Theory X assumes most people are basically immature, need direction and control, and are incapable of taking responsibility. They are viewed as lazy, dislike work and need mixture of financial inducements and threat of loss of their job to make them work (`carrot and stick' mentality)
Theory Y is the opposite of Theory X - people want to fulfill themselves: seek self-respect, self-development and self-fulfillment at work as in life in general.
In general, the Theory X supervisor/manager distrusts subordinates to think and act in the best interests of the organization, while the Theory Y supervisor/manager has much more faith in subordinates.
Six `basic assumptions' for Theory Y:
· Work is as natural as play or rest: the average human being does not inherently dislike work: whether work is a source of pleasure or a punishment (to be avoided) depends on nature of the work and its management.
· Effort at work need not depend on threat of punishment: if committed to objectives then self-direction and self-control rather than external controls.
· Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement: satisfaction of ego and self-actualization needs can be directed towards the objectives of the organization.
· The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept but also to seek responsibility.
· High degrees of imagination, ingenuity and creativity are not restricted to a narrow group but are widely distributed in the population.
· Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentials of the average human being are being only partly utilized'
You have been managing a small group for several years and have been relatively successful in producing a transformation to Theory Y, which has generally produced higher morale and greater productivity. However, an individual transferred to your
group about six months ago seems to be taking issue with every decision, which the group makes.
He has accused you of not exercising effective leadership. You are convinced that he will oppose whatever you or the group proposes, since you have seen him reverse his ground on several occasions for apparently no other reason than to oppose anything, which will be successful. For example, you have had several meetings with him in whom he has come up with good ideas, but when you have tried to implement them, he has picked apart their weaknesses. However, these things have occurred in such a subtle way, that they have not been at all obvious to your subordinates. By appealing to certain philosophical issues, he has influenced some within your group.
There has not been a definitive incident of insubordination, which you believe justifies his termination. In discussing this with your boss (who is quite Theory-X oriented), he believes that this individual should be fired immediately, but you have put off that decision seeking a better alternative. The major problem is that you have been trying to stimulate criticism in order to produce the highest quality product and to maintain a high level of morale. According to your philosophy, constructive criticism should be rewarded.
The firing of this individual will cause sympathy toward him and, at best, the cessation of a critical approach to product improvement for the near and intermediate term. Your product is at a critical point in its development, and this individual is quite important to this effort; you do not need a crisis at this point. However, reasoning with your boss has not been very productive, since he feels that the only way that you can effectively establish your authority is to fire this individual. So you have two problems on your hand: an "immature" subordinate (who seems beyond hope) and a boss who can think of nothing other than a Theory-X solution.
What
do you do?
(Scenario Source: TECHNIMANAGEMENT David B. Brown Professor and Head Department of Computer Science, The University of Alabama http://cs.ua.edu/~brown/sm.htm#1Scenarios)
Setting
Realistic Goals
Leadership - Clarence and Felix
Objective - To set realistic and obtainable goals.
From a posting on the TRDEV-L newsgroup by Fred Nichols, but he feels that "Anonymous" is the real author.
The world, from a frog's perspective...
Once upon a time, there lived a man named Clarence who had a pet frog named Felix. Clarence lived a modestly comfortable existence on what he earned working at Wal-Mart; but he always dreamed of being rich.
"Felix!" he exclaimed one day, "We're going to be rich! I'm going to teach you how to fly!" Felix, of course, was terrified at the prospect. "I can't fly, you idiot! I'm a frog, not a canary!" Clarence, disappointed at the initial reaction, told Felix, "That negative
attitude of yours could be a real problem. I'm sending you to class."
So Felix went to a three day class and learned about problem solving, time management and effective communication.... but nothing about flying.
On the first day of "flying lessons", Clarence could barely control his excitement (and Felix could barely control his bladder). Clarence explained that their apartment had 15 floors and each day Felix would jump out of a window starting with the first
floor eventually getting to the top floor. After each jump, Felix would analyze how well he flew, isolate on the most effective flying techniques and implement the improved process for the next flight. By the time they reached the top floor, Felix would
surely be able to fly.
Felix pleaded for his life, but it fell on deaf ears. "He just doesn't understand how important this is..." thought Clarence, "but I won't let nay-sayers get in my way." So, with that, Clarence opened the window and threw Felix out (who landed with a thud).
Next day (poised for his second flying lesson) Felix again begged not to be thrown out of the window. With that, Clarence opened his pocket guide to Managing More Effectively and showed Felix the part about how one must always expect resistance when implementing new programs. And with that, he threw Felix out the window. (THUD!)
On the third day (at the third floor) Felix tried a different ploy. Stalling, he asked for a delay in the "project" until better weather would make flying conditions more favorable. But Clarence was ready for him. He produced a timeline pointed to the third
milestone and asked, "You don't want to slip the schedule do you?" From his training, Felix knew that not jumping today would mean that he would have to jump TWICE tomorrow. So he just said, "OK. Let's go." And out the window he went.
Now understand that Felix really was trying his best. On the fifth day he flapped his feet madly in a vain attempt to fly. On the sixth day he tied a small red cape around his neck and tried to think "Superman" thoughts. Try as he might, though, Felix couldn't fly.
By the seventh day, Felix (accepting his fate) no longer begged for mercy. He simply looked at Clarence and said, "You know you're killing me, don't you?" Clarence pointed out that Felix's performance so far had been less than exemplary, failing to meet
any of the milestone goals he had set for him. With that, Felix said quietly, "Shut up and open the window". He leaped out, taking careful aim on the large jagged rock by the corner of the building. And Felix went to that great lily pad in the sky.
Clarence was extremely upset, as his project had failed to meet a single goal that he set out to accomplish. Felix had not only failed to fly, he didn't even learn how to steer his flight as he fell like a sack of cement. Nor did he improve his productivity
when Clarence had told him to "Fall smarter, not harder."
The only thing left for Clarence to do was to analyze the process and try to determine where it had gone wrong. After much thought, Clarence smiled and said, "Next time...... I'm getting a smarter frog!"
How might this story apply to supervisors? What if someone just cannot do what you expect? Do you become Theory X or a Theory Y boss/manager/leader?