I've recently received feedback from a couple of people I’ve worked with, that some of the more established models that I use to discuss leadership principles, are somewhat outdated.
I think it’s crucial to act on this feedback, which has actually been great to challenge my own thinking – so thank you - that’s exactly what I want, as it helps me stay relevant.
There are two models I’d like to discuss: one by Frederick Herzberg and another by Douglas McGregor.
Now then, if you’re already starting to think things like these models are ancient, that's exactly my point. Stick with me, read to the end, and then decide for yourself if they're still relevant today.
I’d also encourage you to do your own research and think about this a bit more. It’s useful challenge and great to hear different viewpoints to get a broader perspective.
Here's the gist of this blog
In today's fast-paced world, it's easy to dismiss old management theories as irrelevant. But just because something is old doesn’t mean it’s useless. I mean, look at me! OK OK... some of you may be thinking twice about that one hahaha – but remember, we can all choose to be kind 😊
Here’s what I believe…
Despite spanning several decades, Douglas McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y, and Frederick Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory, still offer valuable insights for modern management. These theories are still key for understanding and boosting employee motivation and engagement.
Testament to this, is the fact that many top business leaders and academics, still rely on these models as foundational thinking, that is referred to, time and time again.
Let’s dive into each theory and see why I believe that they’re still important today.
Revisiting X and Theory Y
Let's travel back in time with Douglas McGregor. He introduced two contrasting perspectives on human motivation and management: Theory X and Theory Y.
Theory X considers and is based on the basic premise that people inherently dislike work and must be coerced, controlled, and directed to achieve organisational goals.
This approach leads to a management style characterised by strict authority, defined roles, and close supervision. In other word’s a top-down approach where managers overly manage (micromanage) their employees, assuming they need constant oversight to be productive.
Theory X thinking managers also operate under the belief that their employees lack ambition, avoid responsibility, and need a carrot-and-stick approach to get things done.
This mindset often results in a highly hierarchical and authoritarian work environment where creativity and independent thinking are stifled. In these environments, employees often feel undervalued and demotivated, leading to high turnover rates and low job satisfaction.
This style of X thinking led management, assumes that workers...
In contrast, Theory Y suggests that people naturally enjoy work, seek self-direction, and can creatively solve business problems. Managers who embrace this approach believe that motivation is essential, where employees are driven by their own internal satisfaction, rather than external pressure. This approach involves employees in decision-making processes, generating a sense of autonomy, involvement and ownership.
Theory Y managers operate under the assumption that their employees are self-motivated, that they’re capable managing themselves, and that they see responsibility as a gift – they want it. This mindset encourages a more collaborative and empowering place of work, where innovation and engagement thrive.
Employees in these settings are more likely to feel valued and motivated, leading to more stuff getting done, better results, quicker progress, effective navigation through change, improved use of budgets and better profitability etc.
I could go on, but in other words, productivity is at it’s best. It also massively boosts job satisfaction and loyalty to the organisation reducing employee churn and the huge costs that come with it.
This style of Y thinking led management, assumes that workers...
Many organisations have tried both X&Y styles – let’s call them the 'Classical' (Theory X) vs. the 'Participative' (Theory Y) approach.
Businesses using the ‘Classical’ approach (Theory X), focus on strict control and clear roles. This approach often leads to a rigid and inflexible organisational structure where the emphasis is on compliance and control rather than creativity and innovation.
If anyone knows the story about NASA and the Challenger and Columbia shuttle disasters, you’ll know what this can lead to! An extreme example, but nevertheless a real and very tragic one.
Traditionally businesses like Walmart, particularly in its earlier years, operated in this way, as do many of the UK’s leading supermarket chains today. Typically, these businesses rely on strict control and supervision, with a highly structured and controlled management style, especially in their stores and supply chain operations.
Participative Approach (Theory Y): In contrast, businesses that use the participative approach (aligned with Theory Y) focus on involving employees in decision-making to boost their motivation and engagement. This approach encourages a more flexible and adaptive organisational structure where employees are empowered to contribute their ideas and take ownership of their work. This leads to a more dynamic and responsive organisation that can better navigate the complexities of the modern-day business environment.
A modern-day business that exemplifies the Participative Approach is Google. For example, Google encourage a flexible work environment. Their 20%time policy, allows employees to spend a portion of their work time on projects they are passionate about, leading to innovations like Gmail, Google News and most recently, huge developments in AI.
Let’s fast forward to the here and now.
In today’s world, the core principles of X Y still apply, despite the change in workforce demographics. Modern workplaces that increasingly recognise the value of employee engagement and intrinsic motivation (principles central to Theory Y) are thriving, whereas those with a strict, less inclusive and less diverse workforce, are potentially being held back (Theory X).
It's also worth noting this can happen at any level – team, department, or company. Teams with micromanaging 'Bosses' are stifled and business performance is impacted as a result.
As companies aim to be more inclusive, diverse and empowering, shifting from Theory X thinking to Theory Y is more relevant than ever.
Here’s two contrasting examples at a business level.
Unilever is a leading multinational consumer goods company with its headquarters in the UK, and it’s an excellent example of a Theory Y thinking organisation.
Unilever's commitment to Theory Y principles has made it a highly desirable place to work, with strong employee engagement, innovation, and business success.
In contrast Sports Direct, a UK-based sports-goods retailer, has often been cited as an example of a company operating under Theory X principles.
While Sports Direct's approach has allowed it to grow rapidly and dominate it’s market, this strict, less inclusive, and controlled environment, negatively impacts employee satisfaction. This is something that some people say puts the long term success of the business at risk.
Now here's something to be aware of - McGregor was often misquoted
It’s important to recognise what McGregor was actually saying, as many people get this around their neck. He was often misquoted. People often say, and I still hear them quote this today, that people are either Theory X or they are Theory Y. This was not what McGregor was saying at all.
What McGregor actually said was that as people, we tend to think about others, more one way, than we do the other - as if Theory X or Theory Y were true.
It’s also useful to recognise that we may move between the two states of X and Y thinking, under different circumstances (when we’re under pressure for example) and we may also apply contrasting X and Y thinking down to an individual level.
Why is this important? - Well because when this happens, we begin to treat people in a way is if our assumptions were true.
Here’s what I mean.
If we think somebody lacks creativity or can't be trusted, how likely do you think it is that we will ask them for their thoughts and their ideas?
If we think that a particular individual avoids taking responsibility, how likely do you think it is that we will involve them and give them full responsibility to deliver whatever it is that we need to be delivered?
I’ll tell you how likely…NOT VERY LIKELY AT ALL.
Instead, you’re more likely to give it to the person who you think is creative, or who you think likes taking responsibility - and here’s the thing with that, this will entrench your X-Y thinking even further.
I’ve seen this happen many times, and I’ve fallen into this trap myself. If you have a 'Superstar' on your team and others that you see as ‘Just Average’, guess who gets the opportunities? The superstar, right? This further supports your thinking, leaving the 'average' performers without a chance to prove themselves.
What’s really striking about this is that this supports our thinking even further. Those poor people who we believe are average or just OK performers, they’re never given the chance to prove they’re anything else. As a result of our actions, our thinking becomes more entrenched, and we further treat people as if our assumptions were true.
That's the thing with theory X theory Y, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we think more one way than the other, that's exactly what we’ll get in return.
As leaders, it’s an important part of our role to create other leaders around us. If we think that people are capable of great things, want to take responsibility, can be trusted, and are the best source of ideas in the business etc, we're much more likely to create other leaders.
On the other side of the coin, if we micro-manage our people, we’re sending them a message that we don't trust them, that we don't think they want to take responsibility, that they can’t be left alone to get on, and that they probably don’t have any good ideas.
When we do this, we’re likely to demotivate our people by being overly controlling and driving, grinding people into the ground and demotivating them.
If we are in this theory X thinking space, were unlikely to create other leaders around us, indeed it is much more likely that we will develop other controlling managers that follow our lead. Not good!
Now let’s delve into Frederick Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory, also known as the Two-Factor Theory. This usually generates a lot of discussion as it's been around a while and may people are familiar with it.
Developed in the 1950s, this theory differentiates between factors that cause job satisfaction (motivators) and those that prevent job dissatisfaction (hygiene factors).
Hygiene Factors include salary, benefits, company policies, working conditions, job security, job tile, status and interpersonal relations. These factors do not necessarily motivate employees, but can lead to dissatisfaction if they are inadequate or missing.
