motivational analysis of organizations

ased on other managers’ styles, they quickly lose their impact once the seminars are
completed.
Others publish works designed to chart new directions for indoctrinating managers
in a more “practical” way. McCormack (1984, 1989) offers a body of nontraditional,
“street smart” advice. After noting that most business training tends to overlook what he
calls the “ins and outs of everyday business life,” McCormack urges managers to
become skilled at dealing with people, mastering sales and negotiating, and learning the
basics of running a business. Although this offers a healthy dose of real-world political
awareness to new managers, it and a follow-up volume by the same author ultimately
fall short of providing an overarching, coherent theme. Studies such as these are worthy
of being included in a curriculum, but they cannot stand as the curriculum itself.
What Do Managers Really Do?
A series of research studies combine to point the way toward a more useful approach for
training new managers. Kraut (1989) studied over 1,400 executives/managers/
supervisors, and identified seven key tasks that members of all groups performed, with
varying degrees of importance attached to each task. This approach does come
dangerously close to the older trait-based leadership approach, but differs in that skills
can be learned, while it is arguable whether learned behavioral traits can ever appear
genuine to others (i.e., subordinates).
The results of Kraut’s study are supported by models that demonstrate that top-level
managers need more conceptual skills than their lower-ranking counterparts. First-line
supervisors require more technical skills, while the dwindling ranks of middle managers
need a lot of human resource skills and smaller amounts of both conceptual and
technical skills. The seven tasks identified in Kraut’s study include elements of the older
PLOCS model, plus newer components:
1. Managing individual performance: of high importance for supervisors, low
importance for executives;
2. Instructing subordinates: of high importance for supervisors, low for executives;
3. Planning and allocating resources: of high importance for managers, low for
supervisors;
4. Coordinating interdependent groups: of high importance for executives, low for
supervisors;
5. Managing group performance: of high importance for managers, low for
supervisors;
6. Monitoring the organization’s environment: of high importance for executives,
low for supervisors;
7. Representing one’s employees: of high importance for managers, low for
supervisors.
196 ❘❚
The Pfeiffer Library Volume 19, 2nd Edition. Copyright © 1998 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer