Managerial Success

0 downloads 0 Views 87KB Size Report
considered successful if he/she is the best student in his/her grade, in his/her ... The success of an executive / manager in the work organization has mostly been ...
Ghosh

Managerial Success

Managerial Success: A Synoptic Typology and Conceptual Model Building Koustab Ghosh Calcutta Business School, India

Abstract Managerial success has been widely interpreted by various organizational researchers and scholars with different connotations. This paper has explored managerial success as a research construct, and has presented a synoptic review of literature on the same. It has also delineated the various types of measures associated with managerial success, and the exhibited traits of managerial success vis-à-vis managerial failure (derailment). The thematic elaboration is being summed up with the help of a conceptual model of managerial success that has been proposed to be tested empirically as the continuation of this study. Keywords: Conceptual model, managerial derailment, managerial success

INTRODUCTION The issue of what makes managers/executives successful has been of interest to researchers and professionals for long. Factors such as social skill, interpersonal ease, luck, good connections, timing, positive self-esteem (Berglas, 1986); drive, energy, and desire to do an outstanding job, set priorities and work accordingly (Stuart-Kotze & Roskin, 1983); and ability to handle people have been considered important in the attainment of success. Iacocca (1984) and Sorcher (1985) contended that predicting success is an extraordinarily difficult task as it involves considerable ambiguity. The complexities lie in matching and balancing an individual's behaviour, abilities, personal characteristics, experience, and accomplishments with a different working environment, new roles, new tasks, and new interpersonal relationships. Many people or organizations predict success from analytical ability. Others give importance to selfconfidence, tough-mindedness, willingness to work hard, and a sense of honour. Predicting success may be possible if one understands what one is trying to predict. The issue has become complex as the meaning of success itself has been changing from time to time. Three main strands of thought and feeling out of a number of competing versions of the ideal success have been found by Cawelti (1965). The emphasis of the first strand was on values of piety, frugality, and diligence. The definition of success of the second tradition of thought was purely economic. It became dominant towards the end of the 19th century. With the rise of industry, possession and control of wealth had become more desirable goals. The second strand stressed qualities such as initiative, aggressiveness, and forcefulness whereas the protestant tradition stressed the self-disciplinary and religious virtues. The third strand defined success in terms of individual fulfilment and social progress rather than in terms of wealth and status. The emphasis was on personality development which meant acquisition of those qualities which would make the individual an effective participant in the struggle for success. Personal magnetism, a quality which was thought to enable an individual to influence others, TMC Academic Journal, 2010, 5(1): 7-22

 

Ghosh

Managerial Success

became one of the keys to success. The difference between true and false success was also pointed out by the third strand of thought. True success was made out to be moral, religious, and also material. Mere material achievement was not considered to be true success.

CONCEPTUALIZATION AND RESEARCH GAP Berglas (1986), argued that evaluating a person or an event as "successful" indicates that the person or event has more of a desired attribute than persons or events in its class. The ranking that leads to the experience of success simply means that he/she has outperformed or ranked higher in measurable terms than anyone else in the relevant comparison groups. One can be considered successful if he/she is the best student in his/her grade, in his/her school, in his/her state, or in his/her field, be it medicine or medieval history (Berglas, 1986). The success of an individual till recently has generally been determined by the societal yardstick. This essentially means that success of an individual is evaluated from the viewpoint of some externalists other than the individual in question. Most frequently, success of an individual has been evaluated in terms of money and status. Some externally observable and measurable criteria, such as salary relative to age (Ansari, Baumgartel & Sullivan, 1982; England & Lee, 1974; Ryan, Watson & Williams, 1981; Watson & Williams, 1977), promotion rate, salary history, and ratings and ranking of one's effectiveness (Dunnette, 1967) have also been used to measure executive success. Since success implies a comparison, it may be perfectly fine to consider someone as successful, who has more of a "desired" attribute. However, 'what' attributes are desired to be successful or the criteria of success are largely determined by the significant social values as perceived by the members of the society. The success of an executive / manager in the work organization has mostly been determined in terms of external criteria, such as money, status, number of promotions, etc. There may be a possibility that an individual, who is treated or perceived as successful by others may not consider himself or herself to be a success or vice versa. What this implies is that success has different meanings to different people. Uris (1969) posited that though success can be conceptualized as an abstraction, achieving the same becomes a highly specific matter. It is posited with justification that diverse people would possess varied notions about what success is. Notwithstanding the diverse interpretation of success by the externals, the attainment of success would make the achievers feel that they are becoming successful in their own eyes, from their own perspective, and by their own yardstick. To be very precise, a number of previous studies have tried to explore what accounts for managerial success. Studies were also made to find out solutions to queries like what characterizes successful managers; what do successful managers know that less successful managers do not; and what do successful managers do better than less successful managers. The real time managerial responses to these queries showed more disagreement than agreement as to deciding the predictors of managerial success. Although the managerial respondents were consensus that the scores obtained from intelligence and various aptitude tests were not the sole predictor of potential managerial success. Many of them cited examples of colleagues, who had a very high level of general intelligence, though were moderately successful in their career pursuits. Conversely, the most successful colleagues they knew were rarely those, whom they would rate as the most intelligent. Even a view was expressed that a very high level of intelligence quotient (IQ) could be a detriment to managerial success, based on the observation that some highly intelligent individuals lack patience with their less able peers, subordinates, and even superiors. Further, such individuals tend to rely too heavily on their extraordinary analytical powers, thereby neglecting important advice from others. An ability TMC Academic Journal, 2010, 5(1): 7-22

 

Ghosh

Managerial Success

that counted more than intelligence quotient for managerial success was found to be practical intelligence (Wagner & Sternberg, 1986). Gronhaug and Falkenberg (1994) found that the individual managers would attribute success to internalities over which they could exert control, and the success criteria were perceived differently by the managerial members at different levels of hierarchy. Their study also confirmed that the better the organizational results were achieved, the more there was consensus of success criteria among the organizational managers. Eddleston, Baldridge and Veiga (2004) posited that education and drive for career advancement reorient the managers more towards relocation, marketability, professional network, promotion, and enhanced compensation. Hayajneh and Raggad (1994) established that the personal values of individual managers were related to their professional success, and also the successful managers were found to be dynamic and achievement – oriented than their unsuccessful counterparts. Margerison (2007) confirmed that the five major managerial success attributes were found to be interpersonal influencing skills, responsibility for a business sector, need to achieve results, early leadership experience, and width of business experience. Determinants of managerial advancement have not been well established. A number of studies have examined the impact in terms of the leadership motive pattern (McClelland, 1985); and mentoring (Dreher & Ash, 1990). Whereas, only a few studies have examined a range of personal and situational variables (Gattiker & Larwood, 1988; Jaskolka, Beyer & Trice, 1985), and these have been published without the benefit of specific theoretical underpinning. Recently, comprehensive theories of managerial advancement have been developed for women. The theories may also be useful for explaining the advancement of men, for whom comprehensive theories are lacking. Using confirmatory modelling, a priori models of influences on women's managerial advancement based on recent theories pertaining to women and the applicability of the models to men were examined. To date, studies have not tested complex models using simultaneous estimation of influences, even though theories of women's advancement are multivariate, person-situation explanations (Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989; Fagenson, 1990) posing sequences of influence (Tharenou, 1994). Researchers now need to test models of sequenced patterns of relationships if the managerial advancement of either sex is to be better understood. The concept of managerial success as an exploratory research construct has also not been investigated by the academic researchers as an integrated outcome of various success antecedents having simultaneous interactions and impact.

CRITERIA OF MEASURING MANAGERIAL SUCCESS In judging their own success, the working managers/executives can use internalized aspirations and goals that are not visible to others as distinguished criteria. The results of such judgments are relatively subjective internal states or feelings. Research on success has employed both kinds of measures as criteria. Commonly used objective and visible indicators include (1) salary level, (2) job status (Crites, 1969), (3) tenure in the job or organization (Waddell, 1983), and (4) work-related recognition (Howes, 1981). Although individuals assess their own success by these objective criteria, more subjective measures are needed to tap possible individual differences in feelings about these objective accomplishments. Such subjective measures include significant criteria like job satisfaction and employment goals reached (Howes, 1981). A third category of indicators focuses on achievements such as job performance, employing indicators like output, sales, earnings, efficiency ratings, and productivity (Crites, 1969). Based on the review of literature and the scholarly work done by the researchers described in the

TMC Academic Journal, 2010, 5(1): 7-22

 

Ghosh

Managerial Success

previous sections of this paper, the following indicative constructs of managerial success were identified for detailed elaboration and conceptual model building. Measures of Job Performance Job performance as a criterion measure for managerial success has been frequently used in an empirical validity study. It reflects the attributes and consequences of successful job performance of the particular manager under study. As measures of job performance and that of organizational results are partly impacted by the ability and motivation of an individual manager; the larger this portion of the variance, the more useful the measure will be as a criterion for predictors of managerial success. The most commonly used criteria measure of managerial success is the degree of success in job performance of managers by rating scales of various sorts. These rating scales indicate various measures of individual manager’s on-the-job performance by the assessment of technical, human, and conceptual skills required in different proportions for various job levels. Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler and Weick (1970) expressed that the rating scales suffer in reliability because (a) job behaviour is not a reliable phenomenon and (b) individual observers differ in their perceptions of the success of a particular incident of behaviour and in their perceptions of how this behaviour should be classified. A promising alternative criterion measure is the use of Smith and Kendall's (1963) retranslation method to construct job specific behaviourally anchored rating scales (BARS). Prien and Rowan's (1971) Management Performance Review, and Blanz and Ghiselli's (1972) Mixed Standard Scale are the other promising methods of improving inter-rater reliability, which may lead to more reliable criteria. Sanyal and Guvenli (2004), and Crilley and Sharp (2006) established that managerial characteristics in terms of technical, human, and strategic skills have significant bearing on managerial and organizational performance. Merikas, Merikas and Sorros (2005) reviewed the criteria of managerial performance in the financial sector, and the various information ratios and investment style of individual managers were found to be significant. Antonio, Jose-Maria and Francisco (2008) delineated that the flexibility of individual managers in terms of adapting themselves to the job requirement and environmental turbulence influence their individual as well as the organizational performance. Verdú-Jover Antonio J., Gómez-Gras José-María, and Lloréns-Montes Francisco J. (2008) empirically established that the managerial flexibility had positive implications for both managerial as well as the firm performance. Measures of Organizational Results The fact that measures of job performance are so unreliable at times has led researchers to measures of organizational results, for the unit of the manager in question, as criteria measures of managerial success. Organizational results in terms of profitability, business growth and expansion, return on investments, project planning and execution, and creation of strategic advantages are influenced not only by managerial success but also by the environment within the organization, and the external environmental factors. Thus it is often difficult to judge the effect of a particular manager's behaviour on the success of his or her organizational unit. A further problem with the use of organizational results as a criterion of managerial success is that they are factorially complex rather than uni-dimensional with some dimensions being highly unstable. Although some work has been done on relating leadership behaviour particularly consideration and structure to organizational criteria, the methodological problems are enormous. Organizational results achieved in terms of business growth and turnover, profitability, return on investments, and customer satisfaction determines the professional success of working executives (Maulion & Willingson, 1984; Margerison, 2007; Lawrence & Kleiner, 2007).

TMC Academic Journal, 2010, 5(1): 7-22

 

Ghosh

Managerial Success

Salary, Status, and Promotions Many studies of managerial success have used salary and promotion as criteria measures of managerial success. These two variables do have the advantage of being "real world" decisions, which presumably have received some thought on the part of responsible managers. But they are being affected by organizational politics, economic conditions, and the labour market. Indeed, one study of salary by Haire (1965) found little consistency in the relationship between pay and pay rises over a ten year period, indicating that either performance was not a reliable phenomenon or that salary was not a reliable measure of it. Jaskolka, Beyer and Trice (1985) focus on two of the most generally accepted and widely used objective criteria of vocational success: salary level and status level. However, both have obvious common shortcoming as measures of success as they confound success with age and tenure. The approach failed to discriminate the atypical cases of those persons, who are unusually successful or unsuccessful and therefore, the query remained as for a direct correlation with either salary or status level. To deal with this problem, in his study of managerial values and success, England (1975) neutralized the effects of age by standardizing managers’ salaries within age categories. Jaskolka et. al. (1985) computed two measures of managerial success, each standardized within the manager’s age category: financial success based on salary, and status success based on hierarchical level. Data from a large sample of managers in a U.S. corporation were then used to ascertain factors associated with more or less of these two measures of success. Several large - scale studies have followed the progress of managers from early to later stages of their careers in an attempt to determine which personal characteristics are associated with managerial effectiveness. This line of research has been reviewed and summarized by Campbell et. al. (1970). Among the indicators of effectiveness examined in some of these studies reflected that personal success factors like salary levels, salary increments, and status levels attained were given more importance than the overall organizational effectiveness. General Cognitive Ability It is widely accepted that within the given variations and design constraints among the studies of managerial dispositions, some stable individual differences may predict important attitudes and behaviour as antecedents to managerial success. Intelligence or general cognitive ability (GCA) has a well-documented history of research that reliably predicts important outcomes such as job performance and career success (House et al., 1991). Hunter (1986) reported a review of hundreds of studies showing that general cognitive ability predicts job performance in all jobs. The predictive ability of GCA increases for jobs or situations that require increased information processing. This is consistent with Wright and Mischel's (1987) competency-demand hypothesis, which implies that people with more general cognitive ability are likely to perform better in cognitively demanding situations. General cognitive ability predicts performance across jobs, settings, and careers (Dreher & Bretz, 1991; Gottfredson, 1986; Schmid, Ones & Hunter, 1992). Schneider (1987), Kenrick and Funder (1988) reviewed the person-situation debate and concluded that situations may affect people, while people may affect situations and maintain distinctive personal styles across situations. There are several problems here for researchers attempting to measure managerial success based on a set of criteria measures. First, intelligence or general cognitive ability is a construct that most organizational scholars have not investigated. Instead of building on the massive evidence for the efficiency of GCA as a predictor of job-related outcomes, researchers have pursued other, less well-defined dispositional constructs (Gerhardt, 1987; Tyler, 1986). Second, some of the earliest models of human performance (Heider, 1958) suggested an interactional TMC Academic Journal, 2010, 5(1): 7-22

 

Ghosh

Managerial Success

approach using ability and motivation. Campbell et. al. (1970), observed that in industrial and organizational psychology, performance is a function of the interaction between ability and motivation. Chatman (1989), and Pinder (1998) in their reviews of the motivation literature, made a similar observation and noted that it may be that high levels of one component compensate for low levels of the other. This general approach is the basis for expectancy models of motivation that conceptualize performance as the interaction between ability and effort. Success has been viewed through personal achievements in some socially valued occupation or vocation (Merton, 1968). However, vocational achievements alone may not be sufficient to achieve success if other factors assist or constrain individuals in achieving success. Psycho – Analytical Measures Past research has investigated only a few of the many psychological characteristics that could be related to managerial success. England and Lee (1974) found that values of financially successful managers differed from those of their less successful counterparts. Job involvement, which can be viewed as the value individuals place on their jobs, has also been investigated as it is correlated with some indicators of success. Rabinowitz and Hall (1977) reported no relation or mixed results between job involvement and job or skill level. However, it is possible that past studies failed to uncover a relationship between job involvement and success because of the inherent difficulties existed in the unstandardized measures of success used. Using Beyer’s (1981) definition, manager’s beliefs about the nature and consequences of the relationship between business and society, their obligations to employees, and the nature of their responsibilities are ideologies. As England (1975) found for values, the ideologies of successful and unsuccessful managers differ. Steiner (1971) suggested that business organizations have a unique system which forms the fundamental driving force in each business and may be more important in its success than its managerial assets. England and Lee (1974) found that more successful managers have dynamic and achievement-oriented values, while less successful managers have more static and passive values. Singer (1975) also investigated the relationship between values and leadership and found that successful managers placed a high priority on moral standards and personal integrity. Using England's (1967) research methodology, Askar (1979) examined the value systems of Egyptian managers and found that the value orientation of Egyptian managers as a group appeared to have a more moralistic than pragmatic or affect orientation, and that the personal value systems of Egyptian managers were related to their behaviour. Hayajneh and Raggad (1994) examined that the personal value systems of the sampled managers were related to their success as managers. It was also found that there were differences between the personal value systems of more successful managers and those of less-successful managers. While more successful managers had dynamic and achievementoriented values, less/successful managers had more traditional moral and religion values. Motivational profile of individual managers in terms of the need for autonomy and power, achievement, and socialization were also found to be critical for achieving organizational goal and objectives, and hence contributed to career advancement and professional success (Bateman & Crant, 2005; Beckers & Frere, 1976; Campbell et. al., 1970; Margerison, 1980; Myers, 1966; Pinder, 1998; Sansone & Harackiewicz, 2000). The individual personality traits of emotional stability, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and thinking type (logical and analytical) have got a significant bearing on the performance and professional success of individual managers in organizations (Bozionelos, 2004; Burke & Witt, 2002; Furnham, Crump & Chamorro, 2007; Gentry, Mondore & Cox, 2007; Nikolau, Tomprou & Vakola, 2007; Suliman, Abdelrahman & Abdalla, 2010; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson & Rothstein, 1991; van der Walt, Meiring, Rothmann & Barrick, 2002). Hence the values, motivation, and the personality pattern of individual managers play significant roles in the achievement of professional success. TMC Academic Journal, 2010, 5(1): 7-22

