Journal of management studies 23; i january 19860022 2380 $3
1. Journal of Management Studies 23; I January 1986
0022-2380 $3.50
W H A T DO MANAGERS DO?
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF T H E EVIDENCE
COLIN P. HALES
Department of Management Studies for Tourism and Hotel
Industries, University of Surrey
INTRODUCTION
IN this article, I consider the extent to which the question 'What
do managers
do?' has been satisfactorily answered by published empirical
studies of mana-
gerial work and behaviour. Two aspects of this enterprise
require justification:
the pertinence of the question posed and the need for another
review of the
evidence.
Certainly, the question 'What do managers do?' has an air of
naivete,
insolence, even redundancy about it. Yet it is a question which
Is begged
by many management-related issues. Arguments that the quality
of manage-
ment is decisive in both organizational and national economic
performance
presuppose that the exclusively 'managerial' contribution to that
2. performance
is both tangible and identifiable. Claims for managerial
authority invariably
rest not upon de facto status and power, but upon an implicit
'job of managing"
for which authority is the necessary resource. The vast and
growing industry
of management education, training and development presumably
rests upon
a set of ideas about what managers do and, hence, what
managers are being
educated, trained and developed/or, Finally, nowhere is the
question of what
managers do more insistently begged than in that substantial
portion of the
literature on management which is concerned with 'effective'
management (or
managerial effectiveness). Indeed 'effective management' has
ceased to be a
purely contingent pairing of adjective and noun and has become
a self evident
object whose causes and concomitants may be investigated
unambiguously.
In contrast, I contend that the term 'effective management' is a
second-order
normative statement which presupposes the existence of
relatively reliable answers
to flrst-order empirical questions. For me, 'effectiveness'
denotes the extent to
which what managers actually do matches what they are
supposed to do. This
is recognized in a number of defmitions of 'managerial
effectiveness' offered
in the literature, despite their superflcial differerccs.''' A central
implication
of this, however, is less frequendy recognized: that the extent of
3. this congruence
can only be judged once the two sides ofthe 'effectiveness
equation' are known
Address for reprints: Dr. C. P. Hales, Dcpartmeni of
Management Studies for Tourism and Hotel
Industries, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH.
WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW 89
empirically. It is necessary, therefore, to have reliable evidence
on what managers
do, in both senses ofthe term 'do'. Some ofthe more celebrated
writings on
effective management are singularly reticent about specifying
vohat effective
managers are effective at'^'.
It is also my contention that earlier reviews of published
evidence on
managerial work have not addressed the issue of what managers
do in these
terms. Mintzberg's (1973) review ofthe existing evidence which
precedes his
own celebrated study is now over ten years old and there have
been a number
of significant and sophisticated studies published since tbat
time. Stewart's
(1983) more recent review focuses upon an aspect of manager ial
work -
managerial behaviour - of which her own studies have made
such a large
contribution to our knowledge. I wish to go beyond that focus
here principally
4. because one of my central arguments is that 'managerial work'
and 'managers'
behaviour' are not synonymous, even though many of the
published studies
imply tbat they are. Consequently, evidence on managers'
behaviour provides
only a partial answer to the question: What do managers do?
After reviewing what I take to be the key findings of the studies
in terms
of five principal topics, each of which, explicitly or implicitly,
addresses a
particular question about managerial work, I will discuss three
general limita-
tions ofthe existing evidence. First, I argue that the various
studies tread a
precarious course between illuminating variation and
bewildering inconsistency
and that, notwithstanding tbe richness of diversity, there are
good arguments
for the development and use of more consistent and comparable
categories.
Secondly, I suggest that the emphasis in the studies on
managerial behaviour
represents a limitation insofar as a context for locating and
judging thai
behaviour is absent. Finally, I question the extent to which the
studies identify
work or even behaviour which is inclusively and exclusively
'managerial'. I seek
to show that each of these limitations is traceable to a more
general unwillingness
to consider the wider context of managers' behaviour - in
particular, 'managerial
tasks', 'managerial responsibilities' and the 'management
function' - and to
5. develop concepts which permit this consideration.
For the purposes of this review of what is known about what
managers do I
adopt particular and necessarily restrictive definitions of
'knowledge' and
'managers'. As far as 'knowledge' is concerned, at risk of doing
considerable
violence to more sophisticated epistemological niceties, I
distinguish among
evidenc^^ theories and models. This review is chiefly
concerned witb published
evidence, although it touches on models where these guide the
collection or
order the presentation of evidence. Reference to theories is
confmed to indicating
the relative absence of links between theory and evidence.
As far as the term 'managers' is concerned, I follow the
researchers concerned
in adopting a nominalist definition as a starting point. That is, I
follow
Stewart (1976) in taking a manager to be 'anyone above a
certain level, roughly
above foreman whether. . .in control of staff or not', and for the
same reason
as Stewart, namely that I am interested, at least initially, in 'the
jobs that
90 COLIN P. HALES
companies call managerial and which form part ofthe
management hierarchy
for selection, training and promotion' (Stewart, 1976, p. 4). I
6. therefore consider
it of greater value to start by investiga ting what those deemed
managers do rather
than to debate a priori who managers 'really' are'*'. What I do
hope to show,
however, is thai such an investigation does inevitably come up
against the
problem of not only who managers are, but what 'management'
is: this issue
is one from which the studies have shied away, in my view to
their detriment.
WHAT MANAGERS DO: THE EVIDENCE
The absence of both a common/ociw for the research and
comparable categories
to guide collection and presentation of evidence renders the
studies to be
reviewed here resistant to the search for generalities through
processes of contrast
and combination. To re-cast the available evidence into common
terms would
involve both unwarranted interpretation and considerable
distortion, so this
review will take the original categories ofthe research studies as
its starting point.
The studies reviewed here essentially shed light on five major
areas and
provide answers to five implicit questions about managerial
work:
(1) The substantive elements of managerial work (What do
managers do?)
(2) The distribution of managers' time between work elements
(How do
7. managers work?)
(3) Interactions: with whom managers work (With whom do
managers
work?)
(4) Informal elements of managerial work (What else do
managers do?)
(5) Themes which pervade managerial work (What qualities
does
managerial -work have?).
Whilst no individual study or writer is concerned with all of
these topics,
the topics and their implicit questions are recurring and
identifiable features
ofthe accumulated evidence. Hence, I have chosen to group and
classify the
available material in terms o{ evidenc^^^. Whilst this is only
one of a number
of possible alternative orderings, it does attempt to lay an
empirical foundation
to the area of study upon which more elaborate theories and
models may
rest. Before considering these areas in more detail, it might be
useful to
list the research studies which form the major sources of
evidence, as shown
in table I.
For present purposes, I will treat the evidence accumulated by
the above
studies as a single entity. It should be recognized, however, that
this evidence
is the product of some 30 years of studies, during which time
8. there have been
discernible shifts in focus, methods and models. Perhaps the
most clearly
discernible of these shifts has been away from the concern in
the 1950s, 1960s
WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW 91
Table !. Principal sources of evidence on managerial work
Author Date Method oJ data collection Features oJ sample
Brewer and
TomlinsoD
1964
Carison
Child and
EUis
Copcman,
Luijk and
Hanika
Dalton
Couldncr
-Hemphiil
Self-record diaries over
2 ̂ - 4 Mi weeks
9. Burns
Campbell et al.
citing:
(i) Kay
(ii) Williams
(iii) Roach
1957
1970
1959
1959
1956
Self-record diaries over
3-5 weeks
•Critical incidents' reponed
by qualified observers
'Critical incidents'
Essays lo develop
descriptive statements
forming basis of
administered questionnaire
1951 Reporting by trained
10. observers using checklist
and questionnaire, over
4 weeks
1973 Self-administered
questionnaire
1963 (i) 'Executive time survey
sheet'
(ii) Observation
1959 10 years of participant
observation, 'covert' inter-
viewing, study of files
Dubm and
Spray
Fletcher
1964
1973
Self-record dianes (as
Bums 1957) over 2 weeks
Participant observation
1955 Participant observation
1959 'Executive position
description' questionnaire
containing 575 items
11. 6 senior managers
from 6 firms in 6
U.K. industries
76 top managers &oin
6 medium-sized
Scottish factories
74 managers reporting
on 691 incidents of
foreman behaviour
742 executives,
3,500 incidents
245 office supervisors
10 executives
in Sweden
787 managers from 78
organizations in 6
U.K. industries
(i) 58 executives
(chief execs,
directors, depart-
ment heads),
U.K.
(ii) 25 top executives,
Holland
(1,000 hours)
4 firms - small,
medium and large
12. factory and depart-
ment stores in U.S.
8 executives from 5
firms in U S .
75 middle managers
of different ages and
functions in 1
medium si2ed
company in U.K.
Small gypsum factory-
in semi-rural
community
93 executives in 5
major U.S. companies
92
Table I continued
COLIN P. HALES
A uthor DaU Method of data collection Feaiurei of sample
Home and
Lupton
Kelly
Kotter
14. information
Questionnaire
Stewart el ai.
1973 Intensive observation
and ('shadowing'), diaries and
1975 analysis of managers'
records, plus review of
other research
1977 Field observations and
informal interviewing
1972 Questionnaire (based on
Hemphill, J959)
1964 Field observations
1976 Tape-recorded informal
interviews and
observation
1967a Self-record diaries over
and 4 weeks
1967b
1976 Sflf-record diaries over 3
weeks; observation;
informal and formal
interviews
1980 Interviews and observation
15. 1982 Open-ended interviews
and observation
66 middle managers
over range of firms
(varying by size and
technology) in U.K.
2,800 observations of
4 section managers in
I Scottish company
15 high-level general
managers over range
of corporations
in U.S.
Managers (distributed
by level) in large U.S.
manufaciuring company
5 chief executives in
5 U.S. companies
Managers and
foremen in large
chemical plant in
S. England
96 managers on
training course
in U.K.
75 lower and njiddle
managers in division
of large U.S.
corporation
16. Managers and
management trainees
in targe U.K. public
sector organization
160 managers
(distributed by
function and level) in
U.K. companies
Pilot interviews: 180
managers in diverse
jobs. Main interviews:
274 managers (mostly
middle and senior).
Interview study; 16
selected jobs
41 District
Administrators in the
N . H . S .
98 managers, by level
and function. 6 pairs
of managers in 6
different jobs
WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW 93
and early 1970s with identifying the elements of managerial
work towards an
appreciation of its/jro«wM. There has, therefore, been a
movement away from
a static, analytic approach, the results of which were,
essentially, snapshots
of'the' managerial job towards a more synthetic approach
17. providing a moving
picture of the fluidities of managerial work in its different
guises. More or less
concurrent with this shift of emphasis, related changes in aims,
methods and
models have occurred. Firstly, researchers have abandoned the
search - implicit
in some early studies - for the definitive characteristics of the
managerial job
and have been concerned rather to indicate the diversity and
variation in
managerial jobs or to provide analytical tools for handling that
diversity.
Secondly, there has been a shift away from the measurement of
managerial
jobs across pre-formed categories toward the discovery of
categories. Thirdly,
there has been the increasing use of a variety of research
instruments in any
single study, rather than reliance upon one research method.
Finally, the models
of managerial work which have both guided the collection of
and formed the
framework for research data, have become more fluid in
character, positing
a contingent and processual relationship between the constituent
vsu-iables,
rather than a fixed and additive one.
Elements of Managerial Work
Six researchers'®' offer, explicitly or implicitly, lists of
elements (see table II)
which together constitute the content of managerial 'work', even
if different
managerial jobs display these in different combination.
18. These lists display a degree of discontinuity, even
inconsistency. Hemphill's
'Position elements' mix both 'managerial' and 'specialist'
elements and the discon-
tinuity between these and Pheysey's list is notable given that
Pheysey's research
(Pheysey, 1972) was based upon Hemphill's original study
(HemphiJl, 1959).
Certainly here are early grounds for suspecting that the content
of managerial
work is not common across levels of management or cultures.
Mintzberg (1973) and Sayles (1964) show greater agreement of
substance
beneath superficial differences of terminology, although this
agreement cuts
through their different categories. For example, Sayles'
'Leadership' category
subsumes Mintzberg's 'Figurehead', 'Leader' and 'Spokesman'
roles and his
emphasis upon 'Participation in external work flows' via
different types of
relationships expands upon Mintzberg's 'Liaison' role, as well as
indicating the
external character of the 'Entrepreneur', 'Disseminator',
'Disturbance handler'
and 'Negotiator' roles.
The major difference between Sayles and Mintzberg is that the
latter views
managerial work as more self-contained, whereas the former is
more concerned
to locate managerial work within the context of organizational
processes.
19. The lists which I have attributed to Kotter (1982a) and Stewart
(1967a, 1976,
1982 and Stewart et al., 1980) are implicit rather than explicit
in their work.
It does not do unnecessary violence to Kotter's work to suggest
that his categories
94 COLIN P. HALES
5 &2
V O
" i s ?
7 £. u O c ** S
-it
§ : >
< 3
.a
60 Q.
2 S
is
a n
II o s
1
20. 1 P S
cl Q w S
2=3
pa aa
" IN
.S 0
WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW 95
of Setting agendas, Network building, Utilizing networks and
Implementing
agendas 'translate', broadly, into the tasks of 'Planning', 'Making
contacts',
'Influencing' and 'Decision making". Stewart has always
concentrated more upon
lhe form of managerial work than upon content. However, her
work does suggest
that common, recurrent activities are Liaison, Maintenance of
work processes,
Innovation and Setting the boundaries of the job.
Amid the diversity of evidence, some common fmdings recur.
First, managers
perform both specialist/technical and general/administrative
work. Second, the
latter is sufficiently ill-defmed that part of managerial work is
determining its
own boundaries. Finally, within these fluid boundaries, the
following strands
are common, if not universal:
21. (1) Acting as figurehead and leader of an organizational unit
(2) Liaison: the formation and maintenance of contacts
(3) Monitoring, filtering and disseminating information
(4) Allocating resources
(5) Handling disturbances and maintaining work flows
(6) Negotiating
(7) Innovating
(8) Planning
(9) Controlling and directing subordinates.
Whilst exhibiting striking parallels with the supposedly
outdated 'classical
principles of management', this evidence takes us further for
two reasons. Firstly,
it includes cenain elements which could not, without stretching
a point, be
subsumed under any ofthe 'classical' principles. Secondly, the
research studies
do offer detailed indications of what these principles may
involve. Sayles,
Mintzberg, Stewart and Kotter all provide fresh insights and
subtleties to the
tasks of 'planning*, 'co-ordinating' and 'commanding*.
Stewart (1976) also sheds light on the chronological patterns
and sources of
managerial work by distinguishing the duration of work, time
span, recurrence,
unexpectedness and, finally, source of initiation. These give
additional dimen-
sions to the constituents of managerial work; what managers do
has different
durations, rhythms, degrees of uncertainty and origins.
It is evident from table II that the different studies and, indeed,
sometimes
22. the same study, point to different ways of conceptualizing the
constituent
features of managerial work - in particular the difference
between observable
activities which constitute the performance of the job, and
implied or reported
tasks which represent expected or intended outcomes. Hemphill
(1959), Pheysey
(1972) and, to a lesser degree, Sayles (1964) suggest that
activities and tasks
are empirically intertwined or, at least, do not attempt to
separate them.
Mintzberg (1975) does distinguish between activities and
managerial roles - which
constitute 'tasks' as defined above, given that they are
developed by asking why
a manager undertook a particular activity. However, as
Mintzberg describes
96 COLIN p. HALES
them, the 'Interpersonal' and 'Decisional' roles seem more task-
like in character
and the activities which Mintzberg describes vary considerably
in specificity
and behavioural simplicity - for example, from the relatively
straightforward
'activity' of 'forwarding mail' to the seemingly more complex
'negotiation'.
Kotter (1982a) is also careful to distinguish between the
manager's self-defined
tasks of network building and agenda setting and the manager's
specific activities
23. or behaviours. The differentia spedfica of managerial jobs are
'agendas' - the
manager's mental representations of the tasks which form a unit
of work,
together with an indication of their priorities. Certainly there
are broad affinities
between what Mintzberg means by 'Interpersonal' and
'Decisional' roles and
what Kotter means by 'Networks' and 'Agenda setting'. There is,
however, an
important difference between them. Mintzberg's roles represent
behaviours
which are combined and classified by intention whereas Kotter's
networks and
agendas represent second order constructs whereby observed
behaviour may
be understood.
