Organizational Behavior: Theory X, Theory Y, and the Hawthorne Studies

Theory X has several serious limitations, one of which concerns a substantial amount of subjectivity in it. Specifically, McGregor makes an unsubstantiated assumption about human behavior when stating that people do not like work (Scandura, 2018). Although the specified statement typically proves to be correct in most business settings, it still lacks nuance and evidence from research (Nelson & Quick, 2016). Moreover, implying a significant extent of micromanagement, theory X application is limited by its lack of understanding of what underpins human behavior (Nelson & Quick, 2016). Moreover, by viewing work as an indisputably undesirable activity for staff members, Theory X misses the opportunity to build motivation and employee engagement in staff members to increase their corporate loyalty and improve communication between a firm and its members.

In turn, Theory Y offers complete freedom to staff members and suggests that their motivation should be the main criterion of effective organizational management. Namely, Theory Y posits that the extent of staff members’ motivation, which, in turn, is correlated with their levels of engagement and participation, defines the efficacy of organizational performance (Nelson & Quick, 2016). Similar to Theory X, Theory Y has major limitations as far as the precision and applicability of its statements are concerned.

Furthermore, Theory Y also makes unsubstantiated assumptions regarding human behavior by claiming that people generally like work (Shaw et al., 2018). However, Theory Y is limited by its attempts at creating an environment that fits every employee perfectly, which is nearly impossible, especially in diverse teams. Moreover, like Theory X, Theory Y offers a rather accurate, even though slightly exaggerated, interpretation of workplace relationships and the correlation between staff motivation and the company’s performance (Nelson & Quick, 2016). Although how McGregor interpreted the nature of employees’ motivation might be slightly skewed, the general idea of how motivation works in the organizational setting and what effects it produces is correct.

Finally, one of the major problems with McGregor’s Theory Y is the extent to which it encourages staff’s agency without providing the platform for them to develop engagement and internalize organizational values and goals. As a result, leaving a range of company-related decisions to staff members that have a rather obscure idea of their roles and responsibilities, as well as corporate values and goals, will inevitably cause a drop in corporate efficiency.

Original Purpose of the Hawthorne Studies

The Hawthorne behavioral studies have been rather famous in business ad economy studies as the exploration of work environment and its effects on staff’s performance. Namely, the authors intended to identify several characteristics of a workplace setting, including lighting, length of breaks and the working day, and several other factors, to study their effects on employees’ performance levels.

Named after the location in which they took place, the Hawthorne studies were conducted by Henry A. Landsberger in the 1920s-1930s and represented a series of experiments set in the environment of Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works. The specified organization positioned itself as an electric company and was located near Hawthorne, IL, hence the name of the initial studies performed by Landsberger (Nelson & Quick, 2016). In his research, Landsberger sought to examine the outcomes of altering the properties of workplace settings such as its lighting, the length, and frequency of breaks, and well as the length of the working day, on the extent of employees’ motivation and performance rates (Dipboye, 2018).

Taking retrospect at the research launched by Landsberger will show that its outcomes were quite expected yet also crucial for the future development of motivational theories of organizational behavior. Specifically, the study results proved that, in most cases, positive changes in the environment led to an increase in employee performance rates, which proved the existence of a positive correlation and, most importantly, the presence of causation (Rogelberg, 2016).

However, on closer inspection of the Hawthorne studies, namely, their initial research question and the results that they delivered, one will notice that there was an impressive discrepancy between the two. Whereas the goals of the research included the study of specific factors on people’s development of motivation, a much more broad and generalized answer to the question of what serves as a motivating factor for most staff members in the workplace was obtained. Particularly, the outcomes of Hawthorne studies have led to a broader realization of what factors motivate employees to deliver posi