British Journal of Management, Vol.

10, 335–350 (1999)

Why do Managers Do What They Do?

Reconciling Evidence and Theory in
Accounts of Managerial Work
Colin Hales
Westminster Business School, University of Westminster, London NW1 5LS, UK

This article seeks to show that there has been surprisingly little interest in developing
a causal explanation of the consistently documented common characteristics of man-
agerial work and attempts to sketch out such an explanation. It is argued that researchers
in the field have either contented themselves with description and correlation or have
given priority to explaining variations, whilst theories of management have tended to
suggest that managerial behaviour can be inferred, unproblematically, from the character
of the broader management process rather than engaging with the evidence on these
behaviours. Even recent and explicit attempts to conceptualize managerial work have
not satisfactorily woven theory with evidence. The outline of an explanatory account
which is offered attempts to link the common characteristics of managerial work to
the ambiguous and problematic nature of managerial ‘responsibility’ and the way in
which all managers both draw upon and, by their actions, reproduce resources, cog-
nitive rules and moral rules, from within the social systems in which they are located,
which define and facilitate that responsibility. Well-documented generic managerial
activities, substantive areas of work and characteristic features of managerial work are
all shown to be accountable in these terms.

Introduction As the first part of this article seeks to show,

research studies of managers and management
If the question ‘what do managers do?’ (Hales, theory have been, and remain, poles apart. On
1986) has – or, at least, had – an air of naivety, the one hand, research studies were slow to move
insolence, even redundancy, about it, then the away from the purely descriptive, and have in-
question ‘why do managers do what they do?’ variably focused attention on the divers variations
seems positively querulous. For, whilst an answer in managerial work, rather than the commonal-
to the former question – albeit a somewhat in- ities. Therefore, where studies attempted to move
complete and ambiguous one (Grint, 1995; Hales, beyond the demonstration of correlation to offer-
1986; Martinko and Gardner, 1985; Stewart, 1989) ing an explanatory account, it is variation which
– has gradually crystallized over nearly 50 years they have sought to explain, rather than similar-
of research, there have been surprisingly few ities – implying that these similarities are some-
attempts to answer the latter. In particular, the how self-evident – and explanations have tended
question of why managerial work exhibits a num- to take the form of reductionist or localized
ber of consistent common characteristics, as well accounts. On the other hand, management theory
as manifold variations, is one which has attracted has tended to be more concerned with the
surprisingly little attention. A central reason for characteristics and dynamics of the management
this is that it lies in the gulf which has continued process as a whole, and has carried the implica-
to separate, on the one hand, research on man- tion that specific managerial practices may be
agers and, on the other hand, management theory. inferred logically from these, without addressing

© 1999 British Academy of Management

336 C. Hales

or engaging with research evidence on these systems in which managers are located, and by the
practices. In short, what is lacking in this body of way in which managers both draw upon and re-
theory and evidence is an explanatory account of produce these resources and rules in establishing
the generic characteristics of managerial work. the otherwise problematic nature of that respon-
There are a number of reasons why the absence sibility. How the central common characteristics
of such an explanatory account is a matter for of managerial work may be accounted for in these
regret. First, any body of evidence which lacks a terms is sketched out.
conceptual framework or theoretical underpin-
ning sheds only a pale light on the phenomenon
with which it is concerned: enough to discern the Managerial work: evidence in search
surface contours, but not enough to pick out any of an explanation
depth or structure. Despite the recent retreat from,
or even antipathy towards, ‘meta-narratives’ or It took a long time from Carlson’s (1951) pioneer-
grand theory, it can still be argued that the aim ing work for research studies on managers’ work
of systematic enquiry is to explain or under- activities to move beyond the purely descriptive.
stand, rather than merely describe, social phe- Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Carlson’s obser-
nomena. Without an explanatory theory, however vation, undeniably correct at the time, that the first
tentative, much of the evidence on what managers priority was ‘to know more about how executive
do is rather meaningless: a catalogue of discon- work is carried out’ (1951, p. 21) was the guiding
nected actions, events and encounters. Second, impulse to research. Most of the early studies
and obversely, any body of theory which fails (Brewer and Tomlinson, 1964; Burns, 1957;
to generate or engage with empirical evidence Copeman, Luijk and Hanika, 1963; Kelly, 1964;
remains only a speculative abstraction: interesting Sayles, 1964) were entirely descriptive, classifying
perhaps, but of little ‘performative’ power. Third, managers’ work by task, activity, contacts, media,
on a more practical level, an explanatory account location and so on, and recording how managers
of why managers do, or have done, what they distributed their time amongst these. Other studies
do, offers a basis for anticipating possible future added a second dimension to these descriptions
changes in the nature of managerial work. Under- by demonstrating a correlation between managers’
standing which variables and processes impinge work and other variables – such as organization
on managerial work – and how – makes it possible size, hierarchical level, functional specialism
to do more than speculate on the effects of changes or job (Blankenship and Miles, 1968; Dubin and
in these variables and processes. Finally, under- Spray, 1964; Hemphill, 1959; Hodgson, 1965;
standing the nature of, and reasons for, the com- Horne and Lupton, 1965; Martin, 1956; Stewart,
mon, generic characteristics of managerial work 1967).
is also central to management education, training These early studies, however, exhibited a num-
and development and to systems of managerial ber of limitations, both in terms of their research
appraisal and remuneration. Whilst all of these focus and in their treatment of the evidence,
have become more nuanced and sensitive to job which were to influence further developments in
variations, there is a danger that certain funda- the field of enquiry. First, disappointment with
mental and apparently inescapable characteristics the failure by some of these early studies to de-
of managerial work are being overlooked. scribe, if not define, ‘the’ managerial job independ-
Having pointed up some of the limitations both ent of its structural location led to something of
in research evidence and in management theory an overreaction in the form of an acceptance that
and, it is hoped, demonstrated the need for an managerial work was inherently variable and that
explanatory account of the common character- documenting its many variations was to be the
istics of managerial work, this article ends by primary concern of research. In short, in aband-
offering a first attempt at such an account, draw- oning the attempt to describe the managerial job,
ing, in particular, on a number of key concepts in research studies also largely abandoned some-
Giddens’ (1984) theory of structuration. Central thing quite different and much less problematic –
to this account is the way in which the defining the description of commonalities in managerial
element of managerial positions – responsibility – work which extended across different managerial
is shaped by the resources and rules of the social jobs. Second, whatever the focus, there remained
Why do Managers Do What They Do? 337