 

Ghosh

Managerial Success

Contextual Measures Campbell et al. (1970) concluded that contextual variables have been largely ignored in this line of research and suggested that role characteristics, structural properties of organizations, organizational climate, and industry properties should also be investigated as predictors of managerial effectiveness. Various contextual variables, including characteristics of the manager’s role and unit, are likely to hinder or assist managers’ efforts to attain success. Campbell and Cellini (1981) suggested that inappropriate job requirements, deficiencies in the organizational structure, and an inadequate reward system may lower managerial job performance. The empirical evidence relating such characteristics of managers’ roles to their success is inadequate to reach any definite conclusion. On the other hand, Agarwal (1980) found that chief executives, who performed more complex jobs with larger numbers of subordinates earned higher compensation. Spaeth (1976) also confirmed that managers with larger span of control secured more compensation. Conversely, Bridges and Berk (1974) found that supervisory personnel with routine jobs earned lower wages. Although not previously investigated, having greater authority and influence also seems likely to assist managers to gain more rewards and thus to be more successful. Other factors that could constrain success by managers’ efforts are the ways criteria are used to decide their promotions. Managerial perception that performance and technical skills are important for promotion seems likely to produce successful managerial behaviour. Whereas, perceptions that seniority is important seem likely to produce less successful managerial behaviour. Another role characteristic that could affect managerial success is perceived role stress. Some authors (Dukerich, Beyer & Trite, 1982; Schmidt, 1978) have pointed out that role demands are determined not only by role senders, but also by people’s expectations of themselves. Managers, who demand more of themselves, may experience more of certain kinds of stress, particularly role overload. Managerial success may also be constrained by characteristics of the work unit supervised. To maintain equity, organizations should give more rewards for more difficult tasks than for easier ones. Supervising units with several characteristics that make managerial tasks more difficult, turnover within the unit, low visibility of subordinates’ performance, non-routine tasks, and high amounts of technological change should be more highly rewarded than supervising units that lack these characteristics. Demographic Measures It is well established in the literature that certain demographic characteristics help and other impede individuals in their pursuit of success. Several studies have found that greater education, tenure, or age contribute to attainment of greater salary or higher organizational status (Agarwal, 1980; Bridges & Berk, 1974; Grandjean, 1981; Halaby, 1977a, 1977b; Malkiel & Malkiel, 1973; Leigh, 1976; Pfeffer & Ross, 1982; Rosenbaum, 1980; Spaeth, 1976). The type of education managers have may also affect their success. In particular, managers with business or engineering degrees, which involve highly practical vocational training, may be more highly rewarded than managers with other degrees. Rosenbaum (1979) found that employees who do well in the very early part of their organizational careers are also more apt to succeed in the later stages of their careers. This finding suggests that starting a career at the supervisory rather than the nonsupervisory level promotes managerial success. So far as the gender differences are concerned, Tharenou (1994) posited that training led to better managerial advancement for men compared to women managers, whereas career encouragement had a more positive effect on training for women than for men. Eddleston et. al. (2004) found that the mentoring and challenging job assignments produced similar success for both male and female managers working in the organization. The empirical work done by Crilley and Sharp (2006) reconfirmed that individual demographic attributes of age, gender, TMC Academic Journal, 2010, 5(1): 7-22

 

Ghosh

Managerial Success

qualification, and the job tenure have got a significant impact on managerial quality and performance, and hence contribute to professional success.

