Journal of Management Studies 23; I January 1986

0022-2380 $3.50

WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE

COLIN P. HALES

Department of Management Studies for Tourism and Hotel Industries, University of Surrey

INTRODUCTION

IN this article, I consider the extent to which the question 'What do managers do?' has been satisfactorily answered by published empirical studies of managerial work and behaviour. Two aspects of this enterprise require justification: the pertinence of the question posed and the need for another review of the evidence. Certainly, the question 'What do managers do?' has an air of naivete, insolence, even redundancy about it. Yet it is a question which Is begged by many management-related issues. Arguments that the quality of management is decisive in both organizational and national economic performance presuppose that the exclusively 'managerial' contribution to that performance is both tangible and identifiable. Claims for managerial authority invariably rest not upon de facto status and power, but upon an implicit 'job of managing" for which authority is the necessary resource. The vast and growing industry of management education, training and development presumably rests upon a set of ideas about what managers do and, hence, what managers are being educated, trained and developed/or, Finally, nowhere is the question of what managers do more insistently begged than in that substantial portion of the literature on management which is concerned with 'effective' management (or managerial effectiveness). Indeed 'effective management' has ceased to be a purely contingent pairing of adjective and noun and has become a self evident object whose causes and concomitants may be investigated unambiguously. In contrast, I contend that the term 'effective management' is a second-order normative statement which presupposes the existence of relatively reliable answers to flrst-order empirical questions. For me, 'effectiveness' denotes the extent to which what managers actually do matches what they are supposed to do. This is recognized in a number of defmitions of 'managerial effectiveness' offered in the literature, despite their superflcial differerccs.''' A central implication of this, however, is less frequendy recognized: that the extent of this congruence can only be judged once the two sides ofthe 'effectiveness equation' are known Address for reprints: Dr. C. P. Hales, Dcpartmeni of Management Studies for Tourism and Hotel Industries, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH.

WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW

89

empirically. It is necessary, therefore, to have reliable evidence on what managers do, in both senses ofthe term 'do'. Some ofthe more celebrated writings on effective management are singularly reticent about specifying vohat effective managers are effective at'^'. It is also my contention that earlier reviews of published evidence on managerial work have not addressed the issue of what managers do in these terms. Mintzberg's (1973) review ofthe existing evidence which precedes his own celebrated study is now over ten years old and there have been a number of significant and sophisticated studies published since tbat time. Stewart's (1983) more recent review focuses upon an aspect of managerial work managerial behaviour - of which her own studies have made such a large contribution to our knowledge. I wish to go beyond that focus here principally because one of my central arguments is that 'managerial work' and 'managers' behaviour' are not synonymous, even though many of the published studies imply tbat they are. Consequently, evidence on managers' behaviour provides only a partial answer to the question: What do managers do? After reviewing what I take to be the key findings of the studies in terms of five principal topics, each of which, explicitly or implicitly, addresses a particular question about managerial work, I will discuss three general limitations ofthe existing evidence. First, I argue that the various studies tread a precarious course between illuminating variation and bewildering inconsistency and that, notwithstanding tbe richness of diversity, there are good arguments for the development and use of more consistent and comparable categories. Secondly, I suggest that the emphasis in the studies on managerial behaviour represents a limitation insofar as a context for locating and judging thai behaviour is absent. Finally, I question the extent to which the studies identify work or even behaviour which is inclusively and exclusively 'managerial'. I seek to show that each of these limitations is traceable to a more general unwillingness to consider the wider context of managers' behaviour - in particular, 'managerial tasks', 'managerial responsibilities' and the 'management function' - and to develop concepts which permit this consideration. For the purposes of this review of what is known about what managers do I adopt particular and necessarily restrictive definitions of 'knowledge' and 'managers'. As far as 'knowledge' is concerned, at risk of doing considerable violence to more sophisticated epistemological niceties, I distinguish among evidenc^^\ theories and models. This review is chiefly concerned witb published evidence, although it touches on models where these guide the collection or order the presentation of evidence. Reference to theories is confmed to indicating the relative absence of links between theory and evidence. As far as the term 'managers' is concerned, I follow the researchers concerned in adopting a nominalist definition as a starting point. That is, I follow Stewart (1976) in taking a manager to be 'anyone above a certain level, roughly above foreman whether. . .in control of staff or not', and for the same reason as Stewart, namely that I am interested, at least initially, in 'the jobs that

90

COLIN P. HALES

companies call managerial and which form part ofthe management hierarchy for selection, training and promotion' (Stewart, 1976, p. 4). I therefore consider it of greater value to start by investigating what those deemed managers do rather than to debate a priori who managers 'really' are'*'. What I do hope to show, however, is thai such an investigation does inevitably come up against the problem of not only who managers are, but what 'management' is: this issue is one from which the studies have shied away, in my view to their detriment.

WHAT MANAGERS DO: THE EVIDENCE The absence of both a common/ociw for the research and comparable categories to guide collection and presentation of evidence renders the studies to be reviewed here resistant to the search for generalities through processes of contrast and combination. To re-cast the available evidence into common terms would involve both unwarranted interpretation and considerable distortion, so this review will take the original categories ofthe research studies as its starting point. The studies reviewed here essentially shed light on five major areas and provide answers to five implicit questions about managerial work: (1) The substantive elements of managerial work (What do managers do?) (2) The distribution of managers' time between work elements (How do managers work?) (3) Interactions: with whom managers work (With whom do managers work?) (4) Informal elements of managerial work (What else do managers do?) (5) Themes which pervade managerial work (What qualities does managerial -work have?). Whilst no individual study or writer is concerned with all of these topics, the topics and their implicit questions are recurring and identifiable features ofthe accumulated evidence. Hence, I have chosen to group and classify the available material in terms o{ evidenc^^^. Whilst this is only one of a number of possible alternative orderings, it does attempt to lay an empirical foundation to the area of study upon which more elaborate theories and models may rest. Before considering these areas in more detail, it might be useful to list the research studies which form the major sources of evidence, as shown in table I. For present purposes, I will treat the evidence accumulated by the above studies as a single entity. It should be recognized, however, that this evidence is the product of some 30 years of studies, during which time there have been discernible shifts in focus, methods and models. Perhaps the most clearly discernible of these shifts has been away from the concern in the 1950s, 1960s

WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW Table !. Principal sources of evidence on managerial work
Author Date Method oJ data collection Features oJ sample

91

Brewer and TomlinsoD Burns

1964

Self-record diaries over 2 ^ - 4 M weeks i Self-record diaries over 3-5 weeks

6 senior managers from 6 firms in 6 U.K. industries 76 top managers &oin 6 medium-sized Scottish factories

1957

Campbell et al. citing: (i) Kay

1970 1959 Critical incidents' reponed by qualified observers 'Critical incidents' Essays lo develop descriptive statements forming basis of administered questionnaire Reporting by trained observers using checklist and questionnaire, over 4 weeks Self-administered questionnaire (i) 'Executive time survey sheet' 74 managers reporting on 691 incidents of foreman behaviour 742 executives, 3,500 incidents 245 office supervisors

(ii) Williams (iii) Roach

1959 1956

Carison

1951

10 executives in Sweden

Child and EUis Copcman, Luijk and Hanika

1973

787 managers from 78 organizations in 6 U.K. industries (i) 58 executives (chief execs, directors, department heads), U.K. (ii) 25 top executives, Holland (1,000 hours) 4 firms - small, medium and large factory and department stores in U.S. 8 executives from 5 firms in U S . 75 middle managers of different ages and functions in 1 medium si2ed company in U.K. Small gypsum factoryin semi-rural community 93 executives in 5 major U.S. companies

1963

(ii) Observation

Dalton

1959

10 years of participant observation, 'covert' interviewing, study of files Self-record dianes (as Bums 1957) over 2 weeks Participant observation

Dubm and Spray Fletcher

1964 1973

Couldncr

1955

Participant observation

-Hemphiil

1959

'Executive position description' questionnaire containing 575 items

92
Table I continued
A uthor

COLIN P. HALES

DaU 1965

Method of data collection

Feaiurei of sample

Home and Lupton

Kelly

1964

Self-record 'Managers activity records', containing activities with possible descriptors. One week 'Activity sampling'

Kotter

1982a and 1982b 1956

Martin

Questionnaire, observation; appointment diary; interviews; printed information Questionnaire

Mintzberg

1973 and 1975

Nichols and Bevnon

1977

Intensive observation ('shadowing'), diaries and analysis of managers' records, plus review of other research Field observations and informal interviewing Questionnaire (based on Hemphill, J959) Field observations

66 middle managers over range of firms (varying by size and technology) in U.K. 2,800 observations of 4 section managers in I Scottish company 15 high-level general managers over range of corporations in U.S. Managers (distributed by level) in large U.S. manufaciuring company 5 chief executives in 5 U.S. companies

Pheysey

1972

Saylcs

1964

Silverman and Jones

1976

Tape-recorded informal interviews and observation Self-record diaries over 4 weeks

Stewart

1967a and 1967b 1976

Sflf-record diaries over 3 weeks; observation; informal and formal interviews

Stewart el ai.

