Managerial Advancement and The Influence of Sponsorship in Large Industrial Organizations

Abstract

In our society it is a strongly held norm that advancement in business organizations should be a consequence of personal achievement; hence, there is respect accorded to individuals who arrive on their own merit. At the same time, it is recognized that many competent subordinate managers receive help in advancement from higher level executives acting in the role of sponsors. The purpose of this article is to draw together some research evidence concerning the occurrence of sponsorship in transfer and promotion decisions as experienced by middle level managers in large manufacturing firms. Previous studies [5; 17; 8] have considered the extent to which managerial promotion decisions are based on alleged favoritism, shared values, or informal factors rather than achievement-related criteria. This study is intended to redefine the concept of sponsorship, to develop some appropriate research questions, and to report some new findings concerning these questions.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Argyris, C. , Integrating the Individual and the Organization (New York: Wiley, 1964), p. 103-103.

2. Benge, E. J. , "Promotion Practices for Technical Men," Advanced Management (March 1956), pp. 10-12.

3. Bennis, W. B. , "Organizational Development and the Fate of Bureaucracy," in W. E. Scott and L. L. Cummings (eds.), Readings in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (Homewood, Illinois: Irwin, 1973), p. 330-330.

4. Blau, P. M. , "Exchange, Motivation, and Role Theory: Dialectical Forces," in J. S. Jun and W. B. Storm (eds.), Tomorrow's Organizations: Challenges and Strategies (Glenview, Illinois: Scott Foresman, 1973), pp. 209-222.

5. Coates, C. H. and R. J. Pellegrin , "Executives and Supervisors: Informal Factors in Differential Bureaucratic Promotion," Administrative Science Quarterly (June 1957), pp. 200-215.

6. Drucker, P. F. , "What We Can Learn from Japanese Management," Harvard Business Review (March-April 1971), pp. 119-122.

7. Fallers, L. A. , "Bureaucracy in a Particularistic Setting," in A. Etzioni , (ed.), A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1969), p. 442-442.

8. Gibson, J. L. and S. M. Klein , "Employee Attitudes as a Function of Age and Length of Service," Academy of Management Journal (December 1970), pp. 411-425.

9. Gouldner, A. W. , "The Problems of Succession and Bureaucracy" in A. W. Gouldner (ed.), Studies in Leadership (New York: Russell and Russell, 1965), pp. 644-659.

10.

10. Grusky, O. , "Corporate Size, Bureaucratization, and Managerial Succession," American Journal of Sociology (November, 1961), pp. 266-269.

11.

11. Jennings, E. E. , The Mobile Manager: A Study of the New Generation of Top Executives (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), pp. 29-42.

12.

12. Levinson, B. , "Bureaucratic Succession," in A. Etzioni (ed.), Complex Organizations (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 369-369.

13.

13. Marcus, P. M. and J. S. House , "Exchange Between Superiors and Subordinates in Large Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly (June 1973), pp. 209-222.

14.

14. Miller, J. P. , "Social-psychological Implications of Weber's Model of Bureaucracy: Relations Among Expertise, Control, Authority and Legitimacy," Social Forces (September 1970), pp. 91-102.

15.

15. Porter, L. W. , and E. E. Ghiselli , "The Self Perceptions of Top and Middle Management Personnel," Personnel Psychology (Winter 1957), pp. 397-406.

16.

16. Robertson, D., "Executive Mobility: A Study of Promotability Status, Attitudes, and Behavior," (Unpublished survey, University of Missouri, 1973).

17.

17. Senger, J. , "Managers' Perceptions of Subordinates' Competence as a Function of Personal Value Orientations," Academy of Management Journal (December 1971), pp. 415-423.