Managerial Skills Essay

In parliamentary law for film directors to be rough-and-ready, they mustiness(prenominal)iness entertain a clear judgment of whether distinguishable scientific disciplines be grievous in their motorcoachial role. In addition, managers must bind a mutual taking into custody of the readinesss and responsibilities necessary for early(a) managers crossways sympathetic and opposite organisational take aims and cultivates (10 Kraut et al. , 1989). If these attainments and responsibilities be non clearly understood, managers entrust neither be able to aline clobber in effect, communicate expectations, deliver feedback, nor be prep ard for blood line transitions or early(a) instruction and occupational group phylogeny activities (10 Kraut et al. , 1989). In short, understanding whether definite managerial learnings argon all key(predicate) to a managers cable is essential. A number of look forers switch investigated the roles, tasks, or activities o f managers (e.g. 18 Mintzberg, 1973 13 Luthans, 1988 10 Kraut et al. , 1989). heretofore, these studies argon oer a ten dollar bill old, several(prenominal) a good deal than than than than twain or three decades, and scram non specifically examined dexteritys. The ground of land has changed since these studies, well-nigh notably callable to institutional downsizing, engine room, and the populace(prenominal)ization of the diddleplace. Skills of the essence(p) to managers in the late mid-eighties and early 1990s whitethorn not be as meaning(a) straightaway. As convictions change, look intoers should update crucial findings to fit if those findings atomic number 18 nonoperational applicable (4 Cronbach, 1975), especially when computeing that the skills and roles of managers read to be clearly defined and understood to effectively t individually, select, develop, and gain ground these individuals in the toyplace.Based on results of a training of much(prenominal) than 14,000 managers oer two manifest clock ends, this paper lead highlight whether the vastness of genuine managerial skills changed oer a 15-year snip period, and determine which skills argon pauperisati singled at antithetical organisational takes and across organizational functions from the opinions of managers themselves. Our main research incertitude is, to what extent has the impressiveness of plastered managerial skills changed, or remained constant, over successiveness, and whether certain skills be authoritative establish on organizational train and function.Studies of managers18 Mintzberg (1973) provided superstar of the near influential litigates on managerial roles. preliminary to his research, the roles of managers were understood to be embedded in a rigid running(a) approach of planning line of productss, organizing staff, and steer personnel (20 Pearson and Chatterjee, 2003). However, Mintzberg observed that managers co oked at a to a greater extent than faster pace during which they were expectd to address a range of issues. The phone line of the manager required an tycoon to handle to a greater extent than than complex roles than those described by classical guidance theory. Using a descriptive diary method to observe managers at plump, Mintzberg identify ten roles of managerial naturalise, which were divided into three categories social roles, teachingal roles, and decisional roles.Expanding on 18 Mintzbergs (1973) represent, 10 Kraut et al. (1989) investigated the differences in the midst of managerial takes in the perception of role grandeur. They identified s rase major factors of management tasks including managing individual performance instructing subordinates planning and allocating choices coordinate inter parasitical groups managing group performance monitoring the furrow organisation environs and wassailing unrivalleds staff. Their findings withal revealed cl ear-cut differences in role magnificence based on the take of the manager. For instance, for the first time-level managers reported that managing individual performance and instructing subordinates were the practical(prenominal)ly signifi atomic number 50t set of activities in their job.However, as managers travel up the management hierarchy to the level of spunk manager, the brilliance of these activities dropped and more centralise was placed on tasks related to linking groups. The act of linking groups included planning and resource allocation, managing group performance, and coordinating interdependent groups. Executive managers took an even broader view of their job as evinced by their high importance ratings related to monitoring the environment including business, economic, and social trends. The barely commonality among the diametrical managerial levels was the importance they placed on representing their staff over 50 per pennyimeime of managers at each leve l rated representing staff of ut closely or considerable importance. 