Parker Follett and Management - Case Study Example

Parker Follett and Management Name Unit Class Introduction Over the years, there have been interests on leadership where managers and leaders have sought to know what makes a leader more effective. There have been growing interests on what characteristics constitute and effective leader. The competition in organisations and companies has been increasing over the years leading to the managers and employees to perform at higher levels. There has been a need for the managers to develop competency that will help them manage better. It’s important to understand that management is not just for the managers and other leaders but everyone in the organisation. Members in an organization have a part to play in their jobs as managers (Monin, 2004). Mary Parker Follet has been hailed for her work in management. She wrote on the way in which the managers should behave towards the employees. Her writing was taken as a response to the Taylor’s work which seemed to be ignoring the human position in an organisation (Derksen, 2014). Henri Fayol management principles lied on increasing efficiency in the process and came up with 14 principles. This essay will discuss the proposal by Mary Parker Follet 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, p. 44) and explore whether Fredrick Taylor and Henri Fayol would agree with her. According to Follet, the management was ignoring the ways in which the employees contribute to the organisation given a chance by the management (Gibson et al. 2013). The Taylor scientific management principle was based on time and motion experts who were given the mandate to analyse the workers’ job. Follet thus argued that if the workers were well versed with their jobs, they should be allowed to engage in job analysis. The employees should be allowed to engage in the development of their work process. Authority and knowledge should go together according to Follet. If the employees have the knowledge, they should be involved in the control of their process of work. The managers in this case should act as the facilitators and provide coaching (Parker, 2005). The main theme in Follet statement lied on workers empowerment and the creation of self managing teams. The managers in each of the organisation department should consult one another. Consultations among the managers would enable the decision making process to be fast. This was meant to create an environment where there was cross functioning. Different departments in an organisation were supposed to work together when carrying out a project. Though Fayol stressed the importance of having knowledge and experience in management, Follet explained it more elaborately (Gibson et al. 2013). She held the position that knowledge and experience should be the determiner for leadership but not the authority derived from the position in hierarchy. Power in an organisation should be held by someone who can lead it to its goals. Follet view on power and authority was horizontal, in contrast to Fayol whose view was on formal line of power. According to Fayol, there was a formal view in power which was combined with a vertical command chain. Fayol took the formal power view and the vertical command chain as essential to having an efficient management (Brunsson, 2008). Experts are very vital in coming up with organisation decisions. According to Follet, the role played by the experts is very vital in the process of making an important decision. Experts help the organisation to gather the facts and any accurate information and combine it with the community knowledge. Expertise is supposed to be combined with knowledge in order to make a decision. The legitimate power can only be obtained from combining experience and knowledge. Follet argues that the origin of power is in the creative experience. The organisation should be ready to cede some of their control and be open to others and the process. According to Follet, knowledge is the first element that should be looked at in leadership (Gibson et al. 2013). For a leader to be effective, they must allow leadership that is all inclusive. As the leader rises in hierarchy, more qualities are needed from them. The qualities needed are experiences, knowledge and the ability to unify different persons in the organisation. A leader must be endowed with unique qualities that will enable them to function effectively. Taylor scientific management principles are based on the specialisation. According to Taylor, the management are supposed to be specialised just like the workers. The managers are supposed to work in collaboration with the employees and give them instructions. In this case, the management and the employee have equal shared responsibility but the management is on top of the worker. According to Taylor, all the tasks in an organisation are supposed to be managed by a manager. The employees are supposed to be guided irrespective of their experience (Derksen, 2014). But unlike Fayol, Taylor management principles expected the managers to engage in different tasks determined by the production as well as the individual situation. Henri Fayol view on management had specific task which the managers were expected to perform (Wren, 2001). According to him, managers and employees were distant. His theory separated the workers and management. The managers were expected to have their independent control function and their planning was expected to be elaborate. This means that the managers have to depend on reports in order to function properly in an organisation. The vision by Fayol saw the managers as the organisation experts. The organisation should depend on the management expertise. Using the Fayol view, the managers are thus interchangeable. The theory presented by Fayol did not gain much success as the one presented by Taylor. Fayol notion on general management have not gained much challenge either (Parker, 2005). According to Fayol, management is a complex task that starts with planning and ends with controlling. The Fayol general management theory is contrary to Follet view where the management is based on close collaboration based on the experience and knowledge. Follet argues that anyone can manage if they have knowledge and experience (Brunsson, 2008). Taylor belief was that efficiency could be improved if the organisations adopted job specialisation. He came up with four principles which were aimed at helping improve efficiency in the workplace. While Taylor focused on the operational approach, Follet focused on the behavioural approach to enhance efficiency. The operational efficiency was supposed to increase the efficiency and reduce wastage. The behavioural approach used by Follet originated from American management theorists. The main aim was to determine the way in which the managers should behave in order to have an influence on the employees (Newman & Guy, 1998). The main theme in behavioural approach was that the successful management depends on those in management being able to understand the workers who had varying backgrounds and needs (Newman & Guy, 1998). Follet thus focused on studying the way in which the managers should behave in relation to the employees. According to Follet, Taylor’s approach did not look at the human aspect of the organisation. According to her, Taylor’s theory failed to look at the differences that exist among the individuals in an organisation. The theory by Taylor had overlooked the contribution that the employees make in an organisation given a chance to participate in management (Derksen, 2014). Workers according to Follet were the most qualified in making job analysis rather than using the managers. The management should just act as the coaches in an organisation, but not just supervisors. Follet acknowledged the view by Fayol that having expertise is important in management (Brunsson, 2008). The change in productivity in an organisation is based on the workers attitude. The relationship that exists between the worker and management determines the output. Follet believed that if the management was able to behave appropriately towards the employees, then the organisations would record success. The management behaviour towards the employees dictated the organisation success. According to Follet, the employees cannot be treated as machines as Taylor believed. Having knowledge and experience was vital in leadership. The employees had the knowledge and experience hence could also be entrusted in leadership. Follet believed that the role of managerial influence on the employees was very vital in the organisation (Newman & Guy, 1998). According to Fayol, the leadership was gained from the managers’ authority that was based on hierarchy (Brunsson, 2008). But Follet dismissed this and argued that knowledge and expertise was vital in determining who should lead in a particular situation. Managers have their own methods of leadership which have an influence on the employees’ performance. By critically looking at Follett’s view, leadership and management are distinct. Managers have a direct authority over the employees and use a top down approach. Leaders are those who gain their authority by influencing the employees. The behavioural model that is supported by Follet has both consideration and initiating. This is in contrast to Foley and Taylors view (Giorgio, 2011). Follet supports leadership that is able to trust and respect the workers. The organisation is supposed to be efficient if the work is done by the employees acceptably. An initiating structure is able to allocating the tasks to the employees and making them aware of the expected results. The view of manager according to Follet is someone who is responsible for others (Newman & Guy, 1998). Follet management theory is about getting things being done by utilising people. Her advocacy in the differed from other writes in the field of management. According to her view, an organisation was a social system. Her view was that an organisation should be led through experience and knowledge. According to Follet, human beings were liberal to orders. To avoid liberal situations, she proposed that the situations are supposed to dictate orders as opposed to people. People will follow the orders dictated by the situation as they feel in control. This is a view in which the orders arise from the actions and not where actions arise from the orders. The authority in an organisation should be based on the job done. This is a view that any authority should be embedded in work but not the position a person holds. Delegation of power is seen as a myth by those who want to elevate themselves (Gibson et al. 2013). Power according to Follet is a phenomenon in which a group is controlled by a few individuals in carrying out tasks. The power in an organisation should be carried out with the employees but not power over others. This is a situation where there is collaboration in an organisation and where no one is domineering. The control of other should be exercised based on established facts but not on rules. According to Follet, leadership should be given to a person who has the required knowledge and skills. A leader should be based on the situation. This implies that different situations may have different leaders. A leader is supposed to be well versed in communication so that they can motivate the employees easily (Beardwell, Holden & Claydon, 2004). According to her, organisations with a flexible leadership have been successful as opposed to those with hierarchical leadership. \ Conclusion In conclusion, Follet asserted that there can be no leadership without knowledge. This is a statement that implies anyone who has knowledge in an organisation can lead. If the workers have the needed knowledge as opposed to managers, then they should lead. Her main aim was on having self managed teams where empowerment was upheld. Power should be able to flow to the person best suited to help the organisation. Her view on power was horizontal as opposed to Fayol who took power as formal with a vertical command chain (Gibson et al. 2013). Fayol took leadership as a separate activity. Taylor scientific management theory focused on specialisation in order to achieve high efficiency and reduce wastage. Taylor based his studies on time and motion. Follet saw Taylor work to ignore the human aspect in an organisation. She criticised Taylor work for lack of recognising the human differences that exist in an organisation. Where Follet saw leadership as situational based, Taylor theory was more concerned about having specialisation. She saw Taylor theory to be treating the employees as machines which was in contrast with her view where employees were to be respected. According to Follet, leadership should be based on the situation. Her views differ from Taylor’s and Fayol’s theories in most aspects. References Beardwell, I., Holden, L & Claydon, T. 2004, Human Resource Management, a Contemporary Approach, Prentice Hall, Pearson Education Limited. Brunsson, K. H 2008, 'Some effects of Fayolism', International Studies of Management and Organization, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 30–47, doi: 10.2753/IMO0020-8825380102. Derksen, M 2014, ‘Turning men into machines? Scientific management, industrial psychology, and the “human factor”’, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 148–165, doi:10.1002/jhbs.21650. Gibson, J, Chen, W, Henry, 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, doi:10.1108/JMH-05-2012-0044. Giorgio Zuffo, R 2011, 'Taylor is dead, hurray Taylor! The "human factor" in scientific management: between ethics, scientific psychology and common sense', Journal of Business and Management, vol. 17, no.1, pp. 23–41. Monin, N. 2004, Management theory: A Critical and Reflexive Reading, London, Routledge. Newman, M & Guy, M 1998, 'Taylor's triangle, Follett's web', Administrative Theory and Praxis, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 287–297, . Parker, L 2005, 'Fads, stereotypes and management gurus: Fayol and Follet today', Management Decision, vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 1335–1357, doi: 10.1108/00251740510634903. Waddell, Jones & George 2013, Contemporary management, North Ryde, N.S.W: McGraw-Hill Australia, p. 44. Wren, D.A 2001, “Henri Fayol as strategist: a nineteenth century corporate turnaround” Management Decision, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 475–487. Read More