a reluctance to move very far from pure descrip- as he describes it, but merely categorize that
tion of what managers did – certainly as far as behaviour. Equally, his later attempt to trace the
advancing broad explanatory theory, but even as substantive connections between managerial work
far as developing generic categories of description, and forms of organization (Mintzberg, 1979) is
a reluctance bemoaned by Campbell et al. (1970) not fully or consistently developed. Martinko and
in their comprehensive review. Third, these two Gardner (1984), ironically, encapsulate in a single
limitations were intertwined in that the reluctance study the dissonance between theory and evidence
to explain the research findings was particularly in the field generally, by offering a model linking
evident in those studies which pointed to common- managerial behaviour to the external and organ-
alities in managers’ work. These commonalities izational environment and individual factors, but
tended to be treated as obvious and self-evident, failing to apply the model to their own research
whereas variations were deemed in need of ex- findings – a lacuna which they later recognize
planation. Fourth, however, even accounts of (Martinko and Gardner, 1985). Luthans, Hodgetts
variations in managerial work rarely went beyond and Rosenkrantz (1988) also lay claim to offering
demonstrating correlation with other variables to an explanation of why ‘traditional management’,
advancing possible substantive causal connections. ‘communications’, ‘networking’ and ‘human re-
Later studies have echoed these limitations and source management’ are the central categories of
omissions. Any attempt to identify commonalities managerial work, but instead merely elaborate
in managerial work more or less ended with what these categories subsume.
Mintzberg (1973) and those replicating his study Researchers who have managed to sustain their
(Kurke and Aldridge, 1983; Ley, 1980). Descriptive claim to move from description to explanation
studies (Luthans and Lockwood, 1984; Luthans, have tended to offer rather specific idiographic
Hodgetts and Rosenkrantz, 1988; Pheysey, 1972; accounts of the activities of particular managers
Smith, 1980) have continued, as have those simply in terms of their immediate social, organizational
demonstrating correlations between characteristics or job context, rather than seeking to link these
of managerial work and other variables (Allan, particular accounts to the wider body of evidence
1981; Kraut et al., 1989; Pavett and Lau, 1983; on managers generally. One result has been a series
Stewart, 1979; Tornow and Pinto, 1976; Whiteley, of richly descriptive and insightful, but largely
1985). Admittedly, there has been a widening of self-contained, studies. An early example of this
the range of examined variables beyond the man- was Dalton’s (1959) study which showed how
ager’s organizational context, to include, on the managers’ activities were woven into the warp
one hand, the wider national culture (Boisot and and woof of the organizational politics of the
Liang, 1992; Child and Keiser, 1981; Doktor, 1990; ‘Milo’ corporation. Similarly, Jackall (1989),
Inkson, 1981; Lawrence, 1984; Luthans, Welsh Hannaway (1989), Smith (1990) and Watson
and Rosenkrantz, 1993; Stewart et al., 1994) (1994) have drawn, in considerable ethnographic
and on the other, individual choice (Kotter and detail, the connections between managers’ work
Lawrence, 1984; Stewart et al., 1980). Moreover, a and the ambiguities, uncertainties, contradictions
number of studies have offered denser descrip- and ‘moral mazes’ of their immediate organ-
tion by examining the link between managerial izational milieu and processes of change within it.
work and a range of variables (e.g. Child and Ellis, Another outcome has been a series of studies
1973; Stewart, 1976; Stewart and Barsoux, 1994). demonstrating links between managerial work
However, although the result has been a steady and particular organizational processes or charact-
accretion of evidence, there has not been con- eristics, such as language games (Silverman and
comitant theoretical development; commonalities Jones, 1976), role responsibilities and networks
in managerial work continue to be treated as self- (Kotter, 1982), others’ role expectations (Hales,
evident, whilst differences are examined largely 1987), strategy and structure (Dann, 1991) and
in terms of correlation with other variables. centralized versus decentralized organizational
Some studies have disappointed by laying claim structures (Hales and Mustapha, forthcoming;
to offering an explanation of their findings, but Hales and Tamangani, 1996).
failing to deliver. For example, Mintzberg’s (1973) Although all these studies offer robust and
ten ‘managerial roles’ do not – as he claims – detailed accounts of specific factors shaping what
answer the question why managerial behaviour is particular managers do, this particularity is their
338 C. Hales

main limitation. Once again, the commonalities disseminating information which is relevant to the
between characteristics of managerial work work of the manager and the unit; networking,
identified in these studies and those identified in by developing and maintaining a web of contacts
other studies are neither traced nor accounted inside and outside the organization; negotiating,
for; rather, it is the distinctive character of man- with subordinates, superiors, other managers and
agerial work in these particular settings which is outsiders; planning and scheduling work; allo-
deemed to require explanation. Again, the gen- cating resources in the form of people, money,
eric features of managerial work are ignored or materials and equipment to different work activ-
treated as self-evident, and it is variations which ities; directing and monitoring the work of sub-
are treated as interesting and problematic. ordinates over time; human resource management
This assumption is also evident in the most in the form of recruitment, selection, training and
systematic and many-layered account of how appraisal; problem-solving and handling disturb-
managerial work is shaped by its context: Stewart ances to work flow; innovating processes and
et al.’s (1994) comparative study of middle man- products; and technical work relating to the man-
agers in Britain and Germany. They show how agers’ professional or functional specialism and
differences in managers’ role expectations and the work of the unit.
work activities are the result of interactive effects Whilst these activities or processes may be
between national culture and organizational struc- applied across a wide range of substantive areas,
ture. Thus, German organizations which are flatter managers generally appear to devote a consid-
and more integrated, with less specialization by erable proportion of time and effort to four in
function and greater emphasis on impersonal particular: day-to-day management of people; man-
procedures and technical controls give rise to agement of information; day-to-day monitoring
managerial jobs with less in the way of formalized and maintenance of work processes; and non-
role expectations, budgetary responsibility, con- managerial activities, such as assisting with tech-
cern for enlisting cooperation, direct supervision, nical work. In short, managers appear to have a
choice over job roles and networking, but more shared preoccupation with routine, day-to-day
involvement in technical tasks and desk work. All ‘maintenance’ of the work system and, in par-
the wealth of detail and convincing explanation ticular, those who carry it out.
in the study, however, centres on the differences According to the evidence, this work is charact-
between British and German middle managers; erized by: short, interrupted and fragmented
similarities are neither highlighted nor accounted activities; a need to react to events, problems and
for. requirements of others; a preoccupation with the
Yet, despite the almost exclusive emphasis exigent, ad hoc and unforeseen, rather than the
on identifying variations and particularities in planned; a tendency for activities to be embedded
managerial work, one emergent outcome of these in others rather than undertaken separately; a
research studies has been a strengthening body of high level of verbal interaction, often face-to-face;
evidence on what managers in general do, the a degree of tension, pressure and conflict in seek-
broad contours and features of which, notwith- ing to juggle competing demands; and a degree of
standing some conceptual confusions and incon- choice and negotiation over the nature and
sistencies of categories (Hales, 1986; Martinko boundaries of the managerial job and how it is
and Gardner, 1985; Stewart, 1989), are reasonably undertaken.
discernible. Thus, there are three broad aspects of Therefore, in spite of the reluctance of
managerial work which appear to be common to individual research studies either to seek to
the work of most managers: first, certain generic identify the common features of managerial work
managerial activities or processes; second, key or to regard these as in any way problematic,
substantive areas in which these activities are collectively these studies have, in effect, generated
undertaken; and third, characteristic features of a fairly consistent body of evidence from which
these activities. these features can be discerned. Why these are
The central activities in which, to varying the common features of managerial work is how-
degrees, all or most managers seem to engage ever a question which has rarely been addressed
are: acting as figurehead, representative or and not satisfactorily answered in the research
point of contact for a work unit; monitoring and studies themselves which have, variously, been
Why do Managers Do What They Do? 339

