The Human Side Of Enterprise

Theory X and Theory Y represent two sets of assumptions about human nature and human behaviour

Theory X & Y was officially expounded (and named) by Douglas McGregor, a social psychologist at MIT in the 1960s. His idea was that there are two fundamentally different styles of management. Theory X is an authoritarian concept where one assumes that individuals work reluctantly, without motivation. On the other hand, Theory Y is a libertarian concept where one assumes that people will perform beyond their duties if they are motivated and are dedicated to the overall goals set forth for them.

From the vantage point of the present, it is easy to look back at the tenure of any great leader and draw conclusions about just what it was that made him/her great. We can examine the circumstances under which their leadership flourished; piece together what we know of their character and personality traits; delve into the factors that may have driven them; and dissect their leadership style all in an effort to pinpoint the source of their success. The ‘Great Man’ theory, popular in the 19th century and now thoroughly debunked, held that leaders are born, not made; suggesting that men like George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., and Winston Churchill were born with the innate capacity to change the world (Landis,

Leadership is, and always has been, a vital aspect of social and economic constructs. It is essential to the survival of societies, industries, organizations, and virtually any group of individuals that come together for a common purpose. However, leadership is difficult to define in a single, definitive sense. As such, theories of leadership, what constitutes a great leader, and how leaders are made have evolved constantly throughout history, and still continue to change today in hopes of improving upon our understanding of leadership, its importance, and how it can be most effective in modern organizational cultures.

The essays that comprise Traditional Classics on Leadership present varying notions of authority and of challenging authority. This is largely due to the fact that this manuscript is comprised of essays from 31 contributors, ranging from well-known political theorists to some of the more salient voices for individuality that the world has known. Still, there are some points of commonalities in these essays that present a synthesized viewpoint of the concept of challenging authority.

What is leadership, and how do we attain the best and most effective leaders? These are questions that are as old as civilization itself. Bass (1974) wrote that, “from its infancy, the study of history has been the study of leaders” (as cited in Wren, 1995, p. 50). Since the study of history in the West is commonly held to begin with Herodotus of ancient Athens, it is not surprising that we should examine the historical views of leadership through the eyes of two titans of Greek thought: Plato and Aristotle.

When managing people, McGregor’s model, indicated below, shows to styles of management. Theory X is directive, whereas Theory Y is enabling, and looks at employee engagement/ teamwork in order to achieve the

My father once told me that, “everything we do— be it in academia, at work, social or family life—we are guided by principles, beliefs and values that collectively form our ideology of life.” I believe that every leader, to a certain extent, is shaped through her individual personal experience. Although in some cases, we may not realize to what extent our personal assumptions and beliefs shape our ability to lead or be led.

Theory Y, adopts the participative management style, which operates on the idea that people are inherently motivated to work if they find the job fulfilling

Theory X and Theory Y, developed by Douglas McGregor, grew out of opposition towards classical management methods. Classical management theorists, such as Fredrick Taylor, focused on scientific training and efficiency and did not account for personal and behavioral issues, such as management styles or job satisfaction. McGregor saw these deficiencies in the classical school of management which lead him to develop a theory of management that would factor the importance of the individual worker. If a manager could tap into the feelings and attitudes of their workers, then the manager would be able increase their employee’s motivation which would then increase production. McGregor’s theory viewed the employee as a person and not as a machine

On the other hand, here comes to the theory Y. On the contrary, it based on positive assumptions, and also more positive view of workers and the possibilities that create. For instance, they assumed that employees are ambitious, self-motivated and anxious to accept greater responsibility. Employees exercise self-control, self-direction, autonomy and empowerment, also exercise creativity and become forward looking. So, once the managers are adopted this theory, they believes that people want to do well at work, have a pool of unused creativity and that the satisfaction of doing a job

Organizational theory studies the various variables that influence the behavior of an individual(s) working within an organization, but also, “prescribes how work and workers ought to be organized and attempts to explain the actual consequences of organizational behavior (including individual actions) on work being performed and on the organization itself.” (Milakovich & Gordon, 2013, p.145). Of the many approaches to organizational analysis, Classical Organizational theory has been, even to this day, extremely influential by focusing on more formal concepts such as bureaucracy, rationalization and scientific management. Although, over the decades organizational management has taken on a more human relations approach to getting more productivity out of employees, it is contributors like Max Webber, Fredrick Taylor, and Luther Gulick that laid down the basic foundation organizational theories by recognizing the need for control and procedures.

Douglas McGregor was a management professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management. He introduced a new motivational theory in his book ‘The Human Side of Enterprise’, stating that all workers were divided into two groups: Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X workers were lazy, irrational and unreliable, and were only motivated by money and threatened by punishment. Theory Y workers were able to seek and accept responsibilities and fulfil any goals given.

2007). Kermally (2005, p.36) explain that McGregor believed ‘how managers manage people in practice depends on what assumptions they make about workers’. It means that which kind of leadership managers choose, according to how managers perceive workers’ attitudes toward their job. Managers believe their workers related to Theory X and Y normally use strict supervision approaches to reduce workers’ control on their job, in contrary, managers allow workers to be innovative and willing to authorise more responsibility to Theory Y workers (Waddell et al. 2007).

In this philosophy there was a large focus on rules and lack of discretion, thus meaning that the main focus of this philosophy is high control (DeNisi & Griffin, 2014) . This theory of Human resource management is thought to be best suited for X-type workers according to the McGregor X and Y Theory (Robbins & Judge, 2013). Human Resource Managers who would use this viewpoint intend on increasing Productivity by forcing workers to abide by the rules of a strict script because the workers are considered to be lazy and lacked motivation therefore they are need to pushed to perform tasks and have to be forcibly directed to doing tasks the do not like (French & Rees,