LEADING-EDGE THINKER: REDISCOVERING MARY PARKER FOLLETT
Vincent Moroz APRJ-699 Word Count: 15,525 April 14, 2017 Linda Bramble. Supervisor
Mary Parker Follett. (n.d.) Retrieved February 19, 2017, from http://blog.consultorestrategia.com/ 2012/03/la- guru-de-la-administracion-mary.html
“Unity, not uniformity, must be our aim. We attain unity only through variety. Differences must be integrated, not annihilated, nor absorbed.”
Mary Parker Follett, The New State, 1918, Chapter 3, Para. 28 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
Abstract Our constantly connected society has significantly increased the pressure on business leaders to provide real-time responses to organizational issues and customer concerns. Leaders are expected to maintain control of resources, uncover continual improvements to operations, and actively engage with employees while providing them with job enrichment opportunities. What organizational framework exists to enable business leaders to be successful at achieving all these varied demands in near real-time? This study investigates the unity framework developed by Mary Parker Follett, an early 20 th century social worker who applied practical theories for individual empowerment through community development to the problems facing modern industry. Selections from Follett's catalogue of writings have been analyzed to uncover the framework within. Comparisons are made between Follett's theories and contemporary organizational theories. Mary Follett was internationally recognized following her book The New State being published in 1918. Several identifiable themes are found within Follett's collected writings around which an identifiable framework can be constructed. There are two unique themes showing in Follett's writings which form the core of her framework: the individual and the integrative unity, and, the doctrine of integration. These themes rest on the idea that the individual has no true context outside the group and only achieves access to power through integration with others. Avoidance of domination and compromise were key aspects of integration. Other themes Follett studied are common to business theory. The management responsibilities for inter-department coordination were connected to distribution of authority based on function rather than position. Follett discussed the value and necessity of harnessing conflict, its connection and reliance on group diversity, and how these integrated to ignite innovation. She placed significant emphasis on the dynamic relationship between leadership and followership, placing both within the realities of labour-capital relations and the need for business to enact controls that supported operations. Follett was an early proponent of business having responsibility for and within the community, not only to meet the service needs of community members, but to understand itself as a community member. It was through adoption of, and adherence to, evolving standards that business was able to legitimize its profit motive. These themes did not create a how-to guide for managers to follow, they created a framework of reality-based connections to support situational necessity. Necessity was met through functional authority by which employees could support business and customer demands
2 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett without the need for vertical consultation. Emphasis was placed on organizing and recording experience. Considering Mary Follett was a sought after consultant and lecturer through the 1920s and early 1930s it is surprising she is almost unknown to contemporary organizational theorists. While it has been suggested that her disappearance was due to her gender, this is not well- supported by fact. Some modern scholars believe her ideas were untenable and idealistic, relying on the tendency for individual domination. This paper suggests the answer lies more in the realm of how information ages in academic circles and how Follett's themes were continued over the last 100 years. The following assertions can be gleaned from this report: Mary Parker Follett created a functional and scalable framework for business to organize around that promotes increased levels of coordination, flexibility and employee engagement. Business leaders can benefit from learning the art of reciprocal relating to build effective, self-managing teams with integral, situation-based controls. Contemporary organizational theories often focus on minutiae rather than building a broader, more complete, picture. By focusing on organizing experience the unity framework promotes a perpetual learning organization. Follett's unity framework is equally effective for male and female leaders as it is not reliant on gender.
3 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
Table of Contents
I. Introduction...... 5 A. Research Questions...... 5 B. Methods, Limitations, and Scope...... 6 C. Acknowledgements...... 6 D. A Short Biography of Mary Parker Follett...... 7
II. Critical Themes From Mary Parker Follett...... 9 A. The Individual and the Integrative Unity...... 10 B. The Doctrine of “Circular or Integrative Behaviour”...... 14 C. Power and Influence...... 17 D. Coordination, Control and Authority...... 20 E. Conflict, Diversity, Innovation and Change...... 24 F. Leadership, Management, and Followership...... 27 G. The Place of Business in Society...... 29 H. The Unity Framework...... 31 1. The Group Unity...... 32 2. The Business Unity...... 33 3. The Greater Unity...... 33 4. The Unity as Equalizer...... 34
III. Some Speculations as to Mary Parker Follett’s Fall Into Obscurity...... 35 A. The Issue of Gender...... 35 B. Follett as Utopian Dreamer...... 36 C. Scientific Management...... 37 D. Who Carries The Torch?...... 38 E. One Final Thought...... 39
IV. Conclusion...... 39
V. References...... 41
VI. Appendix...... 45
4 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
Introduction With the speed of change in the world today the study of how businesses organize to thrive has received a great deal of attention. Organizational leaders are under increasing pressure to produce growth with the same or fewer resources in a dynamic state of uncertainty that is increasingly influenced by global concerns and special interests. Despite an extended period of academic study there remains no unified framework available to the leader-manager for navigating the complexities they face other than a large selection of seemingly disjointed theories. How might business leaders provide a coherent framework to guide their team’s efforts to meet and master simultaneous demands? This paper will answer that question by looking back to the end of the Great War and the writings of Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933), a business management consultant and theorist who created a passionate vision for the individual to share in organizational power and responsibility through integrated group participation. While initially centred around community and political involvement through her career in social work, Follett’s attention became increasingly focused on individual fulfilment through employment after she participated on civic wage boards. Her writings garnered the interest of business leaders in both North America and the United Kingdom where she was invited to speak at business conferences and interact directly with business leaders on the issues they faced. This led to Follett translating her themes into the world of capital and labour, thus speak directly to the concerns of her new audience. An integrated framework for the business leader emerged, even though it was not described as such by its author in her time. Although well-known by business leaders of her day, and rediscovered in the 1950s in Japan, Follett’s writings have largely fallen into obscurity in North America, rarely being referenced even by those who appreciate their insight. Research Questions The following are the specific questions this paper proposes to answer: 1. What are the important themes within Mary Parker Follett’s writings of relevance to the business leader-manager or student of organizational theory? 2. What comparisons can be made from Follett’s themes to contemporary organizational theories? 3. What might have caused Follett’s writings to fall into relative obscurity?
5 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
Methods, Limitations, and Scope This paper uses the research method of conceptual paper as it is based upon secondary sources of data. Analysis of Follett’s work will be contrasted against contemporary research to illustrate the uniqueness and value of her themes, noting where these align and differ from comparison methodologies. Follett’s themes will be demonstrated to coalesce into a recognizable framework followable by organizational leaders in response to individual environments. Topics discussed in this paper, broadly termed here as organizational theory, are vast with each deserving of their own deep and detailed study. It is impossible to have included all the potential sources to compare against Follett’s work and it is acknowledged that some sources with potential relevance will have been bypassed in favour of others. I acknowledge the potential for personal bias to have been a factor when selecting comparison sources. The terms “leader” and “manager” are used in this paper interchangeably and are not intended to differentiate between position or capability. Throughout they are considered to be two ways of describing the same functional role, therefore they are used according to context rather than divisively. The focus of the paper is on identifying the important themes in Follett’s work, illuminating the binding framework within, and demonstrating the framework’s relevance to contemporary business leaders and students of organizational and leadership theory. The limited scope of this paper precludes an in-depth analysis of Follett’s full library of writings and even with this topic it will be limited to introducing the main themes. Within the scope of this paper are the writings of Mary Follett, selected comparison writings and studies from contemporary business theory, and related military leadership doctrines. Outside of the scope are any attempts to identify specific best-practices, to confirm or deny the value of current organizational theories, or to create a list of specific applications for Follett’s framework. Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge a deep debt of gratitude to Dr. Linda Bramble for her assistance in organizing my thoughts and making sense of the potential locked within the collected works of Mary Parker Follett. Without her guidance and insight this essay would not have been nearly as effective at bringing these works into view once again, where I hope they remain. Thank you Coach Bramble.
6 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
A Short Biography of Mary Parker Follett Mary Parker Follett (1868 – 1933) was born in Quincy, Massachusetts, into a well-off family. Following secondary school she studied at Radcliffe College, graduating with-highest honours “summa cum laude” (Graham, 1995; Metcalf and Urwick, 1940) in 1898. During her college studies she also studied a year at Cambridge, England, and continued postgraduate studies in Paris. Follett has been described as a polymath as she studied a wide variety of topics in her education including the working of government, economics, law and philosophy (Graham, 1995; Metcalf, and Urwick, 1940; Smith, 2002). These human-centred topics would later synthesize with psycho-biology and her own work experience into the basis of her group- based framework. Her first major work, The Speaker of the House of Representatives, was written in 1896 during her post-secondary education. This in-depth study of the representative system in US politics was read by Theodore Roosevelt in the years prior to his becoming president and was endorsed by him as important reading for those interested in the US system of government. Although anticipated to continue into academia, Follett took a position as a social worker in 1900 in the Roxbury district of Boston, an area described as rougher and ethnically varied, where she remained in community service for over 25 years. The diversity of human-kind would be a theme that later emerged prominently in her writings. Follett pioneered the use of schools after hours as community centres for exercise, education and vocational search. She considered the idea of having separate buildings for these activities when there were underutilized public buildings poor management of resources. In 1911 a pilot project with one school began, within a year this concept had proven its value and expanded to encompass additional locations. These could be considered the forerunners of today’s community centres and community leagues. Beginning in 1912 Follett took positions on the Placement Bureau Committee and the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Board, both of which afforded her opportunity for greater exposure to issues of labour-management relations. These opportunities were the catalyst that changed her focus from individual political participation to the participation of labour within business. Follett had studied economics in college and was no stranger to the concept of business profitability. She was not socialist by any definition, although was later confused as such with her references to “ the collective idea” (Follett, 1918, Chapter 2, Title). Follett’s first book, The New State, was written in 1918 and described how the individual gained access to true political participation through group association; Follett was not a proponent of the individual as society’s main unit. Within this book the unity as a concept was
7 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett first introduced and explained. The New State was widely read and Follett gained international recognition and access to “distinguished philosophers and political scientists” (Metcalf and Urwick, 1940, p. 13), opening doors of social access to her. These introductions led to lasting relationships which allowed Follett further opportunity for evolution of her ideas. Follett had an authentic personality, one with a keen and natural interest in others, which Urwick (1949) described as “a genius for friendship, for human contact” (p. xvi). This describes Follett as someone who embodied the principle of her own framework. Follett’s foray into business lectures began in 1924 at the New York Bureau of Personal Administration Conference, at which she was to become a regular speaker. In England, she spoke at the Rowntree Lecture Conferences in Oxford and the National Institute of Industrial Psychology (Metcalf and Urwick, 1940, p. 16). This would lead to ever more opportunities for her to refine her conception of the unity with business management through many new introductions with business leaders. Follett felt that, unlike the political sphere, business was dynamic and the most likely place for her theories to be realized. Some businesses of the time were either already testing the waters of employee engagement or openly interested in her insights into their organizational issues as viable solutions. Follett’s final book, Creative Experience, was written in 1924 and discussed to a large extent individual and group experience and how this relates to psychology. The topics of “circular response” (Follett, 1924, Part 1, Section 3, Title) and “integrative behaviour” (ibid, Part 1, Section 4, Title) were introduced and tied to experience as a means of generating creativity. The movement of divergent ideas between individuals within groups and how this changes group knowledge and dynamics is a theme that shows up regularly in Follett’s lectures, all of which build from the ideas found in her two books. Late in 1933 on a trip to the United States from England, where she had been living for several years, Mary Follett became ill, entered hospital and passed from this world. It has been suggested that Follett’s acceptance into the world of business as a sought-after consultant was due to her use of “personal power and charisma” (Graham, 1995, p. 14). This is at odds with Metcalf and Urwick who describe Mary Follett as an authentic personality who engaged others without alienating them. Such suggestions detract from Follett’s extraordinary intellect, perception, and effort at study by reducing it to mere leadership characteristics. Follett was not known to sway weaker minds with charm but to resonate with astute minds through authenticity, passion and original thinking.
8 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
Critical Themes From Mary Parker Follett “Just about everything written today about leadership and organizations comes from Mary Parker Follett's writings and lectures. They are dispiritingly identical – or if not identical, they certainly rhyme – with the most contemporary of writings.” Warren Bennis (1995, p. 178)
There are several themes within Follett’s writings that are relevant to the leader-manager or student of organizational theory. The central theme is that of the unity, which is described in detail in the opening chapters of The New State (Follett, 1918). All other themes flow into or out of the unity and are thus tightly related rather than separate ideas. It is this interrelation of themes that creates a framework for the organization to build a scalable team concept around. Those looking for a toolbox or how-to guide will be disappointed as Follett did not seek to be prescriptive with how a given business would approach the inner workings of their unity. Even within industries there can be a variety of business models that would make attempts at specifics untenable. For instance in retail a company could focus on cost leadership or it could focus on a luxury market. Both sell goods to consumers but their price points, suppliers and approach to customers may have them organizing in different manners. It was the purpose of the unity itself to discover the best methodology for its inner workings and the purpose of the leader to ensure individuals fully participated in the organizational self- discovery. Having sat on civic labour-management Boards Follett was able to study the negotiating positions and styles of labour and capital first-hand, which provided a new avenue for her politically-based themes to take form. The individual participating in the affairs of the community or nation could be seen again in the individual participating within the business unit or organization. Follett identified business as having greater potential for realization of unification in the manner she understood it to be. Business was, she observed, more dynamic than party politics and ever-ready to act rather than become lost in theory. This section explores the following critical themes from Follett’s writing: The Individual and the Integrative Unity
The Doctrine of “Circular or Integrative Behaviour”
Power and Influence
Coordination, Control and Authority
9 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
Conflict, Diversity, Innovation and Change
Leadership, Management and Followership
The Place of Business in Society
The Unity Framework
The Individual and the Integrative Unity Initially Follett focused on the way in which the individual could meaningfully take part in the social and political power of the nation, including thoughts of what constituted real versus party-defined democracy. Within her observations the individual only achieved real freedom of thought and action through group participation, there was no tangible way for the individual to express their individuality outside of the group as the individual must belong to some form of community to have any context to express their individuality. The dissociation which arose from ideas of individual separation neither lead to freedom of thought and action nor access to power according to Follett, individual separation was a contrived concept. Individuals needed to come together and create a new group individual, a singularity that did not compromise individuality but still created a unified sense of oneness that became a new entity. Follett considered this new entity, the unity, as a living, evolving, experiential system whose output is creativity. The creative output is beyond the mere sum of its individual contributions due to the effects of the “interpenetration” (Follett, 1918, Chapter 1, Para. 11) of individual ideas on and within the group. The unity is the situation as it exists today at this very moment, preparing for the next evolution of itself as it will be created through creative interpenetration of ideas from participants. Moment by moment the situation/unity has potential to change as group members evolve and as ideas within the group synthesize. It is the antithesis of stagnation, it is perpetual change without destabilization. It is also interesting to that nowhere in Follett’s writings does she advocate anarchy, as some of her critics claim; the unity is neither crowd nor mob. Simultaneous with the interpenetration of individual ideas, comes the other variable in unity development which is “circular response” (Follett, 1924, Part 1, Section 3, Para. 12). Starting from “cause and effect” (ibid) ideas move between participants in the group, subtly changing individual knowledge, experience or view point until the circulating ideas cause a change to the nature of the group itself. Follett says it is not unlike the reactions of tennis players – reaction and counter as the game evolves – but unlike a game of tennis, there was no
10 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett expectation of there being a winner and a loser; there was only creativity. The group must continue to evolve through circular response from integrative state to integrative state. Interpenetration and circular response are not processes to subjugate the individual or have them submit their will to the dominant will of the group. On the contrary, the individual is expected to retain their sense of individuality while integrating their experiences with other individual experiences. For the group to move towards full unity, individuals would have to retain as much respect for their own ideas as for others. Compromise was viewed by Follett just as pointless as domination, it avoided the conflict potential from which creativity was brought forth. The unity was an end-state not achieved immediately, it required the dedication of the group and continued circular response to bring it to life. The individual was expected to fully participate and not abdicate their responsibility for group success to others. Follett did not embrace any form of social loafing. In her 1925 lecture, Business as an Integrative Unity (Follett, 2013), Follett asks whether-or- not business can ever reach its full potential without first having the worker feel as dedicated to business outcomes as its management. Put another way Follett asks can the group find its full potential if individuals within do not actively participate in the creative process or if they dissociate into contrived individuality? Follett is also quick to point out that labour is only one potential friction point within the organization, the other is relationships between managers themselves. This highlights concerns over empire-building within organizations and information silos. It is also a call to integrate at all levels by recognizing each department in an organization must become aligned with the business vision and not merely their own departmental concerns. There begins the transfer of the vision of civil unity into the business unity. Follett appears to start with the assumption that each group (workers, trade unions, functional departments) is already functioning is a unified way, which mean these group unities must now begin the process of forming a larger, integrated unity that encompasses the entire organization. Just as with the individual each group is expected to hold onto their unique group positions avoiding compromise or domination, looking through the lens of their group to the ultimate needs of the company. Each group’s ideas interpenetrating the others ideas, subtly changing relationships through circular response until group creativity results and a new unity is reached. Today we might look at this as cooperative or collaborative behaviours. This is already at work in many organizations. Follett speaks of “collective responsibility” (ibid, p. 77) where groups within the organization share oversight of some particular matter, a concept already well integrated into labour-management participation on safety committees. My own company seeks to initiate a labour-management committee whenever considering
11 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett major changes to labour structure even when these do not directly affect the tenets of the collective bargaining agreement. The process is used to keep labour cooperation through transparency while allowing for input from affected groups fostering idea exchange. Ultimately the dialogue is geared to promote acceptance and buy-in of the new labour model which could be as one dimensional as changing shift patterns. The process in motion remains one of integration and circular response. Beyond creative communication was business organization. Follett believed groups that could effectively communicate would have greater understanding on how their functional roles affected one another. This understanding not only assisted the worker in identifying their place in the company structure but it assisted the company in understanding what the function of the worker’s position was and how to make that function as productive as possible. Leaders needed to understand where workers had the potential to assume greater responsibility and where functional responsibility needed to reside. Actions and authorities needed to be lat a functional role. Departments understanding other departments would lead to enhanced coordination of efforts giving potential for increased control over how resources were used. The inevitable conflict of integration was to lead the company into new ideas and possibly new methods while solving problems. Workers, who could be given functional control of business activities needed to understand their responsibility for successful outcomes, they could not simply look to the foreman or manager for all the answers. These were the themes, the psychological structures that created a framework allowing business activities to occur as efficiently as possible and without the waste of effort. Follett notes not everyone will be vested in seeing the unity prevail. She specifically says that while collective bargaining has no replacement it is not a creative process meaning it is not a part of the unity process. As one who has participated in the collective bargaining process it appears more as a business negotiation, compromise or domination, one whose basic premise is unresolvable tension between worker and manager. Achievement of the workplace unity would weaken the position of trade unionism, not strengthen it, making support for the integrative unity unlikely from those with a vested interest in unresolved workplace tension. Situational leadership theories touch on the importance of the momentary situation. Vroom and Jago (2007) concluded the situation itself may be more important than the actions of the leader and suggested the situation may actually negate leader behaviour models from having any effect. This conclusion connects with the unity in that it brings to light individual behaviours (in this case those of the leader) do not exist in a vacuum but form only a portion of what is currently in motion. There was little suggestion of the role of followers (possibly all the other individuals in the situation) and little suggestion of how group dynamics may have
12 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett precipitated the situation. The key point here is that there is first a situation to consider and from that other factors are considered and brought into play. Numerous studies have looked at the situational leadership theory of Hersey and Blanchard. Blanchard developed an updated version of the model which he termed “Situational Leadership II” (Blanchard, Zigarmi & Nelson, 1993) which renamed leadership styles in order to remove what he considered to be ambiguity and misunderstanding from the original model. The updated model remained similar to the original in that it focused on altering leadership style (one individual) to fit the functional state of the employee (another individual) during task execution (the situation). By contrast to Vroom and Jago the focus is on the relationship between leader and follower with little consideration given to the effects of the situation on the state of either. Compared to Follett's unity there are similarities to the concept of circular response in that feedback flows from leader to follower. It is reasonable to assume a reciprocal information flow returns to the leader with the outcome changing experience and individual viewpoints. It would appear the situation is viewed as an event rather than evolving. Compared to the unity both Vroom and Jago, and, Blanchard et al. offer only a portion of Follett’s vision. There is almost a sense of helplessness inherent in the concept of situation overriding leader actions, as though planning was insufficient. It may stem from an underlying view that there are winners and losers in all situations. A focus on the follower’s state of readiness could be relegated to a training opportunity status rather than a true communication model. It could be argued that once the leader commences communication with the follower the process of interpenetration begins which would naturally lead to a form of circular response between leader and follower. This has the potential to change the follower’s state of readiness in short order, changing its fundamental state. There exists a closer parallel to the unity within the current Canadian military establishment. A little over a decade ago the Canadian Armed Forces changed their doctrine on leadership to that of “distributed leadership” (Canadian Defence Academy, 2005, p. 11). In this model all soldiers have a “duty” (ibid) to provide the functions of a leader should one not be available. In other words the individual within the group must understand not only their functional role but also that of their leader. All group members have the responsibility to assume a leadership role should the situation dictate. This implies a larger scope of functional responsibility than may exist within civilian organizations and implies a structure exists to select the group member who will become leader within the situation. This also implies that group dynamics will have changed (possibly through battlefield attrition) leading to a change in inter-group dynamics. Should the leader only be removed temporarily a change within the group will still
