The Development of Management Theories of Mintzberg and Fayol - Term Paper Example

here Bus1001 Introduction to Management & Organizations Essay for Semester 11 Folklore and Facts Introduction Henry Mintzberg considers the image of management which has developed from the work of Henry Fayol as one of folklore rather than fact. However, there is a contention that the theory of Fayol is much better than what Mintzberg is suggesting. This topic gives a view on both theories and offers own conclusion of which one is correct. Mintzberg and Fayol are two management theorists who have diverse opinion on management. Fayol is concerned with productivity while Mintzberg gives the view of how the managers spend their time in performing their work. The classical theory of Fayol is being criticized by many modern writers including Mintzberg, as being more appropriate in the past than in the present, thus calling it as folklore. Henry Fayol The development of management theories started during the industrial revolution wherein there was a great need to pay attention to the problems of management on the great quantities of raw materials and the number of labor. Thus, management theory grew out of need to manage complex organization such as factories. Trained as an Industrial Engineer, Henry Fayol saw the need to systematize procedures, and believed that sound managerial practice falls into certain patterns that can be identified and analyzed. From this viewpoint, he made a blueprint of a cohesive doctrine of management that still very much used today and is known as the classical school of management theory. (Stoner, J. 1978, p. 41) Stoner said that one of Fayol’s most important contributions to the management thought is that “management is not a personal talent, but a skill”. Fayol believed that management could be taught, once the underlying principles are understood and a general theory of management is formulated. In setting up the activities of science in management, Wren, et. al. described how Fayol divided the activities of business operations into six activities, all of which are inter-related with each other. These are the technical that is related to producing and manufacturing of products. Next is the commercial part that involves buying or raw materials and selling of products; financial that is concerned with acquiring and using of capital; security that is related to protecting employees and property; accounting that looks into the financial status of the company, and lastly, the managerial. He had focused on managerial because he felt that this is most neglected aspect of the business. Fayol defined management into five functions – that is planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling. In planning, Fayol describes it as a course of action that will enable the organization to meet its goals. He defines organizing as mobilizing the materials and human resources of the organization to put the plans in effect. For him, commanding means motivating employees and getting them to do the work, while coordinating is making sure that the resources and activities of the organization are working harmoniously to arrive at the desired result. Fayol, from his experience, noted that the type of abilities needed by the managers in the organization depend on the manager’s position in its hierarchy. For example, a low-level job will need specific skills and less of managerial ability and a general manager need a lot of managerial skills and much less of technical skills for his job. In the same way, the general manager of a large corporation needs greater measure of managerial skills than a manager of small business. He based his theories from his own experience and has developed the principles of management that was considered as the foundation for the classical management theory. These are (Wren et al.): a. Unity of command. According to Fayol, all the management values he had conceived flow from the principle of unity of command. He believed that every action must be ordered by one person only, so much so that “For any act, the person who carries it out should receive orders from one boss”. b. Separation of power: authority, subordination, responsibility and control. Fayol explained that giving orders, obtaining obedience and responsibility is an outcome of official and personal authority of the individual manager. c. Centralization. This is a kind of set up wherein the command is exercised by the highest authority, either through direct order or by successive chains of leadership, and reaches all parts of the organization. The response of order is also done in reverse structure. d. Order. The principle of order is a consequence of unity of command. Fayol finds it necessary to put everything in a specified place and someone is assigned to do it. Order is one way of delimiting authorities of people assigned to it and one way of waste control. e. Discipline. In an organization, discipline is the obedience in following the rules and regulations, or the code of ethics. To Fayol, discipline is the essential rule derived from the goals of the organization f. Planning. Fayol considers planning as the most significant role of managers to ensure success of the enterprise. He figures this as the preparation needed before someone undertakes a business. Because of the limitations of economic resources, the manager must plan how much capital, manpower and resources are needed for an undertaking. g. Organizational chart. Based on his personal experience, Fayol considered creating an organizational chart important for management. An organizational chart, according to him delineates the functions and responsibilities of each group, performing separate activities but is geared in attaining one organizational objective. He divided this into six basic groups found in an organization: the personnel, manufacturing, maintenance, sales and purchases, accounting, finance and miscellaneous group. To Fayol, an organizational chart summarizes all of his principles, quoted: “as all departments has a head, the hierarchical route is defined, all departments are delimited, centralization is complete and a department can continue in the absence or disability of its head” (Wren, et. al). h. Meetings and reports. Fayol believed that there should be constant communication among leaders to assess progress of the whole organization. This could be done through holding of regular meetings and submission of reports. i. Accounting. This is a system that presents the status of the business. Fayol said that there is a need for everyone in the organization to know the results for the part of the service he is accountable for. He said that accurate and timely accounting information allows the leader to judge whether the route is good or bad, and permits the leader to make corrections or decisions if needed. Henry Mintzberg Harvard Business Review detailed the works of Professor Mintzberg and his disagreements in the classical theory. Accordingly, Mintzberg questioned what are the things the manager do in the company, upon which, he said, that the most likely answers are planning, organizing, coordinating or controlling. He believes this is not an appropriate answer because in today’s business environment, there is a vague understanding of the managerial role. Mintzberg introduces the new concept and definition of managerial roles based from the researches and studies he conducted on the subject, as a “breakaway” from the concepts of Fayol, and to bring in a more supportable theory of management. To Mintzberg, concepts of Fayol are folklores that have been accepted without support of research. For instance, he said: “the manager is a reflective systematic planner” is a folklore statement. Mintzberg contradicts this statement by stating the fact that studies have shown “that managers work at an unrelenting pace, that their activities are characterized by brevity, variety and discontinuity and that they are strongly oriented towards action and dislike reflective activities”. Next, Mintzberg considers this statement as folklore: “the effective manager has no regular duties to perform”. He said that managers are told to devote more time in planning and delegating, and less time in negotiations and seeing customers. Mintzberg belies this statement, and provides a fact that: “in addition to handling exceptions, managerial work involves performing a number of regular duties, including ritual and ceremony, negotiations, and processing soft information that links the organization with its environment”. (HBR) In the area of information and communication, the statement “the senior manager needs aggregated information, which a formal management-information system best provides” is regarded as folklore. In the classical management, Mintzberg said that managers should receive information through the management information system carried by the hierarchical chain of command. The fact according to Mintzberg is that managers prefer to receive information through verbal accounts coming from telephone calls and meetings. The fourth folklore statement: “Management is, or at least is quickly becoming, a science and a profession”. Mintzberg says this is a false statement because according to him, science involves enaction of systematic, analytically determined procedures or programs. He presented the fact by saying “that the manager’s program – to schedule time, process information, make decisions, and so on, - remained locked deep inside their brains. (HBR) Mintzberg presented a view on the role of the managers and how they spend their time in performing their work. He based his theories on conclusive evidences gathered from research studies he did personally. From this, he concluded that there is a similarity on behaviors of managers in all levels; that managers have formal authority over their own organizational units, and that they derive that status from that authority. Because of this status, a manager becomes involved in interpersonal relationships with subordinates, peers and superiors, who in turn provide him with information needed for decisions. Analytical comparison The criticism in Henry Fayol’s theory of management is that this is limited to the knowledge available to them at that time. However, much of what Fayol conceived theories remain today His assumptions were better received by management as he was able to present the concept of organizational management. He has created his theories based on his long experience in management, chronicled his observations during his tour of duty and incorporated them into management principles that is still being adopted today. What is important in the theory of Fayol is the development of the organizational structure and the roles each has to perform in the organization. The key roles of management, according to Fayol, “ is to predict the future and create a strategy to achieve goals, build an efficient organizational structure, lead employees, and encourage efficiency and productivity among personnel, bring employees together, to achieve a common goal, and set guidelines to ensure that objectives are met” (Beverly, A. 2010). Today, this system of organization is being used not only in business but is also widely used in government institutions and organizations. Fayol’s management approach encompasses the whole system in the organization as well as philosophies of employee motivations. Mintzberg’s management approach is different from Fayol because his theory is concentrated on the day to day reality of managerial behavior, while Fayol is more concerned on subordinate behavior and structural organization. Mintzberg’s work is more focused on the work of the CEO and has identified clusters of behaviors that he believes represent the role of a manager. Accordingly, he sees a manager performing the role of a contact manager whose duty is as a figurehead and liaison. He also becomes a political manager that is a spokesperson and a negotiator at the same time. As a spokesperson, the manager talks to the outside world on performance and policies. For instance, he is responsible to report the financial status of the company to stakeholders. The manager is also the entrepreneur who institutes changes in the organization. As a manager, Mintzberg’s also sees the manager as someone who controls the use of resources and a disturbance holder. As such, he is able to handle unexpected events and operational breakdown. In the process, the manager becomes expert in monitoring and becoming a spokesperson of the company. (Mintzberg’s ten management roles, n.d.) In the analysis, it is observed that Mintzberg describes the manager as taking too much pressure and work, attends to many stimuli, encourages disruption and makes small decisions. It is also noted that Mintzberg has focused on the behavior aspect of the manager but failed to show its relation to organization’s effectiveness. The work of Mintzberg has focused on the time management of the manager that is internal to his role in the company. In one instance, Mintzberg did not explain the influence of power and ownership relationship. As observed too, the work has been centered on the manager, and there is very little designation of authority and responsibility to subordinates. This kind of management will not be appropriate for bigger enterprises that need the specialization and organizational structure fostered by the classical theory of Fayol. Conclusion The answer to the question, which is a good management approach between the two theories, is hard to establish considering that the thinking of the two theorists came in years apart. The answer to the question depends on the situation, action and outcome and those results differ because of the situation. Let us not forget that we are in a fast developing period of technology that everything is ready for a change. The limitation of the classical theory of Fayol is that it is more appropriate in the past than of today. For example, it was important for the managers in the past to retain their authority, but today, it is possible for more knowledgeable and affluent employees to resent authority, and it is more likely that they leave the organization if they are not satisfied. It is also possible that for purposes of efficiency in the organization, the two theories could be combined in situations needing them. But if I were to choose, I would prefer the classical method of management as it provides a clear cut statement of authorities and responsibilities of each one as presented in the organizational chart. Hierarchy is established and there is order in every division and each employee learns important skills needed for his work. The flexibility in management could be added as a situational approach whenever needed and there is no such rule that prohibits the management to experiment on this. w.c. 2323 Word count: References Beverly, Apryl. (2010). Guide to Making the Most of Management Theory of Henry Fayol.Work.com.http://www.work.com/making-the-most-of-management-theory-of-henri-fayol-26666/. Accessed 17 November 2010. H. Mintzberg. The Manager’s Job: folklore or fact. From Harvard Business Review, March-April 1990. Harvard Business School Publishing Corp., Soldiers Field, Boston, MA. e-learningforkids.org/Courses/Coaching_for_Results/res/.../90210.pdf. Accessed 17 November 2010. Mintzberg’s Ten Management roles. Management Tools. Knowledge Resource Center. London Management Center. http://www.lmcuk.com/management-tool/mintzberg-s-ten-management-roles. Accessed 17 November 2010 Henry Fayol’s 14 Principles of Management. Scribd. http://www.scribd.com/doc/21122351/Henry-Fayol. Accessed 17 November 2010. Ten Managerial Roles. http://www.provenmodels.com/88/ten-managerial-roles/henrymintzberg. Accessed 17 November 2010. H. Mintzberg. The Manager’s Job: folklore or fact. From Harvard Business Review, March-April 1990. Harvard Business School Publishing Corp., Soldiers Field, Boston, MA. e-learningforkids.org/Courses/Coaching_for_Results/res/.../90210.pdf. Accessed 17 November 2010. Wren, Daniel A., Bedelan, Arthur G. and Breeze, John D. (2002) The Foundations of Henry Fayol’s Administrative theory, pp. 906-9ll. Stoner, James A. Evolution of Management Theory. Chap. 2 in Management. Prentice Hall Inc. 1980, p41. Read More