Keywords: management theory assessment, foyal management theory
In the time of modernisation nowadays, it appears that the goal of managers in every single organisation is becoming so essential that we must understand the real strategy behind management as well as the genuine tasks performed by a manager. An understanding of the type of management is vital for all people of population because most of us will at home level to be always a manager, and a knowledge of the concept will enable us to become more effective in that role (Bartol, Martin, Tein & Matthews, 1995, p. 13). Through the entire development of management, there are classical theory of management and modern management theory. As classified by the French industrialist, Henri Fayol, the common management portrays 4 functions known as POLC: Planning, Organizing, Leading, and Controlling. However, in the overdue 1960's, Henri Mintzberg undertook a careful review of 5 professionals to know what these managers have on their jobs. In Mintzberg's framework, a manager contains 3 roles: informational functions, interpersonal functions, and decisional functions. Throughout this article, the framework will be first about dialogue of Fayol and Mintzberg ideas in management, then, their comparison and distinction relating practical and process methods in explaining managerial duties and in the end the assumption section. The aim of this article is to identify and provide evidences of the similarities and distinctions between Fayol and Mintzberg ideas that expectantly can help the audience to enrich his/her knowledge beforehand.
Henri Fayol's theory
Henri Fayol determined four functions in management popular as the term POLC: Planning, Organising, Leading, and Controlling. The first term is planning, referred to as formulating idea and performance for goals to be completed. Organising, thought as the arrangement of most issues relative to attainment of the task, including process, people, or any other resources. Leading, the take action of maintaining desire among the personnel hence each is motivated to work hard and in a position to achieve powerful. Eventually, Controlling is reckoned as the action of measuring performance and taking action to desired results. An analysis is required to improve the end result on another performance (Schermerhorn, Campling, Poole & Wiesner, 2004).
Henri Mintzberg's theory
Henri Mintzberg is recognized as the initiator of 3 significant functions in management. Mintzberg stated that the actual work ways of professionals differed quite dramatically from popular images of managers as reflective, organized planners spending extensive peace and quiet in their offices poring over formal records (Bartol et al, 1995). Professionals, by Mintzberg, are comprised of intrapersonal role, informational role and decisional role. Intrapersonal role is the role in which people and sense of duties symbolic in dynamics are involved. This role comprised of figurehead, head, and liaison. Informational role is associated with obtaining, collecting, and disseminating information, which is screen, disseminator, and spokesperson. Furthermore, decisional role is the role which revolves around making decision and business owner, disturbance handler, resource allocator, and negotiator are included.
The comparison between your function and the process approach
As identified by Fayol that planning is the procedure to predict the future in which required personal and social competencies in building it. Mintzberg's assignments of the figurehead, head, liaison, monitor, entrepreneur, resource allocator appears to show that those tasks plan inasmuch as Keep an eye on, according to Mintzberg, is accountable for inspiration and activation of subordinates; in charge of staffing, training, and associated responsibilities, this is apparent that both edges do planning. As argued by Lamond (2004), whenever we study Fayol's planning function, there is a series of behaviours that constitute the enactment of Mintzberg's managerial role in the process of planning, such as information gathering, appointment, etc. For instance, transmitting information through the disseminator role or representing the organisation through the negotiator role in itself has little signifying unless it is linked to a purpose like the POLC (Bartol et al, 1995). In Fayol's view, managing means verifying whether everything works as the program, in the same vein, Mintzberg's mentioned that disruption handler takes corrective action when an organisation faces unexpected disturbances; this shows both of them agree that there should be one to control the problem whenever it moves against plan. Once we compare the leader role (motivating and activating subordinates, staffing, training and associated obligations), we can broaden our appreciation of the activities in terms of if they are aimed at assessing the near future and making provision for this (planning), providing the executing with recycleables, tools, capital, workers (organizing), making unity, energy, effort, and loyalty prevail among the personnel (commanding), "harmonizing" all the activities of the concern (coordinating) or verifying whether everything occurs in conformity with the strategies, instructions and key points (managing) (Lamond, 2004).
