Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 21

UNIT II

PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Hierarchy-A main principle in pub admn


Hierarchy is one of the main principles in public administration .It is an arrangement of

items (objects, names, values, categories, etc.) in which the items are represented as being

"above," "below," or "at the same level as" one another. In other words A hierarchy is a

system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other

according to status or authority.A hierarchy can link entities either directly or indirectly,

and either vertically or diagonally. The only direct links in a hierarchy, insofar as they are

hierarchical, are to one's immediate superior or to one of one's subordinates, although a

system that is largely hierarchical can also incorporate alternative hierarchies. Indirect

hierarchical links can extend "vertically" upwards or downwards via multiple links in the

same direction, following a path. All parts of the hierarchy which are not linked vertically to

one another nevertheless can be "horizontally" linked through a path by traveling up the

hierarchy to find a common direct or indirect superior, and then down again. This is akin to

two co-workers or colleagues; each reports to a common superior, but they have the same

relative amount of authority. Organizational forms exist that are both alternative and

complementary to hierarchy. Hierarchy is one such form.

Span of Control: Definition and Evaluation in Public

Administration

Definition and Nature:

Let us define the principle in the words of Nicholas Henry: Span of control means that a

manager can properly control only a limited number of subordinates, after a certain number is

1
exceeded, communication of commands grows increasingly garbed and control becomes

increasingly ineffective and loose. In other words, there is a limit to everything and in public

administration an officer cannot control unlimited number of subordinates.

The concept was originally applied in military department and later on the

members of scientific school- borrowing it from the military department-introduced it to

public administration. Some administrationists believed that the management of an

organisation could remarkably be improved by increasing the number of subordinates. But

subsequently it was found that the idea or process was wrong. The authority could increase

the number of subordinates but that failed to make any impact upon the improvement of the

organisation.

After prolonged experimentation it was found that there was a limit to the

span of control which means that an executive can never control the activities of unlimited

employees. Peter Self argues, The most specific of the principles of the scientific school

was that the span of direct supervision should be limited .It has been suggested that a chief

executive can control at most six subordinates and if more employees are put under his

supervision that will lead to chaos or mismanagement. It has been maintained that even an

officer with high degree of efficiency and large amount of administrative knowledge cannot

control large number of workers. The concept, practically, wants to say this.

Peter Self enumerates some factors that are relevant for this principle.

These are:

(a) The time and attention which a supervisor can give to the control of his subordinates. In

other words, a supervisor cannot have unlimited energy and power. He can supervise only a

limited number of employees,

2
(b) The effectiveness of control depends upon the quality and intelligence of the workers. A

supervisor cannot control large number of workers whose intelligence is miserably low.

(c) Span of control, again, depends upon another factor which is nature of work. This implies

that if the work is of complicated nature and requires special management skill an executive

cannot control large number of employees.

Moreover, the specialists are of the view that the principle of span of control has a close link

with the quality and nature of control or supervision. The control may be closed or

superficial. If it is of former category it is beyond the capacity of the executive to control a

large number of workers. But if the executive is empowered to supervise superficially he can

control large number of employees.

The supporters of the span of control must take this aspect into account. It has also been said

that the effectiveness of control to a large extent depends upon the internal condition or

management of the organisation. If the management is of high standard and there exists a

good deal of coordination and good relation among the employees a chief executive can

easily control a large number of workers. But if the opposite situation prevails the supervising

power of the executive will face troubles. The mentality, outlook, behaviour etc. of the

workers must also be brought under active consideration while analysing the principle of

span of control.

Evaluation:

Critics of the span of control do not lay great faith on this principle. Herbert Simon says, a

restricted span of control inevitably produces excessive red tape, for each contact between

organisation and members must be carried upward until a common superior is found

(Simon). Critics further say that if the principle is strictly followed that will inevitably result

3
in red-tapeism which will harm the management and development of the organisation. If the

organisation is quite large and if it is divided into a number of sections, and if there is a head

in every sectionit will be very difficult for the organisation to arrive at a decision. Even the

management will not be able to decide anything quickly. Red-tapeism is a natural

consequence of the application of the principles.

Simon has suggested that for effectiveness of the principle the span of control must

be extended as far as possible. But here is again a problem. If the span of control is extended

liberally it may not work up to satisfaction. The organisation will face serious problems.

