McGregor’s Theory X/Y

Based on McGregor’s (1960) theorizing, managers possessing Y-type managerial X/Y attitudes will enact more Y-type managerial behaviors. More specifically, managers with a positive view of human nature will act in accordance with these beliefs, and will show higher levels of Y-type behaviors, providing higher levels of encouragement, delegation, autonomy, responsibility, and more general rather than close supervision. Per McGregor’s (1960) cosmology, managers with more Y-type attitudes would enact behaviors which reflect these fundamental assumptions. Accordingly it is posited: 

Hypothesis 1: Manager X/Y attitudes are positively related to manager X/Y behaviors.

 McGregor’s (1960) third assertion was the most powerful one. In essence, he argued that a manager’s cosmology (i.e., assumptions about people at work) was potentially a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thus, the manager who adopted practices consistent with Theory X would find that employees had little motivation or interest in the work performed—caring only about their (typically meager) paychecks. The manager would then turn to a colleague and complain that “you cannot get good help nowadays”— completely unaware that the lamented low level of employee motivation was engineered by the manager him/herself. This supreme irony made Theory X/Y intriguing, if not compelling. If a manager’s cosmology is positive and rooted in assumptions that employees can enjoy work and make meaningful contributions, then employees would fulfill these assumptions. Thus, it is predicted.

Hypothesis 2: Manager X/Y attitudes are positively related to subordinate performance.

 Importantly, McGregor (1957; 1960) concluded that there was a vast untapped potential for employee motivation and achievement which managers could obtain with more accurate assumptions about people at work. In his words: “We are becoming quite certain that, under proper conditions, unimagined resources of creative human energy could be available in the organizational setting” (McGregor, 1957: 22). McGregor (1960) postulated that if managers enacted practices consistent with Theory Y behaviors, employee motivation would increase, thereby increasing employee job performance. Hence it is predicted: 

Hypothesis 3: Manager X/Y behaviors are positively related to subordinate performance. 

A manager’s X/Y attitudes should be a precursor of and be aligned with X/Y behaviors which, in turn, should directly affect subordinate performance. Thus, manager X/Y behaviors should mediate the relationship between manager X/Y attitudes and subordinate performance. Therefore, it is predicted: 

Hypothesis 4: Manager X/Y behaviors mediate the relationship between manager X/Y attitudes and subordinate performance.

 Performance is both an individual- and group-level phenomenon, the two facets being interdependent. From McGregor’s (1960) perspective, managerial attitudes will affect the larger organization by influencing shared norms and knowledge bases that affect workgroup performance. The manager’s attitudes toward work will set the overall climate for the work group (Chen et al., 2007). Therefore it is posited: 

Hypothesis 5: Manager X/Y attitudes are positively related to an overall assessment of workgroup performance as provided by the manager. 

Consistent with McGregor’s (1960) cosmology, a manager of a workgroup will behave in a similar fashion toward most workers and thereby influence overall workgroup performance. Group performance can be attributed to group factors including shared group behaviors and the norms of team members regarding work (DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus, 2010). Therefore, it would be expected that the manager’s X/Y behaviors would positively affect the group’s shared behavioral processes and lead to higher levels of group performance. Accordingly, it is predicted: 

Hypothesis 6: Manager X/Y behaviors are positively related to an overall assessment of workgroup performance as assessed by the manager. 

Likewise, manager X/Y attitudes should lead to the enactment of aligned manager X/Y behaviors, which directly affect workgroup performance. Therefore, it is posited that 

manager X/Y behaviors will mediate the relationship between manager X/Y attitudes and workgroup performance. More formally stated: 

Hypothesis 7: Manager X/Y behaviors mediate the relationship between manager X/Y attitudes and an overall assessment of workgroup performance as assessed by the manager. 

However, despite the appeal of McGregor’s (1960) Theory X/Y, as noted above, no evidentiary support has been found pertinent to McGregor’s (1960) theorizing and job performance. The present research seeks to make that connection by using multisourced data and employing a multilevel design which incorporates the three requisite elements—manager X/Y attitudes, manager X/Y behaviors, and individual level and workgroup level measures of performance. Additionally, employee attitudes regarding work need to be considered part of a meso-organizational model (cf., Ostroff and Bowen, 2000). Employee attitudes toward work affect how managers’ behaviors are perceived by the employee (Fiman, 1973) along with the quality of the relationship between the manager and the employee (Sahin, 2012). In the present research, employee attitudes towards work were controlled for, thereby isolating the effects of manager X/Y behaviors on performance.

Motivating People Using Theory X and Theory (Source: Motivating People Using Theory X and Theory , 2018.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjvWicDVv_Y

Reference List

Chen, G., B. L. Kirkman, R. Kanfer, D. Allen, and B. Rosen. 2007. “A Multilevel Study of Leadership, Empowerment, and Performance in Teams.” Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 331-346.

