In this essay, both of McGregor’s concepts of ‘Theory Y’ and ‘Theory X’ (McGregor, 1960) will be explored. However, it must be mentioned from the outset that one can argue to a greater extent that Theory X provides a more universal approach towards management within the leisure industry. Despite this, some elements of Theory X are undoubtedly outdated. The autocratic style of Theory X leadership no longer governs industries as effectively as it once did – due to many factors including an increase in quality of the labour force, an increase in labour mobility, and the increase of influence from the labour force due to legislation and social trends. As a result of this, it will be argued throughout that neither Theories X or Y provide new leisure
…show more content…
This approach is robotic, and does not assist the ‘sub-ordinate’ employees in fulfilling their potential, which would ultimately draw the most out of employees, as in order to do this their needs would be fulfilled to the greatest possible extent, in Maslow’s opinion. On the other hand, it may be argued that taking a more Theory Y orientated approach to the roles acquired by the ‘sub-ordinate’ as an attempt to fulfill Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, may not necessarily be successful for new leisure industry managers. This could be shown by Maslow’s very own implementation of Theory Y in its “extremity” into a Californian electronics business. It was concluded that workers “need some form of structure around them and some direction from others”, irrespective of their levels of independence and maturity (Economist, 2008). This displays how elements of Theory X are imperative, to maintain structure and form within a business. On the contrary, as previously mentioned, Theory X is outdated in respect to the notable change in working conditions since McGregor’s time of writing and observation. Technological advancements have not only replaced the need for structured working hours and conditions for more menial administrative roles for instance, but have also transformed them. An example of this is …show more content…
This approach which promoted firms’ labour forces to envisage their long term future with a company was popularised by “Japanese Management” (Ouchi, 1981). This emphasised that although Japanese culture and its work ethic played a pivotal role in Japan’s “bubble phase”, a ‘purple patch’ in Japan’s economic history, whereby they enjoyed higher productivity levels and witnessed a significant increase in industry worth, with “Japan’s Nikkei stock index tripled to 39,000 and accounted for more than one third of the world’s stock market capitalization” according to the Economist, in 2011 (Colombo, 2012). With this time period dominated by “family-controlled” businesses, it encapsulates the view that when a managerial structure may empathise with their sub-ordinates, they can take a situational and more appreciative view of where creativity and Maslow’s “self-actualisation” may be achieved within more menial workers’ roles, whilst still working within a structured Theory X style regime – but instead offered a transparent route to success within their very same business. In general practice, this method has been identified by many management structures, in business as a whole, as well as the leisure
This approach is robotic, and does not assist the ‘sub-ordinate’ employees in fulfilling their potential, which would ultimately draw the most out of employees, as in order to do this their needs would be fulfilled to the greatest possible extent, in Maslow’s opinion. On the other hand, it may be argued that taking a more Theory Y orientated approach to the roles acquired by the ‘sub-ordinate’ as an attempt to fulfill Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, may not necessarily be successful for new leisure industry managers. This could be shown by Maslow’s very own implementation of Theory Y in its “extremity” into a Californian electronics business. It was concluded that workers “need some form of structure around them and some direction from others”, irrespective of their levels of independence and maturity (Economist, 2008). This displays how elements of Theory X are imperative, to maintain structure and form within a business. On the contrary, as previously mentioned, Theory X is outdated in respect to the notable change in working conditions since McGregor’s time of writing and observation. Technological advancements have not only replaced the need for structured working hours and conditions for more menial administrative roles for instance, but have also transformed them. An example of this is …show more content…
This approach which promoted firms’ labour forces to envisage their long term future with a company was popularised by “Japanese Management” (Ouchi, 1981). This emphasised that although Japanese culture and its work ethic played a pivotal role in Japan’s “bubble phase”, a ‘purple patch’ in Japan’s economic history, whereby they enjoyed higher productivity levels and witnessed a significant increase in industry worth, with “Japan’s Nikkei stock index tripled to 39,000 and accounted for more than one third of the world’s stock market capitalization” according to the Economist, in 2011 (Colombo, 2012). With this time period dominated by “family-controlled” businesses, it encapsulates the view that when a managerial structure may empathise with their sub-ordinates, they can take a situational and more appreciative view of where creativity and Maslow’s “self-actualisation” may be achieved within more menial workers’ roles, whilst still working within a structured Theory X style regime – but instead offered a transparent route to success within their very same business. In general practice, this method has been identified by many management structures, in business as a whole, as well as the leisure