The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1751-1348.htm

JMH 14,4

A product of “his” time? Exploring the construct of the ideal manager in the Cold War era

386

Patricia Genoe McLaren and Albert J. Mills Department of Management, Sobey School of Business, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Canada Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the idea that the ideal manager is a social construct that is a product of the context within which it exists. The context chosen to illustrate this idea is that of the first two decades of the Cold War (1945-1965) in the USA. Design/methodology/approach – The methodology used is an analysis of 17 management textbooks published between 1945 and 1965 in the USA. Findings – The analysis of the textbooks shows a typification of the ideal manager as an educated male who wielded authority effectively and accepted social responsibility. These four characteristics can all be tied to the social and political context of the early Cold War years. Research limitations/implications – Limited by its focus on management theory in the USA during the early Cold War era, and a selection of textbooks based on available resources. Future research could analyze the ideal manager construct during social and political contexts other than the Cold War, and across other social formations (e.g. the UK, Canada, France, etc.). Practical implications – Practical implications apply to both organizations and academic institutions. Management educators should be attempting to use textbooks that present management theory in a problematic way and organizations should be aware of the impact of social and political context on the construct of the manager in order to determine the qualities and characteristics that are most needed today. Originality/value – The paper looks at the ideal manager as a social construct, rather than an ideal that was created void of outside influence and assumed to be ideal for all contexts. It also uses the context of the Cold War period, which has been a neglected context in management research. Keywords Managers, Management theory, Books, Historical periods Paper type Research paper

Introduction The efficient manager is an enterprise possession whose value is incalculable. He can make even poor organization structures operate effectively; his vision of objectives to be attained is often a substitute for more formal planning and control; he unerringly selects and develops competent subordinate managers; he is an inspiration to all employees; he can and does carry the weak and mediocre managers; and in the meantime he takes pains to ease his burdens by improving the quality of professional management within the firm as far as his efforts can reach. This kind of manager makes the difference between a brilliantly successful firm and a desultory enterprise about to expire (Koontz and O’Donnell, 1964, p. 395). Journal of Management History Vol. 14 No. 4, 2008 pp. 386-403 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1751-1348 DOI 10.1108/17511340810893126

As the opening quote so vividly demonstrates, the expectations placed on an individual filling a managerial role in an organization can be high. The ideal manager may be expected to possess a large range of complex knowledge, skills, and abilities and be capable of applying them effectively in a variety of situations. Likewise, the influence

of a manager on an organization’s success, or lack thereof, may be deemed significant (Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955). Yet, for all the acknowledged importance of the position itself, the image of the manager that individuals aspire to has been accepted as the ideal with relatively little questioning on the part of both managers and the organizations for which they work. The overriding assumption seems to be that the concept of the ideal manager was created void of outside influence, and therefore is universally applicable to all organizations in all times (Mills and Helms Hatfield, 1998). In reality the ideal manager is a social construct that is a product of the political and social contexts of the time in which it was developed and formalized (Kelley et al., 2006). Ignoring the historical socially constructed aspects of the role places us in danger of accepting, and expecting, characteristics whose importance and effectiveness are tied firmly to the environment in which they were originally recognized, and hold no useful, or even a detrimental, role in the context of the present and the future (Wren, 2005). As a social construct heavily influenced by its political and social contexts, the notion of the ideal manager is continuously redefined as the context in which it exists changes. Through an analysis of the ideal manager as it existed within a particular context, and how that existence differed from an earlier context, we can reveal both its socially constructed nature and the socio-political influence of the context itself. For a dramatic illustration of this point, we have chosen the Cold War, a critical, yet oft-neglected, period during which we saw, as predicted by Burnham (1941), the formalization of management as a science and the formal definition of the managerial role (Kelley et al., 2006; Robin, 2001). While its influence was overarching, the effect of the Cold War had been largely ignored within the management and organizational theory literature until recently (Cooke, 1999; Cooke et al., 2005; Grant and Mills, 2006; Kelley et al., 2006; Mills and Helms Hatfield, 1998; Mills et al., 2002). This pervasive and forming influence provides us with a unique opportunity to analyze the ideal manager with a fresh perspective. Prior to the World War II, the sheer fact that a man, and it was always a man, had risen to a managerial position proclaimed his superiority (Bendix, 1974). Achieving the role of manager was considered a testament to a man’s endowed leadership traits (Terry, 1956) and his survival of the trials of earlier positions (Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955). Management itself was neither a science nor a discipline, and training and development specifically for managers was unheard of (Bendix, 1974; Mee, 1951; Terry, 1956). During and following the World War II, a number of factors coincided to play integral roles in the development of management as a science (Burnham, 1941; Drucker, 1993; Robin, 2001), and as an extension the formalization of the managerial role. Some of these, such as the mass production and supply required in support of the World War II, the Marshall Plan, and the development of post-war economies (Drucker, 1973; Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955; Wren, 2005), the rise of human relations as the answer to all of an organization’s problems with its workers (Whyte, 1959), and the gradual yet short-lived acceptance of the labour union during the years of the Great Depression (Rachleff, 1998) have been widely recognized as key contributors. An all-encompassing element of life following the World War II (Whitaker and Hewitt, 2003), the Cold War, however, seems to have been both purposely and unconsciously ignored in the analysis of both management as a discipline and the development of the manager (Cooke, 1999; Cooke et al., 2005; Mills and Helms Hatfield, 1998; Mills et al., 2002). It is the impact of the Cold War on the development of the manager that will be the focus of this paper.

