P. F. DRUCKER'S CRITICISM OF D. MCGREGOR'S THEORY Y : AROUND "INTEGRATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND INDIVIDUAL GOALS"

DOI Web Site

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • P.F.ドラッカーによるD.マグレガーY理論批判 : <組織目的と個人目的の統合>を中心に
  • P.F.ドラッカーによるD.マグレガーY理論批判 : 〈組織目的と個人目的の統合〉を中心に
  • P.F.ドラッカー ニ ヨル D.マグレガー Y リロン ヒハン : 〈 ソシキ モクテキ ト コジン モクテキ ノ トウゴウ 〉 オ チュウシン ニ

Search this article

Description

This article examines P. F. Drucker's criticism of D. McGregor's Theory Y, and thus explores his criticism's implication for the theory of "integration of organizational and individual goals." That is, the conflicting term of not only "productivity and satisfaction" but "the calculability of behavior and the non-manipulation of man" should be regarded as important, we discuss. First, we survey McGregor's Theory Y and "integration of organizational and individual goals" based on it. This "integration of organizational and individual goals" is based on the conflicting term of "productivity and satisfaction," March & Simon (1958) and Weick (1969) used. Second, we survey the theory of "management of worker and work" in Drucker's Management (1974), his criticism of Theory Y, and the concrete policy discussed on this. His "management of worker and work" is based on his view of freedom, "freedom is responsible choice," and thus he regards responsibility as important. He therefore discusses the motivation by responsibility and the solution of the conflict of "productivity and satisfaction" by responsibility and the ability to integrate. The reason why he criticizes McGregor's Theory Y that refers to responsibility is that Theory Y does not emphasize the severity of responsibility and assume easily people work if only given the opportunities to discharge his responsibility. Drucker discusses the concrete policy in terms of how to do to be able to take responsibility for worker, because he takes the point of view that responsibility is severe. Third, we consider what Drucker (1974) puts in question fundamentally. Concluding in advance, it is the problem of "the manipulation of man." Considering what is the manipulation from L. v. Bertalanffy's work (1967), the manipulation is to acquire one's behavior through affecting his/her needs. How should we do, to get over the problem of manipulation, in management? "Non-manipulation" is not sufficient. For in organization the calculability of behavior is indispensable. Here another conflicting term of "the calculability of behavior and the non-manipulation of man" is grasped. This conflicting term is just one that Drucker (1974) dealt with fundamentally. "Integration of organizational and individual goals" must be discussed in terms of the conflicting term of not only "productivity and satisfaction," but "the calculability of behavior and the non-manipulation of man."

Journal

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Report a problem

Back to top