Modern management theories: theory "X" and theory "U" D. McGregor, theory "Z" Y

Theory X-Y D. McGregor

Douglas MacGregor (1906-1964) - social psychologist who published a number of articles on research in this area. For several years he was President of Aston College and described how this period as senior leader shaped his views on the functioning of the organization. From 1954 until the end of his days, he was a professor of management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Douglas McGregor created the theory of x, y. This theory examines the behavior of a manager, his managerial actions based on assumptions about the behavior of employees. The clarity and simplicity of McGregor's theory has caused widespread recognition and, at the same time, widespread criticism for its simplistic view of the problem.

McGregor argues that there are at least two approaches that managers use to manage subordinates. These approaches are the consequences of two different views on human nature: fundamentally negative (theory X, autocratic) and fundamentally positive (theory Y, democratic). Analyzing the relationship of managers to subordinates, McGregor came to the conclusion that their view of human nature is based on a certain system of assumptions or assumptions that ultimately determine his behavior and actions in relation to subordinates.

1. The worldview of managers guided by theory X is based on the following four postulates:

The average person has an inherent dislike for work and a desire to avoid it if possible. Thus, managers need to emphasize productivity, incentive schemes, and "honest day work" and anticipate "limiting results."

2. Because of human aversion to work, most people need to be controlled, coerced, directed, punished in order for the goals of the organization to be achieved.

3. The average person prefers to be guided, prefers to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, wants to be safe in everything.
4. Employees value job security above all else and are virtually devoid of ambition.

Therefore, the theory x manager imposes his decisions on subordinates and centralizes authority. First of all, this concerns the formulation of tasks for subordinates and the rules of their work, forcing them to complete the task. This is a strict and constant control on the part of the manager. Incentives for conscientious work involve punishment or fear of possible punishment. According to McGregor, this overt or covert approach is most common among managers.

3. The cost of physical and mental effort at work is as natural as playing or relaxing. The average person does not inherently dislike work: depending on the conditions, work can be a source of satisfaction or punishment.

4. External control is not the only means forcing employees to put effort into work. People will exercise self-management and self-control to achieve the goals they have committed to achieve.

5. The most significant reward in the event of a commitment may be the satisfaction of the needs of self-realization (compare with Argyris). This may be a direct result of efforts to achieve the goals of the organization.

6. The average person learns, under appropriate conditions, not only to accept, but also to bear responsibility.

7. Very many people are able to make a creative contribution to solving organizational problems, which in practice is not always the case.

Therefore, here the leader avoids imposing his will on subordinates, includes them in the decision-making process and the definition of work regulations.

And today, the theory of y is considered more effective, it is believed that it is precisely such people and such a leadership style that are most appropriate for achieving effective motivation in market economic conditions.

McGregor was also convinced of the greater validity of Theory Y and was a promoter of the idea of ​​wide participation of all members of the organization in the preparation and decision-making processes, empowering employees with greater responsibility and the opportunity to take risks, and also pointed out the importance of optimal group relations as a factor in individual motivation.

McGregor analyzes how Theory Y could be applied as the basis for a functioning organization. He is particularly interested in the results of applying this theory to performance appraisal, wages and promotions, participation, and relationships between administrative and line personnel. In the last section, he makes the important point that there will be tensions and conflicts between administrative and line staff as long as the administrative staff is used as a top management service to control line personnel (as required by Theory X). According to Theory Y, the role of administrative staff is seen as a service of providing professional assistance to all levels of management.

This theory is somewhat isolated from other described process theories of motivation, due to the fact that it describes the types and behavior of the leaders of organizations. However, due to the fact that managers are also employees of the team, who are characterized by labor motivation and certain behavior in the labor process, it is also referred to as procedural theories of motivation.

As a behavioral characteristic of the leader, D. McGregor singled out the degree of his control over his subordinates. The extreme poles of this characteristic are autocratic and democratic leadership.

Letocratic leadership means that the leader imposes his decisions on subordinates and centralizes authority. First of all, this concerns the formulation of tasks for subordinates and the rules of their work. McGregor called the preconditions for an autocratic leadership style Theory X. According to her:

A person is lazy by nature, does not like to work and avoids it in every possible way.

A person has no ambition, he avoids responsibility, preferring to be led.

Efficient work is achieved only through coercion and the threat of punishment.

It should be noted that such a category of workers does occur. For example, people who are psychasthenoids by personality type. Without showing any initiative in their work, they will willingly obey the leadership and at the same time complain about their working conditions, low wages, etc.

Democratic leadership means that the leader avoids imposing his will on subordinates, includes them in the decision-making process and the definition of work regulations. McGregor called the prerequisites for a democratic leadership style Theory Y. According to her:

Labor for a person is a natural process.

In favorable conditions, a person strives for responsibility and self-control.

He is capable of creative solutions, but realizes these abilities only partially.

It is these people and this style of leadership that are most appropriate for achieving effective motivation in the market economy.

61. Likert's leadership theory (1947-1967)

Renis Likert and his colleagues at the University of Michigan are developing a leadership model according to which there are two orientations of the leader: either to work or to the person. Subsequently, he singled out 4 leadership styles: 1) exploitative-authoritarian (task-oriented, tough and authoritarian leader); 2) benevolent authoritarian (relationships are authoritarian, but there is also limited participation of subordinates in decision-making); 3) consultative-democratic (the relationship between the leader and the subordinate is largely trusting and open); 4) based on participation (subordinates take part in decision-making). According to Likert, participatory leadership is most effective, however, as further research has shown, this is not always the case.

Being a supporter of the well-known theory of D. McGregor, he attached great importance to the moral and psychological climate within the organization. He considered it necessary to strictly assess the "state of the human organization" and punish leaders who allowed it to deteriorate.

62. Blake-Mouton Leadership Styles (1971)

Rice. 4. Management styles according to Blake-Mouton

Let's characterize management styles according to Blake-Mouton:

1.1 - the leader makes minimal efforts, sufficient only to save the organization;

1.9 - attentive attitude to people, which creates a pleasant, friendly atmosphere in the organization (the atmosphere of a "country club");

9.1 - the leader ensures a high level of functioning of the organization, while neglecting the interests of people;

5.5 - balance between the need to do work and maintain the morale of people at a satisfactory level;

9.9 - the work is done by dedicated people who understand the goals of the organization, which creates a relationship of trust and respect.

Blake and Mouton, as well as K. Levin, single out the most effective, in their opinion, style - 9.9 - but recognize that when the situation changes (especially in conflict), the main style can be restructured.

63. Fiedler's leadership theory

The situational approach was developed in Fiedler's theory of leadership. His main idea was the assumption that leadership behavior should be different in different situations.

To assess leadership style, Fiedler used an eight-point scale to build a profile of the least preferred employee (colleague) (LPR).

Fiedler's situational leadership model includes three situational variables:

Relations between the leader and the team: good - bad (this variable reflects the level of loyalty, trust, support and respect, i.e. recognition of the leader in the team);

Work structuredness: high - low (clearness of the goal; plurality of means to achieve the goals; validity of decisions);

Power (official power): strong - weak (the level of formal power of the leader, necessary to use adequate incentives (reward - punishment).

Based on the analysis of these three situational variables, in combination with two leadership styles, Fiedler identified eight types of situations that are favorable for a particular leadership style.

Fiedler found that efficiency is achieved if:

In the least favorable situation and in the most favorable situation, leaders who exhibit a work-oriented style (low CNR style) are most effective;

In an intermediate situation of moderate auspiciousness, a relationship-oriented style (high NPR style) is more effective. The tasks are structured, but the position of the leader is rather weak. Accordingly, under these conditions, the leader is forced to show interest in the emotions of subordinates.

Thus, according to Fiedler, although the leadership type does not change, one or another type of leadership is more favorable in a given situation. The practical significance of the model lies in the fact that it allows, depending on the situation, to select a leader. At the same time, the main selection criterion is the compliance of the manager's style with a specific production situation.

64. The Harsey-Blanchard Leadership Theory

According to this concept, the effectiveness of leadership depends on the maturity of the followers. Maturity consists of two aspects professional and psychological. And it is precisely on how much the followers have matured to carry out the orders of the leader and on their willingness to work under him that his success in the group depends.

P. Hersey and C. Blanchard identified four stage of maturity of subordinates.

M1 - people are unable and unwilling to work;

M 2 - people are not able, but willing to work;

M3 - people are able, but unwilling to work;

M4 - people are able and willing to do what the leader offers them.

The degree of maturity is not only a characteristic of subordinates, but also depends on the task being performed. Maturity may be high in one task and low in another.

There are also two characteristics of leader behavior.

1. Task-centric (management) behavior - shows the extent to which the leader uses one-way communication when explaining what and how the subordinate is obliged to do.

2. Anthropocentric (supportive) behavior - to what extent the leader uses two-way communication when providing social and emotional support to subordinates

Based on a comparison of these three factors (degree of maturity of subordinates, task centric and anthropocentric behavior), four leadership type:

5 1 (pointing) is characterized by high task-centricity and low anthropocentricity. Effective when working with people who have a lower level of maturity for this task;

5 2 (persuasive) - with a moderate task and people orientation, effective when working with people with a level of maturity from low to medium;

5 3 (participating) - with high anthropocentricity and low taskcentricity will be most suitable for people with an average and high level of maturity;

5 4 (delegating) - with low anthropocentricity and task-centricity will lead to success when people with a high level of maturity work

65. Vroom-Yetton-Iago decision making model.

Victor Vroom is an American researcher in the field of motivation theory, the developer of the theory of expectations, the author of such works as "Decision Making as a Social Process", "Leadership and Decision Making" and "Work and Motivation".

Philip Yetton - researcher in the field of behavioral theories and leadership models. Together with Victor Vroom, he developed and tested a decision tree for a year and a half to determine the leadership model.

Arthur Yago - researcher in the field of leadership and managerial decision making.

The model is similar to the previous ones in the sense that it proposes to determine the effective leadership style depending on the situation, it is also assumed that the same leader can use different styles. The main difference of the model is its focus on only one aspect of leadership behavior - involvement of subordinates in decision-making. The leader is encouraged to focus on the problem to be solved and the situation in which the problem arose.

The main idea of ​​the model is that the degree or level of involvement of subordinates in decision-making depends on the characteristics of the situation. There is no single solution for all situations.

After analyzing and evaluating each aspect of the problem, the leader determines which style, in terms of the participation of subordinates in decision-making, is best for him to use.

66. Mitchell and House's Theory of Leadership

One of the situational models of leadership "path - goal" was designed by Terence Mitchell and Robert House. The leader in this model can encourage subordinates to achieve the goals of the organization, influencing the way to achieve these goals. Discussing this approach, Professor House notes that a leader can influence subordinates by “increasing the personal benefit of achieving the goal of a given work by subordinates. The leader can also make the path to that benefit easier by explaining the means to achieve it, removing obstacles and pitfalls, and increasing opportunities for personal satisfaction along the way. Techniques by which the leader can influence the ways or means of achieving goals: 1. Clarifying what is expected of the subordinate. 2. Providing support, mentoring and removing barriers. 3. Directing the efforts of subordinates to achieve the goal. 4. Creation in subordinates of such needs, which are in the competence of the head, which he can satisfy. 5. Meeting the needs of subordinates when the goal is achieved. At first, House considered two styles of leadership in his model: the supporting style and the instrumental style. The support style is similar to the person-centered or relationship-oriented style. The instrumental style is similar to the work or task oriented style. Later, Professor House included two more styles: a style that encourages the participation of subordinates in decision-making and a style that focuses on achievement. Much of the research is focused on instrumental and backing style.

67. Tannenbaum-Schmidt leadership theory

In accordance with this model, the leader chooses one of seven possible patterns of behavior, depending on the strength of the impact on the leadership relationship of three factors: the leader himself, his followers and the situation. Figure 6.5 shows the full spectrum of choices between democratic and authoritarian alternatives, respectively associated with interest in relationships or in work. The difference between these two extreme leadership styles is based on the leader's assumptions about the sources of his power and human nature. The democrat believes that power is given to him by the followers he leads, and that people fundamentally have the capacity for self-management and creative work under the right motivation. The autocrat believes that power comes from his position in the group/organization and that people are intrinsically lazy and difficult to rely on. In the first case, there is an opportunity to participate in management, in the second case, the leader himself determines the goals, means and policies. According to the authors of the model, between these two extremes there are five more intermediate leadership styles. In the development of this model, scientists have encountered difficulties regarding the inclusion of all possible interactions between the leader, followers and the situation in establishing causal relationships in leadership relationships.

This theory is somewhat isolated from other process theories of motivation due to the fact that it describes the types and behavior of the leaders of organizations, therefore, in management it is often referred to as theories of power and leadership. However, due to the fact that managers are also employees of the team, who are characterized by labor motivation and certain behavior in the labor process, it is referred to as procedural theories of motivation.

As a behavioral characteristic of the leader, D. McGregor singled out the degree of his control over his subordinates. The extreme poles of this characteristic are authoritarian and democratic leadership.

Douglas McGregor analyzed the performer's activities in the workplace and found that the manager can control the following parameters that determine the performer's actions:

• tasks that the subordinate receives;
• the quality of the task;
• time of receipt of the task;
• expected time to complete the task;
• funds available to complete the task;
• the team in which the subordinate works;
• instructions received by subordinates;
• convincing the subordinate of the feasibility of the task;
• persuading a subordinate to be rewarded for successful work;
• the amount of remuneration for the work performed;
• the level of involvement of the subordinate in the range of work-related problems.

All these factors depend on the manager and, at the same time, in one way or another affect the employee, determine the quality and intensity of his work. Douglas McGregor came to the conclusion that based on these factors, it is possible to apply two different approaches to management, which he called "Theory X" and "Theory Y".

• a person is lazy by nature, does not like to work and avoids it in every possible way;
• a person has no ambition, he avoids responsibility, preferring to be led;
• effective work is achieved only through coercion and the threat of punishment.

It should be noted that such a category of workers does occur. For example, people who are psychasthenoids by personality type. Without showing any initiative in their work, they will willingly obey the leadership, and at the same time complain about their working conditions, low wages, etc.

"Theory Y" corresponds to the democratic style of management and involves the delegation of authority, improving relationships in the team, taking into account the appropriate motivation of the performers and their psychological needs, enriching the content of the work. According to her:

• labor for a person is a natural process;
• in favorable conditions, a person strives for responsibility and self-control;
• he is capable of creative solutions, but realizes these abilities only partially.

It is these people and this style of leadership that are most appropriate for achieving effective motivation in the market economy.

Both theories have an equal right to exist, but, due to their polarity, they do not occur in practice in their pure form. As a rule, in real life there is a combination of different management styles.

These theories had a strong influence on the development of management theory in general. Links to them today can be found in many practical manuals on enterprise personnel management, motivation of subordinates.

McGregor's theories were developed for the individual. Further improvement of approaches to management was associated with the development of the organization as an open type system, and the work of a person in a team was also considered. This led to the concept of a holistic approach to management, i.e. the need to take into account the totality of production and social problems.

Douglas McGregor was born in 1906. He received his Ph.D. from Harvard University, worked there as a teacher for several years, and in 1937 moved to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

At MIT, he became one of the organizers of the industrial relations department. From 1948 to 1954 was president of Antioch College. Then he returned to MIT as a professor and worked there until his death (1964).

In the early 50s. 20th century D. McGregor formulated his ideas about management, which in 1960 were included in his main work "The human side of the enterprise". A prominent specialist in social psychology, who acquired the influence of a real management guru after the Second World War.

Researcher D. McGregor is known primarily due to the fact that he formulated two approaches to the study of the nature of human control. These approaches are the consequences of two different views on human nature: fundamentally negative (theory "X") and fundamentally positive (theory "Y"). Theory X is an authoritarian view leading to direct regulation and tight control of organizational behavior. This theory suggests that people in the majority need coercion, strict and constant control, and incentives for conscientious work involve punishment or fear of possible punishment. According to D. McGregor, such an approach in an open or disguised form is most common among managers.

D. McGregor himself was convinced of the greater validity of the “U” theory, was a propagandist of the ideas of the broad participation of all members of the organization in the preparation and decision-making processes, empowering employees with greater responsibility and the opportunity to take risks, and also pointed out the importance of optimal group relations as a factor individual motivation. D. McGregor hoped that the adoption by managers of the postulates of "Theory Y" would improve the practice of managing people to a certain extent.

The clarity and simplicity of D. McGregor's theory caused wide recognition and at the same time wide criticism for a simplified view of the problem.

The main merit of D. McGregor is that he indicated the direction in which the style of management can develop constructively if a sufficient level of trust is achieved between management and workers.

Professor at the University of Michigan (USA) is known as the author of the dichotomous theories X and Y.

Theory "X" reflects the traditional approach to management as an administrative-command process. It is characterized by the following points:

■ an ordinary person is characterized by an internal rejection of labor, and he seeks to avoid it in any way;

■ an ordinary person prefers to be controlled, seeks to avoid responsibility;

■ An ordinary person does not have great ambitions, he is characterized by the need for protection. Naturally, with such a perception of a working person, the manager must, on the one hand, resort to coercion and control, and on the other hand, take certain measures to maintain the good condition of the worker. Theory "Y" is a counterbalance to the theory "X". It is based on the perception of the employee as a person with certain abilities. The essence of the theory is as follows:

■ the costs of the physical and intellectual forces of a person in labor are completely natural. Forced labor and the threat of punishment are not the only means to an end;

■ a person exercises self-management and self-control in the process of activity;

■ The average person, under the right conditions, is not only able to learn to take responsibility, but also looks for opportunities to show their abilities.

Accordingly, management in theory "Y" plays a qualitatively different role than in theory "X". Its task in this case is to integrate, create a set of conditions conducive to the development of actual human abilities, which in turn will create guarantees for labor efficiency.

D. McGregor concluded that type "Y" management, in which many people are willing to use their experience, knowledge, creativity to solve problems of the organization, is much more effective than type "X" management, and the manager's task is to create conditions in which the worker achieves the goals of the organization and at the same time his own goals.

D. McGregor presented a list of characteristics of an effective and inefficient organization.

According to McGregor, characteristics of an effective organization the following:

1. The working atmosphere allows a member of the organization to immediately feel informality, convenience and the absence of any tension. There is no friction in the organization, which creates interest and involvement in the work process for its participants.

2. Often there is a discussion about the individual list of duties, but, in general, each member of the organization remains committed to the common cause. If the discussion deviates from the main topic of the conversation, the leader of the organization or the skeptic brings it back in the same direction.

3. The goals and objectives of the organization are set and clearly understood by its participants.

Based on his observations in 1960, D. McGregor concluded that there are much more inefficient organizations than effective ones. He explained the reasons for this phenomenon as follows:

■ rather low expectations regarding the performance of the organization;

■ lack of knowledge of the components necessary for the successful operation of the organization;

■ ignoring or smoothing out conflict situations inherent in organizations in the course of their activities;

■ the belief that the success of an organization depends entirely on its leader;

■ underestimation of the factors necessary to maintain the socio-psychological climate in the organization;

the impossibility of the existence of the organization when the management style changes

D. McGregor paid attention to the problem leadership. He viewed leadership as a social relationship, which is not a quality inherent in individuals. This is a complex relationship of four variables:

■ characteristics of a leader;

■ characteristics of his followers (their needs);

■ characteristics of the organization in which the leader works (goal, objectives and structure of the organization);

■ political, economic and social environment.

D. McGregor paid attention to the need for the formation of professional managers and proposed new methods for their training. Instead of traditional methods (courses, business games, programs), he called for thinking about the so-called "agricultural approach", based on the use of appropriate soil, temperature, climate and fertilizers, in which "seeds" (hidden talent for management) can develop most fruitfully.

D. McGregor made a significant contribution to the school of human relations and behavioral science. He seriously worked out the issues of people's behavior in organizations, leadership styles and leadership problems.

KURT LEVIN (1890-1947)

Born on September 2, 1890 in the small town of Mogilno, which is now in Poland, in one of the 35 families that made up the local Jewish community.

In the city, whose morals Kurt Lewin later described as "one hundred percent anti-Semitism of the crudest kind," the young man had no chance for a good future, and in 1905 the family moved to Berlin. Kurt Lewin studied at the University of Freiburg, then took courses at the University of Munich and managed to study at the Friedrich Wilhelm University in Berlin before the war. He took part in the first world war. Engaged in research on the behavior of the individual and the group.

In 1934, when Hitler came to power, K. Levin left for the USA and found a job at the University of Iowa. His mother refused to leave Germany and died in a concentration camp.

