Explain McGregor’s Theory X and Y
The approaches to managing organizational behavior are numerous and very diverse, yet most of them can be grouped according to specific criteria and categorized accordingly. McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y, which are expected to explain the rationale behind leadership choices and the effects that they produce on employees’ behavior and motivation, allow the introduction of the concept of employee autonomy (Nelson & Quick, 2016). According to McGregor’s theory, the approach toward managing organizational behavior can be developed and examined either from an authoritarian (Theory X) or participative (Theory Y) standpoint (Nelson & Quick, 2016). Thus, the proposed framework helps to recognize the importance of employee autonomy and define the extent to which staff’s independence should be promoted in the organizational setting.
Considering Theory X closer will reveal that it is rooted in the concept of the authoritarian leadership framework and the assumption that staff members are inherently reluctant to perform their workplace roles and meet the relevant responsibilities (Scandura, 2018). Therefore, Theory X suggests that leadership should be exerted as a very rigid mechanism of control and reinforcement (Nelson & Quick, 2016). The proposed framework encourages rigid control and prohibits any form of incompliance.
Theory X has several serious limitations, one of which concerns a substantial amount of subjectivity in it. Specifically, McGregor makes an unsubstantiated assumption about human behavior when stating that people do not like work (Scandura, 2018). Although the specified statement typically proves to be correct in most business settings, it still lacks nuance and evidence from research (Nelson & Quick, 2016). Moreover, implying a significant extent of micromanagement, theory X application is limited by its lack of understanding of what underpins human behavior (Nelson & Quick, 2016). Moreover, by viewing work as an indisputably undesirable activity for staff members, Theory X misses the opportunity to build motivation and employee engagement in staff members to increase their corporate loyalty and improve communication between a firm and its members.
In turn, Theory Y offers complete freedom to staff members and suggests that their motivation should be the main criterion of effective organizational management. Namely, Theory Y posits that the extent of staff members’ motivation, which, in turn, is correlated with their levels of engagement and participation, defines the efficacy of organizational performance (Nelson & Quick, 2016). Similar to Theory X, Theory Y has major limitations as far as the precision and applicability of its statements are concerned.
Furthermore, Theory Y also makes unsubstantiated assumptions regarding human behavior by claiming that people generally like work (Shaw et al., 2018). However, Theory Y is limited by its attempts at creating an environment that fits every employee perfectly, which is nearly impossible, especially in diverse teams. Moreover, like Theory X, Theory Y offers a rather accurate, even though slightly exaggerated, interpretation of workplace relationships and the correlation between staff motivation and the company’s performance (Nelson & Quick, 2016). Although how McGregor interpreted the nature of employees’ motivation might be slightly skewed, the general idea of how motivation works in the organizational setting and what effects it produces is correct.
Finally, one of the major problems with McGregor’s Theory Y is the extent to which it encourages staff’s agency without providing the platform for them to develop engagement and internalize organizational values and goals. As a result, leaving a range of company-related decisions to staff members that have a rather obscure idea of their roles and responsibilities, as well as corporate values and goals, will inevitably cause a drop in corporate efficiency.
Original Purpose of the Hawthorne Studies
The Hawthorne behavioral studies have been rather famous in business ad economy studies as the exploration of work environment and its effects on staff’s performance. Namely, the authors intended to identify several characteristics of a workplace setting, including lighting, length of breaks and the working day, and several other factors, to study their effects on employees’ performance levels.
Named after the location in which they took place, the Hawthorne studies were conducted by Henry A. Landsberger in the 1920s-1930s and represented a series of experiments set in the environment of Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works. The specified organization positioned itself as an electric company and was located near Hawthorne, IL, hence the name of the initial studies performed by Landsberger (Nelson & Quick, 2016). In his research, Landsberger sought to examine the outcomes of altering the properties of workplace settings such as its lighting, the length, and frequency of breaks, and well as the length of the working day, on the extent of employees’ motivation and performance rates (Dipboye, 2018).
Taking retrospect at the research launched by Landsberger will show that its outcomes were quite expected yet also crucial for the future development of motivational theories of organizational behavior. Specifically, the study results proved that, in most cases, positive changes in the environment led to an increase in employee performance rates, which proved the existence of a positive correlation and, most importantly, the presence of causation (Rogelberg, 2016).
However, on closer inspection of the Hawthorne studies, namely, their initial research question and the results that they delivered, one will notice that there was an impressive discrepancy between the two. Whereas the goals of the research included the study of specific factors on people’s development of motivation, a much more broad and generalized answer to the question of what serves as a motivating factor for most staff members in the workplace was obtained. Particularly, the outcomes of Hawthorne studies have led to a broader realization of what factors motivate employees to deliver positive performance and meet organizational goals.
Therefore, what the study results ended up to be was a series of vital conclusions about the nature of workplace motivation, the factors that shape its levels in staff members, and the presence of specific components of motivation in the contemporary workplace (Nelson & Quick, 2016). However, when only starting, the research embraced a very limited number of factors the impact of which was expected to be tested in the course of the specified experiment. Therefore, the test turned out to be quite effective. Moreover, the Hawthorne studies have indicated that communication plays a central role in the development of motivation rates and the quality of performance among staff members. Namely, the study made the following points:
- The company’s ability to satisfy staff members’ economic needs;’
- The company’s ability to satisfy employees’ social needs;
- Job satisfaction defines the quality of employees’ performance;
- The quality of employees’ performance is not directly correlated to the salaries that they are paid at their companies;
- Increasing employees’ productivity is possible once the staff members’ desire to belong to a group is satisfied (Nelson & Quick, 2016).
Overall, the experiment conducted by Landsberger has helped in distilling the criteria for employee motivation rates in the workplace, which was central to building further theories explaining motivation. Despite being originally aimed at testing a set of clear characteristics, the experiment ventured far beyond the original intent and produced the results that would inspire multiple organizations in the future. Thus, the Hawthorne effect has allowed researchers to introduce a theoretical basis for motivation studies in the organizational setting.
References
Dipboye, R. L. (2018). The emerald review of industrial and organizational psychology. Emerald Group Publishing.
Nelson, D., & Quick, J. C. (2016). Management of ORG behavior (5th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Rogelberg, S. G. (2016). The SAGE encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology. SAGE.
Scandura, T. A. (2018). Essentials of organizational behavior: An evidence-based approach. Sage Publications.
Shaw, A., McPhail, R., & Ressia. S. (2018). Employment relations. Cengage AU.