Talk:Theory X and Theory Y

Anomaly in Reporting Graphics Reuse Conditions
I report an anomaly. I leave it to others to decide whether it needs attention.

Subject: The three graphics links (one near the top of the article, "mnemonic device"; two under the heading, "External Links") in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y.

I expected: Each link to a graphics file would tell me conditions of my reuse.

I see:
 * 1) Consistent with expectation, when I click the mnemonic device graphic near the start of the article, I go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:McgregorXY-languages_(cropped).svg, a page informing me where the file came from and the conditions of reuse. Thumbs up!
 * 2) Inconsistent with expectation, when I click on the first link under the heading "External Links", I go to http://www.businessballs.com/mcgregorxytheorydiagram.pdf without Wikipedia information about the graphic. On the other hand, the graphic itself contains similar information and the parent web site (www.businessballs.com) is active and related.
 * 3) Inconsistent with expectation, when I click the second link, I go to https://lh3.ggpht.com/-UhditA3kxYo/UC1n1FXEZbI/AAAAAAAAATA/WThKKSRVuCg/s640/theoryxy.png, which gives no information about the graphic either in the graphic itself or in a Wikipedia page like one for the mnemonic link above.
 * 4) Further, the parent URL (lh3.ggpht.com) goes to a Google 404 error, "The requested URL / was not found on this server. That’s all we know."
 * 5) Further, I consider the subject URL human-unfriendly and constructed in a way that could indicate intent to hide minor differences.
 * 6) On the other hand, the graphic is related to the subject and the information is consistent with my distant knowledge of the subject.

No complaint here; I'm just trying to help! Once adequately considered, I'm fine with "someone" deleting my comment. SoftwarePM (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the "Working for a Theory X boss" section should be here. It sounds rather POV and/or unencyclopedic, but I'm not going to delete it because I don't know much about this subject. --F a ng Aili 16:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed; that's a how-to section, which is not encyclopedic. It could probably be saved if rewritten, so I tagged it for that kind of cleanup. -- Beland 16:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In the unlikely event this section is kept in, perhaps it should be balanced with a "Theory Y" counterpart? Mattmm 13:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AustinJames, Madysen leroy, Hill.megan, Tyler.Ramquist, Read.erik.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Criticism
I'm a motivational expert, and I am really confused about the criticism on the X and Y theory as well as Maslow's hierarchies of needs. I understand that non-experts feel uncomfortable in putting heavy criticism in the Wikipedia. So, I have some questions and commments about the Wikipedia's function here. First, is presenting examples out of line in the Wikipedia? I know that presenting counterexamples tend to be rhetoric, but they do fill an important function in explaining why a theory is not very useful. I think this could help the notion that even if the criticism is concise and correct, a non-expert cannot rate its severity. An example would do that very efficiently. For instance, a lot of scientists and ordinary people would consider the idea that there are only twelve types of people (as some astrologists may suggest) as ridiculous and oversimplifying. In this light, theory X and Y is even worse! I would like to add these things to this page, because I feel that we need to explain in layman's terms why certain historical ideas and theories are not very useful. Clebo 13:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good question. I spent some time this morning looking through the Wikipedia policies and guidlines for something on criticisms and examples, but found nothing.  Some thoughts: (1) I stared a discussion on Wikipedia talk:List of policies.  You might want to see how (or if) that evoles.  (2) In looking through the policies and guidelines, I think the best advice is "include only verifiable information -- no original research."  Is the criticism you're making widely held in the management theory world?  Or at least, is it widely discussed?  If so, and if you can give references to the criticism, I think it could really help the article.  Being new to management theory myself, I could really benefit from a section like "the modern view of Theory X and Theory Y," that perhaps links to some more recent, alternate schools of thought, and describes their point of departure from Theory X and Theory Y.
 * As for the example; it seems to me to be sufficient to say something like "This is one dimension of a manager's personality, and in practice other dimensions are important as well. There has been much work on other dimensions, although Theory X and Theory Y are still considered one of the most important dimensions."  Or something like that.  That text seems to be clear enough to me, and understandable to a newbie, so that your example isn't needed.  But maybe that's just me, and maybe I'd change my mind if I saw the full text of your change.
 * What do you think? User:Hilgerdenaar

