Mintzberg 2.0

(1)

“We must observe, describe, and

understand the real work of managing;

then and only then shall we

significantly improve it”

-Henry Mintzberg-

(2)

Mintzberg 2.0

1 Master Thesis Business Administration – Small Business & Entrepreneurship

Mintzberg 2.0

An extension and replication of Mintzberg’s (1973) research on the nature of

managerial work

By: Robbert Bouw

Student number:1682431

August 31, 2012

University of Groningen, the Netherlands

First Supervisor: Dr. M.J. Brand

Second Supervisor: Dr. C.K. Streb

Abstract

Mintzberg (1973) provided new insights to research on managerial work. However, Mintzberg and more recent studies on managerial work, seem to neglect that change over time and trends as globalisation and the revolution of ICT influence the nature of managerial work. This study replicates and extents Mintzberg’s (1973) study. This study is conducted in three Dutch SMEs in various industries. Earlier research suggested that factors on organisational level are most important determinants of managerial work. We conclude that an interplay between factors on different levels of analysis – environment, organisation, individual-, are the determinants of the shape of managerial work. It is this shape of managerial work, which eventually influences managerial effectiveness.

‘The path to our destination is not always a straight one. We go down the wrong road, we get lost, and we turn back. Maybe it doesn't matter which road we embark on. Maybe what matters is that we embark’. -Barbara Hall, 1993-

(3)

Master Thesis Business Administration- Small Business & Entrepreneurship

2 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank some special people who have been involved in the process of writing my master thesis, in particular:

 My supervisor, Dr. M. J. Brand for her valuable guidance, feedback and assistance during

this ‘long’ summer.

 The three managers who participated in this research. They welcomed me with open arms

without complaining about my presence. Without them, this research wouldn’t be possible.

 My family, friends and especially my girlfriend who supported my along the road with

motivation, listening, advice and ideas.

(4)

Mintzberg 2.0

3 Table of Content

1. Introduction ... 4 2. Literature Review ... 7 2.1 Mintzberg ... 7 2.1.1 Results ... 11 2.1.2 Critiques ... 12

2.2 Small and medium sized enterprises ... 19

2.3 New managerial work ... 20

2.4 ICT & the Internet ... 22

2.5 Preliminary framework for factors influencing the nature of managerial work ... 25

3. Research questions ... 27

4. Methodology ... 28

4.1 Structured observation ... 30

4.2 Collection of preliminary data ... 31

4.3 Recording and coding of observations ... 31

4.4 Analysis of data ... 33

4.5 Questionnaire... 34

4.6 The managers ... 36

5. Findings ... 37

5.1 The chronology record ... 37

5.2 The mail record ... 39

5.3 The contact record ... 41

5.4 Work differences across case comparison ... 42

5.4.1 Manager A ... 43

5.4.2 Manager B ... 44

5.4.3 Manager C ... 45

5.5 Managerial effectiveness ... 46

6. Conclusion & Discussion ... 49

6.1 The present shape of managerial work in SMEs ... 49

6.2 Differences between Mintzberg (1973) and the present shape of managerial work in SMEs ... 52

6.3 Differences between Mintzberg (1973) and the present shape of managerial work clarified ... 54

7. Limitations & Implications ... 56

9. References ... 59

(5)

4 1. Introduction

‘

If you ask a manager what he does, he will most likely tell you that he plans, organizes, co-ordinates, and controls. Then watch what he does. Don’t be surprised if you can’t relate what you see to these four words.’ - Henri Mintzberg, 1975 -

Managers are expected to do their traditional functions -plan, organize, coordinate and control-in a rational and systematic way (Laitcontrol-inen, 2009). However, studies on managerial work show that these assumptions are far from reality (Noordegraaf & Stewart, 2000; Tengblad 2002). Managerial work includes activities like negotiating, recruiting, training, innovating and contracting. These tasks are not carried out in an ordered and systematic way (Laitinen, 2009).

It is important to understand the nature of managerial work, as only in the Netherlands, the number of managers between 1971 and 1998 has risen from 2 to 6 % of the total labour force. This number was steady between 2001 and 2007 (Huijben & Geurtsen, 2010). In 2008 the central bureau of statistics counted about 1.000.000 managers; 14 % of the Dutch labour force1. In order to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the managerial workforce it is important to understand the nature of their work. Additionally, to design useful management information systems we have to know what managers exactly do. Further, if we want to measure a particular effect on managerial work, e.g. ICT, we have to know exactly what managers do. Also when we want to compare managerial work to identify possible changes over time, we have to know the exact shape of managerial work. A study which can be seen as leading in this field, is the study of Henry Mintzberg, ‘the nature of managerial

work’ (1973).

Since Mintzberg’s often cited research (1973) an extensive amount of replications of his study have been conducted. These replications of Mintzberg’s observational study are most often executed in the context of the ‘larger firm’. However, also various attempts to replicate this study are performed in the context of ‘small businesses’. One research on the nature of managerial work in small growth oriented businesses is conducted by O'Gorman, Bourke, and Murray (2005). This study concludes that the nature of managerial work in small growth-oriented businesses is characterised by brevity, fragmentation and variety. Further, managers have a preference for verbal rather than written communication. These findings validate Mintzberg’s (1973) findings although Mintzberg’s study is conducted in the ‘large firm’context.

Political/regulatory, technological or social demographic shifts can change the nature of managerial work. Kanter (1989) states that managerial work is undergoing an enormous and rapid change, and that many managers are reinventing their profession as they go. Managers are watching

(6)

Mintzberg 2.0

5

hierarchy fade away and the clear distinction of title, task, department and even corporation blur. The cause for this change seems obvious. Increasing competitive pressures force organizations to be more flexible. Managers experience this new managerial work as a loss of power because much of their authority used to come from hierarchical position (Kanter, 1989). Audretsch & Thurik (2001) argue that developed countries are undergoing a shift from a managerial economy towards an entrepreneurial economy. From an economy where the emphasis is on resources, to an economy whose comparative advantage is knowledge. The emergence of the entrepreneurial economy is a response to two fundamental aspects of globalization. First is the advent of low-cost but highly skilled competition in central and eastern Europe as well as Asia. Second is the revolution of telecommunications and microprocessor, which has greatly reduced the cost of shifting standardized economic activity out of high-cost locations into lower-cost locations elsewhere (Audretsch & Thurik, 2001). The entrepreneurial economy is characterised by creativity, independence, autonomy, self-reliance and non-conformity, entirely different values, skills, priorities, and attitudes. The focus in the entrepreneurial economy has changed form large coorporations which were able to establish economies of scale and scope, to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). These SMEs are small enough to quickly adapt and adjust in rapid changing economies which focus on knowledge. A recent example of such a sudden unexpected change in the economy is the world economic crisis that began in 2008 which has been the most thoroughgoing one since 1929 (Brandl & Traxler, 2011).

