Fayol Vs Mintzberg Analysis

In addition, Mintzberg agrees with Fayol 's function that without planning a manager cannot be successful at what they do. However, planning helps organization to look to the future and predict a problem. Managers must arrange work so that organization 's goal can be accomplish, organizing is the structural part of management. Furthermore, without organizing there is no need for a manager. Fayol 's functions of management are organizing while Mintzberg says that organizing play a critical part of management. Therefore without organizing there will be no need for a manager. Fayol 's and Mintzberg 's views of management stated that manager must have good leadership skills. Indeed without a good leadership, management will fail. Both employees

They both realised that, the problem of personnel and its management at all levels is the key to industrial success. Indeed, they applied scientific method to this problem. That Taylor worked primarily on the operative level, from the bottom of the industrial hierarchy upwards, while Fayol concentrated on the Managing Director and worked downwards, was merely a reflection of their very different careers.” In addition, they felt the universality of management applied scientific methods to the problems of management. They also observed the importance of personnel and its management at all levels. Furthermore, they wanted to improve the management practices and developed their ideas through practical experience. The main aim of Taylor was to enhance productivity of labour and eliminate wastages whereas Fayol tried to develop a universal theory of management. One of the difference between them is that Taylor’s philosophy has undergone a big change under the influences of modern developments, but Fayol’s principles of management have stood the test of time and are well accepted even in the present days. Indeed, Fayol looks to the management in the wider perspective as compared to Taylor. In general, both men sought to find a framework whereby the organization could operate more effectively. As a result, both Fayol and Taylor are accused of

He devoted most of his life to prove it. Fayol saw the organization as closed system where he focuses on the internal factor of an organization. Mintzberg says that management is more of an open system where his concern is about the internal factors and the external influences of the organization. Thus, Fayol and Mintzberg theories of management are important and both can be effective. Unfortunately, not only Mitzberg disagree with what Fayol says sometimes. Fayol and Taylor theories are not so contradictory but more complementary. However, Taylor was focused on improving productivity, with minimal focus on management. Whereas Fayol’s theory allows for more top down innovation in the long run, especially in terms of the human needs of the worker. Taylor 's approach inevitably treats the workers as if their productivity were the answer to all problems, including their own. And Fayol emphasis on management, decision making let the possibility to believe that maybe managers could change their attitude toward workers when the firm had been effectively organized. Taylor 's focus on output simply blinded him to the humanity of the workers. On the other hand Fayol’s theory would seem to leave room for growth on the part of those in power in the