One of the earliest models of management said that it consisted of "planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, controlling" (Henri Fayol, 1916). In the light of subsequent research and the changing nature of organizations, how adequate is Fayol's vie

Authors Avatar

One of the earliest models of management said that it consisted of “planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, controlling” (Henri Fayol, 1916). In the light of subsequent research and the changing nature of organizations, how adequate is Fayol’s view of management?

Along with the changing nature of organizations, management needs have adapted over time.  Ideas about management, having been reduced down to models and general principles, have developed and evolved over centuries.  The field of management has witnessed pioneers such as Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol, more of whom I will explore in further detail.

In the early twentieth century, Taylor published his notion of SM (scientific management); a principle whereby the optimal way to manage an organization is “according to a science of management based upon the principles of standardization of time and routinization of motion as decided by authoritative experts”. (Clegg et al 2008, p. 458)  The outcome of this was on the whole very successful.  There was a huge increase in productivity and efficiency, as well as it enabling the managers to have greater control and status.  However, there were disadvantages associated with SM including resistance, such as strikes and sabotages, which ultimately disrupted production.  From the point of view of the workforce, the greatest negative was the effect of dehumanization.  I will not go into any further depth on SM but will refer to it for comparisons to Fayol’s work.

At a similar period, a French management theorist by the name Henri Fayol developed a different approach to management; principles based on authority rather than entities (people).  Initially when it was published in Administration Industrielle et Générale in 1916, his work was not seen to be groundbreaking.   Also, as it was nearly thirty years before his work was translated into English, his ideas took a while before they traveled across the Atlantic and the rest of the world.  In his work, Fayol asks the question, ”Are they (his principles) to have a place in the management code which is to be built up?” (Fayol 1949, p. 41)  In this essay, I am going to attempt to answer this question, supporting my answer with qualitative research.

Fayol believed that management should involve training the people who are high in the organizational hierarchy rather than it being just about improving efficiency and output.  Rationality does not exist without training.  This includes “planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling.” (Clegg et al 2008, Fayol 1949)  In contrast to Taylor’s four principles, Fayol produced fourteen principles in a manual-like form for proper management.  Since the twentieth century, organizations have developed in terms of operations and structure, to name just a few examples, and as a result, managers have to adapt their function/role.  Nevertheless, I believe that the five components that Fayol identified are fundamentally embedded in their role in today’s society.

Join now!

However, there are limitations to his view.  An important note to remember is that, as parts III and IV were never published, his work was incomplete.  Also, in contrast to modern management, Fayol’s view failed to recognize self-management within an organization:

“I have attempted to set a numerical value to the relative importance of each ability (managerial, technical, commercial, financial, security, accounting) in the evaluation of employees and heads of businesses… In businesses of all kinds the essential ability of the lower ranks is the technical ability characteristic of the business and the essential ability of the higher ...

This is a preview of the whole essay