DQ1

McGregor developed the Theory Y and Theory X. These define how managers view their employees. This was not covered in the lesson. Do your own research about McGregor’s theory and answer the following questions:

1. Contrast McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y assumptions about people.

2. What types of managers have you dealt with in your organization?

3.  Assess why there is a predominance of Theory X or Theory Y managers in your organization or industry?

DQ2

We’re interested in how companies can effectively implement strategy. Part of that requires that companies have corporate cultures that are aligned with the strategy developed by the executives. How can companies identify dysfunction within their corporate culture? How can they identify the problems that will prevent the company strategy from being realized? And once those problems have been identified, how can companies change their culture for the better? Can you think of real-world examples (maybe from your own experience)?

R1

First, there are various signs of a dysfunctional culture. A company’s culture may be dysfunctional if there are no clear values. There are no fundamental principles to which workers may relate for them to have a sense of belonging at a firm. The actions and attitudes that their idealized workers would exhibit are commonplace in the workplace visions of most business owners, managers, and other decision-makers. It’s not a good idea to leave the door open for employees to set their own rules in the workplace since this sends the wrong message to the rest of the workforce. The second sign is the lack of transparency. In the eyes of several leaders, revealing too much information may be seen as a betrayal of their power, and therefore, a vulnerability. Even if there is such a thing as too much openness, the alternative is just as bad: no openness at all. It is essential that workers understand the “why” underlying the firm’s actions in need to foster a sense of loyalty and camaraderie throughout the workforce as a whole. It is also imperative to note that any company such as Apple, which has a long positive attribute may identify the problems that will prevent the company strategy from being realized through internal analysis (Kahney, 2019). There are numerous categories of internal analyses, with those that emphasis on both physical and intangible characteristics of a firm’s internal elements such as the issues which may lead to dysfunctional culture. To develop a workable corporate policy or plan, management does an internal study to identify potential growth opportunities or areas that need to be revised.

           On the other hand, in the case of Apple ethical issues in its Chinese manufacturers regarding employment practices, because these ethical issues are global, a narrow emphasis on Chinese firms will not suffice (Lee, Mol & Mellahi, 2016). A greater emphasis is being placed on Apple’s stock price than on the well-being of the workforce employed by its manufacturing firms. The foundation of the approach is to alter the expectations of investors and hedge fund managers. In addition, the firm will have plenty of time to do thorough background checks on potential suppliers and contractors to verify that they are adhering to all applicable regulations and ethical standards. As a result, the company must cut its minimum profit criterion and devote more resources to ensure that its partner firms adhere to an ethical code of conduct that is in line with the company’s goal and vision. Rethinking appropriate ethical standards at Apple’s manufacturing facilities is a must for the company’s management. There is now insufficient proof of the associate companies’ ethical conformity in their annual reports due to significant contributions from the company.

References

Lee, S. H., Mol, M. J., & Mellahi, K. (2016). Apple and Its Suppliers: Corporate Social Responsibility. Ontario, Canada: Ivey Business School, Western University.

Kahney, L. (2019, March 16). Apple whips its gigantic global supply chain into shape. Retrieved from https://www.cultofmac.com/611144/apple-supply-chai.

R2

This week’s forum topic was super interesting! I have never heard of McGregor and his theories before, so it was refreshing to learn some new information and figure out how it applied to my real-world situations with current and previous organizations I have worked for. I also feel it helps me better understand my managers and the reasons behind some of their actions.

After some research by reading articles and watching some videos, I was able to quickly understand McGregor’s Theory Y and Theory X and suddenly so many things came together, and light bulbs were going off. His theory just explains so much about managers mentalities and how they internally decide on their management styles.

Theory X assumes people work only because they have to. They work only as a means to an end. They come to work, do their job, get their paycheck and go home. They never go above and beyond or perform any tasks outside of what is directly assigned to them. In fact, they often try to avoid work all together. Theory Y is pretty much the opposite. It assumes that people come to work because they want to and that they genuinely enjoy their jobs. They take pride in their jobs, go the extra mile without any extra direction from management, and thrive on responsibilities given to them (Carson, 2005).

In my current organization, my first manager was without a doubt a Theory X manager whether she realized it or not. She micromanaged every assignment, every deadline and it was draining to me. It made me feel as though she did not trust me to accomplish my assigned tasks. I didn’t know it at the time, but I am very much so a Theory Y employee. Needless to say, we clashed very bad. She ended up being removed from her position because of her management style and was replaced with my current manager who is thankfully a Theory Y manager. We get along great. She understands I take pride in my work and my responsibilities and will continually exceed expectations because of it.

Other than my manager, and my finance director, I would say there is a predominate Theory X management style within my organization. I think this is due mainly to two factors. The first factor is the geographical location of where my organization is. It is in the south and very much apart of that “good ole’ boy” mentality when it comes to jobs in the area. It is all about who you know, and people tend to get jobs because of who they know, not based on their qualifications. For example, there is a another finance manager in my department who has no finance background or degree. She has openly told the office that she cannot go to college because she refuses to learn how to do Algebra and that it is pointless because “no one uses algebra anyway”. Her husband is best friends with the Clerk of Circuit Court. The second one is that most of the managers in my organization are older. There is nothing wrong with having an older manager, but given the location coupled with this fact, many managers are unwilling to deviate from how they have managed for x number of years. People in my organization have the tendency to just do things the way they have always been done rather than analyzing the why and how behind what they are doing. There is so much hesitancy to change their way of thinking.

References

Carson, C. M. (2005). A historical view of douglas McGregor’s theory Y. Management Decision, 43(3), 450-460. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740510589814

R3

Douglas McGregor’s (1960) Theory X and Y are outlined in his book The Human Side of Enterprise. Here McGregor discusses that the conventional view of management’s task can be stated in three propositions he labels “Theory X.” (Maidment, n.d.). Under Theory X people have no inherent motivation to work, will work as little as possible, are resistant to change and have no self-control (Maidment, n.d.). It is management’s responsibility to organize all aspects of work, direct all processes and control the actions and efforts of all workers (Maidment). In contrast, McGregor believed that by nature humans are not indolent and lack self-motivation, rather humankind is a “wanting animal” and seeks to meet certain physiological, social and ego needs (Maidment, n.d., p 205-206). Because of these needs, McGregor offers a contrasting theory, he terms “Theory Y” (Maidment). Under Theory Y people are self-motivated and enjoy the challenge of work. It is still management’s responsibility to organize elements of work and arrange them, but they arrange them in a way that people can achieve their own efforts towards a common organizational goal (Maidment). Under X people are passive, yet under Y they are active.

The Army predominantly adheres to Theory X, particularly when you first enter the military or when you are in the lower enlisted ranks. As you move up through the ranks and become a leader (non-commissioned officer), you transition through X to Y. As a commissioned officer, you still transition from X to Y, but are expected to transition quicker because by design officers are managers. This is likely because of the hierarchical nature and mission of our organization. The military by design must maintain absolute control and discipline to execute our mission to serve the nation. In essence, a military officer and non-commissioned officer must manage according to both theories to execute our mission. For instance, in day-to-day operations, I manage under Y, but in certain situations, like combat operations, I need to manage under X to a certain degree.

Mandee

References

Maidment, D. F. (Ed.). (n.d.). The Human Side of Enterprise. Managment 97/98(31), pp. 204-208.