Introduction
New challenges were created in the 19th century due to the emergence of the industrial revolution. Among these challenges was the need to increase the effectiveness of the workforce. Therefore, creative thinkers in the early ages suggested theories that they believed if applied would result in higher management efficiency. Such theories were based on the fundamental belief that employees should be actively supervised and monitored (Gurey & Junnark 2008).
However, Douglas McGregor challenged this notion through his extensive work where he established two theories that defined the assumption held about employees’ attitude towards work. These assumptions automatically influenced the workers productivity (Kopelman, Prottas, Davis 2008; Tatham, Waldaman & Bennis 2010). It is therefore important to examine them in order to determine if they are practical or not, especially in the 21st Century.
Theory X and Theory Y
Douglas McGregor, a prominent figure in the evolution of management theory, made significant contribution in behavioural theory. In 1960 he suggested a radical change in the belief and perception managers had about their employees (Kopelman, Prottas & Davis 2008).
Whereas the previous theories had suggested the need for employees to be controlled and guided authoritatively, McGregor thought otherwise. He outlined that managers should instead adopt a motivator and role model approach hence moulding the desired employee behaviour (Tatham, Waldaman & Bennis 2010).
Unfortunately, He established that most managers perceive their employees negatively; He categorized this kind of assumption under Theory X (classical system theory). Manager ascribing to this assumption generally believe that most employees, despise work, are automatically lazy and hence unproductive (Kopelman, Prottas & Davis 2008; Stohl 2008; Tatham, Waldaman & Bennis 2010).
As opposed to these assumptions, McGregor believed that the general intention of most employees is to be more productive. This assumption commonly referred to as theory Y (human relation) contradicted theory X notion; employees inherently hate working (Stohl 2008).
Conventional view or what is referred as theory X exposed the underlying assumptions that surrounded the scientific era which the management practiced at the time, was evolving from. Here, effective management included harnessing the power of human labour to achieve organizational effectiveness.
The manager could achieve this through effectively; organizing all elements of production. Such elements included natural resources, machinery and equipment, money, people among others. Very important to note is that the process of managing people involved keenly directing and controlling their efforts and actions to suit the organization’s needs (Gurey & Junnark 2008).
According to this theory, failure to intervene constantly would result in undesirable outcome. This is because; workers here are viewed as lazy, irresponsible, un-ambitious and self-centred (Kopelman, Prottas & Davis 2008). Due to this nature they may be passive and at times resistant to any initiative directed towards achieving organizational goals (Stohl 2008).
Therefore managers could adopt the use of rewards and punishment to mould the appropriate behaviour. McGregor study (cited in Stohl 2008) established management practice and policies at the time reflected these assumptions, and as mentioned earlier, employees acted in the expected undesirable manner. The natural response of managers was to be more stringent and consequently the employees reacted to it, resulting in a viscous cycle (Gurey & Junnark 2008).
Therefore, McGregor confirmed that expectations defines and to a great extent, dictates human behaviour. Moreover, he ascertained that the assumptions managers had on their employees would determine how they interacted with them. Only when managers take into consideration human nature would they enjoy effective co-operation resulting in an organizational economic achievement. Therefore he developed theory Y, which was based on the principle that managers are in charge of organizing functions.
However, workers do not naturally posses negative attitude towards work, their negative reaction usually result from their past un-favourable experiences with the organization. Hence, managers need not control them actively and influence their actions; instead they need to create conducive working environment. With that in place, people will simply work to satisfy their ego, what Maslow referred as self-actualization (Stohl 2008; Tatham, Waldaman, Bennis 2010)
On the other hand, theory X is inapplicable to 21st Century managers. In fact scientific management where most of its assumptions were derived from was phased out as a result of its ineffectiveness. Currently applying it would imply that managers should spend most of their time policing staff.
Consequently, no creativity or independence would be expected on the part of the employee. Clearly, this indicates that nobody really would be in charge of adopting innovation or any other initiative that would advance the organization; both the managers and workers would be pre-occupied by routines.
Nevertheless, current managers need an intellectual approach, or an effective theory, to guide them through the process. The theory should act as the first step in defining their assumptions and attitude about people. Consequently, they should align this theory with actual actions. Striving to ensure they act in accordance with it. It is at this stage where theory Y becomes effective (Gurey & Junnark 2008). Currently organizations need people as much as-or even more than-they need them.
Successful organizations like apple Inc, Google among others, can attest to the fact that their employees creativity boosted by the confidence they hold in them, has significantly contributed to their success. To an important extent, managers at such organizations subscribe to Theory Y philosophy and hence encourage employees to apply their skills voluntarily to combat the challenging business environment (Tatham, Waldaman & Bennis 2010).
Nevertheless, even McGregor (cited in Stohl 2008) acknowledged that this is not an easy route. He emphasised on one to start by examining one’s thought; a step avoided by most managers (Heil, Bennis and Stephens 2000). Nevertheless they insist that managers should view McGregor’s works as a framework to use for accomplishing their mission.
Conclusion
The contribution of Douglas McGregor to the management evolution cannot be overlooked. His works suggested new ways which managers could adopt as means of achieving more efficiency. Theory X, which is one of his theories, elaborated the perception managers hold on their subordinates.
It was heavily influenced by the scientific management era that the business environment was emerging from. The negative assumptions about workers’ attitude underpinned in this theory are considered self-fulfilling. In addition, managers holding on to this school of thought hinder their employee from becoming creative, innovative and independent, just to mention a few.
On the brighter side, McGregor viewed employees more positively. In his suggestion labelled Theory Y he saw employees as generally possessing positive attitude towards work. The negative reaction is usually as a result of the un-conducive working environment, aggravated by poor management practices. By examining McGregor’s work, it becomes apparent theory Y would be the most appropriate for 21st century managers. The success of current organizations will highly depend on how they treat their workforce.
Reference List
Heil,G, Bennis, W, & Stephens, D 2000, Douglas McGregor Revisited: Managing The Human Side of Enterprise, John Wiley & Sons, N. Y.
Gurey, J, & Junnark, GM 2008, Management Theory: Contemporary Approach, McGraw, N.Y.
Kopelman, RE, Prottas, DJ & Davis, AL 2008, ‘Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Y: toward a construct-valid measure’, Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 20, no. 2, Summer, pp. 255-271, retrieved ABI Inform database.
Stohl, M 2008, Understanding Management from McGregor View Point, Elsevier, Oxford.
Tatham, K, Waldaman, H & Bennis 2010, ‘Using Douglas McGregor Theoretical Model to Achieve Management Effectiveness in the 21ST Century’ Academic leadership Journal, vol.13, no. 12, pp 212-243.