Management Decision A historical view of Douglas McGregor's Theory Y Charles M. Carson

To cite this document: Charles M. Carson, (2005),"A historical view of Douglas McGregor's Theory Y", Management Decision, Vol. 43 Iss 3 pp. 450 - 460 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740510589814 MD 43,3 A historical view of Douglas McGregor’s Theory Y Charles M. Carson 450 School of Business, Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama, USA

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to trace Douglas McGregor’s Theory Y thinking back from pre-industrial revolution philosophers up through McGregor and his contemporaries and to explore how Theory Y evolved after its introduction. Design/methodology/approach – This is a review article relying on literature reviews and synthesizing concepts and ideas from related sources. Findings – This article examines the emergence of Theory Y as one of the hallmark relationship management principles of the last half of the 20th century. McGregor stands in a unique place in management history. He has one foot in the early human relations movement, and another foot in the movement of scholars who advocated a heightened awareness of management’s responsibility for the human side of employer-employee relations. McGregor serves as a true facilitator for growth and advancement in the field of management, in general, and human relations, in particular. Originality/value – This paper holds value to management scholars and practitioners in its utility as a means of tracing the evolution of one of the most important management concepts of the last half of the 20th century. While it may lack in originality (a flaw in many historical reviews) it certainly addresses important issues and provides a path for understanding the development of a key management concept (Theory Y). Keywords Management history, Management theory Paper type General review

Douglas McGregor introduced us to Theory X and Theory Y in his 1960 book, The Human Side of Enterprise. In this book, he details the characteristics of managers who deal with employees with Theory X and Theory Y points of view and lists the qualities that contribute to both ways of thinking. Managers who make Theory X assumptions believe that employees dislike and attempt to avoid work, need direction, avoid responsibility, and lack ambition. In contrast, managers who make Theory Y assumptions believe that employees do not dislike work, have self-control and direction, and seek responsibility (McGregor, 1960). As we will see, McGregor did not originate these ideas; he just made them easy for practitioners to use and implement in their work environments. This paper traces Theory Y thinking back from pre-industrial revolution philosophers up through McGregor and his contemporaries and concludes with a brief look at how Theory Y evolved after its introduction. McGregor trumpeted the values of Theory Y thinking and I will attempt to detail how his work was influenced by the ideas and research of others. Theory X and Theory Y served as a true benchmark for the human relations movement and Theory Y emerged as one of the Management Decision Vol. 43 No. 3, 2005 pp. 450-460 The author would like to thank William L. Gardner for his very helpful comments on an earlier q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0025-1747 draft of this paper. Much of the work on this paper was done while the author was a doctoral DOI 10.1108/00251740510589814 student at the University of Mississippi. hallmark relationship management principles of the last half of the 20th century. Douglas Because McGregor, and subsequent scholars and practitioners, chose to promote McGregor’s Theory Y assumptions, it is the emphasis of this paper. This decision is not a dismissal of Theory X. Businesses borrowed the command and control model from the military Theory Y over 100 years ago (Drucker, 1988). Such principles often became operational in a manner consistent with Theory X. For the most part, this approach worked, largely due to employees’ willingness to accept the dictates of management. Power and 451 position factors that the worker could not begin to overcome until the turn of the 20th century contributed to their plight. Still, management philosophers like Max Weber (1947) continued to promote ideas that included similarities to Theory X style management in his works. Weber described a bureaucratic form of organization that emphasized the merits of authority relationships. Authority was the basis of employees’ position along the chain of command and they had not only to answer to authority figures above them, but also assume responsibility for the actions of those below them. What McGregor described as Theory X assumptions, the need for employees’ actions to be scrutinized and controlled, can be found in Weber’s notion of bureaucracy. Theory X has survived and even thrived in some companies and industries, but the majority of today’s practitioners and scholars attempt to use and promote the softer approach to management that Theory Y postulates. This paper is organized into three main sections. First, the Early Foundations of Theory Y Thinking including the scientific management movement are examined. Second, the Growth of the Human Relations Movement, the implications of the Social Gospel, and the influence of the Hawthorne Studies, are considered. Finally, McGregor’s contributions in advancing Theory Y, and the contributions of his contemporaries and successors are discussed.

Early foundations of Theory Y Philosophers such as Locke (1690) and Smith (1776) introduced ideas that provided a solid foundation for the emergence of Theory Y thinking. Their works encouraged individual expression and accomplishment. Locke’s core philosophy was founded on “a law based on reason, not arbitrary dictates; a government deriving its powers from the governed; liberty to pursue individual goals as a natural right; and private property and its use in the pursuit of happiness as a natural and legally protected right” (Wren, 1994, p. 30). The common thread between each of these four ideas is their focus on the individual. Locke places the responsibility of power, liberty, and legal matters at a personal level in much the same way that McGregor urged managers to have faith in the individual employee. McGregor encouraged employers to give their employees responsibility and to allow them to have the freedom to do their jobs. In a similar view, Smith’s liberal economics advanced an era of less government interjection and control. Government interjection and control speak directly to the third Theory X assumption that McGregor identified: “The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, wants security above all” (McGregor, 1960, p. 34). Smith wanted no part of this type of control and influence. By calling for a freer market with more competition, Smith championed the individual’s decision-making ability in the same way that McGregor did with the second Theory Y assumption he identified: “External control and the threat of punishment are not the only means for bringing about effort toward organizational MD objectives. Man will exercise self-direction and self-control in the service of objectives 43,3 to which he is committed” (McGregor, 1960, p. 47). Owen (1857) saw the value of the individual worker and expressed his beliefs in writing and in practice. Owen felt that employers were neglecting their most valuable asset, the human resource. He attempted to improve working conditions, legislate child labor, improve economic conditions of the poor, and remedy unemployment problems. 452 Owen’s concern for the welfare of his employees parallels McGregor who said, “the implications following from Theory Y are that the organization is likely to suffer if it ignores these personal needs and goals” (McGregor, 1960, p. 51). By attempting to improve worker conditions and consider the human element, Owen takes the first incremental steps towards true Theory Y thinking, and blazed a trail for many others to follow. Henry Varnum Poor was an early advocate of a Theory X type emphasis on the organizational bureaucracy structure founded on order and discipline. Poor saw, where the railroad industry was headed down the same Theory X style management track of the military and government (Wren, 1994). He had always stressed responsibility and accountability, but he soon realized that those elements were only parts of the management equation. Poor urged for the reform of management practices in the railroad industry (Chandler, 1956). He proposed a change in leadership style that would be energizing, encouraging, and unifying and would filter down to the whole organization. According to Poor, “Wherever there is lack of unity there will be a lack of energy-of intelligence-of life-of accountability and subordination” (Chandler, 1956, p 157). Poor identified the need to be able to deal with people as well as create a unity in the organization’s operations – fundamental ideas that McGregor would incorporate into Theory Y over half a century later.

