The Story of Three Monks

From the time immemorial, unraveling the complexities of human psychology has been a challenge. One classic example of such intriguing phenomena is the ancient Chinese proverbial story of three monks. The story underlines a thought provoking fact that "One monk will shoulder two buckets of water, two monks will share the load, but add a third and no one will want to fetch water." Let us first hear the story and then we will try to find out the underlying reasons that lead to such human behaviors.

The Protagonists

The Story

A young monk Amar lives a simple life in a temple on top of a hill. He has one daily task of hauling two buckets of water up the hill. One day another monk Akbar comes to the temple. Amar tries to share the job with Akbar, but the carry pole is only long enough for one bucket. The arrival of a third monk Anthony prompts everyone to expect that someone else will take on the chore. Consequently, no one fetches water though everybody is thirsty. At night, a rat comes to scrounge and then knocks the candleholder, leading to a devastating fire in the temple. The three monks finally unite together and make a concerted effort to put out the fire. Since then they understand the old saying "unity is strength" and begin to live a harmonious life. The temple never lacks water again.


Delving Deeper

Scenario I: One Monk – Amar

Amar carries two buckets of water alone with the help of a wooden pole.

Outcome: He gets tired and falls asleep while praying at night.

Scenario II: Two Monks – Amar and Akbar

Amar and Akbar carry one bucket of water together. Amount of water hauled is halved so does the effort required in hauling.

Innovation: They mark the midpoint of the wooden pole with the help of a scale. This makes them share the load equally thus fosters a harmonious relation between the two.

Outcome: They don't get much tired. They pray for a considerable time before they fall asleep.

Scenario III: Three Monks – Amar, Akbar and Anthony

When a fire breaks out at the temple, the three of them unite and start working together. They first divide the work suited to their individual capabilities. Amar, being young and agile draws buckets of water over the pulley. Akbar, being tall and fast carries the two buckets of water to the temple. Anthony, the fattest and the slowest monk pours the water on the blazing fire.

Innovation: They employ a pulley which reduces the effort in pulling up water to a greater extent and makes the process fast.

Outcome: Fire is extinguished with the least effort. A permanent solution for water replenishment in temple is found.


A tabular form will help in the comparative study of the three scenarios:

Dimension	Scenario I	Scenario II	Scenario III
Number of people	1	2	3
Effort required	High	Low	Negligible
Buckets of water hauled	2	1	Many
Productivity	Low	High	Very high
Communication	Nil	Direct - Personal	Indirect  & Instantaneous
Task role	Independent	Dependent	Highly Dependent
Work changes	-	Midpoint Identification	Innovative work practices
Work life	Difficult	Easy	Fun
Philosophy of Work life	Work for Death. Protestant Work Ethic	Work to Live	Work - Fun - Moksha
Human nature	Theory X	Theory Y	Theory Z

My Learnings

The story upheld the philosophy of “United we stand, divided we fall”. After the arrival of Akbar, Amar and Akbar readily started to share the load as it was the best choice they had to haul water with minimum effort. But as soon as Anthony came into picture, their attitude changed completely. Reason being the work required two people and no one wanted to volunteer. Each of them wanted the other two to do the work so that he can rest at the temple. The outcome was that the stored water at temple dwindled soon and the three monks were left with no choice but to stay thirsty. The status quo continued until a fire broke up at the temple. Realizing the need for prompt coherent action, the three monks decided to cooperate and started working together in order to extinguish the fire.

We see how human behavior changes in different situations. People want to minimize their effort when they are bound to work. They do not want to put effort at all when they have a choice to pass the buck to someone else. We also learned the relation between effort and productivity, role of team work in reaching desired goals and importance of innovation in achieving excellence. The three monks story is not just a light-hearted tale for children but it has great learning value even for the grown ups. It gives us an insight into the enigmatic human behaviour and throws light on some very important management concepts.

Kiran
Roll No. 76
IM 19, Section B

Theory X and Theory Y

“Oh God, I am fed up of my subordinates… They are too lazy… They do not work until I force them to do… They are irresponsible and negligent towards their work… They don’t even feel a tinge of guilt after the review meetings…”

Have you ever heard these lines at your workplace? Yes, definitely. In fact, we hear them almost everyday from some person or the other. Let us have another excerpt from a conversation…

“Well done… What a great job you have done… You have worked really hard, why don’t you take a break and go on a vacation… After this fine piece of work you have delivered, I think your promotion is around the corner…”

What about these lines? They are familiar too but we get to hear them less frequently than the previous ones.

Both the above examples have two dimensions: the manager and the employee. Excepting a few, employees below decision-making levels are, by and large, followers who take instructions from the manager and who abstain from taking initiatives. This is a proven fact around the globe and is also a generally accepted human trait. Then where these paradoxical views about employees emerge from? The answer is ‘Attitude of the manager’. It depends on how the manager perceives his employees and their behavior. The culprit lies in the brains of the manager. This is where the concept of Theory X and Theoy Y takes its birth.

What Is It?

Theory X and Theory Y are theories of human motivation created and developed by Douglas McGregor at the MIT Sloan School of Management in the 1960s that have been used in human resource management, organizational behavior, organizational communication and organizational development. They describe two contrasting models of workforce motivation.

Douglas Murray McGregor was a Management professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management and president of Antioch College from 1948 to 1954. He also taught at the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta.

Theory X: An Authoritarian Management

In this theory, management assumes that employees are inherently lazy, they dislike work and avoid working if they can. As a result of this, management believes that workers need to be closely supervised and comprehensive systems of controls developed. A hierarchical structure is needed with narrow span of control at each and every level. According to this theory, employees will show little ambition without an enticing incentive program and will avoid responsibility whenever they can. According to Michael J. Papa, if the organizational goals are to be met, theory X managers rely heavily on threat and coercion to gain their employees' compliance. 

Demerits of Theory X

Beliefs of this theory lead to mistrust, highly restrictive supervision, and a punitive atmosphere. The Theory X manager tends to believe that everything must end in blaming someone. He or she thinks all prospective employees are only out for themselves. Usually these managers feel the sole purpose of the employee's interest in the job is money. They will blame the person first in most situations, without questioning whether it may be the system, policy, or lack of training that deserves the blame. A Theory X manager believes that his or her employees do not really want to work, that they would rather avoid responsibility and that it is the manager's job to structure the work and energize the employee.One major flaw of this management style is it is much more likely to cause dis-economies of scale in large businesses.

Theory Y: A Participative Management

In this theory, management assumes that employees are ambitious and self-motivated and exercise self-control. It is believed that employees enjoy their mental and physical work duties. According to them work is as natural as play. They possess the ability for creative problem solving, but their talents are underused in most organizations. Given the proper conditions, theory Y managers believe that employees will learn to seek out and accept responsibility and to exercise self-control and self-direction in accomplishing objectives to which they are committed. A Theory Y manager believes that, given the right conditions, most people will want to do well at work. They believe that the satisfaction of doing a good job is a strong motivation.

Merits of Theory Y

Many people interpret Theory Y as a positive set of beliefs about workers. Managers should be open to a more positive view of workers and the possibilities that this creates. He thinks that Theory Y managers are more likely than Theory X managers to develop the climate of trust with employees that is required for human resource development. It's human resource development that is a crucial aspect of any organization. This would include managers communicating openly with subordinates, minimizing the difference between superior-subordinate relationships, creating a comfortable environment in which subordinates can develop and use their abilities. This climate would include the sharing of decision making so that subordinates have say in decisions that influence them.

Choice Before Us

We, the students of the great science of management, are the future of India Inc. Every lesson we learn today is going to be a pillar of decision making frameworks we are going to handle tomorrow. Our attitudes, notions and capabilities are going to decide the fate of business opportunities we would endeavor to tap either as entrepreneurs or organizational managers. Therefore, it becomes imperative that we start building now rational perceptions about existing theories and associated choices. Theory X and Theory Y is one of them.   

We have already discussed in detail both these theories and are now in a position to communicate our views about them. Theory Y is undoubtedly the need of the hour when the importance of human resources in the success of a business is gaining ground, ahead of capital and material resources. Theory Y managers are the powerhouses who fuel the growth of an organization by optimizing the use of its most valuable resources i.e. its workforce and thus play a vital role in organizational excellence. So which type of manager you would like to be? A nagging Theory X manager or an amiable Theory Y manager? The choice is yours!

Kiran

Roll No. 76

IM 19, section B