Follett, Barnard and Taylor

Journal of Management History

ISSN: 1751-1348

Article publication date: 23 September 2013



Carraher, S.M. (2013), "Follett, Barnard and Taylor", Journal of Management History, Vol. 19 No. 4.



Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Follett, Barnard and Taylor

Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Management History, Volume 19, Issue 4

Welcome to Volume 19 Issue 4. As I am writing this editorial I am getting ready to move to Texas. We are at a 20.0 percent acceptance rate for the journal and are seeking to have the journal reclassified as an A on the Australian Business Dean Council’s list. As I write this editorial according to Publish or Perish, the number of citations for Journal of Management History papers has increased from 2,370 to 2,548 since the last issue. Our h-index is still 22 but our g-index has increased to 35. We have one paper that has been cited 22 times – Ryan (1999) – and our most cited paper remains Roehling (1997). The most cited paper per year is Murphy et al. (2006) at 11.75 citations per year. We also have an age weighted citation rate of 264 so we are getting cited more and more over time. With the last issue I mentioned that we had dropped to a 23.1 percent acceptance rate and we were at 30 percent with the issue before that. At this point we are at a 20.0 percent acceptance rate and when I finish processing all of the papers currently in the ScholarOne system we will have just under a 20 percent acceptance rate at 19.8 percent. While I am working on this editorial I am also accepting the final papers for the second issue of Volume 20. By the end of Volume 20 we are currently looking at around a 15 percent acceptance rate – I would like to be able to say that this is because of the journal having a great editor – but it more because we have an increase in submissions rather than the actions of the editor. I would personally like to thank all of the wonderful reviewers and authors who give so freely of their time to increase the quality of the journal – thank you! As I write this, I am currently getting ready to head to Austria tomorrow to give an address and just came back from a trip to Thailand where I was seeking to encourage more work done on Management History by researchers in Asia and the Middle East. After Austria I head to Latvia, then the USA, then Canada, then back to the USA, and then to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge for 24 presentations – then I get to start house hunting in Texas – actually my wife says that I should just send her as she has been researching houses for over a month.

The first three papers are about Mary Parker Follett. We begin with “Teaching as constructive-developmental leadership: insights from Mary Follett” by Milorad M. Novicevic of the University of Mississippi, John Humphreys of Texas A&M University – Commerce, M. Ronald Buckley of the University of Oklahoma, Foster Roberts, Andrew Hebdon, and Jaemin Kim all of the University of Mississippi. This paper looks at practical recommendations from Follett’s conceptualization of the student-teacher relations. They use a narrative historical interpretation of Follett’s speech, which was originally given at the Boston University in the late Fall of 1928. They found that Follett’s conceptualization of the teacher-student relation resonated well with the contemporary conceptualization of constructive-developmental theory of leadership. In the second paper “Examining the work of Mary Parker Follett through the lens of critical biography” Jane Whitney Gibson of Nova Southeastern University, Wei Chen of the University of Mary Washington, Erin Henry of Harvard University, John Humphreys of Texas A&M University – Commerce and Yunshan Lian of Nova Southeastern University take a look at significant contributions of Follett through the lens of critical biography to put her work in the context of her life events, her mentors, and the other major influences on her work. They have found that key theoretical contributions of Mary Parker Follett are revealed to be linked to her educational, professional and personal experiences. They offer a critical biography of Mary Parker Follett and provides a historical, social and political context for the evolution of her work. In the third paper on Mary Parker Follett “How Mary P. Follett’s ideas on management have emerged: an analysis based on her practical management experience and her political philosophy” Sébastien Damart of IAE of Rouen – University of Rouen in France, the author highlights the way Mary P. Follett’s ideas on management have emerged. The research has first been based on a study of the different opportunities Mary P. Follett has to meet management issues. Second, it has consisted in an analyzing of Follett’s way of reasoning in some of her conference she made about management. He showed that Follett’s ideas on management have been based on her practical management experience and on her political philosophy. He demonstrates that Follett was currently proceeding in three different manners. The article intends to contribute to explain why so many management authors have considered Mary P. Follett as a pioneer, a “prophet of management”.

The first of the two papers on Chester Barnard “Responsible executive leadership: a moral-identity analysis based on Barnard’s conceptualization” by Milorad M. Novicevic of the University of Mississippi, Jelena Zikic of York University, Jeanette Martin of the University of Mississippi, John H. Humphreys of Texas A&M University – Commerce, and Foster Roberts of the University of Mississippi develop a moral identity perspective on Barnard’s conceptualization of executive responsibility. They used a prospective study design, as an alternative to a transitional grounded approach, to develop a theory-based framework to compare textual patterns in Barnard’s writings. By using Barnard’s conceptualization of executive responsibility within the identity control theoretical framework, they analyzed the challenges of executive moral identification and developed a theory-based, yet practical, typology of moral identification of responsible executive leaders. They posit that Barnard’s conceptualization provides a useful channel to address the critical domain at the intersection of responsible executive leadership, identity, and ethics relative to the issues of CSR, diversity management, gender equity, and community involvement. They consider the typology of moral identification to be an operative conduit for subsequent empirical research and practical guidance for executive leadership development. In the second article on Chester Barnard “Exploring early academic responses to Functions of the Executive” Laura G. Singleton of Eckerd College aims to deepen understanding of the influence of Barnard’s Functions of the Executive in management theory by examining its early scholarly reception. The research presented is a qualitative analysis of references to Barnard’s work in academic journals prior to 1956, based on 139 articles identified through text-based searching of electronic databases. Favorable opinions of Barnard’s book tend to emphasize his practical insights as a business executive, while his conceptual frameworks are viewed more skeptically. Criticism often focuses on the “scientific” legitimacy of his approach or his perceived ideological perspective. Concepts prominently discussed vary among social science disciplines, and his name is quickly tied to those of subsequent academics whose work is “like” his – these likewise vary by discipline. As they emerge, their voices on the concepts may supersede Barnard’s influence. This study informs current scholars interested in Barnard’s work by suggesting how its early usage by academics based on boundaries of disciplinary interest may have diffused the book’s early impact and influenced later attention to its concepts by management scholars.

In the final paper “Historic horizons of Frederick Taylor’s scientific management” Mikhail Grachev of Western Illinois University and the University of Iowa and Boris Rakitsky of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Policy historically examine the position of F. Taylor’s scientific management in a broad socio-economic landscape, arguing that Taylorism was predetermined by the distinctive industrial type of economic growth and shaped by a political environment of an industrial economy. The authors further discuss how scientific management transcended national boundaries and analyse the case of Russia, with the focus on the rise and fall of Taylorism in that country in response to political transformations in the twentieth century.

Shawn M. Carraher


Murphy, P.J., Liao, J. and Welsch, H.P. (2006), “A conceptual history of entrepreneurial thought”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 12–35
Roehling, M.V. (1997), “The origins and early development of the psychological contract construct”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 204–217
Ryan, N. (1999), “Rationality and implementation analysis”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 36–52

Related articles