0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
599 visualizzazioni17 pagine
This article argues that Henri Fayol's classical model of management from the early 20th century remains relevant today. It examines contemporary models from scholars like Hales, Kotter, and Mintzberg, and finds that Fayol's five elements of management - planning, organizing, coordinating, commanding, and controlling - are still present, though sometimes indirectly or under different names. The article also argues that Fayol's 14 principles of management allow for flexibility over time. It concludes that Fayol's work has stood the test of time and his elements and principles of management are still valid frameworks for understanding management functions.
Descrizione originale:
Fayol stands the test of time
Titolo originale
Fayol Stands the Test of TimeFayol stands the test of time
This article argues that Henri Fayol's classical model of management from the early 20th century remains relevant today. It examines contemporary models from scholars like Hales, Kotter, and Mintzberg, and finds that Fayol's five elements of management - planning, organizing, coordinating, commanding, and controlling - are still present, though sometimes indirectly or under different names. The article also argues that Fayol's 14 principles of management allow for flexibility over time. It concludes that Fayol's work has stood the test of time and his elements and principles of management are still valid frameworks for understanding management functions.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formati disponibili
Scarica in formato PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
This article argues that Henri Fayol's classical model of management from the early 20th century remains relevant today. It examines contemporary models from scholars like Hales, Kotter, and Mintzberg, and finds that Fayol's five elements of management - planning, organizing, coordinating, commanding, and controlling - are still present, though sometimes indirectly or under different names. The article also argues that Fayol's 14 principles of management allow for flexibility over time. It concludes that Fayol's work has stood the test of time and his elements and principles of management are still valid frameworks for understanding management functions.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formati disponibili
Scarica in formato PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
Michael J. Fells Article information: To cite this document: Michael J. Fells, (2000),"Fayol stands the test of time", Journal of Management History (Archive), Vol. 6 Iss: 8 pp. 345 - 360 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552520010359379 Downloaded on: 07-02-2013 References: This document contains references to 15 other documents Citations: This document has been cited by 9 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com This document has been downloaded 15982 times since 2005. * Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: * Michael J. Fells, (2000),"Fayol stands the test of time", Journal of Management History (Archive), Vol. 6 Iss: 8 pp. 345 - 360 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552520010359379 Michael J. Fells, (2000),"Fayol stands the test of time", Journal of Management History (Archive), Vol. 6 Iss: 8 pp. 345 - 360 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552520010359379 Michael J. Fells, (2000),"Fayol stands the test of time", Journal of Management History (Archive), Vol. 6 Iss: 8 pp. 345 - 360 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552520010359379 Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by PRESBYTERIAN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download. Fayol stands the test of time 345 Journal of Management History, Vol. 6 No. 8, 2000, pp. 345-360. # MCB University Press, 1355-252X Fayol stands the test of time Michael J. Fells Hen/ev Managemenl Cc//ege, 5l leler lcrl, (uernsev Keywords Managemenl, Mcde/, l/ann/ng, Organ/./ng, Cccrd/nal/cn Abstract l/ann/ng, crgan/s/ng, ccrd/nal/ng, cmmand/ng and cnlrc///ng lhese are lhe e/emenls c/ managemenl acrd/ng lc Henr/ Iavc/ Less /ncun, /ul nc /ess /mcrlanl, are Iavc/`s r/n//es c/ managemenl Iavc/ uas /crn /n 1841 and d/ed /n 19?o H/s Administration Industrielle et Generale uas u///shed /n Irenh /n 1916 /ul uas ncl lrans/aled /nlc Eng//sh unl// 19?9 Iavc/`s ucr/ /s c/len u///v re/eled e/lher /eause c/ /ls age cr /eause /l /s /e//eted lc hate /een suerseded /v c/sertal/cna/ //nd/ngs Hcueter, Iavc/`s ucr/ uas /ased cn c/sertal/cn Th/s aer cns/ders scme cnlemcrarv mcde/s c/ managemenl (Ha/es, Kcller, M/nl./erg and argues lhal Iavc/`s e/emenls c/ managemenl are ncl re/uled /ul are ralher re/n/cred /v mcre reenl //nd/ngs The aer cn/udes lhal Iavc/`s ucr/ slands lhe lesl c/ l/me The //te e/emenls c/ managemenl and 14 r/n//es c/ managemenl are /r/e//v resenled Introduction Henri