Management Theory of Mary Parker Follett

Management Theory of Mary Parker Follett Wh?t i? th? m??ning ?f m?n?g?m?nt t?d???Ev?r??n? m?n?g?? ??m?thing, ?v?n if it just th?m??lv??, their ??r??n?l fin?n??? ?r their time.Th? ????n?? ?f m?n?g?m?nt i? t? ??hi?v? a g??l ?? ?ffi?i?ntl? as ????ibl?.You could m?n?g? ??ur h?lid?? by carefully planning h?w t? spend every day ?r you could just g? and d? wh?t?v?r appeals to ??u moment by moment. B? m?n?ging your holiday, you m?k? better u?? ?f your tim? ?nd get m?r? ?ut of your holiday.F?r this r????n, management i? v?r? mu?h lik? inv??tm?nt.Managers h?v? r???ur??? to inv??t â€" their ?wn time and talent as w?ll ?? human and fin?n?i?l resources.The goal ?r fun?ti?n of m?n?g?m?nt i? t? g?t th? b??t return ?n th??? r???ur??? b? g?tting things d?n? efficiently. Thi? doesn’t entail b?ing m??h?ni??l.The manager’s style i? a situational issue. With highl? ?kill?d ?nd ??lf-m?tiv?t?d knowledge workers, th? m?n?g?r mu?t be very empowering.Wh?r? the workforce is less ?kill?d ?r m?tiv?t?d, the m?n?g?r m?? n??d t? m?nit?r output m?r? cl osely.M?N?G?M?NT TH??R?M?n?g?m?nt theories ?r? im?l?m?nt?d t? h?l? in?r???? ?rg?niz?ti?n?l ?r?du?tivit? and service quality.N?t m?n? managers use a ?ingul?r th??r? ?r concept when im?l?m?nting ?tr?t?gi?? in the w?rk?l???: They commonly use a combination ?f a number ?f th??ri??, d???nding ?n th? w?rk?l???, ?ur???? and w?rkf?r??.Contingency theory, ?h??? th??r? ?nd ???t?m? th??r? ?r? ???ul?r m?n?g?m?nt theories. Theory X and Y, whi?h addresses m?n?g?m?nt ?tr?t?gi?? f?r w?rkf?r?? m?tiv?ti?n, is also implemented t? help in?r???? worker ?r?du?tivit?.In thi? article, we ?r? g?ing t? b? t?lking about m?n?g?m?nt th??r? as w?? d?v?l???d b? M?r? P?rk?r Follett.MARY P?RK?R FOLLETT’S M?N?G?M?NT THEORY Among th? m?n? contributors t? administrative thought, M?r? Parker F?ll?tt occupies a ?r?min?nt place, in what w?? th?n l?rg?l? a m?n’? world.Sh? turn?d h?r ?tt?nti?n fr?m th? traditional ?ubj??t? of ?tud? â€" th? ?t?t? ?r th? ??mmunit? â€" to ??n??ntr?t? on th? ?tud? ?f indu?tr?.In thi? ??nt? xt, ?h? n?t only ?v?lv?d ?rin?i?l?? of human association ?nd ?rg?niz?ti?n ????ifi??ll? in t?rm? ?f indu?tr?, but ?l?? ??nvin??d l?rg? numb?r? ?f businessmen ?f th? practicability ?f th??? principles in d??ling with current ?r?bl?m?.F?ll?tt blended theory, fact ?nd id??l ?dmir?bl?.She d?m?n?tr?t?d her b?li?f? by dr?wing illu?tr?ti?n? almost from ?v?r? walk ?f lif? â€" fr?m th? affairs ?f government, industry and bu?in???, h?m?, war and ?????, int?rn?ti?n?l in?tituti?n? and wh?r?v?r men and w?m?n liv?d and w?rk?d together.Sh? w?? a gifted writ?r with a r?r? capacity f?r ?r???nting original id??? with gr??t ?im?li?it? and lu?idit?.H?r writing? ?r? replete with practical wisdom, deep flashes of intuiti?n, und???rtm?nt?liz?d thinking ?nd ?n ?ll-??rv?ding ??irit of democratic dynamism.M?n? ?f those associated with the ‘?l???i??l’ or scientific m?n?g?m?nt m?v?m?nt lik? Ordw?? T??d, H?nri Fayol, Oliv?r Sh?ld?n ?nd Lyndall Urwick w?r? influ?n??d b? the philosophy of F?ll?tt. T? read m?r? ?b?ut Follett’s w?rk.F?ll?tt’? major ideas could b? di??u???d und?r th? following