The Nature of Executive Work

Emilio Matthaei The Nature of Executive Work

GABLER RESEARCH Markt- und Unternehmensentwicklung / Markets and Organisations Edited by Professor Dr. Dres. h. c. Arnold Picot Professor Dr. Professor h. c. Dr. h. c. Ralf Reichwald Professor Dr. Egon Franck Professor Dr. Kathrin Möslein

Change of institutions, technology and competition drives the interplay of markets and organisations. The scientific series ‘Markets and Organisations’ addresses a magnitude of related questions, presents theoretic and empirical findings and discusses related concepts and models.

Emilio Matthaei

The Nature of Executive Work A Case Study

RESEARCH

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

Doctoral thesis, HHL – Leipzig Graduate School of Management, 2009

1st Edition 2010 All rights reserved © Gabler Verlag | Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2010 Editorial Office: Ute Wrasmann | Sabine Schöller Gabler Verlag is a brand of Springer Fachmedien. Springer Fachmedien is part of Springer Science+Business Media. www.gabler.de No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. Registered and/or industrial names, trade names, trade descriptions etc. cited in this publication are part of the law for trade-mark protection and may not be used free in any form or by any means even if this is not specifically marked. Cover design: KünkelLopka Medienentwicklung, Heidelberg Satz: SatzReproService, Jena Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany ISBN 978-3-8349-2148-2

Foreword More than 30 years ago, Henry Mintzberg reported on upper level management in large US corporations. His resulting work, “The Nature of Managerial Work”, received much attention. Expanding on earlier research, Mintzberg’s 1973 study was able to show that the work situation at the topmost levels of leadership is characterized by extreme stress; critical factors include the accountability to others such as the board and shareholders, time pressure, and permanent work overload, the latter raising particularly critical questions regarding the quality of decision making – a significant risk for the long-term survival of organizations. In today’s economic crisis – which is at the same time a crisis of the management profession as a whole – the research focus and results of Henry Mintzberg’s study are more relevant than ever. Rigorous studies in the field, however, are still rare. In the present research study, “The Nature of Executive Work”, Emilio Matthaei builds on and reaches far beyond the earlier works of the so-called Work Activity School of management research (e.g. Sune Carlson, Leonard Sayles, Rosemary Stewart, Henry Mintzberg, Ralf Reichwald and John Kotter). His exploratory journey from intensively studying twelve senior executives of large global corporations introduces a fresh perspective on executive work. Emilio Matthaei’s data cover the work of twelve executives of the uppermost level of large organizations, each for one month using calendar transcripts and interview records. He studied a total of 336 days, or 48 weeks, which included 1,669 scheduled activities covering 2,395 hours of executive work. Activities were categorized and collapsed into a rich and impressive research contribution about the nature of executive work. Emilio Matthaei contributes distinctively to the traditional Work Activity School. While Carlson and Stewart explored managerial diaries and Mintzberg, Reichwald and Kotter observed activities, studying executive calendars is an igniting approach towards studying executive work. Thus, this book not only presents innovative results from rigorous research, but also develops and showcases a powerful empirical research method that gives a different view to what executives really do, how long they work, where they work, what media they use and with whom they interact. Emilio Matthaei’s work invites the reader to explore: • a systematic and comprehensive literature review of the Work Activity School, • a case study approach including the calendar analysis, • activities, perceived influencing factors, as well as new directions and roles of executive work, and • a thoughtful reflection, pointing out implications for research, teaching and practice.

VI

Foreword

Apart from the core chapters, Emilio Matthaei presents a colorful annex that points out carefully stripped analysis and methodology. In so doing, this book is readable for students and executives in its core chapters, but also shows the author’s detailed and rigorous approach for researchers. The work appeals by its theoretical reach and empirical scope, the fresh methodological approach and the argumentative brilliance by which literature review and empirical findings are presented. It has been accepted as doctoral dissertation in 2009 by the HHL – Leipzig Graduate School of Management. The book deserves broad dissemination both in the research community and in management practice. It is especially recommended to those with a deep interest in managerial activities and the true nature of executive work. In short, I think executives should have this book under control. Executive students of my lectures will. Prof. Dr. Kathrin Möslein

Acknowledgement

Academics, Executives, and Families. Thank You. Dr. Emilio Matthaei

The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the German Academic Exchange Service and the Peter Pribilla Foundation.

Contents Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V 00

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII 00 List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV .00 List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .XVII 00

Chapter I – Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1 Studying “Executive Work” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

2 How the Research and Thesis Are Guided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Empirical Research Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Structure of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7 7 9

Chapter II – Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

1 The Rise of a Research School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

1.1 A Brief Sketch of the Classical Management School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.2 Motivation of the Work Activity School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.3 Scope of the Work Activity School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2 The Work Activity School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods Applied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Empirical Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Towards a Map of Empirical Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 Job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1.1 Demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1.2 Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1.3 Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2.1 Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2.2 Individual Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2.3 Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 17 19 23 29 32 33 34 36 37 37 38 38

X

Contents

2.4.3 Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3.1 Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3.2 Time Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3.3 Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3.4 Managerial Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Literature Map of the Work Activity School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Major Contributions and Scholars of the Work Activity School . . . . . . . . 2.6.1 Foundational Contributions by Sune Carlson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.2 Lateral Relationships and Systematic Understanding by Leonard Sayles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.3 Demands, Constraints, and Choices of Jobs by Rosemary Stewart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.4 The Theory of Managerial Work by Henry Mintzberg . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.5 ICT and Managerial Work by Ralf Reichwald et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.6 Jobs, Managers, and Activities by John Kotter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.7 New Directions in Managerial Work by Stefan Tengblad . . . . . . . .

39 40 42 44 46 48 49 50

53 57 62 66 69

3 Conclusion of Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

Chapter III – Case Study Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

75

1 Case Study Framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77

1.1 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Research Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Challenges in Studying the Executive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1 Objectivity and Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2 Convenience for the Executive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.3 Comparability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Existing Methods and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Arguments for the Method Selections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Choice of Methods Applied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.1 Choice of Executive Calendars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.2 Choice of Executive Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77 78 80 81 82 83 83 85 85 86 87

2 Data Gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89

52

2.1 Data Gathering Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 2.2 Data Collection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 2.3 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 2.3.1 Data Set of Executive Calendars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 2.3.2 Data Set of Executive Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Contents

XI

3 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93

3.1 Analysis of Calendar Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Categories of Calendar Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Process of Calendar Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Analysis of Interview Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Quality Criteria of Interview Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Process of Interview Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93 95 99 100 101 102

4 Conclusion of Case Study Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Chapter IV – Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 1 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 1.1 Scheduled Activities of the Executive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 1.1.1 Executive Working Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 1.1.2 Place of Executive Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 1.1.3 Mode of Executive Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 1.1.4 Size of Executive Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 1.1.5 Executive Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 1.1.6 Initiator of Executive Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 1.1.7 Subject of Executive Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 1.1.8 Purpose of Executive Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 1.1.9 Summary of Scheduled Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 1.2 Perceived Influencing Themes of Executive Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 1.2.1 Contextual Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 1.2.1.1 Values and Morals in Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 1.2.1.2 Markets and Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 1.2.1.3 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 1.2.1.4 Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 1.2.1.5 Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 1.2.1.6 Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 1.2.2 Challenges and Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 1.2.2.1 Pressures of Volume, Time, and Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . 128 1.2.2.2 Physical Proximity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 1.2.2.3 Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 1.2.2.4 Compliance and Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 1.2.3 Summary of Perceived Influencing Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 2.1 New Directions of Executive Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

XII

Contents

2.1.1 The Executive Works Long Hours Which Influences Private Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 2.1.2 The Executive Spends Increasingly More Activities Outside the Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 2.1.3 The Executive Faces Inappropriate Use of Communication Channels by Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 2.1.4 The Executive Meets with External Independent Contacts . . . . . . . 140 2.1.5 The Executive Meetings are of Relatively Large Size . . . . . . . . . . . 142 2.1.6 The Executive Moves from an Actively to a Passively Managed Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 2.1.7 The Executive Engages in Financial, Legal, and Organizing, Planning Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 2.1.8 The Executive Activities have Various, Often Unrelated Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 2.2 Summary of New Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 2.3 The Roles of Executive Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 2.3.1 Business Operation Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 2.3.1.1 The Coach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 2.3.1.2 The Confidant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 2.3.1.3 The Motivator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 2.3.1.4 The Reviewer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 2.3.2 Business Integration Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 2.3.2.1 The Connector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 2.3.2.2 The Integrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 2.3.2.3 The Custodian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 2.3.2.4 The Negotiator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 2.3.3 Business Networking Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 2.3.3.1 The Searcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 2.3.3.2 The Gatherer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 2.3.3.3 The Transmitter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 2.3.3.4 The Figurehead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 2.4 Summary of Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 3 Conclusion of Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Chapter V – Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 1 Contributions and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 1.1 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 1.2 Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

Contents

XIII

2 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 2.1 Implications for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 2.2 Implications for Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 2.3 Implications for Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 1 Leadership Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Trait School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Behavioral School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contingency School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transactional School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transformational School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

196 197 197 198 199

2 Empirical Research Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 3 Background and Details of Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 3.1 Review Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 3.2 Review Collection Process and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 3.3 Descriptive Results of the Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 4 Arguments to Consider for Explorations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 4.1 Arguments to Consider for a Descriptive Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 4.2 Arguments to Consider for an Interpretative Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 5 Executive Interview Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 6 Results of the Calendar Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 7 Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

List of Figures Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure 10: Figure 11: Figure 12: Figure 13: Figure 14: Figure 15: Figure 16: Figure 17: Figure 18: Figure 19: Figure 20: Figure 21: Figure 22: Figure 23: Figure 24: Figure 25: Figure 26: Figure 27: Figure 28: Figure 29: Figure 30: Figure 31:

Empirical research framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure of research study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of methods used by studies of the Work Activity School . . Sample size studied by the Work Activity School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of managerial days studied by members of the Work Activity School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Management levels studied by the Work Activity School . . . . . . . . . . Sectors of studied organizations of the Work Activity School . . . . . . . Countries studied by members of the Work Activity School . . . . . . . . Literature groups of the Work Activity School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature map of the Work Activity School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case study approach in upper management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Episode analysis of top manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Models for use of information and communication technologies . . . Dynamics responsible for differences in behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fragmentation of managerial work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research questions of the thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concurrent triangulation strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods applied for exploration i and exploration ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concurrent exploration of calendars and interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concurrent analysis of calendars and interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exemplary executive calendar week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exemplary executive calendar notations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Categorization of appointments using coding sheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exemplary day to illustrate scheduled and unscheduled activities . . . Inductive development of themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of analyses and questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scheduled and unscheduled time of the executive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Place of executive work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mode of executive activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Size of executive meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Executive contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8 9 22 23 24 25 27 28 31 48 63 64 65 69 70 78 80 86 90 93 94 95 99 100 103 105 110 111 112 114 115

XVI Figure 32: Figure 33: Figure 34: Figure 35: Figure 36: Figure 37: Figure 38: Figure 39: Figure 40: Figure 41: Figure 42: Figure 43: Figure 44: Figure 45: Figure 46: Figure 47: Figure 48: Figure 49: Figure 50: Figure 51: Figure 52: Figure 53: Figure 54: Figure 55: Figure 56:

List of Figures

Initiator of executive activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subject of executive activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of executive activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected statements on values and morals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected statements on markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected statements on organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected statements on communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected statements on jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected statements on responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected statements on contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected statements on pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected statements on physical proximity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected statements on privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected statements on compliance and governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . Themes influencing executive work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Towards new directions of executive work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Towards the roles of executive work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Operation oriented cluster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integration oriented cluster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Network oriented cluster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of leadership schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iterative, cyclic learning journey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Empirical research framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature review process and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

116 117 118 122 123 123 124 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 135 153 156 162 167 175 195 200 201 206

List of Tables Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: Table 13: Table 14: Table 15: Table 16: Table 17: Table 18: Table 19: Table 20: Table 21: Table 22: Table 23: Table 24: Table 25: Table 26: Table 27: Table 28: Table 29: Table 30: Table 31:

Major contributors of the Work Activity School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Demands, constraints, and choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample diary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interpersonal roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Informational roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decisional roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effects of information and communication technologies . . . . . . . . . . Factors influencing the behavior of general managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . Advantages and disadvantages of methods for studying the executive Arguments for the method selections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Executive profiles of the sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of reported hours worked (activities/time) . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of reported place of activities (activities/time) . . . . . . . . Comparison of reported mode of activities (activities/time) . . . . . . . . Comparison of reported contacts (activities/time) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of reported size of meetings (activities/time) . . . . . . . . . Comparison of reported initiator of activities (activities/time) . . . . . . Comparison of reported subject of activities (activities/time) . . . . . . . Comparison of reported purpose of activities (activities/time) . . . . . . Clusters of the executive sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Operation roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integration roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Networking roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of journals reviewed systematically . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the literature review – methods used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the literature review – management levels studied . . . . . . . Results of the literature review – number of days studied . . . . . . . . . . Results of the literature review – number of managers studied . . . . . . Results of the literature review – sectors of organizations studied . . . Results of the literature review – countries of organizations studied . . Results of the case study – executive working hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50 54 56 59 59 59 65 67 84 85 90 136 138 140 141 143 144 146 148 154 155 163 168 204 208 213 213 214 214 215 220

XVIII Table 32: Table 33: Table 34: Table 35: Table 36: Table 37: Table 38:

List of Tables

Results of the case study – place of executive work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the case study – mode of executive activity . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the case study – size of executive meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the case study – executive contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the case study – initiator of executive meeting . . . . . . . . . . Results of the case study – subject of executive activity . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the case study – purpose of executive activity . . . . . . . . . .

220 221 221 222 223 223 224

Chapter I Introduction

1

Studying “Executive Work”

Today’s press coverage often portrays the executive as the individual who is responsible for either the outstanding success or failure of organizations. Writers of academic journals such as the Leadership Quarterly, The Journal of Management Studies, and the Administrative Science Quarterly, as well as of publications such as the Economist, Business Week and the Financial Times, aim to show that these individuals are the source of efficiencies and innovation as well as leadership. Meanwhile, executives are supported by many staff members – including strategists, financial planners, designers of information systems, and operations managers – whose existence is intended to make executive work more effective and efficient and to increase the organizational performance (Mintzberg, 1973). However, the research scholars of the Work Activity School have noticed that other researchers and most of the practitioners hardly know what executives actually do. If one does not understand what constitutes the executive work, how can the impact of management education, corporate governance, information systems, and globalization accurately be measured? If researchers and practitioners do not know what the executive does, how can academic scholars teach managers in executive education programs? How can politicians discuss corporate governance rules and regulations for executives, and how can information scientists design efficient information systems at the apex of organizations? This thesis focuses on the fundamental questions about the nature of executive work that should be considered before others should expect management science, executive education, governance regulation, and information systems to have real influence on executive work. It is a thesis about the executive, and the purpose of the case study is to start answering questions about executive work and to inspire further researchers and practitioners to discover even more precise answers. The following three questions have guided the case study of this thesis: • What does the executive do today? In order to answer this question, the thesis focused on what kind of activities executives perform and how frequently, where executives accomplish the duties, with whom executives work, how executive activities are organized, and what kind of projects executives work on and for what purpose. • What perceived factors influence executive work? Next, the study aims to explore the perceived factors, identified by the executive sample included in this thesis, which have the greatest influence on executive work. Here,

4

I Introduction

executive interviews reveal what contextual themes influence executives during the workday, in the preferences, and in allocating time, as well as what challenges and conflicts executives face in dealing with the duties and tasks. • What new directions and underlying nature can be proposed about executive work? The data of a case study demonstrates and answers what kinds of variations and new directions exist among executive work when compared to previous studies of the Work Activity School and what kinds of roles can be further proposed that the executive performs in operating the organization, integrating the business, and networking with the environment. Before taking a closer look at the answers to these questions, a literature review focuses on the contributions of scholars of the Work Activity School. While the Work Activity School has had a relatively modest influence on general management theory (Tengblad, 2002), this thesis on executive work practices, the perceived influencing factors, new directions of executive work, and executive roles presents previous contributions, revealing their unique qualities and shedding light on today’s executive management practices as compared to prior studies. In so doing, this systematic review of the literature reports on how researchers have studied the nature of managerial work, what kind of managers were studied in their respective empirical context, and what the findings of prior research have been. Moreover, the literature review classifies the previous contributions of empirical studies within an iteratively developed literature map of the Work Activity School. This literature map consists of the job, the object (manager), and the activity performed. Finally, this literature review presents the major contributors of the Work Activity School with respect to the background, motivation, and major contributions to the field. In particular, the literature review reported on the contributions of Sune Carlson, Leonard Sayles, Rosemary Stewart, Henry Mintzberg, Ralf Reichwald, John Kotter, and Stefan Tengbald. Following a review of the literature, this thesis presents a research approach of a single case study on the executive of large companies. While most prior studies focused on managers of relatively smaller organizations, this sample included twelve experienced senior executives from the uppermost levels of large private corporations. The objective of the case study is to develop a new understanding through examining the work of executives. For the purpose of data gathering, the calendar method is employed for the descriptive exploration of executive activities, followed by an interpretative exploration using executive interviews, a rather traditional and frequently adopted method. In the first stage of the data gathering process, a fourweek printout of each executive’s calendar was garnered. This provided the structure for complementary reviews with the executive associate. Second, semi-structured interviews with each executive were held to obtain qualitative data regarding the factors determining and influencing their executive work practices.

1 Studying “Executive Work”

5

The purpose of this thesis is not to present what an effective executive does or to give normative guidance about successful executive practices. Rather, it aims to give insights into the fundamental questions presented in order to reveal the substance of executive work in general. The results are entirely based on both primary and secondary empirical evidence drawn from the study of executive work. Four dimensions of executive work are presented throughout the results and discussion of this thesis. First, the results introduce the reader to the executive activities that are scheduled in these executives’ electronic calendars. In the second step, executive interviews reveal the discerned influencing factors, as well as challenges and conflicts, inherent in executive work. Next, the two data sets of executive calendars and interviews formulate the arguments about the new aspects of executive work when compared to prior studies. The final objective of the research case study is to develop a new understanding from studying the work of the typical executive. Three different sets of executive profiles were identified with the help of a cluster analysis. The cluster analysis and the discussion of new aspects of executive work serve for the development of twelve executive roles. The set of roles presents a model that explains a reason for executive involvement in activities. In principle, an executive engages in the three different sets of roles that can be distinguished by their business involvement, business operation roles, business integration roles, and business networking roles. All roles are distinctive elements of executive work and are at the same time integrated best in one personality, the executive. In short, this research case study presents a new set of roles along an underexposed dimension in the nature of executive work. From the analysis of the data, the roles contribute a new view on executive work to the Work Activity School, which stretches its scope across the boundaries of the firm. This thesis strives for readability while at the same time adhering to the rigors of academic study. In addition, it aims to be as straightforward as possible to the practitioner. Therefore, some extensive documentation has been moved from the body of the thesis to the Annexes. This format was chosen in order to allow a consistent flow of the thesis and to allow transparency for the researcher. The Annexes thus cover a review of the leadership literature, a conceptual background of the research framework, guidelines of the executive interviews, and detailed results of the research case study. Each of the following main chapters will present a conclusion of the major findings that can be drawn from the chapter. Finally, the thesis includes a chapter on the contributions and the limitations, the reflection of the overall findings, covering as well the implications for (1) research – intending to link the findings with future management research, (2) teaching – addressing the class teacher of executive education programs, and (3) practice – written particularly for the manager and the executive.

2

How the Research and Thesis Are Guided

The empirical research framework and structure of the thesis are explained below. The conceptual framework will introduce the reader to the empirical approach that was followed during the research. Initially, relatively open questions guided the motivation for the research thesis. Thus, at the very beginning of the study, the researcher was motivated by the following arguments: • Researchers have rarely focused on a systematic review and understanding of the Work Activity School. • While executive activities have rarely been studied, several studies have focused on the managerial job, the manager, and managerial activities. But little is known about contextual themes that influence the activities of the executive, or about the challenges and conflicts of day-to-day work practices. • Few studies of the Work Activity School are known to have focused on the executive (as opposed to the manager) of large organizations over the past ten years, and even fewer scholars have focused on the executive in continental Europe. Therefore, questions concerning which senior executive activities can be observed today and what can be proposed by comparing them to previous studies have not been considered.

2.1

Empirical Research Framework

In the following section, the empirical research framework of the research study is identified. With an empirical research framework at hand, two dimensions were used in order to study the nature of executive work: the first dimension explores an existing research gap and aims at closing the gap with defined research questions, and the second dimension develops and specifies the appropriate empirical strategy required to gather the empirical data needed. Annex 2 gives further details about the empirical research framework and its development. These two dimensions represent neither a mutually exclusive nor a collectively exhaustive research paradigm, nor do they illustrate a distinctive gradational research process to be followed. However, the empirical research framework provides a useful guide for research in developing an understanding of the Work Activity School, in specifying three crucial research questions, and on designing an appropriate research strategy in order to explore the deeper nature of executive work.

8

I Introduction


     
  

  
    

 
 

  
  

   

Figure 1: Empirical research framework

The following list presents an assessment of the research thesis using the four elements of the empirical research framework: • Status Quo: A systematic literature review on the Work Activity School provides an understanding of the distinctive facets of this research perspective. Key empirical research contributions in the field will serve as cornerstones in the search for and collection of empirical studies to be reviewed. This review will report on seventyfive research studies of the Work Activity School and examine their methodology, samples, and contribution to the field. The review will thereby help to sharpen the research questions as well as to specify the appropriate research strategy and design of the study. • Research Questions: With a literature review on the Work Activity School at hand, this research study aims at answering three research questions. The first question explores the activities that an executive pursues today. The second question focuses on the perceived factors that influence the everyday activities of an executive. The last question tries to discover the trends that can be witnessed in executive work as well as to describe the nature of executive work today by using roles. • Research Object: The objects of the Work Activity School studies have been managers of the lower-, middle-, and upper-management stratum of private, public, and voluntary organizations. While most studies have focused on managers in small and mid-sized companies, this thesis will focus exclusively on the executive in the uppermost levels of large private organizations.

9

2 How the Research and Thesis Are Guided

• Methodological Instruments: A presentation and discussion of the methodology used by the Work Activity School is given in Annex 3. According to the strengths and weaknesses of each method and the chosen research design, the choices for the research instruments are the executive calendar (including supplementary clarifying interviews with respective associates) and the semi-structured executive interview. Each methodological approach is used in a concurrent manner to tackle distinct research questions, and is used for subsequent triangulation. This section presents the research framework covering a brief status quo of knowledge in the field, an introduction of the research questions of the study, the research object to be addressed, and the methodological instruments to be applied. In what follows, the structure of this study will be presented, guiding the reader through the document.

2.2

Structure of the Thesis

The structure of this research thesis is closely related to the empirical research framework. While the literature review develops an overview of the status quo of the Work Activity School, the chapter on the empirical study focuses on the definition of the research questions, the strategy, the design, and the collection and analysis of data.     !"

  #

             



          !

    &         "     #
    $  %       "     ##
     &        '   ! 
     "   (        '      !      $%

Figure 2: Structure of research study

10

I Introduction

Finally, the results are presented and discussed according to the research design and the research questions. Introduction: Following the introductory examination of executive work, this section maps the path through the empirical research framework and the structure of the research study. Literature Review: The literature review is intended to provide an overview of empirical research contributions that follow the perspective of the Work Activity School. To begin, the review focuses on how other researchers have studied managerial work, who was studied and in what kind of contextual environment. In the next section, the findings of prior studies’ contributions are examined and conceptualized in a literature map. Finally, the literature review provides an overview about the major contributions and researchers of the research school. Empirical Study: The research study presents a single case study as a research strategy with two concurrent explorations. The choice of the particular methods for each concurrent data-collection and data-analysis process was based upon the particular arguments developed for each empirical exploration. The first exploration follows an explorative descriptive approach with the analysis of executive calendars, while the other applies an interpretative paradigm and uses mainly qualitative interviewing. The total sample comprises of twelve experienced senior executives from the uppermost levels of large corporations. Finally, the analysis is imparted, revealing the coding of calendar activities according to predefined categories and the findings of the interviews are organized after numerous iterations of categorizing. Results and Discussion: The results of each exploration are presented in a concurrent way. Therefore, the results of the coded calendar data are presented first, followed by the findings from the executive interviews. While the calendar results primarily address the first research question on executive activities, the results of the interviews respond to the second research question on the perceived themes influencing executive work. In the following steps, results are connected in the discussion using a concurrent triangulation strategy. Moreover, the discussion is refined by using data from prior studies in order to identify proposed trends in the work of executives. Finally, a new set of executive roles is outlined that stem from a cluster analysis of the calendar data being guided by the data of the executive interviews. Reflection: The reflection presents the contributions and limitations of both major elements of the thesis: literature review as well as research case study. Moreover, the implications for researchers, teachers, and practitioners are provided and lead to the concluding outlook.

Chapter II Literature Review

1

The Rise of a Research School

Although a great number of scholars and managers have had an interest in managerial work, only a small number of researchers have taken a closer look at work practices, empirically exploring what the manager really does. However, this relatively small number of researchers have succeeded in compiling a research body that focuses on the nature of managerial work: the Work Activity School. The chapter gives an overview about this research school from its early days in the mid-20th century to the present time. In so doing, the chapter presents the motivation of these scholars, reports on the designs and samples of previous studies, and identifies the most useful findings from the literature that have helped increase the understanding of the nature of executive work. Finally, the literature review points out the motivation of the groundbreaking researchers of the Work Activity School and their fundamental contributions.

1.1

A Brief Sketch of the Classical Management School

While leadership exists as a discipline that can be traced back to distant philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and Machiavelli, the term management – in the context of leading organizations – emerged with the industrialization of the Western society at the turn of the 20th century. The economists Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill developed a theoretical foundation on the subjects of allocation of resources, production, and pricing in the late 19th century. Later, Frederick Taylor (1911) introduced a theory of management, the so-called Scientific Management, which synthesizes work processes to improve productivity. Taylor proposed that there is a best method for performing a particular task, and workers following this method would increase their productivity. Later still, Henry Fayol criticized Taylor’s functional approach in his writings, arguing that in reality workers have contact with management not only at one specific point, but receive their daily orders from different managers (Fayol, 1949). In his foundational contribution from 1916 (Fayol, 1949), Henry Fayol proposed management functions such as planning, organizing, staffing, and controlling in order to make organizations efficient and effective and to overcome organizational chaos. Based on previous findings, Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick introduced a Science of Administration with the integration of earlier ideas from Henry Fayol into comprehensive and systematic principles about management. These principles are described by the social scientist Luther Gulick, who outlined seven major duties of managers known by the acronym POSDCoRB: planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting (Gulick, 1937). Management theory at

14

II Literature Review

this particular time tended to distinguish between planning/decision-making and activity orientation (Nohria and Berkley, 1994; Staehle et al., 1999), with activities being the strategic result of logical thinking. This function-oriented research field received considerable attention in management literature (Brunsson, 1982) and aimed at reducing management to the underlying purposes or functions without considering individual activity practices (Carlson 1951).

1.2

Motivation of the Work Activity School

In contrast to the classical view of management, a less-conceptual and activityoriented perspective was developed in the Anglo-American language region, which perspective was later called the Work Activity School (Mintzberg 1973: 21). The Work Activity School was developed to understand observable activities and the factors that influence them. At this time, nowhere in the literature content could one find an empirically observed study for categorization (Mintzberg, 1973). A new research perspective emerged in the 1950s, partly motivated by dissatisfaction with existing normative and prescriptive management theories (Carlson, 1951) and by a lack of proximity to empirically observed work practices. Mintzberg described his motivation relative to his discontent by pointing out that the management research of the mid-20th century had “been shown to be incapable of describing what managers actually do” (Mintzberg, 1991: 104). Among the major goals of the Work Activity School is the assessment of observable data regarding executive activities. Researchers have gathered data in its specific context and collected observable activity characteristics of the manager and the executive, such as hours worked, place of activity, mode of activity, contact of activity, size of meeting, initiator of activity, subject of activity, and purpose of activity (Carlson, 1951; Burns, 1954; Dubin & Spray, 1964; Horne & Lupton, 1965; Lawler, Porter, and Tennenbaum, 1968; Mintzberg, 1973; Snyder & Glueck, 1980; Martin & Willower, 1981; Kurke & Aldrich, 1983; Martinko & Gardner, 1990; Boisot & Liang, 1992; Muir & Langford, 1994; Pribilla, Reichwald, and Goecke, 1996; Goecke, 1997; Tengblad, 2002; Florén & Tell, 2004; O’Gorman, Brouke, & Murray, 2005; Robinson & Shimizu, 2006; Tengblad, 2006). Observers of executive activities also focus on contextual factors, such as personal characteristics of the executive and situational dependencies, in order to pay attention to activities in their contextual environment. In so doing, the Work Activity School pays attention to direct exploration mainly for the development and description of inductive thought. In searching for the unknown, the early research and questions of the Work Activity School asked for insights into the everyday practices of managers, in contrast to the research by other early scholars of management research (e.g. Fayol, [1916] 1949;

1 The Rise of a Research School

15

Gulick, 1937). Mintzberg describes the difference between these two views (Work Activity School and Classical Management School) as being as different from Fayol’s classical view as a cubist abstract is from a Renaissance painting (Mintzberg, 1975). Ever since, the Work Activity School has endeavored to challenge the predominant thinking about management and managerial work. While there is a common language when talking about managerial work, researchers and practitioners do not adequately take into account ‘what managers really do’ (Stewart 1982). Research looks in great detail to normative elements to increase organizational performance, human resource practices seem to use predominantly functional selection, appraisal, and training, and education is greatly concerned about administration rather than real business activities. Thus, early researchers of the Work Activity School (e.g. Sune Carlson 1951; Leonard Sayles 1964; Henry Mintzberg 1973; Rosemary Stewart 1976) criticized the functional orientation of Fayol ([1916] 1949) and Gulick (1937) and were supported by associated follow-up contributions of the management literature that also reported on the limitations of the functional orientation (e.g. Barnard, 1938; Drucker, 1954). In this regard, the Work Activity School noted that such function-oriented research provided little evidence as to how managers work and pursue their tasks in order to contribute to organizational success (Mintzberg, 1973). To conclude, the scholars believed that rational decision making may not always be appropriate in real life as managerial activities may also be influenced by individual characteristics and backgrounds, perceived responsibilities, and relationships (Kotter 1982). That was one major reason why the Work Activity School chose to take a real-life perspective towards managerial work rather than a normative perspective to, for example, a specific task, situation, or particular transactional setting. Thus, the perspective of the Work Activity School stimulates an empirical approach to research and leads to mainly descriptive and explicit evidence regarding managerial work.

1.3

Scope of the Work Activity School

So far, the research field of leadership has hardly been addressed throughout the last paragraphs. The main reason is that the Work Activity School clearly developed from the field of management and has referred to it ever since. Although the Work Activity School overlaps considerably with the leadership literature, the word leadership has, nevertheless, hardly been used. Rosemary Stewart argues that she (as well as a large number of scholars of the Work Activity School) never thought of herself as a leadership researcher because of the difference of importance attached to the academic study of leadership in the USA as compared to that of Western European countries (Stewart, 1982). Moreover, Stewart adds that much of her research could have been

16

II Literature Review

relabeled leadership research (Stewart, 2003). An overview of the leadership literature is given in Annex 1, which presents the contemporary schools of leadership and may serve the reader as comparison. In the following, this thesis will exclusively present its findings to the audience of the Work Activity School rather than to any school of the leadership literature. This clear focus allows the empirical research to do the talking without preconceptions other than the ones of the Work Activity School.

2

The Work Activity School

In the following, the literature review of the Work Activity School provides an overview of the research questions, methods, empirical fields, and contributions of previous studies. The contributions of previous studies are presented with respect to the managerial job, the object of study, and activity profiles. A literature map will provide a visual overview of the understanding of the researcher. Finally, the major contributions of the Work Activity School are pointed out along with the background and motivation of the researcher. The following literature review is based on a systematic review of the literature that included seventy-five identified research contributions. A comprehensive background and the details of this systematic literature review are given in Annex 3 while the following presentation will focus primarily on the results of the literature review.

2.1

Research Questions

The studies of the Work Activity School have focused on research questions that have asked for innovation in empirical design which have been turning up in management research on organizations since the 1950s (Stewart, 1998). Since this time, scholars of the Work Activity School have pointed out that the predominant understanding of management is based on assumptions that have little resemblance to the reality of what managers “really do” (see also e.g. Carlson, 1951; Mintzberg, 1973; Kotter, 1982). The School’s initial research questions triggered methodological innovations such as the diary, observation, and calendar methods. These methods will be presented in the next chapter, while the questions on managerial jobs, the object (manager) involved, and managerial activities will be presented forthwith. Jobs: Early scholars, especially Rosemary Stewart, explicitly asked questions about managerial jobs. Asking questions about managerial jobs has been directed not only towards understanding the differences and similarities in managerial jobs, but also towards giving practical answers to managers. Scholars have framed their questions regarding the definition of jobs, including the demands and constraints, the choices of delegation and specialization, the contact groups, and the time and network management of particular jobs. Some of these questions include: • Definition of jobs (for example, how well-defined should jobs be?) • Focus of jobs (for example, what should be delegated and how should work be specialized?)

18

II Literature Review

• Relationship between job and power (for example, how important are job level and power?) • Working groups (for example, how many and which subordinates should a managerial job supervise?) • Stakeholder groups of managerial jobs (for example, how can contact groups be put together?) • Time and network management of jobs (for example, how and with whom should time be managed and organized?) These questions address what managers are asked to do according to their responsibilities, tasks, and functions in order to perform successfully in their jobs. Object: The questions on individual managers covered the respective managerial backgrounds and personal characteristics of managers. For instance, researchers studied these backgrounds and compared them with behavioral profiles to identify motives. However, researchers also studied the knowledge base and managerial networks of managers. Furthermore, the research was motivated by questions about whether the managers made use of reflective thinking, review analyses, and self-assessment. The following list provides an overview of questions covered by the Work Activity School regarding the research object (individual managers): • Managerial background (for example, what do managerial demographics look like?) • Managerial profiles (for example, how do managers allocate their time to long- and short-term events?) • Managerial networks (for example, what kinds of networks do managers engage in?) • Reflective thinking (for example, do managers review their own focus or effectiveness?) As presented, these scholars developed their research questions with respect to the manager doing their work and the managerial selection characteristics, as well as their similarities and differences. Activity: Finally, research questions have focused on actual managerial activities, individual behaviors, and managerial roles in order to characterize similarities and differences as well as their influencing factors. The most frequently cited research question of the Work Activity School is “What do managers do?” This question is also that which has driven the development of this particular research school throughout the last 60 years. It still remains an interesting question: that is, what are the (changing) elements of managerial work, and how do managers allocate their time among

2 The Work Activity School

19

them? In addition, the research question “With whom do managers work?” provides food for thought, for example, in evaluating the nature of the activities. Questions about work behaviors and associated roles and content have frequently been studied. Questions have covered the following research areas: • Elements of managerial work (for example, what do managers do?) • Distribution of managers’ time between work elements (for example, how do managers work?) • Contacts and interactions of managers’ activities (for example, with whom do managers work?) • Similarities and differences in managerial work (for example, what are consistent elements of managerial activities?) • Informal elements of managerial work (for example, what else do managers do?) • Managerial work content (for example, which content drives managerial activities?) These questions highlight the core focus of the Work Activity School in exploring actual managerial activities, individual behaviors, and roles of managerial work. Therefore, the Work Activity School has focused so far on research questions that have covered executive jobs, managerial characteristics, and the activities of managers. The research questions about the job focused on the differences and similarities and the demands, constraints, and choices of the job. In addition to that, the research focused on questions about personal characteristics, managers’ backgrounds and individual networks. To conclude, the most frequent question of the Work Activity School – “What does the manager/executive do?” – has in particular motivated the research case study on executives in the thesis.

2.2

Methods Applied

Members of the Work Activity School have developed their findings in ways that are most decidedly linked. The research methods followed largely similar aims and intended, according to Carlson, not to describe a type of behavior or provide normative guidance for the manager but rather to find common behavioral patterns as well as relationships that characterize these patterns (Carlson, 1951). But researchers of the Work Activity School face the methodological difficulty that managerial work is highly fragmented as well as extremely difficult to grasp. This challenge is especially noticeable with regards to the manager of large organizations; the task of studying a manual job is much easier concerning, for example, the place of work, the time work is done, contacts met, and units processed. Hence, it is increasingly difficult to establish links and correlations between the activities of the

20

II Literature Review

manager, the subject, and the content. This challenge called for methodological diversity. In the following, the various methods used by members of the Work Activity School to gather data are briefly outlined: • Ethnography – Ethnographic studies cover longer periods of data collection, while the observational studies of the Work Activity School have typically only considered observational data from a short period of observation. In general, conducting ethnographic studies is a very time-consuming and complex activity requiring months or years. Thus, ethnography usually uses observational data from a longer period of time and includes extensive content analysis of data gathered (e.g. Silverman and Jones 1976; Noël 1989). • Observation – The observational or shadowing studies of the Work Activity School take notes on the behavior and activities of individuals. The researcher lives in the system as a participant and/or observer and collects the data for intensive data analysis. Since the findings of unstructured observations make it particularly difficult to ensure the replicability of a study’s results, some researchers of the Work Activity School have used a variety of more systematic forms of observation (e.g. Guest, 1956; Jasinski, 1956; Ponder, 1957; Landsberger, 1961; Luijk, 1963; Sayles, 1964; Thomason, 1966/1967; Mintzberg, 1970/1971; Child and Ellis, 1973; Silverman and Jones, 1976; Stewart, 1976; Lau et al., 1980; Snyder and Glueck, 1980; Stewart, et al., 1980; Martin and Willower, 1981; Allan 1981; Stewart, 1982; Kmetz and Willower, 1982; Kotter, 1982; Doktor, 1983; Kurke and Aldrich, 1983; Beckurts and Reichwald, 1984; Luthans et al., 1985; Martinko and Gardner, 1990; Boisot and Liang, 1992; Schreyögg and Hübl, 1992; Luthans et al., 1993; Stewart et al., 1994; Muir and Langford, 1994; Hales and Tamangani, 1996; Pribilla et al., 1996; Davoine and Tscheulin, 1999; Hales, 2002; Tengblad, 2002; Florén and Tell, 2004; O’Gorman et al., 2005; Akella, 2006). • Calendar – The relatively new calendar studies of the Work Activity School use individual appointment calendars for data analysis. In most cases this kind of study reports on information about the planned activities of managers. This information includes, for example, the planned time distribution, the location, and the stakeholder relations for particular appointments (e.g. Robinson and Shimizu, 2006). • Activity Sampling – While the observational studies of the Work Activity School are generally exploratory and qualitative in nature, the standardization and systematization of observation into a quantitative technique is referred to as activity sampling. The activity sampling method is usually limited to a predefined space and involves the researcher taking notes about instant observations on managerial activity at random time intervals. It is described by Mintzberg as the method of photographing the action periodically (e.g. Kelly, 1964; Hannaway, 1989; Hales and Tamangani, 1996).

2 The Work Activity School

21

• Diary – The diary method asks the manager to keep a record of their activities using a predefined diary form. Such a diary form is an easy-to-use survey sheet on a manager’s desk. Different quantitative and qualitative diary forms have been used by scholars of the Work Activity School depending on the information to be recorded. Such information includes work content, perceived work priorities, and analysis of contacts (e.g. Carlson, 1951; Burns, 1954; Burns, 1957; Copeman, 1963; Dubin and Spray, 1964; Brewer and Tomlinson, 1964; Horne and Lupton, 1965; Stewart, 1967; Lawler et al., 1968; Stewart, 1976; Lau et al., 1980; Kotter, 1982; Beckurts and Reichwald, 1984; Doktor, 1990; Pinsonneault and Rivard, 1998; Tengblad, 2002; Florén and Tell, 2004). • Interview – The interview used by members of the Work Activity School is typically conducted in person or over the phone and can be recorded with a tape recorder or with written transcripts. In terms of the number of respondents, one-to-one and group interviews are applied. Interviews differ in terms of structure (structured, semi-structured, and unstructured). Less structured interviews enable openness of interviewing, whereby the respondent may have more influence on the direction and structure than the interviewer (e.g. Guest, 1956; Jasinski, 1956; Landsberger, 1961; Luijk, 1963; Stewart, 1976; Silverman and Jones, 1976; Lau et al., 1980; Stewart et al., 1980; Martin and Willower, 1981; Allan 1981; Marshall and Stewart, 1981; Kotter, 1982; Stewart, 1982; Kurke and Aldrich, 1983; Beckurts and Reichwald, 1984; Davies and Easterby-Smith, 1984; Dopson and Stewart, 1990; Dopson et al., 1992; Stewart et al., 1994; Muir and Langford, 1994; Hales and Tamangani, 1996; Pribilla et al., 1996; Pinsonneault and Rivard, 1998; Davoine and Tscheulin, 1999; Rodham, 2000; Hales and Mustapha, 2000; Tengblad, 2002; Hales, 2002; Bruch, 2003; Kosaka, 2004; Hales, 2005; Kayworth, 2005; Akella, 2006; Robinson and Shimizu, 2006; Hales, 2007). • Questionnaire – The questionnaires used by the Work Activity School differ in terms of the degree of structure. While unstructured questionnaires may serve as a basis for unstructured interviewing, they are more open in nature than their structured counterparts. Openness enables the researcher to allow for previously unconsidered issues during the process of data gathering. Alternatively, more structured questionnaires, for example with closed questions, in most cases provide data that are advantageous for common quantitative analyses (e.g. Hemphill, 1959; Pheysey, 1972; Child and Ellis, 1973; Stewart, 1976; Lau et al., 1980; Allan 1981; Kotter, 1982; Doktor, 1983; Pavett and Lau, 1983; Beckurts and Reichwald, 1984; Zabid, 1987; Hannaway, 1989; Doktor, 1990; Luthans et al., 1993; Merz and Sauber, 1995; Lubatkin et al., 1997; Lubatkin and Powell, 1998; Davoine and Tscheulin, 1999; Bruch, 2003; Pearson et al., 2003; Hales, 2005; Sengupta and Sinha, 2005; Robinson and Shimizu, 2006; Kraut et al., 2006; Hales, 2007).

22

II Literature Review

• Secondary sources – Secondary data refers to data obtained from other sources and typically not gathered by the author. The Work Activity School has usually used secondary sources to supplement primary data on managerial work. These sources can include, among others, survey data on management salaries or previous studies employing primary data which are then used as a reference to compare the findings of a follow-up study (e.g. Kotter, 1982; Doktor, 1983; Dopson and Stewart, 1990; Dopson et al., 1992; Hales and Tamangani, 1996; Lubatkin et al., 1997; Hales, 2002; Pool, Mansfield, and Mendes, 2003; Kayworth, 2005). The eight methods presented here have been briefly introduced and an overview according to their use of the Work Activity School in prior studies is given in Annex 3 of this thesis. A look at the identified literature of the Work Activity School reveals that prior research has made great use of the various methods. The following figure on methods used for analyzing managerial work provides an overview of the frequency with which each method is used. Accordingly, observation (37 studies) and interview (35 studies) represent the two most widely used methods, and many studies even follow a mixed research approach combining both methods. Twenty-five studies have made use of questionnaires, followed by seventeen studies utilizing diaries, and nine studies making use of secondary sources. Methods used significantly less often include activity sampling (3 studies), ethnography (2 studies) and calendar (1 study). Remarkably, more than a third of the studies use a combination of two or more research methods. In addition to interviews and observation, which represent the two most widely combined methods, secondary sources, questionnaires and diary analysis have also been incorporated into mixed-method studies.

   

, 

) !

*(  

'   ! # 

+

Figure 3: Overview of methods used by studies of the Work Activity School

23

2 The Work Activity School

Observing multidimensional phenomena such as managerial work requires, therefore, that researchers employ and possibly come up with various methods to study them, hence applying different perspectives to the same object of analysis (Kotter, 1982; Martinko and Gardner, 1984, 1985; Hales and Mustapha, 2000). This is why many researchers have made use of multiple methods and aimed at triangulation (Denzin, 1970). It is therefore of little surprise that the body of research on managerial work has made use of various methods, with many studies combining several methods of data gathering.

2.3

Empirical Fields

Scholars of the Work Activity School have so far used very diverse empirical fields that can be classified according to different categories. Such categories include sample size studied, number of days studied, management levels studied, countries studied, and sectors studied by the Work Activity School. The following paragraphs introduce these review categories according to which the empirical fields of the Work Activity School can be classified. Most studies of the Work Activity School have focused on either a small or a large sample, as the following figure points out. Twenty-one studies have a particularly small sample size of up to ten managers, while thirty-seven make use of a large sample size of more than fifty managers. The large number of small-scale studies partly contradicts Noordegraaf and Stewart (2000: 431), who find and lament the general preference of prior research for large samples. Only a few studies, however, have used a mid-sized sample (e.g., 12 studies use a sample size of 11 to 50 managers). This

2 100 !

-0- 100 !

- . !


/ -0 !

-- 10 ! .- -00 ! 1- .0 !

Figure 4: Sample size studied by the Work Activity School

24

II Literature Review

is not surprising if one also considers the research methods utilized in each study. Accordingly, small-sample studies typically make use of qualitative methods such as observation, while most large-sample studies use quantitative methods such as questionnaire-based surveys. This observation is also consistent with, for example, the Lindeberg-Levy central limit theorem, according to which a necessary precondition for quantitative studies to be representative is a sample size of N > 50 (Eckstein, 2001: 258). Qualitative research, on the other hand, often uses more of an immersion approach and sometimes only discusses the cases within the original sample, which serve as the basis for additional interpretations. The small sample size of qualitative research studies furthermore seems to provide support for the next observation within the sample literature with regard to the number of days that managers have been studied. On average, the studies have (each) made use of 4.6 days of study for each manager. This is not surprising considering that the nature of research investigations requires considerable time and resources on both the manager’s and researcher’s side. Prior studies have pointed to the general willingness of managers to support research activity, even though research is not on the agenda of the managers’ daily work. This is why the choice of research methods used to study managerial work and the degree of participation depends on the intended number of days to be studied. It is expected that managers are more likely to permit observational studies for shorter periods of time because of the intimacy of the study and the proximity of the researcher. Diaries and calendars may be used for longer periods of time because they require significantly less obtrusive methods to study the managerial work. The following figure gives an overview of how many days were studied in total by each study of the Work Activity School. This figure shows that most studies reported results on more than fifty days studied in total.

2 100 

- 10 

-0- 100  1- .0  .- -00 

Figure 5: Number of managerial days studied by members of the Work Activity School

25

2 The Work Activity School

Some authors did not classify their sample according to the number of days studied or any managerial level, nor did they use a “discussion-specific terminology” (Stewart, 1967: 10). Apart from, for example, a hierarchical distinction, the classification used by some also pays no attention to functional differentiations. As a result, the definitions of “upper management”, “middle management”, and “lower management” remain controversial with respect to whether the summarized terms are distinct or coextensive. This discussion has been left out of the following analysis. The Work Activity School itself distinguishes between two main ways in which the term manager is used. First, managers are the positions above a certain level, such as foremen, who directly manage subordinates. Second, the word manager describes individuals who usually hold positions above the first level of supervision in offices. The term executive is used predominantly when referring to senior managers (Stewart, 1967: 10). This executive is a manager with subordinates in the two uppermost layers of organizations.

    !

3     !

3 !

3   ! 4  !

 !

Figure 6: Management levels studied by the Work Activity School

For the present review, terms representing a high level of active management to whom managerial employees report, including division heads, board members, and chief executive officers, were categorized as “upper management”. Additionally, “lower management” denotes the positions representing the first level of management to whom non-managerial employees report. Such a category includes positions such as first-line managers, foremen, supervisors and junior managers. Finally, “middle management” is made up of all positions between “upper management” and “lower management” (Dopson, 1992; Livian, 1997). Similar classifications into three managerial categories can be found in the studies of Burns (1957), Hemphill (1959), Allan (1981), Hales (2002), and Kraut (2006).

26

II Literature Review

In terms of the management level of the managers studied, the selected studies have focused predominantly on upper-level positions (27 studies) that predominantly included managers of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups. An additional thirty-two studies provide cross-level research featuring (among others) upper-level managers. In comparison, fewer studies have focused on lower and/or middle management (14 studies) as Annex 3 points out in more detail. There may be multiple reasons for this observation, including the fact that research on managerial work initially focused on upper management. Another reason may be that upper management generally seems to be most attractive to researchers. In addition, studies of upper management tend to use smaller sample sizes, while cross-level studies often use larger samples. This may be due to the fact that the researcher generally finds a relatively smaller number of upper managers in relations to the total managerial population in organizations. Managers have also been classified according to the scope of the activities they perform. There are functional specialists, for example, in production, planning, marketing, and finance, as well as general managers who are responsible for more complex activities and the overall operations of a business unit, profit center, or business division. Managers who undertake a general range of business activities have in smaller and micro organizations have especially been studied (e.g. Noël, 1989; Muir and Langford, 1994; Florén and Tell, 2004; O’Gorman et al., 2005). Apart from specialists and general managers, some individuals have the scope of working as project managers who coordinate other employees across business divisions and functions to accomplish particular projects. The organizations studied also cover different sectors and regions/cultures. Therefore, the Work Activity School includes research studies on, for example, the manufacturing (Doktor 1983), textile (Luthans et al., 1993), and health care industries (Rodham, 2000; Dopson and Fitzgerald, 2006), and has also included samples across other industries. But scholars have hardly reported systematically on industries in general and, hence, this information is also limited or missing in many publications. Therefore, a great body of the literature from the Work Activity School can only be classified as covering the private (e.g. Florén and Tell, 2004; O’Gorman et al., 2005) and public sectors (e.g. Stewart et al., 1980; Allan, 1980; Martinko and Gardner, 1990), or as being cross-sectoral in nature (Dopson et al., 1992; Dargie, 2000; Kayworth, 2005). The majority of the identified studies (43) have focused entirely on privately held firms. Fewer studies have chosen the public sector as their research domain: seven studies focus entirely on public organizations, ten use a mixed sample of public and private organizations, and one study’s sample includes public, private and non-profit organizations. Non-profit organizations are so-called “intermediate hybrids” (Lubatkin and Powell, 1998: 1010), that is, mixed public-private organizations which

27

2 The Work Activity School

$      

!5 

$  (      !5 

$   (

!5 

$( !5 

$  !5 

Figure 7: Sectors of studied organizations of the Work Activity School

“are supposed to implement public policy, but to be more independent and managerial, and relatively isolated from day-to-day politics” (Noordegraaf and Stewart, 2000: 439). As Lau, Newman, and Broedling once put it, “Executive activity has received considerably less systematic attention in the public sector” (1980: 513). This is surprising if one follows what Snyder and Glueck call the “common knowledge that non-business enterprises are less likely to follow business management principles than businesses” (1980: 71). Consequently, research focusing on managerial work in the private sector may well neglect the potential of public sector studies to offer alternative interpretations. More recently, Noordegraaf and Stewart expressed their concern that “the lack of attention for public sector embeddedness, at least by private sector-oriented management scholars” (2000: 431) has become a contextual shortcoming of prior research. Apart from looking at the sector of organizations studied, the research of the Work Activity School has mainly been conducted in, and by researchers from, the USA (25 studies) and the Anglo-Saxon world (25 studies); further contributions stem from Germany, Japan, and Sweden. Following the early work of Sune Carlson in Sweden, a few prominent and wellcited scholars such as Tom Burns and Rosemary Stewart in Great Britain, as well as Henry Mintzberg and John Kotter in the USA, have contributed significantly to advancing the research field. Thus, the Work Activity School has conducted its research mainly in industrialized, Western societies. A few single studies have compared the school’s findings with similar contributions from other countries (e.g. Hales and Tamangani, 1996; Lubatkin et al., 1997; Lubatkin and Powell, 1998; Hales and Mustapha, 2000).

28

II Literature Review

Discussing the motivation for their study in Germany, Stewart et al. (1994) note that “there is insufficient existing material on the actual work of managers. Research to date, in Germany, has followed one of two directions: either being conceptual in nature, taking up prescriptive issues in management rather than looking empirically into what managers really do; or else, trying to replicate Mintzberg’s findings for Germany. In the German context, we were therefore working nearly from scratch, and trying to establish a core of raw material from which to make comparisons.” (Stewart 1994: 35). Interestingly, slightly earlier, a research group of Georg Schreyögg had published a study on managerial work (Schreyögg and Hübl, 1992). And, at the same time another group of Ralf Reichwald worked on a study about the use of information and communication technologies of executives and its influence on the nature of executive work in Germany. This study was published later as a book (Pribilla, Reichwald, and Goecke, 1996) and a dissertation (Goecke, 1997).

' '  "( ' 9 : ! ; ! :! # #  ;  & " ! $1,000 million (Kotter 1999: 170–171). Other authors have classified the size of the organization by number of employees, profitability, etc. (Florén and Tell, 2003). The classification of the organizational size differs among the studies of the Work Activity School, and a notable number of contributions have hardly reported on any dimension with which to measure the size of the organizations studied. Furthermore, the Work Activity School has hardly focused on women, as Stewart reports in her work “Woman in a Man’s World” (Stewart 2003: 197). Therefore, relatively little is known about gender similarities and differences, and it may be of interest to explore empirical fields with a focus on gender and managerial work. This classification of terms from the sample entails limitations mentioned in greater detail in the reflection of the thesis. The size of the companies analyzed differed to a great degree. Scholars whose work was used for the review sample focused on managers in small and mid-sized companies (Noël, 1989; Muir and Langford, 1994; Florén, 2006) as well as on managers in global corporations (Kotter, 1982; Pribilla et al., 1996; Robinson and Shimizu, 2006).

2.4

Towards a Map of Empirical Studies

The literature falls into three major subgroups, which were developed in the course of a systematic literature review about the Work Activity School. The subgroups are the following: • Job (What is a manager’s job?): The first field is defined by what managers are really asked, or required, to achieve according to their responsibilities, tasks, and functions. • Object (What/who is a manager?): These scholars have focused on the people who do managerial work, the people who become managers, and their similarities and differences. • Activity (What do managers do?): This research has explored actual managerial activities, individual behaviors, and managerial roles in order to characterize (factors that influence) similarities and differences.

30

II Literature Review

Several scholars of the Work Activity School have contributed through their studies to one, two, or all of the three fields presented. The third field, concerning the managerial activities of the Work Activity School, constitutes the largest body of the literature. First, the Work Activity School focused on managerial jobs. To explore the flexibility in a job and variations in jobholders’ behavior, researchers focused on job descriptions to discover how widely managers differ in the work they do. One can distinguish between junior, middle, and senior managers’ jobs to focus on differences and similarities, as well as study the boundaries between job levels. Moreover, Stewart, through her extensive work, developed a way of describing the interplay between the individual and job with her model of demands, constraints, and choices (Stewart, 1982). While demands (work a jobholder has to do) and constraints (factors that limit the jobholder in what he can do) affect activities, which differ substantially among individuals, these activities can in turn also modify the demands and constraints of the managerial job. As the model of Stewart indicates, research findings on managerial jobs are linked to the other fields of the Work Activity School – the individual and the activities. Second, scholars of the Work Activity School studied the education, degrees, career, and other background variables of managers while also looking at their work. These personal characteristics were studied in order to serve as one root of the actual managerial behavior. Managerial characteristics considered to play a role in a manager’s managerial work included motives, cognitive and interpersonal orientation, and the manager’s knowledge base and networks. Researchers focused on the background and the characteristics of managers in order to find similarities and differences that would explain their particular managerial behavior. Finally, most frequently quoted researchers questioned: What do managers really do? Research suggests that only if they understand managers’ working habits can academics adjust for and train contexts across a range of management jobs and help improve the design of management development programs. Scholars have used various categories of classifying managerial activities over time. Criteria include place of work, mode of activity, type of contact, size of contact group, initiator of action, object, and purpose. Many research studies have focused on managers’ time distribution among these classifying criteria. Several scholars have found through their research that the activities of managers involve one or more behaviors. These behaviors are, for example, of an informational, communicational or decision-making nature (Mintzberg 1973). Each of these behaviors is associated with roles that are understood as the theory of what managers do. In addition to Mintzberg’s prominent ten roles (which will be explained in the following), scholars have proposed other sets of managerial roles. Thus, researchers of the Work Activity School have focused on managers’ time-use distribution among defined classifying criteria and have identified behaviors that are associated with more granular managerial roles.

31

2 The Work Activity School

As a final note, a small number of scholars have criticized the Work Activity School for the fact that “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” (Hales 1986: 105). This lack of a consistent understanding and consistent presentation may have resulted in the limited reference and popularity of the Work Activity School in a scholarly sense. Stewart has acknowledged this difficulty and points out that the neglect of conceptual development has resulted in confusion. However, she identifies the cause of the limited conceptual development as confusion between managerial jobs and managerial behavior/work (Stewart, 1982). Therefore, apart from focusing on the individual (the managerial object of research), a distinction between the managerial job and the manager’s activities apply as relevant characteristics to use in this chapter to describe the research focus of the Work Activity School.

$!#

  % +( 

7   ! " 

() $!# ' $



+



' 

#  $ 

' 

'

Figure 9: Literature groups of the Work Activity School

The literature groups of the Work Activity School are described in more detail in the following. The systematic review of the literature on the Work Activity School reviewed seventy-five research contributions and thus covers a broader body of the literature. Each literature group and its major contribution are looked at closely before the literature map of the Work Activity School is presented.

32

2.4.1

II Literature Review

Job

Hemphill mentions in his early contribution from 1959 that a managerial job needs to be considered in its broader context, including the social restrictions that are also part of the job (1959: 56). Other research findings indicate several predictors of variation in managerial work, of which industry, functional specialism, and the prevailing type of organizational structure appear to be the most pervasive. Child and Ellis’s (1973) findings lend support to moving away from a conception of management as a homogenous occupational group, to instead seeking variations in managerial work and attempting to locate these meaningfully within their situational contexts. The argument in fact casts some doubt on the validity and utility of the manager as a generalized concept. “A model was required that would take account of the variety and flexibility and enable one to explore both the flexibility in the job and the variations in the jobholder’s behavior” (Stewart, 1982: 9). To draw an objective picture of a managers’ job, Stewart presented her model on demands, constraints, and choices “as a way of looking at managerial jobs and at managerial behavior. It can be helpful in understanding the general nature of managerial jobs and the difference between them, and can be used to analyze a particular job and consider how an individual does it” (1982: 2). The model consists of three fundamental elements: • demands (what managers have to do) • constraints (factors that limit what managers can do) • choices (activities managers can but do not have to do) The model is dynamic in nature because the determinants change over time. Furthermore, Stewart adds that “the merit of this way of looking at jobs and at how people do them is that it takes into account the fact that people do jobs in their own way, both in what they do and in how they do it” (1982: 9). In considering jobs, Hales (2005, 2007) has investigated change in the job of the middle and first-line managers. He has found that the two roles have been redistributed such that a first-line manager has acquired some of the responsibilities previously attributed to the business of middle management. Hales considers the shift a supplementation rather than a replacement: “Whilst some business management tasks are now shared between middle and first-line managers, routine operational supervision is increasingly concentrated in the first-line manager role” (Hales, 2007: 31). Also focusing on the role of the middle manager, Dopson and Stewart (1990) have found no support for other scholars’ hypothesis that the job of the middle manager will disappear or become more routine due to advancements in information technology. Instead, they argue, a slimmer middle management in times of rapid change will have an increasing importance. It was recently noted that “[Stewart’s model of constraints, demands, and choices] is prodigious for analyzing managerial activity and powerful extensions of her logic

2 The Work Activity School

33

to those of better-known theorists” (Kroeck, 2003). Still, scholars contribute valuable thought to the foundation of models, finding evidence of, for example, how organizational size determines the nature of managerial work (O’Gorman et al., 2005). 2.4.1.1 Demands Demands are the minimum criteria that need to be met in managerial work. The crucial ‘demands’ consist of, for example, a minimum performance criterion, the extent to which personal involvement is required in the unit’s work, the people who need to be contacted and the complexity of the work relationship, contacts’ power to enforce their expectations, the necessary bureaucratic procedures that cannot be delegated, and meetings that must be attended. Silverman and Jones (1976) also describe practices within organizations through which social structures are recognized and sustained, and the more formal types of organizational interaction. Managerial work is therefore defined by ‘demands’ made up of an existing, recognized language that grades and elevates certain types of expression for use in specific situations – a grading language (Silverman and Jones, 1976). Authors find evidence of similarities in the demands of all managerial work. Allan’s 1981 findings support comparisons of the studies of Mahoney et al. (1965) and Mintzberg (1973), which show “great similarities in the work done by managers at all levels” (1981: 618). Also describing similarities, Kotter notes the following demands: “(1) setting basic goals, policies, and strategies despite great uncertainties; (2) achieving a delicate balance in the allocation of scarce resources among a diverse set of businesses and functions; (3) keeping on top of a large and complex set of activities to make sure that problems don’t get out of control; (4) getting the information, cooperation, and support from bosses to do the job; (5) getting corporate staff, other relevant departments and divisions, or important external groups to cooperate; and (6) motivating, coordinating, and controlling a large diverse group of subordinates” (Kotter 1982: 122). While some scholars have found similarities in these demands, others have found numerous differences across different managerial levels. Kraut et al. (2006) have recently noted that an understanding of job differences and similarities would help to “communicate performance expectations and feedback to subordinate managers, prepare others and themselves for transitions to higher organizational levels or different functions, forecast how different managers would perform if promoted or moved into a new function, ensure that management training and development programs are targeted to fit the needs of managers as they change positions, diagnose and resolve confusion regarding managerial roles, responsibilities, and priorities” (Kraut 2005: 122). Moreover, an early contribution from Burns (1954) points out that “there were wide differences in the distribution of activities for individuals occupying the same work-

34

II Literature Review

role, pointing to hidden forces in apparently similar situations” (1954: 96). As Thomason notes, “managing directors have more power to determine their own patterns of activity, but assistants, on the other hand, may have built into their roles prescriptions” (1996: 274). Martinko and Gardener understand differences in the demands “in managerial work related to differences in positional requirements” (1990: 352). And Stewart adds that “the kind of job seemed to be the most important factor in determining how many hours a manager worked. Sales managers tended to work the longest hours – mainly because of the time that they spent travelling – and accountants the shortest hours” (1967: 49). Differences also exist on a cross-cultural level, as Stewart et al. (1994) mention when comparing Great Britain and Germany. In contrast to the pervasive understanding that managers do systematic and reflective planning, most managers are driven by the pressure or demands of their work since it is characterized by brevity, variety, and discontinuity (Mintzberg, 1973; Lau, Newman, and Broedling, 1980; Kmetz and Willower, 1982). Guest even goes as far as saying that managers don’t do what they should do (1956). This is a result of managers being “interrupted 70 times a day” (1963: 26), so that many “would like to have enough time to develop further the plans which they have had in the air for such a long time, so that they might be realized in concrete form” (Lujik, 1963: 27). The demands of managerial work are very integrative in nature, leaving little free time and rarely any breaks. “Senior managers, in particular, cannot escape from their jobs after hours, because of the work they take home and because their minds tend to be on their jobs during much of their ‘free’ time” (Mintzberg, 1973: 51). Scholars have recently mentioned a change in demands. According to Hales (2007), lower managers now have to handle new demands and pressure triggered by a redistribution of managerial work and the redrawing of the traditional boundaries between middle and first-line management. Kayworth et al. (2005) mention the demand of more interaction with external stakeholders at executive-level positions. Hence, the literature identifies dynamics within the demands of managers that change the nature of managerial jobs. Demands were described by previous research to be the minimum criteria that need to be met by managers (Stewart 1982). Such ‘demands’ are a minimum performance criterion or a required personal involvement. In the following, constraints of managerial work will be pointed out that limit managerial activities in their scope. Demands and constraints will, then, provide the inner and outer framing for managerial choice. 2.4.1.2 Constraints An early contribution made by Sayles (1964) describes organizations as systems in which the actions of managers are embedded in an organizational as well as environ-

2 The Work Activity School

35

mental manner. Sayles adopts a more passive perspective towards managerial work, while Stewart allows that choice is bounded by constraints and demands. Stewart (1982) understands common constraints as the sources of limitations of managerial choices. Among these are “(1) resource constraints, including buildings, (2) legal and trade unions constraints, (3) technological limitations of equipment and process, (4) physical location, (5) organizational policies and procedures, and (6) attitudes that influence what actions other people will accept or tolerate” (Stewart 1982: 5). The size of the organization also influences managerial work, as Florén and Tell (2004) note. According to their findings, managerial work in small firms is characterized by informality and constant interruption as the process by which managers’ work is organized. This differs from studies in larger organizations, where formal and planned activities serve more often as the medium through which managers design their work (Florén and Tell, 2004). Pinsonneault and Rivard (1998) find a relationship between the level of IT usage and the nature of managerial work. Scholars have also found that the pattern of the relationship between IT usage and the nature of managerial work depended on the kind of strategic reorientation implemented by the firm. Hales and Tamangani (1996) have found that the extent to which organizational structure, in particular the degree of centralization/decentralization, influences managerial work is limited because industry context also influences managerial work, as also argued by Stewart (1991) and Stewart et al. (1990: 353). Dopson et al. agree with this picture, adding that middle managers now have a greater importance than in the past because, among other reasons, there are now flatter hierarchies (Dopson et al., 1992). Martinko and Gardener have strengthened this point of view. They have found that “managerial behaviours varied systematically with differences in environmental and demographic factors” (1990: 353). In this respect it is interesting that Lau et al. (1980) find no differences between the activities of managers in the public and private sectors. As the authors note, “both public and private sector executives perform the same kind of activities, both in terms of complexity of job content and roles, and in terms of job characteristics, i.e. the fragmented, high pressure quick reaction nature of executive positions” (1980: 915). This would suggest a weak or non-existent relationship between sectors and managers’ working habits. With respect to the influence of the environment, Stewart et al. (1994) and Pearson et al. (2003) give evidence of the influences of different constraints on managerial work. Stewart et al. mention that “the German managers were more constrained by organizational routines and formal systems [than their British counterparts] … [and] German managers also felt constrained by a shortage of staff and the need to help their overworked subordinates with their tasks” (Stewart et al. 1994: 87).

36

II Literature Review

Furthermore, for an understanding of Japanese managerial work, it is important to appreciate the influence of contextual boundaries (Pearson et al., 2003: 106). Findings regarding changing cross-sector constraints were presented by Lau et al. (1980). “It seems justified to say that the private sector is becoming more like the public sector in terms of complexity, number of regulations, and multiplicity of constraints, rather than the opposite. To some degree, the effect of government requirements has probably influenced the increasing convergence of the two sectors” (Lau et al. 1980: 519). Finally, the literature review dealt with constraints stemming from society. Sengupta and Sinha (2005) indicate that the spillover of societal culture into organizational culture has influenced as well as constrained the work behavior of managers (2005: 143). 2.4.1.3 Choices To understand managerial work, one should recognize that managers have the opportunity to distribute time differently between some activities and not at all to others, and hence can act in different ways (Kmetz and Willower, 1982). Therefore, “managerial jobs offer choices on what is done how. They are flexible” (Stewart, 1982: 23). Managerial work can be differentiated according to three different kinds of choices, which Stewart has described in her prominent study, Choices for the Manager (1982): • Choices to change the nature of a unit’s output, • Choices to do work outside the manager’s unit, • Choices for sharing work with colleagues. First, such opportunities commonly exist in upper management and in some middleand lower- management positions, especially in staff and services departments (Marshall and Stewart, 1981). Second, managers can get involved in other aspects of the organization’s work, can become an expert in a specific field, or can even take part in activities outside the organization. Finally, the sharing of work can increase the variety of choices in managerial work. Through sharing of management, a contextual arrangement is set up between managers of different management levels where the work get done by participants jointly (Kotter, 1982). In a comparison of Great Britain and Germany, Stewart notes that “the British managers had more choice to shape their own job by negotiating their role. They were expected to exercise more initiative and hence were more likely to run into frustrating organizational constraints” (Stewart, 1994: 87). As the effectiveness of managerial work is influenced by choices, Stewart has also found that choices are often made unconsciously and that actions are seen as an essential ingredient of the job. Therefore, “many managers could be more effective if they analyzed the nature of the choices that their jobs offer” (1976: 95).

2 The Work Activity School

37

Much of the empirical literature on managerial choices is closely connected with the research on activity profiles as managerial choices are often represented in real activities of managers. Hence, the reader will find further empirical findings in the section on activity profiles that could also have been categorized to this subsection on ‘choices’ (see ‘activity profiles’) as, for example, the strategic use of information and communication technologies (Pribilla et al., 1996; Goecke, 1997; Pinsonneault and Rivard, 1998).

2.4.2

Object

The following body of empirical literature on the Work Activity School focuses on the individual set of givens that a manager brings to an objective job. These givens may result in a perception of the manager as being confronted with potential stimuli from the objective job (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). 2.4.2.1 Characteristics John Kotter (1982) lists characteristics of those in managerial work, describing them as “almost ambitious, achievement oriented, comfortable with power, emotionally stable, temperamentally optimistic, above average in intelligence, moderately strong in thinking analytically, intuitively strong, personable, good at developing relationships with people, and able to relate to a broad set of business specialists” (Kotter 1982: 124). Kotter also mentions other characteristics such as an extensive knowledge about businesses and organizations and good working relationships in and outside the organization. The extensive list of Kotter’s findings allows him to conclude that these characteristics are all related to job demands observed across all situations. Scholars also mention specific skills that must be possessed by those in defined managerial positions (Mintzberg, 1973). These skills may be of a technical, managerial (Kayworth et al., 2005), or interpersonal nature (Horne and Lupton, 1965). Some contributions even mention the characteristics that (middle) managers seem not to require, for example “the exercise of remarkable powers to analyze, weigh alternatives, and decide” (Horne and Lupton, 1965: 32). In their discussion of skills, Pavett and Lau (1983) note that there are level-dependent (conceptual) and level-independent (technical, political, human) skills. This review also found studies that could not find evidence of an impact resulting from characteristics. Lubatkin and Powell (1998) failed to display a pattern of gender similarities and differences. Also, O’Gorman et al. (2005) could not establish a relationship with a background characteristic, the owner-manager functional experience. These studies contribute to Stogdill’s (1948, 1974) findings that the effectiveness of a manager cannot only be driven by the pure existence of managerial traits and characteristics.

38

II Literature Review

2.4.2.2 Individual Perception In 1984 Hambrick and Mason used their model, “Strategic Choice under Conditions of Bounded Rationality”, to explain how a manager “brings a cognitive base and values to a decision, which create a screen between the situation and his/her eventual perception of it” (1984: 195). The model reveals a powerful argument for the Work Activity School, as perception of a situation combined with individual values constitute manager choice. In addition to this sequential and unidirectional view, this review also acknowledges the integrative role of perception in the nature of managerial choice. Marshall and Stewart (1981) argue that managers predominantly perceive opportunities to be externally controlled, which they are satisfied and content with. It follows that managers hardly create choices themselves for their managerial job. However, managers also appear to have a limited field of vision, as Stewart (1982) notes: “Managers differ markedly in their recognition of the existence of this choice and of the need to exercise it” (1982: 30). One important aspect of choice, selective perception, is mentioned by Brewer and Tomlinson (1964), who argue that the manager has to distinguish between the signals and noise that is sent out by the highly complex system – the organization. Lau et al. have made an associated critique (1980), finding that managers in the public sector perceive discrepancies between what they are doing and what they should be doing as a result of pressure, job demands, and bureaucratic requirements. Managers do not usually think of their jobs as offering them opportunities for choice to identify and consider strategically (Marshall and Stewart, 1981). Therefore, this perception also appears to be associated with the individual interpretations of managers in their jobs. In this respect, Muir and Langford (1994) note that the reasonable success of owner-managers is due to intuitive judgment. It follows that the activity patterns are based on different perceptions regarding strategy, structure, and environment (Merz and Sauber, 1995). Such perceptions may also change. Dopson, Risk, and Stewart (1992) note that middle managers have a greater importance than in the past because, among other things, middle management is increasingly seen by top management as being able to influence the performance of the organization. 2.4.2.3 Preferences Several authors have mentioned that managers’ activities suggest that they control little of what they do (Mintzberg, 1973). But despite the preponderance of obligations, the manager appears to be able to control his own affairs (Mintzberg, 1971). With initial commitments and promises that then lock the manager into a set of ongoing activities; the manager can take advantage of his obligations by extracting information, by exercising his leadership, and in many other ways. Managers therefore have to have preferences and to “decide, on inadequate data, which refer to transient phenomena and which to long-term trends” (Brewer and Tomlinson, 1964: 197).

2 The Work Activity School

39

In respect to preferences, Lawler et al. (1968) note that managers tend to value episodes they initiate more highly than ones initiated for them and that contacts with their superiors are valued more highly than contacts with their subordinates. Pearson et al. (2003) have found that in Japan the concept of the organization as a family predominates in order to emphasize the unilateral benevolence of management (Pearson et al., 2003: 106). Recent research has revealed a trend towards increased managerial responsibility to stakeholders from the financial community (Tengblad, 2002; Poole et al., 2003; Robinson and Shimizu, 2006). These results show in part that such a focus is a shift away from focusing on national actors, such as government and trade associations, and towards financial and commercial international stakeholders (Tengblad, 2002). In general, the CEOs of Japanese firms are now focusing more on external factors, with greater emphasis on shareholders and less attention to employees (Robinson and Shimizu, 2006). Managers also clearly favor verbal contacts, spending most of their time in this manner (Mintzberg, 1973: 51; Beckurts and Reichwald, 1984; Pribilla et al., 1996). This strong preference for the verbal media is accompanied by a dislike of documented communication (Mintzberg, 1971; Schreyögg and Hübl, 1992). “The managers demonstrate[d] a preference for tasks of short duration and encouraged interruption” (Mintzberg, 1971: 100). Following from this, managers prefer issues that are current, specific, and ad hoc (Mintzberg, 1973; Kurke and Aldrich, 1983; Schreyögg and Hübl, 1992; Pribilla et al., 1996). The interruptive nature of a managerial job is commented on further by Mintzberg, who notes that “the manager actually appears to prefer brevity and interruption in his work. He becomes conditioned by his workload; he develops an appreciation for the opportunity costs of his own time; and he lives continuously with an awareness of what else might or must be done at any time. Superficiality is an occupational hazard of the manager’s job” (Mintzberg 1973: 50). Lujik’s (1963) findings are in line with this interpretation, stating that managers allow too much interruption (1963: 66).

2.4.3

Activity

As suggested in the previous sections, a managerial job’s demands, constraints, and room for choices – however important and objectively observable – shape a manager’s daily activities only to the extent that they are actually perceived by the manager. The result of a manager’s perception of the objective situation, then, is the activity profile (or pattern) for which the manager consciously or unconsciously opts. Research that has examined (a) the activities of managers, (b) the patterns of time allocation to particular activities, (c) the generally observable behavior of the manager, and (d) the manager’s role within the organization falls within the activity profile.

40

II Literature Review

Regarding differences in behavior, Kotter mentions that the “behavior of the general manager was shaped by both job and personal characteristics. Knowledge of only one or the other seems insufficient for prediction with any accuracy of how a general manager approached the job and what he did each day.” (Kotter 1982: 129). 2.4.3.1 Activities Managerial activities, that is, the working processes of managers, have been the focus of management scholars of the Work Activity School. Studying managerial activities is important because, as Mintzberg suggests, the management science community can help solve the problems of senior management only if it understands managers’ working habits (Mintzberg, 1971: 98). Indeed, understanding the main activities of managers is expected to help identify the “communalities in training contexts across a range of management jobs” (Pheysey, 1972: 161). This may, in turn, help improve the design of management development programs and executive courses. However, the nature of managerial activity has proven to be a difficult notion to study. Fayol ([1916] 1949) provided one of the early formulations of managerial activities, consisting of the following: (1) plan, (2) organize, (3) coordinate, and (4) control. Subsequent studies by Carlson (1951), Luijk (1963), Brewer and Tomlinson (1964), Sayles (1964), and Mintzberg (1970, 1971) have rejected this oversimplified view of management’s working habits. As Mintzberg once put it, “[Fayol’s four activities] tell us little about what managers do. At best, they indicate some vague objectives managers have when they work” (Mintzberg, [1975] 1990: 163). With the abolition of the view of the manager as “a reflective, systematic planner” (Mintzberg, 1975: 164), research of the Work Activity School has come to acknowledge that the activities of managers are characterized by brevity, variety, and discontinuity (Mintzberg, 1975: 164). Lau, Newman, and Broedling have found that managers typically work “at an unrelenting pace with little free time, and that their activities are characterized by variety, interruptions, and unscheduled events” (1980: 915). Horne and Lupton (1965) have found that managers do not spend much time with policy-making and planning. Rather, much of the managers’ time is spent talking with another person, mostly face-to-face, or informally in small groups. Stewart (1967) has observed that discussions take up more than half the managers’ time. Research has observed that managers engage in informal, unplanned activities, such as private affairs, more often than previously accounted for (Copeman et al., 1963), taking an interest in the personal problems of employees (Pheysey, 1972) or socializing/politicking (Luthans et al., 1985; Luthans and Lockwood, 1984).

2 The Work Activity School

41

A look at the literature reveals that scholars have used various categories of classifying managerial activities in time. Criteria for classification include the following, among others: • Time spent (time duration of actions or episodes) (see also Carlson, 1951; Burns, 1957; Copeman et al., 1963; Dubin and Spray, 1964; Horne and Lupton, 1965; Mintzberg, 1973; Kurke and Aldrich, 1983; Doktor, 1983; Doktor, 1990; Boisot and Liang, 1992; Pribilla et al., 1996; Lubatkin et al., 1997; Tengblad, 2002; Robinson and Shimizu, 2006), • Place of activity (i.e. location: office, elsewhere inside company, home, transportation, etc.) (see also Burns, 1954, 1957; Horne and Lupton, 1965; Mintzberg, 1973; Kurke and Aldrich, 1983; Muir and Langford, 1994; Snyder and Glueck, 1980; Schreyögg and Hübl, 1992; Pribilla et al., 1996; Tengblad, 2002; Tengblad, 2006), • Mode of activity (e.g. meeting, tour, telephone, deskwork, etc.) (see also Guest, 1956; Burns, 1957; Brewer and Tomlinson, 1964; Dubin and Spray, 1964; Mintzberg, 1973; Snyder and Glueck, 1980; Martin and Willower, 1981; Kurke and Aldrich, 1983; Kmetz and Willower, 1982; Martinko and Gardener, 1990; Boisot and Liang, 1992; Schreyögg and Hübl, 1992; Muir and Langford, 1994; Pribilla et al., 1996; Hales and Mustapha, 2000; Florén and Tell 2004; Akella, 2006; Tengblad, 2006), • Contact (director, subordinate, co-director, peer or trade organization, client, supplier and associate, independent and other, etc.) (see also Burns, 1954, 1957; Guest, 1956; Ponder, 1957; Copeman et al., 1963; Dubin and Spray, 1964; Mintzberg, 1973; Horne and Lupton, 1965; Snyder and Glueck, 1980; Kurke and Aldrich, 1983; Boisot and Liang, 1992; Schreyögg and Hübl, 1992; Pribilla et al., 1996; Tenblad, 2002; Florén and Tell, 2004; Robinson and Shimizu, 2006), • Size of meeting (executive and one/two/three/four+ person(s)) (see also Mintzberg, 1973; Snyder and Glueck, 1980; Kurke and Aldrich, 1983; Tengblad, 2006), • Initiator of activity (self-initiated, opposing party, mutual, clock, etc.) (see also Dubin and Spray, 1964; Mintzberg, 1973; Snyder and Glueck, 1980; Kurke and Aldrich, 1983; Martinko and Gardener, 1990; Noel, 1989; Boisot and Liang, 1992), • Subject of activity (function/activity: finance, legal, accounting, purchasing, production, product development, marketing, sales, personnel, public, investor relation, organizing planning, etc.) (see also Carlson, 1951; Burns, 1954, 1957, 1970; Brewer and Tomlinson, 1964; Dubin and Spray, 1964; Thomason, 1966/67; Horne and Lupton, 1965; Noel, 1989; Hales and Tamangani, 1996; Tengblad, 2002), • Purpose of activity (observational tours, receiving and giving information, review, decision making, strategy, negotiation, manager request, external board contact, ceremony, scheduling, organizational work, etc.) (see also Carlson, 1951; Ponder,

42

II Literature Review

1957; Burns, 1957; Brewer and Tomlinson, 1964; Horne and Lupton, 1965; Snyder and Glueck, 1980; Mintzberg, 1973; Kurke and Aldrich, 1983; Martinko and Gardener, 1990; Hales and Mustapha, 2000; Tengblad, 2002). More recent accounts of managerial work suggest that the nature of managerial jobs has changed since the foundational studies of Tom Burns, Sune Carlson, Henry Mintzberg and Rosemary Stewart. Tengblad, for instance, has found that managerial work today is characterized by “a much larger workload, a contact pattern to a larger degree oriented towards subordinates in group-settings, a greater emphasis on giving information, and less preoccupation with administrative work” (2006: 1437) compared to Mintzberg’s findings in 1973. Akella’s dotcom managers described their jobs “as something of a virtual office, i.e., seven days, 24 hour office” (2006: 237), which suggests that “the managers don’t really have a working day where they allocate so much time to each activity. Instead each day has its own unique characteristics, and new problems, which demand that the managers constantly change their managerial style to deal with them.” (Akella, 2006: 237). Studying managerial activities is also important because of their potential contribution to firm success, despite the fact that they are not the predominant focus of the Work Activity School. There is sufficient evidence in the literature to suggest that managerial activities can contribute to firm success (e.g. Luthans et al., 1985; Luthans et al., 1993; Merz and Sauber, 1995). In their study of small firms, Merz and Sauber found that the managerial activities of the CEOs and presidents were a key contributor to continued firm success and expansion (1995: 552). In their study of Russian managers, Luthans et al. (1993) found that managers’ networking and communication activity was positively related to their effectiveness. As mentioned earlier, hardly any differences are found between executive activities in public and private organizations. Lau et al. (1980) have found “that both public and private sector executives perform the same kind of activities, both in terms of complexity of job content and roles, and in terms of job characteristics, i.e., the fragmented, high pressure quick reaction nature of executive positions” (1980: 915). 2.4.3.2 Time Distribution To provide an alternative formulation of managers’ working habits, various studies have examined different activities with respect to the distribution of time. When Carlson (1951) studied the upper management at the work location, his findings showed that managers spent 44% of their working time outside the firm (33% conferences and visits, 3% traveling, and 8% at home). Stewart (1967) also noted that most managers spend some time outside their own establishment. In contrast to Carlson, the average was only 25% for time out of the office, though some of the sales managers

2 The Work Activity School

43

were away for more than half their time. Horne and Lupton (1965) contributed the knowledge that managers at higher levels spend a greater proportion of their time in external locations. Because external contacts consume one-third to one-half of the manager’s contact time, Mintzberg understands managerial work to stand between the organization and a network of contacts (1973: 51). Scholars have also made findings in terms of the amount of contact in relationships with different levels of the organization. For example, Mintzberg (1973) showed different time distributions concerning subordinates and superiors. While subordinates consume one-third to one-half of their time, managers spend significantly less time with their superiors (1973). Jasinski (1956) had previously contributed that “the most effective foremen spend more time outside their group than with their own employees” (1956: 130). It may be that upper management spends more time outside the group and that the number of managers at higher levels is usually smaller than at lower levels. But, with respect to the time spent inside the company, Burns (1954) noted that most of managerial time was spent with a small group of people, and a further significant proportion of time in the managerial group itself. Therefore, the manager tends to focus socially (1954: 96). Martin and Willower (1981) found that, in contrast to private managers, high school principals spent comparatively little time on affairs external to the school organizations (1981). In 1962, Copeman pointed out that “there is no doubt that chief executives spend longer on the job than heads of the department” (1962: 2). The same author has argued that this may be the reason why managers spend little time planning and drafting reports. This important creative work is often “done in the late evening, usually at the office though sometimes at home” (1962: 9). Also, Horne and Lupton (1965) note that “time actually spent in solitary reflection and decision is very small” (1965: 31). Some researchers, including Mintzberg (1973), argue that managers do not allocate much time to planning activities. In contrast, Snyder and Glueck’s major finding “is that while the planning activities in which managers engage could appear to be unrelated at first glance, many of them are related because they are part of a program being planned by the manager” (Snyder and Glueck 1980: 75). Therefore, such scholars find, “managers do plan” (1980: 75). Doktor finds differences in time distribution between managers in Western and Asian cultures. He notes that “while the proportion of time devoted to different types of activities is very similar for Japanese and American CEOs, the amounts of time consumed by these activities are strikingly different” (Doktor, 1983: 68). Later, with further data from Hong Kong and Korea, he finds that “the basic group-oriented structures found in Asia necessitate a sensitivity to human relations: The CEO is an important social leader … Thus, both internal and

44

II Literature Review

external transactions typically cannot be hurried without causing offence; ritual proprieties and courtesies must be observed” (Doktor 1990: 54). Pribilla et al. (1996) find that the model of using telemedia influences the average duration of executive activities’ time intervals devoted to each task. While managers who make no or only limited use of e-mail and voice mail have the shortest average time intervals at nine minutes, managers with an e-mail-supporting office management have average working intervals of 19 minutes. In addition, managers who make intensive and autarkic use of e-mail and voice mail spend two-fifths of their time working from the home-office, while the office-supported manager spends, on average, four-fifths of his or her time in the home-office (Pribilla et al., 1996: 236). In this context, Pribilla et al. studied multi-office managers whose home-offices were meant to be the ones in the headquarters. In a longitudinal comparison with Mintzberg (1973), Goecke (1997) finds that the average net time spent communicating face-to-face has remained the same (1997: 145). However, the average duration of a working day had increased from approximately eight hours in 1973 to almost nine and a half hours in the 1990s (1997: 146). Also, the number of work intervals per day had increased from twenty-two in 1973 to forty-one in the 1990s (1997: 149). 2.4.3.3 Behavior The Work Activity School devoted considerable attention to behavioral research. Different taxonomies and conceptualization of behavior were developed empirically by the Work Activity School, and most of the behaviors were understood to be associated with a set of roles (Mintzberg, 1973; Kurke and Aldrich, 1983). For instance, Mintzberg makes use of different categories with his interpersonal, informational, and decisional behaviors, which he understands to make up managerial work. As different taxonomies are possible, it is especially difficult to sort and systematically report on research contributions in the field of behaviors. In this review all contributions regarding managerial behaviors with an informational and communicational nature were made with relating behaviors to performance. Kelly noted in 1964 that effective managers tend to be considerably more oriented towards dealings with boards as well as with subordinates, while less effective managers are more relationship-oriented and show a strong tendency towards close informal ties with people. Concerning IT-use behavior, Pinsonneault and Rivard (1998) have found that heavy IT users pay greater attention to and spend more time on the roles they perform best with the technology and may in fact be embarking on a trajectory towards overspecialization. With respect to decision-making behaviors, Noël (1989) finds a clear relationship between the behaviors of CEOs that keep the organization aligned with its strategy. He goes even further, saying that

2 The Work Activity School

45

“CEOs will more or less enact the environmental and organizational conditions of strategy making – the strategic cores” (Noël 1989: 44). The decisions of managers are explained by Stewart as managerial habits and/or instincts. But in managerial behavior there is “a marked tendency for interaction to be initiated downwards rather than upwards” (1954: 96). Burns (1954) emphasized the importance of interpersonal behaviors of managers: “While, outside the department, members of the executive group develop distinctive external milieu, generally related to level and function, status is strongly influenced by the direction of communication throughout the organization” (Burns 1954: 96). Also, Jasinski notes in a study of foremen that effective managers spend more time outside their work group than with their own employees. “A common method of boundary management is to build up a network of friendly and useful contacts by the exchange of favors and pleasantries. Other methods are planning, and political calculations of who needs to be influenced and how to do so.” (Stewart 1982: 30) But interpersonal interaction remains brief, varied, fragmented, and interpersonal in nature (Martinko and Gardner, 1990). In their cross-cultural comparison, Boisot and Liang (1992) note that “it appears that although Chinese enterprise managers in the sample share many behavioral characteristics with their US counterparts, they do so in an institutional setting that places a different construction on their behaviors. In particular, the analysis suggests that the Chinese firm is not available to them as an extension of their managerial prerogative and, if anything, is institutionally designed to constrain it. In such a setting, opportunistic behavior expresses a personal survival strategy rather than a quest for personal gain” (Boisot and Liang, 1992: 161). Cross-cultural differences are also found by Kosaka (2004), with the support of the collectivity culture hypothesis. Kosaka finds a similar managerial behavior among Japanese companies in the same industry, supporting the hypothesis of a “unique culture of collectivity” (Kosaka, 2004: 293). Some behaviors can also have a negative impact, since managers don’t do what they should. According to Guest (1956) operating emergencies are one prominent cause of managers having neither the time nor the inclination to practice the fine precepts of human relations training programs. In addition, Lujik (1963: 51–53) notes that managers usually do too much of the simple and difficult work themselves. In this respect, Kayworth (2005) mentions the different effectiveness of managerial behavior according to particular circumstances. Matching behavior with circumstances, such as the demands, constraints, and choices described in this review, leads to a contingency understanding of managerial roles.

46

II Literature Review

Finally, Pribilla, Reichwald, and Goecke (1996) describes three different behavioral models of telemedia usage in upper management: the traditional model (no or rare use of e-mail or voice mail, intensive use of the telephone and conventional letter post), the autarky model (intensive and personal use of e-mail and/or voice mail), and the cooperative model (intensive use of e-mail via printouts from the office manager, autarkic use of e-mail only in special situations and on travels). Pribilla et al. (1996: 205–206) note that the three models are determined neither by the organization nor by the respective culture. Influencing factors in their managerial model are personal preferences and cooperative structure. While the behaviors of Mintzberg, for example, were developed from observed activities that follow an objective, the described models are more a pattern how to use telecommunication media. Finally, Stewart (1976) has provided a task-oriented typology of managerial behavior. Accordingly, managers fall into four general categories depending on their position and pattern of activities: system maintenance (characterized by recurrent activities, a very fragmented day, and relatively frequent troubleshooting), system administration (characterized by a great deal of recurrent work under deadline), project (characterized by long-term, mainly non-recurrent and self-initiated work needing sustained attention), and mixed (no marked characteristics other than that it allows the jobholder more choice in the pattern of his work) (Stewart, 1976: 46–47). 2.4.3.4 Managerial Roles Mintzberg calls managerial roles the “theory of what managers do” (1973: 54). Such predetermined roles are played by individuals and each role is interpreted in different ways by actors, managers, and others. This chapter introduces the “roles” or “theor[ies] of what managers do” that were found throughout the literature review. As Mintzberg also notes, there are many sets of possible roles and his view on managerial work is just one among several others (1973: 55). In his observational research, Mintzberg (1970, 1971, 1975) found that all the activities of managers involved one or more of three basic behaviors – interpersonal contact, information processing, and decision making – each of which is associated with several roles. Mintzberg identifies three interpersonal roles: the figurehead (the manager as a symbol), the leader (motivating subordinates and developing the milieu in which they work), and the liaison (networking with external contacts to bring information and favors to the organization). Informational roles, in turn, are the nerve center or monitor (obtaining and generalizing internal and external information), disseminator (transmitting information to subordinates), and spokesman (transmitting information to outsiders). Finally, decision-making roles include entrepreneur (initiating and designing controlled voluntary change in the organization), disturbance handler (dealing with corrections the manager is forced to make), resource allocator (controlling the process of resource allocation), and negotiator (participating in nego-

2 The Work Activity School

47

tiation activity). Mintzberg argues that the ten roles “form a gestalt, a unified whole whose parts cannot be considered in isolation” (1971: 103). Follow-up replication research by Kurke and Aldrich found has supported Mintzberg’s findings “in all important dimensions” (1983: 975). Zabid (1987), however, has found that the work roles of Malysian managers can be categorized according to an extended list of fifteen managerial roles based on prior research (including Mintzberg, 1971; Lau et al., 1980; Chitayat, 1980; Anastassopoulos and Larcon, 1978; Lynn Jr., 1981; Walters and Monsen, 1981). This list is not consistent with the classifications made by Mintzberg (1973) and Shapira and Dunbar (1980). Therefore, Zabid has proposed another formulation. Accordingly, the work roles of managers can be classified into three main categories: internal (including the roles of entrepreneur, leader, administrator, monitor, custodian, liaison, and resource allocator), external (including the roles of lobbyist, disturbance handler, spokesman, and figurehead), and internal-external (including the roles of negotiator, technical expert, strategist, and disseminator). While Zabid hardly describes his roles in further detail, he concludes that the role models of Mintzberg (1973) and others are generalizable only to a limited extent. Another important finding of Zabid’s is that the importance of managerial roles varies according to the type of organization. The picture of roles changes with the analysis by Rodham, who enhances our ability to understand not only: “what it is the role incumbent does, but also why he/she does these things, which in turn enhances our understanding of his/her role … The word ‘choose’ here is important, for it implies that the role incumbent has some influence over his/her role behavior … [the] role can change when the situation changes, thereby demonstrating the dynamic nature of role. Using the notion of frame analysis allows the dynamics of role to be identified and is an important lens through which to view organizational interaction and role behaviour” (Rodham, 2000: 79). Akella (2006), in turn, commented on how managerial roles may be used to manipulate subordinates: “Managers now enact the roles of a guide, leader and coach to subtly manipulate employees and give the illusion of being self-motivated and self-controlled. To fulfill these new roles, managers now spend most of their time with communicating with employees, peers, clients and superiors in a formal manner, usually talking across the cabin walls, or walking into each offices and talking it over, developing and maintaining contacts with each other and negotiating with clients.” (Akella, 2006: 238). Pearson et al. (2003) have found empirical evidence “to suggest that Japanese managers are finding it difficult to resolve the dilemmas inherent in ‘transaction’ or ‘market like’ managerial roles and the ‘culture’ or ‘context driven’ roles” (Pearson 2003: 107).

48

II Literature Review

The authors hypothesize that “the culturally defined ‘status differential’ enjoyed by Japanese managers over a long period of time is certainly eroding and with that the converging ideologies of managerial roles may begin to change as well” (Pearson et al., 2003: 107).

2.5

Literature Map of the Work Activity School Activity Activity Initial Differences and Similarities Behavior

Work Pattern

Initiation

Change in Behavior Media Use

Managerial Impact Routines

Interaction

Managerial Roles

Perception Characteristics Education Style Relationship Preferences

Career Development

Work Activity School

Funktional Expeiences Gender

Perceived Importance

Knowledge Base

Skills

Differences and Similarities

Time Distribution

Social Structure

Tactics

Communication Model

Cultural Job Factors Functional Specialism Stakeholder Organizational Influence Structures Organizational Change Performance Orientation

Opportunities for Choice Demands Information and Communication Technologies Functional Universalism

Object

Choices

Constraints

Job

Figure 10: Literature map of the Work Activity School

Since empirical research of scholars of the Work Activity School is predominantly inductive in nature, the above resulting conceptualization aims to provide a very broad description of the research perspective. The findings of each study were analyzed and then conceptualized visually with the other contributions. While aggregating the results of all studies, three major main themes emerged in an iterative fashion and are used to conceptualize the overall body of the literature of the Work Activity School. Therefore, the literature map is intended to present an overview of the litera-

2 The Work Activity School

49

ture presented above of the Work Activity School that helps others to understand more quickly how the findings relate to the larger literature body on the Work Activity School. A related view was mentioned by John Kotter in 1982 that will be pointed out (see 2.5.6). A more detailed description how the literature map was developed is given in Annex 3. Activities, the working processes of individuals, have been the strongest focus and core of the Work Activity School. Activities are important to study because researchers and practitioners can help solve the problems of management only if there is an understanding for working habits (Mintzberg, 1971). Research has examined managerial activities and patterns of time allocation, generally observable behavior of the manager, and sets of roles within the organization. Such predetermined roles are played by individuals, and each role is interpreted in different ways by respective objects in their job. This is a thesis about executive work and, thus, aims to explore executive activities, time allocation, and sets of executive roles. Therefore, the primary focus of the thesis will be on developing a theory of what the executive does rather than to exploring the executive job or the executive individual. In so doing, the thesis will aim to propose a set of roles among several others that may be possible.

2.6

Major Contributions and Scholars of the Work Activity School

The Work Activity School has developed throughout the last 60 years (e.g. Carlson, 1951; Burns, 1954; Horne and Lupton, 1965; Stewart, 1967), and the renewed interest in work activities and managerial work can be attributed to a number of studies (e.g. Mintzberg, 1973; Hales, 1986; Martinko and Gardner, 1990; Pribilla et al., 1996; Tengblad, (2002). The following list covers the contributions of those scholars who are thought to be of lasting and outstanding value for the Work Activity School. It is an overview of the Work Activity School from its beginnings, and it presents a limited number of studies while the overall literature review included seventy-five research contributions. While five contributions have been comparatively more often cited in English textbooks on managerial work, behavior, and management (Carlson, 1951; Sayles, 1964; Stewart, 1967; Mintzberg, 1973; Kotter, 1974), two further scholars have been selected to be presented in the following discussion of so far lower recognition. Ralf Reichwald triggered, initiated, and conducted two major studies with his associated fellows (Beckurts and Reichwald, 1984; Pribilla et al., 1996; Goecke, 1997) that have developed the Work Activity School within the German research society. His contributions have focused on the understanding of information and communication technology in managerial work. Stefan Tengblad has paid enormous attention to linking his

50

II Literature Review

research to previous contributions from Henry Mintzberg and Rosemary Stewart (Tengblad, 2002; Tengblad, 2003; Tengblad, 2004; Tengblad, 2006), thus making it possible to view the trajectory of the Work Activity School throughout the last 60 years in a consistent and linear fashion. Moreover, Tengblad showed a new fragmentation and focus of managerial work in his contributions (Tengblad, 2002). Table 1: Major contributors of the Work Activity School ,

+!

*

 ' 

    

  )  
$+ =  3 3 

 9 !  
    =  # !    !

4  

  #  %  !
$+ =  ' ( 3 

 4      !  ! (  

"  

 4   

  )  
$+ =  3   * 

 +        ! D (=  +  

: 5(!

  #  %  ! $+ =  6 3 

 )   
   =  % !     !   !!  ! D (=  *(    

" "

 4!  3 B C
$+ =  3    9  9  C=  % 3 B C


     6=  '     ! !  =  #         !  !  

8  ; 

 :  3 
$+

 8 ( !   

 %!(

 6>( ! 3 
$+ =  3  ' !  7 @

 4!       (   =  9!   !  

2.6.1

Foundational Contributions by Sune Carlson

Carlson, born in 1909, studied at the Stockholm School of Economics and received his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago in 1936. Throughout his doctoral studies Carlson visited the University of Vienna and Columbia University. He returned to Sweden to work for his academic advisor Bertil Ohlin (Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 1977) in 1937, but moved increasingly from Economics to Business Administration and Management in the following years. During a trip to the USA, Carlson suggested the idea of studying what managers really do to the head of the American Management Association, Alvin Johnson, and his research director, Ernest Dale. While these scholars found his idea fascinating, they questioned the likelihood of finding managers who were willing to participate (Tengblad, 2003). However, Carlson succeeded in finding nine CEOs who were graduates of the Royal College of Technology of the Stockholm School of Economics and the Universities of Lund and Uppsala (Carlson, 1951).

2 The Work Activity School

51

Carlson’s book Executive Behaviour (1951) was written at a time when speculative and qualitative theories were criticized in administrative science and management, and when methodologies with defined concepts and which tested hypotheses were regarded as ideal (e.g. Gulick, 1937). In contrast, Carlson argued that the research in the contemporary literature speculated with its defined concepts about what managers did or should do rather than actually observing what they did. Carlson thought that such abstract constructs of contemporary research could not be related to sets of managerial operations. In his writings, Carlson paralleled the criticism of administrative theory of Simon (Simon, 1947). In fact, “Executive Behaviour describes the first systematic study ever made of top managers at work” (Tengblad, 2003: 85). The systematic observation used a positivistic epistemology and sought to discover what managers really do. Carlson studied managers according to five dimensions in this prominent study; these served as a point of reference for later publications of the Work Activity School: place of work, contacts with persons and institutions, technique of communication, nature of question handled, and kind of action (Carlson, 1951). Following the methodological and conceptual introduction in chapters one and two of the book Executive Behaviour, Carlson devotes the third chapter to the social environment of managerial work. This chapter describes the characteristics of the executive group, the organizational structure in which they work, and the relationship of firms with the society at large (Carlson, 1951). The fourth chapter presents the results of Carlson’s empirical study. The author describes where the managers work and for how many hours. Next, Carlson outlines the managerial activities outside and inside the firm during the investigation period and during weekdays, and follows this with explanations about managerial work at inspection tours and visits to worksites and offices. He also provides notation on the managers’ time for reading and contemplation. The fourth chapter concludes with an analysis of the total workload of the observed managers. The fifth chapter, on communication problems, deals primarily with the contacts that managers meet and the communication (media) used. Next, the sixth chapter presents an analysis of the managers’ communication on subordinate visits, the frequency and duration of visits, the nature of the questions handled, and the kinds of managerial actions that occur. Finally, Executive Behaviour concludes with a discussion of the findings, as well as a discussion of the need to study managerial work with regard to its social context and physical environment. The method of Carlson deserves special attention, as it turned out to be a guide for the later research of the Work Activity School. With this foundational empirical study, Carlson counterbalanced the predominant view of administrative science and

52

II Literature Review

management with positivistic, qualitative, and interpretative research. But, as can also be noted with regard to further research from the Work Activity School, Carlson made moderate contributions to theory and theory development. Stefan Tengblad revisited Carlson’s study in 2003 and notes that “‘Executive Behaviour’ is not included in standard accounts of the evolution of management research, but the book deserves recognition on the part of management scholars who want to be aware of the origins of their subject area, in particular for understanding the meeting between scientific management and empirical research in organizational behaviour.” (Tengblad, 2003: 100). Again, while Mintzberg was the first to mention the research school, Carlson can be viewed as the founding scholar of the Work Activity School.

2.6.2

Lateral Relationships and Systematic Understanding by Leonard Sayles

Leonard Sayles started his study Managerial Behavior (Sayles, 1964) after graduating from the doctoral program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology after World War II. One of the “strength[s] of the program was the implicit emphasis in industrial relations on the field (observation and interviewing), inductive conceptualization, and continuous testing of theory by real world assessment.” (Sayles 1999: 7). First, Sayles spent about a year with IBM managers because he did not know what managers did or what they had to do. Drawing from the field of anthropology, Sayles made use of triangulation to learn how events are perceived differently by managers. Moreover, he reconstructed the recurring social processes that make up individual challenges with the components of who did what, when, where, and why. By emphasizing non-survey data, he drew a picture of a new management challenge at that time. With the book Managerial Behavior (Sayles 1964), Sayles presented a very early study that proposed the idea of diverse managerial activities and interactions as being necessary in order to be effective in complex environments. Leonard Sayles introduced the idea that many management researchers oversimplified the concept of management. He criticized the understanding of the context as being too traditional, bounded, and with objectives that were too trivial. In contrast, Sayles’ research contributed to the Work Activity School by seeking to discover highpressure environments and jobs. This included an “emphasis on the importance of lateral rather than vertical relationships. This is now a commonplace, and has become even more important in the new forms of organization where many of the people with whom managers must work are outside the organization, often providing contractual services” (Stewart, 1999: 17).

2 The Work Activity School

53

Furthermore, Sayles developed a systems concept for the Work Activity School in his contribution from 1964. He argued that his systems concept emphasized the fact that managerial assignments do not have neat and clearly defined boundaries; rather managers are positioned in a network of mutually dependent relationships (Sayles, 1964). He proposed the enduring objective for managers to maintain and build a system of predictable and reciprocating relationships. In that way he could introduce regularity into the environment that will never allow him to achieve the ideal. Thus, planning and decision-making turn out to be separate activities, but decision-making turns out to be a social process that is defined by social interaction. Interestingly, Stewart notes that Sayles’ Managerial Behavior experienced relatively limited popularity because “its methods were not described and its findings do not lend themselves so easily to quantification in later studies; perhaps also because it describes a more complex picture and is less assertive about the findings” (Stewart, 1999: 19).

2.6.3

Demands, Constraints, and Choices of Jobs by Rosemary Stewart

After graduating from the London School of Economics in United Kingdom (U.K.), Rosemary Stewart worked for the Acton Society Trust, an organization that studied the human and organizational problems of large private and public organizations in the U.K. Stewart met senior and middle managers and trade union officials for semi-structured interviews and group discussions in order to write reports and booklets. These studies included work on the management development and succession practices and policies of the U.K.’s 50 largest firms in the manufacturing industry. The Acton Society Trust tried to influence policy and management thinking with these written documents. As a young woman, Rosemary Stewart was inspired through her initial work to further study what managers do and how managers think about their jobs. In the early 1960s Stewart married an academic in pure mathematics from the University of Oxford and registered to do her doctorate at the London School of Economics. Her major reason for writing a dissertation was that the married couple planned to live in the USA, and Rosemary Stewart thought that she would need a doctorate to work in a university overseas (Stewart, 2003). Stewart first published her thoughts in the book Managers and Their Jobs before she rewrote it for an external dissertation. Stewart’s major interest for the following 30 years was managerial jobs as an academic at the University of Oxford. She was well aware of other scholars of the Work Activity School, as she reported in 2003 that her “research and thinking was, of course, also influenced by the work of others, initially Sune Carlson (1951) and later particularly by Leonard Sayles’‘Managerial Behavior’ (1964), and John Kotter’s ‘Mayors in Action’ (1974) and its development in ‘The General Manager’ (1982)” (Stewart, 2003: 199).

54

II Literature Review

Stewart’s most renowned contribution is the model of demands, constraints, and choices that “developed out of research that belongs to the Work Activity School” (Stewart 1982: 8). Out of previous studies (Stewart, 1967; Stewart, 1976; Stewart et al., 1980; Marshall and Stewart, 1981), Stewart proposed the model, which “can be pictured as consisting of an inner core of demands, an outer boundary of constraints, and an in-between area of choices” (Stewart, 1982: 9). These demands, constraints, and choices, described by Stewart in 1982, will be introduced in the following discussion. Stewart describes the nature of demands as being twofold. On the one hand, managers have to meet specific performance indicators. These indicators may be defined by an amount of revenue or a quantity of units manufactured. On the other hand, there are indicators of a general nature, such as meeting a defined minimum level of performance on a long time scale. These include, for example, bureaucratic procedures that can hardly be delegated or ignored, meetings that need to be attended, and personal involvement in projects. Next, constraints limit the choices of managers. Constraints on available choices in a defined job that are of an organizational nature include, for example, the extent to which the work to be done by the manager’s unit is Table 2: Demands, constraints, and choices  #  )  -  -       & 

*  !       + !           (E %      

   G   F  =   (           = ' F        = 7      ( !   != !   ( 

* 

"   = 4!      = %  !  = $   = *!5             !F   =       E '!      !5 = $    = '!   !

     =     

*

:              '     E % 5     D ( %       !   !  '   (  ! '   !     E % !  F   %         % (    %       ! %    !5   (  

(Stewart, 1982b: 3)

2 The Work Activity School

55

defined. Certain jobs have a defined area of operation that no manager can change. Examples include a store manager who needs to operate his business within the physical constraints of the store and the company policies or a sales manager who is limited to given products and a geographically bounded area. Jobs may offer opportunities for choice outside the manager’s unit, for example, in upper-management levels or in larger, more complex organizations where the manager can choose to work inside or outside the unit, as well as inside or outside the organization. Furthermore, jobs offer the opportunity of job sharing, as noted in several publications (Hodgson et al., 1965; Stewart et al., 1980; Stewart, 1982). Another choice left to particular jobs is the option to become an expert – for example, to become a regional specialist in addition to performing regular managerial work. Choices, but also demands and constraints, are presented in more detail in the figure above from Rosemary Stewart (1982). Throughout her academic career, Stewart utilized her methods with great clarity of scientific analysis. In addition to the model of demands, constraints and choices, Rosemary Stewart is well known for her significant and meaningful use of the diary method (e.g. 1967). While she also used techniques such as group discussion and direct observation, Stewart was often cited for her diary method that allows exploring managerial activities. (Stewart, 1967; Stewart, 1976; Stewart et al., 1980; Stewart, 1982; Stewart et al., 1994). Stewart began using the diary method after consulting the works of Tom Burns, Sune Carlson, and Carroll Shartle (Stewart, 1965). In May 1965 The Journal of Management Studies published an article by Stewart, The Use of Diaries to Study Managers’ Jobs (Stewart, 1965). She describes her experiences with using diaries as a means of studying managers’ jobs in order to come up with similarities in, and differences between, managers’ jobs (Stewart, 1965). She finishes the article with a detailed description of the advantages and disadvantages of using diaries. With the diary method, Stewart asked managers to report on diary sheets where they did their work, with whom they worked, how they worked, what they did in terms of content, and when they did each activity. Particularly her early contribution, Managers and Their Jobs, demonstrated the power of this very diary method and showed the fragmentation of managerial work (Stewart, 1967). An example of such a diary is given above. The generation of younger US scholars seems less familiar with the work of Rosemary Stewart. Lowe points out that there are two major reasons for this: A “region-centric ‘crowding-out’ effect when research agendas appear, on casual inspection, to be similar” and “the tendency for US scholars to treat ‘leadership’ research as distinct from ‘managerial work’ research” (Lowe, 2003: 193). Similarly, Stewart points out that she was interested in managerial jobs and behavior. She herself thought not about doing research on leadership at that time (Stewart, 2003). As an academic study, leadership has a different importance in the USA as compared to the

56

II Literature Review

Table 3: Sample diary %  ! #H IIIIII + E : IIIIII  IIIIII
 .  &&.+&
/  H IIIIII     H IIIIII  1   H IIIIII (/  3

(/3

/(3

(/$
3

0

* *

R

#&%)"&4 7 

R

' 

0

9

-

* 

Q

7 P ( 

Q

+ 

-

6 !

