Northeast Business & Economics Association Proceedings, 2009 Page 196

Rediscovering Fayol: Parallels to Behavioralist Management and

Transformational Leadership

Lauren Spatig
Doctoral Student
Fielding Graduate University
Lauren.spatig@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

Textbooks such as Bass and Stodgills Handbook of
Leadership (1990) frame Henri Fayol, along with other
structural theorists as outdated and ignoring the human
element of management. This paper provides a comparative
analysis of Henri Fayols classical management theory with
Douglas McGregors (1966, 2006) behavioralist
management theory, and Kouzes and Posners (2007)
transformational leadership research. A comparative review
of Fayols (1949) original classical management theory
reveals Fayol as foundational, rather than obsolete. Fayol not
only formed a core from which to build, but also planted
seeds which parallel current management and leadership
theory.

Keywords: Management Theory, Management Education

INTRODUCTION

Henri Fayol, worked his way up the ranks of the
Comambault Mining Company to chief executive after
starting there in 1860. He became managing director of
10,000 employees for 30 years. Fayol applied the scientific
approach he learned as an engineer to the problem of
management (Urwick, 1949). As a result of his long
experience and study of administration, he wrote
Administration Industrielle et Generale (also known as AIG)
in French in 1916. Not until three decades after the original
work, did his work become widely available in North
America through the English translation as, The Theory of
Administration. Therefore, all citations to Fayols Theory of
Administration show 1949, even though written in 1916.

Fayols classical management theory tends be stereotyped as
representing a command and control approach while
ignoring the human element which results in a negative
connotation (Parker & Ritson, 2005). Mintzberg (1990)
deemed Fayols work management folklore. In this
analysis, I join with several others (Wren, 2003; Parker &
Riston, 2005, Lamond, 2004, Fells, 2000) to highlight the
contemporary value that Fayols theory offers.

This abbreviated paper provides a review of textbook
treatment of Fayol. This is followed by a comparative
analysis of Fayols (1949) original work to McGregors
(1966, 2006) behaviorlist theory and also to Kouzes and
Posners (2007) transformational leadership research. A
full literature review of the text book approach as well as
review and summary of each theorists original work may be
located in the full paper.

TEXTBOOK APPROACH

Bass and Stodgills Handbook of Leadership (1990), serves
as the source for the textbook treatment of this topic and
categorizes management and leadership theory development
over time to reveal opposing views. The text presents
classical management theory, otherwise labeled
structuralism, as one view and contemporary management,
or behavioralism as the other. Henri Fayol is framed, along
with other classical or structural theorists, as outdated and
ignoring the human element of management (Bass, 1990).

Based on the text, structuralism is said to be based on an
underlying assumption that the worker is complacent and
unmotivated and therefore depends on external constraints
to gain commitment and compliance of followers (Bass,
1990 p. 255). This calls for defined strict hierarchical
supervisory roles, governance over worker roles and
processes via direct and close supervision, or command and
control. This lends itself to uneven power distribution
across units and concentration of power in leadership and
supervisory roles. advocate job specialization and
simplification of job function along with clear written job
descriptions and avoidance of duplication or overlap. The
organization is structured, with an emphasis on chain of
command and bound by rules and regulations (Bass, 1990).

The 1950s and 60s brought in behavioralism or a
humanistic school of thought, as defined by leading
theorists, such as McGregor based in the human potential
movement of Maslow and modern organizational
development movement of Bennis (Bass, 1990 p. 255). The
behavioralists recognized that inherent human nature is at
odds with the structuralist organization. They argued that
more democratic and egalitarian leadership approaches
leverage the individuals desire to seek fulfillment through
self directed activity, initiative and creative expression and
allows organizations to gain even greater compliance and
commitment. An organization which provides a means for
employees to make meaningful, creative contributions to it
as a natural outgrowth of their needs for growth, self
expression and maturity will be most effective (Bass 1990,

Northeast Business & Economics Association Proceedings, 2009 Page 197


p. 43). This calls for job expansion, enlargement, sharing
and enrichment. Power and information is shared through
participative management; relationships become more
informal and trusting. Power is equalized and leadership
moves among roles in the organization or it is absent.

