In the global arena, managers face continuous change in economic and political circumstances along with rapid technological advances. For instance, labor costs cause some managers to restructure their staffing and operations by shutting down manufacturing facilities in their home country and opening them in another country. American and Japanese managers often seek cheaper labor in countries such as Mexico, China, and Indonesia (Hirsch and Keith, 1997). Managers find themselves either concerned for their career prosperity or informing their subordinates that job cuts are imminent due to expansion overseas.

The Internet has reshaped working environments. People can now work from remote locations in a more data-intensive environment, adding flexibility to work schedules and leading managers to reduce staff and rely more on technology than people. Internet technology has also had an impact on organic structures, having evolved from work teams to virtual teams in which temporary networks of independent companies share skills, reduce costs, and jointly access markets—quickly banding together to exploit rapidly changing opportunities and then disbanding equally quickly (Dess, Rshee, McLaughlin, and Priem, 1995).

The diverse workforce of the United States has also evolved, creating larger pools of talent. One example of this is that women have made major gains since the first generation of female managers climbed the career ladder, and, although some subtle forms of discrimination still exist, women are becoming managers at a much faster pace (Ohlott, Ruderman, and McCauley, 1994, p. 61). As a result, glass ceilings will shatter and male counterparts will find themselves working for more women managers. This may lead to increased chaos as two-career families and nontraditional family styles continue to rise, resulting in new managers having to shoulder both career and family responsibilities.

Five socioeconomic trends will affect new managers in the early years of the new millennium:

· The ongoing shift toward an information- and customer-based economy

· The increased concern for continuous improvement in both productivity and people as a primary goal of satisfying customer needs

The slowing growth rate of the workforce and the rising proportions of women and minorities in management
An aging workforce and population
Increased mergers and acquisitions coupled with downsizing and/or rightsizing

In the United States, the ages of 18–30 are those during which most people make the transition from staff to manager (Rindfuss, Cooksey, and Sutterlin, 1999, p. 240). In order for new managers to adapt to new learning environments, inspire motivation, and avoid failure, they need to develop a solid foundation in management theory. The next section introduces the new manager to the evolution of management thought.

Key Managerial Theorists and Schools of Thought

At the turn of the last century, the study of management was so new to the business world that some early management scholars, such as Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933), were not taken seriously. Follett was a political and business philosopher who introduced the concepts of “conflict resolution,” “authority and power,” and the “task of leadership” —she approached management through human values. She is considered a visionary due to her absence from the pantheon of noted management thinkers and the gender discrimination she endured (Samuel, 1996, p. 865). Recent scholars, such as Drucker (1999, p. 3), felt that “her basic assumptions regarding society, people, and management were far closer to reality than those on which the management people then based themselves—and still largely base themselves today.” Follet’s work offers new managers many contemporary perspectives on control in organizations, which are reappearances of Follet’s conceptualizations” (Parker, 1984). Her keen ability to grasp the complexities inherent in human behavior continues to develop our understanding of organizational behavior today. Follet’s example should inspire new managers to develop the fortitude to stick to their beliefs and pursue them even at times when they may be discouraged.

As the business world began to take management scholars seriously, the profession of management was cultivated. The vast array of contributors to management thought can be categorized into three schools: (1) structural, (2) behavioral, and (3) integrative. Structural theories help the manager focus on structuring and designing work; behavioral theories provide managers insight into leadership, worker satisfaction, and interpersonal relations; and integrative theories provide managers with both structure and interpersonal interactions.

Structural Management

The structural school offers a wide variety of mechanistic processes for management improvement. Major management thought processes originated during this movement, such as scientific management and other classical management themes. Some of the key theorists in this school of thought are Smith, Taylor, Shaw, Barnard, Deming, Montgomery, Fayol, and Weber.

Although economist Adam Smith (1776) introduced the concept of division of labor, the work of Frederick W. Taylor (1856-1915) inspired management to emerge as a field of study in the early 20th century. Taylor was the first to introduce what is referred to today as the structural school of management thought. He identified the traits of a successful manager in his famous publication titled Shop Management (1903), which led to mechanistic work processes that we still see today in many corporations. Taylor examined shop processes and made observations at Bethlehem Iron in 1899, emphasizing the following traits of successful managers: brains, education, special or technical knowledge, manual dexterity or strength, tact, energy, grit, honesty, judgment or common sense, and good health.

Farnham (1997, p. 114) contends that Taylor’s influence is omnipresent; however, recent reexamination of Taylor’s accomplishments found that his pig-iron observations as they pertained to reducing costs were standard practice for his day, and his work has been refashioned to the extent that it may be more fiction than fact (Wrege and Hodgetts, 2000, p. 1290). Moreover, Crainer (2000, p. 10) argues that “Taylor’s ideas were of their time and for their time.” From this, we have learned that management fads and fashions must be taken in context but will undoubtedly fit into the changing fashion demands of new managers (e.g., Gibson and Tesone, 2001, p. 129; Hodgetts, Kuratko, and Hornsby, 1999).

After Taylor’s contributions to management thought, new managers were left on their own to develop their management style. Many could not afford the cost of education and were eager for guidance to help them succeed (Wren, 1994, p. 45). Around 1911, a management theorist by the name of Arch W. Shaw introduced a course in business policy that incorporated the problem or case method to enhance managerial skills. This revolutionized management thought by integrating business functions for the development of general managers in the form of case studies and post-project reviews that could be performed with little cost other than peoples’ time. Thus, managers were given the ability to learn from the experiences that their peers faced in real business situations.

Chester Barnard, who was popular around World War II with his best-known work, The Functions of the Executive (1938), brought fresh insight to managerial thought. “Barnard’s thesis was that executives as contrasted, say, with scientists do not often enjoy the luxury of making their decisions on the basis of orderly rational analysis, but depend largely on intuitive or judgmental responses to decision-demanding situations” (Simon, 1987, p. 57). From this, we learned that new managers must bridge the gap of formal organizational bureaucracy with the need for human capital. Managers found that their own personal judgment in decision-making must follow senior management demands to ensure there is a balance between both stakeholders and top management (Verschoor, 2002).

After World War II, W. Edwards Deming (1986) became popular due to his introduction of the Deming management method. Deming, much like Taylor, wanted to improve the practice of management by incorporating mechanistic structures in the workplace, but their attempts to implement this were for entirely different reasons. The best and most comprehensive comparison of Deming and Taylor is that of Anderson, Rungtusanatham, and Schroeder (1994, p. 497):

Deming wanted a cooperative organization, whereas Taylor, despite his case for cooperation, is often accused of developing an adversarial model of organizational management, one that is aligned with the interests of ownership and dehumanizes the worker in a mechanistic design of work and work improvement. Taylor, however, would position management and staff as the keepers of organizational knowledge. Knowledge that would normally reside with the worker would be learned by management and staff and assimilated into management’s revised design of the workers’ task. Deming, in contrast, preferred the learning process to be an ongoing or organization wide activity in which all organizational members engage.

Both Taylor and Deming provided principles of transformation for improving the practice of management at different periods in the evolution of management thought. The environmental and ecological structures of society when each of them introduced their principals may have been in need of radical change. Perhaps the growing demand for leadership combined with the lack of education of many workers attributed to Taylor’s principles, while new advancements in technology and education during Deming’s time led to the desire for more of a learning organization.

James Montgomery of Scotland, in 1932, introduced much needed management advice on how to discern quality and quantity of work. He felt that a manager must be just and impartial, firm and decisive, and always be on the alert to prevent rather than check faults after they have taken place (Baughman, 1964, p. 226). From this, managers learned that it is best to consider the maintenance of machinery along with the development of people; that managing costs is necessary to sustain operations; and that disciplining subordinates privately as opposed to publicly will improve morale. Most importantly, managers learned to use foresight as preventive maintenance.

Henri Fayol (1841-1925), a pioneer of management theory and a managing director of a large coal mine in France, offered both direction and encouragement on becoming a manager. He felt that all employees should have a chance to prosper in organizations and that the particularly talented employees can climb from the lowest rung to the highest levels of the hierarchy (Wren, 1994, p. 181). This revolutionized management by offering a theory that could be studied, taught, and practiced by new managers—an important milestone. Fayol gave hope to aspiring managers and provided a universal language for not only becoming a manager but also succeeding as one. As a manager in France, Fayol published a book called “Industrial and General Management” in 1916. Unfortunately, his ideas failed to find a mass audience at that time. Not until his book was published in English in 1930 did we realize that his work is one of the most enduring of the early thinkers of management. His traditional functions of management—planning, controlling, coordinating, and organizing—have stood the test of time and still represent the most useful way of conceptualizing a manager’s responsibility. His theory can be found in nearly every textbook, trade book, periodical, and research journal since that time because it stresses the importance of certain management activities that relate to managerial effectiveness and resulting success (Luthans, Rosenkrantz, and Hennessey, 1985, p. 268). Fayol developed a communication system between management and employees that can be put into practice to provide structure in organizations. Used effectively, his principals can have a profound affect on the success of new managers today.

