Amy Gade

LDRS 802: Organizational Systems, Change, and Leadership

Scholarly Journal Article Critique #1
Introduction
For this assignment, I have selected to critique the scholarly journal article
entitled On the legacy of Theory Y by W. Warner Burke (2011). The purpose or intent
of this particular article is to discuss the history and influence of Douglas
McGregors Theory Y as it relates to management and leadership. It is likely this
article is intended to be read by scholars like myself studying organizational
leadership or those studying or practicing management. The article aims to present
details of who McGregor was beyond a theorist, the intention of Theory Y, how it has
and can be brought up to date, and conclusions as to whether or not this theory
actually represents an actual management style.
Thesis
While W. Warner Burke fails to explicitly state a thesis, one could assume it
relates to identifying whether or not McGregors Theory Y represents a specific
management style. Warner Burke (2011) identifies in his findings that, With respect
to Theory Y, McGregors intent was to show the relativity of authority, and that
participative management was consistent with Y, but these assumptions did not
necessarily lead to a specific style of management (p. 193). While I do not know
Warner Burkes true intentions for this work, I dont believe he necessarily has any
kind of axe to grind with McGregor. Instead, I deduct that due to his role in the
Teachers College at Columbia University and the fact that he identified this paper as
of viewpoint, he likely just desired to identify the truths of McGregors work and

clarify any assumptions, much like a good teacher would of any work they might
teach to their students.
Main Points
Through use of literary analysis, the author is able to make many points
about the work of McGregor and some of his partners. First, there is an undeniable
truth that McGregor and partner Beckhard were instrumental in founding the idea of
organizational development. The author credits the pair for their intervention work
that lead to top team building, leadership training for all managers, performance
improvement activities, and additional team building for groups lower in manger
hierarchy (Warner Burke, 2011, p. 194). Many of these practices are still commonly
used in organizational development today.
Secondly, McGregors work on Theory X and Theory Y helped to modernize
mangers ways of thinking. McGregor attempted to prove that a manager operating
within the realms of Theory X thinking operated off assuming things about their
subordinates, typically very negative in nature, whereas a manger operating within
the realms of Theory Y thinking was encouraged not to assume, but instead to make
decisions based on evidence. While McGregor didnt claim that participative
management was Theory Y, he did believe it was consistent with Theory Y
assumptions. In fact, it wasnt McGregor at all that associated Theory Y with a
specific management style, as he believed we all hold both sets of assumptions,
Theory X and Theory Y, and behave according to which theory fits the situation.
McGregors tendencies aside, theory-supported research continuously
addressed the value of a manager who consistently behaved with Theory Y
assumptions, especially that of participative management style. However, the
research didnt seem to match the practice of participative management in that

the more participative management was launched in a participative way the less it
became rooted and actually participative (Warner Burke, 2011, p. 197). The
paradox being that in order for participative management to really gain steam, it
almost needed to be introduced and pushed from a top-down flow, which tends to
be the opposite of what participative management stands for. Likewise, putting
participative management into practice seemed to be extremely hard for
executives, even those in agreeance with its benefits. As an individual climbs the
executive level, attitudes seem to shift to the idea that participative management
doesnt work for executive level decisions. While an abundance of research supports
the idea that managing and leading consistent to Theory Y assumptions rewards an
organization immensely, there is little proof that it actually occurs.
Warner Burke ends his article with a few conclusions, that Theory X and
Theory Y arent likely complete opposites, most people probably operate within the
assumptions of both theories, and participative management is difficult to do
successfully. He argues that there is likely no one that operates solely off the beliefs
of one theory or the other, but that instead both Theory X and Theory Y beliefs are
likely in all of us and will come in various situations. Warner Burke (2011) states,
The legacy of McGregors Theory Y is complicated (p. 200). While there is a
plentiful of evidence that managers and leaders operating from Theory Y
assumptions would produce many positive dividends, the research shows that
leaders and managers perform poorly more than half the time. Participative
management shows promise, it is just rarely used effectively.
Critical Assessment
Warner Burke seems to present work that is crucial to the understanding not
only of McGregors intentions behind Theory Y, but also of theory in general. All too