Stewart's (1967a, 1976, 1982 and Stewart et al., 1980) research
has close links
with Kotter's, primarily because her object of enquiry has
consistently been
managerial7065 and the dimensions along which these vary. It
is possible, for
example, to use Stewart's Demands, Constraints and Choices
framework (1982)
to examine the provenance of managerial Agendas and to
combine Stewart's
findings on Contact Patterns (1976) with Kotter's on Networks.
Stewart's work is
less easy to square with that of Hemphill or Mintzberg (Stewart,
1967a, p. 154).
Tke Division of Managerial Time between Activities
Diversity is eilso evident in studies of how managers allocate
24. their time. The
studies themselves differ in terms of what they see managerial
time as being
distributed among and they focus upon rather different
constituents of
managerial work from those discussed above. Often the focus is
the formal
pattern of managerial work, rather than its substantive content.
Pheysey (1972), Stewart (1976) and Kotter (1982) are those who
do attempt
to examine the formal pattern of previously identified work
elements. Pheysey
(1972) found that 'Trouble shooting', 'Forward planning' and
'Briefmg sub-
ordinates' were the most frequently occurring. Stewart's (1976)
examination
of the distribution of work across different time rhythms
identifed four distinct
Work Patterns: 'System maintenance', 'System administration',
'Project' and
'Mixed'. Kotter's (1982a) evidence on the allocation of time
between behaviours
and contacts echoes other studies'^', but his explanation of this
pattern is
somewhat different.
A picture of mzinagerial work as technical, tactical, reactive
and frenetic recurs
across studies of time budgeting. Carlson (1951), Copeman et
al. (1963), Home
and Lupton (1965) and Mintzberg (1973) all indicate that even
senior managers
spend little time on planning or abstract formulation, are subject
to constant
interruptions, hold short face-to-face meetings which flit from
25. topic to topic and
WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW 97
respond to the initiatives of others far more than they initiate
themselves. The
conclusion drawn by these researchers is that the notion of the
manager as
strategist, planner and thinker is a myth (Mintzberg, 1975) and
that even senior
managers allow themselves to be diverted from their 'real' work
by constant
interruption and capricious interpersonal contact. Copeman et
al. conclude that
'the office is no place to work. . . the only effective way for an
executive to make
sure he is not interrupted is to be out'. (1963, pp. 113-4) and
Mintzberg (1973)
sees reactive, concrete work as breeding superficiality and a
preference for a
'stimulus response milieu' (1973, p. 5).
An earlier cautionary note was struck by Brewer and Tomlinson
(1964) who
argued that the erratic, verbal, apparently non-decisional
character of
manageriaJ work is consistent with the manager's need to deal
with complexity
through rapid accumulation and systematization of information
and through
the delegation of decisions.
It was left to Kotter (1982a), however, to develop these ideas,
arguing that,
26. in the context of'agendas' and 'networks', a reactive, informal
and piecemeal
distribution of time and effort is both efficient and en"ective.
Agendas require
large quantities of information to be gathered quickly, whilst
the development
and activation of networks requires interaction with large
numbers of people,
often informally. Consequently, the absence of planning is more
apparent than
real: managers plan implicitly, 'on their feet', and reactive
behaviour is, in fact,
an opportunistic way of achieving much in a short time.
Similarly, disjointed
interactions are not a sign of impulsiveness but of sweeping a
range of problems
rapidly. Thus Kotter (1982a, p. 166) argues:
Agendas allow the general managers to react in an opportunistic
(and highly
efficient) way to the flow of events around them, yet knowing
that they are
doing so within some broader and more rational framework. The
networks
allow terse (and very efficient) conversations to happen;
without them, such
short yet meaningful conversations would be impossible.
The foregoing studies tend to concentrate on the distribution of
time between
particular behaviours or activities. Others concentrate more on
the distribu-
tion of time between areas of responsibility. In the work of
Brewer and
Tomlinson (1964), Burns (1957), Home and Lupton (1965) and
Kelly (1964)
27. there are both areas of broad agreement and detailed
differences. Brewer and
Tomiinson (1964) found that 'Production', 'Sales' and
'Finance/Accounting' took
up the bulk of managers' time, with little time spent on
'Planning". Burns (1957)
showed that, of senior managers' time, only 20 per cent was
spent on 'General
management policy'. The impression that much managerial work
concerns day-
to-day problems, rather than strategic issues, is also conveyed
both by Home
and Lupton's (1965) study of middle managers, which found that
most time
was spent on day-to-day 'organizing', 'unifying' and 'regulating*
rather than
98 COLIN P. HALES
long-term 'formulation', and by Kelly's (1964) study which
found that half a
manager's time was spent in daily 'programming' activities.
Managerial Interaction and Communication
Echoes of the frenetic, ad hoc, practical, 'fixing' character of
managerial work
are to be found in studies which focus primarily upon managers'
interaction
and communication with others. These studies share six
common findings.
Firstly, a great deal of managers' time - between two-thirds and
four-fifths
- is spent imparting or receiving information, predominantly
28. through face-to-
face interaction (Bums, 1957; Home and Lupton, 1965; Kelly,
1964; Kotter,
1982a; Mintzberg, 1973; Stewart, 1976). Secondly, this
proportion varies
between jobs: Dubin and Spray (1964) distinguish 'verbalists'
and 'loners',
Stewart (1976) adds further refinements. Thirdly, managers
spend a lot of their
time interacting with other managers ofthe same status:
communication is,
predominantly, lateral (Burns, 1957; Dubin and Spray, 1964;
Home and
Lupton, 1965; KeUy, 1964; Mintzberg, 1973; Stewart, 1976).
Fourthly, a
general predominance of lateral communication contrasts with
considerable
variation among managerial positions in amounts of vertical
communication.
(Dubin and Spray, 1964; Kelly, 1964). Fifthly, in many cases,
managerial inter-
actions involve the manager in responding to the requests of
others, rather than
initiating matters. (Mintzberg, 1973; Kotter, 1982a). Finally,
much ofthe
interaction in which managers are involved appears on the
surface to be wide-
ranging in topic, only tenuously connected to 'business' matters
and informal
in character. (Dalton, 1959; Kotter, 1982a). The evidence,
therefore, supports
Home and Lupton's (1965, p.28) conclusion that managers:
organize and regulate by face to face contact with equals and
subordinates who,
in the main, came to the manager's office to report, to discuss,
29. to get advice
and to receive instructions.
Other evidence shows how variations in the direction of
managerial com-
munication are superimposed upon these substantive features.
Sayles (1964)
suggests that 'Participation in External Work Flows',
necessitates a variety of
relationships which differ, in their specific configuration,
between jobs. Stewart
(1976) is concerned with whom the manager interacts,
distinguishing four
basic types of'Contact pattem' - 'Hub', 'Peer dependent', 'Man
management'
and 'Solo'. Child and Ellis (1973) identify the 'Interpersonal
role dimensions'
of managerial jobs, or those aspects of the job which necessarily
involve
working with or through others: influencing, pressing for action
and handling
conflict. These dimensions are shown to vary by industry,
organization and
managerial job.
Studies differ in terms of the importance accorded to
communication. For
some, managerial communication is treated as a separate and
discrete 'area'
WHAT DO MANAGERS DO? A CRITICAL REVIEW 99
of work, or indeed, 'managerial work' tout court^ K However,
Stewart (1976),
30. who relates the structure of interaction ('contact pattems') to
different managerial
jobs, andKotter(1982a) who relates the j6roc«i of interaction
('network building
and using') to managerial tasks ('agendas'), both attempt to link
variations
in the medium of interaction with variations in the substance of
managerial
work. In contrast, Mintzberg (1973) is more equivocal, asserting
at one point
that 'contacts are [the manager's] work' (1973, p. 44) yet
elsewhere treating
interpersonal relationships as activities which constitute three
of his ten
managerial 'roles'.
'Informal' or IJnqfficial' Aspects of Managerial Work
Researchers who employ more covert research methods such as
participant
observation and informal interviewing, often delight in giving
particular
emphasis to the 'informal' activities of managers. Dalton (1959)
offers an
extended description of the various types of informal activity
which take up
a manager's …