Life in the USA was not easy. The main difficulty for K. Levin was poor knowledge of the English language, and yet he had to lecture. When the war began, K. Levin turned out to be the only specialist in the US on the behavior of groups, and the state became interested in his work. Levine, in particular, was ordered to find a way to convince Americans to switch from white bread to black bread, which he did. Gradually, Kurt Lewin proved the seriousness of his work and was able to fulfill his old dream - he built a research center that studies the psychology of groups. In the center of his attention is the problem of choosing the optimal leadership style.

In 1944, he founded the Center for the Study of Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. K. Levin set himself exclusively altruistic goals. He was sure that humanity needs democracy and softening of morals, but humanism cannot assert itself by itself. K. Levin was going to solve the problem of building a more humane society with the help of group trainings.

The scientist believed that in order to change any group of people, whether it be an ethnic community, an enterprise team or a board of directors, this group must be carried out through three stages: “defrosting”, “change” and “new freezing”. By "defrosting" was meant the destruction of the existing system of values ​​and life orientations of the members of the group. In other words, people were supposed to be placed in conditions in which they did not know what to do. At the “change” stage, the group should have been given a new system of values ​​and motivations, and then the group should have been “frozen” again in a new state.

The Center was not only concerned with theory. In fact, it was under the leadership of K. Levin that the first trainings for the employees of the enterprise took place. The Center was contacted by Harwood Manyfacturing Company, who complained that whenever something new is introduced into the production process, employees take too long to train, and productivity drops sharply and for a long time. Levin collected three control groups of employees of the enterprise. The first group was given the task to independently think about how best to work within the framework of the new technological process. The second was proposed to elect several representatives and send them to the leadership to discuss innovations. In the third group, both workers and managers were gathered and a collective brainstorming session was organized to master the new technology. The third group then showed the best results at work, and appropriate recommendations were given to the company's management.

In early 1947, Levin, with government support, founded the National Training Laboratories in Bethel, Maine, an organization that was supposed to retrain state leaders. However, the professor did not have a chance to live to see his dream come true. February 11, 1947 K. Levin died of a heart attack.

In the domestic literature on management, K. Levin is known for his research in the field of leadership styles. It was he who identified the three classic leadership styles: authoritarian, democratic, and neutral. K. Levin's research laid the foundation for finding an effective style of management, which can lead to high labor productivity and a high degree of job satisfaction.

In the 30s. 20th century K. Levin focused on behavior of groups and on incentives that explain their actions. Lewin's research led to the development of a field of scientific knowledge known as group dynamics. His contribution to the novelty of research was made through the analysis of force fields, which helped to explain the course and motives of people's behavior to improve the effectiveness of the organization.

According to Lewin, the organization is an open social system, which is influenced by a two-way series of forces and vectors. If the forces are balanced, then the organization will remain in a state of equilibrium, i.e. unchanged, but as soon as the impact force decreases or increases on either side, the balance will be disturbed. For example, if the goal is to change the state of an underperforming organization in the Hawthorne Experiment (namely, to remove the deterrents or constraints on productivity), a plan must be made to reduce or eliminate the factors that negatively affect productivity. K. Levin called this process "defrosting", which is the first on the way to making changes. The next step should be “shifting,” which involves the establishment of new norms, values, and behaviors. Finally, the final stage - "freezing" ends at a new point of equilibrium, when support mechanisms have already been established for the new model of command behavior.

Analysis of force fields and in the period of 90 years. 20th century widely used to improve the efficiency of organizations.

The representative of the school of behavioral science was Chris Argilis. He focused his attention on the development of the individual in the environment of the organization. In his opinion, the effectiveness of an organization is a property of the interpersonal professional competence of its members. The norms and rules of behavior of members of the organization affect the effectiveness of its work. K. Ardzhilis attributed impartiality and directness of expression of personal attitude to ideas and feelings, openness, ability to experiment, help to other members of the organization, individuality, generation of thought, indifference, commitment to business to positive organizational norms.

K. Argylis is the author "theories of immaturity". The essence of the theory is that informal groups arise in organizations as a reaction to the behavior of the administration, the mistrust of leaders, the abuse of authoritarian methods, the desire of leaders to disagree with the opinion of subordinates, considering them immature. K. Ardzhilis was convinced that if workers are treated like children, namely: they are not trusted with responsible affairs, their independence is limited, they are humiliated by petty supervision, etc., they will behave like children. Their behavior is a kind of defensive reaction that unites subordinates, forcing them to resist the leadership, to protect their interests together. According to the theory of K. Ardzhilis, all formal organizations are built on the principle of treating people as immature individuals. The specialization of tasks, the hierarchy of positions, the system of communications, all kinds of instructions do not leave room for the independence of the individual.

The only "vent" is informal groups, where everyone is treated as an irreplaceable person. A close-knit team fights for a long time for its member because his upbringing, instilling in him group norms was given with great difficulty. On the contrary, a formal organization can only function effectively if it quickly and easily replaces one employee with another, focusing on the interests of the business, the competence and professional suitability of the employee.

One of the brightest representatives of this school was the American sociologist Rensis Likert. Creating a "program" of organizational behavior, R. Likert used extensive empirical material. He managed to discover four real management styles, which corresponded to four types of organizations.

The organization of the first type is an exploitative-authoritarian organization. Here, leaders do not trust subordinates, rarely involve them in decision-making, tasks go down from top to bottom. Motivation to work is based on fear and the threat of punishment. Rewards are random. Relationships between leaders and subordinates are based on trust. The flow of information is directed from top to bottom, and what comes from below is inaccurate and even falsified information. Formal and informal organizations are in confrontation.

The second type of organization is the benevolent-authoritarian organization. Relationships between managers and subordinates develop according to the "master - worker" type. Relationships are carried out in terms of condescension on the part of management and caution on the part of subordinates. There is some participation of employees in the affairs of the organization. Some decisions are delegated down. Better than in the first case, a system of remuneration for productive work has been established, and the flow of information from the bottom up is more active. The informal organization exists, but only partly opposes the formal one.

The third type of organization is the consultative organization, in which the leaders control the organization but consult with the employees before making any major decision. The leader's trust in subordinates is great, but not final. Rewards are systematic, punishments are rare. The relationship between the leader and subordinates is almost frank. Feedback from the bottom up is carefully arranged, information from above is given with restrictions. There may not be an informal organization, but if it exists, then the discrepancy with the formal one is partial.

Organization of the fourth type - a type of organization based on the participation of employees in decision-making. Managers trust employees and assume that all employees work to achieve the goals set for the organization. The flow of objective information goes freely both horizontally and vertically, goals are formed with the participation of employees who are involved in decision-making and the implementation of tasks. Employee motivation - various forms of incentives and methods of labor organization. Formal and informal organizations tend to coincide.

R. Likert believes that the first model is task-oriented, the fourth model is focused on relationships, which are based on brigade labor organization, collegial management, delegation of authority and general control, the second and third models are intermediate.

Based on a survey of hundreds of managers in dozens of companies, R. Likert proved that the most effective, productive organization is the organization of the fourth type.

The model of the fourth type he considered ideal organization. Among its main characteristics considered the following:

■ leadership style in which the leader demonstrates his trust and confidence in subordinates;

■ motivation based on the leader's desire to encourage the subordinate, involve him in active work using group forms of activity;

■ communication, where information flows are directed in all directions and information is distributed among all participants;

■ decision-making, characterized by the fact that they are approved at all levels with the participation of all members of the organization;

■ the goals of the organization, established through group discussion, which should remove the latent opposition to these goals;

■ control that is not concentrated in one center, but distributed among many participants.

In scientific management, the study of people's motivation in labor activity is a special direction. Abraham Maslow, Clayton Alderfer, David McClelland, Frederick Herzberg, Stacey Adams, Victor Vroom made significant contributions to this area.

One of the first behaviorists, in whose works an analysis of human needs and their influence on motivation, was Abraham Maslow.

ABRAHAM MASLOW (Alexander Maslov) (1908-1970)

Douglas McGregor(1906-1964) - American scientist, specialist in social psychology, leader of the behavioral school.

D. McGregor was born in Detroit. Studied social psychology at City College Detroit and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Harvard. In 1935 he received his Ph.D. from Harvard University. Since 1937, he worked as an employee (later - a leader) in the sector of industrial (production) relations at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. From 1948 to 1954 he was director of Antioch College. From 1957 to 1964 he was Professor of Industrial Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In the early 1950s D. McGregor began to study management. He made a significant contribution to management science, focusing on the study of people's behavior in organizations, the study of leadership styles, and leadership problems.

Main works. His most famous work is The Human Side of the Enterprise (1960).

In the preface to his work "The Human Side of the Enterprise", D. McGregor wrote that the main idea of ​​the study took shape due to the answer to the question: are managers born or made? The work begins with a consideration of the nature of social science. According to the author, it is an adaptation to the nature of the phenomenon under study, since most of the important processes carried out by a person cannot be made manageable and predictable. Only routine types of behavior can be controlled, but the more significant the considered aspects of the activity become, the less they can be controlled. Considering the situation that had developed in management theory by the middle of the 20th century, D. MacGregor emphasized that the existing views on the understanding of human nature are incorrect in many respects. Despite the rapid development of management, we cannot tell the manager how to simply and effectively apply new knowledge. At the same time, "the success of management ... largely depends on the ability to predict and control human behavior."

In his view, all managerial action is based on "theory," a set of loosely connected assumptions about human nature that one has to deal with. Therefore, the assumptions used must be carefully examined. At the same time, no one and nothing can fully illuminate the picture of a world that is becoming more and more interdependent.

The human aspect of the enterprise takes into account a wide range of initiatives that come from sources that are highly unpredictable and uncontrollable. In addition, satisfaction from the work process is based on the implementation of such initiatives. The roles of people do not remain unchanged: a manager can play the role of a boss, an observer, a consultant, an assistant, a source of resources, etc. The more flexible he can adapt to the situation, the less predictable his behavior will be. However, this ability to play a variety of roles is an important element in adapting to the nature of entrepreneurship.

Douglas McGregor concluded from his research that the main task of top management is to determine "what his assumptions are about the most effective way to manage people." Any managerial decision is preceded by certain assumptions regarding human nature and behavior, which determines the individual leadership style of a particular manager.

The theory of motivation and leadership styles. D. McGregor identifies two real sets of working assumptions - two theories, which were called "Theory X" and "Theory Y".

"Theory X". According to D. McGregor, the main provisions of "Theory X" are widely represented in the literature on organizations and are present in an implicit form in the existing management practice. "Theory X" suggests the following:

1. "The average person has an innate dislike for work and ... a tendency to shy away from work."

2. "Since people do not like to work, it is necessary to coerce, control and intimidate a large part of them, which will force them to contribute to the achievement of the organization's goals."

3. "The average person prefers to be controlled, he is afraid of responsibility, does not have ambitions and seeks, above all, security."

Based on these assumptions, the goal of management is to effectively manage all the resources of the organization (human, material, financial) to solve organizational problems. Without direct intervention from managers (convinced of the "mediocrity of the masses"), workers would be passive or even opposed to the organization. Moreover, according to D. McGregor, even the presence of a reward system cannot guarantee that employees will complete the task they have received. Therefore, the main task of the manager is to guide, persuade, punish and control. An effective manager must be tough and strong.

D. McGregor noted that behavior is not a consequence of the innate qualities of a person. Most likely, these qualities are formed in him under the influence of the nature of the industrial organization, management philosophy and daily practice. Therefore, the traditional Theory X approach is based on misconceptions about what is cause and what is effect. In order to determine why the traditional theory does not adequately explain the behavior of workers, the researcher considers the problem of motivation. Motivation is determined by needs: “Man is an animal that constantly experiences certain desires - as soon as one of his needs is satisfied, some new need immediately takes its place. This process is endless. It lasts from birth to death. Satisfied need cannot play the role of a motivator of behavior. D. McGregor notes that this is not taken into account by those who are based on the premises of Theory X.

The theory of D. McGregor, in which the lower and higher needs of the hierarchy of A. Maslow are aggregated, can be considered as one of the possible modifications of the theory of the latter. At the lowest level are physiological needs, their importance overrides all others if they are not satisfied. When they are satisfied, human behavior begins to determine social needs: the need for communication, recognition of others, love, friendship, a sense of belonging to a common cause. Social needs are followed by egoistic ones, which can be divided into two groups: needs related to self-esteem (self-confidence, competence, self-respect, autonomy, independence, etc.), and needs related to a person’s reputation (a certain social status, encouragement, well-deserved respect, etc.).

The main human needs, according to D. McGregor, are social and selfish. He noted that management, having provided the opportunity to satisfy physiological needs and needs for security, shifts the emphasis in motivation towards social and selfish needs.

At the top of the hierarchy of human needs are the needs for self-expression: the need for continuous self-development, the disclosure of one's potential, creative self-realization. However, the conditions of modern life provide little opportunity for their satisfaction.

According to D. McGregor, managers are aware of the importance of the hierarchy of needs, but they consider it more as a hindrance than a meaningful means of understanding the principles of human behavior. The "typical production organization" provides little opportunity to satisfy the higher needs of workers at the lower levels of the managerial hierarchy. Traditional methods of organizing work, especially in conditions of mass production, pay little attention to these aspects of human motivation. If at work there are no opportunities to satisfy social and selfish needs, then workers will feel deprivation, resentment at work, which will affect their behavior. Under these conditions, if management continues to focus on satisfying physiological needs, its impact will be obviously ineffective, and even wage increases will not be able to stimulate labor productivity growth.

According to D. MacGregor, “many working people treat their work as a kind of punishment ... and with such an attitude to work, we have the right to expect that they are unlikely to want to “punish” themselves even more.” If the work is not interesting for the employee and does not satisfy the need for self-expression, then they will be able to use additional remuneration outside of work, in their private life, to satisfy higher needs. As a result, managers are forced to resort to the establishment of a system of additional rewards and punishments - the policy of "carrot and stick". On this occasion, D. McGregor wrote: “If the work cannot satisfy the needs of a higher order ... the usual provision of remuneration will lose its effectiveness, which will make it inevitable to use the threat of punishment ... In this state, people insistently demand higher wages. It becomes more important to acquire material goods and services, which still cannot fully compensate for the dissatisfaction in terms of other, unavailable needs. Although money, as a means of satisfying high-order needs, also has a limited value, it begins to interest a person most of all, because it remains the only available means.

D. McGregor noted that the “carrot and stick” theory of motivation adopted in the classical concepts of management is effective only in certain situations - when management provides the employee with the opportunity to satisfy his physiological needs and security needs through such methods as: job security, working conditions, wages , additional rewards and benefits. These methods allow you to keep a person under control as long as he is fighting for his existence, but as soon as a person reaches an adequate standard of living, the needs of a higher level become the basis of his motivation. Consequently, motivation based on the principle of "carrot and stick" ceases to be effective.

Management (whether soft or hard) and control are useless in motivating people who are dominated by social or selfish needs. People who are deprived of the opportunity to satisfy at work the higher needs that are significant for themselves, behave as it was defined in the premises of "Theory X" - they become lethargic, lazy, resist change, and are not ready to take responsibility.

"Theory X" is fully consistent with the management strategy of the school of scientific management. It is built on "bringing workers to the lowest common denominator - the concept of "factory worker"," it denies the worker the ability to develop in the workplace. On the basis of his research, D. McGregor concludes that the traditional management philosophy no longer corresponds to the socio-economic changes of the mid-twentieth century. However, while "Theory X" will have a decisive influence on the formation of management strategies, it is impossible to either know or use the potential of the average person.

