Henri Fayol did not know agile organizations, collaborative platforms, or artificial intelligence, yet his name and work continue to be cited in management courses. At a time when we talk more about “squads” than hierarchy, and when managers are overwhelmed by obligations and contradictions without always knowing what their purpose is, what will remain of the founding principles of modern management?
I imagined this fictional interview with Henri Fayol himself, who has returned to confront his ideas with the realities of contemporary work. Far from defending an outdated model, he invites us to re-examine his principles with pragmatism and without nostalgia.
In short :
- Fayol’s work, often misinterpreted, remains relevant if re-read as a flexible framework for organizing collective action, rather than a rigid model to be applied literally.
- The principles of hierarchy and unity of command can be adapted to today’s agile practices, provided that clarity is maintained in responsibilities and decisions.
- Digital technology has fragmented managerial functions without replacing them, shifting complexity onto individuals, which leads to fatigue and a loss of coherence.
- The role of the manager has been diminished: reduced to operational tasks, managers are losing their ability to organize, guide, and develop teams, to the detriment of collective meaning.
- AI and cross-functional reorganizations (such as the HR-IT merger at Moderna) do not replace the need for clear organization: they require human judgment to be effective.
Me: Mr. Fayol, your 14 principles of management (Fayolism) are sometimes considered outdated in light of today’s realities: agility, hybrid work, AI, flat organizations, etc. What do you think?
Henri Fayol:
I believe the problem stems less from my principles than from the way they have been misinterpreted, even caricatured. When I wrote about management, I was simply describing what I had observed and practiced to help teams work together effectively. I sought to formulate guidelines, not to establish a rigid doctrine.
This is a recurring problem that affects many other areas. Take Lean, for example. Its original purpose was to help people grow (Lean Isn’t About Cutting Heads — It’s About Growing People), but it has been misunderstood and misused to the point of being equated with a form of negation or even destruction of human capital.
What I referred to as hierarchy, discipline, and unity of command was not intended to stifle initiative or discourage creativity, but rather to avoid confusion, redundancy, and conflicting orders. I was not saying “impose authority”, but rather “organize it, clarify it, and take responsibility for it”. A business is a living mechanism, not an administration, but a mechanism without well-adjusted gears will eventually seize up or even fall apart.
Me: Precisely, the current era demands agility, horizontality, and autonomy. Some see these practices as a break with your principles. Unity of command, for example, seems a far cry from squad or network models.
Henri Fayol:
It’s not a break, it’s a different implementation. The words have changed, not the fundamental issues. An agile team? Fine. But if each member receives instructions from three different Product Owners, with conflicting priorities, you recreate exactly what I was trying to avoid: paralysis through ambiguity.
Unity of command does not mean “a single, omnipotent leader”, but a clear point of reference for every decision. You can work perfectly well in a network, across departments, or in project mode, but you need to know who decides, who is accountable, and on what basis. Otherwise, you replace authority with ambiguity. Horizontal collaboration can only work if it is based on a clear architecture, without piling up contradictory operating modes (The organizational complication: the #1 irritant of the employee experience). Agility without structure is a sandcastle, but I admit, as you mention in the article you just quoted, that finding the right balance is not easy.
You often talk about People Centric Operations on your blog (People Centric Operations: adapting work and operations to knowledge workers ), but contrary to what some would like to see, this is not a total distribution of decisions and responsibilities without rules. Everything takes place within a framework, a framework that one person sets up and manages. There are rules of the game, a form of organized subsidiarity, and lines that must not be crossed. You see, we’re not so far apart on this point after all…
Me: Digital technology has profoundly transformed organizations. Today, we communicate on Teams, we follow real-time dashboards, we work asynchronously. Doesn’t that upset your principles?
Henri Fayol:
Digital technology hasn’t upset anything, but it has shifted things. What I called planning, organizing, coordinating, commanding, and controlling still exist, but you have fragmented them. Today, organizations rely on tools rather than functions, but a tool has no intention, it does not think, it merely executes. When you entrust organization to platforms, you give up thinking about work as a whole, and that is the real danger.
You think you’ve gained efficiency, but in reality, you’ve shifted the complexity to your employees. Each employee becomes their own project manager, their own quality controller, their own planner, and then you wonder why everyone is exhausted? It’s not digital technology that tires teams, it’s the lack of coherent organization.
Drucker, whom you interviewed a while back, said the same thing ((Fake) Interview with Peter Drucker: “Remote work is not the problem. Managerial improvisation is.”) although I admit that my approach differs from what Mintzberg wrote later (Managing is not planning, organizing, or coordinating—which are all just words for controlling. It’s “calculated chaos and controlled disorder”. Henry Mintzberg), but again, we must not limit ourselves to the written word and must understand its context. Let’s say that I drew a map and he explored the territory.
Me: Let’s talk about the role of the manager. Many people today feel overwhelmed, reduced to mere executors, deprived of resources and sometimes even of authority. What do you think about this development?
Henri Fayol:
It saddens me, but it doesn’t surprise me. I have always defended, as you do, the idea that management is a profession in its own right, distinct from technical expertise (Is manager still a profession?). Managers are not there to be the best in every field, but to create the conditions for collective work, as Lasso explained so well (The fictional interview with Ted Lasso, the manager who manages without expertise). They need to see the bigger picture, arbitrate, delegate, listen, and refocus when necessary. When I recently read that today, in the age of AI no less, some people think that the future of management lies in a return to technical skills, I turned in my grave (The minimalist manager: a promising model, but one that needs clarification)!
Today, too many managers have become super-operational, stuck in production, drowning in tools. They are evaluated on their availability, not on their ability to grow their team or clarify the direction to take. The result: we no longer manage, we administer, and since no one has time to think about what really matters, we multiply meaningless rituals, worthless KPIs, and pointless processes. Managers have lost their touch, and organizations have lost their way.
Me: And what about artificial intelligence, which is increasingly involved in decision-making processes? Some see it as a management tool, others as a threat to human judgment. What is your position?
Henri Fayol:
I would have found that fascinating. Any technology that enables us to understand better, anticipate better, and decide better is a potential ally for managers, but it all depends on how it is used. AI can analyze, cross-reference, and project, but it does not yet know how to make nuanced judgments. It does not feel the fatigue of a team, the dynamics of a latent conflict, or the impact of a poorly explained change.
If you delegate to it what you don’t understand yourself, you are no longer a leader, you are a spectator. AI can and must be integrated into managerial functions. I would even say that it can strengthen them, but it cannot replace them. Decision-making, meaning, and responsibility remain human.
Me: A business like Moderna recently merged its HR and IT departments to “““streamline the employee experience”. Do you think this is a natural evolution or an organizational mistake?
Henri Fayol:
I see a commendable intention in this move, but there is a risk of confusion if the roles are not clarified (HR/IT and the reality of working at Moderna: the unspoken truths of a reorganization). It goes without saying that HR and IT should work together: one cannot operate without the other.
But merging structures without defining who does what and for what purpose seems perilous to me. In my view, each function exists because it meets a specific need. Human resources deals with people, their integration, their development, and social justice, while IT deals with systems, tools, and the availability of information.
Trying to bring them together without distinguishing their missions amounts to blurring roles under the pretext of cross-functionality. Just because we are working toward the same goal, namely improving work, does not mean we should eliminate specializations.
The risk is not the merger itself, but that it becomes a substitute for organization. A strong intention is no substitute for a clear functional structure.
Me: One last word, then, for those who think your principles belong to another era?
Henri Fayol:
I never claimed to speak the absolute truth. I tried to formulate what I observed, what worked, what made an organization stand, and if my words seem dated, reread the intention. Behind each principle is a simple idea: to get people to work together, you need clarity, consistency, and respect.
The world has changed, yes, but business remains a collective adventure, with its constraints, conflicts, and momentum. As long as there are people working together, they will need to be organized. It’s not a question of the century, but a question of responsibility.
Image credit: Image generated by artificial intelligence via ChatGPT (OpenAI)
Related articles:
Holacracy at Zappos : no boss or hierarchy. Really
The Future of work by Jacob Morgan : digitizing Drucker
Considering the gap between management 2.0 and enterprise 2.0
Lessons on the hard job of designing communities in the organization
What management has to learn from the Airbus vs. Boeing competition
Management 2.0, SOO and productivity
