William Ouchi did not call his theory “Z” as a follow on to McGregor’s “X” and “Y,” but as a polar opposite to the typical American firm (Theory A).[1]
Theory Z companies have the following characteristics:
· Career paths wander around the firm across functions and hierarchies. People in Theory Z firms possess great understanding of the total firm.
· Decisions include a component of “suitability” and “corporate fit.” This can only occur because of the cross-function training gained by the wandering career paths.
· Organizational life is a life of interdependence. Each person relies on others in the firm.
· Decisions result from a participative process.
· Extensive energy is expended to develop the interpersonal skills necessary for effective group decision making.
· People deal with people in the organization rather than one position to another. Dealing with positions de-humanizes the people. This is in contrast to the bureaucratic view of the position as most important.
· People in Theory Z firms operate as clans. Individual performance is not as important as group and team performance.
Theory Z firms understand the innate desire of people for variation in life. Work assignments create variety by allowing people to work in different departments and perform different tasks.
Theory Z firms understand the paradox of gaining more by not working for profit alone. Rather, they work to see employees share in the wealth. The result is higher returns for longer periods of time.
Theory Z and Today’s Manager
So what does this have to do with you? You can adjust your management techniques to take advantage of Theory Z as well as Theory Y. Managers rarely take time to explain how each employee is interdependent on the work of others. Just taking time to show how each person fits in the greater whole can improve the overall effectiveness of the firm.
When assigning people to specific jobs, remember to provide some variation. Learn how much variation each person wants. Some like more than others. Give each person some autonomy in how they structure their job. The objectives of the department provide a basis for determining if the structure is sufficient. If an employee comes up with a structure that you do not see the merit in using, avoid the temptation to criticize the structure. Rather, ask the employee how the structure answers particular concerns you have.
For example, consider an accounting employee who recommends that he or she work from 6:00 AM to 2:30 PM every other day in the office and from 8:00 AM to 4:20 PM on alternate days from the home. If you have a concern regarding the accessibility of the employee early in the morning and when they work at home, then ask the employee, “Help me see how I can still have
access to you in the early morning and when you are at home.” Let the employee build the structure to meet your conditions. You may find out in the dialogue that your concerns are not as valid as you once thought.
[1] Ouchi, William, (1981) Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge Reading, Massachusetts: Addision-Wesley
No comments:
Post a Comment