File Name: theory x and theory y in management .zip
Theory X is the belief that employees are motivated by pay and they need supervision to make sure they get their work done. Theory Y is the opposite: employees are motivated by the work itself, finding autonomy, meaning, and gaining a sense of accomplishment from the work.
Theory X and Theory Y are still referred to commonly in the field of management and motivation, and whilst more recent studies have questioned the rigidity of the model, Mcgregor's X-Y Theory remains a valid basic principle from which to develop positive management style and techniques. McGregor's XY Theory remains central to organisational development, and to improving organisational culture. McGregor's X-Y theory is a salutary and simple reminder of the natural rules for managing people, which under the pressure of day-to-day business are all too easily forgotten. Perhaps the most noticeable aspects of McGregor's XY Theory - and the easiest to illustrate - are found in the behaviours of autocratic managers and organisations which use autocratic management styles. Typically characteristics for an X-Theory manager are most or all of these:.
During the past 30 years, managers have been bombarded with two competing approaches to the problems of human administration and organization. The first, usually called the classical school of organization, emphasizes the need for well-established lines of authority, clearly defined jobs, and authority equal to responsibility.
The second, often called the participative approach, focuses on […]. The second, often called the participative approach, focuses on the desirability of involving organization members in decision making so that they will be more highly motivated. The classical organizational approach that McGregor associated with Theory X does work well in some situations, although, as McGregor himself pointed out, there are also some situations where it does not work effectively.
At the same time, the approach based on Theory Y, while it has produced good results in some situations, does not always do so. That is, each approach is effective in some cases but not in others. Why is this? How can managers resolve the confusion? Recent work by a number of students of management and organization may help to answer such questions. Enterprises with highly predictable tasks perform better with organizations characterized by the highly formalized procedures and management hierarchies of the classical approach.
With highly uncertain tasks that require more extensive problem solving, on the other hand, organizations that are less formalized and emphasize self-control and member participation in decision making are more effective. In essence, according to these newer studies, managers must design and develop organizations so that the organizational characteristics fit the nature of the task to be done.
While the conclusions of this newer approach will make sense to most experienced managers and can alleviate much of the confusion about which approach to choose, there are still two important questions unanswered:. How does the more formalized and controlling organization affect the motivation of organization members? Equally important, does a less formalized organization always provide a high level of motivation for its members?
Our study was conducted in four organizational units. Two of these performed the relatively certain task of manufacturing standardized containers on high-speed, automated production lines. The other two performed the relatively uncertain work of research and development in communications technology. The study design is summarized in Exhibit I. Exhibit I. The objective was to explore more fully how the fit between organization and task was related to successful performance.
That is, does a good fit between organizational characteristics and task requirements increase the motivation of individuals and hence produce more effective individual and organizational performance? An especially useful approach to answering this question is to recognize that an individual has a strong need to master the world around him, including the task that he faces as a member of a work organization.
But, first, we had to define what kinds of organizational characteristics would determine how appropriate the organization was to the particular task. Formal characteristics, which could be used to judge the fit between the kind of task being worked on and the formal practices of the organization.
Climate characteristics, or the subjective perceptions and orientations that had developed among the individuals about their organizational setting. These too must fit the task to be performed if the organization is to be effective. We measured these attributes through questionnaires and interviews with about 40 managers in each unit to determine the appropriateness of the organization to the kind of task being performed.
We also measured the feelings of competence of the people in the organizations so that we could link the appropriateness of the organizational attributes with a sense of competence. The principal findings of the survey are best highlighted by contrasting the highly successful Akron plant and the high-performing Stockton laboratory.
Because each performed very different tasks the former a relatively certain manufacturing task and the latter a relatively uncertain research task , we expected, as brought out earlier, that there would have to be major differences between them in organizational characteristics if they were to perform effectively. And this is what we did find. But we also found that each of these effective units had a better fit with its particular task than did its less effective counterpart.
While our major purpose in this article is to explore how the fit between task and organizational characteristics is related to motivation, we first want to explore more fully the organizational characteristics of these units, so the reader will better understand what we mean by a fit between task and organization and how it can lead to more effective behavior.
To do this, we shall place the major emphasis on the contrast between the high-performing units the Akron plant and Stockton laboratory , but we shall also compare each of these with its less effective mate the Hartford plant and Carmel laboratory respectively. Beginning with differences in formal characteristics, we found that both the Akron and Stockton organizations fit their respective tasks much better than did their less successful counterparts.
In the predictable manufacturing task environment, Akron had a pattern of formal relationships and duties that was highly structured and precisely defined. Stockton, with its unpredictable research task, had a low degree of structure and much less precision of definition see Exhibit II.
Exhibit II. Differences in Formal Characteristics in High-performing Organizations. People around here do produce, and produce under relaxed conditions.
Why tamper with success? These differences in formal organizational characteristics were well suited to the differences in tasks of the two organizations. With such an unpredictable, fast-changing task as communications technology research, there were numerous approaches to getting the job done well.
As a consequence, Stockton managers used a less structured pattern of formal practices that left the scientists in the lab free to respond to the changing task situation. Formal reports and reviews were made only quarterly, reflecting the fact that research often does not come to fruition for three to five years.
At the two less effective sites i. A scientist in Carmel commented:. As with formal practices, the climate in both high-performing Akron and Stockton suited the respective tasks much better than did the climates at the less successful Hartford and Carmel sites. The people in the Akron plant perceived a great deal of structure, with their behavior tightly controlled and defined. One manager in the plant said:. We lose money whenever they do.
So we make sure each man knows his job, knows when he can take a break, knows how to handle a change in shifts, etc. In contrast, the scientists in the Stockton laboratory perceived very little structure, with their behavior only minimally controlled.
Such perceptions encouraged the individualistic and creative behavior that the uncertain, rapidly changing research task needed.
The Akron plant and the Stockton laboratory also differed substantially in how influence was distributed and on the character of superior-subordinate and colleague relations.
The task at Akron had already been clearly defined and that definition had, in a sense, been incorporated into the automated production flow itself. Therefore, there was less need for individuals to have a say in decisions concerning the work process. They also described the type of supervision in the plant as being relatively directive.
They described supervision in the laboratory as being very participatory. It is interesting to note that the less successful Carmel laboratory had more of its decisions made at the top. Because of this, there was a definite feeling by the scientists that their particular expertise was not being effectively used in choosing projects. The people at Akron perceived a great deal of similarity among themselves in background, prior work experiences, and approaches for tackling job-related problems.
They also perceived the degree of coordination of effort among colleagues to be very high. This was appropriate for a laboratory in which a great variety of disciplines and skills were present and individual projects were important to solve technological problems. They responded to quick feedback concerning the quality and service that the plant was providing.
This was essential, given the nature of their task. These orientations meant that they were willing to wait for long-term feedback from a research project that might take years to complete.
A scientist in Stockton said:. We can wait for months if necessary before we get feedback from colleagues and the profession. I can live with that, though. In Akron, the technology of the task was so dominant that top managerial behavior which was not focused primarily on the task might have reduced the effectiveness of performance.
Given the individualistic bent of the scientists, this was an important force in achieving unity of effort. All these differences in climate characteristics in the two high performers are summarized in Exhibit III.
Exhibit III. As with formal attributes, the less effective Hartford and Carmel sites had organization climates that showed a perceptibly lower degree of fit with their respective tasks. For example, the Hartford plant had an egalitarian distribution of influence, perceptions of a low degree of structure, and a more participatory type of supervision. The Carmel laboratory had a somewhat top-heavy distribution of influence, perceptions of high structure, and a more directive type of supervision.
Because of the difference in organizational characteristics at Akron and Stockton, the two sites were strikingly different places in which to work. But these organizations had two very important things in common. First, each organization fit very well the requirements of its task. Second, although the behavior in the two organizations was different, the result in both cases was effective task performance.
Since, as we indicated earlier, our primary concern in this study was to link the fit between organization and task with individual motivation to perform effectively, we devised a two-part test to measure the sense of competence motivation of the individuals at both sites. The first part asked a participant to write creative and imaginative stories in response to six ambiguous pictures.
The results indicated that the individuals in Akron and Stockton showed significantly more feelings of competence than did their counterparts in the lower-fit Hartford and Carmel organizations. This interdependency is illustrated in Exhibit IV. Putting the conclusions in this form raises the question of cause and effect. Does effective unit performance result from the task-organization fit or from higher motivation, or perhaps from both?
Does higher sense of competence motivation result from effective unit performance or from fit? Our answer to these questions is that we do not think there are any single cause-and-effect relationships, but that these factors are mutually interrelated.
This has important implications for management theory and practice. While Theory Y might help to explain the findings in the two laboratories, we clearly need something other than Theory X or Y assumptions to explain the findings in the plants. For example, the managers at Akron worked in a formalized organization setting with relatively little participation in decision making, and yet they were highly motivated.
