SECTION I TOPIC IN BRIEF

Administrative, Functional or Process Approach (Henri Fayol)

Fayols approach to management thought is a part of classical approach to management thought. By this
approach, the perception of management is as a process of getting things done through and with people
operating in organized groups.

Henri Fayol defined management in terms of certain functions and laid down fourteen principles of
management which according to him have universal applicability.

Fayol suggested that Managerial activity deserved more attention and it comprised of five elements
namely planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, controlling.

By Fayol, management, to be effective should be based on the following fourteen principles:

1. Division of Work
2. Authority and Responsibility
3. Discipline
4. Unity of Command
5. Unity of Direction
6. Subordination of individual interest to general interest
7. Remuneration
8. Centralization
9. Scalar Chain
10. Order
11. Equity
12. Stability
13. Initiative
14. Espirit de Corps (Union is Strength)

Fayol gave more emphasis on the functions of management process as a whole. His theory works from
the top level to downwards laying stress on unity of command, unity of direction, etc. Fayol was
regarded as the Father of Management Process due to his contributions to Management approach.

SECTION II PERSONAL VIEWS, COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Fayols approach had a human element unlike that in Taylors approach in which the human element
was undermined causing monotony of job, loss of initiative, wage reductions, job insecurity, etc.

Fayol had a wider perspective and his scheme was to evolve principles which could be applied to
administration in different spheres. He showed regard for the human element by advocating principles
such as initiative, stability of service and spirit of cooperation. On the contrary, Taylor gave stress on
increasing productivity rather than on human resources.
But an organization just cant work on what Fayol had suggested as it doesnt incorporate how the
organization will increase its output or its efficiency with the use of existing human resources of the
organization.

Also the assumption of the organization as a closed system doesnt work in practical life. A modern
organization constantly is being affected by external factors be it environmental, economic, competitive,
etc.

This theory is mainly formulated by mere personal experience and limited observations and not explicit
experimentations and research. Thus it lacks precision and comprehensive framework for analysis.

Fayols approach doesnt incorporate any methods from which we can standardize the apparatus or
equipment to be used in the organization to improve the efficiency.

In the end, Fayols work was concerned with effectiveness of administrators or managers and laid more
emphasis on the principles of general management and the functions of managers which is why he was
titled as the Father of Management Process.

Following are some suggestions that may have made Fayols approach more applicable in real life
organizations:

Remove the assumption of the organization as a closed system and consider it as an open
system and allow external factors to affect the output of the organization so that there is room
for countering that situation.
This theory should involve the methods by which the efficiency of an organization can be
improved by effectively using existing human resources of the organization.
This theory should be reformulated or updated by conducting real experiments and
adding/removing necessary/unnecessary points so that it can be applicable in real organizations
effectively.
Fayols theory should also incorporate different methods by which we can standardize
organizational apparatus or equipment to be used for improving the output of organization.
The assumption that incentives can only be in terms of money is very orthodox and can be
corrected by providing incentives like better job status, job security, housing, education, etc.
There is a lack of universality of principles, because it means applicable in every organization, in
every level of management. But here, there is conflict between specialization and unity of
command as they go quite opposite. So, it would be better if this contradiction would be
resolved.