In response to the two sides of the
debate around employee motivation and the best ways to boost productivity,
Douglas McGregor argued that managers would tend to pursue the approach which
was most in line with their view of their employees. He claimed that managers
who viewed their employees as lazy would be more likely to follow an approach
based on control, whilst managers who believed the workers could be motivated
and wanted to develop themselves would be more likely to attempt to create
positive working environments and opportunities for advancement. McGregor
referred to these theories as theory X and theory Y.
It is important to note that, in
contrast to popular opinion, McGregor did not state the theory Y was preferable
to theory X, rather he held that both views had merit, and managers should not
have too narrow a view of motivation. As such, he believed that scientific
management approaches could benefit from focusing on the need to motivate
workers, whilst motivational approaches could also benefit from greater
managerial control. As such, he argued that theory X and theory Y simply
represented different ends of a continuum of approaches to improving
productivity, and managers should not fix themselves to one end of the continuum.
Both theory X and theory Y state that
managers are responsible for assembling and organizing the various factors of
production, including their employees, with the goal being to produce maximum
economic benefit for the shareholders. However, they take different views
around the drivers of employee behavior.
Theory X:
According to theory X, the average
employee is lazy, does not like to work, and will attempt to avoid having to
work as much as possible. They also have no ambition or responsibility, and do
not care about the performance of the organisation. As such, they will tend to
resist any organisational change, and not be particularly innovative or
intelligent, only working because they have to in order to have money and
security. However, it also holds that they are quite gullible and easy to
manipulate. As a result, managers who follow a theory X approach can try to
take a hard, controlling approach or a soft persuasive approach.
The hard approach depends on tight
managerial controls and close supervision, such as proposed by scientific
management, whilst also using coercion and implicit threats to prevent any
soldiering. In contrast, the soft approach looks to manipulate employees with
money and low levels of supervision, in an attempt to acquire employee
cooperation and reasonable levels of productivity. Unfortunately, the hard
approach will tend to generate hostility and resistance, whilst the soft
approach will lead to workers requesting greater levels of rewards whilst
working as little as possible. McGregor felt that most firms tried to use some
aspect of both of these approaches, but neither were very successful.
The reason for this is that McGregor
claimed that theory X would only ever focus on low level needs such as
security. As such, whilst the threat of removing security, in the form of pay
cuts or potential sackings, would only motivate an employee to a certain level.
As such, whilst following a Theory X approach would be better than following no
approach, it will never satisfy high level needs, and employees will not be
motivated by their work. Instead, they will look for more money and rewards to
compensate, thus allowing them to fulfil their social and esteem needs outside
of work. Therefore, employees will never satisfy their high level needs through
work, and thus will never work to their maximum productivity.
In addition, McGregor argued that
modern developed societies, with their abundant and cheap food, high tax rates
and social safety nets, already satisfied most of the physiological and
security needs of people. This meant that providing monetary rewards and
punishments would not motivate staff as their discomfort at being controlled
would outweigh the monetary benefits. As such, employees under theory X will
tend to dislike their work and take no interest in the goals of the
organisation, thus fulfilling the assumptions made under the theory. As such,
McGregor argued that theory X was a self fulfilling prophecy, and that managers
who followed it would end up demotivating even the most intrinsically motivated
workforce.
Theory Y
In contrast to theory X, theory Y
assumes that working can be made as natural to people as play and rest. As
such, people will motivate themselves to fulfil their work objectives, provided
they commit to them, and they feel they will fulfil higher needs by achieving
them. In addition, if these conditions can be fulfilled, people will seek
additional challenges and responsibility, and will handle them well because
humans are naturally creative and innovative: their talents just need to be
encouraged in their work.
The most important aspect of theory Y
is that it focused on the cycle of managers providing interesting work, which
motivates employees to achieve, which allows managers to provide them with more
interesting and challenging work, thus fulfilling the higher level esteem
needs, and allowing people to approach self actualisation in their work. As
self actualisation is a continually evolving need, it will thus continue to
motivate employees throughout their working lives.
This allows managers to align
employees’ personal goals with the goals of the organisation, by allowing the
employee to fulfil their needs as the organisation succeeds. For example, a
firm can decentralise its control structure, providing employees with more
responsibility and harnessing more of their skills to drive success. Companies
can also consult employees as part of the planning and decision making
processes, giving the employees input into the organisation’s success whilst
benefitting from the employees’ creativity. Participative performance
appraisals are also often used in theory Y, as when employees participate in
setting and monitoring their objectives, they are more likely to strive to
reach them.
If such a system can be properly
implemented, it would result in very high levels of motivation, with employees
working ever harder as their personal needs develop and their job develops to
satisfy them. However, Theory Y management cannot be seen as a soft approach as
it is easy for employees to manipulate the system by pretending to be de-motivated
and hiding their true motivations. Indeed, McGregor argued that some employees
may not have developed sufficient emotional maturity to embrace a Theory Y
style of management, and may believe the managers are trying to manipulate them
or are being weak. As such, managers may need to develop an initial system of
control for employees, and relax that system as the employee matures and
develops.
