Test MG-301

ANS 1.
As 1st principle Division of work suggests the object of division of work is to derive
the benefits from the principles of specialisation. Its advantages are widely
recognised and it can be applied to any kind of work employing large number of
workers of varying abilities.
It has its limits and the work should not be sub-divided beyond these limits. Fayol
goes beyond the workshop level to apply the principle to all kinds of work,
managerial as well as technical. The functions like planning, organizing, directing,
co-ordinating and controlling etc., implied in the concept of management cannot
be performed with overall competence and minutest accuracy by any one
proprietor or by a group of directors of their own.

These functions have to be assigned to experts specialising in their specific areas.

Managerial specialisation denotes the separation of mental and manual work,
planning, direction and execution of business operations. Specialisation in
decision making, policy formulation, directing and controlling would lead to more
efficiency and systematic working of the concern.

Like division of labour, Fayol considered that centralisation belonged to the

natural order. “In many organisms, sensations move towards the brain or
directive part, and from the brain or directive part orders are sent out which set
all parts of the organism in movement.” The question of centralisation or
decentralisation is a simple question of proportion.

It is a matter of finding the optimum degree for the particular concern. In his
view, everything that increases the importance of subordinates’ role is
decentralisation and that which reduces it is centralisation. The degree of
centralisation will vary in each case. Small concerns have absolute centralisation
because the management orders go directly to employees. But in large
companies, there is less degree of centralisation since a manager’s orders pass
through a number of levels and intermediaries to reach the operators.
Management should centralise the authority to the extent that neither there
should be too much concentration of power nor should see that maximum results
are realised from all the faculties of the personnel. Henry Fayol gave a
comprehensive theory of management, the aim of which was to improve and
rationalise the system of management.

ANS 2.

“Classical theorists viewed organisations as a giant machine subject to certain

immutable laws in its design and management” from my point of view this
statement is true because machine has different parts and they are assigned to do
different tasks. In an organization, it is also the same because in an organisation
there are many people who has specific tasks to do.

Fayol is also famous for his five elements of management, which outline
the key responsibilities 

Planning: Managers should draft strategies and objectives to determine the

stages of the plan and the technology necessary to implement it.
Organizing: Managers must organize and provide the resources necessary to
execute said plan, including raw materials, tools, capital, and human resources.
Command (delegation): Managers must utilize authority and a thorough
understanding of long-term goals to delegate tasks and make decisions for the
betterment of the organization.
Coordination: High-level managers must work to integrate all activities to
facilitate organizational success. Communication is key to success in this
component.
Monitoring: Managers must compare the activities of the personnel to the plan of
action; this is the evaluation component of management.

Critism faced by Fayol:-

1. It is too formal

2. It does not pay adequate attention to the remuneration of the workers.

The criticism of Fayol’s theory is not fully justified. Fayol’s theory is too formal, is a
baseless charge because, every scientific and analytical study is bound to be
formal. As regards the second point of workers’ remuneration, Fayol did discuss
about the fairness of remuneration and non-financial incentives. But, he did not
work out a rational system of wage fixation. Thus, this point of criticism is partially
valid.

To sum up, it can be said that the points of criticism are very minor in comparison
to the contribution of Fayol in the field of management. He is regarded as the
Father of Administrative Management Theory.