INTERFACES Copyright © 1979, The Institute of Managemenl Sciences Vol, 9, No. 5, November 1979 0O92-2102/79/O9O5/0121$O1.25 Management f 3 Science PROCESS ROBERT J. GRAHAM Editor's Note Many Management Scientists think that the Management Science process begins with constructing a model. The editor of this column believes that the successful process begins long before the first equation is written, at a stage called problem identification. The guest paper given below presents and contrasts three methods of problem identification that Management Scientists may find helpful in identifying the correct problem — as opposed to elegantly solving the wrong problem. Robert J. Graham METHODS FOR MANAGERIAL PROBLEM CAUSE ANALYSIS John C. Anderson and Marius A. Janson Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 ABSTRACT. The importanl managerial processes of problem identifi- cation, formulation, and solution are often approached experientially. There are. however, several formalized approaches which have been developed and are currently the subject of many managemenl developmeni programs. These approaches altempl lo structure the eslablishmcnl of a cause and effect relationship between a problem and its causets) for purposes of taking cor- rective action. This paper summarily presents the cause and effect methods, critically evaluates thetn. explores their differences, similarities, and the kind of problems for which each method is appropriate. Introduction Solving problems may be regarded as tbe essence of the management process. This process consists of problem identification and formulation, design of solutions for the problem identified, and the implementation of the solution deemed most appropriate. The supposition behind this process is that a cause and effect relationship exists between a problem and its cause(s) and that the proper intervention in the relationship SIMULATION—SYSTEMS DYNAMICS INTERFACES November 1979 121 will result in a resolution of the problem. The correct identification of the problem's cause(s) is thus crucial to the success of the management process. Problem identification is frequently done in an intuitive manner; in fact Pounds states " . . . managers rarely, if ever, understand or analyze the causes of their prob- lems" [5, p. 1]. That is not to say that management does not engage in cause-finding activity, but rather that this activity is often ill structured, experiential, and subjec- tive. The authors feel that a more formalized problem identification approach would be beneficial and subsequently lead to better solutions. This paper examines some alternative formal methods of problem identification and critically evaluates their differences and similarities. The methods examined are; Cause and Effect diagrams, the Kepner-Tregoe approach, and Control Data Corporation's Alpha-Omega method. The methods differ in (1) the type of problems they help .

1. INTERFACES Copyright © 1979, The Institute of Managemenl
Sciences
Vol, 9, No. 5, November 1979 0O92-2102/79/O9O5/0121$O1.25
Management f 3 Science
PROCESS
ROBERT J. GRAHAM
Editor's Note
Many Management Scientists think that the Management
Science process begins
with constructing a model. The editor of this column believes
that the successful
process begins long before the first equation is written, at a
stage called problem
identification. The guest paper given below presents and
contrasts three methods of
problem identification that Management Scientists may find
helpful in identifying the
correct problem — as opposed to elegantly solving the wrong
problem.
Robert J. Graham
METHODS FOR MANAGERIAL PROBLEM CAUSE
ANALYSIS
John C. Anderson and Marius A. Janson

2. Graduate School of Business Administration,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414
ABSTRACT. The importanl managerial processes of problem
identifi-
cation, formulation, and solution are often approached
experientially. There
are. however, several formalized approaches which have been
developed
and are currently the subject of many managemenl developmeni
programs.
These approaches altempl lo structure the eslablishmcnl of a
cause and effect
relationship between a problem and its causets) for purposes of
taking cor-
rective action. This paper summarily presents the cause and
effect methods,
critically evaluates thetn. explores their differences,
similarities, and the
kind of problems for which each method is appropriate.
Introduction
Solving problems may be regarded as tbe essence of the
management process.
This process consists of problem identification and formulation,
design of solutions
for the problem identified, and the implementation of the
solution deemed most
appropriate.
The supposition behind this process is that a cause and effect
relationship exists
between a problem and its cause(s) and that the proper
intervention in the relationship

3. SIMULATION—SYSTEMS DYNAMICS
INTERFACES November 1979 121
will result in a resolution of the problem. The correct
identification of the problem's
cause(s) is thus crucial to the success of the management
process.
Problem identification is frequently done in an intuitive
manner; in fact Pounds
states " . . . managers rarely, if ever, understand or analyze the
causes of their prob-
lems" [5, p. 1]. That is not to say that management does not
engage in cause-finding
activity, but rather that this activity is often ill structured,
experiential, and subjec-
tive.
The authors feel that a more formalized problem identification
approach would
be beneficial and subsequently lead to better solutions. This
paper examines some
alternative formal methods of problem identification and
critically evaluates their
differences and similarities. The methods examined are; Cause
and Effect diagrams,
the Kepner-Tregoe approach, and Control Data Corporation's
Alpha-Omega method.
The methods differ in (1) the type of problems they help to
identify, (2) the extent to
which they support the development and implementation of a
solution, and (3) the
degree to which they use verbal and graphical techniques of

4. problem structuring.
This paper briefly illustrates how each of the three methods
would be employed
in a particular problem situation and proceeds to compare and
contrast the methods
along a number of characteristics.
The problem
The common problem used in the illustration of application and
for comparison
of effectiveness of tbe three methods is the "Blackened Filament
Problem" (Kepner
and Tregoe, pp. 25-38), as summarized below;
These events look place in a large, well managed plant making
plastic filament for
textiles. The plant had six huge machines that extruded viscose
raw material through tiny
nozzles into acid-hardening baths where the viscose streams
become plastic strands. As each
filament moved through the acid bath it was supported by lead
pulleys and ferrules. Each
machine had an exhaust fan evacuating fumes from the enclosed
acid environment through
roof vents and a large duct with an air intake at the rear of the
building.
Each machine mounted 480 nozzles, and each of the 480
gossamer strands of filament
produced was at one point in the process spun into a revolving
hard rubber bucket. Cen-
trifugal force of the spinning bucket threw each strand against
the side of its bucket and thus
buill up layers of filament from the outside in toward ihe center.

5. Every eight hours the case of
titament strands in each bucket had to be emptied, and the
process was timed so that the six
doffers. the men who tended the buckets, could each empty a
bucket on his machine every
minute or 480 in an eight-hour shift. This tightly scheduled
operation ran like clockwork 24
hours a day. wilh a relief doffer on call should there be any
trouble.
Early one morning, trouble came. One of the doffers on the
midnight shift emptied
bucket No. 232 out on the work table and noticed something
strange. Inside the core of the
filament cake he saw that the last filament that had come off the
machine was dirty black
instead of translucent. He didn't stop to wonder about it,
however, and went on to empty the
next bucket a minute later. Again he saw there was even more
blackened plastic in the core of
the filament cake, and again he went on to handle the next
bucket, it was found that the
blackening was caused by carbon being deposited on the
filaments. Possible carbon sources
were identified as; a locomotive moving through the company
yard, a coal burning
boilerhouse. and carbon cars stockpiled in the yard.
The above problem is a good one for illustration in that most
managers when faced
with the situation would engage in some form of cause and
effect analysis in an effort
to resolve the blackened filaments. The reader is invited to
think about how he or she
would approach structuring this problem.

