JAME Paper Lamond
-
Upload
fahmeedrajput -
Category
Documents
-
view
227 -
download
0
Transcript of 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"#
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 2/30
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.
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 3/30
$
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
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 4/30
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
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 5/30
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
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 6/30
-
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
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 7/30
&
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
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 8/30
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
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 9/30
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.
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 10/30
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
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 11/30
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 12/30
$'
Fayol +$-?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
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 13/30
$$
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
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 14/30
$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.
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 15/30
$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
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 16/30
$-
• 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
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 17/30
$&
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
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 18/30
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 19/30
$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
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 20/30
$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.
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 21/30
$
*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
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 22/30
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
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 23/30
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
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 24/30
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.
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 25/30
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
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 26/30
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.
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 27/30
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, * +$5 Mint)berg on Management: inside our
strange #orld of organi)ations. Dew Qork? The Free =ress, )C-.
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 28/30
CA
Mintzberg, *. +$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)$5.
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 29/30
C1
TABLE /
T& M"n"*!’s W'!=2n* R'(s >"d"3$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
8/10/2019 JAME Paper Lamond
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jame-paper-lamond 30/30
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