Mary Parker Follett stands as a foundational figure in the development of modern management thought, offering perspectives that were profoundly insightful and, in many respects, ahead of her time. Her work, spanning the early 20th century, diverged significantly from the prevailing scientific management paradigms that focused primarily on efficiency, hierarchy, and strict command-and-control structures. Instead, Follett championed a humanistic approach, emphasizing the importance of human relations, psychological dynamics, and the collaborative nature of organizational life. Her concepts laid the groundwork for later developments in organizational behavior, participative management, and systems thinking, underscoring the vital role of psychological and social factors in effective organizational functioning.

Among her most distinctive and influential contributions is her nuanced concept of “Giving of Orders.” Far from a simple procedural instruction, Follett’s exploration of this topic delves into the deep psychological and sociological implications of how directives are issued and received within an organization. She challenged the conventional wisdom that orders flow unilaterally from superior to subordinate and are obeyed without question. Instead, she posited that the effectiveness of an “order” hinges not on the authority of the person giving it, but on its alignment with the objective demands of the situation, and crucially, on the willing participation and understanding of those who are to execute it. This perspective fundamentally reframes the dynamic of power and authority, shifting it from a personal attribute to a situational imperative, thereby promoting a more integrated and mutually respectful organizational environment.

The Critique of Traditional Command and Control

Follett’s insights into the “Giving of Orders” must be understood within her broader critique of traditional, hierarchical management structures prevalent in her era. Under the dominant paradigms of scientific management (e.g., Frederick Taylor) and administrative management (e.g., Henri Fayol), authority was largely seen as residing in the position, and orders were direct expressions of the will of the superior. Subordinates were expected to obey, and disobedience was met with disciplinary action. Follett, however, recognized the profound psychological and practical limitations of this approach.

She observed that an order given solely based on positional authority often generates resentment, resistance, or at best, grudging compliance. When individuals feel they are being dictated to, their sense of autonomy is diminished, leading to reduced initiative, creativity, and commitment. This “power-over” dynamic, where one person exercises arbitrary will over another, creates a psychological barrier to genuine cooperation. It fosters a climate of fear or simple mechanical obedience, which is inadequate for complex, adaptive tasks requiring intelligence and discretionary effort. Follett argued that such obedience, while seemingly efficient in the short term, undermines the potential for true integration and inhibits the development of a cohesive, self-regulating work environment. The person giving the order, she noted, might also feel a burden, having to constantly assert their personal authority, which is draining and often met with subtle forms of resistance.

The Problem of Obedience and the Need for Consent

Follett delved deeply into the psychology of obedience, questioning its efficacy as the sole basis for organizational action. She recognized that people obey for various reasons: fear of reprisal, habit, desire for reward, or a sense of duty. However, for an order to be truly effective – meaning it leads to intelligent action and sustained commitment – it requires more than mere acquiescence. It demands consent, understanding, and a degree of willing participation.

She distinguished between superficial obedience and genuine commitment. If an order is perceived as arbitrary or personally imposed, compliance is likely to be minimal, and employees may only do “just enough” to avoid trouble. This lack of internalization prevents individuals from taking initiative, adapting to unforeseen circumstances, or applying their full intellect to the task. Follett advocated for a system where individuals act not out of blind obedience, but out of a shared understanding of the situation’s demands. This shift from “power-over” to “power-with” is central to her philosophy. When individuals feel they are part of the decision-making process, or at least understand the rationale behind a directive, their sense of ownership and responsibility increases, leading to more effective and self-directed action. The goal is not to eliminate orders, but to transform the nature of the relationship such that orders are integrated into a consensual, functional flow of work.

Depersonalizing the Order: The Core Concept

The cornerstone of Follett’s approach to giving orders is the concept of “depersonalizing the order.” This is often misunderstood as removing the human element entirely from the directive. On the contrary, it means removing the personal will or arbitrary authority of the individual giving the order. Instead, the order should emanate from and be dictated by the objective requirements of the situation itself.

When an order is depersonalized, it is no longer perceived as “my boss wants me to do this” but rather as “the situation requires this to be done.” The leader’s role shifts from an authoritarian commander to an interpreter of the situation, a facilitator who helps everyone involved understand what the situation demands. The leader points out the facts, the constraints, the goals, and the interdependencies, allowing the appropriate action to emerge as a logical consequence.

