MacGregor proposed more than thirty years ago that this form of management that was dominant in premodern times is no longer appropriate in modern organizations. In making this point, he tended to overlook the more positive aspects of the paternalism that is associated with premodern management. An employer (usually the head of a family) is expected to take care of his or her employees much as this person takes care of other family members (spouse, children, elderly parents, members of the extended family). We still find evidence of this orientation in many businesses that were started in nonwestern countries. I recently worked, for instance, with a company that was owned by a man who had migrated from Asia fifteen years ago. He would have been offended if anyone asked him to lay off an employee—for he considered each member of his firm to be a member of his family. He often spoke of his employees as nieces and nephews, even though there were no formal family ties. A similar commitment is, of course, now legendary in many Chinese and Japanese firms.
Men of Charity
In the premodern era of Western Civilization, as in contemporary Chinese and Japanese cultures, one was expected to take care of those who were less fortunate. This commitment can be attributed in large part to the Catholic Church’s emphasis on good works as a primary criterion of the good life and as a means to obtain salvation and eternal life in heaven. Successful members of society were expected to donate money to the poor and various charitable organizations (usually associated with the church), and were to be available on specific days of the year (often holidays) to give conspicuous attention to those who were less fortunate. While these forms of charity helped to preserve class distinctions and preserved highly conservative and repressive forms of government, they also encouraged the growth of community and the interaction among all segments of society. With the modern day emphasis on public funds and public policy to ameliorate the problems of poverty and injustice, the sense of community and contact has broken down—ironically, in the name of greater social justice and equity.
The premodern reliance on institutional life (the church and community) for guidance regarding daily life is still seen in many Eastern European and Asian cultures. It has become unacceptable, however, for most constituencies in the corporate sector of Western society—especially since the Protestant Reformation. Individual initiative and entrepreneurship are prevalent. We do find major remnants of premodern institutional life in contemporary Western (particularly American) societies, however, particularly in the human service sector. Public health agencies, schools and colleges, social activist groups, and hospitals borrow their notions about institutional life and organizational functioning from the Catholic Church. A strong commitment to service in these institutions is coupled with an emphasis on clarity of procedures and lines of authority.
Unlike corporations, which often allow for much more flexibility in institutional form (if this form will yield greater productivity and profit), human service organizations are usually quite resistant to structural or procedural innovations. While bureaucracy is often equated with the emergence of modern day corporations, it is actually much more dominant in not only governmental agencies (its birthplace) but also other nonprofit, human service organizations. Innovative structures (such as matrix organizations) or procedures (such as management by objectives) which have become commonplace or are by this time “old hat” in corporations are still viewed as radical and unacceptable in most human service settings.
