Information Gathering: The Information Behaviors of Line- Managers Within a Business Environment

Transcription

1 Information Gathering: The Information Behaviors of Line- Managers Within a Business Environment Maureen L. Mackenzie Dowling College, Idle Hour Blvd., Oakdale, New York Ernail: rnackenzrn@dowling.edu. Phone: The information needs faced by managers are not always clear and straightforward. Therefore, the motivation behind a manager s information gathering behavior is not easily defined. In this research study it is suggested that managers have a tendency to seek and accumulate information for which they have no explicit or known need. This tendency to accumulate information enables managers to behave as they do, for example, making rapid decisions, jumping from problem to problem and foregoing the formal information search process that non-managers may follow when seeking to close a gap in knowledge. Three hypotheses will be empirically tested by statistically comparing line managers to non-managers. A questionnaire is used to gather quantitative data on the line-managers perceptions and information behaviors. The results offer some evidence to the difference in behavior between managers and non-managers. Introduction This research study focuses on understanding managers as a unique information user-group. The information needs that managers face are not always straightforward. Therefore, the motivation behind a manager s behavior is not easily defined because the link between the information need and the behavior is not always explicit (Grosser 1991; Katzer & Fletcher 1992). It is suggested in this study that managers will accumulate information whether or not an explicit need for it exists. lks accumulation behavior allows managers to store bits and pieces of information in a cognitive savings account and then draw from the account, avoiding a search for new information, when a need emerges. Th~s information behavior offers an explanation as to how managers are able to effectively navigate a complex business environment. Although individual differences exist (Furnham 1992; Kroeger & Thuesen 1992), it is hypothesized that overall the manager user-group will behave differently than the non-manager user-group. In this study the manager s tendency to seek and accumulate information will be investigated empirically by comparing managers to nonmanagers. Literature Review Management theorists often take a linear approach to explaining information need and resolution (McKenney & Keen 1974), but much of managerial work is not linear. Managers will make rapid decisions, jump from task to task and bypass a formal search for information when problem solving (Mintzberg 1973; Kotter 1982; Lindblom 1959; Brewer & Tomlinson 1964). A manager s gap in knowledge (Dervin & Nilan 1986) is not clear because the need is not defined. Managers often have an ongoing need for information, which is driven by the environment (Katzer & Fletcher 1992). Simon s (1957, 1976) theory of bounded rationality suggests that people will simplify the complex elements of their information environment to make it more manageable. Building upon Simon s work, I suggest that information accumulation allows the manager to establish a savings account of stored knowledge that has been partially digested and simplified. When a decision must be made the manager can make a seemingly rational decision by intuitively drawing from these bits and pieces of stored knowledge. No new information search is needed. This information gathering behavior aligns with the classic research on how managers behave. Mintzberg (1973) characterized the behaviors and information preferences of managers. Managers want the most up-to-date information available and prefer verbal communication to all other. In addition, managers spend a substantial percentage of their time in personal contact with people regardless of the formal chain-of-command. Another manager trait enabled by accumulating information is that managers do not always ask for help when needed. Managers prefer to have the information already under their own control. If the manager asks the boss for feedback, he or she is creating a public act about which the boss could make a variety of inferences (Ashford & Cummings 1983, 390). Personal insecurity may encourage the manager to respond to cues and adjust behavior in order to effectively fit-in - rather than ask for feedback. This behavior is the beginning of the manager s development as an information accumulator. Those managers who are ineffective at monitoring the environment and accumulating information may not be able to acclimate and as result may leave the job or fail. In general, successful managers may be better at accumulating information. ASIST 2002 Contributed Paper 164

