1
Master Thesis Business Administration – Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Replicating the research of Mintzberg (1973) in micro
organizations:
Including the characteristics of managerial work influencing managerial
effectiveness
By: Tjeska Hartman Student number: 1768565
July 1st 2013
University of Groningen, the Netherlands First supervisor: Dr. O.A. Belousova
Second supervisor: Dr. M.J. Brand
2 Abstract
This study provides an overview of the characteristics of managerial work influencing managerial effectiveness in micro organizations. Mintzberg’s (1973) method of observing managers is used as a basis for this study’s observations. Furthermore, his typology of roles is used to make the link between managerial work and effectiveness. Based on the observations it is found that managerial effectiveness is positively influenced by the following dimensions of managerial work: ‘commitment to clients’, ‘commitment to employees’ and ‘showing direction’. These dimensions are related to roles designed by Mintzberg (1973). These findings differ from previous research on managerial effectiveness in large organizations. Thus this study highlights the differences between managerial work, roles and effectiveness in micro organizations versus large organizations.
Keywords: micro organizations, managerial effectiveness, managerial work, Mintzberg
3
Table of content
1. Introduction ... 4
2. Literature Review ... 6
2.1 The nature of managerial work ... 6
2.1.1 Managerial work throughout the years ... 6
2.1.2 Managerial work, size and country of origin ... 10
2.2 Managerial effectiveness ... 12
2.2.1 Managerial roles and effectiveness ... 13
2.2.2 Defining managerial effectiveness ... 14
2.2.3 The conceptual model ... 16
2.2.3.1 The link between roles and dimensions ... 17
3. Methodology ... 18
3.1 The diary method vs. observational method ... 18
3.2 Observing the managers ... 19
3.2.1 Managerial work ... 19
3.2.2 Managerial roles ... 21
3.3 Research setting ... 22
3.3.1 The managers ... 22
4. Analysis ... 24
4.1 Managerial work in the wine industry ... 24
4.1.1 General analysis ... 25
4.1.1.1 The chronology record ... 25
4.1.1.2 The mail records ... 27
4.1.1.3 The contact record ... 29
4.1.2 The managers ... 30
4.1.3 Adaptations to Mintzberg’s study ... 32
4.1.4 Interpreting the findings ... 34
4.2 Managerial effectiveness in the wine industry ... 36
4.2.1 The managers and their roles ... 37
4.2.2 The dimensions of managerial effectiveness... 40
4.2.2.1 Goal attainment ... 41
4.2.1.2 Commitment to employees ... 43
4.2.1.3 Additional characteristics ... 43
4.2.1.4 Conceptual model ... 44
4.2.2 Combining roles and dimensions ... 45
5. Conclusion ... 46
5.1. Recap and contributions ... 46
5.1.2 Research question ... 47
5.3 Implications, limitations and future research... 48
6. References ... 50
4
1. Introduction
Managerial work. Two simple words, but combined, their meaning is difficult to grasp, because what is it that managers actually do? It is important to understand their work in order to design, for example, information systems and other aids they can use. Also, in order to teach students at universities about management, it is important for them to know what managers actually do (Mintzberg, 1973). These examples are the reason why researchers have researched this topic over the past, roughly, century. The first to discuss this aspect was Fayol, who, in 1916, described managerial work through actions performed and stated that managers plan, organize, coordinate, and control (Mintzberg, 1973). This is, however, a theoretical view and has been criticized many times due to the way in which the nature of managerial work was displayed (Mintzberg, 1973; O’Gorman, Bourke & Murray, 2005). Hence, there was a need for more empirical research, to provide an overview of the characteristics of managerial work. Mintzberg (1973), in his ground-breaking study, found that managers work at an unrelenting pace and that their work is characterised by brevity, fragmentation and variety. The results of his study show the implications for managers, teachers, researchers etc., thus offering many possibilities with regard to managerial work.
An aspect relating to managerial work is the effectiveness of managers. This is researched many times, however, there is not yet one definition or model widely applicable. Effectiveness can be defined as the degree to which a manager achieves the output required for the job (Reddin, 1970), or the mastering of a set of skills required for the job (Drucker, 1967), while Mintzberg (1973) points out it is related to the right set of resources to execute the job. Hence, many researchers have a different perspective towards managerial effectiveness. However, they all state the importance of understanding the effectiveness of managers to identify where improvements can be made.
Research regarding both managerial work and effectiveness have been performed in large, medium-sized and small organizations (e.g. Analoui, Ahmed & Kakabadse, 2010; Kotter, 1982; O’Gorman et al. 2005). However, most of the research has been performed in large and medium-sized organizations. It is important to state the differences between size of organizations, because managers in small organizations react and behave in a different way than managers in large organizations. An example is the number of activities the managers engage in per day, as a manager in a large organization performs, on average, 22 activities per day, while a manager in a small organization performs, on average, 77 activities per day (Florén & Tell, 2003). This results in these managers reacting and behaving differently in different situations. Because there are such large differences between these firms, it is important for the managers to know how they can manage more effectively in firms with a certain size.
5
though they are so small, these firms represent 91,5% of all European organizations and are considered an important part of the economy (Liberman-Yaconi, Hooper & Hutchings, 2010; The European Commission, 2008). As differences occur between the behaviour of managers in small and large organizations, it is assumed that these differences will be even larger between large and micro organizations. Because managing a large organization differs so much from managing a small one, it is important for these managers to know where to focus on. Hence, the goal of this study is to discover what managerial work in micro organizations entails, as well as define the characteristics of managerial effectiveness in these firms.
As previously indicated, micro organizations have not yet been extensively researched. This study will accommodate research on managerial work by observing managers in micro organizations. These managers, generally, are the decision-makers in their firm and therefore must know something about everything (e.g. not only marketing, but also finance and human resources) in order to make those decisions (Liberman-Yaconi et al., 2010). Thus it is assumed that these managers have more diverse jobs and have to deal with more diverse situations. As previous findings of managers in large organizations may not always apply to managers to micro organizations, it is important that this field is researched in order to provide these managers with helpful aids (Metts, 2007). These differences between managers in large and micro organizations result in different characteristics regarding managerial effectiveness as well. This because methods that make a manager effective in a large organization may not apply to a manager in a micro organization (Metts, 2007). Therefore, in order to accommodate the diversity of their jobs, managers in micro organizations must obtain different characteristics than managers in large organizations, in order to maximize their effectiveness. Hence, this study will identify where managers of micro organizations need to focus on. Besides the implications this study has for managers, it also provides a basis for future research on micro organizations. As these firms are such a large part of total European enterprises, it is important to understand them in order for improvements to be made.
