|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Subject
Examine critically both Fayol’s (1916) and Mintzberg’s (1973) models of managerial behaviour. ... Critical examination of both Fayol’s and Mintzberg’s models may identify any relevance to modern management thinking, and subsequent relationship with academic teachings. ...
Models of Management
Fayol’s position in the history of management science was established with the publication of his Administration Industrielle et Générale (Fayol 1916). Brodie takes the view that “Fayol was perhaps the first to note the need for management education” (Fells 2000, p345). Fayol had been a career mining engineer (Kennedy 1991) before his appointment into management as director of the Commentry mine in 1866. ... Fayol attributed the success at Comambault singularly to the changes made in administration, “The application of the method of Positive Administration is, in my opinion, the sole reason for the change in fortunes of Comambault after 1888” (Fayol 1918, p74), although Wren offers a different view of the reasons for the success (Wren 2001).
As with Fayol, Mintzberg qualified as an engineer but then became an academic for most of his working life (Manyworlds 2003). ... Whereas Fayol’s model is one of functions, Mintzberg’s model is one of roles and these are concerned with “…what managers really do” (Mintzberg 1993, p6). Mintzberg also refers to the roles as an “…arbitrary division of the managers activities” (Mintzberg 1973).
Taking into account that Fayol’s work on administration was first published in France during the First World War the view could be taken that his ideas and thinking were affected by the political and military situation that prevailed. Reference has been made to the militaristic nature of Fayol’s elements of management (Talbot 2003), and to the military models of management of the time (Buchanan & Huczynski 1997). A number of links with the military throughout Fayol’s life have been identified (Talbot 2003; Sheldrake 1996; Wren 2001). Indeed, the nomenclature of some of Fayol’s elements appear militaristic in nature; command, control, co-ordinate. Reid (1995) comments that Fayol attributed the industrial and military superiority of Germany during the (First World) war to the strength of its state administration (in comparison to France). In spite of this evidence a number of writers have documented that Fayol based his model on his experiences within the mining industry (Fells 2000; Reid 1995; Wren et al 2002).
Both Fayol’s and Mintzberg’s works were based on observation (Brodie 1967; Stewart 1997; Buchanan & Huczyinski 1997) and workplace experiences. Fayol’s principles of management “…were derived from flesh-and-blood conflicts within the managerial hierarchy” (Reid 1995 p32). But unlike Fayol’s model, which is considered by some to be simplistic in its viewpoint (Sheldrake 1996), or “…out-of-date…”(Mullins 2002 p54), Mintzberg ‘s model is “…generally accepted today” (Fells 2000 p348). But writers allude to Mintzberg’s model being a different perspective of the same thing (Fells 2000, p348), or “the former (Mintzberg) …complementing rather than supplanting the latter (Fayol)” (Buchanan & Huczyinski 1997, p411).
Carroll and Gillen (1987) note that management text seldom include the criticisms of Mintzberg’s study, and where analysis takes place it generally results in support of Mintzberg’s model (Wolf 1981; Shortt 1989).
Approximate Word count = 2551
Approximate Pages = 10.2
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|