Ismail, M. B. M.

(2013), An Analysis of Human Motivation in National Higher Education Universities (NHEU) using Theory X and Theory Y: Academic Staff Perspective Paper presented at International Symposium on Harnessing Knowledge Through Research to Address Emerging Global Issues, Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, Held on 11th & 12th of January, 2013, p.41.

Submitted full paper. But, published proceedings of abstract on the day of conference. Please contact author for unpublished full paper via mbmismail@seu.ac.lk/mbmismail1974@gmail.com or by 0094 77 69 444 77.
AN ANALYSIS OF HUMAN MOTIVATION IN NATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION UNIVERSITIES (NHEU) USING THEORY X AND THEORY Y: ACADEMIC STAFF PERSPECTIVE
Ismail, M. B. M. Senior Lecturer in Management, Department of Management, Faculty of Management and Commerce, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka, Oluvil, mbmismail1974@gmail.com/mbmismail@seu.ac.lk, 00 94 77 69 444 77, January, 2012.

Abstract National Higher Education Universities (NHEU) play a vital role in high quality market oriented and knowledge based society in Sri Lanka. According to Theory X and Theory Y, human behavior and motivation is the main priority in the working place to maximize output. However, many studies have not been reported in Sri Lanka. Therefore, the present study was initiated to find the attitude of people in NHEU using 99 academics from hierarchically selected two Universities in Eastern Province (EP) namely, Eastern University (EU) and South Eastern University (SEU). Objective of this study is to find the type of people in NHEU. Required information was acquired using a standard questionnaire designed by Burton (1990) during May, 2011. It was found that cumulative total score for Theory X is 1799 falling in slightly disagree scale. More than 71 % of academic staff have indicated slightly disagree and strongly disagree. This confirms that academic staff are less towards on Theory X. Cumulative total score for Theory Y is 3865. More than 72 % of academic staff except internal motivation and acceptance of responsibility have indicated slightly agree and strongly agree. The result confirms that academic staff are more towards on Theory Y. Key words: National Higher Education, University.

Extended Abstract Introduction The Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) in Sri Lanka has the vision of contributing towards achieving excellence in Higher Education and Higher Technological Education for the development of high quality 1

market oriented and knowledge based society. Next to the MOHE, the apex body of Higher Education is University Grants Commissions (UGC). All the national 15 universities are ruled by UGC although each university has autonomy among themselves. Each University has their academic, academic support staff, non- academic and other staff. Fiman (1973) investigated the relationship among supervisory attitudes, behaviours, and outputs using an examination of McGregors Theory X and Theory Y. Hofstede, (1987) studied about the applicability of McGregor's Theories in South East Asia. Peterson (2007) studied on motivation and project team performance. Larsson, Vinberg and Wiklund (2007) analyzed about leadership, quality and health using McGregor's X and Y Theory for analyzing values in relation to methodologies and outcomes. Juhn and Daniel (New Orleans), Kopelman, Prottas, carried out researches in 1973, 2010 and 2007 respectively. Though much work has been done in other countries no similar work has been done in Sri Lanka. Previous empirical findings are different. In addition to these empirical findings, Realising this fact, researcher interviewed few staff from Department of Management, Faculty of Management and Commerce, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka of Oluvil has been interviewed. On a side, their responses revealed that superior must direct the activities (work assigned) of his or he subordinate to achieve group goals. Further, manager (superior) must control employees (subordinate) to get work done. These two are the symptoms of Theory X people. Research findings of McGregor indicated that people do not like work, so managers have to control, direct, coerce, and threaten employees to get them to work towards organizational goals (Source: McGregor, 1960). On the other side, staff are internally motivated to achieve goals in to which they are committed and are ready to accept responsibility if they are treated properly. These two are the symptoms of Theory Y people. Research findings of McGregor have indicated that people are internally motivated to reach objectives to which they are committed (Source: McGregor, 1960). Empirical findings of the previous studies indicated that there are different types of people. Interview also revealed that opinion of staff are different. However, there is an unanimity that research problem rests on characteristics of Theory X and Theory Y. Researcher raises what sort of people are in NHEU? as research question. Objective of this study is to find the type of people in NHEU.

Research Methods Primary Sampling Unit: Target population of Primary Sampling Unit refers to all research sites where research is to be carried out. Research sites are 2 Universities in Eastern Province such as Eastern University (EU) & South Eastern University of Sri Lanka (SEUSL). These two Universities are taken as PSU. These two are selected on the basis of convenience and availability of data. Secondary Sampling Unit: Target Population of Secondary Sampling Unit refers to all the respondents in the research sites (two Universities). All 346 academic staff of these two Universities are the target population of SSU. Since sampling frame is accessible to researcher used a probability sampling method. Stage- stratified systematic sampling was adapted in selecting academic (sampling unit) within a faculty and each faculty within university was considered as strata. Stratified sampling is done. Academic staff are stratified on the basis of Faculties. Each Faculty is taken as a stratum. Under each stratum, systematic sampling is undertaken. Kth academic staff is found out dividing size of target population (N) of secondary sampling unit by sample size of secondary sampling unit (n). Every 3 rd academic staff from sampling frame (name list of academic staff) have been selected for data collection. Calculation of sample size: Of the 346 academics, 14 academics have to be selected as respondents for answering. These numbers have to be distributed in terms of the total population. Although 14 academics are statistically enough to collect data researcher collected 99 academics from these two Universities. Material

Responses from SSUs are collected using a standard questionnaire by Burton (1990). Questionnaire consisted of 20 statements and 20 questions which comprised of characteristics of Theory X and Y. Responses are measured using a 5 point- Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Data were collected from academics during May, 2011. Primary data collection was made using a standard questionnaire used by Burton (1990). Data Presentation and Analysis Data presentation and analysis were made by scatter plot and Theory X Y continuum. Results and Discussion Answers for most people do not like to work (Q1), managers must control employees to get work done (Q4), all workers want security (Q5), people prefer that someone else tell them what to do on the job (Q7), workers may have to be coerced to get things done properly (Q8), people show little ambition at work (Q11), some people will not work unless threatened (Q12), most employees avoid work whenever possible (Q14), people usually avoid responsibility (Q17) and superiors must direct the activities of their subordinates to achieve group goals (Q18) represent Theory X. It shows answers for not sure, slightly disagree and strongly disagree are higher than not sure, slightly agree and strongly agree. Their answers are more towards on Theory X type of people. Cumulative total score is 1799 falling in slightly disagree scale. More than 71 % of academic staff have indicated slightly disagree and strongly disagree to all the above questions. This refers to academic staff are less towards on Theory X. If chances are given to think for themselves, most people are bright (Q2), people are internally motivated to achieve goals in to which they are committed (Q3), people will accept responsibility if treated properly (Q6), work is natural as play (Q9), workers can be creative on the job (Q10), some workers will pursue goals if rewarded (Q13), most employers do not use the full potential of their employees (Q15), some workers can be innovative problem solvers if chances are given (Q16), people will seek responsibility under proper conditions (Q19) and it is not natural for people to dislike work (Q20) represent Theory Y. It shows answers for not sure, slightly agree and strongly agree are higher than not sure, slightly disagree and strongly disagree. Their answers are more towards on Theory Y type of people. Cumulative total score is 3865 falling in slightly agree scale. More than 72 % of academic staff have indicated slightly agree and strongly agree to all the above questions. Two questions such as internal motivation and acceptance of responsibility have been indicated by 63% and 56%. This refers to academic staff are more towards on Theory Y. Cumulative total score is shown in figure 1. Figure 1 Theory X Y continuum score Theory X continuum

Total X score

4950

3960

2970

1980 1799

990

Theory Y continuum

Total Y score (Source: Survey data)

4950

3960 3865

2970

1980

990

When the total score for Theory X questions is high staff are more towards on Theory X. When the total score for Theory Y questions is high staff are more towards on Theory Y. There are 10 questions in each Theory. Scale ranges from 1 to 5. There are 99 candidates. Total score could be 4950 (10 * 5 * 99). The low score for Theory X people are low on Theory X but, more towards Theory Y. The high score for Theory Y people are high on Theory Y but, low on Theory X.

Conclusion Cumulative total score for theory X is 1970 which lies on slightly disagree scale. Cumulative total score for theory Y is 3865 which lies on slightly agree scale. In other words, researcher can say that academic staff are less towards Theory X instead are more towards Theory Y.

