Charting managerial reading preferences in relation to popular management theory books: a...

Popular management theories are a prominent fixture of the contemporary American business landscape. Past research regarding these theories has focused on what drives interest in a particular theory. This reader-based study departs from this tradition and focuses instead on how managers report

they prefer to read the books used to promote popular management theories. Through a semiotic analysis of data gathered from surveys administered to and interviews conducted with 22 managers, this study identifies the main features and charts the organizing principles of the rules that guide managerial reading preferences, identifies influences shaping these rules, and points out how enactment of these rules influences the acquisition of knowledge about popular management theories.

Keywords: business best sellers; business writing; managerial reading; popular management theory; semiotics

**********

Popular management theories and the books that promote them have become prominent and influential fixtures of the contemporary American business landscape. These theories offer managerial techniques purported to improve organizational effectiveness. Examples of such include intrapreneuring (Pinchot, 1985), the balanced scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1996), the learning organization (Senge, 1990), management by walking about (Peters & Waterman, 1982), one-minute managing (Blanchard & Johnson, 1982), reengineering (Hammer & Champy, 1993), Six Sigma (Brue, 2002; George, 2002), Theory Z (Ouchi, 1981), and total quality management (Deming, 1986). One measure of these theories' prominence is the sales enjoyed by the books that promote them. In 1991, 1,421 titles were published in the United States; these generated $488.8 million in sales (Barr, 1993). A decade later, 5,023 titles were published in the United States, generating sales of $938.3 million (Bogart, 2003). A recently released list of the most influential business books of the past 20 years provides another measure of the influence exercised by popular management theories; topping the list is Peters and Waterman's (1982) In Search of Excellence ("'Excellence' chosen," 2003).

Given the extent of their prominence and influence, it is not surprising that both business analysts and academic scholars have spent much time and energy analyzing popular management theories and the books used to promote them. Most scholarly inquiry regarding popular management theories has attempted to identify key factors driving interest in a particular theory. (2) This study departs from this research tradition in that we focus our analytic attention on how managers report they prefer to read about popular management theories rather than why it is they turn to them in the first place. We have chosen this focus for two reasons.

First, only those theories promoted by best-selling books significantly influence business and organizational practices and go on to spawn such lucrative ancillary products as seminars, videos, workshops, and so on. (3) Indeed, as Kieser (1997) notes, "The best accelerator of a management fashion is a management bestseller" (p. 49). For a popular management theory to enjoy widespread influence, then, the book (or books) promoting it must be successful. There is, however, a paucity of research regarding how managers determine what popular management theory books they will actually pick up and read. Indeed, most studies of managerial interest in, and the influence of, popular management theories are either speculative (Abrahamson, 1996; Clark & Salaman, 1996, 1998; Crainer, 1996; Freeman, 1985; Gill & Whittle, 1992; Grint, 1997; Horton, 1988; Huczynski, 1993; Kieser, 1997; Nohria & Berkley, 1994) or largely focused on textual analyses of popular management books (Furusten, 1999; Gerlach, 1996; Jackson, 1996, 1999; Norreklit, 2003). These studies have largely ignored the very audience toward which these books and the theories they contain have been directed: business managers. Our study departs from this speculative or textual research tradition in that we focus on why and how managers report they read--or do not read--books promoting popular management theories.

Second, there is a recognized need for research that examines the reading process itself (Jackson, 2001; Pagel & Westerfelhaus, 1999). To date, scholars working in the field of business communication have identified some individual characteristics of writing and presentational style purported to enable readers to process texts efficiently and accurately; these include short paragraphs (Felker, Redish, & Peterson, 1985), headings and subheadings (Redish, 1989), topic sentences (Kieras, 1980), "bottom line" statements (Fielden & Dulek, 1984), explicit transitions (Guillemette, 1987), active verbs (Seizer, 1981), internal previews (Redish, Battison, & Gold, 1985), and layout (Rubens, 1986). There has been, however, no systematic attempt to identify the underlying set of rules that organize these individual elements. Moreover, it is important to note that the findings of the research tradition we have just cited are not only fragmented and incomplete but are also inconclusive and sometimes contradictory. For example, Suchan and Colucci (1989) found that messages written in high-impact style took less time to read and seemed to improve reading comprehension; however, in a later study, Suchan (1998) reported that high-impact style did not measurably improve reader performance after all. These mixed results led Suchan to conclude that such factors as organizational structure, language norms, and job design serve to influence readers' interpretation and use of organizational texts. For this reason, he argues that research into the managerial reading process should shift from a focus on textbased characteristics to one that examines various interactions among text, reader, and context. This study responds to the need for such research by identifying the rules governing the reading preferences and practices of managers and by examining how these rules are influenced by and influence the interaction of managers with popular management theory books read within the context of those exigencies characteristic of today's business environment.

This research project draws on data derived from surveys administered to and interviews conducted with managers who work in seven different companies. Our analysis of these data is informed by semiotic theory. In the following sections, we define those features of semiotic theory relevant to this study. We then explain the methods we employed in recruiting participants and collecting and analyzing our data. We go on to chart the main features of the semiotic code (set of rules) governing managerial reading preferences, to describe its organizing principles, and to identify the prescriptive reading rules it provides managers. Next, we point out significant extratextual influences that shape the context in which the code is enacted. We conclude by pointing out implications of this study and providing recommendations for further research.

SEMIOTIC THEORY

Semiotics is a well-developed body of communication theory that has been used to analyze a wide range of artifacts and social practices, such as amusement parks (Gottdiener, 1995), professional wrestling (Barthes, 1972), reading (Eco, 1979), television (Fiske, 1987), urban spaces (Greimas, 1986), and, of course, business and professional practices (Barley, 1983; Pagel & Westerfelhaus, 1999). Semiotic theory has its roots in the work of American pragmatist philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1991) and Swiss structural linguist Ferdinand de Sanssure (1966). (4) In this section, we identify and define semiotic concepts relevant to this study.

Signs

According to Eco (1976), "Semiotics is concerned with everything that can be taken as a sign. A sign is everything that can be taken as significantly substituting for something else" (p. 7). Signs are the basic units of meaning. As Peirce (1991) explains, signs are meaningful in that they represent something other than themselves. There are three types of signs: symbols, icons, and indices. Symbols represent through social convention (e.g., McDonald's golden arches represent a fast food franchise only because our culture says they do). Icons represent through resemblance (e.g., a portrait represents the person it depicts through its resemblance to him or her). And indices represent through close association with their objects (e.g., smoke suggests the presence of fire, a large, well-appointed corner office with a good view is an indexical indication of professional success). Of these three signs, indices are relevant to this study. The code (set of rules) that is the focus of this study comprises two clusters of indexical signs, one associated with a writing style preferred by managers, the other associated with a style to which managers have expressed an aversion. Interpretation of indices prompts particular responses. For example, the sight and smell of smoke--when interpreted as a sign of danger--prompts people to flee. The indices that compose the reading code that is the focus of this study serve to encourage or discourage initial and continued reading of popular management theory books.

Codes

The interpretation and use of signs are both governed by codes. As defined by Fiske (1987), "A code is a rule-governed system of signs, whose rules and conventions are shared amongst members of a culture, and which is used to generate and circulate meanings in and for that culture" (p. 4). Organizational cultures, and the broader business culture of which they are a part, are governed by a variety of semiotic codes. Such codes regulate meeting protocol, business etiquette, professional dress, office decor, and so on. Of relevance to this study are two common methods with which codes organize and render meaningful the signs they govern: opposition and metonymy.

