In Search of ‘Managerial Work’: Past, Present and Future of an Analytical Category

• Published date: 01 April 2017
• Date: 01 April 2017
• Author: Bart Johnson,Davide Nicolini,Maja Korica
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12090

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 19, 151–174 (2017)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12090

In Search of ‘Managerial Work’:

Past, Present and Future

of an Analytical Category

Maja Korica, Davide Nicolini and Bart Johnson1

Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK 1IKON, Warwick Business School,

University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK

Corresponding author email: Maja.Korica@wbs.ac.uk

Based on a comprehensive review of literature, the paper examines how ‘managerial

work’ as a fluid analytical category has been approached methodologically, theoreti-

cally and empirically for morethan 60 years. In particular, it highlights the existence of

competing scholarly understandings regarding its nature, performance, meaning and

politics. The authors suggest that subsequent empirical investigations have too often

worked, methodologically and theoretically, to slot in, and thus effectively reduce, the

term to a particular pre-existing box, ratherthan exploring open-endedly the what and

how, but also the why of ‘managerial work’ as a distinct mode of situated ordering.

Having representedthe concept’s past and present by identifying four distinct research

approaches reflected in representative publications, the authors suggest that more at-

tention should be devoted to a mode of analytical departure that promises to address

directly the suggestedshor tcomings in the literature.Specifically, it is argued that much

could be gained if contemporary notions of practice werebrought into the study of man-

agerial work. To this end, the authors outline the contours of a practice-based approach

as a sensitizing framework for understanding managerialwork by highlighting the sit-

uated, relational, sociomaterial, meaning-making and consequence-oriented analytical

foci the approach suggests, and suggesting a number of conjoint research questions, as

well as acknowledging subsequent limitations.

Introduction

In 2001, reflecting on critical next steps for organiza-

tion theory, Barley and Kunda (2001, p. 90) warned

that ‘the dearth of data on what people actually do –

the skills, knowledge and practices that comprise their

routine work – leaves us with increasingly anachro-

nistic theories and outdated images of work and how

it is organized’ (see also Akin 2000). Though Philips

and Lawrence (2012) argued this absence has since

This research was funded by the UK National Institute for

Health Research (NIHR) as part of the Health Services

and Delivery Research Programme (HS&DR project num-

ber 09/1002/36). The views and opinions expressed in this

article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect

those of the Department of Health or any of the following

UK agencies: HS&DR, NIHR, National Health Service.

begun to be addressed, for example when examining

identity and institutional work, the diagnosis still no-

tably applies in relation to managerial work. In this

area of study, known in North American literature as

‘managerial work and behavior’ (see Tengblad 2012),

attention to ordinary managerial activity in its proces-

sual, material, relational and historical iterations has

often been missing, or reduced to and substituted by

abstract categories. In particular, empirical realities of

managerial work have too frequently been analysed

via the same set of dominant categories, thus mak-

ing the task of developing novel insights and moving

the field forward more challenging. In this paper, we

discuss this state of affairs by tracing how the spe-

cific analytical category – ‘managerial work’ – has

been defined, ‘operationalized’ and studied for more

than 60 years. In doing so, we identify and outline

C2015 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Publishedby John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington

Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

152 M. Korica et al.

four research approaches, represented by key works

and encapsulating certain analytical and theoretical

assumptions, which act as continually prominent ref-

erence points ordering later engagements. These also

represent the notable ways in whichthe category con-

tinues to be ‘sliced up’ analytically, occasionally de-

spite authors’ intentions to the contrary.

Such historical reflection is particularly important

in the context of managerial work because so much

of the field remains highly influenced by notable

past works. It is also vital, given that relatively

little scholarly attention has been paid to this topic

in recent decades, and almost thirty years have

passed since the last dedicated reviews (Hales

1986; Martinko and Gardner 1985; Stewart 1989;

Willmott 1984, 1987). This is in spite of increasing

centrality of both managers and managerial dis-

course (Cunliffe 2009; Grey 2005; Kotter 1982),

the wider implications of management done ‘badly’

(evidenced by the continued plethora of corporate

scandals), and the coinciding quest for efficient or

‘good’ management, of which the recent debates

concerning evidence-based management are but one

notable expression (see Kepes et al. 2014; Pfeffer

and Sutton 2006; Rousseau 2006, 2012). While

some recent reviews were produced, most are either

focused on niche topics such as distinctiveness of

managerial work as a field (Noordegraaf and Stewart

2000), managing in small firms (Floren 2006) or

managing internationally (Andersson and Floren

2008), or limited to examining a smaller number

of key contributions. For instance, Tengblad and

Vie (2012) restrict their focus to 21 notable studies,

thus omitting other relevant perspectives, such as

labour process (see Cunliffe 2009). As a result, the

field of managerial work as it presently stands lacks

an up-to-date wide-ranging account of scholarly

foundations upon which engagements can be based

and further developed (Boote and Beile 2005).

With such considerations in mind, this paper

presents a chronological account of the field,

specifically of the period from 1951 to 2015. Given

limitations of space, it focuses on what Tengblad and

Vie (2012) call the ‘management and workbehaviour’

literature, but considers further notable perspectives,

chiefly labour process. It also introduces a theo-

retical lens – practice-based studies (Feldman and

Orlikowski 2011; Miettinen et al. 2009; Nicolini

2012; see Lounsbury and Beckman 2015) – as a

promising means of addressing some of the short-

comings of existing approaches, aimed at facilitating

the making of novel connections. We suggest that this

approach stands as a flexible theory–methods toolkit

suitable for analytically engaging situated insights,

toward furthering rich, empirically based under-

standing. In doing so, we present a research plateau

to work from, by consolidating existing research,

establishing thematic and empirical connections

between disparate literatures, and identifying valu-

able opportunities (but also subsequent limitations),

which follow from the practice-based approach as a

sensitizing framework.

Unlike previous reviews concerned with iden-

tifying shared categories to enable generalization

(e.g. Hales 1986), we prioritize including a range

of perspectives over scholarly concerns regarding

replication, with the aim of providing a richer and

more nuanced picture of the field. In addition, the

results are presented in a temporally linear fashion.

Importantly, this is more for ease of presentation

than to suggest an unproblematic linearity of

research approaches. As we portray below, these

are occasionally internally inconsistent, as well as

often overlapping. Indeed, some key works could

easily have been placed in more than one, given the

analytical approach taken, or assumptions made.

Complexity within and across approaches, which

we more obviously depict in supplementary tables,

should thus be kept in mind throughout.

The paper is structured as follows. We begin by

describing the research methodology,and account for

its necessary boundaries. We then discuss the results

of the review by period, introducing key empirical,

theoretical and methodological themes. Based on this,

we highlight notable absences, and outline how the

practice-based approach can meaningfully contribute,

by identifying promising analytical foci and research

questions, but also acknowledging limitations.

Methodology

As previously noted, how ‘managerial work’ is oper-

ationalized has a direct consequence on what is in-

cluded. This is particularly relevant, given that this

review aims to engage across distinct literatures, over

a significant period of time, concerning a category

fraught with difficulty.For instance, what do we mean

by ‘managerial’? How is it distinct from other cat-

egories, such as supervisory or administrative? On

what basis can the distinction be made or sustained?

Whose definition counts and with what effects?

Equally, what is definitionally implied by ‘work’ is

also relevant. Is managerial work identical to ‘man-

agerial behavior’ (Hales 1986), or is Stewart’s (1989,

C2015 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.