Frederick Taylor Scientific management has played an integral role in management history, in general, and the human relations movement, in particular. Frederick Taylor, the father of scientific management, was often unfairly labeled as being unfriendly towards the cause of the worker. Taylor’s goal was to get the most out of employees, but he did so in a manner that was fair and with the workers’ interests in mind. McGregor articulated similar views in the first Theory Y assumption he identified: “The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest” (McGregor, 1960, p. 47). Taylor often felt the criticisms of union leaders and even the United States Congress, who chastised him for his scientific management principles, which were seen as too strict or binding (United States House of Representatives, 1912). Taylor (1911) proposed a complete mental revolution to produce a high level of cooperation between employee and employer, which, in turn, would lead to increased productivity and rewards for the employee. This “level of cooperation” was much akin to the integration that Follett and McGregor advocated in the years to follow. Taylor solidified his beliefs by stating “The principal object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee” (Taylor, 1911, p. 7). Taylor takes further steps toward full Theory Y thinking, but does not quite get all the way there. He does not advocate increasing worker responsibility and discretion, but when taken as a whole, Taylor’s contributions do support Theory Y style management. The growth of the human relations movement Douglas After the turn of the 20th century, employers increasingly saw the need and benefit of McGregor’s welfare work or industrial betterment (Wren, 1994). This movement transformed into personnel work and eventually evolved into today’s human resource management. The Theory Y purpose of such departments was to better integrate employees into companies while providing services to them. The increased attention given to the employees by their employer was a good way to reach out and let the worker know that they were valued 453 and their welfare was a concern of the company (Wren, 1994). McGregor made similar conclusions about the need for management to be concerned with the welfare of its employees when he spoke of putting Theory Y into practice (McGregor, 1960). Additionally, McGregor states, “The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept but to seek responsibility” (McGregor, 1960, p. 48). As the human relations movement grew, organizations continued to see the need to provide their employees with these “proper conditions” that would support growth and responsibility in their workforce. Munsterberg (1913), an advocate of scientific management, also emphasized the importance of the human factor in decision-making and management. Known as the creator of industrial psychology, he sought to discover ways to identify the best job for a person’s mental capabilities, the psychological conditions that produced the greatest and most satisfactory output from employees, and how to tap into human needs to produce the most benefit for a company (Wren, 1994). McGregor’s and Munsterberg’s ideas have undeniable similarities. When he identified the sixth Theory Y assumption McGregor stated that, “Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average human being are only partially utilized” (McGregor, 1960, p. 48). While not endorsing all of the characteristics of a Theory Y manager, Munsterberg does add another facet to Theory Y type thinking that had previously not been expanded upon. Both Munsterberg and McGregor identified the need for employers to examine mental factors as they relate to the employee.

The Social Gospel The Social Gospel, which sought to reform social and economic conditions through industrial betterment and welfare work (Wren, 1994), was a turning point for Theory Y thinking. Proponents like Williams (1920) espoused the benefits of treating employees fairly and promoting their worth to the company. He even went so far as to leave his management position and become a worker in his own company. His goal was to determine what made the industrial worker function and operate in order to provide executives better ways to manage and lead employees. Many scholars and practitioners felt that all that mattered to the employee was their pay. Williams felt differently, and set out to prove his beliefs. Williams found that through proper leadership, management could provide employees with a sense of worth through their jobs. Employees would then become better motivated, and likely more productive (Williams, 1923). This aspect to motivation was echoed when McGregor identified the second Theory Y assumption: “External control and the threat of punishment are not the only means for bringing about effort toward organizational objectives. Man will exercise self-direction and self-control in the service of objectives to which he is committed” (McGregor, 1960, p. 30). Williams and other believers in the Social Gospel discovered that the fusion between management goals and employee needs was a noble MD and achievable task. This fusion directly relates to McGregor’s call for integration 43,3 between employer and employee goals, which is discussed in the next section. Mary Parker Follett Mary Parker Follett advocated three concepts that were very much in line with Theory Y. First, she was a proponent of integration in all business activities. Employees must 454 be seen as completing parts of a business enterprise. Unity among labor and management was of extreme importance (Follett, 1924). Follett felt deeply that the manager and the managed must have a sense of a common purpose (Wren, 1994). McGregor echoed this call for integration, saying that Theory Y’s central principal was, in fact, integration. He further stated that integration is “the creation of conditions such that the members of the organization can achieve their own goals best by directing their efforts toward the success of the enterprise” (McGregor, 1960, p. 49). Additionally, McGregor says “that the organization will be more effective in achieving its economic objectives if adjustments are made, in significant ways, to the needs and goals of its members” (McGregor, 1960, p. 50). Second, Follett saw the need to “develop ‘power-with’ instead of ‘power-over’ and ‘co-action’ to replace consent and coercion” (Wren, 1994, p. 260). This bears a remarkable resemblance to the concerns McGregor expressed in The Human Side of Enterprise. Working with someone was seen in a much more favorable light than working for or under someone (Wren, 1994). Finally, Follett detailed a third plank in her social person platform. Control and coordination were necessary to meet commonly decided upon goals (Gulick and Urwick, 1937). These employee-geared approaches helped Follett bridge the gap between scientific management concepts and the Hawthorne Studies that followed (Daiute, 1964).

