Theories "X" and "Y" by Douglas McGregor. Modern management theories: theory "X" and theory "U" by D. McGregor, theory "Z" by W. Ouchi

Section "Management of modern enterprises, industries, complexes"

2014 Since 2012, a subsidy has been introduced for small and medium-sized businesses - manufacturers of goods, works, services in order to reimburse part of the costs associated with the implementation of innovative projects, including those aimed at commercializing innovative developments (technologies, products, services) .

In the future, within the framework of the infrastructure for supporting small innovative businesses, on the basis of SibGAU, an innovative platform will be created, which will include a technology park, a transfer center and other structures that are aimed at solving the problems of commercializing developments and technologies. The technopark is planned to be developed on the basis of the innovative infrastructure of SibGAU with the participation of the basic enterprises of FSUE NPO PM, FSUE Krasmash and institutes of the KSC SB RAS in order to intensify production activities through the use of available resources and by attracting new technologies.

This infrastructure to support small innovative businesses in the city of Krasnoyarsk

sk, in cooperation with the regional support infrastructure, will become an excellent platform for the implementation of innovative projects and the formation of small innovative enterprises in the city of Krasnoyarsk.

1. Long-term city target program "Support and development of small and medium-sized businesses in the city of Krasnoyarsk" for 2012-2014, approved by the Decree of the city of Krasnoyarsk dated October 14, 2011 No. 453.

2. Buchwald E, Vilensky A. Problems of formation of innovative entrepreneurship // Questions of Economics. M, 2009. No. 5. S. 36-41.

3. Monitoring the activities of small innovative businesses in Krasnoyarsk // City news. 2011. 9 Apr.

© Berezhnykh V. A., 2012

UDC 331.101.3

N. M. Borisova Scientific adviser - A. V. Kukartsev Siberian State Aerospace University named after Academician M. F. Reshetnev, Krasnoyarsk

D. MACGREGOR'S THEORIES OF MOTIVATION AND APPLICATION IN RUSSIAN PRACTICE

Douglas McGregor's theories of motivation are considered: theory X and theory Y; comparative analysis these theories. The experience of introducing theories into Russian business is analyzed.

The problem of motivating people to work has always been relevant. Attempts to find ways to increase the productivity of people through their motivation have been made since ancient times. About 2 thousand years BC. e. The king of Babylon, Hammurabi, legislated wages for some subjects. Managers, including top managers, consciously or unconsciously tried to carry out the function of motivating employees. In ancient times, punishments served for this, and rewards for the elect. Methods of motivation have always been associated with the level of development of production, social conditions, needs, culture, traditions, religion.

Theories X and Y characterize two possible options man's relationship to work. In accordance with the first option (theory X), the totality of employee characteristics is as follows: the average individual is dumb, tends to shirk his duties, does not like work, is passive, prefers to be led, does not want to take risks and responsibilities, focuses only on personal security and material gain, i.e., this is an “economic man”. Based on this, most people need to be forced, strictly controlled, in order to ensure the achievement of the goals of the organization. In contrast to the leaders of Theory X, who consider their main duty manage employees, manage

Y theory drivers seek to help employees learn self-management skills.

Theory Y suggests that there is another category of workers. For them, the costs of physical and mental labor are as natural and necessary as play or rest, so they do not avoid labor efforts. Such employees not only do not evade responsibility, but also strive for it, do not need control and are able to control themselves, show imagination, ingenuity, and initiative.

The manager, according to D. McGregor, must, based on the appropriate assumptions about human motivation, adhere to a certain leadership style: authoritarian in the first case and democratic in the second. The authoritarian style (a variant of motivation according to theory X) is tight control, forced labor, negative sanctions, emphasis on financial incentives. Democratic style (a variant of motivation according to Theory Y) emphasizes the use of creativity subordinates, flexible control, lack of coercion, self-control, participation in management, moral stimulation.

In Russia, various theories of personnel motivation are used. When managing personnel, one cannot do without world experience, however, it must be borne in mind that direct transfer is impossible. Americans were the founders of management science. Exactly

Actual problems of aviation and astronautics. Socio-economic and humanitarian sciences

they created the image of a manager as a professional with a special education, invested huge amounts of money in creating the infrastructure for management in the form of hundreds of business schools, etc. Then the Japanese seized the initiative, teaching managers not only the business, but also the art of human relations. Russia, on the other hand, occupies an intermediate position between the two management sciences.

Adapting theories X or Y to Russian "soil" faces many problems.

The dualism of the Russian mentality, its dynamics, the tendency of formation allow us to model a management system that is adequate to the Russian mentality. It contains the following synthesizing blocks:

1. "Collectivism - individualism" suggests the most wide range used techniques and methods of management. In each individual case, it is necessary to take into account their ratio and, depending on this, try to determine the structure management decisions; combination of collective and individual responsibility; collective and individual control; brigade and individual wages, etc.

2. The ratio of industriousness and laziness. The contrast of the Russian soul, like no other, absorbs this contradictory unity. On the one hand, you need a "whip" and a "fist" to work. On the other hand, we have examples of the highest industriousness, which the whole world rightfully admires. In this case, the most effective will be "gingerbread". High and co-

remuneration corresponding to diligence and talent. In essence, such payment has ceased to operate since 1917.

The formation of Russian management should take into account the main trend in the development of mentality towards individualism, focusing more and more on the individual, the implementation of individual control, accounting for an individual contribution and payment in accordance with it. This means that enterprises greater value must acquire a promotion not based on acquaintance and family ties but solely on the personal abilities of each individual. When forming a management system, it is necessary to take into account as much as possible the business qualities of the individual, his ability to perceive the new, perseverance.

It is advisable to use workers with a collectivist psychology in areas where specific methods of management are applied that are adequate to them, with an emphasis on collective work, collective responsibility and control, the use of a brigade form of labor organization and its payment, etc.

Modern Russian manager must be flexible in defining the goals and objectives of management and firmness, when the goal is chosen, in a steady pursuit of its achievement. This type of leader, combining flexibility, adaptability and huge volitional qualities will take years to build.

Thus, D. McGregor's theory cannot be applied in its pure form to Russian reality. A feature of Russian management is flexibility, adaptability, maneuverability, dialectic. It is necessary to take into account: 1) the established dualism of mentality; 2) its differences in different regions; 3) vast expanses of the country.

1. Egorshin A.P. Personnel Management. 2nd ed. N. Novgorod: NIMB, 2009.

2. Kozycheva N. B., Kozychev B. S. The problem and tasks of personnel motivation // Management in Russia and abroad. 2009.

3. Sheldrake J. Management Theory: From Taylorism to Japaneseization. SPb. : Peter, 2009. St. Petersburg, 2004.

© Borisova N. M., 2012

D. A. Galitskaya Supervisor - A. V. Kukartsev Siberian State Aerospace University named after Academician M. F. Reshetnev, Krasnoyarsk

KAIZEN METHODOLOGY IN RUSSIA

The kaizen system is considered, the features of its implementation in Russian companies and problems of its application by domestic managers.

AT Japanese The word "kaizen" means "continuous improvement". The philosophy of kaizen assumes that our life as a whole (work,

public and private) should be focused on continual improvement. Based on this strategy, everyone is involved in the improvement process - from me-

Based on reading the book The Human Side of Enterprise

McGraw-Hill, 2005

Douglas McGregor was a great leader. Competent, witty, and insightful, he was highly respected by his subordinates and believed that people were naturally enthusiastic, responsible, and moral. He believed this so strongly that in 1960 he wrote a book that forever changed management theory, which at the time was based on the notion that people were naturally lazy and only worked when they were forced to. McGregor died in 1964, having made a significant contribution to the theory and practice of management, and his creative legacy will remain the subject of research for a long time to come. Even half a century after its publication, journalists and scientists refer to this regularly republished book! If you manage people, but still haven't read McGregor's book, you should hurry up.

"Theory X"

What do you think is the most effective method of managing people? According to Theory X, people are inherently lazy and work only under duress. At one time, “theory X” was the most common approach to management, but today it seems outdated - for three reasons:

1. It relies on outdated paradigms. Hierarchical models like the army or the church are not applicable in today's business. For example, today the members of work groups often do not report to a single boss, but solve the problems of several departments at once.

2. She's too abstract. "Theory X" does not take into account the political, social and economic conditions activities of an individual company.

