We are all managers now C.

Grey, (Blackwell Publishers, 1999) Notes

Critical humanists such as Willmontt and Mant suggest that activities classically thought of as managerial are done
by many people in all contexts, many of whom dont see themselves and arent seen as managers. It is also
suggested that managing is not some special activity done by specified group of people but by everyone because of
human-ness rather than through knowledge or understanding of management per se.
Origin of the word management from French menager (housekeeping) and Italian maneggiare (house
handling) would seem to endorse this view, at least in earlier sense.
Technical approach to management states that management exists because certain economic and technical
necessities require it to exist.
This approach (by authors such as Reed, Thompson and McHugh) suggests via historical analysis that around
mid-19
th
century, growing complexity of organizations required new group of specialists for task of managing
these organizations.
Oliver Williamson also carried out economic analysis which suggested that management emerge (d) when it
became more efficient to internalize cost via hierarchy than it became to deal with external costs associated
with markets.
Chandler argued that management was required when unit costs were lowered by administrative
coordination.
This approach in summary is functional one: management emerges when they do because it is economically
efficient and they must emerge at such time.
Elite approach sees management as an elite group who enjoy certain social powers not available to anyone but
managers.
This approach (by authors such as Mosca and Galbraith) suggests that managers have unjustifiably claimed
notions of common good for ultimate purpose of self-service.
Berle & Means analyzed that development of managers occurs when there is separation of ownership and
control: i.e. when people who own the organization dont control it.
Granovetter and Whitley claimed that managerial elite owe their position to social forces; overtime they will
act through informal networks and formally via educational barriers to entry to preserve and perpetuate
themselves.
This approach in summary claims: management emerges through variety of social forces but remains due to
self-serving interests of the elite (the managers themselves).
Political approach draws of Marxist economy and sociology which understands management in terms of its role in
control of labor.
Contrast to the technical approach, stating that management emerged because of political reasons and
concerned primarily with control of labor.
Marglin argues main function was not to reduce cost but increase discipline: aim was never to gain larger
output for same input but to gain greater output for greater input of labor rather than resources; achieved
by disciplining work force.
Marglins analysis states discipline required technique of discipline and supervision as well as people to be
able to effectively employ these techniques: hence birth of managers.
Braverman claims scientific management (classic theory) represents massive loss of control by workers to
managers, drastically reducing their autonomy and destroying craft labor.
Regardless, political approach is still functional approach: management emerges from requirement of
workplace discipline for purposes of capital accumulation which is said to be primary aim. Essentially
workplace discipline is the function of management.
Organizational and managerial change
Fluidity between managers and non-managerial employees is increasing arguably making these boundaries
redundant.
o This has been due to organizational transformation to promote flexibility dubbed post-
bureaucratic, networked and postmodern by Heckscher, Powell and Clegg respectively.
o However this does not mean demise of management due to promotion of technique of new wave
management.
o Caution must be applied however since over 30 years ago, Burns and Stalker characterized organic
organization using similar terminology. Additionally, as per Clegg postmodern writers havent
provided more than assertions on distinctive nature of the structure.
A discourse according to Drucker sets managers as leaders who set priorities and standards, deriving their
authority through charisma rather than via traditional rational-legal manner (authority tied to legal rationale,
legitimacy and bureaucracy).
o Some version of recent management thinking particularly promotes non rational character of
leadership where leader should be visionary.
o By contrast, Knigths suggests rational variant where manager acts as strategizer.
For less senior managers, concept appear to act as coaches, team builders and facilitators who champion
particular change process or take on communicative role with responsibility for networking, relations
building and consensus forming.
In these developments, role changes to creating condition under which employees can work with great deal
of direction, are empowered and perform range of tasks to unleash their full potential as innovators rather
than just workers.
However just as status of managers was enhanced by emphasis on special qualities of managers and
representation of workers as ignorant during its emergence, it can be diminished by current understanding
of manager which erodes managers distinctive nature and representation of workers as equal partners;
regardless of empirical evidence on either of the claims made during its emergence or now. It is not
necessarily facts that change the role of managers but the perception which have equal if not greater impact
on the roles and elevated position of managers.
Heckscher argues that businesses are not just looking for obedience so through notion of empowerment,
they seek to dissuade subordination instead looking to motivate people to invent new things and make rules
obsolete which naturally requires more horizontal and less hierarchical approach.
o Peaters & Waterman claims that substituting organizational values for formal bureaucratic systems
can be considered part of sustained assault of special statuses of management. This implies that
every employee is self-directing, responsible and multi skilled working as equals towards common
goal
Koch and Godden argue that there is strong case for management to finally come to end in early half of
twenty first century from 1996 however there still exists very little published reflection on demise of
management which could suggest that reports of death of management is simply exaggerated and in fact it
is surviving and flourishing as indicated by Enteman.
o Flourishing managerialism can however be linked with demise in status of management since this
brings various activities and titles that were once thought to lie outside scope of management being
brought into the fold.



According to Heckscher, downsizing trend means managers are being treated as variable cost rather than a
fixed one potentially reducing job security.
o Two thirds of member firms of American Management Association downsized between 1988 and
1993 with middle managers being disproportionately affected.
o Wheatley (1992) found 80% of British managers were affected by restricting between 1987 and 1992
and while this may not mean reduction in status of managers, security of middle managers does
seem to be eroded.
o Management guru Tom Peters pronounced middle management is dead
o Dopson and Stewarts 1990 case study however found managers invigorated by enhanced
challenges and responsibilities.
o Most extensive study of middle managers in UK (Thomas and Dunkerley) seemed to support positive
images presented by Dopson and Steward rather than opposite.
Notion of demise of management is not directly related to condition of managerial work however there may
be link for tendency towards strengthening and individualization of managerial work according to Ezzamel.
Demise of management as per three approaches which explained their origin
Technical view states that requirements of organization and extent to which it can be met by fulltime
managers have changed.
o Full time salaried managers are uneconomical in coordinating organization because of shorter
production run (processes needed to manufacture a good) and declining cost of manager substitute
provided by information and expert systems (AI which can emulate decision making capacity of
human expert).
o It is more efficient to remove or change dedicated management team by rehiring managers as
consultants or employing managers on need basis via temporary contracts: essentially externalizing
cost to market than internalizing them.
o Networks are seen as more functional alternative to traditional hierarchy and markets.
Elite view states that capacity of managers to maintain and extend their social power has been reduced.
o Elite like managers are created in face of opposition and with socio-economic context so power of
elite is changeable: as seen by various power factions in history.
o Due in part to demise of USSR (opposing force) and lack of constant prosperity in west, according to
Locke management mystique is collapsing and with it capacity of management to reproduce and its
claims over privileges it enjoys.
o According to Drucker this means management as institution doesnt have the status that it once
held; being a manager no longer commands same respect and power.
o But according to Mosca, elites are capable of transformation and change so current situation may
not be demise of managers merely birth of new kind of management elite: stereotype of
organization man being replaced with brash, big league consultant fluent in business jargon
parachuting from one assignment to next.
Essentially question becomes are managers changing to consultants?
Political view states that diminishing status of management is because of changing combination of economic
and historical combination and because of changing view of labor discipline.
o Replacement of managers with technology or change in their contractual terms indicates that
managers are wage laborers like others but combination of circumstances gave them a special
status; circumstances which are now changing so naturally theres squeeze on management.
o According to Barker and Ray, empowerment and culture management represents change in labor
control strategy where instead of being managed by managers; workers manage themselves which
according to Swell & Wilkinson may be more effective and efficient.

Reponses to the decline
Since the decline recognizes and awards value to self-management by workers, critical humanist authors
have welcomed the new management thinking and organization changes.
Leading figures such as Parker, Alvesson and Willmott acknowledged and welcomed the shift in
organizational structure and self-management claiming it leads to increase employee responsibility and
autonomy as well as creating organization citizenship, with caveats.
This however assumes management itself as transcendent activity which is disputed by Wren who claims
that management arises as soon as there is multiple people working together towards common goal.
o People found they can get more output by working with others which leads to recognizing some are
better at some tasks than others causing labor division resulting in agreement of structure and
interrelation of tasks thus developing hierarchy of authority and power.
o Essentially management is inevitable result of division of labor and long standing feature of society;
so modern management is at its roots is natural although its techniques are constantly being refined
and improved.
Author suggests that presuming act of managing exists independently from managers could cause
everything to be termed as management which is a problem as he suggests because it has potential to
reduce diverse human activity to management and manageability rather than restoring management to
everyone but also because doing so dilutes the term to such an extent that it is meaningless.
Notable however is the fact that the journal was published almost 14 years ago and despite predictions and
a financial collapse blamed on banking mismanagement, management is not dead.