According to Theory X, people would work hard in such a setting only because they were coerced to do so. According to Theory Y, they should have been involved in decision making and been self-directed to feel so motivated. Nothing in our data indicates that either set of assumptions was valid at Akron. Conversely, the managers at Hartford, the low-performing plant, were in a less formalized organization with more participation in decision making, and yet they were not as highly motivated like the Akron managers.
The Theory Y assumptions would suggest that they should have been more motivated.
McGregor presented and explained the two theories in what is considered a classic work of management science, his book The Human Side of Enterprise. Theory X and Theory Y represent two basic assumptions about the human capacity for and relationship to work. Theory X hinges on the assumption that humans are inherently work-averse. The workplace is therefore authoritarian in nature, with top-down pressure serving as the primary mechanism of motivation. Under Theory X, employees are assumed to have little ambition and avoid responsibility, preferring a secure, base work environment.
Managers' assumptions about the behaviour of people are central to this. McGregor argued that these assumptions fall into two broad categories - Theory X and.
Theory X and Theory Y are theories of human work motivation and management. The two theories proposed by McGregor describe contrasting models of workforce motivation applied by managers in human resource management , organizational behavior , organizational communication and organizational development. Theory X explains the importance of heightened supervision, external rewards, and penalties, while Theory Y highlights the motivating role of job satisfaction and encourages workers to approach tasks without direct supervision. Management use of Theory X and Theory Y can affect employee motivation and productivity in different ways, and managers may choose to implement strategies from both theories into their practices. McGregor also believed that self-actualization was the highest level of reward for employees.
In , Douglas McGregor formulated Theory X and Theory Y suggesting two aspects of human behaviour at work, or in other words, two different views of individuals employees : one of which is negative, called as Theory X and the other is positive, so called as Theory Y. According to McGregor, the perception of managers on the nature of individuals is based on various assumptions. Thus, he encouraged cordial team relations, responsible and stimulating jobs, and participation of all in decision-making process.
Skip to search form Skip to main content You are currently offline. Some features of the site may not work correctly. Aithal and P. Aithal , P. Organizational Behaviour in the context of people management consists of several theories in which Theory X, Theory Y, Theory Z are the newly introduced.
ГЛАВА 74 Шестидесятитрехлетний директор Лиланд Фонтейн был настоящий человек-гора с короткой военной стрижкой и жесткими манерами. Когда он бывал раздражен, а это было почти всегда, его черные глаза горели как угли. Он поднялся по служебной лестнице до высшего поста в агентстве потому, что работал не покладая рук, но также и благодаря редкой целеустремленности и заслуженному уважению со стороны своих предшественников. Он был первым афроамериканцем на посту директора Агентства национальной безопасности, но эту его отличительную черту никто никогда даже не упоминал, потому что политическая партия, которую он поддерживал, решительно не принимала этого во внимание, и его коллеги следовали этому примеру.
Я… понимаю, - тихо сказала она, все еще находясь под впечатлением его блистательного замысла. - Вы довольно искусный лжец. Стратмор засмеялся. - Годы тренировки. Ложь была единственным способом избавить тебя от неприятностей. Сьюзан кивнула.
Жертва всегда ищет глазами убийцу. Она делает это инстинктивно. Фонтейна эти слова озадачили. - Вы хотите сказать, что Танкадо не искал глазами Халохота. - Да, сэр. У нас все это записано на пленку, и если вы хотите… - Исчезает фильтр Х-одиннадцать! - послышался возглас техника.
Она сейчас будет. - Она? - Беккер рассмеялся. Он не заметил в АНБ ни одного существа женского пола. - Вас это смущает? - раздался у него за спиной звонкий голос. Беккер обернулся и тотчас почувствовал, что краснеет. Он уставился на карточку с личными данными, приколотыми к блузке стоявшей перед ним женщины. Глава Отделения криптографии АНБ была не просто женщиной, а очень привлекательной женщиной.
Фонтейн глубоко вздохнул. Его темные глаза выжидающе смотрели на Сьюзан. - Мисс Флетчер, как вы полагаете, если это не ключ, то почему Танкадо обязательно хотел его отдать. Если он знал, что мы его ликвидируем, то естественно было бы ожидать, что он накажет нас, допустив исчезновение кольца. В разговор вмешался новый участник.
Я должен был вам рассказать… но думал, что тот тип просто псих. - Какой тип? - Беккер хмуро взглянул на полицейского.
Поднявшись по ступенькам, она обнаружила, что дверь в кабинет шефа открыта, поскольку электронный замок без электропитания бесполезен. Она вошла. - Коммандер? - позвала Сьюзан. Свет внутри исходил лишь от светящихся компьютерных мониторов Стратмора. - Коммандер! - повторила .
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *