Fayol vs Mintzberg Essays

Fayol vs Mintzberg Essays Fayol vs Mintzberg Essay Fayol vs Mintzberg Essay Management is the art of organising and allocating various tasks and resources in order for a business to achieve its objectives. These objectives usually have to be completed within a specific time frame, therefore, in order for a business to successfully complete these objectives it must retain managers who possess vast amounts of skills, experience and confidence. Managers that primarily focus on quality are usually hired by businesses that thrive. This essay will discuss both Fayol and Mintzberg’s theories and how they were imposed on businesses. Furthermore, it will discuss whether their principles and ideologies are still relevant in this day and age. Henri Fayol (1841-1925) was a French mining engineer born in Istanbul, who believed that management education was vital in order for firms to reach their full potential. He promoted his theories regarding management and administration after reaching fame through his critically acclaimed and widely published book titled ‘Administration Industrielle et Generale’ (1916). The book, however, was published after many years of his own personal experiences within the mining industry. He believed in 14 principles of management. These principles are believed to be the guidelines for managers in helping their firms reach optimum efficiency. Furthermore, he outlined five main components of the â€Å"management process† (Dessler, 1985, p. 4). These constitute of organising, planning, controlling, commanding and co-ordinating. According to Fayol (1949), the 14 principles should ‘guide the execution of these management processes’. : Ultimately, his thesis has been greatly influential over the years to managers, as well as affecting how management has been practiced on a global scale. Henry Mintzberg (1939-present) is a Canadian professor at McGill University in Montreal. His theories regarding managerial skills are, if anything, confrontational and basic. He believes that managers should not concern themselves with solitary work, rather their job is simply responding to the pressures of his or her job (Mintzberg, 1975, p. 225). Fundamentally, Mintzberg criticises the authorative, strategic planning that large corporations tend to apply in their workforce; stating that planning is ineffective towards an organisations performance. An organization can plan (consider its future) without engaging in planning (formal procedure) even if it produces plans (explicit intentions); alternately, an organization can engage in planning (formalized procedure) yet not plan (consider its future); and planners may do all or some of these things, sometimes none of them, yet, as we shall see in conclusion, still serve the organization. (Mintzberg, H. , The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning: Reconceiving Roles for Planning, Plans, Planners, Simon Schuster, 1993. ) He began observing how several managers operate in various types of corporations and came up with six organisational configurations which are: [1] Simple Structure: A newly found company that is usually autocratic (prone to a single heart attack) [2] Machine Bureaucracy: A corporation with multiple levels of command and a hefty amount of formal procedures. 3] Professional Organisation: It is usually set up as a partnership. However, these organisations solely target in enhancing their performance and disregard both their internal and external corporal issues. [4] Division Organisation: It is where there is little central authority, found mostly in multinational corporations. Furthermore, it coordinates between the conducting crux and strategic zenith. [5] Ad-hocracy: Also known as the innovative organisation. It is the structure of the future according to Mintzberg (1974). [6] Idealistic (Missionary) Organisation: This type of organisation is simply and primarily based on managers having the same ideals, in order for a company to innovate,thrive and succeed. Both theorists had similar yet different perceptions on how managers are supposed to serve in an enterprise. Fayols classical theories defined management in a broader scale a nd how management should be portrayed. Gathering information from his own personal experiences, being in a french mining company for thirty years, he claimed that planning and organising were crucial in allowing him to be a successful manager. These were of the two specified principles of management which I frequently had to apply (Fayol,1948, p. 19). Fayol had inspired many modern day management sages such as Mintzberg, who built up on his doctorines and stated that lucrative organisations (The Economist Newspaper Limited. (2009). Henry Mintzberg. Available: economist. com/node/12918770. Last accessed 17/11/2012. )