References Fiman, B. G. (1973), An Investigation of the Relationships among Supervisory Attitudes, Behaviors, and Outputs: An Examination of McGregor's Theory Y. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 95-105. Kopelman, R. E., Prottas, D. J. and Falk, D. W. (2010), Construct validation of a Theory X/Y behavior scale Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp.120 135 Hofstede, G. (1987), "The Applicability of McGregor's Theories in South East Asia", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 6 Iss: 3, pp.9-18 Peterson, T. M. (2007), Motivation: How to increase project team performance , Project Management Journal, Vol. 38, Iss. 4, pp. 6069. Larsson, J., Vinberg, S. and Wiklund, H. (2007), Leadership, Quality and Health: Using McGregor's X and Y Theory for Analyzing Values in Relation to Methodologies and Outcomes , Journal of Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 18, Iss. 10. Juhn, D. S. (1972), McGregor's theory X-Y and Maslow's need hierarchy theory: An empirical study of managerial thinking in the New Orleans, Industrial Management, Vol. No 7, p. 54, McGregor, D. M. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Burton, G. (1990) The measurement of Distortion tendencies indused by the win- lose nature in group loyalty small group research, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 128- 41

An Analysis of Human Motivation in National Higher Education Universities (NHEU) using Theory X and Theory Y: Academic Staff Perspective Ismail, M. B. M., Senior Lecturer in Management, Department of Management, Faculty of Management and Commerce, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka, Oluvil,

mbmismail@seu.ac.lk, 00 94 77 69 444 77, January, 2012.

Abstract National Higher Education Universities -NHEU- play a vital role in high quality market oriented and knowledge based society in Sri Lanka. Objective of this study is to find the type of people in NHEU. Target population of Primary Sampling Unit refers to 2 Universities in Eastern Province such as Eastern University -EU- and South Eastern University of Sri Lanka -SEUSL-. Of the 346 academics, 99 academics from these two Universities have been selected as sample size. Responses from SSUs are collected using a standard questionnaire by Burton (1990). Data were collected from academics during May, 2011. Data were presented and analyzed using SPSS version 16.0. It was found and concluded that cumulative total score is 1799 falling in slightly disagree scale. More than 71 % of academic staff have indicated slightly disagree and strongly disagree. This refers to academic staff are less towards on X theory. Cumulative total score is 3865. More than 72 % of academic staff except internal motivation and acceptance of responsibility have indicated slightly agree and strongly agree. This refers to academic staff are more towards on Y theory. Key words: National Higher Education Universities, Eastern and South Eastern University

Introduction Srilankan Ministry of Higher Education-MOHE- has the vision of contributing towards achieving excellence in Higher Education and Higher Technological Education for the development of high quality market oriented and knowledge based society. Next to MOHE, the apex body of Higher Education is University Grants Commissions-UGC-. All the national 15 Universities are ruled by UGC although each University has autonomy among themselves. Each University has their academic, academic support staff, non- academic and other staff. The University Grants Commission (UGC) is the apex body of the University System in Sri Lanka The functions of the UGC are planning and coordination of university education, allocation of funds to Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs), maintenance of academic standards, regulation of the administration of HEIs and regulation of admission of students to HEIs. UGC has number of circulars for the implementation of all Universities. Fiman, B. G. (1973) investigated the relationship among supervisory attitudes, behaviours, and outputs: an examination of McGregors Theory X and Y. Juhn, Daniel S. (1972) published a book on McGregor's theory X-Y and Maslow's need hierarchy theory: An empirical study of managerial thinking in the New Orleans area in the subject area of Industrial management. Richard E.

Kopelman, David J. Prottas, David W. Falk (2010) studied on construct validation of a Theory X/Y behavior scale. Geert Hofstede, (1987) studied about the Applicability of McGregor's Theories in South East Asia. Tonya M. Peterson (2007) studied on Motivation: How to increase project team performance. Johan Larsson, Stig Vinberg & Hkan Wiklund, (2007) analyzed about Leadership, Quality and Health: Using McGregor's X and Y Theory for Analyzing Values in Relation to Methodologies and Outcomes. Fiman, B. G., Juhn, Daniel S., (New Orleans), Richard E. Kopelman, David J. Prottas, David W. Falk, Geert Hofstede (South East Asia), Tonya M. Peterson and Johan Larsson, Stig Vinberg & Hkan Wiklund (Sweden) carried out researches in 1973, 1972, 2010, 1981, 2007 & 2007 respectively. Most of studies were found in foreign context. Researcher tries to customize this research into Srilankan instance. This research is organized into significance of the study, statement of the problem, research problem & objective, literature review, research design & methodology, policy implications, limitation and originality of the study.

Motivation for the Study It is always good to be at the centre of things and reap the rewards of being in that position. In the field of international higher education, the desire to become a central hub for a particular region of the world has emerged in a growing number of countries. Post conflict Sri Lanka is one such country with clear and legitimate aspirations to establish itself as a higher education hub for the South and East Asia region. The government of Sri Lanka is currently developing strategies, action plans and systems to achieve this vision (Source: dailyFT, Saturday 19, November, 2011). Srilankan education expenditure was 2.13 % as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product -GDP-.

University education expenditure was 0.31 % of that in year 2008 (Source: University Grants Commission, 2011). General Education (Age 5 19 yrs) was 70.23 per 100 while University Education (Age 20 24 yrs) was 4.1 per 100 in 2008. Graduate output was 19,755 for first degree graduates and 4,665 for postgraduate degree holders in 2008. Universities have developed institutionally. There were 15, 79, 458, 17, 15415 and 4735 Universities, Faculties, Departments, Institutes, Employees and Teachers island- wide in 2008. Findings of this research can help superiors of Unit, Department and Faculty for the awareness of type of their subordinates. They can easily motivate them to get things done in Universities.

Statement of the problem Researcher stated problem by interview and empirical findings of tasks involved in statement of problem. Few staff from Department of Management, Faculty of Management and Commerce, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka of Oluvil has been interviewed. Direct superior in their respective Units or Departments or Faculties have to guide their subordinates so as to achieve group goals. Once a work is given by his or her superior to subordinate progress of the work and the status of the progress is poorly reviewed periodically. If someone else is in charge for the work assigned by superior to subordinate assigned subordinate has to work alone in many instances to finish it off. Team is formulated. Work is also shared among team members. Team spirit is not always there. At the end of the deadline, when superior asks the output of the work in charge or team leader has to submit the output of the work. So, superior must direct the activities (work assigned) of his or he subordinate to achieve group goals. Further, manager (superior) must control employees (subordinate) to get work done. These two are the symptoms of Theory X

people. Research findings of McGregor indicated that people do not like work, so managers have to control, direct, coerce, and threaten employees to get them to work towards organizational goals (Source: McGregor, 1960). Staff are motivated themselves (internally) to commit their work in their Unit or Department or Faculty. They have motivation to do their work. They do not care about working time & working day. Staff works during off office hours & non- working days for the improvement of University. An instance is staff stayed in University during day & night to complete Corporate Plan demanded by University Grants Commission -UGC- of Sri Lanka. Another instance, few staff toiled during the flood and rainy seasons during the end of December, 2010 and January of year 2011 in South Eastern University of Sri Lanka of Oluvil. Disaster Management Team functioned actively during flood season. So, people are internally motivated to achieve goals in to which they are committed and are ready to accept responsibility if they are treated properly. These two are the symptoms of Theory Y people. Research findings of McGregor have indicated that people are internally motivated to reach objectives to which they are committed (Source: McGregor, 1960). Research problem & objective Interview and empirical findings revealed that opinion of staff are different. They have two different ideas with respect to their job. However, there is an unanimity that research problem rests on characteristics of theory X and Y. Researcher raises what sort of people are in NHEU? as research question to this present study. Objective of this study is to find the type of people in NHEU. Literature review
10

Fiman, B. G. (1973) investigated the relationship among supervisory attitudes, behaviours, and outputs: an examination of McGregors Theory X and Y. Juhn, Daniel S. (1972) published a book on McGregor's theory X-Y and Maslow's need hierarchy theory: An empirical study of managerial thinking in the New Orleans area in the subject area of Industrial management; Psychology, Industrial; Louisiana; New Orleans, Vol. No 7, p. 54, Division of Business and Economic Research, Louisiana State University in New Orleans (New Orleans). Richard E. Kopelman, David J. Prottas, David W. Falk (2010) studied on construct validation of a Theory X/Y behavior scale. This paper aimed to discuss the historical importance and current relevance of Douglas McGregor's Theory X and Y, and to suggest that the paucity of related empirical research is, in part, attributable to the lack of validated measures. The present research seeks to describe the development and construct validation of a measure pertinent to Theory X/Y behaviors. Surveys completed by 512 working adults provide the present data. A total of 26 initial Theory X/Y behavior items are reduced to 13 through factor analysis. Convergent and discriminant validities are examined through correlation and regression analyses with measures of proximal, distal, and unrelated constructs. Test re-test reliability is assessed using longitudinal panel data from a subset of respondents. The results provide evidence of the construct validity of the new measure. Geert Hofstede, (1987) studied about the Applicability of McGregor's Theories in South East Asia. Management development should take cultural differences into account. Current Human Resource Development theories originate in the USA, McGregor's opposing Theories X and Y are both based on assumptions valid in the US but not, for instance, in South East Asia. Culturally harmonious replacements, Theory T and Theory T+, are suggested. Tonya M. Peterson (2007) studied on Motivation: How to increase project team performance. Stimulating team member performance requires a project manager to harness many different

