Time and space in managerial work: literature review
In the article of Stefan Tengblad (2002, Time and space in managerial work, Scandinavian Journal of Management, pp. 543-566.), the working behaviour of top management in the internationalised economy is investigated. He studied the behaviour of eight CEOs in Sweden. The purpose of his article is to make a comparison with CEO behaviour 50 years ago by using similar methods as the classic study "Executive Behaviour" (Carlson, 1951). Both similarities and differences are examined. The focus of the paper of Tengblad is mainly about continuity versus change regarding time and space allocation of the top managers.
The objective of this review is to evaluate the research of Stefan Tengblad (2002) compared to the Carlson study (1951) and to find out of the methodology provide useful input for theoretical discussion about managerial work.
Since the second part of the last century an increase in interest appeared in the nature of managerial work and the way managers allocated their time. Tengblad (2002) said that there were three theoretical interpretations in particular presented in earlier research regarding the stability or change of managerial work: the importance of the environment, strategic action and sense-making; and the existence of traditions (pp. 544-545). These three aspects are connected and they outline the content of the study about managerial work (p. 545).
The previously mentioned Tengblad and Carlson studies divided the CEO behaviour in several dimensions which influenced the work behaviour of the CEO. These dimensions are: the dimension of space concerning the physical location, the use of communication techniques, contact patterns such as meetings, the functional orientation of CEO work (concerning what kind of functional areas the CEO activities are related to), the type of administrative action and fragmentation in CEO work. These dimensions are based on the three theoretical aspects mentioned earlier.
Tengblad’s study on the dimensions identified a couple of important changes in the form and content of CEO behaviour compared with the study of Carlson (1951). According to Tengblad, important differences concern:
Space expanding and fragmentised. The fragmentation of work has switched from a focus on time (Carlson, 1951) to a focus on space (Tengblad 2002). The expanding of space influenced the daily work behaviour of the CEOs. Now the CEOs travel more often, faster, longer and more global. They do their work now in a great variety of different places and settings (Tengbald, 2002, p. 559). But also the geographical spaces within which the firms operate are expanding over the globe.
According to Brad the characteristics of management that contribute to success can be broken into six categories. The first one being a...
According to the text, “Control is defined as any process that directs the activities of individuals toward achievement of organizational goals. It is how effective managers make sure things are going as planned (Bateman, pp 520, 2007).” The combination of these two concepts, leadership and control help formulate an ideology that becomes an integral part of the success or failure of any business entity. This paper will give Team D an opportunity to delve into Sears Holdings’ leadership and control mechanisms. The focal point of this paper will be to identify the current CEO of Sears Holdings, and gain insight on his background, i.e., training, education, and previous employment. To identify his style of leadership, evaluate the effectiveness of this leadership style based on Sears Holdings’ performance, and to explain the various control mechanisms used in the organization to determine the effectiveness.
We now know a few things about CEOs. Their job is to make their organizations look good, however troubled and ineffective they might be. They do not feel obligated to divulge troubling information that might affect public confidence, cause valuable employees to leave, or make it difficult to recruit in the future.
Compare and contrast the management theories of Frederick Taylor, Henri Fayol, Elton Mayo, and Douglas McGregor. In what sense(s) are these theories similar and/or compatible? In what sense(s) are these theories dissimilar and/or incompatible? How would a contingency theorist reconcile the points of dissimilarity and/or incompatibility between these approaches? The twentieth century has brought in a number of management theories which have helped shape our view of management in the present business environment.
Wren. (2005). The History of Management Thought (5th ed.). Danvers, MA: Wiley & Sons. (Original work published 1976)
A Review and Assessment of Its Critiques, Journal of Management, SAGE. Viewed on5th April 2011, at http://jom.sagepub.com/content/36/1/349.full.pdf+html
The founding father of scientific management theory is Fredrick Winslow Taylor. He was an American mechanical engineer and an inventor. Modern management theorist Edward Deming credited Taylor for his contributions while Joseph Juran criticized his work for extracting more work from workers. However a careful reading of Taylor’s work will disclose that he placed workers interest as high as the employer’s in his studies. Before the principles of management are discussed it is very important to understand the causes which led Taylor to derive the four principles of management. The three causes are as follows:
This research has asked us to look into three different styles of management and find real life examples of companies or individuals who have or are currently using such styles of management. To begin we will take a look into the use of an autocratic style of management versus a participative. In this portion we will look into Leona Helmsley and her chain of hotels. Once this potion is completed, our next section will be looking into a centralized style of management versus a decentralized style. In this section of the research, we will be looking into Apple Inc and how they have built an empire with a centralized style of managing philosophy. Finally, in the final section of the research we will be taking a look at how Google has created an informal environment in which employees have direct access to executives and have the ability to share thoughts and ideas that are taken serious and to the heart.
Gosling, J. and H. Mintzberg (2003). "The Five Minds of a Manager." Harvard Business Review (November 2003): 1-10.
In my opinion, there are some managerial roles that a manager needs to follow to become successful in the company. Depending on organizations these managerial roles changes and to be successful in business, every organization must assign right person for managerial roles. Finding a right person to a particular managerial role is really hard to do but there is another factor that we can consider here, which is the managerial skills. Managerial skills help a person to perform the managerial roles effectively. So by evaluating a person’s managerial skills we can identify whether he is suitable for particular managerial job or not. There is a company called Tata group, which is one of India’s biggest company, follows certain procedures which is called the Tata way, for dealing managers which includes hiring, training and assigning efficiently and effectively. This is reason why managerial job in the Tata group became my favorite job. This paper examines how this unique procedure for dealing managers make the Tata group successive and how can the study of organizational behavior help to replicate it and maybe even improve it.
Being a CEO is proven to be much more difficult than trying to become one. Over the last few months we have been examining the reasons behind the successes and failures of some great CEO practitioners. It seems that, despite the different managerial styles, great CEOs employ some common techniques. The following pages contain the golden rules of successful business leadership.
Over 50 years ago, English-speaking managers were directly introduced to Henry Fayol’s theory in management. His treatise, General and Industrial Management (1949), has had a great effect on managers and the practice of management around the world. However, 24 years after the English translation of Fayol, Henri Mintzberg in the Nature of Managerial Work (1973) developed another theory and stated that Fayol’s work was just “folklores”.
Robbins, S.P., & Coulter, M. (2009). Management (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
There are several theories that examine an organization and it’s approach to managing work in an effort to develop efficiency and increase production. Two classical approaches to management are Taylor’s scientific management theory and Weber's bureaucratic management theory. Both men are considered pioneers of in the study of management.
the study of time and action; b) the management on assignment; c) the theory of organization. (8)Taylor’s theory created a revolution in the subject of management because it was the first scientific method in field of management science. (1)After that, management became a truly scientific knowledge and it expanded and modified by later generations. Therefore, Taylor is “known as the father of scientific management”. (2) Taylor put forward a perspective which was “study the character, the nature and the performance of each workman” and moreover, to “train and help and teach this workman”. (3) In the following paragraphs, will exploring the relevant and irrelevant hypotaxis between Scientific Management and organizations.