* Academy ol Management Executive, 2005, Vol. 19, No. 4 Reprinted irom 1989, Vol. 3. No. 4

The role of the manager:What's really important indifferent management jobs

Allen I. Kraut, Patricia R. Pedigo, D. Douglas McKenna, and Marvin D. Dunnette

Can we safely assume (to paraphrase GertrudeStein) that "a manager is a manager is a man-ager"? Should we expect the jobs of all managersto be pretty much the same? And should managersexpect their colleagues' jobs to be like their own?Well, "yes" and "no," according to the researchdescribed below. An analogy to team sports mayhelp illustrate this answer, and suggest implica-tions for organizational performance.

One of the signs of a successful athletic team isits almost uncanny ability to perform as a singleunit, with the efforts of individual members blend-ing seamlessly together. When this level of team-work exists, unusual things happen. Ouarterbackscomplete blind passes, throwing the ball to spotson the field where they "know" their favorite re-ceiver will be. The point guard playing basketballlobs a pass high above the basket, which enablesa leaping teammate to catch it in midair and makea spectacular slam dunk. This level of teamworkrequires a great deal of practice and natural abil-ity, but members of the team must also have aclear understanding of their own roles, the roles oftheir teammates, and the way they must work to-gether to be successful.

In addition to understanding specialized rolesand assignments, players must also recognize thethings that everyone, regardless of his or her posi-tion, must be ready and willing to do if the team isto win. When necessary, the quarterback mustblock like a lineman to allow the halfback to breakfree of the defense; diminutive kickers must tacklekick return specialists twice their size to stop atouchdown. The point is that the demands of ateam sport call for each participant to be both aspecialist and a generalist.

Management, we believe, is a team sport thatmakes similar demands of its players. Unfortu-nately, many executives (the "team captains") andmanagers do not recognize how managerial jobs

are similar and yet different across organizationallevels and functions. This lack of mutual under-standing among management players can make itvery difficult for them to appreciate one another'swork and coordinate their work activities. It canmake winning that much harder.

In addition to being able to coordinate workmore effectively, executives who understand simi-larities and differences in managerial jobs gainother advantages. For example, they are betterable to:

Communicate performance expectations andfeedback to subordinate managers.

Prepare others and themselves for transitions tohigher organizational levels or different func-tions.

Forecast how different managers would performif promoted or moved into a new function.

Ensure that management training and develop-ment programs are targeted to fit the needs ofmanagers as they change positions.

Diagnose and resolve confusion regarding man-agerial roles, responsibilities, and priorities.

For the most part, research on managerial workhas focused on the common denominators of man-agement jobs. Indeed, a considerable amount ofresearch has been published on this subject.i We,however, have recently completed a study de-signed to shed light on the differences in manage-ment roles and activities across different levels andfunctions. We started with a sample of 1,412 man-agers^ and asked them to rate the relative impor-tance of 57 managerial tasks to their jobs. Theirchoices included "Of utmost importance," "Of con-siderable importance," "Of moderate importance,""Of little importance," "Of no importance," and "Ido not perform this task." Almost all tasks wererated "Of moderate importance" or higher.

Using these importance ratings, we statistically

122

2005 Kraut, Pedigo, McKenna, and Dunnette 123

identified seven major factors or groups of man-agement tasks:3

Managing individual performance, Instructing subordinates, Planning and allocating resources, Coordinating interdependent groups, Managing group performance, Monitoring the business environment, and Representing one's staff.

We then studied how important these seven fac-tors and their component tasks were to managersat different levels and functions.

First-Level Managers: One-to-OneWith Subordinates

The first two factors involve supervising others.These activities are most important to first-levelmanagers and decline in importance as one risesin management. (See Exhibit 1.)

"Managing individual performance" was ratedthe single most important set of activities by first-level management. Such tasks include motivatingand disciplining subordinates, keeping track ofperformance and providing feedback, and improv-ing communications and individual productivity.These tasks are traditionally associated with lower-level management. Although Exhibit 1 shows thatmany executives continue to see these tasks as veryimportant, it is clear that their importance drops offas one moves up the management hierarchy.

