management education (ii) || management education and our knowledge of managers' jobs

Management Education and Our Knowledge of Managers' JobsAuthor(s): Rosemary StewartSource: International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 5, No. 2, ManagementEducation (II) (Summer, 1975), pp. 73-89Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40396789 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 10:23

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

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Studiesof Management &Organization.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:23:24 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mes

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40396789?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


MANAGEMENT EDUCATION AND OUR KNOWLEDGE OF MANAGERS T JOBS

Rosemary Stewart (United Kingdom)

Management education is based, as all education must be, on certain assumptions and these need to be periodically examined. To some extent this has been done. However , there has been no attempt to compare the assumptions made in management education and our knowledge of managers' work.

There is a simple reason for this: we do not know much about what managers do. General theoretical discussions about the functions of management take place, but there has been sur- prisingly little research into management as it is. (1) The theoretical discussions still tend to revolve round statements that managers plan, organize, motivate, and control. These statements provide little guidance as to what managers should be taught, nor do they tell us about those differences between managers' jobs that may be relevant in designing courses.

We do not have the information needed to make a thorough comparison between our assumptions in management education and management in operation. This is not an adequate reason,

This is a slightly revised and updated (by the author) version of the article that appeared in the International Social Science Journal, XX, 1 (1968), 77-89. Reprinted by permission of UNESCO. Dr. Stewart (Mrs. I. M. James) is a fellow at the Oxford Centre for Management Studies.

73



74 Rosemary Stewart (United Kingdom)

however, for not trying to do so. We should look at what the empirical studies of management in action can tell us about the nature of managers' jobs. Such an attempt cannot, at this stage of our knowledge, give us definite answers, yet it can be useful if it makes us ask new questions about our assumptions. The aim of this article is, therefore to discuss what relevance the research into managers' activities may have for management education. We must start by looking at some of the principal assumptions that are made in management education today.

Assumptions in Management Education

We can distinguish six assumptions made by many management educationists:

1) That management is one profession for which students should have a common training. This initial assumption is disputed by those - mainly managers rather than educationists - who think that formal training in management should not be given before a man has had managerial experience. Its terminology would be disputed by those who think that management does not meet the standards of a profession.

2) That an important aspect of the managerTs job is making decisions. Managers should, therefore, be taught how to analyse problems and what tools and techniques are available to help them. They should also be given background knowledge of the business to assist them in deciding what information is relevant to a particular problem. What background information should be taught is still partially disputed.

3) That some understanding of quantitative methods is an es- sential prerequisite for the manager in the modern world of information technology. The small amount of attention paid by many managers to the offerings of information technology is attributed to the lack of such education.

4) That industrial relations in general, and relations with his subordinates, are the most important relationships for



Our Knowledge of Managers' Jobs 75

the manager to understand. 5) That the main difference between managers' jobs that is

relevant for post-experience education is the difference between levels. Post-experience courses are usually di- vided into those suitable for junior, middle, and senior managers. One reason for this is that the kinds of decisions taken at different levels vary. Top management decisions require a broader, less technical understanding of the business. Another reason for this division is that managers are likely to feel most comfortable with those who come from the same level. Such a division is also the easiest distinction to make; it includes all types of managers from both line and staff.

6) That de -specialization is one of the major problems in post-experience management education. A middle manager must be taught how to think like a manager rather than a specialist. A senior manager needs to learn how to think in terms of the business as a whole, rather than in terms of his own department.

This assumption is probably the reason why managers from different functions are mixed together. The aim is to ensure that the course members, because of their di- verse jobs, help to broaden each other's knowledge and understanding of the business. This is generally consid- ered more important than putting together people in sim- iliar jobs who can discuss their common problems.

These are some of the general assumptions in management education today. They are not based on studies of what information and skills managers need or actually use. It is assumed that there is a common basis of knowledge that is applicable to all management jobs. It is assumed, too, that the problems en- countered by managers are sufficiently alike for discussions of an individual case study to be useful for all. This may be true, but the emphasis may still be wrong. There may be too much emphasis on the similarities in management and too little on the differences. Let us see what the research into managers' jobs can tell us about these similarities and differences. Before




we do so, however, we must first understand what questions the research workers have been trying to answer and what methods they have used for the purpose.

Methods of Studying Managers T Activities

One explanation for the small amount of research into managers' jobs may be the difficulties of carrying out such research. These are both conceptual and methodological. Man- agers do so many different things that it is hard to study them. Conceptually, it is not so difficult to think of the general questions that one would like to ask about managers' activities. It becomes harder when one tries to make these questions more concrete and still more difficult when one wants to translate them into feasible research projects. The methodological difficulties arise partly from the problems of getting cooperation, partly from deciding who and what should be studied, and partly from the limited tools available for such study. These difficulties greatly restrict the scope of the research that can be done.

Three main methods have been used to study what managers do. All have considerable limitations. The first is to ask the managers to estimate how they spend their time, the second is to use a specially designed self-recording diary, and the third is observation. All may be supplemented by interviews. The first method has the advantages of simplicity. It asks little effort from the subjects so that cooperation is easier to obtain than with the other two methods. The task of analysis is also simple as there is only one figure for each activity in respect of each of those concerned, namely that person1 s estimate of how much time he spends on that activity. One can also decide what kind of sample one would like to study and have a good chance of getting the members of the sample to cooperate. This is unlikely with diary-keeping or observation since these methods make greater demands on the cooperating managers. The first method has one important drawback, that of unreliability. People's estimates of how they spend their time have been shown to diverge quite markedly, for some types of activities,



Our Knowledge of Managers f Jobs 77

from how they actually spend their time. (2) Observation is the most reliable method of studying managers'

activities. The observer will have time to keep a fuller record than even the most conscientious diary-keeper, who must get on with his normal job. Diary-keepers will vary in their con- scientiousness and in how hard-pressed they are by their ordi- nary work, so their diaries will vary in their reliability. The major disadvantage of observation is that it takes so much research time, and it is for this reason that the specially designed diary has been the main method employed.

Random sampling can be used to increase the number of people who can be observed and to reduce the nuisance value of a constant observer, but it also has limitations. The subjects must be in the same building or near by. The manager's activities may not be understandable when seen for brief periods. A further limitation is that random sampling will not give information about the duration of particular episodes.

It is difficult to find managers who want to cooperate in the research if they are asked to keep a detailed diary or to be con- stantly observed. The longer the period of the study, the greater the reluctance to cooperate. The studies involving diary -keeping or observation have therefore covered a small number of managers ranging from the observation of one manager for one day to Stewart's study of 160 managers who kept a specially designed diary for four weeks. (3) There is, as we have seen, another reason for the small number of managers who have been observed: the time required.

How are managers' activities to be measured? This question must be answered, whichever method is favoured. Time has been the main measure used, i.e., how long a manager spends on a particular activity. The other measure is frequency, i.e., how often a manager does something or how many episodes he is engaged in during the day. Frequency is less generally useful than time, but it gives a better picture of the way a manager's work is distributed during the day or the week than do total figures of the time spent on a particular activity. These two quantitative measures can provide comparisons between




different managers T activities and those of the same manager at different periods.

The most serious problem in studying managersT activities is that of the ambiguities in defining them. There is no problem if one is asking unambiguous questions such as "Where is he working?", "Is he alone or with someone else?" and "Who is he with?" There is also no problem with simple unambiguous activities like telephoning. There are minor difficulties of definition with other simple activities like reading, which may be interspersed with writing or thinking. Those who have sought to describe the content of managerial work have usually thought in terms of the classic management functions, such as planning and organizing, or of activities like giving information or making decisions. The objection to these descriptions is that such activities cannot be defined so unambiguously that different managers recording the same tasks will necessarily classify them in the same way. This is even true for such apparently less ambiguous classifications of work as production or sales. It may be a mixture of the two, or production looked at from one point of view and sales looked at from another. These problems of definition mean that neither self-estimating nor diary- keeping, in which the manager ticks subject classifications, can be reliably used to compare the content of managers* activities. A better method is to get the manager to write descriptions of some of the tasks he has been occupied with during the day. However, he would not have time to keep a running record of the content of all his work. An observer has more time to do so, but may not be able to tell what the manager is doing if he is writing or may not understand enough about the work to in- terpret what he is doing correctly.

