Administrative Management Theory

ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT THEORY 6

AdministrativeManagement Theory

AdministrativeManagement Theory

2q2eg

Thispost primarily discusses the variations between Henry Fayol’s andHenry Mintzberg’s administrative management theories. It underlinesthe fact that none of the two theories is more applicable and validthan the other and rebuffs any assertions to the effect that Fayol’stheory is wrong simply because it is different from Mintzberg’s. Ofcourse, it is agreeable that the theories are both applicable andwould seem to complement each other as far as the comprehension ofthe importance of the manager’s role in enhancing the success andprofitability of a business entity is concerned (Sapru,2008).However, it is noteworthy that they seem to have some variationsregarding this matter, with the Fayol’s theory underlining the factthat the managers would be wholly responsible for the businesses’profits and success. Mintzberg, on the other hand, believes that thecapacity of a manager to succeed in a particular role is determinedby the institutional framework that the organization has put in place(Stacey,2010).This is the fundamental difference between the two (Holbeche,2005).All the fourteen principles of management that Fayol espoused seem tobe applicable in the contemporary business environment, although theyseem somehow obvious.

2d2mb

Thispost provides a clear distinction between the theories of managementas espoused by Fayol and Mintzberg. Fayol underlined the need forunity of command, as well as a top-down approach to management, andcame up with 14 principles of management that could be used inenhancing the success of a business entity (Spatig, 2009). Mintzberg,on the other hand, came up with a ten behaviors that underline therole of a manager, which bore immense similarities to the fiveaspects of management that had been espoused by Fayol. Of course,there are fundamental differences between the two theoriesparticularly considering that Mintzberg’s theory was aimed atrighting the wrongs or closing the gaps that the classical school ofmanagement incorporated. However, it goes without saying thatMintzberg based his theory on Fayol’s ideas, in which case, boththeories are considerably valid in the contemporary human society(Schimmoeller, 2012).

2d2aw

Thispost clearly outlines the fourteen principles and five roles ofadministrative management as espoused by Fayol. It is well noted,however, that Mintzberg’s theory came as a remedy for what he sawas the rigidity and vagueness of Fayol’s theory, in which case theformer aimed at outlining a more useful and supportable descriptionof the managerial functions. However, this should not be anindication of more validity of Mintzberg’s theory over Fayol’stheory. Indeed, Fayol’s theory espoused 14 principles that seempretty applicable in the contemporary industries particularly instreamlining the employees’ systems (Sahni&ampVayunandan, 2010).Mintzberg, on the other hand, covers the varied aspects that may havebeen left out by Fayol and comes up with a system that allows for thecollaboration between the system and the managers themselves (Fells,2000). In essence, Mintzberg’s theory of administrative managementcomplements the classical theory of management as espoused by Fayol,but basis the theory on the later, thereby making them both valid(Burnes,2004).

2q1ds

Thispost seems to concentrate or focus on the applicability of Fayol’sadministrative principles, which were too be seen as flexibleguidelines that should be customized to the circumstances of theorganization. It is worth acknowledging that Fayol’s theory seemedto underline the need for centralized authority or rather aparticular chain of command, where the managers had particular rolesto play in the organization or business entity, with the managersbeing required to undergo special educational instructions so as tofit in these roles (Adetule,2011).Needless to say, the fourteen principles that Fayol espoused in histheory are perfectly applicable in the modern business entities,although they are mostly seen as pretty rigid and obvious. Theywould, however, need to be complemented by some adjustments so as tomake them more applicable in modern organizations (Pearson &ampParker, 2008). For instance, it would be difficult to imagine that amanager would have to take responsibility for the performance of anorganization in its entirety, while the organizational structurecould be detrimental to his capacity to function (Singh&ampSachdeva, 2012).

References

  1. Adetule, J. (2011).&nbspHandbook on management theories. Bloomington: Author House.

  2. Burnes, B. (2004).&nbspManaging change: A strategic approach to organisational dynamics. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

  3. Fells, M. J. (2000). Fayol stands the test of time. Journal of Management History, 6(8), 345-360.

  4. Holbeche, L. (2005).&nbspThe high performance organization: Creating dynamic stability and sustainable success. Oxford (etc.: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann.

  5. Pearson, G., &amp Parker, M. (2008). Management or organizing? A dialogue. Business &amp Society Review, 113(1), 43-61.

  6. Robbins, S. P., Odendaal, A., &amp Roodt, G. (2003).&nbspOrganisational behaviour: Global and Southern African perspectives. Cape Town: Pearson Education South Africa.

  7. Sahni, P., &amp Vayunandan, E. (2010).&nbspAdministrative theory. New Delhi, India : PHI Learning,

  8. Sapru, R. K. (2008).&nbspAdministrative theories and management thought. New Dehli: PHI Learning.

  9. Singh, H., &amp Sachdeva, P. (2012).&nbspPublic administration: Theory and practice. New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley.

  10. Spatig, L. (2009). Rediscovering Fayol: Parallels to Behavioralist Management and Transformational Leadership. Proceedings of The Northeast Business &amp Economics Association, 196-199.&nbsp

  11. Stacey, R. D. (2010).&nbspStrategic management and organisational dynamics: The challenge of complexity to ways of thinking about organisations. Harlow: Prentice-Hall/Financial Times.

  12. Schimmoeller, C. L. (2012). Henri Fayol and Zero Tolerance Policies. Review Of International Comparative Management / Revista De Management Comparat International, 13(1), 30-36