ABSTRACT
Arguments that the quality of management is decisive in both organizational and national economic performance presuppose that the exclusively ‘managerial’ contribution to that performance is both tangible and identifiable. Rosemary Stewart’s more review focuses upon an aspect of managerial work – managerial behaviour – of which her own studies have made such a large contribution to our knowledge. The chapter argues that the various studies tread a precarious course between illuminating variation and bewildering inconsistency and that, notwithstanding the richness of diversity, there are good arguments for the development and use of more consistent and comparable categories. It suggests that the emphasis in the studies on managerial behaviour represents a limitation insofar as a context for locating and judging that behaviour is absent. Researchers who employ more covert research methods such as participant observation and informal interviewing, often delight in giving particular emphasis to the ‘informal’ activities of managers.
