Management
McGregor’s Theory X and Y
Leadership and management require an understanding of people’s behaviors. McGregor’s Theory X and Y is a well-known theory of motivation and leadership that has a philosophical influence on managerial thinking.
Theory X
McGregor’s Theory X assumes that humans are selfish, irresponsible, averse to working, change-resistant, lack ambition, and prefer to be led by others. This assumption denies individuals at junior work levels the authority to make suggestions or make decisions. It also assumes that people only work to earn salaries and lack a sense of ownership. Theory X also supports the supervision and control of workers, with managers entrusted with decision-making at all levels within an organization. It encourages managers to modify employee behavior to align with organizational needs (McGregor, 1998). Theory X offers a hands-on approach that involves micromanaging people to ensure that work is done correctly.
Theory Y
On the other hand, theory Y stresses the importance of employees in the realization of organizational objectives. It assumes that humans consider work as play and that work may be gratifying or be a source of punishment based on the controllable factors. It also postulates that employees are committed, implying that external control and punishment are unnecessary in realizing organizational goals (McGregor, 1998). Moreover, it theorizes that humans work under suitable conditions, accept, and seek responsibilities. According to this theory, lack of ambition does not describe man. Theory Y encourages managers to recognize rewards for task accomplishment to promote high imagination and creativity levels within the workplace. Furthermore, it is based on democratic ideologies that give all individuals equal growth and development opportunities. Unlike Theory X, Theory Y believes that workers are ready to work hard and take part in decision-making processes.
Limitations of Each
Theory X
Theory X can motivate employees, and its success depends on an organization’s needs and wants. However, since it gives managers the sole decision-making mandate and assumes that junior workers need to be monitored closely to improve their effectiveness, it has several limitations. First, it is ineffective in organizations with experts who work under their initiative and require little direction since it can demotivate them and make them look for an excuse of not going to work, resulting in high turnover. It is effective when dealing with starters who require guidance throughout or during crises where management must take total control. Second, its assumptions are inaccurate, making it universally inapplicable. According to Dobre (2013), most of the practices derived from this theory fail to motivate employees towards organizational goals. Third, theory X separates physical and mental activities, making it inadequate in satisfying people’s social and self-actualization needs.
Theory Y
Theory Y creates a conducive work environment and aligns individual goals with organizational objectives to enhance employee satisfaction. However, it has various limitations. First, it revokes managers’ responsibility by assuming that managers have a single responsibility of creating conditions to enable workers to realize organizational goals. It ignores the fact that managers have a completely engaged managerial role (Gannon & Boguszak, 2013). Second, organizations may avoid this theory because its application is slow and its progress may be unnoticeable, especially during the initial stages. Third, it complicates managers’ responsibility of directing and controlling employees because it increases the number of employees reporting to those in charge (McGregor, 1998). Finally, it requires management that believes in human capacities.
Original Purpose of Hawthorne Studies
The Hawthorne effect is the tendency of some individuals to change their behaviors and perform better when receiving maximum attention and think that they are being watched. This effect relates to the Hawthorne studies conducted at the Western Electric Company between 1927 and 1932 (Onday, 2016). The company commissioned this research to determine the link between work environments and employee productivity. The original purpose of these studies was to investigate the effects of various factors within the work environment on the workers’ productivity. These factors include lighting, length of the working period, and timing of breaks.
The studies focused on determining the effect of increasing or reducing the amount of light that the employees received on their productivity. An increase in the amount of light seemed to increase productivity in the original research. However, this increased productivity was noticeable only during the experiment and reduced once it was over (Busse & Warner, 2017). Moreover, researchers established that any slight variation to experimental conditions affected productivity. For instance, they noticed that employee productivity improved when they reduced illumination to candlelight levels, eliminated breaks, and increased working hours. They concluded that employees responded to increased attention from those in charge. They aspect implies that productivity is linked to attention and not to the changes in the various experimental variables.
Points Illustrated in the Study
This study illustrated various points. First, employees are more responsive to social aspects such as their interaction with managers and colleagues than physical factors such as lighting, working period, and breaks. For instance, researchers noticed that productivity increased when they stopped varying the conditions and set things back to normal (Onday, 2016). Employees become responsive when they feel that their supervisors and managers care about them. Second, the study illustrated that wage incentives are less critical in enhancing productivity. Workers may become suspicious of such motivations and perceive them as strategies of firing some of them or reducing their wages in the future. Third, the study demonstrated that peer group and informal groups influence productivity. For instance, employees may form groups that set rules of conduct and then formulate measures to ensure that they comply with the set rules. These rules ensure that their productivity remains stable regardless of any variations or incentives. Furthermore, the rules determine members’ behaviors and control their interactions with their managers. Fourth, the study revealed that collective work spirit influences productivity. The researchers realized that each time they introduced a variable, the employees expressed a cooperative high spirit and participated fully in the experiment. Workers improve their productivity regardless of whether the introduced variable enriched work conditions or worsened them (Busse & Warner, 2017). For instance, researchers noticed increased output when they shortened and prolonged the duration of breaks and when they increased and reduced their number. Finally, the study illustrated that large-scale experiments with more than 20,000 workers reveal highly positive responses to variations in working environments and expressions of encouragement from managers.
Although most of the original findings of these studies seem inaccurate or overstated, recent researchers have found that these effects exist. Organizations should consider other factors, in addition to the Hawthorne effect, that may influence the productivity of workers and their behaviors. Managers should understand that employee performance depends more on working conditions, positive management feedback and encouragement, and open communication.