In order to accommodate this study in terms of managerial work and effectiveness of managers in micro organizations, the research question focused on is:
6
2. Literature Review
This thesis focuses on what managers actually do and how their work can be more effective. In this section, previous literature concerning both topics is discussed. Managerial work is discussed chronologically through, roughly, a century of research. In this way, the change in methods adopted in these researches can be seen clearly. Furthermore, the literature is also categorized according to the country of origin of the businesses used in the empirical research. The size of the businesses is added to both categorizations of time and country of origin. These categorizations are useful to discover the research gap which is the foundation of this study. The second aspect discussed in this section concerns the effectiveness of managers. Prior research on this topic is discussed in a systematic manner. Hence, this process deviates from the process of finding research on managerial work. This because for the managerial work aspect all written research on this topic was required to provide a complete overview on all material written. Since the effectiveness topic is seen in this thesis as a deepening of the managerial work topic, only specific articles were required to come to an understanding of the meaning of effectiveness. Hence, the focus lays on top journals and their articles on managerial effectiveness. The literature review serves as a basis for this study on managerial work and effectiveness.
2.1 The nature of managerial work
The founding father of observing managers and knowing what they do is Henry Mintzberg. In 1973 he wrote a book called ‘The nature of managerial work’ in which he emphasized what it is that managers actually do. He states that knowing what managers do offers a possibility to improve their activities. It serves as an opportunity to design management development programs. Furthermore we must know what managers do in order to teach future managers how (not) to manage (Mintzberg, 1973). As Weick (1974) elaborates, Mintzberg edits the organizational concepts we champion by filling the void of not knowing what managers do. Prior to Mintzberg’s research, others have researched the aspect of managerial work, however this was more theoretical, thus there was still little known about what managers actually do. After Mintzberg’s research, more empirical research emerged, however, most of them only replicated his study and not much new research on managerial work emerged (e.g. Kurke & Aldrich, 1982; O’Gorman et al., 2005)
The following two subsections discuss managerial work throughout the years and through size and country of origin. Major research on this topic is presented and an overview is established that serves as a basis for this study.
2.1.1 Managerial work throughout the years
7
controlling. Gulick (1937) build on Fayol’s work by using some of his managerial functions and including others, resulting in the activities Planning, Organising, Staffing, Directing, Coordinating, Reporting and Budgeting, also called POSDCORB. Some argue that these researches were of a more theoretical nature (e.g. Kotter, 1982; Mintzberg, 1973; O’Gorman et al., 2005), while others argue that these researchers laid the foundation for later research (e.g. Fells, 2000; Hales, 1986). Hence, there were mixed feelings regarding these researches and therefore there was a need for more (empirical) evidence to support the theoretical research performed.
From the 1950s onwards, more research was performed on what managers actually do. This because there was dissatisfaction with the way the manager’s work was represented in current literature. This resulted in replacing folklore with fact, and rhetoric with reality (O’Gorman et al., 2005). The next leading research in this field was the one by Carlson (1951). He used the diary method to observe top managers in Swedish firms. This method entails managers themselves recording every activity they engage in (Mintzberg, 1973). He concluded that managers have very little control over their time as it was often interrupted (Kurke & Aldrich, 1983; Mintzberg, 1973; Tengblad, 2003). His finding that managerial work is fragmented was supported by the research by Stewart (1967). She found that besides being fragmented, managerial work is also characterised by being in contact with many different people. Through these two aspects she designed five managerial job profiles: the emissaries, the writers, the discussers, the trouble shooters and the committeemen. The difference between both researches is that Carlson focuses on the characteristics as well as on the content of the manager’s work. By characteristics is meant the focus on stating the facts, such as working long hours. By the content of managerial work is meant the focus on explaining why, for example working long hours due to negotiations. Both aspects are important to understand what managers are doing and how their work can be improved. As stated, Carlson focused on both aspects, however he was unable to come to a conclusion regarding work content. Stewart, on the other hand did not focus on the content of managerial work, because of the different interpretations one could give to the terms through which the manager had to classify his/her work (as cited in Mintzberg, 1973. p. 206-207). Hence, because of the lack of focus on work content and the difficulty of classifying managerial work by the manager him/herself, the diary method is not a useful method in explaining both the characteristics as well as content of managerial work.
8
offered large contributions to the field of managerial work. He concluded that managers work at an unrelenting pace and that their work is characterised by brevity, fragmentation and variety. With unrelenting pace, Mintzberg (1973) points out that the managers observed, did not have any scheduled breaks. They were always busy with phone calls, mails and meetings. Any coffee or lunch was mostly taken during meetings. Managerial work, he found, is also characterized by brevity, meaning all activities the manager engages in did not last very long. He states that “half of the activities were completed in less than nine minutes” (Mintzberg, 1973, p. 33). Furthermore, managerial work is characterized by fragmentation. This means that the manager is often interrupted in his work. Mintzberg (1973) argues that a manager might favour brevity and fragmentation because he/she does not wish to discourage any information coming his/her way. Finally, he concluded that managers engage in a variety of different activities and have to deal with different issues, resulting in the manager being able to respond quickly in uncertain situations. Overall, Mintzberg (1973) concludes that a manager approaches his/her work in a certain manner and therefore adopts a certain role. He designed ten roles, divided amongst three sections – interpersonal, informational and decision roles. This aspect is further discussed later in this literature review.
9
Table 1. Overview of previous research on managerial work in micro, small, medium and large organizations.
Research on managerial work (empirical) Firm size Sample Method Findings
Carlson (1951) Large 9 CEOs Diary; 24 days Managers have little control over how they spend their time; they are often interrupted; managerial work is fragmented.
Bouw (2012) Micro, small and
medium
3 Managers Structured observation; 2 days
Managers work at unrelenting pace; characterised by brevity variety and fragmentation; preference for live action and verbal contacts.
Burns (1954) Large 4 Middle managers Diary; 25 days Managerial work is 80% talking; spends time with select group of people; focus more on production than personnel.
Burns (1957) Large 76 Senior and middle
managers
Diary; 15, 20, 25 weeks
Kelly (1964) Large 4 Section managers Activity Sampling –
observation; 15 days
Job determines what managers do, not the individual; personal factors are of limited importance in determining managerial behaviour.
Sayles (1964) Large 75 Lower- and
middle-level managers
Unknown Managerial work characterized by informality, adaptability and bargaining and system balance.
Stewart (1967) Large 160 Senior and middle
managers
Diary; 20 days Managerial work is fragmented and characterized by variety (e.g. in contacts).
Choran (1969) Small 3 CEOs Structured observation; 2
days
Managerial roles can be influenced by the environment, the job, personality and characteristics of the situation.
Mintzberg (1973) Medium and large 5 CEOs Structured observation; 5 days
Managers work at an unrelenting pace; work characterized by brevity, variety and fragmentation.
Snyder and Glueck (1980) Medium 2 CEOs Structured observation; 4 days
Managerial work results from planning activities related to one another.
Kotter (1982) Large 15 General managers Structured observation; 2 days
Managers work at an unrelenting pace; emphasize on networks.
Kurke and Aldrich (1983) Medium and large 4 CEOs Structured observation; 5 days
Managerial work characterized by brevity, variety and fragmentation.
Luthans, Rosenkrantz and Hennessey (1985)
Medium 52 General managers Structured observation; 10 days
Success of managers relates to focus on planning, decision-making, conflict management and interaction with outsiders/socialising.
Martinko and Gardner (1990) Small and medium
41 School principals Structured observation; 6.7 days
Managerial work characterized by brevity, variety and fragmentation; is interpersonal in nature.
Boisot and Liang (1992) Medium and large 6 Directors Structured observation; 6 days
Opportunistic behaviour is a survival strategy rather than personal gain.
Tengblad (2002) Large 8 CEOs Diary, 20 days;
structured observation, 5 or 1-2 days
Managerial work is highly fragmented; need to coordinate activities in time and space; focused on general forms of control and personal meetings.
O’Gorman et al. (2005) Small 10 Owner-managers Structured observation; 2 days
10
Table 1 shows chronologically the mentioned researches as well as additional ones. Included are the size of the organizations in which the research was performed, the sample, method as well as the findings of the research. As can be seen, the diary method was most used prior to the 1970s, after which the observational method emerged. Also most of the research is performed in large organizations, even though research in small organizations emerged in the past 20 years. However, only one research has yet been performed in micro organizations.
Another aspect that can be noted is that most of the research mentioned, has been performed prior to 1990s. After the 1990s, only four distinct researches could be accessed that discuss managerial work. There were other researches discussing aspects related to managerial work, but none elaborated on managerial work through empirical study. As stated in the introduction, the research on managerial work emerged because of a dissatisfaction with the way managerial work was presented in literature (O’Gorman et al., 2005). It seems that a snowball effect emerged around the 1970s when many researched this aspect (e.g. Kurke & Aldrich, 1983; Mintzberg, 1973; Stewart, 1967). Roughly 30 years after the initial research there were once more researchers researching this aspect to identify whether previous findings would still hold (e.g. O’Gorman et al., 2005; Tengblad, 2002).
Because of the replication studies that emerged after the 1970s, many of the studies show similar results relating to managerial work. For example, many of the researchers found that managerial work is characterized by brevity, variety and fragmentation. Furthermore, managers work at an unrelenting pace and their work is rather informal. Also they have to be able to deal with uncertainty, hence they must be able to adapt to certain situations quickly. When comparing the findings of research performed in large organizations with the ones in small organizations, there are not many differences regarding outcome. Managers in both large and small organizations show characteristics of brevity, variety and fragmentation. However, O’Gorman et al. (2005) state that this is higher in small organizations than in large ones. It is also shown that managerial work is rather informal, which is found in all sizes of organizations. Hence, there are not distinct differences amongst managers of large and small organizations, however it is shown that the degree, to which certain characteristics are adopted by managers, differs amongst these organizations.
2.1.2 Managerial work, size and country of origin
Table 1 shows, amongst other things, the size of the organizations in which the researches on managerial work was performed. As can be seen, most of the research is performed in medium-sized and large organizations, while only a few are performed in small organizations and micro organizations.1 As the European Commission (2008) states, even though many large firms are known
throughout the world, micro organizations represent 91,5% of all European businesses.
1
11
Their contribution to GDP may be very small, but they generate the primary or secondary income to many people. Furthermore they are at the foundation of employment-creation in many countries (Liberman-Yaconi et al., 2010). Therefore it is important not to focus only on the larger organizations, but also in micro organizations.
Table 2. Overview of country of origin of previous research, stated in table 1, on managerial work in micro, small and large organizations.2
Country of Origin Size of Organizations Micro<10p < 2M Small< 50p <10M Medium< 250p < 43M Large> 250p > 43M
CN Boisot & Liang (1992) Boisot & Liang (1992)
DE Stewart (1967) IE O’Gorman et al. (2005) NL Bouw (2012) Bouw (2012) Bouw (2012) SE Carlson (1951); Tengblad (2002) UK Burns (1954, 1957); Kelly (1964); Stewart (1967) US Choran (1969); Martinko & Gardner (1990)
Mintzberg (1973); Snyder & Glueck (1980); Kurke & Aldrich (1983); Luthans et al. (1985); Martinko & Gardner (1990)
Sayles (1964); Mintzberg (1973); Kotter (1982); Kurke & Aldrich (1983)
Table 2 shows the researches displayed in table 1, accompanied by the country of origin as well as the size of the organizations in which the research is performed. As can be seen, even though research on managerial work has been performed in many different countries and in companies with different sizes, most work has been performed in the United States and in large organizations. It is highlighted that there is only one study performed in the Netherlands as well as in micro organizations. It is important for research on managerial work to be performed in many different countries, so that a more complete view emerges on managerial work. Whereas there may be cultural differences towards managerial work, this can be highlighted in these researches. Furthermore, as is mentioned previously, it is important to study micro organizations as methods developed for small and large organizations may not apply to them. Hence, there is much more research needed to create a complete overview of managerial work.
Because of the differences between small and large organizations, the expectation is that managers of these different types of organizations would all react differently in certain situations as well as the activities they engage in. This is confirmed by O’Gorman et al. (2005), who stated that managerial work in small organizations is characterized by even more brevity and fragmentation than managerial work in large organizations. However, their research also shows that the content of managerial work of managers in small organizations does not differ much from managerial work in
2
12
large ones. When identifying the expectation of managerial work in micro organizations, it is assumed that managerial work would be characterized by even more brevity and fragmentation than managerial work in small organizations. This expectation is built upon the, already large, differences between small and large organizations. Another expectation is related to the number of activities the manager engages in per day. Whereas managers in large organizations perform, on average, 22 activities per day. Managers in small organizations perform, on average, 77 activities per day. It is therefore assumed that managers in micro organizations would perform, on average, even more activities per day. This is confirmed by Bouw (2012), who found that these managers engage in much more activities than managers in large organizations. The final expectation relates to the relationship between the managers and subordinates. Whereas previous research indicates this relationship is more informal the smaller the organization (e.g. O’Gorman et al., 2005; Sayles, 1964). Therefore, it is assumed that contact between the managers and subordinates will be even more informal in micro organizations.
