4q1 4q2 4q2


The extreme to which Follett’s ideas had an influence or were usedin business practice remains unverified. Additionally, the influencelacks the similar impact when compared to her contemporaries.

Follett was and progresses to be an insightful early managementscholar, whose work was not adopted nor had any influence on businesspractice (Carraher, 2013).The reason is that her presumptions were unique to those, whichexisted during a period when management was becoming a disciplineduring the 1930s. The theorist advocated for using conflict informing understanding. Her argument insisted on the relevance ofmanaging for enhanced yield, as well as that enhanced yield waspossible to attain via improved comprehension amid workers (Mawer&amp Crotty, 2013). The theory could not be accepted becausethe 1930s was a period of Marxist-tainted, where Marxists supposedthat it was improbable to find solutions to class differences. Duringthe period, cost cutting was opted as core to proper management(Berman &amp Van Buren, 2014).

It is correct to argue that Follett was closer to genuinenessconcerning society, people and management compared to philosophersand experts that ignored her work.

The argument is correct as Follett advocated for assumptions, whichdetermine what individuals concentrate on and what is ignored, whichare views held subconsciously by instructors, writers and researchersin the field (Burke, 2013).Hence, on rare occasions the assumptions become analyzed, researched,questioned, or made clear. Since the widely held presumptionsconcerning management are no longer applicable, it is relevant tomake them clear, replacing them with those suitable in currentmanagement. The theory applies to current government and corporationsaffairs by advocating for fair distribution of power (Stout&amp Staton, 2011). Follett argues for the need of power within place of power over. This means a management approach wheregovernment and corporations distribute power amid their juniorsinstead of exercising control (Kennedy,Heinzman &amp Mujtaba, 2011).

Follett not being a manager does not detract or add to her views.Follett was a political scientist, and her argument inclined onteamwork, collaboration and solving conflicts.

The fact that Follett was not a manager does not have any influenceon her management view. This is because, her theory formed during the1930s is majorly an observation of the management practices happeningduring the period (Damart, 2013).The theorist observed that most employees and managers were reluctantto having power exercised over them (Smith&amp Lewis, 2011). This explains why she advocates for amanagement approach where power is equally distributed within theorganization (Kuznetsova, 2013).Her role as a political scientist may influence the view on teamworkand collaboration, which are greatly important in analyzing howpolitical groups manage to win in political contests due to teamwork.Thus, Follett advocated for the similar team effort at work toimprove production.


Berman, S. L., &amp Van Buren, H.J. (2014). Mary Parker Follett, managerial responsibility, and thefuture of capitalism.&nbspFutures.

Burke, W. W. (2013).&nbspOrganizationchange: Theory and practice.Sage Publications.

Carraher, S. (2013). Follett,Barnard, &amp Taylor.&nbspJournalof Management History,19(4),7-7.

Damart, S. (2013). How Mary P.Follett`s ideas on management have emerged: An analysis based on herpractical management experience and her political philosophy.&nbspJournalof Management History,&nbsp19(4),459-473.

Kennedy, J. W., Heinzman, J., &ampMujtaba, B. G. (2011). The early organizational management theories:The human relations movement &amp business ethical practicespioneered by visionary leader Mary Parker Follett. Journalof Business &amp Economics Research (JBER),&nbsp5(3).

Kuznetsova, N. V. (2013). MaryParker Follett-The Prophet of Management. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research,&nbsp17(11),1555-1559.

Mawer, S., &amp Crotty, J. (2013,January). Mary Parker Follett: Informing the Future of Capitalism and Corporate Social Responsibility. In&nbspAcademyof Management Proceedings&nbsp2013,(1), 15501. Academy of Management.

Smith, W. K., &amp Lewis, M. W.(2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model oforganizing.&nbspAcademyof Management Review,&nbsp36(2),381-403.

Stout, M., &amp Staton, C. M.(2011). The ontology of process philosophy in follett`sadministrative theory.&nbspAdministrativeTheory &amp Praxis,&nbsp33(2),268-292.