Theory X and Theory Y (Douglas McGregor)


The movement of human relations emerges in opposition to the classical approach to organizations and focuses on psychosocial aspects, the life of human groups, and the relational dimension within the organization.

It is symbolized today by the thinking of authors such as E. Mayo, K. Lewin, R. Likert, H. Maslow, D. McGregor, F. Herzberg, and C. Argyris, who are actually the forerunners of what would later become human resource management.

This article presents Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y.

Read Also: The Human Relations Movement

The Man – Douglas McGregor

Douglas McGregor (1906-1964) obtained his doctorate in psychology from Harvard University in 1935, after working in companies and serving as the director of a gasoline distribution company in Detroit. He became a professor of industrial psychology and later a professor of industrial management at MIT at Harvard from 1937 to 1964 while also working as a human relations consultant for numerous companies.

McGregor goes beyond Maslow and develops a genuine theory of management, which is a way of leading people. This theory was published in a reference work in 1960: “The Human Side of Enterprise.”

He starts from the observation that there is no satisfactory theory of management because none takes into account the potential represented by human resources in the company. By comparing the training programs of executives in large American companies, he concludes that the results of training have little effect on practices.

Read Also: 7 leader tips for self-directed teams

According to him, leaders change their mentality, behavior, and management style not based on the content of training but on their conception of their role as leaders. He formulates the idea that they make implicit assumptions about human nature at work that guide their conception of management. D. McGregor opposes two conceptions of human beings at work, which he calls Theory X and Theory Y.

Theory X and Theory Y of Management

  • Theory X (Pessimistic assumptions about human beings in work):
    • The average individual has an innate aversion to work and will do everything possible to avoid it.
    • Because of this aversion, individuals must be coerced, controlled, directed, and threatened with sanctions if they are to make the efforts necessary to achieve organizational objectives.
    • The average individual prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, and seeks security above all.
  • Theory Y (Optimistic assumptions about human beings in work):
    • Effort at work is as natural as effort in play or the pleasure of rest; work can be a source of satisfaction.
    • Individuals can self-direct if they accept the goals of their work.
    • The average person can learn to accept and seek responsibility.
    • Many individuals can have a creative impact on the organization. The resources of imagination and creativity to solve organizational problems are widely distributed in the population.

DPO: An Application of Theory Y

In contrast to the mode of management through control and sanctions stemming from Theory X (and thus the way organizations were conceived by classical authors like Taylor and Fayol), the author advocates a mode of management based on Theory Y. This involves integrating the needs of individuals and guiding them toward the success of the company.

This is the principle of Management by Objectives (MBO), which entails collaboratively setting objectives, delegating responsibilities, promoting self-control, and systematically evaluating results.

Read Also: Creative destruction: Schumpeterian perspectives on innovation and entrepreneurship

Theory Y also places managers squarely in their responsibilities because, in cases of underperformance, they cannot attribute it to innate laziness or the limited capabilities of human resources.

It’s important to note that Theory X and Theory Y represent extreme versions of management styles that are rarely observed in pure form in reality. They characterize trends and suggest the need to move away from an overly absolute Theory X (authoritarian leadership) while avoiding the illusion that all individuals fall under Theory Y (participative management).

The weakness of Theory Y lies in the implicit and contested idea that, given the opportunity, individuals will spontaneously seek self-development, aspire to participate, and be involved in decision-making within the organization.

Read Also: The Corporate Culture: Nurturing Success through a Positive Work Environment

Critics may also argue that McGregor’s assertion of a too linear causality between employee behavior and management practices oversimplifies the complex relationship between managerial approaches and the behavior of subordinates.

Furthermore, as noted by P. Drucker, individuals can react differently depending on the contexts they encounter: they may be less motivated in one situation but highly motivated in another, which limits the applicability of arguments regarding “human nature” or personality structure.


By understanding the differences between Theory X and Theory Y, managers can adapt their management approach to meet the needs and motivations of their teams. Creating a balanced work environment that integrates the strengths of both perspectives can lead to more effective management and a more engaged team.

Read Also: How to Effectively Manage Your Clientele for Business Success

Used judiciously, these theories can establish a corporate culture where employees feel valued, motivated, and responsible for their own success.

Previous article6 Key Performance Metrics for Banks
Next articleFayol and the administrative organization of work


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here