McGregors Theory X and Theory Y - Essay Example

MOB McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y A theory that forms an important part of the studies pertaining to Human Resource management, organisational communication, organisational management and organisational development is known as the Theory of X and Theory of Y. The theory was developed by Douglas McGregor in 1960s. Theory X and Theory Y generally deal with the attitude and not attributes of managers and analyse the relationship between the managers and employees of an organisation (Yoo and Alavi, 2004). McGregor’s Theory X McGregor’s Theory X explains the perceptions that managers hold about the employees. The managers generally have the notion that workers are inherently lazy and would avoid their duties at the first instant as they dislike performing job tasks. Hence, there is a serious need for the management to monitor the employee performances and a comprehensive system of evaluation needs to be developed. The organisational structure should be such that there is a certain amount of control at each level and proper incentives are provided to employees so as to motivate them towards working efficiently, as opposed to avoiding the responsibilities bestowed. According to this school of thought, the management also resorts to coercion and threat so as to ensure achievement of the goals set. Managers conforming to the Theory X tend to be suspicious and are constantly under the impression that employees are doing their jobs only for money. Consequently, they would rather blame the employee for any slip in the work, than focus attention on any other problem existing in the system such as, faulty training, inadequate tools and so on and so forth. A major flaw associated with this style of management is that such behaviours often cause diseconomies of scale in the long run (Kopelman, Prottas and Davis, 2008; Winkler, 2009). McGregor’s Theory Y Such a management is more amicable in nature and there is a level of trust existing between the management and the employees. The management believes that employees of the organisation are self-motivated, ambitious and enjoy performing the job duties. The managers believe that employees possess a unique ability of deriving creative solutions to problems and given the option they would strive to work better and accept greater responsibilities. Thus, McGregor in this theory proposes that the managers should be open to suggestions, have a positive attitude towards employees and offer constant motivation to them, thereby increasing organisational productivity (Robbins and Judge, 2012). The theory Y managers are believed to be more capable of creating an amiable environment at work compared to the Theory X managers, which is a crucial aspect of work. An amiable environment entails respectful downward and vertical communication between managers and employees, thereby creating a comfortable environment allowing the workers to maximise inputs by developing their abilities and minimising the difference between a superior and a subordinate (Silverthorne, 2001). Fiedler’s contingency model A leader’s effectiveness and ability to designate specific tasks to the employees are measured by the Fiedler’s contingency model. An effective leader should be able to motivate the workers and his motivational propensity is measured by the degree to which responsibilities and relations are balanced. A leader’s capability related to situational control is capable of rendering the relationship between leadership style and effectiveness less rigorous. The model has three components of situational favourability, implying the degree of power and control that a leader believes he has on the subordinates (Evans, 2012). The components are as follows: Leader-member relations: The extent to which a leader feels that he/she is prototypical to the group and accepted as well as supported by the group members. Task structure: The ability of a leader to align the task with goals and procedures. The task should also be measurable in terms of progress and success. Leader power: The extent to which cohesion is applied in order to obtain compliance from the subordinates is measured. Moreover, this aspect determines the ability of a leader in terms of utilizing his superior position and power for the purpose of rewarding or punishing the subordinates (Epitropaki and Martin, 2004). The model concludes on the note that it has often been noticed that task-oriented leaders outperform the ones who are relations-oriented in the case of favourable or unfavourable situations. The results are reversed when the situation is moderately favourable (Miller, Butler and Cosentino, 2003). There are few qualities that a good leader must possess. Apart from being honest, the leader must have the ability to delegate work to his subordinates (Huang, et al., 2006; Kohn and OConnell, 2005). Tim Smit in this case has shown extraordinary powers. Sound delegation requires the leader to be able to have trust in the team’s strength and accordingly assign authority or tasks. A