Fayol stands the test of time Fayol stands the

test of time
Michael J. Fells
Henley Management College, St Peter Port, Guernsey
Keywords Management, Model, Planning, Organizing, Co-ordination
345
Abstract Planning, organising, co-ordinating, commanding and controlling ± these are the
elements of management according to Henri Fayol. Less known, but no less important, are
Fayol's principles of management. Fayol was born in 1841 and died in 1925. His Administration
Industrielle et GeÂneÂrale was published in French in 1916 but was not translated into English until
1929. Fayol's work is often quickly rejected either because of its age or because it is believed to
have been superseded by observational findings. However, Fayol's work was based on observation.
This paper considers some contemporary models of management (Hales, Kotter, Mintzberg) and
argues that Fayol's elements of management are not refuted but are rather reinforced by more
recent findings. The paper concludes that Fayol's work stands the test of time. The five elements
of management and 14 principles of management are briefly presented.

Introduction
Henri Fayol was born in 1841 and died in 1925. After 30 years of an eminently
successful career as a practitioner, Fayol devoted the remainder of his life, from
1918 to 1925, to promoting his theory of administration (Fayol, 1949).
Fayol was perhaps the first to note the need for management education
(Brodie, 1967). His Administration Industrielle et GeÂneÂrale was published in
French in 1916. No English translation appeared until 1929.
In the Foreword to the English translation of 1949 (Fayol, 1949) it is noted
that the use of the term ``administration'' in the title of the original English
translation is perhaps unfortunate and would have been better termed
``management''. Fayol's work was clearly about management but, the Foreword
argues, no such word exists in the French language.
Fayol (1949) argued that all industrial undertakings precipitate activities
that can be categorised into six groups: technical, commercial, financial,
security, accounting and management. Fayol's work focused on the latter
category, management.
Frederick Taylor (1856-1915) was a contemporary of Fayol. Although
Taylor's work is sometimes compared with Fayol's, it is important to realise
that the focus of each is quite different. Wren (1994) notes that Fayol's work
was overshadowed by Taylor's, even in France. But Fayol always argued that
the two works were complementary. Wren observes that Fayol viewed
management from the executive perspective while Taylor focused on the other
end. For example, the foundation of Taylor's scientific management was time
study.

Fayol's classical model

This section summarises the ``principles'' and ``elements'' propounded by Fayol. Journal of Management History,
Vol. 6 No. 8, 2000, pp. 345-360.
These are amplified later (in the section titled ``A closer look at Fayol's ideas''). # MCB University Press, 1355-252X
JMH Fayol (1949) enumerated and discussed 14 ``principles'' of management.
6,8 Specifically, these concerned:
(1) division of work;
(2) authority and responsibility;
(3) discipline;
346 (4) unity of command;
(5) unity of direction;
(6) subordination of individual interest to the general interest;
(7) remuneration;
(8) centralisation;
(9) span of control;
(10) order;
(11) equity;
(12) stability of tenure of personnel;
(13) initiative; and
(14) esprit de corps.
Fayol stressed that the actual number of principles was arbitrary and the list
non-exhaustive (for example, Brodie, 1967; Fayol, 1949). He asserted that the
principles should be flexible and adaptable to every need.
Fayol (1949) also identified five ``elements'' or ``processes'' (Gray, 1984) of
management, which constituted his ``rules of his administrative doctrine''
(Brodie, 1967). These processes are:
(1) Planning: examining the future and laying out the actions to be taken.
(2) Organising: laying out lines of authority and responsibility.
(3) Co-ordinating: laying out timing and sequencing of activities; binding
and harmonising all.
(4) Commanding: putting the plan into action.
(5) Controlling: monitoring and adjusting; ensuring conformity with rules.
According to Fayol, principles should guide the execution of these management
processes.

