ADMINISTRATIVE THINKERS

Material prepared according to the Textbook and Reference Books given in the Syllabus

Subject Code : 18MPA23C

Prepared by : Dr. C. Esther Buvana, Asst. Professor & Head

Department : PG & Research Department of Public Administration

Contact No. : 9840881638

E-mail ID : [email protected]

Year Subject Title Sem. Sub Code 2018 - 19 Core 6 : Administrative Thinkers II 18MPA23C Onwards

Objective The purpose of this paper is to enable the students to understand the views of the Administrative Thinkers during classical, Neo classical and modern period which will make them to analyse further the various aspects of administration.

UNIT – I: INTRODUCTION Kautilya – Thiruvalluvar - Woodrow Wilson.

UNIT – II: CLASSICAL SCHOOL F. W. Taylor – Henri Fayol -Luther Gulick- Max Weber

UNIT – III: NEO _ CLASSICAL SCHOOL Elton Mayo- Mary Parker Follet – C. I. Barnard

UNIT – IV: BEHAVIOURAL SCHOOL Herbert. A. Simon- Rensis Likert- Riggs

UNIT – V: SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL SCHOOL Abraham Maslow -McGregor- Herzberg

Textbook 1. Ravindra Prasad and Sathyanarayanan - Administrative Thinkers, sterling publishers New Delhi 2004

Reference Books 1. Anthony Tillet, Thomas Kemper & Gordon Willey – Thinkers, Penguin Books 1970.

2. Ramesh K Arora – Perspective in Administrative Theory, Associated Publishing House, New Delhi, 1979.

3. Sapru R.K.-Administrative Theories & management Thought, Prentice Hall, New Delhi 2000.

4. Singh R N – Management Thinkers, Sultan Chand Publishers, New Delhi.

GEORGE ELTON MAYO (26 DECEMBER 1880 – 7 SEPTEMBER 1949)

He was an Australian born , industrial researcher, and organizational theorist. Mayo was formally trained at the , acquiring a Bachelor of Arts Degree graduating with First Class Honours, majoring in philosophy and , and was later awarded an honorary Master of Arts Degree from the (UQ).

While in Queensland, Mayo served on the University's war committee and pioneered research into the psychoanalytic treatment of shell-shock. As a psychologist Mayo often helped soldiers returning from World War I recover from the stresses of war and with a Brisbane physician, pioneered the psychoanalytic treatment of shell-shock and conducted psycho- pathological tests. He was a lecturer in psychology and mental philosophy at the UQ between 1911 and 1922, when he sailed to the United States. In 1926 he was appointed to the Harvard Business School (HBS) as a professor of industrial research.

In Philadelphia he conducted research at a textile plant in order to develop a method to reduce the very high rate of turnover in the plant. Mayo's association with the Hawthorne studies as well as his research and work in Australia led to his enjoying a public acclaim granted to few social scientists of his day.

Mayo has been credited with making significant contributions to a number of disciplines, including business management, industrial sociology, philosophy, and . His field research in industry had a significant impact on industrial and organizational psychology. According to Trahair, Mayo "is known for having established the scientific study of what today is called when he gave close attention to the human, social, and political problems of industrial civilization."

Mayo's work helped to lay the foundation for the human relations movement. He emphasized that alongside the formal organization of an industrial workplace there exists an informal organizational structure as well. Mayo recognized the "inadequacies of existing scientific management approaches" to industrial organizations, and underlined the importance of relationships among people who work for such organizations. His ideas on group relations were advanced in his 1933 book The Human Problems of an Industrialized Civilization, which was based partly on his Hawthorne research. Hawthorne Experiment by Elton Mayo

In 1927, a group of researchers led by Elton Mayo and Fritz Roethlisberger of the Harvard Business School were invited to join in the studies at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric Company, Chicago. The experiment lasted up to 1932. The Hawthorne Experiment brought out that the productivity of the employees is not the function of only physical conditions of work and money wages paid to them. Productivity of employees depends heavily upon the satisfaction of the employees in their work situation. Mayo’s idea was that logical factors were far less important than emotional factors in determining productivity efficiency. Furthermore, of all the human factors influencing employee behavior, the most powerful were those emanating from the worker’s participation in social groups. Thus, Mayo concluded that work arrangements in addition to meeting the objective requirements of production must at the same time satisfy the employee’s subjective requirement of social satisfaction at his work place.