Although Fayol (1949) pioneered efforts to describe what managers did by introducing the “elements” of management as planning, organizing, commanding, coordination, and control, researchers argue that he did not clearly describe what managers actually do (Carlson, 1951; Mintzberg, 1973; Mintzberg, 1975). A German sociologist named Max Weber (1947) attempted to explain what managers do by introducing a bureaucracy as a basic form of organization. Weber believed that order consisting of a system, rationale, and consistency helps managers treat employees equitably. However, more recently, Mintzberg (1973) found that managers flitted from task to task and job to job in a thoroughly inefficient manner---acting as firefighters as opposed to pathfinders. This should lead managers to develop precautionary measures to ensure success while avoiding the inertia that prevails in many organizations today.

In the postwar period, the fashion turned. By 1950, early theorists had set the stage for the continuous research of managerial work, while contemporary theorists presented new fashions in management. The reason for fashion setting, according to Abrahamson (1996), is that “Fashion-setters not only (a) sense and satiate incipient demand for new types of management fashions, but they also (b) shape and focus this demand by articulating for fashion-followers the particular techniques that fit the types followers prefer” (p. 266).

Recent research into management fashion reveals both its importance and its rhetoric. Kimberly (1981) argued that management innovation may be an improvement of the state of the art but must differ significantly from it. Abrahamson (1996, p. 266) expanded on this concept:

Management fashion-setters produce the collective beliefs that certain management techniques are both innovations and improvements relative to the state of the art. These beliefs may be accurate. In such cases, fashion creation involves the invention of a management innovation that is also an improvement over the state of the art in management. Alternatively, the belief that a management technique is either innovative or an improvement may be inaccurate. In such cases, fashion creation may involve either inventing management techniques that only appear to be improvements or rediscovering/reinventing old management techniques that were invented previously and forgotten.

Abrahamson (1997, p. 492) asked why new employee-management rhetoric emerges when it does and what explains its post emergence prevalence. Carson, Lanier, Carson, and Guidry (2000) found that management fashions introduced in recent years have shorter life spans than their earlier counterparts. They are broad-based and require extensive implementation efforts by managers.

This explains the continual churning of ideas. For instance, during the 1980s and 1990s, we had a slew of management fashions: in 1982, In Search of Excellence led to total quality management in the late 1980s; the learning organization, reengineering, and rightsizing appeared in the literature in the early 1990s, followed by the knowledge worker; and, most recently, customer relationship management. These buzzwords are components of the more predominant management fads of the 20^th century, such as MBO (1950s), sensitivity training (1960s), quality circles (1970s), total quality management (1980s), and self-directed work teams (1990s) (Gibson and Tesone, 2001).

The benefits of management fads are based on understanding their origins and translating them into practice within the organization. This ability demonstrates that the manager is up-to-date on current techniques designed to increase organizational effectiveness and to prepare the individual for the next management fad or fashion that comes along (Gibson and Tesone, 2001, p. 132). New managers can enhance their reputation by knowing which fad to use and which one not to—not lingering on the wrong fad and falling behind the competition.

While classical management provided significant learning opportunities for management scholars and practitioners, it was not short of critics. For instance, Myers (1966, p. 70) argued that scientific management fractionated tasks and ‘protected’ employees from the need to think, thus perpetuating management systems based on automation conformity; and Reeves, Duncan, and Ginter (2001) argue that Taylor’s motion-study work was based on an emerging way of looking at the world. However, advocates of the classical school, such as Carroll and Gillen (1987), feel the classical functions prevail in management education because of their conceptualization of the manager’s job. “Real managers did not ‘explode the myths’ of traditional management but rather confirmed, refined, and extended classical notions as found in writings of Fayol” (Wren, 1992, p. 27).

Behavioral Management

The behavioral school of thought emerged during the 1920s with the Hawthorne studies. The so-called “Hawthorne Effect” was the first indication that attitudes and feelings of workers could influence their productivity. Proponents of this school introduced theories of motivation that are often referred to today by both academics and practitioners. Some of the key theorists in this school of management thought are McGregor, Drucker, and Maslow.

Douglas McGregor (1960) asserted that managers have to choose between two ways of managing people, called theory X and theory Y, emphasizing that theory Y is the best way to manage people. Theory X is McGregor’s term for the assumption that employees dislike work, are lazy, seek to avoid responsibility, and must be coerced to perform; Theory Y, in contrast, assumes that employees are creative, seek responsibility, and can exercise self-direction. Scholars, such as Drucker (1954), agreed with McGregor’s (1960) theories X and Y. However, in 1962, Abraham H. Maslow (1908-1970) introduced his Eupsychian Management concept that negated both McGregor and Drucker. “The essence of Maslow’s contribution was in the evolutionary, dynamic qualities of the nature of human needs” (Wren, 1994, p. 282). Drucker (1999, p. 17) contended that Maslow (1962) showed conclusively that different people have to be managed differently, a concept McGregor and Drucker failed to consider. Maslow, however, received his share of critical review. Detractors argued that it is not the manager’s responsibility to ensure that every last person achieves self-actualization because not everyone wants or needs to achieve self-actualization through his or her work (Woods and Dorset, 1988).

The behavioral school created the most profound motivational theories for people at work. Managers today are attempting to correlate personal and professional goals to ensure they accomplish them. Two major conclusions came from the behavioral school: that people could be motivated if we can determine what motivates them; and that people prefer to prosper in life through their work, and their underlying assumptions lead them to make every attempt to succeed.

Integrative Management

Since the 1960s, the integrative school has combined structural and behavioral theories while considering external influences. Some of the key theorists in this school of management thought are Katz and Kahn, and Burns and Stalker.

One theory that developed in the 1960s is called systems theory, which represents an organization as an open system (Katz and Kahn, 1978). Systems theory provided management with an understanding of the interrelationships of different systems in an organization and how each system can function best as a component of the larger organization. A second theory, called contingency theory (Burns and Stalker, 1961), combined an organization’s structure and its environment. The structure was designed on the basis of the organizational requirements to offer the most benefits to all stakeholders.

These theories offer modern approaches to managers using a combination of classical and behavior schools. It is the integrative school that is the embryo for new management fads and fashions. Scholars, such as Galbraith (1980, p. 162), found that managers and scholars alike review the inventive theory and extend it with labels and grids to formulate modern organization theory. This ongoing revolution of fads and fashions has placed continual pressure on the new manager to cope with more efficient, discontinuous, more formidable management fads.

These historical viewpoints and early schools of thought help managers understand their organizations and the people in them. Today, we need managers who can establish a middle ground between profitability and an increasing awareness of the environment. The search will continue for both better theory and improved practices of management. Becoming a manager is a process that begins with learning the evolution of management thought, using the fads and fashions that apply to their unique organization, and thinking of innovative ways of extending, inventing, or simply applying new management fads. The next section of this article attempts to enhance the effectiveness of new managers by looking at some of the key areas of new management development.

Enhancing the Effectiveness of New Managers

Since the evolution of management thought first began with Adam Smith in 1776 and, more importantly, Frederick W. Taylor in the early 20^th century, managers emphasized efficiency in terms of cost and resource allocation. Over the past 50 years, managers have focused more on effectiveness in satisfying customers through quality, reliability, and swift product development cycles. Efficiency meant doing things right to the best of a manager’s knowledge while effectiveness meant doing the right things smarter and more environmentally sound. This section of the article addresses some of the many concerns that new managers may face. Three major tenets are introduced: learning as a new manager, new-manager motivation, and how to avoid the possible pitfalls a new manager may encounter.

Learning as a New Manager

In today's dynamic work environment, how do future managers explore complex, interdependent situations, maintain a stable work environment, and, at the same time, meet stakeholders’ needs? Scholars such as Dill, Hilton, and Rietman (1964, p. 159) found two general strategies for learning some of the complex patterns of behavior that are appropriate for managers. One was to find associates and superiors who seemed to know what they were doing and then to imitate their patterns of action—emulating them. The second was to look for an assignment that promised a great deal of freedom, and exposure that offers experimentation and innovation. More recent scholars argue that mentoring has had a powerful impact on management thought and practice (Stephens and Sommer, 2001), and that using the tools of advocacy and inquiry can help (Tompkins, 2001).

For new managers, there is the dilemma of maintaining control while giving autonomy to those professionals who want it (Raelin, 1989, p. 216). Johnson and Luthans (1990, p. 21) argue that “In order for employees to believe that their managers influence the work-unit effectiveness, they must believe managers also are doing a lot of the activities that go with the job.” In time, the new manager enforces less control over his or her subordinates and focuses on more important administrative tasks.

Promotion to management is a compilation of turning points shifting the entire balance and direction of one’s career (Hill, 1992, p. 246), a shift that leaves new managers surprised to find that they are not under continuous observation or supervision (Dill, Hilton, and Reitman, 1964, p. 64). They may experience a reality shock or surprise when their assumptions about how people interpret and respond to actions or events do not conform to those that prevail in their new contexts (Jones, 1986, p. 263). To ease new managers into their position, it is important for existing management to help them build their agendas and use them effectively (Lorsch and Mathias, 1987, p. 82). Moreover, colleagues should provide new managers with an understanding of the nature of entry experiences, such as what surprises they may have to deal with as they socialize, and how they might proactively seek information from other managers and co-workers to supplement their own inadequate internal interpretive schemes (Louis, 1980, p. 247).

