College and Research Libraries DONALD J. MORTON Applying Theory Y to Library ~anagenaent Theory Y is described as a desirable and widely accepted philosophy of personnel management. A review of library literature shows that its acceptance by librarians is relatively slight and that it is invari- ably considered to be the equivalent of participative management. The author disagrees with this comparison and believes that partici- pative management has little effect upon the motivations associated with Theory Y. Instead, the author discusses several measures which he feels from experience can provide Theory Y benefits in library op- erations. THEORY Y IS A TERM often used in per- sonnel management to denote a liberal- ized type of administrative philosophy based upon a belief that employees are responsible workers more likely to be in- fluenced by their own internal motiva- tions than by the external threats and inducements of management. Because of its importance, library administrators need to be aware of this theory and of its possible adaptation to library opera- tions. Therefore, this paper is intended to review the principles of the Theory Y approach, report upon its coverage in library literature, distinguish between the concepts of Theory Y and partici- pative management, and, finally, discuss how Theory Y' s application in a small academic library recommends its use for library operations in general. McGREGOR AND THEORY Y In the late 1950s, McGregor revolu- tionized management theory by incor- porating into it Maslow's view that man Donald]. Morton is library director, Uni- versity of Massachusetts Medical School, Wor cester. 302 I is subject to a range of motivations that can affect his behavior.1 These desires extend from the lowest-level or physio- logical needs through the safety, social, and esteem wants to the highest-level motivators, which Maslow termed "self- actualization" to represent man's need to be what he feels he must be.2 Mc- Gregor believed traditional carrot-stick methods of stimulating production are effective only when man's lower-level needs (food, shelter, clothing, security, etc.) are inadequately met and, as an il- lustration, noted that man normally has ample air to breathe and thus would not be expected to work harder merely to obtain more air. Once the basic needs are satisfied, people become motivated primarily by their desire for esteem (self-respect and reputation) and self- actualization. McGregor called the con- ventional managerial philosophy The- ory X and his new interpretation The- ory Y, thereby polarizing the science of management into two easy-to-grasp ref- erence points. The significance of these ideas has so influenced the field of ad- ministration that much of its subse- quent literature has dealt with the rami- fications ·of McGregor's simplified ap- proach. Reider recently typified this at- titude by stating that McGregor's ccin- sights regarding managerial assumptions about people are timeless" and must be considered the starting point for con- ducting a performance review.3 Drucker credits McGregor's The Human Side of Enterprise with being c'the most widely read and quoted" of books about modern personnel management. 4 A brief description of a Theory Y en- vironment is that, consistent with main- taining the objectives of an organiza- tion, an employee is given the maximum opportunity for self-determination and is subjected to the minimum amount of obvious authority, which means, in cur- rent terminology, that he should feel he's doing his thing. His innate desires to be creative, useful, respected, and su- perior should be encouraged rather than thwarted. A common misconception with re- spect to Theory Y is that it represents a permissive, lax type of administration which coddles employees in the hope that they will respond by wanting to work. On the contrary, it requires the same ultimate authority needed with Theory X except that such authority should be kept sufficiently remote to pre- clude intruding upon an employee's pursuit of higher-level goals. Thus The- ory Y's administration is more subtle than Theory X' s and necessitates care- ful planning in order to attain the op- timum balance between authority and freedom. Similarly, employees under Theory Y have a more, rather than a less, demanding task than do those un- der Theory X because, as Maslow noted, they must replace the comforting secur- ity of order and direction with the bur- den of responsibility and self-disci- pline.5 Drucker used the term chow ledge worker" to describe an employee who, in contrast to a c'manual worker,'' needs Theory Y I 303 the benefits of a formal education . to perform his services, adding that the knowledge worker does not produce well if managed under Theory X. 6 Thus a good example of Theory Y in practice may be found in the management of knowledge workers, as typified by a re- search laboratory where the employer's objective is to discover profitable tech- niques and products. The highly edu- cated employees may not share these cor- porate goals but, instead, are motivated to create research which can be pub- lished to enhance their professional rep .. utations. Consequently, the objectives of the employer and those of the em- ployees are different but require the same output pn the part of the employ- ees. The result is that progress toward increasing the employer's profits is