1
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Master thesis MSc Business Administration
Track: Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Managerial work: a comparison
between SMEs and large firms.
Author: Mathijs Coenen
Student number: s3032701
First supervisor: Dr. M. Brand
Second supervisor: Dr. F. Wijbenga
Word count: 16637
Abstract:
Multiple studies have been conducted on what it is that managers do (managerial work) with most of these studies focusing on managers in large firms. However, SMEs are considerably different from larger firms in a number of respects (e.g. company culture) and are relevant because of their significant contribution to economies worldwide. This study addresses this gap by investigating managerial work through observing three managers in Dutch SMEs. Additionally, the results of this study have been compared to similar studies conducted in the context of SMEs and large firms. The results indicate that managerial work is substantially different in SMEs compared to large firms. Among others, the findings indicate that managers in SMEs perform more activities, spend less time in scheduled meetings and perform considerably more short activities compared to their large firm counterparts.
2
Acknowledgements
3
Index
1. Introduction ... 4
2. Literature review ... 5
2.1 Classical managerial work studies... 5
2.2 Mintzberg and The Nature of Managerial Work ... 5
2.3 Critique on Mintzberg ... 6
2.4 Structured observation studies post Mintzberg ... 7
2.5 Managerial work studies in SMEs ... 8
2.6 Antecedents of managerial work ... 10
3. Methodology ... 11 3.1 Structured observation ... 11 3.2 Participating managers ... 13 3.3 Data analysis... 14 4. Results ... 15 4.1 Chronology record ... 15 4.2 Mail record ... 18 4.3 Contact record ... 19
5. Discussion and conclusion ... 20
5.1 SME managerial work studies compared ... 20
5.2 Differences in managerial work between large firms and SMEs ... 22
5.3 Conclusion ... 24
5.4 Theoretical and managerial implications ... 24
5.5 Limitations and suggestions for future research ... 25
6. References ... 26
Appendix ... 27
Appendix I: Managerial effectiveness ... 27
Appendix II: Full table chronology record ... 35
Appendix III: Mail record: input ... 36
Appendix IV: Mail record: output ... 36
Appendix V: Full table SME studies ... 37
4
1. Introduction
This study contributes to the understanding of small business performance by investigating the managerial work of three managers in Dutch SMEs1. Managerial work is a topic in research that has been studied extensively (e.g. Carlson, 1951; Mintzberg, 1973; Kotter, 1982; Tengblad, 2006). The majority of managerial work studies focus on managers in large firms, while managers in SMEs receive less attention. A consequence of this is that our knowledge of managerial work is mainly based on findings from studies that were conducted in the large firm context (Florén and Tell, 2004). However, SMEs are inherently different from their large counterparts and there is some evidence that hints in the same direction about managerial work in these firms (e.g. Bouw, 2012; Florén and Tell, 2004). SMEs form the majority of the total amount of businesses in most countries. Because of these differences between SMEs and large firms and because of the high number of SMEs in most economies it is justified to investigate managerial work in these firms further and identify in which ways it is different.
Managerial work studies go back as far as the classical work of Fayol (1916), who stated that managerial work can be divided in five categories: planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling (POCCC). A similar categorization was developed by Gulick (1937), who developed the following categories of managerial work: planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting and budgeting. Mintzberg (1973) presented a view of managerial work that was different from the classical studies. After observing five CEOs of large U.S. firms during one working week, he concluded that managerial work is characterized by brevity, variety and fragmentation, which opposes the planned and rational view on managerial work by Fayol (1916) and Gulick (1937). A similar study by Kurke & Aldrich (1983) was conducted ten years after the work of Mintzberg (1973) with different managers in firms that were slightly smaller, but with similar results.
But why is studying managerial work in SMEs necessary? First, Storey and Greene (2010) state that small firms differ from large firms on multiple dimensions (e.g. size, risk of failure, market power, internal organization), which could lead to different managerial behavior. Second, SMEs form the largest part of the business populations in most countries (99.8% in The Netherlands) and contribute significantly to the economy (MKB in beeld, 2014). Understanding managerial work is a first step in improving the performance of these managers. Third, a number of studies provide evidence that managerial work is different in SMEs (e.g. O’Gorman et al., 2005; Bouw, 2012) and that as such, findings from managerial work studies conducted in large firms cannot be generalized to SMEs. By observing three managers of Dutch SMEs, this study will investigate the claim that managerial work differs between SMEs and large firms. Next to this, this study’s results will be compared with similar studies in the SME and large firm context.
The following research questions will be answered in this study. First, what are the characteristics of managerial work in Dutch SMEs? In order to answer this question, a structured observation method will be used to observe the activities performed by three managers of Dutch SMEs. Second, what are the differences and similarities between SME managerial work studies? In addition to this study, a number of SME managerial work studies have been identified and the results of these studies will be compared with each other. In this way, an overview of managerial work in SMEs will be created. Third, what are the differences in managerial work between SMEs and large firms? The findings from SME managerial work studies will be compared to managerial work studies in large firms. Our study will focus on
5
comparing the results of managerial work studies that use similar methodologies compared to Mintzberg (1973), namely the structured observation method.
This paper will be structured in the following way. At first, an overview of the relevant literature on the nature of managerial work will be discussed. After this, the methodology of the structured observation method used in this study will be described in detail, as well as a description of the participants in this study. The findings of this study will be reported after this. Finally, the conclusion of this study’s results will be presented and answers to the research questions will be provided, as well as this study’s limitations and implications.
2. Literature review
2.1 Classical managerial work studies
Studies that describe managerial work have been conducted for a long period of time. One of the earliest works by Fayol (1916), presents a ‘classical’ view of management as well as a categorization of managerial activities. This study was based on the author’s own observations and experience as a mining director. Management is characterized by Fayol as being systematic, planned and rational and the following categories of managerial activities were listed: planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling (POCCC). According to this study, all activities that managers perform can be attributed to one of these categories, based on the content of the activity. Similar findings about managerial work were stated by Gulick (1937), who presented an extended categorization based on the content of managerial activities: planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting and budgeting. These early studies have been criticized for a lack of empirical evidence (Fayol used his own managerial experience as evidence) that supports their claims and for neglecting what managers really do (Brunsson, 1982; Stewart, 1963). According to Hales (1986), the study of Fayol is focused on describing what management is and not so much on how managers behave. This implies that the classical managerial work studies can be complemented with findings from studies that focus on the behavior of managers (O’Gorman et al. 2005).
One of the first studies that based its findings on empirical evidence was Carlson (1951), who examined managerial activities of eight Swedish CEOs. The data was collected with the use of a diary, in which the CEOs had to record information on work locations, contacts, decisions made and patterns in communication. This study’s main finding was that managers were surrounded with other people for most of the time and as a result were not able to work or think for a lengthy period of time. As a result, the managers had to work after or before their regular working hours in order to get their goals fulfilled. A later diary study stated that managers were mainly occupied with activities that were not related to the firm’s output and production (Burns, 1954; 1957). Stewart (1967) reported, after conducting diary based research among 160 middle managers, that there are five different types of managers (emissaries, writers, discussers, troubleshooters and committee members) and that there are significant differences in how these managers spend their time.
2.2 Mintzberg and The Nature of Managerial Work
6
of collecting data on managerial work at the time. Mintzberg stated that classical studies (e.g. Gulick, 1937) were not considering the organizational realities of management and that these studies were too theoretical. Diary studies were also not suitable for recording managerial work, as Mintzberg (1971) stated that these studies only record by what means, with which participants, how long and on which location managers spend their working days and that these studies therefore fail to record what managers actually do.
By using a method called ‘structured observation’, data about managerial activities was collected. The researcher was observing how the managers spent their time during their working days without interacting with the managers. The focus was placed on what activities the managers carry out, for how long and who were involved. Three records were used during the observation. First, the chronology record, in which the managerial activities were recorded according to the time on which they were executed. Second, the mail record, in which all mail correspondence of the manager was kept track of. And third, the contact record, that listed all verbal interactions of the manager. Mintzberg (1973) concluded that managerial work consisted of the characteristics listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Mintzberg’s characteristics of managerial work. Characteristics of managerial work Description
1. Much work at an unrelenting pace Managers perform a lot of work at a high pace and do not have time to leisurely reflect during working days. Outside working hours, the manager also spends time on work-related reading.
2. High brevity, variety and fragmentation
The activities carried out by the managers are characterized by brevity, variety and fragmentation: they are short and differ in type and content.
3. Preference for issues that are current, specific and ad-hoc.
“The managerial environment is clearly one of stimulus-response.” (Mintzberg, 1971; p. 100). Managers prefer current and/or uncertain information; instant communication is preferred.
4. The manager sits between his organization and a network of contacts
The manager is surrounded by a large amount of contacts both internal and external to his organization and he takes in information from these contacts into his organization.
5. Strong preference for verbal media Managers prefer to use verbal media like telephone, unscheduled/scheduled meetings and tours over non-verbal media (e.g. mail).
6. The manager seems in control of his own affairs
On the surface, the manager appears to be unable to control what happens, being similar to a puppet in the way that he responds to requests from others (e.g. reacting to crises). But this view is misleading. First, the manager is the one who defines his long term commitments (e.g. by initiating projects which later demand his time). Second, the manager is able to take advantage of situations that appear as obligations (e.g. by lobbying at ceremonial speeches).
Source: Mintzberg (1971; 1973).
The Nature of Managerial Work has received far more attention compared to other managerial work studies, which is illustrated by the fact that it has been cited the most times (Korica et al., 2015). But a large part of what Mintzberg reports in his work had already been described by prior studies. For example, managerial work is high-paced, fragmented and characterized by a high reliance on face-to-face communication (Burns, 1954, 1957; Carlson, 1951; Stewart, 1967). What explains this higher amount of attention could be that Mintzberg combined theory and rich observation and developed characteristics of managerial work that were easily communicated (Korica et al., 2015).
2.3 Critique on Mintzberg
7
Overemphasis on description: Kurke & Aldrich (1983) state that a limitation of the study of Mintzberg and other similar studies is that the relationship between the behavior of managers and performance, demographical and environmental factors is not present. The relationship between managerial work and performance is not identified and as such, no statements can be made about whether the activities that managers perform are beneficial or not to performance. The focus is placed on describing what the managers do, while no link is made to other aspects that are of relevance.
Lack of explanation: Hales (1986) states that most of the prior observational studies only described what managers do. The studies state what the manager does, when he does it and with whom he has contact, but not why the manager performs certain tasks or not. This has led to a limited amount of theory being developed from these studies. Additionally, the lack of explanation of the manager’s activities makes the conceptualization of managerial work used by Mintzberg (1973) not suitable for clarifying the nature of managerial work (Carroll & Gillen, 1987). The essence of the activities of management cannot be understood by listing what the manager does and not asking for the activities’ purpose. Therefore, the classical management functions are better in describing managerial work.
Inconsistent methods between studies: Managerial work studies do not use similar coding techniques or categories in their study of managerial work (Hales, 1986; O’Gorman et al., 2005). Studies have, in these authors’ eyes, failed to connect their work with prior studies. Sneyder and Glueck (1980) and Hales (1986) state that mutually exclusive categories were used to code the activities in managerial work studies. This complicates the process of coding activities into a particular category, because one activity cannot be coded unambiguously and exclusively into a category. Further, studies on managerial work did not have a common goal and a collectively used methodology (Hales, 1986). Different studies use different ways of conceptualizing managerial work, which in turn complicates the comparison of results from different studies.
Over-fragmentation: Snyder & Glueck (1980) contest the view that managerial work is characterized by high fragmentation. The authors attribute this high level of fragmentation to the methodology that is used in the study, which could code a larger activity that consists of multiple coherent smaller activities as a fragmented activity. A certain activity may require managers to take multiple different actions that are all aimed at fulfilling the activity, but the methodology of Mintzberg (1973) codes these activities in such a way that these actions of management are viewed as separate tasks, which enhances the fragmentation of managerial work.
2.4 Structured observation studies post Mintzberg
Multiple studies have been done on the nature of managerial work after the work of Mintzberg. In a replicating study, Kurke & Aldrich (1983) confirmed the findings of Mintzberg (1973). Four CEOs of firms of intermediate size were observed, of which three CEOs were active in the same industries as Mintzberg’s study (consulting firm, school system, technology firm, consumer goods manufacturer and a hospital). This was done in order to make the replication as precise as possible, with time and firm size being the only differentiating factors between the two studies. Their results were similar to the major findings of Mintzberg, stating that the findings were “amazingly robust” (p. 977). This similarity in results was not expected, because of the time difference and the different sample used in this study. The fact that the results were similar to Mintzberg (1973) contributed to the increase in attention for that study.
8
characterized by high fragmentation was not supported in this study. On average, the activities performed by the managers lasted longer (e.g. lengthier meetings). Second, the proposition that managers prefer brevity and interruptions was also not supported. The CEOs employed secretaries to act as a buffer so that they did not have to respond to issues immediately, but when time was at hands to address the matter. This provides evidence that the managers in this study did not want to be interrupted as much as the managers in the other studies. Other differences that were observed point at increases in work load, time spent on transportation (e.g. in car), meetings and providing information. Decreases were found in desk work, meetings with clients, suppliers and associates; work concerning requests and solicitations; and fragmentation of time.
2.5 Managerial work studies in SMEs
This section will introduce research on managerial work that has been conducted on managers of SMEs. SMEs have advantages and disadvantages compared to large firms. In short, the advantages can be characterized as behavioral advantages. SMEs have a higher entrepreneurial drive, take higher risks, have higher motivation and perseverance, a lack of both bureaucracy and specialization of tasks (which leads to more motivated personnel), flexibility and close lines between management and personnel (Storey & Greene, 2010). Whether a firm benefits from these advantages depends on the motivation and orientation of the manager in question, because the manager’s personal characteristics significantly influence the firm in which the manager operates.
The disadvantages of SMEs are often found in their resources. Examples of these disadvantages are an absence of economies of scale that lead to higher costs, a narrow scope and less experience and learning. Training and education of staff will be less prevalent in SMEs, although this is dependent on the type of SME. Technically advanced SMEs will have more high skilled labour than firms in traditional industries. With regard to the potential success of SMEs Nooteboom (1993) states that: “Often small firms manage to achieve success by exploiting their strengths and compensating for their weaknesses” (p. 288).
The following papers have been identified by the researcher as managerial work studies in the context of SME’s and will be discussed in this order. First, Bouw (2012) observed three managers of SMEs in The Netherlands. The managers were observed for two days each. Second, O’Gorman et al. (2005) investigated managerial work in small growth-oriented firms. Ten CEOs were observed according to the methodology used by Mintzberg (1973) and the managers were also observed for two days each. The third study included in this section is Florén and Tell (2004), who observed six owner-managers in small manufacturing firms. An interesting facet of this study is the firm homogeneity, as they are all active in the same industry. Other managerial work studies observe managers from different industries, which could be of influence to managerial work. All identified studies were conducted in Europe, while managerial work studies that took place in the large firm context were mostly conducted in the United States (e.g. Mintzberg, 1973; Kurke & Aldrich, 1983).
9
Table 2. Overview of managerial work studies in SMEs
Bouw (2012) O’Gorman et al. (2005) Florén and Tell (2004)
Country The Netherlands Ireland Sweden
Time of data collection 2012 1992 2002/2003
Number of managers/# of employees 3 managers # of employees: A: 5; B: 80; C: 160 10 managers # of employees:
Less than 250 employees
6 managers # of employees: between 17 and 43
Number of days observed 6 20 35
Sector Coffee company;
consumer electronics; maintenance Print industry (4), construction (3), agri-food, chemicals, pharmaceuticals Manufacturing IT analyzed Yes No No
In the study of Bouw (2012), three managers from SMEs of different sizes have been observed for a period of two days. Bouw finds that the number of activities performed by managers is considerably higher than in the study of Mintzberg, the activities were performed for even less time and that managerial work in the observed firms can be characterized by a higher level of brevity, fragmentation and variety. The increase in these factors is attributed to several influencing forces: the informal culture of SMEs, rapid changing markets and environments, increasing competition due to globalization and the rise of IT and the internet in general. These forces have all contributed to making the job of the manager more hectic. With regard to IT’s impact on managerial work, the author concluded the following. While the managers in Mintzberg’s study showed a preference for live action (e.g. talking directly to a subordinate) and therefore saw regular mail as a burden, the managers in this study saw e-mail as a more suitable alternative, since it was more up-to-date and accurate. IT also provides the manager with more and accurate information on different business-related factors (e.g. market information).
O’Gorman et al. (2005) studied the nature of managerial work in small growth-oriented businesses. An attempt was made by the authors to overcome one of the earlier mentioned criticisms on managerial behavior studies, namely the lack of explanation criticism. This criticism was dealt with in two ways. First, by investigating the relationship between the manager’s functional background and managerial work. Second, by measuring the influence of firm size on managerial behavior. This study found that the nature of managerial work in these small firms was in some respects similar and in some cases different from their larger counterparts. Managerial work was characterized by more brevity and fragmentation, the use of more informal communication channels and the size of the firms has an influence on the characteristics of managerial work. This is attributed to the informal culture in these smaller firms, which can create an environment in which interruption of the manager and using more informal channels of communication is common. This study also attempted to find a link between the functional backgrounds of the managers and managerial work, arguing that managers prefer to perform those activities that are related to their functional background. No such relationship was found by the authors, however.
10
in his office. There are few scheduled meetings on the manager’s agenda, indicating that managerial work in SMEs is unplanned by nature. Most verbal contacts were with subordinates. Concluding, the authors state that managerial work in SMEs is characterized by even more brevity and fragmentation than in Mintzberg (1973) and that managers are constantly interrupted during their activities. Appendix V provides an overview of the numerical results of the discussed studies. The studies included do not report their data in a similar manner, illustrating the earlier mentioned critique on managerial work studies, which causes the absence of data in some cells of Appendix V.
Table 3 presents the distinctive characteristics of managerial work in SMEs, based on the studies that were discussed in this section. When we compare the findings from the SME studies with the studies conducted with large firm managers, we can see a number of differences. First, managerial work in SMEs is characterized by a higher level of brevity and fragmentation, as managers perform more activities and these activities are also shorter. However, this could be a result of the methodology that managerial work studies use. As Snyder & Glueck (1980) point out, the structured observation method has a negative side effect, because it can portray a manager’s working day as more fragmented than it actually is. Since SMEs have a more informal culture than large firms, managers in SMEs are more easily approachable. This invites more interruptions to the manager’s activities. If the manager is working on an activity, gets interrupted by a subordinate and then continues with the activity, the structured observation method codes this as 3 distinct activities. The managers in Mintzberg’s study of large firms can be expected to be harder to approach, which leads to less interruptions and thus less fragmentation. This leads to the second difference that can be observed in the literature, namely that managers in SMEs use considerably more informal means of communication. Unscheduled meetings (e.g. a subordinate who comes into the manager’s office with a question) are more frequent than in large firms. And the last difference is that managers in SMEs focus more on what happens inside their organizations, because the majority of their contact is with their subordinates.
Table 3. Distinctive characteristics of managerial work in SMEs
Characteristic Explanation
Higher level of brevity and fragmentation Compared to managers in large firms, managers in SMEs engage in more different activities and these are shorter in nature (Bouw, 2012; Florén and Tell, 2004; O’Gorman et al., 2005). Informal means of communication are
used more frequent
The (often) informal culture in SMEs encourages the use of more informal channels of communication (e.g. unscheduled meetings) and formal channels (e.g. scheduled meetings) are rare (Bouw, 2012; Florén and Tell, 2004; O’Gorman et al., 2005).
The manager is focused on what happens inside his organization
The majority of the manager’s contacts is with subordinates (Florén and Tell, 2004). The smallness of the organizations reduces the need for the managers to interact with the external environment (O’Gorman et al., 2005).