Hygiene factors are the baseline necessities for a satisfactory work environment. While they don’t create long-term job satisfaction, their absence can cause significant employee dissatisfaction and disengagement.
Motivators, on the other hand, include achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, advancement, and personal growth. These factors drive high job satisfaction and motivation.
Herzberg argued that true motivation comes from the work itself and the opportunities it provides for personal growth and fulfillment. Unlike hygiene factors, motivators have a lasting positive impact on employee engagement and productivity.
Above the line motivates - Below the line satisfies
Fast forward to today and it’s right to ask if Herzberg’s theory still holds true.
More so than ever before, today's workforce seeks meaningful work and opportunities for personal development - Elements that Herzberg identified as key motivators.
For instance, the increasing emphasis on life balance, professional growth, and a positive organisational culture aligns perfectly with Herzberg’s motivators. Meanwhile, ensuring competitive salaries, good working conditions, and fair company policies, addresses the hygiene factors that prevent dissatisfaction.
There’s definitely been a shift in what some people want.
It’s important to recognise that the weighting of some of the hygiene factors have become more significant in determining where people decide to work.
For example, hybrid working now plays a huge part in many people’s 'where to work decision’. But let’s be clear - this still sits below the line as a hygiene factor and it’s not something that on its own, leads to increased levels of motivation. For some people however, it’s become a core requirement of what they want from an employer.
An increasing trend and it's likely to continue.
Many of the people that form today’s workforce, are increasingly looking to find roles that fit into their lives, rather than structuring their lives around their work.
Companies that offer remote work options, flexible hours, and opportunities for personal and professional growth are much more likely to attract top talent.
Also, the focus on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and ethical business practices has become a significant factor for modern day employees. More so than ever before, people want to work for organisations that align with their personal values and contribute positively to society.
This shift underscores the importance of Herzberg’s hygiene factors, with company policy playing a crucial factor in the choices that are being made by today’s workforce.
This shift in emphasis, further supports the validity of Herzberg’s theory.
Today’s employees are much more likely to stay with an organisation that provides meaningful work, opportunities for advancement and personal growth. Recognition is also important in the form of diversity, inclusion and a sense of involvement, with people wanting to be outwardly appreciated for their contributions.
Link all of this to providing roles that help people fulfill their personal purpose, and provide an alignment with their values…booom! - Now we're talking!
Whilst it seems absolutely fair to recognise that Herzberg’s core principles remain solid, the modern workplace has evolved significantly. The rise of remote work, technological advancements, and a stronger emphasis on life balance are notable changes. These recent changes strengthen the relevance of this theory.
Here's how: Hygiene Factors have become increasingly important, as they have a massive part to play as ‘enablers’ to the Motivators.
For example, hybrid working is now crucial, but let’s be clear about this, it’s still a hygiene factor. Yes, it supports lifestyle and balance aspirations, but on its own it does not increase motivation.
However, being able to work remotely enhances job satisfaction by offering autonomy and a better life balance. Employees appreciate the flexibility to manage their schedules and they benefit from lower levels of stress because of less commuting. They also get time back which increases their wellbeing and ability to focus, boosting overall engagement and job satisfaction.
Remote work also encourages self-discipline and personal responsibility, which are key components of intrinsic motivation. Employees also feel a greater sense of trust, something that is absolutely vital for progressive organisations.
When it comes to working in the office, the Hygiene Factors can play a massive part in enabling the Motivators.
A Theory Y approach to office design for example, offers a greater range of 'space types' that support different ways of working, enabling better communication and improved collaboration.
For example, the availability of ‘hot- desks’ and ‘soft furniture breakout spaces’ provides employees choice. This gives them a greater sense of empowerment by enabling them to choose and vary the type of space in which they work in. This in turn improves creativity and promotes and enhances employee wellbeing.
Leaders that think as if theory Y were true, are also more likely to be prepared to work in a more agile / less formal way. For example, a 'Y Thinker' may support and encourage people to hold ‘walk-and-talk’ meetings, where they can choose to go for a short stroll and benefit from fresh air.
There's some huge benefits in supporting flexible ways of working.
Studies indicate that walking meetings can enhance creativity by approximately 80%, offering notable advantages in promoting free and unconstrained thinking. Additionally, walking can improve workplace relationships and the casual environment of walking together can help people to relax and be more authentic.