confined to description, unexplicated correlations, from Fayol’s (1916) classic formulation of the five
reductionist explanations in terms of individual elements of management: forecasting/planning,
choice or immediate situational demands or, at organizing, commanding, coordinating and con-
best, detailed but localized accounts of managers trolling. These elements not only resurfaced in
in a particular setting. In short, what is missing is other, early formulations, such as Barnard’s (1938)
an answer to the question ‘why do managers do ‘executive tasks’ and Gulick’s (1937) POSD-
what they do?’ which both recognizes the common CORB list of managerial functions, but also, later,
core of managerial work, as well as its manifold in Drucker’s (1974) ‘dimensions’ of managerial
variations, and offers an appropriately general- work, Shakman and Roberts’ (1977) ‘areas’ of
ized account of these commonalities. What the managerial work, Morse and Wagner’s (1978)
next section will argue, however, is that general nine ‘managerial roles’ and Carroll and Gillen
theories of management also do not satisfactorily (1987), Hill (1979), Sweeney (1981) and Zaleznik’s
answer this question. (1964) ‘managerial functions’. Even Mintzberg
(1973), who regarded his ten managerial roles as
flowing unproblematically from the necessary
Management and managing: functions of management, and Stewart (1986),
theories in search of evidence who has conceptualized managing as ‘making
decisions’, ‘getting the job done’ and ‘leadership’,
A key problem with most conceptual treatments have shown themselves to be on the circulation
of management and managing is their failure to list of Fayol’s original memorandum. So have
connect with research evidence. Indeed, most of those who have emphasized one or other of the
these theories, and, in particular, the earlier ones, elements on Fayol’s list as ‘the’ definitive man-
are not so much theories about managing – in the agerial task – such as planning and decision-
sense of hypotheses about what managers do – as making (Cyert and March, 1963; Simon, 1960),
theories of management – what the management organizing (Urwick, 1952; Watson, 1994), co-
of work organizations and work processes gen- ordination (Follett, 1941) or motivation and
erally entails. However, although many of the control. What characterizes all these theoretical
proponents of these theories make no overt formulations is that whilst none are pure abstrac-
claims to be second guessing managers’ behaviour tions, in that they have some experiential or
– a point overlooked by some researchers of man- research grounding, none have attempted to con-
agerial work in their claims to have ‘disproved’ nect with, or explain, the general body of evid-
management theory (e.g. Mintzberg, 1973; Stewart, ence on managerial work.
1983) – they do lay claim to specifying managerial The same is equally true of theories which re-
functions and tasks, with the implication that gard managerial tasks as shaped by the manager’s
managers’ work activities might be straightfor- function as an agent of capital, driven by the im-
wardly inferred as the inescapable consequences perative of capital accumulation, where manager-
of having to discharge these functions and tasks. ial work is conceived quintessentially as direction
As a number of writers have pointed out (e.g. and control of the labour process (Braverman,
Knights and Willmott, 1986; Thomas, 1993), a key 1974; Burawoy, 1985; Marglin, 1974; Nichols,
distinction has been between those who conceive 1980; Storey, 1983). Although subsequent ‘post-
management as the pursuit of unitary ends and Braverman’ accounts (e.g. Knights and Willmott,
those who conceive management as the pursuit of 1986; Reed, 1990; Salaman, 1982; Storey, 1985)
sectional ends, from which distinction flows the have suggested more heterogeneous trajectories
opposed conceptions of managers as neutral, of capital accumulation, more variegated and con-
rational professionals or managers as exploitative tested managerial strategies, and a looser coupling
agents of capital. In both cases, however, the between the two, these accounts have generally
inference is that managers are impelled to act in been reluctant to move from the assertion that
ways dictated by the wider imperatives of rational management, thus conceived, ramifies into par-
technical efficiency or of capital accumulation. ticular managerial practices to demonstrating that
It is not too much of a caricature to label the it does through engagement with empirical evid-
theorists in the first of these groups as ‘Fayolian’, ence. Even Teulings’ (1986) attempt to show how,
since all, in various ways, have taken their cue as a labour process itself, management becomes
340 C. Hales

differentiated into discrete, relatively auto- than demonstrated, thereby avoiding, by design
nomous managerial levels with their own ‘logics or default, the problems of how this approach can
of action’ does not show how these logics of avoid lapsing into infinite regress or how it can
action ramify into concrete managerial practices. account for variations, as well as consensually
Willmott’s concern to ‘close the aporia between negotiated agreement, in categories of managerial
managers as personifications of the “functions of work.
capital” and their lived experience as occupants Three recent attempts to theorize managerial
of contradictory positions within the structure of practices (Reed, 1990; Tsoukas, 1994; Whitley,
capitalist work organizations’ (Willmott, 1997, 1989) have been at pains to avoid the suggestion
p. 1346) focuses more on evidence of managers’ either that these practices flow, unproblematic-
subjective interpretation of their role and status ally, from inescapable management tasks or that
than on their concrete practices. they are simply linguistic constructions. For Whitley
A third, and burgeoning, theoretical strand has (1989), managerial tasks arise, contingently, out
not so much sought to explain the evidence on of the inherently discretionary character of
managerial work as to question it ontologically management within its organizational context and
and to ask whether it is evidence of objective, are, as a consequence, interdependent, context-
observable activities or, rather, socially and dependent, fluid, concerned with both mainten-
linguistically-constructed practices. Thus, man- ance and innovation and lack attributable, visible
aging is seen as the ‘management of meaning’ outputs. For Reed (1990), managing is a ‘second-
(Gowler and Legge, 1983), with managers de- ary social practice’, characterized by its own
ploying rhetoric to render contingent actions and concepts, aims, means, activities, and problems
outcomes acceptable (Fletcher, 1973; Silverman and situational conditions, which is chronically
and Jones, 1976); manipulating symbols to con- concerned with establishing and maintaining con-
struct and maintain a sense of organizational trol over those engaged in ‘primary productive
reality (Mangham, 1986; Pfeffer, 1981; Reed, practices’. For Tsoukas (1994) the key issue is less
1989; Weick, 1979); engaging in histrionics to what managers do, as what they are capable of
make the arbitrary seem rational (MacIntyre, doing, and hence the need to identify the neces-
1985); and constructing notions of the managerial sary conditions which endow management with
job and the immutability of managerial control causal powers to elicit cooperation, pursue effi-
through everyday discourse (Golding, 1979, 1980, ciency and control labour and from which derive,
1986, 1996) or rhetoric which masquerades as in increasing empirical apprehendability, manage-
‘plain speaking’ (Gowler and Legge, 1983). This ment functions, tasks and managerial activities.
approach, however, has tended to mirror that of Whilst a central virtue of these theories is the
the researchers discussed above who offer specific attempt to deal conceptually with the generic
idiographic accounts, by addressing particular, character of managerial work, rather than adum-
situationally-specific evidence, rather than ad- brating its many variations, what they all eschew
dressing the wider body of evidence in this way. is engagement with empirical evidence. Thus,
Only Grint (1995) has done so and then some- there is limited indication of which managerial
what dismissively. He argues that activities are practices might manifest Whitley’s fluid, context-
only ‘managerial’ because they are socially ascribed dependent managerial tasks, the aims and prob-
as such and that, since ‘management is about talk lems of Reed’s secondary social practice of
if it is about anything’ (1995, p. 48), this ascription management or Tsoukas’ causal powers of man-
depends on managers constituting their actions, agement. Without this engagement with the
and accounts of their actions, through certain evidence, all three remain formal theories of how
linguistic forms and on researchers construing managerial practices might be explained, rather
those actions and accounts in similar ways. In this than substantive accounts of these practices.
purview, therefore, what needs to be explained Perhaps the most systematic recent attempt
is not why managers engage in certain common to come to grips conceptually with the extant
activities, but why and how such activities are evidence on the generic features of managerial
negotiated as acceptable descriptors of ‘man- work is offered by Mintzberg (1994). He argues
aging’. However, in Grint’s analysis this treat- that sense can be made of this evidence by
ment of the evidence is only alluded to, rather depicting the managerial job in terms of a series
Why do Managers Do What They Do? 341

of ever-wider concentric spheres. At the centre is remains the possibility that there is evidence
the person, whose values, experience, knowledge which either does not fit or disconfirms the model.
and competencies determines their style of manag- Indeed, it is not difficult to identify pieces of evid-
ing – how they do their job. The person is located ence which are not easily accounted for by the
within the frame of the job – how it is conceived model. One recurrent finding from research, in-
by the manager in terms of its ‘purpose’ (what cluding Mintzberg’s own (1973), for example, is
the manager is seeking to do), ‘perspective’ (the that managerial work is characterized by frag-
overall approach to the job) and ‘positions’ mentation, reactivity, interruption, brevity and
(specific strategies about how the job is done). the tendency for day-to-day exigent problems to
According to Mintzberg, frames will vary in terms drive out work on longer term projects and plans.
of the extent to which they are ‘imposed’ or Yet the model – with the person at the centre with
chosen and their degree of ‘sharpness’ or fuzzi- his/her individual chosen style of managing, firmly
ness. The frame of the manager’s job is then set located within the frame of a job, which is charact-
within an agenda comprising ‘issues’ (what is of erized by a chosen ‘purpose’, a distinct ‘perspect-
current concern to the manager) and a ‘schedule’ ive’ and ‘positions’ in the form of strategies about
(how the manager allocates their time). how the job is done – suggests the manager as
Taken together, the person, frame and agenda autonomous, proactive agent, choosing and con-
contribute, in Mintzberg’s analysis, the ‘core’ of trolling their pattern of work. Second, even if
the manager’s job. This core is then set within a Mintzberg’s scheme were able to accommodate
three-layered context: ‘inside’ (the unit being all, or most, of the evidence, its theoretical power
managed), ‘within’ (the rest of the organization, would remain limited. This is because it is pri-
over whom the manager has no formal authority) marily an integrative model – a way of configuring
and ‘outside’ (the environment of the organiza- or ordering disparate pieces of evidence – rather
tion, including other organizations). Within these than an explanatory one. In short, it re-describes
inner and outside contexts, managers ‘manage’ what managers do, rather than explains why they
(i.e. evoke action on the part of others) in three do what they do.
ways: by information, evoking action in others Yet, paradoxically, Mintzberg’s framework
indirectly by ‘communicating’ (collecting and dis- does carry an, albeit implicit, explanatory account
seminating information) and ‘controlling’ (develop- of managerial work, one where the structural
ing systems, designing structures and imposing context in which managers operate plays a prob-
directives); through people, evoking actions in lematic role. In this aptly-named ‘rounded out’
others directly by ‘leading’ (at the individual, model, the manager’s activities are driven pri-
group and unit level) and ‘linking’ (influencing marily by the manager and his/her style, purposes,
outside the unit and handling influence exerted perspectives, strategies and agendas. The context
upon the unit) and by action or direct involve- is merely the arena in which these core elements
ment in doing things both ‘inside’ (handling of the manager’s work are acted out. The possi-
internal projects and problems) and ‘outside’ bility that context may shape these core elements
(doing deals and negotiating). All these different is only intermittently recognized. Certainly the
elements fit, logically and pictorially, into a model ‘person’ in the model is conceived as a largely free
in which the managerial job is ‘rounded out’. agent, whose acquired values, skills and experi-
The model has both conceptual elegance and, ences drive their managerial ‘style’, rather than
as Mintzberg shows, a capacity to accommodate one whose subjectivity has been shaped by the
some of the extant evidence on managerial work. wider social, and more immediate organizational,
However, this amenability to the evidence is a context.
weakness as well as a strength. First, there is Mintzberg’s discussion of the manager’s ‘frames’
a methodological problem in asserting generally, does recognize that these may be imposed, as well
as Mintzberg does, that what managers do is now as chosen, but offers no indication of who or what
‘known’, constructing a framework and then illus- imposes them and, indeed, suggests a rather stark
trating that framework by recourse to some of the dichotomy between either structural constraint or
evidence, rather than taking the whole body of individual choice. Furthermore, the logic of this is
evidence as the point of departure and developing not followed through to recognize how ‘frames’
a framework capable of handling all of it. There which are contextually shaped will ramify into
342 C. Hales

‘agendas’, where ‘current issues’ and ‘work ‘managing’ – what it is that defines work, or jobs,
schedules’ are also so shaped. Thus, in Mintz- as ‘managerial’. Amidst considerable diversity in
berg’s model, ‘context’ is simply something for definitions of the managerial job, one character-
the manager to confront and deal with, an arena istic persistently recurs: responsibility (Drucker,
in which agendas must be pursued. Any notion of 1974; Stewart, 1986; Watson, 1994). Managers,
the manager as a child of the organization is particularly, though not exclusively, in capitalist
abandoned in favour of the notion that the organ- work organizations, are conventionally agents de-
ization is the manager’s adventure playground. signated as ‘responsible’ for a particular bounded
The same problem attends the discussion of the area of work activity and, crucially, ‘responsible’
different ‘forms of managing’ in which managers for the efforts of those who are engaged in that
are said to engage. The implication is that manag- work – a definition reflected in job titles where
ing ‘by information’ is simply a matter of choice, ‘manager’ is always qualified adjectivally by a
rather than a question of the manager being description of an area of activity (e.g. ‘works man-
obliged to negotiate a way through information ager’ ‘marketing manager’ and so on). Linked to
systems and work structures designed by others; responsibility is accountability: managers are
that managing ‘through people’ involves the deemed answerable for what happens in the area
creation of groups, teams and unit cultures, rather of work activity for which they are responsible.
than working with or within existing ones; and However, whilst responsibility and accountability
that managing ‘through linking’ involves the choice per se are necessary characteristics of managing,
of networks, rather than the obligation to operate the scope and nature of that responsibility and
through existing ones. Consequently, the role of the form of accountability (what the manager is
‘context’ in Mintzberg’s model is not only am- responsible and answerable for) are variable and
biguous – occasionally intruding into the job, but contingent, as is the degree of delegated power
usually receding into the background – but also which the manager has to discharge that respon-
contentious in that there is little sense of whether, sibility. Any account of the generic features of
and if so how, this context shapes, rather than managerial work, therefore, must be concerned
merely provides the arena for, what managers do. with tracing what flows logically from this respon-
An adequate explanatory account of the gen- sibility and accountability per se, rather than their
eric features of managerial work must be attent- specific forms.
ive to the constitutive influence of context – how Responsibility has both a structural and
managers’ location within different institutional individual dimension. It is structural in the sense
and organizational systems both generates and that managers are given responsibility for an area
shapes their work. For, whilst some (but only of work activity in ways which reflect pre-existing
some) variation in managerial work may be patterned regularities of behaviour and relation-
accountable in terms of managers’ individual ships which may be overtly expressed in others’
choice, commonalities in managerial work must expectations, rules and procedures, organization
reflect the way in which managers generally draw charts and the like, or merely ‘understood’. How-
upon and reproduce certain structural properties ever, responsibility is also a matter of individual
in the task of ‘managing’. This explanatory account agency in that managers take responsibility for an
must also, however, be empirically grounded by area of work activity in ways which reflect pursuit
engaging with the available body of evidence. In of their own purposes and projects.
the remainder of the article, a preliminary sketch Following Giddens (1984), the relationship
of such an account is attempted. between responsibility as structural, and respon-
sibility as a feature of agency should be conceived
not as one of mutual exclusion in which the man-
Towards an explanatory account of the ager’s subjective interpretations and intentions
commonalities in managerial work: stand opposed to fixed external constraints but,
responsibility, resources and rules rather, as a dialectical one: the structural charact-
eristics of the systems in which managers are
One point of departure for any explanatory ac- located on the one hand, constrain and enable and
count of the common features of managerial work on the other hand, are produced/reproduced by
is to attempt to identify the generic character of managers’ practices. These structural characteristics
Why do Managers Do What They Do? 343

take the form of resources, cognitive rules and required to operate within and draw upon those
moral rules on which managers draw, and which rules, certain practices become meaningful as
serve to both constrain and enable what they do ‘managing’. In attempting to act in meaningful
and which are reproduced and reaffirmed by what ‘managerial’ ways, managers reaffirm or alter
they do. The link between managers’ practices these cognitive rules, or shared meanings, which
and the structural properties – in the form of rules then both constrain and enable future managerial
and resources – of the systems in which these practices. Finally, norms in the form of moral
practices are located is through what Giddens rules constrain and enable what managers do in
(1984) calls ‘modalities’: facilities, interpretive that, by operating within and drawing upon these
schemes and norms. The argument here, rules, certain practices are deemed legitimate as
therefore, is that certain generic facilities, inter- ‘managing’. In attempting to act in legitimate
pretive schemes and norms both impinge upon ‘managerial’ ways, managers reaffirm or redefine
and are available to all work roles defined as these moral rules, which then both constrain and
having managerial responsibility. enable future managerial practices. For example,
Facilities in the form of structured distributions managers have budgets which are both available
of resources constrain and enable what managers to spend in order to prosecute other activities
do in that, being required to operate within and and, at the same time, have to be spent, which
being able to draw upon those resources, certain becomes an activity in itself. Further, expenditure
practices become possible and necessary in dis- within that budget is accounted for in terms of
charging managerial responsibility. In attempting particular categories which constrain its scope
to accomplish these things, managers, by their (what it cannot be used for) and prompt its possible
actions, reproduce, or reconstitute, these distribu- deployment (what it could be used for). Finally,
tions of resources, which then both constrain and such expenditure conforms to and is prompted by
enable future managerial practices. Interpretive conventions about which objects and processes of
schemes in the form of cognitive rules constrain expenditure are admissable. (These relationships
and enable what managers do in that, being are summarized in Figure 1.)

Systems Distribution Cognitive Moral

of resources rules rules

'Facilities': 'Interactive Schemes': 'Norms':

Modalities resources available meanings available legitimations available
to those engaged to those engaged to those engaged
in: in: in:

Managing as responsibility for

bounded area of work activity
and those who do it

Engaging in Engaging in
Deploying
Managerial meaningful legitimate
'managerial'
agency 'managerial' 'managerial'
resources
actions actions

(Practices)

Figure 1. Systems, modalities and managerial agency

344 C. Hales

The relative importance of resources, cognitive of modern, market societies (MacIntyre, 1985) in
rules and moral rules in constraining and enabling that they are not only constituted, as human beings,
managerial practices is likely to vary depending as generally responsible and accountable for their
on the context of managerial work. In business own actions but also, as managers as specifically
organizations, for example, resources are likely to responsible and accountable for the actions and
assume a relative importance, whereas in not-for- outcomes of others. What is distinctive and prob-
profit organizations, cognitive and moral rules lematic about this notion of managerial respon-
may have greater relative weight. However, these sibility is that collective accomplishments are
are empirical questions which cannot be resolved represented as the product of individual agency.
a priori. More pertinent to the argument here is Thus, not only must managers affirm an otherwise
that commonalities in managerial practices across precarious general sense of self and identity, but
contexts must reflect the way in which all man- they must also, as managers, affirm an even more
agers may draw upon and reproduce resources precarious economic identity. In seeking to deal
and rules which relate specifically to managerial with the attendant uncertainty and anxiety, man-
responsibility per se. That all managers will do so agers qua managers will be even more inclined to
may be accounted for by the inherently precari- embrace those institutional routines which, in
ous nature of managerial responsibility. resource, cognitive and normative terms, consti-
As Willmott (1994, 1997) argues, in market tute managerial responsibility and will be drawn
societies, subjectivity is constituted, by the institu- to engage in and reproduce those practices which
tions in which people participate and practices are constituted, understood and legitimated as
in which they routinely engage, as that of auto- ‘managing’. In other words, whilst the managerial
nomous, free agents, responsible for their actions role is conceived as quintessentially discretionary
and its outcomes. Thus, identity and sense of self – exemplified in the repeated synonymity with
are open-ended: people are responsible for what decision-making or ‘choice’ (Stewart, 1981) –
they do, what they achieve and for ‘making some- individual responsibility for a collective process
thing of themselves’. However, this subjective and collective accomplishments creates a com-
sense of freedom and responsibility contrasts mon chronic structural uncertainty for managers
sharply with concrete experience and the chronic which institutionalised routines of ‘managing’
uncertainty of attempting to affirm a sense of self. serve to close off. In a role defined not in terms of
Consequently, people generally assuage their activities but imputed liability for other activities,
resulting anxieties by embracing and colluding in activities which come to be recognized as denotat-
the very institutional routines which require and ive of ‘managing’ exert a powerful pull on man-
permit affirmation of a sense of self. agerial practices.
This echoes Foucault’s (1982) notion of ‘sub- The diversity of social systems in which
jection’ – how the power/knowledge discourses of managers are located is a key explanation of the
modern institutions and practices at the same well-documented variations in managerial work.
time bestow ‘freedom’ and ‘responsibility for Different managers draw upon the resources and
closing off indeterminacy’, demand ‘accountabil- rules of the particular cultural, societal, industrial,
ity of the self’ in terms of the need to establish and organizational, hierarchical, professional and func-
confirm one’s identity as a sovereign agent and tional systems in which they are located in their
furnish the means to authenticate and demon- work practices. The common features of managerial
strate this ‘freedom’ and ‘responsibility’. This broad work, however, must be shaped by the resources
theme has been taken up more specifically, in and rules which reside in those social systems in
terms of the way in which organizations shape indi- which all managers are located – the institutional,
vidual subjectivity, by Miller and Rose (1988) and in particular the economic; the organizational;
Rose (1990) who emphasize the influence of sys- and, within that, the management system – and
tematic bodies of knowledge upon the subjectivity which variously constitute different aspects of
of employees and clients and by Knights and ‘managerial responsibility’.
Morgan (1994) who widen this analysis to informal Following Whittington (1994), five such institu-
knowledges and the subjectivity of consumers. tional systems may be identified: the communal,
Extending this argument, it may be suggested domestic, political, intellectual and economic. The
that managers are the archetypal social actors communal system furnishes cultural resources,
Why do Managers Do What They Do? 345

forms of language and social norms which set of which are complex, and configured along
managerial identity apart from other forms of technical and social dimensions which furnish
social identity. For example, common stereotypes resources and rules which constrain and enable
relating to managerial preoccupations and forms managerial practices. Thus, the technical organ-
of conduct (e.g. manager as ‘trouble-shooter’) ization of the management process incorporates
both reflect and prompt managerial practices. The technological and informational resources avail-
domestic system furnishes family and consump- able to managers (e.g. information systems);
tion resources, vocabularies of ‘work’ and ‘leisure’ semantic rules, in the form of ‘management
and norms of ‘domestic’ versus ‘work’ commit- technologies’, about how management can be
ments which shape managerial work responsibil- conducted (e.g. what counts as ‘management
ities. For example, managerial incomes coupled information’); and moral rules, in the form of
with particular patterns of domestic life both management imperatives about how manage-
support and are maintained by typical managerial ment should be conducted (e.g. acceptable forms
work patterns. The political system supplies forms of managerial communication). The social organ-
of state power, concepts of social order and a ization of the management process incorporates
legal code which shape managers’ political respon- physical, economic, knowledge and normative
sibilities. For example, all managers implicitly power resources (e.g. managers’ access to budgets,
draw upon legal notions of property rights in expertise and ideologies); semantic rules in the
assuming responsibility for the allocation of form of conceptions of what different elements of
resources which, in turn, reinforces the legitimacy the management process mean and entail (e.g.
of such rights. Finally, the intellectual system what are feasible forms of decision-making or
includes the cultural capital and expertise, profes- reward systems); and moral rules, in the form of
sional practices and professional codes which the tacit and formal duties and responsibilities
shape managerial occupational responsibilities. of those located in the management process.
For example, models of management furnish the Variations in this configuration give rise to
cognitive categories through which managers can variations in the resources and rules to which
represent their actions, the accomplishment of different managers have access, depending upon
which then serves to affirm these models. their functional or hierarchical location, and,
The economic system, however, furnishes man- therefore, require and enable the different kinds
agers with two sets of resources and rules, reflect- of managerial practices which are well-documented.
ing the dual nature of managerial responsibility. Commonalities in managerial practices must,
Managers are both manager and managed, on the therefore, be linked to those resources and rules
one hand responsible for the work of others and, which inhere in management processes as a
on the other, being held accountable for that whole: power resources available exclusively but
work. As ‘managers’, they may draw on resources generally to managers; semantic rules about what
flowing from their control over a sub-unit of ‘managing’ means and entails; and moral rules
capital, semantic rules of market logic and norms about the duties and prerogatives of ‘manage-
relating to property rights, whilst as ‘managed’, ment’ per se. Thus, regardless of seniority or func-
they must draw on resources flowing from their tion, all managers may draw on the knowledge
skilled labour power, semantic rules of employ- power resources embodied in management in-
ment and norms of contractual obligation. Thus, formation systems (e.g. representations of eco-
for example, managers draw upon the material nomic performance which can be used to lever
resources (e.g. budgets) to which their position changes in work practices), cognitive rules about
gives them access, but also upon cognitive resources, how information is categorized, processed and
in the form of technical skills (e.g. variance analy- utilized in decisions (e.g. discounted cash flow as
sis) in the deployment of these resources. In so a criterion for capital expenditure) and normative
doing, managers reaffirm their own ambiguous rules about what forms of information are admis-
position and the resources and rules which attach sible in decision-making (e.g. privileging statist-
to capital and labour. ical information over subjective impressions).
Within capitalist economic institutions there The technical organization of the labour
are specific organizational systems, comprising a process incorporates physical, informational and
management process and a labour process, both spatial resources; semantic rules in the form of
346 C. Hales

work technologies; and moral rules in the form of about what different aspects of the management
work imperatives. The social organization of the process entail and which duties and prerogatives
labour process incorporates the physical, eco- attach to them, managers are obliged to network
nomic, knowledge and normative power resources and negotiate, drawing on those resources and
available to non-managers; a set of semantic rules rules available to them in order to establish and
about what ‘work’ means and entails; and a set promote the meaning, duties and prerogatives
of moral rules about the respective duties and of their areas of responsibility vis-à-vis those of
responsibilities of those who are ‘at work’. others. Thus, for managers, negotiation is endemic
Variations in managerial practices arise from the because managerial responsibilities are consti-
particularities of the technical and social organ- tuted in different and inherently uncertain ways:
ization of different labour processes for which how responsibility for an area of work translates
managers are responsible. Commonalities relate into specific contributions and outcomes is not
to those resources and rules which inhere in labour fixed but has to be established through negotiation.
processes generally. For example, all managers Managers negotiate both as part of what they do
responsible for a labour process are responsible and to establish what they should do. Only through
for those whose access to power resources such as networking – establishing and maintaining relation-
‘local knowledge’, cognitive rules such as informal ships with others, often conducted face-to-face –
work practices, and moral rules such as what con- can managers sustain their power resources and
stitutes a ‘fair day’s work’ makes their compliance the meaning and legitimacy of what they are
with attempts to manage them chronically held responsible for. Networking is the concrete
uncertain. manifestation of management as a social process
Common managerial activities, substantive (Reed, 1989).
areas of concern and forms of managerial work Allocating resources and the prospective allo-
are traceable to the way in which the institutional, cation involved in planning/scheduling flow from
organizational and management resources and the responsibility of all managers for a unit of
rules outlined above both constrain and facilitate ‘capital’, however small, within economic institu-
managerial responsibility. Space permits only a tions. In drawing upon these material resources
preliminary sketch of these linkages here. and adhering to the rules which relate to their
Few generic managerial activities flow more allocation, managers reproduce these resources as
directly from the ways in which ‘responsibility’ is ‘capital’ and particular forms of deployment as
defined than that of acting as ‘figurehead’. Being ‘efficient’ and legitimate. In contrast, controlling
ostensibly ‘in charge’ both obliges and enables the work of subordinates and the more specific
managers to account for and represent, or be the set of activities relating to human resource man-
point of contact for, ‘their’ area of work activity; agement (such as selection, training, appraisal
even, in a sense, to personify it in dealing with the and so on) stem from managers’ responsibility
outside world and for internal ceremonial events. for a bounded labour process, including, crucially,
Located within an organizational system where those whose labour is part of that and whose
the technological/communication resources which compliance must be secured. This responsibility,
configure ‘management information’ coexist in turn, is shaped by the intersection between the
with rules about what constitutes ‘management manager’s location within a management system
information’ and how this information may and and their subordinates’ location within the social
should be communicated, all managers, perforce, organization of the labour process. Managers draw
monitor, process and disseminate information. upon the particular kinds of economic, know-
By selecting, constituting and disseminating ledge and normative power resources available to
information through these rules and resources, them, semantic rules about what ‘managing’ work
managers weave the very webs of information in entails and normative rules about the duties and
which they are entangled, an entanglement which prerogatives which flow from it to attempt to
means that ‘managing information’ becomes a ensure that work gets done. The nature of the
significant substantive area of managerial work. labour process bestows other forms of economic,
Located within a complex management divis- knowledge and normative power resources on
ion of labour (Hales, 1993) where the distribution those being managed, together with rules about
of different power resources coexists with rules what ‘being managed’ means (and who does it)
Why do Managers Do What They Do? 347

which shape employees’ response to that attempt. sketching a theory of how the defining character-
Thus all managers seek to direct and control istic of managing – responsibility – is shaped by
subordinates, either directly or indirectly through the resources, cognitive rules and moral rules of
forms of human resource management, and day- the social systems in which managers are located
to-day ‘people management’ represents a com- and the way in which managers both draw upon
mon and consistently substantial area of work and reproduce these resources and rules in their
activity for managers. work practices. Commonalities in managerial
The substantial concern with monitoring and work reflect, therefore, how all managers feel
maintaining work processes, together with the compelled, because of the ambiguous and prob-
fragmented, reactive and exigent disturbance- lematic nature of managerial responsibility and
handling/problem-solving activity which is a con- the precarious nature of ‘managerial’ subjectivity,
sistent part of that, are also explicable in terms of to engage in institutionalized routines draw upon
managers’ responsibility for a labour process, the and reproduce the resources and rules which
continued operation of which cannot be taken for underpin them. The activities, substantive areas
granted. Uncertainties attend both the technical and characteristics of managerial work which are
organization of the labour process and its asso- common to managers are, it has been suggested,
ciated technological systems, work technologies traceable to the institutional, organizational and
and work imperatives and the social organization management resources and rules which together
of the labour process and its associated power shape managerial ‘responsibility’ and which are,
resources, skills and obligations. Disturbance in turn, reproduced by what managers do and
handling stems from the chronically, not merely how they work.
contingently, refractory character of work activity Only a preliminary sketch of these linkages has
for which managers are responsible. If, indeed, all been possible here. What is required in the future,
managers engage in ‘fire-fighting’, it is not only however, is a more detailed examination of these
because they are ‘mimetic pyrophobes’ (Grint, linkages, either through a reworking of existing
1995) but because they are responsible for the research material or, more likely, through new
chronically inflammable. studies couched in these terms. Such studies, in
turn, will require rather different methodologies
from those conventionally associated with studies
of managerial work. In particular, structured
Conclusion observation and recording of managers’ usage of
time will need to be supplemented by research
The purpose of this article has been twofold: to tools able to capture the material, cognitive and
draw attention to an important lacuna in the moral grounds, as well as the empirical character,
extent management literature and to propose a of these activities.
way of closing it. The lacuna is between, on the What these new forms of research will need to
one hand, research evidence which has increasingly show is how managers make ‘managing’ what it is:
treated variations in managerial work as being of how day-to-day managerial practices reproduce
central significance, and has been reluctant to do the distribution of resources and reaffirm the
more than describe common characteristics of meanings and norms upon which these practices
managerial work and, on the other hand, theories trade. Managing therefore, may entail not merely
of management which have been content to infer, the broader ‘management of meaning’ (Gowler
rather than adduce or engage with the evidence and Legge, 1983), but the management of its own
on, particular managerial practices. Whilst the meaning. In short, managers act in the way they
common features of managerial work – what all, do because these actions are constituted, defined
or most, managers do – are discernible in terms of and legitimized, by the resources and rules of
managerial activities, consistent substantive areas the systems in which they are located, as actions
of concern and their characteristics, there is no which affirm the identity, responsibility and
theoretical explanation of why these are, or might accountability of ‘managers’.
be the generic elements of managerial work. Much of the substance of this account relates
The remainder of this article attempted to go to managerial responsibility as it has been con-
some way towards remedying this omission by ventionally constituted – as individual personal
348 C. Hales

responsibility and accountability for a bounded Copeman, G., H. Luijk and F. Hanika (1963). How the Executive
work process and those who are part of it – and Spends His Time. Business Publications Ltd, London.
Cyert, R. M. and J. G. March (1963). A Behavioural Theory of
therefore explains the practices which have, as the Firm. Prentice-Hall, New York.
past research evidence shows, flowed from and Dalton, M. (1959). Men Who Manage. Wiley, New York.
fed into that. If, however, the resources and rules Dann, D. (1991). ‘Strategy and Managerial Work in Hotels’,
which impinge upon managerial responsibility International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Manage-
begin to change – if, in particular, there are shifts ment, 3, pp. 319–334.
Doktor, R. H. (1990). ‘Asian and American CEOs: a
in the distribution of organizational power re- comparative study’, Organizational Dynamics, Winter,
sources or changes in the definitions and preroga- pp. 46–56.
tives of ‘managers’ such that there are changes in Drucker, P. (1974). Management: Tasks, Responsibilities,
the locus, scope and nature of managerial re- Practices. Heinemann, London.
sponsibility (i.e. who has it and over what) – then Dubin, R. and S. L. Spray (1964). ‘Executive Behaviour and
Interaction’, Industrial Relations, 3(2), pp. 99–108.
these hitherto common features of managerial
Fayol, H. (1916). General and Industrial Management (trans.
work may begin to disappear. Whether the result- C. Storrs). Pitman, London.
ing practices can then continue to be referred to Fletcher, C. (1973). ‘The End of Management’. In: J. Child
as exclusively ‘managerial work’ may be prob- (ed.), Man and Organisation, pp. 135–157. Allen & Unwin,
lematic: indeed, the question may then become: London.
Follett, M. Parker (1941). Dynamic Administration (edited by
‘what did managers do – and why don’t they any
H. C. Metcalf and L. F. Urwick). Pitman, London.
more?’ Foucault, M. (1982). ‘The Subject and Power’. In: H. L.
Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (eds), Foucault: Beyond Structural-
ism and Hermeneutics. Harvester, Brighton.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. University of
California Press, Berkeley
References Golding, D. (1979). ‘Symbolism, Sovereignty and Domination
in an Industrial Hierarchical Organisation’. Sociological
Allan, P. (1981). ‘Managers at Work: A Large Scale Study Review, 27(1), pp. 169–177.
of the Managerial Job in New York City Government’, Golding, D. (1980). ‘Establishing Blissful Clarity in Organ-
Academy of Management Journal, 24(3), pp. 613–619. isational Life: Managers’, Sociological Review, 28(4),
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Harvard pp. 763–782.
University Press, Cambridge, MA. Golding, D. (1986). ‘Inside Story – On Becoming a Manager’,
Blankenship, L. V. and R. E. Miles (1968). ‘Organisational Organization Studies, 7(2), pp. 193–198.
Structure and Managerial Decision Behaviour’, Admin- Golding, D. (1996). ‘Management Rituals: Maintaining
istrative Science Quarterly, 13, pp. 106–120. Simplicity in the Chain of Command’. In: S. Linstead,
Boisot, M. and X. G. Liang (1992). ‘The Nature of Managerial R. Grafton-Small and P. Jeffcutt (eds), Understanding Man-
Work in the Chinese Enterprise Reforms: A Study of Six agement, pp. 78–93. Sage, London.
Directors’, Organisation Studies, 13(2), pp. 161–184. Gowler, D. and K. Legge (1983). ‘The Meaning of Man-
Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital. Monthly agement and the Management of Meaning: A view from
Review Press, New York. Social Anthropology’. In: M. Earl (ed.), Perspectives on
Brewer, E. and J. W. C. Tomlinson (1964). ‘The Manager’s Management: A Multidisciplinary Analysis, pp. 197–233.
Working Day’, Journal of Industrial Economics, 12, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
pp. 191–197. Grint, K. (1995). Management: A Sociological Introduction.
Burawoy, M. (1985). The Politics of Production. Verso, London. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Burns, T. (1957). ‘Management in Action’, Operational Gulick, L. (1937). ‘Notes on the Theory of Organization’.
Research Quarterly, 8(2), pp. 45–60. In: L. Gulick and L. Urwick (eds), Papers on the Science of
Campbell, J. P., M. D. Dunnette, E. E. Lawler and K. E. Weick Administration. Columbia University Press, New York.
(1970). Managerial Behaviour, Performance and Effective- Hales, C. P. (1986). ‘What Do Managers Do? A Critical
ness. McGraw-Hill, New York. Review of the Evidence’, Journal of Management Studies,
Carlson, S. (1951). Executive Behaviour. Strombergs, Stockholm. 23(1), pp. 88–115.
Carroll, S. J. and D. J. Gillen (1987). ‘Are the Classical Hales, C. P. (1987). ‘The Manager’s Work in Context: A Pilot
Management Functions Useful in Describing Managerial Investigation of the Relationship between Managerial Role
Work?’, Academy of Management Review, 12(1), pp. 38–51. Demands and Role Performance’, Personnel Review, 16(5),
Child, J. and T. Ellis (1973). ‘Predictors of Variation in pp. 26–33.
Managerial Roles’, Human Relations, 26(2), pp. 227–250. Hales, C. P. (1993). Managing Through Organisation.
Child, J. and A. Kieser (1981). ‘Organization and Managerial Routledge, London.
Roles in British and West German Companies: An Exam- Hales, C. P. and N. Mustapha (forthcoming). ‘Commonalities
ination of the ‘Culture-free’ Thesis’. In: D. J. Hickson and and Variations in Managerial Work: A Study of Middle
C. J. McMillan (eds), Organization and Nation, pp. 51–73. Managers in Malaysia’, Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Gower, Aldershot. Resources.
Why do Managers Do What They Do? 349

Hales, C. P. and Z. Tamangani (1996). ‘An Investigation of the Mangham, I. (1986). Power and Performance in Organizations.
Relationship between Organizational Structure, Managerial Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Role Expectations and Managers’ Work Activities’, Journal Marglin, S. A. (1974). ‘What Do Bosses Do? The Origins and
of Management Studies, 33(6), pp. 731–756. Functions of Hierarchy in Capitalist Production’. In: A.
Hannaway, J. (1989). Managers Managing: the Workings of an Gorz (ed.), The Division of Labour, pp. 13–54. Harvester,
Administrative System. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Brighton.
Hemphill, J. K. (1959). ‘Job Descriptions for Executives’, Martin, N. (1956). ‘Differential Decisions in the Management of
Harvard Business Review, 37(5), pp. 55–62. an Industrial Plant’, Journal of Business, 29(4), pp. 249–260.
Hill, N. C. (1979). Increasing Managerial Effectiveness: Keys to Martinko, M. J. and W. L. Gardner (1985). ‘The Observation
Management and Motivation. Addison-Wesley, Reading, of High-performing Educational Managers: Methodological
MA. Issues and Managerial Implications’ In: J. G. Hunt, D.
Hodgson, R. C., D. J. Levinson and A. Zaleznik (1965). The Hosking, C. A. Schriesheim and R. Stewart (eds), Leaders
Executive Role Constellation. Harvard University Press, and managers: international perspectives on managerial
Boston, MA. behaviour and leadership, pp. 142–162. Pergamon, New York.
Horne, J. H. and T. Lupton (1965). ‘The Work Activities Miller, P. and N. Rose (1988). ‘The Tavistock Programme: The
of ‘Middle Managers’ – an Exploratory Study’, Journal of Government of Subjectivity and Social Life’, Sociology,
Management Studies, 2(1), pp. 14–33. 22(2), pp. 179–192.
Inkson, J. H. K., J. Schwitter, D. C. Pheysey and D. J. Hickson Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. Harper
(1981). ‘A Comparison of Organisational Structure and & Row, New York.
Managerial Roles: Ohio, USA and Midlands, England’. In: Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations:
D. J. Hickson and C. J. McMillan (eds), Organization and A Synthesis of the Research. Prentice-Hall, New York.
Nation, pp. 21–36. Gower, Aldershot. Mintzberg, H. (1994). ‘Rounding Out the Managerial Job’,
Jackall, R. (1989). Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp. 11–26.
Managers. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Morse, J. J. and F. R. Wagner (1978). ‘Measuring the Process
Kelly, J. (1964). ‘The Study of Executive Behaviour by of Managerial Effectiveness’, Academy of Management
Activity Sampling’, Human Relations, 17(3), pp. 277–287. Journal, 21(1), pp. 23–25.
Knights, D. and G. Morgan (1994). ‘Organization theory, Nichols, T. (1980). ‘Management, Ideology and Practice’. In:
consumption and the service sector’. In: J. Hassard and G. Esland and G. Salaman (eds), The Politics of Work and
M. Parker (eds), Towards a New Theory of Organizations, Occupations, pp. 279–302. Open University Press, Milton
pp. 131–152. Routledge, London. Keynes.
Knights, D. and H. Willmott (eds) (1986). Managing the Pavett, C. M. and A. W. Lau (1983). ‘Managerial work: the
Labour Process. Gower, Aldershot. influence of hierarchical level and functional specialty’,
Kotter, J. P. (1982). The General Managers. Free Press, New Academy of Management Journal, 26(1), pp. 170–177.
York. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Pitman, Boston.
Kotter, J. P. and P. R. Lawrence (1984). Mayors in Action. Pheysey, D. C. (1972). ‘Activities of Middle Managers –
Wiley, New York. A Training Guide’, Journal of Management Studies, 9,
Kraut, L. B., P. R. Pedigo, D. D. McKenna and M. D. Dunette pp. 158–171.
(1989). ‘The Role of the Manager: What’s Really Important Reed, M. (1989). The Sociology of Management. Harvester
in Different Management Jobs’, Academy of Management Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead.
Executive, 3(4), pp. 286–293. Reed, M. (1990). ‘The labour process perspective on
Kurke, L. B. and H. E. Aldridge (1983). ‘Mintzberg was right! management organization: a critique and a reformulation’.
A replication and extension of The Nature of Managerial In: J. Hassard and D. Pym (eds), The Theory and Philosophy
Work’, Management Science, 29(8), pp. 975–984. of Organizations, pp. 63–82. Routledge, London.
Lawrence, P. (1984). Management in Action. Routledge & Rose, N. (1990). Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the
Kegan Paul, London. Private Self. Routledge, London.
Ley, D. A. (1980). ‘The Effective GM: Leader or Entre- Salaman, G. (1982). ‘Managing the Frontier of Control’. In:
preneur?’, Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly, November, pp. 66–67. A. Giddens and G. Mackenzie (eds), Social Class and the
Luthans, F. and D. L. Lockwood (1984). ‘Toward an Observa- Division of Labour, pp. 46–62. Cambridge University Press,
tional System for Measuring Leader Behaviour in Natural Cambridge.
Settings’. In: J. G. Hunt, D. Hosking, C. A. Schriesheim and Sayles, L. R. (1964). Managerial Behaviour. McGraw-Hill,
R. Stewart (eds), Leaders and Managers: International New York.
Perspectives on Managerial Behaviour and Leadership, Shakman, R. J. and R. C. Roberts (1977). ‘An Evaluation
pp. 117–141. Pergamon, New York. of Managerial Effectiveness’. Business Review, 29(1),
Luthans, F., R. M. Hodgetts and S. A. Rosenkrantz pp. 24–27.
(1988). Real Managers. Ballinger Publishing Co., Cambridge, Silverman, D. and J. Jones (1976). Organisational Work:
MA. The language of grading, the grading of language. Collier-
Luthans, F., D. H. B. Welsh and S. A. Rosencrantz (1993). Macmillan, London.
‘What Do Russian Managers Really Do? An Observational Simon, H. (1960). The New Science of Management Decision.
Study with Comparisons to U.S. Managers’, Journal of Harper & Row, New York.
International Business Studies, 4, pp.741–761. Smith, M. (1980). ‘An analysis of three managerial jobs using
MacIntyre, A. (1985). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. repertory grids’, Journal of Management Studies, 17(2),
Duckworth, London. pp. 205–213.
350 C. Hales

Smith, V. (1990). Managing in the Corporate Interest. Thomas, A. B. (1993). Controversies in Management.
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Routledge, London.
Stewart, R. (1967). Managers and their Jobs. McGraw-Hill, Tornow, W. W. and P. R. Pinto (1976). ‘The Development of a
Maidenhead. Managerial Job Taxonomy: A System for Describing,
Stewart, R. (1976). Contrasts in Management. McGraw-Hill, Classifying and Evaluating Executive Positions’, Journal of
Maidenhead. Applied Psychology, 61(4), pp. 410–418.
Stewart, R. (1979). ‘The Manager’s Contacts: Demand or Tsoukas, H. (1994). ‘What is Management? An Outline of a
Choice?’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 3(4), Metatheory’, British Journal of Management, 5(4), pp. 289–
pp. 2–5. 301.
Stewart, R. (1986). The Reality of Management (2nd edn). Urwick, L. (1952). Notes on the Theory of Organization.
Heinemann, London. American Management Association, New York.
Stewart, R. (1989). ‘Studies of Managerial Jobs and Behav- Watson, T. J. (1994). In Search of Management: Culture, Chaos
iour: The Ways Forward’, Journal of Management Studies, and Control in Managerial Work. Routledge, London.
26(1), pp. 1–10. Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing.
Stewart, R. and J.-L. Barsoux (1994). The Diversity of Man- Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
agement: Twelve Managers Talking. Macmillan, Basingstoke. Whiteley, W. (1985). ‘Managerial Work Behaviour: An
Stewart, R., P. Smith, J. Blake and P. Wingate (1980). The Integration of Results from Two Major Approaches’,
District Administrator in the National Health Service. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), pp. 344–362.
Pitman, London. Whitley, R. (1989). ‘On the nature of managerial tasks and
Stewart, R., J.-L. Barsoux, A. Kieser, H.-D. Ganter and skills’, Journal of Management Studies, 26(3), pp. 209–224.
P. Walgenbach (1994). Managing in Britain and Germany. Whittington, R. (1994). ‘Sociological Pluralism, Institutions
Macmillan, Basingstoke. and Managerial Agency’. In: J. Hassard and M. Parker
Storey, J. (1983). Managerial Prerogative and the Question of (eds), Towards a New Theory of Organizations, pp. 53–74.
Control. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Routledge, London.
Storey, J. (1985). ‘Management Control as a Bridging Con- Willmott, H. (1994). ‘Bringing Agency back into Organiza-
cept’, Journal of Management Studies, 22(3), pp. 269–291. tional Analysis: Responding to the Crisis of (Post)Mod-
Sweeney, N. R. (1981). The Art of Managing Managers. ernity’. In: J. Hassard and M. Parker (eds), Towards a New
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Theory of Organizations, pp. 87–130. Routledge, London.
Teulings, A. W. M. (1986). ‘Managerial Labour Processes in Willmott, H. (1997). ‘Rethinking Management and Man-
Organized Capitalism: The Power of Corporate Manage- agerial Work: Capitalism, Control and Subjectivity’, Human
ment and the Powerlessness of the Manager’. In: D. Knights Relations, 50(1), pp. 1329–1359.
and H. Willmott (eds), Managing the Labour Process, Zaleznik, A. (1964). ‘Managerial Behaviour and Interpersonal
pp. 142–165. Gower, Aldershot. Competence’, Behavioural Science, 9, pp. 156–166.