Ideal manager in the Cold War era

387

JMH 14,4

388

The main source of information about the typification (Berger and Luckmann, 1967) of the ideal manager to be studied in this paper will be 17 management textbooks, where we have defined a textbook as a resource book that draws on and disseminates research in the relevant field for the purposes of classroom teaching (Table I). Drawing from available sources, these textbooks were written by business academics who had an influence on the field during the first two crucial decades of the Cold War era (1945-1965). The textbooks analyzed were all American which, while creating a US-centric perspective, does fall in line with the development of management theory within the USA and the influence of the American textbooks across the world. Authors include leading management theorists such as Drucker (1954) and McGregor (1960), and presidents of the Academy of Management (AoM), including Robert Brecht (Wylie and Brecht, 1954), Brown (1953) – AoM President, 1957; Davis, K. (1957, Davis and Scott, 1959) – AoM President, 1964; Davis, R.C. (1957, Davis and Filley, 1963) – AoM President, 1948; Folts (1954) – AoM President, 1953; Jamison (1956) – AoM Founder and President 1936-1940; Mike Jucius (Jucius and Terry, 1961) – AoM President, 1960; Harold Koontz (Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955) – AoM President, 1963; McFarland (1964) – AoM President, 1965; Mee (1951) – AoM President, 1952; Newman (1961) – AoM President, 1951; Jack Spriegel (Spriegel and Landsburgh, 1950) – AoM President, 1954; and Terry (1956) – AoM President, 1961. These textbooks acted as both a formal repository of the newly created social construct, and contributed to the development of the social construct itself as they assumed a fundamental role in the education of future managers (Mills and Helms Hatfield, 1998). Analysis of the textbooks in conjunction with the prolific amounts of research conducted on social and political aspects of the Cold War will allow us to assess the impact of the Cold War on the social construct of the ideal manager. The ideal manager The social construct of the ideal manager holds a powerful thrall over organizations and the management profession. The particular typification being analyzed in this paper Brown (1953) Davis, K. (1957) Davis and Scott (1959) Davis, R.C. (1957) Davis and Filley (1963) Drucker (1954) Folts (1954) Jamison (1956) Jucius and Terry (1961) Koontz and O’Donnell (1955) McFarland (1964) McGregor (1960) Mee (1951) Newman (1961)

Table I. List of analyzed textbooks

Spriegel and Landsburgh (1950) Terry (1956) Wylie and Brecht (1954)

The Armor of Organization Human Relations in Business Readings in Human Relations Industrial Organization and Management Principles of Management The Practice of Management Introduction to Industrial Management Business Policy Introduction to Business Principles of Management: An Analysis of Managerial Functions Management: Principles and Practices The Human Side of Enterprise Personnel Handbook Administrative Action: The Techniques of Organization and Management Industrial Management Principles of Management Office Organization and Management

was constructed during the management boom that swept the world following the World War II and continued into the 1960s (Drucker, 1973). During this time, the manager was gaining prominence as playing a crucial, skilled, and complex role in the process of production, and holding a dominant position in major economic, social, and political institutions – a dominance that had previously belonged to owners. Burnham (1941) explains this movement of the manager into the dominant class by positing that those who control access to, and preferential treatment in the distribution of, an object own that object in fact, regardless of whether or not they own it in theory or words. By dint of their increasingly powerful roles within the organization, managers were gaining in their control over access, thereby also assuming ownership of corporate assets. The image of the ideal manager that emerged from the formalization of both management as a science and the managerial role was that of an educated (Bendix, 1974) male (Mills and Helms Hatfield, 1998; Runte and Mills, 2006) specially trained in a variety of complex and uncommon skills (Bendix, 1974). These skills included, but were not limited to, effective decision-making, organizing, planning, control, building and maintaining morale, and written and verbal communication (Davis, R.C., 1957; Folts, 1954; Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955; Terry, 1956; Wylie and Brecht, 1954). The ideal manager understood both the types and limits of authority, and was capable of using authority effectively to achieve great results from his subordinates (Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955; Terry, 1956). Willingly accepting, indeed even desiring (Terry, 1956), the responsibility that automatically comes with authority, the ideal manager assumed responsibility to subordinates, owners, the community, consumers, society, and the management profession (Drucker, 1954; McFarland, 1964). Critical to being a successful manager was being a leader in order to bring people together for joint performance (Drucker, 1954; Folts, 1954; Jamison, 1956; Terry, 1956). A manager could be found in a number of positions within the structure of an organization, including low-level manager, or supervisor, mid-level manager, and executive. The position did have an impact on the relative importance of the various characteristics expected. All managers, however, were expected to achieve coordination between people in order to accomplish harmonious enterprise activity and synchronized effort (Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955). The Cold War The hazards in planning in a cold-war economy grew out of the instability and rapid rate of change in the situation. These conditions are not due entirely to the cold war. Technological progress would continue, for example, if the war ended tomorrow, but probably at a reduced rate temporarily. The fact must be faced, however, that Russia has had the advantage in the cold war to date. It is a principle of any planning anywhere that bold use of the initiative reduces the planning of the opposition to the level of expediency. The advantage of the initiative can only be overcome by taking the offensive. It is quite possible that this fact may dominate our business thinking during the years that are immediately ahead (Davis, 1952, p. 5-6).

The Cold War was a long, complex, and overarching event, and a full discussion and analysis of its history and effects on the political and social context of the time is beyond the scope of this paper. For a basic introduction, we will use the term the Cold War as referring to the:

Ideal manager in the Cold War era

389

JMH 14,4

390

[. . .] historical period when there was a state of hostility between the USA (and its allies) and the Soviet Union (and its allies) manifest in economic and political conflict and subversion, and in military action involving surrogates, but that stopped just short of “hot war” or direct military conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union (Bullock and Stallybrass, 1979, cited in Cooke et al., 2005, p. 3; Booker, 2001; Bothwell, 1998; Gaddis, 1972).

Although precise years vary, general consensus has the Cold War enduring for more than four decades, from the end of the World War II in 1945, to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 (Whitaker and Hewitt, 2003), and consisting of two key dimensions, foreign policy and internal security measures (Mills et al., 2002). The typification of the ideal manager being studied in this paper is that which was constructed during the internal Cold War in the USA in the years following the World War II and ending in 1965. The years in question revolve mainly around the Red scare and McCarthyism, when fear of communism was built by the government into a nation-wide phenomenon. American officials were convinced of the Soviet Union’s commitment to overthrow capitalism throughout the world. Determined to avoid mistakes made following the World War I when Germany was not completely disarmed, the government was going to do whatever it took to save the American way of life (Gaddis, 1972). On the home front, citizens were expected to play their part in stopping the spread of communism by expressing and celebrating “Americanism” through their entire way of life and informing on their friends, neighbours, and family who seemed in any way subversive (Whitfield, 1991). The ideal manager as a product of “his” times Today’s business manager does not necessarily contribute directly to the financial resources of the company but brings rather the trained skills and genius, if you please, needed in the organization and operation of a business concern (Girdler, 1948, p. 2).

Many factors came into play in the typification of the ideal manager that was constructed during the internal Cold War years. The depression years of the 1930s were the beginning of the end for the common wisdom that successful managers were born, not made, and that executives could do no wrong. Followed immediately by the need to support the military during the World War II, it was quickly becoming clear that effective management required specialized knowledge, skills, and training. One of the consequences of the emergence of management as a discipline was the formalization of the managerial role, and the understanding of the necessity of training future managers in the complex and uncommon skills required to be successful (Bendix, 1974). Much of management practice and theory has come directly from the military (Brown, 1953; Drucker, 1954; McFarland, 1964), and following the World War II most management positions were staffed by ex-military officers. The military was also responsible for a substantial amount of research conducted on leadership, decision making, planning, and organization, research that was subsequently adopted by organizations in their search for answers. Thus, the roots of the more specialized and standardized managerial role can be traced back to the role of the officer in the military. Immediately prior to the World War II we saw the advent of the human relations school of thought, when supervisors and executives were encouraged to consider their workers as human beings, and were assured that by doing so they would resolve all the problems of conflict and misunderstanding (Whyte, 1959). Human relations made

significant advances in both the theory and practice of management (McFarland, 1964), and industrial psychologists and managerial experts were hired to bring the new ‘knowledge’ into the organizations (Bendix, 1974). Management textbooks explicitly state the importance of human relations when performing managerial duties, and many also include chapters on motivation, morale, attitudes, individuals, and human relations itself (Drucker, 1954; Jucius and Terry, 1961; McFarland, 1964; Mee, 1951; Spriegel and Landsburgh, 1950; Terry, 1956). This emphasis on the attitudes and feelings of employees undermined the absolute authority of managers (Bendix, 1974) and increased the complexity of the skills required to be an effective manager. The reaction of North America and Western Europe to the Cold War evoked a widespread emphasis on masculinity (Cuordileone, 2000), fear of collectivism and communism (Schrecker, 1994), and a strong defense of capitalism and the American way (Robin, 2001). Each of these collective feelings had an impact on the way in which the ideal manager was constructed. Their impact was felt in strength on four particular characteristics of the ideal manager; gender, education, authority, and social responsibility. It is on these four characteristics that we will focus our analysis. Gender Supervision of women. Perhaps, the great human relations difference with women employees is that they generally seem to prefer a slightly different type of supervision. Some of the reasons are their psychological make-up, their physical differences, their lack of business background, and their interests. Women are less interested in the work itself and more interested in the quality of their supervision and good relations with their co-workers [. . .] Many women are willing to attach themselves to a pleasant work situation and not seek advancement because they do not want to risk losing their pleasant social working conditions (Davis, K., 1957, pp. 409-10).

The management textbooks analyzed for the purpose of this paper refer to the manager exclusively as male in both the use of pronouns he, his, and him and the sole use of men as managers in examples (Drucker, 1954; Jucius and Terry, 1961; Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955; McFarland, 1964; Mee, 1951; Newman, 1961; Spriegel and Landsburgh, 1950; Terry, 1956). The one exception is Davis, K. (1957) who, while arguing for the development of women managers, contends that women are in many ways unsuited to managerial positions (see above quote). Likewise, a selection of articles about managers in management journals from the same timeframe describe their subjects solely as men (Cheit, 1964; Crotty, 1971; Katz, 1955). In their analysis of 37 texts written by AoM presidents, Grant and Mills (2006) found women to be either completely ignored or discussed only in terms of limited workplace roles, and Mills and Helms Hatfield (1998) found that the overwhelming majority of 107 management texts had little or nothing to say about women or gender. While the exclusive use of male pronouns was the writing convention of the time unless referring explicitly to women, this gendered use of language in and of itself contributed to the exclusion of women from management roles as language both creates and reflects our reality (Shaw and Lee, 2004). Koontz and O’Donnell (1955) refer to the practice that some organizations used at the time of interviewing the wife of a managerial candidate, thereby reaffirming the fact that the candidate himself would be a man. Terry (1964, p. 772) discusses the lack of importance of job security for office employees who, being mostly young women, will only be planning on working for two years before “marriage and the devoting of

Ideal manager in the Cold War era

391

JMH 14,4

392

her time to a home”. If young women will only be working for two years they will obviously not be heading into any management roles. Indeed, women were often characterized as “filling in” while waiting for marriage: Most departments are staffed with secondary service employees, particularly those engaged in typing, calculating, and filing [. . .] Fill-in tasks, odd jobs, and miscellaneous work must [. . .] be used to “keep the girls busy”. Much of the fill-in work produces no value (Wylie and Brecht, 1954, p. 45).

The fact that the ideal manager was assumed to be a man may seem obvious to some, considering the fact that prior to the World War II few women held positions of authority within organizations (Granatstein and Morton, 2003). The World War II was, however, an expansive period for women’s employment, as women successfully filled the jobs that their husbands, boyfriends, fathers, brothers, and sons had left behind. At the end of the war, they were left with cautious optimism that they had gained a more powerful place in the economy (Horowitz, 1998), and the notion of a female manager should not have been absurd. Their successes as employees combined with their positions in the labour unions had started them on the path to greater responsibility within organizations. A combination of the post-war struggles of men attempting to reintegrate themselves into society, the masculinity crisis of the Cold War (Cuordileone, 2000), and the view of women’s activism as subversive, however, resulted in women being entrenched more firmly than ever into their role as homemaker (Runte and Mills, 2006). The return home of the men from fighting in the World War II was a difficult time for both the men who had fought and the women to whom they returned. Men found it difficult to reintegrate themselves into post-war life, and were told that their success depended on their wives becoming submissive to their needs (Rosenberg, 1994). Memories of the depression of the 1930s were still fresh, and the fear that there were not enough jobs for everyone had government exhorting women to return home in order to ensure enough jobs for the men (Booker, 2001). Women were told that the work they had so successfully carried out during the war had been but a temporary extension of their domestic duties, as the “real work” and the men had moved to the warfront, and that they were now to return to their domestic duties of raising their children and keeping their home (Runte and Mills, 2006). At the same time, gender ideals began to play a role in the war against communism, as the picture of the stereotypical communist painted for the average North American citizen was that of a weak, sissified liberal wanting to be subjugated. Parents lived in fear that a son would become a “sissie” (Whitfield, 1991), and even as the visibility of homosexuals increased, so to did acts of bigotry and discrimination against them, especially in employment (Cuordileone, 2000). In response to the supposed devious and weak feminine attributes of the communist, and to solve the problems of post-war integration, it was argued that North American men needed to be strong in their masculinity, autonomy, and authority (Rosenberg, 1994). Cold War battles, protecting democracy by ensuring the continuation of capitalism, were fought in the boardroom, and there was no place for women in the battle (Runte and Mills, 2006). The women were expected to provide selfless support for their men, through which they would become the “bedrock of the new American family” (Runte and Mills, 2006, p. 704), create social stability (Rosenberg, 1994), and “restore value, integrity, and wholeness to American life” (Horowitz, 1998, p. 124).

During the World War II, labour unions had started implementing policies in favour of women, and women’s activism had become strong and had seen some successes. Women’s activism was dealt two blows during the early Cold War years. The economic prosperity following the war increased the number of middle-class families, with the husband’s salary enough for a house in the suburbs and no financial need for the wife to work. The middle-class women, who had the education and access to financial resources, were physically removed from the fight as they left the cities (Runte and Mills, 2006), leaving behind only those women who needed their jobs to survive, and therefore could take less risks in fighting their employers. McCarthyism also raised great fear of any type of activism, particularly that which was attempting to change such deep-rooted ideologies as the roles of men and women (Runte and Mills, 2006; Whitfield, 1991). Part of the communist ideology was the equality of both men and women, which led individuals involved in women’s activism to be accused of either being communists or having communist sympathies. Labour unions, already in a precarious position due to the high number of communists holding positions of office, turned against women’s activism, as well as other progressive causes. At the same time, as women became aware of the chauvinism of the communist men, radicalism lost some of its appeal (Horowitz, 1998). The final result of the confluence of forces fighting to keep women at home saw it became part of the discourse that men would assume the burdens of responsibility and leadership (Rosenberg, 1994), and that the workplace was masculine (Runte and Mills, 2006). These debates around gender formed a powerful discourse that contributed to the context in which the formal managerial role was solidified as being male. Education If the science of organization did not have its beginnings in military enterprise, that enterprise did, at least, assist at its birth. It is ironic to see a godfather neglecting such a child. It is tragic that so much of the Nation’s weakness should be due to that neglect. These anxieties should justify this inquiry [into effective management skills], as they should justify inquiry by any man who has a stake in the future of the Nation (Brown, 1953, pp. vii-viii).

While many of the management textbooks analyzed emphasize the extreme importance of the training and development of managers and executives (Drucker, 1954; Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955; McFarland, 1964; Mee, 1951; Spriegel and Landsburgh, 1950; Terry, 1956), the simple fact that the management textbooks exist speak to the importance of formal education to the social construct of the ideal manager. Training and development within the organization is discussed in detail. Spriegel and Landsburgh (1950) speak to the importance of training managers, and in fact consider it to be of greater importance than training workers, as executive and supervisory abilities are more scarce than mechanical abilities. Mee (1951) advocates for training for both supervisors and executives in areas of human relations and administrative tools. Terry (1956) sees common sense and normal intelligence as no longer being sufficient to manage modern enterprises. The ensuing popularity and broad influence of the textbooks provides even greater affirmation of the importance of education. This emphasis on the training and development of managers was driven in large part by the magnitude and complexity of the management and logistics required for the production and supply of goods to support the military during the World War II.

Ideal manager in the Cold War era

393

JMH 14,4

394

In response, scholars began attempting to determine how managers could successfully meet their new responsibilities, and it quickly became clear that effective management required specialized knowledge, skills, and training (Bendix, 1974). Leaving behind the common wisdom that a good leader is born, it became accepted that “a leader is both born and made” (Bendix, 1974, p. 299), and this acceptance led to a sharp increase in business school enrolment following the World War II, with business becoming the most popular undergraduate major by 1955 (Cheit, 1985). While the impetus for the education of managers came from events other than the Cold War, the influence of the Cold War on the academic institutions of the time had a strong impact on the type of education the future managers received. The knowledge and skills that the management students attained during their education, which had an extensive impact on the formalization of the managerial role, were largely prescribed by the academic institutions that housed the business schools. The effect of the Cold War on American academic institutions was profound, and while only beginning to be addressed in the management literature (Grant and Mills, 2006; Mills and Helms Hatfield, 1998), the fact that the formative years of management education occurred during the early years of the Cold War had an impact on the resulting curriculum. This curriculum, through both what was taught and the fact that it was being taught, led the students, as future managers, to a particular image towards which they needed to strive in order to become the ideal manager. Some of the management textbooks which were written at the time became foundational texts for decades (Grant and Mills, 2006), thereby deeply enforcing over time the newly created social construct of the ideal manager. The military had a significant impact on the development of training programs for future managers, both in after effects from the World War II, and from the ongoing preparation for battles to be fought in the Cold War. Much research had been carried out during the course of the World War II by behaviouralists specifically for the military in shaping the morale and motivation of recruits. This research continued throughout the Cold War, controlled by an elite group of academics who would approve government funding for those research projects that advanced their own cause, thereby restricting the growth of knowledge to a singular paradigm (Robin, 2001). The behaviouralist knowledge was quickly adopted by organizations, and became part of business school curriculum through the faculty, who were often retired military officers and business executives (Cotton et al., 2001) or, if holding doctorates, came from the behaviouralist schools (Grant and Mills, 2006). The effect of the communist witch hunts were felt on university campuses as early as 1948, when a handful of faculty members at the University of Washington were questioned regarding alleged un-American activities after being required to sign a loyalty oath. The years 1952 to 1954 saw the bulk of the academic purges, after more glamorous targets such as politicians and celebrities had been pursued. Although dismissal was not an automatic result of a congressional hearing, academic hearings usually followed. Close to a 100 academics lost their jobs due to McCarthyism, and it is suspected that several 100 more were eased out. Fear for their careers led professors away from anything that might be construed as controversial (Schrecker, 1994), which in turn gave the Cold War a direct role in determining the legitimacy of the universities (Mills and Helms Hatfield, 1998). In some cases, the government used direct influence to rid the universities of communists and subversives, in others the universities

