B Research Methodology

Magazine Research

Our research covered articles from 1946-1998. Research was done via the Business Periodicals Index, pulling articles under the heading of Business Management or Employment Management relating to leadership or business management techniques.

We decided to focus on post World War II magazine publications. The two flagship magazines covered were Fortune and Harvard Business Review. However, we also looked at selected issues of the following magazines: Commercial and Financial Chronicle, Factory Management, Financial Executive Magazine, Business Week, Inc, Fast Company, and Workforce. We split up into four teams focusing on the following magazine/time period combination:

• Fortune 1970-1999
• HBR 1995-1999
• Fortune 1946-1969
• All other 1946-1999

Between 1946 & 1950 we covered all issues of Fortune. Between 1950-1970 we skipped articles in alternate years (covered 1950, skipped 1951). The most comprehensive coverage was given to 1990′s mainly because of the increased number of features addressing leadership issues.

Primary Research

We generated a list of common trends in leadership and a list of attributes from oursecondary research. The list of attributes was further subdivided between attributes of good & bad managers. Our next step was to design a survey that brought historical and recent trends, practical experience and our attribute list together. We compared the results to come up with a list that represented the most common themes across magazines and time periods. The survey was broken into three parts:

• Part I gathered background information about the respondent and his/her boss. We defined “the boss” as the person to whom the respondent had reported to for the longest period of time.
• Part II asked a number of yes/no questions about the boss identified in Part I. The questions tested for presence/absence of attributes that made our final list
• Part III asked the participants to rank their boss on a scale of 1-5. The attributes in Part III were based on the Manager Evaluation Form used at Federal Express.

II Background Research

Introduction

In order to understand the evolution of perceptions towards good and bad management over time, we surveyed three leading business publications: the Harvard Business Review, Fortune Magazine and The Economist, from 1940s to the present. In addition, we reviewed some new, progressive sources of business material from the 90′s such as Fast Company, Workforce, and Inc. While certain credentials, such as leadership will always be part of the “good-boss” list in any period, we notice a gradual but undeniable shift from an emphasis to “control” in the early post war years to an emphasis to “coach” in recent years.

Perhaps a more fundamental way to understand the shift in focus is to first understand the changes in the manager’s job description – i.e. what kind of employees are required to be managed? After the war, America began its first wave of industrialization. Coming out of the military and accustomed to the authoritarian style of management, most Americans in the post war era were beginning theirlife and career experience as nut bolts in a huge machine. They were hired as operators, and their jobs were to reliably and accurately complete their tasks on the assembly line. Consequently, managers were evaluated on their ability to control these operators and ensure the smooth running of the operation.

Over the years, as information technology advanced, computers and machines gradually replaced the role of the mindless operator. To survive and be continually useful in an organization, employees had to transform their roles into creative thinkers, logical synthesizers and solution providers. The long-term success of a corporation today depends on its depth of talent of would-be top managers down the management hierarchy. The manager today is managing creative future managers, instead of simple operators. The task shifts away from controlling employees, to nurturing, encouraging and coaching.