Opposition organizes signs through contrast. As explained by Barley (1983), "The mechanism of opposition suggests we know what something means, in part, by knowing what it does not mean" (p. 397). For example, dark is defined in opposition to light, up in opposition to down, and left in opposition to right. Such paired contrasts, called binary oppositions, form the basis of a structuring semiotic logic that informs many codes (Greimas, 1966; Hawkes, 1977). Although critics of binary logic argue that it tends to oversimplify reality, they acknowledge that individuals make use of this form of reasoning to meet identity needs (Raman, 2003), cope with information overload (Fourali, 2000), and reduce complexity in decision making (Kosko, 1993). Given its seeming utility in dealing with such tasks, it should not be surprising that as Grint (1997) notes, Western theories of management are rooted in binary logic. Indeed, examples of binary oppositions are plentiful in the world of business; these include efficient versus inefficient, employed versus unemployed, experienced versus inexperienced, high morale versus low morale, management versus union, professional versus unprofessional, profitable versus unprofitable, and successful versus unsuccessful, to list only a few.

Metonymy organizes signs through association (Eco, 1976; Hawkes, 1977). According to Barley (1983),

   Signs signify by metonymy when expressions are related to contents
   by contiguity or juxtaposition.... [A] type of metonymy is found in
   music. The sense of a melody is pure metonymy, since melody arises
   from the juxtaposition of notes or chords. A single note or chord by
   itself carries little meaning, but when a note becomes part of a
   progression of notes, a tune is produced. Hence, only by
   juxtaposition do notes and chords convey messages. Finally, indices,
   signs whose expressions are naturally associated with their contents
   (as smoke stands for fire), signify by metonymy. (p. 396)

To illustrate, in the business world there are many indices of success that signify through metonymy: having a corner office and/or an office on an executive floor, upscale office furnishings, a key to the executive washroom, a personal secretary, a company car, a reserved parking spot, first class travel accommodations, and prestigious club memberships. All these indexical signs are associated with success, though none by itself is a sure indication of success. Such signs are more meaningful in conjunction with one another than they are in isolation. Indeed, indices of this kind are rendered meaningful through association with that which they represent as well as with one another. In common with Barley's example of musical melody, the writing styles that are the focus of this study are defined, in part, by clusters of contiguous and metonymically organized indexical signs.

Semiotic codes provide guides governing many human behaviors, ranging from how we eat (culinary code), to how we dress (sartorial code), to what we say (linguistic code), to how we conduct business (professional code). These codes provide rules regarding the ways we use and interpret the signs they govern. The culinary code, for example, defines what constitutes a formal meal and then dictates how to dress for such a meal, which utensils to use, the proper order of courses, appropriate ambience, acceptable etiquette, and so on. Similarly, the professional code governing how we conduct business defines the context in which we do so (a formal business meeting, casual Friday) and then provides rules regarding how we should behave within these contexts. For instance, the code that regulates a business meeting governs the organization of such signs as the arrangement of chairs and tables, the refreshments offered, the computer slides used as visual aids, and so on. The same code provides people with rules regarding appropriate behavior in that setting, such as "Don't sit at the head of the table if you aren't in charge"; "It's polite to help oneself to refreshments before the meeting but not during it"; and "Take notes if numbers are included on a computer slide because those must be important."

Semiotics and the Practice of Reading

During the past 25 years, scholars working in such diverse disciplines as cultural studies, English, mass communication, and political science have employed semiotic theory as a method of studying media. Initially, such research focused on the text as the unit of analysis while ignoring the role of the reader, defined as someone who views a film, reads a book, and so on (Dyer, 1982; Fiske & Hartley, 1978; Hall, 1981; Hartley, 1982). In an attempt to address the limitations of this text-based research tradition, Fish (1980; see also Fry & Fry, 1986; Radway, 1984) called for reader-focused analysis. Rather than examining a text in isolation from its audience, such research instead looks at how readers actually encounter texts. Semiotic theory informing such analysis sees reading as a process in which a text that has been encoded is subsequently decoded by a reader (Eco, 1979; Suleiman, 1980). Communication between authors and readers is possible only to the extent that they share knowledge of a common operating code. How a code is used is shaped by readers' experiences, attitudes, and cultures. According to Fry and Fry (1986), reading is thus the product of a code-governed interaction of textual (content, writing style) with extratextual (e.g., the education level and time constraints of the reader, the exigencies of business culture) factors. This distinction between textual and extratextual is common in semiotic analysis.

METHOD

Participants

In attempting to identify and chart the code governing managerial reading preferences, this study makes use of data collected during a 5-month period through surveys administered to, and interviews conducted with, 22 managers, 18 of whom work in the oil industry. We chose to interview managers about their reading habits with respect to popular management theories--rather than interview academics, business analysts, journalists, students, or interested members of the general population--because what managers read, or do not read, makes a real difference in the way business is conducted. Managers are in a position to implement or reject popular management theories. Consequently, they constitute an important target audience for popular management theory writers who hope to influence managerial practices and policies. We conducted our research primarily within the oil industry because a network of connections the lead author had in that industry allowed us access to managers in large corporations that we would not have enjoyed in any other industry. This network, and the access it afforded us, was made possible through outreach done on our behalf by the first manager contacted for this project, who functioned as our "sponsor." Lindlof (1995) defines a sponsor as someone "who takes an active interest in the project, vouches for its goals, and sometimes helps the researcher locate informants" (p. 109).

During the first stage of our project, we selected participants using a snowball sampling technique. This means of selection is a form of convenience sample in which one participant directs the researcher to another participant, who in turn directs the researcher to yet another participant, and so on (Lindlof, 1995). Thus, executives who had already agreed to participate in this study were asked to refer us to other potential interviewees within their organizations and the industries in which they work. (5) A potential weakness of snowball sampling is the possibility that it might reflect the biases of those who direct the researcher to other participants (Burgess, 1984).

The snowball sampling technique we employed yielded a total sample of 22 managers from seven companies. The managers included 3 corporate executive officers, 1 president, 4 vice presidents, and 3 general managers. (6) All those who participated in this study were promised anonymity; for this reason, we refer to each manager by a letter of the alphabet (e.g., Manager A). Information regarding the organizational affiliations and positions of this study's participants is included in Table 1.

Data Collection

Questionnaires were used during the initial phase of this study, and follow-up interviews were conducted during its final phase. Following the example of Radway (1984), who pioneered this type of reader response research, we distributed a questionnaire to all participants prior to interviewing them. The use of this questionnaire enhanced this study in three ways: First, it enabled us to gather preliminary information about the reading habits of our sample. Second, the survey data served to familiarize us with participants prior to our interviewing them. And third, the information gathered from the surveys was used to develop questions for our interview schedule (see the appendix).

The primary purpose of the interviews was to identify the typically implicit, and occasionally explicit, rules that govern the interviewees' selection, interpretation, and use of popular management theories. The interviews constitute this study's primary data, with the surveys providing mostly demographic and other background information. There are 364 pages of transcripts. The average number of pages per interview is 16.5. Each page represents approximately 3 min of interview time, though that amount varies. Overall, we logged a total of 18.2 hr of interview time. The interview schedule was designed to query respondents about various processes they use in selecting and reading books about popular management theories. The interviews, which lasted from 30 min to an hour, were recorded and then transcribed. The managers we interviewed gave both written permission and verbal consent to have their interviews recorded. Because the managers reside in six different states, only 9 interviews were conducted in person, whereas 13 were conducted via phone. The face-to-face interviews were held in the interviewees' offices or company conference rooms. The interviews were designed to let interviewees express themselves as fully as possible. Though an interview schedule was used, the sequence of questions was flexible. This flexibility allowed for follow-up and additional probing in response to the answers given by interviewees. After conducting approximately a dozen interviews, we reached a point in the data collection phase referred to by Glaser and Strauss (1967) as saturation; that is, we no longer extracted new themes from the data we gathered. At this point, we added a few additional questions (see Questions 20, 29, and 30) to gain a more detailed understanding of the data we had already collected. When possible, these new questions were posed to managers whom we had already interviewed.