2.6 Antecedents of managerial work
11
1996; Whitley, 1989). As an illustration, Managers in decentralized organizations were more involved in activities that monitor unit performance, while managers in centralized organizations performed more activities related to monitoring regulated systems and processes. Managers will try to operate in such a way that they meet their context’s demands. Therefore, when managers work in a specific context for a prolonged period of time, they can develop a way of working that suits this particular context and develop human assets that cannot be used as efficient in another context (Whitley, 1989).
Literature on differences in managerial work with regard to sectoral embeddedness is sparse. In short, public sector managers have more scheduled meetings and spend more time on contacts and crisis management compared to managers in the private sector (Dargie, 1998; Lau et al., 1980). With regard to national embeddedness, the majority of studies on managerial work take place in either the United States or the United Kingdom (Noordegraaf & Stewart, 2000). According to Noordegraaf & Stewart (2000), differences between countries have shown to influence managerial work and the following factors were identified: differences in cultures, legal systems and education. To the best of our knowledge, there are no managerial work studies conducted in SMEs outside of Europe. However, Florén and Tell (2004) do compare their study’s results with studies that were conducted in the U.S. (Mintzberg, 1973; Kurke & Aldrich, 1983). Next to the differences between SMEs and large firms that influence managerial work, the differences between the cultures in these studies could also be a factor that influences managerial work.
3. Methodology
3.1 Structured observationAn often used method to analyze managerial work is called structured observation (Mintzberg, 1973; O’Gorman et al., 2005; Bouw, 2012). Structured observation means that a manager’s activities are observed by a researcher, who keeps track of what activities the manager engages in, with whom, when and where. These activities are coded into three records. The first one is the chronology record, in which all activities performed are coded along with their starting times, followed by the contact record in which the verbal contacts of the manager are coded and the third one is the mail record, in which details of all mail received and sent by the manager is recorded. This study will make use of this method as well and the structured observation method will be based on the work of Bouw (2012) and Mintzberg (1973). This is done for three reasons. First, using a similar method makes comparison of results between the studies possible. Second, the results of the study of Bouw (2012) on the nature of managerial work in Dutch SMEs can be validated by replicating the study. Third, the methodology of Bouw (2012) takes into account a part of the criticism on managerial work studies by asking the manager for the purpose behind the activities that he carries out.
12
Table 4. Categorization of management’s activities
Category Explanation
Calls Incoming and outgoing phone calls, initiated from the desk or mobile phone and through Skype or other online media. Scheduled meetings Meetings which were set up in advance and known in the manager’s schedule. Meetings can be in-person or through online media (e.g. Skype).
Unscheduled meetings Meetings that happen spontaneously. E.g. a subordinate walking in to the manager’s office.
Tours Spontaneous meetings with persons (e.g. subordinates) that occur while taking a walk through the office. Desk work All activities performed while working at the office desk.
E.g. processing mail, e-mail, scheduling activities. When IT is used, these activities will be coded as CU (Computer Usage), IU (Internet Usage) or MP (Mobile Phone) in order to measure the influence of IT on managerial behavior.
Observer interactions Interactions with the observer, initiated by the manager or the observer.
Not work related Private activities of the manager that are not related to work.
Mintzberg (1973) used three different records during the observations and those same records will be used in this study as well. The first record will be the chronology record. Data that contains the starting time of an activity will be placed here, in order to get an insight into the time that the different activities of the manager take. Also, the activity that the manager engages in, the medium that the manager uses while dealing with an activity (e.g. e-mail, telephone) and information on what the manager was doing and with what purpose (according to the manager) will be noted here. References will be used when the manager engages in verbal contacts and when he uses (e-)mail. For example, reference A will be linked to entrance A in the contact record. More specific details on this verbal interaction can then be found in the contact record. This makes the entries in the different records consistent with each other and cross-checking of data entries between the three records more simplified.
The second record used will be the mail record. All mail and e-mail that the manager deals with will be recorded here. The entries in the mail record correspond to entries in the chronology record. As such, an entry in the mail record will start with a reference to the corresponding activity in the chronology record. Then, the medium used by the manager (e.g. e-mail) will be recorded, the sender (e.g. manager himself, subordinate), the topic and purpose of the mail, attention paid to the mail (e.g. skim or study) and the action taken by the manager with regard to the mail.
13
The main advantage of using structured observation is that the observer is able to objectively document the manager’s activities, which is not possible when a diary method (e.g. Carlson, 1951) is used. According to Florén and Tell (2004), managers have insufficient time at their hands to adequately keep a record of their activities. We acknowledge that this method is detailed and time-consuming, but it enables the collection of rich data from observations. A disadvantage could be that the manager behaves differently, because he knows that he is being observed. However, the detailed data on managerial work that can be collected by using this method outweighs that disadvantage.
The data collection will take place in Dutch for two reasons. Firstly, it is the native language of the observer. Second, Dutch is the main language used in the companies. Since multiple activities have to be carried out while observing, using Dutch will make translating the observations unnecessary and this will also save time.
3.2 Participating managers
In this section, the managers will be introduced by providing personal information as well as a description of their role in the company. A short company description will also be provided. The three managers have all been observed in the period from April 2016 until June 2016. All the managers were acquired through the personal network of the researcher, which was an important factor for the managers to agree with participating in this research project. This is a valuable factor for this study for the following two reasons. First, since the researcher was not unrelated to the managers, access to the managers was granted more easily. Second, the managers accepted the presence of the researcher and did not view his presence as disturbing. The managers conducted their normal working operations and this can be seen as an important contributing factor to the validity of this study. The managers supplied the researchers with dates on which they were available for observation. The managers were also asked to describe how they experienced the presence of an observer on their work. They all stated that they consciously acknowledged the presence of the observer, but that this did not hinder their working days. Other employees were also not obstructed by the presence of the observer. When confidential matters had to be discussed, the observation was stopped. More information about the participating managers can be found in table 5.
Manager A
The manager works for a company located in Almelo, The Netherlands. At the moment the company has 60 employees. The company is specialized in producing turnkey production lines for small, complex products with a focus on sensors, actuators and connectors. It used to be a part of Texas Instruments, but through a management buy-out it became an independent company in 1999. The official role of the manager in the company is Director of Operations, but he indicated that he performs multiple roles at the same time. As an example, the manager also performs certain tasks that the HR manager performs. The manager indicated that he wants an ‘open’ culture in the company, which is illustrated by the ease of access to the manager (e.g. the door is always open). He considers himself to be a facilitator: creating the right circumstances for his personnel to excel.
Manager B
14
Apeldoorn and mass produce in the Czech Republic. With regard to the company culture, this is informal. The door of the manager’s office is always open, except for when a classified meeting is taking place, which encourages interruption by subordinates. The role of the manager in this firm is Managing Director.
Manager C
The third manager works for a company that is located in Haaksbergen in The Netherlands. The company engages in designing new products for customers and producing products. Three sites are used by the company: one in The Netherlands, one in the Czech Republic and one in China. The head office is located in Haaksbergen (Netherlands). The management of the company is located here, as well as several other functions (e.g. supply chain management). Also, prototypes are made here, which serve as the baseline model for the eventual product that needs to be made. The production takes place in the Czech Republic. In China, the products are sourced from various suppliers. These products are then shipped to the factory in the Czech Republic, were the final product is assembled. The company does not produce from scratch, but sources parts from suppliers and assembles products in the Czech Republic factory. In doing so, a higher level of flexibility can be achieved. The company is active in multiple industries, e.g. agriculture and automotive industries among others. This spreads the risk of the company in such a way that they are not exposed to industry risk. The manager’s role in the company is co-owner and CEO of the company.
Table 5. Details of participating managers and their companies
Manager A Manager B Manager C
Age 46 48 44
Sex Male Male Male
Business Production line
manufacturing Product display design and manufacturing Machine design and production Years in function 6 2 4
Other functions in the company
Project manager - -
Education University University University
Number of employees 60 35 41
3.3 Data analysis
First, the chronology record will be analyzed. The amount of activities that the manager performs during a working day, the time these activities take, how long the working days lasted and more information will be provided. The data will be presented in tables, showing percentages and figures for the distribution of time among the categories of activities identified before in table 3. Second, the mail record will be treated in a similar way. The data will be presented in tables which show the amount of mail/e-mail that the manager received or created, the attention paid to these mails, who the sender was and what action the manager took in response to the mail. Third, the contact record will contain an analysis of the media used, the number of participants in a verbal contact, who participated in the meetings, who initiated the contact and where the contact took place. The results section will contain tables with the key results, while full versions of the tables can be found in the Appendix. These records will also be compared with each other.
15
manager was quickly checking something on his computer or mobile phone, it was not possible to ask what he was doing. We have tried to include these activities as much as possible, but in a few instances it turned out to be impossible to record them. Also, in some cases it was hard to judge what type of activity the manager was performing. E.g. the difference between touring the premises and having an unscheduled meeting. But the fact that only one observer was present made it impossible to ask for a second opinion with a colleague.
One of the criticisms on the work of Mintzberg (1973) and other managerial work studies is that their methodologies cause a view of managerial work that may look more fragmented than it actually is. This study attempted to overcome this criticism by asking the manager for the purpose behind every activity. In doing so, the researcher hoped to find relationships between activities that seem unrelated at first. However, the high pace of managerial work made it hard to accurately capture the purpose of all activities and as such this is not included in the results.
4. Results
4.1 Chronology record
The results that have been obtained from the chronology record are presented in Table 6. The first column describes the different categories of managerial work used in this study. The second column provides an overview of the results of the three managers combined. The other three columns present the data for each manager separately.
In total, the three managers worked for 52,21 hours during the six days of observation. Manager B worked the most hours, but the differences between the manager’s working hours is not high. 408 distinct activities were carried out by the managers, with Manager B taking up the majority of this part. Manager C performed the lowest amount of activities (104). With regard to desk work, in total 157 sessions have taken place during the observations, of which almost all were conducted with the use of ICT. The managers have spent 888 minutes working on their desks during the observation period. Manager B spent the least amount of time on his desk (160 minutes). When we look at the average duration of the desk work activities, Manager C’s desk work sessions lasted longer on average. This implies that this manager was not interrupted as often during his desk work sessions as the other managers.
The next category, telephone usage, shows that the managers engaged in 68 activities that included a telephone and that this took up almost ten per cent of the managers’ time. Manager C did not have a desk phone at his office, as such all the telephone related interactions were performed on the mobile phone. Manager B executed most calls on his desk phone (22 desk phone calls compared to 6 mobile phone calls). Video calls, with the use of e.g. Skype, or chatting applications were not used by Managers A and B. Manager C did make use of video conference techniques. A large screen was present in the center of the common office workplace, on which a live video connection was shown with the company’s subsidiary in the Czech Republic. This video connection was utilized by the manager two times in order to quickly get an answer to pressing matters.
16
significant number of scheduled meetings, which is illustrated by the fact that this manager spent 42,05 per cent of his time in scheduled meetings. A result of this is that the data on scheduled meetings is influenced by this and that this number is higher for this manager than for the others. On a normal day, this manager would spend considerably less time in scheduled meetings. An additional finding is that the scheduled meetings of Manager C, when they took place, lasted on average more than 30 minutes longer compared to the average duration of the other managers’ scheduled meetings.
Compared to scheduled meetings, a larger proportion of the total activities was taken up by unscheduled meetings. In total, 81 unscheduled meetings took place, compared to 30 scheduled ones. However, the proportion of time spent in unscheduled meetings is lower than the scheduled meetings (10,63 per cent vs. 29,62 per cent). The unscheduled meetings can be characterized as short interactions between managers and other parties (e.g. subordinates), with an average duration of 4,11 minutes.
40 tours were undertaken by the managers in this study. Manager B conducted the majority of the tours (25). This can be explained by the physical characteristics of the offices in which the managers worked, as well as the preferences with regard to an open door policy. Manager B was located in a separate office from the rest of the employees. Therefore, when the manager wanted to acquire information from a subordinate, he either had to call or embark on a tour to acquire it. Manager A also had his own office, with his subordinates working in an open office space outside of his office. The difference is that the manager had agreed on a policy for interruption. His door was open for the majority of the time, which allowed him to easily contact other employees for questions. Manager C worked in a common office space where the majority of the other employees were also present. Asking questions did not require the manager to undertake a tour.
Not work related activities took up 9,77 per cent of the managers’ time, of which the majority of activities were breaks. Observer interaction related to 2,68 per cent of time. Interaction between observer and manager took place when the manager or the observer felt the need to further clarify what was going on in a certain situation. In doing so, the context in which the activities took place could be better understood. Observer interaction took op considerably more time for Manager C, because the manager gave an extensive tour through the company to the observer in order to clarify the context in which he operates.
17
Table 6. Results of the chronology record.
