This week in my Human Resources Management course, we are discussing four management theories. We’re talking about how the various supervisory styles fall into a chart from one of our textbooks by Mainiero. The chart divvies up employee behavior based on whether they perform above or below expectations and whether they get along well with others or not. (The so-called ideal subordinate, then, would be someone who gets along well with others and performs above expectations.)

Here are some of my thoughts on the four theories:

My first job out of college was with a Theory F manager, and it was largely the reason for my decision to leave the field of journalism. I worked as a reporter for a small-town newspaper. After being called out during a staff meeting and verbally abused for submitting photos that he deemed to be sub-par for the upcoming edition, I knew that nothing I did would ever be good enough. I believe that fear is a motivating factor, but it is appropriate in truly do-or-die situations, such as Basic Training for the military. In an office setting, Theory F management is dehumanizing and belittling. Because of that manager, I made a commitment to myself—and I have honored it, all these years since—to never criticize an employee publicly.

I think that Theory X goes hand-in-hand with Theory F, in that being a micro-manager is a mere step or two away from becoming a fear-mongering overlord. Assertive personalities under this type of management could fall into the “talented but abrasive” quadrant of Mainiero’s chart, but they will likely butt heads with the boss. Workers who perform beneath expectations may coddle the boss and tread water in the “charming but unreliable” quadrant, but others will ignore the abrasive boss and fall into the “plateaued but indifferent” quadrant or – like me, in the above example – simply leave the job. I can only imagine that the “ideal subordinate” employee to a Theory F manager would be a Yes Man.

On a related note, I see how Theories Y and Z are closely related. An employee who is properly trained, given reasonable autonomy to do their job (Theory Y) and is treated as part of the “family” because they grasp the mission and vision of the organization (Theory Z) is well suited for productive business. A combination of Theory Y and Z seems to lend itself to a work environment where people build careers, not just hold down jobs.