Search results

Chester Barnard has never been fully appreciated or fully understood. Most of present day theories in administration stem from Barnard's writings. In this article the author attempts to show that although Barnard's theory is complex, the key to understanding it is “the concept of limitation,” itself quite unique. The functional nature of limitation is shown and its relationship to current system analyses.

The purpose of this paper is to delve into Barnard's works to construct foundations of customer relationship management (CRM).

The paper identifies Barnard's insights on customer participation using a post‐analytic method and uses them as inputs to the analysis of current CRM practices.

As an outcome of the analysis, the paper identifies the practices that are likely to lead to more effective participatory behavior of customers.

Examining CRM from a historical perspective can open promising avenues for future research.

CRM programs should incorporate the practice of customer relations management in order to provide managers with the knowledge base required for appropriate decision making.

By placing contemporary discussions of CRM in its seminal historical context, scholars can draw upon a wealth of historical inputs to advance the study of how collaborations with customers can be nurtured effectively.

This paper examines a key event in the life of Chester Barnard, a “riot of the unemployed” in Trenton, New Jersey in 1935 when Barnard was director of the state Emergency Relief Administration. In a later influential lecture at Harvard, Barnard used the incident to support the ideas of the Harvard human relations group that recognition and dignity were more powerful motivators than money and fear. Contemporary newspaper accounts show that the rioters were motivated more strongly by monetary concerns than Barnard admitted. Barnard was misled by the ideology of the Harvard human relations group to underestimate the importance of power and money, an underestimation that may still be important today, given his continuing influence. That a man of Barnard’s integrity was misled by his ideology is grounds for us in our time to maintain some humility as to the extent of our managerial knowledge.

Every writer, Nietzsche once commented, has an intellectual idiosyncrasy that, once grasped, can be used as a key to interpret their work. In Chester Barnard’s classic text on management theory, The Functions of the Executive, the use of dichotomy is such a key. Barnard uses dichotomy in all his major conceptual frameworks. Analyses his three central sociological concepts: society, organization purpose, and organization authority. Shows that the purpose behind Barnard’s use of dichotomy is political: he is attempting to legitimate the dominance of formal organization in society. His main means to accomplish this is by defining dichotomies in such a way that they either assume the dominance or demonstrate the superiority of formal organization. The result is that Barnard’s use of dichotomy is misleading and contradictory. He tries to conceal the contradictions by the use of complex and ambiguous discussions. Ultimately, Barnard’s theoretical method is shown to rest on the erroneous dichotomy that assumes organization rationality is autonomous from and superior to culture and society.

The purpose of this paper is to apply Chester Barnard's ideas about authority in organizations to the modern phenomenon of “whistle‐blowing” and highlight insights that can advance contemporary theory in business ethics. The paper coins a new term “the whistle‐blowing zone,” and uses it as a way to capitalize on Barnard's insights and to offer a conceptual framework that can help business ethics scholars explain the phenomenon.

By comparing and contrasting Barnard's ideas with contemporary research, the authors argue that he provides a number of insights that can advance modern business ethical theory and research. Implications about the origin and mechanism of whistle‐blowing are discussed.

First, it is found that Barnard's theory of authority, specifically the notion of a “zone of indifference” is applicable to the modern phenomenon of whistle‐blowing. Second, the paper coins a new term “the whistle‐blowing zone,” to explain why and how whistle‐blowing occurs. Finally, the paper develops a conceptual framework to capitalize on Barnard's insight to explain the phenomenon of “whistle‐blowing.”

This paper is the first paper to examine Barnard's writings in the context of the modern business issue of whistle‐blowing. It is believed that the study of business ethics can be enhanced by applying Barnard's work. His concept of authority in formal organizations actually provides the theoretical foundation to examine and understand the phenomenon of whistle‐blowing in ways that have not appeared in the literature to date.

Chester Barnard’s 1938 book The Functions of the Executive is re‐examined in the context of the emerging knowledge‐based dynamic theory of the firm. The key constructs and the underlying principles for Barnard’s functions of the “executive” and organization as a cooperative open‐system are reassessed for the evolving knowledge‐driven firm competing in the twenty‐first century global economy. Surprisingly, after more than six decades, Barnard’s cooperative “executive,” well‐versed in the logical‐rational and the non‐logical‐intuitive decision‐making processes, still seems quite competent to effectively lead the knowledge‐driven e‐business enterprise evolving in the twenty‐first century. The Barnardian “executive,” however, must evolve by acquiring and integrating the newly available knowledge‐related technologies and other adaptive competencies to help develop new drivers of global competitiveness.

Presents the thoughts on decision processes of Chester I. Barnard, one of the century’s greatest management theorists. Includes his classic article, “Mind in everyday affairs”; his unpublished book, “The Significance of Decisive Behaviour in Social Action”; his correspondence with Herbert Simon, and significant comments found in his personal papers.

Chester Barnard and Frank Capra are twin US icons from the late 1930s. Both share thoughts, hopes and expectations regarding civilization and civility, man and humanity, rights and righteousness, morals and moral integrity. With Barnard, our intent is to identify his unique contributions regarding ethics and social responsibility. Barnard takes a strong stance on moral leadership and argues that effective leadership requires both “technical” and “responsible” skills. In looking at Frank Capra’s contributions, it is possible through his early work as a film director to see his concern for others and his belief that civilization can overcome its dark side. In It’s a Wonderful Life, Capra provides us with the ultimate citizen and moral leader in the form of George Bailey. In Barnardian terms, Bailey and Capra help all of us to discover that we too can make a positive difference.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight Barnard's groundbreaking ideas, and to interpret his contributions to the philosophy and practice of business as they apply to the twenty‐first century executive.

The paper makes use of primary data by focusing on Barnard's The Functions of the Executive, as well as other material written by, and about, him. Barnard's insights on executive management are then reinterpreted in light of Ramey's Leadership Quality Commitments, whose balance is deemed an essential marker of success for twenty‐first century leaders.

The paper presents Barnard as a pioneer philosopher in the field of management, whose rich contributions have permeated management theory and practice since he first published his seminal work 71 years ago. Barnard's concept of cooperation is re‐discovered as the basis of a leadership framework that places the executive at the center of a system responsible for balancing an unstable equilibrium among life, work, and society.

The paper suggests that Barnard's contributions are as relevant now as they were 71 years ago. Exploring the competencies that make executives effective and efficient, for example, provides insights regarding the combined roles of the executive as leader and manager.

The bulk of Barnard's contributions is found in the field of management, yet his views on cooperation, moral responsibility, motivation, positive interdependence, decision making, authentic self‐hood, strategy and legacy seem incredibly in line with leadership theory. Re‐discovering him as a leadership thinker may help to bridge the conceptual gap that is perceived to exist between management and leadership literature.

Much has been written about the works of Chester I. Barnard and Frederick W. Taylor but little attempt has been made by scholars to compare Barnard and Taylor. Barnard is a successor of Taylor and this may be one of the reasons why there has been a reluctance to place them side‐by‐side. The purpose of this paper is to capture the similarities and differences that existed in the thinking of these two individuals who greatly influenced management thinking during the twentieth century.