13 Luthans (1988) research also examined differences surrounded by eliminate and middle managers.However the concentrate on was more on the distinction amid the activities of an effective manager versus a successful manager. in effect(p) managers were identified by a high level of performance in the unit they are responsible for, whereas successful managers were recognized by their rapid promotions inwardly an organization. The activities that characterize effective managers included spending time on dialogue and gracious resource management, which cornerstone lead to long-term results. In contrast, successful managers washed-out more time on net functional and aimed for short-term results. In addition to differences among levels, 10 Kraut et al. (1989) also compared managerial activities across the divergent organizational functions of merchandise, manufacturing, and administration.For example, a gre ater function of marketing managers rated monitoring the remote environment more Coperni brook when compared to new(prenominal) managers. Alternately, fewer marketing managers rated instructing subordinates as grand when compared to managers in manufacturing and administration. directors from all three organizational functions indicated that activities involving coordinating interdependent groups were all main(prenominal)(predicate). The present study pull up stakes ensample to expand on equal research much(prenominal) as those frontly mentioned. First, this research examines managerial skills, which are oftentimes different than managerial roles, activities, or tasks. duration past research has determined what roles or activities are important for managers and what tasks managers tend to spend much of their time on, this research attempts to determine what skills are important for managerial jobs. Second, this research will use opinions from practicing managers total ing more than 14,000 from two distinct time periods (1988-1992, and 2004-2006) to capture what skills pass been important in the past, and determine whether those skills have changed in importance over time. In addition, this research will examine whether managerial skills are important across different organizational levels and organizational functions in the condition of right aways bring in environment.The changing earthly concern of workThe aforementioned research regarding the importance of managerial tasks, roles, and activities was conducted in the 1970s and 1980s. There is reason to view that skills once deemed important for managers whitethorn have alter in relative importance since much has changed in the world of work since these studies. One can contract that the changes in the world of work whitethorn accept with possible changes in the importance of different managerial skills. arrangements have generate flatter and little gradable with fewer levels and mo re responsibilities (2 Allen et al. , 2001 16 McKinley et al. , 2000 17 Miller, 1990).Also, organizational downsizing is monotonous due to the increasing need to reduce costs, to stave off unnecessary levels of management, and to streamline operations (5 DeMeuse et al. , 2004). As organizations become little hierarchical, in that location is reason to believe that the skills managers plan were important in the past whitethorn have changed in scope. Organizations also exist in a different environmental setting than 15 long time agone. Due to improved technology such as e-mail and the internet, changes have occurred in the way managers and co-workers interact. We have seen the topic of the Internet as a major form of communication and e-commerce as a advanced source of business. Flexible work patterns and the ability to work in geographically dispersed aggroups is now a common reality in the workplace (27 Wallace, 2004).These changes have cultivated the need for better commun ication, coordination, improved performance, team monitoring, and more interdependence and trust (22, 21 Salas et al. , 2004, 2005 28 Zaccaro et al. , 2004). Teams and organizations are progressively touch more global or virtual(prenominal) in nature. As a result, an awareness of different cultures and attention to multiculturalism and globalization is vital for the success of most managers. As organizations become more fast-paced and global, there is also speculation that the importance of different skills managers need may have shifted in scope. 7 Kanter (1989) argued that these rapid changes, spurred by technology and competitive pressures, have made handed-down forms of organizing work obsolete.Managers may believe certain skills are important in order to be a vocalismner with and em superpower employees to address business jobs on their own and to work in cross-functional teams, which could be different than the skills believed to be important 15 old age ago. Manage rs must fully understand their roles and responsibilities and become adept at a variety of skills to perform their job effectively (1 Ahearn et al. , 2004 6 Halbesleben et al. , 2003 25 Stockdale and Crosby, 2004 27 Wallace, 2004 28 Zaccaro et al. , 2004). As previously mentioned, understanding the skills of managers is essential to coordinate work effectively, communicate expectations, deliver feedback, and for training and career suppuration (10 Kraut et al. , 1989).It is unknown whether the changes over the past 15 years that have occurred in an organizational and global linguistic context have also coincided with possible changes in importance of managerial skills over time. A young case study reexamined 18 Mintzbergs (1973) work 30 years afterward the overlord research by studying the pattern of behavior among four executives in Sweden (26 Tengblad, 2006). The findings revealed that novel executives are more oriented towards running(a) with subordinates in group-settings and focus more time on giving information rather than performing administrative duties.However, Tengblad noted significant kindredities with Mintzbergs original study, indicating that claims of the emergence of radically different managerial work may be exaggerated. However, due to the small savour coat and lack of empirical info in that study, it is important that further work specifically examine the modern skills of managers with a wide range of managers and ample sample size.In separate words, are the skills estimate to be important to managers 15 years ago even important to managers in todays work context? The present research will attempt to answer this question and provide relevant current information for managers and those who work with, train and develop them, by re-examining the importance of managerial skills across two distinct time periods and across active(prenominal) organizational level and function in the context of todays work environment.MethodPartici pantsThis research used entropy from two waves of managers engaged in a leading developing program from a leaders exploitation provider in order to compare differences in managerial skills over time. The first wave consisted of 7,389 managers from the regular army involved in a leadership study process amid 1988 and 1992. The abet wave consisted of 7,410 managers from the the States who were involved in a leadership development process between 2004 and 2006. Because of data ho development and management issues, demographic data could not be disposed(p) for the first wave of participants. However, aggregate biographical data from the leadership development provider from the time period of 1988 to 1992 revealed that leadership development participants in general were similar in terms of age, gender, race, education, and job status to those of 2004 to 2006.demographic data in aggregate could be condition for the 7,410 participants of the second wave. The average age of the ma nagers in the second wave was 41.73 years old, 59 per pennyime were male, 86 per cent were white, 69 per cent worked in the insular sector and 77 per cent had a stripped of a bachelors score. Managers came from over 60 organizational types (e.g. aerospace and defense, finance, communications, government, education) and over 1,300 companies.In addition, 999 managers (13.5 per cent) were first-level managers (forepersons, crew chiefs, constituent supervisors), 3,136 (42.3 per cent) were middle-level managers (office managers, paid staff, mid-level administrators), 2,197 (29.6 per cent) were upper-middle managers (department executives, plant managers, senior professional staff), and 1,078 (14.6 per cent) were top or executive level managers (chief executives or operating officers, presidents, vice presidents, directors).MeasureManagerial skills . data determining the importance of managerial skills was collected from SKILLSCOPE1 a 360-degree instrument that assesses job rela ted strengths and weaknesses. The instrument has 98 items that are organized into 15 skill assembles. These clusters represent 15 skills and roles managers need in order to be effective in their job which are part of Mintzbergs three categories (interpersonal, informational, and decisional) and two other categories (personal resources and effective use of self).The conceptual basis for SKILLSCOPE is research which cogitate on managerial skills, roles and tasks (e.g. 3 Beggs and Doolittle, 1988 8 Kaplan, 1987 9 Kotter, 1982 14 McCall and Kaplan, 1984 15 McCall et al. , 1979 18, 19 Mintzberg, 1973, 1990 23 Sayles, 1979 24 Stewart, 1976). As part of their leadership development process, managers chose which five of the 15 skill clusters were the close important for their current job. submit I gauge omitted. expose stratagemicle Image. describes each skill cluster.ResultsA frequency count of the data revealed the skills that are near important for managers in their current job. Result show that both communication information, ideas (60.1 per cent of the managers in 1988-1992 and 63 per cent of the managers in 2004-2006) and victorious actions, fashioning decisions, following by (59.7 per cent of the managers in 1988-1992 and 62.9 per cent of the managers in 2004-2006) were the most important skills across all managers. On the other hand, Self-management, self-insight, self-development and Openness to influence flexibleness were the least important for managers in 1988 through with(predicate) 1992 (8.6 per cent and 8.8 per cent respectively as one of the most important skills indispensable) and managers in 2004 through 2006 (10.9 per cent and 7.2 per cent selected respectively as one of the most important skills compulsory).Table II Figure omitted. See Article Image. shows a comparison between managers from 1988-1992 and managers from 2004-2006. M each of the skills were similar in importance for both waves of managers. However, there were three ski ll clusters with differences of more than 10 percentage points that should be noted. First, 39.9 per cent of 2004-2006 managers rated Relationships as one of five important skill clusters which was an incr respite from 29.4 per cent of managers in 1988-1992. Second, 33 per cent of 2004-2006 managers rated Administrative/organizational ability as one of five important skill clusters, a decrease from the 45 per cent of managers was from 1988-1992.Finally, 31.7 per cent of managers from 2004-2006 rated m management as one of five important skill clusters which was an increase from the 19.7 per cent of managers in 1988-1992. The next set of analyses focused unless on the 2004-2006 managers. Examining the results as a whole may mask important findings based on managerial levels. Consequently, we analyzed the importance of managerial skills across the four managerial levels for the present study, similar to 10 Kraut et al. (1989). Figure 1 Figure omitted. See Article Image. displays the importance ranks for each skill sorted by managerial level.Communicating information, ideas and Taking action, making decisions, following through were the two most important skills for all managerial levels with the exception of first-level managers. While Taking action, making decisions, following through be as the most important for first-level managers, familiarity of job, business ranked as second-most important, followed by Communicating information, ideas. On the other hand, Openness to influence, flexibility was the least important to managers at each level, again with the exception of first-level managers who believed Risk-taking, aim was the least important, followed by Openness to influence, flexibility.In general, the importance rankings were similar across managerial levels, though there are some notable exceptions. First, acquiring information, making sense of it problem assignment was little important for top/executive-level managers (48 per cent) than for other managerial levels (each over 55 per cent). Second, as managerial level increased, so did the importance of Influencing, leadership, and power, (from 21 per cent of first-level managers to 45 per cent of top/executive level managers), and of Risk-taking, macrocosm (from 7 per cent of first-level managers to 22 per cent of top/executive level managers).Last, as managerial level increased, the importance of two managerial skills decreased, namely Knowledge of job, business (from 63 per cent of first-level managers to 45 per cent of top/executive-level managers) and Time management (from 42 per cent of first-level managers to 19 per cent of top/executive-level managers). In addition, believe the results from all managers in aggregate may also conceal important findings based specifically on job function, as managers in different functions may have different managerial challenges (10 Kraut et al. , 1989).In order to account for this, the present study mirrored the data depth psycholog y of the 10 Kraut et al. (1989) study in that the levels of management were as weighted in each function so that no one managerial level would have statistical influence over the other managerial levels, and managers from marketing (n =282), manufacturing (n =253), and administration (n =489) would be selected. Due to the functional diversity of the sample of the second wave, managers from engineer (n =413), benevolent resources/training (n =345), operations (n =916) and sales (n =518) were also examined. Figure 2 Figure omitted. See Article Image. provides the rankings for the skills of managers across job function. It is interesting to note that the pattern of skill importance is similar across functions.For instance, Communicating information, ideas was most important for marketing, human resource, and sales managers, while Taking action, making decisions, following through was the most important managerial skill for manufacturing, administration, engineering, and operations. In fact, across the seven managerial functions studied, these two managerial skills were among the top three in importance for each managerial function. On the other hand, Openness to influence flexibility was the least important to managers across all functions except for managers in human resources, who believed Energy, drive, and ambition was the least important. Some managerial skills were rated as well in importance across managerial functions.For instance, between 22 per cent and 27 per cent of managers across different functions believed Coping with pressure, adversity integrity was important. Also, between 8 per cent and 13 per cent of managers thought Self-management, self-insight, self-development was an important skill to have. There was variability among the importance of some skills across managerial function. For example, Administrative/organizational ability was important for less than 25 per cent of managers in marketing, manufacturing, and sales, but was important for 58 per cent of managers in administration. Getting information, making sense of it problem identification was less important for sales managers (39 per cent) than it was for engineering managers (65 per cent).Regarding Managing conflict negotiation it is interesting to note that most managers rated it the corresponding in importance (between 27 per cent and 31 per cent) except managers from marketing, where only 17 per cent of managers thought it was important. Managers in manufacturing (25 per cent) and engineering (26 per cent) ranked Relationships less important than human resources (51 per cent) and sales (52 per cent) managers. Selecting, developing, accepting passel was important to some managers in manufacturing and sales (both 35 per cent), but was not as important to marketing managers (12 per cent).DiscussionIn total, 30 years after 18 Mintzbergs (1973) original study, 26 Tengblad (2006) anchor that while some things have changed, managerial work has remained the s ame, notwithstanding changes in the world of work. In a similar fashion, the present research attempted to determine whether the importance of skills managers need in their job have shifted over a 15-year time period. Though m each have commented on how the world of work has changed over the past 15 years (e.g. 2 Allen et al. , 2001 5 DeMeuse et al. , 2004 7 Kanter, 1989 16 McKinley et al. , 2000 17 Miller, 1990 22, 21 Salas et al. , 2004, 2005 27 Wallace, 2004 28 Zaccaro et al. , 2004), the data of the present research suggests that despite the changes in the work environment, the importance of certain managerial skills is somewhat similar.For instance, what was believed to be important in 1988-1992 (i.e. Communicating information, ideas and Taking action, making decisions, following through) is still considered important for managers today. In addition, skills that were not thought of as important in 1988-1992 (i.e. Self-management, self-insight, self-development and Openness to influence flexibility) are still not thought of as important for managers in todays work context. Despite these apparent similarities, there are some noteworthy differences between what managers thought was important 15 years ago and what managers deal is important today. First, Relationships reckon to be more important now than for managers 15 years ago. 26 Tengblad (2006) hinted at this with the finding that executives are concentrating more today (than 30 years ago) on working with others in a group setting. The increased importance of this skill cluster coincided with the changes in the organizational context that managers today must face.The use of communication technology, such as e-mail, and the existence of geographically dispersed teams require managers to be more deliberate in the cause they devote towards forming and maintaining relationships. The nonverbal cues that aid in face-to-face communication cannot be relied on in virtual relationships. By acknowledging and f acing the challenges presented by these new forms of communication, managers can successfully execute their job requirements. In addition, the flattening of organizational hierarchies has forced a higher level of coordination and quislingism between peers. As more and more muckle work in an environment structured almost the work team, the more likely a focus on building relationships will be encouraged.For instance, more time is devoted to interdependence and trust in a team setting (22, 21 Salas et al. , 2004, 2005 28 Zaccaro et al. , 2004), where ultimately, building relationships is necessary. 26 Tengblad (2006) found that executives are indeed focusing less time on administrative duties, and 7 Kanter (1989) also revealed that organizing work was becoming obsolete with changes in the environment. In a similar fashion, the present study found that Administrative/organizational ability come alongs to be less important today than it was 15 years ago. One of the reasons could cor respond with the new-made trend of the flattening of organizations. Organizations have become more streamlined, and debt instrument has become more spread out in the organization. In effect, managers do not have a hierarchical structure to manage.The administrative tasks that were needed in more hierarchical structures 15 years ago are not needed as much in the present work context. The advent of technology has also facilitated m whatever organizational processes that were once paper-based. much and more companies have converted to computer-based processes (i.e. online recruiting and staffing) that have decrease the necessity to focus ones skill on administrative or organizational duties. Time management appears more important now than it was 15 years ago. The reasons why could coincide with changes in the work context.Technology now enables people from around the world to work in real-time, to contact people instantly, and work more quickly. E-mail has replaced mail and fax. Th e use of cellular phone phones and electronic devices such as blackberries has also increased. At the same time, employees are focusing on creating respite between their professional lives and their personal lives, attempting to get work out of the way faster. Employees and their managers therefore must focus on time management now more than ever. The differences in importance rankings of managerial skills we observed between managers at different organizational levels confirm previous findings in the literature.10 Kraut et al. (1989) found that some managerial roles are considered important at each level, but the degree of importance may be contingent on a ill-tempered level. In the present study, Influencing, leadership, and power and Risk-taking and innovation showed an increase in importance ranking as managerial level increased. Both of these skills are indicative of senior levels of leadership. As a manager takes on more responsibility, it is critical to the managers succes s that the managers focus shifts to meet the new demands of the job. Also important to note, some managerial skills differ in importance depending on managerial function and relevance.For instance, Administrative/organizational ability is more important to managers in administration than it is for any of the other functions because administrative ability is inherent in the administrative function. Getting information, making sense of it problem identification is more important for engineering managers than it is for any of the other functions because working with information and problem identification is peculiarly relevant for engineers.Communicating information and ideas and Risk-taking, innovation are more important for managers in marketing than any of the other functions because those with a marketing background must be able to communicate and be innovative. Finally, Relationships is more important for managers in sales and HR than any of the other functions because sales and HR functions are dependent on forming and building good relationships. In effect, some skills are important to different managerial functions because of relevance of the specific organizational function.Practical applicationsDetermining what is important for managers at each level and each function is crucial to coordinating work effectively, communicating expectations, and facilitating training and career development activities (10 Kraut et al. , 1989). Relying on past (or out-of-date) information about the importance of certain managerial skills, roles, tasks, or activities could hinder effective work coordination, communication, and effective training and career development. Hence, updating this type of information may help managers in their work and development, even if it is to simply validate or reinforce previous findings. compute the challenges managers face if relevant information about the importance of certain skills in their jobs were not correct or outdated.If infor mation from previous research from the 1970s or 1980s is still used for coordinating work activities and it has not been updated, managers may be concentrating on different or unnecessary skills that are no protracted relevant. This could greatly impede their work, their advancement, and ultimately, their success. Moreover, managers may not be taught the appropriate skills for the present-day work environment that is needed to succeed if training and development relies on outdated information. For instance, 11 Lipshitz and Nevo (1992) detailed research of the competencies of effective and ineffective managers whose activities and practices help the initiation of training and development programs.Knowing which managerial skills are important for different managerial levels and functions would in spades bring knowledge to improve training and development programs. Because of their rated importance, the data suggests that managerial training and development in todays world of work m ay need to keep focus on communication and decision-making, decrease focus on administration and organization ability, and increase focus on enhancing relationships and the concept of time management.In addition, these findings may help those in endurance and in succession planning intimate that certain skills are important at different levels and functions can help determine what type of manager is needed at each level or each function. For instance, time management may be a skill set that is necessary particularly for first-level managers and not top-level executives, and hence, first level managers should have that appropriate skill for the job. Administrative/organizational ability may be important for managers in the administration function, and those in succession planning or selection for managers in that particular function should keep in mind that information, along with relevant information from any job digest or competency model.Limitations and future directionsThere a re some limitations to this study. First, asking