Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm
Struggles of
Struggles of managerial being and managerial being
becoming and becoming
Experiences from managers’ personal
development training 167
Thomas Andersson
University of Skövde, Skövde, Sweden and Gothenburg Research Institute,
School of Technology and Society, Gothenburg, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the struggles of managerial identity in relation
to the process of becoming/being a manager, and the personal conflicts involved within this process.
Design/methodology/approach – In a qualitative, longitudinal project, five managers were
studied for two years using interviews and observations. This was undertaken before, during, and
after their participation in personal development training. In total, 62 interviews and eight half-day
observations were conducted.
Findings – The study puts emphasis on the role of management training in providing templates for
“how to be a manager”, but it also illustrates the double-edged and complex role played by context in
managerial being and becoming. On the one hand context shapes managerial identity; on the other
hand, context might operate to dilute the identity an individual manager wishes to assume.
Research limitations/implications – The study focuses on only five managers in two
organizations. This small sample limits the generalisabilty of the research.
Practical implications – Management training tends to be based on the idea that management
concerns the acquisition of competencies, techniques and personal awareness, while managerial
practice is more fluid and contextually based. There is a challenge for organizers of all types of
management training to bridge the gap between a fixed idea of what it is to be a manager and how
management is actually practised.
Originality/value – The longitudinal and in-depth qualitative approach facilitates an important
contribution to understanding issues in developing a managerial identity.
Keywords Managerialism, Managers, Self development, Management training
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
What does being a manager in an organization mean? According to organizational
research (e.g. Collinson, 2003; Thomas and Linstead, 2002; Watson, 2001), this is not a
simple question. In fact, many researchers question whether there is a definitive state
of “managerial being” at all, since managerial identities are characterized by
fragmentation and are in a constant state of fluidity, rather than permanence and
stability (Alvesson and Willmott, 2002). In short, managerial identities might best be
described as constantly emerging, that is, as a process of becoming rather than a state
of being.
The idea of becoming a manager, however, remains undeveloped in the literature. Journal of Management Development
Vol. 29 No. 2, 2010
The common understanding is that management is something that is clearly pp. 167-176
identifiable, for example, as a collection of competencies, or as a particular set of roles q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0262-1711
(e.g. Quinn et al., 2003). This understanding is represented in management training, as DOI 10.1108/02621711011019305
JMD it implies that management is something that can be “learned” through courses and
29,2 training (Andersson, 2005). However, when managers describe how they “learned” to
be managers, they seem often to be dismissive of programmes, courses and books
concerning the subject (Watson and Harris, 1999). Instead, managers “learn” mainly
through practice in a long-term process of constantly becoming a manager (Watson,
2001), which continues throughout the manager’s working life (Mintzberg, 2004).
168 Becoming a manager is about mastering the process of “becoming” rather than
learning the managerial techniques of “being” (Hill, 1992).
Managers, however, might long for the stability and security that a
competence/skill perspective represents. For some managers, the idea that
management is an ongoing fluid process might create stress and insecurity (Watson,
2001). The putative post-bureaucratic, flat and network-based organizations that
characterize the changing business environment may increase this personal stress.
People, and especially managers, in such organizations consequently find themselves
in complex and multifaceted situations (McKenna, 1999a) that challenge their sense of
a coherent identity (Collinson, 2003). Sense making then becomes the core activity of
managerial work (McKenna, 1999b), since managers need to make sense of every
situation and of “who they are” in specific situations to be able to act.
Consequently, there is a tension between ideas emphasizing that management can
be learned out of the contexts in which it operates and the practice of management
occurring in context. Managers have to manage this tension and live out this conflict
between being a manager, but paradoxically, always becoming a manager and
becoming. This paper examines this conflict based on a study of five managers
participating in a management-training programme. While managerial identities are
better understood in the context of processes of becoming, managers may focus more
on “being” a particular kind of manager in line with prevailing discourses of what it is
to “be” a manager that emanates from management training, specific organizations
and/or society as a whole.
Method
Qualitative methods are the most appropriate for the study of management and
managers in relation to processes and experiences involved in being and becoming a
manager. Such methods provide proximity to the managers studied and allow
JMD descriptions of the complexity of everyday life (Llewellyn, 2007; McKenna, 2002). In
29,2 this research programme five managers were studied in two organizations, before,
during and after their participation in an eight-month personal development-training
programme. In total the managers were studied for two years. The longitudinal
character of the study was important as repeated observations and interviews enabled
an assessment of the managers’ experiences over time.
