t.me/WorldofAdministration Join our telegram group Or send us a message on telegram +(91)9896859767 Contact +(91)9896859767 on What's App to know about Public Administration Notes, New Course, etc. Thank You
Need for administrative training • Fayol is a pioneer in suggesting the need for systematic training in administration. • He suggest that training is a continuous process, starting from the school and covering in-service training of the employees within the organization. • He considers every superior officer in an organization as a teacher to this immediate subordinates. Gangplank • It refers to the need for "level jumping" in a hierarchical organization. • Although he places emphasis on formal organization, he is alive to the dangers of conformity to hierarchy and formalism. • 'it is an error to depart needlessly from the line of authority, but it is even greater one to keep it when detrimental to the business. • While suggesting "Gangplank", Fayol is rather cautious. He feels that it may be less relevant to govt. agencies in which the lines of authority are less clearer, than in private organization Fayol vs. Taylor Fayol Taylor • He concentrated on the top level i.e. managerial activities • He concentrated on the operative and shop floor level • He worked from top to bottom theory • He worked from bottom to top level • He emphasised on the function of management as a whole and • He emphasised on the efficiency of workers & managers in actual production principle involved therein. • he focused on improving overall administration by observing • He focused on increasing productivity through work simplification and certain principles. standardization • His approach was flexible • His approach was relatively rigid. • He advocated "unity of command". • He advocated "functional foremanship" • He provided systematic theory of administration • He provided a science of industrial management. Taylor & Fayol (Similarities) • Both had a common objective efficiency & economy • Both stressed on practical aspect • Both believed in concept of "economic man" • Both believed that managerial qualities can be acquired through training. • Both applied scientific method to problem of management. • Both realised the universality of management. Criticism Of Fayol 1) Un-scientific theory:- his ideas are based on personal experiences. 2) Mechanistic theory:- neglect human aspect 3) Dehumanising theory:- concept of economicman. 4) Normative theory:- practically difficult to follow Criticised by later thinkers; human relation school, behavioralist etc. Criticism by Peter Drucker • Mechanistic model of an ideal organization was imposed on a living business. • 14 principles of Fayol overlap. • Narrow functional base:- although functionalism is empirically convenient, it is found to be deficient in design and logic. • Besides, the empirical base used by Fayol for generating a full-fledged theory of management is too narrow. fayol, proceeded to theorise on functionalism on the basis of the functions undertaken in a manufacturing company. Contemporary organization are definitely larger in size and much more complex. • Clash of Unity of command & Coordination :- To Fayol, the principle of unity of command is of supreme importance. It would be dysfunctional to strengthen the hierarchy, where the sense of unity is less, personal contact is limited and real difference of outlook are desirable. • Chief executive would face problem of coordination. conclusion We need to evaluate fayol "contextually" rather than finding shortcoming in his theory, it should be appreciated for laying down some fundamentally strong principles. Among the early writer on management, fayol has the unique distinction of attempting to build a universal science of management applicable to commerce, industry, politics, religion, war or philanthropy. • He did not altogether neglect human side of organization. Bertram Gross said "To fayol personnel is the essence of the organization." • He was also careful to state that his principle not be considered as rigid rules. • He developed administration into a science. • He gave the idea of : gang-plank & need for administrative training • Fayol was pioneer of the concept of viewing management as being made up of functions. Even peter Drucker, a severe critic of Fayol's Theory of functionalism, acknowledge the Fayol's model is still unsurpassed in some respect. Fayol's functional organization is still the best way to structure a small business; especially as small manufacturing business.
Mam I have a doubt .. Taylor published his book in 1911 where Fayol in 1916 but u said Fayol talked about scientific management earlier but as it wasn't in english we consider Taylor and America as a field of scientific management..why so?
