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 behavior 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 behavior 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. cc

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The capacity to exercise imagination, ingenuity and creativity in the solution of organisational problems is widely not narrowly distributed in the work force
6. 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! ".