Fayol was born in 1841 and died in 1925. After 30 years of an eminently successful career as a practitioner, Fayol devoted the remainder of his life, from 1918 to 1925, to promoting his theory of administration (Fayol, 1949). Fayol was perhaps the first to note the need for management education (Brodie, 1967). His Adm/n/slral/cn lnduslr/e//e el (enera/e was published in French in 1916. No English translation appeared until 1929. In the Foreword to the English translation of 1949 (Fayol, 1949) it is noted that the use of the term ``administration'' in the title of the original English translation is perhaps unfortunate and would have been better termed ``management''. Fayol's work was clearly about management but, the Foreword argues, no such word exists in the French language. Fayol (1949) argued that all industrial undertakings precipitate activities that can be categorised into six groups: technical, commercial, financial, security, accounting and management. Fayol's work focused on the latter category, management. Frederick Taylor (1856-1915) was a contemporary of Fayol. Although Taylor's work is sometimes compared with Fayol's, it is important to realise that the focus of each is quite different. Wren (1994) notes that Fayol's work was overshadowed by Taylor's, even in France. But Fayol always argued that the two works were complementary. Wren observes that Fayol viewed management from the executive perspective while Taylor focused on the other end. For example, the foundation of Taylor's scientific management was time study. Fayol's classical model This section summarises the ``principles'' and ``elements'' propounded by Fayol. These are amplified later (in the section titled ``Acloser look at Fayol's ideas''). JMH 6,8 346 Fayol (1949) enumerated and discussed 14 ``principles'' of management. Specifically, these concerned: (1) division of work; (2) authority and responsibility; (3) discipline; (4) unity of command; (5) unity of direction; (6) subordination of individual interest to the general interest; (7) remuneration; (8) centralisation; (9) span of control; (10) order; (11) equity; (12) stability of tenure of personnel; (13) initiative; and (14) esr/l de crs. Fayol stressed that the actual number of principles was arbitrary and the list non-exhaustive (for example, Brodie, 1967; Fayol, 1949). He asserted that the principles should be flexible and adaptable to every need. Fayol (1949) also identified five ``elements'' or ``processes'' (Gray, 1984) of management, which constituted his ``rules of his administrative doctrine'' (Brodie, 1967). These processes are: (1) l/ann/ng: examining the future and laying out the actions to be taken. (2) Organ/s/ng: laying out lines of authority and responsibility. (3) Cccrd/nal/ng: laying out timing and sequencing of activities; binding and harmonising all. (4) Ccmmand/ng: putting the plan into action. (5) Ccnlrc///ng: monitoring and adjusting; ensuring conformity with rules. According to Fayol, principles should guide the execution of these management processes. The question of currency As intuitively appealing as it may seem, the classical work of Fayol (1949) tends to be quickly rejected by many authors (for example, Kotter, 1982; Mintzberg, 1973). It has also been noted that recognition and incorporation of Fayol's work is no longer widespread in contemporary MBA textbooks (Archer, 1990) as was once thought (Caroll and Gillen, 1987). Fayol stands the test of time 347 However, this researcher believes that the Fayol model is relevant and appropriate to contemporary management. Hales (1986) argues that if the classical theories are viewed as theories of management functions rather than hypotheses of individual management behaviour, then they are neither confirmed nor denied by the later literature. He demonstrated his commitment to this view by expressly including three of Fayol's five elements of management (planning, controlling and directing) into his model (Hales, 1986), based on a literature survey. The other elements, this researcher argues, are no more inapplicable but are included elsewhere in more contemporary models, indirectly, as will be demonstrated herein. Indeed, it would be easy to think that Fayol's model has been rendered ineffective simply by the passage of time. However, Fayol's five ``elements'' of planning, organising, co-ordinating, commanding, and controlling are quite general and therefore may in fact pass the test of time. One could argue that in contemporary times, elements of ``commanding'' are inappropriately unenlightened. Sometimes, ``commanding'' has been translated as ``directing'' often with even more negative connotations. But this all misses the point: the commanding or directing role must be done, however euphemistically or surreptitiously. Fayol did not view ``commanding'' as a dictatorial activity but rather as essentially ``putting the plan into action'' (Gray, 1984). Importantly, Fayol's five elements of management are to be governed by what he termed the ``principles'' of management. The word ``principles'' should not be interpreted too restrictively (Brodie, 1967). Fayol believed that the principles should be flexible and capable of considerable adaptation (Brodie, 1967). This researcher believes that these relatively little known principles (Archer, 1990) afford great flexibility and necessary perspective and are instrumental in preserving the currency of the individual ``elements''. Hales (1986) observed that there are ``striking parallels with the supposedly outdated `classical principles of management''' with respect to more contemporary views. Archer (1990) argues that America should return to the principles. He observes that the US productivity and standard of living levels soared while Fayol's principles were popular, during the 1930s to 1960s. Archer asserts that current related problems in the US include: . quality and productivity; . the large number of business failures; . the poor financial condition of many companies; . the decline of major industries, etc. Archer also argues that much of the Japanese success can be attributed to their adherence to Fayol's principles. He offers examples of Japanese techniques that embody Fayol's principles: JMH 6,8 348 . JIT(just in time) the principle of ``order''; . advanced approaches to assembly-line balancing, quality and production control mechanisms ``division of work''; . quality circles and exercise sessions esr/l de crs; . lower-level decision making the principle of ``initiative''. Some might think that Fayol's theoretical thinking has simply been superseded by actual observation. Indeed, Mintzberg (1989) himself suggests as much when he notes (emphasis added): If you ask managers what they do, they will most likely tell you that they plan, organize, co- ordinate, and control. Then watch what they do. Don't be surprised if you can't relate what you see to those four words. But Fayol's model was based on observation too (Brodie, 1967)! In fact, Fayol stressed the importance of observation. He believed that management laws and principles could be deduced from observation and experience just as they could in other sciences (Brodie, 1967). Still others might think that Fayol's model must be ``wrong'' because it is different from Mintzberg's. Mintzberg's (1973) model is often quoted and the associated underlying study has been successfully replicated although this latter study was more than a replication. Caroll and Gillen (1987) note that management texts seldom include the criticisms of Mintzberg's study, such as Luthans el a/. (1985). One believes that it is therefore safe to say that Mintzberg's model is generally accepted today. But surely the acceptance of Mintzberg's model does not necessarily negate the validity of another if, for example, that other is simply a different view or perspective of the same thing. Contemporary models In order to assess better the current validity of Fayol's work, it is necessary to compare it with more contemporary views. For this purpose, the seminal field research of Mintzberg (1973) and Kotter (1982) will be considered as well as the literature reviewof Hales (1986). Mintzberg (1973) undertook an extensive study of five executives (including four CEOs) at work. Based on this research, Mintzberg developed a different view to Fayol's (Gray, 1984) classical model. He categorises managerial activities into three groups that are then amplified into ten management roles: (1) lnlererscna/: . figurehead; . leader; and . liaison (inside and outside). (2) ln/crmal/cna/: . monitor (of internal and external information); . disseminator (of information); and . spokesman; Fayol stands the test of time 349 (3) De/s/cna/: . entrepreneur (i.e. change agent); . disturbance handler; . resource allocator; and . negotiator. Kotter's observations (1982) led him to agree with Mintzberg that executives' activities do not fit neatly into Fayol's (Gray, 1984) framework of planning, organising, etc. Many others have since seemingly accepted that Fayol's model is unacceptable, in view of the results of contemporary researchers such as Mintzberg, and are relatively quick to reject it (e.g. Rolph and Bartram, 1992; Secretan, 1986). In The (enera/ Managers, Kotter (1982) notes that ``although there is `an enormous amount of literature' on `management', most concern processes or tools, not who managers are, what they do, or why some are more effective than others.'' Kotter's book is based upon his efforts to improve this situation by an extensive study of 15 general managers. Kotter identified significant commonality of behaviour in the managers studied. He describes the following overall job responsibilities: . Long run formulating organisation goals, directions, and priorities including what businesses to be in and howto acquire key resources. . Mediumrun effective resource allocation in terms of long-run goals. . Short run efficient allocation of resources along with some profit responsibility. Hales (1986) reviewed the literature of Mintzberg and Kotter among others. Based on this review, Hales identified common themes and threads of what he terms ``elements of managerial work''. These are: . acting as a figurehead and leader of the organisational unit; . liaison: the formation and maintenance of contacts; . monitoring, filtering and disseminating information; . allocating resources; . handling disturbances and maintaining work flows; . negotiating; . innovating; . planning; and . controlling and directing subordinates. JMH 6,8 350 Where is Fayol's model today? Caroll and Gillen (1987) quote Mintzberg (1973, 1989) and Kotter (1982) in stating that the usefulness of the classical functions has been called into question. Archer (1990) goes further and urges that the US return to the principles. Archer (1990) argues that Fayol's model began to be assaulted by academics in the US in the 1940s. He believes that the assault continued and grew into the 1960s until ``motivational panaceas'' such as needs theory and job enrichment displaced Fayol's principles. Could it be that the 1930s cost-cutting aftermath of the great recession followed by a lack of cost-consciousness during World War II and then the cost-overrun period of defence after World War II undermined the planning and control structure of Fayol's principles? If the enabling structure of Fayol's elements and principles was destroyed then that would surely explain why Mintzberg and Kotter were unable to find themin their studies. Wren (1994) observes that the impact of the great recession on management thought has never been fully examined. However, he does note that, after 1929, Mayo-ists considered economic problems to be social problems. Despite this, Wren suggests that the Constance Storrs translation of Fayol's work after World War II actually led to renewed interest in Fayol. Yet others believe that Fayol's elements and principles remain valid and in use today. Luthans el a/. (1985) studied 52 managers at varying levels (Mintzberg observed five senior managers). They found that traditional management roles were frequently observed, particularly by successful managers at more senior levels. Luthans' el a/ (1985) acknowledge the support that Mintzberg's work has received. However, they cite several studies that identify potentially significant weaknesses with Mintzberg's findings and suggest that the real value of his study is not the ten roles but rather the use of direct observations which provide insights into management behaviour. Their study also found considerable support for Kotter's conclusions but noted that successful managers at top levels devoted more attention to the traditional roles such as planning and co-ordinating. Luthans el a/ (1988) studied 457 managers at various levels and from diverse organisations over a four-year period. They conclude that much of the manager's time is doing what is described as traditional management. This researcher believes that all of the management models discussed, including the classical Fayol model, are legitimate and valid today. Rather than competing, this researcher sees each as simply representing a different view, as suggested by Wren (1994). Fayol versus the contemporary models Caroll and Gillen (1987) concluded that ``the classical functions still represent the most useful way of conceptualizing the manager's job. . .'' and argued that Fayol stands the test of time 351 the more contemporary studies such as Mintzberg's primarily help to clarify the nature of managerial work. They went on to suggest an integration of the work of Stewart, Kotter, Mintzberg, Fayol, and Katz. Although Mintzberg (1973) and Kotter (1982) allude to a rejection of the classical view of planning, organising, co-ordinating, commanding, and controlling advanced by Fayol (Gray, 1984), this researcher also believes that this is not justified, although the manner in which those responsibilities are exercised may be debatable. Wren (1994) provides possibly the best contemporary discussion of the work of Fayol and related activity on management principles. Wren notes that Kotter is actually quite supportive of Fayol and relates Mintzberg's ten roles to the more traditional elements as described by Fayol. Indeed, the views of both Kotter (1982) and Mintzberg (1973) tend to confirm rather than deny this classical view. For example, Kotter's (1982) long-run responsibilities of goal formulation and direction setting can easily be viewed as ``planning'' activities. Similarly, the medium- and short-run responsibilities can be viewed from the classical perspective. With the possible exception of his ``figurehead'' role, Mintzberg's (1973) model maps very well to the classical view. For example, ``disturbance handler'' might include ``controlling'', ``commanding'' and possibly ``co-ordinating''. Wren (1994) offers similar examples. The purpose of this section is to demonstrate that each of the individual management models reinforce one another. Although each is different in some respects (this will be expanded upon later), the constituent elements are very much interrelated. The specific models considered are as follows: . Fayol (1949); . Mintzberg (1973); . Kotter (1982); . Hales (1986). In Figures 1 and 2, this researcher has connected elements from each model by lines to highlight perceived relationships. This was very much a subjective process and one could well argue the legitimacy of the inclusion or exclusion of specific relationships. However, one believes that, on balance, the case is fairly clear. Some of the more tenuous relationships are identified by a dotted line rather than a solid line. These charts are intended to provide a high-level view of perceived inter- relationships. These interrelationships associate model elements with one another in the sense of denoting or connoting similar concepts or ideas. For example, in Figure 1, Mintzberg's ``entrepreneur'' element is shown as being interrelated to the Fayol (1949) element of ``planning''. In Figure 2, ``planning'' is related to Hales' ``monitoring, filtering, . . . information'' and ``innovating''. JMH 6,8 352 Some elements clearly have stronger relationships to other model elements. Nonetheless, the combination of strength and number of relationships does suggest that all models are very much interrelated and, thus, in a sense say the same things in different ways. Despite the initially unwieldy appearance of the diagrammatic approach, it is perhaps most effective in simply communicating the point argued. To achieve an overall impression, one can scan the individual columns one at a time, noting that there are (or are not) associated relationships indicated (i.e. connector lines). Individual relationships can easily be seen and considered by following each individual connector line of interest. Figure 1. Management model comparison: Mintzberg, Fayol and Kotter Fayol stands the test of time 353 As already noted, Mintzberg's (1973) model appears to be most widely accepted. Comprising ten elements, it also appears to be more detailed than the others. Consequently, the researcher has assumed the primacy of this model in the reconciliation and, accordingly, it appears in each. Fayol is related to all contemporary views in order to underscore the validity of the Fayol model as discussed earlier. Thus, two figures have been constructed with the following columns: . Mintzberg, Fayol, Kotter; and . Fayol, Hales, Mintzberg. Figure 2. Management model comparison: Fayol, Hales and Mintzberg JMH 6,8 354 Figure 1 reconciles Fayol's (1949) model to those of Mintzberg (1973) and Kotter (1982). This mapping (Figure 1) is subjective. For example, although the researcher believes that planning (the strategic variety at least) requires Mintzberg's entrepreneurship, this is arguable. Nonetheless, each of Fayol's five constituent elements corresponds to each of the elements comprising the Mintzberg and Kotter models (althoughtwo of the Mintzbergmodel relationships ``figurehead'' and ``spokesman'' were only considered dotted-line relationships.) Thus, the Mintzberg, Fayol, and Kotter models appear to be closely inter- related. Figure 2 shows that all of the elements comprising Hales' (1986) model can be found in the Fayol (1949) and Mintzberg (1973) models. This should not be surprising since the model was developed from a literature survey and represents the common threads identified therein. The last two elements of Hales' model map exactly to three of Fayol's elements, as depicted by the lines shown. The remainder of Hales' model matches Fayol's, though somewhat more tenuously. The Hales model maps virtually exactly to Mintzberg's elements. In fact, the Hales elements, 1-7 appear to match exactly, with the following minor exceptions: (1) Hales includes ``filtering'' as an informational element (3) not explicitly recognised by Mintzberg's model. This researcher believes, however, that filtering is implicit in any human informational activity and this seems to be supported by the literature (for example, McCall and Kaplan, 1985). (2) Hales combines ``handling disturbances'' and ``maintaining work flows'' (5). The latter term does not appear in Mintzberg's model. However, the researcher views ``maintaining work flows'' as being incorporated in ``handling disturbances'' to the extent that it is really the objective and thus refers to the same activities. (3) Lastly, Hales uses the term ``innovating'' (7) which the researcher has interpreted as referring to entrepreneurial skills. This completes the reconciliation of the Fayol model with all three of the contemporary models identified in the literature. The Fayol model appears to be very much supported and reinforced by contemporary models. A closer look at Fayol's ideas The previous section makes the case that Fayol's work is still very much alive and relevant today. This section presents some of these ideas, management principles and elements of management, in slightly more detail. The reader will undoubtedly find these ideas intuitively appealing. However, one should bear in mind that these ideas are not hypothetical musings but the result of detailed observation throughout a long and successful career. Fayol stands the test of time 355 This section has been largely extracted form the Constance Storrs translation (Fayol, 1949) of Fayol's Adm/n/slral/cn lnduslr/e//e el (ene ra/e which was first published in 1916. (enera/ r/n//es c/ managemenl Fayol notes that there is no limit on the number of management principles. He stresses that the principles must be flexible and adapt to the situation at hand. What has become recognised as the list of principles espoused by Fayol are actually a non-exhaustive list of ``some of the principles of management which I have most frequently had to apply'' (Fayal, 1949, p. 19): D/t/s/cn c/ ucr/ (Fayol, 1949, p. 20): has to do with the relationship between structure and function. Fayol notes that such specialisation is a natural phenomenon occurring in both nature and society. The object of such specialisation is ``to produce more and better work with the same effort''. However, Fayol cautions that there are limits to the extent to which the division of work can be effectively applied. Aulhcr/lv and rescns/////lv (Fayol, 1949, p. 21): are inextricably linked according to Fayol. He views responsibility as the corollary of authority responsibility is the consequence of authority and is therefore inseparable. Fayol muses that ``responsibility is feared as much as authority is sought after''. Fayol defines authority as the ``right to give orders''. He notes that this right is one of office and needs to be complemented by the personal authority associated with such qualities as intelligence and moral character. Fayol states that the effective use of authority requires high moral character, impartiality and firmness D/s///ne (Fayol, 1949, p. 22): according to Fayol, this is essential to the success of any enterprise. It is a management responsibility that, he argues, is best established and maintained by: . good superiors at all levels; . agreements as clear and fair as possible; . sanctions (penalties) judiciously applied. Fayol's treatment of this principle is very much concerned with relations between management and the labour force. ln/lv c/ cmmand (Fayol, 1949, p. 24): holds that an employee or department should receive orders from one source only. Fayol expounds the dangers of doing otherwise. These include undermining authority, loss of discipline and instability. Fayol views this principle as fundamental and states that the social organism is incapable of adapting to dual command. He stresses the need to clearly delineate duties and responsibilities. JMH 6,8 356 ln/lv c/ d/rel/cn (Fayol, 1949, p. 25): is similar to unity of command (above). However, whereas the latter pertains to personnel, the former relates to the organisation of the business itself. Proper focus and co-ordination requires ``one head and one plan for a group of activities having the same objective''. 5u/crd/nal/cn c/ /nd/t/dua/ /nleresl lc lhe genera/ /nleresl (Fayol, 1949, p. 26): recognises the human tendency to place sometimes personal interests before those of the group. Fayol suggests firmness and leading by example, as well as agreements where practical, and constant supervision. Remuneral/cn (Fayol, 1949, p. 26): deals with paying employees for their services. Fayol states that compensation should be fair and, to the extent possible, be satisfactory to both personnel and the firm. However, he acknowledges the influences of other factors such as supply and demand. Beyond this, Fayol does not discuss setting remuneration rates but rather the method of payment. Fayol notes that there is no one best method to pay personnel each has advantages and disadvantages. He discusses several: time rates, job rates, and piece rates, bonuses, and profit sharing. Cenlra//sal/cn (Fayol, 1949, p. 33): and decentralisation is a question of proportion, according to Fayol. The optimum proportion will vary from company to company and from circumstance to circumstance. Fayol notes that the degree of centralisation and decentralisation may vary often because of changing conditions. Achieving the best proportion for a given set of circumstances is the ongoing issue. 