User:AustinJames/sandbox

Drafted Article

Introduction

Theory X and Theory Y are theories of human work motivation and management. They were created by Douglas McGregor while he was working at the MIT Sloan School of Management in the 1950s, and developed further in the 1960s. McGregor's work was rooted in motivation theory alongside the works of Abraham Maslow, who created the hierarchy of needs. The two theories proposed by McGregor describe contrasting models of workforce motivation applied by managers in human resource management, organizational behavior, organizational communication and organizational development. Theory X explains the importance of heightened supervision, external rewards, and penalties, while Theory Y highlights the motivating role of job satisfaction and encourages workers to approach tasks without direct supervision. Management use of Theory X and Theory Y can affect employee motivation and productivity in different ways, and managers may choose to implement strategies from both theories into their practices.

Contents

[hide]


 * 1McGregor and Maslow's hierarchy
 * 2Theory X


 * 3Theory Y
 * 4Choosing a management style

McGregor and Maslow[edit]

McGregor’s Theory X & Theory Y and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs are both rooted in motivation theory. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs consist of physiological needs (lowest level), safety needs, love needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization (highest level). According to Maslow, a human is motivated by the level they have not yet reached, and self-actualization cannot be met until each of the lower levels has been fulfilled. Assumptions of Theory Y, in relation to Maslow's hierarchy put an emphasis on employee higher level needs, such as esteem needs and self-actualization.

McGregor also believed that self-actualization was the highest level of reward for employees. He theorized that the motivation employees use to reach self-actualization allows them to reach their full potential. This led companies to focus on how their employees were motivated, managed, and led, creating a Theory Y management style which focuses on the drive for individual self – fulfillment. The next two sections will define and discuss McGregor's two theories (1) Theory X (2) Theory Y and give scenarios when each management style could be used.

Theory X[edit]

Theory x is based on assumptions regarding the typical worker. This management style assumes that the typical worker has little ambition, avoids responsibility, and is individual-goal oriented. In general, Theory X style managers believe their employees are less intelligent, lazier, and work solely for a sustainable income. Management believes employee's work is based on their own self-interest. Managers who believe employees operate in this manner are more often to use rewards or punishments as motivation. Due to these assumptions, Theory X concludes the typical workforce operates more efficiently under a hands-on approach to management. Theory X managers believe all actions should be traceable to the individual responsible. This allows the individual to receive either a direct reward or a reprimand, depending on the outcome's positive or negative nature. This managerial style is more effective when used in a workforce that is not essentially motivated to perform.

According to McGregor, there are two opposing approaches to implementing Theory X: the hard approach and the soft approach. The hard approach depends on close supervision, intimidation, and immediate punishment. This approach can potentially yield a hostile, minimally cooperative workforce that may cause resentment towards management. Managers are always looking for mistakes from employees, because they do not trust their work. Theory X is a "we versus they" approach, meaning it is the management versus the employees.

The soft approach is characterized by leniency and less strict rules in hopes for creating high workplace morale and cooperative employees. Implementing a system that is too soft could result in an entitled, low-output workforce. McGregor believes both ends of the spectrum are too extreme for efficient real-world application. Instead, McGregor feels that an approach located in the middle would be the most effective implementation of Theory X.

Because managers and supervisors are in almost complete control of the work, this produces a more systematic and uniform product or work flow. Theory X can benefit a work place that utilizes an assembly line or manual labor. Using this theory in these types of work conditions allows employees to specialize in particular work areas which in turn allows the company to mass-produce a higher quantity and quality of work.

''Example: Employees working in the marketing department of a large electronics company were tasked with creating a new advertisement that would gain the interest of more diverse consumer base. The manager gave the employees working on the protect a strict set of guidelines to follow. On top of the guidelines, the manager also gave a deadline, with no chance of extension. While the employees work on the project, the manager checks in multiple times a day, making sure they are completing the work in proper fashion. The employees finish the project on time and have all the correct content included.''

Theory Y[edit]

Theory Y managers assume employees are internally motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better themselves without a direct reward in return. These managers view their employees as one of the most valuable assets to the company, driving the internal workings of the corporation. Employees additionally tend to take full responsibility for their work and do not need close supervision to create a quality product. It is important to note; however, before an employee carries out their task, they must first obtain the managers approval. This ensures work stays efficient, productive, and in-line with company standards.

Theory Y managers gravitate towards relating to the worker on a more personal level, as opposed to a more conductive and teaching-based relationship. As a result, Theory Y followers may have a better relationship with their boss, creating a healthier atmosphere in the workplace. In comparison to Theory X, Theory Y incorporates a pseudo-democratic environment to the workforce. This allows the employee to design, construct, and publish their work in a timely manner in co-ordinance to their workload and projects.

Although Theory Y encompasses creativity and discussion, it does have limitations. While there is a more personal and individualistic feel, this leaves room for error in terms of consistency and uniformity. The workplace lacks unvarying rules and practices, which could potentially be detrimental to the quality standards of the product and strict guidelines of a given company.

''Example: Employees working in the marketing department of a large electronics company were tasked with creating a new advertisement that would gain the interest of a more diverse consumer base. Instead of deciding the project for them, the Theory Y manager would let their employees collaborate and decide on the new advertisement together. It is implied the employees are excited to work on the new project and want to better the company in whatever way possible. However, the deadline might need to be pushed back a day due to occasional lack of production.''

Choosing a Management Style

For McGregor, Theory X and Theory Y are not opposite ends of the same continuum, but rather two different continua in themselves. In order to achieve the most efficient production, a combination of both theories may be appropriate. This approach is derived from Fred Fiedler's research over various leadership styles known as the contingency theory. This theory states that managers evaluate the workplace and choose their leadership style based upon both internal and external conditions presented. Managers who choose the Theory X approach have an authoritarian style of management. An organization with this style of management is made up of several levels of supervisors and managers who actively intervene and micromanage the employees. On the contrary, managers who choose the Theory Y approach have a hands-off style of management. An organization with this style of management encourages participation and values individuals’ thoughts and goals. However, because there is no optimal way for a manager to choose between adopting either Theory X or Theory Y, it is likely that a manager will need to adopt both approaches depending on the evolving circumstances and levels of internal and external locus of control throughout the workplace.

Austin's Sources (Found in EBSCOhost)

1. Neuliep, J. W. (1987). The Influence of Theory X AND Theory Y Management Styles on the Selection of Compliance-Gaining Strategies. Communication Research Reports, 4(1), 14-19

2. Charles, M. C. (2005). A Historical View of Douglas McGregor's Theory Y. Management Decision, 43(3), 450-460.

3. Gürbüz, S., Sahin, F., & Köksal, O. (2014). Revisiting of theory X and Y. Management Decision, 52(10), 1888-1906. Retrieved from https://libweb.uwlax.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libweb.uwlax.edu/docview/1633967230?accountid=9435

4. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396. http://dx.doi.org.libweb.uwlax.edu/10.1037/h0054346 Retrieved from https://libweb.uwlax.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libweb.uwlax.edu/docview/614249947?accountid=9435

Erik's Sources (Found in EBSCOhost)

5. Noland, C. (2014). Teaching Theory X and Theory Y in Organizational Communication. Communication Teacher, 28: 145-149.

6. Sager, K. L. (2008). An Exploratory Study of the Relationships Between Theory X/Y Assumptions and Superior Communicator Style. Management Communication Quarterly, 22: 288-312.'

Madysen's Sources

7. http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/ob/motivation/mcgregor/

8. https://iedunote.com/theory-x-theory-y-motivation

Lawter, Leanna; Kopelman, Richard E; Prottas, David J. Journal of Managerial Issues: JMI;   find way to get

D McGregor - Organization theory, 1960 - sanandres.esc.edu.ar

Tyler's Sources

9. Hattangadi, V. (2015). Theory X & Theory Y. International Journal Of Recent Research Aspects, 2(4), 20-21.

10. Lawter, L., Kopelman, R. E., & Prottas, D. J. (2015). McGregor's theory X/Y and job performance: A multilevel, multi-source analysis. Journal of Managerial Issues, 27(1-4), 84-101.

Megan's Sources

11. Kopelman, R., Prottas, D., & Falk, D. (2010). Construct validation of a Theory X/Y behavior scale. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 Issue: 2. (120-135). https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731011024385

12. Sager, K. L. (2008). An Exploratory Study of the Relationships Between Theory X/Y Assumptions and Superior Communicator Style. Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 22 Issue: 2. (288-312). http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libweb.uwlax.edu/ehost/detail/

GROUPS IDEAS FOR REVISION

Austin's Ideas:

After reviewing the wiki page "Theory X and Theory Y" I think there are many updates and additions that can be made to create a higher quality page. Below are the changes I think can be made.

- I think the introduction could be more precise. Specifically when talking about what each theory is based on.

- Under the Theory X tab - I don't like how the writer uses the word generally (we could flesh this out).

- I think having an example of a real world situation that each one of the theory's applies to would be nice to have, especially for the novice reader (this could be it's own section).

- I think the section "evaluate the workplace" could go into more detail - more about contingency theory. It does not say much or use any examples.

- I think there is room for improvement in the "McGregor and Maslow's Hierarchy of need relationship" section.

- One thing that has been brought up previously and one thing I agree with fully is the lack of sources. I think we can bring this pages rating up by finding reliable sources and adding accurate information.

1. So far no obvious distractions in the article (maybe once more research is done I can point them out)

2. Theory X seems a little biased, makes it seem worse than theory y.

3. External links work. In text citations.

4. Do not see any other comments on talk page

5. Stub article

6. Provides more information than what we discussed briefly in class, but still lacking details.

 ~Madysen leroy 

Erik's Ideas For Revision:

This article is not great, but salvageable. I propose 3 main general revisions:

1.Overall, touch up the language, wording and grammar to ensure that it remains professional throughout the article (some redundancy in sentence structure as well)

2. Inclusion of more sources and in-text citations to increase thoroughness and information legitimacy

3. Expand on ideas given in the article, ensure that each point is explained in-depth

Tyler's Ideas:

1. The article seems to be going in the right direction, but needs work in grammar and sounding more educational, rather than a conversation.

2. More application of the theory could be added for further explanation.

3. Could find more information and detail for all topics.

Megan's Ideas - There are a lot of small grammar errors throughout the article that can easily be fixed.

- Some of the reference links are outdated and or do not work.

- The study that was briefly mentioned in the Theory Y section is lacking supporting evidence and general information about the study.

- Errors in proper in-text citations.

- Include more information and examples of each theory along with reputable and current sources. Hill.megan (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Madysen

Due Friday 2/23

- make moderate edits to you section. This includes adding new information and taking out outdated, unsupported and false information.

- Link our article to one other wiki article

- Link our article from one other wiki article

MODERATE EDITS MADYSEN THEORY X Theory X[edit]
 * Citation 3 does not work
 * made some words easier because everyone should be able to read it with ease
 * cited

Theory x is based on pessimistic (maybe a different word choice? Not an objective word) assumptions regarding the typical worker (Need citation). This management style assumes that the typical worker has little ambition, avoids responsibility, and is individual-goal oriented (CITED). In general, Theory X style managers believe their employees are less intelligent, lazier, and work solely for a sustainable income (CITED). Due to these assumptions, Theory X concludes the typical workforce operates more efficiently under a hands-on approach to management.[2] Theory X managers believe all actions should be traceable to the responsible individua l individual responsible. This allows the individual to receive either a direct reward or a reprimand, depending on the outcome's positive or negative nature (CITED). This managerial style is more effective when used in a workforce that is not intrinsically essentially motivated to perform (Need citation).

According to McGregor, there are two opposing approaches to implementing Theory X: the hard approach and the soft approach (Need Citation). The hard approach depends on close supervision, intimidation, and imminent immediate  punishment(CITED). This approach can potentially yield a hostile, minimally cooperative workforce that harbors may cause resentment towards management (Need Citation). The soft approach is characterized by leniency and less strict rules in hopes for creating high workplace morale and cooperative employees (Need Citation). Implementing a system that is too soft could result in an entitled, low-output workforce (Need Citation). McGregor believes both ends of the spectrum are too extreme for efficient real-world application.[3] Instead, McGregor feels that an approach located in the middle would be the most effective implementation of Theory X (Need Citation).

Overall, Theory X is found to be most (maybe use the word 'more'?) effective in terms of consistency of work. Because managers and supervisors are in almost complete control of the work, this produces a more systematic and uniform product or work flow (Need citation). Theory X can benefit a work place that utilizes an assembly line or manual labor.[4] Using this theory in these types of work conditions allows employees to specialize in particular work areas which in turn allows the company to mass-produce a higher quantity and quality of work (Need Citation). Which, in the end, increases the company's profit (Need Citation).

MODERATE EDITS MEGAN CHOOSING A MANAGEMENT STYLE

For McGregor, Theory X and Y are not opposite ends of the same continuum, but rather two different continua in themselves. In order to achieve the most efficient production, a combination of both theories may be appropriate (need citation). This approach is derived from Fred Fiedler's research over various leadership styles known as the contingency theory. This theory states that managers evaluate the workforce and choose their leadership style based upon both internal and external conditions presented (need citation). Because there is no optimal way for a manager to choose between adopting either Theory X or Theory Y, it is likely that a manager will need to adopt both approaches depending on the evolving circumstances and levels of internal and external locus of control throughout the workplace. [7] For example, when completing a project, an internal locus of control manager may use his or her rank as a factor to lead a workforce and focus on the group's ability and skills to achieve the best outcome. An external locus of control manager will use his or her relationship formed with a workforce to lead the group and focus on the workforce's morale and self-satisfaction to achieve the best result (Need Citation).