jame paper lamond

8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 1/30

HENRY MINTZBERG vs HENRI FAYOL:

OF LIGHTHOUSES, CUBISTS AND THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES

DAVID LAMOND

Sydny G!"d#"$ S%&''( ') M"n"*+n$

- H#n$! S$!$

P"!!"+"$$" NSW ./01

A#s$!"(2"

T(3&'n: 45/ . -6-7 6...

F"%s2+2(: 45/ . -6-/ 06--

+"2(: d8("+'nd9#s8d#8"#



HENRY MINTZBERG vs HENRI FAYOL: OF LIGHTHOUSES, CUBISTS AND THE

EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES

A;s$!"%$

The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, it is designed to rekindle interest in Fayol’s work

by way of a focus on the original rather than secondary accounts of his work, and more

informed reflection on his ideas. Second, the paper examines the original account of

Mintzberg’s contributions to thinking about managerial work. hen read with the same

critical eye as that cast o!er the work of Fayol, a new understanding of Mintzberg’s work

becomes apparent. Third, and based on the preceding exposition, this paper argues that what

Mintzberg has done, albeit unwillingly and unwittingly, is reaffirm and elaborate Fayol’s

ideation on management. "rawing on Tsoukas’ metatheory of management, the logical links

between Fayol’s functions and Mintzberg’s roles are demonstrated. #nderstood in this way,

we now ha!e a!ailable to us a more integrated theoretical base for research, teaching and

ad!ising on management and managerial beha!iour.



$

HENRY MINTZBERG vs HENRI FAYOL: OF LIGHTHOUSES, CUBISTS AND THE

EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES

INTRODUCTION

%ust o!er &' years ago, (nglish)speaking managers and academics were introduced directly to

*enri Fayol’s +$- ideas about managerial work. / 0uarter of a century later, *enry

Mintzberg +$123 $1&4$5 dismissed as 6folklore7 what had become known as the

classical tradition of managerial work. This work is not, Mintzberg +$123 $1&4$5

said, about the functions of planning, organising, commanding, controlling and

coordinating. 8ather, management is what managers do, and he saw little e!idence of

these functions being played out in the acti!ities of the 9(:s who were the sub;ect of his

obser!ational research.

"espite ongoing criticism by Mintzberg and others +cf 9legg < "unkerley, $5'3 March <

Simon, $&54$23 =errow, $12, it has been argued that Fayol’s functions 6still represent the

most useful way of conceptualizing the manager’s ;ob7 +9arroll and >illen, $51?25. @ndeed,

ren +$-?$2 states that 6Fayol’s elements of management pro!ided the modern

conceptualisation of a management process3 his principles were lighthouses to managerial

action7. Following a comparison of Fayol +$-, Mintzberg +$12, *ales +$5A and Botter

+$5C, Fells +C''' concludes that Fayol’s +$- work appears to be !ery much supported

and reinforced by contemporary characterisations.

Donetheless, Fayol is regularly presented as a man whose ideas are misguided and who is,

therefore, only of historical interest. :ne reason for this line of attack may be found in ren,

Eedeian, and Ereeze +C''C, who obser!e that there is, among modern scholars and students,

an increasing distance between the fundamental thoughts of early management writers and

contemporary, often secondary, accounts of how these pioneers de!eloped their ideas. ide



C

ranging anecdotal e!idence supports the !iew of ren, et al +C''C, finding that the ma;ority

of academics and students who discuss Fayol’s contribution ha!e ne!er actually read General

and Industrial Management +Fayol, $-. @nstead, these latter day discussants rely on

secondary sources, like Mintzberg +$123 $1&4$5, for their appreciation.

Mintzberg has mo!ed away from his focus on managerial beha!iour to concentrate on

organisational forms and strategies. Se!eral decades further on, in his :MT

"istinguished Scholar /ddress at the $A /cademy of Management 9onference,

Mintzberg +$A4$1 urged people to 6"isco!er something new3 most e!eryone else is

redigesting what is old.7 :f course, this raises 0uestions on the one hand as to the !alue

of a certain degree of rumination and, on the other, as to whether there is anything

6new7 to disco!er.

@n light of Mintzberg’s efforts more than two decades apart, the purpose of this paper is

threefold. First, it is designed to rekindle interest in Fayol’s +$- work by way of a focus on

the original rather than secondary accounts of his work and more informed reflection on his

ideas. /lthough the work was written in France near the turn of the last century, when read, as

8eid +$& suggests, through 62" glasses7 it is a surprisingly current text that deals in what

writers would describe as an enlightened way with such recent disco!eries as employee

participation, profit sharing, leadership and empowerment. Second, this paper will focus in

turn on the original account of Mintzberg’s +$123 $1&4$5 contribution to thinking about

managerial work in The Nature of Managerial Work and The Manager’s job: Folklore and

Fact respecti!ely. hen read with the same critical eye as that cast o!er the work of Fayol, a

new understanding of Mintzberg’s +$123 $1&4$5 work becomes apparent.

Third, and based on the preceding exposition, this paper will argue that, contrary to his own

latter)day ad!ice, Mintzberg +$12 didn’t actually present anything 6new7 when he wrote

about the nature of managerial work. 8ather, on closer examination, it would appear that what



2

Mintzberg has done, albeit unwillingly and unwittingly, is reaffirm and elaborate Fayol’s

ideation on management. "rawing on Tsoukas’ +$- metatheory of management, the logical

links between Fayol’s functions and Mintzberg’s roles are demonstrated. #nderstood in this

way, what we ha!e a!ailable to us now is a more integrated theoretical base for research and

teaching on management and managerial beha!iour.

FAYOL ON MANAGEMENT

Fayol’s +$- treatise on General and Industrial Management is a rather thin work in terms

of its size but certainly not in terms of the impact that it has had on managers and the practice

of management around the world, either directly or indirectly. @ndeed, Fayol is described by

#rwick +$-?! and ix in the book’s Foreword as 6the greatest of the (uropean pioneers of

management . GwhoH . applied the scientific approach to problems in e!ery direction7. /t

the same time, gi!en that the work was written in France nearer the turn of the last century +in

$$A, it is a surprisingly 6current7 text, which deals in what writers would describe as an

enlightened way with such recent 6disco!eries7 as employee participation, profit sharing,

leadership and empowerment.

@t is also clear from Fayol’s work that, to the extent that his is a metaphorical !iew of

organisations +cf eg Eolman and "eal, $$3 Morgan, $5A, he offers a systems based,

organic model of organisations within which to frame his analysis. This is exemplified in a

number of locations throughout the book. *e notes early in his work that 6there is nothing

rigid or absolute in management affairs +p $ and discusses the importance of contingency

planning. Fayol utilises the biological metaphor for the organisation, referring on se!eral

occasions specifically to the 6social organism7 +p C- and, in anticipation of Morgan’s +$5A

organism and brain metaphors, the centralisation of control in the 6organism7 +pp 22 and A.

@ndeed, he uses the term 6corps social7 +translated as 6body corporate7 to refer to all those

engaged in a gi!en corporate acti!ity +p C'. @t is ironic that Morgan +$5A?C&)C e0uates



-

Fayol’s approach as more consistent with a bureaucratic machine metaphor, since Fayol

+$-?&1)&5 himself expresses concern at the use of the machine metaphor, because it fails to

acknowledge the importance of intermediates as generators of power and ideas. Fayol’s

+$-?&1 most ob!ious preference for the organism metaphor comes when he obser!es that

6to create a useful organization, it is not enough to group people and distribute duties3 there

must be knowledge of how to adapt the organic whole to re0uirements, how to find essential

personnel and put each where he + sic can be of most ser!ice7.

Further, although Fayol +$-?AA)1' declares his admiration for Taylor as person, he

expresses significant reser!ations regarding Taylor’s 6scientific or functional management7 and

would hardly count himself as an adherent. This is significant for understanding Fayol’s

approach to the management processes embedded in the organisational framework. Far from

being wedded to an approach to management characterised by 6time and motion7, Fayol

+$-?5- ff waxes elo0uent on the 6misuse of mathematics7, paraphrasing 9omte’s

obser!ation that 6mathematical facts are the simplest, least complex, and most Icrude’ of

phenomena, the most abstract, barren and remote from reality in contradistinction to social

facts, which are the most complex and subtle7.

Fayol +$-?2 identified six groups of acti!ities or essential functions to which all industrial

undertakings gi!e rise J technical acti!ities +production, manufacture, adaptation3 commercial

acti!ities +buying, selling, exchange3 financial acti!ities +search for and optimum use of

capital3 security acti!ities +protection of property and persons3 accounting acti!ities

+stocktaking, balance sheet, costs, statistics3 and managerial acti!ities +planning, organization,

command, co)ordination, control. :ur primary concern in this paper, as with Fayol +$-, is

with the last of these, the managerial acti!ities, which are 6concerned with drawing up the

broad plan of operations of the business, with assembling personnel, co)ordinating and

harmonizing effort and acti!ity7 +Fayol, $-?&. For Fayol +$-?&)A



&

To manage is to forecast and plan, to organize, to command, to co)ordinate and

to control. To foresee and pro!ide means examining the future and drawing up

the plan of action. To organize means building up the dual structure, material and

human, of the undertaking. To command means maintaining acti!ity among the

personnel. To co)ordinate means binding together, unifying and harmonizing all

acti!ity and effort. To control means seeing that e!erything occurs in conformity

with established rule and expressed command.

Fayol +$-?& includes command under management, inter alia, because 6GsHelection and

training of personnel and the setting up of the organization which are managerial

responsibilities are !ery much concerned with command7. #nlike many of those who followed

him, Fayol +$-?A recognised that management, thus understood, is 6neither an exclusi!e

pri!ilege nor a particular responsibility of the head or senior members of the business . but it

has such a large place in the part played by higher managers that sometimes this part seems

exclusi!ely managerial.

Fayol’s +$-?$&)$A appreciation of his work was somewhat more circumspect than the

claims of prescription le!elled by others. 8ecognising the importance of an accepted theory

+6a collection of principles, rules, methods, procedures, tried and checked by general

experience7 to the de!elopment of management teaching, he saw himself as 6setting it going,

starting general discussion ) that is what @ am trying to do by publishing this sur!ey, and @ hope

that a theory will emanate from it.

@ndeed, far from promoting a 6one best way7 approach, Fayol +$-?$ says early in his work

that he adopts the term 6principles7 out of preference 6whilst dissociating it from any

suggestion of rigidity, for there is nothing rigid or absolute in management affairs, it is all a

0uestion of proportion7. *e identifies the principles of management which he has most

fre0uently applied +Fayol $-?$)C' J di!ision of work, authority, discipline, unity of



A

command, unity of direction, subordination of indi!idual interests to the general interest,

remuneration, centralization, scalar chain +line of authority, order, e0uity, stability of tenure of

personnel, initiati!e, and esprit de corps J and then proceeds to describe each in turn. These

principles ha!e been thoroughly elaborated in most management textbooks and are well known

by management academics and students alike, such that a detailed consideration of them is not

presented here. /t the same time, they do not, Fayol +$-?-$)-C says, constitute an

exhausti!e list, since it has no precise limits, but they are a set of principles that 6aim at the

success of associations of indi!iduals and at the satisfying of economic interests7.

/ key to Fayol’s approach to managing an organization is gi!en in his elaboration of the

6administrati!e apparatus a system of recording which includes the present, the past and the

future Gwhich ensuresH for the "irectors the best possible means of appreciating the

probable conse0uences of their decisions G and comprisesH The Sur!ey, The =lan, 8eports and

Statistics, Minutes of Meetings, and The :rganization 9hart7 +Fayol $-?x. hat Fayol

proffers howe!er, is not the sterile, 6i!ory tower7 approach to the production of these outputs

of which he is so often accused. 8ather, they are outputs that in!ol!e and are the results of

acti!e engagement of managers and workers at all le!els in the organization.

