According to Henri Fayol, to Manage Is to Forecast and Plan, to Organize, to Command, to Co-Ordinate and to Control. Critically Discuss Fayol’s Perspective.

Since the beginning of business and organisations, there has been massive controversy over which method is more effective in motivating employees, making them more productive, and in turn making the organisation as a whole more productive and profitable. The early days of organisations brought about the Classical Theorists, who believed that management was a rational activity that could be studied, also known as scientific management. Along with Fayol, the other most well known Classical Theorists were Max Weber of Germany, and Frederick Taylor of the USA. However, as the years progressed, new theorists began to pay more attention to the personal needs of the employee, and they were labelled the Human Relations Theorists. The Human Relations Theorists included reputable names such as Mayo, Herzberg and Mary Parker Follit. Even though Fayol was a highly credited theorist, his views on organisations being very rigid, with a high level of control, does not take into account the personal needs of the employees, and would not results in the businesses workers being more effective and productive.

In the language of Fayol, “control appears as one of the universal activities of all organizations and managing” (Broadbent and Otley: 1995). Control was one of five functions that Fayol decided management consisted of. The other four were, organizing, directing, co-ordinating and prevoyance, which is French for forecasting, which basically includes planning, and determining objectives. Fayol believed that management was a specfic activity that can be studied and developed. This is an accurate point, as management can be developed through study, and with ideas being accumulated, new management styles can be formed in order to suit the type of organization and its employees. However, even though Fayol was right in the sense that management can be developed, he was still heavily criticised as being idealist and ignoring the reality of management, and condoning impersonality