Towards a Generic Theory of Managerial Effectiveness - CiteSeerX

Wolverhampton Business School Management Research Centre __________________________________________________________________________________________________

Towards a Generic Theory of Managerial Effectiveness: a meta-level analysis from organisations within the UK public sector By R. G. Hamlin Working Paper Series 2002

Number

WP006/02

ISSN Number

ISSN 1363-6839

Dr R. G. Hamlin Principal Lecturer University of Wolverhampton, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1902 323695 Email: [email protected]

© University of Wolverhampton 2002 - All rights reserved

Towards a Generic Theory of Managerial Effectiveness: a meta-level analysis from organisations within the UK public sector _________________________________________________________________________________________

Copyright ©

University of Wolverhampton 2002

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced, photocopied, recorded, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright holder.

The Management Research Centre is the co-ordinating centre for research activity within Wolverhampton Business School. This working paper series provides a forum for dissemination and discussion of research in progress within the School. For further information contact: Management Research Centre Wolverhampton Business School Telford, Shropshire TF2 9NT !01902 321772 Fax 01902 321777

2

Management Research Centre 2002


Abstract A review of the British and American literature on managerial and leadership effectiveness reveals researchers tend to be divided into two broad camps. There are those who take a ‘contingency’ approach, arguing that the criteria that constitute managerial and leadership effectiveness are contextdependent, situation-specific and perspective-specific; and there are those that take a more ‘universalistic’ approach, arguing that the logic suggesting the existence of generic criteria of managerial and leadership effectiveness is compelling, even though there is only sparse empirical evidence to support this view. The present paper contributes to this ‘contingency’ versus ‘universalistic’ debate by presenting the results of a meta-level analytical study based on the research findings from three previous empirical factor analytical studies of managerial/leadership effectiveness, carried out in three different types of public sector organizations in the UK. The results support the view that the ‘universalistic’ model is more consistent with the facts, and that the notion of the universally effective manager as proposed by Bennett (1983) is a factual reality. Based on these findings a new ‘generic’ model of managerial and leadership effectiveness has been developed which challenges the ‘contingency’ approaches and models currently dominating management and leadership theory, practice and research.

3



The author Dr Robert. G. Hamlin Bob Hamlin is a Principal Lecturer and Head of the Department of Human Resources at Wolverhampton Business School. He is research active in the field of managerial and leadership effectiveness, management behavioural competencies and management culture change within both private and public sector organisations.

4



Towards a generic theory of managerial effectiveness: a meta-level analysis from organisations within the UK public sector The problem statement and theoretical context Introduction to the problem The management literature on managerial and leadership effectiveness reveals that researchers tend to be divided into two broad camps. There are those who take a ‘contingency’ approach, arguing that the criteria constituting management/leadership effectiveness are context-specific, situation-specific and perspective-specific; and there are those who take a more ‘universalistic’ approach arguing that the logic suggesting the existence of generic criteria of managerial/leadership effectiveness is compelling, even though there is only sparse empirical evidence to support this view. This paper contributes to the debate by assembling evidence derived from a meta-level analysis of the criteria of managerial/leadership effectiveness, obtained from three previous empirical factor analytical studies. Carried out in three different UK public sector organisations, they focused on the observed managerial behaviour of middle and front line managers. For the purpose of the study the terms management and leadership have been used interchangeably. This accords with the stance taken by many modern theorists who, as Barker (2000) reports, refer to management as leadership though calling it transactional leadership, and with the findings of Russ-Eft, Berrey, Hurson and Brennan (1996) and Bergmann, Hurson and Russ-Eft (1999) who have demonstrated that leadership is rooted in behaviours performed by managers at all levels in the organisational hierarchy. Theoretical framework Over the past 40 years or so there have been substantial amounts of research conducted into the nature of management work. However, major concerns have been expressed about its practical relevance and utility for determining and distinguishing between ‘good’ or ‘bad’ managers, and there is little agreement about what constitutes and what is meant by managerial effectiveness (see: Luthans, Rosencrantz & Hennessey, 1985; Martinko & Gardner, 1985: 1990; Luthans, Welsh & Taylor 1988; Cammock, Nilakant & Dakin, 1995; Willcocks, 1992; 1997; Barker, 2000). Van der Velde, Jansen and Vinkenburg (1999), drawing strongly on the work of writers such as Thornton (1980), Foti (1990), Shipper (1991), Bass and Yammarino (1993), Atwater and Yammarino (1992) and Tsui and Ashford (1994), assert there is a link between actual managerial success and the perceptions that subordinates, peers and superiors have concerning the behaviours they respectively associate with managerial effectiveness or managerial ineffectiveness. However, they argue that the respective judgments of subordinates, peers, superiors and managers on what constitutes effective managerial behaviour often differ. This view is supported by Shipper (2000) who argues managerial effectiveness should be examined from the perspectives of both superiors and subordinates. Similarly, other writers advocate the case for multi-perspective approaches for researching leadership effectiveness (see: Kim & Yukl, 1995; Conger, 1998; Barker, 2000). Another major criticism of most management and leadership research is the fact that few studies have produced empirical results that can be generalized beyond particular organisational settings (see: Kim & Yukl, 1995; House & Aditya, 1997; Axelsson, 1998; Avolio, Bass & Jung, 1999), and other writers have questioned the generalisability of the findings obtained from the plethora of US management and leadership research to non-US cultures (see: Ayman, 1993; Smith & Bond, 1993; Triandis, 1993; Flanagan & Spurgeon 1996; Hunt & Peterson, 1997; Peterson & Hunt, 1997; Holt, 1998; Hunter, 1998; Alban-Metcalfe & Alimo Metcalfe, 2001). However, some expert commentators strongly believe in the concept of the ‘universally effective manager/leader’. They contend that the logic suggesting the universality of leader behaviours is compelling, and advocate that ‘universalistic’ as opposed to ‘contingent’ approaches should be adopted for the study of management and leadership research (see: Thomson, Stuart & Lindsay, 1996;

5



Bass, 1997; House & Aditya, 1997). In contrast other writers have expressed misgivings about the concept of the universally effective manager. They have questioned whether managerial skills/behaviours, behavioural competencies and criteria of managerial effectiveness can be transferred and applied with equal success across, and between, both private and public sector organisations, and argue that managerial competencies are context-dependent and situation-specific (see: Moss Kanter & Summers, 1987; Meek, 1988; Stewart, 1989; Burgoyne, 1990; Harrow & Willcocks, 1990; Willcocks, 1992; Raelin & Cooledge, 1995; Antonacopoulou & Fitzgerald, 1996; Cappelli & Crocker-Hefter, 1996; Hayes, Rose-Quirie & Allinson, 2000; Garavan & McGuire, 2001). In particular Flanagan and Spurgeon (1996 pp. 41-42) draw attention to a “widely held view that management effectiveness is contingent, [being] derived from what others expect or require managers to do” and conclude that effectiveness “should not be taken as some objective absolute which holds good for all managerial jobs in all organisations” as it can be “defined only in situational terms.”

Research questions In light of the theoretical framework outlined above, the primary purpose of the present study has been to produce empirical evidence to challenge the predominant view that managerial and leadership effectiveness is ‘contingent’, and to demonstrate that the ‘universalistic’ model is more consistent with the facts. To this end the study addresses the following research questions: 1. Which criteria of managerial effectiveness applying within three different UK public sector organisations are held in common, and which are organisation-specific? 2. To what extent is managerial effectiveness ‘contingent’ or ‘universalistic’? 3. Is the notion of the universally effective manager a reality?

Research methodology and design Managerial/leadership effectiveness research - criticism of the predominant approaches and methods used to date In recent years there have been many criticisms of the predominant survey-based quantitative approaches to researching management behaviour and managerial/leadership effectiveness. In particular, the focus on behavioural frequencies and the time engaged in them is deemed unnecessarily narrow, and the type of survey questionnaires typically used have failed to help develop understanding of the deeper structures of effective management/leadership (see: Conger, 1988; Martinko & Gardner, 1990; Yukl, Wall & Lepsinger, 1990; Alvesson, 2002). As Alvesson (2002 p. 97) recently concluded, “much richer accounts than those typically produced are needed.” Another significant concern is the insufficient use of qualitative methods for researching managerial and leadership effectiveness, particularly for confirming the results obtained from positivist survey-based research and for examining a wider range of behaviours than those found already specified in survey questionnaires (see: Den Hartog, Van Muijen & Koopman, 1997; Barker, 2000). As Avolio, Bass and Jung (1999 p. 461) have claimed, “the challenge remains as to how can we best measure exemplary leadership [and management] beyond simply using survey tools.” Other expert commentators have been calling for a new direction and different approaches to management and leadership research, based on subjectivist and social process perspectives and grounded theory (see: Willcocks, 1992; Parry, 1998; Alvesson, 2000). Pettigrew (1990) claims that, by carrying out meta-level analyses of the interpretative/theoretical outputs from grounded theory research across a number of replicated studies in similar substantive settings, formal generic theories can be generated to explain more generalized phenomena. To move towards a more formal theory of leadership (and of managerial effectiveness) Parry (1998) recommends the replication of grounded theory research in a range of substantive settings, and contends that the grounded theory method will constitute an important direction to take for leadership (and management) research in the coming years.

Research design and methods

6



The present study builds on three previous empirical studies concerned with identifying the criteria of managerial effectiveness within three different types of UK public sector organisations, using both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies within a subjectivist/interpretive research design and grounded theory mindset. The first was an MPhil study that took place from 1984 to 1987 and focused on heads of department in UK secondary schools. The second took place from 1995 to 1997 within the Anglia Region Executive Unit of HM Customs and Excise (HMCE), a major Department of the British Civil Service. This study focused on Executive Officer and Higher Executive Officer grades of management and was carried out within the framework of a research partnership arrangement of the kind Jacobs (1997) has subsequently referred to as an HRD Professional Partnership. The third study was also carried out as part of an HRD Professional Partnership, and took place from 1999 to 2001 in an acute hospital setting of an NHS Trust within the UK healthcare sector focusing on middle and front line managers. Research methods common to all three empirical studies In light of the concerns about the generalizability of US derived management/leadership questionnaires, and the ‘sterility’ of findings based on predetermined survey questionnaires as used by most previous researchers, the author developed his own version of a behavioural description questionnaire for his MPhil study using at the outset a grounded theory mindset. The research technique chosen for collecting concrete examples of specific behaviours associated with effective and ineffective management, from which to develop a behavioural description questionnaire, was the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) originally devised by Flanagan (1954). The critical incidents obtained were then used to construct a behavioural description (item) questionnaire (BIQ). The approach most commonly used at the time for grouping and classifying behavioural items comprising BIQs was the retranslation procedure of Smith and Kendall (1963). However, in light of identified weaknesses and problems associated with this procedure, and the warnings of Latham and Wexley (1981) against subjective judgments of researchers/job analysts creeping into the research, a factor analytic technique was used, namely principal component analysis. As near identical research methods were selected for the subsequent Anglia and NHS Trust managerial effectiveness studies in anticipation that the author might want to make meaningful comparisons between the respective research findings at some future date. However, it was considered desirable to adapt and improve the research design for each subsequent study in light of the identified limitations of the respective preceding study and the latest reading of the literature. Essentially the common research design adopted for all three ‘replica’ studies comprised the following three stages: •

Stage 1: The identification of specific managerial behaviours directly associated with and causally linked to effective or ineffective manager performance, using the Critical Incident Technique (CIT).

•

Stage 2: The creation of discrete statements (items) of behaviour derived from the critical incidents obtained from the Stage 1 research, and the construction of a behavioural item questionnaire (BIQ) with a Likert rating scale attached, which was then administered widely.

•

Stage 3: The identification of job dimensions and criteria of managerial effectiveness based on the Stage 2 findings using statistical analytic techniques, namely factor analysis and/or principal component analysis.