2 To summarize, managers will grab and store information that they come in contact with, even though an explicit business-need for the information does not exist. Their need to be in the know suggests that managers do not want to be caught without an on-the- spot alternative to a problem. Line-manager information behavior aligns with the more intuitive approach (Simon 1955, 1957) to decision making rather than a systematic approach (Deming 1986; Crosby 1979, 1984). The intuitive approach recognizes the limits to human rationality, the complexity of the environment, judgmental biases (Bazerman 1994; Tversky and Kahneman 1974, 1981; Kahneman & Tversky 1973, 1979, 1984) and other human factors. Cooperation among managers also plays a large role in influencing how information is accumulated. Luthans, Rosenkrantz and Hennessey (1985) and Luthans (1988) found that the two activities most related to managerial success were (1) interaction with people outside of the organization, and (2) socializing and politicking within the organization. Kotter (1982) found that top managers spend much of their time interacting with people through short conversations, often joking or discussing topics that are unrelated to their role on the job. Managers recognize that the individual situation of each of those cooperating will be improved (Barnard 1968,52). The literature on manager characteristics, bounded Methodology The purpose of this study is to examine the information gathering behaviors of line-managers within a for-profit business environment. The study will include practicing managers and compare their information behaviors to non-managers within the same environment. Hypothesis Formation And Testing Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the independent variable, which is the employee s role in the company (manager and non-manager), and the dependent variable, which is the information behavior. In each of the three relationships being tested the information behavior of line-managers is being compared to non-managers. The difference will be tested for significance. Figure 1: Illustration of Relationships of Interest rationality, decision-making and cooperation, together offer Hwothesis #1: Information accumulation a view of manager behavior that is distinctly different from without an explicit business-related need for the non-managers. information will emerge more often with line-managers My theory suggests that the behavior of than non-managers drawn from the same business information accumulation helps the manager simplify the environment. information complexity of their environment, identify alternatives, make decisions on-the-spot and be perceived as a manager who is well connected and able to work within the inherent time constraints of a business. Hwothesis #2: The information accumulated prior to the emergence of an explicit business need is used more often by line-managers than non-managers to make a decision after a need arises. Hwothesis #3: Line managers have a greater tendency than non-managers to cooperate with other individuals within the information environment. ASIST 2002 Contributed Paper 165

3 Data Collection The data collection instrument is a 25-item questionnaire' designed to capture and score the selfreported perceptions and intentions-to-behave of the managers. Examples of questions pertaining to each of the three hypotheses are included in the appendix. The collected data provided a score for each subject. The individual subject scores were summed and averaged to provide a score for each user-group -- manager and non-manager. The user-group mean scores were used to test the significance of the difference between the two groups for each of the three hypotheses. Pilot Study A pilot study was conducted to test the usability and reliability of the data collection instrument and to develop preliminary statistics that would be used to compute the sample size for the larger study. Undergraduate students from a local business college were invited to complete the questionnaire. The reliability of the instrument was measured using the Cronbach alpha internal consistency method (Carmines & Zeller 1979). The internal reliability of the instrument was when capturing the management responses and A167 when capturing the non-manager responses. Malhotra (1999) suggests a minimum alpha score of.6. The results of the pilot study were also used to calculate the sample size of 52 managers and 52 nonmanagers (Sproull 1995, 125). Subjects The fifty-two managers selected for this study are representative of all the managers within this business unit. The business unit is responsible for the sales operations throughout the state and therefore the majority of the managers are accountable for sales processes and results. The managers in this business unit are classified into primarily two categories: senior leadership team members and frontline managers. firty-eight of the fifty-two managers participating in the study had sales accountabilities. Eight of the thirty-eight sales managers are members of the senior leadership team. The remaining thuty sales managers are frontline managers. The roles of the remaining fourteen managers span the internal departments of personnel, finance, risk management and sales support. The fifty-two non-managers were randomly selected from all departments within the business unit. Procedure A total of 104 employees (52 managers and 52 non-managers) were randomly selected from the staff of one large business unit within a