Fayolism was a theory of management that analyzed and synthesized the role of management in organizations, developed around 1900 by the French manager and management theorist Henri Fayol (1841–1925). It was through Fayol's work as a philosopher of administration that he contributed most widely to the theory and practice of organizational management.
Research and teaching of management
Fayol successfully was CEO of Compagnie de Commentry-Fourchambault-Decazeville from 1888 on, and methodically analysed how this worked. He believed by focusing on managerial practices he could minimize misunderstandings and increase efficiency in organizations. He enlightened managers on how to accomplish their managerial duties, and the practices in which they should engage. In his book General and Industrial Management (published in French in 1916, then published in English in 1949), Fayol outlined his theory of general management, which he believed could be applied to the administration of myriad industries. His concern was with the administrative apparatus (or functions of administration), and to that end he presented his administrative theory, that is, principles and elements of management.
He believed in control and strict, treelike, command chain; unity of commands, that is, workers getting their orders from just one person above and no other (not even the boss' boss) is one of his major motto. He thinks production and productivity are important, but not all that matters: half a dozen other departments (selling and buying, finances, etc.) and other focus (safety, unity of purpose and harmony between workers, getting better at having things done, etc.) are just as important to achieve success. However, through reading General and Industrial Management, it is apparent that Fayol advocated a flexible approach to management, one he believed could be applied to any circumstance whether in the home, the workplace, or within the state. He stressed the importance and the practice of forecasting and planning in order to apply these ideas and techniques, which demonstrated his ability and emphasis in being able to adapt to any sort of situation. In General and Industrial Management he outlines an agenda whereby, under an accepted theory of management, every citizen is exposed and taught some form of management education and allowed to exercise management abilities first at school and later on in the workplace.
Fayol vs. Frederick Taylor's Scientific Management
Fayol has been regarded by many as the father of the modern operational management theory, and his ideas have become a fundamental part of modern management concepts. Fayol is often compared to Frederick Winslow Taylor who developed Scientific Management. Taylor's system of scientific management is the cornerstone of classical theory. Fayol was also a classical theorist, and while Taylor knew nothing of Fayol, Fayol read Taylor and referred to him in his writing. He considered him a visionary and pioneer in the management of organizations, and praised him, but also criticized some points.
However, Fayol differed from Taylor in his focus. Taylor's main focus was on the task, whereas Fayol was more concerned with management. Taylor's Scientific Management deals with the efficient organization of production in the context of a competitive enterprise that is concerned with controlling its production costs, whereas Fayol leaves this to the technical executives and operatives, and put emphasis on the leadership, orderly organization, communication and harmony between departments etc. that he calls administration and, according to Fayol, applies to just every business and organisation (including non-profit, churches, armies, etc.) whether small or big. Another difference between the two theorists is their treatment of workers. Fayol appears to have slightly more respect for the worker than Taylor had, as evidenced by Fayol's proclamation that workers may indeed be motivated by more than just money, and his practice to give them opportunities to learn and move up the ladder. Fayol also argued for equity in the treatment of workers. He also discussed how workers should get their wages: should this be fixed, or should they get bonus payments, or even some part of the dividends; should this be for a period of time, for a number of tasks accomplished, or a number of products done?