However, activities managers conducted in their jobs

However, since his theories
were made there have been many changes in society. For instance changes in
communication systems and technologies. This leads to questions
being asked about whether Fayol’s theories are relevant and applicable in modern
time. Fayol’s theory have influenced the view of management such that,
if you ask a manager what they do, they will most likely respond telling you
that they command, plan, organize, coordinate and control (Mintzberg, H. 1990).
Fayol provides a fantastic start point for anyone wanting to understand the
fundamentals of what management is within an organisation (Liquid Training.
2014). Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick in their 1937 paper on administrative management
had expanded on the work of Henri Fayol in order to build a foundation of the
understanding of management theory. They conducted their work by providing
empirical evidence. Their seven-activity acronym, POSDCORB, represents
the functional responsibilities of a chief executive officer (business
dictionary. n, d). POSDCORB stands for planning, organizing,
staffing, directing, co-ordinating, reporting and budgeting (LinkedIn. 2012).


In 1973 Henry Mintzberg
published his work on management, following his detailed observations of what
activities managers conducted whilst on the job, (Brooks, I. 2009. Pg161). As a
result, based upon an observational study of five executives, conducted by
Mintzberg, he 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.

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

order now

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. 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).
This contrast with what Fayol had stated managers to be. Furthermore, according
to both Mintzberg’s and Kotter’s findings managers did not spend most of their
time in isolation performing the sole tasks of planning, organising,
commanding, controlling, and coordinating.  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).



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.

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). Taylor’s theory is based on observation and
experiments, so it can be said there is more accuracy and validity to his
theory compared to Fayol. Furthermore, Taylor goes into more detail in his
explanations of what actions managements should take when faced with problems
in production. for instance Taylor not only suggest managers should divide
labour work, similarly to Fayol’s division of labour , Taylor then expands on
this by recommending what actions managers should take when looking to solve
the problem. Additionally he also does expands his work on worker remuneration by
suggesting what method of pay would best reflect and result in improvement of
productivity. Whilst Fayol only states fair remuneration is a principle of
management. 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
( n, d). Workers are human being and shouldn’t be treated
as machines and materials as this will not result in a success
( 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 ( 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

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.



conclusion I believe Fred Fiedler’s contingency model to be the best concept
for management. Mintzberg can also be criticised for his lack of research as he
only conducted his research on five managers. Furthermore Taylor’s scientific
management is limited to certain types of business. Both Taylor and Fayol
believed there was only one correct way to manage a business however this was
criticised by Fiedler who believed a business manager should be dependent on
the situation of the business. This seems to be the most compatible with modern
society due to the vast numbers of different operations and needs of specific

the years Fayol’s theories have been expanded upon and also criticised by many
theorist claiming his theories to be invalid due to various reasons. For
instance, Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick expanded on Fayol’s work with their
seven-activity acronym, POSDCORB. Furthermore, Mintzberg labelled Fayol’s five
functions of management as folklore because it gave an ideal view of management
whilst his views were facts due to the research he had conducted. Additionally,
it can be argued that Taylor’s scientific management could be a more effective
approach for management despite both theorists focusing on different levels of
the business. Overall it can be concluded that Fayol’s theories on management
have played a part in the modern understanding of what a manager is.