Motivation through Theory X&Y from a Project Management perspective

Latest revision as of 00:09, 1 March 2021

Developed by: Marie Kristensen

[edit] Abstract

In the 1950s large-scale, complex, and interdisciplinary projects emerged. Along with the new trend in project format, new materials, procedures, and methods were developed to support the success of these ^[1]. Thus, paving the way for projects to be more focused on the Socio-technical aspects and the importance of soft skills ^[1].

As projects have continued to become more complicated, this has proven the project manager's importance in leading projects to success ^[2]. A project manager may have the necessary skills to guide a project team through various project stages and project life cycles, nevertheless team motivation is an essential element of a successful project ^[3]. Thus, making the ability to motivate a team an important leadership skill for project managers ^[2].

The idea that a manager’s attitude has an impact on employee motivation was initially suggested by Douglas Murray McGregor (1906-1964), a Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management in the late 1930’s and 1940’s ^[4]. In 1960, McGregor released the book, The Human Side of Enterprise, which presented two theories on how mangers perceive and approach employee motivation ^[4]. The two antagonistic motivational methods are referred to as Theory X and Theory Y and splits corporate thinking into two camps in their embodiment of attitudes and assumptions ^[4].

The purpose of this article is to help project managers of small project teams understand their role and possibilities in motivating employees through Theory X and Theory Y. The article will start by introducing the big idea of Theory X and Y, including initiation and framework of the two theories both regarding management assumptions of employee behavior and McGregor’s identified relevant application approaches. The article will then outline possible applications of the approaches from Theory X and Theory Y for motivation in small project teams. Lastly the article will reflect on the limitation of the two theories proposed by McGregor and the presented application.

[edit] Big idea: The Two Perceptions of Employees and their Approach to Motivation

Prior to McGregor, the propulsion of writing about leadership and motivation was focused on the attributes of great people, in the hope that if their traits were pinpointed, these could be reproduced ^[5]. However, in his 1960’s book, The Human Side of Enterprise, McGregor emphasized the importance of the manager’s attitude in the understanding of how to motivate people. Here, he newfangled the importance of leaders examining their core assumptions about individuals in a work environment, as these have the ability to limit appreciation and perception of strengths for the individual’s capacity for growth, collaboration, and development ^[6]. Thus, he introduced two theories, Theory X and Y, on how managers perceive and approach employee motivation. Theory X being consistent with the tendencies which McGregor saw as the dominant belief system about employees in the 1960’s industry, and Theory Y which McGregor hoped would persuade managers into renouncing the limiting assumptions of Theory X, by bridging the organizational objectives with the manners of behavioral science ^[5].

McGregor’s view was that Theory X and Y should not be understood as two opposing extremes in a continuum, but simply two different cosmologies^[6].

[edit] Theory X

Figure 1: Manager's Perception of the Employee in Theory X ^[7]

Theory X management assumes employees as individuals who:^[8][9][10]

• Abhor work.
• Must be compelled, controlled, and governed to obtain organizational goals.
• Will try to avoid responsibility.
• Favor the strict and controlled work environment ^[8].
• Are driven by the threat of punishment and monetary means ^[9], thus, linking the employee needs to Maslow’s lower-level needs and the need for safety ^[10].

McGregor argued the conventional management approach behind Theory X to be based on three crucial proposals: ^[11]

1. Management is superintended to organizing elements of productive project capital, equipment and materials, and people for the benefit of economic ends.
2. Management is with respect to people responsible for motivating them, directing their efforts, and controlling their activities and behavior to fit the needs of the organization.
3. Management’s function is to get things done through other people. Yet, without the interference of management, people are assumed to be passive or obstructive to the organizational needs. Thus, people must be coaxed, rewarded, directed, and punished to perform ^[11].

Through Theory X, McGregor outlined the following relevant theoretical application approaches.

[edit] Approaches to Theory X: Hard and Soft Approach

Figure 2: The negative assumptions of Theory X leading to the manager’s own controlling practices. Employees will in many cases resist this, thus, resulting in worsened performance and poor results. This fortifies the managers Theory X assumptions of the employees. ^[12]

Management approaches of Theory X can range from a hard to a soft approach ^[13].

At one extreme, the manager can act from the hard approach. This approach involves directing behavior based on an implicit use of coercion and threat, strict control of behavior, and close regulation ^[13].

