Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Email: chandran@northwood.edu
THE RELEVANCE OF CHESTER BARNARD FOR
TODAY’S MANAGER
It has been sixty years since the publication of Chester Barnard’s Functions of the
Executive. In many ways, Barnard’s book laid the foundation for Management and
Organization Theory as it exists today (Andrews, 1968; Wolf, 1974). His influence on
theoreticians and practitioners has been immense. Kenneth Andrews, in his introduction
to the 30th Anniversary edition of the book, states: “The Functions of the Executive
remains today, as it has been since its publication, the most thought-provoking book on
p. xxi). Barnard was not an academic; his theories were put together painstakingly from
management scholars of the twentieth century. However, during the last several years,
Barnard’s stature in the realm of management theory and practice has gradually waned.
Although his book is required reading in the occasional Doctoral curriculum, it has more
cited, and credited with originating the “Acceptance Theory of Authority”, but not much
else.
Barnard partly owes this undeserved obscurity to his labored and lugubrious style:
2
While this may discourage the casual reader, it should not stand in the way of the
endeavor. It is perhaps appropriate, then, to examine, as we prepare for the end of the
The purpose of this article, then, is to attempt to kindle the interest of the reader
by presenting certain ideas that are central to Barnard’s treatise, and establishing their
relevance for today’s managers by linking them to more recent views on management
and leadership. It will also attempt to convince the reader that these ideas, while they
have led to the origin and development of certain schools of thought in the field of
Barnard is widely credited with having originated the “Systems” approach to the
study of organizations. He recognized that in order for the organization to survive in the
external environment and to succeed in the long run, it was necessary to sustain
defined it, efficiency was the satisfaction of individual motives. He stated that the
3
And:
Management school and the Human Relations approach of Elton Mayo and others. This
becomes all the more evident when Barnard talks about the kinds of management action
of the above quotes indicates. This is a common failing in the book, as has already been
pointed out. It takes several readings before one can grasp Barnard’s argument, and then
described above (we would, of course, have to ignore the negative connotations
associated with the word “manipulated” as these are mostly post-Skinnerian and non-
existent when Barnard wrote the book) form the basis for many of the subsequent
theories on leadership and management styles. The Ohio State models, the Blake &
McCanse (1991) managerial grid, and the classification of leaders as either task-oriented
Barnard. And, more importantly, it reveals the flaws or shortcomings in these models. A
4
9-9 style on the managerial grid would generate efficiency but no effectiveness—he or
she would treat employees as subjects to be satisfied. Also, a situational leader who
adjusts his or her style according to organizational factors and worker characteristics is
likely to accomplish either one outcome or the other. Barnard makes a case for a
balanced management or leadership style as few others do. Subsequent debates between
scholars on the subject of which leadership model is better, the grid model or the
situational model, may have benefited from examining whether Barnard’s conditions of
efficiency and effectiveness are satisfied by either one. (See Group and Organization
managers as either driven by the need for achievement (Personal Power managers), the
need for affiliation or social acceptance (Affiliative managers), or the need for
1995). As the diagram indicates, personal power managers are likely to treat
subjects to be satisfied, and institutional managers are likely to attain the desired balance.
5
The concept of purpose has not received much attention at the hands of scholars.
A search of management literature revealed hardly any references to it. The only article
with the word in its title that I could discover was by Bartlett & Ghoshal (1994). They
make a strong case for the importance of the concept, although they do not credit Barnard
This is in line with Barnard’s moral imperative for executives, although Bartlett
and Ghoshal treat the subject more impersonally—they see purpose as an organizational
rather than an individual responsibility. Barnard asserts that the most important single
executive responsibility, which transcends hierarchy and embraces managers from the
lowest echelons within the organization all the way to the Chief Executive. Only by
embodying such loyalty can the executives bring about in their subordinates the condition
to those of the organization. This condition brings about in individuals the “willingness to
serve” which in turn results in cooperation. These interrelationships, when sustained over
existence. They also indicate that the conditions of efficiency and effectiveness have
been met. As shown in Figure 1, this can only be accomplished by a manager who takes
a balanced approach, and treats his or her subordinates as subjects to be satisfied as well
6
as objects to be manipulated. McClelland & Burnham (1995) would define such a
of purpose is indeed currently one of the principal concerns of business education” (p.
xix). Institutional managers cannot be trained and developed without instilling in them a
organization. In this endeavor, Barnard’s book is not only invaluable, but also essential.
The model presented in Figure 1 deals with only what the author considers to be
some of the most important and relevant concepts in Barnard’s book. There are
numerous other ideas that are worth pursuing. Many of these have further evolved
Barnard speaks of the limited value of material incentives, and the necessity for
the adoption of certain methods of persuasion. He also discusses several kinds of non-
material incentives. His ideas on the subject are quite intriguing, and insightful. His
decisions into the personal and the organizational, and although he struggles to reconcile
the conflict associated with the process, presents some interesting insights as to the
7
those of classical theorists such as Fayol, and how his ideas on establishing channels of
within the confines of a formal structure, and the role it plays in the maintenance and
survival of the formal organization, hold valuable lessons for the manager.
The model presented above only deals with a very small part of what Barnard
postulates in his book. Nonetheless, it establishes the need for a deeper examination of
his ideas, as otherwise modern researchers may be spending their time re-inventing the
wheel. For academics, this model raises certain important issues. According to Barnard,
emphasis on identifying the ethical and moral qualities that an executive must possess. It
is true that Barnard sets some very high standards for the executive:
What Barnard said sixty years ago is, in my opinion, true to this day. And this
situation may owe itself, in large part, to the absence of researchable and teachable
8
concepts of purpose, as pointed out by Andrews. Reading The Functions of the
Executives would, in the opinion of the author, enable students to develop into “general
managers” and provide them with greater insights on what it takes to be effective in a
CONCLUSION
This article has not attempted to summarize Barnard’s works, or explain his ideas,
theories and philosophy. Such a task has already been undertaken and creditably
accomplished by William Wolf through his book “The Basic Barnard: An Introduction to
recommend the book to those who wish to acquaint themselves with Barnard’s life and
extremely hard to wade through the first time. Few dispute, however, that subsequent
readings are much easier, and that the book begins to make a great deal of sense. I can
say this somewhat authoritatively, since we have been using the book as a Text for the
Executive MBA program at this University for the past five years. One of our graduates
experience. In one of her classes, the professor mentioned Barnard and his book, and
added that he did not expect any of the students to read it, since it was extremely hard.
When our graduate ventured that she had, in fact, read the book and found it to be
9
For many of our graduates, Barnard has proved to be very valuable from a
practical standpoint. For those programs that wish to train general managers rather than
“specialists”, the book can be a great asset. Discussions with students in our Executive
MBA program have frequently centered round concepts such as loyalty, and their
corporate “rightsizing”, and rapidly evolving technologies, some of the values and
principles espoused by Barnard may seem archaic and even anachronistic. Surprisingly,
however, these values and principles find an echo in the hearts of many a student, and re-
kindle their faith in the nobility of the human spirit and the basic goodness of human
nature.
10
REFERENCES
Barnard, Chester I., 1968: The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bartlett, Christopher A. & Sumantra Ghoshal, 1994: Changing the Role of Top
1994, 79-88.
Utilizing Human Resources, 5th Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McClelland, David C. & David H. Burnham, 1995: Power Is the Great Motivator.
Wolf, William B., 1974: The Basic Barnard: An Introduction to Chester I. Barnard and
his Theories of Organization and Management. New York, NY: ILR Press,
Cornell University.
11
FIGURE 1
SUBJECTS OBJECTS
TO BE TO BE
SATISFIED MANIPULA-
TED
Effectiveness
Efficiency PURPOSE
COOPERATIVE
BEHAVIOR
LONG-TERM SURVIVAL
AND
SUCCESS OF THE
ORGANIZATION
12