Are the Classical Management Functions Useful in Describing Managerial Work?

Author(s): Stephen J. Carroll and Dennis J. Gillen

Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Jan., 1987), pp. 38-51
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/257992
Accessed: 19-05-2018 22:02 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/257992?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Academy of Management Review

This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Sat, 19 May 2018 22:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
? Academy of Management Review, 1987, Vol. 12, No. 1, 38-51.

Are the Classical Management

Functions Useful in
Describing Managerial Work?

STEPHEN J. CARROLL
University of Maryland

DENNIS J. GILLEN
Syracuse University

This paper attempts to evaluate the usefulness of the classical man-

agement functions perspective for describing managerial work and
for serving as the basis for management education. It also examines
some of the newer conceptualizations of the manager's job and relates
these to each other and to the earlier classical approach.

As Miner (1971, 1982) noted, most management indicates that this topic is the basis of the subject
textbooks are organized on the basis of the origi-
matter of management just as Fayol indicated
nal classical management functions first intro- many years ago. However, during the past ten
duced by Fayol (1949) and elaborated and ex- years or so, the usefulness of the classical func-
tended by others such as Urwick (1952). The Fayoltions for classifying managerial work activities
functions are planning, organizing, command- has been questioned by a number of writers,
ing, coordinating, and controlling (POC3 ele- especially Mintzberg (1970, 1971, 1973, 1975), who
ments). Many management books are subdi- developed his own typology for describing man-
vided into major segments under each of theseagerial work. Kotter (1982a, 1982b) also devel-
five categories, although the function, coordinat- oped a conceptualization of the manager's job
ing, is not used as often as the others. as has Stewart (1974, 1976, 1982). Eleven of the
To check if Miner's assertion fits contemporary twenty-one textbooks examined described Mintz-
textbooks, the first author used a convenience berg's conceptualization along with the classical
sample of the newer management textbooks in functions as descriptions of what managers do
his office. Of the 21 books identified with publica- but, in no case were these two different perspec-
tion dates between 1983 and 1986, 17 used at tives integrated, indicating uncertainty about
least four of the classical Fayol functions to orga-how they fit together, if at all. In some books only
nize the book. Three of the remaining books usedMintzberg's raw research data was mentioned.
at least three of the functions in their organization. Kotter's research was not included in the chap-
All 21 books mentioned the Fayol functions in ter on managerial work in any text. It seems clear
describing managerial work and 20 texts in- that authors are having some difficulty in han-
cluded a chapter on the nature of managerial dling these diverse perspectives on managerial
work. work. This is indicated by their consistent failure
Most management textbooks begin with a dis- to integrate these different perspectives in a way
cussion of the nature of managerial work which that is clear to the reader.

38

This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Sat, 19 May 2018 22:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Mintzberg's Model
Everyone is well aware of Mintzberg's (1970,
1971, 1973, 1975) criticism of the validity and use-
fulness of the classical managerial functions in
describing managerial work. He described the
classical functions of Fayol and others as "folk-
lore" (Mintzberg, 1975). He also said "Fayol's fifty-
year description of managerial work is no longer
of use to us" (Mintzberg, 1971). In addition, he
felt that viewing the manager simply as a deci-
sion maker or a motivator of subordinates is not
very helpful in disentangling the complexity of
managerial work (Mintzberg, 1973). Mintzberg,
in research based on behavioral observations of
five chief executives plus a study of their mail,
found that the manager's job was characterized
by many brief episodes carried out with a wide
variety of different people from inside and out-
side the organization. The topics covered and
contacts made varied considerably in importance
and relevance. Most communications were ver-
bal, carried out on the telephone or in unsched-
uled meetings. Typically, managers received a
great deal more information than they transmit-
ted to others. Mintzberg, on the basis of a review
of other observational studies using diaries and
interviews, indicated that his conclusions applied
to other types of managers (foremen, branch
managers, vice presidents in charge of divisions,
etc.) besides CEOs (Mintzberg, 1971).
However, most of the discussion of Mintzberg
in textbook chapters on managerial work focuses
on his conceptualization of the manager's jobs
in terms of ten work roles, not simply the number
of activities a manager carries out in a day. In
his topology, Mintzberg formulated three inter-
personal roles (figurehead, leader, and liaison),
three informational roles (monitor or nerve cen-
ter, disseminator, and spokesman), and four
decision-making roles (entrepreneur, disturbance
handler, resource allocator, and negotiator). He
indicated that managers in different types of jobs
and at different levels vary in the relative impor-
tance of these roles to their overall responsibili-
ties.
A few studies have attempted to test Mintz-
berg's roles in actual operating situations. McCall
and Segrist (1980) found that the activities found
in four of Mintzberg's ten roles (figurehead,
disseminator, disturbance handler, and negotia-
tor) overlapped too much with the activities found
in other roles to be considered separate. Also an
examination of the McCall and Segrist (1980) fac-
tor loadings for the items they used to measure
Mintzberg's roles indicates that many of the items
for the remaining six Mintzberg role scales also
loaded heavily on several factors rather than
one.
Lau, Newman, and Broedling (1980) used
Mintzberg's framework to develop 50 question-
naire items which were administered to 210 gov-
ernment managers and then factor analyzed.
Instead of Mintzberg's ten roles, they found four
factors (leadership and supervision, information
gathering and dissemination, technical problem
solving, and executive decision making-plan-
ning-resource allocation). Although this study
indicated that managers spend some time in
leadership as well as in information gathering
and dissemination activities as Mintzberg indi-
cated, it was not supportive of Mintzberg's find-
ings. Kurke and Aldrich (1983) observed four top
executives (two public/two private) for one week.
Using Mintzberg's coding categories, they found
these managers carried out a large number of
different activities per day, that the jobs were
characterized by brevity, variety, and fragmen-
tation, and oral communications with a wide
variety of people both inside and outside the
organization. However, this study did not test
the validity and usefulness of Mintzberg's ten
roles for classifying managerial work activities.
Other research on Mintzberg's roles also pro-
duced mixed results (Snyder & Wheelen, 1981).
Based on not just these results, but on Mintzberg's
model itself, it has been pointed out that Mintz-
berg's role theory lacks specificity, does not point
out the relationship between his role types and
organizational effectiveness, and was developed
on the basis of the questionable practice of not
going beyond the observable work activities

39

This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Sat, 19 May 2018 22:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
themselves (Snyder & Wheelen, 1981). While
some studies (Alexander, 1979) supported Mintz-
berg's hypotheses that sales jobs require more
interpersonal roles than production manager s
jobs and information roles are especially impor-
tant on staff jobs, such results appear obvious
and do not require documentation. Nevertheless,
in the management textbooks evaluated, rarely
was any criticism of Mintzberg's typology found.
Some articles favored his perspective, indicat-
ing that his is the only valid one (Bickerstaffe,
1981). Other writers have commended the real-
ism of his approach when compared to the
abstract description of managerial work painted
by the classical writers.
Empirical Studies Focusing on
the Classical Functions
A number of empirical studies, not directly
cited by Mintzberg (1973), have shown that man-
agers spend time in the classical management
functions. Several studies, including Williams
(1956) and Hemphill (1959), have gone beyond
the recording of observable activities to show
that managers at all levels participate in plan-
ning, coordination, control, and problem solv-
ing activities.
Mahoney, Jerdee, and Carroll (1963, 1965)
reported that managerial time can be allocated
to a set of eight basic managerial functions which
can be called the "PRINCESS" factors (Planning,
Representing, Investigating, Negotiating, Coor-
dinating, Evaluating, Supervising, Staffing). In
this study, Fayol's five functions were expanded
to eight because preliminary pilot studies indi-
cated that five functions missed managerial work
activities such as "representing the organization
to outside groups. " (Mintzberg, 1971, also pointedby Allen (1981) and Hughes and Singler (1985)
out this problem.) This study of 452 managers
indicated that there appeared to be a minimum
core of time spent in each of these functional
responsibilities but managers in various job and
level categories had different time patterns with not report on the percentage of time spent in
respect to these responsibilities.
The findings of Mahoney, Jerdee, and Carroll
(1963, 1965) were replicated in a study by Penfieldinvolved in formal planning activities such as
This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Sat, 19 May 2018 22:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
(1975) and they are congruent with the results of
a study by Haas, Porat, and Vaughan (1969).
Furthermore, a work sampling study carried out
by Mahoney, Jerdee, and Carroll (1963) indicated
that it is quite possible to relate the specific
observable task activities of managers to these
more fundamental managerial functions simply
by asking the managers why they are carrying
out each particular activity. In this study 21 man-
agers were signalled at a random minute of
every half hour for each work day for a two-
week period. Each time they completed a brief
questionnaire describing what they were doing
at that time. Table 1 presents the results from this
study which also required managers to indicate
which of the PRINCESS basic responsibilities was
involved in each work activity sampled. The
observed time allocations related fairly accu-
rately to previous estimates by these managers
of such time allocations (Mahoney, Jerdee, &
Carroll, 1963).
Furthermore, other empirical evidence indi-
cates that such sampling observational ap-
proaches provide the same information as previ-
ous time estimates and other work observational
approaches using an outside observer. In a study
by Carroll and Taylor (1968, 1969) estimates of
time spent in various activity categories were
compared to self-observations made at random
times when individuals were signalled to do so
and to observations made at a different set of
random times surreptitiously by an outside ob-
server. This study showed that self-observation
by work sampling produced about the same
results as previous time estimates and the obser-
vations made by an outside observer.
Data relevant to this issue have been presented
on the activities carried out by managers on the
job. In the Allen study, 932 managers surveyed
by questionnaire reported a variety of planning
and controlling activities, although this study did
these ways. The Allen study indicated that more
than 80 percent of the sample of managers were
40
Table 1 developing forecasts and preparing budgets; 70
Job Time Proportions of 28 Managers Among percent in maintaining written objectives and
Various Management Functions, WorkActivities, goals; and 60 percent in maintaining perfor-
and Types of Interpersonal Contacts mance standards and evaluating and correct-
ing performance relating to those standards. The
Proportion of
Allen study indicated that 70 percent of the 932
Work Activities Total Work Time
managers had specific objectives; however, only
Conversing with others 41 32 percent had worked out specific steps for these
Preparing & writing reports, letters, etc. 19
objectives. In the Hughes and Singler (1985)
Reading & reviewing reports, letters, etc. 18
Inspecting products, procedures, etc. 01
study, more than 700 managers were surveyed
Mathematical computation 01 about the relative importance of the various func-
Operating equipment 05 tional areas to first line, second line, and gen-
Thinking & reflection 03 eral marketing managers. They found that the
Minor clerical (filing, sorting, etc.) 05
importance of directing, controlling, and organ-
Walking & travel 02
Personal activities 05
izing was fairly constant from one level to anoth-
er, but the importance of planning increased and
100%
the importance of staffing decreased, as manag-
Subject of Work Activities ers progressed from the first level of manage-
ment to top management. These results were
Employees 22
Money & finances 19 very similar to those found in the Mahoney,
Materials & goods 28 Jerdee, and Carroll study (1963).
Purchases & sales 11 Other studies also partly supported the valid-
Methods & procedures 09 ity of Fayol's conceptualization of the manager's
Facilities & equipment 11
job. Brush and Licata (1982) had a panel of five
100% management theorists sort 251 behavioral cri-
Types of Interpersonal Contacts teria of managerial effectiveness into "mega-
Superior (own department) 05 categories" according to the similarity of their
Subordinate (own department) 21 content. This was done for three samples; they
Manager (other department) 11 found a technical competence factor as well as
Non-manager (other department) 01 coordinating, and supervisory activities clusters,
Other department (person not identified) 04
in at least two samples of activities. In addition,
Person outside company 05
Combination of above 03 the Lau, Newman, and Broedling (1980) study
None found a supervision and a planning factor among
50
government managers. They also found a tech-
100%
nical problem solving factor. At this point it is
Management Functions
important to remember that Fayol indicated that
Planning 19 at lower levels, technical knowledge and activi-
Representing 02 ties took up considerably more time than the
Investigating 26 managerial POC3 functions.
Negotiating 07
Coordinating 21 Should Managers Carry Out
Evaluating 09
the Classical Functions?
Supervising 12
Staffing 05
Fayol (1949), Urwick (1952), and other classical
101%
writers said that not only do managers carry out
Note. Based on 2240 work sampling observations of 28 man- the classical functions, but also they should carry
agers in one company during a period of two weeks. them out and that skill in such areas was related

41

This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Sat, 19 May 2018 22:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
to managerial success. A number of studies indi-
cated that time spent by managers on some of
these classical functional areas and skill in per-
forming them does result in higher organization
and unit performance, and in managerial mobil-
ity (Miner, 1982). For example, Stagner (1969)
found that the time 109 chief executives spent in
organizational planning was related to the firm's
profitability. There is some evidence that plan-
ning is important at the lowest management level
as well as at the top. For example, a study of
foremen at the General Electric Company (1957)
revealed that foremen with higher production
records spent more time in long-range plan-
ning and organizing than did foremen with
poorer production records.
Also, strong evidence for the importance of
planning to managerial success was found in
the AT&T assessment center studies which corre-
lated various skills of more than 8,000 entry-level
managers to their later upward mobility and
rated effectiveness (Bray, Campbell, & Grant,
1974). Skill in planning/decision making as mea-
sured in assessment center exercises was one of
the strongest predictors of managerial success.
Boyatzis (1982) also found a goal setting/planning
skill of competence related to managerial effec-
tiveness.
Another more recent study also related skill in
the classical managerial functional areas to the
performance of the units supervised. In this study
Table 2
Relationship of Managerial Skills to Unit Productivity/Efficiency
Managerial Skill
Supervising
Planning skill . 34
Investigating skill .19
Coordinating skill .19
Evaluating skill .10
Staffing skill .23a
ap.<.05
This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Sat, 19 May 2018 22:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
(Gillen & Carroll, 1985), 103 unit managers in 10
industrial enterprises were studied using the
assumption that unit managers do primarily per-
form managerial activities rather than technical
or staff activities which are carried out by lower-
level managers and staff managers. The basic
management responsibilities studied were taken
from the earlier Mahoney, Jerdee, and Carroll
(1963, 1965) studies, but two of the PRINCESS
categories, representing and negotiating, were
dropped since a pretest indicated little time was
spent in these activities. The managers in each
company were ranked by the assistant plant
manager or equivalent in each of the remaining
six areas of staffing, planning, investigating,
coordinating, evaluating, and supervising (now
called the SPICES categories). The rankings were
converted to standard scores by the plant man-
ager or equivalent and correlated to a measure
of unit productivity-efficiency (developed pre-
viously by Mahoney and Weitzel, 1969). The sam-
ple was then broken down into a manufacturing
sample of 56 units and an aerospace sample of
48 units to test for consistency and the results are
shown in Table 2. As the table indicates, super-
vising and planning skills were significantly
related to unit productivity-efficiency in both sam-
ples and staffing skills and coordinating skills
were significantly related to the measure of unit
performance in the manufacturing and aero-
space samples respectively.
Sample 1 Sample 2
Manufacturing Aerospace
Firms Firms
(56 units) (48 units)
skill .46a .25a
43a
.20
.30a
.08
.12
42
 While this study and all the studies conducted
on managerial work in the field suffer from less
than perfect organizational controls due to the
difficulty of the subject matter, there appears to
be sufficient evidence to say that managers do
perform a wide variety of specific activities which
can be classified under the functional typology
developed by Fayol and others in the classical
management school; also, greater managerial
success (organization. and unit performance and
management mobility) is related to skill and time
in the functional responsibilities. Of course, peo-
ple classified as managers do not spend 100 per-
cent of their time carrying out the classical man-
agement functions. Fayol (1949) indicated that
people in managerial positions also carried out
other activities such as technical, commercial,
security, financial, and accounting activities. Any
studies of managerial work are likely to show
these activities as well as the management
functions.
Some Problems with the
Mintzberg Observational Method
for Studying Managerial Work
The Mintzberg (1971) study and similar obser-
vational studies are flawed because their focus
was not on the reasons for the observable activi-
ties (also, it was assumed that CEOs represent
typical managers). Carroll and Taylor (1968)
pointed out that since managerial work is mental,
it is not directly observable. Physical activities of
managers do not indicate exactly what they do.
It is impossible to measure managerial work with-
out questioning managers about the purpose of
their telephone calls, conversations, and so on.
Although it is true that the typical managers do
make brief contacts with a wide variety of peo-
ple during the day, this does not mean that they
are not planning, or controlling, or investigating,
or doing any number of things, all of which
require information.
Managerial work is really mental work and
the observable behaviors such as talking to
others, reading, and writing serve as inputs and
outputs to neurophysiological activities. In deal-
43
This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Sat, 19 May 2018 22:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ing with mental activities it is necessary to re-
member that mental time is not the same as
physical time. Even though an observable activ-
ity may have a cycle time of only a few minutes,
this does not mean that a good deal of work was
not accomplished. The human brain works at a
tremendous speed and can work on several dif-,
ferent problems at virtually the same time (as
studies in neurophysiology indicate, e.g., Luria,
1973; Norman, 1969).
An unplanned conversation with a subordi-
nate, resulting from an accidental meeting, could
involve the superior giving the subordinate a
directive on a new product, finding out about
the current status of an old project, learning
about a potential problem arising from a current
materials shortage, providing the subordinate
with advice on how to proceed on a project, dis-
covering a possible way to implement an old
plan, identifying a weakness in the subordinate's
assignment to a future project, and so on. The
communications, perceptions, or ideas which
come from a casual conservation of one man-
ager with another manager could involve a num-
ber of different concerns. Managers do get a lot
of work done in very short periods of time (Kotter,
1982b). As Kotter (1982b) indicated, they operate
very efficiently, there is an efficiency in seem-
ingly inefficient behavior.
Furthermore it should be remembered that the
brain works continuously. Unlike physical job-
related work which ends at quitting time, man-
agers may continue to think about job-related
problems long after they leave the job and
perhaps, even while they are asleep. Elliots
(1959) interviews with top managers indicated
that some work many hours even before coming
in to the office. Certainly, measuring managers'
activities on the job is not going to present a full
picture of the work. Also, it is doubtful, that
managers could recall all of the various thought
trials which may be job-related and that occur
at tremendous speeds throughout the day (at the
same time that the managers are doing other
things). These thoughts, and the physical activi-
ties that accompany them, could be described
as having as a focus: the establishment of goals
and plans; the implementation of goals and plans
through the performance of a large number of
tasks or activities involved with building an
organization; directing subordinates; coordinat-
ing with other units; or the continuous revision of
such goals, plans, and implementation strate-
gies when warranted.
In addition, the research data on the actual
observable activities of managers gathered by
Mintzberg (1973) and others, points out that
managers, like organizations, have resource
dependencies. Managerial work is interdepen-
dent; besides requiring information, managers
need the time and energy of other managers
and their subordinates in order to plan and to
implement such goals and plans. This interde-
pendence requires a continuous probing of ten-
tative possibilities and mutual adjustment given
the commitments of others to other goals and
plans. Often, the information needed by manag-
ers is usually in the minds of others and oral
communication provides the quickest and most
efficient way to give such information. This is
especially so in light of the time pressures and
other restraints that all managers face as indi-
cated in the research of Stewart (1976). Further-
more, oral communication may provide clues as
to the validity of the information and how the
managers involved feel about the subject. Given
these factors, there appears to be no real alterna-
tive to managers making contacts in person or
by telephone (an activity which studies show to
be so common). The work of Mintzberg and those
taking similar approaches has illuminated the
specific ways the functional responsibilities are
carried out and has provided realism to studies
about managerial work.
Kotter's Research and Conceptualization
Kotter (1982a) studied 15 successful general
managers in a variety of industries in depth (more
than forty hours with each subject). Like Mintz-
berg, and Mahoney, Jerdee, and Carroll, Kotter
found that managers spend a great deal of time
interacting with others-often outside their unit
or organization. These meetings provided need-
ed information to managers and gave the man-
44
This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Sat, 19 May 2018 22:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
agers a chance to give others information they
needed. In addition, a wide range of topics was
covered during such meetings with the focus on
those relevant to the manager's concerns and
responsibilities. In such meetings, a large num-
ber of items were handled in brief periods of
time. Kotter referred to many of these contacts as
network building-responding to needs of other
managers rather than only satisfying one's
needs. Networks are used not only to gather infor-
mation relevant to the manager's mental agenda
but also to implement that agenda. Agenda items
are attended to in an invisible (mental) way and
the agenda is revised constantly. Kotter (1982a)
believed the quality of managers' networks influ-
enced the managers' performance through con-
tribution to and implementation of an agenda.
Kotter's (1 982b) description of the actions of gen-
eral managers is congruent with other studies of
higher-level managers. For example, Peters
(1979) pointed out that managers (especially
higher level) have goals that they attempt to
move the organization or unit toward in addition
to any specific scheduled activities. CEOs had
basic goals or thrusts that they were committed
to based on their strategic evaluations of the
organizations and their environments, and they
acted as "consummate opportunists" taking ad-
vantage of every situation to move others in the
organization toward their basic goals or thrusts.
Peter's observations are supported by Elliot's
(1959) study of 200 top managers that indicated
that such managers have a list of concerns they
are constantly trying to obtain action on as they
move through a typical work day. This list may
be mental or physical. He described IBM's Tom
Watson's constant reference to a list of problems
and goals that he wanted to take action on as he
worked. He described how managers often rose
very early in the morning to work on company
plans and problems. He validated Mintzberg's
picture of the "harried" executive communicat-
ing with many people by phone or in person
while facing constant pressure from the clock.
Quinn (1980) studied higher-level managers
in various U.S. companies (e.g., General Mills,
Pillsbury, Exxon, General Motors, Chrysler, and
Volvo). He also described such managers as hav-
ing strategic planning thrusts they are pushing
organizations toward and how they spend much
of their days overcoming resistance to such
thrusts, motivating people to accept these thrusts
through participation, and building organiza-
tional awareness of the need for strategic
change. Quinn (1980) found that managers had
a framework of broad goals which they attempt-
ed to get their subordinates to accept through
daily contacts.
In still another relevant study, Bower (1970)
studied the involvement of a chief executive and
his primary subordinates in four investment pro-
jects over a two-year period from inception to
end. This particular study showed that the proj-
ects of many managers compete for time, atten-
tion, and resources.There were difficulties in get-
ting managers to appreciate the importance (to
themselves, their units, and the organization) of
certain projects. Also, the narrowness of the job
responsibilities of individual managers prevented
them from seeing the implications of particular
projects until they were revealed in a dynamic
setting. These case studies also showed the
importance of timing-how one time might not
be appropriate but another time might be appro-
priate to obtain acceptance and commitment.
Finally, the case studies showed organizations
are constantly changing which adds to the man-
agers' problems in implementing their personal
goals. Managers must gather information from
others in order to understand the organization
and to test their own perceptions of organiza-
tional functioning. All this illuminates the actual
conditions under which managers and units pur-
sue their goals. Reality is far messier than the
descriptions of managers' problems found in
textbooks.
An Integrating Model of the Manager's Job
It appears that managers, especially top man-
agers, work from a "goal agenda" which is a set
of desired future states that they are trying to
move toward and they have only tentative plans
about how to get to these states which are con-
stantly changing as new information is received
45
This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Sat, 19 May 2018 22:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
and new opportunities to make progress arise.
Detailed planning is difficult to do because of
the many interdependencies and restraints faced
by managers at all levels. Progress toward such
goals is often slow, perhaps interrupted by move-
ment backward from time to time.
Managers must be concerned not only with
their own goals but also with those of other
managers. The research cited shows that reci-
procity is needed to advance managers' work
agendas. The organization also has certain for-
mal key responsibilities or tasks for managers to
achieve. The organization's plans and controls
must be more detailed and specific than an
individual's personal goals and plans since they
are developed by a group of people. The group
process requires that plans be stated specifically
so all individuals who are involved can under-
stand them. In addition, organizational plans and
controls are themselves a means of coordination;
this function cannot be performed unless they
are spelled out in detail. When researchers study
plans on paper rather than in the ideas of organi-
zational managers they may get a distorted
impression of the process of organizational plan-
ning. Thus, when discussing the way that man-
agers allocate their time, it must be recognized
that they allocate their time to the organization's
formal goals and plans, to the goals and plans
of others in the organization, and to their own
goals and plans.
Managers also allocate their time based on
opportunities. During the past two years, the
senior author interviewed seven CEOs who
made presentations at the University of Mary-
land about their basic responsibilities. In addi-
tion to such factors as setting direction and repre-
senting the organization to the outside world,
the CEOs indicated they spent time in "organiza-
tional building." This involved evaluating organi-
zational members almost continuously to obtain
information needed for future work assignments,
promotions, and other activities such as develop-
ment. It also involved the day-to-day mentoring
and coaching of organizational members which
take up a proportion of any manager's time. In
addition, all managers have a "life agenda" of
their personal career goals, concerns about their for future staffing needs, or direct others to carry
families, their leisure time involvements, and so out their roles in an organizational plan, and so
on. These life agendas are attended to during on. The process of planning, especially when
any work day as well, even though research- done by an individual, consists of thousands of
ers often do not acknowledge this in their studies activities only some of which may be useful to
of managerial work patterns. the progress of an activity.
A distinction between goals and tasks, with the Ultimately, progress or lack of progress should
latter serving as means to the former, should be influence performance. Performance could, of
made in managerial work studies. Managers course, refer to the performance of the individ-
pursue their own goals and the tasks necessary ual in accomplishing certain ends or the perfor-
to achieve them. They are also carrying out the mance of the unit (since unit performance is the
tasks of both the organization and others to fur- sum of individual performances). The perfor-
ther other goal agendas. Thus, managers have mance could be either short-run or long-run.
what might be called work agendas that include There could be enormous time lags between the
both a goal agenda and a task agenda. The activities of managers and the subsequent per-
size of the goal agenda in relationship to the size formances of either units or the organization. In
of the task agenda probably varies according to addition to performance, progress, or lack of
level of management. progress, is likely to influence the makeup of the
A model of the manager at work in an organi- work agendas. It is likely that work agendas
zational setting is presented in Figure 1. It extends constantly undergo revision. Discussions with the
Kotter's perspective to include the the activities CEOs who visited the University of Maryland
of Mintzberg, the functions of the classical tradi- indicated they are constantly floating "trial bal-
tion, and the key skills and job conditions men- loons" which are rejected by key subordinates,
tioned by others (Boyatzis, 1982; Katz, 1974; forcing the manager to try again. Many of the
Stewart, 1982). CEOs indicated that the power and authority they
In carrying out the work agenda (a set of have over key subordinates is greatly exagger-
intentions) managers carry out activities with ated by people who are not familiar with the
both organizational and extra-organizational per- realities of organizational life. Agenda items
sonnel as well as by themselves. Often, an never may be completed because of changes in
agenda item may take many months or even organizational and unit priorities, changes in
years to complete because of the piece-meal resource availability, the discovery of superior
manner in which this is accomplished. For man- alternatives, and other reasons.
agerial work, thinking which involves inference One key factor in the actual performance of
is a critical component of the action itself; suchmanagers will be their knowledge base. Discus-
mental processes are not readily observable and, sions and studies of the knowledge base of man-
thus, not subject to study by observation alone. agers seem to be lacking in the managerial liter-
These activities can be carried out on or off the ature although Fayol (1949) indicated that techni-
job since they involve reading, thinking, and cal knowledge and managerial knowledge were
writing as well as talking. important determinants of managerial success.
There are purposes to the activities mentioned Several writers also discussed the consequences
above and these can be stated in terms of carry- of high managerial turnover for organizational
ing out the various unique managerial functions. performance since it contributes to lower knowl-
When talking with others, managers attempt to edge levels of the organization, industry, and
develop plans that will be effective in reaching customers (Ouchi, 1981; Pascale & Athos, 1981;
an objective, may try to determine progress on Peters & Waterman, 1982). Kotter (1 982a, 1 982b)
previous plans, or correct deviations from unit indicated that the knowledge base of managers
plans, or build the competence of subordinates influences their ability to operate efficiently (the
46

This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Sat, 19 May 2018 22:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 o

c oX

V - C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C

47~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Sat, 19 May 2018 22:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
amount of work accomplished). The managers
Kotter studied could operate efficiently because
they made inferences based on very little bits of
data provided by either the organization or oth-
ers they contacted while implementing their
agendas. These inferences stem from the knowl-
edge base. The knowledge base of a manager
can cover many areas.
One CEO interviewed by the senior author
indicated, without prompting, that a major deter-
minant of success for a manager was knowl-
edge of the customer, knowledge of the organi-
zation's culture and technology, and general
knowledge of economic and political conditions.
Thus, the knowledge base can refer to knowl-
edge of a specialized field; knowledge of man-
agement policies, practices, and techniques;
knowledge of the company itself-its plans,
culture, personalities of key members, and so
on; knowledge of the industry and its technology;
and knowledge of the organization's key custom-
ers and suppliers. Much of management educa-
tion and the informal development that takes
place in organizations is directed at increasing
these knowledge bases. It is probable that knowl-
edge bases are one major factor in managers'
performances, along with the degree to which
managers possess the key skills associated with
managerial work.
The key skills involved in management work
are often mentioned in textbooks. Typically, the
three skills discussed by Katz (1974-technical,
human relations, and conceptual skills-are
listed. Carroll and Gillen (1984) translated the
management functions to skills such as planning,
coordinating, and staffing. Anderson (1984) used
goal setting, decision making, and interpersonal
skills. The well-known AT&T studies documented
the importance of decision making and interper-
sonal skills for overall managerial effectiveness
(Bray, Campbell, & Grant, 1974). Boyatzis (1982)
offered empirical validation for the importance
of goal setting/planning skills among several
others. Boehm's (1981) research identified the
importance of problem solving skills, in addition
to others such as planning, for managerial effec-
tiveness, and Mintzberg (1980) also discussed key
48
This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Sat, 19 May 2018 22:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
skills of managers. More research is needed on
managerial skills to resolve inconsistencies in
both the findings obtained and the terminology
employed in these studies. Studies of the specific
skills necessary to successfully implement mana-
gerial agendas, especially in organizational
settings, are important for advanced manage-
rial training.
Conclusion
The nature of managerial work is critically
important today because there are more than
ten million managers and administrators work-
ing in our economy (U. S. Bureau of Census, 1983)
and over 500,000 students taking the basic man-
agement course each year. Virtually all text-
books begin with a discussion of the nature of
managerial work and most of the books are
organized around these concepts. There seems
to be some confusion about what managers do
and the conceptualizations of Fayol and the
classical writers, Mintzberg, Kotter, and Stew-
art receive some attention but are never inte-
grated into discussions. of what managers do.
An integration has been provided for those inter-
ested in more clearly communicating to manag-
ers and prospective managers what managers
do, how they perform these duties, and what
internal environmental forces they face when
they carry out these responsibilities.
The classical functions still represent the most
useful way of conceptualizing the manager's job,
especially for management education, and per-
haps this is why it is still the most favored descrip-
tion of managerial work in current management
textbooks. The classical functions provide clear
and discrete methods of classifying the thousands
of different activities that managers carry out and
the techniques they use in terms of the functions
they perform for the achievement of organiza-
tional goals. Also, from a 'functionalism" per-
spective, the classical functions of management
are a way of examining complex phenomena,
and aid understanding of both organizations
and their component parts since through them
indispensable activities of organizations are
identified. As Behling (1980) pointed out, under
the "functionalism" perspective one examines
activities or other phenomena in terms of the
role they play in maintaining a superordinate
system and keeping it going. One test of the
functionality of a given pattern of behavior is to
