Theory X v/s Theory Y

Theory X and Theory Y was an idea devised by Douglas McGregor in his 1960 book “The Human Side of Enterprise”. It encapsulated a fundamental distinction between management styles and has formed the basis for much subsequent writing on the subject.

First let us understand what is the difference between Theory X and Theory Y and how it can be applied in our lives.

The underlying assumptions harbored by executive decision-makers drive an org’s processes/policies. And those processes/policies influence an org’s social and financial performance. 

 Theory X

Theory X assumes that employees are naturally unmotivated and dislike working, and this encourages an authoritarian style of management. According to this view, management must actively intervene to get things done. This style of management assumes that workers:

• Dislike working.
• Avoid responsibility and need to be directed.
• Have to be controlled, forced, and threatened to deliver what's needed.
• Need to be supervised at every step, with controls put in place.
• Need to be enticed to produce results; otherwise they have no ambition or incentive to work.

X-Type organizations tend to be top heavy, with managers and supervisors required at every step to control workers. There is little delegation of authority and control remains firmly centralized.
McGregor recognized that X-Type workers are in fact usually the minority, and yet in mass organizations, such as large scale production environment, X Theory management may be required and can be unavoidable.

Theory Y

Theory Y expounds a participative style of management that is de-centralized. It assumes that employees are happy to work, are self-motivated and creative, and enjoy working with greater responsibility. It assumes that workers:

• Take responsibility and are motivated to fulfill the goals they are given.
• Seek and accept responsibility and do not need much direction.
• Consider work as a natural part of life and solve work problems imaginatively.

This more participative management style tends to be more widely applicable. In Y-Type organizations, people at lower levels of the organization are involved in decision making and have more responsibility.

Comparing Theory X and Theory Y 

 

• Motivation
  Theory X assumes that people dislike work; they want to avoid it and do not want to take responsibility. Theory Y assumes that people are self-motivated, and thrive on responsibility.
• Management Style and Control
  In a Theory X organization, management is authoritarian, and centralized control is retained, whilst in Theory Y, the management style is participative: Management involves employees in decision making, but retains power to implement decisions.
• Work Organization
  Theory X employees tend to have specialized and often repetitive work. In Theory Y, the work tends to be organized around wider areas of skill or knowledge; Employees are also encouraged to develop expertise and make suggestions and improvements.
• Rewards and Appraisals
  Theory X organizations work on a ‘carrot and stick’ basis, and performance appraisal is part of the overall mechanisms of control and remuneration. In Theory Y organizations, appraisal is also regular and important, but is usually a separate mechanism from organizational controls. Theory Y organizations also give employees frequent opportunities for promotion.
• Application
  Although Theory X management style is widely accepted as inferior to others, it has its place in large scale production operation and unskilled production-line work. Many of the principles of Theory Y are widely adopted by types of organization that value and encourage participation. Theory Y-style management is suited to knowledge work and professional services. Professional service organizations naturally evolve Theory Y-type practices by the nature of their work; Even highly structure knowledge work, such as call center operations, can benefits from Theory Y principles to encourage knowledge sharing and continuous improvement.

 Similarly workers can also be of two types - 

1. Lazy worker Or Bad worker
2. Non-lazy worker Or Good worker

So we can  have 4 Manager-Worker combinations-

Implications of above 4 possibilities in an organization -
1st Quadrant - 
Worker is Lazy. But manager is motivated to work. In this case manager has to keep motivating the worker to work. The manager will try to understand what are the obstacle which are impeding the employee to work.


2nd Quadrant - 
Worker is Lazy. And manager is also feels that employees are not motivated to work.This is the worst possible scenarion for any organization. Such organizations cannot progress.

3rd Quadrant -
This is the best combination to work. Here both the worker and manager are happy and feel motivated to work. The organizations progresses to achieve its targets.

4th Quadrant - 
Worker is non-lazy. But manager feels that employees are not motivated to work. Such situation will create unrest among the workers in an organizations as any amount of work done the worker is not recognized by the manager. This will create a negative environment in the work place.

So the best possible situation is that in 3rd quadrant and worst possible situation is in 2nd quadrant.

My experience with X and Y managers -
 I have come across both X and Y type of managers. During my experience in a software company, my project manager was a Y-type manager. She helped us in our difficult situations and always tried to solve our concerns. I was motivated to work and to put in more efforts.
Also, I used to be very comfortable in discussing my concerns with her. This created an environment of positivity and the work didn't seem to be a burden.
Moreover, I was continuously made aware about the short term and long term goals of team and organization. I was involved in the decision making process in the team. This participative style of management was really appreciative.



At the same time my technical Lead was a X-type of manager. His continuous intervention in my work was very annoying. It made me feel agitated and I didn't felt like working when he was around. Such situations also aroused some rebellious attitude within me to not perform and finish my work.

So with my personal experience also I can say that organizations like software industries should try to nurture the Y-type of managers. This would create a conducive environment to work and everyone would get benefitted.

What type of manager am I-
I am a Y type of manager. During my work in a software company, I took training of my junior batches in a particular technology. I was awarded the best trainer award. Similarly in my team, I had 4 freshers working under me whom I trained and helped them to skill up according to project requirements. I used to coordinate the everyday activities between onshore and offshore. So during my appraisal I was given a very positive feedback about my attitude towards work and team handling skills.