Taking of decision will take long time. Apart from this an executive has limit to his power or

capacity. It is not possible to manage a large number of employees. There will arise a

problem in discipline. Is it possible for an executive to manage a large number of workers?

Simon has raised the question.

There are examples of effectiveness of their principle in military administration.

But there is a basic difference between military administration and public administration. In

any civil administration there is very little strictness of rule whereas in military

administration the strictness in principle is followed. This difference puts the principle in a lot

of uncertainty. The application of military rule in civil administration is not possible.

Unity of Command in |PublicAdministration

Unity of command is one of the fourteen principles of Fayol regarding the

management of an organisation. For better discipline and improved management it has been

suggested by Fayol that an employee will be responsible only to one master or boss and no

one else. It is mainly due to the fact that if an employee is compelled to carry out the orders

of more than one master, that will create confusion in mismanagement.

4
The organisation will be plunged into problem. The term unity of command does not admit of

any difference of opinion in the administration. It implies that in management there shall be

transparency and when the chief executive issues command or order this shall be treated as

final.

Henri Fayol thought that for the better and efficient management it is essential that unity of

command should be strictly followed. Fayol has said that there are three things in the idea of

unity of command the person who issues command or order, the employee who carries out

the command that is executes the order and, finally, if the organisation is being managed in

accordance with the order. Fayol observed that in the French military department the

principle of unity of command was strictly followed and according to Fayol that produced

good results.

Still today in many states (in some departments this principle is strictly followed) the

existence of this principle comes to our notice. Henri Fayol was quite eager to implement this

principle in the management world of France and from the history of public administration

we come to know that it achieved success. In the opinion of Fayol the crucial aspects of unity

of command are- there must exist an authority who has the power or right to issue order, the

power to extract obedience, and there is an atmosphere of implementation.

A number of objections have been raised against this principle and one such has been made

by some specialists such as Dimock and Dimock. They are of opinion that if the organisation

is small in size the principle will have some practical importance that is it may or will be

executed. Even in military department the unity of command has been fruitfully

implemented. But in general public administration or civil administration the principle cannot

be implemented. Particularly if the organisation happens to be large, there is not one person

to give orders.

5
A worker may have to serve more than one master and in that case he will carry out the

orders of whom. This relates to the structure of one management. In that situation an

employee cannot say that he will carry out the order of a particular boss and not other bosses.

In many organisations there is a group of managers and all of them are authorised to issue

command. The unity of command principle will create confusion in such an organisation.

Some people say that in Fayols time there was no existence of large organisation.

There is another drawback of this principle. For better or efficient management the principle

of coordination should be strictly-followed. But some critics say that in their principle the

coordination has no importance. In modern organisation the division of labour or division of

work is sincerely followed. But many critics are of opinion that there is conflict between

unity of command and division of labour or division of work. The size of the organisation is

expanding day after day and in this background the utility of this principle is decreasing

gradually. There must exist strict and effective coordination among all the departments of an

organisation.

Simon in his Administrative Behaviour has vehemently criticised this principle. He does not

contribute to the idea that if the principle of unity of command is sincerely followed that will

result in the efficiency and better management of the organisation. The whole idea is

exaggerated.

Simon has said that the efficiency of a management depends on a number of factors and the

unity of command is one of them. But this is not an important one. Simon has further said

that the unity of command is against the well-known principle of specialisation. Let us quote

him: The real fault that must be found with this principle is that it is incompatible with the

principle of specialisation.

6
It is said that for the better management of any modern organisation both specialisation and

unity of command are indispensible and in that case both cannot co-exist. He has further

observed that the unity of command is an over simplified principle. Modern organisation is

too complex to apply it. Simon has said that when the specialisation and unity of command

are in conflict situation the management will be complex.

Peter Self has criticised it from another standpoint. He says that the principle in its full form

is unworkable. Let us see what he says: The modified unity of command model is more

often accepted in theory, but the coordinative and arbitrative power of the line supervisors is

often much less than the theory suggests. Unity of command often suggest no more than the

existence of procedures for settling disputes.

In conclusion we are of opinion that because of these shortcomings there is no reason to

reject the principle. To speak the truth no principle of public administration is free from

defects and the unity of command is no exception. Instead of saying unity of command it is

better to say unity of direction.

DECENTRALIZATION

Decentralization is the process of redistributing or dispersing functions, powers,

people or things away from a central location or authority. While centralization, especially in

the governmental sphere, is widely studied and practiced, there is no common definition or

understanding of decentralization. The meaning of decentralization may vary in part because

of the different ways it is applied. Concepts of decentralization have been applied to group

dynamics and management science in private businesses and organizations, political science,

law and public administration, economics and technology.

7
ADMINISTRATIVE DECENTRALIZATION

Administrative decentralization seeks to redistribute authority, responsibility and

financial resources for providing public services among different levels of government. It

is the transfer of responsibility for the planning, financing and management of certain

public functions from the central government and its agencies to field units of

government agencies, subordinate units or levels of government, semi-autonomous

public authorities or corporations, or area-wide, regional or functional authorities.

The three major forms of administrative decentralization -- deconcentration, delegation,

and devolution -- each have different characteristics.

Deconcentration. Deconcentration --which is often considered to be the weakest form

of decentralization and is used most frequently in unitary states-- redistributes decision

making authority and financial and management responsibilities among different levels

of the central government. It can merely shift responsibilities from central government

officials in the capital city to those working in regions, provinces or districts, or it can

create strong field administration or local administrative capacity under the supervision

of central government ministries.

Delegation. Delegation is a more extensive form of decentralization. Through

delegation central governments transfer responsibility for decision-making and

administration of public functions to semi-autonomous organizations not wholly

controlled by the central government, but ultimately accountable to it. Governments

delegate responsibilities when they create public enterprises or corporations, housing

authorities, transportation authorities, special service districts, semi-autonomous school

districts, regional development corporations, or special project implementation units.

Usually these organizations have a great deal of discretion in decision-making. They may

be exempt from constraints on regular civil service personnel and may be able to charge

users directly for services.

8
Devolution. A third type of administrative decentralization is devolution. When

governments devolve functions, they transfer authority for decision-making, finance, and

management to quasi-autonomous units of local government with corporate status.

Devolution usually transfers responsibilities for services to municipalities that elect their

own mayors and councils, raise their own revenues, and have independent authority to

make investment decisions. In a devolved system, local governments have clear and

legally recognized geographical boundaries over which they exercise authority and within

which they perform public functions. It is this type of administrative decentralization that

underlies most political decentralization.

Civil Service Reform and Decentralization

Civil service reform is usually a supporting strategy for more general decentralization in

government operations or service delivery. One does not decentralize the civil service as

an end in itself -- one does so in order to provide services better, manage resources

more efficiently, or support other general outcome goals. The civil service as a whole can

be seen as one of the main instruments with which the government fulfills its

obligations. In the context of decentralization, this tool must often be reshaped in order

to perform a new set of duties efficiently, equitably, and effectively. Reform of the civil

service, therefore, is the process of modifying rules and incentives to obtain a more

efficient, dedicated and performing government labor-force in newly decentralized

environment.

This note will first discuss the various civil service issues that sectoral or general

decentralization strategies raise. It will then focus on various reform priorities to cope

with the changes decentralization can bring.

How does Decentralization affect the Civil Service?

9
Civil services at all levels of government need a capable, motivated, and efficient staff in

order to deliver quality services to its citizens. When civil service functions and

structures are decentralized, existing bureaucratic patterns must be reorganized as roles

and accountability are shifted. Decentralization thus intensifies the need for capable staff

and increases the importance of capacity-building programs.

The process of decentralization:

It Disperses power, both geographically and institutionally: Decentralization inevitably

changes the location of power and jobs. Movement geographically or across tiers of

government is often impeded by issues related to statute, prestige and poor labor

mobility. In the Eastern European transition economies, for example, de-legitimation of

the central state and the emergence of representative government at local and

intermediate levels of government has complicated human resource allocation. Incentive

programs and mechanisms for inter-post mobility, which compound the costs of

decentralization, may be required in order to introduce flexibility.

It Creates new responsibilities for inexperienced actors: Decentralization creates more

opportunities for local autonomy and responsiveness to more specialized constituencies,

but it also gives subnational governments more room to fail if specific steps are not

taken to build local technical and managerial capacity.

It Introduces more levels into the state: Decentralization, especially political

decentralization creates a class of government workers which, based on the specific

information which they receive (feedback from their constituencies) may have different

preferences than workers at the next higher level. This divergence in views and

convictions can create conflict within the civil service that will require mechanisms to

manage effectively.

It Creates a tension between local autonomy and national standards: Decentralization

relaxes national control and creates the potential for more regional variation in civil

10
service conditions. Some room for variation allows regions the flexibility to hire a civil

service that matches a communitys needs and budget constraints. National salary,

eligibility, and performance standards can ensure consistent quality, but they can also

lead to personnel expenditures (especially for locally administered education and health

sectors) beyond some local capacities; grant transfer systems will need to take different

financing capacities into account in these and other types of mandated expenditures. The

Philippines, Indonesia, and Pakistan are examples of decentralized states with essentially

uniform terms and conditions of service for government employees in different regions.

Types of Decentralization

Historians have described the history of governments and empires in terms of centralization

and decentralization. In his 1910 The History of Nations Henry Cabot Lodge wrote that

Persian king Darius I (550-486 BCE) was a master of organization and for the first time in

history centralization becomes a political fact. He also noted that this contrasted with the

decentralization of Ancient Greece.Since the 1980s a number of scholars have written about

cycles of centralization and decentralizations. Stephen K. Sanderson wrote that over the last

4000 years chiefdoms and actual states have gone through sequences of centralization and

decentralization of economic, political and social power.Yildiz Atasoy writes this process has

been going on since the Stone Age through not just chiefdoms and states, but empires and

todays hegemonic core states. Christopher K. Chase-Dunn and Thomas D. Hall review

other works that detail these cycles, including works which analyze the concept of core elites

which compete with state accumulation of wealth and how their "intra-ruling-class

competition accounts for the rise and fall of states" and of their phases of centralization and

decentralization.

Rising government expenditures, poor economic performance and the rise of free market-

influenced ideas have convinced governments to decentralize their operations, to induce

11
competition within their services, to contract out to private firms operating in the market, and

to privatize some functions and services entirely.

Government decentralization has both political and administrative aspects. Its

decentralization may be territorial, moving power from a central city to other localities, and it

may be functional, moving decision-making from the top administrator of any branch of

government to lower level officials, or divesting of the function entirely through

privatization. It has been called the "new public management" which has been described as

decentralization, management by objectives, contracting out, competition within government

and consumer orientation.

Political Decentralization

Political decentralization aims to give citizens or their elected representatives more power. It

may be associated with pluralistic politics and representative government, but it also means

giving citizens, or their representatives, more influence in the formulation and

implementation of laws and policies. Depending on the country, this may require

constitutional or statutory reforms, the development of new political parties, increased power

for legislatures, the creation of local political units, and encouragement of advocacy groups.[

The European Union follows the principle of subsidiary, which holds that decision-making

should be made by the most local competent authority. The EU should decide only on

enumerated issues that a local or member state authority cannot address themselves.

Furthermore, enforcement is exclusively the domain of member states.

In Finland, the Centre Party explicitly supports decentralization. For example, government

departments have been moved from the capital Helsinki to the provinces. The Centre supports

substantial subsidies that limit potential economic and political centralization to Helsinki .

12
Administrative decentralization

Four major forms of administrative decentralization have been described.

Deconcentration, the weakest form of decentralization, shifts responsibility for decision-

making, finance and implementation of certain public functions from officials of central

governments to those in existing districts or, if necessary, new ones under direct control of

the central government.

Delegation passes down responsibility for decision-making, finance and implementation of

certain public functions to semi-autonomous organizations not wholly controlled by the

central government, but ultimately accountable to it. It involves the creation of public-

private enterprises or corporations, or of "authorities", special projects or service districts.

All of them will have a great deal of decision-making discretion and they may be exempt

from civil service requirements and may be permitted to charge users for services.

Devolution transfers responsibility for decision-making, finance and implementation of

certain public functions to the sub-national level, such as a regional, local, or state

government.

Divestment, also called privatization, may mean merely contracting out services to private

companies. Or it may mean relinquishing totally all responsibility for decision-making,

finance and implementation of certain public functions. Facilities will be sold off, workers

transferred or fired and private companies or non-for-profit organizations allowed to

provide the services. Many of these functions originally were done by private individuals,

companies, or associations and later taken over by the government, either directly, or by

regulating out of business entities which competed with newly created government

programs.

13
Fiscal decentralization

Fiscal decentralization means decentralizing revenue raising and/or expenditure of moneys to

a lower level of government while maintaining financial responsibility. While this process

usually is called fiscal federalism it may be relevant to unitary, federal and confederal

governments. Fiscal federalism also concerns the "vertical imbalances" where the central

government gives too much or too little money to the lower levels. It actually can be a way of

increasing central government control of lower levels of government, if it is not linked to

other kinds of responsibilities and authority.

Fiscal decentralization can be achieved through user fees, user participation through

monetary or labor contributions, expansion of local property or sales taxes, intergovernmental

transfers of central government tax monies to local governments through transfer payments or

grants, and authorization of municipal borrowing with national government loan guarantees.

Transfers of money may be given conditionally with instructions or unconditionally without

them.

Economic or market decentralization

Economic decentralization can be done through privatization of public owned functions and

businesses, as described briefly above. But it also is done through deregulation, the abolition

of restrictions on businesses competing with government services, for example, postal

services, schools, garbage collection. Even as private companies and corporations have

worked to have such services contracted out to or privatized by them, others have worked to

have these turned over to non-profit organizations or associations,

Since the 1970s there has been deregulation of some industries, like banking, trucking,

airlines and telecommunications which resulted generally in more competition and lower

14
prices.According to Cato Institute, an American libertarian think-tank, some industries

deregulation of aspects of an industry were offset by more ambitious regulations elsewhere

that hurt consumers, the electricity industry being a prime example.For example, in banking,

Cato Institute believes some deregulation allowed banks to compete across state lines,

increasing consumer choice, while an actual increase in regulators and regulations forced

banks to do business the way central government regulators commanded, including making

loans to individuals incapable of repaying them, leading eventually to the financial crisis of

20072008.

One example of economic decentralization, which is based on a libertarian socialist model, is

decentralized economic planning. Decentralized planning is a type of economic system in

which decision-making is distributed amongst various economic agents or localized within

production agents. An example of this method in practice is in Kerala, India which started in

1996 as, The People's Planning in Kerala.

Some argue that government standardisation in areas from commodity market, inspection and

testing procurement bidding, Building codes, professional and vocational education, trade

certification, safety, etc. are necessary.Emmanuelle Auriol and Michel Benaim write about

the "comparative benefits" of decentralization versus government regulation in the setting of

standards. They find that while there may be a need for public regulation if public safety is at

stake, private creation of standards usually is better because "regulators or 'experts' might

misrepresent consumers' tastes and needs." As long as companies are averse to incompatible

standards, standards will be created that satisfy needs of a modern economy.

Environmental decentralization

15
Central governments themselves may own large tracts of land and control the forest, water,

mineral, wildlife and other resources they contain. They may manage them through

government operations or leasing them to private businesses; or they may neglect them to be

exploited by individuals or groups who defy non-enforced laws against exploitation. It also

may control most private land through land-use, zoning, environmental and other

regulations.Selling off or leasing lands can be profitable for governments willing to

relinquish control, but such programs can face public scrutiny because of fear of a loss of

heritage or of environmental damage. Devolution of control to regional or local governments

has been found to be an effective way of dealing with these concerns. Such decentralization

has happened in India and other third world nations.

Centralisation

Centralization is one of the principle in public administration is the process by which

the activities of an organization, particularly those regarding planning and decision-making,

become concentrated within a particular location or group, keeping all of the important

decision-making powers within the head office or the center of the organization.

The term has a variety of meanings in several fields. In political science, centralisation

refers to the concentration of a government's power both geographically and politically

into a centralised government. In business studies, centralisation and decentralisation refer to

where decisions are made in the chain of command.

centralisation in management

1. Top level managers concentrate and reserve the decision-making power.

16
2. Execution decided by the top level management with the help from the other levels of

management.

3. Lower levels management do the jobs which directed and controlled by the top managers.

Advantages of the centralisation

Centralisation Is Suitable For Small Firms - Managers are easy to look after overall activities

personally.

Centralisation Facilitates Unified Decision - All decisions made by top managers, gathering

all subordinates decisions and make them in a final one.

Centralisation Simplifies Structure - The structure is simple and clear, involving two levels -

managerial and operating levels. Managerial level is responsible for decision-making

whereas operating level is responsible for execution.

Centralisation Facilitates Quicker Decision - One make final decision and others provide

suggestions and professional help, time-saving.

Economy In Operation - Minimising the operation cost by laying off the amount of managers

and utilising the skilled, qualified and experienced members effectively.

