Classical Motivation Theories

The Hawthorne study was a couple of different studies where efficiency experts changed different variables – in Hawthorne this was the lighting in the plant. They hypothesized that more light would lead to an increase in output, and it did. But the control group also saw an increase in output. When the lights were dimmed again, output rose again. The studies showed that it was not the light that mattered in terms of output. The key variable was that the workers felt that they mattered, that management was paying attention to them. The workers also started to see themselves as part of a team, rather than a collection of isolated individuals.
The Hawthorne study was important because to that point, most research on efficiency had focused on changes to physical aspects of working conditions. The Hawthorne study and a few others around that time showed that psychological working conditions are also important determinants of productivity. This study basically led researchers down the path to studying motivation, in the context of work. As such, the Hawthorne study was incredibly important, and basically founded this study of motivation that continues to this day.
Theory X and Theory Y are two perceived approaches to management. A Theory X manager is someone who believes that workers are inherently unmotivated, do not want to work, and thus need constant control and motivation in order to perform. This contrasts sharply with Theory Y, which posits that workers are motivated, want to do well, and want to have agency over their work.
These theories are used to describe the manager's view of the workers, not the workers themselves. Managers are said to take either the X or the Y view of their workers. The actual views of the workers may be different, and are often quite a bit more complex. The relative lack of nuance in Theory X/Theory Y is one of the weaknesses of the theory.
I would describe myself as a Theory Y manager. In general, I believe that people want to be given a certain amount of autonomy, and respond well to having a fair bit of independence and control over their work. People in general are self-motivating. However, there is a certain amount of bias to this view. First, that describes myself, but also, I seek out companies that take that view. A manager can – and many do – hire for the particular qualities that align with Theory Y. If a manager hires someone who is more as Theory X describes, but treats them like a Theory Y, that will not work. The same goes for the reverse.
The reality is that motivation is more complex. Not all workers are X or Y, and many have nuances and gradients of different characteristics. The use of these general overall theories is to define a high level approach to management – managers subscribing to both theories might orient themselves to will still need to take an active role in managing their workers, but they might definitely take a different approach to how they do it.
Further, people might shift between behaving more like an X or a Y, depending on the situation. In one job, someone might be utterly demotivated, but then with a change of scenery they find themselves again, and become ambitious and self-starting. This is not something that is addressed particularly well by this theory.
Chris Argyris developed the maturity-immaturity continuum. The theory is based on the idea that "trusting, authentic relationships will develop among people" if "humanistic, democratic values are adhered to in an organization." Argyris developed his theory to contrast management at the time, which was more Theory X-style management. Argyris aimed to foster more human, whole, fulfilling relationships in organizations, and felt that this would be result in better performance in the long run.
The logic of immaturity-maturity is that there is a spectrum along which people exist in organizations. The organization is in a position to define its relationship with the workers, and in many cases keeps this relationship immature. Immature relationships result in passive, dependent relationships, short-term perspectives, and lack of awareness of self. Workers are basically dependent on management, and require a lot of motivation.
However, if management builds authentic relationships with workers, then the relationship is more mature, and the worker becomes more active, independent, capable of behaving in many different ways, and takes a long-term perspective. The mature relationships do not allow for power to be concentrated at the tops of organizations, but rather to be disseminated throughout the organization. At the higher levels of organizational maturity, power structures within the organization are broken down and this creates a higher level of empowerment and motivation among the workers.
These are some of the basic motivational theories from the mid-20th century, that form the foundational thought for motivation studies today. The ideas of human empowerment took time to develop, especially in the workplace. Old notions that there are those who lead and those who follow gave way only gradually to the idea that most people are fairly well-empowered, and when given a chance will arrive at a higher level of performance. With these theories came changes in the role of the manager and the nature of leadership within the organization. Managers are no longer people who simply tell others what to do, but they are people who guide others, and help them to be better. This philosophy has become increasingly prevalent, though there are still some companies and managers who adhere to older ways of thinking. But understanding those old ways, and the path we have taken to move away from them, is an important part of understanding where we are today with the study of motivation in the workplace.