imagine the social system without it and decid-
ing if it could survive. Imagining an industrial
organization without planning or control is diffi-
cult or impossible, and one would be hard put to
find an organization that has survived without
these activities. Of course, in certain organiza-
tions some of the other functions of management
may not be as necessary since there may be
functional equivalents for them (Behling, 1980).
For example, directing which concerns the
achievement of the tasks of the organization can
be achieved by means of various functional
equivalents such as pressures on the task per-
former by the task itself, by internalizing values
and norms from outside groups, or by pressures
from a variety of other sources (Behling, 1980).
Other conceptualizations of managerial work
(Mintzberg, Kotter, Stewart, etc.) are helpful in
clarifying the nature of managerial work but
appear to be less useful than the classical func-
tions in achieving understanding of how organi-
zations function and what managers do, since
they do not clearly differentiate activities by
purpose or function in relationship to the sur-
References
Alexander, L. D. (1979) The effect level in the hierarchy and
functional area have on the extent Mintzberg's roles are
required by managerial jobs. Academy of Management
Proceedings, 186-189.
Allen, L. A. (1981) Managerial planning: Back to basics.
Management Review, 70(4), 15-20.
Anderson, C. R. (1984) Management: Skills, functions and
organization performance. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
Badaway, M. K. (1978) Design and content of management
education: American style. Management International
Review, 18, 75-81.
Behling, 0. (1980) Functionalism as a basis for midrange
theory in organizational behavior/theory. In C. C. Pinder
& L. F. Moore (Eds.), Middle range theory and the study of
organizations (pp. 212-224). Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.
49
This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Sat, 19 May 2018 22:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
vival of the whole organization. They do not pro-
vide us with the ability to grasp the essential
essence of large numbers of discrete activities in
terms of larger ends which can be compre-
hended by human minds. The ability to compre-
hend a complex whole in some fashion or accord-
ing to some model is important in human func-
tioning since the reduction of ambiguity is criti-
cal to understanding. With respect to the "func-
tionality" perspective, one cannot imagine a text-
book organized according to Mintzberg's typol-
ogy that makes sense to the readers and which
encompasses both present organizational sys-
tems as well as what the people in these organi-
zations do.
A "core" concept of the manager's job has been
presented. Differences in how managers carry
out their jobs at different levels and different func-
tional areas have not been discussed. Analysis
of such differences has been made by a number
of scholars (Boyatzis, 1982; Mahoney, Jerdee, &
Carroll, 1963; Stewart, 1982) and these differences
among different managerial positions can be
important for selecting, developing, and evaluat-
ing managers. Research with this focus is needed
and should be continued since managerial effec-
tiveness has implications not only for an or-
ganization's success but also for the well-being
of any society.
Bickerstafe, G. (1981) Henry Mintzberg: The only man in step?
International Management, 36, 31-35.
Boehm, V. R. (1981, June) What do managers really do? Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the AACSB Graduate
Admissions Council, Toronto.
Bower, J. (1970) Managing the resource allocation process: A
study of corporate planning and investment. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business, Divi-
sion of Research.
Boyatzis, R. R. (1982) The competent manager: A model for
effective performance. New York: Wiley.
Bray, D. W., Campbell, R. J., & Grant, D. L. (1974) Formative
years in business: A long-term A. T. & T. study of manage-
rial lives. New York: Wiley.
Brush, D. H., & Licata, B. J. (1982) Managerial performance:
Toward a definition of its construct domain. Unpublished
paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Carroll, S. J., & Gillen, D. J. (1 984) The classical management
functions: Are they really outdated? Academy of Manage-
ment Proceedings, 44th Annual Meeting, 132-136.
Carroll, S. J., Jr., & Taylor, W. H. (1968) A study of the validity
of a self observational central signalling method of work
Miner, J. B. (1982) Theories of organizational structure and
process. Chicago: Dryden.
sampling. Personnel Psychology, 21, 359-364.
Carroll, S. J., Jr., & Taylor, W. H. (1969) Validity of estimates
of clerical personnel of job time proportions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 53, 164-166.
Elliot, 0. (1959) Men at the top. New York: Harper & Bros.
Fayol, H. (1949) General and industrial management. (C.
Storrs, Trans.). London, England: Pitman.
General Electric Company (1957) The effective manufactur-
ing foreman. Schenectady, NY: Author.
Gillen, D. J., & Carroll, S. J. (1985) Relationship of manage-
rial ability to unit effectiveness in more organic versus
more mechanistic departments. Journal of Management
Studies, 22, 668-676.
Haas, J. A., Porat, A. M., & Vaughn, J. A. (1969) Actual vs.
ideal time allocations reported by managers: A study of
managerial behavior. Personnel Psychology, 22, 61-75.
Hemphill, J. K. (1959) Job descriptions for executives. Harvard
Business Review, 37(3), 55-67.
Hughes, G. D., & Singler, C. H. (1985) Strategic sales manage-
ment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Katz, R. L. (1974) Skills of an effective administrator, Harvard
Business Review, 52(1), 90-102.
Kotter, J. P. (1982a) The general managers. New York: Free
Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1982b) What effective general managers really
do. Harvard Business Review, 60(6), 156-167.
Kurke, L. B., & Aldrich, H. E. (1983) Mintzberg was right A
replication and extension of the nature of managerial work.
Management Science, 29, 975-984.
Lau, A. W., Newman, A. R., & Broedling, L.A. (1980) The
nature of managerial work in the public sector. Public
Management Forum, 19, 513-521.
Luria, A. R. (1973) The working brain: An introduction to
neuropsychology. New York: Basic Books.
Mahoney, T. A., Jerdee, T. H., & Carroll, S. J., Jr. (1963)
Development of managerial performance: A research
approach. Cincinnati: South-Western.
Mahoney, T. A., Jerdee, T. H., & Carroll, S. J. (1965) The jobs
of management. Industrial Relations, 4, 97-110.
50
This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Sat, 19 May 2018 22:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Mahoney, T. A., & Weitzel, W. (1 969) Managerial models of
organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 14, 357-365.
McCall, M. W., & Segrist, C. A. (1980) In pursuit of the man-
ager's job: Building on Mintzberg. Greensboro, NC: Cen-
ter for Creative Leadership.
Miner, J. B. (1971) Management theory. New York: Macmillan.
Mintzberg, H. (1970) Structured observation as a method of
studying managerial work. Journal of Management Stud-
ies, 7, 87-104.
Mintzberg, H. (1971) Managerial work: Analysis from observ-
ation. Management Science, 18, 97-110.
Mintzberg, H. (1973) The nature of managerial work. New
York: Harper & Row.
Mintzberg, H. (1975) The manager's job: Folklore and fact.
Harvard Business Review 53(4), 49-61.
Norman, D. A. (1969) Memory and attention: An introduction
to human information processing. New York: Wiley.
Ouchi, W. G. (1981) TheoryZ. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Pascale, R. T., & Athos, A. G. (1981) The art of Japanese
management. New York: Warner Books.
Penfield, R. V. (1975) Time allocation patterns and effective-
ness of managers. Personnel Psychology, 27, 245-255.
Peters, T. J. (1979) Leadership: Sad facts and silver linings.
Harvard Business Review, 57(6), 164-172.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H., Jr. (1982) In search of excel-
lence. New York: Harper & Row.
Quinn, J. (1980) Strategies for change. Logical incrementa-
lism. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Snyder, H. H., & Wheelen, T. L. (1981) Managerial roles:
Mintzberg and the management process theorists. Pro-
ceedings: Academy of Management, 249-253.
Stagner, R. (1969) Corporate decision making. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 53, 1-13.
Stewart, R. (1974) The manager's job: Discretion versus
demand. Organizational Dynamics, 2(3), 67-80.
Stewart, R. (1976) To understand the manager's job: Con-
sider demands, constraints, and choices. Organizational
Dynamics, 4(4), 22-32.
Stewart, R. (1982) A model for understanding managerial
jobs and behavior. Academy of Management Review, 7,
7-14.
Urwick, L. F. (1952) Notes on the theory of organization. New
York: American Management Association.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1983) Statistical Abstract of the Williams, R. E. (1956) A description of executive abilities by
United States, 417. means of the critical incident technique. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation. Columbia University.

Stephen J. Carroll (Ph.D., University of Minnesota)

is Professor of Management and Organizational
Behavior in the College of Business and Manage-
ment and Center for Innovation, University of
Maryland. Correspondence regarding this article
may be sent to him at: College of Business and
Management, University of Maryland, College Park,
MD 20742.

Dennis J. Gillen, (Ph.D., University of Maryland) is

Assistant Professor of Management in the College
of Business Administration, Syracuse University.

51

This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Sat, 19 May 2018 22:02:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms