Final answer:
The statement that the monitor function is an informational role of managers is false. Managers do monitor information, but issues with corporate governance can impact the availability and accuracy of this information. Monitoring effectiveness is influenced by conflicts between ideal scientific practices and real-world limitations.
Step-by-step explanation:
It is false that the monitor function is an example of the informational roles often played by managers. The monitor role, as defined by Henry Mintzberg, involves managers gathering information from the internal and external environment to understand their organization completely. However, accurate information may not always be available due to failures in corporate governance, a system set to oversee top executives. As the case of Lehman Brothers has shown, when these institutions fail, they can lead to the lack of oversight and the collapse of trust in financial systems.
Moreover, the implementation and effectiveness of monitoring systems can be compromised by conflicts between the scientific ideals and practical realities, particularly in the realms of biodiversity and resource use. These conflicts can lead to monitoring schemes that are either too simplistic to be useful or too demanding to sustain over time, especially in developing countries where financial and technical resources are limited. Managers need to navigate these complexities to ensure they fulfill their informational roles effectively.
Understanding that you are responsible for particular processes and/or outcomes in your job, as directed by a manager, can tie into how you gather and use information, but it exemplifies the managerial's role in ensuring accountability rather than just the informational monitoring role itself.