5a/ar ha/n (Fayol, 1949, p. 34): refers to the organisational structure and lines of authority that flow from the principle of unity of command. Fayol observes that this structure can become very large and consequently seriously delay inter-group communications and actions. He therefore urges that individuals within groups interact directly at their level and advise their superiors of agreements. If the individuals within the groups cannot agree, or if their superiors do not agree on the results, then and only then would the scalar chain be followed. Fayol notes that this approach is typical within industry and tends to be more of a problemwithin government organisations. Order (Fayol, 1949, p. 36): in the case of materials, it is ``a place for everything and everything in its place''. In the case of personnel, it is ``the right man in the right place''. While offering these generalisations, Fayol explains that the reality is much more complex. Materials must be placed such that they facilitate activities as much as possible. This goes well beyond merely being tidy. Fayol also notes that the ``right man in the right place'' has implications for both organisation and personnel selection. He asserts that ``social order demands precise knowledge of the human requirements and resources of the concern as a constant balance between these requirements and resources''. Fayol stands the test of time 357 Eu/lv (Fayol, 1949, p. 38): equity and equality of treatment for all personnel at all levels are a precondition to devotion and loyalty, observes Fayol. He notes that this does not exclude discipline and must be applied without neglecting other principles and in view of the broader general interest. 5la////lv c/ lenure c/ erscnne/ (Fayol, 1949, p. 38): this is Fayol's acknowledgment that personnel need time to develop necessary job skills and succeed at performing their duties. He notes that this principle is especially important in the case of managers since they typically require much more time to develop necessary skills. Fayol suggests that management turnover can precipitate poor corporate performance. ln/l/al/te (Fayol, 1949, p. 39): as defined by Fayol, this is the power to formulate a plan and successfully implement it. He views initiative as one of the greatest satisfactions attainable by individuals and, in aggregate, is a source of great strength for businesses. Thus, Fayol encourages the development and nurturing of initiative, noting that managers ``must be able to sacrifice some personal vanity in order to grant this sort of satisfaction to subordinates''. Esr/l de crs (Fayol, 1949, p. 40): refers to harmony and union amongst personnel. Fayol states that this is a great strength that deserves attention. He notes that many methods are employed to this end but rather than enumerating or discussing them, stresses the importance of the unity of command principle. Fayol also identifies two major sources of problems. One is dividing one's group by, for example, creating dissension. Rather, Fayol suggests that one should focus on co-ordinating efforts and encouraging keenness. E/emenls c/ managemenl Fayol categorises management into five major elements: (1) planning; (2) organising; (3) commanding; (4) co-ordinating; and (5) controlling. Fayol devotes relatively more attention to these five elements than to the 14 management principles. The latter were discussed in 24 pages. The five elements of management are considered in 65 pages. The following attempts to capture the essence of each element. l/ann/ng (Fayol, 1949, p. 43): ``means both to assess the future and make provision for it''. Fayol views the ``action plan'' as the most useful output of the planning process. He notes that this plan must consider the firm's resources, work-in-progress, and future trends in the eternal environment. Fayol discusses the features of a good action plan and highlights: unity, continuity, flexibility and precision. Organ/s/ng (Fayol, 1949, p. 53): personnel is the focus of this section. Fayol enumerates the managerial duties of organisations that must be realised JMH 6,8 358 through personnel. He argues that despite the variety of businesses, every firm of similar employee size differs mainly in ``the nature and relative value of constituent elements''. Fayol identifies many key objectives of organising including: . ensuring proper plan preparation and execution; . aligning objectives with resources; . establishing a single guiding authority; . harmonising and co-ordinating of activities; . maximising personnel deployment; . clear delineation of duties; . encouraging initiative and responsibility; . maintaining discipline; . ensuring the subordination of individual interests to corporate interests; . supervision of both material and human order; and . maintaining full control. Fayol considers the functional components of organisations along with the constituent personnel, and discusses the ideal conditions required of each in considerable detail. In so doing, Fayol comments on various organisational metaphors such as the ``mechanistic'' and ``organic''. He concludes the section with a review of personnel selection and training. Fayol devotes four pages to a critique of the work of Taylor (Fayol, 1949, pp. 66-70). Ccmmand/ng (Fayol, 1949, p. 98): the responsibility of every manager. The