According to Henri Fayol (1945), to manage is to forecast and plan, to organize, to command, to co-ordinate and to control.
Critically discuss Fayol’s perspective through an analysis of his and other views on management.
In a world which contains such a competitive and hostile business environment, a firm having an efficient management system plays a fundamental role in the overall success of a business. Many academics have created theories and ideas, perusing the goal to understand and effectively analyse the most effective way to manage an organisation. However, a significant amount of these theories disagree with each other, and in most cases theorists have proven their theory to be correct. Henri Fayol (1841-1925) was somewhat a pioneer of management theories, but his theories are now becoming rejected and obsolete by many theorists that believe his ideas have been developed in a different time period, and therefore a different environment to us. However, theorists such as C.P Hales (1986) believe that Fayol’s theories are misinterpreted, and can be applied to modern day management. Henry Mintzberg (1986) on the other hand believes Fayol’s theories to be “management myth” and don’t actually cover the fundamental characteristics of being a successful manager, suggesting that his managerial “roles” are a more effective way of organising a workforce.
Henri Fayol (1841-1925) was a classical theorist and somewhat a pioneer of management theorists in the business world, revived French mining company “Compagnie de Commentry-Fourchambeau-Decazeville” in 1888 and transformed it to become one of France’s most successful businesses of all time using his theory in which he emphasises the importance of administrative functions in management. In a speech made to colleagues and subordinates in the “International Mining and Metallurgic Congress in Paris (1900), Fayol states that “the proper utilisation of physical, moral and intellectual gifts of men is just as essential for the good of mankind as the proper utilisation of mineral wealth”. Fayol (1908) stresses the importance to invest in the attributes and qualities found in the people, and convert these qualities into successful management techniques. Fayol’s theory contained 5 key managerial processes which were: planning or forecasting, organising, co-ordinating, controlling and commanding” (Fayol, H. (1916) Administration industrielle et générale, H.Dunod et E. Pinat). Primarily, when Fayol (1916) discussed planning, he characterised this as forecasting and organising future targets that need to be met by employees, and the need to plan objectives for both long term and short term. This, in his views, will inevitably motivate employees in the firm to hit realistic targets set by their superiors. Secondly, Fayol (1916) describes organisation as the need to successfully organise and allocate a business’s resources throughout the business. Thirdly coordination: which in essence involves laying out the time frame and sequence of the analysed objectives. Furthermore, Fayol (1916) related “controlling” as the monitoring of the employees’ performance to the performance of the businesses objectives. Finally, Fayol (1916) relates commanding to the action of implementing the objectives into the brains of the employees. The word “commanding” is often misinterpreted to have dictatorship values, however, Fayol (1916) actually meant that it was the ability to put a plan into action. Fayol believed that the implementation, and the correct interpretation of these five elements of management would lead to an efficient and effective management system. Fayol also indicated that there are 14 principles of management which would assist managers in the organisation and general productivity. These are “authority and responsibility, discipline, unity of command, unity of direction, subordination of individual interest to the general interest, remuneration, centralisation, span of control, order, equity, stability of tenure personell and initiative”(Michael J. Fells (2000) fayol stands the test of time: Journal of management history). Fayol is often contrasted with scientific management theorist Frederick Taylor (1856-1915), who used scientific method to decrease time taken to achieve tasks, which will increase efficiency levels throughout the firm. Fayol (1918) contrasted himself to Taylor by indicating “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”. Here, Fayol (1916) identifies a key contrast in the two theories, Fayol’s theory targeted individuals of high influence to an organisation, and work from the top-down.
However, Fayol’s theories are often rejected in the eyes of more recent theorists, Henry Mintzberg for instance questions the current validity of Fayol’s views, and believes that a more contemporary approach to management is more effective. Mintzberg (1975) believed that four of Fayol’s 5 principles were “vague objectives” and that they “tell us little about what managers actually do”. Mintzberg’s views were conveyed in an article he wrote called The Managers job: Folklore and fact (1975). In this article, Mintzberg has gathered data from researching 5 CEO’s and has identified the difference between what he believes is “management myth” or “folklore” and fact. One folklore that he describes is that the manager has “regular duties” throughout the day, in which he argues that on a daily basis, the manager has numerous duties which often are unplanned and arbitrary in the his routine: including ritual and ceremony with employees, for example speeches, prizes and dinners which convey leadership qualities. Also the processing of soft information which assists in linking the firm to its surrounding environment. Another folklore that Mintzberg (1975) identifies is that the manager is a “reflective, systematic planner”, although evidence has proven that managers have to work at an exceedingly fast pace throughout the day due to sheer quantity of tasks and the amount of obligations required frequently on a daily basis. In a study that he undertook, half of the managers’ activities lasted less than 9 minutes and only 10% of activities lasted more than an hour. This research indicates how managers have short, yet essential tasks throughout a working day and he also reveals that the 5 managers’ lunch breaks usually were work related. The fact that Mintzberg is suggesting that managers work at an “unrelenting pace and with variety and discontinuity” and that the manager “continuously responds to the requirements and needs of that moment”, indicates Mintzberg having opposing views to Fayol’s principle of planning or forecasting as he is suggesting managers routine is unplanned, and rather responding to the environment surrounding him.
Mintzberg (1975) suggests that a manager has a variety of “roles”. He categorises the overall role of a manager into 3 sections. First, interpersonal roles. With high authority in the workplace, brings a high status which leads to interpersonal relations. These interpersonal relations gather information into the managers hands depending on how effectively he achieves this role. This information could be key in a decision making process. Within this interpersonal role, Mintzberg suggests that there are 3 sub-roles directly related. The “figurehead” role involves undertaking ceremonial duties which satisfy the needs of employees. Mintzberg (1975) found that 12% of the duties undertaken by the 5 CEO’s were ceremonial duties. The theorist is not stating these ceremonial duties are key in the decision making process, but he is indicating that they assist in the smooth operation of a firm. The “leader” role suggests creating an image of power and authority over subordinates. For example hiring, firing and motivating the employees. A leadership role in any business is essential in achieving objectives, and maintaining sufficient productivity levels. The final “interpersonal” role is the “liaison” role which involves networking in the business environment to gather important information. Mintzberg (1975) states that in a study undertook by Rosemary Stewart, comparing 160 managers from Britain: 47% of time was spend with their own employees, 41% with people outside the workplace and 12% with superiors, suggesting that networking is essential in gathering internal and external information, which can be analysed and converted into a decision made by the business. The second “role” of a manager was described by Mintzberg (1975) as the “informational role” which involves the manager always being the centre of the informational flow and the ability to process the information being received from numerous directions. This includes the “monitor” which includes the scanning of the business environment for information. This usually comes in verbal form from by discussing with subordinates, or with liaison contacts. In the “disseminator” role the manager transfers key information to subordinates, who, in some cases rely on the manager to transfer this information as it’s the only way of receiving it. The “spokesman” role is the supply of information to external stakeholders of the business, for example shareholders and suppliers are extremely influential to a firm, and request information about performance of the business. After processing this information, Mintzberg (1975) indicated that “decisional roles” would be the final focus of the managers “roles” and indicates that “information is the basic input to decision making”. Firstly, the “entrepreneur” role which involves adapting and improving to a changing environment. The “disturbance handler” role is the ability to handle pressure and make the correct decisions under and circumstances. The “resource allocator” role in essence is delegating tasks and allocating subordinates to tasks in order to efficiently allocate resources. Finally, the “negotiator” role, which equates to the managers constant need to be at the forefront of negotiations to all stakeholders who can potentially influence the business.
Henry Mintzberg was a clear example of a theorist who rejected the theories of Henri Fayol, and proposed his own theories and ideas on how a successful manager functions. However, the difference between the ideas of both theorist can be linked. C.P Hales (1986) stated that the two theories have “striking parallels”. For example one of Henri Fayol’s principles of management, the “command” principle can be related to Mintzberg’s “interpersonal” roles because they both imply that the manager should have leadership qualities in order to motivate subordinates, and meet the needs of the employees as well as other stakeholders. Also Fayol’s “control” principle links relatively closely to Mintzberg’s “disturbance handler”, as they both have similar characteristics such as achieving objectives and monitoring performance of the business and the employees. One can argue that there are similarities in the two theories, Hales (1986) indicated that “if classical theorists are viewed as theorists of management functions rather than hypotheses of individual management behaviour, then they are neither confirmed nor denied by the later literature”. Hales is basically arguing that the theories of Henri Fayol (1918) are simply guidelines about managerial behaviour, and not strict rules of management which some theorists misinterpret. Lamond (2004) describes the two theories as “overlapping Venn diagrams” as the two share certain properties, but have independent properties also. He also states that the two theories are “different views on the same picture, Fayol’s focus on what managers should do if they lived in an idealized state, and Mintzberg’s concern is what managers actually do”, suggesting that Fayol’s theory shouldn’t be made redundant, but should be treated differently to Mintzberg’s theory as they function on a different perspective.
Henri Fayol’s theory was important in creating guidelines for management situations globally, but in recent times have started to become rejected by more modern theorists. In my opinion, Fayol’s theories will always have validity as a hypotheses rather than strict guidelines on what managers actually do. Other theorists have argued against this view, but in the example of Henry Mintzberg, although he was claiming Fayol’s principles to be “management myth”, we could see an overlaps in the two theories, which suggests Mintzberg’s and other theorists views are simply a modern adaptation the management theory of Fayol.