However, the Hawthorne Experiments were criticised for lack of scientific analysis and research. It was alleged that the researchers had certain pre-conceived perceptions and orientations. The experiments were too narrow and small to provide generalisation.

The findings of Hawthorne Experiments are, however, accepted even today. Mayo’s work was a turning point in the development of management thought. His work challenged the basic postulates of the classical approach. His studies revealed the over-whelming signifi- cance of human and social factors in industry. He is rightly called the ‘Founder of the Human Relations Approach’ to management.

The Hawthorne experiment consists of four parts. These parts are briefly described below:- 1. Illumination Experiment. 2. Relay Assembly Test Room Experiment. 3. Interviewing Programme. 4. Bank Wiring Test Room Experiment.

1. Illumination Experiment: This experiment was conducted to establish relationship between output and illumination. When the intensity of light was increased, the output also increased. The output showed an upward trend even when the illumination was gradually brought down to the normal level. Therefore, it was concluded that there is no consistent relationship between output of workers and illumination in the factory. There must be some other factor which affected productivity.

2. Relay Assembly Test Room Experiment: This phase aimed at knowing not only the impact of illumination on production but also other factors like length of the working day, rest hours, and other physical conditions. In this experiment, a small homogeneous work-group of six girls was constituted. These girls were friendly to each other and were asked to work in a very informal atmosphere under the supervision of a researcher. Productivity and morale increased considerably during the period of the experiment. Productivity went on increasing and stabilized at a high level even when all the improvements were taken away and the pre-test conditions were reintroduced. The researchers concluded that socio-psychological factors such as feeling of being important, recognition, attention, participation, cohesive work-group, and non-directive supervision held the key for higher productivity.

3. Mass Interview Programme: The objective of this programme was to make a systematic study of the employees attitudes which would reveal the meaning which their “working situation” has for them. The researchers interviewed a large number of workers with regard to their opinions on work, working conditions and supervision. Initially, a direct approach was used whereby interviews asked questions considered important by managers and researchers. The researchers observed that the replies of the workmen were guarded. Therefore, this approach was replaced by an indirect technique, where the interviewer simply listened to what the workmen had to say. The findings confirmed the importance of social factors at work in the total work environment.

4. Bank Wiring Test Room Experiment: This experiment was conducted by Roethlisberger and Dickson with a view to develop a new method of observation and obtaining more exact information about social groups within a company and also finding out the causes which restrict output. The experiment was conducted to study a group of workers under conditions which were as close as possible to normal. This group comprised of 14 workers. After the experiment, the production records of this group were compared with their earlier production records. It was observed that the group evolved its own production norms for each individual worker, which was made lower than those set by the management. Because of this, workers would produce only that much, thereby defeating the incentive system. Those workers who tried to produce more than the group norms were isolated, harassed or punished by the group. The findings of the study are:-  Each individual was restricting output.  The group had its own “unofficial” standards of performance.  Individual output remained fairly constant over a period of time.  Informal groups play an important role in the working of an organization.

Effect of Monotony and Fatigue on Productivity Using a study group other experiments were conducted to examine what effect of monotony and fatigue on productivity and how to control those using variables such as rest breaks, work hours and incentives.

At normal conditions the work week was of 48 hours, including Saturdays, with no rest pauses. On the first experiment workers were put on piece-work salary where they were paid on each part they produced, as a result the output increased. On the second experiment the workers were given 2 rest pauses of 5 minutes each for 5 weeks and again output went up. The third experiment further increased the pauses to 10 min and the output went up sharply. For the fourth experiments a 6, 5 min breaks were given and output fell slightly as the workers complained that the work rhythm was broken. On the fifth experiments conditions for experiment three were repeated but this time a free hot meal was given by the company and output wen up again.at the sixth experiment, workers were dismissed at 4.30p.m. Instead of 5.00p.m were an output increase was recorded.

The seventh experiment had the same results as experiments six even though the workers were dismissed at 4.00 p.m. on the eighth and final experiment, all improvements were taken away and workers returned to their original working conditions. Surprisingly, results concluded that output was the highest ever recorded!

