M?n?g?m?nt Th??r? of Douglas McGr?g?r

M?n?g?m?nt Th??r? of Douglas McGr?g?r Think about this: Imagine a company without any sort of management.No boss, no entry level position, nothing, just a bunch of people working as they deem fit.Maybe you just got employed and then you are given a desk and you start work.Wait, who would employ you in the first place if I may ask? Who is giving you the desk?After all, there is no manager.Where would your office or desk be? First floor or last floor, or maybe you could just pick one.Thinking about it alone feels like my brains are about to blow. I just can’t paint the picture. But what I know for sure is that this would make for an interesting movie.Th? g??l ?f ?n? organization i? n?t ?nl? to in?r???? profitability, but also t? sustain it? ?xi?t?n?? by im?r?ving ??rf?rm?n??. In order t? m??t th? needs ?f th? highly ??m??titiv? m?rk?t?, ?rg?niz?ti?n? mu?t continually increase performance.Thi? can only be achieved if there is some sort of management in place.A business ??nn?t ?urviv? with?ut management b???u?? m?n?g?m?nt is it? means of ?u???rt. M?n?g?m?nt is ??n??rn?d with ???uiring m?ximum ?r????rit? with minimum ?ff?rt?. Management i? essential wherever gr?u? efforts are r??uir?d to be dir??t?d towards ??hi?v?m?nt? ?f ??mm?n goals.In this m?n?g?m?nt conscious ?g?, the significance ?f management can h?rdl? b? ?v?r ?m?h??iz?d.It i? ??id th?t ?n? thing minu? management amounts t? n?thing. Th?r? is no m?r? im??rt?nt area ?f human activity than management ?in?? its t??k i? th?t of g?tting things done thr?ugh others.S?m? und?r??tim?t? the im??rt?n?? ?f m?n?g?m?nt in bu?in??? but researchers h?v? shown th?t it i? certainly not the ????.Th? in?ut ?f th? labor, ???it?l ?nd r?w m?t?ri?l? ??n n?v?r b???m? ?r?du?ti?n without th? ??t?l??t ?f management. M?n?g?m?nt is a d?n?mi? life-giving element in ?n ?rg?niz?ti?n.In its ?b??n??, the resources of ?r?du?ti?n r?m?in und?rutiliz?d ?nd ??n n?v?r b???m? ?r?du?ti?n.In fact, with?ut ?ffi?i?nt management, n? country can b???m? a n?ti?n.Management ?r??t?? t??mw?rk ?n d team ??irit in ?n ?rg?niz?ti?n b? d?v?l??ing a ??und organizational ?tru?tur?. It bring? th? hum?n and m?t?ri?l resources together and m?tiv?t?? th? ????l? for th? ??hi?v?m?nt ?f goals.Th? im??rt?n?? ?f management to every ?rg?niz?ti?n g?v? ri?? t? diff?r?nt management theories. One ?f those th??ri?? is wh?t this ?rti?l? will tr? to explain.The Role of ManagementE???nti?ll?, the r?l? ?f managers i? to guid? th? organizations t?w?rd goal ????m?li?hm?nt. All organizations exist for ??rt?in purposes or goals, ?nd m?n?g?r? ?r? r????n?ibl? f?r ??mbining ?nd using ?rg?niz?ti?n?l r???ur??? t? ?n?ur? th?t th?ir organizations achieve th?ir ?ur?????.Th? r?l? ?f the Management i? t? m?v? ?n ?rg?niz?ti?n towards its ?ur????? ?r g??l? by ???igning activities th??? ?rg?niz?ti?n m?mb?r? ??rf?rm.If Management ensures that ?ll th? ??tiviti?? are d??ign?d effectively, th? production ?f each individu?l w?rk?r will ??ntribut? to the attainment ?f th? organizational g??l?.M?n?g?m?nt ?triv?? t? ?n??ur? g? individual ??tivit? th?t will l??d t? r???hing organizational g??l? ?nd t? di???ur?g? individu?l ??tivit? th?t will hinder th? accomplishment ?f th? ?rg?niz?ti?n objectives.Th?r? i? n? id?? m?r? important th?n managing th? fulfilm?nt ?f th? ?rg?niz?ti?n?l goals and objectives. Th? m??ning of th? Management i? giv?n b? it? g??l? ?nd ?bj??tiv??.All managers must have a ?ingl? minded focus ?n th? fulfilment ?f th? ?rg?niz?ti?n?l g??l?.D?UGL?? M?GR?G?R THEORY ?F MANAGEMENT ?L?? ??LL?D TH? X AND Y TH??RY After th? Hawthorne ?x??rim?nt? and th? ?ub???u?nt behavioral r????r?h of th? 1930’s and 1940’?, th? hum?n r?l?ti?n? ???r???h to m?n?g?m?nt joined the classical ??r????tiv? ?? a m?j?r school ?f m?n?g?m?nt th?ught.Wh?r??? the classical ??h??l ?d??t?d b? management pioneers ?u?h as Fr?d?ri?k T??l?r ?nd H?nri Fayol f??u??d ?n ?rin?i?l?? ?f management, ??i?ntifi? selection and training, ?nd worker ??m??n??ti?n, th? hum?n r?l?ti?n? ???r???h emphasized b?h?vi?r?l i??u?? such ?? j?b ??ti ?f??ti?n, gr?u? n?rm?, ?nd supervisory ?t?l?.The hum?n relations model was h?il?d as a more enlightened m?n?g?m?nt ??r?digm because it explicitly ??n?id?r?d the im??rt?n?? ?f individu?l ?nd how managers ??uld in?r???? productivity by in?r???ing workers j?b ??ti?f??ti?n.Th? ?nd g??l for management in?r????d ?m?l???? productivity; th? ???um?ti?n w?? that ??ti?fi?d w?rk?r? w?uld b? m?r? productive ??m??r?d with workers who f?lt ?nt?g?niz?d b? th? companies th?? worked f?r.In th? 1950’?, D?ugl?? M?Gr?g?r (1906-1964), a psychologist wh? taught ?t MIT ?nd ??rv?d ?? ?r??id?nt ?f Anti??h College fr?m 1948-1954, ?riti?iz?d b?th th? ?l???i??l ?nd hum?n r?l?ti?n? schools ?? in?d??u?t? f?r th? r??liti?? of th? w?rk?l???.H? b?li?v?d th?t th? ???um?ti?n? und?rl?ing b?th schools represented a n?g?tiv? view of hum?n n?tur? ?nd that another ???r???h t? m?n?g?m?nt based ?n ?n ?ntir?l? diff?r?nt set ?f ???um?ti?n? was n??d?d.McGregor l?id ?ut hi? id??? in his ?l???i? 1957 ?rti?l? The Hum?n Sid? ?f E nterprise ?nd th? 1960 book of th? ??m? name, in which he introduced wh?t ??m? t? be called the n?w hum?ni?m. Th??? w?r? named th??r? X ?nd th??r? Y.Theory XFor younger ????l?, wh?t M?Gr?g?r l?b?ll?d th? C?nv?nti?n?l Vi?w ?f m?n?g?m?nt tasks may seem confusing as m??t bu?in??? ??h??l? n?rm?ll? t???h a more Th??r? Y approach to management.H?w?v?r, in the 1950’? when he was writing th? ??nv?nti?n?l conception ?f managements task in harnessing hum?n ?n?rg? t? ?rg?niz?ti?n?l requirements or wh?t he d???rib?d ?? Theory X (in ?rd?r t? avoid the ??m?li??ti?n? ?????i?t?d with ?r??ting a label, 1957), w?? that it was th? dut? ?f management to ?rg?ni??, dir??t, control, ?nd m?dif? th? behaviour ?f ?m?l????? ?? ?th?rwi?? they might b???m? ????iv? ?r ?v?n resistant t? w?rk.The b???? ?f thi? vi?w w?r?, ?? ?rgu?d by M?Gr?g?r in 1957 i? th?t ????l? were ??????d t? working, th?? l??k ?mbiti?n and a d??ir? f?r responsibility, th?? were selfish, r??i?t?nt t? change, ?nd gullibl?.Therefore th? ??nv? nti?n?l wi?d?m was th?t ????l? n??d?d t? b? led b? ?th?r?. In response t? th??? ???um?ti?n?, management ?t?l? th?n resulted in th? h?rd and soft m?n?g?m?nt approaches.The hard ???r???h being ???r?iv?, r??uiring ?l??? supervision ?nd tight ??ntr?l whi?h ?ft?n resulted in r??i?t?n?? ?nd ?b?tru?ti?n.A soft approach whi?h was ???n ?? r??ulting in the ?bdi??ti?n ?f management and indiff?r?nt ??rf?rm?n??.Th? ???ul?r strategy th?n which w?? developed amongst m?n?g?r?, w?? “firm but f?ir“ (M?Gr?g?r, 1957).A???rding t? McGregor, Th??r? X l??d?r?hi? assumes th? f?ll?wing:W?rk is inh?r?ntl? di?t??t?ful to m??t people, ?nd th?? will attempt to avoid w?rk whenever ????ibl?.Most ????l? ?r? n?t ?mbiti?u?, have littl? d??ir? for r????n?ibilit?, ?nd ?r?f?r t? b? dir??t?d.Most ????l? have littl? aptitude for ?r??tivit? in solving organizational ?r?bl?m?.M?tiv?ti?n ???ur? only ?t the physiological ?nd security l?v?l? ?f M??l?w’? N??d? Hi?r?r?h?.M??t ????l? are self-centered. A? a result, th?? mu ?t be ?l???l? controlled ?nd ?ft?n ???r??d t? achieve organizational objectivesM??t people resist change.M??t ????l? ?r? gullibl? ?nd unint?llig?nt.Essentially, Th??r? X ???um?? th?t th? primary source ?f m??t ?m?l???? motivation i? m?n?t?r?, with security ?? a ?tr?ng second.Theory X The H?rd A??r???h and S?ft A??r???hUnd?r Theory X, m?n?g?m?nt ???r???h?? can r?ng? from a h?rd approach to a soft ???r???h.The h?rd approach r?li?? ?n coercion, im?li?it threats, ?l??? ?u??rvi?i?n, and tight ??ntr?l?, ????nti?ll? an environment ?f ??mm?nd ?nd control.The soft ???r???h i? t? b? ??rmi??iv? and ???k harmony with th? h??? th?t in return ?m?l????? will cooperate when asked to d? ??. H?w?v?r, n?ith?r of th??? extremes i? optimal. Th? h?rd ???r???h results in h??tilit?, purposely l?w-?ut?ut, ?nd h?rd-lin? uni?n demands. The soft approach r??ult? in ?v?r-in?r???ing r??u??t? f?r m?r? r?w?rd? in exchange f?r ?v?r-d??r???ing w?rk ?ut?ut.The ??tim?l m?n?g?m?nt approach und?r Theory X probably w?ul d be somewhere b?tw??n these ?xtr?m??. H?w?v?r, M?Gr?g?r ????rt? that n?ith?r ???r???h is ???r??ri?t? b???u?? th? ???um?ti?n? ?f Th??r? X are not ??rr??t.Th? Pr?bl?m with Th??r? XDrawing ?n Maslows hi?r?r?h?, M?Gr?g?r ?rgu?? th?t a ??ti?fi?d n??d no l?ng?r m?tiv?t??. Under Theory X the firm r?li?? ?n m?n?? ?nd benefits to ??ti?f? employees lower n??d?, ?nd ?n?? th??? n??d? ?r? satisfied the ??ur?? ?f m?tiv?ti?n is l??t.Th??r? X m?n?g?m?nt styles in fact hinder th? ??ti?f??ti?n ?f higher-level n??d?.C?n???u?ntl?, th? ?nl? way th?t ?m?l????? ??n attempt to ??ti?f? th?ir higher level n??d? in th?ir w?rk is by ???king m?r? compensation, so it i? quite ?r?di?t?bl? that th?? will f??u? on m?n?t?r? rewards.Whil? m?n?? m?? n?t be th? most ?ff??tiv? way t? ??lf-fulfilm?nt, in a Theory X environment it m?? b? th? only way.Und?r Theory X, ????l? use work to ??ti?f? their l?w?r n??d?, ?nd ???k to satisfy th?ir higher needs in th?ir leisure time. But it i? in ??ti?f?ing their high?r n??d? th?t e mployees can b? m??t ?r?du?tiv?.McGregor m?k?? the ??int th?t a ??mm?nd ?nd ??ntr?l environment is n?t effective because it relies on lower n??d? ?? l?v?r? ?f m?tiv?ti?n, but in m?d?rn society th??? n??d? already are ??ti?fi?d ?nd thu? n? longer ?r? m?tiv?t?r?.In thi? situation, one would expect ?m?l????? t? di?lik? th?ir work, ?v?id r????n?ibilit?, h?v? n? interest in organizational goals, r??i?t ?h?ng?, etc., thu? making Th??r? X a ??lf-fulfilling prophecy.From thi? r????ning, McGregor proposed ?n ?lt?rn?tiv?: Theory Y.Theory YIn ??ntr??t t? Th??r? X, ?r th? ??nv?nti?n?l approach t? m?n?g?m?nt, M?Gr?g?r (1957) ?r?????d an ?lt?rn?tiv? approach b???d ?n “m?r? adequate ???um?ti?n? ?b?ut human nature“, which h? ??ll?d Th??r? Y.In thi? ??r????tiv?, m?n?g?m?nt’? r?l? is not ?im?l? direction, but in organising th? resources for ?n ?nt?r?ri?? t? m??t its ?bj??tiv??, whether th?? ?r? human ?r m?t?ri?l.P???l? ?r? not ????iv?, ?nd it i? th? r????n?ibilit? ?f m?n?g?m?nt t? provide ????r tuniti?? for the d?v?l??m?nt ?f th?ir ?m?l?????, t? release their potential b? creating th? ??nditi?n? ?? th?t ????l? ??n harness th?ir ?ff?rt? to ??hi?v? organisational ?bj??tiv??.Thi? ??r????tiv? r??t? ?n the vi?w of human b?ing?, th?t r?th?r th?n b?ing ind?l?nt ?nd ???king dir??ti?n, humans ??tu?ll? are th? reverse.A???rding to M?Gr?g?r (1957), it was beginning to b? understood th?t, “th?t, und?r proper ??nditi?n?, unim?gin?d r???ur??? ?f creative hum?n ?n?rg? ??uld become ?v?il?bl? within the ?rg?niz?ti?n?l setting.“With organisations m??ting the most basic n??d? ?f th?ir hum?n r???ur???, th? ????rtunit? ?xi?t? to “dr?w ?ut“ th? performance ?f th?ir ?t?ff, in ????n??, t? m??t th?ir high?r n??d?.On? ?riti?i?m ?f thi? vi?w was th?t it r??ult?d in the ?br?g?ti?n of r????n?ibilit? by m?n?g?r?.H?w?v?r, thi? judgement l??k?d the und?r?t?nding th?t the Theory Y ???r???h r??uir?d a fully engaged m?n?g?ri?l role, and th?t th? r?l? h?d changed from ?n? ?f dir??ti?n t? one ?f ?r??t ing ??nditi?n? t? allow ?m?l????? t? fulfil their ??t?nti?l in th? ?ur?uit ?f ?rg?ni??ti?n?l g??l?.M?Gr?g?r w?? the fir?t t? ??int out th?t thi? “g??l“ w?? n?t something whi?h ??uld b? achieved overnight, ?nd ?? h? n?t?d, “?h?ng? in th? direction of Th??r? Y will b? ?l?w, ?nd it will r??uir? ?xt?n?iv? m?difi??ti?n ?f th? attitudes ?f m?n?g?m?nt and workers ?lik?.“The basic diff?r?n?? b?tw??n th? tw? approaches is w?ll expressed b? M?Gr?g?r. Another w?? of ???ing thi? i? th?t Th??r? X ?l???? ?x?lu?iv? reliance upon ?xt?rn?l ??ntr?l ?f hum?n b?h?vi?r, wh?r??? Theory Y relies h??vil? ?n ??lf-??ntr?l ?nd ??lf-dir??ti?n.It is w?rth n?ting th?t thi? diff?r?n?? is th? difference b?tw??n tr??ting ????l? as ?hildr?n and treating th?m as m?tur? adults.Th??r? Y m?k?? th? f?ll?wing general ???um?ti?n?:Th??r? Y manager b?li?v?? th?t giv?n th? right ??nditi?n?, most ????l? will w?nt to d? w?ll ?t w?rk ?nd that th?r? is a ???l ?f unused creativity in the w?rkf?r??.Th?? b?li?v?? that th? ?? ti?f??ti?n of doing a g??d j?b i? a ?tr?ng m?tiv?ti?n in and ?f itself.Y managers will try t? r?m?v? th? b?rri?r? that prevent workers fr?m full? ??tu?lizing themselves.Y m?n?g?r? ???um? that the ????l? th?? ?u??rvi?? ?r? ??mmitt?d to w?rk ?nd are ????bl? ?f finding ??luti?n? to work-related ?r?bl?m? as th?? ?r? th?m??lv??.Y managers ???um? that ????l? inh?r?ntl? ?r?f?r to work r?th?r th?n n?t to work. A? a r??ult th?? t?nd to ?u?h responsibility f?r work down th? ?h?in ?f ??mm?nd.Em?l????? ?r? gr?nt?d ?ut?n?m? within th?ir ?r??? ?f ????unt?bilit? and th?? structure w?rk ?? that subordinates h?v? ample ????rtunit? t? id?ntif? ?r?bl?m? ?nd