11

interpersonal skills. The level of enthusiasm applied toward project efforts has a direct impact on the project results. Because motivation can inspire, encourage, and stimulate individuals to achieve common goals through teamwork, it is in the project manager's best interest to drive toward project success through the creation and maintenance of a motivating environment for all members of the team. Johan Larsson, Stig Vinberg & Hkan Wiklund, (2007) analyzed about Leadership, Quality and Health: Using McGregor's X and Y Theory for Analyzing Values in Relation to Methodologies and Outcomes. Sweden has experienced an increase in sickness absenteeism, stress-related health problems and a deterioration of psychosocial working conditions. Several researchers have emphasized that leadership with a focus on developing human resource practices is a necessary component of a high organizational performance. The purpose of this article is to explore whether there are patterns in leadership values and methodologies associated with subordinates' views of leadership, health outcomes and quality aspects. Four public and four private organizations in northern Sweden were studied. McGregor's X and Y hypotheses, plus three other hypotheses, were used as a base for the analyses. Data were gathered through in-depth interviews with the leaders, questionnaires (completed by leaders and co-workers), and assessment of selected human resource accounting data (sickness absenteeism). The leader views were mirrored with the co-worker views through a comparison of qualitative and quantitative results in a stepwise analysis process. The study's main findings were that leaders with more X hypotheses get lower results concerning employee-judged leadership and quality aspects and, to some extent, lower results concerning health outcomes. The explanatory analyses concerning leadership and health are complex with many influencing factors. Behavioural school

12

The classical schools of management thought the scientific management and the organizational school- viewed organizations from a mechanistic point. Emphasis was placed on design and performance of work and the process of the management functions, but, there was little understanding of the behavior of the individuals involved. The school of behavioural management theory evolved in the recognition of the importance of human behaviour in organization. Major contributions were Owen Munsterberg, Mayo, Follet, Mashlow, McGreger, and Argyris. Douglas McGregor was so influenced by the Hawthorne studies and the work of Mashlow that he wrote the human side of enterprise, in which he urged managers to pay more attention to the social, esteem, and self- actualization needs of employees. In doing so, McGregor (1960) argued that managers should shift their views of man and work (which he termed Theory X) to new humane views of man and work (which he termed as Theory Y). According to McGregor, Theory X attitudes, that man was lazy and work was bad were both pessimistic and counterproductive. On the other hand, the Theory Y view that man wanted to work and was good should become the standard for humanizing the workplace.

Research Methods Primary Sampling Unit Target population of Primary Sampling Unit refers to all research sites where research is to be carried out. Research sites are 2 Universities in Eastern Province such as Eastern University EU- & South Eastern University of Sri Lanka -SEUSL-. These two Universities are taken as PSU. These two are selected on the basis of convenience and availability of data. Secondary Sampling Unit
13

Target Population of Secondary Sampling Unit refers to all the respondents in the research sites (two Universities). All 346 academic staff of these two Universities are the target population of SSU. Since sampling frame is accessible to researcher he used a probability sampling method. Stratified sampling is done. Academic staff are stratified on the basis of Faculties. Each Faculty is taken as a stratum. Under each stratum, systematic sampling is undertaken. Kth academic staff is found out dividing size of target population (N) of secondary sampling unit by sample size of secondary sampling unit (n). Every 3rd academic staff from sampling frame (name list of academic staff) have been selected for data collection.

Calculation of sample size Of the 346 academics, 14 academics have to be selected as respondents for answering. These numbers have to be distributed in terms of the total population. Although 14 academics are statistically enough to collect data researcher collected 99 academics from these two Universities. These numbers are 7 times more than the calculated sample size. Data collection Responses from SSUs are collected using a standard questionnaire by Burton (1990). Questionnaire consisted of 20 statements and 20 questions which comprised of characteristics of Theory X and Y. Responses are measured using a 5 point- likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. A model of the questionnaire is below. Data were collected from academics during May, 2011. Primary data collection was made using a standard questionnaire used by Burton (1990). This is shown in table 1.

14

Table 1 Theory X Y questionnaire

Question number 1 2 3 Theory X Y questionnaire Strongly Slightly agree agree Most people do not like to work 5 4 If chances are given to think for 5 4 themselves, most people are bright People are internally motivated to 5 4 achieve goals in to which they are committed Managers must control employees to 5 4 get work done All workers want security 5 4 People will accept responsibility if 5 4 treated properly People prefer that someone else tell 5 4 them what to do on the job Workers may have to be coerced to 5 4 get things done properly Work is natural as play 5 4 Workers can be creative on the job 5 4 People show little ambition at work 5 4 Some people will not work unless 5 4 threatened Some workers will pursue goals if 5 4 rewarded Most employees avoid work 5 4 whenever possible Most employers do not use the full 5 4 potential of their employees Some workers can be innovative 5 4 problem solvers if chances are given People usually avoid responsibility 5 4 Superiors must direct the activities of 5 4 their subordinates to achieve group goals People will seek responsibility under 5 4 proper conditions It is not natural for people to dislike 5 4 work Statement Not sure 3 3 3 Slightly disagree 2 2 2 Strongly disagree 1 1 1

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

19 20

3 3

2 2

1 1

Procedure Collected responses are categorized into Theory X questions and Theory Y questions. Theory X has 10 questions. Theory Y also has 10 questions. Responses for each question are scored and
15

total score are counted. A model of procedure is shown below. When an employee responds to questions numbers 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17 & 18 in terms of 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (slightly disagree) & 3 (not sure) it is treated as a favourable sign to Theory Y people. When an employee responds to questions numbers 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19 & 20 in terms of 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (slightly disagree) & 3 (not sure) it is also treated as a favourable symptom for Theory Y people. Theory X Y score sheet is shown in table 2. Table 2 Theory X Y score sheet Theory X Question number 1 4 5 7 8 11 12 14 17 18 Total X score Score Theory Y Question number 2 3 6 9 10 13 15 16 19 20 Total Y score Score

Continuum of Theory X and Theory Y Theory X and Theory Y are put on by adopting Burton 1990, pp. 20-22. If the total score of theories are more towards arrow region it is said to be an employee in an organization is more towards that respective theory. It is exhibited in figure 1. Figure 1 Theory X Y continuum (Source: Burton 1990, pp. 20-22) Theory X continuum

16

Total X score

50

40

30

20

10

Theory Y continuum

Total Y score

50

40

30

20

10

If an employee selects 1 (strongly disagree) or 2 (slightly disagree) or 3 (not sure) or 4 (slightly agree) or 5 (strongly agree) for all 10 statements of Theory X and Theory Y he or she gets the total score of 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 or 50. If there are marginal increase (extra one unit of an employee) to total score doubles, triples, becomes four times, becomes five times and so on.

Data Presentation and Analysis The following tableau depicts data presentation and analysis technique. It is shown in table 3. Table 3 data presentation and analysis Objective 1. To find the type of people in NHEU Data presentation 1. Simple bar chart 2. Pie chart 3. Scatter Plot Data analysis 1. Frequency 2. Theory X continuum 3. Theory Y continuum

Results and Discussion Question numbers 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17 & 18 representing theory X shows strongly agree and slightly agree respondents who are low. Neutral respondents are in significant numbers. Slightly disagree and strongly disagree academic staff are high. Cumulative total score is 1799 falling in slightly disagree scale. More than 71 % of academic staff have indicated slightly

17

disagree and strongly disagree to all the above questions. This refers to academic staff are less towards on X theory. Question numbers 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19 & 20 representing theory Y shows strongly disagree and slightly disagree respondents who are low. Neutral respondents are in significant number. Slightly agree and strongly agree academic staff are high. Cumulative total score is 3865. More than 72 % of academic staff have indicated slightly agree and strongly agree to all the above questions. Two questions such as internal motivation and acceptance of responsibility have been indicated by 63% and 56%. This refers to academic staff are more towards on Y theory. Cumulative total score is shown in figure 2. Figure 2 Theory X Y continuum score Theory X continuum

Total X score

4950

3960

2970

1980 1799

990

Theory Y continuum

Total Y score

4950

3960 3865

2970

1980

990

Conclusion

18

Cumulative total score for theory X is 1970 which lies on slightly disagree scale. Cumulative total score for theory Y is 3865 which lies on slightly agree scale. In other words, researcher can say that academic staff are less towards Theory X instead are more towards Theory Y.

Policy Implication Policy makers have to consider the suggestions tabulated below. It is shown in table 4. Table 4 Suggestions for Theory Y characteristics Theory Y characteristics Employees are bright People are internally motivated to achieve goals in to which they are committed People will accept responsibility Some workers will pursue goal Employees have full potentialities Employees are innovative problem solvers People will seek responsibility Suggestions Chances have to be given to think themselves Externally motivate academic staff for their internal motivation Staff have to be treated properly Staff have to be rewarded financially and nonfinancially Most employers do not use the full potential of their employees Opportunities have to be given to solve problem innovatively Proper working conditions have to be given for employees

Limitation of the Study Universities such as Colombo, Peradeniya, Sri Jeyawardenepura, Kelaniya, Moratuwa, Jaffna, Ruhuna, Eastern, South Eastern, Rajarata, Sabaragamuwa, Wayamba, Visual & Performing Arts, Uva Wellassaya and Open are functioning in Sri Lanka. Researcher has focused on only Eastern and South Eastern Universities available in Sri Lanka. There are academic, non- academic staff and minor employees are working in Universities. Research focus lies on only academic staff. Non- academic and minor employees have not been taken into grant for the scope of the study.

19

Data collection was promised using probability systematic sampling technique. Data collection was made non- probability convenient sampling was made during the study. Secondary data for year 2009 was appeared over the website of University Grants Commission of Sri Lanka and considered for the study. Updated data for the year 2010 and 2011 was not available and was not considered for the study.

Originality of the study Theory X and Y has been applied for University academics in National Higher Education Universities -NHEU- in Eastern and South Eastern University of Sri Lanka in Srilankan context.

References

1. Bandura, A. & Locke, E. A. 2003. Negative Self-efficacy and Goal Effects Revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 88 Pages, 87-99. 2. Boswell, W. R., L. M. Moynihan, Roehling, M. V. & Cavanaugh, M. A. 2001. Responsibilities in the 'New Employment Relationship': An Empirical Test of an Assumed Phenomenon. Journal of Managerial Issues, Volume 13 Pages 307-327. 3. Gene, B. (2000). The measurement of Distortion tendencies induced by the win- lose nature of in group loyalty. Small group research, Volume 21(Issue 1) pages 128 - 141

20

4. Campbell, C. R. & Swift, C. O. 2006. Attributional Comparisons Across Biases and LeaderMember Exchange Status. Journal of Managerial Issues, Volume 18 Pages 393-408. 5.
6. General form: 7. Editor, A. A. (Ed.). (year). Title of work. Location: Publisher. 8. Roy, M. J. (Ed.). (2006). Novel approaches to the diagnosis and 9. treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (NATO Security 10. Through Science Series). Amsterdam: IOS. 11. Grubb, M., & Neuhoff, K. (Eds.). (2006). Emissions trading & 12. competitiveness: Allocations, incentives and industrial 13. competitiveness under the EU emissions trading scheme. London: Earthscan. 14.

15. Costley, D. L. & Todd, R. (Ed.). (1987). Human Relations in Organizations. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. 16. Dansereau, F., Graen, G. & Haga, W. 1975. A Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach to Leadership within Formal Organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance Volume 13 Pages 46-78. 17. Eden, D. (Ed.). (1990). Pygmalion in Management. Lexington, MA Lexington Books. 18. Eden, D. Geller, A. Gewirtz, I. Gordon-Terner, I. Liberman, M. Pass, Y. Salomon-Segev, I. & Shalit, M. 2000. Implanting Pygmalion Leadership Style through Workshop Training: Seven Field Experiments. Leadership Quarterly, Volume 11 Pages 171-210. 19. Fiman, B. G. 1973. An Investigation of the Relationships among Supervisory Attitudes, Behaviors, and Outputs: An Examination of McGregor's Theory Y. Personnel Psychology Volume 26 Pages 95-105.

