Studies of managerial behaviour have been made since the early 1950s. Two major aspects of this area of research should be noted. One is the confusion of terminology and the other its complexities. There has been confusion between managerial behaviour, managerial work and managerial jobs so that inappropriate generalizations about one of these have been made from a study of another one.

The methods and findings of the main researchers who have done most to develop our understanding of managerial behaviour and managerial jobs are summarized, starting with Carlson in Sweden in the early 1950s. From these we have learnt that the managers who were studied - and that wording is significant because of the dangers of generalizing to managers in other cultural settings - acted in a more reactive way than Fayol's analysis of managerial functions would imply. Their working pattern was fragmented. The social aspects of management were highlighted in a number of studies. The managers spent the majority of their time talking and listening. They were part of a social system and sought to secure the cooperation of others through networking, trading and negotiating. These are just some of the generalizations made.

Studies of differences in behaviour have taught us that there are wide variations both for the same manager from one week to another and, more importantly, between managers in similar jobs. There are also wide differences between managers' jobs even in the same country. These differences are greater when comparisons are made across countries. Much of the literature reflects an Anglo-American bias.

The complexities of studying managerial behaviour have gradually been revealed. First, we have not been able to define what is distinctively 'managerial' about managerial work. Second, how researchers seek to answer the question 'what do managers do?' depends upon their perspective. Managers can be thought of as working in the organizational interest and/or in their own interest. They may also be seen as developing an ideology of management and acting as the agents of capitalism. Third, recording managerial activities poses considerable methodological problems, which may not be recognized, including the fact that the categories used for work content reflect the researchers' perception of management tasks. Fourth, the potential area of study is very wide. Future studies should take account of these complexities, but what is most needed is imaginative thinking and attention to the nature of the context within which the managers are working.

The main practical implications of studies of managerial behaviour are to improve our ability to select and train managers appropriately, and to recognize the differences in job requirements. Most researchers have also drawn conclusions for improving managerial effectiveness.

The early research into managerial behaviour arose partly from simple curiosity: What are all those managers actually doing? There had been a long history of studies of workers' behaviour and of the nature of workers' jobs, but not of managerial behaviour or managerial jobs. There were, of course, also more specifically academic concerns in studying managerial behaviour, such as identifying common managerial activities or distinguishing the differences in managerial jobs. There were, too, practical interests such as offering guidance for management selection and training, and suggestions for improving managerial effectiveness. These practical concerns are still a reason for seeking a better understanding of managerial jobs and of managerial behaviour.

Rosemary Stewart