Comparing and Contrasting Management Theory

Table 1: Comparison of Functions of Management

Variable Fayol (1916) Mintzberg(1973) Brech(1975) Prahalad (2000) Hamel(2007)

Planning Planning Interpersonal Planning Common Setting Goals and
competitive Objectives
agaenda
Organizing Organizing Gathering and assigning
resources
Commanding Commanding Motivating Focusing on Directing and managing
influence without the motivator
ownership
Coordinating Coordinating Informational Coordinating Speed of reaction in Coordinating
the organization
Controlling Controlling Decisional Controlling Leveraging Controlling
corporate resources

In the last decade, various management theories have been developed in order to correctly describe
managerial activities that can lead to improving the skills of managers and ultimately acquiring the most
systematic and effective performance at work (Zakarat, 2014). Some of these theories talked about
management in a traditional context, like Henri Fayol (1916, cited in Zaraket, 2014) who reveals that the
job of a manager can only be defined through a preset number of managerial functions that involves
planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling. However, Henry Mintzberg (1973,cited
in Zakarat, 2014), the expert and professor in management has challenged these traditional ideas of
Fayols and defined them more like a “folklore”. In addition, he argues that the actual work practicing
managers do, do not amount to the functions assigned to them Brunsson (2008).
In order to comprehend the practice and nature of management, Mintzberg (1973) described three
categories of roles which are: interpersonal, informational and decisional, that managers fall under as
opposed to Fayol’s five element of management when he studied CEOs of five organizations and
concluded that these managers utilized so much time interacting with people, responded to matters as they
happened, were not contemplative planners and gave more time discussing rather than depending on
reports and other documents as opposed to Fayol’s five management functions (Wren, 2003). It is argued
though, that Mintzberg’s style of observation does not correctly explain managerial activities because his
method does not examine managerial purpose. Nonetheless, Mintzberg felt that Fayol’s managerial
approach to work did not correctly project a sense that managers meticulously and intentionally scrutinize
information prior to reaching management conclusion (Zakarat, 2014). Henri Fayol’s concept of overall
management describes the key managerial activities to be carried out. The managers Fayol referred to
were cut off from the employees who performed the work and Fayol anticipated that a rising
disconnection between the real organization work and management. It goes on to clarify why managers
require intense planning and a self-reliant control function. Managers that are isolated depend on reports
to plan right and give accurate information about the work efficiency as they do not have the privilege to
see firsthand what has been done and ought to be carried out as those who are personally observing the
work done (Brunsson, 2008). Mintzberg view varies from Fayols as he clarifies that because of “the
nature of managerial work”, managers do not carry out the traditional management functions. He
explained that managers become acclimatized to their environment and prefer verbal over written means
of communication (Snyder, 1981).
Brech (1965) agrees with fayol’s view on general regulation of management and development of policies
but with great focus on staff development within the organization (Cole and Kelly, 2016). He Saw
management as a process for planning and controlling the activities towards the goal and undertaken
within the body of an organizational structure. Compared to Fayol (1916), Brech’s list of principles and
approach was less dogmatic but was still concerned with the division of responsibilities, lines of
communication, unity of command and the allocation of authority, to mention just a few (Cole and Kelly,
2016). Since there was no general acceptance about a fundamental principle of management, Brech
argued it will be impractical to be acknowledged as a science or a profession. He believed that such
managerial laws could be taken from an evaluation of the nature of managerial process and that was what
he tried to take after in the steps of Fayol, Urwick and others. He agreed with Mintzberg (1973) that
development of management policies would only be acceptable only after an intensive research into
management practices and procedures is performed (Cole and Kelly, 2016). However, his writings on
principles were more focused towards assisting practicing managers increase effectiveness in their roles
rather than towards adding to an overall body of knowledge regarding management theory (Idiko and
Adaigwe, 2018) which relates to Mintzberg and other theorist view on strategic perspective towards
management which was more about effectiveness than efficiency (Cole and Kelly, 2016).
Prahalad (2000), on the other hand states that senior managers roles need to be observed closely
predominantly on the importance of a shared agenda, Creating a clear charter of values and behaviors,
Focusing on influence without ownership, Competing for talent and building the skill mix of the
organization, Speed of reaction in the organization and Leveraging corporate resources to address
emerging opportunities. It is seen that Prahalad’s view in comparison with other mentioned theorist
notably indicated that senior managers need to contend for talents and engage in staff development in the
organization. Alternatively, Hamel (2007), proposes a diversion from top loaded structures of
management to a less weighty one while doing the right things through controlling and coordinating.
‘Hierarchy adds costs and reduces responsiveness… [w]e need organizations where control comes less
from rules and sanctions, and more from norms and peers. We need to radically reduce the management
costs associated with both coordination and control’ (Hamel and Price, 2011). The practice of
management according to Hamel includes: Setting and programming objectives; Motivating and aligning
effort; Coordinating and controlling activities; Developing and applying knowledge; Amassing and
allocating resources; Building and nurturing relationships; Balancing and meeting stakeholder demands.
 References
Brunsson, K. H. (2008) ‘Some Effects of Fayolism’ Int. Studies of Mgt. & Org. 38(1), pp. 30-47.
Available at: https://whel-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/search?
query=any,contains,some%20effect%20of
%20fayolism&tab=tab3&search_scope=CSCOP_EVERYTHING&vid=44WHELF_USW_NUI1&lang=e
n_US&offset=0 (Accessed on: 30 April 2020).

Cole, G. and Kelly, P. (2016) ‘Custom Management Theory and Practice’ Available at:
https://unicaf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781473759695/cfi/0!/4/4@0.00:53.2 (Accessed on: 28 April
2020).

Hamel and Price (2011), Available at: https://hbr.org/2011/10/the-beyond-bureaucracy-challen,

10/03/2017 (Accessed on: 28 April 2020).

Idiko, B. and Adaigwe, P. D. (2018) ‘The rational behind the functionality of the multiple theories of
management: A theoretical overview’ European Journal of Research and Reflection in Management
Sciences 6(2). Available at: http://www.idpublications.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Full-Paper-THE-
RATIONAL-BEHIND-THE-FUNCTIONALITY-OF-THE-MULTIPLE-THEORIES-OF-
MANAGEMENT.pdf (Accessed on: 30 April 2020).

The University of South Wales (2020) ‘Leadership and Management Theories (16612): Week 3 -
Criticality Exercise 2 - Comparing and Contrasting Management Theory’ Available at: https://vle-
usw.unicaf.org/mod/assign/view.php?id=150265 (Accessed on: 29 April 2020).

Wren, D. A. (2003) ‘The influence of Henri Fayol on management theory and education in North
America’ Entreprises et Histoire 34, pp. 98. Available at: https://search-proquest-
com.ergo.southwales.ac.uk/docview/220871385?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/sid:primo&accountid=15324
(Accessed on: 30 April 2020).