Organizational Concepts For Theory X, Essay Examples

Theory Y, and Y – Implications of These

Theories for Modern Organizations
Organizational Concept for Theory X,
Implications for Modern Organizations
Introduction
The fundamental underpinning of the organizational concept for Theory X as a managerial theory remains lacking in a particular philosophy although McGregor’s views continue framing the approach scholars in the field of business management reference. The social psychology view of McGregor emerging in 1960 suggested as part of a business organizational culture how developing positive management techniques and styles provided the fundamental framework of both organizational development and growth goals. The precept offered by McGregor connects to managing people according to the characteristics of the X Theory use of an authoritarian style (Russ, 2011; Kurian, 2013; Burke, 2011). The following discourse provides an understanding of Theory X as an authoritarian management style.
X the Authoritarian Manager
Management styles using the X Theory factor approach to leadership as an authoritarian sees the average worker as disliking their job and therefore avoids doing the work. With most of the workforce having this attitude according to Theory X minded management, therefore, means the workforce not only wants but expects directed leadership. Since the workforce avoids responsibility they remain motivated only by specific directions that does requires as little thought of their own volition as possible. In terms of this management approach to leading and motivating workers the mind-set remains locked on the understanding leading these workers means forcing their productivity toward organizational objectives requires threats of punishment with loss of wages and even loss of their job. This alone according to the Y Theory has measurable impact on the worker because he or she has no ambition other than to retain the security of this job that requires nothing more than following the constant leadership of the management hierarchy (Mohamed & Nor, 2013).
The fact of the matter, the fallacy of Theory X in regards to a more realistic 21st century demographic profile of a modern work force shows this type of managerial style unless applied to a chain gang of incarcerated convicts has no validity. According to Boehm and Ross (1989), as a scientific management approach to organizational leadership Theory X merely looks at the workforce from a belief that the most efficient manner of getting production goals accomplished in a business enterprise means organizing jobs so they exist as a finely orchestrated sequential process. In doing so, this meant creating the work related tasks so workers produced efficiently and predictably like machines.
The management position in the X style was about keeping this type of system operating smoothly and fundamentally through coercive measures. In other words, according to Mohamed and Nor (2013) use of the X Theory as a management style does not result in ideal workforce production output or quality according to organizational development and growth goals. The framework of the management style using Theory X (Sahain, 2012; Sorensen and Minahan, 2011) from a pragmatic perspective emerges as a negative approach to leading employees because of the very attitude by management toward the workforce by its own nature does not desire fulfilling production quality and productivity when the opposite is true of a typical human being. Management that demands strict monitoring of employees as the means for determining the degree they believe the individual and collective workforce continually attempts avoiding work therefore sets up a psychologically unsafe work environment producing unhappy, unfulfilled, and unappreciated employees.

Conclusion

The discourse as provided above for a better understanding of Theory X as an understanding of Theory X as an authoritarian management style looked at the fundamental aspects of narrow minded assumptions about the worker. This included the worker has little desire for doing the job, wants no accountable responsibility for doing the job, desires and expects leadership directing every moment of work day about productions activities, and understands unless the work happens according to this leadership there are undesirable consequences that can and will jeopardize his or her employment. This autocratic form of business management paradoxically does not represent an ethical or morally desirable organizational culture that generates development and growth goals for the business.

