![]() To command means binding together, unifying and harmonizing all activity and effort. To organize means building up the dual structure, material and human, of the undertaking. ![]() To foresee and plan means examining the future and drawing up the plan of action. To manage is to forecast and plan, to organize, to command, to coordinate and to control.1.5 The administrative theory in the state, 1923.1.4 General and industrial management, 1919/1949.1.3 Industrial and General Administration, 1916.1.2 L’exposé des principes généraux d’administration, 1908.1.1 Henri Fayol addressed his colleagues in the mineral industry, 1900.Simon has said that when the specialisation and unity of command are in conflict situation the management will be complex. Modern organisation is too complex to apply it. He has further observed that the unity of command is an over simplified principle. 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. Let us quote him: “The real fault that must be found with this principle is that it is incompatible with the principle of specialisation”. Simon has further said that the unity of command is against the well-known principle of specialisation. Simon has said that the efficiency of a management depends on a number of factors and the unity of command is one of them. 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. Simon in his Administrative Behaviour has vehemently criticised this principle. There must exist strict and effective coordination among all the departments of an organisation. The size of the organisation is expanding day after day and in this background the utility of this principle is decreasing gradually. But many critics are of opinion that there is conflict between unity of command and division of labour or division of work. In modern organisation the division of labour or division of work is sincerely followed. But some critics say that in their principle the coordination has no importance. For better or efficient management the principle of coordination should be strictly-followed. There is another drawback of this principle. Some people say that in Fayol’s time there was no existence of large organisation. The unity of command principle will create confusion in such an organisation. In many organisations there is a group of managers and all of them are authorised to issue command. In that situation an employee cannot say that he will carry out the order of a particular boss and not other bosses. This relates to the structure of one management. Particularly if the organisation happens to be large, there is not one person to give orders.Ī worker may have to serve more than one master and in that case he will carry out the orders of whom. But in general public administration or civil administration the principle cannot be implemented. Even in military department the unity of command has been fruitfully implemented. 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. 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.Ī number of objections have been raised against this principle and one such has been made by some specialists such as Dimock and Dimock. 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. Still today in many states (in some departments this principle is strictly followed) the existence of this principle comes to our notice. 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. 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. Henri Fayol thought that for the better and efficient management it is essential that unity of command should be strictly followed.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |