False Prophets: The Gurus Who Created Modern Management And Why Their Ideas Are Bad For Business Today

This is not your average textbook! I read it for a doctorate level course. Considering the state of he post 2008 global economy, this book sheds light on the dark side of management theory. It was truly eye-opening. It provides great fodder for skeptics!

The book was received 2-3 weeks late. I ordered 1 book, but I received 3 books and was charged for them. They are late for this class, and now I have to send 2 books back for a refund.

Edmund Burke wrote that 'coarse distinctions' are the foe of good judgement. James Hoopes' writing here is no enemy of good judgement. He makes clear ethical distinctions about the moral content of rule by managers and political rule by the people. In the early days of management writing in the slave south - one of the historical highlights of this book - such distinctions would have been commonplace. But in our day, with the spirit of Humpty Dumpty governing the use of language in business, academia and politics, Mr Hoopes' assertion that management is un-American is bold iconoclasm. But Mr Hoopes is no Seattle street fighter. Showing the moral difference between free government and management is only one part of his project. He knows that not everything democratic is good; and not everything good is democratic. Mr Hoopes praises management for its many achievements in the sphere of business organisation and defends it against those 'false prophets' who attempted to give it democratic legitimacy. Management is legitimate because in its rightful place, the business world, management achieves what businesses need and what society needs business to provide: profit, productivity, workplace order, efficiency, speed and flexibility. Outside of that sphere, however, management is bad. Applying 'industrial best practice' to free government is to fetter the people. So, Mr Hoopes argues, let us weigh the worth of management and free government on different moral scales and never get them confused. Though he never makes the analogy himself, Mr Hoopes is arguing for a similar distinction we already make with judicial courts and military structures. Neither of those are democratic either, though both are useful and good and enable the larger democratic project to continue. Therefore, we explicitly confine their undemocratic powers to discrete areas and maintain those boundaries forcefully. And the members of the judiciary and military support them too. It is not legal prohibitions that ultimately prevent generals from taking over government: it is because they have internalised the doctrine of civilian control of the military. Businessmen and gurus and all of us must do the same for business, Mr Hoopes seems to say. If business cannot itself be run democratically and government regulation is too prone to failure, such an attitude is probably the only sustainable way we can defend free government from 'industrial best practice'. My one wish is that Mr Hoopes made a longer, more detailed argument about 'how top-down power increased American productivity' (the title of part 1). He shows the clear improvements Taylor ('the demon') and Gantt made in their time. But he doesn't reflect on how they are still applicable now in the age of the long-tail and internet; nor how they have been applied to, say, agriculture or the service sector in our day (Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser is good here, but of course doesn't have the same focus as

Effectiveness and Freedom as Seen from the Historical Eyes of Business Experts Hoopes makes a very strong argument that processes of business efficiency can never have a legitimate place in spheres where freedom rules. Hoopes also makes the counterpoint that freedom has no real place in business. From a business perspective, Taylor's work is shown to actually be effective, Peter Druker is shown to have deserved much of his acclaim, and Mary Parker Follett is clearly made out to be a saint. In the 8 figures written up, the only truly bad apple was Elton Mayo. From a political perspective, all 8 figures (Talyor, Gilbreths, Gantt, Follett, Mayo, Barnard, Deming, and Drucker) are shown to have wished or tried or even to some extent succeeded in applying their ideas beyond the bounds of business and into government itself. In one area of influence, business gurus; in the other, false prophets. One huge problem with this book is that the author never makes a case that supports end part of the book's subtitle "bad for business today." The author does make a compelling case for why these gurus' ideas are bad for GOVERNMENT today, but not for business. (Were it not such a great book in every other regard, I would have given it 4 star.)

Hoopes does an very good job deconstructing the neo-managment concept of a democratic workplace, contrasting it with the juxtaposition of top-down power in an ostensibly democratic society. If one believes that the US is a democratic society (it's not, it's a republic), then one might take umbrage with his not novel revelation that the workplace functions best in a top-down style. Americans, in particular unionized America, has a big problem accepting this. His examples support this, but further, add light to the discussion that top-down power must be mitigated to some degree (the adage of absolute power corrupting withstanding). After reading his book I beleive that top-down power within a workplace that changes its policies as needed based on the demands and needs of the workers while fulfilling its fiduciary responsibilities, is the best mix for success: keep you eye on why the institution exists (profit and/or service), but take care of your workers to accomplish your goals, and yes, management is in charge... This book helps illuminate how we got where we are, without burying the reader.