purpose is achieve the maximum contribution to the interests of the business from all personnel within the manager's unit. Fayol discusses several maxims: . Have a thorough knowledge of personnel (e.g. in terms of capabilities). Fayol notes that in large organisations this knowledge could only reasonably apply to direct reports as per the manager's span of control. . Eliminate the incompetent. . Be well versed in the agreements binding the business and its employees. . Set a good example. . Conduct periodic audits of the organisation and use summarised charts to further this. . Bring together chief assistants by means of conferences, at which unity of direction and focusing of effort are provided for. . Do not become engrossed in detail. (Fayol suggests delegating all work that the manager is not strictly required to undertake personally.) Fayol stands the test of time 359 . Aim at making unity, energy, initiative and loyalty prevail among the personnel. Cccrd/nal/ng (Fayol, 1949, p. 103): the harmonisation of resources in their optimum proportions in order to achieve results. Fayol identifies some of the characteristics of a well co-ordinated organisation: . Each department works in harmony with the rest and each is clear on its responsibilities and executes them efficiently and effectively. . Each department is well informed as to its obligations to other departments and viceversa. . Department schedules are continually adjusted to circumstances. Ccnlrc///ng (Fayol, 1949, p. 107): consists of the ongoing, routine verification of plan implementation, instructions issued, and principles. Controlling applies to all processes. Its purpose is to identify weaknesses and problems such that they can be rectified and recurrences prevented. Fayol notes that, to be effective, control must be timely and be supported by penalties. He also cautions against the infiltration of control into departmental operation such that duality of command emerges. Fayol stresses the need for independent, objective and impartial inspection. Conclusions The essence of Fayol's work stands the test of time. This paper has considered Fayol's elements of management against contemporary management models: . Mintzberg (1973); . Kotter (1982); and . Hales (1986). All of the models, including that of Fayol, were shown to be interrelated at an elemental level. Despite the differences in the models in terms of words used and perspectives taken (e.g. the (very different) categories used by Mintzberg (1973) compared with those used by Kotter (1982)), each model can be considered essentially equivalent to, or a subset of, other models. Fayol's principles of management were also presented. There is no comparable enumeration in the literature to allow further assessment of these principles. However, the principles are intuitively appealing. They are based on observations and experience. Fayol's principles may indeed be relevant today and should not be ignored until they have been superseded or refuted. References Archer, E.R. (1990), ``Toward a revival of the principles of management'', lnduslr/a/ Managemenl, Vol. 32 No. 1, January-February, pp. 19-22. Brodie, M.B. (1967), Iavc/ cn Adm/n/slral/cn, Lyon, Grant and Green, London. Caroll, S.J. and Gillen, D.J. (1987), ``Are the classical management functions useful in describing managerial work?'', Aademv c/ Managemenl Ret/eu, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 38-51. JMH 6,8 360 Fayol, H. (1949), (enera/ and lnduslr/a/ Managemenl, Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons Ltd., London, (translation by Constance Storrs). Gray, I. (Ed.) (1984), (enera/ and lnduslr/a/ Managemenl, IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ. Hales, C.P. (1986), ``What do managers do? A critical review of the evidence'', }curna/ c/ Managemenl 5lud/es, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 88-115. Kotter, J.P. (1982), The (enera/ Managers, The Free Press, New York, NY. Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R.M. and Rosenkrantz, S.A. (1988), Rea/ Managers, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA. Luthans, F., Rosenkrantz, S.A. and Hennessy, H.W. (1985), ``What do successful managers really do? An observation study of managerial activities'', }curna/ c/ A//ed 8ehat/cra/ 5/enes, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 255-70. McCall, M.W. Jr and Kaplan, R.E. (1985), Thaleter ll Ta/es. De/s/cnma/ers al Tcr/, Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Mintzberg, H. (1973), The Nalure c/ Manager/a/ Tcr/, Harper and Row, New York, NY. Mintzberg, H. (1989), M/nl./erg cn Managemenl, The Free Press, New York, NY. Rolph, P. and Bartram, P. (1992), Hcu lc Chccse and lse an Exeul/te ln/crmal/cn 5vslem, Mercury Books, London. Secretan, L.H.K. (1986), Manager/a/ Mcx/e, Macmillan of Canada, Toronto. Wren, D.A. (1994), The Etc/ul/cn c/ Managemenl Thcughl, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.