As the pioneer of the management theory, Henri Fayol presented his analysis of management function in 1916 (Fayol, 1949) and has leaded a significant impact on management profession around the world (Lamond, 2004). As Carroll and Gillen (1987) argued that Fayol’s functions stated distinctly about what managers’ need to do in their job. However, with the development of modern management theory, Mintzberg (1975) came out different ideas and declared that Fayol’s theory was not appropriate for modern organizations. This essay will look at advantages and disadvantages of their theories, critically analysis both theories and state the similarities and difference of them, finally, state the reason why they both have their own advantages and disadvantages.Fayol’s theory Fayol as the manager of an organization, he suggested that managers aim at “making unity, energy, initiative and loyalty prevail among the personnel” (Fayol, 1949) which modern manager would regard them as concerned with motivation, leadership and empowerment (Lamond, 2004).
Firstly, he divided the activities of industrial undertaking into six groups: technical, commercial, financial, security, accounting and managerial (Mullin, 2010). Further, he separated managerial activity into five elements: planning, organizing, command, controlling and coordinating, which refers to, setting a goal and achieve it, providing resources and carry out the activities of the organization, giving direction to employees, ensuring that activities according with the plan, ensuring all the resources are used to achieve the goals in coordination respectively (Brooks, 2010).Moreover, Fayol also established 14 principles of management as follows: division of work, authority and responsibility, unity of command, unity of direction, centralization, scalar chain, order, discipline, subordination of individual interest to general interest, remuneration of personnel, equity, stability of tenure of personnel, initiative and esprit de corps (Brooks, 2010). Nevertheless, Fayol (1949) stressed that the actual number of principles was arbitrary and the list non-exhausted. He also suggested that the operation of managerial activity should be leaded by principles (Fayol, 1949).Fayol’s work influenced the world dramatically and promotes the progress of human civilization.
Although he did not invent the concept of management, he was the first person that distinguished it from other organizational activity and outlined (Brooks, 2009). As Wren (1994, p. 193) said Fayol’s principles were lighthouse to managerial actions. Easy to understand is the advantage of his theory and the further research which relevant the managerial activities are based on these perspectives.
However, every coin has two sides, Fayol’s work is lack of clearness and systematicness. Maybe this is due to the theory was concluded by his observation and experience (Fells, 2000).Mintzberg’s theory Mintzberg (1975) believed that what modern managers do was irrelevant with classical theory. For example, typical modern managers’ day is composed by various interruptions like phone, meeting and E-mail and they may just have a little time in isolation on solitary tasks (Mintzberg, 1973 and Kotter, 1982).
Furthermore, his work had been written without preconception of manager’s job and he said “If a manager engages in an activity, we must begin with assumption that this is a part of his job and seek to understand why he does it in the broadest sense of his responsibility” (Mintzberg, 1973).Therefore, according to his theory, managers’ job not are planning, organizing, command, controlling and coordinating, they need to play different role in the different situation (Mintzberg, 1975). In his theory, managerial activities can be seen as a set of ten managerial roles which may be divided into three groups: interpersonal roles, establishing relationship between different apartment and company, which include: figurehead, leader and liaison; informational roles, collecting and spreading information, which include: monitor, disseminator and spokesperson; decisional roles, carry out and supervise the progress of goals, which include: entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator and negotiator (Mintzberg, 1973). These ten roles remain in separable, they form a gestalt, an integrated whole (Mintzberg, 1975).Mintzberg is the representative of the field of modern management, he defined management as what managers do and then defined mangers in turn (Lamond, 2004). In addition, he detailed differentiation of the functions of managers and pointed out the essence of management.
Nevertheless, according to his role-playing theory (Mintzberg, 1973), he laid out the different roles, while ignored the situation of when to present these roles and how to present them.Compare and Contrast Fayol’s classic theory differs to Mintzberg’s in terms of the date and situation that their theories presented. However, they also have some similarities due to Mintzberg’s theory is based on Fayol’s. Fayol was a manager of mining company hundred years ago, his theory based on his own experience and observation without research.