DeChurch, L. A. and J. R. Mesmer-Magnus. 2010. “The Cognitive Underpinnings of Effective Teamwork: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology 95: 32-53.

Fiman, B. G. 1973. “An Investigation of the Relationships among Supervisory Attitudes, Behaviors, and Outputs: An Examination of McGregor’s Theory Y.” Personnel Psychology 26: 95-105.

McGregor, D. M. 1957. “Human Side of Enterprise.” Management Review 46: 622-628

McGregor, D. M.. 1960. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

McGregor, D. M. 1967. The Professional Manager. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 

Motivating People Using Theory X and Theory (2018) [Video]. Available from  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjvWicDVv_Y [Accessed on 30 November 2022]

Ostroff, C. and D. E. Bowen. 2000. “Moving HR to a Higher Level: HR Practices and Organizational Effectiveness.” Chapter in Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations. Ed. K. J. Klein and S. W. J. Kozlowski. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sahin, F. 2012. “The Mediating Effect of Leader-Member Exchange on the Relationship between Theory X and Y Management Styles and Affective Commitment: A Multilevel Analysis.” Journal of Management and Organization 18: 159-174.

Maslow hierarchy of needs theory

These theories attempt to explain the specific things which actually motivate the individual at work. These theories are concerned with identifying people’s needs and their relative strengths and the goal they pursue in order to satisfy these needs. These theories place emphasis on the nature of the needs and what motivates individuals. The basis of these theories is the belief that the content of motivation consists of needs (Mullin, 2005)

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory Maslow (1943) made a basic proposition that people are wanting beings. This proposition was based on the way people are always looking for more wants, and their wants are dependent on what they already have. With this, he suggested that human needs are arranged in a series of levels, a hierarchy of importance. He identified eight innate needs of man, including the need to know and understand, aesthetic needs, and the need for transcendence. However the hierarchy is usually shown as ranging through five main levels from the lowest need being physiological, through safety needs, love needs and esteem needs to the highest level of needs being self-actualization (Mullins, 2005) (Figure 3). 

This theory states that when a lower need is satisfied, it is no longer a strong motivator and hence the demand for the next higher need becomes dominant and the individual’s attention is turned towards satisfying this higher need. It states that only unsatisfied needs motivate an individual (Mullins, 2005; Armstrong, 2006). Irrespective of the demand for satisfaction of higher needs, it has been established that self actualization being the highest level can never be satisfied (Armstrong, 2006). 

Physiological needs: It is the basic need of life. It comprises the need for relief from thirst, hunger, physical drive, oxygen, sexual desire. (Mullins, 2005; Armstrong, 2006; Bloisi et al., 2003).

Safety needs: This includes safety and security, freedom from pain or threat of physical attack, protection from danger or deprivation, the need for predictability and orderliness. (Mullins, 2005; Armstrong, 2006; Bloisi et al., 2003).

Love: It is sometimes referred to as social needs and includes affection, sense of belonging, social activities, friendship, and both the giving and receiving of love. (Mullins, 2005; Armstrong, 2006; Bloisi et al., 2003).

Esteem: It is also often referred to as ego and includes self respect which involves the desire for confidence, strength, independence and freedom. In addition is esteem of others which involves reputation or prestige, status, recognition, attention and appreciation. (Mullins, 2005; Armstrong, 2006; Bloisi et al., 2003).

Self-actualization: This is the development and realisation of one’s full potential. Maslow saw this level as what humans can be, they must be, or becoming everything that one is capable of becoming. It is the need to develop potentials and skills, to become what one is believes he/she is capable of becoming (Mullins, 2005; Armstrong, 2006; Bloisi et al., 2003).

The hierarchy of needs theory is relevant to this study as the theory is applicable to organizational orientation and employee motivation (Greenberg & Baron, 2003). They further argue that the theory is able to suggest how managers can lead their employees or subordinates to become self-actualized. The idea implies the dual role of the theory first to organizations and second to employees on the basis that both the organization and the employees must decide on the performance of their organization, and that when employees put in their best in the service of the organization, the culture and human resource practice should also ensure that the employees’ level of needs are reflected in the values the organization holds with high esteem (Greenberg & Baron, 2003). 

The cultural framework of the organization should reflect the fact that employees’ physiological and security needs are paramount; therefore, when such needs became culturally focused, performance will be improved tremendously in that organization (Maslow, 1954).

Above mentioned needs applied in IT Industries employees as well. According to the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs how can motivates with five needs others work life, for more details go through this below link

 

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - What motivates us 

(Source: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - What motivates us, 2018) 

Reference List

Armstrong M (2006). Human Resource Management Practice, Kogan Page, Pp. 251-269.

