Managers spend a great deal of their time in meetings. According to Henry Mintzbery, in his book, The Nature of Managerial Work, managers in large organizations spend only 22 per cent of their time on meetings. So what are the managers doing in those meetingsThere have conventionally been two answers. The first is the academic version: Managers are coordinating and controlling, making decisions, solving problems and planning. This interpretation has been largely discredited because it ignores the social and political forces at work in meetings.The second version claims that meetings provide little more than strategic sites for corporate gladiators to perform before the organizational emperors. This perspective is far more attractive, and has given rise to a large, and often humorous, body of literature on gamesmanship and posturing in meetings.It is, of course, true that meeting rooms serve as shop windows for managerial talent, but this is far from the truth as a whole. The suggestion that meetings are actually battle grounds is misleading since the raison d"etre of meetings has far more to do with comfort than conflict. Meetings are actually vital props, both for the participants and the organization as a whole.For the organization, meetings represent recording devices. The minutes of meetings catalogue the change of the organization, at all levels, in a more systematic way than do the assorted memos and directives which are scattered about the company. They enshrine the minutes of corporate history, they itemize proposed actions and outcomes in a way which makes one look like the natural culmination of the other.The whole tenor of the minutes is one of total premeditation and implied continuity. They are a sanitized version of reality which suggests a reassuring level of control over events. What is more, the minutes record the debating of certain issues in an official and democratic forum, so that those not involved in the process can be assured that decision was not taken lightly.As Dong Bennett, an administrative and financial manager with Allied Breweries, explains: "Time and effort are seen to have been invested in scrutinizing a certain course of action. "Key individuals are also seen to have put their names behind that particular course of action. The decision can therefore proceed with the full weight of the organization behind it, even if it actually went through" on the nod ". At the same time, the burden of responsibility is spread, so that no individual takes the blame.Thus, the public nature of formal meetings confers a degree of legitimacy on what happens in them. Having a view pass unchallenged at a meeting can be taken to indicate consensus.However, meetings also serve as an alibi for action, as demonstrated by one manager who explained to his subordinates: "I did what I could to prevent it—I had our objections minutes in two meetings. "The proof of conspicuous effort was there in black and white.By merely attending meetings, managers buttress their status, while non-attendance can carry with it a certain stigma. Whether individual managers intend to make a contribution or not, it is satisfying to be considered one of those whose views matter. Ostracism, for senior managers, is not being invited to meetings.As one cynic observed, meetings are comfortingly tangible: "Who on the shop floor really believes that managers are working when they tour the works But assemble them behind closed doors and call it a meeting and everyone will take it for granted that they are hard at work. " Managers are being seen to earn their corn.Meetings provide managers with another form of comfort too—that of formality. Meetings follow a fixed format: Exchanges are ritualized, the participants are probably known in advance, there is often a written agenda, and there is a chance to prepare. Little wonder then, that they come as welcome relief from the upheaval and uncertainty of life outside the meeting room.Managers can draw further comfort from the realization that their peers are every bit as bemused and fallible as themselves. Meetings provide constant reminders that they share the same problems, preoccupations and anxieties, that they are all in the same boat. And for those who may be slightly adrift, meetings are ideal occasions for gently pulling them round.As Steve Styles, the process control manager (life services) at Legal & General, puts it: "The mere presence of others in meetings adds weight to teasing or censure and helps you to "round up the strays". " Such gatherings therefore provide solace and direction for the management team—a security blanket for managers.Meetings do serve a multitude of means as well as ends. They relieve managerial stress and facilitate consensus. For the organization, they have a safety-net-cum-rubber-stamping function without which decisions could not proceed, much less gather momentum. In short, meetings are fundamental to the well-being of managers and organizations alike.
Managers spend a great deal of their time in meetings. According to Henry Mintzbery, in his book, The Nature of Managerial Work, managers in large organizations spend only 22 per cent of their time on meetings. So what are the managers doing in those meetingsThere have conventionally been two answers. The first is the academic version: Managers are coordinating and controlling, making decisions, solving problems and planning. This interpretation has been largely discredited because it ignores the social and political forces at work in meetings.The second version claims that meetings provide little more than strategic sites for corporate gladiators to perform before the organizational emperors. This perspective is far more attractive, and has given rise to a large, and often humorous, body of literature on gamesmanship and posturing in meetings.It is, of course, true that meeting rooms serve as shop windows for managerial talent, but this is far from the truth as a whole. The suggestion that meetings are actually battle grounds is misleading since the raison d"etre of meetings has far more to do with comfort than conflict. Meetings are actually vital props, both for the participants and the organization as a whole.For the organization, meetings represent recording devices. The minutes of meetings catalogue the change of the organization, at all levels, in a more systematic way than do the assorted memos and directives which are scattered about the company. They enshrine the minutes of corporate history, they itemize proposed actions and outcomes in a way which makes one look like the natural culmination of the other.The whole tenor of the minutes is one of total premeditation and implied continuity. They are a sanitized version of reality which suggests a reassuring level of control over events. What is more, the minutes record the debating of certain issues in an official and democratic forum, so that those not involved in the process can be assured that decision was not taken lightly.As Dong Bennett, an administrative and financial manager with Allied Breweries, explains: "Time and effort are seen to have been invested in scrutinizing a certain course of action. "Key individuals are also seen to have put their names behind that particular course of action. The decision can therefore proceed with the full weight of the organization behind it, even if it actually went through" on the nod ". At the same time, the burden of responsibility is spread, so that no individual takes the blame.Thus, the public nature of formal meetings confers a degree of legitimacy on what happens in them. Having a view pass unchallenged at a meeting can be taken to indicate consensus.However, meetings also serve as an alibi for action, as demonstrated by one manager who explained to his subordinates: "I did what I could to prevent it—I had our objections minutes in two meetings. "The proof of conspicuous effort was there in black and white.By merely attending meetings, managers buttress their status, while non-attendance can carry with it a certain stigma. Whether individual managers intend to make a contribution or not, it is satisfying to be considered one of those whose views matter. Ostracism, for senior managers, is not being invited to meetings.As one cynic observed, meetings are comfortingly tangible: "Who on the shop floor really believes that managers are working when they tour the works But assemble them behind closed doors and call it a meeting and everyone will take it for granted that they are hard at work. " Managers are being seen to earn their corn.Meetings provide managers with another form of comfort too—that of formality. Meetings follow a fixed format: Exchanges are ritualized, the participants are probably known in advance, there is often a written agenda, and there is a chance to prepare. Little wonder then, that they come as welcome relief from the upheaval and uncertainty of life outside the meeting room.Managers can draw further comfort from the realization that their peers are every bit as bemused and fallible as themselves. Meetings provide constant reminders that they share the same problems, preoccupations and anxieties, that they are all in the same boat. And for those who may be slightly adrift, meetings are ideal occasions for gently pulling them round.As Steve Styles, the process control manager (life services) at Legal & General, puts it: "The mere presence of others in meetings adds weight to teasing or censure and helps you to "round up the strays". " Such gatherings therefore provide solace and direction for the management team—a security blanket for managers.Meetings do serve a multitude of means as well as ends. They relieve managerial stress and facilitate consensus. For the organization, they have a safety-net-cum-rubber-stamping function without which decisions could not proceed, much less gather momentum. In short, meetings are fundamental to the well-being of managers and organizations alike.
点击查看答案
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
参考答案
十点题库官方参考答案
（由十点题库聘请的专业题库老师提供的解答）
