Comparing Mintzberg and Fayol Essays

Comparing Mintzberg and Fayol Essays Comparing Mintzberg and Fayol Essay Comparing Mintzberg and Fayol Essay Management is a vital component to be recognized in every organization. Without an effective  and  an efficient management, an organization will not run successfully. Throughout the years development of management theories have been characterized by different beliefs from various people about what  and  how managers need to fulfil their specific tasks in their own dynamic business environment. These management theories have been applied on humans daily activities and  decision making. Two of the most prominent theorists who have attempted to define management are Henri Fayol and Henry Mintzberg, both of which have similar and contrasting views of management. When discussing these two theories, one of the most commonly asked questions is: â€Å"Is the work of managers’ best described by the objectives of management or the roles one undertakes as a manager? This is a question posed since 1971, when Henry Mintzberg established his contemporary theory on Management roles, which evidently differed to Henri Fayol’s 1949 classical theory on Management Functions. Henri Fayol is the  founding father of the administration school, and  first to describe management as a top-down process based on planning and the organization of people while Henry Mintzberg articulated  his  fundamental belief that management is about applying human skills to systems, not apply ing systems to people. Fayol theory about management and administration was built on personal observation and experience of what worked well in terms of organization. His aspiration for an administrative science sought a consistent set of principles that all organizations must apply in order to run properly. Fayol argued that principles existed which all organizations must follow in order to operate and be administered efficiently. This type of assertion typifies a one best way approach to management thinking. Fayol identifies five functions of management all of which he believed were necessary to facilitate the management process; they are planning, organising, co-ordinating, commanding and controlling Mintzberg on the other hand considers management activities as roles and classify them within three broad groups, they are:-interpersonal, informational and decisional which encompass his ten management roles of figurehead, leader, liaison, spokesperson, disseminator, monitor, resource allocator, entrepreneur, disturbance handler and negotiator. Although due to their differences, these theories can be treated as competing views, both can also be perceived as reinforcing the other as many parallels and similarities intrinsically exist. Consequentially the term ‘managerial style’ combines the two theories. Mintzberg obtained his theory as a result of research based on observation of actual managers operation instead of the organization. Hence, his roles directly depict what managers do. He argues that Fayol’s functions ‘do not describe the actual work of managers at all; they describe certain vague objectives of managerial work’ (Mintzberg 1971). As he observed the managers in his research, he found that all activities captured at lease one of his ten roles in practice whereas they could not be simplified to be known singularly as one of Fayol’s functions. For example, a manager sending a memo out to subordinates informing them of the outcome of the mornings meeting is directly taking on the informational role of disseminator- providing internal personnel with information obtained either external or internal of the organisation. Expanding on Fayol’s five functions which describe management as firstly to forecast and plan: This includes a plan of action the result envisaged, the line of action to be followed, the stages to go through, and the methods to use is at once the chief manifestation and most effective tool of planning (Fayol 1949:43). It is in taking the initiative for the plan of action that managers carry out the managerial function. He also sees planning as a process requiring important personal and interpersonal competencies, including those related to managing the organizations internal stakeholders The second function is to organize: Fayol describes organizing as to provide the undertaking with everything useful to its functioning: raw materials, tools, capital, personnel (Fayol 1949:53). Fayol (1949:53-54) divides organization into material and human organization and focuses on the latter. He then lists the managerial duties associated with organizing as ensuring the plan is judiciously prepared and strictly carried out; matching the resources to the plan; leadership (a single, competent energetic guiding authority, unity of command, control, supervision); harmonising and coordinating activities; decision making; job analysis and design; staffing selection; empowerment (encouraging a liking for initiative and responsibility); performance management fair and appropriate remuneration; maintenance of discipline and sanctions against faults and errors; subordination of ndividual interests to the general interest; and fighting against excess regulations, red tape and paper control. To command refers to setting the organization going (Fayol 1949:97). The object of command is to get the optimum return from all employees, while the art of command rests on certain personal qualities and knowledge of general principles of management (Fayol 1949:97). To the extent that managers aim at making unity, energy, initiative and loyalty prevail among the personnel (Fayol 1949:98) modem writers would more properly describe this managerial function as concerned with motivation, leadership and empowerment. In co-ordination, it is found that Fayol is committed to the principles of balance and contingent action. For Fayol , to co-ordinate is to harmonize all the activities of a concern so as to facilitate its working and its success; to accord things and actions their rightful proportions, and to adapt means to ends. Coordination is achieved, inter alia, by the precious instrument of team meetings (weekly conferences of departmental heads). It is effected generally by combined action on the part of general management which supervises the whole, plus local managements whose efforts are directed towards the successful working of each particular part To control means seeing that everything occurs in conformity with established rule and expressed command. Fayol’s theory of the functions of management also includes a synthesis of 14 principles for organizational design and effective administration, they are, Specialization/division of labour, Authority with corresponding responsibility,  discipline,  unity of command,  unity of direction,  subordination of individual interest to the general interest,  remuneration of staff,  centralization,  scalar chain/line of authority,  order,  equity, stability of tenure,  initiative and esprit de corps. The principle of work allocation and specialization is in order to concentrate activities to enable specialization of skills and understandings, more work focus and efficiency. If responsibilities are allocated then the post holder needs the requisite authority to carry these out including the right to require others in the area of responsibility to undertake duties. Authority stems from that ascribed from the delegation process; the job holder is assigned and given authority to act as necessary to carry out the task delegated. The job holder is authorized to use the necessary resources needed, such as budgets, assets and staff members to carry out the responsibilities. The person should have the requisite expertise to carry out the responsibilities and the personal qualities to win the support and confidence of others. A manager should never be given authority without responsibility and also should never be given responsibility without the associated authority to get the work done. It is viewed by Fayol that discipline is essential for the smooth running of a business and without it the standards, consistency of actions and adherence to rules and values would be absent and such the organization could not prosper. It is said â€Å"in an essence obedience, application, energy, behaviour and outward marks of respect observed in accordance with standing agreements between firms and its employees 1916, is necessary for good results in the firm. Unity of command is based on the idea that an employee should receive instructions from one superior only. This generalisation still holds even where we are involved with team and matrix structures which involve reporting to more than one boss or being accountable to several clients. The basic concern is that tensions and dilemmas arise where we report to two or more bosses. One boss may want X, the other Y and the subordinate is caught between a rock and a hard place. The unity of command idea of having one head (chief executive, cabinet consensus) with agreed purposes and objectives and one plan for a group of activities is clear. Fayols beleif was that one employees or one group’s interests should not prevail over the organisation as a whole. There should be clear outlined directives as to the mission, goals and guidelins of the organization and all employees must be guided by that. Ethical dilemmas and matters of corporate risk and the behaviour of individual chancers would be mitigated by this. Fayols work assumes a shared set of values by people in the organization, a unitarism where the reasons for organisational activities and decisions are in some way neutral and reasonable. The general principle is that levels of compensation should be fair and as far as possible afford satisfaction both to the staff and the firm (in terms of its cost structures and desire for profitability/surplus). Centralisation is essential to the organisation and a natural result of organising. It is important that information and resources are centralized and are easily accessed by all levels of employees. The modes of control over the actions and results of devolved organisations are still matters requiring considerable attention. The scalar chain of command of reporting relationships from top executive to the ordinary shop operative or driver needs to be sensible, clear and understood. There should be equal amount of respect regardless of the level of command. Orderliness implies steady evolutionary movement rather than wild, anxiety provoking, unpredictable movement. Essentially an organisation should provide an orderly place for each employee along with their assigned activity. The ultimate product of the organization should be as a result of coordinated activities involving orderly steps from one employee to the other, with each contribution critical to the next. Employees should see how their roles fit into the organisation and be confident and able to predict the organisations behaviour towards them. Thus policies, rules, instructions and actions should be clear and understood. Equity, fairness and a sense of justice shouldpervade the organisation in principle and practice. Time is needed for the employee to adapt to his/her work and perform it effectively. It is important that the employee feels some form of security in their current position in the organization, which is usually achieved through permanent appointment to the organization. Stability of tenure will motivate employee and can result in loyalty to the organisation, its purposes and values. Here Fayol emphasises the need for building and maintaining of harmony among the work force, team work and sound interpersonal relationships at all levels of the organisational structure, zeal, enthusiasm and energy are enabled by people having the scope for personal initiative. Henry Mintzberg is an internationally renowned academic and author on business and management with over 140 articles and thirteen books written. He came up with the roles of management, which he believes cover most of the hings a manager will encounter in their job. These roles are split into 3 interpersonal roles, 3 informational roles and 4 decision making roles. Mintzbergs (1973) key contribution to notions of management is given in The Nature of Managerial Work, where he poses the question What do managers do? and then answers the question in terms of what he describes as the ten working rol es of managers. As he does so, he quotes approvingly from Barnard (1938/1968) that Executive work is not that of the organisation, but the specialised work of maintaining the organization in operation. Mintzberg (1973) defines managers as those persons formally in charge of organizations or their subunits. This excludes many of those in middle management'. He identifies the following basic reasons why organizations need managers, they are to: * ensure the organization serves its purpose the efficient production of goods/services. * design and maintain the stability of the organizations operations * take charge of the organizations strategy-making system, and therein adapt the organization in a controlled way to its changing environment. ensure the organization serves the ends of those persons who control it * serve as the key informational link between the organization and its environment. * operate the organizations status system. Mintzberg three groups of managerial activities as previously mentioned are concerned primarily with interpersonal relationships (interpersonal roles), the transfer of information (informational roles), and decision-making (decisional roles). The 3 interpersonal roles are; the figurehead which helps reinforce what the company stands for and reinforces the organisational culture, the leader who provide their employees with a sense of mission and the liaison who mixes with others outside the business to represent the needs of their group. The 3 informational roles are; the monitor who collects information form within the group and finds out what is going on in the business, the disseminator who shares the information with others who would not find out the information and the spokesperson who represents the views of the group in the wider environment. The 4 decision making roles are; the entrepreneur who make decisions to improve the contribution of their subordinates to the performance of the business, the disturbance handler who deals with any problems that might occur within the group, the resource allocator    who allocates resources throughout their subordinates and the negotiator who negotiates to secure contracts, budgets etc. These activities are derived from the formal authority of the manager office. From formal authority, and the attendant status in the organisation, comes the interpersonal roles, which place the manager in a unique position to get information. This access to information, combined with the authority and status, place managers at the centre of organisational decision- making. Mintzberg states that each role is observable such that, one can witness a manager handling a disturbance or acting as a figurehead. At the same time, although the roles are described individually, they cannot be isolated. Rather, Mintzberg argues, they form a gestalt, where the manager is an input (information) output (information and decisions) system. Given Mintzbergs contention that the basic content of all managers work can be described in terms of these ten roles, it is necessary then to account for the differences as well as the similarities in managers work. Mintzberg states that the size of the industry or sector within which the organization operates; the managers level in the organization; the units function (production, marketing, etc); the managers personality and style; and changes in the job over time all contribute to differences in the managers work. It is important to note however, that, in discussing the differences in managers work, Mintzberg is concerned with the emphasis of different roles rather than the differences in operationalizing the behaviours attendant on each role. He goes on to outline eight managerial job types that emphasise different roles, for example, the Team Manager whose key role is Leader versus the Expert Manager whose key roles are Monitor and Spokesman. Mintzberg (1973:10) argues that these categories are not useful because they cannot be linked to specific activities: Which of these activities may be called planning, and which may be called organizing, coordinating or controlling? Indeed, what relationship exists between these four words and managers activities? These four words do not, in fact, describe the actual work of managers at all. They describe certain vague objectives of managerial work.