Robust sets of criteria of managerial effectiveness were obtained from all three studies. In the case of the MPhil research all of the items comprising the BIQ were factor analysed in combination. The majority of extracted factors (criteria) were dominantly loaded either with effective (positive) items or with ineffective (negative) items. This resulted in some criteria being interpreted and categorized as positive criteria of managerial effectiveness and others as negative criteria. In the case of the Anglia and NHS Trust studies alpha factor analysis with varimax rotation was used rather than the principal component method. To achieve factorial solutions with maximum statistical robustness the effective and ineffective items comprising the respective BIQs were factor analysed separately to produce discrete sets of positive and negative factors (criteria) for both studies. For reasons outside the control of the author and of the collaborating schools a multi-perspective approach was prevented from being

7



adopted for the MPhil study. Hence, criteria were identified from the ‘top down’ perspective of the head teachers and deputy heads only. In the case of the Anglia study two sets of criteria were obtained, one from the ‘top-down’ perspective of superiors, and the other from the ‘self’ perspective of managers themselves. In the NHS Trust study three sets of criteria were identified from the ‘topdown’, ‘self’ and ‘bottom-up’ perspectives of superiors, managers and subordinates respectively. The results so obtained have been reported elsewhere (see: Hamlin, 1988; 1990; Hamlin, Reidy & Stewart, 1998; 1999; Hamlin, 2002a; Hamlin, 2002b). The findings from these three previous studies have been used as the empirical base for the present meta-level analytical study. This has involved a detailed comparison of the constituent parts of all the criteria identified by the previous studies, both at the factorial and behavioural level. The aim has been to search for evidence of sameness, similarity, coincidence and congruence of meaning between the respective sets of criteria. The main purpose has been to identify which managerial effectiveness criteria are held in common, and which are organisation and/or perspective specific. The ultimate aim has been to reveal the internal generalisability of the criteria of managerial effectiveness resulting from the top down, self, and bottom up findings of the Anglia and NHS Trust studies respectively, and the extent of their external generalisability across all three studies.

Results and findings Due to limitations of space this paper can deal only with the meta-level analyses concerned with the external generalisability of criteria across the three studies. A meta-level analysis of the criteria obtained from the MPhil, Anglia and NHS Trust managerial effectiveness studies at the behavioural underpinning level As already mentioned, the MPhil study was uni-directional with the criteria of managerial effectiveness being studied from the ‘top-down’ perspective of superiors. Consequently, the metalevel analysis across all three studies has been based on the ‘top-down’ criteria only. By comparing and contrasting the transparently equivalent and corresponding criteria from each of the three sets of data as listed in Table 1, it can readily be seen that there are very high degrees of sameness, similarity and congruence of meaning between the respective categories, classifications and types of managerial behaviours comprising the respective behavioural underpinnings of these criteria. It is clearly evident that the criteria of managerial effectiveness obtained from the three previous empirical studies appear to be highly generalized across all three organisations. A meta-level analysis carried out on the three sets of corresponding negative criteria has also revealed a high degree of congruence between the majority of criteria obtained from the three studies. They are either the same or strongly similar in type, nature and effect, despite differences in the specific organisational contexts. As with the positive criteria, the labels given to describe in essence the underlying behavioural meaning of each criterion are near identical. Unfortunately limitations of space have prevented details of this metalevel analysis being included in the paper. The findings from these meta-level analyses strongly suggest the various behavioural manifestations of management and managerial effectiveness are more universalistic in character than contingent. A comparison of the criteria obtained from the MPhil, Anglia and NHS Trust managerial effectiveness studies at the factorial level At the factorial level it has been possible to use a multi perspective approach for comparing and contrasting the criteria of managerial effectiveness, as obtained from each of the three previous studies. Composite sets of the descriptive labels used to describe each of the internally generalized and perspective specific criteria, as identified by the MPhil, Anglia and NHS Trust studies respectively, have been produced and set out in Table 2. At a glance it can be seen that the majority of the criteria are the same, or nearly the same, in terms of the categories and classifications of behaviour. This high degree of coincidence, congruence of meaning and external generalisability at the factorial level further demonstrates that managerial effectiveness is predominantly a ‘universalistic’ as opposed to a ‘contingent’ concept.

8



As can readily be seen from Table 2, virtually all of the criteria from all three studies are essentially the same or very similar. The only exception is the absence in the NHS Trust study findings of a criterion equivalent to ‘Active Innovative Management’ or ‘Managing Change’. Overall the results of the meta-level analyses signify a significant amount of external generalisability to other organizations of the identified criteria of managerial effectiveness. Developing a generic model of managerial and leadership effectiveness The consistency and robustness of the meta-level analyses, and the very high degrees of external congruence of meaning and generalisability between virtually all of the corresponding criteria of managerial effectiveness obtained from the three empirical research studies, strongly point towards the existence of generic criteria of managerial effectiveness. This supports the notion of the universally effective manager as reported by Bennett (1983). Furthermore, in light of the fact that increasing numbers of modern management theorists, researchers and writers refer to management and supervisory leadership as being one and the same phenomena, the findings from the present study provide sound empirical support for the notion and existence of ‘generic leadership functions’ of the kind House and Aditya (1997 p. 444) claim “are necessary for theoretical understanding of the leadership [and management] phenomena.” Based on the combined research findings from the various meta-level analyses designed to identify the degree of internal and external generalisability of the respective sets of criteria obtained from the MPhil, Anglia and NHS Trust studies, a ‘generic model of managerial and leadership effectiveness’ has been created which is offered as a starting point for developing a generic and universalistic theory of management and leadership to challenge the predominant ‘contingency’ models currently in use. This new model (see Table 3) comprises of six positive criteria indicating the range and type of behaviour that managers/leaders need to exhibit if they are to be deemed particularly effective by their superiors and subordinates. In contrast, there are five criteria indicating the range and type of managerial/leader behaviour that most observers associate with least effective or ineffective management/leadership. These can be regarded as the behavioural contra-indications of managerial/leadership effectiveness that need to be avoided. This new model provides significant support for those such as Thomson, Stuart and Lindsay (1996) who believe in generic managerial and leadership competencies, and it goes some way towards defining an ‘ideal’ theory for a competence framework which they argue (p.49) needs in essence to be “generalizable, yet simple.” A detailed meta-level analysis of this ‘Generic Model of Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness’ has recently been carried out which compares and contrasts both the criterion/competence and behavioural contents of the model against those of the empirically derived Zenger Miller ‘Grassroots Leadership Model’ offered by Russ-Eft, Berrey, Hurson and Brennan (1996) and Bergmann, Hurson and Russ-Eft (1999), who also used CIT for obtaining concrete examples of effective and ineffective manager/leader behaviours as part of their study in America and Canada. Overall the degree of alignment, overlap, similarity and congruence of meaning between most of the Hamlin criteria and the Zenger Miller competencies is high (Hamlin, 2002c). This finding provides further evidence of the ‘universalistic’ nature of management and leadership that challenges the views of those writers who have questioned the generalisability of US management and leadership research to non-US cultures, and vice versa.

