Exploring Mary Parker Follett’s Leadership Styles: Functional Over Authoritarian

Leadership has long been recognized as a critical component of effective management, but few thinkers have revolutionized our understanding of leadership quite like Mary Parker Follett. Breaking from traditional views of her time, Follett proposed that true leadership transcends mere position or personality-it’s fundamentally about function and understanding. Her perspective challenged the authoritarian models prevalent in early 20th century organizations and introduced a more democratic, situationally responsive approach that continues to influence management theory today.

The three dimensions of leadership according to Follett 🔗

Mary Parker Follett recognized that leadership manifests in different forms across organizations. She categorized leadership into three distinct dimensions, each with varying degrees of effectiveness and sustainability:

Leadership of position 🔗

Leadership of position refers to authority derived purely from one’s formal role or title within an organizational hierarchy. This is perhaps the most common understanding of leadership in traditional settings-the department head, CEO, or supervisor who leads because organizational structure grants them that power.

According to Follett, this type of leadership is the weakest foundation for effective management. When leaders rely solely on their position to influence others, they often encounter resistance, compliance without commitment, and limited engagement. Position-based leadership typically generates transactional relationships where followers respond to authority rather than purpose or vision.

For example, a newly appointed manager who constantly reminds team members “I’m in charge here” while making unilateral decisions demonstrates leadership of position. This approach might achieve short-term compliance but rarely inspires innovation or dedication.

Leadership of personality 🔗

The second dimension Follett identified is leadership of personality, which stems from an individual’s charisma, personal magnetism, or exceptional traits. These leaders attract followers through their compelling personal qualities rather than their formal position.

While more effective than position-based leadership, Follett noted that personality-driven leadership has significant limitations. It creates dependency on specific individuals, lacks sustainability beyond the leader’s presence, and doesn’t necessarily develop capacity within the organization.

Consider the charismatic startup founder who inspires tremendous loyalty and energy but whose company struggles when they step back from day-to-day operations. Their personal appeal created initial success but didn’t translate into institutional strength.

Leadership of function 🔗

Follett championed functional leadership as the most effective approach. Here, leadership emerges from the ability to understand situations comprehensively and respond appropriately to what circumstances require. The functional leader excels not through position or personality but through knowledge, adaptability, and situational awareness.

This form of leadership distributes authority based on expertise and context rather than centralizing it in specific roles or individuals. Functional leadership recognizes that different situations might require different leaders depending on who possesses the most relevant understanding and capabilities.

For instance, a team member with specialized technical knowledge might naturally lead during a technical crisis, while someone with strong interpersonal skills might lead during conflict resolution-regardless of their formal positions.

The essence of functional leadership 🔗

What makes functional leadership superior in Follett’s framework? Several key characteristics distinguish this approach:

Comprehensive understanding of situations 🔗

Functional leaders possess what Follett called “the situation approach”-the ability to perceive all factors affecting a circumstance, including human dynamics, organizational constraints, external pressures, and potential opportunities. This comprehensive understanding allows them to respond to what the situation genuinely requires rather than applying predetermined solutions.

Follett believed that true leadership involves seeing beyond immediate problems to identify underlying patterns and connections. While others might address symptoms, functional leaders grasp root causes and systemic relationships.

This holistic perspective enables more effective decision-making that accounts for both immediate needs and long-term implications. Rather than managing by crisis or reaction, functional leaders navigate with awareness of the complete context.

Integration of orders with situational demands 🔗

One of Follett’s most innovative concepts was her rejection of traditional command-and-control approaches. Instead of viewing orders as directives flowing from superior to subordinate, she reconceptualized them as responses to situational demands that both leaders and followers must address together.

In functional leadership, instructions emerge from the “law of the situation”-what objective circumstances require-rather than from arbitrary authority. This integration helps overcome resistance since actions are based on shared understanding of necessity rather than power dynamics.

As Follett explained: “One person should not give orders to another person, but both should agree to take their orders from the situation.” This principle fundamentally transforms how we understand organizational authority.

Encouragement of initiative 🔗

Unlike leadership styles that emphasize obedience, functional leadership actively cultivates initiative at all organizational levels. Follett recognized that sustainable success requires engaging everyone’s intelligence and creativity rather than limiting thinking to designated leaders.

Functional leaders create environments where people feel empowered to identify problems, propose solutions, and take appropriate action without waiting for permission. This distributed responsibility increases organizational responsiveness and resilience while developing leadership capacity throughout the system.

By encouraging initiative, functional leaders multiply their effectiveness through others rather than serving as bottlenecks for decision-making and action.

Leaders are made, not born 🔗

Contrary to the “great man” theories popular during her era, Follett firmly believed that leadership qualities could be developed through proper education and training. This perspective was revolutionary when many assumed leadership abilities were innate traits possessed by a select few.

The development of leadership capacity 🔗

Follett argued that organizations should systematically cultivate leadership skills at all levels. This development includes:

• Experiential learning: Providing opportunities to practice leadership in progressively challenging situations
• Critical reflection: Encouraging analysis of successes and failures to extract meaningful lessons
• Knowledge acquisition: Building relevant expertise and understanding across disciplines
• Situational awareness: Developing the capacity to read contexts accurately and identify what’s truly needed

This developmental approach democratizes leadership by making it an acquirable skill rather than an exclusive talent. Organizations that adopt this perspective invest in growing leadership throughout their ranks rather than focusing development exclusively on those in formal leadership positions.

Education for leadership 🔗

Follett was specific about the type of education that cultivates effective leaders. Beyond technical expertise, she emphasized developing:

• Contextual intelligence: The ability to understand situations in their full complexity
• Integrative thinking: Finding solutions that harmonize seemingly opposing viewpoints
• Systems perspective: Seeing interconnections and patterns that others might miss
• Human understanding: Recognizing the social and psychological dimensions of organizational life

This multifaceted education prepares individuals to lead through understanding rather than coercion, creating more sustainable and effective organizational dynamics.

The circular response: Leadership as reciprocal influence 🔗

Perhaps Follett’s most profound contribution to leadership theory was her concept of “circular response”-the recognition that leaders and followers continuously influence one another in a reciprocal relationship.

Moving beyond one-way influence 🔗

Traditional leadership models portrayed influence as flowing in one direction: from leaders to followers. Follett rejected this linear understanding, demonstrating that influence operates circularly. Leaders shape their environments and groups, but are simultaneously shaped by them in an ongoing process of mutual adaptation.

This circular perspective transforms how we understand leadership effectiveness. Success isn’t measured by a leader’s ability to impose their will but by their capacity to participate productively in this mutual influence process-becoming both influencer and influenced.

For example, a department head might introduce a new initiative, but how team members respond will inevitably reshape both the initiative and the leader’s approach. The most effective leaders remain open to this reciprocal influence rather than rigidly adhering to predetermined plans.

Co-created leadership experience 🔗

Follett’s circular response concept suggests that leadership is fundamentally co-created between leaders and those they lead. The quality of this relationship determines leadership effectiveness more than individual traits or formal authority.

This co-creation occurs through:

• Continuous feedback loops: Information and responses flowing in multiple directions
• Shared meaning-making: Collective interpretation of situations and events
• Mutual adaptation: Both leaders and followers adjusting their approaches based on interactions
• Evolving expectations: Changing understandings of roles and responsibilities through experience

By recognizing leadership as co-created, Follett shifted focus from individual heroism to relationship quality and process effectiveness-a perspective that aligns remarkably well with contemporary understanding of complex adaptive systems.

Relevance in modern organizational contexts 🔗

Despite being developed nearly a century ago, Follett’s leadership principles remain strikingly relevant to today’s organizational challenges. Her ideas anticipate many concepts now considered cutting-edge in management theory.

Knowledge-based authority 🔗

In today’s knowledge economy, Follett’s emphasis on expertise and understanding over positional authority resonates strongly. Modern organizations increasingly recognize that effective leadership comes from knowledge depth and breadth rather than formal hierarchy.

This shift is particularly evident in technology companies, healthcare organizations, and other knowledge-intensive industries where expertise is often distributed throughout the organization rather than concentrated at the top. Follett’s functional leadership provides a framework for leveraging this distributed expertise effectively.

Adaptive leadership in complex environments 🔗

Contemporary organizations face unprecedented complexity and change rates. Follett’s situation-based approach to leadership, with its emphasis on reading contexts accurately and responding appropriately, offers valuable guidance for navigating these turbulent environments.

Her rejection of rigid, position-based authority in favor of flexible, knowledge-based leadership aligns perfectly with what adaptive leadership theorists now recommend for volatile, uncertain conditions. As organizations face increasingly unpredictable challenges, Follett’s insights about situational responsiveness become more valuable than ever.

Collaborative approaches to leadership 🔗

Modern emphasis on collaboration, cross-functional teams, and participative management echoes Follett’s principles about integrative solutions and circular influence. Her vision of leadership as facilitating collective intelligence rather than commanding compliance anticipated today’s most progressive organizational practices.

Organizations now widely recognize that complex problems require multiple perspectives and collective effort-exactly the approach Follett advocated through her functional leadership model. Her work provides historical foundation and theoretical depth for contemporary collaborative leadership approaches.

Moving beyond authority to influence 🔗

At its core, Follett’s leadership philosophy represents a fundamental shift from authority-based to influence-based leadership. This transition remains one of the most significant evolutions in organizational thinking.

From power over to power with 🔗

Follett distinguished between “power over” (domination) and “power with” (co-active power). She advocated strongly for the latter, believing that sustainable organizational effectiveness comes through shared power rather than power concentration.

This distinction remains crucial for contemporary leaders navigating increasingly democratized workplaces. Employees today, particularly knowledge workers, respond poorly to heavy-handed authority but engage deeply with leaders who work alongside them toward common purposes.

Follett’s “power with” approach creates stronger commitment, more innovative thinking, and greater organizational resilience than traditional command structures-benefits that have become increasingly important in today’s competitive environment.

Leading through integration rather than compromise 🔗

Another enduring contribution from Follett is her emphasis on integration (finding solutions that incorporate all legitimate concerns) rather than compromise (each side giving up something). This integrative approach to leadership challenges requires deeper understanding but produces more sustainable solutions.

Modern conflict resolution and negotiation theories have validated Follett’s insight that integration creates more value than compromise. Leaders who master this integrative approach transform potential conflicts into opportunities for innovation and strengthened relationships.

By seeking integration rather than dominance, functional leaders create organizations characterized by collaboration rather than competition-exactly what most contemporary workplaces strive to achieve.

What do you think? Has your experience with leadership aligned more with Follett’s functional leadership model, or with more traditional position or personality-based approaches? How might organizations better develop the situational understanding that Follett believed was central to effective leadership?