The paradox of studying the past is that it illuminates the present, and perhaps also the future. Historia magistra vitae est (history is life’s teacher) — provided we pay attention. Consider the light shed on the contemporary management of organisations by the ideas of two US scholars almost a century ago.

The first is Mary Parker Follett (1868–1933). A thoughtful, concerned observer of conflict in organisations, Follett drew on the emerging fields of Gestalt psychology and scientific management to propose that even though efficiency is key to productivity, an understanding of the functioning of the human group, and of the organisational significance of leadership and authority, is essential to the resolution of conflict and the proper functioning of management. It was radical then and, for some, may still be. For example, Follett saw that reduction in conflict could come from the integration of interests, and leadership could be based on reciprocal influence of leader and follower in the context of the situation. Any situation would spin out of control when interests were not reconciled. Thus, the best leaders ask people not to serve them, but to join in serving a common purpose. Management then becomes a matter of communicating organisational purpose, coordinating group and individual functions and creating a motive of service to the community. A century ago this was a challenging perspective (and still is for some people today). The observation that she was far ahead of her time is an understatement.

When in 1995, Harvard University Press released Mary Parker Follett — Prophet of Management: A Celebration of Writings from the 1920s, it clearly reminded us of the wisdom to be gained from history. Although a management treatise written in a different age, Follett’s ideas are rich with foresight. She advocated cooperation and better horizontal relationships in organisations, taught respect for the experience and knowledge of workers, warned against the dangers of too much hierarchy, and called for visionary leadership. Today we pursue similar themes while using terms like ‘empowerment’, ‘involvement’, ‘flexibility’ and ‘self‐management’. Rather than naively believing that we are reinventing management practice, it may be better to recognise the historical roots of many modern ideas and admit that we are still trying to perfect them.

A second management theorist from the past is Chester Barnard (1886–1961). A successful and erudite company executive, he scandalised traditional thinking about authority in organisations by insisting that individuals needed to assent to authority (rather than just to work in a command and control setting). This, Barnard said, they would do only if four conditions were met: they understood the instruction; they saw it as consistent with the purpose of the organisation; they believed the instruction was compatible with their personal interests; and they believed they were mentally and physically able to comply. Thus, if the order ran counter to an individual’s moral code, it was unlikely to be obeyed. The benefits of remaining employed would be weighed by the employee against his or her personal value system. This put a new slant on the nature of authority, which therefore depended on the confidence and respect in which it was held by those subject to it. One can only observe that this is a lesson still being learned by current political leaders worldwide.

Barnard extended this by proposing executive functions as being those providing a system of formal and informal communication, promoting essential personal efforts through incentives and rewards, and formulating and defining purpose. Barnard saw moral leadership as the creative force that provided the basis for an organisation to endure. This included taking personal responsibility for decisions affecting all stakeholders internal and external, and the community. As an early proponent of the ‘boundaryless organisation’, Barnard’s concept included employees, suppliers and customers. By doing so, he could recommend establishing an equilibrium between organisation and environment — now a basic tenet in our thoughts on sustainable organisations. Interestingly, he also wrote of decision‐making as relying on logical as well as ‘non‐logical’ processes. In this, he prefaced the awareness of the importance of intuition and tacit knowledge in the way managers analysed problems.

Chester Barnard was influential in the work of Australian management theorist Elton Mayo, who later became famous for the Hawthorne studies and the notion of organisational equilibrium, and Herbert Simon, with his ideas on organisational decision‐making. Both Follett and Barnard sought to redefine concepts of authority, cooperation and unity, emphasising the role of the leader in coordinating organisational functions to enhance the wellbeing of people.

Is this history relevant for today’s world? It is. Are we still talking about these ideas? We are. Why? In The History of Management Thought, Professor Daniel Wren traces ‘management’ as far back as 5000 BC, when ancient Sumerians used written records to assist in governmental and commercial activities. Management was important to the construction of the Egyptian pyramids, the rise of the Roman Empire and the commercial success of 14th century Venice. By the time of the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s, social changes helped prompt a great leap forward in the manufacture of basic staples and consumer goods. Industrial change was accelerated by Adam Smith’s ideas of efficient production through specialised tasks and the division of labour. By the beginning of the 20th century, Fredrick Winslow Taylor, Henry Ford and others were making mass production a mainstay of the modern economy. Since then, the science and practices of management have been on a rapid and continuing path of development.

The legacies of this rich history of management must be understood as we confront the challenges of contemporary management. The historical context of management thinking can be understood in the following framework. The classical management approaches focus on developing universal principles for use in various management situations. The behavioural management approaches focus on human needs, the work group and the role of social factors in the workplace. The quantitative management approaches focus on applying mathematical techniques for the management of problem‐solving. The modern approaches focus on the systems view of organisations and contingency thinking in a dynamic and complex environment. Continuing themes build from an emphasis on quality and performance excellence to embrace diversity and global awareness, and describe new leadership roles for a new era of management.

QUESTION

Ask yourself what difference the ideas of Mary Parker Follett and Chester Barnard could make if applied to contemporary thinking about management. For example, what would happen if Follett’s ideas on communication were implemented in an organisation known to you? If they were applied today, what difference would they make to more ‘modern’ concepts like self‐managed teams or adaptive groups?

Transcribed Image Text:

在