McGregor Maslow Herzberg

douglas mcgregor - theory x y

Douglas McGregor's XY Theory, managing an X Theory boss, andWilliam Ouchi's Theory Z

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

McGregor's X-Y theory is a salutary and simple reminder of the natural rules for managing people, which under the pressure of day-to-day business are all too easily forgotten.

McGregor's ideas suggest that there are two fundamental approaches to managing people. Many managers tend towards theory x, and generally get poor results. Enlightened managers use theory y, which produces better performance and results, and allows people to grow and develop.

McGregor's ideas significantly relate to modern understanding of the Psychological Contract, which provides many ways to appreciate the unhelpful nature of X-Theory leadership, and the useful constructive beneficial nature of Y-Theory leadership.

Theory x ('authoritarian management' style)

• The average person dislikes work and will avoid it he/she can.
• Therefore most people must be forced with the threat of punishment to work towards organisational objectives.
• The average person prefers to be directed; to avoid responsibility; is relatively unambitious, and wants security above all else.

Theory y ('participative management' style)

• Effort in work is as natural as work and play.
• People will apply self-control and self-direction in the pursuit of organisational objectives, without external control or the threat of punishment.
• Commitment to objectives is a function of rewards associated with their achievement.
• People usually accept and often seek responsibility.
• The capacity to use a high degree of imagination, ingenuity and creativity in solving organisational problems is widely, not narrowly, distributed in the population.
• In industry the intellectual potential of the average person is only partly utilised.
  
  

tools for teaching, understanding and evaluating xy theory factors

The XY Theory diagram and measurement tool below (pdf and doc versions) are adaptations of McGregor's ideas for modern organizations, management and work. They were not created by McGregor. I developed them to help understanding and application of McGregor's XY Theory concept. The test is a simple reflective tool, not a scientifically validated instrument; it's a learning aid and broad indicator. Please use it as such.

free XY Theory diagram (pdf)

free XY Theory diagram (doc version)

free XY Theory test tool - personal and organizational - (pdf)

free XY Theory test tool - personal and organizational - (doc version)

same free XY Theory test tool - two-page version with clearer layout and scoring - (pdf)

same free XY Theory test tool - two-page version with clearer layout and scoring - (doc version)

characteristics of the x theory manager

Perhaps the most noticeable aspects of McGregor's XY Theory - and the easiest to illustrate - are found in the behaviours of autocratic managers and organizations which use autocratic management styles.

What are the characteristics of a Theory X manager? Typically some, most or all of these:

• results-driven and deadline-driven, to the exclusion of everything else
• intolerant
• issues deadlines and ultimatums
• distant and detached
• aloof and arrogant
• elitist
• short temper
• shouts
• issues instructions, directions, edicts
• issues threats to make people follow instructions
• demands, never asks
• does not participate
• does not team-build
• unconcerned about staff welfare, or morale
• proud, sometimes to the point of self-destruction
• one-way communicator
• poor listener
• fundamentally insecure and possibly neurotic
• anti-social
• vengeful and recriminatory
• does not thank or praise
• withholds rewards, and suppresses pay and remunerations levels
• scrutinises expenditure to the point of false economy
• seeks culprits for failures or shortfalls
• seeks to apportion blame instead of focusing on learning from the experience and preventing recurrence
• does not invite or welcome suggestions
• takes criticism badly and likely to retaliate if from below or peer group
• poor at proper delegating - but believes they delegate well
• thinks giving orders is delegating
• holds on to responsibility but shifts accountability to subordinates
• relatively unconcerned with investing in anything to gain future improvements
• unhappy
  
  

how to manage upwards - managing your X theory boss

Working for an X theory boss isn't easy - some extreme X theory managers make extremely unpleasant managers, but there are ways of managing these people upwards. Avoiding confrontation (unless you are genuinely being bullied, which is a different matter) and delivering results are the key tactics.

• Theory X managers (or indeed theory Y managers displaying theory X behaviour) are primarily results oriented - so orientate your your own discussions and dealings with them around results - ie what you can deliver and when.
• Theory X managers are facts and figures oriented - so cut out the incidentals, be able to measure and substantiate anything you say and do for them, especially reporting on results and activities.
• Theory X managers generally don't understand or have an interest in the human issues, so don't try to appeal to their sense of humanity or morality. Set your own objectives to meet their organisational aims and agree these with the managers; be seen to be self-starting, self-motivating, self-disciplined and well-organised - the more the X theory manager sees you are managing yourself and producing results, the less they'll feel the need to do it for you.
• Always deliver your commitments and promises. If you are given an unrealistic task and/or deadline state the reasons why it's not realistic, but be very sure of your ground, don't be negative; be constructive as to how the overall aim can be achieved in a way that you know you can deliver.
• Stand up for yourself, but constructively - avoid confrontation. Never threaten or go over their heads if you are dissatisfied or you'll be in big trouble afterwards and life will be a lot more difficult.
• If an X theory boss tells you how to do things in ways that are not comfortable or right for you, then don't questioning the process, simply confirm the end-result that is required, and check that it's okay to 'streamline the process' or 'get things done more efficiently' if the chance arises - they'll normally agree to this, which effectively gives you control over the 'how', provided you deliver the 'what' and 'when'.

And this is really the essence of managing upwards X theory managers - focus and get agreement on the results and deadlines - if you consistently deliver, you'll increasingly be given more leeway on how you go about the tasks, which amounts to more freedom. Be aware also that many X theory managers are forced to be X theory by the short-term demands of the organisation and their own superiors - an X theory manager is usually someone with their own problems, so try not to give them any more.

maslow's hierarchy of needs

Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs motivational model

maslow's hierarchy of needs

Each of us is motivated by needs. Our most basic needs are inborn, having evolved over tens of thousands of years. Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs helps to explain how these needs motivate us all.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs states that we must satisfy each need in turn, starting with the first, which deals with the most obvious needs for survival itself.

Only when the lower order needs of physical and emotional well-being are satisfied are we concerned with the higher order needs of influence and personal development.

Conversely, if the things that satisfy our lower order needs are swept away, we are no longer concerned about the maintenance of our higher order needs.

Maslow's original Hierarchy of Needs model was developed between 1943-1954, and first widely published in Motivation and Personality in 1954. At this time the Hierarchy of Needs model comprised five needs. This original version remains for most people the definitive Hierarchy of Needs.

maslow's self-actualizing characteristics

• keen sense of reality - aware of real situations - objective judgement, rather than subjective
• see problems in terms of challenges and situations requiring solutions, rather than see problems as personal complaints or excuses
• need for privacy and comfortable being alone
• reliant on own experiences and judgement - independent - not reliant on culture and environment to form opinions and views
• not susceptible to social pressures - non-conformist
• democratic, fair and non-discriminating - embracing and enjoying all cultures, races and individual styles
• socially compassionate - possessing humanity
• accepting others as they are and not trying to change people
• comfortable with oneself - despite any unconventional tendencies
• a few close intimate friends rather than many surface relationships
• sense of humour directed at oneself or the human condition, rather than at the expense of others
• spontaneous and natural - true to oneself, rather than being how others want
• excited and interested in everything, even ordinary things
• creative, inventive and original
• seek peak experiences that leave a lasting impression

herzberg's main theory and its significance

Herzberg was the first to show that satisfaction and dissatisfaction at work nearly always arose from different factors, and were not simply opposing reactions to the same factors, as had always previously been (and still now by the unenlightened) believed.

In 1959 Herzberg wrote the following useful little phrase, which helps explain this fundamental part of his theory, i.e., that the factors which motivate people at work are different to and not simply the opposite of the factors which cause dissatisfaction:

"We can expand ... by stating that the job satisfiers deal with the factors involved in doing the job, whereas the job dissatisfiers deal with the factors which define the job context."

Examples of Herzberg's 'hygiene' needs (or maintenance factors) in the workplace are:

• policy
• relationship with supervisor
• work conditions
• salary
• company car
• status
• security
• relationship with subordinates
• personal life

Herzberg's research identified that true motivators were other completely different factors, notably:

• achievement
• recognition
• work itself
• responsibility
• advancement

N.B. Herzberg identified a specific category within the study responses which he called 'possibility of growth'. This arose in relatively few cases within the study and was not considered a major factor by Herzberg. Where referring to 'growth' or 'personal growth' in terms of Herzberg's primary motivators, 'growth' should be seen as an aspect of advancement, and not confused with the different matter of 'possibility of growth'.

Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory
(Two Factor Theory)

To better understand employee attitudes and motivation, Frederick Herzberg performed studies to determine which factors in an employee's work environment caused satisfaction or dissatisfaction. He published his findings in the 1959 book The Motivation to Work.
The studies included interviews in which employees where asked what pleased and displeased them about their work. Herzberg found that the factors causing job satisfaction (and presumably motivation) were different from those causing job dissatisfaction. He developed the motivation-hygiene theory to explain these results. He called the satisfiers motivators and the dissatisfiers hygiene factors, using the term "hygiene" in the sense that they are considered maintenance factors that are necessary to avoid dissatisfaction but that by themselves do not provide satisfaction.
The following table presents the top six factors causing dissatisfaction and the top six factors causing satisfaction, listed in the order of higher to lower importance.

Factors Affecting Job Attitudes

Leading to Dissatisfaction	Leading to Satisfaction
Company policy Supervision Relationship w/Boss Work conditions Salary Relationship w/Peers	Achievement Recognition Work itself Responsibility Advancement Growth

Herzberg reasoned that because the factors causing satisfaction are different from those causing dissatisfaction, the two feelings cannot simply be treated as opposites of one another. The opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, but rather, no satisfaction. Similarly, the opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction.

Team Building

There are many different reasons why companies use team building activities. A small sampling of these reasons include: Improving communication, boosting morale, motivation, ice breakers to help get to know each other better, learning effective strategies, improving productivity, learning about one’s strengths and weaknesses and many others. Team building activities can be used by any business, large or small, to promote better teamwork in the workplace, and as most business owners and managers know, great teamwork is one of the key factors associated with a company’s success.

There are four main types of team building activities, which includes:

1. Communication activities
2. problem solving and/or decision making activities
3. adaptability and/or planning activities 
4. activities that focus on building trust. 

The idea is to perform various activities that are both fun and challenging, and that also have the “side effect” of building teamwork skills that can help improve employee performance and productivity at the office. 

Team building activities:
Communication and Icebreakers

Two Truths and a Lie
Time Required: 15-30 minutes
Start out by having every team member secretly write down two truths about themselves and one lie on a small piece of paper – Do not reveal to anyone what you wrote down! Once each person has completed this step, allow 10-15 minutes for open conversation – much like a cocktail party – where everyone quizzes each other on their three questions. The idea is to convince others that your lie is actually a truth, while on the other hand, you try to guess other people’s truths/lies by asking them questions. Don’t reveal your truths or lie to anyone – even if the majority of the office already has it figured out! After the conversational period, gather in a circle and one by one repeat each one of your three statements and have the group vote on which one they think is the lie. You can play this game competitively and award points for each lie you guess or for stumping other players on your own lie. This game helps to encourage better communication in the office, as well as it lets you get to know your coworkers better.

Life Highlights Game
Time Required: 30 minutes
This is an excellent icebreaker activity that’s perfect for small and large groups alike. Begin by asking each participant to close their eyes for one minute and consider the best moments of their lives. This can include moments they’ve had alone, they’ve shared with family or friends; these moments can pertain to professional successes, personal revelations, or exciting life adventures. After the participants have had a moment to run through highlights of their lives, inform them that their search for highlights is about to be narrowed. Keeping their eyes closed, ask each participant to take a moment to decide what 30 seconds of their life they would want to relive if they only had thirty seconds left in their life. The first part of the activity enables participants to reflect back on their lives, while the second part (which we’ll discuss in a moment) enables them to get to know their coworkers on a more intimate level. The second portion of the game is the “review” section. The leader of the activity will ask each and every participant what their 30 seconds entailed and why they chose it, which will allow participants to get a feel for each other’s passions, loves, and personalities.


Sneak a Peek Game
Time Required: 10 minutes

This problem solving activity requires little more than a couple of sets of children’s building blocks. The instructor will build a small sculpture with some of the building blocks and hide it from the group. The participants should then be divided into small teams of four. Each team should be given enough building material so that they can duplicate the structure you’ve already created. The instructor should then place their sculpture in an area that is an equal distance from all the groups. One member from each team can come up at the same time to look at the sculpture for ten seconds and try to memorize it before returning to their team. After they return to their teams, they have twenty-five seconds to instruct their teams about how to build an exact replica of the instructor’s sculpture. After one minute of trying to recreate the sculpture, another member from each team can come up for a “sneak a peek” before returning to their team and trying to recreate the sculpture. The game should be continued in this pattern until one of the team’s successfully duplicates the original sculpture. This game will teach participants how to problem solve in a group and communicate effectively.

