|
_Motivation Theory X _
By: Kevin Johns
foundation of today's organizations. These theories go back to the turn of the
century and in some cases are considered by the uninformed to be simply fads
which come and go. As I have discovered, these theories are rather the steps
on a ladder which continually takes us higher and higher. Douglas McGregor in
his book, "The Human Side of Enterprise" published in 1960 has examined
theories on behavior of individuals at work, and he has formulated two models
which he calls Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X Assumptions The average human
being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if he can. Because of
their dislike for work, most people must be controlled and threatened before
they will work hard enough. The average human prefers to be directed, dislikes
responsibility, is unambiguous, and desires security above everything. These
assumptions lie behind most organizational principles today, and give rise
both to "tough" management with punishments and tight controls, and "soft"
management which aims at harmony at work. Two years ago, I was employed by
SunTrust Bank working in their stocks &transfers department. Theory Y approach
( basic assumption is that staff will contribute more to the organization if
they are treated as responsible and valued employees) was utilize with great
success through out our department. The most notable is self directed work
teams which are defined as a small number of people with complementary skills,
who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals and approach, for
which they hold themselves mutually accountable (Katzenbach &Smith, 1993).
Collaborative self directed work teams can get complex projects done at faster
rates than the traditional boss-worker arrangement, because the decision
making process is made faster and more effective in a team. Empowering teams
to make decisions about their work also enhances satisfaction and reduces
turnover (Berger, 1998). Self directed work teams involve employees in a
specific area, or those who are working on a specific product or process. Self
directed work teams can be any size, we usually use 5 team members but
normally run no more than 12 to 15 employees. The work team makes the
decisions that would normally be made by a supervisor or manager, and might
interact with the company's suppliers and customers, whether they are inside
or outside the company. In some companies, self-directed work teams will also
take over many of the human resource functions as well (Cotton, 1993). Self
directed work teams have also become one of the more changing approaches to
employee involvement, and has been increasing in popularity within the last
several years. Companies such as Proctor &Gamble, Digital Equipment, General
Mills, Federal Express and other well known companies, are reorganizing their
employees into self directed work teams. In a recent survey, 476 Fortune 500
companies found that although only 7% of the work force is organized into self
directed work teams, management at half of these companies said that they will
be relying on them more in years ahead. (Cotton, 1993). Establishing
Self-Directed Work Teams. There are nine basic steps in establishing
self-directed work teams: · Developing a shared vision, · Empowerment ·
Training · Presence of a supportive culture · Developing performance
expectations and feedback · Establishing boundaries · Developing an
appropriate pay system · Constructing the appropriate physical layout of
facilities (where applicable) · Developing friendly union interaction.
(Berger, 1998),(Cotton, 1993). The benefits I have witness at this company
from utilizing these theory Y employee empowerment methods are increased
morale from a more satisfying and effective workplace. More personal pride in
the quality of the product we have at Harbinger. Although there are some noted
disadvantages to self directed teams such as some team member's unwillingness
to change their attitudes to comply with a team based structure. Lack of
participation among some members of the work team. It is important for
management to overcome this reluctance and understand that everyone is equal
and a part of the team. At Eaton Corporation in South Bend can, Indiana, some
workers felt as if the self-directed work team movement had become somewhat of
a cult. Members who are shy and not into team activities felt as if they were
outcast. Other workers felt that some of their peers used the team concept to
create clicks within the company. They felt as if these clicks were used to
further outcast them or cause their removal from the company. Still others
expressed that they did not like the empowerment. They stated that, "you feel
more responsible for what you are doing - and that makes you nervous."
