The History of Management Thought Management 336 Mike Bejtlich Based on The History of Management Thought, 5th edition, 2005by Daniel A. Wren
Chapter Fourteen The Search for Organizational Integration
Search for Organizational Integration • Mary Parker Follett • Chester Barnard
Mary Parker Follett 1868-1933The Political Philosopher • Follett was chronologically closer to the scientific management movement, but intellectually a forerunner of understanding the group processes Mary Parker Follett
Mary Parker Follett • Basis of her philosophy • Johann Fichte (1762-1814): 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 (1770-1831) • 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 labor-management 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. Mary Parker Follett
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 situation.
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. Mary Parker Follett
Chester Barnard 1886-1961The Erudite Executive • Chester Barnard influenced human relations thinking and continues to influence our understanding of organizations and management. Chester I. Barnard
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 control.
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 cooperation.
Barnard and Formal Organizations • 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.” Chester I. Barnard
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 purposes.
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 • 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 member’s acceptance of authority. From The Functions of the Executive by Chester I. Barnard. Harvard University Press, 1938.
Barnard’s Acceptance Theory of Authority • Individuals would consent to authority if four conditions were met: • 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. From The Functions of the Executive by Chester I. Barnard. Harvard University Press, 1938.
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.
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 Fifteen People and Organizations
People and Organizations • Eduard C. Lindeman (1885-1953) • Jacob L. Moreno (1889-1974) • Kurt Lewin (1890-1947) • Abraham H. Maslow (1908-1970) • Joseph N. Scanlon (1899-1956) • James F. Lincoln (1883-1965) • Charles P. McCormick (1876-1970) • William Foote Whyte (1914-2000) • Leadership Studies at Michigan and Ohio State with Rensis Likert (1903-1981), Ralph Stogdill (1904-1978) and Carroll L. Shartle (1903-1993).
People at Work – Micro View • Eduard C. Lindeman • Early study of group behavior in member interaction, participation, and attitudes • Origin of phrase “participant-observer” • Lindeman was a cohort of Mary Parker Follett and they appear to have influenced each other. Eduard C. Lindeman, Reproduced from the encyclopaedia of informal education, www.infed.org
People at Work – Micro View • Jacob Moreno • Sociometry, trying to classify individuals into groups that were capable of harmonious relationships. • Sociogram, mapping interpersonal preferences…there was a difference when preferences were for social vs. task mates. • Psychodrama, a cathartic experience for an individual in a group setting • Sociodrama, the basis of role playing. • Role reversal, taking the role of others and a useful technique for working with culturally diverse groups. Jacob Moreno, courtesy of Dr. Walter Logeman
People at Work – Micro View • Kurt Lewin • Group dynamics and field theory – Gestalt notions for understanding individuals in groups. • Quasi-stationary equilibrium. Groups never achieved a steady state but were continuously in a process of mutual adaptation.
People at Work – Micro View • Kurt Lewin and Leadership • During leadership studies, Lewin asked his counselors to role play democratic or authoritarian styles and found what he expected in boy’s reactions. • One counselor, however, misplayed his role and, rather than throwing the data out, Lewin called this “laissez-faire,”meaning no leadership. • This style has persisted in the literature despite its inaccuracy.
People at Work – Micro View • Kurt Lewin and Changing Behavior • Lewin’s found that group participation facilitated the change process. • His three step model is still a foundation for modern theory: • “unfreezing” through participation • “moving” to the new level • “freezing” (reinforcing) the desired new behavior. • Lewin’s work became the basis for sensitivity training through his influence on Leland Bradford.
Changing Assumptions about People at Work • Motivation • Job Enlargement • Participation • Leadership
Motivation – Abraham H. Maslow • His “humanistic psychology” was a revolt against behaviorism leading to the Third Force in psychology. • His contact with industry led to the book Eupsychian Management. Abraham H. Maslow
Motivation – Abraham H. Maslow • Dynamics of need fulfillment or deprivation • Hierarchy of Needs
Motivation – A.H. Maslow The Journals of Abraham Maslow by Abraham Maslow. The Lewis Publishing Company, 1982.
Joseph Scanlon • Union official and later a colleague of Douglas McGregor at MIT. • The Scanlon Plan • A union-management productivity plan whereby groups of workers got bonuses for proposing savings in labor costs • Group oriented • Not profit sharing.
James F. Lincoln • Rewarding individual efforts based on skill ratings. • Wages and benefits were comparable to the Cleveland area labor market • In addition, bonuses were paid for performance based on quality and quantity of output as well as self-management. • Bonuses are substantial.
Job Enlargement • Research in the 1940’s by Walker and Guest indicated some possible improvements if jobs were designed to lengthen (broaden) the work cycle. • This concerned combining jobs rather than increasing job depth.
Participation • Participation was a power-equalization thesis of this period to play down the importance of the organizational hierarchy. • James Worthy (1910-1998) • at Sears, Roebuck argued for flatter structures and decentralization. • Also worked with the University of Chicago’s Committee on Human Relations to study the impact of structure on employee morale.
Participation • William B. Given, Jr. – “bottom-up” approach • Charles P. McCormick – a plan for participation which is still operative in the McCormick Company (tea, spice, and extract firm). • Junior Boards were created (“multiple management”) to improve communications, manager development, and coordination through participation. • The Golden Rule was the basis for his successful technique for managing people.
Rensis Likert – University of Michigan Studies • Found a two dimensional orientation: • An employee orientation stressing interpersonal relations • A production orientation focusing on producing • An employee orientation coupled with more general supervision led to higher productivity, better morale, lower turnover, greater group cohesiveness and less employee anxiety. Rensis Likert
Ohio State University Studies Ralph M. Stogdill Carroll L. Shartle
Summary of Michigan and OSU Leadership Studies • Despite differing terminology, leadership was viewed by each as a two-by-two matrix of leader behaviors in which people-oriented was not mutually exclusive of a production orientation.
People at Work: The Macro View • William Foote Whyte (1914-2000) – restaurant studies • E. Wight Bakke (1903-1971) – formal and informal systems • Herbert A. Simon (1916-2001) – how choices were made • George C. Homans (1910-1989) – activities, interactions, sentiments
People at Work: The Macro View • William F. Whyte’s restaurant study: • Status ran counter to workflow and who initiated work for others. • Whyte's work was key to the idea of socio-technical systems. • Whyte is noted for “participatory action research.”
People at Work: The Macro View • E. Wight Bakke • the interactions of the formal and informal systems; • the "bonds" of organization; • the "fusion" process involving organizational position and personal views of standing or status.
People at Work: The Macro View • Herbert A. Simon, Nobel Laureate, was influenced by Barnard. • Wrote about limits that “bound the area of rationality.“ • This led to “satisficing" or "good enough" decisions. Herbert A. Simon
People at Work: The Macro View • For Simon, composite decisions are better due to limits on a person's ability to achieve better solutions;participation by different groups would be an improvement. • With James March (1928-), Simon wrote the influential book Organizations.