Author
Abstract
The article presents a comprehensive analysis of the applicability of Douglas McGregor’s managerial assumptions — Theories X and Y — in the context of contemporary project–based activity and flexible organizational structures. The research is grounded in an interdisciplinary approach, incorporating behavioral economics, management theory, and organizational psychology. Particular attention is given to visual and content analysis of both domestic and international sources that explore the specifics of authoritarian and trust–based management styles, including case studies from Agile, Scrum, and Management 3.0 practices. Key differences between the theories are identified across eight criteria: from types of motivation and control mechanisms to the level of delegation and the expected organizational outcomes. The comparative analysis demonstrates that Theory X remains relevant in environments characterized by high regulation and technological predictability, whereas Theory Y proves effective in creative, distributed, and research–oriented teams with a high level of maturity. The study also considers hybrid management models that combine elements of both theories, enabling the adaptation of leadership style to evolving conditions and workforce characteristics. The article proposes an original classification of employee types based on motivational traits, with a corresponding optimal managerial approach (X, Y, or hybrid). Special emphasis is placed on the role of trust, autonomy, and maturity in shaping a productive organizational culture. This article will be of interest to management researchers, HR professionals, project team leaders, and anyone engaged in the development of flexible leadership styles and organizational behavior under conditions of uncertainty.
Suggested Citation
K. V. Kulikov, 2025.
"Trust as the Foundation of Effective Management: Between Control and Support in the Context of Douglas McGregor’s Theories X and Y,"
Entrepreneur’s Guide, JSC “Publishing Agency “Science and Educationâ€, vol. 18(3).
Handle:
RePEc:ahc:journl:y:2025:id:2130
DOI: 10.24182/2073-9885-2025-18-3-62-70
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ahc:journl:y:2025:id:2130. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ð ÐµÐ´Ð°ÐºÑ†Ð¸Ñ (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.