A modern re-think of Fayolism

Revision as of 18:46, 9 April 2023

Author: Rejath Ramachandran, s226673

Summary

As a discipline, project management developed from several fields of application including civil construction, engineering, and heavy defence activity.[1] Snyder and Kline (1987) note that the modern project management era started in 1958 with the development of CPM/PERT. Morris (1987) argues that the origin of project management comes from the chemical industry just prior to World War II. However, some literature points the origin of project management to Henry Gantt, called the father of planning and control techniques,[2] also famous for his namesake, the Gantt chart; and Henri Fayol for his creation of the five managerial functions that form the foundation of the body of knowledge associated with project and program management. [3] Both Gantt and Fayol were students of Frederick Winslow Taylor's theories of scientific management.

Henri Fayol (1841–1925) was a French philosopher and management theorist. The Industrial Revolution in France inspired Fayol to create a theory which improved project management and created a more efficient workforce. As part of his theory, Fayolism, he also encouraged administration to use forecasting and planning to minimize workplace misunderstandings. Fayolism was flexible and could be applied not only to industrial settings, but also in the home, and in the government. To increase empathetic relationships at work, Fayol encouraged management and workers to replace workplace memos with verbal forms of communication.

Apart from his five managerial functions, Fayol also developed another 14 principles to help managers manage their affairs more effectively. However, as times change, people have begun to interpret these principles quite differently from the way they were interpreted during Fayol's time. Through this article, I hope to investigate how Fayolism is changing given the changing nature of the workplace and the breakdown of traditional roles. Are we now embarking upon a radically different path?

Big Idea

Henri Fayol published his ideas on administration and management (Narayanan & Nath, 1993) almost a century ago based on his experiences in the Mining industry in France (Witzel, 2003). The principles of management are general guidelines that provides a blueprint for decision-making in an organization. Management principles deal with human behaviour and so it needs to be imple-mented based on the situation at hand. Human behaviour is ever changing and so also is technolo-gy, organizational structures, and business strategies etc. It is believed that every organization today one way or the other implements Fayol’s principles of management. The fourteen principles are as follows (Vlett, 2014):

1. Division of Work
2. Authority and Responsibility
3. Discipline
4. Unity of Command
5. Unity of Direction
6. Subordination of Individual Interest
7. Remuneration
8. Centralization
9. Scalar Chain
10. Order
11. Equity
12. Stability of Tenure of Personnel
13. Initiative
14. Esprit de Corps

Fayol’s works gained popularity in 1949 (Pugh & Hickson, 2007) and these principles have stood the test of time for almost a century (Pryor & Guthrie, 2010 and Jacqueline, 2011). However modern organisations have evolved too fast in recent years rendering the application of some his principles questionable. Rapid globalisation over the last few decades has resulted in many changes to the structures, nature of jobs and employees outlook towards employment. Consequently, employees’ perception on factors such as job security, urbanisation and outsourcing have undergone changes in the recent years. Hence this is an attempt to conceptualise some of the changes and their impact on the following tenets of ‘Fayolism’.

1. Unity of command: On a different note, multi-tasking poses challenges in terms of reporting. Consider the organisational structures prevalent in modern companies, where employees are often required to report to functional heads and project managers. This is quite different from Fayol’s times (Brunson, 2008). There was a time when the cubicle ruled the roost at the workplace, but over the past two decades it has given way to more open office layouts to allow for greater interaction between people, and also to create a more relaxed, collegial atmosphere. There was another good reason for doing away with the cubicle: with company structures becoming less hierarchical, more linear and collaborative, there was no need for workers and management to be segregated – the message was this, everyone, even the boss was accessible at any time.

1. Subordination of individual interest to general interest: In a lot of places, the likes of Japan and Germany, employment was traditionally considered a lifetime affair. The employee would only seek an alternative only if his incumbent company went out of business. Loyalty then was considered a critical aspect and the employees often sacrificed their own interests to uphold the interest of the organisation. However, the present generation of employees and employers consider the idea of loyalty as behind the times. This is evident from the mass layoffs of 2023. Its as N.R Narayana Murthy, Infosys Co-founder and the ‘Father of the Indian IT Sector’ says "Love your job, but never fall in love with your company".

1. Stability of tenure of personnel: Both retrenchment and job hopping have become a part of the part and parcel of today’s employment landscape. People are committed to their profession rather than the organisation and hence employee turnover is relatively higher these days. Earlier people moved for just reasons of compensation, but now their reasons have become multidimensional, often for reasons of company culture or your life has changed in major way. Organisations have become cost conscious and don’t wish to retain employees on a permanent basis. Even government departments have begun to employ workers on a contract basis to avoid the costs related to increment, EPF and pension. There is no long-term commitment on either side.

1. Remuneration: Terms of employment have changed too, with permanent, pensionable jobs becoming a rarity, and the gig economy and contract working becoming the norm.

1. Discipline: In recent years, technology has allowed people to be less tied to their desks. With staff being able to work remotely, employees have gained advantages in the form of flexibility, security, and efficiency. Along with these benefits, employees no longer have to wake up at fixed times, prepare properly, and follow routines set at work. This might look anti-thetical to the factory discipline prevalent in Industrial Revolution Britain and France. The thing to keep in mind here is that you can't use this old discipline method in a remote work environment. Therefore, it is upto oneself to work on WFH self-discipline. However if the past two years have done anything, it’s reassured bosses that remote and hybrid working won’t impact on their bottom line – in fact, it could vastly improve it.

1. Centralization: For a long time, a hierarchical, or centralized organizational structure has been the norm. However, more and more organizations are starting to value more egalitarian organizational landscapes, one that gives more freedom to the employee. This is particularly important since business operations have gone global, and decisions need to be made quick. Today, with the proliferation of startups, non-traditional work arrangements, and accelerators, de-centralization is becoming more common even within traditional corporate settings. Such a step helps isolate problems as well as successes. It leads to a positive workplace culture, as employees are empowered to implement ideas and make changes faster that can benefit the company.

1. Initiative: Under this principle, Fayol envisaged management providing from time-to-time creative ideas, skills, and more convenient methods to accomplish tasks. However, as observed by (Robinson, 2005), managers these days are unable to take initiative as they are often preoccupied with other related and unrelated commitments. But in the contemporary age, the staff itself has become an idea-house and hence the bedrock of modern organisations. It has been observed in western countries that group problem-solving systems are patronized against dependence on top-level management as a problem-solving point (Magjuka, 1991 & 1992). However, there always needs to be processes, procedures and policies in place to guide employees to ensure successful implementation and pre-vent abuse of the privilege (Okpara, 2015).

1. Division of work: The operations of present-day organisations are different from how mining operations were carried a hundred years ago. During the industrialisation revolution era, workers were expected to gain expertise in a trade by repeating the same work over and over again. It was assumed that they gained expertise by experience and subsequently would take lesser time to accomplish the same job over time.

However, the global economy is no more in that era and many nations are orienting themselves towards a services based economy. In a service based economy, multitasking becomes an essential qualification. Banks are a classic example of this. Graduate programs at some banks [5] start of with rotations in various departments of related fields. This is done with the hope that students gain a deep understanding of the company, build a network, and are involved in finding a final placement.

The pace at which businesses change has placed a huge demand on employees to learn new skills and be a jack of all trades rather than specialising in one functional area. When the typewriters became defunct the typists had to learn how to use computers. And, with the advent of computers, the erstwhile typists did not just have to type letters, but also had to use it for inventory management, billing, accounting and other purposes. Another example is the post office. Apart from postal services, they offer other services such as ID card issual/ renewal, utility bill payments, and money transfer. They’ve tied up with private agencies and government departments to offer a one-stop solution to customers.

Limitations

There are two general criticisms:

1. One is that Fayol’s theory was developed based solely on his own managerial experiences, which means he didn’t undertake any further research. As a result, he wasn’t able to fully develop a com-prehensive understanding of its advantages and disadvantages, believing strongly that his system only produced benefits.
2. Additionally, his principles, although they are relevant today, are still considered crude in today's world. Nowadays there is a much greater emphasis on “leadership” than on “management”. That is also consistent with a knowledge-worker environment.

References

• Cleland, David; Gareis, Roland (May 25, 2006). "1: The evolution of project management". Global Project Management Handbook. ISBN 0071460454.
• Stevens, Martin (2002). Project Management Pathways. p. xxii. ISBN 190349401X.
• Witzel, Morgen (2003). Fifty Key Figures in Management. pp. 96–101. ISBN 0415369770.
• Fayol, H. (1917). Administration industrielle et générale: prévoyance, organisation, commandement, coordination, contrôle (in French). Dunod. Retrieved 2022-10-12.
• Brunsson, K. (2008). Some Effects of Fayolism. International Studies Of Management & Organization. 38 (1). pp. 30–47.
• Kumar, Senthil, 2016/01/01, Modern Organisations and Fayolism, Journal of Global Business and Social Entrepreneurship.
• Fayol, H. (1917). Administration industrielle et générale; prévoyance, organisation, commandement, coordination, controle (in French), Paris, H. Dunod et E. Pinat
• Jacqueline M. (2011). Fayol-Standing the test of time. British Journal of Administrative Management. (74). pp. 32–33.
• Narayanan, V.K. and Nath, R. (1993), Organization theory: a strategic approach, Irwin, p. 29
• Pryor, J.L. and Guthrie, C. (2010). The private life of Henri Fayol and his motivation to build a management science. Journal of Management History.
• Pugh, D.S. and Hickson, D.H. (2007). Great Writers on Organizations. The Third Omnibus Edition, p.144
• Rodrigues, C.A. (2001). Fayol’s 14 principles of management then and now: a framework for managing today’s organisations effectively. Management Decision, 30(10), 880 – 889.
• Vlett, V. (2014). 14 Principles of management (Fayol). Retrieved from: www.toolshero.com.
• Witzel, M. (2003). Fifty figures in management. Routledge
• Aditya Sharma, Best Ways To Establish WFH Self-Discipline Among Remote Employees, accessed 19 February 2023, <https://www.turing.com/resources/how-to-work-on-self-discipline-of-remote-employees>.
• Sampson Quain (2018), The Advantages of Fayol's Principles of Management. Retrieved from: www.smallbusiness.chron.com.
• Kevin Courtney, 2022, How the workplace has changed in the past 20 years, accessed 19 February 2023, <https://www.irishtimes.com/special-reports/great-place-to-work/how-the-workplace-has-changed-in-the-past-20-years-1.4816412>.
• Eurofound (2016), Changes in remuneration and reward systems, Publications, Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
• Graduate programs, Julius Baer Group ©, 2021.
• Mørch, Allan; 2022, July 27; How the decentralized workplace boosts your workplace cul-ture; https://www.askcody.com/blog/decentralized-workplace-for-better-technology-adoption.
• Andrew Campbell, Sven Kunisch, and Günter Müller-Stewens; 2011, June 1; To centralize or not to centralize? McKinsey Quarterly.
• Achinivu Godwin. “Application of the Henri Fayol’s Principles of Management to Startups.” IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), vol. 19, no. 10, 2017, pp. 78–85.

Further reading

• Breeze, John D., and Frederick C. Miner. "Henri Fayol: A New Definition of "Administration"." Academy of Management Proceedings. Vol. 1980. No. 1. Academy of Management, 1980.
• Fayol, Henri, and John Adair Coubrough. Industrial and general administration. (1930).
• Fayol, Henri. General and industrial management. (1954).
• Fayol, Henri. General Principles of Management. (1976).
• Modaff, Daniel P., Sue DeWine, and Jennifer A. Butler. Organizational communication: Foundations, challenges, and misunderstandings. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, 2008.
• Pearson, Norman M. "Fayolism as the necessary complement of Taylorism." American Political Science Review 39.01 (1945): 68-80.
• Parker, Lee D., and Philip A. Ritson. "Revisiting Fayol: anticipating contemporary management." British Journal of Management 16.3 (2005): 175-194.
• Pugh, Derek S. "Modern organization theory: A psychological and sociological study." Psychological Bulletin 66.4 (1966): 235.
• Reid, Donald. "The genesis of fayolism." Sociologie du travail 28.1 (1986): 75-93.
• Carl A Rodrigues. (2001). "Fayol's 14 principles of management then and now: A framework for managing today's organizations effectively." Management Decision, 39(10), 880-889.
• Wren, Daniel A. "Was Henri Fayol a Real Manager?." Academy of Management Proceedings. Vol. 1990. No. 1. Academy of Management, 1990.