Towards a Universal Taxonomy of Perceived Managerial and Leadership
Effectiveness: A multiple cross-case/cross-nation study of effective and
ineffective managerial behaviour
Refereed Paper
Hamlin, Robert G.; Patel, Taran; Ruiz, Carlos: Whitford, Sandi.
Abstract
Empirical findings obtained from fifteen emic replication studies of peoples’
perceptions of effective and ineffective managerial behaviour within various
organizations in Canada, China, Egypt, Germany, Mexico, Romania and the United
Kingdom were subjected to a process of derived etic multiple cross-case and crossnation comparative analysis. High degrees of sameness and similarity were found.
Further analysis led to the emergence of a ‘universalistic’ taxonomy of perceived
managerial and leadership effectiveness comprised of eight positive (effective) and
six negative (least effective/ineffective) generic behavioural criteria. The study
demonstrates empirically that in all seven countries managerial and leadership
effectiveness is perceived, judged, and defined in much the same way and in similar
terms. Our findings challenge past literature which argues that managers/leaders
need to adopt different managerial behaviours to be effective in different
organizational sectors and in different countries. They also challenge the axiomatic
belief amongst most management researchers that effective management and
leadership processes must reflect the national/societal cultures in which they are
found. Limitations of the study and implications for future HRD research and practice
are discussed.
Keywords: Perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness, universalistic
taxonomy, cross-nation research.
Most managerial work and behaviour studies from the 1950s through to the present
day have been focused on the duration and frequency of activities and behaviours, as
opposed to exploring how behaviours are related to measures of effectiveness and
what behaviourally distinguishes good managers from poor/bad managers (see Hales,
1986; Fernandez, 2005; Martinko & Gardner, 1985; Shipper & White 1999; Stewart,
1989). And during this same period most leader behaviour studies have been surveybased using questionnaires comprised of pre-determined behavioural dimensions
which, more often than not, have measured attitudes about behaviour rather than
actual observed behaviour and their effectiveness (Conger, 1998). Furthermore, little
effort has been made to confirm the results of such evaluation studies with alternative
approaches to survey methods (Den Hartog, Van Muijen & Koopman , 1997). As
Avolio, Bass and Jung (1999) argued, the challenge remains as to how exemplary
leadership can best be measured beyond simply using survey tools. Thus, despite the
volumes of empirical research on leadership, there is still a lack of agreement about
which leader behaviours are most relevant and meaningful for leaders (Yukl, Gordon &
Taber, 2002); and there is little clarity as to what constitutes ‘managerial effectiveness’
or ‘leadership effectiveness’.
1
We conclude the core question that still needs to be addressed is- What do people
within and across organizations, organizational sectors and countries perceive as
effective and as ineffective managerial behaviour?- and for two compelling reasons.
First is the effect of globalization that has led to an increasing frequency in the
transnational employment of managers, an increasing requirement for indigenous
managers to work with people from other nations, and an increasing need for
expatriate managers to know and understand how effective and ineffective managerial
behaviours are perceived within and across different countries (Brodbeck, Frese,
Akerblom, et al, 2000; Zhu, 2007). Our second reason is the widely held belief that
managers/leaders in public sector organizations should adopt different managerial
behaviours to those in private sector companies because of the inherent differences
between the two sectors (Baldwin, 1987; Fottler, 1981). But, as Hooijboorg and Choi
(1998) pointed out, while many researchers have examined these differences, few
have focused on whether management or leadership styles vary, or should vary across
sectors. In the absence of hard evidence of managerial and leadership differences
and similarities between the sectors, plus a continuing lack of clear unequivocal
empirically derived behavioural dimensions of managerial performance/effectiveness
criteria, managers/leaders in all sectors will likely operate and behave on the basis of
their own individual personal preferences. Thus, building on Flanagan and Spurgeon’s
(1996) argument, we suggest domestic and international/global organizations ought to
find out the extent to which perceived behavioural determinants of perceived
managerial and leadership effectiveness within given organizational sectors and
countries are the same or different.
Conceptual Background
In this section we discuss extant research on ‘managerial effectiveness’ and
‘leadership effectiveness’, the theoretical concepts that have guided our study, its
purpose, and also the specific research questions that we have addressed.
Past managerial effectiveness and leadership effectiveness research
Various past researchers have developed behavioural models or taxonomies of
‘managerial effectiveness’ and ‘leadership effectiveness’ (see Borman & Brush,
1993; Fleishman, et al, 1991; Luthans & Lockwood, 1984; Morse & Wagner, 1978;
Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992; Yukl, Gordon & Taber, 2002). However, all of these cited
models and taxonomies have been based overwhelmingly on empirical data obtained
from studies carried out in North America. Furthermore, there is considerable
variability in their content, complexity and comprehensiveness, and many of them are
simply retranslations and/or re-combinations of previously published taxonomies
(Anderson, Krajewski, Goffin & Jackson, 2008; Tett et al, 2000). Due to the positivist
bias in most management and leadership research which has largely favoured
quantitative inquiries using quantitative pre-determined survey-based questionnaires,
since the early 1980s few researchers have conducted qualitative studies of peoples’
perceptions of effective and/or ineffective managerial and leadership behaviour
‘within’ organizations, or ‘across’ organizational sectors or countries. One ‘within’
organization qualitative inquiry that does stand out in the literature is that of
Cammock et al (1995) who explored managerial effectiveness in a large New
Zealand public sector organization.
Other ‘within’ organization qualitative
explorations include the emic replication studies of perceived managerial and
2
leadership effectiveness that were variously carried out by us in the UK and various
other countries, either individually or jointly or collaboratively with different coresearchers, plus the equivalent study by Wang (2011). Except for Hamlin’s (2004)
multiple-cross-case comparative analysis of findings from his three earliest emic
studies of managerial and leadership effectiveness within UK public sector
organizations, we have found no equivalent or comparable derived etic study in this
area of management/leadership research
Theoretical context
The ‘theories’ that have guided our study- which also informed explicitly or implicitly
the past emic studies upon which our work has been based- include the multiple
constituency model of organizational effectiveness and the concept of reputational
effectiveness respectively. In using the multiple constituency (MC) approach
managers and leaders are perceived as operating within a social structure consisting
of multiple constituencies or stakeholders (e.g. superiors, peers, subordinates), each
of whom has his/her own expectations of and reactions to them (Tsui, 1990). How
managers are perceived and judged by their superiors, peers, and subordinates can
be important for managerial success (or failure) because it determines their
reputational effectiveness (Tsui, 1984). Furthermore, the type of managerial
behaviour that a manager exhibits has reputational consequences (Tsui & Ashford,
1994); for example, his/her behaviour can cause peers, superiors and other key
people either to give or withhold important resources such as information and cooperation, or can lead to subordinates either following or not following their
leadership.
Purpose of the study and research questions
Our study builds upon and extends Hamlin’s (2004) work by searching for evidence
of universalistic behavioural criteria of perceived managerial and leadership
effectiveness that are relevant across organizational sectors and national
boundaries. Specifically, we have conducted a qualitative multiple cross-case
comparative analysis of findings obtained from the 14 aforementioned past emic
replication studies conducted by us and our respective co-researchers, and from
Wang’s (2011) study It should be noted that the three earliest of our studies were
used by Hamlin (2004) for his UK based study. We addressed the following research
questions:
(i)
To what extent are people’s perceptions of the behavioural
determinants (definitions) of ‘perceived managerial and leadership
effectiveness’ across a sample of organizations, organizational sectors
and nations the same or different?
(ii) Where such definitions are found to be held in common (if any), can they
be expressed in the form of a universalistic taxonomy?
Research Methodology
This section provides details of the empirical source data used for our study, how that
data was analyzed and interpreted, and how we assured the trustworthiness of our
3
findings. We embraced Tsang and Kwan’s (1999) notion of empirical generalization
replication, and adopted Berry’s (1989) derived etic approach to applied research
which involves both ‘replication logic’ and ‘multiple cross-case analysis’ (Eisenhardt,
1989).
Sampling
The empirical source data used for our derived etic study were obtained from the 14
aforementioned emic studies that we have severally conducted within Canada,
Egypt, Germany, Mexico, Romania and the United Kingdom respectively, plus
Wang’s (2011) equivalent replication study in China, as cited in Table 1.
Table 1. Empirical source data used for the present derived etic study
The fifteen emic studies of
managerial and leadership
effectiveness
Public
Sector
Organizations
Case UKA-state secondary
schools in England
Hamlin (1988)
Case UKB- a department
of the British Civil Service
Hamlin, Reidy & Stewart
(1998)
Case UK C - an ‘acute’
British NHS Trust hospital
Hamlin (2002)
Case UKD- a ‘specialist’
British NHS Trust hospital
Hamlin & Cooper (2007)
Case UKE-a local
government social services
department
Hamlin & Serventi (2008)
Case EGPT-a public
sector hospital in Egypt.
Hamlin, Nassar & Wahba
(2010)
Case MXCO-a public
sector hospital in Yucatan,
Mexico
Hamlin, Ruiz & Wang
(2011)
Case ROMA- a public
hospital in Romania
Hamlin, Patel & Iurac
(2010)
Case CHNA-a public
owned company in China
Wang (2011)
Case CNDA- a public
sector electric utility in
Canada
Whitford (2010)
Subject
focus of
the
study*
No. of
CIT
informants
No. of
CIs
collecte
d
No. of
effective
BSs
No. of
ineffectiv
e
BSs
Total
number
of BSs
M
35
340
65
61
126
S, M &
FL
130
1,200
43
40
83
S, M. &
FL
57
405
30
37
67
S, M &
FL
60
467
25
24
49
M & FL
40
218
34
25
59
T, S, M &
FL
55
450
25
23
48
M, FL
27
233
18
18
36
T, S, M &
FL
35
313
30
27
57
T, S, M &
FL
35
230
14
17
31
S, M &
FL
57
529
14
18
32
4
Private Sector
Organizations
555
31
35
66
Case UKF- a British global S, M, & 55
communications company
FL
Hamlin & Bassi (2008)
37
370
16
13
29
Case UKG- a British
T only
international telecoms plc
Hamlin & Sawyer (2007)
154
15
19
34
Case GER- a
T, S, M & 64
heterogeneous mix of
FL
private companies in
Germany Patel, Hamlin &
Heidegen (2009)
Third Sector Organizations
40
450
42
34
76
Case UKH- a UK
S only
registered charity in social
care and housing for the
elderly
Hamlin, Sawyer & Sage
(2011)
262
34
31
65
Case UKI- independent
T, S, M & 33
(private) secondary
FL
schools
in England. Hamlin &
Barnett (2011)
760
6176
436
422
858
Totals
* Subject Focus: T-Top managers. S-Senior manager. M-Middle managers. FL-First line managers
Fourteen of the 15 studies were replications or part replications of Hamlin’s (1988)
original managerial behaviour study in UK state secondary schools. In all 15 studies
the researchers used Flanagan’s (1954) critical incident technique (CIT) to collect
concrete examples (critical incidents-CIs) of effective and ineffective managerial
behaviour from purposive samples of participating managerial and non-managerial
employees. They then grouped the collected CIs into clusters according to their
similarity in meaning to each other. Behavioural statements (BSs) were devised to
reflect the constituent CIs (n=3 to 12) in each cluster. As can be seen in Table 1, the
number of CIT informants interviewed in each study ranged from 27 to 130; the
number of CIs collected by the respective researchers ranged from 154 to 1,200; and
the number of discrete BSs derived from the content analyzed CIs ranged from 29 to
