Douglas McGregor - Theory X and Y
McGregor's ideas (1960) about managerial behaviour had a profound effect on management
thinking and practice. His propositions sum up the precepts of a unitary and normative frame of reference for managerial practice.
His Theory Y principles featured in management training courses for a decade or more. They influenced the design and implementation of personnel policies and practices. The legacy today permeates the axioms of participative and total quality management and the continued practice of staff appraisal.
What did McGregor do?
The photograph of McGregor on this page is courtesy of Antioch College's Antiochiana collection. He was President of Antioch from 1948 to 1954.
McGregor defined assumptions (theories/propositions)
that he felt underpinned the practices and stances of managers in relation to
employees. These were evident from their conversations and actions. Two sets of
propositions were dubbed Theory X and Y.
He was saying that - what managers said or exhibited in their behaviour revealed their theories-in-use. Their predisposition led managers to pursue particular kinds of policies and
relationships with employees. Somewhat regrettably, McGregor's Theory Y was interpreted and promoted as a "one-best-way" i.e. Y is the best !! Managers or aspects of their
behaviour became labelled as Theory X, the bad stereotype and Theory Y - the good.
McGregor ideas were much informed by Maslow's need satisfaction model of motivation.
Needs provide the driving force motivating behaviour and
general orientation. Maslow's ideas suggested that worker disaffection with
work was due - not to something intrinsic to workers, but due to poor job design,
managerial behaviour and too few opportunities for job satisfaction.
On the basis of these ideas about drives - Maslow suggested a classification of
needs related to the development of the person - lower level needs giving way
developmentally to higher order needs. Thus a hierarchy is suggested although not
claimed by Maslow.
Butler held the view that
Without McGregor the management world would never have heard of Maslow. But
Maslow gave McGregor intellectual credibility and, in management circles,
McGregor gave Maslow fame.
Maslow's concept of self-actualisation
The pinnacle of the Maslow hierarchy, the concept of the self-actualised person underpinned the thrust of post-war humanistic management thinking. It provided a
pseudo-theoretical and philosophical basis for emergent leadership and motivation
debates. Human relations messages emphasised self-awareness, self-knowledge and self-understanding, democracy and humanitarianism - themes voiced by social psychologists such as Kurt Lewin. Business life in western capitalist society was sharing in a reaction against the 1940's experiences of totalitarianism and the perceived threat of world communism in the 1950's.
McGregor argued that there was nothing wrong or bad about exercising authority or giving instructions. However if exercising unilateral management authority is
less than effective then the alternative of democratic involvement offered more
returns than more doses of authority. Humanistic values were introduced into
management thinking. However these values served managerial purposes of
efficiency, measurement and control - the tenets of traditional scientific
management.
New systems and techniques of management were to be adopted to bring predictability and control into the work place - new approaches informed by 'behavioural science'. The practice of staff appraisal was an important extension of McGregor's argument.
Theory X Propositions
A manager holding to these would be inclined to believe and state that
- On average my staff really do not want to work. if they had a choice they would not want to commit themselves to work for the employer in the employer's time. They avoid it wherever possible. Basically they are self-interested and prefer leisure rather than working for someone else.
- Because of this I have to structure work and energise my staff. Tasks ned to be well-specified. Even then many need pushing and more direction and control so that they apply adequate effort towards what has to be achieved. Even though I provide good rewards - many of my staff are still disinclined to apply consistently the kinds of effort the organisation needs. Many accept the rewards, complain that they need more and yet behave in ways that are less than fully
committed. I have to resort to more checks, instructions and exhortations -
sometimes even punishments. If I relax my gaze and I am too soft sloppiness sets
in.
- Indeed most people prefer to be directed. They do not really wish to carry
the burden of responsibility indeed they tend to avoid this. They have little
ambition and prefer a secure, steady life.
Such a manager thus gives close supervision and defines jobs and systems that
structure how a worker allocates and applies their time. They place stress on
workers being calculative.