TODO
TODO: Make appropriate redirects to this page. THE KING 11:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the History behind naming these theories as Theory X and Theory Y?
Can somebody help me out with this please?

upendraparihar@yahoo.com


 * I guess it is to make it a some more scientific and mysterious, but I have to admit the word Theory already is veeery scientific, so it must be some serious stuff. blah. Check out buzzword, marketing speak... Qorilla (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They were named X and Y by the author to avoid the appearance of giving preference to one style over the other. 74.69.1.80 (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Theory Z
I don't think Theory X and Theory Y should be merged with Theory Z. The theories are separated historically. Perhaps a linking article about management theories should be created. Driedger 03:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Theory Z is free standing and was not derived from McGregor's work. Anon 21:23, 22 October 2006 (PDT)

I agree with both Driedger and Anon. Theory X and Theory Y were coined in the 60s from a study of American management styles. Theory Z was coined in the early 80s by Ouchi from a consideration of both Japanese and American management styles, and attempted to address the short comings in Theory X and Theory Y. (I think it was a time when people were trying to explain the success of the Japanese economy over the US one.)  They are distinctive models/developments in management thinking - and, as such, probably represent management fads. I believe the topics should be linked by way of a hypertext link. For another perspective have a look at 'Theory X Theory Y (McGregor) Theory Z (Ouchi)'

Here here. Theory Z was only devised by Ouchi as a result of McGregor's Theories X and Y. I agree, link them closely, but they are seperate topics and seperate management styles. Theory Z is, in effect, a go-between for Theory X and Theory Y, but is a seperate entity. Rob, 16/11/06

Don't merge. The only link between the two appears to be alphabetical, i.e. Z comes after X and Y.Pyrotec 16:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The page as it now stands has been hacked to bits, and appears, metaphorically speaking, like a headless and limbless trunk, and it is incorrectly marked up and ungrammatical to boot. The version from a couple of years ago was literate and reasonable, if not perfect, and should probably be restored. Real editing can begin from there, if someone pleases.Actio (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "McGregor reconciled the two theories with Theory Z, which basically says there is truth in both the theories and you need to vary the environment (so it's stimulating) and regime people work under, your recruitment (so you recruit people who are internally motivated) and your leadership." Source) Dunno if this article is right, but if it is, McGregor also wrote a Theory Z. It may be entirely different than Ouchi's theory. And it may be Ouchi's theory, which this article mistakenly believed the creation of McGregor. One never knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.181.100.63 (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Broken References
I just wanted to point out that the first reference (Work is as natural as play - Papa) is broken. To me, this also suggests the article needs more references in general, if it only contains one reference in total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.220.178 (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sixties context : EUA vs. Soviet Union
Maybe the McGregor, in the sixties years, was only mocking the American view of work ( X Theory ) vs. the Soviet view of the same ( Y Theory ). We just have to remember that the world had two poles in those years, so, the both "theories" must be equally valid despite it's contradiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.14.239.162 (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I plan on adding this portion to the Theory X and Theory Y combined. I am doing this assigned for my Psych 253 class titled Indust/Organ Psych.

McGregor had identified theory X and theory Y differently for the basic characteristics stated previously in the above sections of what these theories represent. Theory X assumptions are these individuals dislike their careers. As for Theory Y assumptions are individuals like their careers and are willing to take part in responsibility. Based on employees we take a closer look at the relationship between supervisors and “subordinates as some may call them or workers” (Sahin, 2012, p.159). The quality of the relationship between the two can be described by Sahin as a term called leader-member exchange (LMX) theory. What LMX theory basically points out against McGregor theory is that “leaders develop unique relationships with different subordinates and that the quality of these relationships is a determinant of how each subordinate will be treated” (159).

With these two theories combined Sahin studies have shown that affective commitment can help the individual and the organization at the same time. In addition, workers (subordinates) develop feelings of affective commitment if they receive the importance from supervisors not just by overlooking them all the time but by also giving them importance (Sahin, 2012, p.162-163).

