IFTDO Global HRD Awards

Winning Entry for the 2013 IFTDO Research Excellence Award

Introduction

In 2013 the IFTDO introduced a new ‘Global HRD Award’ category for research excellence within the HRD field of study and practice. The Judging Panel was comprised of members drawn from the IFTDO and the University Forum for Human Resource Development (UFHRD). The case submitted to the Judging Panel by the authors of the winning entry is presented below in the same format as specified by the IFTDO Entry Form guidance notes. This is then followed by a copy of the conference paper that was the basis of the authors’ submission.

Winning Paper / 2013 IFTDO Research Excellence Award
Paper Title / Towards a Universal Taxonomy of Perceived Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness: A multiple cross-case/cross-nation study of effective and ineffective managerial behaviour
Authors / Names and affiliation of those who conducted the research and authored the paper
Bob Hamlin, University of Wolverhampton, UK
Taran Patel, Grenoble Ecole de Management, France
Carlos Ruiz, Georgia Gwinnett College , USA
Sandi Whitford, A Canadian Utility Company, Canada
Key Words / Up to eight key words (e.g. Strategic HRD; Experiential; Case Study. OD)
Perceived managerial/leadership effectiveness, universalistic taxonomy, cross-nation
Context / Background to the research
The study is part of a cumulative programme of empirical replication studies and multiple cross-case, cross-sector and cross-nation comparative studies that have been carried out by or co-conducted with Author 1 (Hamlin), or guided by him. The common aim of these replication studies-most of which have been single organization inquiries conducted in collaboration with the respective Executive Head/HR Director and/or an HRD or HRM practitioner- has been: (i) to identify what managers and employees within the specific collaborating organization perceive as effective and ineffective managerial behaviour, and (ii), to identify similarities and differences between the findings and those of other equivalent replication studies carried out in different types of organization in the same organizational sector. The common aim of the multiple case comparative studies has been to search for evidence of generic behavioural criteria of managerial and leadership effectiveness.
The present study builds specifically upon and extends the UK public sector-related ‘generic model’ of managerial and leadership effectiveness developed by Hamlin (2004), the EU related ‘taxonomy’ of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness developed by Patel and Hamlin (2012) through cross-case comparative analysis of six replication studies from three EU countries (Germany, Romania and UK), and the ‘British taxonomy’ of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness developed by Hamlin and Hatton (In press). The latter taxonomy was deduced from a cross-case and cross-sector comparative analysis of empirical source data obtained from nine single organization replication studies carried out within the public sector, private (for-profit) sector and third (non-profit) sector in the UK. The empirical source data for the study were obtained from fifteen empirical replication studies carried out in seven countries, namely Canada, China, Egypt, Germany, Mexico, Romania and the United Kingdom.
Purpose / Up to two sentences explaining main aim / purpose to which research is directed
The core aim was (i) to search for evidence of universalistic behavioural criteria of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness, and (ii), to make substantial progress in deducing a ‘universal taxonomy’ that has general relevance and utility for practicing managers and HR(HRD/HRM) professionals in culturally diverse organizations, organizational sectors and countries.
Evaluation/Feedback / (Optional) Include here any feedback or evaluation data that relates directly to the research initiative and its outcomes.
The authors of the paper were awarded ‘The Alan Moon Prize’ for presenting the best paper at the 2012 UFHRD/AHRD 13th International HRD Conference
Appendices / Include any supporting documentation referenced above
The Harvard references of the works cited above are given below, and a copy of the finalised conference paper ‘manuscript’ submitted to the UFHRD/AHRD Conference organizers is attached at the end of this entry form.
Provenance / Detail where this work has previously been presented
This paper was presented at the UFHRD/AHRD 13th International HRD Conference held on the 23-24 May, 2012 at the Universidade Lusiada de Vila de Famalicao, Portugal and is published in the conference proceedings.
Impact / Up to 300 words outlining the impact that this work has had (how has the work done, or the paper, changed things?)
Unexpectedly, we found that the type of managerial behaviours that people within and across multiple organizations in seven culturally diverse countries around the globe associate with effective and ineffective managers are very similar, and that there is little difference in the perceptions of people across organizational sectors. These findings challenge the commonly held belief that (i) national specificities impact significantly on how employees see the behaviour of their managers, and (ii), to be effective in public sector and third sector organizations managers need to adopt different behaviours to managers in private sector companies.
Of the few contemporary non US researchers who have conducted managerial/leadership effectiveness studies, even fewer have identified the specific managerial behaviours that managers need to avoid. Our study has given equal emphasis to both ineffective and effective managerial behaviour, and thereby has made a distinctive contribution. Our emergent ‘universalistic taxonomy’ provides a better understanding of the type of specific ‘demonstrated management behaviours’ that managers need to adopt and avoid if they are to establish a reputation for managerial and leadership effectiveness. The taxonomy has the potential to be used by HRD professionals in a wide range of organizations and countries for (i) critically reviewing and validating existing managerial competency-frameworks, (ii) refining and enriching the behavioural underpinning of in company taxonomies of managerial and leadership effectiveness (iii) developing management competency frameworks that have international relevance and utility, (iv) informing and shaping the creation of better management related development tools such as 360 degree appraisal instruments and self assessment personal development plans, and (v), informing HRD/OD intervention strategies for bringing about desired changes in an organization’s management culture. We make these claims knowing that several of our co-researchers (scholar-practitioners) have utilised the results of their respective in-company studies for these respective purposes (see Hamlin & Reidy, 2005; Hamlin, 2007).
Harvard References / Hamlin, R. G. (2004) In support of universalistic models of managerial and
leadership effectiveness Human Resource Development Quarterly 15(2) pp. 189-215.
Hamlin, R.G. (2007). An evidence-based perspective on HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 9(1), 42-57
Hamlin R. G., & Hatton, A. (In press) Towards a British Taxonomy of Perceived managerial and Leadership Effectiveness. Human Resource Development Quarterly. Vol 24, Issue ? pp. ??
Hamlin, R. G. & Reidy, M. (2005) Facilitating organisational change and development through professional researcher-practitioner partnerships ASTD International Conference & Exposition. Orlando, Florida, USA, June.
[This paper won one of the 2004 ASTD Excellence in Research-to-Practice Awards which was presented at the 2005 ASTD International Conference and Exposition]
Patel, T & Hamlin, R. G. (2012) Deducing a taxonomy of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness: A comparative study of effective and ineffective behaviour across three EU countries. Human Resource Development International, 15 (5), pp. 571-587.

21

IFTDO Global HRD Awards

Winning Entry for the 2013 IFTDO Research Excellence Award

Paper Title

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, Bob; 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 cross-nation 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 survey-based 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’.

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 leadership effectiveness that were variously carried out by us in the UK and various other countries, either individually or jointly or collaboratively with different co-researchers, 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 co-operation, or can lead to subordinates either following or not following their leadership.