The tasks in the "managing individual perfor-mance" set are listed in order of the percentage ofthe total sample who rated each as of "utmost" or"considerable importance."

70

PERCENTAGE

Exhibit 7

Supervising Individuals*

Managing IndividualPerformance

InstructingSubordinates

First-Line Supervisor Middle Manager Executive

'Numbers refer to the percentage of managers who said thetask was of "the utmost" or "considerable" importance.

76% Motivate subordinates to change or improvetheir performance.

76% Provide ongoing performance feedback tosubordinates.

69% Take action to resolve performance prob-lems in your work group.

69% Blend subordinates' goals (e.g., career goals,work performances) with company's work re-quirements.

63% Identify ways of improving communicationsamong subordinates.

50% Keep track of subordinates' training andspecial skills as they relate to job assignmentsto aid their growth and development.

48% Resolve conflicts among subordinates.40% Discipline and/or terminate personnel.37% Review subordinates' work methods to iden-

tify ways to increase productivity.

The cluster "instructing subordinates" includestraining, coaching, and instructing employees inhow to do their job. Of moderate importance tomost first-level managers, this cluster is consider-ably less important to executives.

For the "instructing subordinates" set, the itemsare listed below:

52% Inform subordinates about procedures andwork assignments.

46% Explain work assignments to subordinates.44% Provide technical expertise to help subordi-

nates resolve work problems or questions.43% Train subordinates in new techniques or

procedures.6% Schedule daily activities of subordinates.

Middle Managers: Linking Groups

The concept of linking groups seems to drive themiddle manager's work. Three task factors involvelinking groups. The importance of these tasksjumps sharply (an average of 19 points) from first-to middle-level management. Thus, managers go-ing from the lowest level of supervision to middlemanagement need to develop skills in several newareas if they are to link groups successfully. Theimportance of these tasks drops slightly for exec-utives (see Exhibit 2).

The most important tasks for middle manage-ment involve "planning and allocating resources"among different groups. Examples include esti-mating group resource requirements and makingdecisions about how resources should be distrib-uted. One part of this cluster includes translatinggeneral directives into specific plans and commu-nicating their benefits. Middle managers and ex-ecutives see these tasks as crucial to their jobs.

124 Academy of Management Executive November

xh/b/t 2Linking Croups*

70

PERCENTAGE

0

Planning andResource Allocation

61

CoordinatingInterdependent

Croups

Managing CroupPerformance

First-Line Supervisor Middle Manager Executive

*Numbers refer to the percentage of managers who said thetask was of "the utmost" or "considerable" importance.

The relative importance of the "planning andallocating resources" tasks is shown below:

72% Establish target dates for work products orservices.

70% Estimate resource requirements for opera-tional needs.

67% Develop evaluation criteria to measureprogress and performance of operations.

65% Decide which programs should be providedwith resources (e.g., manpower, materials,funds, etc.).

63% Translate general directives (e.g., strategicplans) from superiors into specific operationalplans/schedules/procedures, etc.

58% Communicate the benefits or opportunitiesposed by a new idea, proposal, project, or pro-gram.

40% Distribute budgeted resources.

Both middle managers and executives also rate"coordinating interdependent groups" as highlyimportant to their jobs. This cluster includes re-viewing the work and plans of various groups andhelping them set priorities as well as negotiatingand integrating various group plans and activities.This clusterwhich involves bringing several ef-forts together to create a final productjumpssharply in importance when a supervisor movesinto higher management.

The tasks in "coordinating interdependentgroups" were rated in this way:

70% Stay informed of the goals, actions, andagendas of top management.

60% Persuade other organizational groups toprovide the information/products/resourcesneeded by your work group.

58% Monitor events, circumstances, or conditionsoutside your work group that may affect itsgoals and/or performance.

53% Persuade other managers to provide supportand/or resources for a new project or program.

51% Set priorities for responding to other groups.50% Determine the possible effects of changes in

the activities or outputs of your work group onother organizational groups.

45% Maintain awareness of the goals and plansof other groups within the organization.

44% Negotiate working agreements with othergroups for the exchange of information, prod-ucts, and/or services.

43% Ensure coordination of the activities andoutputs of interdependent groups.