13 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett exist given individual experience will have changes along with a potential change in group dynamics. Either way it suggests a state of evolution similar to Follett's unity. One of the closer organizational approaches to the unity is the horizontal structure (Ostroff & Smith, 1992; Daft & Armstrong, 2012) which is a flatter model centred around teams. Like the unity the group is the basic unit and group members focus on creativity through cooperative efforts, with continual improvement and responsibility for outcomes being expectations. Individual flexibility and empowerment inside self-managing teams allows for faster responses to consumer issues. Leadership is performed by a “process owner” (Daft & Armstrong, 2012, p. 112) who may have several self-managing teams inside their process. All teams have direct access to one another inside the process without concern for borders or silos. The way the horizontal structure is described suggests it would also be a learning structure. The similarities to Follett's unity are evident. Not only are the groups in a process expected to be functionally responsible for their roles they are given open access to other groups in the process in order to collaborate on customer response. This openness allows for interpenetration of ideas and circular response to become a part of normal inter-group activities which will tend to foster a larger unity within the process. The customer response, as situation, will trend to focus group efforts along the lines of desire organizational outcomes. The Doctrine of “Circular or Integrative Behaviour” Integration and circular response are central communication themes throughout Follett’s unity framework. Follett termed them “the doctrine of circular or integrative behaviour” (Follett, 1924, Introduction, Para. 10) which synthesizes several disciplines from her own studies and those of her wide social contacts. She notes the doctrine contains a base of psychology with elements of psycho-biology, political science, physiology and philosophy. Comparing these many behavioural disciplines to the concept of the business unity one can understand that a single stream of study would be insufficient to describe the complex interactions at play in the firm’s position within its industry, or within the human psyche. Like chemical reactions, the interaction of minds can create results that are volatile even when resulting in something new and useful. Follett understood that human interaction, like business variables, cannot be studied in isolation with expectations of revealing a clear and unified picture. We see in Follett's doctrine the dialectic influences of both Plato and Hegel. From Plato, we see Follett seeking the truth within the dialogue. As ideas interpenetrate the group and disagreements begin to ferment the solutions are sought through logic and rational thought rather than through rhetoric. From Hegel, we see Follett nodding to “whole total relativity”
14 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
(Follett, 1918, Chapter 28, Para. 19), put another way, the unified truth of the group which is found within the unity. Follett speaks of the relativity of “subject and object” (Follett, 1924, Part 1, Section 3, Para. 4) and how rather than being distinct opposites to which gravitation is reasonable they are in fact a “function” (ibid, Para. 5) of one-another. Follett used the analogy of mathematics to show how subject and object are “interdependent”, not “independent” (ibid), and so rely on each other to have meaning. Follett’s approach is that of oneness, and more specifically the assertion that functional parts of any given human equation affect each other, perpetually changing the equation as the variables evolve. This evolution is the essence of “reciprocal influence” (ibid, Para. 1). Follett was clear that integration as a standard for individual relations or the use of power was not well embraced as many theorists were “stuck to the theory of the balance of power” (ibid), which favoured so-called balance of opposing forces. Follett was ardently against any form of stasis believing there was no creativity found within; creativity was the underlying premise of her integrative doctrine. She stated that stasis was an abnormal state of being, the seeking of which promoted ignorance. Follett takes reciprocal influence a step farther. She is clear and passionate in stating that every contact between ideas is not a system of cause and effect or even of one influence over another, but one of immediate and reciprocal reactions which she terms “I-plus-you reacting to you-plus-me” (ibid, Para. 13). Consider for a moment the depth of the interplay suggested. If the mathematical formula was (b+a) + (a+b) and both a and b were influenced by the other ahead of the equation how would we really know what a and b were originally as variables? With the situation constantly evolving the formula is one of perpetual reaction or even pre- reaction as Follett suggests, where the process of meeting causes change ahead of idea exchange. Relations are unceasingly dynamic, occurring both inside and outside of the individual at the same time, with any momentary state of now-ness creating the next influence point. This dynamic influence is the essence of circular response. Out of these dynamic inter-changes comes the creative process. Follett notes that neither an idea nor a solution are ends unto themselves, heir mere existence creates further ideas and solutions. What was not apparent yesterday when an idea came to life is today the germ of the tomorrow’s solution to an as-yet-unknown need. This would imply even solutions are temporary states of being. Once Archimedes introduced his screw to ancient Syracuse what else did it become the solution for? What innovations built on it?
15 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
The rise in salaries for professional athletes may be seen as an integrative or circular behaviour. Once the athlete understands their influence in filling stadium seats and the effect this has on the state of owner profit they can exploit a present financial situation to create a new relationship with the owner. The needs of both owner and athlete integrate through the filling of seats. One might be tempted to view the integrative process as destructive, breaking apart the old in favour of the new. Follett's view of integration did not seek change for the sake of change nor advocate destruction of what was in order to facilitate the integrative process. It was a reasonable outcome to rebuild some portions anew without others facing change. Follett would suggest we change what needed to change and leave the remainder until something better is created. One criticism Follett has received from contemporary scholars surrounds her focus on integrating differences (Nohria, 1995; Kanter, 1995) as a part of the creative process. Follett’s framework defaults to the position that differences are to be integrated but at the same time is very clear this process has limits: “Not all differences, however, can be integrated. That we must face fully, but it is certain that there are fewer irreconcilable activities than we at present think, although it often takes ingenuity, a “creative intelligence,” to find the integration” (ibid, Part 1, Section 9, Para. 12). Follett's admonishment is clear. The parties within the unity must be willing to invest the required amount of effort interpenetrating diverse ideas into new thinking and not simply fall back to supporting their own original positions. By extension, this suggests the group manager must be willing to look beyond the conflict point to the underlying root cause or root needs of the individuals. Obstinacy and political agenda are not to be confused with irreconcilable difference. Both can be considered forms of dominance, passive or aggressive. In considering the potential for integration of differences it must be noted that to Follett compromise was as dangerous and outcome as obstinacy or individual agendas, and was not to be considered a part of the doctrine. She considered compromise to be abdication of individuality and oppression of the diversity that was critical to the effectiveness of circular response. Any points subject to compromise were unsolved and would fester until integrated. Disappearing from one discussion, they would appear in a future one, potentially with more conflict fuelling them. Follett’s doctrine of circular or integrative behaviour can be summarized best through her “three fundamental principles” of “social situations” (ibid, Part 1, Section 3, Para. 25). 1. Individuals respond to dynamic, not stable, situations;
16 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
2. Situations are dynamic because of the interaction between individual and situation; and, 3. The dynamic interactions between individual and situation are always changing the state of either variable. The ability of the leader-manager to overlay the doctrine of circular or integrative behaviour as a general framework for group dynamics within the business unity has the potential for immediate and ongoing benefits. In groups bound by mechanistic controls it enables the conditions for incremental improvements by processing feedback from all levels of the workforce. In groups seeking innovation it reminds us of the ever-evolving nature of the creative impulse available within the group and how the interactions of today lead to the innovations of tomorrow. For Follett, the importance of the doctrine of circular or integrative behaviour could not be overstated. Power and Influence Mary Follett viewed power through the lens of her studies in the humanities and social sciences. “The question of power” (Follett, 1924, Introduction, Para. 6) was the main concern within the structure of groups of any size from unionization on the industrial shop floor up to the clash of nations upon the battlefields of Europe which unfolded in her time. Follett was not seeking to champion who should hold power, or how power would be shared among factions. She was aware that individuals wanted power and that the conflict of want and counter-want created struggle. To Follett, all power that sought dominion over others was problematic, no matter who held it. Attempts to distribute power among factions did not result in less struggle and were not considered equalizing. She used the term “coercive power” (ibid) to describe the desire for “power-over” (Follett, 2013, p. 100) others and warned that “it will slip from every arbitrary hand that grasps it” (Follett, 1924, Introduction, Para. 6). Coercive power, Follett says, is a scourge upon humanity. A replacement for coercive power, according to Follett, was the concept of “coactive power” (ibid) which she offered as a means of replacing the struggle for control of power sources with an integrative view of power use. “Genuine power can only be grown” (ibid) Follett states, a thought she echoes in the concept of teachers showing students how to “transmute experience into power” (Follett, 1970). She is trying to tell us that seeking to hold power over others should not be our goal, but rather, that we should learn the value of expressing individual power through experience and the unity. Follett noted individuals used coercive power to equalize their social standing. Follett likened this acquisition of power to collecting something without actually needing it except for personal satisfaction at levelling the social standing playing field. In her 1925 lecture, Power,
17 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett the drive of labour to acquire power from capital through unionization was given as another example. On one hand power is hoarded by the individual, in another individuals group together attempting to extract power. Neither example is individual expression through integrative unity. Power was also noted by Follett to spring from situations that resulted in winners and losers, and she noted a strong tendency for this behaviour between firms (Follett, 2013). She noted that while the tendency was often to use some form of supply-chain coercion to gain advantage, a similar financial outcome could be gained by efficiently organizing groups as a functional unity (ibid). We should not lose sight that Follett is suggesting a disproportionate amount of energy ends up directed into the fight rather than into organizational efforts at integration that will produce the same returns although in varying levels of personal satisfaction. It must be questioned what value the firm derives from individual satisfaction. Follett does not specifically assign power a good vs bad, right vs wrong label, she considers this question in terms of motive through “power-with” or power-over (Follett, 2013, p. 100): is the intention of holding power coercive or coactive? She notes that there are many avenues to achieve power-over and that it does not issue only from positions of strength, the weak and infirm also have their avenues for coercion. The only true power individuals have, Follett says, is the power over one’s own self and actions. She suggests diffusing the want of power-over through integration (Follett, 2013), and by this she clearly means embracing the integrative unity. Influence and coercion appear to be similar forms of behaviour within Follett's writings. She notes study of “the art of persuasion” (Follett, 1924, Part Ii, Chapter 11, Para. 6) tends towards power-over rather than power-with. Influence gained through coercive persuasion does not create integrative or aligned intent but leans toward tyranny (ibid, Para. 8). Thus influence used without the intent of integration can be viewed as underhanded attack on individual and group power veiled in the garb of due-process. Rather than seeking power-over Follett urges all parties be governed by the needs of the present circumstances as the present facts deduce whether power is correctly utilized or not (Follett, 2013, p. 105). She suggests that to correctly ascertain if power has “legitimacy” (ibid, p. 111) it must belong to the circumstances rather than exist apart from them. From this we can assume that Follett means all power utilized outside of the needs of circumstance becomes power-over and that tyranny hovers nearby. Every the pragmatist, Follett does not see the end of power-over, but she says limits should be put upon it through application of the integrative unity, and, by recognizing and adhering to
18 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett the needs of the present circumstance (ibid, p. 106). Attempting to spread power equally in order to keep any one group from becoming tyrannical only creates other tyrannies. Contemporary thinking on power and influence invariably place it united under the topic of leadership. Leaders use power and influence in order to achieve their aims, which are inevitably tied to inducing others to do the leader’s bidding. While power is generally suggested as benign, the descriptions of it are more indicative of power-over. Power sources such as “reward” and “coercive” (Schermerhorn & Wright, 2014, p. 330) are both different names for the same effect. The use of reward for coercion is well-connected. “Expert” and “referent” power (ibid) are similarly suggestive of having power-over others. Experts hold unique facts that can be used or withheld to direct opinions, while those with referent power essentially have a fan-base who’s views can be swayed. All forms of power are a means to an end, the leader’s end, and while it could be argued that leadership style will determine whether the use of power is power-over or power-with, this is more subjective than objective. Even the use of lawful power is fraught with concern. Opponents can be thwarted by the use of “legitimacy” tactics (Hardy, 1994, p. 222) and new power bases can be created by these same means. Through the use of legitimacy, power can be used to influence, or specifically coerce, the opinions of the group into accepting one course of action over another. Intrigue and politics share common goals when joined to legitimacy. A concept that appears on the surface similar to Follett's idea of the circumstances directing power is that of power held within “the system” (ibid, p. 230). The main difference between circumstances and system are largely ones of their place in time. Circumstances are now and evolving forward, whereas system is a structure with history and one that passively uses the symbols of its past as a barrier to losing power. Conceptually there appears to be little difference between Follett and more contemporary views of power: both realize that power-over is the dominant form and that is unlikely to change. Whereas Follett seeks to reduce power-over through the integrative unity and the demands of circumstance, today’s viewpoints suggest leadership styles as the defining factor in what becomes power-over or power-with. Neither can be said to be a full solution to “the question of power” (Follett, 1924, Introduction, Para. 6). In the end, Follett challenges us to consider how we prefer power within the group to be managed: by a constant struggle to seize and maintain it, or by its integration through the unity guided by the needs of present circumstances (Follett, 1924).
19 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
Coordination, Control and Authority In her lecture The Process of Control (Follett, 1987) Follett states the concept of control in business was moving away from that of controlling individuals to controlling information and situation. Common business planning and ongoing expense management were the drivers for controls, and in a more dynamic way, situations dictated the required controls. These issues could be watched by managers and adjusted as required without the need of higher authority intervention. The structure of the firm itself brought about the desired controls and these controls are successful, or not, based on the ability of the management team to co-ordinate together successfully. Follett provides “four fundamental principles of organization” which are all concerned with “co- ordination” (ibid, p. 78). She says co-ordination must begin as soon as possible, must be conducted between appropriate levels of leadership, must consider how all variables in an issue relate, and, it must be ongoing to be effective (ibid). This is the functional unity at the command-level as opposed to the individual level, although it remains an integration of individuals with all the interplay of leader personalities. It would be the business unity made up of group unities, the natural progression suggested by Follett, with circular response and reciprocal adjustments based on interpenetration of individual department needs and objectives. At the business unity level coordination becomes more challenging as it suggests understanding beyond ones own group. If we think back to the earlier discussion on the unity we will remember that, to the maximum extent possible, the goal is to not forgo the needs of the group or fall back to compromise. The goal is to keep intact all ideas, wants and needs while solving the inherent friction points, thus creating new potentials. One can clearly see how this would support the learning organization and the creative cooperative that fuels the innovative companies of the world. To achieve this requires integrative capacity within the business leadership, power cannot be held tightly at the highest levels. A better way, according to Follett, is to weave the goals of the individual functions within corporate goals, their “policy” (ibid, p. 82) within corporate policy, thus enabling integration at the earliest point and making it enduring. Policy alignment will not solve all potential power issues, however, and Follett reminds us that “politics” (ibid, p. 83) is always a card to be played as a barrier to the integrative process. Follett also believed that it was a sound course of action to include employees in discussions on control in the situations where their functional knowledge would provide value (ibid, p. 84). As with power, this would not require control going to employees, but rather, end with
20 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett integrating their functional needs and ideas into the specific issue at hand. Control is the self- directing power of the unity (Follett, 1987, p. 14). As the process of coordination and control needed to be ongoing, Follett suggested that some vehicle be created within the firm to support it (ibid). Random or infrequent meetings would be insufficient to capture the potential changes that the process of integration created. New processes might be introduced that changed current belief, budgetary beliefs might not prove correct, a new manager might alter existing relationships – all changing the nature of the existing relational unity. This needed to be promptly addressed. Perhaps the greatest benefit of a perpetual state of coordination to Follett was in generating benefits from “experience” (ibid, p. 86), which is akin to saying Follett supported the learning organization. The warning she gave was that experience was only valuable if we actually realized when it was created, captured it in some fashion, and, connected it to our processes and other experiences. We can extrapolate that experience ignored dooms us to repeat the same mistakes again. Considering the importance of coordination within business it is interesting to read in Follett's lecture Co-ordination she considered inter-division coordination the most striking short- coming of many firms she examined (Follett, 1987). Follett was clear that for business to thrive within its organizational methods it needed to embrace the unity. She suggested business should discover just how aligned functional groups were and how much they understood the motivations and concerns of other groups. This would demonstrate the starting point for integration. Follett recommended three practices which supported greater levels of coordination between functional groups and reinforced the unity concept: “cross-functioning” between groups, “understanding of integration”, and “collective responsibility” (ibid, p. 71). Cross-functioning meant that leaders of a similar level were able to reach across functional groups to address issues, reaching up only when required. The ability to choose either the horizontal or vertical path as the situation dictated ensured flexibility within the issue and encouraged faster solution response times. Follett's comment on understanding integration was directed at executive managers, although a clear case can be made that leaders of any level must understand integration. What Follett was suggesting is that in order for the entire firm to reach an integrative state the higher levels of management must first understand integration’s value, then embrace the effort it required. Collective responsibility advocates an understanding of employee and group responsibility for outcomes outside the limit of their function due to the overlapping and linking each part of the unity has with the others. Any ideas of separation are unrealistic.
21 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
As an example, in one company I have worked for if Operations did not accrue their expenses correctly then Finance was delayed in their work and risked incorrect reporting which may make their audits difficult. In return, if Finance did not accurately calculate certain portions of the budget then Operations spent the entire year identifying and explaining variances that were not its doing. Follett believed that authority was also driven by function and even the chief executive should have only as much authority as required by position. I would suggest this is true even for the military commander, a role which I have held, as the rifleman is given orders defining authority for use of lethal force and then left to exercise it. The commander cannot make all critical decisions for individuals, it is impractical. In her lecture, The Illusion of Final Authority, Follett states “decisions” are a “moment in a process” (Follett, 1987, p. 1) and hold little of the virtue often given them. While the leader may make the ultimate choice in a matter, the combined knowledge and understanding of others builds the case for the situational decision. The very worst use of authority derives from “arbitrary” use (ibid, p. 5) as it is linked to neither the situation nor the understanding. The reader will recall this is consistent with Follett's view of power legitimacy: power is not legitimate which is exercised outside of the situation. Follett notes that moving authority to a functional level supports the idea of “decentralization” (ibid, p. 7) which we could say creates a more horizontal organizational structure. Follett suggests that the experience within the group was of sufficient importance to become part of business coordination, and I would suggest this must include recording who has what knowledge and experience within a form of training matrix. This practice is common in many companies. Follett states that “authority flows from coordination, not coordination from authority”(ibid, p. 5) which suggests the overall importance of effective coordinating activities between leaders. Follett says authority is evolving, which stands to reason as every part of the integrative unity, of which experience is but one variable, continually evolves to create new potential. Use of experience creates change to experience which creates evolving experience. Not even experience remains static. One method which Follett points out authority is offered through is standard operating procedures (SOP). In the way that employees are given authority to act within function, so situation can be the driver of authority via SOP. In Follett's lecture, The Giving of Orders (Follett, 1987) it is discussed how arbitrary orders create resistance to commands even in a military setting. Leaders must learn to exercise authority by connecting orders to the needs of
22 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett the situation as this is the premise behind control, coordination and authority. SOP connects authority to function by empowering employees to act within SOP limits as a part of their normal job role without the need for leader input. One might be tempted to say that orders given by the military commander do not conform to the idea of SOP, however, that is not the case. Military order are drawn up and given to soldiers but in no way can foresee all possible obstacles to success. To manage the most likely issues military orders contain actions-on, which are essentially SOP for specific potentialities. Beyond orders and actions-on the situation itself would dictate the commander’s next decision. There is no room for the arbitrary even here. Urwick, a contemporary of Follett, discussed “the manager’s span of control” (Urwick, 1956, p. 39) as the principle where one manager could capably juggle no more than six other persons “whose work interlocks” (ibid, p. 45). Urwick credits this principle to a military source, General Sir Ian Hamilton. The term interlock is of specific importance to this principle as it suggests the principle works within an integrative unity where the six persons share coordinating duties and so influence the others work directly. Urwick says that if the work does not interlock then the limit grows, however, when the interlock exists the subordinate count must be limited. Without limits, it is not possible for the supervisor to give each sufficient attention which leads to problems of morale and coordination. Urwick does not connect Follett’s unity framework to the term interlock, however, the comparison is obvious. Yukl (2008) suggests organizational outcomes are a combination of effective resource management and the ability to react to changes in market forces. How much weight is given to either consideration depends on the nature of the industry the organization belongs to. He stresses the importance of having available employee talent and suggests this aspect of the organization is becoming more important to consider, although this again depends on the needs of the business. Yukl also suggests that leaders need to pay attention to how various aspects of the organizational structure fit together to avoid one initiative negatively affecting others. He suggests that when the coordinating structures within the firm are well integrated they can reduce the amount of effort required by the leader-manager. This suggests corporate structure is a strong determinant of corporate culture and where that culture supports coordination and empowerment it aligns with Follett. His point of the importance of talent within the employee pool is suggestive of the experience an employee possesses and their functional ability to use it, which aligns with the importance Follett places on experience. To some extent Yukl aligns with Urwick in considering that departments within the company must be integrated to reduce managerial overhead,
