The Effect Level in the Hierarchy and Functional Area
Have on the Extent Mintzberg's Roles Are Required
by Managerial Jobs
Larry D. Alexander, Oregon State University
ABSTRACT
This empirical study of 225 managers examines the
effect of the manager's level in the hierarchy and
functional area on the extent Mintzberg's manager-
ial roles are required by managerial jobs. The
results clearly show that both of these job related
contingency variables have a strong effect on mana-
gerial work.
INTRODUCTION
Although the contingency approach to management has
been gaining considerable support in recent years,
little research has tied it directly to the mana-
ger's job. Thus our understanding of how various
contingency variables effect the extent various
roles or functions are required by the manager's
job remains quite limited. The importance of
level in the hierarchy and functional area, two job
related contingency variables, has been determined
by the research of B u m s (1957), Hemphill (1960),
Sayles (1964), Aguilar (1967), Stewart (1967, 1976),
and Mintzberg (1973). While much has been written
about how the level of the hierarchy (e.g., Fayol,
1916; Katz, 1955; Steiner, 1969) and the functional
area (e.g., Buffa, 1977; Kotler, 1976; Weston &
Brigham, 1977) effect the manager's job, few
empirical studies have really attempted to verify
various speculations that have been made. Conse-
quently, the basic thrust of this study is to
empirically determine the effect the level in the
hierarchy and functional area have on the manager's
job.
The two general research questions which provide
the focus for this study are as follows:
RQl. What effect do the level in the hierarchy and
the functional area have on the extent vari-
ous roles or role groups are required by
managerial jobs?
RQ2. Are any of the managerial roles required to
a fairly high extent by most managerial jobs?
In order to operationalize the functional area's
effect on the manager's job, three hypotheses are
statistically tested. Based on the empirical
studies of how the manager's job varies according to
functional area (Walker, Guest & Turner, 1956;
Davis, 1957; Hemphill, 1960; Aguilar, 1967; Ste-
wart, 1967, 1976; and Pheysey, 1972), Mintzberg
(1973) concludes that production managerial jobs
require the decisional roles to a greater extent
than the other roles, sales managerial jobs require
the interpersonal roles to a greater extent than
the other roles, staff specialists such as account-
186
ing managerial jobs require the informational roles
to a greater extent than the other roles. These
three hypotheses in part help to answer the first
research question.
METHODOLOGY
Data were gathered from a sample of 225 managers
who were employed with a variety of different
Southern California private sector firms. This sam-
ple was broken down into nine subsamples or matrix
cells of 25 managers each. These nine matrix cells
were the result of three levels in the hierarchy
(top, middle, and lower level management) inter-
acting with the three functional areas (production/
manufacturing, sales/marketing, and accounting/
finance managers).
A questionnaire that took about 15-25 minutes to
complete was utilized to obtain the necessary data.
Multiple measures in the questionnaire itself and
subsequent telephone calls were utilized to insure
that each respondent's level in the hierarchy and
functional area were accurately measured. Mintz-
berg's (1973) ten managerial roles were utilized
to examine the effect of the two contingency varia-
bles on the manager's job. This framework was se-
lected over other conceptualizations primarily be-
cause it is based on a synthesis of the empirical
research on managerial work. Each managerial role
was operationalized in the questionnaire by naming
it, defining and explaining the role, and giving
examples of common activities found in the role.
Five point Likert scales were employed to indicate
"the extent to which each role is required through-
out the year in your present managerial job."
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(Nie, et. al., 1975) was used to analyze the data.
Research question 1 was analyzed by using analysis
of variance and/or student t-tests depending on the
conditions being satisfied. Research question 2
was first analyzed by the Median test for matched
groups and Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance,
then by the Wilcoxen test to determine which highly
ranked and rated roles differed significantly from
the lower ranked roles.
RESULTS
The one way analysis of variance for each manager-
ial role according to the level in the hierarchy
produces seven roles with significant overall dif-
ferences. These roles are as follows: figurehead
role at the .001 level (F = 8.461), liaison role
at the .05 level (F = 4.623), monitor role at the
.01 level (F = 4.807), disseminator role at the .05
level (F = 3.311), spokesman role at the .001 level
(F = 16.798), entrepreneur role at the .001 level
(F = 16.763), and negotiator role at the .005 level TABLE 2
(F = 6.086). Table 1 shows the resulting student Student t-tests for Managers ln each
t-tests for independent means for these roles com- Functional Area between the Three Role Groups
paring (1) top with middle management, (2) middle
Mean Degrees of t
with lower level management, and (3) top with lower Value Freedom Value
level management. For each of the above roles, Production Managers
except the negotiator role, the higher in the hier-
1st Comparison
archy the managerial job is located, the greater 3.24
Decisional Roles 1.45
Interpersonal Roles 3.11
74
TABLE l ' 2nd Comparison
Decisional Roles 3.24
74 3.07**
Student t - t e s t s for Seven Managerial Roles Informational Roles 2.93
between the Three Levels In the Hierarchy 3rd Comparison
Decisional Roles 3.24
74 2.57**
All Other Roles 3.02
t-test Values
Sales Managers
Top Mid. Top
Mean
& & 1st Comparison
Value
Mid. Low. Low. Interpersonal Roles 3.54
74 2.65**
Informational Roles 3.30
Figurehead Role 2nd Comparison
Top Mgt. 2.44 Interpersonal Roles 3.54 74 4.30****
Middle Mgt. 2.16 1.92 2.23* 3.97**** Decisional Roles 3.16
Lower Level Mgt. 1.80 3rd Comparison
Liaison Role Interpersonal Roles 3.54
74 4.37****
Top Mgt. 3.81 All Other Roles 3.22
Middle Mgt. 3.49 2.14* 0.88 3.04***
Lower Level Mgt. 3.35 Accounting ManaRers
Monitor Role
Top Mgt. 3.52 1st Comparison
Middle Mgt. 3.36 1.04 2.00* 3.03*** Informational Roles 3.32
74 0.63
Lower Level Mgt. 3.04 Interpersonal Roles 3.27
Disseminator Role 2nd Comparison
Top Mgt. 3.44 Informational Roles 3.32
74 2.92**
Middle Mgt. 3.15 1.65 0.92 2.55* Decisional Roles 3.04
Lower Level Mgt. 2.97 3rd Comparison
Spokesman Role Informational Roles 3.32
74 2.28*
Top Mgt. 3.43 All Other Roles 3.14
Middle Mgt. 3.29 0.77 4.49**** 5.29****
Lower Level.Mgt. 2.47 *p - .05
Entrepreneur Role **p = .01
Top Mgt. 3.65 ***p - .005
Middle Mgt. 3.16 3.01*** 2.83*** 5.71**** ****p . .001
Lower Level Mgt. 2.67
Negotiator Role
Top Mgt. 2.72
Middle Mgt. 2.93 1.19 3.26**** 2.35*
Lower Level Mgt. 2.31 at the .01 level for decisional over informational
roles, and significant differences at the .01 level
*p " .05 for decisional roles over the combined grouping of
**p - .01
.005 all other roles. Sales managers have mean scores
for the three role groups as follows: 3.538 for
interpersonal roles, 3.302 for informational roles,
148 degrees of freedom for each two tailed Student
t-test for independent means and 3.160 for decisional roles. The resulting t-
tests produce significant differences at the .01
level for interpersonal over informational roles,
extent the managerial role is required. For the significant differences at the .001 level for in-
negotiator role, managers in middle management re- terpersonal over decisional roles, and significant
quire it the most while lower level managers re-r differences at the .001 level for interpersonal
quire it the least. For all seven roles, however, roles over the combined grouping of all other
t-tests show that top management require the vari- roles. Accounting managers have mean scores for
ous roles more than lower level management at the the three role groups as follows: 3.267 for in-
.05 level of significance or above. Although three terpersonal roles, 3.320 for informational roles,
roles did not produce significant F values, their and 3.043 for decisional roles. The resulting t-
mean scores for top, middle, and lower level man- tests produce no significant differences at the
agement are as follows: leader role (4.227, 4.120, .05 level for informational over interpersonal
and 4.333), disturbance handler role (3.293, 3.640, roles, significant differences at the .01 level
and 3.427), and resource allocator role (3.360, for informational over decisional roles, and signi-
3.453, and 3.173). ficant differences at the .05 level for informa-
tional roles over the combined grouping of all
The results support Mintzberg's contentions about other roles.
the three functional areas studied. Production
managers have mean scores for the three role groups The three role groups are broken down into indi-
as follows: 3.107 for interpersonal roles, 2.933 vidual roles in Table 3 for managers in each of
for informational roles, and 3.243 for decisional the three functional areas. When the mean ratings
roles. The resulting one tail student t-tests for of each role are compared between the three func-
dependent means shown in Table 2 produce no signi- tional areas and put in rank order, production
ficant differences at the .05 level for decisional managers rank first, or highest, for the leader.
over interpersonal roles, significant differences
187
 TABLE 3
TABLE 4
Breakdowns of Che Three Role Groups into Individual Role Means
and Role Rankings between the Three Functional Areas Mean Ratings and Rankings of the Ten Managerial Roles
for Managers ln Nine Sampling Cells
Production Sales
Managers Managers Production
Managers
Mean Ranking Mean Ranking Mean Ranking
Rating Rank Rating Rank Rating Rank
Interpersonal Roles 3.a 3 3.54 1 3.27 2 Top Management

