Actually, I'm very pleased that most of you do not think either one is true. Steve is correct, IMO, as are the rest of you that have it not being so cut and dry.

My goal with this paper is to tear down walls, burn bridges (lol), or at least try to show that management isn't cut and dry. I believe that is the point that we're trying to be taught.

I didn't want to elude too much in the beginning just because I didn't want someone to be swayed by knowing the topic of the paper. I'm writing a paper (well, it's a project) on the different theories of management (X, Y, and "Z"), along with the type of managerial hierarchy that is used. After research (which is what this post is, I'm trying to guage people's preconceptions), I'm going to try to guage which systems work in which enviroments, and teach people how to analyze their situation and take the necessary steps to make your employees more productive and your workplace more enjoyable.

Thank you for the in-depth responses so far.

 

I like this guy's books:

http://www.leadershipnow.com/leaders...hnmaxwell.html

I also worked at UPS, although as a computer programmer. I had the same problem with them - the better you were, the more responsibility you had, but without the rewards. I finally quit after four years, when I found out the worst performer in my group, who reported to me, made 33% more than I did.

I wised up at that point. I still work to the best of my abilities at my job, but I rely on what I do after 5pm to pay me what I deserve.

Let's face it, most people do just enough work not to be fired, and most employers pay people just enough not to quit and go elsewhere.

 

110%

 

Theory X (lazy workers)

I think the answer depends on the industry.* Its a self-selecting situation. An industry that attracts highly skilled/educated labor will tend to attract those who enjoy their work. They have an investment in time to be involved in that profession, so they probably enjoy what they're doing.

On the other hand, industries that require little education or skill will attract labor that simply works to "pay the bills". In this case, there is little motivation (job satisfaction, compensation, etc) for the "best" workers to stay. What is left is the underperforming mass, who is likely to be happy to put forth as little effort as possible.

*This is all my personal opinion. I haven't seen any data to substantiate my hypothesis, but I'd be interested to see what McGregor would have to say.

 

also...everyone is so different...I know in my work my inner self compels me to strive for the top..even if i don't like that particular situation...but when i was in the military i've seen people do the worst job on something that is so simple it's embarrassing...i don't feel that it's just that easy to say it's one or the other across the board

 

I feel that both statements can be true. When I was a department manager (Director of Engineering & Maintenance) in the Hospitality industry I gave my staff pretty much free rein to do their respective jobs. One of my main criteria to hire someone was summed up in one question: "Are you going to go after my job?" The answer if you wanted to be hired needed to be YES. I felt that if they didn't want my job then they just weren't right. Two of my assisstants moved up into my position at different hotels. One ran my department while I was busy with a 2.1 Million dollar renovation at one of the properties. Shortly after I left he took over my position and then was called to go as Chief Engineer at an even bigger hotel in Miami shortly after hurricane Andrew passed through and the hotel needed extensive renovation. I told the regional office that I would not work in Florida to hot and humid for me, and my assisstant was from Miami.