1

* 

0



0

   !

1

!  

K

)

-

( 

-

 

K

$ 

J

: 

1

( P ( 

1

% !

J

$  

.

% !

K

' !

K

9!  

.

$( " 

J

9  

J

"! 

/

$!

.

* 

.

!  ' !

N

"  +  

/

* 

/

*  

M

N

)O%)"&4 ' 

N

# 

M



M

4  ' 

L

* 

L

% !

0


12*1
$*
 $ 

% 

# H

7 

0

0

0



-

-

-

( 

1

1

1

*  * 

K

K

K

)

J

J

J

(Stewart, 1967: 163)

United Kingdom and other Western European countries (Stewart, 1982). Therefore, much of Stewart’s research could have been relabeled to contribute to the academic study of “leadership” (Stewart, 2003). Rosemary Stewart made invaluable, sustainable contributions that have helped shaping a great part on managerial jobs of the Work Activity School, both method-

2 The Work Activity School

57

ologically and conceptually. Her passion for innovative methodological approaches has triggered numerous discussions and thus has led to new perspectives for looking at managerial jobs. Her model of demands, constraints, and choices has already shown great relevance and applicability in institutional and cross-cultural contexts (e.g. Stewart et al., 1994). The powerful model is simple in structure and integrates easily into existing and developing theories from its own and other disciplines. It can be hypothesized that Stewart’s model of demands, constraints, and choices has not yet reached its peak of attention of both practitioners and academic scholars.

2.6.4

The Theory of Managerial Work by Henry Mintzberg

When Mintzberg was enrolled to the doctoral program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the USA, the head of NASA wanted to be studied. While nobody other than Mintzberg had the remotest interest in management itself, he took this approach and looked at what managers do (Martin de Holan and Mintzberg, 2004). Both Henry Mintzberg and Leonard Sayles studied as doctoral students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at different times. Mintzberg completed his dissertation The Manager at Work – Determining his Activities, Roles, and Programs by Structured Observation in 1968, four years after Sayles published his book Managerial Behavior. Mintzberg’s dissertation served as a foundational element for his 1973 book, The Nature of Managerial Work. The Nature of Managerial Work presents a follow-up to an analysis of the work of five managers. Mintzberg’s book presents his well-developed thought and findings, throughout all chapters, on the schools of thought in the study of management; the characteristics of managerial work; the content of the manager’s work, induced and summarized in ten roles; the contingencies of managerial work, such as the environment and the individual; the programming of a manager’s work content; and advice to managers, teachers, and scientists on the future of managerial work. Mintzberg reports only on his results and thoughts, while the clear and well-developed methodology is left out and, thus, presented in the comprehensive appendices. These appendices comprise of the presentation of prior studies in the field of management; the methods used to study managerial work; and a report on his research from 1967 to 1968, which were been part of his dissertation. Following the introduction, Mintzberg starts the book by describing contemporary views (research schools) of the management in 1973. Among these eight schools are included the Great Man School and the Leader Behavior School. These schools have more or less developed into the fundamental perspectives of today’s leadership research, such as the trait perspective, the behavioral perspective, the contingency perspective, etc. (see Annex 1 and Möslein, 2005). Among these schools, Mintzberg positions the Work Activity School at the other end of the spectrum from the Classical

58

II Literature Review

Management School (e.g. Fayol, [1916] 1949; Gulick, 1937). While the Classical Management School describes managerial work by theorists and managers in terms of a set of composite functions that tell managers what they should do, the Work Activity School comprises of inductive research that aims only at generating conclusions supported by empirically observed evidence. Mintzberg integrates his study of five chief managers (Mintzberg, 1968; Mintzberg, 1973) into the Work Activity School. In the next chapter, Mintzberg combines the characteristics of managerial work noted in previous studies into a list of propositions. As a brief summary, this paragraph introduces these characteristics. A manager’s job is open in nature, and his mind is also on the job during his “free” time. In contrast to the non-manager, the work is characterized by brevity, variety, and fragmentation, which is also appreciated. Being conditioned by the workload, managers are aware of the opportunity cost of time and prefer live action and verbal media to mail treatment. Scheduled meetings consume most of the manager’s time, and the manager’s contacts span a network of external informants and organizations. One-third to one-half of the manager’s time is spent with subordinates, while very little is spent with superiors. Finally, although most activities suggest that managers control little of what they do, the manager is responsible for many initial commitments that lock him into a set of ongoing activities. He can take advantage of the obligation by using it to extract information. Here, in contrast to the characteristics of managerial work, which include where managers work, how they work, how long they work, etc., it is the content that is described. The content of managerial work is, according to Mintzberg, “what he [the manager] really does” and can be summarized by a set of ten roles. Mintzberg notes that “the manager must design the work of his organization, monitor its internal and external environment, initiate change when desirable, and renew stability when faced with a disturbance. The manager must lead his subordinates to work effectively for the organization, and he must provide them with special information, some of which he gains through the network of contacts that he develops. In addition, the manager must perform a number of ‘housekeeping’ duties, including informing outsiders, serving as figurehead, and leading major negotiations” (Mintzberg, 1973: 169–170). Moreover, these ten roles can be grouped into three behavioral categories: those with interpersonal relationships, those that include information processing, and those that involve making significant decisions. It follows that the content of managerial work is made up of: • Interpersonal roles: figurehead, liason, and leader, • Information roles: monitor, disseminator, and spokesman, • Decisional roles: entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator, and negotiator.

59

2 The Work Activity School

Table 4: Interpersonal roles  

+ 

0 

(  = (!     '   G    (       !    

#(  

 

" (             ( =  (   ! !    

S  !   

 ! ( 

 

       

         

    

 !  =  (   =    

 ! 

(Mintzberg, 1973: 92)

Table 5: Informational roles  

+ 



        :!      ! 5    
             !      ! !  !5 
!    (        = !    

        

!5 

#(  

& 

%       

     (   (   !5 =         

 !    !    

     !5  

9 !   !5         (         ( 
!          

) 

%      

!5 F       =     

!5 F 

7  != !     

 !       



(Mintzberg, 1973: 92-93)

Table 6: Decisional roles Roles

Description

Identifiable Activities

Entrepreneur

Searches organization and its environment for opportunities and initiates improvement projects to bring about change; supervises design of certain projects as well

Strategy and review sessions involving initiation or design of improvement projects

Disturbance Handler

Responsible for corrective action when organization faces important, unexpected disturbances

Strategy and review sessions involving disturbances and crises

Resource Allocator

Responsible for the allocation of organizational resources of all kinds – in effect the making or approval of all significant organizational decisions

Scheduling; requests for authorization; any activity involving budgeting and the programming of subordinates’ work

Negotiator

Responsible for representing the organization at major negotiations

Negotiation

(Mintzberg 1973: 93)

60

II Literature Review

Mintzberg proposes that each role is observable and can be described individually, but cannot be isolated. These ten roles form a “Gestalt”, an integrated whole. Interestingly, Mintzberg proposed a set of thirteen roles in his unpublished dissertation in 1968 that have been concentrated in his well-cited book The Nature of Managerial Work. This fact supports his argument that the theory of managerial work is one set of roles among several others that may be possible (Mintzberg, 1973). In the following chapter of his book (1973), Mintzberg introduces the reader to contingency variables in managerial work. If one takes care of contingency variables such as industry, organization, level and function of manager, and temporal features, Mintzberg hypothesizes that variations can be found among the observed objects according to eight different job types: contact man, political manager, entrepreneur, insider, real-time manager, team manager, expert manager, and new manager. Mintzberg, however, asks for further investigation on these job types, as he sees them as “a series of hypotheses” (Mintzberg, 1973: 101). Mintzberg’s findings on the characteristic-, content-, and contingency-dependent job types derive components for a science of management – the description of managerial work and how it can be systematically be improved. The findings lead Mintzberg to propose ten points for a more effective management: • • • • • • • • • •

Share information. Deal consciously with superficiality. Share the job if information can be shared. Make the most of your obligations. Free yourself from obligations. Emphasize the role that fits the situation. See a comprehensive picture in terms of its details. Recognize your influence in the organization. Deal with a growing coalition. Use the management scientist.

The book The Nature of Managerial Work received a great deal of attention right from the beginning. Leonard Sayles wrote in the foreword of the book that Mintzberg’s studies go “significantly beyond the earlier work and provide both the student and the executive with a rich storehouse of data that should contribute significantly to their knowledge of what makes an effective manager” (Sayles [Mintzberg], 1973). A year after publishing The Nature of Managerial Work, Karl Weick published in the Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) that he believed The Nature of Managerial Work to be an important book (Weick 1974); this further helped Mintzberg’s contribution receive considerable attention. The status of this study increased even more in

2 The Work Activity School

61

1983 when Kurke and Aldrich published the article “Mintzberg was right: a replication and extension of The Nature of Managerial Work” in the academic journal Management Science. In addition to The Nature of Managerial Work of 1973, Mintzberg is well known for presenting a structured observation method. Since the development of the Work Activity School provided a new impetus to undertake innovative empirical research, Mintzberg proposed his structured observation method as an alternative approach to the methodology of the group of Tom Burns (Burns, 1954), Sune Carlson (Carlson, 1951), Horne and Lupton (1965), and Rosemary Stewart (Stewart, 1967). Similarly to Rosemary Stewart, Mintzberg contributed to the Work Activity School not only with the findings and discussion of his empirical study, but also with the innovative methodological approach of structured observation, which later turned out to be a much-repeated method for studying the nature of managerial work (e.g. Martinko and Gardner, 1990; Tengblad, 2006). In the February 1970 issue of The Journal of Management Studies, Henry Mintzberg published the article “Structured Observation as a Method to Study Manager Work”. After the introduction, Mintzberg argues that the major drawback of the diary method is that the content of managerial work can hardly be captured. He makes use of well-documented criticism throughout the article in order to present his structured observation method in a positive light. Mintzberg notes that the structured observation method couples “the flexibility of open-ended observation with the discipline of seeking certain types of structured data. The researcher observes the manager as he performs his work. Each observed event (a verbal contact or a piece of incoming or outgoing mail) is categorized by the researcher in a number of ways (for example, duration, participation, purpose) as in the diary method but with one vital difference. The categories are developed as the observation takes place” (Mintzberg 1970: 89–90). To conclude, Mintzberg has helped build the foundations of the Work Activity School by giving it its name in his book The Nature of Managerial Work. It is not only Karl Weick who thinks that this book is of importance (Weick, 1974); Mintzberg’s research on managerial work has been referenced by numerous scholars and used for many replicative and comparative studies since it was published (e.g. Kurke and Aldrich, 1983; Pribilla et al., 1996; Tengblad, 2006). Thus, Mintzberg’s study further inspired the stream of the Work Activity School and helped build an understanding of the activities, roles, and programs of managerial work. This piece of research has advanced the knowledge about “how organizations work, how strategies develop and how they are applied by organizations” (Martin de Holan and Mintzberg, 2004). His 1973 book also pioneered ways of reporting on how managers perform everyday tasks as well as ways of categorizing what managers really do by using the structured observation method. Therefore, the Mintzberg’s contribution is threefold: identifying

62

II Literature Review

and pushing a new stream of research (Work Activity School), enhancing our understanding of the nature of managerial work (roles of managerial work), and innovating the methodology of the respective research school.

2.6.5

ICT and Managerial Work by Ralf Reichwald et al.

After his undergraduate and graduate studies at the universities of Marburg, Bonn, and Munich, Ralf Reichwald became a research scholar of Edmund Heinen (as did Werner Kirsch, Heribert Meffert, Arnold Picot) at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich. The business school system in Germany, with its distinct historical origins, differed “significantly from the system of higher education in business economics and management science that developed in other European countries” (Locke, 1985: 232) and the USA. The academic education of scholars was closely linked to their supervisors, and the young scientific system of business administration and management in Germany had formed its own genealogical tree in which a scholar’s education and position in many cases affected his or her field of academic thought. Hence, the academic thought of Ralf Reichwald was influenced by his famous academic ancestors and relatives Edmund Heinen, Erich Gutenberg, and Eugen Schmalenbach, who founded and fundamentally shaped the system and practice of business education in Germany today. Following his scholarly years at the institute of Edmund Heinen, Ralf Reichwald became a professor at the University of Federal Armed Forces in Munich. In a project he undertook from 1979 to 1981 with Karl Heinz Beckurts, board member of the Siemens AG, he addressed the organizational questions of how information and communication technology can support corporate management offices (Beckurts and Reichwald, 1984). While the historical roots of this research approach were different from those of other members of the Work Activity School, Reichwald’s research teams and scholars would run projects on information and communication technology and its role in the nature of managerial work for what is now nearly 30 years. Reichwald later became the Chair of Business Administration at the Technische Universität München, where he undertook a follow-up study on telecommunication in management with Peter Pribilla, also a board member of the Siemens AG, and Robert Goecke from 1993 to 1995 (Pribilla et al., 1996; Goecke, 1997). Peter Pribilla supported Reichwald’s research on managerial work, and the Peter Pribilla Foundation posthumously fosters research activities in the fields of innovation and leadership. In the 1990s German researchers of the Work Activity School were highly active (Deutschmann, 1983; Müller-Böling and Ramme, 1990; Schirmer, 1991; Schirmer, 1992; Schreyögg and Hübl, 1992; Stewart et al., 1994; Davoine and Tscheulin, 1999;

63

2 The Work Activity School

Bruch and Goshal, 2004), but the German literature shows no collaborative discussion after this time. A consistent body of literature was presented only by Ralf Reichwald and his scholars throughout the years (e.g. Beckurts and Reichwald, 1984; Reichwald, 1991; Pribilla et al., 1996, Reichwald et al., 1996; Goecke, 1997; Reichwald and Bastian, 1999; Reichwald et al., 2000). His work therefore constitutes the foundational element of the German Work Activity School. Among the valuable contributions of the first study of Ralf Reichwald and Karl Heinz Beckurts are the development of a conceptual case study approach to study managerial settings, new findings on the managerial styles of managers, and the effect of information and communication technology on the settings of cooperative work arrangements in managerial offices. The conceptual case study approach was further developed by the second study of Peter Pribilla, Ralf Reichwald, and Robert Goecke, and this study also led to new findings about the effect of information and communication technology on managerial work (Pribilla et al., 1996; Goecke, 1997). The conceptual case study approach as well as the research findings of both studies will be presented in the following discussion. The publications of Reichwald and his associated scholars have hardly been cited by scholars of the Anglo-American Work Activity School, since most of their contributions were in German. However, their findings have helped shape significant part of the Work Activity School with an innovative empirical approach and a conceptual approach of communication media for managerial work. These contributions are simple and powerful, and they integrate clearly into the existing body of the Work Activity School literature. The findings of the research group of Ralf Reichwald are thus presented in detail among the major contributions of the Work Activity School. #  



(  

# 

)  

   !

* #

   

  
 !   #   (    

# 

Figure 11: Case study approach in upper management (Beckurts and Reichwald, 1984: 82; Goecke, 1997: 128)

   

64

II Literature Review

Reichwald’s conceptual case study approach is based on semi-structured interviews with executives, their assigned secretaries and associates, and further associated interview partners (Beckurts and Reichwald, 1984). The 1996 extension of the conceptual case study approach of Beckurts and Reichwald, moreover, included two days of structured observations of the managerial work of each executive, as Mintzberg had done in 1973 (Mintzberg, 1973). Pribilla et al. (1996) report that in their structured observations they allowed for quantitative and qualitative analysis of task structures in the managerial work with the use of so-called episode analysis (Pribilla et al., 1997). As mentioned by Kotter (1982), the executive has an agenda of strategically important and critical tasks that are executed during daily business processes. As the Work Activity School had proven that it could successfully innovate methodologically, Deutschmann (1983) proposed an episode analysis to analyze daily activities; this would allow the mapping of related tasks and their respective activities (Deutschmann, 1983). Pribilla, Reichwald, and Goecke (1996; 1997) used this kind of episode analysis to match most of the communicational activities with the managerial tasks the manager executed in cooperation with others throughout two managerial days (Pribilla et al., 1996; Goecke, 1997). Beckurts and Reichwald found in 1984 that information and communication technologies have an integrated impact on the technical and organizational design of managerial work. This impact forms two models for how managers organize their daily managerial work: the autarky model and the cooperation model (Beckurts and Reichwald, 1984: 137–142). 

&  . &+C

& 

2 ) E-Mail

Voice Mail in:

1 in; 1 out;

6 in car:

congratulation; Munich; informs Chris he will 2 requests to call back come later;

? min

? min

& 

& 

& 

Tel Call speakerVoice Mail Secretary Face-to-Face (scheduled for 7 m in earlier) Face-to-Face cont.: Secretary DeskworkFace-to-Face in:Tel Conf CallCom Tel CallCom Tel Call Face-to-Face Face-to-FaceFace-to-Face Deskwork Secretary Face-to-Face (scheduled) Face-to-Face in: Secretary Voice Mail Tel Call Tel Call FAX in: Tel Call FAX in: Tel Call Deskwork FAX in: FAX out: Deskwork Tel Call in: Tel Call in:E-Mail Tel Call out:Paper Mail (last weeks): E-Mail Tel Call Deskwork Deskwork FAX in: Deskwork:Face-to-FaceTel Call Face-to-Face Face-to-Face Face-to-Face in: FAX 2 in 2 DL: Secretary Face-to-Face sched.Tel in: Call Tel CallVoice Mail Face-to-FaceE-Mail in: Face-to-Face in: Tel Tel CallCom Secretary Tel Tel Call Tel Tel Call out: Face-to-Face in: E-Mail Deskwork Tel in:CallCom E-Mail out: Face-to-FaceSecretaryTel Call Deskwork Secretary Face-to-Face SecretaryFace-to-Face (scheduled) in: SecretaryElectronicFace-to-Face DeskworkTel Call out: E-Mail Tel Call out: Tel Call Deskwork Face-to-Face Paper Tel Call out: Paper Mail directory out: secretary in: 1 in: LA area m anager quake damage update 1/2pg; Bonnie HR quake update 1pg; sam e; Fliedner will be out for two weeks; Development out: asks for Schr. speech on sales - reply area problemreads discuss Doug with draft speaker in sched.: preparesin: in: Calendar -> Voice out: -> UK GPT-> Voice area 5 + in: CEO to Rich reviews secretarycont: subord S.Cl. 2 in 1DL 1 out repl.: Dieter D. 3 in 1DL, 1 out repl. cc: busy line, 13 in 1 out: 1 out DL, 1in in: -> 2 other in: proces- Glenn reviewingout: out:-> Voice out: Bharat + CFO, B. informs Rich DL on m emin:ory Italian+ 2 sales womin: en, 1 in speed up: Doug with new Alan HR, Diehn (short) asksCallUp K. toout: Mary in: CallUP out: (Palm topsecretary Bonnie, Alan - K. is upset 3 in: butBirthday greeting; signature Susan needs s.th. process for presentation inout: N.Y.; Voice small Susan Schr. suggests he speaks with CFO on MDSS out: of out: speaker directory out: cont.: out: in: DL area cont.: reading in: (scheduled) in: in: Tom presents figures + curves on ordersin: interpretation - (scheduled)BonnieHR; K. Lena in:4 in 1out repl: com plaint secretary in: goes scheduled out: Mail in: Cliff 3 in forw. 1 out: in: 8 in 3 DL 1 forw., 1 out repl.: failure; Cliff technical Kurt - was inform ed by m anager will do it + request to Rich shall do it + Wiedervorlage; Dallas/San Francisco approval request for large accounts - forw. to financial dept. S.Cl. with com gives S.Cl. mher anager mailing uninteresting; his Profs when a Calendar); Voice Mail K confirm s hisCFO adresses subsub wom an his travelannouncesGlenn tells on coldandquake reschedule in: needs loan for P.R.; asks if Chicago Joan consultant will be inMail two out: Voice on ISO Mail out: memo Susan Schr. draft for Joan aPaul R. status report to area VPs his wife on Cliff all m anager process improvement team announcement (E-Mail finance S.CL. branch manager, a retireepaper retiree has his sing old answer topaper letters problem on legals are prebriefing on tomorrows Susan Schr. metdraft + conceptNew library acquisistions 4 pgs + summ ary; present some slides on out: secretary -> Telekom out: Auskunft Adressbo Nolen -> glad he was informed - Perform tells ance rankings of areas of ment; 2 talk on weather conditions;S.Cl. SusanNobel gives feedback Mail: Front on antechnical details(K. m akes notes + schedules time in asks all m anagers mail Rich asks on his opinion out: m anagersISO 9000 note on 2 paper aks on Toronto Tom subord. smalldiscuss K. likes them needs som e m odifications to Paul show R. them letter of birthday complaint reviews thanks for speech m anager m ailingscheduling on 1/2 pg; printout);mcopy anager Glenn fromthrough FAX CFO + HermMail an -> CFO + Paul30R.people on transnational meeting goes draft fromcorrectionsrequest to from Germany to Kate CFO substfailure; problem with Susan - tells what he information; Bonnie comm ents on circle of excellence; Product Mgmt. m eeting agenda (printout); Susan G. successful circle of excellence; S.Cl. m eeting minutes (printout); signature S.Cl. Waide s.b. found a job 2 ls. - wants forw. background to PaulDesk R. -> Herm notes ann newsletter + advice on how other area position (wrote expensesGlenn; K. problems + brings a cc: Glennproblem Glenn Coka Cola is meeting Chris canconferences wants a call to set up m Joan eeting tells he executiveupdate on distributor greeting letter + his speech Chicago to cokawants cola will+ come mails last meetingfolders GP T on briefing onstatus of feature Secretary + wom an + coll, involved - work inhom e Cliff on draft to be send his staff - o.k. m eeting with key account - fault Tom' s org. tellshow howto distribute requalification nobody install Dean is issue solvedsecretary Hotel -> ok) out his wife -> tellshow his he would present it,(regular shall report from BA S.Cl.) - will travel educational session; Susans info on proposal for new sales compensation process - m akes further lay offon- draft (distributedsecretary by his concernsbriefing on tom orrow's m ails travel planning weather talks; travel Dr. J.; AGM Tom presents draft slides - K. waiting! wants him to toPaul R. on Bonnie argues on Mail San9000 with Glenn on ISO draft for + im provem ents performance meeting New York area manager Sandra to CE= slides with proposal for transnational network; Rolm memo - delegation is not available, to wants Chris;to board custom erhow he likes new job K. subs, new development process birthday building for L.A. quake 6-8 ls.; Rich on new manager and his- bad news for doing on that issue - Karl flight confidential lay -off substitutewith K.; subsub of Rich wants callcould back to meetRamon ->request;9000 FAX briefing MDSS writes schedule his speech(refers to pages); meeting soon processed ISO 9000customer; requirementsSusan secr. birthdayCFO asks - discussion progress; on L.A. for networking problem layoff news - K.good work; Abwesenheitsliste S.Cl. managemment grs. tomorrow there asks,informed byshall informneeds Rezeption -> Jack' s concerns - askslook for governmental form put it- on palm top; Susan agenda for - repl. to Waide thanks; Rich 92xx product concerns 1/2 page - forw. to Cliff shall take it serious + Wiedervorlage; Chicago area VP birthday greeetings - Thanks; Northeast mapbranch to re- m mail anager Jack -1/2 page agrees + concerns on business back field 3pgs; - K. K. doesn't wantFAX) Toronto asks Chrisdocument with order m essage spoke expenses exchangs opinions + go ahead; signature Nancy Kurt to proceed; status of REACT discussion about letter toisthe to opinion x-change; other area m anager ->PROFS to on MDSS installation manager to with m eeting voice-m ail custom er, Cliff tells organization of m eeting schedule consult colleague for s.th. additional (makes notes)becomm enton appraisal to field;(uses PROFS feedback on his y esterday visit 3 ls. meeting slides prepared by own staff; info on new reporting package from question product whyFAX group; file copyfor copy of s.th. to be not to say goodfor Schr. Product memory treated signature; financial wom an inform s on greeting 1pg; Rich - K. is upset

E-Mail Deskwork 26 in 3 DL 1 repl.; 11 out 7 forw. 4 repl.; starts PC

information; follow-up at home: checked checks on Chicago customer E-Mail read only PROFS 1 by CEO in visit; birthday calendar

2 min

Neil Build. 6what he did + key says he told to CFO +

s.th. - forw. to Hermann with comm ent; L.A. approval request for money loan to employ ee with damaged house by quake - approval forw. to financial dept. Aslan; distributetocards; speech request can't + proposal of K. shall + 2 Rich response scheduling s.th. do forithim + CEO (Profs printout) call prefers phonem ail announcem ent; info on concerns of wrong service send it out at thischat on cold weather; m anager issecretary -> Peter); networking m eeting, discuss for Christo handle window problem - opinion the field on CFO headcount other speaker - o.k.; Max F. is out today ; Paul R. 1pg on his talks with IBM Rochester; local branch com mission approvals 1page - forw. to Herman asks if there reports wasn' t another agreement; two ofmeeting his people voice mail Doug asks s.th. Toronto xchange on sending problems; shall dodisagreement that with Lena;ofMDSS Susan back reports m easurement models; K. asks on work status of com mission plan - status time - explains thanks for presentation; not available! problems - m eeting agenda, K. conflict with K. with s.th. he is cc:ed 1page 2 letters; S.Cl. Marketing Rasm . letter that went to CEO who answered it to Rasm .and Karl; Rich disaster update every thing is under control; of networking pricing meeting y esterday ; questions; report; K. asks to be updated on s.th.; some private chat; has to give a speech travel exp.; (form s)meeting agenda serios problems K. asks why ; no news from L.A.quake else; conflict message to the field 27 min

2 min

2 min

11 min

1 min

19 min

1 min

2 min

3 min

3 min

1 min

1 min

1 min

5 min

5 min

4 min

1 min

3 min

5 min

on Coca Cola problems; K.

