Talk:Theory Z: Difference between revisions
Wikiprojects |
short complaint about language/viewpoint |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
When discussing Theory X and Theory Y, the natural conclusion is then to discuss Theory Z. Combining all 3 subjects with contrasts to the strengths and weaknesses to each would help to improve the subject. [CRJones, 19 November 2006, 16:09 PST] |
When discussing Theory X and Theory Y, the natural conclusion is then to discuss Theory Z. Combining all 3 subjects with contrasts to the strengths and weaknesses to each would help to improve the subject. [CRJones, 19 November 2006, 16:09 PST] |
||
Wasn't "Theory Z" first coined by Maslow in "The Farther Reaches of Human Nature"? [[User:Greattortuga|Greattortuga]] ([[User talk:Greattortuga|talk]]) 00:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC) |
Wasn't "Theory Z" first coined by Maslow in "The Farther Reaches of Human Nature"? [[User:Greattortuga|Greattortuga]] ([[User talk:Greattortuga|talk]]) 00:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
| Line 28: | Line 29: | ||
Regardless of who first used the phrase, "Theory Z" does not seem appropriately defined in this article, especially when compared with Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X suggests an inherent lack of motivation and responsibility while Theory Y suggests inherent motivation and individual responsibility. "Theory Z" (if placed in this context) should address the core issues: motivation and responsibility... which in this article it doesn't, at least not as it relates to being inherent (or human nature). A more appropriate definition would state that Theory Z people are inherently motivated but not inherently responsible. These folks may be great task masters, but only if the task is well defined and they are not responsible for the outcome. The contrary would not likely exist and therefore needs no label. It seems unreasonable to find someone who is not inherently motivated but assumes responsibility. [[Special:Contributions/99.7.54.0|99.7.54.0]] ([[User talk:99.7.54.0|talk]]) 04:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Kevin Fisher |
Regardless of who first used the phrase, "Theory Z" does not seem appropriately defined in this article, especially when compared with Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X suggests an inherent lack of motivation and responsibility while Theory Y suggests inherent motivation and individual responsibility. "Theory Z" (if placed in this context) should address the core issues: motivation and responsibility... which in this article it doesn't, at least not as it relates to being inherent (or human nature). A more appropriate definition would state that Theory Z people are inherently motivated but not inherently responsible. These folks may be great task masters, but only if the task is well defined and they are not responsible for the outcome. The contrary would not likely exist and therefore needs no label. It seems unreasonable to find someone who is not inherently motivated but assumes responsibility. [[Special:Contributions/99.7.54.0|99.7.54.0]] ([[User talk:99.7.54.0|talk]]) 04:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Kevin Fisher |
||
==the sentence below== |
|||
"These theories have proven with many fortune 500 companies and others that when applied, do improve quality and productivity and also help to strengthen company labor issues." (In section numner 2.) |
|||
Does not seem neutrap pow, academical language, it more sounds like a marketing/advertisment. |
|||
And even the meaning of "many fortune 500 companies" seems unclear to me. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/94.66.139.6|94.66.139.6]] ([[User talk:94.66.139.6|talk]]) 20:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:47, 7 August 2014
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Theory Z article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Psychology Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Business Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Is there are any examples of Theory Z?
william Ouchi
Can anyone assist me in answering a question.The Question, was William Ouchi a thief...a copier of other,s works. Seems to me,he had the benefit of maslow /mcgregor etc, His Z theory,seems more laid back,yet just a helpful to ,someone,rather than employ X or Y,
Someone believes,that William stole all his ideas,yet his ethos,is far more acceptable(i would have thought to the majority of people) can anyone help me please —±Paul
MacGregor and Ouchi have two separate theories. I believe that a reference on the page is adequate and avoids confusion by having too much information on one page (as sparse as it is at the moment). My vote is to keep the theories as separate entries. Davidl9999 18:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
When discussing Theory X and Theory Y, the natural conclusion is then to discuss Theory Z. Combining all 3 subjects with contrasts to the strengths and weaknesses to each would help to improve the subject. [CRJones, 19 November 2006, 16:09 PST]
Wasn't "Theory Z" first coined by Maslow in "The Farther Reaches of Human Nature"? Greattortuga (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Relationship to theories X & Y
Theory Z does not coincide with X & Y. However, a "link" reference would be apropriate. More so I would think X & Y would be complemented by other works re motivational theory and its related success, ie "The Six Sigma Way" by Cunningham, etal, and promoted by GE's Jack Welch. This application directly relates to worker quality, product quality, warranty costs, and profitability. One may also want to make reference to Tom Peters and his book "In Search of Excelence"; management theory, management's worker relations, and the infamous "MBWA" - critical management technique...... a Theory Z reference at this point may flow into the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by WW Hagerty (talk • contribs)
Regardless of who first used the phrase, "Theory Z" does not seem appropriately defined in this article, especially when compared with Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X suggests an inherent lack of motivation and responsibility while Theory Y suggests inherent motivation and individual responsibility. "Theory Z" (if placed in this context) should address the core issues: motivation and responsibility... which in this article it doesn't, at least not as it relates to being inherent (or human nature). A more appropriate definition would state that Theory Z people are inherently motivated but not inherently responsible. These folks may be great task masters, but only if the task is well defined and they are not responsible for the outcome. The contrary would not likely exist and therefore needs no label. It seems unreasonable to find someone who is not inherently motivated but assumes responsibility. 99.7.54.0 (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Kevin Fisher
the sentence below
"These theories have proven with many fortune 500 companies and others that when applied, do improve quality and productivity and also help to strengthen company labor issues." (In section numner 2.) Does not seem neutrap pow, academical language, it more sounds like a marketing/advertisment. And even the meaning of "many fortune 500 companies" seems unclear to me. 94.66.139.6 (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)