9


Towards a Generic Theory of Managerial Effectiveness: a meta-level analysis from organisations within the UK public sector _________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 1. A uni-directional meta-level analysis of the behavioural underpinning of the criteria of managerial effectiveness. Top-down perspective-positive criteria MPhil study

Anglia study

NHS Trust study

Active supportive leadership Responds immediately when teachers request or require help/support; gives guidance and coaching to teachers faced for the first time with unfamiliar work/tasks; gives immediate positive and constructive support to staff in dealing with difficult disciplinary problems in the classroom; gives detailed guidance and support to probationers; secures the personal trust and confidence of staff such that they feel they can talk openly about their weaknesses and shortcomings; congratulates and praises deserving staff; defends subordinates against unjustified/unfair criticism; takes on fair share of ‘unwanted’ departmental chores

Active supportive leadership, team orientation and developing others a. Active supportive leadership Brings to the attention of own line manager the successes of own subordinates and seeks due recognition for them; gives recognition, appreciation and/or praise to team when due; stands up and /or fights for or defends the interests of subordinates,, identifies and arranges training and development to meet their needs; actively ensures staff have the necessary resources to do their jobs; provides active support and help when they are confronted with operational difficulties or stressful situations; shows an interest in and listens to their concerns/anxieties and takes positive action to address the problem; gives people time to acclimatize and adjust to(organisational) changes affecting them; makes self available to give back-up support to team; initiates, promotes and supports personal development of staff b. Proactive leadership style [a strand of ‘team orientation’] Gives feedback and constructive criticism to staff; enables, helps and supports team and team members to work through their problems and arrive at sound solutions; when managers or team members make mistakes, rather than reprimand them instead helps them to learn from their mistakes c. Active development of others Personally takes the time to train, coach or mentor team members

Giving support to staff (Active supportive leadership) Exhibits willingness to listen to the (good) ideas of staff and gives them backing and support; gives time to listen to staff with problems or worries relative to work or personal issues; when staff are under particular pressure is willing to ‘muck in’; thanks people and gives praise for a job well done; uses a personal approach to leadership and takes the time to get to know staff on a personal level; gives staff the freedom/support to perform their own work in the way they see fit within their area; develops a sense of trust with staff

Organising and controlling resources/concern for maintaining performance standards a. Organising and planning Keeps good records; organizes systematically materials and resources for ready accessibility to staff; good organisation of time, prioritizing and commitment to task; establishes detailed schemes of work for the department commensurate with the available resources. Systematically monitors the teaching performance of staff; establishes written procedures to be used by departmental staff; circulates agendas and key information papers in advance of departmental meetings and expects everyone to come properly prepared b. Concern for performance/proactive management Provides detailed schemes of work for non-subject specialist teachers acting on ‘cover duty and arranges follow up feedback sessions to check how they have got on with the material; ensures all staff use and follow agreed procedures; expects everyone to come properly prepared for meetings)

Proactive management [including planning and organising] a. Planning and organising Undertakes the necessary groundwork/research in order to be well prepared for situations; researches ideas from staff for their feasibility and runs with them when viable b. Proactive management/concern for performance Confronts and speaks out on difficult/sensitive issues; develops and fosters good working relationships; on major change initiatives conducts special events to disseminate information, answer people’s questions, and address their concerns; takes initiative to solve problems and make more effective use of systems and resources; actively promotes a corporate approach and encourages (maintenance of) professional standards; consults widely with people in different situations, particularly those involving change when people may be sensitive or fearful

Organisation and planning (planning and organising] a. Planning and organising When making decisions gathers and assesses all relevant facts and judges things on their merit; in the planning of change involves staff in discussions and decision making; prepares and organizes well for meetings; thinks ahead and makes sure things are done in good time and prepares well b. Proactive management/concern for performance Responds quickly and/or appropriately to staff/work problems; runs meetings efficiently and effectively; in change situations proactively canvasses opinions and listens to the opinions of staff

10



Delegation When delegating tasks to staff gives them full responsibility with the freedom to make decisions and to act on their own initiative; allows staff within limits to develop and experiment with their own ideas about how to teach he subject in new ways; when delegating tasks such as developing new work, selects those staff who have a particular interest ; actively delegates managerial and specific administrative responsibilities to members of staff

Effective delegation and empowerment Gives full responsibility to subordinate managers empowering them to run units, specialist projects or team budgets; gives help and support to people outside his/her own unit/division; manages people non-intrusively allowing them to get on with the job without constant supervision; encourages staff to take on responsibilities normally associated with higher grades and allows people to set up and run projects

Empowerment and delegation When staff are in conflict with one another, encourages them to work through their own problems; gives staff the freedom/support to perform work as they see fit in their (own) area; proactively delegates and is effective when delegating roles and responsibilities; in the planning of change involves staff in discussion and decision making

Involving staff in decision making/participative management style Involves staff in planning; consults/discusses with staff before implementing plans for change, and modifies these plans in the light of convincing ideas put forward by the staff; invites staff to recommend how budget should be spent; directly involves staff in (departmental) planning activities and the formulation of procedures; listens to the opinions of staff concerning the way the department is run/managed and invites their constructive criticism/comments; shows a willingness to recognize problems raised by staff concerning work and to sit down together in partnership to work out how they can be improved; arms self with the views and ideas of own staff before attending meetings to discuss school wide problems/proposals for change

Communicates and consults widely and involves people [A strand of team orientation] Proactively disseminates within the team/unit major documents of importance; on major change initiatives conducts special events to communicate with staff; encourages prompt involvement and early consultation with the Trade Union representatives and maintain good and amicable working relations; holds frequent meetings with team; includes team members in meetings and/or projects which normally would have involved higher grades of staff); involves team members in the processes of decision-making and problem solving, and actively seeks their ideas and suggestions; shows interest in and listens to the concerns and anxieties of staff and takes positive action to address the problem

Inclusive decision making and personal approach Uses (staff) resources well to aid in decision making; exhibits willingness to listen to the ideas of staff; when making decisions gathers all relevant facts and judges things on their merits; uses a personal approach to leadership and takes the time to get to know staff on a personal level; develops a sense of trust with staff; in the planning of change involves staff in discussions and decision making; in change situations proactively canvasses and listens to the opinions of staff

11


Towards a Generic Theory of Managerial Effectiveness: a meta-level analysis from organisations within the UK public sector _________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 2. Factorial level comparison of the combined set of criteria of managerial effectiveness derived from the data obtained from the multi-perspectives of superiors, self and subordinates respectively MPhil study [Superiors]

Anglia study [Superiors and self]

NHS Trust study [Superiors, self and subordinates]

POSITIVE CRITERIA

POSITIVE CRITERIA

POSITIVE CRITERIA

Active supportive leadership Cooperating with colleagues

Active/supportive/participative leadership Proactive team leadership [includes giving support to team] Proactive management [includes good planning, organisation and concern for performance, also giving support to individuals and team]

Active supportive leadership Giving support to staff

Empowering/effective delegation

Empowerment and delegation

Communicating widely

Informing people

Involving staff in decision making/participative management style

Communicates and consults widely and involves people Active supportive, participative leadership

Inclusive decision making Open and personal management approach or style

Representing the department and fighting one’s own corner Showing concern for the interests of others

Looking after the interests and needs of staff [includes training and developing staff]

Active innovative management

Active development of others (such as training, coaching, mentoring) [includes helping and supporting staff in difficult situations] Managing change

NEGATIVE CRITERIA

NEGATIVE CRITERIA

NEGATIVE CRITERIA

Considering own self interest only

Uncaring, self serving and depriving of others management focus/ lack of emotional control and adjustment

Uncaring, self serving management focus/ undermining or intimidating others

Showing lack of consideration for staff

Lack of concern for staff

Laissez faire leadership

Lack of concern and consideration for staff/autocratic, dictatorial management Abdicating responsibilities

Lack of preparation

Tolerance of poor performance and low standards

Ignoring and avoiding behaviour

Resistance to change

Resistance to change Entrenched management thinking

Negative approach

Organising and controlling resources [includes good planning] Concern for maintaining standards Allocating work and resources Delegation Departmental communications communicating widely and keeping staff informed]

[includes

12


Organisation, planning and giving support

Abdicating roles and responsibilities. Not giving, receiving or using information

Towards a Generic Theory of Managerial Effectiveness: a meta-level analysis from organisations within the UK public sector _________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 3. A generic model of managerial and leadership effctiveness Criteria/functions of managerial and leadership effectiveness INDICATIONS - Positive 1

Effective organisation and planning/proactive management Is well organized and well prepared for situations; thinks ahead and makes sure things are done in good time; does the necessary groundwork research and gathers all the facts; produces detailed plans and procedures; is well prepared for meetings and runs them efficiently and effectively with good agendas; makes effective use of systems and resources; sets and maintains high standards for self and others; ensures people follow procedures and expects them to be well prepared; takes initiative to resolve problems and proactively confronts difficult /sensitive issues

2

Participative and supportive leadership/proactive team leadership Provides active support and guidance to staff; responds immediately to requests for help; provides backing and personal support to staff confronted with particularly difficult/stressful operational situations; takes time to get to know staff; creates a climate of trust; actively listens to their concerns, worries and anxieties; gives praise when due; defends staff from unfair criticism/attack and protects their interests; provides coaching and training; supports the team through its problems and helps team members learn from their mistakes

3

Empowerment and delegation Encourages staff to take on new responsibilities; gives them the freedom to make own decisions without close supervision; allows staff to develop and experiment with own ideas; encourages and empowers them to run their own unit/project and to work through their own problems; proactively and effectively delegates

4

Genuine concern for people/looks after the interests and development needs of staff Responds quickly and appropriately to staff problems; deals with difficult or personal issues concerning staff and handles them with sensitivity; allocates work to staff and self fairly; argues a strong case for obtaining resources in support of staff wishing to develop new ideas; fights hard for the department; promotes the importance or needs of the department; brings to the attention of top management the achievements/contributions of staff; congratulates and praises staff; recognizes, nurtures and develops the latent abilities and potential of staff; initiates, promotes and supports their personal and career development; identifies the training needs of team members; personally takes the time to train, coach and mentor team members

5

Open and personal management approach/ inclusive decision making Actively listens to the views and opinions of staff; encourages staff to become involved in planning, decision making and problem solving, particularly in change situations; invites staff to recommend how to best spend the departmental budget; includes team members in meetings and/or projects which normally would have involved higher grades of staff; uses a personal approach to managing; takes the time to get to know staff and develops in them a sense of trust

6

Communicates and consults widely/keeps people informed Consults and discusses change plans with staff; proactively canvasses and seeks their ideas; holds frequent meetings with staff; gathers all relevant facts and judges things on their merits; proactively disseminates within the team/unit major documents of importance; on major change initiatives conducts special events to communicate with staff and keep them informed INDICATIONS - Negative

1

Shows lack of consideration or concern for staff/ ineffective autocratic or doctorial style of management Shows lack of interest in or concern for staff; allocates work unfairly placing unrealistic workloads/expectations on them; allows staff to operate with inadequate resources or denies them the resources that others in the organization receive; is insensitive to individual needs; is unwilling to listen to staff concerns or answer their queries; ignores people problems hoping they will go away; manages in a dictatorial and autocratic manner; forces or imposes changes on staff with insufficient or no consultation, takes action without considering the effects on staff.

