Hacettepe Üniversitesi E itim Fakültesi Dergisi 13: 9-20 [1997}

M A N A GERI A L ROLES A PPRO A C H A N D T H E PRO M I N E N T ST U D Y O FH E NRY M I N T Z BERG A N D SO ME EMPIRI C A L ST U D I ES UPO N T H E

PRI N C IP A LS W OR K

Berrin Burgaz.

ABSTRACI': The aims of this paper are to present theManagerial Roles Approach which is one of the ways usedin analysing managerial work; to offer the results of HenryMintzberg's outstanding study in which he analysed themanagerial work by using the descriptive research methodand stmctured observation technique; to exhibit same find-ings of empirical studies carried out in the field of educa-tional administration with the same method and technique.

KEY WORDS: Managerial Roles Approach, The Work-Activity School, Managerial work

ÖZET: Bu makalenin amacı, yönetim i ini analiz et-mede kullanılan yollardan biri olan Yönetimse! Roller Yak-la ımını tanıtmak; Henry Mintzberg'in,betimse! ara tırmayöntemini ve yapılandırılmı gözlem tekni ini kullanarakyönetimsel i i analiz etti i çarpıcı ara tırmasının sonuçlarınıortaya koymak ve e itim yönetimi alanında yapılmı bazıampirik ara tırma bulgularını sunmaktır.

ANAHTAR SÖZCÜKLER: Yönetimsel Roller Yak la ımı, -etkinlik Okulu, Yönetimsel i .

1. INTRODUCTION

Studies on organisation and management traceback thousands of years. However, the systematicdevelopment of management thought generally datesback from the end of the ninetieth century in whichthe large industrial organisations emerge.

Management is a quite discursive subject andmuch has been written about it. Therefore, the studyof organisations and their management requires acomprehensive q.nalysis. That only a single approachto organisation and management provides all the an-swers can hardly be maintained. Different ap-proaches should be comparatively studied.

it was only observed a few remarkable ap-proaches to management until the early 1950's, suchas classical approach and human relations approach.But, since then, as to what management is, whatmanage me nt theory is and how managerial work orevents should be analysed, the various approaches tomanagement and much differing views have beenappeared. This situation resulted in much confusion

in order to appreciate and probe the managementand its ensuing problems and the man.agerial rolesand events, ete. Some years ago, an author who at-tempted to classify the various "schools" of man-agement theory called this situation "the managementtheory jungle" [1].

Certainly, it could be observed that many differentapproaches were diversely categorised by differentauthors. Familiarity with the approaches to man-agement analysis can help one appreciate many in-sights, ideas and help one avoid re-examining pre-viously known ideas. Figure 1 summarises thevarious approaches to management analysis in thefoUowing categories [2].

As seen in Figure 1, one of these approaches isManagerial Roles Approach that will be strived to ex-plain in the following section.

2. TIIE MANAGERIAI.. ROLES APPROACH

The Managerial Roles Approach which is one ofthe newer approaches to management analysis hasbeen popularised by Henry Mintzberg. Mintzberg hasgiven this approach higher visibility although manyresearchers have studied the actual work of man-agers. This approach is related to the Work-ActivitySchooL.

The Work-Activity School of management dealswith the actual activities of managers which are an-alysed systematicaUy and conclusions are drawn onlywhen they can be supported by the empirical ev-idence, therefore the researchers of this school relieson inductive methodology. The research methodsused are largely similar and in most cases compari-sons can be easily made to incorporate thefindingsof previous studies for the development of new con-clusions.

In the Work-Activity School, and also in the Man-agerial Roles Approach, the main purpose is to an-alyse the managerial work , in other words, to de-scribe and map out what the managers really do. Inanalysing the managerial work the researchers havemostly used the diary technique or two observationaltechniques: activity sampling and stmctured observa-tion [3].

Assit. Prof. Dr. Berrin Burgaz, Hacettepe University, Departement of Edueational Scienees, Division of Edueational Administration, Su-pervision, Planning and Eeonomics of Edueation.

10 Berrin Burgaz

Figure 1. Approaches to Management

[ J. ofEd. 13

C H A R A C T ERlST I CS/C O N T RI B ı m O NS

LI M I T A T I O NS ILLUST R A T I O N

EMPIRI C A L, OR C ASE, A PPRO A C H

Studies experience through cases.Identifies successes and faHure

Situations are all different. No at-tempt to identify principles. Limitedvalue for developing managementtheory .

I N T ERPERSO N A L BE H A V I O UR A PPRO A C H

Focus on interpersonal behaviour,human relations, leadership andmotivation. Based on individualpsychology

Ignores planning, organising andcontrolling. Psychological training isnot enough to become an effectivemanager.

GRO UP BE H A V I O UR A PPRO A C H

F O C US O F ST U D Y

Emphasis on behaviour of peoplein groups. Based on sociology andsocial psychology. Primarily studyof group behaviour patterns. Thestudy of large groups is of ten called"organisation behaviour" .

Of ten not integrated with man-agement concepts, principles, the-ory, and techniques. Need for dos-er integration with organisationstructure design, staffing, planningand controlling.

Study ofa ,roup

Study af " D U ,,_ı n ı .r .et i n , with

..ch O ther

C O-OPER A T I V E SO C I A l.. SYST EMS A PPRO A C H

Concerned with both interpersonaland group behavioural aspectsleading to a system co-operation.Expanded concept indudes any co-operative group with dear purpose.

Too broad a field for the study ofmanagement. At the same time, itoverlooks many managerial con-cepts, principles, and techniques.

