home
Proper nutrition
Theory X and Y by D. McGregor

Theory X and Y by D. McGregor

15.10.2019

Theory X-Y D. McGregor

Douglas MacGregor (1906-1964) - social psychologist who published a number of articles on research in this area. He served as President of Aston College for several years and described how this period as senior leader shaped his views on the organization's functioning. From 1954 until the end of his days, he was a professor of management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Douglas McGregor created the theory of x, y. This theory examines the behavior of a manager, his managerial actions based on assumptions about the behavior of employees. The clarity and simplicity of McGregor's theory has caused widespread recognition and, at the same time, widespread criticism for its simplistic view of the problem.
McGregor argues that there are at least two approaches that managers use to manage subordinates. These approaches are the consequences of two different views on human nature: fundamentally negative (theory X, autocratic) and fundamentally positive (theory Y, democratic).

Analyzing the relationship of managers to subordinates, McGregor came to the conclusion that their view of human nature is based on a certain system of assumptions or assumptions that ultimately determine his behavior and actions in relation to subordinates.
1. The worldview of managers guided by theory X is based on the following four postulates:
The average person has an inherent dislike for work and a desire to avoid it if possible. Thus, managers need to emphasize productivity, incentive schemes, and "honest day work" and anticipate "limiting results."
2. Because of human aversion to work, most people need to be controlled, coerced, directed, punished in order for the goals of the organization to be achieved.
3. The average person prefers to be guided, prefers to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, wants to be safe in everything.
4. Employees value job security above all else and are virtually devoid of ambition.
It should be noted that such a category of workers does occur. For example, people who are psychasthenoids by personality type. Without showing any initiative in their work, they will willingly obey the leadership and at the same time complain about their working conditions, low wages, etc.
Therefore, the theory x manager imposes his decisions on subordinates and centralizes authority. First of all, this concerns the formulation of tasks for subordinates and the rules of their work, forcing them to complete the task. This is a strict and constant control on the part of the manager. Incentives for conscientious work involve punishment or fear of possible punishment. According to McGregor, this overt or covert approach is most common among managers.

The diametrically opposite approach to human nature (theory Y) is based on completely different grounds:
1. All employees strive for responsibility and freedom to make decisions related to the performance of work.
2. All workers are endowed with a high level of ingenuity and imagination rarely used in modern industrial life; this leads to frustration and turns the person into an opponent of the organization. Creativity, that is, the ability to make extraordinary decisions, is extremely widespread among all members of the organization, and is not the prerogative of managers.
3. The cost of physical and mental effort at work is as natural as playing or relaxing. The average person does not inherently dislike work: depending on the conditions, work can be a source of satisfaction or punishment.
4. External control is not the only means forcing employees to put effort into work. People will exercise self-management and self-control to achieve the goals they have committed to achieve.
5. The most significant reward in the event of a commitment may be the satisfaction of the needs of self-realization (compare with Argyris). This may be a direct result of efforts to achieve the goals of the organization.
6. The average person learns, under appropriate conditions, not only to accept, but also to bear responsibility.
7. Very many people are able to make a creative contribution to solving organizational problems, which in practice is not always the case.
Therefore, here the leader avoids imposing his will on subordinates, includes them in the decision-making process and the definition of work regulations.
And today, the theory of y is considered more effective, it is believed that it is precisely such people and such a leadership style that are most appropriate for achieving effective motivation in market economic conditions.
McGregor was also convinced of the greater validity of Theory Y and was a promoter of the ideas of wide participation of all members of the organization in the preparation and decision-making processes, empowering employees with greater responsibility and the opportunity to take risks, and also pointed out the importance of optimal group relations as a factor in individual motivation.
McGregor analyzes how Theory Y could be applied as the basis for a functioning organization. He is particularly interested in the results of applying this theory to performance appraisal, wages and promotions, participation, and relationships between administrative and line personnel. In the last section, he makes the important point that there will be tensions and conflicts between administrative and line staff as long as the administrative staff is used as a top management service to control line personnel (as required by Theory X). According to Theory Y, the role of administrative staff is seen as a service of providing professional assistance to all levels of management.

Theory "Z" W. Ouchi
The representative of the social school, supplemented theories X and Y. Theory "Z" reflects the attitude of e to the staff of Japanese managers. Essence: hiring of employees should be long-term, assessment of the performance of qualities and promotion is slow, career is moderately specialized, control is unclear and informal, decision-making is group and consensual, individual responsibility, interest in a person is wide.

In 1978, Ouchi, co-authored with Alfred Yeager, also at Stanford University, published Type Z Organization: Stability in the Midst of Mobility, which appeared in the Academy of Management Review

In 1981, William Ouchi published his best-selling book on Japanese management, Theory Z: How American Business Should Respond to the Japanese Challenge. Ouchi, by now a professor at the Graduate School of Management at the University of California, Los Angeles, turned to the work of Douglas McGregor and Chris Argyris (see Chapter 16) to provide a theoretical basis for his work. Turning his early description of the Z organization into Theory Z, in his new book Ouchi deliberately draws parallels with McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y, and observes that the attitude towards employees is inevitably reflected in the style of management.

Ouchi's work sparked a lively debate in American academic circles. For example, George W. Engleid of the University of Oklahoma, after analyzing Z theory, characterized it as follows:

The Z theory approach to management problems, but in essence, boils down to the fact that the key factor in increasing the productivity of an enterprise is the involvement of employees. Employee engagement in large Japanese organizations is the result of an internally agreed set of norms, practices, and behaviors that are based on trust and close interpersonal relationships. Japanese organizations are characterized by lifetime employment, control mechanisms, collective decision-making, collective responsibility and common concern for a common cause; all this increases the degree of labor involvement and thus contributes to increased productivity.

