|
1.0 Introduction介绍
企业组织与管理是按照一定的规则和程序，为有效配置企业内部有限资源而建立的一种权力结构和人员安排，为了实现组织的目标，其目的是确保组织目标的有效实施（Chakravarty、Hsieh、Schotter和Beamish，2017年）。韦伯和法约尔提出的两种理论都是古典管理理论的重要内容。这两种理论有许多相似之处，但也有许多不同之处。它们对现代理论的成熟和发展起到了非常重要的作用。本文通过对韦伯和费约尔的工作进行比较和对比，找出两种理论的异同，了解它们各自独特的价值观，以及它们对现代企业管理思想的贡献。
Enterprise organization and management is a structure of authority and personnel arrangements constituted in accordance with certain rules and procedures for effectively configuring the limited resources within an enterprise, in order to achieve the objectives of the organization, the purpose is to ensure the efficient implementation of organizational goals (Chakravarty, Hsieh, Schotter, and Beamish, 2017). Both theories put forward by Max Weber and Henri Fayol are the important contents of classical management theory. There are many similarities in these two theories, but there are also many differences. They have played a very important role in the maturation and development of modern theory. The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast the work of Max Weber and the work of Henri Fayol to find the similarities and differences of the two theories to understand their respective unique values and their contribution to the modern enterprise management thought.
2.0 Body主体
2.1 Similarities相似性
Both the work of Max Weber and the work of Henri Fayol show many similarities, which is embodied in the following aspects. 马克斯·韦伯的作品与亨利·法约尔的作品有许多相似之处，主要体现在以下几个方面。
2.1.1 Division of labor分工
Both believe that a high degree of division of labor is conducive to the formation of the specialization of work, which is conducive to improving the efficiency of an organization (Parker and Ritson, 2005; Wæraas, 2007).双方都认为，高度分工有利于形成专业化的工作，有利于提高组织的效率（Parker和Ritson，2005年；W_Raas，2007年）。
2.1.2 Level control水平控制
Both hold that in enterprise management, the power and responsibility of each level of personnel correspond to each other, they are responsible for their own actions, and jointly subject to a command and decision center (Ghosh, 2009; Pryor and Taneja, 2010).双方都认为，在企业管理中，各级人员的权力和责任是相互对应的，他们对自己的行为负责，并共同服从指挥和决策中心（Ghosh，2009年；Pryor和Taneja，2010年）。
2.1.3 Personnel selection
Both of them consider that the appointment of personnel has to be determined by carefully selection by examinations and training, providing a variety of professional training according to the needs of each position (Ghosh, 2009; Parker and Ritson, 2005).
2.1.4 Salary system
They both agree with the importance of fair compensation system for enterprise management system, they figure that an organization should protect the legitimate rights and interests that employees should have, the promotion, rewards of management personnel should be based on expressed work performance and qualifications, an organization should have a stable and reasonable salary system, as well as a strict assessment system (Wæraas, 2007; Pryor and Taneja, 2010).
2.2 Differences
Differences between the work of Max Weber and the work of Henri Fayol are specifically reflected in the following aspects.
2.2.1 Scope of application
Fayol focuses on the theory of enterprise management, then Weber's theory can be said to be the theory of enterprise management and the theory of administration (Parker and Ritson, 2005). Weber's bureaucratic organization and management theory has a far-reaching impact on enterprise management and administration (Wæraas, 2007).
2.2.2 Staff rules and procedures
Fayol comments that in order to maintain rapid action, subordinates of two parties with business relationship can contact with each other directly with the permission of their own leaders (Pryor and Taneja, 2010). Weber thinks that staff rules and procedures relating to employee authority should be established in bureaucracy to make personnel be subject to strict and systematic discipline and control in the exercise of their powers (Wæraas, 2007).
2.2.3 Employee relationship management
Weber believes that organizational management activities can not be doped with personal feelings and other irrational factors, the relationship between staff should be fully guided by rational guidelines (Ghosh, 2009). Fayol requires workers to work closely together to maintain the spirit of unity, as well as positive and innovative spirit, encouraging oral communication and strengthening the coordination and communication of work (Parker and Ritson, 2005).
3.0 Conclusion
The theory of the two has the same view in terms of the division of labor, level control, personnel selection and compensation system, there are differences in the scope of application, staff rules and procedures, as well as employee relationship management. Both Weber’s and Fayol’s theories are important components of classical management theory. They still have important reference significance for the management of modern organizations and enterprises. Combining the advantages of both has a positive effect on optimizing enterprise management and improving staff efficiency.
References
Chakravarty, D., Hsieh, Y. Y., Schotter, A. P. J. and Beamish, P. W. (2017). Multinational enterprise regional management centres: Characteristics and performance. Journal of World Business, 52(2), 296-311.
Ghosh, P. (2009). From the ‘spirit of capital’ to the “spirit” of capitalism: The transition in German economic thought between Lujo Brentano and Max Weber. History of European Ideas, 35(1), 62-92.
Parker, L. D. and Ritson, P. A. (2005). Revisiting Fayol anticipating contemporary management. British Journal of Management, 16(3),175-194.
Pryor, M. G. and Taneja, S. (2010). Henri Fayol, practitioner and theoretician – revered and reviled. Journal of Management History, 16(4), 489-503.
Wæraas, A. (2007). The re-enchantment of social institutions: Max Weber and public relations. Public Relations Review, 33(3), 281-286.
|
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