Category Composite Manager A Manager B Manager C
Total hours worked 52,21 hours 16,53 hours 18,23 hours 17,45 hours
Total number of activities
408 143 161 104
Desk work
Number of sessions 157 67 49 41
Average duration 5,66 minutes 4,72 minutes 3,26 minutes 10,05 minutes
Proportion of time 28,35% 32,27% 14,62% 39,34%
Telephone usage
Number of calls 68 24 30 14
Average duration 4,34 4,04 minutes 4,57 minutes 4,36 minutes
Proportion of time 9,42% 9,9% 12,52% 5,83%
Scheduled meetings
Number of meetings 30 10 17 3
Average duration 30,93 minutes 26,7 minutes 27,06 minutes 67 minutes
Proportion of time 29,62% 27,27% 42,05% 19,20%
Unscheduled meetings
Number of meetings 81 19 28 34
Average duration 4,11 minutes 4,63 minutes 3,75 minutes 4,12 minutes
Proportion of time 10,63% 9% 9,6% 13,37%
Tours
Number of tours 40 10 25 5
Average duration 5,92 minutes 7,8 minutes 3,92 minutes 12,2 minutes
Proportion of time 7,57% 7,96% 8,96% 5,83%
Not work related Number of activities (including breaks) 21 6 7 8 Proportion of time 9,77% 8,2% 9,41% 11.75% Observer interaction Number of times 12 4 6 2 Proportion of time 2,68% 1,33% 1,92% 4,77%
Activities not captured 1,67% 4,1% 0,92% 0%
Proportion of time 1,67% 4,1% 0,92% 0% Proportion of activities <9 minutes 77,97% 77,6% 83,23% 73,08% Proportion of activities 9 or 9> <60 minutes 20,42% 21,7% 15,53% 24,04% Proportion of activities more than 60 minutes
18
4.2 Mail record
Input analysis
The managers received a total of 67 pieces of mail during the six days of observation, all of which were e-mails. Not a single piece of regular mail was received by the managers, which shows that e-mail has become the primary form of communication in the firms observed. Managers A and B did have a secretary in place, who buffered incoming desk phone calls and regular mail and advertisements. As a result, all managers received all e-mail that was sent to them, which allowed spam e-mail to reach the inboxes of the managers. All spam mail has been grouped in the ‘Other’ category. All managers indicated that e-mail was seen as a burden that distracts them from doing their job. As such, the managers did not check their e-mail inboxes that often. Manager C also indicated that he noticed a decline in the number of e-mails that he is receiving. 24 out of the 67 e-mails were received from parties external to the firm, which indicates that e-mail is mainly used for internal communication between the manager and his team of subordinates, colleagues and supervisors. The managers did not take action on received e-mails for the majority of cases, but mainly skimmed or read the e-mail and took information to them.
Table 7. Incoming e-mail
Category Composite Manager
A Manager B Manager C Number of pieces received 67 27 27 13 Sender Internal 42 7 11 6 External 24 - 5 - Action taken Save 35 14 14 7 Delete 17 9 6 2 Forward 3 1 1 1 Replied 12 3 6 3 Output analysis
When we look at table 8 the data on all outgoing mail is presented. In total, 26 pieces of e-mail were produced by the managers. Again, no regular mail was used by the manager, which provides additional support for the obsolescence of regular mail. The ratio between replies to mails received and self-initiated mail is 46,15 per cent. The largest part of the mail generated by the managers stays inside of the organization. This could imply that e-mail is mainly used by managers to communicate with individuals inside of the firm.
Table 8. Mail output analysis
Category Composite Manager A Manager B Manager C
Total output 26 7 12 7
Output as % of input 38,81% 25,93% 44,44% 53,85% Self-initiated as % of
output
46,15% 42,86% 50% 42,86%
Target of output mail
Internal 22 2 9 5
19
4.3 Contact record
The final record that will be analyzed is the contact record. All verbal contacts that the managers were engaged in are in this section. In total, the managers engaged in 231 unique verbal interactions, with Manager B taking up the majority of interactions. When we compare scheduled and unscheduled meetings with each other, we can see that there were more unscheduled meetings than scheduled ones (35,06% compared to 12,99%), but the unscheduled meetings took up considerably less time than the scheduled meetings (17,74% compared to 49,44%). When we look at the number of individuals who participated in both scheduled and unscheduled meetings, as well as the tours, we see that on average 83,23% of these verbal interactions involved only one other person, next to the manager.
The participants in the verbal interactions were mostly subordinates of the manager. What is interesting to note is that only a low number of the verbal interactions involved individuals from outside of the managers’ organizations. This shows that the managers in this study were mainly interacting with individuals in their own organizations and that matters inside the organization received more priority than external matters. Manager A was the only manager who interacted with colleagues. This is a result of his position in the company, namely Manager of Operations. This manager is not responsible for the whole firm, but rather for a specific department. On the contrary, Managers B and C where in control of the firm and as a result did not have colleagues but rather subordinates. Looking at the form of initiation of the verbal contacts, we can see that the managers initiated the contacts for the majority of cases (113 times), while other parties did so for 90 times. Manager B initiated most of the verbal contacts himself (63 vs. 29), while these numbers are more close to each other for the other managers. The large majority of verbal interactions took place in the office of the manager (161 interactions).
Table 9. Analysis of the contact record
Category Composite Manager A Manager B Manager C
Total number of unique verbal interactions
231 61 92 51
Total time in verbal contact 1877 minutes 543 821 513 Media (% of verbal contacts/%
20
Percent with 2 people 83,23% 80,64% 77,14% 91,90%
Percent with 3 people 6,51% 9,68% 7,14% 2,70%
Percent with 4 people or more 10,26% 9,68% 15,71% 5,40% Participants Subordinate 145 23 75 47 Colleague 24 24 - - Director 16 4 12 - Peer/Trade organization 1 - 1 - Client 10 8 - 2
Supplier and associate 5 - 3 2
Independent and other 5 2 3 -
Form of initiation Manager 113 29 63 21 Opposite party 90 31 29 30 Location Manager’s office 161 47 68 46 Office of subordinate 5 3 2 - Hall or plant 36 11 21 4 Conference/board room 1 - - 1 Other 1 - 1 -
5. Discussion and conclusion
5.1 SME managerial work studies compared
21
Looking at desk work activities, all studies indicate that the managers spend a considerable amount of time on desk work, as the average proportion of time spent on desk work ranges from 28% (O’Gorman et al., 2005) to 45.9% (Florén and Tell, 2004). The managers in the study of Florén and Tell (2004) were able to work on their desks for more prolonged periods of time, as the average duration of a desk work session in this study was 16 minutes. The managers in our study used a so-called open door policy, in which the managers invited interruptions to take place. In Manager C’s company, all employees, including the manager, work in the same room on their own desks. So in this case, the manager did not even use an own office. As such, this manager is the best example of what happens in smaller firms: short lines of contact between the manager and his staff invite interruptions. And this could be the cause for the lower average duration of the desk work activities in our study. Besides being interrupted themselves, the managers also interrupt subordinates and colleagues whenever they have a question. However, when confronted with this, the managers stated that they prefer to be interrupted, because it enables them to deal with matters quickly. This illustrates the preference that managers have for live and current information (Mintzberg, 1973).
