Journal of Management History (Archive)

Emerald Article: Reading Fayol with 3D glasses Donald Reid

Article information:
To cite this document: Donald Reid, (1995),"Reading Fayol with 3D glasses", Journal of Management History (Archive), Vol. 1 Iss: 3 pp. 63 - 71 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552529510095143 Downloaded on: 21-07-2012 Citations: This document has been cited by 3 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com This document has been downloaded 2275 times since 2005. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Franois Des Rosiers, Jean Dub, Marius Thriault, (2011),"Do peer effects shape property values?", Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Vol. 29 Iss: 4 pp. 510 - 528 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635781111150376 Laura C. Engel, John Holford, Helena Pimlott-Wilson, (2010),"Effectiveness, inequality and ethos in three English schools", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 30 Iss: 3 pp. 140 - 154 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443331011033337 Robert Huggins, (2010),"Network resources and knowledge alliances: Sociological perspectives on inter-firm networks as innovation facilitators", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 30 Iss: 9 pp. 515 - 531 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443331011072271

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by DEAKIN UNIVERSITY For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Reading Fayol with 3D glasses

Donald Reid
Department of History, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
There is no end of debate over the significance and usefulness of Fayols Administration Industrielle et Gnrale[1]. Yet when we seek to weigh the meaning and merits of any canonical text, whether it be Fayols Administration or Marx and Engels Communist Manifesto, we need to realize that no text comes to us in virginal form, without a past. To appreciate a text fully requires familiarity with its two histories. The first is a history of the conception of the text itself and in particular of the texts administration of the potential conflicts, disorder, doubts and chaos attendant on any intellectual production. (Yes, authors are managers!) The second is a history of the reception of the text. Today, when we pick up a classic like Fayols Administration (or the Communist Manifesto), it comes laden with an interpretive history resulting in a set of meanings given the text which necessarily enters into how we approach and read a work. (Oh, if you are interested in that, you should read this, a friend says, handing you a copy of Administration). The aim of this article is to address briefly elements of the history of the composition of Administration and of its reception in order to help readers see the text in 3D rather than solely as the apparently one-dimensional text on the page unaffected by the history of its composition or reception. What Administration does not tell you Fayols Administration is one of the first and most important examples of a modern genre of literature in which a successful manager draws lessons from his career[2]. It is a curious literature, at once celebratory and modest[3,4]. While authors necessarily discuss their successes, this is not their ostensible reason for writing. Pride in particular accomplishments gives way to pride in the discovery of a science[5]. Nowhere is this more clear than in Fayols oft-repeated assertion that after becoming CEO of the Socit Anonyme de Commentry-Fourchambault (Comambault) in 1888, he restored the firm to economic health solely through the application of sound administrative principles[6]. In an earlier article I reconstructed experiences in Fayols career which informed his managerial philosophy[7,8]. Yet Fayol was no Lee Iaccoca; he was reticent to discuss what were arguably the most of important of these events in print. While Fayols archives reveal that he fought tough battles with the Comambault board of
Portions of this essay appeared earlier in a different form in Fayol: excs dhonneur ou excs dindignit?, Revue Franaise de Gestion, Vol. 70, 1988, pp. 51-9.

Reading Fayol with 3D glasses 63

Journal of Management History Vol. 1 No. 3, 1995, pp. 63-71. MCB University Press, 1355-252X

