The document discusses human motivation and needs theories proposed by Maslow and McGregor, specifically focusing on McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y approaches to management. Theory X managers believe employees are inherently lazy and must be threatened to achieve organizational goals, while Theory Y managers believe employees want to do well at their jobs and are motivated by accomplishment. The author argues that while Theory Y may not work within a military context requiring strength and decisiveness, the most effective leadership adopts aspects of both theories tailored to individual employees and situations.

1. The Human Side of Enterprise
Before discussing enterprise as a whole, I want to first talk about human needs. Douglas
McGregor borrowed Abraham Maslow’s concept that suggests people are motivated to fulfill
their basic needs before moving on to other, more advanced, needs. Those basic needs are;
physiological needs, which are vital to survival; safety needs, which are important for security;
social needs, which include needs for love and acceptance; ego needs for self-esteem,
recognition, and accomplishment; and self-fulfillment needs for personal growth and potential.
As lower level needs are met, humans instinctively focus on the next level. So, when
management is at a loss to why employees aren’t satisfied, it is because they feel deprived of
the other levels, such as ego and/or self-fulfillment.
McGregor expounded on Maslow’s concept with his theories X and Y. Theory X, in short,
is the authoritarian approach to management. This is the belief by management that
employees are inherently lazy, do the minimum to get their paycheck, and have to be
threatened to get the results required by the organization. By keeping employees firmly under
their thumbs, they deprive them of the higher-level needs of ego and self-fulfillment.
On the other hand, Theory Y embraces a “softer” approach. Management that supports
this theory believe that employees want to do well at work and are motivated by the
satisfaction of doing a good job. They believe in open communication and foster relationships
with employees to create a comfortable environment for creativity.

2. My whole life has been saturated with the military. My father was in the Marine Corps
for my entire childhood and served in Saudi Arabia, my uncle served in the Vietnam War, and
my grandfather fought in the Korean War. So, it was no shock that I joined the Army and made
a career of it. I revealed this to show where my opinions come from, and how the rigidity of the
military can either make you a Theory X manager or, if you are a conscientious leader, actually
cause you to meld the two theories together. I will be purposely leaving Theory Y out of this
equation because it has no place within the ranks of the military. I’m not saying that it isn’t
constructive and beneficial in most organizations, but within the ranks of the military, your leadership
style must show strength and decisiveness or you will not be taken seriously.
As a member of the military, I was exposed to more Theory X managers than I care to
remember. That style caused me to reflect on those qualities of leaders that I did not want to
emulate and put them together with those qualities that I did. This resulted in adopting
different leadership styles according to individual soldiers’ receptiveness, maturity-levels, and
motivations. I was able to set forth what was expected from me and from the organization we
were assigned to and enforce those expectations as hands-on or hands-off as was necessary for
the situation and for the individual. Not everyone responds to authority in the same way so you
have to adopt ways of making your point clear.
Both theories have a place in society but it depends on the organization and their
mission. If an organization adopts only the X Theory management style, than they run the risk

3. of low productivity, diminishing loyalty, and high turn-over rates. Organizations that embrace
the Y Theory tend to have happier, productive, and loyal employees that want to stay in their
current positions. The downside is some employees would see this as an opportunity to take
advantage of the more lax atmosphere. In my military and leadership experience, it is always
better to take some qualities of both theories and develop a style that allows employees to be
happy and productive without giving them so much leeway that they feel they can take
advantage of the situation. To sum it up, both theories can provide a guiding principle of
positive approaches to management. But putting them both together you can gain more
advantages and insight.