Fads, stereotypes and management gurus: Fayol and Follett today

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The management profession has a long and well-documented history adopting and abandoning "fads" promulgated by a series of thinkers, practitioners, and opinion leaders who enjoy a "guru" like status. The purpose of this paper shows that stereotyping contributes to the existence of this guru-fad phenomenon. Design/methodology/approach -The paper examines the characteristics of both management fads and the phenomenon of stereotyping with reference to two leading historical management practitioners and thinkers, Henri Fayol and Mary Parker Follett. Findings -Drawing on the examples of Mary Parker Follett and Henri Fayol, it argues that the influence exerted by other management gurus and fads, such as Frederick Winslow Taylor's Scientific Management and Elton Mayo's Human Relations Movement, gave rise to a stereotyped view of both Follett and Fayol's work that prevented an accurate appraisal of their ideas.Research limitations/implications -In addition, this paper notes that, while Follett and Fayol exhibited an extraordinary capacity to identify the very issues that have spawned many subsequent management fads, the contemporary management discipline's approach to both thinkers is quite different. While Follett has escaped her earlier stereotypes, allowing management thinkers a new opportunity to re-assess her work and value its contemporary relevance, Fayol remains misclassified as a European Taylorist who has little to offer the contemporary management practitioner. Originality/value -This paper provides an interesting insight into the characteristics of both management fads and the phenomenon of stereotyping.The management profession internationally has had a long tradition of elevating particular management practitioners, thinkers and opinion leaders to almost "guru" status. Contemporary examples include Drucker, Peters and Waterman, De Bono, Porter and Covey. Such figures bring ideas to the management discipline that for various reasons resonate with their contemporary audiences. Their ensuing publications are often accompanied by personal appearances attracting large numbers of practicing managers paying commensurately high fees at conferences and seminars around the...

Conceptualisation of management and leadership

“…Despite the efforts to inform scholars and practitioners accurately about management, Rousseau (2006) points out that it would seem that, in contemporary times, some managers -including those with master"s of business administration (MBA) degrees -rely largely on personal experience, to the exclusion of more systematic knowledge, which is contrary to scientific understanding. This observation supports the view of Parker and Ritson (2005), who point out the susceptibility of the management discipline to fads and willingness to accept contradictions that other scientific disciplines would deem intolerable. This shortcoming is compounded by the current generation of students who read less of the actual writings of the early scholars and more of what is attributed to them by current texts (McMahon and Carr, 1999).…”

On the value of management history

“…It is in the considerable overlap between Defoe's advice and modern small business management principles; and the breadth of topics, from accounting and cash flow to inventory control and customer service, however, that it bears a striking resemblance to modern small business management texts. The type of stereotyping by literary historians of Defoe's work appears to be reflected in the equivalent treatment of the respective works of management theorists Henri Fayol and Mary Parker Follett, at least according to Parker and Ritson (2005). Interestingly, Parker and Ritson (2005) conclude that, while both Fayol and Follett have been victims of the stereotyping characterised as the "management-fashion-setting process" (Abrahamson, 1996, p. 254), their subsequent treatments have varied according to the differential processes applied to them and their works.…”

“…The type of stereotyping by literary historians of Defoe's work appears to be reflected in the equivalent treatment of the respective works of management theorists Henri Fayol and Mary Parker Follett, at least according to Parker and Ritson (2005). Interestingly, Parker and Ritson (2005) conclude that, while both Fayol and Follett have been victims of the stereotyping characterised as the "management-fashion-setting process" (Abrahamson, 1996, p. 254), their subsequent treatments have varied according to the differential processes applied to them and their works. Follett and her work were celebrated in the early part of the last century, but fell into obscurity in the 1920s and 1930s.…”

“…It was when her work was rediscovered in the 1980s and 1990s that the stereotype was challenged as part of the rediscovery process and new insights into her ideas developed. On the other hand, according to Parker and Ritson (2005) management scholars have always "known" Fayol and his links to F.W. Taylor, and so there has been no need to revisit the understanding of Fayol as a European adherent of scientific management (the falsity of this has been demonstrated by, among others, Lamond (2003Lamond ( , 2004).…”

“…Like Follett before her (see Parker and Ritson, 2005), subsequent acknowledgment of van Kleeck's contribution is not well-known, being confined to histories of feminism, social welfare, and labor. Perhaps Nyland and Heenan (2005) are in the vanguard of a new movement to recognise the work of van Kleeck and "the many other Taylor Society members who sought to promote the democratisation of management by promoting the diffusion of control over management knowledge amongst the widest possible body of stakeholders".…”