[HN Gopher] Theory X and Theory Y management
___________________________________________________________________
Theory X and Theory Y management
Author : bdg
Score : 69 points
Date : 2023-07-01 10:34 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org)
| ethanbond wrote:
| Theory Z: The prime motivation for every single employee in every
| single organization is improving their own local working and
| living conditions. Whether that materializes as X or Y behavior
| is a question of how well management can align the employee's
| self-interest with the organization's interest.
|
| Aligning incentives is harder in some jobs/industries than
| others, so for the hard ones, behavior would tend toward X, and
| for easier ones, behavior would tend toward Y.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Was rereading some stuff about european manorialism (feudal
| economic model) and a line really stuck out to me. Something
| like "left to their own determination farmers will optimize for
| resilience, not surplus production." But surplus production is
| the resource extracted and used by landowning elites to support
| their lifestyles. So a lot of the mechanics of that system
| emerged out of the need to coerce farmers into producing
| surplus against their own interests. And yes to some extent
| surplus and resilience are interrelated; but not really if the
| surplus is going to someone else.
|
| Anyway the words and the details have changed but the
| fundamental relationship is still the same, and I think fits
| what you're describing as well. Left alone a worker would
| optimize for a safer or less stressful environment, or a
| shorter workday, over surplus production. But that surplus
| remains the resource that supports the lifestyle of people
| higher up in the hierarchy. You can only align these interests
| so far and they will never perfectly match.
| hahaha999 wrote:
| Sounds to me you just described every overworked family. In
| buying the lie that constant consumption/fashion is the path
| to happiness. The landowning elites in your model are still
| doing the same thing. Coercion is still happening, yeah it's
| not by physically violent means but psychological and
| societal peer pressure.
|
| An non-brainwashed family would probably work less if they
| realized that they can optimize for resilience and regain
| their freedom.
|
| Good luck turning off the media.
|
| Then add the foundational component called
| debt(financial,other types) to these relationships and you
| really have a match for your model.
| majormajor wrote:
| The most expensive things for many, many, many individuals
| and families is not consumption or fashion but _shelter_
| and _healthcare_.
|
| But if we're talking upper-middle-class-and-higher where we
| can assume they have decent options for that into
| retirement... I don't think there's nearly as much that
| _really_ moves the needle enough to let them work a lot
| less short of "move to places in much lower demand"? Like
| "retire 10 years earlier and then go somewhere dirt cheap"
| seems about the only option, unless it's a larger societal
| change so the jobs move with the people to the dirt-cheap
| places, like what happened with the move to the Sun Belt in
| the US in the latter half of the 20th century but which
| isn't happening now in the US.
|
| Maybe remote work will stick for enough people that that
| can happen again, but I don't see great signs of
| decentralization yet...
| danielvf wrote:
| Reminds me of in pre/early revolutionary France, the
| common/poor fought so hard against allowing for free trade
| and free pricing on bread, in favor of the existing price
| controls that had them massively overpaying most of the time
| and spending the majority of their earnings on bread alone,
| even in years of plenty.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Do you have any pointers to that story? (I'm French with
| interest in history and have not heard of it before son I'd
| like to know more about it!)
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Just-price economics and its consequences...
| erichocean wrote:
| > _Theory Z: The prime motivation for every single employee in
| every single organization is improving their own local working
| and living conditions._
|
| That's the thesis of _Culture of Narcissism_ (1979) by
| Christoper Lasch.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Interesting! By the title it seems a little more negative-
| valence than what I intended, but I will have to check that
| out. I appreciate the pointer!
| Msw242 wrote:
| Yeah, absolutely
|
| E.g. doordash drivers are clearly X, and engineering teams are
| usually Y
| golemotron wrote:
| It's fun to think about how this relates to the I'm ok, you're ok
| quadrants:
|
| ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_OK_%E2%80%93_You%27re_OK )
|
| The phrase I'm OK, You're OK is one of four "life positions" that
| each of us may take. The four positions are:
|
| I'm Not OK, You're OK
|
| I'm Not OK, You're Not OK
|
| I'm OK, You're Not OK
|
| I'm OK, You're OK
| chiph wrote:
| I just finished reading Robert Townsend's book "Up the
| Organization: How to Stop the Corporation from Stifling People
| and Strangling Profits"
|
| https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004IK9U1S
|
| He falls into the Theory Y camp, which I know as Servant
| Leadership. It's considered a classic management book, and I can
| see why. He really was a radical. When you read it (and you
| should), remember that it's a product of it's time and allow for
| the language.
| roenxi wrote:
| Theory a-little-before-Y: Workers will do what they are familiar
| with. They really want to be a Theory Y worker, but they don't
| know how. They need close supervision and fast feedback (positive
| and negative). However, these are not motivators for getting work
| done, but guardrails against human frailty.
|
| Something like software development transcends Theory X & Y
| because nobody quite knows what the job is and therefore
| motivation is not the main factor in whether something happens.
| BaseballPhysics wrote:
| > Something like software development transcends Theory X & Y
| because nobody quite knows what the job is and therefore
| motivation is not the main factor in whether something happens.
|
| Wait, what?
|
| I have the polar opposite conclusion: that in software the
| outcomes are so difficult to measure that motivation is the
| primary reason why something happens, as lack of visibility of
| outcomes makes it very difficult for management to impose a
| traditional rewards based system to manage behaviors.
| gtramont wrote:
| And yet, there they are... clueless... pushing down
| traditional management practices that incentivize the exact
| opposite of what they "say" they want: collaboration.
| Unfortunately. * sigh *
| btilly wrote:
| For a lot of management, "collaboration" means, "You do
| what I want and you get paid for it." And not, "We'll work
| together to figure out how to make this work for both of
| us."
|
| https://www.amazon.com/First-Break-All-Rules-
| Differently/dp/... is a great book on how effective
| managers actually take their employee's strengths and
| weaknesses into account, and lean on their employee's
| strengths. (Trying to fix them is probably a lost cause.)
| BaseballPhysics wrote:
| Modern coaching and performance management have moved
| heavily to strength-focused approaches for exactly that
| reason. Hell, over 20 years ago I was introduced to
| StrengthsFinder, which is built on exactly that model.
|
| The real problem is most of the managers I've worked
| along side either don't want to/like to/care to coach, or
| were never taught how to do it well, having come out of
| an IC background where they, too, probably never
| experienced effect performance management. And,
| ironically, they often get moved into management not
| based on their natural strength as a
| coach/manager/mentor, but rather based on their strength
| as an IC (because, again, their own management likely
| doesn't understand how to take a strengths based approach
| to identifying and elevating potential leadership
| candidates).
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Personally, every time I see somebody say "collaboration"
| on the context of management, it means "you individual
| contributors go and work with each other". I have never
| seen it used in terms of collaboration with managers.
| feoren wrote:
| Management Theory Null: All management is fundamentally parasitic
| and only exists to perpetuate the organizational structure
| designed to extract as much wealth as possible from both the
| Actual Contributors (preferred over "Individual Contributors")
| and the investors, into the pockets of management. Climbing the
| org chart means having more opportunity to bleed the company dry
| for one's own benefit. Understanding modern capitalism requires
| realizing that corporations aren't really profit-seeking entities
| trying to maximize revenue and minimize costs, but rather the
| livestock upon which the Business Caste tries to sate their
| insatiable hunger. Sometimes the parasites are so brazen as to
| kill the company they're feasting on (at which point they all
| call up their buddies and get jobs at their next host), and
| sometimes they're conservative enough to keep the beast alive
| while continually harvesting from it.
|
| I don't believe that the next great leap in human rights will
| come from more unions and worker's rights (although those are
| important right-now steps too). I believe it will come from
| democratizing ownership -- giving everyone their own piece of the
| pie that they can cultivate. One way to do that is to use AI and
| automation to replace not the low-level workers, but the towering
| edifice of bullshit management jobs. Can we get automation and AI
| to the point where everyone can use it to enjoy self-
| proprietorship of whatever their labor is? Can we extend the "gig
| economy" so far that every tradesman out there is running his own
| company, with almost all the meta-work of running the company
| outsourced to an AI? Not centralized like Uber, but
| decentralized; democratized? That (plus a healthy dose of basic
| income) feels like the only escape from this hellscape of
| cancerous capitalism where the Business Caste who already own
| everything just continue to feast upon the blood of workers and
| investors alike in a global Tragedy of the Commons until nothing
| is left but the fetid husks of once-productive corporations.
| mercurialsolo wrote:
| All behaviour (management or individuals) is determined by goals
| and objectives.
|
| I don't think anyone in management turns up thinking I want to
| create the most toxic work environment and work only with folks
| who are not good at anything or need the whip. Even the best
| intrinsically motivated people need an environment and challenge
| to rise to the occasion of doing their best work. Sometimes it's
| peer competition, at other times it's unreasonable deadlines.
|
| On an individual level our desires and goals are fairly mimetic.
| Our motivation to do work is a function of our desires, goals and
| the difficulty level of the problem. A bunch of the observations
| around theory x/theory y doesn't account for what individual
| motivation is and how is it derived.
|
| A lot of this literature stems from older generational simpler
| classification models around how to influence human motivation.
| In classical Indian literature, a famous Indian philosopher
| Chanakya talks about Saam, Daam, Dand, Bhed to get things done.
| Translated it means - persuasion, price, penalty and coercion to
| get things done.
|
| While philosophically we can lean in on similar models applied to
| management - the key here is a lot of these theoretical models
| need evolution to really apply to individuals and situations.
| kbenson wrote:
| > the key here is a lot of these theoretical models need
| evolution to really apply to individuals and situations.
|
| Yes, I think the mistake some people make when seeing there are
| multiple possible frameworks for something that has to do with
| human behavior is that instead testing and seeing which model
| fits and works best to explain the existing system, they apply
| their own biases as to what they want to work or how they
| assume people work and then try to alter the existing system to
| match the model rather than alter the model to match how the
| system is actually working.
|
| We use models because they're easier to reason about and use as
| approximations, not because they're necessarily 100% correct.
| _When they fit well_ they allow us to come close to the correct
| answer quickly most the time. Theory X and theory Y are never
| going to match a work environment perfectly, and even if it
| appears one matches well at one point based on the people and
| type of work being done, there 's not guarantee is can't shift
| to the other over time either through concerted effort or
| through myriad small changes in the work done or the workforce
| doing it.
|
| Anyone in management should not only try to determine how the
| people the manage function and respond both individually and as
| a group, but continually check their knowledge against reality
| for change. I've seen workplaces change from fairly happy to
| extremely unhappy and toxic over time, and while sometimes it
| seemed like outside factors had an effect (budget and how well
| the company was doing), other times it felt quite a bit like
| the management was just completely oblivious to how people felt
| and how their decisions affected people. I find that people are
| fairly understanding of the former, and can forgive some or all
| of it when the problem is gone, but they're much less forgiving
| of the latter since it destroys trust.
| rig666 wrote:
| For me its a mix. I've worked at startup that are built apon the
| core idea of they Y because the CEO did t like there stiff
| working environment of there last job. Reality is though your
| hardest workers do great under theory Y. However, most people
| need theory X or they will just squat and take advantage of the
| lax atmosphere.
| BaseballPhysics wrote:
| The Wikipedia article actually touches on this:
|
| > For McGregor, Theory X and Theory Y are not opposite ends of
| the same continuum, but rather two different continua in
| themselves. In order to achieve the most efficient production,
| a combination of both theories may be appropriate.
|
| This matches my own experiences in that I tend to default to
| Theory Y but will flex into Theory X depending on the
| circumstances.
| fddhjjj wrote:
| Douglas McGregor, the creator of these theories, had an
| interesting biography.
|
| > He chose instead to pursue a psychology degree at what is now
| Wayne State University in Detroit. After two years, he married,
| dropped out of college, and worked as a gas station attendant in
| Buffalo, New York. By 1930 he had risen to the rank of regional
| gas station manager.
|
| > McGregor decided to resume his studies while also working part-
| time. He completed a B.A. in 1932 from Wayne State University.
|
| > Soon after graduation, he entered Harvard University where he
| studied for three years, earning an M.A. and Ph.D. in psychology.
| BaseballPhysics wrote:
| Man, Baader-Meinhof is real--this topic keeps popping up for me
| lately.
|
| In the modern day you might see these styles described as
| command-and-control versus servant leadership:
|
| https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explaine...
|
| (don't be put off by the source, it's actually a decent piece)
| ctxc wrote:
| Indeed it is. I just looked "Baader-Meinhof" up a week
| ago...and here it is in your comment again!
|
| https://twitter.com/dvsj_in/status/1674481301880213504?t=4t3...
| HardlyCognizant wrote:
| As I understand it C2 (command and control) is technically
| separate, and traditionally resembles Theory X , though current
| thinking seems to have aspirations towards Theory Y for various
| roles and scenarios in Mission Command.
| btilly wrote:
| Random thoughts.
|
| Theory X is very convenient for those in charge. No need to think
| hard - just pull out the whip.
|
| In my experience it takes very little application of Theory X to
| create enough resentment (even if hidden) to make highly creative
| work impossible. If you want people to do creative work, Theory Y
| is your best approach.
|
| Those with executive function challenges like ADHD gain increased
| executive function if doing what they should is also pleasurable.
| It takes a long time to recondition such people to this, but
| Theory Y does so. That said, in the short term Theory X may work
| better. But the long term matters more.
|
| Some of the best advice that I know for moving an organization
| towards Theory Y is in _Tribal Leadership_ ,
| https://www.amazon.com/Tribal-Leadership-Leveraging-Thriving....
| xp84 wrote:
| Minor observation here (sort of non-tech-related): any of these
| strategies is doomed to failure (if success means "producing a
| product or service that's excellent) if your workers can plainly
| see that there's no future where they could support a family
| working at this company. Retail is the prime example of this:
| Retail sales used to be a decent career choice and someone good
| at selling and customer service could expect to be able to enjoy
| a middle class lifestyle with things like vacations and a good
| home and car. And stores featured helpful salespeople who knew
| their merchandise and could genuinely help you make your
| decisions. Now in90% off chains, it's obvious that there are
| maybe a tiny handful of positions at corporate that fit this
| description, but the chances are about 99% that this won't be
| available to you. So retail employees are incentivized to do the
| absolute minimum until they get fed up, quit and repeat - because
| why would they work harder to be excellent? To earn a pin on
| their name tag or something? Maybe a 50C/ raise?
|
| You can apply this to tech workers too but probably on the next
| income ladder step: if I know I'll never stand a chance of
| serious wealth creation because I have zero equity, remind me why
| I'm supposed to ignore my family all evening to meet some "KPI"?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-03 23:02 UTC)