Revisiting Fayol: Anticipating Contemporary Management
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00453.x |
| Author | Lee D. Parker,Philip A. Ritson |
| Published date | 01 September 2005 |
| Date | 01 September 2005 |
Revisiting Fayol: Anticipating
Contemporary Management
Lee D. Parker
*
and Philip A. Ritson
*
Corresponding author: Lee D. Parker, School of Commerce, Security House, North Terrace, The University
of Adelaide, SA 5005 Australia
Email: lee.parker@adelaide.edu.au
This study argues that in classifying Fayol as a founding father of the Classical
Management School, we have to some extent misrepresented this still important
management theorist. The received Fayol portrayed in contemporary texts invariably
emerges as a caricature of a much more insightful, complex, visionary and rounded
management thinker. This study re-examines Fayol’s personaland career history, as well
as the arguments presented in his original work, General and Industrial Management.It
finds that he was a much morecomplex and multidimensional figurethan his conventional
stereotype today, and that his management theories embraced a wider spectrum of
approaches and concepts than traditionally identified with the classical management
school of thought. In marked contrast to his traditional portrayal, this study uncovers
traces of ideas and concepts that anticipated aspects of the human relations movement,
systems-based contingency theory, the movement towards greater employee involvement
in decision-making and elements of knowledge management.
Henri Fayol, the French industrialist and man-
agement thinker of the early twentieth century,
has long been acknowledged as a founding father
of the classical management school of thought.
Throughout the twentieth century to the present
day, his ideas have been acknowledged and
critiqued by management text authors and
teachers to several generations of managers in
business and government. Most contemporary
management writers refer to Fayol’s fourteen
general principles of management, treating them
as his major contribution and as the basis for
their classifying him as a fellow traveller of the
scientific management school, and founder of the
classical management movement.
This paper proposes an alternative view of
Fayol, suggesting that to some extent his ideas
have been misrepresented. Accordingly, it sets
out to revisit the way in which contemporary
writers have classified his work, and then re-
examines Fayol both through his biographical
particulars and through a re-examination of his
original text, General and Industrial Management.
By comparing the representations of Fayol in
contemporary management texts with his perso-
nal background, career and the ideas advanced in
his text, the paper aims to present a more
balanced portrayal of a multidisciplinary man-
agement pioneer.
Accordingly, the paper first examines the way
in which contemporary writers have classified
Fayol, their approach to his portrayal and their
interpretation of his ideas. It then moves on to
explore his personal and career background, with
particular focus on his roles as a field researcher,
chief executive officer and strategist, change
manager, human resources manager and manage-
ment educator. It then returns to investigate his
major work, General and Industrial Management,
revisiting his ideas on management theory and
management education, the relationship of his
thinking to the later-arriving human relations
school, the relationship of his concepts to
subsequent systems and contingency theories,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 16, 175–194 (2005)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00453.x
r2005 British Academy of Management
and specifically the proximity of his theories on
planning to contingency-based planning. Lastly,
a comparison is drawn between the contempor-
ary portrayal of his contribution to the manage-
ment discipline and the historical evidence
emerging from this study.
The received Henri Fayol
For many, the name Henri Fayol evokes a time
when modern management theory was in its
infancy. Many associate his name with those of
other early twentieth-century luminaries of man-
agement and organizational theory such as
Taylor, Follet, Urwick, the Gilbreths, Gullick
and Weber (Appleby and Burstiner, 1981; Bailey
et al, 1986; Bedeian, 1979; Burns and Stalker,
1961; Clutterbuck and Crainer, 1990; Hodgkin-
son, 1978; Thomas, 1993). Consequently, Fayol
is portrayed as a pioneering figure who helped to
lay the foundations of contemporary manage-
ment theory (Appleby, 1981; Appleby and
Burstiner, 1981; Clutterbuck and Crainer, 1990).
To understand Fayol’s legacy, we must first come
to grips with Fayol as he is presented to
contemporary students of management theory.
No matter how inaccurate the portrayal, this
perceived Henri Fayol dictates his ongoing
contribution to and influence over contemporary
management thought.
Fayol’s theoretical contribution
Without doubt, Fayol is best remembered for a
three-fold contribution to management thought.
First, Fayol is credited with the belief that
organizational and business life was an amalgam
of six activities. These activities are: technical;
commercial; financial; security; accounting; and
management (see Appendix 1). Second, Fayol is
said to have identified five key functions or
elements that comprised managerial activity.
These functions of managerial activity are (see
Appendix 1): forecasting and planning; organiz-
ing; coordination; command; and control.
Lastly, Fayol is said to have advocated four-
teen principles designed to guide the successful
manager (see Appendix 1). Table 1 is typical of
the treatment given to these principles in many
contemporary management texts.
To some, Fayol’s conception of management
represented the ‘first complete and comprehen-
sive theory of management which could be
applied to all endeavors’ (George, 1972, p. 114).
For example, Fayol’s managerial functions are
frequently cited as the inspiration for the
contemporary practice of dividing managerial
activity (and management textbooks) into the
Table 1. Fayol’s fourteen principles of management
Principle Explanation
1. Division of work Reduces the span of attention or effort for any one person or group. Develops practice and
familiarity.
2. Authority The right to give orders. Should not be considered without reference to responsibility.
3. Discipline Outward marks of respect in accordance with formal or informal agreements between a firm
and its employees.
4. Unity of command One man [sic] one superior!
5. Unity of direction One head and one plan for a group of activities with the same objective
6. Subordination of individual
interests to the general interest
The interests of one individual or one group should not prevail over the general good. This
is a difficult area of management
7. Remuneration Pay should be fair to both the employee and the firm.
8. Centralization Is always present to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the size of the company and the
quality of its managers.
9. Scalar chain The line of authority from top to bottom of the organization.
10. Order A place for everything and everything in its place; the right man [sic] in the right place.
11. Equity A combination of kindness and justice towards employees.
12. Stability of tenure of
personnel
Employees need to be given time to settle into their jobs, even though this may be a lengthy
period in the case of some managers.
13. Initiative Within the limits of authority and discipline, all levels of staff should be encouraged to show
initiative.
14. Esprit de corps Harmony is a great strength to an organization; teamwork should be encouraged.
Source: Cole, 1984, pp. 13–14.
176 L. D. Parker and P. A. Ritson
To continue reading
Request your trial