Home          Table of Contents          Back          Next Page

TAYLORISM IN EDUCATION AND BUSINESS

Topics on the Page

Part III:  INTERVIEW ON JUNE 23, 1999

Leadership Relating to Organizations, Change, and Technology

Significant Backdrop to Interview

	Technology
	Leadership
	Management

Correlations from Interview

	Philosophy of Management-Leadership
	Modes of Learning
	Leadership Criteria
	Leadership Types
	Leadership Styles

CONCLUSION

Significant Backdrop to Interview.  This interview took place with my youngest brother, James Barnett, Division Director of DaySpring Cards, the largest Christian greeting card manufacturer in the world.

Mr. Barnett has been with the company for 18 years—thirteen-years as Sales & Marketing Manager, and the last five as Division Director.  Much of the success for the active expansion of DaySpring has been the result of Mr. Barnett’s marketing plan activated shortly after he was first hired.  When Mr. Barnett was first hired by DaySpring, he was given a green light to initiate a concept which he developed in his MBA thesis paper—hiring an outside sales group to actively pursue business in all the Christian Bookstores throughout the United States.

Until 1988, DaySpring was privately owned by its two founders, who then sold it to David C. Cook Communications, Inc., a Christian non-profit corporation.  Albeit, DaySpring remained a for profit company after the purchase, and was viewed as being a "partner in ministry" by their new owners.

Since then DaySpring has continued its rapid growth and today contributes over 40% of the entire parent company’s sales volume.  As a result, their upper management has become intimidated and frightened, and has begun to see DaySpring as a possible threat to their ownership relationship.

Consequently, for the last six months DaySpring’s parent company has been taking bids for its sale, allowing the officers of DaySpring virtually no input in the selling process.  This has caused great apprehension for Mr. Barnett and the 400 employees of DaySpring, due to their possibility of being moved or consolidated by a new owner.

In two weeks the bidding will end and a decision will be made regarding the company’s future ownership.  One of Mr. Barnett’s main concerns about this buyout is whether he will be working for Tayloristic or Anti-Tayloristic managers in the new parent corporate organization.

The interview questions centered on three main issues:

1. Technology: How it has affected his organization, his role in using  technology, and the change it has produced
2. Leadership:  His philosophy of leadership and leadership styles
3. Management:  How he views Tayloristic-styled management in regards to himself, managers under him, and managers over him

How has technology affected, or is affecting your organization?

Tremendously, in every area.  Perhaps the greatest affect has been the way our company communicates.  Instead of letters and long distance telephone calls, we now use e-mail.  When we want to research companies, we use the Internet.  When we want to gather information about virtually anything, we use the Internet.

Most of our company’s products are now designed on the computer, without any hard copies.  Inventory control systems are kept on the computer and the Internet.  Planning and tracking of sales and inventory with vendors and suppliers are all done via the Internet.

But the biggest change agent is the consumer, who always votes with their pocketbooks.  As a result of having instantaneous knowledge of sales, we can re-supply inventory immediately as needed.

I made a decision three years ago that the Information Technology person was to report directly to me.  At that time I began to implement technology into the company, i.e. international and intra-company communication, product design and development, product control and distribution, management responsibilities, etc.

Also, I formed a leadership team with the specific purpose of using newer technology to be in constant and immediate communication with customers, suppliers, and distributors.  With our larger customers, we have set up POS (Point of Sale) systems which is linked directly to their store’s database.  By doing this, we have immediate access to sales information which lets us know which products are selling the best at which locations and in what markets.

With our Wal-Mart account, we can access the sales we make with them using their EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) system, which is very similar to POS systems.

I would call my type of leadership as consensus or participatory style.  As the obvious leader at the top, I set direction for the company, specifying what needs to be accomplished and what the goals are.  However, I do not lay the roadmap out and say this is the route we are going.  Instead, I involve everyone possible in the company with leadership positions to participate in the decision-making process.  It is my responsibility to see that we accomplish the goals of the company, not to dictate the itinerary and policy for arriving there.

In regards to your definition of transforming or transformational leadership styles (Yukl, pp. 324-327), I would have to say that I am more transformational than transforming.  As a result of my leadership style, I believe that employees get reward value by being able to express their own ideas and exhibit their own leadership styles, without being forced to operate under the style I dictate for them.

I allow leaders to lead within certain freedoms, as long as they don’t go out of bounds.  Out of bounds would be dishonoring and showing disrespect of others, as well as dishonesty and loss of integrity.  This is especially valid in regards to how they deal and relate with the people they lead.

My leadership style has been formed based on how I like to be treated—sorta like the Golden Rule.

According to the five power types (Yukl, p. 178), which ones best describe you?

All of them except coercion power, which I detest.  I use reward power by granting financial and promotional gain for good work.  Legitimate power and expert power are self-understood in my position.  Regarding referent power, I believe employees comply because they want admiration, respect, and approval of peers.

I see two extremes of Tayloristic management types, but in reality there are hundreds of in-betweens.  I see myself very much as having a anti-Tayloristic style of management, perhaps a 3 on a 10-scale, where 10 is the pure Taylorisitc manager.

In regards to being Tayloristic, I see a place for guidelines in systems.  When ideas have been tested, and it is already known that X idea is better than Y idea, then it doesn’t do much good in spending a lot of time discussing trying the Y idea.  Also, there are some companies which have a bad track record.  We don’t want to go down that road, because a company cannot live in chaos.  Some paths are simply more successful than others.

So it is better to have some instruction with advance knowledge than no instruction or experience.  With 15 people involved in a decision, I need some-thing to start with in order to provide balance.  It is not the what, but the how.

So, in my opinion, there should be at least some restrictions in allowing managers and employees to "use their brains" freely and without limitations and guidelines.  But, I’m assuming all anti-Tayloristic managers would agree with this.

In regards to managers who report to me, my manufacturing managers would lean a little more toward the Tayloristic world, perhaps a rating of 5 or 6 on a 10-scale.  This is probably normal, since production requires so much legalistic perfection.  However, for all other managers in our organization, they are probably along the same lines as me, about a 3 or 4 on a 10-scale.

They would probably rate pretty high, perhaps a 8 or 9. I don’t believe they really want my input, and desire to do things as they have always done them.  That kind of philosophy of management just doesn’t fit well in the rapidly changing world of technology which we live.

They probably see their value threatened.  They have maintained their conservative growth while we have continued swift expansion.  I don’t believe the managers in our parent company feel superiority over us. They just don’t know how to handle conflict.  Therefore they hold even tighter to hierarchical authority, even though it is not appealing to professional management in their subsidiary companies.

The best leadership is servant leadership.  This style of leadership allows those around you to succeed and grow. Leaders should not be afraid if others around them become better at what they do.  In this regards, the leader becomes an encourager, developer, and a coach toward helping their employees become the best they can be.

Which do you feel is easier, being a Tayloristic manager or a servant leader?

In the short term it is probably easier to be dictatorial, but the long term would favor the servant leader.  In the long term, you will stand a much better chance of retaining your key employees who are skilled experts.  This not only saves in re-training expenses, it is more likely a healthier workplace environment would exist for the workers since it is more stable in the turnover ratio.

Even so, it is human nature to find it difficult to give up control of the decision-making process.

 

To me, the characteristics of management and leadership are interchangeable, not detached.  Either directly or indirectly, one cannot manage without leading, and one cannot lead without managing.  Reflecting on the interview, Mr. Barnett seems to combine many positive management-leadership skills.

Philosophy of Management-Leadership.  Mr. Barnett sees himself as a manager by consensus, allowing all sides to express their views, preferably directly to one another (Consensus-Building Principles).  By allowing direct input, underlying conflicts can be avoided.  However, he also realizes that not all modes of expressing conflict are constructive, especially when dishonor and disrespect for others are demonstrated.

Some organizations do much to assure that they don’t have good leaders (Bennis, 1989, p. 187).  But Mr. Barnett seems to have created an environment which makes it conducive for talented people in his company to become strong leaders.  He would agree with Bennis that an organization’s purpose should determine its structure—rather than the other way around—and that it should function as a community rather than a hierarchy . . . because ultimately an organization is merely the means, not the end.  Just because the company has the gold, it doesn’t have to function in an atmosphere where it makes all the rules (Ratzburg, p. 5).

People are prone to do what their minds and emotions tell them to do, not necessarily what the leader says to do.  No leader can motivate others. They can only cause followers to motivate themselves (Farr).  Mr. Barnett seems to understand this, and becomes a coach (versus a dictator) to encourage motivation among his leaders.

Modes of Learning.  According to Gib Akin, there are several modes of learning (Bennis, p. 56), and two of them apply specifically to Mr. Barnett.  The first is validation where one tests concepts by applying them and learning after the fact.  The second is anticipation, in which one develops a concept and then applies it, learning before acting.

Even though both involve a certain amount of risk-taking, a greater loss can occur with the validation mode of learning, since learning comes "after" the application.  Therefore greater caution needs to be exercised here, because it could literally break a company if the conception turns out to be defective.

In Mr. Barnett’s early years with his company, he had no other choice but to use validation as his primary mode of learning.  In contrast, today he is able to use the anticipation mode of learning, since he now has the budget, experience, and track record to draw upon.  This allows him more time and resources to employ in testing ideas and concepts before applying them.

Leadership Criteria.  FedEx uses "9 faces of leadership" as criteria to identify potential leaders (Row).  While Mr. Barnett seems to share all of those personal attributes, there are three which seem to stand out in his interview:

1. Individual Consideration.  Coaches, advises, and teaches people who need it.  Actively listens and gives indications of listening.
2. Judgment.  Reaches sound and objective evaluations of alternative courses of action through logic, analysis, and comparison.  Puts facts together rationally and realistically.  Uses past experience and information to bring perspective to present decisions.
3. Respect for Others.  Honors and does not belittle the opinions of other people.

Leadership Types.  Farr asserts that if leadership can be taught, it can also be managed (Farr, p. 2).  To him the most progressive and successful companies manage leaders as a strategic weapon.  In accomplishing this, Farr specifies three leadership types which are manifested in the best managers—all of which characterize the leadership skills of Mr. Barnett, who has been able to successfully integrate them in a way which best serves the employees as well as the organization:

1. Directional leadership is strategic leadership.  It is all about determining where the organization should go.
2. Implementational leadership involves determining how the organization will make it to wherever it is headed.
3. Interpersonal leadership involves the process of getting human resources behind organizational goals and objectives.

Leadership Styles.  The most succinct studies identify three primary styles of leadership: autocratic, laissez-faire, and democratic (Leadership Styles).  The autocratic leader dominates, generally resulting in passive resistance from team-members, and requires continual pressure and direction from the leader in order to get things done.  This definitely does not describe the leadership style of Mr. Barnett.

The laissez-faire manager exercises little control over his group, leaving them to sort out their roles and tackle their work without participating in this process himself.  Again this does not describe Mr. Barnett.

However, the democratic style of leadership does.  The democratic style of leadership makes decisions by consulting his team, whilst still maintaining control of the group.  The democratic leader allows his team to decide how the task will be tackled and who will perform which task.

A good democratic leader encourages participation and delegates wisely, but never loses sight of the fact that he bears the crucial responsibility of leadership.  He values group discussion and input from his team, and can be seen as drawing from a pool of his team member’s strong points.  He motivates his team by empowering them to direct themselves, and guides them with a loose reign (Leadership Styles).

I believe Mr. Barnett would agree with Gary Klein, the developer of the naturalistic decision-making approach (Klein, p. 2).  Klein views people as intrinsically skilled and experienced with inherent human strengths and capabilities that are usually downplayed or ignored.  Having expressed servanthood as his core philosophy of leadership, Mr. Barnett would see his leadership role as doing his best to assist every employee in his company to excel to their highest potential possible.  If that were accomplished, he would be the first to revel in their achievement.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Barnett can be aptly portrayed as an anti-Taylorist manager.  Unlike Taylorist elitists, Mr. Barnett believes that workers should use their minds and intellect, and their expertise and skills should be concentrically involved in the decision-making process of the company.  By comparison, since he has experienced Tayloristic suppression by the leadership in his parent company, he would view a Tayloristic style of management as being repressive and perhaps destructive for long-term relationships to exist between employer and employee.

Louis Boone reflects on Tayloristic management when he declares, "Some people work just hard enough to not get fired, and some companies pay just enough that they won’t quit" (Ray Jutkin's Power Quotations, 1997, p. 2).

Bennis sums up the one true mission of all anti-Taylorist organizations as releasing the full use of the individual’s potential, and finding ways of offering them opportunities for growth and development (Bennis, p. 187).  Hopefully, anti-Taylorist managers like Mr. Barnett who provide this kind of growth and development for the employees of his company will become the predominate leadership style everywhere.

Top of Page     Go to Next Page