The question of currency

As intuitively appealing as it may seem, the classical work of Fayol (1949)
tends to be quickly rejected by many authors (for example, Kotter, 1982;
Mintzberg, 1973). It has also been noted that recognition and incorporation of
Fayol's work is no longer widespread in contemporary MBA textbooks
(Archer, 1990) as was once thought (Caroll and Gillen, 1987).
 However, this researcher believes that the Fayol model is relevant and Fayol stands the
appropriate to contemporary management. Hales (1986) argues that if the test of time
classical theories are viewed as theories of management functions rather than
hypotheses of individual management behaviour, then they are neither
confirmed nor denied by the later literature. He demonstrated his commitment
to this view by expressly including three of Fayol's five elements of
management (planning, controlling and directing) into his model (Hales, 1986), 347
based on a literature survey. The other elements, this researcher argues, are no
more inapplicable but are included elsewhere in more contemporary models,
indirectly, as will be demonstrated herein.
Indeed, it would be easy to think that Fayol's model has been rendered
ineffective simply by the passage of time. However, Fayol's five ``elements'' of
planning, organising, co-ordinating, commanding, and controlling are quite
general and therefore may in fact pass the test of time. One could argue that in
contemporary times, elements of ``commanding'' are inappropriately
unenlightened.
Sometimes, ``commanding'' has been translated as ``directing'' ± often with
even more negative connotations. But this all misses the point: the
commanding or directing role must be done, however euphemistically or
surreptitiously. Fayol did not view ``commanding'' as a dictatorial activity but
rather as essentially ``putting the plan into action'' (Gray, 1984). Importantly,
Fayol's five elements of management are to be governed by what he termed the
``principles'' of management.
The word ``principles'' should not be interpreted too restrictively (Brodie,
1967). Fayol believed that the principles should be flexible and capable of
considerable adaptation (Brodie, 1967). This researcher believes that these
relatively little known principles (Archer, 1990) afford great flexibility and
necessary perspective and are instrumental in preserving the currency of the
individual ``elements''.
Hales (1986) observed that there are ``striking parallels with the supposedly
outdated `classical principles of management''' with respect to more
contemporary views.
Archer (1990) argues that America should return to the principles. He
observes that the US productivity and standard of living levels soared while
Fayol's principles were popular, during the 1930s to 1960s. Archer asserts that
current related problems in the US include:
. quality and productivity;
. the large number of business failures;
. the poor financial condition of many companies;
. the decline of major industries, etc.
Archer also argues that much of the Japanese success can be attributed to their
adherence to Fayol's principles. He offers examples of Japanese techniques that
embody Fayol's principles:
JMH . JIT (just in time) ± the principle of ``order'';
6,8 . advanced approaches to assembly-line balancing, quality and
production control mechanisms ± ``division of work'';
. quality circles and exercise sessions ± esprit de corps;
. lower-level decision making ± the principle of ``initiative''.
348 Some might think that Fayol's theoretical thinking has simply been superseded
by actual observation. Indeed, Mintzberg (1989) himself suggests as much
when he notes (emphasis added):
If you ask managers what they do, they will most likely tell you that they plan, organize, co-
ordinate, and control. Then watch what they do. Don't be surprised if you can't relate what
you see to those four words.
But Fayol's model was based on observation too (Brodie, 1967)! In fact, Fayol
stressed the importance of observation. He believed that management laws and
principles could be deduced from observation and experience just as they could
in other sciences (Brodie, 1967).
Still others might think that Fayol's model must be ``wrong'' because it is
different from Mintzberg's. Mintzberg's (1973) model is often quoted and the
associated underlying study has been successfully replicated although this
latter study was more than a replication. Caroll and Gillen (1987) note that
management texts seldom include the criticisms of Mintzberg's study, such as
Luthans et al. (1985). One believes that it is therefore safe to say that
Mintzberg's model is generally accepted today. But surely the acceptance of
Mintzberg's model does not necessarily negate the validity of another ± if, for
example, that other is simply a different view or perspective of the same thing.

Contemporary models
In order to assess better the current validity of Fayol's work, it is necessary to
compare it with more contemporary views. For this purpose, the seminal field
research of Mintzberg (1973) and Kotter (1982) will be considered as well as the
literature review of Hales (1986).
Mintzberg (1973) undertook an extensive study of five executives (including
four CEOs) at work. Based on this research, Mintzberg developed a different
view to Fayol's (Gray, 1984) classical model. He categorises managerial
activities into three groups that are then amplified into ten management roles:
(1) Interpersonal:
. figurehead;
. leader; and
. liaison (inside and outside).
(2) Informational:
. monitor (of internal and external information);
. disseminator (of information); and
. spokesman;
 (3) Decisional: Fayol stands the
. entrepreneur (i.e. change agent); test of time
. disturbance handler;
. resource allocator; and
. negotiator. 349
Kotter's observations (1982) led him to agree with Mintzberg that executives'
activities do not fit neatly into Fayol's (Gray, 1984) framework of planning,
organising, etc.
Many others have since seemingly accepted that Fayol's model is
unacceptable, in view of the results of contemporary researchers such as
Mintzberg, and are relatively quick to reject it (e.g. Rolph and Bartram, 1992;
Secretan, 1986).
In The General Managers, Kotter (1982) notes that ``although there is `an
enormous amount of literature' on `management', most concern processes or
tools, not who managers are, what they do, or why some are more effective than
others.''
Kotter's book is based upon his efforts to improve this situation by an
extensive study of 15 general managers.
Kotter identified significant commonality of behaviour in the managers
studied. He describes the following overall job responsibilities:
. Long run ± formulating organisation goals, directions, and priorities
including what businesses to be in and how to acquire key resources.
. Medium run ± effective resource allocation in terms of long-run goals.
. Short run ± efficient allocation of resources along with some profit
responsibility.
Hales (1986) reviewed the literature of Mintzberg and Kotter among others.
Based on this review, Hales identified common themes and threads of what he
terms ``elements of managerial work''. These are:
. acting as a figurehead and leader of the organisational unit;
. liaison: the formation and maintenance of contacts;
. monitoring, filtering and disseminating information;
. allocating resources;
. handling disturbances and maintaining work flows;
. negotiating;
. innovating;
. planning; and
. controlling and directing subordinates.
JMH Where is Fayol's model today?
6,8 Caroll and Gillen (1987) quote Mintzberg (1973, 1989) and Kotter (1982) in
stating that the usefulness of the classical functions has been called into
question. Archer (1990) goes further and urges that the US return to the
principles.
Archer (1990) argues that Fayol's model began to be assaulted by academics
350 in the US in the 1940s. He believes that the assault continued and grew into the
1960s until ``motivational panaceas'' such as needs theory and job enrichment
displaced Fayol's principles.
Could it be that the 1930s cost-cutting aftermath of the great recession
followed by a lack of cost-consciousness during World War II and then the
cost-overrun period of defence after World War II undermined the planning
and control structure of Fayol's principles? If the enabling structure of Fayol's
elements and principles was destroyed then that would surely explain why
Mintzberg and Kotter were unable to find them in their studies.
Wren (1994) observes that the impact of the great recession on management
thought has never been fully examined. However, he does note that, after 1929,
Mayo-ists considered economic problems to be social problems. Despite this,
Wren suggests that the Constance Storrs translation of Fayol's work after
World War II actually led to renewed interest in Fayol.
Yet others believe that Fayol's elements and principles remain valid and in
use today. Luthans et al. (1985) studied 52 managers at varying levels
(Mintzberg observed five senior managers). They found that traditional
management roles were frequently observed, particularly by successful
managers at more senior levels.
Luthans' et al. (1985) acknowledge the support that Mintzberg's work has
received. However, they cite several studies that identify potentially significant
weaknesses with Mintzberg's findings and suggest that the real value of his
study is not the ten roles but rather the use of direct observations which
provide insights into management behaviour. Their study also found
considerable support for Kotter's conclusions but noted that successful
managers at top levels devoted more attention to the traditional roles such as
planning and co-ordinating.
Luthans et al. (1988) studied 457 managers at various levels and from
diverse organisations over a four-year period. They conclude that much of the
manager's time is doing what is described as traditional management.
This researcher believes that all of the management models discussed,
including the classical Fayol model, are legitimate and valid today. Rather than
competing, this researcher sees each as simply representing a different view, as
suggested by Wren (1994).

Fayol versus the contemporary models

Caroll and Gillen (1987) concluded that ``the classical functions still represent
the most useful way of conceptualizing the manager's job. . .'' and argued that
the more contemporary studies such as Mintzberg's primarily help to clarify Fayol stands the
the nature of managerial work. They went on to suggest an integration of the test of time
work of Stewart, Kotter, Mintzberg, Fayol, and Katz.
Although Mintzberg (1973) and Kotter (1982) allude to a rejection of the
classical view of planning, organising, co-ordinating, commanding, and
controlling advanced by Fayol (Gray, 1984), this researcher also believes that
this is not justified, although the manner in which those responsibilities are 351
exercised may be debatable.
Wren (1994) provides possibly the best contemporary discussion of the work
of Fayol and related activity on management principles. Wren notes that Kotter
is actually quite supportive of Fayol and relates Mintzberg's ten roles to the
more traditional elements as described by Fayol.
Indeed, the views of both Kotter (1982) and Mintzberg (1973) tend to confirm
rather than deny this classical view. For example, Kotter's (1982) long-run
responsibilities of goal formulation and direction setting can easily be viewed
as ``planning'' activities. Similarly, the medium- and short-run responsibilities
can be viewed from the classical perspective. With the possible exception of his
``figurehead'' role, Mintzberg's (1973) model maps very well to the classical
view. For example, ``disturbance handler'' might include ``controlling'',
``commanding'' and possibly ``co-ordinating''. Wren (1994) offers similar
examples.
The purpose of this section is to demonstrate that each of the individual
management models reinforce one another. Although each is different in some
respects (this will be expanded upon later), the constituent elements are very
much interrelated.
The specific models considered are as follows:
. Fayol (1949);
. Mintzberg (1973);
. Kotter (1982);
. Hales (1986).
In Figures 1 and 2, this researcher has connected elements from each model by
lines to highlight perceived relationships. This was very much a subjective
process and one could well argue the legitimacy of the inclusion or exclusion of
specific relationships. However, one believes that, on balance, the case is fairly
clear. Some of the more tenuous relationships are identified by a dotted line
rather than a solid line.
These charts are intended to provide a high-level view of perceived inter-
relationships. These interrelationships associate model elements with one
another in the sense of denoting or connoting similar concepts or ideas.
For example, in Figure 1, Mintzberg's ``entrepreneur'' element is shown as
being interrelated to the Fayol (1949) element of ``planning''. In Figure 2,
``planning'' is related to Hales' ``monitoring, filtering, . . . information'' and
``innovating''.
JMH
6,8

352

Figure 1.
Management model
comparison: Mintzberg,
Fayol and Kotter

Some elements clearly have stronger relationships to other model elements.

Nonetheless, the combination of strength and number of relationships does
suggest that all models are very much interrelated and, thus, in a sense say the
same things in different ways.
Despite the initially unwieldy appearance of the diagrammatic approach, it
is perhaps most effective in simply communicating the point argued. To
achieve an overall impression, one can scan the individual columns one at a
time, noting that there are (or are not) associated relationships indicated (i.e.
connector lines). Individual relationships can easily be seen and considered by
following each individual connector line of interest.
 Fayol stands the
test of time

353

Figure 2.
Management model
comparison: Fayol,
Hales and Mintzberg

As already noted, Mintzberg's (1973) model appears to be most widely

accepted. Comprising ten elements, it also appears to be more detailed than the
others. Consequently, the researcher has assumed the primacy of this model in
the reconciliation and, accordingly, it appears in each.
Fayol is related to all contemporary views in order to underscore the validity
of the Fayol model as discussed earlier.
Thus, two figures have been constructed with the following columns:
. Mintzberg, Fayol, Kotter; and
. Fayol, Hales, Mintzberg.
JMH Figure 1 reconciles Fayol's (1949) model to those of Mintzberg (1973) and Kotter
6,8 (1982).
This mapping (Figure 1) is subjective. For example, although the researcher
believes that planning (the strategic variety at least) requires Mintzberg's
entrepreneurship, this is arguable. Nonetheless, each of Fayol's five constituent
elements corresponds to each of the elements comprising the Mintzberg and
354 Kotter models (although two of the Mintzberg model relationships ± ``figurehead''
and ``spokesman'' ± were only considered dotted-line relationships.)
Thus, the Mintzberg, Fayol, and Kotter models appear to be closely inter-
related.
Figure 2 shows that all of the elements comprising Hales' (1986) model can
be found in the Fayol (1949) and Mintzberg (1973) models. This should not be
surprising since the model was developed from a literature survey and
represents the common threads identified therein. The last two elements of
Hales' model map exactly to three of Fayol's elements, as depicted by the lines
shown. The remainder of Hales' model matches Fayol's, though somewhat
more tenuously.
The Hales model maps virtually exactly to Mintzberg's elements. In fact, the
Hales elements, 1-7 appear to match exactly, with the following minor
exceptions:
(1) Hales includes ``filtering'' as an informational element (3) not explicitly
recognised by Mintzberg's model. This researcher believes, however,
that filtering is implicit in any human informational activity and this
seems to be supported by the literature (for example, McCall and
Kaplan, 1985).
(2) Hales combines ``handling disturbances'' and ``maintaining work flows''
(5). The latter term does not appear in Mintzberg's model. However, the
researcher views ``maintaining work flows'' as being incorporated in
``handling disturbances'' to the extent that it is really the objective and
thus refers to the same activities.
(3) Lastly, Hales uses the term ``innovating'' (7) which the researcher has
interpreted as referring to entrepreneurial skills.
This completes the reconciliation of the Fayol model with all three of the
contemporary models identified in the literature. The Fayol model appears to
be very much supported and reinforced by contemporary models.

A closer look at Fayol's ideas

The previous section makes the case that Fayol's work is still very much alive
and relevant today. This section presents some of these ideas, management
principles and elements of management, in slightly more detail. The reader will
undoubtedly find these ideas intuitively appealing. However, one should bear
in mind that these ideas are not hypothetical musings but the result of detailed
observation throughout a long and successful career.
This section has been largely extracted form the Constance Storrs translation Fayol stands the
(Fayol, 1949) of Fayol's Administration Industrielle et GeÂneÂrale which was first test of time
published in 1916.

General principles of management

Fayol notes that there is no limit on the number of management principles. He
stresses that the principles must be flexible and adapt to the situation at hand. 355
What has become recognised as the list of principles espoused by Fayol are
actually a non-exhaustive list of ``some of the principles of management which I
have most frequently had to apply'' (Fayal, 1949, p. 19):
Division of work (Fayol, 1949, p. 20): has to do with the relationship between
structure and function. Fayol notes that such specialisation is a natural
phenomenon occurring in both nature and society. The object of such
specialisation is ``to produce more and better work with the same effort''.
However, Fayol cautions that there are limits to the extent to which the division
of work can be effectively applied.
Authority and responsibility (Fayol, 1949, p. 21): are inextricably linked
according to Fayol. He views responsibility as the corollary of authority ±
responsibility is the consequence of authority and is therefore inseparable.
Fayol muses that ``responsibility is feared as much as authority is sought after''.
Fayol defines authority as the ``right to give orders''. He notes that this right
is one of office and needs to be complemented by the personal authority
associated with such qualities as intelligence and moral character.
Fayol states that the effective use of authority requires high moral character,
impartiality and firmness
Discipline (Fayol, 1949, p. 22): according to Fayol, this is essential to the
success of any enterprise. It is a management responsibility that, he argues, is
best established and maintained by:
. good superiors at all levels;
. agreements as clear and fair as possible;
. sanctions (penalties) judiciously applied.
Fayol's treatment of this principle is very much concerned with relations
between management and the labour force.
Unity of command (Fayol, 1949, p. 24): holds that an employee or department
should receive orders from one source only. Fayol expounds the dangers of
doing otherwise. These include undermining authority, loss of discipline and
instability.
Fayol views this principle as fundamental and states that the social
organism is incapable of adapting to dual command. He stresses the need to
clearly delineate duties and responsibilities.
JMH Unity of direction (Fayol, 1949, p. 25): is similar to unity of command (above).
6,8 However, whereas the latter pertains to personnel, the former relates to the
organisation of the business itself. Proper focus and co-ordination requires ``one
head and one plan for a group of activities having the same objective''.
Subordination of individual interest to the general interest (Fayol, 1949, p. 26):
recognises the human tendency to place sometimes personal interests before
356 those of the group. Fayol suggests firmness and leading by example, as well as
agreements where practical, and constant supervision.
Remuneration (Fayol, 1949, p. 26): deals with paying employees for their
services. Fayol states that compensation should be fair and, to the extent
possible, be satisfactory to both personnel and the firm. However, he
acknowledges the influences of other factors such as supply and demand.
Beyond this, Fayol does not discuss setting remuneration rates but rather the
method of payment.
Fayol notes that there is no one best method to pay personnel ± each has
advantages and disadvantages. He discusses several: time rates, job rates, and
piece rates, bonuses, and profit sharing.
Centralisation (Fayol, 1949, p. 33): and decentralisation is a question of
proportion, according to Fayol. The optimum proportion will vary from
company to company and from circumstance to circumstance. Fayol notes that
the degree of centralisation and decentralisation may vary often because of
changing conditions. Achieving the best proportion for a given set of
circumstances is the ongoing issue.
Scalar chain (Fayol, 1949, p. 34): refers to the organisational structure and
lines of authority that flow from the principle of unity of command. Fayol
observes that this structure can become very large and consequently seriously
delay inter-group communications and actions. He therefore urges that
individuals within groups interact directly at their level and advise their
superiors of agreements. If the individuals within the groups cannot agree, or if
their superiors do not agree on the results, then and only then would the scalar
chain be followed. Fayol notes that this approach is typical within industry and
tends to be more of a problem within government organisations.
Order (Fayol, 1949, p. 36): in the case of materials, it is ``a place for
everything and everything in its place''. In the case of personnel, it is ``the right
man in the right place''. While offering these generalisations, Fayol explains
that the reality is much more complex.
Materials must be placed such that they facilitate activities as much as
possible. This goes well beyond merely being tidy. Fayol also notes that the
``right man in the right place'' has implications for both organisation and
personnel selection. He asserts that ``social order demands precise knowledge of
the human requirements and resources of the concern as a constant balance
between these requirements and resources''.
 Equity (Fayol, 1949, p. 38): equity and equality of treatment for all personnel Fayol stands the
at all levels are a precondition to devotion and loyalty, observes Fayol. He notes test of time
that this does not exclude discipline and must be applied without neglecting
other principles and in view of the broader general interest.
Stability of tenure of personnel (Fayol, 1949, p. 38): this is Fayol's
acknowledgment that personnel need time to develop necessary job skills and
succeed at performing their duties. He notes that this principle is especially 357
important in the case of managers since they typically require much more time
to develop necessary skills. Fayol suggests that management turnover can
precipitate poor corporate performance.
Initiative (Fayol, 1949, p. 39): as defined by Fayol, this is the power to
formulate a plan and successfully implement it. He views initiative as one of the
greatest satisfactions attainable by individuals and, in aggregate, is a source of
great strength for businesses. Thus, Fayol encourages the development and
nurturing of initiative, noting that managers ``must be able to sacrifice some
personal vanity in order to grant this sort of satisfaction to subordinates''.
Esprit de corps (Fayol, 1949, p. 40): refers to harmony and union amongst
personnel. Fayol states that this is a great strength that deserves attention. He
notes that many methods are employed to this end but rather than enumerating
or discussing them, stresses the importance of the unity of command principle.
Fayol also identifies two major sources of problems. One is dividing one's
group by, for example, creating dissension. Rather, Fayol suggests that one
should focus on co-ordinating efforts and encouraging keenness.

Elements of management
Fayol categorises management into five major elements:
(1) planning;
(2) organising;
(3) commanding;
(4) co-ordinating; and
(5) controlling.
Fayol devotes relatively more attention to these five elements than to the 14
management principles. The latter were discussed in 24 pages. The five
elements of management are considered in 65 pages. The following attempts to
capture the essence of each element.
Planning (Fayol, 1949, p. 43): ``means both to assess the future and make
provision for it''. Fayol views the ``action plan'' as the most useful output of the
planning process. He notes that this plan must consider the firm's resources,
work-in-progress, and future trends in the eternal environment.
Fayol discusses the features of a good action plan and highlights: unity,
continuity, flexibility and precision.
Organising (Fayol, 1949, p. 53): personnel is the focus of this section. Fayol
enumerates the managerial duties of organisations that must be realised
JMH through personnel. He argues that despite the variety of businesses, every firm
6,8 of similar employee size differs mainly in ``the nature and relative value of
constituent elements''.
Fayol identifies many key objectives of organising including:
. ensuring proper plan preparation and execution;
358 . aligning objectives with resources;
. establishing a single guiding authority;
. harmonising and co-ordinating of activities;
. maximising personnel deployment;
. clear delineation of duties;
. encouraging initiative and responsibility;
. maintaining discipline;
. ensuring the subordination of individual interests to corporate interests;
. supervision of both material and human order; and
. maintaining full control.
Fayol considers the functional components of organisations along with the
constituent personnel, and discusses the ideal conditions required of each in
considerable detail. In so doing, Fayol comments on various organisational
metaphors such as the ``mechanistic'' and ``organic''. He concludes the section
with a review of personnel selection and training. Fayol devotes four pages to a
critique of the work of Taylor (Fayol, 1949, pp. 66-70).
Commanding (Fayol, 1949, p. 98): the responsibility of every manager. The
purpose is achieve the maximum contribution to the interests of the business
from all personnel within the manager's unit. Fayol discusses several maxims:
. Have a thorough knowledge of personnel (e.g. in terms of capabilities).
Fayol notes that in large organisations this knowledge could only
reasonably apply to direct reports as per the manager's span of control.
. Eliminate the incompetent.
. Be well versed in the agreements binding the business and its
employees.
. Set a good example.
. Conduct periodic audits of the organisation and use summarised charts
to further this.
. Bring together chief assistants by means of conferences, at which unity
of direction and focusing of effort are provided for.
. Do not become engrossed in detail. (Fayol suggests delegating all work
that the manager is not strictly required to undertake personally.)
 . Aim at making unity, energy, initiative and loyalty prevail among the Fayol stands the
personnel. test of time
Co-ordinating (Fayol, 1949, p. 103): the harmonisation of resources in their
optimum proportions in order to achieve results. Fayol identifies some of the
characteristics of a well co-ordinated organisation:
. Each department works in harmony with the rest and each is clear on its 359
responsibilities and executes them efficiently and effectively.
. Each department is well informed as to its obligations to other
departments and viceversa.
. Department schedules are continually adjusted to circumstances.
Controlling (Fayol, 1949, p. 107): consists of the ongoing, routine verification of
plan implementation, instructions issued, and principles. Controlling applies to
all processes. Its purpose is to identify weaknesses and problems such that they
can be rectified and recurrences prevented.
Fayol notes that, to be effective, control must be timely and be supported by
penalties. He also cautions against the infiltration of control into departmental
operation such that duality of command emerges. Fayol stresses the need for
independent, objective and impartial inspection.

