Follett. M. P. ( 1996 ) . The giving of orders. In Shafritz. J. M. & A ; Ott. J. S. ( Eds. ) . Classicss of organisation theory ( pp. 156-162 ) . Belmont. Calcium: Wadsworth Printing Company. Reappraisal of article from Shafritz & A ; Ott by Victor Montemurro Giving and having orders is a human resource issue that should non be taken lightly since effects of non understanding the impact of an order on an employee’s work and attitude could be uneffective direction if non besides catastrophic organisational behaviour. In the essay “The Giving of Orders” published in 1926. Mary Parker Follett argues that both the employer and the employee should analyze the state of affairs and detect the jurisprudence of the state of affairs. Both employer and employee should obey the jurisprudence of the state of affairs. Employers should avoid moving as if the employee is “under” the employer. The attitude of the employee. old behaviour. the instruction and preparation. the fortunes and environment of the work state of affairs need to be carefully considered before alleged “orders” are given.
Orders should be depersonalized. Rather than presenting orders from on high. employers would make better to hold face-to-face conversation that looks at the state of affairs. and so both employer and employee should hold to “take their orders from the state of affairs. ” Follett asserts that no 1 likes to be bossed ; one feels a deficiency of self-respect. becomes defensive. and acts angry or sullen. The incorrect mentality is created in the employee and the consequence is likely to be the incorrect behaviour. Follett says that. “One individual should non give orders to another individual. ( Follett’s italics ) . but alternatively directors should concentrate on “how to invent methods by which we can outdo discover ( once more Follett’s italics ) the order built-in to a peculiar state of affairs. The manager’s authorization should be an exercising of the “authority of the state of affairs. ” The director must make in himself the proper mentality and attitude ; this work must be done in progress of the state of affairss that will originate necessitating orders. Directors must see. within themselves. the “attitude required for concerted survey and determination. ” Follett discusses other facets of human behaviour that influence the giving of orders. Because people have a wish to direct their ain lives. they normally resent the order itself. Peoples feel a cardinal demand to self-assert. No 1 likes to be under the will of another.
Even the issue of pride in one’s work can be optimized. harmonizing to Follett. non by orders that may conflict with one’s expertness or sense of dignity. but by “joint survey of the state of affairs. ” Proper respect is given to the worker who takes pride by leting shared decisionmaking and input instead than telling. Leting the worker to take part in the procedure of work increases the duty that the worker will experience for the state of affairs. Directors must unite the work order to the duty of the state of affairs by leting the order to function as a symbol of an agreed upon class of action. Follett recognizes that work state of affairss are germinating and must be understood as such so that orders may maintain up with the altering fortunes of work. Directors must develop a “conscious attitude toward experience. ” ever cognizant that the altering work state of affairs. environment. degree of preparation and expertness. requires an consciousness of the alteration that the “developing state of affairs makes in ourselves. ” Managers must cognize that the “situation does non alter without altering us. ” Though writing 75 old ages ago. Follett calls upon directors to develop what Howard Gardner calls intrapersonal intelligence and interpersonal intelligence when “giving orders. ”