healthy line of communication between the head and the subordinates is very essential and is the key behind successful business operation. Open door policies and holding regular discussions with the staff are methods that enable effective communication between both parties. The team should have faith on the leader so that they are enthused to work harder towards betterment of the company. Sense of humour is a very important aspect of a good leader. Productivity of the workers is positively related to their morale. Hence, as a team leader, the job is to instil a positive energy in the workplace and make the employees laugh at their mistakes, which can in turn boost their morale, thereby rendering them more sincere and vigilant about the work in future. Smit was able to make people with diverse mentality and from different disciplines work together. The workers under him were content with the work environment, which indicates to the fact that Smit was a good leader who did not create an atmosphere of terror in the workplace. A confident leader has the ability to instil the same in his subordinates. In an event where the work becomes difficult and strays from the pre-defined plan, then the leader is expected to motivate the employees. Commitment towards work is also a major aspect of being a good leader. If a leader leads by example, then the workers are bound to follow (Sager, 2008; Mackenzie, 2006). A hard working leader can expect similar levels of commitment from the workers. Smit, as a leader, did not hesitate to work alongside the employees and train them to attend visitors during peak hours. Smit was known to be an extremely creative person who had envisioned renovating the garden in such a manner that a tour of the same would be both educational and recreational for visitors. He was previously a rock show organiser, besides being an archaeologist and an anthropologist. Yet, he showed expertise in transforming the previously unattractive garden into a beautiful one by dint of his creative talents. A good leader must learn to trust his natural instincts. During a new project, there is no roadmap and presence of high level of risk and uncertainty, which reinforces the need for a confident and intuitive approach. Last but not the least, ability to inspire the team is the mark of a good leader. In the initial stages, when there are hardly any positive outcomes, it is the leader’s responsibility to be able to make the team feel buoyant and optimistic about successful completion of a project. The social identity approach states that leaders are closer to the prototypical group member than the followers. Leadership is deemed as a function of the group and not of an individual. Thus, the leaders are socially more attractive than the followers, thereby facilitating regulated control over the followers. Leaders are found to manipulate their leadership status in the groups and portray themselves as prototypical so that the followers are more comfortable while working and a healthy work environment is maintained. The followers also tend to accept authority of the leaders and conform to their decisions. Leaders are typically expected to have good leadership traits and be the one who can provide followers with the proper vision and mission. The followers or workers are treated with equal respect as the leader while maintaining the distinction between them (Natale, Sora and Kavalipurapu, 2004). Tim Smit was an efficient leader and also a visionary who had realized the importance of Social Identity Approach and treated every team member equally. He chose his workers based on their ability to work along with others, given that good team work was an integral part of Smit’s work culture. He understood the necessity of cooperation among the workers and in order to ensure the same, he preferred to choose his workers. He had the potential to distinguish each employee on their unique qualities and formed an effective team that gave in their best towards the parks’ restoration. ‘Tim’s Secret if there is one, seems to be that he can bring people of very different disciplines and skills together, get them to brainstorm and collaborate and come up with the impossible’ (Mullins and van Bortel, 2010; Mullins, 2013. Irrespective of risks involved in the blurring of lines between the leader and the followers, the process has its benefits as well as acts as a positive organisational approach for the long run. Smit’s positive approach, zeal for work and vibrant energy was contagious and was passed over to the employees, which motivated them to push their limits and accordingly meet the set goal. Hence, maintaining a good rapport with the colleagues has led to high levels of job satisfaction and helped boost the team morale. Job satisfaction simultaneously ensures high energy levels and creativity in the work performed as workers exhibit willingness to work harder. This strategy often ensures that the team members become a mirror image of the leader (Bolden, et al., 2003; Muchiri, et al., 2011). However, Tim’s fondness for his colleagues can make him potentially biased while making decisions. Bias towards his employees might hinder the work progress and can act as a major roadblock towards betterment. As a result, it is necessary for Smit to be emotionally resilient and professional. Professionalism of a leader should not border on dictatorship. The managers of the Theory X type are inherently overbearing and suspicious. They typically have management issues and find it difficult to delegate work to the employees. They tend to get overbearing that inadvertently affects the employee morale. These managers also generally respond with an indifferent attitude and a half-hearted approach towards work. Tim Smit showed traits of an overbearing boss displaying the Theory X characteristics. Matching his enthusiasm and energy level, the workers were willing to strive beyond their limits and facilitate successful completion of the park (Bovee and Thill, 2013). Nevertheless as a leader, a very irresponsible decision was to make the gardeners work long hours into the night. The work entailed hazardous activities as that of “lopping unstable branches from trees in the rainforest”. Moreover, while the project was in continuity, rifts appeared to develop between Smit and a group of employees known as the “Green Team”. The divide became more apparent when Smit was planning upon the winter event, which is the ‘Time of Gifts’ festival, in order to boost the number of visitors. This special event entailed construction of an ice rink and also needed extensive lighting arrangements. The workers were required to work extra hours so as to make the event a success and some of them even had to learn to ice skate. The workers felt that the organisational values were being compromised on and ambience around the workplace bordered on dictatorship. The curators, housekeeping staff and caterers were distraught and felt immense pressure of the event. In spite of the flaws, it can be safely concluded that Tim Smit possessed nearly all qualities of an efficient leader and was the driving force behind facilitating success of the Eden Project. His creativity, ability to inspire and enthusiasm was infectious and worked in favour of the project. Reference List Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A. and Dennison, P., 2003. A review of leadership theory and competency frameworks. [pdf] University of Exeter. Available at: [Accessed 12 August 2014]. Bovee, C. V. and Thill, J. V., 2013. Business Communication Essentials. NJ: Prentice Hall. Carson, C. M., 2005. A historical view of Douglas McGregors Theory Y. Management Decision, 43(3), pp. 450-460. Epitropaki, O. and Martin, R., 2004. Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), pp. 293. Evans, M. G., 2012. Path goal theory of leadership. Arizona: Information Age Publishing. Forbes, 2012. Top 10 Qualities That Make A Great Leader. [online] Available at: [Accessed 12 August 2014]. Huang, X., Shi, K., Zhang, Z. and Cheung, Y. L., 2006. The impact of participative leadership behavior on psychological empowerment and organizational commitment in Chinese state-owned enterprises: the moderating role of organizational tenure. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(3), pp. 345-367. Kohn, S. E. and OConnell, V. D., 2005. 6 Habits of Highly Effective Bosses. NJ: Career Press. Kopelman, R. E., Prottas, D. J. and Davis, A. L., 2008. Douglas McGregors Theory X and Y: toward a construct-valid measure. Journal of Managerial Issues, pp. 255-271. Mackenzie, K. D., 2006, The Lampe Theory of organizational leadership. Multi-Level Issues in Social Systems, 5, pp. 345-428. Miller, R. L., Butler, J. and Cosentino, C. J., 2003. Followership effectiveness: an extension of Fiedler’s contingency model. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(4), pp. 362–368. Muchiri, M. K., Cooksey, R. W., Di Milia, L. V. and Walumbwa, F. O., 2011. Gender and managerial level differences in perceptions of effective leadership. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(5), pp. 462–492. Mullins, D. and van Bortel, G., 2010. Neighbourhood regeneration and place leadership: lessons from Groningen and Birmingham. Policy studies, 31(4), pp. 413-428. Mullins, L. J., 2013. Management and Organisational Behaviour. NJ: Prentice Hall. Natale, S. M., Sora, S. A. and Kavalipurapu, S., B. 2004. Leadership in teams: managerial responses. Team Performance Management, 10(3/4), pp. 45-52. Robbins, S. P. and Judge, T. A., 2012. Organizational Behavior. NJ: Prentice Hall. Sager, K. L., 2008. An exploratory study of the relationships between theory X/Y assumptions and superior communicator style. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(2), pp. 288-312. Silverthorne, C., 2001. A test of the path-goal leadership theory in Taiwan. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(4), pp. 151–158. Winkler, I., 2009. Contemporary Leadership Theories. New York: Springer. Yoo, Y. and Alavi, M., 2004. Emergent leadership in virtual teams: what do emergent leaders do?. Information and Organization, 14(1), pp. 27-58. Read More