Mam it was actually a great effort. But I have one suggestion.. If you simply read some lines (which is difficult to understand) then there seems no difference between reading here and in Prasads book... Instead of explaining simple line (which we obviously know)... Please help us to understand difficult terms and sentences. And it would be great if you can relate each thinkers ideas to modern Indian Administration... Where it is being applied... Atleast if you could explain in 1 min... That would give us a hint.. To work forward. Thank You 🙏
Need for administrative training • Fayol is a pioneer in suggesting the need for systematic training in administration. • He suggest that training is a continuous process, starting from the school and covering in-service training of the employees within the organization. • He considers every superior officer in an organization as a teacher to this immediate subordinates. Gangplank • It refers to the need for "level jumping" in a hierarchical organization. • Although he places emphasis on formal organization, he is alive to the dangers of conformity to hierarchy and formalism. • 'it is an error to depart needlessly from the line of authority, but it is even greater one to keep it when detrimental to the business. • While suggesting "Gangplank", Fayol is rather cautious. He feels that it may be less relevant to govt. agencies in which the lines of authority are less clearer, than in private organization Fayol vs. Taylor Fayol Taylor • He concentrated on the top level i.e. managerial activities • He concentrated on the operative and shop floor level • He worked from top to bottom theory • He worked from bottom to top level • He emphasised on the function of management as a whole and • He emphasised on the efficiency of workers & managers in actual production principle involved therein. • he focused on improving overall administration by observing • He focused on increasing productivity through work simplification and certain principles. standardization • His approach was flexible • His approach was relatively rigid. • He advocated "unity of command". • He advocated "functional foremanship" • He provided systematic theory of administration • He provided a science of industrial management. Taylor & Fayol (Similarities) • Both had a common objective efficiency & economy • Both stressed on practical aspect • Both believed in concept of "economic man" • Both believed that managerial qualities can be acquired through training. • Both applied scientific method to problem of management. • Both realised the universality of management. Criticism Of Fayol 1) Un-scientific theory:- his ideas are based on personal experiences. 2) Mechanistic theory:- neglect human aspect 3) Dehumanising theory:- concept of economicman. 4) Normative theory:- practically difficult to follow Criticised by later thinkers; human relation school, behavioralist etc. Criticism by Peter Drucker • Mechanistic model of an ideal organization was imposed on a living business. • 14 principles of Fayol overlap. • Narrow functional base:- although functionalism is empirically convenient, it is found to be deficient in design and logic. • Besides, the empirical base used by Fayol for generating a full-fledged theory of management is too narrow. fayol, proceeded to theorise on functionalism on the basis of the functions undertaken in a manufacturing company. Contemporary organization are definitely larger in size and much more complex. • Clash of Unity of command & Coordination :- To Fayol, the principle of unity of command is of supreme importance. It would be dysfunctional to strengthen the hierarchy, where the sense of unity is less, personal contact is limited and real difference of outlook are desirable. • Chief executive would face problem of coordination. conclusion We need to evaluate fayol "contextually" rather than finding shortcoming in his theory, it should be appreciated for laying down some fundamentally strong principles. Among the early writer on management, fayol has the unique distinction of attempting to build a universal science of management applicable to commerce, industry, politics, religion, war or philanthropy. • He did not altogether neglect human side of organization. Bertram Gross said "To fayol personnel is the essence of the organization." • He was also careful to state that his principle not be considered as rigid rules. • He developed administration into a science. • He gave the idea of : gang-plank & need for administrative training • Fayol was pioneer of the concept of viewing management as being made up of functions. Even peter Drucker, a severe critic of Fayol's Theory of functionalism, acknowledge the Fayol's model is still unsurpassed in some respect. Fayol's functional organization is still the best way to structure a small business; especially as small manufacturing business.
t.me/WorldofAdministration
Join our telegram group
Or send us a message on telegram +(91)9896859767
Contact +(91)9896859767 on What's App to know about Public Administration Notes, New Course, etc.
Thank You
Need for administrative training
• Fayol is a pioneer in suggesting the need for systematic training in administration.
• He suggest that training is a continuous process, starting from the school and covering in-service training of the employees within the organization.
• He considers every superior officer in an organization as a teacher to this immediate subordinates.
Gangplank
• It refers to the need for "level jumping" in a hierarchical organization.
• Although he places emphasis on formal organization, he is alive to the dangers of conformity to hierarchy and formalism.
• 'it is an error to depart needlessly from the line of authority, but it is even greater one to keep it when detrimental to the business.