Contributions of the Hawthorne Experiment to Management Elton Mayo and his associates conducted their studies in the Hawthorne plant of the western electrical company, U.S.A., between 1927 and 1930. According to them, behavioral science methods have many areas of application in management. The important features of the Hawthorne Experiment are: 1. A business organization is basically a social system. It is not just a techno-economic system. 2. The employer can be motivated by psychological and social wants because his behavior is also influenced by feelings, emotions and attitudes. Thus economic incentives are not the only method to motivate people. 3. Management must learn to develop co-operative attitudes and not rely merely on command. 4. Participation becomes an important instrument in human relations movement. In order to achieve participation, effective two-way communication network is essential. 5. Productivity is linked with employee satisfaction in any business organization. Therefore management must take greater interest in employee satisfaction. 6. Group psychology plays an important role in any business organization. We must therefore rely more on informal group effort. 7. The neo-classical theory emphasizes that man is a living machine and he is far more important than the inanimate machine. Hence, the key to higher productivity lies in employee morale. High morale results in higher output.

A new milestone in organisational behavior was set and Elton Mayo and his team found a way to improve productivity by creating a healthy team spirit environment between workers and supervisors labelling it as The Hawthorne Effect.

M.P.FOLLET

Mary Parker Follett was an American social worker, management consultant, philosopher and pioneer in the fields of organizational theory and organizational behavior. Along with Lillian Gilbreth, she was one of two great women management experts in the early days of classical management theory.

Early Life was born in Quincy, Massachusetts, on September 3, 1868. She studied at the Thayer Academy in Braintree, Massachusetts, where she credited one of her teachers with inspiring many of her later ideas. In 1894, she used her inheritance to study at the Society for Collegiate Instruction of Women, sponsored by Harvard, and later completed a year of study at Newnham College in Cambridge, England, in 1890. She studied on and off at Radcliffe College as well, starting in the early 1890s.

In 1898, Follett graduated summa cum laude from Radcliffe. Her research at Radcliffe was published in 1896 and again in 1909 as "The Speaker of the House of Representatives."

Career Follett began working in Roxbury as a voluntary social worker in 1900 at the Roxbury Neighborhood House of Boston. Here, she helped organize recreation, education, and social activities for poor families and for working boys and girls.

In 1908, Follett became chair of the Women's Municipal League Committee on Extended Use of School Buildings, part of a movement to open schools after hours so that the community could use the buildings for activities. In 1911, she and others opened the East Boston High School Social Center. She also helped found other social centers in Boston. In 1917, Follett took on the vice presidency of the National Community Center Association, and in 1918 she published her book on community, democracy, and government, "The New State."

Follett published another book, "Creative Experience," in 1924, with more of her ideas about the creative interactions that take place between people in group processes. She credited her work in the settlement house movement with many of her insights.

Follett’s major works are as follows: 1. The Speaker of the House of Representatives (1896); 2. The New State (1920); 3. Creative Experience (1924); and 4. Dynamic Administration:

The Collected Works of Mary Parker Follett (A collection of her papers, edited by Henry Metcalf and L. Urwick in 1941).

Follett’s major ideas could be discussed under the following heads: 1. Constructive Conflict; 2. Power, Authority and Control; 3. Coordination; and 4. Leadership.

Constructive Conflict Conflict and its Resolution Mary Parker Follett accords an important place to the problems of conflict in her writings. She advances the idea of “constructive conflict recognizing thereby that conflicts should be regarded as a normal process in any activity of an organization by which socially valuable differences register themselves for the enrichment of all concerned”. To Follett, conflict is neither good nor bad and has to be considered without passion or ethical pre-judgments. Conflict is not warfare, but is only an appearance of difference – difference of opinions, of interests not only between employer and employee but also between managers, between directors or wherever differences appear. Conflict is not a wasteful outbreak of incompatibilities, but a normal process by which socially valuable differences register themselves for the enrichment of all concerned. Because of individual differences, conflict is unavoidable in human 4 organizations. Since conflict is unavoidable, instead of criticizing it as something bad, one should try to capitalize on it, and make use of it to do something good. To Follett, conflict is a moment in the interaction of desires. Just as there are destructive ways of dealing with such moments, there are also constructive ways. Conflict, at the moment of appearing and focusing of difference, may be a sign of health and a prophecy of progress. Drawing analogies from the universe, she says: “All polishing is done by friction. We get music from the violin by friction and we left the savage state when we discovered fire through friction.” The question then is how to make conflict work constructively. Follett says:

There are three ways of resolving a conflict: Domination, Compromise and Integration. Domination is a victory of one side over other. This is the easiest way of resolving conflicts. Though it is the easiest for the moment, it is not successful in the long run. But the problem with domination is that, in addition to the discomfort caused to the ‘dominated’, the repressed tendencies tend to rebel against the dominator whenever it is possible. The confrontation will take place again.

