Political power has always been questionable, especially to those who are ordered to respond and give way to the orders of more powerful people. This is usually seen not just in the political setting but even in the social, or even religious, setting. One of the prophets of management was Mary Parker Follett, who was born in Queens during the 19th century. In one of her writings, entitled The Giving of Orders, she gave a theory that “unless you change the habit-patterns of people, you have not really changed your people” (Follett, 1926, p.156). These are the so-called habits of mind that are composed of all the people’s emotions, beliefs, prejudices, and desires, which should all be included when trying to change a person or group of persons. To do this, Follett (1926) insisted that three things should be done: (1) build up attitudes; (2) release these attitudes; and (3) augment the released response as it is carried out (p.156). I, for one, have experienced this whenever I try to advertise a product. First, I create an attitude to the customer that they want the product that I am marketing. Second, I offer discount promotions that the customer may agree to take and thus, release that particular attitude. Third and finally, I provide for the customer a reading material that informs them about the positive commentaries of other customers who had likewise purchased the product, which augments the released response. This certifies the hypothesis that in order to encourage people to obey orders, there should be new habit patterns made. The question, therefore, is: Is it enough to apply emotions, beliefs, prejudices, and desires to convince a person to obey orders? What about the times when it only takes high respect and veneration for a person to follow another person’s orders?
In relation to dominance and the capacity to administer orders that others follow, the statement of Clegg (1975, 1989) highly represents this structure. It is not enough to encourage the person’s emotion, desire, prejudice, or beliefs. As Gordon, Kornberger, & Clegg (2009) stated, “the functioning of an organization is subject to both formal structures and unobtrusive structures of dominancy” (p.16). This includes the use of both authorities under formally sanctioned rules and power, as well as, socially constituted norms. I, for one, have experienced this whenever I found myself following another person’s orders just by following norms like whenever I follow the orders of peer group leaders or an elder guest. Even though I may not know them personally, and I do not have the emotion or the desire to follow their orders, still, I follow them all because it was socially accepted to follow them. For example, while walking down a street I was ordered by an older woman to dump my garbage on the trash can. Even though I am not personally linked to her, I would follow her order mainly because of her age, and her being older convinces me to follow her order.
Rainey (2003) mentioned in his book how the opinions of the mass public and diffuse populations greatly matter to public organizations, especially when it comes to their attitudes regarding the government in general, as well as, the policies and agencies. Rainey (2003) mentioned the importance of the mass public during President Bush’s era, in which there are significant effects of public opinion on the behavior and morale of government employees. This can be proven in history, especially in the Western world where countries are democratic and provide what is good for the mass public. However, there are some questions left with regards to this. What about the norms in the third world countries in which the policies are not created based on mere public desires and opinions? Is public opinion applied in all cases? Or are there government agencies that choose authority rather than public opinion in creating their policies and law constituents? Based on my experience, I can name a number of countries where the older traditions are being applied, and the policies are made based on prejudices and the desires and habits of the one in authority. These authoritarian leaders give the orders, expecting that they can change the people’s habits of mind just by merely giving orders, insisting that they are followed, as persisted by norms.
References:
Follett, M.P. (1926). The giving of orders. In H.C. Metcalf’s (Ed.), Scientific foundations of business administration (pp.156-161). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Print.
Gordon, R., Kornberger, M., & Clegg, S.R. (2009). Power, rationality and legitimacy in public organizations. Public Administration, 87(1), 15-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.01743.x
Rainey, H.G. (2003). Chapter 5: The impact of political power and public policy. Understanding and managing public organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Print.