13



2

Uncaring, self serving management/ undermining, depriving and intimidating behaviour Withholds or fails to impart/supply/notify the right people at the right time with accurate, reliable, consistent information; allocates work unfairly to self; encourages favoritism; is unfair in their dealings with people; takes all the credit for departmental achievements, omits to thank or give recognition or praise for the good work of others; excuses self from blame but blames others when things go wrong; adopts a narrow parochial, selfish attitude; off loads problem staff on to other managers; is not open, honest, forthright and up front in their communications; or dealings with people; exhibits manipulative, politicking behavior; goes behind peoples backs and overrides colleagues ; criticizes and derogates people behind their backs; undermines staff by dismissing their efforts, labels them with their weaknesses, bawls them out in front of peers and subordinates,; is domineering, dictatorial, autocratic and overbearing; engages in antagonistic, intimidating, threatening, abusive, humiliating, bullying, behavior ; acts in an irrational ,volatile manner.

3

Tolerance of poor performance and low standards/ ignoring and avoidance Condones ineffective /poor performance; fails or delays taking action to resolve problems of persistent under performing staff; fails to recognize and attend to priority issues;; procrastinates; turns a blind eye to problems; allows a ‘next week will do’ attitude to prevail in the department; fails to organize self and others; fails to inform or notify the right people at the right time; forgets to let staff know of meetings until the last minute or inform/invite all the right people; fails to follow correct or appropriate procedures; ignores policies and tries to bypass the system.

4

Abdicating roles and responsibilities Makes self absent at critical times when a subordinate, team member or colleague manager needs help, guidance, support, or advice; avoids responsibilities by leaving own managerial work unattended; fails to give sufficient time to paperwork and the administrative aspects of management; shows disinterest in his/her post; abdicates roles and responsibilities; delegates to staff own managerial responsibilities, over loads staff to the point of personal abdication; refuses to recognize problems or deadlines ; avoids making decisions or taking necessary action.

5

Resistant to new ideas and change/ negative approach Insists on sticking to traditional methods; takes no interest in keeping up to date with developments; exhibits defensiveness and reluctance to carry out any critical analysis of current methods; resists change and new working practices even to the point of ‘sabotage’; refuses to implement new systems. Copyright R. G. Hamlin 2002

14



Discussion and limitations The findings from the three previous studies, which form the empirical basis of the present study, have addressed in part various complaints about the lack of research into managerial effectiveness and leadership effectiveness (Martinko & Gardner, 1985; Cammock, Nilakant & Dakin, 1995; Willcocks, 1997; Barker, 2000) and the need for replicated qualitative research studies using grounded theory methodology rather than the pre-determined quantitative survey-based methods used by most previous researchers (Parry, 1998; Avolio, Bass & Jung, 1999; Conger, 1998; Barker, 2000; Alvesson, 2002). By adopting a case study approach using identical/near identical research designs, and by focusing the research on the same levels of management, the author’s three previous studies can be regarded as replica studies capable of meaningful comparison in search of generalized findings, as called for by Kim and Yukl (1995). Furthermore, although several different researchers/job analysts were involved in gathering the critical incidents from observers in each of the three case study organizations, they worked under the guidance, supervision and central control of the author, thereby addressing a major concern of Avolio, Bass and Jung (1999) who argue that the lack of central control over the consistency of procedures utilized has been the cause of limitations on the generalisability of findings in most other studies. Overall the degree of sameness, similarity, coincidence and congruence of meaning between the findings at both the factorial and behavioural levels has been very high. Firm conclusions can be drawn from the various meta-level analyses that reveal the research findings to be strongly generalized to each of the three collaborating organisations. This gives cause to believe that the results can provide a sound basis and the beginnings of a generic theory of managerial and leadership effectiveness as represented by the generic model set out in Table 3. The fact that the three studies were carried out in three very different types of organisations within the public sector suggests the results are likely also to be generalized across the whole sector. However, at this stage, one cannot generalize the findings to private or other sector organisations because, as yet, no comparable studies have been completed. Nevertheless, the results strongly demonstrate the potential universal nature of managerial and leader behaviours as postulated by House and Aditya (1997), at least within the public sector. Additionally, they support the views of those who believe in the notion of the universally effective manager, and challenge the thinking of those who subscribe to the ‘contingency’ model of management/leadership. Although all of the meta-level analyses carried out have suggested the criteria of managerial effectiveness obtained from the three empirical studies are highly generalized, both within and between the three organisations, the author has noted several limitations. The MPhil study used principal component analysis for reducing and classifying the BIQ data, whereas alpha factor analysis was chosen for the two subsequent studies. For the present comparative study it would have been preferable if exactly the same factor analytic method had been used for all three research designs, but there was an organisational need to identify a maximum number of factors/criteria for the Anglia study which led to the specific choice of alpha factor analysis. However, it was considered sound and acceptable to embrace the MPhil findings in the comparative study in light of the fact that both principal component analysis and alpha factor analysis methods had been used in the NHS study for factoring the ‘top-down’ ratings of managers, and had yielded near identical solutions (see Hamlin, 2002a). A limitation of both the Anglia and NHS Trust studies was the fact that the samples of completed BIQs obtained were smaller in number than desired and hoped for. The achieved subject to variable ratios (i.e. the number of BIQs [subjects] versus the number of behavioural items [variables] comprising the respective BIQs) were about 3:1 and 2:1 respectively. Some experts argue the reliability of factor analysis depends upon a ratio of 5:1 or more being obtained, whereas other experts claim smaller ratios are acceptable and that factors with four or more loadings greater than 0.6 are reliable regardless of sample size (Field, 2000 p. 443). Most of the criteria (factors) identified by both

15



studies had more than four loadings greater than 0.6. Even so, more stable and statistically robust factorial solutions might have been achieved if larger numbers of BIQs could have been obtained.