Centralisation integrates Operation - One decision control over the whole

employees.(Accountlearning.blogspot.co.uk, 2013)

Disadvantages of the centralisation

Unsuitable for large organisation - Difficulty in communicating managerial decisions to different

operating levels in the management system, which means top managers may not effectively

supervise and control all the activities of the organisation.

Managers are overburdened - Top manager is the centre of the organisation and worries about

each and every activity in the organisation, which tends to decrease working efficiency of the

organisation.

17
Possibility of power misuse - If top managers lack enough skills and abilities, they may exercise

their powers on the basis of their personal judgement, leading to misuse of authority.

Low morale motivation - Middle and lower level managers may feel passive while doing their

assignments as their personality and ability may not be expressed. The lack of motivation leads to

the morale of subordinates.

Lack of environmental adaptation - Lack of sufficient flexibility in the dynamic business

environment

Inappropriate for routine decision - Top managers can only devote most time in taking

routine decisions and not available for deciding the non-programmed

part.(Accountlearning.blogspot.co.uk, 2013)[

Henri Fayol's 14 Principles of Management

Early Management Theory

Today's managers have access to an amazing array of resources which they can use to

improve their skills. But what about those managers who were leading the way forward 100

years ago?

Managers in the early 1900s had very few external resources to draw upon to guide and

develop their management practice. But thanks to early theorists like Henri Fayol (1841-

18
1925), managers began to get the tools they needed to lead and manage more effectively.

Fayol, and others like him, are responsible for building the foundations of modern

management theory.

Background

Henri Fayol was born in Istanbul in 1841. When he was 19, he began working as an engineer

at a large mining company in France. He eventually became the director, at a time when the

mining company employed more than 1,000 people.

Through the years, Fayol began to develop what he considered to be the 14 most important

principles of management. Essentially, these explained how managers should organize and

interact with staff.

In 1916, two years before he stepped down as director, he published his "14 Principles of

Management" in the book "Administration Industrielle et Gnrale." Fayol also created a list

of the six primary functions of management, which go hand in hand with the Principles.

Fayol's "14 Principles" was one of the earliest theories of management to be created, and

remains one of the most comprehensive. He's considered to be among the most influential

contributors to the modern concept of management, even though people don't refer to "The 14

Principles" often today.

The theory falls under the Administrative Management school of thought (as opposed to the

Scientific Management school, led by FREDERICK TAYLOR

Fayol's 14 Principles of Management

Fayol's principles are listed below:

19
1. Division of Work When employees are specialized, output can increase because they

become increasingly skilled and efficient.

2. Authority Managers must have the authority to give orders, but they must also keep in

mind that with authority comes responsibility.

3. Discipline Discipline must be upheld in organizations, but methods for doing so can vary.

4. Unity of Command Employees should have only one direct supervisor.

5. Unity of Direction Teams with the same objective should be working under the direction

of one manager, using one plan. This will ensure that action is properly coordinated.

6. Subordination of Individual Interests to the General Interest The interests of one

employee should not be allowed to become more important than those of the group. This

includes managers.

7. Remuneration Employee satisfaction depends on fair remuneration for everyone. This

includes financial and non-financial compensation.

8. Centralization This principle refers to how close employees are to the decision-making

process. It is important to aim for an appropriate balance.

9. Scalar Chain Employees should be aware of where they stand in the organization's

hierarchy, or chain of command.

10. Order The workplace facilities must be clean, tidy and safe for employees. Everything

should have its place.

11. Equity Managers should be fair to staff at all times, both maintaining discipline as

necessary and acting with kindness where appropriate.

12. Stability of Tenure of Personnel Managers should strive to minimize employee turnover.

Personnel planning should be a priority.

13. Initiative Employees should be given the necessary level of freedom to create and carry

out plans.

14. Esprit de Corps Organizations should strive to promote team spirit and unity.

20
Fayol's Six Functions of Management

Fayol's six primary functions of management, which go hand in hand with the Principles, are

as follows:

1. Forecasting.

2. Planning.

3. Organizing.

4. Commanding.

5. Coordinating.

6. Controlling.

Key Points

KEY POINTS

Henri Fayol's "14 Principles of Management" have been a significant influence on modern

management theory. His practical list of principles helped early 20th century managers learn

how to organize and interact with their employees in a productive way.

Although the 14 Principles aren't widely used today, they can still offer guidance for today's

managers. Many of the principles are now considered to be common sense, but at the time

they were revolutionary concepts for organizational management.

21

Вам также может понравиться