The proportion of time spent on telephone calls ranges from 9.42% in this study to 19% in the study of Bouw (2012). What all studies have in common is that these telephone calls are all brief in nature, with average durations ranging from 3.2 minutes (Florén and Tell, 2004) to 6 minutes (O’Gorman et al., 2005). This study shows the lowest amount of telephone calls compared to the other studies. All managers in this study either had a secretary who acted as a buffer to filter out desk phone calls before they reached the manager, or delegated the answering of telephone calls to other colleagues. This creates an image of an inward focus of the manager, who is mainly occupied with what happens inside his firm or department and delegates external contacts to subordinates or others in the company like supervisors. This study reported a higher number of scheduled meetings, five on average, compared to the other studies. But these scheduled meetings were also shorter in nature. O’Gorman et al. (2005) show that the managers in their study spent 25% of their time in scheduled meetings, which is quite high when we compare this with the other studies presented here. But this should be seen in the light of a limitation of this study and the study of Bouw (2012), as both studies observed three managers over the course of 2 days for each manager. Because the managers were not observed for a full work week, it could be possible that the managers had other days on which they normally had a high number of scheduled meetings. Unscheduled meetings are more frequent than their scheduled counterparts. These unscheduled meetings are brief in nature compared to scheduled meetings, as their average duration ranges from a low of 3.7 minutes to 6 minutes. Compared to the other studies, our study has the lowest number of unscheduled meetings and the lowest proportion of time spent on unscheduled meetings. But when we look at the average of all studies, managers in small firms engage in more brief unscheduled meetings than in lengthy unscheduled meetings.
22
Table 10. Overview of managerial work studies (SMEs)
Category Coenen
(2016)
Bouw (2012) O’Gorman et
al. (2005)
Florén and Tell (2004)
Average Average hours
worked per day
8.70 hours 9.25 hours 8 hours 9.1 hours 8.76 hours Average number
of activities per day
68 110 35 57.4 67.64
Desk work
Average duration 5.66 minutes 4.04 minutes - 16 minutes 8.57 minutes Proportion of time 28.35% 30% 28% 45,9% 33.06%
Telephone calls
Average duration 4.34 minutes 3.98 minutes 6 minutes 3.2 minutes 4.38 minutes Proportion of time 9.42% 19% 13% 13.0% 13.61% Scheduled meetings Average number of meetings per day 5 1.16 2 1.0 2.29
Average duration 30.93 46.3 minutes 55 minutes 88.4 minutes 55.16 minutes Proportion of time 10.63% 10% 25% 14.9% 15.13% Unscheduled meetings Average number of meetings per day 13.5 28.66 22 21.6 21.44
Average duration 4.11 minutes 4.74 minutes 11 minutes 3.7 minutes 5.89 minutes Proportion of time 10.63% 24.5% 25% 18.9% 79.03% Tours Proportion of time 7.57% 7.5% 9% 7.3% 7.84% Proportion of activities lasting less than 9 minutes 77.97% 85% - 79.5% 80.82% Proportion lasting longer than 60 minutes 1.61% 0.33% - 0.9% 0.95%
5.2 Differences in managerial work between large firms and SMEs
This section will compare managerial work in SMEs with the results of studies that focused on large firms (Mintzberg, 1973; Kurke & Aldrich, 1983; Tengblad, 2006). The first striking difference can be found in the number of activities that the managers perform. The SME studies find a higher number of activities compared to managers in bigger sized firms. Tengblad (2006) states that the managers in his study were able to work on an activity for a long period of time and that meetings were both lengthy and more common, which results in a lower number of activities per day. This is also the case in the studies of Mintzberg (1973) and Kurke & Aldrich (1983), where 59% of the manager’s time was spent in lengthy scheduled meetings. On the other hand, the managers in our study indicated that they were often not able to work on a single activity for a considerable amount of time, because interruptions are commonplace for them and they encourage interruption by maintaining an ‘open door’ policy in which subordinates and supervisors were always welcome to come into the manager’s office. This informal culture is more prevalent in SMEs and O’Gorman et al. (2005) also argues it to be an important factor in explaining the amount of activities.
23
e.g. quickly checking e-mail is considered a distinct activity (Bouw, 2012). However, one remark needs to be taken into account, namely the time during which the study’s observations have taken place. Bouw’s study is based on data collected in 2012, while the other studies are based on older data. It is reasonable to assume that IT did not play as big as a role in business a decade ago as it does now. In fact, most studies (except Bouw, 2012) in this analysis do not consider IT to be of an influence on managerial work. Therefore, the high number of activities found in this study and the study of Bouw (2012) need to be seen in this light. Next to this, managers in large firms spend less time on telephone calls compared to their colleagues in SMEs and also engage in less telephone calls.
Besides engaging in a higher number of activities, managers in SMEs spend considerably less time in scheduled meetings. The proportion of time spent in scheduled meetings was 59% for the managers in the study of Mintzberg (1973), down to an average of 11.84% in the studies conducted in the SME context. As was mentioned before, this can be attributed to the distinct informal culture that is prevalent in SMEs. This makes scheduled meetings less necessary, as the managers can easily be approached to resolve matters. As one of the managers in this study puts it: “Large firms are more rigid than we are. Whenever there is a problem, we can immediately give it the attention it needs and try to resolve it, while this will have to wait till the next meeting in larger, bureaucratic firms.”.
Another characteristic of managerial work in SMEs is that unscheduled meetings are more frequent than scheduled meetings and that these meetings also take up a larger proportion of the manager’s time. Mintzberg (1973) reports that on average 4 unscheduled meetings take place during the manager’s working day, while this number increases to more than 25 on average for managers in SMEs. The average duration of the unscheduled meetings is also lowest in SMEs, which can again be explained by the previously explained arguments about the informal culture of SMEs. Managers in SMEs also spend more time touring their facilities.
Last, the vast majority of activities lasts less than 9 minutes for managers in SMEs (80.82%). This is a considerable increase compared to Minztberg (1973), Kurke and Aldrich (1983) and Tengblad (2006), which further illustrates that managerial work in SMEs is characterized by even more brevity, variety and fragmentation.
Table 11. Comparison of managerial work studies between different contexts.
