Mary Parker Follett and Chester Barnard bridged two eras. Both operated on a philosophical plane. Both sought to create a spirit of cooperation and collaboration. Both were concerned with the individual in group effort. Both examined concepts of authority and moral leadership.
THE EVOLUTION OF MANAGEMENT THOUGHT, 6TH EDITION Electronic Resource by: Regina Greenwood and Julia Teahen Chapter Fourteen The Search for Organizational Integration Search for Organizational Integration Mary Parker Follett Chester Barnard http://www.bigfoto.com/themes/railw ay Mary Parker Follett 1868-1933 The Political Philosopher Mary Parker Follett was chronologically closer to the scientific management movement, but intellectually a forerunner of understanding the group Mary Parker Follett Basis of her philosophy Johann Fichte (17621814): each ego is a social one, bound to a wider world of egos From this Follett concluded that individuals can discover their true nature and gain freedom through the group Georg Hegel (17701831) She espoused the Gestalt notion that a person’s “true self is the group self.” Follett and Conflict Resolution Submission if in a conflict situation With struggle, someone wins and someone loses Compromise was a solution she did not like, especially as it appeared in labormanagement collective bargaining Follett and Conflict Resolution Integration was the best solution In integration, parties find a solution that did not involve compromise, submission, or struggle Integration involves finding a creative solution so that both parties achieve their goal Follett and Authority & Power Rethinking authority and power is essential to integration She advocated power-with and co-action to replace power-over and coercion Depersonalize orders and follow the law of the situation Authority is based on knowledge and not the will of one person “Power with” required “circular response,” disclosure, and open discussion Follett believed in employee representation plans because of cooperation and shared power Follett and Leadership Follett’s notion of the role of the leader/manager was an extension of her ideas of integration and authority Control could not be achieved without integrated efforts, that is, when interests were not reconciled Control was based on facts, not people; and “correlated,” not imposed from above Coordination facilitated control Leadership, then, involved defining the purpose of the organization and skills in coordinating and evoking the law of the Follett and Leadership These leadership tasks were not based on the power of the leader, but a reciprocating influence of leaders and followers within the context of the situation Chester Barnard-The Erudite Executive Chester Barnard influenced human relations thinking and continues to influence our understanding of organizations and management Barnard and Cooperative Systems Formal organizations as the kind of cooperation that is “conscious, deliberate, and purposeful.” Formal organizations helped: Maintain an internal equilibrium Examine external forces to see if adjustments must be made An “open systems” viewpoint Analyze the functions of executives Organizations needed to be cooperative systems because people had choices and they could choose to contribute or not to contribute The executive functions could modify actions and motives through influence and Barnard and Cooperative Systems Effective-Efficient: individual and organizational goals might differ and Barnard expressed this as: Effective – meet the goals of the organization Efficient – meet individual motives and only the individual could determine whether or not this was occurring The only measure for efficiency according to Barnard was the organization’s capacity to survive That is, to provide adequate inducements to satisfy individual motives to secure their Barnard and Formal Organizations Chester Barnard defined a formal organization as “a system of consciously coordinated activities or forces of two more more persons.” The late Lyndall Urwick felt this definition was too broad, and quipped: “under Barnard’s definition, a boy kissing a girl is also a formal organization.” Elements of a Formal Organization Willingness to cooperate, and this was to be facilitated by the offerings of objective and subjective incentives This notion meant: “self-abnegation” “surrender of control of personal conduct” “depersonalization of personal actions” Purpose or objectives of the organization Although individual and organizational motives were different, individuals could achieve their motives by working toward organizational Elements of a Formal Organization Communication – Barnard developed three principles: Channels should be definitely known Objective authority requires a definite channel of communication (formal authority) Keep the line of communication short and direct Barnard’s Informal Organization Three universal elements of an informal organization: Communication Maintenance of cohesiveness Maintenance of feelings of personal integrity and self-respect Barnard’s Acceptance Theory of Authority From The Functions of the Executive by Chester I Barnard Harvard University Press, 1938 Barnard’s definition of authority included the notion that a communication must be “accepted” by the organizational member Authority did not reside in persons of authority, but in a Barnard’s Acceptance Theory of Authority Individuals would consent to authority if four conditions were met: From The Functions of the Executive by Chester I Barnard Harvard University Press, 1938 They understood the communicated order They believed the order was consistent with the organization’s purpose The order was “compatible with their personal interests as a whole.” They were physically and mentally able to comply with the order Barnard’s “Zone of Indifference” “Zone of Indifference” – Barnard’s phrase for explaining how an organization could function since members could accept or reject authority on almost any occasion Individuals could be very “indifferent,” leading to a wider possibility of acceptance, or less indifferent This depended on the individuals weighing the “inducements,” burdens, and sacrifices “Authority of Leadership” This was Barnard’s way of expressing the “potentiality of assent” created when people had respect for and confidence in their leaders Authority still existed in the organizational hierarchy, in formal authority, but authority in the final analysis still rested with the organizational member Chester I Barnard Functions of the Executive, 1938 and 1968 Barnard – Functions of the Executive The functions of the executive: Provide a system of communication Promote securing personal efforts Formulate and define organizational purpose These reflect to a large extent the elements of organization Barnard had a top management view of integrating the organization as a whole, internally and the external environment Moral Leadership Moral leadership for Barnard involved executives having a high moral code, demonstrating it as an example, and seeking to create this morality in others How would Barnard feel about the executives at Enron? Summary Mary Parker Follett and Chester Barnard bridged two eras Follett introduced a group view with Gestalt psychology Barnard focused on the formal and informal organization Both operated on a philosophical plane Both sought to create a spirit of cooperation and collaboration Both were concerned with the individual in group effort Both examined concepts of authority and moral leadership .. .Chapter Fourteen The Search for Organizational Integration Search for Organizational Integration Mary Parker Follett Chester Barnard http://www.bigfoto.com/themes/railw ay Mary... involved defining the purpose of the organization and skills in coordinating and evoking the law of the Follett and Leadership These leadership tasks were not based on the power of the leader, but... securing personal efforts Formulate and define organizational purpose These reflect to a large extent the elements of organization Barnard had a top management view of integrating the organization as