subtopics:C?n?tru?tiv? C?nfli?t,C??rdin?ti?n,P?w?r, Auth?rit? ?nd C?ntr?l andL??d?r?hi?.1. Constructive ConflictF?ll?t ?rgu?? th?t conflict, ?? a n?tur?l ?nd in?vit?bl? ??rt ?f lif?, does not n??????ril? h?v? t? l??d t? deleterious outcomes.R?th?r, if ???r???h?d with th? right ?n?l?ti??l ?nd im?gin?tiv? t??l? a ??nfli?t ??n ?r???nt ?n opportunity f?r ???itiv? ?r constructive d?v?l??m?nt.Follet’s d?finiti?n ?f ??nfli?t as diff?r?n?? i? a bit un??nv?nti?n?l.Sh? ?rgu?? that diff?r?n??? or conflict ?f interest in it??lf, d??? not m?k? a ??nfli?t.A???rding to Follet, th?r? ?r? thr?? ways to respond t? conflict:D?min?n??: D?min?n?? m??n? victory ?f ?n? side ?v?r th? ?th?r. Thi? w?rk? in the ?h?rt t?rm, but i? unproductive in th? l?ng run (to m?k? h?r ??int F?ll?t ?r???i?ntl? refers t? th? results ?f “Th? W?r” â€" WWI).C?m?r?mi??: C?m?r?mi?? means ???h party h?ving to give u? ??m?thing f?r the ??k? ?f a m??ningful r?du?ti?n ?f fri?ti?n. F?r be it fr?m id??l, ??m?r?mi?? ?ft?n leaves parties un??ti?fi?d â€" h?ving giv?n u? ??m?thing of v?lu?.Int?gr?ti?n: int?gr?ti?n, th? ??ti?n ?h?m?i?n?d by F?ll?t, means ?r??tiv?l? incorporating the parties’ fund?m?nt?l d??ir??/int?r??t? int? th? ??luti?n. Wh?n tw? d??ir?? ?r? int?gr?t?d, th?t means th?t a solution h?? b??n found in whi?h b?th d??ir?? h?v? f?und a place that neither ?id? h?? had t? ???rifi?? ?n?thing.Let us take ?n? ?f h?r illu?tr?ti?n. “In th? Harvard Library one d??, in one ?f th? ?m?ll?r r??m?, someone wanted the wind?w ???n. I w?nt?d it ?hut. We ???n?d th? window in the n?xt r??m, wh?r? n? one was ?itting. Thi? was not a compromise b???u?? th?r? was n? ?urt?iling ?f desire; we b?th g?t wh?t w? r??ll? wanted. For I did not w?nt a ?l???d room, I ?im?l? did n?t w?nt th? north wind t? blow directly ?n m?; lik?wi?? the ?th?r ???u??nt did n?t want th?t ??rti?ul?r wind?w ???n, he m?r?l? w?nt?d more air in th? r??m….”  â€¦ ..On? ?dv?nt?g? of int?gr?ti?n ?v?r ??m?r?mi?? I h?v? n?t yet mentioned. If we get ?nl? compromise, the ??nfli?t will come u? again ?nd ?g?in in some ?th?r form, f?r in ??m?r?mi?? w? giv? u? ??rt ?f our desire, ?nd b???u?? w? ?h?ll not b? ??nt?nt to r??t th?r?, sometime w? shall tr? to g?t the wh?l? ?f our desire. W?t?h indu?tri?l ??ntr?v?r??, w?t?h international controversy, and ??? h?w ?ft?n thi? ???ur?. Onl? int?gr?ti?n really stabilizes. But th? ?t?biliz?ti?n I d? n?t m??n ?n?thing ?t?ti?n?r?. N?thing ?v?r stays ?ut. I m??n ?nl? th?t th?t ??rti?ul?r ??nfli?t i? settled ?nd th? n?xt ???ur? on a high?r l?v?l.  F?ll?t is cognizant th?t int?gr?tiv? bargaining i? not ?lw??? a vi?bl? option (?h? ?r?vid?? the ?x?m?l? of tw? men v?ing f?r one w?m?n), and that there ?r? a lot ?f ?b?t??l?? that g?t in th? way of cooperative n?g?ti?ti?n.Th??? include, ?n th? ?n? h?nd, a natural distaste f?r ?u?rr?lling, ?nd on th? ?th?r, a fighting zero-sum m?nt?lit?.Th? m?th?d to int?gr?tiv? bargaining ?? ??rding t? F?ll?t i? t? bring th? r??l diff?r?n??? out int? th? ???n. Taking h?r cues fr?m psychology, ?h? writ??:Th? ????hi?tri?t t?ll? hi? patient that he cannot h?l? him unless he is h?n??t in wanting hi? ??nfli?t t? ?nd. Th? “un??v?ring” which ?v?r? b??k on ????h?l?g? has rubb?d into us fr?m ??m? ???r? n?w ?? a ?r????? of th? utmost importance f?r solving th? ??nfli?t?, whi?h the individu?l h?? within him??lf, i? equally important f?r the r?l?ti?n? b?tw??n gr?u??, classes, r????, ?nd n?ti?n?. In bu?in???, the employer, in d??ling either with his associates ?r his ?m?l?????, has to g?t und?rn??th ?ll th? camouflage, has t? find the r??l d?m?nd as against th? d?m?nd put f?rw?rd, di?tingui?h d??l?r?d m?tiv? from real m?tiv?, ?ll?g?d cause fr?m real cause, ?nd to r?m?mb?r th?t ??m?tim?? th? underlying motive i? deliberately ??n???l?d ?nd th?t sometimes it ?xi?t? un??n??i?u?l?. Th? fir?t rul?, then, f?r ?bt?ining integration is t? ?ut ??ur ??rd? on the t?bl?, f??? the real i??u?, un??v?r th? conflict, bring th? wh?l? thing int? th? ???n….  Thi? t??? ?f “uncovering”, in th? context ?f conflict and productive n?g?ti?ti?n?, ?x?l?in?d F?ll?t, often l??d? t? a “r?v?lu?ti?n” of one’s d??ir?? ?nd int?r??t?.An?th?r w?? ?f ???ing this is that un??v?ring leads ????l? t? m?v? from position t? int?r??t-b???d thinking ?nd negotiation.Bases of IntegrationIf, th?n, w? d? n?t think th?t differing n??????ril? means fighting, ?v?n wh?n tw? d??ir?? b?th ?l?im right of way, if w? think that int?gr?ti?n is m?r? profitable than ??nqu?ring ?r ??m?r?mi?ing, th? first ?t?? t?w?rd? this ??n?umm?ti?n is to bring differences into the ???n.W? cannot h??? t? integrate ?ur differences unless we know wh?t they ?r?.Th? fir?t rule th?n, for ?bt?ining int?gr?ti?n i? t? ?ut ??ur ??rd? on th? t?bl?, f??? th? r??l i??u?, uncover th? ??nfli?t, bring th? whole thing out int? the open.One ?f the m??t im??rt?nt r????n? f?r bringing th? d??ir?? of ???h ?id? t? a ?l??? where they ??n b? c learly examined is th?t evaluation ?ft?n l??d? t? revaluation.W? ?r?gr??? b? a r?v?lu?ti?n ?f desire, but u?u?ll? we d? n?t stop t? examine d??ir? until ?n?th?r i? disputing right of w?? with it.This ??n???ti?n ?f th? r?v?lu?ti?n ?f desire is n??????r? to keep in th? foreground ?f our thinking in d??ling with ??nfli?t, f?r n?ith?r side ?v?r ‘gives in’ really, it i? h???l??? t? ?x???t it, but there often comes a moment when there is a ?imult?n??u? r?v?lu?ti?n ?f int?r??t? on b?th sides and unit? precipitates it??lf.F?ll?t ?tr????? th? importance ?f int?rr?l?ti?n in d??ling with ??nfli?t.Sh? speaks ?f circular r????n??: A ??t?, B r???t?, A r???t? t? B’s r???ti?n, etc. “Th? ??n???ti?n of ?ir?ul?r response thr?w? mu?h light on ??nfli?t”, F?ll?t ????, “for n?w I r??liz? that I ??n n?v?r fight you, I ?m ?lw??? fighting ??u plus m?. I h?v? put thi? w??: Th? r????n?? i? ?lw??? t? a r?l?ti?n. I r????nd, n?t only t? ??u, but th? r?l?ti?n? between ??u ?nd m?.”Obstacles to Integra tionAn?th?r obstacle t? integration i? th?t ?ur w?? of lif? has h?bitu?t?d many ?f us t? enjoy domination. Integration ???m? t? m?n? a tamer affair; it l??v?? n? ‘thrill?’ ?f conquest.An?th?r obstacle to int?gr?ti?n is that th? m?tt?r in di??ut? i? often th??ri??d ?v?r in?t??d of being t?k?n up ?? a ?r?????d ??tivit?. I think thi? i? im??rt?nt in bu?in??? ?dmini?tr?ti?n.Intellectual ?gr??m?nt ?l?n? does n?t bring full int?gr?ti?n. A ??ri?u? ?b?t??l? t? int?gr?ti?n which ?v?r? business man ?h?uld ??n?id?r i? th? l?ngu?g? u??d.I have l?ft unt?u?h?d one ?f th? ?hi?f ?b?t??l?? t? int?gr?ti?n â€" namely, th? undu? influ?n?? ?f l??d?r? â€" th? manipulation of the un??ru?ul?u? ?n th? ?n? h?nd ?nd th? ?ugg??tibilit? ?f the ?r?wd on th? ?th?r.Moreover, ?v?n wh?n the power ?f ?ugg??ti?n i? n?t u??d deliberately, it ?xi?t? in all m??ting? between ????l?; the wh?l? ?m?ti?n?l field of hum?n intercourse h?? t? b? t?k?n full? int? ????unt in dealing with m?th?d? of r???n?ili?ti?n.2. Coordinati onIn ?n ?rg?ni??ti?n, there are m?n? individu?l?, gr?u?? ?nd d???rtm?nt?. Th?? ??rf?rm m?n? diff?r?nt activities. Co-ordination m??n? to int?gr?t? (i.?. bring together) th??? ??tiviti?? for ??hi?ving th? objectives of th? ?rg?ni??ti?n.C??rdin?ti?n is done t? achieve th? objectives of th? organization. It i? a ?r????? whi?h is n?t fix?d. It applies t? group activities, n?t an individu?l ??tiviti??.C??rdin?ti?n ?n??ur?g?? team ??irit. It giv?? ?r???r dir??ti?n t? the ?rg?ni??ti?n. It m?tiv?t?? the ?m?l?????. It makes ?r???r use of the r???ur???. C??rdin?ti?n affects ?ll th? fun?ti?n? of management.Th?r?f?r?, it is ?l?? ??ll?d th? E???n?? ?f M?n?g?m?nt.Follett’s Four Principles of CoordinationM?r? Parker Follett gave f?ur m?in Principles ?f C??rdin?ti?n.These f?ur ?rin?i?l?? ?f ??-?rdin?ti?n ?r? ??ll?d ?r? Folletts Prin?i?l?? ?f Coordination. Th??? f?ur ?rin?i?l?? mu?t b? f?ll?w?d to make ??-?rdin?ti?n ?ff??tiv?.a. Principle of Early StageA???rding to thi? ?rin?i?l?, ???rdin?ti?n mu? t start ?t ?n ??rl? stage in the m?n?g?m?nt ?r?????. It must start during th? planning stage.Thi? will r??ult in making the b??t plans and im?l?m?nting th??? plans with ?u?????.If ???rdin?ti?n is ?t?rt?d ??rl? only th?n ?ll the management functions will b? ??rf?rm?d successfully.Thu? b? initi?ting proper coordination th? ?rg?ni??ti?n will achieve all it? objectives easily ?nd quickly.b. Principle of ContinuityAccording t? this principle, ???rdin?ti?n mu?t be a continuous process.It mu?t n?t be a ?n?-tim? ??tivit?.Th? ?r????? of ???rdin?ti?n must b?gin wh?n the organization ?t?rt?, and it mu?t continue until th? organization ?xi?t?.C??rdin?ti?n mu?t b? d?n? ??ntinu?u?l? during th? m?n?g?m?nt ?r?????. It mu?t be d?n? during ?l?nning, ?rg?ni?ing, directing and ??ntr?lling.c. Principle of Direct ContactA???rding t? thi? ?rin?i?l?, all m?n?g?r? mu?t have a Dir??t Contact with th?ir ?ub?rdin?t??. Thi? will r??ult in g??d r?l?ti?n? b?tw??n the m?n?g?r ?nd their subordinates.This is b???u?? dir??t ??nt??t helps t? ?v?id mi?und?r?t?nding?, misinterpretations and disputes between m?n?g?r? and subordinates.It ?n?bl?? the managers to ???rdin?t? ?ll th? different ??tiviti?? of th?ir subordinates effectively ?nd ?ffi?i?ntl?.d. Principle of Reciprocal RelationsThe d??i?i?n? and ??ti?n? ?f ?ll th? ????l? (i.?. of ?ll m?n?g?r? ?nd ?m?l?????) ?nd d???rtm?nt? ?f th? ?rg?ni??ti?n ?r? int?r-r?l?t?d.S?, the decisions and actions ?f ?n? ??r??n ?r d???rtm?nt will ?ff??t ?ll other persons ?nd d???rtm?nt? in the ?rg?ni??ti?n.Th?r?f?r?, before taking any d??i?i?n ?r ??ti?n all m?n?g?r? mu?t first find ?ut th? ?ff??t ?f th?t d??i?i?n ?r ??ti?n on ?th?r ??r??n? ?nd d???rtm?nt? in the ?rg?ni??ti?n.Thi? i? called th? Prin?i?l? ?f R??i?r???l Relations. C?-?rdin?ti?n will be successful only if thi? ?rin?i?l? is f?ll?w?d properly.3. Power, Authority and ControlF?ll?tt gives special attention to the ?r?bl?m? of P?w?r, Auth?rit? and Control.Sh? r?v??l? profound, ??n?tr?ting ?nd ?trikingl? ?rigin ?l in?ight? in h?r ?n?l??i? ?f ??w?r.PowerShe defines P?w?r ?? “th? ability t? m?k? thing? happen, to be a ??u??l ?g?nt, to initiate ?h?ng?”.Power i? th? capacity t? produce intended ?ff??t?. It is ?n in?tin?tiv? urge inherent in ?ll hum?n b?ing?. Sh? m?k?? a distinction b?tw??n ‘Power-Over’ ?nd ‘P?w?r-With’.Th? f?rm?r m?? tend t? be ‘coercive-power’ whil? th? latter i? a jointly developed ‘coactive-power’. Power-With is ?u??ri?r to Power-Over, as it is a ??lf-d?v?l??ing ?ntit? whi?h ?r?m?t?? better understanding, reduces fri?ti?n and ??nfli?t ?nd 8 ?n??ur?g?? ?????r?tiv? endeavour.However, F?ll?tt does n?t think it possible t? get rid of ??w?r-?v?r, but thinks that one ?h?uld tr? to r?du?? it.Thi? ??n b? ????m?li?h?d by int?gr?ting th? d??ir??, ?b??ing th? law ?f situation ?nd thr?ugh fun?ti?n?l unit?.In a fun?ti?n?l unity, ???h h?? his/her fun?ti?n? ?nd he or she should h?v? the authority and responsibility whi?h g? with that fun?ti?n.Follett also b?li?v?? that power can n?v?r b? delegated ?r h?nd?d ?ut ?r wrenched fr?m someone ?? it i? th? r??ult ?f kn?wl?dg? and ?bilit?.But, she feels, we ??n ?r??t? ??nditi?n? f?r th? d?v?l??m?nt ?f ??w?r.AuthorityF?ll?tt d?fin?? Auth?rit? ?? v??t?d ??w?r â€" th? right to d?v?l?? ?nd ?x?r?i?? ??w?r.Auth?rit? in t?rm? ?f status ?nd th? ?ub?rdin?ti?n ?f ?n? t? ?n?th?r, offends hum?n dignity ?nd m?? cause und??ir?bl? r???ti?n? ?nd fri?ti?n.Therefore, it cannot be th? b??i? ?f organization.According t? h?r, ?uth?rit? ?t?m? from th? t??k being performed ?nd i? d?riv?d from th? situation, ?nd ?ugg??t? th?t fun?ti?n i? th? true basis fr?m whi?h ?uth?rit? i? derived.Th?r?f?r?, ?h? ???? th?t central ?uth?rit? i.?., derivation ?f ?uth?rit? fr?m th? Chi?f Ex??utiv? ?h?uld b? r??l???d b? Auth?rit? ?f Fun?ti?n in which each individu?l has fin?l ?uth?rit? within th? ?ll?tt?d functions.She feels that ?uth?rit? can be ??nf?rr?d on ?th?r? ?nd such ??nf?rm?nt is not d?l?g?ti?n. Sh? expresses th? clear t?rm? th?t ‘d?l?g ?ti?n ?f authority’ should b? ?n ‘obsolete ?x?r???i?n’. Lik? ?uth?rit?, r????n?ibilit? ?l?? flows fr?m th? function ?nd situation.Therefore, ?n? ?h?uld ask “F?r what is one r????n?ibl??” th?n “T? wh?m i? ?n? responsible?”F?ll?tt ?l?? believes in th? ?lur?li?ti? ??n???t of r????n?ibilit? ?r ?umul?tiv? r????n?ibilit?.ControlControl, like Auth?rit? and Responsibility, i? an im??rt?nt aspect t? ??hi?v? organizational g??l?.Unlike ?l???i??l thinkers. Since facts v?r? from situation t? situation, control ?h?uld depend u??n the facts of ???h ?itu?ti?n, instead ?f superiors ??ntr?lling subordinates. Similarly, situations ?r? too complex f?r ??ntr?l ??ntr?l t? b? m??ningfull? ?ff??tiv?.Th?r?f?r?, Follett suggests th?t control m??h?ni?m? ?h?uld be ??rr?l?t?d at m?n? ?l???? in th? ?rg?niz?ti?n?l ?tru?tur?.If ?rg?niz?ti?n? are t? b? well integrated, unifi?d ?nd ???rdin?t?d, ??ntr?l ?h?uld be d??ign?d ?nd developed ?? a part ?f th? unifying process.A unifi?d organization i? a ??lf- r?gul?ting ?nd ??lf-dir??ting ?rg?ni?m. In ?ll ?u?h ?rg?niz?ti?n?, F?ll?tt f??l?, ??ntr?l tends t? b? self-control.Exercising Power, Authority and Control: The Issue of OrdersBy ?ddr???ing the w?? m?n?g?r? gain influence ?v?r inf?rm?l gr?u??, F?ll?tt ?x?l?in? th?t tr?ining the employee ??n n?t only h?l? them better und?r?t?nd th?ir job d???ri?ti?n, but ?l?? h?l?? the ?m?l???r t? b? b?tt?r und?r?t??d.She ?rgu?? that ?rd?r? should b? th? ??m???it? ??n?lu?i?n ?f those who giv? ?nd th??? who r???iv? th?m; more th?n thi?, th?t th?? ?h?uld b? th? integration ?f th? people ??n??rn?d and th? ?itu?ti?n; m?r? even th?n thi?, th?t th?? ?h?uld be th? int?gr?ti?n? involved in the ?v?lving situation.”a ??n??i?u? attitude â€" r??liz? th? ?rin?i?l?? thr?ugh whi?h it i? possible t? act on in ?n? m?tt?r;a r????n?ibl? ?ttitud? t? decide which of th? principles we ?h?uld ??t on;?n ?x??rim?nt?l ?ttitud? â€" tr? ?x??rim?nt? ?nd watch r??ult?;P??ling the results.Follett says th?t m??t ????l?, with?ut ?v ?n kn?wing th? diff?r?nt ?rin?i?l?? th?t underlie giving ?rd?r?, giv? orders ?v?r? day.T? h?r, to kn?w th? principles that underlie ?n? given ??tivit? is t? take a ??n??i?u? ?ttitud?.Aft?r r???gnizing th? different ?rin?i?l??, one must think ?f wh?t ?rin?i?l?? h? or ?h? ?h?uld ??t ?n ?nd th?n h? or ?h? should give ?rd?r? in ????rd?n?? with th??? ?rin?i?l??.To giv? orders based on ?rin?i?l?? i? a r????n?ibl? ?ttitud?.Tr?ing ?x??rim?nt?, n?t?ing wh?th?r th?? ?r? successful ?r a f?ilur? ?nd ?n?l?zing ?? to why th?? ?r? ?u?????ful ?r a f?ilur? i? t?king ?n ?x??rim?nt?l ?ttitud?.Fin?ll?, one should ???l the ?x??ri?n??? ?f ?ll ?nd ??? to wh?t ?xt?nt ?nd in wh?t manner th? m?th?d? of giving ?rd?r? can b? ?h?ng?d if th? ?xi?ting m?th?d? are found inadequate.M?n? ????l? think that giving ?rd?r? i? v?r? simple ?nd ?x???t th?t th?? w?uld b? ?b???d with?ut qu??ti?n.But, in ?r??ti??, i??uing ?f orders is surrounded b? m?n? diffi?ulti??.P??t life, training, experience, ?m?ti?n?, beliefs ?nd ?r?ju di??? form ??rt?in h?bit? ?f mind, which the psychologists call ‘h?bit ??tt?rn?’, ‘??ti?n-??tt?rn?’ ?nd ‘m?t?r-??t?’. Unless th??? habit-patterns and ??rt?in m?nt?l ?ttitud?? are ?h?ng?d, ?n? ??nn?t r??ll? ?h?ng? people.Before giving orders, th? employer ?h?uld also ??n?id?r th? w??? ?nd m??n? ?f forming the ‘h?bit?’ among th? ?m?l????? t? ?n?ur? ?????t?n?? ?f th? ?rd?r?.Thi? inv?lv?? f?ur im??rt?nt ?t???:th? ?ffi?i?l? ?h?uld b? made t? ??? the desirability of a n?w m?th?d;th? rules of the ?ffi?? ?h?uld be so ?h?ng?d ?? t? make it ????ibl? f?r th? ?ffi?i?l? t? ?d??t th? new method;a f?w people ?h?uld b? ??nvin??d in ?dv?n?? to ?d??t th? new m?th?d to set an ?x?m?l?.Th? l??t is wh?t psychologists ??ll intensifying the ?ttitud? t? be released. Thi? will prepare th? way f?r the ?????t?n?? of ?rd?r?.Follett then turns h?r ?tt?nti?n to th? ?nvir?nm?nt ?f giving orders ?nd ???? th?t th? response to th? ?rd?r? depends u??n the ?l??? ?nd the circumstances und?r whi?h orders ?r? giv?n.Sh? ???? that th? “?tr?ngth of favourable r????n?? t? ?n ?rd?r is in inverse ratio to th? di?t?n?? th? ?rd?r travels”. Effi?i?n?? is ?lw??? in danger of being ?ff??t?d wh?n?v?r th? long di?t?n?? order i? ?ub?titut?d f?r f???-t?-f??? suggestion.Th? m?nn?r of giving ?rd?r? i? also important. All?g?d h?r???ing, t?r?nni??l and ?v?rb??ring ??ndu?t ?f ?ffi?i?l? is ?n im??rt?nt r????n f?r m?n? indu?tri?l controversies.Tr??ting m?n with?ut r?g?rd t? their f??ling? ?nd ??lf-r?????t would result in ?trik?? ?nd ?tr?in?d indu?tri?l r?l?ti?n?.The l?ngu?g? u??d often arouses wr?ng b?h?vi?ur?l patterns. Th? m?r? ?n? is b????d ?v?r, th? more ?n? d?v?l??? opposition to b???ing.Depersonalising OrdersFrom th? f?r?g?ing it i? evident that giving of ?rd?r? is a ??m?li??t?d ?r?????.Therefore, either people ?t?? giving ?rd?r?, ?r become ‘?uth?rit?ri?n’ t? ?n?ur? ??m?li?n?? t? th?ir ?rd?r?.To ?v?id t?? mu?h ?f b???i?m in giving ?rd?r? or giving n? ?rd?r? ?t ?ll, Follett suggests d???r??n? lizing th? ?rd?r?. Thi? inv?lv?? a study ?f th? ?r?bl?m t? di???v?r th? ‘l?w ?f th? situation’ ?nd ?b??ing it b? ?ll ??n??rn?d.On? should n?t giv? ?rd?r? to another, but b?th should ?gr?? t? take ?rd?r? fr?m the ?itu?ti?n.If orders ?r? a ??rt ?f th? ?itu?ti?n, th? qu??ti?n ?f ??m??n? giving and someone r???iving orders d??? n?t ?ri?? ?nd both take the ?rd?r? fr?m the ?itu?ti?n. F?ll?tt ???? th?t two h??d? ?f d???rtm?nt? d? not giv? orders to ???h ?th?r.E??h studies th? ?itu?ti?n ?nd decisions ?r? m?d? ?? the situation d?m?nd?. D???r??n?lizing ?rd?r?, however, d??? n?t m??n th?t ?n? should n?t ?x?r?i?? ?uth?rit?.It ?nl? means ?x?r?i?? ?f authority ?f the ?itu?ti?n. She giv?? the example of a boy wh? says n? and then gets a ??il ?f w?t?r f?r hi? m?th?r. In thi? case, h? resents th? ??mm?nd, but r???gniz?? the d?m?nd ?f th? ?itu?ti?n.F?ll?tt ?l?? ?b??rv?? th?t th? ?itu?ti?n i? n?v?r ?t?ti?, it always d?v?l??? ?nd evolves.Therefore, th? ?rd?r t?? should n?v?r be ?t?ti?; but ?h?uld ? lw??? k??? u? with the ?itu?ti?n.Th? external orders can never k??? ???? with th? ?itu?ti?n? and ?nl? th??? drawn fresh from th? ?itu?ti?n ??n d? so. Th?r?f?r?, F?ll?tt ????, the ?rd?r must ?lw??? be int?gr?l t? th? ?itu?ti?n.4. LeadershipFollett giv?? considerable ?tt?nti?n and di??u???? at length th? process ?f Leadership.She b?li?v?? th?t th? ?ld id??? ?f l??d?r?hi? ?r? changing because ?f th? ?h?ng?? in th? concept ?f human r?l?ti?n?, ?nd d?v?l??m?nt? in m?n?g?m?nt.T? Follett, a l??d?r i? n?t the President ?f the ?rg?niz?ti?n ?r H??d ?f th? Department, but ?n? “wh? ??n see ?ll around a situation, who ???? it ?? r?l?t?d to ??rt?in purposes and ??li?i??, wh? sees it evolving int? th? next ?itu?ti?n, who understands how to ???? from one ?itu?ti?n to another”.According t? h?r, a leader i? “th? man wh? ??n energize hi? group, who kn?w? h?w t? ?n??ur?g? initi?tiv?, h?w to dr?w fr?m ?ll wh?t ???h h?? t? giv?”.H? i? “the man wh? ??n show th?t th? ?rd?r i? int?gr?l t? th? ?itu? ti?n”. L??d?r?hi? goes t? th? m?n who can gr??? the ????nti?l? ?f ?n ?x??ri?n?? ?nd, ?? we ???, “??n ??? it as a wh?l?” and “t? wh?m th? total inter-relatedness i? m??t ?l??r”.H? is the expression ?f a harmonious ?nd effective unit? whi?h h? has h?l??d t? f?rm and whi?h he i? ?bl? t? m?k? a g?ing ??n??rn.Su?h people, Follett f??l?, ?r? f?und n?t ju?t ?t th? ???x but throughout the ?rg?niz?ti?n. A???rding t? F?ll?tt, ???rdin?ti?n, definition of purpose ?nd ?nti?i??ti?n ?r? the thr?? fun?ti?n? ?f the l??d?r.A leader has also to ?rg?niz? ?x??ri?n?? of th? gr?u? and tr?n?f?rm it int? ??w?r.Follett ?tr????? th?t leaders ?r? not only b?rn but ??n b? m?d? thr?ugh education ?nd training in ?rg?niz?ti?n and m?n?g?m?nt.F?ll?tt distinguishes b?tw??n thr?? different t???? ?f l??d?r?hi?: Leadership ?f P??iti?n, L??d?r?hi? ?f P?r??n?lit?, and L??d?r?hi? ?f Fun?ti?n. In the first, th? l??d?r h?ld? a position ?f f?rm?l ?uth?rit? ?nd in th? ????nd, one b???m?? a leader b???u?? of hi? f?r?? ful ??r??n?lit?.One wh? h?ld? both position and ??r??n?lit? can ‘l??d’ mu?h m?r? easily. But in m?d?rn ?rg?niz?ti?n?, it i? n?t th? ??r??n? ?f f?rm?l ?uth?rit? or of ??r??n?lit? who ‘l??d’ but th??? wh? possess ?x??rt kn?wl?dg?.Thu? l??d?r?hi? goes to the m?n with th? knowledge of the ?itu?ti?n, who understands its t?t?l significance and wh? ??n ??? it thr?ugh. Such ?x??rt? ??n giv? orders ?v?n to th??? ?f higher r?nk.L??d?r?hi? ?f fun?ti?n i? inh?r?nt in th? job.Though ??r??n?lit? plays a l?rg? ??rt in l??d?r?hi?, F?ll?tt b?li?v?? that l??d?r?hi? ?f fun?ti?n i? becoming more important than l??d?r?hi? ?f personality.F?ll?tt also b?li?v?? th?t th? ?u????? of any ?rg?niz?ti?n d???nd? ?n its being “?uffi?i?ntl? fl?xibl? to ?ll?w the l??d?r?hi? ?f function t? ???r?t? full? â€" to ?ll?w the m?n ?nd women with th? kn?wl?dg? and th? t??hniqu? t? control th? ?itu?ti?n”.Thu?, Follett has called ?tt?nti?n t? the ?m?rg?n?? in American lif? of 15 “l??d?r?hi? b? function”, l?ng b efore th? t?rm “Situ?ti?n?l Leadership” came into use.C?N?LU?I?NWhile M?r? P?rk?r F?ll?tt’? ??ntributi?n t? m?n?g?m?nt th??r? h?? come t? b? r???gniz?d, r?l?tiv?l? little ?tt?nti?n h?? b??n giv?n in r???nt ???r? t? her w?rk around th? d?v?l??m?nt ?f thinking and practice in th? fi?ld ?f inf?rm?l ?du??ti?n and lif?l?ng l??rning.At ?n? l?v?l thi? i? not ?ur?ri?ing. Ju?t ?? h?r id??? ?r?und management were out ?f step with th? dominant discourses ?f th? 1930? ?nd 1940?, ?? h?r ??n??rn? with l???l d?m??r???, group ?r????? and th? educative ??w?r of ?????i?ti?n?l lif? d? n?t find a r??d? response within ??li?? d?b?t?? t?d??. However, it m?? well b? th?t h?r tim? has come.Recent ?tt?nti?n t? the d??lin? in civic ??mmunit?, m??t n?t?bl? by Robert Putnam, may well ?n??ur?g? people to l??k ?t wh?t F?ll?tt has t? ?ff?r.Her ?rgum?nt? f?r th? development ?f ??h??l? as ??mmunit? centres ?till h?ld? ??n?id?r?bl? ??w?r; her exploration of the n?tur? of ?x??ri?n?? ?till ?ff?r? educators in?ig ht?; and the case for th? d?v?l??m?nt ?f l???l groups and n?tw?rk? ?? the b?dr??k of d?m??r??? (and community) i? as ?tr?ng ?? ?v?r.H?r fini?hing th?ught in Th? New State (1918), th?t the ‘C?mmunit? C?ntr? is the r??l ??ntinu?ti?n ??h??l ?f Am?ri??, th? true univ?r?it? ?f true democracy’ i? ??m?thing th?t we would d? w?ll to ??nd?r. W? need to ?xt?nd and d????n associational life.