Are the Classical Functions Put Forward in 1949 Still Valid?

Academics for years have been pondering the effectiveness of classical getes to newer conceptualizations deep down heed functions. Are the classical functions effect forward by Henri Fayol in 1949 still valid and accepted today? , or are the theories put forward by otherwise academics much(prenominal) as Mintzberg much valid? , or would the scientific type oversight concepts be more fitting?. To answer such(prenominal) questions this report examines two Journal journals, Are the classical watchfulness functions useful in describing managerial make for? (Journal 1) and Some effects of Fayolism (Journal 2).By analyzing the different arguments put forward, I aim to conclude which conjecture is more get hold of to centering drive today. In journal 1, Carroll and Gillen examine newer conceptualizations of a managers job, and compare its findings to that of Fayols classical progress. The basis of this evaluation is to determine which approach is more useful in determinin g the use of goods and services of focus for the purpose of steering education. Journal 2 draws on Fayols theory of a slump of activities that are common to tot ally organizations, to prove the developed management functions.It then evaluates and compares this nonion with that of Fredrick Taylor with reference to management fashions to determine which theory is more accurate and relevant to managerial conceptualization today. Journal 1 merits Fayols theory, in referring to the signifi bedce it has had in studying management. In examining 21 books published from 1983 to 1986, he found that all books mentioned Fayols functions to both(prenominal) degree. Fayols quatern classical management functions (POLC) Planning, Organizing, Leading & Controlling, have been adopted as the foundation for management study for a long time.Upon evaluating Fayols theory, empirical studies expanded Fayols functions to 8 functions, now known as the PRINCESS circumstanceors (planning, representing , investigating, negotiating, coordinating, evaluating, supervising and staffing). In support of Fayols claims, such functions apply to all forms of management. The author refers to a twist of studies and experiments to show that time invested in the classical functions have brought positive results in areas such as organization performance, unit performance, managerial mobility and higher production records.Upon the empirical studies, there is equal evidence to merit the classical approach in its functions being used by managers. further Mintzberg did not agree with Fayols theory. Mintzberg felt that Fayols fifty year description of managerial work is no longer of use to us (Mintzberg, 1971 pp 39). Mintzberg proposed a different model consisting of ten work roles interpersonal roles (figurehead, attracter and liaison), informational roles (monitor or nerve center, disseminator and spokesman) and decision-making (entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator and negotiat or).However this model came under scrutiny by competing theorists. The author used m some(prenominal) examples and refers to experiments done by other academics to criticize Mintzbergs theory. McCall and Segrist (1980) limited the number of roles Mintzberg claimed, on the basis that certain roles overlapped each other and could not be called separate. Lau, Newman and Broedling (1980) limited the model to four factors (leadership and supervision, information gathering and dissemination, technical problem solving, and executive decision making) upon the findings of their experiment.The flaws within the Mintzberg Model rose payable to the observable physical approach taken. The journal stresses the importance of analyzing neurophysiological activities, as measuring physical managerial activities alone does not provide a comprehensive understanding of the managerial role, as it is rather a prominent mental role. Non classical conceptualizations of managerial work (Mintzberg, Stewart e tc. ) help define the nature of managerial work.However Fayols classical approach outgo conceptualizes management functions and a managers job, so it is the best source to be used for educational purposes. Journal 2 addresses two perspectives of management to evaluate the concepts of management fashion and its management recommendations. There is a logical supposition that organizations must strive to be ridiculous in their business operations to have a fair chance of success, within competition. However the composition of management states presumes resemblance in all businesses, which calls for the profession of managers to exist (Brunsson, 2008 pp33).This journal also recognizes the merit of Fayols theory in molding Management conceptualization. Furthermore recognizes the success of management recommendations listed by other theorists such as Mintzberg and Kotter, who refer to Fayols functions to a respected degree. However the journal does not recognize any relationship betwee n Fayols functions and organizational performance. Brunsson refers to Fredrick Taylors bottom-up view to address this issue. Discussing managements recommendations in hurt of fashions imply dissatisfaction ith the existing recommendations, and ambition to improve these recommendations, a sentiment that efforts at improvement, at least some of them fail, and some management recommendations should not be seen to belong to any management fashion. (Brunsson, 2008 pp33) The journal promotes general management as a transcription of defining and classifying in order to improve organizational decision making. However empirical studies of managers shows an mish-mash of those activities, implying Fayols theory of management has taken precedence of importance over the reality of management activities.This evidence has raised a new idea, that Fayols approach is no longer valid and management order varies depending on the situation of a manager, and the position and personality of the manager (Brunsson, 2008 pp42). If Fayols approach was scrutinized and his popular opinion of general management was questioned, then Taylors scientific management concept may have prevailed and taken precedence. Both journals express the relevance and importance of Fayols classical approach to the development of Management study to date. However journal 1 implies that Fayols classical approach is more useful than other conceptualizing theories put forward.Journal 2 implies that the Fredrick Taylors scientific management principles are a more suitable and effective conceit to define Management over the classical approach. In my opinion, Fayols classical approach holds the most credibleness in studying management. I believe the depth to understanding managerial concepts has no boundaries, due to the complexity of its study. As a result many theorists have attempted to understand this subject, and have criticized each others work, which proves there are no set guidelines to follow, it is rather subjective to its audience.However in my opinion Fayols four functions, cover the basis of activities involved to perform managerial duties. This statement is supported by the fact that it is a widely accepted approach and is used in all management textbooks. Fayols theory helps identify the functions clearly and distinctly. Managers are faced with decision making processes that have high impact on organizations. They are put into that role in the competitive industry, due to their understanding of managerial roles, so they can perform to their level best, and benefit the organization.Therefore as Fayol stated, it is important for managers to undergo training. Other theories put forward such as Mintzbergs model, Kotter and Taylors scientific management approach, help us understand certain management functions in depth. I do not agree with some elements in Taylors scientific approach as to the difference in managerial work to Fayols theory which consists or a ashes of order. I believe that even in the mish mash of overall managerial activities, there is a system of order and a logical process followed for each activity performed.However it is clear, that these theories are a product of evaluation on the initial Fayols classical theory. Therefore I believe Fayols classical approach still holds precedent, for purpose of managerial study and educational purposes. ? Reference list Brunsson, K. H, (2008), Some Effects of Fayolism, Int. Studies of Mgt. & Org. , 38, (1), 30-47 Carroll, S. J & Gillen, J. G, (1987), Are the Classical Management Functions useful in describing Managerial work? , Academy of Management review, 12, (1), 38-51