"Theory Z is unlikely to become the same norm for American companies as it is for Japanese companies." Instead of urging American business to adopt alien Japanese practices, he encourages management theorists to address the question of "what management philosophy and what set of management processes could adequately meet domestic American norms and expectations" .

Sullivan remarks:

Collective decision-making (if the phenomenon Ouchi describes exists at all) and collective responsibility are a response (rather than an equal incentive) to a lack of specialization.

15. Management and management. The concept, essence and content of management.

Management- a type of professional activity aimed at achieving the intended goals in market conditions through the rational use of material and labor resources using the principles, functions and methods of the economic mechanism.

Management is management in market conditions, meaning:

orientation of the company to the demand and needs of the market, to the needs of specific consumers and the organization of production of types of products that are in demand and capable of bringing the company the intended profit;

· constant striving to improve production efficiency, to obtain optimal results at lower costs;

economic independence, providing freedom of decision-making to those who are responsible for the final results of the company or its divisions;

· constant adjustment of goals and programs depending on the state of the market;

identification of the final result of the activity of the company or its economically independent units in the market in the process of exchange;

· the need to use a modern information base with computer technology for multivariate calculations when making reasonable and optimal decisions.

The essence of management.

There are three spheres of objective reality, which correspond to different types of management:

1. Management in inanimate nature.

2. Management in biological systems (organisms).

3. Management in human society (social management).

There are two types of social control.

Management as an element of any labor activity

Management as an element of human relations.

social management- includes the management of material objects, processes and people. Production management is part of social management.

In itself, the generality of management tasks makes it possible to formulate general laws of management, and the analysis and generalization of management practice makes it possible, based on these laws, to specify the content of management within the framework of management science (management).

1. Science and practice of management.

2. Organization of company management.

3. The process of making managerial decisions.

4. Academic discipline.

5. A group of senior leaders.

Despite the fact that Douglas MacGregor died more than 40 years ago (1906-1964), he remains one of the most respected and frequently cited authors in the field of human relations (what was called behaviorism in the 1940s and 1950s).

His work has inspired such diverse thinkers as Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Warren Bennis, and Robert Waterman. Of particular note is that McGregor became famous for his motivational models - theories X and Y.

McGregor was born in Detroit, the son of a priest. In 1932 he graduated from City College of Detroit, now Wayne State University. He received his doctorate from Harvard, then taught social psychology there. Later he moved to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) as an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology. In 1948 he became president of Antioch College (Antioch College) in Yellow Springs, Ohio. The college was known as a progressive and liberal educational institution. In 1954 McGregor returned to MIT to lecture on management. In 1962 he became a Sloan Fellows Professor. While at MIT, McGregor inspired a new generation of thinkers with his ideas, including Warren Bennis and Edgar Shane.

Theory X and Y is the theme of McGregor's classic 1960 book The Human Side of Enterprise. Theory X is the traditional "carrot and stick" idea based on the premise of "mediocrity masses." It assumes that workers are inherently lazy, need external supervision and motivation, and view work as a necessary evil in the way of earning money. Theory X, according to McGregor, can be reduced to the following: “1) the average person has an inherent disgust for work and the desire to shirk from it whenever possible; 2) therefore, in order to get people to make adequate efforts in the interests of the organization, they must be coerced, controlled, directed and threatened with punishment; 3) as a rule, people prefer to take orders, avoid responsibility, they are unambitious and above all they want security.

McGregor laments that Theory X "has a significant impact on management strategy across a broad spectrum of American industry" and remarks, "The only accepted basis for organizational theory is power and the treatment of it as the primary and indispensable means of command and control."

"Today's views on the human aspect of the enterprise are dictated by beliefs like the above," MacGregor wrote, and concluded that such behavior "is determined not by human nature, but by the nature of the industrial organization, its management philosophy, policies and practices." People don't cripple organizations; organizations distort people's perspectives, aspirations, and behavior.

McGregor called the other extreme Theory Y, which is based on the premise that people want to work and need work. In this case, the organization must cultivate in employees the dedication to its goals, release their energy and direct it to solving organizational problems. McGregor describes the foundations of Theory Y as follows:

the expenditure of physical and intellectual efforts in work is no less natural than recreation and entertainment; the average person likes to work;
external control and the threat of punishment are not the only means of encouraging efforts in the interests of the company;
devotion to common goals is directly related to the reward for the efforts spent on their achievement, and moral satisfaction is especially valuable - it can be a direct result of efforts aimed at solving organizational problems;
under appropriate conditions, the average man not only accepts the responsibility that is placed on him, but strives for it; 5) people are characterized by a high degree of imagination, ingenuity and creative activity in solving organizational problems.

Theories X and Y are not simplistic schemes. McGregor was a realist. He wrote: "Today it is impossible to create an organization that will fully embody this theory, it is as incredible as the construction of a nuclear power plant in 1945. Too many obstacles would have to be overcome."

The most common objection to Theories X and Y is that they are mutually exclusive and represent opposite ends of the scale. In response to this, shortly before his death in 1964, McGregor developed Theory Z, which synthesized organizational and personal imperatives. The Z concept was subsequently developed by William Ouchi. In Theory Z, he analyzed the working methods of the Japanese, thus finding fertile ground for many of the ideas McGregor included in Theory Z.

It was about lifelong employment, concern for employees, including their social life, informal control, consensus decision-making, slow progress, an effective system of transferring information from top to bottom and vice versa with the help of middle managers, loyalty to the firm and the value of quality.

How ideas work

Theories X and Y are often billed as nothing more than a human-centered manifesto: McGregor argued that effective managers tend to value and trust people, while an ineffective leader is cynical and mistrustful. But McGregor did not look at the world so simplistic. He recognized that X managers could be corporate dictators and still trust their people. He also didn't see the X executives as ideal - they could trust people and treat them well, but still drive the business to a dead end. McGregor was in no hurry to give recipes, but simply watched how motivation is created in the life of organizations. “Motivation, the potential for development, the ability to take responsibility... it's all there in people. This is not the merit of managers,” he wrote.

Even if this is true, it is worth noting that Theory Y did not remain just theorizing. In the early 1950s McGregor helped Procter & Gamble design a plant in Georgia based on the Model Y with self-managing teams. In terms of productivity, this plant quickly overtook the rest of P&G.

Products

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Moscow Aviation Institute

(National Research University)

Department: Sociology, Psychology and Social Management

Topic: "Douglas MacGregor and the theory of X and Y developed by him. Its content and significance"

Student: Ponunaeva E.S.

Group: GO-103 BK

Teacher:

Shatilov Sergey Viktorovich

Moscow 2014

Introduction

1. Douglas McGregor

2. "Theory X" and "Theory Y"

2.1 "Theory X"

2.2 "Theory Y"

2.3 Appearance and reality

3. Theory Z

Conclusion

Introduction

In modern management, the problem of staff motivation is of great importance. It is not only one of the leading and specific functions of management, it is organically woven into the fabric of the entire management process from the stage of developing goals and making decisions to obtaining the final result. What motivates a person to work? Why is work a duty that needs to be got rid of for some, and a pleasure for others? How to make people work more productively? It is these questions that determine the relevance of this topic. The well-known American sociologist Douglas McGregor tried to answer them in his theory. His research led him to the idea that the main task of top management is to determine what his assumptions (implicit and explicit) about the most effective way to manage people. McGregor believes that any managerial decision or action is preceded by certain assumptions about human nature and human behavior, which are the key point that determines the individual leadership style of a particular manager. He divides all these assumptions into two categories, which he called "Theory X" and "Theory Y".

The object of the work is the direct Theory X and Y, and its subject is their interaction and application in management activities.

The fundamental feature of his concept, which is not always paid attention to, is that “theory X” and “theory Y” are not of an exploratory nature, that is, they do not answer the question of how this actually happens. The problem is that theories, first of all, have a recommendatory value, because they talk about how to do it, but do not have a directly practical character. The essence of the concept is to establish a relationship between the management style and the behavior of employees.

The purpose of this essay is to study the main theses of theories X and Y and to study the process of their implementation in management activities.

1. Douglas McGregor

Douglas McGregor is an American social psychologist best known for his Theory X and Theory Y, which he proposed to try to put motivation factors on a rational and acceptable basis.

He received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1935 and subsequently worked there as a teacher.

In 1937 he moved to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he became one of the organizers of the department of industrial relations. In 1948 he became rector of Antioch College. Since 1954 - the first Sloan Fellow professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he worked there until his death in 1964. In the early 1950s, McGregor first formulated his ideas about management, which were published in 1960 in his main work, The Human Side of Enterprise. D. McGregor argued that there are two types of personnel management, the first of which is based on "theory X", and the second - on "theory Y".

"Theory X" assumed that for a person the needs of the lower order dominate, and according to "Theory Y" the needs of the higher order dominate. McGregor himself was of the view that "Theory Y" is more viable than "Theory X". On this basis, he concluded that participation in the decision-making process, the performance of responsible and interesting work, as well as good relations in the team, can maximize the employee's motivation for effective work. McGregor argues that Theory X provisions are the most widely represented in the literature on organizations, while they are implicitly present in existing management policies and practices. McGregor argued that in some situations, for example, in mass production, only theory X is suitable, and in others, only theory Y. Realizing that it is impossible to fully implement his theories in practice, McGregor tried to convey to managers the idea that employees can do much more for the organization if they are treated as valuable and responsible employees. Until his death in 1964, McGregor worked on "Theory Z", in which he tried to combine the needs and aspirations of the corporation and the individual. This unfinished work was continued by William Ouchi, who took it as the title of his book, where he tried to formulate the lessons of Japanese management. In Ouchi's Z Organizational Theory, lifelong employment of workers, concern for workers, including their social lives, consensus decisions, slow career advancement, excellent communication, commitment to the company, and active concern for high achievement are central to Ouchi's theory of organizations. quality. If McGregor had lived longer and managed to complete Theory Z, perhaps he would have come up with a version containing similar components.

Bibliography of Douglas MacGregor:

1. "The human side of the enterprise"

2. "Professional manager"

Douglas McGregor was a great leader. Competent, witty, and insightful, he was highly respected by his subordinates and believed that people were naturally enthusiastic, responsible, and moral. He believed this so strongly that in 1960 he wrote a book that forever changed management theory, which at the time was based on the notion that people were naturally lazy and only worked when they were forced to. McGregor died in 1964, having made a significant contribution to the theory and practice of management, and his creative legacy will remain the subject of research for a long time to come. Even half a century after its publication, journalists and scientists refer to this regularly reprinted book.

2. "Theory X" and "Theory Y"

2.1 "Theory X"

In this theory, management assumes that workers are inherently lazy and will avoid work whenever possible. Because of this, workers must be closely supervised, for which complex control systems are being developed. A hierarchical structure with a reduced rate of control at each level is needed. According to this theory, employees show little ambition without an attractive reward program and avoid responsibility if possible.

The Theory X manager generally believes that everything should end with someone being held accountable. He believes that all prospective employees are looking for benefits for themselves. As a rule, such leaders believe that the only purpose of the interest of employees in the work is money. In most cases, they blame the person first, without raising the question of whether the system, strategy, or lack of preparation should be blamed.

Moreover, the leaders of Theory X cannot trust any employee, and this is constantly shown by all means to the support staff. The Theory X manager can be described as a barrier to productivity and employee morale.

Many managers in the 1960s tended to support "Theory X" in the sense that they were rather pessimistic about their employees. The Theory X manager believes that his employees do not really want to work, that they are more likely to avoid responsibilities, and that the manager's job is to structure activities and motivate employees. The result of this mindset is that Theory X leaders naturally adopt a more authoritarian style based on the threat of punishment.

One of the serious drawbacks of this style of management is that, while representing an authoritarian view of the regulation of organizational behavior of workers, it is much more likely to cause negative economies of scale in large enterprises. "Theory Y" in turn allows you to expand the business while increasing profits, since factory workers have their own responsibilities.

At one time, Theory X was the most common approach to management, but today it seems outdated for three reasons:

1. It relies on outdated paradigms. Hierarchical models like the army or the church are not applicable in today's business. For example, today the members of work groups often do not report to a single boss, but solve the problems of several departments at once.

2. She's too abstract. "Theory X" does not take into account the political, social and economic conditions of a single company.

3. It comes from wrong assumptions about human nature. For example, this theory suggests that people can only work under duress. However, any coercion has its limits. Often people work much better under the influence of persuasion or interest in working together.

"Theory X" takes a pessimistic view of human nature. According to her, the relationship between leaders and subordinates is based on mutual hostility. Managers who follow this theory believe that employees are not capable of thinking and acting independently. For this reason, such managers, for the common good of the company, tend to carefully control the activities of their subordinates, assuming that people are not willing to voluntarily take responsibility, since they are only interested in salary. It seems to them that subordinates do not see the big picture of affairs or do not care about the success of the company as a whole. In other words, “Theory X” leaders believe that subordinates work only when someone is constantly watching them.

The worldview of managers guided by Theory X is based on the following postulates:

1. Employees genetically hate work and, if possible, avoid it.

2. Since employees hate work, in order for them to work to achieve the goals of the organization, it is necessary to use coercion.

3. Employees avoid responsibility and need constant supervision and guidance.

4. Employees value job security above all else and are virtually devoid of ambition.

Disadvantages of Theory X.

In Theory X companies, there is an atmosphere of suspicion that stifles people's natural desire for excellence. First of all, they are scared off by the fact that the authorities minimize the opportunities for creative self-expression. When an employee suspects that he is in danger of being fired, he begins to think exclusively about self-preservation and is extremely reluctant to take risks - for fear that his bosses will not approve of his actions and even punish him for them.

In order for employees not to be afraid to take risks and more actively put forward innovative proposals, they, first of all, must feel safe. In other words, they just want to be respected, praised and appreciated. Many people feel the need to feel part of a team in order to be proud of what they have achieved with others. However, executives who believe in "Theory X" believe that any grouping of employees is a threat, as it can hinder the success of the company. Therefore, instead of encouraging collective interaction, such leaders in every possible way try to sow enmity between employees.

Often managers fail to understand why high salaries, medical benefits, good vacation pay, sick pay, and generous pension contributions do little to motivate subordinates. The fact is that all these measures are not enough. First of all, a person would like to know what is doing important and meaningful work. He wants to feel that his opinion is taken into account. Therefore, as soon as he understands that the company does not appreciate what he does, indifference takes possession of him, he begins to treat his business formally and, when doing work, first of all seeks not to give a reason for dismissal.

2.2 "Theory Y"

If "Theory X" is wrong, what is its alternative? A completely different approach to managing people is offered by Theory Y, whose concept focuses on creating an environment conducive to the emergence of commitment to organizational goals and providing an opportunity for maximum manifestation of the initiative of employees. This management theory, being essentially a democratic style, suggests that employees can be ambitious, have internal incentives, strive to take on more responsibility, exercise self-control and self-management. Employees are expected to enjoy their responsibilities, both mental and manual. It is also believed that workers are tempted to be creative and innovative in production if the opportunity presents itself. There is a chance to increase productivity by giving employees the freedom to work to the best of their ability without being bogged down by rules. The Theory Y manager believes that under favorable conditions most people want to work well and that the workforce has a pool of untapped creativity. They believe that the satisfaction of doing their job well is a powerful motivator in itself. The Theory Y manager will try to remove obstacles that prevent employees from fulfilling themselves.

Many people understand Theory Y as a positive set of assumptions about workers. A careful reading of The Human Side of the Enterprise reveals that McGregor is simply arguing that leaders should be open to a more positive outlook and the opportunities they create: bosses should respect subordinates and allow them to act on their own to arouse in them aspirations. follow moral principles and observe discipline.

According to Theory Y, if the staff does not show interest in the work and does not follow orders, then the fault should not be the employees, but poor management. management motivation work stimulation

"Theory Y" is based on the following foundations:

1. Workers, under certain conditions, enjoy what they do.

2. Employees don't have to be kept at bay. People are capable of self-organization and self-control if they are interested in their activities.

3. The feeling of success gives people pleasure. Achieved success builds self-confidence, and as a result, employees are even more eager to achieve their goals.

4. All employees strive for responsibility and freedom to make decisions related to the performance of work.

5. All workers are endowed with a high level of ingenuity and imagination rarely used in modern industrial life; this is what leads to frustration and turns a person into an opponent of the organization.

"Theory X" argues that the internal policy of the company should be determined by its management, without discussing the details and without consulting with its personnel. According to Theory Y, management should take into account both the needs of the company as a whole and the needs of its employees, who, in turn, would like to benefit their organization.

"Theory Y" in practice.

The director of one high school turned out to be an exceptionally talented leader. Students at this school consistently achieve excellent results on standardized tests, and their parents maintain good relationships with teachers. Not surprisingly, an inspector from the Department of Education decides to use the director's talents in an administrative position in the school district. After interviewing a dozen candidates, the district council makes a recommendation to this director.

The director is offered a significant increase in salary and a solid position. The only problem is that he doesn't want to move to a new job. He enjoys being a school principal and watching teenagers grow up, acquire knowledge and communication skills. All subordinates are devoted to him and are ready for a lot for the sake of their boss. The director expresses his disagreement with the inspector from the ministry, but he does not want to give in. He believes that the district will only benefit from this transition, and the director himself will be pleased with his decision, as soon as he gets used to his new role.

Two years later, the inspector will still be satisfied with the work of the ex-principal, but the latter will feel unhappy and dream of returning to his old school. This is an example of the worst manifestation of "Theory X": for the sake of the common good, a decision is made unilaterally that does not take into account the interests of a particular person. The director in this situation could not refuse a new position without jeopardizing his career prospects.

If the school district were run according to Theory Y, then the school principal and the inspector from the ministry would openly discuss their needs with each other. The Inspector would ask the Director to take into account the importance of the proposed position and would offer him his help and support during the initial period. In addition, he would tell the director how he could use the new opportunities to enrich his experience and develop managerial skills. In turn, the director would probably understand that it is better to take the chance to enrich the experience and agree than to accept the offer with a grudge in his heart. "Theory Y" suggests that even if the leader for the sake of the common good is forced to resort to coercion, a mutually acceptable solution must still be found.

"Theory Y" and power.

"Theory Y" can be applied even in such an organization as the army, where, it would seem, "Theory X" should reign supreme. The military is obliged to unquestioningly carry out the orders of their commanders. An officer who sends soldiers into battle does not worry about whether participation in this battle contributes to their personal growth. American General George Patton, for example, would simply laugh at the notion that in war one must take into account the wishes and needs of soldiers.

However, giving orders and managing are two different things. The officer understands that the battle will be lost if his soldiers do not make every effort to complete the combat mission. This means that he does not control the soldiers, but rather depends on them. General Patton also depended on his subordinates to relay his orders down the chain. Army commanders, like the leaders of ordinary companies, can no more control their people than the weather. They must have complete trust in their subordinates, but still give orders. Trust and command are not mutually exclusive.

Under Theory Y, leaders not only can, but must act decisively, for they are ultimately responsible for solving the problems they face. When a critical situation arises, subordinates will wait for instructions from them on what actions to take. This does not mean that Theory Y becomes irrelevant in times of crisis. Even in a critical situation, the leader must treat people politely and impartially, without questioning their motives. But at the same time, he must act firmly and, if necessary, even fire employees - especially those whose mentality corresponds to "Theory X".

2.3 Appearance and reality

Tough, authoritarian leaders who seem to lack even basic civility often have dedicated and motivated subordinates. If a certain department head has a habit of yelling at subordinates, using foul language and threatening them with disciplinary action, one might think that this leadership style is an illustration of Theory X. Nevertheless, the subordinates of this boss work no worse, and sometimes better than the employees of other departments, and at the same time they look like professionally accomplished people who are satisfied with their work.

The fact is that this outwardly rude boss is sincerely interested in the life of his employees. He is not indifferent to their family problems, he is always ready to help people who find themselves in a difficult situation, and from time to time invites employees to dinner to show how much he appreciates them. This boss stubbornly defends the interests of subordinates in conflicts with higher authorities and is even ready to sacrifice his position for them. Employees who know they can rely on their bosses, believe in their own abilities and are ready to work with high efficiency.

2.4 Differences between the two theories

In companies whose management is based on Theory X, formal hierarchy is important.

Consider the example of quality control work.

When an inspector from the Quality Control Department, checking the products of one of the departments, discovers a problem, he reports it to his immediate supervisor. The latter passes this information to the deputy head of the department, who notifies the head of the department, and he calls the deputy for production to tell him the bad news. The deputy returns to his room and calls the workers who were directly related to the problem. Since these workers were unaware that the inspector was checking their products, they immediately find themselves in a situation of confrontation.

In a company operating in accordance with Theory Y, the controller from the Quality Control Department first of all notifies the employees themselves about the problem found, who immediately begin to solve it. As in the first case, the controller reports to superiors, but by the time his report reaches the top rung of the hierarchy, the problem is solved. At the same time, employees understand that management is not going to punish them or spy on them, and they appreciate this honest approach. In this case, an atmosphere of mutual respect, not suspicion, is strengthened.

However, speaking about the differences between the theories under consideration, it is worth emphasizing that "Theory X" and "Theory Y", despite the obvious opposition, are by no means mutually exclusive opposites. On the contrary, their author believes that most people have the potential to be mature and conscious, thus there is a difference between attitudes and behavior. Theories "X" and "Y" describe people's attitudes and tendencies.

A manager should stick to Theory Y, but also be mindful of Theory X, as some people need to be treated according to Theory X for a while to help them fulfill themselves and move into the Y category.

3. Theory Z

Until his death in 1964, McGregor worked on Theory Z, in which he tried to combine the needs and aspirations of the corporation and the individual. This unfinished work was continued by William Ouchi, who took it as the title of his book, where he tried to formulate the lessons of Japanese management. In Ouchi's Z Organizational Theory, lifelong employment of workers, concern for workers, including their social lives, consensus decisions, slow career advancement, excellent communication, commitment to the company, and active concern for high achievement are central to Ouchi's theory of organizations. quality.

The essence of this theory can be expressed in the following terms:

1. The manager must take care of each employee as a person as a whole, i.e. he must not only provide employees with the necessary level of wages, but also take care of the quality of his life;

2. The employee of the enterprise is interested in his future no less than the head, and therefore the involvement of employees in the group decision-making process is the direct responsibility of the head;

3. The enterprise demonstrates its interest in the employee by hiring for life and providing the employee with the opportunity to find the most suitable type of activity for him through personnel rotation.

If McGregor had been able to complete Theory Z, perhaps he would have come up with a version containing similar components.

Conclusion

In modern science, motivation plays a leading role. There are many different theories and models of motivation, which sometimes contradict each other. However, the heads of organizations should not look for ready-made recipes for motivating personnel in these works, but, having mastered their basic provisions, it is necessary to develop their own, individual program for motivating personnel. It should also be understood that each specific enterprise should have its own specific program, which would take into account all the features of the company's activities.

One thing is clear - at present it is impossible to achieve success by ignoring the problem of staff motivation. The implementation of labor incentive programs is always expensive, but the effect that they can bring is much greater. After all, employees are the main resource of any company. The effectiveness of their work determines the result of the organization. The greatest return can only be achieved if both the company and the employee benefit from the work of the employee. Therefore, in order to achieve the best results of the company's work, it is necessary to find the motives that drive each employee in his work activity, and create conditions for him so that he can and wants to fulfill the tasks assigned to him.

Bibliography

1. Douglas McGregor. — "The Human Side of the Enterprise" 1960

2. Dorofeeva L.I. - "Management" 2008

3. Druzhinina Z.G. - "Management" 2007

4. Zamedlina E.A. - "Fundamentals of Management" 2012

5. Mikhaleva E.P. - "Management" 2009

Hosted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar Documents

Private goals of the motivation system implementation. The essence of the concept of "motivation". The structure of the labor motive. Theory of motivation according to A. Maslow. The main groups of needs. Theories of motivation by Douglas McGregor and William Ouchi. Abstract types of organizational management.

term paper, added 04/08/2011

Theoretical foundations of staff incentives. Comparative analysis of the main theories of motivation. Labor incentive systems, concept, content. Analysis of the activities of the hotel "Pulkovskaya". Measures to stimulate staff by the method of socionics.

thesis, added 03/20/2009

Development of motivation systems, modern theories of motivation. Concepts of motivation and their evolution, economic studies by A. Smith and R. Owen, works by E. Mayo, meaningful concepts of motivation. Analysis of economic activities of PRUE "MMZ im. S.I. Vavilov".

abstract, added 09/02/2009

Types, principles and forms of labor stimulation. The content of the main theories of staff motivation, ways of its implementation. Analysis of the personnel structure of the enterprise. Optimization of the motivation system through the organization of mentoring and health improvement of employees.

thesis, added 04/29/2012

Concept, essence of motivation and stimulation. Theories and methods of staff motivation. Personnel motivation and emotional competence in modern personnel management. The practice of material incentives in modern personnel management.

term paper, added 03/11/2008

Analysis of the importance of motivation of working personnel for the success of production. Modern theories of motivation. The essence of the theories of moral and material incentives, equality (fairness). Hierarchy of needs A. Maslow. Achievement motivation theory.

test, added 03/30/2015

The concept of motivation, its main function in enterprise management. Analysis of content and process theories. Material needs as the basis of motivation. Forms of staff incentives and methods of experimental study of his motivation.

thesis, added 07/27/2010

The study of motivation and stimulation of labor resources of personnel. Comparative analysis of the main theories of motivation. The activity of the Butyl rubber plant as a structural subdivision of OAO "Neftekamskneftekhim" and analysis of the use of labor resources on it.

thesis, added 11/24/2010

The role of motivation and stimulation of labor in personnel management of the enterprise. Existing systems of labor motivation. Formation of sustainable interest of employees in a high level of performance. Analysis of the composition and structure of personnel.

thesis, added 09/06/2010

The concept and evaluation of the importance of staff motivation in the activities of enterprises. Description of the main methods of labor stimulation. General analysis of the activities and management structure of the NOU "Best Teach". Ways to improve the motivation of the organization's personnel.

Douglas McGregor was born in 1906. He received his Ph.D. from Harvard University and subsequently worked there for several years as a teacher before moving to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1937.

At MIT, he co-founded the Industrial Relations Department and served until 1948, when he became provost of Antioch College, a position he held until 1954. In that year he returned to MIT as the first Sloan Fellow professor and served there until his death in 1964

At the beginning of the 50s. McGregor was the first to formulate his ideas about management, which in
1960 were published in his major work, The Human Side of the Enterprise.
He died in 1964.
Main works:
- "The human side of the enterprise"
- "Professional Manager"

Douglas McGregor was a social psychologist who gained the influence of a true management guru after World War II.
The researcher Douglas McGregor is best known for formulating two assumptions about human nature, Theory X and Theory Y.
It's very simple: Theory X reflects a mostly negative view of people.
According to this premise, they all have little ambition, do not like to work, tend to avoid responsibility, and are able to work effectively only under the strictest supervision. Theory Y assumes a positive representation. According to her, people are able to organize themselves, take responsibility and perceive work as naturally as rest or play. D. McGregor analyzed the activities of the performer in the workplace and found that the manager can control the following parameters that determine the actions of the performer:
- tasks that the subordinate receives;
- the quality of the task;
- time of receipt of the task;
- expected time to complete the task;
- funds available to complete the task;
- the team (environment) in which the subordinate works;
- instructions received by subordinates;
- Persuasion of the subordinate in the feasibility of the task;
- persuading a subordinate to be rewarded for successful work;
- the amount of remuneration for the work done;
- the level of involvement of the subordinate in the circle of problems related to work.
McGregor believed that the provisions of Theory Y more correctly reflect the true nature of workers and that managerial practice should be based on them. The main provisions of Theory X and Theory Y are described in the table. How does McGregor's analysis fit in with motivation theory? The answer to this question is very well expressed in the structure presented by A. Maslow.

Theory X suggested that human beings are dominated by lower order needs, while Theory Y is dominated by higher order needs.
McGregor himself was of the opinion that Theory Y is more viable than Theory X. On this basis, he concluded that participation in the decision-making process, the performance of responsible and interesting work, as well as good team relations can maximize employee motivation for effective work. .

McGregor argues that Theory X provisions are the most widely represented in the literature on organizations, while they are implicitly present in existing management policies and practices.

Theories X and Y (eng. Theory X and Theory Y) are theories of people's motivation and behavior in management.

These theories were proposed by the American social psychologist Douglas McGregor in 1960 in The Human Side of Enterprise. McGregor believed that there are two types of personnel management, one of them is based on "Theory X", the other - on "Theory Y".

Based on reading the book The Human Side of Enterprise:

McGregor died in 1964, having made a significant contribution to the theory and practice of management, and his creative legacy will remain the subject of research for a long time to come. Even half a century after its publication, journalists and scientists refer to this regularly republished book! If you manage people, but still haven't read McGregor's book, you should hurry up.

"Theory X"

What do you think is the most effective method of managing people? According to Theory X, people are inherently lazy and work only under duress. At one time, “theory X” was the most common approach to management, but today it seems outdated - for three reasons:

2. She's too abstract. "Theory X" does not take into account the political, social and economic conditions of a single company.

For this reason, such managers, for the common good of the company, tend to carefully control the activities of their subordinates, assuming that people are not willing to voluntarily take responsibility, since they are only interested in salary. It seems to them that subordinates do not see the big picture of affairs or do not care about the success of the company as a whole. In other words, “Theory X” leaders believe that subordinates work only when someone is constantly watching them.

“Theory X” is based on three premises:

1. People don't want to work. Man has an innate aversion to work and tries to avoid it. Production quotas, target milestones, and time clocks are managers' responses to people's natural tendency to shirk.

2. Coercion is inevitable. The company will not achieve its goals without coercion and intimidation of its employees. Their only incentive to work is punishment, not reward. Promotions, bonuses and benefits only increase the demands of a person, and do not arouse the desire to work hard.

3. People try to avoid responsibility. All they want from life is a quiet job with a regular salary.

What is the fallacy of "Theory X"

In Theory X companies, there is an atmosphere of suspicion that stifles people's natural desire for excellence. First of all, they are frightened off by the fact that the authorities minimize the opportunities for creative self-expression. When an employee suspects that he is in danger of being fired, he begins to think exclusively about self-preservation and is extremely reluctant to take risks - for fear that his bosses will not approve of his actions and even punish him for them.

In order for employees to not be afraid to take risks and actively put forward innovative proposals, they must first of all feel safe. In other words, they just want to be respected, praised and appreciated. Many people feel the need to feel part of a team in order to be proud of what they have achieved with others.

However, executives who believe in “Theory X” believe that any grouping of employees is a threat, as it can hinder the success of the company. Therefore, instead of encouraging collective interaction, such leaders in every possible way try to sow enmity between employees.

“Theory Y”

If "theory X" is wrong, what is its alternative? “Theory Y” suggests a completely different approach to managing people: bosses should respect subordinates and give them the opportunity to act independently in order to awaken in them the desire to follow moral principles and observe discipline. According to “theory Y”, if the staff does not show interest in the work and does not follow orders, then the fault should not be the employees, but poor management. “Theory Y” comes from the following postulates:

People don't have an innate dislike for work. Under certain conditions, employees enjoy what they do.

Employees do not have to be kept in fear. Properly motivated employees will work without prodding and make active efforts to meet the challenges facing the company.

The feeling of success gives people pleasure. Achieved success builds self-confidence, and as a result, employees are even more eager to achieve their goals.

People want to do responsible work. It is not true that man is by nature lazy and irresponsible. In fact, he, on the contrary, is looking for any opportunity to do responsible work.

Human beings are naturally endowed with the ability to be creative. Most people are capable of creative problem solving.

People are smart and smart. Leaders often greatly underestimate the intellectual abilities of their subordinates.

"Theory X" argues that the internal policy of the company should be determined by its management, without consulting the staff about anything. According to Theory Y, management should take into account both the needs of the company as a whole and the needs of its employees, who, in turn, would like to benefit their organization.

Differences between the two theories

In companies whose management is based on “Theory X”, formal hierarchy is important. Consider the example of quality control work. When an inspector from the Quality Control Department, checking the products of one of the departments, discovers a problem, he reports it to his immediate supervisor.

The latter passes this information to the deputy head of the department, who notifies the head of the department, and he calls the deputy for production to tell him the bad news. The deputy returns to his room and calls the workers who were directly related to the problem. Since these workers were unaware that the inspector was checking their products, they immediately find themselves in a situation of confrontation.

In a company operating in accordance with “theory Y”, the controller from the Quality Control Department first of all notifies the employees themselves about the problem found, who immediately begin to solve it. As in the first case, the controller reports to superiors, but by the time his report reaches the top rung of the hierarchy, the problem is solved. At the same time, employees understand that management is not going to punish them or spy on them, and they appreciate this honest approach.

As a result, an atmosphere of mutual respect, not suspicion, is strengthened.

“Theory Y” in practice

Two years later, the inspector will still be satisfied with the work of the ex-principal, but the latter will feel unhappy and dream of returning to his old school. This is an example of the worst manifestation of “theory X”: for the sake of the common good, a decision is made unilaterally that does not take into account the interests of a particular person. The director in this situation could not refuse a new position without jeopardizing his career prospects.

If a school district were run according to Theory Y, then the school principal and the inspector from the ministry would openly discuss their needs with each other. The Inspector would ask the Director to take into account the importance of the proposed position and would offer him his help and support during the initial period. In addition, he would tell the director how he could use the new opportunities to enrich his experience and develop managerial skills.

In turn, the director would probably understand that it is better to take the chance to enrich the experience and agree than to accept the offer with a grudge in his heart. “Theory Y” suggests that even if the leader is forced to resort to coercion for the common good, a mutually acceptable solution must still be found.