The text provides clear contrast between structuralist and
behaviorlist thought. Transformational leadership serves to
extend the behaviorlist thinking and entered the leadership
lexicon in the late 1970s through leading theorists such as
Burns, Zaleznik and Bass and continues into the current
context with Kouzes and Posner. Transformational leaders
seek change in the framework, by creating a vision that
followers can enact (Bass, 1990). The effects of
transformational leadership include employees who are
willing to extend extra effort and report that the organization
is highly effective (Bass, 1990).

Management students armed with simply a textbook
description of structuralism, behavioralism and
transformational leadership, hold an understanding of the
general landscape, but may miss the deeper understanding of
particularly Fayol. It would be interesting to place an
excerpt such as the one below in front of a management
student, as a scholarly blind taste test and ask, who said
this, a structuralist, a behavioralist or a transformational
leadership theorist?

Thinking out a plan and ensuring its success is one of
the keenest satisfactions for an intelligent man to
experience. It is also one of the most powerful
stimulants of human endeavor. The power of
thinking out and executing is what is called initiative,
and freedom to propose and to execute belongs to,
each in its way, initiative. At all levels of the
organizational ladder zeal and energy on the part of
employees are augmented by initiative. The
initiative of all, added to that of the manager, and
supplementing it if need be, represents a great source
of strength for businesses. This is particularly
apparent at difficult times; hence it is essential to
encourage and develop this capacity to the full.

The proper utilization of the physical, moral and
intellectual gifts of men is just as essential for the
good of mankind as the proper utilization of our
mineral wealth.

Other than the outdated reference to the masculine,
(intelligent man) and degree of formality in the writing, one
may not jump to structuralism based on a textbook
understanding. Indeed both were written by Fayol (1949, p.
40; 1908, p. 908). This exercise emphasizes the need to
review original literature, thus gain deeper insight as to what
foundational theorists actually said, versus relying on
summaries or labels of them.



BEHAVIORALIST PARALLELS:

While not explicitly stated within structuralist theory,
McGregor (1960) pointed out the underlying assumptions
imbedded within structuralist thinking and named it Theory
X, in his seminal 1960 work. McGregor outlined the
following assumptions of Theory X:

1) The average human being has an inherent dislike
of work and will avoid it if he can.
2) Because of this human characteristic of dislike of
work, most people must be coerced, controlled,
directed, and threatened with punishment to get them
to put forth adequate effort toward the achievement
of organizational objectives, and
3) The average human being prefers to be directed,
wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little
ambition, wants security above all. (McGregor, 2006
p. 46)

McGregor asserts the fallacy of management in the
conventional sense is based on the theory of human
motivation and satisfaction of needs. McGregor pointed to
Maslows hierarchy of needs as the philosophical
underpinning which serves to invalidate Theory X. The ever
advancing needs that arise as soon as lower level needs are
met, precludes the idea of a workforce predisposed as
unmotivated. McGregor (2006) then proposes Theory Y as
follows:

1) The expenditure of physical and mental effort in
work is as natural as play or rest.
2) External control and the threat of punishment are
not the only means for bringing about effort toward
organizational objectives. Man will exercise self
direction and self control of objectives to which he is
committed.
3) Commitment to objectives is a function of the
rewards associated with their achievement. The most
significant of such rewards, e.g. the satisfaction of
ego and self actualized needs, can be direct products
of effort directed toward organizational objectives.
4) The average human being learns, under proper
conditions, not only to seek but accept responsibility.
(McGregor 2006, p 65)

Northeast Business & Economics Association Proceedings, 2009 Page 198



Behavioralists advocate job enlargement, over
specialization. However, the principle of division of labor
clearly exists in contemporary organizations through
standard departments such as marketing, sales, finance,
operations, etc. Fayol is clearly an advocate for division of
labor, citing its universally recognized advantages, however
also points to its limits which experience and a sense of
proportion teach us may not be exceeded (Fayol, 1949,
p.20). Within departments, individuals have specific roles,
or division of labor. Fayols principle stands as a matter of
degree.

As part of his discussion on remuneration, Fayol discussed
the forward thinking idea of worker profit sharing as a way
to create harmony between capital and labour (Fayol,
1949, p. 29). However, he notes that no practical formula
has been found for a number of reasons: 1) it cant exist in
organizations where there is no profit objective, as in
government or non profits, or when a business operates at a
loss, 2) it is very difficult if not impossible to assess each
individual workers share of profit and the share would be
insignificant 3) resulting in little incentive for workers to act
based on the promise of profit sharing (Fayol, 1949).
McGregor extended this thinking: an annual profit sharing
bonus is a reward which has little relationship to daily
behavior (McGregor, 19, p. 152) and advocates the Scanlon
plan which instead offers a sharing of cost savings. Fayol
and McGregor concur on this point.

In fact, Fayol (1949) points out that wages, whether financial
or other benefit, such as heating, light, housing and food is
of little consequence provided the employee is satisfied.
McGregor (2006) was clear in his point that once basic
needs are satisfied, additional incremental pay no longer
serves as a motivator of behavior, rather higher level needs
such as social needs, self esteem and recognition become the
new motivators (McGregor, 2006). Fayol stated this same
idea in his early speech as, personal satisfaction and self-
respect are often stronger than self interest when it comes to
stimulating individual initiative (Fayol, 1908, p. 913).
Fayol also noted that business is better served if employees
are more energetic, better educated, more conscientious and
more permanent and that the employer should have
regardfor the health, strength, education, morale and
stability of his personnel (Fayol 1949, p. 32). He notes, It
must be benevolent collaboration, not tyrannical
stewardship, and therein lies an indispensible condition of
success (Fayol, 1949, p. 32). In addition, Fayol states:

The employers educational responsibility should operate at
all levels and be constantly on the alert. Abilities must be
found out, effort encouraged, initiation and training made
easier, keenness and success rewarded and selection
constantly maintained (Fayol, 1949, p.95)

McGregor (2006) shifted this thinking through support of
integration, whereby the employee defines needs and seeks
development from management, rather than the other way
around. However, McGregor also lays out selection and
promotion as the motivator, which works to satisfy the next
level of need. Fayols reference to education,
encouragement, rewarding success and selection is easily
related McGregors call for satisfying a higher level of
human needs.

The principle of discipline, without Fayols context may be
perceived as sanctions or punishment. On the contrary, he
defines discipline as the standing agreements between the
firm and the employees, whether written or implicit (Fayol,
1949, p. 22) and that these agreements be clear and, as far
as possible, afford satisfaction to both sides (Fayol, 1949, p.
23). Discipline, in Fayols terms context is nothing more
than agreements or what may be referred to in contemporary
context as a partnership or code of conduct. Fayol noted that
the state of discipline of any group of people depends
essentially on the worthiness of its leaders (Fayol, 1949,
22). McGregor stated that managerial behavior
determine(s) the climate of human relationships
(McGregor, 2006, p. 194). There is little difference in these
sentiments.

Fayol (1949) also defined sanctions as the resulting actions
if discipline, respect for agreements, breaks down. In fact,
Theory Y is not without its sanctions. McGregor concedes
that a superior cannot have confidence in a genuinely
incompetent, or a dishonest, or a neurotically hostile
subordinatethe only solution is to end the relationship
(McGregor, 2006, p. 191) via transfer or termination. Fayol
repeats throughout his theory that shortcomings of the
organization are not the blame of the workers, rather this
rests solely with the leaders as follows: When relations
between superiors and subordinates leave much to be desired
[this] results from the ineptitude of leaders (Fayol, 1916
p. 23). This is reminiscent of McGregors (2006)
commentary that we shouldnt blame water for running
downhill.

TRANSFORMATIONAL PARALLELS

Kouzes and Posner (2007) write about transformational
leadership and explore what leaders do when at their
personal best (p. xiii) in order to discover patterns that
define successful leadership. They discuss five universal
exemplary leadership practices, the four top characteristics

Northeast Business & Economics Association Proceedings, 2009 Page 199


of admired leaders, and the foundation of leadership and
finally, they discuss the importance of finding voice as a
leader. Kouzes and Posners (2007) five exemplary
leadership practices are: model the way, inspire a shared
vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, and
encourage the heart.