Managing your boss - From a US Delta Force commander

Managing your boss: (My personal note: The below is more useful when you are already in a senior leadership position and running a show mostly by yourself.)

In an emailed list of leadership lessons sent to Business Insider, Dalton Fury explained that his time as a Delta Force commander taught him whether he was in a situation that fit nicely into the mission plan or one that fell far outside of it, "managing the boss on target is equally important."

If his superior lost confidence in him in the middle of a mission, then the ensuing hasty decisions could result in not only a botched mission, but the deaths of Fury and his men as well.

The key then, whether it's in a highly confidential military operation in the Middle East or a conference-room meeting between a company and its client, is the existence of trust between yourself and your boss. It's a trust that isn't only built by previously demonstrating your competence, but by working through how to tackle possible snafus with your superior before a weighty task.

Fury notes that in the 2011 Navy SEAL mission that eliminated Osama bin Laden, the plan almost immediately went off course when one of the team's helicopters crashed while attempting to land. The reason the mission ended successfully, Fury argues, is that the SEAL team had assured their superiors they knew how to handle any aspect of their plan going badly by working through contingencies, like the response to the possibility of a botched helicopter landing.

He says the same concept applies in the office.

"Develop and work through your contingencies well ahead of time," Fury writes. "When they are needed, before someone hastily calls to abort or retreat, remind your boss that you have already anticipated the problem and are prepared for it. If he wants to remain on the [helicopter] during the assault, or in the employee lounge, that's fine. But on target, or on task, you're driving until you need something from your boss."

Learning from Mistakes

Learning from Mistakes
Since 1980, the use of the term “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” in popular literature has shot up 500%, according to Google Ngram data.

Of course, heart surgery is always risky, but the business researchers found another surprise: Doctors who made mistakes on the new CABG surgery didn’t get stronger either. They got worse at it.

This “what doesn’t kill you” cliche, sung by Pink, originally comes from Friedrich Nietzsche in 1888 — shortly before he went completely insane.

When it comes to learning from our mistakes, it turns out that there’s a dichotomy between people who get psychologically stronger through trial and error and those who don’t. And it doesn’t have to do with the severity of the mistake.
Convicts Who Learn From Their Crimes

A 2014 study of felony convicts shows what makes the crucial difference. Researchers interviewed 500 prisoners about how felt about their crimes, and then kept tabs on them after release to see whether they ended up re-committing similar crimes. The researchers cataloged the prisoners in two categories:

those who felt guilt and those who felt shame.

Guilt means that you feel badly for your actions.

Shame means that you feel badly about who you are.

Though guilt and shame sound like similar emotions, they proved highly predictive of the ex-cons’ future behavior.

Prisoners who felt guilty for what they’d done tended to do better post-parole; they focused on the actions they could do differently since it was their own actions that got them locked up in the first place.

Prisoners who felt shame tended to blame their circumstances in order to preserve their self-esteem — both regarding their crimes and in their general lives — and so they didn’t actually learn from the mistakes and continued on to lives of crime later. Many in the “shame” category ended up back in the slammer.

This, it turns out, is the same thing that the heart surgery study showed, too. Because heart surgery has such high stakes (it’s life or death, after all), doctors who made mistakes often felt shame when they screwed up. In order to sleep at night, they needed to find a way to feel less personally bad when they didn’t succeed at a surgery. So they externalized the reason for failure. The patient was old, or unstable. It was hard to see. It is a complicated surgery. Anything but, “I made mistakes.”

On the other hand, doctors who witnessed other doctors fail at surgery ended up getting better at it themselves. It turned that this was because these doctors felt no personal shame, and could therefore process the reasons for the failure in terms of actions they could take, not external circumstances.

Just like the prisoners who rehabilitated themselves, these doctors found actions they could take. The others — prisoners and surgeons alike — didn’t learn from their mistakes because they were too busy blaming external factors in order to live with themselves.
Depersonalize and observe

For us, the takeaway is twofold.

First, if we want to learn from our mistakes, we need to learn to depersonalize them, to look at our actions, whether or not circumstances out of our control may have contributed to the problem. The only thing we can change is what we do. And guilt, for all its faults, can be helpful for this, so long as we don’t let it turn into personal shame.

The second is that learning from others’ mistakes is a lot more effective than trying to learn from our own. Our human tendency to make things personal fogs our ability to pinpoint actions that could make us better. As dark as it sounds, someone else’s mistakes can make us stronger, whether or not it kills them.