The foundation of McGregor’s theory has direct links to Taylor’s survey of scientific direction: a survey of scientific direction as a nexus between human existences and their occupations which in bend demand to be re-constructed to maximize efficiency ( Waddell et al. 2007. p. 43 ) . Many research workers and bookmans have developed theories based on the work of F. W. Taylor. McGregor. Maslow and others who assisted to better the position of human relation tried to turn out that there is another side to the traditional position of workers ( Bartol and Martin 1998. p. 52 ) . This literature reappraisal will be concentrating on the development of McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y in relation to the development of direction theory. Furthermore will be explicating the definition of X and Y theory and its relevancy to 21st century.

McGregor proposed two contrasting sets of managerial premises about the workers. He farther examined taking Taylor’s traditional position of workers and Mayo’s human relation attack into consideration. which he labelled Taylor’s position as ‘Theory X’ and as Mayo’s position as ‘Theory Y’ ( Montana and Charnov 2000. p. 25 ) . [ ( Stephen P. Robbins ) ] However. ‘both these theories have the common definition of maps of director: direction is responsible for organizing the elements of productive enterprise- money. stuffs. equipment. and people- in the best involvement of economic ends’ . Main differences in these two theories are the premises ( Urwick 1970. P. 1 ) . McGregor with his experience as a director and as a psychologist. observed the behavior and attitude of the workers ( Daft. 2003. p. 47 ) . Harmonizing to Kopelman. Prottas and Davis ( 2008. p 1 ) Theory Ten represents that workers by and large dislike work. are irresponsible. are unenrgetic and require close supervising. In contrast. Theory Y denotes that persons are by and large originative. advanced. accept duty and believe work is a natural activity.

Furthermore. his observations on the classical and the behavioral attacks to understanding workers were found different. He paired up his theories to the work of Abraham Maslow. where he compared the higher demands put frontward by Abraham Maslow such as self-actualization. to a Theory Y leading manner. and lower demands such as physiological and safety. to the Theory X leading manner ( Bartol and Martin 1998. p. 51 ) . Theory X is referred to as optimistic and Theory Y as pessimistic ( Montana and Charnov 2000. P 26 ) . others labeled Theory X as negative and Theory Y as positive ( Robbins et Al. 1998. p 202 ) and harmonizing Schein ( 1970. p. 5 ) McGregor called Theory X as “hard approach” and Theory Y as “soft approach” . Harmonizing to McGregor ( 1960. p. 33-35 ) . the premises of Theory X are that persons by nature do non wish to work and will avoid it if possible. Furthermore. human existences do non desire duty and desire precise counsel.

Additionally. the workers put their ain concerns above that of the organisation and by nature they are immune to alterations. Finally. human existences are taken for granted to be easy manipulated and controlled. Harmonizing to Boddy and Paton ( 1998. p. 201 ) it is of pattern with Theory X doctrine to include clip enrollment. supervising. quality checked by a superior as assigned in occupation description. The chief focal point of Theory X is that of external control. by systems. processs or supervising. They believed that directors who accepted Theory X position would be inconsiderate in accepting aptitude of a normal human being ( Boddy and Paton 1998. p. 200 ) . Directors who assign to Theory X are expected to pattern autocratic manner ( Lewis. Goodman and Fandt 1998. p. 56 ) . By contrast. Theory Y has premises which is wholly opposite of Theory X. As per Theory Y. work is natural. and attempts to busy them actively and bask excessively.

Furthermore. workers do non necessitate elaborate supervising and they are self-motivated. Additionally. it assumes that they work innovatively and creatively. If people are given a opportunity to turn out their competence they are ambitious to work out jobs and assist their organisations run into their ends ( McGregor 1960. p. 47-48 ) . Directors who hold the belief in Theory Y are likely to exert a participatory manner. discoursing with their subsidiary voicing their sentiment. and promoting them to take portion in determination devising ( Lewis. Goodman and Fandt 1998. p. 56 ) . Management’s chief purpose is to construction a proper working environment in order to accomplish their higher-order personal ends by accomplishing organisational aims ( Bloisi. Cook and Hunsaker 2007. p. 205 ) .

The organisations of twenty-first century are in a more dynamic universe where engineering. instruction and research and better economic conditions are immensely bettering. It becomes bit by bit more of import for directors to keep the set of premises about human behavior that McGregor has proposed in his Theory If an single holds Theory X premises so he will non be logical and antiphonal to informations. therefore. will hold limited pick of managerial manner. In respect to Theory Y. he can sagely take from assortment of options ( Schein 1975. p. 7 ) . Having worked for 15 old ages in many types of organisation. Schein ( 1975. p. 3 ) believes that organisations need more Theory Yttrium directors at all degrees particularly at higher degrees. However. few companies still pattern Theory X direction ( Daft 2003. p. 48 ) . but many are using Theory Y construct of direction such as Hewllet Packard ( Waddell et al. 2007. p. 56 ) and SOL cleansing service. and it has proved to be a success.

They consider everyone equal and value each employee’s part ( Daft 2003. p. 48 ) . Harmonizing to Kochan. Orlikowski and Gershenfeld ( 2002. p. 4 ) premises qualifying 20th century refers to Theory X and twenty first century organization’s features refer to Theory Y were explained utilizing people. work. engineering leading and ends. Many organisations have realised the importance of the human capital and are presently try to follow to alter themselves as they recognize. McGregor argued that modern organisations do non take into history the innovativeness of workers. In order to use these valuable assets. directors need to supply employees to utilize their expertness. Therefore. supply and make conditions that integrate single and organizational ends ( Boddy and Paton 1998. p. 200-201 ) . McGregor believed that people in 20 first century are more educated and flush and they are more self controlled ( Hersey. Blanchard and Johnson 2001. p. 60 ) .

Hence. most of the modern administrations strongly patterns direction by deputing authorization. occupation expansion. doing work more interesting. with increased degree of duties and their portion of information and inventions sing the work content. work design and consequences ( Montana and Charnov 2000. p. 25 ) . Finally. in order to mensurate the public presentation of the person. the administrations have assessment system which evaluates their public presentations yearly or semi-annually. For illustration. companies such as General Mills. Ansul Chemicals. and General Electric have been experimenting with public presentation assessment attacks ( Ott. Parkes and Simpson 2003. p. 168 ) .

These managerial propositions are associated best with the Theory Y direction manner. Harmonizing Lorshe and Morse ( cited in David and Robert 2000. p. 202 ) in their research of four companies and concluded that successful company in the normal concern used a consistent Theory X manner and the other in the originative concern used theory Y. These theories may be applicable to some organisations and to some civilizations. In article. peoples Republic of China. being a Communist state has practiced Theory X in the yesteryear and has adopted to pattern Theory Y manner with a productive consequence ( Oh 1976. p. 1 ) .

In drumhead. Theory X and Theory Y have important impact on modern direction manners. The premises of these two theories hold the utmost terminals and McGregor assumed that people’s behavior is strongly influenced by their beliefs. His theories have been labelled associating to Taylor and Mayo’s work. As in my sentiment there is no 1 best theory which may suit all organisations. However. more in deepness research demand to be undertaken to place and turn out which theory does best tantrums. Harmonizing to Boddy and Paton ( 1998. p. 202 ) many argue that both these theories may be inappropriate in some state of affairss. “Theory Y is a theory of human motive. non a theory of how to pull off or run an organization” ( Schein 1975. p. 1 ) .

Mentions

Waddell. D. Devine. J. Jones. GR & A ; George. JM 2007. Contemporary Management. McGraw-Hill Irwin. North Ryde.
Bartol. KM & A ; Martin. DC. Management. 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill Co. Boston Montana. P & A ; Charnov. B 2000. Barron’s Management. 3rd edn. Hauppauge. N. Y Daft. RL 2000. Management. 6th edn. Thomson larning. Ohio

Robbins. SP. Millett. B. Cacioppe. R & A ; Marsh TW 1998. Organizational behavior: Learning and pull offing in Australia and New Zealand. 2nd edn. Prentice Hall. Sydney McGregor. D 1960. The human side of endeavor. McGraw-Hill book company. New York Boddy. D & A ; Paton. Roentgen 1998. Management: an debut. Prentice Hall Europe. London Lewis. PS. Goodman. SH & A ; Fandt. PM 1998. Management: Challenges in the twenty-first century. 2nd edn. South-Western College Pub. Cincinnati Bloisi. W. Cook. CW & A ; Hunsaker. PL 2007. Management and organizational behavior. 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill. Berkshire Hersey. P. Blanchard. KH & A ; Johnson. DE 2001. Management and
organisational behavior: prima human resources. 8th edn. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River Kopelman. RE. Prottas. DJ & A ; Davis. AL 2008. ‘Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Y: toward a construct?valid measure’ . Journal of Managerial Issues. vol. 20. no. 2. 255?271. retrieved 22nd March 2011. Ebsco Host

Ott. JS. Parkes. SJ & A ; Simpson RB 2003. Classical reading in organisational behavior. 3rd edn. Thomson/Wadsworth. Belmont Schein. EH 1975. ‘In defense mechanism of Theory Y’ . Organizational Dynamics. Vol. 4. Publish 1. p17-30. retrieved 22nd March 2011. Ebsco Host Oh. TK 1976. ‘Theory Y in People’s Republic of China’ . California Management Review. Vol. 19. Publish 2. p77-84. retrieved 22nd March 2011. Ebsco Host Urwick. LF 1970. ‘Theory Z’ . SAM Advanced Management Journal. Vol. 35. Issue 1. p14. retrieved 28th March 2011. Ebsco Host Kochan. T. Orlikowski. W & A ; Gershenfeld JC 2002. ‘Beyond McGregor’s Theory Y: Human Capital and Knowledge-Based Work in the twenty-first Century Organization’ . retrieved 24th March 2011. hypertext transfer protocol: //mitsloan. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. edu/50th/pdf/beyondtheorypaper. pdf