Reference no: EM131069903

THEORY X VERSUS THEORY Y

You've been at Magnetar Logistics Solutions for nine years and earned a reputation for leading a team that gets done what you say it will get done when you say it will be done. Now your sales team is close to landing a new 10-figure contract with an established client, Peterson Warehousing, Inc. You brought Peterson on board six years ago and have since grown and nurtured the relationship, and gotten to know this client in depth. One of the reasons you've achieved so much over the years is that you've always trusted your team members and given them the room and support they need to operate in their own way. They've repaid you by coming through time and time again with top quality solutions that always matched clients' needs. But Peterson is a different case-at least it seems that way to you; -it's your baby and it's a big account. You know Peterson better than anyone else, and now you're facing a very hard deadline in only weeks, which will determine whether or not you get the new contract. At this point you're doing a lot of close supervision on this project and not giving team members very much space to operate. There are many complexities with Peterson that you're worried the team will overlook, but which you are on top of. The team as a whole is starting to feel the impact of your switch in management style.

What are the consequences of your shifting management style midstream on this project . . . for success with the client? . . .for your team? . . . for your reputation as a successful Manager?

Here is the student replies, and also theses 3 I need you to reply:

1. In this case says, the manager always trusted his team members and given them the room and support they need to operate in their own way. They've repaid the manager by coming through time and time again with top quality solutions that always matched clients' needs. At this point, the manager know how to leading his team and the theory Y is works for this team. The reason for why the manager doing a lot of close supervision on this project with not too much operate space for his team members is the mental stress since this is bit project, the pressure making the manager confusedly rise up the security level of the project compare to the trust value of the team members, and compress the team's operate space, it may just for this particular project only not for the whole business. So it doesn't mean the manager going to changes his manager style. (ding)

2.When switching from a lenient style of management, allowing employees plenty of room to perform their tasks, to a high supervision style of management, it could potentially hurt progress toward landing the new contract. The main reason for this is when additional "micro-management" takes place in any kind of work environment, additional time is spent checking everything instead of allowing employees to continuously focus on their work. However, additional supervision would be necessary if the employees are wasting time or not completing work quickly enough due to inefficiencies in the current process. In this case where a 10-figure contract is on the line, I would want to keep a closer eye on it ensuring that the employees know it is an important task, but allow them to continue their progress like they would with any other company. There is no need for an incredible amount of "micro-managing" like the strict style of management supports. Also, if a company such as Peterson Warehousing is offering a 10-figure contract, it is clear that Magnetar Logistics is running their company correctly, otherwise Peterson wouldn't be interested in the first place if they noticed that Magnetar was disorganized.

A lenient style of management will, again, releave stress from the team since the pressure won't be as high compared to the supervisor breathing down their necks. Lastly, again, if the manager allows their team to do what they are good at, they will get the job done and the manager's reputation will flourish.(evan)

3.Theory X in management is when the manager has no confidence in the team he or she is in charge of. They think they are lazy and incompetent. On the flip side, theory y is when the manager has complete faith in the employees that they are in charge of. This is a good example of Theory X management and y theory management. In the scenario I start off as a theory y manager. I trust my team with the work that I assign to them and allow them to work without me having to watch over them. I have confidence that the team will do the work correctly and on time. But when this new project is received, I completely flip my management style to an theory x style. I have no confidence that my team will pick up on all the details of the project and will complete all the tasks on time. So, I take over the project completely. This type of management really has a negative effect on my team, myself and the company as a whole. The client will look at this as the engineers that work for the company do not know what they are doing. The client may then start not to trust the company to complete the project correctly. My team will lose confidence in themselves and they will get upset at me for completely taking over the project.

My reputation as a successful manager will be completely lost. Managers are supposed to support the team and oversee the project. They should motivate their team members and have faith in the work that they will be doing. In this scenario, there was no given reason for me not trust the team. The good reputation that was earned in the other projects was given due to theory y management. The team worked together and you trusted that they would get the projects done and they did. There should not have been that shift from y theory management to theory x management. The motivation from the team will deplete due to your lack of confidence in them. There is no good outcome of using theory x over theory y. (Ryan)