Mary Parker Follett, primarily considered among the most prominent management specialists in the initial stages of standard management theory, revolutionized the corporate conduct principle by fusing psychology and social interactions with commercial administration. Today’s small enterprises may still benefit from Follett’s management philosophy, notably its emphasis on cooperation and staff participation. According to Follett, the ability to improve a person’s perception of power over those being led, rather than the actual use of authority, defines leadership (Tompkins, 2005). Follett also believed that a leader’s main task is to develop new managers. Follett’s philosophy of group power grants control to workers at each stage of the company, irrespective of seniority, to encourage accountability, cooperation, and interaction.
Executives, unions, and employees all continuously vie for dominance over each other in the economic sector. Employers reject union attempts to reverse the condition, while employees oppose the company’s authority over them. Follet suggested utilizing integration to resolve disputes to get rid of power-over. Follett stated that employees at various ranks should collaborate to achieve a company’s objectives, and contemporary corporations have adopted this viewpoint (Tompkins, 2005). Follett said that managers should prioritize collective power above personal power. Companies operate to serve the needs of their whole workforce and their clients, not just one particular individual. Follet’s theory of group power is crucial because everybody engaged would feel like they are on a similar side instead of competing when the unselfish mentality prevails.
The human relations period, which started in the 1930s and concentrated mainly on how personal conduct and relationships impact company effectiveness, came after the classical administration period. The Hawthorne research altered how several leaders viewed inspiration, work efficiency, and personnel happiness and helped bring in the modern era. Harvard professor Mayo and his associates experimented with workplace restructuring, workweek and day lengths, break durations, and motivation schemes between 1927 and 1932 (Tompkins, 2005). The study found that productivity improvements were linked to a complicated web of worker sentiments. The findings of the Hawthorne studies improved the audience’s comprehension of what drives people at work. Furthermore, the Hawthorne studies show that social requirements and economic demands prioritized in the classical period significantly impacted views and actions relating to the workplace.
Douglas McGregor became the first to postulate that an owner’s disposition affects staff members’ enthusiasm. McGregor presented Theory X and Theory Y as two ideas through which management view and deal with workforce motivation. Each theory presupposes that the leader’s job is to allocate resources, such as personnel, in the most advantageous way to the business. Beyond this similarity, though, their mindsets and assumptions diverge significantly. A collection of presumptions about human psychology underlies the management ideology known as Theory X (Tompkins, 2005). The philosophy focuses on managing personnel by exercising institutional control, employing rewards and punishments, and upholding management monitoring mechanisms. A different set of presumptions concerning individual nature and conduct, as well as the ensuing strategic orientation centered on integrating and self-control, are together referred to as Theory Y by McGregor.
According to McGregor, the presumptions of Theory X are universally accepted. McGregor contends that although they are fundamental in executive practices, policies, and organizational literature, they are profoundly wrong (Tompkins, 2005). Managers frequently blame human behavior for behavioral issues like procrastination, lack of desire, and refusal to take accountability, yet these issues result from their incorrect presumptions. Even though Theory X denies that these requirements are pertinent in the workplace, it makes it more challenging to satisfy higher-level demands (Tompkins, 2005). Since they can only manage to address higher-level needs at work by asking for more money, workers place a greater emphasis on financial incentives.
References
Tompkins, J. R. (2005). Organization theory and public management. Cengage Learning.