Evolution Bikes’ is North Wales’ premier bicycle shop and workshop. Located in Bangor, North Wales, ’Evolution Bikes’ was established in 2014, with the aim of becoming a hub for specialist bicycle sales and repairs. Initially its growth was strong and this required them to widen the operation to a larger store.
‘Evolution Bikes’ operates in the private sector as a private limited company with share capital (Companies Check, 2017) the main aim is to maximize profits while still providing each customer with a tailored personal experience. This is accomplished by being one of the main UK distributors for some of the most prestigious brands in cycling (Evolution Bikes, 2016)
‘Evolution Bikes’ is owned by two shareholders who have personal unlimited liability for the firm’s debts (CompanyBug
, 2015) Due to its small size, it operates in a domestic environment, to keep providing high quality and personal service via the seven regular members of staff, each specializing in a specific aspect of cycling (road bikes, mountain bikes, cycling apparel, etc…) (Evolution Bikes, 2016)
McGregor’s Theory XY.
McGregor’s biography.
Douglas McGregor, an American social psychologist introduced his famous management and motivation their X/Y in his book ‘The Human Side to Enterprise’ (1960) His publication is still used to this day in the world of management and motivation, whilst newer studies have challenged his theory, it remains as a basic principle of which to develop management and motivational techniques upon. McGregor’s theories are a subtle reminder of the natural rules of managing people daily is easily forgotten. McGregor proposes that there are two fundamental approaches to managing people. (BusinessBalls, 2017)
Theory X and Theory Y.
‘Theory X’ is considered an authoritarian style of management, it conceptualized as downwards management (appendix 1) which tends to receive poor results due to the repressive nature and the fact that there is little delegation of authority because control remains in the hands of management.
The contrasting theory is ‘theory Y’ which is a liberating style of management which is conceptualized as upwards management (appendix 1) that receives good results due to its developmental nature allowing employees to grow and continuously improve.
Theory XY allows two different approaches to a variety of crucial factors in a successful work environment, examples of these are as follows: Motivation from perspective ‘X’ assumes that the workforce dislikes work, and that they want to avoid taking responsibility. Where from the ‘Y’ perspective, the workforce is self-motivated and thrives on responsibility. Management in a theory ‘X’ organization is authoritarian and centralized control is maintained always, where a theory ‘Y’ organization drives to have employees involved in decision making, but power is retained when the final decision is made (MindTools, 2017)
Application in the workplace.
I will explain the application of McGregor’s theory XY and how it effects the employees at ‘Evolution Bikes’ per my personal work experience at the organization over the past couple of years.
After two years working at this organization, it was clear to me and my colleagues that there was a particular type of management we preferred. At the time, I was unknown to McGregor’s theories, but now after studying them it’s clear that I preferred being managed by a theory ‘Y’ manager. At ‘Evolution Bikes’ there are two managers, but one adopts a complete theory ‘Y’ approach and the other’s management features aspects of theory ‘X’ and it was clear to me which type of management motivated me to work harder. During my time under the management of both theories it was clear that there was a different approach at management, work organization, relationships, motivation and rewards, and these different approaches to aspects of management were recognized by the staff at all different levels.
Motivation was a crucial factor of the workforce that differed with the two types of management. Under the theory ‘X’ management, I believe that the manager assumed that we were all extrinsically motivated, thus enforcing an authoritarian approach to managing the staff. I and my colleagues recognized this and it decreased motivation in the shop and we naturally tried to avoid contact with this theory ‘X’ manager. However, under the management of the theory ‘Y’ manager, working was a pleasure as you had input into decisions regarding the future of the organization, of course the final decision was made by the manager but his willingness to listen to the opinions of all staff on decision was important to the individual motivation of colleagues and the general motivational vibe of the workplace.
Work organization was another aspect of work life that differed with the two types of management. Under the management of the theory ‘X’ manager, we all had specialized work that was often repetitive (MindTools, 2017) Here you felt as though you only had one specific use in the workplace, when it wasn’t as busy in your specialized area but a colleague was busy you didn’t have the knowledge or transferable skills to help. Whereas with the management of the theory ‘Y’ manager he encouraged development in all sectors of the shop, so that staff can carry out a combination of specialist task well, rather than being limited to a singular skill set. This improved efficiency in the shop as at busy times, myself and my colleagues were trained to deal with a variety of situations that previously required the expertise of another member of staff.
The relationship maintenance with the two managers was completely different, with the theory ‘X’ manager it was a “maintenance by suppression” Kaplan (1975) where direct discussions were avoided and thus ‘suppressed’, hence why I and my colleagues felt a bit distant from this manager. To contrast this, the theory ‘Y’ manager believed in a “maintenance by expression” approach, Kaplan (1975) Where he would openly encourage us to voice any issues about our relationship. This created a friendly environment which led to him not only being a manager but a friend.
Rewards were the only factor that both managers had a similar view on, both believed in the theory ‘Y’ approach. Appraisal was regular and important. Rewards didn’t include an increased salary as they didn’t believe that would make us work any harder, however rewards did include being able to leave slightly early and also recognized appraisal often resulted in the opportunity to go on press events and launch parties to check out the latest and greatest technology in the bicycle industry. Due to this rewards scheme I and a colleague were flown out to Germany to one of the manufacturers HQ’s to check out a new bicycle concept and this then motivated us to work harder to gain another opportunity of similar nature.
Other academics’ critique.
Per Kevin L. Sager’s ‘Journal of work and organizational psychology’ (2015) he examines “the degree to which superiors’ downward maintenance communication could be predicted from their Theory X/Y assumptions” by conducting a two-part investigation that consisted of a self-report measure of downward maintenance communication and the second part was to test the model.
The first part of the investigation consisted of testing how relationships were maintained, either by ‘expression’ or ‘suppression’ (Kaplan, 1975) and how either theory X or Y management is responsible for their decision. Sager then goes on to explain how a theory X manager will maintain a relationship by suppression as they avoid confrontation and the exposure of emotion, whereas a theory Y manager will maintain a relationship by expression because they drive for the staff to verbalize their feelings and emotions. From this he then identified four categories of upwards maintenance tactics; “personal, contractual, regulative and direct” (Kaplan, 1975)
In the second part of Sager’s investigation he tests the model. In this part, Sager links the theory XY assumptions to communication, where he discovered that “theory Y management correlated positively with considerations but negatively to initiating structure” (Fiman, 1973) but more recently Sager proposed that a theory Y orientation correlated positively with the dominant and impression leaving superior communicator style (Sager, 2008)
Furthermore, the results of Sager’s investigation suggest that assumptions on theory XY are a source of variation in superior’s downward maintenance communication. Thus, assumptions on theory XY should be added to the list of personal characteristics when evaluating applicants for managerial positions.
...(download the rest of the essay above)