Fayol +$-?xi says The Sur!ey +which today we would !ariously describe as a mixture of an

(n!ironmental Scan, a S:T /nalysis is

concerned with each and e!ery part of the undertaking. @t shows the situation in

the present, in the past, and in the probable future. . The probable future is

arri!ed at by taking into account the past, the present and the pre!ailing

circumstances, economic, political and social. This Sur!ey presupposes an

adaptable Chief !ecuti"e #ho can #in lo$al and enthusiastic support from

subordinates% and #ho #ill carr$ his share of responsibilit$& +emphasis added



1

The Sur!ey is the basis for de!eloping a policy that is implemented in The =lan. @n discussing

the significance of an organisation’s corporate strategic plan +which contains 6well thought)out

directi!es, which indicate anticipated progress for a period of time based on an

understanding of the undertaking, its present position and the reasons for this, and external

circumstances, Fayol +$-?xi recognises the continuing importance of information sharing

and stakeholder in!ol!ement in gaining commitment and moti!ation?

The =lan must recei!e the support of all those with authority and responsibility.

The act of forecasting is of great benefit to all who take part in the process, and is

the best means of ensuring adaptability to changing circumstances. The

collaboration of all concerned leads to a united front, an understanding of the

reasons for decisions, and a broadened outlook. @t increases the !alue of e!ery

member of staff? and is e!idence to the 9hief of their goodwill. The =lan charts

the course? its general acceptance builds unity, and mutual confidence

The complement of The =lan is the 8eports and Statistics regarding work undertaken pro!ided

by subordinates right through the undertaking +whether daily, monthly or yearly and are 6a

powerful means of control7 +Fayol $-?xi. Minutes are a record of the weekly meetings of

the !arious department heads where re discussed the results of each department and any

difficulties encountered. #p to date information ensures coordination and the 9hief (xecuti!e

has an insight into the minds of the managers +Fayol $-?xii.

9oncepts of ;ob analysis and design clearly inform Fayol’s +$-?xii :rganisation 9hart, which

shows the 6set)up of the undertaking, the ser!ices rendered, the hierarchy, how each position is

filled ) who reports to whom, and so on. /ttached to the 9hart is a definition of duties,

showing indi!idual authority and responsibility for all acti!ities7. Fayol +$-?xii also

recognises the need for succession planning in so far as to 6know the exact standing of the

undertaking it is essential to ha!e a detailed statement as to the personnel ) those who may be

expected to assume positions of authority, and those who will be retiring7.



5

9learly what Fayol displays here is more than ;ust a 6principles7 approach to management. @t

is suffused with a sense of management as praxis, as a process that is embedded in its

organisational and broader operating context and which is clearly a human endea!our rather

than a dispassionate decision)making and order gi!ing acti!ity. @ndeed, he introduces his

general principles of management with the statement that the 6managerial function finds its

only outlet through the members of the organization +body corporate7 +Fayol $-?$.

=lanning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling are the ways in which ideas

are de!eloped and translated into reality !ia people, and the rest of Fayol’s work +$-?-2)

$$' is taken up with detailing these elements of management.

'lanning

=lanning is 6to assess the future and make pro!ision for it7 +Fayol $-?-2. The plan of

action ) 6the result en!isaged, the line of action to be followed, the stages to go through, and

the methods to use7 ) is at once the chief manifestation and most effecti!e tool of planning

+Fayol $-?-2. @t is in taking the initiati!e for the plan of action that managers carry out the

managerial function. Fayol +$-?--)- describes the general features of a 6good7 plan and

the ad!antages and shortcomings of forecasts, noting that the 6best7 plans, make allowances

for contingencies +Fayol $-?-. Fayol +$-?-& recognises the benefits of what we would

call today 6benchmarking7, saying that 6it would be most useful for those whose concern is

management to know how experienced managers go about drawing up their plans7 and

proceeds to identify the main ingredients of the planning process he himself had utilized in his

own organization for many years. *e also says that good specimen plans should be made

generally a!ailable +Fayol $-?&$.

*e sees planning as more than 6the document7 though. @t is a process re0uiring important

personal and interpersonal competencies, including those related to managing the

organization’s internal stakeholders. To achie!e a 6good7 plan, Fayol +$-?&')&$ says the



$'

Fayol +$-?A')1A details his appreciation of the relationship between size, structure and

processes in organisations as he discusses the different kinds of members of the 6body

corporate7. @t is also clear from his earlier discussion of the 6shape7 of the body corporate

that, far from encouraging layers of o!erseers, his preference is for a 6flat7 structure with, for

example, only two layers of management between the lowest le!el of employees and the 9(:

+Fayol $-?&&.The general manager +or general manager group where an organisation is

sufficiently large is the executi!e authority drawing up the plan of action, selecting personnel,

determining performance, ensuring and controlling the execution of all acti!ities. ith a

group, these acti!ities can be di!ided in a !ariety of ways, based on the personnel 0ualities of

the indi!iduals +cf Eelbin’s +$5$3 $2 concept of management team roles. *ere Fayol

+$-?A2 also appears to anticipate Mintzberg’s +$123 $1&4$5 6hi!e of acti!ity7 which

surrounds managers, as he notes the obligations imposed by correspondence, inter!iews,

conferences, command and control, in!estigations to prepare future plans and harmonize

existing ones, searching for impro!ements, and other sundry acti!ities and the !ariety of

indi!iduals and groups with whom the manager comes in contact.

@n his discussion of the search for impro!ements, Fayol +$-?A-)A& appears to foreshadow

the total 0uality management +TKM mo!ement. Managers, he says, must ha!e an acti!e,

unrelenting intention to effect impro!ements. The method of effecting these impro!ements

includes 6obser!ing, collecting and filing facts, interpreting them, trying out experiments if

need be, and from the study as a whole, deducing rules which, under the manager’s impetus,

may be introduced into business practice.

Fayol +$-?&1 argues that beyond the size and shape of the organization, what is more

important is the substance?

to create an organization it is not enough to group people and distribute duties3

there must be knowledge of how to adapt the organic whole to re0uirements, how



$$

to find essential personnel and put each where he + sic can be of most ser!ice3

there are in sum numerous 0ualities needed.

*ere again, Fayol +$-?15 points to the !alue of the organization chart as a 6precious

managerial instrument7, not simply as a statement of what is, but because of its !alue when

modifications to the organization, as a result of changes in circumstances or people, become

necessary. /s Fayol +$-?15 says, 6any modification in one part of the organization can ha!e

wide repercussions and influence the general running of the whole7. @t must be remembered in

this regard that in Fayol’s +$-?15 organisation chart and its accompanying documents, not

only 6the whole of the personnel is shown, the constitution and demarcation of each

department, who is in each position, the superiors from whom an employee takes orders, and

the subordinates to whom he + sic gi!es them Gbut alsoH the indi!idual !alue of

employees their functions, the physical limits of their responsibility, GandH who shall

deputise for them.7

Command

The mission of command is to set the organization going +Fayol $-?1. The ob;ect of

command is to get the optimum return from all employees, while the art of command rests on

certain personal 0ualities and a knowledge of general principles of management +Fayol

$-?1. To the extent that managers aim at 6making unity, energy, initiati!e and loyalty

pre!ail among the personnel7 +Fayol $-?5 modern writers would more properly describe

this managerial function as concerned with moti!ation, leadership and empowerment.

/ccording to Fayol +$-?5)$'2 one exercises command through a thorough knowledge of

the personnel3 by elimination of the incompetent3 by balancing the interests of the organisation

and its employees through a 6strong sense of duty and of e0uity7 +p $''3 through good

example3 through periodic audit of the organisation3 through well de!eloped organisational

communication systems3 through delegation of tasks3 and through adopting the principles of a



$C

learning organisation +de!eloping initiati!e among subordinates 6by allowing them the

maximum share of acti!ity consistent with their position and capability, e"en at the cost of

some mistakes7 +Fayol $-?$'2, emphasis added.

Co*ordination

@n co)ordination, we find Fayol’s commitment to the principles of balance and contingent

action. For Fayol +$-?$'2, to co)ordinate is to 6harmonize all the acti!ities of a concern so

as to facilitate its working and its success . to accord things and actions their rightful

proportions, and to adapt means to ends7. 9oordination is achie!ed, inter alia, by the

6precious instrument7 of team meetings +weekly conferences of departmental heads. @t is

effected generally by 6combined action on the part of general management which super!ises

the whole, plus local managements whose efforts are directed towards the successful working

of each particular part7 +Fayol $-?$'A.

Control

9ontrol means 6!erifying whether e!erything occurs in conformity with the plan adopted, the

instructions issued and principles established7 +Fayol $-?$'1. To the extent that the

ob;ecti!e is to 6point out weaknesses and errors in order to rectify them and pre!ent

recurrence to contribute to the smooth working of each department in particular and of the

concern in general7 +Fayol $-?$'1)$'5, there is a strong sense of total 0uality management

and the learning organisation in Fayol’s principles here. 9ontrol is a 6precious auxiliary7 to

management because it can pro!ide necessary data that super!ision may fail to furnish and

because it pro!ides against undesirable surprises +Fayol $-?$'.

>i!en the elaboration abo!e, it is surprising to see Mintzberg +$1&4$5? say that 6The

Iprinciples of management’ school of thought, fathered by *enri Fayol was concerned

primarily with formal authority, in effect with the role of direct super!ision in the organization7.



$2

:ne suspects Fayol would treat the 6principles of management7 school as a 6bastard child7

since his own treatment of the functions of management goes much beyond these se!eral

notions. @ndeed, one might argue that Fayol’s characterisation of management still represents

6the most useful way of conceptualizing the manager’s ;ob7 +9arroll and >illen, $51?-5, that

6his principles were lighthouses to managerial action7 +ren, $-?$2 because he wasn’t ;ust

concerned with these matters and, in fact, anticipated many of the so)called 6modern7

management ideas.

MINTZBERG ON MANAGEMENT

Mintzberg’s +$12 key contribution to notions of management is gi!en in The Nature of

Managerial Work , where he poses the 0uestion 6hat do managers doL7 and then answers the

0uestion in terms of what he describes as the ten 6working roles of managers7. /s he does so,

he 0uotes appro!ingly from Earnard +$254$A5?C$& that 6(xecuti!e work is not that of the

organisation, but the specialised work of maintaining the organization in operation7.

Mintzberg +$12?2 defines managers as 6those persons formally in charge of organizations or

their subunits. This excludes many of those in Imiddle management’7. *e identifies the

following basic reasons why organizations need managers +Mintzberg $12?&)A that is to

• ensure the organization ser!es its purpose J the efficient production of

goods4ser!ices.

•

design and maintain the stability of the organization’s operations

• take charge of the organization’s strategy)making system, and therein adapt

the organization in a controlled way to its changing en!ironment

• ensure the organization ser!es the ends of those persons who control it

• ser!e as the key informational link between the organization and its

en!ironment



$-

• operate the organization’s status system.

Mintzberg +$12?)C- begins his work by summarising the literature to that point in terms of

what he calls the classical , great man, entrepreneurship, decision theor$, leader effecti"eness,

leader po#er , leader beha"iour , and #ork acti"it$ schools. :ther than the classical and #ork

acti"it$ schools, Mintzberg sees these schools as partial !iews of management. The classical

and #ork acti"it$ schools he sees as extreme opposites +Mintzberg $12?C$.

/ccording to Mintzberg +$12? the classical school describes managerial work 6in terms of a

set of composite functions7. *e characterises *enri Fayol as the father of this school, in so far

as Fayol +$- first proffered his fi!e management functions of planning, organization,

coordinating, commanding and controlling. Mintzberg +$12?$' argues that these categories

are not useful because they cannot be linked to specific acti!ities?

hich of these acti!ities may be called planning, and which may be called

organizing, coordinating or controllingL @ndeed, what relationship exists between

these four words and managers’ acti!itiesL These four words do not, in fact,

describe the actual work of managers at all. They describe certain !ague

ob;ecti!es of managerial work.

9arlson +$&$?C- was similarly critical of the categories?

@f we ask a managing director when he + sic is co)ordinating, or how much co)

ordination he has been doing during a day he would not know, and e!en the most

highly skilled obser!er would not know either. The same holds true for the

concepts of planning, command, organization of and control, and also for most of

the concepts used by Earnard in his analysis of the executi!e functions.

@t is worthy of note that Mintzberg has at this point and throughout the rest of his work

a!oided all reference to Fayol’s function of 6commanding7. @ndeed, in his subse0uent article



$&

ostensibly aimed at demonstrating the 6folklore and fact7 of managerial work +Mintzberg

$1&4$5 he doesn’t refer to the 6command7 function at all.

/t the other end of Mintzberg’s undefined continuum is the #ork acti"it$ school J 6the school

of inducti!e research, in which the work acti!ities of managers are analyzed systematically3

conclusions are drawn only when they can be supported by the empirical e!idence7 J within

which he locates himself +Mintzberg $12?C$. This school is so called because the range of

research methods included the 6diary method7 +where managers record !arious aspects of their

acti!ities on pre)coded pads, 6acti!ity sampling7 +where managers’ acti!ities are recorded at

random time inter!als and 6structured obser!ation7 + where the diary pad data are recorded by

an obser!er rather than the manager +Mintzberg $12?C$. The focus of this research is on the

characteristics of managerial work) where managers work, with whom they work, how long

they work and what media they use ) rather than the content of managers’ work ) what

acti!ities they carry out and why +Mintzberg $12?C$)CC. Dotwithstanding that his definition

of managers excludes many of those in Imiddle management’7 +Mintzberg $12?2, Mintzberg

+$12?C obser!es that the #ork acti"it$ studies ha!e generated findings that 6show

remarkable similarities for managers at all le!els of the hierarchy foremen, middle and senior

managers, and chief executi!es7.

Mintzberg’s +$12?C& prime ob;ecti!e in his research was to describe work content and he

used a structured obser!ation techni0ue to do so. Eased on the outputs of this research,

Mintzberg +$12?C)&$ characterises managers’ work as being much work at an unrelenting

pace +because of the open ended nature of the ;ob3 brief, !ariegated and fragmented +because

of the larger number of contacts dealing with different issues3 preferably 6li!e7 action +rather

than the 6burden7 of mail and routine reports3 conducted through !erbal media +with

indi!iduals and in scheduled meetings3 between the organization and a network of clients +who

also act as 6self designed external information systems73 and a blend of rights and duties



$1

decisions system. >i!en Mintzberg’s +$12?CAA contention that 6the basic content of all

managers’ work can be described in terms of these ten roles7, it is necessary then to account

for the differences as well as the similarities in managers’ work. Mintzberg +$12?$'2)$CA

argues that the size of the organization3 the industry or sector, the within which the

organization operates3 the manager’s le!el in the organization3 the unit’s function +production,

marketing, etc3 the person +the incumbent’s !alues, personality, and style3 and changes in the

;ob o!er time all contribute to differences in the manager’s work. @t is important to note

howe!er, that, in discussing the differences in managers’ work, Mintzberg +$12?$'2 is

concerned with the emphasis of different roles rather than the differences in operationalizing

the beha!iours attendant on each role. *e goes on to outline eight managerial ;ob types that

emphasise different roles, for example, the Team Manager whose key role is eader !ersus the

(xpert Manager whose key roles are Monitor and Spokesman.

Mintzberg +$12?- says his work has been 6written without preconceptions of the manager’s

;ob7. 8ather, he puts the !iew that, if a manager engages in an acti!ity, we must begin with the

assumption that this is part of the ;ob and seek to understand why the manager does it in the

broadest sense of those responsibilities. @n essence, Mintzberg defines management as what

managers do and then defines managers +rather narrowly in turn ) the result is that

management +and managerial beha!iour is defined in terms of the beha!iour the group of

indi!iduals called 6managers7 rather than being drawn from +or indeed then contributing to

some theoretical base. @ndeed, he remains unmo!ed in this !iew in subse0uent years when

introducing a reprint of his The manager’s job: Folklore and fact where he discusses the

nature of managerial work as 6what those people called Imanager’ or something e0ui!alent

actually do at the office all day long7 +Mintzberg $1&4$5?A.

/lthough Mintzberg +$12?C$ does not define the continuum +or gulf which separates the

classical and #ork acti"it$ schools, it would appear to range from a base of theoretical



$5

hypothetico)deducti!e reasoning at one end to empirical)inducti!e research at the other. The

existence of this separation seems to be rooted in differing ontological and epistemological

approaches, where Fayol +$- in his 6scientific7 way is wedded to a logical positi!ist

approach while Mintzberg +$12 operates from an interpreti!ist perspecti!e. @t may be the

case that their differences actually represent two sides of the same coin rather than

irreconcilable positions ) they arri!e at their respecti!e positions from different directions and

re0uire only a linking edge to be brought together.

Mintzberg +$12? C2$ said he chose structured obser!ation as the method that made it

possible to de!elop theory inducti!ely and because it 6couples the flexibility of open)ended

obser!ation with the discipline of seeking certain types of structured data7. :ne might suggest

though, that, in so far as Mintzberg +$12?C2C belie!es that the researcher is influenced in the

coding process 6not by the standing literature or his own prior experience, but by the single

e!ent taking place before him7 that his epistemology is less an inducti!e interpreti!ist one than

some form of nai!e positi!ism. Such a !iew is reinforced when one notes that perhaps his

most important reason for choosing fi!e 9(:s to constitute his research sample was his

6personal interest in the policy)making process and in drawing conclusions on the possible role

of management science at the policy le!el7 +Mintzberg $12?C21.

/dditional weight is gi!en to this !iew when it is noted that the framework for the $'

managerial roles is deri!ed primarily from the $2 purpose categories for !erbal contacts and

mail +eg scheduling, recei!ing information, gi!ing information +Mintzberg $12?CAA. :ne

might argue on this basis that Mintzberg’s $' managerial roles are simply an artefact of the

categories used to collect the data. @ndeed, Mintzberg +$12?CAA goes on to say that the

6theory on manager’s roles deri!es from the statements of purpose of the manager’s mail and

contacts7. This confusion is reflected in a number of the concepts that he treats.



$

*a!ing chosen a sample size of n N & 9(:s for his research purposes, Mintzberg +$12 one

might ha!e expected him to ha!e been somewhat more circumspect in his characterisation of

his results. >i!en the sample size and its constitution, it is difficult for Mintzberg to make any

claims about the generalizability of his results to managers in general or e!en 9(:s in

particular. @ndeed, since he has selected one 9(: from each of fi!e 0uite disparate

organizations +and therefore and industry4sector sample of n N $ each, one would be reticent

to generalize at all. Donetheless, one might argue that he has at least proffered a set of roles as

a framework for approaching the study of managerial beha!iour, but not before some of the

conceptual difficulties of that framework are examined.

Mintzberg’s commentary on 6roles7 has a number of conceptual flaws that cannot go

unchallenged. *is definition of role as 6an organized set of beha!iours belonging to an

identifiable office or position7 +Mintzberg $12?&- may suit his purpose for defining his

manager roles but it ignores the wider literature on wherein 6role7 is not wedded to 6an

identifiable office or position7. For example, we do not discuss the 6parenting role7 as

attached to an identifiable office or position +unless we now want to redefine 6mum7 and 6dad7

in these terms. *ere again we see Mintzberg shackled to his notion that 6management7 as

6what managers do7 J one cannot act managerially unless one is also occupying the

6identifiable office or position7.

@ndeed, Mintzberg relies on the office +as the source of authority and status within the

organisation as the base for the three role groups ) interpersonal, informational and decisional.

*e reinforces the importance of the authority in regard to, for example, the role of resource

allocator, where he says the 6manager authorizes important decisions of the unit before they

are implemented. Ey retaining this power, the manager can ensure that decisions are

interrelated all must pass through a single brain. To fragment this power is to encourage

discontinuous decision)making and a dis;ointed strategy7 +Mintzberg, $1&4$5?C$. *ere



C'

again, Mintzberg had earlier been critical of the classical school for its concern with notions of

6unity of command7 and yet in a later work +Mintzberg $1&4$5?CC says that the problem

of team management is the reintegration of se!eral people’s acti!ities to 6act as one entity7. @t

is somewhat puzzling that Mintzberg +$1? is critical of the classical school for being

concerned with formal authority when he sees these acti!ities deri!ed from the formal

authority of the manager office.

Mintzberg’s +$12?&- obser!ation that 6personality may affect how a role is performed, but

not that it is performed7 combines two notions, one reasonable and the other flawed. @t is, of

course, the contention of this thesis that personality does affect managerial beha!iour +although

the extent to which it does is yet to be determined. :n the other hand, there is e!idence to

suggest that managerial roles are less than the predetermined scripts Mintzberg suggests.

@ndeed, Mintzberg +$12?&')&$ says that managers ha!e two important degrees of freedom

regarding the acti!ities in which they engage ) their initial decisions which define their long

term commitments and the way in which they use for their own ends those acti!ities in which

they must engage. 9learly, there is allowance that, ;ust as actors may choose not to act in

particular roles, so managers will de!ote their energies to certain roles o!er others.

@n this regard, it is worthy of comment that, in discussing the research sample managers’

acti!ities Mintzberg +$12?C&5 prefers to dwell on the 6remarkable similarities in their work

acti!ities7 and this is true in terms of the categories of work but not in terms of the time spent

on them. For example, the proportion of time that the sample managers spent on 6desk work7

!aried between $AO and 25O, while the proportion of time taken up with scheduled meetings

!aried between 25O and 1&O +Mintzberg $12?C-C)C-2. (!en Mintzberg +$12?C&5 allows

for these differences, explaining them in terms of the managers’ uni0ue work circumstances.

Finally, Mintzberg +$12?&& argues that the delineation of roles is a somewhat arbitrary

partitioning of the manager’s acti!ities, the result of which must ultimately be ;udged in terms



C$

of its usefulness. *ere, Mintzberg +$12?&1 states each role is obser!able such that one can

witness, eg, a manager handling a disturbance or acting as a figurehead and ignores the reality

of different beha!iours being enacted in fulfilling the same role +his acknowledgment of

different 6styles7 is pertinent here or the same beha!iour being displayed to carry out se!eral

different roles +again Mintzberg allows for, e!en appro!es of, figurehead occasions to be used

for, eg, information monitoring and dissemination acti!ities. :ne may well argue that the

difficulty Mintzberg poses for Fayol +$- J when is one witness to planning, organising,

command, coordination, and controlL J is not o!ercome by his role concept. Much like the

partial freeway system, the 6bottleneck7 has merely been mo!ed to another location.

@f the process is arbitrary then whether the final categorisation is $' 6roles7 collected into three

groups or fi!e 6functions7 would appear to be moot. Mintzberg +$1&4$5? describes his

findings being 6as different from Fayol’s classical !iew as a cubist abstract is from a

8enaissance painting7. @t would appear to be the case howe!er, that, far from demonstrating

the 6folklore7 of Fayol’s +$- functions of management, what Mintzberg +$12 has done,

albeit unknowingly, is elaborate the roles in which managers +and others engage when carrying

out their managerial functions. @n other words, Mintzberg +$12 has pro!ided the empirical

support that establishes the link between managerial functions and managerial beha!iour, !ia

the roles that managers perform.

The disturbance handler role pro!ides a !ery good example. Mintzberg +$1&4$5?C' says

that e!ery manager must spend a good deal of time responding to high pressure disturbances +a

ma;or customer goes bankrupt or a supplier reneges on a contract and 0uotes appro!ingly

Sayles’ +$A-?$AC characterisation of the manager as

like a symphony orchestra conductor, endea!ouring to maintain a melodious

performance in which the contributions of the !arious instruments are coordinated

and se0uenced, patterned and paced, while the orchestra members are ha!ing



CC

!arious personal difficulties, stages hands are mo!ing music stands, alternating

excessi!e heat and cold are creating audience and instrument problems, and the

sponsor of the concert is insisting on irrational changes in the program.

This sounds suspiciously like Fayol’s +$- control and coordination functions +Sayles +$A-

e!en uses the term. Mintzberg is hard pressed to say on the one hand that a key managerial

role is conductor)like coordination and then on the other dismiss Fayol’s characterisation as

6folklore7. The next section explores whether this is an exemplar of a more systematic series

of relationships.

FAYOLVS MINTZBERG OR FAYOL AND MINTZBERG<

@n a re!iew of the more well)known researchers on managerial work who ha!e followed Fayol,

ren +$-?2&1 ff suggested, inter alia, that the works of Fayol and Mintzberg represent

simply different rather than competing !iews. Fells +C''' has sought also to explore the links

between FayolPs functions and Mintzberg’s roles, in the context of a comparison of Fayol’s

+$-, Mintzberg’s +$12, and Botter’s +$5C models on the one hand, and Fayol’s +$-,

Mintzberg’s +$12, and *ales’ +$5A models on the other. =resenting what he called a 6high)

le!el !iew of percei!ed inter)relationships7, Fells +C'''?2&C highlights what he sees as the

significant extent to which each of the models contain elements that represent similar concepts

or ideas and, as noted earlier, concludes that the contemporary models support and reinforce

that of Fayol.

/t the same time, Fells +C'''?2&C notes that the connection of the !arious model elements

6was !ery much a sub;ecti!e process and one could well argue the legitimacy of the inclusion

or exclusion of specific relationships7. hat has been missing from attempts at model

reconciliation to this point then, has been an ontological framework within which to embed

these apparently disparate world!iews, together with a beha!ioural base for explication.



C2

@n the presentation of his 6metatheory of management7, Tsoukas +$-?C& delineated four

different perspecti!es on management J management functions, management tasks,

management roles and management control J as a set of theoretical descriptions which are

logically related but distinct 6ontological layers of management7. "rawing on a realist

paradigm, Tsoukas +$-?C argued, inter alia, that for a particular set of management roles

+what managers do to be possible, certain management functions needed to be carried out.

ithin this framework, Tsoukas +$- suggested that, for example, Mintzberg’s roles might

not be so much the antithesis but the corollary of Fayol’s functions. @t is this framework that

has been used to de!elop the comparati!e relationship sets in Table C.

Table C pro!ides a basis for examining the two)way relationships between beha!iour, roles and

functions and, in turn, a more integrated theoretical base for research and teaching on

management and managerial beha!iour. For example, when we are seeking to understand

managerial beha!iour related to co)ordinating +harmonising all the acti!ities of a concern so as

to facilitate its working, we now ha!e the additional filters of the roles in which the manager

engages J eader +moti!ating and acti!ating subordinates3 staffing, training and associated

duties, "isseminator +transmitting information recei!ed from others to members of the

organization, "isturbance *andler +taking correcti!e action when the organization faces

important, unexpected disturbances and Spokesman +disseminating the organisation’s

information to its en!ironment J to clarify that understanding.

Ins!$ T";( . ";'#$ &!

(0ually, as we try to comprehend the leader role +moti!ating and acti!ating subordinates3

staffing, training and associated duties, we can broaden our appreciation of the acti!ities in

terms of whether they are aimed at assessing the future and making pro!ision for it +planning,

pro!iding the undertaking with raw materials, tools, capital, personnel +organizing, making

unity, energy, initiati!e and loyalty pre!ail among the personnel +commanding, 6harmonising



C-

all the acti!ities of the concern +co)ordinating, or !erifying whether e!erything occurs in

conformity with the plans, instructions and principles +controlling.

The ;uxtaposition of functions and roles here, and the examination of the relationship between

them, clearly suggests that the models proffered by Mintzberg +$12 and Fayol +$- can be

seen to represent different le!els of the same ontological reality rather than different realities

per se. @ndeed, the perspecti!es presented by Mintzberg and Fayol appear to be different !iews

of the same picture, dri!en, on the one hand, by Fayol’s focus on what managers should do if

they li!ed in an idealized state, and, on the other hand, Mintzberg’s concern with what

managers actually do, gi!en the demands they experience day)to)day. The next step is to

determine the extent to which the models of Mintzberg and Fayol can be reconciled empirically.

CONCLUSION

Fayol +$-?$$' saw his !olume as only the first half of his task in pro!iding an exposition of

management. The second was to gi!e practical application to his principles by detailing the

material amassed o!er his long industrial career together with more recent e!ents.

#nfortunately, Fayol was not able to finish his commitment. @n light of the material presented

in this paper, it appears that what Mintzberg +$12 has done, albeit unwittingly, is complete

Fayol’s task. Mintzberg +$A4$1 suggests, in talking about the creation of knowledge, that

6that little boy did not ha!e the courage to sa$ that the king wore no clothes3 he had the

courage to see it. /fter that, saying it was easy.7 @n the same !ein, this was an easy paper to

write. =erhaps if Mintzberg had read Fayol with 62" glasses7 +cf 8eid, $&, he would ha!e

written in a not dissimilar fashion. This understanding of the link between the works of Fayol

and Mintzberg also appears to pro!ide a more integrated theoretical framework to guide

research and teaching on management and managerial beha!iour.



C&

R)!n%s

Earnard, 9. @. +$254$A5. The Functions of the !ecuti"e +2'th /nni!ersary (dition.

9ambridge, Mass? *ar!ard #ni!ersity =ress.

Eolman, . and "eal, T. +$1. +eframing (rganisations +Cnd (d San Francisco? %ossey)

Eass.

9arlson, S. +$&$. !ecuti"e ,eha"iour: - .tud$ of the Workload and Working Methods of

Managing /irectors. Stockholm? Strombergs.

9arroll, S. %. < >illen, ". %. +$51. /re the classical management functions useful in

describing managerial workL -cadem$ of Management +e"ie#% 01203, 25)&$

9legg, S. < "unkerley, ". +$5'. (rganisation% Class and Control . ondon? 8outledge.

Fayol, *. +$-. General and Industrial Management . +trans. 9 Storrs. ondon? =itman.

Fells, M. %. +C'''. Fayol stands the test of time & 4ournal of Management 5istor$, 6 , 2-&)2A'.

*ales, 9. =. +$5A. hat do managers doL / critical re!iew of the e!idence. 4ournal of

Management .tudies, 17203, 55)$$&.

Botter, %. =. +$5C. The General Managers. Dew Qork? The Free =ress.

March, J. and Simon, H. (1958/1993) Organizations (2nd Ed) Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell

Mintzberg, *. +$12. The Nature of Managerial Work . Dew Qork? *arper < 8ow

Mintzberg, *. +$1&. The manager’s ;ob? Folklore and fact. 5ar"ard ,usiness +e"ie#, 87293,

4ul$*-ugust , -)A$3 reprinted in Mintzberg, * +$5 Mint)berg on Management: inside our

strange #orld of organi)ations. Dew Qork? The Free =ress, )C-.



CA

Mintzberg, *. +$A. (MT /istinguished .cholar -ddress, /cademy of Management

9onference, 9incinnati, /ugust3 cited in (rganisation and Management Theor$ /i"ision

Ne#sletter , inter $1.

Morgan, >. +$5A. Images of (rganisation. Dewbury =ark, 9a.? Sage.

Perrow, C. (1973). The short and glorious history of organizational theory. Organizational

Dynamics, 2(1): 2-15.

8eid, ". +$&. 8eading Fayol with 2" glasses. 4ournal of Management 5istor$, $+2, A2)1$.

Sayles, . 8. +$A-. Managerial ,eha"iour: -dministration in Comple! (rganisations& Dew

Qork? Mc>raw)*ill.

Tsoukas, *. +$-. hat is managementL /n outline of a metatheory. ,ritish 4ournal of

Management , 8, C5)2'$.

#rwick, . +$-. Foreword. in Fayol, * +$- General and Industrial Management . +trans.

9 Storrs. ondon? =itman, !)x!i.

ren, ". /. +$-. The "olution of Management Thought +-th (d Dew Qork? %ohn iley.

ren, ". /., Eedeian, /. >. < Ereeze, %. ". +C''C. The foundations of *enri FayolPs

administrati!e theory. Management /ecision, -'+, 'A)$5.



C1

TABLE /

T& M"n"*!’s W'!=2n* R'(s >"d"3$d )!'+ M2n$?;!* /-@7:-.-7

R'( Ds%!23$2'n E"+3(s ') A%$2v2$2s

Interpersonal Figurehead Symbolic head3 obliged to perform a number

of routine duties of a legal or social nature9eremony3 status re0uests3solicitations

eader 8esponsible for the moti!ation andacti!ation of subordinates3 responsible forstaffing, training and associated duties

Rirtually all managerial acti!itiesin!ol!ing subordinates

iaison Maintains self)de!eloped network of outsidecontacts and informers who pro!ide fa!oursand information

/cknowledgment of mail3 external board work3 other acti!itiesin!ol!ing outsiders

Informational

Monitor Seeks and recei!es wide !ariety of specialinformation +much of it current to de!elopthorough understanding of organization anden!ironment3 emerges as ner!e centre ofinternal and external information of theorganization

*andling all mail and contactscategorized as concerned primarilywith recei!ing information +eg

periodical news, obser!ationaltours

"isseminator Transmits information recei!ed fromoutsiders or from other subordinates tomembers of the organization3 someinformation factual, some in!ol!inginterpretation and integration of di!erse

!alue positions of organizational influencers

Forwarding mail to organizationfor informational purposes, !erbalcontacts in!ol!ing information flowto subordinates +eg re!iewsessions, instant communication

flows /ecisional (ntrepreneur Searches organization and its en!ironment

for opportunities and initiates 6impro!ement pro;ects7 to bring about change3 super!isesdesign of certain pro;ects as well

Strategy and re!iew sessionsin!ol!ing initiation or design ofimpro!ement pro;ects

"isturbance*andler

8esponsible for correcti!e action whenorganization faces important, unexpecteddisturbances

Strategy < re!iew sessionsin!ol!ing disturbances < crises

8esource/llocator

8esponsible for the allocation oforganizational resources of all kinds ) in

effect the making or appro!al of allsignificant organizational decisions

Scheduling3 re0uests forauthorization3 any acti!ity

in!ol!ing budgeting and the programming of subordinates’work

Degotiator 8esponsible for representing theorganization at ma;or negotiations

Degotiation



C5

TABLE .

F"y'(’s >/-- M"n"*+n$ F#n%$2'ns "nd M2n$?;!*’s >/-@7 M"n"*! R'(s:

A R%'n%2(2"$2'n

M"n"*+n$ F#n%$2'n >F"y'( M"n"*! R'( >M2n$?;!*

Planning

6to assess the future and make

pro!ision for it7

+a process which re0uires

important personal and

interpersonal competencies,

including those related to

managing the organisation’s

internal stakeholders

Figurehead +6symbolic head7

eader +6responsible for the moti!ation and acti!ation of subordinates3responsible for staffing, training and associated duties7

iaison +6maintains self)de!eloped network of outside contacts andinformers who pro!ide fa!ours and information7

Monitor +6seeks and recei!es wide !ariety of special information to de!elopthorough understanding of organization and en!ironment7

ntrepreneur +6searches organization and its en!ironment for opportunities7

+esource -llocator +6allocation of organizational resources of all kinds ) ineffect the making or appro!al of all significant organizational decisions7

Organizing

pro!ide the undertaking 6with

e!erything useful to its

functioning? raw materials,

tools, capital, personnel7

eader

iaison

Monitor

+esource -llocator

/isseminator +6transmits information recei!ed from outsiders or from other subordinates to members of the organization7

Negotiator +6representing the organization at ma;or negotiations7

C'++"nd2n*

6making unity, energy,

initiati!e and loyalty pre!ail

among the personnel7

Figurehead

Monitor

eader

/isseminator

Negotiator

Co-ordinating

6harmonize all the acti!ities

of a concern so as to facilitate

its working and its success7

eader

/isseminator

/isturbance 5andler +6correcti!e action when the organization facesimportant, unexpected disturbances7

.pokesman +6dissemination of the organization’s information to itsen!ironment7

Controlling

6!erifying whether e!erything

occurs in conformity with the

plan adopted, the instructions

issued and principles

established7

eader

iaison

Monitor

/isseminator

/isturbance 5andler

Negotiator

jame paper lamond

Documents