Henri Fayol and Henry Mintzberg Essay

Introduction

With his work General and Industrial Management ( 1949. in Gallic 1916 ) Henri Fayol was a innovator on the field of direction theory. ( Pryor & A ; Taneja. 2010 ) Many more were to follow. some back uping Fayol’s ideas and some. i. e. Henry Mintzberg in The Nature of Managerial Work ( 1973 ) stating that Fayol’s positions are non keeping true today. This essay will take a closer expression at strengths and failings of both Fayol and Mintzberg and conclude that Fayol’s work still is non merely relevant to our modern-day apprehension of direction but besides superior to Mintzberg in footings of its conceptualisation and pertinence to modern organisations.

Description of Fayol’s work

Harmonizing to Fayol ( 1949 ) all industrial administrations consist of six different groups of activities: proficient. commercial. fiscal. security. accounting and direction. As he was a director himself. or in other words an decision maker. he devoted his work to the latter activity. direction.

Fayol identified five cardinal maps or “elements” of managerial work. which is regarded as the classical theory and frequently referred to as the “management process” ( Dessler. 1985. p. 4 ) : ( 1 ) Planning and prediction: analyzing the hereafter and puting out the actions to be taken ( 2 ) Organising: puting out lines of authorization and duty. ( 3 ) Co-ordinating: puting out timing and sequencing of activities ; adhering and harmonizing all.

( 4 ) Commanding: seting the program into action ( 5 ) Controlling: monitoring and adjusting ; guaranting conformance with regulations. ( Fells. 2000 ) Furthermore he came up with a list of 14 rules of direction. including such characteristics as authorization. integrity of bid. wage. centralization and so on. ( Fayol. 1949 ) Of class such rules could be found in administrations before Fayol. but it was the first clip they were laid out in such a conceptual mode. ( Brooks. 2009 ) Fayol himself stressed that the figure of rules was non-exhaustive. ( Fells. 2000 )

Today his list certainly would include modern phenomena like teamwork. inclination to blandish hierarchies or flexible on the job hours. ( Brooks. 2009 ) The fact that. back in 1916. Fayol did non cognize about such phenomena could cut down on his work’s relevancy today. However in Page 1 of 6

Fayol or Mintzberg – Who is right?

Description of Mintzberg’s work and it’s relation to Fayol Over half a century after Fayol’s first publication. nevertheless. Henry Mintzberg dismissed his findings about the direction procedure as “folklore” ( Mintzberg. 1973 ) . He thinks that direction is non about maps. but about what directors

make. ( Lamond. 2004 ) For his survey Mintzberg was detecting five executives at work. ( Mintzberg. 1975 ) And based on this research he identified three consecutive managerial functions. briefly described as follows: ( 1 ) Interpersonal Function: The director connects with his subsidiaries and other sections. Consequently he is a front man. a leader and trades with liaison interior every bit good as exterior.

( 2 ) Informational Function: He so scans for and proctors internal and external information in order to move as a “spokesperson” for the group. ( 3 ) Decisional Function: The so collected “quality information” enables him to do determinations. set aims and distribute resources. The director besides comprises characteristics such as an enterpriser. a perturbation animal trainer and negotiant. ( Brooks. 2009 and Fells. 2000 )

In contrast to Fayol he found that directors really spend “very small clip on lone tasks” ( Brooks. 2009. p. 161 ) but had to cover with changeless breaks in the signifier of calls or mails from forenoon to dark. In his ain survey he observed that half the activities performed lasted less than nine proceedingss and merely ten per cent exceeded one hr. ( Mintzberg. 1975 ) On these evidences he suggests that a director is “simply reacting to the force per unit areas of his job” . ( Mintzberg. 1975. p. 225 )

As noted in Fells ( 2000 ) those activites do non suit comfortably into Fayol’s rules of planning. co-ordinating and so on.

Analysis of Strengths and Weaknesses of both

Mintzberg ( 1975 ) provinces. that the effectivity of a trough is extremely dependent on his penetrations into his work. Thus a manager’s public presentation is influenced by his apprehension and reacting to the ‘pressures’ of the occupation. Pryor and Taneja ( 2010 ) . nevertheless. argue that if Fayol’s rules of direction are decently implemented. they are taking to organizational effectivity and efficiency.

Harmonizing to Mintzberg ( 1975 ) when you spend a twenty-four hours in a manager’s office you will happen Fayol’s classical position doubtful. However. if we alternatively suppose that Fayol’s work is instead a theory of direction maps than what an single director does. so it has ne’er been denied by the ulterior literature. ( Fells. 2000 )

Furthermore it shows that critics do non truly hold a valid point in stating Fayol’s work is really or even excessively idealistic. It was non meant to demo what directors really do in the first topographic point. It is about the map direction has within an organisation. ( Pryor & A ; Taneja. 2010 ) Mintzberg’s survey is built on an empirical research as he was detecting five executive directors and what they truly spend their clip on. ( Mintzberg. 1973 ) There are anyway two points one can keep against him:

First. Mintzberg’s survey participants were. as mentioned. executive directors. It therefore can be argued that a survey among all sorts of directors. i. e. executive. center and first -line directors could pull another image of what directors in general are really making. As mentioned in Fells ( 2000 ) in fact such surveies were conducted. i. e. Kotter ( 1982 ) or Luthans et Al. ( 1985 ) . Luthans et Al. were detecting 52 directors of different degrees within a corporate hierarchy. And harmonizing to Fells ( 2000 ) they found that traditional direction functions were observed often. particularly. and that is striking among more successful senior directors.

And secondly Fayol was everything but a theoretician ; he had over 30 old ages of experience taking a Gallic excavation company. Therefore one can non truly state that his thoughts came out of the blue. particularly in a clip where merely small research about direction procedures has already been published. And it was Fayol himself who said his list of direction rules is nonexhaustive and should be adapted flexibly to a company’s single state of affairs. ( Pryor & A ; Taneja. 2010 ) He was merely naming “some of the rules of direction which I have most often had to use. ” ( Fayol. 1949. p. 19 )

Critical comparing

It could be argued that Fayol’s classical theory is superior to that of Mintzberg in footings of its relevancy today. Pryor and Taneja ( 2010 ) suggest that a batch of his work has found its manner into modern-day direction theory in order to depict what today’s directors “should make to be effectual and efficient. ” ( Pryor & A ; Taneja. 2010. p. 497 )

And Lamond ( 2004 ) believes that Mintzberg has unkownigly made “an effort to lucubrate the functions in which directors ( … ) engage when transporting out their managerial maps. ” ( Lamond. 2004. p. 334 ) . In fact. with his managerial functions Mintzberg ( 1975 ) has tried to do a connexion between mangagerial maps as found by Fayol ( 1949 ) and the mangerial behavior he observed himself. Fells ( 2000 ) therefore suggests that technically Mintzberg has confirmed Fayol’s theory. unlike he said he does.

Furthermore Lamond ( 2004 ) says that Mintzberg defines direction as what the group of persons called ‘managers’ do and specify directors ( instead slackly ) in bend. His surveies hence do non include a theoretical footing but definitions based on observations merely. Furthermore Pryor and Taneja ( 2010 ) noted that Archer ( 1990 ) was advancing Fayol’s rules.

Archer observed that from the 1930’s to 60’s when Fayol’s work was seen as a design of good direction. the productiveness and life criterions in America were increased. Furthermore he notes that much of the Nipponese work manner. i. e. merely in clip production. quality circles or lower degree determination devising. reflect techniques that were foremost introduced by Fayol. Pryor and Taneja ( 2010 ) hence believe that Fayol’s rules are still relevant to an organization’s effectivity.

The grounds suggests that it is safe to state that Fayol peers effectual direction. Mintzberg. nevertheless. does non depict an wholly effectual direction manner. The executives he observed were invariably “jumping from issue to publish. continually reacting to the demands of the minute. ” ( Mintzberg. 1975. p. 225 ) So whereas Fayol draws are a instead proactive image of a director. those Mintzberg observed seem to be extremely reactive. It can be argued that if those directors would hold delegated their work suitably they certainly would hold had the clip to develop more effectual procedures and processs. Of class they all had their good grounds for non deputing their work.

They play a cardinal function in garnering external information and go throughing it on to their subsidiaries. “Today’s chitchat may be tomorrow’s fact. ” ( Mintzberg. 1975. p. 228 ) And hence they favor the verbal media as it is faster than ( sometimes ‘burdening’ ) mails or other written media. And as most of the company’s strategic information is stored in the head of its manager’s and non on a computing machine. it merely would take them excessively long to state person else everything he needs to cognize in order to execute a certain assignment. Consequently the director is making excessively much himself. ( Mintzberg. 1975 )

The latter phenomenon Mintzberg himself describes as the “dilemma of delegation” ( Mintzberg. 1975. p. 229 ) . So while there may be good grounds for the directors to move as they do. it still is non the most effectual manner of pull offing one can believe of – as Archer ( 1990 ) has shown above. e. g. with his findings about the Nipponese work manner. But in order to measure up the statement: Most of the modern-day direction literature does non see those weak points in Mintzberg’s survey and by and large accept his theoretical account. ( Fells. 2000 )

However the credence of his theoretical account does non intend needfully that one has to reject Fayol’s theory in bend like Mintzberg did. As Wren ( 1994 ) notes. Fayol’s and Mintzberg’s findings are two different instead than viing positions onto direction. The bottom line is that in fact both are right and represent “two sides of the same coin” ( Lamond. 2004. p. 350 ) : Fayol is about how we wish direction to be and Mintzberg about what directors really do.

Decision

Fayol delivers a more conceptualized description about the direction procedure. ( Lamond. 2004 ) This writer thinks that Fayol provides sort of a directive for good and efficient direction and so. Wren ( 1994. p. 193 ) see his rules as “lighthouses to managerial action” .

And while Mintzberg besides provides a just penetration into the country of modern-day direction. he still misses the point about effectivity. That makes Fayol slightly superior in footings of pertinence and. of class. relevancy.

Mentions
Archer. E. R. . 1990. Towards a resurgence of the rules of direction. Industrial Management. 32 ( 1 ) . pp. 19-22.
Brooks. I. . 2009. Organizational Behavior: Persons. Groups and Organisation. 4th erectile dysfunction. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Dessler. G. . 1985. Management basicss: modern rules & A ; patterns. 4th erectile dysfunction. Reston. VA: Reston Pub. Co. .
Fayol. H. . 1949. General and Industrial Management. London: Pitman. Fells. M. J. . 2000. Fayol stands the trial of clip. Journal of Management History. 6 ( 8 ) . pp. 345-360.
Lamond. D. . 2004. A affair of manner: reconciling Henri and Henry. Management Decision. 42 ( 2 ) . pp. 330-356.
Mintzberg. H. . 1973. The Nature of Managerial Work. New York. New york: Harper & A ; Row. Mintzberg. H. . 1975. The Manager’s Job: Folklore and Fact. Harvard Business Review. 53 ( 4 ) . pp. 49-61.
Mintzberg. H. . 1979. The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs. New jersey: Prentice-Hall. Pettinger. R. . 2007. Introduction to Management. 4th erectile dysfunction. New
York. New york: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pryor. M. G. & A ; Taneja. S. . 2010. Henri Fayol. practician and theoretician – revered and reviled. Journal of Management History. 16 ( 4 ) . pp. 489-503.
Wren. D. A. . 1994. The Development of Management Thought. 4th erectile dysfunction. New York. New york: John Wiley.