MANAGERIAL DERAILMENT VIS-A-VIS SUCCESS Derailment in a managerial or executive nomenclature is defined as being involuntarily plateaued, demoted, or fired below the level of anticipated achievement or reaching that level only to fail unexpectedly. When it is addressed, derailment is ordinarily considered as a lack of, or having less of, success characteristics established through numerous studies (Bentz, 1967, 1985a; Boyatzis, 1982; Bray & Howard, 1983; Campbell et. al., 1970; Couzins & Beagre, 2005; Dunnette, 1967; Gentry et. al., 2007; Stogdill, 1974; Thornton & Byham, 1982). For example, the Management Progress study conducted at AT&T (Bray & Howard, 1983; Howard & Bray, 1986) examined the characteristics associated with career progress. As part of this study, managers who progressed far up the corporate ladder were compared to those who never got past the lower rungs. Howard and Bray (1986) found that after 20 years in the Bell System, college-educated managers who progressed furthest in their careers were different from those who made less progress on dimensions such as need for advancement, motivation for achievement, occupational life theme, affability, and authoritarianism (Howard & Bray, 1986). Managers, who were less successful and plateaued or were fired, were indeed different on a host of attributes like face-to-face communication, leadership skills, administrative skills, ability to handle uncertainty, relationships with supervisors, career skills, or rigidity (Bray, Campbell & Grant, 1974; Skinner & Sasser, 1978; Stoner, Ference, Warren & Christensen, 1980). From his in-depth study of 15 executives, Kotter (1982) concluded that general managers who are less effective may know that two major constellations of behaviour agenda setting and networking are critical, but this realization is not reflected by their actions. Additionally, he noted that when personal characteristics were a poor fit with job demands, performance suffered. In studying how new general managers take charge in their new jobs, Gabarro (1987) noted that failed successions predominantly occurred when the manager had a lack of relevant background and troubled relationships with key people. A second pattern associated with failure was having ineffective relationships with two of the following groups of people: peers, subordinates, and superiors. The other two studies specifically dealt with derailment at executive levels (McCall & Lombardo, 1983; Bentz, 1985b) as their research focus. They were designed to shed light on the explanations for derailment. Bentz's (1985b) interview study indicated that many executive level failures lacked one or more of the managerial skills needed at these levels (e.g., administrative skills, disciplined judgment, ability to deal with a large scale organization). Some executives were highly skilled individuals, who possessed one overriding characteristic (usually a personality defect) that flawed their careers. McCall and Lombardo (1983) examined a derailed group of executives, in contrast with a group that had remained successful. They also concluded that derailed executives had personal flaws and managerial inadequacies. They, too, noted that weaknesses could override obvious strengths and suggested three additional dynamics of derailment: an early strength becomes a weakness (e.g., technical prowess becomes less important as one advances); a deficiency, such as an inability to work with peers, eventually matters; and bad luck (e.g., some executives were caught up in a business downturn and were tainted unfairly by circumstances). Both of these studies indicate that reasons given for derailment may be related to the individuals managerial skills (e.g., administrative skills, strategic thinking), personal qualities (e.g., insensitivity, overly ambitious), or ability to lead others (e.g., failures of leadership, over managing).

TMC Academic Journal, 2010, 5(1): 7-22

 

Ghosh

Managerial Success

Robie, Brown and Bly (2008) found in 144 executives (45%) and middle-level managers (55%), the moderating effects of a derailing trait composite measure on the relations between five major personality dimensions and boss ratings of overall performance, advancement potential, and career difficulty risk. The five major personality traits measured were openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability. A derailing trait is one that is associated with unexpected failure to reach a top position in an organization. The derailing trait composite was composed of five scales including: ego-centred, intimidating, manipulating, micro-managing, and passive-aggressive. The results of the study suggested that high scores on derailing traits will typically lead to higher performance ratings when examined across the executive success factors spectrum. The derailing traits moderated the relationship between the several personality factors and advancement potential and almost all of the personality factors and career risk difficulty. Further, the expected level of performance for those high in derailing traits is typically much higher at low levels of the personality factors and virtually the same at high levels of the personality factors. The results suggested that derailment traits may actually be more functional than were previously thought. Lombardo, Ruderman and McCauley (1988) attempted to provide some quantitative support for the earlier qualitative studies conducted on this topic. The items included in the questionnaire that they used for their study were selected from a pool of items, which were shown to be correlated with an index of expected promotability/derailment potential in an independent sample of 64 executives from the same organization. This pretesting procedure suggested that these items were able to distinguish those who were expected to derail from those likely to succeed in upper-level management positions.

CONCEPTUAL MODEL Based on the review of literature and the various measures of managerial success, Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual model that can be empirically tested to examine the valid and reliable causal and antecedent effects to managerial success. It can be seen from the figure (see Figure 1) that the psycho-analytical measures, demographic measures, and contextual measures form the set of ‘causal factors’ having a direct effect on managerial success as well as indirect effects on the same through the set of ‘antecedent’ factors. Salary and status levels, job behaviour, general cognitive ability, and organizational results form the set of ‘antecedent’ that are having a direct impact on managerial success as well as interactive effects with the causal factors. The hypothetical model (see Figure 1) illustrates that the psycho-analytical measures as a causal factor is having an effect on the antecedent job behaviour, whereas, demographic measures as a causal factor affect both the antecedents salary and status levels. The contextual measures as the third element of the causal factor set, is having impact on the antecedents salary and status levels, job behaviour, and organizational results. Again among the antecedents, there are interactive effects of general cognitive ability with salary and status levels, organizational results; and also of job behaviour with organizational results. Finally, all the causal factors and antecedents have an impact on the outcome variable managerial success. On the note of an exploratory research exposition it can be argued that of the individual variables such as greater education, job tenure, age, possessing professional qualifications, starting career at supervisory level, and greater job involvement would be positively related to managerial success. So far as the psycho-analytical measures are concerned, the motivation pattern, values, personality, and organizational commitment of the individual managers influence their on-the-job performance as well as professional success.