SO C I O T EC H N I C A L A PPRO A C H

Technical system has great effecton social system (personal at-titudes, group behaviour). Focus onproduction, office operations, andother areas with dose relationshipsbetween the technical system andpeople

Emphasis only on blue-collar andlower-level office work . Ignoresmuch of other managerial knowl-edge.

11111i!!i ;;;;;;1c c c CM.eh ı n_ O " I C80...,..lon

P.r I O I V I I

.'..'ud.,

Group behav,or

D EC ISI O N T I lE ORY A PPRO A C H

Focus on the making of decisions,persons or groups making de-cisions, and the decision-makingprocess. Some theorists use de-cision making as a springboard tostudyall enterprise activities. Theboundaries of studyare no longerdearly defined.

There is more to managing thanmaking decisions. The focus is atthe same time too narrowand toowide.

Pr DeftS ofd.c ı , ı onmek ı n ı

~-tndIYldu.1d.cl.lonmek'ng

E nt....,.. olhu ı ı

n M'act ı v ı ı y

V .lu.. o,d.a ı ..anm8......

N , ı u r . ofor I8n ...,.on" ,uc.ur. G ı oup

I nfor mauondectatantn ...t.r ,.. " n __ ı ...__

Managerial Roles Approach and the Prominent Study of Henry Mintzberg and Some Empirical StudiesUpon The Principals Work

11

SYST EMS A PPRO A C H

Systems concepts have broad ap-plieability. Systems have boundaries,but theyalsa interaet with the ex-temal environment, Le., organisationsare open systems. Recognises im-portance of studying interralatedness

of planning, organising, and con-trolling in an organisation as well asthe many subsystems.

Analyses of the interrelatedness ofsystems and subsystems as well asthe interactions of organisationswith their external environment.Can hardly be considered a newapproach to management.

o oo

M A T H EM A T lC A L OR " M A N A GEME N T SClE N CE " A PPRO A C H

Managing is seen as mathematical pro-cesses, concepts, syrnbols, and models.Looks at management as a purely log-ical process, expressed in mathematicalsyrnbols and relationships

Preoccupation with mathematicalmodels. Many aspects in managingcannot be modelled. Mathematics isa useful tool, but hardly a school oran approach to management.

C O N T I N GE N C Y OR SI T U A T l O N A PPRO A C H

Managerial practice depends on cir-cumstances (Le. contingency or sit-uation). Contingency theory rec-ognises the influence of givensolutions on organisational be-haviour patterns.

Managers have long realised thatthere is no one best way to dothings. Difficulty in determining allrelevant contingency factors andshowing the ir relationships. Can bevery complex.

M A N A GERI A L ROLES A PPRO A C H

Original study consisted of observa-tions of five chief executives. Onthe basis of this study, ten man-agerial roles were identified andgrouped into O) interpersonal, (2)informational and (37 decisionroles.

Original sample was very small.Same activities are not managerial.Activities are evidence of planning,organising, staffing, leading andcontrolling. But same importantmanagerial activities were left out(e.g., appraising managers).

MC K I NSE Y'S 7-S FR A ME W OR K

The seven S'S are (1) strategy, (2)structure, (3) systems, (4) style, (5)staff, (6) shared values, (7) skills.

A lthough this experienced consultingfırm now uses a framework similar tothe one found useful by Koontz et al.since 1955 and confırms its practical-ity, the terms used are precise andtopics are not discussed in depth.

OPER A T l O N A L A PPRO A C H

Sys ı .n ,.

'-.'0" ~

s" Wsı."5" '" . Sh.,... v8k18a

Draws together concepts, prin-ciples, techniques, and knowledgefrom other fields and managerialapproaches. The attempt is to de-velop science and theory with prac-tical application. Distingui.shes be-tween managerial and non-managerial knowledge. Developsclassification system built aroundthe managerial funcUons of planing,organising, staffing, leading, andcontrolling.

Does not as same authors do, iden-tify representing" or co-ordinatian" as a separate function.Co-ordination, for example, is theessence of managership and is thepurpose of managing.

Year Method Period ofResearcher Reported Used Subjects Study (Days) Special Interests

Carlson 1951 Diary 9 Senior managers 216 Finding common behaviour patterns(managing directors) (Particularly communication) in the

work of managing directorsBurns 1954 Diary 4 Middle Managers 103 Relationship of managers in one

departmental groupBurns 1957 Diary 76 Senior and middle 1520 How managers spend their time

managersCopeman 1963 Diary 58 Senior and middle 290 Comparison of work of chief

managers executives and department headsDubin, Spray 1964 Diary 8 Senior and middle 80 How managers spend their time

managersBrewer, Tomlinson 1964 Diary 6 Senior manager 105 Decision-making behaviourHome, Lupton 1965 Diary 66 Middle managers 330 How managers spend their timeThomason 1966-67 Diary Various configurations not reported Communication centres

of managersLawler, Porter 1968 Diary 105 Middle and lower 525 Manager's reactions toward

Tennenbaum level mangers interaction episodesStewart 1967 Diary 160 Seni or and 3200b Variations in manageriat jobs

managersKelly 1964 Activity 4 Foremen (section 60b How section managers spend the ir

sampling mangers time

Ponder 1957 Observation 24 Foremen 48 Foremen effectivenessLandsberger 1962 Observation 3 Middle managers 6 Horizontal relationshipsGuest, jasinski 1956 Observation 56 Foremen 56 How foremen spend the ir time

12 Berrin Burgaz [ J ofEd. 13

Diary techniques record actual work of managers.Managers themselves record their work-activities byusing a precoded pad. Sune Carlson (1951) Rose-mary Stewart (1967) and other researchers [3] haveused the diary technique for the study of managerialwork-analysis, but it has been regarded that it was auseful to ol for the study of managerial work char-acteristics but not the study of work content whichlead to statements of managerial roles. Hence, thediary technique is most useful where the categories,such as place of work , participants and so forth, areknown and where we wish to study the time dis-tribution among known work factors.

Activity sampling is another technique in whichthe researcher records the activities of managers atrandom time intervals through actual observation.The researcher photographs the manager's actions byperiodicaııy using this technique. However, the re-searcher cannot be exposed to the activity continu-ously, thus the interpretation of complex aspects ofthe activity becomes difficult. Activity sampling is ef-fective when the topic of study is weıı understoodand the activities can be coded simply and quick ly.

Table 1. Empirical Studies of Managerial Work Activities

Structured observation technique includes a va-riety of more systematic forms of observation. Thistechnique is similar to the diary method but the onlyreal difference is that recording is done by the re-searcher instead of the manager. Structured observa-tion is a time-consuming technique, because the re-searcher must be present at aıı times in the workplace selected while observing the managers, prin-cipals, administrators or foremen. Hence, the re-searchers used this technique had to take a limitedsample. The more the sample size becomes mu chgreater, the more the researcher spends much time. lthas a highly cost of time but the onlyone that en-ables the researcher to stEdy systematicaııy and com-prehensively various part of managerial work . TheTable 1 lists some empirical studies of managerialwork activities depending on the techniques men-tioned above [3].

Certainly, there has be en some other empiricalstudies used different research techniques, but inTable 1 only ten diary studies and three by observa-tion and one by activity sampling are included.

1997 ] Managerial Roles Approach and the Prominent Study of Henry Mintzberg and Same Empirical StudiesUpon Ibe Principals Work

3. MINTZBERG'S STUDY: THE NATURE OF In the following paragraphs, a summaıy will be givenMANAGERIAL WORK ab out the first two groups with the findings of some

empirical studies of work activities.In 1968, Mintzberg completed his doctoral thesis

titled "The Manager at Work-Determining His activ-ities, Roles and Programs by Structured Observation"at the MIT Sloan School of Management, based onstudy of work of five chief executives. In 1970, he re-viewed and rearranged his thesis. However, it wasnot to be the same publication of his thesis but itwas to be a new book titled The Nature of Manageri-al Work , dealing not only with his study of the workof five chief executives, at the same time with empir-ical studies of many other managers as welL.

Mintzberg's study also falls into the Work-ActivitySchooL. His prime objective was to describe thework-content by observing managers' work-activities.His study revealed a lack of satisfactoıy descriptivedata on the content of managerial work . In otherwords, there was little to tell us what managers ac-tually do.

Mintzberg's study is a landmark one among stud-ies of Work-activity School and provides a powerfulbase for developing the rich descriptive view of man-age me nt, therefore the focus of his study is on the"real " matter rather than the " ideal " , the " is" ratherthan "ought " [4].

He selected aresearch methodology that is in-ductive, comprehensive and intensive. it was in-ductive because the purpose was to develop a gener-al statement of managerial role s from a study ofspecific managers. it was comprehensive because ithad to capture the whole work of managing and itwas intensive because it had to examine deeply thecomplex set of managerial activities.

Structured observation was chosen as the tech-nique for the study by Mintzberg. This technique re-stricted the sample size and he obtained less quan-titative data on work characteristics in his study thanthose in a comparable diaıy study, but more pow-erful qualitative data on activity-content. Mintzbergobserved five chief executives in all for one weekeach , a superintendent of a large suburban schoolsystem, a chairman and chief executiye officer of amajor consulting firm, a president of a firm that pro-duced sophisticated technological products for in-dustıy and defence, a head of a large urban hospital,a president of a firm producing consumer goods.

Mintzberg's study describes the work of managerfrom four points of view: O) the work characteristicscomman to all managers, (2) the manager' s work interms of ten basic roles, (3) the variations in man-agers' work using the common roles and character-istics, and (4) the programming the manager's work .

13

3.1. Managerial Work Characteristics

Managers are found in all kinds of organisationswhen people attempt to work together to achieve acommon purpose. Theyare responsible for the suc-ce ss of the ir organisations and the reality is that man-agers find themselves working at unending rates.However, there is a "folk lore" which relates to theidea that managers are reflective, systematic plannerswith eveıything in its time and place [S]. Mintzbergand Guest assert that the managers assume "an un-relenting pace" in their work which is characterisedby variety, brevity and fragmentation and theyarestrongly proactive and dislike reflective activities [3,4].

Mintzberg observed the activities of five chief ex-ecutives at work and found that the variety of activ-ities to be performed is great and the managers en-counters this variety of activities continuouslythroughout each working day. Another revealing factwas that there was a lack of pattem among activitiesand that managers seem to jump from issue to issuewith no organised pattem of scheduled time, there-fore it requires that managers shift moods quick lyand frequently. Figure 2 provides a great variety inthe content of verbal contacts and mail [3].

Another surprising po int is that manager's activ-ities have the brevity. The manager becomes condi-tioned by his overload and thus he develops an ap-preciation for the opportunity cost of his own time.

D ist r ibution of I Dcom i ng Mai l by Pu rpose

Even " ...

Report. .,.$o K eU ı tion l

'"

'erIocI!ciine.. LS"

D I ler itu r ion or Ro u n i . V ,tbai Con l I C I by Pu rpoM

{

01> " "'110011lO1In i,.

Reee"'I..ınr ılon Inro...lllotı 16,.- . G"'I..Inr lio. .,.

LıO 16,.

M "

j

rcqu '"

A< tIonrcqu nt ı 12"

RequesuII,.

StatusrequesU i ....

E1ılım.1 board

j

wor k 5 "c..emony 12,.

ItwlM1lıySchodullna3,. 21,.O rpn i utionaJ

wor k 2,.

Figure 2. The Purposes of Managerial Activities.

Groups Stewart's Mintzberg's Jasinski's Kelly'sstudy study study study

Subordinates 41% 48% 46% 50%

Superiors(bosses,directors) 12% 7% 10%. 20%

Others 47% 44% 44% 30%

[ J. ofEd. 13

face), the scheduled meeting (formal face-to-face)and the tour (visual). The managers favour the verbalmedia and spends most of time in verbal contact. Fig-ure 4 indicates that verbal interaction accounted for78 percent of the managers' time and 67 percent oftheir activities [3];

14 Berrin Burgaz

Guest and Ponder found extreme brevity at the fore-men level, in the first case 48 seconds average dura-tion per activity, in the second case 2 minutes [6, 7].

In Mintzberg's study, half of the observed activitieswere completed in less than nine minutes and onlyone-tenth took more than an hour. it exhibits that themanagers were seldom willing to spend much timeon any one issue in any one case. Figure 3 shows thedistribution of activities by duration (in hours) [3].

Both Carison and Stewart emphasise the char-acteristics of fragmentation in managerial work [8,9]. Carison notes that only 12 times in the 35 days ofher study, the manager worked undisturbed in his of-fice for intervals of at least 23 minutes [8]. RosemaryStewart found that they averaged only nine periodsof at least one-half hour without interruption for fourweeks [9]. And also Mintzberg explained that themanagers did not choose to free themselves of inter-ruption or to give themselves much free time andthat the manager's work was interrupted by the fac-tors encouraged by himself as well as by his sub-ordinates and the others [3].

Figure 3. Frequency DOistribution of ManagerialActivities by Duration

- -1 A .. " " ,

. ., m ı ll ı i l "

T .lcp CIL..

ı A " " 'I ı.

6'm i ll ı ı " ,

Sdıedulcd _ii...

--------- ~ ...To....

20r

iA N ,.,' -I l m ı ı ı u,,,

0-- · - · ->0.1 0.1 0.2 O.J 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 O.' 0.9

,'1.0-1.4 1.5-1.9 :>2.0

D u rallan i .. H D UR

The other characteristics of managerial work canbe put in order as in the following:

a. Managers prefer and emphasise the more activeelements of his work- the current, the specific, thewell-defined, the non-routine activities;

b. Managers use five basic media: thernail (doc-umented communication), the telephone (purely ver-bal), the unscheduled meeting (informal face-to-

Figure 4. Distribution of Time and Activities by Media

Distribuıion or Houn

Vnscheduledmeeıings 10%

Scheduledmect i ngs59%

Tours3%

[)esk work 22%

Telephone cals. 6%

Di.ırubuıion or Number or Acıiviıies

Deskworlt33%

VDICheduIedmeetings

19%Telephone

call. 24%ScheduIedMeeıing.

19%

c. The manager maintains communication re-latianship with three groups- superiors, outsiders andsubordinates. The following table depicts the pro-portions of total contact time spent with each groupin different studies [3, 9, 10, 11].

Table 2. Distribution of Total Contact Time in dif-ferent studies

As seen in Table 2, subordinates generally con-sume approximately one-half of the manager's con-tact time and extemal contacts consume one-third toone-half of the manager's contact time, but the man-ager spends relatively Httle of his time with superior,approximately 10 percent of his contact time.

In condusion, the pressures of his work force themanager to be superficial in his activities -to overloadhimself with work , encourage interruption, respondquick ly to every stimulus, tend the tangible and avoidthe abstract, make decisions in smaIl inerements, anddo everything in a hectic way.

1997 ] Managerial RolesApproachand theProminentStudy of HenryMintzberg and Same Empirical StudiesUponThePrincipals Work

3.2. T he Manager ial Roles Figure 5. The Managerial Roles

In his study, Mintzberg asked one basic question:what did the manager do? The answers led to a num-ber of critical managerial roles which could begrouped into three major categories: Ca) interpersonalroles, Cb) informational roles and Cc) decisional roles[3].

15

Mintzberg recognises that managers have formalauthority over the unit they manage and as a resultof this formal authority and status managerial activ-ities can be seen a set of ten roles. Figure 5 indicatesthe manager's roles.

Role

Table 3. Summary of Ten RolesIdentifiable Activities fromStudy of Chief ExecutivesDescription

Recognitionin the Literature

InterpersonalFiguredhead

Sometimes recognised, but usuallyonly at highest organisationallevels

Leader

Liaison

Ceremony, status requests, solicitationsSymbolic head; obliged to perform anumber of rourine duties of a legal orsocial natureResponsibilities for motivation and Virtually all managerial activitiesactivation of subordinates; responsible involving subordinatesfor staffing, trainingMaintains self-developed netWork ofoutside contacts and informers whoprovide favours and information

Acknowledgement of mail; externalboard work; other activities involvingoutsiders

Most widely recognised of allmanagerial roles

Largely ignored, except for particularempirical studies (Sayles on lower- andmiddle-Ievel managers, Neustadt onU .S. Presidents, Whyte and Homans oninformalleaders

ınformational

Monitor

Disseminator

Spokesman

Seeks and receives wide variety ofspecial information (much of itcurrent) to develop thoroughunderstanding of organisation andenvironment; emerges as nerve centreof internal and external information ofthe organisationTransmits information receivedoutsiders or from other subordinatesto members of the organisation; someinformation factual, some involvinginterpretation and integration ofdiverse value positions oforganisational influencersTransmits information to outsiders onorganisation's plans, policies, actions,results, ete.; serves as expert onorganisation's industry

Handling all mail and contactscategorised as concerned primarilywith receiving information (e.g.,periodical news, observational tours)

Forwarding mail into organization forinformational purposes, verbal contactsinvolving information flow tosubordinates.

Board meeting; handling mail andcontacts involving transmission ofinformation to outsiders

Recognised in the work of Sayıes,Neustad, Wrapp, and especiallyAguilar

Unrecognised (except for Papandereoudiscussion of "peak co-ordinator" whointegrates influencer preference)

Generally acknowledged as managerialrole

Decisional

Entrepreneur

DisturbanceHandler

ResourceA llocator

Negotiator

Searches organisation and its Strategy and review sessions involvingenvironment for opportunities and initiation or design of improvementinitiates " improvement projects" to projectsbring about change; supervises designof certain projects as wellResponsible for corrective action when Strategy and review sessions involvingorganisation faces important, disturbances and citiesunexpected disturbances

Responsible for the allocation oforganisational resources of all kinds,in effects the making or approval ofall significant organisational decisionsResponsible for representing the

.

organisation at major negotiations

Scheduling; requests for authorisation;any activity involving budgeting andthe programming of subordinates'workNegotiation

Implicitly acknowledged, but usuallynot analysed except for economist(who were concerned largely with theestablishment of new organisations)and Sayıes, who probes into this roleDiscussed in abstract way by manywriters (e.g., management byexception) but analysed carefully onlySaylesLittle explicit recognition as a role,although implicitly recognised bymany who analyse organisationalresource-allocation activitiesLargely unrecognised (or recognisedbut daimed to be non managerialwork) except for Sayles

16 Berrin Burgaz [ J. ofEd. 13

As shown in Figure 5, the roles can be describedindividually, but they can not be isolated from eachother. These ten roles form an integrated whole.

Table 3 contains a summary description of tenmanagerial roles with details on managerial activitiesidentifiable with each role and the treatment of eachrole in the literature [31.

As a result of describing the nature of managerialwork in terms of a set of ten roles, Mintzberg rec-ognises that the combination of roles varies for differ-ent managers, for different organisations, for differentlevels of organisations and over periods of time,that's managers do not give equal attention to eachrole, that's differences are in emphasis rather than inkind.

Managers at the different levels of organisationengage in each of the roles, but some of which areemphasised more than others, but in all cases the in-terpersonal, informational and decisional roles re-main inseparable Mintzberg suggests eight manageri-al jobs styles and each of which emphasises a certaincombinatian of key roles, a kin to five styles in Rose-mary Stewart's study [91. These are summarised be-law [3].

Table 4. Eight Managerial lob Types

Managerial job types

Contact Man

Key roles

Liaison, figurehead

Spokesman, negotiator

Entrepreneur, negotiator

Resource allocator

Political manager

Entrepreneur

Insider

Real-time manager

Team manager

Expert manager

New manager

Disturbance handler

Leader

Monitor, spokesman

liaison, monitor

T he contact man has two primary roles: liaisonand figurehead. He spends a good part of his timeoutside the organisation, attending a variety of func-tions, doing people favours, giying speeches andbuilding a friendship network of support. Public re-lation and building linkages between people outsidethe organisatian are emphasised by the contact man.

Another type of manager is the pol it ica! managerwho also spends a great deal of time with outsiders,but for different relations. His key roles are spokes-man and negotiator. He intends to reconcile the con-flieting forces acting on organisation and emphasisesthe widening coalition.

The manager as ent repreneu r spends much of

his time seeking opportunities for change and for im-plementing changes. The roles of entrepreneur andnegotiator characterise the style, especially this styleis commonly needed at a smaile or young organ-isation where innovation is the key to survival.

T he i nsider manger is primarily concemed withbuilding up structure, developing and training thesubordinates and supervising the staff. This style con-tains the resou rce a1locator and the leader .

Rea!-t i me manager is a different kind of insider.He is interested in day-to-day problems of his organ-isation. D istu rbance handler is the dominant role inwhich the manager appears to be too busy with "put-ting out fires" , and seems to have a "finger in everypie" .

T he team manager is oriented to building ahighly cohesive group which can be characterised byhigh morale and mutual support among its members.Leader role is the vital one for the team manager.

T he exper t manager does more desk work andmore reading and writing. Fragmentation and varietyin his activities are hardly witnessed. He assumesmanagerial responsibility and continues to participatein specialised work of the organisation. Key roles aremon itor and spokesman .

Last type of manager is one new to the job. T henew manager emphasises l iaison and mon itor rolewhen there is a lack of contacts and sufficient in-formation when he has more information, he beginsto stress the entrepreneur role for a time.

As mentioned above, Mintzberg studied of whatthe manager does. Knowledge of it is critical to un-derstand the roles of manager and to determine thework-characteristics. However, yet the basic questionof what managers actually do has sufficiently beenunexamined. Whereas much has been written aboutwhat manager should do and research has been con-ducted based on conceptions of what the role ofmanager ought to be. When looked at literature, itcan be regarded that the most of the studies are nor-mative and less of which are descriptive.

Normative studies are concemed with what themanager should do and which actions the managershould take to produce the best outputs and con-centrate on the most of effective ones. In normativestudies, managers are expected to use effectively andefficiently the financial, human and matefial re-sources in an organisational structure to ensure theorganisational goals and values. They set some stan-dards for improving present levels of organisationaland managerial functioning. Despite this, they fail tocapture the real world of management as it actuallyis.

Activity Percentage

Verbal Communication

Informal 40

Formal 21

pesk work 18

Travel 7.In-house travel (tours) 3

Technical work 7

Miscellaneous 4

Managerial Roles Approach and the Prominent Study of Henry Mintzberg and Some Empirical StudiesUpon The Principals Work

By contrast, descriptive studies deal with "what is"and "what the manager is doing" and try to describeaccurately the activities of managers. The main differ-ence between normative and descriptive studies isthat it is assumed to maximise the objectives in nor-mative ones rather than to satisfy con.straints as in de-scriptive ones. Manager is conscious of and inter-ested in goals and desires to operate managerialprocesses in an ideal way; but these are affected bysuch realities of organisational life as politics, the ac-tual distribution of power and authority, the pres-sures which managers face to manage conflict andlimits on human rationality -in which all are ne-glected by normative view.

When reviewed the literature, we encounter fre-quently a great deal of normative studies, but not ofdescriptive ones. Therefore a need exists to givemore attention to descriptive studies. Mintzbergstresses that the researchers can no longer afford toignore managerial work analyses used descriptivemethod and that the reality model of managerialwork should be revealed, which is contrast to whatthe literature suggest should be done.

4. SO ME EMPlRI C A L ST U D I ES UPO N T H EPRI N C IP A I .S' A D M I N IST R A T ı V E W OR K

There have been a number of Mintzberg-typestudies of educational administrators .Certainly, therehave been many studies on educational ad-ministrators' work activities that did not use Mintz-berg's method -structured observation. But, underthis sub-title a summary will be given the results ofsome studies used structured observation in whichthis method provides a detailed record of educationaladministrators' work activities over time.

Superintendents have been studied by Duignan,by Larson, by Bussom, by Vicars, and by Pitner andOgawa [12, 13, 14]. Studies of high schools principalshave been reported by Martin and Willower, byO'Dempsey and by Willis [15, 16, 17, 30]. Elementaryschool principals were examined by Willower andKmetz, by Peterson, by Crowson and Others, byKmetz, by Beck and Seifert and Hemphill and Others .

[18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23J. And also some studies of su-pervisors and principals were carried out by Gibson,by Parker, by Beilfuss, by SulHvan in accordancewith any graduate programme [24, 25, 26, 271. Exceptthese studies, many artides were written about theactivities and time -allocation of educational ad-ministrators [28, 29, 31].

The studies have been done. in diverse countriesand all involved small samples. Duignan's study hasbeen carried out in Canada, O'Dempsey's studyandWillis's in Australia, but m~ny of which in various lo-cations of USA .

17

Sample sizes ranged from three to eight. Observa-tion periods were typically one work week per per-son, but some researchers observed each ad-ministrator for three weeks. Therefore their data of tenwere not comparable. Nevertheless some cautiousstatements can be made.

Studies on super i ntendents' work activitiespoint out that superintendents can be described asinformation brokers, communicators, mediators, en-vironment monitors, obedient administrators, con-sultative decision makers and executives rather thanleaders. Theyare also found as symbolic leaders in asense that they held themselves ultimately re-sponsible for their districts' performances even if theyhad a limited influence over them. Superintendentstended to engage in fewer and longer activities thanprincipals. They were more Hkely to meet with or-ganisational outsiders [12, 32].

Studies on i nst r uct ional supervisors shows thatsupervisors primarily maintain the day-to-day oper-ates of the school system -essentially functioning asadministrators. Analyses of supervisors' work activ-ities showed activities concentrated on three cat-egories: resource allocator %30), monitor (%19) anddisseminator (%16). These activities indicate that thesupervisor is an insider who is primarily concernedwith internal operations. They had Httle activity re-quiring external contact as an offıcial representativeof the school system and little activity relating to pre-senting new ideas or involving non-routine duties. In-deed, 98 percent of the supervis'or's work was ac-counted for in terms of administration.

The supervisory work's analyses depicted that themajor portion (%61) of the supervisor's time wasspent in verbal communication involved formal andinformal, brief and face-to-face contacts with personswithin the school system. Table 5 shows the time al-location of instructional supervisors [271.

Table 5. A llocation of time to Various Forms ofActivity

18 Berrin Burgaz [ J. ofEd. 13

Instructional supervisors were spent much of theirtime on internal matters and lasted five minutes or less[27], in anather study nirıe minutes [29] per activity. Su-pervisors spent relatively Httle time on other activities.They spent 18 percent of their time on desk work , 7percent on technical work (including classroom ob-servation and in-service education) an 10 percent ontravel (including travel and in-house tours).

Theyaverage only 7 percent on technical work ,but it is quite less time to develop instructian.Whereas instructional improvement is the real ofevaIuation [22]. if this is true, instructional super-visors must be more effective and efficient in thetime devoted to instruction and spent much moretime to instructional improvement and to com-munication with teachers. However it is regardedthat instructional supervisors spend only 14 percentof communication with teachers, a smail amountwith superordinates and much of which to people inlateral positions. Their communication activity servedfour major purpose: processing information, handlingresources, maintain1ng status and resolving conflicts[27]. Data make certain that instructionalsupervisorsgenerally behave as an administrator not an agent forimproving instructian in schools.

Same of studies that use Mintzberg's method givesame results of studies which record the work be-haviour of a sample of elementary pr lnc ipa1s andof secondary pr lnc ipa1s [15, 18, 24, 25, 26, 29].

According to these results, the administrativework of principals includes a high volume of workcompleted at an unrelenting pace, variety, brevityand fragmentation of tasks, and preferences for ver-bal media and Hve actian.

Elementary pr lnc ipa1s worked an average of 41.7hours on the job and eight evening hours per week [IS],in anather study 45.84 hours per week on the job withan additiona! average of 8.7 extra hours at night [24].

The elementary principals engaged in a total of3058 activities, averaging 611.6 each per week and122.3 each per day. As shown in Table 6(18) , theygaye 32.5 percent of their time unscheduled meeting,mare than to any other, which were hastily arrangedcontacts between the principals and one or morepersons which usually occurred spontaneously. Theother major portian of the elementary principal wasgiven to desk work which involved writing notes,completing reports, processing correspondence, etc..

70 percent of their time involved personal con-tacts which included face-to-face meetings, telephonecalls and the brief visual and verbal interactions dur-ing monitaring and touring. More contacts weremade with teachers, more than with any other group.

Giving or receiving information were the activitiesthat were most comman to contacts [18]. More timewas expended in organisational maintenance than ininstructional leadership. Maintenance activities took38.6 percent of the elementary principals' time andaccounted for 53.7 percent of their activities.

Table 6. Number of Activities and Mean Per-centage of Time Spent by Elementary Principals

Activity Number of Mean PercentageActivities of time

Desk WorkPhone CallsScheduled MeetingsUnscheduled MeetingsExchangesMonitaringToursTripsObservingPersonalAnnouncingTeachingSupport Chores

267424

421027

84292

14637

96749

749

18.68.0

10.332.5

6.04.44.25.42.53.60.71.91.9

The secondary school pr lnc ipa1s worked an av-erage of 53.2 hours on the job and an additionaleleyen evening hours per week . The secondary

.school principals engaged in 149.2 activities eachday. Table 7 depicts the number of activities andmean percentage of time spent by secondarY schoolprincipals [15]. it presents that they spent much oftheir time to unscheduled meetings just Hke ele-mentary school principals. And alsa the secondaryprincipals mostly dealt with the organisational main-tenance and maintenance activities took 36.5 percentof the ir time and 53.9 percent of the ir activities.

Table 7. Number of Activities and Mean Per-centage of Time Spent by Secondary School Prin-cipals

Activity Number of Mean PercentageActivities of time

Desk WorkPhone CallsScheduled MeetingsUnscheduled MeetingsExchangesMonitaringToursTripsObservingPersonalAnnouncingTeachingSupport Chores

254393117

12211355

828811

8133

6125

16.05.8

17.327.5

9.05.57.72.22.45.10.70.10.7

As Martin and Willower pointed out, the sec-ondary school principals engaged in similar patternsof task performances, as exhibiting the "busy person"

1997 ] Managerial Roles Approaeb and tbe Prominent Study of Henry Mintzberg and Some Empirieal StudiesUpon The Prinepals Work

19

syndrome [32], as having an inside focus, as taking abroad school-wide view of instruction but not be-coming actively engaged, as having pupil control asa major interest, as exhibiting a strong control con-cem with extra-curricular activities [15].

.Consequently, educational administrators all spent

much time on organisational routines and main-tenance. They participated in many meetings (sched-uled or unscheduled), in numerous face-to-face andtelephone encounters with a variety of persons. Thestudies depict administrative work in much the sameway as Mintzberg's original res~arch. Work proceedsat a fast and unrelenting pace with many varied,brief, fragmented, interrupted segments, and ad-ministrators exhibit preferences for activities that arecurrent, lively and verbaL. In terms of the allocationof administrator attention, priority goes to immediateissues that can be quick ly handled.

5. CONCLUSION

Reseach studies realized by depending on Man-agerial Roles Approach,through observations directlyupon the managers ( administrators) , are requiredthat the ir roles should empirically be de-termined.Thes~ kinds of studies are signifıcant be-cause these reveal the difference between the ob-served and proposed managerial (admistrative) roleswhich are often mentioned in literature.Hence,detailed observations of managerOs (ad-ministrator's) work dearly call attention to the difer-ence between what a manager (an administrator)should do and what he/she can do. An educationaladministrator who has to jump from one operatingemergeney to another every 45 seconds,althoughhe/she may have been trained in the field of educa-tional administration,can take only of individualemergency cases because of his/her overload.Thissituation also justifies that he/she prefers to performsome certain rolesJn a sense it points out that educa-tional administrators give importance to some of the irroles which are proposed for them and ignore someof themJt could be said that administrative roles canvary for different administrators,for differentschools,for different levels of schools and over pe-riods of time.

Besides that it is important to collect data ef-ficiently of how administrators behave in which situa-tional circumstances exist and to compare manytypes of administrators.Variations in the content andcharacteristics of administrators' work can be ex-plained by a continceney theory.Here,the purpose isnot only to picture the present situation and not tobound to the circumstances but to provide a base forresearch and improvement efforts by analysing theprevailing practices.

Yet,there is no empirical research which studieson the work characteristics , work content and ad-ministratiye job types of school administrators in Tur-key. A ll studies related to administrators' work arenormative and in many of them data have been col-lected through questionnaires.Studies to be realizedabour administrators' roles and work characteristicsshould exhibit whether they perform the proposedroles or not, and compare the results to ones of thestudies done beforeJt may be hoped that the resultsprove useful to arrange the effective in-service train-ing programs, and to develop insights into the job andmeans of coping with the complexity of the workand to teach the critical skills of administration.and toimprove the administrative behavior.

REFERENCES

[1] Koontz, H . (1986): "The Management Theory jungle"in Matteson, M. T . and Ivaneevieh, J. M. (3rdEd.),Management Classics, Texas: Business Publiea-tion.

[2] Koontz, H . and Heinz Weihrieh (1988): Manage~ent,MeGraw-HilI, Ine.

[3] Mintzberg, H . (1973). The Nature of ManagerialWork , Harper and Row Publishers, Ine.

[4] Sergiovanni, T . J. and Others (1980): EducationalGovemance and Administration, Prentiee-Hall, Ine.

[5] Mintzberg, H . (1975): "The Manager's job: Folk loreand Faet " , Harvard Business Review, Vol. 53, No. 4,july-august, pp. 49-61.

[6] Guest, R. H . (1955-56): "Of tim:e and Foremen" , Per-sonneI,32:478-486.

[7] Ponder, Q. D. (1957): "The effeetive ManufaeturingForeman" in E. Young, ed. Industrial Relations Re-search Association Proceedings of the Tenth An-nual Meeting, Madison, Wiseonsin, pp. 41-54.

[8] Carison, S. (1951): Executlve Behaviour: A Study ofthe Work Load and the Working Methods of Man-aging Directors, Stockholm: Strömbergs.

[9] Stewart, R. (1967): Managers and Their Jobs, Lon-don: Maemillan Coop.

[10] jasinski, F. J. (1950): "Foremen Relationships outsidethe Work Group" , Personnel, 33:130-136.

[11] Kelly, J. (1964). "The study of exeeutive Behaviour byAetivity Sampling" , Human Relations, 17: 277-287.

[ı2] Duignan, P. (1980): "Administrative Behaviour ofSchool Superintendents: A Deseriptive Study." Jour-nal of Educational Administration, 18 (May).

[13] Larson, L. 1., R. S. Bussom and W . M. Viears (1981):The Nature of a School Superintendent's Work . Fi-nal Teehnieal Report, Southem Illinois University,(March).

20 Berrin Burgaz [ J. ofEd. 13

[14] Pitner, N. S. and R T . Ogawa (1981): "OrganisationalLeadership: The Case of the School Superintendent " , Ed-ucational Administration Quarterly, 17, 2 (Spring).

[15] Martin, W . J. and D. J. Willower (1981): "The Man-agerial Behaviour of High School Principals." Educa-tional Administration Quarterly, 17 (Winter).

[16] O'Dempsey, K (1976): "Time Analysis of Ad-ministrators' Work Patterns and Roles of High SchoolPrincipals." Administrative Bulletin, 8 (November).

[17] Willis, Q. (1980): "The Work Activity of School Prin-cipals: An Observational Study." Journal of Educa-tional Administration, 18, (May).

[18] Willower, D. J. and Kmetz, J. T . (1982): "ElementarySchool Principals' Work Behaviour." Educational Ad-ministrational Quarterly, 18 (Fall).

[19] Peterson, K (1978): "The Principal's Tasks." Ad-ministrator's Notebook , 26 (Apri!).

[20] Crowson, R L. and C. Porter-Gehrie (1980): "The Dis-cretionary Behaviour of Principals in Large CitySchools." 16, (Winter).

[21] Kemtz, J. T . (1982): The Work Behaviour of Ele-mentary School Principals. Unpublished DoctoralThesis, The Pennsylvania State University.

[22] Beck , C. D. and E. Seifert (1981): "Elementary Prin-cipals: Instructional Leaders or School Managers." PhiDelta Kappan, 62, 7: 528.

[23] Hemphill, J. K , D. E. Griffiths and N. Fredeksen

(1962): Administrative Performance and Per-sonality, New York: Bureau of Publications.

[24] Gibson, i. W . (1986): The Work Activity of Principals

in Successful Elementary SchooL. Dissertation Ab-stract International, 47/06, 1947A (December).

[25] Parker, N. N. (1985). The Work of Public and PrivateElementary School Principals. Dissertation AbstractInternational, 46/03, 572A (September).

[26] Beilfuss, P. R (1986): The Activities of the ElementarySchool Principal in Effective SchooL. Dissertation Ab-stract International, 46/10, 2863A (Apri!).

[27] Sullivian, C. G. (1982). "Supervisory Expectations andWork Realities: The Great Gulf." Educational Lead-ership, Vol.: 39, No: 6, pp. 448-451.

[28] McIntyre, D. J. and William R. Morris (1982): "TimeManagement and Instructional Supervision." TheClearing House, Vol.: 55, No: 9, pp. 422-424.

[29] Howell, Bruce (1981): "Profile of the Principalship."Educational Leadership, Vol.: 38, No: 4, pp. 333-36.

[30] Panush, L. (1974): "One day in the life of an UrbanHigh School PrincipaL." Phi Delta Kappa, 56: 46-49.

[31] Heller, M. P. (1976). "Principals: The Nature of the]ob." Education Digest, 41: 12-15 (March).

[32] Willower, D. J. (1982). "School Organisations: Per-spectives in ]uxtaposition." Educational Administra-tion Quarterly, 18 (Summer).