References

Burke, W. W. (2011). On the legacy of theory Y. Journal of Management History, 17(2), 193-201
Bohem, B. W., & Ross, R. (1989, July). Theory-W Software Project Management: Principles and
Examples. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 15(7)
Kurian, G. T. (2013). The AMA Dictionary of Business and Management. New York: AMACOM.
Mohamed, R. K. M H., & Nor, C. S. M. (May 2013). The Relationship between McGregor's X-Y Theory Management Style and Fulfilment of Psychological Contract: A Literature Review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
3(5)
Russ, T. L. (2011). Theory X/Y assumptions as predictors of managers' propensity for participative decision making. Management Decision, 49(5), 823-836.
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
Sorensen, P. F., & Minahan, M. (2011). McGregor's legacy: The evolution and current application of theory Y management. Journal of Management History, 17(2), 178-192
Organizational Concept for Theory Y
Implications for Modern Organizations
Introduction
The precept underpinning Theory Y management style engages a participatory leadership style of the workforce with an assumption there exists a natural effort among humans in both work and play. In this manner, the managerial assumption further contends people readily apply self-direction and self-control as they pursue organizational objectives less any direct external control as well as any threat of punishment (Russ, 2011; Statt, 2004; Statt, 1999). The reward for doing so lay in the accomplishment of achieving these development and growth goals associated with commitment to objectives and unlike the assumption of Theory X management ascertains indeed workers in general willingly accept as well as seek work related responsibility and accountability (Mohamed and Nor, 2013). In this context supervisors contribute to influencing this commitment effectively (Sahin, 2012).
Y the Participatory Management
The fundamental underpinnings of Theory Y posits how management views the organizational workforce having the ability for a higher degree of ingenuity, imagination, as well as creativity applied to solving work related problems distributed throughout the work related population. Research shows traditionally, business industry neglecting use of the intellectual potential of the average employee within their organizations (Kurian, 2013).
In other words, theory Y management looks at human capital in an organization as having the ability for legitimate altruism as basic to pursuing excellence in the workplace. In doing so, the inspiration possibly derives from their own creativity given the necessary incentives. As a result this type of management views workers capable of being both disciplined responsible with the appropriate and timely recognition and encouragement (Kurian, 2013).
Sorenson and Minahan (2011) found the evolution of Theory Y management concepts show growth in its application exhibiting both appreciative inquiry as applied to social constructs. From their research they found evidence this type of management theory existing universally with applications that cross international and cultural business boundaries. The outcomes of their research determining how Theory Y stands in the 21st century business world provided practical implications showing the widespread acceptance of the concepts and application in today’s international business world prove systematically as well as empirically relational to the overall organizational success through this type of management.
Further, according to the results reported by Sorenson and Minahan (2011), there are huge implications as related to the increasing body of empirical evidence of how the managerial concepts framing Theory Y having global applicability as the business world continues shrinking in the 21st century. While the concepts framing management Theory Y remain well known, nonetheless research reveals little systematic identification of both its historical as well as contemporary application exists as related to such current issues including social construct, appreciative inquiry, as well as its application universally. This was the prod leading to the Sorenson and Minahan (2011) research on the standing of the use of management Theory Y in today’s business world.
On the other hand, Burke (2011) offers one of the few existing looks at the legacy of the Theory Y as distinguished as a managerial practices proved successful with practicing participative and interactive involvement as workforce leadership. The success of such a type of management practice remain based on empirical observation and ironically the history of the use of this methodology of supervising employees show few incidents where it historically took place or continues taking place among the majority of business organizations today.
Recent Study Reveals the Paradox of Theory Y
Historically, according to a recent study by Burke (2011) reveals while a global increase in the use of Theory Y as a leading focus of management changes incorporating its characteristics in comparison of the Burke (2011) data shows a continuing paradoxical outcome among US based business organizations. Burke (2011) outcome data reveal Theory Y type of management and leadership practices remain atypical rather than common as a leading management and because of its lack of use show half of management failures account for other leadership types as causal factors. Among the employee participants of the research survey on this topic completed by Burke (2011) 70 percent of the varieties of supervisor related answers reported the primary cause of work stress pins to the leadership hierarchy.
The Burke (2011) research findings according to McGregor’s Theory Y intent contended the relationship of participative management practices leading employees for successful outcomes as valid however as proven by the Burke (2011) the assumptions of Theory Y does not necessarily prove a specific style of practiced management policies as shown by the research questionnaire data. While clearly the paradox of evidentiary outcomes of the Burke (2011) research findings show use of Theory Y indeed proves beneficial for successful business leadership practices nonetheless few American businesses evidently practice it and the gap in the literature show the need for more research further establishing this as valid and as importantly, determining why this remains true.
The Burke (2011) analysis of his study findings looks at plausible reasons if Theory Y remains a desirable management style for organizations success but continues lacking in proactive use considers some rational reasoning. This includes that American business leadership executives fail to trust the evidentiary data as applicable at their level of the managerial hierarchy. In other words first line supervisors applying Theory Y as a leadership tactic directing the workforce remains okay but such participative types of management require particular patience, skills, and too much time. The fact remains according to Burke (2011) assumptions contributing to his analysis and recommendations of the causal factors at this leadership level not using Theory Y practices show numerous executives lack the required leadership skills and subjectively lack the needed patience to engage directly participating with the process of management of their subordinates. Other research align to the Burke findings (Sorensen & Minahan, 2011; Boehm & Ross, 1989).
Conclusion
In the introduction on this section concerning Theory Y management characteristics the discourse above provided how Theory Y contains fundamental underpinnings of how this style of management views an organizational workforce as having the ability for a higher degree of ingenuity, imagination, as well as creativity desirable for solving work related problems. Supervisors engaging with workings from this mind set and with this kind of interaction remains a proven success when applied as part of an organizational culture of leadership practices.
Two critical facts emerged in the research, review, and analysis of the literature related to this section of the above academic dialogue. One, while literature shows the use of the characteristics associated with the assumptions aligned to Theory Y managerial view of the workforce as human capital in their abilities to engage with supervision for best practices in productivity according to organizational development and growth growing in relation to the shrinking global business community and its adaptability across national borders and cultures, nonetheless there remains little historical data on its use. Further the recent study as discussed of the Burke (2011) research findings show historically the U.S. empirical record indeed reveals practicing Theory Y does result in management success. Yet, at the same time few organizations use Theory Y, particularly at the executive level of an organizational leadership hierarchy.
References
Burke, W. W. (2011). On the legacy of theory Y. Journal of Management History, 17(2), 193-
201.
Boehm, B. W., & Ross, R. (1989). Theory-W software project management: Principles and
examples. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 15(7), 902-916
Kurian, G. T. (2013). The AMA Dictionary of Business and Management. New York: AMACOM
Mohamed, R. K. M. H., & Nor, C. S. M. (2013). The relationship between McGregor's X-Y theory management style and fulfillment of psychological contract: A literature review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(5), 715-720.
Russ, T. L. (2011). Theory X/Y assumptions as predictors of managers' propensity for participative decision making. Management Decision, 49(5), 823-836.
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
Statt, D. A. (2004). The Routledge Dictionary of Business Management. New York: Routledge.
Statt, D. A. (1999). Concise Dictionary of Business Management (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Organizational Concept for Theory Z,
Implications for Modern Organizations
Introduction
Developed by William Ouchi (1981) Theory Z emerges as comparative to the Japanese management style where workers receive huge amounts of trust and freedom to do their job and as a combination of the characteristics of Theory Y. Both these managerial tenets assume the loyalty as well as interest among workers adhere to the teamwork formula of productivity in a business organization (Foss, 1973; England, 1983; Sullivan, 1992; Statt, 2004; Statt, 1999). Different from both Theories X and Y, Theory Z puts more emphasis on employee responsibility and attitude from a management perspective. While Theories X and Y emphasized management as a motivating factor, Theory Z emerges as a leadership model offering beneficial ideas that few organizations outside the Japanese have the pragmatic ability to implement.
Theory Z
Sullivan (1992) provides a fundamental understanding of Theory Z as a management philosophy aligned to Japanese cultural views of the world in general and outside this view of the world from a managerial perspective arises massive misunderstandings, confusion, and clearly false assumptions about Theory Z. Understanding Theory Z from a Japanese business perspective therefore realistically breaks down into what Sullivan (1992) explains as simply a matter of understanding the psychology of people, of people working in groups for the good of an organization, of people having a voice because the management recognizes their value as capital, of management looking at an organization as a group process rather than as a hierarchical construct.
England (1983) concurs with the Sullivan (1992) explanation and adds Theory Z is realistically not a management type embraces by the West anytime soon and viewing it as more a futuristic reality seems the truer focus of its acceptance universally. The differences in Japanese and Western social values and the norms attached to these between management and the employee belief systems are the main difference for the practical application of Theory Z in the Western business organizations. The East and the West are two entirely different cultures. Theory Z or the Japanese management reflects a social order that supports the general actions of both the labor and government bodies within its nation, whereas traditionally business in the West, particularly the U.S. historically remains contentious of worker unions and government policies affecting business practices.
While the realistic picture strongly implies the practice of Theory Z management style in American business as having only a ghost of a chance in an unforeseen future, nonetheless, England (1999) sees American management taking a proactive interest in what benefits are adaptable to the Japanese practice of Theory Z. This includes learning the value of developing a management practice internally consistent with less fragmentation from societal expectations and norms so the support of the worker rather than the contentious nature of the relationship between industry and labor proven historically true in a capitalist gain economy.
Conclusion
Ouchi (1981) development of Theory Z as discussed in this section of this academic endeavour emerged as comparative to the Japanese management style where workers receive huge amounts of trust and freedom to do their job and as a combination of the characteristics of Theory Y. The investigation of Theory Z proved overtly unrealistically adaptable to the Western – especially American business industry at this time in history due to major cultural differences toward workers and government existing between the Japanese culture and the American capitalist gains culture and economic system. Traditionally, America unlike Japan historically has little love between either labor or government and business beginning in the last century. The most pragmatic application of Theory Z for consideration by America’s business industry looks at changes in the internal structure of management and literature shows growing numbers of organizational culture becoming more ethically and morally sensitive to the needs, rights, and value of its workforce from a managerial perspective.
References
England, G. W. (1983). Japanese and American management theory z and beyond. Journal of International Business Studies (Pre-1986), 14(000002), 131.
Foss, L. (1973). MANAGERIAL STRATEGY FOR THE FUTURE: THEORY Z MANAGEMENT. California Management Review (Pre-1986), 15(000003), 68.
Kurian, G. T. (2013). The AMA Dictionary of Business and Management. New York: AMACOM
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
Statt, D. A. (2004). The Routledge Dictionary of Business Management. New York: Routledge.
Statt, D. A. (1999). Concise Dictionary of Business Management (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Sullivan, J. J. (1992). Japanese management philosophies: From the vacuous to the brilliant. California Management Review, 34(2), 66.