Data Analysis

We began the process of data analysis by transcribing all interviews. When transcribing, we listened to the same phrases repeatedly. As a result, we became intimately familiar with the contents of each interview. The processes of repeated listening and transcribing helped reveal patterns that cut across the various interviews. Such patterns are evidence of the presence of an organizing semiotic code. On completing the transcription, we read through the transcripts. We did this reading independently of one another. While reading, we looked for and highlighted recurring patterns within each interview transcript. We then looked to see if these patterns were present across the entire set of transcripts. Only when our individual analyses were completed did we compare results. In this way, we each served as a check on the other. Such checks are necessary, as Fiol (1989) explains, "Because semiotic coding relies on the researcher's assessment in applying the structural framework in coding the text, tests of coding reliability are necessary" (pp. 284-285).

Once such patterns were identified, we made additional copies of the transcripts, cut these copies up, pasted passages from them on cards, and organized those cards according to the patterns we had identified. This was done as a means of identifying the underlying organizing principles governing the patterns. This analysis was marked by a cyclical process: coding and recoding the cards, noting the emerging patterns from careful and repeated scrutiny of the cards, and then identifying the patterns' organizing principles. For example, in probing the interviewees' preferences with respect to writing style, we collected and then categorized the recoded cards. As we studied the cards, we each listed--again, independently of one another--the positive characteristics interviewees associated with a text or author's writing style on the left side of a piece of paper and the negative characteristics on the right side. As we organized these characteristics, we found that the two lists took the form of a series of binary oppositions. In charting the semiotic code that emerged, we elicited feedback from some of our interviewees. This was done as an additional means of refining our understanding of the code's structure.

THE CODE OF READING PREFERENCE

We found that the code of reading preference that governs the way managers respond to business books in general, and popular management theory books in particular, comprises two clusters of indexical signs organized in accordance with the associative and oppositional binary logic outlined previously. These indexical signs are the main features of the code, and as such they provide managers with rules to guide their reading.

The Structure of the Code

All 22 of the managers who participated in this study expressed a clear preference for reading popular management theory books written in a style that many of those interviewed referred to as the "business" writing style and a strong distaste for books written in what was often called the "academic" writing style. Managers are able to distinguish between the academic and business writing styles due to their knowledge of both. This knowledge is intertextual: that is, one text is understood in relation to others with which it is similar (Fiske, 1990) and, according to the dictates of binary logic, those with which it is dissimilar as well. Managers are familiar with a variety of texts and textual forms. As a result of their schooling, managers are acquainted with the conventions of academic writing and are thus able to recognize that writing style when they encounter it. And, of course, they encounter the business writing style on a daily basis.

No single stylistic characteristic identifies a book's style as academic or business. Instead, we found that managers tend to look to a cluster of associative and oppositional indexical signs in determining a book's style, and thus discerning its desirability as reading material. Manager R summed up the academic style in this way:

   Academic writings are too long. They are too complex. They are too
   veiled. They are too obtuse. Their meanings many times are not
   apparent. You have to read it several times. You cannot possibly
   transform that kind of expression of thought into action plans that
   the general populace can grab hold of, understand, and become a part
   of. You just can't.

Manager F listed the following features as characteristic of academic writing: "It is unfair but I am going to stereotype. They're [academic books] boring, overly long, use big terms, are highly structured, but are extremely detailed."

In the interview excerpts cited above, such terms as "long," "complex," and "extremely detailed" are indices of the academic style being described. That is, they are stylistic characteristics that managers associate with academic writing they have encountered in the past. The code of reading preference comprises, in part, a metonymical array of indices that define the academic and business writing styles and distinguish them from one another. As described by this study's participants, the primary indices that define the style of a book (or other written material) as academic are (a) long length, (b) excessive wordiness, (c) indirect presentation of main points, (d) the presence of abstract concepts and/or absence of concrete examples, and (e) complex language. Conversely, in accordance with the organizing logic of binary opposition, the business style was defined by interviewees as having the following cluster of associated indices: (a) short length, (b) concise word usage, (c) direct presentation of main points, (d) the presence of concrete examples and/or absence of abstract concepts, and (e) simple language.

Distinguishing Styles Through Binary Opposition

The two sets of indexical signs identified above can be arranged in a series of five oppositional pairs. These pairs serve to define the academic and business writing styles through contrast, defining each indexical feature in terms of its opposite. The five oppositional pairings are listed in Table 2. Below, we flesh out each of these oppositional pairs. Excerpts from the interview transcripts are used as evidence of the code at work and illustrations of how it is understood and employed by the managers we interviewed in their reading of popular management theory books.

Short Versus Long

The index managers often reported that what they refer to when determining whether a book can be quickly read (which is in itself a key index of a book's potential appeal) is the book's length. Of the 22 managers we interviewed, 14 expressed clear preferences regarding length. These managers praised short books and panned those they regarded as being too long. Books with fewer than 100 pages were usually defined as short, whereas those exceeding 200 pages were typically defined as being too long. A primary reason informing this preference for short books is exemplified in a comment offered by Manager Y:

   I like books that are relatively short. For those kinds of books, I
   think the guy ought to get to his thesis, tell you what it is and
   why in as few words as possible.... It is a matter of priorities and
   time. I don't have time to read a thousand page book on a theory of
   management.

Manager J echoed this same sentiment: "I wish there were Cliff Notes. You know that is the problem. Books are 400 pages long, and oh jeez, I don't have time for that." As these two excerpts indicate, a lack of time is an important factor shaping the code of reading preference. This factor was a recurring theme in the interviews we conducted. We will provide a more detailed account of the importance of time in the section on extratextual factors shaping the code.

Succinct Versus Wordy

Of the 22 managers we interviewed, 14 expressed preferences regarding verbiage. These managers contrasted succinctness, for which they reported a preference, with wordiness, which they said they dislike. Short, simple sentences are the defining feature of succinct writing, whereas books are deemed wordy if they contain a great many long, compound, complex, and compound-complex sentences. In common with other interviewees, Manager P cited excessive wordiness as the primary reason he finds most popular management books uninteresting. Manager P stated that he prefers books that are

   Short, to the point, not repetitive.... When I got an MBA [master of
   business administration], and that was not a long time ago, it was
   five years ago that I went back [to college to obtain that degree].
   So I literally have 50 to 60 management books on the shelf. A lot
   of those I read for my course work, and I really appreciate brevity.
   Because it's [usually] not there.

Direct Presentation of Main Points Versus Indirect Presentation of Main Points

Books that make key points "stand out" for the reader is a preference expressed by half of this study's participants. Of the 22 managers we interviewed, 11 expressed preferences regarding presentation of main points. These managers praised books that highlight key points (through the use of executive summaries, bullet points, strategically placed headings, highlighted and bold-faced words, easily read charts, etc.) and panned books that bury key points in what is perceived to be a deluge of unnecessary detail. As Manager N explained:

   I like very crisp points that stand out in a book. I like tables and
   graphs that can support those points. And then I am very happy that
   if I want to explore that point more, I can read case studies that
   relate to that point. But if somebody keeps rambling on and on about
   case studies, that is not in my view a very efficient way to
   communicate a hypothesis or some finding. I just can't stand these
   authors that hide their important points in about three chapters. So
   it is a time issue with me.

Concrete Examples Versus Abstract Concepts

Of the 22 managers we interviewed, 19 expressed a preference for concreteness over abstraction. Concrete writing includes anecdotes, examples, and applications, whereas abstract writing does not. The number of managers expressing this preference, and the amount and length of the comments they made regarding it, suggests that it is an important feature of the code of reading preference. As Manager W reports, "I prefer anecdotes.... The theory is helpful at some point, but only if it is chased with an anecdote." As Manager G explained, "The anecdotes are a real good way to capture somebody's attention."

Simple Language Versus Complex Language

Of the 22 managers we interviewed, 16 expressed a preference for simplicity over complexity. The interview transcripts indicate that managers use vocabulary, sentence structure, and perceived clarity as indices they reference in categorizing a book as simple or complex--and, by extension, as written in an academic or business style. Language characterized by a conversational writing style free of academic jargon is defined as simple. In contrast, formal language filled with jargon is defined as being complex. Manager A called attention to the importance of expressing points with familiar language: "To keep my attention a book needs to be readily understandable. That means it doesn't get into a different vocabulary or have a lot of terms that are not familiar." Manager M also expressed a preference for simple language when he defined a good book as one "written in a narrative style that makes it an easy read rather than having to study it and reread every paragraph just to grasp what the author is trying to tell you."

Authorship and the Code of Reading Preference

It is interesting that we found that popular management theory books written by academics are not necessarily coded as being written in the academic style, and we found that some popular management theory books were coded as academic that were written by authors who are not academics. The managers we interviewed do not differentiate academic writing from business writing based on the profession of a book's author but on the indexical signs they have come to associate with one style or the other (as outlined above). Indeed, the books of several authors with academic backgrounds were praised by interviewees for their clarity and concision and listed as personal favorites on the surveys we administered and in the interviews we conducted. Included among these authors are Blanchard and Johnson (1982), Fisher and Ury (1991), Kanter (1996), and Tichy (1993). On the other hand, the managers we interviewed criticized the style of Deming (1986) as being too academic, which is interesting given that Huczynski (1993) lists him as a business consultant and not an academician in his taxonomy of popular management theory authors. Writing style, then, and not authorial credentials, is the most important factor used by managers in assessing the potential reading appeal of a popular management theory book.

EXTRATEXTUAL INFLUENCES SHAPING THE CODE OF READING PREFERENCE

As with any other semiotic code, the code that we have just outlined is a product, and takes place within the context, of extratextual influences. In this section, we explore how these influences shape the code of reading preference. As noted earlier, a few of the features of what we have termed the code of reading preference have been identified as significant by scholars, but without any systematic attempt to understand how these stylistic features relate to one another. Nor has much research been conducted into why it is that managers prefer one stylistic element over another. One unflattering theory, proffered by Huczynski (1993), attributes the managerial preference for short and simple business books to managers' intellectual limitations, among which he includes their supposed inability to understand highly technical language, their short attention spans, and their limited memory. Indeed, as Clark and Salaman (1998) note, in much of the literature regarding popular management theories, "Managers ... are conceived largely as passive, docile consumers of gurus' [i.e., authors of popular management theory books] ideas and recommendations, inherently vulnerable to gurus' blandishments" (p. 146).

It is not surprising that our study's managers did not identify their own intellectual limitations as a reason for their dislike for and dismissal of academic writing. With only two exceptions, all of the managers interviewed for this study have college degrees. Indeed, 9 of the managers have bachelor's degrees, 1 of whom had additional education at the graduate level; 9 have masters degrees; and 2 have doctoral degrees. It would seem, then, that these managers are not intellectually ill equipped to understand academic expositions of popular management theories. Instead, based on our analysis of the transcripts, we suggest that three need-based extratextual influences play a significant role in shaping managers' preference for a business writing style that is succinct, simple, and clear: (a) the need to cope with time pressure, (b) the need to meet dissemination requirements, and (c) the need to address resistance from skeptical audiences.

Coping With Time Pressure

The first and most important of these extratextual influences is lack of time. Sixteen of this study's managers reported that the demands of their jobs sharply limit the amount of time they can spend reading. Wading through long, complex, and highly detailed popular management books requires more time and effort than most interviewees admit they are able or willing to expend. Senior managers in particular have many responsibilities that place significant demands on their time. They not only have obligations within their organizations--such as strategy setting, dealing with acquisitions and mergers, staying abreast on market conditions, and managing their businesses--but they also have many obligations that are external to the organizations for which they work, such as sitting on the boards of other companies, charitable organizations, and schools.

Ironically, the implementation of such popular management theories as downsizing and reengineering has resulted in increased demands being placed on managers' time (Pagel & Westerfelhaus, 1999). As Manager B explains, "Managers are busier today than yesterday. In the industry we're in, there are fewer people. And with the downsizing, we're all pressed more than we've ever been pressed." Two decades ago, Kotter (1982) reported that senior managers in the United States worked on average from 55 to just fewer than 60 hr per week. In contrast, many of the managers included in this study report working 60 to 80 hr per week. Between these work-related demands on their time, executives must also sandwich in time for family and personal life. As a result, very little time is left for reading. As Manager B put it, "The kind of job I've got ... I'm either not reading or I'm reading [Company CC's] business. It's as simple as that." The business writing style better meets the needs of time-pressed managers than does the academic style.

Meeting Dissemination Requirements

According to Mintzberg (1973, 1975), a manager's job comprises several roles. One of these roles is that of information monitor and disseminator. In describing this role, Mintzberg states that managers continually scan their environment for ideas to improve their unit or organization and then disseminate those ideas to sub-ordinates who might not ordinarily have access to such information. In keeping with Mintzberg's description, the managers we interviewed indicate that they play a vital role in communicating information on new initiatives being implemented in their organizations, and that they are deeply interested in discovering more effective approaches to communicating new initiatives. According to these managers, popular management theories must be easy for them to convey to others if they are to be communicated effectively to their organizations' employees. Popular management theories expressed in the language of the academy are difficult for managers to disseminate. As Manager R explains,

   Academic writing I think is often vague and obtuse. The meanings
   are veiled and not as straightforward as people in business need to
   be to get their message to the masses. I think by its nature
   academic writing is not one that you would want to use to convey
   messages or processes to the masses.

Managers who choose to implement the precepts of a popular management theory expressed in the academic style must translate that theory's concepts into familiar and readily understandable terms. As Manager R pointed out, however, "This process can lead to a lack of consistency and continuity in broadcasting the message to the organization." The transmission of popular management theories is rendered easier and more consistent if managers do not have to translate them from the academic style to that of business.

Addressing Resistance From Skeptical Audiences

According to the managers we interviewed, the greatest obstacle to the implementation of a new popular management theory is employee resistance to change. Employees, they say, have become "cynical" and "skeptical" of new theories and have used such strategies as benign neglect and sabotage to resist efforts of management to implement new ideas. According to the managers we interviewed, after an organization has gone through several cycles of implementing and discarding new popular management theories, they lose the ability to sell new ideas to employees and institutionalize new theories. Indeed, as numerous theories are quickly implemented and just as rapidly discarded, employees' willingness to commit to any theory wanes. As Manager F observed,

   There is a phrase called BOHICA that runs around in management
   circles: "Bend over. Here it comes again." I think employees are
   generally jaded to a management theory of the month, the year. I
   think there is a history of that if you go back. So I think it is
   usually greeted with a great deal of skepticism.

