Fayolism

Fayolism was a theory of management that analyzed and synthesized the

role of management in organizations, developed around 1900 by the French
management theorist Henri Fayol (1841–1925). It was through Fayol's work
as a philosopher of administration that he contributed most widely to the
theory and practice of organizational management.

Research and Teaching of

Management
Fayol believed by focusing on managerial
practices he could minimize misunderstandings
and increase efficiency in organizations.[1] He
enlightened managers on how to accomplish
their managerial duties, and the practices in
which they should engage. In his book General
and Industrial Management (published in
French in 1916, then published in English in
1949), Fayol outlined his theory of general
management, which he believed could be applied to the administration of
myriad industries. His concern was with the administrative apparatus (or
functions of administration), and to that end he presented his administrative
theory, that is, principles and elements of management.

His theories and ideas were ideally a result of his environment—a post
revolutionized France with an emerging republic bourgeois. A bourgeois
himself, he believed in controlling workers to achieve greater productivity
over all other managerial considerations. However, through reading General
and Industrial Management, it is apparent that Fayol advocated a flexible
approach to management, one he believed could be applied to any
circumstance whether in the home, the workplace, or within the state. He
stressed the importance and the practice of forecasting and planning in order
to apply these ideas and techniques, which demonstrated his ability and
emphasis in being able to adapt to any sort of situation. In General and
Industrial Management he outlines an agenda whereby, under an accepted
theory of management, every citizen is exposed and taught some form of
management education and allowed to exercise management abilities first at
school and later on in the workplace.

Everyone needs some concepts of management; in the home, in affairs of

state, the need for managerial ability is in keeping with the importance of
the undertaking, and for individual people the need is everywhere in
greater accordance with the position occupied.

— excerpt from General and Industrial Management

Fayol vs. Frederick Taylor's Scientific

Management
Fayol has been regarded by many as the father of the modern operational
management theory, and his ideas have become a fundamental part of
modern management concepts. Fayol is often compared to Frederick
Winslow Taylor who developed Scientific Management. Taylor's Scientific
Management deals with the efficient organization of production in the
context of a competitive enterprise that is concerned with controlling its
production costs.[2] Taylor's system of scientific management is the
cornerstone of classical theory. Fayol was also a classical theorist, and
referred to Taylor in his writing and considered him a visionary and pioneer
in the management of organizations.

However, Fayol differed from Taylor in his focus. Taylor's main focus was on
the task, whereas Fayol was more concerned with management. Another
difference between the two theorists is their treatment of workers. Fayol
appears to have slightly more respect for the worker than Taylor had, as
evidenced by Fayol's proclamation that workers may indeed be motivated by
more than just money. Fayol also argued for equity in the treatment of
workers.

According to Claude George (1968), a primary difference between Fayol and

Taylor was that Taylor viewed management processes from the bottom up,
while Fayol viewed it from the top down. In Fayol's book General and
Industrial Management, Fayol wrote that

Taylor's approach differs from the one we have outlined in that he

examines the firm from the bottom up. He starts with the most elemental
units of activity—the workers' actions—then studies the effects of their
actions on productivity, devises new methods for making them more
efficient, and applies what he learns at lower levels to the hierarchy...

— Fayol, 1987, p. 43

He suggests that Taylor has staff analysts and advisors working with
individuals at lower levels of the organization to identify the ways to improve
efficiency. According to Fayol, the approach results in a "negation of the
principle of unity of command". Fayol criticized Taylor’s functional
management in this way.

… the most marked outward characteristics of functional management lies

in the fact that each workman, instead of coming in direct contact with the
management at one point only, … receives his daily orders and help from
eight different bosses…

— Fayol, 1949, p. 68.

Those eight, Fayol said, were

1. route clerks,
2. instruction card men
3. cost and time clerks
4. gang bosses
 5. speed bosses
6. inspectors
7. repair bosses, and the
8. shop disciplinarian (p. 68).

This, he said, was an unworkable situation, and that Taylor must have
somehow reconciled the dichotomy in some way not described in Taylor's
works.

Fayol's desire for teaching a generalized theory of management stemmed

from the belief that each individual of an organization at one point or another
takes on duties that involve managerial decisions. Unlike Taylor, however,
who believed management activity was the exclusive duty of an organizations
dominant class. Fayol's approach was more in sync with his idea of Authority,
which stated, "...that the right to give orders should not be considered
without the acceptance and understanding of responsibility."

Noted as one of the early fathers of the Human Relations movements, Fayol
expressed ideas and practices different from Taylor, in that they showed
flexibility and adaptation, and stressed the importance of interpersonal
interaction among employees.

Fayol's Principles of Management

During the early 20th century, Fayol developed 14 principles of management

to help managers manage their affairs more effectively. Organizations in
technologically advanced countries interpret these principles quite differently
from the way they were interpreted during Fayol's time as well. These
differences in interpretation are in part a result of the cultural challenges
managers face when implementing this framework. The fourteen principles
are:

1. Division of work,
2. Delegation of authority,
 3. Discipline,
4. Unity of commands,
5. Unity of direction,
6. Interrelation between individual interests and common organizational
goals,
7. Compensation package,
8. Centralization,
9. Scalar chains,
10. Order,
11. Equity,
12. Job guarantee,
13. Initiatives,
14. Team-Spirit or Esprit de corps.

Fayol's Elements (or functions) of Management

Within his theory, Fayol outlined five elements of management that depict
the kinds of behaviors managers should engage in so that the goals and
objectives of an organization are effectively met. The five elements of
management are:

1. Planning: creating a plan of action for the future, determining the stages
of the plan and the technology necessary to implement it. Deciding in
advance what to do, how to do it, when to do it, and who should do it. It
maps the path from where the organization is to where it wants to be.
The planning function involves establishing goals and arranging them in
a logical order. Administrators engage in both short-range and long-
range planning.
2. Organizing: Once a plan of action is designed, managers need to provide
everything necessary to carry it out; including raw materials, tools,
capital and human resources. Identifying responsibilities, grouping them
into departments or divisions, and specifying organizational
relationships.
 3. Command: Managers need to implement the plan. They must have an
understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their personnel.
Leading people in a manner that achieves the goals of the organization
requires proper allocation of resources and an effective support system.
Directing requires exceptional interpersonal skills and the ability to
motivate people. One of the crucial issues in directing is the correct
balance between staff needs and production.
4. Coordination: High-level managers must work to "harmonize" all the
activities to facilitate organizational success. Communication is the
prime coordinating mechanism. Synchronizes the elements of the
organization and must take into account delegation of authority and
responsibility and span of control within units.
5. Control: The final element of management involves the comparison of
the activities of the personnel to the plan of action, it is the evaluation
component of management. Monitoring function that evaluates quality
in all areas and detects potential or actual deviations from the
organization's plan, ensuring high-quality performance and satisfactory
results while maintaining an orderly and problem-free environment.
Controlling includes information management, measurement of
performance, and institution of corrective actions.

Effects of Written Communication

Fayol believed that animosity and unease within the workplace occurred
among employees in different departments.[3] Many of these
"misunderstandings" were thought to be caused by improper communication,
mainly through letters (or in present-day emails). Among scholars of
organizational communication and psychology, letters were perceived to
induce or solidify a hierarchical structure within the organization. Through
this type of vertical communication, many individuals gained a false feeling of
importance. Furthermore, it gave way to selfish thinking and eventual conflict
among employees in the workplace.
This concept was expressed in Fayol's book, General and Industrial
Management, by stating," in some firms... employees in neighboring
departments with numerous points of contact, or even employees within a
department, who could quite easily meet, communicate with each other in
writing... there is to be observed a certain amount of animosity prevailing
between different departments or different employees within a department.
The system of written communication usually brings this result. There is a
way of putting an end to this deplorable system ... and that is to forbid all
communication in writing which could easily and advantageously be replaced
by verbal ones."

Administrative Theory in the Modern

Workplace
Fayol believed that managerial practices were key to predictability and
efficiency in organizations. The Administrative theory views communication
as a necessary ingredient to successful management and many of Fayol's
practices are still alive in today's workplace.[4] The elements and principles of
management can be found in modern organizations in several ways: as
accepted practices in some industries, as revamped versions of the original
principles or elements, or as remnants of the organization's history to which
alternative practices and philosophies are being offered. The U.S. military is a
prime example of an organization that has continued to use these principles.

References
Further reading
Breeze, John D., and Frederick C. Miner. "Henri Fayol: A New Definition
of" Administration"." Academy of Management Proceedings. Vol. 1980.
No. 1. Academy of Management, 1980.
Fayol, Henri, and John Adair Coubrough. Industrial and general
administration. (1930).
Fayol, Henri. General and industrial management. (1954).
Fayol, Henri. General Principles of Management. (1976).
Modaff, Daniel P., Sue DeWine, and Jennifer A. Butler. Organizational
communication: Foundations, challenges, and misunderstandings.
Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, 2008.
Pearson, Norman M. "Fayolism as the necessary complement of
Taylorism." American Political Science Review 39.01 (1945): 68-80.
Parker, Lee D., and Philip A. Ritson. "Revisiting Fayol: anticipating
contemporary management." British Journal of Management 16.3
(2005): 175-194.
Pugh, Derek S. "Modern organization theory: A psychological and
sociological study." Psychological Bulletin 66.4 (1966): 235.
Reid, Donald. "The genesis of fayolism." Sociologie du travail 28.1
(1986): 75-93.
Carl A Rodrigues. (2001). "Fayol's 14 principles of management then and
now: A framework for managing today's organizations effectively."
Management Decision, 39(10), 880-889.
Wren, Daniel A. "Was Henri Fayol a Real Manager?." Academy of
Management Proceedings. Vol. 1990. No. 1. Academy of Management,
1990.