6. 122 INTERFACES November 1979
What follows will be the way this problem Is diagnosed using
the three methods
examined. First, the formalized structure of each method will be
illustrated and then
they will be compared and contrasted.
Cause and Effect Diagram
The Cause and Effect Diagram, as developed by Inoue and
Riggs [3], essentially
is a graphical method, employing vectors indicating the relation
between cause and
effect. The cause and effect diagram for the blackened filament
problem is presented
in Figure 1. The exhibit divides into two sections. To the left of
the goal or problem
box are the principal causes, indicated by major arrows which
end in the horizontal
main shaft.
FIGURE 1.
Minor arrows directed into the major arrows constitute principal
cause control
parameters. Faced with a problem one starts by putting down
major arrows which are
believed to be determinants of the cause and effect relationship.
Figure I denotes
these as "process" and "environment." The graph is expanded by
adding paramet-
ers which are thought to control the causes. For example,
carbon is a control parame-

7. ter of the environment and can itself come from various sources.
New insights occur
as the cause and effect diagram is being constructed, which can
be expanded without
restriction. To the right of the problem or goal box are tbe main
effects resulting from
the principal causes. For example. Figure I shows filament
quality as a main effect.
Basic effects are the result of main effects, and are shown by
basic effect arrows
placed on main effect arrows. In this case basic effects of
quality are rejects and
INTERFACES November 1979 123
filament clarity. By adjusting control parameters one influences
the principal causes,
which in turn influences the main effects, finally influencing
basic effects.
In addition to providing insight into relationships between
causes and effects,
the diagram also serves as a list for things to check. Putting it
differently, the cause
and effect diagram provides structure in the search for problem
causes. The search is
clustered around the control parameters, i.e.. once carbon has
been identified as the
blackening agent, all possible carbon sources are investigated.
When the source has
been positively identified, it is either removed from the
environment or its effect
eliminated.

8. Alpha Omega
Alpha Omega [ I ] , developed by Control Data Corporation, is a
bit more exten-
sive in that it provides a formal structure to the entire problem
solving process. The
particular phases employed are; problem identification, search
for possible causes,
development of alternative solutions, solution selection, and
implementation. As in
the previous model, a cause and effect relationship is assumed
between a problem
and its cause. Problem cause identification takes place in the
context of the system's
approach, a system being defined in terms of its elements and
the relationships
between these elements as shown in Figure 2 for the "blackened
filament" problem.
To begin, system variables which are likely to influence the
problem are identified.
The investigator then searches for possible differences in the
actual and normal value
of these variables. One then goes through a well defined process
to ensure that all
likely variables or causes are included in the system. A theory
or framework is then
developed which attempts to explain the problem and variables
causing it. This
theory is tested by the methods of logical induction,
covariation, empirical verifica-
tion, and time lines. Time lines specify the time of occurrence
and duration of a
problem and serve to rule out possible causes which do not
agree with problem time
lines. Problem identification and system design are viewed as
parallel activities so

9. that the system can be expanded to include more variables as
the problem identifica-
tion and formulation progresses.
The exhibit divides into cause and effects sections. The causes
are given + and
— signs indicating the direction of effect change in response to
a cause change. For
example, filament translucence increases when the distance
between the locomotive
and air intake increases. Causes may influence filament quality
in an indirect way.
This is the case where acid purity and ferrule conditions affect
acid bath conditions
while the latter, in turn, affects filament quality. The effect of a
cause may, in turn,
be a cause of another effect. Figure 2 looks similar to the cause
and effect diagram of
Figure 1, but has the distinction of focusing on a more specific
problem. Figure 2
shows a detailed relationship between cause and effect and
therefore is less flexible
than a cause and effect diagram during the early stages of
problem identification,
when cause linkages are quite tentative.
Alpha Omega has a comprehensive structure leading into
problem solution and
further a formalized disciplined structure for identifying and
verifying the existence
of cause and effect.
124 INTERFACES November 1979

10. FIGURE 2,
DISTANCE LOCOMOTIVE
AND AIR INTAKE
FILAMENT
TRANSIUCENCIES
ACID
PURITT
ROFIT
• l .
Kepner-Tregoe method
The Kepner-Tregoe method as developed in The Rational
Manaf-er [4], like
Alpha Omega, consists of a number of phases which include
problem identification,
information gathering, cause identification, alternative solution
evaluation, and final
solution selection.
A problem cause is identified by searching for differences in
certain variables
under before and after problem conditions. This implies that
there is an established
desired state and that the actual state is deviant. In other words,
one is attempting to
reach rather than alter some desired goal.
The process of diagnosing problem cause is structured around
concepts of
specifying location of problem occurrence, placing it in time,

11. and measuring tbe
extent of differences between actual and desired states. Problem
characteristics are
divided into " I S " and "IS NOT" classes. Kepner and Tregoe
provide a tabular tool
embodying above concepts. Table I illustrates this tool for the
blackened filament
problem. Tbis table shows the problem as a deviation from the
desired goal of
producing translucent filament, A distinction between " I S "
and "IS NOT" defines
what is different between them. Finding this distinction and the
change from which it
resulted directs the search for possible causes. Possible causes
are verified and a final
problem cause is selected using the distinction criteria.
INJERFACES November 1979 125
TABLE 1.
Whai deviation
object
Where on objeci
observed
When on object
observed
Exieni
How much
How many

12. Possible causes
fc7 test
IS
Black deposit — caibon
filamenl on machine # 1
On .surface
On machine # 1
Al what stage in manu-
facturing process —
in acid bath
At what time did il occur
Heavy deposii. unifonn
# filaments affecled
— ail
TSNOT
Any other material
Any other machine
Wiihin filament
On any niher machine
Nol befon; acid bath
When did it occur
Slight deposit,
inierminani

13. # rdaments not
affecled — none
Location of locomotive ai time of probkm
Distinction of
t h e - I S "
Carbon deposii
Machine #1
ax intake
Location of
locomotive
All filament on
machine #1 were
aflected — unifonnly
Change
-
—
Locomotive moves
ihmugh the yarrf
The Kepner-Tregoe method allows for multiply-caused
problems; however, it has
strong orientation towards problems of a technical nature which
are assumed to have a
single cause. This is evident from Table 1, which becomes very
unwieldy for complex,

14. multiply-caused problems.
As does Alpha Omega, Kepner-Tregoe has a comprehensive
structure leading to
problem solution. Kepner-Tregoe is a tabular way of attaining
many of the goals of
Alpha Omega but, in addition, uses the categories of what,
where, when, to what
extent, and distinction as a focus for diagnosing the problem.
Comparing the methods
This paper has briefly illustrated the features of three cause and
effect analysis
methods. We must now compare and contrast the methods in an
effort to clarify
effective use. Table 2 provides a helpful summarization of the
characteristics of each of
the methods. Some summary statements of each of the methods
and overall assessment
follows.
Cause and Effect Diagrams are most useful in the stages of
problem formulation,
problem cause identification, and the design of alternative
problem solutions. They do
not, however, provide structure in the selection of a solution
implementation strategy.
Cause and Effect Diagrams are appropriate for problems of a
technical and nontechni-
cal nature, and effective in expressing one's growing insights
into a problem with a
minimum of effort. The usual approach allows expanding or
altering the diagram in
one area without disturbing other nonrelated diagram sections.
The nature of the

