Management Decision

A historical view of Douglas McGregor's Theory Y

Charles M. Carson
Article information:
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
Downloaded by University of Massachusetts Amherst At 05:34 16 February 2016 (PT)

Downloaded on: 16 February 2016, At: 05:34 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 27 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 13065 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Richard E. Kopelman, David J. Prottas, David W. Falk, (2010),"Construct validation of a Theory X/Y
behavior scale", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 Iss 2 pp. 120-135 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731011024385
Travis L. Russ, (2011),"Theory X/Y assumptions as predictors of managers' propensity
for participative decision making", Management Decision, Vol. 49 Iss 5 pp. 823-836 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741111130887
Peter F. Sorensen, Matt Minahan, (2011),"McGregor's legacy: the evolution and current application
of Theory Y management", Journal of Management History, Vol. 17 Iss 2 pp. 178-192 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17511341111112587

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:384956 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

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
Downloaded by University of Massachusetts Amherst At 05:34 16 February 2016 (PT)

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

Management Decision
Vol. 43 No. 3, 2005
pp. 450-460
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0025-1747
DOI 10.1108/00251740510589814
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
The author would like to thank William L. Gardner for his very helpful comments on an earlier
draft of this paper. Much of the work on this paper was done while the author was a doctoral
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
Downloaded by University of Massachusetts Amherst At 05:34 16 February 2016 (PT)

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
to which he is committed” (McGregor, 1960, p. 47).
43,3 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
Downloaded by University of Massachusetts Amherst At 05:34 16 February 2016 (PT)

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
Downloaded by University of Massachusetts Amherst At 05:34 16 February 2016 (PT)

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
Downloaded by University of Massachusetts Amherst At 05:34 16 February 2016 (PT)

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
Downloaded by University of Massachusetts Amherst At 05:34 16 February 2016 (PT)

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
Downloaded by University of Massachusetts Amherst At 05:34 16 February 2016 (PT)

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
Downloaded by University of Massachusetts Amherst At 05:34 16 February 2016 (PT)

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
Downloaded by University of Massachusetts Amherst At 05:34 16 February 2016 (PT)

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.
Downloaded by University of Massachusetts Amherst At 05:34 16 February 2016 (PT)

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, translated by
Henderson, A.M. and Parsons, T., (Eds), Free Press, New York, NY.
43,3 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.
Downloaded by University of Massachusetts Amherst At 05:34 16 February 2016 (PT)
 This article has been cited by:

1. Madeline Crocitto. 2015. Learning from the past to envision the future: a five-year review 2005-2009.
Journal of Management History 21:4, 453-493. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. H. Kristl Davison, Jack Smothers. 2015. How Theory X style of management arose from a fundamental
attribution error. Journal of Management History 21:2, 210-231. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. M. Ronald Buckley, John E. Baur, Jay H. Hardy, III, James F. Johnson, Genevieve Johnson, Alexandra
E. MacDougall, Christopher G. Banford, Zhanna Bagdasarov, David R. Peterson, Juandre Peacock. 2015.
Management lore continues alive and well in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management History
21:1, 68-97. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Sait Gürbüz, Faruk Şahin, Onur Köksal. 2014. Revisiting of Theory X and Y. Management Decision 52:10,
1888-1906. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by University of Massachusetts Amherst At 05:34 16 February 2016 (PT)

5. Kouroush Jenab, Selva Staub. 2014. Analyzing Management Style and Successful Implementation of Six
Sigma. International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences 3:10.4018/IJSDS.20120701, 13-23. [CrossRef]
6. James Baba Abugre. 2014. Job Satisfaction of Public Sector Employees in Sub-Saharan Africa: Testing
the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire in Ghana. International Journal of Public Administration 37,
655-665. [CrossRef]
7. Travis L. Russ. 2013. The relationship between Theory X/Y: assumptions and communication
apprehension. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 34:3, 238-249. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
8. Elise Marescaux, Sophie De Winne, Luc Sels. 2012. HR practices and HRM outcomes: the role of basic
need satisfaction. Personnel Review 42:1, 4-27. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Takao Inamori, Farhad Analoui, Nada Kakabadse. 2011. Can perceptual differences account for managerial
success?. Management Research Review 35:1, 32-51. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Travis L. Russ. 2011. Theory X/Y assumptions as predictors of managers' propensity for participative
decision making. Management Decision 49:5, 823-836. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Richard E. Kopelman, David J. Prottas, David W. Falk. 2010. Construct validation of a Theory X/Y
behavior scale. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 31:2, 120-135. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
12. Kouroush Jenab, Selva StaubSuccessful Implementation of Six Sigma Considering Management Styles
59-76. [CrossRef]