The Industrial Revolution of the 18th century had profoundly altered the socioeconomic and cultural conditions of the world, thus increasing the need for a more effective and efficient method of managing resources (Robbins & Coulter 2005, p.27). As a result of this need, the principles of management have been subjected to constant evolution in order to cater to the changing times. This essay will explore the concept of ‘management’ by comparing and contrasting the various meanings of management, as well as the various interpretations of a manager’s role, from both the traditional and modern perspectives.
Popular academic opinion on the definition of ‘management’ has been varied throughout time. This is largely due to the economic transition from a manufacturing industry to a service industry; hence requiring different approaches for different management scenarios. A traditional approach would be that of Frederick Taylor’s definition that management is ‘…knowing exactly what you want [people] to do, and then seeing that they do it in the best and cheapest way.’ (Davidson, Simon, Woods & Griffin 2009, p.8). Similarly, Follet and McGregor (as cited in Rasberry & Lindsay 1994, p.13) assert that it is an activity carried out by a set of individuals, in which human relationships are central to an organisation’s success. However, some critics may argue that the definition of ‘management’ looks at the whole picture, not solely on employees as suggested by Taylor, Follet and McGregor (Shead 2007). For instance, Albanese (as cited in Robbins & Mukerji 1994, p.7) depicts management as a means to reaching the goals of an organisation through employing and influencing resources. The author further commented that scarce resources, both human and non-human, should be utilised collaboratively to accomplish more work. Thus, Davidson et al (2009, p.9) summarises that it is the process in which managers intend to achieve the organisation’s aim by using an efficient and effective contrivance.
Traditionally, a manager’s job scope was primarily defined in accordance to Fayol’s functions of management: planning, organising, leading and controlling (Schemerhorn 2005, p. 19). Although these management activities may seem simple, it is a multifaceted practice in reality (Schemerhorn 2005, p.34). Several critics, particularly Woodward, Burns and Stalker as well as Lawrence and Lorsch were amongst the first to identify variations in managerial roles which are indispensable in differing circumstances when implemented (Mumford). For instance, Stewart had commented that managerial activities mostly include interaction with others; which is contrary to Fayol’s principles wherein he concentrates more upon the planning process than any other functions. Although there are significant differences in opinion, Stewart and Mintzberg both agree with Fayol, stating that planning is crucial for an organisation’s success, though not the main crux of managerial functions.
Correspondingly, Mintzberg dismissed Fayol’s classical theory as “folklore” in his book, stating that the four principles proposed cannot be linked to specific activities. The author had then identified three categories in which a manager does on a daily basis: interpersonal, informational and decisional (Williams 2009, p.18). His successors, Carlson and Sayles also describe that there are no obvious indications of human behaviour within the classical school of thought, such as relationships and communicating with employees. Mintzberg further suggested that Fayol contradicts himself in relation to the unity of command and scalar chain principle, in which one person only takes orders from one superior. For example, a salesperson only receives commands by the store manager but not from the Chief Executive Officer of the outlet. This neglected the concept of interpersonal roles wherein a manager acts as the figurehead, leader, as well as a liaison between upper and lower management (Abdullah 2001, p. 40). As a result of these contradicting principles, Mintzberg advocates that Fayol’s principles do not reflect the reality of cross divisional communication. Hence, the essence of the critique against the classical management school of thought is that they are prescriptions about what managers ought to do, which bear no relationship to the reality of what managers actually do.
Furthermore, managers in an organisation do not only perform tasks such as planning, organising, commanding and leading; they also execute their responsibilities by building networks, establishing values and norms, as well as motivating and controlling subordinates (Kotter as cited in). According to Kotter, “the efficiency of seemingly inefficient behaviour” is evident in the results of his research, which involved observation, interview, questionnaires and a collection of documents in which most managers actually engage in conversations to react to the day’s needs rather than planning their days in advance. Managers often “… engage in attempts to influence others by asking, requesting, cajoling, persuading and even intimidating…” rather than through the delegation of tasks consistent with the employees’ positions and capabilities, as suggested by Fayol. Similarly, Isenberg found that senior managers constantly deal with a context of ambiguity, inconsistency and surprise. Therefore, it can be concluded that managers work on a network of interrelated problems, not on neatly identifiable and separate problems.
As a conclusive statement, this essay adopts the definition of ‘management’ as being an activity wherein a manager plans, leads, organises and commands through interpersonal, informational and decisional roles in order to achieve the organisation’s aspirations. The transformation of the world of business and work as we know it is apparent, as traditional methods were substituted by new practices and viewpoints. Classical theorists like Fayol have been criticised and misunderstood as ‘closed’ systems because they only concentrate on internal factors within an organisation; however, they still carry slight similarities with the ‘systems approach’ derived by theorists such as Mintzberg and Stewart in the 1980s. Therefore, it can be said that the very core of Fayol’s principles has withstood the test of time, and has served as the foundation of modern management theories. Contemporary theorists such as Mintzberg and Stewart have merely built their theories around Fayol’s; serving to improve or adapt his principles to modern-day requirements, and not to replace or overwrite his traditional principles. Academia would however have to ponder upon whether the current contemporary modern theories are time-resistant and stand at the zenith of management principles; or whether there is still room for further improvement or evolution.