Because 'Theory X thinkers' are unlikely work in this way (they want to see people at their desks, so they know they are working), they’ll likely miss out on these benefits.
The systems and technology that we use also have a big part to play
Technological advancements have also influenced the workplace. Online administrative tools that enable better communication, collaboration, and efficiency, support both Hygiene Factors and Motivators.
For instance, technology can improve working conditions and job security (hygiene factors), while the use of platforms like Microsoft Teams to collaborate, can support things like advancement, job interest, and recognition (motivators), by involving people without being restricted by their location.
Life balance is becoming more significant for today’s workforce.
Companies that adopt policies to promote a healthy balance between work and personal life see higher levels of employee engagement. Policies such as flexible working hours, generous parental leave, and wellness programs, contribute to a supportive work environment that enhances employee well-being.
This focus aligns beautifully with Herzberg’s motivators. Employees who have time to recharge, are more likely to seek opportunities to grow within their business by getting involved and taking personal responsibility to ‘Get stuff done’.
People want to be stretched and continue their self-development
Additionally, the concept of continuous learning and development is something that today's workforce is leaning into. Modern employees value opportunities for growth and development, which directly ties into Herzberg’s motivators.
Organisations that have clear training plans and professional development policies (below the line Hygiene Factors), that enable such learning, promote career advancement and are more likely to have engaged and motivated staff who focus on operating above the line – enabling the motivators.
Making the shift
It's useful to recognise that the two models we have been discussing (McGregor X&Y and Herzberg) are intrinsically linked. How we choose to think, massively impacts how we operate. If we think like Y, we’re much more likely to work in a way that creates the above the line Motivators. The counter to this is that if we think like X, were much more likely to think ‘it’s job done’ when the hygiene factors are in place. That’s just half the job!
So, how do you shift from a Theory X mindset to a Theory Y mindset, to ensure we’re focused on the things that really motivate people to go the extra mile?
Here are a few practical steps:
Recognise employees' capabilities and trustworthiness: Understand they don’t need rigid control and can manage themselves.
Believe in autonomous action: Trust people to take initiative and honour commitments.
Empower decision-making: Allow employees to make decisions about their work, fostering ownership and entrepreneurship.
Encourage transparency and communication: Promote open communication and transparency, creating shared responsibility and peer control.
Create a personal leadership culture: Support employee development with personal leadership training. Invest in their growth to enhance motivation and productivity.
By adopting these practices, organisations can shift to a Theory Y mindset, creating a more engaging and productive environment. This transformation involves not just changing management practices, but fostering a culture that values and supports autonomy and development.
So, to summarise...
Organisationally, a culture that supports Theory Y thinking enables people to work together, creating an environment where important motivators are at the forefront of day-to-day business activities.
Absolutely the Hygiene Factors are needed today, arguably more so than ever before - It’s vital to ensure they are in place and appropriate, because of the part they play in enabling the motivators. Relying on the Hygiene Factors alone however, simply won’t cut it. You've got to work at this, and that includes working on your thinking.
The challenge for many workplaces (and indeed the people within them) is transitioning from Theory X to Theory Y, rethinking views on motivation and potential.
This shift can create environments where people feel involved, find their jobs interesting, see opportunities for advancement, and take responsibility. This leads to a sense of achievement, meaning, autonomy, and mastery. When this happens, people and businesses thrive.
While Herzberg’s and McGregor’s theories may be from the past, they are far from outdated.
So, after all that, here’s what I think…
Dismissing these classic theories would be a mistake - Indeed quite the opposite. I believe their foundational principles can guide us towards sustainable success. Indeed I believe the theories are crucial reminders of where we need to focus our efforts.
Do I believe these models are still relevant today?
Absobloodylutely I do!
Now it’s up to you - I’ll let you make your own mind up.
What’s your thoughts – I’d love to hear them
Final thought footnote:
These days we absorb information in a whole host of different ways and from a huge range of sources; the internet, through podcasts, from thought leaders, and through various social media channels...and we do this more so than from academic study. Check out Dan Pink and his animated you-tube video ' The surprising truth about what motivates us'. This discusses Herzberg's motivation theory alongside real-life experiences in a more contemporary way. Thanks Tasha Bridgen for flagging this :)
Comments