World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article


Article Id: WHEBN0033616691
Reproduction Date:

Title: Fayolism  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Henri Fayol, Management science, Industrial engineering
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia


Fayolism was a theory of 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.

Henri Fayol

Research and Teaching of Management

Fayol believed by focusing on managerial practices he could minimize misunderstandings and increase [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; that of a post revolutionized France in which a republic bourgeois was emerging. A bourgeois himself, he believed in the controlling of workers in order to achieve a 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 which 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 his 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 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 to be 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 which differed from Taylor in that they showed flexibility and adaptation as well as stressed the importance of interpersonal interaction among employees.

Fayol's Principles of Management

During the early 20th century, Fayol developed 14 principles of management in order 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. Chain of commands,
  5. Congenial workplace,
  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 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. 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. [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 the 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.


    1. ^ Pietri, P. H. "ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION: The Pioneers". J1974 11 (4): 3–6. 
    2. ^ Almashaqba, Z. S; Nemer Al-Qeed, M (2010). "The Classical Theory of Organization and it's Relevance". International Research Journal Of Finance & Economics 41: 60–67. 
    3. ^ Brunsson, K. (2008). "Some Effects of Fayolism". International Studies Of Management & Organization 38 (1): 30–47. 
    4. ^ McLean, Jacqueline (2011). "Fayol-Standing the test of time". British Journal of Administrative Management (74): 32–33. 
    • Butler, J., DeWine, S., & Modaff, D. (2008). Organizational Communication: Foundations, Challenges, and Misunderstandings, Retrieved November 2, 2011.

    Further reading

    This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
    Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
    By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.