What do you think?
Rate this book
The functions of the executive
Now reprinted for the eighteenth time, 'The Functions of the Executive' has steadily increased in influence and circulation since its first appearance.
Paperback
First published December 1, 1968
12 people are currently reading
357 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
June 8, 2018
This is an extraordinarily weird book. It has an almost statutory approach, starting from the definition of a person and working its way up from there. It kind of doesn't work.
I think its failure lies in its illegibility. It is not immediately clear what the purpose of his organizational scheme is. He does not answer - or fails to live up to his promise of answering - the key question: why am I reading this? Here is one guess from a reviewer, that gives an idea:
"The purpose of [the book's] conceptual scheme [of cooperation and organization], as I understand it, is to indicate why individuals join together for achieving economic, social, political, or other ends, and what conditions and arrangements govern their joint success or failure. In developing this conceptual scheme, Mr. Barnard begins with a definition of "an individual," takes up power of choice or free will and its limitations, and proceeds to a series of other definitions. Cooperative systems, to use his term, arise out of the desires of individuals to accomplish certain purposes and the limitations on what each can do while working alone. As soon as an individual enters into a cooperative system, however, his own attitude toward his associates and theirs toward him-in other words, a whole range of social relationships-become significant. These attitudes and relationships may be other favorable or unfavorable to the cooperative system.
"The survival of a cooperative system depends upon its achieving the common purpose and upon the satisfaction of the motives of each individual participating therein. The functions of the executive are those of guiding and managing the enterprise to accomplish the common purpose and to satisfy the individual participants. . . .
"Mr. Barnard refers to his presentation of his theory as "difficult" and there will be few, I suspect, who do not find it heavy reading. One reason for this effect is that in an effort to universalize his points, Mr. Barnard has abstracted so much color from his statements that their meaning and significance are not readily perceived. As a consequence, the first half of the book, at least, probably can be understood only by a person of wide experience or broad observation-a person who has a realistic background upon which he can draw to make an interpretation of the theories presented. . . .
"I have no particular criticism to make of Mr. Barnard's conceptual scheme, but it is not the method of approach which I find most useful in tackling the study of administration. The contribution in the book which seem to me to be most significant are those chapters and passages in which the author's own shrewd powers of observation and innate common sense overshadow his attention to abstract sociological concepts."
Copeland 1940.
William W. Cooper, in a 1948 review, called the book "seminal rather than definitive" and seemed genuinely not to like it for being so abstract and weird. I read his review after reading Part I and I have to say it echoed constantly to me as I read Part II. I can imagine that this book launched the study of a thousand facets of administration, while failing utterly to make any sense out of most of them itself.
Here is Barnard's own summary of Part I, to get a sense of the verbosity:
1. The individual human being possesses a limited power of choice. At the same time he is a resultant of, and is narrowly limited by, the factors of the total situation. He has motives, arrives at purposes, and wills to accomplish them. His method is to select a particular factor or set of factors in the total situation and to change the situation by operations on these factors. These are, from the viewpoint of purpose, the limiting factors; and are the strategic points of attack.
2. Among the most important limiting factors in the situation of each individual are his own biological limitations. The most effective method of overcoming these limitations has been that of cooperation. This requires the adoption of a group, or non-personal, purpose. The situation with reference to such a purpose is composed of innumerable factors, which must be discriminated as limiting or non-limiting factors.
3. Cooperation is a social aspect of the total situation and social factors arise from it. These factors may be in turn the limiting factors of any situation. This arises from two considerations: (a) the processes of interaction must be discovered or invented; just as a physical operation must be discovered or invented; (b) the interaction changes the motives and interest of those participating in the cooperation.
4. The persistence of cooperation depends upon two conditions: (a) its effectiveness; and (b) its efficiency. Effectiveness relates to the accomplishment of the cooperative purpose, which is social and non-personal in character. Efficiency relates to the satisfaction of individual motives, and is personal in character. The test of effectiveness is the accomplishment of a common purpose or purposes; effectiveness can be measured. The test of efficiency is the eliciting of sufficient individual wills to cooperate.
5. The survival of cooperation, therefore, depends on two interrelated and interdependent classes of processes: (a) those which relate to the system of cooperation as a whole in relation to the environment; and (b) those which relate to the creation or distribution of satisfactions among individuals.
6. The instability and failures of cooperation arise from defects in each of these classes of processes separately, and from defects in the combination. The functions of the executive are those of securing the effective adaptation of these processes.
What are we to make of this? Does this conceptual schematic help an executive incorporate his (or her) will upon the clay of human capital? Maybe. But I'd boil it down to some very simple points:
* People cooperate in order to do things they can't do alone.
* Cooperation doesn't work if it's not well-tailored to the situation, or people don't like it, or both.
* Executives operate to eliminate these barriers to cooperation.
Fine.
I think its failure lies in its illegibility. It is not immediately clear what the purpose of his organizational scheme is. He does not answer - or fails to live up to his promise of answering - the key question: why am I reading this? Here is one guess from a reviewer, that gives an idea:
"The purpose of [the book's] conceptual scheme [of cooperation and organization], as I understand it, is to indicate why individuals join together for achieving economic, social, political, or other ends, and what conditions and arrangements govern their joint success or failure. In developing this conceptual scheme, Mr. Barnard begins with a definition of "an individual," takes up power of choice or free will and its limitations, and proceeds to a series of other definitions. Cooperative systems, to use his term, arise out of the desires of individuals to accomplish certain purposes and the limitations on what each can do while working alone. As soon as an individual enters into a cooperative system, however, his own attitude toward his associates and theirs toward him-in other words, a whole range of social relationships-become significant. These attitudes and relationships may be other favorable or unfavorable to the cooperative system.
"The survival of a cooperative system depends upon its achieving the common purpose and upon the satisfaction of the motives of each individual participating therein. The functions of the executive are those of guiding and managing the enterprise to accomplish the common purpose and to satisfy the individual participants. . . .
"Mr. Barnard refers to his presentation of his theory as "difficult" and there will be few, I suspect, who do not find it heavy reading. One reason for this effect is that in an effort to universalize his points, Mr. Barnard has abstracted so much color from his statements that their meaning and significance are not readily perceived. As a consequence, the first half of the book, at least, probably can be understood only by a person of wide experience or broad observation-a person who has a realistic background upon which he can draw to make an interpretation of the theories presented. . . .
"I have no particular criticism to make of Mr. Barnard's conceptual scheme, but it is not the method of approach which I find most useful in tackling the study of administration. The contribution in the book which seem to me to be most significant are those chapters and passages in which the author's own shrewd powers of observation and innate common sense overshadow his attention to abstract sociological concepts."
Copeland 1940.
William W. Cooper, in a 1948 review, called the book "seminal rather than definitive" and seemed genuinely not to like it for being so abstract and weird. I read his review after reading Part I and I have to say it echoed constantly to me as I read Part II. I can imagine that this book launched the study of a thousand facets of administration, while failing utterly to make any sense out of most of them itself.
Here is Barnard's own summary of Part I, to get a sense of the verbosity:
1. The individual human being possesses a limited power of choice. At the same time he is a resultant of, and is narrowly limited by, the factors of the total situation. He has motives, arrives at purposes, and wills to accomplish them. His method is to select a particular factor or set of factors in the total situation and to change the situation by operations on these factors. These are, from the viewpoint of purpose, the limiting factors; and are the strategic points of attack.
2. Among the most important limiting factors in the situation of each individual are his own biological limitations. The most effective method of overcoming these limitations has been that of cooperation. This requires the adoption of a group, or non-personal, purpose. The situation with reference to such a purpose is composed of innumerable factors, which must be discriminated as limiting or non-limiting factors.
3. Cooperation is a social aspect of the total situation and social factors arise from it. These factors may be in turn the limiting factors of any situation. This arises from two considerations: (a) the processes of interaction must be discovered or invented; just as a physical operation must be discovered or invented; (b) the interaction changes the motives and interest of those participating in the cooperation.
4. The persistence of cooperation depends upon two conditions: (a) its effectiveness; and (b) its efficiency. Effectiveness relates to the accomplishment of the cooperative purpose, which is social and non-personal in character. Efficiency relates to the satisfaction of individual motives, and is personal in character. The test of effectiveness is the accomplishment of a common purpose or purposes; effectiveness can be measured. The test of efficiency is the eliciting of sufficient individual wills to cooperate.
5. The survival of cooperation, therefore, depends on two interrelated and interdependent classes of processes: (a) those which relate to the system of cooperation as a whole in relation to the environment; and (b) those which relate to the creation or distribution of satisfactions among individuals.
6. The instability and failures of cooperation arise from defects in each of these classes of processes separately, and from defects in the combination. The functions of the executive are those of securing the effective adaptation of these processes.
What are we to make of this? Does this conceptual schematic help an executive incorporate his (or her) will upon the clay of human capital? Maybe. But I'd boil it down to some very simple points:
* People cooperate in order to do things they can't do alone.
* Cooperation doesn't work if it's not well-tailored to the situation, or people don't like it, or both.
* Executives operate to eliminate these barriers to cooperation.
Fine.
October 22, 2018
First published in 1938, The Functions of the Executive continues to carry modern management wisdom for executives and academics alike, thus finding its way into the classics of management. In his preface, Barnard mentions that the book has been developed from the initial manuscripts prepared for a series of eight lectures at the Lowell Institute in 1937- I found this tiny detail particularly interesting, because not only does it indicates that the necessity for executive wisdom had arisen in the time, but also that seasoned executives of the era were paying attention to Barnard. Perhaps this reverence is rooted in recognition of his long experience as an executive himself, maybe even more in his ability to crystallize insights from the world of everyday business into structured understanding (he was called the “erudite executive” those days). It is important to mention here, that although the title of the book suggests executives and their organizational functions as the focal attention, Barnard’s work is a comprehensive treatise on co-operation and structure of organizations, addressing multiple aspects in great detail. However, on no account are the ideas scattered or divergent, instead, they cohesively create an understanding of organizations and the role of executives as we view them today.
Barnard does not begin his work with prescriptions on how an organization must be run. Instead, he utilizes the first half of the book to methodically describe and define the organization and its concepts- individuals, efficiency, effectiveness, formal organizations, their structure, specializations (here he proceeds to distinguish between “division of labour”, “specialization” and “functionalization”), incentives, authority, the decision making environment, the strategic nature of opportunism and several such terms in the language of organizational theory of the day. Justifiably, he stands tall in the field of organizational theory for his incisive and detailed commentary on the nature of the organization (seen mostly as a system from his perspective in this book). Another aspect of his work is its strongly sociological perspective, one that I am able to better appreciate on account of previous readings on Talcott Parsons who was a major influence on Barnard. He can be quoted saying “..there was lacking much recognition of formal organization as a most important characteristic of social life and as being the principal social aspect of society itself”. On numerous other occasions in the book, he talks from a sociological perspective, invoking culture, religion, customs, adaptation, social activity. He binds these varying and quasi-divergent dimensions using co-operation as his principal tool. This does not mean that he ignores the economic function of the organization- he addresses the role of capital as a tool to overcome limitations of the environment of the enterprise.
It is clear that Barnard looks at executives with a deeper understanding, regardless of the technologies of their various fields. He senses that there are questions and challenges of common interest to all of them and presses to understand and explain through his work what he mentions as “More than the topography and cartography of organization would be necessary to understand the executive functions; a knowledge of the kinds and qualities of the forces at work and the manner of their operation would also be needed”. The answer to this concern is found in Part IV of the book where he explains executive functions, processes and responsibilities. His definition of executive work is “Executive work is not that of the organization, but the specialized work of maintaining the organization in operation”, which involves maintaining communication & co-operation in the scheme of the organization, the personnel, in the informal executive organizations, formulation of purpose and objectives and securing essential services from individuals through a co-operative relationship. On the process by which executives may achieve this functions, Barnard is on a completely page than Taylor, particularly more evolved that Fayol, perhaps complementary to Mayo but most similar to Mary Parker Follett in terms of his nuanced ideas on co-operation and co-ordination. He says “It is a matter of art rather than science and it is aesthetic rather than logical. For this reason it is recognized rather than described...” In my opinion, this section of the book sets the premise for the emergence of leadership studies, for their social and psychological dimensions. Barnard goes on to balance the executive processes with executive responsibilities, considering the moral aspects of co-operation, stating in one very striking line that “…responsibility is the property of an individual by which whatever morality exists in him becomes effective in conduct”. Finally, he stresses the need for developing an expertise in the techniques of human interaction in addition to technical expertise of executives, this seemingly important influence of Mayo and a further support to the Ideas of Fayol and Follett for training executives better.
In conclusion, the book has been an enriching, enlightening read that additionally, is the foundation for further detailed reading and understanding of organizational theory and management as a whole.
Barnard does not begin his work with prescriptions on how an organization must be run. Instead, he utilizes the first half of the book to methodically describe and define the organization and its concepts- individuals, efficiency, effectiveness, formal organizations, their structure, specializations (here he proceeds to distinguish between “division of labour”, “specialization” and “functionalization”), incentives, authority, the decision making environment, the strategic nature of opportunism and several such terms in the language of organizational theory of the day. Justifiably, he stands tall in the field of organizational theory for his incisive and detailed commentary on the nature of the organization (seen mostly as a system from his perspective in this book). Another aspect of his work is its strongly sociological perspective, one that I am able to better appreciate on account of previous readings on Talcott Parsons who was a major influence on Barnard. He can be quoted saying “..there was lacking much recognition of formal organization as a most important characteristic of social life and as being the principal social aspect of society itself”. On numerous other occasions in the book, he talks from a sociological perspective, invoking culture, religion, customs, adaptation, social activity. He binds these varying and quasi-divergent dimensions using co-operation as his principal tool. This does not mean that he ignores the economic function of the organization- he addresses the role of capital as a tool to overcome limitations of the environment of the enterprise.
It is clear that Barnard looks at executives with a deeper understanding, regardless of the technologies of their various fields. He senses that there are questions and challenges of common interest to all of them and presses to understand and explain through his work what he mentions as “More than the topography and cartography of organization would be necessary to understand the executive functions; a knowledge of the kinds and qualities of the forces at work and the manner of their operation would also be needed”. The answer to this concern is found in Part IV of the book where he explains executive functions, processes and responsibilities. His definition of executive work is “Executive work is not that of the organization, but the specialized work of maintaining the organization in operation”, which involves maintaining communication & co-operation in the scheme of the organization, the personnel, in the informal executive organizations, formulation of purpose and objectives and securing essential services from individuals through a co-operative relationship. On the process by which executives may achieve this functions, Barnard is on a completely page than Taylor, particularly more evolved that Fayol, perhaps complementary to Mayo but most similar to Mary Parker Follett in terms of his nuanced ideas on co-operation and co-ordination. He says “It is a matter of art rather than science and it is aesthetic rather than logical. For this reason it is recognized rather than described...” In my opinion, this section of the book sets the premise for the emergence of leadership studies, for their social and psychological dimensions. Barnard goes on to balance the executive processes with executive responsibilities, considering the moral aspects of co-operation, stating in one very striking line that “…responsibility is the property of an individual by which whatever morality exists in him becomes effective in conduct”. Finally, he stresses the need for developing an expertise in the techniques of human interaction in addition to technical expertise of executives, this seemingly important influence of Mayo and a further support to the Ideas of Fayol and Follett for training executives better.
In conclusion, the book has been an enriching, enlightening read that additionally, is the foundation for further detailed reading and understanding of organizational theory and management as a whole.
February 10, 2019
It's more about organisational behaviour, than the functions of an executive. (Get Drucker's The Effective Executive for that). And it can be wordy, a bad habit Barnard picked up from Alfred North Whitehead. Even so, if you have a chance to read it, go for it.
July 12, 2018
A powerful treatise in its time. The author seems all but lost, but his ideas endure even as newer writers think of them as their own inventions.
July 22, 2019
no matter how hard I try, I never manage to appreciate this one.
October 16, 2023
A uniquely dry and difficult to read book.
June 18, 2024
A classic work, The Functions of the Executive by Chester I. Barnard is a comprehensive view of all types of organizations engaging in for-profit business activities, government and military activities, non-profit activities including religion, etc. Barnard goes deep into the levels of understanding cooperative systems. As such, the reading can be very thick at times, but is very thorough in its coverage of organizations. I highly recommend this book for students and scholars of organizational theory.
July 24, 2011
READ MAY 2009
Excellent seminal work on the theory of cooperation. A must-read for any student of organizations.
Excellent seminal work on the theory of cooperation. A must-read for any student of organizations.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews