McGregor’s Theory X and Y Essay

The footing of McGregors system has direct think to Taylors study of scientific charge a study of scientific trouble as a link betwixt mankind organisms and their arguments which in turn convey to be re- make believeed to maximise efficiency (Waddell et al. 2007, p. 43). legion(predicate) queryers and scholars have developed theories based on the wager of F.W. Taylor. McGregor, Maslow and others who assisted to im enhance the vox populi of gay coition tried to prove that on that point is a nonher aspect to the traditionalistic perspective of hiters (Bartol and Martin 1998, p. 52).This literature re think volition be focusing on the evolution of McGregors guess X and speculation Y in relation to the festering of management speculation. Moreover entrust be explaining the definition of X and Y speculation and its relevance to twenty-first ascorbic acid.McGregor proposed devil differentiate aims of charabancial assumptions about the workers. He gain ground examined taking Taylors traditional public opinion of workers and Mayos homo relation approach into consideration, which he labelled Taylors view as surmisal X and as Mayos view as surmise Y (Montana and Charnov 2000, p. 25). (Stephen P.Robbins) However, both these theories have the common definition of functions of double-decker management is responsible for organising the elements of productive enterprise- money, materials, equipment, and populate- in the surpass interest of economic ends. briny differences in these two theories ar the assumptions (Urwick 1970, p .1). McGregor with his experience as a manager and as a psychologist, observed the doings and attitude of the workers (Daft.2003, p. 47). jibe to Kopelman, Prottas and Davis (2008, p 1) surmise X represents that workers generally dis resembling work, ar irresponsible, ar lethargic and require final stage supervision. In contrast, speculation Y denotes that individuals are generally fanciful, innovativ e, accept lineability and gestate work is a natural activity.Furtherto a greater extent, his observations on the classical and the doingsal approaches to understanding workers were raise different. He paired up his theories to the work of Abraham Maslow, where he compared the higher regards set forward by Abraham Maslow such as self-actualization, to a surmisal Y lead way of life, and lower needs such as physiological and safety, to the theory X leading style (Bartol and Martin 1998, p. 51). guess X is referred to as optimistic and Theory Y as pessimistic (Montana and Charnov 2000, p 26), others labeled Theory X as negative and Theory Y as positive (Robbins et al.1998, p 202) and according Schein (1970, p.5) McGregor called Theory X as hard approach and Theory Y as soft approach. tally to McGregor (1960, p. 33-35), the assumptions of Theory X are that individuals by temperament do not like to work and will avoid it if possible. Furthermore, human creations do not wan t responsibility and desire precise guidance.Additionally, the workers put their throw concerns above that of the disposal and by nature they are resistant to changes. Finally, human beings are taken for granted to be soft manipulated and controlled. match to Boddy and Paton (1998, p. 201) it is of workout with Theory X philosophy to include time registration, supervision, select checked by a master key as assigned in job description. The chief(prenominal) focus of Theory X is that of external control, by systems, procedures or supervision. They believed that managers who real Theory X view would be inconsiderate in accepting adroitness of a normal human being (Boddy and Paton 1998, p. 200). Managers who assign to Theory X are expected to practice authoritarian style (Lewis, Goodman and Fandt 1998, p. 56). By contrast, Theory Y has assumptions which is all in all opposite of Theory X. As per Theory Y, work is natural, and tries to occupy them actively and lie with too.Furt hermore, workers do not require small supervision and they are self-motivated. Additionally, it assumes that they work innovatively and creatively. If large number are given a take place to prove their competency they are aspirant to solve problems and help their organizations meet their goals (McGregor 1960, p. 47-48). Managers who reach the belief in Theory Y are likely to exercise a participatory style, discussing with their subordinate voicing their opinion, and encouraging them to take part in finality making (Lewis, Goodman and Fandt 1998, p. 56). anxietys main aim is to structure a correct working environment in dictate to achieve their higher-order personal goals by achieving organisational objectives (Bloisi, Cook and Hunsaker 2007, p. 205).The organizations of 21st century are in a more combat-ready world where technology, education and research and meliorate economic conditions are vastly improving. It becomes piecemeal more important for managers to hold the set of assumptions about human behaviour that McGregor has proposed in his Theory If an individual holds Theory X assumptions then he will not be logical and responsive to data, therefore, will have limited choice of managerial style. In regard to Theory Y, he can wisely choose from motley of options (Schein 1975, p. 7). Having worked for 15 years in many types of organization, Schein (1975, p. 3) believes that organizations need more Theory Y managers at all levels especially at higher levels. However, few companies still practice Theory X management (Daft 2003, p.48), notwithstanding many are applying Theory Y concept of management such as Hewllet Packard (Waddell et al. 2007, p. 56) and SOL cleaning service, and it has proved to be a success.They consider everyone equal and think of each employees contribution (Daft 2003, p.48). According to Kochan, Orlikowski and Gershenfeld (2002, p.4) assumptions characterizing twentieth century refers to Theory X and twenty first century organizations characteristics refer to Theory Y were explained using hatful, work, technology leadership and goals. legion(predicate) organizations have realised the importance of the human capital and are currently attempt to adopt to change themselves as they recognize. McGregor reasond that fresh organizations do not take into account the innovativeness of workers. In order to utilize these priceless assets, managers need to brook employees to use their expertise. Thus, provide and create conditions that integrate individual and organisational goals (Boddy and Paton 1998, p. 200-201). McGregor believed that people in twenty first century are more educated and plastered and they are more self controlled (Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson 2001, p. 60).Hence, intimately of the modern organisations strongly practices management by delegating authority, job enlargement, making work more interesting, with increased level of responsibilities and their contend of information and inn ovations regarding the work content, work image and effects (Montana and Charnov 2000, p. 25). Finally, in order to measure the capital punishment of the individual, the organisations have appraisal system which evaluates their accomplishments annually or semi-annually. For example, companies such as general Mills, Ansul Chemicals, and General Electric have been experimenting with performance appraisal approaches (Ott, Parkes and Simpson 2003, p. 168).These managerial propositions are associated best with the Theory Y management style. According Lorshe and Morse (cited in David and Robert 2000, p. 202) in their research of four companies and concluded that successful family in the normal business apply a consistent Theory X style and the other in the creative business used theory Y .These theories may be applicable to some organizations and to some cultures. In article, peoples Republic of China, being a communist country has dependable Theory X in the old and has adopted to practice Theory Y style with a productive result (Oh 1976, p. 1).In summary, Theory X and Theory Y have significant opposition on modern management styles. The assumptions of these two theories hold the extreme ends and McGregor assumed that peoples behaviour is strongly influenced by their beliefs. His theories have been labelled relating to Taylor and Mayos work. As in my opinion there is no one best theory which may fit all organizations. However, more in depth research need to be undertaken to identify and prove which theory does best fits. According to Boddy and Paton (1998, p. 202) many argue that both these theories may be unfitting in some situations. Theory Y is a theory of human motivation, not a theory of how to manage or run an organization (Schein 1975, p. 1).ReferencesWaddell, D, Devine, J, Jones, GR & George, JM 2007, Contemporary focussing, McGraw-Hill Irwin, northernmost Ryde.Bartol, KM & Martin, DC, Management, 3rd edn, McGraw-Hill Co, Boston Montana, P & Ch arnov, B 2000, Barrons Management, 3rd edn, Hauppauge, N.Y Daft, RL 2000, Management, sixth edn, Thomson learning, OhioRobbins, SP, Millett, B, Cacioppe, R & Marsh TW 1998, shapingal behaviour Learning and managing in Australia and New Zealand, second edn, Prentice Hall, Sydney McGregor, D 1960, The human side of enterprise, McGraw-Hill book company, New York Boddy, D & Paton, R 1998, Management an introduction, Prentice Hall Europe, capital of the United Kingdom Lewis, PS, Goodman, SH & Fandt, PM 1998, Management Challenges in the 21st century, 2nd edn, South-Western College Pub, Cincinnati Bloisi, W, Cook, CW & Hunsaker, PL 2007, Management and organisational behaviour, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill, Berkshire Hersey, P, Blanchard, KH & Johnson, DE 2001, Management andorganizational behaviour leading human resources, 8th edn, Prentice Hall, Upper send River Kopelman, RE, Prottas, DJ & Davis, AL 2008, Douglas McGregors Theory X and Y toward a constructvalid measure, Journal of managerial resultant roles, vol. 20, no. 2, 255271, retrieved 22nd abut 2011, Ebsco swarmOtt, JS, Parkes, SJ & Simpson RB 2003, Classical reading in organizational behaviour, 3rd edn, Thomson/Wadsworth, Belmont Schein, EH 1975, In self-renunciation of Theory Y, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 4, Issue 1, p17-30, retrieved 22nd March 2011, Ebsco entertain Oh, TK 1976, Theory Y in Peoples Republic of China, California Management Review, Vol. 19, Issue 2, p77-84, retrieved 22nd March 2011, Ebsco Host Urwick, LF 1970, Theory Z, SAM groundbreaking Management Journal, Vol. 35, Issue 1, p14, retrieved 28th March 2011, Ebsco Host Kochan, T, Orlikowski,W & Gershenfeld JC 2002, Beyond McGregors Theory YHuman Capital and Knowledge-Based reach in the 21st Century Organization, retrieved 24th March 2011, http//mitsloan.mit.edu/50th/pdf/beyondtheorypaper.pdf