• While suggesting "Gangplank", Fayol is rather cautious. He feels that it may be less relevant to govt. agencies in which the lines of authority are less clearer, than in private organization
Fayol vs. Taylor
Fayol Taylor
• He concentrated on the top level i.e. managerial activities • He concentrated on the operative and shop floor level
• He worked from top to bottom theory • He worked from bottom to top level
• He emphasised on the function of management as a whole and • He emphasised on the efficiency of workers & managers in actual production
principle involved therein.
• he focused on improving overall administration by observing • He focused on increasing productivity through work simplification and
certain principles. standardization
• His approach was flexible • His approach was relatively rigid.
• He advocated "unity of command". • He advocated "functional foremanship"
• He provided systematic theory of administration • He provided a science of industrial management.
Taylor & Fayol (Similarities)
• Both had a common objective efficiency & economy
• Both stressed on practical aspect
• Both believed in concept of "economic man"
• Both believed that managerial qualities can be acquired through training.
• Both applied scientific method to problem of management.
• Both realised the universality of management.
Criticism Of Fayol
1) Un-scientific theory:- his ideas are based on personal experiences.
2) Mechanistic theory:- neglect human aspect
3) Dehumanising theory:- concept of economicman.
4) Normative theory:- practically difficult to follow
Criticised by later thinkers; human relation school, behavioralist etc.
Criticism by Peter Drucker
• Mechanistic model of an ideal organization was imposed on a living business.
• 14 principles of Fayol overlap.
• Narrow functional base:- although functionalism is empirically convenient, it is found to be deficient in design and logic.
• Besides, the empirical base used by Fayol for generating a full-fledged theory of management is too narrow. fayol, proceeded to theorise on functionalism on the basis of the functions undertaken in a manufacturing company. Contemporary organization are definitely larger in size and much more complex.
• Clash of Unity of command & Coordination :- To Fayol, the principle of unity of command is of supreme importance. It would be dysfunctional to strengthen the hierarchy, where the sense of unity is less, personal contact is limited and real difference of outlook are desirable.
• Chief executive would face problem of coordination.
conclusion
We need to evaluate fayol "contextually" rather than finding shortcoming in his theory, it should be appreciated for laying down some fundamentally strong principles.
Among the early writer on management, fayol has the unique distinction of attempting to build a universal science of management applicable to commerce, industry, politics, religion, war or philanthropy.
• He did not altogether neglect human side of organization. Bertram Gross said "To fayol personnel is the essence of the organization."
• He was also careful to state that his principle not be considered as rigid rules.
• He developed administration into a science.
• He gave the idea of : gang-plank & need for administrative training
• Fayol was pioneer of the concept of viewing management as being made up of functions.
Even peter Drucker, a severe critic of Fayol's Theory of functionalism, acknowledge the Fayol's model is still unsurpassed in some respect. Fayol's functional organization is still the best way to structure a small business; especially as small manufacturing business.
I m sharing u r lecture and first to watch...
Thank You
Must share. I am dealing with some health issue. After that I will upload video on regular basis. I will cover the syllabus soon
thanx DIDI... very good lecture on fayol
Bhaidi jorki video badiya hai......hope you will do it fastly
Definitely. I am working on it
Many many thanks mam.. 🙏
Thank you ma'am
Thank u mam for these lectures
Pdf available hai kya maam iski???
Mam I have a doubt .. Taylor published his book in 1911 where Fayol in 1916 but u said Fayol talked about scientific management earlier but as it wasn't in english we consider Taylor and America as a field of scientific management..why so?
Hello are u appearing for upsc 2023??
Thankyou Mam
What's mean by paper's on
Thanks so much ma'am
Can any one tells me what is the scope of doing M.A in public administration???
thanks alot mam for such awesome video...relly helpful
where will i get the ppt? plz provide
SLIDE IS GOOD BUT SHOW MATURITY WITH CONTENT...AND ADD EXAMPLR...THNKU
Pls upload video on time
Mam it was actually a great effort.
But I have one suggestion.. If you simply read some lines (which is difficult to understand) then there seems no difference between reading here and in Prasads book...
Instead of explaining simple line (which we obviously know)... Please help us to understand difficult terms and sentences.
And it would be great if you can relate each thinkers ideas to modern Indian Administration... Where it is being applied... Atleast if you could explain in 1 min... That would give us a hint.. To work forward.
Thank You 🙏
Thank You for your suggestions.
Kindly watch newer videos
Ma'am, what is 'classic' thinkers?
Classical thinkers are those who developed traditional theory... In which more emphasis was given to organisation rather than employees.
Thanks
Thank you mam
Please let me know where I can get these presentation ppts
Need for administrative training
• Fayol is a pioneer in suggesting the need for systematic training in administration.
• He suggest that training is a continuous process, starting from the school and covering in-service training of the employees within the organization.
• He considers every superior officer in an organization as a teacher to this immediate subordinates.
Gangplank
• It refers to the need for "level jumping" in a hierarchical organization.
• Although he places emphasis on formal organization, he is alive to the dangers of conformity to hierarchy and formalism.
• 'it is an error to depart needlessly from the line of authority, but it is even greater one to keep it when detrimental to the business.
• While suggesting "Gangplank", Fayol is rather cautious. He feels that it may be less relevant to govt. agencies in which the lines of authority are less clearer, than in private organization
Fayol vs. Taylor
Fayol Taylor
• He concentrated on the top level i.e. managerial activities • He concentrated on the operative and shop floor level
• He worked from top to bottom theory • He worked from bottom to top level
• He emphasised on the function of management as a whole and • He emphasised on the efficiency of workers & managers in actual production
principle involved therein.
• he focused on improving overall administration by observing • He focused on increasing productivity through work simplification and
certain principles. standardization
• His approach was flexible • His approach was relatively rigid.
• He advocated "unity of command". • He advocated "functional foremanship"
• He provided systematic theory of administration • He provided a science of industrial management.
Taylor & Fayol (Similarities)
• Both had a common objective efficiency & economy
• Both stressed on practical aspect
• Both believed in concept of "economic man"
• Both believed that managerial qualities can be acquired through training.
• Both applied scientific method to problem of management.
• Both realised the universality of management.
Criticism Of Fayol
1) Un-scientific theory:- his ideas are based on personal experiences.
2) Mechanistic theory:- neglect human aspect
3) Dehumanising theory:- concept of economicman.
4) Normative theory:- practically difficult to follow
Criticised by later thinkers; human relation school, behavioralist etc.
Criticism by Peter Drucker
• Mechanistic model of an ideal organization was imposed on a living business.
• 14 principles of Fayol overlap.
• Narrow functional base:- although functionalism is empirically convenient, it is found to be deficient in design and logic.
• Besides, the empirical base used by Fayol for generating a full-fledged theory of management is too narrow. fayol, proceeded to theorise on functionalism on the basis of the functions undertaken in a manufacturing company. Contemporary organization are definitely larger in size and much more complex.
• Clash of Unity of command & Coordination :- To Fayol, the principle of unity of command is of supreme importance. It would be dysfunctional to strengthen the hierarchy, where the sense of unity is less, personal contact is limited and real difference of outlook are desirable.
• Chief executive would face problem of coordination.
conclusion
We need to evaluate fayol "contextually" rather than finding shortcoming in his theory, it should be appreciated for laying down some fundamentally strong principles.
Among the early writer on management, fayol has the unique distinction of attempting to build a universal science of management applicable to commerce, industry, politics, religion, war or philanthropy.
• He did not altogether neglect human side of organization. Bertram Gross said "To fayol personnel is the essence of the organization."
• He was also careful to state that his principle not be considered as rigid rules.
• He developed administration into a science.
• He gave the idea of : gang-plank & need for administrative training
• Fayol was pioneer of the concept of viewing management as being made up of functions.
Even peter Drucker, a severe critic of Fayol's Theory of functionalism, acknowledge the Fayol's model is still unsurpassed in some respect. Fayol's functional organization is still the best way to structure a small business; especially as small manufacturing business.
General and indusrial management 1915 and english translation 1929
Hindi me blackboard m epadate to aur jyda achcha hota
We'll definitely consider your Request.
Thank you
Thanks sister