Acceptance Theory of Authority:

This theory was formulated by Mary Parker Follett but later popularized by Chester Barnard. It is also
known as bottom-up authority. It is based on the premise that authority does not flow from top to
bottom but flows from bottom to top. It implies that superiors can exercise authority only if it is
accepted by the subordinates.

The acceptance of authority by subordinates, thus, vests management with authority. The flow of
authority takes the form of request by top managers. If this request is accepted by subordinates,
managers exercise the authority, and if subordinates do not accept it, no authority is exercised by
managers.

As against classical authority, Barnard viewed authority as existent when subordinates are willing to
accept it. If employees do not accept the authority, manager loses the right to give orders.

“Authority is the character of a communication (order) in a formal organisation by virtue of which it is

accepted by a contributor to or a member of the organisation as governing … or determining what he
does or is not to do so far as the organisation is concerned”

— Chester Barnard.

This theory recognises informal relationships in the organisation. Managers have authority only to the
extent that subordinates are willing to accept. The theory provides logical base to authority because
formal authority is meaningless if subordinates do not conform to directions.

Though employees implicitly accept authority of superiors at the time of taking the job in return for
monetary rewards, this authority does not cover all the directives issued from the top. They accept
directives (authority) within the range of acceptance. Chester Barnard calls it a “zone of indifference”.
Herbert A. Simon calls it “area of acceptance”.

It means that authority is accepted if it is in the range of acceptance. It is the area or limits set by
individuals within which they accept the authority of superiors over them. Outside this ‘area of
acceptance’, superiors have to command acceptance of authority. By accepting authority, subordinates
enable the order or directives-issuing managers to possess the requisite authority.
“An individual will accept an exercise of authority if the advantages accruing to him from accepting plus
the disadvantages accruing to him from not accepting exceed the advantages accruing to him from not
accepting plus the disadvantages accruing to him from accepting; and conversely, he will not accept an
exercise of authority if the latter factors exceed the former.”

Individuals set limits within which they accept the authority.

These are:

(a) Actions which are unacceptable and, therefore, not carried out by them,

(b) Actions that are both acceptable or unacceptable. They are the borderline cases, and

(c) Actions which are acceptable and, therefore, carried out by them. These actions lie in the zone of
indifference and, thus, managers can issue orders with respect to these actions.

A person accepts authority if, according to Chester Barnard, four conditions are satisfied.

These are:

(a) He fully understands the communication,

(b) At the time of decision, he believes it is consistent with the objectives of the organisation,

(c) At the time of decision, he also believes that it is consistent with his personal objectives, and

(d) He is physically and mentally adjusted to the communication i.e., he agrees to accept the
communication.

The fewer of these 4 conditions that are present, the lower the probability that authority will be
accepted and obedience be exacted.

Barnard offers the following guidance on what managers can do so that their commands will be
accepted and obeyed.

He maintains that manager’s commands will be accepted over the long term if:

1. The manager uses formal channels of communication and these are familiar to all organisational
members.

2. Each organisational member has an assigned formal communication channel through which orders are
received.

3. The line of communication between manager and subordinate is as direct as possible.

4. The complete chain of command is used to issue orders.

5. The manager possesses adequate communication skills.

6. The manager uses formal communication lines only for organisational business.

7. A command is authenticated as coming from a manager.

The acceptance theory of authority can be illustrated as follows:

Acceptance Theory of Authority

Every person has a different zone of indifference. Same directives may or may not be acceptable to
different subordinates. The size of this zone depends upon how much a person benefits from acceptance
of the authority and how much he loses by not accepting the authority.

People at lower levels usually have a small zone of indifference as they are induced to accept most of the
directions coming from the superiors. This zone is, however, wide for those at higher levels as they are
more into policy making than implementation. Thus, the zone of indifference widens as one moves from
lower levels to higher levels.

The classical and acceptance theories of authority, thus, deal with same aspects of management (issuing
orders to get the work done) but in different ways.

Following are the basic points of difference between the two:

Classical Theory of Authority:

1. It is normative in nature. It describes the norms that managers follow in issuing directions.

2. It relates to role prescription, that is, formal roles to be performed by managers.

3. Role behaviour (role of employees) more or less matches role prescription (role of superiors).

Acceptance Theory of Authority:

1. It is descriptive in nature. It describes how managers actually exercise authority over subordinates.

2. It relates to role behaviour, that is, actual behaviour of subordinates towards the roles prescribed for
managers.

3. Role behaviour may or may not match role prescription depending upon employees’ zone of
indifference.

3. Authority Theory of the Situation:

This theory applies to situations of crisis or emergency where immediate action is to be taken. The
person present at the emergent situation exercises authority to deal with the situation, though it is not
formally delegated through the chain of command.

For example, if there is fire or accident in a factory, workers present at the site can immediately use the
alarm bell to sound the organisation of the emergency or call fire/ ambulance services. Thus, without
having formal authority to use the alarm bell, the worker uses it as authority of the situation.

4. Competence Theory of Authority:

This theory is derived by virtue of competence, skill and knowledge of a person and not position. People
from all departments at all levels approach the person who has competence authority disregarding the
official chain of command. Despite not having formal authority, these persons issue orders or directives
by virtue of their skill to do so. The theory accepts informal relations in the organisation.
For example, middle-level manager of production department has knowledge of tax related matters.
People with problems on tax from all departments and levels will approach him for advice irrespective of
their official positions. Personal qualities, like social or technical competence are the basis of authority.