Motivation through Theory X&Y from a Project Management perspective

Revision as of 18:42, 28 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 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.

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 . 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 . 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 .

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.

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 , thus, linking the employee needs 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 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 .

Approaches to Theory X: Hard and Soft Approach

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

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 .

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 .

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 .

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 .

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 .

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 .

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 . Thus, the carrot and stick approach is said to not work under these conditions.

McGregor therefore proposed another perspective on things through Theory Y.

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 .
• Are driven by satisfying their higher-level needs, such as self-actualization and esteem, through Maslow’s terminology .

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

1. Management is superintended to organizing elements of productive project capital, equipment and materials, and people for the benefit of economic ends . 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 .

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

Approaches to Theory Y: 4 innovative approaches

Decentralization and delegation:

Job enlargement:

Participation and consultative management:

Performance appraisal:

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.

Incorporation of Theory X in small project teams

Incorporation of Theory Y in small project teams

Realizing the need for a mix of X and Y

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 . 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 . 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 . 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 . 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 . 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 .

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. Through implementation of Theory Y, Maslow found that an organization entirely run by Theory Y could not succeed. Thus, a need for elements of Theory X is introduced in the use of Theory Y . 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 (LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theory_Z&oldid=992303713) .

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 . Thus, it proves important for the project manager to understand individuals and their motivators of behavior .

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. p. 1. 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.