themselves undertook the process in an attempt to demonstrate their educational legitimacy (Mills and Helms Hatfield, 1998). The Cold War also played a role in the narrowly defined legitimacy of management curriculum. As the internal Cold War revolved around the defense of capitalism and the American way, free enterprise, business, and organizational power and control were not to be questioned (Mills and Helms Hatfield, 1998). The management curriculum became strictly tied to a managerialist perspective (Burrell and Morgan, 1979) and was narrowed to that deemed by the faculty as safe in an attempt to avoid accusations of communism (Schrecker, 1994). This generally involved practical applications of the behaviouralist research being conducted for the government, and anything that could be obviously tied to managing a successful capitalist organization. Graduating students were managerialist and functionalist, characteristics which to a large part remain in the current typification of the ideal manager. Authority Many employees find themselves more comfortable in the presence of strong and definite authority than in the absence of it. Acceptance by individuals of prescribed authority in an organization conserves their time, energy, and efforts. If they respond readily to the wishes of authority, they need not think, plan, or worry unduly about the reasons for the action. Some individuals may even derive a sense of security from the presence of an authority by which questions are answered and decisions are made (McFarland, 1964, p. 290).

In terms of authority, the notion of the manager underwent several changes from the end of World War I (Taylorism and scientific management), through the interwar period (the Hawthorne Studies and the beginning of human relations), to the progress of the Cold War (the development and growth of the human relations school). At the onset of management theory the manager was viewed as a figure of authority, virtually indistinguishable from the role he (sic) occupied. The authority of the manager was beyond question; the manager was the authority. The only issue was how that authority was to be exercised (e.g. through job design as in Taylor’s approach). Challenges to that authority were seen as illegitimate. Unions were viewed as anything from radical intrusions (Bendix, 1974; Braverman, 1974) through to unnecessary aberrations (Taylor, 1911) in the workplace. Prior to the advent of the human relations school of thought, organizations held a common assumption that managers wielded absolute authority over their subordinates purely through their position in the organizational hierarchy (McGregor, 1960). The Hawthorne Studies of the 1920s and 1930s, however, introduced the concept that a worker is a human being even when he or she is at work (Daya, 1959). With this, the seeds of a “human relations” approach to management began, and it was believed that “if only this message could be brought home to supervisors and executives in industry, the problems of conflict and misunderstanding could be resolved” (Whyte, 1959, p. 3). The consideration of employees as individuals, with unique attitudes, feelings, and motivators, led managers to question the basis of their own authority (Bendix, 1974). This re-evaluation of the manager’s role was also influenced by the rapid growth of the professional manager across industrial nations, including the Soviet Union (Burnham, 1941), and the changing character of trade unions in the USA. The latter stages of the Hawthorne Studies took place against the political background of the New Deal era, which saw crucial changes in the growth, development,

Ideal manager in the Cold War era

395

JMH 14,4

396

and legal standing of trade unions. While labour unions had been in existence in North America since the late eighteenth century, they were not able to gain significant momentum until the Great Depression and the New Deal changed their favour in the eyes of the federal government. The 1930s saw the passing of a series of acts, including the Norris-La Guardia Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act, and the National Labor Relations Act, which gave employees the right to organize and required employers to bargain collectively with employee representatives (Jucius and Terry, 1961). These realities encouraged thoughts of a new co-operative style of management based more on leadership and interpersonal skills than on the simple exercise of authority, and the basis for that argument was being laid by the work of Kurt Lewin and his colleagues (Lewin et al., 1939) at the approach of the World War II. Despite the military atmosphere of the times, the onset of the World War II continued the encouragement of research into more cooperative and leadership styles of managing, the fruits of which began to show in the early post-war era with calls for managers to develop and exercise leadership (Girdler, 1948; Stogdill, 1948) and participatory skills (Coch and French, 1948). As the Cold War developed and progressed the notion of the manager was recast as someone who led through a combination of leadership skills, authority position, and the needs (and shortcomings) of subordinates – characteristics that are exemplified in the section’s opening quote by McFarland (1964). In the textbooks of the time the notion of the manager as someone responsible for other people was never far from the surface. As we shall see below, however, this responsibility was often viewed as part of a broader responsibility to act as an organic leader (Gramsci, 1978) in the struggle against communism: elements of this approach can be seen in the quote by Brown (1953) above but also in the various writings and speeches of leading management theorists of the day (Grant and Mills, 2006). Thus, if we define a manager as one who is responsible for other people, a commonly accepted definition of the 1950s, the implicit importance of authority becomes clear when considering Drucker’s (1973, p. 347) comment, “Whoever claims authority thereby assumes responsibility. But whoever assumes responsibility thereby claims authority”. Authority and responsibility go hand in hand, and the ability of a manager to act authoritatively was widely viewed as an important, if not the most important (Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955), characteristic of the ideal manager by the management textbooks (Davis, R.C., 1957; Drucker, 1954; McFarland, 1964; Newman, 1961; Terry, 1956). When an individual assumes a leadership role within an organization through a promotion into a management position, authority is conferred onto him by his superiors (Wren, 2005). In the words of Newman (1961, p. 43): Man has always resorted to power to support authority. By selectively granting rewards or inflicting penalties, he has maintained obedience. This time-honored practice continues to be pervasive in our society – in homes, schools, government, and in business enterprises. A manager should, therefore, understand both the use and limitation of power.

The early years of the Cold War returned some of the absolute authority to managers that had been lost during the 1930s and 1940s. The Cold War was a battle between capitalism and communism, and the strongest proof of capitalist superiority was prosperity and consumption (Whitfield, 1991). Corporations wielded a significant amount of power in this battle, in terms of control of economic resources and the role they played in the military-industrial complex (Boyle, 1995). Authority, leadership, and strength were stressed as the first line of defense (Whitfield, 1991). While Americans

were expected to be self-reliant individualists in order to do their part in defeating the communists, they were expected to do so within the framework of corporate leadership (Grant and Mills, 2006). The anticommunist fears of the McCarthy years dealt a huge blow to the labour unions. Seeing an opportunity to regain some of their power over their employees, employers used the communist associations and left-leanings of many of the unions to depict them as subversive and on the side of the enemy (Booker, 2001; Mercier, 1999; Whitaker and Hewitt, 2003). The US Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 which severely curtailed union activities and power, and attempted to eliminate communists from leadership positions by requiring signed official statements that they were not members of the communist party (Schrecker, 1994). Conflict, sometimes violent, between unions arose as noncommunist affiliated brotherhoods were encouraged, and sometimes even explicitly formed, to oust the communists (Fones-Wolf and Fones-Wolf, 2003; Mercier, 1999; Whitaker and Hewitt, 2003). Internal strife occurred as well, as communist officials and left-leaning groups were expelled by the unions themselves, in an effort to appease the government (Boyle, 1998). Employers collaborated with the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) to punish, and legitimate the punishment of, the victims, with a rough estimate of ten thousand people losing their jobs. In several high-profile cases a number of radical activists, including the leadership of the Communist Party, were jailed (Hellman, 1976), as were high-profile writers (McGilligan and Buhle, 1997) and movie professionals (Schrecker, 1994). For companies who did not willingly participate, the government threatened to withdraw lucrative defense contracts (Whitfield, 1991). Once again, workers were at the mercy of their employers, with managers assuming an almost militaristic authority under the mantle of defending their country from the invidious advances of the communists. The progression of the ideal manager from an absolute authoritarian to a skilled leader of his employees was halted by the Cold War. Managers reassumed a strict authority, leaving behind many of the efforts at greater co-operation and democracy heralded by the human relations movement and labour union successes. Some influence did remain, however, with the ideal manager expected to understand that different situations and different subordinates require different applications of authority in order to be effective. In this vein, management textbooks addressed the issue of leadership, its importance in easing the difficulty of a manger’s job, and the fact that for many it is a skill that needs to be learned (Davis, R.C., 1957; Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955; Spriegel and Landsburgh, 1950; Terry, 1956). These textbooks addressed changes in management style with discussions of the limitations of authority (Newman, 1961), the various types of authority (McFarland, 1964) and the situations in which each type is preferred (Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955), and human relations issues such as motivation, morale, individual differences, and communication (Jucius and Terry, 1961; Mee, 1951). Managers were told they must be aware of individual behavioural patterns and understand the individual’s total role of performance in order to best manage their subordinates (Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955). McFarland (1964) outlines one of the major tasks of management as developing and applying the social skills that stimulate cooperation, rather than wielding absolute authority. Mee (1951) stressed the need for executives to apply and understand human relations and listed four characteristics of managers who find this difficult. These characteristics include an extraordinary drive for success that is a

Ideal manager in the Cold War era

397

JMH 14,4

398

defense for feelings of inadequacy; regarding employees as machines; thinking in terms of production and efficiency; and years of experience and success but no longer trying to keep up to date. By the late 1950s and early 1960s the excitement surrounding human relations as the answer to all management problems was starting to wane as the promised perfect work environment failed to materialize (Cooper, 1959; McFarland, 1964; Mee, 1951; Pfiffner and Presthus, 1959; Whyte, 1959). It had become deeply enough embedded in both management curriculum and the social construct of the ideal manager, however, that the concept of authority as a skill requiring intelligence, finesse, and subtlety remained. In other word, the Cold War typification of the ideal manager retained those aspects of the human relations school that allowed them to wield authority more effectively, while eschewing the notions of democracy and individualism that served to legitimize their authority in a context of Cold War threat and anxieties. Social responsibility The need for competence in the management and operation of business affairs is becoming increasingly recognized as an essential for the survival of our system. Under a free enterprise system the power for harm held by the business community is fully as great as the power for good. The social risks presented by the possible range of competence in business leadership is great. Society must have an interest in taking active steps to make sure that the competency be at least adequate for the responsibility held by each individual (Fiske, 1948, p. 2).

The reputation of managers suffered during the 1930s as a result of the depression. While their successes during the war years reaffirmed their prestigious place in American life, the post-war years saw managers taking on the task of filling “an ideological gap between business and society” (Cheit, 1964, p. 4) in a further attempt to repair the damage. In a letter to Keith Davis, Cheit (1966) – the Vice-Chancellor of the University of California (Berkley) – expressed the view that the “greatest deficiency which I saw at the [Academy of Management] conference was the lack of concern by our speakers with government as a source of injustice towards business and its participants”. Evidence of the growing importance being placed on the social responsibility of a manager is clear from the opening quote of this section. In 1954, Drucker notes that the nature of modern business imposes responsibilities on the manager that differ in kind and scope from those in the past as organizations now require both human and material resources to be concentrated in large aggregations. This permanent concentration of resources gives managers power over people, the economy, and society. As a result, it is required of the manager that: [. . .] he assume responsibility for the public good, that he subordinate his actions to an ethical standard of conduct, and that he restrain his self-interest and his authority wherever their exercise would infringe upon the commonweal and upon the freedom of the individual (Drucker, 1954, pp. 382-3).

In a similar vein, Terry (1956) sees a trend towards greater social obligations for managers and both he and McFarland (1964) see executives as having responsibilities to society and the community. They believe that in assuming power over a large amount of society’s economic and social resources, executives also need to accept the responsibility the power entails. Accepting this responsibility allows the executives to sustain the environment in which their organization will succeed. In an effort to be seen as responsible members of society, executives profess and act upon value systems

predominant in society such as honesty, democracy, hard work, and property rights (McFarland, 1964). As expectations concerning the social responsibility of managers grew, so too did the expectation for all citizens to enlist in the Cold War and defend their country against the evils of communism (Whitfield, 1991). The responsibilities of the civilian warriors included proudly living the American dream, avoiding political and activist causes (Schrecker, 1994), informing on their family, friends, neighbours, and co-workers who appeared subversive, and becoming involved in their community, particularly through church activities (Whitfield, 1991). The citizens themselves also began demanding that businesses use their resources and skills towards broader social responsibilities (Hay and Gray, 1974). Managers combined their newfound social responsibility with their Cold War defense by undertaking a campaign to convince the public that the American dream was a result of the free enterprise system, and that the result of their support of collectivism, in the form of labour unions, would be state socialism. Energy and money began to be spent on political efforts, including fringe groups of the ultra-right (Cheit, 1964). Managers also assumed the role of punishing victims of McCarthyism through firings and blacklistings, as the formal authorities were unable to take legal measures against the alleged communists (Whitfield, 1991). Some of the businesses that participated in the firings were coerced by the government through the threat of the withdrawal of lucrative defense contracts (Schrecker, 1994), others cooperated willingly. The Cold War ideology included the belief that communists deserved to be fired (Schrecker, 1994), and the actions of the government in condemning supposed communists, and the corporations in firing them, met with popular approval (Whitfield, 1991). While it is difficult to draw a direct connection between the social responsibility of an individual in his role as a manager, and his responsibility to his country as a citizen, the fact that they were both strongly reinforced within the same political and social context speaks to potential impact on each other. Spector (2006) recently conducted a qualitative analysis of articles published by the Harvard Business Review between the years 1945 and 1960. He found that approximately 10 percent of the articles discussed issues relating to the practice of business within the world context. The dean of the Harvard Business School, Wallace B. Donham, regularly wrote of the importance of businessmen accepting social responsibility as part of their role in the war on communism. Spector (2008) has also written on the roots of corporate social responsibility stemming from the early years of the Cold War as business leaders assumed their positions as leaders in the war on communism. Landau’s (2006) analysis of the Harvard Business Review shows management positioning itself as freedom’s guardian in the Cold War fight against communism. Terry (1956) draws his readers’ attention to the fact that the characteristics of society are reflected within a business by the organizational members, and that the values a manager espouses outside of work, such as honesty and democracy, also have useful effects within the act of managing. In instructions to the would-be ideal manager, Drucker (1954, p. 388) exhorts managers to consider whether an “action is likely to promote the public good, to advance the basic beliefs of our society, to contribute to its stability, strength, and harmony”. Conclusion The role of the manager was formalized during a period of overarching events, including the Great Depression, the World War II, the human relations movement, and

Ideal manager in the Cold War era

399

JMH 14,4

400

the Cold War. The social construct of the ideal manager was continuously changing throughout this period as it reacted to the influences and impacts of the political and social context of each event. Although mostly overlooked or ignored in the management and organizational theory literature to date, we contend that the early years of the internal Cold War created a particular typification of the social construct of the ideal manager unique to the time. The analysis of the management textbooks undertaken for this paper is an initial step in creating awareness of the effect of the Cold War on the social construction of the ideal manager that existed at that time. This leads us to an understanding of the depths of the influence of political and social context on a social construct which many take to be a concrete and tangible object – the ideal manager. Awareness of the socially constructed nature of the ideal manager, a respected and powerful role in society, allows us to understand that the ideal manager is a product of his, or her, times and that the expectations he or she is held to may not reflect the requirements needed for success as times change. Implications of this paper for management researchers include an indication that management theory that is taken to be fact should be analyzed within the context in which it was developed in order to understand the areas where fact may, instead, be a societal and political construct that is no longer valid. As textbooks have become the frontline of a management education, and have changed in only minor ways since they first started being written in the 1920s, management educators need to critically analyze these textbooks and attempt to understand how what is being taught may no longer apply in the social and political context of today. Executives and managers themselves should begin to reassess their expectations of managers and develop a construct of a manager that fits today’s context. References Bendix, R. (1974), Work and Authority in Industry, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1967), The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Anchor Books, New York, NY. Booker, M.K. (2001), Monsters, Mushroom Clouds, and the Cold War: American Science Fiction and the Roots of Postmodernism, 1946-1964, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT. Bothwell, R. (1998), The Big Chill: Canada and the Cold War, Irwin Publishing, Toronto. Boyle, K. (1995), The UAW and the Heyday of American Liberalism, 1945-1968, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Boyle, K. (1998), “Little more than ashes: the UAW and American reform in the 1960s”, in Boyle, K. (Ed.), Organization Labor and American Politics, 1894-1994: The Labor-Liberal Alliance, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY. Braverman, H. (1974), Labor and Monopoly Capital, Monthly Review Press, New York, NY. Brown, A. (1953), The Armor of Organization, Hibbert Printing Co., New York, NY. Bullock, A. and Stallybrass, O. (Eds) (1979), The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, Fontana/Collins, London. Burnham, J. (1941), The Managerial Revolution, Putnam, New York, NY. Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, Heinemann, London. Cheit, E.F. (1964), “Why managers cultivate social responsibility”, California Management Review (pre-1986), Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 3-22.

Cheit, E.F. (1966), Letter to Keith Davis, September 22. Academy of Management Archives. Kheel Center for Labor-management Documentation and Archives, Martin P. Catherwood Library, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Cheit, E.F. (1985), “Business schools and their critics”, California Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 43-62. Coch, L. and French, J.R.P. (1948), “Overcoming resistance to change”, Human Relations, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 512-32. Cooke, B. (1999), “Writing the left out of management theory: the historiography of the management of change”, Organization, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 81-105. Cooke, B., Mills, A.J. and Kelley, E.S. (2005), “Situating Maslow in Cold War America: a recontextualization of management theory”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 129-52. Cooper, J.H. (1959), “The crisis in human relations”, in Davis, K. and Scott, W.G. (Eds), Readings in Human Relations, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Cotton, C.C., Mckenna, J.F., van Auken, S. and Meuter, M.L. (2001), “Action and reaction in the evolution of business school missions”, Management Decision, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 227-32. Crotty, P.T. (1971), “The professional manager of the future”, Management of Personnel Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 4-9. Cuordileone, K.A. (2000), “‘Politics in an age of anxiety’: Cold War political culture and the crisis in American masculinity, 1949-1960”, The Journal of American History, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 515-45. Davis, K. (1957), Human Relations in Business, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Davis, K. and Scott, W.G. (Eds) (1959), Readings in Human Relations, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Davis, R.C. (1952), “Management problems in a Cold War economy”, Proceedings of the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, Academy of Management Archives. Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation and Archives, Martin P. Catherwood Library, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Davis, R.C. (1957), Industrial Organization and Management, Harper & Brothers, New York, NY. Davis, R.C. and Filley, A.C. (1963), Principles of Management, Alexander Hamilton Institute, New York, NY. Daya, E. (1959), “Human relations in industry”, in Davis, K. and Scott, W.G. (Eds), Readings in Human Relations, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Drucker, P.F. (1954), The Practice of Management, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Drucker, P.F. (1973), Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Drucker, P.F. (1993), Post-Capitalist Society, HarperBusiness, New York, NY. Fiske, W.P. (1948), “The challenge of business education”, paper presented at the 1948 Conference of the Academy of Management, Cincinnati, Academy of Management Archives. Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation and Archives, Martin P. Catherwood Library, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Folts, F.E. (1954), Introduction to Industrial Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Fones-Wolf, E. and Fones-Wolf, K. (2003), “Cold War Americanism: business, pageantry, and antiunionism in Weirton, West Virginia”, Business History Review, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 61-92. Gaddis, J.L. (1972), The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941-1947, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.

Ideal manager in the Cold War era

401

JMH 14,4

402

Girdler, T.M. (1948), “Management’s leadership responsibilities”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Cleveland, Ohio, Academy of Management Archives. Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation and Archives, Martin P. Catherwood Library, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Gramsci, A. (1978), The Modern Prince and Other Writings, International Publishers, New York, NY. Granatstein, J.L. and Morton, D. (2003), Canada and the Two World Wars, Key Porter Books Limited, Toronto. Grant, J.D. and Mills, A.J. (2006), “The quiet Americans: formative context, the academy of management leadership, and the management textbook, 1936-1960”, Management & Organizational History, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 201-24. Hay, R. and Gray, E. (1974), “Social responsibilities of business managers”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 135-43. Hellman, L. (1976), Scoundrel Time, Macmillan, London. Horowitz, D. (1998), Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique, University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA. Jamison, C.L. (1956), Business Policy, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Jucius, M.J. and Terry, G.R. (1961), Introduction to Business, R.D. Irwin, Homewood, IL. Katz, R.L. (1955), “Skills of an effective administrator”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 33-42. Kelley, E.S., Mills, A.J. and Cooke, B. (2006), “Management as a Cold War phenomenon?”, Human Relations, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 603-10. Koontz, H. and O’Donnell, C. (1955), Principles of Management: An Analysis of Managerial Functions, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Koontz, H. and O’Donnell, C. (1964), Principles of Management: An Analysis of Managerial Functions, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Landau, O. (2006), “Cold War political culture and the return of systems rationality”, Human Relations, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 637-63. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White, R.K. (1939), “Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created ‘social climates’”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 10, pp. 271-99. McFarland, D.E. (1964), Management: Principles and Practices, Macmillan, New York, NY. McGilligan, P. and Buhle, P. (1997), Tender Comrades, St Martin’s Griffin, New York, NY. McGregor, D. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Mee, J.F. (1951), Personnel Handbook, The Ronald Press Company, New York, NY. Mercier, L. (1999), “‘Instead of fighting the common enemy’: Mine Mill versus the steelworkers in Montana, 1950-1967”, Labor History, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 459-80. Mills, A.J. and Helms Hatfield, J. (1998), “From imperalism to globalization: internationalization and the management text”, in Clegg, S.R., Ibarra, E. and Bueno, L. (Eds), Theories of the Management Process: Making Sense Through Difference, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Mills, A.J., Kelley, E.S. and Cooke, B. (2002), “Management theory in context: exploring the influence of the Cold War”, in Spraakmen, G. (Ed.) Conference Proceedings of the Business History Division of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, Winnpeg, University of Manitoba. Newman, W.H. (1961), Administrative Action: The Techniques of Organization and Management, Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd, London.

Pfiffner, J.M. and Presthus, R.V. (1959), “The role of human relations”, in Davis, K. and Scott, W.G. (Eds), Readings in Human Relations, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Rachleff, P. (1998), “The failure of Minnesota farmer-laborism”, in Boyle, K. (Ed.), Organized Labor and American Politics, 1894-1994: The Labor-Liberal Alliance, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY. Robin, R. (2001), The Making of the Cold War Enemy: Culture and Politics in the Military-Intellectual Complex, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Rosenberg, E.S. (1994), “‘Foreign affairs’ after World War II: connecting sexual and international politics”, Diplomatic History, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 59-70. Runte, M. and Mills, A.J. (2006), “Cold War, chilly climate: exploring the roots of gendered discourse in organization and management theory”, Human Relations, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 695-720. Schrecker, E. (1994), The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents, Bedford Books of St Martin’s Press, Inc., New York, NY. Shaw, S.M. and Lee, J. (2004), Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Spector, B. (2006), “The Harvard Business Review goes to war”, Management & Organizational History, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 273-95. Spector, B. (2008), “‘Business responsibilities in a divided world’: the Cold War roots of the corporate social responsibility movement”, Enterprise and Society, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 314-36. Spriegel, W.R. and Landsburgh, R.H. (1950), Industrial Management, Wiley, New York, NY. Stogdill, R.M. (1948), “Personal factors associated with leadership: a survey of the literature”, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 35-71. Taylor, F.W. (1911), Principles of Scientific Management, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Terry, G.R. (1956), Principles of Management, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL. Terry, G.R. (1964), Principles of Management, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL. Whitaker, R. and Hewitt, S. (2003), Canada and the Cold War, James Lorimer & Company Ltd, Toronto. Whitfield, S.J. (1991), The Culture of the Cold War, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Whyte, W.F. (1959), Man and Organization: Three Problems in Human Relations in Industry, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL. Wren, D.A. (2005), The History of Management Thought, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. Wylie, H.L. and Brecht, R.P. (1954), Office Organization and Management, Prentice-Hall, New York, NY. Corresponding author Patricia Genoe McLaren can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Ideal manager in the Cold War era

403