Once mentioned by Wren (1994) as cited in Lamond (2004), As definately not representing the 'folklore' of Fayol's functions, what Mintzberg did, in fact, is make endeavoring to elaborate the tasks in which managers (and others) engage when undertaking their managerial functions. In other words, Mintzberg has provided some of the empirical accounts that establish the link between your managerial behaviours, via the functions that professionals perform alternatively than representing competing views with Fayol then, they are simply just different views with the similar thought.
The contrast of the function and the process approach
The traditional management theory depicts manager jobs as planning, organising, leading and controlling. Mintzberg, based on his observations, concluded that manager's job contains many simple and disjointed episodes with people inside and outside the organisation. (Luthans, 1988, p. 1). The contrasts between Fayol managerial styles, related to individual preferences relating to which and how functions are enacted, and, Mintzberg managerial styles, refer to the actual assignments enacted and exactly how they are simply enacted (Lamond, 2004) are referred to below.
Planning, based on the observation done by Lamond, Fayol style of planning is prone to be more alert in which managers give attention to the long run organisation's achievements and concern more on details of the complete current situation. However, Mintzberg, in his planning style, may be considered more flexible as every decision considered is concern on the short-term organisational goal based on the general knowledge; furthermore, this style is more up to the present situation and adjust to changes. In Fayol's organising style, managers are supposed to put together all related resources to work under way and responsible for the staffs health insurance and welfare. Nonetheless, in Mintzberg's construction, organise pertains as creating changes and building knowing of the staff's legal responsibilities as well as providing teamwork in the company. Leading, from Lamond observation about Fayol is defined as motivating the personnel to be friends with their activity well and providing immediate feedback. On the other hand, Mintzberg type's of leading is stated as encouraging people to work, somehow reminding them of the organisation targets as well as expressing contentment while prospects are met. Eventually, Fayol describes handling as the function to promote good marriage among internal staffs in order to get good customer's response, in addition, to judge the results achieved and offer immediate response. Conversely, from the study of Mintzberg idea, controlling focuses on retaining good associations with others and utilises an issue focused approach to evaluation and feedback (Lamond, 2004).
As argued by Tsoukas (1994) as cited in Lamond (2004), Mintzberg was pertaining to with the directly observable means of managers, while Fayol was coping with specific management functions as necessary condition for the existence of these tactics and as a basis of explaining the source with their characteristics. Mintzberg characterise manager's are constituting much brief, variegated, and fragmented work, carried out at an unrelenting speed. Mintzberg records that "categorizations of work content and goal lead to assertions of functions or role" that is, "an sorted out set of behaviours belonging to an identifiable office or position" (Mintzberg, 1973, p. 54). It is, indeed, Fayol and Mintzberg have two different view of delivering management. Fayol is more to the essential concept of management and delivering it just as simple as people want it to be. On the other hand, Mintzberg presents his idea based on the reality faced by professionals which he considered managers' works are in the insistent rapidity.
The perspective provided by Mintzberg and Fayol is apparently different views of the same picture, powered, on the main one hand, by Fayol's focus on what managers should do if they lived in an idealized state, and, on the other palm, Mintzberg's concern with what managers actually do, given the demands they experienced daily (Lamond, 2004, p. 337).
Assumption
Mintzberg and Fayol believe that managers, irrespective of their position or level in the organization, perform the same function and functions. In Mintzberg assumption, he place the views that as supervisor engage in a task, he should reckoned his job and realize why he does it as the broadest sense of duties. In Fayol's theory, it assumes that he just introduces the polc predicated on his perceptive. As suggested by Smith & Boyns (2005), while Fayol proffers a theory which makes intuitive sense, it is not always able to be translated in to the action steady with the demand a manager's dealt in place of work.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we can see that basically Fayol and Mintzberg contribution in the world of management represents similarities but stay static in the various perspectives. Fayol seems to maintain the useful approach which manager's task is classified based on the basic concept of plan, organise, business lead and control. Alternatively, Mintzberg, who criticized Fayol's work as folklore, creates 10 managerial functions to represent the real managerial work. The combination of functions and role, and the partnership between them, clearly shows that the model proffered by Mintzberg (1973) and Fayol (1949) can be seen to stand for different levels of the same ontological truth, at least to the level that, given the similarities between Fayol's characterisation and manager's preferences and between managers day-to-day experiences and Mintzberg tasks, Fayol gave us management as we would like it to be and Mintzberg gave us management as it is (Lamond, 2003-2004).