TMC Academic Journal, 2010, 5(1): 7-22

 

Ghosh

Managerial Success

Figure 1: Conceptual Model of Managerial Success with Causal and Antecedent Effects

“FIRST ORDER ANTECEDENTS”

Psycho-Analytical Measures

Contextual Measures

Demographic Measures

Salary Received

Obtained Status “SECOND ORDER

“SECOND

ANTECE DENTS”

ORDER

 

General Cognitive Ability

Job Performance

Organizational Results Achieved

Managerial Success

TMC Academic Journal, 2010, 5(1): 7-22

 

ANTECE DENTS”

Ghosh

Managerial Success

Of the contextual variables, it can be hypothesized that span of control, authority, influence, perceived role overload, managerial perception of promotion policies, relatively difficult units to manage / supervise, business turnover within the unit, visibility of subordinates’ performance, non-routine tasks, and high amounts of technical change would be positively related to managerial success. The model hypothesizes that the first order antecedents have direct impacts on managerial success as well as indirect influence on the outcome variable (managerial success in this case) via interactions with the second order antecedents. Whereas, the second order antecedents have direct impact on managerial success as well as have interactive effects among them. This conceptual model needs to be empirically tested to determine its validity, and also to justify the theorization by reconciling the findings with the available literature in this context.

CONCLUSION A majority of the organizational researchers acknowledge the fundamental importance of situational effects, the existence of stable individual differences, and their interaction as causes of behaviour (Wright & Mischel, 1987; Chatman, 1989). The controversy lies in questions about the usefulness of measuring dispositions that are sometimes poorly specified and lack reliability and validity, the absence of well-developed theoretical justifications for constructs for given situations, and the frequent use of cross-sectional research designs that do not permit adequate longitudinal testing of clearly specified hypotheses (Weiss & Adler, 1984). The result of validating a particular predictor of managerial success in a particular organization is diminished to an unknown degree by the lack of reliability in the criterion measure. Bray and Moses (1972) stated that even carefully selected and developed criteria measures do not always have high correlations with predictors. Refinement of criteria, and well-designed empirical validity studies can lead to improvements in the assessment centre, and in other predictors of managerial success. But not all organizations have the resources to develop the well-refined criteria of managerial success. Success is an evaluative concept. Evaluation requires judges and a criterion against which an outcome can be assessed. Research concerned with success must therefore consider to whom and by what criteria a given indicator connotes success. The most meaningful distinction about who is judging success is probably whether individuals are judging their own success or others are judging it for them. If success is to be judged reliably by others, the criteria used must be relatively objective and visible to others. The conceptual model developed in this paper proposes and takes into consideration all the possible interactions among the predictors of managerial success in the form of first and second order set of antecedents. As the future research scope, the proposed model needs to be empirically tested in order to develop a managerial perspective of success in the South East Asian context. The identified leading indicators validated through the structural model can serve as self-assessment criteria for success of the personnel working at various managerial levels. Taking the significant lead from this study, the top management in the South East Asian organizations can motivate and streamline the energy of managerial resources to flow in the desired direction of success so that the individual objectives and the overall organizational effectiveness are aligned.

TMC Academic Journal, 2010, 5(1): 7-22

 

Ghosh

Managerial Success

References Agarwal, N.C. (1980), “Determinants of executive compensation”, Industrial Relations, Vol.20, No.1, pp. 36-46. Ansari, M.A., Baumgartel, H. & Sullivan, G. (1982), “The Personal Orientation - Organizational Climate Fit and Managerial Success”, Human Relations, Vol. 35, pp. 1159-1178. Antonio, J.V., Jose-Maria, G.G. & Francisco, J.L. (2008), “Exploring managerial flexibility: determinants and performance implications”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 108, No. 1, pp. 70-86. Askar, S.A. (1979), Personal value systems of Egyptian managers, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Mississippi State University. Bateman, T.S. & Crant, J.M. (2005), “Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation: evidence from working adults”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 56, pp. 1-25. Beckers, M. & Frere, J. P. (1976), "Individual Characteristics of Belgian Top Managers and their Career Path in the Firm", in Boddewyn, J. J. (Ed.), European Industrial Managers, International Arts and Science Press, White Plains, New York. Bentz, V.J. (1967), The Sears experience in the investigation, description and prediction of executive behavior. In F. R. Wickert & D. E. McFarland (Eds.), Measuring executive effectiveness (pp. 147-206). Appleton-Century Crofts, New York. Bentz, V.J. (1985a), Research findings from personality assessment of executives. In J. H. Bernardin, & D. A. Bownas (Eds.), Personality assessment in organizations (pp. 82-144). Praeger Publishers, New York. Bentz, V.J. (1985b), A view of the top: A thirty year perspective of research devoted to the discovery, description and prediction of executive behavior. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA. Berglas, S. (1986), The Success Syndrome: Hitting Bottom When You Reach the Top. Plenum Press, New York. Beyer, J.M. (1981), Ideologies, values, and decision making in organizations. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Design (Vol. 2, pp. 166-202). Oxford Univ. Press, New York. Blanz, F. & Ghiselli, E.E. (1972), “The Mixed Standard Scale: A New Rating System”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 185-199. Boyatzis, R.E. (1982), The competent manager: A model for effective performance. Wiley & Sons, New York. Bozionelos, N. (2004), “The big five of personality and work involvement”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19, No.1, pp. 69-81. Bray, D.W. & Moses, J.L. (1972), “Personnel selection”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 23, pp. 545- 576. Bray, D.W., Campbell, R.J. & Grant, D.L. (1974), Formative years in business. Wiley & Sons, New York. Bray, D.W. & Howard, A. (1983), The AT&T longitudinal studies of managers. In K. W. Shaie (Ed.), Longitudinal studies of adult psychological development. The Guilford Press, New York. Bridges, W.P. & Berk, R.A. (1974), Determinants of white-collar income: An evaluation of equal pay for equal work”, Social Science Research, Vol. 3, pp. 211-233. Burke, L.A. & Witt, L.A. (2002), “Moderators of the openness to experience – performance relationship”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 8, pp. 712-721. Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E., III & Weick, K.E., Jr. (1970) Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. McGraw-Hill, New York.

TMC Academic Journal, 2010, 5(1): 7-22

 

Ghosh

Managerial Success

Campbell, R.E. & Cellini, J.V. (1981), “A diagnostic taxonomy of adult career problems”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 19, Issue 2, pp. 175-190. Cawelti, J.G. (1965), Apostles of the Self-made Ma. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Chatman, J.A. (1989), “Improving interactional organizational research: A model of personorganization fit”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 333-349. Couzins, M., Beagrie, S. (2005), “How to develop your self-awareness”, Personnel Today, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 31-42. Crilley, G. & Sharp, C. (2006), “Managerial Qualities and operational performance: a proposed model”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 4-18. Crites, J.0. (1969), Vocational psychology. McGraw-Hill, New York. Dreher, G.F. & Ash, R.A. (1990), “A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial positions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 539-546. Dreher, G.F. & Bretz, R.D. (1991), “Cognitive ability and career attainment: Moderating effects of early career success”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 392-397. Dukerich, J.M., Beyer, J.M. & Trite, H.M. (1982), Idealized role conceptions as moderators of perceived role overload. Working paper, State University of New York at Buffalo. Dunnette, M.D. (1967), Predictors of Executive Success, in Wickert, F R and McFarland, D E (eds.) Measuring Executive Effectiveness (pp. 7-48). Meredith Publishing Company, New York. Eddleston, K.A., Baldridge, D.C. & Veiga, J.F. (2004), “Toward modeling the predictors of managerial career success”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 360-385. England, G.W. & Lee, R. (1974), “The Relationship between Managerial Values and Managerial Success in the United States, Japan, India, and Australia”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 411-419. England, G.W. (1975), The manager and his values. Balinger, Cambridge. Fagenson, E.A. (1990), “At the heart of women in management research”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9, pp. 1-8. Furnham, A., Crump, J. & Chamorro, T. (2007), “Managerial level, personality and intelligence”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp. 805-818. Gabarro, J.J. (1987), The dynamics of taking charge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Gattiker, U.E. & Larwood, L. (1988), “Predictors for career achievement in the corporate hierarchy”, Human Relations, Vol. 43, pp. 703-726. Gentry, W.A., Mondore, S.P. & Cox, B.D. (2007), “A study of managerial derailment characteristics and personality preferences”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 26, No. 9, pp. 857-873. Gerhart, B. (1987), “How important are dispositional factors as determinants of job satisfaction?: Implications for job design and other personnel programs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 366-373. Gottfredson, L.S. (1986), “Occupational aptitude patterns map: Development and implications for a theory of job aptitude requirements” (Monograph), Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 29, pp. 254-291. Grandjean, B.D. (1981), “History and career in a bureaucratic labor market”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 86, pp. 1057-1092. Gronhaug, K., Falkenberg, J.S. (1994), “Success attributions within and across organizations”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 18, No. 11, pp. 22-29. Haire, M. (1965), The Incentive Character of Pay, in R. Andrews (Ed.), Managerial Compensation (Ann Arbor: Foundation for Research on Human Behavior, 1965), pp. 13-17. Halaby, C.N. (1977a), Organizational career attainment: The salaries of male managers. Institute for Research on Poverty, Madison, WI. Halaby, C.N. (1977b), Job-specific sex differences in organizational reward attainment: Wage discrimination vs. rank segregation. Institute for Research on Poverty, Madison, WI. TMC Academic Journal, 2010, 5(1): 7-22

 

Ghosh

Managerial Success

Hayajneh, A.F. & Raggad, B.G. (1994), “The relationship between the personal value systems of Jordanian managers and their managerial success”, International Journal of Crosscultural Management, Vol. 4, No.4, pp. 71 – 84. Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Wiley, New York. House, R., Howard, A. & Walker, G. (1991), The prediction of managerial success: A competitive test of the person-situation debate. Academy of Management: Best Paper Proceedings, pp. 215-224. Howard, A. & Bray, D.W. (1986, May), Career flights of executives and lesser birds. Paper presented at the 14th International Congress on the Assessment Center Method, Dearborn, MI. Howes, N.J. (1981), “Characteristics of career success: An additional input to selecting candidates for professional programs”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 277-288. Hunter, J.E. (1986), “Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and job performance”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 340-362. Iacocca, L. (1984), Iacocca. Bantam Books, New York. Jaskolka, G., Beyer, J.M. & Trice, H.M. (1985), “Measuring and predicting managerial success”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 189-205. Kenrick, D.T. & Funder, D.C. (1988), “Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the personsituation debate”, American Psychologist, Vol. 43, pp. 23-34. Kotter, J.P. (1982), The general managers. The Free Press, New York. Leigh, D.E. (1976), “Job experience and earnings among middle-aged men”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 130-146. Lawrence, T.L. & Kleiner, B.H. (2007), “The keys to successful goal achievement”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 39-48. Lombardo, M.M., Ruderman, N.M. & McCauley, C.D. (1988), “Explanations of success and derailment in upper-level management positions”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 199-216. Malkiel, B.G. & Malkiel, J.A. (1973), “Male-female pay differentials in professional employment”, American Economic Review, Vol. 63, pp. 693-705. Margerison, C.J. (1980), “How Chief Executives Succeed”, Journal of European Industrial Training (Monograph), Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 36-95. Margerison, C. (2007), “Chief executives’ perceptions of managerial success factors”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 47-60. Maulion, S. & Willingson, T. (1984), “How to find success”, Management Today, Vol. 48, pp. 5053. McCall, M.W. & Lombardo, M.M. (1983), “What makes a top executive?”, Psychology Today, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 26-31. McClelland, D.C. (1985), Managerial Motivation. Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL. Merikas, A.G., Merikas, A.A. & Sorros, I. (2005), “Is there an appropriate measure of managerial skill and performance?”, Managerial Finance, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 87-100. Merton, R. (1968), Social Theory and Social structure, Free Press, New York. Myers, S. (1966), “Conditions for Manager Motivation”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 58-71. Nikolaou, I., Tomprou, M. & Vakola, M. (2007), “Individuals’ inducements and the role of personality: implications for psychological contracts”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 7, pp. 649-663. Pfeffer, J. & Ross, J. (1982), “The effects of marriage and a working wife on occupational and wage attainment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 66-80. Pinder, C.C. (1998), Work motivation in organization behavior. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