42% Integrate the plans of related organizationalgroups.

42% Provide advice or assistance to managers ofother organizational groups.

39% Disseminate information about the activi-ties of your work group to other groups.

27% Gather information on the needs/capabili-ties/resources (e.g., information, services) ofother groups in the company.

Of the three factors most important to middlemanagement, the biggest shift in importance oc-curs for the factor "managing group performance."This includes managing the performance of vari-ous work groups and working with subordinatemanagers on this performance.

Rated low in importance by first-level managers,"managing group performance" increases sharply(by 26 percentage points) in importance for those inmiddle management. It is the hallmark change forthose going into middle management. While themiddle manager must still monitor the perfor-mance of individual supervisors, measuring andmanaging group-level performance indicators be-comes a significantly more important part of his orher responsibilities.

The items in "managing group performance,"and their level of importance are as follows:

57% Define areas of responsibility for manage-rial personnel.

50% Inform managers when performance intheir groups does not meet established goalsor standards.

48% Meet with managers to discuss the likelyeffects of changes on their groups.

44% Monitor your work group's performance by

2005 Kraut, Pedigo, McKenna, and Dunnette 125

reading reports, information system outputs,or other documents.

25% Prepare production and productivity reports.23% Gather or review information on the activi-

ties and progress of several different workgroups.

Executives; An Eye on the Outside

The activities encompassed in "monitoring thebusiness environment" are a sharp shift in empha-sis for managers reaching the executive ranks (seeExhibit 3). These activities require the executive tohave an increased awareness of sales, business,economic, and social trends.

For managers below the executive ranks, thesetasks rate the lowest in importance. At what pointdo managers need to become aware of and profi-cient in adopting new viewpoints for their high-level jobs? Clearly, executives find that this ex-panded perspective is a key requirement of theirposition.

The tasks involved in "monitoring the businessenvironment" and their importance ratings are asfollows:

47% Develop/maintain relationships with man-agement-level customers or clients from theoutside business community.

38% Participate in task forces to identify newbusiness opportunities.

37% Monitor sales performance and promotionalactivities.

36% Gather information about trends outsideyour organization.

35% Identify developing market trends.

32% Develop/maintain relationships with man-agement-level vendors or consultants in thebusiness community.

31% Consult on company wide problems.26% Attend outside meetings as a company rep-

resentative.20% Monitor multinational business and eco-

nomic trends.15% Release company information to the public

(e.g., the news media).

Managers at All Levels: The Ambassador

Unlike the factors discussed earlier, which riseor drop in importance as the manager moves upthe corporate ladder, "representing your staff" isranked equally high by all levels of management(see Exhibit 4). This is the spokesperson role, notedin earlier studies by Henry Mintzberg. It involvesrepresenting one's work group to others and in-cludes communicating the needs of one's workgroup to others, helping subordinates interact withother groups, and acting as the work group's rep-resentative.

The importance ratings of tasks involved in "rep-resenting your staff" are as follows:

68% Develop relationships with managers of otherorganizational groups that may be able to pro-vide your work group with information/products/services/resources.

59% Communicate the needs or requirements ofyour work group to managers of other organi-zational groups.

58% Provide information on the status of workin your work group to managers of groups

70

PERCENTAGE

0

Exhibit 3Monitoring the Business Environment*

Monitoring theEnvironment

_LFirst-Line Supervisor Middle Manager Executive

'Numbers refer to the percentage of managers who said thetask was of "the utmost" or "considerable" importance.

70

PERCENTAGE

Exhibit 4Representing People*

53

Representing OwnWork Croup

JMiddle Manager ExecutiveFirst-Line Supervisor

'Numbers refer to the percentage of managers who said the

task was of "the utmost" or "considerable" importance.

126 Academy of Management Executive November

100

90

80

70

60

PERC

N 50TAGE

40

30

20

10

0

InstructSubordinates

40

Exhibit 5

The Importance of Managerial Activities*

ManageIndividuals

RepresentStaff

59*

Plan andAllocate

Resources63it.

CoordinateGroups

* . . : : :

ManageGroups

43

48

Marketing ManagersManufacturing ManagersAdministration Managers

Monitor theOutside

Environment32

'Numbers refer to the percentage of managers who said the task was of "the utmost" or "considerable" importance.

that depend on you for information/products/services/resources.

57% Determine the appropriate response(s) tomanagers demanding information/products/services/other resources from your work group.

48% Provide information or assistance to subor-dinates interacting with other organizationalgroups.

46% Communicate capabilities and resourcesof your work group to other managers in theorganization.

39% Serve as an intermediary between your sub-ordinates and managers of other organiza-tional groups.

One might speculate that a big transition re-garding such activities takes place when one isinitially promoted into management. Until then in-dividuals may have spoken only for themselves;thus, some adjustment is required before the man-ager will recognize and take on the role of groupambassador.

Differences Across Organizational Functions

Most managers would argue that different func-tions present significantly different managementchallenges. Our data permit some tests of this hy-pothesis.

We examined the importance of managementtasks across three functions: (1) marketing, whichincludes managers in the sales and related sup-port organization, (2) manufacturing, which in-cludes managers in all phases of the manufactur-ing process, and (3) administration, which includesmanagers in finance, planning, and related staffssuch as personnel.

As Exhibit 5 shows, the importance levels ofmanagerial task factors are remarkably similaracross functions, although some noteworthy differ-ences exist. (The three levels of management are

weighted equally in each function so that no onelevel has undue influence.) Marketing and admin-istration appear to differ most in their rating offactors, with manufacturing falling in between.

"Instructing subordinates" is least importantamong marketing managers (27% said it was of"the utmost" or "considerable importance"), per-haps because so much of the training of marketingemployees is done in corporate-sponsored pro-grams. In administration, however, w here manyhighly specific staff jobs and relatively little for-mal corporate training exists (at least in this com-pany), "instructing subordinates" is a relativelymore important management activity.

On the other hand, we suspect that a high levelof professionalism among most administrativestaff reduces the emphasis that their managersplace on "managing individual performance"(50%). This factor, by contrast, is considerably moreimportant in marketing (59%).

"Representation" is rated highest in importanceby managers in marketing (59%). Obviously, thesemanagers represent the company's products to oth-ers, mainly customers. By contrast, the demand forrepresenting one's staff is 11 points lower amongmanagers in administration. These relative differ-ences apply also for "planning and allocating re-sources," which is rated highest by marketing(63%) and manufacturing (59%), and lowest by ad-ministration (52%). The activities involved in coor-dinating interdependent work groups is equallyimportant for all three functions (47%).

"Managing group performance" is of somewhathigher importance to the managers in manufactur-ing (43%) and somewhat lower to managers in ad-ministration (32%). Presumably the administrationfunction is made up of more specialists and pro-fessionals who work alone.

The activities involved in "monitoring the out-side business environment" take on the highest

2005 Kraut, Pedigo, McKenna, and Dunnette 127

importance for managers in marketing (32%). Thisexternal orientation, which results from their inter-action with customers and need to remain currenton competitors' products and marketing strategies,should not be too surprising.

Overall, our data suggest there are indeed dif-ferences in the importance of various managerialtasks across functions. Nevertheless, the similari-ties across the entire spectrum of functions areclearly more striking. (Such conclusions are alsosuggested in the findings of Cynthia M. Pavett andAlan W. Lau in their extension of Mintzberg'swork. ) This suggests that a common approach toselecting, training, and developing managers maybe both feasible and desirable for many functionsin an organization.

Where significant differences do exist acrossfunctions, a common management developmentprogram or cross-functional work assignmentsmay make managers more aware of different func-tions' perspectives, and help them avoid seeing allmanagers' jobs as either the same or unique. AsJohn Kotter has noted in his work on executivebehavior, people with narrow functional back-grounds who are promoted into general manage-ment positions may face a very difficult transition.^

Appropriate preparation may minimize suchhardships.

Theorefica/ Implications

While we think this study has a number of prac-tical implications that can help organizationsmake more effective use of their managerial re-sources, it is important to consider its limitationsas well. First, the data are based on managers'own perceptions of the importance of varioustasks. Certainly their bosses, peers, and subordi-nates may have a different view of things.^ Second,because we took a "snapshot" of managers at dif-ferent levels, rather than following a group of man-agers over time, we cannot be certain that manag-ers will experience the differences we describe asthey move to higher-level management jobs; how-ever, because the company whose managers wesurveyed strictly follows a "promote from within"policy, it seems likely that the differences we noteare indeed changes accompanying upward moves.