15. problem may be either singly or multiply caused. The relative
lack of a disciplined
structure is an advantage to the Cause and Effect Diagram
approach in that it allows
ease of evolution which other methods do not possess. Cause
and Effect Diagrams can
be used in conjunction with other problem solving methods such
as Alpha Omega.
126 INTERFACES November 1979
Dimension
Goal Seeking
Goal Changing
Problem Idcniificalion
Cuusc Itlcntillcation
Solution
Search
Decision Analysis
Decision Implementation
Ease of Mtxlel Building
Timed Needed to Apply Method
Technical Problem
Nontechnical Problem
Single/Multiple Cause

16. TABLE 2.
C & E Diagram
graphical
yes
yes
+ +
+ -- +
-t-
- -
- -
+ +
short
yes
yes
Multiple
Alpha Omega

17. graphical/
descriptive
yes
yes
+ + +
+ + +
-t--i--i-
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
moderate
yes
yes
Multiple
Kepner-Tregoe
descriptive

18. yes
no
+ +
+ +
-H-H
+ +
+
+
long
yes
?
Single
Nole: The larger the number of + signs, the greater the degree to
which the characteristic is present.
Alpha Omega offers the decision maker assistance in problem
formulation, cause
identification, and design of and selection hetween alternative
solutions, and it sup-

19. ports the formulation of a solution implementation strategy.
Problems may be of a
technical and nontechnical nature, multiply or singly caused.
Problem cause and effect
are graphically expressed in a vector diagram. This diagram
may not be as flexible as
the Cause and Effect Diagram. For the latter, relations between
possible cau.ses and
effects may be quite ill defined or speculative which is very
helpful in diagnosing and
verifying problem causes.
Kepner-Tregoe is one of the early problem solving methods. Its
features consist of
problem identification, design of alternative solutions, selection
of an appropriate
solution, and potential problem analysis resulting from the
solution implementation. A
strong case is made for the idea that a problem has a single
cause. Problem cause
identification is given focus by completing an " I S " and "IS
NOT" table. This table is
quite time consuming to fill out and the least flexible of all
three methods. Kepner-
Tregoe is oriented towards problems of a technical nature for

20. which relatively simple
solutions are thought to exist.
A further difference between the three methods exists in terms
of the problem type
for which they are appropriate. Problems may be divided into
goal seeking and goal
changing problems [2]. A goal seeking problem occurs when the
actual state has drifted
away from the desired goal. In the case of a goal changing
problem, the manager has
set a new goal which is different from the old goal. This
classification is important in
that it determines the appropriateness of problem diagnosing
methods. Both Cause and
Effect Diagrams and Alpha Omega are appropriate for goal
seeking and goal changing
problems.
INTERFACES November 1979 127
A final comment

21. The foregoing has been what we hope is a helpful presentation
and clarification
of some alternative methods of problem formulation which
structure cause and effect
determination — an area of modeling that is all too often
overlooked in Management
Science literature. It is believed that each of the methods can
potentially aid man-
agement problem diagnosis and search for problem causes —
and perhaps one could
conclude with such a statement. However, in a column on
process, it seems appro-
priate to conclude with a comment on implementation.
To varying degrees, each of the methods provides a systematic,
structured ap-
proach to problem formulation which could be successfully
implemented where
management-personalized experiential methods fall short. Two
of the approaches
have been widely presented within the context of management
development semi-
nars. Kepner-Tregoe, in particular, has been presented in many
large corporations in
some form or another since the middle l960's.

22. It is fair to say that formal implementation is very low. We
know of very few
people who have formally implemented the entire method in
problem analysis. Cer-
tainly, more complete applications may exist. However, the
interesting observation
is that practically all managers who have studied the approaches
seem to integrate
some of the di.scipline into their problem diagnosis repertoire
of personalized
methods. For example, it is not uncommon for managers to use
the "what is, what is
not the problem." or "distinction," ideas in Kepner-Tregoe — or
the "Theory test"
in Alpha Omega — or the "hierarchy of control parameters" in
Cause and Effect
Diagrams.
Like many other "models," these methods have opportunity for
complete im-
plementation where time, degree of risk, and personal
knowledge permit, and further
they possess discipline within their construction that potentially
can become a very

23. important part of individual management problem analysis.
REFERENCES
[1] Alpha Omega '-Problem Analysis and Decision Making,"
Control Dala Corporation (1976).
[2] Chen. C . '"What is Ihe Systems Approach." Interfaces. Vol.
6. No. I (November 1975).
[3] Inoue. M.S. and Riggs. J L , , "Cause and Effect Diagrams."
Industrial Engineering {April 1971),
pp. 26—31.
[4] Kepner. C. and Tregoe, B., The Rational Manager. McGraw-
Hill (1965)-
[ 5 ] P o u n d s . W . F . , " T h e Pmce>ii.of P r o b l e m F i n
d w g . " lndu.strial Management R e v i e w . V o l . I I . N o .
1
(Fall 1969). pp. 1—19.
128 INTERFACES November 1979

24. Managerial skills: what has
changed since the late 1980s
William A. Gentry
Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, North Carolina,
USA
Lauren S. Harris
University of Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Becca A. Baker
JCPenney Co., Plano, Texas, USA, and
Jean Brittain Leslie
Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, North Carolina,
USA
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to show how changes in the
workplace may have coincided with shifts in
the importance of managerial skills over the past 15 years and

25. to identify managerial skills needed at
different levels and functions in today’s work context.
Design/methodology/approach – This study, using survey
methodology, is within the context of
field research using 7,389 managers from 1988-1992 and 7,410
managers from 2004-2006.
Findings – Managerial skills important in the 1980s are relevant
today. However, the importance of
“relationships,” “administrative/organizational ability” and
“time management” shifted over the last
15 years. This paper also identifies which managerial skills are
important at different levels and across
different functions of an organization in today’s work
environment.
Research limitations/implications – Asking managers to choose
which skills are important,
rather than asking how important each skill is, may be a
limitation. Future research should also
consider the importance of managerial skills from a boss, peer,
or direct report perspective.
Practical implications – The results have implications for

26. training and development, selection and
succession planning.
Originality/value – This study is unique since it uses the
opinions of practicing managers totaling
more than 14,000 over two distinct time periods to determine
whether certain skills important (or not
important) in the past are still important (or not important)
today, and whether the importance of
certain managerial skills has changed over a 15-year period, and
what skills are important across
managerial levels and functions in today’s organizational and
work context.
Keywords Management skills, Operations management, United
States of America
Paper type Research paper
In order for managers to be effective, they must have a clear
understanding of whether
different skills are important in their managerial role. In
addition, managers must have
a mutual understanding of the skills and responsibilities
necessary for other managers

27. across similar and different organizational levels and functions
(Kraut et al., 1989). If
these skills and responsibilities are not clearly understood,
managers will neither be
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
Portions of this paper are based on a poster that was presented
at the 2007 Society of Industrial
Organizational Psychology Conference, New York City, New
York.
Managerial skills
since the late
1980s
167
Received January 2006
Revised June 2007

28. Accepted July 2007
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
Vol. 29 No. 2, 2008
pp. 167-181
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
DOI 10.1108/01437730810852506
able to coordinate work effectively, communicate expectations,
deliver feedback, nor be
prepared for job transitions or other training and career
development activities (Kraut
et al., 1989). In short, understanding whether certain managerial
skills are important to
a manager’s job is essential. A number of researchers have
investigated the roles,
tasks, or activities of managers (e.g. Mintzberg, 1973; Luthans,
1988; Kraut et al., 1989).