1980

Interviews and observation

Managers and foremen in large chemical plant in S. England 96 managers on training course in U.K. 75 lower and njiddle managers in division of large U.S. corporation Managers and management trainees in targe U.K. public sector organization 160 managers (distributed by function and level) in U.K. companies Pilot interviews: 180 managers in diverse jobs. Main interviews: 274 managers (mostly middle and senior). Interview study; 16 selected jobs 41 District Administrators in the N.H.S. 98 managers, by level and function. 6 pairs of managers in 6 different jobs

1982

Open-ended interviews and observation

WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW

93

and early 1970s with identifying the elements of managerial work towards an appreciation of its/jrowM. There has, therefore, been a movement away from a static, analytic approach, the results of which were, essentially, snapshots of'the' managerial job towards a more synthetic approach providing a moving picture of the fluidities of managerial work in its different guises. More or less concurrent with this shift of emphasis, related changes in aims, methods and models have occurred. Firstly, researchers have abandoned the search - implicit in some early studies - for the definitive characteristics of the managerial job and have been concerned rather to indicate the diversity and variation in managerial jobs or to provide analytical tools for handling that diversity. Secondly, there has been a shift away from the measurement of managerial jobs across pre-formed categories toward the discovery of categories. Thirdly, there has been the increasing use of a variety of research instruments in any single study, rather than reliance upon one research method. Finally, the models of managerial work which have both guided the collection of and formed the framework for research data, have become more fluid in character, positing a contingent and processual relationship between the constituent vsu-iables, rather than a fixed and additive one.
Elements of Managerial Work

Six researchers'' offer, explicitly or implicitly, lists of elements (see table II) which together constitute the content of managerial 'work', even if different managerial jobs display these in different combination. These lists display a degree of discontinuity, even inconsistency. Hemphill's 'Position elements' mix both 'managerial' and 'specialist' elements and the discontinuity between these and Pheysey's list is notable given that Pheysey's research (Pheysey, 1972) was based upon Hemphill's original study (HemphiJl, 1959). Certainly here are early grounds for suspecting that the content of managerial work is not common across levels of management or cultures. Mintzberg (1973) and Sayles (1964) show greater agreement of substance beneath superficial differences of terminology, although this agreement cuts through their different categories. For example, Sayles' 'Leadership' category subsumes Mintzberg's 'Figurehead', 'Leader' and 'Spokesman' roles and his emphasis upon 'Participation in external work flows' via different types of relationships expands upon Mintzberg's 'Liaison' role, as well as indicating the external character of the 'Entrepreneur', 'Disseminator', 'Disturbance handler' and 'Negotiator' roles. The major difference between Sayles and Mintzberg is that the latter views managerial work as more self-contained, whereas the former is more concerned to locate managerial work within the context of organizational processes. The lists which I have attributed to Kotter (1982a) and Stewart (1967a, 1976, 1982 and Stewart et al., 1980) are implicit rather than explicit in their work. It does not do unnecessary violence to Kotter's work to suggest that his categories

94

COLIN P. HALES

5 &2
V O

"

is?

7 . u O c ** S

60 Q.
-it

:>

.a

2 S

<

is

a n

II

o s

1
cl
pa aa

1 PS
2=3

Q wS
" IN

.S 0

WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW

95

of Setting agendas, Network building, Utilizing networks and Implementing agendas 'translate', broadly, into the tasks of 'Planning', 'Making contacts', 'Influencing' and 'Decision making". Stewart has always concentrated more upon lhe form of managerial work than upon content. However, her work does suggest that common, recurrent activities are Liaison, Maintenance of work processes, Innovation and Setting the boundaries of the job. Amid the diversity of evidence, some common fmdings recur. First, managers perform both specialist/technical and general/administrative work. Second, the latter is sufficiently ill-defmed that part of managerial work is determining its own boundaries. Finally, within these fluid boundaries, the following strands are common, if not universal: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Acting as figurehead and leader of an organizational unit Liaison: the formation and maintenance of contacts Monitoring, filtering and disseminating information Allocating resources Handling disturbances and maintaining work flows Negotiating Innovating Planning Controlling and directing subordinates.

Whilst exhibiting striking parallels with the supposedly outdated 'classical principles of management', this evidence takes us further for two reasons. Firstly, it includes cenain elements which could not, without stretching a point, be subsumed under any ofthe 'classical' principles. Secondly, the research studies do offer detailed indications of what these principles may involve. Sayles, Mintzberg, Stewart and Kotter all provide fresh insights and subtleties to the tasks of 'planning*, 'co-ordinating' and 'commanding*. Stewart (1976) also sheds light on the chronological patterns and sources of managerial work by distinguishing the duration of work, time span, recurrence, unexpectedness and, finally, source of initiation. These give additional dimensions to the constituents of managerial work; what managers do has different durations, rhythms, degrees of uncertainty and origins. It is evident from table II that the different studies and, indeed, sometimes the same study, point to different ways of conceptualizing the constituent features of managerial work - in particular the difference between observable activities which constitute the performance of the job, and implied or reported tasks which represent expected or intended outcomes. Hemphill (1959), Pheysey (1972) and, to a lesser degree, Sayles (1964) suggest that activities and tasks are empirically intertwined or, at least, do not attempt to separate them. Mintzberg (1975) does distinguish between activities and managerial roles - which constitute 'tasks' as defined above, given that they are developed by asking why a manager undertook a particular activity. However, as Mintzberg describes

96

COLIN p. HALES

them, the 'Interpersonal' and 'Decisional' roles seem more task-like in character and the activities which Mintzberg describes vary considerably in specificity and behavioural simplicity - for example, from the relatively straightforward 'activity' of 'forwarding mail' to the seemingly more complex 'negotiation'. Kotter (1982a) is also careful to distinguish between the manager's self-defined tasks of network building and agenda setting and the manager's specific activities or behaviours. The differentia spedfica of managerial jobs are 'agendas' - the manager's mental representations of the tasks which form a unit of work, together with an indication of their priorities. Certainly there are broad affinities between what Mintzberg means by 'Interpersonal' and 'Decisional' roles and what Kotter means by 'Networks' and 'Agenda setting'. There is, however, an important difference between them. Mintzberg's roles represent behaviours which are combined and classified by intention whereas Kotter's networks and agendas represent second order constructs whereby observed behaviour may be understood. Stewart's (1967a, 1976, 1982 and Stewart et al., 1980) research has close links with Kotter's, primarily because her object of enquiry has consistently been managerial7065 and the dimensions along which these vary. It is possible, for example, to use Stewart's Demands, Constraints and Choices framework (1982) to examine the provenance of managerial Agendas and to combine Stewart's findings on Contact Patterns (1976) with Kotter's on Networks. Stewart's work is less easy to square with that of Hemphill or Mintzberg (Stewart, 1967a, p. 154).
Tke Division of Managerial Time between Activities

Diversity is eilso evident in studies of how managers allocate their time. The studies themselves differ in terms of what they see managerial time as being distributed among and they focus upon rather different constituents of managerial work from those discussed above. Often the focus is the formal pattern of managerial work, rather than its substantive content. Pheysey (1972), Stewart (1976) and Kotter (1982) are those who do attempt to examine the formal pattern of previously identified work elements. Pheysey (1972) found that 'Trouble shooting', 'Forward planning' and 'Briefmg subordinates' were the most frequently occurring. Stewart's (1976) examination of the distribution of work across different time rhythms identifed four distinct Work Patterns: 'System maintenance', 'System administration', 'Project' and 'Mixed'. Kotter's (1982a) evidence on the allocation of time between behaviours and contacts echoes other studies'^', but his explanation of this pattern is somewhat different. A picture of mzinagerial work as technical, tactical, reactive and frenetic recurs across studies of time budgeting. Carlson (1951), Copeman et al. (1963), Home and Lupton (1965) and Mintzberg (1973) all indicate that even senior managers spend little time on planning or abstract formulation, are subject to constant interruptions, hold short face-to-face meetings which flit from topic to topic and

WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW

97

respond to the initiatives of others far more than they initiate themselves. The conclusion drawn by these researchers is that the notion of the manager as strategist, planner and thinker is a myth (Mintzberg, 1975) and that even senior managers allow themselves to be diverted from their 'real' work by constant interruption and capricious interpersonal contact. Copeman et al. conclude that 'the office is no place to work. . . the only effective way for an executive to make sure he is not interrupted is to be out'. (1963, pp. 113-4) and Mintzberg (1973) sees reactive, concrete work as breeding superficiality and a preference for a 'stimulus response milieu' (1973, p. 5). An earlier cautionary note was struck by Brewer and Tomlinson (1964) who argued that the erratic, verbal, apparently non-decisional character of manageriaJ work is consistent with the manager's need to deal with complexity through rapid accumulation and systematization of information and through the delegation of decisions. It was left to Kotter (1982a), however, to develop these ideas, arguing that, in the context of'agendas' and 'networks', a reactive, informal and piecemeal distribution of time and effort is both efficient and en"ective. Agendas require large quantities of information to be gathered quickly, whilst the development and activation of networks requires interaction with large numbers of people, often informally. Consequently, the absence of planning is more apparent than real: managers plan implicitly, 'on their feet', and reactive behaviour is, in fact, an opportunistic way of achieving much in a short time. Similarly, disjointed interactions are not a sign of impulsiveness but of sweeping a range of problems rapidly. Thus Kotter (1982a, p. 166) argues: Agendas allow the general managers to react in an opportunistic (and highly efficient) way to the flow of events around them, yet knowing that they are doing so within some broader and more rational framework. The networks allow terse (and very efficient) conversations to happen; without them, such short yet meaningful conversations would be impossible. The foregoing studies tend to concentrate on the distribution of time between particular behaviours or activities. Others concentrate more on the distribution of time between areas of responsibility. In the work of Brewer and Tomlinson (1964), Burns (1957), Home and Lupton (1965) and Kelly (1964) there are both areas of broad agreement and detailed differences. Brewer and Tomiinson (1964) found that 'Production', 'Sales' and 'Finance/Accounting' took up the bulk of managers' time, with little time spent on 'Planning". Burns (1957) showed that, of senior managers' time, only 20 per cent was spent on 'General management policy'. The impression that much managerial work concerns dayto-day problems, rather than strategic issues, is also conveyed both by Home and Lupton's (1965) study of middle managers, which found that most time was spent on day-to-day 'organizing', 'unifying' and 'regulating* rather than

98

COLIN P. HALES

long-term 'formulation', and by Kelly's (1964) study which found that half a manager's time was spent in daily 'programming' activities.
Managerial Interaction and Communication

Echoes of the frenetic, ad hoc, practical, 'fixing' character of managerial work are to be found in studies which focus primarily upon managers' interaction and communication with others. These studies share six common findings. Firstly, a great deal of managers' time - between two-thirds and four-fifths - is spent imparting or receiving information, predominantly through face-toface interaction (Bums, 1957; Home and Lupton, 1965; Kelly, 1964; Kotter, 1982a; Mintzberg, 1973; Stewart, 1976). Secondly, this proportion varies between jobs: Dubin and Spray (1964) distinguish 'verbalists' and 'loners', Stewart (1976) adds further refinements. Thirdly, managers spend a lot of their time interacting with other managers ofthe same status: communication is, predominantly, lateral (Burns, 1957; Dubin and Spray, 1964; Home and Lupton, 1965; KeUy, 1964; Mintzberg, 1973; Stewart, 1976). Fourthly, a general predominance of lateral communication contrasts with considerable variation among managerial positions in amounts of vertical communication. (Dubin and Spray, 1964; Kelly, 1964). Fifthly, in many cases, managerial interactions involve the manager in responding to the requests of others, rather than initiating matters. (Mintzberg, 1973; Kotter, 1982a). Finally, much ofthe interaction in which managers are involved appears on the surface to be wideranging in topic, only tenuously connected to 'business' matters and informal in character. (Dalton, 1959; Kotter, 1982a). The evidence, therefore, supports Home and Lupton's (1965, p.28) conclusion that managers: organize and regulate by face to face contact with equals and subordinates who, in the main, came to the manager's office to report, to discuss, to get advice and to receive instructions. Other evidence shows how variations in the direction of managerial communication are superimposed upon these substantive features. Sayles (1964) suggests that 'Participation in External Work Flows', necessitates a variety of relationships which differ, in their specific configuration, between jobs. Stewart (1976) is concerned with whom the manager interacts, distinguishing four basic types of'Contact pattem' - 'Hub', 'Peer dependent', 'Man management' and 'Solo'. Child and Ellis (1973) identify the 'Interpersonal role dimensions' of managerial jobs, or those aspects of the job which necessarily involve working with or through others: influencing, pressing for action and handling conflict. These dimensions are shown to vary by industry, organization and managerial job. Studies differ in terms of the importance accorded to communication. For some, managerial communication is treated as a separate and discrete 'area'

WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW

99

of work, or indeed, 'managerial work' tout court^ K However, Stewart (1976), who relates the structure of interaction ('contact pattems') to different managerial jobs, andKotter(1982a) who relates the j6roci of interaction ('network building and using') to managerial tasks ('agendas'), both attempt to link variations in the medium of interaction with variations in the substance of managerial work. In contrast, Mintzberg (1973) is more equivocal, asserting at one point that 'contacts are [the manager's] work' (1973, p. 44) yet elsewhere treating interpersonal relationships as activities which constitute three of his ten managerial 'roles'.
'Informal' or IJnqfficial' Aspects of Managerial Work

Researchers who employ more covert research methods such as participant observation and informal interviewing, often delight in giving particular emphasis to the 'informal' activities of managers. Dalton (1959) offers an extended description of the various types of informal activity which take up a manager's time, pointing to power struggles between cliques attempting to secure or defend resources, the informal 'interpretation', negotiation and 'implementation' of corporate policy at local level, the 'conflict-in-co-operation' between line and staff, the informal reward system and the informal influences upon career and promotions. The successful manager, according to Dalton (1959, p. 68), is one who can negotiate these informal systems: Persons able to deal with confusion came to the fore as leaders, with or without the official title. They became the nucleus of cliques that work as interlocking action centres and as bridges between official and unofficial purposes. A similar picture is painted by Fletcher (1973) who distinguishes between managerial 'cliques' and 'cabals' and Stewart (1983) summarizes this whole area as 'political activity'. Stewart and her colleagues' more recent work (1980) on managerial choice shows how managers informally negotiate widely different interpretations of the boundaries and dimensions of ostensibly identical jobs, with particular emphasis upon the development of 'personal domain'. The identification of informal managerial practices is usually accompanied by a discussion of whether these are detrimental or conducive to 'proper' managerizil work. According to Dalton (1959), infomial practices are the lubricant of organizational operation and preservative of managerial sanity, and for Gouldner (1955), informal, 'indulgent' management ensures trouble-free, if inefficient, work operation. Crozier (1964), on the other hand, is at pains to show how cliques and informal power struggles distort official organizational goals. Throughout these studies, and in Pym's (1975) notion of'spurious work', there is the implication that the practices identified deviate from an objective norm of 'proper' managerial work. This, in turn, assumes that the 'formal'

100

COLIN P. HALES

aspects of managerial work are obvious and known. However, at the level of actual management practices {cf. required practices), the distinction between 'formal' and 'informal' is difficult to sustain'^', except in terms of managers' own perceptions of what is and is not 'really' part of the job. These perceptions, like managerial work itself, are highly fluid. Thus, managerial work as practised is difficult to designate as 'fomial' or 'informal', unless some comparison is made with others' expectations. The observed 'informality' of the style of managerial work, especially in style of communication, is a rather different matter, as informality here is synonymous with 'relaxed'. Kotter (1982a) shows how interaction is often in the form of short, informal unplanned encounters revolving around nonwork-reiated topics, but argues that this style enables the manager to achieve a great deal.
Some Central Themes

To some extent, as much is known about what managerial work is like' as about what it is, the relative scarcity of evidence on the nature of managerial work being partly offset by illuminating data on the character of that work. A number of key themes recur: Variation and contingency. Whilst earlier studies sought to pin down the defining characteristics of managerial work in extenso, there is now a general agreement aunong researchers that managerial work is contingent upon, inter alia: function, level, organization (type, structure and size) and environment. (Bums, 1957; Child and Ellis, 1973; Dubin and Spray, 1964; Home and Lupton, 1965; Mintzberg, 1973, 1979; Pheysey, 1972; Stewart, 1967a, 1976; Stewart el al., 1980). This evidence is supplemented by cross-cultural analysis, reviewed by Nath (1968), Harbison and Myers (1959) and Weinshall (1972). It is important to recognize, however, that the variation indicated by the research evidence taken as a whole is of two different kinds. Firstly, there is the variation identified in the context of the particular model and set of analytic categories employed by a single researcher. This is variation in managerial jobs in terms of different configurations of elements, processes, contact patterns and time allocations. Thus, Mintzberg (1973) identifies eight managerial job types in terms of variable combinations of his ten managerial roles and Stewart (1976) identifies 12 job types in terms of variations in contact pattem. In each study, however, the claim is that the 'elements', 'roles', 'processes', 'contact patterns', 'functions' etc. per se are common to all managerial jobs. Again, it is important to recognize that this claim is sometimes - as in the case of'roles'or'elements'- a claim about commonalities of behavioural content, sometimes - as with 'contact patterns' - a claim about common formal properties and at yet other times - as with 'functions' - a claim about common responsibilities.

WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW

lOl

These distinctions indicate the second kind of variation exhibited by the research evidence, i.e. variation in the bases of classification and typification between different research studies. Whether this variation reflects the inherent susceptibility of the phenomenon to alternative conceptualization or whether it reflects the diversity of interests/purposes and methods of different researchers is an issue I wish to take up in the following section. For now, it is worth noting that the different categories employed by different researchers are often held to be competing alternatives, rather than additional perspectives: key works in the literature devote space to a demonstration ofthe inapplicability ofthe categories or conceptual frameworks employed by previous investigators in the field (Mintzberg, 1973; Stewart, 1976). Choice and negotiation. Managerial jobs seem, in general, to be sufficiently loosely defined to be highly negotiable and susceptible to choice of both style and content. Stewart (1976; Stewart et al., 1980) provides the most convincing evidence of this by demonstrating significant variation in the performance of what are, nominally, the same jobs. In her most recent work, Stewart (1982) concentrates upon the choices which operate within the demands and constraints of managerial work. She suggests that some choices of content (which aspects of a job a manager chooses to emphasize, selection between aspects and choices about risk taking) and of TTieihods (how work is done) are common to all managerial jobs. She also indicates choices which are distinctive of certain types of managerial jobs such as choice of'domain' (what the manager's unit or the manager himself is doing) and the choice of sharing work, either vertically or laterally. Managers attempt to alter the content of their jobs, in particular by making them less reactive and dependent upon the demands of others, more towards becoming the source of activities and demands, and thereby to 'move to a position in the structure in which the balance of initiatives favours them' (Sayles, 1964, p. 115). Moreover, managers attempt to bring certain desirable functions/activities under their control and to off-load more time-consuming ones (Dalton, 1959), Thus, negotiation over job content is not only part of what managers actually do, but is also a motif running through other activities. Silverman and Jones (1976) take this theme a stage further by suggesting that managers actively define their own work and create its constituent activities: communication is not simply what managers spend a great deal of time doing but the medium through which managerial work is constituted. They suggest, therefore, that the typical work of a junior manager is the 'organizational work' of drawing upon an evolving stock of knowledge about 'normal' procedures and routines in order to identify and negotiate the accomplishment of'problems' and 'tasks'. Thus, the work of managers is the management of their work or as Gowler and Legge (1983) contend, the 'meaning of management' is the 'management of meaning*.

102

COLIN P. HALES

Pressure and conflict. There is considerable evidence that whatever managers do, their activities do not form a neat, coherent, unproblematic set. Activities may be competing, even contradictory, and this itself produces the important managerial work of compromise and negotiation. DaOton (1959) describes how managers cope with the cross-pressures acting upon them and the ambiguity which pervades their relationship with the organization. Silverman and Jones (1976) identify the conversational strategies employed by middle managers in resolving the role conflict created by the policy stipulations of superordinates and the grievances of subordinates. Nichols and Beynon (1977) document the ideological tools employed by managers at 'ChemCo' to resolve contradictions between the management of the technical system and people. Fletcher's (1973) study points up the contradictions between being employed to rationalize organization and of planning oneself out of a job, the ideology of individual performance and the reality of cliques, of being a manager whilst also being a subordinate and of having to extract work from subordinates without always giving something in return. He concludes (1973, p. 136) that the circumstances of managerial work are 'schizoid' and that: Management is neither an nor science nor skill. At base there is nothing to do. A manager is hired for what he knows other firms do, what he can fmd to do, and what he can be told to do. For Pym (1975), the key contradiction is between 'work' and 'employment' and much managerial activity is spurious or non-work undertaken largely to absorb the time spent in employment. Evidence on conflict and ambiguity sounds a cautionary note for the interpretation of studies ofthe elements of managerial work. These studies, which seek to dissect managerial work, may, in the process, lose the living whole', in that managerial work is not the sequential execution of separate activities but is often an artful, simultaneous synthesis of inter-dependent activities or reconciliation of conflicting demands. There is both rapid commuting between activities (Carlson, 1951; Copeman et al., 1963; Horne and Lupton, 1965; Mintzberg, 1973; Kotter, 1982a) with the manager seeking to 'keep everything going' and the simultaneous execution of discrete and, in principle, separable activities, with one activity providing the context, even the opportunity, for carrying out others (Kotter, 1982a). Reaction and non-reflection. Much of what managers do is, of necessity, an unreflective response to circumstances. The manager is less a slow and methodical decision maker, more a 'doer" who has to react rapidly to problems as they arise, 'think on his feet', take decisions in situ and develop a preference for concrete activities. This shows in the pace of managerial work and the short time span of most activities as documented in Mintzberg (1973), Copeman et ai, (1963)

WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW

103

and Kotter (1982). It is also reflected in the relatively high proportion of otherinitiated contacts {Mintzberg, 1973; Kotter, 1982a). Managerial myths. A recurring conclusion of many studies is that management in practice is very different from how it is reputed to be (Bums, 1957; Mintzberg, 1973; Sayles, 1964; Stewart, 1983). Mintzberg (1975) uses his evidence to attack* four pieces of managerial 'folklore' and Stewart (1983) suggests how research evidence has changed the 'traditional picture'. It is important to recognize that two distinct, if inter-related, sets of ideas about management form the target here: first, published theories of management (especially those glossed as the 'classical school') and second, the 'practical theories' or beliefs of managers themselves about what they and other managers do. Clearly, the former (or popular versions of it) can become part of the latter, so that: If you ask a manager what he does, he will most likely tell you that he plans, organizes, co-ordinates and controls. Then watch what he does. Don't be surprised if you can't relate what you see to those four words. (Mintzberg, 1975, p. 49) The extent to which the 'hard facts' of research refute the claims of management theorists is an issue I want to take up later. Here it may be noted that the status of managers' own conceptions of what they do is a matter of some dispute, a dispute which reflects the methodological and epistemological orientations of different studies. Studies using a positivist approach to discover the elements of managerial work, incline to represent managers' beliefs as, essentially 'correct' or 'incorrect' - as for example in the demonstration that managers' estimates of how they spend their time are at variance with how they actually do so (Bums, 1957; Horne and Lupton, 1965; Marshall and Stewart 1981; Stewart, 1967a). Studies which are concerned to develop an understanding of management processes, however, incline to view managerial beliefs and ideology as inextricable from managerial work (Silverman and Jones, 1976) or, indeed, as managerial work in toto (Fletcher, 1973; Gowler and Legge, 1983).