“Theory Y” and power

"Theory Y" can be applied even in such an organization as the army, where, it would seem, "theory X" should reign supreme. The military is obliged to unquestioningly carry out the orders of their commanders. An officer who sends soldiers into battle does not worry about whether participation in this battle contributes to their personal growth. American General George Patton, for example, would simply laugh at the notion that in war one must take into account the wishes and needs of soldiers.

Under Theory Y, leaders not only can but must act decisively, for they are ultimately responsible for solving the problems they face. When a critical situation arises, subordinates will wait for instructions from them on what actions to take. This does not mean that “Theory Y” becomes irrelevant during a crisis. Even in a critical situation, the leader must treat people politely and impartially, without questioning their motives. Nevertheless, he must act firmly and, if necessary, even fire employees - especially those whose mentality corresponds to "Theory X".

Appearance and reality

Tough, authoritarian leaders who seem to lack even basic civility often have dedicated and motivated subordinates. If a certain department head has a habit of yelling at subordinates, using foul language and threatening them with disciplinary action, you might think that this is a leadership style. Nevertheless, the subordinates of this boss work no worse, and sometimes even better than the employees of other departments, and at the same time they look like professionally accomplished people who are satisfied with their work.

What is morality? Morality is the rules of morality, as well as morality itself. This is a special form of social consciousness and a type of social (moral) relations, including in the sphere of state-service relations. In principle, morality, morality, ethics are concepts of the same order, identical.

Everywhere and every day a person enters into a complex system of connections and relationships with other people. At the same time, he is guided by certain principles, norms of behavior. This is a moral practice that arose from the objective need to regulate relationships in human society.

The requirements of morality are fulfilled by people voluntarily by virtue of personal conviction and understanding of their social utility. The internal guarantor of morality is the conscience of a person, the external one is public opinion. The law as a guarantor of execution has the force of the state, a measure of state coercion;

Features and characteristics of morality are:

The universality of its functioning;

Reliance on traditions, habits;

Reliance on public opinion;

Subjective-personal character;

The imperative role that determines its special significance in social relations.

The moral rules and norms associated with public service are in close unity with the morality of the whole society. Attempts to neglect this connection end either in the substitution of professional moral requirements for non-moral attitudes or in abstract declarations.

The practice of civil service shows that the official behavior of civil servants should be based on sound moral principles.

The moral principles of public service are understood as a set of norms that express the requirements of the state and society to the moral essence of an employee, to the nature of his relationship with the state in whose service he is, with the civil society he serves, ensuring the interaction of the state and its citizens in protecting them. rights, freedoms and legitimate interests.

This is a system of common values and rules that regulate the relationship of civil servants among themselves in the course of their joint professional activities in order to create an appropriate moral and psychological climate in the team and increase the efficiency of public service.

Science and practice show that the following principles are the general moral principles of official activity of civil servants.

The principle of serving the state and society, requiring disinterested and impeccable service for the benefit of the state and civil society.

The principle of legality. This is the most important ethical principle that obliges officials, all civil servants to strictly comply with the letter and spirit of the laws, including those on public service and personnel activities. In any legal system, all legal norms have their own moral meaning, each legal act has its own moral value. It is important that in the law law and morality correspond to each other.

This principle requires the supremacy of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal laws over other legal acts, regulations and instructions. For officials, it should become a rule that non-fulfillment, violation of the law is not only illegal, but also deeply immoral. Unfortunately, we still have a low level of legal culture of civil servants, legal nihilism and a skeptical attitude towards law are very common. This results in legal inconsistency and weakness of state power, double standards in law enforcement practice, irresponsibility and impunity, legal illiteracy of a number of employees.

The principle of humanism, which prescribes to recognize, observe and protect the rights and freedoms of man and citizen. This principle requires the official to respect each person, to recognize the sovereignty of the individual and its dignity, to be polite, tactful, tolerant. Moreover, this should be manifested not only externally, but should become an internal imperative of an official. This principle shows that an official exists and acts for a person, and not a person for an official.

The principle of responsibility, which obliges civil servants to bear not only legal, but also moral responsibility for the managerial and personnel decisions made. Such an approach is not in the tradition of the Russian mentality. But it must be used, adopted, so that officials feel moral responsibility for their official behavior and activities.

The principle of justice, which requires the reasonable use of power, the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens. Satisfying the need for justice of the authorities is the most important of the moral expectations of society. Any injustice committed by an official causes moral damage to the authority of the authorities. This principle requires a careful and fair approach when appointing employees to a new position, taking into account all its merits and merits.

The principle of loyalty, which means the conscious, voluntary observance by employees of the rules, norms, and regulations established by the state, its individual structures, of their official behavior. It implies loyalty to the public service, respect and correctness in relation to state and public institutions. He demands that a civil servant not harm the image of the state, in every possible way contribute to strengthening its authority.

In accordance with this principle, an official is obliged to show loyalty to: the state, the political system; the political majority in power (the ruling group); to all branches of government; to state institutions (army, police, ministries, departments, etc.); to society, population; to other government officials.

The principle of political neutrality, which requires that the public service and personnel activities be outside politics, outside the direct struggle for power. The manifestation of political and ideological predilections, orientation to any political groupings in the public service system are inappropriate and harmful. At the same time, public-service relations cannot but be of a political nature, since the public service is an institution of the state.

And everything connected with the state and state power is a political phenomenon. The issue is the degree of politicization of the civil service. An indicator of politicization can be considered the level of involvement of the apparatus and individual employees in politics. Therefore, it is impossible to violate the measure of admissibility of the politicization of the state apparatus. But what is this measure?

The principle of honesty and incorruptibility, requiring a categorical rejection of such phenomena as corruption and bureaucracy. The vast majority of citizens (up to 78%) and scientists-experts (up to 76%) pay attention to the corruption and intensive bureaucratization of the state apparatus.