Bloisi W, Cook CW, Hunsaker PL (2003). Management and Organisational Behaviour, McGraw-Hill, pp.169-208.

Greenberg, J., and Baron, R. A.( 2003). Behavior in Organizations: Understanding and Managing the Human Side of Work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice.

Maslow AH (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50(4):370-396

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - What motivates us (2018) [Video].Available from  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IETlvTNWhPg&list=PPSV [Accessed on 29 November 2022].

Mullins LJ (2005). Management and Organisational Behaviour. Prentice hall. UK 7th Ed. 88(431):1052-1058.

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory Herzberg’s et al. (1959) motivation-hygiene theory, also referred to as the two factor theory or dual-factor theory, was the conceptual framework for this study. Employee job satisfaction is necessary for employee retention and the reduction of employee turnover in organizations (Lu et al., 2016; Torres, 2014). Bryant and Allen (2016) and Franco (2016) noted that employee job dissatisfaction negatively affected the retention of an organization’s workforce. Herzberg et al. noted there are two separate continua; job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction, in the motivation-hygiene theory, and different factors distinctly influence job satisfaction or job dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959). Herzberg reviewed motivation factors and hygiene factors in relation to employee job satisfaction Workplace motivators are factors that relate employees to the content of their jobs (Herzberg, 1974). Motivators, otherwise known as satisfiers, include (Herzberg, 1974; Vijayakumar & Saxena, 2015).

(a) recognition, 

(b) growth opportunity, 

(c) achievement, 

(d) advancement, and 

(e) responsibility. 

Workplace hygiene factors include the treatment of employees related to the context of their job and represent environmental and preventive safety conditions of work (Herzberg, 1974).

Hygiene factors, otherwise referred to as dissatisfiers, include (Herzberg, 1974; Vijayakumar & Saxena, 2015).

(a) salary, 

(b) interpersonal relationships at work, 

(c) company policies, 

(d) organizational administration, 

(e) working conditions, 

(f) supervision, and 

(g) job security 

Herzberg suggested that satisfiers increase employee retention, whereas dissatisfiers (e.g., low salary or poor working conditions) increase employee turnover.

The two-factor continuum is not designed to produce only job satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959). The satisfaction and dissatisfaction levels of an employee can remain neutral when the employee senses no satisfiers or dissatisfiers (Herzberg, 1968). Herzberg noted that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not the obverse of each other. The opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction; rather, the opposite of job satisfaction is no job satisfaction. Additionally, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction, but rather no job dissatisfaction. Herzberg (1968) stated “the fact that job satisfaction is made up of two unipolar traits is not unique, but it remains a difficult concept to grasp” (pp. 75–76). The concept is difficult to understand but important in the comprehension of the two-factor theory. Bell, Sutanto, Baldwin, and Holloway (2014) provided an example referencing an employee receiving a pay raise and different pay scales. Although the pay raise may assist the employee in a short-term motivation or satisfaction effect, salary (being a hygiene factor) has no capacity to alleviate any dissatisfaction. Herzberg (1968) noted that hygiene factors are incapable of providing employees with any motivation or job satisfaction.

Selesho and Naile (2014) examined the effect of satisfiers (e.g., job advancement, promotional prospect) and dissatisfiers (e.g., salaries) on employee retention using Herzberg’s two-factor theory as the framework for their study. Selesho and Naile conducted a mixed-methods study with employees from universities in South Africa to examine factors that influence retention rates. Selesho and Naile analyzed factors that are essential to retaining employees and reducing turnover. The participants indicated that the most influential factor when retaining employees is job satisfaction (Selesho & Naile, 2014). Selesho and Naile concluded that salaries, job advancement, and professional development would cause job dissatisfaction when organizational leadership does not meet these specific factors. Selesho and Naile emphasized the importance of organizational leadership’s ability to develop and execute employee retention strategies that increase job satisfaction and motivation.

Reference List

Bell, R. L., Sutanto, W., Baldwin, R., & Holloway, R. (2014). The gender inequity 110 misconception: How Texas female business school faculty are smashing the glass ceiling. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 15(1), 39–57. Retrieved from http://www.na-businesspress.com/jmppopen.html.

