Friedrich Froebel Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Friedrich Froebel - Research Paper Example Friedrich Froebel (1782-1852) was born in the Oberweibach area of Thuringia, Germany on 21 April 1782. His father was an orthodox Lutheran pastor who ran the parish there. So it was not surprising that the Church and the Lutheran religion became the first pillars of Froebel’s own education. To his bad luck, the health of Froebel’s mother began to fail soon after his birth and she died within nine months. Froebel’s father also passed away in 1802 and he was sent to live with an uncle in the adjoining village of Stadt-Ilm. Froebel started his career as an educationist in 1805 as a secondary school teacher in Frankfurt. At this time he was impressed by the work of Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, also working with him in Switzerland to further develop his ideas. In 1811 Froebel once again went to Berlin and became a teacher at a boarding school for boys that specialized in pedagogy and patriotism. After serving in the Napoleonic wars of 1813-14, he was employed in the Institute of Mineralogy by Christian Samuel Weiss. However he did not hold this job for long and ultimately founded the German General Educational Institute in Arnstadt, Thirungia. He began publishing pamphlets about the need for education in 1820. In 1826 he published the Education of Man, his main work, followed by the Educating Families in 1828. In 1840, he finally started the first kindergarten concept in Germany at the Play and Activity Institute which he had established in 1837 (Rusk & Scotland, 1979: 32). He also designed toys and activ ity materials dubbed Froebel’s Gifts for these young kids. He died at Mariental on 21 June 1852. Important Contributions Froebel was instrumental in including the concept of play and free association for kids in the classroom. He also trained people in his teaching methods and discipline. Following the success of his methods, his student Margaret Schultz opened up a kindergarten at Wisconsin in 1856 and Elizabeth Peabody in Boston in 1860. By 1911, kindergarten education was officially recognized in Germany under its own state and regulatory laws. Froebel College in South West London in the UK was started in 1892 to respect and follow his traditions. He also was the first to train women in pedagogy at the premises granted by the Duke of Meiningen for this purpose(Weber, 1969: 13). According to Sniegoski (1994: 3), Froebel can be credited for ignoring the idea that the child was like a plant or a lump of clay into which education can be implanted. This concept originated by Lo cke was in vogue at the time, but the tireless efforts of Frobel and his followers soon brought in a new concept, namely the importance of play and learning at one’s own pace. Each new activity grew out of a previously available idea and thus a child was able to grow in stages of intellectual development. Much the same thing has been recognized and identified by other thinkers such as Jean Piaget. Froebel regarded play as the most important basis for the spontaneous development of the child. Another idea Froebel encouraged was self activity. He preferred that the learner educate himself. The task of the teacher was just to create a learning environment for the child, and shield the child from danger or unwanted processes. Froebel opined that for the first year of life, the mother was a child’s most important teacher, while they depended on the whole family for support and contentment. As the child

Macbeths Ambition

Macbeths Ambition Macbeth goes through a steadily detrimental transformation in Shakespeares play Macbeth. Macbeth goes from being a conscientious, compassionate, logical and caring man in the beginning of the play and becoming logical, compassionate, caring, and conscientious man in the beginning of the play and becoming a cruel and insensitive excuse of a human being. His change in behavior from compassionate to insensitive and logical to illogical develops slowly, but surely. Macbeth shows that he is capable at his height in being compassionate and logical, which can be seen while he contemplates killing Duncan and in his final decision on the matter. Later, we see evidence of a descent from this when he is deciding to kill Banquo: his motives change, and he becomes less logical, less able to see the reasons against the deed. Finally, Macbeth shows that he has lost it all. Sanity, compassion, logic, everything is gone that once had been so evident at the beginning of the play. Macbeth becomes jaded and cynical, apathetically hopeless, a mass of entity that had once lived in honor. In trying to decide whether or not to murder Duncan in his soliloquy in Act I Scene VII, both the process by which Macbeth makes his decision and the final decision that he will not murder his king are indicative of conscience and thoughtfulness, morality and compassion. This is the high point from which Macbeth will fall. It is important to understand that he overcomes both the temptation of inherent ambition as well as provocation from his wife in regards to his fateful decision. He is on top of his own actions and decisions: compassion, an ethical attribute, takes precedence over vaulting ambition. However he firstly shows he is well aware of the punitive consequences of the murder, so he admits he would commit the assassination if it were the be-all and the end-all, lacking any negative repercussions. The fact that he can understand the judgment here shows he is thinking ahead. Then, he literally states what may happen; that the bloody instructions, murderous acts, may return to plague the inventor, comeback to murder he who committed murder in the first place. Only a person in a focused state of mind is able to grapple with specific potential consequences. Furthermore, he then goes through a laundry list of ethical reasons not to murder Duncan: I am his kinsman and his subject/ Strong both against the deed. He realizes, in a logical progression on these ethical points against the deed that he should protect Duncan, shut the door from the murderer not bear the knife [him]self. Here, he shows that he understands the responsibilities of being a host and a kinsman, and he is seen respecting the laws of hospitality in spite of tremendous external and internal pressure. He shows he cares. Then, Macbeth acknowledges that Duncan has borne his faculties so meekà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¹been so fair in officeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¹that his virtues will plead like angels, and pity, like a naked new-born babe,Ã…Â  /Shall blow the horrid dead in every eye. Macbeth, in comparing virt ues to angels, shows us that in his present state of mind, he sees morality as something to strive for, as angels are the representative pinnacle of morality. Furthermore he believes the murder to be a horrid or in this case immoral deed, proving he is able to differentiate good from bad. The metaphor of the baby, who represents pity, shows that Macbeth understands that pity is pure, like a baby, untainted by immorality and vaulting ambition. Macbeth shows he aspires to be moral, because his final and adamant decision is in accordance with what pity demands. He is not at all numb to the idea of murder; he is virtually repulsed by it. In his soliloquy in Act III Scene I, Macbeth is shown to have descended dramatically from his original state: he is jealous, fearful, and certainly not compassionate. He finds no reason not to kill Banquo as he had with Duncan, though Macbeth freely admits that Banquo has a royal nature. The usage of royal here means Macbeth still can tell wrong from right, good nature from bad nature. But this does not in any way deter Macbeth from killing Banquo as it did with Duncan. Macbeth says, To be [king] is nothing; /But to be safely thus meaning that the only way to achieve safety, which Macbeth equates to happiness, is to slaughter Banquo. What is striking here is what is missing: there is no pro-con list, no reasons against the murder. We are also shown here by what is not said that Macbeth is losing his pragmatic skills, because logic dictates that for him to commit another cold-blooded murder, the first having already driven him to incurable insomnia, would cause him only to spiral furt her and further away from happiness. The fact that he doesnt consider Banquos morality as a reason against killing him shows that Macbeth is on his way to being totally numb when dealing with death and murder. And, instead of being thoughtful, Macbeth is blinded by fear and jealousy, because his genius is rebukd [by Banquo]. This fear is clear when he says explicitly that there is none but he /Whose being I do fear. Banquo is the only one Macbeth fears. Also, before he was concerned with the laws of hospitality which include modesty, and now by contradiction he calls himself genius and even compares himself to Caesar. His jealousy, not ambition like before, drives him to have contempt for the wis[e] Banquo, because Banquo, according to the witches, is father to a line of kings which means Macbeth has a fruitless crown. The why of the fear is explained by implication when Macbeth states that the barren scepter or pointless symbol of Macbeths status as king, will be wrenchd with an un lineal hand from his gripe. To wrench is to take forcefully, inspiring fear. This fear later turns to regret, as he says that only for Banquos descendants, only for them, rather than for himself has he murdered the gracious Duncan. In his mind, this means that he has sold his soul, his eternal jewel, to the common enemy of man Satan. This metaphor shows self-acknowledged moral decay, which is a double-sided coin: morally he has indeed decayed, and yet he can still recognize it, which is a step in the right direction. But he is so melodramatic about this point (the two exclamation marks: kings! and utterance!) that he is perhaps losing control over his words if not his sanity, which is confirmed concretely when Banquos ghost emerges from Macbeths tortured psyche later. Total descent is on the horizon. At first he cares about the morality of Duncan and himself. Pity had played an integral role in his life. Now he cares only for his own well-being. The next step is total apathy. By Act V Scene V, Macbeth has fallen entirely from his original state. He has lost all compassion, all conscience, even all fear. In essence, Macbeth is totally numb from life. He says explicitly that he cares so little that he has almost forgot[ten] the taste of fears. Progressively his fears had narrowed: originally he feared the punitive and moral consequences of killing Duncan. At least later he had feared Banquo though for less noble reasons. Now he fears almost nothing. A night-shriek can no longer rouse and stir him because he has suppd full with horrors. The only way horror could become unable to start Macbeth would be if he is too numb even to be able to recognize it. At the beginning, as shown, he is repulsed by the horror of murder; now he is too familiar with slaughterous thoughts even to be frightened. The word slaughterous implies violent, almost gory thoughts, which convey the extent to which Macbeth truly is numb to blood. Macbeth is then told that his wife is dead. S ummarily his reaction is one of apathetic despair, which is a huge fall even from caring about being safely king (in deciding to murder Banquo). He only says about his wife that she should have died hereafter, that she would have died sometime in any case. By saying this, Macbeth shows he no longer thinks of time as we do. Obviously, everyone dies, including his wife, but he fails to acknowledge or even care about the time that he could have spent with his dearest partner in greatness between her present death and when she would have died naturally. In fact, his new attitude of time is jaded, awful, hopeless. The monotony of the sound of the phrase to-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow shows he feels that time truly is just many different paths leading to the same inevitable conclusion: dusty death. All of our yesterdays lead to this death. He leaves no loophole to beat this cynical system of existence. He even urges death on, in relation to himself, saying Out, out brief candle! The image of a candle slowly flickering away is Macbeths way of conveying poetically that life is truly nothing more that an empty shell approaching death, a walking shadowÃ…Â  that frets his hour upon the stage. The word frets implies wasting time. This candle is then heard no more, so therefore its existence, Macbeths existence, is pointless. Even though life is full of sound and fury, powerful events, it still signif[ies] nothing. Life is hollow. The descent is complete. He doesnt care for his wife, nor himself, because life is just a tale told by an idiot. Life, that which Macbeth had hoped to live safely and happily, has now been concluded to be insignificant, a waste of time. Concerning the difference between good and bad, life now for Macbeth is all gray, clouded by cynicism. He simply does not care anymore, because if something signif[ies] nothing then it means nothing. And if one finds no meaning in life, one certainly doesnt care about petty distinctions, such as good versus bad, morality versus immorality, life versus death. Nothing can be lower, emotionally, than this point in Macbeths regression. By depicting Macbeths regression from compassion to apathy, Shakespeare warns us that one should not try to exceed ones set manhood, as Macbeth says, I dare do all that may become a man; /Who dares do more, is none. He does dare to do more and consequently ends up as none. Shakespeare summarizes the entire play in a single quotation. By trying to please his wife, trying to prove to her his love, Macbeth violates his idea about what a man is. Up to that point he had been brave and even moral in defending his king Duncan on the battlefield. To him, this is what a man is. Now, for his wife, he goes beyond this definition, in a realm that is paradoxically so manly that it truly is not manly; it is a bravado. It is as if Macbeth is dared into drinking so much of the wine of ambition that he ends up first drunk, then dead. The first wife-inspired big sip is in murdering his king. This is clearly where he goes wrong, because his decision to kill Duncan ultimately leads to his destruction. Works Cited and Consulted: Adelman, Janet. Escaping the Matrix: The Construction of Masculinity in Macbeth and Coriolanus. Shakespeares Late Tragedies, ed. Susan L. Wofford. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1996, 134-167. Garber, Marjorie. Macbeth: The Male Medusa. Shakespeares Late Tragedies, ed. Susan L. Wofford. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1996, 74-103. Keirnan, Victor. Eight Tragedies of Shakespeare: A Marxist Study. London, NY: Verso, 1996. Nelson, T.A. ENGL 533 lecture February 18, 1999. Stallybrass, Peter. Macbeth and Witchcraft. Shakespeares Late Tragedies, ed. Susan L. Wofford. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. 1996, 104-118. Staunton, Howard, ed. The Globe Illustrated Shakespeare. New York: Gramercy Books, 1979. Watson, Robert N. Shakespeare and the Hazards of Ambition. Cambidge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984

Doublemajoring in Literature Essay -- Personal Narrative Papers

Doublemajoring in Literature I came to Loras College intending to major in Biochemistry and only Biochemistry. I was prepared to be very serious in my studies, focused on facts, and determined to work as hard as possible to succeed, but I realized in my first semester Critical Writing: Poetry course the importance of feeling and expression in my life. I poured over chemistry and biology books, studying, rewriting, memorizing, and reveling in science; but I can remember the release and the emotional experience poetry was able to provide for me. I recall telling Dr. Bauerly that I decided to double major in Biochemistry and English Literature because I wanted to read without feeling guilty for neglecting my other homework. English Literature studies have allowed me to bring feeling and emotion to the side of me that I sometimes recognize as a skeptical and cold scientist. I always felt that I have been slightly different from other students majoring in English Literature. I never really considered myself to be creative, artistic, or insightful. I can remember my first few English Literature courses, in which I questioned whether I would really have anything of significance to add to group discussions. One of my strengths, however, as a major in English Literature has been my ability to be open and interested in new things. I try to be open and learn new ideas, styles of writing, various opinions, and critical strategies. I love hearing other people’s opinions about symbolism and theme, and I think it is interesting to consider why they see the image in such a manner. Color and Eveline and I represent my strengths as an open minded and curious person. I was skeptical about imitating an author’s style and about the significa... ...se it was an essay that I did not think I could do, but I feel I succeeded in writing it in Toomer’s style as well as developing some of my own. I learned that I should still try to accomplish overwhelming goals, even if I doubt my abilities. Studying English Literature has been a joy and a release for me. I have learned a great deal not only about other races, cultures, ages, and people in general; but also I have learned so much about myself. Literature allowed my mind and heart time to practice working together to form decisions and opinions. This aspect, listening and learning with both my heart and mind, is one skill I feel I can bring with me anywhere. This skill would make me a better doctor, a better mother, and a better person. Therefore, never have I regretted double majoring in Biochemistry and English Literature, and I doubt sincerely if I ever will.

Final Project: Financial Analysis

Two of the major competing companies that manufacture drinks are Coca-Cola, and Pepsi. They both produce regular water, flavored water, and soft drinks of many kinds. While this essay will explain what vertical and horizontal analysis is, it will also explain each company’s vertical and horizontal analyses. Also the ratios for each company will be given, and several examples as to how each company can improve in their financial status. The financial analysis of both companies is very important so both businesses can understand how they are being managed.It is very important for a company to keep up to date financial documents, audits, taxes, and other financial statements. This is the information needed to show what a company is doing with their finances and what they have done in the past. This information is also very useful for management to use and know what to do differently in future months or years. Information like this allows a company to grow, and have healthy produc tion going forward. Having this data also helps management, investors, and creditors know if there are any issues that have come up in the past that need to be worked on.While in competition, these two companies have continued to grow in size, market value, and profit sales. Since the beginning of their competition, both companies have ventured into new areas of sales, (such as snack foods, iced tea, and bottled water) and they continue to think of new ways to grow their business yearly. In order for both companies to continue to grow in the ways they foresee, they must have investors to invest money in the company.These current and potential investors will first look at both company’s financial statements and data, find as much information as possible needed to make a decision, then make a judgment call as to which company is the best investment at the time. By competing for the number one position of drink provider, both companies have continued to grow and prosper by creat ing new beverages throughout the years. Since they both have the advantage of being known on a global scale, they have been rated number one and two for many years.They have modeled practices that one another have followed in order that they could overcome any obstacles to worldwide manufacture and distributions. (The Coca Cola Company, 2009). Although they are two different companies, they produce somewhat similar products, and their distribution techniques and services are very similar also. Both companies continue to use the â€Å"follow up strategy†, which was used to explain that when one of the companies launched a new product the other would very quickly come up with a similar product or service.Using this method one could see why these two companies easily pass all other companies in the competition. Even though both these companies are both growing rapidly and gaining huge profits yearly, they have also had to deal with global issues, politics, and precedents. They b oth have taken risks getting into business with markets where they didn’t necessarily belong and where the risk was far too great. So they had to back out of some markets because of several issues that arose from those ventures. They had to find who their target audience was and begin to produce products that were specifically made for that group of people.By making it appear as if they are following the highest moral and ethical practices, they create a product that is focused towards a specific population. Then, even though other companies cannot compete at the level that Pepsi and Coke can, they also try to use the same target influences in global markets. There are three tools of the financial statement analysis: Vertical, Horizontal, and Ratio Analysis. Each tool has a different function, but each helps to analyze important information and data that is in a financial statement.The Vertical Analysis, also called Common Size Analysis, is used to express data in a statement as a percent from the base amount. The base figure given represents the total assets of each company. The main starting point for the financial analysis is the total assets amount for each company. This becomes useful when a company wants to be able to see what percent of assets cash and other items represent. The Horizontal Analysis, also called Trend Analysis, is used to evaluate how a company performs within an accounting period to another accounting period.The change in percentages given can help a company to better see trends over a designated time frame. Lastly, Ratio Analysis is used to express a relationship among specific items on a financial statement. These relationships are give n in terms of a percent, or a rate. * To fully examine Pepsi I must look at the Consolidated Balance Sheet and take a look at the Current Assets, Current Liabilities, and Total Assets for years 2005 and 2004. After doing so I am able to calculate the Current Ratio for both years 2005, and 2004. The Current Ratio for 2005 is 10,454*/9,406*= 1. 11:1, and the Current Ratio for 2004 is 8,639*/6,752*= 1.28:1.To find the vertical analysis of both years I must first compute the current assets and divided them by the total assets for each year, I then get: 2005: 10,454*/31,727*= 0. 32949= 33%, and for 2004: 8,639*/27,987*= 0. 3867= 39%. Then for the horizontal analysis I got Assets: 31,727* – 27,987*27,987*= 0. 1336= 13. 3%, and for Liabilities: 17,476* – 14,464*14,464*= 0. 2082= 21%, which gives us the change in total assets. (Weygandt, Kimmel, & Kieso, 2008) After examining The Coca-Cola Company’s Consolidated Balance sheet and using the Financial Accounting worksheet I have found the Current Ratios for both years (2005, and 2004).The Current Ratio for 2005 is 10,250*/9,8368= 1. 04:1, and the Current Ratio for 2004 is 12,281*/11,133*= 1. 10:1. When we use the current assets and divide them by the total assets for each year we can find the vertical analysis f or both years: 2005: 10,250*/29,427*= 0. 3483= 35%, and 2004: 12,281*/31,441*= 0. 3906= 39. 