Critically discuss the extent to which Fayolsi 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 ii.

How Valuable was Henri Fayols contribution to Management Theory and does
Henri Mintzberg Views Justify the importance of Fayol

This assignment will focus on the contribution Henri Fayol made to the
development of management theory and evaluate the validity and criticism of
the empiricists view by Henri Mintzberg
Prior to the 20th century, the concept of management was a vague term which
originated from the term menager in French or maneggiare in Italian (Grey
2005: 53). The 1870s saw the acceleration of industrial growth on a grand scale,
which gave rise to the need of a more professional manager (Wilson and
Thompson, 2006: 8) requiring a more in depth understanding of management as
a process. Author of Administration Industrielle et Generalle in 1916, Henri Fayol
a French mining engineer was widely an unknown figure until his book was
translated into English in 1949 and renamed General and Industrial
Management. Fayol was recognized as a major authority on management and
even described as the most distinguished figure that Europe contributed to
management science in the 1st half of the 20th Century (Urwick, 1950, p21).

The 1st attempt to define management came from Henri Fayol who defined
management as a set of functions as To forecast and plan, organise and
command, as well as coordinate and control. This description was widely
accepted for many years and was popular as it illustrates the process of
management as a rational sequence of logical steps. Due to this Fayol was
highly acclaimed and is regarded as the Father of Management who provided a
framework for further study and development into Management as a discipline
whose functions and principles are still in use today.

The classic school of management has been challenged by various academics

who criticise their writings for being vague, unsophisticated and biased from a
managerial perspective based on views acquired from experience as opposed to
study and observation Thomas, A (2003)
There are 2 perspectives which challenge the traditional view of management.
The theoretical view challenges the classical view based upon the views of
management from other schools of theory who regard their view of management
as superior and the empirical view whereby researchers conduct studies
observing managers whilst at work and using their findings to support their
claims.

Among such critics to challenge the views of Fayol was Henri Mintzberg, an
academic who challenged the concept of the rational manager Rees and Porter
(2001). Mintzberg felt that classical writing was vague and did not reflect the
reality of what managers actually do. Being highly critical of this Mintzberg
contested Fayols five functions arguing that if you ask a manager what he does,
he will answer to forecast, plan, organize command and control but if you
watched what the manager does it would come as no surprise if you couldnt
relate what you saw to those 4 terms.
Using the evidence gathered from his studies, Mintzberg found that managers
are faced with a lot of work doing various activities which are often short lived,
they favoured current issues that are specific despised routine. He also noted
that managers preferred verbal over written communication, and have many
constraints but retain a degree of control over their work. Mintzberg (1973).

Mintzberg 10 Roles
Rather than functions Mintzberg proposed there were 10 roles which could be
placed into 3 categories that managers undertake to a degree but is dependent
upon the nature of their work, that of Interpersonal Roles, comprise of a
figurehead, leader and liasier. Informational Roles, as a monitor, disseminator
and spokesman and decisional Roles being an entrepreneur, disturbance handler,
negotiator and resource allocator.
According to Fayol a manager function was to plan and organize however
Mintzberg found this view did not correlate in accordance with reality in addition
to the fact that what managers did not actually do what they say they do.
Many studies into managerial work draw conclude that the reality of
management differs vastly from the image proposed by classical theorists. This
has led to classic writings being portrayed as folklore by Mintzberg who
describes them as a reflection which served to label our areas of ignorance and
therefore found his own work to be more superior as it was based upon

Although it is fair to assume that the findings of empirical studies provide better
conclusions than those of Fayol and Taylor, their conclusions themselves can also
be questioned and critiqued.
Empiricists, portray a view that the concept of management can be determined
by carrying out observations of those who use the title of manager. They dont
however specify or interpret management functions of their own which would
require a theoretical framework of their own. Nor do they offer any remedies to
the correct way of management.
Timeline
It may be a common perception by those opposing the classical school that their
views are archaic, but in reality they are still in use today. It was the basis for
further study to be developed whether it be contested or agreed it paved the
way for future

Fayol claimed his five functions were applicable to all managers at every level
but were required interpretation and application dependent upon the individual
situation Pettinger (2002)

Management has evolved in modern times and Fayol has been stereotyped for
being too universal in his theories whereby his principles would work in all
organisations and all situations at all times however Fayol recognized the
significance of contingency should bad decisions be made and argued that
principles must be flexible and adaptable to every need (Fayol, 1949, p.19)

Due to Human Relations theory, managers are not so authoritarian in todays

society as workers are now encouraged to participate in the decision making
process, power is delegated to subordinates and employees now have greater
freedom however in Fayols time it was quite common for managers to be
authoritarian.
Fayol firmly believed in hierarchy and authority through unity of command
believing and that delegation would be counterproductive causing chaos which
could be harmful to an organistationa agenda (Reid, D 1995 p23) Of the 14
principles, authority, centralization and unity of command would reiterate that
Fayol was authoritarian.
Human relations theorists would criticize Fayols view of employees as production
units and reject his understanding of motivating employees simply through cash
incentives disregarding other factors and methods. However Fayol expressed
that a manager should have regard for the health, strength education, morale
and stability of his personel) (Fayol 1949 p.32)

Mintzberg regarded management as not about functions which he described as

folklore but what managers actually do (Wilson and Thompson, 2006: 8) And so
his work was to challenge the rational manager concept by conducting empirical
studies observing managers ranging from presidents of companies, CEOs,
factory supervisors as well as street gangs whereby the managers kept very
detailed diaries which were later examined. (Skills of Management 5 th Edition W.
David Rees and Christine Porter 2001, London: Thompson)
One of Fayols functions was planning. In order to contest this Mintzberg used his
findings of a study conducted on 160 British Managers which found that a
managers activities are short, incoherent, subject to frequent interruptions.
Mintzberg used this a basis to rejecting the notion that the manager was a
reflective systematic planner arguing that one does not simply plan orchestrate
and then execute. He also found that a manager had a high orientation towards
using action and disliked his work.
It is easy to dismiss Fayols theories when compared to empirical evidence
however Fayol was a practitioner of management his whole life and documented
what worked for him at a time when there were no theories or studies of
management this paved the way for further study. Mintzbergs work was a
snapshot of reality largely due to Mintzberg being an academic and conducting
studies. By the time Mintzberg criticized Fayols theories there were already vast
studies into management and often it is the academics duty to criticize the
validity of existing theories.

Bibliography

Grey, C.

A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Studying
Organizations
Bibliography: Grey, C. (2005). A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably
Cheap Book about Studying Organizations. London: Sage, p.53.
Fayol, H. (1949) General Industrial Managent, Pitman, London

Journal

Smith, I. and Boyns, T.

British management theory and practice: the impact of Fayol
In-text: (Smith and Boyns, 2005)
Bibliography: Smith, I. and Boyns, T. (2005). British management theory and
practice: the impact of Fayol. Management Decision, 43(10), pp.1317-1334.
In-text: (Wilson and Thompson, 2006)
Bibliography: Wilson, J. and Thompson, A. (2006). The Making of Modern
Management. New York: Oxford University Press.

i Fayol H (1949), General and Industrial Management, London, Pitman.

ii

Mintzberg H (1975), The Managers Job: Folklore and Fact. Harvard Business Review, July-August 1975, pp 49-61

Donald Reid, (1995),"Fayol: from experience to theory", Journal of Management History, Vol. 1 Iss 3 pp. 21 36
Pettinger R (2002) Introduction to Management 3rd ed, New York: Palgrave
Thomas, A (2003) Controversies in Management 2nd ed, New York: Routledge#

This assignment will focus on the contribution Henri Fayol made to the development of
management theory and evaluate the validity and criticism of the empiricists view by
Henri Mintzberg
Has the contribution Henri Fayol made to Management Theory been made obsolete by
more contemporary studies?