Fayols theory contains parallels to transformational
leadership thinking. Fayol described in the scalar chain of
command, but speaks to the ridiculousness of management
for insisting only on the up and down line of
communication. Rather, he advocates the use of gang
planks (Fayol, 1949, p. 35) across the scalar chain for more
rapid and simple resolution to issues. Fayol articulated that
employees faced with choice of direction, should take
responsibility and be courageous enough and feel free
enough to adopt the line dictated by the general interest
(Fayol, 1949, p. 36). The managers must however, first set
this example in order for employees to have this courage to
take responsibility, according to Fayol. For an employee to
have this mind set, there must have been previous
precedent, and his superiors must have set him the example
for example always comes from above (Fayol, 1949, p.
36). This thinking aligns with the findings of Kouzes and
Posner (2007), who define set the example by aligning
actions and shared values as one of the ten management
commitments.

Fayol (1949) asserted, A good leader should posses the
ability and infuse into those around him the courage to
accept responsibility (p. 22), and should aim at making
unity, energy, initiative and loyalty prevail among the
personnel (Fayol, 1949, p. 102). Managers can accomplish
this by allowing them the maximum share of activity
consistent with their position and capability, even at the cost
of some mistakes (Fayol, 1949, p. 103). This sounds like
the contemporary notion of empowerment and is highly
consistent with Kouzes and Posners (2007) enable others to
act and encourage the heart leadership practice. Fayols
principle of unity of direction relates directly to Kouzes and
Posners (2007) inspire a shared vision leadership practice;
however Kouzes and Posner speak of appealing to shared
aspirations and ennobling possibilities. Fayol described
well what is needed from the human side, but falls short in
describing or how to infuse this courage and initiative.
McGregor and later, Kouzes and Posner, address how to do
it.
Yet another point of thought intersection of Kouzes and
Posner with Fayol is the concept of who needs management
education. Fayol (1949) offered that everyone is in need of
some management; although he points out that the needs are
greater as the position demands it. He suggested that
management should be taught, not only at the university
level, but generalized teaching on management should begin
in the elementary and primary schools, putting young
people in the way of understanding and using the lessons of
managementspread management ideas throughout all
ranks of the population (Fayol, 1949, p.16). Kouzes and
Posner assert that leadership can happen anywhere, at any
time (Kouzes and Posner, 2007, p. 9) and that everyone is a
leader.

Fayol described some of what is now known as
transformational leadership in discussing characteristics of
higher managers. Kouzes and Posner (2007) define the
critical aspects of a leader as being honest, forward looking,
inspiring and competent. Honesty is further discussed as a
person who worthy of trustand people often uses the
terms integrity and character as synonymous with honesty
(Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 28, emphasis added). Fayols
commentary parallels contemporary thinking, as he
articulated the best safeguard against abuse of authority and
against weakness on the part of a higher manager is personal
integrity and particularly high moral character (Fayol,
1949, p.22, emphasis added). Credibility is defined in the
current context as combination of trustworthiness,
experience and dynamism (Kouzes and Posner, 2007, p. 37).
Fayol emphasizes how important direct experience is when
he provides advice to future managers, learn your
tradeyour future will rest much on your technical ability,
but much more on your managerial ability (Fayol, 1949, p.
90). A parallel to Kouzes and Posners dynamism may be
found in be bold and enthusiasticbe enterprising and
even daring (Fayol, 1949, p. 92),

CONCLUSION
Fayols theory is relevant today. Fayols thinking contains
parallels to behaviorism and transformational leadership,
despite the glancing pass management textbooks provide.
Fayols direct quotes were provided as part of this analysis
to demonstrate in his words, that he was quite ahead of his
time in his observations related to initiative and addressing
higher level human needs.

REFERENCES AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST


Copyright of Proceedings of the Northeast Business & Economics Association is the property of Northeast
Business & Economics Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.