This paper reviews Richard Farson's Management of the Absurd (1997), which argues that effective leadership depends on recognizing and embracing paradox rather than applying rigid, formulaic techniques. Farson challenges conventional management wisdom by presenting counterintuitive principles — such as the idea that increased communication can reduce actual organizational effectiveness — and advocates for intuitive, human-centered leadership. The review examines Farson's core arguments, their relevance to industries like healthcare, and the broader case he makes for trusting individual judgment over standardized protocols.
The paper uses embedded quotation effectively: rather than simply paraphrasing, it quotes Farson's memorable slogans — "the more we communicate, the less we communicate" and "once you find a management technique that works, give it up" — and then unpacks their meaning in the reviewer's own words. This technique shows command of the source material while keeping the analysis grounded in textual evidence.
The review opens with a framing introduction that situates Farson's book against conventional management writing. A middle section works through two specific paradoxes with explanation and implication. The final paragraph broadens the argument to applied contexts (healthcare, bureaucratic workplaces) and closes with a measured evaluation of the book's contribution. The structure is compact and logically sequential, appropriate for a short review format.
Farson, Richard. Management of the Absurd. With a foreword by Michael Crichton. New York, 1997.
In his book, provocatively entitled Management of the Absurd, Richard Farson attempts to demonstrate that management is often a deceptively simple science, despite attempts by other business gurus to state otherwise and render the meaning of leadership into complex formulas and intricately worded principles. Intriguingly, Farson structures his book upon what he defines as paradoxes of leadership that are present within any organization, dealing with emotional rather than rational aspects of organizational behavior.
Some of these insights take the form of slogans, such as "the more we communicate, the less we communicate." By this, Farson means that quite often, the more an organization is structured to lead by formulized talking — through a constant resort to the protocol of committee meetings and the re-hearing of differences — the less gets done in actual, practical terms. Rather than effective managers constantly policing employees through the use of red tape and bureaucracy, effective managers delegate authority with an ear and an eye to human differences, rather than human standardization.
This embracing of paradox is perhaps best illustrated by Farson's recommendation that "once you find a management technique that works, give it up." There is no single "technique" for Farson; rather, there is only the situational understanding of paradoxes inherent within any management structure and the individuals who make up that structure.
In some ways this may seem like stating the obvious. Farson stresses the intuitive need to listen to one's own judgment of one's colleagues and subordinates, rather than obeying precepts. But in the face of the increasing standardization of protocols in most office workplaces, it is an important reminder of the necessity for trusting one's own judgment and appreciating paradox and absurdity in both the human and the managerial condition.
You’re 75% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.