(Aeppel, 1997) Eaton Corporation has approximately 155 factories. The one in
South Bend, Indiana has a 10 percent turnover rate. This is the highest of all
the 155 factories (Aeppel, 1997). The bottom line is that not every worker is
cut out for teamwork. Some people work much better alone and unsupervised. Why
should these people be subjected to working in an environment that does not
fit their personalities? One former union shop employee walked out after six
months claiming that he did not like the team aspect. He explained "they
should have judged me on my job performance, not on how I interact with my
teammates." (Aeppel, 1997). Another example is that of Johnson Wax. 3 black
employees who claimed that self-directed work teams allowed a "pattern of
racial discrimination to flourish" sued Johnson Wax in 1997. (Neuborne, 1997)
Johnson Wax officials say that isn't true. At Kodak, employees were distracted
from their regular positions by being increasing time needed to work within
their teams. It gets so bad that at one point technical personnel were
spending 30 to 40 percent of their entire day in meetings. As a currently
employee of Harbinger Corporation a leader in e-commerce software there is yet
another prime example of theory Y successfully implemented. The
shared-leadership model. This addresses the important factor of leadership
within the team. In this department, members take on a leadership role for a
different aspect of the work that needs to be done and is responsible for
being the authority in that area. For example, one member can be in charge of
keeping an eye on the competition's products, one can be in charge of helping
create new ideas, and another can research possible vendors to keep costs down
and quality up. This way, all members have equal influence and authority in
the group. It also eliminates the need to keep information from others to
obtain power within the group. This was a problem observed at SunTrust with
the Self-Directed Work Team. In the Shared Leadership Model, the members have
to address key issuer early on. Four major issues that must be determined
early on are: · Who leads when, and who follows when? · What will the team
accomplish? · How will the work be carried out? · How and when will the team
know the project is a success? After the members decide on many of the
workings of the group, managers can assist them in addressing any issues of
authority and help them shift the assignments for authority as necessary. This
does not completely eliminate the need for a manager either. The support of
the manager is vital to the team's success in the shared-leadership model.
Some critics point out that one of the issues that a Human Resource Manager
must keep in mind is that, "employees will feel vulnerable in a self-directed
work team because it lacks the familiar clarity of a hierarchical structure
(Arnold, 1996)." This can increase the sensitivity of authority issues. Also,
should competition help the team by pushing each member a bit harder, or is it
a hindrance that erodes the solidarity and friendship (Neuborne, 1997). The
military is a classic example of theory X the most common management practice)
management organizes all elements of production, motivates and controls
employee behavior to fit the needs of the organization, and without this
intervention, employees would be indifferent to changing organizational needs.
I enlisted in the United States Army in 1988 as a chance to travel and further
my education. During the initial part of my six years of active military duty
the general assumption was that soldiers felled squarely into theory X. Most
senior enlisted officers I encountered for the most part seemed to have this
mindset of soldiers having a natural dislike for work. I believed control and
punishment are not the only ways to make people work, man will direct himself
if he is committed to the aims of the organization. Needless to say once
promoted through the ranks I chose a different approach than the one inherited
with the system. Theory Y basic assumption is that staff will contribute more
to the organization if they are treated as responsible and valued employees.
By simply treated the soldiers under my tutelage as valued employees, I was
able to maintain the best and fastest communication team in the battalion.
There is also a new twist on the popular X and Y theories, Theory O, in which
all the employees act like owners--because they are. As owners, they have
certain rights, but they also have responsibilities to make sure their jobs
are performed as well as possible in light of the needs of the company. Theory
O companies strive to create what John Case of Inc. magazine called "a company
of business people," a company in which everyone understands the needs of the
company and has opportunities and expectations to move those needs forward.
When ownership is added to this management practice, people need to understand
precisely how if they do act as business people, they will be the ones to
benefit. One exampl of this is at United Airlines. The People Division and
Ownership Services Team: Like many ESOP companies, the Human Resources
Department will play an active role in the transformation. Human Resources is
now called the People Division at United, and within this division, the
Ownership Services Team has spearheaded the education program. Its work on
this front includes: Two publications, entitled "Destinations" and the "ESOP
Owner' Guide," which provide an overview and explanation of the ESOP and the
deal that created it. These were distributed to all employees at the beginning
of the "new" United. Publishing a newsletter called "ESOP News," which
discusses new developments related to the ESOP and participation efforts.
