they are trying to build.

Associated Concepts

• Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: An account of how human needs gain priority, with qualifications for exceptions and partial satisfaction across needs.
• Self-Determination Theory: A theory of motivation that identifies autonomy, competence, and relatedness as basic psychological needs and examines the reasons people pursue goals.
• Person–Environment Fit: Compatibility between a person and their environment, including what a job provides and what it requires.
• Conservation of Resources Theory: A framework for understanding efforts to acquire and protect valued resources and the stress associated with threatened or actual loss.
• Controlled Motivation: Pursuing an activity under external pressure or internal pressure, such as seeking approval or avoiding guilt.
• Goal Adjustment: Reconsidering or changing a goal when circumstances, resources, or priorities make the original path unsuitable.

References

Alderfer, Clayton P. (1969). An Empirical Test of a New Theory of Human Needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(2), 142–175. DOI: 10.1016/0030-5073(69)90004-X.
(Return to Main Text)

Bridgman, Todd; Cummings, Stephen; Ballard, John (2019). Who Built Maslow’s Pyramid? A History of the Creation of Management Studies’ Most Famous Symbol and Its Implications for Management Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 18(1), 81–98. DOI: 10.5465/amle.2017.0351.
(Return to Main Text)

Cerasoli, Christopher P.; Nicklin, Jessica M.; Ford, Michael T. (2014). Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Incentives Jointly Predict Performance: A 40-Year Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008. DOI: 10.1037/a0035661.
(Return to Main Text)

De Cooman, Rein; Vleugels, Wouter (2022). Person-Environment Fit: Theoretical Perspectives, Conceptualizations, and Outcomes. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.377.
(Return to Main Text)

Deci, Edward L.; Flaste, Richard (1996). Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation. Penguin Books. ISBN: 9780140255263.
(Return to Main Text)

Deci, Edward L.; Ryan, Richard M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. DOI: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.
(Return to Main Text)

Deci, Edward L.; Ryan, Richard M. (2008). Self-Determination Theory: A Macrotheory of Human Motivation, Development, and Health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182–185. DOI: 10.1037/a0012801.
(Return to Main Text)

Hobfoll, Stevan E.; Halbesleben, Jonathon; Neveu, Jean-Pierre; Westman, Mina (2018). Conservation of Resources in the Organizational Context: The Reality of Resources and Their Consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103–128. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640.
(Return to Main Text)

Maslow, Abraham H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. DOI: 10.1037/h0054346.
(Return to Main Text)

Maslow, Abraham H. (1993). The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. Arkana. Original work published 1971. ISBN: 9780140194708.
(Return to Main Text)

Nain, Bhavya (2013). Nain’s Hierarchy of Needs: An Alternative to Maslow’s & ERG’s Hierarchy of Needs. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. June 16 manuscript, MPRA Paper 47749. Manuscript record.
(Return to Main Text)

Tay, Louis; Diener, Ed (2011). Needs and Subjective Well-Being Around the World. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 354–365. DOI: 10.1037/a0023779.
(Return to Main Text)