29. However, these studies are over a decade old, some more than
two or three decades,
and have not specifically examined skills.
The world of work has changed since these studies, most
notably due to
organizational downsizing, technology, and the globalization of
the workplace. Skills
important to managers in the late 1980s and early 1990s may
not be as important
today. As times change, researchers should update important
findings to determine if
those findings are still applicable (Cronbach, 1975), especially
when considering that
the skills and roles of managers need to be clearly defined and
understood to effectively
teach, select, develop, and promote these individuals in the
workplace. Based on results
of a study of more than 14,000 managers over two distinct time
periods, this paper will
highlight whether the importance of certain managerial skills
changed over a 15-year
time period, and determine which skills are needed at different
organizational levels
and across organizational functions from the opinions of

30. managers themselves. Our
main research question is, to what extent has the importance of
certain managerial
skills changed, or remained constant, over time, and whether
certain skills are
important based on organizational level and function.
Studies of managers
Mintzberg (1973) provided one of the most influential works on
managerial roles. Prior
to his research, the roles of managers were understood to be
embedded in a rigid
functional approach of planning jobs, organizing staff, and
leading personnel (Pearson
and Chatterjee, 2003). However, Mintzberg observed that
managers worked at a much
faster pace during which they were required to address a range
of issues. The job of the
manager required an ability to handle more complex roles than
those described by
classical management theory. Using a descriptive diary method
to observe managers
at work, Mintzberg identified ten roles of managerial work,
which were divided into
three categories: interpersonal roles, informational roles, and

31. decisional roles.
Expanding on Mintzberg’s (1973) work, Kraut et al. (1989)
investigated the
differences between managerial levels in the perception of role
importance. They
identified seven major factors of management tasks including:
managing individual
performance; instructing subordinates; planning and allocating
resources;
coordinating interdependent groups; managing group
performance; monitoring the
business environment; and representing one’s staff. Their
findings also revealed
distinct differences in role importance based on the level of the
manager. For instance,
first-level managers reported that managing individual
performance and instructing
subordinates were the most important set of activities in their
job. However, as
managers moved up the management hierarchy to the level of
middle manager, the
importance of these activities dropped and more focus was
placed on tasks related to
linking groups. The act of linking groups included planning and

32. resource allocation,
managing group performance, and coordinating interdependent
groups. Executive
managers took an even broader view of their job as evidenced
by their high importance
ratings related to monitoring the environment including
business, economic, and social
LODJ
29,2
168
trends. The only commonality among the different managerial
levels was the
importance they placed on representing their staff; over 50 per
cent of managers at
each level rated representing staff of “utmost” or “considerable
importance.”
Luthans’ (1988) research also examined differences between top
and middle
managers. However the focus was more on the distinction

33. between the activities of an
effective manager versus a successful manager. Effective
managers were identified by
a high level of performance in the unit they are responsible for,
whereas successful
managers were recognized by their rapid promotions within an
organization. The
activities that characterize effective managers included
spending time on
communication and human resource management, which can
lead to long-term
results. In contrast, successful managers spent more time on
networking and aimed for
short-term results.
In addition to differences between levels, Kraut et al. (1989)
also compared
managerial activities across the different organizational
functions of marketing,
manufacturing, and administration. For example, a greater
percentage of marketing
managers rated monitoring the outside environment more
important when compared
to other managers. Alternately, fewer marketing managers rated
instructing

34. subordinates as important when compared to managers in
manufacturing and
administration. Managers from all three organizational
functions indicated that
activities involving coordinating interdependent groups were
important.
The present study will attempt to expand on similar research
such as those
previously mentioned. First, this research examines managerial
skills, which are much
different than managerial roles, activities, or tasks. While past
research has determined
what roles or activities are important for managers and what
tasks managers tend to
spend much of their time on, this research attempts to determine
what skills are
important for managerial jobs. Second, this research will use
opinions from practicing
managers totaling more than 14,000 from two distinct time
periods (1988-1992, and
2004-2006) to capture what skills have been important in the
past, and determine
whether those skills have changed in importance over time. In
addition, this research

35. will examine whether managerial skills are important across
different organizational
levels and organizational functions in the context of today’s
work environment.
The changing world of work
The aforementioned research regarding the importance of
managerial tasks, roles, and
activities was conducted in the 1970s and 1980s. There is
reason to believe that skills
once deemed important for managers may have adjusted in
relative importance since
much has changed in the world of work since these studies. One
can assume that the
changes in the world of work may coincide with possible
changes in the importance of
different managerial skills. Organizations have become flatter
and less hierarchical
with fewer levels and more responsibilities (Allen et al., 2001;
McKinley et al., 2000;
Miller, 1990). Also, organizational downsizing is commonplace
due to the increasing
need to reduce costs, to eliminate unnecessary levels of
management, and to streamline
operations (DeMeuse et al., 2004). As organizations become

36. less hierarchical, there is
reason to believe that the skills managers thought were
important in the past may have
changed in scope.
Organizations also exist in a different environmental context
than 15 years ago. Due
to improved technology such as e-mail and the internet, changes
have occurred in the
Managerial skills
since the late
1980s
169
way managers and co-workers interact. We have seen the
emergence of the Internet as
a major form of communication and e-commerce as a new
source of business. Flexible
work patterns and the ability to work in geographically
dispersed teams is now a

37. common reality in the workplace (Wallace, 2004). These
changes have cultivated the
need for better communication, coordination, improved
performance, team monitoring,
and more interdependence and trust (Salas et al., 2004, 2005;
Zaccaro et al., 2004).
Teams and organizations are increasingly becoming more global
or virtual in nature.
As a result, an awareness of different cultures and attention to
multiculturalism and
globalization is vital for the success of many managers. As
organizations become more
fast-paced and global, there is also speculation that the
importance of different skills
managers need may have shifted in scope. Kanter (1989) argued
that these rapid
changes, spurred by technology and competitive pressures, have
made traditional
forms of organizing work obsolete. Managers may believe
certain skills are important
in order to be a partner with and empower employees to address
business problems on
their own and to work in cross-functional teams, which could be
different than the
skills believed to be important 15 years ago.

38. Managers must fully understand their roles and responsibilities
and become adept
at a variety of skills to perform their job effectively (Ahearn et
al., 2004; Halbesleben
et al., 2003; Stockdale and Crosby, 2004; Wallace, 2004;
Zaccaro et al., 2004). As
previously mentioned, understanding the skills of managers is
essential to coordinate
work effectively, communicate expectations, deliver feedback,
and for training and
career development (Kraut et al., 1989). It is unknown whether
the changes over the
past 15 years that have occurred in an organizational and global
context have also
coincided with possible changes in importance of managerial
skills over time.
A recent case study reexamined Mintzberg’s (1973) work 30
years after the original
research by studying the pattern of behavior among four
executives in Sweden
(Tengblad, 2006). The findings revealed that modern executives
are more oriented
towards working with subordinates in group-settings and focus

39. more time on giving
information rather than performing administrative duties.
However, Tengblad noted
significant similarities with Mintzberg’s original study,
indicating that claims of the
emergence of radically different managerial work may be
exaggerated. However, due
to the small sample size and lack of empirical data in that study,
it is important that
further work specifically examine the modern skills of managers
with a wide range of
managers and ample sample size. In other words, are the skills
thought to be important
to managers 15 years ago still important to managers in today’s
work context? The
present research will attempt to answer this question and
provide relevant present-day
information for managers and those who work with, train and
develop them, by
re-examining the importance of managerial skills across two
distinct time periods and
across both organizational level and function in the context of
today’s work
environment.

40. Method
Participants
This research used data from two waves of managers engaged in
a leadership
development program from a leadership development provider
in order to compare
differences in managerial skills over time. The first wave
consisted of 7,389 managers
from the USA involved in a leadership development process
between 1988 and 1992.
LODJ
29,2
170
The second wave consisted of 7,410 managers from the USA
who were involved in a
leadership development process between 2004 and 2006.
Because of data housing and
management issues, demographic data could not be given for the
first wave of
participants. However, aggregate biographical data from the

41. leadership development
provider from the time period of 1988 to 1992 revealed that
leadership development
participants in general were similar in terms of age, gender,
race, education, and job
status to those of 2004 to 2006. Demographic data in aggregate
could be given for the
7,410 participants of the second wave. The average age of the
managers in the second
wave was 41.73 years old, 59 per cent were male, 86 per cent
were white, 69 per cent
worked in the private sector and 77 per cent had a minimum of a
bachelor’s degree.
Managers came from over 60 organizational types (e.g.
aerospace and defense, finance,
communications, government, education) and over 1,300
companies. In addition, 999
managers (13.5 per cent) were first-level managers
(forepersons, crew chiefs, section
supervisors), 3,136 (42.3 per cent) were middle-level managers
(office managers,
professional staff, mid-level administrators), 2,197 (29.6 per
cent) were upper-middle
managers (department executives, plant managers, senior
professional staff), and 1,078

42. (14.6 per cent) were top or executive level managers (chief
executives or operating
officers, presidents, vice presidents, directors).
Measure
Managerial skills. Data determining the importance of
managerial skills was collected
from SKILLSCOPEw[1] a 360-degree instrument that assesses
job related strengths
and weaknesses. The instrument has 98 items that are organized
into 15 skill clusters.
These clusters represent 15 skills and roles managers need in
order to be effective in
their job which are part of Mintzberg’s three categories
(interpersonal, informational,
and decisional) and two other categories (personal resources
and effective use of self).
The conceptual basis for SKILLSCOPEw is research which
focused on managerial
skills, roles and tasks (e.g. Beggs and Doolittle, 1988; Kaplan,
1987; Kotter, 1982;
McCall and Kaplan, 1984; McCall et al., 1979; Mintzberg,
1973, 1990; Sayles, 1979;
Stewart, 1976). As part of their leadership development process,
managers chose which

43. five of the 15 skill clusters were the most important for their
current job. Table I
describes each skill cluster.
Results
A frequency count of the data revealed the skills that are most
important for managers
in their current job. Result show that both “Communicating
information, ideas” (60.1
per cent of the managers in 1988-1992 and 63 per cent of the
managers in 2004-2006)
and “Taking actions, making decisions, following through”
(59.7 per cent of the
managers in 1988-1992 and 62.9 per cent of the managers in
2004-2006) were the most
important skills across all managers. On the other hand, “Self-
management,
self-insight, self-development” and “Openness to influence;
flexibility” were the least
important for managers in 1988 through 1992 (8.6 per cent and
8.8 per cent respectively
as one of the most important skills needed) and managers in
2004 through 2006 (10.9
per cent and 7.2 per cent selected respectively as one of the
most important skills

44. needed). Table II shows a comparison between managers from
1988-1992 and
managers from 2004-2006.
Managerial skills
since the late
1980s
171
Many of the skills were similar in importance for both waves of
managers. However,
there were three skill clusters with differences of more than 10
percentage points that
should be noted. First, 39.9 per cent of 2004-2006 managers
rated “Relationships” as
one of five important skill clusters which was an increase from
29.4 per cent of
managers in 1988-1992. Second, 33 per cent of 2004-2006
managers rated
“Administrative/organizational ability” as one of five important
skill clusters, a

45. decrease from the 45 per cent of managers was from 1988-1992.
Finally, 31.7 per cent of
managers from 2004-2006 rated “Time management” as one of
five important skill
clusters which was an increase from the 19.7 per cent of
managers in 1988-1992.
The next set of analyses focused only on the 2004-2006
managers. Examining the
results as a whole may mask important findings based on
managerial levels.
Consequently, we analyzed the importance of managerial skills
across the four
managerial levels for the present study, similar to Kraut et al.
(1989). Figure 1 displays
the importance rankings for each skill sorted by managerial
level. “Communicating
Managerial skill Description
1. Getting information, making sense
of it; problem identification
Seeks information energetically; probes; creates order out of
large quantities of information; defines problems effectively

46. 2. Communicating information, ideas Crisp, clear, articulate;
good public speaker; strong
communicator on paper; adept at disseminating information
to others
3. Taking action, making decisions,
following through
Action-oriented; presses for immediate results; does not
procrastinate on decisions; follows up well
4. Risk-taking, innovation Has vision; entrepreneurial;
consistently generates new
ideas; creates significant organizational change
5. Administrative/organizational
ability
Establishes and conveys a sense of purpose; team builder;
resourceful; can organize and manage big long-term projects
6. Managing conflict; negotiation Effective at managing
conflict; confronts others skillfully;
negotiates adeptly

47. 7. Relationships Builds warm, cooperative relationships; is not
abrasive;
makes good use of people; has good relationships; readily
available to others
8. Selecting, developing, accepting
people
Attracts talented people; patient with people as they learn;
brings out the best in people; good coach, counselor, mentor
9. Influencing, leadership, power Inspirational; good at
promoting ideas; able to inspire,
motivate people; delegates effectively; works effectively
with people over whom he or she has no direct authority
10. Openness to influence; flexibility Listens well; accepts
criticism well; collaborates well with
others; thinks in terms of trade-offs; creates good
give-and-take with others
11. Knowledge of job, business Shows mastery of job content;
effective in a job with a big
scope; a quick study; understands numbers

48. 12. Energy, drive, ambition Good initiative; high energy level;
goal-directed
13. Time management Sets priorities well; makes the most of
time available; avoids
spreading self too thin
14. Coping with pressure, adversity;
integrity
Capable in high pressure situations; has integrity,
trustworthy; willing to admit ignorance
15. Self-management, self-insight,
self-development
Understands own strengths and weaknesses; learns from
experience; aware of his/her feelings; makes needed
adjustments in own behavior
Table I.
Descriptions of
managerial skill clusters
LODJ

49. 29,2
172
information, ideas” and “Taking action, making decisions,
following through” were the
two most important skills for all managerial levels with the
exception of first-level
managers. While “Taking action, making decisions, following
through” ranked as the
most important for first-level managers, “Knowledge of job,
business” ranked as
second-most important, followed by “Communicating
information, ideas”. On the other
hand, “Openness to influence, flexibility” was the least
important to managers at each
level, again with the exception of first-level managers who
believed “Risk-taking,
innovation” was the least important, followed by “Openness to
influence, flexibility”.
In general, the importance rankings were similar across
managerial levels, though

50. there are some notable exceptions. First, “Getting information,
making sense of it;
problem identification” was less important for top/executive-
level managers (48 per
cent) than for other managerial levels (each over 55 per cent).
Second, as managerial
level increased, so did the importance of “Influencing,
leadership, and power”, (from 21
per cent of first-level managers to 45 per cent of top/executive
level managers), and of
“Risk-taking, innovation” (from 7 per cent of first-level
managers to 22 per cent of
top/executive level managers). Last, as managerial level
increased, the importance of
two managerial skills decreased, namely “Knowledge of job,
business” (from 63 per
cent of first-level managers to 45 per cent of top/executive-level
managers) and “Time
management” (from 42 per cent of first-level managers to 19 per
cent of
top/executive-level managers).
In addition, viewing the results from all managers in aggregate
may also conceal
important findings based specifically on job function, as

51. managers in different functions
may have different managerial challenges (Kraut et al., 1989).
In order to account for this,
the present study mirrored the data analysis of the Kraut et al.
(1989) study in that the
levels of management were equally weighted in each function so
that no one managerial
level would have statistical influence over the other managerial
levels, and managers
from marketing (n ¼ 282), manufacturing (n ¼ 253), and
administration (n ¼ 489)
would be selected. Due to the functional diversity of the sample
of the second wave,
% believed role is important
Managerial role 1988-1992 2004-2006
Communicating information, ideas 60.1 63.0
Taking action, making decisions, following through 59.7 62.9
Getting information, making sense of it; problem
identification 57.8 57.3
Knowledge of job, business 56.7 55.6
Relationships 29.4 39.9
Administrative/organizational ability 45.0 33.0
Time management 19.7 31.7

52. Influencing, leadership, power 30.9 28.9
Managing conflict; negotiation 25.6 26.1
Coping with pressure, adversity; integrity 26.9 24.3
Selecting, developing, accepting people 29.6 23.7
Risk-taking, innovation 18.7 12.6
Energy, drive, ambition 11.6 11.6
Self-management, self-insight, self-development 8.6 10.9
Openness to influence; flexibility 8.8 7.2
Table II.
Overall importance
rankings for managerial
skills (1998-1992 and
2004-2006)
Managerial skills
since the late
1980s
173

53. Figure 1.
Importance rankings for
managerial skills
(2004-2006) by managerial
level
LODJ
29,2
174
managers from engineering (n ¼ 413), human resources/training
(n ¼ 345), operations
(n ¼ 916) and sales (n ¼ 518) were also examined. Figure 2
provides the rankings for the
skills of managers across job function.
It is interesting to note that the pattern of skill importance is
similar across
functions. For instance, “Communicating information, ideas”
was most important for
marketing, human resource, and sales managers, while “Taking

54. action, making
decisions, following through” was the most important
managerial skill for
manufacturing, administration, engineering, and operations. In
fact, across the seven
managerial functions studied, these two managerial skills were
among the top three in
importance for each managerial function. On the other hand,
“Openness to influence;
flexibility” was the least important to managers across all
functions except for
managers in human resources, who believed “Energy, drive, and
ambition” was the
least important. Some managerial skills were rated similarly in
importance across
managerial functions. For instance, between 22 per cent and 27
per cent of managers
across different functions believed “Coping with pressure,
adversity; integrity” was
important. Also, between 8 per cent and 13 per cent of managers
thought
“Self-management, self-insight, self-development” was an
important skill to have.
There was variability among the importance of some skills

55. across managerial
function. For example, “Administrative/organizational ability”
was important for less
than 25 per cent of managers in marketing, manufacturing, and
sales, but was
important for 58 per cent of managers in administration.
“Getting information, making
sense of it; problem identification” was less important for sales
managers (39 per cent)
than it was for engineering managers (65 per cent). Regarding
“Managing conflict;
negotiation” it is interesting to note that most managers rated it
the same in importance
(between 27 per cent and 31 per cent) except managers from
marketing, where only 17
per cent of managers thought it was important. Managers in
manufacturing (25 per
cent) and engineering (26 per cent) ranked “Relationships” less
important than human
resources (51 per cent) and sales (52 per cent) managers.
“Selecting, developing,
accepting people” was important to some managers in
manufacturing and sales (both
35 per cent), but was not as important to marketing managers
(12 per cent).

56. Discussion
In total, 30 years after Mintzberg’s (1973) original study,
Tengblad (2006) found that
while some things have changed, managerial work has remained
the same, despite
changes in the world of work. In a similar fashion, the present
research attempted to
determine whether the importance of skills managers need in
their job have shifted
over a 15-year time period. Though many have commented on
how the world of work
has changed over the past 15 years (e.g. Allen et al., 2001;
DeMeuse et al., 2004; Kanter,
1989; McKinley et al., 2000; Miller, 1990; Salas et al., 2004,
2005; Wallace, 2004; Zaccaro
et al., 2004), the data of the present research suggests that
despite the changes in the
work environment, the importance of certain managerial skills
is somewhat similar.
For instance, what was believed to be important in 1988-1992
(i.e. “Communicating
information, ideas” and “Taking action, making decisions,
following through”) is still
considered important for managers today. In addition, skills that

57. were not thought of
as important in 1988-1992 (i.e. “Self-management, self-insight,
self-development” and
“Openness to influence; flexibility”) are still not thought of as
important for managers
in today’s work context.
Managerial skills
since the late
1980s
175
Figure 2.
Importance rankings for
managerial skills
(2004-2006) by
organizational function
LODJ
29,2

58. 176
Despite these apparent similarities, there are some noteworthy
differences between
what managers thought was important 15 years ago and what
managers think is
important today. First, “Relationships” seem to be more
important now than for
managers 15 years ago. Tengblad (2006) hinted at this with the
finding that executives
are concentrating more today (than 30 years ago) on working
with others in a group
setting. The increased importance of this skill cluster coincided
with the changes in the
organizational context that managers today must face. The use
of communication
technology, such as e-mail, and the existence of geographically
dispersed teams require
managers to be more deliberate in the effort they devote
towards forming and
maintaining relationships. The nonverbal cues that aid in face-
to-face communication
cannot be relied on in virtual relationships. By acknowledging

59. and facing the
challenges presented by these new forms of communication,
managers can
successfully execute their job requirements. In addition, the
flattening of
organizational hierarchies has forced a higher level of
coordination and
collaboration between peers. As more and more people work in
an environment
structured around the work team, the more likely a focus on
building relationships will
be encouraged. For instance, more time is devoted to
interdependence and trust in a
team setting (Salas et al., 2004, 2005; Zaccaro et al., 2004),
where ultimately, building
relationships is necessary.
Tengblad (2006) found that executives are indeed focusing less
time on
administrative duties, and Kanter (1989) also revealed that
organizing work was
becoming obsolete with changes in the environment. In a similar
fashion, the present
study found that “Administrative/organizational ability” seems
to be less important

60. today than it was 15 years ago. One of the reasons could
correspond with the recent
trend of the flattening of organizations. Organizations have
become more streamlined,
and responsibility has become more spread out in the
organization. In effect, managers
do not have a hierarchical structure to manage. The
administrative tasks that were
needed in more hierarchical structures 15 years ago are not
needed as much in the
present work context. The advent of technology has also
facilitated many
organizational processes that were once paper-based. More and
more companies
have converted to computer-based processes (i.e. online
recruiting and staffing) that
have minimized the necessity to focus one’s skill on
administrative or organizational
duties.
“Time management” appears more important now than it was 15
years ago. The
reasons why could coincide with changes in the work context.
Technology now enables
people from around the world to work in real-time, to contact

61. people instantly, and
work more quickly. E-mail has replaced mail and fax. The use
of cell phones and
electronic devices such as “blackberries” has also increased. At
the same time,
employees are focusing on creating balance between their
professional lives and their
personal lives, attempting to get work out of the way faster.
Employees and their
managers therefore must focus on time management now more
than ever.
The differences in importance rankings of managerial skills we
observed between
managers at different organizational levels confirm previous
findings in the literature.
Kraut et al. (1989) found that some managerial roles are
considered important at each
level, but the degree of importance may be contingent on a
particular level. In the
present study, “Influencing, leadership, and power” and “Risk-
taking and innovation”
showed an increase in importance ranking as managerial level
increased. Both of these

62. Managerial skills
since the late
1980s
177
skills are indicative of senior levels of leadership. As a manager
takes on more
responsibility, it is critical to the manager’s success that the
manager’s focus shifts to
meet the new demands of the job.
Also important to note, some managerial skills differ in
importance depending on
managerial function and relevance. For instance,
“Administrative/organizational
ability” is more important to managers in administration than it
is for any of the other
functions because administrative ability is inherent in the
administrative function.
“Getting information, making sense of it; problem
identification” is more important for

63. engineering managers than it is for any of the other functions
because working with
information and problem identification is particularly relevant
for engineers.
“Communicating information and ideas” and “Risk-taking,
innovation” are more
important for managers in marketing than any of the other
functions because those
with a marketing background must be able to communicate and
be innovative. Finally,
“Relationships” is more important for managers in sales and HR
than any of the other
functions because sales and HR functions are dependent on
forming and building good
relationships. In effect, some skills are important to different
managerial functions
because of relevance of the specific organizational function.
Practical applications
Determining what is important for managers at each level and
each function is crucial
to coordinating work effectively, communicating expectations,
and facilitating training
and career development activities (Kraut et al., 1989). Relying
on past (or outdated)

64. information about the importance of certain managerial skills,
roles, tasks, or activities
could hinder effective work coordination, communication, and
effective training and
career development. Hence, “updating” this type of information
may help managers in
their work and development, even if it is to simply validate or
reinforce previous
findings. Imagine the challenges managers face if relevant
information about the
importance of certain skills in their jobs were not correct or
outdated. If information
from previous research from the 1970s or 1980s is still used for
coordinating work
activities and it has not been updated, managers may be
concentrating on different or
unnecessary skills that are no longer relevant. This could
greatly impede their work,
their advancement, and ultimately, their success. Moreover,
managers may not be
taught the appropriate skills for the present-day work
environment that is needed to
succeed if training and development relies on outdated
information. For instance,
Lipshitz and Nevo (1992) detailed research of the competencies

65. of effective and
ineffective managers whose activities and practices aided the
design of training and
development programs. Knowing which managerial skills are
important for different
managerial levels and functions would definitely bring
knowledge to improve training
and development programs.
Because of their rated importance, the data suggests that
managerial training and
development in today’s world of work may need to keep focus
on communication and
decision-making, decrease focus on administration and
organization ability, and
increase focus on enhancing relationships and the concept of
time management. In
addition, these findings may help those in selection and in
succession planning;
knowing that certain skills are important at different levels and
functions can help
determine what type of manager is needed at each level or each
function. For instance,
time management may be a skill set that is necessary
particularly for first-level

66. LODJ
29,2
178
managers and not top-level executives, and hence, first level
managers should have
that appropriate skill for the job. Administrative/organizational
ability may be
important for managers in the administration function, and those
in succession
planning or selection for managers in that particular function
should keep in mind that
information, along with relevant information from any job
analysis or competency
model.
Limitations and future directions
There are some limitations to this study. First, asking managers
to choose five of 15
skill clusters that are important to their current job does not
provide the level of detail

67. that could be obtained by evaluating the importance of each
cluster using other
methodologies. In the present study, a skill cluster is either
among a manager’s top five
most important or it is not. Therefore, the data does not permit
an assessment of how
much more important the top five skill clusters were than the
ten skill clusters not
selected. In addition, the data did not allow us to assess any
relative ranking among the
top five skills. As a result, it would be useful to assess the
importance of clusters,
competencies, roles, skills, or abilities using a Likert-type scale
in the future. In this
manner, researchers could examine to what extent each cluster
is important to
managers. Also, examining what managers believe are the most
important skills for
their job may not yield the same findings as asking what their
direct reports or
supervisors consider important. Future research should
investigate what direct reports
and supervisors of managers think are important skills for
managers to acquire a more
global perspective of managerial competencies, similar to those

68. acquired through
competency modeling (e.g. Lucia and Lepsinger, 1999). Also,
asking similar questions
to managers outside the United States would bring more
information about the
importance of managerial skills across cultures. Combining the
quantitative approach
of evaluating to what extent a variety of skills are important for
managers along with
more qualitative methodologies of on-the-job observation and
interviewing to assess
competencies should create a more comprehensive picture of
“today’s manager”.
Finally, any future research should capture the demographic
data for the sample across
successive waves. Without knowing more about the sample
composition for the first
wave of data, it is not possible to ascertain whether changes
over time are due to
differences in organizational structure or function, differences
in individual jobs
represented by the sample, or differences in workforce
composition. Therefore,
explanations of changes cited in our findings may be due to
structure changes and

69. changes in technology or they may be due to changes in
workforce demographics (i.e.
aging baby-boomers). The best this research can conclude is
that shifts in the
importance of certain managerial skills have coincided with
changes in the context of
the world of work. However, with the present research data set,
having a large sample
of more than 7,000 managers with similar aggregate
demographic data for each time
period may tend to lead to more generalizable results than
would a sample of a lesser
number of participants.
The world of work has changed over the past 15 years. Results
of this study
revealed that managers today feel the need to concentrate more
on building
relationships and time management skills and focus less on
administrative and
organizational ability. However, many of the skills managers
thought were important
to their job in the late 1980s and early 1990s are somewhat
similar in importance from

70. Managerial skills
since the late
1980s
179
the opinions of managers in the first decade of the 2000s,
particularly skills concerning
communication and decision making. To answer the original
research question, much
like Tengblad (2006) found, despite noticeable changes in the
world of work, while
some managerial skills shifted in importance, some managerial
skills remain as
important today as 15 years ago. The importance of these
managerial skills not only
coincided with the changes in the work environment, but also
are context dependent
based on managerial level and function. For instance, though
time management has
increased in importance over the years, managers at lower
levels (i.e. first-level

71. managers) seem to believe time management is more important
to their job than those
at higher levels (i.e. top- or executive-level managers). In
essence, one should take note
not only of how the importance of certain skills change over
time, but also, that certain
skills believed to be important for managers at one particular
level or function may be
more or less important for managers at other levels or other
functions. In the end,
knowing this information is essential to effectively teach,
select, develop, train, and
promote managers in the workplace.
Note
1. SKILLSCOPE is a registered trademark of the Center for
Creative Leadership.
References
Ahearn, K.K., Ferris, G.R., Hochwarter, W.A., Douglas, C. and
Ammeter, A.P. (2004), “Leader
political skill and team performance”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 30, pp. 309-27.

72. Allen, T.D., Freeman, D.M., Russell, J.E.A., Reizenstein, R.C.
and Rentz, J.O. (2001), “Survivor
reactions to organizational downsizing: does time ease the
pain?”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 145-64.
Beggs, J.M. and Doolittle, D.C. (1988), “Mintzberg revisited: a
study of chief executive officers”,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 9 No. 6,
pp. 17-21.
Cronbach, L.J. (1975), “Beyond the two disciplines of scientific
psychology”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 30, pp. 116-27.
DeMeuse, K.P., Bergmann, T.J., Vanderheide, P.A. and Roraaf,
C.E. (2004), “New evidence
regarding organizational downsizing and a firm’s financial
performance: a long-term
analysis”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 16, pp. 155-77.
Halbesleben, J.R.B., Novicevic, M.M., Harvey, M.G. and
Buckley, M.R. (2003), “Awareness of
temporal complexity in leadership of creativity and innovation:

73. a competency-based
model”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 433-54.
Kanter, R.M. (1989), “The new managerial work”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 67, pp. 85-92.
Kaplan, R.E. (1987), The Warp and Woof of the General
Manager’s Job, Tech. Rep. (27), Center for
Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.
Kotter, J.P. (1982), The General Managers, The Free Press, New
York, NY.
Kraut, A.I., Pedigo, P.R., McKenna, D.D. and Dunnette, M.D.
(1989), “The role of the manager:
what’s really important in different management jobs”,
Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 3, pp. 286-93.
Lipshitz, R. and Nevo, B. (1992), “Who is a ‘good manager’?”,
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 3-7.
Lucia, A.D. and Lepsinger, R. (1999), The Art and Science of
Competency Modeling: Pinpointing

74. Critical Success Factors in Organizations, Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer,
San Francisco, CA.
LODJ
29,2
180
Luthans, F. (1988), “Successful versus effective real managers”,
Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 2, pp. 127-32.
McCall, M.W. Jr and Kaplan, R.E. (1984), Whatever It Takes:
Decision Makers at Work,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
McCall, M.W. Jr, Lombardo, M.M. and Devries, D.L. (1979),
The Looking Glass Inc.w Simulation,
Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.
McKinley, W., Zhao, J. and Rust, K.G. (2000), “Sociocognitive
interpretation of organizational
downsizing”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, pp.

75. 227-43.
Miller, D.B. (1990), “Organizational, environmental, and work
design strategies that foster
competence”, in Willis, S.L. and Dubin, S.S. (Eds), Maintaining
Professional Competence:
Approaches to Career Enhancement Vitality, and Success
throughout a Work Life,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 233-48.
Mintzberg, H. (1973), The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper
& Row, New York, NY.
Mintzberg, H. (1990), “The manager’s job: folklore and fact”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68,
pp. 163-76.
Pearson, C. and Chatterjee, S. (2003), “Managerial roles in
Asia: an empirical study of Mintzberg’s
role formulation in four Asian countries”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 22,
pp. 694-707.
Salas, E., Sims, D.E. and Burke, C.S. (2005), “Is there a ‘Big
five’ in teamwork?”, Small Group

76. Research, Vol. 36, pp. 555-99.
Salas, E., Kosarzycki, M.P., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Carnegie, D.
(2004), “Principles and advice for
understanding and promoting effective teamwork in
organizations”, in Burke, R.J. and
Cooper, C. (Eds), Leading in Turbulent Times, Blackwell
Publishing, Malden, MA,
pp. 95-120.
Sayles, L.R. (1979), Leadership: What Effective Managers
Really Do. . . and How They Do It,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Stewart, R. (1976), Contracts in Management, McGraw-Hill,
London.
Stockdale, M.S. and Crosby, F.J. (2004), The Psychology and
Management of Workplace Diversity,
Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA.
Tengblad, S. (2006), “Is there a ‘new managerial work’? A
comparison with Henry Mintzberg’s
classic study 30 years later”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 43, pp. 1437-61.

77. Wallace, P. (2004), The Internet in the Workplace: How New
Technology Is Transforming Work,
Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Zaccaro, S.J., Ardison, S.D. and Orvis, K.A. (2004),
“Leadership in virtual teams”, in Day, D.V.
and Zaccaro, S.J. (Eds), Leader Development for Transforming
Organizations: Growing
Leaders for Tomorrow, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp.
267-92.
Corresponding author
William A. Gentry can be contacted at: [email protected]
Managerial skills
since the late
1980s
181
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details:
www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

78. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Please read all attachments. Need discussions/talk about the
three articles, what was interesting, explain and questions of
articles if any. I need a minimum of 3 discussions/talks
from each article, so 9 or more discussions/talks. No less
than 100 words for each for each
discussions/talks. Noplagiarism due in 24 hours or less. Please
do not reply, unless you read all attachments, understand due
date and price I am willing to pay no exceptions so do not ask
for more. If you want more money do not waste my time or
your time!