Compromise is generally the way people settle most of their conflicts. In this, each side gives up a little and settles the conflict so that the activity which has been interrupted by the conflicts may go on. Each side involved in the conflict, gives up a part of its ‘desire’ to settle the issue. Though compromise is a widely accepted method of resolving conflicts, rarely people want to compromise, as this involves giving up something.

Integration is the third method of resolving conflicts. Here, two desires are integrated, and neither side needs to sacrifice its desires. Follett considers that integration as a method of dealing with conflict has some advantages when compared to compromise:  Compromise does not create but only deals with the existing, whereas Integration creates something new, leads to invention and to the emergence of new values.  Integration leads to the use of better techniques.  Integration saves time and resources.  Integration goes to the root of the problem and puts an end to the conflict permanently.

Steps to Achieving Integration Follett also discusses the ways of achieving integration: (a) The first step towards achieving Integration is to bring differences into the open, instead of suppressing them. “We cannot hope to integrate our differences,” she asserts, “unless we know what they are.” Therefore, what is needed is to uncover, identify and understand the real issues involved in a conflict. This involves finding out the significant, rather than the dramatic features involved in a conflict or controversy. (b) The second step is the breaking up of the whole, i.e., to consider the demands of both sides involved in the conflict and to break them into their constituent parts involves the examination of symbols, use of which are unavoidable in organizational work. Examination of symbols, in turn, involves a careful scrutinizing of the language used, to see what it really 6 means. To Follett, all language used is symbolic, and therefore, one should be on one’s guard to know as to what is being symbolized. Integration not only involves breaking up of the whole but sometimes one has to do the opposite. It is important to articulate the whole demand, the real demand which is being obscured by miscellaneous minor claims or by ineffective presentation. (c) Anticipation of conflict is the third step. Anticipation of conflict does not mean the avoidance of conflict but responding to it differently. To Follett, integration is like a game of chess. Anticipation of response is by itself not enough; there is need for preparation for response as well.

Obstacles to Integration 1. Integration requires high intelligence, keen perception and discrimination, and a brilliant inventiveness. It is always easier to fight than to suggest better ways of doing a job. As long as intelligence and inventiveness are not there, resolving conflicts through integration would be difficult.

2. Another obstacle is people’s habit of enjoying domination. To many, integration is a tame affair; it does not give them the thrill of conquest nor the satisfaction of victory. Follett says that the people with such habit patterns always prefer domination to integration.

3. A third obstacle to integration is that often the problems are theorized, instead of taking them as proposed activities or practical issues needing immediate solution. Quite often, people, forgetting that disagreements will disappear if they stop theorizing, go on theorizing the problem on hand. Follett says that intellectual agreement alone does not solve conflicts and bring integration.

4. Language used is the fourth obstacle to integration. The language used must be favourable to reconciliation and should not arouse antagonism and perpetuate the conflict. Sometimes language used even creates new disputes which were not there earlier.

5. A fifth obstacle to integration is the undue influence exerted by the leaders.

6. Finally, the most important of all obstacles to integration is lack of training. Follett says that in most cases there is a tendency to ‘push through’ or to ‘force through’ the plans previously arrived at, based on preconceived notions. Therefore, she pleads that there should be courses to teach the art of cooperative thinking, to master the technique of integration, both for workers and managers.

Power, Authority and Control Follett gives special attention to the problems of Power, Authority and Control. She reveals profound, penetrating and strikingly original insights in her analysis of power. She defines Power as “the ability to make things happen, to be a causal agent, to initiate change”. Power is the capacity to produce intended effects. It is an instinctive urge inherent in all human beings. She makes a distinction between ‘Power-Over’ and ‘Power-With’. The former may tend to be ‘coercive-power’ while the latter is a jointly developed ‘coactive-power’

Power-With is superior to Power-Over, as it is a self-developing entity which promotes better understanding, reduces friction and conflict and encourages cooperative endeavour. However, Follett does not think it possible to get rid of power-over, but thinks that one should try to reduce it. This can be accomplished by integrating the desires, obeying the law of situation and through functional unity. In a functional unity, each has his/her functions and s/he should have the authority and responsibility which go with that function. Follett also believes that power can never be delegated or handed out or wrenched from someone as it is the result of knowledge and ability. But, she feels, we can create conditions for the development of power. Follett defines Authority as vested power – the right to develop and exercise power. Authority in terms of status and the subordination of one to another, offends human dignity and may cause undesirable reactions and friction. Therefore, it cannot be the basis of organization. According to her, authority stems from the task being performed and is derived from the situation, and suggests that function is the true basis from which authority is derived. Therefore, she says that central authority i.e., derivation of authority from the Chief Executive should be replaced by Authority of Function in which each individual has final authority within the allotted functions. She feels that authority can be conferred on others and such conferment is not delegation. She expresses the clear terms that ‘delegation of authority’ should be an ‘obsolete expression’. Like authority, responsibility also flows from the function and situation. Therefore, one should ask “For what is one responsible?” than “To whom is s/he responsible?” Follett also believes in the pluralistic concept of responsibility or cumulative responsibility.

Control, like Authority and Responsibility, is an important aspect to achieve organizational goals. Unlike classical thinkers. Follett believes in Fact-Control rather than man-control and in Correlated-Control than super-imposed control. Since facts vary from situation to situation, control should depend upon the facts of each situation, instead of superiors controlling subordinates. Similarly, situations are too complex for central control to be meaningfully effective. Therefore, Follett suggests that control mechanisms should be correlated at many places in the organizational structure. If organizations are to be well integrated, unified and coordinated, control should be designed and developed as a part of the unifying process. A unified organization is a self-regulating and self-directing organism. In all such organizations, Follett feels, control tends to be self-control.

Depersonalising Orders From the foregoing it is evident that giving of orders is a complicated process. Therefore, either people stop giving orders, or become ‘authoritarian’ to ensure compliance to their orders. To avoid too much of bossism in giving orders or giving no orders at all, Follett suggests depersonalizing the orders. This involves a study of the problem to discover the ‘law of the situation’ and obeying it by all concerned. One should not give orders to another, but both should agree to take orders from the situation. If orders are a part of the situation, the question of someone giving and someone receiving orders does not arise and both take the orders from the situation. Follett says that two heads of departments do not give orders to each other. Each studies the situation and decisions are made as the situation demands. Depersonalizing orders, however, does not mean that one should not exercise authority. It only means exercise of authority of the situation. She gives the example of a boy who says no and then gets a pail of water for his mother. In this case, he resents the command, but recognizes the demand of the situation.

Coordination To Follett, planning is a scheme of self-adjusting and self-coordinating the various and varying interests. The process of self-adjusting is possible only though Coordination. To Follett, coordination “implies harmonious ordering of parts”. To achieve coordination, she postulates four principles of organization:

1. Coordination as the reciprocal relating of all factors in a situation: All factors in a situation have to be related to one another and these interrelationships themselves must be taken into account.

2. Coordination by direct contact: Responsible people in the organization must be in direct contact with one another irrespective of their position in the hierarchy. She believes that horizontal communication is as important as vertical chain of command.

3. Coordination in the early stages: All the people concerned should be involved at the stage of policy formulation itself than being involved only at the implementation stage. Such participation at the early stages will benefit the organization through increased and morale.

4. Coordination as a continuing process: Follett emphasizes the need for a permanent machinery to achieve coordination from planning to activity and from activity to further planning. The advantages of such a machinery, Follett feels would be immense. Similarly she emphasizes the importance of information based on continuous research. The information itself would be a form of control, for there would be a tendency to act in accordance with the information given, if it were accepted as accurate

CHESTER I. BARNARD (1886-1961)

Chester Irving Barnard (1886-1961) – Barnard, who is often called the “erudite executive”, did his Bachelor studies in economics at Harvard University (but never graduated). He is considered by many a true sociologist. Yet, not graduating from college did not prevent him from becoming an executive at the phone company (AT&T and later Bell) and having a large effect on the evolution of management thought through his teaching and writings on social and human processes of organizations. In his 1938 book, The Functions of the Executive, a book he wrote based on lectures he gave at Lowell Institute (Boston) in the 1930s, he discusses the theory of organization (what he called “cooperative system”) and the need for an organization to reach internal “equilibrium” and stability and confront external environmental forces (Wren & Bedein, 2009). Barnard may be the first architect of a general theory of collective action and was an influence on Roethlisberger and Dickson’s Hawthorne studies.