23 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett however, he does not put limits on the number of subordinates the manager can effectively handle. Gill speaks of “empowerment” (Gill, 2003, p. 315) and quotes Lao Tzu: “But when the best leader’s work is done, the people say, ‘‘We did it ourselves’’.” Gill stresses the importance of giving employees what they need to be successful and employee responsibility for outcomes. He notes specifically that leaders should give employees “knowledge” and “skills” (ibid). This suggests that the leader-manger is the holder of both items and confers them to employees to ensure their success. While empowerment aligns with Follett’s view of functional authority and responsibility, she would suggest instead that the very reason for giving employees power is because they already possess the required knowledge, skills and experience. Follett does not specifically address doing so for the purpose of training and personal development which may be what Gill is implying to some extent. What is most interesting about this theme in Follett's framework is that the leader’s role is defined less by exercising control, and more by ensuring sufficient controls through effective coordination exist to be exercised. Authority is not the sole purview of the leader, it ties to functional necessity, which Follett sees bound with a functional role. Collective responsibility, does not remove overall leader responsibility, but it suggests that the responsibility that goes with functional authority will be shared by the employees who hold it. Employees will need to be ready for this level of accountability. Conflict, Diversity, Innovation and Change As we have seen in previous sections, the integrative unity is a generator for conflict, change and innovation. Follett has told us that the process of interpenetration coupled with circular response is certain to create conflict that, if properly managed, can lead to new ideas. With every new exchange and new experience gained from working within the unity, change is created and change itself creates conflict. If integration of differences is the solution to the issue of conflict, what could we call the catalyst? The answer, according to Follett, is diversity. “Unity, not uniformity, must be our aim. We attain unity only through variety. Differences must be integrated, not annihilated, nor absorbed.” (Follett, The New State, 1918, Chapter 3, Para. 28). Follett goes on by saying that “ignoring of differences is the most fatal mistake in politics or industry or international life” (ibid, Para. 30). At the heart of the unity framework rests the idea that through integration of ideas and differences we can create something better than we have now, something of value to all participants, something that ultimately removes conflict by transmuting it into innovation. Follett goes on to say: “As long as we think of difference as
24 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett that which divides us, we shall dislike it; when we think of it as that which unites us, we shall cherish it” (ibid). Herein lies the clue that we will return to later. “Give your difference, welcome my difference, unify all difference in the larger whole – such is the law of growth. The unifying difference is the eternal process of life – the creative synthesis, the highest act of creation, the at-onement” (ibid, Para. 32). Clearly, Follett was a passionate supporter of diversity and integrating of differences, and yet, diversity was not about proportional representation from among the ethnic groups Follett was exposed to during her time as a social worker. It was about being heard, having a voice, and being able to share ideas with others. Follett’s vision for diversity was Follett's vision for integration. Diversity was the power latent within the unity. Follett did not believe that conflict was either desirable or grievous, it simply was. In her lecture Constructive Conflict (Follett, 2013) she equated conflict with difference, one being the manifestation of the other. Since conflict was inevitable Follett believed it should be either harnessed for the inherent good it could bring, or be removed if it held no value. However, she warned that many who would remove conflict were really intent on removing “diversity” (Follett, 1924, Conclusion, Para. 2). Should we forgo conflict we could never forgo diversity, it was and integral part of our existence. Yet conflict held value as it brought much into the open that would otherwise remain hidden. Accepting that conflict is a normal part of human existence Follett suggested there were three ways to pursue it: “domination, compromise and integration” (ibid, p. 31). Domination, she says, is the simplest form, and I would suggest also the most popular. Not only does it generate satisfaction through exercising power-over but perpetuates this state. Follett warns that if the recent clash of nations was any indication, domination was not a lasting form of conflict resolution, yet neither was compromise which she noted was the method employed by organized labour. Both domination and compromise were prone to hiding grievances rather than solving them, meaning they would only erupt later, in another format. The only lasting method of conflict resolution was integration as it considered all points and did not demand giving up ones individuality. If integration was the solution, what held the world back from its adoption? According to Follett the first obstacle is that it took a great deal of effort to successfully accomplish (Follett, 2013). Domination was simpler and people were used to it, integration lacked the raw sense of accomplishment that domination provided. Another difficulty was that we trained for conquest but nowhere did we train for integration, not even in the halls of higher education were courses on integration to be found. Lastly, there was the issue that people loved to talk
25 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett instead of do. Integration’s effort suggested an outcome but it was much safer politically to theorize. Change was not a doctrine to Follett, it naturally sprung from within the unity and needed to be expected by the leader. She reminds managers that sudden alterations to routine would be very disruptive to employees and that “we cannot be too careful of the power of previous ideas” (Follett, 1987, p. 29). In order to allow for introduction of new methods a three-prong approach was suggested: 1) pave the way for change through communication and allow for feedback; 2) creative motivations for change, including financial or other rewards; and, 3) provide sufficient time to build new routines. Follett says managers should “create attitudes, augment attitudes and release attitudes” (ibid). This is similar to the Lewin-Schein change model of “unfreezing”, “moving to a new state” and “refreezing” (Schein, n.d.). Daft (2006) notes that many businesses face perpetual change, and that for some it is a part of their operating model. To allow for greater reactivity to change, he says, some have realigned their organizational structures to a flatter design. Daft uses the terms innovation and change (ibid) within the same context and suggests that, while change is perpetual, it has identifiable drivers that may be internal or external to the firm. Contemporary discussions on diversity tend toward minorities as the primary unit of diversity, focusing on themes of inclusion, equality and demographic change (Daft, 2006; Pless & Maak, 2004; Lockwood, 2005). Shen et al. (2009) note diversity and discrimination are issues even within same cultural groups in many parts of the world. They use the term “diversity management” (p. 238) to describe the goal of achieving “competitive advantage” through utilization of diverse skills and experiences, a term also used by Lockwood (2005). Contemporary approaches to conflict are often referred to as “conflict management” with the goal to keep conflict contained or protect working relationships (Hagemann and Stroope, 2012; Ashkenas & Bodell, 2013; Toegel and Barsoux, 2016). This approach often seeks to increase inter-group communication and understanding of differences through dialogue, or set rules for conflict between individuals, including suggestions for leader-to-follower communication. Conflict is not always viewed negatively, although ignoring conflict repeatedly risks it growing to become a larger problem. Other research points to the benefits of harnessing conflict during change initiatives as a means of diffusing angst in those situations (Lehman and Linsky, 2009). The question could well be asked why are we not more accepting of diversity in today’s society? The answer I believe lies within the statement Follett makes of seeing our differences as a point of separation, not unification. Central to today’s concept of diversity is
26 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett the acceptance of differences without question. Seen through the lens of Follett’s integrative unity it is increasingly evident that modern diversity supports entrenched positions of difference, to the point of using difference as a form of power-over, and to the exclusion of calls for integration. Integration is portrayed as a loss of identity, discrimination, and a lack of diversity, yet integration is where Follett would tell us the true power of our individuality lies. I would suggest that we are not more accepting of diversity today because neither side of the diversity debate is willing to give up their urge to power-over for the sake of integration, regardless of what benefits integration may provide the whole. The collective “we” remains very attached to our differences, it’s high time we trained for integration. Leadership, Management, and Followership The role of the leader and manager is largely written throughout the themes of Follett’s framework. The dual role is one which masters the integrative unity with its ever-evolving state of now-ness, anticipates its potential outcomes and reacts in advance, seeks diversity, integrates the differences of individuals as opportunities, harnesses conflict to ignite innovation while removing friction, moves functional power to functional to meet situational demands, uses power-with inside the confines of situational restraints, and follows the leadership rule of the circumstance. Leaders coordinate with other leaders to ensure sound inter-group coordination, while organizing control measures to meet the needs of the firm, allowing circumstance to dictate whether the flow of authority needs to be horizontal or vertical. Leaders communicate power, integrate experience, and, exercise control without use or abuse of their authority. In the lecture The Essentials of Leadership (Follett, 1987) Follett notes that the accepted traits of a leader tended toward being “aggressive, masterful, dominating” (p. 48) or they “dominate by persuasiveness” (p. 49) although this was usually at odds with a successful outcome. The few individual traits she emphasized were ones of moral behaviour and setting the “example” (ibid, p. 57) for followers, traits noted in contemporary Servant Leadership models (Graham, 1991). Rather than placing emphasis on traits and personalities, Follett would tell the leader “learn your job” (Follett, 2013, p. 272). It was in knowing the intricacies of their position, and one could extrapolate this included industry knowledge, that the leader was to focus their energies. Assuming they had developed the ability to integrate experiences and thus melded these into group power, the leader was free to focus on watching the bigger, more strategic picture with its trends and indicators. The leader was to communicate not only corporate requirements into the group, but reciprocally group power into the corporation. Follett contended that leadership was a skill that was learn-able, otherwise where would the next cadre of leaders be found? It was in fact one of the roles of the leader to train other
27 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett leaders. She noted that leadership showed spontaneously in situations where people came together without being a product of formal position. The person holding leadership could change depending on the situation those same people were involved in, it was not static. Opportunities to exercise and be tested in leadership tasks was a point of great importance in the training of junior leaders for future roles and was to be made available for their development. This illustrates Follett’s unity framework as applied to situational use of leadership: the needs of the situation dictate where leader power is vested and which experiences are to be leveraged. When speaking of followers Follett was clear that merely doing what one is told and being pliable was considered sloth. This was not the follower that should be sought by any real leader. Instead, the better leaders actively sought skillful followers, and developed those with leadership potential. Follett said: “The leader should make us feel our responsibility, not take it from us. Thus he gets men whom it is worthwhile to lead.” (Follett, 2013, p. 249). This is an incredibly powerful statement showing that a strong leader looks for strong followers and is not intimidated by recruiting followers who potentially have more skill in some areas that the leader. The better the quality of the followers, the greater the strength and value of the leadership (Follett, 2013). Followers were to have an active role in leadership which flowed through reciprocal communication. Information critical to the situation flows follower-to-leader as much as leader- to-follower with both leader and follower “following the invisible leader – the common purpose” (Follett, 1987, p. 55). Followers must know their own portion of power, not merely understand it in the leader. If followers were expected to have and use power then the leader must be prepared to demonstrate followership in return. Contemporary research tends to a divisive view when discussing leadership and management. These are generally described as separate types of positions and people - leaders “lead”, managers “manage”, leaders are inspirational, managers are functional planners (Kotter, 1990; Zaleznik, 1990). Modern views of management appear to be based on failures of management to grow as a profession rather than real functional roles. Follett did not separate the functions of leader and manager, she tended to speak of them interchangeably and in reference to both men and women within these roles. She stated leaders must communicate and organize, and this is aligned with Drucker’s (2008) position on management, yet interestingly, Drucker does not believe managers are leaders. Numerous studies have been conducted into the most salient traits a leader must possess with little agreement as to which traits are most important. As Wright and Bramble (2014) point out traits are generally offered without attachment to situation, a gap filled by
28 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett contingency theories. If we place significance on leadership traits then we must believe that Carlyle (1840) was entirely correct asserting the importance of heroes in making history. By contrast Spencer (1873) contended that great people owe much to both their originating culture and the capacity of their followers for their success. If we follow Spencer then leadership cannot be fully understood without first understanding the nature and capacity of their followers and situation, which aligns more with contingency theory. Focus on character traits as defining leadership cycles ever back to Carlyle. Research of followership has looked at the behavioural characteristics displayed by followers in relation to their own personality and to leadership style (Kelley, 2008; Collinson, 2006). It suggests that followers fit into one of several types that range from those who prefer direction to those who are independent thinkers and challenge leaders when they disagree. Kelley (ibid) states that while independent thinkers can be an asset to a company, not all leaders are comfortable with that much follower feedback and some are concerned about staff turnover by not being able to provide sufficient job enrichment. Collinson (ibid) suggests that follower types have a reciprocal influence on leaders and can alter leadership style, which holds similarities to Follett's view of reciprocal relating. Leadership within the unity can level opportunities between male and female leaders as it removes dominant traits and “great-person” theory from consideration. Effective leadership will be defined through the specific unity in which it manifests, defining which additional traits are valuable. Failing to master the unity mean less successful leadership, and potentially a misuse of traits. The leader who masters the unity, and brings power-with to bear, gains the benefits of follower experience and alignment with situational demands. There are no leadership limitations for either men or women within this framework. If we accept Follett's approach then an alternate definition of leadership can be proposed: The art of mastering the evolving situation by integrating individual experience and diversity into group power, while coordinating diverse efforts into a functional unity. Perhaps it is time for a new definition of leadership not dependent on power and influence. The Place of Business in Society In her 1925 lecture How Must Business Management Develop In Order to Become a Profession, Follett tells us that because business operates within a community it must see itself as serving the needs of community rather than focusing entirely on the profit motive. She was clear that business was a “social agency” and not a “social service” (Follett, 2013, p. 132). What she meant by this was that business provided service to the community but it did not do so out of the kindness of its heart, or by moving money in one-way transaction.
29 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
Rather, it provided services that were desired by the community in return for a fee, unlike a government social agency. The idea of service was not therefore to be confused with giving of one’s self, but was more accurately described as “reciprocal service” (ibid, p. 133). This was the concept of many individuals within the community providing varied services to one another, each serving a required “function” (ibid) within the group. The idea was that the many functions combined to form the nature of the community, and I would add, the flavour of the community. Consider for a moment which services are offered in a suburban neighbourhood compared to city boroughs with a preponderance of adult entertainments. What is the difference between these communities? What do they value, who lives there, who works there? This is an idea we will revisit shortly. The idea of community was for Follett that of an integrative unity and involved all the creative output that could be mustered from the diverse natures of those who inhabited it (Follett, 1919). Should the community achieve the actual state of unity as Follett understood it to be, and remember this is not an easy or quick process, then that community would have achieved the state of an individual being. Follett was clear that the unity was not to be confused with common conceptions of “pluralism” (ibid, p. 579) as the pluralist concept of individuality was based on the individual separate from the group, which could never be the case. There was no separate atom called individual who could choose between their group and their nation. In order for business to understand and appreciate its responsibility as a member of the community it needed to develop standards (Follett, 2013). Specifically, it was business management that needed to create standards like professional groups had created in order to demonstrate affinity with standards over profit. Follett insisted that business could not give consumers whatever they wanted as the customer was not always right. She was trying to tell business that they, as a part of the community, were partially responsible for the flavour of the community by the functions they provided, and this was reflected in their method of making profit. By operating within documented and evolving standards, as a member of the community, business owners could serve functional needs while earning legitimate profit. In essence business responsibility for their part in the community met with Spencers (1873) insistence that leaders (as a function) cannot be separated from their followers (their community) when discussing outcomes. Follett would agree there is no rational state of separation and that business was in a position to provide community leadership (Follett, 2013). The subject of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has received a great deal of focus in contemporary research. Falck & Heblich (2006) believe that by incorporating CSR into
30 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett strategic planning that businesses can provide financial return to owners while maintaining the support of powerful stakeholders. Knowing which stakeholder has power would appear a sound strategy at first glance, but it also suggests that CSR is bound by traditional concerns of power and influence ultimately to the detriment of doing what is right but the community. Contrasting this is the idea of business management serving as profit-earning agent to shareholders and that to meddle in the domain of social responsibility is to meddle in the domain of the government (Friedman, 1970; Drucker, 2008). Friedman’s line of reasoning does not say social expenditures are against the good of society, it suggests that these expenditures are covered by taxes and should be voluntary contributions by individuals. Drucker states that the corporation is responsible for the “impacts” their processes have on the community as this has a direct effect on the firm, potentially through regulatory concerns (ibid, p. 213). Addressing the ills of society is not a business responsibility, however, business can potentially leverage societal issues as “opportunities” (ibid, p. 215) for future business. Drucker aligns with Follett's concept of social agency versus social service, but he does not address concerns of professional standards and profit legitimacy through these opportunities. The idea of business needing to operate as a part of the community is complicated when one considers the multiple-community existence of a global enterprise. Branching out from one’s home community and into another has not allowed business to separate from the standards of home community. New countries may have been seen as emerging markets but global businesses have found they must open new markets in line with the community standards they come from or face censure from their home community. Seen from the unity framework this is logical as a business is not a pluralistic individual, it is a part of a community that it cannot separate from. It cannot make choices in one that estrange it from another and attempt to exist in both communities at arm’s length. The solution is integration, with the business being the community bridge between two diverse unities. Adopting professional standards that draw a line between business behaviour and profit will allow business managers to focus on the function they serve within the community. Their intent will define their relationship, and their legitimacy, with the community. The Unity Framework If you lead a team, you lead a unity of some form. The unity exists as a consequence of human psychology and social interaction which cannot be readily or scientifically separated into individual and situation as each exist in context with the other, not in isolation. Seeking to isolate factors (situation or individual) is a limitation noted in certain other frameworks and models.
31 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
Understanding the nature of the integrated unity is, as Follett tells us, the true discipline of the leader-manager. The constituent parts and the forces they bear on one another, the skills and experiences available within, and what organizational outcomes the group unity is responsible for all influence where leader power materializes to meet the needs of the momentary situation. Managers who master the unity within the larger strategic scope of the organization can work at predicting the outcomes of the unity and greet them in the future through effective planning. All situations are momentary and evolving, successful leaders predict where they evolve to next. Conceptually leaders can easily grasp the unity framework and apply it as an overlay to their own functional groups. Leader-Managers at different functional levels will have varying types of constituents, but the framework itself is flexible and can be molded to fit any desired organizational level or model. Follett describes the flexibility that underlies the unity framework thus: “What we are working for is a plastic social organization: not only in the sense of a flexible interaction between the groups, but in the sense of an elasticity which makes it possible for individuals to change constantly their relations, their groups, without destroying social cohesion” (Follett, 1918, Chapter 30, Para. 5). The Group Unity. Within teams and groups the unity is strongly focused on the interactions of individuals. The group within an organization, even for a self-managing team, will have a leader-manager whether integral or somewhat removed. As ideas interpenetrate the group and responses circulate group conflict and innovation are potential outcomes. Follett is clear in stating that conflict is likely but that innovation is a goal that should be pursued from conflict. Leader power is directed towards a situation (customer, operation, team objectives) and this power can be vested in any of the team members according to the needs or dictates of the situation. A diagram of the group as unity might look like Figure 1 below:
Figure 1: The Group Unity
32 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
The Business Unity. Between group or departmental leaders in the firm we can assume another higher level of leadership providing managerial oversight, such as the Executive. Any given group of leaders is still one comprised of individuals, therefore interpenetration and circular-response of ideas between group member is inevitable. However, given there are departmental team objectives involved, the group leaders have the added coordinating task of reciprocal adjustments to align their team objectives with greater company objectives. We must assume at this level both conflict and innovation remain forces within the unity as this is what Follett tells us in her writings when she says smaller groups enter into unities with one another forming ever larger unities. As the functional level of the unity increases we can expect additional forces, such as those from industry and beyond, to manifest. Although they may be felt at lower levels also to some degree, they will affect the strategic thinking of the Executive Team.
Figure 2: The Business Unity The Greater Unity. The business organization, as a multilevel unity, connects into the community and beyond. Follett points out that business is a part of the community and so it is logical it must enter into a unity with it in some form. Business as a unity connects to community in a unity, which connects to the nation as a unity of communities. Globally speaking, whether through the multinational corporation or through other concerns such as environmental impacts, the corporate entity becomes a part of a global unity through individual membership in community and nation. The framework of the unity scales upwards from the functional team to the distance of visibility found within its executive echelons. The potential for larger-scale conflicts inside larger unities also provides for larger-scale innovations. One common channel for interpenetration and circular-response is social media, in fact, this is a very rapid channel for communication and conflict.