Despite these limitations, the study provides acarefully gathered record of the role and task per-ceptions of a large sample of real managers work-ing in a diverse array of positions. As we noted atthe beginning of this article, the results can beinterpreted as supportive of Mintzberg's view thatmanagerial jobs involve essentially the samemanagerial roles^ as well as Katz and Kahn's ar-

gument that managers do different things at dif-ferent levels.^

In support of Mintzberg, we found that managersat all levels rated most of the tasks on the ques-tionnaire of some importance. The differences weobserved were typically differences in the degreeof importance of the tasks, not differences inwhether the tasks were important at all. Yet, asKatz and Kahn would maintain, these differencesare significant. Considering the costs of a manag-er's time, the difference between outstanding andaverage performance may well depend on the pri-ority he or she assigns to each of the many tasksthat are basically important.^

Practical Implications

How should we prepare our managers to meetthe various demands that different managerialroles place on them? Who should we select to moveup the management hierarchy? What training canwe provide? How can we develop the skills essen-tial for the manager's and team's success? Thefindings of this study provide some clues as to howa winning team can be fostered by training, devel-opment, and selection.

Training

Typically, management training has empha-sized the basics of management: individually fo-cused supervision, motivation, career planning,and performance feedback. All of these aspectsshould clearly be a central focus in the training offirst-level managers. Given that managers con-tinue to use these skills as they move up the hier-archy, periodic reinforcement also seems appropri-ate. Our study, however, indicates that training formanagers above the first level must cover morethan these one-to-one skills.

To help middle managers deal successfully withtheir responsibilities for managing and linkinggroups, training at this level should focus on skillsneeded for designing and implementing effectivegroup and intergroup work and information sys-tems; defining and monitoring group-level perfor-mance indicators; diagnosing and resolving prob-lems within and among work groups; negotiatingwith peers and superiors; and designing and im-plementing reward systems that support coopera-tive behavior. As these topics suggest, the psychol-ogy of the individual, so important to the first-levelmanager, gives way to social psychology and so-ciology when one reaches middle management.Since the latter topics are generally less wellknown and more abstract than the former, it is not

128 Academy of Managemenf Executive November

surprising that the transition to middle manage-ment can be very confusing and disorienting.

The executive's need to emphasize the externalenvironment can also be partially addressedthrough training. The curriculum should focus onbroadening the executive's understanding of theorganization's competition, world economies, poli-tics, and social trends. A number of executive train-ing institutes and university-based programs aregeared toward providing these broadening experi-ences; however, we think it is a serious mistake towait until a person becomes an executive beforeteaching him or her to recognize the importance ofattending to the relationship between the businessand its environment. Consider the potential advan-tages of having middle and lower-level managerswho understand the nature and strategic directionof their organization's business and are constantlyon the lookout for opportunities and threats in theenvironment. We think this perspective should re-ceive continuous attention in management train-ing and development efforts at all levels.

Deveiopmenf

Planned development programs can also con-tribute to expanding the skill base of managers. Atthe first level, experiences such as filling in for themiddle manager during vacation times, acting asa liaison between linked functions, or representingthe entire function at important meetings can buildgroup management and coordination skills.

For the middle manager, increased customercontact, visits to other organizations, and subscrip-tions to important business and trade publicationscan help impart the skills necessary for the exec-utive ranks.

Seiecfion

The results of this study also have implicationsfor the selection of managers. Given our findings,it should not be surprising that executives are of-ten chosen from the marketing function; these peo-ple have had their eyes on the outside environmentfor the majority of their careers. Yet through planneddevelopment, employees and managers from otherfunctions can also acquire the skills required in ex-ecutive management, and their contribution to over-all decision making can be significant.

A Winning Team

The results of this study clearly identify the dif-ferent roles that managers play and can provideorganizations with the framework for building

management training and development programs.By understanding the common and different rolesplayed by managers as they move up the manage-ment hierarchy, we can develop programs that en-sure that these managers have the skills needed toput together a winning team.

