Coordination as the essence of management

What the definition in the question says

The definition in the question is McFarland's: an executive builds an orderly pattern of group effort among subordinates and secures unity of action in pursuit of a common purpose. Three ideas sit in it. First, coordination is about group effort: it concerns people whose work depends on one another. Second, it seeks orderly arrangement, meaning that efforts arrive in the right amount, at the right time and in the right sequence. Third, its end is unity of action towards one purpose. In short, coordination is the process by which a manager keeps the work of different departments in step.

The claim that it is the essence of management means that it is not one more task added to planning, organising, staffing, directing and controlling, but the quality that all of them aim at.

Why an organisation cannot do without coordination

The basic reason is interdependence: departments and individuals need information and resources from one another to do their own jobs. Three conditions make this harder.

1. Specialisation. Modern firms employ many specialists, who tend to judge matters only by their own professional standards and resist advice from others, so someone has to reconcile their views.
2. Size. As a firm grows, more people with different habits and backgrounds must be brought to common goals, and individual goals must be harmonised with the organisation's.
3. Division into departments. Departments set their own objectives and policies. Conflicts between them grow when each unit works in isolation and the walls between departments harden. A sales team that promises quick delivery while the factory plans long, economical runs is a familiar case.

Why coordination is not a separate function

The features of coordination show that it runs through the whole of management.

• It is deliberate. A manager has to bring people's efforts together consciously; it does not happen by itself.
• It pervades the organisation. Because departmental activities depend on each other, coordination is needed in every department and at every level.
• It secures unity of action. It binds departments together so that all action serves a common purpose.
• It never stops. It begins at the planning stage and continues until control.
• It integrates group effort. It turns unrelated interests into purposeful work with a common focus.
• It is every manager's job. It is not handed to one officer; every manager in the organisation coordinates.

Coordination inside each function of management

Each managerial function contributes to coordination, and coordination is built into all of them. The process starts with planning, when top management plans for the whole organisation; the structure is then built and staffed to match the plans; directing makes sure the plans are carried out; and controlling deals with any gap between planned and actual results. In practice a manager can rarely perform these functions in isolation, because they overlap and it is hard to see where one ends and the next begins. Coordination is the force that binds them; like a thread in a garland, it is part of every function. The systems view says the same: a business is made of sub-systems such as production, finance, marketing and personnel, and the whole succeeds only if they work in close coordination.

Coordination at every level

Each level of management coordinates in its own way. Top managers coordinate with their subordinates so that overall policies are carried out, middle managers coordinate upward with top management and downward with first-line managers, and operational managers coordinate the work of their workers so that it goes to plan. Integrating diverse elements and coordinating departments is described as the basic task of top management.

Coordination and cooperation

The two are related but not the same. Cooperation is the willingness of members to work together; coordination is the manager's deliberate effort that gives that willingness a direction. Cooperation without coordination can waste effort, while coordination without cooperation can leave employees dissatisfied. So each side has its part: the members supply willing effort, and the manager arranges it so that it adds up to one result.

Applying this to the case of a school-uniform order

Take a Surat garment firm that has won orders to supply uniforms to forty schools before the April session.

• Planning. In November the managing partner fixes sizes, quantities and dispatch dates school by school. The purchase team must book fabric in the exact shades each school has approved, because cutting cannot begin without it.
• Organising and staffing. Cutting, stitching and finishing lines are assigned their share, and temporary tailors are hired for the peak. If finishing is short of hands, stitched garments wait in heaps and every later date slips.
• Directing. Line supervisors explain the targets and keep the tailors motivated, while the sales staff are told which schools will receive stock first so that they promise only what the plant can deliver.
• Controlling. A daily count of finished pieces is matched against the schedule; when one school's order lags, two tailors are moved from a line that is ahead.

Every department may be working hard and the order can still fail: a salesperson who promises a school March delivery without checking the stitching load, or a buyer who accepts a cheaper fabric in the wrong shade, breaks the chain. The partner's real task is to keep these efforts in step, which is exactly what the definition calls an orderly pattern of group effort and unity of action.

Conclusion

Coordination is not a sixth function of management but its essence. It turns the separate efforts of specialists, departments and levels into a single, timely pattern of action, and every function, from planning to control, is a way of achieving it. McFarland's definition captures exactly this: management succeeds when group effort is orderly and united behind a common purpose.