For example, instead of a manager saying, “You must finish this report by 5 PM because I said so,” a depersonalized approach would be, “To meet the client’s deadline, this report needs to be completed by 5 PM so that it can be reviewed and sent out.” In the latter case, the deadline is not arbitrary; it’s dictated by an external reality (the client’s deadline). The manager isn’t imposing their will; they are merely articulating the requirements of the situation. This subtle but profound shift in framing transforms the dynamic from a power struggle to a shared problem-solving endeavor. It elevates the discussion from personal authority to objective necessity, making compliance more likely to be willing and intelligent.

The Law of the Situation: The Guiding Principle

Inseparably linked to “depersonalizing the order” is Follett’s concept of the “law of the situation.” This principle asserts that authority and the correct course of action should arise from the objective demands, facts, and interrelationships within a given situation, rather than from the arbitrary will or positional power of an individual. The situation itself “gives the order.”

The “law of the situation” suggests that:

  1. Objective Reality: There is an objective reality of tasks, constraints, resources, and goals that dictates what needs to be done.
  2. Shared Understanding: All parties involved, leaders and subordinates alike, should collectively strive to understand this objective reality.
  3. Emergent Action: Once the situation is clearly understood, the appropriate course of action (the “order”) emerges logically from it, rather than being imposed from above.
  4. Mutual Responsiveness: Everyone involved is equally subject to this “law.” The leader is not exempt; they too are responding to the demands of the situation, not simply issuing dictates. This creates a sense of shared responsibility and mutual responsiveness.

For instance, if a machine breaks down on an assembly line, the “law of the situation” dictates that it must be repaired quickly to minimize downtime. The order to stop the line and call maintenance isn’t a personal command from the supervisor; it’s a necessary response to the immediate operational reality. The supervisor merely articulates this necessity, and everyone involved recognizes its logic. This principle empowers individuals because it encourages them to understand the context of their work and to respond intelligently to evolving circumstances, rather than blindly following pre-set rules or arbitrary commands. It fosters a proactive, problem-solving mindset across the organization.

Functional Authority vs. Positional Authority

The “law of the situation” and the concept of “depersonalizing the order” inherently challenge the traditional notion of authority as solely residing in one’s position or title. Instead, Follett advocates for a shift towards “functional authority.” Functional authority is based on expertise, knowledge, and the direct requirements of the task at hand. In this model, the person best equipped to understand and interpret the “law of the situation” for a particular task, regardless of their hierarchical position, holds the functional authority for that specific moment.

This means that a junior engineer might hold the functional authority on a technical problem if they possess the most relevant expertise, even if their supervisor holds positional authority. The supervisor’s role then becomes one of facilitating the engineer’s work, providing resources, and ensuring their recommendations are integrated into the larger organizational effort. This dynamic contrasts sharply with traditional views where authority flows strictly down the chain of command, irrespective of competence or situational demands. By embracing functional authority, organizations can leverage the intelligence and expertise distributed throughout their ranks, leading to more adaptive and effective decision-making. It promotes a system where leadership is earned through demonstrated understanding and problem-solving ability, rather than merely granted by title.

Circularity, Integration, and Consent

Follett’s ideas about orders also tie into her broader concept of “circular response” and “integration.” Traditional models assume a linear flow of communication and command: A tells B, B tells C. Follett argued that organizational life is more like a circular process. When an order is given, it creates a response, which in turn influences the giver of the order. This continuous interplay means that management is not a one-way street, but a dynamic, reciprocal relationship.

When orders are depersonalized and derived from the “law of the situation,” this circularity becomes a powerful mechanism for integration. Rather than compliance being forced, it arises from a shared understanding and mutual adjustment. Individuals involved in the work recognize the shared constraints and goals, leading to a natural integration of efforts. This process fosters genuine consent, where employees willingly align their actions with organizational objectives because they comprehend the rationale and feel a sense of ownership over the collective response to the situation. Integration, for Follett, is not simply coordination of disparate parts, but the creation of a whole where individual efforts are unified towards a common, situationally-derived purpose, leading to a more powerful and synergistic outcome. This integration, achieved through mutual understanding and adjustment, leads to a more stable and robust organization where conflict is managed through shared facts rather than personal power assertions.

Promoting Responsibility and Initiative

A significant benefit of depersonalizing orders is the empowerment of individuals to take greater responsibility and initiative. When directives are rooted in the objective demands of the situation, employees are encouraged to understand the “why” behind their tasks. This deeper understanding fosters a sense of accountability, not just to a superior, but to the task itself and the overall organizational goals.

Instead of merely executing instructions, individuals are invited to observe the situation, analyze it, and contribute their insights. This cultivates a workforce that is proactive, adaptable, and capable of independent problem-solving. It allows employees to anticipate changes, identify potential issues, and propose solutions, rather than waiting for explicit instructions. This shift from passive obedience to active participation unlocks significant organizational potential, promoting continuous learning and improvement. The leader, in this context, moves from being a director to a coach and facilitator, guiding individuals to better perceive and respond to the demands of their work environment.

The Role of the Leader and Training Implications

Under Follett’s framework, the role of the leader undergoes a significant transformation. The leader is no longer primarily a commander who issues directives based on personal will. Instead, they become:

  • Interpreter of the Situation: The leader’s primary function is to help others see and understand the “law of the situation.” They provide context, clarify objectives, and highlight relevant facts.
  • Facilitator of Shared Understanding: They guide discussions, ensure everyone is working with the same information, and help resolve differing interpretations of the situation.
  • Coordinator of Efforts: They ensure that individual responses to the situation are harmonized and integrated into a coherent collective action.
  • Developer of Capability: They train employees to analyze situations, take initiative, and engage in constructive dialogue.

This implies significant changes in leadership training and organizational development. Instead of focusing solely on command skills, leadership development should emphasize analytical thinking, communication, conflict resolution (through integration of desires, not domination), and the ability to foster a shared understanding of organizational realities. Similarly, employees need to be trained not just in technical skills but also in critical thinking, situational awareness, and collaborative problem-solving. The goal is to cultivate an organization where everyone, at every level, is capable of understanding and responding intelligently to the “law of the situation.” This requires a culture of open communication, trust, and continuous learning.

Challenges and Practicalities

While Follett’s concepts offer a compelling vision, their practical implementation is not without challenges.

  1. Achieving Shared Understanding: Ensuring that everyone perceives and interprets the “law of the situation” in the same way can be difficult, especially in complex or ambiguous circumstances. This requires robust communication channels, transparent information sharing, and mechanisms for open dialogue and debate.
  2. Conflict Resolution: Differing interpretations of the situation can lead to conflict. Follett advocated for “integration of desires” – finding a solution that genuinely satisfies the needs of all parties, rather than compromise or domination. This requires strong facilitation skills and a commitment to collaborative problem-solving.
  3. Time and Resources: Reaching a consensus based on situational analysis can be more time-consuming initially than simply issuing a direct command. However, Follett would argue that the increased commitment and effectiveness derived from this process ultimately save time and resources in the long run.
  4. Cultural Shift: Moving from a command-and-control culture to one based on the “law of the situation” requires a fundamental cultural shift within the organization, which can be challenging and meet resistance from those accustomed to traditional power structures.
  5. Competence and Trust: The model assumes a certain level of competence and mutual trust among employees and leaders. Without these, depersonalizing orders could lead to confusion or disarray.

Despite these challenges, the enduring relevance of Follett’s ideas lies in their human-centric and dynamic approach to management, which continues to resonate in contemporary organizational theory.

Follett’s concept of “Giving of Orders,” particularly through the lens of “depersonalizing the order” and the “law of the situation,” represents a profound departure from the hierarchical, command-and-control paradigms that dominated early 20th-century management thought. She argued convincingly that effective organizational action stems not from the arbitrary will of a superior, but from a shared understanding of and willing responsiveness to the objective demands of the immediate context. By shifting authority from a personal attribute to a situational imperative, Follett envisioned a system where individuals are empowered to act intelligently, take initiative, and contribute to organizational goals out of genuine commitment rather than mere obedience.

Her emphasis on functional authority, circular response, and the integration of desires laid the groundwork for many modern management practices, including participatory decision-making, self-managing teams, and agile methodologies. Follett’s insights into the psychological and sociological dimensions of organizational life highlighted the critical importance of human relations, collaboration, and shared purpose in achieving sustained organizational effectiveness. Her work continues to serve as a vital reminder that truly effective management is about fostering an environment where individuals are not just components in a machine, but active, intelligent participants in a dynamic, evolving collective endeavor, all responding to the shared reality of the situation at hand.