In 2009. Pg161). These ten activities were categorised

In 1973 Henry Mintzberg
published his influential work on management, following detailed observations
of what managers did on the job, (Brooks, I. 2009. Pg161). Based upon an
observational study of five executives, Mintzberg identified ten activities
managers conducted in their jobs (Brooks, I. 2009. Pg161). These ten activities
were categorised into three sets of roles, which were; interpersonal roles,
informational roles, and decision-making roles (Reference for Business. n, d).
Mintzberg approached his research on management with the idea that management
is the actually activities managers performed at their work. Therefore it can
be said Mintzberg defined the roles of management based on what he had observed
from his selected managers. Kotter (1982), broadly supporting Mintzberg’s
findings, found out that managers do not spend their time by themselves
performing lone tasks (Brooks, I. 2009. Pg161). In contrast to what had
previously been understood, managers were not found to spend most of their time
planning, organising, coordinating, commanding and controlling (Brooks, I.
2009. Pg161).  

Mintzberg
dismissed Fayol’s theory of management and label it as folklore. Mintzberg
labelled Fayol’s concept as folklore because Fayol didn’t conduct empirical
research but instead forged his theory based on his own experience (Mintzberg,
H. 1990). However, Mintzberg empirical study is based on five organisations in
action. This sample size is too small to define what management is because
there are plenty types of different managers in different industries.
Therefore, Mintzberg theory is inapplicable to all types of industries. On the
other hand, there are similarities with both understanding of management. For
instance, according to Mintzberg managers took control by taking the role of
disturbance handlers when responding to pressure and crises when the
organisation faces unexpected disturbances (Brooks, I. 2009. Pg161). Similarly Fayol’s
view, controlling means verifying whether everything works as planned. Lamond
on the other hand believed that Mintzberg’s roles were just expanding on
Fayol’s five functions (Lamond, 2003).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

 

In
1909, Taylor published “The Principles of Scientific Management.” In
this, he proposed that by optimizing and simplifying jobs, productivity would
increase (MindTools. n, d). He started the Scientific Management movement, and
he and his associates were the first people to study the work process
scientifically (MindTools. n, d). His emphasis on rationality led to the
application of scientific principles to work management in order to establish
the most efficient way of working (Brooks, I. 2009). He suggested that: a clear
distinction should be made between planning a job and the roles of different
workers; a scientific selection process should identify the correct person to
perform the task; jobs should be standardised and simplified; tasks should be
broken down into just one set of actions; there was “one best way” of
organising any set of tasks to be performed and it was management
responsibility to conduct exhaustive measurements in order to achieve this desired
state (Brooks, I. 2009). Taylor argued that efficiency, standardisation and
discipline would result from these processes of scientific management (Brooks,
I. 2009). Henri Fayol mainly focused on the administrational parts of
management, whilst Taylor focused on the production side of management.

Taylor’s theory leads to better planning, decision making and
accuracy. With Taylor’s scientific management, work is carried out in a
systematic manner according to pre-determined plans. Furthermore, complete
guidance and instructions are provided to workers in order to carry on with
work as planned in advance (Wisesteps. n. d). Inaccuracy is decreased as the
theory is based on experiment and observation. Compared to Fayol, it can be
said Taylor’s theory describes the specific course of actions managers should
take when faced with productive issue in the business. However
Taylor’s scientific management has limited applications. Taylor’s work is only
applicable to production businesses; whist Fayol’s theories are universal and
applicable to all business. Furthermore, Taylor’s principles are too impersonal
and undermine the importance of the human factor (Accountlearning.com. n, d). Workers
are human being and shouldn’t be treated as machines and materials as this will
not result in a success (Accountlearning.com. n, d). Despite the differences in
both approaches, there are still similarities in both theories. Fayol’s five
functions of management and Taylor’s scientific management looked at the
relationship between managers and employees. Fayol emphasises that division of
work is important because when employees are specialized, output can increase
because they become increasingly skilled and efficient (MindTools. n, d).
Taylor also stated standardisation is necessary in order to achieve efficiency.
Furthermore, both Taylor and Fayol believed remuneration is a key factor in
keeping employees satisfied and motivated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fred Fiedler is mainly known for his contributions to the
contingency theory of leadership, which states there is no one best way as a
leader to manage a business, instead managers must vary their leadership style
depending on the situation of the business (Business.com. 2017), and the
personal characteristic of the individual. Fred Fielder, in the 1960s,
conducted his research on the relationship of a mangers situation with the
effectiveness of their leadership style (Mulder, P. 2013). This
relationship between both then became to be known as the Fiedler contingency
model.

Fielder
can be used to criticise Fayol’s view because Fayol believed that there was
only one way to manager. However, Fiedler believed there wasn’t one single way
to manage but instead it would depend on the situation of the work place and
the characteristics of the manager. As a result this allows businesses to
tailor their management to meet specific organisational needs. Although Fiedler
can also be criticise for various reasons. 
One of the biggest criticism was the lack of flexibility. He didn’t
allow for flexibility in leaders. Fiedler believed leadership style to be fixed
for managers. Therefore Fiedler believed the most effective way to handle ineffective
management is to change the leader (MindTools. n, d). On the other hand,
similarities can be found with both Fiedler and Fayol concepts. For instance,
both Fayol and Fiedler take into consideration the importance of the
relationship between employees and managers. Fiedler proposed in order for a
successful manager, the leader must have the respect of their employees and be viewed
as capable to handle the responsibilities that comes with being a leader with
authority (bizfluent. 2017). Similarly Fayol argued that it was necessary for
managers to have employees respect their authority and for managers to be
equitable, meaning to treat employees with kindness.