Figurehead Role 1.77 2.76 1 1.85 2 Figurehead 2.28 10 2.84 9 2.20

Leader Role 4.36 4.20 2 4.12 3 Leader 4.32 1 4.24 1 4.12
Liaison Role 3.17 3.65 2 3.83 1 Liaison 3.76 2 3.76 2(tie) 3.92
Monitor 3.44 3.52 4 3.60
Infonnatlonal Roles 2.93 3.30 3.32 Disseminator 3.32 3.36 5 3.64
Spokesman 3.60 3.28 6(tie) 3.40
Monitor Role 3.07 3.37 3.48 Entrepreneur 3.64 3.76 2(tie) 3.56
Disseminator Role 2.91 3.31 3.35 Disturbance Handler 3.56 3.28 6(tle) 3.04
Spokesman Role 2.83 3.23 3.13 Resource Allocator 3.68 3.16 8 3.24
Negotiator 2.84 2.56 10 2.76
Decisional Roles 3.24 3.16 3.04
Middle Management
Entrepreneur Role 3.16 3.27 3.05
Disturbance Handler Role 3.77 3.20 Figurehead 1.80 10 2.68 10 2.00 10
Resource Allocator Role 3.52 3.36 Leader 4.28 1 4.12 1 3.96 2
Negotiator Role 2.52 2.88 2.56 Liaison 3.00 7 3.44 3 4.04 1
Monitor 3.20 4 3.12 9 3.76 3
Disseminator 2.88 8 3.24 7(tie) 3.32 7
Spokesman 3.08 5{tie) 3.36 3.44 4(tie)
disturbance handler, and resource allocator roles. 3.08 5(tie) 3.16 8
Entrepreneur 3.24 7(tie)
Conversely, production managers rank third, or Disturbance Handler 4.08 2 3.48 2 3.36 6
lowest, for the figurehead, liaison, monitor, dis- Resource Allocator 3.60 3 3.32 5(tie) 3.44 4(tle)
Negotiator 2.72 9 3.32 5(tle) 2.76 9
seminator, spokesman, and negotiator roles. Sales
managers rank first for the figurehead, spokesman, Lower Level Management
entrepreneur, and negotiator roles while ranking
third for only the resource allocator role. Ac- Figurehead 1.28 10 2.76 9(tle) 1.36 10
Leader 4.48 1 4.24 1 4.28 I
counting managers rank first for the liaison, moni- Liaison 2.76 4(tie) 3.76 2 3.52 2
tor, and disseminator roles and rank third for the Monitor. 2.56 6 3.48 3 3.08 5(tie)
leader, entrepreneur, and disturbance handler roles. Disseminator 2.52 7 3.32 5 3.08 5(tie)
Spokesman 1.80 9 3.04 6 2.56 7
Entrepreneur 2.76 4(tie) 2.80 8 2.44 8
The mean ratings and rankings of the ten managerial Disturbance Handler 3.68 2 3.40 4 3.20 4
Resource Allocator 3.28 3 2.84 7 3.40 3
roles are shown in Table 4 for managers in the nine 2.76 2.16 9
Negotiator 2.00 8 9(tle)
matrix cells. The 50.8 X^ value from the Median
test is significant at the .001 level and confirms
that the ratings of the various managerial roles DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
differ significantly within each of the sampling
cells. The .6949 W value from Kendall's coeffi-
cient of concordance shows that the rankings of The Manager's level in the hierarchy has a strong
the ten managerial roles tend to agree across the effect on the extent managerial roles are required.
nine sampling cells at the .01 significance level. Six managerial roles — two interpersonal roles,
The rank order and means of the ten managerial all three informational roles, and one decisional
roles for the overall sample are as follows: (1) role — are required to a greater extent as one
leader role (4.227), (2) liaison role (3.551), (3) moves up the hierarchy. Thus top management re-
disturbance handler role (3.453), (4) resource quire these roles more than middle management and
allocator role (3.329), (5) monitor role (3.307), middle management require them more than lower
(6) disseminator role (3.187), (7) entrepreneur level management. It is interesting to note that
role (3.160), (8) spokesman role (3.062), (9) no roles are required to a lesser extent as one
negotiator role (2.653), and (10) figurehead role moves up the managerial hierarchy. Thus it appears
(2.133). The rankings within each matrix cell that these various roles become increasingly more
show that the leader role is ranked first in eight important as the manager becomes further removed
cells and second in the other one. The Wilcoxen from the nonmanagerial employees in the organiza-
test shows that the leader role is ranked signifi- tion. Conversely, no significant overall differ-
cantly higher than all other roles at the .05 level ences exist in the extent that top, middle, and
or above. The liaison role mean is ranked second lower level management require the leader, disturb-
in the overall sample and the Wilcoxen test shows ance handler, and resource allocator roles.
that it is ranked significantly higher than the
bottom six roles at the .05 level or above. It is The manager's functional area also has a strong
not, however, ranked significantly different from effect on the extent Mintzberg's three role groups
the disturbance handler or resource allocator are required. The fact that production managers
roles. require decisional roles to the greatest extent,
sales managers require interpersonal roles to the
greatest extent, and accounting managers require
informational roles to the greatest extent when
compared to all other roles combined is sufficient
evidence. This verifies Mintzberg's contentions

188
and supports the few empirical studies cited ear-
lier. The functional area clearly has the major
effect on the manager's job that has been specu-
lated.
The leader role emerges as the one universally re-
quired managerial role for managers at various
levels in the hierarchy and in different functional
areas. Since the nature of managing involves
getting work done through other people, namely sub-
ordinates, it is logical that this role would be
required to a fairly high extent by all managers.
Similarly, since managers are called upon to coor-
dinate their functional area's work with other
various organizational units, it is understandable
that the liaison role might appear as the second
highest required managerial role. The high ranking
of the disturbance handler role, which is closely
behind the liaison role, is likewise expected due
to the brevity, variety, and fragmentation that
Mintzberg points out is inherent in managerial
work.
The strong effect that these two job related con-
tingency variables have on the manager's job is
supported by this empirical study of managers'
jobs. Other research is urgently needed to exam-
ine the effect that other environmental, organi-
zational, and personal contingency variables have
on the manager's job. The contingency approach to
management can really provide useful information
to practicing managers by tieing it directly to
the manager's job. In addition, effort is also
needed in executive education programs to help
managers become more effective in performing those
managerial roles which research has shown to be
most critical in their specific jobs. Both of
these proposed directions should enable the aca-
demic world to more effectively understand the
realities and complexities of managerial work.
7. Katz, R.L. "Skills of an Effective Adminis-
trator," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 33,
No. 1 ((1955), 33-42.
8. Kotler, P. Marketing Management: Analysis,
Planning and Control (Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1976).
9. Mintzberg, H. The Nature of Managerial Work
(New York: Harper & Row, 1973).
10. Nie, N.H., C.H. Hull, J.G. Jenkins, K. Stein-
brenner, and D.H. Bent. Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Co., 1975).
11. Pheysey, D.C. "Activities of Middle Managers
A Training Guide," The Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1972), 158-171.
12. Sayles, L.R. Managerial Behavior: Administra-
tion in Complex Organizations (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 196A).
13. Steiner, G.A. Top Management Planning (New
York: Macmillan Co., 1969).
14. Stewart, R. Managers and their Jobs (London:
Macmillan, 1967).
15. Stewart, R. Contrasts in Management (London:
McGraw-Hill, 1976).
16. Walker, C.R., R.H. Guest, and A.N. Turner.
The Foreman on the Assembly Line (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956).
17. Weston, J.F. and E.F. Brigham. Essentials of
Managerial Finance (Hinsdale, 111.: Dryden
Press, 1977).

REFERENCES

1. Aguilar, F.J. Scanning the Business Environ-

ment (New York: Macmillan Company, 1967).

2. Buffa, E.S. M o d e m Production Management:

Managing the Operations (Santa Barbara, Calif.:
Wiley Hamilton, 1977).

3. B u m s , T. "Management in Action," Operations

Research Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1957),
45-60.

4. Davis, R.T. Performance and Development of

Field Sales Managers (Boston: Harvard Business
School, Division of Research, 1957).

5. Fayol, H. General and Industrial Management

(Paris: Dunod, 1916).

6. Hemphill, J.K. Dimensions of Executive Posi-

tions (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University,
Bureau of Business Research, Research Mono-
graph Number 98, 1960).

189