Theory X and Theory Y Douglas McGregor developed Theory X and Theory Y.

He argued that Theory X best represented the views of scientific management and Theory Y represented the human relations approach. McGregor believed that Theory Y was the best philosophy for all managers. Theory X Assumptions 1. People don't like work and if possible, try to avoid it. 2. People aren't committed, motivated to reach organizational goal. 3. People prefer to be directed, to avoid responsibility, and to want security, they have little ambition. 4. People are not self-directed, self-motivated, self-controlled and even they have less interest in learning. 5. People don't like to take leading rather they want to be led by others. 6. People don't have the capacity to be innovative in solving organizational problems. 7. The work is of secondary importance to people. What they do is less important than what they earn for doing it. Managerial implications (Theory X) 1. The manager should closely supervise and control subordinates. 2. As employees aren't self committed toward the achievement of the organizational goal, so managers have to control, direct, coerce and threaten employees to get them t o work toward organizational goals. 3. The manager must breakdown tasks into simple, repetitive, easily learned operations. 4. He or she must establish detailed work routines and procedures, and enforce these fairly but firmly. Theory Y Assumptions 1. People don't naturally dislike work; work is a natural part of their lives. 2. People are internally motivated to reach objectives to which they are committed. 3. People are committed to goals to the degree that they receive personal rewards when they reach their objectives. 4. People will both seek and accept responsibility under favorable conditions. 5. People have the capacity to be innovative in solving organizational problems. 6. People are bright, but under most organizational conditions their potential is underutilized. 7. People want to feel useful and important. 8. People want to belong and to be recognized as individuals. 9. People are self- directed, self -motivated, self- controlled and have the willingness to learn. 10. People like to take responsibility and give leading from the front.

Managerial implications (Theory Y) 1. Managers should allow the workers greater latitude, and create an organization to stimulate the workers. 2. Managers should ensure a good working environment. 3. The manager should make each worker feel useful and important. 4. He or she should keep subordinates informed and listen to their objections to his or her plans. 5. The manager should allow subordinates to exercise some self-direction and self-control on routine matters. 6. Manager should recognize the each worker for their outstanding achievement that will encourage the achiever and the others. 7. Manager should provide a climate that gives employees scope for personal improvement. Participative management is one way to do his. Mary Parker Follett Born in Boston in 1868, Mary parker Follett attended Thayer Academy and Radcliffe College, concentrating on philosophy, law and political science, with graduate work at Newham College in Cambridge, England, and additional study in Paris. Contributions 1. From the start of her social and educational work in 1891 to her death in 1933, Miss Follett attempted to establish a management philosophy based on the grounds that any enduring society, any productive society, must be founded upon a recognition of the motivating desires of the individual and the group. 2. Recognizing that a man on the job is motivated by the same forces that motivate his duties and pleasures away from the job, Miss Follett realized that the basic problem of any organization, business or otherwise, was the harmonizing and coordinating of group efforts to achieve the most efficient effort toward completing a task. 3. Drawing on her background in social work and philosophy, she showed that authority as an act of subordination was offensive to man's emotion and therefore couldn't serve a good foundation for cooperative organization. Instead, she proposed an authority of function, whereby an individual has authority over his own job area. 4. Through her eyes, power, leadership and authority became dynamic concepts- not heavy tools which only burdened administrators. Speaking on leadership, Miss Follett said that it was not a matter of a dominating personality, but rather the ability of one who was able to secure an interpretation from within a group of the best concepts of the leader and the led. 5. Agreeing with Fayol and Sheldon, she stressed education and the fact that leaders were not born only, but could be made through education in understanding group dynamics and human behavior.

