Mr Tafadzwa

Indeed, far from promoting a “one best way” approach, Fayol (1949:19) says early in his work that he adopts the term “principles” out of preference “whilst dissociating it from any suggestion of rigidity, for there is nothing rigid or absolute in management affairs, it is all a question of proportion”. He identifies the principles of management which he has most frequently applied (Fayol 1949:19-20) – division of work, authority, discipline, unity of command, unity of direction, subordination of individual interests to the general interest, remuneration, centralization, scalar chain (line of authority), order, equity, stability of tenure of personnel, initiative, and esprit de corps – and then proceeds to describe each in turn. These principles have been thoroughly elaborated in most management textbooks and are well known by management academics and students alike, such that a detailed consideration of them is not presented here. At the same time, they do not, Fayol (1949:41-42) says, constitute an exhaustive list, since it has no precise limits, but they are a set of principles that “aim at the success of associations of individuals and at the satisfying of economic interests”.
A key to Fayol’s approach to managing an organization is given in his elaboration of the “administrative apparatus … a system of recording which includes the present, the past and the future … [which ensures] for the Directors the best possible means of appreciating the probable consequences of their decisions [ and comprises] The Survey, The Plan, Reports and Statistics, Minutes of Meetings, and The Organization Chart” (Fayol 1949:x). What Fayol proffers however, is not the sterile, “ivory tower” approach to the production of these outputs of which he is so often accused. Rather, they are outputs that involve and are the results of active engagement of managers and workers at all levels in the organization.
Fayol (1949:xi) says The Survey (which today we would variously describe