'- -£;_ $ A I «24.5w» - ‘.'?»— fl’a n; a . 4 -,. ‘1 , E: I‘ 1 ' I "" . I I I 1 |“'. ‘. I +01 1".jL.ll"“""l“1'.'1\'\'5"""‘ :Wh‘ "“I' ' w -'1 " "'-0' " “'IB'I' 1 y ‘I‘. "'5’ '1‘; 11‘3“ ‘ ':": :"'1' I' '1 "’\‘:j if"? I “ ,I- , . . 1 I f . 4kg: '.'dlr'c‘ [Ii . o'L \LEJ' 1151' “it" 'I'I'X' ' ‘ "'5"! ‘2 ' ‘ %' E‘,'AI:‘~I' '1’”: 1 : 1t_§::1r" “86' . ‘ I ‘ I - I ‘3 c. "" . £" ‘- :-.- I .I '3‘. '1‘: I. «x > I-~ 1w“ .‘ I ‘2‘.I7I‘ -.. ’I‘Qr). . A. .,"I-';;',:.:Vu.‘.l|1.:Ir." ‘\ . , . . 1"!" ' I ‘ I .' .." Iv‘. ‘I‘W'H. {1 ' I?!“ II 1".“V‘l. y‘u. .a' '. I.” "J. IK,‘.‘."1_..'. '.‘r‘q ' ‘.‘. ‘X‘ifi MI . ';-'~.., “ .1111 I2' 2’4 " {firmfii- :1. I: «1:11 : 'II "| F'“, ‘.' l 1J:\\ if”: I1"1\- '11 "'." I 2' " h ‘1?ny <.'IM;..";;.."1~ ‘13- m; 1- I.. 3,2: 1,, I '1 I - 39-" , I ‘. .(I.:"'I;..Vv‘l1‘11";l'M" VII” ‘1. .. ~ ' I. I‘I, v ,‘V I";'~ ” _ -. 9*‘.': 311...; w ‘, "1",” I', .I'T'nu‘lk 'T"""" .H." ‘31} 51:, y "I‘ I ' '_.' ""."" "; 5131]", 0" 5y '1' ”It“ ’1’.‘ -"\’::‘"" ,‘V'IH‘ I 'u' I ' ". '1 'I' 'I "I" ' "‘ l "H .\ I {N '.'." ' 'l'l'.w'I" " -' 1.-f '..;:1~;‘.)'.g--.~-7~, Ink-TI",- I F' I“ .*.:\-Ih;.~,- -‘-7II; ‘ I: . -‘I' ‘-:1/_' ”1-5"? ‘2I‘;-‘.177-‘I‘“." ., _ . . . , ' ' . - .I;:-. . , I I' 111-111.. ‘ '11» . - ~.- . .- .1.» «.,-. , . ,. 'S¥ - IIX', '_Y I ' '1 II I I, .;§II. ff'l'll' I:"I,II',' ", laid; "‘ 5”" Illl' "(‘1 @‘L: ' ' ' ". - ‘.‘., I ‘ Hi ‘I .' .' '.‘ .I ‘2“"53' n‘ " ‘ I I. I ‘:" ' 0' J 32".3 :' "I""II'1 I'l ' "' "“' » '~" "”1"". ‘ Erma” ' t'-'>"" ' f)'."'1"‘:'h "S" 3311"" \'.'5}"'J \' " '1.' '.'". I :"M - . I'd. 3'” .‘,,I‘I 01/113“ ,f’ ‘ ' ' - ‘1. 'IP' "'1" .;I‘.‘. 1312 3“" I.II}.‘\¢II' ,-»~;.', “$3121.35: ' ‘ . .. “ 1‘ 1'1 “'\ 11' ' “I" I'f.‘- ."‘>.“'I+" , “.' 1. I' ’ fl .1 ‘1 I‘I :' Mgr... :,|.::"-...1 ';| I "".'"""$‘.'_"'""U"", "I" ‘ ‘ I ~ ' ' '.. I 3"1 ." I. " I " ."" D 'I ‘ ‘ '1' ‘.':"l '. “9.7-1“- ".‘ . I 4' 1 ~14 . I' . I II [I 'I .. I I I ‘ I ' W“ - . 6H .-'1A.'-.-.~'I'.'..\ ~‘1‘IL‘.’ IJA“ " “'4 a .1, ~ 25'” (1‘ 1 6'1: ~ ' “1: .:.‘_.‘y S I ‘>‘,“Ik.‘ .1. I I, $.I-I.;‘.¥,..4.).I: 2:2! ‘ a ' "P' ’ ‘ ’1: H ‘.'lil' :1 ‘ I1 1 “.‘-z." .' ‘: '11' '1' 5‘”! ‘.'1 I.“ ' 'I ‘1>'. ‘.‘” ,1 II - A, ' . _ q I _ ‘ I. I 1' ' 1 It I . f 11- 1 .. . “- I' :k'IJI‘ ‘ " "(1 .f.7.{I‘,";1,’.,;:.;§ ‘.I cw" " \f‘ I ,. . l I ", - 113-1.} - j, .11":'.'I.,. VIN", '9"""\"'""'1' f . 1')'.’$"w1‘,”.'1 ‘ I I. I, ' ' ‘- - "I '1'.1',. "‘1'": 'I I l ' ‘u I :‘II, ‘ ‘ h . I . ‘ In“ :‘01\1'.v I‘.‘. :H , ."":'I:""""' ‘15:. :"f'\,1‘ I : ‘I “.1 ‘33 ‘ '5 ' ' "' "' NJ " '9 'I'" ".‘ ' "W" ':': "" "6"" ":':II'"II|.I: "'"W‘Hk' In {:\"""' ' "'\"" a? 1 II :1 ‘ . H. . 1‘ ..I 42. ,3, , ‘."'." _.I l‘f1’|‘. I'. I, ,_.u ,. ', ‘~,l_ I "'-.'II‘.I|I .- I “ .II 1 .1 '. '.'" I 3 IV. If}, l ‘.I '1‘ 1],: H1: I.‘ ‘.u ”‘.'y: "1 1'I"'t""{"""'" ‘I ‘5' ‘ “VI " : " ' ' " -~-'I.I'.3',:.';... I‘M ', .‘ ‘11 “1.51"“. 1: flag”: '. ‘.':II‘I‘IIIII . ".II.‘ III-I . ".' I1}. LII-II“? .111 III?“ III; 11:41:" '5“..’\""\'\'\"A‘-‘$U I... A ' . 'I'I. ‘x 2.,g.\'\'%) 57.31% A4 'I' I': "A' ' h)” ”I" ”‘5' -"S\'\1 ‘f A an 1......” 3. “S .. p. I I I” I ‘m? ' I ‘6 ' ‘ 1;) )4 ' L Iv'fl‘. ':."\-'r.":1\‘$17~‘ ' 3% W15; .'.l ‘ “1:109 .b ."':II'1“ . . 1.. II "' -'. " |"'I"I“' -' "‘ f 5 '1”, '~. '.' infirm {'.'II "'5'" g I ""'."'§"": ' '1'? " "'3'“ $11 $.11. 1": "3." (“11.5” l!"“1d‘M"'!' ; ’IJ 1‘; I”. - .“I in J I 'llll’llllllillllli This is to certify that the thesis entitled An Empirical Examination of Selected Work Activity Correlates of Managerial Effectiveness In The Hotel Industry Using A Structured Observation Approach presented by David Allan Ley has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Management Major professor Date £45422 5/27? 7 / 0'7639 LIBRARY Michigan Sum University _ ~ as e C “firm 15 t“ a)" ' “fife? A" "' {Q3 “-’ AF ”3 b \) LN (y AUG ‘ 9111;93 JMS‘ (CF) get {$1245 l3 34 * AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF SELECTED WORK ACTIVITY CORRELATES OF MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY USING A STRUCTURED OBSERVATION APPROACH By David Allan Ley A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Management, Graduate School of Business 1978 ABSTRACT AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF SELECTED WORK ACTIVITY CORRELATES OF MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY USING A STRUCTURED OBSERVATION APPROACH By David Allan Ley The inability to distinguish effective managerial behavior from ineffective behavior stems partially from an inability to record and describe managerial behavior and partially from difficulties in making comparisons among the activities performed by managers. Among inductive research methods used to describe managerial behavior such "participant observation" tech- niques as structured observation offer a number of advan- tages over other forms of field research for an in-depth analysis of managerial work behavior. Comparisons among activities performed by managers have often been limited in the past by the lack of uniformity of the positions held by the managers in the sample. In this study the attempt has been to control the environmental, job and situational variables, which dis- tinguish one management position from another, by identi- fying a set of management positions in which managers are Subjected to similar demands, constraints and choices. David Allan Ley This research study is an attempt to measure and com- pare the work behavior of a small sample of hotel managers by systematically analyzing and classifying their work activ- ities into a set of ten observable work roles (figurehead, leader, liaison, monitor, disseminator, spokesman, entrepre- neur, disturbance-handler, resource-allocator, negotiator). The study attempts to: 1. test the applicability of a recent work activity/ role classification system (Mintzberg) at the operational management level; 2. use a structured observation approach to identify managerial behavior which is related to corporately deter- mined levels of effective managerial performance. Seven managers of a national hotel chain were selected on the basis of comparability of properties managed and man- agement positions held, and each manager's activities were recorded during a typical work week. Three representative days of managerial work activities were selected for analysis. Data were gathered for each manager and included: a. preliminary data concerning the property ob- tained in a personal interview with the manager. b. structured data gathered by observation. c. anecdotal data obtained by questioning and analysis of observations to determine purpose as well as characteristics of activities. David Allan Ley d. managerial perceptions of importance and time devoted to specific work role activities. Hypotheses were formulated on the basis of: l. expectations that managers of differing levels of effectiveness would allocate time differently to those ten work roles. 2. expected differences between managerial perceptions of time allocated to those roles and actual time allocated. Principal findings included: 1. although all managers in the study perceived their leadership role to be more important than any other work role, no manager actually spent more time in the leadership role than in all other work roles. 2. "more effective" managers allocated more time to their role an entrepreneur than to any other role, whereas "less effective" managers allocated less time to the "entre- preneur" role than to most other work roles. 3. the longer the time spent at work per day, the higher was the judged level of managerial effectiveness. Although sample size was small and corporate rankings of man- agerial effectiveness lacked validation, the study was seen to substantiate Mintzberg's classification system and to pro- ‘Vide an important linkage between work activity performance and managerial effectiveness. That linkage is in the form of a stratified sample of managers subjected to similar job and environmental variables. David Allan Ley The structured observation approach was found to be capable of providing both characteristics and content of man- agement activities performed. The research methodology is perceived as affording a practical means of obtaining information of potential value to operational management and to corporate management con- cerned with the selection and development of effective hos- pitality managers. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author expresses his Sincerest appreciation and gratitude to those people who assisted in the preparation of this dissertation. Thanks are first given to the members of the disserta- tion committee: Professor Rollin Simonds, chairman, for his guidance and constructive criticism throughout the research process; Professor Robert Blomstrom, for his aid in securing sponsorship of the project and for willingly stepping in as committee member upon the death of Professor W. J. E. Crissy; and Professor Michael Moore. A considerable debt is owed to Professor Moore whose teaching was an inspiration to me and whose direction and encouragement in the selection and formulation of the research study was instrumental in its successful completion. Paul Laesecke, Jack Barksdale, and a most hospitable group of innkeepers made the field study a valuable learning experience. My thanks to Holiday, Inns, Inc. To Professor Henry Mintzberg, Professor Morgan McCall, and those who comprise the "invisible college," I extend a note of thanks for all ideas and help so freely given. ii Professor Ken McCleary would not have allowed the dissertation to remain uncompleted; and a meticulous and tireless Diana Schuman, who prepared the final manuscript, ensured that it did not remain uncompleted.- to both cheerful mentors - my thanks. Finally I wish to thank two professors in the hospitality industry who have unwittingly contributed greatly to my love affair with the hotel industry. Professor John Fuller, former director of the Scottish Hotel School, had faith in me and gave me the opportunity to expand my education abroad. ,Professor Harold Lane has been a constant source of information and encouragement in the years since I had the good fortune to meet him. I am deeply indebted to both highly dedicated and professional educators. iii DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my parents in Scotland and my beloved wife, Colleen. TABLE OF CONTENTS I LIST OF TABLES II .LIST OF FIGURES III CHAPTER 1: CHAPTER 2 : Hospitality Industry Management Perspective on Research Need . Activity Analysis and Managerial Effectiveness Purpose of the Study . Organization of the Study Selected Review of the Literature Relating to the Performance of Managerial Activities with Specific Application to the Hotel Industry . ’ Purpose Describing Managerial Behavior . Review of the Relevant Scope of the Literature Additional Criteria for Selection Contingency View of Managerial Work Primary Areas of Review Common Characteristics of All Managerial Work - Job Description Particular Aspects of Managerial Work - Leadership ‘7 Page ix , xi 10 13, 16 26 28 CHAPTER 3: CHAPTER 4: Common Characteristic of All Managerial Work - Managerial Behavior - Recording Managerial Behavior Managerial Behavior - Activities Managerial Behavior - Critical Incidents Managerial Behavior - Roles Characteristics of Different Types of Managerial Jobs Managerial Work in the Hospitality Industry . . . . ... . . . Conclusion . Research Methodology Employed Formulation of Hypothesis Methodology and its Relationship to Previous Research . Sample Selection Procedures Proposal . Preliminary Testing of Mintzberg Role Classification Data Collection Instruments and Coding . Questionnaire and Coding . Observational Conditions Managerial Effectiveness Hypotheses Measurement Analysis of the Results Introduction . Structured Observation in Action . Activities Discussion and Testing of Hypotheses vi 31 36 51' 51 58 6O 64 66 72 75 76 79 so 88 94 95 9:7 105 106 112 115 CHAPTER 5: Other Roles Limitations on Measurements Implications and Conclusions Over-view . Restatement of Purpose and Findings Synopsis of Findings Related to Hypotheses . . . . . . Research Findings in Light of Work Activity Research . Activities Managerial Effectiveness Activity Importance and Perceived and Actual Time Allocation to Activities Leadership Information Initiation . Potential Contributions to the Study of Management Theory and Practice Potential Contributions to the Study of Hospitality Management . Generalization of the Results Suggestions for Future Research . Replication of the Study . Refinement of the Effectiveness Measurement Direct Application in Managerial Development vii 132 146 149 150 151 154 154 160 161 162 163 164 165 167 168 169 170 171 171 IV APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: V BIBLIOGRAPHY Structured Observation Record, Analysis and Classification of Activities for Innkeeper 5 . Total Time Assignments to Role Classifications for All Innkeepers Management Activity Survey of Perceived Time Allocation and Importance of Activities: Innkeeper 5 Correspondence with Holiday Inns, Inc., Establishing Field Research Methodology . . . . .. viii 173 191 198 208 220 mU-L‘UJNH \l 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 LIST OF TABLES Relevant Area of Focus Description of Managerial Work . Scope of Literature Review . Description of Managerial Work under Review Seven Methods to Study Managerial Work . Empirical Studies of Managerial Work Activity Behavior Nine Point Statement about an Activity . Nailon's Self-Completion Record Summary of Ten Roles Activity Importance and Time Allocation Hotel Management Work Activity Form Preliminary Data Form Revised Data Recording Instrument Management Activity Questionnaire Structured Observation Record (detailed in Appendix A) Structured Observation Analysis Sheet (detailed in Appendix A) Assignment of Activities to Role Classification (detailed in Appendix A) ix Page 13 18 20 25 35 38 45 47 55 62 80 82 84 90 107 173 108 176 109 189 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Total Time Assignments to Role Classifications (detailed in Appendix A) Assignment of Desk Activities to Management Roles Perceived Importance of Leadership Work Role . Ranked Perceived Importance of Work Roles Time Allocations to Leadership Role Time Allocations to Entrepreneurial Role . Perceived Time Allocation to Work Roles: Average Ranked Scores Total Time Assignments to Role Classifications - All Properties Ranked Time Allocation to Work Roles: Actual and Perceived . Total Difference Between Ranked Actual and Perceived Time Allocations: All Properties Property Ages and Quality Of Employee Selection Difficulties Time Spent at Work and on Activities Performed - All Properties Judged Managerial Effectiveness and Time at Work . Management External/Internal Contacts (Mintzberg) Daily Events/Activities Averages . 110 190 114 117 120 124 125 129 130 131 133 137 138 141 157 160 LIST OF FIGURES Page A Contingency View of Managerial Work . . . . 22 CHAPTER 1 HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY MANAGEMENT Perspective on Research Need "One of the most significant economic trends in the United States during the last two decades has been a gradual transition from a production oriented to a service dominated economy" (Mauser and Schwartz, 1974). Regrettably, academic research and literature related to certain segments of this new economy have not grown apace with the economic importance of these segments. This dearth of a professional literature, by contrast to the trade literature, is particularly apparent in the hospitality industry - a term usually intended to denote that portion of the service industries providing food, lodging and related transportation services to the public. Weick (1973) has noted that "academics write, managers don't read." This is especially so in an industry in which "that which is written is equated with that which is dated; in a world of live action that which is dated is useless” (Weick, 1973, page 114). Texts and journal articles, there- fore, reflect a major emphasis on current problems and critical issues in the industry. Articles pertaining to energy, labor costs and guest security all reflect a concern with the immediate problems of today, while issues of less immediate but extremely grave concern, such as low productivity of employees, ineffective management, employee training and executive development, are given scant treatment in the literature. This vocational orientation of the industry is generally shared by hospitality educators. One study, for example (Lukowski, 1972), has shown that hospitality educa- tors and industry executives consider instruction in the liberal arts and teaching of advanced management techniques to be relatively unimportant in the development of the potential executive for the hotel and restaurant industry. As long as general management literature shows a pronounced manufacturing bias in contrast to service industries and as long as the hospitality industry pursues a predominantly vocational orientation in contrast to professional management, an academic research base is unlikely to be developed. That a research base may be necessary specifically for hospitality administration will depend first of all on the extent to which widely accepted managerial principles derived from the manufacturing sector of the private enterprise economy are 22E applicable to service industry management. As Rosemary Stewart has stated about manage- ment in general, "We have, over the years, placed too much emphasis upon the similarities in managers' jobs and paid too little attention to the differences between themV' (Stewart, 1976). In a recent study, for example, she has shown that job constraints and demands (by subordinates, peers, contacts, etc.) place different behavioral require- ments on such varied individuals as a bank manager, chain store manager, hospital administrator, and police inspector (Stewart, 1976). Hospitality studies related to managerial style (White, 1973) and to managerial activity analysis (Nailon, 1968) suggest that general management precepts may need modification when applied to hospitality services management. The need for a more identifiable hospitality industry literature, concerning itself with such issues as managerial effectiveness, is also economically based. There are a number of currently disconcerting indicators which would seem to compel an increasingly professional viewpoint by the industry. Consider: - Recent projections of industry needs of skilld manpower to fill management and mid- management positions over the next decade have been estimated to be as high as seven times that of any other US industry (Landmark, 1974). - Although it has often been implied that the industry's increased utilization of technological advances will provide the greatest key to improved productivity (Avery, 1974; Levitt, 1972; among others), a number of writers claim that improved work management rather than technological advances will, in fact, provide the principal key to increased productivity in the industry (Lane, 1976; Axler, 1976; Campbell, 1976). - Declining national occupancy levels, declining hOSpitality profit margins, and an economy becoming more attuned to the conservation and harboring of economic resources, all seem to indicate an increased emphasis on maximization of performance within more Clearly defined parameters. In essence, there is a need for greater operational efficiency and improved managerial effectiveness in the utilization of the resources at the manager's disposal. That there is potential for improvement in managerial effectiveness appears unquestionable. As Lane (1976) has noted: "It has become increasingly clear that the thousands of under-productive employees, who are draining corporate profits and contributing to the nation's lagging economy . . . also include leaders of industry who are sitting in executive offices with titles ranging from manager to chairman of the board" (page 76). It is to this problem of managerial effectiveness in the performance of the manager's daily tasks that this project has directed itself. Activity Analysis and Managerial Effectiveness Both the description of managerial job behavior and the identification of effective managerial behavior are areas offering considerable potential for research. Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick, the authors of perhaps the most comprehensive study of managerial behavior and effectiveness to date, have commented that the description of managerial job behavior is still at an abysmally primitive level; the domain of management behavior remains an essentially undifferentiated mass. These authors have later noted, in the same study, that "effective managerial behavior must be measured in terms of what the manager himself does on the job to effect optimization" (page-105) . In otherwords, the measurement should rig; be in terms of organizational outcomes alOne, which outcomes more probably reflect a large number of environmental conditions rather than effective managerial behavior. Virtually no research has been undertaken to study managerial behavior which corresponds to effective performance in the service industries and particularly in the hospitality industry. Yet in a labor intensive industry in which ef- fective personnel policies are critical to the success of. the operation it would seem important to examine management style in terms of effective performance. Recent empirical studies of managerial work activi- Eigg have utilized research methods which would appear to be appropriate for hospitality management research. For these reasons it seemed opportune that a systematic study be made of management style-management effectiveness linkage based on an analysis of managerial performance of key work-role activities. Since the purpose of this study has been to identify effective managerial job behavior through examination of what the manager did on the jgb_the research problem did Egg concern itself directly with generally accepted measures of effectiveness. In the case of hotel managers, such general measures might include growth in revenues, profitability, cost control and labor turnover. For a researcher, these measures suffer greatly from both "deficiency" and "contamination" - "that is, they fail to tap more than a small part of variance due to in- dividual managerial behavior, and their variations are dependent on many job-irrelevant factors not under the direct control of the manager" (Campbell et a1., 1970, page 111). An example of a situation in which objective measures of managerial effectiveness are seen to consist of both job-relevant and job-irrelevant factors would be as follows: Situation Hotel restaurant with a declining volume of clientelle and revenue. Managerial Job-Relevant Factors Manager's ability to offer good, well prepared and well served food at reasonable prices. Manager's ability to provide clean, attractive dining room. Managerial Job—Irrelevant Objective Factors Measure Two new franchised restaurants and one gourmet restaurant opened in the past year within one mile of the hotel. Thus, when effective managers are terms of organizational outcomes by their the superiors and managers themselves are Food and Beverage Revenue identified in superiors, only in a position to evaluate the extent to which job-irrelevant factors have played a part in making the objective measures of managerial assessment more or less favorable than they would have been had the job-irrelevant factors been excluded from the objective measures of assessment. In the example given, the district director would have to determine how much of the decline in food and beverage revenues is due to increased market competition and how much of it is due to poor managerial control over job-relevant factors or lack of responsiveness by management to changing conditions in the market place. Managerial job activity analysis would, therefore, be concerned with managerial performance of job- related factors, thus again reflecting that "effective managerial behavior must be measured in terms of what the manager himself does on the job to effect optimization” (Campbell et a1., 1970, page 105). Purpose of the Study The major objective of the study was to determine whether there exists an identifiable pattern of work behavior which is characteristic of a group of hotel managers deemed to be effective managers according to corporate managerial ratings. Work behavior, as defined by this study, was identified as managerial activities grouped into distinctive work roles. The variations in the time and effort allocated to these roles permitted comparisons of managerial style among the managers included in the study. Identification of activities associated with effective role performance has important implications for the improved selection, training and development of managerial talent in the hotel industry. The project involved an in-depth study of hotel management activitiesy_utilizing a structured observation approach in order to identify managerial behavior which related to judged effectiveyperformance. The purpose of this study is to provide a potentially basic contribution to managerial work activity theory and to hospitality management research. This study has attempted to test the applicability of a recent work activity-role clas4 sification system at the operational management level. The study therefore adds to the body of knowledge related to the school of inductive research, in which the work activities of managers are analyzed systematically. Specifically, a comparison has been made among the activities performed by a stratified sample of hotel managers who had been identified previously as holding comparable managerial positions. Emphasis (as determined by observed time alloCation and perceived importance) on different managerial work roles were then equated with corporately determined levels of managerial effectiveness in order to see if managerial behavior leading to more effective levels of managerial performance could be identified in this situation. Theoretically, the study is therefore apparently unique by having attempted fippp - to eliminate different external variables (environment, job and situational) acting on each manager, which permits us to make comparisons among the managers based on their role behavior; second - to relate managerial activities performed to identified levels of perceived managerial effectiveness. At the applied level the study has basically provided hospitality managers with an Opportunity to examine how they have allocated their time. The study has also allowed the managers to compare such actual allocations with their perceptions (If how they allocated their time, and has perhaps even allowed them to identify those patterns of activities which appear to have led to levels of more highly effective management. Potentially the practical value appears to lie in hopefully providing corporate management with behavioral indicators of effective managerial performance. These indicators, in the form of behaviroal patterns derived from activity and role analysis, might be used by hospitality chains in managerial selection for improved performance or introduced into executive development programs in order to improve managerial performance at the operational level. The study provides a detailed analysis of the work behavior of a small sample of managers and therefore has limitations due to the nature of the sample and the descrip- tive character of the study. It should also be remembered that "managerial effectiveness" is based on corporate manage- ment judgment and appraisal. As indicated, however, the study does pursue new directions in work activity research and presents a first detailed study of the activities of a relatively homogeneous sample of hotel managers in the USA 10 Organization of the Study Chapter 1 highlights the lack of current empirical research undertaken to examine the effectiveness of managers in the hospitality industry. The chapter presents the thesis that effectiveness managerial job behavior can be identified through examination of management activities performed on the job. The purpose of the study and the