Theory X , Y, & Z

As Kaplan and Owings (2015) described McGregor’s Theory X and Y and Ouichi’s Theory Z, I see many parallels of each of the theories in regards to work motivation levels at my school site (p.41). Theory X reminded me of some colleagues that do not seem invested in improving student achievement. I think reasons behind this could be compared to what Kotter (2012) observed in the business world of having “no sense of urgency” (p.4). They attend our monthly staff and department meetings but show no signs of interest in taking on additional responsibilities. Luckily, we have more Theory Y type teachers that show a general commitment to providing a positive learning environment. Overall, I feel my current site is trying to strive towards Ouichi’s Theory Z in small successions by trying to get all teachers invested in a shared vision and creating effective professional learning communities. There seems to be a long road ahead for us to get to Ouichi’s Theory Z model. Fortunately, my first few years of teaching, I was at a site that looked more like Theory Y and strived towards reaching Theory Z. We had a phenomenal District Instructional Leader that shared the same vision and goals as our school site. We also had a highly supportive Administration that understood the importance of building leadership amongst the teachers (Kaplan and Owings, 2015). It was as close to an educational utopia, as compared to Ouchi’s Theory Z model, as I have ever experienced in my years of teaching. Kaplan, L.S. & Owings, W.A. (2015). Introduction to the principalship theory to practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Kotter, J.P. (2012). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Using McGregor Burns Theory X and Y and Ouichi’s Theory Z model, I am interested in hearing what the school climate is like in your district.