Mintzberg Management Theory
should enhance coordination by using staff employees. However, using staff employees should not replace managers’ duties for realising a firm’s objectives.
Control
Fayol connoted that control as an element of management, comprised of validating whether all activities follow the plan adopted, the established principles, and instructions issued. Accordingly, Fayol intimated that the objective of control in an organisation is to recognise inaccuracies in order to amend them and avoid their reappearance (Smith & Boyns, 2005). Efficient control should be founded on swift action. According to Lewis (2007) Fayol was also able to appreciate its integrative effects on other management elements since it may be used to strengthen and simplify the organisational structure, stimulate better planning, improve the guiding of employees, and simplify coordination.
Fayol held the view that these five …show more content…
Whereas Fayol’s management theories were attained through experience in the management discipline, Mintzberg’s management theories on the contrary were attained through research as an academician. Tripathi, Tripathi & Reddy (2008) argue that the two authors have differing views on management but, not competing. In short, they both have contributed valuable theories in management. Additionally, Wook Yoo, Lemak & Choi, (2006) posit that Mintzberg’s work in this discipline was to elaborate and reaffirm Fayol’s managerial concepts. However, not all authors agree to the fact that Fayol and Mintzberg’s work were complementary. Indeed, Golden Pryor & Taneja (2010) holds a different view by stating that Mintzberg’s work was very critical of Fayol’s work often disregarding Fayol’s concepts on management as ‘folklore’ in comparison to findings by Mintzberg attained through systemic research. This is a clear indication of the differing opinions various authors have on Fayol’s
Control
Fayol connoted that control as an element of management, comprised of validating whether all activities follow the plan adopted, the established principles, and instructions issued. Accordingly, Fayol intimated that the objective of control in an organisation is to recognise inaccuracies in order to amend them and avoid their reappearance (Smith & Boyns, 2005). Efficient control should be founded on swift action. According to Lewis (2007) Fayol was also able to appreciate its integrative effects on other management elements since it may be used to strengthen and simplify the organisational structure, stimulate better planning, improve the guiding of employees, and simplify coordination.
Fayol held the view that these five …show more content…
Whereas Fayol’s management theories were attained through experience in the management discipline, Mintzberg’s management theories on the contrary were attained through research as an academician. Tripathi, Tripathi & Reddy (2008) argue that the two authors have differing views on management but, not competing. In short, they both have contributed valuable theories in management. Additionally, Wook Yoo, Lemak & Choi, (2006) posit that Mintzberg’s work in this discipline was to elaborate and reaffirm Fayol’s managerial concepts. However, not all authors agree to the fact that Fayol and Mintzberg’s work were complementary. Indeed, Golden Pryor & Taneja (2010) holds a different view by stating that Mintzberg’s work was very critical of Fayol’s work often disregarding Fayol’s concepts on management as ‘folklore’ in comparison to findings by Mintzberg attained through systemic research. This is a clear indication of the differing opinions various authors have on Fayol’s