The above statements are spin-offs from McGregor's originals but the sense
remains the same. McGregor felt that such managerial views led to behaviours and
organisational systems which relied on rewards, promises, incentives, close
supervision, rules and regulations, even threats and sanctions all designed to
control workers.
Soft X and Hard X
There are soft and hard methods in the Theory X list. Hard approaches are
represented by "the stick" - coercive language, harsh authoritarian
management. Soft applications- "the carrot" - dangle rewards and
promises in front of the employees nose i.e. more pay (cash and non-cash), more
work, a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. The relationship is a wage-work
bargain, an exchange.
Theory Y
A Theory Y manager tends to believe that
- Given the right conditions for employees, their application of physical and
mental effort in work is as natural as rest or play. Work is play, offers
satisfactions and meaning.
- There are alternatives to reliance on external controls, pushing and threats
- implied or real. These are not the only means for linking individual effort
with organisational objectives. If people feel committed, they will exercise
self-direction and self-control in the service of the firm's objectives.
- Their objectives will complement the firm's and commitment is a function of
the "intrinsic" rewards associated with their achievement i.e. not
just extrinsic rewards/punishments.
- The Theory Y manager recognises the influence of learning. He/she believes
that if the right conditions are created the average person learns not to accept
and seek responsibility.
- The capacity to exercise imagination, ingenuity and creativity in the
solution of organisational problems is widely not narrowly distributed in the
work force
- In modern organisations, the intellectual potential of the average person are
only partially utilised. People are capable of handling more complex problems.
Again these are (my) extensions to McGregor's original, sparse propositions.
a more difficult management approach...?
On asking managers which is the most difficult management approach to adopt -
will they reply that being a Theory Y manager is more fraught and
difficult?
A Theory X communication style can be largely one way. It is quick and
orderly. If employees do not respond or deliver the goods - they can be blamed
for inattentiveness, lack of interest, unreliability. After all "you just
cannot get good staff these days".
But the Theory Y manager has to be more sensitive. He/she has
- to take the time out to explains
- to comprehend the needs of the individual,
- to engage in joint-problem solving and interpersonal exchange with
each member of staff.
This requires trust building (McGregor accepted the need for
trust, consistency and faith. If a member of staff lets the manager down, the latter
cannot revert in a knee-jerk way to a Theory X monster - blaming or criticising.
Such swings characterise the Jekyll and Hyde manager. The punishing parent who
then returns to nurturing may not be believed.
Theory Y and Abdication
Theory Y is the opposite of abdication, giving staff licence to interpret
and implement organisational objectives themselves. The manager remains at the
centre facilitating the initiation and control processes. Essential to the Theory
Y culture is a monitoring, feedback and control system.
A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
Mechanisms of management control remain key ingredients in Theory Y propositions -
to the extent that analysts such as Salaman (1981) see Theory Y as a glossy,
re-formulation of Theory X. The extra, consumer-oriented ingredient is
its humanistic ethic - the purpose of which is to capture worker motivation and groom higher performance.
The Manager as Developer
Theory X and Y both have it that managers are responsible for organising the
elements of the production process, getting workers to co-operate and align with
organisational goals. A developer and facilitator role - setting up and
targeting social, technical system performances - mediates down-side of the
controller function. Managers set the parameters but work systematically and
conscientiously with junior staff defining jobs and priorities, planning
operations and agreeing programmes, reviewing achievements.
Empowerment - the Emperor's New Clothes
Theory Y recommended what Herzberg in 1964 called "job enrichment" and
Peters in 1982 and 1985 called "empowerment ". Re-designing jobs to
expand opportunities for self-control and self-direction would, it was stressed,
contribute to improved performance. Even though the maintenance aspects of the
controller's role are retained, the manager was encouraged to remove job
restrictions and create more scope for job development enabling employees to grow
and give more of their innate potential to the business.
Conclusion
The McGregor Message?
"Use Theory Y principles to shape your organisation's culture and management
style! ".
References
