ABSTRACT
Many texts continue to bemoan the absence of extensive and detailed knowledge of what managers actually do. This is a well worn but misleading refrain. What is more accurate is that debates about managerial work tend to be stuck in a rut, not so much between optimists and pessimists, as rationalists and realists. The former is predominantly associated with the classical school (Fayol, Barnard and others) and its search for the common characteristics of general management. The work of business historians such as Chandler (1977) emphasize how changes in the nature of markets and the size of organizations re-shape managerial hierarchies as new forms of coordination are required. In turn, managerial capitalism is linked to the growth of an organization society encompassed by a technocratic view of an enlightened managerial elite in business, politics and civil society that would use rational expertise and planning to produce growth and social stability (Burris 1993). Such views were promoted by post-war management theorists such as Drucker (1955) and through emergent sub-specialisms such as operations research and management science.
