A Critical Analysis of Mary Parker Folletts Statement - Coursework Example

MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT By Student’s name Course code and name Professor’s name University name City, State Date of submission Introduction According to Mary Parker Follett ‘knowledge and expertise, rather than managers’ formal authority deriving from their position in the hierarchy, should decide who would lead at any particular moment’ (Waddell, Jones & George 2013, p. 44). This statement carries a lot of weight within the evolution of organisation management in relation to the existing theories. The management theories date back to Smithsonian era which was characterised by division of labour in its main agenda towards the achievement of organisational objectives. This did not however stop there as there are other theorists with different but related views on how organisational management should be handled. The long documented history carries with it a lot of fads which have been since abandoned such as centralised management and mechanisation of human beings, stereotypes which have also been abandoned for better practices and also theories which have largely been adopted for the success of various organisations across the globe. This article depicts some of the important developments that management has undergone with Mary Follett’s opening statement serving as the centre focus. It eventually opens up to the argument that while some theories have been adopted in accordance to the statement above, stereotypes and fads have been indicatively ditched for amended theories in order to give a clear way for contemporary management. A Critical Analysis of Mary Parker Follett’s Statement Mary Parker Follett’s proposal that expertise and knowledge rather than the formal authority bestowed to managers in regard to the hierarchical setup has elicited mixed reactions from various management scholars. In a nutshell her statement regarding management merely meant that the head of a given organisational task should not be drawn from the management hierarchy but rather from the knowledgeable geeks who possess expertise up or down the organisational hierarchy. The fact that knowledge and expertise goes hand in hand with the right management practices in order to realise organisational objectives could see workers being empowered to lead teams. This proposal did not however thwart the importance of having managers in various departments of an organisation. Therefore she suggested that for management to be successful, managers ought to act as coaches and facilitators contrary to the existing perception that they take up monitoring and supervision as their main tasks (Jones & George, 2004). The belief that power is fluid and should flow to personalities that have particular expertise and knowledge to lead at any particular moment greatly contrast from the thoughts of Henry Fayol whose specifics pointed out that a formal line rather known as vertical command chain is the most vital essence of management. Follett suggested a very important management theory based on horizontal view which ended up as a major behavioural approach at a time when management had taken a radical turn based on the existing theories. This was in total contrast of Fredrick Taylor’s requirements for specialisation as an approach for optimised production. In order to understand Taylor better, the highlighted efficient with regard to division of labour was to be coupled together with scientific approaches that required some sort of systematic equilibrium (Zuffo, 2011). According to Zuffo (2011), the development of humankind in terms of management, emanated from the Adam Smith’s idea of human division which dates back to 1776. This determined the level of scientific management that exists in our manufacturing organisations today. The progressive era that is characterised by the likes of Taylor sought to add a human value in the way that management was carried out in the contemporary society. The centrality of power within organisations has however been overcomes with personal and ideological extents to which the human race has evolved to overcome. This type of management has been marred by oppression symbolism as bestowing power without the necessary knowledge requirements is laced with arrogance, dogmatism and irascibility in parties that are seen leading certain tasks. This is also attributed to the nature of the contributing personality as such characters as the ones mentioned are closely associated with Taylor who was a close ally to the political class. In a way organisation that embraced his management ideologies came to realise that it was ambiguous and complex in some ways as it provided a passive activism towards achievement of organisational goals from employees by virtue of oppression (Zuffo, 2011). Taylorism is laced with human factor of management to come up with an all-inclusive societal setup that seeks to christen central management in contrary to Mary Parker Follett’s views. According to Taylor, the management should be in place to coordinate all components of production in order to achieve production equilibrium. Taylor dwelled on the ‘bricolage’ ideology in a bid to come up with a management framework that was characterised by cultural turning point due to his ties with the bourgeois. Due to his country of origin, his management methodology was aimed at identifying all manner of ways through with capitalism, modernism and technology would be quickly be transitioned into. As such the centralised mode of management that he came up with was faced by criticism of all kinds from scholars who embraced socialism likening it to the foregone ‘living labour’. Taylorism was further perceived as crude although it transformed the modern technology to identify workers as one of the parameters of success in organisations operating during the progressive era onwards. Therefore, Taylor’s works may not have been refined but they provided a great deal of foundational works on which the successors would base their arguments on (Zuffo, 2011). It is further indicated by Derksen (2014) in his study ‘Turning Men into Machines? Scientific Management, Industrial Psychology, and the “Human Factor”’ that Taylor was not inclined towards progressive humanisation. Interestingly he was more concerned with the realignment of human factors with the way they interact with mechanical factors in order to achieve considerable success through a seasoned central management. The conceptualisation of human factor by the likes of Taylor was only a tip of the ice berg because many stones were yet to be turned when it came to contemporary development as broken down in studies carried out by Mary Parker Follett and those who came thereafter. Contemporary management was set in to resolve the dictatorial regime set by Taylor and his predecessors who had seemingly favoured the foremen over workers in an industrial setup thereby yielding to stints of conflicts or unrests. On the other side, Follett’s main ideologies were to forge a clear understanding between the central management and the workers in order to get rid of such scenarios which erupted from time to time. Other than the wage setting scheme presented in papers done by Taylor, he also contributed towards the growth of planning, execution and timing of tasks in conjunction with the existing standards