120. In total, 436 positive (effective) and 422 negative (least effective/ ineffective)
BSs emerged from the 6,176 CIs collected by the respective past researchers from
760 CIT informants.
Data analysis
The research questions were addressed initially by Author 1 (Robert G. Hamlin) who
carried out a deductive and inductive comparative analysis of the BS data sets
obtained from all 15 cases. This analysis was conducted at a semantic level (Braun
& Clarke, 2006) using open coding initially to disentangle and code the BSs, and then
axial coding to identify those that were the same, similar, or congruent in meaning
(Flick, 2002, Miles & Huberman, 1994). Sameness was deemed to exist when the
sentences or phrases used to describe two or more BSs were identical or near
identical. Similarity was deemed to exist when the BS sentences and/or phrases
were different, but the kind of meaning was the same. Congruence existed where
5
there was an element of sameness or similarity in the meaning of certain phrases
and/or key words. Author 1 then classified and grouped the previously coded BSs
using a form of selective coding and thematic analysis (Flick, 2002). The aim was to
identify and develop (if possible) a set of core behavioural categories that were
underpinned by at least one BS from all 15 cases. The deduced categories were
subsequently interpreted and tentatively labelled by Author 1 according to the
meaning held in common with all of the respective constituent behavioural
statements.
Independent of each other, and using Author 1’s descriptive labels as coding
categories, Author 2 (Taran Patel), Author 3 (Carlos E. Ruiz) and Author 4 (Sandi
Whitford) then deductively coded and sorted the BSs from each of the 15 emic
studies. This was followed by Author 1 engaging with all three of them individually in
a vice-versa process of mutual code cross-checking (Gibbs, 2007) of each others
independent analyses. Where divergences of interpretation and judgment occurred
these were reconciled as far as possible through critical examination and discussion
to arrive at a consensus. The four authors then worked jointly to identify
commonalities and relative generalizations across their four independent analyses in
order to deduce behavioural categories comprised only of BSs where there was
common agreement between them. The so derived and interpreted behavioural
categories, which we call generic behavioural criteria, were given descriptive labels
that reflected in essence the meaning of the BSs constituting each criterion
respectively, and used as the basis for deducing a universalistic taxonomy of
perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness.
Trustworthiness of the findings
Credibility and dependability were achieved through the processes of ‘realist
triangulation’ (Madill, Jordon & Shirley, 2000) and ‘investigator triangulation’
(Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Lowe, 1991). This involved using multiple sources of
empirical data (namely the BSs obtained from the 15 emic studies carried out in 7
countries) that had been generated by the multiple researchers who had conducted
them. The empirical source data were suitable for comparison because the same
research design and common CIT protocols for data collection and analysis had
been used for all of the emic studies. This assured consistency in the research focus
and processes. The cumulative confirmation of the convergence and consistency of
meaning of the obtained empirical source data, which was achieved through realist
qualitative comparative analysis/triangulation whereby the four of us first worked
independently and then jointly to arrive at a consensus judgement, assured the
accuracy and objectivity of our derived etic study (Knafl & Breitmayer, 1991).
Results
The result of our multiple cross-case and cross-nation comparative study has
demonstrated empirically that people operating within different types of
organizations, organizational sectors and national contexts perceive the behavioural
determinants of effective and ineffective managerial performance in much the same
way. The main contribution of our work is the emergence of 8 positive (effective) and
8 negative (ineffective) generic behavioural criteria of ‘perceived managerial and
leadership effectiveness’ as listed in Table 2.
6
Table 2 Generic behavioural criteria of ‘perceived managerial and leadership
effectiveness’
Positive (Effective) Behavioural Criteria
1. Good planning and organizing, and proactive
execution, monitoring and control
Negative (Ineffective) Behavioural Criteria
1) Poor planning, organizing and controlling, bad
judgment ,low standards and/or tolerance of
poor performance from others
2) Shows lack of interest in or respect for staff,
and/or care or concern for their welfare or
well-being
2. Supportive management and leadership
3. Delegation and empowerment
4. Shows care and concern for staff and other
people
5. Actively addresses and attends to the learning
and development needs of their staff
6. Open, personal and trusting management
approach
7. Involves and includes staff in planning,
decision making and problem solving
8 Communicates regularly and well with staff,
and keeps them informed
3. Inappropriate autocratic, dictatorial,
authoritarian and non-consultative,
non-listening managerial approach
4. Unfair, inconsiderate, inconsistent, and/or
selfish, manipulative, self-serving behaviour
5. Active intimidating, and/or undermining
behaviour
6. Slack management, procrastination in decision
making, ignoring problems and/or avoiding
or abdicating from responsibilities
7 Depriving and/or withholding behaviour
8. Exhibits parochial behaviour, a closed mind,
and/or a negative approach
Our study suggests that regardless of the organizational, sectoral, or national context
managers are likely to be perceived effective by their superiors, peers and
subordinates when they:- are good in planning and organizing and proactive in
execution, monitoring and control; manage and lead in an active supportive manner
which includes promoting and fighting in the interests of their staff and
department/unit; when they:- delegate well and actively empower their staff; show
care and concern for staff if faced with personal difficulties; and also when they:- are
generally open, approachable, personal and trusting in their managerial dealings with
people. Additionally, managers are perceived effective when they:- actively attend to
the learning and development needs of their staff; involve and include them in
planning, decision making and problem solving; and when they communicate
regularly and well with their staff and keep them informed on organizational matters
that will affect them. Conversely, managers are likely to be perceived least effective
or ineffective not just when they fail to exhibit positive (effective) managerial
behaviours, but also when they are perceived to be unfair, inconsiderate, selfish,
manipulative, self-serving, undermining and/or intimidating; or when they are
inappropriately autocratic and non-consultative, and/or exhibit behaviours indicative
of slackness or procrastination in the way they manage; or when they ignore and
avoid and/or abdicate from their managerial responsibilities. Additionally, managers
are perceived least effective/ineffective when they actively or negligently deprive
and/or withhold from staff such things as key information, clear instructions,
7
guidance, adequate resources, recognition, praise or feedback, and when they
exhibit parochial behaviour, a closed mind or a negative approach.
To illustrate the convergence of meaning of the behavioural statements from the 15
cases that underpin the 16 identified generic behavioural criteria, the full behavioural
content of the negative behavioural criterion Unfair, inconsiderate, inconsistent
and/or selfish, manipulative, self-serving behaviour is given in Table 3.
Table 3 Illustration of the convergence of meaning of the behavioural statements
underpinning one behavioural criterion
Unfair, inconsiderate, inconsistent and/or selfish, manipulative, self-serving behaviour
Public Sector Cases
UKA Loads self with easy/quick to mark exam papers while allocating to staff those that are time
consuming; Timetables examinations and report writing in same week without giving consideration
to the effects on staff with already heavy workloads; Refuses to change own plans or working
arrangements in order to help or make things easier for a colleague HoD; Allocates a disproportionate
number of the academically bright pupils and/or VIth Form classes to self to teach; When arranging
outside events omits to announce the arrangements to colleagues until the day of the event and then
expects pupils to be released from lessons at very short notice; Takes all the credit for departmental
achievements and omits to thank or praise the efforts of the staff; Accepts teaching timetables for the
department which, from the point of view of the staff, are not conducive or wholly practical for effective
teaching by virtue , for example, of classes being too large and/or the walking distances between
classrooms too great for carrying heavy equipment; If involved in selecting replacement staff, avoids
choosing the strongest candidates with forceful personalities and qualities of leadership, in preference
for weaker candidates who can be easily handled/manipulated; Nominates self or deputy to attend
external ‘in-service’ training courses and not the staff; Opts out if he cannot easily get his own
way(with peers) at meetings of Department Heads; Allows own personal preferences and prejudices
to influence/bias the way he represents the views and opinions of his staff to higher management;
Refuses to broaden the curriculum to help develop skills linking in with other subjects for fear of
devaluing the subject specialism.
UKB Excuses himself from blame and/or blames others when things go wrong; Shows favouritism
when allocating resources such as office accommodation, furniture, IT equipment.; Within the
promotional system exhibits favouritism; Takes all the credit for success achieved by own team
members; Adopts an uncooperative attitude towards others (e.g empire building at expense of other
units; refuses to work with peers/teams from the Headquarters); Adopts a narrow, parochial and/or
selfish attitude; Delegates to staff own managerial responsibilities overloading them to the point of
personal abdication and subsequently blaming them when things go wrong; Moves own poor
performers or problematic team members to other teams thereby leaving the recipient managers to
resolve the problems associated with the people; Manifests manipulative or politicking behaviour,
saying or doing one things and then changing behind people’s backs; Allows team to run with
insufficient or inadequate resources.
UKC Is inconsistent and/or unfair in his/her dealings or handling of people; Refuses to admit to their
own mistakes or errors in judgment and instead blames others; Exhibits manipulative, politicking and
undermining behaviour (e.g. saying one thing but doing another; using delaying tactics; playing one
person/group off against another)
UKD Does not treat staff equally (e.g. unfairly praises staff when not deserved); Asks a member of
staff to stay late to complete a task to meet a deadline but is not prepared to stay over and help;
Disregards policy (e.g. makes decisions to meet own needs) Gives [staff] insufficient time to
complete jobs (e.g. sits on [allocating] a job until it is critical and then demands the job to be
completed in a rush); Refuses to admit mistakes or failings.
UKE Blames others for own poor work performance; Shows favoritism; Undermines and manipulates
others; Ineffective or inconsistent poor communication across teams.
8
EGYT Treats staff unequally, unfairly and preferentially. Exhibits selfish and self serving behavior
Will never admit to own mistakes, faults and shortcomings, and/or refuses to accept criticisms or
complaints; Allows his/her judgments and decisions to be unduly influenced by personal feelings and
relationships, mood swings, rumors, and the subjective opinions of others; Disparages staff and
manipulates discord between them; Places unreasonable work demands on staff.
MXCO Hires incompetent people just because they are his/her friends; Manager shows preference
for certain employees, and makes arbitrary decisions based on this preference Lacks credibility, says
one thing and does another; Blames employees without first investigating the problem; Unfair in the
way to apply disciplinary action, tolerates wrongful behavior of employees who are close to him;
Gives rude responses and shows arrogance and a bad attitude; Abuse of authority; Ineffective
delegation of work, assigning more work to some and less to others.
ROMA Treats staff unfairly, unequally and/or with favouritism regarding such matters as the granting
of wages and bonuses, approving requests, providing training/promotion opportunities, and/or making
judgments about people. Exhibits selfish or self-serving behaviour at the expense of his/her staff;
Allows misunderstandings and personal conflict between self and other managers to persist at the
expense of full effectiveness and efficiency; Fails to give sufficient advance notice of meetings
he/she convenes; Cancels/postpones planned meetings at last minute; Exhibits an inability to admit
his/her own mistakes, or when he/she is wrong.
CHNA Acts selfishly (-abuses authority for personal gain); Does not evaluate employees in a fair
manner; Shows favouritism.
CNDA Provides limited opportunities for growth, treated people inconsistently; Provides insincere
praise; Spreads the blame but took the praise for themselves; Displays unprofessional showing
favoritism, double standards, engaging in questionable hiring practices and taking credit for other’s
ideas
Private Sector Cases
UKF Demonstrates selfish and self-serving behaviours; Shows favoritism and demonstrates double
standards in decisions and behaviour; Doesn’t bother to tell staff about meetings they should attend
or arrange team meetings.
UKG Becomes emotional, irrational or temperamental; Re-arranges/cancels meetings at the last
minute.
GER Does not treat employees equally/favours certain employees; Criticises in an unfair way/gives
unjustified criticism; Ignores work overload, does not respect limited working capacity assigns task
despite lack of skills; Does not stick to arrangements, does not keep promises.
Third Sector Cases
UKH Not considering the impact of their actions on others, and focusing on their own needs above
others; Shows a lack of respect and consideration for others, engaging in sensitive conversations
and gossip at inappropriate times and places.
UKI Disciplines people in an unfair or inconsistent manner. Does not admit to making mistakes;
When things go wrong the manager is quick to apportion blame without reviewing the
circumstances; Shows a lack of honesty in their dealings with people; Will only listen to those
concerns which are in line with their own thoughts; Undermines school processes and agreed
procedures by not upholding and following them; Works in a very task focused manner with no
regard for people’s feelings; Approaches conflict in a confrontational manner;
Note: (i) Those ‘units of meaning’ typed in italics in some of the BSs do not relate to this particular generic behavioural criterion
(ii) Details of the positive (effective) generic behavioural criterion Good planning and organizing, and proactive
execution, monitoring and control can be found in Hamlin, Patel & Ruiz (2012)
Emergence of a ‘universalistic taxonomy’
The vast majority of BSs that constitute the deduced ineffective behavioural criterion
Shows lack of interest in or respect for staff, and/or care or concern for their
9
welfare/well being’ describe the absence of the types of effective managerial
behaviour reflected by the BSs that constitute the effective behavioural criterion
Shows care and concern for staff and other people. Thus, these two criteria could be
seen as the polar opposite ends of a single behavioural construct, with the BSs of the
effective behavioural criterion being acts that have been committed and observed,
and the BSs of the ineffective behavioural criterion being acts of omission. A similar
situation applies for the ineffective criterion: Poor planning, organizing and
controlling, bad judgment, low standards and/or tolerance of poor performance from
others, and the effective criterion: Good planning and organizing, and proactive
execution, monitoring and control. Although the ineffective criterion: Inappropriate
autocratic, dictatorial, authoritarian and non-consultative, non-listening managerial
approach might appear in some respects to be the polar opposite of the effective
criterion: Communicates well with staff and keeps them informed, most of the
underpinning BSs describe specific acts/actions-rather than failings to act in an
expected way-that managers need to avoid if they are to be perceived and judged
effective. Hence, what has emerged from our findings is a universalistic taxonomy of
‘perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness’ comprised of eight (8) positive
(effective) and six (6) negative (ineffective) generic behavioral criteria, as shown in
Text Box 1.
Text Box 1
Deduced universalistic behavioural taxonomy of ‘perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness’
Positive (Effective) Generic Behavioural Criteria
1. Good planning and organizing, and proactive execution, monitoring and control
2. Active supportive management and leadership
3. Delegation and empowerment
4. Shows care and concern for staff and other people
5. Actively addresses and attends to the learning and development needs of their staff
6. Open, personal and trusting managerial approach
7. Involves and includes staff in planning, decision making and problem solving
8. Communicates regularly and well with staff, and keeps them informed
Negative (Ineffective) Generic Behavioural Criteria
1. Inappropriate autocratic, dictatorial, authoritarian and non-consultative, non-listening managerial approach
2. Unfair, inconsiderate, inconsistent, and/or selfish, manipulative, self-serving behaviour
3. Active intimidating and/or undermining behaviour
4. Slack management, procrastination in decision making, ignoring problems and/ or avoiding/abdicating
from responsibilities
5. Depriving and/or withholding behaviour
6. Exhibits parochial behaviour, a closed mind and/or a negative approach.
Discussion
The key result of our study is the unexpected finding that the type of managerial
behaviours that people within and across multiple organizations in seven diverse
countries around the globe associate with effective managers and ineffective
managers are very similar. This finding raises questions about the validity of claims
made by past researchers who have suggested that national specificities, including
national culture, have an impact on how employees perceive the behaviour of their
managers/leaders (Morrison, 2000), and that this determines whether or not
employees will accept and follow the leadership of their managers (Atlas, Tafel &
Tunlik, 2007; Brodbeck et al, 2000). On the contrary, our research suggests the
10
specific managerial behaviours perceived as effective and ineffective by people in
Canada, China, Egypt, Germany, Mexico, Romania and the UK are very much the
same, are described in similar terms, and are not culture-specific to these societies.
Indeed, over 94% (n=811) of the behavioural statements indicative of the different
types of managerial behaviour that people in these seven countries perceive as
differentiating effective managers/leaders from
least effective/ineffective
managers/leaders, are convergent (universal) rather than divergent (contingent).
Another key finding is that there is little difference in the perceptions of ‘perceived
managerial and leadership effectiveness’ across organizational sectors. This
evidence supports Lau, Pavett and Newman’s (1980) claim that there are similarities
between managerial roles, behaviours and activities across organizational sectors.
Conversely, it lends little support for those who argue that for managers to be
effective in public sector and third sector (not-for-profit) organizations, they need to
adopt different managerial behaviours to managers in private sector (for-profit)
organizations (see Baldwin, 1987; Fottler, 1981; Peterson & Van Fleet, 2008).
Additionally, our findings lend minimal support for Tsui’s (1984) assertion that specific
managerial behaviour instrumental for gaining managerial reputational effectiveness
will vary by constituencies within [and by inference] across organizations and
organizational sectors; or for Flanagan and Spurgeon’s (1996) assertion that
managerial effectiveness is “situationally dependent and varies from one organization
to another” (p. 96). Although several researchers such as Arvonen and Ekvall
(1999), and Dorfman et al (1997), have demonstrated both similarities and
differences existing between the perceptions of leadership effectiveness across
different nations, our study has demonstrated that there are many more similarities
than differences.
Our findings suggest universal explanations of ‘perceived
managerial and leadership effectiveness’ are more consistent with the facts. It also
challenges to some extent the axiomatic belief amongst most international
researchers that effective management and leadership processes are contextually
contingent and must reflect the culture in which they are found.
Limitations of the study
There are four potential limitations to our study. First is the fact that of the 15 emic
studies from which our empirical source data were obtained, 10 were carried out in
public sector organizations, 3 in private (for profit) companies, and 2 in the third (notfor-profit) sector; and overall 9 were UK based,. This means that our deduced
generic behavioral criteria may contain an under representation of certain types of
managerial behaviour in private and third sector organizations and non-UK countries.
Second is the fact that although the number of CIT informants in these 15 past emic
studies were within or exceeded the range of recommended sample sizes (n=20 to
40) for qualitative research (Cresswell, Plano Clarke, Gutmann & Hanson, 2003), it is
possible there might have been a degree of under sampling in some of the cases. If
so, there may be other generic behavioural categories of effective and ineffective
managerial behaviour that have yet to be identified. Third, some writers have argued
that good organizational performance should not be automatically attributed to
effective leadership (Erkutlu, 2008). Similarly, we argue that ‘perceived managerial
and leadership effectiveness’, as judged against subjective proximal outcome
measures such as the generic behavioural criteria deduced by our study, may not
automatically lead to ‘good’ or ‘poor/bad’ managerial performance as measured
11
against objective distal standards. Fourth, although our findings suggest cultural
influences within and across nations have limited impact on how people define
‘perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness, additional empirical evidence
needs to be obtained from more emic replication studies before one could claim the
existence of a stable ‘universal’ or ‘near universal’ taxonomy.
Implications for HRD research and practice
Of the few contemporary researchers other than ourselves who have explored the
behavioural determinants of managerial and leadership effectiveness (e.g. Cammock
et al, 1995; Riccucci, 1995; Svara, 1994), even fewer have identified the specific
managerial behaviours that managers/leaders need to avoid if they are not to be
perceived by their respective stakeholders as being least effective or ineffective
(CIPD, 2011; Fernandez, 2005). And of those that have, the focus has been on
‘bullying’, ‘abusive’, ‘harassing’, and ‘toxic’ leadership (Einersen, Aasland &
Skogstad, 2007). Our study explored least effective/ineffective as well as effective
managerial behaviours, and thereby has made a distinctive contribution to current
literature in this area of management research. We find that 6 of our 8 deduced
negative (ineffective) generic behavioural criteria do not simply reflect the absence of
the type of managerial behaviours identified with highly effective managers/leaders,
but rather indicate the active presence of the type of behaviours that their superiors,
peers and subordinates (stakeholders) consider inappropriate and ineffective. Thus,
our emergent ‘universalistic taxonomy’ provides new insight and a better
understanding of the type of specific ‘demonstrated [management] behaviours’
(Ferris et al. 2003) that managers need to avoid or adopt if they are to establish a
reputation for managerial and leadership effectiveness. And because our taxonomy
contains a rich description of indicative effective and ineffective managerial
behaviours observed in public, private, and third sector organizations in seven very
different and diverse countries situated across five continents, it is likely to strike a
chord with and be easily understood and applied by managerial and non-managerial
employees in many other organizations and nations around the globe.
Although competency-based HRD/HRM systems serve as a means of measuring
and assessing managers and leaders for development, for improving managerial
performance, and for managing progression more effectively across a variety of
modern organizations (Gold and Iles, 2010), in many cases the benefits either do not
materialize or do not match up to expectations. As Hamlin (2010) claimed, many
managers find it hard to use competencies to help achieve their own goals and the
goals of the organization because, typically, competency-frameworks are either too
general or too detailed. When the former, insufficient guidance is given as to the
specific types of managerial behaviour critical for success; when the latter, processes
become too cumbersome and too time consuming. This can lead to a lack of
credibility and then to ‘lip service’ or ‘disengagement’ on the part of hard pressed
managers and employees. We suggest a potential solution to this problem could be
our emergent ‘universalistic taxonomy of perceived managerial and leadership
effectiveness’ because, as outlined above, it specifically identifies the critical
managerial behaviours that differentiate ‘good’ from ‘poor’ or ‘bad’
management/leadership practice. Additionally, the taxonomy has the potential to be
used by HRD professionals in various organizations and countries to (i) critically
review and validate existing managerial competency-frameworks, (ii) refine and
12
enrich the behavioural underpinning of in company taxonomies of managerial
effectiveness or leadership effectiveness; (iii) develop management competency
frameworks that have international relevance and utility, (iv) shape the creation of
better management related development tools such as 360 degree appraisal
instruments and self-assessment personal development plans, and (v), inform
HRD/OD intervention strategies for bringing about desired changes in an
organization’s management culture.
Conclusion and Recommendations
We have deduced an emergent ‘universalistic taxonomy of perceived managerial and
leadership effectiveness’ that has been shown to be relevant, translatable, and
transferable across seven diverse countries situated across five continents.
However, its relevance and validity in other specific organizational, sectoral and
national contexts have yet to be demonstrated empirically. Hence, we suggest
further emic replication studies of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness
should be conducted by indigenous researchers in a more diverse range of public
(state), private (for-profit) and third (non-profit) sector organizations not only in
Canada, China, Egypt, Germany, Mexico, Romania and the UK, but also in many
other countries around the globe. The empirical findings of such studies could then
be used cumulatively to test and refine the taxonomy through a succession of
multiple case, cross-sector and cross-nation comparative analyses until theoretical
saturation has been reached, and additional cases do not add anything (Eisenhardt,
1989). This might lead ultimately to the emergence of a ‘universal taxonomy of
perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness’.
References
Anderson, D. W., Krajewski, H. T., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (2008). A
leadership self-efficacy taxonomy and its relation to effective leadership.
Leadership Quarterly, 19, 595-608.
Arvonen, J., & Ekvall, G. (1999). Effective leadership style: Both universal and
contingent? Creativity & Innovation Management, 8(4), 242-257.
Atlas, R., Tafel, K., & Tunlik, K. (2007). Leadership style during transition in society: The
case of Estonia. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 5(1), 50-62.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B.M., & Jung, D.L. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4),
441-463.
Baldwin, J. (1987). Public versus private: Not that different, not that consequential.
Public Personnel Management, 16, 181-193.
Berry, J.W. (1989). Imposed etics-emics-derived etics: The operationalization of a
compelling idea. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 721-735.
Borman, W. C., & Brush, D. H. (1993). More progress toward a taxonomy of
managerial performance requirements. Human Performance, 6(1), 1-21.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., & Akerblom, S. et al. (2000). Cultural variation of
leadership prototypes across 22 European countries. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 73, 1-29.
13
Cammock, P., Nilakant, V., & Dakin, S. (1995). Developing a lay model of managerial
effectiveness. Journal of Management Studies, 32(4), 443-447.
CIPD (2011) Management competencies for enhancing employee engagement:
Research insight. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Conger, J. (1998). Qualitative research as the cornerstone methodology for
understanding leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 107-121.
Cresswell, J. W., Plano Clarke, V., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advances in
mixed methods design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddie (Eds), Handbook of
mixed methods in social and behavioral sciences (pp. 209-240). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Den Hartog, D., Maczynski, J., Motowidlo, S., Jarmuz, S., Koopman, P., Thierry, H. &
C. Wilderom, C. (1997). Cross-cultural perceptions of leadership: A comparison
of leadership and societal and organizational culture in The Netherlands and
Poland. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 28, 255–267.
Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997).
Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in
effective leadership. Leadership Quarterly; 8(3), 233-242.
Easterby-Smith, M., R. Thorpe, R., Lowe. A. 1991. Management research: An
introduction. London: Sage.
Einersen, E., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership
behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207216.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 532-550.
Erkutlu, H. (2008). The impact of transformational leadership on organizational and
leadership effectiveness: The Turkish case. Journal of Management
Development, 27(7), 708-726.
Fernandez, S. (2005). Developing and testing an integrative framework of public
sector leadership: Evidence from the public education arena. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 197-217.
Ferris, G. R., Blass, F. R., Douglas, C., Kolodinsky, R.W., & Treadway, D. C. (2003).
Personal reputation in organizations. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational
behavior: The state of the science (2nd ed) (pp. 211–246). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4),
327-358.
Flanagan, H. & Spurgeon, P. (1996). Public sector managerial effectiveness : Theory
and practice in the National Health Service. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. M., Zaccaro, S. J.Levin, K.Y.Korokin, A.L., & Hein, M.
B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A synthesis
and function interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 245-287.
Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research (2nd Edition). London: Sage.
Fottler, M. (1981). Is management really generic? Academy of Management Review,
6, 1-12.
Gibbs, G.R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. London: Sage.
Gold J., & Iles, P. (2010) Measuring and assessing managers and leaders for
development. In Jeff Gold, Richard Thorpe and Alan Mumford (eds). Gower
handbook of leadership and management development, (pp.223-241).
Farnham, UK: Gower.
14
Hales, C. P. (1986). What do managers do? A critical review of the evidence. Journal
of Management Studies, 23 (1), 88-115.
Hamlin, B. (2010). Evidence-based leadership and management development. In Jeff
Gold, Richard Thorpe and Alan Mumford (eds). Gower handbook of leadership
and management development, (pp 197-220). Farnham, UK: Gower.
Hamlin, B. & Cooper D. (2007) Developing effective managers and leaders within
healthcare and social care context: An evidence-based approach. In Sally
Sambrook & Jim Stewart (Eds.), HRD in the public sector: The case of health
and social care, (pp. 187-212). London: Routledge.
Hamlin, R. G. (1988) The criteria of managerial effectiveness in secondary schools.
CORE: Collected and Original Resources in Education, The International
Journal of Educational Research in Microfiche 12(1), 1-221.
Hamlin, R. G. (2002). In support of evidence-based management and research
informed HRD through professional partnerships: An empirical and
comparative study. Human Resource Development International, 5(4), 467491.
Hamlin, R. G.(2004). In support of universalistic models of managerial and leadership
effectiveness. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(2), 189-215.
Hamlin R. G. and Barnett, C (2011) In support of an emergent general taxonomy of
perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness: An empirical study from
the UK independent schools sector. Paper presented at the UFHRD/AHRD
12th International conference on HRD research and practice across Europe.
University of Gloucestershire, United Kingdom, June.
Hamlin, R. G. & Bassi, N. (2008) Behavioural indicators of manager and managerial
leader effectiveness: An example of Mode 2 knowledge production in
management to support evidence-based practice. International Journal of
Management Practice, 3(2), 115-130.
Hamlin, R.G., Nassar, M., & Wahba, K. (2010). Behavioural criteria of managerial
and leadership effectiveness within Egyptian and British public sector
hospitals: An empirical study and multiple-case/cross-nation comparative
analysis. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 43-64.
Hamlin, R.G., Patel, T, & Iurac, D. (2010). Behavioural indicators of managerial and
leadership effectiveness within Romanian and British public sector hospitals:
An empirical study and cross-nation comparative analysis. Paper presented at
the UFHRD/AHRD 11th International conference on HRD research and
practice across Europe. University of Pecs, Hungary, June
Hamlin, R. G., Patel, T., & Ruiz, C. (2012) Deducing a general taxonomy of
perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness: A multiple-case, crosssector and cross-nation study of effective and ineffective managerial behavior.
In K. M. Dirani, J. Wang & J. Gedro (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2012 AHRD
International Conference in the Americas (pp. 177-203), Minneapolis-St Paul,
MN: Academy of Human Resource Development
Hamlin, R. G., Reidy, M., & Stewart, J. (1998). Bridging the HRD research-practice
gap through professional partnership Human Resource Development
International 1(3), 273-290.
15
Hamlin, R.G., Ruiz, R. & Wang, J. (2011). Behavioural indicators of managerial and
leadership effectiveness within Mexican and British public sector hospitals: An
empirical study and cross-nation comparative analysis. Human
ResourceDevelopment Quarterly, 22(4), 491-517.
Hamlin, R.G. & Sawyer, J. (2007). Developing effective leadership behaviours: The
value of evidence-based management. Business Leadership Review, 4(4),
1-16.
Hamlin, R. G., Sawyer, J. & Sage, L. (2011) Perceived managerial and leadership
effectiveness in a non-profit organization: An exploratory and cross-sector
comparative study. Human Resource Development International, 14(2), 217234
Hamlin, R.G., & Serventi, S. (2008). Generic behavioural criteria of managerial
effectiveness: An empirical and comparative study of UK local government.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(4), 285-230.
Hooijberg, R. & Choi, J. (1998). The impact of macro-organizational variables on
leadership effectiveness models: An examination of leadership in private and
public sector organizations. Proceedings of Annual Meeting of the Academy of
Management, Public and Nonprofit Division, San Diego, CA: Academy of
Management
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W. & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. London: Sage
Knafl, K. A. & Breitmayer, B. J. (1991). Triangulation in qualitative research: Issues of
conceptual clarity and purpose. In J.M. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative nursing
research: A contemporary dialogue (pp. 226-239). London: Sage
Lau, A.W., Pavett, C. M. & Newman A. R, (1980). The nature of managerial work: A
comparison of public and private sector jobs, Academy of Management
Proceedings, 40, 339-343.
Luthans, F., & Lockwood, D. L. (1984). Toward an observation system for measuring
leader behavior in natural settings. In J. G. Hunt, D. Hosking, C. Schreisheim,
& R. Stewart (eds) Leaders and managers: International perspectives on
managerial behavior and leadership (pp.117-141). New York: Pergamon.
Madill, A., Jordon, A. & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative
analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies.
British Journal of Psychology, 91, 1-20.
Martinko, M. J. & Gardner, W. L. (1985). Beyond structured observation:
methodological issues and new directions. Academy of Management Review,
10, 676-695.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousands Oak,
CA: Sage.
Morrison, A. (2000). Developing a global leadership model. Human Resource
Management, 39(2/3), 117-131.
Morse, J. J., & Wagner, F. R. (1978). Measuring the process of managerial
effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 21(1), 23-35.
Patel, T., R.G. Hamlin and S, Heidgen. 2009. Exploring managerial and leadership
effectiveness: Comparing private sector companies across Germany and the UK.
Working paper presented at the UFHRD/AHRD 10th International conference on
HRD research and practice across Europe, Northumbria University, United
Kingdom, June
16
Peterson T. O., & Van Fleet, D. D. (2008). A tale of two situations: An empirical study
of behaviour by not-for-profit managerial leaders. Public Performance and
Management Review, 31(4), 503-516.
Riccucci, N. M. (1995). Unsung heroes: Federal execucrats making a difference.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Shipper, F., & White, C. S. (1999). Mastery, frequency, and interaction of managerial
behaviors to subunit effectiveness. Human Relations, 52(1), 49-66.
Stewart, R. (1989). Studies of managerial jobs and behaviours: The way forward.
Journal of Management Studies, 26(1), 1-10.
Svara, J. H. (1994). Facilitative leadership in local government: Lessons from
successful mayors and chairpersons. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tett, R. P., Gutterman, H. A., Bleier, A., & Murphy, P. J. (2000). Development and
content validation of a “hyperdimensional” taxonomy of managerial
competence, Human Performance, 13, 205-251.
Tsang, E. K. K., & Kwan, K-M. (1999). Replication and theory development in
organizational science: a critical realist perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 24(4), 759-780.
Tsui, A. S. (1984). A multiple-constituency framework of managerial reputational
effectiveness. In .J Hunt, C. Hoskings, C. Schriesheim & R. Stewart (Eds.),
Leaders and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior
and leadership (pp.28-44). New York: Pergamon.
Tsui, A. S. (1990). A multiple-constituency model of effectiveness: An empirical
examination at the human resource subunit level. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 35, 458-483
Tsui, A. S., & Ashford, S. (1994). Adaptive self-regulation: a process view of
managerial effectiveness’. Journal of Management. 20(1), 93-121.
Wang, J. (2011). Understanding managerial effectiveness: A Chinese perspective.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(1), 6-23.
Whitford, S. (2010). Leader effectiveness in a Canadian-owned utility. Unpublished
PhD thesis, University of Phoenix, USA, June.
Yukl, G., A. Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership
behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies 9(1), 15-31.
Yukl, G. & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in
organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (eds) 2nd Ed. Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology, Vol 3 (pp.147-197). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Zhu, Y. (2007). Do cultural values shape employee receptivity to leadership styles?
Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(3), 89-90.
17