1. McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y
MGMT 500 – Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
Group 1: Heather Moore, Jessica Smiley, Heidi Stein, & George Tolle

2. Overview Early Development McGregor’s Influence
Critiques of Theory X and Theory Y
Situational Leadership
Performance Readiness
Styles
Comparisons
Beliefs
Douglas McGregor was born in 1906 in Detroit. After high school he attended Oberlin College and later graduated from Wayne University in He earned his PhD degree from Harvard University in Experimental Psychology where he had received an A grade in every single course. McGregor’s professional career began as a management professor and by 1948 he became the president of Antioch College (Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y ( ), n.d.). His development of Theory X and Theory Y framework were centered on human motivation and how management approached their employees. The following will explain both theories in greater detail as well as a review of the critiques of McGregor’s work. Theory X and Theory Y both tie into Situational Leadership which will be discussed as well.

3. Early Development Theory X Assumptions Theory Y Assumptions
Hard work only comes when people are threatened or controlled
Prefers to be directed
Abhors responsibility
Managed with punishment and tight controls
Physical and mental efforts are natural
Workers will be self-directed if given clear organizational goals
Seeks responsibility
Large number of employees capable of solving problems
Theory X and Theory Y were developed by Douglas McGregor and published in his book, The Human Side of Enterprise (Carson, 2005). The two theories were actually based upon a previous work, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Kopelman, Prottas, & Davis, 2008). The two theories are divided into higher-order needs and lower-order needs. Theory X tries to take away any of the power or willpower from the average worker. The belief is that people hate their jobs and dislike working, so the only way to motivate them is to use force (Kopelman et al., 2008). McGregor theorized that promoting and expecting work as a Theory Y manager would lead to better motivation for the employees (Carson, 2005).

4. McGregor’s Influence
Revolutionized leadership abilities could be taught
Manager’s primary obligation – Cause subordinates to perform at their best
Diversity should be embraced
Predicted development of group-based management
In McGregor’s time, the agreed upon belief was managers were born and not made (Head, 2011). He helped establish that learning about management could allow a person to obtain the skills necessary to become a leader. With this knowledge, a manager’s first obligation is to help their employees become the best they can be. Along with bringing out the best is that our diversity should be celebrated. Diversity allows for different points of views and gives more perspective to enhance a company. Similar to diversity is having teamwork that is striving toward a common goal. Management should be working together to help out the company, rather than working against each other and only looking out for themselves.

5. Critiques of Theory X and Y
What is a theory?
Idea, not proven to be true
Always critiqued on validity
Theory X/Y unproven
No systematic research
More research should be accomplished on managerial assumptions
Theory X/Y used in:
Academic research
Among practitioners
Business school curriculums
Webster’s Dictionary defines theory as “an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true” (Merriam-Webster, 2014). Because theories are not proven there are always critiques on their validity. Kopelman, Prottas, & Falk (2012), believe McGregor’s X/Y Theory remains unproven because he did not accomplish systematic research. However, Kopelman’s (2012) article describes research accomplished on McGregor’s Theory and believes that more research should be conducted on his theory of managerial assumptions. Theory X and Y are still widely used in academic research, among practitioners, and in business school curriculums to show managerial assumptions (Kopelman, et al., 2012).

6. Situational Leadership – Performance Readiness
Situational leadership performance readiness has four categories of the follower Readiness level 1 – Unable and insecure (unwilling) Readiness level 2 – Unable but confident (willing) Readiness level 3 – Able but Insecure (unwilling) Readiness level 4 – Able and Confident (willing)
According to Situational Leadership (n.d.) performance readiness of an individual is based on two main components: willingness and ability. The willingness of a follower can be described as a person’s enthusiasm and motivation to complete the job. The ability of the follower can be referenced to proper training and skill or tools available to accomplish the job. There are four readiness levels associated with Situational Leadership. If you look between the lines you can start to see how the readiness levels compare to McGregor’s X/Y leadership theory. We will continue on to describe how Theory X compares to the performance readiness of situational leadership.