The career transition is a period of adjusting to a new work role, and learning comes from facing real problems and real consequences (Louis, 1982, p. 68). Enabling managers to learn from their experiences is a key to management development (Mumford, 1987, p. 49). The transformation is iterative, slow, and difficult, both intellectually and emotionally, but like any new transition, becoming a manager is a process.

Learning to be a manager, like learning any profession, is a process of acquiring a certain body of knowledge, skills in implementing this knowledge, and the attitudes and values that define how and when and for what ends the knowledge and skills are to be used (Schein, 1967, p. 602). The most ideal transition is one that is congruent with the person’s preference, whether it is the most challenging, the quickest, or the most comfortable (Louis, 1982, p. 75). Successful new managers receive support from their superiors, are prepared to develop new ways of dealing with problems, and do not see themselves being bound entirely by existing rules and procedures. Moreover, maintaining a long-term link with a particular manager who takes an interest in developing the new manager will enhance successful transition (Davies and Easterby-Smith, 1984, p. 181).

Training new managers is a learning process that does not always lead to successful management development (Bernhard and Ingols, 1988, p. 40). This belief is very popular from a managerial viewpoint because many problems that exist throughout an organizational structure can stay hidden or buried until they filter down to the first-line management level (Hays, 1985, p. 76). Training managers today must incorporate initial screening of present knowledge and determining what is the next level of learning for each person in his or her unique situation. Too many organizations assume that skills and knowledge for managing are present at the time of the new manager’s promotion (Phillips, 1986, p. 70).

Personal capacity for learning by managers is necessary for management success (Hall, 1986, p. 256). Each prospective manager has unique characteristics that must be acknowledged. A major deficiency in the work on management selection and development has been the lack of acknowledgment that managers are people who face all the developmental life tasks normally associated with their life stage (Levinson, 1965:1978). This deficiency can be overcome with more organizations and educational cohorts incorporating a culture that involves opportunities for personal as well as task learning. This will provide the manager with the political and social skills necessary to navigate the informal as well as the formal organizational channels (Luthans, Rosenkrantz, and Hennessey, 1985, p. 268; Dill, Hilton, and Reitman, 1964, p. 16).

Organizational commitment and resources to encourage this type of culture are most likely to be found in what Bennis and Nanus (1985, p. 191) term organizational learning:

Organizational learning is the process by which an organization obtains and uses new knowledge, tools, behavior, and values. It happens at all levels in the organization, among individuals and groups, as well as system-wide. Individuals learn in their daily activities, particularly as they interact with each other and the outside world. Groups learn as their members cooperate to accomplish common goals. The entire system learns as it obtains feedback from the environment and anticipates further changes. At all levels, newly learned knowledge is translated into new goals, procedures, expectations, role structures, and measures of success.

Senge (1990) also is a strong advocate of organizations that discover how to tap people’s commitment and capacity to learn at all levels in an organization.

Argyris and Schon, in their 1992 Theory in Practice, and Argyris and Payne, in their 1995 Organizational Learning research, have done some of the most profound work to date on managerial learning. These authors found that organizations go through three stages of learning: managers are prepared to change others but resist change themselves---single-loop learning; managers act on information and are prepared to change, they learn from others---double-loop learning; and managers inquire about the learning system of their organizations to detect and correct potential errors—deutero learning. A book by Arie de Gues (1997) entitled The Living Company is a notable work on creating a successful learning organization. De Gues first introduced the revolutionary concept of the learning organization and organizational longevity. He contends that a successful company is one that can learn effectively and accept continuous change, one in which new managers desire continued personal growth. Finally, Snell (1987:1988) found that productive quality of learning and development coupled with overall positive quality of life will ensure learning.

“The challenge to managers lies in acknowledging the substance of humanistic thinking and practicing its techniques; the challenge to educators is to focus that thinking on areas of management experience” (Vargish, 1991, p. 91). Most recently, Van de Ven (2000) argues that significant advances in managerial learning increase when academicians confront questions arising in management practice, conduct research addressing these questions, analyze and translate research findings. Addressing these challenges will both contribute to the scientific discipline and the advancement of the practice of management.

New-Manager Motivation

Management scholars have been at odds with the question of whether extrinsic or intrinsic rewards can be measured (Phillips and Lord, 1980). Are financial rewards ranked among the top motivators of new managers? When Herzberg (1959) wrote that financial goals are really not significant in comparison to self-realization and other personal goals, it was a different era. But, according to Drucker (1999), this hasn’t changed:

We have known for fifty years that money alone does not motivate to perform. Dissatisfaction with money grossly demotivates. Satisfaction with money is, however, mainly a “hygiene factor.” What motivates—and especially what motivates knowledge workers—is what motivates volunteers. Volunteers, we know, have to get more satisfaction from their work than paid employees, precisely because they do not get a paycheck. They need, above all, challenge. They need to know the organization’s mission and to believe in it. They need continuous training. They need to see results. (Drucker, 1999, p. 21)

Delong (1982, p. 53) asserts that managerially competent people want to advance quickly up the organizational hierarchy, and that the possibility of making large sums of money while influencing others is important to them. However, recent empirical studies indicate that it is motive, not money, that is most important to people (Abhishek, Locke, and Bartol, 2001; Pearce, 1998).

Lawrence Peters (1988), who argued that in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his or her level of incompetence, introduced the best indication of management failure through misguided motivation. The major deficiency on new management selection and development may be traced in some instances to what is called The Peter Principal (Feurer, 1988, p. 63). Managers must be chosen carefully and trained thoroughly. Without extensive training and development, mentoring, and new-manager orientations, this unacceptable situation is likely to continue.

Hall (1989, p. 5) argued that “Organizations must grow managerial talent internally through effective management development and succession planning.” Management development should include training in both writing and oral skills, and additional training in managing people (Johnson, Neelankavil, and Jadhov, 1986, pp. 31,32). The authors identified the five most important motivating factors for entry-level managers: advancement, achievement potential, personal growth, work enjoyment, and desire to excel. New managers are eager to succeed and, properly channeled, could excel with individualized attention and guidance. Succession planning must exist in organizations to eliminate bottlenecks as managers move up the hierarchy.

Kanter (1989, p. 85) contends that old management tools are losing their magic and that more modern motivational tools are needed in today’s hectic environment. However, certain motivational, attitudinal, and value syndromes formed early in the lives of individuals apparently function to guide and constrain their entire careers (Schein, 1975b, p. 11). To offset this dilemma, Schein (1975a) offers three key abilities that managers should possess:

· analytical competence, which is the ability to identify, analyze, and solve problems in situations of incomplete information and uncertainty;

· interpersonal and intergroup confidence, which is the ability to influence, supervise, lead, manipulate, and control people at all organizational levels to help them achieve organizational goals; and

· emotional competence, which is the capacity to be stimulated by emotional and interpersonal issues and crises rather than be exhausted or debilitated by them; the capacity to bear high levels of responsibility without becoming paralyzed; and the ability to exercise power and make difficult decisions without guilt or shame.

To motivate new managers, one must find out what unique characteristics are important to them and then address those characteristics. Drucker (1999, p. 21) contends that new managers have to be “persuaded,” and that the supervision of new managers is a “marketing job.” Senior managers must identify wants, values, goals, and end results for the new manager, then make productive the specific strengths and knowledge of each individual.

New-Manager Pitfalls

Managers may reveal patterns of consistency when they fail (Skinner and Sasser, 1997, pp. 141,148). Some examples are a tendency to “wing it,” inappropriate attention to details, problems setting priorities, not acting quickly enough, a lack of courage and self-confidence, tolerating insubordination, and not knowing when to ask for help.

In contrast, high-level accomplishers analyze situations thoroughly, succeed in both motivating subordinates and satisfying superiors, employ strong self-management skills, and focus on one task of prime importance at a time. “New managers should be aware of the shifts in expectations as they progress from one career phase to another and the personality characteristics necessary to survive the derailment phenomenon” (Kovach, 1986, p. 42). Today, managers that possess both analytical skills coupled with the necessary people skills to manage effectively are rare. Managers must evaluate their individual strengths and weaknesses before accepting offers extended by organizations simply to fill empty seats.

Other researchers have found that causes of derailment were most often attributed to overly strong self-determination, inability to negotiate, insensitivity to others, coldness, arrogance, and failure to build a team (McCall and Lombardo, 1983). This type of managerial distancing can lead to poor management practices (Folger and Skarlicki,1998, p. 86).

Fiedler (1960) found that less effective managers had some behaviors and attitudes that suggested a need to dominate and possess people. Mintzberg (1996, p. 65) “used to think that the brilliance of the country’s management lay in its action orientation. Managers didn’t think a lot; they just got things done.” Now, though, he finds that “the best managers are very thoughtful people who are also highly action-oriented.”

Another pitfall for the new manager is time allocation. “New managers find themselves a bit overwhelmed, particularly if they haven’t worked closely before with the person whose shoes they’re expected to fill” (Kiechel, 1983, p. 143). Carlson (1951) found that executives worked excessive hours, spent a third of their working time outside the firm, and were subjected to constant interruptions, leaving little time for reading or thinking. Brewer and Tomlinson (1964) ascertained that “managers have to ‘take home’ work, particularly if they wish to keep up-to-date with current technical and business literature. Managers spent an average of four to five hours per week reading ‘business’ material at home.”

Recent research indicates that managers who set performance goals switched tasks less frequently than did managers who did not set goals (Strickland and Galimba, 2001). Managers should be encouraged to set goals in a multiple-task environment. Success in today’s global arena is achieved by those organizations that are able to deploy the expertise of their managers quickly and flexibly. Training in time-management techniques may enhance managerial effectiveness, but time spent outside of work on personal development is also necessary in today’s dynamic environment. The next section of this article provides some final insights to enhance new managers’ effectiveness, and ten guidelines to make the process from staff to manager a seamless transition.

Conclusion

There is now a wide array of options, tools, techniques, new ideas, and old ideas for new managers and, undoubtedly, there will continue to be a thin line between order and chaos. The tasks of the new manager are likely to become ever more blurred and indistinct in the years to come (Crainer, 2000, p. 226). To avoid the possibility of becoming obsolete, managers should learn valuable lessons from the extant management literature.

First, the structural school gives new managers insight into developing certain traits that can be applied to any situation, such as a solid knowledge of management theory, special or technical knowledge in their field, endurance and energy, political tact when dealing with people, honesty and integrity, judgment or common sense, and, most importantly, good health to be able to add longevity to your management career. It provides an understanding of the impact that management fads and fashions have in the workplace and how these fads affect management careers. Developing a learning database that enables managers to tap into their prior knowledge is crucial, as well as improving their ability to judge the appropriateness of senior management demands with the demands of stakeholders.

Second, the behavioral school provides the basis for motivational insight to both the new manager and his or her staff, while the integrative school offers managers a way to blend theory to best fit their unique work environment.

Third, as the process of learning improves for new managers, they are able to exercise less supervision over their subordinates and feel much more comfortable in their new role. More time can be spent building relationships with both subordinates and superiors and improving political and social skills.

Fourth, the motivational process finds managers coming to terms with their need for extrinsic and intrinsic rewards—as they reap the rewards accompanying their new responsibilities, in the form of pay incentives, they find themselves more interested in the work itself and the self-gratification that comes with it. They avoid the Peter Principle by seeking promotion based on their individual performance as opposed to the monetary benefits that come with their new role. These managers begin allocating their time more effectively as they develop goal-setting skills as well as their analytical, interpersonal, and emotional competence.

Fifth, as new managers avoid the possible pitfalls that may arise, they learn how to analyze situations more thoroughly in order to better satisfy stakeholders and superiors, and they develop strong self-management skills. Also, they reap the rewards of their successes as they develop time-management skills to enhance their performance.

Ten guidelines that new managers can follow as they venture into their new positions are:

1. Avoid the Peter Principle by assessing your own capabilities before accepting promotion.

2. Learn from previous scholars to develop your own philosophy of management.

3. Use case studies in your field when available and develop new ones.

4. Make learning a part of your workday by using double-loop and deutero learning.

5. Choose an industry and area of specialty that will inspire your own personal motivation.

6. Remain current in your knowledge of management fads and how they affect your workplace.

7. Develop an understanding of crisis intervention to handle unexpected security issues.

8. Seek out and develop a working relationship with a mentor in your field.

9. Goal-set by designing and integrating a lifestyle that balances both personal and work life.

10. Seek ways to develop your creativity and innovation at each stage of your career.

The lessons learned in this article are the first steps in new management development. Applying these ten guidelines will ensure that the new manager’s transition from staff to manager is seamless, but one must be aware that becoming a manager is an ongoing process in which he or she continues to develop and grow from both successes and failures. When new managers accept this as fact, they can then begin to see the small successes that lead to bigger ones, learning from their mistakes and building on their knowledge and skill so that when both staff and peers wonder what a successful manager is like, they will look at them.

Organizations will have to find ways to cultivate and utilize the knowledge and expertise that each new manager brings to the firm. Senior management will have to use goal-integration to align the goals of the organization with the personal goals of each manager. This is nothing new, however: Taylor, in 1911, argued that “The principal objective of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee.” Wrege and Hodgetts (2000, p. 1290) contend that in the new millennium, managers will have to increasingly focus on data collection and analysis and fight the tendency to accept anecdotes and hearsay as accurate as they conduct business in an emerging world of hypercompetition.

The prospects for a managerial career today are more adventurous than ever before due to the continuous theoretical developments of the profession. From historical frameworks to new management fashions, this is an exciting and rewarding time for the new manager.

References

Abhishek, S., Locke, E. A, and Bartol, K. M. (2001). Money and subjective well-being: It’s not the money, it’s the motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (6), 959-971.

Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21 (1), 254-285.

Abrahamson, E. (1997). The emergence and prevalence of employee management rhetorics: The effects of long waves, labor unions, and turnover, 1875-1992. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 491-533.

Anderson, J. C., Rungtusanatham, M., and Schroeder, R. G. (1994). A theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method. Academy of Management Review, (3), 472-509.

Argyris, C., and Payne, M. (1995, October). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Argyris C., and Schon, D. A. (1992, January). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Josey-Bass Publishers.

Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University.

Baughman, J. P. (1964). James Montgomery on factory management, 1832. Business History Review, Summer, 42 ( 2), 219-226.

Bennis, W., and Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper and Row.

Bernhard, H. B., and Ingols, C. A. (1988). Six lessons for the corporate classroom. Harvard Business Review, September-October, 40-46.

Brewer, E., and Tomlinson, J. W. C. (1964). The manager’s workday. Journal of Industrial Economics, 12, 191-197.

Burns, T., and Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock Publications.

Carlson, S. (1951). Executive behavior. Stockholm: Stromborgs.

Carroll, S. J., and Gillen, D. J. (1987). Are the classical management functions useful in describing managerial work? Academy of Management Review, 12 (1), 38-51.

Carson, P.P., Lanier, P.A., Carson, K.D., and Guidry, B.N. (2000). Clearing a path through the management fashion jungle: Some preliminary trailblazing. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (6), 1143-1158.

Crainer, S. (2000). The management century: A critical review of 20^th century thought and practice. San Francisco: Josey-Bass Publishers.

Davies, J., and Easterby-Smith, M. (1984). Learning and developing from managerial work experiences. Journal of Management Studies, 21 ( 2), 169-183.

De Geus, A. (1997, April). The living company. Harvard Business School Publishing.

Delong, T. J. (1982). Reexamining the career anchor model. Personnel, May-June, 50-61.

De Meyer, A., Loch, C. H., and Pich, M. T. (2002). Managing project uncertainty: From variation to chaos. Mit Sloan Management Review, 43 (2), 60-67.

Dess, G.G., Rshee, A., McLaughlin, K.J., and Priem, R.L. (1995). The new corporate architecture. Academy of Management Executive, 9 (3), 7-20.

Dill, R. D., Hilton, T. L., and Reitman, W. R. (1964). The new managers: Patterns of behavior and development. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Drucker, P. (1955). The practice of management. New York: The Free Press.

Drucker, P. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.

Farnham, A. (1997). The man who changed work forever. Fortune, July 21, 100-115.

Fayol, H. (1930). Industrial and general administration. J. A. Coubrough. Geneva: International Management Institute.

Feurer, D. (1988). Making the leap. Training, December, 25 (12), 63-68.

Fiedler, F. E. (1960). The leader’s psychological distance and group effectiveness. In D. Cartwright and A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (2nd Ed.).

Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson; London: Tavistock Publications.

Folger, R., and Skarlicki, D. P. (1998). When tough times make tough bosses: Managerial distancing as a function of layoff blame. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (1), 79-87.

Galbraith, J. R. (1980). Applying theory to the management of organizations. In W. M. Evan (Ed.), Frontiers in organization and management, 151-167. New York: Praeger.

Gibson, J. W., and Tesone, D. V. (2001). Management fads: Emergence, evolution, and implications for managers. Academy of Management Executive, 15 (4), 122-133.

Hall, D. T. (1986). Dilemmas in linking succession planning to individual executive learning. Human Resource Management, Summer, 25 (2), 235-265.

Hall, D. T. (1989). How top management and the organization itself can block effective executive succession. Human Resource Management, Spring, 28 (1), 5-24.

Hays, R. D. (1985). The myth and reality of supervisory development. Business Horizons, January-February, 75-79.

Herman, M. L., and Oliver, B. B. (2002). A primer for crisis management. Risk Management, (1), 43-48.

Hill, L. A. (1992). Becoming a manager: Mastery of a new identity. Boston, Mass.