The McGregor Paradox: The most momentous misconception in the history of work and organizations prevails. For now
A few years ago, I received an email from a business school student. She asked me how it came that I was, in her words, "pretty much the only one" who claimed that "Theory X people" do not exist.
The student suggested that I was probably mistaken with my interpretation of Douglas McGregor’s work, and with my interpretation of human nature at work as such. I had to be mistaken, she said, because everybody else's writing on McGregor hinted at what I so passionately denied: Those “Xers” – they exist in organizations. Her professor at the university also said so, she told me. I admit: I was a little annoyed.
With just a tad of drama, I replied that even if I were the only person on earth to argue that Theory X people do not exist at all (which I was not!) I would still be right about the matter, and that in that case I would be McGregor’s “true heir” – not those others! I told her that, clearly, not many people actually cared to read McGregors original book, The Human Side of Enterprise, published back in 1960. And that apparently even those who had read it had not done so carefully enough to pick up the actual message Because McGregor was saying it on pretty much every page of his book:
Theory Xers do not exist. Have never existed, will never exist. Theory X is just an ugly prejudice about other people at work.
I told the student that flawed interpretations of McGregors insight have been so notorious since the original publication of the book back in the 60s, that even the celebratory "Annotated Edition" contains comments from renown academic "followers" of McGregor’s claiming the exact opposite of McGregors insight, arguing “Well, yes, those Theory X people exist”. The problem, I believe, lies in what I have come to call the McGregor Paradox:
"Believers" in Theory X simply cannot acknowledge McGregor’s message, even if the obvious truth is pushed in their faces. They fail to overcome their Theory X prejudice, although the truth is quite obvious – scientifically and from evidence in work and organizations. Their own beliefs blind most people to reality and insight.
In management textbooks today, McGregor is usually depicted as a “motivational researcher who did not back up his claims on human nature with robust research and evidence.” Which of course is the most ludicrous claim, given that McGregor's crucial insight is of a philosophical, quasi-physical nature, applied to the realm of organizational, and business sciences. Imagine somebody saying: “Ah, Newton's work on gravity. Good stuff. But where is the evidence, the serious quantitative research to back it up? Why did he not do that? That's why I don't buy it: The guy did not even present proof!” Or think of this: “Yeah, Einstein's Relativity Theory. It is quite interesting – but my personal experience tells me differently, you know!”
What I said to the student is: “The question is not if Xers exist. That is actually a no-brainer. But sadly, 95% of supposed business experts, thought leaders, and academics, are quacks. The problem seems to be that close to 60 years after McGregor's insight, most so-called experts still claim, and believe, that Theory Xers exist. They say it. They teach it. They act according to a myth that McGregor should have effectively dispelled in 1960. They apply method that could only possibly work with Xers. Which, I will repeat now on behalf of McGregor, do not exist at all. How would you call that?”
The student was skeptical, of course, with regards to my arguments. So I told her to pick up a copy of The Human Side of Enterprise and see for herself.
***
A week or so later the student got back to me. She apologized. Admitted that everything I had told her about McGregors book was actually there. Loud and clear. Impossible to overlook, even. And that it made total sense. She said it was now obvious to her that McGregor had based the entire book on the crucial insight that Theory X human nature assumptions are a fraud. It was clear to her now that pretty much everyone since The Human Side of Enterprise had misquoted, even abused McGregors original message about Xers and Yers. She acknowledged to be somewhat puzzled about that fact. And that bewilderment is a feeling I share.
***
Even 58 years after McGregor's book, we are still stuck in a world of Theory X delusion. Never mind those days before McGregor: Maybe we could not know we were wrong. It was an age of innocence! But when McGregor finally told us, we should have listened. We should have learned. But, by and large, we did not. Most of us are guilty of perpetuating the Theory X prejudice. It is the biggest tragedy in the history of work, and organizations. It is a humanistic scandal, as it leads to a horrible waste of human potential, as well as to abuse of people, organizations, and power.
It may be the biggest fraud in history.
Photo: Douglas McGregor leads a seminar at MIT Sloan school of business for executives, 1958. Courtesy of MIT Museum archives. Photo coloring: Niels Pflaeging




The end of the first paragraph: “I admit that” and then what…? Sentence seems to be missing :)
In my experience, people can be so traumatised by Theory X impositions on them that they are unable to trust a Theory Y approach. That is, an enlightened manager in the middle cannot build that trust alone. Nor can an enlightened leader alone. Bringing in a change framework from above is a Theory X approach dressed up as Theory Y. You have to make everyone a partner in figuring out the better way. If it comes in as an idea or model from the middle or top, it will meet resistance. If you pose a challenge and give people latitude to figure out a way through, there’s no imposition. What strikes me about the Semco case in particular is the radical trust that was at the centre of the shift in workplace culture. It was an existential crisis and workers were given full latitude to solve problems. With no guarantees and no safety net.
The Semco model is not the culture/structure that emerged (which is not repeatable) but the radical trust and partnership in challenge. Acting from a Theory Y perspective, not pushing Theory Y as an idea.