From the generals of the roman legions to the staff in charge of the modern day McDonald’s outlets, managers have existed in various capacities throughout history. The subject of management is therefore difficult to condense and analyse, inevitably leading to conflicting viewpoints and differing interpretations of what managers actually do. An example of such analytical conflict arises between Fayol’s traditional approach to management and Mintzberg’s more recent empirical studies. Whilst both share similarities, particularly in the compartmentalising of an effective manager’s roles, there is still a debate as to whether Mintzberg’s analysis renders Fayol’s theories redundant. To explore and clarify this discussion I will compare both men’s approaches to the study of management and their perspectives in general.
Fayol’s approach to the study of management revolved around personal experience as opposed to Mintzberg’s more empirical methods. Fayol spent his working life in the French mining and metallurgical industry where, until his early thirties, he worked as an …show more content…
Fayol explains that “without the larger principles one is in complete chaos” and “without the more specific principles one is handicapped” (1949 pp.82), almost mirroring Mintzberg’s claim that “no role can be pulled out of the framework leaving the job intact” (1975 pp.237). Furthermore when analysing Mintzberg’s roles Handy (1993) explained that due to every job being different to every other job, the balance of roles would change, as some professions will require more leadership elements whilst others will entail more administrative features. It makes it increasingly difficult to label all of Fayol’s work redundant as the complexities and intricacies of the almost countless number of jobs all require different managerial
Fayol’s approach to the study of management revolved around personal experience as opposed to Mintzberg’s more empirical methods. Fayol spent his working life in the French mining and metallurgical industry where, until his early thirties, he worked as an …show more content…
Fayol explains that “without the larger principles one is in complete chaos” and “without the more specific principles one is handicapped” (1949 pp.82), almost mirroring Mintzberg’s claim that “no role can be pulled out of the framework leaving the job intact” (1975 pp.237). Furthermore when analysing Mintzberg’s roles Handy (1993) explained that due to every job being different to every other job, the balance of roles would change, as some professions will require more leadership elements whilst others will entail more administrative features. It makes it increasingly difficult to label all of Fayol’s work redundant as the complexities and intricacies of the almost countless number of jobs all require different managerial