Comparing Mcgregor's Theory X And Theory Y

Working independently, Rensis Likert (1961) elaborated on the relationship of leader behavior and group performance, which paralleled McGregor’s (1960) “Theory X” and “Theory Y.” He identified four basic orientations he called “systems” – exploitative-authoritative (system 1), benevolent-authoritative (system 2), consultative (system 3) and participative (system 4). Likert’s (1961) system 1 and system 4 orientations were similar to McGregor’s (1960) Theory X and Theory Y perspectives. Likert (1961) constructed his systems by combining two categories of behaviors: Job-centered and Employee-centered dimensions. The Job-centered categories of behaviors included goal emphasis behaviors that attended to accomplishing group goals, and work facilitation

Contingency and Situational theories of leadership attempted to extend behavioral approaches in terms of situation and context. An early notable example is Fred Fiedler’s (1967) contingency model, which was based on the premise that leaders have consistent profiles of behaviors that are associated with successful leadership in certain situations. Hence leadership effectiveness was best attained through thoughtful and managed selection of effective leader-situation matches. Another model inside the contingency approach is path-goal theory (Evans, 1970; House & Dressler, 1974), which posits the recommendation that successful leaders furnish or ensure available rewards for goal attainment and then focus on behaviors that support followers along their path to accomplishing their

Power-wielders influenced followers to accomplish goals that are important mostly to the power-wielder. Leaders mobilized followers and marshaled resources to accomplish goals that would benefit followers, themselves, as well as others. Burns (1978) also described leadership as recognizable in two forms: transactional leadership and transformational leadership. Transactional leadership transpires in a mutually beneficial relationship of exchange between the leader and follower. Burns (1978) characterized this kind of leadership as transitory and effective, but in pursuit of modal values of mutual exchange. Transactional leadership typically maintains status quo and does not elicit change. Transformational leadership, in contrast, attempts to change the status quo by developing a vision for the future that appeals to the values and sense of purpose of followers. Transformational leaders teach followers to become leaders, pursuing humanistic and moral end values related to making a difference in the world.
Some elements of power and influence approaches, such as expert and referent power (French & Raven, 1959), social influence (Cialdini, 1995), and transformational leadership (Burns, 1978), begin to transcend perspectives on leadership based solely on leaders as roles in a hierarchy. When leadership is examined outside this paradigm of leaders as roles, where all community partners are leaders