However, McGregor highlights that some unpropitious trends had been identified through exploration of the hard approach in relation to management force breeding a counterforce response from employees. Thus, making the hard approach prone to behavioral responses like restriction of output, sabotage of management objectives, and belligerent labor unionism ^[13].

The opposite extremity is referred to as the soft approach. The behavior of management in this relation is revolving around the focus of achieving harmony by satisfying the employees demands and by being lenient. This with the hope that employees will respond more complaisant and accepting to the project manager’s direction ^[13].

However, McGregor noted that difficulties such as lack of manager’s fulfillment of their role and employees taking advantage of the more laissez-faire leadership style by lowering performance while demanding more, had been identified in the implementation of the soft approach ^[13][6].

This “force breeds counterforce” disclosure in the controlled environment of Theory X is described as a vicious circle, which only feeds to realize Theory X (See Figure 2)^[14][13].

McGregor underlined that the optimal management approach for Theory X would lie somewhere in between the two extremes. However, he argued that neither of the two approaches are fitting based on the general assumptions of Theory X being incorrect ^[15].

To criticize the Theory X perception of motivation, McGregor drew upon Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory. Based on Maslow’s theory McGregor argued the importance of a satisfied need not being a motivator of behavior. This being of importance to the Theory X assumptions, as the heightened living standards in the modernized society would suffice the physiological and safety needs, resulting in employees being motivated by needs of a higher level than the ones from which the theory derives. Thus, making these human needs unimportant motivators of behavior in the objective of getting people to work for acquiring organizational goals ^[9][16]. Thus, the carrot and stick approach is said to not work under these conditions^[16].

McGregor therefore proposed another perspective on things through Theory Y.

[edit] Theory Y

Figure 3: Manager's Perception of the Employee in Theory Y ^[7]

Figure 4: McGregor’s idea of the key element of Theory Y ^[12]

Theory Y management assumes employees as individuals who:^[8][16][17]

• Have an inherent interest in their work.
• Seek opportunities and responsibility.
• Desire to be self-administered.
• Have capacity to be innovative and creative in solving business problems ^[8].
• Are driven by satisfying their higher-level needs, such as self-actualization and esteem, through Maslow’s terminology ^[17][16].

McGregor argued the conventional management approach behind Theory Y to be based on four crucial proposals: ^[15]

1. Management is superintended to organizing elements of productive project capital, equipment and materials, and people for the benefit of economic ends ^[16]. This being the same as for Theory X.
2. Employees are not passive or obstructive to the organizational needs by default, this is a consequence of experiences in the organization.
3. Management is responsible for making it possible for the employee to further develop characteristics such as realization of potential for development, motivation, willingness to take on responsibility, and preparedness to direct behavior towards organizational objectives. Thus, these characteristics are already present in people to some extent without interference from management.
4. Management’s key task is to contrive organizational environment in order for the employees to achieve their own goals by leading their efforts toward organizational objectives (See Figure 4)^[18].

Through Theory Y, McGregor outlined the following relevant theoretical application approaches.

[edit] Approaches to Theory Y: 4 innovative approaches

Regarding management’s application of Theory Y, McGregor emphasized the following innovative ideas to be consistent with his theory, while having proven to be applied with some success: ^[19]

Decentralization and delegation:

The framework revolves around decentralizing the planning and decision-making processes, while reducing the quantity of levels of management within an organization, referring to the more organic organizational structure with an increased span of control ^[20][19]. As a result of this managers gain an enlarged number of employees reporting to them. Thereby coercing the manager to be unable to direct and control in a conventional manner. Thus, forcing “management by objectives” with a higher level of delegation of responsibility to the employees ^[19].

In the application of decentralization and delegation, McGregor referred to the use of the management by objectives (MBO) approach by Drucker (1954), in order to keep up performance and motivation in a decentralized organization, by allowing the employees to have more responsibility through a communicated organizational objective ^[18].

Job enlargement:

Job enlargement revolves around broadening the scope of an employee’s job, by increasing the number of tasks associated with a certain job. The additional tasks are added at an equal level of responsibility within the project organization, referring to the term “horizontal loading” ^[2]. Thus, increasing the flexibility in the employee’s work, while providing an opportunity for the employee to satisfy the social and egoistic needs ^[18].

The idea of job characteristics through contemplations of Theory Y was later enhanced by Fredrick Herzberg, where the terminology was changed from job enlargement to enrichment ^[21]. Job enrichment refers to the same aspect of broadening the scope of the employee’s job, yet here by adding tasks different levels of responsibility to within the project organization, referring to the appellation “vertical loading” ^[20], where the motivating factors of responsibility, achievement and personal growth are indeed aligned with the concept framework of Theory Y ^[21].

Participation and consultative management:

This approach centers on the manager’s incitement of providing the employee with a voice in decision making. Here McGregor emphasized the framework of the Scanlon Plan for its exceptional manifestation of the ideas in practice ^[22]. An important understanding of participative management is in the fact, that only the manager who truly embodies the employee vision of Theory Y, by trusting the employee, will be able to apply this in a beneficial way ^[22]. As McGregor describes it:

“Participation becomes a farce when it is applied as a sales gimmick or a device for kidding people into thinking they are important” - Douglas M. McGregor ^[22]

Performance appraisal:

In relation to performance appraisal, McGregor stressed that company culture of performance evaluation in the time of his study was consistent with managerial approaches of Theory X in its way of treating the individual as a product of inspection ^[22]. McGregor therefore emphasized the need for performance appraisal. He proposed approaches which involved the employee setting targets and objectives for oneself, resulting in self-evaluation semiannually or annually ^[22]. Moreover, McGregor highlighted the importance of the superior leadership role in this process to comprehend more competence than required in the conventional manner in order to support this ^[22]. Even though this relates closely to Peter Drucker’s management by objectives (MBO) (1954) approach, the two concepts differ in its core focus, where Drucker emphasized the federative approach to setting objectives, while McGregor emphasized the result-oriented appraisal and the relationship interjacent the superior and subordinate ^[21].

[edit] Application: Motivation in Small Project Teams

This section will provide knowledge on the possible applications of the described framework of Theory X and Y within the setting of small project team of 5-10 people.

Through literature it has been emphasized that the project manager plays a large role in project team motivation ^[3][2]. What distinguishes the project managers role in motivation from general management, is the ability to motivate the project team through the various stages of the project life cycle ^[23]. Here, the project managers role in team motivation proves especially important to establish in the early stages of a project, as this is crucial for the employees to develop a sense of belonging, which can help reduce the risk of inclined motivation within the project team ^[24]. Moreover, the project manager should be aware of the different stages of group development that a small team undergoes, as these introduce the need for different leadership strategies throughout the project, as well as provide a possibility to set the stage by purposefully picking the team members ^[25].

An important aspect before applying any leadership style or managerial approach is the understanding of the individual team member’s behaviors and motivation ^[2]. Here, Theory X and Y can prove helpful in acknowledging a gap commonly seen in different individuals at a workplace through the eyes of the superior ^[26]. While the two theories are a simplification of the whole truth, some examples of employee behavior might fall under either of the two categories when it comes to motivators of behavior ^[26]. Thus, the understanding of Theory X and Theory Y can be of help for project managers to notice and understand different motivators of behavior as well as their own perception of the employees in small projects, as well as in large ^[5].

The project manager could benefit from using a tool like The Blake Mouton Managerial Grid, to understand one’s own degree of task-centeredness versus person-centeredness, as this could help the self-understanding and identification of a subjectively preferred managerial style between X and Y ^[27][28]. To increase efficiency of the identification for a possible adaption of management style, the employees within a team could perform individual evaluations of the project manager within the same framework ^[27][28]. In this regard, the project manager should moreover be aware that different leadership styles affect how the applicational approaches of theory X and Y are implemented and communicated ^[6]. Leadership styles such as autocratic leadership, laissez-fair leadership, and transactional leadership are influenced by the core assumptions of Theory X, while democratic leadership and transformational leadership are influenced by the core assumptions of Theory Y ^[6].

[edit] Incorporation of Theory X in small project teams

As an example, a new employee with no deeper understanding of project culture and tasks might feel overwhelmed in their position, thereby circumventing additional responsibility ^[26]. This type of employee is more natural to fall under the Theory X assumptions, and therefore might need the additional attention and punishment from the project manager to stay “on-task” while feeling guided and thereby more secure in their job position ^[26]. Thus, referring to the need for a more autocratic leadership style, with closer regulation ^[6][26].

However, Theory X is in general more widespread in tiered project organizational structures, larger projects or in teams where the work is more repetitive ^[29]. In this regard, the Theory X management is in general better supported in smaller project teams with the higher accountability, which removes the option of hiding and not owning up to responsibility, and thus naturally introduces a more controlled environment ^[30][10]. In the more repetitive project environment, the project manager could draw upon the increased connectedness and the simpler communication patterns, which is related to smaller teams ^[30]. As these could benefit to a closer engagement with the employees with the aim of keeping them motivated while providing a sense of direction of their activities through tailored communication ^[30][26].

[edit] Incorporation of Theory Y in small project teams

On the other hand, a more experienced employee is more natural to categorize under the Theory Y assumptions from a manager’s perspective, as the employee understands their tasks, thereby making the employee more prone to inhere work and strive for more self-fulfillment through the job ^[26]. Having a project manager who allows the experienced employee to grow and take on more responsibility through a democratic and transformational inspired leadership style, might reap increased motivation and through that an increased achievement of management perspectives ^[26][6].

This need for growth in Theory Y might be harder to fulfill in the smaller project teams, as the growth opportunities regarding company performance ratings are usually bell curved within the organization, while the project manager in a small project usually operates with a limited scope of delegation ^[31]. Thus, literature suggests that the smaller projects can prove limiting and demotivating to the Theory Y perceived employee who wishes to conquer the management ladder ^[31].

However, small project teams prove that there is rarely sufficient manpower compared to the number of available tasks ^[31]. Thus, the project manager could benefit from assigning multiple tasks to the engaged employees. This provides a chance for the project manager to fit different tasks to the scope of an employee’s job, thus introducing job enlargement ^[31][32]. This opportunity is more rarely seen in larger projects ^[31]. In this case the project manager should however be aware that continual job enlargement can lead to job creep ^[32]. Regarding the newer term job enrichment, this also proves possible in the smaller projects, where the project manager has the possibility to utilize the fact that smaller teams rarely have the treat of having project leads, by using this as a chance to boost exposure of the team members and provide them with the extra responsibility ^[32][31].

It is recommended for the manager of a small project team to interact frequently with the team members, while sharing the absolute comprehension of the project and how this fit into the organizational objectives ^[31]. This could be approached with the MBO framework in the communication of organizational objectives, where it becomes important to acknowledge the different stages of group development ^[25]. Here the key element of the goal setting is the focus on employee participation through a democratic leadership style, as this helps promote the employee’s dedication to the goals ^[25][6], where the goalsetting could be based on the framework of goals, to help promote a stable framework for performance appraisal through the MBO ^[33].

Moreover, it is suggested for the project managers of small teams to act as a technical team member, while leading by influence and not by use of positional power ^[31], thus enforcing decentralization as this introduces a more organic project environment ^[19]. However, this requires a moderate to high level of technical skills from the project manager to perform as a team member, depending on the project ^[31]. The benefit provided by this is that the project manager will not by default have a small workload associated with the smaller project team, thus, decreasing the chance of finding the time for micromanagement, which can prove demotivating to Theory Y ^[31].

[edit] Realizing the need for a mix of X and Y

A project manager with knowledge of both Theory X and Theory Y might well recognize a mixture of the two assumed employee behaviors, even in a small project ^[26]. Introducing a part of project management through Theory X and Theory Y to lie in the realization that not all employees respond positively to the same management style ^[26]. Thus, requiring the project manager to implement a more balanced leadership style to cater all types of employee behavior ^[26]. Moreover, it is noted that an employee might not fit entirely into one specific category with all its assumptions. This introduces a need for more complex interpersonal skills from a project manager, to apply the theories with the desired effective outcome ^[26].

Additionally, it is important for managers to apply flexibility in their use of Theory X and Y, as individuals have the potential to change traits and conventions towards work within a project or through different assignments ^[26], this could be done through the use of a more situational leadership style ^[6].