organisations in order to clear the way for a productive environment for the upcoming management authorities. In other words, the focus on human factor in management had henceforth commenced through a structured manner that would be used to gauge employee performance in later years. The nature of machines that are largely contrasted with in Taylor’s understanding also gave initiative and vitality towards the human understanding course in order to engage in more advanced management theories. The consequences of Taylor’s way of thinking is that of stripping workers of their humanity and reducing them into mere machines that would rather be thought of in terms of freedom, intelligence, initiative, individuality and soul. These among other critical thoughts were to be addressed by Taylor’s successors who are thought to have improvised smarter approaches of human factor in scientific management (Derksen, 2014). The birth of contemporary management is clearly demarcated by the birth of Henri Fayol’s contribution. Fayol clearly identified the management functions, elements of management and the successful attributes of a manager. This was also considered as the first theory of modern management that was to pave way for the modern scholars like Follett. The fact that Fayol initiated some of the most important aspects of management still remain to be recounted upon by the management fraternity. Fayol’s experience as a mine engineer plunged him into initiating the collective management technique which was majorly termed as ‘hero-manager’ approach to management. Most of Follett’s leanings are compared to Fayolism with the idea of knowledge being brought forth in their theories. It is however clear that the knowledge that is being talked about by Fayol is related with management as opposed to task which is the main focus in Follett’s theory. Fayolism states that not only is distribution of duties useful to the organisation but also the ‘knowledge of how to adapt the organic whole to requirements’. The likening of organisations to human body cell is a vivid indication that there was need for specialisation and also execution of mandates that are well personalities are well versed to. Absolute management was therefore out of question with a suggestion that all management functions be flexible to change with a capability for adaptation. Management functions should also be handed to personalities with capabilities and clear intentions to forge on positivity to tackle current problems (Parker & Ritson, 2005). Employee involvement is reflected in Fayol’s theory with the unity of direction being an issue of concern. This further calls for proper planning within organisational setup since it is important for objectivity to echo within a group for success to be achieved. This fact was similarly theorised by Taylor whose centralised type of management called for unity of command. This provided a scenario whereby achieving unity of direction not only denies employees a chance to be innovative but also made them appear like if they were slaves of the management. Despite the reiteration that the goal setting capability, decision making and planning nature of employees would not be affected by a centralised chain of command, this diversely affects initiative taking nature of humans within organisations. It could therefore be effectively said that Follett’s theory was strongly based on Fayol’s inability to connect between the above named personal attributes with management and eventual outcomes. It is however remarkable that he developed a realization that the zeal and energy is augmented by the nature of initiative taking by employees. While initiative taking is important to the growth of an organisation, personal integrity of employees was deemed as of importance and the ability to be inspired within the limitations set by the management authority. He also pointed out clearly that a manager who allows employees to achieve beyond their limitations would be infinitely superior to the one who does not. Unlike Follett, he did not allow for managerial tasks to be undertaken by the employees as he believed in authority from one source (Rahman, 2012). The sentiments echoed in Brunsson (2008) with regard to earlier management theories is that, they are only meant for adaptation within the contemporary organisations whenever cases for execution arise. While some of the theories mentioned herein may be seen as draconian, they lay a foundation for the modern theorists to base their arguments on. It is very clear that Follett’s arguments are based on Fayolism whose argument of a successful management is the one with a balanced scorecard with other qualities such as culturally balanced implicit organisations. While abundance of resources in existence indicate the importance of the existing theories, it could be summarised that Follett’s theory differs in part but not fully in comparison to her predecessors. Parker and Ritson (2005) readily acknowledge this line of thought with their findings citing that not only were the two theorists extraordinary in capacity to identify issues of organisational management concern but also very specific in their contemporary advancement. Unlike Fayol who is a critical Taylorist, Follett emerges as a soul thinker whose work may be reassessed for further studies as she provides a case for advancement of contemporary management which seeks liberation and handing over the management mantle to the knowledgeable and skilled at any given moment or in accordance to the task at hand. Conclusion The ideological perception of Mary Follett’s statement gives a clear background for this critique. The fact that management has revolutionised to become what it is now (task oriented based on knowledge and skills) is a huge leap considering that the earlier theorists were conservative based on their beliefs and backgrounds. Follett’s theory differs deeply from Taylor’s which may be considered to some extent as having a lot of fads as compared to Fayol’s. Fayol is clearly behind the revolution that led to Follett’s argument although this may also be deemed as an amendment for adaptation purposes when keenly looked into. List of References Brunsson, K. H., 2008. Some Effects of Fayolism. International Studies of Management and Organisation, 38(1), pp. 30-47. Derksen, M., 2014. Turning men into machines? Scientific management, industrial psychology & the 'human factor'. Journal of the History of the Behavioural Sciences, 50(2), pp. 148-165. Jones, G. R. & George, M. J., 2004. Contemporary Management. Edition 4 ed. New York: McGraw-Hill School Education Group. Parker, L. D. & Ritson, P., 2005. Fads, stereotypes and management gurus: Fayol and Follett today. Management Decision, 43(10), pp. 335 - 1357. Parker, L. D. & Ritson, P. A., 2005. Revisiting Fayol: Anticipating Contemporary Management. British Journal of Management, Volume 16, pp. 175-194. Rahman, H., 2012. Henry Fayol and Frederick Winslow Taylor’s Contribution to Management Thought: An Overview. ABC Journal of Advanced Research, 1(2), pp. 32-41. Waddell, D., Devine, J., Jones, G. & George, J., 2013. Contemporary Management. 2nd Ed. ed. Sydney: McGraw-Hill Australia. Zuffo, R. G., 2011. The “human factor” in Scientific Management: Between Ethics, Scientific Psychology and Common Sense. Journal of Business and Management, 17(1), pp. 23-42. Read More