FORMAL ORGANISATION: It is the cooperative systems that give rise to formal organisations. Barnard defines organisation as a "system of consciously coordinated personal activities or forces". The organisations come into existence when (1) there are persons able to communicate with each other (2) who are willing to contribute action (3) to accomplish a common purpose. The elements of an organisation are (1) communication; (2) willingness; (3) common purpose. Elaborating this point Barnard points out that vitality of organisation depends on the willingness of the individuals to contribute forces to the cooperative system: this willingness requires the belief that the purpose can be carried out. However willingness to contribute disappears when effectiveness ceases. The continuance of willingness also depends upon the satisfactions that are secured by individual contributors in the process of caving out the purpose. If the satisfactions do not exceed the sacrifices required, willingness disappeard and the condition is one of organisation inefficiency. If the satisfactions exceed the sacrifices, willingness persists, and the condition is one of efficiency of organisation.

Based on the above assumption Barnard observes that initial existence of an organisation depends upon a combination of communication, willingness and purpose which are suitable to the external environment. Its survival depends upon the maintenance of an equilibrium of the system. The equilibrium has both internal and external dimensions. The internal equilibrium depends upon the proportion between these three elements. The external equilibrium has two terms in it; first, the effectiveness of the organisation which comprises the relevance of its purpose to the environmental situation; and second, its efficiency, which comprises the interchange between the organisation and individuals. It is in maintaining the equilibrium at two levels that a formal organisation persists and thrives.

For a deeper understanding of the cooperative systems and the processes, it is necessary to understand the relationship between formal and informal organisation. Barnard maintains that 'it is a part of human nature and a social process that men develop a network of relationships on systematised interactions'. This gives rise to the growth of conventions, customs and institutions. They have tremendous influence on cooperative systems. In fact Barnard ernphasises that every informal organisation-a result of social interactions-gives rise to formal organisation and every formal organisation because of network of interpersonal relationships gives rise to informal ofganisations. The informal organisation becomes necessary to the operation of formal organisations as a means of communication, or cohesion, and of protecting the integrity of the individuals.

The formal organisations, however, have certain distinct elements which are crucial to the understanding of the cooperative systems and their capacity to make use of the structural needs and individual aspirations. In the formal systems of organisation, division of labour which is described as specialisation or functionalisation is integral to the organisation.

These two terms, when subject to further analysis, indicate that men specialise but work is functionalised.

In either event, there is division of labour which results in corresponding division of work. The bases of specialisation of organisation are five: (a) the place where work is done; (b) the time at which work is done; (c) the persons with whom work is done; (d) the things upon which work is done; and (e) the method or process by which work is done. The process of cooperation requires all the five requirements. The efficiency of organisation largely rests on how these requirements are met. For the purpose of cooperative effort in a formal organisation the question of incentives is also important. The net satisfaction which induces a man to contribute his efforts to an organisation results from the positive advantages as against the disadvantages. The incentives are of two kinds; material and non-material. The material incentives include the conditions of salary and chances of promotion etc. There are also the non-material incentives which include the hierarchy of positions, with gradation of honours and privileges and maintenance or pride of organisation, community sense and so on. Both the types of incentives, Barnard maintains, are essential. He further emphasises that no organisation can exist without a combination of these two types of incentives.

CONCEPT OF AUTHORITY: Another important element for cooperative effort in a general organisation, which is believed to be the most crucial, is the element of "authority". Barnard defines authority as "the character of a communication (order) in formal organisation by virtue of which it is accepted by a contributor or 'member' of the organisation as governing the action he contributes". This, indicates that for Barnard authority consists of two aspects; first, the subjective aspect, the personal aspect, the accepting of communication as authoritative and second, the objective aspect-the character in the communication by virtue of which it is accepted.