The research objective of this thesis, relating to managerial work, is to identify the degree to which managerial work in micro organizations is characterized by brevity, variety and fragmentation. Also whether managers work at an unrelenting pace and whether the relationships with their subordinates are informal. Thus, the focus is on identifying managerial work in micro organizations as to see whether the expectations, previously mentioned, are justified.
2.2 Managerial effectiveness
Managerial work goes hand in hand with managerial behaviour, whereas knowing what managers do will enhance their performance (Mintzberg, 1973; Noordegraaf & Stewart, 2000). Many researchers have researched this aspect through the use of effectiveness. However there is not yet one common definition of effectiveness widely applicable. Furthermore, there is not one model widely accepted by everyone. Even though it has been argued that it is a necessary field of research, the effectiveness of managers has not been fully explored (Analoui, 2002; Analoui et al., 2010). Many researchers made the connection between effectiveness and managerial work (e.g. Analoui, 1999; Kotter, 1982; Metts, 2007). In the researches available about this topic, there are in general two approaches towards measuring effectiveness. The first is through ‘hard’ measurements such as profit and sales. The second is through ‘soft’ measurements such as perceived effectiveness by the managers themselves or by subordinates.
13
2.2.1 Managerial roles and effectiveness
Prior research indicates that roles adopted by managers can explain managerial effectiveness (e.g. Miner, 1978; Miner, Rizzo, Harlow & Hill, 1974). Sarbin and Allen (1968) state that a role is defined as “an organized set of behaviours belonging to an identifiable office or position” (as cited in Mintzberg, 1973, p. 54). Hence, managers are expected to follow predetermined roles. These roles are based on characteristics (Mintzberg, 1973). Thus, expectations arise when managerial roles are identified. These expectations consist of the manager behaving in a certain way relating to a specific role. When the characteristics of these roles are followed, the manager would considered to be managing more effectively. Previous research confirms that managers who base their behaviour on certain managerial roles are more effective and thus successful (Miner et al., 1974). This success is based on the alignment of the managerial role with the goals of the organization. Therefore, when a manager performs its role the best possible way, meaning effectively, it will lead to organizational and personal success. Hence, studying managerial work identifies the roles adopted by a manager. Furthermore, it can enhance the work managers do by showing where improvements can be made, for example if only part of a role is adopted, thus offering the possibility of increasing their managerial effectiveness.
Multiple studies address the importance of managerial roles and provide an overview of the possible roles that can be adopted by managers. They state that one manager can be involved with multiple roles. However, these roles (being essentially the expectations formed in a particular situation for a particular position) can vary across different contexts. In this thesis the focus lays on the typology designed by Mintzberg (1973). Mintzberg build his role framework on his observations of five CEOs. The roles he designed have been confirmed by other researches (Choran, 1969; Costin, 1970) on roles. While the Mintzberg’s typology can be taken as the basis, we will seek to adapt it according to the specific setting of our study. The ten roles designed by Mintzberg (1973) are presented in table 3 below.
Table 3. Overview of The Manager’s Working Roles of Mintzberg (1973), derived from Chapter 4, table 2.
Group Roles Explanation
Interpersonal Figurehead Symbolic; representing the firm in a formal (legal, social) way Liaison Interacting with peers/other people to gain favours and information
(network)
Leader Defines the manager’s relationship with his subordinates, e.g. motivating and staffing
Informational Monitor Receiving and collecting information, resulting in a thorough understanding of the firm
Disseminator Transmitting of special information into the firm
Spokesman Disseminating the special information into its environment
14
Mintzberg (1973) identified ten roles divided amongst interpersonal, informational and decisional roles. The first group, interpersonal roles, relates to the formal authority and status of the manager in the organization. This group results in three different roles: figurehead, liaison and leader. Because of the central position, the manager is in the best place to gain information, both inside and outside the firm. The second group, informational roles, relates to this aspect of gaining information. This group results in three roles: monitor, disseminator and spokesman. Finally, the central status of the manager in combination with gaining information results in the central point of the organization where all decisions are made, resulting in the decisional group. Four roles are part of this group: entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator and negotiator. These roles form the link between observing managers and managerial effectiveness. This is further elaborated on after the conceptual model is presented.
2.2.2 Defining managerial effectiveness
In order to provide an overview of research on managerial effectiveness and to come to an understanding of the meaning of effectiveness, several journals were selected to find articles on this topic. The journal citation reports of 2011 are consulted in the direction of management to identify five top management journals. These five journals were all in the top 10 ranking of either the ‘impact factor in 2011’ or the ‘5-year impact factor in 2011’ (Thomson Reuters, 2011). The journals that were selected based on the (5-year) impact factor in 2011 are stated in table 4.
Table 4. Overview of the journals and the number of articles selected for identifying managerial effectiveness.
Impact Factor 2011 Nr. Of
articles
5-year Impact Factor 2011 Nr. Of
articles
Academy of Management Review 2 Academy of Management Review 2 Academy of Management Journal 1 Academy of Management Journal 1 Academy of Management Learning &
Education
--- MIS Quarterly --- Journal of Management 2 Academy of Management Annals --- Academy of Management Annals --- Journal of Applied Psychology --- MIS Quarterly --- Journal of Management 2 Journal of Operations Management --- Administrative Science Quarterly --- Organization Science --- Strategic Management Journal --- Journal of Applied Psychology --- Personnel Psychology 2 Journal of Management Studies 1 Journal of Operation Management ---
15
When looking at the articles and journals described in table 4 and 5, some things must be highlighted before discussing the findings of these articles. The first aspect that is observed is that amongst the top journals, displayed in table 4, only five journals were selected based on articles discussing managerial effectiveness. Hence, the remaining eight journals did not contain any articles on this topic. This is worth noting, as it has been highlighted in previous research that managerial effectiveness should be studied in order to improve managerial behaviour (e.g. Analoui, 1999; Kotter, 1982; Noordegraaf & Stewart, 2000). Furthermore, there are more articles and books discussing managerial effectiveness, however, these articles are not published in any of the journals displayed in table 4. The second aspect that can be observed from table 5, are the years in which these articles were published. As most of the articles were published from 1978 till 1997, with the exception of one article (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007) published in 2007. It seems that this latter article discussed the relevance of managerial effectiveness, roughly, 30 years after the initial articles were published. This is also observed with the articles discussing managerial work, as most of these were published prior to 1990, and the remaining articles after 1990 discussed the relevance of the findings of prior research, see table 1.
Table 5. Characteristics of managerial effectiveness and the original article/journal.
Journal Article Characteristics of managerial effectiveness
AMR Kark & van Dijk, 2007 Ability to motivate subordinates
Waters, 1980 Initiate structure; show support; increase motivation and commitment of subordinates
AMJ Tsui, Ashford, St. Clair & Xin, 1995
Must live up to expectations given JoM Spreitzer, Kizilos &
Nason, 1997
Seeing themselves as being competent and having impact on the world Tsui & Ashford, 1994 Putting in extra effort, explaining decisions, seeking of negative
feedback, and explaining actions are all positively related; avoidance, and modifying other’s expectations are negatively related
JoMS Cammock, Nilakant & Dakin, 1995
Set own direction and instil purpose in their units; looking for new approaches; future-oriented; avoids detail; no detailed desk work; high drive and ambition; decisive; good sense of priorities; incisive; allocates time well; delegates well; consults staff; positive and recognize good performance; visible; approachable; relates well to others;
straightforward
PP Miner, 1978 Positive; do what must be done
Yukl & Kanuk, 1979 Positive reinforcement; consideration; decision participation; production emphasis; work facilitation; direction; planning-coordination; team building; autonomy-delegation
16
Furthermore, while some articles discuss only a few characteristics of managerial effectiveness, others emphasize there are much more characteristics that create effectiveness.
2.2.3 The conceptual model
In order to use the characteristics, described in table 5, in this thesis, a conceptual model is made, which serves as a basis for this research. This conceptual model is based on two dimensions to which the characteristics, displayed in table 5, can be assigned to. These dimensions are not displayed as such in previous research, however, they provide as a foundation for the observations conducted in this research. Thus, they can be seen as a simplification for managers and a guide where they must focus on to become effective. For example, ‘initiating structure’, ‘planning-coordination’, ‘future-oriented’ and ‘allocating time well’, are managerial characteristics related to reaching a certain goal. The dimension linked to these aspects therefore can be described as goal attainment. Other aspects such as ‘showing support’, ‘explaining decisions’, ‘consulting staff’ and ‘increase motivation’ are managerial characteristics related to employee support. The dimension linked to these aspects emphasizes on the ability of the manager to commit him/herself to the employees and support them. Therefore this dimension can be described as commitment to employees. Table 6 displays the characteristics relating to the two dimensions.
Table 6. The dimensions of managerial effectiveness and its characteristics.
Goal Attainment Commitment to Employees
Initiate structure Ability to motivate subordinates
Must live up to expectations given Show support; increase commitment and motivation of subordinates
Seeing themselves as being competent and having impact on the world
Explaining decisions; seeking of negative feedback; explaining actions; no avoidance; not modifying other’s expectations
Putting in extra effort Delegates well; consults staff; positive and recognize of good performance; visible; approachable; relates well to others; straightforward
Set own direction and instil purpose in their units; looking for new approaches; future-oriented; avoids detail (desk work); high drive and ambition; decisive; good sense of priorities; incisive; allocates time well
Positive
Do what must be done Positive reinforcement; consideration; decision participation; team building; autonomy-delegation Production emphasis; work facilitation; direction;
planning-coordination
17
Managerial
Effectiveness
Goal Attainment
Commitment to
Employees
Figure 1. The preliminary conceptual version of the dimensions related to managerial effectiveness.
2.2.3.1 The link between roles and dimensions
As stated, managerial effectiveness has its foundation in several characteristics, that can be described through the two dimensions presented in the conceptual model. When managers are observed the focus is not on identifying all these characteristics, but the focus is on identifying which roles managers adopt. This because some of the characteristics of the roles are related to the characteristics of the dimensions. Thus, it is assumed that adopting a certain role is equivalent to following a dimension leading to managerial effectiveness.
Of the ten roles designed by Mintzberg (1973), displayed in table 3, two are related to the conceptual model. These two roles are the manager as a leader and as an entrepreneur. The former relates to the employee commitment dimension, while the latter relates to the goal attainment dimension. These roles and dimensions show similar characteristics and are therefore related to each other. Hence, if a manager desires to be effective in the employee commitment dimension, he ought to have the characteristics related to this dimension. Since the roles and dimensions are related to one another, if the employee commitment dimension is desired, the manager must adopt a leader role. The roles can be considered the simplification of the dimensions related to managerial effectiveness. Furthermore they explain in detail what a manager ought to do to adopt that role completely. During the observations, the managers’ behaviour is observed from which the characteristics of the roles are derived. These observations are therefore the foundation of managerial effectiveness. As is stated previously, following a certain role results in success for the manager as well as increased managerial effectiveness (Tsui & Ashford, 1994).
18
3. Methodology
3.1 The diary method vs. observational method
As stated in the literature review, two methods dominate the literature on observing managerial work: the diary method and observation method. The diary method was most used prior to the 1970s, to understand what managers do (e.g. Carlson, 1951; Burns, 1957; Stewart, 1967). This method entails managers themselves recording all the activities they perform in certain categories. The managers are equipped with precoded pads so they can easily record their activities. This, however, does not leave room for other categories which are not precoded, that may occur due to certain activities. Furthermore, most of these studies focused on the characteristics of managerial work, for example with whom managers work and what media they use. Therefore, by using this method it is only possible to describe certain known characteristics and their occurrence, but not acquire new information. Since valuable information might be missed while using this type of method, this is not the preferred method of observation.
The observational method was mostly used from the 1970s onwards (e.g. Choran, 1969; Kotter, 1982; Mintzberg, 1973). This method includes an observer recording everything the manager is doing. In this way, the focus is more on the content of managerial work, meaning what activities they carry out and, more importantly, why. This method can be divided into two types of observation, namely unstructured observation and structured observation. The former results in managers being observed at random times (e.g. Sayles, 1964). This is favourable as it is in accordance with the unrelenting pace at which managers work. However it also makes it difficult to replicate the study. The structured observation is therefore a more suitable method when it comes to replication. This is a more systematic form that has been widely adopted amongst researchers (e.g. Guest, 1955-1956; Mintzberg, 1973; O’Gorman et al., 2005).
19 3.2 Observing the managers
3.2.1 Managerial work
Mintzberg (1973) used a unique combination of the observational and diary method in observing managers and his methodology will be used in this thesis. The selected managers are observed and their activities are noted in detail. After the observations, the noted activities will be categorized and stated in three different records: the chronology record (see example in table 7), the mail record (see example in table 8) and the contact record (see example in table 9). Each of these records hold information about the activities engaged in by the manager. The basis of the activities lies in the chronology record where direct links are made to the other records.
Three adaptations are made to the method used, designed by Mintzberg (1973). The first adaptation relates to the criticism given by Snyder and Glueck (1980). They criticized that Mintzberg’s method is based on activities that stand alone. Meaning, he does not view activities as part of a group. Snyder and Glueck (1980) argue that managerial activities are often interrelated and therefore the managers must be asked what they are doing and why, to understand why they engage in certain activities. Because of this valid point, the modifications suggested by Snyder and Glueck (1980) are implemented in this research on managerial work. The second adaptation to Mintzberg’s (1973) method relates to the inclusion of ICT in managerial work. The managers he observed mostly engaged in desk work relating to opening and sending mail, writing and reading reports, memos and letters. The assumption is that the managers observed in this study will make the most use of the computer to open and send e-mails, doing administrative work and finding information on the Internet. In order to identify the impact of ICT on managerial work in micro firms, this concept is included in this research. The third adaptation is the concept of multitasking. Mintzberg (1973) did not include theory or records on multitasking in his research. However, it is believed that multitasking has become increasingly important with the rise of ICT in the office (Bannister & Remenyi, 2009). Research on multi-/single-tasking shows different results as to which is more favoured (Souitaris & Maestro, 2011). Because of research on this topic and the high occurrence of multitasking in everyday life, this concept is included in this research to identify whether managers in micro organizations multitask.
The three concepts just discussed improve the method used by Mintzberg (1973). These improvements ought to be made because this study is performed 40 years after Mintzberg’s research. The contributing concept to literature is the aspect of multitasking, as this has not yet been performed in detail in combination with managerial work. It has been noted that managers engage in many activities, however it is not specifically noted that managers multitask (Bouw, 2012). Therefore, this concept, in combination with the two previously mentioned additions are the foundation for future research on managerial work.
20 Example of the records
Table 7. Example of a chronology record
Time Activity Reference What (according to
manager)
Purpose (according to manager)
Duration
10:05 Opening email 1-2 Opening new emails To stay informed 3 min.
10:08 Meeting with subordinate
A Discuss with subordinate broken bottles in delivery to client Find a solution to accommodate the client 8 min.
10:16 Call (desk phone) B Call delivery service To discuss broken bottles/find a solution
5 min.
10:21 Preparing order of client
Preparing a wine order for a client To be delivered/picked up 13 min. >> 10:27 Is asked a question by subordinate
C Being asked a question about the agenda of the day
Keep informed and discuss the order of the day
2 min.
Table 7 shows an example of a chronology record. This record entails all activities a manager engages in. The first aspect that is noted during the observations, is the time when the manager engages in a new activity. If during an activity another activity takes place, hence the manager multitasks, this will be noted with angle brackets and the starting time of the activity. The second aspect is the activity the manager engages in. Initially, the activity that is observed will be noted. After the observation has taken place a more coded name relating to the activity will be used. For example, the second activity stated in table 7, meeting with subordinate, will be classified, after the observation, as an unscheduled meeting. The fourth and fifth column indicate what the manager is doing and the purpose of the activity, according to the manager. This will show whether activities are interrelated or whether they are independent activities (Snyder & Glueck, 1980). During the observations, the four columns, mentioned above, are filled in for each activity. The remaining columns will be completed after the observations. This results in the third column, which makes a reference from the chronology record to both the mail and contact record. The final column in the chronology record states the duration of the activities, which is derived from the first column including the duration of the manager’s multitask activities. Hence, as shown in table 7, preparing an order for a client lasts 13 minutes, while in these 13 minutes, the manager is being asked a question by the subordinate which lasted 2 minutes. Resulting in 2 minutes of multitasking.
As stated, a reference is made from the chronology record to the mail and contact record. During the observations, however, it is only stated that a manager reads and/or sends an (e-)mail, or has contact with someone, either verbal or through a desk/mobile phone. After the observation has taken place, the reference is being made and the records are completed. An example of a mail record is given in table 8.
Table 8. Example of a mail record.
Reference Mail/email Sender Topic/Purpose Attention paid Action taken
1 Email Client Broken bottles Read Store
21
In table 7 in the third column, two references are made to the mail record, table 8. In the mail record it is stated what type of mail it is, either e-mail or mail. Furthermore it is noted who is the sender of the (e-)mail and the topic of the send item. Finally, the attention paid by the manager as well as the action taken is noted.
Table 9. Example of a contact record.
Reference Medium Participants Topic/Purpose Initiation Place
A Verbal Subordinate Discuss broken bottles Manager Office
B Call (desk phone) Delivery service Discuss broken bottles Manager Office
C Verbal Subordinate Question about day Subordinate Store
Above, in table 9, an example is given of a contact record. As can be seen in table 7, references are made to the contact record. There, the medium of contact is noted, whether it is verbal contact or a phone call. Furthermore, the participants are noted, as well as the topic of the conversation. Finally the initiation of the contact is stated, as well as the place where the conversation is held.
These three records show a complete and systematic overview of the activities of the managers. During the observations everything the manager is doing is noted. If the observation day is at an end, the notes are converted to complete records such as the example tables given above. Based on these records, conclusions can be made regarding managerial work in micro organizations.
3.2.2 Managerial roles
Previously is highlighted how the work of the three managers will be observed. Besides managerial work, this thesis will also focus on managerial effectiveness. The basis for this lies in roles managers can adopt. The definitions of these roles are derived from the research performed by Mintzberg (1973), see table 3. He build his role framework on his observations of the five CEOs, which has been confirmed by previous research (Choran, 1969; Costin, 1970) on roles. Mintzberg’s roles are related to characteristics of the dimensions that ultimately lead to managerial effectiveness.
22 3.3 Research setting
In table 2 in the literature review, it can be seen that most of the previous research on managerial work took place in the United Kingdom and the United States. Also managerial research has been performed in some other countries. The Netherlands, being the country of the researcher, however, has only been researched ones. In order to confirm prior research in this country and to compare to other countries as well, the focus of this research will be on the Netherlands.
Regarding the managers and firms that will be researched for this thesis, the focus will be on micro organizations, as has been elaborated on previously. In order to fill this literature gap, the choice is made to focus in this research on micro organizations in the wine branch. First and foremost because wine as a product is a growing business. In 2010, a Dutch citizen would drink 21.8 litre wine per year, compared to 14.54 litre per year in 1990, showing an enormous increase, see figure 1 in the Appendix (ProductschapWijn, 2011). Furthermore, Dutch citizens drink mostly quality wines, as over 50% of the wine consumed per person are quality wines, see figure 2 in the Appendix (ProductschapWijn, 2011). Quality wines are wines that acquired certain credentials because they scored high on performance, such as length, depth and complexity (McCarthy & Ewing-Mulligan, 2012). Therefore, the need for stores selling quality wines has increased over the last 20 years.
The choice of focussing on the wine branch is also a matter of convenience sampling, as a relative of the researcher owns two quality wine stores. In the Netherlands there are numerous locations where one can buy wine. Wijnkoperij Henri Bloem is such a store. There are 19 Henri Bloem stores across the Netherlands, who voluntarily work together (Wijnkoperij Henri Bloem, n.d.). These stores sell over 1500 different types of wine ranging from €3.95 till €3995. Because of these large price differences, there is always a product for everyone. The strength in the way they do business is they sell quality wines, but for an affordable price. Comparing, for example, a supermarket wine with a wine from Henri Bloem in the same price range, one will notice immediate differences in the quality of the wine. The reason why they can offer such quality wines for such a price is because they import it themselves. They visit farmers and taste which wines they want to import. Besides selling wine in stores they also sell it to restaurants, theatres and serve their wines at festivals; they offer wine tastings and give advice regarding the combination of food and wine. This latter aspect is also the reason many customers visit their stores, because of the good advice and service they provide them. All these different aspects discussed result in a manager/owner of an Henri Bloem store being able to deal with many different situations.
3.3.1 The managers
23
transport and their location on the other side of the country. Because it is essential to observe the managers from the beginning of their day until the end, amongst others to identify if patterns exist between the days, it was not an option to observe the managers in those stores. The second criteria is the number of employees and is important because some stores have no employees. Since it is the goal of this research to identify managerial work it is important to base some of this research on the interaction between the manager and the employees. Therefore, the focus lays on the stores who have the most employees. Because of these two criteria’s, the stores in Zwolle, Amersfoort and Utrecht were selected based on their number of employees and their location.
The store of manager A is located in Zwolle. He has another store in a small city nearby Zwolle, called Hattem. In total he employs four people, for both stores. Two full-time employees, two part-time employees, of whom one employee focuses only on administrative work. The manager owns the store in Zwolle since 1978, hence he has been in the business for 35 years. The store in Hattem he opened in 2011.
The store of manager B is located in Amersfoort. The manager/owner works in the store full-time. He co-owns the store with someone else, who works there almost full-full-time. Another employee works in the store who also works there almost full-time. The observed managers owns the store since 2004, hence he has been in the business for nine years.
The store of manager C is located in Utrecht. The manager/owner works there almost full-time. He co-owns the store with another person who also works there almost full-full-time. They have an employee who works full-time in the store, as well as an on-call worker. This latter employee works on Saturdays and whenever she is needed. The manager observed owns the store since 1975, hence he has been in the business for 38 years.
24
4. Analysis
4.1 Managerial work in the wine industry
This section will discuss the data gathered from the observations of the three managers, for three days each. In total, 76,2 hours of observation took place, in which 793 activities were performed. These activities were coded after the observations. These are: desk work, calls, scheduled and unscheduled meetings, helping clients in store, work-related maintenances, administrative work and not work related activities. The first categorization, desk work, focuses on activities performed at the desk. This is not solely computer work, but also organizing the desk and bookkeeping that is not performed on a computer. The second category, calls, include all calls made on desk and mobile phones from and to the manager. By scheduled and unscheduled meetings is meant the difference between if the meeting was predetermined or not. Helping clients in the store is the fifth category and speaks for itself. The distinction is made between meetings and helping clients in the store, because the purpose is completely different. Helping clients is store related, however meetings are held with subordinates, peers, colleagues etc. and are more of organizational nature. The fifth categorization is work-related maintenances, such as opening the store and organizing the store – such as stocking shelves, vacuuming and organizing the warehouse. The sixth categorization is administrative work (not performed on a computer), for example filling out the ordering list by walking through the store and identifying which wines need to be ordered, as well as preparing orders for clients. Finally, not work related activities are most of the time private conversations or activities, as well as breaks.
A remark regarding the observations is that the managers engaged in many activities at the same time, hence they were multitasking. Every new activity the managers engaged in was noted. This resulted that the total hours worked was less than the total time engaged in activities. For example, a manager was stocking shelves, thus organizing the store, whilst he was discussing with a subordinate the order of a client. The manager stocked the shelves for 23 minutes, during which he had an unscheduled meeting with the subordinate for 3 minutes. In total, only 23 minutes did the manager work. However, the unscheduled meeting was noted as well, resulting in a record of both the work-related maintenance activity, 23 minutes, and unscheduled meeting, 3 minutes, for a total of 26 minutes. Furthermore it should be noted that the managers, during certain activities, also had chit-chat conversations. For example one manager was, while he was preparing an order for a client, talking about the football match of the previous evening. Not all of these small not work related conversations were recorded. This because they occurred during another activity and because these conversations often lasted less than one minute. When work related issues were discussed during another activity, or conversations lasted longer than one minute, these conversations were recorded. Hence, most activities the managers engaged in were noted and are stated in the records.
25
literature. The second part analyses the roles adopted by the observed managers, followed by a findings section discussing the outcome of the observations relating to the conceptual model.
4.1.1 General analysis
4.1.1.1 The chronology record
Table 10, on the following page, shows the chronology record. Combined, the managers engaged in 793 activities in three days, resulting in 76,2 hours of work. Of the seven categories, named previously, the managers spend certain amounts of time on each of them. During the observations it occurred that the days of the managers differed substantially. In order to show these differences, rows have been added to the table indicating the largest and smallest number of sessions of a category per day. For example, manager A had on one day 44 desk work sessions and on another day, only 18. This is related to the number of clients he helped in the store. As on one day he helped 51 clients and on another day only 4. In order to show these differences, these details were incorporated in the chronology record.
26
Table 10. Analysis of the chronology record.
Category Composite Manager A Manager B Manager C
Total hours worked 76,2 hours 26,6 hours 23,2 hours 26,4 hours Total nr. of activities 793 277 273 243
Desk work
Nr. of sessions 222 88 107 27 Nr. of activities desk work
with the use of ICT
192 79 95 18
Max. nr. of total sessions per day
44 42 11
Min. nr. of total sessions per day
18 27 7
Time on desk work 1157 minutes 419 minutes 562 minutes 176 minutes Average duration 5,21 minutes 4,76 minutes 5,25 minutes 6,52 minutes Proportion of time 25% 26% 40% 11%
Calls
Nr. of calls 92 50 32 10
Max. nr. of calls per day 31 17 4
Min. nr. of calls per day 4 7 2
Time on telephone 228 minutes 119 minutes 82 minutes 27 minutes Average duration 2,48 minutes 2,38 minutes 2,56 minutes 2,7 minutes Proportion of time 5% 7% 6% 1%
Scheduled meetings
Total nr. of meetings 5 3 --- 2
Max. nr. of scheduled meetings per day
2 --- 1
Min. nr. of scheduled meetings per day
--- --- ---
Time in scheduled meeting 507 minutes 412 minutes --- 95 minutes Average duration 101,4 minutes 137,33 minutes --- 47,5 minutes Proportion of time 11% 26% --- 6%
Unscheduled meetings
Total nr. of meetings 130 38 33 59
Max. nr. of unscheduled meetings per day
16 12 22
Min. nr. of unscheduled meetings per day
10 9 15
Total time in unscheduled meetings
264 minutes 110 minutes 55 minutes 99 minutes Total average duration 2,03 minutes 2,89 minutes 1,67 minutes 1,68 minutes Proportion of total time 6% 7% 4% 7%
Helping clients in store
Nr. of clients 171 62 43 66
Max. nr. of clients helped per day
51 24 28
Min. nr. of clients helped per day
4 7 18
27
Category Composite Manager A Manager B Manager C
Administrative work
Nr. of activities 48 9 24 15
Max. nr. of administrative work activities per day
4 14 10
Min. nr. of administrative work activities per day
1 5 0
Time on activities 454 minutes 30 minutes 278 minutes 146 minutes Average duration 9,46 minutes 3,33 minutes 11,58 minutes 9,73 minutes Proportion of time 10% 2% 20% 9%
Work-related maintenance
Nr. of activities 71 13 14 44
Max. nr. of administrative work activities per day
9 7 20
Min. nr. of administrative work activities per day
2 3 8
Time on activities 710 minutes 65 minutes 142 minutes 503 minutes Average duration 10 minutes 5 minutes 10,14 minutes 11,43 minutes Proportion of time 16% 4% 10% 32%
Not work related
Nr. of activities (including breaks)
55 14 20 21
Max. nr. of not work related activities per day
7 8 11
Min. nr. of not work related activities per day
2 6 3
Time on activities 383 minutes 107 minutes 162 minutes 114 minutes Average duration 6,96 minutes 7,64 minutes 8,1 minutes 5,43 minutes Proportion of time 8% 7% 10% 7% Proportion of activities < 5 minutes 65,8% 70% 67,5% 60% Proportion of activities 5 or > 5 < 9 minutes 16,3% 16% 16% 17% Proportion of activities 9 or > 9 < 60 minutes 16,7% 13% 15% 22% Proportion of activities 60 or > 60 minutes 0,8% 1% 0.5% 1%
4.1.1.2 The mail records
28
Combined, the managers received 209 pieces of (e-)mail. In this record, the largest and smallest number of (e-)mails received is noted as well. It can be seen that differences occur between the days. Of these pieces of (e-)mail, 89% were e-mails and the remaining were mails. An important difference between the managers of this study and Mintzberg’s CEOs was that the latter had secretaries to eliminate any (e-)mails that were irrelevant for the manager. In this study, the managers had to open the (e-)mails themselves to see whether they were relevant or not. This resulted in rather a high percentage of both read and skimmed (e-)mails, but also immediately deleted (e-)mails. After the (e-)mails were read/skimmed, 32% of them were stored while 52% of them were deleted. This is a high amount but the managers stated that they would like to keep their (e-)mail inbox clean. Furthermore, of the (e-)mails received 36% were considered other/spam. Following these (e-)mails, clients (19%), associates (12%), wholesaler/warehouse (11%) and colleague (10%) were the ones who send the most (e-)mails.
Table 11. Analysis of the mail record: Input.
Category Composite Manager A Manager B Manager C
Total nr. of pieces received 209 86 106 17
Max. nr. of pieces received per day
44 45 10
29
Table 12, below, shows the (e-)mails the managers send. 80 pieces of (e-)mail were send, which is 38% of the incoming (e-)mail. Hence, the managers received more (e-)mails than they send. From those 80 pieces, 53 were self-initiated and 27 were reactions to incoming (e-)mails. Almost all of the (e-)mail send were e-mails. These were mostly send to clients (41%), mostly to inform them about their order, or answer their question and provide information.
Table 12. Analysis of the mail record: Output.
Category Composite Manager A Manager B Manager C
Total output 80 42 36 2
Reactions to inputs #/% 27/34% 16/38% 11/31% --- Self-initiated #/% 53/66% 26/62% 25/69% 2/100%
Output as % of input 38% 49% 31% 12%
Form of output mail #/%
Mail 3/4% --- 3/8% ---
Email 77/96% 42/100% 33/92% 2/100%
Target of output mail #/%
Subordinate 3/4% 3/7% --- --- Colleague store 11/14% 3/7% 8/22% --- Wholesaler/warehouse 15/19% 5/12% 8/22% 2/100% Client 33/41% 14/33% 19/53% --- Associates 13/16% 12/29% 1/3% --- Supplier 5/6% 5/12% --- ---
4.1.1.3 The contact record
30
unscheduled meetings took place when shelves were stocked. These two aspects result in a high percentage of verbal contact taking place in the store.
There is one aspect from Mintzberg’s contact record (1973) that has not been incorporated in this study’s contact record. That is the number of people with whom the meetings took place. This because the unscheduled meetings mostly took place with the peer/subordinates. Often, when two people in the store were talking, a third person would join the conversation. It was, therefore, difficult to note everyone who was participating. Also the number of participants was mostly around two or three people. Furthermore, this aspect is not seen in this research as of the upmost importance, simply because these businesses are so small, hence the meetings are always with only a handful of people. For these reasons, this aspect has not been used in this record.
Table 13. Analysis of the contact record.
Category Composite Manager A Manager B Manager C
Total time in verbal contacts
33.38 hours 16.53 hours 5.05 hours 11.8 hours Total nr. of verbal contacts 398 153 108 137
Media % Contacts % Of time Desk phone 21% 10% 31% 11% 25% 23% 7% 4% Mobile phone 2% 0% 1% 1% 5% 4% 1% 0% Scheduled meetings 1% 25% 2% 41% --- --- 1% 13% Unscheduled meetings 33% 13% 25% 12% 30% 18% 43% 14% Helping clients in store 43% 50% 41% 35% 40% 55% 48% 69%
Participants % Contacts % Of time Subordinates 26% 11% 28% 12% 16% 10% 32% 10% Peer 8% 3% --- --- 19% 12% 9% 4% Colleague store 2% 2% 3% 1% 4% 9% 1% 1% Wholesaler/warehouse 3% 2% 6% 3% 1% 1% 1% 0% Client 54% 61% 53% 44% 54% 65% 55% 84% Associates 4% 20% 5% 38% 6% 3% 2% 1% Other 2% 1% 5% 2% --- --- --- --- Form of initiation % of total contacts Manager 79% 77% 74% 86% Opposite party 19% 21% 26% 12% Clock 1% 2% --- 2% Location % Contacts % Of time Office 42% 18% 52% 18% 48% 39% 25% 10% Store 57% 61% 46% 41% 52% 61% 74% 88% On location 1% 21% 2% 41% --- --- 1% 2% 4.1.2 The managers
