alone in a fiercely competitive marketplace, there is little incentive for community sharing and caring for one's neighbors, so that distrust, jealousy, and atomization prevail.
Thus the calls for more "community," more private initiative, a greater sense of family and communal responsibility must be seen in the context of the system as a whole. A sense of community does not arise unless private individuals and families feel that other institutions in that locality are supportive of their needs, or that they share a "stake" in the quality of that location. Some families in new localities are active "makers" of community, seeking out those who can help, forming associations of likeminded people to lobby for better schools, recreational facilities, and so on, that will better serve their interests. But that depends upon their relative resources and know-how, and a "family-supportive community" is more likely to engender a sense of belonging and a willingness to help others than one that is uncaring and isolating. That sense of moral obligation, of responsibility for others, is developed not only within a family that teaches about mutual care and responsibility. It is reinforced, extended or reduced within a community context of shared responsibility versus indifference. Values do not exist in a vacuum; they are sustained in an ecology unique to each nation, state, and local community.
Family policy is thus not one "thing" that stands alone. Too often the term is used to support one model of family life only that does not match the reality of life as it is lived in the majority of families in the community. Rather, a "family policy perspective" leads us to identify the conditions under which the viability of all family forms and processes can be enhanced. Family policy is a valueladen area and one in which clear value positions should be stated if the actual impacts on families and society are to be assessed. One can take a pluralist view, or a more restricted view of desirable family forms. But in the end, the quality of life enjoyed by families of whatever shape determines the quality of that abstraction called "society" or "the nation."
Alberta, 1994. Family Policy Grid. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: The Premier's Council in Support of Alberta Families.
Australia, 1994. Creating the Links: Families and Social Responsibility, Final Report by the National Council for International Year of the Family. Canberra: Australian Government Printer.
Berger, Brigite, and Peter L. Berger, 1983. The War Over the Family. London: Hutchinson.
Blankenhorn, David, ed., 1990. Rebuilding the Nest: A New Commitment to the American Family. New York: Family Service America.
Commaille, Jacques, and Francois de Singly, eds., 1995. The European Family: The Family Question in the European Community. Paris: Kluwer & Nathan Press.
Dumon, Wilfried, ed., 1989. Changing Family Policy in EEC Countries. Leuven, Belgium: Katholieke Universiteit.
Edgar, Don, 1992. "Conceptualizing Family Life and Family Policies". Family Matters, No. 32, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, pp. 28-37.
Moroney, Robert M., 1976. The Family and the State: Considerations for Social Policy. London: Longman.
Quah, Stella, ed., n.d. The Family as an Asset: An International Perspective On Marriage, Parenthood, and Social Policy. Singapore: Times Academic Press.
FAYOL, HENRI (1841-1925) . French industrialist and mining engineer who was the first person to write systematically on the subject of management. Fayol General and Industrial Management remains a classic-a standard reading in introductory management courses in private and public administration. The classical management movement is generally understood to have begun with Fayol.
Henri Fayol was born into a lower-middle-class French family. His father was a construction foreman who desired that his sons improve their lot in life and thus sent them to engineering schools. Fayol attended the Lycée at Lyon for two years, preparing for his technical training. In 1858 he entered the School of Mines at St. Etienne, the youngest student in his class at age 17. Two years later he graduated as a fully qualified mining engineer and was immediately hired to work at the coal mines at Commentry in the center of France. He spent his entire working life with this firm.
Fayol was occupied in his early career with the issues on which one would expect a young coal mining engineer to focus: Fires in the mines, design of mine shafts, and concerns of production. In 1888 he was offered the position of managing director. The firm was nearly bankrupt, and Fayol had been asked to manage its closure. Instead of closing the operation, Fayol suggested a reorganization along the lines of the administrative principles he had been developing. The directors gave Fayol that opportunity, and by 1900 a newly organized and expanded firm was flourishing.
Fayol never purchased shares in the company for which he worked so many years, believing that his personal convictions should never be confused with the goals of the firm. This is an example of his subordinating his personal interests to those of the common good, one of the "principles of good character" he put forward in his writing.
One of the fragments of misinformation about Fayol is that he was opposed to the ideas of Frederick Taylor-- his contemporary across the Atlantic-and the scientific management movement. He was, indeed, critical of certain elements of Taylor's work but wrote that his reservations did not prevent him from admiring the man who "meant the world to profit from his trials and experiments." He hoped that the example of "the great American engineer" would be followed in France. Fayol had