3. It comes from wrong assumptions about human nature. For example, this theory suggests that people can only work under duress. However, any coercion has its limits. Often people work much better under the influence of persuasion or interest in working together.

"Theory X" takes a pessimistic view of human nature. According to her, the relationship between leaders and subordinates is based on mutual hostility. Managers who follow this theory believe that employees are not capable of thinking and acting independently. For this reason, such managers, for the common good of the company, tend to carefully control the activities of their subordinates, assuming that people are not willing to voluntarily take responsibility, since they are only interested in salary. It seems to them that subordinates do not see the big picture of affairs or do not care about the success of the company as a whole. In other words, “Theory X” leaders believe that subordinates work only when someone is constantly watching them.

“Theory X” is based on three premises:

1. People don't want to work. Man has an innate aversion to work and tries to avoid it. Production rates, achievement of targets and time hours are the reaction of managers to natural inclination get people out of business.

2. Coercion is inevitable. The company will not achieve its goals without coercion and intimidation of its employees. Their only incentive to work is punishment, not reward. Promotions, bonuses and benefits only increase the demands of a person, and do not arouse the desire to work hard.

3. People try to avoid responsibility. All they want from life is a quiet job with a regular salary.

What is the fallacy of "Theory X"

In Theory X companies, there is an atmosphere of suspicion that stifles people's natural desire for excellence. First of all, they are frightened off by the fact that the authorities minimize the opportunities for creative self-expression. When an employee suspects that he is in danger of being fired, he begins to think exclusively about self-preservation and is extremely reluctant to take risks - for fear that his bosses will not approve of his actions and even punish him for them.

In order for employees to not be afraid to take risks and actively put forward innovative proposals, they must first of all feel safe. In other words, they just want to be respected, praised and appreciated. Many people feel the need to feel part of a team in order to be proud of what they have achieved with others. However, executives who believe in “Theory X” believe that any grouping of employees is a threat, as it can hinder the success of the company. Therefore, instead of encouraging collective interaction, such leaders in every possible way try to sow enmity between employees.

Often managers fail to understand why high salaries, medical benefits, good vacation pay, sick pay, and generous pension contributions do little to motivate subordinates. The fact is that all these measures are not enough. First of all, a person would like to know what is doing important and meaningful work. He wants to feel that his opinion is taken into account. Therefore, as soon as he realizes that the company does not appreciate what he does, indifference takes possession of him, he begins to treat his business formally and, when doing work, first of all seeks not to give a reason for dismissal.

“Theory Y”

If "theory X" is wrong, what is its alternative? “Theory Y” offers a completely different approach to managing people: bosses should respect subordinates and give them the opportunity to act independently in order to awaken in them the desire to follow moral principles and observe discipline. According to “theory Y”, if the staff does not show interest in the work and does not follow orders, then the fault should not be the employees, but poor management. “Theory Y” comes from the following postulates:

People don't have an innate dislike for work. Under certain conditions, employees enjoy what they do.

Employees do not have to be kept in fear. Properly motivated employees will work without prodding and make active efforts to meet the challenges facing the company.

The feeling of success gives people pleasure. Achievements increase self-confidence, and as a result, employees are even more eager to achieve their goals.

People want to do responsible work. It is not true that man is by nature lazy and irresponsible. In fact, he, on the contrary, is looking for any opportunity to do responsible work.

Human beings are naturally endowed with the ability to be creative. Most people are capable of creative problem solving.

People are smart and smart. Leaders often greatly underestimate the intellectual abilities of their subordinates.

"Theory X" argues that the internal policy of the company should be determined by its management, without consulting the staff about anything. According to Theory Y, management should take into account both the needs of the company as a whole and the needs of its employees, who, in turn, would like to benefit their organization.

Differences between the two theories

In companies whose management is based on “Theory X”, formal hierarchy is important. Consider the example of quality control work. When an inspector from the Quality Control Department, checking the products of one of the departments, discovers a problem, he reports it to his immediate supervisor. The latter passes this information to the deputy head of the department, who notifies the head of the department, and he calls the deputy for production to tell him the bad news. The deputy returns to his room and calls the workers who were directly related to the problem. Since these workers were unaware that the inspector was checking their products, they immediately find themselves in a situation of confrontation.

In a company operating in accordance with “theory Y”, the controller from the Quality Control Department first of all notifies the employees themselves about the problem found, who immediately begin to solve it. As in the first case, the controller reports to superiors, but by the time his report reaches the top rung of the hierarchy, the problem is solved. At the same time, employees understand that management is not going to punish them or spy on them, and they appreciate this honest approach.

As a result, an atmosphere of mutual respect, not suspicion, is strengthened.

“Theory Y” in practice

director of one high school turned out to be an extremely talented leader. Students at this school consistently achieve excellent results on standardized tests, and their parents maintain good relationships with teachers. Not surprisingly, an inspector from the Department of Education decides to use the director's talents in an administrative position in the school district. After interviewing a dozen candidates, the district council makes a recommendation to this director.

The director is offered a significant increase in salary and a solid position. The only problem is that he does not want to switch to new job. He enjoys being a school principal and watching teenagers grow up, acquire knowledge and communication skills. All subordinates are devoted to him and are ready for a lot for the sake of their boss. The director expresses his disagreement with the inspector from the ministry, but he does not want to give in. He believes that the district will only benefit from this transition, and the director himself will be pleased with his decision as soon as he gets used to his new role.

Two years later, the inspector will still be satisfied with the work of the ex-director, but the latter will feel unhappy and dream of returning to his old school. This is an example of the worst manifestation of “theory X”: for the sake of the common good, a decision is made unilaterally that does not take into account the interests of a particular person. The director in this situation could not refuse new position without compromising their career prospects.

If a school district were run according to Theory Y, then the school principal and the inspector from the ministry would openly discuss their needs with each other. The Inspector would ask the Director to take into account the importance of the proposed position and would offer him his assistance and support in initial period. In addition, he would tell the director how he could use the new opportunities to enrich his experience and develop managerial skills. In turn, the director would probably understand that it is better to take the chance to enrich the experience and agree than to accept the offer with a grudge in his heart. “Theory Y” suggests that even if the leader is forced to resort to coercion for the common good, a mutually acceptable solution must still be found.

“Theory Y” and power

"Theory Y" can be applied even in such an organization as the army, where, it would seem, "theory X" should reign supreme. The military is obliged to unquestioningly carry out the orders of their commanders. An officer who sends soldiers into battle does not worry about whether participation in this battle contributes to their personal growth. American General George Patton, for example, would simply laugh at the notion that in war one must take into account the wishes and needs of soldiers.

However, giving orders and managing are two different things. The officer understands that the battle will be lost if his soldiers do not make every effort to complete the combat mission. This means that he does not control the soldiers, but rather depends on them. General Patton also depended on his subordinates to relay his orders down the chain. Army commanders, like the leaders of ordinary companies, can no more control their people than the weather. They must have complete trust in their subordinates, but still give orders. Trust and command are not mutually exclusive.

Under Theory Y, leaders not only can, but must act decisively, for they are ultimately responsible for solving the problems they face. When a critical situation arises, subordinates will wait for instructions from them on what actions to take. This does not mean that “Theory Y” becomes irrelevant during a crisis. Even in a critical situation, the leader must treat people politely and impartially, without questioning their motives. Nevertheless, he must act firmly and, if necessary, even fire employees - especially those whose mentality corresponds to "Theory X".

Appearance and reality

Tough, authoritarian leaders who seem to lack even basic civility often have dedicated and motivated subordinates. If a certain department head has a habit of yelling at subordinates, using foul language and threatening them with disciplinary action, you might think that this style of leadership is -

illustration of “Theory X”. Nevertheless, the subordinates of this chief work no worse, and sometimes even better than the employees of other departments, and at the same time they give the appearance of professionally successful people who are satisfied with their work.

The fact is that this outwardly rude boss is sincerely interested in the life of his employees. He is not indifferent to their family problems, he is always ready to help people who are in trouble. difficult situation, and occasionally invites employees to lunch to show how much he appreciates them. This boss stubbornly defends the interests of subordinates in conflicts with higher authorities and is even ready to sacrifice his position for them. Employees who know they can rely on their bosses believe in own forces and ready to work with high efficiency.

about the author
Douglas McGregor is a former president of Antioch College and a founding member of the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Theory X-Y D. McGregor

Douglas MacGregor (1906-1964) - social psychologist who published a number of articles on research in this area. He served as President of Aston College for several years and described how this period as senior leader shaped his views on the organization's functioning. 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.
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.
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.

