In the first chapter of the book, we talked about the diversity of managerial life. It is seen as attractive and influential, but also as complex, hard work, difficult to interpret and at times boring. The complexity and diversity have often been attributed to the large number of activities with often tenuous links, which generally creates a fairly fragmented managerial existence (see, for example, Carlson 1951; Mintzberg 1973; Tengblad 2012a). In contrast to this focus on the “exterior” aspects of the managerial work (functions, tasks), in this book we have taken an identity perspective and focused on the managers’ “inner world”: experiences, interpretations and creation of meaning. Above all, our aim has been to understand how managers in a changing, complex and diverse world attempt to shape a coherent self-view – identity – which can act as a relatively stable platform for their management and managerial work. Much of this has centred on two overall themes: on the one hand, strategy, cultural influence and other “big” questions, and on the other, relations-oriented questions to do with encouragement, confirmation and support.

Both these themes are potential points of departure in the creation of a managerial identity, but in the book we have shown that these sources are unreliable and unstable. It is difficult to create and sustain a stable, well-functioning managerial identity. The discrepancy between the ideal and the reality is, as has been shown, often striking.

Managers’ relationships with co-workers are frequently complicated. Simple, clear-cut ideals and solutions rarely have the expected effect. On countless occasions in this book, we have pointed out that managers’ identities are strongly relational. Traits, competence and performance mean relatively little in comparison with the ability to relate to other people. One important question is how important the relationships and the strong sensitivity are in making it possible to sustain a coherent managerial identity. What part do other people and conditions in their near environment really play in how people see themselves as managers? What importance do they attach to feedback from other people about what they say and do as managers, and what role does this feedback play in identity confirmation? What is the significance for the individual's managerial identity of leading complex work operations without fully understanding them?