According to the managers we interviewed, the rank and file view the constant switching from one popular management theory to another as a sign of the lack of effectiveness of any theory; and for this reason they tend to take such theories less seriously than they would otherwise. This observation is in keeping with that of Nohria and Berkley (1994), who argue that the employees of managers who succumb to the "flavor of the month" (7) syndrome lack interest in and commitment to new ideas and thus shrug them off, reasoning, "if we wait until Monday, this too shall pass" (p. 131).

According to the managers interviewed for this study, newly introduced popular management theories are more likely to generate interest from, and gain the commitment of, otherwise skeptical employees if they are expressed in the style of business and not that of the academy. As Manager C put it,

   The idea needs to be easily understandable--not only what it does,
   but what benefits we are going to get out of it. Because if you want
   to try something or you have a change you would like to make, people
   want to understand why you want to make it and what benefit they we
   are going to get out of it. If it is not simple, it is difficult to
   communicate that.

Concrete examples clearly expressed thus help managers explain to their employees the benefits of implementing a popular management theory.

ENACTING THE CODE OF READING PREFERENCE

In both the surveys and the interviews, the managers included in this study without exception claimed that they read books for the primary purpose of gleaning new and useful ideas. They look to such ideas for ways to improve their performance and that of their organizations, for effective problem-solving strategies, for means of managing organizational changes, and for whatever competitive advantage these ideas might offer. Senior managers in particular expressed a perceived need for staying abreast of new ideas to ensure their organization's survival. Reading popular management books as a means of staying abreast of management ideas is seen as a time-consuming way to acquire information; however, the code of preference facilitates the process of reading by providing the rules governing signs used by managers to determine whether they will actually read a book and if so, how thoroughly. Such a code is needed given the large number of business book titles published every year: 5,023 titles were published in 2001 (Bogart, 2003), the last year for which such figures are available.

As noted previously, semiotic codes provide rules. The rules that compose the code of reading preference shape managerial interpretations of, and their behavioral responses to, the indexical signs characteristic of writing styles. In accordance with these rules, managers refer to the indexical signs identified previously in order to classify the writing style of a particular book as either academic or business. A review of the interview transcripts reveals that the business writing style comprises a cluster of associated signs, such as "useful" and "easy to read and convey." In contrast, the academic style is associated with a cluster of such indicative signs as "boring," "time-consuming to read," and "difficult to convey." The recognition and interpretation of these signs are governed by the code of reading preference, which provides managers with cues to devote less attention to or outright dismiss a book. Hence, signs associated with both the academic and business styles trigger a succession of interpretive associations that provide a basis for evaluating the relative worth of a book. A manager's selection or rejection of a book is sign-ordered behavior that is governed by the rules provided him or her by the code of reading preference.

Entry Selection and Completion Selection

The indexical signs we have identified provide rules that guide decisions managers make regarding whether to read (entry selection) and then continue reading (completion selection) a book. Rules related to entry selection influence managers' decisions regarding what books to read, and thus what popular management theories to evaluate. Rules related to completion selection influence managers' decisions regarding what parts of a book to read, how closely those parts will be read, and whether they will continue reading. These decisions reflect the influence of the code of reading preference.

The most influential indexical feature influencing managers' entry selection is a book's length. The code's rule might be stated thus: If the indexical sign is length, then do not select the book. Long books require more time than managers are willing to spend to acquire information on new management ideas. The preference for shorter works has influenced many managers to turn to business journals instead of popular management theory books as their primary source for management information. (Of course, these journals often provide information about and summaries of those popular management theories found in best-selling books.) Length, then, determines not only what theories are selected but also the preferred package in which the theory is delivered.

Even when a book is selected by a manager to be read, it might not be read in its entirety. The managers we interviewed reported that they usually skim or skip chapters, and sometimes stop reading altogether. The managers said they resort to skimming and skipping because they do not have the time or interest to read most books from cover to cover. Skimming and skipping are reading strategies that allow managers to get the gist of a book without a great investment of time and effort. Because cover-to-cover reading requires considerable time on their part, it is a style of reading reserved for only the most highly regarded books. Because managers are constantly making decisions about which passages to read, or whether to continue at all, the selection process is ongoing.

In influencing managers' decisions regarding the completion selection process, a book's succinctness or wordiness also plays a key role. The rule governing this feature of the code is, if a book is wordy, skip and skim sections deemed to be redundant. Manager F described this approach: "I'll admit that I'll scan if things start to get slow or boring. And then I'll flip through. But at least I'll try and be aware of what is contained in the whole book." About wordiness, Manager F complained,

   People take 300 pages to say what they should say in 50 pages. So it
   will get repetitive or it will overly emphasize a point. They
   [authors of popular management books] feel that if they have a point
   to make, they've got to write a whole chapter as opposed to point so
   and so. I think that is what I mean by boring.

Wordy books are also perceived to be a more time-consuming read. Because of the nature of their work, this study's interviewees prefer books that can be read quickly. Within the context of the code of presentation, succinctness is a sign indicating that a book can be read quickly, whereas wordiness is a sign signifying a book cannot be read in a time-efficient manner. A comment offered by Manager N illustrates this point:

   A lot of them are poorly written. A lot of them take three or four
   chapters to explain something that they probably could do much more
   focused in three or four pages. I just don't have time for the bulk.

Within the context of the code of preference, the direct and indirect presentation of key points are two signs that influence the completion selection process. This feature of the code is built on the following rule: If the book makes key points in a direct manner, skip and skim the book; however, if the book indirectly makes key points or buries them in detail, stop reading the book. Time constraints create a preference on the part of managers for books that are arranged in such a way that they can be easily skimmed and skipped. Executive summaries, bullets, charts, and graphs are signs that indicate a book can be skimmed or passages can be skipped without misinterpreting the book's central message. Books that lack these design elements are less likely to be selected for reading because they do not take into account the time demands placed on managers in business. Books that highlight key points through their layout designs are selected for reading because they are more easily skimmed and skipped than books that focus on details. The managers interviewed contend that they skip and skim these books to get the book's central idea. If the book captures their attention, they may elect to read the book from cover to cover. Indeed, as Manager B observed,

   If I read everything that came across my desk--just business stuff I
   would read seven days a week, 24 hours a day--literally. And so what
   I do read, I skim. Most stuff I look at the first three lines and I
   can pretty much guess what the rest of it says. I mean that's what I
   do. That's the reality. And so, if you want to deal with somebody
   like me, they've got to find a way of really boiling it down, at
   least to get me titillated, so to speak, and I may read the detail.

Another indexical feature used by the managers we interviewed in the completion selection process is a (perceived) lack of concrete, applicable examples. The rule governing this feature of the code can be summed up this way: If the book lacks such examples, stop reading it. A quotation by Manager E illustrates how books without concrete examples are treated: "If it is more of a textbook, I tend not to read it. I like examples. I like to see how they put it to work." Manager C summed up the importance of examples in this way:

   Now I have read books that when you get into too much theory that is
   another reason for stopping because you just can't just plough
   through it. It is not simple enough to where you can see how it can
   be applied to what you are doing. So I think the simple, fictional,
   the case study, the autobiography ... read well; they read simply,
   and you can see the applicability of it to perhaps what you are
   doing. When you get too much detail or too much theory it doesn't
   read well, and for me anyway I'll stop reading it if I can't see an
   immediate benefit.

The primary reason managers find examples and case studies drawn from real-world experience stylistically appealing is that they can readily apply them to their own situations without much effort. Such practical illustrations allow managers to implement a theory without having to take the time to translate it into terms that are familiar to their employees. The managers we interviewed stated that they frequently use examples included in popular management theory books to make theories accessible to their employees. Managers who elect to implement a theory that lacks such examples say they must develop their own examples before communicating the theory to others. However, most of the managers interviewed for this study report that given the demanding nature of their jobs, they rarely go to the trouble to do so, as the process required is too time-consuming.

