Deidre Bradley

SJAC 1
Abstract
On the legacy of Theory Y provides a brief overview on Douglas McGregors theory and its
impact on management and leadership. The article reviewed highlights McGregors theory as a
set of beliefs that are precursors to participative management and the success that comes with
utilizing them. Further noted in the article is while the evidence points to involvement forms of
management, few practice these methods and attempts to seek why. Among the reasons are that
some may feel it is only for those at a certain level of management, i.e. supervisory level, and
that other skills sets are needed to fully employ this form of leadership.

Thesis Statement
The overarching question of the article is to explore the question of whether Theory Y
was just an interesting idea with very little impact or had it truly changed the course of
management.
Main Points
Through Douglas McGregors writings, he intended for his readers (as managers) to
grasp the very notion that they needed to adopt a more modern view of their role. Rather than
take the opinion of themselves as a ruler with great authority and power, demanding respect from
their subordinates, they would be better served by collaborating with those who worked for them.
The idea that the boss needed the workers just as much as the workers needed the boss was
foreign in the time frame that McGregor was writing, 1950s and 1960s.
McGregor developed two theories to contrast each other. Those who prescribed to the
Theory X see a need for an authoritarian management style because the average worker disliked
working and were lazy; they needed a threat of punishment to work towards the organizations
objectives and they preferred to be directed, avoid responsibility, had no ambition and wanted
security above all else.
For those who prescribed to the Theory Y or participative management style, they
believed their workers would naturally put effort in their work, apply self-direction while
pursuing the companys objectives without the need for external control or threat of punishment.
A Theory Y manager would lean to the idea that people would usually accept and often seek
responsibility while maintaining a capacity to use imagination, ingenuity and creativity in
problem-solving endeavors.

McGregor focused more on a set of beliefs, attitudes and assumptions rather than a
management style. His intentions were to show that there was a paradox about the way things
had been done in the past with traditions and what the evidence was showing from the social and
behavioral studies of the time period (1950s).
McGregor experienced doubters while continuing to write on the subject. Many argued
that there was not enough evidence for this viewpoint. Many of McGregors counterparts shared
the same values but found Theory Y to be idealistic, impractical and futile. (Weisbord 2012)
Long after McGregor passed, men and women have studied the evidence of Theory Y or
participative management and what leaders actually practice. Even though there have been
numerous studies to indicate that a Theory Y manager is a better source of getting good results
from a company standpoint and keeping employees engaged, there seems to be a disconnect as to
why managers do not actually utilize it in a consistent manner.
Bill Saporito wrote an article based on this issue. The revolt against working smarter
delved into the dichotomy of evidence and practice of managing in a participative manner. IT
WAS really beautiful. Hourlies and supervisors, pencil pushers and clock punchers, all gathered
around the corporate foundry to forge a new relationship based on the idea that workers could
play an active part in management. Some termed it participative management, others, working
smarter. Born of the often desperate struggle in the late Seventies to hold the fort against foreign
competitors, the new way entailed asking employees how their work might be improved and then
letting them improve it, often in work teams or so-called quality circles. The initial results were
ROI-opening: A study of 101 industrial companies found that the participatively managed among
them outscored the others on 13 of 14 financial measures. The concept seemed unstoppable.

Ironically, though, its very success has caused some people in corporations to view it as a threat.
(Saporito 1986)
As noted in his research, there was much to gain from working smarter. However, as
he dug deeper into his research he found that the way participative management was actually
introduced determined its fate in an organization. If there was an edict from the top-down that
this was the new paradigm of management, then it would stick. The decision-making had to
come from the top and the top determined what that was going to look like.
Saporito also discovered that it was more difficult to embrace and practice this type of
management style the further up the ladder one went. He found that many felt this style was
only for those beneath the executive status and was fine for those in a supervisory level role. A
sense of entitlement amongst the ranks of higher ups indicated that the boss would be the final
decision maker even if he or she listened to the voice of the people. In the end, it was their
responsibility to make a profit and keep things running and they saw the final decision as being
theirs to make. They did not trust a group decision.
Research conducted by Barsade, Ward, Turner and Sonnenfeld in 2000 studied 62 CEOs
and their top management teams. The study concluded that those who led based on a Theory Y
model out-performed those who held to a Theory X approach. Executives and top management
teams must be willing to share power and decision-making responsibilities.
Managers are still failing at rates 60%. Between 30 and 50 percent of all executive-level
appointments end in firing or resignation. (Fernandez-Araoz 1999) Research conducted for
decades, in various world-wide locations on multiple job classifications indicates that 75 percent
of the workforce will name their relationship with their direct supervisor as the worst and most
stressful part of their job.