6. In her view, coordination was the central core of management, and she called attention to four of its facets: i. Coordination by direct contact with the people concerned. ii. Coordination that was a continuous process. iii. Coordination found in the initial stages of endeavor. iv. Coordination as a reciprocal relation of all aspects of a situation. 7. She recognized that a new principle of association was needed because men had not yet learned how to live together in harmony. This new principle she called the group concept, and prophesied that it would become the basis for our future industrial systems, the new approach to politics, and the foundation of international order. It was an early approach to the systems concept of management. She was, in effect, a prophet in the management wilderness, crying, as she put it, for "togetherness" and "group thinking." 8. She took for granted Taylor's assertion that labor and management shared a common purpose as members of the same organization, but she believed that the artificial distinction between managers (order givers) and subordinates (order takers) obscured this natural partnership. She was a great believer in the power of the group, where individuals could combine their diverse talents into something bigger. Moreover, her "holistic' model of control took into account not just individuals and groups, but the effects of such environmental factors as politics, economics and biology. Mary Parker Follett was a true management philosopher, a philosopher who helped span the gap between the mechanistic approach of Taylor and our contemporary approach emphasizing human behavior. More than any other individual, she is responsible for bridging the gap between scientific management and the group or systems approach to solving managerial problems. The Hawthorne Experiments The human relations movement grew out of a famous series of studies conducted at the Western Electric Company from 1924 to 1933. These eventually became known as the "Hawthorne Studies" because many of them were performed at Western Electric's Hawthorne plant near Chicago. The Hawthorne Studies began as an attempt to investigate the relationship between the level of lighting in the workplace and worker productivity. These studies were conducted by Frederick Taylor and his colleagues. In some of the early studies, the Western Electric researchers divided the employees into test groups, who were subjected to deliberate changes in lighting, and control groups, whose lighting remain constant throughout the experiments. The results of the experiments were ambiguous. When the test group's lighting was improved, productivity tended to increase, although erratically. But when lighting conditions were made worse, there was also a tendency for productivity to increase in the test group. To compound the mystery, the control group's output also rose over the course

of studies, even though it experienced no change in illumination. Obviously, something besides lighting was influencing the workers' performance. In a new set of experiments, a small group of workers was placed in a separate room and a number of variables were altered. Wages were increased, rest periods of varying length were introduced; the work day and work week were shortened. The researchers, who now acted as supervisors, also allowed the groups to choose their own rest periods and to have a say in other suggested changes. Again, the results were ambiguous. Performance tended to increase over time, but it also rose and fell erratically. Partway through this set of experiments, Elton Mayo (1880-1949) and some associates from Harvard, including Fritz J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson became involved. Findings of experiments 1. In these and subsequent experiments, Mayo and his associates decided that a complex chain of attitudes had touched off the productivity increases. It was found that there is a close relationship between the attitude toward the work and productivity. The productivity depends on how positively the workers perceive the job. Because they had been singled out for special attention, both the test and the control groups had developed a group pride to improve their work performance. 2. Sympathetic supervision had further reinforced their motivation. The researchers concluded that the employees would work harder if they believed management was concerned about their welfare and supervisors paid special attention to them. This phenomenon was subsequently labeled the Hawthorne effect. 3. Since the control group receive no special supervisory treatment or enhancement of working conditions but still improved its performance, some people (including Mayo himself) speculated that the control group's productivity gains resulted from the special attention of the researchers themselves. But some believe that productivity increased because the control group took the work as challenge. They wanted to prove that they are as good as the workers of test group; they are not inferior to the workers of test group. 4. The researchers also concluded that informal work groups- the social environment of employees- have a positive influence on productivity. Many of Western Electric's employees found their work dull and meaningless, but their associations and friendships with co-workers, sometimes influenced by a shared antagonism toward the "bosses," imparted some meaning to their working lives and provided some protection from management. For these reasons, group pressure was frequently a stronger influence on worker productivity than management demand. Time and Motion study No study of scientific management would be complete without Frank Bunker and Lillian Moller Gilbreth. Whenever these names are mentioned one immediately thinks of the Gilbreth's pioneering efforts- their work and refinements in the field of motion

study laid the entire foundation for our modern application of job simplification, meaningful work standards, and incentive wage plans. Born in 1868, Frank B. Gilbreth, despite having passed the M.I.T. entrance examinations, decided to enter the contracting business, starting as an apprentice bricklayer with the firm of Whidden and Company. Gilbreth quickly noted that the men teaching him to lay bricks used three different sets of motions: one set to t each a person to lay bricks, a second set to work at a slow pace, and a third to work at a fast pace. Observing these and other variations in the motion patterns used by the bricklayers in their work, Gilbreth wondered which set of motions was he best and most efficient. His interest aroused, Gilbreth studied the motions used by the men in relation to the work and tools used, and he developed an improved method. In laying exterior brick, for example, he reduced the number of motions from 18 to 4 .5 per brick laid, and on interior brick he reduced the motions from 18 to 2, resulting in an increase of from 120 to 350 bricks per man-hour! He also developed a new way to stack bricks that eliminated the motions normally required by the bricklayer for examining a brick to determine its best surface. He developed an adjustable stand that eliminated the bending normally required to pick up a brick. By thus studying and analyzing the motion of workers scientifically, Gilbreth developed a more efficient and less timeconsuming method of laying bricks- and unwittingly started on a lifetime search for the "one best way" of performing any given task. In 1904 Gilbreth married Lillian Moller who had a unique background in psychology and, management, and the two embarked on a quest for better work methods. In the course of their studies the Gilbreths invented and used many devices and techniques. They were among the first to use motion-picture films to analyze and improve motion sequences. Gilbreth was unable to determine how long a motion took because the early cameras did not run at a constant speed, most of them being hand cranked. To overcome this handicap Gilbreth invented the microchronometer, a clock with a large sweeping hand, capable of recording time to 1/2000 of a minute. With this clock placed in the field of work study being photographed, Gilbreth could analyze each motion from the film and could determine how long its performance required. Using these films, the Gilbreths constructed three-dimensional wire models of motions, to permit better study and analysis. To outline more clearly a motion sequence on film, a small lighted electric bulb was attached to employee's hand and time exposures were made. To record process and flow patterns used in a work situation, The Gilbreths developed the process chart and the flow diagram, both widely used today. Moving from the area of motions, the Gilbreths developed the "white list" card system on personnel- a forerunner of current merit-rating systems. They emphasized written instructions to avoid confusion and misunderstanding. They also worked on simplifying the English alphabet, the typewriter keyboard, and spelling. They urged

that the principles of management and motion analysis could effectively be applied to the huge-untapped area of self-management. They started a search into the area of fatigue and its impact on health and productivity that continues today. In their conception, motion and fatigue were intertwined- every motion that was eliminated reduced fatigue. Using motion picture cameras, they tried to find the most economical motions for each task in order to upgrade performance and reduce fatigue. The Gilbreths argued that motion study would raise worker morale because of its obvious physical benefits and because it demonstrated management's concern for the worker. Considering Gilbreth's intense interest and study of the field of motions, it is no wonder that he is known as the father of motion study. But his fame did not come until many years after his death in 1924.

Mary Parker Follett stressed the importance of an organization establishing common goals for its employees. However, she also began to think somewhat differently than the other theorists of her day, discarding command-style hierarchical organizations where employees were treated like robots. She began to talk about such things as ethics, power, and leadership. She encouraged managers to allow employees to participate in decision making. She stressed the importance of people rather than techniques a concept very much before her time. As a result, she was a pioneer and often not taken seriously by management scholars of her time. But times change, and innovative ideas from the past suddenly take on new meanings. Much of what managers do today is based on the fundamentals that Follett established more than 80 years ago. Mary Parkers concept focuses on: * Control is the self-directing power of a unity. * "Coordination" is therefore the most important element of an organization because genuine coordination and/or integration gives control. * Organizational control is a process or system. Consistent with this logic there are four fundamental principles of organization: (1) "Coordination as the reciprocal relating of all the factors in a situation."-i.e. ensuring that all factors influencing a situation are considered. (2) "Coordination by direct contact of the responsible people concerned."-i.e. direct involvement of the responsible people in decisions and actions. (3) "Coordination in the early stages."i.e. dealing with issues early produces a proactive organization rather than reactive. (4) "Coordination as a continuing process."i.e. control and coordination are processes of continual improvement. "Self-direction" (i.e. freedom) is powerful and necessary because: One of most fundamental aspects of human nature is the wish to govern one's own life. The first three fundamental principles require self-directed employees. The "key man" in any situation has the appropriate knowledge and experience. "Self-direction" requires that an individual has as much authority as goes with his function or task i.e. his responsibilities. "Self-direction" and "authority" reinforce "self-responsibility." Management gives up nothing when employees self-direct their activities. Rather they gather "into the management of their business every scrap of useful material (and knowledge)." Managers and supervisors should be responsible for leading, teaching, and helping employees not controlling. This requires a radical change in thinking because if managers think they are responsible for controlling employees and the business, there will be something in their manner which will make employees dislike being under them. (Note: this is consistent with our belief that a management paradigm shift is essentialthe actions and thinking of managers who believe they must be "in control" will reinforce that belief and not employee "self-direction/selfcontrol." The organization should stive to resolve differences by integrationnot by domination or compromise. This enables individuals to retain their individuality and have the opportunity to be heard.