Managerial Work Over the Last Four Decades - Essay Example

Managerial Work Over the Last Four Decades Introduction Managerial work has been researched through a large number of studies using a wide range of methods over the last four to five decades. Different researchers have different views as to what constitutes managerial roles and effective management and what skills are needed for managers to become effective and how these skills are learned. However, though different researchers (Fayol, Mintzberg, Kotter and Hales) have different views regarding the role of managers, research indicates that all views are just different sides of the same coin as in the end; the roles do converge or mean the same thing interpreted in a different way. It is only the method of study that differs. The aim of this paper is to highlight and discuss the most important findings from research work and explain why they are important. In doing so, the work of five authors will be evaluated to get an insight into managerial work research over the decades. Michael Fells Fells Michael in his work Fayol stands the test of time gives an in-depth look at the work of four researchers: Henri Fayol (1949), Henry Mintzberg (1973), Kotter (1982) and Hales (1986). He observes that the researchers have different views as to what constitutes the roles of a manager and goes further to explain how the roles enumerated by the researchers are interrelated. One important finding by the author is that though Fayol’s work has been overtaken by other researchers over time, his work still remains relevant today (2000, p 347). Fayol’s research (1949) was based on industrial undertakings and was an interpretation of an earlier work done in 1916 Administration Industrielle et Generale by Constance Storrs. Fayol came up with five elements of management and fourteen principles of management. These principles are supposed to act as guide to execution of the five elements. The five elements include: planning, organising, co-ordinating, commanding and controlling (Fells 200, p. 347-360). These are essentially the roles that managers perform in their day-to-day operations. The fourteen principles enumerated by Fayol include : division of work, authority and responsibility, discipline, unity of command, unity of direction, remuneration, centralisation, span of control, order, equity, stability of tenure of personnel, subordination of individual interests to general interest, initiative and esprit de corps (200 p. 346). These principles according to Fayol guide the manager in conducting his five roles thus are very crucial. When we look at contemporary organisations, they mostly engage in these activities in running the business thus Fells was not wrong when he concluded that Fayol’s work has withstood the test of time. Furthermore, Fells notes that other researchers like Hales (1986) have incorporated some of these elements in their models. Hales for example incorporates planning, controlling and directing (Fells 200 p. 347). He also notes Japanese firms follow Fayol’s principles thus the reason for their success. However, Fayol’s work doesn’t lack criticism from fellow researchers. Fells found out that Mintzberg was very critical of Fayol’s work thus sought to find out why. He discovered that Mintzberg (1973) criticized Fayol on the basis of procedure, that is, Fayol did not observation but theoretical constructs. Mintberg on the other hand used observation to come up with the actual duties that managers do on a daily basis and came up with ten roles clustered into three groups: Interpersonal, informational and decisional roles (Fells, 2000, p. 349). Interpersonal roles include: figurehead, leader and liaison roles. Informational roles are monitoring, disseminator, and spokesman while decisional roles are: entrepreneur; resource allocator; negotiator and disturbance handler. He came up with these roles after observing five chief executives and from diaries of managers from different organisations and different parts of the world. Kotter (1982) on the other hand studied the behaviour of 15 managers to come up with three classes of roles: long run, medium run and short run (Fells 2000 p. 349). Kotter observed that in the long run managers performed roles such as formulating goals, directing, and acquiring resources. In medium run they were involved in effective resource allocation to achieve long run aims while in the short run they efficiently allocated resources to achieve profitability. In this case unlike Fayol, Kotter was more concerned with processes and tools not what managers do. Hales (1986) incorporated the work of all researchers by studying management literature rather than primary study. He came up with ten elements of managerial work which include: figurehead, liaison, monitor, resource allocator, disturbance handler, negotiator, innovator, planning, controlling and directing. Fells (2000, p. 350) notes that Hales elements of management comprise of the elements enumerated by Fayol, Mintzberg and Kotter as he was trying to come up with a set of roles common to all managers involved in the research studies. What is the most important finding by the author and why it fascinates me is that, he managed to study all the four researchers and realised that although they criticised each other, their roles were related. As such, contemporary theories only help to clarify the nature of managerial role and strengthen the classical theory of Fayol. For example, what Kotter calls long run roles are just the planning role enumerated by Fayol and what Mintzberg calls disturbance handler is same as the controlling, command and co-ordinating roles of Fayol (Fells 200, p. 351). These theories can thus map each other and are mutually reinforcing and Fells showed this clearly in his work when he tried to match the roles of different researchers. Thus despite the fact that Minzberg’s model is the one widely accepted, other models cannot be invalidated and are as useful as Mintzberg’s model. Henry Mintzberg Mintzberg Henry in his work The manager’s job: folklore or fact seeks to demystify the myths in managerial work which he views as arising from classical studies. His work is very interesting as it relates to what managers would like to hear not what they hear all the time from academics. His theory is based on observation and experience thus highlights the actual activities of managers in their daily routines. One of the most important finding by Mintzberg is that managers do not plan but rather act on ad hoc basis (2001, p. 164). This is vital since most managers and many organisations believe that to be successful; a manager must be a good planner thus making planning essential part of management. In fact, contemporary organisations use the term strategic planning to show how important the role is. In essence, managers do need to scan the environment and make decisions for future success of the organisation, that is, set direction for all staff. So why does Mintzberg refute this claim by Fayol given the importance attached to this role even today? The reason is simple. Having observed managers actually do the work, he found that planning is just in theory as most managers never plan. In actual sense, the activities they did lasted for less than nine minutes and could not work for more than half hour without interruptions from subordinates (p.165). For the executives he studied, 93% of their verbal contacts were ad hoc. He thus came to the conclusion that managers do not plan but respond to job pressures and that their plans only exist in their minds. Read More