Another benefit is that these entrepreneurial small firms restored global competitiveness (Audretsch, 2007). Large firms have downsized employment in order to maintain competitive. It has been new firms in new industries that have created jobs. A study undertaken by the EIM shows that small firms in the Netherlands created 973000 new jobs (Audretch & Thurik, 2000). SMEs worldwide typically account for more than 90% of all firms outside the agricultural sector (OECD, 2004).

As said before, the advent of globalisation is a response to the revolution of telecommunications and microprocessors. Information and communication technologies are one of the major factors nowadays affecting companies as well as the nature of managerial work. These technologies are not included in Mintzberg’s research. More recent studies address the influence of ICT on the nature of managerial work. An example of such a study is the study of Pinsonneault & Rivard (1998) that is conducted in a ‘larger’ firm context. The influence of ICT really accelerated to second gear since the year 2000 and web 2.0 (interactive internet usage) arised since mid-2005. A recent study (beyond 2005) on the influence of ICT, and change over time in general, regarding managerial work in the small business context seems lacking.

(7)

6

study (1973) and the nature of managerial work almost four decades later and try to interpret and explain the possible differences over time. Since technology is an important driver of globalization, ICT and the internet will be part of our research. Finally, we will contribute to the field of research on managerial work and provide a preliminary framework. This framework has to be extended and developed in the near future, in order to answer questions about change in the nature of managerial work.

(8)

Mintzberg 2.0

7 2. Literature Review

2.1 Mintzberg

In 1973 Henry Mintzberg, a Canadian academic and nowadays professor at McGill University, introduced a new paradigm to the field of organizational behaviour. Mintzberg induced his theory of managerial work from intensive observation of a handful of executives. According to Weick (1974), Mintzberg’s work edits the organizational concepts we nowadays champion. He states that the field of organizational behaviour rarely had better evidence of the value of description and induction than is found in Mintzberg’s book. Why Mintzberg’s research had such a great value and was different opposed to the more traditional researches will be explained below.

Managerial work studies focus on observing, describing, codifying, and understanding managerial behaviour. These activities are important both because understanding what managers do aids in enhancing their performance, satisfaction and effectiveness, and because managing is the fundament of organizational design, change, planning, development and production (Kurke & Aldrich, 1983). The study of managerial work grew out of a sense of dissatisfaction with the way the manager’s work was presented in the more traditional management literature (‘O Gorman et al., 2005). The traditional or classical view of managerial work described managerial work in terms of the functions performed and focused on the systematic image of management. Mintzberg (1973) concluded that although an enormous amount of material had been published on the manager’s job, we continued to know very little about it. Much of the earlier literature is of little use, being merely endless repetition of the same vague statements.

(9)

8

Major studies on the manager’s job (pre-Mintzberg)

Studies 1940’s Studies 1950’s Studies 1960’s

The Ohio state leadership studies

The Ohio state leadership studies The Ohio state leadership studies Homans’s study of leadership Sayles’s study of managers at lower

and middle levels Studies of foreman. Walker, Guest

and Turner

Studies of foreman. Wikstrom

Carlson’s leading diary study Neustadt’s study of presidential power

Follow-up diary studies: Burns Follow-up diary studies: Copeman, Dubin and Spray, Horne and Lupton, Thomasson

Studies by observation: Ponder, Guest, Jasinski

Studies by observation: Kelly

Hodgson, Levinson and Zaleznik’s Executive role constellation

Stewart’s study of managerial work differences

Stieglitz’s study of the chief executive’s job

Table 1. Major pre- Mintzberg studies of the manager’s job (source: Mintzberg 1973, appendix. A)

(10)

Mintzberg 2.0

9

School of thought

Description Mintzberg’s (1973) opinion

Classical school Managerial work in terms of a set of

composite functions as determined by Fayol (planning, coordinating, organising,

leading, commanding)

Blocked our search for a deeper understanding of the work of the manager

The great man school

Analyses managers in groups, their

families, educations, careers, personalities. And case studies of individual managers, what the manager did during crisis, his habits etcetera.

Reveals almost nothing about managerial work. Rich in

anecdotes, poor in general theory.

The

entrepreneurship school

The manager as decision-maker. The manager evaluates all the possible

consequences, ranks alternatives in terms of goal achievement, and chooses the best one.

Contributes by the specification of innovation- not the description of innovation- as a component of the manager’s job.

The decision theory school

Decision-making not in terms of rational choice from known alternatives, but in terms that reflect more accurately the manager’s real limitations.

Must be married to the view of the manager as entrepreneur to establish a realistic picture of decision making

The leader effectiveness school

Seeks to discover what sets of personality traits or managerial styles lead a manager to effective performance

Only beginning to say something about those factors that produce successful leaders.

The leader power school

Studies the leader’s ability to use power to evoke desired responses from subordinates and peers.

To understand the work of the leader it is necessary to study his sources of power and the extent to which he is able to control his own job.

The leader behaviour school

Analyses the actual content of the

manager’s job by studying the behaviour of the incumbents.

Conclusions, when worked into a framework of managerial roles, indicate a number of basic features in the content of the manager’s job.

The work activity school

School of inductive research, in which the work activities of managers are analysed systematically; conclusions are drawn only when they can be supported by the

empirical evidence. (Mintzberg’s study)

Work activity studies of manager’s jobs provide a number of

significant conclusions about characteristics of managerial work but almost nothing about work content

Table 2. Eight major schools of thought on managerial work (source: Mintzberg 1973, chapter 2)

(11)

10

decade later (Tengblad, 2006). The study of Kurke & Aldrich (1983) is one of the many studies replicating Mintzberg’s work. Nowadays a large body of empirical research on managerial work exists. ‘O Gorman et. al (2005) present a table with main empirical pre- and post- Mintzberg studies on managerial work. Further, they distinguish 3 major factors which significantly increased the attention paid to Mintzberg’s work. We will now elaborate on these 3 factors.

First, Mintzberg was able to achieve this amount of attention by demonstrating that, contrary to more traditional perspectives which view managerial work as planned and rational, managerial work is described more accurately as varied, brief, fragmented and highly interpersonal (Martinko & Gardner, 1990). The classical view of managerial work traditionally described managerial work in terms of functions performed. Fayol (1916) for example, identified widely recognized classical managerial functions: planning, coordinating, organising, commanding and controlling (PCOCC). Which later was extended by Gulick (1936) to POSDCORB: planning, organizing, staffing, directing, co-ordinating, reporting, budgeting. That it is important to understand the nature of managerial work for those in the field of management, can be found in the fact that most management textbooks begin with a discussion of the nature of managerial work. This indicates that managerial work is the basis of the subject matter of management, just as Fayol (1916) indicated (Carroll & Gillen, 1987).

Second, Mintzberg went beyond simple reports of frequencies toward a more qualitative/ ideographic perspective not only describing the content or “what” but also the functions or “why” of managerial work. ‘The nature of managerial work’ inspired a stream of further studies in a field that previously was more descriptive and methodologically oriented than theoretical (Hales, 1999). Noordegraaf & Stewart (2000) argue that research on managerial work represents a distinct approach that is both empirical and inductive. These studies have replaced managerial ‘folklore ‘with fact’ and ‘rhetoric ‘with ‘reality’ (Mintzberg, 1975; Noordegraaf and Stewart, 2000).

(12)

Mintzberg 2.0

11

time intervals by the researcher. The researcher is not exposed to the activity continuously, hence interpretation of complex aspects of it becomes difficult (Mintzberg 1973; Martinko & Gardner, 1985).

In summary, Mintzberg’s major contributions were his in-depth qualitative descriptions of managerial work, the development of the structured observational methodology and his ability to organize his observations to develop a theory of the nature of managerial work.

2.1.1 Results

The methodology and findings of Mintzberg’s study are reported in several sources. However, we will draw upon the results published in his book ‘the nature of managerial work’ (1973) which in fact is a combination of all foregoing papers and an extension of his doctoral thesis. The results of his study will briefly be discussed (for an extensive discussion of the results see Mintzberg, 1968; 1970;1971;1972;1973;1975).

The results can be characterized by two different sets of conclusions. The first set of conclusions deals with certain characteristics of managerial work, as they appeared from analysis of numerical data (table 3). As we can derive from the table, Mintzberg distinguished between six different sets of characteristics. He concludes that managerial work is: much work at unrelenting pace, characterized by brevity, variety and fragmentation, managers have a preference for live action, managers prefer to use verbal media, the manager maintains the relationship between the organization and its network and managers in organization are subject to a blend of rights and duties.

Characteristics of managerial work

Description

Much work at unrelenting pace Managers perform a great quantity of work at unrelenting pace. It seems that managers cannot expect to have leisure reflection during office hours. Even during “off’ hours managers spent much time on work-related reading

Activities characterized by brevity, variety and fragmentation

Managerial work is characterised by brevity, fragmentation and variety. Activities are short and differ in type and content.

Preference for live action Managers prefer issues that are current, specific, and ad hoc.

Attraction to verbal media The manager demonstrates a strong preference for verbal media. Each type of medium is used for its own purposes however, where possible, the manager appears to gravitate to verbal media since these provide greater flexibility, require less effort, and bring faster response

Manager maintains relationship between organization and network of contacts

The manager is the link between his organization and a network of contacts. The manager is surrounded by a diverse and complex web of contacts which serves as his self-designed external information system. Blend of rights and duties The manager may seem a puppet who answers requests, returns mails and

reacts to crises. However, the manager can significantly influence control over his own affairs: it is he who defines many of his long-term commitments, by for example initiating projects which later demands his time. Second, the manager can exploit situations that appear as obligations. The manager can for example lobby at ceremonial speeches. The manager decides who will pull the strings and how, and then they take advantage of each move that they are forced to make.

(13)

12

The second set of conclusions describes the basic content of managerial work in terms of ten roles, better known as Mintzberg’s role theory (table 4). Ten roles –organized sets of behaviours belonging to identifiable offices or positions- were chosen to capture all the activities observed. The roles identified by Mintzberg as a result of his findings, are expectations of managers’ behaviour. In the real world these roles overlap and managers must balance them in order to manage effectively. All managerial activities were found to involve one or more of three basic behaviours which are personal contact, the processing of information and decision making. It is for this reason that the ten roles are divided into three categories; three interpersonal roles, three informational roles, and four decisional roles. In table 3 the ten roles and the description of the roles by Laitvinen (2009) can be found.

Category Mintzberg’s managerial work

roles

Description of role (Laitvinen, 2009)

Interpersonal roles Figurehead Performs symbolic duties as head of the organization

Leader Establishes the work atmosphere and

motivates subordinates to act

Liaison Develops and maintains webs of

contacts outside the organization Informational roles Nerve-center/ Monitor Collects all types of information

relevant and useful to the organization Disseminator Gives other people the information

they need to make decisions.

Spokesman Transmits information to the outside world

Decisional roles Entrepreneur Initiates controlled change in the organization to adapt to the changing environment

Disturbance handler Deals with the unexpected changes Resource allocator Makes decisions on the use of

organizational resources.

Negotiator Deals with other organizations and

individuals

Table 4. Mintzberg’s role theory (source: Mintzberg 1973, chapter 4)

2.1.2 Critiques

(14)

Mintzberg 2.0

13

Another deficiency in this field is the lack of theoretical contribution to the study of managerial behaviour (Hales & Tamnagani, 1996; Stewart, 1989). Despite the extensive amount of researches on managerial work, a general accepted theory on managerial work seems lacking.

Four issues (table 5) can be distinguished based on shortcomings discussed over the years by O’Gorman (2005), Noordegraaf & Stewart (2000) and Hales (1986). We were able to fit the shortcomings discussed by Hales (1986) and Noordegraaf & Stewart (2000) into the shortcomings discussed by O’Gorman et al. (2005). Where O’Gorman et al. (2005) made no distinction between the accuracy of the method and research findings and managerial effectiveness, we deal with these issues separately.

Issue O’Gorman et al.

(2005) Noordegraaf & Stewart (2000) Hales (1986) The emphasis on description.

Focus on describing rather than explaining

managerial work and a lack of theory development.

-The emphasis on description -Lack of theoretical development Lack of consistent systematic research

Use of different categories and concepts, independent nature of researches. -Lack of consistent systematic research -Methodological problems -Plethora of categories for describing the phenomenon

Correctness of method and research findings

Lack of attention to context and what exactly is

managerial behaviour

-What is

managerial work

-Too little attention to the effects of different contexts

-Difficulties with judging the

appropriateness of the behaviour identified -Problem whether the work described is exclusively managerial Managerial effectiveness Lack of attention to managerial effectiveness -Efficiency and effectiveness -Little attention on managerial effectiveness

Table 5. Main issues on managerial work

(15)

14

Emphasis on description

One of the issues on managerial work is that the emphasis of studies on managerial work is too much on the description of managerial work. Hales (1986), for example, states that the emphasis of studies on managerial work is on describing rather than explaining managerial work. The content/ ‘what’ of managerial work seems more important than the functions/ ‘why’ of managerial work. Little theory has emerged to explain why managers perform the work that they do in organisations. Further, little theory is developed to guide data collection, hypothesis testing and future research.

Although the emphasis of studies on managerial work is too much on description, the exact description of managerial work is still problematic. Hale (2001) states that it is not self-evident what managers spend their time doing.

However, according to Hale (1986) studies on managerial work did add some value, they shed light on 5 central questions, what do managers do?; how do managers work?; with whom do managers work?; what else do managers do?; what qualities does managerial work have?

Lack of consistent, systematic research

A problem that is related to the emphasis on description rather than explanation is that researchers have used different categories and concepts for describing managerial work (O’Gorman et al., 2005). Further, Sneyder & Glueck (1980) state that it was impossible to code any activity unambiguously and exclusively into one and only one purpose category. For example, all activities could be coded as either giving or receiving information. In effect they criticize the use of mutually exclusive categories. Hales (1986) agrees with Sneyder & Glueck. Hales (1986) further concluded that researches on managerial work miss a common goal and a collective method to gather and present evidence on the field of managerial work. Hales (1986, p. 94) present a table which shows that the different studies and, indeed sometimes the same study, point to different ways of conceptualizing the constituent features of managerial work.

Noordegraaf & Stewart (2000) dispute these criticisms and pose that the criticisms about too little theory have to be seen in the light of the distinct research approach. This approach, which is characterised by an empirical and inductive focus on the job, is at odds with increasing theoretical development and uniform categories and concepts. Noordegraaf & Stewart (2000) also dispute the criticism about what is exclusively managerial work? They mention that management is researched by studying those who are formally appointed as managers. All the things they do (unless strictly personal) is thus managerial.

Continuing with the criticisms, another often mentioned critique is that Mintzberg didn’t focus on the purpose of groups of related activities but only on the purpose behind each individual activity. The puzzle is not just the pieces. Sneyder & Glueck (1980, p. 75): “in effect Mintzberg is not seeing

(16)

Mintzberg 2.0

15

interrelatedness of purposes with various activities. Additionally, since managerial work is mental, it is not all directly observable. A critical methodological change in Snyder & Glueck’s replication of Mintzberg was that the observer asked the executive to explain what he was doing and why he was doing it each time he engaged in an activity.

Mintzberg concludes that the work any manager does at a certain point in time can be described as a function of four variables namely, the environment, the job, the person and the situation. Mintzberg represents the reality of managerial work as a set of discrete observable activities. Variation in the four variables (environment, job, person, situation) explains differences in managerial work. By using this method, Mintzberg disregards the social or relational nature of managerial work (Willmott, 1987). Social and relational interactions can also explain for possible differences in managerial work, Mintzberg neglects this.

Sneyder & Wheelen (1981) point out that Mintzberg’s role theory2 lacks specificity and does not point out the relationship between his role types and organizational effectiveness. Several studies have attempted to test Mintzberg’s roles in actual operating situations (Carroll & Gillen, 1987). The activities found in four of Mintzberg’s ten roles overlapped too much with the activities found in other roles to be considered separate (McCall & Segrist, 1980). Further, the role theory is developed on the basis of the “questionable” practice of not going beyond observation.

Caroll & Gillen (1987) conclude that the observable work activities of Mintzberg and those taking similar approaches, proved the functional responsibilities wrong. By illuminating the functional responsibilities, Mintzberg provided realism to studies about managerial work (Carroll & Gillen, 1987).

Additionally we provide some general remarks. One of the flaws is that Mintzberg’s methodology and conceptual framework effectively deny him the possibility of studying the historical and political processes that underpin, channel and provide rationales for the work that managers do (Willmot, 1987). Finally, Mintzberg did not include observer interactions in the managerial event code and relative little research was done on the relationship between managerial performance and the specific activities identified by Mintzberg (Martinko & Gardner, 1990)

Correctness of method used and research findings

A number of empirical studies, not directly cited in Mintzberg’s book, have shown that managers do spend time in the classical management functions3 (Carroll & Gillen, 1987). Just as Sneyder & Glueck (1980), Caroll & Gillen (1987) argue as well that Mintzberg’s study and similar observational studies are flawed because their focus was not on the underlying reasons for the observable activity.

2_{Table 4: Mintzberg’s role theory} 3

(17)

16

Further, the method of structured observation has some limitations. Some limitations are sample size, reliability checks and coding methodology. Martinko & Gardner (1985) present a table with these problems/issues and their possible effects. Structured observation, however, not only has drawbacks. Noordegraaf & Stewart (2000) state that one of the continuing strengths of managerial behaviour research has been its concern with qualitative research, because of its empirical, inductive focus. Interestingly, the critiques on studies in the field of managerial work have received strong support from those within the field itself (O’Gorman et al., 2005).