33 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
Figure 3: The Greater Unity Regardless of scope the unity is built around the central core of ideas and concerns interpenetrating one another and evolving through circular response. The manager learns to harness the power of the conflict areas as an innovative generator, knowing the constituents sufficiently to understand when to remove true friction points; who or whatever they might be. Just as the group leader harnesses the strengths of the team, so should the CEO harness the strengths of the greater community where possible. It is the energy of thought, extracted from the tension of conflict, that is one of the unity’s greatest values. The Unity as Equalizer. The unity framework is an equalizer for male and female leaders as it removes leadership trait theories as being paramount. By focusing on mastery of the integrated unity and on functional job knowledge the leader-manager is not constrained by needing to be all things to all people. All members of the integrated and unified team share in leader power and are made to know their responsibility to the leader, team and situation. Through the placement of functional power, dictated by situation as leader, the manager engages the full-force of individual experience and ability (including traits) as an extension of their own. The potential of the team is limited only by the limits of their experience and empowerment to achieve team goals which are always evolving through the information flow of circular response. The unity itself leads, the unity itself reacts, the unity itself uses power. The leader-manager is freed for strategic thinking, to whatever level that applies, by enabling team members to use leader power within their functional scope. There are no limits for either men or women within this framework.
34 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
Some Speculations as to Mary Parker Follett’s Fall Into Obscurity
Considering the international exposure Mary Follett received and her widespread acceptance as a subject matter expert by the business world, it is significant that she is almost unknown today. Even among those who have read Follett's work few speak of her outside the available compilations of her lectures. Current textbooks do not reference Follett or her theories, although it is clear several contemporary lines of organizational thinking cross her unity framework. Given the virtual silence surrounding Mary Follett since the last compendium of her lectures was published in 1949 it is difficult to confirm why portions of her unity framework show in certain contemporary organizational theories without reference to her being given. I have provided a few speculations on this matter and will leave it to the reader to weight these according to their own sensibilities. I offer them only as potential reasons for the tragedy of this leading-edge thinker, Mary Parker Follett, having been forgotten. The Issue of Gender There are two schools of thought on whether Follett’s being a woman was a factor in her being neglected by future generations of business leaders. The modern feminist view suggests that Follett's writings cannot be separated from her gender and that her message was uniquely female (Kanter. 1995). This view suggests that men would not willingly embrace Follett's concepts on business organization and leadership, yet the reality was quite the opposite in her time. Following publication of The New State Follett became internationally known, and through her many associations with leading minds of the day, eventually became sought after to lecture and consult. Follett was keenly interested in business affairs not only through her studies in economics, but as a vehicle for her theories of individual and group advancement. If Follett was embraced by men of her day but forgotten by men of following generations this suggests a potential change in either individual or business attitudes, as any form of pervasive consideration regarding her gender would have had the effect of excluding her from business relations in her own time. If early 20th century male business leaders were intrigued by both her writings and her personality it does not suggest that there was consideration given to Follett’s womanhood as the deciding factor in her acceptance as management consultant or subject matter expert. To accept a woman during her lifetime only to reject following her death is a difficult conclusion to reach. Drucker (1995) rejects the idea that Follett's writing became obscure due to her gender, stating that when he arrived in America during Follett's time there were many more women
35 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett holding power positions. Drucker does not address the state of enfranchisement for women during that period in history, nor does he address whether women faced equal opportunities. He suggests that those who rose to corporate power in the decades after Follett's passing were motivated more by conquest than by integration and that this behaviour continued through the 1940s and beyond. Should we accept that the business focus in North America turned largely to conquest there is evidence that feeling was not shared by all managers in other parts of the world. The British continued to embrace Follett’s writings, largely through the efforts of Major Lyndall Urwick, and the Japanese who discovered her work in the 1950s. This suggests that Follett's move to obscurity was centered in North America, as she was followed in other parts of the world. The theme of distance acceptance and local rejection has also been forwarded as evidence of Follett's obscurity being gender based (Kanter, 1995). What appears possible is that there was either a change in orientation for business organizations in the United States, or a rejection of integrated management practices, following the start of the Great Depression that carried on past the conclusion of the second world war. The effects of long-term and significant economic shrink followed by a sustained period of sharp economic growth may have created a feast-or-famine mind-set that became systemic. Arguably, once a significant period-of-time had elapsed, what may have once been viewed as a temporary situation became the norm. With significant economic and world events coinciding with a change in American business practices, coupled with Follett's writings remaining in view in other parts of the world, it is not clear that Follett's fall into obscurity was caused in any great measure due to her being a woman. That said it is entirely possible that in the minds of some people her writings were relegated to the world of social sciences or women’s studies. Follett as Utopian Dreamer There is belief among certain researchers that Follett’s ideas are unrealistic, and that the tendency of humanity to Michel’s “iron law of oligarchy” (Kanter, 1995, p. xviii; Nohria, 1995, p. 161) prohibits achievement of power-with that Follett so ardently advocated. Were this the case the Spartan Laws of Lykurgos would never have created an early form of constitutional monarchy and the early but incomplete democracy at Athens would never have superseded the tyrants. Indeed, the abandonment of inclusive and empowering organizational structures in business is dangerously suggested by these words, which is a situation even the military would not tolerate. If we are to concede this point so easily in the face of human nature then clearly there is no more need for organizational research as we have only to convert all firms
36 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett to a hierarchical structure and move forward. There are clear and disturbing implications for ethics in business if we accept this Orwellian approach as inevitable.
Metcalf and Urwick (1940) speak of Follett as a “realist” (p. 12) and this assessment is borne out in her writings where she is clear in stating that she understands situations aren't always as she believes they should be, but that progress into a more rational and sustainable direction must still be sought. In Constructive Conflict Follett is clear that there will be times that integration will fail, such as when the choices are either-or in nature. She is also clear that integrating conflict does not mean everyone gets everything they want, it just means that the participants are not expected to give up their integrity in order to avoid conflict. Follett herself denies having utopian ideals. Despite the belief among certain academics that the drive for power-over is stronger, and this precludes the success of the integrative framework advocated by Follett, the position of oligarchy is difficult to support. It is reasonable to propose that there exists an ongoing tension between power-over and power-with but just as reasonable to suggest that the pendulum swing favours neither. Conditions supporting either extreme have shown historical potential, neither is guaranteed to prevail. Scientific Management Follett discussed the rise of scientific management in business in her writings and was at odds with a numbers-only view of business. She was cautious of the tendency of business leaders to use expert opinion in place of their own decisions stating that to do so was an attempt to avoid responsibility for results. From a management perspective personal responsibility creates individual risk. Daft & Armstrong (2012) note the scientific basis of management only began to give way to greater concerns about employee engagement in the 1980s when competitive forces began to erode industrial bureaucracies. Their description of the new “organizational cultures” (p. 26) that were created aligns with Follett’s leading-edge thinking, but that does not mean the scientific approach to management was willing to give-way entirely to the humanistic approach. As an example one company I have worked for uses Follett's suggestion of standard operating procedures for low-level decision-making in repetitive tasks, but insists that all operational decisions have a scientific, not humanistic, basis. To some extent this is driven by corporate risk tolerance and collective bargaining considerations. Scientific management is taken to a further extreme by insisting that operational budgets be executed exactly as planned despite changes to the operational environment, including the spending of all monies asked for even if deemed not eventually required.
37 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
The process of leaders working with employees to discover their experience, strengths, limitations, wants and desires takes time and effort. There is no immediate financial payback and there is a cost in time spent and training. The reality is that few companies will put money or effort where there is no scientifically-proven return, and in the case of the company noted in the previous paragraph, other forces may influence the labour-capital relationship. Many companies accept the idea of value in team building, but many are not prepared for the effort and expense. There is no disputing the value of a scientific approach to business, nor in gaining advice from experts when seeking specific information toward a solution. Follett understood this, yet she also understood the value of engaging the combined experience of the unified team and gaining not only the voluntary cooperation of team members, but also the voluntary and shared responsibility for success. Follett did not advocate a human approach to business to the exclusion of science or expert opinion, she advocated team engagement as a force multiplier of leader power. An argument could be made that scientific management can be leveraged for power-over and control measures beyond the functional role required, both items Follett warned against. As Drucker clearly stated, the role of the manager is to increase the wealth of the shareholder. This is an easy justification for utilizing the scientific approach and relegating Follett's approach, which takes both more time and effort to achieve, into obscurity. Who Carries The Torch? Mary Follett engaged in an individual study. She did not enter academia and begin a research project, nor did she conduct a quantitative study of widget production in the factories she was invited to visit. She followed her passion for integrating the lives of citizens into unified groups and she advocated qualitative and participative studies over arms-length observation. Thus, when Mary Follett died her papers were specifically her private papers. She was neither crusader nor scientist and so was embraced by neither extreme. It has been said that she has been forgotten because she had no one to follow her work, and no institution to perpetuate her studies. That is not completely true. Two compilations of Follett's lectures were released by her one adherent, Lyndall Urwick, O.B.E., M.C., M.A., F.I.I.A., one in 1940 and the second in 1949. Both volumes were edited by Urwick, a Major in the British Army of the first world war, one co-edited with Henry Metcalf. Urwick writes passionately about Follett's contribution to the field of business management and organization. He apparently knew her well, understood her genius, and was captivated by her passion for knowledge, and her engaging yet modest personality. Urwick went to great
38 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett lengths to preserve and compile Follett's writings for future generations, moving her forward from 1933 into the 1950s where she was discovered by the Japanese and integrated into their ideas on business management. When Urwick, who was Follett's contemporary adherent, was no longer the champion of her integrated unity who was left to remember her? Let it not be lost on the reader who Mary Follett's one disciple was. Enomoto (1995) points out that the Japanese look into the past with reverence, making change in the present where needed but not ignoring what came before. This same idea is found in Follett’s work, making for easy integration with Japanese thought. In contrast, he says in America “anything more than 10 years old is set aside as old hat” (p. 242). Could this be the reason why modern academia has not embraced Mary Follett? Consider that if what Enomoto says about the American aging of ideas is true then this suggests the real reason we are forced to rediscover the unity framework of Mary Follett is one of unreasonable stubbornness. Her framework was leading edge in her day and remains so today. I disagree that she was ahead of her time, Mary Follett's unity framework was right in its day and it is still right for today, it remains leading edge thinking. Is the passage of time what keeps Follett from being taught in today’s business schools? One Final Thought Everyone engaged in leading and managing teams of any size, from the front line supervisor to the CEO has a great deal to gain from reading and learning Follett’s unity framework. This group should actively promote her works for the good of the firms they represent. By contrast, what do those who make their livelihood from research on organizational theory have to gain from promoting and teaching Follett’s work? This paper demonstrates evidence that contemporary research is catching up to Follett, but little evidence suggesting her theories are dated.