"Theory Y". Having reviewed and criticized the main assumptions of classical ideas about human nature and management methods, D. MacGregor formulated the assumptions of Theory Y, which reflects the new approach to management he proposed. D. McGregor did not agree with the position of representatives of the school of human relations that "kindness brings income." Therefore, "Theory Y" cannot be seen as an expression of a preference for a "soft" management style. Rather, this theory contains a set of assumptions that are in direct opposition to those of Theory X.

"Theory Y" is built on the following premises:

1. "The expenditure of physical and mental strength in the course of work is as natural as playing or relaxing."

2. The average person will not necessarily dislike work, which may appear to him as a source of satisfaction or punishment "depending on the conditions under his control."

3. "External control and the threat of punishment are not the only means of directing individual efforts towards solving organizational problems."

4. "The average person tends to ... not only accept, but also seek responsibility." The unwillingness of some employees to take responsibility and lack of ambition is “a consequence of the acquired experience”.

5. The ability to "show sufficiently developed imagination, ingenuity and creative talents in solving problems of the organization is possessed not by a narrow, but by a very wide circle of people."

6. "In the conditions of modern industry, the intellectual potential of the average person is only partially used."

Thus, in the new approach, the labor force is considered as a resource with significant potential. Based on this assumption, "Theory Y" leads to different consequences for management compared to "Theory X". In table. 11.1 shows the difference between the principles and methods of management characteristic of "Theory X" and "Theory Y".

Table 11.1 Comparative characteristics of "Theory X" and "Theory Y"

Theory Y reflected the shifts in management philosophy associated with the development of human relations theory. It is based on the principle of integration, which, according to D. McGregor, means joint work for the benefit of the enterprise and allows all members of the organization to participate in the resulting remuneration. The principle of integration requires management to create a special creative atmosphere in which the members of the organization could achieve their own goals as successfully as possible, directing their efforts to achieve the success of the enterprise. Under these conditions, external control is replaced by self-control, and the goals of the enterprise are internalized and considered by employees as their own.

According to D. McGregor, the assumptions of "Theory Y" are not finally approved, they act rather as a kind of "invitation to update" the traditional "Theory X" generally accepted in practice. D. McGregor emphasized: what a person believes as the truth prompts him to act accordingly. In turn, similar behavior motivates others to do what is expected of them. This is how self-fulfilling prophecies are created. For example, if a manager considers his subordinates to be lazy and irresponsible, then he will create a system of rewards and punishments to which employees will quickly adapt and behave in accordance with the expectations of the manager, as suggested by Theory X. Acceptance by managers of the assumptions of "Theory Y" will allow to some extent to improve the existing practice of production and management.

The difficulty of applying Theory Y in practice is largely due to the fact that people are accustomed to being managed and controlled within the organization, and their social, selfish needs, as well as the need for self-expression can only be satisfied outside the organization. Moreover, according to D. McGregor, such an attitude is typical for management, as well as for an employee.

D. McGregor singled out a number of phenomena in management that are consistent with Theory Y (decentralization and delegation of authority, expansion of the front of work, involving the combination of several works into one and ensuring the integrity of the task, participation and acceptance of the principles of advisory management).

Answering the question posed in the preface to the work "The Human Side of the Enterprise", D. MacGregor noted that managers are not born. Accordingly, as economic practice changes, it is necessary to make changes in the system of training managers. Instead of the traditional, "technical" method of training managers (courses, programs, business games, etc.), he proposed using a new approach based on identifying and revealing hidden talents for management.

Critics of D. McGregor pointed out that he represented leadership exclusively in the categories “X” or “Y”, while in reality both managers and employees are “XY”, the assumptions of both theories are valid for them. However, D. McGregor pointed out from the very beginning that managers need to selectively adapt the degree of control to the maturity or dependence of employees. Immature and dependent workers require stricter supervision and are more suited to Theory X assumptions. Mature and independent workers do not need strict control, and their behavior is more described in the categories of "Theory Y".

D. McGregor made a significant contribution to the development of the theory and practice of management. His work gave a powerful impetus to the use of a leadership style built on the participation of workers in management. According to J. Sheldrake, the main merit of D. McGregor is that he indicated the direction in which the management style can constructively develop if a sufficient level of trust is achieved between management and workers.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Before his death, D. McGregor worked on the manuscript of a new book. It was later edited by C. McGregor and W. Bennis and published in 1967 under the title The Professional Manager.

Management classics: translation from English. / ed. M. Warner. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001. S. 475.

Cit. Quoted from: Sheldrake J. Management Theory: From Taylorism to Japanization / transl. from English. ed. V. A. Spivak. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2001, pp. 260–261.

There. S. 262.

Cit. Quoted from: Sheldrake J. Management Theory: From Taylorism to Japanization / transl. from English. ed. V. A. Spivak. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001. S. 263.

There. S. 264.

Management classics: translation from English. / ed. M. Warner. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001. S. 476.

Quoted from: Sheldrake J. Management Theory: From Taylorism to Japaneseization / transl. from English. ed. V. A. Spivak. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2001, pp. 265–266.

Tutorial output:

History of management: textbook / E. P. Kostenko, E. V. Mikhalkina; South Federal University. - Rostov-on-Don: Southern Federal University Press, 2014. - 606 p.