A product of “his” time? Exploring the construct of the ideal manager in the Cold War era
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".