|
Article Excerpt
The purpose of this paper is to take an in-depth look at the profiles of executive skills and competencies drawn across the expanse of seventy-five years framed in the backdrop of management philosophy changes. In the early 1900's, Chester Barnard outlined the competencies he felt the executive of the future would need in the 20th Century. At the beginning of the 21st Century, Morgan McCall and George Hollenbeck interviewed over 100 expatriates and reported a list of needed competencies for the global executive of the 21st Century. This paper chronicles the changes in the management arena over that 70 plus year period of time to frame the backdrop of these two executive skill profiles. The journey is interesting and the outcome is surprising at times, dust as organizations are a product of their past, so to is the executive of today. He/she is an anthology of all the things that an executive needed in early 1900's, with a couple dynamic dimensions thrown in to maintain their sustainable competitive advantage in the new millennium global marketplace. Key Words: leadership, executive development, global management, 20th Century management training/development, 21st Century global managers, differences between traditional managers and global leaders
**********
"Systematic development of global leaders requires an even stronger, more focused commitment than does a domestic effort. You have to know what you are doing, why you are doing it, and what you want to get out of it. Without the clarity of commitment, the complexity of the global environment will swamp the effort." (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002, p. 8)
One of the fundamental questions asked by scholars and business leaders today is, "How can a company prepare to effectively compete in the hypercompetitive, complex, global environment of the 21st Century?" One of the central precepts in the management literature is the necessity to have a well developed, experienced management team at the helm, or in other words, experienced, well prepared executives (Porter, Lorsch, & Nohria, 2004). However, what constitutes an executive with the "right stuff" is defined in a variety of ways (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002). There is reasonable agreement that much of what tomorrow's executives need to know can be learned yet, how they gain that knowledge is another matter and is not a simple 'cookie cutter' formula. Each person has individual talents and strengths that have to be amalgamated into finely tuned organizational and market skills set (Kotter, 2001).
It is necessary to continuously assess the transformation from a good executive to a great executive, as well as how to develop leaders that are able to insure that organizations survive in today's multi-faceted multicultural global marketplace. To gain insight into what it takes to be 'great' involves comparing past strategies for developing executives with the espoused formula for success today. In 1938 Chester Barnard put forth his thoughts on the traits and skills of the executive in a 'cooperative system' in order to be successful (Wren, 1994). Recently, after completing an empirical qualitative worldwide study, McCall and Hollenbeck (2002) described their vision of the uintessential 'global executive' and the necessary skills needed to retain a competitive edge in today's complex global business world.
The purpose of this paper is twofold. The first objective is to provide a brief historical review and draw a parallel of some of the more prominent changes in the management environment across the last 70 years. As we enter the 21st Century, it would seem to be an appropriate time to examine the evolution of desirable characteristics of managers compared to the past. Barnard's seminal work in the 1930s provides the backdrop for the historic representation of what was thought to be the necessary qualities of 'successful' managers. Secondly, we develop a comparative analysis of Barnard's 'successful manager' of the early 20th Century with that of McCall and Hollenbeck's (2002) 'global executive' of the 21st Century. Their empirical research can serve as the foundation of what is thought to be needed for success in the global marketplace of the 21st Century and therefore, be used to foreshadow what qualities are necessary to succeed in the future. It is important to continue to look at current phenomena through the lens of the past (Wren, 1994); thus the use of the comparison of the two perspectives should be helpful in linking the 70 years of change and development in the management conceptualized by Barnard with the expectations developed by McCall and Hollenbeck about developing executives to meet the challenges in managing in the global marketplace.
Early Conceptualization of Management & Management Development
Discussion about what makes a good manager/executive/leader and how to develop such archetypes of commandership has been an ongoing debate for millenniums. As early as 400 BC, Socrates noted that management skills were transferable from one setting to another; it was just a matter of understanding the key areas of needs by a given group (Watson, 1869). In the year 1513, Machiavelli penned the first 'how to' book for rulers (executives) and listed his 'must knows' for the aspiring ruler (Swain, 2002). Even though the content was technical and procedural in nature, in 1836 James Montgomery wrote what is considered by some as the first text book on management (Wren, 1994). In 1908, Henri Fayol responded to a call for a theory of management by developing his now universal 'principles of management' that allowed for what was thought to be an art (management) to be studied as a discipline in the classroom (Rodriques, 2001).
A glance back through the pages of management history illustrates that many management gurus of the early 20th Century had their beliefs about what constituted the qualities of a top notch manager. Each writer supported the viewpoint that management as a philosophy and practice, which helped to provide a backdrop of executive education throughout the decades. Perhaps ahead of her time, Mary Parker Follet believed in the communities of creative practice and suggested that employees be considered an intrinsic part of the organization that allowed it to be more productive (Wren, 1994). Nobel prizewinner Herbert Simon held strong beliefs about the decision-making process of executives and firms in general as he espoused his ideas about "bounded rationality" (1945). Simon believed that no one person, including the executive, could make the complicated decisions of running an organization in isolation. He defined the organization as "the pattern of communications and relations among a group of human beings, including the processes for making and implement decisions", (Simon, 1945, p. 19). And, not to be forgotten; Ralph C. Davis (1951) wrote "Management is defined as the function of executive leadership" (p. 12).
Fayol, Follet, Simon, Davis, and many others made important contributions to our understanding of management skills and competencies. But, it is the belief of many that one name prominently emerges from the early part of the 20th Century as having a significant impact on shaping the business landscape of his era and defining the roles that executives play in creating viable thriving organizations. Chester Barnard (1886-1961), as a great scholar, a notable successful businessman, and a consultant, through his imagery of the chief executive of the 1930's set the foundation for many to view the development of a world class leader. Barnard attended Harvard Business School where he studied economics, but through out his life he earned seven honorary doctorates...
|
