Mintzberg: Is there a Science of Managing?

Mintzberg felt that:

as yet there was little science in managerial work. Generally managers do not work according to procedures prescribed by scientific analysis.
Management scientists and their methods have had little impact on how the manager actually works - they work today as they always have.

He suggests that a science of managing will require managerial programmes. But what might these be? Can we really identify roles, specify contents and simulate managerial work? Note the UK's National Council for Vocational Qualifications definitions of managerial competences and performance criteria.

Although little of the manager's work is explicitly programmed, Mintzberg considers that managerial decision-making behaviour can be described in terms of high-order (heuristic) problem-solving approaches.
A repertoire of heuristic methods eg information scanning, dissemination and negotiating can be called on to fit various situations. Other heuristics discussed and explained considerably but are expressed in very "normative" (you should behave like this) terms. The actuality of frail, human behaviour may be different.
One heuristic: scheduling - sequencing and prioritising - assists control over all activities - perhaps testifying to the adoption of Filofaxes and palm top computers by some managers - but not all! Other receipes are used for specific purposes (staff selection checklists, brain-storming are obvious ones etc.)

Despite interest in management science, Mintzberg thought that progress would be slow until we are clearer about managerial working processes. When he wrote "Nature of Managerial Work" he thought that maybe if management scientists gain access to managers' documented information - clarity would improve!
Has this been done? Is it a sign post up a blind alley or do modern Intranets and the capacity for data mining and email etc open up the possibilities? How?

Can a heuristic e.g scheduling - be automated.
The tools have been developed (the distributed, multi-user on-line diary on a local area network, Intranets, the Internet and E-Mail, Lap-tops and PDAs, tele-conferencing etc).
Other heuristics such as prescriptions for time management and leadership behaviours require behavioural awareness, discipline in performance and conformity (change?). People are difficult to re-programme.

I am not a number, I am a free man. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered.

Might we develop expert systems to support managerial scheduling? What would be involved?
The manager reveals known scheduling rules and observation of work habits identifies other rules. If explicitly defined, rules might be applied to requests for managerial time giving a more productive work day!!!!

Mintzberg (remember the book was written in the early 70s) notes that the then existing information systems were not designed for the contemporary manager. These emphasised internal, historical, precise, aggregated/reference information - WHEREAS - top managers needed external, current, speculative data for contingent purposes. Hence the manager comes to rely on his own crude monitoring systems. Mintzberg was pointing the way to the examination of executive information systems.
By understanding actual use of information, analysts can help design/operate more effective monitoring systems (formal, maybe computerised but not always) - providing the manager with information needed.
.

Information databases of essential organisational information are accessible by managers - who if they know the query routines - have the facility for improved information dissemination.
Knowledge-bases, Mintzberg argued (in 1973) were, essential for improvements to strategy-making processes. This seemed to be a rich line of attack for the management scientist. Incremental strategy-making (the planning dilemma) Mintzberg argued was increasingly inadequate because of time pressures/compression. Organisational decisions were becoming more complex and needed better integration.
Managers needed information about the environment's dynamics. Analysts needed to support the ground work that complex strategic decisions require by:
.
- searching for opportunities and problems needing action; feeding data to the manager.
- conducting cost benefit analysis to clarify policy issues using inter-disciplinary problem-solving more than elegant, refined techniques.
How far has this vision been realised with contemporary information and communication technologies? What are the limitations?

Mintzberg argued that managers need powerful, simple models to help make choices. Model building and accurate simulation might contribute but these require informed definitions and data on the phenomena he/she faces. Models-in-use need to be based on the best conceptual understanding available.
Contingent, potentially disruptive events needed to be forecast and plans developed to prevent or anticipate events.
Unexpected crises and high-pressure situations involve real-time analysis more that technical excellence. Environmental turbulence frequently involves quick action over the use of time-consuming, exhaustive techniques.
.

Analysts are needed to build and service the project monitoring systems for top managers who supervise many (staged) improvement projects. The analyst/monitor can progress check, sequence and schedule the development steps of each for the manager.

These may better fit stable, predictable environments where data is reliable/documented and where costs are affordable than turbulent ones. Plans should be flexible for implementation.
Planners can undertake adaptive planning allowing the manager to adjust to his environment and make the pre-arranged decisions only when he feels the timing is right; occasionally having the option of choosing from alternatives.

What are the implications of the propositions for your firm and role today - given the current position - and for future improvement/progress?
What are the current features of your job compared with these propositions? What changes should you make to your own job behaviour/variations arising from these propositions?
What are the training and development implications?