Analysis of Mary Parker Folletts Statement - Coursework Example

Business 2 Student Name Course Date Introduction 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). Mary Parker Follett was a consultant on management and human resources whose work focused on improvement of human relationship especially n how people can work together making proper use of authority and power. On human resource management, she believed that authority in an organization should go together with knowledge following whichever line of hierarchy, whether up or below. Just like many other theorists, she believed that power should be given to the person who can in the best way help the organization achieve its goals. She therefore proposed that hierarchy should therefore decide who would be the leader at any given time according to the ability of the person (Fry & Thomas, 1996). The main aim of this essay is to critically analyse Mary Parker Follett’s statement that “knowledge and expertise, rather than managers’ formal authority deriving from their position in the hierarchy, should decide who would lead at any particular moment”. The essay will also discuss the views of other theorists such as Henri Fayol and Fredrick Taylor regarding Mary Parker’s statement. Their views will also be analysed in reference to the statement to see whether they agree or disagree with the statement. Mary Parker Follett’s statement Mary Parker Follett stated that 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). According to this statement, if the workers have the knowledge required for the job, they should be left to lead the work process with the managers taking positions of facilitators rather than supervisors (Gibson, et al, 2013). Follet was advocating for self managed teams as long as they are empowered with the knowledge and expertise required for that particular work. Therefore there should be no formal hierarchy that would decide who to lead. Hierarchy should be determined by availability of persons with knowledge and expertise. According to Follet true leaders are those that empower the teams that they lead rather than exerting their powers over those teams. She was against the ‘command and control’ leadership style and was in support of integrated and democratic form of management. She believed that authority should be based on the function and not on the position. She was for the idea of bottom-up authority rather than top-bottom authority (Fry & Thomas, 1996). Follet believed that human energies need to be set free so that they can release their full potential. According to her, the leaders and their team members are in a flexible relationship where each can guide the other. Therefore the organization should concentrate on training policies and procedures that empower and support employees so that they can also be equipped with knowledge and expertise to be able to lead. Her statement was based on her idea of authority of expertise. In this, she believed that a manager should not expect the team members to always obey his orders and at the same time take responsibility of their jobs. She therefore argues that when the manager delegates the responsibility of implementing various decisions in whichever manner, he has to pay the price for cooperation of the subordinates by agreeing to their different ideas. This will therefore open the door for bargaining between the subordinates and their superiors. Therefore at that time of implementation, the subordinates will carry the authority since that bear the expertise required for that particular function (Miller, 1993). Views of other management theorists: Henri Fayol and Fredrick Taylor Other theorists have however made various contributions in organizational management. These include Henri Fayol and Fredrick Taylor who also came up with other theories of management. Henri Fayol came up with the Classical management theory which mentions functions of management, qualities of a good manager and the fourteen principles of management. He defined management as to forecast and plan, to organize, to command, to coordinate and to control (Gulick and Urwich, 1937). Forecasting and planning involves looking at the future and coming up with a plan on future operations. Organizing means coming up with the structures and resources required for the undertaking. Commanding involves ensuring the activities are carried out properly among the personnel. Coordinating means unifying and harmonizing all the activities while controlling involves ensuring that everything conforms to the set standards (Fells, 2000). The six qualities of a good manager that he mentioned are physical, mental and moral qualities, general education, special knowledge and work experience. Fayol therefore indicates that a manager must have major abilities to be able to carry out the managerial functions of forecasting, planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling (Brunsson, 2008). Henri Fayol also came up with the fourteen principles of management which include: division of work, authority, discipline, unity of command, unity of direction, remuneration, subordination of individual interests to the general interests of the organization, centralization, order, equity, stability of tenure, initiative, line of authority and team spirit (Fells, 2000). Henri Fayol seems not to agree with Mary Parker Follett’s statement that those with the expertise should be given the authority to lead. This can be seen in his fourteen principles which seem to give guidance on the relationship between the employees and the management on a very formal organization. For example, Fayol talks of unity of command which means that workers should receive orders form only one manager. According to him, authority to give orders is vested on the position rather than on the individual. This means that command should only come from the person who is in a particular position regardless of his level of knowledge and expertise (Wood & Wood, 2002). Fayol also talks about the principle of scalar chain or line of authority. This means that there exists a chain-like hierarchy in management where each manager in whichever level of chain possesses a certain level of authority. Those at the top possess more authority than those at the lower levels. This is very different from Mary Parker’s idea of non existence of such hierarchies. Fayol’s principle of scalar chain produces an organization where the top level managers are not in touch with the subordinates and those working t the lower levels. This is an organization where the subordinates have very little to contribute in terms of management. This does not allow for negotiation and employee participation which Mary Parker talks about (Parker, L., & Ritson, P. 2005). Fayol’s principle of authority, which he defines as the right to give others orders and the power to exact obedience also differs Mary Parkers definition of authority which she basis on expertise rather than powers. Fayol’s explanation of authority is very formals since he says that authority should be accompanied by responsibility and accountability. According to him, this authority can only be given to a person