Motivation through Theory X&Y from a Project Management perspective

Revision as of 14:08, 24 February 2021

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 proposed two theories by which mangers perceive and address 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]. Theory X assumes individuals to require constant attention and punishment to achieve the desired outcome, whereas Theory Y assumes individuals to seek opportunities and improvement, thereby not requiring a controlling environment ^[5].

This article will start by introducing the relevant background to the initiation of Theory X and Theory Y, followed by an introduction to the two different motivational methods, their theoretical framework, and how this reflects in the role of a project manager. The article will then introduce the different advantages and disadvantages of each of the motivational methods from a management perspective as well as reflect on the criticism of Theory X and Theory Y. Lastly the article will reflect on the complex work environment in context to choosing a management style based on the motivational theories proposed by McGregor.

Big Idea

Background

Theory X

Theory X management assumes employees as individuals who:

• Abhor work.
• Must be compelled, controlled, and governed to obtain organizational goals.
• Will try to avoid responsibility.
• Favor the strict and controlled work environment.
• Are driven by the threat of punishment and monetary means (linked to Maslow’s lower-level needs and the need for safety).

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

1. Management is responsible for organizing the elements of productive enterprise-money, materials, equipment, and people-in the interests of economic ends

(relate to the PMI Talent Triangle and the sections: Strategic and Business Management skills, ALSO comment that this is the same as Theory Y).

1. With respect to people, this is a process of directing their efforts, motivating them, controlling their actions, and modifying their behavior to fit the needs of the organization

(relate to the PMI Talent Triangle and the sections: Strategic and Business Management skills).

1. Without this active intervention by management, people would be passive-even resistant-to organizational needs. They must therefore be persuaded, rewarded, punished, and controlled. Their activities must be directed. Management's task is thus simply getting things done through other people.

Theory Y

Theory Y management assumes employees as individuals who:

• 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.
• Desire rewards which satisfy their higher-level needs, such as self-actualization and self-esteem (linked to Maslow’s higher-level needs, the self-fulfillment needs).

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

1. Management is responsible for organizing the elements of productive enterprise-money, materials, equipment, and people in the interests of economic ends

(relate to the PMI Talent Triangle and the sections: Strategic and Business Management skills, ALSO comment that this is the same as Theory X).

1. People are not by nature passive or resistant to organizational needs. They have become so as a result of experience in organizations.
2. The motivation, potential for development, capacity for assuming responsibility, and readiness to direct behavior toward organizational goals are all present in people-management does not put them there. It is a responsibility of management to make it possible for people to recognize and develop these human characteristics for themselves.
3. The essential task of management is to arrange organizational conditions and methods of operation so that people can achieve their own goals by directing their efforts toward organizational objectives.

Relate this whole section to the use of power and politics in the role of a project manager from PMI.

McGregor's ideas for application

Theory X: Hard and Soft Approach

Management approaches of Theory X can range from a hard to a soft approach.

At one extreme, the project manager can act from the hard approach, which relates to the newer political term "hard power". This approach involves directing behavior based on an implicit use of coercion and threat, strict control of behavior, and close regulation.

The opposite extremity is referred to as the soft approach, which relates to the political term “soft power”. 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.

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.

Theory Y: 4 innovative approaches

In regard to 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:

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 . 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 .

In the scenario of decentralization and delegation, McGregor refers to the use of the management by objectives (MBO) approach by Peter Drucker (1954), in order to keep up performance in a decentralized organization, while allowing the employees to have more responsibility.

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”. Thus, increasing the flexibility in the employee’s work, while providing an opportunity for the employee to satisfy the social and egoistic needs.

The idea of job characteristics through contemplations of Theory Y was then later enhanced by Fredrick Herzberg (LINK), where the terminology was changed from job enlargement to job enrichment . 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” , where the motivating factors of responsibility, achievement and personal growth are indeed aligned with the concept framework of Theory Y.

Participation and consultative management:

Performance appraisal:

In relation to performance appraisal, McGregor stressed that the company culture of performance evaluation in the time of his study was completely consistent with managerial approaches of Theory X in its way of treating the individual as a product of inspection. McGregor therefor 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. 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 . 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 .

Relate this whole section to PM through “leadership” and a discussion of important qualifications of a project manager for motivation in small teams

Application

This section will provide knowledge on the application of leadership styles and competencies in Theory X and Y to improve motivation within a small project team of 5-10 people.

Through theory it has been emphasized that the project manager plays a large role in project team motivation , as the project manager is said to have the ability to create a subculture within an organization where they are able to affect the motivation within a project team in spite of the overall ambiance . 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 . Regarding the smaller project teams, the advantages are that these provide greater accountability, increased lucidity and connectedness, and simpler communication patterns .

An important aspect before applying any leadership style is in the understanding of the team members behaviors and motivation . Here, Theory X and Y acknowledges a gap commonly seen in different individuals at a workplace. 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.

Where and how to apply 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. 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 the new job position . Thus, referring to the need for a more autocratic leadership style based on the hard approach, where the employee is closely regulated. However, the Theory X type employee is

Where and how to apply Theory X in small project teams:

On the other hand, a more experienced employee is more natural to categorize under the Theory Y assumptions, as the employee understands his/ her tasks, thereby making the employee more prone to inhere work and strive for more self-fulfillment through the job. Having a project manager who allows the experienced employee to grow and take on more responsibility might reap increased motivation and through that an increased achievement of management perspectives . This need for added responsibility in the Theory Y type employee might be harder to fulfill in the smaller project

Realizing the need for a mix of X-Y:

A project manager with knowledge of both Theory X and Theory Y might well recognize a mixture of the two assumed employee behaviors in a large project team. Introducing the “hard” 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. Thus, requiring the project manager to implement a more balanced leadership style to accommodate all types of employee behavior . 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.

Limitations

- Limitations to the general theory

Through exploration of the hard approach, some unpropitious trends have been identified 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. Moreover, difficulties, such as lack of manager’s fulfillment of their role and employees taking advantage of the more laissez-faire environment by lowering performance while demanding more, have been identified in the implementation of the soft approach.

- Limitations to decentralization approach.

- Limitations to job enlargement approach: mention the new term job enrichment.

- The effects of not objectified performance appraisal: the employees see right through this.

- Limitations and negative effects from participation approach.

Annotated figures and tables

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

• Last name, First name (Year): Title

- Comment.

Annotated bibliography

The following list provides resources for further research and study on Theory X and Y:

• Last name, First name (Year): Title

- Comment.

References

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1} Zûst, R. & Troxler, P. (2006). Communication. No More Muddling Through – Master Compelx Projects in Engineering and Management. Published by Springer Netherlands. ISBN: 978-1-4020-5018-3.
2. ↑ ^{2.0 2.1} 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. ↑ Schmid, B., Adams, J. 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. ↑ Peterson, T. M. Motivation: How to Increase Project Team Performance. [3]. Project Management Journal. Issue published: December 1, 2007. Volume: 38, issue: 4, p. 60-69