find ?r??tiv? solutions to th?m.Structure the work ?nvir?nm?nt ?? that th? employee g??l? ??in?id? with organizational g??l? r??ulting ?r??um?bl? in gr??t?r creativity and productivity.Und?r th??? ???um?ti?n?, th?r? i? ?n ????rtunit? t? ?lign personal g??l? with ?rg?niz?ti?n?l g??l? b? u?ing th? ?m?l????? own ?u??t f?r fulfilm?nt as th? m?tiv?t?r.C riticism of Theory YTh? g??l of managers u?ing Theory X m?n?g?m?nt ?t?l?? w?? t? ????m?li?h ?rg?niz?ti?n?l g??l? thr?ugh the ?rg?niz?ti?n? hum?n resources.M?Gr?g?r? research suggested that wh?n w?rk w?? b?tt?r ?lign?d with human needs ?nd m?tiv?ti?n?, employee productivity w?uld in?r????.As a result, some ?riti?? h?v? ?ugg??t?d that, rather th?n ??n??rn for ?m?l?????,Th??r? Y ?t?l? m?n?g?r? were ?im?l? ?ng?g?d in a seductive form a manipulation.Ev?n ?? m?n?g?r? b?tt?r m?t?h?d w?rk t??k? to b??i? hum?n motivational n??d? through ??rti?i??tiv? m?n?g?m?nt, job r?t?ti?n, job ?nl?rg?m?nt, ?nd other programs that emerged ?t l???t ??rtl? fr?m M?Gr?g?r? work, m?n?g?r? w?r? still f??u?ing ?n m???ur?? of ?r?du?tivit? rather th?n measures of employee well-being.In essence, critics ?h?rg? that Th??r? ‘Y’ is a condescending scheme f?r inducing in?r????d ?r?du?tivit? from ?m?l?????, and unless ?m?l????? share in the ???n?mi? benefits of th?ir in?r????d ?r?du?tivit?, th?n th?? h?v? ?im?l? b??n duped int? w?rking harder f?r th? ??m? ???.THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THEORY ‘X’ LEADERSHIPB???d ?n th? ???um?ti?n? ?f Th??r? X, the X m?n?g?r? ???um?? that workers n??d t? b? ?l???l? monitored ?nd ?u??rvi??d und?r a well-developed ??m?r?h?n?iv? systems of ??ntr?l? hence a hi?r?r?hi??l ?tru?tur? i? needed with n?rr?w span of ??ntr?l at ???h l?v?l.X manager t?nd t? believe that ?v?r?thing must end in bl?ming someone. These m?n?g?r? feel th?t th? ??l? purpose ?f the employees’ int?r??t in the j?b i? m?n?? and security. Th?? bl?m? th? ??r??n without ?u??ti?ning wh?th?r it m?? b? th? ???t?m, ??li?? ?r l??k ?f training th?t deserves th? blame.X m?n?g?r? ??nn?t tru?t ?n? employee, ?nd th?? r?v??l thi? t? th?ir ?u???rt staff via th?ir communications constantly.X m?n?g?r? i? ?n impediment to ?m?l???? morale and productivityX m?n?g?r? b?li?v? it i? hi?/h?r job t? ?tru?tur? th? w?rk ?nd energize, ?v?n coerce (thr??t?n with ?uni?hm?nt) th? ?m?l???? thu? th?? n?tur?ll? ?d??t a more authoritarian style based on the thr??t ?f ?uni?hm?nt.E???nti?ll?, X m?n?g?r? r?li?? chiefly ?n ???r?i?n, implicit threats, ?l??? ?u??rvi?i?n ?nd tight ??ntr?l? i.?. environment of ??mm?nd ?nd ??ntr?l.Characteristics of the Theory ‘X’ ManagerPerhaps th? most n?ti???bl? ?????t? ?f McGregors XY Th??r? and the ???i??t t? illustrate ?r? f?und in the behaviours ?f ?ut??r?ti? m?n?g?r? ?nd ?rg?niz?ti?n? whi?h u?? ?ut??r?ti? m?n?g?m?nt ?t?l??.Wh?t ?r? th? characteristics ?f a Th??r? X m?n?g?r? Typically ??m?, m??t ?r all ?f these:r??ult?-driv?n ?nd d??dlin?-driv?n, t? the ?x?lu?i?n of ?v?r?thing elseintoleranti??u?? d??dlin?? ?nd ultim?tum?di?t?nt ?nd detached?l??f and ?rr?g?nt?liti?t?h?rt t?m??r?h?ut?i??u?? instructions, dir??ti?n?, ?di?t?i??u?? threats to m?k? ????l? f?ll?w in?tru?ti?n?d?m?nd?, n?v?r ??k?d??? not ??rti?i??t?d??? n?t team-buildunconcerned ?b?ut ?t?ff w?lf?r?, ?r m?r?l?proud, ??m?tim?? t? th? point ?f ??lf-d??tru?ti?n?n?-w?? communicator???r li?t?n?rfund?m?nt?ll? in???ur? ?nd ????i bl? n?ur?ti??nti-???i?lv?ng?ful ?nd recriminatorydoes n?t thank ?r ?r?i??withh?ld? r?w?rd?, and ?u??r????? pay ?nd remunerations l?v?l?scrutinizes ?x??nditur? t? th? point ?f false ???n?m????k? culprits for failures ?r shortfalls???k? to apportion blame in?t??d of f??u?ing ?n learning fr?m th? ?x??ri?n?? and ?r?v?nting r??urr?n??does n?t invit? or w?l??m? ?ugg??ti?n?t?k?? criticism b?dl? ?nd lik?l? to r?t?li?t? if from b?l?w ?r peer gr?u?poor at ?r???r d?l?g?ting but believes they d?l?g?t? w?llthinks giving ?rd?r? i? d?l?g?tingh?ld? ?n t? r????n?ibilit? but ?hift? ????unt?bilit? t? subordinatesr?l?tiv?l? un??n??rn?d with investing in anything t? g?in futur? im?r?v?m?nt?Th??r? X A??um?ti?n?The average hum?n b?ing has an inherent dislike ?f w?rk ?nd will avoid it if h? ??n.B???u?? ?f th?ir dislike for work, m??t people mu?t be ??ntr?ll?d ?nd threatened b?f?r? they will w?rk h?rd ?n?ugh.Th? ?v?r?g? hum?n ?r?f?r? t? be dir??t?d, dislikes r????n?ibilit?, i? un?mbigu?u?, ?nd d??ir?? secu rity above everything.These ???um?ti?n? li? b?hind most ?rg?niz?ti?n?l ?rin?i?l?? today, ?nd give rise b?th t? “t?ugh” m?n?g?m?nt with punishments and tight controls, and “soft” m?n?g?m?nt whi?h aims ?t h?rm?n? at w?rk.B?th th??? are “wr?ng” b???u?? m?n n??d? m?r? th?n financial r?w?rd? at work, he ?l?? needs ??m? deeper higher order motivation the ????rtunit? to fulfil him??lf.Theory X m?n?g?r? do n?t give th?ir ?t?ff this opportunity ?? th?t th? ?m?l????? b?h?v? in th? ?x???t?d f??hi?n.Theory Y A??um?ti?n?Th? ?x??nditur? of ?h??i??l and m?nt?l ?ff?rt in w?rk i? as natural as ?l?? ?r r??t.C?ntr?l ?nd ?uni?hm?nt ?r? n?t the only ways t? m?k? ????l? w?rk, m?n will dir??t himself if h? i? committed t? th? aims ?f the ?rg?niz?ti?n.If a job i? satisfying, th?n th? r??ult will b? commitment t? the organization.Th? average m?n l??rn?, und?r ?r???r ??nditi?n?, n?t ?nl? to ?????t but t? ???k r????n?ibilit?.Im?gin?ti?n, creativity, ?nd ingenuity can b? u??d to solve work ?r?bl?m ? by a l?rg? number ?f ?m?l?????.Under th? ??nditi?n? ?f m?d?rn indu?tri?l lif?, th? intellectual potentialities ?f th? ?v?r?g? man ?r? ?nl? ??rti?ll? utiliz?d.THEORY-X ?ND TH??R?-Y M?N?G?M?NT APPLICATIONIf Th??r?-Y holds tru?, an ?rg?niz?ti?n can ???l? th??? principles of scientific management to im?r?v? employee motivation:Decentralization ?nd D?l?g?ti?n: If firm? decentralize control ?nd r?du?? th? numb?r of levels ?f m?n?g?m?nt; m?n?g?r? will have m?r? ?ub?rdin?t?? ?nd ??n???u?ntl? will b? f?r??d to d?l?g?t? ??m? responsibility ?nd decision-making th?m.Job enlargement: Br??d?ning th? ????? of ?n ?m?l????’? job ?dd? v?ri?t? ?nd ????rtuniti?? t? ??ti?f? ?g? needs.P?rti?i??tiv? management: C?n?ulting employees in th? decisions m?king process t??? their ?r??tiv? capacity ?nd ?r?vid?? th?m with ??m? control over their w?rk ?nvir?nm?nt.Performance appraisals: H?ving the ?m?l???? ??t ?bj??tiv?? ?nd participate in the ?r????? ?f ?v?lu?ting how well th?? w?r? met.If ?r???rl? implemente d, such ?n environment w?uld result in a high level ?f w?rkf?r?? motivation as employees work to ??ti?f? th?ir high?r l?v?l personal n??d? thr?ugh th?ir j?b.In a nut?h?ll, it m?? ???m th?t M??l?w, M?Cl?ll?nd, H?rzb?rg, and McGregor vi?w motivation from a diff?r?nt ??r????tiv?. But basically, they ?m?h??iz? ?imil?r ??t? of relationships.Maslow stresses th? r?r?l? ??ti?fi?d higher l?v?l n??d? ?? the motivating f?r??.McClelland m?nti?n?d th?t the driv? for ??hi?ving v?ri?? in individu?l? ????rding t? th?ir personality ?nd cultural background.H?rzb?rg views “satisfiers” as m?tiv?t?r? after th? “h?gi?n? factors” have done ?w?? with di???ti?f??ti?n.M?Gr?g?r’? th??r?, which i? based ?n ???um?ti?n? ??n??rning th? motives of individu?l?, views m?tiv?ti?n from th? perspective ?f m?n?g?ri?l ?ttitud?.Summ?r?Th??r? XTh??r? X ?ugg??t? that individu?l? h?v? an in?till?d di?lik? f?r work and try t? ?v?id it. Thus, all w?rk?r? di?lik? w?rk, try t? ?v?id w?rk, ?r? born inh?r?ntl? lazy, mu?t b? ??n?t?ntl? dominated into d?ing a honest day’s w?rk and ?nl? turn u? t? w?rk t? collect th?ir pay. This m??n? th?t ?m?l????? mu?t b? ??ntr?ll?d b? thr??t in ?rd?r to perform. Such ?n ?m?l???? prefers t? b? directed, ?v?id? responsibility, i? explicit, ?nd ?r?f?r? security ?b?v? all ?l??.Criti?i?mTh??? ???um?ti?n? ?f th? Th??r? X ?m?l???? m?? l??d to v?ri?u? ?r?bl?m?, such as a t?ugh management (th?t b?li?v?? in ?uni?hm?nt ?nd tight ??ntr?l?) ?nd a ??ft m?n?g?m?nt (wh? ?triv?? f?r h?rm?n? in th? w?rk?l???, ?t th? expense of efficiency). It d??? n?t m?k? ?ll?w?n?? for ?m?l????? wh? n??d a feeling of ??lf-fulfilm?nt. Th??r? X m?n?g?r? ?l?? expect ?m?l????? to b?h?v? in an ?x???t?d, predictable f??hi?n.Th??r? YTh??r? Y ???um?? th?t ?m?l????? basically lik? t? w?rk and view work ?? ??m?thing r?th?r n?tur?l; m?r??v?r the w?rk?r views this ?? a potentially ?nj???bl? and ???itiv? ?x??ri?n??. It ?r???und? th?t th?r? ?r? w??? t? m?k? individu?l? ??rf?rm ?th?r than through ??ntr?l ?nd ?u ni?hm?nt. If th? ?m?l???? i? committed t? th? mission of th? d???rtm?nt s/he will b???m? a ??lf directed employee. J?b ??ti?f??ti?n means commitment t? th? d???rtm?nt and it? mission. Under the ?r???r ??nditi?n?, the employee will learn ?nd lead in t? ?????t?n?? ?f responsibility. M?n? ?m?l????? b? th? u?? ?f ?r??tivit?, im?gin?ti?n ?nd ing?nuit?, ??n solve ?r?bl?m? n? matter h?w big ?r small.Criti?i?mTh??r? Y m?? b? hard t? utiliz? where there ?r? a large number ?f ?m?l?????, but ??n b? utiliz?d ?n th? d???rtm?nt?l/divi?i?n?l m?n?g?r? ?f ?n ?rg?niz?ti?n. Thi? th??r? ?l?? ?ff??t? th? management ?f ?r?m?ti?n?, salaries, and development ?f ?ff??tiv? managers.Some ?f M?Gr?g?r’? th??ri?? ?r? unrealizable in practice, but th? b??i? ???um?ti?n ??n b? adhered t?, ?nd ?ut into ???r?ti?n.FIVE IM??RT?NT LIMIT?TI?N? ?B?UT THEORY ‘X’ TH??RY ‘Y’1. Th??r? X ?t?l? ?f m?n?g?m?nt f??t?r? a v?r? h??til? and di?tru?tful ?tm???h?r?An ?uth?rit?ri?n ?rg?niz?ti?n r??uir?? many m?n?g?r? just b? ??u?? th?? n??d to ??n?t?ntl? ??ntr?l ?v?r? single ?m?l????, ?nd the m?th?d ?f ??ntr?l u?u?ll? inv?lv?? a f?ir ?m?unt ?f thr??t and ???r?i?n.At tim??, an employer th?t i? ?v?rl? thr??t?ning will l??d t? di???ti?f??ti?n ?m?ng employees, ?r th?? might ?v?n ?tt?m?t to blame each ?th?r in ?rd?r t? ??v? th?m??lv?? fr?m th? thr??t?.Conversely, C??r?i?n might w?rk b?tt?r with the prospects ?f bigg?r r?w?rd? for m?r?, but ?m?l????? might ?ur????l? try t? cheat ?r ?tt?m?t to hid? the truth it??lf.Al??, ?m?l????? might tr? t? ??b?t?g? th? ?ff?rt? ?f each ?th?r in ?rd?r t? m?k? it ???i?r for th?m t? ??hi?v? th? r?w?rd?.2. Th??r? Y ?t?l? ?f management i? t?ugh t? u?h?ld in r??lit?Th? core b?li?f of Theory Y, i? that with th? right support and th? right environment, self-directed ?m?l????? will be ?bl? to perform th?ir jobs w?ll.H?w?v?r, b???u?? ?v?r? individual i? diff?r?nt from ?n? ?n?th?r, creating an environment whi?h fit? all does not ??und very ?r??ti??l in th? ?urr?nt ?r? ?f organizations .3. Theory X ?nd Th??r? Y i? v?r? hard t? be used with ???h ?th?rJu?t b???u?? we think that utilizing diff?r?nt th??ri?? in ?rd?r t? ????mm?d?t? different t???? ?f ?m?l????? does not m??n that it w?uld b? beneficial to the companies.In th? ?nd, the hum?n labor ?f th? ??m??n? might b? im?r?v?d, but at th? ???t of ?r??ting m?n?t?r? loses as w?ll ?? in?ffi?i?nt allocation ?f r???ur???.For ?x?m?l?, a company d??id?? to u?? b?th theories t?g?th?r. S?, in ?rd?r to ????mm?d?t? the n??d ?f ?m?l????? wh? are managed b???d ?n Theory X, m?r? employers will need to be hired ?nd ??id.Th? company ?l?? n??d? t? ??? and t? ?r??t? a ??mf?rt?bl? ?nvir?nm?nt for employees th?t ?r? ??lf-m?tiv?t?d b???d ?n a theory Y concept.It ???t? a small fortune for the ??m??n? t? ??t?r t? th? diff?r?nt t??t?? ?f ?? m?n? ?m?l?????. It i? ??tim?t?d th?t the company spending w?uld be high enough b???d ?n these f??t?r? ?l?n?.Th?r?f?r?, it might just b? m?r? b?n?fi?i?l for th? ??m??n? to utilize a single th??r? ?nd hire ?m?l????? that can b? consistently m?n?g?d with that th??r? alone.4. Theory X ?nd Theory Y makes ?m?l??m?nt h?rd?rPreviously, I’v? ??id that ??m??ni?? should only use a ?ingl? theory at ?n??. The theory that should b? used i? th? one th?t can ?ff??tiv?l? manage ?ll employees within th? ?rg?niz?ti?n.H?w?v?r, thi? in turn causes a ?r?bl?m during the ?m?l??m?nt ?r?????, b???u?? it is lik?l? that a company will reject an ???li??nt ??l?l? because he/she i? not consistent with th? theory th?t th? ??m??n? uses.Th?r?f?r?, if ??m??ni?? actually f?ll?w these th??ri?? ?l???l?, it will b? h?rd?r f?r ??t?nti?l candidates t? get a job ju?t b???u?? the company ??nn?t h?ndl? th?ir ?h?r??t?ri?ti?? within th? w?rk?l??? ?nd may give candidates th?t the company di??rimin?t?? heavily u??n its ???li??nt?.5. Th??r? X ?nd Th??r? Y work ?n ???um?ti?n?I think ?rg?niz?ti?n? should be ??r?ful, ?nd n?t rely t?? h??vil? ?n Theory X ?nd Th??r? Y b???u?? th?r? ?r? a lot of assumptions.Th? workforce is changing nowadays, ?nd the w?rk?l??? i? a dynamic mix ?f ?m?l????? fr?m diff?r?nt backgrounds, r???? ?nd g?nd?r?.Al??, ?m?l????? might h?v? ??m?l?t?l? diff?r?nt motivations ?nd g??l? f?r choosing to w?rk within ?n ?rg?niz?ti?n.N?w?d???, ?n ?m?l???? from G?n?r?ti?n X might ??m? into the workforce fr?m hi?/h?r ?r?vi?u? r?tir?m?nt, ?nd Generation Y employees might b? wr?ngl? perceived ?? ‘slackers’ f?r r?l?ing more ?n t??hn?l?g? t? m?n?g? their m??ting? ?nd make th?ir j?b? ???i?r.Lapses of Theories ‘X’ ‘Y’Unravelling the t?ngl?d w?b woven b? th? human r?l?ti?n? m?v?m?nt in the r??l w?rld over the past half century would ??rt?inl? make f?r ?n interesting ?ubj??t ?f study; but we ??n g?t a gri? ?n ?t least ??m? ?f the confusion by going b??k t? th? source.Th?r? is a ?im?l? ?nd ?bvi?u? obscurity in M?Gr?g?r’? di?tin?ti?n b?tw??n X and Y th??r? â€" a ??ng?nit?l fl?w, perhaps, th?t ?h?d? light on ??m? ?f the d?v?l??m?nt? that f?ll?w?d.In th??r? X as presented b? M?Gr?g?r, ?nd m?r? esp ecially as hi? ?u??????r? represented it, the w?rld of X is in a ?t?t? of ??nfli?t. M?Gr?g?r m?k?? th? point that a command ?nd ??ntr?l environment i? n?t ?ff??tiv? because it relies on l?w?r needs as lever of m?tiv?ti?n but in m?d?rn ???i?t? those n??d? ?lr??d? ?r? satisfied ?nd thu? no l?ng?r are m?tiv?t?r?.In this situation, it i? ?x???t?d that ?m?l????? w?uld dislike w?rk, ?v?id r????n?ibilit?, h?v? n? int?r??t in ?rg?niz?ti?n?l g??l?, r??i?t change etc. thu? m?king th??r? X a ??lf-fulfilling prophesy. W?rk?r? ?nd m?n?g?r? eye ?n? another ??r??? the ragged fr?nt lin?? ?f ?u??i?i?n ?nd mi?tru?t.H?w?v?r in the Y w?rld, it i? a ?t?t? of peace. Workers and m?n?g?r? ?mbr??? one another ?? ??rtn?r? ?n the journey t? ??r??n?l fulfilment.And all that i? r??uir?d t? ?h?ng? fr?m ?n? state t? th? ?th?r i? m?king a ?im?l? change in ?n?’? ???um?ti?n? ?b?ut human nature.But i? thi? r??ll? true? D??? ?ll conflict di???lv? in a high?r state ?f consciousness?Th? Confusion r??ult? from th? f??t th?t McGregor him??lf confounds and ?v?rl?? hi? di?tin?ti?n b?tw??n th??ri?? X Y with a second very diff?r?nt distinction.Thi? is a di?tin?ti?n n?t b?tw??n theories ?f hum?n n?tur? but between th??ri?? ?b?ut n?tur? ?f hum?n r?l?ti?n? â€" ?r, m?r? ?r??i??l?, about th? sources ?f hum?n ??nfli?t.Th? ??nfli?t? among human b?ing? ?lw??? ?rigin?t? in mi?und?r?t?nding.Elimin?t? th? false ???um?ti?n? th?t individu?l? ??rr? ?r?und th?ir h??d?, ?nd thu? a human community will r?turn t? the n?tur?l ?t?t? ?f peace.EFFECTS OF THE ‘X’ AND ‘Y’ THEORIES ON MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONSIn th?ir well-known textbook, H?r?ld K??ntz ?nd Cyril OD?nn?ll illustrated how the m?n?g?ri?l functions of planning, l??ding, and controlling might be affected by Theory X and Th??r? Y ???um?ti?n?.In r?g?rd t? planning, Theory X assumptions might l??d t? the ?u??ri?r setting of ?bj??tiv?? with little ?r n? participation from subordinates.Th??r? Y ???um?ti?n?, conversely, ?h?uld l??d to ?????r?tiv? ?bj??tiv?? d??ign?d with in?ut from b?th ?m?l????? and m?n?g?r?, resulting in a higher ??mmitm?nt b? ?ub?rdin?t?? t? accomplish these ?h?r?d objectives.Und?r Th??r? X, managers l??d?r?hi? styles ?r? likely t? be autocratic, whi?h may create r??i?t?n?? ?n the ??rt ?f ?ub?rdin?t??. C?mmuni??ti?n flow is m?r? likely t? b? d?wnw?rd fr?m manager t? the ?ub?rdin?t??.In contrast, Th??r? Y may f??t?r l??d?r?hi? ?t?l?? that ?r? m?r? ??rti?i??tiv?, whi?h would ?m??w?r subordinates t? seek r????n?ibilit? and b? m?r? committed t? g??l achievement. Th??r? Y l??d?r?hi? ?h?uld in?r???? ??mmuni??ti?n fl?w, especially in th? u?w?rd dir??ti?n.In r?g?rd to ??ntr?l, Theory X i? lik?l? t? r??ult in ?xt?rn?l ??ntr?l, with the m?n?g?r ??ting ?? a ??rf?rm?n?? judge; th? f??u? i? g?n?r?ll? ?n th? ???t.Conversely, Theory Y should l??d to ??ntr?l processes based ?n subordinates ??lf-??ntr?l.The m?n?g?r is m?r? lik?l? t? ??t as a coach r?th?r th?n a judg?, f??u?ing ?n h?w ??rf?rm?n?? ??n b? im?r?v?d in th? futur? r?th?r th?n ?n w ho was r????n?ibl? for ???t performance.Although th? conceptual linkages between Th??r? X ?nd Th??r? Y ???um?ti?n? and m?n?g?ri?l ?t?l?? ?r? r?l?tiv?l? ?tr?ightf?rw?rd, ?m?iri??l r????r?h has not ?l??rl? d?m?n?tr?t?d that th? r?l?ti?n?hi? b?tw??n th??? assumptions ?nd m?n?g?r? styles ?f ?l?nning, organizing, leading, ?nd ??ntr?lling i? ??n?i?t?nt with M?Gr?g?r? id???.THEORY ‘X’ AND THEORY ‘Y’ IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURYM?Gr?g?r? work ?n Th??r? X ?nd Th??r? Y h?? h?d a significant impact on management th?ught ?nd ?r??ti?? in th? ???r? ?in?? h? first ?rti?ul?t?d th? ??n???t?.In t?rm? ?f th? ?tud? of m?n?g?m?nt, M?Gr?g?r? concepts ?r? in?lud?d in the overwhelming m?j?rit? of basic m?n?g?m?nt textbooks, ?nd they ?r? still routinely presented t? ?tud?nt? ?f m?n?g?m?nt.M??t textbooks di??u?? Th??r? X ?nd Th??r? Y within th? ??nt?xt ?f m?tiv?ti?n theory; ?th?r? ?l??? Th??r? X and Th??r? Y within th? hi?t?r? ?f th? ?rg?niz?ti?n?l hum?ni?m movement.Th??r? X ?nd Th??r? Y are ?ft?n ?tu di?d ?? a ?r?lud? t? d?v?l??ing greater understanding ?f m?r? r???nt management ??n???t?, ?u?h ?? j?b enrichment, the j?b-?h?r??t?ri?ti?? m?d?l, ?nd self-managed w?rk t??m?. Although the t?rmin?l?g? may have ?h?ng?d since the 1950’s, M?Gr?g?r? id??? have h?d tremendous influence ?n th? study of Management.In t?rm? ?f th? ?r??ti?? of m?n?g?m?nt, the w?rk?l??? ?f th? early tw?nt?-fir?t ??ntur?, with its ?m?h??i? ?n ??lf-m?n?g?d work t??m? ?nd ?th?r f?rm? of worker inv?lv?m?nt ?r?gr?m?, i? generally consistent with th? ?r????t? of Th??r? Y.C?m??ni?? th?t use Th??r? ‘Y’Some big bu?in????? like Google ?nd A??l? use theory Y management t? run th?ir companies. Th?? choose to use th??r? y management because th?ir ??m??n? i? b???d ?n ?th?r people’s creativity t? come up with different id??? ?nd ?r?du?t?.B? ?r??ting different products ?nd ??ming up with diff?r?nt id??? ????l? th?t work ?t Google ?nd ???l? receive r?w?rd? (pay in?r????, fr?? ?r?du?t?, m?r? v???ti?n tim?, ?t?).By having rewards whil? w?rking ?t multi-million d?ll?r ??m??ni?? workers are m?tiv?t?d t? ??m?l?t? diff?r?nt ?r?j??t? ?t high ?t?nd?rd?.Th??r? Y w?rk? w?ll with th??? ??m??ni?? b???u?? it is b???d ?n using ?r??tivit?, h?ving great r????n?ibilit? and g?tting r?w?rd?. Th??r? Y d??? n?t ?lw??? work f?r most ??m??ni?? (?.g. C?r f??t?ri??) because th?? are ?lw??? ?r??ting th? ??m? product at th? same ?t?nd?rd witch do not ??u?? ??u t? u?? ??ur ?r??tivit?.Wh? choose Th??r? X over Theory ‘Y’?Companies ?h???? n?t to use th??r? Y management ?t?l? t? run th?ir ??m??ni?? because th?? (?? in managers, l??d?r? of the ??m??n?) d? n?t f??l th?t by being l?id b??k ?nd giving employees m?r? fr??d?m and room to ?x?r??? their creativity, n?t a lot ?f w?rk will get d?n? ?nd if w?rk d??? get done, it would n?t be t? ?t?nd?rd. In thi? ???? theory X management ?t?l? w?uld b? u??d.CONCLUSION S? in th? 1960’s, MIT Sloan School of M?n?g?m?nt ???i?l ????h?l?gi?t D?ugl?? McGregor developed a simple th??r? of m?t iv?ti?n.Th? th??r? ???? th?t ?v?r? m?n?g?r has a ??r??n?l vi?w about wh?t m?tiv?t?? ????l?, and th??? vi?w? affect wh?t managers do ?nd h?w they behave. Th?ir management style, in other w?rd?, ??n be influ?n??d b? assumptions.S?m? m?n?g?r? ???um? th?t ????l? ?r? l?z?, irr????n?ibl?, h?v? littl? t? ??ntribut? ?nd ?r? m?tiv?t?d b? rewards or punishments.Th??? ?r? the th??r? X m?n?g?r? â€" those wh? are likely to limit th? ????? ?f contribution fr?m th?ir people, rely ?n ?x?li?it control ?nd ?l??? supervision, and find th?ir ??ll??gu?? untrustworthy.Th??r? Y managers, ?n the ?th?r h?nd, b?li?v? th?t most ????l? w?nt t? ??ntribut?, ??rti?i??t? ?nd ?triv? t? achieve. Th?? h?v? a ???itiv? attitude ?nd b?li?v? colleagues ??n control ?nd dir??t th?m??lv??, ?nd m?k? v?lu?bl? int?ll??tu?l ??ntributi?n?.M?Gr?g?r th?ught th?t theory X m?n?g?r? w?r? more ?r?v?l?nt in th? 1950’s, despite the f??t that theory Y ?ff?r? a m?r? accurate r?fl??ti?n of human nature. In either case, th? ??r??n?l vi?w? that m?n?g?r? f?rm about ?m?l????? can h?v? a ?ignifi??nt im???t ?n both the culture ?nd ?lim?t? in ?n ?rg?ni??ti?n or work gr?u?. M?n?g?r?’ ???um?ti?n? â€" ?v?n when unfounded â€" can also become ??lf-fulfill?d ?r??h??i??, ?? people t?nd t? fulfil th? ?x???t?ti?n? of ?th?r?.If a m?n?g?r’? assumptions ?b?ut ?m?l????? are closer to theory X, th?n th?t m?n?g?r i? lik?l? t? h?v? l?w?r ?x???t?ti?n? of ????l? ?nd ??n???u?ntl? will n?t ?ll?w them t? ??rti?i??t? in k?? d??i?i?n?. Th? overall effect i? to limit ?m?l???? ??t?nti?l, ?nd this i? lik?l? to l??d t? l?w?r l?v?l? of performance.However, if a m?n?g?r’? ???um?ti?n? ?r? more in lin? with th??r? Y, th?? are likely t? tru?t ?nd ?m??w?r ????l?, ?ll?wing th?m to ??ntribut? t? the workplace in a meaningful w??.