Actualizing Goals

In understanding human motivation, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs has been a well-known foundational theory for recognizing the space between human intent and behavior. In the mid-20th century, this theory basically organized human needs hierarchically in which basic survival needs preceded other needs such as safety, self-esteem, and eventually what Maslow called self-actualization. A natural criticism or an aftereffect of this idea was recognizing how human motivation could be much more complex, given the nature of personal, interpersonal, and collective goals. For example, in human beings there are instances of higher-level needs taking precedence over other basic needs such as food or physical intimacy when ideologies or group identities are at stake. People going on hunger strikes for spiritual or patriotic purposes, formation of close relationships despite facing terminal illness and impending death, are two examples. The theory was later better appreciated for introducing terminology for at least the different kinds of needs human beings have, and this was also a thrust for other motivation related concepts taking birth -- motivation related ideas that went beyond drives, instincts, and immediate responses. Motivation, for us, matters a lot in the long run and this is when human potential shines more fully.

In the past decade, an intriguing concept that has come into the motivational scene is co-actualization (see Bland, 2023). Co-actualization in the context of Maslow's self-actualization

highlights the utility of good social dynamics and relationship combinations, be it interpersonal, romantic, intellectual, or team-based which can lead to individual growth and collectively felt progress. Experientially, this is already known to people when they become a better version of themselves when found in particular relationships. Aside from benefits due to similarities, there is something gained interpersonally when we are in authentically experienced relationships which enhances who we become over time. Untapped spaces of progress and ability get revealed, partly due to scaffolding-like effects as discussed in human development. The ability to learn new behaviors increases and learning is easier when we find assistance and modeling in the initial stages, which in children's learning is found through parents and teachers.

Something that can accentuate the benefits of co-actualization is introducing character strengths (Peterson and Seligman, 2004) *, matching into the picture. One exploratory idea is described here.

In peer-building or team-formation activities people may be grouped by three shared character strengths and two contrasting character strengths. The composition would be even better if the character strengths chosen are lower in your case and higher for the other person). My prediction? Systematic patterns may emerge in how character-strengths based teaming could eventually encourage co-actualization more readily. To explain this better, I'll reveal my 5 lowest and 5 highest strengths and then replace two of my lowest strengths with whatever is the closest opposite (two of the other person's highest strengths in a real-life experiment). Just as a side note, all individuals have the full scale of discovered character strengths in varying degrees. We just tend to be better in some domains than others.

My lowest five character strengths are:

Perspective, Social Intelligence, Leadership, Love, and Teamwork.

My top five character strengths are:

Honesty, Fairness, Self-Regulation, Spirituality, and Perseverance.

When forming a group for accomplishing a superordinate goal or anything valued as a team, people may be matched as follows:

Three of my top strengths: Honesty, Self-Regulation, and Perseverance

Two top character strengths of another person that is a weakness in my case such as Love and Leadership.

Such teaming is supposed to reveal opportunities to witness how your weaker strengths are lived and expressed. In addition, this can be used in task delegation for completing difficult goals that couldn't be completed alone before. In a team-building scenario, while sharing the same group vision, one person can take charge in leadership and team-management while someone else may be better at ensuring sustenance in group effort and conscientiously keeping track of the project getting completed on time. As individuals work more together, they are likely to identify these strength-combinations more easily, something a lot of people already experience by chance in various life, educational, and professional goal pursuits.

Endnotes

*Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press; American Psychological Association.

Co-actualization is further explained here:

Motschnig-Pitrik, R., & Barrett-Lennard, G. (2009). Co-Actualization: A new construct in understanding well-functioning relationships. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 50(3), 374-398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167809348017 (Original work published 2010)