Theory X and Y of Management

Motivation required to do some task varies from person to person. Many people feel happy about their work and feel satisfied whereas others feel it burdensome.

This question of motivation has been studied by management theorists and social psychologists for decades, in attempts to identify successful approaches to management. 

Social psychologist Douglas McGregor of MIT approached this situation using two contrasting theories on human motivation and management in the 1960s: The X Theory and the Y Theory. McGregor promoted Theory Y as the basis of good management practice, pioneering the argument that workers are not merely cogs in an organization, as Theory X-Type seemed to believe. 

The theories look at how a manager's perceptions of what motivates his or her team members affects the way he or she behaves. By understanding this a manager and adapt his or her approach towards and effective management.

Understanding the Theories 

Management style is strongly influenced by beliefs and assumptions about what motivates members of  team: If it is believed that team members dislike work, then a manager will tend towards an authoritarian style of management; On the other hand, if he assumes that employees take pride in doing a good job, he will tend to adopt a more participative style.

Theory X 

The conventional conception of management’s task in harnessing human energy to organizational requirements can be stated broadly in terms of three propositions. This set of propositions is called “Theory X”:

1.      Management is responsible for organizing the elements of productive enterprise money, materials, equipment, people in the interest of economic ends.

2.      With respect to people, this is a process of directing their efforts, motivating them, controlling their actions, modifying their behavior to fit the needs of the organization.

3.      Without this active intervention by management, people would be passive even resistant to organizational needs. They must therefore be persuaded, rewarded, punished, controlled their activities must be directed.This is management’s task in managing subordinate managers or workers. We often sum it up by saying that management consists of getting things done through other people.

Behind this conventional theory there are several additional beliefs less explicit, but widespread.

1.      The average man is by nature indolent he works as little as possible.

2.      He lacks ambition, dislikes responsibility, prefers to be led.

3.      He is inherently self-centered, indifferent to organizational needs.

4.      He is by nature resistant to change.

5.    He is gullible, not very bright, the ready dupe of the charlatan and the demagogue.

At one extreme, management can be “hard”or “strong”. The methods for directing behavior involve coercion and threat (usually disguised), close supervision, tight controls over behavior. At the other extreme, management can be“soft”or “weak.” The methods for directing behavior involve being permissive,satisfying people’s demands, achieving harmony. Then they will be tractable,accept direction. There are difficulties in the “hard”approach. Force breeds counter forces: restriction of output, antagonism, militant unionism, subtle but effective sabotage of management objectives. This approach is especially difficult during times of full employment.There are also difficulties in the “soft”approach. It leads frequently to the abdication of management to harmony, perhaps, but to indifferent performance. People take advantage of the soft approach. They continually expect more, but they give less and less. Then there is a popular theme: “firm but fair.”This is an attempt to gain the advantages of both the hard and the soft approaches.

Management by direction and control whether implemented with the hard, the soft, or the firm but fair approach fails under today’s conditions to provide effective motivation of human effort toward organizational objectives. It fails because direction and control are useless methods of motivating people whose physiological and safety needs are reasonably satisfied and whose social, egoistic, and self-fulfillment needs are predominant.

Theory Y 

For these and many other reasons, there is a requirement for a different theory of the task of managing people based on more adequate assumptions about human nature and human motivation. This is termed as "Theory Y".

1.      Management is responsible for organizing the elements of productive enterprise money, materials, equipment, people in the interest of economic ends.

2.      People are not by nature passive or resistant to organizational needs. They have become so as a result of experience in organizations.

3.      The motivation, the potential for development, the capacity for assuming responsibility, the readiness to direct behavior toward organizational goals are all present in people. Management does not put them there. It is a reponsibility of management to make it possible for people to recognize and develop these human characteristics for themselves.

4.      The essential task of management is to arrange organizational conditions and methods of operation so that people can achieve their own goals best by directing their own efforts toward organizational objectives.This is a process primarily of creating opportunities, releasing potential, removing obstacles, encouraging growth, providing guidance. It is what Peter Druckerhas called “management by objectives” in contrast to “management by control.”

The above written theories have been derived from Douglas McGregor's "The Human Side of  Enterprise".

Personal Views:

My views differ from those who put the two theories in perspective of permutations of two cases: one that a manager could be optimistic(hopeful) or pessimistic(hopeless) and other that an employee could be hardworking or lazy. My understanding is that every human would do the requisite work if he finds a suitable motivation to do it. This motivation level differs from person to person. A hungry man may clean your office for a loaf of bread whereas a well-fed man wouldn't even supervise the cleaning if he is given the same incentive. It's because his need isn't a loaf of bread but something more. 'More' doesn't necessary mean increment in absolute numeric terms, it could be more in terms of quality, feeling etc.

My understanding is that as per Theory X, a manager uses a "push" approach. An optimistic(hopeful) manager would be "soft" or "weak" as explained above whereas a pessimistic(hopeless) manager would be "hard" or "strong" again as explained above. But in Theory Y, a manager uses a pull approach. He or she wouldn't be directing an employee but rather be setting the framework of the employee's work such that the employee would to be self-driven, because of the motivation he gets from the framework, to complete the job.

In my real life experience, I have found Theory X to have been predominantly in use. In my project, I had a Team Lead who was firm but fair. But I can't say that he belonged to the Theory Y category since my organizational structure didn't permit him to. Even if he was optimistic about his team mates, yet for defaulters he had to take strict measures. The system didn't take care of such defaulters itself rather my team lead would be the one held accountable for, if any of the subordinates failed to complete the task.

Theory Y is an idealistic scenario wherein the managers have to create the framework to motivate the employees effectively. However, most of the managers find that such a system can't be trusted since they can never be sure of the same.

Personally, if I was a manager, I would strive to achieve a scenario as described in Theory Y, since a motivated employee would be efficient in his work and the management would be effective. The outcome of effectiveness and efficiency would result in excellence.