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).