Name: Crystal Stephenson

Course: Introduction to Library Administration

Assignment: Management Theory Paper
Due Date: Monday, September 17, 2018
“An Analysis of Henri Fayol’s Management Theory”
As the workforce experienced dramatic shifts from farming to manufacturing following

the expansion of industrialization, contemporary workers are now predominantly “employed

within some sort of organization and have managers to guide and direct their work” (Moran &

Morner, 2018, p. 25). Accordingly, as the makeup of today’s workforce has evolved, so, too,

have the theories employed to manage them. While management historians are “seldom able to

trace the formative thinking” of the “field’s major contributors” (Wren, Bedeian, & Breeze,

2002, p. 906), one instrumental theorist, who has arguably developed a foundation for

management theory and principles that persist today, is the work of French Industrialist, Henri

Fayol. Fayol was not only “the first to write about the functions of management, including

planning, organization, command, coordination, and control” (Moran & Morner, 2018, p. 35),

but he also devised a basic set “of principles upon which to operate.” The purpose of this paper is

to review Fayol’s seminal work and appropriate his principles of management theory to those

core initiatives still in practice today, and conclude with some of the criticisms that exist to

compliment a more comprehensive analysis.

Management, in the broadest sense, is the task implementing organizational resources and

tools to achieve defined goals. “Within an organization, managers are the people who make

decisions that enable the organization to achieve its objectives” (Moran & Morner, 2018, p. 9),

and subsequently “help others reach these objectives effectively and efficiently.” More

specifically, however, management is a “cyclical process of planning by developing objectives

and forecasting, assembling the human resources necessary and organizing these tasks, leading,

harmonizing the work, and measuring performance to see if the plans were being achieved”
AN ANALYSIS STEPHENSON

(Wren, 2003, p. 103). The concept of management theory dates back to the latter part of the

nineteenth century, when “some managers and management theorists began to systematically

reflect upon their experiences and observations in an attempt to identify the most effective

management practices” (Moran & Morner, 2018, p. 26).

Today’s “management techniques have evolved from earlier practices, principles, and

research” in the field, pioneered by theorists whose ideas remain “the foundation for many

management techniques currently in practice” (Moran & Morner, 2018, p. 26). The earliest

theories were categorized as “classical” perspectives, such as the Scientific Management

Movement developed by Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Bureaucratic School of thought

theorized by Max Weber, but in accordance with both classical ideas borne the Administrative

Principles school developed in France and pioneered by Henri Fayol (1841-1925). Fayol

“attempted to establish a conceptual framework, to identify the principles of management, and to

build a theory on that basis” (Moran & Morner, 2018, p. 35). He also removed “the distinction

between management and administration, [and] together with the re-definition of

administration,” served to synthesize “these two concepts” (Breeze & Miner, 1980, p. 112).
Fayol’s work came to public attention with his book, Administration Industrielle et

Generale, published in 1916, and later translated from his native French to General and

Industrial Management in English. Historically, the availability of the English translation

“changed the manner in which management was taught in America and principles of

management texts began to be used as a basic course in business schools” (Wren, 2003, p. 102).

“Fayol’s theories were the result of his managerial experiences and his reflection on the ones that

worked best” (Pryor & Taneja, 2010, p. 490) for the time. Fayol “believed that organizational

and business life was an amalgam of six activities – technical; commercial; financial; security;

accounting; and management.” He then defined management in terms of five elements and

2
AN ANALYSIS STEPHENSON

functions, including planning, organizing, coordination, command, and control. “Finally, Fayol

advocated 14 principles of management designed to guide the successful manager” (Pryor &

Taneja, 2010, p. 490), which encompassed division of workload; “authority; discipline; unity of

command; unity of direction; subordination of individual interests to the general interests;

remuneration; centralization; scalar chain; order; equity; stability of tenure of personnel;

initiative; and esprit de corps,” otherwise considered a strong sense of morale and unity. Fayol’s

theories of management “continue to be valuable contributions” to the field, “because many

management experts consider his 14 principles of management to be the early foundation of

management theory as it exists today” (Pryor & Taneja, 2010, p. 490).

The significance of Fayol’s fourteen principles lies in its ease, flexibility, general

adaptability, and longevity. His guiding principles persist today, because it would be difficult to

define successful management without equitable division of the workload, necessity of an

authoritative member for instruction and holding others accountable to their specific

responsibilities, equality among employees, long term stability of their workers, reward or

incentive, and a strong sense of unity and morale, whereby communication is considered vital to

maintaining harmony among workers. Fayol was revolutionary in his belief “that management

activity occurs throughout an organization’s hierarchy and that all workers be exposed to some

form of management training to better equip them to undertake a task” (Parker & Ritson, 2005,

p. 183). As such, he contended that the practice of management is an acquired skill with

universal application, and recognized these principles as “guides to managerial action and not

rigid or absolutes” (Wren, 2003, p. 102) in application. Indeed, Fayol developed his principles

“as the foundation of his management theory and cautioned that ‘principles are flexible and

capable of adaption to every need.’” (Pryor & Taneja, 2010, p. 491)

3
AN ANALYSIS STEPHENSON

A comprehensive analysis, however, would be amiss if criticisms of Fayol’s theories were

not briefly acknowledged here. One critic of note was Henry Mintzberg, who dismissed “Fayol’s

concept of managerial work as ‘folklore’ compared to the ‘findings of his systematic research.’”

(Pryor & Taneja, 2010, p. 494) Mintzberg countered that management was not about functions,

but rather, “what managers do.” According to Mintzberg, “If you ask managers what they do,

they will most likely tell you that they plan, organize, coordinate, and control. Then watch what

they do. Don’t be surprised if you can’t relate what you see to those four words” (p. 495). While

Fayol’s critics may also cite the absence of interpersonal attributes, like Mary Parker Follett’s

Humanistic approach in the years to follow, one may argue that “Fayol’s concern for the quality

of interpersonal interaction between employees and his broad-based interest in the general,

holistically defined, welfare of the workforce are significant points of departure from the

Taylorist scientific management agenda with which” (Parker & Ritson, 2005, p. 184) he is often

associated. And like Follett, Fayol may “be counted as one of those early theorists who laid the

foundations upon which the human relations movement built.” It is inevitable that Fayol’s

theories be met with some criticism from their inception, but “there are many others who respect

them and find them useful as academicians and as practitioners” (Pryor & Taneja, 2010, p. 498).

Rather than debate the value of his principles, which have “proven usefulness and relevance over

time,” it would be advantageous to constructively compare Fayol’s work with other theorists and

writers, so “we can strengthen our knowledge of management” (p. 500) as a collective effort.
“Fayol’s theory was based on his experiences and reflections and germinated in the early

twentieth century” (Wren, 2003, p.), but his established principles and ideas have undoubtedly

become an influential foundation for management still in practice today. His theories continue to

be “valuable and relevant for organizational leaders because Fayol was a practitioner who

documented theories that worked best for him and his co-workers” (Pryor & Taneja, 2010, p.

4
AN ANALYSIS STEPHENSON

498). And as the theory of management naturally evolves over time, Fayol’s contributions remain

guiding principles in this field of study. In appreciating the contributions of these early pioneers,

we only serve to “further our understanding of the research and theory building process” (Wren,

Bedeian, & Breeze, 2002, p.917) of management going forward.

5
AN ANALYSIS STEPHENSON

References
Breeze, J. D., & Miner Jr., F. C. (1980). Henri Fayol: A New Definition of
"Administration". Academy of Management Proceedings, (00650668), 110-113.

doi:10.5465/AMBPP.1980.4976160.
Moran, B. B., & Morner, C. J. (2018). Library and Information Center Management. Santa
Barbara, California: Libraries Unlimited.
Parker, L. D., & Ritson, P. A. (2005). Revisiting Fayol: Anticipating Contemporary
Management. British Journal of Management, 16(3), 175-194. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

8551.2005.00453.x.
Pryor, M. G., & Taneja, S. (2010). Henri Fayol, Practitioner and Theoretician – Revered and
Reviled. Journal of Management History (1751-1348), 16(4), 489-503.

doi:10.1108/17511341011073960.
Wren, D. A. (2003). The Influence of Henri Fayol on Management Theory and Education in
North America. Entreprises Et Histoire, (34), 98-107.
Wren, D. A., Bedeian, A. G., & Breeze, J. D. (2002). The Foundations of Henri Fayol's
Administrative Theory. Management Decision, 40(9), 906-918.