The function of management is essential in an organization to ensure that the company could regulate smoothly which could possibly result to a success. Management can be defined as finding the best benefits from accessible resources and to direct the organisation towards the common aims and achievements (Fayol, 1988, p.13). Thus, it is vital to exercise a good management practice in an operation. The perceptions of managing an organisation may varied to individual, however, this essay is going to mainly focus on Henri Fayol, a classical theorist. This essay will first explain a brief background of management theorists. Following that, critically evaluates Fayol’s perception in management with the comparison to other class of theorists.
In the early period, there are two schools of theorists which can be differentiate to classical and human relations theorist (Cole, 2004, p.3). It is apparent that these two schools has slight different ideas on managing an organisation. The idea of classical approach is mainly concentrating on the formal structure of the organisation as well as being strict to safeguard firm’s benefits. One of the famous classical theorists is Henri Fayol. He introduced the five basic managerial function; forecasting and planning, organising, coordinating, commanding and lastly, controlling which has contribute to the ideas of management (Guru, 2009). It also could be say that Fayol’s five functions of elements to manage might potentially be widely used in the modern organisation. It is stated by Mintzberg, (1973) that Fayol’s approach continues to be implemented in current period. In contrast, human relations ideology of management concentrate on the importance in employees’ spirit, social interaction and to ensure best mental environment for employees to work in (Fayol, 1998, p.3), as it is believed to increase the efficiency of the workers (Akrani, 2011). For example, Chester Barnard. Barnard has discovered the importance of informal groups in the organisation to assure employees willingness to cooperate as well as to increase the efficiency as an organisation. In addition, Henry Mintzberg, a theorist, had also did an empirical research by observing the activities of five managers. Furthermore, Mintzberg’s study has shown the ten set of management roles that manager could follow. There are various ideology on how to manage an organisation, hence, the implementation of these theories is a choice that organisation can make.
Fayol has introduced the managerial functions that generally is implemented by managers to manage an organisation. Firstly, is planning and forecasting. The definition of planning and forecasting is to study the future and arrange the action to be taken. According to Fayol (1988, p.15), it is essential to have a proper plan as it could assure all functions are well integrated. The consequence of no planning would result in doubt and unintentional change of organisation’s directions. Furthermore, planning could possibly prevent risk as well as create opportunity for the organisation. By planning, manager could consider various situation might potentially occur. In order words, by forecasting, manager could actually reduce uncertainty. This practice could avoid jeopardy in the company as manager has already plan out the preventive actions to be done in the consideration of various possible future occurrence that could harm the organisation. Hill (n.d) has also stated that manager has tried to foresee the possible negative factors and plan out actions to prevent it. Fayol (1988, p.15) has also said distinctive future plan is allocation of resources by prioritising and analysing the business condition. It can be infer that this action could actually help organisation to create an opportunity as after analysing the business condition, manager could discover the flaws and power of the corporation which manager could plan for an improvement or highlight its strength to create competitive advantage. Without a doubt Fayol’s theory of management concerning to planning is important in an organisation, however, there is a slight contrasting view with Mintzberg’s. In the research, Mintzberg (1973, p.10) stated that planning does not portray manager real action. Managers have actually preferred live action and most updated news to decide and willing to accept the ambiguity (Mintzberg, 1973, p. 36). This could be analysed that maybe not all managers actually follow the idea of planning as some has preferred to a concrete situation which is most likely to be realistic as compared to forecasting and planning. Despite the research Mintzberg has conducted stated that managers prefer live action as it is more realistic, however, according to Fayol (1988, p.16), there is restriction regarding to predicting the future, however, it is still essential for manager to anticipate as far as possible to ensure the firm effectiveness. Thus, the ideology of management in planning might still be needed to be apply in an organisation to secure its success.
Next managerial function explained is organising. It is defined by Fayol (1988, p.27) to organise is arranging the structure of authority, responsibility and the line of communication. The purpose of organising are such as, making sure plan laid out is performed properly and selecting suitable workers in the position. Fayol’s suggested that selecting the correct staff might potentially increase the efficiency of the organisation. Assuming that the manager selects unsuitable or unmotivated employees, there could be an unwanted risk in the activities planned out due to incompetent work done by the employees. Hence, it is important for manager to choose the right workers in precise. It is also supported by Wenner, (2014) stated that businesses could suffer from loss when the corporation has inadequate employees. However, in human relations management approach, it aims to satisfy employee’s psychological needs. This is such as Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Maslow’s has discovered that the theory on hierarchy of needs could be for human motivation (Cole, 1996, p.33). The positive impact of this approach is workers might be more motivated, which could result the increase of employees efficiency and low labour turnover. However, there is also a drawback in Maslow’s theory. It was critcised that it is too idealistic as some does not follow the steps on hierarchy of needs (Aristotle, 2009) Thus, there is employees might still be not fully motivated. Although, Fayol’s perception on organising regarding to selection of personnel is true, the human relations approach could be also be implemented to increase the efficiency in employees.
The third element is coordinating. Coordinating can be described as facilitating all activity of distinct function (Morden, 2004, p.108). Through Fayol’s theory, it can be analysed coordinating is ensuring the function and sub-function in organisation is well cooperated. According to Fayol (1988, p.46) the best approach for all function to be well coordinated is arranging a conference of departmental heads. The purpose of this conference is to discuss the raising issues and also think of solution. This meeting is essential as all the department heads could work together and contribute the ideas to solve the problem. Furthermore, this conference could keep track all of the heads about the performance of each function. It could also be analysed that organisation that held this meeting could improve the firm’s productivity as there will more cohesion between the different functions as head of departments would have a clearer common aim. Thus, the idea of management in coordinating is crucial in a corporation for the assurance of the cooperativeness and effectiveness between all functions. However, Barnard has also highlight the importance of informal association in formal organisation. The intention of informal association could lead to common purpose, communicating as well as willingness to cooperate (Barnard, 1968, p.116). Having personal contact, functions could work better as employees and head departments might understand each other better and there will be no tension in working environment. Furthermore, there is possibility of improvement in coordination and coherent between the head of department because during personal time, the heads might discuss about the issue and willing to help each other due to the respect they have built during the informal association. However, social contact might also result in unhappiness between the employees and this could be due to misunderstanding during the informal meeting and create unsatisfactory outcome in the meeting. This is supported by Meer (2009) stated informal structure usually lead to conflict in the firm. Fayol’s theory is indeed helpful for coordinating all the functions, but, Barnard’s theory could be also implemented along with Fayol’s to achieve better coordination in the organisation.
Next element in management is commanding. To command is getting the favourable returns from all staffs in the function (Fayol, 1988, p.49). In this element, managers should ensure unity of command is implemented in the organisation. Unity of command could be defined as one superior to employees (Akrani, 2012). The importance of this principle is to avoid dual command and ill-defined line of authority. It can be said that this implementation is helpful for an organisation and might assured employees not to have any doubt during work as there will be only one superior who could command the workers. Furthermore, this as well prevent from repeated work. In relevance to unity of command, according to Mintzberg (1973, p.86) it is only manager’s job to arrange duty for the employees and also maintaining authority in the organisation to avoid confusion in decisions. Thus, the practice of command is useful in corporation as this could increase the effectiveness of the firm. However, it can be seen that Fayol’s theory is showing a formal hierarchy and bureaucracy system. This is due to the fact that only one superior could command on subordinates which means only one superior has the ultimate authority. However, the impact human relations management, has moved from the formal rigid hierarchy. But instead, encouraging members to participate in decision making. This is such as having the matrix organisation. Matrix organisation structure have two immediate supervisors, functional and project which all employees need to oversee them (Guzman n.d). The advantage of this structure is there will be decentralised decision making and hence, there will have a fast solution and response to the changes detected. The applications of having more than one superior could be due to fast decision making as the communication flow does not need to be transmitted to the highest authority. This is also supported by (Chand, n.d) stated that one of the advantage of this structure is fast response to change. However, the limitation of this structure confusion over authority. Workers might be confuse who to report to and could result in miscommunication. A heavier consequence will be supervisor misunderstood the employees and lead to low morale in staffs. According to Johnson (2012), dual authority may cause internal complexity. The application of matrix structure might be beneficial for the firm, however there are still absence of unity of command. Hence, the choice of management approach could be varied depend on the situation the organisation in.
Lastly, controlling. It is defined controlling is assuring every actions and four other elements are carried out appropriately (Fayol, 1988, p.57). Manager needs to monitor the weakness in the organisation and carry out corrective actions such as giving sanctions. Fayol has highlighted the importance of observation for manager and search for possible improvements and avoid errors. Controlling can be effective if monitoring is constant in the four stages of management. Observing employees and giving praise or criticism might potentially increase the performance of the staff. When manager giving an appropriate praise to staff, it will boost staff’s morale and motivate staff to do better while criticism could pose as a warning towards the staff. Mintzberg has also stated that manager should maintain alertness in the organisation (Mintzberg, 1973, p.62) which could relate to Fayol’s ideology. However, Mintzberg has also suggest observing and analysing the external factors and trends would be ideal as problem and opportunities could also arise from external factors (Mintzberg, 1973, p.68). The benefits of analysing the external events would be fast response to changes. Fayol’s could lead to effective firm as manager is cautious about the actions within the corporation to ensure smooth running organisation. However, Mintzberg’s management might be more ideal as manager could detect possible problem more than Fayol’s controlling management.
Fayol’s perspective in management is indeed helpful in for the organisation. The five elements might potentially increase the capability of manager if manager has practiced these five elements. Furthermore, capable manager could ensure the effectiveness as well as the efficiency of the business. However, aside from Fayol’s view, there is also other approaches that could possibly benefit the organisation. However, in my opinion, there is still disadvantages in Fayol’s management approach as well as others. So, it came to my conclusion that there is no exact answer regarding to which management views is the most appropriate. Managers should analysed both internal and external factors before deciding the most suitable management approach. For example, when business is in crisis, manager should apply Fayol’s theory of commanding to ensure there is no confusion in order rather than using matrix structure. However, matrix structure could be applied when business is flexible and open with employees’ suggestion to increase the productivity of the firm. In other words, manager could implement any management approach depending on the circumstances the organisation in. Therefore, it also can be analysed that it could be ideal for manager to practice various theory in the organisation.