I would also like to add this image: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eeD5JSjCR_I/UA649go6tQI/AAAAAAAAAZw/UiSBwZIvTDg/s1600/72358645.png

Sahin, F. (2012). The mediating effect of leader-member exchange on the relationship between theory X and Y management styles and affective commitment: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Management and Organization, 18(2), 159-174. Retrieved from http://york.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1022032218?accountid=15180

Hmehta0120 (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review
The article is very well developed. The intro gives a nice brief definition and transitiions nicely into what the article will touch points on. The only thing I would add in the introduction would be implementing something about the leadership style, which was was included later on one of the topics. Other than that would be to add in-text citation so we know exactly where everything came from. The references provided are a good number given the size of the article. Both theories give good balanced information. Neither one gives too much or too little. I believe this article is well developed and well written! Everything was clear since the introduction. 104.167.168.55 (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Aracely Martinez104.167.168.55 (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness: Overall, its looking good! I would just like to see more example of companies that use these types of theories and some more elaboration on all the sub-headers.

Sourcing: The sourcing looks good for the article, but you can never have too many sources! If you need more info put in the source!

Neutrality: This article is very informational and neutral.

Readability: I agree that the article is well written and it is clear and understandable.

Question 1: This article has some great headers and points out the two different types of theories with accuracy.

Question 2: Maybe if you guys could introduce an implementation process and how it takes affect and if it is difficult/easy changing from one theory to the other. Hernandezmarissan (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Marissa Hernandez

The Theory X and Theory Y article is well-written and allows the reader to develop an in depth understanding of both theories. The lead paragraph provides a clear definition of Theory X and Y and provides various examples of the differences. A brief overview of the article provides a thorough layout in which the reader can clearly understand how each theory relates to the workplace. The article focuses on a clear topic, Theory X and Y, while using Douglas MacGregor as supportive evidence. There is a lack of a variety of perspectives that could strengthen the article and further support the facts that have been stated. Although there is a lack of the variety of perspectives, the article ensures that the reader is aware of the similarity and differences between Theory X and Theory Y.     In order to support the research stated, there should be an increase in scholarly references. There are too few sources therefore the article lacks some credibility. Although there is a lack of supportive resources, the article does a great job of providing clear, concise information and has a neutral point of view. Also, there aren’t any bias opinions with well-balanced coverage. Blm113 (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Despite a few small grammatical errors here and there, the first paragraph does a great job of explaining what Theory X and Y are, how they co exist, etc. The sections regarding both Theory X and Theory Y are both well fleshed out but it would be nice to possibly have a section comparing some data or results of the two styles. The references are great however there aren't references after some key assertions regarding the theories, however this appears to have just been an issue with transferring the references out of the sandbox, other than that the sources are great. There is however a claim in the article that theory X is more effective typically, and an assertion like that definitely requires a citation. Other than that assertion, the article is pretty well balanced and does a good job paying equal service to both viewpoints and remaining neutral. As far as readability goes, terms like "continua" should probably be avoided in case a younger audience ever decides to look at the article, but other than that and very minor grammatical errors, the article is very readable and does a great job getting its points across in an interesting but concise way. I really like what has been done as far as the binary structure of the article is concerned, and explaining the two theories individually is very helpful. The only thing i would recommend is to add some sort of section featuring data/ results of both styles and allowing the reader to compare the two and draw their own opinion regarding which is better, but i understand such a source may be hard to find. Overall, great article. Ryanmadden1 (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Emma's Peer Review
Overall, pretty good article. There was one thing I noticed that your group may want to look over and discuss. Within the first theory that you describe you refer back to McGregor numerous times. He is one of the main parts of the description, which makes sense because he created these two theories. Then, in the second theory that you talk about McGregor isn't even mentioned in there once. Why is the focus on McGregor only on one of the theories if you discuss them both and he was the main creator of these two theories? Just a thought that distracted me from the material! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanke.emma (talk • contribs) 04:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Theory of X and Y
Okay 197.221.254.98 (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)