Douglas McGregor proposed the theories of motivation Theory X and Theory Y in the 1960s. These ideas are based on the assumption that in order to accomplish a job, management must put together all of the development factors, including people.
McGregor claimed that management could use any of the needs grouped under theory X and theory Y to inspire his workers. However, how does theory Y generate better results than theory X? Let's see what happens.
Theory X: Theory X is based on the authoritarian management model, in which managers are expected to issue orders and keep a close eye on each employee. Employees are unmotivated and hate working, as one would expect. The following assumptions underpin this theory:
The employee is a freeloader who despises working.
He lacks ambition and dislikes taking on responsibility, so he prefers to be driven.
The employee is self-centered and unconcerned about the company's interests.
Management is in charge of bringing together all of the production factors, such as resources, materials, equipment, and people.
Managers are responsible for maintaining control of their staff, controlling their efforts, empowering them, and changing their actions to meet organizational needs.
Management must intervene to keep workers focused on the company's goals. To complete the job, the workers must be convinced, paid, encouraged, punished, and supervised.
Theory Y: Theory Y is based on a participative management style, in which managers believe that workers are self-directed and driven to achieve organizational goals. As a result, the management tries to get the most production with the least amount of effort. The following are Theory Y's assumptions:
The average person does not hate work inherently; they are imaginative and self-motivated, and prefer to work with more obligations.
Employees are self-directed and self-controlled, so the threat of retaliation isn't just a way to get the results you want.
The incentives associated with achieving goals decide the degree to which an employee is committed to them. The stimulation of the ego and the fulfillment of self-actualization needs may be the most important rewards in this sense.
The average person is ambitious and eager to take on new challenges. He prefers to take the initiative rather than being led by others.
When it comes to solving complex organizational challenges, workers display a high level of innovation and ingenuity.
As a result, theory X and theory Y are two opposing models that represent a manager's collection of expectations regarding his workers, which may or may not correlate to their general actions. As a consequence, these hypotheses are based on attitude rather than characteristics.
Application
The two extremes are described by Theory X and Theory Y. No one can be both of these extremes at the same time. Each individual possesses both Theory X and Theory Y traits, though the degree of each trait varies depending on the situation. Despite the fact that no generalizations can be made, it appears that theory X is more applicable to unskilled and uneducated lower-class workers who work solely to meet their physiological needs. Theory Y tends to be applicable to workers who are trained, qualified, and knowledgeable and who are aware of their duties and do not need guidance or power. There are, however, exceptions.
A lower-level employee may be more mature and responsible than a highly skilled high-level employee. Nonetheless, these ideas are vital methods for interpreting human behavior and constructing motivational schemes. To inspire various workers, management should use a mixture of both theories.
The Differences of Theory X and Theory Y
Internal motivation:
Theory X assumes that employees have no internal motivation and that only rewards and punishment will provide it, whereas theory Y assumes that employees have plenty of internal motivation and do not need external gratification.
Work:
In theory X, workers or employees are assumed not to enjoy their jobs, but in theory Y, workers or employees do enjoy their jobs, and it is a normal process. Theory X often assumes that employees have a low level of ambition, whereas theory Y assumes that employees have a high level of ambition.
Power and Control:
Theory X implies that authority is centralized and that workers are under strict supervision, whereas theory Y indicates that authority should be decentralized and that control should be more lenient.
Type of leadership:
Theory X has been labeled as an autocratic type of leadership, while Theory Y has been labeled as a democratic style.
Since workers are able to think about themselves but unable to think for the betterment of the company, the former theory, theory X, advises managers to enforce strict oversight and micromanagement for their employees. Since workers have become an important part of the organization and represent the organization to society, there are very few organizations that use theory X today. If the workers are inept, it's fair to say that the company is inept as well, which is why theory X is becoming less and less common in almost every workplace.
Employees are internally inspired, have self-direction, and take initiative, according to Theory Y. Employees are regarded as pillars of the organization because they contribute to the organization's long-term viability and development, as well as its overall well-being.
The implementation of theory X and theory Y is restricted because the conclusions of both can be contradicted in certain cases. A low-level worker, for example, may be more capable and mature than a highly skilled manager. In such instances, the assumptions that underpin theory X and theory Y are debunked.
Both options have certain organizational drawbacks, so somewhere in the middle of theory X and theory y should be found. However, no appropriate approaches to combining both hypotheses and motivating several workers at the same time exist as of yet.
