Comparison Between Mintzberg's Modern Views and Fayol's Work - Essay Example

The Analysis of Fayols Work and Critical Comparison Between Mintzberg’s Modern Views and Fayols Work The arguments of Mintzberg that Fayol based his theories on legends not on facts is that because the latter based his theories on only one person’s experiences and, to add to that the fact that the approach was not scientific enough considering the author’s basis was his own experience. Being subjective was not far from Fayol in making the fourteen principles that made him to be the ‘Father of Modern Operational-Management Theory’ (Koontz & Weirich 1988, p. 30-33) could be the first and foremost basis his critique has founded his arguments upon. Scientifically speaking, when it comes to research and theories, Fayol did not establish his speculations on strong grounds therefore this alone makes his work far from subjective. It could be true that Fayol himself was an experienced manager aside from being an engineer however, he did not go to the extent of verifying his experiences in comparison or in contrast to other managers’ experiences. On the other hand, Mintzberg approached his study in a more scientific and acceptable fashion, observing and surveying a number of reputable managers around the world, making his theories more universal, going beyond race and training, and concentrating more on the similarities of the managers (Daft 2005, p. 17). Dissecting more on the principles of management set by Fayol, it is undeniable that there are also other theorists in the area of management who have somehow similar opinions as that of Fayol. For instance, contributors to the scientific management theory like Frederick Taylor, H. L. Gant, Harrington Emerson and Frank and Lillian Gilbreth believe in the so called ‘best method’ (Stallard & Terry 1984, p.5) developed through sifting all the means of management, which when evaluated side by side with Fayol’s fourteen principles (Koontz & Weirich 1998, p. 31-32), would show similarities in the ideas discussed. Similarly, selection and empowerment of workers reflects in part ideas shared in the idea of remuneration and scalar chain in Fayols’s principles. In addition, the close cooperation of managers and workers discussed by scientific management theorists mirror Fayol’s principles such as ‘division of work’, ‘authority and responsibility’, ‘discipline’, ‘unity of command’, ‘unity of direction’ and ‘Esprit de corps’ (Koontz & Weirich 1998, p. 31-32). Moreover, bureaucratic theorist Max Weber have some striking similarities with that of Fayol’s when he mentioned about a ‘continuous organization of officials’ and being ‘bound by rules’ in comparison to the French theorist’s division of work, authority and responsibility and discipline. Such scientific and bureaucratic theorists not only confirm Fayol’’s theories but also in some way, strengthened the fourteen principles of management set by the ‘Father of Modern Management’. The first ever established set of principles in the field of management though, despite these comparisons we have seen, still get criticisms these days especially by the modern management theorist, Henry Mintzberg. Mintzberg prides himself of a more scientific approach in setting his principles in management. He claims activities that are hard to argue about when it comes to his ideas since these are founded on real experiences not of himself, but of successful managers from five different countries (Daft 2005. P. 17). He also debates that the wide array where he picked the respondents in his research represents not only one race but almost the whole of the world. In Minztberg’s study, activities of the different managers somehow showed particular similarities in which he based his arguments from. With his first argument that the manager is not reflective and a systematic planner as Fayol claimed him to be, the former based his disagreement from the fact that his respondents to his study showed various activities in a day (Mintzberg p. 225), which puts the earlier established idea to question. If the managers who responded to the research averaged doing 583 different activities in an eight hour shift (Mintzberg, p. 225), what time would there be that is left for them to reflect on anything else? Daft in his book Management describes a manager’s activities exemplifying Google project manager Minnie Ingersoll who averages to four meetings and a conference call before having a quick lunch, describes managerial activities to be characterized by variety, fragmentation and brevity (2005, p. 18). Another point of view that Mintzberg questioned is about managers having no regular duties to perform (Mintzberg, p. 226), that this is not basically true because managers are the busiest among all workers in a company, attending to various tasks. Managers work on a fast paced momentum to cope with the demands of the job where there is not just one thing to concentrate on rather, various and numerous activities wait each day. Thus, managers can not be pictured to be just sitting around, planning and reflecting on the day’s tasks, watching people do their jobs but have to move fast to be able to finish all his responsibilities set for the day. Darell Rigby discusses collaborative innovation among corporations to come up with high quality products which can elevate a company’s success (2009). Information, he says, does not only come from insiders of the corporation but outsiders as well like the customers. This argument is logically acceptable since services are made for customers and it is the customers who make the company successful. Thus, in addition to the second argument, the need for communicating not only with employees and co-managers but also with other people who could provide seemingly impertinent information for the common person but not for the manager, shows yet another task for the manager. The manager does not limit himself to the four corners of his office, contemplating on what to do next but moves a lot. The motion includes meeting with different people who have different ideas where the manager builds his strategies in his management as he receives different information. Thirdly, Mintzberg argues that managers need information from anyone and everyone and not just from a formal management information system as claimed by Fayol (Mintzberg, p. 227). The former persuades that managers need a variety of information sources and does not limit these sources to paper works but also people from all walks of life as well as the television, radio and other kinds of communication. The most handy way of getting information managers rely on are through word of mouth because as discussed earlier, managers do not have much time in a day’s work with more than half a thousand activities. Moreover, we have already mentioned communicating or getting ides from customers as well. Probably the best source of information would be from customers because they give suggestions on innovations as they tell what they want to have, giving important suggestions which also saves money for the company because these information are cheap and could even be free. Lastly, Mintzberg provided evidence that Fayol’s idea of managers being scientific and the managerial position becoming a profession as folklore stating that management respondents have shown that they are not at all methodical in their management but have no system of work (Mintzberg, p. 229-230). In fact, successful managers do not stick to one strategy that has been successful in the longest period of time there is. Successful companies applied reviewing and redesigning their organizational structures (Mind Tools, n.d.) believing that what has been effective yesterday may not be effective today. There are changes in almost everything and management is not exempted from these changes, thus, managers have to innovate in their managerial practices to meet demands of modern customers. As Mintzberg said of his employer, it has given him opportunities and flexibility, he requires this of managers as these are basically needed in today’s businesses. References Daft, Richard L. 2005. Management (7th Edition). United States: South Western Thomson Learning. Koontz, Harold and Heinz Weirich. 1988. Management (9th Edition). United States: Mc Graw Hill Book Company. Mind Tools. n.d. Mintzbergs Organizational Configurations: Understanding the Structure of Your Organization. Retrieved from: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newSTR_54.htm MIT Sloan. 2008. Profile: Henry Mintzberg, PhD. ’68. Retrieved from: http://mitsloan.mit.edu/alumni/pdf/Winter08-Mintzberg.pdf Rigby, Darell. 2009. collaborative Innovation. Management Tools. Retrieved from: http://www.bain.com/management_tools/tools_collaborative.asp?groupCode=2 Stallard, John J. and George R. Terry. 1984. Office System Management (9th Edition). Illinois, United States: Richard D. Irwin. Read More