Fayols Systematic Management - Essay Example

Fayol’s Systematic Management Introduction Cunningham (2001) defined management as a function in businesses and organizations that coordinates all the efforts of individuals to accomplish the targets and objectives of the firm using the available resources effectively and efficiently. Management involves planning, staffing, directing, organizing and controlling a business to accomplish their goals and objectives. Different theorists have their own ways of defining management and strategies on how managers should carry out their duties to achieve their goals. For instance, Henry Fayol focuses on finding ways to help the managers accomplish their targets by identifying the appropriate practices they should emulate to achieve the goal (Matthaei, 2010). Fayol as the head of the school of Systematic Management was inspired to develop a theoretical foundation for the managerial education program that was based on his experience as a managing director of a successful mining company. In the past, the managers had no formal training and Fayol observed that with an increase in the number of organizations in the society, more professional management would be required (Cunningham, 2001). Mintzberg on the other hand focuses on the business strategies used in organizations to be successful since strategies can be implemented at any point during business operations (Harindranath, 2002). This paper is going to discuss the extent to which Fayol’s 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 favored by Mintzberg. The paper will explain the different perspectives on management taken by Fayol and Mintzberg and their approaches to the study of management. Perspectives on management by Fayol Heath (2010) noted the five functions of management that focused on key interactions between the management and its personnel include: Planning Planning involves initiating plans of events to be done that combines unity, flexibility, precision, and continuity given the business’s resources, type of work, and the future trends. Robbins et al. (2013) noted that creating an action plan is the most challenging of the other tasks, as it requires contribution and participation from the entire organisation. According to Fayol’s perspective, planning is coordinated at different levels and at diverse time horizons. Organising Organising entails providing personnel, capital, and raw materials that are required for the daily operations of the firm and constructing a structure to match the work (Kreitner, 2009). The organizational structure of a business depends on the total number of employees they have and therefore an increase in number of duties expands the business horizontally and promotes additional layers of individuals to supervise. Commanding Kreitner (2009) stated that commanding is the process of optimizing returns from all the employees hence working towards meeting common goals and objectives of the organisation. Fayol associated successful managers with those that had personal integrity, communicated clearly, and those that based their judgments on the regular audits. The detailed knowledge of human resources creates unity, initiative, loyalty, energy, and incompetence eliminated. Coordinating Heath (2010) defined coordinating as the process of harmonizing and unifying activities and striving to maintain a balance between operations of the business that is from sales to manufacturing and procurement to manufacturing. Fayol recommended that department heads of organizations should hold weekly conferences in order to solve issues of common interests. Controlling Robbins et al. (2013) defined the role of controlling as a process of identifying errors and weaknesses by controlling the feedback and conforming business operations to policies, instructions, and plans. Fayol has allowed the command functions to operate effectively and efficiently through control and co-ordination methods. Advantages of Fayol’s perspective Dyck and Neubert (2010) stated that Fayol’s perspective is significant as it provided a language to communicate the management theory and hence establishing a foundation in management training for the leaders in organizations. This perspective encouraged the managers and other leaders in businesses to perceive firms as living organisms, which constantly require attention rather than treating them as mechanical machines (Dyck and Neubert, 2010). Consequences In the research studies done by Tengblad (2012), it was noted that Fayol's classic analysis of the management function had been made redundant by other theorists because his principles generally describe visions of organisations other than reality. Other theorists such as Mintzberg argue that the principles of management discussed by Fayol are based on his personal experiences rather than focusing on empirical research. Mintzberg argued that managers who operate successful businesses should spend limited time practicing Fayol’s activities and concentrate more on cultivating personal contacts and networks. Perspectives on management by Mintzberg Mintzberg is a management expert who emphasized the application of business strategies in order for businesses to be successful. According to Mintzberg, there is no need for organizations to develop a strategy that does not consider capabilities, culture and ignores the competitor’s reactions because they determine the future of the business (Nanda, 2006). In order to help businesspersons think about the strategies in depth, Mintzberg developed a 5Ps of Strategy in 1987 that comprises five distinct definitions of developing strategies. The strategies include, Strategy as a plan This is the guideline of dealing with various situations in the organization. Nanda (2006) stated that strategies are developed in advance for the activities to which they need to be implemented purposefully and consciously. Strategies can be defined differently depending with the situation, for instance in management, it is a comprehensive, integrated and unified plan that is designed to guarantee that the set objectives and goals of a business are achieved. Strategy as ploy According to Mintzberg, a strategy can be a trick that is intended to outsmart a competitor or an opponent (Baalen and Moratis, 2001). For instance, an organisation could threaten to expand its business operations in order to discourage their competitors from starting a new business in the same area. Another example is a telecommunications business that may buy all the patents that an opponent would use to initiate a rival invention. In this case, the strategy could be regarded as a trick as well as a good plan. Strategy as Pattern Tengland (2012) stated that a successful and consistent way of carrying out a business could develop into strategy as it emerges from their past organizational behaviours. Strategy is therefore reliability in behavior whether it is deliberate or not. Tengland (2012) gave an example of a manager who runs a business successfully and by making decisions, which enhances an already existing high customer support responses. This pattern of actions creates a strategic advantage for the business even without deliberately implementing it. Strategy as position This is how an organization decides to position itself around the marketplace (Cunningham, 2001). This strategy enables the businesspersons to examine the fit between their organization and their environment hence helping them select an area where they enjoy sustainable competitive advantages. For instance, the business strategy may be to develop a niche product hence avoiding competition from other firms or positioning the business among other competitors but differentiate services and therefore unique. Strategy as perspective Robbins et al. (2013) stated that the choices a business makes about their strategies rely on their culture heavily. Some enterprises are aggressive in pacesetting, as they create new technologies and exploit new markets while others see the world to be stable and set and hence relax in established markets by depending on political influences other than economic effectiveness, and others building protective shells around their businesses. For instance, a business that encourages innovation and risk taking from their workers may focus on developing innovative goods as the main force behind its strategies. Robbins et al. (2013) noted that organizations that emphasize their reliable processing of information could offer their services to other struggling businesses in outsourcing arrangements. Approaches to management by Fayol and Mintzberg Fayol’s approach focuses mainly on the functions of management that include planning, coordinating, commanding, and controlling. Harindranath (2002) stated that these functions basically predicts the plans for the future for instance managing actions, development of different technique structures, sending information to workers and making sure that operations run smoothly and correcting inappropriate activities. Mintzberg’s approach on the other hand believes that management involves having interpersonal relationships and constant communication with customers and employees (Dyck and Neubert, 2010). Mintzberg illustrates management as its roles, which are split in three groups that include interpersonal, informational, and decisional roles. The groups are further divided into other management roles that include spokesperson, monitor, figurehead, disseminator, laision, disturbance handler, leader, resource allocation, and entrepreneur. What managers actually do in the current society is favoured by Mintzberg’s approaches since he agreed that a manager’s job consists of many disjointed episodes with individuals outside and inside the business (Nanda, 2006). Fayol’s classic analysis on management has been made redundant because he focuses on personal traditional preferences on how roles should be enacted while Mintzberg focuses on actual roles and the processes of enacting them. Matthaei (2010) noted that Minzberg approach is favoured in the modern community because his planning style is more flexible since every decision made is focused on short-term business goals based on general knowledge. This planning style can be adapted in the current society because of the many changes that occur in the market regularly hence enabling the managers to be dynamic in their decisions. Baalen and Moratis (2001) noted that in Fayol’s organizing style, it is the manager’s responsibility to gather all the resources and answerable for the welfare of the staff members while in Mintzberg’s approach organizing entails making changes and creating awareness on the worker’s legal responsibilities and ensuring teamwork in the business enterprise. Leading in Fayol’s approach is encouraging employees to do their tasks well as they provide immediate feedback while in Mintzberg’s approach leading is defined as motivating individuals to work as they are reminded of the goals and objectives of the organization and expressing gratitude when the targets are achieved (Kreitner,2009). Fayol’s traditional approach defines controlling as an action of promoting good interactions among the workers hence gaining positive customer responses. Mintzberg approach is favoured in recent empirical studies as controlling builds its focus on ensuring good relationships with others as they utilize a problem focused approach to feedback and evaluation of the business (Robbins et al. (2013). Conclusion Management is the function in organizations that directs the efforts of individuals to accomplish common goals using the available resources effectively. There are different perspectives and approaches to the study of management taken by Fayol and Mintzberg. Fayol describes five functions of management that focuses on the interactions between management and its personnel, which include planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling. Mintzberg focuses his perspectives on the 5 Ps of Strategy where each P stands for an approach in management. The five Ps stand for plan, ploy, pattern, position, and perspective. Mintzberg’s perspectives and approaches describes better what managers actually do and hence Fayol’s classic analysis of management function has been made redundant since it basically describes vision for organisations other than the reality and they are based on the theorists experiences rather than research. References Baalen, P. J. V., and Moratis, L. T. (2001). Management education in the network economy: its context, content, and organization. Boston [u.a.], Kluwer Academic Publishers. Cunningham, J. B. (2001). Researching organizational values and beliefs: the Echo approach. Westport, Conn, Quorum Books. Dyck, B., and Neubert, M. J. (2010). Management: current practices and new directions. Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin. Harindranath, G. (2002). New perspectives on information systems development: theory, methods, and practice. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Pub. Heath, R. L. (2010). The SAGE handbook of public relations. Los Angeles, SAGE Publications. Kreitner, R. (2009). Management. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co. Matthaei, E. E. (2010). The nature of executive work a case study. Wiesbaden, Gabler Verlag. Nanda, J. K. (2006). Management Thought. New Delhi, Sarup. Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A., Odendaal, A., and Roodt, G. (2013). Organisational behaviour: global and Southern African perspectives. Pinelands, Cape Town, Pearson Education. Tengblad, S. (2012). The work of managers: towards a practice theory of management. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Read More