Henri Mintzberg views the image of management that was developed from the work of Henry Fayol as one of folklore rather than reality. However , it may be argued which the image described by Fayol is better than that of Mintzberg, and the latter's description is of rather useless management! Who have do think is correct?
Over 50 years ago, English-speaking managers were straight introduced to Holly Fayol's theory in management. His treatise, Standard and Professional Management (1949), has had a great effect on managers and the practice of managing around the world. Nevertheless , 24 years after the The english language translation of Fayol, Henri Mintzberg in the Nature of Managerial Job (1973) created another theory and mentioned that Fayol's work was just "folklores". This article is to provide evidence that work of Fayol and Mintzberg have validity and in addition they can be reconciled to some extent. In addition, it claims that Fayol's theory has been proved to be more useful in the practice of supervision and can not really be called "folklores" mentioned previously by Mintzberg.
In the book Standard and Industrial Management (1949), Fayol defined management as being a function also to manage was going to plan, set up, coordinate, command, and control. To prepare was to prediction what may possibly happen in the future and decide a chain of actions to be taken by the complete organisation. To organise was to build up a dual composition of the companies, allocate the materials and human and lay out the lines of authorities and responsibility. To command was going to put the plan into actions, set the task in operation. And to control was to make sure anything occur in conformity by means of established rules and command. In his work, Fayol refused the definition of supervision as a privilege or a particular responsib...
... functions that Fayol viewed as the most important aspects of managerial operate are not what can be discovered from managers' day to day activities, Mintzberg made some problems in his method of examine to find out the size of management. Likewise, while Fayol failed to pull a picture of management operate reality, Mintzberg was unsuccessful in giving an idea as to what managers have to do to be successful and effective. To some degree, Fayol and Mintzberd did not develop competing theories although theories about different sizes of bureaucratic work. When it comes to gaining efficiency in management, Fayol was performed better by indicating what managers have to do to instead of just answering the pressure of their work as what Mintzberg explained. Therefore , it might be concluded that Fayol's work can be superior to Mintzberg's and the other is of rather ineffective management.