\"What are your assumptions (implicit as well as explicit) about the most effective way to manage people?\" So began Douglas McGregor in this 1960 management classic. It was a seemingly simple question he asked, yet it led to a fundamental revolution in management. Today, with the rise of the global economy, the information revolution, and the growth of knowledge-driven work, McGregor's simple but provocative question continues to resonate-perhaps more powerfully than ever before. Heralded as one of the most important pieces of management literature ever written, a touchstone for scholars and a handbook for practitioners, The Human Side of Enterprise continues to receive the highest accolades nearly half a century after its initial publication. Influencing such major management gurus such as Peter Drucker and Warren Bennis, McGregor's revolutionary Theory Y-which contends that individuals are self-motivated and self-directed-and Theory X-in which employees must be commanded and controlled-has been widely taught in business schools, industrial relations schools, psychology departments, and professional development seminars for over four decades. In this special annotated edition of the worldwide management classic, Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, Senior Research Scientist in MIT's Sloan School of Management and Engineering Systems Division, shows us how today's leaders have successfully incorporated McGregor's methods into modern management styles and practices. The added quotes and commentary bring the content right into today's debates and business models. Now more than ever, the timeless wisdom of Douglas McGregor can light the path towards a management style that nurtures leadership capability, creates effective teams, ensures internal alignment, achieves high performance, and cultivates an authentic, value-driven workplace--lessons we all need to learn as we make our way in this brave new world of the 21st century.

The Human Side of Enterprise.

Numerous researchers from various disciplines seem to agree that trust has a number of important benefits for organizations, although they have not necessarily come to agreement on how these benefits occur. In this article, we explore two fundamentally different models that describe how trust might have positive effects on attitudes, perceptions, behaviors, and performance outcomes within organizational settings. In the first section of the article, we examine the model that has dominated the literature: Trust results in direct (main) effects on a variety of outcomes. In the second section of the article we develop an alternative model: Trust facilitates or hinders (i.e., moderates) the effects of other determinants on attitudinal, perceptual, behavioral and performance outcomes via two distinct perceptual processes. Lastly, we discuss the conditions under which each of the models is most likely to be applicable. The theory is supplemented with a review of empirical studies spanning 40 years regarding the consequences of trust in organizational settings. The theoretical framework presented in this article provides insight into the processes through which trust affects organizational outcomes, provides guidance to researchers for more accurately assessing the impact of trust, provides a framework for better understanding past research on the consequences of trust, and suggests ways that organizational settings can be modified to capitalize on high levels of trust or mitigate the effects of low levels of trust.

The Role of Trust in Organizational Settings

This article reviews research on the evaluation of women and men who occupy leadership roles. In these experiments, the characteristics of leaders other than their sex were field constant, and the sex of the leader was varied. These experiments thus investigated whether people are biased against female leaders and managers. Although this research showed only a small overall tendency for subjects to evaluate female leaders less favorably than male leaders, this tendency was more pronounced under certain circumstances

Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis.

We present a problem-centered organizing framework of trust, in which prominent conceptualizations of trust and distrust from the organizational and allied social sciences are categorized based on the questions they attempt to answer. The framework we outline here is intended to complement earlier typologies by suggesting alternative strategies for employing the diverse trust literature, identifying questions that could be profitably addressed through interdisciplinary research efforts, and distinguishing disagreements where debate and research would seem to be especially worthwhile from those where such activities would appear to be much less useful.

/pdf/straining-for-shared-meaning-in-organization-science-b4rlmvxu8g.pdf

Straining for Shared Meaning in Organization Science: Problems of Trust and Distrust

This study explored 2 questions: Does the level of trust within a group affect group performance? If so, how does this relationship operate? An experimental method was used to examine 2 roles through which interpersonal trust could affect group performance: a main effect and a moderating effect. The data do not support the main effect that has dominated the literature on interpersonal trust. The data do support the moderating role: Trust seems to influence how motivation is converted into work group processes and performance. On the basis of these findings, it is suggested that trust may be best understood as a construct that influences group performance indirectly by channeling group members' energy toward reaching alternative goals.

The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance.

The impact of trust on creative problem solving groups.

Male and female subordinates (N=88) completed a task under the direction of either a male or female supervisor exhibiting a set of behaviors labeled consideration or structure. Considerate supervis...

Barbara L. Karol

Papers

The impact of trust on creative problem solving groups.

Worker Performance and Evaluation of a Supervisor as a Function of Subordinate Sex, Supervisor Sex, and Leadership Style.