Like Frederick Taylor, Chester Barnard was concerned with management theory. An American business executive and public administrator, Barnard wrote the 1938 book called The Functions of the Executive which presented the theory of cooperation and organization. It also discussed the functions and methods of operation of executives in formal organizations. Unlike Taylor’s work that focused on approaches to organization, Barnard’s book concentrated on the operations of an organization and is based on years of observation of individuals and groups in actual organizations. “Barndard is widely credited with having originated the ‘systems’ approach to the study of organization” ( ). His work served as a bridge between Taylor’s Scientific Management …show more content…
Concerned with organizational theory and organizational behavior, Follett is credited with developing the circular theory of behavior or power and is known for her work on negotiation and conflict resolution. Follet “proposed an approach to organizations that was grounded in altering rather than accommodating individual judgements” (Hildreth, et al (Eds), 2006, p. 281). Her theories on organizational behavior can be found in two works: “The Psychological Foundations of Business Administration” (1940) and her 1924 book entitled Creative …show more content…
Follett addresses this idea in “The Giving of Orders” in The Classics of Public Administration. She explains that psychology… shows us not only you cannot get people to do things most satisfactorily by ordering them or exhorting them; but also that even reasoning with them, even convincing them intellectually, may not be enough” (Shayfritz & Hyde, p. 58). Position does not grant power or authority. Instead, power comes from experience and function. As an alternative to “power-over” Follett advocates for power sharing or “power-with” which is defined as developing power jointly with sub-ordinates and co-workers. This method promotes cooperation and helps to boost morale. Follet’s power theory, as well as Follet’s approach to conflict management, are very much applicable in today’s world. As Follet expressed, conflict is inevitable; managing conflict is a critical skill for managers and leaders at all levels of management. Minimizing conflict helps to create a productive, team driven environment. Follet’s works help modern day managers understand the concepts of power and authority and how they should be applied in organizational
(Tost, Gino & Larrick 2013) argues that “when a formal leader experiences a heightened subjective sense of power, he or she tends to dominate group discussions and interactions, which leads other team members to perceive that their views and perspectives are not valued”. This perceived imbalance definitely hampers any attempt at managing workplace conflict. When employees feel that they have no authority or empowerment they tend to be disengaged, and disengaged employees effect productivity. Low productivity can be considered a form of dissatisfaction and thus labelled a conflict that must be addressed by both employee and manager.
Perrow, C. (1973), “The short and glorious history of organisational theory”, Organisational Dynamics, vol. 2, no. 1, pg.2-15
According to the "Power and Leadership" essay written by Paula Braynion, "the first thing one encounters when trying to understand power is a difficulty in arriving at a concise definition, as there are many and varied definitions and perspectives seeking to explore and explain the concept." (Braynion, para 1) There are two main kinds of power to look at when figuring out how power and leadership relate. The first kind of power is formal power which is obtain by an individual from having a formal or privileged position in an organization's hierarchy, for example a VP or a CEO would have formal power over his or her employees. The second kind of power is known as informal power or influential power, this power is based on the ability to influence others rather than the ability to control rewards and punishment. Informal power is the result of peers and other employees choosing to follow an
McShane and von Glinow determine that the first three powers - legitimate, reward, and coercive power - are granted to persons through the organization or co-workers, whereas the two other powers – expert and referent power - depend on the “power holders own characteristics” (301). The first source of power that can be assigned to members of the organization is Legitimate Power, which is defined as an “agreement among organizational members that people in certain roles can request certain behavior of others” (302). This source of power generally results from different roles in the organization (hierarchy). Like the manager can expect his or her employees to do what he or she requires. Another source of power that can be given to employees is Reward Power, which is defined as “the person’s ability to control the allocation of rewards valued by others and to remove negative sections” (302). Reward power offers incentives and is the opposite of the third source of power, which is Coercive Power. Coercive power is the last source of power that is assigned to people and involves “the ability to apply punishment” (303). The fourth source of power is Expert Power, which does not originate from the position but rather from within the person. Expert power is “the capacity to influence others by possessing knowledge or skills that others value” (303). For instance, an employee can develop expert power when gaining important knowledge for the organizations that others would also like to have. The fifth source of power that does not depend on the role or position of an employee, but on the person’s own characteristics is Referent Power, which is defined as “the capacity to influence others on the basis of an identification with and respect for the power holder” (303).
Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J.M., Donnelly, J.H., & Konopaske, R. (2009). Organizations: Behaviors, structure, processes (13th ed.) New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic structural analyses and agency-centred traditions. According to this, people are free to act, but they must also use and replicate fundamental structures of power by and through their own actions. Power is wielded and maintained by how one ‘makes a difference’ and based on their decisions and actions, if one fails to exercise power, that is to ‘make a difference’ then power is lost. (Giddens: 1984: 14) However, more recent theorists have revisited older conceptions including the power one has over another and within the decision-making processes, and power, as the ability to set specific, wanted agendas. To put it simply, power is the ability to get others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. In the political arena, therefore, power is the ability to make or influence decisions that other people are bound by.
Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol are both considered classical contributors to management theory. Both were developing and expression their viewpoints at similar time period with the aim of “raising standard of management in industry” (Brodie,1967, p7) in a period were very few publications and theories on management. While both theories were developed with the same influencing factors such as war, social struggles and industrial revolution (Urwick. 1951, p7) each developed quite different management theories. Frederick Taylor is considered the Father of Scientific management and he developed scientific principles of management, focusing on the individual,...
Compare and contrast the management theories of Frederick Taylor, Henri Fayol, Elton Mayo and Douglas McGregor. In what sense(s) are these theories similar and/or compatible? In what sense(s) are these theories dissimilar and/or incompatible? How would a contingency theorist reconcile the points of dissimilarity and/or incompatibility between these approaches?
Power is essential to maintaining order and instilling rules within society, relationships and almost all aspects of life. With the appropriate control of power, individuals are able to attain anything that they desire. Once power is obtained, maintaining power and control is also important. Often once power is obtained, individuals believe that they don’t need to focus on the upkeep of maintaining power, this is what often leads to one’s downfall. Although power often comes with success, there are also downfalls to having power. Power can be dangerous and can lead to greed. Power can ruin relationships and often causes conflict as individuals tend to struggle with the shift in power or the new imbalance of power. Power has the ability to demonstrate one’s true morality and ethics. The pursuit of power has its costs.
There are several theories that examine an organization and it’s approach to managing work in an effort to develop efficiency and increase production. Two classical approaches to management are Taylor’s scientific management theory and Weber's bureaucratic management theory. Both men are considered pioneers of in the study of management.
Follett was born in Quincy, Massachusetts to a wealthy Quaker family and attended Thayer Academy and later Radcliffe University. The primary focus of Follett’s work was humanity and its relationship with business and management. Follett believed in the individual and their relationship with society, upper levels of management and democratic governance. Her focus involved on how group networks would be a better benefit to organizations than the top down hierarchical
According to the paper presented, I believe that power is the most essential element for the human progress, since it’s about changing intentions to actions. In organization it’s about sharing information, about working together and running the company in the best interest of everyone. According to my learning, I believed that it changes nothing, no one can predict the result of a decision and we spend more time living with the consequence of our decision than making them. In turn we should focus on getting things done rather than thinking of the consequence.
Power is defined in the course study notes as the “ability of individuals or groups to get what they want despite the opposition”. Power is derived from a variety of sources including knowledge, experience and environmental uncertainties (Denhardt et al, 2001). It is also important to recognize that power is specific to each situation. Individuals or groups that may be entirely powerful in one situation may find themselves with little or no power in another. The county Registrar of Voters, who is my boss, is a perfect example. In running the local elections office, she can exercise the ultimate power. However, in a situation where she attempted to get the county selected for a desirable, statewide pilot project, she was powerless, completely at the mercy of the Secretary of State. Power is difficult to measure and even to recognize, yet it plays a major role in explaining authority. In organizations, power is most likely exercised in situations where “the stakes are high, resources are limited, and goals and processes are unclear” (Denhardt et al, 2001). The absence of power in organizations forces us to rely on soley hierarchical authority.
There are three well-established theories of classical management: Taylor?s Theory of Scientific Management, Fayol?s Administrative Theory, Weber?s Theory of Bureaucracy. Although these schools, or theories, developed historical sequence, later ideas have not replaced earlier ones. Instead, each new school has tended to complement or coexist with previous ones.
...s. Lunenburg (2012) specify that a true leader is skilled to influence others and alter behavior through possessing all of the sources of the power (Coercive, Expert, Informational, Legitimate, Referent, and Reward) simultaneously. In most cases, the personal sources of power are more vigorously related to employees’ job contentment, organizational dedication, and performance than are the organizational power sources. The idea of power and leadership has been and will persistent to be complementary.