21

20. Hofstede, G. (1987). The Applicability of McGregor's Theories in South East Asia. Journal of Management Development, Volume 6(Issue 3) pages 9 - 18 21. Burton, G. & Thakur, M. (Ed.). (1995) Evolution of Management Thought. Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi. 22. Gordon, J. R. (Ed.). (1999). Organizational Behavior: A Diagnostic Approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall. 23. Greenberg, J. (Ed.) (1999). Managing Behavior in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall. 24. Hair, J. F. Anderson, R. E. Tatham, R. L. & Black W. C. (Ed.) (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall. 25. Heil, G. Bennis, W. & Stephens, D.C. (Ed.). (2000). Douglas McGregor, Revisited: Managing the Human Side of the Enterprise. New York, NY John Wiley and Sons. 26. Jacobs, D. (2004). Book Review Essay: Douglas McGregor-The Human Side of Enterprise in Peril. Academy of Management Review, Volume 29 Pages 293-311. 27. Larsson, J. Vinberg, S. & Wiklund, H. (2007). Leadership, Quality and Health: Using McGregor's X and Y Theory for Analyzing Values in Relation to Methodologies and Outcomes. Journal of Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Volume 18, Issue 10. 28. Daniel, J. S. (1972). McGregor's theory X-Y and Maslow's need hierarchy theory: An empirical study of managerial thinking in the New Orleans. Industrial management, Volume 7 Page 54. 29. Joreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. (Ed.). (2002). LISREL 8.53. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.

22

30. Kelly, K. R. & Lee, W. (2002). Mapping the Domain of Career Decision Problems. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Volume 61 Pages 302-326. 31. Liden, R. C. Wayne, S. J. & Stilwell, D. (1993). A Longitudinal Study on the Early Development of Leader-Member Exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology Volume 78 Pages 662-674. 32. Locke, E. A. (Ed.). (2003). Good Definitions: The Epistemological Foundation of Scientific Progress in Organizational Behavior. The State of the Science Ed. J. Greenberg. Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 33. McGregor, D. M. (Ed.). (1967). The Professional Manager. New York, NY McGraw-Hill. 34. McGregor, D. M. (Ed.). (1966). Leadership and Motivation. Cambridge, MA MIT Press. 35. McGregor, D. M. (Ed.). (1960/1985). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York, NY McGraw-Hill. 36. McGregor, D. M. (1957). The Human Side of Enterprise. The Management Review, Volume 46 Pages 22-28. 37. McNatt, D. B. & Judge, T. A. (2004). Boundary Conditions of the Galatea Effect: A Field Experiment and Constructive Replication. Academy of Management Journal, Volume 47 Pages 550-565. 38. Miles, R. E. (1964). Conflicting Elements in Managerial Ideologies. Industrial Relations, Volume 4 Pages 77-91. 39. Miner, J. B. (2003). The Rated Importance, Scientific Validity, and Practical Usefulness of Organizational Behavior Theories: A Quantitative Review. Academy of Management Learning and Education, Volume 2 Pages 250-268.

23

40. Miner, J. B. (Ed.). (2002). Organizational Behavior: Foundations, Theories, and Analyses. NY Oxford University Press. 41. Nunnally, J. C. (Ed.). (1978). Psychometric Theory. NY: McGraw-Hill. 42. Osland, J. S. Kolb, D. A. & Rubin, I.M. (Ed.). (2001). Organizational Behavior: An Experiential Approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall. 43. Kopelman, R. E. Prottas, D. J. & Falk, D. W. (2010). Construct validation of a Theory X/Y behavior scale. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Volume. 31(Issue 2), pages 120 135 44. Robinson, J. P. & Shaver, P. R. (Ed.). (1973). Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes Ann Arbor, MI Institute for Social Research. 45. Rosenberg, M. (Ed.). (1957). Occupations and Values. Glencoe, IL The Free Press.

46. Sato, T. (2003). Sociotropy and Autonomy: The Nature of Vulnerability. The Journal of Psychology Volume 137 Pages 447-466.

48. Peterson, T. M. (2007), Motivation: How to increase project team performance, Project Management Journal, Volume 38(Issue 4) pages 6069.

24