ABSTRACT
Generations of Americans have been taught that the way to move up in corporate management is to work hard and make sound decisions. Has the bureaucratic world changed all that? Has the connection between work and reward become more capricious? The author of this study believes that the answer to both questions is yes. Interviewing more than 100 managers, he sought answers to such questions as: What kind of ethic does bureaucracy produce in middle and upper middle managers? Why does one person rise to the top while another doesn’t? The managers interviewed offer many provocative answers to questions like these. They describe the experience of themselves and their acquaintances. They speak freely–and sometimes humorously–of how they see credit for accomplishments being awarded, the role of loyalties and alliances, the meaning of team play the significance of patrons, the ambiguities of “hitting your numbers,” the part played by luck, “blame time,” outrunning one’s mistakes, the subtleties of bureaucratic language, and other elements of their work. while the impressions reported are unlikely to gratify top management, they may lead the HBR reader to rethink the unintended consequences of working for large-scale enterprises and to see the problems of executive development in a new light.
