Imposition of decisions on theory Y employees will lead to their dissatisfaction, and this will negatively affect organizational performance. Nature of Management Style Theory X is an authoritative management style. The first, usually called the classical school of organization, emphasizes the need for well-established lines of authority, clearly defined jobs, and authority equal to responsibility. McGregor tarafindan ortaya atilan X Teorisi adeta Klasik yonetim yaklasimini ozetlerken, Y Teorisi ise Neo-klasik yonetim yaklasiminin ozu hakkinda fikir vermektedir. This region, in particular, houses hundreds of chandelier makers and lighting firms, some of which even date back to the Ottoman Empire.
Arastirma sonucunda katilimcilarin nispeten Y Teorisine daha yakin bir bakis acisinda sahip olduklari belirlenmistir The labor and employment woes of today require that existing businesses to expand its operations and to be receptive to innovations. These too must fit the task to be performed if the organization is to be effective. We see the present research as conceptually contributory in that we distinguish between practices consonant with Theory Y and managerial attitudes per se. Yoneticilerin ve calisanlarin Douglas McGregor'un X-Y Teorileri hakkindaki tutumlari, tercih edecekleri yonetim yaklasimlari hakkinda fikir verebilir. Modern organizations increasingly adopt Theory Y management style. The hard approach to motivation relies on coercion, implicit threats, micromanagement, and tight controls— essentially an environment of command and control. Formal reports and reviews were made only quarterly, reflecting the fact that research often does not come to fruition for three to five years.
Thus situational management style should be used in order to generate optimum results. For many enterprises, given the new needs of younger employees for more autonomy, and the rapid rates of social and technological change, it may well be that the more participative approach is the most appropriate. The results of this study revealed that despite the management style Theory X or Theory Y , 88% of managers believe Six Sigma is compatible with logistics managers' roles and responsibilities. It's interesting that Ouchi chose to name his model 'Theory Z', which apart from anything else tends to give the impression that it's a Mcgregor idea. Check Your Understanding Answer the question s below to see how well you understand the topics covered in this section. The soft approach results in increasing desire for greater reward in exchange for diminishing work output.
Findings from several studies indicate that managerial literature has generally accepted the idea that organizational culture and leadership style are positively linked to performance outcomes. For example, the Hartford plant had an egalitarian distribution of influence, perceptions of a low degree of structure, and a more participatory type of supervision. Theory Y Conversely, McGregor stated that those employees who are separated into Theory Y should be left to complete their work independently. That is, each approach is effective in some cases but not in others. How can managers resolve the confusion? Direct supervision and emphasis on achieving targets may be somewhat suitable for manufacturing-related organizations. Therefore, there was less need for individuals to have a say in decisions concerning the work process. Also, the adaptation of logistics processes to accommodate Six Sigma had a significant impact on organisational savings and on successful Six Sigma implementation.
Nowadays, ethical leadership and leadership effectiveness are two of the significant motivations for improving an organizational performance. Social implications This study would have implications for teacher-student fit and institution-teacher fit in learning environments. See for example Paul R. Furthermore, adaptation of logistics processes to Six Sigma requirements proved more compatible than the adaptation of Six Sigma to logistics processes. To McGregor, motivation seemed more likely with the Theory Y model. As a former tester I can assure you that having a strong grasp of this theory will give you at least one correct answer on the exam. The editors have invited the world's finest entrepreneurship and strategic management scholars to contribute chapters on key issues that are influencing research in both fields, and to integrate findings across the two.
However, neither of these extremes is optimal. At the two less effective sites i. If such a fit is achieved, both effective unit performance and a higher sense of competence motivation seem to result. Professor Douglas McGregor highlighted that there is a significant relationship between motivation and leadership among people. In the 20th century, Theory X management style dominated many businesses where the managers perceived that the employees had the above-described traits.
And this is what we did find. While there is a need to further investigate how people who work in different settings differ in their psychological makeup, one important implication of the Contingency Theory is that we must not only seek a fit between organization and task, but also between task and people and between people and organization. Theory Y has its fundamental concern on the satisfaction of employees. The classical organizational approach that McGregor associated with Theory X does work well in some situations, although, as McGregor himself pointed out, there are also some situations where it does not work effectively. Furthermore, most people prefer to be treated this way, so they can avoid responsibility.
For example, the managers at Akron worked in a formalized organization setting with relatively little participation in decision making, and yet they were highly motivated. However, such an approach is extremely difficult to adopt in service related organizations. Two of these performed the relatively certain task of manufacturing standardized containers on high-speed, automated production lines. He referred to these opposing motivational methods as Theory X and Theory Y management. In arguing for an approach which emphasizes the fit among task, organization, and people, we are putting to rest the question of which organizational approach—the classical or the participative—is best.