fa- vored by a climate which allows the em- ployees to freely follow their own drives for esteem. THEoRY Y IN LmRARY LITERATURE Because Theory Y has had such an im- pact upon the current concepts of man- agement, the author decided to deter- mine whether this approach has been implemented by library administrators and, if so, whether results have been fa- vorable. Therefore, the literature of li- brary management was reviewed in or- der to establish what recognition has been given to Theory Y and what use has been made of this concept in the management of library employees. A number of references to McGreg- or's Theory Y were found in library lit- erature. Some were merely reprints or rehashes of papers by professional ad- ministrators which had previously ap- peared in managerial publications and, as they did not stress library operations, were not considered indicative of the thinking in library circles. 7 There were, however, several articles by librarians in which Theory Y was recognized and, to varying degrees, recommended for use. 304 I College & Research Libraries • July 1975 Kipp, reviewing the literature of management, said that McGregor's phi- losophy "probably provides the most useable concepts in management litera- ture by librarians." He suggested librari- ans might benefit from this approach but didn'~pply it to specific library procedure~ Betty Jo Mitchell developed a train- ing program for library assistants who supervised clerical personnel or student assistants. She patterned her program .after McGregor by having her trainees read his discussions along with other re- cent books on administration. The stu- dents concluded that Theory Y in its pure form was not satisfactory but should be modified, as suggested by Morse and Lorsch, to fit the tasks and people involved. This modification was based upon Drucker's opinion that Theory Y works with knowledge work- ers but Theory X of n is more effective \ with manual workers. 9 Robert and Charlene Lee, referring to Theory Y as "management by partic- ipation," said it is "a tough-minded management style-and it works." They encouraged the idea th~t personnel planning should be concerned with an individual's aspirations and should pro- vide him . or her with o~~rtunities for participation and growth. Dickinson cited McGregor and stated that "Libraries ... need to be aware of certain world-wide trends in work the- ory, according to which meaningful and significant work (attained through par- ticipative management) replaces eco- nomic rewards as the central institution- al incentive~" She proposed a sequence of steps which could be followed for changing from a hierarchical to a par- ticipative type of management and rec- ommended such an arr.ang!ee t for ac- tivizing the professional staff 1 DeProspo thought that eory Y re- quires a move away from "management by control" to one of "management by objectives.'' He favored a model in which the active participation of staff and line employees is encouraged and felt that evaluations of pers~el should stress goals rather than traiti.~2 Marchant noted that "new theories direct attention towards other sources of motivation besides the economic,'' basing this opinion upon Maslow's hier- archy of motivations. He believed that participative management is an impor- tant means of enabling employees to op- erate with higher-level motivations, but reported that a literature search found no studies of library staff participation in decision making. After evaluating li~ brary situations, he concluded that ''ac- tive staff development programs and participative management in libraries appear well suited for ~ach other; they ought to be getting together."13 The preceding references show that some libraries recognize Theory Y and, furthermore, believe it is typified by participative management. In addition, several other papers were found which did not mention Theory Y as such but stressed the value of participative man- agement for libraries. 14 McGregor said that when participative management "grows out of the assumptions of The- ory Y," it can provide "ego satisfaction for the subordinate'' and "thus affect motivation towards organizational ob- jectives." He believed this satisfaction results from the tackling and solving of problems, the feeling of greater inde- pendence and influence, and the in- creased recognition received from peers and superiors for making worthwhile contributions. 15 Consequently, partici- pative · management is related to Theory Y in that its use helps establish an en- vironment in which ego needs may be fulfilled. Despite its intrinsic merits, however, it is questionable whether participative management illustrates Theory Y' s basic tenet that an employee's self-motiva- tion to pursue his own goals can help satisfy his employer's organizational ob- jectives. Any such effect would be re- mote at best and would be limited to those decisions where an employee's re- sponsibilities and relationships would be so altered as to affect his higher-level motivations. THE UsE OF THEORY Y IN A LmRARY Consequently, the way to induce The- ory Y management in libraries is to fo- cus not upon participatory management, which, though desirable in its own right, can give only random Theory Y benefits, but, instead, upon the characteristics of each employee's position. In this regard, the author has worked with a variety of personnel during the development of a new library and, based upon these ex- periences, suggests that some of the more effective policies for eliciting The- ory Y motivations include providing em- ployees with ( 1 ) definite and unique re- sponsibilities; ( 2) a short administrative chain of command; ( 3) . adequate means to exhibit productivity to others; ( 4) freedom from fear of failure; and ( 5) opportunities to merge self-actual- ization with normal responsibilities. Probably the most important of these policies is the . assigning to each . em- ployee of a clear set 9f responsibilities which do not overlap those of anyone else because, with~ut this basi~ arrange- ment, there can be little hope of having Theory Y condi~ons. Unless a person can unmistakably identify with the fruits of his labor, there is little chance that any of. his highe~-level needs will directly motivate his productivity. Any sharing of responsibilities between em- ployees dulls this '.motivation and in- creases the opportunities for dissatisfac- tion. In practice, this means dividing re- sponsibilities between available person- nel rather. than assigning more than one person to an area. For: example, if two catalogers are employed, they should not both routinely share all of the respon~ sibilities but, rather, should each be given a discrete and approximately Theory Y I 305 equal portion of the load according to some criterion such as subject or type of material. Within a . designated area of responsibility, an employee should be free to determine how to manage his own operations as long as his output conforms with organizational goals and his procedures don't conflict with oper- ations in other areas. In addition, the lines of authority should be kept as short as possible in or- der to maximize the sole responsibility of each employee. Using ·the above ex- ample of two catalogers, it would be preferable to have each one answering directly to the highest feasible level of administration rather than having one cataloger answering to the other be- cause, in the latter case, both catalogers would be responsible for the duties of the subordinate one. Besides this direct Theory Y benefit; shorter organizational lines have the indirect value of increas- ing lateral communication between em- ployees and the practical merit of re- ducing misunderstandings by decreasing the number of times an idea must be relayed. According to Townsend, each extra "level of management lowers com- munication effectiveness . within · the or- ganization by about 25 percent."16 Another characteristic of a Theory Y position is that each person's per- formance ·must be visible enough to be capable of earning respect from others. Hence, to stimulate the ·esteem needs for respect and admiration, each em- ployee's productivity should be subject to the scrutiny of other employees. An acquisitions librarian might be judged by the quality of new books, a cataloger by the arrangement and accessibility of the collection, and a public services li- brarian by the reactions of the library users to the available services. Then, each person's output would be self-regu- lated by the motivation to be respected, and the administration could watch from a nonintrusive distance for signs that adjustments were needed. 306 I College & Research Libraries • July 1975 A self-regulating operation, however, must be free to alter its procedures or else an employee may not accept respon- sibility for his output. This means that management should exhibit confidence in an employee to the extent that fail- ures will not be used as a basis for em- barrassment or punishment but, instead, will be evaluated as demonstrating an employee's willingness to improve oper- ations by taking calculated risks. Sim- ilarly, any criticisms made should avoid placing an employee on the defensive, as Gibb pointed out in his excellent dis- cussion on the subject. Penalizing errors and inciting defensiveness not only will discourage initiative but also will pro- mote the concealment of mistakes, thereby hindering communication and providing a distorted view of opera- tions.17 Finally, the ultimate expression of Theory Y management may be realized if there are opportunities for an em- ployee to identify his responsibilities with his desire for self -actualization, Maslow's highest level of motivation. In Townsend's words, this means having the employee "enjoy his work so much he comes in on Saturday instead of playing golf or cutting grass,"18 which, in a librarian's terms, might signify an employee who experiments with his pro- cedures and presents papers on the re- sults to professional colleagues. Mea- sures which arouse these tendencies in- clude the previously mentioned free- dom to make mistakes plus the encour- agement and financial support of the administration to join organizations and attend meetings. In this type of atmo- sphere, employees may become so ab- sorbed in their career interests that their tendencies. toward self-actualization will be expressed within the framework of normal occupational duties. A distinction should be made between the factors described above which di- rectly affect employee higher-level moti- vations and indirect factors which act instead to create a Theory Y environ- ment. Such indirect factors are impor- tant because, although they do not affect productivity in an obvious manner, their presence encourages employees to feel trusted, appreciated, and responsi- ble, and thus to be more receptive to the stimuli of Theory Y motivators. Exam- ples of these environmental influences include ( 1) favoring intercommunica- tion between all employees; ( 2) delegat- ing the maximum feasible amount of the organization's decision making pro- cess, as in participative management; ( 3) cultivating feelings of fair play; and ( 4) showing appreciation and sen- sitivity for employee efforts, achieve- ments, and problems. CoNCLUSION In conclusion, the author believes that libraries are suitable institutions for the application of Theory Y because of sev- eral reasons. First, librarians are by na- ture knowledge workers who have pro- fessional interests and thus are especial- ly susceptible to motivations based upon desires for esteem and self-actualiza- tion. Next, the attitudes and duties of librarians are usually oriented toward providing information desired by pa- trons rather than toward obtaining fi- nancial returns; as a result, higher-level motivations may often be satisfied through the idealistic performance of services. Finally, libraries can usually be organized so that each worker has a re- warding, interesting, and unique area of responsibility, thereby stimulating the fulfillment of ego motivators. Con- sequently, it is recommended that li- brary administrators seriously consider adopting measures that favor Theory Y management in order to promote em- ployee satisfaction while simultaneously improving employee performance levels. Theory Y I 301 REFERENCES 1. Douglas M. McGregor, "The Human Side of Enterprise," in his Leadership and Mo- t·ivation (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1966), p.3-20, first published in Adven- tures in Thought and Action, Proceedings of the Fifth Anniversary Convocation of the School of Industrial Management, Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam- bridge, April 9, 1957 (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT School of Industrial Management, 1957); Douglas M. McGregor, The Hu- man Side of Enterprise (New York: Mc- Graw-Hill, 1960). 2. Abrah~m H. Maslow, Mot·ivation and Per- sonality ( 2d ed.; New York: Harper, 1970)' p.35--58. 3. George A. Reider, "Performance Review -A Mixed Bag," Harvard Business Review 51:61-67 (July-Aug. 1973). 4. Peter Drucker, Management (New York: Harper, 1974), p.231. 5. Abraham H. Maslow, Eupsychian Manage- ment ( Homewood, Ill.: Irwin, 1965), p.24- 33. 6. Peter Drucker, The Effective Executive (New York: Harper, 1966), p.2-9, 172- 74; Peter Drucker, Management (New York: Harper, 1974), p.241. 7. Charles H. Goodman, "Incentives and Mo- tivations for Staff Development," in Eliza- beth W. Stone, ed., New Directions in Staff Development (Chicago: American Li- "- ') brary Assn., 1971 ), p.51-57; Charles H. 'i Goodman, "Employee Motivation," Library Trends 20:39-47 (July 1971); Douglas M. McGregor, "The Human Side of Enter- prise," in Paul Wasserman and Mary Lee Bundy, eds., Reader in Library Adminis- tration ( ashington, D.C.; NCR, 1968), u .u .. ..~.,.,.-..,._6· hades Martell, ''Which Way- Traditional Practice or Modern Theoiy?" College & Research Libraries 33:104-12 (March 1972). 8. Laurence Kipp, "Management Literature for Librarians," Library Journal 97:158-60 (Jan. 15, 1972). 9. Betty Jo Mitchell, "In-House Training of Supervisory Library Assistants in a Large Academic Library," College & Research Li- braries 34:114-49 (March 1973); John J. Morse and Jay W. Lorsch, "Beyond The- ory Y," Harvard Business Review 48:61-68 (May-June 1970); Peter Drucker, Manage- ment (New York: Harper, 1974), p.241. 10. Robert Lee and Charlene Swarthout Lee, "Personnel Planning for a Library Man- power System," Library Trends 20:19-38 (July 1971). 11. Fidelia Dickinson, "Participative Manage- ment: A Left Fielder's View," California Librarian 34:24-33 ( April1973). 12. Ernest D. DeProspo, "Management by Ob- jectives: An Approach to Staff Develop- ment," in Elizabeth W. Stone, ed., New Di- rections in Staff Development ( Chicago: American Library Assn., 1971 ), p.39-47; Ernest D. DeProspo, "Personnel Evalua- tion as an Impetus to Growth," Library Trends 20:60--70 (July 1971). .13. Maurice P. Marchant, ''Participative Man- agement in Libraries," in Elizabeth W. Stone, ed., New Directions in Staff Devel- opment (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1971), p.28-38; Maurice P. Marchant, "Participative Management as Related to Personnel Development," Library Trends 20:48-59 (July 1971). 14. David Kaser, "Modernizing the University Library Structure," College & Research Li- braries 31:227-31 (July 1970); Donald J. Sayer, "Administrative Experiment Tried in Elyria, Ohio," Library Journal 95:1430 (April 15, 1970); Helen L. Norris, "How Far Should Staff Democracy Go?" Library Journal 84:1054-57 (April 1, 1959); Jane G. Flener, "Staff Participation in Manage- ment in Large University Libraries," Col- lege & Research Libraries 34:275-79 (July 1973); Richard DeGennaro, "Participative Management or Unionization?" College & Research Libraries 33: 173-7 4 (May 1972). 15. McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise, p.130-31. 16. Robert Townsend, Up the Organization (New York: Knopf, 1970), p.22. 17. J. R. Gibb, "Defensive Communication," Journal of Communication 11:141-48 (Sept. 1961). 18. Townsend, Up the Organization, p.142.