anticipated benefits to be derived from it are outlined at this initial stage. Chapter 2 provides a framework for identifying the literature relevant to the study. The chapter also reviews the literature examining managerial work behavior by induc- tive research methods. Specific attention is given to studies concerned with work activities which can be clas- sified into work roles. A model is presented based on Mintzberg's identification of three major role classifica- tions: interpersonal roles, informational roles, decisional roles. The sole work activity study related to the hospitality industry is presented in detail, and the ele- ments of it which are relevant to this study are identified. Chapter 3 explains the research methodology, in which a controlled field study was set up to provide a relatively homogeneous sample of managers. A highly com- parable set of environmental, job and situational variables ll imposed virtually the same job constraints and demands on each of the Innkeepers studied. Detailed observation of those managers at work included recording of work activities and analysis of the purpose of those activities. The managers also provided perceptions of activities they con- sidered important and time consuming. Managerial activities were classified according to roles belonging to the three major role classifications mentioned above. Prior to field study, the role model was tested in a controlled laboratory setting. A set of hypotheses were next formulated in line with expectations of how managers would perform according to total time devoted to Specific work roles and time given to a specific role in relation to total time allocated to all work roles. Since it was known that the managers were ranked by the corporation as highly effective, effective, or less effective, hypotheses could be built around expected differences in:those two measures of time performance between highly effective and less effective managers for any individual role. Ten individual roles comprised the three major role classifications. Chapter 4 presents the analysis of the results obtained from structured observation of seven innkeepers in the mid—west USA over a period of seven weeks. Limitations and problems in recording and classifying activities are identified. Recorded dataannacollated and used to test the 12 hypotheses. Subjective data are used to aid in analysis where relevant. Significant findings, both related and unrelated to hypotheses, are presented. Chapter 5.presents a synopsis of research findings and examines those findings in the light of contemporary related research. Comparisons are drawn principally with Mintzberg's study which utilized the same role model and with Nailon's study of hotel managers in England. Potential contributions to the theory and practice of management in general, and hotel management in particular, are postulated. Finally, suggestions are made for subsequent research in related work activity studies. CHAPTER 2 SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF MANAGERIAL ACTIVITIES WITH SPECIFIC APPLICATION TO THE HOTEL INDUSTRY Puppose In any review of the literature relating to descriptions of managerial behavior and performance of work activities, it is essential that a researcher first definestfiuaboundaries of his review. This identification of the relevant areas of management literature and theory is made more difficult due to the problems of semantics (see, for example, Koontz, 1961) and taxonomy (see Dunnette, 1976). The areas to be examined in this review can perhaps best be defined according to the grid below: Table 1: Relevant Area of Focus Description Prescription Unit A Unit C General Manage- What a manager does What an effective ment Literature manager does (what and Theory a manager should do) Unit B Unit D Hotel Management What a hotel man- What an effective Literature ager does hotel manager does (what a hotel man- ager should do) 13 14 A distinction between descriptive and normative elements of management behavior should be made because of the apparent confusion between the two in parts of the management litera- ture. A review of the historical developments of management theory shows that the early empiricism associated with the functional school of management provided a description of "effective" managerial behavior based on the distilled experience of discerning practitioners. As the various "schools" of management theory contributed to the general body of knowledge, management literature became generally normative in content rather than descriptive. What appears to have been obscured during this developmental period is the inductive process. This is the ability to systematically analyze the work activities of managers. The frequently overlapping and confused attempts to describe managerial behavior have resulted in our present inability to develop (a comprehensive body of knowledge in such areas as managerial effectiveness. If we cannot record and describe managerial behavior it would seem logical that we cannot accurately distinguish effective managerial behavior from ineffective behavior. Drucker (1973), for example, has commented on this lack of attention in the literature given to the concept of managerial effectiveness. For semantic purposes, it would be appropriate to note at this point that Drucker defines effectiveness as doing the right things in contrast to efficiency as doing things right (1973, p. 45). 15 It is also appropriate at this point to make a distinc- tion between managerial effectiveness and organizational effectiveness since our focus in this study is upon the former. Seashore and Yuchtman (1967) have defined organiza- tional effectiveness as "the ability of an organization to exploit its environments in the acquisition of scarce and valued resources to sustain its functioning" (page 393). 'As noted by Campbell, et a1. (1970), this definition places emphasis on long—term optimization of organizational . actions which might include such dimensions as development, reliability, staffing, planning, cooperation, and other dimensions not all viewed as first order criteria by the operational manager. Managerial effectiveness, on the other hand, must be concerned primarily with short-term optimiza- tion of performance, and therefore results in many organiza- tionally critical dimensions being viewed as second or third order criteria, and which are considered desirable as supplementary goals and as influencing higher order criteria. While it may be possible to measure effective managerial performance at a particular point in time, measurement of organizational performance at just a single point in time fails to highlight the dynamic qualities of organizational processes. The study, therefore, concerns itself with effective managerial performance. The first major objective of this literature review has, therefore, been to examine how previous researchers and writers have described managerial work behavior and 16 particularly work behavior which can be identified, through inductive research, as being associated with corporately determined effective management. The second major objective of the literature review is to identify those studies of managerial work behavior which would appear to have particular relevance to the hospitality industry. The problem here is that a clearly identifiable literature in the area of hospitality management research does not exist. A computerized national dissertation search conducted by the writer in March 1976 yielded only four studies of hotel management. Another three studies dealt with curricula development for the hospitality industry. The fact is that the vast bulk of management research in the past sixty years has been conducted in the manufacturing rather than the service sector of the economy, a point previously noted in chapter one. Describing Managerial Behavior Two classification systems taken in conjunction with each other will best allow us to identify this literature relevant to the study. The first is concerned with the individual and his behavior, and, according to Wheaton (1968) provides us with four bases for behavior classifica- tion previously suggested by Altman (1966), and McGrath and Altman (1966). The four are: 17 1. Behavior Description Approach - behavior actually engaged in while performing a task. 2. Behavior Requirements Approach - behavior which should be emitted to achieve a certain level of performance. 3. Abilipy Requirements Approach - aptitudes and skills required by a task. 4. Task Characteristics Approach - the task as a set of conditions which elicits certain performances from an operator. Studies related to classification 1. will permit a focus on our area of concern, primarily identified as Unit A in Table 1 (page 13). The limited number of studies related to Unit B will also be examined. The second classification, provided by Rosemary Stewart (1976) will allow us to "review briefly the different ways in which people haVe attempted to describe the nature of managerial work" (p. 121). The two classifications are cross-referenced in the grid on the following page, and this grid will allow us to identify more clearly the literature relevant to the study undertaken. Stewart's typology consists of three distinct groupings: "The first two look at management in general and seek to describe the common characteristics of all managerial work. The first of these is concerned with the job as a whole. The second focuses on a particular aspect. The third group seeks to identify different types of jobs and to describe the characteristics of each type” (Stewart, page'121). Stewart's examples of research studies belonging to each grouping in the Behavior Description section have been Table 2: 18 Description of Managerial Work Behavior Ability Task Behavior Require- Require— Character- Description of Description ments ments istics Managerial Work (1) (2) (3) (4) Common characteristics of all managerial work Process of Fayol management (1916) Job Description Managerial Behavior Carlson -Activities (1951) -Critical Flanagan Incidents (1951) -Managent as Dalton political (1959) activity -Roles Mintzberg (1973) Particular aspectsiof managerial work Leadership Fiedler Behavior (1967) Problem Marples Portfolios (1967) Managers as a Cyert & decision-maker March (1963) Characteristics Hemphill of different (1959) t es of Stewart manager1al jobs (1975) I9 incorporated into the grid. Since we are not concerned with the conceptual imprecisions of the "Process of Management," nor the study of particular aspects of managerial work, the relevant areas of concern,vflun1examining what a manager does, are 1X (Managerial Behavior) and 12. 'The description of job-related managerial behavior and the description of the characteristics of different types of managerial jobs there- fore comprise the scope of the literature under review. A third and final classification now needs to be intro— duced which will define the focus even more sharply. This is the issue of appropriate field research methods necessary to gather data concerning managerial behavior. Bouchard (1976) and Scott (1965) have both provided extensive analyses of field methods used in the study of organizations and management.. Scott classifies the various role behaviors engaged in by the researcher as: A - Roles permitting sustained interaction - the disguised researcher - the open researcher - Roles permitting transitory interaction - the disguised researcher - the open researcher For our purposes studies in which roles permit transitory interaction by an open researcher will be included for con- sideration in the review. It is not possible to be equally specific when examining the different kinds of data to be considered, classified by source. These are: Informant Reports 20 Documents and records Observations by the researcher Surveys of Individual Respondents A number of the more important studies of managerial behavior description utilizes more than one of those data collection methods. All data sources are, therefore, considered relevant at this stage. Review of the relevant scope of the literature In order to describe what a manager does, we shall briefLyre—presentin.the following table those elements which constitute our field of examination. Table 3: Scope of Literature Review INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR Behavior Description Approach (behavior actually engaged in while performing a task) MANAGERIAL WORK 1 .4 Managerial Behavior (activities; critical incidents; roles) Characteristics of different types of managerial jobs ROLE BEHAVIOR OF RESEARCHER Open researcher with transitory interaction DATA SOURCES J—‘LoNH Documents and Records Observations by the researcher Informant Reports Surveys of individual respondents 21 Additional Criteria for Selection In addition to the foregoing boundaries which circum- scribe the scope of the relevant literature, several criteria for selection of appropriate studies have been applied. These are: l. The study must contain (a) quantified data on management activities; (b) critical incidents or work related behavior obtained by observation, or other means, at the time it occurred. This precludes studies in which data were collected from recall by subjects. Management personnel must be the subjects of the studies. A manager is taken to be a person "occupying a role at least once removed from operational work." This definition will, however, permit the inclusion of such major foremen studies as those by Kelly (1964), Ponder (1957) and Guest and Jasinski (1955). However, this does mean that certain important research, examining what pp: ployees do to get their work done, must be excluded. The work of McCormick (Position Analysis Questionnaire) and his colleagues (McCormick and Ammerman, 1960; McCormick, Jeanneret and Mecham, 1972) and the application of the FAQ by Taylor (1970) are cases in point. 22 Contingency View of Managerial Work It was briefly indicated in chapter one that individual managerial behavior and organizational outcomes are in- fluenced by many job-irrelevant factors not under the direct control of the manager. Henry Mintzberg has developed a contingency view of managerial work from empirical research and induction, as opposed to deductive reasoning. In this schemata he classifies those factors both under the control and outside the control of the manager which have influence upon the manager's work, and he identifies them as environmental, job, person and situational variables. Environmental Variables: Characteristics of the milieu, the industry, the organization Job Variables: The level of the job and the function supervised Person Variables: Personality and style characteristics of the incumbent in the job Situational Variables: Temporal features of an individual job I 5 \L - Basic Managerial Basic Characteristics] Role Requirements‘g of Managerial Work» 7 One Manager's Work ' Figure 1: A Contingency View of Managerial Work (Mintzberg, 1973, p. 103) 23 Mintzberg describes those variables as follows: "The work of a particular manager at a particular point in time is determined by the influence that four "nested” sets of variables have on the basic role requirements and work characteristics. First, and most broadly, the manager's job is influenced by the organization, its industry, and other factors in the environment. Second, there are work variations caused by the job itself - its level in the organization and the function it oversees (such as marketing or production). Third, there are variations within a given job stemming from the person in that job - the effects of his personality and style. Finally, there are variations within a particular individual's job caused by the situation (seasonal variations or temporary threats, for example). The work any manager does at a certain point in time can be described as a function of these four sets of variables" (1973, page 102). Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler and Weick (1970, page 71) use a highly comparable typology of managerial work. This classification becomes extremely important when an extensive review of the literature relating to the behavioral description of managerial work is undertaken with those variables in mind. The review will demonstrate that few research studies of managerial work explicitly attempt to identify, let alone control, the impact of variables extraneous to those under observation. The need to control extraneous variables does not always exist as, for example, in a situation where the purpose of the study is simply to describe how managers spend their time. When comparisons are made among subjects in a study, however, recognition of, (n: control over as many sets of extraneous ‘variables as possible is at the very least desirable, if ‘not a "sine qua non.” 24 Perhaps the sole attempt to confront directly this issue of confounding variables has been taken by Rosemary Stewart (1976), who examines the differences between jobs to determine the differing demands (of the various jobs) on the individual. The focus of her research is on the job rather than on the individual, although she is concerned with choices available to managers listed by job constraints and demands. As she notes, "The pattern that one sees if one observes a manager's work will be partly a result of that imposed by the job and partly a result of choice" (page 37). Stewart's contribution will be more fully examined in the section dealing with "Characteristics of Different Types of Managerial Jobs." At this stage it is appropriate to re-present the relevant section of the classification system outlined in Table 2 (page 18) since it will provide the framework for the review of the literature. 25 Table 4: Description of Managerial Work under Review Description of Managerial Work Behavior Description Common Characteristics of AlIRManagerial Work Process of'Management Job Description Managerial Behavior >(‘ Activities - Critical Incidents * - Management as Political Activity - Roles * Particular Aspects of ManageriaIWork - Leadership Behavior - Problem Portfolios - Manager as Decision Maker Characteristics of Different Types ofManagerial—jobs ;, Primary Areas of Review The literature review will concentrate on Managerial Behavior (Activities, Critical Incidents, Roles) and, to a lesser extent on the Characteristics of Different Types of Managerial Jobs, because of the importance and unique con- tribution of Rosemary Stewart to Work Activity Analysis. These primary areas are indicated (*) in Table 4 above. These areas together provide the foundation of what Mintzberg terms "The Work Activity School." He describes the school in the following manner: "This is the school of inductive research, in which the work activities of managers are analyzed systematically; conclusions are drawn 26 only when they can be supported by the empirical evidence. Furthermore, unlike those of the Leader Behavior school, these studies are most decidedly linked together. The research methods used are largely similar, and in most cases there are explicit attempts to incorporate the findings of previous studies in the development of new conclusions" (1973, page 21). The more significant of these studies have been carried out by the diary method, by activity sampling and by structured observation. These research techniques will be discussed more fully under the review of the studies related to Managerial Behavior, to which group of studies they have been principally applied. Two other classifications of secondary importance in the schemata (page 25) will be discussed briefly.at the outset. Job Description taxonomies attempt to describe managerial jobs in terms of their content, but not their characteristics. Leadership defies consensual definition which "makes it difficult to find leaders and follow them around" (McCall, 1977). More important, leadership, until recently, has been related to person variables, a situation which is changing as a more integrated contingency viewpoint gains increasing emphasis in the literature (see, for example, Pfeffer, 1977; McCall, 1977). Common Characteristics of All Managerial Work - Job Description Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler and Weick (1970) have pointed out the need for a descriptive system (job taxonomy) 27 particularly oriented toward managerial positions, and have expressed surprise at how "little research effort has been devoted to the development of managerial classification systems" (page 98). Hemphill's pioneering work in manage— ment taxonomy development involved the completion of a 575— item Executive Position Description Questionnaire by 93 managers at different organizational levels. He identified ten fundamental factors for describing different managerial jobs as: 1. Providing a staff service in non-operational areas. Supervision of work. Internal business control. Technical aspects with products and markets. 2 3 4 5. Human, community and social affairs. 6 Long-range planning. 7 Exercise of broad power and authority. 8 Business reputation. 9 Personal demands. 10. Preservation of assets. As Campbell et al. have noted (1970), it is possible that the lack of research following up on Hemphill's efforts has been due to the "behavioral sterility" of his management dimensions. Tornow and Pinto (1976) have developed a Management Position Description Questionnaire (MPDQ) for objectively describing the job content of executive and management positions in terms of their responsibilities, 28 restrictions, demands, and activities. Although the authors claim that "this study's thirteen position factors appear to provide a behaviorally meaningful taxonomy for describing, comparing, classifying, and evaluating managerial jobs in terms of their content (page 418), this study does not identify the characteristics of managerial work (for example, where the managers work, with whom they do so, etc.). More- over, a number of the position factors (for example, super- vision, complexity and stress, coordination of other organizational units and personnel) still seem to display some of the "behavioral sterility" of Hemphill's management dimensions. Work activity studies examine characteristics and frequently content; and taxonomies of managerial job content have, therefore, limited application to this study. Particular Aspects of Managerial Work - Leadership A review of the literature related to specific aspects of managerial work (leadership, motivation, decision-making, etc.) is beyond the scope of this thesis. In order to show why description of leadership behavior, for example, is not considered a primary area of focus, requires a few points of clarification. A weakness in examining a particular aspect of managerial work, such as leadership, is that other variables often become relegated to an inconsequential level by com- parison with the aspect under consideration. In terms of 29 Mintzberg's contingency framework - environmental, job and situational variables have been largely overlooked when dis- cussing leadership as a personality and style phenomenon. Emphasis on the person variables of leadership "may derive partially from a.desire to believe in the effectiveness and importance of individual action, since individual action is more controllable than contextual variables" (Pfeffer, 1977, page 109). As Pfeffer (1977) has further noted: "Even if, empirically, leadership has little effect, and even if succession to leadership positions is not predicated on ability or performance, the belief in leadership effects and a meritocractic succession provides a simple causal framework and a justification for the structure of the social collectively . whether or not leader behavior actually influences performance or effectiveness, it is important because people believe it does" (page 110). It should be recognized, therefore, that "many factors that may affect organizational performance are outside a leader's control, even if he or she were to have complete discretion over major areas of organizational decisions" (Pfeffer, page 107). The importance of Mintzberg's nested sets of variables again becomes apparent. Early leadership research has shown that neither personal characteristics nor styles of leader behavior can predict leadership effectiveness across situations. The majority of recent theories have added situational contin- gencies (e.g. Fiedler, 1967; Evans, 1970; House, 1971), thus acknowledging that the characteristics of situations 30 interact with personality and style dimensions of leaders. Refinements may even aim at isolating the specific situations in which certain styles are effective (e.g. Vroom and Yetton, 1973). However, in spite of this trend toward a broader perspective of the leadership process "a number of current trends in leadership seem to be holding back progress: (1) attempting to categorize a wide range of leadership behaviors into a few simple categories (e.g. structure and consideration), (2) defining the situation as a few simple categories focussed on only the immediate situation (e.g. the task of the group) and the interpersonal relations between leader and led, (3) measuring leadership outcomes solely on the basis of group effectiveness, and, (4) emphasizing static rather than dynamic components of the organizational context (i.e. assuming that the situation stays the same over time)” (McCall, in Hackman, Porter, Lawler, 1977, page 382). What McCall emphasizes is that although there is a considerable bulk of leadership research on styles, characteristics and contingencies, very few studies have actually examined what leaders do. He sees the contribu- tion of the work activity school as important, stressing that "by learning more about what leaders actually do, researchers can expose themselves to numerous activities not considered by most traditional approaches to the topic. It is in the day-to-day activities of leadership role occupants that the situational/organizational context of leadership is sharply reflected (McCall, 1977, page 27). According to McCall, Mintzberg's work is only a beginning, but breaking the set of leadership styles and 31 moving toward a more representative sampling of the behaviors involved in leadership heralds a more productive advance in research and training. Common Characteristics of All Managerial Work - Managerial Behavior — Recording Managerial Behavior Social scientists have sought to understand the nature of managerial work by studying what managers do. One of the principal methods by which this has been done is by means of an analysis of the proportion of time that managers spend in different ways. The total time is arrived at by adding up all the episodes that have been recorded, by one of a number of methods, under different headings. Although Taylor (1911) developed the basis of work measurement at the operator level by timing how long it took to do a specific piece of work, he made no attempts to quantify managerial work. Fayol (1916) about the same time in France had attempted to classify all staff activities in a large firm into: 1. Technical activities (production, manufacture, adaptation) 2. Commercial activities (buying, selling, exchange) 3. Financial activities (search for and Optimum use of capital) 4. Security activities (protection of property and persons) 5. Accounting activities (stocktaking, balance sheet, costs, statistics) 32 6. Managerial activities (planning, organization, command, coordination, control) Many theorists have concentrated on this functional approach to the description of managerial work (Fayol, 1916; Gulick, 1937; Brech, 1963; Drucker, 1961; Koontz and O'Donnell, 1964). Few attempts have been made to test the validity of such constructs, and when attempts have been made to record managerial functions (such as decision making) they have generally failed either because the field research techniques "interfered too much with the work pattern of the participating manager or because of the difficulty of identification (6f the function)” (Nailon, 1967). It is exceedingly difficult, for example, to tell when a manager is involved in a decision-making process. Planning, coordination and other such functions are equally difficult toidentify in a managerial position characterized by high levels of work fragmentation and action. We cannot, there- fore, readily describe managerial work in terms of a set of composite functions, such as planning, coordinating, organizing, and controlling. These words do not describe the actual work of managers. They describe certain vague objectives of managerial work; "they are just ways of indicating what we need to explain" (Braybrooks and Lindblom, 1963, page 537). As Sune Carlson has also noted: 33 "If we ask a managing director when he is coordinating, or how much coordination he has been doing during a day he would not know, and even the most highly skilled observer would not know either. The same holds true of the concepts of planning, command, organization and control, and also for most of the concepts used by Barnard in his analysis of the executive functions" (Carlson, 1951, page 24). Such functional terms cannot, therefore, be recorded and are not appropriate to describe managerial behavior. They neither examine work characteristics nor specifically examine work content. In order to examine what a manger actually does it is necessary to develop a classification system permitting accurate recording of his activities and/or behavior. "Stewart (1967) lists three methods commonly used to study what managers do on their jobs. First, an observer may record what a manager does. Second, the manager may keep his own record or diary of his activities during a workday. Third, a manager may be asked to estimate (without benefit of systematic record keeping) how he spends his time, or he may use a prepared checklist of job duties or behaviors to indicate what he perceives to be the relatively more and less important behavioral elements and requirements of his job" (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler and Weick, 1970, pages 72-73). These methods comprise the general field research classification which Bouchard (1976) has called "Participant Observation." In his recent extensive review of field research methods Bouchard has expressed concern that Participant Observation has been held in relatively low esteem by the scientific community, in spite of the fact that 34 "a number of the classic studies in industrial and organizational psychology are based on this methodology (Blau, 1963; Dalton, 1959; Gouldner, 1954; Selznick, 1949). We urge the researcher to carefully examine the potential of this much maligned method. It has strengths which compensate for the weaknesses of other methods" (Bouchard, page 385). He continues by identifying the particular advantages of Participant Observation as: - "focussing the researcher's attention on the behavior of individuals rather than simply on their verbal interview or test-taking behavior" (page 385). - "forcing the researcher to look at the whole man, the whole organization, and the whole environ- ment (social and physical)" (page 385). In other words, it recognized the existence of Mintzberg' 3 environmental, job, person, and situational variables. - putting the researcher in the context of dis- covery - observing unanticipated data. Certainly, each of the "Participation Observation" methods has its particular advantages, disadvantages and most appropriate situations for application. Mintzberg, for example, has presented a table of the major Participant Observation research methodologies that have been used to study managerial work, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of each methodology. This table is reproduced on the following page. The data gathering methods and relevance of the individual studies contained in the table will be explained in the review of the Work Activity Literature, which now follows. 35 .mNN «was .m.a. .xuoz Hmfiuowmsm: mo ousumz 9.3. .wumnmucwz .nucomv nsom .EomfiEE .... 2:83 :55. ..c 3.3.8 6.2.2.: ...... 32:8 2:: on...» .a 3....» OP 95:58 ...... “.5962: .3 38:3 .52... -.....z... 331.8... -58 .3... o... .25... oh 5.23..— 25 E 2.9“ 29.3.... .0 38...... 3.2.5.34... 3....“ oh «so. .58»::...: “5.9:... ..o ...—:55. ca...— .3 8:38.025? .33: oh B:§.::...o_m_uo: :3: .29... :_ 56:0 262...... 55.3 .35." oh so. a... .6 5.338: 93:32: 3:... o... .0928... 93.3865: 833.2. 0:8». .288... o. 2.85:. 30...: 3.3.33. nos... 3.55:8. 20.0505 .5650... £33.30. .953 2:2. ......89... one. .225 3.383332 2.55:. .5222: LS... 8.8.. .mzes.._...3:o: 3.57.5..5. >6: ..o 3:38: .32... 9.7.29.2. :_ ..."... 2:: 5:32.: ...... $3523.89 £2.26... LS... 5.3 5:938: 2:8 “32:88.: >6: ... 95.5.: 38...... ”Bio—26: .... ...—.... oz 2...: o... .3 3.2.8 .o: «ECO 2.8 3:323. 035538.... .3 «:5 26.5.82: 8 6.52.32.35 3.25.3“ on o. .30.: o. .v.:o_m:u...__. 3o: :5": ......E. o. .2235. 83.25 2.0.: o. ...... “cages... >6: .5...» .83... e. 8:883. 833.: 8.3.33. .3 9.3.32 3:80....5 3:95.32: 2:: 9.0.3.3.... o. 3:20. 233.2. 39:8 ow...— ..c._v .585... 9.30.: 8:25 .8 «322 33:95.5 £226 .3 5.2.8:...— .9335: .393.— .3930 ......o cameo: 63:5 ...uiam 8.5....3..=3. .3395 £8.80 37:." E . 5.553...— 9.20 5:22.34 25m 630 :o:§.3...0 3.32... m .532833 3.32:3:3 mEEE:m bm>zo< 335 3.63.5 ..o occuzcuw ...... .532.— .825 32.62:— ...... 825.2325 ..c :6.“ 2....» ch. 632.25.: 5.535... 2:2 892....» :0 «3:... 35.5250 333.02 32.5% 522.85 8: Burner—.3 na:6...:......>_ém5 5.2.2 Amvoua.::>..< 8:...)— u:o=8=.E< 19:92 XHO3 Hwfihmfifingfifium Ou mUOSumZ flame/mm "m mHQMH 36 Managerial Behavior - Activities A number of studies (principally stemming from Sune Carlson's work in 1951) originated from a belief that more information was needed about what managers actually did, and that one way of obtaining this was to make a simple analysis of their activities. The objectives were frequently to study the proportion of time that managers spent in different ways. Because Work Activity is an inductive method of research, all studies include measure- ment of activities or episodes, and can therefore be sub- sumed under the classification of "activities." However, since a number of studies can more appropriately be clas- sified according to (a) activities which constitute critical incidents, (b) activities which are grouped into work roles, and (c) activities which are viewed as the result of demands, constraints and choices open to managers, they will be identified as such. The following table presents a comprehensive list of research studies belonging to the Work Activity school which fulfill the selection criteria of quantified data relating to management_personnel. A number of studies have not yet appeared in the management literature and their inclusion is the result of close communication with Professor Mintzberg and other researchers who have completed or are currently conducting Work Activity studies. Many of the studies contained in the table have been taken from Mintzberg (1973), 37 Campbell et a1. (1970), Nailon (1968), and from personal correspondence with Mintzberg's list of current researchers in Work Activity analysis. The studies are presented chronologically, rather than by classification, since a number of studies relate to more than one category of work behavior (for example, activities and roles) and would need ”to be listed a number of times in each appropriate category. Chronological presentation avoids this duplication. It is not necessary to review each of the studies contained in this table since Dubin (1962), Mintzberg (1973), Campbell et al. (1970), and Nailon (1968) have provided detailed information elsewhere. However, certain studies and methods of research are given particular attention because of their usage in determining the structure of the - present study. The first significant empirical study of managerial work was that undertaken by Sune Carlson (1951) who developed and used the time diary as a research method. In it were recorded the daily activities of ten executives with the following points being noted for each activity: - Place of work - Contacts with persons or institutions - Technique of communication - Type of issue being handled or discussed - Content of the action (advising, commanding, making decisions) 8 3 Apmscwucoov .mocmahoMHmm pom m>eu sommmo ou Hmwo mucmpfionw Inna muow>m£om 1: us Hmowufiuo ¢mma .mEHu pmummz .mocmahowhma mm>wusomxm Hmsvfi> quGH m>oumEH ou somoumam cowum>ummno UHumocmem .xuo3 mm>wunooxm .wcflamamm sauna mo mamsflms< :aou: mm sua>uuom .snman moaua>auo< mama moamahomuom m>wuzomxm Hmnpfl>wpcw o>oua cowu nae ou nomOHm mm>wusomxm um>ummno .mBmH> moaom yam UHumoameQ mowzo OH numucw .humwn mmHuH>Huo< HmmH xuo3 mawmw muouxouwa mo mfimhamc< finance NH fiBocxcs mowufi>fluo< mqma mowua>fluom mo coflu mumwmama -snauumae saxmmz spec Hm sumfia mmaua>auo< mead mmmh< Hmoom muomHLSm pom: wonumz cowumoflmwmmmao pmuuomwm Ham» H0H>mnmm hww>wuo< xuo3 Hmwumwmcmz mo mmwpsum HmowpfimEm "my magma cmwmcmam acmaumo .: .3 mcaauoz .Hwn—thmmmm 39 Apmsawucoov uoa>m£mn m.cmEmuom moprum cmw>wawpcmom msow>mhm mo Bmw>om .mcoquCDm Hmwumwmcmfi ucmHmMMHp Ou pmumooaam mEHB .mmmcm>fiu nommmm cmEouom .xhos %mep mo mamxamcm muscHE u%numuncwz .mnmwmama Hmuoom paw Houuon Comaumn mchmu numm uow>m£mn :H mooamhmmmwa .cowumowasaaoo .mumwmcma macaw mawnmcowumamm moaanEoo unwflm cw mumwmcma on GmEmHom cm mEhfiw kcms Eouw mm>fiu unomxo Non amEoHom om mumwmcmfi «Hesse paw mm>wu :nome em mumwmawa mappfis ¢ mmumcflpuonsm paw muowumanm wcfl3mw>umucH wcHHaEmm >uw>wu now hume .cowum>ummno mahom nowumHmEoonmawm cowum>ummno mahom wafluuoaouumamm cowum>pmm£o mwcHuwm mowuoasm mcowum>ummno m3ma>umucH known mucopwocH Hmowuaho mmaua>auo< Ammpomflmwv mmHuH>Huo< mmHUH>Huo< mucmpwoaH Hmowufiuu mmaufi>auo< moaom mmHuH>auo< Auamuaoo mam mofiumw numuowumzov mmaua>auo< mmma mmmH mmma mmma emaa omma mmmH «moa zmx mswcmpuflz mausm popcom mEmHHHwB mecwmmh .ummau axooum mcunm Ammaanuaoov s mamas O I... Awmsawucoov .mafiu Hwonu pcmam mumwmcmfi 30m uow>m£mn wcfixmfi unowmwomn .mucopwocfi Hmowufluo no woman mofiuowoumo wcwaoam>0n .mwmm: mafia 530 was wcwcfiam nxm Hmwmcmz .mpmmn quEuHmdmp paw mooxo mmwno cmm3umn cemflumm uSoo %uH>Huo< .mEfiu pmummz mmanmcowumamu Hmucomwuom .20n Hmwumwmcma menu mo uuma mm mowuw>wuom DOM mo mocmuhanH mhmwwcma mappwa paw MOHcmm w mEHHm ucmummmwp ca muowcmfi Hoacmm o mnmwmcme mnoum mumoouu Howmswe H mumwmcme mavens ecu uoflcmm mm mumwmcme mappwe m mhmwmcmfi mm macaw .mahom mafipuoomuuwamm human mmumchHOLSm paw mnowuomsm waw3ow>umucfi .wcfluuoamuumHmm paoomu COHumHmEooumamm human SOHum>H0mno onwmcaowumoso m¢nua>auo< mucmpwocH Hmoaufluo mmaua>auo< mmaua>auo< moaun>auu< mucwmuumcoo pcm mmeEop pow «oma qwoa «oma moma moma Ncma coma mmma >mumw .canso ComcflHan .umzmum sommHHz .COmmpmpn< means: mchm: .me24 .cmEmmoo Hmwnmnmpcmg Hannaam: AemsaaucouV o «name 41 Apmscwucoov .mmaon Hmcowmwomp paw Hmcowumshomcw .Hm:0mumaumuaH .mEHu mefiu pcmam mumwmcma 30m .mmpOmwmm coauomumucw pum30u mcowuomou .mhmwmcmz .meu Hfimnu pammm mumwmama 50H£3 fiH moocm aummwflp paw mowufiumawawm . mhwufimo. coHumochEEoo .mcowuocnm Hmwumwmcme aw unmam oEHH .maflu Hamsu pfimmm mumwmame 3cm mm>wu50mxm mmfiso m wuowwama Hmuon q muowmama Ho>mH HmBOH paw mappwfi moa mumwmcmfi 00H mnmwmama mo mcoflu nauswwmcoo msowum> mowcmmEoo amu CH mumwmcme mappfia we mumwmama coauomm d cowuw>ummno pounuonuum kumwp wcfluuoampnmamm known mnmwa human mahom Soaumamfioo umamm .mmfiumwn mum>Hmmno kn wGHHQEMm sua>auu< moaom mmaua>auo< m¢aua>auu< muCHmuumcoo paw mUCmSwp now Aucmucoo paw moflumw nuouomumzov mmHuH>Huo< manua>auo< wo¢a mama moma Roma no\oooa moma moma coma wumnwuswz coaflmz Eamncmccmfi .Hmuuom .umH3mA uum3mum acmmEonH coumsq .ocuom aaamx Asmacaucoov o magma 42 .mQOn manwnmano sanwas ca mumwmfima Hmuooa ppm umuuon cmmBumn moaou amuoa>m£mn Ga mmocmummwan .coaumoamam nmmao maou m.mumnNuCaz mo umwe .coauamouom xpo3 amaumwmcmz .mQOM oamaomam Ga mooaoso ppm monamhum icoo .mQOm amaummmcme Ca moocwummman mango moo ca mummmcmfi Hmuos w mmaocmwm ooa>umm uaansa mo mnouomuap am maham mm ca mumwmcma mmm mumwmcme «mm .mEham aamam mouau mo mm>au muu unooxm moanu mapca aamumu map ma ucma umwmmme mappafi coaum>ummno pounuonuum ouamccoaummno muamccoaummno 3ma>nmucH whamcaoaummso 3oa>umucH moaom .mmana>auo< mucamuumcoo paw mpcmEmp new .mmaom mmaua>auo< muCamHumcoo paw mpamamp now coaum>nmmno pmuduoauum mmaua>auo< wmma mmma onma mmma moma mama mma mmuwcao mmzoao uHmBmum cmuozo ammfioasumu Aumscauaoov o magma 43 Personal assistants, telephone operators, secretaries, porters, interviews and self-completion records were all used to collect the data. Carlson's principal findings were that the executives studied had little uninterrupted time; that they worked long hours; had little control over the design of their workday; and, that a large proportion of executive time is engaged in "getting information." What is particularly valuable is that Carlson attempted to record both the characteristics of the job and the content of the activities. Luijk's (1963) study of 25 Dutch executives came close on the heels of Carlson's work. The purpose of the study was to analyze in detail how senior executives spend their working day in order that they may improve their ef- fectiveness. Attention was paid particularly to the issue of wasted hours. Luijk's concern for Time Management has therefore considerably predated the emphasis of many recent writers on optimal time use at the executive level :(Bird and Yutzy, 1965; Drucker, 1967; Lee, 1973; Cohn, 1974; Mac- kenzie, 1974; Kealy, 1975; Stewart, 1976). Luijk's study is also particularly valuable because of the variation of data collecting techniques used. These included continuous personal observation, activity sampling, self-recording, observations by secretaries, and interviews with staff not personally subject to the study. 44 Brooks' study, although not particularly well known, was undertaken in conjunction with Cornell University and Moore Business Forms, Inc., in 1954. Brooks attempted to answer a number of questions, among them: "How do the behavior patterns of excellent supervisors differ from those of below-average ones?" Ninety-six executives and super- visors (from vice president to superintendent) engaged in production, finance, sales and industrial relations identified their supervisory duties (150 in all) and had recorded the time and frequency of performance of each of those functions. Functions emphasized by "excellent" and H "below-average leaders were compared. Performance of functions was determined by both subordinates and super- visors of the executives studied. While this study draws comparisons across a broad section of managerial levels, it does offer an important development by attempting to relate emphasis on managerial functions to effective performance. The next study of relevance was that conducted by Horne and Lupton in 1965.. By contrast to the previous study, Horne and Lupton's work has been given considerable atten— tion in the literature, being discussed at length by Campbell et al.;and it has provided Mintzberg with one of his principal role categories (informational) as well as providing Nailon with his major data-gathering records (self-completion forms). Horne and Lupton obtained managers' activity records for 66 ”middle-managers” in ,ten companies of differing production technologies. The record consisted of a number 45 of grids containing sets of descriptive words associated with the activity; this provided.ardneepointstatement about the activity. These nine types of information about each work episode are shown below. Table 7: Nine-Point Statement about an Activity Type of Information Example 1. Method and means used Phone, meeting, letter, etc. 2. Time and duration Time of day and time encompassed 3. Location Office, home, other company, etc. 4. Time relationship For the past, present, or future 5. Level relationship Organizational unit dealt with 6. Contacts Person, group, organization, etc. 7. Purpose Giving, seeking, reviewing, etc., information, plans, advice, decisions, etc. 8. Functional area Technical, financial, personnel, etc. 9. Managerial Formulating, organizing, "classification” ' unifying, or regulating. (as tabulated in Campbell et a1., 1970, page 74) The study, therefore, examined both characteristics and content of the managers' jobs. However, it should be remembered that the subjects were from firms varying widely in size, product, technology, and that "their functional 46 areas ranged widely over both line and staff assignments and over many ”specialties" (engineering, comptrolling, personnel, sales, purchasing, etc.) (Campbell et a1., page 74). The strength of their methodology appears to lie in their nine-point informational breakdown fer each work episode. The next study considered is unique because it is the sole attempt to examine the work activities of hotel managers. Nailon's work in England appears to have been carried out at almost exactly the same time as Mintzberg's study in the U.S.A.,aufiiboth provide an extensive review of the work activity literature prior to their individual studies. The purpose of Nailon's study was "to investigate the derivation of a methodology for the study of hotel managers' activities, to test this in a field situation and to compare the results with data available from other industries" (Nailon, 1968, page 19). Nailon utilized the Horne and Lupton nine-point statement about an activity (page 45) to design a recording pro-forma for his intended study of eight English hotels of different sizes and classifications (resort, transient, commercial, etc.) but owned by the same company. A preliminary field test using his original pro-forma indicated the need for a further revision of the Horne and Lupton instrument for his particular study. This revised instrument used by Nailon is shown on page 47. Eventually asecond group of field Table 8: START TIE! ACTXVXTY {UNCTICN CCNTENT LCCAT 106 INTERACT 47 Nailon's Self-Completion Record No. Code Date OS 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Corresaondonce Teleshcne IN Telephone OUT Talking (I) :ervieu Discuee1Cn (2.) Sucervisicn Officiel En:. . Pe:eonel fleszeuzant Kitchen Banquet/Conf. Acccnmodetion Housekeezinq Bars] ere Perth-sing Central legs. Maintenance Tecnnical Cannerczel AcCOunting - erecnne Public Relates. financial 0m office L: Room Eecx Hausa Floors Other office Control/Aczaunte Urges Renteurent Kitchen Reception are an Heed Office Colleegue Suaolier ’.W! Petl. Customer Goslinqle ezetue Gosnixed etetue Other squattinete nine. 55 60 pg.‘ (Nailon, Appendix 2, page 125). 48 tests were carried out and "the results of these were dis- cussed with the manager and modifications incorporated until the record could be completed rapidly and without undue interruption of work" (Nailon, page 53). It should be noted that in both Horne and Lupton's and Nailon's studies managers recorded their own activities. Although observation by a skilled researcher is perhaps more desirable than activities recorded by the subject of the study, observation by a researcher is not always possible. As Nailon notes, for example, "it was also apparent by this time that data would have to be obtained by managers maintaining a self- completion record since direct observation would not be practicable due to the geographic separation of units and the time available for the project" (Nailon, page 53). In this statement Nailon is seen to concede that (structured) observation would have been a more desirable field research method had the limitations not existed which kept him from utilizing this method. Nailon eventually reduced his sample from eight to three hotels for a number of reasons (withdrawal of support; lack of supervisory level in smaller hotels; changes in management, etc.) and he had each of his three managers record their activities over three distinct time periods in July, August, and September 1967. His study is the sole attempt to empirically classify and quantify managerial activities in the hospitality industry, and he makes no attempt to analyze the content of the activities. He states: 49 "As an instrument, the methodology used in this study is imperfect since it only quantifies activities in terms of function, content, location and persons involved. This has been done without identifying the noetic processes involved, which, it might be argued, are of a greater importance. Nevertheless, it is maintained that the study has demonstrated the practicability of gathering pertinent data on hotel managers' activities which, by extending the scope, could provide valid informa- tion on what needs to be studied in depth. In this way an effective approach can be developed to helping managers improve their performance" (Nailon, page 118). The principal focus of his study was, therefore, to record the time devoted by the managers to specific activities in specific locations in the three hotels studied. follows: His tables are extensive but can be summarized as - individual activities classified by percentage. of events — individual activities classified by percentage time occupied - percent total time of activities associated with functions - percent total time of activities associated with content - percent time spent in different locations - percent of total interaction time with others In his conclusions, Nailon attempts to use his data to help answer the two questions which were raised at the outset of the study. These were: 50 1. In what way do hotel managers compare with managers in other industries in terms of their management activities? 2. Of the accumulated body of knowledge in relation to management, what part of these general findings are relevant to hotel management? To the first question, Nailon provides the following statements regarding the distinctiveness of the hotel managers' activities: - "a heavy involvement with the external environment rather than with his own staff; - they are engaged in a continuous monitoring of their unit through fleeting contacts and frequent movement about the establishment" (Nailon, page' 120). In response to the second question, Nailon draws three generalizations from the study: - hotel managers can benefit from general management courses - knowledge of operating techniques needs development - special skills are required by the hotel manager Nailon therefore provides an important starting point for the industry and a valuable contribution in his activity analysis of hOSpitality managers. 51 Managerial Behavior - Critical Incidents As noted in Mintzberg's table on "Methods to Study Managerial Work" (page 35) .the major disadvantage of the critical incident technique is that only certain parts of the job are covered by the data. As Mintzberg has pointed out, "There may be a tendency to ignore activities that are routine, complex or sensitive, or to focus on special activities to the detriment of comprehensive research" (Mintzberg, 1973, page 223). In an exploratory study of the activities of hotel managers, such as the one undertaken by the writer, it would seem more appropriate to gain a general understanding of the total set of work roles carried out by the manager than to examine in detail critical incidents related to managerial behavior. This technique which "allows for intense probing" (Mintzberg, 1973, page 229) might be relevant for subsequent research once general activity and behavior patterns have been established. Managerial Behavior - Roles Attention now must turn to the need to identify and describe managerial behavior in more than individual activities classified by percentage of time occupied or by location. The issue is one of bridging the gap between characteristics of work activity analysis and content of work analysis. To clarify the distinction, Mintzberg has stated: 52 "In discussing the results of the work-activity studies, we must draw a basic distinction between the content and the characteristics of managerial work. A researcher studying the job of the manager may wish to know such things as where managers work, with whom they do so, how long they work, what media they use (telephone, for example). Answers to questions like these give the characteristics of managerial work. Or, the researcher may wish to know what managers do in their work - that is, what activities they carry out and why. Answers to these questions describe the content of managerial work. Categoriza- tions of work content and purpose lead to statements of functions or roles. The first type of analysis would tell us, for example, that a manager worked long hours in a given week, whereas the second would show that he did so because he was deeply involved in labor negotiations" (1973, pages 21-24). Studies which can generate data relating to both characteristics and content are, therefore, more relevant in a study of managerial behavior. The problem has been that, in order to describe the content of managerial work, most researchers have followed the route of the "behaviorally sterile" management dimensions mentioned previously and which have been found almost impossible to identify and classify. Thus the broad functional approach and attempts to factor analyze different managerial jobs (through Executive or Management Position Description Questionnaires) do not provide both characteristics and content of managerial work. Henry Mintzberg, in 1968, made an attempt to rectify this situation in his empirical study of the work activities of five chief executives in organizations which ranged from 53 research and development of technological products for industry and defense to a large suburban school system. According to Mintzberg, "this study was designed to focus (1) on the job rather than the man, (2) on basic similarities in managers' work rather than on differences, and (3) on the essential content of the work rather than its peripheral characteristics" (1973, page 230). Using the research methodology known as "structured observation" Mintzberg observed each manager for one work week. Having armed himself previously with "preliminary data" relating to the executives' appointment schedule; information about the organization; and background information about the manager, Mintzberg during the work week recorded structured and anecdotal data on the executive position observed. "'Structured data' were collected on the pattern of activity through every minute of the workday and on all mail and verbal contacts. Three records were used to record these data. The chronology record described activity patterns and cross—referenced the other two records. The mail record described each piece of incoming and out- going mail. The contact record described each verbal contact" (page 232). "'The Anecdotal Data' comprised materials on specific activities. Critical or other- wise interesting incidents were described in considerable detail; exhibits of actual correspondence were obtained; background notes were recorded during informal dis- cussions with the managers. These anec- dotal materials were used to facilitate coding and to deve10p and support some of the theory" (page 232). 54 Thus Mintzberg, by using "structured observation" as his research technique, achieves the flexibility of open- ended observation with the discipline of seeking certain types of structured data. As a research technique "structured observation" appears to offer a considerable number of advantages over questionnaires, diary studies and activity sampling methods. This will be discussed more fully in chapter 3. What is unique about the methodology is that it allows the researcher "to develop content categories inductively" (Mintzberg, page 25). The study allowed Mintzberg to compile detailed chronology, mail and contact records (work characteristics) on a basis of time allocation, but it also allowed him to analyze the activities and identify the purpose of each activity. "The key to our study was the categorization of the purpose. This describes the essential content of managerial activity -~in raw form, what five managers did - and it is what led to the development of the theory on roles" (page 249). In effect, the activities, when analyzed by purpose, were found to be able to be classified into a set of three major role categories - namely interpersonal roles, informational roles and deci- sional roles. A summary of the role categories and sub-roles contained in each is shown on pages 55-56 As can be seen, the roles were inductively derived from analysis of identifiable activities, as well as from the results of previous work activity studies which had hinted at the importance of 55 Apmscaucoov $85.88.. .35....5 3.23.5 2.3 20.55228 ....2... ..o savanna... 33.5.5.5. .0. 2.3.8. poi—.3025. , .a==u< 2.562.... ....a ...ma.>a....2§uz .315... .53 2.. 5 35:283. .26: :o..~u...:Ean 33.5 .2533 30...... ..md. . 3.3.32.3. 2 >5: no.2... , 3.55 ”539.5 302:8 .38.. .8392. 3.5.2555 .o.. cornbcafic 25 ....E 95.5.5.0"— an.:o. 3.5.3.6320 .36: .8355... :de :5. -2555 ...—.....8... ....3 ......E. ...d “5.28:8 an carcass nos—.8 ......" ....E .... ”5:5...— 33:02.5 .3235..an .o 5.553.. 02!. 88>... ..o :o.....»...:. ...... c2....o.e..o.5 ”529.... 2.5» 43.2... ..o....::o..5 qu... 2.2.3.590 2.. .3 22.52.. o. 3.2.8.2...» .2..c ES. .0 83.5.5 :5... .5382 ..o..sE.o..5 .....Eucfih 55.3533 2.. ..o =o....E.o.5 7.58.8 ...... 22.8.5 ..o .256 2:2. an 8....25. ......E:o..>=u ...... c2355.»... .3 95.52325: .3320... 5:96.. 3 2.82.6 .. ..o .33.... no.3... L85 38%..0 but? 0...? 333... ...... 3.3m 8.2.5.350 3.53.. 3:22:25... AWE—.3. 35.8... :0 5.5.5.. ...... 2.3.5 .3528... .wsa. :o ...E... -362 .205.an 53.6.35... v.3 .839. .5 8:38 3:5... .8.....Eu 2022.5 ”522.5 33.5.8. 350 8.53 .55.. ...—:2... =c_.aE.o..5 ...... 22:... 2.30... 2.3 3655.... ...... 22.2.8 8.35.52. 5.. 2.8.8 .352... .393 3...... ..o u.=oE.....o.3o:..u< 032.5 .0 353...: ..oao.o>u.v...8 ”5352‘ 55...... 8.3.1.2.... 3.3.... 3.5.82. ...... £55.... 3.0. 3.8948... 9.3.9.5 8...»..2. .95....» 5. 0.3.32.3. ”3.5.2.5....” ..o .... .o .65....32 35...: .3... .3835... .... 3.23.5 25:56.. ...... 55.2.3... 2.. 5.. 03.39.35. .o—éoa «.3... 152.5552... 32...... ... .....o 3.5.3.6....” 05.2. .3qu .e .3... a ..o 3...... 05:5. ...:o ...—.52. ..5 63.5.8... 85:2..om .3336. 2......“ {52.5.00 ..o .35.... a 5.5.2. o. .553: :52. Niagara 2.2.2:...“— 1:322:35 BEES... o... 5 25:583. A... 5.52:: so... .525...an v.3.— n.>..:uoy.m...5..U..= 33:5 :5... au...>..u< 03......Eoc. mmaom Goa mo zuwaenm no mHBme 56 .mm-mm mama: .m.m. .0003 Hmwumwmcmz mo 005002 059 .mhmnuucfiz hunmmv 3.5m 5.. .....03 3...... 3.055550: 0.. ... 105.50 5.. 55.5500: 5.3.: ... 0055.000. .0. 00055005.. 5.08.... :0_.55m0z 05.25090 0... 5.50350. 5.. 0.5.5003: 5.5.032 3.55.00 5.500.500.0000. .50.. ...03 ....0.........5...... ..0 50500.. .3535 05.55. 0:... 5...: 0... ”5550.00... 0... 05. 05.005... 55:35.55 5005...... .... .0 35.0.... 5 .... 00500000. 5:05.25 5.5.2... “.5205. 5.5.0.. ...... 55.00 “.535: 0... .00..0 5:55.. .... ..0 30503. 5.80.? .05.... a... 5.55.000. 50......0 0...... ..5...:.. 5.. «.3000. ”05.5.2.5 150235005 ..0 :0....00=.. 0... 5.. 0.230003% 00.53.. 330m .... 3.5 3.0.0.00 00050:... 5.. 50.. 35.0 30:55. ...00x0 .... 5050052.... .....0. 50...... ...... 30:55.0... “.5305. -3... 10.02.35 3.3.50.5 30... 05.00 3:55. .505 .3 .23 .0052... 5 10.5050 30.30.. 30:6. ...... 30.2% -55.... 5...: 5:00 02.00.50 5.. 355003.. 00:55.5: 0.... ...... , 0.5 3.5... 0...... .333 .50 9.5.. 05:35 30.. .0 50:55:23 0... :03 3 0.00.3... 52.8 .0 5.3.. ....3 30...... 00:30:00 0.03 0...... 2.005... 5050555. ..0 3530...: 39.5.0 .30.... m5... 0. 3500.0... 5550.500 5.. 500.3 005.5... .0: 053.. 5 :0..5..5 “.5205. 505055.55 3.5.5. .50 3.5.5.5000 5.5.5 5.. 603.03.05.00 350.15. 2.07.3. 30.5. ...... 20.35 5. 505.5550 ... ...... :0..nn.5...5 3:0...0w 5000503.... 3:00.00: «.0235 0. 5.2.55.5 ..0 .5505 ..co..a.....a:5 :0 .303 n. 350... 0.0. 5.552.... 0539.... 30250 ..0.0 ......03. .35.“... 60.5.0: .50... ”.0035 3.00.2.2: 3 00000355.”... 5.5500 .05. ....E 05.05... 55.00.: 0.5.. -5005 :0 0.0.0.300 0. 00:055.... 2.550.... 5.53.0.5 ..maa.uaoo. o m..m. 57 certain role categories (e.g. Horne and Lupton, 1965, and the informational roles). That Mintzberg succeeded in both his description of managerial behavior and his inductive reasoning can perhaps best be attested to by the acclaim accorded him by his academic peers and practicing managers, and by the subsequent research generated by his study. Weick (1975), in a review of Mintzberg's The Nature of Managerial Work (1973) (based on Mintzberg's 1968 study), has stated: "Rarely has the field of Organizational Behavior had better evidence of the value of description and induction than is found in Mintzberg's book" (Weick, 1975, page 111). Although subsequent studies have validated Mintzberg's model of managerial work (for example, Belcher, 1975) and although the "invisible college" (Mintzberg, 1977) of those undertaking directly related research on managerial work is growing steadily, attention should be paid to one area of concern. Primarily Mintzberg and other researchers undertaking Work Activity analysis have been faced with the problem of interpretation of observations, and,therefore, find it difficult to operationalize their model. As Mintzberg has acknowledged: "In looking at the theory of roles for purposes of future work, researchers may ask how operational it is . Our simple answer is that it is not fully opera- tional in the form presented, but that to make it so should not be a difficult 58 task. The chief problem in doing so is that there is not a simple one-to-one mapping of activities onto roles" (page 267). Part of this difficulty is due to the complexity of the positions observed, and part is due to limitations imposed on the researcher as a result of use of structured observation as a research method. Confidentiality of in- formation; complexity of, or exclusion from meetings, and effects of the presence of the researcher can potentially limit the validity of the data gathered. In spite of these difficulties, Mintzberg's work is a valuable step forward in the empirical analysis of managerial behavior. Characteristics of Different Types of Managerial Jobs Hemphill (1959-1960) and Stewart (1967, 1975) have so far provided the only major investigations which sought to distinguish the behavioral requirements of different managerial jobs. This is surprising given the fact that in order to understand a job one needs to know the demands it imposes (apart from the specialist knowledge that may be needed), the constraints that limit what the jobholder can do, and the choices that are open to the jobholder. Only perhaps when those demands, constraints and choices are understood can we begin to identify the skills that are needed for each particular job. Stewart (1975) interviewed 274 managers in a broad range of organizations of different sizes over a period of two and one half years with the aid 59 of a number of researchers from the Oxford Center for Manage- ment Studies. By examining the work activities of the managers she identified four distinct work patterns which were largely the result of the differing demands and con- straints of the various managerial positions which were found to belong to each work pattern. Her four types and their respective work characteristics were: Systems Maintenance: recurrent, fragmented, responding, troubleshooting Systems Administration: recurrent, deadlines (expected and unexpected) Project: non-recurrent, long-term, sustained attention, self-generating maid. She noted distinctive differences in interpersonal relationships, potential for delegation, and job exposure for the various positions, and concluded that an under- standing Of the differences between managers' jobs has so far been inadequate for the needs of effective managerial selection and training. Stewart's major problem appears to have been deciding whether a fragmented work pattern was due to the demands of the job or to the "grasshopper" style of the manager. She notes: "Our observations showed that the amount of fragmentation was, for some of the managers, more a reflection of their personal style than of the demands of the job. This applied most to the jobs that were neces- sarily fragmented but where they could 60 have been much less so if the manager had wished" (Stewart, 1976, page 41). This problem has possibly been due to lack of detailed understanding by the researchers of the managerial positions being studied. Nevertheless, Stewart has high- lighted the inconsistencies of much previous research which has attempted to describe managerial behavior without regard to the job, situational and environemntal variables which can have a profound effect on such behavior. Managerial Work in the Hospitality Industry As noted in chapter one, there is a pronounced lack of research related to managerial work activities reported in the literature of the hospitality industry. This is perhaps surprising for a number of reasons. First, service industry positions have some distinctive characteristics which would indicate possible differences between manufacturing and service industry management. Stewart indicated one possible difference when she stated: "People in service jobs may also be unable to plan their time becuase of the un- predictable incidence of service requests" (1976, page 41). In Stewart's terms, hotel managers would appear to have basically responding jobs rather than self-generating ones, and they would therefore be more likely to be classified as Systems Maintenance or possibly Systems Administration positions (see‘pages 44345) . Second in’ anindustry in which effective operational management is virtually essential to 61 the success of the enterprise and the motivation of the employees, it is surprising that executive development has received such little attention. Finally, one might expect empirical studies of managerial activities in a situation where the issues dealt with on a daily basis are not sufficiently complex to confuse a researcher having some minimal experience of the industry. ‘In other words, the hospitality industry would seem to provide an ideal situa- tion for field research of the sort undertaken by Mintzberg, Stewart and others. Yet, with the exception of Nailon's activity study in England, there have been no empirical studies of managerial work activities reported in the hospitality literature. This is not to imply that the literature is entirely devoid of discussion of managerial activities. On the contrary, postulations of qualifications essential for effective managerial performance are all too icommon, Inn: in no case do these lists appear to have been derived from empirical findings. Generally, broad lists of functions are intended to represent the greater part of the operational manager's major responsibilities. A recent hospitality management text is typical of the listings of "what operational managers do": "planning; budgeting; organizing; decision- making; problem-solving; forecasting; com- municating; leading; motivating; keeping peace; disciplining; supervising; training; morale building; protecting; representing the organization; developing productivity; scheduling; cost cutting; quality and quantity control; reporting; protecting 62 profits; developing profits; accommodating guests; assuring health and safety for employees and the public" (Axler, 1976, pages 6-8). Such broad functional classifications are patently worthless. Estimates of time devoted to specific activities have been made by Thurston in response to a request to identify how a good hotel manager spends his day. For a 100-300 room hotel, Thurston provided the following list of activities, priorities of importance and estimated;time allocated to each activity. These were purely estimates based on the reporter's experience as a manager of such properties. Table 10: Activity Importance and Time Allocation Manager (100-300 room property) Importance Activity Rank* Z of Time Public Relations 2 13 Guest Complaints (service, etc.) 1 10 Adjustments on guest statements 1 6 Injuries, Accidents, Security 8 6 Dep't head meetings 4 13 Review financial reports 5 15 Union problems meetings 6 13 Staff supervision, counseling 3 15 Structural problems (files) 7 7 Execu. office routines 9 2 *1 = most important; 10 = least important (Thurston, 1972) 63 In a somewhat similar vein a nationally franchised restaurant chain has identified activities performed by its restaurant managers and has distinguished among poor, good and excellent levels of performance of the same activity. For example, concerning "problem-solving behavior" 100 percent performance "is when the manager, in being confronted with a problem, takes time to weighfall the facts and methodically takes care of the problem to its final conclu— sion with reasonable haste, and gets it out of his hair" (undated bulletin to managers of Perkins Pancake Houses). For the same. "problem-solving behavior" 75 percent performance was identified as "meeting regularly with the kitchen and dining- room supervisor helping to resolve problems." Such rela- tively crude observations of work activities at least attempt to take description beyond the mere listing of ill-defined and overlapping managerial functions. At the suggestion of this researcher, Koppel (1976) surveyed food service managers using a Delphi technique to identify their perceptions of the anticipated relative importance of Mintzberg roles to their positions in 1986. The research was intended to act as a basis for curriculum development in baccalaureate programs. As can be seen from the studies mentioned previously, literature related to managerial work activities in the hospitality industry has been sparse and unrelated. The sole piece of research which has built upon previous work activity analysis has been that conducted by Philip Nailon, and which has been mentioned previously in the review of the general 64 management literature. Using a limited sample of hotel general managers, Nailon gathered information on the characteristics of their activities from self-completion records. No subsequent research based on Nailon's approach or findings has so far come to light. This study applies some of Nailon's ideas using a Mintzberg activity/role analysis approach to extend our understanding of the work carried out by a specific group of hotel managers in the USA. Conclusion A brief recap will now be given of the most important findings arising from the review of the literature. An attempt was initially made to place the study and related research into the general framework of managerial behavior. By circumscribing the scope of the relevant literature in this way it was possible to concentrate on the body of research which has dealt with the activities performed by managers at work. The various methods of recording these excerpts of managerial work behavior have been noted and particular emphasis has been given to the research under- taken by Henry Mintzberg. He observed five chief executive officers over a period of a week each and was able to develop inductively a set of ten work roles fromtflmatotal set of observed managerial activities. He recognized that the work of any particular manager is influenced by a 65 combination of four sets of variables - those being environmental, job, situational, and person variables. Contemporaneously in England, Philip Nailon, a researcher interested in the work activities of hotel managers, refined a data recording instrument originally developed by Horne and Lupton in 1965. Although the form was used by hotel managers to record their own activities, the instrument appears to have potential application in the structured observation approach used by Mintzberg. A third and ongoing set of studies by Rosemary Stewart, another English researcher belonging to the Work Activity school, emphasized that differences in managerial jobs resulted in different constraints being imposed and different choices being available to managers in those different jobs. The implication is that if a number of managerial jobs are basically the same, the constraints and ‘choices available to the managers in those jobs will be basically the same. From the unique contributions of those three researchers, this writer has formulated a research situation which permits a detailed observational analysis of the work activities of a stratified sample of hotel managers. The methodology used to set up this research situation is the subject of the following chapter. CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY EMPLOYED Formulation of Hypotheses From the preceding review of the literature related to managerial work activity analysis, it is apparent that observation, recording and classification of managers' behavior into Specific work roles is a valid and important form of inductive research. Information related to time spent in the performance of specific activities and per- ceived importance of specific activities can readily be gathered by structured observation and questionnaire techniques respectively. What have not been undertaken to date are direct comparisons of effectiveness of the subjects in any one work activity study. This is due to the fact that jobs within a study have not been comparable, and thus the limitations and constraints which partially determine a manager's use and allocation of time are not consistent from subject to subject. If, however, a situation existed in which a group of managers were identified as having highly comparable jobs, and those managers were classified by the same supervisor as highly effective, effective, and less effective - it might be possible to develop a set of hypotheses stipulating that their 66 67 effectiveness is in some way related to their work behavior. If each manager's work behavior is taken as the sum total of the activities performed (and how these activities are performed), it would appear reasonable to conclude that managers will differ in the activities which they emphasize and, therefore, their work behavior may be said to differ. This variation in behavior might be expected for the very reason that managers of hospitality establishments have a broad range of duties and responsibilities, some of which they may carry out themselves, some of which they may ‘delegate, and some of which they may ignore ip_the short run without adverse effects on operational performance. Since a hotel manager is constantly overseeing operations through- out the property and is in frequent communication with the majority of employees in smaller establishments (say, under 200 rooms) his influence upon organizational performance may be considerable. Furthermore, since the judged effective— ness of the manager is partially based upon the performance of his property, managerial behavior is therefore very probably linked to judged effectiveness of the individual manager. Based on these observations, industry experience, and literature relating to hospitality management, a general hypothesis can be presented as follows: Ho: examination of the work activitiesperformed by a group of—Infikeepers will revealicertain patterns offlwork rolegbehavior common to those managers jpdgedito be highly effective. 68 From this general hypothesis related to the total patterns of work role behavior, a number of sub-hypotheses can be derived which will allow us to examine certain specific issues related to role performance and effective- ness of the Innkeepers in the study. Several hypotheses utilize the role terminology presented by Mintzberg in "The Nature of Managerial WOrk," and the ten roles are presented again here with some points of clarification for the purpose of this study. Interpersonal Roles - Figurehead, Leader, Liaison Informational Roles - Monitor, Disseminator, Spokesman Decisional Roles - Entrepreneur, Disturbance Handler, Resource Allocator, Negotiator Mintzberg observed the work activities of chief executive officers in a consulting firm, a hOSpital, a ,consumer goods manufacturing firm, a public school system, and a firm producing industrial, technological products. He did, however, note that there is a logical argument as well as considerable empirical evidence to support the contention that these ten roles are common to the work of all managers. Mintzberg also cautioned against isolating the roles, emphasizing that "these ten roles form a gestalt - an integrated whole. In essence the manager is an input-output system in which authority and status give rise to interper- sonal relationships that lead to inputs (information), and these in turn lead to outputs (information and decisions)" 69 (page 58). However, when the ppgppge of each activity is identified it becomes possible to classify the activities into the various roles. If, for example, the purpose of an activity or communication from a manager is to motivate an employee, information may be given to the employee (dis- seminator), but the manager is acting in his leadership role since the intent is one of motivation. In this way managers judged to be highly effective, effective, or less effective can be compared according to the time they devote to specific work roles or to major role groupings (interpersonal, in- formational, decisional). Given the high level of interpersonal contact a manager has with employees, the relatively low educational level of most hospitality employees, and the potential for interdepartmental friction in a hospitality establishment, it might be expected that a manager view his leadership role as his primary responsibility as a manager. The description of the leadership role is given on page 55. A first sub- hypothesis might, therefore, be: H1: all Innkeepers in the study perceive their leadership role to be more important than any other work role Recognized importance of a particular role does not ”necessarily mean that time allocated to that role is com- mensurate with its stated importance. Time management consultants often recommend that one of the most valuable 70 investments of a manager's time, in terms of subsequent pay- off, involves finding, developing and motivating a good staff. While most managers might pay lip service to this (see previous hypothesis), with the good intentions of allocating time to such aspects of their leadership role, it is perhaps only those most effective managers who in fact allocate the most extensive block of time to their leadership role. A second sub-hypothesis could therefore be presented as follows: H2: only the Innkeepers judged to be highly effective ppend proportionately more time in their leadership role than they do in apy other work role While this hypothesis is specifically concerned with the relationship between effective management and time al- location to the leadership role, the element of ability to judge time allocation to roles is also contained in the hypothesis. In order to isolate this issue of perception and actuality of time allocation a third sub-hypothesis is given: H3: highly effective Innkeepers are more accurate in their own_perceptions of time allocations to ppecific workerIES than are less effective managers H1, H2, and H3 are, therefore, interrelated and derive from one another in a hierarchical manner. As highly effective managers may be shown to exhibit attention to leadership skills and may have the ability to judge how 71 they are devoting their time, certain statements may be made concerning innkeepers judged to be less effective. Management in a service industry, especially at the operational level, is responding management rather than initiating management. Problems c0nstant1y arise concerning clientelle, staff and decline in the quality of service provided. A manager, experienced at all levels of work in a hospitality establishment, is frequently called upon to rectify such situations. If, for any number of reasons, the manager starts to devote much of his attention to such fire-fighting activities, he will have little time left to perform important managerial functions. Inability to delegate tasks, to train staff adequately, or a desire to show employees his operational competence, can all result in a manager becoming over-involved in his disturbance-handling role. A sub-hypothesis intending to measure this is stated in the following manner: H4: Innkeepers judged to be least effective spend more time in their disturbance-handler role than do Innkeepers judged to be highly effective. Related to this idea of a manager responding to issues or problems which might be delegated or handled by another is the notion of a manager working on a task without interruption or seeing a problem through to its logical conclusion. Inn- keepers are normally readily accessible to both employees and guests and,as a result,are frequently interrupted in the 72 performance of their duties. Again, time management con- sultants have identified this ability to limit interruptions as a major distinguishing factor between managers who have a keen sense of time management and those who do not. That this might also be related to judged managerial effectiveness can be tested by the following hypothesis: H5: highly effective Innkeeprs devote more time, on average,txneach'activipy performed than do léss effective Innkeepers Time spent on specific work activities and roles has been the focus of this study. It has been noted that certain work roles are probably more important than others for Inn- keepers and that managers can be effective or ineffective in the use of their time. For these reasons a concluding sub- hypothesis contends that: H6: there is IN) relationship between total time at work and the judged effectiveness of the Innkeepers in the sample The means by which each of these hypotheses has been tested is presented at a later stage in this chapter. Methodology The research situation was set up in aux effort to make a distinctive contribution to the work activity school of management, using a structured observational approach. As was noted in the previous chapter there have been two major problems concerning research work conducted by those belonging to the "Work Activity School." 73 First, there has been variation in consistency and methods of recording work activity. This implies not only differences in method (diary, activity, sampling, struc- tured and unstructured observations, etc.) but also variations in the use of each particular method (observa- tion of certain activities and not others, exclusion of certain information as non—activity). Second, attempts to control key variables which have a major influence on the activities of the observants have been sparse. Each management study has included one or more of the following elements in the sample under observation: (a) managers at different hierarchical levels in the same organization (b) management in different functional areas (sales, manufacturing, etc.) in the same or different organizations. (c) managers of firms having vastly different production technologies (d) managers of both manufacturing and service organizations (e) managers of units in the same industry but unit variations in size, location, ownership and clientelle. Given such limitations which have resulted in the inability to make valid contrasts among managers in the same study (if, for example, the research purpose has been to look at effectiveness), one can begin to recognize the importance of Stewart's work, which differs from all others. 74 By looking at the job first rather than the manager, she examines the differences among jobs in order to determine the differing demands of the various jobs on the individual. Thus, Stewart divides her management positions into four different types of work pattern, namely: 1. Systems Maintenance (recurrent, fragmented, responding, troubleshooting) 2. Systems Administration (recurrent, expected/ unexpected, time deadlines) 3. Project (non-recurrent, long term, sustained attention, self—generating) 4. Mixed Different demands are placed on each of these work patterns by,- relationships (subordinates, peers, seniors, contacts), private life, and exposure. This researcher, by examining the work of eight hotel managers at the same hierarchical level in one organization, has therefore standardized the work pattern type, according to Stewart's typology. The hotel management positions would most appropriately be described as "Systems Maintenance" and would therefore be subject to the same types of demands. To standardize the management positions even more, a number of steps were taken by the researcher to make the jobs as highly comparable as possible. 75 Sample Selection Procedures In order to standardize the influence of environmental, job and situational variables (see page 22, chapter 2) as much as possible, the researcher requested the sponsoring organization to provide a list of approximately thirty management positions which satisfied the following criteria: 1. Company owned (franchised properties have varying reSponsibilities to different ownership consortiums) 2. 140-170 room properties, each having dining-room, swimming pool, cocktail bar and banquet facilities 3. Same regional area of US 4. Roadside properties in urban/suburban locations (comparable mix of clientelle - families and businessmen) 5. Manager of the property in the position as manager for at least six months (to ensure that the manager was familiar with the operational procedures of the property) It was recognized that any additional criteria requirements would simply limit the number of properties to be included in the sample, to the extent that the few would be instantly recognizable to top management. This would have defeated the objective of confidentiality necessary to ensure the total cooperation of the managers. To insist, for example, that each property was of approximately the same age would have reduced sample size to three or four properties. Therefore, complete homogeneity of management positions was not only impossible to attain but was also 76 undesirable since no effective sample could have been obtained for the study. The list of properties submitted to the re- searcher satisfied the above criteria and was also large enough (twenty-three) to safeguard the identity of the managers eventually chosen for the study. Those properties chosen from the list submitted were selected on the basis of location in or around three large cities, closeness in size (number of rooms) and management willingness and ability to participate in the study. In this way, although the properties were not truly homogeneous, it is believed that the sample reflected eight managerial positions which were highly comparable in duties and responsibilities relating to the positions and in job demands made upon the positions. Standardization of management jobs has, for all practical purposes, been effected; and it is believed that it is this standardization which distinguishes the study methodology from previous studies. Proposal The original proposal to observe a group of hotel managers at work was made to the President, Inns Division, Holiday Inns, Inc. The proposal as presented was rejected due to concerns about "weaknesses" of the structured observation approach. The concerns were: 73 - Sensitivity by the managers to having a third party (the researcher) present during "private" communications with other hotel personnel. - Possible biased managerial behavior patterns while under observation by the researcher. - Resistance by managers to having a "spy" in their midst who was sanctioned by top management. The following steps were then proposed to remove .the earlier justifiable objections raised by the president of the Inns Division. 9'1. Holiday Inns, Inc., will supply the researcher with a list of the names of managers of approximately comparable inns (size, market competition) in selected mid-western states. A list of between 25 and 35 managers would be desirable. Permission be given to the researcher to correspond or visit with those managers With the objective of soliciting their participation in the project on a voluntapy basis, for a project period not to exceed five days with each volunteer. From six to nine volunteers will be selected by the researcher and the identity of these volunteers will remain with the researcher. Thus senior level management will'not know which innkeepers have been selected for the study. If this point can be effectively communicated to the managers by the researcher many of the problems of antipathy toward the researcher and the artificial behavior patterns by the manager under observation will be avoided. 78 4. Where confidential situations arise between a manager and his clients or employees the researcher could be excluded from the situation or meetin and appraised'of‘the non- confidential elements of the situ- ation at a later time by the manager." These revisions to the original proposal were found to be acceptable to the President and to the manager of executive employment and deveIOpment, who was now assigned responsibility for the coordination of the project. To encourage Innkeepers to participate in the study, a letter was forwarded from the president and regional vice- president to all potential candidatesdkn:inc1usion in the study. This letter strongly emphasized the need for co- operation between academe and industry and reminded Inn- keepers of the close linkage between Michigan State University and Holiday Inns, Inc. A transcript of these communications are to be found in Appendix D. A list of twenty-four properties intended to satisfy the researcher's selection criteria were then made available to him, and nine properties were selected which most closely satisfied the criteria. One property, in which the researcher had had prior business contact with the manager, was selected for the pilot study and the manager's support solicited and received. Once the support of the other eight Innkeepers was acknowledged, a time schedule of visits was then set up with the Innkeepers. 79 Preliminapy Testing of Mintzberg Role Classification As noted previously (page 68) Mintzberg hypothesized that his ten roles are common to the work of all managers. Before testing this in the pilot study, it was deemed advisable to determine if perceived managerial work activities could be classified into those ten roles. A classroom survey was undertaken using fifty-seven senior students in hotel management at Michigan State University. These students were asked to identify routine activities which they believed are representative of managerial work in the hotel industry. In almost every case, this re- searcher had little difficulty classifying those activities into Mintzberg's role categories. In the few cases where an activity could be placed in more than one classification, this was generally found to be due to the imprecision of the students' wording which left some doubt as to the purpose of the activity. An example of a completed survey form, showing the activities and appropriate role classification is shown in Table 11. The student responses to this survey tentatively indicated that the role classification used by Mintzberg could be used to classify the work activities of hotel managers, and the ten roles were left intact. Problematic issues of classification of the activities of the managers observed in the field setting will be discussed in the analysis of data, given in chapter 4. 80 Table 11: Hotel Management Work Activity Form (Example) List any six (6) activities a hotel manager might perform during his work day. Be specific (for example - reprimand an employee, take bar inventory, etc.). Activity Role Classification 1. Scheduling Resource Allocator 2. Meeting with staff for feedback and idea development Monitor 3. Reviewing employee performance Leader 4. Meeting and talking with guests, understanding their needs Monitor 5. Development of new ideas to improve the operation Entrepreneur 6. Meeting with salesmen of major suppliers Liaison I have/have not sufficient hotel or restaurant experience to believe a manager would perform each of these activities at least once a month. I am a junior/senior in Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management (MSU). Data Collection Instruments and Coding Three distinct categories of information were gathered. For each manager studied, a body of preliminary data was collected before the actual observation began. This information concerned the property, the Innkeeper and the typicality of the time period under observation. The purpose of obtaining this preliminary data was to reveal 81 differences among the properties - which could not be ac- counted for in the selection process. These differences might impose limitations, constraints, or provide oppor- tunities in certain prOperties which they did not do in others. This information might later be used to help explain certain aspects of managerial behavior. If, for example, one property located in a declining urban area had a high turnover of key employees, managerial behavior might reasonably be expected to be a partial response to such personnel issues. Preliminary data would, therefore, hopefully reveal distinguishing characteristics. The pre- liminary data sheet is shown on the following page. Generally, this information was obtained from the Innkeeper the evening prior to actual observation of managerial activity. During observation two types of data were gathered. Structured data were collected on the pattern of activity throughout every minute of the workday. Nailon's self- completion record (see page 47) was initially used in the pilot study by the researcher to record the activities; but, as mentioned previously, a number of changes were instituted to facilitate recording and to make the instrument more relevant to American motel properties. It should be noted that during the period of observa- tion of the managers, the idea of obtaining their perceptions of time and importance of managerial functions performed had 82 Table 12: Preliminagy Data Form How long have you been Innkeeper here? How long have you been Innkeeper elsewhere? Please indicate the name and length of service in this property of each of the following key employees: Food and Beverage Director Housekeeper Front Office Supervisor Secretary Front Office Cashiers Chef Maintenance Supervisor Bartender Night Auditor Please indicate the capacity of each of the following for the property. Also the percentage of revenue generated by each service. Rooms % Dining room (seats) % Bar (seats) Z Banquets (seats) % How typical or different is this work week from others (public holiday, big home baseball game, etc.)? Please identify by name and title individuals with whom you are frequently in contact during your work week (district Food and Beverage Director, etc.). Please list by name and distance your major competitors for both lodging and feeding (within a radius of two miles). Lodging Miles Feeding Miles Please rank order in importance (1 = most important) the following functions as part of your job. If more than one are seen as of equal importance, give each the same ranking. Quality of Food and Beverage Service Injuries, Security, Health Standards Guest Complaints Communication with, and encouragement of, employees Strict financial control of the operation Knowledge of external matters Employment of best staff available Problem-solving (adjustments, emergencies, etc.) Other (specify) 83 not been formulated. The idea of comparing perceived behavior with observed behavior of managers was considered important enough to justify more extensive development in the form of a questionnaire, which will shortly be discussed at length. In the StruCtured Data form, one of the major changes made from Nailon's form relates to that which constitutes an event or activity. Unlike Nailon, who 'defined an event (activity) as "the major activity which occurred during a period of five minutes or more" (Nailon, 1968, page 53), this researcher has used Burns' definition of an episode (activity): ”an episode was said to end and another begin when either the subject or the person changed? (Nailon, page 26). This was felt to reflect more accurately the large number of communications between an Innkeeper and his staff which were completed in less than five minutes. This definition was used in order to reveal the degree of fragmentation of the work of an operational manager. The data recording instrument used by Horne and Lupton (1965) was adapted by Nailon (1968) in his study and was further adapated by this researcher to provide the structured information shown in the table on the following pages. 84 Table 13: Revised Data Recording Instrument ACTIVITY: describes an event Correspondence In Correspondence Out Reading Telephone In Telephone Out Talking (l) Interviewing Discussion (2+) Supervision Official entertainments Personal Reflection Production - mental Production - manual Inspection FUNCTION: describes the actual activity involved in Reading Writing and Dictation Material other than correspondence Receiving calls Making calls Conversation/Dialogue with one person A formal interview for selection, with a potential customer, etc. A discussion in which two or more other persons are involved Overseeing the work of‘others With potential customers/visitors/etc. Private activities not connected with work Non-active thinking about a problem, issue Analysis, compilation of reports, internal audits, etc. Aiding in daily operations Verification of work of others, maintenance of standards the area of operation with which the activity is associated Restaurant Banquet/Conference Housekeeping Purchasing Personnel Maintenance CONTENT: describes occurred Technical Kitchen Front Office (Accommodation) Bars Engineering Accounting the purpose for which the activity primarily concerned with the provi- sion of good and services, e.g. menu planning, inspecting rooms Marketing Accounting Finance Personnel Public Relations 85 primarily concerned with buying and selling, e.g., placing orders, interviewing representatives, dealing with inquiries for rooms, functions, etc. primarily concerned with control, e.g. stocktaking, costs, head office returns, etc. primarily concerned with the use of capital, e.g. activities which in- crease the capital assets of the unit primarily concerned with recruitment, selection, promotion, discipline, training, etc. primarily concerned with£u1(usually non-profit) association to maintain image internally or externally (e.g. news reporters, etc.) LOCATION: describes where the activity occurred Office Front Office Guest Floors Other Office Restaurant Kitchen Bars Lobby Other INTERACTION: describes the person or group with whom the activity is concerned Corporate head office Regional head office District head office Colleague Supplier Customer Potential Client Subordinate - food - accommodation - staff Other Each Structured Observation Record Form (see page 107) could be used to record fifteen activities. A "typical" 86 example of an activity might be, "Checked on reservations for the day at the front desk." would have been: The coding in this situation Activity discussion Functional Area accommodation Content technical Location front office Interaction subordinates (accommodation) The purpose of this structured observation was to provide the researcher with a rapid means of recording all important aspects of the activity. By itself, the Structured Observational Record was inadequate since it did not provide an explanation of the content of each activity. This need is satisfied by the provision of a Structured Observation Analysis sheet for each activity. For the activity cited above, the analysis sheet would have provided the following information: Structured Observation Analysis Sheet Hotel Date Day of Observation Activity Number Purpose of Activity Explanation 3 Checks on reservations for the day To ensure adequate supply of cleaned rooms available - for rent. To estimate likeli- hood of overbooking or number of walk- ins who can be accepted 87 The data provided in this analysis record might be termed "anecdotal data" since it comprises information on specific activities and provides what has been lacking in many previous studies utilizing the structured observation approach - namely, content and characteristics of managerial work (see page 108). In summary, therefore, it can be stated that for each activity performed by a specific manager, there existed: - information about the property, the employees, the length of service, and some indication of the work values of the Innkeeper. This gave the researcher an insight to demands, constraints, and choices open to the manager - detailed information on when and where the activity took place, the people who were involved in the activity, the subject matter of the activity - an explanation of the purpose of the activity - why it was undertaken and what was to be achieved by its accomplishment. Direct questioning of the manager was sometimes necessary to ascertain "purpose." Armed with this bank of information concerning each activity, the next critical step became a relatively simple issue of assignment of activities to roles. As had been previously suggested by the student survey of managerial activities, assignment posed no problem of consequence so long as the purpose of the activity was identified. The activity given in the previous example (check on reserva- tions for the day) now remains to be classified according 88 to Mintzberg's schemata. The manager in this case is con- cerned with the information provided by the daily room rack of expected arrivals. He is, in effect, monitoring the situation to ensure that no preventive or remedial action is necessary. Had this monitoring activity given cause for alarm (for example, if 15 more arrivals were expected than there were clean rooms available), the manager would most likely have next engaged in a decisional role (disturbance handler, resource allocator). In this manner, activities were translated into managerial work roles. Questionnaire and Coding The research is primarily concerned with observation of managerial behavior and classification of activities into work roles. Review of the literature also revealed, however, that no researcher had previously attempted in the same study to compare observation of managerial behavior with self-perception of behavior by the subjects (managers) in- cluded in the study. In terms of work activities, no study has apparently attempted to compare observed time allocated to specific work roles with perceived time given to those work roles. As McCall has noted, "It would be fascinating to know if questionnaire responses in any way coincide with observations" (McCall, 1977). This comparison was therefore made because of the gap in the theory of managerial work behavior and also because 89 of the recent appearance of a research instrument which permits this comparison. McCall has developed an 80—item questionnaire which is intended to tap Mintzberg's roles. Although the first version of his questionnaire was under intensive psychometric analysis, and the second version based on an internal analysis of responses from 4,200 managers will not be available for some months, the relevance of the preliminary version to hotel management is evident.v Permission was sought to use his Management Work Survey. . This was given, and the instrument was adapated to provide a 57-item questionnaire relevant to Innkeepers. This Manage- ment Activity Survey is shown in Appendix C. Information on time was sought to provide a comparison with observed time, and information on importance of each item was sought with the intention of making a purely subjective comparison with importance as indicated by managers in the HExplanation" section of the "Structured Observation Analysis Sheet.” Since the activity items in the questionnaire are also based on Mintzberg's ten work roles, they can be classified into groups representing each of these roles. From the seventy- eight original items a revision was made to determine the six items for each work role which would most accurately satisfy the following criteria: 1. relevance to work behavior of a hotel manager 2. representativeness of all aspects of a specific Mintzberg role 90 Six items were then chosen according to these criteria, other than for the role of "negotiator." Only three items existed in the survey which were related to this role. This is in keeping with the lesser importance of this role for managers in a hospitality chain, in which negOtiation functions are carried out principally at regional and corporate levels. It should be remembered that Mintzberg had introduced this role as a result of the analysis of the work of Chief Executive Officers. The role of negotiator would, therefore, have greater relevance in his analysis. The Mintzberg roles and questionnaire items related to each, which have been used in the analysis, are shown below: Table 14: Management Activity Questionnaire Interpersonal Roles Figurehead l. Participating in public service work. 2. Making yourself available to "outsiders” (such as clients, the public) who want to go to "the man in charge." 3. Attending social functions as a representative of your Inn. 4. Signing documents as a representative of your Inn. 5. Answering letters or inquiries on behalf of your Inn. 6. Being available to answer questions by any guest or employee most days and evenings. Leader 7. Evaluating the quality of subordinate job performance. 8. Attending to staffing needs in your Inn (such as hiring, firing, promotion, giving salary increases). 91 9. Using your authority to ensure that your sub- ordinates accomplish important tasks. 10. Encouraging or criticizing subordinates' actions. 11. Delegating as much of daily routine work as possible to subordinates (secretary, department heads). 12. Encouraging and praising employees for work well done. Liaison l3. Attending social functins which allow you to keep up your contacts. 14. Attending conferences or meetings to maintain your contacts. 15. Joining boards, organizations, clubs, etc., which might provide useful, work-related contacts. 16. Developing new contacts by answering requests for information. 17. Developing personal relationships with people outside your Inn who feed you work or services (e.g., purchasing, suppliers, inspectors, etc.). 18. Developing contacts with important people outside of your Inn. Informational Roles Monitor 19. Keeping informed on various events and "gossip of the trade." 20. Keeping up with market changes and trends. 21. Gathering information about trends outside your organization. 22. Gathering information about clients, competitors, associates, etc. 23. Touring the property. 24. Learning about new ideas originating outside of your organization. Disseminator 25. Keeping employees of your Inn informed of relevant information. 26. Transmitting ideas from your outside contacts to appropriate insiders. 27. Holding meetings to disseminate information to employees of your Inn. 28. Deciding what information reaponsibilities to delegate to others. 92 29. Providing guidance to your subordinates on the basis of your understanding of the organization. 30. Forwarding important information to your subordinates. Spokesman 31. Keeping important people outside of your Inn informed about your unit's activities. 32. Handling ”public relations" activities for your own Inn. 33. Presiding at meetings as a representative of your Inn. 34. Serving as an expert to people outside of your Inn. 35. Informing others of your Inn's future plans. 36. Keeping the public informed about your Inn's activities and plans. Decisional Roles Entrepreneur 37. Designing projects for organizational improvement. 38. Initiating controlled change in your Inn. 39. Exploiting opportunities to expand or grow as an Inn. 40. Maintaining supervision over changes in your Inn. 41. Solving problems by instituting needed changes in your Inn. 42. Deciding the priorities of internal improvement projects. Disturbance Handler 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Responding to unforeseen events. Resolving conflicts between subordinates. Handling employee grievances. Dealing with conflicts between your Inn and other Inns or hotels. Taking immediate action in response to a crisis (e.g., equipment breakdown, sudden scheduling conflicts, an irate client, etc.). Helping department heads resolve emergency problem situations (shortages in manpower or supplies during a busy period, for example). Resource Allocator 49. 50. 51. Programming work (what is to be done, when and how). Distributingbudgeted resources. Making decisions about time parameters for upcoming programs. 93 52. Deciding which programs to provide resources (manpower, materials, dollars) for. 53. Allocating manpower to specific jobs or tasks. 54. Allocating equipment or materials. Negotiator 55. Writing out contract implementation procedures. 56. Negotiating with outside groups for needed materials, support commitments, etc. 57. Negotiating contracts. The coding of each item and managerial rating on the Time and Importance scales are explained in the intro- duction to the Management Activity Survey (Appendix C). Total data instrumentation therefore consisted Of: (a) preliminary data obtained in a personal interview with the manager and recorded on the Preliminary Data Form. (b) structured data obtained by observation and recorded on the Structured Observational Record Form. (c) anecdotal data obtained by questioning and analysis of observations and recorded on the Structured Observation Analysis Sheet. (d) managerial perceptions of importance and time devoted to specific work role activities and recorded on a Questionnaire submitted to the manager some eight months after completion of the observational records. 94 Observational Conditions Each Innkeeper in the sample group was observed for aiperiod of from three to five consecutive work days during the peak business months (July and August) as work schedules and vacations allowed. The summer months were chosen in an attempt to record natural patterns of work behavior under somewhat stressful conditions. In this way it was felt that there was little likelihood of activities being contrived in order to reflect managers in a favorable light to the researcher. While the original objective was to record five days of activities for each Innkeeper, certain restrictions limited this to three days of actual observations in a number of situations. If, for example, a manager decided to take’a day off in the middle of the week or a day was determined to be non-representative (at least half the day devoted to personal or family problems or to a meeting away from the property), this period had to be excluded from the observational record for data purposes. In certain situations, five days on the pr0perty resulted in three days of work activity data. For each Innkeeper, therefore, the three most representative work days were incorporated in the data analysis. During the evening of introduction prior to observed work days, a number of steps were taken to ensure that potential weaknesses of the structured observation approach were minimized. As well as reiterating the points outlined 95 on page 216tothe managers, it was stressed that length of time at work was irrelevant. If a manager was competent enough to be judged an effective manager, and yet could still afford to take an afternoon off to play golf of visit friends, this reflected favorably on his ability. The number of hours "at the desk” were therefore irrelevant. Given also the security of the knowledge that this was a "blind study" in which they would in no way be identified, it was felt that the observed behavior would have very closely approximated managerial behavior if the researcher had not been present. In all cases Innkeepers observed were courteous and responsive to allquestionsposed by the researcher. Managerial Effectiveness As previously mentioned (page '7) “the major objective of the study was to determine whether there exists an identifiable pattern of work behavior which is character- istic of a group of hotel managers deemed as effective managers according to corporate managerial ratings." To this point there has been no discussion of corporate determination of managerial effectiveness. Holiday Inns, Inc., at the time of the field research was either unable or reluctant to reveal the criteria used to determine the rating system by which they judged their managers. Although the validity of executive evaluation is an issue which has considerable bearing on the results of 96 this study, such determination of validity is beyond the scope of this study. As indicated in chapter 5, however, it would be a potentially fruitful area of research for a subsequent study. Moreover, from informal discussion with corporate executives and operational management :2 prior to and during the study, it was learned that evaluation was based on a combination of generally controllable and non—controllable factors which had not been clearly stipulated at that time. Controllable factors were believed to include: - control over food and beverage costs - control over energy, maintenance and other costs - occupancy levels - standards of cleanliness and service - level of guest complaints to head office (concerning a property) Non—controllable factors included elements over which the manager had little or no control: - age of the property - level of competition (food, beverages, accommodation) - difficulty or ease in recruitment of quality personnel (due to location) Since the period when the study was undertaken (summer, 1976) a highly refined evaluation system has been developed. In it managerial performance is measured against planned performance and accomplishment across a broad range of,criteria. 97 The purpose of the study was to identify effective managerial job behavior through examination of what a manager did on the job. To obtain the necessary evaluations of managerial performance, the corporate manager of executive employment and deve10pment was approached with a request to provide ratings of the sample managers at the end of the analysis of observed managerial behavior, but based on their performance for the time period under observation. This was essential, since within the year from observation to analysis some of the Innkeepers would be relocated and evaluation of them subsequently based on their performance in the new property. These ratings were provided, and the Innkeepers classified as: highly effective, effective, less effective. Hypotheses Measurement It must first be acknowledged that this structured observational study is a descriptive one, examining in detail the work role behavior of a limited sample of hotel managers. One manager's work was examined in the pilot study and eight other Innkeepers were chosen for observation over a succeeding period of six weeks. The eighth Innkeeper to be observed reneged at the last moment after an initial agreement to participate. A number of reasons related to work pressure were cited as the reason for non-participation. 98 Thus the effective sample consists of seven inn- keepers. This may be compared with Nailon's study of three hotel managers and with Mintzberg's study of five chief executives. Of all forms of research (laboratory experiments, field experiments, field studies and survey research) field studies are closest to real life. As Kerlinger (1973, page 406) has noted, "field studies are strong in realism, significance, strength of variables, theory orientation and heuristic quality." But, in order to overcome the principal failing of field studies, namely lack of precision in the measurement of field variables, a large volume of data is necessary due to the greater complexity of field situations. This complexity of most field situations poses additional problems of feasibility, cost, sampling and time. In an exploratory or hypothesis testing field study of this sort, precision of measurement and cost and time limitations necessarily result in a limited sample. Sample size is sacrificed for in-depth analysis of a plethora of data and variables. Due to limited sample size, the study does not, therefore, lend itself to statistical testing of hypotheses, the majority of which involve comparisons among the managers in the sample. Hypotheses cannot be supported or refuted with any degree of statistical certainty. However, the attempt has been made to overcome the potential problem of lack of precision. The structured observation method 99 utilized provides a relatively precise method of classifying the data for the purpose of comparison. Statements of comparison among managers can be made, using time, activities and roles as a basis for comparison. The sub-hypotheses are first examined in turn. H : all Innkeepers in the study perceive their leadership role to be more important than any other work role Constantly aware of difficulties in recruitment, motivation and retention of good employees, it might be expected that managers would perceive their interpersonal relationship with their subordinates as a primary respon- sibility. Managerial responses to the questions relating to each role category were used to measure this hypothesis (see pages-198407.). The ranking of each leadership activity on the ”Importance” scale enabled an average ranking of importance for the leadership role to be determined for each manager. The average ranking of importance for each other role category was determined in the same manner, and the hypothesis tentatively supported or rejected by comparison between the perceived importance of the leadership role and the perceived importance of the other roles. H only the Innkeepers_judged to be highly effective ppend proportionately more time in their leadership role than they do in any other work role [‘0 100;. An agreement was reached between the researcher and Holiday Inns, Inc., that the company would classify the managers in the sample as highly effective, effective, and less effective. Holiday Inns was reluctant to rank the managers on a five-point scale, but three levels of ef- fectiveness were considered to be adequate, since the hypotheses comparing Innkeepers is principally concerned with those judged as highly effective and those judged as less effective. This hypothesis was measured by totalling the actual observed time devoted to leadership activities for each manager, assessing the percentage of total time devoted to leadership activities for each, and finally comparing each manager on the basis of their judged level of effectiveness and proportion of time devoted to the leadership role. Although not necessary to validate or refute the hypothesis, an additional step of importance was taken at this stage. The actual proportion of time devoted to leader- ship roles for each manager was compared with each manager's perception of time devoted to leadership activities and time devoted to other role classifications. It might be expected that all Innkeepers would like to believe that they place a high time priority on leadership, when, in fact, "only the Innkeepers judged to be highly effective spend proportionately more time in their leadership role than they do in any other work role." 101 H3: highly effective Innkeepers are more accurate in their own percepEions of time allocations to specific work roles than are less effective managers This hypothesis involves a comparison between observed behavior and self-recorded behavior and was "tested" by contrasting only those Innkeepers judged highly effective and those judged less effective. Perceived time allocations for each role were deter- mined from questionnaire responses. For each highly effective manager the roles were then ranked according to the average scaled time devoted to each role. In order to identify actual time allocations, the percentage of time devoted to each role was determined from time spent on specific role- related activities during the period of observation. For each highly effective manager the roles were then ranked according to the percentage of time devoted to each. Per- ceived and actual time allocations for each role was there— fore ranked for the highly effective managers. The same steps were next undertaken for the less effective managers, setting up four scales as shown on the following page. The difference between the two rankings for the effective managers were determined and the mean difference determined. The same was done for the two rankings of the less effective managers. The mean differences were compared 102 Highly effective managers Less effective managers Ranking of Ranking of Ranking of Ranking of perceived actual time perceived actual time time alloca— allocations time alloca- allocations tions to to roles in tions to to roles in roles in descending roles in descending descending order descending order order order X1 X2 Y1 Y2 and the hypothesis tentatively accepted if the mean difference was smaller for the more effective managers than for the less effective managers. Given the number of managers in the sample, it was not considered advisable to compute the rank order coefficient of correlation between the rankings or the deviation between the means. H4: Innkeepers judged to be least effective spend pppportionatély more time in their disturbance handler role than do Innkeepers judged to he highly effective This hypothesis was measured by identifying the total time devoted to disturbance handling activities for each observed Innkeeper and estimating the percentage of total time devoted to this specific role. The comparison was then made between the highly effective and less effective managers. 103 H5: highly effective Innkeepers devote more time, on averagel to each activi§y_performed than do—less Efféhtiye managers In order to measure this hypothesis it was neces- sary, during the structured observation data recording, to distinguish between time devoted to work activities and unidentified time between activities. This unidentified time represented "wasted time" in which no activities were performed, and such time should therefore be excluded from the work activity time. In this way, one might expect that managers judged to be highly effective were able to either avoid periods of "wasted time" between activities or to complete Specific tasks with relatively little interruption. In either case, the average time devoted to specific activities might be expected to be longer than would be the case for those Innkeepers judged to be less effective. The hypothesis was measured by totalling the time devoted to work activities and dividing this by the actual number of activities performed. This was undertaken for each effective Innkeeper and each less effective one, and the comparison was made between the two groups. H6: there is no relationship between total time at work and’the jfidgedleffectiveness of’the Inn— keepers’in the sample The three most representative business days were selected as total worked time for each Innkeeper. Total 104 worked time included time considered as "wasted" (see previous hypothesis) but excluded time taken for lunch and personal time away from the property or with family in the manager's apartment. All other time was considered as time in which business activities could be performed. The Inn- keepers were ranked according to time at work and according to judged levels of effectiveness, and attention was again given primarily to a comparison between highly effective and less effective Innkeepers. A review of the major findings of the sub-hypotheses was then made by the researcher in order to determine if an examination of the work activities performed by a group of Innkeepers did in fact reveal that certain patterns of work role behavior were found to be common to those managers judged to be highly effective. Analysis of the data presentedixlchapter 4 treats each of the hypotheses in turn, discusses the general hypo- thesis at length, and reviews the limitations upon conclu- sions to be drawn from the set of hypotheses. Additional findings arising from analysis of the data, and not forseen in the hypotheses presented, are also discussed. CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Introduction The study provided information concerning managerial time allocation to specific work activities. These activities were grouped into the ten work roles empirically derived by Mintzberg from his observations of chief executives. The study also yielded information concerning managers' per- ceptions of the importance of specific work activities and their perceptions of the time devoted to such activities. Although the study principally focussed upon work activities and roles which relate to judged levels of ef- fectiveness, subjective information on behavioral style of the managers is presented where necessary to provide a more complete understanding of each Innkeeper's roles as a manager. The chapter initially discusses "Structured Observa— tion in Action,” providing the analytical issues involved in recording and classifying managerial work behavior. This will be done with reference to one of the managers included in the study. He is identified as Manager 5. The hypotheses presented in chapter 3 are next discussed and tested. Any key findings not accounted for in the hypotheses 105 106 are presented at this stage. Finally, limitations restricting the measurement and potentially influencing the outcomes are identified. Structured Observation in Action In chapter 3 the research methodology utilizing structured observation records and analysis was presented. In order to show the complete sequence of events involved in the recording process, one of the properties in the sample has been selected for detailed examination. Each individual activity during the three-day observational period in this property (5) has been recorded and the purpose of each activity has been explained. This is shown in its entirety in Appendix A. The first 15 activities performed by manager 5 for the first day of observation are replicated at this stage in order to clarify the various steps taken in the analytical process. Time When each day's activities had been recorded (for the first part of day one see page107).and the explanation provided (page 108), the activities were assigned to the major role classification as shown in table 17 on page109 Two issues became apparent immediately. Fipgp, not every minute spent at work could be classified as part of a work activity. For example, at the completion of a task, an innkeeper might reflect on whether he should take lunch at 107 Table 15 STRUCTURED OBSERVA‘EI :1 RECORD — H TEL 5 DATE August 9. 1975 DAY OF OBSERVATION Cm: PAGE One (I ’0’00 'I'Q' ‘ :1 .. Uiirlulncv H e H U r l): : (AD (D11 ' V :lCt U! U! 2 n mmmnm 0"'it r» {J H -: U) Iwnly-‘Ull 13 n 3 v c- 3' - 3 0!]8 I In «D I 0 rant 0:-LC3 ' 5' -00? s‘auran' : .en :5 108 Table 16 STRUCTURED OBSERVATION .NALYSIS SIZE? DATE Aug, 9, 1976 DAY OF OBSERVATION One PAGE One Explanation and Purpose of Activipy Innkeeper gives information and notes to F & Bev Director to read prior to latter's exit interview with district director. Does noc want F & Bev director to be caught "cold" in interview. PJ Assigns duties to maintenance engineer. Concerns phone installations in dining room and manager's personal phone to improve service and communications. Call to dis rict food and bev director to correct weekly financial statement submitted. Percentages given instead of dollar amounts. Call to Innkeeper in Holiday Inn in neighboring town requesting loan or various suppli s. after secretary informs of shortages. To be put on linen delivery truck. Reviewed painting done in sitcnen by F & Bev director over weekend. Informed or difriculties and inprcVements made. Discussion with F & Bev irector on mistaken ordering of 50 gallon drum of cleaning fluid. Should have been one gallon. Greatly exceeds budget. Decisicn made to keep 50 gallon drum. Call to IBM about order of no-1dex paper supplies (suaplier not reached). Call to F. O. Cashier to ensure that outstanding guest bi is over 5:0 be paid in cash. Ascertaits that cashier knows to do this on a regular basis. 12 Reviewing and signing reports to be sent to corporate head office (Memphis). 13 Discussion with F a Sev dir on advantages on pre and po replaced (outdated model ~ .4 ‘s " 71 T"\ , 1- :-' 1‘--. - _ ., r.‘ :urther attempt to call .:A sdppiier or notices pater (s-p;l-er not reached). TH‘ Call returned from red. Order slated. 109 Table 17: Assignment of Activities to Role Classification Property 5 - Day 1 Activity D§y_i' Time 1 Leader/Disseminator 5 2 Entrepreneur 3 3 Disseminator 6 4 Spokesman 14 5 Figurehead 5 C 6 Liaison 6 7 Liaison . 2 8 Monitor 10 9 Resource Allocator 13 10 Resource Allocator 3 11 Leader 3 12 Spokesman 2 l3 Entrepreneur 3 14 Resource Allocator 5 15 Resource Allocator 3 Note that only the first 15 activities of the day are recorded here. 110 Table 18: Total Time Assignments to Role Classifications Property 5 - Day 1 Interpersonal Figurehead , 5 Leader 41 Liaison 8 Informational Monitor 119 Disseminator 41 Spokesman 27 Decisional Entrepreneur l7 Disturbance Handler 3 Resource Allocator 29 Negotiator -- Total Worked Time 290 min's Personal Time 50 Unaccounted time 7 Note that all activities for the day are included in these totals. 111 that time or not; or, in the course of a discussion with his food and beverage manager, he might raise a point concerning a program on television the previous evening. In this way, such unaccounted time could be included under the activity which transpired at that approximate time; or it could be isolated as unaccounted time if it was identifiable from related work activities. The decision was made, whenever possible, to identify these "unaccounted" time periods. In the case of the innkeeper in property 5, this "unaccounted time" totalled eleven minutes over the three-day period. Second, and of considerably greater consequence due to its impact on the results, is the issue of personal time. All innkeepers lived on the property; six out of the seven were married; and four of those six had children. This meant that interruption of the innkeeper at work by his wife and children was not uncommon. In addition, the innkeepers frequently excused themselves on personal matters (taking children to school, the dog to the veterinarian, etc.), sometimes for as long as two hours at a time. This did not affect work time, so long as no work-related activities were performed, although on a few occasions innkeepers excused themselves on "personal time" and were subsequently found to be helping to register guests or discoursing with an employee, without having notified the researcher of a return to work activities. Although this did not happen regularly and tended to reflect the style of only one or two innkeepers in the sample, the potential to influence ranking of time 112 spent on specific roles is considerable. This is especially so when there are ten potential work roles and only three days of data, resulting in small total time allocations to certain roles. An additional time-related factor worthy of comment is that concerning managerial work after the day's routine activities had been performed. Occasionally an innkeeper would become involved in certain tasks in the late evening. These were tasks which he had not intended to undertake and therefore had not notified the researcher of their performance. Such times were isolated and generally of short duration. The sum consequence of such time related factors is difficult to determine. Unaccounted time and personal time have been recorded as accurately as possible and the .rare evening activities have not been included in the analysis. Managers could have been asked to make estimates of time spent or activities performed, but it was believed that such activities based on recall would result in as great a distortion as if the few activities were ignored in the first place. Such activities were, therefore, excluded from the analysis. Actiyities The activities performed by the sample of innkeepers could generally be classified into the ten roles originally 113 formulated by Mintzberg. It should be remembered, however, that although Mintzberg expressed the belief that the work of all managers could be classified according to these roles, this did not mean that managerial work had to be represented by all ten roles. It would seem reasonable to assume that the chief executive officer of a large organization fulfilled certain roles by the nature of his position which would not be required of a line or operating manager (innkeeper) a number of hierarchical levels removed from that of chief executive officer. In this way, the role of negotiator as defined by Mintzberg has been found to be an insignificant part of an innkeeper's work role requirements. This will be dealt with more fully at a later stage in the chapter. Classification of activities into roles did not pose any major difficulties. From time to time an activity was recorded which defied conclusive classification. This was normally found to be in circumstances related to desk activities. While certain researchers in the past have grouped unidentifiable desk activities under the heading of desk work, it was felt necessary to attempt to break desk activities into the appropriate roles whenever possible due to the large portion of time spent at the desk. Since the desk activities generally involved scanning, completion and signing of reports and documents for district head office and corporate head office in Memphis, the decision was made to assign the following activities to the role indicated: 114 Table 19: Assignment of Desk Activities to Management Roles Activity Role Reviewing reports completed by others (department heads) Monitor Reading incoming circulars, reports from head office, district, etc. Monitor Completing forms and reports to be sent to others Disseminator Signing forms and reports completed by others ' Spokesman Activities other than desk-related activities also occasionally posed an assignment problem. An example of this is shown on page 107 which deals with the first day of observation of innkeeper 5. The first activity of the day is described and classifed on page 109 as Leader/Disseminator. In this situation the innkeeper is acting in his role as Leader (staffing responsibilities), yet he also places considerable emphasis on the informational content of his communication with the food and beverage manager. In circumstances like this, where an innkeeper appears to be performing two roles yet only one identifiable activity, the time has been divided and assigned equally between the two pertinent work roles. This allocation of activity time to two or more roles took place in approximately ll) percent of the total activities recorded. Once the activities were assigned to specific roles on a daily basis, total time allocations were determined 115 and the time devoted to each role calculated as a percentage of total worked time. This is_shown in Appendix A, page 190, for innkeeper 5. These Total Time Assignments to Role Classifications for each property (see Appendix B, pages 191-197 along with the information gathered from the responses to the Management Activity Surveys (Appendix C) next permit us to examine each of the hypotheses in turn. Discussion and Testing of Hypotheses The sub-hypotheses are first examined. H1: all Innkeepers in the study perceive their leadership role to he more—important than any other workirole As indicated previously it might be expected that lodging managers would perceive their leadership role as an area of primary responsibility. This is particularly so since Mintzberg describes the leader (role) as "responsible for the motivation and activation of subordinates; responsible for staffing, training and associated duties" (1963, page 92). These areas of responsibility are heavily emphasized by most large hospitality chains and Holiday Inns, Inc., is no exception. All operational managers are required to undergo full-time training at Holiday Inn University for a period of time prior to assuming a manage- ment position in a company-owned unit. In addition to the 116 management training courses conducted at the university, there are "management seminars that are conducted in the field throughout the year, as well as the requirement that every food and beverage director and innkeeper attend a 3-day refresherseminar at the Holiday Inn university annually" (Ashman, 1977, page 27). A number of the courses are focussed particularly upon those areas of staff guidance, motivation and training. In addition, company-owned Holiday Inns have a clearly structured chain of command in which the innkeeper is highly visible as an operating manager, performing managerial functions on a regular daily basis as he constantly interacts with his staff and employees. This high level of interaction is largely due to the nature of the size of most company properties (175-225 rooms). Again, therefore, it would seem reasonable to assume that "all innkeepers in the study perceive their leadership role to be more important than any other work role" in the Mintzberg role classification. This hypothesis was tested by use of the "Management Activity Questionnaire discussed in Chapter 3 (pages 90-93) see also Appendix C for the complete Management Activity Survey form). The responses to this questionnaire are tabulated on the following page. The table shows the average 117 "importance" score given by each innkeeper to the six activities related to each work role. Table 20: Perceived Importance of Leadership Work Role (O = of little or no importance) (6 = critical or extremely important) Innkeeper Prpperties 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rpig Interpersonal Figurehead 4.83 3.50 6.00 4.00 4.17 4.83 3.83 Leader 5.33 5.33 6.00 4.83 5.00 5.67 5.17 Liaison 3.83 2.83 5.83 4.17 4.50 2.83 4.50 Informational Monitor 5.00 4.83 6.00 4.17 4.33 4.50 4.50 Disseminator 4.50 4.17 6.00 4.50} 5.00 5.17 5.33 Spokesman 3.33 3.33 5.83 3.83 3.00 4.17 4.33 Decisional Entrepreneur 5.00 4.33 6.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 5.33 Disturbance Handler 4.17 4.33 6.00 4.50 5.00 4.33 5.33 Resource Allocator 4.17 4.00 6.00 4.00 4.83 5.00 4.67 Negotiator 3.00 4.67 6.00 3.00 4.33 3.67 4.33 Average ranking for each role-related group of activities, based on responses to questionnaire items. 118 Questionnaire reSponses from innkeepers 1 and 3 were not immediately returned. In the case of the innkeeper at property 1, he had been transferred to a property out of state and had not received the questionnaire. Innkeeper 3 did not respond to the questionnaire, and it had since been misplaced. Second copies of the questionnaire were sent out to both, and the responses from the innkeeper at property‘ 3 indicated virtually all items had been given a maximum score in importance and time devoted to the activity. The responses from this innkeeper may therefore be, at best, questionable and, at worst, invalid for purposes of analysis. In our six usable completed questionnaires, four of the respondents indicated that leadership was more important than each other role delineated and a fifth respondent indicated that leadership was at least as important as three other identified roles. Although tests of significance are not particularly appropriate because of the small sample size, the extent to which average leadership score exceeds all other role scores for three of the respondents would seem to indicate a strong managerial identification with a need to provide effective leadership through related work activities. In addition, in the only situation (property 7) where leader role was ranked lower in perceived importance than three other work roles, this was due solely to a low 119 "importance" score given to item number 11, which stated: "Delegating as much of daily routine work as possible to subordinates (secretary, depgrtment heads)." It is at this stage that in-depth observation of an individual through structured observation can help reveal the reasoning behind a response to an objective statement in a questionnaire.- While it is dangerous to impute motivation behind a response, in this specific situation the innkeeper consistently made a strong point of ensuring that no employee should think in terms of a defined set of duties and responsibilities which constituted his or her job. The philoSOphy held by the Innkeeper, which was encouraged among all employees, was that each employee should do what- ever was needed to be done rather than completing one's own tasks and sitting back complacently while others worked. Thus the idea of delegation of tasks, although an integral part of leadership, was antithetical to the managerial style of this particular innkeeper. This, doubtless, partly con- tributed to the low scoring given to this particular item. Had the score given been the same as to other leader role- activities, the leader role would also have been the highest ranked role for this innkeeper. Finally, it is worth noting the roles ranked immediately behind leadership in importance. In the table on the next page it can be seen that, when the four highest ranked roles are identified, all innkeepers have included both the leader and entrepreneur roles among 120 their four most important. This appeared surprising to the researcher who had believed that the opportunity for sub- stantial entrepreneurial initiative did not exist at this level in the organization due to strict corporate controls over costs, pricing and marketing elements. However, the scores do not indicate that the entrepreneurial role figs important, only that is was perceived to be important by management. The opportunity to undertake entrepreneurial activities might therefore be said to appear to exist in the managerial work environment. Table 21: Ranked Perceived Importance of Work Roles Inn- Rank keeper 1 2 3 4 1 Leader Entrepreneur Monitor Figurehead 2 Leader Monitor 'Negotiator Entrepreneur 3 -_ -_ --. -- 4 Leader Disseminator Entrepreneur Disturbance Handler 5 Leader Disseminator Entrepreneur Disturbance Handler 6 Leader Entrepreneur Disseminator Resource Allocator 7 Entrepreneur Disseminator Disturbance Leader Handler 121 Hz: only the Innkeepers judged t9 be highly effective spendiprpportionately more time in their leader- ship rOle than they do in any otHEr work role In contrast to managerial perceptions of importance, it might be expected that if leadership qualities are important in distinguishing highly effective management from less effective management, the leader role would receive greater proportional attention by those more effective innkeepers. Given the highly interactive nature of leader? ship, the hypothesis would seem to find support in the literature. There is a strong indication of high levels of oral interaction in motivating, staffing, activating, and training at the operational level. Dubin and Spray (1964), Mintzberg (1973), Brewer and Tomlinson (1963-1964), Burns (1954) and Dubin (1962) all indicate that formal leaders spend a high percentage of time talking. It might be deduced, therefore, that proportionately greater time is given over to leadership activities by highly effeCtive innkeepers. This hypothesis is refuted by the data. During the observational period, no innkeeper devoted proportionately more time to the leader role than to each of the other work roles. Indeed, both innkeepers judged to be less effective spent proportionately more time, and more time in absolute terms (minutes), in the leader role than did either of the innkeepers judged to be highly effective. 122 . The data initially suggest an inverse relationship between ranked effectiveness and proportional time allocation to leader role, the two highly effective innkeepers being among the three who devote the lowest proportion of time to this role. This is particularly the case with regard to innkeeper 1 who espoused a philosophy of leadership in complete contrast to all other innkeepers in the sample. For this individual, leadership involved spending consider- able time and effort in recruiting the best possible employee for a key position, delegating authority and responsibility to that individual for satisfactory performance of his duties. Little communication then took place between the innkeeper and the employee, the employee being allowed to carry out his (her) job without interference, encouragement or praise from the innkeeper. In the words of the innkeeper, "I expect the employees to do a good job and use their initiative without bringing me their personal problems. If they can't do that, they will be replaced." This somewhat autocratic leadership style is therefore reflected in the low percentage of time devoted to the role and also in the low percentage of time given to his role as disturbance handler. The second innkeeper considered to be highly effective (2) employed a leader style in complete contrast to the previous innkeeper. Although the proportion of time 123 again devoted to leadership-related activities is compara- tively small, his total involvement with his employees is considerable. This is partly reflected in a greater in- volvement in the disseminator role and the disturbance handling role. However, the considerably greater involve- ment with employees in this case is reflected, not in proportional time devoted to roles, but rather in absolute time expressed in number of minutes devoted to each role. 5 It can be seen from Appendix B, pages 191—192, that inn- keeper 2 spent 39 percent more time at work over the three-day period than did the other highly effective innkeeper 1. Thus we are faced with the situation of two innkeepers judged to be highly effective who place proportionately little emphasis on leader role and yet who have, at the same time, highly contrasting leader styles. On the other hand, the overall reSults for the seven do not appear to indicate an inverse relationship between judged effectiveness and either proportional or absolute time devoted to leadership-related activities, and absolute time as well as proportional time given over to the leader role. Neither of the less effective innkeepers place highest in absolute or proportional time allocation to this role, although one innkeeper judged as less effective placed second in absolute and proportional time given over to this role. 124 Table 22: Time Allocations to Leadership Role Judged Percentage of total Innkeeper Effectiveness Minutes working time 1 Highly Effective 22 2.6 2 Highly Effective 107 9.4 3 Effective 58 5.2 4 Effective 126 11.6 5 Effective ; 221 22.5 6 Less Effective 109 12.2 7 Less Effective 185 21.8 Relationshipretween Judged Level of Effectiveness and Role of Entrepreneur What is perhaps most significant according to the data is the relationship between judged leVel of effective- 'ness and absolute and proportional time allocated to the "entrepreneur" role rather than the "leader" role. A table similar to that above with the substitution of "entrepreneur" times for "leader” times will clearly demonstrate the significance of this relationship. The two most "effective” innkeepers place highest in both absolute and proportional time, whereas the two "less effective" innkeepers place lowest in both absolute and proportional time. These results related to the role of entrepreneur were unexpected and unsought. They were unexpected as indicated by the previous statement concerning 125 the perhaps false presumption that innkeepers had little Vopportunity to exercise skills in entrepreneurial initiative. Not only has this been refuted in the data related to perceived importance of the role by innkeepers (page 120 but the tentative conclusion is that a relationship exists between managers who are judged to be highly effective and those who allocate a substantial portion of their time to entrepreneurial activities. Table 23: Time Allocations to Entrepreneurial Role Judged Percentage of total Innkeeper Effectiveness Minutes worked time 1 Highly Effective 140 17.1 2 Highly Effective 112 9.8 3 Effective 56 5.0 4 Effective 46 4.3 5 Effective 70 7.1 6 Less Effective 37 4.2 7 Less Effective 15 1.8 The conclusion must remain tentative however until an examination of the entrepreneurial activities performed by those more effective innkeepers shows their activities to be either a part of their managerial style or else responding activities which the managers had to undertake as a result of external pressures or exceptional circumstances. 126 If the entrepreneurial activities are typified by initiative taken routinely by those innkeepers, it might be more substantial evidence that there is, in fact, a relationship between highly effective innkeepers and entrepreneurial activities undertaken. Scrutiny of the raw data revealed the following situations: Innkeeper 1, whose leadership sytle resulted in limited communication with employees, now had more uninter- rupted time available to look beyond routine daily activities. Instead of generally responding to telephone calls, he frequently initiated calls relating to (a) improvements to be made to the property; (b) new ideas which he wished to recommend at the district level; (c) contacts who could provide information or opportunities to expand business potential. Entrepreneurial initiative did in fact appear to be part of his normal managerial style. Innkeeper 2, whose leadership style was in contrast to innkeeper 1, also exhibited a contrasting entrepreneurial style. Innkeeper at his property for less than a year, 2 was intent principally in making internal improvements, initiating systems to facilitate work flow and simplify accounting procedures. Less concerned with marketing aspects than 1, 2'3 entrepreneurial efforts were still part of his managerial style rather than isolated entrepreneurial acitvities which might have been atypical of his behavior. 127 It can perhaps be stated, therefore, that for this limited sample, entrepreneurial activities are perceived as being related to highly effective management. H3: highly effective Innkeepers are more accurate in their own perceptions of time allocations to specific work roles than are—less effective managers The issue of time management is introduced as a hypothesis since managerial effectiveness implies competency in the use of rescurces at the manager's disposal. Since time must be considered an important managerial resource, the ability to understand how one is using time is likely to precede a competency in the use of time. Most con- sultants in the area of time management commence their lectures by having executives develop a time log in order to analyze their present (mis)use of time. Time management has been built into a number of other hypotheses through inclusion of the word "proportional." It has been considered more important to identify time devoted to specific roles on a proportional basis in relation to other roles than to identify absolute time devoted to specific roles. In this hypothesis, however, the attempt has been to examine directly perceptions of time use and judged effectiveness of the innkeepers. The responses to the six questions related to each role were averaged according to perceived time allocation 128 to work roles. As in the case of "importance,' Innkeeper 3 responded with a maximum score in practically every situation and this Innkeeper's responses are therefore given lesser consideration in the analysis. The average scores for perceived time allocations to work roles are shown in Table 24. While it is interesting to note that four out of the six ”valid" respondents state that they spend more time on the leader role, and that the two "highly effective" inn- keepers state that they spend relatively little time on their role as entrepreneur (in contrast to the actual situation discussed previously), our objective was to measure actual against perceived time allocations to each role. This was done in order to determine if there was any relation- ship between judged effectiveness and degree of disparity between perceived and actual time allocations for each innkeeper. The actual time allocations to work roles are shown in Table 25. For each innkeeper it was then possible to rank the roles from one to ten from highest perceived time to lowest perceived time and from highest actual time to lowest actual time. This is laid out in Table 26 for all innkeepers. Differences between perceived and actual rankings for each role were determined simply by subtracting the smaller number from the larger. When differences were totalled for each innkeeper there was found to be no Table 24: Perceived Time Allocation to Work Roles 129 Average Ranked Scores (based on responses to questionnaire items) 'Innkeeper Roles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interpersonal Figurehead 1.50 2.83 .33 .67 .33 .33 .83 Leader 2.33 3.50 .00 .00 .17 .50 .67 Liaison 1.33 2.00 .67 .50 .17 .00 .00 Informational Monitor 1.33 3.00 .00 .17 .83 .33 .40 Disseminator 1.50 2.67 .00 .50 .50 .33 .33 Spokesman 0.67 2.00 .33 .67 .83 .83 .83 Decisional Entrepreneur 1.00 3.33 .83 .50 .50 .33 .17 Disturbance ' Handler 1.50 2.17 .50 .83 .50 .00 .50 Resource Allocator 1.33 3.00 .00 .67 .67 .67 .17 Negotiator 1.00 1.33 .67 .33 .67 .00 .33 130 Table 25: Total Time Assignments to Role Classifications All Properties (expressed as a percentage of total worked time) Prqperties Roles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interpersonal Figurehead 8.8 15.9 6.6 11.6 11.5 11.3 15.3 Leader 2.6 9.4 5.2 11.6 22.5 12.2 21.8 Liaison 8.4 7.9 7.6 5.0 1.5 5.0 5.0 Informational Monitor 26.6 24.3 26.7 29.8 25.1 36.4 27.1 Disseminator 10.9 14.4 20.6 17.1 7.1 11.3 9.6 Spokesman 20.4 8.0 7.5 16.9 9.1 14.5 12.0 Decisional Entrepreneur 17.1 9.8 5.0 4.3 7.1 4.2 1.8 Disturbance Handler 1.5 4.6 14.8 3.2 12.0 0.9 1.2 Resource Allocator 3.7 5.7 6.0 0.5 4.1 4.2 4.3 Negotiator 0.0 0.0 0:0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1131. {flit ~.~ o.m q.m vocouaauav 5.24: em cm NN cm ca.rcp cm cm wreausotd~s mafia 19>«ooum; arraoa 1c: peace» :aczuu; aucuuaucat ~34CF use a ._ .....nm: h: cruc:< amusemum C) r~c> N c~ bl ~$CJ 'Q 1x Nc\v—4N —J C) '4 Fl '4 ~$r~ \OMQC \7 I": C‘ m INC 91 N ‘3 tn 0 Cr— 1" H ...3 _ 3.2+: .Flllwwmmmicmmmc unaccustsocz ll 0i-.1l II. a=:o_acuua LC 6. f ('1 r-‘I ! :sEnuxoLm III. 1111!. »:L~:_2:cna.m_ '.‘..III ‘19... ...; IDCM¢ C‘s-hm r—mfi' WM rihdn mp» \O. ...: “1?; L3 C, n—dmo NF‘L‘" HNO'O" come Ifit‘d‘c N7 use :52 1"“00' Hdcomuaauth— c rucr~ «woflo .H Ilw c NNH 1m .!~-1 n ~¢ana ”Q74 quco I comammu hold—v3.4.” fish“: «fir-Ho rmoma wag—253m I. Hzcoauvaueacn mafia Hum u0< uu«c use uu< mama pom ..o< wade hum uu< umwo hon uu< wuwa Hum uu< H09 u0< mums nQHDZ n xuuoeoum o Auumccum n xuuucoum e Auuoccum m manage»; N xuueaoum H huuuaoum Qm>wmuxma az< J<=ho< mm mafimfi “mmgox xzoz OP m20~9qumcza an Na om nm an NMw>guofi 190 PROPERTY 5: Total Time Assignments to Role Classifications Z of total Day 1 .Day 2 Day 3 Total worked time Interpersonal Figurehead 5 47 '61 113 11.5 Leader 41 122 58 221 22.5 Liaison 8 5 2 15 1.5 Informational Monitor 119 98 29 246 25.1 Disseminator 41 9 19 69 7.1 Spokesman 27 4O 22 89 9.1 Decisional ‘ Entrepreneur 17 47 6 70 7.1 Disturbance Handler 3 42 73 118 12.0 Resource Allocator 29 9 2 40 4.1 Negotiator -- -- -- -— -- TOTAL WORKED TIME 290 419 272 981 100.0 min min min min Personal 50 45 146 241 Unaccounted time 7 3 1 11 Total worked time: 291 minutes Number of activities performed: 87 Average length of each activity 10 min. 35 sec. APPENDIX B TOTAL TIME ASSIGNMENTS TO ROLE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR ALL INNKEEPERS l9l PROPERTY 1: Total Time Assignments to Role Classifications Z of total Qay_l Day 2 Day 3 Total worked time Interpersonal Figurehead -- 73 '-- 73 8.8 Leader 10 12 -— 22 2.6 Liaison 18 16 35 69 8.4 Informational Monitor . 93 58 67 218 26.6 Disseminator 22 15 52 98 10.9 Spokesman 42 3O 95 167 20.4 Decisional Entrepreneur 35 22 83 140 17.1 Disturbance Handler 4 8 -- 12_, 1.5 Resource Allocator l6 3 11 30 3.7 Negotiator -- -- -- --- -- TOTAL WORKED TIME 240 237 343 820 Personal Time 125 245 -- 370 Unaccounted Time 16 2 IO 28 Total worked time 820 minutes Number of activities performed 55 Average length of each activity 14 min. 54 sec; 192 PROPERTY 2: Total Time Assignments to Role Classifications Z of total Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Total Worked time Interpersonal Figurehead 23 20 138 181 15.9 Leader 38 17 52 107 9.4 Liaison 8O 10 -- 90 7.9 Informational Monitor 127 72 77 276 24.3 Disseminator 47 94 23 164 14.4 Spokesman 24 9 58 91 8.0 Decisional Entrepreneur 69 26 17 112 9.8 Disturbance Handler 33 8 11 52 4.6 Resource Allocator 10 55 -- 65 5.7 Negotiator -- -- -- v-- -- TOTAL WORKED TIME 451 311 376 1138 Personal Time -- 53 -— 53 Unaccounted Time 6 4 12 22 Total worked time 1138 minutes Number of activities performed 69 Average length of each activity 16 min. 30 sec. 193 PROPERTY 3: Total Time Assignments to Role Classifications Z of total Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Total worked time Interpersonal Figurehead 21 28 .26 75 6.6 Leader 12 1O 36 58 5.2 Eiaison -- 58 27 85 7.6 Informational Monitor . 87 92 120 299 26.7 Disseminator 80 60 91 231 , 20.6 Spokesman 45 17 22 84 7.5 Decisional Entrepreneur 4O -- 16 56 5.0 Disturbance Handler 25 129 12 166 14.8 Resource Allocator 31 27 9 67 6.0 Negotiator -- -- -- -- -- TOTAL WORKED TIME 341 421 359 1121 Personal Time 78 25 15 118 Unaccounted Time 3 -- 7 10 Total worked time . 1121 minutes Number of activities performed 65 Average length of each activity 17 min. 15 sec. 194 PROPERTY 4: Total Time Assignments to Role Classifications Z of total Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Total worked time Interpersonal Figurehead 76 26 23 125 11.6 Leader -- 30 96 126 11.6 Liaison 45 3 5 53 5.0 Informational Monitor 135 118 67 320 29.8 Disseminator 100 43 40 183 17.1 Spokesman 75 65 41 181 16.9 Decisional Entrepreneur 17 29 -- 46 4.3 Disturbance Handler 8 6 20 34 3.2 Resource Allocator -- -- 5 5 0.5 Negotiator -- -- -- -- -- TOTAL WORKED TIME 456 320 297 1073 Personal Time 15 75 85 175 Unaccounted Time 22 17 10 49 Total worked time 1073 minutes Number of activities performed 39 Average length of each activity 27 min. 31 sec. 195 PROPERTY 5: Total Time Assignments to Role Classifications Z of total Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Total worked time Interpersonal Figurehead 5 47 .61 113 11.5 Leader 41 122 58 221 22.5 Liaison 8 5 2 15 1.5 Informational Monitor 119 98 29 246 25.1 Disseminator 41 9 19 69 7.1 Spokesman 27 4O 22 89 9.1 Decisional Entrepreneur 17 47 6 70 7.1 Disturbance Handler 3 42 73 118 12.0 Resource Allocator 29 9 2 40 4.1 Negotiator -- -- -- -- -- TOTAL WORKED TIME 290 419 272 981 Personal Time 50 45 146 241 Unaccounted Time 7 3 1 11 Total worked time 921 minutes Number of activities performed 87 Average length of each activity 10 min. 35 sec. 196 PROPERTY 6: Total Time Assignments to Role Classifications Z of total Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Total worked time Interpersonal Figurehead 21 3o '50 101 11.3 Leader 96 3 10 109 12.2 Liaison 7 37 -- 44 5.0 Informational Monitor 110 188 25 323 36.4 Disseminator 6O 25 15 100 11.3 Spokesman 66 23 40 129 14.5 Decisional Entrepreneur -- 17 20 37 4.2 Disturbance Handler 8 -- -- 8 0.9 Resource Allocator 5 32 -- 37 4.2 Negotiator -- -- -- ,-- -- TOTAL WORKED TIME 373 355 160 888 Personal Time -- -- 27 27 Unaccounted Time ll 19 23 53 Total worked time 888 minutes Number of activities performed 59 Average length of each activity 15 min. 03 sec. 197 PROPERTY 7: Total Time Assignments to Role Classifications Z of total Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Total worked time Interpersonal Figurehead 4 11 115 130 15.3 Leader 85 55 45 185 21.8 Liaison 18 ' 22 3 43 5.0 Informational Monitor ' 86 78 67 231 27.1 Disseminator 76 -- 6 82 9.6 Spokesman ' 50 15 37 102 12.0 Decisional Entrepreneur -- 15 -- 15 1.8 Disturbance Handler lO -- -- 10 1.2 Resource Allocator 26 4 7 37 4.3 Negotiator -- 16 -- 316 1.9 TOTAL WORKED TIME 355 216 280 851 Personal Time 6 130 5 141 Unaccounted Time 3 5 l 9 Total worked time 851 minutes Number of activities performed 49 Average length of each activity 17 min. 22 sec. APPENDIX C MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY SURVEY OF PERCEIVED TIME ALLOCATION AND IMPORTANCE OF ACTIVITIES INNKEEPER 5 198 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY SURVEY David Ley Doctoral Student in Management and Assistant Professor, Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management Michigan State University On the following pages you will see a number of activities typical of many managerial jobs. As you read each activity, please think about your own work: How much time do you spend in each activity? How important is each activity Eg’ygu_in the successful conduct of your work (regardless of how much time it takes). After each item are two scales, one on which to estimate how much of your time you spend doing the activity, and one on which to indicate fhe activity's importance to you. By marking a "O" you would indicate that you spend no time doing that activity or that it had no importance to you. The higher numbers indicate a great deal of time spent or a great deal of importance. Example: Answering requests for information Time0123456 Importance0123@56 The person who answered this question was indicating that in his job he spent very little time answering requests for information but that answering requests was relatively important in doing the job well. Please work quickly. Do not spend too much time on any one question. If you find any questions confusing, go 199 ahead and answer as best you can. But please go back later and indicate what confused you. NAME PROPERTY 200 \0 Ln 0 m N H @2 no q- 8- mm NN Far-4 \0 Ln r“x 4: m N H \O \O \0 Ln Ln tn q @@ Q.) m m N N N H r-i H o m ¢ rm N ...; o mmbm N H mucouHomEH 111 mm Ln l-fi l-fi Ln . <1" m "\ r-i dd: m‘m NN HP: «Ema saws amQH mafia... .mucmEonnwmu xuo3 m.aowumuwcmwuo map nuH3 Ammosohmmohm xHOB .mawow Homumo ..w.mv mamow .mmumaprOLSm waumuwmuaH .OH .ucmuuomEH ma ums3 mumsuo 3o£m ou mafia £30 H30» mafiazwonom .m .Euwm H90» Ga umnz wcwou m.o;3 wawzoax .w .ouo .mucmE nuHEEoo .uuomanm .mamwuouma pmpmoc How mmsouw opwmuoo SUHB wcwuwwuowmz .m .mocmEHomumm AOm mumchHO£Sm mo >uwamnv map wafiumaHm>m .o .muUMucoo pnom as momx Ou so» 3OHHw scans mcowuocam Hwfloom wcflccmuu< .m .mHHmo ozona no muHmH> smacksu muomucoo mo xuozuma Hmcomumm Hack wcwcwmucwmz .q :.opmuu mfiu mo mammow: paw muao>m mdowuw> co voauomca wcwamwx .m .mmnnpmoonm cowumuCoEmHaEH uomuucoo uao wafiuwuz .N .mu:m>m Gmomuomc: ou wcfipcoammm .H m owwm hm>unm mufi>fiuo< ucoamwmamz 201 \o ‘\ Ln Huom ....2533.......H oHHHsaz wcHHeamz .oN .muomuucoo maaumwuowoz .mH .mooHHOmou wmuowpdn mafiusnwnumwn .ma .mpnouu paw mmwcmno umxumfi nufi3 a: wawamox .NH .xuo3 mow>mmm oflansa aw wcwummfiofiuumm .oH .mmflufl>fiuom m.uwcs unox unonm pmfiuomaw ccH Moo» mo mpwmuno manoma ucmuhomaw wcflmmox .mH .xhoa H50» uoomwm %me >o£u mm mucm>m Hmofiuwaom wcammomm< .qa .coflumauomaw uam>oaou mo meHomCH ficH Hack mo m0¢>0HQEm mafiammx .MH .A3on paw ao£3 .mcop on ou ma umSSV xho3 wcwsfimuwoum .NH .mamanoun Hmcomuma :uHB mmumcfipuondm wcwmams paw nufi3 Sosou ca wcwmmox .HH q owmm hm>usm mua>wuo< unmamwmcmz 202 m N @ma «1 N oflmve m N save 0 m d m N \smemm @nqmw Al Homamm 3m @msmm \‘T m N mocmuuomEH o :.mwum£o CH cos onu: ou ow ou ucm3 0:3 AoHHan mnu .mquHHo mm noamv :mumpHmuno: ou mHanHm>m MHmmHsom wGmez .Hm In \T m N H m ¢ AHV N H o .GOHumNHameo H30h ou Ho xuoz Mach ou pmuwHoH mucoa umoHo>mp HmonOHocnomu nuH3 as wchmom .om m .8 ® N H o , .5: .50» SH mwcmno voHHouucoo wcHumHuHaH .mN m d m N H o .ucoao>oumEH . HwGOHumuHcmwuo pom muommoua wcHGmeom .wN m d «m N H o .ccH pooh mo mmo%0HaEm ou aOHu nmEHowaH mummHammme ou mwcHummE wchHom .NN m q «m N H o .muomucoo Mao» ckuchE ou mwcHummE Ho mmoamummcoo waHpcouu< .oN m c nmv N H o .ccH poo» cHsuH3 mchoE wcHumooHH< .mN n q n N.flm. o .moumaHpHOASm IL Goo3umn muoHHmaoo wcH>H0mmm .QN m \¢ vm N H c .A.oum .huoucm>cH .mwcHanchsmv GGH u:o> hp ponHm> mmousomou mo mmoH mo ummufiu Ho mmoH can wcHucm>mum .mN as: m owmm mo>ysm huH>Huo< uaoamwmcmz \0 q no N .... q m N H d m N H ¢ m N H q m N H ¢ m N H d m N H q m N H monmuuomEH O m m If) Ln “3 Ln Ln meHa N H H .... .acH “30% mo m>HumucmmmuomH 6 mm chHuoanm HmHUOm wcHowuu< .o¢ .coHumNHcmwuo Mao» opHmuso mucouu uponm SOHumEhomcH waHuosumu .mm .vamn um pom msu ou cOHuodpouucH paw How wcHaHmuu mumnvmpm Squ mm¢>0HmEo 30a waHpH>on .wm .mmsmmH usmuuomaH so uom ou mumnuo wcHNHuonud< .Nm .sGH unoz mo m>HumuammmHamu m mm mwcHumma um wchHmmum .om .AmmmmmuocH hanmm wcH>Hw .wnHuoaonm .wcHMHm .wGHHHS mm £03mv CCH “50% SH momma wchwmum ou wchcouu< .mm .mxmmu Ho mnon UHMHooam ou HoBOQHME wcHumooHH< .qm .mucosanmmm non ou oumHoH kosu mm mHHme HwHommm tam wchHmHu .mmumchHonnm mo Human wchmoM .mm .Hom A.oum .mpmHHop .HMHHmumE .HmBomamav moounomou me>oum ou mameOHa HUHSS waHpHoon .Nm 0 mwmm xo>95m muH>Huo¢ pamaowmcmz 204 \0 Ln <1. 0") N \O In x? m N N N a N N N N a N N \= N /m a N N N N a N N N N nmv N N N Nm 3 N N N N pmv N N H o N N a N mmv H o mocmuuomEH \0 mm \. Q) «3 ¢ m NH(H o, N H o N H o N H o q m ‘\ Q3) r-l O nwv N N H o s N NN H o a N N AHV o «EH9 .GCH p50% mo ovauno onomm ou uummxm cm mm maH>nom .Hm . . muozuo ou oumonop ou mmHuHHHnHmaoammu GOHumEHomcH uwSB waHpHomm .om .wcHop ohm Nona umn3 paw ccH HDON mo mpHmuso :053 6.053: wcH3o¢M .mq .mHmuoc Ho mcaH nonuo paw aaH Mao» :om3umn muoHHmcoo nuHB wGHHme .wq .GOHucmuum woo: um£u mEoHnoua ou uumHm mum moumaHoHonzm umsu uH ou wchmm .mq .mmoam>mHuw mmNOHmEo wcHHpcmz .©¢ .kuuomoum msu wsHHDoB .mq .oum .mmuwHoommw .muouHumano .mucmHHo unonm aOHumauomaH wcHuonumu .qq .an cm mm 3ouw Ho pcmmxm ou moHuHcauhommo wcHuHoHaxm .mq .mHmHHoumE Ho ucmEQHDwm wcHumUOHH< .Nq .GGH H50> mo m>HumucmmoHamu m mm magmaboop wchme .Hq N mwmm ao>u5m muH>Huo< ucmfimwmawz 205 \D \‘f m N .... \0 m \T m N H \O Q d’ m N H \O Q’ m N H monouuomEH NHONUNHO Ln 3. m N r-l o m \‘l‘ C") N .. ...4 O :n \1' m N‘~ H mEHH o . .m50Huom .mmumchHoLSm wcHNHoHuHuo no wcmeuaoocm .oo .mcmHa mudunm m.ccH Mao» mo mumauo wcwahomaH .mm .HEH Mach CH mmwcwno vopmoa wsHunuHumcH Np mEmHnon wSH>Hom .wm .muomuaoo woumHmuaxu03 .HSNmm: opH>oum uszB 50H£3 ..oum .mano .mfiOHumNHcmmHo .mpumon wcHaHon .Nm .GOHumNHnmeo man mo waHpamumumpas uno% mo mHmmn «Hp 50 moumchuonnm H305 ou mocprnw waHpH>on .om .GCH Mao» aH mowamno Ho>o conH>Hmmsm wchHmuchz .mm .mxmwu ucmuuomSH smHHanoom mmumcHwHonnm HDON umsu whamcH ou zuHHo£unm usoh wch: .qm .. mbOHuMNNcmwNo .HoHfiHouon . macH 9930 .EH Mao» GH moHuH>Huom co muuomou uchmmm .mm .aOHuMNHGmeo “50% mo mUHmudo wcHumcHwHHo mmmpH 3oz unonm wcHaumoH .Nm w mwmm Nm>hnm muH>Huo< macawwmamz 206 m N ...; Aw m H Amv N H m N H \D d ("I N H ‘v \D Q <- m N r-i N N a N N H N N a N AWV.H N N a N N H N N mwv N N H mocmnnomEH O 0 Ln .mmnmchnondm n50» Q' \ . m N ...; O on HOHnwEnomcH unannomEH wchntnom .mo 4 N.mwv H o .scH usoN Ho HHmHmH no mMHnHSvnH no wnouumH wfiHnm3mc< .No q AWV N H o .muomnonm namea>onaEH . HmcnmucH mo moHanOHna man wchHoma .oo 1N ®N H o .Adum .mnouoommcH .mncmuHDmcoo .mnoHHaasm .waHmmsonsm «.m.ov mmoH>nom no xnoB 30% noon 053 GGH ndom mpHmudo oHaomm Suez mmHnmSOHHMHmn HmsOmnma wchon>oQ .mo 6 m N\\w o .:0HumenomaH nom mumosvmn wcHnm3mcm hp mnomucoo 366 wcHaon>mQ .¢o H m N Amwvo .mnH>mmmnw can on woman wcHhmum .mo mmv N N H o .A.oum .HsmHHo mumnH cm .mnoHHmcoo wcHanmaom cmpwnm .n3opxmonn ucoamwawm ..w.ov mHmHno m on mmcoammn 6H SOHuom mumeofiaH wcmeH .No ¢ \w N H o .moumchnonsm n90» mo anB msu waHuoonHQ .Ho oEHH m mwmm hm>n5m mnH>Huo< uaoaowmcmz m N QVNN NNNNN m N N N GU N NGVN N Nm'NUN m N m N m 0.? N 2 NWUN r\\ NflNUN N N «GUN M (\l m N monmuuomEH N‘fiN N N N H N N NmNVN H N N NAN N H N N N NxN H N N «FNUN H N N «N N H N N «N N H N N N NN H N N N N®H QEHH O .mmmcwmsn m.>mn map mo muommmm HHm mo men so waHmmum .Nm .mfiow HHm3 xHOB Mom mmm%0HaEm mcflmwmua cam chmedoon .05 .mwcH:m>m wcm mkmw umoE mmNOHaEm no ummnw Nam kn muowummsv HmBmcw ou mHanNm>m wchm .mm .xHo3 maHunon Hmnuo vcm HHmE zuHB a: goumo Cu mwcmxmmB wcfixuo3 .qm .AmHmmem How .UOHHmm Nman m waausw mmHHmasm no HmBOQCQE cw mmwmuHOva maowumnuwm EmHnoum Noamwumam m>H0mmH mwmmn acmauummmw wchHm: . m |\ .Amvmmn unmeuummmw .humumuummv mmumckuoan ou mHnNmmom mm xH03 mcHuDOH NHva mo sane mm wcHummemo .NN .ccH usom mo mnHmuno mHmoma ucmuuomEH nuHB muomuaoo chQon>ma .HN .vmm: m ou maoo m>m£ £0H£3 mSmHnoum wmuocwH NHm50H>mHQ nuHS chHme .ou .mcmHm vcm mmNuN>Huom m.csH Mao» unonm cmEhoch UHHQDQ mzu wcflmmmx .mo OH mwmm mw>u5m NuN>Huo< ucmfimwmcmz APPENDIX D CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOLIDAY INNS, INC. ESTABLISHING FIELD RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 208 April 14, 1976 Mr. Jack Barksdale President - Inns Division Holiday Inns, Inc. 3736 Lamar Avenue Memphis, TN 38118 Dear Mr. Barksdale: The purpose of this letter to Holiday Inns is to request support for a doctoral dissertaion research project entitled, "An empirical examination of selected work activity correlates of managerial effectiveness in the hotel industry using a structured observation approach." The objective of the study is to identify more effective hotel managers by noting the Specific activities they perform and the time emphasis which is given to certain activities rather than others. These activities include: (1) relation- ships with people, (2) collecting and giving out information, and (3) making decisions. The emphasis 0f the study will be on determining what makes managers more effective or less effective. For example, do managers concentrate more on public relations, guest complaints, supervising and counseling staff, than on structural problems (poor filing) and directing operational activities (which should perhaps be delegated to departmental heads)? Time allocations by managers will tend to show what they consider to be their most important activities. The study will 39; focus primarily on identification of the most effective managers being observed. This identification will already have been determined by Holiday Inns using factors such as growth and profitability of the operation, occupancy levels, degree of repeat business, levels of employee turnover, environmental and market variables. The primary benefit of the study_to Holiday Inns will, there- fore, be the researcherTs insights as to why managers are more effective or less effective. Secondary benefits of the study for Holiday Inns top manage- ‘ment include the following: 209 Mr. Jack Barksdale Page 2 April 14, 1976 The study will provide information against which current managerial selection criteria can be judged. The study will serve as a basis against which current managerial develOpment programs can be evaluated. There are also anticipated benefits for operational managers resulting from the study. These are asfifollows: 1. In order specific 1. The study will allow managers to see how they are using their time. The study will allow managers to identify their .individual preferences for concentrating on certain activities - of which preferences the managers might not have been consciously aware. The study will allow managers to identify the extent to which they might have become over-involved in day-to-day activities and "fire—fighting," when delegation of activities might have been more appropriate. The study can possibly show managers which activities relate to higher levels of operational performance, on which performance they are subsequently evaluated. to conduct the study, the researcher has certain needs and requests. These can be identified as: Based on criteria for standardization to be provided by the researcher, Holiday Inns is requested to select eight managers whose properties fit these criteria. The managers will each be observed for five consecutive work days over a total period of eight to ten weeks in June to August 1976. Permission to conduct a pilot study examina- tion of the activities of hotel managers. Hopefully this can be satisfied by observa- tion of the two Lansing innkeepers for at least two days each, prior to the end of May 1976. 210 Mr. Jack Barksdale Page 3 April 14, 1976 5. After completion of the study, the researcher requests the opportunity to compare his findings with the company's ratings of participating managers. In conclusion it is hoped that Holiday Inns might see fit to cover the researcher's out-of-pocket costs for the study. These costs would include maintenance and lodging at the Inns being studied, travel expenses to and from these Inns, typing and reproduction costs of the study. Such financial support is secondary in importance to approval of the project and the cooperation implied by this approval. I thank you in anticipation. Sincerely, David A. Ley Professor pig 211 May 7, 1976 Mr. Paul H. Laesecke Manager of Executive Employment and Development Holiday Inns, Inc. 3736 Lamar Avenue Memphis, TN 38118 Dear Mr. Laesecke: This letter is a follow-up to our brief meeting with Mr. Barksdale and Professor Blomstrom at Michigan State University on April 15. At that time Mr. Barksdale recommended that I develop my correspondence with you and that I make certain adaptations to the proposal which I had submitted. A copy of my original letter is enclosed. The issues which Mr. Barksdale raised with good cause were: 1. Sensitivity by the managers to having a third party (myself) present during "private" communications with other hotel personnel. 2. Possible biased managerial behavior patterns while under "observation" by the researcher. 3. Resistance by managers to having a "spy” in their midst who was sanctioned by top management. After careful consideration of these points and discussion with other faculty and committee members I would like to present a revision of my original proposal in the hope that it will help avoid those previous weaknesses and yet still permit a dissertation which will be of value to Holiday Inns, Inc., and hospitality education. Proposal The following steps are suggested: 212 Mr. Paul Laesecke Page 2 May 7, 1976 1. Holiday Inns, Inc., will supply the researcher with a list of the names of managers of approximately comparable inns (size, market competition, etc.) in Michigan and Ohio. A list of between 25 and 35 managers would be desirable. 2. Permission be given to the researcher to correspond or visit with those managers with the objective of soliciting their participation in the project on a voluntary basis, for a project period not to exceed five days with each volunteer. 3. From six to nine volunteers will be selected by the researcher and the identity of these volunteers will remain with the researcher. Thus senior level management will not know which Innkeepers have been selected for the study. If this point can be ef- fectively communicated to the managers by the researcher many of the problems of antipathy toward the researcher and artificial behavior patterns by the manager under observation will be avoided. 4. Where confidential situations arise between a manager and his clients or employees the researcher could be excluded from Ehe situation or meeting and appraised offithe non-confidential elements of the situation at a later time by the manager. The researcher appreciates that if the proposal is accepted he will cover all out-of-pocket costs such as transportation, typing and reproduction costs of the study. Should further development or consultation concerning the project be deemed advisable by you, the researcher will be happy to come to Memphis to discuss the details more fully. It is believed that a project of this sort will be of considerable value to the hospitality industry and will reflect favorably on Holiday Inns by reason of the 213 Mr. Paul Laesecke Page 3 May 7, 1976 research orientation of the personnel department. Your guidance and encouragement will play a large part in the successful completion of the dissertation. I thank you and eagerly await your response to this revised draft of the proposal. Sincerely, David A. Ley Assistant Professor ach Enc. 214 July 14, 1976 Mr. Paul H. Laesecke Manager of Executive Employment and Development Holiday Inns, Inc. 3736 Lamar Avenue Memphis, TN 38118 Dear Mr. Laesecke: I thought I would take this opportunity to bring you up to date with my dissertation research. First, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to work for a couple of days with Mr. LeClair at Holiday Inn South, Lansing. The relationship was highly compatible, and I gathered enough information from.my observations to indicate that some minor revisions of the observational instrument are in order. I have also drafted a tentative letter to be sent to the sample of managers as well as a short form of acceptance or rejection to be completed by the managers and returned. Any comments or recommendations for improvement are welcomed. Finally it seems appropriate to tabulate the factors which I am hoping we shall be able to standardize in our sample of managers. The most important factors would seem to be: 1. Geographic region of all properties. 2. Size and age of the property. 3. Length of service of Innkeeper in the property. 4. Approximate degree of competition in immediate vicinity. Given a sample of some 25-30 managers who can be classified in this manner, I would hope that‘we shall be able to schedule at least eight volunteers so that the data can be gathered prior to resumption of classes at MSU on September 23. At present I am working on my review of the literature chapter and developing some notes for my introductory chapter dealing with "Importance, Purpose and Scope of the Study.” 215 Mr. Paul Laesecke Page 2 July 14, 1976 I thank you and await the list of sample managers as well as any comments on my procedures to this time. Sincerely, David Ley Assistant Professor of HR & IM amn Enclosures 216 Dear Mr. This letter is intended to introduce myself as a Professor of Hotel Administration at Michigan State University and as a student completing my doctoral degree by conducting a research study with company units of Holiday Inns. Approval to conduct the study, which will consist of four or five days of observation of each selected Innkeeper at work, has been given by Jack Barksdale, President of Inns Division, and the study is being monitored by Paul Laesecke, Manager of Executive Employment and Development. The purpose of the study is to generate information about the different ways in which efficient managers conduct the daily operations of the units which they manage. It is in no way a top management attempt to "spy" on their operational managers. Since the study is entirely voluntary and top management does not know which managers will be chosen by the researcher for observation, the results of the study will have value particularly for the managers themselves by allow- ing them to compare their modus operandi with other managers Of similar properties. The study will, therefore, hopefully allow managers to identify their individual preferences for concentrating on certain activities of which preferences the managers might not have been previously consciously aware. The primary benefit to Holiday Inns will be in the area of possible implications for future training and management development. I, therefore, request your support in this study by asking your permission to observe you in your normal work patterns for four or five consecutive work days sometime between August 1 and September 19. I am already somewhat familiar with the Holiday Inn organization and should, therefore, be able to limit the number of questions I ask you throughout the day. It is understood that when you would be engaged 217 in highly confidential or sensitive communications with others I can be excluded so as not to place you in a situation which might inconvenience you. Should you be prepared to participate in this study, and I believe it to be a pioneering study which will have value for the hotel industry, I would ask you to indicate three possible alternative time slots when I might work with you this summer. Indication that you will cooperate in this study does not mean that you will be selected for observa- tion. Approximately 30 managers in the same geographic area are being approached and only about eight will be chosen for observation depending on the ability to schedule the various visits throughout the summer. Please indicate weeks when you will be in the hotel most of the time and when your work week would be fairly representative of your work throughout the year. I shall phone you about two days after you have received this correspondence to answer any questions you may have and also to encourage your support in the project. A brief two-day pilot observation has already been conducted and I believe the time spent with him was beneficial to the study. Our relationship during the two days was compatible and I believe he will attest to my low-key, inconspicuous manner of observation. I thank you and look forward to talking with you further on this subject. ' Sincerely, David Ley Assistant Professor of HR & IM 218 Please complete and return in the stamped, self-addressed envelope. Yes, I would be prepared to have you observe 1C:::37 me at work for four or five days. I might be prepared to have you observed me at work if I can discuss and resolved certain questions of reservations which I have at present. No, I regret that my time schedule will not { 7 permit me to work with a researcher this summer. If the response is yes, please indicate below the weeks which would be most convenient for observation by the researcher. Choice Month Dates of Consecutive Days (4 or 5) l 2 3 Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, David Ley 219 TO: Selected Innkeepers FROM: Erich Gerner DATE: July 21, 1976 SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION WITH MR. DAVID LEY Your inn was selected by us to participate in a program co- sponsored by Holiday Inns, Inc.,and Michigan State University. Mr. Jack Barksdale, President of the Food and Lodging Division, and myself have agreed to work with Mr. David Ley, Assistant Professor of Hotel and Restaurant Management at Michigan State University. Mr. Ley is conducting research to determine exactly what a manager does during a day. Recent writings indicate that what is being taught at the university may differ significantly with what is happening in the real world. We have selected 25 inns from which Mr. Ley will select 6 to 9. He will observe the Innkeepers actions and record time and activities, etc. He will not be interested in the details of Holiday Inn nor will he have access to confidential information. If during the day you find you would like to conduct business priyately, either due to the confidential nature of the matter or because having a third party would make true communication impossible, please ask Mr. Ley to leave the room or find something else to do during that period of time. We have talked with Mr. Ley about this and he certainly understands our position. He will not report which inn he has selected or any findings of a specific nature to us. This project was selected because it can be beneficial to Michigan State University, to management research in general, but mainly to us. We want Mr. Ley to understand the quality of our operations and to build a rapport with Michigan State University that will help cement our relations with the students and faculty. This rapport is essential for our recruiting efforts. Please extend every courtesy possible to Mr. Ley if and when he calls. We would like to provide a complimentary room and meals during his four or five day stay. Your cooperation is appreciated and is essential. BIBLIOGRAPHY - 220 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aguilar, F. J. Scanning the business environment. New York: Macmillan,gl967. Altman, I. Aspects of the criterion problem in small group research; the analysis of group tasks. Acta Psychologica, 1966, 25, 199-221. Andersson, B., Nilsson, S. Studies in the reliability and validity of the critical incident technique. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1964, 48, 398-413. Ashman, R. T. Holiday Inns second generation. Lodging, June 1977, page 26. Avery, A. C. Automation and mechanization in food service. The Consultant, Spring 1974, page 28. Axler, B. Management of Hospitality Operations. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1976, 6-8. Beardwood, R. Reveille sounds for the hoteliers. Fortune, September 1969, page 110. Belcher, H. R. Chief Executive Officer Activities in Publiclngwned Texas Corporations: A Test of ActiVity Classifications and of a Systems Con- tingency Theory of ManageriaI_Work. Ph}D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1975. Bird, C., Yutzy, T. D. The tyranny of time. Management Review, August 1965, 34-43. Blau, P. M., Scott, W. R. Formal Organizations. San Francisco: Chandler, 1962. Bouchard, T. J., Jr. Field research methods. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand—McNally, 1976, page 385. Braybrooke, D., Lindblom, C. E. A Strategy of Decision. New York: Free Press, 1963. 221 Brech, E. F. L., ed. The Principles and Practice of Manage- ment. London: Longman, 1963, page 7} Brewer, E., Tomlinson, J. W. C. The manager's working day. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 1964, 12, 191-197. Brooks, E. What successful executives do. Personnel, 1955, 32, 210-225. ’ Burns, T. The directions of activity and communication in a departmental executive group. Human Relations, 1954, 7, 73-97. Burns, T., Management in action. Operational Research Quarterly, 1957, 8, 45-60. Campbell, D. B. Work management: a science for the seventies. Lodging, 3, 1976, 12-18. Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., Weick, K. E., Managerial Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill,_1970. Carlson, S. Executive Behavior: A Study of the Work Load and the Workinngethods ofManaging Directors. Stockholm: Strombergs, 1951. Carmichael, J. H. An Analysis of the Activities of Middle Management Personnel in the Retail Trade Industry withImplications for Curriculum Develgpment in Post-Secondary Institutions. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. Choran, I. The Manager of a Small Company. Montreal: McGill University, 1969. Unpuhlished M.B.A. thesis. Clowes, K. An Empirical Study of Manager's Work. Canadian Psychhlogical Associatihn Conference, 1976. Cohn, T. Managing executive time. The Institute Journal, January/February 1974, 8-11. Copeman, G. H., Luijk, H., Hanika, F. de P., How the Executive Spends His Time. London: Bus1ness Pubiications Ltd., 1963. Cyert, R. M., March, J. G. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hail, 1963. Dalton, M. Men Who Manage. New York: Wiley, 1959. 222 Drucker, P. F. The Practice of Management. Mercury, 1961. Drucker, P. F. Organizing executive time. Management Today, April 1967, 62-65. Drucker, P. F. The Effective Executive. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. Drucker, P. F. Managgment: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. New York: Harper and Row, 19743 Dubin, R. Business behavior behaviorally viewed, in G. B. Strother, ed. Social Science Approaches to Business Behavior. Homewood, IL: Irwin-Dorsey, 1962. Dubin, R., Spray, S. L. Executive behavior and interaction. Industrial Relations, 1964, 3, 99-108. Dunnette, M. D. Handbook of Industrial and Social Psychology. Rand McNally, 1976, 486-516. Evans, M. The effects of supervisory behavior on the path- goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1970, 5, 277-298. Fay, C. T., Jr., Rhoads, R. C., Rosenblatt, R. L. Managerial Accounting for the Hospitality Service Industries. Dubuque: Brown, 1971. Fayol, H. Administration Industrielle et Generale. Paris: Dunod, 1950. First puhlished i916. Fiedler, R. E. A Theopy of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Flanagan, J. C. Defining the requirements of the executive's job, Personnel, 1951, 28, 28-35. Gingras, A. Etude de la tache de 1'administrateur dans l'organisation publique. Paper presented at a seminar in Quebec, 1977. Goulder, A. In Field Research Methods (T. J. Bouchard, Jr.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. ChiEago: Rand McNally, 1976. Guest, R. H. Of time and the foreman. Personnel, 1955, 32, 478-486. 223 Gulick, L. H. Notes on.the theory of organization in L. H. Gulick and L. F. Urwick, eds. Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Columbia University Press, 1937. Hackman, J. R., Lawler, E. E. Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 259-286. . Hackman, J., Lawler, E. E., Porter, L. Perspectives on Behavior in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977. Hanika, F. de P. How the Executive Spends His Time. London: Business Publihations Ltd., 1963. ' Hemphill, J. K. Job descriptions for executives. Harvard Business Review, 1959, 37, 55-67. Hodgson, R. C., Levinson, D. J., Zaleznick, A. The Executive Role Constellation: An Analysis of Personality_and Role Relations in Management. Boston: Harvard‘Business School, Division of Research, 1965. Homans, G. C. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1950. Horne, J. H., Lupton, T. The work activities of middle managers - an exploratory study. The Journal of Management Studies, 1965, 2, 14-33. House, R. J. A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Sciencepguarterly, 1971, 16, 321-338. Kay, B. R. Key factors in effective foreman behavior. Personnel, 1959, 36, 25-31. Kealy, E. 8., Jr., Effective time management. Executive Housekeeper, February 1975, 14-16. Kelly, J. The study of executive behavior by activity sampling. Human Relations, 1964, 17, 277-287. Kelly, J. Organizational Behavior. Homewood, IL: Irwin- Dorsey,1969, Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1973, 405-508. 224 Koontz, H. The management theory jungle. Journal of Academy of Management, 1961, 4, 3,174-188. Koontz, H., O'Donnell, C. Principles of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964, page 39. Koppel, J. An Analysis of the Anticipated Roles of Food Service Managers in 1986, As a Basis for Curriculum Development in Baccalaureate Programs. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976. Landmark. R. Career education for the hospitality industry. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, August 1974, page 5. Landsberger, H. A. The horizontal dimension in bureaucracy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1962, 6, 299-332. Lane, H. The Scanlon plan: a key to productivity and payroll costs. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administra- tion Quarterly, May 1976, 76-80. Lawler, E. E., Porter, L. W., Tannenbaum, A. Managers' attitudes toward interaction episodes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52, 432-439. Lee, J. W. Eleven ways to make the time you need. Association Management, April 1973, 50-52. Levitt, T. Production-line approach to service. Harvard Business Review, September/October 1976. Luijk, H. How the Executive Spends His Time. London: Business Publications Ltd., 1963. Lukowski, R. A Comparative Study of Attitudes toward Undergraduate Education for the Hotel andiRestaurant Industr . Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1972. Mackenzie, R. A. How to manage your time. Association Management, May 1974. Mackenzie, R. A. New Time Management Methods for You and Your Staff. Chicago: Dartnell, 1975. Mahoney, T. A. Criteria of Organizational Effectiveness. Paper presented at the tenth annuai"Academy 5f Management Conference, Midwest Division, April 1967. 225 Marples, D. L. Studies of managers - a fresh start. The Journal of Management Studies, 1967, 4, 282-299. Mauser, F., Schwartz, D. J. American Business. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1974, i26-127. McCall, M. W., Jr. The perceived cognitive role require- ments of formal leaders. In N. A. Rosen (chair), Some Neglected Aspects of Research on Leadership in Formal Organizations. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Associ- ation Convention, New Orleans, August 1974. McCall, M. W., Jr. Leaders and leadership: of substance , and shadow. In Hackman, J., Lawler, E. E., Porter, L. Perspectives on Behavior in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill,—1977, 375-385. McCall, M. W., Jr. Personal correspondence with the author, dated.April 19, 1977. McCormick, E. J., Ammerman, H. L. Development of worker activity check lists for use in occupational analysis. Lackland Air Force Base, TX. Personnel Lahhratory, Wright Air Development Division, WADD-TR-60-77, July 1960. McCormick, E. J., Jeanneret, P. R., Mecham, R. C. A stud of_job characteristics and job dimensions as Based on the Position Anaiysis Questionnaire. Lafayette, IN: Occupational Research Center, Purdue University, Report No. 6, 1969. McGrath, J. R., Altman, 1. Small Group Research: A Synthesis and Critique ofithe Field. New York: Hoit, Rinehart, Winston, 1966. Mintzberg, H. The Manager at Work - Determining His ActivitiesL R01es, and Programs by Structured OhServation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Sloan School ofiManagement, Ph.D. thesis, 1968. Mintzberg, H. The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper andiRow, 1973. Mintzberg, H. The manager's job: folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review, July/August 1975. Mintzberg, H. Personal correspondence with the author, dated October 18, 1976. 226 Mintzberg, H. Policy as a field of management theory. Academy of Management Review, January 1977. Mintzberg, H. Personal conversation with the author, August 24, 1977. Nailon, P. A Study of Management Activity in Units of an Hotel Group. Master‘s thesis, University Of' London, 1967. ' Nailon, P. What do managers do? English publication, source and date unknown. Neustadt, R. E. Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership. New York: Wiley, 1960. Notling, O. F. Management Methods in City Government. Chicago, 1942i Pfeffer, J. The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, January 1977, page 109. Ponder, Q. D. The Effective Manufacturing Foreman, in E. Young, ed. Industrial Relations Research Association Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting, 1957, Madison, WI, 41-54. Radomsky, J. The Problem of Choosing a Problem. Cambridge, MA: MIT Sloan School ofManagement. Unpublished Master's thesis. ' Sayles, L. R. Managerial Behavior: Administration in Complex Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964. Scott, R. W. Field methods in the study of organizations. Chapter 6 in Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally,1965. Selznick, P. Leadership in Administration. New York: Harper and Row, 1957.' Stewart, R. Managers and Their Jobs: A Study of the Similarities and Differences in the Ways Managers Spend Their Time. London: ”Macmillan, 1967. Stewart, R. Contrasts in Management. Maidenhead: McGraw- Hill, 1976. 227 Stewart, R. Patterns of work and the dictates of time. Personnel Management, June 1976, 25-28. Stewart, R. To understand the manager's job: consider demands, constraints, choices. Organizational Dypamics, Spring 1976, 22-32. Stieglitz, H. The chief executive's job - and the size of the company. New York: National Industrial Conference Board Study No. 214, 1969. Taylor, F. W. Scientific Management. New York: Harper and Row, 1911. Taylor, F. W. In Aptitudes, Abilities, and Skills (M. D. Dunnette),Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976. Thomason, G. F. Managerial work roles and relationships, part 1. The Journal of Management Studies, 3, 270-284. Thomason, G. F. Managerial work roles and relationships, part 2. The Journal of Management Studies, 4, 17-30. Thurston, C. Personal correspondence to Mr. John Lesure, LKH&H, dated April 26, 1972. Tomlinson, J. W. C. The manager's working day. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 1964, 12, 191-197. Tornow, W. W., Pinto, P. R. The development of a managerial job taxonomy: a system for describing, classifying and evaluating executive positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61 (4), 410:418. Vroom, V. H., Yetton, P. W. Leadership and Decision Making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973. Weick, K. E. Review Section. The Nature of Managerial Work by Henry Mintzberg, 1973. In Administrative Science Quarterly, 111-118. Wheaton, J. In Aptitudes, Abilities, and Skills (M. D. Dunnette), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976. ~\.White, M. Management style in hotels. Journal of the Hotel and Catering Institute. English publication source and date unknown. 228 Whyte, W. H., Jr. How hard do executives work? Fortune, January 1954, 108-111, 148, 150, 152. Williams, R. E. A description of some executive abilities py means of the critical incidént technique. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cdlumbia University, 1956. Wirdenius, H. Supervisors at Work. Stockholm: The Swedish Council for Personnel Administration, 1958. "I711111;“1111111111s