7. Theory X & Performance Readiness
What type of Situational leadership performance readiness would best suite McGregor’s theory x style?
Readiness level 1 – Unable and insecure (unwilling)
Readiness level 2 – Unable but confident (willing)
McGregor’s Theory X management style has the assumption of a follower not motivated and requires lots of structure in order to perform and complete the job (Stewart, 2010). In reference to situational leadership, performance readiness is how you describe or diagnose the follower’s ability to help in the completion of a job. If we are to use McGregor’s theory, a leader would use theory x style in a follower that demonstrates readiness levels one and two on the situational leadership model. The use of theory x management is justified in a follower with low to moderate performance readiness because the follower requires a bit more guidance on how to do the job (Situational Leadership).

8. Theory Y & Performance Readiness
What type of situational leadership performance readiness would best suite McGregor’s Theory Y style?
Readiness level 3 – Able but Insecure (unwilling)
Readiness level 4 – Able and Confident(willing)
McGregor’s Theory Y management style is opposite of Theory X. Theory Y believes a follower is self-motivated and a self-starter to accomplish tasks. Followers want to grow and gain responsibility (Stewart, 2010).
In comparison to situational leadership, the type of performance readiness in a Theory Y follower would be that of readiness level four. Readiness level three would not be appropriate because the follower is still insecure in the ability to accomplish the job or they are not fully able because they are not 100 percent confident (Situational Leadership, n.d.).
Readiness level four is the highest and this correlates the best to Theory Y management style. A follower that demonstrates readiness level four is fully able to accomplish the task and is 100% willing to perform the job. There is no need to provide direct supervision because the follower can do the job on their own.

9. Situational Leadership Styles
S1 – Telling/Directing
S2 - Selling/Coaching
S3 - Participating/Supporting
S4 – Delegating/Empowering
The situational leadership style has four different styles associated with the performance readiness factors observed in a follower’s behavior. A leader is asked to observe a follower for ability and willingness qualities and pick the correct style of leadership to match the follower. The situational leadership style used by the leader will depend greatly on the ability and willingness of the follower. The willingness and ability can be related to task behavior and relationship behavior. The leader will need to move through the different styles of leadership as the follower grows in maturity with either or both task and relationship behaviors (Norris & Vecchio, 1992). In the next slide we will show how the four styles of situational leadership can correlate with McGregor’s X/Y Theory.

10. Theory Y Success Story Procter & Gamble
New manufacturing facility in Atlanta, Georgia, setup using Theory Y concept in mid-1950’s
Facility was 30% more productive than any other P&G plant by mid-1960’s
Theory Y framework was applied to other plants
McGregor was invited by a senior executive at Procter and Gamble in the mid-1950’s to help set up a detergent plant in Augusta, Georgia, based on the Theory Y concept. This particular executive was a Korean war veteran and had already learned that military-style command-and-control management did not produce results in the corporate world. By the mid-1960’s this plant was 30% more productive than any other P&G plant. Subsequently the Theory Y concept was applied to other plants however the organization chose not to disclose “their secret” until almost 40 years later touting it as a competitive advantage (Hindle, 2008).

11. Comparison of McGregor’s X/Y to Situational Leadership Styles
McGregor’s Theory X
Followers are lazy and need direction=S1 and S2 style of Situational Leadership
McGregor’s Theory Y
Followers are self-motivated = S3 and S4 style of Situational Leadership
When you look at the Style of Leader figure, you see the four styles of leadership. We can compare McGregor’s Theory X to the first two styles of leadership because of the relationship behavior that is needed with style 1 and 2. McGregor’s Theory X believes followers are lazy and unwilling to accomplish the job (Steward, 2010). This is visual in the situational leadership theory, S1 because the follower is in an unwilling or unable phase because of training or motivation. McGregor’s theory is similar to S1 style of leadership because the leader will need to provide lots of direction to the follower to get the tasks completed. The same can be said for McGregor’s Theory Y as it compares to S3 and S4 style of situational Leadership. The S4 style of situational leadership means the leader is delegating all tasks to complete the job because the follower is willing and able to accomplish the job (Norris, 1992). This can be directly related to McGregor’s Theory Y because it believes followers are self-actualizing to accomplish organizational tasks (Meeker, 1982).

12. Belief of X versus Y Are you an X or a Y leader?
Does not determine particular leadership performance
Reasons for the belief:
Good results
Led as a subordinate
What theory do you believe in? Are you an X or a Y leader? Why? Endorsing one theory or the other does not inevitably determine a leader’s particular leadership performance (Sund, 2012). A leader might believe in Theory X because he believes all of his employees are lazy and need to be closely controlled. Theory Y believers might have this belief because they like to motivate their employees to work hard and use creativity. There is a reason a leader choses one theory over the other. The reason could be due to always receiving good results with their chosen theory. It could also be how they were led as a subordinate. As long as the leader as good ethics they should be able to lead how they want.

13. Summary McGregor was a man before his time
Theory X and Theory Y framework
Situational Leadership
In 1964 McGregor died at the young age of 58. He was the chairman of the Department of Industrial Management at MIT and still very involved in developing his theories of motivation (Kelly, 2000). Gary Heil, Warren Bennis, and Deborah Stephens reexamined some of McGregor’s work in their book Douglas McGregor, Revisited: Managing the Human Side of the Enterprise. “McGregor was above all a futurist. He foresaw the end of a mechanistic view of management long before people were ready to hear such a view point.. In his day, managers could ignore his fundamental message. Paying attention to the human side of management simply wasn’t a primary requirement for his success in his day. Large bureaucratic organizations that mass-produced goods could treat their countless workers as interchangeable parts in a mechanistic system” (Kelly, 2000, p. 144). Even though no evidence exists that McGregor completed any formal testing of his Theory X and Y philosophy, many schools and practitioners refer to his model in their teachings. Workers can be considered Theory X or Theory Y employees however it truly is driven by their managers and how much of a positive influence they choose to use in their leadership style.

14. References
Carson, C. (n.d). A historical view of Douglas McGregor's Theory Y. vol. 43, no. 3 (2005), p Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y ( ). (n.d.). Retrieved from Marked by Teachers: level/politics/douglas-mcgregor-s-theory-x-and-theory-y html Head, T. C. (2011). Douglas McGregor's legacy: Lessons learned, lessons lost. Journal of Management History, 17(2), doi: Hindle, T. (2008, October 3). Douglas McGregor. Retrieved from The Economist:

15. References, cont.
Kelly, E. P. (2000). Douglas McGregor, revisited: Managing the human side of the enterprise. The Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), Retrieved from est.com/docview/ ?accountid=13979 Kopelman, R. (n.d). Douglas McGregor's Theory X and Y: Toward a Construct-valid Measure*. vol. 20, no. 2 (Summer 2008), p Kopelman, R.E., Prottas, D.J., & Falk, D.W. (2012). Further development of a measure of theory x and y managerial assumptions. 24(4), Meeker, S.M.E. (1982). THEORY Y: ANOTHER LOOK. Southern Review of Public Administration (Pre-1986), 5(4), 500. Retrieved from m/docview/ ?accountid=13979 Merriam-Webster, (2014). Theory. Retrieved from

16. References, cont.
Norris, W.R., & Vecchio, R.P. (1992). Situational leadership theory A replication. Group & Organization Studies ( ), 17(3), Retrieved from cview/ ?accountid=13979
Situational Leadership. (n.d) Retrieved from: b_Situational_Leadership.pdf
Stewart, M. (2010) McGregor’s Theory x and y revisited. 3(1) Oxford Leadership Journal. Retrieved from: tewart.pdf
Sund, A. (2012). The antecedents and outcomes of McGregor’s theory endorsement. Retrieved from MMER02PS2a/groups/_9492_1//_628433_1/The%20Ant ecedents%20and%20Outcomes%20of%20McGregor%27s %20Theory%2