Dr Annie Pye
School of Management, Uni of Bath
Critical Management Studies Seminar
Cambridge, June 2002
The Changing Nature of Managerial Work:
An organizing/sensemaking view from the boardroom
This paper reports two sequential research projects which consider the nature of executive
work in large plcs.1 Based on this empirical work, this paper will contribute to debate
about the changing nature of managerial work at the executive and non-executive level of
organizing from an interpretive perspective. So in answer to the critical theorists’ question
‘who’s side are you on?’ (Jermier, 1998), it is that of sensemaking (Weick, 1995). My
research supports the view that practice has changed considerably over the last decade.
However, one must also recall that in that time, so also has theory changed which makes it
doubly impossible to step into the same river twice, as Heraclitus would say. That is, as
the people, their roles and relationships, their organizations and their organizational
environments all change continuously, so academic theories also change with time such
that for instance, activities which were once described in terms of Aldrich’s (1974) concept
of boundary spanning now become reinterpreted as ‘social capital’ (Pye,1999). And in
addition, where my own research question was previously identified as a matter of
‘executive process’ or ‘upper echelons management’ (Hambrick & Mason, 1984), now
interviewees describe this question as being about ‘corporate governance’.
This means that to claim a practice has changed is very difficult to assert, given that we
may also change our interpretive frameworks over time. However, with this proviso, my
paper seeks to identify areas in which I do believe and my evidence demonstrates that
some aspects of practice at this level of managing has changed and I propose that
sensemaking (Weick, 1995) offers a consistency of perspective which is able to reflect this
changing of meaning. Focusing on changes across time which relate particularly to the
changing nature of managerial work, I identify the following:
i. significant changes in context and relationships between CE/corporate board, investment
managers, analysts, bankers, PR, auditors, lawyers, employees, the press and regulators.
ii. much time is now spent actively managing these multiple and complex relationships
described in (i). which may have a huge impact on share price performance.
iii. hence managing and accounting for performance is key: not just in terms of actual
‘doing’ of executive managing but also in terms of accounting (in both senses of the word)
1
In 1987-89 I studied Chairmen, Chief Executives and selected board members in 12 large UK organizations: eg
Hanson, Marks & Spencer, Prudential, (Mangham & Pye, 1991). In 1998-2000, I returned to these contributors and their
‘current equivalents’ in these organizations effectively with the same question: how do you ‘run’ a large organization? I
am grateful to the ESRC for their continued funding this work, under grant numbers WF 2925 0020 (1987-89) and R
000236868 (1998-00). The recent study included 64 interviews conducted: 25 with previous contributors, 34 with
current board members in ten FTSE plcs; 5 with CEs/equivalents at four active and one passive fund management firms.
1
Dr Annie Pye
School of Management, Uni of Bath
Critical Management Studies Seminar
Cambridge, June 2002
for that action. (Ave. CE tenure of around 4 years leaves little time for anything other than
short term focus, hence managing performance results more than performance.)
iv. board role and expectations of non-executive directors have also changed although
effectiveness is highly dependent on board culture, effectively shaped by CE& Chairman.
v. CEs are now more clearly under the spotlight and more easily achieve (financial/
cultural change through merger and acquisition than through organic/ operational growth.
The title of the 1998-2000 project was ‘managing change or changing managing: a
continuing study of corporate directing’ and concluded that they do indeed, both manage
change in the sense of leading culture change programmes and consider change as part
of their world taken-for-granted: on this basis, conceptions of managing at this level should
also be changing. More difficult to articulate is the finer detail of how conceptions of
managing at this level should be redrawn. While I have and continue to provide evidence
of the ‘doing of managing’ at this level and highlight what I consider to be key changes in
practice amongst executives, some aspects of practice continue to remain unchanged.
Undoubtedly, successful executive managing requires not only the ability to explain
(communicate and to shape/wright) corporate performance which is itself developed out of
a deeply embedded process of relating and developing supportive networks, it also
requires the ability to deliver on what has been promised to key influential others.
However, how this is enacted remains uniquely located in time and context. It is argued
that this integrative, holistic focus must be core to critical management studies in order to
progress our understanding of the changing nature of managerial work at this level. This
may also help us to tackle the underlying question of how one knows what is changing.
REFERENCES
Bartlett & Ghoshal (1998) ‘Beyond the Russian Doll Management Model’ in D Hambrick et
al, Navigating Change, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 70-97.
Hambrick & Mason, (1984) ‘Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top
managers, AMR
Jermier (1998) Critical Perspectives on Organizational Control, ASQ.
Mangham & Pye, (1991) The Doing of Managing, Oxford: Blackwell.
Pye (2000) ‘Organizing as Explaining and the Power of Social Capital: The quest for a
theory of action?’ OSWC
Weick (1995) Sensemaking, London: Sage.
2