Henri Fayol (Istanbul, 29 July 1841 Paris, 19 November

1925) was a French mining engineer, mining executive, author

and director of mines who developed general theory of
business administration that is often called Fayolism.[1] He and
his colleagues developed this theory independently
of scientific management but roughly contemporaneously.
Like his contemporary, Frederick Winslow Taylor, he is widely
acknowledged as a founder of modern management methods.

Biography[edit]
Fayol was born in 1841 in a suburb of Istanbul. His father (an
engineer) was in the military at the time and was appointed
superintendent of works to build Galata Bridge, which bridged
the Golden Horn.[1] The family returned to France in 1847,
where Fayol graduated from the mining academy "cole Nationale Suprieure des Mines" in Saint-
tienne in 1860.
In 1860 at the age of nineteen Fayol started working at the mining company named "Compagnie de
Commentry-Fourchambault-Decazeville" in Commentry as the mining engineer. During his time at
the mine, he studied the causes of underground fires, how to prevent them, how to fight them, how
to reclaim mining areas that had been burned, and developed a knowledge of the structure of the
basin.[2] In 1888 he was promoted to managing director. During his time as director, he made
changes to improve the working situations in the mines, such as allowing employees to work in
teams, and changing the division of labor.[2] Later, more mines were added to his duties.
Eventually, the board decided to abandon its iron and steel business and the coal mines. They
chose Henri Fayol to oversee this as the new managing director. Upon receiving the position, Fayol
presented the board with a plan to restore the firm. The board accepted the proposal.[2] When he
retired in 1918, the company was financially strong and one of the largest industrial combines in
Europe
Based largely on his own management experience, he developed his concept of administration. In
1916 he published these experience in the book "Administration Industrielle et Gnrale", at about
the same time as Frederick Winslow Taylor published his Principles of Scientific Management.

Work[edit]
Fayol's work became more generally known with the 1949 publication of General and industrial
administration,[3] the English translation[4] of the 1916 article "Administration industrielle et gnrale".
In this work Fayol presented his theory of management, known as Fayolism. Before that Fayol had
written several articles on mining engineering, starting in the 1870s, and some preliminary papers on
administration.[5]

Fayolism[edit]
Main article: Fayolism

Fayol's work was one of the first comprehensive statements of a general theory of
management.[6] He proposed that there were five primary functions of management and fourteen
principles of management[7]
Functions of Management[edit]

1. Planning[8]
2. Organizing
3. Staffing
4. Controlling
5. Directing
The control function, from the French controller, is used in the sense that a manager must receive
feedback about a process in order to make necessary adjustments and must analyze the deviations.
Lately scholars of management combined the commanding and coordinating function into one
leading function.
George Elton Mayo (26 December 1880 7 September 1949)
was an Australian born psychologist,[1][2][3] industrial researcher,
and organizational theorist.[4][5] Mayo was formally trained at
the University of Adelaide, acquiring a Bachelor of Arts Degree
graduating with First Class Honours, majoring in philosophy and
psychology,[4] and was later awarded an honorary Master of Arts
Degree from the University of Queensland (UQ).
While in Queensland, Mayo served on the University's war
committee and pioneered research into the psychoanalytic
treatment of shell-shock. As a psychologist Mayo often helped
soldiers returning from World War I recover from the stresses of
war and with a Brisbane physician, pioneered
the psychoanalytic treatment of shell-shock and conducted
psycho-pathological tests.[4][6] He was a lecturer in psychology
and mental philosophy at the UQ between 1911 and 1922, when
he sailed to the United States.[4] In 1926 he was appointed to
the Harvard Business School (HBS) as a professor of industrial research.[4]
In Philadelphia he conducted research at a textile plant in order to develop a method to reduce the
very high rate of turnover in the plant.[7] Mayo's association with the Hawthorne studies as well as his
research and work in Australia led to his enjoying a public acclaim granted to few social scientists of
his day.
Mayo has been credited with making significant contributions to a number of disciplines,
including business management, industrial sociology, philosophy, and social psychology. His field
research in industry had a significant impact on industrial and organizational psychology.[8] According
to Trahair, Mayo "is known for having established the scientific study of what today is
called organizational behavior when he gave close attention to the human, social, and political
problems of industrial civilization." (p. 15).[8]
Mayo's work helped to lay the foundation for the human relations movement.[4] He emphasized that
alongside the formal organization of an industrial workplace there exists an informal organizational
structure as well.[4] Mayo recognized the "inadequacies of existing scientific
management approaches" to industrial organizations, and underlined the importance of relationships
among people who work for such organizations.[5] His ideas on group relations were advanced in his
1933 book The Human Problems of an Industrialized Civilization, which was based partly on his
Hawthorne research.[9]

