UPI Study › Courses › Human Resources Management › Free lessons › Lesson 3.4 Free with a free account
Fayol’s Rules for Organizing Work Across Departments
Human Resources Management · Chapter 3: How Management Theories Shape the Way Jobs Are Built and OrganizedSection 3.4 · lesson 14 of 9115 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Human Resources Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Human Resources Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: How the Human Relations Movement Changed the Way Companies Treat Workers →← Henri Fayol’s Ideas on Managing Staff and Keeping Workers HappyNext lesson: How the Human Relations Movement Changed the Way Companies Treat Workers →
In this lesson
Diagnose the structure before judging the person.
- Match authority with responsibility
- Distinguish command from direction
- Assess centralization and spans
- Make structural trade-offs explicit
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,885 words). Read along, or search it.
How Management Theories Shape the Way Jobs Are Built and Organized
Fayol’s Rules for Organizing Work
Many problems arriving at HR as performance or relationship disputes are structural problems with personal labels. Contradictory instructions, missed handoffs, and accountability without control can produce friction whoever occupies the roles. Fayol's structural principles provide a way to investigate that possibility, before judging an individual. This lesson examines division of work, authority and responsibility, and two different forms of unity. We then consider centralization, communication chains, order, and the practical determinants of supervisory spans. The principles also conflict with one another. Organizing requires choices, rather than perfect compliance with every rule. Modern structures sometimes breach a principle deliberately, accepting its costs in exchange for another benefit. The important question is whether the choice and its cost-management mechanism have been stated clearly. Tomas's fictional upgrade project shows how an unresolved structure can become an unfair appraisal record. The final diagnostic connects each structural choice with the outcome, authority, and coordination it actually requires.
Division of Work
Specialization Creates Handoffs
Division of work assigns tasks to specialists, building speed and skill through repeated practice. It also reduces repeated switching between different activities, contributing to the reason organizations create departments. This is task standardization's structural counterpart, applied to whole roles and units rather than movements. The gain is real. So is the coordination cost created by each new organizational boundary. Coordination cost includes time, communication, and management attention needed to make specialized units act consistently. Each boundary creates a handoff, where information can be lost and delay can accumulate. Further specialization therefore helps only while its productivity gain exceeds the additional coordination burden. That is a practical judgment, rather than a universal calculation guaranteeing the same answer everywhere. Cross-trained cells and generalist roles sometimes sacrifice specialist depth, to remove expensive or unreliable handoffs. Ask about the boundary as well as the specialist task, because the organization must manage both.
Authority and Responsibility
Accountability Must Match Control
Authority means the right to give instructions and require compliance. Responsibility means accounting for an outcome. Fayol argues they must be matched, so someone responsible for delivery has the power needed to deliver. Authority should also carry accountability, preventing a person from directing others without answering for the consequences. Responsibility exceeding authority creates a role answerable for results its holder cannot determine. That weakens credibility, exhausts the holder, and makes fair appraisal difficult or impossible. It also produces grievances, disputes, and departures, which HR may initially receive as personal performance problems. Authority exceeding responsibility creates the opposite failure, allowing decisions without accountability for their effects. Arbitrary direction and unmanaged risk can then follow, because nobody owns the consequences of that power. Influence-based project roles sometimes deliberately accept the first mismatch, relying on persuasion rather than direct authority. If that choice is made, its limitations must inform targets and appraisal, rather than disappearing from the record.
2 Different Unities
Reporting Line Versus Shared Objective
Unity of command gives each employee one superior, rather than leaving competing managerial instructions unresolved. Its purpose is more than a tidy chart. It keeps conflict resolution above the affected employee. With two instructing managers, the employee is least authorized to settle their competing priorities. Yet that employee can be blamed whichever instruction they choose, making the structural defect personally costly. Unity of direction concerns something different: related activities sharing an objective should have one plan and head. It focuses on ownership of the common objective, rather than an individual's reporting relationship. An organization can therefore honor unity of command, while duplicating plans for the same purpose. It can also have a common plan, while employees still receive conflicting directions from different managers. Distinguish the two before choosing a remedy, because changing a reporting line may not align separate objectives. Ask both who instructs the person, and who owns the activities that must produce the shared result.
Matrix Structure
Specify Who Decides, and Who Breaks Deadlocks
A matrix structure gives employees simultaneous functional and project or product reporting relationships. The functional manager oversees discipline and development, while the delivery manager oversees the current work. Modern work often needs both kinds of attention, explaining why organizations accept this command conflict. Successful arrangements specify decision rights in advance, rather than asking the employee to improvise a settlement. Typically, functional authority governs how work is done and who performs it, while project authority governs delivery and timing. Those allocations remain choices. The organization must state them, rather than assume everyone already understands. It must also name who resolves a deadlock, when the two kinds of authority demand incompatible action. That mechanism partially restores command clarity, without removing the benefits of both specialist and delivery oversight. Without it, conflicts recur exactly as the principle predicts, regardless of the employee's communication skills. Do not treat a missing decision route as evidence that the person simply needs more influence.
Centralization
A Degree of Concentration, Not an On-Off Choice
Centralization is the degree to which authority concentrates at the top, instead of being distributed through the organization. It is a matter of degree, rather than a choice between completely centralized and completely delegated decisions. Four factors guide that degree. Size and geographic spread affect the speed and information available centrally. Capability and experience below matter, because delegated authority needs people able to use it effectively. Consequences of error also matter, with high-impact decisions often attracting more central control. Required market response speed matters too, because a central approval route may be too slow. Only part of this discussion concerns trust. Geography, risk, and responsiveness cannot be reduced to personal confidence. Local autonomy accepts some inconsistency, in exchange for speed and a closer fit with local conditions. Central authority gains consistency and risk control, but can create delay or decisions informed poorly by distance. State which benefit matters for the particular decision, rather than applying one degree to everything automatically.
Scalar Chain and Order
Lateral Communication With Accountability
The scalar chain is the formal line of authority, running from the top of the organization downward. Communications normally travel through that chain, making escalation and decision authority traceable. Fayol nevertheless allowed a gangplank, connecting peers directly across separate chains of authority. Both obtain their superiors' agreement and keep them informed, preserving accountability alongside the lateral contact. Without that route, every cross-department question travels upward through one chain and downward through another. The result is predictable delay, even when the people able to resolve the issue already know each other. The concession anticipates cross-functional working, rather than requiring rigid hierarchy to handle every communication. Material order means a place for things. It is reflected in organized workplaces and their arrangements. Social order means the right person in the right post, requiring job knowledge and assessment of capability. Job analysis and documentation therefore support the structure, rather than merely supplying an administrative file.
Span of Control
There Is No Universally Correct Number
Span of control counts the people reporting directly to a manager, without implying a universally correct number. Similar work in one location permits wider spans, while varied work across sites needs more supervision. Experienced staff can operate with less oversight than new staff, whose learning requires attention. Stable, documented processes also support wider spans, unlike rapidly changing work with uncertain procedures. A manager doing substantial personal work has less time to supervise, narrowing the span they can support. Narrow spans in a large organization create more levels. That lengthens communication chains and increases management cost. Wide spans reduce levels and speed decisions, but can thin coaching and early detection of performance problems. Flattening therefore accepts weaker supervisory attention, in exchange for escaping the costs of additional hierarchy. HR experiences the consequences through greater demands on first-line managers, rather than simply a shorter chart. Evaluate the work and available attention first, before accepting any proposed number as the correct span.
Deliberate Trade-Offs
Modern Structures Can Break Principles on Purpose
Structural principles create tensions that no later framework has eliminated, because the tensions belong to organizing itself. Specialization builds depth while increasing coordination, and can remove the variety or autonomy needed for motivation. Unity of command conflicts with matrix oversight, which exists because work genuinely needs two kinds of expertise. Centralization improves consistency while weakening responsiveness, particularly when local information must travel a long route. Cross-trained cells deliberately trade some specialist depth for fewer handoffs, rather than accidentally ignoring division of work. Influence-based roles trade direct authority for flexible coordination, while matrix roles accept competing oversight. Duplicated teams can pursue competing approaches, accepting waste to reduce dependence on a single possibly wrong bet. Local autonomy trades uniformity for speed and fit, while open flat communication can blur escalation routes. The competent response names the choice. It then creates a mechanism for the cost that choice accepts. The failure is leaving the choice implicit, and later treating predictable friction as an individual's problem.
Composite Case
Tomas and the Line 4 Upgrade
Tomas manages the Line four upgrade at the fictional company, with accountability for a fixed delivery date. The technicians needed for delivery report to the Plant Manager, whose own objective is current production. Tomas receives their time when production runs well, and loses it when the line needs attention. He cannot insist on resources. He also cannot settle the priority between production and the upgrade work. The upgrade slips twice, after which his midyear review criticizes influence and failure to drive delivery. This records a structural defect as an individual failure, even though the missing authority would affect any holder. HR should intervene. An appraisal record remains after the project's immediate problem has passed. It may later support another employment decision, carrying forward the unfair attribution without its original context. The real issue is responsibility without sufficient authority, combined with competing priorities lacking a resolution route. Correcting the description is part of the remedy, alongside choosing how the resource conflict will be settled.
4 Options
Each Remedy Moves the Cost Somewhere
Four options can address Tomas's problem. Each transfers a cost, rather than removing every tension. Temporary authority over technicians matches control with responsibility, but creates another command conflict for them. Reserving technician time within the Plant Manager's objectives preserves reporting lines, while reducing production flexibility. Making the Plant Manager accountable for the upgrade instead matches existing authority with the delivery outcome. Tomas would then coordinate, rather than remain personally accountable for a result he cannot direct. Another option names the Director of Operations to settle priority conflicts, within two working days. That preserves the structure, while installing the deadlock-breaker required when authority is shared or competing. The accepted response combines reserved technician time with a named arbiter, balancing predictable resources and escalation. HR also corrects the appraisal language, so the file no longer attributes the structural defect to Tomas. The choice becomes explicit, including the production flexibility surrendered and the resolution mechanism expected to work.
A Practical Diagnostic
State the Choice and Manage Its Cost
The reverse problem concerns sales promising dates, while production schedules work to maximize plant utilization. Sales reports to a commercial director and is rewarded for winning orders, under a separate objective. Production reports to operations, while the directors meet monthly and nobody below them can bind the other function. Disciplining salespeople leaves those conflicting objectives and missing authority unchanged, making the same failure likely again. Unity of direction asks for a shared plan and owner, for the delivery objective both activities must support. The gangplank supports direct cross-function coordination, avoiding delay when the work needs a joint decision. The lesson does not prescribe one universal structure. It requires an explicit choice and a mechanism to manage the cost. Read missed delivery, friction, and disputed accountability as possible evidence about the structure, before blaming a person. Division, authority, unities, centralization, chains, order, and spans provide the vocabulary for that diagnosis. The next lesson examines human relations, challenging the classical omission of the social dimension of work.
About Human Resources Management at UPI Study
Human Resources Management (Business 306) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 12 chapters, from what HR does and how jobs are designed to hiring, training, performance reviews, pay and benefits, safety, employment law, unions, global staffing and remote work. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses
Why take it here
Why students take Human Resources Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Human Resources Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Fayol’s Rules for Organizing Work Across Departments
What is the difference between unity of command and unity of direction?
What is Fayol's gangplank principle?
Why should authority match responsibility in an organization?
What determines the right span of control?
About the Human Resources Management course
How many college credits is Human Resources Management?
How much does Human Resources Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Human Resources Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Human Resources Management.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →