Interpersonal Roles

Lamond, D. (2003). Henry Mintzberg vs. Henri Fayol: Of Lighthouses, Cubists and the Emperor’s New Clothes. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 8(4), 5-23. This article talks about Mintzberg’s and Fayol’s theories regarding managerial work. It is mentioned that Fayol’s managerial function and Mintzberg’s managerial roles can be connected with one another. (Tsoukas 1994, as cited by Lamond, 2003) “the logical links between Fayol’s functions and Mintzberg’s roles are demonstrated”.
This article explains the interrelation between managerial functions and managerial roles in particular group so that the management in organisation can run effectively. This article is useful for the author’s research as it gives explanation about the importance of interpersonal roles in relations with managerial functions while Robbins et al. (2003) book only provides the basic theoretical managerial roles without further relate with any other managerial components. Mintzberg, H. (1975).
The manager’s job: folklore and fact, Harvard Business Review, 53(4) 49-61. Mintzberg’s (1975) article shows how interpersonal roles play important part for managers to make decisions and strategies; it also describes the importance of how interpersonal roles are integrated with other roles to achieve effectiveness of managerial work. Mintzberg (1975) suggested that “Three of manager’s roles arise directly from his formal authority and involve basic interpersonal relationship. ” (p. 54).

This article is useful for the author’s research as it gives an insight towards the importance of interpersonal roles for manager to avoid misunderstanding between the modern and traditional managerial works. This article is better compared to Pavett and Lau (1983) about managerial work’s article because it provides several examples that support the importance of international roles by providing evidence in reality such as the modern and traditional managerial works that have been misunderstood by society. Pavett, C. M. , & Lau, A. W. (1983).
Managerial work: The Influence of hierarchical level and functional speciality. Academy of Management Journal , 26(1), 170 – 177. Through this article, Pavett and Lau (1983) show the influence of hierarchical level and functional speciality on managerial roles. (Mintzberg, 1975, as cited in Pavett & Lau, 1983) “differences in managerial work involve the relative’s importance of the roles across hierarchical level and functional speciality”. The research focuses on the integration between hierarchical level and functional speciality with managerial roles.
This article is useful to the author’s research topics as Pavett and Lau (1983) give a relevant statistics about how hierarchical level, functional speciality and managerial roles are integrated, especially when the interpersonal roles are dominantly seen in hierarchical level and functional speciality as an essential part compared to the book written by Robbins et al. (2003) which only mentioned about the theory without justified examples to support it. Robbins, S. P. , Bergman, R. , Stagg, I. , & Coutler, M. 2012). Management 6 (6th edition). French Forest NSW, Australia: Pearson Australia. Robbins et al. (2012) contains a brief explanation about Mintzberg’s interpersonal roles with its duties and responsibilities. Robbins et al. (2012) suggested that “All managers are required to perform duties that involve people (subordinates and persons outside the organisation) and other duties that are ceremonial and symbolic in nature”. The study explains that interpersonal roles are more likely involve outsiders.
This book is beneficial for the author’s research topic, as Robbins et al. (2012) gives plenty explanations about the benefit of interpersonal roles and how each roles are linked well together. The main limitation of the article is that the authors do not put sufficient details and examples about each roles compared to the article of Mintzberg (1975) which mentioned the clear evidence regarding interpersonal roles in everyday life by providing explanation about the modern and traditional way in defining managerial works.