Relevance of Fayol's Functions of Management in Today's Service Economy
To what extent are Fayol’s functions of management relevant in today’s predominantly service economy? Discuss.
Fayol’s functions of management are as relevant today, just as they have been a century ago, both theoretically and practically. Though under harsh scrutiny by some theorists as an oversimplified theory of management, this essay argues that Fayol’s functions are not just part of a grand theory, they form a basis for all managerial work. In addition, Fayol’s functions are seen as flexible and malleable, adding to their application to today’s world. This essay also suggests that today’s predominantly service economy, as fast paced and ephemeral as it is, is a stark proof of Fayol’s theory’s success. The position is taken that Fayol’s functions are useful to the extent that today’s management is structured around them.
The four main functions of management, according to Fayol, are planning, organising, leading and controlling. To some, these functions form “the most complete and comprehensive theory of management” (Parker & Ritson, 2005), if not the most useful way to conceptualise a manager’s job (Lamond, 2003). However many theorists don’t share this opinion, most notably Mintzberg, arguing that Fayol’s functions do not convey what managers actually do, rather only what they do in theory (Pryor & Taneja, 2010). However on inspection, it is difficult to find this fault in the functions. Together, they form a guide to achieving a goal: they direct a manager to plan and evaluate, to seek the most efficient manner in which to implement that plan, to organise its details, to inspire active participation in the implementation and finally to observe, direct and control the process to its finality. The functions cover all possible faults; if the plan is not foolproof, then organisation should tease out the missing links; if there are still any problems, then a leader exists for the problems to be reported to who would then control resources and inputs in
Fayol’s functions of management are as relevant today, just as they have been a century ago, both theoretically and practically. Though under harsh scrutiny by some theorists as an oversimplified theory of management, this essay argues that Fayol’s functions are not just part of a grand theory, they form a basis for all managerial work. In addition, Fayol’s functions are seen as flexible and malleable, adding to their application to today’s world. This essay also suggests that today’s predominantly service economy, as fast paced and ephemeral as it is, is a stark proof of Fayol’s theory’s success. The position is taken that Fayol’s functions are useful to the extent that today’s management is structured around them.
The four main functions of management, according to Fayol, are planning, organising, leading and controlling. To some, these functions form “the most complete and comprehensive theory of management” (Parker & Ritson, 2005), if not the most useful way to conceptualise a manager’s job (Lamond, 2003). However many theorists don’t share this opinion, most notably Mintzberg, arguing that Fayol’s functions do not convey what managers actually do, rather only what they do in theory (Pryor & Taneja, 2010). However on inspection, it is difficult to find this fault in the functions. Together, they form a guide to achieving a goal: they direct a manager to plan and evaluate, to seek the most efficient manner in which to implement that plan, to organise its details, to inspire active participation in the implementation and finally to observe, direct and control the process to its finality. The functions cover all possible faults; if the plan is not foolproof, then organisation should tease out the missing links; if there are still any problems, then a leader exists for the problems to be reported to who would then control resources and inputs in
References: Hales, C. (1999). Why do Managers Do What They Do? Reconciling Evidence and Theory in Accounts of Managerial Work. British Journal of Management , 10, 335-350. Lamond, D. (2003). Henry Mintzberg vs. Henri Fayol: of Lighthouses, Cubists and the Emperor 's New Clothes. The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship , 8 (4). Parker, L. D., & Ritson, P. A. (2005). Revisiting Fayol: Anticipating Contemporary Management. British Journal of Management , 16, 175-194. Pryor, M. G., & Taneja, S. (2010). Henri Fayol, Practioner and Theoretician - Revered and Reviled. Journal of Management History , 16 (4), 489-503. Sharp, B. S., & Housel, S. W. (2004). Ghosts in the Bureaucratic Machine: Resurrecting the Principles of Administration in the Oklahoma Health Department. The American Review of Public Administration , 34 (20).