often, theory is associated with practice and it is anything but. Theory intends to
explain ideas or concepts surrounding a particular subject. In this case, McGregors
theories attempt to explain two very different sets of assumptions managers have
about their subordinates. McGregors Theory Y attempts to explain one of said type
of assumptions leaders and managers can make about their subordinates, which in
turn can influence how one desires to interact with and involve those subordinates
in their leadership or management behaviors and actions. Theory Y assumes that,
if given a chance, most people will take responsibility, care about their jobs, wish
to grow and achieve, and do excellent work (Weisbord, 2012, p. 18). Theory does
not serve to explain how those ideas or concepts are utilized. In this case, Theory Y
serves only to explain that one type of thinking of leaders/managers, it does not
intend to determine or identify a set leadership or management style to be used in
order to operate from and see the benefits of these particular assumptions.
Warner Burkes work also contributes to the understanding that theories
arent always so black and white, or cut and dry. While McGregor identifies very
different types of assumptions being made by mangers and leadership in Theory X
and Theory Y, Warner Burke argues that the research shows there is not likely a
leader that carries the assumptions of just one theory, X or Y. Instead, he argues
that more than likely there is a balance of the assumptions of Theory X and Y in all
of us. It is the struggle of balancing these two very different assumptions about
subordinates that can provide moments of contradiction for even the strongest
leader (Warner Burke, 2011). If Theory X leads us to believe that workers are lazy
and irresponsible, so therefore need supervision, but Theory Y leads us to be believe
workers are motivated and responsible, so therefore do not need supervision, does
a leaders actions in one particular situation automatically mean they are operating

from one side of the coin or the other? Can a leader act from Theory X assumptions
in one instance and from Theory Y in another? Likely, weve all done it and possibly
left our subordinates confused as to our preferences or tendencies.
Respective to this particular course, which focuses on Organizational
Systems, Change, and Leadership, Warner Burkes work helps to clarify one of the
major basis for which a leader may act: assumption. It piggybacks the Weisbord
(2012) text, Productive Workplaces, which provides the groundwork for
understanding McGregors work, by further explaining the difference in theory and
practice, specifically of Theory Y. Warner Burkes work also helps enlighten readers
as to the implications of transferring ideals from theory to practice. He proved that
while in theory, Theory Y managers should operate from the helm of participative
management and be highly successful, yet its not widely practiced or used
effectively across the masses.
While Warner Burkes work lays a solid foundation of research into how or
why participative management relates to Theory Y assumptions and the degree to
which it should be successful, he argues that its not being effectively practiced, yet
provides limited proof of that. While his work provides many statistics regarding the
failures of senior level managers, it is not clear as it if these managers even
attempted using participative management. Warner Burke points to research that
shows upper level managers failing at a rate of nearly 50 percent; however, if all
managers represented in that statistic operate from Theory X assumptions, is this
research still relevant to Theory Y? Likely not. Likewise, Warner Burke makes the
conclusion that participative management is difficult to do successfully, yet
provides no true rational as to why. Are these unproven claims simply Warner
Burkes attempt at removing leadership or management styles from Theory Y

ideals? Or is this his attempt at encouraging the idea of a balance of Theory X and Y
assumptions in leaders?
Because Theory Y doesnt necessarily equate to a specific management or
leadership type, but yet research shows that those operating from Theory Y
assumptions tend to be successful, a further area for discussion would be creating a
valid measure of managers Theory Y assumptions. By being able to consciously
acknowledge these assumptions, a manager would better be able to understand
how they contribute to a managers choice style, which can in turn influence the
behaviors and attitudes of their subordinates. By recognizing all of this, a manager
would likely better understand the cause and effect nature of their assumptions
(Kopelman, Prottas, & Falk, 2012). Recognizing this cause and effect caused by
ones assumptions can help a leader not only better understand how their
leadership impacts subordinates, but also how their assumptions alter their own
actions. One such cause and effect of a leaders assumptions on their own actions
can be their communication apprehension with various subordinate types (Russ,
2013).
Much of the research on Theory Y seems to take a similar stance to Warner
Burke, acknowledging the many benefits that can come from Theory Y assumptions
about subordinates, but noting a lack of evidence of its practical use, especially in
todays workplaces. Sorensen and Minahan (2011) noted, Although well known,
McGregor's Theory Y management has received little systematic efforts at
identifying its historical growth and contemporary applications (p. 178). The
contemporary applications that need to be considered today are those of universal
applicability, most notably across various cultures (Sorensen & Minahan, 2011).
Perhaps this theory has taken back seat to others more recently developed or

