The Functions of the Executive

Rating:
Summary: Surprises from the past
Review: I am impressed by Barnard's work. He has magnificently put on paper, issues that are taught in any business school today, as if they had always been natural. But it is obvious that the process to deduct from simpler to complex his theory demanded hard work and a life experience. What strikes me most is the immensity of his work, which embodies all the managerial aspects, challenge that would be unthinkable today. But I must say, if only he had done it simpler. Anyhow, it is amazing how often one finds issues such as the recognition of informal organizations, his conception of authority, his conception of efficiency and effectiveness and many others in nowadays oral business tradition. Also, his approach to the organization conceptually and as a system of cooperation formed by individuals, seem strongly logical today, moreover when he considers the relevance of the recognition of informal organizations within the formal ones. This means that the result of his work is not only updated but also in use.

I can see how his predecessors as Taylor, Mayo and Fayol influenced him, and I can understand them and value their work much better now. This relation is evident to me, when I remember having criticized Fayol for his "should be" executive. However; I can see clearly now, through Barnard's description of the decision process as a moral activity more than intellectual which helps me perceive Fayol's meaning. This is obvious if one considers the executive process as a balance, more than a technique, seen by its outputs. On the other hand, Barnard's concept of efficiency, considering the distribution of a surplus, whether economic or not, is somehow similar to Mayo's search in his book. The quest for reasons to describe the industrial process is Mayo's passion, which I can clearly identify now with Barnard's efficiency. The same search would apply to Taylor's, though with a different approach.

As far as methodology is concerned, although I enjoyed reading his book, his model is by no means simply stated. Maybe because he wanted to prove his academic virtues he explained his theory as complicated as he could. Keeping academic rigor, it could have been presented more concisely. Particularly, when the lasts chapters, being the core of his theory, are presented after extensive analysis and descriptions of variables. Besides, he has to summarize his ideas at the end of the main chapters; it must have been because he had at least a reasonable doubt of the reader's comprehension. On the other hand his endless classifications of the different categories turns to be confusing and misleading. Nevertheless: he describes from a scientific point of view the organization, concept that had been neglected before, and does it from a practitioner's point of view. By doing this he makes a big contribution to management, not only defining business organization but also from a broader scope.
I was very impressed by his description of the executive in the cooperative process, whose main function towards it, is the maintenance of communication, being the correct persons in the correct position. When describing his function Barnard also states the formulation of purpose as well as the securing the essential services for individuals. By holding at the same time technical abilities as well as general abilities, having to be the latter higher as higher the position is. The executive functions also include the ability to foresee the probable changes in the environment, restating the porpouse, guiding its flow trough the organization.

It is also fascinating how one can link the nature of executive's responsibility, which is moral, based on codes that each human being has. With the source of authority which is not based on coercion but on acceptance of the purpouses and hence the obedience. Authority positions will not last if they are not based in the character of communication by virtue of which contributors accept it. In the same way the non-existence of codes will result in denial of authority in the organization. Moreover, he says the creative aspect of the executive function is the highest exemplification of responsibility. The identification of moral codes and the organization code in the view of the leader carries conviction to the personnel, trough the formal as well as the informal organizations. This is a key issue for a leader to articulate a system of cooperation trough his functions.

Rating:
Summary: Completely MISSES the target!!!
Review: It is highly commendable that Chester tries to cover as much ground as possible.

Unfortunately, therein lies the flaw with this book. Trying to define everything in the universe regarding the roles, purpose, fundamentals, morality, psychology, etc. of the individual, the organisation, and the executive in 296 pages of content is not only adventurous but naive. As a result the content does not have much of a sense of purpose, with no real goal achieved at the end of it. The scattergun approach used in this book makes it a tiresome and belaboring read.

The title of the book is totally misleading. I suggest a new apt (boring) title for this book : "Philosophies of Organisation and Executives' Roles in Them".

For MUCH more RELEVANT reading, I suggest the likes of Drucker and Schein for their often excellent content.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent, optimistic, human-centered management text
Review: Outside the Barnard Society and a few scattered industrial-psychology departments, this book is, unfortunately, no longer taken very seriously. It is used mostly as a historical piece, "see how management theory used to be," or as a foil for the arguments of competing theories.

Barnard's perspective is that of human cooperation, management by consensus, and voluntary effort. Employees who are treated well will work well; managers should gain respect through kindness; any workplace conflict signals a failure of the management; and so on and so on. He was either an idealist (as some claim) or a cunning, cynically manipulative defender of capitalist organization during an economic downturn (as others claim). He was either a genius (as some claim) or a businessman with little formal education and professorial prtentions (as others claim).

Historically speaking, Barnard's book represents a focus on the human side of employee management, and away from the Frederick Taylor -esque treatment of all employees as production machines. This "softness" of his has made him unpopular today -- just as his failure to acknowledge any "class conflict" made him unpopular in the 60s and 70s.

But Barnard is an original, not someone to be pigeonholed into a category, and the ultimate test of a book like this is not authorial intent, but what it does for your mind, and what it does for you as a manager. For me, on both counts, it has been tremendously useful. Reading Barnard gave me powerful intellectual insights -- something I wouldn't even hope to get in today's "management books" -- and has informed the way I think about and deal with coworkers and subordinates on a daily basis. A very valuable read; perhaps one of the first three books I would give an up and coming manager or entrepreneur.

Rating:
Summary: The Functions of the Executive by Chester I.Barnard
Review: The author attempts to develop a comprehensive theory of
organizational behavior. I doubt that such a thing exists;
however, his work provides a better perspective on existing
behavioral theories in organizational settings. It is well
researched with quotations and mention of Mayo, Taylor,
Fayol, Pareto, Holden, Koontz, Likert, McGregor, Simon, March, Learned, Sloan and Drucker-to name just a few of the many
authors cited. The work is divided into :
o a theory of cooperation and organization
o the functions and methods of executives in organizations

The author has some interesting perspectives. For instance,
he defines persuasion as:

" a-the creation of coercive conditions b) rationalization
of opportunity c) the inculcation of motives."

The work could delve more into the dynamics of the corporate
culture, goal incongruencies and random events which interfere
with even the most carefully construed goals and plans
of implementation.

This work could be a helpful research for a thesis or major
paper in organizational structure/design or the dynamics of
organizational behavior/psychology.