The diametrically opposite approach to human nature (theory Y) is based on completely different grounds:
1. All employees strive for responsibility and freedom to make decisions related to the performance of work.
2. All workers are endowed high level ingenuity and imagination rarely used in modern industrial life; this leads to frustration and turns the person into an opponent of the organization. Creativity, that is, the ability to make extraordinary decisions, is extremely widespread among all members of the organization, and is not the prerogative of managers.
3. The cost of physical and mental effort at work is as natural as playing or relaxing. A common person inherently does not 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 ideas of wide participation of all members of the organization in the preparation and decision-making processes, giving employees greater responsibility and the opportunity to take risks, and also pointed out the importance of optimal group relations as a factor individual motivation.
McGregor analyzes how Theory Y could be applied as a basis for operating organizations. He is particularly interested in the results of applying this theory to performance evaluation, wages and promotion, participation and relationships between administrative and line staff. In the last section, he makes the important point that there will be tensions and conflicts between the administrative and line staff as long as the administrative staff is used as a service. top management to control line personnel (which is 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.

Theory "Z" W. Ouchi
The representative of the social school, supplemented theories X and Y. Theory "Z" reflects the attitude of e to the staff of Japanese managers. Essence: hiring of employees should be long-term, assessment of the performance of qualities and promotion is slow, career is moderately specialized, control is unclear and informal, decision-making is group and consensual, responsibility is individual, interest in a person is wide.

In 1978, Ouchi, co-authored with Alfred Yeager, also at Stanford University, published Type Z Organization: Stability in the Midst of Mobility, which appeared in the Academy of Management Review

In 1981, William Ouchi published his best-selling book on Japanese management, Theory Z: How American Business Should Respond to the Japanese Challenge. Ouchi, who by this time had become a professor high school management at the University of California, Los Angeles, turned to the work of Douglas McGregor and Chris Argyris (see Chapter 16) to provide a theoretical basis for his work. By transforming the description of the type Z organization presented in early work, in Theory Z, in his book, Ouchi deliberately draws parallels with McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y and notes that the attitude towards employees is inevitably reflected in the style of management.

Ouchi's work sparked a lively debate in American academic circles. For example, George W. Engleid of the University of Oklahoma, after analyzing Z theory, characterized it as follows:

The Z theory approach to management problems, but in essence, boils down to the fact that key factor increasing the productivity of the enterprise is the involvement of employees. Employee engagement in large Japanese organizations is the result of an internally agreed set of norms, practices, and behaviors that are based on trust and close interpersonal relationships. Japanese organizations are characterized by lifetime employment, control mechanisms, collective decision-making, collective responsibility and common concern for a common cause; all this increases the degree of labor involvement and thus contributes to increased productivity.

"Theory Z is unlikely to become the same norm for American companies as it is for Japanese companies." Instead of calling on American business to adopt alien Japanese practices, he encourages management theorists to address the question of "what management philosophy and what set of management processes could adequately meet domestic American norms and expectations."

Sullivan remarks:

Collective decision-making (if the phenomenon Ouchi describes exists at all) and collective responsibility are a response (rather than an equal incentive) to a lack of specialization.

15. Management and management. The concept, essence and content of management.

Management- view professional activity aimed at achieving the intended goals in market conditions by rational use material and labor resources using the principles, functions and methods of the economic mechanism.

Management is management in market conditions, meaning:

orientation of the company to the demand and needs of the market, to the needs of specific consumers and the organization of production of types of products that are in demand and capable of bringing the company the intended profit;

· constant striving to improve production efficiency, to obtain optimal results at lower costs;

economic independence, providing freedom of decision-making to those who are responsible for the final results of the company or its divisions;

· constant adjustment of goals and programs depending on the state of the market;

identification of the final result of the activity of the company or its economically independent units in the market in the process of exchange;

· the need to use a modern information base with computer technology for multivariate calculations when making reasonable and optimal decisions.

The essence of management.

There are three spheres of objective reality, which correspond to different types controls:

1. Management in inanimate nature.

2. Management in biological systems (organisms).

3. Office in human society(social management).

There are two types of social control.

