Managerial Work: the Influence of Hierarchical Level and Functional Specialty
170
Academy of Management Journal
March
^Academy of Management Journal 1983, Vol. 26, No. 1, 170-177.
MANAGERIAL WORK: THE INFLUENCE OF HIERARCHICAL LEVEL AND FUNCTIONAL SPECIALTY' CYNTHIA M. PAVETT University of San Diego ALAN W. LAU Navy Personnel Research and Development Center The picture of the manager as a refiective planner, organizer, leader, and controller (Fayol, 1916) recently has come under strong attack (Lau « & Pavett, 1980; McCall & Segrist, 1980; Mintzberg, 1980). In his description of managerial work, Mintzberg (1980) concluded that the manager's job can be described in terms of 10 roles within 3 areas—interpersonal, informational, and decisional—that are common to the work of all managers. Subsequent research has supported the generalizability of these role descriptions in public and private sector organizations and in lower and middle level managerial positions (Alexander, 1979; Kurke & Aldrich, 1979; Whitely, 1978). The purpose of the present paper is to examine the influence of hierarchical level and functional specialty on managerial roles and required skills, knowledge, and abilities. Mintzberg (1980) proposed that differences in managerial work involve the relative importance of the roles across hierarchical level and functional specialty. Chief executive officers (CEOs) focus considerable attention on external roles (e.g., liaison, spokesperson, figurehead) that link the environment with the organization. At lower levels of the organization, however, work is more focused, more short term in outlook, and the characteristics of brevity and fragmentation are more pronounced. As a result, the external managerial roles are relatively less important and real-time internal roles (e.g., disturbance handler, negotiator), concerned with daily operating problems and maintaining the workfiow, become relatively more important. When examining the effect of hierarchical level on the importance of Mintzberg's roles, Alexander (1979), Paolillo
Academy of Management Journal
March
^Academy of Management Journal 1983, Vol. 26, No. 1, 170-177.
MANAGERIAL WORK: THE INFLUENCE OF HIERARCHICAL LEVEL AND FUNCTIONAL SPECIALTY' CYNTHIA M. PAVETT University of San Diego ALAN W. LAU Navy Personnel Research and Development Center The picture of the manager as a refiective planner, organizer, leader, and controller (Fayol, 1916) recently has come under strong attack (Lau « & Pavett, 1980; McCall & Segrist, 1980; Mintzberg, 1980). In his description of managerial work, Mintzberg (1980) concluded that the manager's job can be described in terms of 10 roles within 3 areas—interpersonal, informational, and decisional—that are common to the work of all managers. Subsequent research has supported the generalizability of these role descriptions in public and private sector organizations and in lower and middle level managerial positions (Alexander, 1979; Kurke & Aldrich, 1979; Whitely, 1978). The purpose of the present paper is to examine the influence of hierarchical level and functional specialty on managerial roles and required skills, knowledge, and abilities. Mintzberg (1980) proposed that differences in managerial work involve the relative importance of the roles across hierarchical level and functional specialty. Chief executive officers (CEOs) focus considerable attention on external roles (e.g., liaison, spokesperson, figurehead) that link the environment with the organization. At lower levels of the organization, however, work is more focused, more short term in outlook, and the characteristics of brevity and fragmentation are more pronounced. As a result, the external managerial roles are relatively less important and real-time internal roles (e.g., disturbance handler, negotiator), concerned with daily operating problems and maintaining the workfiow, become relatively more important. When examining the effect of hierarchical level on the importance of Mintzberg's roles, Alexander (1979), Paolillo