Douglas McGregors Theory X and the Leisure Industry Managers - Coursework Example

Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and the Leisure Industry Managers Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and the Leisure Industry ManagersIn the contemporary leadership and business/organizational management, leaders face new obligations and expectations, which require them to acquire skills hence familiarize themselves with the continuously changing management theories. With that, they would become more flexible to the endless changes within their work environments. Douglas McGregor’s ground-breaking book of 1960, “The Human Side of Enterprise” thereby lay the path along which most management practices and thinking are channelled today (Therese & Thomas, 2011, pp. 208). By questioning certain fundamental assumptions concerning the human behaviours in their organizations, McGregor outlined new roles of managers, demonstrating that rather than controlling and commanding their subordinates, managers opt to assist them reach or hit their maximum work potential (Hill, Bennis & Stephens, 2000, pp. 119). In his book, McGregor described two contrasting workforce motivation models via two theories: Theory X and Theory Y. Both of these two theories have got something to do with the kinds of perceptions held by managers about their employees, which in turn will greatly impact their management styles. Theory X assumes that workers or employees are naturally uninterested and dislike their work, responsibility or whatever they do (Bobic& Davis, 2005, pp. 239) while Theory Y assumes that employees/workers are pleased with their work (Carson, 2005, pp. 450); that they are creative, self-motivated, and naturally enjoy and appreciate working with great responsibilities (Bandura& Locke, 2003, pp. 88). This paper thereby majors on the Theories X and Y, their models and concepts behind them, and to what extent should the contemporary leisure managers adopt Theory X or Theory Y in their daily responsibilities of leadership and management (Mintzberg, 1998, pp. 149). Elaborately, McGregor’s two theories reflect on six basic administrative or management ideas. The first idea believes that managers commonly make assumptions about their employees or subjects within their organizations. This assumption is presumed to be natural or automatic since the managers may do so even when they are unaware of such. The second idea leads to the identification of two distinctive sets of managerial assumptions: a pessimistic perception (Theory X), and an optimistic perception (Theory Y). In the third idea, there are three constituent dimensions relevant to the assumptions made in idea two above. The basis of these dimensions rely on weather people are perceived as (i) inherently industrious versus lazy, (ii) holding important versus limited capacity for essential contributions, and (iii) being responsible versus untrustworthy. The fourth idea outlines the differences in managerial assumptions, which result into predictable managerial behaviour patterns such as general supervision and wide delegation versus close supervision and restricted delegation. Fifth idea affirms that managerial practices are able to influence or can easily influence employees’ work behaviours and motivation. Finally, the sixth states that since managers are naturally unaware of the self-satisfying nature of their assumption world, there is a common misunderstanding of cause and effect (Bandura& Locke, 2003, pp. 97). For instance, a manager who holds beliefs in Theory X may unintentionally concoct a low employee motivation level (Bobic& Davis, 2005, pp. 248). The concept behind the two theories X and Y were proposed about five decades ago and have been highly validated in modern research for organizational managements (Osland, Kolb & Rubin, 2001, pp. 306). Many people receive great satisfaction from their allotted responsibilities and show great pride in what they do (Boswell, Moynihan,Roehling& Cavanaugh, 2001, pp. 309). Others may view their responsibilities as burdens and simply decide to basically work for survival. Douglas McGregor, a social psychologist thereby expounded on the two divergent theories of human motivation and management, promoting theory Y against theory X (Hill, Bennis & Stephens, 2000, pp. 124). He argued that theory Y was the root of good management system and practice, spearheading the argument that employees were not mere cogs within any company’s machinery just as theory X type organizations tended to believe. As a manger, your individual assumptions and beliefs about what kind of activities motivates your work team will greatly influence your leadership and management style (Mintzberg, 1998, pp. 152). For instance, supposing you believe that your team members dislike what they do, you will tend to lean towards an “authoritarian style” of management. Alternately, if you are meant to assume and believe that your employees hold pride in what they do and perform to their best, then you will definitely adopt a more participative leadership and management style (Mintzberg, 1998, pp. 150). Owing to the ideas of Boswell, Moynihan, Roehling& Cavanaugh (2001, pp. 326), theory X is a traditional and authoritative style of management since managers assume that their subjects are lazy, dislike working and hence it is the manager’s responsibility to coerce or force people to work. Employees are perceived as an extra “cost” that must be under strict control and monitoring for a better production (Sahim, 2012, pp. 162). This theory assumes that: (i) the average person innately dislike working and will evade it at all cost possible. (ii) The majority of an organization’s employees must be controlled, directed, coerced, and threatened in order to get to work and perform towards the organization’s goals. (iii) An average worker prefers being directed and always tries to avoid responsibility. One is not ambitious and seeks security. As well, this theory assumes that there is need to entice employees in order to be productive and work towards the intended results; otherwise they will never have ambitions or incentives to work. Practically, theory X managers are likely to be controlling and autocratic, and have a feeling that it is their responsibility to ride their subjects and make them accomplish their responsibilities (Bobic& Davis, 2005, pp. 257). Here, managers are like “policemen.” They tend to be extremely task oriented, micro-manage and impose much emphasis on creating positive relationships (Baron& Paulus, 1991, pp. 321). There is less emphasis shown towards the development of a positive environment; appreciation and recognition are quite rare. Employees who work for such managers tend to be fear-motivated, and fell less appreciated. The X-type organizations commonly tend to be top-heavy, with management and supervision required in each step in order to control employees. There is little or no authority delegation and control remains to be resolutely centralized (Sahim, 2012, pp. 163). Several managers who tend to lean towards theory X, generally obtain poor results, especially in long term. Leisure industry managers should thereby be cautious in adopting this management theory, and if well, they should rarely adopt it or simply never adopt it at all. Nevertheless, for large scale leisure firms with large scale production environment, the theory-X management may be necessary and at times can be unavoidable. As well, the leisure industry managers opt to use theory X in order to motivate their workforce if it is not integrally motivated for best performance (Bobic& Davis, 2005, pp. 253). They should also adopt it when progression is quite infrequent, uncommon or even impossible, and their employees or subjects tend to involve in repeated tasks in their lines of duty. However, if not for the above exceptions, the leisure industry managers should abandon the use of theory X in their daily management. This is because leisure industry is commonly “colonized” by small scale business segments, which focus on recreation, entertainment, as well as a number of tourism related services or products. Seizing to adopt theory X or being cautious in its adoption will thereby favour or create room for the adoption of the alternative management theory Y, or incorporating both. According to Carson (2005, pp. 450), Theory Y is a more enlightened and dignified style of management. Managers using theory Y assume that employees will perform to their level best if treated positively (Bennis&McGregor, 1967, pp. 217). They also believe that high order needs are dominant among their subjects. People are thereby perceived as “assets,” which must be of high value and development. This theory draws its basis from six basic assumptions: (i) the mental and physical efforts of work serve as natural ply, hence an average person does not naturally dislike his/her work. (ii) Employees will exercise self-control and self-direction in order to attain their goals (Bandura& Locke, 2003, pp. 92), as well as their organization’s objectives. (iii) Self-actualization and satisfaction rewards originate from a personal efforts to achieve objectives. (iv) Majority of individuals have got the capacity for creativity, ingenuity, and imagination. (v) An average person should not only learn to accept but also seek his/her responsibility. (vi) There is just a partial realization of most individuals’ intellectual potential. Practically, theory Y managers are likely to be participative in their decision making, and greatly value both outcomes and relationships (Carson, 2005, pp. 450). They commonly delegate and empower their employees since they have great trust on them and a great feeling that their subject s will do good work without thorough supervision. Here, manager serve as “coaches.” Priorities are thereby given to the development of positive work environments, hence the expression of a consistent recognition and appreciation. Such managers will tend to feel that their subjects are significant towards every development, and that they are not worth to manage without them (Bennis&McGregor, 1967, pp. 201). Employees who work with such managers are likely to feel dignified and appreciated, and will always be motivated at work and have good morale in performing their duties. Managers here believe that given conducive conditions, most employee will learn how to seek and accept responsibilities, exercise self-direction and self-control in their respective objective accomplishment. Many scholars thereby deduce theory Y as a set of positive beliefs about workers (Therese & Thomas, 2011, pp. 215). They believe that theory Y managers are more likely to develop a climate of trust with workers than theory X managers; this is significant for employee development. Managers openly interact, interrelate and communicate with their subordinates hence minimizing the differences and forbear in the relationship between the subordinates and their superiors. As a result, this freedom create a comfortable environment within which subordinates or employees can create new abilities, develop and use them in their daily responsibilities. Theory Y is thereby the most appropriate for the leisure industry managers to use since it creates and ample environment that would involve the sharing of decision making between the superiors and their subjects. With that, the subordinates are also entitled to contribute in the decision-making, which can in turn influence or impact the entire organization. In conclusion, Douglas McGregor’s ground-breaking book of 1960, “The Human Side of Enterprise” paved the way along which most management practices and thinking are conducted today (Jacobs, 2004, pp. 298). He proposed two fundamental management theories: Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X assumes that workers or employees are naturally uninterested and dislike their work, responsibility or whatever they do (Bobic& Davis, 2005, pp. 241) while Theory Y assumes that employees/workers are pleased with their work; that they are creative, self-motivated, and naturally enjoy and appreciate working with great responsibilities. This paper thereby recommends the use of theory Y by the leisure industry managers rather than using the old-fashioned- theory X. If at all they have to use it, then the only exception should be in large scale organizations where there exists a large scale production environment. The leisure industry managers opt to use theory X simply in order to motivate their workforce if it is not integrally motivated for best performance. They can also adopt it when progression is quite infrequent, uncommon or even impossible, and their employees or subjects tend to involve in repeated tasks in their lines of duty. Nonetheless, if not for the above exceptions, the leisure industry managers should abandon the use of theory X in their daily management and replace it with theory Y- style of management. References Bandura, A. & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, pp. 87-99. Baron, R. A. & Paulus, B. (1991). Understanding human relations: A Practical guide to people at work. New York, NY: Allyn and Bacon. Bennis, W. G. & McGregor, D. M. (1967). The professional manager. New York, NY: McGraw- Hill. Bobic, M. & Davis, G. (2005). A kind word for Theory X: or why so many new-fangled management techniques quickly fail. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,13(3),pp. 239-264. Boswell, W. R., Moynihan, P., Roehling, H. & Cavanaugh, M. A. (2001). Responsibilities in the new employment relationship: An empirical test of an assumed phenomenon. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 307-327. Carson, C. M. (2005). A historical view of Douglas McGregor’s Theory Y. Management Decision, 43(3), pp. 450. Hill, G., Bennis, W. & Stephens, D. (2000). Douglas McGregor, revisited: Managing the human side of the enterprise. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Jacobs, D. (2004). Book review essay: Douglas McGregor- the human side of enterprise in peril. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 293-301. Mintzberg, H. (1998). Covert leadership: Notes on managing professionals. Harvard Business Review, 17(4), pp. 148-153. Osland, J. S., Kolb, A. & Rubin, I. M. (2001). Organizational behaviour: An experiential approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Sahim, F. (2012). The mediating effect of leader-member exchange on the relationship between Theory X and Y management styles and effective commitment: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Management and Organization, 18(2), 159–164. Therese, Y. &Thomas, C. H. (2011). Douglas McGregors legacy: Lessons learned, lessons lost. Journal of Management History, 17(2), pp. 202-216. Read More