By Naved Ashrafi
It was the sad demise of Karl Marx in 1883 and that of Engels in 1895 that [un]fortunately provided free space to the development of the new academic discipline of Public Administration in the United States of America (USA). Woodrow Wilson’s essay The Study of Administration (1887) offered capitalism an opportunity to reincarnate itself in the twentieth century in a novel way as a ‘silent tool’ for the implementation of exploitative capitalist skills. ‘Administration is business’, says Wilson in his epochal essay citing ‘efficiency’ as one of his major concerns which Buechner, otherwise, calls an inclination towards privatization.
Absence of staunch and vigilant Marxian critique, like that of Marx’s own critique of the state and the bureaucracy, augured well for capitalism to launch itself in the guise of public administration or public management—to call it in 21st-century parlance. Debates on ideas and ideologies go on but many times in this hustle-bustle we forget to celebrate a few personalities connected with the theoretical foundations of the debate. I don’t subscribe to capitalism in theory and practice but on this International Women’s Day I should celebrate Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933) as the world’s first woman in a huge galaxy of male-dominated administrative/management thinkers.
Mary Parker Follett was a pioneering lady in administrative thought. She is more popular as a management thinker. Management guru Peter Drucker regarded her as the Prophet of Management and his ‘Guru’. She wore many hats; she was a philosopher, political scientist, social worker, adult educator, philanthropist, lecturer, and organization theorist. Born to Elizabeth Curtis and Charles Follett on September 03, 1868, Mary had her early days full of prodigious underpinnings. She lived in an era when approximately ninety-eight percent of American women were not going to colleges. Women were under ‘protection’ first under their father, later under their husbands. Facing all odds including an early responsibility to take care of her younger sibling, George, born in 1877, she made it to the Radcliffe College—Harvard’s annex for women in 1888. She lived there for six years interrupted by one year (1890-91) at Newnham College, Cambridge at England. After returning from Cambridge, she graduated from Radcliffe in 1898 and undertook post-graduation in Paris. Her first book The Speaker of the House of Representatives got published in her Radcliffe days in 1896.
First among others
After treading a tight rope in her childhood, Mary turned out to be an aesthete of traditional subjects like state, community, sovereignty, etc. at Radcliffe and Paris. She is credited in the modern world for initiating studies of industrial groups keeping aloof all those subjects which were in vogue in those times. She was a pioneer. Mary held that people must socialize themselves by practice and not by the study. This made her the first person to study the industry. She was one of the first women ever invited to address the London School of Economics. She was the first woman in the male-dominated galaxy of administrative/ management thinkers.
Follett in Women’s League of Boston
Mary joined the Women’s Municipal League of Boston as the Chairman of its Committee for Extended Use of School Buildings. The committee was to get young people off the street at night by opening the schoolhouses for recreation. To Follett, the main purpose of the drama coach was not to produce good plays nor of basketball coach to win games. Follett had unique modus operandi when she says their purpose is to give people practice in cooperating with each other and in the self-government. So getting young people off the street in the Women’s League of Boston was to nurture a strong foundation for democratic citizenship.
On State, Democracy and Law
Follett laid great emphasis on group dynamics in an organization. To her, the group is the core of social process and state is an extension to the group process at a higher level. The state is the highest expression of social life. A true state is one which creates an overarching ‘great group’ with its sovereignty resting on ‘group process’ and the principles of ‘integration’. Such a state is unified by common popular ends. The state is the fulfillment and expression of an individual. Thus, Follett says, ‘the home of my soul is in the state’.
Basis of Follett’s concept of democracy is not the majority rule, party system, and submission to the law of crowd. Such democracies —as Follett calls it—are “ballot-box democracies”. The state having premised on the group process, democracy should also be based on collective will that in turn hinges upon substantive participation of masses. In a real democracy, a leader should nurture the energy of the group and should create an opportunity for the release of such unifying energies. Democracy is based on both ‘expert advice’ and ‘active electorate’.
On Conflict and Integration
A group like industry or country is made up of many persons with different connotations and desires. With such diversified content, conflicts are unavoidable and the group should sail through such conflicts smartly. Conflict should be regarded as a normal process in the group organization. Conflict is neither good nor bad. To Follett, it is not warfare but only an appearance of the difference of opinion and interest. Conflict is unavoidable, so ‘criticizing it’ should be replaced with ‘capitalizing on it’. Conflict represents friction and one must know that every forward movement is not possible without friction, the violin produces music by friction, and all polishing is done by friction.
Conflict must be resolved by the process of ‘integration’. Domination and compromise may not be the best ways to resolve conflicts. Unlike domination and compromise, two desires are integrated and neither side needs to sacrifice its desire in integration. Compromise doesn’t create something new but deals only with the existing while integration creates something new and saves time and resources. It goes to the root of the problem and ends disputes permanently. Integration involves three steps namely uncovering and identification of differences, breaking up of a whole into fragments, and anticipation of constructive responses.
On Power, Authority and Bossism
To Follett, power is the ability to make things happen, to be a causal agent to initiate change. In a group, ‘power over’ is different from ‘power with’. Former is coercive in nature while the latter is co-active facilitating creativity. Power can’t be delegated or handed over or wrenched out because it is the result of ‘knowledge and ability’. A senior can’t delegate power as much as they are unable to delegate knowledge. They can only make subordinates learn things and create power de novo.
Authority, according to Follett, is vested power i.e. right to develop and exercise power. Power in terms of status offends human dignity and this can’t be the basis of any democratic organization. Authority, responsibility, and giving orders should be based on the ‘law of situation’ i.e. one should follow what situation demands. Orders must be depersonalized to command maximum compliance from other group members. A leader is the one who can energize their group, who knows how to encourage initiative and how to draw all that each has to give optimally. A genuine leader doesn’t make their position or personal charisma as the basis of ‘leadership’. They make ‘functional expertise’ or expert knowledge their basis of leadership. Such leaders can give orders even to those present at higher levels of hierarchy. They are the real boss for they rely on ‘law of situation’ and ‘functional expertise’ and not on their own whims and fancies.
Conclusion
No thinker or social scientist is infallible as far as the development of knowledge is concerned. There may be serious criticism of Mary Follett in Marxian or any other paradigm. Her very understanding of the state and democracy can well be criticized. The process goes on. But this is the time to pause on. One should celebrate the personality and contribution of Mary Follett to the knowledge world. One should criticize the way women are being exploited by the neo-capitalist management world. Barring few women on the top, most of them have been reduced to mere marketing, advertising, and propagating capitalism. They are checked from going deep into knowledge strata in modern organizations. Their participation is confined only to toe the lines of male-chauvinist management. Follett herself was not very much popular among her male contemporaries. Her most of views could only be popularized after her death. In Follett’s life and struggle, there lie many inspirations to young women of our times. They must be educated to educate themselves because educated [and not mere literate] women can emancipate themselves without any assistance.
Author is a doctoral candidate (Public Administration) at the Department of Political Science, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.
0 Comments