Mintzberg formulated three categories of managerial activities, “Interpersonal”, “Informational” and “Decision Making”, separated into ten roles that managers must adopt to achieve high levels of efficiency. These roles are: figurehead, leader, liaison, monitor, disseminator, spokesperson, entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator and negotiator. All roles are interrelated and managers are required to act out different roles in different situations. As opposed to Fayol’s classical approach where functions are task orientated, this behavioural approach focuses on the interaction and communication between managers, employees and resources.
Although Fayol’s management processes were dismissed by Mintzberg, Mintzberg’s model in fact confirms the classical perspective. As outlined in Management Decision (2004), the two models are “complementary understandings of management and managerial behaviour” (Lamond, 2004). Thus Mintzberg’s managerial roles complement Fayol’s processes, elaborating the theories to describe the complexities of management.
Each of the ten managerial roles corresponds to Fayol’s management functions. Leadership can be interpreted as co-ordinating and organising, and negotiators can relate to co-ordinating and controlling (Fells, 2000). On the contrary, planning can be associated with the roles of liaison, entrepreneur and resource allocator. However, in spite of the subjectivity of the analysis, the strong correlation between the models epitomise the models’ presentation of the same principles in different ways.
Despite the strong interrelation between the two, both models have their own advantages and disadvantages in understanding management. Fayol’s classical theory, “planning, organising, co-ordinating, commanding and controlling” forms the basis of management studies. In an analysis of 21 textbooks published between 1983 and 1986, 81% employed at least four of the five functions, 100% employed at least three and 95% incorporated a chapter on the “nature of managerial work” (Carroll and Gillen, 1987). Although the classical theory lacks specifics, the consistency of Fayol’s model in the sample study elucidates its importance in management studies. However, the validity of such study must be questioned. The “fragmentation of time” (Tengblad 2006) plays a central role in obsolete ideas, encouraging the emergence of new approaches to understand management. Nevertheless, Fayol’s “theoretical development” (Tengblad, 2006) is still applicable in the modern social setting, as noted by Caroll and Gillen (1987) – “the classical functions still represent the most useful way of conceptualising the manager’s job” (Fells, 2000).
Conversely, Mintzberg’s three step model, one of the “most influential works on managerial roles” (Gentry et al., 2008), provides more detail than Fayol’s administrative theory. Fayol provides the fundamental basics; whereas Mintzberg’s ten managerial roles entails specifics that explore the “complex and context-specific ways” (Tengblad, 2006) an organisation can be managed. This is reinforced by a close study of 523 Australian managers, revealing that the preferred approach of management corresponds closely to Mintzberg's ten managerial roles (Lamond, 2004). In spite of this, links in the study can also be drawn to Fayol’s classical model, where the ideal approach matches almost exactly to his five functions. This further exemplifies the interrelation between the two ideas. However, Mintzberg falsely claims that his theory was a timeless model - “managers work today as they always have” (Mintzberg, 1973 cited from Tengblad, 2006). Modern issues such as “new technology, change, flexibility, globalisation, and competitive pressures” (Tengblad, 2006) were disregarded in Mintzberg’s work. Thus Mintzberg’s work lacks focus on issues that significantly influence organisations today.
Although Mintzberg’s model is more detailed and wider acknowledged than Fayol’s, it does not refute the validity of the five management functions. The applicability of Fayol’s theory has been criticized by many researchers including Mintzberg, Kotter and Hales (Fells, 2000), reality, however shows that much of Fayol’s theory is relevant in the 21st Century. Fayol stresses on idealism as opposed to Mintzberg who focused on reality – “Fayol gave us management as we would like it to be and Mintzberg gave us management as it is” (Lamond, 2004). Both models form the basis of management study, offering varying perspectives on the same subject. Despite the differences in the manner and outlook of both theories, each model can be “considered essentially equivalent to, or a subset of, other models”. (Carroll & Gillen, 1987, cited from Fells, 2000)
In contemporary organisations, change and volatility are unavoidable elements that require management action. Diverse situations force managers to adopt different techniques, including the contingency approach. Fayol’s ideal task orientated processes, exploring the fundamental concepts of management are essential in comparative analysis of businesses. Alternatively, Mintzberg’s interaction-based model, which elaborates such functions into managerial roles, is critical for evaluating individual managers at different levels. Thus there is no single best approach that is more useful in understanding management, namely different situations and purposes require different approaches. Ultimately, it is the combination of both Fayol’s classical functions and Mintzberg’s behavioural approaches, combined with experiences of the individual manager that enriches the current understanding of management.
References
Fells, M.J. 2000, “Fayol stands the test of time” Journal of Management History, vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 345-360
Lamond, D. 2004, “A matter of style: reconciling Henri and Henry.” Management Decision, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 330-356
Tengblad, S. 2006, “Is there a ‘New Managerial Work’? A Comparison with Henry Mintzberg’s Classic Study 30 Years Later” Journal of Management Studies, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 1437-1461
Carroll, S.J., and Gillen, D.J. 1987, "Are the Classical Management Functions Useful in Describing Managerial Work?” Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 38-51
Baker, B.A., Gentry, W.A., Harris, L.S. and Leslie, J.B., 2008, “Managerial skills: what has changed since the late 1980s” Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 167-181