A behavioral job description for managers

Conventional job descriptions often omit a critical dimension-the b characteristics a manager needs to per$orm the job successfullyR Defining these aracteristics leads to more effective hiring, training, alzd career p~ann~

Behavior cription for

NANETTE FONDAS

e tend to divide the world of work, neatly, into categories. Jobs arefunctions

(marketing, manufacturing, human resources) and levels (executive vice president, middle manager, supervisor).

Ask yourself what makes one management job different from another (a financial officer versus a human resources manager, for example) and you’ll likely think, first, of functional activities. The financial manager works with cash-flow and operating statements, the human resource manager with performance appraisal systems. To distinguish within functions, you’ll likely locate the job at some level within the corporate hierarchy.

Distinctions of function and level play into countless workplace decisions. On this basis managers plan their careers, executives make hiring decisions, and training and development professionals design curricula.

This framework, however, fails to recog- nize the behavioral requirements that also differentiate managerial jobs. Consider, for example, a manager whose primary role is to maintain the status quo (a caretaker role), and

compare this with an executive who must im- plement major changes (a turnaround expert). Or consider a job in which someone fo- cuses almost exclusively on his undt’s tasks (for example, a manufacturing manages) and compare this with someone who evotes most of her attention to external concerns (for example, a chief environmental officer monitors pending federal legislation an activities of citizen groups). Also, think the vastly different levels of interper satility demanded by different jobs. the head of a two-country joint venture management team and the executive in charge of a large hospital may be operating at roughly comparable levels of responsibility, the vari- ety and number of people with whom each must work-and network-differs greatly*

Clearly, there is a need to describe the Ex- l-u&oral demands of different rna~age~~~ j in a way that has the same utility as our scriptions of function and level, an this information to supplement the information about duties and responsibilities con- tamed in the job description. The result! called

The author wishes ta acknowledge the contributions to this article made by Rosemary Stewart and ,bn Chilingerian and to express appreciation for their thoughts and suggestions.

43

Nanette Fondas is assistant professor of management at the Graduate School of Management, University of California at Riverside. She earned a D.B.A. in organizational behavior from the Harvard Business School and an M.Phil. in management studies from Oxford University, where she was a Rhodes Scholar. She teaches courses in organizational behavior, strategic management, organizational change, and leadership and influence at the undergradu- ate, graduate, and executive levels.

Dr. Fondas’s research activities focus on managerial work and behavior and executives’ transitions and resocialization into new roles. She is author or co-author of articles appearing in the Journal of General Management, Business in the Contemporary World, and Entrepreneur- ship Theory and Practice. At Harvard, she was awarded the AT&T Hawthorne Fellow- ship for Social Research in Industry. She has served as a consultant to managers on behavioral and role development, and she is a member of several professional organizations, including the Academy of Management, where she serves as editor of the career forum.

a behavioral job description (BJD) has very practical applications-for job recruiters, people who screen candidates, training directors, managers facing career decisions, executives seeking to fill key positions, and others.

This article describes how to build a behavioral job description by classifying a job on several separate dimensions, then aggregat- ing the dimensions to create a profile of a particular job. The discussion and illustrations are based on six years of research on the behavior and working strategies of managers, including twenty-five heads of functional areas, eleven general managers, three group executives, and twenty-nine chief business officers. The research compared how managers in the same or similar jobs do them differently, considering such aspects of managerial behavior as influence tactics, interpersonal contacts, and strategic initiatives. In demon- strating how to build and use a BJD, however, this article draws primarily from the behavioral dimensions used by researchers in earlier studies to differentiate among managers in equivalent jobs. The dimensions used here are not intended to cover all possible behavioral requirements for all managerial jobs. Because of their basis in research, however, the dimensions articulated here should provide a strong foundation for creating a tool of considerable utility.

CREATING A BEHAVIORAL PROFILE

The first step in creating a behavioral job description is to classify a particular position’s dominant behavioral requirements. Re- searchers have found several possible ways to do this. Henry Mintzberg distinguishes between a manager’s interpersonal, information-handling, and decision-making behavior, or “roles.” A larger, more recent study by Fred Luthans, Richard Hodgetts, and Stuart Rosenkrantz categorizes managerial activities as communication, networking, human resources management, and traditional management tasks (controlling, delegating, etc.). Gary Yukl recently developed an elaborate scheme to integrate much of the current con-

48

EXHIBIT 1 PROFILES OF TWO VICE PRESIDENT OF FINANCE JOBS

Actions are ,: External to Company ~Personall y: Developing ,, ,3 ;; Expertise

Manager’s Activities

VERY MUCt4i ZRY FREWENTI

External Organization

Manager’s Superiors

anager’s Peers

Manager’s Subordinates

Without Aid of Others

hru Others Inside Unit

hru Others Outside Unit

ith Threats/Punishment

ith Authority of Position

ith Persuasion

Slanting Information

EXHIBIT 2 PROFILESOFTWOPRODUCTMANAGERJOBS

Inside Manager’s Unit

External to Company Personally: Developing

Manager’s Unit Another Unit

External Organization or Person

Manager’s Superiors

-Manager’s Peers Manager’s Subordinates

&’ Without Aid of Others

dAc_:;_ FThru Others Inside Unit ,$ Thru Others Outside Unit

Ith Authority of Position

ith Rewards

By Slanting Information

NONE! LIlTLE/ SOME/ MUCH/ VERY MUCH/

NEVER SELOOM OCCASIONALLY FREQUENTLY VERY FREQUENTLY

cepts of leadership found in the literature. Yukl’s approach draws on broad behavioral categories: making decisions, exchanging information, building relationships, and influ- encing people.

Other attempts to classify the behavioral demands of managerial jobs in&de John Hemphill’s 1960 description of ten tasks that vary significantly for different jobs-tasks such as business control, planning, human af- fairs, and asset preservation. In the 197Os, Walter Tornow and Patrick Pinto added behavioral definitions to Hemphill’s task dimensions to create a Management Position Description Questionnaire (MPDQ), hoping that the questionnaire would help define the behavioral characteristics of jobs known to differ by function and level. They expected upper-level managers to be similar on many of the MPDQ’s thirteen dimensions, and that recognizable profiles would develop for en- try-level managers and particular types of functional managers.

IJnlike Tornow and Pinto’s work, this discussion aims to show how a group of managers in the same function or at approximate- ly the same level can diffeev on a set of behavioral dimensions, so that specific behavioral requirements can be identified and a BJD built for each job. Some jobs may have behavioral demands in common with jobs in other functions or at other levels. Knowing this would be useful for managers, their bosses, and others when thinking about what job moves and career plans are feasible and what training and development might be beneficial.

Types of Behavior Classified in a BJD

Building a BJD entails classifying a jobs behavioral demands in three broad areas: impact of the manager’s activities, type of interpersonal contacts, and the manager’s approach to accomplishing work. Research has shown that these three categories can differentiate between managers in even highly similar jobs, though no one has used them all together to create a profile as shown in Ex- hibits 1 and 2.

Impact of activities. Descriptive state-

ments in this category focus, first, on the plkzce where a manager is active and trying to have an impact, and, second, on the resuEts of a manager’s attempted actions and influence.

In terms of “place,” we might manager’s actions as being directed “unit,” which can be a division, region, company, or other area f manager is responsible. Or, the manager s actions may be directed outside the unit wb~e still within the larger organization of which the unit is a part. Take, for example, a product marketing manager’s attempt to in the tasks of the service opera ment. This manager’s action directed externally, say, on n powerful suppliers or buyers. may undertake activities inte impact primarily on himself or hersek come an expert on a particular issue a velop a reputation for that expertise. subdivisions were suggested by Stewart in a classification of j

The other main division is the “result of a manager’s actions,” are classified broadly as change-orie maintenance of an existing state. If, for exa an accounting manager nee her unit, the results are clearly in the “change* dimension. The same is true for a rnarke~~~ manager’s efforts to convince members of the finance department to accept a new pricing methodology. On the other hand, a college dean’s efforts to preserve the caliber of his fac- ulty would be classified as ~mainte~a~ce~~‘ would a company president’s continued forts to keep good relations with the ‘Eocal community.

Interpersonal cmtacts. In havioral requirements we classify the interpersonal contacts associated with a job, using three dimensions.

The first is who the contacts represent: people in the manager’s own unit, in another unit inside the company, in an organi~a~~~ outside the company. The second ~~e~sio~ describes the position in the orga~izat~~~~~~ structure of the manager’s contacts: the manager’s boss? peers? people who r 3% to the manager or to a peer? (These in&ions

were developed and first used by Rosemary Stewart to classify the demands created by the difficulty of a job’s required relationships.)

The third division in this category con- siders who most often initiates the contacts: the manager or others. In separate studies, Tim Davis, John Kotter, and Henry Mintzberg described management jobs as highly “reactive” when managers must respond to many different people who approach them for direc- tion, information, decisions, and the like. Jobs differ, however, by the extent to which contacts initiated by others consume the manger’s attention, and by the extent to which the manager needs to initiate the contacts personally. District sales managers, for example, are likely to initiate many contacts with the sales representatives for whom they are responsible, and the members of a group of software engineers are likely to initiate frequent contact with their supervisor.

Approach to accomplishing work. This category describes various methods a manager might use when trying to have an impact or achieve something-winning a client contract or improving sales-force call patterns, for example. It also describes why a manager may have contacts with the different groups of people listed in the “who contacts represent” subdivision of “type of interpersonal contacts.n

The first division records how a manager accomplishes tasks: (1) primarily as an individual contributor, without the aid of others; (2) by assigning or delegating to someone inside the unit; or (3) by enlisting the aid of others outside the unit or outside the organization. (John Kotter and Paul Lawrence introduced similar methods in a study of how mayors behave.)

The second division describes the tactics a manager uses to influence others. Its five subdivisions are (1) threats to punish someone through withdrawal of rewards or ter- mination of employment; (2) legitimate authority, i.e., influence based on the manager’s formal position in the organization; (3) persuasive arguments, effective because the manager is revered, feared, or his expertise respected; (4) rewards-such as

money or promotions-or the exchange of favors, information, and the like; and (5) slanting information so that the person is not aware of being influenced.

Many writers have discussed how to use influence in managerial jobs, and the five influence tactics listed here are described in Richard Mowday’s comprehensive review of the literature. Most argue that a manager needs a wide repertoire of influence tactics and the good sense to use them appropriately. Yet, sometimes the job limits a manager’s range of influence methods, because particular tactics are not available or will not work in a given setting. For example, when individuals have tenure (professors in a university or partners in a law firm), the executive in charge has difficulty using job loss as an influence tactic.

How to Classify the Behavioral Requirements

A familiarity with the three broad types of behavioral requirements leads to our second step, building the behavioral job description. The horizontal scale in Exhibits 1 and 2 ap- proximates the extent to which each behavioral requirement is present. The scale ranges from “none/never” to %ery much/very frequently.”

To estimate the presence of the various behavioral requirements, an interviewer asks the jobholder three questions about each requirement:

1. How much time does this type of activity consume?

2. How frequently does the job require this type of activity?

3. What is the importance of this activity? Generally, an activity demanding much

time is a major requirement, even if it is done infrequently or its importance is not great or not known. Thus, in scoring the behavioral requirements, the interviewer should consider answers to Question 1 carefully, particularly the duration of a particular activity relative to others. For example, a job may rarely require its incumbent to undertake tasks alone-without the aid of others in the unit-

but when it does, the tasks are time-consum- mg. The interviewer should note this requirement because it potentially distinguishes the job from others.

When answering the three questions, re- spondents will occasionally cite a situation in which,a behavior receives a low estimate of its “duration” (Question 1) or “frequency” (Question 2), but a high estimate for “importance” (Question 3). An example is a brief but critical external contact, say, with a journalist writing an article for a prominent trade mag- azine about the manager’s company or product. The overall score for this behavioral requirement will need to be raised to reflect the importance of this type of contact.

Ideally, information provided by the jobholder will prove consistent with information from other sources, such as the jobholder’s boss or the person formerly in the post. Dis- crepancies between two accounts of the same job may arise, however, when a manager em- phasizes his or her preferences for certain activities, rather than providing an objective report of job requirements. The interviewer might note these preferences as potential areas where the job allows its incumbent some choice. If information from another source is not available, the profile developer may find it helpful to ask the jobholder to assess the extent to which “anyone in the job would have to do this type of activity.” This helps the interviewer evaluate whether the person’s preferred style is distorting the job’s requirements.

Profiling Managerial Jobs

Taken together, scores on each dimension form a profile of a job’s behavioral requirements. Exhibits 1 and 2 show job profiles for four managers. They illustrate how a given jobs behavioral demands cut across functional lines and hierarchical levels-the distinctions most often used to differentiate managerial jobs. The two jobs in Exhibit 1 are heads of the same functional area, finance, in different divisions of one corporation. The two jobs in Exhibit 2 are from the marketing function: product managers in different departments of the same company.

Take a careful look at the two vice presi- dents of finance profiled in Exhibit 1. There are clearly similarities: Both must have an impact primarily inside their units an have the tasks of maintaining operati the first position also entails change, with particular reference to revamping th counting system. By contrast, the secon requires relatively more attention to acquir- ing and maintaining professional knowledge and expertise. The jobs have similar types of contacts, the most frequent being with e ployees under the executive’s direct suped sion. Both are required to initiate contact with people “some of the time.” More often however, others initiate contact. The first position, however, necessitates comparatively less contact with others (especially peers) outside the manager’s unit. This is because the second manager participates on a task force consisting of executives from different functional areas.

Another important difference is that the first job entails comparatively more contact with members of other companies and with the boss-a general manager who works more closely with his staff than counterpart in the other division. also important differences in ho job incumbents accomplish work. The first manager delegates to others in the unit more frequently than does the second, often because he is busy attending to his boss’s re- quests. He also slants information to influence people more frequently than does his counterpart The two managers use rewards and legitimate authority equally, but differ an all other aspects of “manager’s approach to accomplishing work”-in particular, how often they do tasks themselves without the aid of others, and how frequently they enlist the aid of people over whom they have no direct authority. The second job calls for these more often than does the first.

To appreciate how important these differences can become, consider a which Manager Two announces tions to retire and Manager One candidate for that job. The can those making the selection deci

want to focus on those job requirements that make the second job different: working comparatively more with peers and exercising influence over them; gaining new knowledge and expertise to work better in a cross-functional team; and contributing more individu- ally, without the aid of a large staff. An exam- ination of this nature protects everyone from making a faulty assumption, namely that two jobs are the same simply because they have the same level and title.

Next, reflect back on the two product- manager jobs profiled in Exhibit 2. The jobs are similar in that both managers have impact primarily inside their own units; for both, developing expertise is “somewhat” a part of the job. The first job, however, also requires impact outside the manager’s unit, al- beit inside the company. Also, this job is more change-oriented in that the manager needs to campaign for revised pricing and dealer incentives. Interpersonal contacts are similar in that contacts are frequently with peers and only occasionally initiated by the manager himself. The second manager must respond to confacts initiated by others much more than the first, in part because his staff is much larger. The positions differ on other aspects of “interpersonal contacts,” especially when it comes to the time needed to supervise people and engage in contact with others in different units. The jobs are similar in their incumbents’ need to use two influence methods-rewards and legitimate authority-but differ on all of the other dimensions of the “manager’s approach to accomplishing work” category.

The profile shows clearly where there are differences in the jobs’ behavioral requirements, even though both are heads of the same functional area. Could the first manager do the second manager’s job well, or vice ver- sa? Formal job descriptions would suggest they could, while the profiles highlight potential areas of difficulty: the second job’s comparatively greater emphasis on change, on supervising a large staff, and on influenc- ing and impacting people outside the manager’s line of authority. The job is more political, which may not suit everyone.

USING THE PROFILES

As the foregoing suggests, behavioral job descriptions can provide very useful information about people and jobs, adding another dimension to our traditional categories of level and function. Let’s take a look at some areas where BJDs have the greatest utility.

Management Education, Training, and Development

Perhaps every manager, at some point in his or her career, becomes aware of a gap between current and desired performance. This gap represents a “training need.” And a behavioral job description may prove invaluable in defining that need more precisely. For a person whose behavior appears to fall short of a job’s requirements, a development counselor may wish to profile the individual’s current performance and compare this with profiles of effective jobholders. Large differences in the profiles could be the basis for discussing and deciding what types of training the manager should seek. For example, picture an en- gineering manager who makes little contact with his peers in other functional areas at a time when the organization is trying to en- courage cross-functional teamwork and communication. A comparative profile would likely point toward training to improve this individual’s knowledge of other functions and to facilitate his interactions with col- leagues in different departments.

The manager who seeks to learn continu- ously throughout his or her career, and who enrolls in management education courses or programs to help do so, would find the BJD particularly useful. This person could use the profiles to identify his or her behavioral predilections and then decide what particular areas need work-such as learning to initiate an organizational change or building external contacts. (Some critics of traditional, two-year M.B.A. programs have called for a more par- ticularized approach to management education, such as that just described.) Professional development personnel should also find the profiles useful for individualizing manage-

54

ment training purposes. Managers who score similarly on most or all of the dimensions could be grouped together in training mod- ules suited to their needs. Thus, a group of middle managers, for example, would not all be required to endure an entire “influence skills” workshop just because the training di- rector assumed that all participants stood in equal need of honing these skills. Instead, only those individuals whose profiles suggested they had not developed influence skills in prior jobs would be recommended for the training. Furthermore, the training could focus on the subset of influence skills that specific groups of managers need to develop-or other skills such as delegation or initiating change. This type of selective training would save time and resources that companies can ill afford to waste, given the intense competitive pressure most now face.

Some areas covered by the profile may not be “trainable.” For example, knowing how to handle customer contacts, visits to other organizations, and spontaneous re- quests from members of important external constituencies (such as the press) may be tied directly to the content of a specific job. A manager might more appropriately develop these behaviors by moving into a job that requires similar skills. Working with a development counselor, the manager might well compare the profiles of two prospective positions to determine which would be the better choice for “stretching” to develop particular areas. At the same time, the development counselor can identify where synergies exist between the behavioral requirements of a current job and those of one or more prospective jobs. A manager might do well to seek a balance between challenging new experiences and pro- ficiency in enough of the behavioral areas to ensure satisfactory performance in the new job. This approach to developing a manager’s behavioral repertoire is easier and perhaps more politically and organizationally tolera- ble than rotation across functions. While some writers tout such rotation for its developmen- tal benefits, powerful line managers often find it completely unacceptable, as Edgar Schein points out.

Selection

Those making management appo s can appreciate how a job’s behavi uire- ments can derail a person who otherwise has the requisite technical level of experience for a new post. As our discussion of the profiled in Exhibits 1 and 2 suggest, be very useful in evaluating two or didates for a given job. This can be useful if the senior executives who have a s in the new manager’s performance by indicating which behavioral as consider important for success. Als ecutives might suggest the names of success incumbents in comparable posts. ProfiiAes these individuals could serve as benc~~r~”

There are compelling reasons why the candidate’s boss should participate oping an “ideal” behavioral profile. vidual, after all, will later evaluate t hired manager’s effectiveness. Thus, expectations are especially c~nseq~e~~a sider, for example, one real-life situatio which the new manager for a professional came on board with the assumption fessionals are professionals” and th tie supervision. The executive vice however, saw things differently. that all unit managers should coaching and developing# he quit ed that the newcomer was not post-and that he did not deserve a alter his behavior. This disaster co been avoided had the executive behavioral expectations clear at the outset.

Executive recruiting firms may als to use the information provided by the ioral profiles to screen people they are considering for introduction to their client firms.

Thus, the headhunter can make sure the candidates he or she presents have the ate behavioral credentials as well as tional competence and level of exp interviews and resumes revea

Career Plannin

Consider the type of insight one rni~~t gain by using behavioral job descriptions to su

plement the information found in a career plot. The concept of a career plot, as used here, is based on a study by Tim Peterson and Dana McAlear. The researchers asked twenty- three senior managers to complete qualitative career plots profiling their experiences in different executive jobs from the time of joining an organization to the present. By supple- menting the basic job descriptions of the career plot with behavioral requirements from each position, a manager would likely discov- er significant patterns-repeated experiences with several profile dimensions at the ex- pense of others. Seeing such patterns, a person could seek different experiences in the next job. By making behavioral qualities more tangible, profiles can enhance a person’s understanding of the role behavioral experience plays in managerial success.

Comparing profiles can also help with career planning. A manager can use the information to gain a better understanding of the ramifications of certain job moves: for example, making a radical job move to accelerate development versus a more conservative move to ensure successful performance. The latter point is a reminder, too, that the lack of experience and skill in one or more important behavioral areas could conceivably lead to failure in one managerial job though not in another. For example, being good at managing people is a necessity for a retail store manager. It is less essential for a planning manager based at corporate headquarters. Certainly, a manager would want to consider such information when thinking about his potential job moves. So too would organizations, for whom job transfers and relocations (particularly for executive positions) are expensive and often inconvenient. The BJD provides them with a tool for thinking about sequences of job assignments, and possibly designing more systematic sequences.

CONCLUSION

Thinking about management jobs in nontra- ditional terms-terms other than function and level-has become increasingly impor-

56

tant in light of recent changes in the workplace, such as less reliance on formal job descriptions, more emphasis on flexible working, and the delayering of managerial hierarchies. As the network continues to emerge as a predominant organizational form, the behavioral job description would seem an especially suitable tool, given its emphasis on different types of interpersonal contacts (i.e., peers, subordinates, or external people) and the need to use different forms of influence over people in the network.

New ways of describing managerial jobs are also needed in light of the increased change and mobility in management profes- sions. MIS functions are being “outsourced,” personnel has evolved into “human resources management,” and newly created positions, such as chief environmental officer, are being added to the organizational chart. And a significant number of companies have added the position of “transition manager”-a person who helps the organization deal with work- force reductions and plant closings.

Indeed, considering the reduction in the number of middle management jobs from recent corporate restructuring and “downsiz- ing,” managers may find no quick replace- ments for the jobs they left behind. More and more managers may need broader ways to think about the experiences and skills they have to offer an employer-ways other than those defined by industry, company, and function. The type of behavioral job description discussed in this article is intended to help these individuals, as well as others with a deeply felt need for finding new ways of thinking about management jobs.

If you wish to make photocopies or obtain reprints of this or other

articles in ORGANIZA~~~NA~DY~WI~ICS, please refer to the special reprint service instructions on page 80.

I

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

There is an extensive body of literature on what managers do at work and how they do their jobs. Many studies cover all types of managers, at different organizational levels and in different fimc- tions and industries. An excellent example is the study of 457 managers by Fred Luthans, Richard M. Hodgetts, and Stuart A. Rosenkrantz, Real Managers (Cambridge: Ballinger, 1988). Another is Henry Mintzberg’s well-known book, The iVa- ture of Managerial Work (New York: Harper and Row, 1973). A comprehensive work that inte- grates studies of managerial work and behavior with leadership research is Leadership in Organi- zations, Second Edition, by Gary A. Yukl (Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989).

Several studies of the differences in the behavior of managers in the same or similar jobs have been conducted, including The General Managers, by John Kotter (New York: Free Press, 1982); The District Administrator in the National Health Service, by Rosemary Stewart, Peter Smith, Jenny Blake, and Pauline Wingate (London: King Edwards Hospital Fund, 1980); Mayors in Action, by John Kotter and Paul Lawrence (New York: Wiley, 1974); The Nature ofa School Superin- tendent‘s Work, by Lars L. Larson, Robert S. Bus- som, and William Vicars (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1981); “Structured Observation of Managerial Work A Replication and Synthesis,” by Mark Martinko and Wiiiam Gardner, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 27, 1990, pp. 329-357; “Similarities and Differences in the Managerial Work and Behavior of Chief Business Officers in U.S. Colleges and Universi- ties,” by N.J. Fondas, Southern Management Asso- ciation Proceedings, edited by D.F. Ray, (Mississip- pi State, MS: Southern Management Association, 1986, pp. 165-7); and Leadership and Management in Universities, by Titus Oshagbemi (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1988).

Works that focus on classifying the requirements of managerial jobs include John Hemphill’s early research, Dimensions of Execu- tive Positions (Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1960); and Walter Tornow and Patrick Pinto’s follow-up to Hemphill, “The Development of a Managerial Job Taxonomy: A System for Describing, Classi- fying, and Evaluating Executive Positions,” iour- nal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 6B, pp. 410-418. Rosemary Stewart’s research has consistently explored how managerial jobs differ. Her extensive publications include Choices JOY the Man- ager (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982), which con- tains her discussion of jobs’ different domains; Contrasts in Management (New York, Hill, 1976); and Managers and Their jobs, Second Edition (London: MacMillan, 1988). Stewart’s typology of relationship demands is described in “Classifying Different Types of Managerial Jobs,” Personnel Review, Vol. 4,1975, p. 32.

A comprehensive review of the ~tera~~e on influence methods is contained in Richard T. Mowday’s “The Exercise of Upward Influence in Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23,1978, pp. 137-156. For an explicit consid- eration of how to use influence in management and interpersonal relationships, see Inf/uence Without Authority by Allan Cohen and David Bradford (New York: john Wiley & Sons, 1990).

Edgar Schein examines career development issues for managers and other workers in “A Critical Look at Current Career Development Theory and Research,” Career Development ix Or- ganizations, edited by Douglas T. Hall and Asso- ciates (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986). The qualitative career plot is described in “A Multi- Method Sample Approach for Assessing Man- agerial Development Needs: From Felt Need to Actual Need,” by Tim 0. I’eterson and Dana 1,. McAlear (Academy of Management Best Paprs

Proceedings, 1991, pp. 127-131). Rosabeth Moss Kanter describes how managerial jobs and careers have changed recently in “The New Man- agerial Work,” Harvard Business Review, Novem- ber-December 1989, pp. 85-92; and When Giants Learn to Dance: Mastering the Challenges of Strate- gy, Management, and Careers in the 1990s (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989). In The Chang- ing Human Resources Function (New York: The Conference Board, Report # 950, 1990), A. Freedman discusses how the job of the human resources executive has evolved. The role of the transition manager is described in Richard H. Price and Thomas D’Aunno, “Managing Work

Force Reduction,” Human Resource Management, Winter 1983, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 413-430.

Recent criticisms of the standard M.B.A. curriculum have been voiced, summarized, and debated in “Management Education,” The Economist, March 2,1991, pp. 3-26; Management Education and Development: Drift or Thrust into the 21st Century? by Lyman Porter and Lawrence McKibbin; and “Roundtable on Porter and McK- ibbin’s Management Education and Develop- ment,” by Larry Cummings, Kathryn Rudie Harrigan, Marta B. Calas, and Linda Smircich, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1990, pp. 694-705.

58

Documents

A behavioral job description for managers