JMH 1,3

64

directors (and that he considered these important enough to preserve documentation of them), there is no direct trace of these conflicts in his writings[9]. Fayol was, after all, a bourgeois at heart with no desire to anger his social superiors on the board with a kiss-and-tell account of their disagreements. Fayols deliberate effacement of this aspect of his career has unquestionably shaped his theoretical legacy. Many authors explain Fayols thought in terms of his career with a mining and metallurgical firm, but take for granted that he directed a joint-stock company. However, Fayols imposition of the dominance of the CEO over the board of directors was clearly the greatest triumph of administration in his career. Fayol displaced a critique of the impediments which the board of directors could pose to the CEO on to his studies of state-owned commercial and industrial enterprises. In his analyses of these establishments, Fayol paid special attention to the obstructions to good administration created by what he saw as the structural equivalents of the shareholders and the board of directors the legislature and the ministries[10-12]. For most readers, Fayols success in business legitimates Administration. The book is, Fayol claims, a codification of this experience. Yet this codification involved an effacement of conflicts between the CEO and the board of directors which has influenced all subsequent readings of his life and work. Arguably, Fayols failure to deal with the greatest impediment to the implementation of his ideas in his own career may have obscured for some of his acolytes the nature of the opposition they have faced. The reception of Administration in France: the US imprimatur Many American and British commentators see Fayolism as quintessentially French[13]. They argue that Fayols influence in France has equalled that of Taylor in the USA[14-16], and that his ideas have served as the basis for such particularly French institutions as the powerful government planning board, the Commissariat du Plan[17]. Yet Fayols influence was never as extensive in France as these AngloAmerican observers imagined[18,19]. Why, we might ask, would one whose managerial philosophy was so sound be virtually ignoredin his native France?[15, p. 155;20,21]. French management experts point to their countrymens indifference to Fayol as a sign of something lacking in French business acumen in comparison to their US counterparts. Georges Langrod, prominent French expert in public administration, wrote that not only was Fayol a prophet much more respected in the USA than in his native France, but that Fayol was somehow at the heart of what made US studies of administration American: The whole development of hypotheses or principles of administration the formulation of if-then sequences typical of American investigations of problems of administration is indirectly a consequence of Fayols outlook[22]. For R. Braun, general secretary of the Comit International de lOrganisation Scientifique, the French did not recognize that American Marshall Plan advisors taught the French Fayolist principles[23]. In the Introduction to the only edition of Administration in print in France, Morin laments that the French ignore Fayol while his ideas are widely taught in the USA. Perusing

Administration, you would think you were reading the beginning of the bulletin for a management course at one of the most prestigious American business schools[24]. In these accounts, the value of Fayols thought is measured in terms of receptivity to his work in the true homeland of business success, the United States[25,26]. The French reader of Administration today thus finds Fayols original claim magnified. The authority of the text rests not only on Fayols success at Comambault, but on the immeasurably greater success of US business. To find that the US leviathan has a French brain what could be more beguiling? The reception of Administration in the USA Of course, the inverse was not the case. Being French was hardly Fayols trump card in the USA. In fact, Fayol has rarely been presented to Americans in a clear, coherent and complete manner[27,28]. On the contrary, he appears as something of a mysterious character whose major work is written in a mysterious language, requiring not just translation, but Talmudic interpretation of its key terms in order to preserve the universality of his message. Believers see Fayols thought as a fountainhead of wisdom an articulation of almost preconscious knowledge about administration. For Daniel Wren,
Fayol stated the classic case for authority being commensurate with responsibility and this principle has appeared throughout management literature to become as inseparable as Mary and her little lambSo much of our present management literature has been built upon Fayols ideas and terminology that we cannot see the uniqueness of his insights[28, pp. 185, 187].

Reading Fayol with 3D glasses 65

Others find the same characteristics troubling and resort once again to childrens literature to express their concerns. Fayol, wrote Pollard in an otherwise admiring passage, follows the example of Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking-Glass: when he uses a word it means just what he chooses it to mean![29]. Perhaps the trouble was that Henri Fayol was French[30]; HadFayol not written in French, the history of management theory might have been different[31]. These are commonly expressed sentiments among US historians of management. James Arthur Coubrough published the first translation into English of Administration in 1930, but it received limited distribution[32]. In 1945 not even the Library of Congress had a copy of Fayols Administration[33]. Only with publication of the Constance Storrs translation of Administration in 1949 did it receive wide circulation in the USA[34]. Before then, only a few US writers on administration had access to the Coubrough translation[35-30]. Ralph C. Davis obtained a copy while in Europe in 1930 or 1931[28, p. 307] and quoted extensively from it in The Fundamentals of Top Management [39]. Yet even Davis was somewhat unclear as to who Fayol had been, and explicated Fayols texts with reference to his experience in business and as a top administrative executivein the government of France[39]. The American Luther Gulick and the Englishman Lyndall Urwick played the most important roles in the early dissemination of Fayols ideas in the USA. Gulick marvelled at the lucidity of Fayols thought: Fayol achieves a clarity of exposition which is almost unique in management literature[40]. In The theory of

JMH 1,3

66

organization[41,42] Gulick sought to speak in the language of the master. He asked, What is the work of the chief executive? and answered POSDCORB (planning, organizing, staffing, directing, co-ordinating, reporting, and budgeting). This acknowledged adaptation of Fayols definition of the administrative function received wide currency in US writings on management. In the same collection of papers in which Gulicks essay appeared, Urwick presented the fullest analysis to date in English of Fayols work. He criticized what he saw as a break in Administration between Fayols logical analysis of the operations of administration and his principles, in which he was empirical in his presentation and attitude. Yet, although Fayol failed to push his very logical handling of the function of administration to its conclusion, Urwick argued that Fayols genius was revealed by the fact that all the material to do so was present in Administration. The successful, practical organizer was being far more logical than he himself realized or was prepared to admit[43]. Fayol needed a therapist, and Urwick was the man. Urwick then reworked Fayols ideas into a form in which they could be reconciled with those developed by James D. Mooney and Alan C. Reiley in Onward Industry! (1931)[44]. Therefore, it was through this early demonstration of the fundamental identity of Fayols doctrine and that of a US work that the ideas in Administration first became widely known in the USA. Equally important, Urwick introduced the approach which sympathetic US academics would take in interpreting Fayols work in the future: they would grant Fayols intuitive genius and empirical perceptiveness, while reformulating his insights in an even more systematic, essentialist and universalizing mode. American receptivity to Fayol was not just a matter of the slow diffusion of his ideas. US managers and writers on administration would only become interested in Fayol when they recognized the problems he addressed as their own. Until the 1930s, most US management specialists were concerned with high labour costs and focused their attention on making production more efficient. This began to change with the Great Depression, which many blamed on a crisis of overproduction. For Davis, there was a general feeling that somehow American Management had failed to accomplish its leadership mission[45]. The unprecedented public and private mobilization during the Second World War provided a strong impetus for the development after the war of the Management Process School (MPS) which, drawing on the work of Gulick and Urwick, set out to discover the guiding principles of management (Fayols government) in all forms of organization. The MPS can be said to have been fathered by Henri Fayol, although many of his offspring did not know of their parent[46]. Other MPS advocates contended that if enthusiasm for F.W. Taylor had not so obscured Fayols work, the history of management theory might well have been changed and the principles of general management advanced much earlier[47]. In any case, the Storrs translation of Fayols chef doeuvre seemed to come at a fortuitious time: It may be historical coincidence, Wren writes, but the modern era of management thought in policy and strategy followed shortly after the 1949 translation of Henri Fayols General and Industrial Management [28, p. 421].

The lament that Americans did not know of Fayols thought soon gave way to the concern that they would learn of it from bowdlerized texts which robbed Fayolism of its transcendental meaning. The course of management thought might have been changed by the translation of only one word[48, pp. 218-19]. Those sympathetic to the MPS project criticized Storrs for the interpretation embedded in her translation of Administration . In fact, the leading AngloAmerican Fayolist saw to it that no one could pick up a copy of Storrs version without knowing how she had betrayed the master. Right in his Foreword to her translation, Urwick pointed out that Storrs rendering of administrer as to manage raised serious problems. Coubrough had translated Fayols book as Industrial and General Administration; Storrs titled it General and Industrial Management, on the grounds that Anglo-American businessmen saw administration solely as government administration[36, p. 49]. Urwick responded that in English, only managers manage; for Fayol, administrer was one of six functions exercised by all members of an organization. Furthermore, since in English, management refers primarily to industrial and commercial enterprises, it misses the universality which Fayol wished to convey by administration[34, pp. xii-xvii; 49,50]. Wren took the inverse approach in attacking Storrs translation of gouverner as to govern and administrer as to manage. For Fayol, gouverner was to assure the operation of the six essential functions, including administrer. Had Storrs followed the accepted meaning of to manage in English, she would have translated gouverner as to manage[28, pp. 213-15]. In the first critique, to manage was considered too limited to translate administrer; in the second, to manage was considered to have a broader meaning than Fayols administrer. This concern with policing the language of administration was intrinsic to the perennial efforts of the MPS to create a standard vocabulary of management as the necessary basis for the articulation of a universal science of management. MPS infatuation with Fayol played a pivotal role in this project. After all, Fayol himself had attributed the apparent incompatibility of his thought and Taylorism to the lack of a common vocabulary. Not surprisingly, Fayols systematic exposition of his ideas in Administration and the efforts to carry this over into English made it a starting point for US attempts to create a unified managerial language in the 1950s and 1960s[51-54]. While Americans sympathetic to Fayolism fretted over the incompatibility of Fayols universalist aspirations and the historic specificity of language usage, Fayolism became the whipping boy of a competing managerial school led by Herbert Simon. Simon was very influenced by the un-Fayolian premiss of Chester Barnards The Functions of the Executive (1938) that organization comes not from above, but from the co-operation of work groups. Beginning in the mid-1940s, Simon mocked the ideas of those he called classicists (especially Urwick and, after publication of the Storrs translation, Fayol) as a collection of proverbs and aphorisms which, when taken to their logical aims, proved contradictory[55,56]. At a 1962 conference, he chided Ernest Dale, who believed that there had been some real testing of the classical ideas inthe work of Fayol, who was at once a

Reading Fayol with 3D glasses 67

JMH 1,3

68

great thinker and a very successful practicing businessman. Simon responded, What you are saying about Fayol is that I ought to believe Fayol because he ran some coal mines, or whatever it was that he ran, very well. I see no reason to conclude from this that he is a man who can state propositions nor organization theory that will stand up under the tests of evidence[57]. Following Simons lead, social scientists attacked the classicists and neo-classicists (including the MPS) for abstract functionalism. They claimed that field work in business offices bore out their claim that although Fayols elements had dominated management vocabulary since [he] first introduced them in 1916 [sic], they tell us little about what managers actually do[58, p. 49; 50,60]. In sum, social scientists found Fayolism insufficiently empirical. Fayols defenders shot back that the empiricism of the social scientist was less relevant than the experience of the businessman. The neo-classicist Koontz characterized critics of the MPS as academics fighting scholastic wars far from the boardroom and the shopfloor. He charged that much of the criticism heaped on the MPS resulted from academics misreadings of successful managers work. In their own quest for originality, these critics cast away principles of Fayol and other practitioners, only to draw apparently different generalizations from their study of management; but many of the generalizations so discovered are often the same fundamental truths in different words that certain criticized universalists have discovered[46, p. 184]. Conclusions We began this article by suggesting that reading a text involves engagement with questions of how and why it was written and how and why it has been interpreted. There is, of course, one more question which we left out: Why do we read a text? How does what we want from a text affect our interpretation of it? As the debate between proponents and critics of Fayol reveals, reading Administration is something of a litmus test, confirming for readers who they are and are not. When Pollard comments that no serious management writer today would produce some such dictum as, here are ninety-nine rules of management: follow these to the letter and you will be a good manager, it is the form more than the content of Fayols work he critiques[29, p. 99]. Someone like Pollard wants to analyse management, not learn how to manage. He, therefore, reads Administration for different reasons and in a different fashion than most managers. Fayolism may be relegated to the chapter reserved for classics in textbooks, but several decades of academic criticism have been unable to eliminate the appeal of his doctrine. Social scientists realized in the late 1960s that their theories often seem alien, impractical and hostile to managers[59-61]. In contrast, Fayolism and other classical theories serve as mobilizing myths which inspire as they inform managers. Dale[62] concluded in 1960 that Most of the management principles in use today were derived from the work of Henri Fayol. Whether they admit it or not, wrote Business Week four years later, its obvious most managers today are fundamentally Fayolists, regardless of faith in the newest managerial nostrums[30,63,64]. Fayolism legitimates administrators actions to

themselves and to their subordinates while providing a rationale and guide for the exercise of administrative power. The elasticity and apparent contradictions in Fayolism which so bothered Simon give managers the flexibility to manoeuvre and to incorporate the findings of social scientists (like Simon) not as social facts, but as practical tools[65]. Like many myths, Fayols Administration effaces conflictual aspects of its own origins and history in order to spur its audience to act. Fayol set out to make leaders, and it is in this spirit that his most eager followers read and interpret his work today.
Notes and references 1. Fayol, H., Administration Industrielle et Gnrale, presented by Pierre Morin, Dunod, Paris, 1979 (original, 1916). 2. Fayol lamented that so few grands chefs reflected systematically on their experiences[1, p. 16]. In succeeding decades, however, prominent administrators wrote several of the basic texts in administration, e.g. James Mooney (president of the General Motors Export Corporation) and Chester Barnard (president of New Jersey Bell). 3. The doctrine I sketched out contains nothing new. It is a collection of ideas that everyone holds, but which are still put into practice by only a small number of people[4]. 4. Fayol, H., De limportance de la fonction administrative dans le gouvernement des affaires, Bulletin de la Socit dEncouragement pour lIndustrie Nationale, Vol. 129, 1918, p. 34. 5. It is significant that Fayol first published Administration[1] in the Bulletin de la Socit de lIndustrie Minrale. Earlier he had published his important scientific studies of the Commentry coal basin ("the theory of the deltas") there. By publishing Administration in the Bulletin, Fayol suggested that both studies deserved the same status as scientific works based on empirical observation. 6. Fayol, H., The importance of the administrative factor, in Dale, E., Readings in Management, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1970, pp. 148-9. 7. Reid, D., Gense du Fayolisme, Sociologie du Travail, Vol. 19, 1986, pp. 75-93. 8. One problem with Fayols reliance on the experience of 1888 is that since he had not yet formulated a codified doctrine in 1888, he could not have applied such a doctrine in the way he asks readers of Administration to do. 9. This is also true of the unpublished Observations et experiences personnelles which was to have constituted half of a companion volume to Administration. The Observations are in the Archives Fayol which were in the possession of Michel Brun of the Comit National de lOrganisation Franaise in Paris at the time I consulted them. 10. Fayol believed that industrialization of the state (the introduction of techniques derived from the private sector) was an impossibility in state-run commercial and industrial enterprises, but he hoped to see his ideas introduced into state administration. 11. Fayol, Lincapacit industrielle de ltat les PTT, Revue Politique et Parlementaire, Vol. 56, 1921, pp. 365-440. 12. Note de M. Fayol, Rapport Prsent par M. Andr Citron au Nom de Commission Charge dtudier les Questions Concernant lOrganisation et le Fonctionnement des Monopoles des Tabacs et des Allumettes, Imprimerie Nationale, Paris, 1925, pp. 163-74. 13. Merkle, J., Management and Ideology, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1980, p. 160. 14. Urwick, L.F., The Elements of Administration, Harper & Row, New York, NY, 1944, p. 16. 15. George, C.S. Jr., The History of Management Thought, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972, p. 115. 16. Yet George goes on to reverse himself on the question of Fayols influence in France[15, p. 155]. Indications that Fayols influence may have been limited in France confuse American commentators.

Reading Fayol with 3D glasses 69

JMH 1,3

70

17. Cuthbert, N., Fayol and the principles of organization, in Tillett, A., Kempner, T. and Wills, G. (Eds), Management Thinkers, Penguin, Baltimore, MD, 1970, p. 122. 18. Guy Thuillier, the foremost historian of French public administration, writes of the weak diffusion of Fayols ideas in the administrative milieu[19]. 19. Thuillier, G., Bureaucratie et Bureaucrates en France au XIXe Sicle, Librairie Droz, Geneva, 1980, p. 247 note 41. 20. Reid, D., Fayol: excs dhonneur ou excs dindignit?, Revue Franaise de Gestion, Vol. 70, 1988, p. 53. 21. For some historically specific responses to this question. 22. Langrod, G., Some Recent Problems of Administration in France Today, University of Puerto Rico School of Public Administration, San Juan, 1961, p. 87. 23. Braun, R., Tmoignage, Le Cinquantenaire de la Doctrine administrative, no publisher, no place, 1967, p. 36. 24. Morin, P., Actualit de Henri Fayol ou loccasion perdue, in Administration Industrielle et Gnrale, Dinrod, Paris, 1916 and 1979, p. vi. 25. Or the Soviet Union! It is Soviet Russia which first developed Fayols program of action to encompass a plan of economic reconstruction on a national scale[26]. 26. Chevalier, J., LOrganisation du Travail, Flammarion, Paris, p. 255. 27. For a major exception, see [28]. 28. Wren, D., The Evolution of Management Thought, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1994, pp. 179-94. 29. Pollard, H.R., Developments in Management Thought, Heinemann, London, 1973, p. 94. 30. Arnold, W.J., Famous firsts: discoveries from looking inward, Business Week, 6 June 1964, p. 152. 31. Richman, B.M., Management and Organizations, Random House, New York, NY, 1975, p. 26. 32. Fayol, H., Industrial and General Administration, translated by Coubrough, J.A., H.R. Grubb, Croydon, 1930. 33. Pearson, N.M., Fayolism as the necessary complement of Taylorism, American Political Science Review, Vol. 39, 1945, p. 80, note 21. 34. Fayol, H., General and Industrial Management, translated by Storrs, C., Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, London, 1949. 35. The contention that Fayols concepts of organization structure and design are clearly reflected in the early history of American corporations such as General Motors and Dupont[36, p. 49]. 36. Owens, J., The Theory and Practice of Managing, Management Education, Tantallon, MD, 1982. 37. Page 49 of [36] is not borne out by Chandler[38]. 38. Chandler, A., Strategy and Structure, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1962. 39. Davis, R.C., The Fundamentals of Top Management, Harper & Row, New York, NY, 1951, pp. 206 note 7, p. 690 note 14. 40. Gulick, L., Review of Fayol, General and Industrial Management, The Management Review, Vol. 39, 1950, p. 48. 41. Gulick, L., Notes on the theory of organization, in Gulick, L. and Urwick, L.F. (Eds), Papers on the Science of Administration, Institute of Public Administration, New York, NY, 1937, p. 13. 42. Anticipating the debate over Storrs translation of Administration, Gulick justified the invention of POSDCORB because administration and management [had] lost all specific content[41].

43. Urwick, L.F., The function of administration with special reference to the work of Henri Fayol, in Gulick, L. and Urwick, L.F. (Eds), Papers on the Science of Administration, Institute of Public Administration, New York, NY, 1937, p. 117. 44. Urwick, L.F., The function of administration, The Elements: The Pattern of Management, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, 1956. 45. Davis, R.C., Foreword, The Principles of Business Organization and Operation, 4th ed., Hive Publishing, Easton, 1973, p. v. 46. Koontz, H., The management theory jungle, Journal of the Academy of Management, Vol. 4, 1961, p. 176. 47. Koontz, H. and ODonnell, C., Principles of Management, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1959, p. 23. 48. Wren, D., The Evolution of Management Thought, 2nd ed., The Renold Press, New York, NY, 1972, pp. 218-19. 49. Brodie, M.B., Henri Fayol: Administration Industrielle et Gnrale a re-interpretation, Public Administration, Vol. 40, 1962, pp. 311-17. 50. Brodie[49] discusses several other points at which Storrs translation limits Fayols project to a study of business management, e.g. le gouvernement des affaires as business management and quelques grands chefs as industrial leaders. 51. Bedeian, A.G., A historical review of efforts in the area of management semantics, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 17, 1974, pp. 101-14. 52. Bedeian, A.G., A Standardization of Selected Management Concepts, Garland Publishing, New York, NY, 1986. 53. Some who threw up their hands at efforts to work with Fayols vocabulary saw him as a pioneer in articulating the deep structure of management: Fayols definitions of management, organization, and so on amount to no more than a thesauras of synonyms, but the visible symbol of formal organization the organization chart originates with him[54]. 54. Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M., The Management of Innovation, Tavistock, London, 1961, p. 106. 55. Simon, H., Administrative Behaviour, Macmillan, New York, NY, 1947, pp. 20-44. 56. Simon, H. and March, J.G., Organizations, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1958, Ch. 2. 57. Koontz, H. (Ed.), Toward a Unified Theory of Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1964, pp. 109-10. 58. Mintzberg, H., The managers job: folklore and fact, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 53, 1975, p. 49. 59. For a defence of Fayol against this charge see [60]. 60. Wren, D., The nature of managerial work: a comparison of real managers and traditional management, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. IV, 1992, pp. 17-30. For the classicist response, see [61]. 61. Urwick, L.F., Why the so-called classicists endure, Management International Review, Vol. 11, 1971, pp. 3-14. 62. Dale, E., The Great Organizers, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1960, p. 5. 63. Arguably each generation of managers creates a Fayol suitable to their purposes. The only edition of Administration now in print in the USA is a bowdlerized version of the Storrs translation[64] in which ideas considered wrong or totally inappropriate to modern management concepts were omitted or revised and supplemental material added. 64. Fayol, H., General and Industrial Management, revised by Gray, I., The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, NY, 1984, p. 6. 65. Subramaniam, V., The classical organization theory and its critics, Public Administration, Vol. 44, 1966, pp. 445-6.

Reading Fayol with 3D glasses 71