The Questions Asked by Those Who Have Studied Managers1 Activities

1) How does the (average) manager spend his time? The aspects of his work that have been studied include: place of work, whether he is alone or with others, who he is with,



Our Knowledge of Managers1 Jobs 79

simple activities like reading and telephoning, some limited descriptions of the content of his work, and the number of episodes that take place during a day. Research workers who studied a few managers described how each of them spent their time; those studying a larger number have given the average figures. (4)

2) Can one distinguish different types of jobs? The main method that has been used to do so consists of comparing the amount of time that managers spend on different activities: again, as in (1) above, the activities that have been studied are limited. A different approach has been used by Sayles, who studied the types of relationships with other people that jobs involved. (5)

3) Can one distinguish differences in the behaviour of people who have a similar type of job but work in different types of organizations ? This question was asked in the Ohio studies of naval officers with similar jobs who worked on different types of ships. The Ohio research workers were interested both in how the officers spent their time and in their leadership behaviour. (6)

4) Can one distinguish differences in the behaviour of people who have a similar type of job and who work in a similar type of organization? (7)

5) How far can one predict how a person will behave in a job by studying the behaviour of his predecessor? (8)

6) How can one compare the responsibilities of different jobs? The most usual method is to compare jobs under a number of different headings, which are subjectively assessed. Jacques developed one measure to compare jobs, that of the time -span of discretion. (9)

7) What are the major current problems of individual managers?

8) What are the managerial roles? (10) This list shows that research workers have been interested in a number of different approaches to the study of managers' jobs. (11) A distinction can be made between those who thought in terms of the manager's job and those who thought in terms




of different types of managerial jobs. The former were interested in finding out how the average manager spent his time. The latter sought to classify job types. The two groups had different conceptions of the nature of managersT jobs.

Questions 37 4, and 5 sought to distinguish the relative importance of the kind of job, the nature of the organization and the personality of its occupant in determining how the job- holder behaved. All three are likely to have an influence, but how much influence and over what aspects of the job? The only research known to the writer that has specifically tried to iso- late these three variables was that done by a group at the Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research. They made a number of studies during the 1950s on different aspects of leadership. Their work is, unfortunately, of limited value for this discussion, since most of the research was done in the U.S. navy rather than in industry, and it is easier in the armed services to make comparisons between people in similar jobs, insofar as the jobs are more strictly defined than is usual in industry. There is also more similarity between different or- ganizational groupings, such as ships or squadrons. Another limitation to the Ohio research was that it was mainly carried out by asking people to estimate how they or others acted, rather than by observing what actually happened. The significance of the Ohio studies for us lies more in the questions they asked than in their findings.

The sixth question, nHow can one compare the responsibilities of different jobs?" has been mainly asked for salary reasons. The aim has been to try to find some objective basis for assessing the relative worth of different jobs at the management level. Jacques's method of the time-span of discretion has given us one type of distinction between managers' jobs. The other methods, which have affinities with job descriptions and job evaluation, show what people think is the relative importance of particular qualities, experience or knowledge in a job. They contribute little to our understanding of managers' work.

The seventh question, "What are the managerial roles?" is




the most recent one to have been asked and has suggested a new approach to the analysis of managerial behaviour.

The eighth question, "What are the major current problems of individual managers ?" has been explored by Marples of Cambridge University in small-scale studies. (12) His approach is an interesting contribution to ways of studying managers' jobs.

Decision- making is not specifically covered in the eight questions. Research into decision-making has been pursued independently of that into managers' jobs. (13) Most of the work has been on the theory of decision-making. The compara- tively small amount of empirical research has concentrated on case studies of decisions or on the information used for particular types of decisions, such as investment decisions. The case studies have shown the lengthy period that may elapse between the first discussion of a problem or proposal and the final decision. They have also highlighted the large political element that may be involved in reaching a decision. This is often one of the reasons for the long period of the decision process.

Decision-making, as we have seen, is assumed by management educationists to be a key part of managers' jobs, and it may therefore seem surprising that there has been so little empirical research on the subject. However, there is a good reason for the shortage of studies, namely the difficulty of isolating a decision or of deciding who was involved in making it. This is most marked in large organizations. The ambiguity of decisions has been well expressed by Harlan Cleveland, as- sistant secretary of state for international organizations, as follows: "This increase in the extent to which each individual is personally responsible to others is most noticeable in a large bureaucracy. No one person 'decides' anything; each 'decision' of any importance is the product of an intricate process of brokerage involving individuals inside and outside the organization who feel some reason to be affected by the decision, or who have special knowledge to contribute to it." (14)




Research Findings and Their Relevance for Management Education

The questions that have been asked about managers' activities are more interesting than the research reports. This is due to the limited scope and size of the studies. Even so, the following findings seem sufficiently well documented for us to take them into account when thinking about managers' jobs and management education:

1) Managers spend a large amount of their time with other people. Many spend two-thirds or more of their total working time with others. (15)

2) Managers have episodic jobs. They are active people who deal with a lot of different incidents. (16)

3) Most managers' jobs involve horizontal contacts, as well as the vertical contacts indicated in the normal organization chart. (17)

4) Managerial jobs have identifiable roles. (18) 5) Generalizations about managers' jobs, other than those in-

dicated in 1, 2, and 3 above, are likely to be misleading because managers' jobs vary considerably in the proportion of time spent on different activities, in the kinds of problems the manager has to deal with, in the sorts of people he comes in contact with, and in the kinds of relationships that he has with them. There are exceptions even to the generalizations made in 1, 2, and 4 above. (19)

Next is a finding that can only be expressed in very general terms since we do not as yet have sufficient information to be more specific. It is:

6) That various features of the organization affect what managers do. The evidence for this comes from a number of studies, three of which may be cited here. The Ohio studies, which have already been referred to, are important because of their central concern with the relationships between the organization and the individual's activities. Burns, in a diary study of 76 managers in a number of companies, found a relationship between the rate of change and the




amount of time that the top management group spent in discussions. (20) The change referred to was in the external environment or in the firm's own plans for development. This finding suggests that the rapidity of change affecting an organization may be an important variable in its impact on managers T jobs. There is a similar implication in Burns and Stalker's study, which showed a relationship between the type of organization and the rate of change. (21) Wood- ward, in her study of the relationships between the type of technology and the form of organization, noted some differences in the ways managers spent their time in firms with different technologies. (220 These studies show that differences in organizations do affect managers' activities. However, we are still a long way from being able to say with any precision that a manager in a particular type of organization will have a job with certain characteristics.

Another finding potentially important for management development, but one which is still very imprecise, is:

7) That managers may be prone to particular types of inefficiency. The evidence for this, such as it is, is to be found in references to the types of inefficiency noticed by research workers. There is CarlsonTs suggestion of administrative pathologies, that is, deviations from efficient procedures. (23) Carlson was struck by the fact that the managing directors he studied had only very short periods alone, so that they had little opportunity for thinking through a problem. He also noticed that their activities seemed to be largely determined by their engagement book. Luijk, who observed 25 Dutch directors for five days each, con- cluded that they used about a third of their time ineffi- ciently. He gave a number of reasons for this. (24) Stewart asked the 160 managers who kept her diary what lessons they had learnt from doing so. (2^5) The most frequently mentioned was the need to organize their time better and not to make grasshopper jumps from one job to another.

These studies only provide clues that need to be followed in further research. They do not tell us whether particular types




of job promote particular forms of inefficiency. We might find that just as ulcers are more likely to be developed in some jobs than others, so the holders of some jobs may be more given to, say, jumping needlessly from one task to another than are the occupants of other jobs. Such a finding should lead us to develop preventive education.

Marples, who explored the possibilities of distinguishing the problem portfolios of different managers, has mentioned a number of ways in which such studies might be useful. (26) He suggested, for instance, that the problems dealt with at junior levels may not equip a man to deal with problems requiring personal initiative when he is promoted. The mix of problems should, therefore, be examined for their relevance for management development.

We have described some of the findings from the small number of studies of managers' activities. What use are these to management in examining their assumptions ?

Research has shown that managers spend much of their time with other people. We knew that already, though not, perhaps, quite how predominantly verbal their work is. It may be worth considering whether we pay sufficient attention to the managersT need for verbal ability to persuade and convince a wide variety of other people. Assumption 4 is beginning to be dated. It is time - as Drucker has pointed out - to cease paying so much attention to industrial relations on the shop floor and to be more concerned with the management of professional employees. It is probably also time that we gave less emphasis to superior- subordinate relationships and more to other types of relationships, especially those with peers. The research has shown that, for some managers, relationships in the straight-line hierarchy take up relatively little of their time.

One of the research findings was the episodic nature of most managers1 jobs. Should we try to prepare our students for this? We teach them ways of thought and techniques that are more easily applied in quieter conditions and then blame them for being too immersed in the here and now, too little concerned with future problems or logical analysis. It may be that the




fragmentation of most managers' working day is one of the in- trinsic barriers to efficiency. Because the manager is often not able to plan his own time, he may abandon any attempts to do so. We should, perhaps, be trying to forearm him against this tendency.

The emphasis on assumption 2 - that an important aspect of the manager's job is making decisions - as a guide to course content has become even greater, with more time being given to teaching quantitative techniques. Are we perhaps being over- academic in our emphasis on the analysis of problems, when the internal political elements in decision-making are often so important? We should prepare managers for the world of in- creasing information technology, but are we in danger of over- rating the difference that it will make to management? Some of the systems people in management education think that management will be revolutionized when the people they are now training rise to senior jobs, since they will have a much more scientific approach. This may be so, but this expectation may involve an over-estimation of the possibilities for a scientific approach in episodic jobs that mean persuading and influencing so many different kinds of people.

Assumption 6 - that de -specialization is one of the major problems of post-experience education - is probably correct. It should not prevent us from trying to experiment with other kinds of courses. It is, of course, simpler to provide one type of broadening course for all kinds of managers at the same level; to say, hopefully, they will learn from each other. For how many will have the audacity to say that they did not do so?

The first assumption - that management is one profession for which students should have a common training - is useful for initial training, as there is a sufficient body of common knowledge that can be taught to those entering many walks of management. Further, we do not know in what kinds of management our students will have their careers. It is at the post- experience level that one begins to have doubts about the value of this assumption and wonder whether it has been over- empha- sized. The research that this author has been working on for




the last couple of years (since 1972) namely, a behavioural classification of managers T jobs, suggests that other differences may be more important than level in the hierarchy as a guide to the educational needs of different categories of managers.

The most important finding for management education is the evidence of the differences between managers' jobs. Managers have always claimed that their problems were different. We have dismissed their claims as myopic. Historically, the management theorists' emphasis on the similarities between management problems has been a useful one. It has helped people to notice common problems in many different types of organizations and to develop common techniques for trying to solve them. Now that we are so aware of the common aspects in management, we should devote some of our study and attention to the nature and significance of the differences. As management educationists, we should be thinking about what are the special problems of certain jobs and what can we do to help.

Notes

1) John P. Campbell, Marvin D. Dunnette, Edward E. Lawler, III, and Karl E. Weick, Jr., Managerial Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1970, Chapter 4, reviewed the research to that date. The International Studies of Management & Organization, Spring 1972, issue on "Managerial Behavior" included reports of later U.K. studies.

2) Burns in a diary study of 76 managers found that there was a general tendency to overestimate the time taken by the main functions of management, such as production and accounts, and to underestimate the time taken by personnel matters and discussions on general policy. T. Burns, "Management in Action," Operational Research Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 2, June 1957. Another check of the reliability of estimates found that there was a much closer correlation between estimated and recorded time under some headings than under others. There was a fairly high correspondence for such activities as writing reports, reading mail, talking with other people, and attending meetings,




but no correlation at all for planning. Ralph M. Stogdill et al., Patterns of Administrative Performance, Columbus, Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph No. 81, 1956, p. 46.

3) Rosemary Stewart, Managers and Their Jobs: A Study of the Similarities and Differences in the Ways Managers Spend Their Time, London, Macmillan, 1967, xii + 186 p.

4) The main studies are: Sune Carlson, Executive Behaviour: A Study of the Work Load and Working Methods of Managing Directors, Stockholm, Strombergs, 1951, 122 p.; T. Burns, 1957, op. cit.; and G. Copeman, H. Luijk, and F. de P. Hanika, How the Executive Spends His Time, London, Business Publications, 1963; J. H. Home and Tom Lupton, MThe Work Activities of TMiddleT Managers/' The Journal of Management Studies, Vol. I, No. 2, February 1965, p. 14-33, R. J. Beishon and A. W. Palmer, "Studying Managerial Behaviour," International Studies of Man- agement & Organization (Spring 1972), Vol. II, No. 1, pp. 38- 64; and Roy Wilkie and James N. Young, "Managerial Behaviour in the Furniture and Timber Industries," International Studies of Management & Organization (Spring 1972), Vol. II, No. 1, pp. 65-84.

5) The main studies are: Stogdill, et al., op. cit.; J. K. Hemp- hill, Dimensions of Executive Positions, Ohio Studies in Per- sonnel, Research Monographs, Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1960, No. 98. T. A. Mahoney, J. H. Jerdee, and S. J. Carroll, Development of Managerial Performance. . . A Research Approach, Monograph C-9, U.S.A., South -Western Publishing, 1963; R. Leonard Sayles, Managerial Administra- tion in Complex Organizations, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1964, ix + 269 p. (SaylesTs study has been included here, though it is a qualitative case study, because he has discussed generally the different types of relationships that are found in different jobs); Rosemary Stewart, 1967, op. cit.

6) Ralph M. Stogdill, Shartle, Carroll & Associates, 1956, op. cit.

7) Ralph M. Stogdill, Shartle, Carroll & Associates, 1956, op. cit.; James D. Thompson, "Authority and Power in 'Identi-




calT Organizations," American Journal of Sociology, November 1956.

8) R. M. Stogdill et al., A Predictive Study of Administrative Work Patterns, Columbus, Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph No. 85, 1956.

9) Elliott Jacques, Measurement of Responsibility, London, Tavistock Publications, 1957, viii + 143 p.; Joan Doulton and David Hay, Managerial and Professional Staff Grading, London, Allen & Unwin, 1962, 141 p. 10) Henry Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial Work, New

York, Harper and Row, 1973. 11) Research into decision-making is discussed later. 12) David Marples, "Studies of Managers," Journal of Manage-

ment Studies , Vol. 4, No. 3, October 1967. 13) One exception was a study of the differences in the types

of decisions made at different levels of management. This showed that the decision process at the more senior levels lasted longer and that its outcome was more ambiguous. Norman Martin, "Differential Decisions in the Management of an Indus- trial Plant," Journal of Business, Vol. 29, No. 4, October 1956, d. 249-60. 4.

14) Harlan Cleveland, "Dinosaurs and Personal Freedom," The Saturday Review, 28 February 1959, p. 36, quoted in Sayles, 1964, op. cit., p. 219. 15) Carlson, 1951, op. cit.; Copeman, Luijk, and Hanika, 1963,

op. cit.; Home and Lupton, February 1965, op. cit.; Stewart, 1967, op. cit. 16) Carlson, 1951, op. cit.; Sayles, 1964, op. cit.; Stewart,

1967, op. cit.; Beishon and Palmer, op. cit.; and Wilkie and Young, op. cit. 17) Burns, 1957, op. cit.; Tom Burns, 1954, "The Directions

of Activity and Communication in a Departmental Executive Group," Human Relations, Vol. VII, p. 73-97; Sayles, 1964, op. cit.; Stewart, 1967, op. cit.; and Beishon and Palmer, op. cit. 18) Mintzberg, op. cit. This pioneering study was based on the

observation of five chief executives. The extent to which the roles he identified are, as he suggests, generally applicable




needs to be examined in further research, but he has shown a new way of analyzing managerial work.

19) Burns, 1957, op. cit.; Mahoney, Jerdee, and Carroll, 1963, op. cit.; Sayles, 1964, op. cit.; Stewart, 1967, op. cit.

20) Burns, 1957, op. cit. 21) Tom Burns and George Stalker, The Management of In-

novation, London, Tavistock Publications, 1961, xxii + 269 p. 22) Joan Woodward, Industrial Organization: Theory and

Practice, London, O.U.P., 1965, xii + 281 p. 23) Carlson, 1951, op. cit., p. 114. 24) Copeman, Luijk, and Hanika, 1963, op. cit., p. 36. 25) Stewart, 1967, op. cit., p. 154. 26) Marples, 1967, op. cit.



management education (ii) || management education and our knowledge of managers' jobs

Documents