US based corporation. I contacted each subject to invite him or her to participate in the study. Each subject signed an informed consent form. The questionnaire was individually administered and the results collected and compiled. The institutional review board as well as the personnel manager of the host company approved the study. Results The user-group means of the summed scores (manager and non-manager) captured from the questionnaire were used to test each of the three hypotheses. Seven questionnaire items were used to test hypothesis #1, eight items were used to test hypothesis #2 and six items to test hypothesis #3. Selected examples of the questions are included in the appendix. Hypothesis #I - Information Accumulation The mean score of the manager group (42.72) was significantly greater than the non-manager group (33.00) at the p<.01 level [t(98)=6.724] Figure 2 illustrates the responses from the two user-groups. The solid boxes withm figure 2 represents 50% of the response values as well as illustrates the variability of the responses. The horizontal line inside the box represents the data median, which is 42.0 for the manager group and 33.0 for the non-manager group. The lines above and below the box represent the minimum and maximum values reported. 1 Fieure 2: Hwothesis #I - Information Accumula~on 1 1 A complete copy of the data collection instrument may be obtained from the author upon request. ASIST 2002 Contributed Paper 166

4 Hypothesis #2 - Use Of Accumulated Information The mean score of the manager group (42.22) was significantly greater than the non-manager group (38.76) at the p<.05 level [t(98)=2.809]. Figure 3: Hypothesis #2 - Information Use Figure 4 illustrates the median value of 37 for the manager group and 30.0 for the non-manager group. The range of the manager data (26) is once again less than the non-manager data (40) reflecting less variability in manager responses. Do Employee Behaviors Change as Tenure Increases? The last area of investigation is to determine if there is a relationship between on-the-job years of service and the information behaviors of information accumulation (hypothesis #1), information use (hypothesis #2) and cooperation (hypothesis #3). The manager group has an average tenure of years on the job with a range of 2 to 25 years. The non-manager group has an average tenure of years with a range of 1 to 34 years. To test the nature and strength of the relationship between these variables I ran a Pearson correlation (r) for each of the three hypotheses. I ran the correlation three times: first to include all subjects, disregarding the employee role (manager and non-manager), second to include only managers, and third to include only nonmanagers. Figure 3 illustrates the median of 42.0 for the manager group and 38.0 for the non-manager group. The variability of the manager group responses is less than the non-manager responses as measured by the data range (26 versus 28). Hypothesis #3 - Coopei-nrioti The mean score of the manager group (36.54) was significantly greater than the non-manager group (29.92) at the p<.05 level [t(98)=3.986]. Hypothesis #1 - Information Accumulation All subjects (regardless of employee role) Managers only Non-managers only YEARS OF SERVICE (tenure) r = -,272 p-value =,007 n = 98 r = +,058 p-value =,690 n = 50 r = -,289 p-value =,046 n=4r The results of the analysis for hypothesis #1 (table 1) reveal a statistically significant negative relationship between years of service and the behavior of information accumulation for the subjects (regardless of rqle) [at the p<.01 level] as well as for the narrower non-manager group [at the p<.05 level]. For the manager group, there is no evidence to suggest any relationshp between years of service and the behavior of information accumulation. Figure 4: Hypothesis #3 - Cooperation ASlST Contributed Paper 167

5 Table 2: CorreIation between tenure and behavior to use previously accumulated information 1 Hypothesis #2- Use of YEARS OF SERVICE Accumulated Information (tenure) All subjects (regardless of r = -,084 employee role) p-value =,414 n = 98 Managers only r = +,078 U-value =,591 n=50 Non-managers only r U-value =,548 The results of the analysis for hypothesis #2 (table 2) offer no evidence to suggest any relationshp between years of service and the information behavior to use accumulated information once a need, decision opportunity or problem emerges. Hypothesis #3- Cooperation All subjects (regardless of employee role) Managers only Non-managers only YEARS OF SERVICE (tenure) r = -,232 p-value =.021 n = 98 r = -,103 p-value =,477 n = 50 I = -,207 p-value =.158 n=48 The results of the analysis for hypothesis #3 (table 3) reveal a statistically significant negative relationship between years of service and cooperation on the job [at the p<.05 level] for the subjects (regardless of employee role). Although the negative relationship between these variables for the non-manager group is not statistically significant at the p<.05 level, the analysis does reveal a relationship worthy of notice at p=. 158 level. Finally, the analysis offers no evidence to suggest a meaningful relationship between years of service and cooperation for the manager group. Discussion of Results All three hypotheses have been supported. Together these results offer a view of managers as they interact with information at work. Hypothesis #1 tests the manager s tendency to stay close to a broad range of information at work ASIST 2002 Contributed Paper 168 regardless of his or her specific job. Managers intuitively know that much of what is learned comes from secondhand knowledge (Wilson 1983). The reported results reveal a significant difference between manager and nonmanager behavior while interacting with information on the job. In addition, the low variability in manager responses align with the perspective that managers working in the same culture will be informally trained on how to behave (Grosser 1991), and will therefore behave similarly. The information behaviors described in this study align with Mintzberg (1973), Kotter (1982), Luthans, et al. (1985) and Luthans (1988) findings that managers will spend much of their time socializing and interacting. These behaviors help managers gain access to bits and pieces of information which can be stored away for a future, yet to be defined, use. Hypothesis #2 tests whether managers use the information stored in their cognitive savings accounts. The results reported suggest that managers will draw from previously accumulated information when a need emerges and thereby avoid the need to search for new information. These results align with McKenney and Keen (1974) and the lack of alignment between management theorists and practicing managers. Managers do prefer to rely upon what they already know rather than stop, admit that they have a gap in knowledge, and search for new information prior to making a decision. The behavior of information accumulation permits managers to simplify the complexity of their environment (Simon 1957; Kotter 1982) by limiting the alternatives from which solutions can be drawn. The cognitive savings account allows the manager to make seemingly rational decisions without taking time to identify gaps in knowledge and to search for information to close the gaps (Dervin & Nilan 1986). Hypothesis #3 tests the managers tendency to cooperate with other individuals. The results suggest that managers are cooperative and friendly (Simon 1976) and acknowledge that socializing at work adds to their success and provides access to information. The information may not be needed now, but can be used to gain access to other information that they may need at a later time (Davenport & Prusak 1998). Managers have learned that human beings are the most effective carriers of information (Allen 1977, 42). This insight aligns with Mintzberg (1973), Kotter (1982), and Luthans (1988) findings that managers will spend much of their time interacting with colleagues, subordinates and superiors both in and out of the organization. Tenure. The results suggest that non-managers will demonstrate some of the same information behaviors (accumulating information and actively cooperating) as managers, but these behaviors decrease as their tenure on the job increases. As non-managers become more and

6 more experienced in their role, the need to accumulate nonrelevant information is lessened. The employee learns what is and is not needed to be successful on the job. Nonmanagers do not need to survive in the same politically motivated environment as managers. Non-managers learn to more effectively reject the behavior of accumulating irrelevant information. The same seems to be true about cooperation. Managers actively cooperative and are informally trained to do so by the organizational culture. Access to information is the reward. Non-managers learn their jobs and in time the need to focus on cooperation, socialization, and work relationships will change. Most likely non-manager work relationships are formed as a result of common interests and friendship. The need to cooperate to gain access to information is not an influencing factor. The information behaviors of managers do not decrease as the managers tenure increases. New, experienced, and senior managers behave similarly. Overall. Managers will grab and store information although an explicit business-need for the information may not exist. This manager tendency to store information just in case aiso emerged in Mackenzie s (in press) study on how managers store and retrieve business related . Managers want to be perceived as being in the know, which suggests that managers do not want to be caught without an on-the-spot alternative to a problem. The theory developed from this study suggests that the behavior of infornution accumulation assists the manager in reducing uncertainty, making decisions on the spot, and being perceived as a manager who is in the know. Future Research Planned The results of this study offer some preliminary evidence in support of a theory of why managers behave as they do; but quantitative results can offer only a partial view of the phenomenon. The next step is to further investigate the existence and influence of the cognitive savings account using the methods of the qualitative paradigm. Probing the results of this study using both sociometric mapping and in-depth interviews will provide a more thorough investigation toward understanding how managers interact with information on the job. Appendix Examples of questionnaire items used to test each of the three hypotheses. Hypothesis #I: 1. How important is it to you to stay close to all new information withn your organization, even if it does not directly pertain to your area of responsibility. 2. Of the information that comes your way, to what extent do you what you read to information that pertains directly to your area of responsibility? Hypothesis #2: 1. To what extent do you need to actively search for new information when faced with a problem that requires a decision? 2. Through day-to-day interactions with people at work, you may accumulate information that you keep stored in the back of your mind. To what extent do you find that this previously accumulated information helps you make decisions? Hypothesis #3: 1. How valuable are your social relationshins on the job, when relating them to your ability to gain access to information even if you don t need the information right now? 2. To what extent do you accumulate information that you may not need, but may be used within a cooperative business environment to gain information that you do need, from others in the organization? References Allen, Thomas J. (1977). Roles in technical communication networks. In C.E. Nelson & D.K. Pollack (Eds.). Technology Transfer and the Dissemination of Technological Information Within the R&D Organization. The Massachusqtts Institute of Technology. Ashford, Susan J. & Cummings, L.L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, Barnard, Chester, I. (1968, 1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bazerman, Max H. (1994). Judgment in managerial decision making, (3rd ed.) New York John Wiley and Sons, Inc. ASiST 2002 Contributed Paper 169

7 Brewer, E., & Tomlinson, J.W.C. (1964). The manager s working day. Journal of Industrial Economics, 12(3), Carmines, Edward G., & Richard A. Zeller. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Crosby, P.B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. New York: McGraw-Hill. Crosby, Philip B. (1984). Quality without tears. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Davenport, Thomas H. & Prusak, Laurence. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Deming, Edward. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MIT Press. Dervin, Brenda, & Nilan, Michael. (1986). Information needs and uses. In M.E. Williams, (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), 21, Furnham, Adrian. (1992). Personality at work, the role of individual differences in the workplace. New York: Routledge. Grosser, Keny. (1991). Human networks in organizational information processing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), 26, Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, SO, Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos. (1 979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos. (1 984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4) (April), Katzer, Jeffrey & Fletcher, Patricia T. (1 992). The information environment of managers. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), 27, Kotter, John. (1 982). What effective general managers really do. Harvard Business Review, 60, Kroeger, Otto, & Thuesen, Janet M. (1992). Type talk at work. New York: Delacorte Press, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. Lindblom, Charles E. (1959). The science of muddling through, Public Administration Review, 19, Luthans, Fred, Rosenkrantz, Stuart A. & Hennessey, Harry W. (1985). What do successful managers really do? An observation study of managerial activities. The Joumal of Applied Behavioral Science. 21 (3), Luthans, Fred. (1988). Successful vs. effective real managers. The Academy of Management EXECUTIVE, VoI.I1(2), Mackenzie, Maureen L. (in press). Storage and retrieval of e- mail in a business environment: An exploratory study. Library and Information Science Research Journal. Malhotra, Naresh K. (1 999). Marketing research, (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. McKenney, James L. & Keen, Peter G.W. (1974). How managers minds work. Harvard Business Review, 52(3), Mintzberg, Henry. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. Simon, Herbert A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69 (February), Reprinted in H. A. Simon, Models of Man. (pp ). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Simon, Herbert A. (1957). Models of man. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Simon, Herbert A. (1976, 1945, 1947, 1957). Administrative behavior, (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Sproull, Natalie L. (1995). The handbook of research methods: A guide for practioners and students in the social sciences. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel. (1981). The framing and the psychology of choice. Science, 21 1, Wilson, Patrick. (1983). Second hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. ASIST 2002 Contributed Paper 170