1%. By computing the change in total assets by percentage we can find the horizontal analysis of both the assets and liabilities: Assets: 29,427 – 31,441*/31,441*= -0. 06405= -6. 4%, and Liabilities: 13,072* – 15,506*/15,506* = -. 1570 = -15. 7%.(Weygandt, Kimmel, & Kieso, 2008)The total assets that we previously stated above can be used with other items on the company’s balance sheet. For example, the cost of sales for Pepsi in 2004 was $12,674* which gives the ratio percentage of 45. 3% in their total assets. In 2005, the cost of sales for Pepsi was $14,167*, which gives the ratio percentage of 44. 7% in their total assets. For Coke their cost of sales in 2004 was $7,674*, which yields the ratio percentage of 24. 4% in their total assets, and in 2005 their cost of sales was $8,195*. This gives us the ratio percentage of 27.8% in their total assets.Over the two years (20 04 and 2005) Pepsi’s cost of sales sold differed by a small amount of . 5%, Coke on the other hand an increase of 3. 4% in the same two year time frame. When looking at this information an increase in items sold does not always reveal a positive analysis, because this figure does not go far enough into detail as to whether the increase given is a positive measure. Net income will be the next item to be discussed for the two companies. In 2004, Pepsi had a net income of $4,212*; this gives us a ratio percentage of 15.1% of their total assets. In 2005, Pepsi’s net income was $4,078*.This shows that the ratio percentage of 13. 2% is Pepsi’s total assets for 2004. So between 2004 and 2005 there is a decrease in their net income of 1. 9%. Coke had a net income of $4,847* in 2004, and a net income of $4,872* in 2005. This gives a ratio percentage of 15. 4% of their total assets in 2004, and a ratio percentage of 16. 6% in 2005. Coke unlike Pepsi has an increase of 1. 2% over these two years. Now we will discuss the current liabilities of each company for 2004 and 2005.In 2004 Pepsi’s current liabilities totaled $6,752*, which is the ratio which is the ratio percentage of 24. 1%. For 2005 their current liabilities was $9,406*, which gives the ratio percentage of 29. 9%. This shows that there was a 2% increase in Pepsi’s assets. When looking at Coke their current liabilities for 2004 were $11,133* this gives us the ratio percentage of 35. 4%, and for 2005 their current liabilities was $9,836*. This shows a ratio percentage of 33. 4%. This information reveals to us that there was a 1% decrease in Coke’s liabilities from 2004 and 2005.Looking at both companies total liabilities continues to tell us even more information about their financial status. In 2004 Pepsi’s total liability was $14,464*, which is a ratio percentage of 51. 7%. While their total liabilities in 2005 were $17,476*, so the ratio percentage is 55. 1%. Th is reveals their 3. 4% increase in their total liabilities for 2004 and 2005. Coke on the other hand had a 4. 9% decrease in total liabilities within these two years. Their total liabilities in 2004 were $15,506* with a ratio percentage 49. 3%, and for 2005 their total liabilities were $13,072* with a ratio percentage of 44.4%.After reviewing all the information for both Pepsi and Coke we can conclude that both companies experienced lower net profits for the year of 2005 then in 2004. I think that both companies should look into fixing their operation so that they can reduce this expense, once this is done they can increase their profit margins. This will help to get rid of reductions in their profits that have seemed to be nonstop. Since Pepsi had a 5. 8% increase in liabilities and they only had a 2% increase in their assets, the increase in debt did not help the company.Pepsi would better benefit if they looked into finding strategies that would help in the reduction of their tot al current liabilities. At this time they should also not take on any new debts, instead they should work harder at increasing their total current assets. Coke on the other hand decreased their total current assets by 4. 3% in these two years. I think that Coke would be better off if they looked into increasing their total current assets also. One way to do this would be to increase their net profits which would then affect their assets.Coca-Cola and Pepsi have been around for a very long time, and together both companies have helped to take the beverage industry to the next level. Both being global companies, and selling products in over 100 countries, and producing many products that appeal to all kinds of people, they have continued to grow. Taking a look at each company’s vertical and horizontal analysis we were able to see the financial status of both companies. Though both of these companies are profitable, the analysis showed in more detail how different these companie s were in 2004 and 2005.

Henri Fayol vs. Henry Mintzberg

Henri Fayol vs. Henry Mintzberg. Functions vs. roles Henri Fayol and Henry Mintzberg are â€Å"two sides of the one coin†. Each man has his own opinion on what the manager does. Fayol has his â€Å"five functions† and Mintzberg has his â€Å"roles of management†. In this essay I will discuss both men’s opinions and try to come to a conclusion on which I think is better. Henri Fayol, a French management theorist and managing director of a French mining company, came up with the five functions of management. These functions serve the purpose of predicting the future of the environment and planning a relevant business strategy, developing a social and technical structure to the organisation, managing the activities of the staff, integrating plans and activities across the organisation and ensuring conformity with the plan via authority and feedback mechanisms to correct inappropriate activity. Planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling. These five functions have been around since Fayol came up with them back in 1916 and have dominated management vocabulary since then. These functions would seem to cover all the criteria needed for a manager to do his job but Henry Mintzberg has a different opinion. Henry Mintzberg is an internationally renowned academic and author on business and management with over 140 articles and thirteen books written. He came up with the roles of management, which he believes cover most of the things a manager will encounter in their job. These roles are split into 3 interpersonal roles, 3 informational roles and 4 decision making roles. The 3 interpersonal roles are; the figurehead which helps reinforce what the company stands for and reinforces the organisational culture, the leader who provide their employees with a sense of mission and the liaison who mixes with others outside the business to represent the needs of their group. The 3 informational roles are; the monitor who collects information form within the group and finds out what is going on in the business, the disseminator who shares the information with others who would not find out the information and the spokesperson who represents the views of the group in the wider environment. The 4 decision making roles are; the entrepreneur who make decisions to improve the contribution of their subordinates to the performance of the business, the disturbance handler who deals with any problems that might occur within the group, the resource allocator who allocates resources throughout their subordinates and the negotiator who negotiates to secure contracts, budgets etc. Henry Mintzberg believes that the five functions of management do not really tell us much about what a manager actually does but at best paint a vague picture of what objectives managers have when they work. He has come up with the idea that there are 4 myths relating to the role of the manager which if looked at closely do not support Fayol’s functions. The first of these myths is that â€Å"a manager is a reflective, systematic planner† when studies show that most managers work at a fast and unrelenting pace, that their activities are often brief and varied and that they dislike reflective activities but are more action orientated. The second of these myths is â€Å"the effective manager has no regular duties to perform†. Evidence shows that managers do infact perform a number of regular duties like rituals and ceremonies as well as negotiations and processing information with links between the organisation and its environments. The third myth is â€Å"The senior manager needs aggregated information, which a formal management information system provides†. The fact in this case is that managers prefer to get their information through telephone calls or meetings. The fourth and final myth is â€Å"Management is, or at least is quickly becoming a science and a profession†. The fact behind this myth is that the manager programs to schedule time, process information, make decisions and so stay in their own head and deal with things in their own way. The first of the four myths is probably the one that conflicts most with Fayol’s functions and shows that although there is some degree to a managers job, they prefer to work fast and would rather take action to try and resolve a problem rather than waste time thinking on different ways to overcome it. In my opinion, I would be more inclined to agree with Mintzberg and his roles of management over Fayol’s functions. This is because the roles of management have a lot more scope and would allow a manager more ways to deal with a wider variety of situations. They also cover the roles that I have seen managers in my working environment undertake such as the Liaison, the Negotiator, the Disturbance handler etc. In conclusion, although the five functions are a good way to look at the role of a manager I think that Mintzberg, having done all the studies on managers and actually seeing what they do in their day to day workings has given him a better idea of what the job of the manager actually entails. Fayol’s views look good when you see and hear them but in reality, is management as straight forward as the five steps that he has set out? I don’t think that he has looked at all the areas and all the things that could go wrong in jobs. In reality, I think Fayol’s functions are more like the ways we would like the job of the manager to be whereas Mintzberg’s roles have given us the way a managers job actually is and covers most of the things that a manager would encounter in the running of a business. By Alan Young References DR R DONNELLY , â€Å"the role of the manager†, heriot-watt university. HENRY MINTZBERG, July-august 1975â€Å"the manager’s job: Folklore and fact† Harvard business review.