14 PRINCIPLES OF MANAGEMENT OF HENRI FAYOL

14 principles of Management are statements that are based on a fundamental truth. These principles of management serve
as a guideline for decision-making and management actions. They are drawn up by means of observations and analyses of
events that managers encounter in practice. Henri Fayol was able to synthesize 14 principles of management after years of
study.
1. Division of Work
In practice, employees are specialized in different areas and they have different skills. Different levels of expertise can be
distinguished within the knowledge areas (from generalist to specialist). Personal and professional developments support
this. According to Henri Fayol specialization promotes efficiency of the workforce and increases productivity. In addition,
the specialization of the workforce increases their accuracy and speed. This management principle of the 14 principles of
management is applicable to both technical and managerial activities.
2. Authority and Responsibility
In order to get things done in an organization, management has the authority to give orders to the employees. Of course
with this authority comes responsibility. According to Henri Fayol, the accompanying power or authority gives the
management the right to give orders to the subordinates. The responsibility can be traced back from performance and it is
therefore necessary to make agreements about this. In other words, authority and responsibility go together and they are two
sides of the same coin.
3. Discipline
This third principle of the 14 principles of management is about obedience. It is often a part of the core values of a mission
and vision in the form of good conduct and respectful interactions. This management principle is essential and is seen as
the oil to make the engine of an organization run smoothly.
4. Unity of Command
The management principle ‘Unity of command’ means that an individual employee should receive orders from one manager
and that the employee is answerable to that manager. If tasks and related responsibilities are given to the employee by more
than one manager, this may lead to confusion which may lead to possible conflicts for employees. By using this principle,
the responsibility for mistakes can be established more easily.
5. Unity of Direction
This management principle of the 14 principles of management is all about focus and unity. All employees deliver the same
activities that can be linked to the same objectives. All activities must be carried out by one group that forms a team. These
activities must be described in a plan of action. The manager is ultimately responsible for this plan and he monitors the
progress of the defined and planned activities. Focus areas are the efforts made by the employees and coordination.
6. Subordination of Individual Interest
There are always all kinds of interests in an organization. In order to have an organization function well, Henri Fayol
indicated that personal interests are subordinate to the interests of the organization (ethics). The primary focus is on the
organizational objectives and not on those of the individual. This applies to all levels of the entire organization, including
the managers.
7. Remuneration
Motivation and productivity are close to one another as far as the smooth running of an organization is concerned. This
management principle of the 14 principles of management argues that the remuneration should be sufficient to keep
employees motivated and productive. There are two types of remuneration namely non-monetary (a compliment, more
responsibilities, credits) and monetary (compensation, bonus or other financial compensation). Ultimately, it is about
rewarding the efforts that have been made.
8. The Degree of Centralization
Management and authority for decision-making process must be properly balanced in an organization. This depends on the
volume and size of an organization including its hierarchy.
Centralization implies the concentration of decision making authority at the top management (executive board). Sharing of
authorities for the decision-making process with lower levels (middle and lower management), is referred to as
decentralization by Henri Fayol. Henri Fayol indicated that an organization should strive for a good balance in this.
9. Scalar Chain
Hierarchy presents itself in any given organization. This varies from senior management (executive board) to the lowest
levels in the organization. Henri Fayol ’s “hierarchy” management principle states that there should be a clear line in the
area of authority (from top to bottom and all managers at all levels). This can be seen as a type of management structure.
Each employee can contact a manager or a superior in an emergency situation without challenging the hierarchy. Especially,
when it concerns reports about calamities to the immediate managers/superiors.
10. Order
According to this principle of the 14 principles of management, employees in an organization must have the right resources
at their disposal so that they can function properly in an organization. In addition to social order (responsibility of the
managers) the work environment must be safe, clean and tidy.
11. Equity
The management principle of equity often occurs in the core values of an organization. According to Henri Fayol, employees
must be treated kindly and equally. Employees must be in the right place in the organization to do things right. Managers
should supervise and monitor this process and they should treat employees fairly and impartially.
12. Stability of Tenure of Personnel
This management principle of the 14 principles of management represents deployment and managing of personnel and this
should be in balance with the service that is provided from the organization. Management strives to minimize employee
turnover and to have the right staff in the right place. Focus areas such as frequent change of position and sufficient
development must be managed well.
13. Initiative
Henri Fayol argued that with this management principle employees should be allowed to express new ideas. This encourages
interest and involvement and creates added value for the company. Employee initiatives are a source of strength for the
organization according to Henri Fayol. This encourages the employees to be involved and interested.
14. Esprit de Corps
The management principle ‘esprit de corps’ of the 14 principles of management stands for striving for the involvement and
unity of the employees. Managers are responsible for the development of morale in the workplace; individually and in the
area of communication. Esprit de corps contributes to the development of the culture and creates an atmosphere of mutual
trust and understanding.

Types of Public Administration Theory

Public Administration Theory recently has been divided into three branches. The three branches are, Classical Public
Administration Theory, New Public Management Theory and Postmodern Public Administration Theory. Each of these
three branches study Public Administration from a different perspective. These types of theories are some of the ways which
an administrator can understand and exercise their duties as a public administrator.
Classical Public Administration Theory
Classical Public Administration is often associated with Woodrow Wilson and Max Weber. In the United States, Woodrow
Wilson is known as 'The Father of Public Administration' , having written "The Study of Administration" in 1887, in which
he argued that a bureaucracy should be run like a business. Wilson promoted ideas like merit-based promotions,
professionalization, and a non-political system. Sympathy can lead to downfall in an administration, means there should be
pragmatism in bureaucracy.

New Public Management Theory

New Public Management asset of administrative practices, a consulting fad, and a body of theory that interprets recent
developments in public administration. Many scholars argue persuasively that scholars should pay more attention to New
Public management as a theory than as a fad.[3] New public management is part and parcel of the massive intrusion of free
market values into public space, which threatens to drive out political values altogether. It is worth noting that,in this sense,
new public management is the radical opposite of the notion of migrating political values into "private" space in the interest
of further democratizing society. However, new public management theory fails to addresses political questions in a
meaningful way. This theory looks at public administration from its roots of capitalism, and goes on through the perspective
of global capitalism. Intentional or not, new public management has served the interests of elites, particularly corporate
elites, has degraded the ability of governments to address the public interest, and has served as a vehicle for elevating the
apolitical governance of free trade and other supranational organizations, which have fully embraced the political
philosophy of economic rationalism and new managerialism.[4]

Postmodern Public Administration Theory

Post-modern public administration is referring to the inner workings of nearly every government entity in existence.
Whether it is the congress men and women in Washington D.C. or the Department of Public Safety representatives located
at any DPS office handling the paper work of applicants wanted to obtain a driver’s license. The idea of public administration
is broad enough to encompass all government positions that affect the public. Members of public administration come in
different forms and quantities. When understanding the theory of postmodern public administration, it is important to make
a differentiation between postmodern theory and the postmodern era as well as being able to differentiate between post-
modernity (period of time) and postmodernism (theory/philosophy).
Postmodern theory evolves out of the postmodern era. Chuck Fox and Hugh Miller are two of the main contributors to
postmodern theory because they were able to recognize the postmodern condition and how it was playing out in public
administration and public policy. Fox and Miller argue that the traditional approach to public administration "robs public
administration theorists of the independence required to imagine more emancipating conditions of work and governance."
[5] Miller proposes a network model based on economic utility which would explain events better than traditional approach
to public administration. Miller states that "policy networks provide a way of processing dissension, articulating values, and
airing possible policy implementation strategies. Maneuvering on behalf of the public interest in this complex politically
subtle network is the task of post-progressive public administration." [6] This theory began in the 1990s, even though this
theory had been around in other disciplines for a while. An estimation of time could date back to Plato and his ideas of a
public and communal government where there are policy making actions and steps through levels of democracy. This theory
has since been revisited and changed through three intellectual movements, interrogating the loop model of democracy,
which many have argued that it is largely a myth, showing the symbolic nature of policy and politics in the United States,
and discourse theory. One of the downsides of this theory is that it is based on the slippery slope of relativism. This theory
also provides people with the tools to rebuild our infrastructures of symbolic and social order. This theory addresses big
questions of what is right and wrong and tries to address the issue to find antidotes for anomie and relativity.[7]
The founding father of postmodern public administration is commonly referred to as Woodrow Wilson, while many can
find his roots of inspiration from the works of Friedrich Nietzsche. Using Woodrow Wilson as a reference point, it can be
shown that in his essay The Study of Administration, is it “traditionally accepted that with his study, Wilson applied
positivist principles to public administration…based on the belief that social reality would be objectively known with the
separation of positivist traditional values from facts.” (Traces of Postmodernism in the New Public Management Paradigm,
Kerim Ozcan-Veysel Agca).[8]
DICHOTOMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
The first proposition to separate the fields of politics and public administration was made during the late 1800s. Former US
President Woodrow Wilson was one of the ardent proponents of making public administration a distinct academic discipline.
In his essay entitled “The Study of Administration” (1887), President Wilson said that the administration as a field of
business must be removed from the hurry and strife of politics. Despite several clarion calls from staunch advocates, the
field of public administration remained to be a subfield of political science during the 1950s-1970s. But it was not long
before public administration became recognized as administrative science, thus an independent field of study. While we can
now say that the century-old epistemic debate is finally over, some questions still need to be answered: why is there a need
to spark the debate in the first place? Better yet, how necessary is it to discuss the need for dichotomizing politics and
administration? We will answer these questions in the latter part of our analysis.
Politics versus administration
Before we delve further it is best to differentiate first politics from administration. For President Wilson, the field of politics
aims to answer the question, “Who shall make law and what shall it be?” while administration attempts to address the
question, “How should the law be administered?” Using the similar line of thought, legal scholar and Wilson’s contemporary
Frank Goodnow stated that while politics has something to do with policies or expressions of the State’s will, administration
has to do with the execution of such policies. Wilson and Goodnow made clear that politics is limited to crafting of policies
and lawmaking, a function generally vested upon a State’s legislative body; and administration is focused on the
implementation of laws, a function normally held by the State’s executive branch.
Although these definitions are valid, it would be somewhat problematic if we were to use this in our present (or any future)
analysis. To illustrate, the legislative veto and oversight function of the Philippine Congress can be viewed as a manifestation
of how it can act like and share the authority of administration with the executive branch. Also, the exclusive power of the
President of the Philippines to introduce the budget proposal to the Congress shows how the President can play a preeminent
role in policy agenda. Other than the overlapping (if not harmony) of functions of politics and administration, the problem
which now remains is the obsolescence of this longstanding differentiation of these fields.
If we were to view politics as a field which concerns the allocation of public resources, a cursory definition which I believe
is being employed by the scholars of our time, it would be resonant of what public administration essentially means. From
the words of Professor John Vieg, public administration “embraces every area governed by public policy… including the
formal processes through which the legislative exercises its power [and] the function of courts in the administration of
justice.” In modern usage, public administration is not anymore a practice restricted to the domain of executive branch as,
in the passage of time, it became more concerned with serving the public through formulation of necessary laws, proactive
implementation of laws crafted, and efficient delivery of public services.
Why the debate continues
If truth be told, the difference between politics and administration is really hard to tell as the former heavily influences the
latter, or vice versa. Nevertheless the discussion has gone a long way. While some scholars posit that Wilson called for a
complete separation of politics and administration, Wilson himself admitted that the dichotomy of the two is fictional. So if
it is implausible in the first place, why call for dichotomy? This is now the part where we shall answer our first question we
asked in introduction.
Wilson stated four reasons why there should be a science of administration: (1) straighten the paths of government; (2) make
its business businesslike; (3) strengthen its organization; and (4) crown its dutifulness. Wilson knew that it is not possible
to achieve absolute separation of politics and administration as what he really wants was to keep public administration out
of the ills of politics and institutionalize the practice of effective administration. As governments today serve several masters
(the people), their functions became more complex which made Wilson underscore the need for great mastery in running
the government. For this monumental task, the role of the study of administration is to produce competent administrators
who will not just serve as passive instruments of power but vanguards of the public interest, and to promote a type of
governance responsive to the needs of the public and reflective of the people’s will.
In conclusion, we shall answer the last question we posed earlier: how necessary is it to discuss the need for dichotomizing
politics and administration? It has never been this necessary, and relevant it has always been. As it appears, the need for
dichotomy is more than an epistemic question and the birth of the public administration as a field of study more than an
academic milestone. The root of the debate brings with it a nobler cause and a greater call. Now more than ever, the call for
an administration which will always be all ears for the people’s demands, for public administrators who will serve as the
voice of the marginalized, and for future administrators who will rise to the challenge of upholding good governance, will
always remain loud and clear.
PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and
establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our
patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law
and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

EXPLINATION:
It shall be the sovereign Filipino people basically through the facilities and structures of government and through people’s
organization.
It is said that the Preamble is not a part of the Constitutions nor a source of rights. But it can certainly be referred to in
knowing the aims or purposes of the Constitutions. Dean Vicente Sinco says of the Preamble: “The preamble performs a
vital function in a constitution. Its value is not merely formal but real and substantive. It is to the constitution what the
enacting clause is to a statue. The authenticity of the authorship of the constitution is made patent in the preamble. Without
this or something equivalent to it, the source of authority that gives valid force to the constitutional mandates may lie
concealed, perhaps left to the dangers of uncertain conjectures.”
Thus, it was pointed out that “general welfare” should really mean “ikabubuti ng nakararami” while “common good” shall
mean “ikabubuti ng lahat”. Thus, all efforts and rules of society and government should be for the welfare of all, without
exceptions. “The patrimony of the Nation” now read “our patrimony”, to make it more emphatic, a Nolledo amendment.
The words “blessings of independence and democracy”, an Edmundo Garcia amendment, to underscore the importance of
true independence even in the presence of democratic beliefs and practices.
“Love” is found in the preamble, an amendment by Bishop Teodoro Bacani, to assert the need for love in the face of
divisions and discords that take place among our people because of varying political and social beliefs, practices, and
persuasions.
“Imploring the aid of Divine Providence” now appear as “imploring the aid of Almighty God”, to make the reference to
God more personal and direct. And by invoking God in the preamble, Jose Laurel, Sr. said, the Filipino people “thereby
manifested their intense religious nature and place unfaltering reliance upon Him who guides the destinies of men and
nations.”
IMPORTANCE OF PREAMBLE
The word ‘Preamble’ refers to an introductory part of a statute or a body of laws and it contains the purposes, aims and
justification of such stature or the body. It is like the face of a structure that conveys the underlying significance of the
whole. Every work of letters has its Preamble. Without ‘Preamble’ the body of laws loses its sanctity and significance.
The preamble is important because it will tell you why a particular clause on the Philippine Constitution is there. It would
tell you what the Filipino people is striving for, what they aspire to be, and what they believe in. The preamble is like a
Constitution’s “abstract.” It tells you the goals, aspirations, and what to expect on a nation’s set of laws.