Talk:Theory X and Theory Y

message: I report an anomaly. I leave it to others to decide whether it needs attention.
Subject: The three graphics links (one near the top of the article, "mnemonic device"; two under the heading, "External Links") in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y.
I expected: Each link to a graphics file would tell me conditions of my reuse.
I see:
# Consistent with expectation, when I click the mnemonic device graphic near the start of the article, I go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:McgregorXY-languages_(cropped).svg, a page informing me where the file came from and the conditions of reuse. Thumbs up!
# Inconsistent with expectation, when I click on the first link under the heading "External Links", I go to http://www.businessballs.com/mcgregorxytheorydiagram.pdf without Wikipedia information about the graphic. On the other hand, the graphic itself contains similar information and the parent web site (www.businessballs.com) is active and related.
# Inconsistent with expectation, when I click the second link, I go to https://lh3.ggpht.com/-UhditA3kxYo/UC1n1FXEZbI/AAAAAAAAATA/WThKKSRVuCg/s640/theoryxy.png, which gives no information about the graphic either in the graphic itself or in a Wikipedia page like one for the mnemonic link above.
## Further, the parent URL (lh3.ggpht.com) goes to a Google 404 error, "The requested URL / was not found on this server. That’s all we know."
## Further, I consider the subject URL human-unfriendly and constructed in a way that could indicate intent to hide minor differences.
## On the other hand, the graphic is related to the subject and the information is consistent with my distant knowledge of the subject.
No complaint here; I'm just trying to help!
Once adequately considered, I'm fine with "someone" deleting my comment.
SoftwarePM (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; that's a how-to section, which is not encyclopedic.  It could probably be saved if rewritten, so I tagged it for that kind of cleanup. -- Beland 16:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the unlikely event this section is kept in, perhaps it should be balanced with a "Theory Y" counterpart? Mattmm 13:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anomaly in Reporting Graphics Reuse Conditions 

message: TODO: Make appropriate redirects to this page. THE KING 11:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TODO 

message: Can somebody help me out with this please?
upendraparihar@yahoo.com
:I guess it is to make it a some more scientific and mysterious, but I have to admit the word Theory already is veeery scientific, so it must be some serious stuff. blah. Check out buzzword, marketing speak... Qorilla (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They were named X and Y by the author to avoid the appearance of giving preference to one style over the other. 74.69.1.80 (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the History behind naming these theories as Theory X and Theory Y? 

message: I don't think Theory X and Theory Y should be merged with Theory Z.  The theories are separated historically.  Perhaps a linking article about management theories should be created. Driedger 03:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "McGregor reconciled the two theories with Theory Z, which basically says there is truth in both the theories and you need to vary the environment (so it's stimulating) and regime people work under, your recruitment (so you recruit people who are internally motivated) and your leadership." Source) Dunno if this article is right, but if it is, McGregor also wrote a Theory Z. It may be entirely different than Ouchi's theory. And it may be Ouchi's theory, which this article mistakenly believed the creation of McGregor. One never knows.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.181.100.63 (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Theory Z 

message: I just wanted to point out that the first reference (Work is as natural as play - Papa) is broken.
To me, this also suggests the article needs more references in general, if it only contains one reference in total.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.220.178 (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken References 

message: Maybe the McGregor, in the sixties years, was only mocking the American view of work ( X Theory ) vs. the Soviet view of the same ( Y Theory ). We just have to remember that the world had two poles in those years, so, the both "theories" must be equally valid despite it's contradiction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.14.239.162 (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sixties context : EUA vs. Soviet Union 

message: NetMBA. “Theory X and Theory Y.” Accessed February 8, 2016. 	http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/ob/motivation/mcgregor/.
Sager, Kevin L. “An exploratory study of the relationships between Theory X/Y assumptions and superior communication style.” Management Communication Quarterly (2008): 288-312.
Sorensen, Peter and Therese Yaeger. “Theory X and Theory Y.” Management (2015): Accessed February 7, 2016. doi: 10.1093/obo/9780199846740-0078.
Lawter, Leana, Kopelman, Richard E, and David J. Prottas.“McGregor's Theory X/Y and Job Performance: A Multilevel, Multi-source Analysis.” Journal of Managerial Issues (2015): 84-101.
Wallgren, Lars Göran. “Theory Y embedded in Theory X: The limited role of autonomy in decreasing perceived stress among IT consultants.” International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals (2013): 1-17.
(User talk:wiggins_jake) - Jake Wiggins  —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: The article is very well developed. The intro gives a nice brief definition and transitiions nicely into what the article will touch points on. The only thing I would add in the introduction would be implementing something about the leadership style, which was was included later on one of the topics. Other than that would be to add in-text citation so we know exactly where everything came from. The references provided are a good number given the size of the article. Both theories give good balanced information. Neither one gives too much or too little. I believe this article is well developed and well written! Everything was clear since the introduction.
104.167.168.55 (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Overall, pretty good article. There was one thing I noticed that your group may want to look over and discuss. Within the first theory that you describe you refer back to McGregor numerous times. He is one of the main parts of the description, which makes sense because he created these two theories. Then, in the second theory that you talk about McGregor isn't even mentioned in there once. Why is the focus on McGregor only on one of the theories if you discuss them both and he was the main creator of these two theories? Just a thought that distracted me from the material!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanke.emma (talk • contribs) 04:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emma's Peer Review  

message: Okay 197.221.254.98 (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory of X and Y