170 Personal development training for managers is a popular trend in management
training (Andersson, 2008b; Conger, 1993a, b; Luo, 2002). The purpose of such training
is to develop a manager’s self-knowledge and awareness. This type of training is
especially interesting since it promotes the idea that by finding an inner self and
listening to it a manager can be more authentic and sure of their identity (O’Hara and
Anderson, 1995). This study of five managers sought to understand what effect their
participation in such a programme would have on their self-image in relation to
being/becoming a manager. By following the managers before, during and after the
training, it was possible to see how managers negotiated the issues and processes
involved in being and becoming a manager.
The five managers work at two different organizations that are designated in this
study as Alpha, a governmental organization dominated by veterinarians and Beta, a
large publicly listed IT consultancy firm. The two organizations have very different
management structures; Alpha is loosely structured with informal lines of authority
and responsibility, while Beta is tightly structured with a clear and formal
management hierarchy. The names I use for the five managers are David, Paula and
Richard at Alpha, and Christine and Maria at Beta.
During the two-year study, observations were made at the two organizations and
interviews were conducted with the five managers, their subordinates, peers,
managers, and the leaders of the training programme. In total, sixty-two interviews
were conducted (22 with the five managers and 40 with people around them), and eight
half-day observations were made. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The
data was analyzed in relation to the issues of being/becoming a manager in the context
of the three timeframes, before, during and after the personal development training.
The empirical material is structured in three themes: what it is “to be a manager”;
organizational and work relationship requirements of being a manager vs personal
identity preferences of managers and; negotiating a new managerial identity within the
organization after personal development training. These seemed to be the main
struggles for all five managers, and the data presented in the following sections
highlights these issues.
Conclusion
This study supports the research that describes management and managers in
becoming terms, but it highlights the fact that abstractions of managerial being in
terms of identity templates influence these becoming processes, both by
forming/regulating managerial becoming processes and by nurturing a wish to
become in certain ways. This study put emphasis on the role of management training
in providing templates for “how to be a manager”, but it also illustrates the complex
role of context in managerial being and becoming. On the one hand context creates the
fluid character that makes managerial becoming inevitable and managerial being
almost impossible to achieve in an absolute sense, which is in line with previous
research results. On the other hand context, in the form of work relationships and
specific organizational discourses, puts pressure on managers to “be” in specific ways.
Managers struggle to balance these expectations (and other) with their own personal
beliefs about “how to be a manager”. Since there are always many different managerial
identity templates “floating around” at the same time, managerial becoming processes
are always “going on”. Consequently, managerial being (abstractions of “how to be”)
and managerial becoming (frequently adjusting to expectations of “how to be”)
influence each other all the time.
JMD The managerial implications of this research are related both to management
29,2 training in general and the specific type of management training based on personal
development. The most important general result is that management training tends to
be based on “categories of management”, while practice is more fluid. There is
consequently a challenge for organizers of all types of management training to bridge
the “being” of training and the “becoming” of practice. Off-site training means
174 increased difficulties in bridging these, since management to a large extent is
contextual and relational specific. There is a need for incorporating potential
contextual and relational changes into the training. In general, management training
would gain from being better incorporated with participating managers’ organizations.
Post-training support is essential to create organizational learning, since managers
might have difficulties to realise their potential changes within the organization.
A specific result regarding personal development training is that the personal
development process may confuse participants who may discover a disconnection
between an aspired “new” identity and the managerial identity they are required to
have in their working context. Personal development nurtures the idea that you should
“be who you are” which means a non-context specific managerial being that not
synchronize with their daily reality of required constant managerial becoming.
References
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (2002), “Identity regulation as organizational control: producing
the appropriate individual”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 619-44.
Andersson, T. (2005), “Managers’ identity work – experiences from introspective management
training”, doctoral thesis, BAS, Göteborg University, Göteborg.
Andersson, T. (2008a), Identity Work and Identity Regulation in Managers’ Personal Development
Training, GRI report 2008, Göteborg University, Göteborg, p. 7.
Andersson, T. (2008b), “Personal growth and sensitivity training – fashions in management and
management research”, International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 38
No. 2, pp. 61-82.
Andersson, T. and Wickelgren, M. (2009), “Who is colonizing whom? Intertwined identities in
product development projects”, Ephemera – Theory & Politics in Organization, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 169-82.
Bourdieu, P. (1990), The Logic of Practice, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Boyatzis, R. and Akrivou, K. (2006), “The ideal self as the driver of intentional change”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 624-42.
Chia, R. (2007), “Ontology”, in Clegg, S. and Bailey, J. (Eds), International Encyclopedia of
Organization Studies, Sage, London.
Collinson, D. (2003), “Identities and insecurities: selves at work”, Organization, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 527-47.
Conger, J.A. (1993a), “The brave new world of leadership training”, Organizational Dynamics,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 46-58.
Conger, J.A. (1993b), “Personal growth training: snake oil or pathway to leadership?”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 19-30.
Costas, J. and Fleming, P. (2009), “Beyond dis-identification: a discursive approach to
self-alienation in contemporary organizations”, Human Relations, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 353-78.
Doyle, M. (2000), “Managing development in an era of radical change: evolving a relational Struggles of
perspective”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 579-601.
managerial being
Fiol, M., Hatch, M.J. and Golden-Biddle, K. (1998), “The identity of organizations”, in Whetten, D.
and Godfrey, P. (Eds), Identity in Organizations – Building Theory through Conversations, and becoming
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 33-82.
Gergen, K. (1995), “The healthy, happy human being wears many masks”, in Anderson, W.T.
(Ed.), The Truth about the Truth – De-confusing and Re-constructing the Postmodern 175
World, Putnam Books, New York, NY, pp. 136-44.
Gergen, K. and Thatchenkery, T.J. (1996), “Organization science as social construction:
postmodern potentials”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 356-77.
Hill, L. (1992), Becoming a Manager – Mastery of a New Identity, Business School Press, Boston,
MA.
Llewellyn, S. (2007), “Case studies and differentiated realities”, Qualitative Research in
Accounting & Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 53-68.
Luo, X. (2002), “From technical skills to personal development: employee training in US
organizations in the twentieth century”, in Sahlin-Andersson, K. and Engwall, L. (Eds),
The Expansion of Management Knowledge Carriers, Flows and Sources, Stanford
University Press, Stanford, CA.
McKenna, S. (1999a), “Learning through complexity”, Management Learning, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 301-20.
McKenna, S. (1999b), “Maps of complexity and organizational learning”, Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 18 No. 9, pp. 772-93.
McKenna, S. (1999c), “Storytelling and ‘real’ management competence”, Journal of Workplace
Learning, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 95-104.
McKenna, S. (2002), “Can knowledge of the characteristics of ‘high performers’ be generalised?”,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 680-701.
McKenna, S. (2004), “Predispositions and context in the development of managerial skills”,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 664-77.
Mintzberg, H. (2004), Managers not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practising of Managing and
Management Development, FT Prentice-Hall, Harlow.
O’Hara, M. and Anderson, W.T. (1995), “Psychotherapy’s own identity crisis”, in Anderson, W.T.
(Ed.), The Truth about the Truth – De-confusing and Re-constructing the Postmodern
World, Putnam Books, New York, NY, pp. 170-6.
Quinn, R., Faerman, S., Thompson, M. and McGrath, M. (2003), Becoming a Master Manager:
A Competency Framework, Wiley, New York, NY.
Ruth, D. (2006), “Frameworks of managerial competence: limits, problems and suggestions”,
Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 206-26.
Schatzki, T. (2005), “The sites of organizations”, Organization Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 465-84.
Sveningsson, S. and Alvesson, M. (2003), “Managing managerial identities: organizational
fragmentation, discourse and identity struggle”, Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 10,
pp. 1163-93.
Tengblad, S. (2002), “Time and space in managerial work”, Scandinavian Journal of
Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 543-66.
Tengblad, S. (2006), “Is there a ‘new managerial work’? A comparison with Henry Mintzberg’s
classic study 30 years later”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 1437-61.
JMD Thomas, R. and Linstead, A. (2002), “Losing the plot? Middle managers and identity”,
Organization, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 71-93.
29,2 Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. (2002), “On organizational becoming: rethinking organizational
change”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 567-82.
Watson, T. (2001), In Search of Management. Culture, Chaos and Control in Managerial Work,
Thomson Learning, London.
176 Watson, T. (2006), Organising and Managing Work, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Harlow.
Watson, T. (2008), “Managing identity: identity, work, personal predicaments and structural
circumstances”, Organization, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 121-43.
Watson, T. and Harris, P. (1999), The Emergent Manager, Sage, London.