The Relevance of Fayols Theories for Todays Managers - Essay Example

Thе rеlеvаnсе оf Fаyоl’s thеоriеs fоr tоdаy’s Mаnаgеrs Name and Student Number:   Tutorial day and Time:       Tutor’s Name: Word Count Introduction Fayolism is a theory that analyze and synthesis the role of management in the organization (Brunsson, 2008). Fayol theory was developed by Henri Fayol (1841–1925) in the early 19th century. It was through his work that contributed to most theories in management. It is important for organizations to have a concrete management plans that will enable the organization to prosper (McLean, 2011). Various management theories such as Fayol theory that were developed over the years are still being applied in today’s corporate environment, and different organizations apply those theories that suit them (Parker and Philip, 2005). But, in relation to organization management, Fayol’s fourteen principles of management are universal attributes of organization managements. This essay will discuss whether Fayol’s theories, ideas, concepts contribute to management today. In so doing, Division of work, authority, discipline, unity of command, unity of direction, centralization will be used to discuss this point. Fayol’s Principles Division of labor can be defined as specialization of labor, circumscribed roles and duties that is geared toward increase productivity. Nowadays, “division of labor has reached the level of scientifically based management practices that can be associated with Fayolism” (Parker and Philip, 2005). Fayol recognized division of labor to lead to heightened expertise that may increase productivity in an organization (Mildred and Sonia, 2010). It was also noted that effect specialization makes workers not to waste time shifting from one task to another. At same time, Fayol was able to appreciate the benefits that were being found from assigning different duties to different workers, and this should always balance against obvious disadvantages that are associated with such negatives as monotony and boredom in the workplace. This increase in quantity of work as a result of division of work is owing to three different attributes; first, time is saved usually a lot of time is lost in passing from one task to another; second, there is an increase in dexterity in every workman; and lastly, it has led to different invention of machines which facilitate and abridge labor- one employee is able to do the work of many employees. For example, Taylor’s system of scientific approach has been utilized in Ford motor company. Taylor has been interested in skill development through functional specialization and standardization that has been used in Ford motor company (Mildred and Sonia, 2010). In Ford company, one worker is in-charge of assembling the wheels, another in-charge of assembling dashboards, and yet another employee is in-charge of painting the exterior of already assembled vehicles. Authority can be defined as a “right to give orders”, but, Fayol has caution leaders that there must be a balance between authority and responsibility (Brunsson, 2008). If a leader has more responsibility that authority then chances are the leader will feel frustrated. But if a leader has more authority than responsibility then the leader will misuse his authority; a leader should be impartial, has high moral character and firm (Parker and Philip, 2005). Fayol saw authority being sought after as much as responsibility that is feared (Crainer, 2003). If fear is not well taken care of it can paralysis the organization and should be countered by personal integrity (Rodrigues, 2001). In comparing the great depression that happened in the 1930s, managers in financial industry at that time were seen to be throwing themselves out of their offices; in 2008 managers in financial industry were lining up for bonuses (McLean, 2011). As former UK Prime Minister, Gordon stated: “financial institutions’ executives need to take responsibility” (Daniel, 2001). The former PM was “frustrated” by the way executives in financial industry were awarding themselves bonuses (Rodrigues, 2001). Discipline is essentially important in organization and its employees. Fayol stated that discipline is vital for a smoothly prosperous and functioning of an organization. Fayol felt, lack of discipline in an organization can result in ineptitude on the managers (Daniel, 2001). Discipline is achieved in the organization when knowledgeable individual are placed at all levels of workplace agreements, authority that are satisfactory to both employees and managers and the judicious use of workers sanctions (Mildred and Sonia, 2010). Fayol understood discipline as Without discipline, Fayol said, “no organization or a firm would prosper” (Parker and Philip, 2005). Interestingly, Fayol stressed that discipline is not a merely as something the employees owe the management in an organization, but rather discipline is something that will depend on the worthiness of its managers or leaders” (Parker and Philip, 2005). Unity of command has been expressed by Fayol as “for any action an employee should receive orders form one manager or superior only.” Just like the Bible states, “No one is able to serve two masters at the same time” (Parker and Philip, 2005). According to Fayol, dual command in an organization is a threat to discipline, authority, and stability (Crainer, 2003). Unity of command requires that a worker be given order by one manager. Two center of power can coincidently occur in an organization, for instance, if departments in an organization have not been clearly been demarcated, at same time, authorities and responsibilities have not clearly been defined (Brunsson, 2008). With regard to unity of command, Fayol has stated that, “specialization, hence division of labour is a natural state, conclusion can be made that a single manager is an evolutionary requirement” (McLean, 2011). This principle has been used in modern companies such as Google Inc which is being operated by three CEO. Google Inc has a flat hierarchy and has been seen to maintain small business feel. However, in every firm they must be a person who makes decision, someone who carry the largest responsibility, or someone who is a team of leaders. Conclusion At a time when persons are being encouraged to develop best practices in management. We should remain cognizant of the contribution that exisiting practice and theory can make to the so-called modern era of the next century. This essay has examined the work of Henry Fayol (1841–1925) and made a conclusion that, when the “straw man” is swept away, his insights remain useful as a basis for understanding managerial and management behavior. Indeed, given Fayol principles were written at the beginning of the century, it surprisingly that the current text which deals in what authors would describe as an enlightened way with such recent “discoveries” as profit sharing, employee participation, empowerment and leadership. Most of writings that exist today, inappropriately, encourage, throwing off the old theories that deal with management and adapt new paradigms shift. It is better to re-read Fayol and others in order to understand something that we have understood all our lives in a new way. Reference List Brunsson, K. H 2008, ‘Some Effects of Fayolism’, Int. Studies of Mgt. & Org., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 30–47. Crainer, S 2003, ‘One hundred years of management’, Business Strategy Review, , vol.14, no.2, pp 41-49. Daniel A. W 2001,’Henri Fayol as strategist: a nineteenth century corporate turnaround’, Management Decision, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 475 - 487 McLean, J 2011, Fayol – standing the test of time, MDP UK Ltd, Gwynedd Mildred, G.P and Sonia, T 2010,"Henri Fayol, practitioner and theoretician - revered and reviled", Journal of Management History, vol. 16, no. 4 pp. 489 - 503 Parker, L and Philip. R 2005, ‘Revisiting Fayol: Anticipating Contemporary Management’, British Journal of Management, vol. 16, 175–194 Pryor, MG & Taneja, S 2010, ‘Henri Fayol, practitioner & theoretician – revered and reviled’, Journal of Management History, vol. 16, no. 4, pp 489-503. Rodrigues, C. A 2001, ‘Fayol’s14 principles of management then and now: a framework for managing today’s organizations effectively’, Management Decision, vol.39, no.10 Wren, DA 2001 ‘Henri Fayol as strategist: a nineteenth century corporate turnaround’, Management Decision, vol. 39, issue 6, pp. 475-487. Read More