Endnotes

' The questionnaire used in this study was based on anextensive review of research on managerial activities, A classicwork in this area is Management Behavior, Performance, andEffectiveness, by J, P, Campbell, M, D, Dunnette, E, E, Lawler,and K, Weick, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970, Another work thatstrongly influenced the questionnaire because of its depictionof the dynamic quality of managerial work, is L, Sayles's Lead-ership, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979, aptly subtitled "What Ef-fective Managers Really Do and How They Do It."

^ This study was conducted by the authors in a large U.S.business enterprise, A random sample, designed to overrepre-sent higher-strata managers, resulted in 1,412 respondents: 658first-line managers, 553 middle managers, and 201 executives.After extensive pretesting, a list of 65 activities was used on thefinal survey questionnaire. Through statistical analyses, theseactivities were "factored," or grouped, into seven sets, whichcomprised 57 activities, (Eight activities fit poorly into the sevensets and were dropped.)

Despite, or perhaps because, we used a literature search asthe basis for our list of activities, some activities valued in thisand other organizations may not have appeared in our survey.In passing we might mention that the importance placed onvarious activities is not necessarily related to "good" perfor-mance. The correlation between importance and effectivenesshas simply not been examined in this study. By the same token,these activities are not necessarily the "correct" or "best" onesfor any particular position. It remains to be determined whichactivities are desirable or appropriate, especially for the future,

^ Other investigators have studied pattems of managementtasks. For example, James MacDonald and his colleagues(Charles Youngblood and Kerry Glum) report their comprehen-sive effort to determine training needs of first- and second-levelsupervisors working at AT&T in their book Performance BasedSupervisory Development, Amherst, MA: Human Resource De-velopment Press, 1982, Since they were concerned specificallywith developing training guidelines, their categories of man-agement (listed below) are much more focused on knowledgeand skill development than are the seven behavioral factorsdeveloped in our investigation. Their categories of supervisioninclude the following:

Planning the jobControlling the jobProviding performance feedbackManaging timeDecision makingProblem solvingMaintaining upward communicationsMaintaining downward communicationsMaintaining peer communicationsCreating a motivating atmosphereDeveloping subordinatesSelf-developmentProviding written communicationsInvolvement with meetingsCommunity relationsOf more direct relevance to our work is the recent work

2005 Kraut, Pedigo, McKenna, and Dunnette 129

reported by Fred Luthans, Stuart Rosenkrantz, and Harry Hen-nessey in "What Do Successful Managers Really Do? An Obser-vation Study of Managerial Activities," The Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, 21(2), 1985, 255-270, See also Fred Luthans,"Successful vs. Effective Real Managers," The Academy of Man-agement Executive, May 1988, 127-132, Luthans and his col-leagues observed and recorded the actual activities of manag-ers at all management levels and in many types oforganizations. Observations were recorded according to fourcategories: communicafion, consisting of exchanging informa-tion and processing paperwork: traditional management, con-sisting of planning, decision making, and controlling; humanresource managemenf, consisting of motivating, disciplining,managing conflict, staffing, and training/developing; and nef-worting, consisting of socializing, politicking, and interactingwith outsiders.

It should be noted that the seven factors developed from ourinvestigation encompass all the categories studied by Mac-Donald and Luthans in their earlier investigations,

'See C, M, Pavett and A, W, Lau, "Managerial Work: Theinfluence of Hierarchical Level and Functional Speciality,"Academy of Management Journal, 26(1), 1983, 170-177,

^See J. P, Kotter, The General Managers, New York: FreePress, 1982,

^ An excellent review of the pro's and con's of various meansto study managerial work is the report "Studies of ManagerialWork: Results and Methods," by M, W, McCall, A, M, Morrison,and R, L, Kaplan, Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leader-ship, 1975,

' A well-known book on this subject, Henry Mintzberg's TheNature of Managerial Work, New York, Harper, 1973, is based onobservations of a dozen chief executive officers. His work has beenreplicated by others, such as L, B, Kurke and H, E, Aldrich, "Mint-zberg Was Right!: A Replication and Extension of the Nature ofManagerial Work," Management Science, 29, 8, 1983, 975-984,