Management as an element of any labor activity

Management as an element of human relations.

social management - includes the management of material objects, processes and people. Production management is part of social management.

In itself, the generality of management tasks makes it possible to formulate general laws of management, and the analysis and generalization of management practice makes it possible, based on these laws, to specify the content of management within the science of management (management).

1. Science and practice of management.

2. Organization of company management.

3. The process of making managerial decisions.

4. Academic discipline.

5. A group of senior leaders.

In the 1960s in the United States, Douglas McGregor, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, developed the theory of X and Y, which was the starting point for informal democratic governance. After analyzing how various managers manage their subordinates

Mi, McGregor came to the conclusion that the manager's point of view on human nature lies in a certain set of assumptions, on the basis of which he models his behavior in relationships with staff. Based on this conclusion, he formulated the main approaches to understanding the nature of man that exist in management practice, and also derived from it consequences and recommendations that are of a practical nature.

Theory X assumes that a person in work is initially lazy and passive, tries to evade work and avoid responsibility, does not show any kind of initiative. Management cannot do without a regulated and hierarchical system of coercion for such an employee, i.e., he needs constant monitoring, punishment for mistakes and encouragement for successes (carrot and stick), in daily care from the leader.

Theory Y believes that a person is initially talented and strives to realize his abilities and capabilities, is ready to take personal responsibility, considering the issue of material reward sometimes secondary. At the same time, such a person longs for recognition, understanding and moral support. He has a highly developed need for training and development, and a tendency to participate in managerial decision-making. He wants to independently choose ways to complete a particular task, showing initiative and creativity, is capable of self-control and does not need constant care from the leader.

This is what Chinese wisdom says. “Checking endlessly the one to whom we give instructions, are we not like a person pulling a sprout out of the ground to make sure whether the roots are growing or not?”

1.1. Basic theories of motivation

Thus, theory X embodies a purely mechanistic approach to the consideration of personality, assuming that the basis of its development is the repeated repetition of an action leading to its automation (reflex).

Theory Y corresponds to the humanistic approach and involves the recognition of the uniqueness and originality of each individual, the improvement of relationships in the team, taking into account the motivation of people and their psychological needs, enriching the content of the work.

An analysis of this concept shows that theory X proceeds from the fact that people are dominated by needs of a lower order, and theory Y, accordingly, sees in people, first of all, needs of a higher order.

McGregor himself believed that the assumptions of the theory? more reliable than the assumptions of theory X. Therefore, he advocated the participation of ordinary employees in decision-making on an equal basis with senior managers, entrusting them with responsible and complex work, as well as setting up good relations in a collective. According to McGregor, this approach maximizes the motivation of people to perform the work assigned to them.

McGregor's theories were developed in relation to a single person. Further improvement of motivational approaches to personality development was associated with the development of the organization itself (environment), the study of the determinants of human development in a team. So, William Ouchi proposed his understanding of this issue, called Theory Z and Theory A. Ouchi notes a disproportionate attention to technology and technology to the detriment of the human factor. Therefore, Theory Z is based on the principles of trust, lifetime employment (like attention to a person) and a group method of acceptance.

and Chapter 1. Models and mechanisms of motivation for work_

decisions, which also provides a solid basis for personal development in the process of professional activity.

Unfortunately, science does not have convincing evidence of the reliability of the first or second (or both) set of McGregor's assumptions. There is also no convincing evidence that the use of Theory Y and appropriate adjustments in the actions of employees and managers can increase the motivation of workers.

Our research in various organizations shows that both Theory X and Theory Y may be true in a given situation.

More on Theory X and Theory Y according to McGregor:

1. Social Cognitive Theory and Personal Construct Theory
2. d) The biological theory of the state, or the theory of the organism
3. Chapter 5. PHENOMENOLOGICAL THEORY: Carl Rogers' Person-Centered Theory of Personality

Born 1906 Received Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1934 d. Lecturer at Harvard University Moved to MIT in 1937 d. served as Principal of Antioch College Returned to MIT in 1954 Died 1964 .

Theory X: the person is lazy and tends to avoid work strict guidance and control are the main methods of management; workers are not very ambitious, afraid of responsibility and want to be led in the behavior of workers is dominated by the desire for safety. to achieve the goals, it is necessary to force employees to work under the threat of sanctions, while not forgetting about remuneration

People are lazy They don't like work To make people work they need to be controlled, directed and held under penalty They avoid responsibility They have no ambition People are lazy They work as little as possible To make people work they need to be controlled, directed and held under penalty They avoid responsibility They have no ambition Resist change Negative motivation based on fear of punishment should prevail in the activities of the leader.

Theory Y 1 unwillingness to work is not innate quality employee, and the consequence bad conditions labor that suppress the inborn love of labor; 3 the best remedies achievement of the goals of the organization - remuneration and personal development 2 with a favorable, successful past experience, employees tend to take responsibility 4 with good conditions employees form in themselves such qualities as self-discipline and self-control; 5 the labor potential of workers is higher than is commonly believed In modern production, their creative capabilities are used only partially

People love work They manage themselves according to goals They take responsibility They are ambitious and creative People love work They manage themselves according to goals They are motivated They take responsibility They are ambitious and creative If not want to work, it means that the appropriate conditions have not been created for them. It is necessary to provide workers with more freedom to exercise independence and creativity.

Conclusions: Theory X: The activities of the leader should be dominated by the motivation of subordinates, based on the fear of punishment. Theory Y: it is necessary to provide employees with more freedom to show initiative, creativity and create favorable conditions for this.

Employees must be used, taking into account the specific state of consciousness and motivation of employees. Managers should strive to develop the group, if it is not sufficiently motivated, from the state "X" to the state "Y", or from the state " economic man' to the 'social man'. Theory Z Theory Z

A. Maslow's theory of needs physiological needs (food, drink, sleep, sexual needs, clothing, housing); needs for security and confidence in the future (needs for the physical security of the individual, stability, security, the need for order, laws and boundaries. In the refraction of the enterprise, this means labor protection, insurance, a clear system of norms and rules, protection from arbitrariness, the absence of fear of loss benefits and benefits achieved, etc.)

A theory of needs. Maslow's need in love (since the need for love and the need for sex are often confused, this level is better defined as social needs). This concept includes a sense of belonging to something or someone, a feeling that others accept you, a feeling of reciprocity, affection and support, the need to identify the individual with the goals of the group, the goals of the enterprise;

A. Maslow's theory of needs the need for respect or the need for personality differentiation (the need for recognition, respect, self-respect, the attention of other people, promotion, the need for power, status, title, belief in one's own abilities) the need for self-realization (the need for realization their potential and growth as a person, success in achieving goals, solving tasks, obtaining and understanding information, fulfilling creative tasks, independence in making and implementing decisions, influencing external environment by implementing their ideas, etc.).

Motivational profile of F. Herzberg Each of us is driven by 2 factors: the need to avoid suffering; the need for psychological growth. The company needs to create: hygienic factors (prevention of dissatisfaction) motivators (give satisfaction, achievement motivation) Methods for identifying surveys, tests, observation, business communication.

Vroom's expectancy theory Motivation = (Z-R) × (P-B) × (HC), where (Z-R) is the cost of labor - the results of the effort will give the desired results; there should be a high but realistic level of requirements. (Р-В) - these are results - reward - the expectation that a certain reward will be received for a certain result; a firm relationship must be established between the result and remuneration only for efficient work. HC is Satisfaction with the Reward Rewards must be valuable and meet needs

The theory of justice and equality (A. Adamson) People perceive remuneration subjectively and compare it with the remuneration of other people for similar work, and if an employee finds his remuneration unfair, then he significantly reduces the productivity and quality of work.

Situation for analysis You are employee A (Aleksey). Your colleague, employee B (Boris) works with you in the same department, performs similar tasks. Your manager R (Roman) noted Alexey's work in the current quarter. You know that an order has been prepared to reward Alexei. You are convinced that you do no less work than Alexey and work no worse than him. At the same time, your work is not marked by anything. What is your reaction? Your actions?

You tell me what you need, maybe I'll give you what you want! Motivation cannot solve all problems, although it is often viewed as a perpetual motion machine for high performance. When solving the problems of employee motivation, the manager must always remember that the productivity of an employee consists of three components: - the ability to work productively, - the ability to work productively, - the readiness to work productively. It makes sense to talk about the third component only after the provision of the first two components!