managers to choose five of 15 skill clusters that are important to their current job does not provide the level of detail that could be obtained by evaluating the importance of each cluster using other methodologies. In the present study, a skill cluster is either among a managers top five most important or it is not. Therefore, the data does not permit an assessment of how much more important the top five skill clusters were than the ten skill clusters not selected. In addition, the data did not allow us to assess any relative ranking among the top five skills. As a result, it would be useful to assess the importance of clusters, competencies, roles, skills, or abilities using a Likert-type scale in the future. In this manner, researchers could examine to what extent each cluster is important to managers.Also, examining what managers believe are the most important skills for their job may not yield the same findings as asking what th eir direct reports or supervisors consider important. Future research should investigate what direct reports and supervisors of managers think are important skills for managers to acquire a more global perspective of managerial competencies, similar to those acquired through competency modeling (e.g. 12 Lucia and Lepsinger, 1999). Also, asking similar questions to managers outside the United States would bring more information about the importance of managerial skills across cultures. Combining the denary approach of evaluating to what extent a variety of skills are important for managers along with more qualitative methodologies of on the job observation and interviewing to assess competencies should create a more comprehensive picture of todays manager.Finally, any future research should capture the demographic data for the sample across successive waves. Without knowing more about the sample composition for the first wave of data, it is not possible to ascertain whether changes over time are due to differences in organizational structure or function, differences in individual jobs delineated by the sample, or differences in workforce composition. Therefore, explanations of changes cited in our findings may be due to structure changes and changes in technology or they may be due to changes in workforce demographics (i.e. aging baby-boomers). The best this research can conclude is that shifts in the importance of certain managerial skills have coincided with changes in the context of the world of work.However, with the present research data set, having a braggart(a) sample of more than 7,000 managers with similar aggregate demographic data for each time period may tend to lead to more generalizable results than would a sample of a lesser number of participants. The world of work has changed over the past 15 years. Results of this study revealed that managers today feel the need to concentrate more on building relationships and time management skills and f ocus less on administrative and organizational ability. However, many of the skills managers thought were important to their job in the late 1980s and early 1990s are somewhat similar in importance from the opinions of managers in the first decade of the 2000s, particularly skills concerning communication and decision making.To answer the original research question, much like 26 Tengblad (2006) found, despite noted changes in the world of work, while some managerial skills shifted in importance, some managerial skills remain as important today as 15 years ago. The importance of these managerial skills not only coincided with the changes in the work environment, but also are context dependent based on managerial level and function. For instance, though time management has increased in importance over the years, managers at lower levels (i.e. first-level managers) seem to believe time management is more important to their job than those at higher levels (i.e. top- or executive-level managers).In essence, one should take note not only of how the importance of certain skills change over time, but also, that certain skills believed to be important for managers at one particular level or function may be more or less important for managers at other levels or other functions. In the end, knowing this information is essential to effectively teach, select, develop, train, and get along managers in the workplace.Portions of this paper are based on a poster that was presented at the 2007 Society of industrial Organizational Psychology Conference, spic-and-span York City, New York. walker1. SKILLSCOPE is a registered trademark of the Center for notional loss leadership.References1. Ahearn, K.K., Ferris, G.R., Hochwarter, W.A., Douglas, C. and Ammeter, A.P. (2004), Leader political skill and team performance, ledger of oversight, Vol. 30, pp. 309-27.2. Allen, T.D., escapedman, D.M., Russell, J.E.A., Reizenstein, R.C. and Rentz, J.O. (2001), Survivor reactions to or ganizational downsizing does time ease the pain?, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 145-64.3. Beggs, J.M. and Doolittle, D.C. (1988), Mintzberg revisited a study of chief executive officers, leading & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 17-21.4. Cronbach, L.J. (1975), Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology, American Psychologist, Vol. 30, pp. 116-27.5. DeMeuse, K.P., Bergmann, T.J., Vanderheide, P.A. and Roraaf, C.E. (2004), New evidence regarding organizational downsizing and a firms financial performance a long-term analysis, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 16, pp. 155-77.6. Halbesleben, J.R.B., Novicevic, M.M., Harvey, M.G. and Buckley, M.R. (2003), Awareness of temporal complexity in leadership of creativity and innovation a competency-based model, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 433-54.7. Kanter, R.M. (1989), The new managerial work, Harvard seam Review, Vol. 67, pp. 85-92.8. Kaplan, R.E. (1987), The Wa rp and Woof of the General Managers Job, Tech. Rep. (27), Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.9. Kotter, J.P. (1982), The General Managers, The Free Press, New York, NY.10. Kraut, A.I., Pedigo, P.R., McKenna, D.D. and Dunnette, M.D. (1989), The role of the manager whats rightfully important in different management jobs, honorary society of Management Executive, Vol. 3, pp. 286-93.11. Lipshitz, R. and Nevo, B. (1992), Who is a good manager?, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 3-7.12. Lucia, A.D. and Lepsinger, R. (1999), The Art and Science of Competency Modeling Pinpointing Critical conquest Factors in Organizations, Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA.13. Luthans, F. (1988), Successful versus effective real managers, honorary society of Management Executive, Vol. 2, pp. 127-32.14. McCall, M.W. Jr and Kaplan, R.E. (1984), Whatever It Takes Decision Makers at Work, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.15. McCall, M.W. Jr, Lombardo, M.M. and Devries, D.L. (1979), The facial expression Glass Inc. Simulation, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.16. McKinley, W., Zhao, J. and Rust, K.G. (2000), Sociocognitive interpretation of organizational downsizing, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, pp. 227-43.17. Miller, D.B. (1990), Organizational, environmental, and work design strategies that foster competence, in Willis, S.L. and Dubin, S.S. (Eds), Maintaining Professional competence Approaches to Career Enhancement Vitality, and Success throughout a Work Life, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 233-48.18. Mintzberg, H. (1973), The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper & Row, New York, NY.19. Mintzberg, H. (1990), The managers job folklore and fact, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68, pp. 163-76.20. Pearson, C. and Chatterjee, S. (2003), Managerial roles in Asia an empirical study of Mintzbergs role formulation in four Asian countries, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22, pp. 694-707.21. Salas, E., Sims, D.E . and Burke, C.S. (2005), Is there a volumed five in teamwork?, Small assort Research, Vol. 36, pp. 555-99.22. Salas, E., Kosarzycki, M.P., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Carnegie, D. (2004), Principles and advice for understanding and promoting effective teamwork in organizations, in Burke, R.J. and Cooper, C. (Eds), Leading in Turbulent Times, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp. 95-120.23. Sayles, L.R. (1979), Leadership What Effective Managers Really Do and How They Do It, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.24. Stewart, R. (1976), Contracts in Management, McGraw-Hill, London.25. Stockdale, M.S. and Crosby, F.J. (2004), The Psychology and Management of study Diversity, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA.26. Tengblad, S. (2006), Is there a new managerial work? A comparison with Henry Mintzbergs classic study 30 years later on, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43, pp. 1437-61.27. Wallace, P. (2004), The Internet in the Workplace How New Technology Is Transforming Work, Cambridge University Pres s, New York, NY.28. Zaccaro, S.J., Ardison, S.D. and Orvis, K.A. (2004), Leadership in virtual teams, in Day, D.V. and Zaccaro, S.J. (Eds), Leader Development for Transforming Organizations developing Leaders for Tomorrow, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 267-92.AppendixCorresponding authorWilliam A. aristocracy can be contacted at gentrybleaders.ccl.orgAuthorAffiliationWilliam A. Gentry, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, North Carolina, USALauren S. Harris, University of Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia, USABecca A. Baker, JCPenney Co., Plano, Texas, USA jean Brittain Leslie, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA caseFigure 1 brilliance rankings for managerial skills (2004-2006) by managerial levelFigure 2 Importance rankings for managerial skills (2004-2006) by organizational functionTable I Descriptions of managerial skill clustersTable II Overall importance rankings for managerial skills (1998-1992 and 2004-2006)Copyright Emerald Group Publishin g Limited 2008