TMC Academic Journal, 2010, 5(1): 7-22

 

Ghosh

Managerial Success

Prien, E.P. & Ronan, W.W. (1971), “Job Analysis: A Review of Research Findings”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 371-396. Rabinowitz, S. & Hall, D.T. (1977), “Organizational research on job involvement”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 84, pp. 265-288. Ragins, B.R. & Sundstrom, E., (1989), “Gender and power in organizations”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 105, pp. 51-88. Robie, C., Brown, D.J, & Bly, P.R. (2008), “Relationship between major personality traits and managerial success”, International Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 57-72. Rosenbaun, J.E. (1980), “Hierarchical and individual effects on earnings”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 1-13. Ryan, E. J., Watson, J. G. & Williams, J. (1981), “The Relationship between Managerial Values and Managerial Success of Female and Male Mangers”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 108, pp. 67-72. Salgado, J.F. (1997), “The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European community”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 30-43. Sansone, C. & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. Academic Press, San Diego. Sanyal, R. & Guvenli, T. (2004), “Perception of managerial characteristics and organizational performance: comparative evidence from Israel, Slovenia, and the USA”, Cross Cultural Journal: An International Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 53-71. Schmidt, W.H. (1978), Basic concepts of organizational stress-Causes and problems. In Occupational stress (U.S. Department of HEW, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Publication No. 78-156). U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, DC. Schmidt, F.L., Ones, D.S. & Hunter, J.E. (1992), “Personnel selection”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 43, pp. 627-670. Schneider, B. (1987), “The people make the place”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40, pp. 437453. Singer, H.A. (1975), “Human Values and Leadership”, Business Horizons, Vol. 3, pp. 85-88. Skinner, W. & Sasser, E. (1978) Manufacturing in the corporate strategy. Wiley & Sons, New York. Smith, P.C. & Kendall, L.M. (1963), “Retranslation of Expectations: An Approach to the Construction of Unambiguous Anchors for Rating Scales”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 149-155. Sorcher, M. (1985), Predicting Executive Success: What it Takes to Make it into Senior Management, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Spaeth, J.L. (1976), Characteristics of the work setting and the job as determinants of income. In W. H. Sewell, R. M. Hauser, & D. L. Featherman (Eds.), Schooling and achievement in American society (pp. 161-176). Academic Press, New York. Stogdill, R.M. (1974), Handbook of leadership. Free Press, New York. Stoner, J.A.F., Ference, T.P., Warren, E.K. & Christensen, H.K. (1980), Managerial career plateaus. New York: Center for Research in Career Development, Columbia University. Stuart-Kotze, R. & Roskin, R. (1983), Success Guide to Managerial Achievement. Reston Publishing Company, Inc, Reston, Virginia. Suliman, A.M., Abdelrahman, A.A. & Abdalla, A. (2010), “Personality traits and work performance in a duty-free industry”, International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 64-82. Tett, R., Jackson, D. & Rothstein, M. (1991), “Personality measures as predictors of job performance: a meta-analytic review”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 703-23. Tharenou, P. (1994), “Psychological approaches for investigating women’s career advancement”, Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 15, pp. 363-378.

TMC Academic Journal, 2010, 5(1): 7-22

 

Ghosh

Managerial Success

Thornton, G. C. & Byham, W. C. (1982), Assessment centers and managerial performance. Academic Press, New York. Tyler, B. (1986), Individualism and Psychology. Philosophical Review 95 (January), pp. 3-45. Uris, A. (1969), The Strategy of Success. Collier - Macmillan Ltd., London. van der Walt, H., Meiring, D., Rothmann, S. & Barrick, M. (2002), Meta-analysis of the relationship between personality measurements and job performance in South Africa, paper presented at the 5th Annual Industrial Psychology Conference, Pretoria, June. Verdú-Jover Antonio J., Gómez-Gras José-María & Lloréns-Montes Francisco J. (2008), “Exploring managerial flexibility: determinants and performance implications”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 108, No. 1, pp. 70-86. Waddell, F. T. (1983), “Factors affecting choice, satisfaction, and success in the female selfemployed”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 294-304. Wagner, R.K. & Sternberg, R.J. (1986), Tacit knowledge and intelligence in the everyday world. In R. Sternberg & R. Wagner (Eds.), Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world. Cambridge University Press, New York. Watson, J. & Williams, J. (1977), “Relationship between Managerial Values and Managerial Success of Black and White Managers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, pp. 203-207. Weiss, H. & Adler. S. (1984), Personality and Organizational Behavior. In B. Staw and L. Cummings (Eds), Personality and Organizational Influence (pp. 1-50). JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. Wright, J.C. & Mischel, W. (1987), “A conditional approach to dispositional constructs: the local predictability of social behavior”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 55, pp. 454-469.

TMC Academic Journal, 2010, 5(1): 7-22