Henri Fayol: Lasting Impact Management and the means of organizing people and allocating human resources has a long past ranging from Confucius in China to Aristole in ancient Greece (Stanley, 2012). However, as the industrial revolution emerged and the manner in which most workers were employed developed from primarily self-employment agrarian work to primarily employment within business organizations industrial work, the need to determine the best means in which to manage individuals within a particular organization also emerged (Moran, Stueart, & Morner, 2013) (McLean, 2001). As organizations become larger and larger, having a solid plan in place and resources to consult in making decisions regarding the handling of employees has gained importance (Moran et al, 2013). As these changes took place, management theorists began to emerge with varying theories based on their experience within organizations and thus began the attempt to study and develop the best approach to management (Moran et al, 2013). Beginning in the late nineteenth century, schools of management thought began to emerge; the major schools of management thought include: the classical perspective, the humanistic approach, the quantitative perspective, the systems approach, contingency management and learning organizations (Moran et al, 2013). Despite being involved in the earliest of the major schools of management thought, Henri Fayol s management theory remains relevant and applicable to this day. The Background and Development of Fayolism Within the classical perspectives of management theory falls management theorist and French industrialist Henri Fayol (Moran et al, 2013) (The Economist, 2009). Fayol s contribution is often glanced over quickly in discussion of management, especially in comparison to his contemporary Frederick Taylor, but its importance and influence is quite important (Crainer,
2003) (Brunsson, 2008). Fayol worked as a manager a large French mining conglomerate and used his experiences in management to develop his management theory the administrative principles school of management (The Economist, 2009) (McLean, 2011). Being French potentially explains some of the passing over Fayol s contributions receive in light of the dominance that Americans and Englishmen have in the field of management (Crainer, 2003). Crainer (2003) also notes that [t]he French have proved to be remarkably immune to the popularization of the modern management model... they have pursued a doggedly independent course (p. 42). Interestingly, much of Fayol s work remained secluded within France until after his death and the translation of his work General and Industrial Management into English (The Economist, 2009) (Kiechel, 2012). Fayol s management theory is also referred to as Fayolism (The Economist, 2009). The administrative-principles school of thought applied parts of the scientific management method and used it in its aim to establish a conceptual framework, to identify the principles of management, and to build a theory on that basis (Moran et al, 2013, p. 27). Fayol agreed with many points developed in the scientific management methods; however, while the other individuals, such as Frederick W. Taylor, were focusing on the workers as the starting point for management, Fayol s approach placed the focus on administration and the roles of managers (Moran et al, 2013) (The Economist, 2009). Fayolism takes a top-down approach to management, seeing the commonality between organizations and the functions managers of those organizations would perform (Brunsson, 2008). Fayol, importantly, saw management as a discipline of its own, an idea that had not really existed prior to that point (Crainer, 2003). Fayol presented the functions of management: planning, organization, command, coordination, and control and developed a set of fourteen principles of management (Moran et al, 2013, p. 27).
Fayol s functions of management essential indicate that managers should be responsible for the following: 1. Defining what they wanted to accomplish[;] 2. Creating the lines of authority and responsibility along which the orders flow to start the work[;] 3. Issuing the commands by which the entire organization is set in motion[;] 4. Establishing the sequence of the work[; and] 5. Continuously monitoring and correcting the work once it had begun (Brunsson, 2008, p. 34). The coordination portion of Fayol s management functions has metamorphosed into leading over time (Crainer, 2003). Fayol s fourteen principles of management are: 1. Division of work; 2. Authority; 3. Discipline; 4. Unity of command; 5. Unity of direction; 6. Subordination of individual interest to the general interest; 7. Remuneration of personnel; 8. Centralization; 9. Scalar chain; 10. Order; 11. Equity; 12. Stability of tenure of personnel; 13. Initiative; 14. Esprit de corps (Moran et al, 2013, p. 27). These principles included a hierarchical chain of command, a separation of functions, and emphasis on planning and budgeting (Kiechel, 2012, p. 64). The principles reflected what did or should concern managers (Crainer, 2003, p. 42). An emerging focus on order/organization can be seen throughout Fayol s fourteen principles and their explanations not only in the principle of Order, but also in other of the principles including, but not limited to: division of work: clear division of duties discipline: clear rules and complete obedience to behavior in the best interest of the organization unity of command and unity of direction: orders from only one superior and one head and one plan to ensure a coordinated effort
scalar chain: vertical chain of authority with communications running up and down the chain of command (Moran et al, 2013, p. 27). Fayol s principles of remuneration of personnel, equity, stability of tenure of personnel, initiative, and esprit de corps also provide considerations of the workers and their nature (Moran et al, 2013). Those principles provide the need for fairness in pay and treatment of workers; as well as, rewards for production and maintaining a sense of moral among the workers to keep satisfaction levels up (Moran et al, 2007). Fayol s breakdown of management functions has pervaded much of management thinking since its pronouncement (The Economist, 2009). Fayol s management functions and principles found great value because of their general nature and applicability to many different types of business and organizations (The Economist, 2009) (McLean, 2011). Crainer (2003) noted that Fayol recognized the universality of management. Management was as applicable to a mining company in France to a hospital or to the French postal office. Fayol believed that the framework he provided for management would work appropriately with slight modifications in commercial, political, financial, religious, and military forms (Carter, 1986, p. 455). Fayol also emphasized the need to continuously improve performance and that the mission to improve is a role of management (Watson, 2012). This desire for improvement and the role of managers in achieving that improvement ties into Fayol s credit as being the first advocate of management education (McLean, 2011, p. 32). Fayol believed that management, because of its inevitable relation to life in general, should be taught at all levels from primary to higher education (Carter, 1986) (Crainer, 2003). Fayol believed that because of the unique and distinct function of managerial activities, they were skills that should be taught (Carter, 1986, p. 454) (Breeze & Miner, 1980). Fayol pushed for specific curriculum and argued that areas of
study such as philosophy and literature be given more attention (Carter, 1986). Fayol himself lectured and established a Centre of Administrative Studies (Crainer, 2003). The education and training of individuals relative to management has been very beneficial over time and has greatly impacted management as a profession (Stanley, 2012). Criticisms and Continued Influence of Fayol s Theories In more modern times, Fayol s traditional and closed system approach has received criticism; the modern composition of many organizations (inclusion of professionals and volunteers) and the realization that the outside environment can and does influence organizations, has left individuals promoting a less traditional form of management (Carter, 1986). Additional criticisms include whether the functional approach is the best means of viewing management and that perhaps looking at how a manager does his or her work is the better and more useful approach (Carter, 1986). Despite criticisms, the study and implementation of Fayol s management theory have remained despite the almost century since his death as evidenced by continued use and reference to his work. While most ambitious theories wither on the vines of time and progress, Fayol s remains largely accurate (Crainer, 2003, p. 42). Even in modern times, management schools and consultants continually recommend order in obtaining good management; this is arguably a reflection of Fayol s theories on management and the acceptance of those ideas (Brunsson, 2008). Reinforcing the importance of Fayol s work, Peter Drucker, a management theorist himself, looked to Fayol s work for guidance; stating that works, including Fayol s, laid firm and lasting foundations (Wartzman, 2001). Many of the contemporary theories of management include variations of traditional approaches of command and control (Stanley, 2012, p. 18). Carter (1986) recognized, in rereading Fayol s General and Industrial Management, that not
only does [Fayol s work] have historical context merit, but there is also a surprising timeliness to much of the material (p. 454). Wren (1990) noted that variations of terms Fayol used in writing about management exist for example leading rather than command ; however, the basics and purpose remain despite criticisms to the contrary. Wren (1990), in reviewing a study on real managers and what activities those real managers actually do, looked to link the more than 100 real manager activity descriptors to the management functions/elements of Fayol. Many of the descriptors used fell within Fayol s elements or could be seen reflected in his principles. This linkage, led Wren to conclude that, despite assertions that Fayol did not describe what real managers do, the Real Managers study provides substantial empirical validation of Fayol as his work would appear in modern garb. The labels and terms may have changed but it appears that managerial activities, viewed in this longitudinal perspective are similar in content (1990, p. 140). As discussed by McLean (2011), Fayol s five functions of managers are applicable even to contemporary management. In her 2011 article, McLean was able to correlate each of Fayol s five functions to their use in current times from planning and forecasting in light of globalized economy and competition to coordination s current place within organization, each of Fayol s functions continues to have a place in modern management. Stanley (2012) indicates that [r]esearchers have suggested management is a brand-new social science (p. 18); however, traditional concepts as espoused by Fayol have been incorporated into today s theories. Today s theories, in addition to using traditional management theories, such as Fayol s, also involve the use of multiple disciplines (such as psychology and sociology), which helps advance management in general to meet the needs of the changing world (Stanley, 2012). Likewise,
Watson (2012) discusses the foundation that Fayol s management guidelines and emphasis on improvement through the individual in charge has provided for modern managers. Parker and Ritson (2005) argue that Fayol s theories: embraced a wider spectrum of approaches and concepts than traditionally identified with the classical management school of thought and that in contrast to his traditional portrayal, [their] study uncovers traces of ideas and concepts that anticipated aspects of the human relations movement, systems-based contingency theory, the movement towards greater employee involvement in decision-making and elements of knowledge management (p. 175). Parker and Ritson (2005) indicate that Fayol s own statements and theory reflect a contingency perspective. Carter (1986) indicates that Fayol did not present his principles as rigid and that their fluidity could be considered a precursor to the contingency theory. Parker and Ritson (2005) quote Fayol regarding the approach to organization planning: The plan should be flexible enough to bend before such adjustments, as it is considered well to introduce, whether from the pressure of circumstances or from any other reason (p. 185), and The best plans cannot anticipate all unexpected occurrences which may arise, but does include a place for these events and prepare the weapons which may be needed at the moment of being surprised (p. 186). These statements on Fayol s part reflect his expectation that management be somewhat fluid and able to adapt to outside forces, a thought that is seen as a more modern approach. Despite the fact that Henri Fayol lived and developed his management theory in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the basics of his theory remain relevant to this day. Many researchers relate the basics of Fayol s theory to current management theory, through linking terms or showing relation to current day operations. The functions of management and the
principles outlined by Fayol continue to influence management to this day. Whether realized or not, much of management still involves a foundation in Fayol s principles, perhaps just with a newer, more modern, vocabulary.
References Breeze, J. D., & Miner Jr., F. C. (1980). Henri Fayol: A New Definition of Administration. Academy of Management Proceedings (00650668), 110-113. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.1980.4976160 Brunsson, K. (2008). Some Effects of Fayolism. International Studies of Management & Organization, 38(1), 30-47. doi: 10.2753/IMO0020-8825380102 Carter, N. M. (1986). General and Industrial Management. Academy of Management Review, 11(2), 454-456. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1986.4283873 Crainer, S. (2003). One Hundred Years of Management. Business Strategy Review, 14(2), 41-49. doi: 10.1111/1467-8616.00258 The Economist. (2009). Guru: Henri Fayol. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/ node/13095213 Kiechel III, W. (2012). The Management Century. Harvard Business Review, 90(11), 62-75. Retrieved from EBSCOhost http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/eds/ pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=c3d5be15-f320-4ebf-93dc-68ef5f66f6e6% 40sessionmgr4002&hid=4210 McLean, J. (2011). Fayol Standing the Test of Time. Manager: British Journal of Administrative Management, (74), 32-33. Retrieved from EBSCOhost http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=3f32 725b-de94-4bc1-b5b2-d6800ca9782f%40sessionmgr4003&hid=4210 Moran, B. B., Stueart, R. D., & Morner, C. J. (2013). Library and Information Center Management (8th ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Parker, L. D., & Ritson, P. A. (2005). Revisiting Fayol: Anticipating Contemporary Melissa Foss Management. British Journal of Management, 16(3), 175-194. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00453.x Stanley, T. L. (2012). Management: A Journey in Progress. Supervision, 73(8), 18-21. Retrieved from EBSCOhost http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/eds/ pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=c892d94d-f3f5-4ced-8ad3-098a12b86f9d% 40sessionmgr198&hid=115 Wartzman, R. (2011). Summer Reading: Five Management Classics. BusinessWeek.com, 4. Retrieved from EBSCOhost http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/eds/ detail?vid=2&sid=07c1bcfa-a778-4788-ba3d-093b8676ef67%40sessionmgr110&hid= 115&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=buh&AN=61965271 Watson, G. H. (2012). A Comprehensive Approach to Quality Aims at Inclusive Growth. The Journal for Quality & Participation, 34(4), 16-20. Retrieved from EBSCOhost http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=b87 b7175-4c1d-4c8d-8266-682297853431%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4210 Wren, D. A. (1990). Was Henri Fayol a Real Manager? Academy Of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 138-142. doi:10.5465/ambpp.1990.4978276