because of the lack of a valid measure for its assumptions, nonetheless I believe it
still holds validity to leadership and management today.
Reflection
Sadly, this article may be the first time I have every truly understood some of
Dr. DeGroskys notes and comments about our past discussion topics. While I was
hearing him loud and clear that there is a difference between theory and practice, I
dont know that I ever truly understood or could see that difference. I believe I was
still always trying to equate a theory to a specific practical application, in the case
of Theory X and Y, it was a specific management or leadership style. This article
weighed heavy on McGregors intent to use theory to identify assumptions,
believes and attitudes and not so much about management style (Warner Burke,
2011, p. 196). While McGregor understood that these things could be equated with
various management or leadership styles, he simply did not link them as tightly as
other scholars did.
Likewise, this article gave me a new appreciation for Dr. DeGroskys careful
attention to our individual discussion posts. Many times Dr. DeGrosky has picked
one of the more general statements made in my post and asked for further
clarification or more proof to the point Im attempting to make. What those
questions have made me do is to think a little more critically about what Im writing
and what claims Im attempting to make. What I didnt realize I was doing in some
of my posts was making a bold conclusions without providing proof. One of the
things that stuck out to me most in critically reviewing this article was some of the
authors conclusions that offered no proof. For example, Warner Burke (2011)
claimed, there is considerable evidence that managing and leading consistently
with Theory Y assumptions pays dividend. The evidence is there (p. 199). Without

referencing even one source that supports his claim, he moves quickly onto his next
conclusion, Yet there is scant evidence that managing and leading consistently
with Theory Y assumptions actually occurs (p.199). While his second claim is likely
a dig at an area of needed further research so he may not be able to note research
that doesnt already exist, he seems to be making a strong point in his first claim,
yet loses validity by not providing proof. I found extremely irritated by this and
seemingly more critical of the authors expertise on the subject matter. In the world
of academia, the proof is in the writing. I think I now have a much better
understanding of Dr. DeGroskys point in picking out some of our claims and asking
for further clarification.
Lastly, because of some of my own reflections from this work regarding
theory in general, I believe I will be able to think more clearly about my own
assumptions of subordinates, how those assumptions determine my approach or
style, and how that approach or style in turn impacts the subordinate. I believe this
work has further helped me see leadership as a cyclic process full of causes and
effects. While I strongly desire to be a leader operating from Theory Y assumptions
about my subordinates, if I find myself in a place of Theory X thinking, I will try to
pick apart how those assumptions might be influencing my approach and style to
see if I might be able to find an approach that will create a more positive leadership
experience for both myself and my subordinates.

Works Cited
Kopelman, R. E., Prottas, D. J., & Falk, D. W. (2012). Further development of a
measure of theory X and Y
managerial assumptions. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 24(4), 450-470,368. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1367983392?accountid=27424
Russ, T. L. (2013). The relationship between theory X/Y: Assumptions and
communication apprehension. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
34(3), 238-249.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731311326675
Sorensen, P. F., & Minahan, M. (2011). McGregor's legacy: The evolution and current
application of
theory Y management. Journal of Management History, 17(2),
178-192.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17511341111112587
Warner Burke, W. (2011). On the legacy of theory Y. Journal of Management History,
17(2), 193-201.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17511341111112596
Weisbord, M. R. (2012). Productive Workplaces: Dignity, Meaning, and Community in
the 21st Century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.