Hawthorne studies[edit]
Fritz J. Roethlisberger, Mayo's graduate assistant, and William J. Dickson, head of the Department
of Employee Relations at Western Electric, conducted the bulk of the practical research, with Mayo
rarely visiting the Hawthorne plant in Cicero, Illinois.[4] Mayo's team carried out a number of
"experiments" to look at ways of improving productivity. The research involved manipulating length of
rest and lunch periods and piecework payment plans.[14] Mayo concluded that productivity partly
depended on the informal social patterns of interaction in the work group.
Mayo, in communicating to business leaders, advanced the idea that managers who understand the
nature of informal ties among workers can make decisions for management's benefit.[4] Mayo
concluded that people's work performance is dependent on both social relationships and job content.
He suggested a tension between workers' "logic of sentiment" and managers' "logic of cost and
efficiency" which could lead to conflict within organizations.
Parsons, however, showed that the Hawthorne studies, which were not really experiments, were too
confounded to enable researchers to draw firm conclusions.[14] The qualitative aspects of the
research suggested that norms of co-operation among workers were related to productivity.
Abraham Harold Maslow (/mzlo/; April 1, 1908 June 8,
1970) was an American psychologist who was best known for
creating Maslow's hierarchy of needs, a theory of
psychological health predicated on fulfilling innate human
needs in priority, culminating in self-actualization.[2] Maslow
was a psychology professor at Alliant International
University, Brandeis University, Brooklyn College, New School
for Social Research, and Columbia University. He stressed
the importance of focusing on the positive qualities in people,
as opposed to treating them as a "bag of
symptoms."[3] A Review of General Psychology survey,
published in 2002, ranked Maslow as the tenth most cited
psychologist of the 20th century.[4]

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory in psychology proposed by Abraham Maslow in his 1943
paper "A Theory of Human Motivation" in Psychological Review.[2] Maslow subsequently extended
the idea to include his observations of humans' innate curiosity. His theories parallel many other
theories of human developmental psychology, some of which focus on describing the stages of
growth in humans. Maslow used the terms "physiological", "safety", "belonging" and "love",
"esteem", "self-actualization", and "self-transcendence" to describe the pattern that human
motivations generally move through. The goal of Maslow's Theory is to attain the sixth level of stage:
self transcendent needs.[3]
Maslow studied what he called exemplary people such as Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor
Roosevelt, and Frederick Douglass rather than mentally ill or neurotic people, writing that "the study
of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a
cripple philosophy."[4]:236 Maslow studied the healthiest 1% of the college student population.[5]
Maslow's theory was fully expressed in his 1954 book Motivation and Personality.[4] The hierarchy
remains a very popular framework in sociology research, management
training[6] and secondary and higher psychology instruction.

Hierarchy[edit]
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is often portrayed in the shape of a pyramid with the
largest, most fundamental needs at the bottom and the need for self-
actualization and self-transcendence at the top.[1][7]
The most fundamental and basic four layers of the pyramid contain what
Maslow called "deficiency needs" or "d-needs": esteem, friendship and love,
security, and physical needs. If these "deficiency needs" are not met with
the exception of the most fundamental (physiological) need there may
not be a physical indication, but the individual will feel anxious and
tense. Maslow's theory suggests that the most basic level of needs
must be met before the individual will strongly desire (or focus
motivation upon) the secondary or higher level needs. Maslow also
coined the term "metamotivation" to describe the motivation of
people who go beyond the scope of the basic needs and strive for constant betterment.[8]
The human brain is a complex system and has parallel processes running at the same time, thus
many different motivations from various levels of Maslow's hierarchy can occur at the same time.
Maslow spoke clearly about these levels and their satisfaction in terms such as "relative", "general",
and "primarily". Instead of stating that the individual focuses on a certain need at any given time,
Maslow stated that a certain need "dominates" the human organism.[4] Thus Maslow acknowledged
the likelihood that the different levels of motivation could occur at any time in the human mind, but he
focused on identifying the basic types of motivation and the order in which they should be met.

Physiological needs[edit]
Physiological needs are the physical requirements for human survival. If these requirements are not
met, the human body cannot function properly and will ultimately fail. Physiological needs are
thought to be the most important; they should be met first.
Air, water, and food are metabolic requirements for survival in all animals, including humans.
Clothing and shelter provide necessary protection from the elements. While maintaining an adequate
birth rate shapes the intensity of the human sexual instinct, sexual competition may also shape said
instinct.[2]

Safety needs[edit]
Once a person's physiological needs are relatively satisfied, their safety needs take precedence and
dominate behavior. In the absence of physical safety due to war, natural disaster, family
violence, childhood abuse, etc. people may (re-)experience post-traumatic stress
disorder or transgenerational trauma. In the absence of economic safety due to economic crisis
and lack of work opportunities these safety needs manifest themselves in ways such as a
preference for job security, grievance procedures for protecting the individual from unilateral
authority, savings accounts, insurance policies, disability accommodations, etc. This level is more
likely to be found in children as they generally have a greater need to feel safe.
Safety and Security needs include:

Personal security
Financial security
Health and well-being
Safety needs against accidents/illness and their adverse impacts
Social belonging[edit]
After physiological and safety needs are fulfilled, the third level of human needs is interpersonal and
involves feelings of belongingness. This need is especially strong in childhood and it can override
the need for safety as witnessed in children who cling to abusive parents. Deficiencies within this
level of Maslow's hierarchy due to hospitalism, neglect, shunning, ostracism, etc. can adversely
affect the individual's ability to form and maintain emotionally significant relationships in general,
such as:

Friendships
Intimacy
Family
According to Maslow, humans need to feel a sense of belonging and acceptance among their social
groups, regardless whether these groups are large or small. For example, some large social groups
may include clubs, co-workers, religious groups, professional organizations, sports teams, and
gangs. Some examples of small social connections include family members, intimate partners,
mentors, colleagues, and confidants. Humans need to love and be loved both sexually and non-
sexually by others.[2] Many people become susceptible to loneliness, social anxiety, and clinical
depression in the absence of this love or belonging element. This need for belonging may overcome
the physiological and security needs, depending on the strength of the peer pressure.

Esteem[edit]
All humans have a need to feel respected; this includes the need to have self-esteem and self-
respect. Esteem presents the typical human desire to be accepted and valued by others. People
often engage in a profession or hobby to gain recognition. These activities give the person a sense
of contribution or value. Low self-esteem or an inferiority complexmay result from imbalances during
this level in the hierarchy. People with low self-esteem often need respect from others; they may feel
the need to seek fame or glory. However, fame or glory will not help the person to build their self-
esteem until they accept who they are internally. Psychological imbalances such as depression can
hinder the person from obtaining a higher level of self-esteem or self-respect.
Most people have a need for stable self-respect and self-esteem. Maslow noted two versions of
esteem needs: a "lower" version and a "higher" version. The "lower" version of esteem is the need
for respect from others. This may include a need for status, recognition, fame, prestige, and
attention. The "higher" version manifests itself as the need for self-respect. For example, the person
may have a need for strength, competence, mastery, self-confidence, independence, and freedom.
This "higher" version takes precedence over the "lower" version because it relies on an inner
competence established through experience. Deprivation of these needs may lead to an inferiority
complex, weakness, and helplessness.
Maslow states that while he originally thought the needs of humans had strict guidelines, the
"hierarchies are interrelated rather than sharply separated".[4] This means that esteem and the
subsequent levels are not strictly separated; instead, the levels are closely related.

Self-actualization[edit]
Main article: Self-actualization

"What a man can be, he must be."[4]:91 This quotation forms the basis of the perceived need for self-
actualization. This level of need refers to what a person's full potential is and the realization of that
potential. Maslow describes this level as the desire to accomplish everything that one can, to
become the most that one can be.[4]:92 Individuals may perceive or focus on this need very
specifically. For example, one individual may have the strong desire to become an ideal parent. In
another, the desire may be expressed athletically. For others, it may be expressed in paintings,
pictures, or inventions.[4]:93 As previously mentioned, Maslow believed that to understand this level of
need, the person must not only achieve the previous needs, but master them.

Self-transcendence[edit]
In his later years, Abraham Maslow explored a further dimension of needs, while criticizing his own
vision on self-actualization.[9] The self only finds its actualization in giving itself to some higher goal
outside oneself, in altruism and spirituality, which is essentially the desire to reach
infinite.[10] "Transcendence refers to the very highest and most inclusive or holistic levels of human
consciousness, behaving and relating, as ends rather than means, to oneself, to significant others,
to human beings in general, to other species, to nature, and to the cosmos" (Farther Reaches of
Human Nature, New York 1971, p. 269).
Frederick Irving Herzberg (April 18, 1923 January 19, 2000[1])
was an American psychologist who became one of the most
influential names in business management.[2][3] He is most famous
for introducing job enrichment and the Motivator-Hygiene theory.
His 1968 publication "One More Time, How Do You Motivate
Employees?" had sold 1.2 million reprints by 1987 and was the
most requested article from the Harvard Business Review.[4]:109120

Herzberg proposed the motivator-hygiene theory, also known as

the two-factor theory of job satisfaction. According to his theory,
people are influenced by two sets of factors.
The idea is that hygiene factors will not motivate, but if they are
not there, they can lower motivation. These factors could be
anything from clean toilets and comfortable chairs, to a
reasonable level of pay and job security. The theory deals with
satisfaction and dissatisfaction in jobs which are not affected by the same set of needs, but instead
occur independently of each other. Herzberg's theory challenged the assumption that "dissatisfaction
was a result of an absence of factors giving rise to satisfaction."[5]
Motivational factors will not necessarily lower motivation, but can be responsible for increasing
motivation. These factors could involve job recognition, potential for promotion or even the work in
itself.[6]
Herzberg (1987) describes the growth factors (or motivators) as "achievement, recognition for
achievement, the work itself, responsibility, and growth or advancement," which are
intrinsic.[4]:13 Intrinsic factors include "orientations toward money, recognition, competition, and the
dictates of other people, and the latter includes challenge, enjoyment, personal enrichment, interest,
and self-determination."[7] The hygiene factors (or dissatisfaction-avoidance), which are extrinsic to
the job, are "company policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working
conditions, salary, status, and security".[4] This extrinsic factor "refers to doing something because it
leads to a distinct outcome, something external you expect to receive, and the latter refers to doing
something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable, an internal reward."[7]
 David Clarence McClelland (May 20, 1917 March 27,
1998) was an American psychologist, noted for his work on
motivation Need Theory. He published a number of works
during the 1950s and the 1990s and developed new scoring
systems for the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) and its
descendants.[1] McClelland is credited with developing the
Achievement Motivation Theory commonly referred to as
need achievement or n-achievement theory.[2] A Review of
General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked
McClelland as the 15th most cited psychologist of the 20th
century.[3]

McClelland, born in Mt. Vernon, New York, was awarded

a Bachelor of Arts from Wesleyan University in 1938,
an MA from the University of Missouri in 1939,[1] and a PhD
in experimental psychology from Yale University in 1941. He
taught at Connecticut College and Wesleyan
University before joining the faculty at Harvard University in
1956, where he worked for 30 years, serving as chairman of the Department of Psychology and
Social Relations. In 1987,[4] he moved to Boston University, where he was awarded the American
Psychological Association Award for Distinguished Scientific Contributions.[citation needed]
The major themes of David McClellands work were on personality and the application of that
knowledge to helping people make their lives better. One theme was the development of the
expectancy-value theory of human motivation. A second theme was the development of tests and
operant methods, such as the Thematic Apperception Test, Behavioral Event Interview, and the Test
of Thematic Analysis. A third theme was the development of job-competency studies, and a fourth
theme was the application of this research to helping people and their social systems, whether that
was through motivation and competency development, organization and community development,
and changing behavior to battle stress and addiction. David McClelland believed in applying the
results from the research and testing to see if they helped people. He was instrumental in starting 14
research and consulting companies, the largest was McBer and Company (1965-1989), which later
was sold to Yankelovich, Skelly & White in 1983 and even later to Saatchi and Saatchi (1985). The
Hay Group, also purchased by Saatchi and Saatchi, and McBer bought themselves back from S&S
in 1989 and operated as the worldwide consultancy called The Hay Group until they were acquired
by Korn Ferry in 2016.

Need theory, also known as Three Needs Theory,[1] proposed by psychologist David McClelland, is
a motivational model that attempts to explain how the needs for achievement, power, and affiliation
affect the actions of people from a managerial context. This model was developed in the 1960s soon
after Maslow's hierarchy of needs in the 1940s. McClelland stated that we all have these three types
of motivation regardless of age, sex, race, or culture. The type of motivation by which each individual
is driven derives from their life experiences and the opinions of their culture. This need theory is
often taught in classes concerning management or organizational behaviour.

Contents
[hide]

1Need for achievement

2Need for affiliation
 3Need for power
4Effect on management
5References

Need for achievement[edit]

Main article: Need for achievement

They prefer working on tasks of moderate difficulty, prefer work in which the results are based on
their effort rather than on anything else, and prefer to receive feedback on their work. Achievement
based individuals tend to avoid both high-risk and low-risk situations. Low-risk situations are seen as
too easy to be valid and the high-risk situations are seen as based more on the luck of the situation
rather than the achievements that individual made.[2] This personality type is motivated by
accomplishment in the workplace and an employment hierarchy with promotional positions.[3]

Need for affiliation[edit]

Main article: Need for affiliation

People who have a need for affiliation prefer to spend time creating and maintaining social
relationships, enjoy being a part of groups, and have a desire to feel loved and accepted. People in
this group tend to adhere to the norms of the culture in that workplace and typically do not change
the norms of the workplace for fear of rejection. This person favors collaboration over competition
and does not like situations with high risk or high uncertainty. People who have a need
for affiliation work well in areas based on social interactions like customer service or client interaction
positions.[2]

Need for power[edit]

Main article: Need for power

People in this category enjoy work and place a high value on discipline. The downside to this
motivational type is that group goals can become zero-sum in nature, that is, for one person to win,
another must lose. However, this can be positively applied to help accomplish group goals and to
help others in the group feel competent about their work. A person motivated by this need enjoys
status recognition, winning arguments, competition, and influencing others. With this motivational
type comes a need for personal prestige, and a constant need for a better personal status.[3]

Effect on management[edit]
McClelland's research showed that 86% of the population are dominant in one, two, or all three of
these three types of motivation. His subsequent research, published in the 1977 Harvard Business
Review article "Power is the Great Motivator", found that those in top management positions had a
high need for power and a low need for affiliation. His research also found that people with a high
need for achievement will do best when given projects where they can succeed through their own
efforts. Although individuals with a strong need for achievement can be successful lower-level
managers, they are usually weeded out before reaching top management positions. He also found
that people with a high need for affiliation may not be good top managers but are generally happier,
and can be highly successful in non-leadership roles such as the foreign service.[4][5]
Douglas Murray McGregor (1906 1 October 1964)
was a management professor at the MIT Sloan School
of Management and president of Antioch College from
1948 to 1954.[1]He also taught at the Indian Institute of
Management Calcutta. His 1960 book The Human Side
of Enterprise had a profound influence on education
practices.
Douglas McGregor is a contemporary of Abraham
Maslow. Likewise, he also contributed much to the
development of the management and motivational
theory. He is best known for his Theory X and Theory Y
as presented in his book The Human Side of Enterprise
(1960), which proposed that managers individual
assumptions about human nature and behaviour
determined how individual manages their employees.[2]
Theory X and Theory Y are theories of human
motivation and management. They were created and
developed by Douglas McGregor at the MIT Sloan
School of Management, initially presented at a management conference in 1957,[1] and developed
during the 1960s. These two theories describe contrasting models of workforce motivation applied
by managers in human resource management, organizational behavior, organizational
communication and organizational development. According to the models, the two opposing sets of
general assumptions of how workers are motivated form the basis for two different managerial
styles. Theory X stresses the importance of strict supervision, external rewards, and penalties: in
contrast, Theory Y highlights the motivating role of job satisfaction and encourages workers to
approach tasks

Theory X is based on pessimistic assumptions regarding the typical worker. This management style
supposes that the typical employee has little to no ambition, shies away from work or
responsibilities, and is individual-goal oriented. Generally, Theory X style managers believe their
employees are less intelligent than the managers are, lazier than the managers are, or work solely
for a sustainable income. Due to these assumptions, Theory X concludes the typical workforce
operates more efficiently under a "hands-on" approach to management.[2] The 'Theory X' manager
believes that all actions should be traced and the responsible individual given a direct reward or a
reprimand according to the action's outcomes. This managerial style is more effective when used in
a workforce that is not intrinsically motivated to perform. It is usually exercised in professions where
promotion is infrequent, unlikely or even impossible and where workers perform repetitive tasks.[3]
According to McGregor, there are two opposing approaches to implementing Theory X: the "hard"
approach and the "soft" approach. The hard approach depends on close supervision, intimidation,
and imminent punishment. This approach can potentially yield a hostile, minimally cooperative work
force that could harbor resentment towards management. The soft approach is the literal opposite,
characterized by leniency and less strictly regulated rules in hopes for high workplace morale and
therefore cooperative employees. Implementing a system that is too soft could result in an entitled,
low-output workforce. McGregor believes both ends of the spectrum are too extreme for efficient real
world application.[4] Instead, McGregor feels that somewhere between the two approaches would be
the most effective implementation of Theory X.
Overall, Theory X generally proves to be most effective in terms of consistency of work. Although
managers and supervisors are in almost complete control of the work, this produces a more
systematic and uniform product or work flow. Theory X can also benefit a work place that is more
suited towards an assembly line or manual labor type of occupation.[5]Utilizing theory X in these
types of work conditions allow the employee to specialize in a particular area allowing the company
to mass produce more quantity and higher quality work, which in turns brings more profit.

In contrast, Theory Y managers act on the belief that people in the work force are internally
motivated, enjoy their labor in the company, and work to better themselves without a direct "reward"
in return.[6] Theory Y employees are considered to be one of the most valuable assets to the
company, and truly drive the internal workings of the corporation.[7] Also, Theory Y states that these
particular employees thrive on challenges that they may face, and relish on bettering their personal
performance.[3] Workers additionally tend to take full responsibility for their work and do not require
the need of constant supervision in order to create a quality and higher standard product.[5]
Because of the drastic change compared to the "Theory X" way of directing, "Theory Y" managers
gravitate towards relating to the worker on a more personal level, as opposed to a more conductive
and teaching based relationship.[6] As a result, Theory Y followers may have a better relationship with
their higher ups, as well as potentially having a healthier atmosphere in the work place. Managers in
this theory tend to use a democratic type of leadership because workers will be working in a way that
does not need supervision the most.[5]
In comparison to "Theory X", "Theory Y" adds more of a democratic and free feel in the work force
allowing the employee to design, construct, and publish their works in a timely manner in co-
ordinance to their work load and projects. Aydin reports a study undertaken to analyze the different
management styles of professors at a Turkish University. This study found that the highly supervised
Theory X management affected the research performance of the academics negatively. In general,
the study suggests that the professional setting and research based work that professors perform is
best managed using a Theory Y management style.[6]
While "Theory Y" may seem optimal, it does have some drawbacks. While there is a more personal
and individualistic feel, this does leave room for error in terms of consistency and uniformity.[4] The
workplace lacks unvarying rules and practices, and this can result in an inconsistent product which
could potentially be detrimental to the quality standards and strict guidelines of a given company.[2]
For McGregor, Theory X and Y are not opposite ends of the same continuum, but rather two
different continua in themselves. In order to achieve the most efficient production, a combination of
both theories may be appropriate. This approach is derived from Fred Fiedler's research over
various leadership styles known as the contingency theory. This theory is based on 3
dimensions: Leader-member relationship, degree of task structure, and the leader's position power.[8]

Evaluate the workforce[edit]

According to the contingency theory, it is likely that a manager will need to adopt both approaches
depending on the evolving circumstances, and internal and external locus of control throughout their
workforce.[7]
People with a strong internal locus of control (personality) believe outcomes in their life develop
primarily from their own actions and abilities, as a result they are task-oriented and spend little time
building relationships among peers (Theory X). People with strong external locus of control believe
outside factors are the primary influence on the outcomes in their life, therefore, they
are relationship-oriented and focus on building relationships among peers (Theory Y).[9]
For example, when completing a project, an internal locus of control manager may use their rank as
a factor to lead a workforce and focus on the group's ability and skills to achieve the best outcome,
however, an external locus of control manager will use their relationship formed with a workforce to
lead the group and focus on the workforce's morale and self-satisfaction to achieve the best result.