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...
In reference to the theoretical model that was created by Hasenfeld containing two axes, task-oriented/people-oriented and internal/external, is used to determine the type of leadership skills an organization may have. However, although task-oriented interna...
The CEO needs to create a corporate culture. His culture will determine what people should be doing and what should do not be trying. He can decide who will stay, who will leave, and how the job will get done. Culture starts with the boss. He can decide how he wants people to act and start modeling the behavior publicly. STOPPED HERE…!!!:)
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
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.
Managing ‘up’ “…means consciously and deliberately developing a meaningful task-related, mutually respecting relationship with one’s direct superiors” (Daft, 2015, p. 196). De La Vega should have strived to gain a clearer understanding of what his role would be as the ‘day-to-day’ operational leader. He could have employed the five principles of followership to establish a successful relationship with Bussard as CEO. The CEO failed to ‘manage up and down’ the hierarchal scale of his own organization as a leader and would not relinquish power. The CEO was dependent upon De La Vega to be his key “point man” in day-to-day operations. The follower-leader relationship is important to both the leader and the follower because “…Leaders of higher organizational levels depend upon their subordinates for information, support, and assistance in accomplishing the organization’s goals” (Daft, 2015, p. 197). Had the principles and strategies of effective followership, combined with the desirable followership traits of “cooperation, honesty, dependability and competency” (Daft, 2015, p. 211) been utilized by the CEO and COO, the outcome of the case study would have been
This Journal Report is looking at how the managers work with their employees. It explores the differences people have even those working in the same organisation under the same management. However, this report gives a clear way of effective management. It also explores different ways of dealing with staff members who have different attitudes, values and beliefs, However, all these 3 are very close related.
Perrow, C. (1973), “The short and glorious history of organisational theory”, Organisational Dynamics, vol. 2, no. 1, pg.2-15
Miles, R. (1975) Theories of Management: Implications for Organisational Behaviour and Development. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Management plays a significant role in how business operates. The diversity of approaches to the theoretical and practical background of management has come up with several versions of what is meant by such key words as management and organization. The academia views expressed in relation to management theories take a different role than that prescribed to managers. There has not been any concrete definition of management even though the classic definition of Henri fayol still remains in contention to be the preferred choice after eighty years. In the context of what is required I would like to elaborate on the following journals.
Wren. (2005). The History of Management Thought (5th ed.). Danvers, MA: Wiley & Sons. (Original work published 1976)
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”.
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 evolution of management though the decades can be divided into two major sections. One of the sections is the classical approach. Under the classical approach efficiency and productivity became a critical concern of the managers at the turn of the 20th century. One of the approaches from the classical time period were systematic management which placed more emphasis on internal operations because managers were concerned with meeting the growth in demand brought on by the Industrial revolution. As a result managers became more concerned with physical things than towards the people therefore systematic management failed to lead to production efficiency. This became apparent to an engineer named Frederick Taylor who was the father of Scientific Management. Scientific Management was identified by four principles for which management should develop the best way to do a job, determine the optimum work pace, train people to do the job properly, and reward successful performance by using an incentive pay system. Scientifi...
Classical management theories which are based on the contributions made by scholars like Henri Fayol, Fredrick Taylor and Max Weber, are often viewed as highly structured, hierarchical, emphasis on strict division of labour and centralisation of power (Miller, 2012),. Although these theories have taken inspiration from post industrial revolution, and were mostly prevalent in the early twentieth century, we can still see trace...