In contrast, Mintzberg is a theorist, his theory came from a number of research (Mintzberg, 1975). At the same time, with the development of whole world, the modification of organization structure and the appearance of multinational organization, it seems like Mintzberg’s modern theory is more reliable than Fayol’s in modern society. However, the fact is not the case, they have their own advantages in different situations.In fact, Mintzberg’s role-playing theory is similar to Fayol’s 5 function of management in some ways. For example, planning is similar to figurehead, leader, liaison, monitor, entrepreneur and resource allocator; organizing refer to leader, liaison, monitor, resource allocator, disseminator and negotiator; command can be regarded as figurehead, monitor, leader, disseminator and negotiator; coordinating can be viewed as leader, disseminator, disturbance handler and spokesman; controlling is similar to leader, liaison, monitor, disseminator, disturbance handler and negotiator (Lamond, 2004).
Therefore, Fayol’s work can be regarded as the foundation work for all managerial theorists to get their ideals and expand on it. Another evidence to prove this point is that organizing is very important in an organization (Fayol, 1949). Mintzberg (1973) also believed that an organization without organizing would not be existed for a long time. Nevertheless, Mintzberg’s theory is more close to human relations and Fayol just treat employees as the machine without emotion.Fayol (1949) stressed that the education of management is the most important part in the future management and the management ability can be award trough teaching method.
At the same time, he also considered that management education needs the concern of whole society and regard management education as a part of organization activity. Young managers could acquire experience from other managers to improve their abilities and qualities on management. Personnel training are very helpful for the organization to award talented managers in a short-term. Moreover, according to Fayol’s (1949) 14 principles and his analysis of abilities of managers, he realized that the requirement of management abilities depend on the level of job.
In other words, the higher level of managers is, the more importance of his management abilities required. Compared with Mintzberg’s (1975) theory, he also believed that education is very important.In his word “ management schools will begin the serious training of managers when skill training takes a serious place next to cognitive learning. Cognitive learning is detached and informational, like reading a book or listening to a lecture. No doubt much more important cognitive material must be assimilated by the manager-to-be.
But cognitive learning no more makes a manager than it does a swimmer. The latter will drown the first time he jumps into the water if his coach never takes him out of the lecture hall, get him wet, and gives him feedback on his performance”(Mintzberg, 1975). However, Fayol’s theory is more concentrate on the experience teaching method, while Mintzberg believed that practice is the most important part.Effective management could be concluded from Fayol’s theory (Fayol, 1949).
Firstly, the organization should set up a scalar chain that high level managers has more power than low level managers and they also have responsibilities for them. Then, managers need regular training in some extent. At the same time, implementing the theory into organization activities to help business running effectively. This is also the foundation of organization development. Finally, manager should organize and allocate resources effectively to achieve the goal of company. By contrast, Mintzberg stated the similar theory in 1975.
He argued that the manager’s effectiveness is significantly influenced by his insight into his own work (Mintzberg, 1975). In Mintzberg’s mind, there are 3 challenges for them to improve the effectiveness (Mintzberg, 1975). First, the manager is challenged to find systematic ways to share his privileged information (Mintzberg, 1975).The solution of this challenged might be more communication with employees.
Second, the manager is challenged to deal consciously with the pressures of superficiality by giving serious attention to the issues that require it, by stepping back from his tangible bits of information in order to see a broad picture, and by making use of analytical inputs (Mintzberg, 1975). Therefore, managers need to know how to put massive information into a comprehensive picture. Third, the manager is challenged to gain control of his own time by turning obligations to his advantages and by turning those things he wishes to do into obligations (Mintzberg, 1975). As Mintzberg (1975) said free time is made, not found. In conclude, Fayol’s effectiveness management theory based on what managers should do and how to do them.
By contrast, Mintzberg laid out the challenge that manager may faced and give out the solution of them. Mintzberg’s theory is more clearly for managers to learn, even both of them had made the similar points on effectiveness.