[edit] Limitations

This article suggests possible applications of Theory X and Y within the definite setting of a smaller project team, for the project manager to understand how the different approaches interact within these settings. However, it only provides suggestions on how the project manager can access the different and broadly practiced application frameworks, in the chance that the individual motivators of behavior of Theory X and Y are identified by the project manager ^[21]. Here an important limitation to Theory X and Theory Y is that McGregor’s theory only looks at two different cosmologies of manager perceptions, where no organization is run in strict obedience to either Theory X or Y ^[5]. However, Theory X and Y are recognized as universal understandings of the influence of the managers perception of employee motivators of behavior and the different forces at play in motivation ^[5][21]. The leadership styles in today’s management standards can be interpreted along the line of Theory X and Y, thus confirming McGregor’s vision that the assumptions held by managers do have an impact on their leadership style ^[6]. Yet, this article only emphasizes the needs and attitudes of the employees but does not consider other factors which are involved in leadership, such as the nature of the organization and the social, economic, and political environment ^[5]. Moreover, the article only briefly touches upon the importance of the developmental stages in a small project team but does not cover the managers importance in conflict resolution and communication within these ^[25].

It should moreover be noted that even though practices of Theory Y are widely used today, Theory Y is not a universal “cure for illness” in management ^[21]. Through implementation of Theory Y, Maslow found that an organization entirely run by Theory Y could not succeed ^[5]. Thus, a need for elements of Theory X is introduced in the use of Theory Y ^[5][21]. This criticism vas developed further upon by McGregor until his passing. Since William Ouchi & Maslow drew upon these principles in their interpretations of Theory Z ^[5].

The most important understanding to take from this article is that the project managers perception of employee needs, and behaviors have an impact on their leadership style and thus their ability to motivate employees ^[10]. Thus, it proves important for the project manager to understand individuals and their motivators of behavior ^[26][2].

[edit] Annotated figures and tables

The following list provides sources for used figures and tables in this article:

• Lyon, Alex (Year): Douglas McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y

- He owns the youtube channel Organizational Communication Channel, and is the author of the book Case Studies in Courageous Organizational Communication (2016). His youtube videos have helped inspire Figure 3 and 4.

• Ranjan, R. (2016): Are you a Theory X or a Theory Y PERSON?

- This source inspired the positive and negative depictions of Theory X and Y through use of smileys. However many other sources have used this visualization of the two theories.

[edit] Annotated bibliography

The following list provides resources for further research and study on Theory X and Y. The different standards used in this article are not included, as this is a part of a school project, where these are provided as key references to the course.

• McGregor, D. M. (1960): The Human Side of Enterprise

- This is the original theoretic framework of Theory X and Theory Y proposed by McGregor. In his work, McGregor takes the reader through his thoughts on how organizations are run in the 1960’s, as he describes the framework of Theory X. He discusses the individuals needs in relation to whether the conventional management approach is a correct way of nurturing motivation at work. This leads up to his innovative envisioning of how motivation can be supported in the social sciences of industry. His theory thus portrays the conventional management approach (Theory X) and his new perspective (Theory Y).

• Dartey-Baah, K. (2009): Douglas McGregor’s Theoretical Models: Their Application in assessing Leadership Styles

- This article starts with an introduction to believes and anticipations in regard to the human side of management. It then introduces the framework of Theory X and Theory Y. The source acknowledges the two different cosmologies with emphasis on both support and criticism of the theories. The article then relates Theory X and Theory Y to the use of different leadership styles and the framework of Collin’s Level 5 Leader in an analysis of the influence of McGregor’s theories on the performed leadership style or approach.

• Sorensen, P. F., Minahan, M. (2011): TMcGregor’s legacy: the evolution and current application of Theory Y management

- This article is dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the book “The Human Side of Enterprise” by Douglas McGregor. The paper identifies originally cited management approaches of Douglas McGregor’s Theory Y and evaluates these and their development through history as well as covering their use today. The article addresses whether Theory Y can be seen as universally applicable and find evidence that McGregor’s concept of management has application across cultural boundaries. Moreover, McGregor’s general impact on the field of organizational development is emphasized throughout history. The article covers the frameworks of decentralization, job enlargement, participation and consultative management, and performance appraisal.

• Last name, First name (Year): DOUGLAS MCGREGOR: THEORY X AND THEORY Y

- This article gives a short and accurate outline of McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y. It then describes the work of the theory in practice in relation to Maslow’s use of Theory Y at a Californian electronics factory, which proved not successful. It then counterbalances this criticism with the fact that McGregor himself implemented Theory Y with success at Procter & Gamble. It describes how McGregor used the criticism of Theory Y, proposed by Maslow, to further develop on his theories while laying the grounds for the mix of Theory X and Y to introduce Theory Z. It then shortly covers McGregor’s perspective on the leadership aspect. Lastly the article puts things into perspective in the tracing of modern thinking back to McGregor, while acknowledging criticism of the two theories.

• Peterson, T. M. (2007): Motivation: How to Increase Project Team Performance

- This paper covers the project manager’s role in team motivation through different motivational theories, including McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y. It outlines the theoretical framework of Theory X and Theory Y in a short summary before tuning into the project managers role and responsibilities in relation to the theories. It then covers the advantages and disadvantages of Theory X and Y from a project management perspective. After covering other motivational theories and their impact in project management, the paper outlines a number of motivational mistakes with described impacts and proposed resolutions. It then covers how to apply motivation in a team environment, including focus on developing a team environment.

• Khanna, V. K. (2014) : Managing challenges of leading, motivating, and grooming talent in small teams

- This article gives a great outline of the differences in challenges in large versus small teams. It introduces the different challenges that are associated with a small team, while linking this to real experiences in different companies. It puts emphasis on addressing the different challenges in clear steps, before moving on to cover the different roles of a manager in a small team setting along with a personality type assessment. It then provides a list on suggested techniques to motivate a small project team, based on the discovered challenges and the role of the manager. It lastly covers the impact of attrition in small teams and provides suggestions on how to avoid this.

[edit] References

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1} Zûst, R. & Troxler, P. (2006). Communication. No More Muddling Through – Master Compelx Projects in Engineering and Management. p. 1. Published by Springer Netherlands. ISBN: 978-1-4020-5018-3.
2. ↑ ^{2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5} Project Management Institute, Inc. (2017). Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (6th Edition), Chap. 3. Project Management Institute, Inc. (PMI). Retrieved from: https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/toc/id:kpGPMBKP02/guide-project-management/guide-project-management.
3. ↑ ^{3.0 3.1} Schmid, B., Adams, J. (2008). Motivation in Project Management: The Project Manager’s Perspective. [1]. Project Management Journal. Issue published: June 1, 2008. Volume: 39, issue: 2, p. 60-71.
4. ↑ ^{4.0 4.1 4.2} MIT Institute for Work and Employment Research: Douglas M. McGregor. [2]. Accessed 13-02-2021.
5. ↑ ^{5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8} Chartered Management Institute. (2017). DOUGLAS MCGREGOR: THEORY X AND THEORY Y. [3]. CMI management Thinker 026.
6. ↑ ^{6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9} Dartey-Baah, K. (2009). Douglas McGregor's theoretical models: Their application in assessing leadership styles. [4]. Academic Leadership. Issue published: January 2009, Volume: 7, Issue: 4.
7. ↑ ^{7.0 7.1} Inspired by: Ranjan, R. (2016). Are you a Theory X or a Theory Y PERSON? Retrieved from: [5]
8. ↑ ^{8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3} Morse, J. J., Lorsch, J. W. (1970). Beyond Theory Y. [6]. Harvard Business Review. Issue published: May 1970.
9. ↑ ^{9.0 9.1 9.2} Vasilescu, R., Epure, C. B. M., Niculae, R. (2013). Review of Applied Socio-Economic Research: Employee motivation and organizational performance. [7]. Pro Global Science Association. Issue published: 2013, Volume: 5, Issue: 1, p. 1-189
10. ↑ ^{10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3} McGregor, D., & Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. [8]. New York: McGraw-Hill. Volume: 21, p. 311-312.
11. ↑ ^{11.0 11.1} McGregor, D., & Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. [9]. New York: McGraw-Hill. Volume: 21, p. 311.
12. ↑ ^{12.0 12.1} Inspired by: Lyon, A. (2016). Douglas McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y. [Video][10]. Organizational Communication Channel. Released: September 9., 2016.
13. ↑ ^{13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5} McGregor, D., & Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. [11]. New York: McGraw-Hill. Volume: 21, p. 312.
14. ↑ Lyon, A. (2016). Douglas McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y. [Video][12]. Organizational Communication Channel. Released: September 9., 2016.
15. ↑ ^{15.0 15.1} McGregor, D., & Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. [13]. New York: McGraw-Hill. Volume: 21, p. 317.
16. ↑ ^{16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4} McGregor, D., & Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. [14]. New York: McGraw-Hill. Volume: 21, p. 316-317.
17. ↑ ^{17.0 17.1} Dr. Hattangadi, V. al. (2015). Theory X & Theory Y. [15]. International Journal of Recent Research Aspects. Issue published: December 2015, Volume: 2, Issue: 4, p. 20-21.
18. ↑ ^{18.0 18.1 18.2} McGregor, D., & Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. [16]. New York: McGraw-Hill. Volume: 21, p. 318.
19. ↑ ^{19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3} McGregor, D., & Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. [17]. New York: McGraw-Hill. Volume: 21, p. 319.
20. ↑ ^{20.0 20.1} Project Management Institute, Inc. (2017). Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (6th Edition), Chap. 2. Project Management Institute, Inc. (PMI). Retrieved from: https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/toc/id:kpGPMBKP02/guide-project-management/guide-project-management.
21. ↑ ^{21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 21.6} Sorensen, P. F., Minahan, M. (2011). McGregor's legacy: the evolution and current application of Theory Y management [18]. Journal of Management History. Issue published: April 12. 2011, Volume: 17, Issue: 2, p. 178-192.
22. ↑ ^{22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5} McGregor, D., & Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. [19]. New York: McGraw-Hill. Volume: 21, p. 320.
23. ↑ Schmid, B., Adams, J. (2008). Motivation in Project Management: The Project Manager’s Perspective. [20]. Project Management Journal. Issue published: June 1, 2008. Volume: 39, issue: 2, p. 70.
24. ↑ Schmid, B., Adams, J. (2008). Motivation in Project Management: The Project Manager’s Perspective. [21]. Project Management Journal. Issue published: June 1, 2008. Volume: 39, issue: 2, p. 69.
25. ↑ ^{25.0 25.1 25.2 25.3} Fulk, H. K., Bell, R. L., Bodie, N. (2011). Team Management by Objectives: Enhancing Developing Teams’ Performance. [22]. Journal of Management Policy and Practice. Issue published: January 2011. Volume: 12, issue: 3, p. 17-26.
26. ↑ ^{26.00 26.01 26.02 26.03 26.04 26.05 26.06 26.07 26.08 26.09 26.10 26.11 26.12 26.13} Peterson, T. M. (2007). Motivation: How to Increase Project Team Performance. [23]. Project Management Journal. Issue published: 2007. Volume: 38, issue: 4, p. 61.
27. ↑ ^{27.0 27.1} MindTools. The Blake Mouton Managerial Grid - Leading People and Producing Results. Retrieved from: [24]. Accessed: 27.02.2021. "Requires membership to access".
28. ↑ ^{28.0 28.1} Fisher, E. A. (2009) Motivation and Leadership in Social Work Management: A Review of Theories and Related Studies. [25]. Article published: September 25., 2009. Volume: 33, issue: 4, p. 347-367.
29. ↑ MindTools. Theory X and Theory Y: Understanding People's Motivations. Retrieved from: [26]. Accessed: 27.02.2021. "Requires membership to access".
30. ↑ ^{30.0 30.1 30.2} Baker, B. (2009) In praise of small teams. [27]. PM Network. Issue published: March, 2009. Volume: 23, issue: 3, p. 26-27.
31. ↑ ^{31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4 31.5 31.6 31.7 31.8 31.9} Khanna, V. K. (2014) Managing challenges of leading, motivating, and grooming talent in small teams. [28]. PMI Global Congress 2014. Published: October 26., 2014.
32. ↑ ^{32.0 32.1 32.2} Carpini, J. A., Parker, S. K. (2016) Job Enlargement. [29]. In book: Encyclopedia of Human Resource Management. Published: January, 2016, p. 232.
33. ↑ Islami, X., Mulolli, E., Mustafa, N. (2018) Using Management by Objectives as a performance appraisal tool for employee satisfaction. [30]. Future Business Journal. Issue published: 2018, Volume: 4, Issue: 1, p. 94-108.