DISCUSSION PAPER SERIESMarch 2023

No. 2023-01

On subsequent studies of Mary Parker Follett

Hayashi, Toru

Faculty of Economics
Nagasaki UniversityNagasaki, JapanOn subsequent studies of Mary Parker Follett
Hayashi, Toru
Faculty of Economics, Nagasaki University
Abstract:
This paper tries to interrelate Follett's subsequent studies by intervening the "two-factor
theory" by Herzberg. First is Weick's "model of group development" and "two-factor
theory": one attempt is to overlay "two-factor theory" (motivators as Mo and hygiene
factors as Hy, with high and low as H and L, respectively). Second, Barnard's "method ofincentives" and "two-factor theory": If "personal and non-material opportunities" and"ideal benefactions" among the four specific inducements are transferred to generalincentives, two remain: "material inducements" and “desirable physical conditions.” Asa result, specific inducements correspond to hygiene factors and general incentives
correspond to motivators. Third, the contrast between Follett's "dealing with differences"and Barnard's “method of persuasion.” Domination" corresponds to "coercion,""compromise" corresponds to "rationalization of opportunity," "voluntary obedience"corresponds to "inculcation of motives," and "integration" corresponds to "creativenessof moral codes. Furthermore, although "creativeness of moral codes" is not in the categoryof "method of persuasion," it is positioned as a higher-order "method of persuasion" inthis study.

Introduction
Both Barnard and Weick are considered subsequent studies to Follett. However, it is notalways sufficiently clear what exactly is being succeeded. When two equal entities facedifferences, they are usually adjusted by the market mechanism. In this study, we will1

compare Follett's and Barnard's ideas on dealing with differences, including parallel andhierarchical relationships in a hierarchy.
The root of the differences lies in the purposes or value assumptions of each subject1. In
general, the purpose at the individual level can be paraphrased as “how and where to live.”
The process of formation and transformation of these purposes depends on a doubleinteraction with the social environment (the external world)2 as a means, i.e., realization(enactment) as subjective sense-making toward the external world. Weick's (1979)"theory of organizing" describes and explains this cyclical process as a “model of groupdevelopment.” Theoretically speaking, it is a repetition of choices to affirm (maintain) ordeny (break through) the status quo so that they differ from each other in structure andprocess (Kishida, 2019).
The structure of this paper is as follows. First, by juxtaposing the "two-factor theory" by
Herzberg (Herzberg, 1966), we attempt to provide a theoretical complement to the “modelof group development.” Second, through a comparison with the "two-factor theory," wewill clarify the problems inherent in Barnard's (1938) “classification of incentives.” Third,
we will attempt to contrast "integration" by Follett (1924, 1949) and "method ofpersuasion" by Barnard (1938).

Criticism of the incentives antecedent view

1

In Barnard's style, it involves moral codes, and in the Carnegie School (e.g., Simon,1945; March and Simon, 1958; Cyert and March, 1963), it involves value premise. As
will be discussed below, if the value premise is decomposed into two factors (Herzberg,1966), it seems to be possible to explain the organizing process in a consistent manner.
2

Including the counterparty with whom to collaborate.
2

According to Follett 3 , there are three ways 4 to resolve differences: domination,compromise, and integration. Domination works in the short term but is not successful inthe long term. Compromise involves giving up some of each other's desires. In both
domination and compromise, one of the parties is unsatisfied5, whereas in integration,
both parties are fully satisfied (Follett, 1949, pp. 127-128).
However, Mouri6 points out that differences and conflicts can be expected depending onthe "judgment or interpretation" of the "circumstances" on which "integration" ispremised. In this regard, Weick, who paid attention to "judgment or interpretation," basedon retrospective sensemaking, visualized how the "process of organizing" develops andis repeated under the double interaction of the parties involved. However, a prescription
for "integration" is not necessarily intended. Yuhara (2016a, p. 69) also points out various
factors (obstacles to integration) that support the fact that "integration" is not easy.

3

Follett's organizational theory, which focused on dynamic processes rather than staticstructures, later influenced Barnard, Weick, and others (Mitsui, 2012, p. 276; Sugita, 2012,
p. 20, 2021, p. 32). Weick points out the similarity between Weick's original concept of"sense-making" and Follett's view of organization as "relating" (Weick, 1995, pp. 32-34).
4

The four methods of settling differences were modified from four to three: voluntarysubmission, domination, compromise, and integration (Follett. 1924).
5The dissatisfaction and satisfaction of desire in Follett seem to be captured in asynthesized one-factor continuum compared to the two factors; since the two factors areincommensurable with each other, synthesizing them makes no sense.
6

According to Mouri (Follett, 1949, Commentary, pp. 211-214, in Japanese translation

edition), differences and divisions are to be expected in the judgment or interpretation of“circumstances.” However, the way to solve this problem is also "integration" inaccordance with the “law of circumstances.” It is a healthy humanization that concrete
human beings give meaning and value to individual human relationships in the overallsituation.
3However, they seem to be enumerated from a particular rationalistic perspective, as if
seeking a kind of Pareto-optimal solution. A "rationalistic interpretation" also denies themultiplicity or equivocality of “circumstances.” Rather, the essence of "integration" is to"fully satisfy both parties," i.e., to be agreeable7 to them.
As one of the prescriptions for "integration," Barnard offers the following "method ofincentives" and “method of persuasion.”“If an organization is unable to afford incentives adequate to the personal contributions it
requires it will perish unless it can by persuasion so change the desires of enough menthat the incentives it can offer will be adequate. Method of persuasion includes, (a) thecreation of coercive conditions, (b) the rationalization of opportunity, and (c) theinculcation of motives.” (Barnard, 1938, p. 149)
In short, because there are limits to the appropriate incentives that can be offered,managers are compelled to motivate would-be contributors through persuasion. In thisstudy, such a prescription will be referred to as the “incentives antecedent view.” However,the "method of incentives" is not coherent. Regarding the conditions for the existence offormal organizations, Yuhara contrasts them as follows. On the one hand, effectiveness isexternal, impersonal, and objective; efficiency is internal, personal, and subjective(Yuhara, 2015, p. 62); on the other hand, the "method of incentives" is objective and the"method of persuasion" is subjective. Nevertheless, Yuhara does not elaborate on the7It can be paraphrased as the satisfactory solution advocated by the Carnegie school.

However, even though the production and participation decisions in organizational
equilibrium theory (Simon, et al., 1950; March and Simon, 1958) are essentially different,
both can be paraphrased as the same “satisfaction.” This seems to be due to the value
premise unresolved.
4former, i.e., specific inducements and general incentives (Yuhara, 2015, p. 63).
According to Yuhara's positioning, the specific inducements (material inducements,personal and non-material opportunities, desirable physical conditions, and ideal
benefactions) and the general incentives (associational attractiveness, adaptions tohabitual methods and attitudes, the opportunity of enlarged participation, and thecondition of communion) are all external, impersonal, and objective. But are both
"personal and non-material opportunities" and "ideal benefactions" external, impersonal,or objective? No. They are not. In fact, Yuhara's correspondence between objective andsubjective concepts of effectiveness and efficiency, in accordance with Barnard, is not a
mistake. It should also be logically coherent to map the "method of incentives" to the“method of persuasion.” However, such a correspondence would lead to the contradiction
mentioned above. Why? The reason is that the criteria for the two categories of specificinducements/general incentives are inappropriate.
In this study, one attempt is to reclassify them in response to hygiene/motivation factors(Herzberg, 1966) instead of specific/general. In this way, the contradiction into which
Barnard fell seems to be curable (Table 1) and can theoretically complement the groupdevelopment model (Figure 1).

5

Table 1

two-factor (Herzberg, 1966) and method of incentives (Barnard, 1938)

two-factor

method of incentives

company policy and administrationmaterial inducements

supervision-technicalpersonal non-material opportunities (1)hygiene factors salaryspecificinducements

desirable physical conditions

interpersonal relatons-supervisor

ideal benefactions (2)working conditions

motivators

achievement

associational attractivenessrecognition

adaptation of conditions to habitual methods andattitudes

work itself

the opportunity to enlarged participation

responsibility

the condition of communion

generalincentives

advancement
Source: Herzberg (1966) and Barnard (1938)
Note: (1) Personal non-material opportunities and (2) ideal benefactions seem to conform to not hygiene factors but motivators.

non-material/noneconomical inducements (motivators)
incommensurable
Low

High

no organizing
Lowmaterial/economical inducements(hygiene factors)

center of gravity→

diverse ends

common means

↑

↓(※)

unstable/market transactionHigh

center of rigidity←

diverse means
Figure 1

common ends

Integration between two-factor and group development model

Source: Composed by author based on Herzberg (1966) and Weick (1979)
Note: (※ ) Gratification-produced pathology ( Maslow, 1970, pp. 71-72).

Now, if we superimpose the "two-factor theory" (motivational factor as Mo and hygiene
factor as Hy, and high and low as H and L, respectively), we obtain the following.
Clockwise, first, a path starting from "diverse ends" (MoL, HyL) to "common means"(MoH, HyL) (organizing based on double interaction); second, a transformation of"common means" to "common ends" (MoH, HyH) (inversion of ends and means); third,a transformation of "common ends" to "diverse means" (MoL, HyH) (rigidity ofrelationship); last, an opportunity to move from "diverse means" to "diverse ends"
6

(renewal in search of new organizing).
Barnard also lists three "methods of persuasion": the creation of coercive conditions, therationalization of opportunity, and inculcation of motives. Of the three, "coercion"corresponds to Follett's “domination.” Thus, the "persuasion" option leading to"integration" is "rationalization of opportunity" or "inculcation of motives." In any case,if the condition of "without violating any codes" is satisfied, the result is “sufficientsatisfaction for both parties.”
Let us look at Barnard's theory of efficiency with "sufficient satisfaction" as a clue. It saysthat persuasion is necessary because the incentives are finite (incentives antecedent view)as a means of raising the motivation to contribute. If material and economic incentives
are plentiful and offered without discipline, it can lead to what Maslow (1970) calls"gratification-produced pathology"8 (Figure 1). Moreover, since there is no opportunity
for organization (common means), differences are adjusted in the counterclockwise
direction in Figure 1, i.e., in the market (various means). However, from the viewpoint of"creation of moral codes," which Barnard positions as the essence of leadership, such anargument (incentives antecedent view) does not seem to be appropriate. In this regard,
Yuhara introduces an interesting logic.
In contrast to Barnard's discussion of the balance between "individual codes" and"organizational codes" based on coordination by managers, the rejection of dualistic
thinking of Nishida Kitaro takes as a given the coordinating function of managers. Theessence of management responsibility, or leadership in Barnard's view, is the function ofcreating moral codes through the "conviction" that "individual codes" and "organizational

8Herzberg (1966, p. 174) says, “the worshipping of Adam can lead to the loss of

Abraham, and this is the unhealthy aspect.”7

codes" coincide, and that efficiency and effectiveness are combined and harmonized in
the face of various intersecting and conflicting codes of conduct (Yuhara, 2016b, pp. 108109).
Table 2 coping with differences (Follett, 1924) and method of persuation (Barnard, 1938)
coping with differences

method of persuation

domination

the creation of coercive conditions

compromise

the rationalization of opportunity

voluntary submission

the inculcation of motives

integration

the creativeness of moral codes

Source: Follett (1924) and Barnard (1938)

What is the "conviction" that leads to the creative function of moral codes? Assuming ahierarchical structure, it is nothing but coordination among the different functional
departments, i.e., general management (Fayol, 1916). In fact, "coordination" in the nameof general management is carried out under the manager's vision and time perspective9
through a combination of incentives and persuasion, whether simultaneously orsequentially. In fact, however, there are cases in which either incentives only orpersuasion only is sufficient. If persuasion is sufficient, incentives are unnecessary.
Incentives are not always preceded by a response to differences.
For example, "rationalization of opportunities" may suffice. It is, in essence, acomprehensive understanding of the position and meaning of the part in charge in relation
to the whole. The multi-skilled (or versatile) workers and QC circle activities in the9Barnard, in his creation of a moral code, explains the need for resourcefulness, energy,imagination, and general ability (Barnard, 1938, p. 272), and it would seem that these arealso necessary in the combination of incentives and persuasion.
8Toyota Production System, which is said to have overcome the weaknesses of the Fordsystem with its single-skilled workers, are examples of this (Abo et al., 1991). If themeaning of assigned work is understood "autonomously (Ji-dou-ka in Japanese)," thisitself becomes "rationalization of opportunity" or “inculcation of motives.” Neither ofthese is directly related to material or economic incentives such as wage conditions. Whatis relevant is the "confidence" that the other party will understand. If, as a result, the"individual codes" and the "organizational codes" coincide, and efficiency andeffectiveness are combined and harmonized, then this seems to be an example of“integration.” As far as the incentives antecedent view is concerned, it is not necessarily
appropriate to position Barnard's study as a successive study to Follett's “integration.”

Conclusion
In this paper, first, we attempted to complement the theoretical model of groupdevelopment by juxtaposing the two-factor theory. Second, we clarified the problems
inherent in Barnard's categorization and method of incentives, criticized the incentives
antecedent view, and reclassified it in terms of the two-factor theory. Third, I attempted
to contrast Follett's "integration" and Bernard's “method of persuasion.”

References
Abo, T., Itagaki, H., Ueyama, K., Kawamura, T., and Kumon, H. (1991), The Japanese
Production System in the U.S.A.: 'Application' and 'Adaptation' in Local Factories,
Toyo Keizai Inc (in Japanese).
Barnard, Chester I. (1938) The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press .
9Cyert, Richard M. and March, James G. (with contributions by Clarkson, G. P. E., et al.)(1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fayol, Henri (1916) Administration Industrielle et Générale: Prévoyance, Organisation,
Commandement, Coordination, Controle, Paris: Dunod.
Follett, Mary P. (1924) Creative Experience, New York: Peter Smith.
Follett, Mary P. (1949) Freedom & Co-ordination: Lecture in Business Organization,London, UK: Management Publications Trust.
Herzberg, Frederick (1966) Work and the Nature of Man, Cleveland, OH: WorldPublishing.
Kishida, Tamiki (2019) The Generation and Development of Organization Studies,
Yuhikaku (in Japanese).
March, James and Simon, Herbert A. (1993) Organizations, 2nd ed., Blackwell(Originally in 1958).
Maslow, Abraham H. (1970) Motivation and Personality, 2nd.ed. (Originally in 1954),
New York: Harper and Row.
Mitsui, Izumi (2012) "Dynamic organizational views," in The Society for the History ofBusiness Administration (ed.), Encyclopedia of the History of Business
Administration (2nd ed.), Bunshindo, p. 276 (in Japanese).
Mouri, Shigetaka (1963) “Commentary,” in Japanese edition (translated by Saito, Morio),
Follett, Mary P., Freedom & Co-ordination: Lecture in Business Organization,Daiyamondosha, pp. 173-248.
Simon, Herbert A. (1997) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-making
Processes in Administrative Organization, 4th ed. New York: Free Press (Originallyin 1945).
10

Simon, Herbert A., Smithburg, Donald W., and Thompson, Victor A. (1950) Public
Administration, New York: Alfred A. Knopf .
Sugita, H. (2012), "Follett's life and her times," in Mitsui, Izumi (ed.), Follett,Bunshindo, pp. 1-24, chapter 1 (in Japanese).
Sugita, Hiroshi (2021) Follett's Hermeneutic Management Thought, Bunshindo (inpanese).
Weick, Karl E. (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed. Reading, MA:Wesley.
Weick, Karl E. (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yuhara, Tomoaki (2015), "The characteristics of duality and adjustment in Barnard's
Theory: Based on the essays of Koestler and Kitaro Nishida,” in Miyazaki Sangyo
Keiei Daigaku Ronshu, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 59-76 (in Japanese).
Yuhara, Tomoaki (2016a), "A study on Follett's integration theory: Based on Graham'stheory," in Miyazaki Sangyo Keiei Daigaku Ronshu, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 65-74 (inJapanese).
Yuhara, Tomoaki (2016b), "The creation of moral rules in Barnard's organization
theory: Based on the denial of dualism in Kitaro Nishida's,” in Konan Keiei Ronshu,
Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 87-110 (in Japanese).

11