Barnard further argues that if a directive communication is accepted by one to whom it is addressed, its Authority for him is confirmed or established. It is admitted as the basis of action. Disobedience of such a communication is a denial of its authority for him. Therefore under the definition the decision as to whether an order has authority or not lies with the persons to whom it is addressed and does not reside in "persons of authority", or those who issue these orders. He adds that organisations fail because the authority fails which means they cannot secure sufficient contribution of personal efforts to be effective or cannot induce them on terms that are efficient. Further authority fails because the individuals in sufficient numbers regard the burden involved in accepting necessary orders as changing the balance of advantage against their interest and they withdraw or withhold the indispensable contributions. It is for this reason Barnard emphasises "the necessity of the assent of the individual to establish-authority for him is inescapable". A person can and will accept communication as authoritative only when four conditions simultaneously obtain: (a) he can and does understand the communication; (b) at the time of his decision he believes that it is not inconsistent with the purpose of the organisation; (c) at the time of his decision, he believes it to be compatible with his personal interest as a whole; and (d) he is mentally and physically able to comply with it.

Thus above description leads to an important question as to how is it possible to secure such an important and enduring cooperation as we observe if in principle and in fact the determination of authority lies with the subordinate individuals. It is possible because the decisions of individuals occur under the following conditions: (a) orders that are deliberately issued in enduring organisations usually comply with the four conditions mentioned above; (b) there exists a "zone of indifference" in each individual within which orders are acceptable without conscious questioning of their authority; (c) the interests of the persons who contribute to an organisation as a group result in the exercise of an influence on the subject, or on the attitude of the individual, that maintains a certain stability of this "zone of indifference".

Zone of Indifference The acceptance of authority in organisations depends upon the zone of indifference. What then is the Zone of Indifference? If all the orders for action reasonably practicable are arranged in the order of their acceptability to the person affected, the range may consist of a number of orders which are clearly unacceptable, that is, which certainly will not be obeyed. Another group may be somewhat neutral, that is, either barely acceptable or barely unacceptable. A third group may be unquestionably acceptable. This last group, Barnard says, lies within the "zone of indifference".

The person affected will accept orders lying within this zone and is relatively indifferent as to what the order is so far, as the question of authority is concerned. The zone of indifference will be wider or narrower depending upon the degree to which the motives exceed the burdens and sacrifices which determine the individuals adherence to the organisation. If the inducements are not adequate, the range of orders that are likely to be accepted by the members of the organisations would be limited. In other words, you may say that the zone would be short. The executive, therefore, should be conscious of the zone. He should issue only those orders which would fall within the zone and are acceptable. If the executive is not conscious of this, Barnard says, that the executive either does not know how to use his authority or he is abusing the authority.

THE FUNCTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE The essential executive functions, as stated by Barnard, are first, to provide the system of communication; second, to promote the securing of essential efforts, and third, to formulate and define the purposes.

The first function of maintenance of organisational communication has two phases. The first is definition of organisational positions and the second is maintaining a personnel system. The former requires organisational charts, specification of duties, division of work, etc. The latter includes recruiting men who have appropriate qualifications, offering incentives, etc. These two phases-are complementary and depend on each other. The second function of securing essential services from individuals also has two main aspects. The first is bringing persons into cooperative relationship with the organisation and the second is eliciting services and contributions from such people. These can be achieved, according to Barnard, by maintaining morale, education and training, incentives, and supervision and control.

The third executive, function is the formulation of organisational objectives and purposes. These purposes must be widely accepted by all the members of the orginisation. The above three functions arise basically form the need for cooperation among various human beings as every organisation is basically a cooperative system, the cooperative effort requires to be consciously coordinated. It is in this area of organisational process the executive has to perform the role in realising the goals and purposes of a cooperative system.

References 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elton_Mayo#Early_life_and_education 2. https://www.mbaknol.com/management-principles/elton-mayos-hawthorne- experiment-and-its-contributions-to-management/ 3. http://paoptional.blogspot.com/2015/12/function-of-executive-chesteribernard.html 4. http://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/S000030PU/P001502/M01 6160/ET/1466509995Module7Mary_Parker_Follett-Jeevan_Kumar.pdf 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elton_Mayo#Early_life_and_education 6. https://www.mbaknol.com/management-principles/elton-mayos-hawthorne- experiment-and-its-contributions-to-management/