RESEARCH ON MANAGERIAL WORK: SOME CRITICISMS AND CONCLUSIONS

The review ofthe evidence in the previous section has taken, so far as is possible, a neutral and non-evaluative line. I have endeavoured to address the evidence with one simple question - what do we now know about what managers do? - in mind. I now want to turn to consider a number of ways in which the accumulated studies do not. for me, provide a full answer to the question posed. I will focus here upon three separate, but inter-related areas of difficulty: the problem of diversity, even inconsistency, in the research findings; the problem

104

COLIN P- HALES

of interpreting managers' behaviour and its relation to managerial tasks, responsibilities or functions, and the problem ofthe extent to which exclusively managerial work has been identified. AU of these problems converge in a more general reluctance on the part of many ofthe studies to locate managerial work practices carefully within the broader context of tht function of management in work organizations. If the evidence presented in the previous section is treated naively as a body of 'facts', the known features of managerial work may be summarized as follows: (1) It combines a specialist/professional element and a general, 'managerial' element. (2) The substantive elements involve, essentially, liaison, manmanagement and responsibility for a work process, beneath which are subsumed more detailed work elements. (3) The character of work elements varies by duration, time span, recurrence, unexpectedness and source. (4) Much time is spent in day-to-day trouble shooting and ad hoc problems of organization and regulation. (5) Much managerial activity consists of asking or persuading others to do things, involving the manager in face-to-face verbal communication of limited duration. (6) Patterns of communication vary in terms of what the communication is about and with whom the communication is made. (7) Little time is spent on any one particular activity and, in particular, on the conscious, systematic formulation of plans. Planning and decision making tend to take place in the course of other activity. (8) Managers spend a lot of time accounting for and explaining what they do, in informal relationships and in 'politicking*. (9) Managerial activities are riven by contradictions, cross-pressures and conflicts. Much managerial work involves coping with and reconciling social and technical conflict. (10) There is considerable choice in terms of what is done and how: part of managerial work is setting the boundaries of and negotiating that work itself. This list is unremarkable and represents the common core findings on managerial work which are sufficiently general as to be relatively uninteresting. Beyond these core findings lies diversity which has two distinct origins. Firstly, it reflects diversity in the phenomenon itself - the wide variation in jobs designated as 'managerial' (Stewart, 1967a; 1976). Clearly, the choice of particular managerial jobs as the object of study crucially influences the nature ofthe findings. Secondly, however, the diversity of evidence undoubtedly reflects the research process. The findings cannot be viewed as a set of unproblematic 'facts',

WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW

105

unscathed by the problems and purposes which determined their collection, the implicit models and methodologies which guided the research and the methods whereby the data were collected. I have already noted above how changes in focus, problems and approaches brought identifiable shifts in the character ofthe studies over a 30 year span. Before the adoption of multi-method studies, what was discovered about managerial work was critically influenced by how managers were studied: diary studies inevitably focused upon contacts and time allocation, structured questionnaires generated work elements, whilst participant observation studies made much of 'informal' behaviour, Anyone seeking to build a consistent body of knowledge from the different research studies by a process of contrast and comparison, finds the task difficult. Moving from one study to another invariably brings both a change in focus and in the categories employed to describe the phenomenon. The whole is a disconnected area of research with little sense of a sustained, systematic accretion of knowledge. Mintzberg asserts that findings on managerial work 'paint[s] an interesting picture, one as different from Fayol's classical view as a cubist abstract is from a Renaissance painting' (1975, p. 50). The analogy is unfortunately apt because the research picture does indeed appear as an assemblage of geometric shapes, shapes which do not always fit together. Is the demand for consistency across the different studies a reasonable one? There are two issues here. Firstly, to demand consistent/ini:/m^.i is clearly unreasonable: no field of study, however well developed, is free from conflicts of evidence. But, secondly, it is perhaps less unreasonable to demand consistent categories and concepts. Stewart (1982) points to a relative neglect of conceptual development in the field, a neglect which has resulted in a confusion between managerial behaviour and managerial jobs. I have already argued that this confusion obstructs any attempt to pin down whether the observed variation in managerial work is variation between jobs across common dimensions and processes, or variations in the dimensions or processes themselves. More than this, however, other distinctions, subsumed under the general category of'managerial work' are elided or ignored. These distinctions are, admittedly, far easier to make conceptually than they may prove to be empirically. However, it may be worth setting out some of these as a preliminary to their possible utility in research terms. In the first place, there would seem to be a distinction between what managers, by observation or report, 'do' - their behaviour and activities - and what managers are charged, or seek, to 'achieve' - their tasks, responsibilities and functions. There is, therefore, a distinction between managerial 'work' as a set of actual behaviours and as a set of desired (either by managers or others) outcomes. The possible utility of this distinction lies both in its apparent recognition by managers themselves (Fletcher, 1973; Nichols and Beynon, 1977) and in the extent to which it alerts the researcher to examine areas of discrepancy and interaction between managerial action and outcomes. By 'discrepancy',

106

COLIN P. HALES

I mean instances of where managers' behaviour is not, in practice or by design, instrumental to the execution of responsibilities. By 'interaction' I mean the relatively little documented process ' ' whereby outcomes or responsibilities are negotiated in the course of behaviour or, indeed, afterwards - what Weick (1977) calls the 'enactment process'. Investigation of this discrepancy and interaction might be expected a priori to inform or explain problems which recur throughout the literature. The problem of'managerial effectiveness' would be informed by further consideration of whether actual managerial behaviour is conducive to achieving certain desirable outcomes and how desirable outcomes are defined or negotiated and by whom. The diversity of managerial work would be, in part, explained by an examination ofthe interaction between behaviour and outcomes, if what managers 'do' is susceptible to continuous, even post hoc, negotiation. Thus, reluctance to grapple with the distinction between behaviour and outcomes has led to an unsatisfactory treatment of what researchers themselves have regarded as key problems. There has not simply been limited conceptual development per se, but limited development of concepts of particular relevance for problems which the studies choose to address. In fact, to suggest a dichotomy between 'doing" and 'achieving' here is misleading. It is probably more satisfactory to conceive of a continuum ranging from simple 'behaviour' stripped of context and intention and, therefore, of meaning, through 'activities' or complexes of behaviour endowed with context - and/or intention - based meaning, to 'tasks', or the defined goals of activity and, finally, 'functions', the intended contribution of managerial tasks to the organization as a whole. Studies which look at the elements of managerial work or the allocation of managers' time, both collectively and, in some cases, individually, span this continuum. Sometimes the studies - or study - document simple behaviour ('reading*, 'writing"), sometimes activities ('briefing subordinates on the week's sales figures'), sometimes tasks ('disturbance handling') and sometimes functions ('preservation of assets'). Equally, many ofthe categories used are not readily indentifiable as behaviour, activity, task or functions. Further, potentially important distinctions begin to arise from the foregoing discussion. The first is that between actual, observable behaviour and activities and those behaviours and activities which are required or expected by others. This distinction pardy corresponds to that between (actually) 'doing' and 'achieving* (what is expected), but only partly. It is an issue I will take up again below. Secondly, there is the horizontal division of managerial work into individual manage rs'^oij, the work of managerial tearru and finally, the work of an organization's management as a whole. The studies reviewed largely focus, implicitly or explicitly, upon jobs, but without always indicating the relationship between these individual jobs and the work of teams or 'management' as a whole'"'. I have hardly begun to adumbrate, leave alone clarify, these distinct aspects of what might be meant by managerial 'work'. For the moment, I merely wish

WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW

107

to argue the need for this line of conceptual development. As existing studies have largely eschewed such development, the result has been the use, both between and within studies, of shifting categories. This has created, in tandem with a richness ofdata, a serious difficulty: by precluding a basis for comparison, these diverse categories prelude the identification of conflicts of evidence. The demand for consistency is, therefore, not a naive search for agreement among the studies but a desire to identify in what sense they differ. There is also perhaps an unwarranted proclivity on the part of researchers to tolerate and treat as unproblematic these differences in the categories which they employ. The fact that managerial work has been analyzed in such a variety of terms indicates not only the diversity of interests, purposes and perspectives
ofthe researchers but also the susceptibility of the phenomenon to such diverse analysis.

Yet this susceptibility is rarely treated as a problem in its own right. Its possibility is accepted in the discussion of choices (Stewart, 1982) and of the linguistic processes whereby managerial work is rendered into orderly, understood categories (Silverman and Jones, 1976). But the question remains: why are these choices and constituting processes possible? An answer lies, I suggest, in an understanding of how the managerial function is constituted within the overall work process of an organization. Whilst a nominalist definition of'managers' - i.. those who are designated as such is a reasonable starting point for an analysis of what they do, when research reveals such diversity in the composition of managerial work, it would seem prudent to re-examine who 'managers' are - unless one is content to ride the roundabout of saying that managers are people who do managerial work. Once this issue is posed, investigation must become concerned with the nature of the work process in organizations and the function of management in that process. Some researchers have "raised such issues - Silverman and Jones (1976) ask what it is about organizations which make particular accounts of managerijil work comprehensible and Mintzberg (1979) relates different types of managerial role to the function of managers in different organizational structures. But a full account of the nature of the management function and why and how that resolves into highly variable managerial work remains to be given. The absence of such an account is the source ofthe second major weakness of the accumulated research evidence: the 'unsituated' character of the managerial behaviour documented there. The problem may be approached by asking a naive question, the simplicity of which should not belittle its relevance to those interested in training or developing managers (including managers themselves): is the managerial practice identified good practice? Do the studies describe 'good' or 'bad' management? However pertinent the question' ' the studies themselves do not give much of an answer because they do not offer an empirically-based standard against which the described behaviour may be compared, The absence of such a standard does not always preclude an implicit, unexplicated, standard lurking in the wings. For example, any reference to 'informal' activities implies the existence of'formal' activities and

108

COLIN P. HALES

the claim that much managerial activity is 'spurious' (Pym, 1975) rests on an unstated conception of 'real' work. The standard against which actual managerial practice may be compared can either take the form of some absolute, objective, bench-mark - which, given the variation of managerial jobs, would be difilcult to sustain - or take a more contingent form. One such contingent standard with which to compare actual managerial practice might be what others expect or require managers to do. Good or bad practice may then be conceived in terms ofthe extent to which managers'
performance matches others' expectations.

The distinction between performance and expectations is a key dimension of the concept of'role', an analytic tool which despite having much to contribute to this area of study, has been surprisingly little exploited beyond its use as a multi-purpose label. Indeed, the concept of role embodies a number of ideas and conceptual distinctions which seem apposite to the analysis of managerial positions. Firstly, there is the distinction between 'role demands' or 'the situational pressures that confront [the individual] as the occupant of a given structural position'(Levinson, 1966, p. 286) and'role definition'or'the individual's adaptation within the organization. . . [which] may have varying degrees of fit with the role requirements'(Levinson, 1966, p. 289). Secondly, the concept admits of more careful analysis ofthe separate 'demands' and 'definitions' sides of a role. Role demands may be classified by: (i) explicitness, clarity, coherence, specificity and degree of consensus (Levinson, 1966), (ii) source, by the identification of a'role set'(Merton, 1957), (iii) the strength of expectations -'must', 'should' and 'can' (Dahrendorf, 1968) and, finally, (iv) the focus of expectation, whether upon what the incumbent must do, 'role behaviour', or on what the incumbent must be, 'role attributes' (Dahrendorf, 1968). Role definition divides into 'role conception' -the individual's perception of his position and the role demands which attach to it - and 'role performance' - the individual's actual behaviour, either as response to perceived expectations or as pursuit of individual projects (Levinson, 1966). The choice element in role performance may also be analyzed by recourse to concepts of role identification or 'role distance' (Goffman, 1961). Because 'role' refers to the point of contact between individual and organization, it may be employed to examine both the structural expectational determinants of behaviour and the effect of individual projects and choices. As Salaman suggests, 'it enables the conceptual jump to be made from individual activity to structural regularity' (1980, p. 130). Moreover, although the concept has, in practice, been used either to examine the structured features of action or its negotiated, processual character, its strength lies in constantly suggesting the need to analyze both and in providing the analytic tools to do so. There are two respects in which role analysis seems particularly suitable for the analysis of managerial positions and the work activity associated with them. Firstly, as Salaman (1980) points out, the concept of role is most appropriate for positions where there is both a degree of willing conformity

WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW

109

with organizational expectations and some possibility of choice on the part ofthe incumbent. Although, strictly speaking, that conformity and choice has to be demonstrated by empirical investigation of manager's roles, there are a priori grounds for believing that such is the case. Secondly, the concept of role provides a framework wherein the evidence on managerial behaviour may be situated. The demands or expectations upon the manager do not simply provide the context but also represent a point of comparison for that behaviour. In particular, it is by reference to these expectations that actual managerial performance - whether at the level of behaviour, activities or accomplished task.s - may be shown to be instrumental or otherwise in their achievement. A strength of role analysis is its non-presumption of any necessary congruence between expectations and performance. However, research evidence to date almost exclusively focuses upon managerial role performance: only Kotter (1982a) and Stewart (1976; Stewart et al., 1980) set the behaviour ofthe managers studied in the context of substantive role demands. There is, therefore, a need for more research which seeks to identify role prescriptions, expectations or demands - whether undertaken through an examination of formal job descriptions''*' or through an investigation ofthe expectations held by all the members of a manager's role-set''*'. This, again, suggests the need to examine the 'managerial' function. The nature of that function within organizations and how it is divided among different managerial jobs is crucially important in defining managerial responsibilities and tasks. The third and final weakness of existing studies is that it is uncertain whether they identify exclusively managerial behaviour. No study has sought to compare managers with non-managers and, thereby, identify the differentia specifica of their work. Moreover, because ofthe absence of consistent categories or models, post hoc comparisons between studies of individual occupations cannot be made. The possibility that the work described in studies of managers is not definitively 'managerial' is both generally unfortunate and specifically so in that the evidence cannot be used to address the issue, much rehearsed elsewhere''^' of whether 'management' is an inextricable element of all kinds of work, and hence part of any occupation, or whether it is a distinct and separable activity, amenable to allocation to one particular category of worker. In short, the studies have not demonstrated that there is a bounded and separable set of activities which may be called 'managerial work' - and not merely activities which managers have been shown to do. Moreover, it is also somewhat surprising that the research studies have not investigated more fully one aspect of managerial work which a priori might be expected to follow from the conventional and working definition of a 'manager' as someone having responsibility for the operation of a discrete organizational unit and being vested with at least formal authority over those working within that unit. A distinguishing characteristic ofthe occupational category of manager is the direction/control of and accountability/responsibility for a labour process.

110

COLIN P. HALES

this combination of control and responsibility reflecting the fact that managers both have authority over others and are, in turn, subject to the authority of more senior managers. This has two important implications. First, it suggests a crucial distinction, within the generic term 'managerial work', between what managers themselves do and what managers have to ensure others do. Thus to the list of managerial behaviours, activities, tasks and functions, it is necessary to add managerial responsibilities. It is surprising that this distinction between 'doing something oneself and 'getting others to do something' is not more carefully developed in studies of managerial work, especially given the fact that managerial jobs are invariably defined in practice by the labour process or organizational unit of which the individual is manager. Few managers describe themselves merely as 'a manager', but qualify their occupation by reference to what it is they manage - hence they are 'works manager', 'sales manager', 'technical services manager', 'food and beverage manager' and so on. Secondly, because managers are rarely, if ever, merely managers but are defined by what they manage, it might be expected ex hypothesi, that whatever else they do, they may be perceived to be engaged in work which is identifiable as the control and direction of the work of others. This will not necessarily take the form of crude 'man-management' through the overt and observable giving of orders. If, as Blau and Schoenherr (1973) suggest, forms of control have become covert, indirect, even insidious, then it is necessary to search for some evidence of control and responsibility within apparently mundane managerial behaviours. Although some studies which refer to the work of managers in the course of wider concerns (Nichols and Beynon, 1977; Silverman and Jones, 1976) deal with these issues' ', studies of managerial work per se rarely address the influence of non-observable 'responsibilities' and 'functions' beneath the appearances of managerial behaviour. Neither has this simply been the consequence of a reluctance to deal with any evidence save the strictly empirical: Kotter's 'agendas', for example, are very much Interpretational constructs. Rather, there has been a reluctance to treat managers' observable behaviour as problematic and to ask - or keep asking - the question: why thxse behaviours and activities?''''' This relates to the question ofthe extent to which studies of managerial work disprove 'classical' theories of management. It may be argued that the classical theories were not hypotheses about individual managers' behaviour, but theories of general managerial functions and responsibilities in the work process' '. A weakness of these theories was in assuming that it was possible to 'read off specific behaviour from a knowledge ofthe managerial functions. However, the classical theories have been neither adequately proven nor refuted by research studies of managerial work because these studies have not asked appropriate questions ofthe data. In particular, they have not asked: what kind of managerial function is implied by such behaviours on the part of individual managers?

WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW

111

Analysis of the managerial function need not, of course, proceed ab ovo. A considerable body of literature has developed, chiefly within sociology, which examines management within the wider context of labour processes and the social division of labour''^'. Clearly, these investigations have been prompted by very different purposes and problems: issues such as the class location of managers, the separation of ownership and control and the character, provenance and direction of changes in the labour process have predominated. Consequently, the limitations of these studies for an understanding of managerial work is almost a mirror-image of the limitation of the studies discussed above; they fail to investigate the activities related to the managerial function and, therefore, imply that the specific behaviour of managers may be deduced, unproblematically. I have argued, therefore, that three areas of difiiculty which may be encountered in the published research evidence on managerial work - the plethora of categories for describing the phenomenon, the difficulty of judging the appropriateness ofthe behaviour identified and, finally, the problem of whether the work described is exclusively 'managerial' (and in what sense) - may all be traced to a reluctance to consider the managerial function which provides the context for the tasks, activities and behaviour of individual managers. Two possible future lines of development have been suggested which may begin to remove some of these difficulties. Firstly, the concept of role might be more systematically used as a framework of analysis, with greater emphasis upon the inter-relation between expectations and performance. Secondly, there could be an attempt to reconcile and synthesize the accumulated evidence on 'managerial work' with the extant literature on 'management and the division of labour*. Such developments would permit a more careful specification of the question 'what do managers do?' - by clarifying the difference between 'managers', 'managerial teams' and 'management', by clarifying the relationship between functions, tasks, activities and behaviour and, fmally, by clarifying the distinction between others' expectations and individual performance. Moreover, these distinctions may suggest a more careful definition of the term which formed a starting point for this review: 'managerial effectiveness'. This may be shown to have a number of distinct and separate meanings: (1) Firstly, there is effectiveness in the sense ofthe degree of congruence between actual and expected practices and performance. (2) Secondly, there is effectiveness in the sense ofthe degree of fit between behaviour and activities on the one hand and tasks and functions on the other. Effectiveness is also, therefore, activity which is tributary to the performance of the wider managerial function. (3) Thirdly, there is the effectiveness of the manager not only in his own work, but in ensuring the work of others. (4) Fourthly, there is the effectiveness of the individual manager, the management team or the organization's 'management' as a whole.

112

COLIN P. HALES (5) Finally, there is the issue of who decides what constitutes the proper management function and managerial tasks, and on what criteria.

In short, these developments and the issues they raise would, in my view, permit a clarification of and synthesis between managers' behaviour and the management Junction in order to provide a more rounded picture o^ managerial work and how it is divided into managerial jobs.

NOTES [1] See, for example, the definitions of effectiveness in Boyatzis (1982), Brodit- and Bennett (1979). Campbell rt a/. (1970), Drucker (1970), Lowe (1979), Morse and Wagner (1978), Reddin (1970), and Shakman and Roberts (1977). In all of these, different terminology disguises essentially consistent recognition of effectiveness as the relationship between actual and required performance. [2] See, especially. Drucker (1970) and Reddin (1970). (3] It is also possible to distinguish, fourthly, the research methods whereby evidence is collected. [4] In taking this starting point, I differ from those who argue ihai in the face of considerable evidence there is not one job of 'management', but many, it is fallacious to investigate 'managers' or 'management' in general terms (Fores and Glover. 1976). My objection to this position is threefold. Firstly, it may be employed as a blunt instrument of intellectual nihilism, wielded to foreclose discussion and investigation. Secondly, the position is not consistently held in that denial of the category 'manager* in the context of investigation of managerial work accompanies acceptance of the term in the context of managerial training, development and. indeed, remuneration. Finally, this position fails to recognize the nature and purpose of generalization from empirical complexity, confusing the scientific search for commonalities and generalities with the futile quest for identities. My aim is to discover whether there is a genotype of managerial work - sufficient common characteristics to stamp that work as 'managerial' - underlying specific phenotypes. [5] it would be possible and illuminating for other purposes to classify the studies according to the methodological orientation {e.g. positivist or interpretive), research methods {e.g. diary studies, observation studies, questionnaire studies) or theoretical perspective. [6] There are. of course, many who have theorized the major elements of management. See, for example, Barnard (1938), Drucker (1974), Fayol (1949), Hill (1979), Morse and Wagner (1978). Shakman and Roberts (1977) and Zalcznik (1964). [7] For example. Home and Lupton (1965), Mintzberg (1973) and Stewart (1976). [8] The central role of oral communication in management has led Gowler and Legge (1983) to analyze management as an 'oral tradition' and to explore, through an analysis of managers' remarks at training courses :md in letters to management journals, the use of rhetoric to establish a meaning of'management' steeped in notions of control, order, super-ordinacy and efficiency. [9] It has for some time been recognized that the distinction between 'formal' and 'informal' organization does not stand up to careful scrutiny. See, originally, the argument in Etzioni (I960). [10] But see Silverman and Jones (1976).

WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW

113

[111 ^^ analysis of management teams and how they function (but not, it may be noted, what they do) is offered in Belbin (1981). Stewan (1982) also addresses the issue of what is an appropriate unit of managerial work. [ 12| The question i.s pertinent, given claims about how much of organizational performance may be attributed to the 'quality' of management. [13] See. for example, Wortman and Sperling (1975). [14] This approach underlies Machin's 'Expectations Approach' (Machin, 1981) jmd has also been adopted by Hales and Nightingale in an analysis of the work of unit managers in the hotel and catering industry. [15] Sec, for example. Braverman (1974), Marglin (1976), Nichols and Beynon (1977) and Storey (1980). [16] Nichols and Beynon note at one point that 'Short of an explosion or a technical fault, which threatens production, "trouble" - real trouble - means people. Without workers, sophisticated technology counts for nothing. These managers, therefore, take "the other side" seriously' (1977, p. 33). [17] Mintzberg (1973) claims to have arrived at his len managerial roles by asking the question 'why?' of specific observed behaviours. What he does not do is then ask 'why these roles?', 118j For example, Fayol v^rrote; 'All undertakings require planning, organization, command, co-ordination and control in order to function properly. - .' (1932), and again: 'In every case, the organization has to carry out [the following] managerial duties.. .'(1949), my emphases in both cases. In both of these prefatory remarks, Fayol makes it clear that it is management (or administration) in general of which he writes, not the behaviour of individual managers. [19] Fora recent overview of this work and some ofthe key issues which it addresses, see Salaman (1982).

REFERENCES BARNARD, C . I. (1938), The Functions oJ the Executive. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
BELBIN, R . M . (1981). Management Teams: HOiy They Succeed or Fail. London: Heinemann. BENNETT, R . and BRODIE, M . (1979). 'A perspective on managerial effectiveness'. In

Brodie, M. and Bennett, R. (Eds.), Managerial Effectiveness. Slough: Thames Valley Regional Management Centre.
BLAU, P. and SCHOENHERR. R . A. (1973). 'New forms of power*. In Salaman, G. and

Thompson, K, (Eds,), People and Organisations. London: Longman. BoYATZis, R. (1982), The Competent Manager. New York: Wiley. BRAVERMAN, H . (1974). Labour and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
BREVIER, E. and TOMLINSON, J, W, C, (1964). 'The manager's working day'. Joumat of Industrial Economics, 12, 191-7. BURNS, T , (1957)- 'Management in action'. Operational Research Quarterly, 8, 2, 45-60. CAMPBELL, J , P,, DUNNETTE, M . D . , LAWLER, E . E . AND WEICK, K . E . (1970). Managerial Behavior, Ferjormance and Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

CARLSON, S, (1951), Executive Behaviour. Stockholm, Strombergs. CHILD, J. and ELLIS, T . (1973). 'Predictors of variation in managerial roles'. Human Relations. 26, 2, 227-50. CopEMAN, G., LiiijK, H. and HANIKA, F, (1963), How The Executive Spends His Time. London: Business Publications Limited. CROZIER, M . (1964). The Bureaucratic Fhenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

114

COLIN P. HALES

DAHRENDORF, R . (1968). 'Homo sociologicus'. In his Essays in Oie Theory of Society. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. DALTON, M . (1959). Men Who Manage. New York: Wiley. DRUCKER, P . (1970). The Effective Executive. London: Pan. DRUCKER, P , (1974). Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. London: Heinemann. DUBIN, R . and SPRAY, S, L . (1964). 'Executive behavior and interaction'. Industrial Relations, 3, 2, 99-108, ErziONi, A, (1960). Two approaches to organiztional analysis: a critique and su^esrion'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5, 257-78, FAYOL, H . (1932). The administrative theory ofthe state'. Paper delivered to the Second International Congress of Administrative Science, Brussels, FAYOL, H . (1949). General and Industrial Management. (Translated by C. Storrs). London: Pitman, FLETCHER, C . (1973). The end of management'. In Child. J. (Ed.), Man and Organisation. London: George Allen and Unwin, FORES, M , and GLOVER, I. (1976). T h e real work of executives'. Management Today, November, 104-8. GOFFMAN. E . (1961). Encounters. Columbus: Bobbs-Merrit. GOULDNER, A. W. (1955). Wildcat Strike. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. GOWLER, D . and LEOGE, K . (1983). The meaning of management and the management of meaning: a view from social anthropology'. In Earl, M, J, (Ed.), Perspectives on Management: A Multidisciptinary Analysis. London: Oxford University Press, 197-233, HALES, C . P. and NIGHTINGALE, M . 'What are unit managers supposed to do?' International Joumal of Hospitality Management, forthcoming. HARBISON, F . and MYERS. C , A. (1959). Management in the Industrial World: An International Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, HEMPHILL, J. K. (1959). 'Job descriptions for executives'. Harvard Business Review, 37, 5, HILL, N . C . (1979). Increasing Managerial Effectiveness: Keys to Management and Motivation. Reading, Mass,: Addison-Wesley. HORNE, J, H. and LUPTON, T . (1965), 'The work activities of'middle managers' - an exploratory study', yourna/ of Management Studies, 2, 1, 14-33, KELLY, J. (1964). T h e study of executive behaviour by activity sampling'. Human Relations, 17, 3, 277-87, KOTTER, J. (1982a). The General Manager. New York: Free Press. KOTTER, J. P. (1982b). "What effective general managers really do'. Harvard Business Review, 60, 6, 156-67. LEVINSON, D . J, (1966), 'Role, personality and social structure'. In Coser, L, A. and Rosenberg, B. (Eds.), Sociological Theory: A Book of Readings (2nd ed.). New York: Collier Macmillan. Lov/E, J. (1979). 'Criteria for the training of effective managers'. In Brodie, M, and Bennett, R. (Eds.), Managerial Effectiveness. Slough: Thames Valley Regional Management Centre. MAGHIN, J, L. J, (1981), The Expectations Approach. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. MARTIN, N , (1956). 'Differential decisions in the management of an industrial plant". foumal of Business, 29, 4, 249-60, MARGLIN, S. A. (1976). 'What do bosses do? The origins and functions of hierarchy in capitalist production'. In Gorz, A, (Ed.), The Division oJLabour. Brighton: Harvester, MARSHALL, J. and STEWART. R . (1981). 'Managers'job perceptions: parts 1 and 2'. foumal oJManagement Studies, 18, 2 and 3. MERTON, R . (1957). 'The role set: problems in sociological theory', British foumal of Sociology, 8, 6, 110-20. MiNTZBERO, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper and Row.

WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW

115

MINTZBERG, H . (1975). T h e manager's job: folklore and fact'. Harvard Business Review, 55, 4, MINTZBERG, H , (1979). Vie Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PremiceHall, MORSE, J , J , and WAGNER, F, R, (1978). 'Measuring the process of managerial effectiveness'. Academy of Management foumal, 21, 1, 23-5. NATH, R . (1968). 'A methodological review of cross-cultural management research'. International Social Science Journal, 20, 1, 35-62. NICHOLS, T . and BEYNON, H . (1977). Living With Capitalism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, PHEYSEY, D . C , (1972). 'Activities of middle managers - a training guide'. Joumal of Management Studies, 9, 158-71. PYM, D , (1975). 'The demise of management and the ritual of employment'. Human Relations, 28, 8, 675-98. REDDIN, W . (1970), Managerial Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. SALAMAN, G . (1980), 'Roles and rules'. In Salaman, G, and Thompson, K. (Eds.), Control and Ideology in Organisations. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. SALAMAN, G , (1982). 'Managing the frontier of control'. In Giddens. A. and Mackenzie, G. (Eds.), Social Class and the Division of Labour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, SAYLES, L, R, (1964). Managerial Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hiil. SHAKMAN, R . J . and ROBERTS, R . C . (1977). 'An evaluation of managerial effectiveness'. Busine.is Review, 29, 1, 24-7, SILVERMAN, D . and JONES J, (1976), Organizational Work. London: Macmillan. STEWART, R . (1967a). Managers and Their Jobs. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. STEWART, R . (1967b). The Reality of Management. London: Pan. STEWART, R . (1976). Contrasts in Management. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. STEWART, R , (1982). Choices for the Manager. Englewood Cliffs, N, J.: Prentice-Hall. STEWART. R . (1983). 'Managerial behaviour: how research has changed the traditional picture", tn Earl, M. J. (Ed.), Perspectives on Management. London: Oxford University Press, 82-98,
STEWART, R . , SMITH, P., BLAKE, J, and WINGATE, P. (1980). The District Administrator

in the National Health Service. London: Pitman. STOREY, J, (1980). Tke Challenge io Management Control. London: Kogan Page. WEICK, K . E . (1977). 'Enactment processes in organizations'. In Staw, B, M. and Salancik, G. R, (Eds,), New Directions on Organizational Behavior. Chicago: St, Clair Press. WEINSHALL, T . D . (1972). (Ed.), Culture and Management. Harmondsworth: Penguin, WORTMAN, M . and SPERLING, J - A . (1975). Defining the Manager's fob. New York: AMAGOM, ZALEZNIK, A . (1964). 'Managerial behavior and interpersonal competence'. Behavioral Science, 9, 156-66.