^ D. Katz and R. L, Kahn's Sociai Psychology of Organizations(2nd Ed,), New York: Wiley, 1978, presents a view of very differ-ent demands, cognitive and emotional, on managers at variouslevels in an organization,

^ Finally, some further support for the argument that manag-ers do some things differently at various levels was shown inone of Luthans' earlier investigations based on observations ofsome 53 managers (see Endnote 3), Comparisons between topexecutives and front-line supervisors revealed that executivesengaged in much more networking, considerably more plan-ning and decision making, and less staffing than front-linesupervisors. These results are certainly compatible with ours.

Allen L Kraut is professor of management at Baruch College,City University of New York, For most of his professional career,he has been involved in personnel research at the IBM Corpo-ration, Until his recent move to academia, Dr, Kraut was man-ager of personnel research studies in IBM's Corporate Staff,conducting strategically oriented personnel research. He alsospent several years at IBM's World Trade Corporation, where hewas responsible for personnel research and management de-velopment worldwide.

His interests in management have been expressed in re-search and consulting on executive succession planning andmanagement development, and in several other studies on theuse of peer ratings, management assessment centers, and ex-ecutive selection. He has also done many employee attitude

surveys, some of which have focused on executives' opinions,Dr, Kraut is a Fellow of the American Psychological Associa-

tion and a Diplomate of the American Board of ProfessionalPsychologists, He received an M,A, from Columbia Universityand his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan.

Dr. Patricia R. Pedigo conducts marketplace and business part-ner research for the marketing and services organization of IBM,In addition to studying these topics and the management issuesreported here, her research has covered attitudes toward finan-cial planning, retirement, performance appraisal systems, ben-efit programs, corporate culture, management potential, suc-cession planning, and personnel selection.

Before assuming her current position, Dr, Pedigo has heldmanagement and personnel generalist positions within IBM,She received a B,S, from the University of Washington, and anM,A, and Ph,D, in industrial/organizational psychology from theUniversity of South Florida, She has consulted in public andprivate organizations, including AT&T, PepsiCo, and GTE, Shehas also taught personnel administration and organizationalbehavior at the Graduate Business School at Pace University,

D. Douglas McKenna is an associate professor and chair of theManagement Department in the School of Business and Eco-nomics at Seattle Pacific University, teaching courses in humanresource management, organization design, and organizationdevelopment. He is currently writing a chapter (with Louis W,Fry) entitled "Organization Analysis and Design" for the up-coming second edition of Marvin Dunnette's Handbook of In-dustrial/Organizational Psychology,

His current research interests focus on the question of how todesign and implement human resource systems in differenttypes of organizations, particularly high-tech and knowledge-delivery firms. He has an active consulting practice and worksregularly with Microsoft, Boeing, and other companies in thePacific Northwest, During the time in which the research re-ported in this article was conducted, he was senior researchpsychologist at Personnel Decisions Research Institute, Inc, inMinneapolis.

Marvin D. Dunnette is professor of psychology at the Universityof Minnesota and chairman and CEO of Personnel DecisionsResearch Institute, Inc, of Minneapolis, He also is one of thefounders and continues to serve on the board of PersonnelDecisions Research Institute, Inc,

Dr, Dunnette has been influential in industrial and organiza-tional psychology through both teaching and publication. Hehas served as academic advisor to 50 students who have re-ceived Ph,D. degrees in the fields of industrial/organizationalpsychology and counseling psychology. He is editor of theHandbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, pub-lished in 1976 (Chicago: Rand McNally), and a co-author (withJohn Campbell, Edward E, Lawler, and Karl Weick) of Manage-rial Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness, New York:McGraw-Hill, 1970, A second edition of the I/O Handbook is nowin preparation,

Dr, Dunnette is a Fellow of the American Psychological As-sociation (APA) and holds the Diplomate in Industrial Psychol-ogy He served as president of APA's Division of Industrial andOrganizational Psychology during the 1966-67 year and wasthe 1985 recipient of that division's Award for OutstandingScientific Contributions,