Conclusions
The essence of Fayol's work stands the test of time. This paper has considered
Fayol's elements of management against contemporary management models:
. Mintzberg (1973);
. Kotter (1982); and
. Hales (1986).
All of the models, including that of Fayol, were shown to be interrelated at an
elemental level. Despite the differences in the models in terms of words used
and perspectives taken (e.g. the (very different) categories used by Mintzberg
(1973) compared with those used by Kotter (1982)), each model can be
considered essentially equivalent to, or a subset of, other models.
Fayol's principles of management were also presented. There is no
comparable enumeration in the literature to allow further assessment of these
principles. However, the principles are intuitively appealing. They are based on
observations and experience. Fayol's principles may indeed be relevant today
and should not be ignored until they have been superseded or refuted.

References
Archer, E.R. (1990), ``Toward a revival of the principles of management'', Industrial Management,
Vol. 32 No. 1, January-February, pp. 19-22.
Brodie, M.B. (1967), Fayol on Administration, Lyon, Grant and Green, London.
Caroll, S.J. and Gillen, D.J. (1987), ``Are the classical management functions useful in describing
managerial work?'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 38-51.
JMH Fayol, H. (1949), General and Industrial Management, Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons Ltd., London,
(translation by Constance Storrs).
6,8 Gray, I. (Ed.) (1984), General and Industrial Management, IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ.
Hales, C.P. (1986), ``What do managers do? A critical review of the evidence'', Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 88-115.
Kotter, J.P. (1982), The General Managers, The Free Press, New York, NY.
360 Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R.M. and Rosenkrantz, S.A. (1988), Real Managers, Ballinger, Cambridge,
MA.
Luthans, F., Rosenkrantz, S.A. and Hennessy, H.W. (1985), ``What do successful managers really
do? An observation study of managerial activities'', Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 255-70.
McCall, M.W. Jr and Kaplan, R.E. (1985), Whatever It Takes: Decision-makers at Work, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Mintzberg, H. (1973), The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Mintzberg, H. (1989), Mintzberg on Management, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Rolph, P. and Bartram, P. (1992), How to Choose and Use an Executive Information System,
Mercury Books, London.
Secretan, L.H.K. (1986), Managerial Moxie, Macmillan of Canada, Toronto.
Wren, D.A. (1994), The Evolution of Management Thought, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.