My Three Dads......... of Management

Having never heard of Frederick W. Taylor, Henri Fayol and Max Weber before this week, I have unknowingly embraced many of their groundbreaking ideas on management and organization. With all due respect to my father, these three men have also influenced me for years as a teacher, coach, manager, and fellow employee to others. 

Perhaps they sit on the shoulders of every employee striving to make their department, their team or their company the best and in turn, improving their own lot in life as an individual. Or more realistically, employees and managers are charged with attaining a goal set by others and “making it work,” despite the lack of resources. But I assert that to some degree, every organization implements forms of either or both types of management borne from these three experts.

In earlier positions as a supervisor and manager seemed to connect with Frederick Taylor’s background, as he struck me as more of a pull-up-from-the-bootstraps fellow. Where Fayol was born into intellectually and socially privileged upbringing and Taylor came from a similar, if slightly lower social strata, Taylor seemed to grind out his supplemental education (correspondence courses through Harvard and Stevens Institute of Technology – an early adopter of distance learning!), giving him a much different perspective regarding management (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).   But the physical, strip-down-and-build-back analysis and implementation  from a worker's perspective is how I saw Taylor's research and reporting.  Similarly, what I saw in my early work experience was worth attempting to attain greater productivity.  Some of the processes that I attempted to improve were related to media relations and event planning – two scopes of work that seemed so different but had components that could be improved for greater productivity by account executives.  Creating processes to instill consistency with client and media contact, utilizing templates when appropriate and empowering staffers are actions steeped in Taylorism.

While he was certainly a more technically focused manager, Taylor did grow to acknowledge the softer skills of an administrator.  As I progressed through agency supervisorial levels, however, I have begun to adopt more of Fayol’s ideals.

In terms of my recent experience, Fayol’s Principles of Management do speak to me most clearly.  Providing overall strategy and planning from an upper management/administrative manager’s perspective is Fayolism. There is much more planning, forecasting, staffing and personnel issues that need to be addressed on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis. I do agree with many of his philosophies and principles, especially where limited technical prowess is something that is eschewed by executive managers, though in this day and age, I still feel that sharpening the tool kit and even acquiring more technical tools are a necessity.  (Thus, this MCM program, chockful of Voicethread, Fuzemeeting and even this blog entry.)

Max Weber came to mind when Wren mentions potable water regarding bureaucratic management: We all have some form of it in our culture, and its necessary for our communities to function (Wren & Bedeian, 2009).  For those who disparage bureaucracy (however efficient and free from stigma) for the sake of personal freedom, I take issue. 

I was involved in an effort to fluoridate the state of California’s water system, gathering support for this public health measure on a grassroots level while also engaging with local, state and national media on behalf of this private and public/multi-agency effort.  Opponents of this effort initially countered with fear mongering and unsubstantiated claims that eventually proved ineffective.  In addition, the main faction was loosely organized, with little Unity of Command or Scalar Chain (which may have been advantageous to them in some situations). But they changed their messaging, turning to a message of "your freedom of choice" and "don't let the bureaucrats tell you what you should have in your water."  This did seem to provide them a bit of momentum against our campaign.

In most communities in this country, both rural, urban and suburban, we rely on certain organizational systems maintain necessary resources for us, such as electricity, potable water at healthful levels, and and even trash pickup.  While other services and resources available from our utilities and government agencies may fall short of our expectations, I would hazard to guess that most residents and consumers in this country agree that some form of bureaucracy is needed.  Based on research of consumers and consultations with other communication experts,   it was agreed that we address the  residents (both privileged and the underserved) and elected officials (in areas that required their additional approval) in  terms of their needs as recommended by public health experts.  This messaging, along with other tactics, proved successful and assisted us in educating the public about a much-needed resource available to millions of Californians, doubling the number of residents accessing optimally fluoridated water.

For Weber, his ideal of bureaucracy was in part to address deep-seated injustices focused at the working class by military and government leaders along with the aristocracy.  But his aim was to provide a model, a system malleable enough not only government bureaus and agencies, but for the military, universities and of course, businesses  (Wren & Bedeian, 2009). And the model may not even look the same to the citizens of the same community, or run as seamless as Fedex for us, but changes can always be implemented.

Unfortunately, it seems that all three of these scientists were not given deserved recognition for their work until after their deaths (similar to other management theorists, such as American Mary Parker Follett).  But their influences have been felt and implemented into much of our global working fabric. There will undoubtedly be more advancements in management, particularly as our lives adapt to new technologies, but the spirit and intent of these visionary theorists will hopefully continue to sit on our shoulders, whispering in our ears to guide us. Or rather, these three fathers are allowing us to stand on their shoulders, helping us look toward the future with the benefit of their wisdom.