Conclusion One wonders if Mary Follett could have conceived of the state of society today given the passionate optimism of her writings. With one entire generational group in the Millennials growing up politically dissociated and viewing their community through the lens of a three-by- five electronic device the need to create a sense of cohesive group power that is not a mob or crowd remains valid. In a world creating safe spaces to avoid the conflict of diverse beliefs we urgently need to return to where dialogue is again valued over protection of individual constructs. This will be challenging given individualism has all but been enshrined in law. So long as we avoid integration with our community and seek domination in discussions rather
39 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett than integration of ideas, we will never achieve either the unity or the democracy that Follett suggested was the next evolution in human self-determination. She never said it would be easy, she just pointed out it was a better way. Returning to the original question of how business could leaders provide a coherent framework to guide their team’s efforts to meet and master simultaneous demands, it is evident that the framework of Follett’s integrative unity offers a solution. The unity framework engages and organizes the combined experience of individuals within a functional unit, and then integrates functional units into coordinated endeavours. Through functional use of leader power individual empowerment aligns with situational contingency, enabling leaders to focus on the complex interactions of the big picture. Despite the political dissociation among the Generation Y demographic, this same group is well positioned to embrace Follett’s unity framework in their employment. Given their value of group effort, “diversity and social responsibility” (Lam, 2014) they are, as the workforce of the future, already aligned with much of Follett's framework. The forward-thinking leader-manager will see the potential for sustained competitive advantage in a highly engaged and self- motivated workforce. Further in-depth study into the writings of Mary Parker Follett is recommended, as this paper has but scratched the surface of Follett's writings and framework. There is more to be understood, embraced, and brought into the light. Whatever the unfortunate reasons for the absence of Mary Follett’s unity framework from our collective attention it remains as salient today as it was when she penned it. Now more than ever, whether in business, civic, or international affairs, we need greater unity. The unity framework is recommended to become a part of the curriculum wherever organizational theory is taught.
40 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
Mary Parker Follett. (n.d.). Retrieved March 4, 2017, from http://www.desikanoon.co.in/2012/12/mary-parker-follett-administrative.html?m=1
References Ashkenas, R., & Bodell, L. (October 16, 2013). Nice managers embrace conflict, too. HBR Blog Network. Retrieved from: http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/10/nice-managers-embrace-conflict-too/ Bennis, W. (1995). Thoughts on “the essentials of leadership”. In Graham, P. (Ed.), Mary Parker Follett prophet of management: a celebration of writings from the 1920s (pp. 177-181). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. (Original work published 1995) Blanchard, K. H., Zigarmi, D., & Nelson, R. B. (1993). Situational Leadership® after 25 years: A retrospective. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(1), 21-36. Canadian Defence Academy. (2005). Leadership in the Canadian Forces: doctrine. A-PA-005- 000/AP-003. Ottawa: CFLI. Carlyle, T. (1840). On heroes, hero-worship, and the heroic in history. [Gutenberg version]. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1091/pg1091.txt Daft, R. (2006). Chapter 11: Innovation and change. In Organization theory and design (9th ed., pp. 398-440). Mason, Ohio: South-Western College Publishing, a division of Thomson Learning.
41 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
Daft, R. L., & Armstrong, A. (2012). Organization Theory and Design, 2nd Canadian Edition. Toronto: Nelson Education Ltd. Drucker, P. F. (1995). Introduction. Mary Parker Follett: prophet of management. In Graham, P. (Ed.), Mary Parker Follett prophet of management: a celebration of writings from the 1920s (pp. 1-9). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. (Original work published 1995) Enomoto, T. (1995). The individual in the group. In Graham, P. (Ed.), Mary Parker Follett prophet of management: a celebration of writings from the 1920s (pp. 240-245). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. (Original work published 1995) Falck, O., Heblich, S. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: doing well by doing good. Business Horizons. Doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2006.12.002 Follett, M. (1918). The new state. [Kindle version]. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com Follett, M. (1919). Community is a process. Philosophical Review, 28, 576-588. Follett, M. (1924). Creative experience. [Kindle version]. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com Follett, M. (1970). The teacher-student relation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(1), 137- 148. Follett, M. (1987). Co-ordination. In Urwick, L. (Ed.), Freedom & Co-ordination: lectures in business organization (pp. 61-76). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1949) Follett, M. (1987). The essentials of leadership. In Urwick, L. (Ed.), Freedom & Co-ordination: lectures in business organization (pp. 47-60). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1949) Follett, M. (1987). The giving of orders. In Urwick, L. (Ed.), Freedom & Co-ordination: lectures in business organization (pp. 16-33). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1949) Follett, M. (1987). The illusion of final authority. In Urwick, L. (Ed.), Freedom & Co-ordination: lectures in business organization (pp. 1-15). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1949) Follett, M. (1987). The process of control. In Urwick, L. (Ed.), Freedom & Co-ordination: lectures in business organization (pp. 77-89). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1949) Follett, M. (2013). Business as an integrative unity. In H. Metcalf and L. Urwick (Ed.), Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follet (pp. 71-94). Mansfield Centre: Martino Publishing. (Original work published 1940)
42 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
Follett, M. (2013). Constructive conflict. In H. Metcalf and L. Urwick (Ed.), Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follet (pp. 30-49). Mansfield Centre: Martino Publishing. (Original work published 1940) Follett, M. (2013). How must business management develop in order to become a profession. In H. Metcalf and L. Urwick (Ed.), Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follet (pp. 132-145). Mansfield Centre: Martino Publishing. (Original work published 1940) Follett, M. (2013). Leader and expert. In H. Metcalf and L. Urwick (Ed.), Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follet (pp. 247-269). Mansfield Centre: Martino Publishing. (Original work published 1940) Follett, M. (2013). Power. In H. Metcalf and L. Urwick (Ed.), Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follet (pp. 95-116). Mansfield Centre: Martino Publishing. (Original work published 1940) Follett, M. (2013). Some discrepancies in leadership theory and practice. In H. Metcalf and L. Urwick (Ed.), Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follet (pp. 270- 294). Mansfield Centre: Martino Publishing. (Original work published 1940) Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved March 31, 2017, from http://www.umich.edu/~thecore/doc/Friedman.pdf Gill, R. (2003). Change management—or change leadership? Journal of Change Management, 3(4), 307-318 Graham, J. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 105-119. Graham, P. (Ed.), (1995). Mary Parker Follett prophet of management: a celebration of writings from the 1920s. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Hagemann, B., and Stroope, S. (2012). Conflict management: lessons from the second grade. Retrieved February 20, 2017, from https://www.td.org/Publications/Magazines/TD/TD- Archive/2012/07/Conflict-Management-Lessons-from-the-2Nd-Grade Hardy, C. (1994). Chapter 13: Power and politics in organizations. In Managing strategic action (pp. 220-237). Sage Publications. Kanter, R. M. (1995). Preface. In Graham, P. (Ed.), Mary Parker Follett prophet of management: a celebration of writings from the 1920s (pp. xiii-xix). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. (Original work published 1995)
43 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
Kelley R. (2008) Rethinking followership. In The Art of Followership (R. Riggio, I. Chaleff & J. Lipman-Blumen eds), pp. 5–15. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Kotter, J. P. (1990). What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 103-111. Lam, H. (2014). Essentials of strategic human resource management & organizational behaviour, second edition. Toronto: Nelson Education. Lehman, K., & Linsky, M. (2008). Using Conflict as a Catalyst for Change. Harvard Management Update, 13(4), 3-5. Lockwood, N. (2005, June). Workplace diversity: Leveraging the power of difference for competitive advantage. HR Magazine, 50(6), 1-10. Metcalf, H. and Urwick, L. (Ed.), (3013). Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follet. Mansfield: Martino Publishing. (Original work published 1940) Nohria, N. (1995). Mary Parker Follett’s view on power, the giving of orders, and authority: an alternative to hierarchy or a utopian ideology? In Graham, P. (Ed.), Mary Parker Follett prophet of management: a celebration of writings from the 1920s (pp. 154-162). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. (Original work published 1995) Ostroff, F., & Smith, D. (1992). The horizontal organization. Mckinsey Quarterly, (1), 148-168. Pless, N., and Maak, T. (2004). Building and inclusive diversity culture: principles, processes and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 129-147. Schein, E. (n.d.). Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: notes toward a model of managed learning. Retrieved March 28, 2017, from http://www.a2zpsychology.com/articles/kurt_lewin's_change_theory.php Schermerhorn, J. R., & Wright, B. (2014). Chapter 11: Leadership and communication. In Management (Third Canadian Edition, pp. 326-365). Toronto, ON:Wiley. Shen, J., Chanda, A., D’Netto, B., and Monga, M. (2009). Managing diversity through human resources management: an international perspective and conceptual framework. The International Journal of Human Resources Management, (20(2), 235-251. Smith, M. K. (2002). Mary Parker Follett: community, creative experience and education. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved February 28, 2017, from http://infed.org/mobi/mary-parker-follett-community-creative-experience-and-education Spencer, H. (1873). The study of sociology. [Online Library of Liberty version]. Retrieved from http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spencer-the-study-of-sociology-1873
44 Vincent Moroz, Applied Project Leading-Edge Thinker: Rediscovering Mary Parker Follett
Toegel, G., & Barsoux, J. (2016). How to preempt team conflict. Harvard Business Review, (6), 78. Urwick, L. (Ed.), (1949). Freedom & co-ordination: Lectures in business organization. London: Routledge. Urwick, L. (1956). The manager’s span of control. Harvard Business Review, 34(3), 39-47. Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American psychologist, 62(1), 17. Wright, B. and Bramble, L. (2014). Strategic leadership study guide. Athabasca University. Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 708-722. Zaleznik, A. (1990). The leadership gap. Executive (19389779), 4(1), 7-22. doi:10.5465/AME.1990.4274698
Appendix Mary Parker Follett’s Writings and Compilations This list is not considered exhaustive as it has been suggested that a portion of Follett’s library of work was lost following her death. (Book) The Speaker of the House of Representatives, 1896.
(Book) The New State, 1918.
(Article) Community is a Process, 1919.
(Book) Creative Experience, 1924.
(Article) The Teacher-Student Relation, 1928.
(Compilation) Dynamic Administration - The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett, 1940. (Compilation) Freedom & Co-ordination - Lectures in Business Organization, 1949.
(Compilation) Mary Parker Follett Prophet of Management, 1995.
45