Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 221 ( 2016 ) 126 – 134
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
1877-0428 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of SIM 2015 / 13th International Symposium in Management
doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.098
ScienceDirect
SIM 2015 / 13th International Symposium in Management
Chester Barnard: Organisational-Management Code for the 21st
Century
Srđan Nikezića, Milenko Dželetovićb, Dragan Vučinićc
*
aFaculty of Science, University of Kragujevac, Kragujevac 34000, Serbia
bTelekom Serbia, Belgrade 11000, Serbia
cModern Business School, Belgrade 11000, Serbia
Abstract
Barnard thought that it was possible to improve effectiveness and efficiency through formal organization. He was trying to
understand how to obtain organizational survival “maintaining equilibrium of complex character in permanent turbulent
environment of physical, biological and social materials and elements and forces” within the organization, exploring in parallel
the outer powers to which the organization must adapt on all levels and analysing the functions which in that context are
performed by executive directors in the organization as a whole system. This paper explores the influences of Chester Barnard on
Blake and Mouton’s leadership-management network, Hersey-Blanchard’s situational leadership and Maslow’s motivational
theory, as well as on organisational purpose, communication and team work. This paper examines the relevance of the principles
and theories developed by Barnard from the point of today’s managers and leaders. According to Barnard, this can be achieved
through linking Barnard’s central ideas with new concepts of management and leadership. Our opinion is that even today Barnard
represents a very important part of the chain of examination and exploration of management and leadership thought.
© 2015 The Authors.Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of SIM 2015 / 13th International Symposium in Management.
Keywords: Chester I. Barnard; leadership; management; effectiveness and efficiency; organisational thinking.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +381645804810; fax: +381645804810.
E-mail address: srdjan_nikezic@yahoo.com
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of SIM 2015 / 13th International Symposium in Management
127
Srđan Nikezić et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 221 ( 2016 ) 126 – 134
1. Introduction
Barnard wrote a book titled The Functions of the Executive for the generations to come (Barnard, 1938). The
gravity of the task he undertook is seen in the fact that he rewrote the book „eighteen or twenty times“ (Wolf, 1973),
(Mahoney, 2002). Apart from that, his daily schedule meant eighteen hours of work a day, including his job and
other commitments, at the same time reviewing the work on his book (Wolf, 1973). The impact of such work of his
on the theory of organization is well-documented (Mahoney, 2002), (Scott, 1987), (Williamson, 1995). Kenneth
Andrews, a respectable writer, says: „The Functions of the Executive remains even today, as at the time of
publishing, the most thought-provoking book on organization and management ever written by an executive
director“ (Gabor, & Mahoney, 2010), (Andrews, 1968), (Mahoney, 2002).
Andrews ascribes the following to Barnard’s studies:
x Ability of abstract thinking
x Objectivity as capacity applied both in personal and business practice
x Proficiency in practice
x Ability of paradoxical thinking by using logical thinking and competences at the same time
Fig. 1 represents a brief outline of Barnard’s life comprising his quality work in the company, life outside the
company and community service. All three parts are interrelated and make up an inseparable unity. Barnard used
the metaphor symphony to get across his views of the importance of aesthetic experience in management, because he
had a lot of experience in both domains, management (as an executive and chairman of New Jersey Bell Telephone
Company), and music (which was his hobby for life and, accordingly, he actively participated in founding Bach
Society in New Jersey and the Newark Theater).
Erudite without
portfolio:
personal life
with integrity
(honour and
faith) and
playing bu ear
Vounteer
community
service
Exellency and
syst em-based
approach in
executi ve
work
Chester B arnard
Fig. 1 Outline of Chester Barnard’s life.
Barnard’s book is an absolute contradiction to the mechanistic concept of earlier management analysts, such as
Frederick Winslow Taylor. Barnard observed the organization as a complex social system within which he managed
to move back and forward, demonstrating a unique capability, from empirical experiences towards theoretical tenets
and vice versa, keeping up with the latest achievements in psychology, sociology and human relations.
Barnard focused entirely on studying the human factor in the organization, the psychological strength of human
behavior and finding the way to use it in the best possible way, like a bustling river, in the interest of the company,
often facing its maximum strength and peak of its boundaries. He stressed the importance of the need for
professional managers to be dedicated, energetic and consistent in reforms as well as their colleagues in the
administrative department so that legal aspects and leadership would be strengthened.
Certain authors think that Barnard’s reputation in the domain of management theory and practice has gradually
weakened and „disappeared“ from the main streams of management literature. It is even stated that his book is
rarely quoted and that his only merit is related to the development of „theory of accepting authority“. The crucial
argument is the obscurity in his writing and exceptional difficulty in reading (Chandran, 1998). Wolf writes: „Over
the years I have become aware that Barnard’s book has proved to be hard and uninteresting, for a lot of teachers and
128 Srđan Nikezić et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 221 ( 2016 ) 126 – 134
their students. My colleagues will often admit in informal conversation they find Barnard unnecessarily abstract,
terribly meaningful and extremely difficult to follow“ (Wolf, W. 1974).
Jay Chandran thinks that we should re-examine the relevance of the principles and theories developed by
Barnard from the perspective of contemporary managers and leaders. According to him, this can be achieved by
linking Barnard’s central ideas with new concepts of management and leadership. He feels that Barnard still
represents an important link for the study and research of management and leadership thought.
Barnard believed it was possible to enhance effectiveness and efficiency by way of formal organization. He tried
to understand how to secure the existence of the organization by „maintaining an equilibrium of a complex character
in a continuously turbulent environment of physical, biological and social materials, elements and forces“ within the
organization, at the same time examining the external forces to which the organization must adapt on all levels and
analyzing the functions performed by executives in that context within the organization as a unified system (Wren,
& Bedeian, 2009), (Barnard, 1938). An organization needs a corporative system because employees often do not
have a choice, they may or may not contribute to the success of the organization. In such systems the executives may
modify actions and motives by way of influence and control. Barnard’s focus on the maintenance of inner
equilibrium while the organization is facing external forces of the surroundings resembles a story from a fairy-tale
novel compared to the conventional thinking. He rejected the traditional view of the organization with fixed
boundaries, consisting of a defined group of employees. Considering the wider surroundings of the organization,
Barnard’s analyses went far beyond the boundaries of the established way of thinking.
Auhors gave a positive critical view forming an image where they have included, looking from the todays
perspective: investors, suppliers, buyers and others into the open system of organization, whose activities, although
they were not technically employed in the organization, contributed to the work of the organization (Fig. 2).
Barnard observed the organization as a corporative system that rests on individuals as independent personalities;
however, he noticed that people actually did not function unless they were conditioned by social relations or
interacting with other people. As individuals, people can choose whether they want to enter a certain corporative
system or not. They base their choices on motives (aims, wishes or current impulses) taking into consideration other
available alternatives as well (Wren, & Bedeian, 2009), (Barnard, 1940).
Describing the organization through the function of the executive, Barnard emphasizes that the goal is the change
of individuals’ motives and alternative activities through influence and control. He admits that attempts of influence
and control are not always successful in achieving goals of the organization and its members. The difference
between personal and organizational motives induced Barnard to differentiate between efectiveness and efficiency.
The formal system of cooperation demanded the achievement of a goal or aim and in case the cooperation was
successful and the goal achieved, the system was efficient. Barnard had a different view of the issue of efficiency.
He considered corporative efficiency to be the result of individual efficiencies because individuals only cooperated
in order to fulfill their own motives. Efficiency back then was a standard by which individual motives were fulfilled
and only an individual could determine whether such a condition was fulfilled (Wren, & Bedeian, 2009), (Barnard,
1938).
129
Srđan Nikezić et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 221 ( 2016 ) 126 – 134
SUR ROUNDINGS
EMPLOYEES
INVESTOR S
ORGANIZATION
SUPPLIERS
BUYER S
OTHERS
Executive
Fig. 2 Work of executive in the open system. (Positive critical authors view)
Formal organization, for Barnard, is a form of cooperation that is „conscious, intentional and purposeful“. Formal
organization helps:
x Maintenance of organization and inner equilibrium (balance).
x Examining external forces (surroundings) and determining the possible need to revise the „open system“
approach.
x Analyzing the executive’s functions (Wren, 2005).
Barnard explained the organization needed to offer incentives necessary to fulfill individual motives in search of
the goals of the group and thus provide its permanent existence, growth and development, as well as the realization
of the company vision, which authors have presented as a (Fig. 3). From our point of view today, a formal
organization needs to renew its energy or limit the negative energy by offering absolute satisfaction to the
organization members. An inefficient organization cannot be efficient and therefore cannot persist outside its space
of negative entropy. According to Barnard, efficiency and effectiveness are irrevocable and universal assumptions of
formal organizations. Barnard differentiated between individual and organizational goals by using the terms
effectiveness and efficiency:
x Effective – to fulfill the goals of organization.
x Efficient –to fulfill individual motives, which only the individuals themselves can confirm to be true or not
(Wren, 2005).
Critical turnaround on Barnard’s understanding of effectiveness and efficiency can be reduced to today’s
connotations of these concepts which are given by authors. Effectiveness ( to do the right things) is linked to
company’s environment and market, and efficiency (to do it the right way) is linked to internal company’s
environment whose goal is reducing costs by the product units with simultaneously quality improvement – know as
paradoxical way of thinking. Only efficient measures provide quality for the organization to persist, that is, to
provide adequate incentives in order to fulfill individual motives and provide cooperation among individuals and
organizations.
130 Srđan Nikezić et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 221 ( 2016 ) 126 – 134
Effectiv enes s
Executive
Effeciency
Basic ideology
of organization
(purpose and
values)
Long-term
audacious goals
Growth and
development
of organization
Fig. 3 Chester Barnard’s vision of organization. Source: Authors illustration.
Authors believe that’s Barnard’s vision in today’s conditions is archaic, because today a well planned vision is
consisted of two main components: fundamental ideology and wished (imagined) future. Fundamental ideology
comprises of basic values and basic purpose of a company, and wished future comprises of bold goals (which last
from ten to thirty years) and figurative description of how to achieve desired goals.
In the long run, the condition of efficiency provides the existence and success of the organization in its
surroundings, through the satisfaction of employees. At the same time, efficiency represents the condition for the
accomplishment of long-term, audacious goals, the pre-requisite of which is the fulfilment of individual motives.
The corporative system must create „surplus satisfaction“ in order to be efficient (Chandran, 1998), (Barnard, 1968).
It is the functions of executives that provide efficient adaptation of these processes“ (Barnard, 1968). Jay Chandran
thinks that Barnard developed a simple and pragmatic synthesis of Frederick Taylor’s school of scientific
management and Elton Mayo’s human relations approach. Barnard cites types of managerial actions that lead
towards efficiency and effectiveness and says: „ ...the processes related to them (efficiency and effectiveness,
author’s note) indicate that behaviour in relation to others is either in the form of treating them as objects
manipulated over by the change of factors that affect them, or subjects that need to be satisfied.“ (Barnard, 1968).
Chandran says it is necessary to read the book The Functions of the Executive several times before being able to
comprehend Barnard’s discussion and get a new perspective on management, setting aside the word manipulated,
which was not in use at the time Barnard wrote the book, but appears in later editions.
Authors claim that through a new approach to the book and its content, we can percieve the basics for a lot of
subsequent theories on leadership and management styles. He specifically cites the example of leadership and
management network of Blake, Mouton and McCanse and the Hersey-Blanchard situational leadership model.
2. Organisational - management code (research and contributions)
Blake and Mouton from Texas University developed a management network and published the work in 1964.
They modified this network several times, in 1978, 1985, and in 1991 they substituted it for Blake and Anne Adams
McCanse leadership network, because one of the network creators, Mouton, passed away in 1987 (Blake, &
Mouton, 1964, 1978, 1985), (Lyne de Ver, 2009), (Arsovski, & Nikezić, 2013).
131
Srđan Nikezić et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 221 ( 2016 ) 126 – 134
Blake and Mouton published a large number of articles and over forty books that depicted their theory (Blake, &
Mouton, 2002). Leadership behavior is being researched even today. The leadership network has been applied in
management projects in several different researches.
The leadership network is based on Ohio State and Michigan studies, on two leadership dimensions, which Blake
and Mouton named sconcern about productions and sconcern about peoples. The relevant literature also contains the
expressions scare for productions and scare for peoples (Mullins, 1996). The concern about people and production is
measured by way of inquiry on a scale from 1 - 9. The management network can identify eighty-one combinations
of care for people and care for production. The leadership network formed in 1991 by modifying the management
network identifies 5 leadership styles. In the leadership network there are five different leadership styles based on
care for production (task) and care for people (relations) in 4 squares. The care for production is shown on the
horizontal line. The leader marked 9 on the horizontal line has achieved maximum care for production. The care for
people (relations) is presented on the vertical line. The leader rated 9 on the vertical line has achieved maximum
care for people (Fig. 4).
Paul Hersey, Kenneth Blanchard and Dewey Johnson criticized different approaches to leadership and
management that were not based on practice (McClelland, & Burnham, 1995). They state that Ohio State, Michigan
and Rensis Likert leadership studies are based on two theoretical concepts – one that focuses on the task and the
other on human relations development, but they are not easily applicable in practice as models. Subsequent studies
have, under their influence, modified the basic concept and brought it closer to practice (Arsovski, & Nikezić,
2013).
In his Center for Leadership Studies, in the seventies of the last century, Dr Paul Hersey developed a model of
situational leadership which is simple and easily applicable in practice, which was his goal in the first place. In its
essence, the model did not have the characteristics of a theory, because according to Hersey, theory is something
that constructs, analyzes and comprehends the relevant event, whereas a model can be extracted from a whole,
copied and used in different situations in practice. We have the example of the mass production model set by Ford in
car manufacture.
1
Low
High
Ca re for peo ple
5.5
Care for production
Low High
1.9
1.1
9.9
9.1
9
91
Fig. 4 Leadership network, Source: (Blake, R. & Mouton, J. 1985, 1991), (Arsovski, S. & Nikezić S. 2013).
1.1 - Poor leadership; 1.9 - Club leadership; 9.1 - Authoritative-production leadership ; 9.9 - Team leadership; 5.5 – Midway
leadership
A model is something practical and applicable and can be used worldwide with a view to the enhancement of
leadership management. Professor (Schermerhorn, 2001, 2011) one of the most engaged promoters of Hersey’s
model of situational leadership in university circles across the USA, agreed with Dr Herse y that theory focused on
understanding, and model on the goal, that is, use or implementation.
132 Srđan Nikezić et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 221 ( 2016 ) 126 – 134
We may say that a model focuses on implementation, and that is exactly what situational leadership is.
Leadership, in Hersey, refers to the combination of directives regarding behavior and support to behavior which
represents certain willingness of others to perform specific tasks or functions.
The model faced worldwide dispersion in practice so there came a question whether fifty trainers and educators
around the world spoke to leaders and managers in the manner as presented in the model basics. In order to avoid
such a situation trainers must be well-trained and experts on the model they are explaining. (Arsovski, Nikezić,
2012).
Douglas McGregor’s work, especially the book (The Human Side of Enterprise 1960) (McGregor, 2006), had a
deep impact on the educational practice and work of Hersey and Schemerhorn. The book identifies the approach of
creating an environment in which employees are motivated through authority, guidelines, control, integration and
self-control to accomplish the goals they have set. McGregor defined this motivation through theory X and theory
Y. Theory Y is the practical implementation of Dr Abraham Maslow’s humanist school (Maslow, 1954). Even
today, in 21st century Abraham Maslow’s motivational theory which is based on humanistic ideas and relationships
towards employees, has significant influence in socially responsible companies like Pepsi Cola. Current chairman of
Pepsi Cola company Ms Indra Nooyi is proud of intercompany human relations which are built on theoretical
research by Maslow and Barnard. Barnard’s influence on McGregor was of permanent character. Being under the
partial influence McGregor creates famous theory XY about workers relation towards work. Organisational -
management code was established in 1960s and has practical application today in a world famous company Procter
& Gamble (P&G), using this theory. According to Paul Hersey and Johan Schemerhorn it is very important for
students and professors, as well as company managers and leaders to be familiar with the works of Douglas
McGregor and other authorities from the history of leadership and management, because they remain permanently
valuable. The date when their works were published is not important, because they have universal value. Hersey
formulated it allegorically in a saying: “One can see much further, if standing on a giant’s shoulders” (Maslow, A.
1954). In his situational leadership model, Hersey opted for four leadership styles instead of a management network.
There could have been five of them, eight or eighty-one styles, but is questionable whether it would have a true use
value in that case, and whether it would be so simple. Nobody wants a model that is too complicated, but a model
that can be memorized and used. A lot of theories and models from the domain of management and organization are
too complex. They often seem as if designed for communicating with scientists, instead of company leaders and
managers. Models must be projected for managers and leaders as ultimate beneficiaries from the very beginning,
that is, they need to be applicable in reality. Is there any value in something that does not provide more efficient
work and is not applied in company management? (Schermerhorn, 2001).
Analyzing situational leadership, (Hersey, & Blanchard, 1988) a lot of researchers came to a conclusion that a
situational leader who has adapted his style of leadership/management to organizational factors and characteristics
would, according to Barnard’s model, probably achieve only one result – effectiveness or efficiency.
Today’s research, whose focal point is the debate on the quality of leadership/ management network and
situational model, and on what model is more applicable in practice and gives better results, highlights the findings
whether Barnard’s conditions of efficiency and effectiveness have been fulfilled in the first or in the second model,
that is, leadership/management style. Barnard, according to Claude S. George, constantly repeated how important it
was for an individual to focus on cooperation. This focus could, of course, be in the form of an order that would be
acceptable (therefore, in Hersey-Blanchard most orthodox management style in the situational model- autocratic-
directive model) as authoritative only in case the individual (1) understood it, (2) believed it to be consistent with the
purpose of the organization, (3) believed it to be compatible with his personal interests, and (4) was capable of
acting accordingly.
A leader/manager with a need for personal success will probably treat individuals as objects, according to
Barnard’s typology of influence on staff, and he will manipulate them in the interest of his own goals (toxic leader).
A leader/manager with a need for affiliation will probably treat staff as subjects that need to be satisfied. In the
leadership/management network this position is marked 9.9 (accomplished efficiency) with satisfied subjects (staff).
A leader /manager with a need for strength (power) in the organization will probably try to balance things and
establish equilibrium in the „wet pendulum“ manner. He will be in the „mid-way“ position. In the
leadership/management network he will „swing“ between 1.9 and 9.1. This kind of situation cannot last for long
133
Srđan Nikezić et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 221 ( 2016 ) 126 – 134
because the crisis deepens, conflicts within the organization get stronger and the situation must be dealt with by way
of short-term measures, within the period from six to twelve months at the most. The only solution according to
Barnard is conscious acceptance of an individual as an authoritative leader along with accomplishing efficiency
(fulfillment of four listed preconditions for cooperation) (Barnard, 1938), (George, 1968).
Situational leadership, through McClelland’s research (McClelland, D. & Burnham, D. 1995) is only possible in
the long run in the case of a leader/manager with a need for affiliation (delegating leadership style). It is then that
Barnard’s condition of efficiency is fulfilled. In the two other cases: the leader’s need for strength (authoritarian
situational leadership) or need for success (trainer-participatory situational leadership) the acceptance according to
Barnard is only mitigated by conscious focus on cooperation among staff.
At the beginning of 21st century the impact of Barnard through Pareto’s research may be observed through
theories of heliotropic systems, social constructionism and emotional intelligence and especially through the Pareto
principle (also known as the 80–20 rule). Heliotropic systems are mentioned in scientific research and we come to
an intriguing conclusion that human systems (organizations) are mostly of a heliotropic character, which means they
demonstrate the mood and automatic tendency to develop towards positive, anticipated snapshots of the future.
Plants have the tendency to grow towards the sunlight, and there is a similar process in human systems. Plants turn
towards the sun. That is an interaction among people, microorganisms and light (Jaworski, 2011), (Cooperrider,
2000, 2005). Social constructionism is associated with artificial intelligence as fundamental and our intertwined
current and future knowledge of organization.
Authors think that there is a direct organisational – management code between research of Chester Barnard and
the research (theoretical and practical) which happened at end of 20th century and beginning of 21st century.
Barnard’s purpose and goals of an organisation as a part of formal organisation can be followed by (Collins, &
Porras, 2002), where purpose is defined as a part of basic ideology of every organisation and is defined as a reason
for companie’s existance and lasts as long as the company lasts. Purpose of a company is always defined i n one
sentence, for example Walt Disney is not to produce movies but to make people happy.
Communication, as a third element of Barnard’s formal organisation can be “recognised” in today’s conditions of
connectivity and the leaders role in communicating with his followers over the communication triangle and field of
experience. At the end formal and informal organisation of Chester Barnard are still recognizable in teams and
networks, and especially, there is a clear turnaround lately towards networks as a concept which have torn down
earlier settings which have dominated in intellectual arguments, and even on Barnard’s postulate about formal and
informal organisations.
Critically analysing Barnard’s work, authors can not escape the time in which Barnard worked and lived. His
extraordinary achievements and commitment on his book’s work show that it was written for some future time
(current time), as he himself says. Although he seems to be archaic, even sometimes tedious, by deeper analysing his
ideas can be approached to core things which are inevitably related for every current company: protection of
workers, ethical principles, environment, project management, in one word building a better world for each
individual as equal member of the society who directly participates in leading large companies. Organisational code
which permeates Barnard’s wok across Herbert Simon’s, Oliver Williamson’s and Elinor Ostrom’s; won the Nobel
Prize (last two authors in 21st) is the direct link between management, administration and leadership of Chester
Barnard and his followers.
3. Conclusion
Authors think that research done by Chester Barnard have to be critically observed for the today’s perspective
taking into account all positive trends and influences which he performed on many researches and theorists over the
long period of time. Organisational - management for 21st century has to be taken conditionally, but with great
attention, because if it was established for a direct link between Barnard’s work and today’s conditions i n which
world economy operates. His humanistic approach to organisation and followers we have tried to follow over the
long period of time up until today. His understanding of formal and informal organisation, communication,
organizational purposes, effectiveness and efficiency, vision, leadership, teams, networks, project management can
be observed as a role model and organisational code in 21st century. We have emphasised the differences between
previous understanding of those terms and current modern comprehension in this paper.
134 Srđan Nikezić et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 221 ( 2016 ) 126 – 134
References
Andrews, K. (1968). Introduction to the Thirtieth Anniversary Edition of the Functions of the Executive. (pp. 13-21). Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Arsovski, S. & Nikezić S. (2013). Leadership: Key to effective management of changes. (pp. 5-225). Ražanj: Municipal Assemblies of Ražanj.
(In Serbian).
Arsovski, S., Nikezić. (2012) Leadership: Key to effective management of changes. (pp. 121). Kragujevac: Faculty of Engineering Sciences. (In
Serbian).
Barnard, C. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. (pp. 3-290). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Barnard, C. (1940). Comments on the Job of the Executive. Harvard Business Review. 18, 295-308.
Barnard, C. (1968). The Functions of the Executive. (pp. 40-61). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Blake, R. & McCanse, A. (1991). Leadership Dilemmas - Grid Solutions. (pp. 29.) Houston: Gulf Publishing
Blake, R. & Mouton, J. (1964). The Managerial Grid. (pp. 25-56). Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Blake, R. & Mouton, J. (1978). The New Managerial Grid. (pp. 11-32). Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Blake, R. & Mouton, J. (1985). The Managerial Grid III: The Key to Leadership Excellence. (pp. 65-101). Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Blake, R. & Mouton, J. (2002). The Managerial Grid. Thikers.
Chandran, J. (1998). The Relevance of Chester Barnard for Today's Manager. (pp. 1-12). Richard DeVos Graduate School of Management:
Northwood University.
Collins, J. & Porras, I. (2002). Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. (pp. 50- 60). New York: Harper Business.
Cooperrider, D. (2005). Appreaciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change. (pp. 25-32) San Francisco: Berrettt-Koehler Publishers.
Cooperrider, D. (2000) Collaborating for Change: Appreaciative Inquiry. (42-65). San Francisco: Berrettt-Koehler Publishers.
Gabor, A. & Mahoney, J. (2010). Chester Barnard and the Systems Approach to Nurturing Organizations. Working papers. University Press. 70-
77
George, C. (1968). The History of Management Thought. (pp. 132-133). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. (1988). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. (12-18). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice
Hall.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. & Dewey, J. (2001). Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading Human Resources. (pp. 118). Prentice - Hall of
India Private Limited.
Jaworski, J. (2011). Synchronicity: The Inner Path of Leadership. (pp. 45-70). San Francisco: Berrettt-Koehler Publishers.
Lyne de Ver, H. (2009). Conceptions of Leadership. (pp. 90-95). Developmental Leadership Program.
Mahoney, J. (2002). The Continuing Relevance of Chester I. Barnard's Teachings to Contemporary Management Education. International
Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior. 5(1,2) 159-172.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. (25-40). New York: Harper.
McClelland, D. & Burnham, D. (1978). Power Is the Great Motivator. Harvard Business Review. 103.
McClelland, D. & Burnham, D. (1995). Power Is the Great Motivator. Harvard Business Review. 2-11.
McClelland, D. (1961). The Achievig Society. (14-22). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
McGregor D. (2006). The Human Side of Enterprise. (pp.156). McGraw-Hill Education.
Mullins, L. (1996). Management and Orgazational Behavior. (p. 439-440) London: Pitman Publishing.
Schermerhorn J. (2001). Situational Leadership: Conversations with Paul Hersey. Ohio: Ohio University.
Schermerhorn, J. (2011). Introduction to Management. (pp. 115-140). Southern Illinois University and Wiley.
Scott, W. (1987). Organizations: Rational Natural, and Open Systems. , Englewood Cliff: Prentice-Hall.
Williamson, O. (1995). Chester Barnard and the Incipient Science of Organization. In: Williamson, O.E. (Eds), In Organization Theory: From
Chester Barnard to the Present and Beyond . (pp. 172-206). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wolf, W. (1961). Chester I. Barnard (1886-1961). Academy of Management Journal. 4(3) 167-173.
Wolf, W. (1973). Conversations with Chester I. Barnard. (pp. 5-171). New York: Cornell University.
Wolf, W. (1974). The Basic Barnard: An Introduction to Chester I. Barnard and His Theories of Organization and Management. (pp. 7). New
York: ILR Press.
Wren, D. & Bedeian, A. (2009). The Evolution of Management Thought. (pp. 322 - 330). John Wiley & Sons.
Wren, D. (2005). The History of Management Thought. (pp. 150 -220). John Wiley & Sons
