CTO Blog
« The Open Architecture Community | Main | A different premise for operation? »
Theory X Theory Y – the management battleground
I’ve been wondering recently just why is it that, whenever one talks about the shift in business and society as a result of the Web, two camps quickly develop in the room.
Whatever the specific topic of the conversation, about half the folks in the room believe the change to be foundational and that new management approaches are needed urgently, and about half don’t. The camps often become more entrenched not less as the discussion progresses. Often there’s more than a little heat in the exchanges.
Is it the usual battle between proponents of status quo and change, or something else?
For me, it's something else.
The Web is a real paradigm shift and I think it has re-opened one of the oldest and longest running political management battlegrounds in organisations - control versus empowerment, or ‘Theory X’ and ‘Theory Y’.
Theory X and Theory Y are well established theories of motivation created by Douglas McGregor at MIT Sloan School of Management in the 1960s. They describe two very different attitudes toward workforce motivation. McGregor felt that businesses followed either one or the other approach.
Theory X managers assume employees are inherently lazy and will avoid work if they can. Because of this, workers need to be closely supervised and comprehensive systems of controls developed. A fixed structure of authority is needed with narrow span of control at each level.
Theory Y managers come from the opposite perspective and assume employees are inherently self-motivating, and that given the right conditions, most people will want to do well at work. Theory Y managers tend to ask what they can do for employees, not the other way round.
According to the Y-ers, the X-er's management style leads to dis-economies, a lack of innovation and ultimately a lack of sustainable success. According to Jeanie Daniel Duck’s famous HBR article – ‘The problem is simple: we are using a mechanistic model, first applied to managing physical work, and superimposing it onto the new mental model of today’s knowledge organization.’
What’s interesting is that the pre-Web corporate IT most organisations have spent 40 years implementing is a real weapon of choice for Theory X managers. Business process re-engineering, enterprise resource planning and process focused industry application solutions have provided a formidable armoury. And to the Y-ers, IT enabled business change has become a large-scale proxy for mechanistic process enforcement which doesn’t respect the operating model, creating data and process standardisation out of kilter with the value systems of the business.
Or to put it simply, there is a problem with process.
The problem for the Y-ers has been that, despite the rise of shadow IT, the cost benefits of IT automation for core business processes have, on paper at least, always seemed compelling. To the X-ers people are expensive, unreliable and require supervision. Corporate IT reduces cost, improves quality and generally kicks ass.
Despite the clear value case of pre-Web collaboration software like email (you can’t put a cost case forward for it, but no-one ever took it away), there has never been another obvious way.
Until now.
Where corporate IT enabled mass-control on the inside, the Web has enabled mass-collaboration everywhere. And to cite Don Tapscott and Wikinomics, ‘mass collaboration changes everything’.
Don goes on… ‘the conclusion from all of this work is striking… billions of connected individuals can now actively participate in innovation, wealth creation, and social development in ways we once only dreamed of… leaders must think differently about how to compete and be profitable, and embrace a new art and science of collaboration…’
And leadership where the default context is mass collaboration starts with understanding motivation and enabling dialogue, not enforcing ‘business processes’.
If the PC offered a new hope before ERP struck back, the Web is the Return of the Theory Y. It’s Episode VI. And I’m with the half of the cinema cheering it on.
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.capgemini.com/cgi-bin/blog/mt-tb.cgi/594
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Theory X Theory Y – the management battleground:
» Controlled Uncontrollability from CTO Blog
Simon Caulkin wrote in the UK Observer recently that ‘inside every chief exec, there's a Soviet planner.’ Talking about the credit crunch, Simon writes ‘…with exquisite irony, while central planning had been largely discredited at macroeconomi... [Read More]
Post a comment
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Decentralised Enterprise Architecture: The Beginnings of Change
- Business Prevention, the mission
- V-Block – is it what SOA needs?
- New Competitive Plays from Cordys, Oracle and SAP (alphabetical, not preferential order!)
- From Knowledge to Knowing
- IT Vigilante: how Charles Bronson would develop applications
- What is a Portal For?
- Oracle OpenWorld: innovation. 2009 style.
- Business Intelligence with 1.3 Terabytes of in-memory Database
- Delivering differentiation – with your sanity intact!


Comments
# on September 15, 2008 12:09 PM, Gaurav said:
Excellent post. I am on theory Y side (if taking sides is must). I have seen theory X in practice and have seen how it turns so many employees into bots. So much so ,that after few years of working in command and control enviornment, they find it hard to work in a no-control situation if it so arises. Recently we held our first unconference (a barcamp)here in India. Like other barcamps, it was user generated and collaborative effort. Since we had many first timers who had never been to a barcamp, the chaos at the wiki-wall where participants had to collaborate and setup the agenda for event were fascinating to watch. When participants were informed that there was really nobody telling them what to do and that they had to self-organise, many of them were confused for a while. But eventually the group self-organised itself into multiple tracks and the camp ensued.It is same Theory Y which is menifesting itself in form of enterprise2.0 and agile parctices (self organising teams) within enterprise.
# on September 15, 2008 2:37 PM, Carl Bate said:
Gaurav - thanks - and very interesting feedback from your barcamp.
# on September 16, 2008 9:08 AM, Nigel Green said:
In my typical Taoist fashion, I'll say it's all about balancing X and Y (creating harmony - ohm!), If Web 2.0 is predominantly Y then, IMO, successful Enterprise 2.0's will be the right balance of XY perhaps established through the light-constraint approaches suggested in Adaptive Systems thinking (google or wikipedia 'Cynefin').
This was the topic of much discussion at the recent MashUp* 'Enterprise 2.0' event (I'll be posting links to the videos of full discussion on my blog soon)
# on September 16, 2008 11:00 AM, Nigel Green said:
I've posted the links as promised here..
http://snipurl.com/3qpmq [servicefab_blogspot_com]
# on September 18, 2008 10:13 AM, Mark Nankman said:
Good post Carl! I submitted it to Digg, I hope you don't mind. I agree with Nigel that a management style probably always has elements of both theories in it. It is a spectrum. I am inclined towards the Y, but not 100%.
# on September 18, 2008 10:42 AM, Carl Bate said:
Thanks Mark!
While my natural reaction is to seek balance too, when the X Y is worked through I think McGregor got it right – it’s more of either X or Y as the foundation. Starting with Y enables helpful constraints to be adopted. Starting with X does not enable creativity. It’s a fascinating topic and I hope to post again soon to explore the balance aspect a little further.
Best wishes
Carl
# on September 19, 2008 3:28 PM, Mal Postings said:
In my "extended" taoism view the balance is an interesting aspect - but maybe with 3 additional balancing thoughts:
1. The balance of X/Y at any time with current market demands and whether an X or Y approach is better suited to match cyclic market conditions (accepting internal change would be difficult dynamically)
2. Companies are made up of employee's - what research shows the balance between employees as a "mass collaboration" with overl company culture?
3. Globalisation. Yes many companies with offices in China, Russia, s.Americs have wider Geo Cultures that may effect the X/Y position within their country business units
Just some quick observations
Mal