The author has some interesting perspectives. For instance,
he defines persuasion as:
" a-the creation of coercive conditions b) rationalization
of opportunity c) the inculcation of motives."
The work could delve more into the dynamics of the corporate
culture, goal incongruencies and random events which interfere
with even the most carefully construed goals and plans
of implementation.
This work could be a helpful research for a thesis or major
paper in organizational structure/design or the dynamics of
organizational behavior/psychology.
Unfortunately, therein lies the flaw with this book. Trying to define everything in the universe regarding the roles, purpose, fundamentals, morality, psychology, etc. of the individual, the organisation, and the executive in 296 pages of content is not only adventurous but naive. As a result the content does not have much of a sense of purpose, with no real goal achieved at the end of it. The scattergun approach used in this book makes it a tiresome and belaboring read.
The title of the book is totally misleading. I suggest a new apt (boring) title for this book : "Philosophies of Organisation and Executives' Roles in Them".
For MUCH more RELEVANT reading, I suggest the likes of Drucker and Schein for their often excellent content.
I can see how his predecessors as Taylor, Mayo and Fayol influenced him, and I can understand them and value their work much better now. This relation is evident to me, when I remember having criticized Fayol for his "should be" executive. However; I can see clearly now, through Barnard's description of the decision process as a moral activity more than intellectual which helps me perceive Fayol's meaning. This is obvious if one considers the executive process as a balance, more than a technique, seen by its outputs. On the other hand, Barnard's concept of efficiency, considering the distribution of a surplus, whether economic or not, is somehow similar to Mayo's search in his book. The quest for reasons to describe the industrial process is Mayo's passion, which I can clearly identify now with Barnard's efficiency. The same search would apply to Taylor's, though with a different approach.
As far as methodology is concerned, although I enjoyed reading his book, his model is by no means simply stated. Maybe because he wanted to prove his academic virtues he explained his theory as complicated as he could. Keeping academic rigor, it could have been presented more concisely. Particularly, when the lasts chapters, being the core of his theory, are presented after extensive analysis and descriptions of variables. Besides, he has to summarize his ideas at the end of the main chapters; it must have been because he had at least a reasonable doubt of the reader's comprehension. On the other hand his endless classifications of the different categories turns to be confusing and misleading. Nevertheless: he describes from a scientific point of view the organization, concept that had been neglected before, and does it from a practitioner's point of view. By doing this he makes a big contribution to management, not only defining business organization but also from a broader scope.
I was very impressed by his description of the executive in the cooperative process, whose main function towards it, is the maintenance of communication, being the correct persons in the correct position. When describing his function Barnard also states the formulation of purpose as well as the securing the essential services for individuals. By holding at the same time technical abilities as well as general abilities, having to be the latter higher as higher the position is. The executive functions also include the ability to foresee the probable changes in the environment, restating the porpouse, guiding its flow trough the organization.
It is also fascinating how one can link the nature of executive's responsibility, which is moral, based on codes that each human being has. With the source of authority which is not based on coercion but on acceptance of the purpouses and hence the obedience. Authority positions will not last if they are not based in the character of communication by virtue of which contributors accept it. In the same way the non-existence of codes will result in denial of authority in the organization. Moreover, he says the creative aspect of the executive function is the highest exemplification of responsibility. The identification of moral codes and the organization code in the view of the leader carries conviction to the personnel, trough the formal as well as the informal organizations. This is a key issue for a leader to articulate a system of cooperation trough his functions.