Critically discuss the extent to which Fayol’s i classic analysis of the management function has largely been made redundant by the more recent empirical studies of what managers actually do, such as that favoured by Mintzberg ii.
How Valuable was Henri Fayols Fayols contribution to Management Theory and does Henri Mintzberg Views Justify the importance of Fayol
This assignment will focus on the the contribution Henri Fayol Fayol made to the development of management theory and evaluate the validity and criticism of the empiricists view by Henri Mintzberg Prior to the 2th century! the concept of management was a vague term which originated from the term "menager# in French or "maneggiare# in $talian %&rey 2'( ')*+ The ,-.#s saw the acceleration of industrial growth on a grand scale! which gave rise to the need of a "more professional manager# %/ilson and Thompson! 20( -* re1uiring re1uiring a more in depth understanding understanding of management as a process+ uthor of dministration $ndustrielle et &eneralle in ,3,0! Henri Fayol a French French mining engineer was widely an un4nown 5gure until his boo4 was translated into 6nglish in ,373 and renamed &eneral and $ndustrial Management+ Fayol Fayol was recognized as a "ma8or authority on management# and even described as the most 9distinguished 5gure: that 6urope contributed to management science in the , st half of the 2 th ;entury %
The ,st attempt to de5ne management came came from Henri Fayol Fayol who de5ned management as a set of functions as 9To 9To forecast and plan! organise and command! as well as coordinate and control+: This description was widely accepted for many years and was w as popular as it illustrates the process of management as a rational se1uence of 9logical steps:+ =ue to this Fayol Fayol was highly acclaimed and is regarded as the 9Father 9Father of Management: who provided a framewor4 for further study and development into Management as a discipline whose functions and principles pri nciples are still in use today+ today+
The classic school of management has been been challenged by various academics who criticise their writings for being vague! unsophisticated and biased from a managerial perspective based on views ac1uired from e>perience as opposed to study and observation Thomas! %2)* There are 2 perspectives perspectives which challenge the traditional view of management+ The theoretical view challenges the classical classical view based upon the views of management from other schools of theory who regard their view of management as superior and the empirical empiri cal view whereby researchers conduct studies observing managers whilst at wor4 and using their 5ndings to support their claims+
mong such critics to challenge the views of Fayol was Henri Mintzberg! an academic who 9challenged the concept of the rational manager: ?ees and Porter %2,*+ Mintzberg felt that classical writing was vague and did not re@ect the reality of what managers actually do+ Aeing highly critical of this Mintzberg contested Fayols 5ve functions arguing that if you as4 a manager what he does! he will answer to forecast! plan! organize command and control but if you watched what the manager does it would come as no surprise if you couldn#t relate what you saw to those 7 terms+
Mintzberg , ?oles ?ather than functions Mintzberg proposed there were , roles which could be placed into ) categories that managers underta4e to a degree but is dependent upon the nature of their wor4! that of $nterpersonal ?oles! comprise of a 5gurehead! leader and liasier+ $nformational ?oles! as a monitor! disseminator and spo4esman and decisional ?oles being an entrepreneur! disturbance handler! negotiator and resource allocator+ ccording to Fayol a manager function was to plan and organize however Mintzberg found this view did not correlate in accordance with reality in addition to the fact that what managers did not actually do what they say they do+ Many studies into managerial wor4 draw conclude that the reality of management diBers vastly from the image proposed by classical theorists+ This has led to classic writings being portrayed as "fol4lore# by Mintzberg who describes them as a re@ection which "served to label our areas of ignorance# and therefore found his own wor4 to be more superior as it was based upon
lthough it is fair to assume that the 5ndings of empirical studies provide better conclusions than those of Fayol and Taylor! their conclusions themselves can also be 1uestioned and criti1ued+ 6mpiricists! portray a view that the concept of management can be determined by carrying out observations of those who use the title of manager+ They don#t however specify or interpret management functions of their own which would re1uire a "theoretical framewor4# of their own+ Cor do they oBer any remedies to the correct way of management+ Timeline $t may be a common perception by those opposing the classical school that their views are archaic! but in reality they are still in use today+ $t was the basis for further study to be developed whether it be contested or agreed it paved the way for future
Fayol claimed his 5ve functions were applicable to all managers at every level but were re1uired interpretation and application dependent upon the individual situation Pettinger %22*
Management has evolved in modern times and Fayol has been stereotyped for being too universal in his theories whereby his principles would wor4 in all organisations and all situations at all times however Fayol recognized the signi5cance of contingency should bad decisions be made and argued that 9principles must be @e>ible and adaptable to every need: %Fayol! ,373! p+,3*
=ue to Human ?elations theory! managers are not so authoritarian in today#s society as wor4ers are now encouraged to participate in the decision ma4ing process! power is delegated to subordinates and employees now have greater freedom however in Fayols time it was 1uite common for managers to be authoritarian+ Fayol 5rmly believed in hierarchy and authority through unity of command believing and that delegation would be counterproductive causing chaos which could be harmful to an organistationa agenda %?eid! = ,33' p2)* Df the ,7 principles! authority! centralization and unity of command would reiterate that Fayol was authoritarian+ Human relations theorists would criticize Fayols view of employees as production units and re8ect his understanding of motivating employees simply through cash incentives disregarding other factors and methods+ However Fayol e>pressed that a manager should have 9regard for the health! strength education! morale and stability of his personel:* %Fayol ,373 p+)2*
Mintzberg regarded management as not about functions which he described as 9fol4lore: but what managers actually do %/ilson and Thompson! 20( -* nd so his wor4 was to challenge the rational manager concept by conducting empirical studies observing managers ranging from presidents of companies! ;6D#s! factory supervisors as well as street gangs whereby the managers 4ept very detailed diaries which were later e>amined+ %E4ills of Management 'th 6dition /+ =avid ?ees and ;hristine Porter 2,! ondon( Thompson* Dne of Fayols functions was planning+ $n order to contest this Mintzberg used his 5ndings of a study conducted on ,0 Aritish Managers which found that a managers activities are short! incoherent! sub8ect to fre1uent interruptions+ Mintzberg used this a basis to re8ecting the notion that the manager was a re@ective systematic planner arguing that one does not simply plan orchestrate and then e>ecute+ He also found that a manager had a high orientation towards using action and disli4ed his wor4+ $t is easy to dismiss Fayols theories when compared to empirical evidence however Fayol was a practitioner of management his whole life and documented what wor4ed for him at a time when there were no theories or studies of management this paved the way for further study+ Mintzbergs wor4 was a "snapshot of reality# largely due to Mintzberg being an academic and conducting studies+ Ay the time Mintzberg criticized Fayols theories there were already vast studies into management and often it is the academics duty to criticize the validity of e>isting theories+
Aibliography
•
Grey, C.
A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Studying Organizations Bibliography: Grey, C. (2005). A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Studying Organizations. London: Sage, p.53. Fayol, H. (1949) General Indu!r"al #anagen!, $"!%an, London
•
&ournal
S%"!', I. and oyn, . British management theory and pratie: the impat o! Fayol In"te#t: (S%"!' and oyn, 2005) Bibliography: S%"!', I. and oyn, . (2005). r"!"' %anage%en! !'eory and pra*!"*e: !'e "%pa*! o+ Fayol. Management e!ision, 43(10), pp.131-1334. In"te#t: ("lon and 'o%pon, 200/) Bibliography: "lon, &. and 'o%pon, . (200/). "he Making o# Modern Management . e or: 6+ord 7n"8er"!y $re.
i Fayol H %,373*! &eneral and $ndustrial Management! ondon! Pitman+ ii Mintzberg H (1975), The Manager’s Job: Folklore and Fact Harvard Business Review, J!l"#$!g!st 1975, %% &9#'1 onald eid, (1995),*Fa"ol: +ro e-%erience to theor"*, Jo!rnal o+ Manageent Histor", .ol 1 /ss 0 %% 1 2 0' 3ettinger (44) /ntrod!ction to Manageent 0rd ed, e6 ork: 3algra8e Thoas, $ (440) ontro8ersies in Manageent nd ed, e6 ork: o!tledge
This assignment will focus on the contribution Henri Fayol made to the development of management theory and evaluate the validity and criticism of the empiricists view by Henri Mintzberg Has the contribution Henri Fayol made to Management Theory been made obsolete by more contemporary studiesG
