Barnard on authority and zone of indifference: Toward perspectives on the decline of managerialism

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
In the context of the ongoing decline of managerialism which has stood as a dominant ideology for the past half-century and more, this essay proposes a critical analysis of two major concepts in Barnard's The Functions of the Executive-authority and the related notion of a zone of indifference. This acknowledges Barnard's central role in the ideology of managerialism, and seeks to assess how selected aspects of his argument may now contribute to the ongoing decline of that ideology, as they once gave it strength. A case is made to that effect. Internal inconsistencies and exuberances in Barnard's argument are related to four possible influencing factors. These encourage viewing Barnard's argument as oriented toward the status quo ante, and as a kind of lawyer's brief in a very difficult case--where persuasiveness seeks to avoid the worst outcomes, in an adversarial setting, unconstrained by responsibility for balance or for pointing-up internal weaknesses in one's argument. Barnard always had a good press, and that tendency seems to grow with time.(1),(2) Indeed, the prestigious Fortune Magazine (3) observed that “Chester I. Barnard possesses the most capacious intellect of any business executive in the U.S.” To the same general point, a Harvard professor(4) saw in him “a power of analysis and synthesis [as] sweeping [as those of] St. Thomas and da Vinci.” Textbooks on management also have been high in their praise, almost without exception if generally only in brief ways. Thus one exemplar text(5) proposes that Barnard “probably had a more profound impact on the thinking about the complex subject matter of human organization than has any other contributor to the continuum of management thought”. Moreover, in general, the critical literature is muted and gentle,(6) although Scott's incisive work(7) may mark the beginning of a thorough textual criticism of The Functions of the Executive as paramount in the inventory of Barnardian writing. One benchmark best serves to reflect Barnard's status. Thus the careful scholar March (8) in a study of the most cited books in organization theory lists The Functions of the Executive as the “most fashionable of all entries.” Over two decades after March's evaluation, and nearly 5 decades after the first publication of The Functions, a similar conclusion holds among students of public management.(9) Even in the case of exotica, finally, Barnard also leads. Although only Herbert Simon among management theorists is a Nobel Laureate, I know of only one writer on management who has inspired a calendar—The 1993 Chester I. Barnard Calendar, in point of fact.(10) So, Barnard dominates, virtually across-the-board. The almost-singular exception? Only rare empirical research(11),(12) puts Barnardian concepts to the test, where that is appropriate. This is a curious condition, we propose. Without serious doubt, the classical concept of managerialism is in retreat, if not yet in rout.(13) Barnard was a central contributor—arguably, the central contributor—to the sense of managerialism that provided crucial directions for our thought and action, and yet his argument generally escapes critical attention. Hence this contribution to seeking a new balance with regard to Barnard's thought, as one element in the upgrading of “managerialism” that will be required to provide a new legitimacy, a new working answer to the key question: By whose warrant do we manage? The significance of the issues also helps explain the present version of our argument. The initial argument appeared in a paper delivered at a scholarly meeting,(14) and a substantial version appeared in a source with limited circulation.(15) The present paper builds on these two earlier versions, with approximately 20 percent of this text being new—changes made largely in response to reactions to the two predecessors. Specifically, this paper may be classified as old-fashioned textual analysis: What did Barnard say, with what variable internal consistency, and in response to what problem-sets or stimulants that engaged his thought? This circumscription of intent also implies what this essay is not. Thus, some may see “deconstructivist” elements in this study and, if so, that is because specific textual analysis often had deconstructivist elements. Moreover, the slant here is definitely critical—as we urge of others in connection with this argument, we hold Barnard and other commentators accountable for making themselves clear and relevant. But this essay does not see itself as “critical theory” in any direct sense.

This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit: