Mary Parker Follett’s Humanistic Approach to Administration

In the world of administrative theory, few thinkers have offered perspectives as refreshingly humanistic and forward-thinking as Mary Parker Follett. While many early management theorists focused on efficiency and hierarchy, Follett introduced revolutionary ideas about human relationships, power dynamics, and organizational behavior that continue to resonate in modern administrative practices. Her approach represents a significant departure from the mechanical and authoritarian administrative models of her time, emphasizing instead the importance of collaboration, integration, and human psychology in organizational settings.

Who was Mary Parker Follett? 🔗

Born in 1868 in Massachusetts, Mary Parker Follett was a pioneering management consultant and social theorist whose work bridged the gap between political science, psychology, and management. Unlike many of her contemporaries in the early 20th century, Follett had formal education in philosophy, government, and law from prestigious institutions including Radcliffe College (then the women’s annex of Harvard). What made her perspective particularly valuable was her extensive practical experience working with various organizations, including schools, businesses, and community groups.

Despite working in an era when scientific management and bureaucratic approaches dominated administrative thinking, Follett challenged conventional wisdom by emphasizing the human dimensions of organizations. Her ideas were revolutionary for their time and continue to influence modern management thought, particularly in areas of conflict resolution, participative leadership, and organizational behavior.

Follett’s humanistic approach to administration 🔗

The principle of integration in conflict resolution 🔗

Follett’s approach to conflict resolution remains one of her most enduring contributions to administrative theory. She identified three primary ways of dealing with conflict:

• Domination: Where one side wins at the expense of the other
• Compromise: Where neither side gets everything they want
• Integration: Where a new solution is found that satisfies all parties’ underlying interests

Unlike many of her contemporaries who viewed conflict as inherently destructive, Follett saw it as a natural and potentially constructive aspect of organizational life. She wrote, “As conflict – difference – is here in this world, as we cannot avoid it, we should, I think, use it to work for us.” This perspective was revolutionary at a time when most management theories sought to eliminate conflict entirely.

For Follett, integration was always the preferred approach because it created new value rather than merely distributing existing value. She encouraged administrators to view differences not as obstacles but as opportunities for innovation and growth. The integration process required participants to:

• Surface differences: Bring conflicts into the open where they could be examined
• Analyze demands: Look beyond positions to understand fundamental interests
• Create new solutions: Develop approaches that address core needs rather than compromise on initial demands

Revolutionizing concepts of power: Power-with versus power-over 🔗

Perhaps Follett’s most revolutionary contribution was her reconceptualization of power in organizations. At a time when command-and-control approaches dominated, she distinguished between “power-over” and “power-with” relationships:

“Power-over” represented the traditional coercive approach to management-authority imposed from above. Follett criticized this approach as inefficient and ultimately self-defeating. She wrote, “While coercive power is working, genuine power is being lost.” By contrast, “power-with” represented a collaborative approach where influence emerges from collective action and mutual empowerment.

For Follett, genuine power wasn’t a fixed quantity to be distributed but rather something that could be generated through cooperative interaction. She believed that the most effective organizations were those that maximized the total amount of power generated rather than concentrating power in the hands of a few. This perspective anticipated contemporary ideas about empowerment and participative management by decades.

Authority and responsibility: A dynamic relationship 🔗

Follett’s views on authority departed significantly from the rigid hierarchical perspectives of her time. She rejected the notion that authority should simply flow downward from designated positions. Instead, she developed the “law of the situation,” which suggested that authority should derive from knowledge and expertise relevant to the specific situation at hand.

According to Follett, “One person should not give orders to another person, but both should agree to take their orders from the situation.” This radical idea proposed that genuine authority emerged organically from the requirements of the work itself rather than from organizational charts or job titles. The person with the most relevant knowledge or expertise should lead in situations where that knowledge is needed.

This perspective had significant implications for how Follett viewed responsibility in organizations:

• Responsibility as reciprocal: Leaders had responsibilities to followers just as followers had responsibilities to leaders
• Responsibility as situational: Responsibilities shifted based on changing circumstances and requirements
• Responsibility as developmental: Accepting responsibility was a means of personal and professional growth

Follett believed that responsibility couldn’t simply be assigned but had to be accepted willingly. She wrote, “Responsibility is the great developer of men.” By encouraging employees at all levels to accept responsibility for their work, organizations could foster growth, engagement, and more effective decision-making.

Follett’s vision of leadership 🔗

While many management theorists of her era focused on the traits or behaviors of “great men,” Follett developed a more nuanced view of leadership as a dynamic, situational process. For her, leadership wasn’t primarily about personality but about the capacity to organize collective experience toward common purposes.

Leadership as facilitation 🔗

Follett viewed the ideal leader not as a commander but as a facilitator who released and coordinated the energies of group members. She wrote, “The most successful leader of all is one who sees another picture not yet actualized.” This vision of leadership emphasized:

• Creating opportunities: Leaders should create conditions where followers can contribute their best work
• Developing capabilities: Leaders should help followers grow their skills and confidence
• Coordinating efforts: Leaders should help integrate diverse contributions toward common goals

This approach anticipated contemporary leadership theories that emphasize coaching, mentoring, and servant leadership. Follett recognized that effective leadership wasn’t about controlling others but about unlocking human potential.

The circular response in organizational behavior 🔗

Central to Follett’s understanding of leadership was her concept of “circular response” – the idea that in any social interaction, each party influences and is influenced by the other. Unlike linear models that saw influence flowing in one direction (typically from leaders to followers), Follett recognized that influence was always reciprocal.

This insight had profound implications for understanding organizational behavior. It suggested that leaders couldn’t simply impose their will on followers but were themselves shaped by those they led. As Follett explained, “We are neither the leader nor the led; we are all the time both.” This recognition of mutual influence encouraged a more democratic and participative approach to administration.

Coordination: The heart of effective administration 🔗

For Follett, coordination represented the fundamental challenge of administration. She identified four key principles of effective coordination:

• Coordination through direct contact: Those responsible for different aspects of work should communicate directly rather than through intermediaries
• Coordination in the early stages: Collaborative planning should begin early rather than attempting to coordinate after independent plans have been developed
• Coordination as a reciprocal relating: All factors and all people involved in a situation should be related to each other
• Coordination as a continuous process: Coordination should be ongoing rather than episodic

These principles reflected Follett’s holistic view of organizations as dynamic, interconnected systems. Unlike mechanistic approaches that treated coordination as a technical problem of aligning separate parts, Follett saw it as an organic process of developing relationships and shared understanding.

Her emphasis on early involvement anticipated modern approaches to cross-functional teams and integrated project management. By bringing diverse stakeholders together from the beginning, organizations could prevent conflicts and create more innovative solutions.

Follett’s legacy in modern administrative thought 🔗

While Follett’s ideas were often overshadowed during her lifetime by more mechanistic approaches to management, her humanistic perspective has experienced a renaissance in recent decades. Her contributions are particularly evident in several areas of contemporary administrative thought:

• Conflict management: Follett’s integrative approach to conflict has influenced modern negotiation theory, particularly concepts like “principled negotiation” and “interest-based bargaining”
• Participative management: Her ideas about shared power and distributed responsibility align with contemporary approaches to employee engagement and empowerment
• Systems thinking: Follett’s holistic view of organizations anticipated systems approaches that emphasize interconnections and feedback loops
• Servant leadership: Her vision of leadership as facilitation rather than command resonates with modern servant leadership philosophies

Perhaps most significantly, Follett recognized the psychological and social dimensions of administration at a time when most theorists focused exclusively on technical efficiency. Her insights into human motivation, group dynamics, and organizational behavior laid groundwork for the human relations movement and continue to influence organizational psychology today.

The continuing relevance of Follett’s humanistic approach 🔗

In today’s complex organizational landscape, characterized by flatter hierarchies, distributed teams, and increasing emphasis on innovation, Follett’s ideas about integration, power-with relationships, and situational authority seem more relevant than ever. Her approaches offer valuable guidance for addressing contemporary challenges like:

• Managing diverse workforces: Follett’s emphasis on integration provides a framework for leveraging diversity as a source of organizational strength
• Navigating ambiguity: Her situational approach to authority offers flexibility in rapidly changing environments
• Fostering innovation: Her ideas about constructive conflict and integrative solutions support creative problem-solving
• Building engagement: Her philosophy of shared power and responsibility aligns with modern approaches to employee engagement

While administrative theory has evolved significantly since Follett’s time, her fundamental insights about human relationships in organizational settings remain remarkably fresh and applicable. Her vision of administration as a collaborative, integrative process continues to offer an attractive alternative to more mechanistic or authoritarian approaches.

What do you think? How might Follett’s concept of “power-with” rather than “power-over” change the dynamics in today’s organizations? Can you envision how her integrative approach to conflict might be applied to a challenging situation in your own academic or professional experience?