Theory X and Theory Y

Douglas McGregor, an American social psychologist, proposed his famous X-Y theory in his 1960 book 'The Human Side Of Enterprise'. Theory x and theory y are still referred to commonly in the field of management and motivation, and whilst more recent studies have questioned the rigidity of the model, Mcgregor's X-Y Theory remains a valid basic principle from which to develop positive management style and techniques. McGregor's XY Theory remains central to organizational development, and to improving organizational culture.


Theory X and Theory Y Manager concept is described in detail here and here.

My observations:

1) Perspective matters: One of the defining features about this theory is its perspective. It is completely seen from the perspective of the manager. Managers are divided into two categories based on how they perceive their employees: 1) Lazy - Theory X Manager 2) Motivated - Theory Y manager. The employer himself doesn't find a place in the theory which is interesting. I can draw two conclusions from this fact:

•  It perhaps shows the inability of many managers to truly understand what kind of employees they have. In this case it is better to treat all employees as same(motivated) rather than make wrong assumptions(lazy). I have seen in my previous company where project managers trying to micromanage the stuff. There was an occasion when one PM even sat behind the coder all day. I wonder if he got the coder's pay for that day. Such micromanagement is very counter-productive, dampens creativity and rob the motivation from employees  

• Managers have a lot of responsibility in the success of a project. Those managers who try to escape the responsibility by blaming it on employees belong the Theory X and is not good for the organization. This is a very common scenario in many organizations including my last one. But I am happy that mine own manager in my previous company was a Theory Y manager.

2) Qualities defines a manager:The theory also throws light at some of the qualities which a good manager needs to have. Positive attitude, inspiring, motivating, trusting employees etc. All these qualities reflect Theory Y manager and real managers should probably try to emulate these qualities. 


But of course the million dollar question - Isn't it right to treat a lazy employee through the eyes of Theory X manager? Not exactly. As managers we are bound to run into lazy employees. But usually a group will be a mix of both types of employees. Treating them differently might affect the motivated employees and thus adversely affect the project. Thus the best course of action is to perhaps motivate employees as much as possible by sharing vision, inspiring them, being empathetic to their problems etc rather than micromanaging them. The manager may even succeed to change the nature of the employee working under him. Micromanagement might help in case of unskilled labours and highly manual work but not otherwise in my opinion.

3) Which category would you like to fall into? By using this principle we can divide employee-manager group into 4 parts as mentioned here.

The Prof made an observation that while the 4th category is good, it is really the 2nd category that is great and awesome. I don't quite agree to it. The 2nd category where the Manager works with a group of lazy employees to bring the project to a success does seem like a Cinderella story. But the 4th category deserves as much credit. Some reasons: The managers still got the result and the fact that he got a lazy team or motivated team doesn't override the fact especially in result-driven organizations as we see now. This will be valued the most. Even a motivated team requires an efficient manager to keep that level of consistency. My basic point is that. Most managers will get some say in forming the team. In such a scenario he should try to get as many motivated guys as possible or a healthy mix rather than try to get lazy guys and aim for glory. A manager who has a chance to be in 4th category should try to jump to 2nd category just for the sake of greatness.