who holds a certain position and whose work is to function within the limits of that position. Mary Parker describes authority as something that can easily be shifted from one person to another as long as the person has got the expertise. She talks about fluid relationships where positions can be shifted easily depending on who have the required expertise for a particular job (Parker, L., & Ritson, P. 2005). Fayol also talks about initiative where employees should be allowed to think through a problem by themselves and implement a solution. He also cautions the managers against personal vanity which may hinder them from giving the employees this opportunity. But on the centrally, he talks about the principle of centralization which means lowering the importance of the role of the subordinates. Even though he does not come out clearly about his support for centralization, his other principles can only apply in a centralized organization where decisions are made at the top and then communicated downwards. This will therefore promote personal vanity which may deny subordinates an opportunity to think and implement on their own (Wood & Wood, 2002). According to Argyris (1957), classical principles of formal organization will produce a working environment where employee s have minimal control over their working lives, they are dependent and expected to subordinate and also work to a short-term perspective (Argyris, 1957). The other theorist, Fredrick Taylor came up with the scientific management theory which looks at the work place in a scientific manner. He looked at how work was being done and how the work affected the productivity of the worker. Taylor believed that optimizing the manner in which work was being done would be more efficient that making the workers work as hard as they could. Taylor came up with the Principles of Scientific Management which proposes that productivity can be increased by optimizing and simplifying the tasks in each job. He also pointed out on the importance of cooperation between workers and their manager. Taylor also believed that workers are motivated by money and was therefore for the idea of “a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work”. Therefore workers were to be paid according to the work they achieved in that day (Evans & Holmes, 2013). Taylor’s theory focuses of four principles of management. These include: use of scientific methods to study work and come up with the most efficient ways of performing different tasks; matching worker’s job to their ability rather than just assigning them any job; monitoring job performance and offering instructions to ensure maximum efficiency; dividing the work equally between workers and managers where the managers use scientific techniques to plan and the workers use the same techniques to pursue the plans (Taylor, 2012). Taylor also conducted the time and motion study from which he concluded that certain people can work more efficiently than others (Zuffo, 2011). According to him, managers should hire only those who can work more efficiently. In this, he was focusing on the importance of selecting the right people for a job. Taylor‘s ideas exhibit some similarities with Mary Follet because both of them focuses on the work processes rather than the products. Both Taylor and Mary Follet talks about ways of achieving efficiency. However the difference between the two is that Taylor focuses on the processes while Follet focuses on the people. Taylor believes that efficiency can be achieved by using the best methods of production and that work can be improved by continuously studying it and finding the most appropriate method of implementing it (Evans & Holmes, 2013). On the other hand, Mary Follet believes that efficiency can be achieved by engaging the employees who have the expertise concerning a particular job (Parker, L., & Ritson, P. 2005). Both of the also seem to slightly agree on the issues of authority. Taylor’s principle of Functional Foremanship, states that foremanship, or supervisory roles should be spread to various people since one person cannot be an expert in all areas. He proposed eight supervisors who should supervise different functions from planning to doing level. The Taylor’s functional foremen are meant to be the expert teachers who will give directions to the people working in different units (Zuffo, 2011). This is similar to Mary Follet’s idea of giving authority to the person who has the required expertise. This authority may include the power to supervise and direct the processes required for that particular task. Generally, both agree to the idea of expertise which Taylor considers it can be achieved through training and education provided by the management. Conclusion Organizational management is a subject that has been widely debated by various theorists with each emphasizing on various key areas that can achieve efficiency in the organization. Mary Parker Follet states that efficiency can be achieved by giving authority to those with job expertise and an informal organization, Henri Fayol suggested on a formal organization with a clear line on the roles of the management and those of the subordinates. On the other hand, Fredrick Taylor talks about researching on the best job processes and assigning foremanship to experts. However, Taylor’s ideas seems to partly agree with Mary Follet’s ideas of authority on the expertise because both looks at the processes of achieving the products. List of References Evans, C & Holmes, l 2013, Re-Tayloring Management: Scientific Management A Century On, Farnham: Gower, eBook Collection. Fells,M 2000, "Fayol stands the test of time", Journal of Management History ,Vol. 6 Iss: 8, pp.345 - 360 Brunsson, KH 2008 ‘Some Effects of Fayolism’, International Studies of Management & Organizations, vol. 38, no. 1, Spring, pp. 30-47. Argyris, C 1957, Personality and Organization: the Conflict between System and the Individual. New York: Haper. Taylor, F W 1911,The Principles of Scientific Management, New York: Norton. Zuffo, RG 2011, ‘Taylor is Dead, Hurray Taylor! The “Human Factor” in Scientific Management: Between Ethics, Scientific Psychology and Common Sense’, Journal of Business & Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 23-41. Fry, B.R., & Thomas, LL. 1996). Mary Parker Follett: assessing the contribution and impact of her writings, Journal of Management History, 2(2):12-19. Miller, G., 1993, Managerial Dilemmas: The Political Economy of Hierarchy. Cambridge University Press. Gibson, J, Chen, W, Henri, E, Humphreys, J & Lian, Y 2013 ‘Examining the work of Mary Parker Follett through the lens of critical biography’, Journal of Management History (1751-1348), vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 441-458. Waddell, D, Jones, G, & George, J 2013, Contemporary Management. London: McGraw-Hill Education. Parker, LD & Ritson, P 2005 ‘Fads, sterotypes and management gurus: Fayol and today’ Management Decision, vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 1335-1357. Wood, J, & Wood, M 2002, Henri Fayol: Critical Evaluations in Business and Management, Volume 1. NY: Taylor & Francis. Read More