Critical Assessment
While this article was published in 2011, it could have been written in the 1940s. The
research conducted before and since McGregors Theory X/Y have shaped the foundations of
organization development. This article explains the impact of Theory Y on the workforce today.
In my opinion, Burke does an exceptional job with vetting out other research for the
understanding of Theory Y and how it relates to what is more commonly spoken of today as
participative or participatory management. The literature that he cites back up his notion that
while Theory Y looks good and performs very well, it hits a wall when it comes to actually doing
it the right way. Burke points out that the rubber meets the road at the executive level, primarily
the CEO. If the CEO and/or other top management personnel do not fully engage this set of
beliefs or values, then it will not be successful.
Every management class I have ever taken insists that programs will fail if you do not
have buy-in from the top. I certainly believe this to be true from personal experience. Theory Y
is no different. The author of this article has pointed out that while we know better, we do not, as
a whole, do better. There was ample research studies to suggest that participative management
works, yet, top managers do not have the competence or patience to fully embrace these changes
and implement them.
Fear of losing control is also a point noted in this article. Ultimately, the article suggests
that while the process of change can bring about fear, it is the very people who are bringing
about change (CEOs, for example) that are fearful of change themselves. They do not want to
relinquish their decision-making control and power. Also, they do not want to take the time
needed to change culture. True culture change takes time.

Reflection
5

Few, if any, CEOs go into a situation without wishing to bring about some type of
change. They want things done their way. I believe this is because there is some ego involved,
their way will produce better results, a better bottom-line. Organizations are typically in the tank
before their find a new leader. Then, the onus is placed on the new kid in town to turn things
around and to do it quickly. The statistics on the rate of terminations and resignations at the
executive level show that this is a high stress position and many see that they have to fix things.
Therefore, they do not have time to get to know people or processes. They forge ahead with
their own agenda and forget about the group dynamics.
A final point is that working within a participatory management style, working smarter or
Theory Y model is difficulty, time consuming and requires one to know oneself very well and to
be able to take feedback appropriately. I suppose this would be the ideal leader in todays
market. However, I do not believe we have very many good examples of true leadership in
todays society. I am hopeful that those of us who are truly passionate about bringing change in
the world and our corners of the world will one day be able to practice what we have learned.
Then, one day we will have a different landscape of leadership.
This assignment has given me much to think about in how I handle day-to-day goings on
in my world. It is my goal to be more open to asking for feedback and when received, not to be
defensive but rather to learn more about others perceptions of me. The article I chose has
helped me in my role at work as I cite reasons we have a retention issue. As the Vice President
of a hospital, I am very blessed to work with a CEO who has a Theory Y style. Yet, I still see
areas where this needs to trickle down into the Director level and hope I can be a catalyst to
getting there.
References

Barsade, S., Ward, S. Turner, J and Sonnenfeld, J. (2000). To your hearts content: a
mode of effective diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol 45,
pp. 802-36.
Burke, W. (2011). On the legacy of theory Y. Journal of Management History, 17(2),
193-201. Retrieved from doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17511341111112596
Fernandez-Araoz, C. (1999). Hiring without firing. Harvard Business Review, JulyAugust, pp. 109-20.
Saporito, B. (1986). The revolt against working smarter. Fortune, Vol. 114 No2, pp. 5865.
Weisbord, M. (2012). Productive workplaces: dignity, meaning, and community in the
21 century, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA
st

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/participative-management.html