Managerial effectiveness

Another limitation often mentioned as major flaw of research on managerial work, is the lack of attention to effectiveness. Although there are many important factors required for effective operations, leadership is consistently mentioned as a critical factor (Kotter, 1995; Hacker & Washington, 2003). Martinko & Gardner (1985) were right when they argued that Mintzberg did not compare the behaviours of effective and less effective performers. Mintzberg gives a reason for not including effectiveness in his book: “This is not a book about what effective managers do, it focuses

on the basic question -what do managers do”? (1973, p. 3-4).

Traditional mainstream research approaches, opposed to studies on managerial work, were about managerial effectiveness. The definition of effectiveness is incorporated in their management definition. However, studies of managerial work can be used to create effective managers because these studies are about work characteristics and the demands/ constraints of managerial work. (Noordegraaf & Stewart, 2000). Subsequently Hamlin et al. (2011) describe effective managerial performance as behaviour which you wish all managers would adopt if and when faced with a similar circumstance.

(18)

Mintzberg 2.0

17

managerial effectiveness. Analoui argues that organisational factors are expected to have the most influence on effectiveness.

Context Factors Skills

Environment

- Political factors - Economic factors - Socio- cultural factors - Technological factors - Environmental factors - Legal factors

Good relationship with competition Increasing competition

Technology developments Speed of technology transfer Implications of IT Organisation - Organisational circumstance - Structure - Culture - Management style - IT system effectiveness - Departmental interdependence - Availability of resources - Involvement - Participation management Informal relationships

Flexibility in decision-making processes Flat organizational structure

High degree of involvement in strategic decisions Management by objectives

Teamwork and participative environment Friendly working environment

Efficient administrative issues Effective implemented IT systems

Individual -Personal attributes

Decision making Motivation Education Hard work Attitude Confidence Relationships

Team work/ participation Analytical skill

Table 6. Illustration of contextual factors which influence effectiveness (source: Analoui et al., 2009).

(19)

18

measure managerial effectiveness? Is a manager effective when he achieves organisational goals, adds value for stakeholders, achieves individual targets, or is a manager effective when peers/subordinates and others think he acts effective, he possesses the qualities to be effective, or he perceives himself to be effective? The latter conceptualizations are harder to measure than the first.

Problems associated with measuring the concepts of effectiveness made public administration research focus more on perceived instead of actual effectiveness (Caillier, 2011). This because public organisations often have vague missions and goals that are difficult to measure. Perceived effectiveness refers to subjective employee attitudes about how well their employing organisation/ manager is performing. Research suggests that difference between objective quantifiable and perceived effectiveness is minimal. Additionally, factors that have affected objective effectiveness have also been found to have an impact on perceived effectiveness (Caillier, 2011).

Summary of critiques

We have discussed different perspectives on Mintzberg’s study. We presented criticism on his study, and that in return, this criticism is disputed by others. Good academic research will enhance the academic debate on the research topic. Mintzberg’s study is one of the first studies in the field of managerial behaviour which applied the structured observation method. Besides this fact, Mintzberg is also one of the first who was able to present empirical findings and conclude his study with a theory on the nature of managerial work. However in the light of our research, some critiques are more important than others.

One of the main critiques is that studies on managerial work do not pay attention to the context in which managerial work is executed. It is therefore important to deal with environmental, organizational and individual contextual factors as identified by Analoui (1999, 2007).

Some other critiques are that there is a lack of theoretical contribution in studies on managerial work, and that coding categories used in the different researches on managerial work differ. The purpose of these studies however, is not to cumulatively create theory, but to capture the manager’s work activities. Criticisms on the lack of theory building thus seem not well-grounded.

Another critique is that Mintzberg failed to see groups of related activities. Sneyder & Glueck (1980) describe this as not seeing the puzzle but just the pieces.

One of the most profound critiques is that Mintzberg, and other studies in the field of managerial work, disregard managerial effectiveness. Organizations must make effective use of their human resources in order to succeed in today’s global market place. In a highly competitive global economy, companies are realizing the fact that their employees, especially those at managerial levels, are a major source of competitive advantage. Their performance is considered to be one of the key variables that influence effectiveness and performance of the organisation (Rana, Garg & Rastogi, 2011).

(20)

Mintzberg 2.0

19

We will deal with this issue later in this literature review. We will show that change over time influences organisations. Some examples of changes over time are the world-wide globalisation of enterprises, more and more companies with emphasis on change to survive in rapid changing environments, technology revolution as the World Wide Web and mobile phones, increasing competition and the shift from the managerial to the entrepreneurial economy.

2.2 Small and medium sized enterprises

(21)

20

Size Definition Number of businesses in the

Netherlands (CBS,2012)

Micro < 10 employees and annual turnover not exceed € 2 million

1.181.260 Small 11-50 employees and annual turnover not exceed

€10 million 52.060

Medium 51-100 employees and annual turnover not exceed € 50 million

6715 3685 Large More than 100 employees or exceed annual

turnover €50 million

Table 7. Categorization of Dutch firms in 2012.

2.3 New managerial work

‘We live in a moment of history where change is so speeded up that we begin to see the present only when it is already disappearing’. -R.D. Laing-

Managerial work has changed over the years. However, to what extent is managerial work/behaviour subject to change? Tengblad (2006) addresses to what extent apparent changes in management discourse and the related perception of the role of the manager, have contributed to change in everyday managerial practices. Management discourse is about change, flexibility, leadership and culture (Tengblad, 2006). Tengblad concluded that while the majority of Mintzberg’s propositions are still valid, managerial work at the top has become less fragmented and less oriented towards administrative efficiency. Further, managerial work practices have gradually developed over time rather than radically transformed. The existence of a so called new managerial work is not really substantiated by empirical evidence (Tengblad, 2006). Also Hales (2002) questions the advent of new managerial work. Hales (2002) conducted a number of empirical studies around the topic of the post-bureaucratic ideal. A view on organizations where the organization is characterized as flexible and non-hierarchical and is built on shared values, dialogue and trust, rather than on rule-following. Results of these studies are that only small changes in managerial behaviour towards the post-bureaucratic ideal have been taken. Tengblad (2006) in turn, argues that new work practices are gaining ground without replacing old work practices, although the degree of use may vary. For example, personnel meetings can still occur, although less face-to-face and more with the use of new types of media.

(22)

Mintzberg 2.0

21

distinguished by Moss-Kanter by five elements (table 6). The first four elements of the post-entrepreneurial organization are self-explaining. However, the fifth element, which is a result of the first four elements, has to be elaborated. Career development has become less intelligible, there are fewer assured routes to success. At the same time, career paths are more open to innovation, which provides opportunity.

Elements of change in post-entrepreneurial organization

1 Greater number and variety of channels for taking action and exerting influence

2 Relationships shifting from vertical to horizontal, from chain of command to peer networks 3 Distinction between managers and those managed is diminishing in terms of information, control

over assignments and access to external relationships

4 External relationships are increasingly important as sources of internal power and influence 5 Career development has become less intelligible bus also less circumstanced.

Table 8. Moss-Kanter (1989) Post-entrepreneurial elements of change in organizations

Hill (1990) disputes Moss-Kanter’s (1989) conclusions. He states: “I don’t believe that the

trend towards greater collaboration and lesser hierarchy will become as widespread as Moss-Kanter (1989) indicates, it will happen in some parts of some companies with some people”. But,

Moss-Kanter’s prediction in 1989 was right. Today’s society is way ahead of post-entrepreneurial society and Moss-Kanter’s predictions are even more interwoven with society as expected.

(23)

22

Fig 1. Web 1.0 versus web 2.0 (Bell & Loane, 2010)

The Internet and ICT are expected to be factors which influence/ change the nature of managerial work over time. But not only is the shape of managerial work changed by ICT. Also researchers can benefit from the usage of ICT. For example the studies on managerial behaviour can use several different techniques for observation which weren’t possible to use 4 decades ago. We will now elaborate on these issues.

2.4 ICT & the Internet

(24)

Mintzberg 2.0

23

nowadays the influence of ICT within firms is even bigger. Opposed to that, other studies indicate that IT itself is not a determinant of organizational or individual outcomes, but rather an enabler whose effects are dependent on how it is implemented and used. The nature of managerial work associated with IT usage is fundamentally dependent on the organizational context in which IT is implemented and used (Pinsonneault & Rivard, 1998).

Pinsonneault & Rivard (1998) examine what they call the productivity paradox. The paradox of intensive investing in IT by organizations to increase overall profitability and productivity that, however, has not lead to significant productivity gains. Actual benefits of IT investments are disappointing at best. This is remarkable because earlier in their paper they conclude that one of the reasons for heavily investing in ICT is increasing overall profitability and the productivity of knowledge workers. From this study we can conclude that there seems to be a so called productivity paradox in ICT investment and actual outcomes.

One of the aspects that change the nature of managerial work is that a rising number of individuals choose to work away from the office as teleworkers and virtual workers. These individuals include not only first-line employees, but also those with supervisory responsibilities (Golden & Fromen, 2011). In a growing number or organizations, managerial telework and virtual work are becoming widely accepted, as managers utilize technology in order to meet their own needs and desires for flexibility to work away from the traditional office (Golden & Fromen, 2011). Managerial telework and virtual work appear to alter the nature of for example the exchange relationship enacted between the subordinate and the manager. Other aspects which have an influence on the shape of managerial work are for example management information systems (ERP/SAP), inter- intranet, internal/external email, chats, conference calls, software which up-to-date shows market figures.

(25)

24

Fink & Disterer (2006) in their study, distinguished between four dimensions about how micro, small and medium enterprises use ICT. These findings are presented in table 9. Their study was a case study of two micro, two small and four medium sized firms in Australia and Germany. Where you expect most organisational activities to be ICT supported Fink & Disterer’s research suggests otherwise. Activities as, attracting new clients, alliances and the creation of new businesses in a changing market, was not ICT supported.

Dimensions Micro < 5 employees Small < 20 employees Medium >20 <500

employees

Interactions Interactions are with client; ICT resources are starting to be mobilised

Interactions with other staff and clients; use of ICT supplemented with personal contacts

Interactions are with customer and other

organisations; extensive use of diverse ICT

Environment Oriented towards local market; little ICT utilisation

Oriented towards local market; little ICT utilisation

Part of a changing increasing competitive market; future success requires ICT utilisation

Affiliations Strong alliances with outside groups partly ICT facilitated

Strong alliances with other businesses but not ICT facilitated

Reliance on outside ICT support; potential for ICT facilitated business networks

Identities Present themselves as professional (non-ICT) individuals

Present themselves as ICT and business individual

Staff being replaced by marketing and entrepreneurial identities

(26)

Mintzberg 2.0

25

2.5 Preliminary framework for factors influencing the nature of managerial work

A comprehensive framework of factors which influence the nature of managerial work seems not to exist. In our paper we try to identify and distinguish between these factors. However, future research has to deal with possible imperfections and try to expand and develop this preliminary framework.

In our preliminary framework (fig.2) we make a distinction between three levels of analysis which can be found in the first column. We will elaborate on these levels of analysis subsequently. The second column shows factors which influence the nature of managerial work. These factors are derived from the different levels of analysis. These factors, in turn, have an effect on the local context. Effects on the local context are identified and prioritized by Analoui et al. (2009) and can be found in the third column (fig. 2). Effects on the local context influence the shape of managerial work which is illustrated in the fourth column (fig. 2). Eventually, the shape of managerial work influences

effectiveness, which can be found in the fifth column (fig. 2).

Now we are acquainted with the basis of our preliminary framework, we will elaborate on it in more detail.

The three levels of analysis as identified by Analoui & Labbaf (2001) are influential sources regarding effectiveness. The first level of analysis influencing the nature of managerial work is the environment. Changes in the external environment cannot be significantly influenced by the organization itself. Factors in the external environment are political, economic, socio-cultural, technological, ecological and legal changes. Besides these factors, globalisation, changing economies and the revolution of ICT also have an influence on the local context. It is the local context which in turn influences the shape of managerial work which eventually influences effectiveness.

The second level of analysis is the organization. Factors in the environment (1st level analysis) will lead to certain effects on organizational level. Analoui et al. (2009) argue that organizational factors are perceived as most influential regarding effectiveness. An illustration of factors in the organizational level analysis are, organizational circumstances, structure, culture and management style. These factors in turn have effects on the local context. Just as in the first level of analysis, the local context in turn has effect on managerial work which eventually influences effectiveness.

(27)

26

Fig 2. Preliminary framework of factors influencing the nature of managerial work.

Level of Analysis

Factors Effect on local context Effect on

managerial work

(28)

Mintzberg 2.0

27 3. Research questions

The nature of managerial work in the small business context is significantly influenced by change over time. Factors as ICT and the Internet significantly heavily put their marks on organizations and ways of organising. Replicating and extending Mintzberg’s (1973) research we will first try to determine:

1: What is the present shape of managerial work in small and medium sized (SME’s) enterprises?

We expect the nature of managerial work to differ between 1973 and 2012. Factors as ICT and the Internet influence the shape of managerial work. We expect an increasing role of ICT in communication as more and more email passes the desks of managers. Besides the role of email, also mobile phones will influence the nature of managerial work. A conclusion drawn by Mintzberg is that there is much work at unrelenting pace and that activities are characterized by brevity, variety and fragmentation. We expect that these changes over time influence the shape of managerial work and that we will find an increased mail record due to the email. Mintzberg states that managers have an attraction to verbal media, however the use of mobile phones for text messages and emails with short instructions, are a lot easier than sending a letter four decades ago. Additionally Mintzberg state that the manager maintains the relationship between the organization and network of contacts. We expect to see an increase in this role. The use of ICT and the internet will facilitate him in this role as “networker”. It is way more easier to get contact with the other side of the world as four decades ago. Also the increasing role of tele- and virtual working is interesting to address. In summary we expect to find some differences between Mintzberg’s study and ours. The second research question will relate to this topic.

2: What are the differences between Mintzberg (1973) and the present shape of managerial work in SMEs?

We expect to find differences caused by changes over time. For example ICT and the internet are factors which influence the nature of managerial work. ICT also facilitates world-wide globalisation. This in turn, will cause an increase in international competition. Other factors causing changes in the shape of managerial work can be found in the preliminary framework (fig. 2). That organizations and the way of doing business have changed over time is evident, but how can we explain the differences? Our third research question will deal with this point.

(29)

28 4. Methodology

Since this study is a replication of Mintzberg’s 1973 study we will mainly follow Mintzberg’s procedures. However, we will improve and develop Mintzberg’s study on three critical points.

First, an often heard critique is that Mintzberg in his study doesn’t pay attention to the context in which managerial work takes place. In order to overcome this flaw, we conduct our study in firms which can be categorized as SMEs. We conduct our study in a small firm with >5<20 employees, a medium sized enterprise (>21 <50 employees) and another medium sized enterprise (>51<100 employees) to see whether there are differences in the nature of managerial work in firms with different numbers of employees as O’Gorman (2005) argues. In earlier researches it is shown that differences between countries can also influence the nature of managerial work (Boisot & Liang, 1992). We choose to conduct our research only in the Netherlands. We choose the Netherlands for two simple reasons. First, the author/ researcher is living in the Netherlands and firms and data are better available/ accessible. Second, the increasing importance of SMEs worldwide can also be found in the Netherlands. SMEs typically account for more than 67% of overall employment in the Netherlands, and more than 98% of overall firms (EU, 2011). Mintzberg observed five chief-executives with several years of experience in their position. We will observe a CEO, a financial manager and an operational manager. To understand and capture the nature of managerial work and the context involved, we will perform a desk research and gather background data about the firms where the managers are working. This in order to prepare as good as possible for the structured observation.

Another critique we have to deal with is that Mintzberg fails to see groups of related activities. Sneyder & Glueck in their research overcome this by asking the manager each time he engages in an activity what he is doing, and what the purpose is of what he is doing. In order to develop Mintzberg’s study, we will maintain this technique applied by Sneyder & Glueck.

Since we expect that the nature of managerial work has changed over time, we want to include some of the most visible changes in our research. We expect technology, and in particular ICT and the Internet to have a significant influence on the nature of managerial work. These technologies were one of the reasons for world-wide globalisation and increasing international competition. Where Mintzberg in his study paid attention to incoming mail, we will focus on both mail and email. Besides that, mobile phone and Skype conversations have our attention. We will categorize these activities in different records (mail and contact record) which we will later elaborate on. We also will pay attention to internet usage of managers. Where do they use the internet for and for how long?

(30)

Mintzberg 2.0

29

themselves as effective. If we take a look at our proposed framework a lot of data has to be gathered. Figure 3 shows how the data collection will be executed.

Level of Analysis

Changes/ Factors Effect on local context Effect on

managerial work Effect on effectiveness Literature review/ preliminary data collection Literature review/

preliminary data collection

Structured observation method

Questionnaire

Fig 3. Data collection methods applied

(31)

30

4.1 Structured observation

We will use the structured observation method to capture the nature of managerial work as efficient, effective and truthful as possible. Researchers working in this area generally agree that further development and evaluation of observation methods is necessary (Martinko & Gardner, 1985). A major advantage opposed to the diary method is that recording is done by the researcher itself instead of the manager. We conclude that structured observation is an expensive research method but perhaps the only one that enables us to study systematically and comprehensively those parts of managerial work that are not well understood (Mintzberg, 1973). As said before, Noordegraaf & Stewart (2000) state that one of the continuing strengths of managerial behaviour research has been its concern with qualitative research, because of its empirical, inductive focus and its distinct research approach. Mintzberg agrees with the fact that the method restricts the sample size and as a result, less quantitative data on job characteristics is generated than would by a comparable study with another research method. This is a choice in a trade-off with more powerful data on activity content in return. In Mintzberg’s research as well in our replication, structured observation refers to a method that couples the flexibility of open-ended observations with the discipline of seeking certain types of structured data. During the observation, each event (a verbal contact or a piece of incoming/ outgoing mail/email) is categorized by the researcher. The categories to which these events relate are developed by Mintzberg (1973), (see table 8), the explanation however, is fit to our purposes. We for example added email and Skype calls and chats into the categories explanation.

Category Explanation

Calls (desk/mobile phone) Incoming/outgoing calls from mobile- or desk phone and Skype conversations/ Skype chats, other chats

Scheduled meeting Face-to-face or internet meeting which is arranged before and is known in the schedule of the manager

Unscheduled meeting Hastily arranged meetings and when someone just ‘drops in’ in manager’s office/subordinates office

Tour A chance meeting in the hall, or the promenades, taken by the manager to observe activity and to deliver information

Desk Work Time the manager spend on his desk, processing mail, email, scheduling activities, writing letters. Desk work which is performed with help of a computer/the internet is referred to as IU (internet usage) or CU (computer usage).

Observer interaction Interaction with observer to make something clear/ initiated by manager

Not work related Activities which are not work related or private

Table 8. Categories developed by Mintzberg, content improved for this study. (source: Mintzberg 1973, p. 235)

(32)

Mintzberg 2.0

31

addition, during the observations we will ask the manager what he is doing and what the purpose is of the activity. This to overcome the problem of excluding activities which are linked. If multiple activities have the same purpose according to the manager we can link these activities in order to see the ‘whole forest’ instead of only one single tree.

Finally, we will provide a questionnaire on managerial effectiveness. This field study proceeds through four stages, first the collection of preliminary data, the structured observations, the coding of observations and afterwards data gathering on effectiveness through the use of a questionnaire.

4.2 Collection of preliminary data

This research focuses on environmental changes which influence the nature of managerial work. About the two other levels of analysis (fig. 2), organisational and individual factors preliminary data have to be gathered. Two sorts of preliminary data are gathered for this research. Data about the organisation and its environment, and data about the manager itself. The three organizations participating in this research were found through the use of the manager’s personal network. In order to gain insight in the organisation and thus the task of the manager, we conduct a desk research. During this desk research we take a good look at the organization and try to get familiar with its culture, structure, goals and objectives. This organisational structure, culture, goals and objectives can influence the nature of the manager’s work. Additionally, we try to gain insight in the organisation’s most important stakeholders. This can facilitate the observation process because some background about competitors, customers, suppliers is known. Further, we try to get insight in the research object, the manager. With the help of the internet and a questionnaire we checked backgrounds such as education, prior experience and the age of the manager. All the managers are male and between the age of 40 and 55 and to certain extend known by the researcher/ author which facilitates the understanding of the manager himself and his background. Further all the managers under study have more than 10 years management experience.

4.3 Recording and coding of observations

During the observation data will be noted in three different records. These same records are used by Mintzberg, however we adjusted the layout and the content of our records to the observer’s best fit. We for example add the what (according to the manager) and purpose (according to the

manager) rows, in order to meet Sneyder & Glueck’s recommendations and critique. Since the

observer is Dutch, data will be noted in Dutch. This is more convenient for the observer because by using native language it is easier to describe a particular activity. Further, the manager will answer the what/purpose questions in Dutch. There may be no time to translate these into English. Overall, any language other than native language will not facilitate data gathering.

(33)

32

note the activity the manager engages in and the medium he uses. Since we expect that ICT and the Internet influence the nature of managerial work, we expect to find other types of media used by the managers than in Mintzberg’s original study. Besides that, the pace of for example email can be much higher than normal mail. The third column in the record is the reference section. Each activity will get a different reference. For mail/email we will use numbers and for contacts we will use the alphabet. After the manager has engaged in an activity we will ask him what he was doing and the purpose of the activity.

Chronology Record

Time (start)

Activity / medium Reference* What (according to

manager)

Purpose (according to manager)

8.30 Email bekijken 1-2 Email doornemen Op de hoogte blijven

8.37 Overleg met X A Dag bespreken Informatie

geven/ontvangen 8.48 Telefoon gesprek

(mobiel)

B Telefoneren Klanten te woord

staan

Table 8. The chronology record *reference: references to mail- and contact-record

In order to work as systematic and efficient as possible we use the program excel. We will use records which are made in advance. However, coding of the activities will be done after the observation, just as Mintzberg did in his original study. Example given, the manager reading and replying emails can be categorized as desk work. The details of these emails can later be found in the mail record. For each record we use a separate tab in the excel programme.

The mail record is the record where we the chronology record is referencing to, if for example an email or a letter comes in. As Mintzberg is indicating, the mail record is detailing the nature of the mail received and the manager’s action. In our research the mail record is slightly different than in the original study since we are expecting that email has a different influence than normal mail. An example of the mail record is provided in table 9.

Mail Record

Reference Mail/ Email Sender Topic attention Action

taken

1 Email Jan Spam Skim Deleted

2 Email Piet Invitation football match read Replied

Table 9. The mail record

(34)

Mintzberg 2.0

33

The last record which we will use for the structured observation is the contact record (table 10). Just like the mail record, the contact record is referenced to by the chronological record. However, the contact record shows details of all the contacts the manager has during his activities. The contact record provides detail on meetings whether they are scheduled/unscheduled and telephone calls (Mintzberg, 1973). Actually, the contact record provides detail on every activity where the manager has contact with another person.

Contact Record

Reference Activity Participants Purpose Initiation place

A Informeel/

ongepland overleg

Ondergeschikte Informeren Manager kantoor

B Mobiel telefoon

gesprek

Klant Vragen

beantwoorden

Klant kantoor

Table 10. Contact record

The first column of the contact record again, shows the cross-reference to the chronology record. The activity is the activity taking place and is most of the times more or less the same as in the chronology record. The third column shows us besides the manager, the participants in the contact activity. This can be one but also more persons. The purpose column tells us the purpose of the activity. The fifth column shows us who initiated the contact activity. It can be either the manager, an employee or an outside stakeholder. The last column shows us where the contact activity takes place. Most of the time this will be the office of the manager, however it is also possible to have contact moments in for example board rooms or informal contact moments during lunch break in a lunchroom.

4.4 Analysis of data

Data of the observation records will be analysed by mainly following Mintzberg’s analysis in his book ‘the nature of managerial work’. First we will analyse the chronology record. In this analysis we show total amount of hours worked, distribution of time over the different categories, further we present numbers and percentages of action taken in each category. Additionally, we will analyse the mail input and output record. In this mail record we analyse numbers of mail send/received, attention paid to each piece of mail, sender of the mail and action taken. Further the contact record will be analysed. Analysis of the contact record will show distribution of time over each event, type of media used, number of persons involved in each contact, the initiator of the contact, and the place of the verbal contact. Additionally to the analysis of the three observation records, we will discuss the most striking differences between the three cases.