Using United's daily newspaper, "Newsreal," to discuss ownership issues.
Conducting presentations at different United locations to explain how the ESOP
works and what it all means. These presentations not only cover the ESOP and
participation efforts, but also provide a forum for employees to ask questions
related to any aspect of the company. Setting up a toll free phone-in service
that employees can call with questions about the ESOP or other benefits.
Copyright © 1995, 1999 by The National Center for Employee Ownership (NCEO)
(phone 510/272-9461; e-mail nceo@nceo.org; WWW http://www.nceo.org/). All
rights reserved. Both these are "wrong" because man needs more than financial
rewards at work, he also needs some deeper higher order motivation - the
opportunity to fulfill himself. Theory X managers do not give their staff this
opportunity so that the employees behave in the expected fashion. Theory Y
Assumptions The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as
natural as play or rest. Control and punishment are not the only ways to make
people work, man will direct himself if he is committed to the aims of the
organization. If a job is satisfying, then the result will be commitment to
the organization. The average man learns, under proper conditions, not only to
accept but to seek responsibility. Imagination, creativity, and ingenuity can
be used to solve work problems by a large number of employees. Under the
conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the
average man are only partially utilized. Comments on Theory X and Theory Y
Assumptions These assumptions are based on social science research which has
been carried out, and demonstrate the potential which is present in man and
which organizations should recognize in order to become more effective.
McGregor sees these two theories as two quite separate attitudes. Theory Y is
difficult to put into practice on the shop floor in large mass production
operations, but it can be used initially in the managing of managers and
professionals. In "The Human Side of Enterprise" McGregor shows how Theory Y
affects the management of promotions and salaries and the development of
effective managers. McGregor also sees Theory Y as conducive to participative
problem solving. It is part of the manager's job to exercise authority, and
there are cases in which this is the only method of achieving the desired
results because subordinates do not agree that the ends are desirable.
However, in situations where it is possible to obtain commitment to
objectives, it is better to explain the matter fully so that employees grasp
the purpose of an action. They will then exert self-direction and control to
do better work - quite possibly by better methods - than if they had simply
been carrying out an order which the y did not fully understand. The situation
in which employees can be consulted is one where the individuals are
emotionally mature, and positively motivated towards their work; where the
work is sufficiently responsible to allow for flexibility and where the
employee can see his own position in the management hierarchy. If these
conditions are present, managers will find that the participative approach to
problem solving leads to much improved results compared with the alternative
approach of handing out authoritarian orders. Once management becomes
persuaded that it is under estimating the potential of its human resources,
and accepts the knowledge given by social science researchers and displayed in
Theory Y assumptions, then it can invest time, money and effort in developing
improved applications of the theory. McGregor realizes that some of the
theories he has put forward are unrealizable in practice, but wants managers
to put into operation the basic assumption that: staff will contribute more to
the organization if they are treated as responsible and valued employees.
While I currently hold no management position is theories X and Y and were
based on assumptions made regarding the "system" and individuals. In short, in
Theory X (the most common management practice) management organizes all
elements of production, motivates and controls employee behavior to fit the
needs of the organization, and without this intervention, employees would be
indifferent to changing organizational needs. McGregor further assumes that
managers believe that the average employee is by nature indolent and lazy,
lacks ambition, is self-centered, and resistant to change (McGregor 1957). The
grim consequences that McGregor proposes about management by "direction and
control," a style that is and was popular in big business, hardly have been
exhibited in the corporate world 40 years later. This fact alone shows that
McGregor's assumptions regarding Theory X are inaccurate. McGregor's
alternative to Theory X was Theory Y. This theory made the assumptions that
management has the responsibility for organizing the elements of production,
people are not by nature passive, but become so as a result of experiences,
management should enable employees to develop their motivational
characteristics, and that it is essential for management to arrange
organizational conditions in a manner where employees can achieve their own
goals by directing their personal effort towards organizational objectives.
The contrast between X and Y solely relates to who controls human behavior.
Theory X touts external control, and Theory Y promotes self control and self
direction. The main dilemma with McGregor's premises is that Theory Y places
an unrealistic amount of burden on the management. Heroics cannot be the
responsibility of a manager and the difficulty a manager would have fulfilling
his own personal goals and the goals of the organization while conceiving "of
their job as helping each of his subordinates to achieve their mutual goals in
the subordinate's own way (Gellerman 1963)," is an enormous. Douglas McGregor
-Theory X and Theory Y The average man learns, under proper conditions, not
only to accept but to seek responsibility. Imagination, creativity, and
ingenuity can be used to solve work problems by a large number of employees.
Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual
potentialities of the average man are only partially utilized. Comments on
Theory X and Theory Y Assumptions These assumptions are based on social
science research which has been carried out, and demonstrate the potential
which is present in man and which organizations should recognize in order to
become more effective. McGregor sees these two theories as two quite separate
attitudes. Theory Y is difficult to put into practice on the shop floor in
large mass production operations, but it can be used initially in the managing
of managers and professionals. In "The Human Side of Enterprise" McGregor
shows how Theory Y affects the management of promotions and salaries and the
development of effective managers. McGregor also sees Theory Y as conducive to
participative problem solving. It is part of the manager's job to exercise
authority, and there are cases in which this is the only method of achieving
the desired results because subordinates do not agree that the ends are
desirable. However, in situations where it is possible to obtain commitment to
objectives, it is better to explain the matter fully so that employees grasp
the purpose of an action. They will then exert self-direction and control to
do better work - quite possibly by better methods - than if they had simply
been carrying out an order which the y did not fully understand. The situation
in which employees can be consulted is one where the individuals are
emotionally mature, and positively motivated towards their work; where the
work is sufficiently responsible to allow for flexibility and where the
employee can see his own position in the management hierarchy. If these
conditions are present, managers will find that the participative approach to
problem solving leads to much improved results compared with the alternative
approach of handing out authoritarian orders. Once management becomes
persuaded that it is under estimating the potential of its human resources,
and accepts the knowledge given by social science researchers and displayed in
Theory Y assumptions, then it can invest time, money and effort in developing
improved applications of the theory. McGregor realizes that some of the
theories he has put forward are unrealizable in practice, but wants managers
to put into operation the basic assumption that: staff will contribute more to
the organization if they are treated The military is a classic example of
theory X the most common management practice) management organizes all
elements of production, motivates and controls employee behavior to fit the
needs of the organization, and without this intervention, employees would be
indifferent to changing organizational needs. I enlisted in the United States
Army in 1988 as a chance to travel and further my education. During the
initial part of my six years of active military duty the general assumption
was that soldiers felled squarely into theory X. Most senior enlisted officers
I encountered for the most part seemed to have this mindset of soldiers having
a natural dislike for work. I believed control and punishment are not the only
ways to make people work, man will direct himself if he is committed to the
aims of the organization. Needless to say once promoted through the ranks I
chose a different approach than the one inherited with the system. Theory Y
basic assumption is that staff will contribute more to the organization if
they are treated as responsible and valued employees. I am currently employed
by Harbinger a leader in software developer. While I currently hold no
management position is theories X and Y and were based on assumptions made
regarding the "system" and individuals. In short, in Theory X (the most common
management practice) management organizes all elements of production,
motivates and controls employee behavior to fit the needs of the organization,
and without this intervention, employees would be indifferent to changing
organizational needs. McGregor further assumes that managers believe that the
average employee is by nature indolent and lazy, lacks ambition, is
self-centered, and resistant to change (McGregor 1957). The grim consequences
that McGregor proposes about management by "direction and control," a style
that is and was popular in big business, hardly have been exhibited in the
corporate world 40 years later. This fact alone shows that McGregor's
assumptions regarding Theory X are inaccurate. McGregor's alternative to
Theory X was Theory Y. This theory made the assumptions that management has
the responsibility for organizing the elements of production, people are not
by nature passive, but become so as a result of experiences, management should
enable employees to develop their motivational characteristics, and that it is
essential for management to arrange organizational conditions in a manner
where employees can achieve their own goals by directing their personal effort
towards organizational objectives. The contrast between X and Y solely relates
to who controls human behavior. Theory X touts external control, and Theory Y
promotes self control and self direction. The main dilemma with McGregor's
premises is that Theory Y places an unrealistic amount of burden on the
management. Heroics cannot be the responsibility of a manager and the
difficulty a manager would have fulfilling his own personal goals and the
goals of the organization while conceiving "of their job as helping each of
his subordinates to achieve their mutual goals in the subordinate's own way
(Gellerman 1963)," is an enormous. A manager would require not only extensive
training in management but in human psychology. Drucker's opinion on the
subject sums up why the McGregor's techniques lack vital characteristics for
effective organizational motivation; An employer has no business with a man's
personality. Employment is as specific contract calling for specific
performance, and nothing else. Any attempt of an employer to go beyond this is
usurpation. It is an immoral as well as illegal intrusion of privacy. It is
abuse of power. An employee owes no "loyalty," he owes no "love," and no
"attitudes" -he owes performance and nothing else&Management and management
development&should consider themselves with changes in behavior likely to make
a man more effective. They do not deal with who a man is -that is, with his
personality or his emotional dynamics (Drucker, 1973). Though Drucker's
opinions reflect why Theory Y may be perceived as flawed, they represent a
somewhat cold stance on other issues in organizational behavior. Management
must have some responsibilities to the emotional well being of their
subordinates, but they cannot be responsible to the extent Theory Y proposes.
Of all the intrinsically based theories of motivation, the one that is most
related to motivation through reinforcement is that of the expectancy-valence
theory. Vroom's formulations on this theory have become the dominate works in
regard to motivational management. The expectancy-valence theory is a
cognitive approach to explaining the causes of motivation, which in turn,
influence the behavior of the individual. Expectancy theories explain not only
the choices an employee will make regarding actions, but to what level the
employee will perform in regard to those actions (Schwab 1978). This somewhat
scientific approach to explain motivation involves three key steps. The
valence of outcomes is the first step which incorporates the concept of the
attractiveness associated with activities. Unlike Maslow, Herzberg, or
McGregor, the expectancy theory "makes no a priori statements about what
outcomes individuals will find valent or nonvalent (Schwab, 1978)." The second
assumption in the expectancy theory regards people's beliefs about the
connection between activity and outcome. These perceptions " can be thought of
as subjective probabilities and are referred to as instrumentality perceptions
(Schwab 1978)." In essence, people have an idea that there is a link between
performance and wage increases. The final premise of the expectancy theory "
pertains to the individual's beliefs about the connection or linkage between
one's effort to engage in an activity and the likelihood that the activity
will be accomplished (Schwab, 1978). Crystallized, the expectancy theory of
motivation states that employee motivation is high when a task is attractive
in itself, and when the outcomes of the completed task are attractive to the
employee. Because of the complexities of the internal nature of the expectancy
theory, it is a difficult approach to take as a manager. Though it takes into
account that the recognition of the outcome of an action may influence the
frequency of that behavior, the expectancy theory still relies too much on the
internal processes of motivation because of its basis in cognition. A far
simpler way to motivate employees disengages itself from internal (intrinsic)
processes and solel Copyright © 1995, 1999 by The National Center for Employee
Ownership
Word Count: 4127
|