1 min

3 min

Herm an wants problem

schedule

advises what to solved do; immediately

2 min

2 min

2 min

connections with Europeans; Paris refers to noteevent CIO m eeting and e-mail coordination;

2 min

5 min

5 min

her; talkstalk on profitability ; Don HR info on hermin eeting Chris shall some discussion + ideas + background infos; Tomcontinuedpersonnel announcement of issue Doug - new draft on for K' s Calendar - anwers with mairplane ark "urgent"; discusses som e area figures + proposal - shall talk with call them Herman; IBM issue ... >1 min 3 min

>1 min 53 min

23 min

will be m ade

sickness Tricia update L.A. quake sit - skips;

5 min

5 min

4 min

1 min

1 min

center m eeting 100 will reply that short S.Cl. on bugs a very comm ent

Glenn

1 min

handles thatcustomerimportant 1 min

20 min

>1 min

2 min 3 min

3 min

1 min

private

by e personal things 3 min 14 min

4 min

party product to shall call Mgm t. thanks letter; exceed its lifeHerman presentation +

best organization -

discussion of K's m essage report status + action

to field

1 min

to R.

plan on quake

reviews it

11 min

Tel CallCom Tel out

in:

in:

in:

+ thanks to sender; Cliff message togoing branch in new j ob, how was

6 min

8 min

Valerie top sales pers. San Franc.;

some jokes; K. wants to know how some accounts ext. (hospitals) consultantare;

some sub collK. tells he spoke with s.b. on L.A quake; K. wantsshort to know chatwhat on complaintwants that Cliff involveshisalso concerns on onprivatetells he is in contact withwith

managers on memory allocation problem flight with Rasm.

m otivation 4 min

Tel CallCom out:

Delegation of authority by one of hisaS.Cl. phone mail -> s.b. will m eet short chat customer letter on customer complaint Renz Munichnon thanks Doug with new letter draft,

2 min

s.b. else; K. asks on REACT proj ect

letter

area m anagers on issueon - K. his burnt else is happening, wants a document faxed; scheduling general a business

1 in:

Voice Mail: out:

Face-to-Face

Face-to- Face Secretary Voice in: Mail FAX

K. makes out:

meeting out:

out car:

secretary out:

writes Face

article from 1 in, 1out

E-Mail

CallCom3 in 1 out 1repl.:

Tel in interrupt:Deskwork Tel out: Deskwork Deskwork Face-to- Face Deskwork SecretaryDeskworkTel. CallCom out: Tel. CallCom Tel. CallComDeskworkVoice Mail DeskworkFace-to- Face Tel. Scott (ex-subord.) in: Susan G. filing in: writing tosecretary Herm an notreading old follow1 in reads meeting out: meeting in:out: there ->out: out:

folders

with

curves transnat.

activity

15pgs. meeting

report

1 min 1 min

4 min

excellence; Bay area conversation with Herbafternoon successful person; K. wants feedback on circle ofcurves 10 min 1 min 5 min 6 min 4 min 2 min

Tel cont: SecretaryTel out: Tel CallCom Face-toDeskwork

article talk with Renz; offers

and why s.b. didn' t proceed the hand - wants conference where they meet (weekly calendar on conditions paper); K. wants organization in which is reviews draft minor correction way it was intended - offers shows about salesa transnationalsent out in+ o.k; Doug inform s on ato see him into know whether peace with colleage is made; talking

4 min

E-Mail

new

support to enforcem entcom ittee 3 min

Tel in:

Herman'sJack Connecticut1 out:

Valerie CFO interrrupt wom an Paul R. - secretary K. : informs on hisBonnie, refers to talk notes; tellstells he shall tell Rasm refers + 30- sm all Susan; repl: Callup N.Y Sandra 1/2 screen thanks for tells on his approvaldislikes to notes onout car: m et Gerhard, Lienh., BharatCFO sends Karl him on m hisarketingasks him toneeds to decision on installwith Jack wants to that CEO waits for Dave that to FAX from CFO speak people transnational workshop; talk golf, 3 15 K.talking on Joel gives K. 1 out: update and support - s.b. is informedpromotion in other form forsign - conflict FAX present onknow if he mgrs. announcemknow ent; status of Van will m ake agenda he talkedValerie

both will visitmonthly Monday staff has more some discussion situation. - K. Got it final decision from

>1 min

on his talk tomin./ 1 5 min slide presentations will speak on travel to itinery message from FAX to don't m ake a failure; Monday staff com p; how is the consultant on fait

with Renz offers him a

m eeting for meeting will ask Bonnie onstuck? Was she on business Herm an;

copy by

agenda

Van situation;

invited?

case

signature

Chris

1 min

6 min

3 min

3 min

3 min

2 min

1 min

Renz; speakcom plex workshop results - CEO K., on both and flight Nolan - willJoel on VAN

2 min

m eeting agenda - printout; Peter Y. family + old report on acceptance of circle of

friends; K. wants

will do it for

questions, give directions, motivate 11 min

excellence 1pg;

to sell him switch;

the last time!

9 min

60 min

with info 1 min

2 min 3 min

1 min 4 min

1 min 3 min

6 min

CEO needs to see him for

5 min

out:

Face-to- FaceVoice Mail Tel. 1 in: Face-to- Face in: private in:

in:

vacation

ext. lady with briefing on Lunch with subsub on privateprivate CFO asks on tried to sendthing a late birthdaycustomer customer +problems thing thing request by Susan Profs note on application wishes - E- with whomsales reps with on laptops for hospitals decision Mail went he will

a follow up

m ore Details refers to

1 min

Tel.

- long occupied -> Voice Mail ups texts for -> occupieds.b. is on 1 jobneeds overview presentation

Voice Mail out:

his for home on revenue opportunities

accomplie -

CFO + Gerhard ask criticalconcerns schedulessend a FAX

situation

5 min

he needsdo list

question from Dr. Hamm .; 3 min 2 min

3 min

phonem ail

wrong!

have Lunch

1 min

2 min

10 min

sales people status report

business case

1 hour+15 15 min >1 min

Tel CallCom Face-to-face cont: Tel Call out: SecretaryFace-to-face cont: Secretary Voice MailE-Mail SecretaryFace-to-face sched. in: Tel Call out: out: out: out: + discussion 1 in replayof ->cost Voice Mail Hermann adresses Hermann tells he has scheduled K. for a meeting to design business; all hands m eeting Dieter coordination 3: in 1DL 1repl. 2out 1repl. in: 1forw.: Bonnie+ Bill May beck training

inteam should be this team + who Herm an adresses other problem on seam less sy stem both speak on perform ance ofbesome services info with FAX; Herman on personel issueearlier problem at AVP people; K. asks how a on DL + com ment on 1 item;

informs he cut(K. skips on

else is there + personal conflict is (very confidential) - H. tells what happened - K makes proposal how with em ploy ee work; Herm ann tells the on his work staffed - K.suggests m eeting to resolve it wants conflict Bonnie reply on VAN situation

costs to 50 % incoming call)

on Siem ens opportunities;

5 min 2 min 2 min

>1 min

Deskwork: Letter in:FAX out:Note in: Tel request to forw.

from

FAX 5 DL Letter Face-to-face sched. in: 2 in: HR-manager

Deskwork: Tel CallComTel CallComTel CallE-Mail

CallComout:

-> Voice Mail -> Voice Mail in:

shall Voice Mail key notes for K's speach; Herm an wants K to invite Dieter to AVP m eeting; info xchange asks ailCliff againcase; Klaus Strassm ann follow-upparticipate letter to Product out: forw. note 1 m emo;cont. Herm an with slides on business opportunities; talk K. he had with -> CFO comparing on phonem business Cliff 1 pg on hospitals -> 2 tells linesshe graphics for new release + explanation with vacation request reschedule Mickey Chris ononHerm Hospital über- Trainingskostenin to do list in a team;Rich for Mgm t. on Mickey with 1 update; - K. tells Herman inform s K. on another problem + what he did - K proposes to set a decisioncalendars screen tells on unreasonable calc. model informs him on CFO' s shortcuts; go over slideson+outsourcing team line (m akes a note); anreply asks ; Nolan Washingon 1 reached K. of em ply ee - signature; a m eeting he wants her in of every body agrees on s.th. + info on low profit margin which should be stopped - shall Central area activity report - adds s.b. + modell möchte alle of Klaus delegation test will be on request for tells how presentation should be K. makes copydiscussion how this wants adress hims.th. to it on a meeting; Beckwith will speak with responsible manager + Paul R. loan -

4 min 14 min

afternoonMickey 1 min 2 min

motivation 2 min

settled; Herm an tells on plan intall mgrs. meeting - K. informs on new pricing task force - H. tells on pricing m eeting; status report; 1 min 1min 2 min 3 min

34 min

Figure 12: Episode analysis of top manager (Pribilla et al., 1996: 173; Goecke, 1997: 156; see also Deutschmann, 1983)

1 min

good work; Bonnie addressesTrainigsm problem; odelle file;

switchesteam

M. wants to present educationüberprüft strategy haben+m it ihm darüber sprechen; + tells success story of colleague; 1 min 2 min

10 min

help to signature; June salary area

2 min

1 min

1 min

1 min

6 min

Secretary

out: 1 in DL 1 out forw.:

out:

out: s.b. Chicago info on tells his Susan Sch. Joel Chicago decision wanted rumour that Rolm

wants to

tells his flightto speakstops service foronold j ob discuss CFO schedule to Chris; sy stem s - forw.applicant to m eet in Dean;

shortcut

recalculating +

m anagers signature; 3 min

airplane 6 min

2 min

1 min

2 min

1 min 3 min

2 min

that - K. shows install figures; 20 min

>1 min2 min

available; 1 min

2 min 2 min

secretarywhy this is

agreement - Karl complains area VP meeting -MDSS (important

not there necessary - was hisalso m anager' s were not to know proposals in advance to not informed inform ed; 1 min 8 min

5 min

brief others) 6 min

65

2 The Work Activity School

Table 7: Effects of information and communication technologies  4    $ )#

*  


) 

+   

+    

()  

+! 

     !

#! 

     !

  

"! G  G    

"! G  G    

,!#



$   !      #!     !        !   

 #



4         )     

(Beckurts and Reichwald, 1996: 142)

In the follow-up study of Pribilla et al., (1996), the analysis supports the proposed models from 1984. Moreover, the authors complement prior findings with one further model following a cluster analysis regarding the use of information and communication technology. This study finds three models: • Traditional model: The executive uses no or hardly any e-mail and voice mail. However, the executive communicates a lot using the telephone and the traditional post. • Autarky model: The executive personally and intensively uses e-mail and voice mail. If the executive makes little use of e-mails, voice mail is used very intensively. • Cooperation model: The executive uses e-mail intensively, but predominantly with the support of the executive office (all incoming notifications are printed out – email is used only in special situations and/or on travel).
5  

&      

 

#     

 


   6

$ )#  6

*   6

#         

#        

 

#     

 !

Figure 13: Models for use of information and communication technologies (Pribilla et al., 1996: 204; Goecke, 1997: 242)

66

II Literature Review

While these models were identified among different organizations, functions, and cultures, they were not dependent on any of those. And, no matter which model of communication is used by the executive, the authors find the same amount of activities processed throughout a given timeframe, for example, an hour. Ralf Reichwald pioneered the establishment of the Work Activity School in Germany. Over the last nearly 30 years he has succeeded in establishing a consistent and well-developed body of literature that has contributed to the Work Activity School. This research stream can be tracked back to a German research society in management and is published for the most part in German. Probably this is why it is still hardly known among Anglo-American research scholars and lacks international recognition. But Reichwald’s case study approach about the impact of information and communication technologies on the nature of managerial work represents a striking methodological shift for the Work Activity School. Moreover, Reichwald et al. has presented three powerful models for how to use information and communication technologies in managerial work.

2.6.6

Jobs, Managers, and Activities by John Kotter

John Kotter received a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1978, the same year Henry Mintzberg got his Ph.D. from the same university. Two years later, Kotter graduated from the Sloan School of Management, MIT, with a master’s degree in management. The years in Boston stimulated Kotter’s interest in the Work Activity School, as he studied in close physical proximity to two other foundational researchers, Sayles and Mintzberg. Before Mintzberg published his prominent book The Nature of Managerial Work (1973), Kotter had completed his dissertation, in 1972 and also in Boston, at the Graduate School of Business, Harvard University. Kotter’s dissertation was published in part in his book with Paul Lawrence, Mayors in Action (Kotter and Lawrence, 1974), which outlines his first contribution to the Work Activity School. Mayors in Action was assumed by Theodore Reed in the The American Journal of Sociology to address “practitioners with an analytic bent as well as students of organizations. Their [John Kotter’s and Paul Lawrence’s] choice of audience is reflected in the lack of detailed footnotes and limited attention to several areas (e.g. political sociology) in which the academic work might inform the inquiry” (Reed, 1976: 1521). John Kotter had interviewed mayors and watched them work in order to describe mayoral behavior as well as come up with theoretical formulations on complex organizations. The authors define a model consisting of individual characteristics; a desired agenda; a network; and an organizational, social, and economic context (Kotter and Lawrence, 1974). They postulate that mayors attempt to develop or maintain coalignment between these contextual variables since non-coalignment may create problems.

67

2 The Work Activity School

Their model aims to explain the behavioral pattern that the authors find through the comparative study of 20 mayors of large American cities. The five empirically observed patterns are ceremonialist, caretaker, individualist, executive, and entrepreneur. These patterns follow a systems configuration of the heuristically postulated contextual variables. Kotter and Lawrence developed a way to explain patterns of urban governance rather than to understand the adequacy of mayoral performance. Thus, the book Mayors in Action (1974) represents a valuable early contribution to understanding managerial work in complex organizational situations, such as those of the mayors of major American cities (Reed, 1976). Table 8: Factors influencing the behavior of general managers The GM Job

Job Responsibilities and Relations:

Emergent Demands:

The GM Job

Accumulated Knowledge and Relationships:

Basic Personality:

• Is responsible for • Figuring out what to do (maka large, complex ing decisions) in an environand very diverse set ment characterized by uncerof interdependent tainty, great diversity, and an activities. enormous quantity of potentially relevant information.

• Knowledgeable about their businesses and organizations.

• Above-average intelligence, broad interests, optimistic, achievement oriented, emotionally even.

• Is dependent on superiors, a large and diverse set of subordinates and still others outside the chain of command.

• All have extensive relationships throughout the organization (and industry).

• Personable, like power, developing relationships have an unusual ability to to a diverse group of business specialists.

• Getting things done through a large and diverse set of people (including bosses, subordinates and others) despite having little direct control over most of them.

?

?

Their approach to the job

Daily behavior

Initially: • They use their current knowledge of the business and organization, their relationships with relevant others, an their intelligence and interpersonal skills to learn more about the job‘s complex demands and to create an agenda for the business and the organization. This is done in an ongoing (daily) informal process which involves a lot of questioning and produces a largely unwritten agenda of loosely connected goals and plans.

1. They spend most of their time with others. 2. The others include many besides a boss and direct subordinates. 3. The breadth of topics covered in discussions with others is very wide. 4. In these conversations, the GMs ask a lot of questions … 5. yet they very rarely can be seen making big decisions. 6. The discussions typically contain a considerable amount of joking and non-work-related issues. 7. The substantive issues involved in these discussions is often relatively unimportant to the business or organization. 8. In these encounters, the GMs rarely give orders … 9. but they often try to influence others. 10. Their time with others is rarely planned in advance in any detail … 11. and it is usually characterized by short and disjointed conversations. 12. Total work time per week averages fifty-nine hours.

• Concurrently, they use those same personal assets to develop a network of cooperative relationships with those subordinates, bosses and others upon whom the job makes them dependent. The greater the dependence, the more time and effort they devote to using a wide variety of methods for developing and maintaining the relationship.

Later: • They use their network of relationships to help them implement their agendas, using a wide variety of direct and indirect methods to do so. They also rely on their networks for information to update their agendas.

(Kotter, 1982: 93)

68

II Literature Review

Members of the Work Activity School cited John Kotter mostly for his contributions in The General Manager (1982). The study focused on a group of successful executives in nine corporations and was conducted from 1976 to 1981. Kotter examined and reported on the jobs of these managers, their personal backgrounds and characteristics, and the similarities and differences in executive behavior. Finally, he presented the implications for corporate selection, development, staffing, and managing in The General Manager (Kotter, 1999). First, Kotter introduces the reader to the managerial jobs and their demands. He explains the specific responsibilities and relationships that make up the differences in the type of job involved. Furthermore, the business and organization explain the variations in the contextual settings in which the respective managerial job is found. Kotter’s approach to job demands can be understood to be twofold: It is • Driven by a job-based view (responsibilities and relationships) and • Influenced by a context-based view (organization and business). Emergent demands following for each particular general manager are determined by “what kind and how many long-, medium-, and short run issues are important” and “who (number, type of people, type of formal relationship involved) the general manager must work through” (Kotter, 1982: 23). It is interesting to note that Rosemary Stewart published at the same time her research on managerial jobs, including demands, constraints, and choices (Stewart, 1982). Apart from the managerial job, its context, and the respective demands on the individual, Kotter identifies common personal characteristics and backgrounds among his managerial sample. With regard to characteristics, he reports that the set of managers are, to a great degree, ambitious and achievement oriented, emotionally stable and optimistic, intelligent and analytically strong, and good at developing relationships. They also have an unusual ability to relate easily to a broad set of specialists. Furthermore, these managers have a great knowledge base about the organization and the business it operates in, and they have well-established relationships within and outside the organization. Successful general managers are working in a firm that matches their interests, have spent the vast majority of their career in the same industry or with the same employer, and have been rapidly promoted right from the beginning. Kotter even analyzes background characteristics such as family environment and educational experiences. He points out that successful general managers turn out to have a close relationship to upwardly mobile parents, of which at least one had a college education, and are not only children. Furthermore, these successful managers have an undergraduate or graduate education with business-related degrees and were leaders in high school, college, or both. Kotter disagrees with the prominent opinion of many managers and academics that a good executive can manage anything. According to his results, success in a giv-

69

2 The Work Activity School

en managerial job is determined by both developmental patterns and key personal characteristics. Therefore, Kotter’s findings suggest that the manager “appear[s] to have been both ‘born’to circumstances favorable to the acquisition of General Manager characteristics and ‘made’ through a long series of events over a period of decades. No single event, by itself, seems to have been the key.” (Kotter, 1982: 58) Across all effective general managers, Kotter finds similarities and differences in behavior. The key to coping with the individually different job demands lies in the managers’ development of the managerial agenda and their harnessing of their network of relationships in their organizations and industries.  $$        %&  $$   %&F    9 (!   )   ' )

+    + (  !   

+  !   6  (    

+  !  !       (  6       D (  $$ %& (   '  $$  '    '      #  

+     D ( +        +   (  

 $$ %&   +   E   ! !     (!   !        ! +     E            

+     D (  

Figure 14: Dynamics responsible for differences in behavior (Kotter, 1982: 98)

2.6.7

New Directions in Managerial Work by Stefan Tengblad

Stefan Tengblad received his Civilekonom degree (bachelor in Business Administration) and PhD in Business Administration at Göteborg University in Sweden. Following his doctoral thesis, Stefan Tengblad was inspired by Sten Jönsson to focus on managerial work practices with a research grant by the Swedish Council for Research

70

II Literature Review

in the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSFR). Thus, it was decided by Jönsson and Tengblad to replicate a study on managerial behavior that would become his postdoctoral assignment. Continuing in academia, Tengblad held several academic positions at Göteborg University and at the University of Skövde from 1997 to 2007 and, in 2008, was appointed Professor in Business Administration at the University College of Borås. Tengblad focused his research on work processes of managerial work rather than on cognitions. By then, Tengblad had identified a research gap that the famous studies on work processes of the Work Activity School had hardly replicated, to see whether the previous results are (still) robust or not. In 1998, the study design included direct observation in order to make comparisons with Sune Carlson and Henry Mintzberg and, in so doing, Tengblad was able translate his observational research to the designs of Carlson and Mintzberg. His extensive observations of almost 2,000 hours of managerial work have been published in the Scandinavian Journal of Management, Organizational Studies, and The Journal of Management Studies. Tengblad examined the evolving management practices in the internationalized economy. His results showed that the manager exercises control in a more general and financially oriented way. Accordingly, the important managerial activities had shifted from a national agenda towards international financial and commercially oriented work practices. In comparison to prior contributions, Tengblad identified that the nature of managerial work transformed from a high fragmentation of time and low fragmentation of space to a comparatively lower fragmentation of time and higher fragmentation of space (see figure below). Also, Tengblad emphasized the impact and effects of the increasing power of shareholders. Exercise of control by setting and monitoring expectations for managers resulted in working to exhaustion, as well as in conformity and non-construc0     

% %!( 

  0    !

% '  

Figure 15: Fragmentation of managerial work (Tengblad, 2002: 559)

!

2 The Work Activity School

71

tive communication. The management of shareholder value, thus, impacts the management and societal level regarding issues of governance ethics, organizational development, and work-life balance. The findings of Tengblad are especially significant and meaningful as they are presented with clear reference to prior fundamental management research of the Work Activity School. While the Work Activity School remains to have had relatively modest influence on the general management theory, his study of managerial work practices reveal several unique qualities of prior studies of Carlson and Mintzberg and have shed light on today’s management practices.

3

Conclusion of Literature Review

The literature review was motivated by questions regarding how researchers have studied the nature of managerial work, what kinds of managers were studied in what kind of empirical context, and what the findings of prior research have been. For a systematic review of the literature, the study made use of a keyword search, a references search, a prior literature-review search, and further search engines (see Annex 3). The categories of the review were developed and defined in an iterative fashion while reviewing the literature sample. The descriptive data has been presented and the findings of prior studies have been conceptualized with the help of a literature map. Prior empirical studies have used predominantly interview and observation methods, with most using a mixed-method approach. In most cases, the studies examined either a large or small number of managers for either a large or a relatively small number of days studied per manager. Studied managers were usually at the upper-management level of mid-sized organizations, but in a smaller number of cases also from middle and lower management. There were studies that focused on distinct management levels; a considerable number also focused on a sample of cross-level managers. Most research on managerial work stems from the UK and the USA and, hence, takes an Anglo-American point of view. There is a research gap with respect to studies in other cultural areas. Such studies could therefore be useful for cross-cultural comparisons. The majority of the identified studies have focused entirely on privately held firms; few studies have chosen the public or voluntary sector as their research domain. This literature review has classified the findings of empirical studies within an iteratively developed literature map. This literature map consists of the managerial job, the object, and the managerial activity. The empirical study to be presented in the following chapter will contribute to prior research in terms of the method employed, the empirical field, and the findings presented. Finally, the literature review focused on the major contributors of the Work Activity School with respect to their background, motivation, and major contributions to the field. In particular, the literature review reported on: • Sune Carlson’ foundation of the Work Activity School and innovative empirical approach • Leonard Sayles’s lateral relationships and systematic understanding of behavior • Rosemary Stewart’s diary method and model of demands, constraints, and choices • Henry Mintzberg’s observation method and ten roles of managerial behavior • Ralf Reichwald’s case study approach and use of ICT models • John Kotter’s conceptual understanding of jobs, managers and activities • Stefan Tengbald’s new findings about the fragmentation of managerial work

Chapter III Case Study Methodology

1

Case Study Framing “Because some research tactics are more likely to yield useful results, a culture that endorses such tactics is crucial. Because all research tactics have deficiencies, a culture that endorses the development of better tactics is also critical.” (Starbuck, 2006: 1)

The research study aims to answer research questions of the Work Activity School that are outlined in the following. These research questions cover activities of today’s executive work, the perceived influencing factors of the executive on the activities and, finally, the new direction of managerial work as well as its underlying nature. The empirical field is derived from these questions. The research strategy explains how access was provided to the data of this study as well as how the executive was studied. In studying the executive, the researcher faced challenges with this rare and unique species. These challenges are pointed out, followed by requirements for each exploration. In order to choose the right method for each exploration, the main advantages and disadvantages of empirical methods used by the Work Activity School are presented. Finally, the methods applied are presented in more detail, and how each method applies for studying the executive to address the research questions is considered. The research framework focuses on the executive of large organizations. Two explorations, one exploring executive calendars and another one conducting executive interviews, served for concurrent data sets that were studied independently.

1.1

Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to extend prior research by examining the contexts, perceptions, and working habits of the executive. Like most research of the Work Activity School, this study is not intended to give advice on good management practices or to provide tactics to the executive wishing to increase the personal or organizational performance. As the argument unfolds, this study will address three research questions: • Question I: What does the executive do today? For decades, research of the Work Activity School has explored the nature of managerial work. However, as the literature review has suggested, prior research has focused predominantly on the manager of mid-sized organizations, particularly in U.K. and the USA. As a result, managerial activities have developed an Anglo-Saxon perspective on managerial work and therefore may not necessarily explain or predict the case of the executive (senior managers in large organizations). In this context, the study aims to reveal the activities of the executive in large organizations.

78

III Case Study Methodology

• Question II: Which perceived factors influence executive work? Prior research of the Work Activity School has suggested that the executive may act differently within varying contexts; for example, the executives in dynamic settings may act differently than their counterparts in mature industries. Various contextual themes such as society, the competitive environment, or the organization may impact how the executive works. For instance, the executive has to consider the particular organization’s design and (to a certain extent) its stakeholders that may react to the activities. What, then, are the perceived factors of relevance in the contemporary executive work, and how do they influence, enable, or constrain the work of the executive? • Question III: What new directions and nature can be proposed about executive work? Questions I and II focus on executive activities and perceived influencing factors. While the first question aims to describe the activities of the executive, the second asks about the perceived factors that influence executive work. The answers to these two concurrent questions will form an overview of arguments on new directions in executive work. The third question addresses the nature of executive work. In more detail, the question derives from what can be learned from the individual activities of the executive and the perceived demands. What underlying nature of executive roles can be proposed about the work? 8(  %! #3

9(    !   %!")3

7 (  "    #     %! ")3

Figure 16: Research questions of the thesis

1.2

Research Strategy

The research strategy of this case study is the embedded single case study on executive work as proposed by Yin (2003). To date, scholars have used case studies for various purposes: as a strategy of inquiry (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005: 25), as a comprehensive research strategy (Yin, 2003: 1), or, like Lamnek (2005), as case studies situated between a concrete method and a methodological paradigm.

1 Case Study Framing

79

According to Stake (2005), a “case study is not a methodological choice but a choice of what is to be studied” (Stake 2005: 443).

The following single case study, then, focuses on senior managers in large organization in various industries. According to Yin’s (2003) terminology, each executive represents a distinct subunit within the (embedded) case study. Several subunits are chosen to help create a richer and broader analysis to enhance the insights of the overall single case study. Whether an empirical investigation explores or aims to test propositions and hypotheses depends on the level of knowledge in the research field (Bortz and Döring, 2006). If the research questions focus on a gap that is relatively new to scientific research or driven by change, the inductive approach of an explorative study is required to develop propositions and hypotheses. By contrast, if fundamental knowledge and heory exist in the field, researchers may test propositions and hypotheses with a deductive research approach. As management and the work of the manager and the executive are driven by remarkable change in the environment through the last centuries (Dopson et al., 2008), this study follows a primarily inductive approach to its research questions and will develop insights to better understand the nature of executive work. The function of the embedded single case study will be to explore new fields and to contribute to theory building (Eisenhardt, 1989) rather than to test an established theory. The case study approach was chosen as a research strategy for the following reasons, in accordance with Yin (2003: 40–44): • First, the executive represents a selective, rare and for many researchers inaccessible object: the executive of large corporations. This case study tries to focus on a typical small sample of executive profiles. • Second, the study aims to confirm, to challenge and to extend the existing body of literature on the Work Activity School. The case study shall contribute to knowledge and theory building by inquiring into work activities and the perceived factors influencing executive work. • Third, a rarely applied method (the calendar method, to be explained in the following) will offer a unique perspective on the scheduled activities and working habits of the executive to other scholars. In line with Robinson and Shimizu (2006), this case study shows how investigations with the calendar method can be applied and aims to stimulate further research with this method in the field of executive and managerial work. To follow is a description of two parallel explorations, one following an explorative descriptive approach and another applying an interpretative paradigm and using mainly qualitative methods. In combination, both explorations make up a single case study on executive work. In accordance with the research questions, a concurrent tri-

80

III Case Study Methodology

angulation strategy of mixed methods was chosen and employed for the integration of quantitative and qualitative data of this case study (Creswell, 2003). In line with Creswell, this strategy collects and analyzes quantitative and qualitative data concurrently, then integrates both sets during a further analysis and interpretation. While each of the two data collections, and their analysis, will predominantly address one of the first two research questions, the third research question will be handled through the comparison and discussion of the results from both explorations.

%  

%  

+   

+   

+ 

+ 

*     


  

Figure 17: Concurrent triangulation strategy

While the research strategy provides an overall framing for the case study, the body of this chapter gets granular in terms of the selection of appropriate methods as research design. Keeping the research questions in mind, the next section will point out the selection process of research methods. First, the section presents considerations to keep in mind when studying the executive. Following that, the section introduces the requirements and conditions that serve as critical for decisions when selecting the methods for the empirical part of this study. The methods used to study managerial work in prior research are pointed out, and the challenges of their application are discussed in Annex 3. A choice of methods for this study is made based on the outlined research requirements and the general advantages and disadvantages of the existing methods.

1.3

Challenges in Studying the Executive

A general challenge in the application of any research method, when studying the executive, is for the researcher to ensure a level of objectivity and consistency when obtaining data. Next, the researcher should consider that the investigation should be convenient to the executive and, finally, be more or less comparable to previous studies by the Work Activity School on the manager and the executive.

1 Case Study Framing

1.3.1

81

Objectivity and Consistency

Often, challenges in conducting research include the completeness, quality, and relevance of empirical data. As executive work is by its nature demanding of time and resources, the executive may tend to delegate appropriate tasks to subordinates. In many cases, the subordinates turn out to be the actual respondents of questionnaire-based surveys. Likewise, the researcher using a method of self-recording must “ensure that the managers are recording their activities consistently and continuously” (Mintzberg, 1973: 224)

and also understand how to note activities. The executives may want to withhold or alter relevant data, or there may be a lack of care in completing the data to be recorded. Consistency is a concern not only with primary data. Secondary data can also turn out to be inappropriate, incomplete, or even outdated. Other challenges in applying a method are any possible misunderstandings/misinterpretations on the part of the executive, the associate, the office management, or the researcher. Sometimes, the respondent answers may not reflect reality, for example, when the researcher’s questions are misinterpreted. Such a misinterpretation may decrease the overall quality of the study’s results. Misunderstanding of the executive or the subordinate may also result from (a) inadequate briefings on the method applied; (b) low levels of care, interest, and time for the research project; and/or (c) differences between the individual perception and the actual reality of the executive. Likewise, the researcher needs to take care of misunderstandings/misinterpretations on his part. Therefore, the sophisticated use of some methods requires specific expertise or some form of prior experience on the part of the researcher. Objectivity is at risk in cases where the contextual environment in which executive activities take place is not visible to the researcher. When used properly, more participatory methods may provide a better understanding of the contextual factors than methods with a lower degree of participation. Structured methods generally aim to reduce the risk of inconsistent or incomplete data. However, with increasing structure, research methods may become too rigid to allow for the executive’s individual reality and answers. A major limitation of some methods is that they often use a predefined form with underlying variables before the researcher knows the working habits of the executive and, therefore, the variables that best describe the work. Echoing Stewart (1965), Mintzberg acknowledges that one of the self-recording methods is “designed to determine only the time distribution among known job factors” (1973: 223) and hence remains useless for the study of managerial work content. To address this concern, the researcher may include a preparatory phase in which the categories are discussed with the executive prior to data collection.

82

III Case Study Methodology

1.3.2

Convenience for the Executive

Among the major challenges of studying executive work is access to data. Data access becomes a particular concern when the data to be obtained is considered sensitive, or when the studied executive fears any negative (intended or unintended) consequences of information sharing. In such a case, the application of some methods increases the level of inconvenience for the participating executive. Similar to what the executive and the associate do themselves, the researcher has often noted the time constraints of the executive. However interesting and important the executive is to study, the executive population in large organizations is limited and highly difficult to access. Research methods therefore have to ensure that the executive is the actual participant in the study. In trying to choose the most suitable methods for a study, the researcher is stuck with the dilemma of obtaining sufficiently large and rich data sets without becoming a burden to the participating executive. While shorter periods of empirical study may possess limited explanatory power, longer periods of study are considered more obtrusive by the executive. Likewise, an increasing degree of depth of investigation generally correlates with lower level of willingness to participate. Thus, the executive may perceives immersion-style methods as too intrusive, and the use may make it more difficult to recruit the participant. In his study of the executive, Noël notes the difficulty of getting access to the observable individual: “Using personal and friends’ networks, we had identified well-known companies in several industries where we could be recommended to the CEO. In the process of finding three data collection sites we had 20 requests turned down by presidents who felt that our presence would be too obtrusive” (Noël, 1989: 35).

The degree of obtrusiveness of employed methods can have an influence upon data access, data quality, and misinterpretations and should therefore be planned well in advance. Another concern that may reduce willingness of the executive to participate egards the benefits of participation for the executive. In many cases there is no direct benefit from participation other than obtaining a copy of the study or a summary of the research findings. Further issues such as anonymity and the credibility of the researcher and their intent also have an impact on the willingness of the executive to participate. Since research and practice are both effective and seminal, especially in collaboration, each interaction with the participant needs to be carefully organized. Otherwise research with the executive may turn out to be a one-time experience.

1 Case Study Framing

1.3.3

83

Comparability

The research case study highly values comparability because it allows for the positioning of a study within the broader context of the Work Activity School’s prior research. Central to comparability is the adoption of a systematic approach to studying executive work. The application of systematic methods increases the reproducibility of a study; thus, it allows another researcher to verify and validate the study’s findings. To make the research study comparable, the research strategy, design, and method should be clearly articulated. This includes questions regarding what was done and how, and relevant factors such as time, place, subjects, and so on. More structured methods may generally be easier to replicate than unstructured methods, at both the data-collection and data-analysis stages. When a study adopts different methods (as will be pointed out to be relevant for this study) the researcher may consider how the research potentially links to previous contributions and, hence, may increase the probability of arriving at results that can be compared to prior research. Similarities in research outcome (despite another methodological base) between the new study and prior research would validate existing findings, while differences would potentially offer new perspectives and explanations of the same problem.

1.4

Existing Methods and Evaluation

So far, challenges and conditions that should be kept in mind when choosing an appropriate method have been discussed. This section presents the evaluation of eight methods that were used by the Work Activity School to the manager and the executive in prior research (see also Annex 3). The assessment of these methods, outlining the major advantages and disadvantages in their employment guides the choice for the method applied in the research study. According to Newman, Ridenour, Newman, and DeMarco, the “research question dictates the selection of research methods” (2003: 171). To gain a better understanding of the activity profiles of the executive asked in the first research question, this study adds quantitative data to the case study since “quantitative methods can sometimes play a considerable role [in case study research]” (Gummeson, 2000: 83). To address the second research question (presented in the previous section), this case study needed to employ some form of qualitative exploration. With such quantitative and qualitative data at hand, there would possibly be enough data to address the third research question. Therefore, a necessary condition for the case study was the use of a combination of explorative quantitative and qualitative research methods. This combination is referred to as the mixed-methods approach (Sale et al., 2002). Such mixed approaches of gathering and applying qualitative and quantitative data have been presented in several research strategies (Brewer and Hunter, 1989; Reichardt and Rallis,

84

III Case Study Methodology

1994; Newman and Benz, 1998; Creswell, 2003; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003; Johnson and Christensen, 2004). The following assessment of research methods used to study the manager and executive is limited to the three most relevant advantages and disadvantages evident to the researcher. After the data collection and analysis, the researcher reviewed the table again in order to present the latest version of the perceived advantages and disadvantages of each particular method. It is a qualitative assessment of research methods that includes Mintzberg’s (1973), Easterby-Smith’s (1991), Akella’s (2006) contributions, and the presentation of methods in Annex 3.

  & !  

$  +

        '  (   "  

 %  !  "G     4     

 %        %  (     

 3!     +        +    

 *(   F   +     %  !

 %     

 
 (    %  D (      
 (  

 *(D       ' (   %     ( 

 4      +     4 !   

 %     

 4 (   &  !    +    

 #    4         4 !   

 %        

 4       4!   (    

 " U     !       4           

 %     

 '     G   +        '  
! G 

 " U          4  (

 %      

Questionnaire

 4       4!   (    

   V            4           

 %  (       

 4       4!   (  3 ( 

 3 (        4  G     * 

 %           

Interview

Diary

Activity Sampling

Calendar

Observation

Ethnography

 $!  

Secondary Sources

Table 9: Advantages and disadvantages of methods for studying the executive

85

1 Case Study Framing

1.5

Arguments for the Method Selections

Based on the outline of the research questions, the research strategy, and the research challenges in studying the executive, there are several general arguments at hand regarding the methods to be used in this study. Again, the mixed-method approach of this study requires that both quantitative and qualitative data are collected that will serve the explorative analysis. This, in turn, suggests the need to specify research arguments for the methods used for the two concurrent collections and analyses. These arguments aim to guide the selection of appropriate research methods for the study of the executive. Overall, pointing out strong arguments for the selection of methods applied increases the probability of obtaining useful and reliable results. Table 10: Arguments for the method selections , 


, 



'         8% ' 7 /     * # (% ' !      %  '  !  !          *   #   &

'         8% '       !  #         % ' ,               %  ' )            *   #   &

The arguments were developed throughout prior investigations that included discussions and interviews with professors, associate professors, assistant professors, senior executives, executive associates, and headhunters. It is acknowledged that these more than 50 discussions and interviews, as well as 9 presentations, highly influenced the development of the research strategy, research design, data gathering, and analysis of this case study. While these previous investigations only helped develop the arguments (see Annex 4 for the argument development) and, thus, to frame the overall research study, this thesis reports only on the research case study.

1.6

Choice of Methods Applied

The appropriateness of methods for the particular case was evaluated with respect to the arguments that were developed for each empirical exploration. Therefore, the first descriptive exploration is assessed according to (1) suitability for answering the research questions, (2) objectivity and consistency, (3) comparability, and (4) time covered as well as convenience for executive. Similarly, a method for the qualitative interpretative exploration should be derived with respect to the conditions of (1) suitability for answering the research question, (2) selection of sample, (3) transparency of the data collection and analysis, and (4) richness of data and convenience for executive.

86

III Case Study Methodology

In the following discussion, the choice of each particular research method is explained according to each condition rather than an explanation of why the author decided against other methods. In general, other methods were ruled out because they were either too obtrusive for the executive to be willing to participate or unsuitable (not immersive enough) to the depth of the study. 6* 


6* 



,    

,   

!     

 

Figure 18: Methods applied for exploration i and exploration ii

1.6.1

Choice of Executive Calendars

By using the calendar method, the study opts for a method that has only rarely been used. In contrast to the times of the studies of Carlson and Mintzberg, today the executive and the office use a shared electronic calendar, such as the personal information manager of Microsoft Office Outlook or IBM Lotus Notes. The following argument explains why the calendar method addresses the four research conditions particularly well. The printouts of the calendar contain all planned/scheduled activities of the executive with respect to duration, location, purpose, and other relevant information. The executive and associate can hardly previously review data if the researcher selects the calendar in their presence. The condition of objectivity and consistency is met since the calendar is also used for the executive’s own coordination and purposes. The collection of calendar data clearly addresses the research question regarding what the executive (plans) does today. Furthermore, appointed activities may include relevant information that helps answer the research question about the future directions of executive work and identifies trends in comparison with prior studies on executive activities. The calendar method is a systematic approach, and the researcher can choose the categorization schema. Therefore, the method produces comparable results that can be use for comparisons with studies using a similar method such as observation and diary. While this method allows comparisons with prior research, it also permits reproducibility and, hence, serves as potential data for reference. While the degree of participation may vary, this study has coded the calendar activities with comparable categories after data collection. In Robinson and Shimizu’s 2006 study, associates coded calendars without the presence of the researcher.

1 Case Study Framing

87

Applying this method allows the researcher to choose any time period for study. The data can be collected about any part of the year. Moreover, the duration of calendar observation is also left to the researcher as the data collection takes place without the presence or involvement of the executive. Therefore, the method covers a sufficient period of time and, at the same time, is not obtrusive to the executive. It remains important to note that anonymity plays a crucial role in the willingness of the executive to participate. While the executive does not take part in the data collection, the researcher collects highly sensitive data that may require the signing of a confidentiality agreement. However, calendar printouts do not necessarily exhibit the same structure, context, and notation. As such, these transcripts provide limited information for the study since the researcher lacks an understanding of items such as abbreviations and the affiliations of the names mentioned. Still, the researcher needs to understand, interpret, and classify the data in order to limit the risk of misinterpreting calendar entries and to collect missing information regarding the context of particular events and activities. Therefore, it was decided to employ supplementary reviews with the executive associate in order to facilitate the full explanatory power of the calendar.

1.6.2

Choice of Executive Interviews

The author decided to conduct interviews with executives of large organizations for the data collection and analysis. The selection of the participants allowed interviews only with the executives from the uppermost layers of global organizations. They had substantial experience in their executive positions, which allowed for interview reflections on experiences, attitudes, and feelings. Moreover, interviews addressed the executives only from large firms; small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups were not in the focus of this study. It was assumed that such a common denominator would limit the sample of the executive selected for in-depth qualitative analysis. The popular interview method provided the chance to use voice records as the data collection. But even voice recordings do not remain “untouched by the researchers’ hands” (Silverman, 2001: 159). Therefore, the verbatim transcriptions allowed transparency of the data collection and analysis and, in case of inquiry, inspection of the results. The interviews took part in German and were translated from verbatim transcriptions. Moreover, through interviews the researcher can make use of a controlled order of questions that he asks the executive. Finally, pre-test interviews of the case study with six executives indicated that the executives preferred to be studied via interviews. Although methods such as questionnaires were also tested for potential data collection, interviews turned out to be the most convenient method for the executives

88

III Case Study Methodology

and the most immersive for the inductive exploration. As mentioned earlier, interviews allow for follow-up questions and, therefore, new category dimensions in data collection. Hence, they especially address the research questions regarding the perceived factors influencing executive work as well as those about the future directions of executive work. Through interviews the researcher accesses new dimensions of categories that would otherwise remain inaccessible – for example, executive experiences and attitudes.

2

Data Gathering

The case study of the executive was developed with information collected using the research methods described above and took place in 2006 and 2007. The following section outlines the data gathering strategy. This is followed by an explanation of the data collection process. Finally, the individuals of the case study sample on executive work are described.

2.1

Data Gathering Strategy

Access to potential participants was obtained via the university, supervising professors, headhunters, and personal contacts of the thesis’s author. Additionally, the contacted executives were asked to suggest other individuals who could also serve as potential participants of the study. Participants were solicited via direct verbal contact (telephone or face-to-face communication), and, thus, the executive was approached in most cases at events such as conferences and university visits. Direct communication was considered important because it limited the risk of low response rates typical for invitation letters from prior studies (e.g. Noël, 1989).

2.2

Data Collection Process

In approaching potential participants, the thesis’s author expressed his research goals and his intent to obtain calendar data. A brief summary of the research content and goals was then sent to potential participants who had indicated their potential participation. Eleven of the contacted executives opted not to participate in the study but offered personal interviews, and twelve executives agreed to participate. As pointed out earlier, the data collection process consisted of two separate explorations: • Exploration I: Collection of calendar data and review with the executive associate Exploration I was performed by a first visit on-site of the executive associates. Data gathered in this first exploration was the four-week non-consecutive printout of the executive calendar. Executive associates were not informed which calendar weeks would be solicited prior to the actual first exploration. This was done in order to minimize the risk that the data was reviewed in advance and, hence, increase the overall trustworthiness of the case studies findings. The calendar printout then provided the structure for the subsequent review with the respective executive associate. Associ-

90

III Case Study Methodology

ates were asked to report on each appointment in the calendar concerning the categories that will be described in the following (see 3.1.1). Moreover, the associates were solicited instead of the secretaries for the analysis of calendar data because of the assumed closeness of associates to the executive work content. , 
"  *  $

, 

"*  #$

  *
'   N  #( "+$ ' #  ! #  * 


 # # *
'
     " #    $ ' 6*  # "  !+   8 $

  *




 # # *



  * P




 # # * P



.   +  


 +  

.        !  

Figure 19: Concurrent exploration of calendars and interviews

• Exploration II: Interview with the executive The main aim of the interview was to obtain qualitative data indicating the perceived factors that influence executive work. Typically at a later date than the respective associate review, the executive interview was also conducted with each executive. Interviews collected ranged in length from 35 to 180 minutes, and relevant parts were transcribed verbatim. Two participants did not allow voice recording of the interview and, hence, were not transcribed verbatim. The semi-structured interviews included open questions, and the majority of interviews were conducted in the executive office. However, two interviews took the form of a tape-recorded interview while having dinner or lunch in a separate room of the company. All meetings included only the executive and the thesis’s author, with the exception of one interview in which the executive associate was also present. Ad hoc appointments of executives required postponements of the interview for up to four times.

91

2 Data Gathering

2.3

Sample

The in-depth calendar method imposed strong restrictions to the sample size. The executive case study is made up of twelve participants. Similarly to the work of Henry Mintzberg (1968), this research was undertaken in the form of a doctoral dissertation, and the time of one full-time researcher was available for only approximately eighteen months of data collection. Table 11: Executive profiles of the sample 1

 #

*

:

 #

# ,

#

1 Q .000

-. Q K0

$    

6 (

1M 

##

1 Q .000

. Q -.

%  !

6 (

1M 

###

1 Q .000

- Q .

)!  

) 

1M 

#S

. Q -.000

K0 Q .0

%  !

6 (

1M 

S

. Q -.000



) 

) 

1M 

S#

-. Q K0000

.0 Q -00

'  

6 (

1M 

S##

K0 Q .0000

.0 Q -00

9  

6

1M 

S###

.0 Q -00000

.0 Q -00

9  

6 (

1M 

#O

2 -00000

.0 Q -00

9  

6

1M 

O

2 -00000

-. Q K0

'  

6

1M 

O#

2 -00000

-00 Q 100

# !   

6 (

1M 

O##

2 -00000

-00 Q 100

# !   

6 (

1M 

The total sample for this case study included twelve executive associate reviews and twelve executive interviews. Within the case sample there was a clear focus on the experienced executive employed in large global organizations. The following determinants were met by all the executive sample: • The executive is of the uppermost layer of a large global organization (upper management level) including chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and board member as well as chief executive officer of a German subsidiary and head of corporate development. • The executive was chosen from large companies. Those participating in the study were working in international companies with an average total number of greater than 100,000 employees. Finally, prior investigations had indicated that the executive appointed recently to the current position would have a different activity profile. As seasonal behaviors were not in the focus of this thesis, the recently appointed executive was not included in the sample since the activity profile was assumed not to have stabilized.

92

2.3.1

III Case Study Methodology

Data Set of Executive Calendars

The data set for the quantitative exploration comprised excerpts from the executive calendars and reviews with the executive associate. For each of the twelve executive calendars in the sample, four non-connected weeks were obtained and coded, resulting in a quantitative data set of 336 days, or 48 weeks. In sum, 3,142 hours of executive work, which included a total number of 1,669 scheduled activities covering 2,395 hours of work and 747 hours of unscheduled work, were coded among respective categories used by prior studies. The data entry resulted in a quantitative data set made up of 14,607 coded data points that served as the data analysis of this study. All executives made frequent use of the executive calendar for scheduling appointments. On average, the executive within the sample used the calendars to plan and organize 76% of their overall scheduled working time. This means that the content of 24% of executive time was not entered in the appointment calendar and, hence, not visible to the researcher. The structured review with the executive associate was conducted after the calendar data was printed out and obtained. This step was necessary as not all relevant data was entered into the calendar, including information on the type of contact, the size of activities (e.g. meetings), the initiator of an activity, and the subject of an activity.

2.3.2

Data Set of Executive Interviews

The data set for the qualitative exploration comprised semi-structured interviews with the participating executives. Originally designed as a semi-structured interviewing method including open-ended questions on the working habits of the executive and the perceived factors that influence executive work, the interview evolved, during the actual process of data collection, to being semi- to unstructured. An interview was conducted with each of the twelve senior executives in the sample during the period from August 2006 to June 2007. These interviews were conducted in parallel to the process of calendar collection. However, in most cases the interviews with the executive took place after the excerpt of the respective executive calendar had been received and read through. Interviews with the executive were of varying duration, ranging from 35 to 180 minutes. As pointed out, all interviews were recorded on tape and transcribed verbatim, with the exception of two interviews in which the executives did not allow the use of a digital recorder. In the two cases, the researcher took notes throughout the interviews and those notes served as a major source of qualitative interpretations for the case study. Transcribed interviews and notes resulted in 192 A4 pages of double-spaced text.

3

Data Analysis

This case study aims to undertake a concurrent triangulation strategy. Therefore, the calendars and the executive interviews have been analyzed separately and the results are pointed out individually. In the following section, the explorative analysis of the calendars is described, with its defined categories and its presentation in the results section specified. Next, the analysis of the executive interviews is presented. The development of categories as well as their presentation is discussed. Finally, the quality criteria, which served as a point of reflection throughout the study and its evaluation, are presented.

%       -1   

%    -1    

*  $ #

!"$ #

 S          )  

'! 5!         !   !         

S   !     S(      #      #      

*     
  

Figure 20: Concurrent analysis of calendars and interviews

3.1

Analysis of Calendar Data

As is the case with Mintzberg’s (1973) work, the purpose of this first analysis is to come up with the statistical “average” or “normal” activities of the executive. It is assumed that such an analysis contains explanatory power. In the triangulation, the results of this study will develop rich descriptions from the analytical comparisons between these, a comparison with previous studies, and an individual clustering of profiles.

94

III Case Study Methodology

 #- 78  9;;< => '?6 '@


 #- ;7$ 9;;
&  @

7  
Q /  Z & Y 
Q / 

7 Z 7 

0/EK0 0NEK0 7 !   9 
 (E 0-1KJ./NML   + 
 (E 0-1KJ./NML 0NEK0 0ME00 %      


 (E 0-1KJ./NML NEK0 $  (  " (    
 (E 0-1KJ./NML MEK0 -0E00 &#')  9!   7' -1KJ -0E00 $  (  5     ( ' $  -1K & Y  --E00 -KE00 7    E ! !  -KE00 -.EK0 4   % 
    
'   7   4!' -/E00 -/EK0      &#') :  -NEK0 -MEK0 7!    !  ! (  '

 -LE00 $      6   10E00 11E00 +  6   11E00 $      '

 9!   7' -1KJ

0LEK0 $     (      --E00 -1E-. &#')  9!   7' -1KJ -1E-. $  (  7  &#') : 
 (E 0-1KJ./NML -JE00 $  (  7       )  -JEK0 11E00   )  11E00 &#') :  "  - 7   #- ;C$ 9;;< 7  Z 7 -0E-.

$  (  7
 (E 0-1KJ./NML    --E-0 -1E-. &#')  9!   7' -1KJ -1EK0 -1E10 $  (     

Figure 21: Exemplary executive calendar week

The above figure presents an exemplary executive calendar sheet of one week. For the purposes of data analysis, executive calendars of four weeks were solicited. Reviews of the calendars with the respective executive associate were conducted to

95

3 Data Analysis

support the process of analyzing. This was done in order to limit the risk of misinterpretation of calendar data and thus to increase the overall trustworthiness of the case study’s findings. An important additional component in the reviewing phase was the collection of contextual information that was not available or would otherwise not be identified through the calendar data analysis. During the reviews with the executive associates, the researcher developed an in-depth understanding of the calendars, while the printed calendar weeks provided the structure for the review. The following figure provides an exemplary overview of the content of the calendar notations. : # 

 #   # 

  K-  100M
[ 8 = E  8!

* 

7 Z ! 
Q /  0NE-. 0ME00 --E00 -1E00 -JEK0 -/EK0

+  #  E
  F

0NEJ. -0E00 --EK0 -JE00 -.EK0 -NE00

$     (     WX   !    

 -LJ0  7    4   7 +   

   Q  
0-1KJ./NML $  (     
 +    

 -ME00 1000 8   7' -1KJ  E  % 
 (E 0-1KJ./NML    E  
 (E 0-1KJ./NML 
 +  +    

 10E00 10EK0 D $  (  :
 (E 0-1KJ./NML    1-EK0 1KE00 +  (!   !  ! 
  :   %  1KE00 : E &#') :  ;  -1K !  $ E 0-1KJ./NML 9E 0-1KJ./NML




/  !- 6    V      V    ( V  !  ! V    ! V     ! V    (

Figure 22: Exemplary executive calendar notations

3.1.1

Categories of Calendar Analysis

With the help of the associate interviews, each executive activity was classified in terms of eight categories. These categories with respective subcategories were previously chosen in such a way that they would allow a direct comparison to prior studies’ findings. The categories are introduced in the following. Executive hours worked – The first categorization of calendar data is done in terms of the hours worked per day. The value for this category is estimated as an average per executive; the basis for the estimation is four full working weeks, for each of which five working days from Monday to Sunday are considered. Not all prior empirical studies have provided estimates of the hours worked by the manager/executive, and of those which have used the category, not all the days of a working week have been drawn up-

96

III Case Study Methodology

on (hours worked have been included in the studies of e.g. Carlson, 1951; Burns, 1954; Mintzberg, 1973; Snyder and Glueck, 1980; Kurke and Aldrich, 1983; Martinko and Gardner, 1990; Pribilla, Reichwald, and Goecke, 1996; Tengblad, 2006). Place of executive activity – The second category for data analysis is place of activity. The place of activity represents the physical location of an individual’s activity or episode. In the process of data analysis, each activity undertaken by an individual was categorized in terms of place. Carlson (1951) provides an early account of place of activity for the Work Activity School. In line with Carlson, this study distinguishes among the following places of activity: • • • • •

Executive office Elsewhere within the company (e.g. in executive conference room and subsidiaries) Executive home Transportation (e.g. episodes spent in the train or airplane) Outside the company (e.g. visiting suppliers’ companies)

The subcategories for place of activity are generally consistent with previous studies, including Burns (1954), Mintzberg (1973), Kurke and Aldrich (1983), Snyder and Glueck (1980), and Tengblad (2002). Mode of executive activity – The third categorization of calendar data is carried out in terms of mode of activity. This category has been extensively studied in prior research (Carlson, 1951; Dubin and Spray, 1964; Mintzberg, 1973; Snyder and Glueck, 1980; Kurke and Aldrich, 1983; Martinko and Gardner, 1990; Muir and Langford, 1994; Goecke, 1997; Floren and Tell, 2004; O’Gorman, 2005; Tengblad, 2006). Here, five subcategories are used: • • • • •

Meeting Tour/transportation Telephone Deskwork other (e.g. personal)

With regard to meetings, some studies (e.g. Mintzberg, 1973; Snyder and Glueck, 1980; Kurke and Aldrich, 1983; Martinko and Gardner, 1990) have distinguished between scheduled and unscheduled meetings. Unfortunately, the calendar method did not allow such a distinction, as unscheduled meetings would typically not be entered in the calendar. Alternative subcategories to code the mode of respective activities have also been proposed. In addition to Carlson’s (1951) and Mintzberg’s (1973) coding categories, which this case study adopts, Martin and Willower (1981) and Kmetz and Willower (1982), for instance, have also included “teaching” and “announcing,” among others, as they have looked at the activities of the school principal.

