Talk:Theory X and theory Y
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm not sure if the "Working for a Theory X boss" section should be here. It sounds rather POV and/or unencyclopedic, but I'm not going to delete it because I don't know much about this subject. --Fang Aili 16:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed; that's a how-to section, which is not encyclopedic. It could probably be saved if rewritten, so I tagged it for that kind of cleanup. -- Beland 16:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- In the unlikely event this section is kept in, perhaps it should be balanced with a "Theory Y" counterpart? Mattmm 13:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Criticism
I'm a motivational expert, and I am really confused about the criticism on the X and Y theory as well as Maslow's hierarchies of needs. I understand that non-experts feel uncomfortable in putting heavy criticism in the Wikipedia. So, I have some questions and commments about the Wikipedia's function here. First, is presenting examples out of line in the Wikipedia? I know that presenting counterexamples tend to be rhetoric, but they do fill an important function in explaining why a theory is not very useful. I think this could help the notion that even if the criticism is concise and correct, a non-expert cannot rate its severity. An example would do that very efficiently. For instance, a lot of scientists and ordinary people would consider the idea that there are only twelve types of people (as some astrologists may suggest) as ridiculous and oversimplifying. In this light, theory X and Y is even worse! I would like to add these things to this page, because I feel that we need to explain in layman's terms why certain historical ideas and theories are not very useful. Clebo 13:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Good question. I spent some time this morning looking through the Wikipedia policies and guidlines for something on criticisms and examples, but found nothing. Some thoughts: (1) I stared a discussion on Wikipedia talk:List of policies. You might want to see how (or if) that evoles. (2) In looking through the policies and guidelines, I think the best advice is "include only verifiable information -- no original research." Is the criticism you're making widely held in the management theory world? Or at least, is it widely discussed? If so, and if you can give references to the criticism, I think it could really help the article. Being new to management theory myself, I could really benefit from a section like "the modern view of Theory X and Theory Y," that perhaps links to some more recent, alternate schools of thought, and describes their point of departure from Theory X and Theory Y.
- As for the example; it seems to me to be sufficient to say something like "This is one dimension of a manager's personality, and in practice other dimensions are important as well. There has been much work on other dimensions, although Theory X and Theory Y are still considered one of the most important dimensions." Or something like that. That text seems to be clear enough to me, and understandable to a newbie, so that your example isn't needed. But maybe that's just me, and maybe I'd change my mind if I saw the full text of your change.
- What do you think? User:Hilgerdenaar
[edit] TODO
TODO: Make appropriate redirects to this page. THE KING 11:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What is the History behind naming these theories as Theory X and Theory Y?
Can somebody help me out with this please?
upendraparihar@yahoo.com
[edit] Merge with Theory Z
I don't think Theory X and Theory Y should be merged with Theory Z. The theories are separated historically. Perhaps a linking article about management theories should be created. Driedger 03:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. Theory Z is free standing and was not derived from McGregor's work. Anon 21:23, 22 October 2006 (PDT)
I agree with both Driedger and Anon. Theory X and Theory Y were coined in the 60s from a study of American management styles. Theory Z was coined in the early 80s by Ouchi from a consideration of both Japanese and American management styles, and attempted to address the short comings in Theory X and Theory Y. (I think it was a time when people were trying to explain the success of the Japanese economy over the US one.) They are distinctive models/developments in management thinking - and, as such, probably represent management fads. I believe the topics should be linked by way of a hypertext link. For another perspective have a look at 'Theory X Theory Y (McGregor) Theory Z (Ouchi)'
Here here. Theory Z was only devised by Ouchi as a result of McGregor's Theories X and Y. I agree, link them closely, but they are seperate topics and seperate management styles. Theory Z is, in effect, a go-between for Theory X and Theory Y, but is a seperate entity. Rob, 16/11/06
Don't merge. The only link between the two appears to be alphabetical, i.e. Z comes after X and Y.Pyrotec 16:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
