Fayol vs. Mintzberg

2302 Words10 Pages
Critically discuss the extent to which Fayol’s classic analysis of the management function has largely been made redundant by the more recent empirical studies of what managers actually do, such as that favoured by Mintzberg Henri Fayol’s classical analysis of management has been thought to have been largely disregarded by more recent empirical views such as that of Henry Mintzberg’s. Although many would agree with this statement, unavoidable evidence shows the opposite. It is undoubtable that Fayol and Mintzberg developed different approaches to management however, this does not imply that Fayol’s views are unsuitable for today’s management practices. Fayol’s and Mintzberg’s description of managers is the one that contrasts the most in terms of behavior however, when it comes to management functions and the roles that managers must perform, their core ideas are very much alike. Mintzberg adds more detail and reality to Fayol’s more abstract and idealistic perspectives on management and therefore expands on Fayol’s ideas, rather than making them irrelevant. Henri Fayol was the first person to start building the foundations of modern management theory when he published his book Administration Industrielle et Générale in 1916 in French followed by the English translation General and Industrial Management in 1949 (Pugh and Hickson, 2003, p. 140). Fayol argued that in every organization there are six industrial activities: technical, commercial, financial, security, accounting and managerial. It was the latter, managerial activity that he focused on, establishing five main management functions. Forecast and plan, organize, command, co-ordinate and control were the basic building blocks of management in Fayol’s theory (Pugh and Hickson, 2003, p. 140). In more detail these functions mean assessing the future and evaluating what actions must be
Open Document