According to Henri Fayol (1945), to manage is to forecast and plan, to organize, to command, to co-ordinate and to control. Henri Fayol’s perspective have been accepted and criticized by various management writers from many different viewpoints. Also, Fayol’s perspective have been discussed broadly and the discussions were extreme either negatively or positively. Fayol’s management theories had been compared with the theories of numerous other management writers including Henry Mintzberg, Frederick Taylor and Mary Parker Follett. To make an informed conclusion on whether or not Fayol’s perspective is more inclined towards for or against, this essay will attempt to demonstrate from different viewpoints and their rationale must be considerate.
…show more content…
According to David Lamond (2004), there are various arguments about Henri Fayol’s perspective of management functions and Henry Mintzberg’s theories of manager roles in the twentieth century. Henry Mintzberg (1973) developed a diverse view to Fayol’s classical model and he categorised managerial work into three groups that are interpersonal, informational and decisional and then expanded into ten management roles which are figurehead, leader, liaison, monitor, disseminator, spokesperson, entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator, negotiator. Mintzberg discussed negatively about Henri Fayol’s management theories by dismissing Fayol’s concept of 14 principles of management that designed to guide the successful manager as “folklore”. Meanwhile, Duncan (1999) identified that there are many arguments on either Mintzberg or Fayol is right during that time. According to David Lamond (2004), Henry Mintzberg claimed that management is about what managers do and it is not about functions. Also, Lamond indicated that Fayol provided management in the way that we would wanted it to be and Mintzberg provided management in the way that is should be. Nevertheless, Tsoukas’ (1994) advocated that it is not an inverse, it is an analogy of relationship among Mintzberg’s roles and Fayol’s functions, there are differences between Fayol’s functions and Mintzberg’s roles but they are reasonably related to each other, meanwhile, Wren (1994) indicated that the there are differences between Fayol’s and Mintzberg’s theories but both of them devoted useful management theories and not in a competing way. However, Hales (1986) claimed that Fayol’s perspective is related and linked to today’s management. Moreover, Hales added three of Fayol’s management functions which are to plan, to control and to command to his own work in order to demonstrate his recognition towards Fayol’s
According to David Lamond (2004), there are various arguments about Henri Fayol’s perspective of management functions and Henry Mintzberg’s theories of manager roles in the twentieth century. Henry Mintzberg (1973) developed a diverse view to Fayol’s classical model and he categorised managerial work into three groups that are interpersonal, informational and decisional and then expanded into ten management roles which are figurehead, leader, liaison, monitor, disseminator, spokesperson, entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator, negotiator. Mintzberg discussed negatively about Henri Fayol’s management theories by dismissing Fayol’s concept of 14 principles of management that designed to guide the successful manager as “folklore”. Meanwhile, Duncan (1999) identified that there are many arguments on either Mintzberg or Fayol is right during that time. According to David Lamond (2004), Henry Mintzberg claimed that management is about what managers do and it is not about functions. Also, Lamond indicated that Fayol provided management in the way that we would wanted it to be and Mintzberg provided management in the way that is should be. Nevertheless, Tsoukas’ (1994) advocated that it is not an inverse, it is an analogy of relationship among Mintzberg’s roles and Fayol’s functions, there are differences between Fayol’s functions and Mintzberg’s roles but they are reasonably related to each other, meanwhile, Wren (1994) indicated that the there are differences between Fayol’s and Mintzberg’s theories but both of them devoted useful management theories and not in a competing way. However, Hales (1986) claimed that Fayol’s perspective is related and linked to today’s management. Moreover, Hales added three of Fayol’s management functions which are to plan, to control and to command to his own work in order to demonstrate his recognition towards Fayol’s