Bryant, P. C., & Allen, D. G. (2013). Compensation, benefits and employee turnover: HR strategies for retaining top talent. Compensation & Benefits Review, 45, 171–175. doi:10.1177/0886368713494342

Franco, G. E. (2016). Productivity standards: Do they result in less productive and satisfied therapists? The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 19(2), 91–106. doi:10.1037/mgr0000041

Herzberg, F. (1968). Work and the nature of man. London, England: Staples Press

Herzberg, F. (1974). Motivation-hygiene profiles: Pinpointing what ails the organization. Organizational Dynamics, 3(2), 18–29. doi:10.1016/0090- 2616(74)90007-2

Selesho, J., & Naile, I. (2014). Academic staff retention as a human resource factor: University perspective. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 13, 295–304. doi:10.19030/iber.v13i2.8444

Torres, E. N. (2014). Deconstructing service quality and customer satisfaction: Challenges and directions for future research. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 23(6), 652–677. doi:10.1080/19368623.2014.846839

Vijayakumar, V. S. R., & Saxena, U. (2015). Herzberg revisited: Dimensionality and structural invariance of Herzberg’s two factor model. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 41, 291–298. Retrieved from http://www.jiaap.org

HUMAN RESOURCE TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

Training and development falls under HRD function which has been argued to be an important function of HRM (Weil & Woodall 2005).

It is worth nothing that, as researchers continue with their quest into the training research area, they also continue their arguments into its importance. Some of these researchers argue that the recognition of the importance of training in recent years has been heavily influenced by the intensification of competition and the relative success of organizations where investment in employee development is considerably emphasized (Beardwell et al. 2004).

As per the IT, industries training must be applied for all the employees’ technology and work-related areas enhancement.

According to Kenney & Reid (1986) planned training is the deliberate intervention aimed at achieving the learning necessary for improved job performance. Planned training according to Kenney and Reid consists of the following steps:

 Identify and define training needs 

 Define the learning required in terms of what skills and knowledge have to be learnt and what attitudes need to be changed. 

 Define the objectives of the training 

 Plan training programs to meet the needs and objectives by using right combination for training techniques and locations. 

 Decide who provides the training 

 Evaluate training

 Amend and extend training as necessary

Reference List

Armstrong, M. 1995. A handbook of personnel Management Practices. Kogan Page Limited London.

Beardwell, I., Holden, L. & Claydon, T. 2004 Human Resource Management a Contemporary Approach. 4th Ed. Harlow. Prentice Hall.

Kenney, J. & Reid, M. 1986 Training Interventions. London: Institute of Personnel Management.

Weil, A., &Woodall, J. 2005. HRD in France: the corporate perspective. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29,7, 529–540

Employee Training and Motivation

What are the Benefits of the Employee Training and Motivation

Some of these researchers argue that the recognition of the importance of training in recent years has been heavily influenced by the intensification of competition and the relative success of organizations where investment in employee development is considerably emphasized (Beardwell et al. 2004)Talking to the IT industries also training new employee and gain the knowledge is very important for their carrier development. 

According to Wright & Geroy (2001), employee competencies change through Effective training programs. It not only improves the overall performance of the employees to effectively perform the current job but also enhance the knowledge, skills and attitude of the workers necessary for the future job, thus contributing to superior organizational performance (Wright & Geroy (2001) .Through training the employee competencies are developed and enable them to implement the job related work efficiently, and achieve firm objectives in a competitive manner (Wright & Geroy (2001).

Employee Motivation Factors

Performance Appraisals

Performance appraisal is a process that is carried out to enable both the individual

and the organization to analyze, examine and evaluate the performance of specified objectives over a period of time (McCourt & Eldridge 2003, 209).. This process can take up formal and informal forms (McCourt & Eldridge 2003, 209).

Appraisal can be divided two groups such as developmental and administrative purposes

 Developmental purpose of appraisal (McCourt & Eldridge 2003, 209)

• Performance feedback

• Identifying individual strengths/weaknesses

• Recognizing individual performance

• Assisting in goal identification 

• Evaluating goal achievement identifying individual training needs

• Determining organizational training needs

• Improving communication and allowing employees to discuss concerns

Administrative Purpose of appraisal (McCourt & Eldridge 2003, 209)

• Personal decisions

• Determining promotion candidates

• Determining transfers and assignments

• Identifying poor performance

• Deciding layoffs

• Validating selection criteria

• Meeting legal requirements

According to the  McCourt & Eldridge 2003,"Depending on the appraisal feedback; negative or positive, its impact to the employee may damage the organization if not taken well by the employee"

Reference List

Beardwell, I., Holden, L. & Claydon, T. 2004 Human Resource Management a Contemporary Approach. 4th Ed. Harlow. Prentice Hall

McCourt, W. & Derek, E. 2003. Global Human Resource Management: Managing People in Developing and Transitional Countries. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar

Nassazi, N. (2013). Effects of training on employee performance: Evidence from Uganda (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Applied Sciences, Vassa, Finland.

Wright, P. & Geroy, D. G. (2001).Changing the mindset: the training myth and the need for word-class performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management 12,4, 586–600.