Similarly, at the start of both journals, the writers have brought up the same issue which talked about whether Fayol’s 14 principles of management is available in today’s organizations or not. They used the time distance to bring up this issue, compared the past and the current. Also, the authors (Lamond D ,2003and Rodrigues C,2001) of these two journals have said that Fayol’s 14 principles of management is useful and helpful in the past, and they listed and used Fayol’s 14 principles to analyze this issue and stated their purposes in writing these texts.
However, Lamond D (2003) and Rodrigues (2001) have different sides of view to Fayol’s 14 principles of management to the present organizations. It is obvious to see that through the introduction of the journal articles. In Lamond’s journals (2003, pp5), he said “The purpose of this paper is... to rekindle interest in Fayol's work by way of a focus on the original rather than secondary accounts of his work, and more informed reflection on his ideas. Second, the paper examines the original account of Mintzberg's contributions to thinking about managerial work…” , while in Rodrigues’s journals (2001, pp880), he stated “Many organizations in these industries interpret the principles quite differently from the way they were interpreted in Fayol’s time. The differences and the cultural challenges managers face in implementing this new framework are presented.” Undoubtedly, these are two significant sides of view to Fayol’s principles.
From Lamond’s point of views (2003), it seems that Lamond would like to help Henry Fayol (1949) to defend his principles, as the present Fayol’s 14 principles used in organizations is not the exact original one which Henry Fayol(1949) talked about that at start. It may be the “second” or modified version of Fayol’s 14 principles which may not be belongs to the work of Fayol(1949). Lamond (2003) also mentioned Fayol’s 14 principles of management has been handing down and using over 50 years (2003, pp5 ), on the way of spreading Fayol’s ideas, it has been modified by other people, such as Mintzberg (1973; 1975/1989). Consequently, in the introduction of this journal (Lamond D, 2003) , the author emphasized again that the third purpose of this paper is used to say no matter what Mintzberg has done, including his unwitting and unwillingness, it is “reaffirm and elaborate Fayol’s ideation on management” (2003, pp5).Nowadays, people may use or rely on the idea of Fayol’s principles in Mintzberg’s thought .Thus, the author of this journal (Lamond D, 2003) would like to use original Fayol’s work compared with the secondary accounts of his work. It would be the best and fair way to analyze an argument. The impression of his postion to the readers would become in more neutral. In this journal, writer’s attitude towards Fayol’s 14 principle is supportive and cogent. It is a good evidence and explanation for the author to develop the theme from one main point to another. There is a balance view presented in this argument, not bias.