{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Why do managers do what they do

Not followed through to recognize how franies which

Info iconThis preview shows pages 7–9. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
not followed through to recognize how 'franies' which are contextually shaped will ramify into
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
342 C Hales 'agendas', where 'current issues' and 'work schedules' are also so shaped. Thus, in Mintz- berg's model, 'context' is simply something for the manager to confront and deal with, an arena in which agendas must be pursued. Any notion of the manager as a child of the organization is abandoned in favour of the notion that the organ- ization is the manager's adventure playground. The same problem attends the discussion of the different 'forms of managing' in which managers are said to engage. The implication is that manag- ing 'by information' is simply a matter of choice, rather than a question of the manager being obliged to negotiate a way through information systems and work structures designed by others; that managing 'through people' involves the creation of groups, teams and unit cultures, rather than working with or within existing ones; and that managing 'through linking' involves the choice of networks, rather than the obligation to operate through existing ones. Consequently, the role of 'context' in Mintzberg's model is not only am- biguous - occasionally intruding into the job, but usually receding into the background - but also contentious in that there is little sense of whether, and if so how, this context shapes, rather than merely provides the arena for, what managers do. An adequate explanatory account of the gen- eric features of managerial work must be attent- ive to the constitutive influence of context - how managers' location within different institutional and organizational systems both generates and shapes their work. For, whilst some (but only some) variation in managerial work may be accountable in terms of managers' individual choice, commonahties in managerial work must reflect the way in which managers generally draw upon and reproduce certain structural properties in the task of 'managing'. This explanatory account must also, however, be empirically grounded by engaging with the available body of evidence. In the remainder of the article, a preliminary sketch of such an account is attempted. Towards an explanatory account of the commonalities in managerial work: responsibility, resources and rules One point of departure for any explanatory ac- count of the common features of managerial work is to attempt to identify the generic character of 'managing' - what it is that defines work, or jobs, as 'managerial'. Amidst considerable diversity in definitions of the managerial job, one character- istic persistently recurs: responsibility (Drucker, 1974; Stewart, 1986; Watson, 1994). Managers, particularly, though not exclusively, in capitalist work organizations, are conventionally agents de- signated as 'responsible' for a particular bounded area of work activity and, crucially, 'responsible' for the efforts of those who are engaged in that work - a definition reflected in job titles where 'manager' is always qualified adjectivally by a description of an area of activity (e.g. 'works man-
Background image of page 8
Image of page 9
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page7 / 17

not followed through to recognize how franies which are...

This preview shows document pages 7 - 9. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online