Self Esteem: too often misunderstood

I am a strong proponent of Douglas McGregor and Abraham Maslow. Reading McGregor is like reading a revelation dropped down from heaven. He is famous for his Theory Y of management, but he has quite a lot more to offer as well. He takes Maslow very seriously, and so do I, and independently of McGregor. As someone who takes Maslow seriously I find myself in that condition so familiar to intellectual historians: finding error in a practice because its practitioners have substituted a misreading of the master for right practice. Schools today are committed to high self-esteem, often in priority to other things, like performance. While its true that Maslow argued that many Americans were beyond physiological and safety needs and were working through belonging, esteem, and actualization needs, hence the primacy of esteem, it is not true that students (as opposed to Americans as a group) have resolved safety or belonging needs and are actually dealing with esteem needs. If students feel intimidated by bullies, crime, or other dangers they are working on their safety needs and will not benefit from working on esteem. For students in poverty, this is especially likely. Many students will still be wrestling with belonging needs, indeed the teen years are famous for this struggle, regardless of class. Further, in order to mistakenly aid the esteem of the worst performing students, esteem opportunities are withdrawn from the students most liable to benefit from them, those most likely to be class leaders in performance.

Indeed, the old style linking of performance and esteem was more appropriate and beneficial than any of the approaches which have replaced it. Those who perform well deserve esteem and the achievement of success and esteem in tandem is healthy. It encourages further success while satisfying fundamental needs. This is something that someone like Alfie Kohn doesn't get. Withdrawing esteem from those who perform is withholding esteem from those most liable to be working at or near that level of Maslow's hierarchy. Giving esteem to those who lack performance has several ill effects.

When students are given esteem without performance, they are given satisfaction for a need they are not necessarily working on, especially when their performance is undermined by safety, belonging, or even physiological needs (inadequate sleep, hunger, more profound needs) giving them esteem doesn't satisfy them because what they need lays elsewhere. When students can tell that they esteem is not tied to performance they detect its patronizing nature, its falsity, and since undeserved attention is better than no attention they will absorb it, it is not helping them meet their esteem needs. Its like eating non-nutritive foods. It fills the stomach without feeding the body. Since teachers are already selling candy and pop to students, this may not bother them. Students, because of brain development better explained by Piaget, are going to be egocentric. Whether this egocentrism is an obstacle to transcend or develops into the personality flaw known as narcissism depends on how they achieve esteem. If they achieve esteem without merit, they will demand esteem in the future without the expectation of performance. They believe they deserve esteem because they are good not because they have done good. This becomes especially challenging when they do ill and expect esteem from teachers, parents, and other adults because its their expectation regarding esteem. Why act right or avoid wrong action if esteem is forthcoming in any event?

Avoiding these errors would be less pernicious if teachers where not so poorly educated themselves.