Conclusions and how the research contributes to new knowledge in HRD The findings from the present study provide an empirical base from which to start developing a generic theory of managerial and leadership effectiveness that potentially could make a significant contribution to new knowledge in the field of management and HR theory and practice. However, more empirical evidence is required before a formal general theory can be offered. This calls for a wide range of replica studies to be carried out not only in other UK secondary schools, British Civil Service departments and NHS Trust hospitals, but also in other types of public and private sector organisations within Britain and other countries including, for example, the USA, the Netherlands, and Australia. In conclusion, the research study lends credence to the existence of ‘universalistic’ and ‘generic’ criteria of managerial/leadership effectiveness and, as such, represents a foundation for future studies. If fully proven, a generic model of managerial effectiveness and a general theory of management and transactional leadership would have significant implications for HRD and HRM practitioners concerned with the recruitment and development of middle and front line managers.

16



References Alban-Metcalfe, R. & Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (2001) The development of a new transformational leadership questionnaire Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology 74(1) pp. 1-23 Antonacopoulou, E. P & Fitzgerald, L. (1996) Reframing competency in management education Human Resource Management Journal 6(1) pp. 53-62. Alvesson, M. (2002) Understanding organizational culture (London: Sage). Atwater, L. & Yammarino, F. (1992) Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology 45(1) pp. 141-64. Avolio, B. J., Bass, M. B. & Jung, D. I. (1999) Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (UK) 72(4) December pp. 441-463. Axelsson, R. (1998) Towards an evidence based health care management International Journal of Health Planning and Management 13(4) pp. 307-317. Ayman, R. (1993) Leadership perception: the role of gender and culture, In: M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds) Leadership theory and research (San Diego, CA: Academic Press) pp. 137-166. Barker, L. (2000) Effective leadership within hospice and specialist palliative care units Journal of Management in Medicine 14(5/6) pp. 291-309. Bass, B. M. (1997) Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist 52(2) pp. 130-139. Bass, B. M. & Yammarino, F. (1993) Congruence of self and others’ leadership ratings of naval officers for understanding successful performance Applied Psychology: An International Review 40(4) pp. 437-454. Bennett, R. D. (1983) An approach to the measurement of managerial effectiveness (Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic). Bergmann, H., Hurson, K. & Russ-Eft, D.(1999) Everyone a leader: a grassroots model for the new workplace (New York: John Wiley and Sons). Burgoyne, J. (1990) Doubts about competency, In: M. Devine (Ed) The photo fit manager (London: Unwin). Cammock, P., Nilakant, V. & Dakin, S. (1995) Developing a lay model of managerial effectiveness: a social constructionist perspective Journal of Management Studies 32(4) July pp. 443-447. Capelli, P. & Crocker-Hefter, A. (1996) Distinctive human resources are a firm’s core competencies Organisational Dynamics 28(2) pp. 7-21. Conger, J. A. (1998) Qualitative research as the cornerstone methodology for understanding leadership Leadership Quarterly 9(1) pp. 107-121. Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J. & Koopman, P. L. (1997) Transactional versus transformational leadership: an analysis of the MLQ Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology 70(1) pp.19-34. Field, A. (2000) Discovering statistics: using SPSS for Windows (London: Sage Publication). Flanagan, H. & Spurgeon, P. (1996) Public sector managerial effectiveness: theory and practice in the National Health Service (Buckingham: Open University Press). Flanagan, J. C. (1954) The critical incident technique Psychological Bulletin 51(4) pp. 327-358. Foti, R. (1990) The role of cognitive categories in supervisor versus self-ratings Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management San Francisco, USA, August. Garavan, T & McGuire, D. (2001) Competencies and workplace learning: some reflections on the rhetoric and the reality Journal of Workplace Learning 13(4) pp. 144-163. Hamlin, R. G. (1988) The criteria of managerial effectiveness within secondary schools Collected Original Resources in Education 12(1) pp.1-221 Published MPhil Thesis 17



Hamlin, R. G. (1990) The competent manager in secondary schools Educational Management and Administration 18(3) pp. 3-10. Hamlin, R. G. (2002a) In Support of evidence-based management and research-informed HRD through HRD professional partnerships: an empirical and comparative study Human Resource Development International 5(4) pp. 1-25. Hamlin, R. G. (2002b) A study and comparative analysis of managerial and leadership effectiveness in the National Health Service: an empirical factor analytic study within an NHS Trust Hospital Health Services Management Research 15(4) pp. 1-20. Hamlin, R. G. (2002c) Towards a universalistic model of leadership; a comparative study of British and American empirically derived criteria of managerial and leadership effectiveness Working Paper WP005/02 Wolverhampton University Business School. Hamlin R. G., Reidy, M. & Stewart, J. (1998) Bridging the HRD research-practice gap through professional partnerships Human Resource Development International 1(3) pp. 273-290. Hamlin, R. G., Reidy, M. & Stewart, J. (1999) Effective management culture change through researchbased management development: a British case study Management Development Forum Empire State College, State University of New York 2(1) pp. 21-47. Harrow, J. & Willcocks, L. (1990) Public services management: activities, initiatives and limits to hearing Journal of Management Studies 27(3) pp. 281-304. Hayes, J., Rose-Quirie, A. & Allinson, C. W. (2000) Senior managers’ perceptions of the competencies they require for effective performance: implications for training and development Personnel Review 29(1) pp. 48-56. House, R. J. & Aditya, R. N. (1997) The social scientific study of leadership: quo vadis? Journal of Management 23(3) May-June pp. 409-465. Holt, D. H. (1998) International management (Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace and Company). Hunt, J. G. & Peterson, M. F. (1997) Two scholar’s views of some nooks and crannies in cross-cultural leadership Leadership Quarterly 8(4) pp. 343-354. Hunter, D. (1998) Something soft for hard times Health Service Journal (November) pp. 20-21. Jacobs, R. L. (1997) HRD professional partnerships for integrating HRD research and practice, In: R. Swanson & E. Holton III (Eds) Human resource development research handbook: linking research and practice (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler) pp. 47-61. Kim, H. & Yukl, G. (1995) Relationships of managerial effectiveness and advancement to self-reported and subordinate - reported leadership behaviors from the multiple-linkage model Leadership Quarterly 6(3) pp. 361-377. Latham, G. P. & Wexley, K. N. (1981) Increasing productivity through performance appraisal (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley). Luthans, F., Rosencrantz, S. & Hennessey, H. (1985) What do successful managers really do? An observation study of managerial activities The Journal of Applied Behavioural Sciences 21(3) pp. 255-270. Luthans, F., Welsh, D. & Taylor, L. (1988) A descriptive model of managerial effectiveness Group and Organisation Studies 13(2) pp. 148-162. Martinko, M. J. & Gardner, L. (1985) Beyond structured observation: methodological issues and new directions Academy of Management Review 10 pp. 676-695. Martinko M. J. & Gardner W. L. (1990) Structured observation of managerial work: a replication and synthesis Journal of Management Studies 27(3) pp. 329-357. Meek, V. L. (1988) Organisational culture: origins and weaknesses Organisation Studies 9(4) pp. 45373. Moss Kanter, R. & Summers, D.V. (1987) Doing well while doing good: dilemmas of performance measurement in non-profit organisations and the need for a multiple constituency approach, In: W. W. Powell (Ed) The non-profit sector: a research handbook (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press). 18



Parry, K.W. (1998) Grounded theory and social process: a new direction for leadership research Leadership Quarterly 9(1) pp. 85-105. Peterson, M. F. & Hunt, J. G. (1997) International perspectives on international leadership Leadership Quarterly 8(3) pp. 85-105. Pettigrew, A. M. (1990) Longitudinal filed research on change: theory and practice Organization Science 1(3) pp. 267-292. Raelin, J. & Cooledge, A. S. (1995) From generic to organic competencies Human Resource Planning 18(3) pp. 24-33. Russ-Eft, D., Berrey, C., Hurson, K. & Brennan, K. (1996) Updating the meaning of leadership: a grass roots model for the new workplace An essay from Zenger Miller, M2021 V.1.1 (7/96) Zenger Miller Inc. pp. 71-72. Shipper, F. (1991) Mastery and frequency of managerial behaviors relative to sub-unit effectiveness Human Relations 44(4) pp. 371-388. Shipper, F. (2000) A cross-cultural, multi-dimensional, nonlinear examination of managerial skills and effectiveness Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting Canada, August. Shipper, F. & White, C.S. (1999) Mastery, frequency, and interaction of managerial behaviors to subunit effectiveness Human Relations 52(1) pp. 49-66 Smith, P.B. & Bond, M. H. (1993) Social Psychology across cultures: analysis and perspectives (Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon). Smith, P. & Kendall, L. M. (1963) Retranslation of expectations: an approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales Journal of Applied Psychology 47 pp. 149-155. Stewart, R. (1989) Studies of managerial jobs and behaviours-the way forward Journal of Management Studies 26(1) pp.1-10. Thompson, J. E., Stuart, R & Lindsay, P.R. (1996) The Competence of top team members: a framework for successful performance Journal of Managerial Psychology 11(3) pp. 48-67. Thornton, G. C. (1980) Psychometric properties of self appraisals of job performance Personnel Psychology 33 pp. 263-271. Triandis, C. H. (1993) The contingency model in cross-cultural perspective, In: M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds) Leadership theory and research perspectives and directions (San Diego, CA: Academic Press) pp. 167-188. Tsui, A. & Ashford, S. (1994) Adaptive self-regulation: a process view of managerial effectiveness Journal of Management 20(1) pp. 93-121. Van der Velde, M. E. G., Jansen, G. W. E. & Vinkenburg, C. J. (1999) Managerial activities among top and middle managers: self versus other perceptions Journal of Applied management Studies 8(2) pp. 161-164. Willcocks, S. G. (1992) Managerial effectiveness and the public sector: a health service example International Journal of Public Administration 5(5) pp. 4-10. Willcocks, S. G. (1997) Managerial effectiveness in the NHS: a possible framework for considering the effectiveness of the clinical director Journal of Management in Medicine 11(3) pp. 181-189. Yukl, G., Wall, S. & Lepsinger, R. (1990) Preliminary report on validation of managerial practices survey, In: K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark & R. R. Albright (Eds) Measures of Leadership (West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America/UK Monograph Psychological Corporation Centre) pp. 223-238.

19


Towards a Generic Theory of Managerial Effectiveness - CiteSeerX

Towards a Generic Theory of Managerial Effectiveness - CiteSeerX

Suggest Documents

Towards a Generic E-Negotiation Platform - CiteSeerX

TOWARDS A GENERIC SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE ... - CiteSeerX

Towards A Theory-Of-Mind-Inspired Generic Decision-Making ...

Towards Generic Relation Extraction - CiteSeerX

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MANAGERIAL LEADERSHIP ... - CiteSeerX

Towards a Theory of Measures of Effectiveness

Towards a Theory of Mobile Learning - CiteSeerX

TOWARDS A MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF COMPLEX ... - CiteSeerX

Towards a Theory of Volatility Trading - CiteSeerX

Towards a Theory of Volatility Trading - CiteSeerX

Towards a theory of mathematical argument - CiteSeerX

Towards a Theory of Bulk Types - CiteSeerX

Towards a Theory of Intrusion Detection - CiteSeerX

A MODEL OF MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS IN INFORMATION ...

Moving Towards Generic Enterprise Information Models ... - CiteSeerX

Towards generic satellite payloadsâ¬: software radio - CiteSeerX

URD exploitation towards generic Disaster Management ... - CiteSeerX

Towards generic application auto-discovery - CiteSeerX

Towards a Set-Theoretic Type Theory - CiteSeerX

Towards a Generic Contextual Elements Model to Support ... - CiteSeerX

Towards a Generic Adaptive System applicable for Web ... - CiteSeerX

Towards a generic foundation for spatial ontology - CiteSeerX

Towards a Generic Solution for Traceability in MDD - CiteSeerX

Towards a stable generic circumscription in Oxypetalinae - CiteSeerX

Towards a Generic Theory of Managerial Effectiveness - CiteSeerX