3 Data Analysis

97

Executive contact – Executive contact categorizes the people with whom the executive spends the time. There exists one general categorization, executive contact, which has been used in the studies of Mintzberg (1973), Snyder and Glueck (1980), Kurke and Aldrich (1983), and Tengblad (2006). The following categories also served as part of the classification system: • • • • • • •

Subordinate Director Co-director Peer and trade organization Client Supplier and associate Independent and other

Alternative categorizations are used by Carlson (1951), Boisot and Liang (1992), Goecke (1997), Tengblad (2002), Florén and Tell (2004), and Robinson and Shimizu (2006). Size of executive meeting – Size of meeting is the fifth category used for analysis of the calendar data. The size of meeting denotes the number of people attending a meeting. This has been studied by Mintzberg (1973), Snyder and Glueck (1980), Kurke and Aldrich (1983), and Tengblad (2006), among others. The following subcategories for size of meeting are used in this study: • • • •

Executive and one person Executive and two persons Executive and three persons Executive and four persons or more

Initiator of executive activity – The initiator of activity category considers which actor initiates a specific calendar activity or episode. This category has been used often in prior research (e.g. Lawler, Porter, and Tennenbaum, 1968; Mintzberg, 1973; Snyder and Glueck, 1980; Martin and Willower, 1981; Kurke and Aldrich, 1983; Martinko and Gardner, 1990; Boisot and Liang, 1992). The following subcategories are used to categorize each activity in terms of initiator: • • • • •

Self-initiated (i.e. initiated by the executive) Not self-initiated (i.e. initiated by contact) Mutual (i.e. collectively initiated or complex) Clock (i.e. scheduled events) Unknown (i.e. not determinable from the data)

Subject of executive activity – This category looks at activities in terms of the specific functional area that is associated with or is the topic of the activity. The subject of ac-

98

III Case Study Methodology

tivity has been studied in prior research including that of Burns (1954), Dubin and Spray (1964), Brewer and Tomlinson (1964), Horne and Lupton (1965), Tengblad (2002), and O’Gorman et al. (2005). The following subcategories are used to categorize each activity in terms of subject: • • • • •

Finance, legal Marketing sales (e.g. distribution, sales, and marketing) Organization and personnel (e.g. office, organization, and general management) Production and research and development Other (e.g. trade union, applied engineering)

It should be acknowledged that prior studies have used different categories to code activities according to the subject of activity, each resulting in a different categorization scheme. In order to allow for the comparison of this case study’s results (in terms of subject of activity) with those of prior studies, the proposed categorization scheme represents a revision based on the regrouping of prior studies’ subcategories. The resulting scheme is therefore less granular (for comparison, Brewer and Tomlinson (1964) defined 12 subcategories), with each subcategory encompassing several of the prior studies’ subcategories. Purpose of executive activity – The purpose of executive activity accounts for thirteen specific subcategories, plus “others”. The following categories have been used by Brewer and Tomlinson (1964), Mintzberg (1973), Snyder and Glueck (1980), Kurke and Aldrich (1983), Martinko and Gardner (1990), and Tengblad (2006): • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Observational tours Receiving information Giving information Review Strategy Negotiation Manager requests Action requests Status requests and solicitation External board contact Ceremony Scheduling Organizational work Other

There also exist alternative subcategories that are used for “kind of action” (Brewer and Tomlinson, 1964), “purpose of activity” (Horne and Lupton, 1965), and “nature of activities” (Tengblad, 2002). All alternative categories were compared to each

99

3 Data Analysis

other. The presented subcategories were sought to be of greatest detail and coverage to case study purposes of executive work.

3.1.2

Process of Calendar Analysis

All calendar profiles were analyzed with the help of the review of the associates. The coding was carried out using a coding sheet for each of the 12 executives. In so doing, the voice-recorded review with the executive associate and the executive calendar were used to categorize each appointment according to the categories given. On average, 139 appointments were coded for each executive in a Microsoft Office Excel spreadsheet. &  



* 4 

&   #

 S          )  

 '! 5       !  !           *  ! -KL      

 +         '!     !   ! 
    

%  #    %!6 & - #

& 

, 



* 

4

 



-

-1 9( -K

L0 

* 

!

( 

1  

' 

$ 

, " 

1

-1 9( -K

K0 

* 

% 

'

-  



$!

&!  

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

-KL

J + L

J0 

* 

!

+ 

-  

!

9\!

"G

Figure 23: Categorization of appointments using coding sheets

The figure above provides an overview of an exemplary day to illustrate scheduled and unscheduled activities. The first appointment was used as the start of scheduled work day and, just as well, the last appointment marked the end of the scheduled work day. The duration of the scheduled work day covered more time than was coded with appointments. According to that, only scheduled activities served for the analysis and the unscheduled time was left out (but will be mentioned in the calendar results). Not all appointments could be categorized according to missing information or a limitation of the specification of the categories. Respectively, the appointment was coded with the subcategory “unknown”. The percentages of subgroup “unknown”, activities whose disposition remained unclear, are given in Annex 6.

100

III Case Study Methodology

   ") ;G68B  

+  ! 8B C; 7; 7; C; C;

C;

")  

976;;

  K-  100M
[ 8 = E  8! 7 Z ! 
Q /  0NE-. 0ME00 --E00 -1E00 -JEK0 -/EK0

0NEJ. -0E00 --EK0 -JE00 -.EK0 -NE00

$     (     WX   !    

 -LJ0  7    4   7 +   

   Q  
0-1KJ./NML $  (     
 +    

 -ME00 1000 8   7' -1KJ  E  % 
 (E 0-1KJ./NML    E  
 (E 0-1KJ./NML 
 +  +    

 10E00 10EK0 D $  (  :
 (E 0-1KJ./NML    1-EK0 1KE00 +  (!   !  ! 
  :   %  1KE00 : E &#') :  ;  -1K !  $ E 0-1KJ./NML 9E 0-1KJ./NML

&    #

HAB 

&    !

C7;

&    !

78B

Figure 24: Exemplary day to illustrate scheduled and unscheduled activities

3.2

Analysis of Interview Data

Managers studied had different tasks and jobs within their organizations (e.g. organizational size, industry, responsibility, etc.); their individual perceptions also differed to quite a noticeable degree. Therefore, the analysis needed to anticipate a large variety of opinions with regard to which perceived factors have an influence on executive work. All interviews were taped and then transcribed verbatim. These “primary documents” were then analyzed and coded using an interpretative approach. The following basic quality criteria appeared to be helpful to the content analysis of the qualitative executive interviews. The goal of the analysis was to identify themes (the word theme is used in order to separate from the word category of the calendar analysis) that express the experiences, attitudes, and feelings of the executive. In contrary to the categories of the descriptive calendar analysis, these themes were developed from the data provided. Thus, identified aspects were formulated into themes that could still be refined throughout further analysis. The collected data were then gradually dismantled using a stepwise process. As noted throughout the method selection, the analysis was intended to be as transparent as possible.

3 Data Analysis

3.2.1

101

Quality Criteria of Interview Analysis

According to Mayring, there are two approaches to building themes from interviews: the deductive and the inductive development of themes (2007: 74). • Deductive interview analysis – This approach makes use of theoretically justified and predefined themes. The analysis is followed by the allotment of texts to deductively given themes. Special consideration should be given to the definition of themes and the standard for how to allot texts to the respective themes. • Inductive interview analysis – This analysis develops its elements, and the resulting themes, from the collected data. The coding begins with the assignation of open codes to the text of each interview. In the following step, open codes are ordered. Higher and lower themes are developed, concepts are merged, existing terms are grouped, and the codes are again ordered. The inductive interview analysis was applied. But, as Neyer has noted, “in research practice a mix of those two [deductive and inductive] approaches seems to be appropriate as also qualitative researchers have mostly vaguely defined hypotheses about the research topic and knowledge of research findings in the particular literature” (Neyer 2004: 46).

Therefore, the inductive analysis was used while the researcher allowed the application of knowledge from theoretical terminology of the Work Activity School. Like other researchers, the author faced the problem that qualitative assessments from different scientific paradigms make use of identical words (e.g. validity, reliability, objectivity, and significance) to look at a problem, but these words can have a substantially different meaning (Lamnek, 2005: 143). Flick and Mayring present the following quality criteria for qualitative research, which were used in the assessment of this study (Flick, 1987; Mayring, 2002: 144; Mayring, 2007: 111): • Documentation of operation – Poorly documented qualitative research procedures may make readers suspicious of the reliability of a case study. That is why documentation of the operation is required. As Yin points out, “the general way of approaching the reliability problem is to make as many steps operational as possible and to conduct research as if someone were always looking over your shoulder” (2003: 38). In this context, the repeatability (i.e., reproducibility) of a case study’s findings represents an oft-cited quality criterion since the “goal of reliability is to minimize the errors and biases in a study” (Yin, 2003: 37). • Argumentative interpretation – Insufficient operational sets of measures and ‘subjective’ statements are common critiques of qualitative research and, in particular, of case studies (Yin, 2003: 35). Therefore, the argumentation should be highlighted in order to allow for understanding and cognition on the part of the reader. Accordingly, other researchers should come up with the same findings. Since the analysis

102

III Case Study Methodology

is in many cases worked out explicatively and not reductively, the comprehensive interpretations need to be documented to allow a reconstruction (Lamnek, 2005: 147). However, Neyer also notes that “a re-test of qualitative findings is difficult, as social reality is not constant but ever evolving” (Neyer, 2004: 48). • Following rules – Mayring notes that one also needs to stick to rules in qualitative research, and to develop materials systematically (Mayring, 2002: 104). Therefore, this research has followed a sequential process that has provided research guidance. However, views regarding the optimal structure, as well as its degree, vary in contributions on qualitative research (Lamnek, 2005: 147, Mayring, 2007: 54, Neyer, 2004: 46). • Proximity to the object – The fourth quality criterion remains the proximity of the researcher to the object. Lamnek describes the proximity of the object as one of the basic methodological principles of qualitative research (Lamnek, 2005: 147). This argument draws attention to primary research, as it remains crucial for qualitative researcher’s understanding of the research object. • Communicational validity – Mayring points out the quality criteria for communicational validity. Communicational validity instructs the qualitative researcher to question the subject on the interpretation of results. However, communicational validation does not apply in all research studies (Heinze and Thiemann, 1982; Steinke, 2005: 329). • Triangulation – The term triangulation denotes the examination of an object from at least two different perspectives (Flick, 2005: 309). Electronic process data, such as the calendar of the executive, is generated by computer-supported communications and working processes (Bergmann and Meier, 2005: 431). Such data is not easily accessible but is an important resource for analysis in this study. While some quantitative researchers question the quality of qualitative research (Friedrichs and Lüdtke, 1973; Girtler, 1984), this study undertakes the classical qualitative social research with an explicit orientation towards empirical social reality (Lamnek, 2005: 145). By doing so, the researcher has chosen the inductive interview analysis to limit his focus to the data. However, some ideas of theoretical terminology drawn from the literature review were not withheld.

3.2.2

Process of Interview Analysis

Since the quantitative analysis of the calendars forced data into a pre-existing coding scheme, this second analysis of executive interview data generated themes directly from the written transcripts of the executive interviews.

103

3 Data Analysis

The data analysis resulted in the identification of several themes. After a number of iterations of categorizing, the findings of the interviews were organized for presentation. The resulting themes that influence an executive work were used to organize the interview results. Throughout the analysis, colleagues and scholars in the field were consulted to reflect upon the data. Disagreements were discussed and clarified, and these discussions served as the basis for the refinement of the themes. The data was then recoded, and several refinements were made to the emerging concept. While focusing on the development of a strong argument, this study aims for limited bias and misinterpretations through a clear separation of quotations and the argumentation/interpretation of the author.

*(D    G  +     
       (     9            (       "      ! !  ! -0 Q .0 ]   
(  9    !  
     ( #    

Figure 25: Inductive development of themes (Mayring 2003: 75)

Through the research study and the presentation of the results, the author draws attention to a detailed documentation of the operation in order to the make research comprehensible and verifiable. The overall presentation of the case study, the analyses, and its findings is supported with stored data, for example, interview tapes, verbatim transcriptions, coding notes and their composition.

104

III Case Study Methodology

In comparison to Mayring (2007), this case study’s approach differs in terms of the themes definition and the level of abstraction, as well as the subsumption and revision of themes. First, the researcher has allowed theoretical aspects to influence the themes definition. Second, the reading, revision and work-through were done using the complete contents of the entire body of transcripts collected. Finally, three factors led to the decision not to validate the results of this study with the executive: (1) the subjects may have wanted to be represented differently in the case study; (2) a validation would have been obtrusive for the executive as initial interviews were often postponed up to four times; and (3) the case study was limited to one researcher and, therefore, time and resources limited the case study’s scope.

4

Conclusion of Case Study Methodology

The purpose of this case study is to extend prior research by examining executive activities, and the perceived factors that influence the work – in comparison with prior studies. The following research questions, as presented in this chapter, have been used to develop the case study. ' 

#  

(  %!  #3

(  !   %! ")3

%!  (  "   #     %! ")3

Figure 26: Overview of analyses and questions

This study presents a single case study on the executive in large companies in various industries. The function of the embedded single case study is to explore new fields and to contribute to knowledge building and proposition development rather than to test an established theory. Two parallel explorations are presented as a concurrent triangulation strategy. The first exploration follows an explorative descriptive approach, while the other applies an interpretative paradigm and uses mainly qualitative thinking. In combination, both explorations make up the single case study on executive work. Based on the research questions, a concurrent triangulation strategy of mixed methods was chosen and employed for the integration of different data in this study. The research design becomes granular with the selection of appropriate methods. There are several challenges when choosing an appropriate method to study the executive. A general challenge for the application of any research method for the researcher is to ensure a level of objectivity and consistency when obtaining data. Next, the researcher should keep in mind that the investigation should be convenient to the executive and, finally, should be more or less comparable to previous studies on the manager and the executive. As has been acknowledged in the literature review, the body of research on executive work has made use of various methods. The methodology used here to study the executive has applied methods that serve a specific set of arguments. Eight methods

106

III Case Study Methodology

(ethnography, observation, calendar, activity sampling, diary, interview, questionnaire, secondary source) have been evaluated in terms of their distinct advantages and disadvantages. The sample for this case study covers twelve executive associate reviews and twelve executive interviews. Within the case sample there was a clear focus on the experienced executive employed in large global companies including chief executive officers, chief financial officer, and board members as well as heads of corporate development. Those participating in the study were working in international companies with an average total number of greater than 100,000 employees. The evaluation of research methods led to the use of the calendar method for the descriptive exploration. This method collects objective and consistent data on the scheduled activities of the executive and is comparable to prior and future studies. Moreover, the calendar method may cover a respectable space of time and is very convenient for the executive. The author of this study has also employed a supplementary review with each executive associate in order to facilitate the full explanatory power of calendars. With the help of the associate review, each executive activity was classified according to a predefined set of categories. These categories, with respective subcategories, had been previously chosen in such a way that they would allow for a direct comparison with the findings of prior studies (hours worked, place of executive activity, mode of executive activity, executive contact, size of executive meeting, initiator of executive activity, subject and purpose of executive activity). The analysis employed involved descriptive statistics. The interpretative exploration has used a traditional and frequently adopted method of the executive interview. This method is preferred by the executive, and allows the researcher to build new dimensions into the case study and clarify new questions that arise. This concurrent exploration made use of an inductive analysis to identify particular elements, and subsequently develop themes, from the collected interview data. The coding began with the assignation of open codes to the text of each interview. In subsequent steps, these open codes were ordered. Higher and lower themes were developed, concepts were merged, existing terms were grouped, and all were ordered once again. After a number of iterations of categorization, the findings of the interviews were organized for the thesis.

Chapter IV Results and Discussion

1

Results

In the following discussion, the results of the empirical investigation will be presented. The presentation of results occurs separately for the two collected data sets. First, the results of the calendar analysis will be introduced that are supported by qualitative data and interpretations of the structure executive associate reviews, followed by the results of the executive interviews. Finally, through the process of merging the two sets of results “by actually bringing them together” (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007: 7), the results of the two concurrent analyses are compared to each other and synthesized, and the overall propositions of the study are formulated in the discussion.

1.1

Scheduled Activities of the Executive

In this section, the results of the executive calendars are reported according to the categories found in prior studies. The results of the executive calendars intend to present an overview of the scheduled work processes of the executive today. Categories of previous studies have been applied to present the indicated work processes of calendars of the previously introduced data sample.

1.1.1

Executive Working Hours

Calendars report that the executives within the sample had an average scheduled workload of 65 hours per week or more (the number of weekly working hours ranged from 53 to 76). This average is significantly higher than the reported numbers in previous studies (e.g. Mintzberg, 1973; Snyder and Glueck, 1980). The managerial population of Mintzberg’s (1973) study, for instance, worked 8.48 hours per day. In this study, there were on average more than five activities scheduled on a casual working day (that is, Monday to Friday). The executive devoted some time to their executive work on at least two weekends out of a given month. The following illustration reveals further details, describing the working hours within the sample. The arithmetic mean of the duration of the 1,669 (total) executive activities corresponds to 86.9 minutes. None of the case studies profiles had less than 100 scheduled activities in their calendar. On average, the participants used their calendars to plan and organize 76% of their overall scheduled working time. This means that the content of 24% of the executive time was not entered in the appointment calendar and, hence, not visible to the researcher. One profile had only 58% of the working time scheduled with appointments. The same profile also revealed the shortest average duration for scheduled activities, with 53 minutes, significantly less than the sample

110

IV Results and Discussion

3    D ( % (      $!    I 

*(  

*(  

#  *(  

#  *(  

#  + *(  

' # 

3

3

3

3

3

3

/\N

/\-N

M\-M

1

K

N\M

&=K@  =K@

/J\JM

.L\.-

/J\.0

J1

/L

J1\K/

*5=K@

.\.

K\M

1\L

KJ

&"[[

-/\-N

,     4  =K@

K\--

11\-/

/\J

&"

L

/\/

*  =K@

1\K

-\0

/\N

&"

&"[[[

L\--

     =K@    =K@

L\-N

-\0

.\/

&"

N

/\.

L\M

L\L

L\N

&"

--

-J\-/


  E 5(! -LNKE J/=   6 -LM0E NJ= ;   -LMKE LM0= 6  -LLNE -NM= %!( 100/E -JJM [ )       (!  W X [[ #     !5  [[[ #     

The recruitment behavior begins when an executive comes into the organization and faces the considerable amount of time required for internal reorganization and the building of his own network of trusted internal contacts (citations 98, 99). The recruitment of secretaries and associates according to the preferences of the executive was a common behavior discussed in the interviews (citations 51, 52, 85). Aligned preferences between an executive and his office management team help get office work done almost automatically (citations 49, 50), without major frictional losses (citation 50) or regular coordination and supervision by the executive (citation 74). With regard to clients, a recruitment behavior is to target new clients through participation in social events and private activities such as hobbies (citations 27, 60). This may ex-

142

IV Results and Discussion

plain the relatively high percentage of time spent independently and with others, as reported in the calendars. Similarly, with regard to recruitment of contacts, various activities exercised in relating with different contacts could be identified. One executive reported that the responsibility of the overall management team changed, moving to divisional responsibility for each executive (citation 41). With this development, there is a shift from an authoritative style of leadership towards team-based leadership, whereby an executive sits in a team with feedback talks emphasizing the alignment of thinking (citations 48, 94). Calendar data that record only the scheduled appointments, however, seems to contradict this finding by reporting the lowest results for the percentage of activities and time spent with subordinates. But, an executive might spend most of the unscheduled time with subordinates. Other instruments executives use to relate with their contacts are regularly practiced internal activities, such as morning meetings among board members (citation 96), discussion groups with employees at any subsidiary they visit (citation 91), meetings with selected employees of one division (citation 90), an open-door policy (citation 92), management by walking around (92, 93), and immediate problem resolution in the case of important requests (citations 55, 108). The resulting accessibility may account for the relatively low score on activities and time spent with subordinates: emerging internal requests and the time spent on them may not be noted in the calendar. Finally, the relatively high score for activities and time spent with clients is supported by the interview data. The treatment of clients according to the individual client gusto (citation 29) and the sharing of hobbies with clients out of office hours (citation 60) explain the calendar results in accordance with the behavior of customer acquisition.

2.1.5

The Executive Meetings are of Relatively Large Size

This study reported that 86.5% of activities and 86.1% of time are scheduled with at least one other person attending, that is, in meetings. Meetings with one contact are most frequent, constituting 47% of all meetings, while at the same time relatively short, occupying only 31% of scheduled time for meetings. Much less frequent (28% of all meetings) but occupying most of the scheduled time for meetings (47%) were those organized with four persons or more. Compared to other studies, the senior executive of this study has a significantly smaller percentage of meetings scheduled with one other person. In contrast, prior studies have reported lower overall percentages for meetings with two, three, four or more persons. As the table below suggests, the results of this case study with respect to size of meeting best resembles the results obtained in Tengblad (2006), the only other recent study in which numbers on this category are available.

143

2 Discussion

Unfortunately, prior research has not reported on the average time spent in different sizes of meetings. This is somewhat regrettable, as one of this study’s findings was that, on average, the more people there are attending a meeting, the more time a meeting consumes. Because of the small sample employed in this study, it would have been interesting to compare this finding to the data obtained in other studies. Table 16: Comparison of reported size of meetings (activities/time))

    !

     =K@    " =K@     =K@      =K@

4-8HG7 = !@

#  2 )-8H

#  #  #  ' *(   *(   *(   *(   *(   *(   # 

  t

!

 b 4 

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

 5  =K@

.K

K1

J0

.N

K/

.J\JN

K.

1K\11

  #=K@

JJ

.N

JL

J1

J/

KM\1N

.M

KL\K/

 =K@

K

.

0

-

-

K\N

&"

-1\-J

* )=K@

&"

N

--

&"

-N

J\-M

N

1/\1M


  E 4 $   %( -L/ME JK/= 5(! -LNKE JL=   6 -LM0E NJ=     -LM-E M-= ;   -LMKE LNL=   6 -LL0E KKL= 7    4! -LL1E -NJ [      (!  W X  

Interview data generally supports the observation from the calendars that many appointments are not self-initiated. The executives even note that the appointments cannot be made by themselves and that the office management decides on the activities (citation 10). On the contrary, the executives also note that, as CEO, one has a higher degree of influence on internal meetings design (citation 34). This may be the case because a CEO designs several of the regular meetings that are initiated by clock in the following. This interpretation of the two slightly contradicting statements would support the calendar result, which shows higher percentages of clockinitiated activities and lower percentages of self-initiated activities relative to previous studies.

2 Discussion

145

While Pribilla, Reichwald, and Goecke (1996) distinguish between a traditional, an autarkic, and a cooperative model for using information and communication channels in executive offices, this case study finds limited support for the traditional model, that is, the limited use of any media other than telephone and fax by an executive. Moreover, this study supports the autarkic and the cooperative model and sees the cause of the distinction as the coverage of direct customers or clients. While an autarkic executive manages as a player-coach and partly maintains his own calendar in order to remain in proximity to customers or clients, the executive of the cooperative model effectively ask the office management to coordinate the calendar in full. However, a considerable amount of mutually initiated scheduled activities and time remain in the executive calendar. These indicate the trend towards the previously noted open channels of communication (citations 55, 92, 93), which allow constant and mutually initiated activities with an executive. While the executive calendar may be organized by the office management (citations 24, 50, 51, 52), mutually agreed upon activities may receive an exceptional position. Still, two appointment calendars of executives were only partly delegated to the executive office because the personal customer relationships of these executives remained a predominant priority (citations 39, 110). On the contrary, one executive states also that it is impossible to fix his appointments personally (citation 10). The very dynamic market environment forces an executive to delegate the office work and the scheduling of activities to the office management that manages and decides what an executive does throughout executive work (citation 10). Thus, one executive points out that an executive rarely makes appointments personally because an executive learns that it is better if the coordination is done by the office management (citation 72).

2.1.7

The Executive Engages in Financial, Legal, and Organizing, Planning Activities

The twelve executive profiles devoted most of their scheduled appointments to organizing and planning activities, followed by financial or legal issues, marketing/ sales, and personnel issues (see table below for a detailed overview). Compared to prior studies, the calendar results report lower percentages for various other subcategories, including purchasing, production, product development, and public/investor relations. As is the case in other parts of this explorative study, the choice of sample influences the results obtained about this category. In general, the results report much higher results for the subcategory “financial, legal” and “organizing, planning”. However, it should be noted that some scheduled activities, for example, those of a preparatory or post-processing nature, were also coded into this subcategory.

146

IV Results and Discussion

Compared to Carlson (1951), the numbers in the subcategory “financial, legal” are relatively high. In support of this argument, one executive notes that meetings with those who give money to the organization need to be well prepared (citation 82) and that meetings with banks are particularly interesting (citation 47). Moreover, the interviews reveal the changing nature of executive work over the past years following the enactment of corporate governance regulations (citation 65). Today, the legal system requires more and more attention to financial and legal matters of executives. This is due to the fact that legal compliance forces the executive to be informed about various business operations that they can hardly find time to understand (citation 64). Therefore, a potential future increase in scheduled activities and time use of a financial or legal nature may be anticipated. Some executives speak of the “raging bureaucracy” of executive work (citation 29) and also of the intensification of organizational work at the higher (organizational) levels (citation 22). Such statements strengthen the results of the calendar analysis, which shows an increasing percentage, over time, of activities and time spent on organizing and planning. Table 18: Comparison of reported subject of activities (activities/time) *  - 8HB8= !#@


 -9;;9=@>

" #>



+

#  + *(  

' # 

   !

3

3

3

-0

K0

-M\-L

$ =K@

0 -  =K@

&"[[

1

.\.

,  =K@

M

K

K\1

,=K@

1-

L

K\K

,!  =K@

--

.

J\K

 )-  =K@

-/

-1

-/\-L

, =K@

-.

-K

-/\-K

,  !  =K@

-K

-.

M\N

 4-  =K@

N

--

1N\K0


  E '  -L.-E MJ= %!( 1001E ... [ )!
\ (       (!  W    X  W X [[ #  W !X

Interviews reveal that an executive with direct client responsibility devotes considerable attention and importance to such activities (citations 27, 29, 30, 39, 40), while executives without such responsibility make no such statement. Therefore, the nature of executive responsibility determines the percentage of activities and time

2 Discussion

147

spent on marketing and sales activities. While this result may not seem new, it remains noteworthy that such activities often take place outside of office hours in the evening or on the weekend (citation 60) and may include the engagement of the executive partner (citation 27). As the calendars and previous studies have suggested, an executive devotes a considerable amount of the activities and time to personnel issues. The executives mention in particular the time spent with their direct reports (citation 94), associates (citations 52, 105), and office managers (citations 87, 105). These interactions train others to identify problems (citation 94), to align estimations (citations 51, 87), and to treat subordinates as the executives would like to be treated (citation 107). While an executive gives feedback to others, these meetings are also a trusted source of information for him from the direct environment (citation 105). Overall, the subcategories “marketing, sales” and “personnel” remain relatively important in terms of scheduled activities and time. However, a closer look at the sample reveals some heterogeneity in this respect. While some executive profiles are heavily involved in “marketing, sales” and/or “personnel” activities, others exhibit very low percentages for these subcategories. The same holds true for the subcategory “public/investor relations”; only one executive calendar profile reported particularly high percentages of activities and time used for investor relations.

2.1.8

The Executive Activities have Various, Often Unrelated Purposes

The analysis of calendars in this study demonstrated that the activities of the executive sample typically had various, often unrelated purposes. This is also supported by prior research, as the table below suggests. In line with previous studies, this study reports high percentages of scheduled activities and scheduled time for the purposes of receiving information, giving information, and review, as well as relatively high percentages for strategy development. Like Martinko and Gardner (1990), this study found a considerably higher percentage of scheduled activities and time devoted to observational tours relative to studies before 1990. This could be a matter of relatively recent changes in executive behavior. Another difference between the results of this study and prior research concerns the purposes of manager request and action request. For both subcategories, this study came up with particularly low percentages. This coincidence might have resulted from the different methods applied: while the calendar reported information only on scheduled activities, direct observation would have allowed a look at requests of a non-scheduled nature. Some previous studies point out higher percentages for scheduling. Similarly to those in the two most recent studies, this case study’s profiles achieved low percentages for scheduling – low for scheduled activities as well as very low for scheduled time. In

148

IV Results and Discussion

contrast, quite a significant amount of time was scheduled for organizational work. Interestingly, in previous studies, organizational work either received very low scores or was not included in the review. Recalling the methodological differences across existing studies, it may be the case that organizational work is indeed scheduled, but remains unexecuted or marginally executed – due to time pressure, for example. Table 19: Comparison of reported purpose of activities (activities/time)

    !

48HG7

#  2 )- 8H!!  :C( -LL1=   4!  -LLJ= 5  ( -LL.= $(   -LL/= +

  % -LLL= %!( 1001= $    100K= ;  100J= 9 c  % 100J= *P6    100.= " (   5 100/

     =8;@

7 -L.J= 4(! -L/-= :   4  -L/.=  -L/N= $ -LN1=    -LM-= $   "  -LLM= :   1000= : 100.= ;  100.

"    =A@

6 -L./= 8 -L./= $  -L.N= ; -L/J

+      =89@

'  -L/K= 7  %   -L/J= +(   -L/J=  -LM1= +   )(  -LMJ=