Category Mintzberg
(1973)
Tengblad (2006)2
Kurke & Aldrich (1983)
Average of SME studies
Average hours worked per day
8.08 14.44 8,83 8.76
Average number of activities per day
21 27.8 34 67.64
Desk work
Average duration 15 minutes 19 minutes 12 minutes 8.57 minutes Proportion of time 22% 12% 26% 34.75%
Telephone calls
Average duration 6 minutes 10.16 minutes
4 minutes 3.84 minutes
Proportion of time 6% 7% 8% 13.81%
Scheduled meetings
Average duration 61 minutes -- 65 minutes 55.21 minutes
Proportion of time 59% -- 50% 11.84%
24
Unscheduled meetings
Average duration 12 minutes -- 8 minutes 4.18 minutes
Proportion of time 10% -- 12% 18.01%
Tours
Average duration 11 minutes 17 minutes 11 minutes 7.31 minutes Proportion of time 3% 1,25% 3% 7.46% Proportion of activities
lasting less than 9 minutes
49% 45% 63% 80.82%
Proportion lasting longer than 60 minutes
10% 12% 5% 0.95%
5.3 Conclusion
This section will present answers to the three research questions that were used in this study. The first question is what are the characteristics of managerial work in Dutch SMEs? What this study showed is that managerial work for the managers in this study is characterized by high levels of brevity, variety and fragmentation. The managers engage in a high amount of activities during their working days and these activities are short in nature. The largest proportion of time is spent on desk work. Scheduled meetings are used less frequently than unscheduled meetings, but the scheduled meetings are lengthy when they take place. Unscheduled meetings are the preferred form of verbal contact: whenever an issue needed to be resolved, the manager would either be approached by a subordinate with a question or the manager would gather information from subordinates. There was a rather informal culture prevalent in the firms that were visited, as all managers encouraged interruptions to take place by employing an open-door policy. The managers were all very approachable for subordinates and it seemed as if they were part of the team as a whole instead of being a supervisor who managers a department or firm. The second question is what are the differences and similarities between SME managerial work studies? Next to our study on SME managerial work, additional studies were identified and the results were compared to one another. All in all, we can state that managerial work in SMEs is characterized by a great number of activities. But questions remain about the impact of IT on the number of activities that a manager performs, because not all studies explicitly mention how their study deals with IT related activities.
The third research question is what are the differences in managerial work between SMEs and large firms? Managers in SMEs perform far more activities during their working days than large firm managers. Most of these activities that SME managers perform are brief in nature, as a large portion of them lasts less than 9 minutes. Scheduled meetings are used less frequently and informal means of communication (e.g. unscheduled meetings) are preferred instead.
5.4 Theoretical and managerial implications
This study investigated managerial work in Dutch SMEs. The main contribution of this study to the literature on managerial work is that the differences in managerial work between SMEs and large firms are significant and that as a result the conclusions that the numerous large firm managerial work studies provide cannot be transferred to the SME context. This is relevant for academics because the amount of studies about managerial work that focus on SMEs are limited and as such our knowledge is also limited. SMEs are considerably different from large firms in a multitude of ways and managerial work seems to be one of them.
25
with the help of some kind of IT. Managers are able to quickly check for e-mail, new information or another purpose. This causes an increase in the amount of activities that have been recorded in our study and the study of Bouw (2012) compared to other managerial work studies. Also, our study and Bouw (2012) are the only managerial work studies that mention the role of IT in relation to managerial work. It could be the case that the other studies did not observe this behavior or coded it in a different way, but these studies were not clear about the role of IT. But still, our study contributes to the managerial work literature by providing evidence on the role of IT in managerial work.
An implication for managers is that working as a manager in an SME is considerably different than performing the same function in a large firm. Considerable differences in managerial work exist between the two types of firms and these have consequences for the (potential) managers in these firms. Managers wanting to work in SMEs have to consider that their job will be characterized by more brevity, variety and fragmentation. Interruptions will be more common than in large firms and the other differences in managerial work described in this study show that there are large differences. Managers need to consider if they are the right match with respect to SMEs, or if their working style is more suited towards larger firms.
5.5 Limitations and suggestions for future research
One limitation of using the structured observation method is that it is very time consuming. Each manager was observed for a period of two working days each. Two days of observation provides a limited view of managerial work, because managers have specific days in their working weeks on which specific activities are carried out. In example, Manager B was observed on a monday and it is on this day that the manager has multiple scheduled meetings to begin his week with. As a result, the data for this manager is more influenced by this day with the high number of scheduled meetings. Manager A was observed during two days which he described as ‘normal’. What this means is that he was observed on days with relatively less scheduled meetings. When the full working week of the managers would be observed, a more balanced view of managerial work would be taken into account and single days with a particular high amount of a certain activity would be balanced with days on which this is not the case. Other managerial work studies do take into account the full working week of managers and as such provide results that are less biased by the influence of one particular day (e.g. Mintzberg, 1973; Kurke & Aldrich, 1983; Tengblad, 2006; Florén and Tell, 2004).
The second limitation does not only apply to this study, but also to managerial work studies as a whole. Our study only included male managers and the same can be noted about the other managerial work studies that were identified in this study. The population of managers is not does not consist of only man and as such our knowledge of managerial work is only based on studies that investigate this phenomenon in the male context. Future studies should focus on capturing female managerial work as well to address this.
26
methodology part of this additional part of the study can be found in the Appendix section. Future research can build upon this questionnaire or use it in their study.
Next to the suggestions for future research that were based on the limitations of this study, some additional remarks have to be made. First, managerial work studies should provide more information that details the context in which the data is collected. This should be done to help with the interpretation of the results and it should make it easier to compare results between studies. Second, Consistency in methodology between structured observation studies should be increased. As an example, O’Gorman et al. (2005) did use the methodology developed by Mintzberg (1973), but their results were reported in such a way that it was hard to compare their findings with other managerial work studies. If the field of managerial work is to be advanced, then consistency is key. This enables findings of different studies to be compared and new research can build on findings of others.
6. References
Bouw, R. (2012). Mintzberg 2.0: An extension and replication of one of the most well-known
researches in the field of managerial work. (Master’s thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands). Retrieved from: http://irs.ub.rug.nl/dbi/50c062f463e4e
Brunsson, N. (1982). The irrationality of action and action rationality: decisions, ideologies, and organizational actions. Journal of Management Studies, 19, 29-34.
Burns, T. (1954). The directions of activity and communication in a departmental executive group: a quantitative study in a British engineering factory with a self-recording technique. Human Relations, 7, 73-94.
Burns, T. (1957). Management in action. Operational Research, 8, 45-60.
Carlson, S. (1951). Executive Behavior: A Study of the Work Load and the Working Methods of Managing Directors. Stockholm: Stromberg.
Carroll, S., & Gillen, D. (1987). Are the classical management functions useful in describing managerial work? Academy of management review (12), 38-51.
Dargie, C. (2000). Observing chief executives: analysing behaviour to explore cross-sectoral differences. Public Management and Money, 39-44.
Fayol, H. (1916). General and indsutrial management. London: Pitman.
Florén, H., & Tell, J. (2004). What Do Owner-Managers In Small Firms Really Do? Differences In Managerial Behavior In Small And Large Organizations. Small Enterprise Research, 12 (1), 57-70. Gulick, L. H. (1936). Notes on the Theory of Organization. Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration, 3-35.
Hales, C. P. (1986). What do managers do? A critical review of the evidence. Journal of management studies 23, 88-115.
Hales, C. P. (1999b). Why do managers do what they do? Reconciling evidence and theory in accounts of managerial work. British Journal of Management 10, 831-835.
