See my Management Styles in Transition, (New York: American Management Association, 1966), for a considerably more detailed discussion of the elements of both managerial style and skill.
3.
I recognize that the terms “realist” and “idealist” are widely abused in common use, and their use in this context may cause some confusion at first. William James in his Essays on Pragmatism (New York: Washington Square Press, 1963), to which this conceptualization owes much, calls these polarities “tough-minded” and “tender-minded.” The current fad of tough-mindedness in business, however, has resulted in an artificial polarizing of preference toward tough-mindedness which obscures the importance of having both these polarities of managerial temperament represented in a business organization. And, while the terms “idealism” and “realism” are themselves charged with a certain amount of emotion and personal preference, they are a little nearer to equality in preference across our culture. The fact that they are strong words may even work in our favor by making them useful as long as they are defined and used with care. We could, of course, have used other terms slightly less charged, such as “theoretical” vs. “practical,” but such a substitute would only have made the discussion clamer and more academic in quality. The existence of an emotional charge—that is, personal preference—is what makes these managerial styles problematic when it comes to developing and selecting manager, but it also assures that they have vitality and relevance to today's problems. The reader's forbearance must therefore be asked, even though the terms “realism” and “idealism” are used in ways which may seem at first to be wrong-headed.
4.
See ArgyrisChris, “T-Groups for Organizational Effectiveness,”Harvard Business Review, March-April 1964, p. 60.
5.
See LopezFelix M.Jr., Evaluating Executive Decision Making: The In-Basket Technique (New York: American Management Association, 1966).
6.
One of the earliest cues which pointed me toward this conceptualization of management development came out of the use of a timed in-basket test as a predictor of managerial potential. It was discovered that a strong technical background in engineering or the sciences was a detriment to effective performance of an in-basket test, whereas practical experience in a shop or production environment, regardless of educational background, was associated with relatively effective handling of the in-basket task. Out of this finding, the old bias favoring a man of practical experience over the theorist for production jobs began to take on meaning.
7.
See KepnerC. H.TregoeB. B., The Rational Manager (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965).
