Who is douglas mcgregor

The 41 year old McGregor commenced his Presidential term at Antioch in It was to prove a pivotal point in his life and in his personal development.

As he tried to put his cooperative style into practice, he could now appreciate the problems of leadership first hand. At the forefront of what was to become the civil rights movement , Antioch were one of the first US mainstream colleges to welcome African-Americans. But when they qualified as teachers, McGregor struggled to get them placed in any of the local white schools. He also had to resist pressure from the powerful House Un-American Activities Committee to expel student activists with left-wing views.

And, of course, there were always the continuing problems of attracting enough new students and fee income to balance the College's books. As McGregor was later to reflect, I thought I could avoid being a 'boss'.

I could not have been more wrong. It took a couple of years, but I finally began to realise that a leader cannot avoid the exercise of authority any more than he can avoid responsibility for what happens to his organization. In the predictable manufacturing task environment, Akron had a pattern of formal relationships and duties that was highly structured and precisely defined. Stockton, with its unpredictable research task, had a low degree of structure and much less precision of definition see Exhibit II.

Exhibit II. Differences in Formal Characteristics in High-performing Organizations. People around here do produce, and produce under relaxed conditions. Why tamper with success?

These differences in formal organizational characteristics were well suited to the differences in tasks of the two organizations. With such an unpredictable, fast-changing task as communications technology research, there were numerous approaches to getting the job done well. As a consequence, Stockton managers used a less structured pattern of formal practices that left the scientists in the lab free to respond to the changing task situation. Formal reports and reviews were made only quarterly, reflecting the fact that research often does not come to fruition for three to five years.

At the two less effective sites i. A scientist in Carmel commented:. As with formal practices, the climate in both high-performing Akron and Stockton suited the respective tasks much better than did the climates at the less successful Hartford and Carmel sites. The people in the Akron plant perceived a great deal of structure, with their behavior tightly controlled and defined.

One manager in the plant said:. We lose money whenever they do. So we make sure each man knows his job, knows when he can take a break, knows how to handle a change in shifts, etc. In contrast, the scientists in the Stockton laboratory perceived very little structure, with their behavior only minimally controlled. Such perceptions encouraged the individualistic and creative behavior that the uncertain, rapidly changing research task needed.

The Akron plant and the Stockton laboratory also differed substantially in how influence was distributed and on the character of superior-subordinate and colleague relations. The task at Akron had already been clearly defined and that definition had, in a sense, been incorporated into the automated production flow itself. Therefore, there was less need for individuals to have a say in decisions concerning the work process. They also described the type of supervision in the plant as being relatively directive.

They described supervision in the laboratory as being very participatory. It is interesting to note that the less successful Carmel laboratory had more of its decisions made at the top. Because of this, there was a definite feeling by the scientists that their particular expertise was not being effectively used in choosing projects. The people at Akron perceived a great deal of similarity among themselves in background, prior work experiences, and approaches for tackling job-related problems.

They also perceived the degree of coordination of effort among colleagues to be very high. This was appropriate for a laboratory in which a great variety of disciplines and skills were present and individual projects were important to solve technological problems. They responded to quick feedback concerning the quality and service that the plant was providing.

This was essential, given the nature of their task. These orientations meant that they were willing to wait for long-term feedback from a research project that might take years to complete. A scientist in Stockton said:. We can wait for months if necessary before we get feedback from colleagues and the profession. I can live with that, though. In Akron, the technology of the task was so dominant that top managerial behavior which was not focused primarily on the task might have reduced the effectiveness of performance.

Given the individualistic bent of the scientists, this was an important force in achieving unity of effort. All these differences in climate characteristics in the two high performers are summarized in Exhibit III. Exhibit III. As with formal attributes, the less effective Hartford and Carmel sites had organization climates that showed a perceptibly lower degree of fit with their respective tasks.

For example, the Hartford plant had an egalitarian distribution of influence, perceptions of a low degree of structure, and a more participatory type of supervision. The Carmel laboratory had a somewhat top-heavy distribution of influence, perceptions of high structure, and a more directive type of supervision.

Because of the difference in organizational characteristics at Akron and Stockton, the two sites were strikingly different places in which to work. But these organizations had two very important things in common. First, each organization fit very well the requirements of its task. Second, although the behavior in the two organizations was different, the result in both cases was effective task performance. Since, as we indicated earlier, our primary concern in this study was to link the fit between organization and task with individual motivation to perform effectively, we devised a two-part test to measure the sense of competence motivation of the individuals at both sites.

The first part asked a participant to write creative and imaginative stories in response to six ambiguous pictures. The results indicated that the individuals in Akron and Stockton showed significantly more feelings of competence than did their counterparts in the lower-fit Hartford and Carmel organizations.

This interdependency is illustrated in Exhibit IV. Putting the conclusions in this form raises the question of cause and effect. This short quiz does not count toward your grade in the class, and you can retake it an unlimited number of times.

Use this quiz to check your understanding and decide whether to 1 study the previous section further or 2 move on to the next section. Skip to main content. Module Motivating Employees. Search for:. Theory X Management According to McGregor, Theory X leadership assumes the following: Work is inherently distasteful to most people, and they will attempt to avoid work whenever possible. Most people are not ambitious, have little desire for responsibility, and prefer to be directed.

Most people have little aptitude for creativity in solving organizational problems. Most people are self-centered. As a result, they must be closely controlled and often coerced to achieve organizational objectives Most people resist change.

Most people are gullible and unintelligent. Theory Y The higher-level needs of esteem and self-actualization are continuing needs in that they are never completely satisfied.

In strong contrast to Theory X, Theory Y leadership makes the following general assumptions: Work can be as natural as play if the conditions are favorable. People will be self-directed and creative to meet their work and organizational objectives if they are committed to them.

People will be committed to their quality and productivity objectives if rewards are in place that address higher needs such as self-fulfillment. The capacity for creativity spreads throughout organizations. Most people can handle responsibility because creativity and ingenuity are common in the population.