PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12675395

Working 61 plus hours a week: why do managers do it?

Jeanne M Brett·Linda K Stroh
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The authors investigated why some managers work extreme hours, defined as 61 or more hours per week. The authors tested explanations drawn from theories including the work-leisure tradeoff, work as an emotional respite, social contagion, and work as its own reward. In a demographically homogeneous sample of male managers, the best explanations for why some worked 61 or more hours per week were the financial and psychological rewards they received from doing so. The hypothesis derived from A. Hochschild's (1997) research that managers who work long hours seek relief at work from pressures at home was not supported. Findings in a small sample of managerial women were consistent with the work-leisure trade-off hypothesis, the social contagion hypothesis, and the work as its own reward hypothesis.

Explore related subjects

Administrative PersonnelAdultDecision MakingFemaleHumansLeadershipMaleMotivationPersonnel ManagementPersonnel Staffing and SchedulingRecreationSocial BehaviorWorkloadJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jeanne M Brett, Linda K Stroh. 2003. Working 61 plus hours a week: why do managers do it?. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.67

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Managing change in the culture of general practice: qualitative case studies in primary care trusts.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the potential tension between the need for managers to produce measurable change and the skills required to produce cultural change, and to investigate how managers of primary care trusts are attempting to deal with this tension. DESIGN: Qualitative case studies using data derived from semistructured interviews and a review of published documents. An established cultural framework was to used to help interpret the findings. SETTING: Six primary care trusts in England purposefully sampled to represent a range of cultural, structural, geographical, and demographic characteristics. PARTICIPANTS: 42 interviews with 39 different senior and middle primary care trust managers conducted over an 18 month period. RESULTS: We found two distinct and polarised styles of management. One group of managers adopts a directive style and challenges the prevailing norms and values of clinicians, an approach characteristically seen in organisations with hierarchical cultures. This group is made up mostly of senior managers who are driven principally by the imperative to deliver a political agenda. Managers in the second group are more inclined to work with the prevailing cultures found in general practice, attempting to facilitate change from within rather than forcing change from outside. This management style is characteristically seen in organisations with a clan-type culture. The approach was manifest mostly by middle managers, who seem to act as buffers between the demands of senior managers and their own perception of the ability and willingness of health professionals to cope with change. The different management approaches can lead to tension and dysfunction between tiers of management. CONCLUSIONS: The development of primary care depends on high quality managers who are able to draw on a range of different management skills and styles. Managers are most likely to be effective if they appreciate the merits and drawbacks of their different styles and are willing to work in partnership.

Administrative Personnel↗