The Hawthorne Studies The Hawthorne Studies started as workplace illumination experiments and evolved into a series of studies on the effects of human relations oriented management. At the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric, researchers such as George Pennock, Turner (1933), Homer Hibarger, Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939) and Mayo (1933) attempted to uncover the reasons for the increased production in the plant’s test rooms. Several reasons were postulated to account for the increases: size of the work group, style of supervision, attention given to test subjects, uniqueness of the experiments, and interviews by the researchers that allowed employees to air grievances and concerns. One thing became clear – managers had to become better at dealing with their employees through improved interpersonal and communication skills. Employees wanted to be treated with consideration and a personal touch and not like the machines they worked on. The human-relations-oriented manager would foster the integration that Follett (1924) and McGregor, after her, championed, in order to achieve organizational objectives (Wren, 1994). McGregor solidified a complimentary view of the Hawthorne researchers by identifying management’s second Theory Y assumption. “External control and the threat of punishment are not the only means for bringing about effort toward organizational objectives. Man will exercise self-direction and self-control in the service of objectives to which he is committed” (McGregor, 1960, p. 47). The Hawthorne researchers were able to elicit the commitment that McGregor sought through their human relations oriented management techniques. Abraham Maslow Douglas Following the completion of the Hawthorne Studies, many scholars and researchers McGregor’s began to delve deeper into motivation and the meeting of human needs. No one was more prevalent in this area than Abraham Maslow. Murray’s work (1938) served as a strong Theory Y influence on Maslow. Murray also discussed man’s attempt to satisfy his needs. Murray identified 20 needs that human beings attempt to satisfy. These manifest needs included: abasement, achievement, affiliation, aggression, autonomy, counteraction, 455 deference, defendance, dominance, exhibition, harmavoidance, infavoidance/inviolacy, nurturance, order, play, rejection, seclusion, sentience, sex, succorance, superiority, and understanding. Maslow refined Murray’s list and produced five basic sets of needs. Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs included psychological, safety, love, esteem, and self-actualization. Although the ultimate goal is self-actualization, it cannot be reached until each of the lower level needs is met. Again, this was re-iterated by McGregor: “The most significant of such rewards, e.g. the satisfaction of ego and self-actualization needs, can be direct products of effort directed toward organizational objectives” (McGregor, 1960, p. 48). McGregor’s call for integration between organizational and individual needs also ties to Maslow’s work. The quest for self-actualization led people to be the best they could be. Awareness of the drive for individual self-fulfillment led companies to take a long look at how their employees were managed, motivated, and led.

Gardner and Moore Gardner and Moore (1955) foreshadowed many of McGregor’s concepts in their book Human Relations in Industry. The authors observe, “To the average person, some of the most important elements in the job and work situation are the interpersonal relations. The boss or bosses, the people he works with, all those he must contact – all may add or detract from his satisfaction at work. And in this area, the interplay of personalities becomes especially important” (Gardner and Moore, 1955, p. 384). It is the charge of managers to foster and nurture their employees in order to help them achieve a high level of on the job contentment not only through interpersonal relationships, but also through stimulating work. Gardner and Moore also spoke to the integration that McGregor, and Follett before him advocated. Employers must be able reconcile the need to have productive, challenged workers and the employees need for social interaction among their fellow employees. “What unity does exist in the business literally grows out to the social and psychological meaning ascribed by human beings to the activities and relationships in which they are engaged. In other words, a business organization in the usual view is an organization only because a social system develops in and around business activities. Thus, the social system is not just an excrescence, and interesting, but relatively unimportant aspect of the business organization; it is the organization” (Gardner and Moore, 1955, pp. 164-5). Gardner and Moore reinforce Follett and McGregor’s concept of integration by talking about the exchange relationship that exists between management and their employees. Management communicates demands to employees and the employees, in turn, communicate demands back to management. Employee demands are based on family and community demands, social norms, and personal subjective needs and interests such as compelling, enriched jobs (Gardner and Moore, 1955). Again, the integration of employer - employee goals must be complete before the exchange relationship can be consummated. MD McGregor and his contemporaries 43,3 Chris Argyris Argyris (1957) served to reinforce the work of Maslow by presenting a classification of needs that was similar to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The first classification was between inner and outer needs. Argyris stated that, “The inner needs are more basic and vital. Whereas the inner needs give us a cue of what the person is; outer needs tell 456 us what the person does” (Argyris, 1957, p. 32). Argyris then talks about needs we may or may not be aware of. Conscious needs are needs that we know exist; we recognize them and their importance in our lives. Unconscious needs are needs that we are not aware of; they are normally our inner most needs. Next, he defines social needs as those needs that a culture aids in instilling. Most cultures place varying emphasis on inner and outer needs and attempt to determine which needs matter most to them. Finally, he mentions our basic physiological needs, which include food, shelter, and movement. Argyris’ ideas also functioned as a precursor to McGregor’s work on Theory X and Theory Y. Argyris felt that there was, “a basic incongruency between the needs of a mature personality (as classified above) and the requirements of formal organizations” (Argyris, 1957, p. 66). Formal organizations are defined to include task specialization, chain of command, unity of direction, and span of control. When all of these elements of an organizational form are present, it leads to a work setting, where employees are “provided minimal control over their workday world, are expected to be passive, dependent, and subordinate, are expected to have a short time perspective, are induced to perfect and value the frequent use of a few skin-surface shallow abilities, and are expected to produce under conditions leading to psychological failures” (Argyris, 1957, p. 66). Argyris identified these Theory X-style characteristics as being incompatible to the needs of a mature employee: needs very similar to those that Maslow before, and McGregor after, felt necessary for all employees to satisfy.

Frederick Herzberg Herzberg et al. (1959) took a different route in studying worker motivation. They asked workers to identify when they felt exceptionally good or exceptionally bad about their jobs (Herzberg et al., 1959). From their work they developed the two-factor theory, which details differing causes for job satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Schermerhorn et al., 2000). The first of the two factors is hygiene. The hygiene factors “relate more to the environment in which people work than to the nature of the work itself” (Schermerhorn et al., 2000, p. 114). Hygiene factors affect job dissatisfaction. Closely related to Theory Y assumptions are Herzberg’s motivator factors, which affect job satisfaction. Herzberg found that when these motivators, such as sense of achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, advancement, and growth are added to employees’ jobs, they are more satisfied with their job and more productive. McGregor identified six Theory Y assumptions that managers make, if those assumptions are placed directly opposite Herzberg’s six motivator factors, the similarities become clear. McGregor said the average human being does not dislike work; Herzberg says work itself is a motivator factor. Theory Y says that command and control is not the only way to motivate workers. Self-direction and control is present when workers are committed to company objectives. Herzberg found that recognition affects job satisfaction. According to Theory Y assumptions, “Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement” (McGregor, 1960, p. 47). In a Douglas similar vein, Herzberg and associates identify achievement as a primary job context McGregor’s motivator factor. Theory Y thinking goes on to say that the average human accepts and even seeks responsibility. Herzberg, likewise, lists responsibility as a source of Theory Y worker motivation. McGregor identified that the ability to solve problems was not a unique skill in organizational settings. Without these problem-solving restrictions, advancement, as defined by Herzberg was possible. Finally, Theory Y states that, 457 “Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average human being are only partially utilized” (McGregor, 1960, p. 48). Herzberg and colleagues simplify matters and state that growth is a motivator factor that affects job satisfaction. Herzberg and his associates identified these factors and McGregor’s Theory Y gives additional credence to their findings.

