Some criticisms of Mary Parker Follett

[Narendra Shah]

Hi all,

I have read some articles on her work in the field of organizational management like conflicts, leadership, coordination, power, authority, etc. They are mostly based on Dynamic Administration.

While referring to these articles, I came across some criticisms. I was not able to understand those.

In this forum, many people have read all works of her, please help me understand those criticism and present ideas to counter them.

Criticisms:

1) Few writers on organization have called her 'classical' thinker.

2) She has ignored the social nature or the processes involved in the management of organization.

3) Her ideas on integration were illusionary.

4) The main problem with Mary Parker Follett's work is that her idealism is showing.

 

Please help.

Thank you

Narendra Shah

New Delhi, India

 

Dynamic administration:

the collected papers of Mary Parker Follettthe main problem with mary parker follett's work is that her idealism is showing

[John Sarvey]

Narendra,

It would be helpful if you could share with us some of the writings that were critical of Mary Parker Follett. I personally have not run across them. So, for instance, I'm not sure what the critics may have had in mind in their definition of "classical" thinker. As for #2, my conclusion is the complete opposite of that critique. I think Mary Parker Follett took social nature and processes more into account than nearly any other management scholar of her era.

John

[Albie M. Davis]

Welcome, Narendra Shah,

Good question.  Somewhere in my files I have a copy of a very harsh review of The New State (1918) in which the reviewer called the author "Orange," which, at the time meant a combination of "Red" (as in communistic) and "Yellow," what we would call in USA slang, "chicken," or lacking courage.  

 

She herself notes that in her day some called her idealistic or unrealistic, but she is not talking about what is, or what should be, but what "could be."  And, she sees examples of "integration" in her time.  (Dynamic Administration, p. 34. Metcalf & Urwick)

 

I'm going to attach what I have handy today, something I found about a month ago, a 1924 positive review in the New York Times of Creative Experience , in which the author, John E. Lind thinks Professor Follett a man.  If I have time I'll fish around and find the negative review.

 

While I'm at it, I'll attach a 1897 NYT article noting that of the top 50 History and Biography books of the year, Follett's Speaker of the House was #48.  That must have been a pleasant occasion for a young woman of 29 years.

 

Albie Davis, Thomaston, Maine 

 

 

[Matthew Shapiro]

Another criticism that I heard was from a more recent source - well, 1998, around the time that we helped get The New State reissued by Penn State Press. One of the individuals who wrote a forward for that edition wrote that Follett's apparent belief in an evolutionary principle in the universe flew in the face of postmodernist sensibility (although I don't know if that's necessarily a bad thing). In other words, her statements in the The New State suggested a belief that the universe was progressing in a certain direction, and that the democratic processes of integration, potentially grown from the local level upwards, were a part of that process. This bothers thinkers who reject the idea of a universal or cosmic progression towards something better. This rejection was a reaction to the destruction brought about by "modernist" ideas of progress based on faith in technology and industry to make life better - which obviously was being made better for some and worse for others. I personally believe that there is an evolutionary journey, and believe that Follett did too. I don't think she was under any illusions about the difficulty of active participation in that journey.