* Academy ol Management Executive, 2005, Vol. 19, No. 4 Reprinted irom 1989, Vol. 3. No. 4 The role of the manager: What's really important in different management jobs Allen I. Kraut, Patricia R. Pedigo, D. Douglas McKenna, and Marvin D. Dunnette Can we safely assume (to paraphrase Gertrude Stein) that "a manager is a manager is a man- ager"? Should we expect the jobs of all managers to be pretty much the same? And should managers expect their colleagues' jobs to be like their own? Well, "yes" and "no," according to the research described below. An analogy to team sports may help illustrate this answer, and suggest implica- tions for organizational performance. One of the signs of a successful athletic team is its almost uncanny ability to perform as a single unit, with the efforts of individual members blend- ing seamlessly together. When this level of team- work exists, unusual things happen. Ouarterbacks complete blind passes, throwing the ball to spots on the field where they "know" their favorite re- ceiver will be. The point guard playing basketball lobs a pass high above the basket, which enables a leaping teammate to catch it in midair and make a spectacular slam dunk. This level of teamwork requires a great deal of practice and natural abil- ity, but members of the team must also have a clear understanding of their own roles, the roles of their teammates, and the way they must work to- gether to be successful. In addition to understanding specialized roles and assignments, players must also recognize the things that everyone, regardless of his or her posi- tion, must be ready and willing to do if the team is to win. When necessary, the quarterback must block like a lineman to allow the halfback to break free of the defense; diminutive kickers must tackle kick return specialists twice their size to stop a touchdown. The point is that the demands of a team sport call for each participant to be both a specialist and a generalist. Management, we believe, is a team sport that makes similar demands of its players. Unfortu- nately, many executives (the "team captains") and managers do not recognize how managerial jobs are similar and yet different across organizational levels and functions. This lack of mutual under- standing among management players can make it very difficult for them to appreciate one another's work and coordinate their work activities. It can make winning that much harder. In addition to being able to coordinate work more effectively, executives who understand simi- larities and differences in managerial jobs gain other advantages. For example, they are better able to: • Communicate performance expectations and feedback to subordinate managers. • Prepare others and themselves for transitions to higher organizational levels or different func- tions. • Forecast how different managers would perform if promoted or moved into a new function. • Ensure that management training and develop- ment programs are targeted to fit the needs of managers as they change positions. • Diagnose and resolve confusion regarding man- agerial roles, responsibilities, and priorities. For the most part, research on managerial work has focused on the common denominators of man- agement jobs. Indeed, a considerable amount of research has been published on this subject.i We, however, have recently completed a study de- signed to shed light on the differences in manage- ment roles and activities across different levels and functions. We started with a sample of 1,412 man- agers^ and asked them to rate the relative impor- tance of 57 managerial tasks to their jobs. Their choices included "Of utmost importance," "Of con- siderable importance," "Of moderate importance," "Of little importance," "Of no importance," and "I do not perform this task." Almost all tasks were rated "Of moderate importance" or higher. Using these importance ratings, we statistically 122