Complexity is an additional indexical sign that managers turn to during the completion selection process to decide whether and how to read a book. The rule according to this feature of the code might be stated thus: If the indexical sign is complexity, then stop reading the book. Therefore, books that communicate ideas simply are more likely to be read, and hence, their ideas are more likely to be given a chance; books that communicate ideas in a complex manner are often discarded, and thus their ideas do not get a heating. In the following quotation, Manager L reveals how this rule influences his method of reading complex books: "If a guy sounds like he is an academic, then I probably won't want to spend too much time reading the book." Books written in a complex style consequently remain unread because the writing style is inconsistent with the needs of managers who, because of the demands of their jobs, require information to be packaged in simple and clear language. Wading through difficult books requires more time and effort than most interviewees are able to expend, given the nature of their jobs. In addition, as we noted earlier, theories expressed in language that is difficult to understand are difficult to disseminate to a broader audience of employees. Finally, according to the managers interviewed, ideas packaged in jargon and complex terminology are less likely to be believed in and supported by their subordinates, who in recent years have become increasingly skeptical of new theories.

Although the comments above indicate that interviewees typically skim, skip, or discontinue reading a book if they find its style to be academic, other remarks suggest that there are a few occasions when a manager will begin or continue reading a book in spite of its writing style. For example, a manager may dutifully wade through a book if it has been given to him or her or highly recommended by an esteemed colleague or superior, or if the book seems to contain ideas the manager deems valuable. However, a closer examination of the transcripts revealed that the code of preference does appear to regulate the reading practices of managers in such circumstances. For example, in discussing her frustration with one writer, Manager D reveals that she does not read books written in an academic style even if they come highly recommended:

   I think Chris Arygris has some great ideas. I can't get through one
   of his books. And he is probably one of the leading thinkers on
   organizational dynamics. I have tried to read two of his books, and
   I just can't get past chapter one. I don't understand the words. It
   doesn't build a theme. It is like just referencing one piece of
   research after another. And the reason why I picked his work is my
   boss thinks he is the greatest thing since hot cake and ice cream. I
   have not been able to get through his two leading-edge books.

In a similar vein, Manager T admits he did not complete Peter Senge's The Fifth Discipline, even though he regards the content of the book to be valuable:

   That guy is just a horrible writer. If you ask anybody if they
   finished The Fifth Discipline, they'll all say, "Yea, I started, but
   I didn't finish." It is a horrible book. Great ideas, but a
   terrible, terrible writer. There is no life to it. It is just like a
   professor writing. It is more of a textbook than it is something to
   read. It is like reading an engineering textbook. I have a bookmark
   still sitting in it. I got about halfway through it, and I had to
   stop. It was just so boring.

Manager W echoes the same view regarding dense and difficult books:

   I will tell you the very difficult books to pour through are
   Deming's Management Style and Deming's Management Method. Books like
   that are so scholarly, argumentative, and are difficult for managers
   to pick up and read. I think they are only for management when
   trainers will read them. And then trainers will take and teach them
   to management. And management will say, "That's a great book," but
   they've never read it because they wouldn't plough through it.

On the surface, it would seem that managers who skip, skim, or simply dismiss "difficult" books are lazy or have intellectual limitations. When we look below the surface, however, we can see some of their reasons for resorting to these reading strategies. We suggest that the reading rules we have identified in this study reflect an attempt on the part of the managers whom we interviewed to negotiate the complicated demands placed on them by the nature of their work. Time constraints created by the demands of their job make it impossible for managers to keep abreast of all of the ideas included in management books and magazines. Moreover, the challenge of selecting popular management theories for potential implementation has become increasingly difficult as the number of theories--and the books promoting them--have increased exponentially. Despite these challenges, the need for such information still exists. Popular management theories promoted by books written in the business style preferred by the code of reading preference stand a good chance of being given a cursory evaluation that might lead to a more extended assessment. Theories promoted by books that flout the code's rules, however, are often excluded from consideration, regardless of whatever potential benefits they might offer.

CONCLUSION

Managerial decisions regarding popular management theory are the result of a complex combination of many factors. Certainly, such decisions are a response to the business-related needs of managers and the organizations they serve. We contend, however, that these decisions are also shaped in large part by the rules governing managerial reading preferences that we have identified in this study. Indeed, the code informing these preferences plays an important role in the process of evaluating and implementing popular management theories. Of course, adherence to the preferred business writing code by books promoting popular management theories does not necessarily ensure the popular success of the theories they contain. Such adherence, however, does increase the possibility that a theory is given at least a preliminary assessment, which could lead to a more serious weighing of the practical advantages its implementation might offer managers.

A working knowledge of the reading practices we have examined in this article, and of the semiotic code that shapes them, has practical benefits for those who hope to provide managers with theories that make a real difference in the business world. When presented in the academic style, popular management theories are either out-right ignored (when managers decide not to read about them) or are only partially and often imperfectly transferred from the academy to the business world (when the books promoting theories are merely skimmed) or are transmitted indirectly through such mediated means as seminar attendance or summary articles published in the business press. (8) It is not surprising, then, that during the past few decades organizational scholars have voiced repeated concern regarding the fact that popular management theories promoted by books and articles written in the academic style have not exercised a greater influence upon management practice and organizational policy (e.g., Beyer & Trice, 1982; Boehm, 1980; Campbell, Daft, & Hulin, 1982; Corwin & Louis, 1982; Hakel, Sorcher, Beer, & Moses, 1982; Lorsch, 1979; Oviatt & Miller, 1989; Pagel & Westerfelhaus, 1999; van de Vall, Bolas, & Kang, 1976). Sadly, the full potential of such theories to benefit managers and organizations has not been realized. Popular management theorists--and others--wishing to reach managers need to do so in the style of business rather than academic writing (Aldag, 1997; Jackson, 2001; Maidique, 1983).

This study identified key features of the semiotic code governing this writing style and its opposite, examined how these features influence managers in their reading of popular management theory books, and explored how in turn the conditions in which managers work shape the code. Though we have focused on various indexical elements related to writing style, we have done so not by examining popular management theory books themselves but rather by engaging in reader response research that takes into account what managers themselves have to say about the way they read. We acknowledge that much more ethnographically driven research needs to be done, however, to develop a fuller understanding of the reading preferences and practices of managers. Regarding the need for such research, Jackson (2001) states,

   We should also probe more deeply into the plight of the books. Are
   they read cover-to-cover and pondered thoroughly? Or, as common
   wisdom would have it, are they merely flicked through in one
   momentary sitting? Or are they used as display items to place
   strategically on coffee tables or on bookshelves to demonstrate
   that the reader is "up to date" and "in the know"? Or are they
   confined to briefcases and carried to and from work on the
   off-chance that the reader might find time to read but never quite
   manages it? (p. 39)

There are other questions that also suggest themselves. For example, how does a text's content or an author's reputation influence managers' willingness to read a popular management theory book? What rhetorical strategies could be used to present academic findings in a style compatible with the needs of managers? Answering these and other related questions will enable those who write for managers to do so in the most effective means possible.

There is a famous maxim that holds there is nothing more practical than a good theory. (9) Good popular management theories are by their very nature pragmatic. As long as managers continue to look for means of improving their performance and that of their organizations, such theories will always find an interested audience. But whether their audiences find them, as we have shown, depends a great deal on how they are presented. After all, even the best theory has little to offer if no one takes the time to read and learn about it.

APPENDIX

Survey Questionnaire

The interviews conducted for this study were divided into five primary areas of inquiry: (1) work experience, (2) reading habits and behaviors, (3) book selection practices, (4) response to theories contained in popular management books, and (5) organizational responses to popular management theories.

Area One: Work Experience

1. What are your primary job responsibilities?

2. How many years have you held your current position?

3. How many years have you worked in this organization?

4. How many people do you manage?

5. How many hours do you work each week?

Area Two: Reading Habits and Behaviors

6. Where do you read management books?

7. Do you read whole books or parts of books? Why?

8. Have you ever skipped sections? Why?

9. Have you ever stopped reading a book? Why?

10. Do you read other kinds of books? What kinds of books?

11. What is your response when you read about ideas and concepts you disagree with?

Area Three: Book Selection Practices

12. How do you determine which books to read?

13. Does the author's writing style impact your selection process?

14. Is there a particular style of book that you are more likely to read? Do you prefer reading stories, autobiographies, case studies, pure theory, or statistics?

15. Does the author's reputation or credentials influence your selection process?

16. Are there occasions when your boss or others in your organization select books for you?

17. What are the characteristics of an effective writing style?

18. What is your all-time favorite management book? Why?

Area Four: The Reader's Response to Theories

19. What do you hope to gain by reading management books?

20. What role does competition play, if any, in the selection and reading of books?

21. What do you perceive to be the limitations of popular management books?

22. Can you give me an example of a time when you were disappointed with a book?

23. What is the most relevant principle you have ever learned from reading these books? How did you apply the principle you learned?

24. How has reading changed the way you manage?

25. To what extent do you modify or adapt the theories you read about?

26. Do you feel that reading management books has helped your career? How?

Area Five: The Organization's Response to Theories

27. How have you promoted dialogue within your organization about ideas contained in popular management books?

28. Do you think popular management books can help managers solve organizational problems?

29. What have been the positive effects of implementing popular management ideas?

30. What have been the negative effects of implementing these ideas?

31. If the change is negative, do you believe the basic premise of the book is flawed, or the organization is at fault?

32. What are the biggest obstacles in implementing the theories and ideas you read about?

33. Is there anything about management books that I have not asked and you would like to add?

REFERENCES

Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16, 586-612.

Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21, 254-285.

Abrahamson, E., & Fairchild, G. (1999). Management fashion: Lifecycles, triggers, and learning processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 708-740.

Aldag, R. J. (1997). Moving sofas and exhuming woodchucks: On relevance, impact, and the following of fads. Journal of Management Inquiry, 6, 8-16.

Barley, S. R. (1983). Semiotics and the study of occupational and organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 393-413.

Barr, C. (Ed). (1993). The Bowker annual: Library and book trade almanac. New Providence, NJ: Bowker.

Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies. New York: Hill & Wang.

Beyer, J. M., & Trice, H. M. (1982). The utilization process: A conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 591-622.

Blanchard, K., & Johnson, S. (1982). The one minute manager. New York: Morrow.

Boehm, V. R. (1980). Research in the "real world"--A conceptual model. Personal Psychology, 33, 495-503.

Bogart, D. (Ed). (2003). The Bowker annual: Library and trade book almanac. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Brue, G. (2002). Six Sigma for managers. New York: McGraw-Hill

Burgess, R.G. (1984). In the field: An introduction to field research. London: Allen & Unwin.

Campbell, J. P., Daft, R. L., & Hulin, C. L. (1982). What to study: Generating and developing research questions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Clark, T., & Salaman, G. (1996). The management guru as organizational witchdoctor. Organization, 3, 85-107.

Clark, T., & Salaman, G. (1998). Telling tales: Management gurus' narratives and the construction of managerial identity. Journal of Management Studies, 35, 137-161.

Collins, D. (2000). Management fads and buzzwords : Critical-practical perspectives. London: Brunner-Routledge.

Corwin, R. G., & Louis, K. S. (1982). Organizational barriers to the utilization of research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 623-640.

Crainer, S. (1996, March). The rise of guru skepticism. Management Today, 48-52.

Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

de Saussure, F. (1966). Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dyer, G. (1982). Advertising and communication. London: Methuan.

Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Eco, U. (1979). The role of the reader: Explorations in the semiotics of texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

"Excellence" chosen most influential book. (2003, October 2). The [Charleston, SC] Post and Courier, p. 2A.

Felker, D. B., Redish, J. C., & Peterson, J. (1985). Training authors of informative documents. In T. M. Duffy & R. Waller (Eds.), Designing usable texts (pp. 43-61). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Fielden, J. S., & Dulek, R. (1984). Bottom line business writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Fiol, C. M. (1989). A semiotic analysis of corporate language: Organizational boundaries and joint venturing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 277-303.

Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Penguin Books.

Fiske, J. (1987). Television culture. New York: Methuen.

Fiske, J. (1990). Introduction to communication studies: Studies in culture and communication (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Fiske, J., & Hartley, J. (1978). Reading television. London: Methuen.

Fourali, C. E. (2000). Beyond opposites: Extending the cultural boundaries of CBT methodology. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 13(2), 135-158.

Freeman, F. H. (1985). Books that mean business: The management bestsellers. American Management Review, 10, 345-350.

Fry, L., & Fry, V. H. (1986). A semiotic model for the study of mass communication. Communication Yearbook, 9, 443-462.

Furusten, S. (1999) Popular management books: How they are made and what they mean for organisations. London: Routledge.

George, M. L. (2002). Lean Six Sigma: Combining Six Sigma quality with Lean Speed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gerlach, N. (1996). The business restructuring genre: Some questions for critical organization analysis. Organization, 3, 425-453.

Gill, J., & Whittle, S. (1992). Management by panacea: Accounting for transience. Journal of Management Studies, 30, 281-295.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Gottdiener, M. (1995). Postmodern semiotics: Material culture and the forms of postmodern life. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Greimas, A. J. (1966). Semantique structurale. Paris: Larousse.

Greimas, A. J. (1986). For a topological semiotics. In M. Gottdiener & A. Lagopoulos (Eds.), The city and the sign: An introduction to urban semiotics (pp. 25-54). New York: Columbia University Press.

Grint, K. (1997) Fuzzy management: Contemporary ideas and practices at work. London: Oxford University Press.

Guillemette, R. A. (1987). Predicting readability of data processing written materials. Data Base, 18, 41-51.

Guillen, M. F. (1994). The age of eclecticism: Current organizational trends and the evolution of managerial models. Sloan Management Review, 36, 75-86.

Hakel, M. D., Sorcher, M., Beer, M., & Moses, J. L. (1982). Making it happen: Designing research with implementation in mind. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hall, S. (1981). The determinations of new photographs. In S. Cohen & J. Young (Eds.), The manufacture of news: Deviance, social problems and the mass media (pp. 226-243). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. New York: HarperBusiness.

Hartley, J. (1982). Understanding news. London: Methuen.

Hawkes, T. (1977). Structuralism & semiotics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Horton, T. R. (1988). That old management magic. Management Review, 77, 5-7.

Huczynski, A. A. (1993). Management gurus. London: Routledge.

Jackson, B. (2001). Management gurus and management fashions: A dramatistic inquiry. London: Routledge.

Jackson, B. G. (1996) Re-engineering the sense of self: The manager and the management guru. Journal of Management Studies, 33, 571-590.

Jackson, B. G. (1999). The goose that laid the golden egg? A rhetorical critique of Stephen Covey and the effectiveness movement. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 354-377.

Kanter, R. M. (1996). The change masters: Innovation for productivity in the American corporation. London: International Thomson Business Press.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Translating strategy into action: The balanced scorecard. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kieras, D. (1980). Initial mention as a signal to thematic content in technical passages. Memory and Cognition, 8, 345-353.

Kieser, A. (1997). Rhetoric and myth in management fashion. Organization, 4, 49-74.

Kosko, B. (1993). Fuzzy thinking: The new science of fuzzy logic. New York: Hyperion.

Kotter, J. P. (1982). What effective general managers really do. Harvard Business Review, 60(6), 156-167.

Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lorsch, J. W. (1979). Making behavioral science more useful. Harvard Business Review, 57, 171-180.

Maidique, M. A. (1983). The new management thinkers. California Management Review, 26, 151-161.

Micklethwait, J., & Wooldridge, A. (1997) The witch doctors. London: William Heinemann.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mintzberg, H. (1975). The manager's job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review, 53(4), 49-61.

Nohria, N., & Berkley, J. D. (1994). Whatever happened to the take-charge manager? Harvard Business Review, 72(1), 128-137.

Norreklit, H. (2003). The balanced scorecard: What is the score? A rhetorical analysis of the balanced scorecard. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28, 591-619.

Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z: How American management can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Oviatt, B. M., & Miller, W. D. (1989). Irrelevance, intransigence, and business professors. Academy of Management EXECUTIVE, 3, 304-312.

Pagel, S., & Westerfelhaus, R. (1999). Read the book or attend a seminar? Charting ironies in how managers prefer to learn. Journal of Business Communication, 36, 170-193.

Peirce, C. S. (1991). Peirce on signs: Writings on semiotic by Charles Sanders Peirce. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row.

Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: Why you don't have to leave the corporation to become an entrepreneur New York: Harper & Row.

Radway, J. A. (1984). Reading the romance: Women, patriarchy, and popular literature. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Raman, V. (2003). Relational and contextual reasoning: Philosophical and logical aspects. Zygon, 38(2), 451-458.

Redish, J. C. (1989). Writing in organizations. In M. Kogen (Ed.), Writing in the business professions (pp. 97-124). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English and the Association for Business Communication.

Redish, J. C., Battison, R. M., & Gold, E. S. (1985). Making information accessible to readers. In L. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in nonacademic settings (pp. 129-154). New York: Guilford.

Rubens, P. M. (1986). A reader's view of text and graphics: Implications for transactional text. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 16(1/2), 73-86.

Seizer, J. (1981). Readability is a four-letter word. Journal of Business Communication, 18(4), 23-34.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday Currency.

Shapiro, E. C. (1995). Fad surfing in the boardroom: Reclaiming the courage to manage in the age of instant answers Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Suchan, J. (1998). The effect of high-impact writing on decision making within a public sector bureaucracy. Journal of Business Communication, 35, 299-327.

Suchan, J., & Colucci, R. (1989). Communication efficiency between high impact and bureaucratic written communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 2, 454-484.

Suleiman, S. R. (1980). Introduction: Varieties of audience-oriented criticism. In S. R. Suleiman & I. Crosman (Eds.), The reader in the text: Essays on audience and interpretation (pp. 3-45). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Tichy, N. (1993). Control your own destiny or someone else will: How Jack Welch is making General Electric the most competitive corporation. New York: Doubleday.

van de Vall, M., Bolas, C., & Kang, T. S. (1976). Applied social research in industrial organizations: An evaluation of functions, theory, and methods. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12, 159-177.

Sonya Pagel

Black Hills State University

Robert Westerfelhaus

College of Charleston

NOTES

(1.) At this time, no single term is used in the popular and academic press to represent this array of concepts, which are variously (and sometimes disparagingly) referred to as "eclectic models" (Guillen, 1994), "fads" (Collins, 2000; Shapiro, 1995), "guru theory" (Huczynski, 1993), "innovations" (Abrahamson, 1991), "management fashions" (Abrahamson, 1996; Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999), and "management theory" (Micklethwait & Wooldridge, 1997).

(2.) According to Grint (1997), managerial interest in popular management theories is driven by the following five reasons:

* The rational approach: Such theories help organizations become more effective and stay ahead of the competition.

* The charismatic approach: Managers seek the wisdom of a charismatic guru to help them negotiate an increasingly competitive business environment.

* The distancing approach: The use of such theories is a form of conspicuous consumption used to distance managers from their underlings.

* The structural approach: Shifting economic structures prompt managerial desire to change through the use of new innovations.

* Institutional approach: Forces of institutionalization found outside organizations create a desire for change; in particular, managers frequently feel compelled to implement a popular management theory if many others are also doing so (the so-called bandwagon effect).

(3.) Though Pagel and Westerfelhaus (1999) point out that managers prefer to learn about popular management theories through seminars rather than books, only books that are best sellers spawn seminars.

(4.) Peirce's works on semiotics were originally published in various magazines and journals toward the end of the 19th century; Sanssure first published his General Linguistics during the first decade of the 20th.

(5.) These referrals proved invaluable. The hectic schedules kept by top executives constrain their ability and willingness to participate in academic research. (The difficulty of gaining access to senior managers was underscored in discussions the lead author had with two executives who took an interest in helping this project recruit participants. One executive cautioned, "These are very busy people." And the other stated, "Getting a half an hour with a CEO is a coup d'etat. My secretary doesn't even get a half an hour of my time in a week."

(6.) Eighteen of the managers we interviewed were men and 4 were women. Most were middleaged. Their ages are as follows: 25-34 = 1; 35-44 = 9; 45-54 = 9; 55-64 = 2; 65+ = 1.

(7.) This colorful and descriptive term was used by Manager O.

(8.) See Pagel and Westerfelhaus (1999) regarding the use of seminars to disseminate popular management theories.

(9.) No date, attributed to sociologist Emile Durkheim, social scientist Kurt Lewin, Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin, and macroeconomist John Maynard Keynes, among others.

Sonya Pagel (Ph.D., Ohio University, 1997) is an assistant professor of communication in the Humanities Department at Black Hills State University.

Robert Westerfelhaus (Ph.D., Ohio University, 1999) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the College of Charleston. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sonya Pagel, College of Arts and Sciences, 1200 University Street Unit 9003, Spearfish, SD 57799-9003; e-mail: sonyapagel@bhsu.edu.

Table 1. Profile of Managers Interviewed: Company Affiliation
and Position

Company             Manager     Position

Company AA,         Manager G   Finance director for the midcontinent
 multinational                  business unit
 oil company        Manager J   Manager of business support
                    Manager N   President of refining and marketing
                    Manager O   Environmental director for the
                                midcontinent business unit
                    Manager P   Refinery manager for the midcontinent
                                business unit
                    Manager S   General manager for the U.S.
                                midcontinent operations
                    Manager T   Manager of transportation for the
                                midcontinent business unit
Company BB, major   Manager A   Corporate continuous improvement
 U.S. oil company               coordinator
                    Manager C   President and CEO
                    Manager H   President and CEO (retired)
                    Manager L   Vice president of systems' optimization
                    Manager M   Project coordinator for the product
                                management group
                    Manager R   General manager of transportation
                    Manager U   Material and supply coordinator
Company CC,         Manager B   Executive vice president
 multinational
 oil corporation
Company DD,         Manager Y   President
 independent
 refiner
Company EE,         Manager E   Team leader
 manufacturing
 company
Company FF,         Manager D   Manager of business support
 multinational      Manager V   CEO and chairman of the board
 transportation     Manager W   General manager
 company            Manager X   Team leader
Company GG, large   Manager F   Vice president
 investment firm

Table 2. The Code of Reading Preference's Binary Pairings

Academic Style          Business Style

Long                    Short
Excessive wordiness     Concise word usage
Indirect presentation   Direct presentation of main points
 of main points
Abstract concepts       Concrete examples
Complex language        Simple language