Rensis Likert Likert (1967) had the benefit of McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y before he detailed four management systems or styles of management. Likert defined each system along six main organizational variables that he labeled operating characteristics. These operating characteristics are: leadership process used, character of motivational forces, character of communication process, character of interaction-influence process, character of decision-making process, character of goal setting or ordering, character of control processes (Likert, 1967). Each of these main variables contains sub-variables that provide more detailed descriptions of the main variable in question. Each of the four systems is measured and projected across all main and sub-variables. The interesting element to Likert’s systems is the extent to which they are congruent with McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y. System 1 reads like a detailed description of manager’s Theory X assumptions. Supervisors have no confidence and trust in subordinates. Subordinates do not feel at all free to discuss things about the job with their superior. The supervisor seldom gets ideas and opinions of subordinates in solving job problems. Motivation is managed through fear, threats, punishment, and occasional rewards. Rank and file employees feel little responsibility for achieving the organization’s goals. There is very little interaction and communication aimed at achieving the organization’s objectives. Information flows downward and is viewed with great suspicion. The information that is communicated upward tends to be inaccurate. Superiors have no knowledge of understanding of problems of subordinates. There is little interaction between management and the employees, and what interaction is there is done with fear and distrust. There is no cooperative teamwork present. Decision makers who are either unaware or only partially aware of lower level problems make the bulk of the decisions at the top of the organization. Technical and professional knowledge is used in decision-making only if possessed at higher levels. Subordinates are not involved in decisions related to their work, which leads to little or not motivation for the employees to implement the decision. Goal setting orders are issued and overtly accepted, but covertly resisted strongly. The review and control functions are highly concentrated in top management. There is an informal organization present that opposes the goals of the formal organization. Control data are used for policing and punitive means instead of self-guidance or group problem solving (Likert, 1967). MD If the same variables are followed across to system 4, management’s actions 43,3 become increasingly similar to the Theory Y assumptions that McGregor outlined. Supervisors have complete confidence and trust in subordinates. Subordinates feel completely free to discuss things about the job with their superior. The supervisor always gets ideas and opinions of subordinates in solving job problems and tries to make constructive use of them. Motivation is managed through economic 458 rewards based on a compensation system developed through participation. Personnel at all levels feel real responsibility for organization’s goal and behave in ways to implement those goals. There is much interaction and communication aimed at achieving the organization’s objectives. Information flows down, up, between peers, and is generally accepted or candidly questioned. The information that is communicated upward is accurate. Superiors know and understand the problems of subordinates very well. There is extensive, friendly interaction between management and the employees that is done with a high degree of confidence and trust. There is substantial cooperative teamwork present throughout the organization. Decisions are made throughout the organization, and with consideration and awareness of the problems of lower level employees. Technical and professional knowledge is used in decision-making no matter at what level the knowledge originates. Subordinates are involved fully in decisions related to their work, which leads to substantial motivation for the employees to implement the decision. Goal setting is established by means of group participation – except in emergencies. The goals that are set are followed overtly and covertly. The review and control functions are quite widespread. Informal and formal organizations are one and the same. All social forces support efforts to achieve the organization’s goals. Control data are used for self-guidance or group problem solving (Likert, 1967). Likert felt System 4 was management’s optimal alternative much the same way that McGregor saw Theory Y as a more viable solution than Theory X. Douglas McGregor was clearly influenced by Maslow and Argyris. Although their theories are very similar, McGregor and Herzberg appear to have taken separate paths to the same resolution. Likert’s System 1 and System 4 bear remarkable similarities to Theory X and Theory Y, respectively. What set McGregor apart from his contemporaries was his ability to re-introduce these ideas in a manner that both academicians and practitioners found appealing. Theory X and Theory Y created self-fulfilling prophecies. Theory Y summarized that if employees were treated well at work, and were given responsibility they responded positively, the converse of this was Theory X (Schermerhorn et al., 2000). McGregor’s ability to articulate these thoughts and ideas and integrate them with the previous discoveries of others yielded additional credibility for his findings. McGregor stands in a unique place in management history. He has one foot in the early human relations movement and another foot in the movement of scholars who advocated a heightened awareness of management’s responsibility for the human side of employer-employee relations. McGregor serves as a true facilitator for growth and advancement in the field of management, in general, and human relations, in particular. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper, it may prove useful to take a brief look at where the field of management headed after McGregor crystallized Theory X and Theory Y. His work seemed to energize the field of management and spurred a Douglas cluster of Theory Y based concepts. Theory Y bore such fruits as self-directed work McGregor’s teams, self-management, job enrichment, and empowerment, to name a few. Each of these concepts takes a bow to McGregor’s concept of giving employees more Theory Y responsibility and watching them flourish. McGregor’s work provided the impetus for the continuing momentum of the Human Relations Movement in the middle of the 20th century. 459

References Argyris, C. (1957), Personality and Organization, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Chandler, A.D. Jr (1956), Henry Varnum Poor: Business Editor, Analyst, and Reformer, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Daiute, R.J. (1964), Scientific Management and Human Relations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY. Drucker, P.F. (1988), “The coming of the new organization”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66, pp. 45-53. Follett, M.P. (1924), Creative Experience, Longmans, Green and Co., London. Gardner, B.B. and Moore, D.M. (1955), Human Relations in Industry, 4th ed., Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL. Gulick, L. and Urwick, L. (Eds) (1937), Papers on the Science of Administration, Columbia University, New York, NY. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B.B. (1959), The Motivation to Work, Wiley, New York, NY. Likert, R. (1967), The Human Organization: Its Management and Value, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY. Locke, J. (1690), Second Essay Concerning Civil Government. Maslow, A.H. (1943), “A theory of human motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 50, pp. 370-96. Mayo, E. (1933), The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization, Macmillan Co., New York, NY. McGregor, D.M. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY. Munsterberg, H. (1913), Psychology and Industrial Efficiency, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Murray, H.A. (1938), Explorations in Personality, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Owen, R. (1857), The Life of Robert Owen, Effingham Wilson, London. Roethlisberger, F.J. and Dickson, W.J. (1939), Management and the Worker, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Schermerhorn, J.R., Hunt, J.G. and Osborn, R.N. (2000), Organizational Behavior, 4th ed., Wiley, New York, NY. Smith, A. (1776), An Inquiry Into the Natural Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Taylor, F.W. (1911), The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Turner, C.E. (1933), “Test room studies in employee effectiveness”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 23, pp. 577-84. United States House of Representatives (1912), Hearings before Special Committee or the House of Representatives to Investigate the Taylor and Other Systems of Shop Management, under authority of House Resolution 90, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. MD Weber, M. (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Organization,translatedby 43,3 Henderson, A.M. and Parsons, T., (Eds), Free Press, New York, NY. Williams, W. (1920), What’s on the Worker’s Mind? By One Who Put on Overalls to Find Out, Charles Scriber’s Sons, New York, NY. Williams, W. (1923), “Theory of industrial conduct and leadership”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 1, pp. 322-30. 460 Wren, D.A. (1994), The Evolution of Management Thought, 4th ed., Wiley, New York, NY.

Further reading Matteson, M.T. and Ivancevich, J.M. (Eds) (1977), Management Classics, Goodyear Publishing Co., Santa Monica, CA. 10. Takao InamoriDepartment of Development and Economic Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK Farhad AnalouiDepartment of Development and Economic Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK Nada KakabadseNorthampton Business School, University of Northampton, Northampton, UK. 2011. Can perceptual differences account for managerial success?. Management Research Review 35:1, 32-51. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 11. Erwin RauschTravis L. RussSchool of Business Administration, Fordham University, New York, New York, USA. 2011. Theory X/Y assumptions as predictors of managers' propensity for participative decision making. Management Decision 49:5, 823-836. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 12. Richard E. KopelmanDepartment of Management, Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, New York, New York, USA David J. ProttasDepartment of Management, Marketing, and Decision Sciences, Adelphi University, Garden City, New York, USA David W. FalkDepartment of Management, Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, New York, New York, USA. 2010. Construct validation of a Theory X/Y behavior scale. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 31:2, 120-135. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 13. Kouroush Jenab, Selva StaubSuccessful Implementation of Six Sigma Considering Management Styles 59-76. [CrossRef] Downloaded by Harvard University At 13:57 07 August 2016 (PT)