TOWARDS A GENERIC MODEL OF LEADERSHIP
A comparative study of British and American empirically derived
criteria of managerial and leadership effectiveness
Bob Hamlin
University of Wolverhampton Business School
Abstract:
House and Aditya (1997) claim there is a compelling logic suggesting the ‘universality’ of manager/leader behaviours and competencies. Many writers argue that management and leadership are context-dependent, situation/perspective-specific, and ‘contingent’ phenomena Others perceive problems arising from the cultural and organisational differences affecting the management/leadership environment of the USA in relation to other countries, and question the generalisability and transferability of most US management research to non-US cultures. The present study contributes to this ‘contingency’ versus ‘universalistic’ debate by presenting results from a meta-level analytic study of empirically derived criteria of managerial/leadership effectiveness and behavioural competencies obtained from studies carried out in Britain and America respectively. The findings support the view that the ‘universalistic’ argument is more consistent with the facts.
Key Words: managerial/leadership effectiveness; generic model
Introduction
A plethora of research has been conducted into the nature of management and leadership, both in the US and the UK. However, various writers have expressed concerns that few studies have produced empirical results that can be generalised.
For example, commenting on the thirty years or so of research into leadership and supervisory behaviour that builds on the early work of the Harvard, Ohio State and Michigan State studies, House and Aditya (1997) draw attention to the fact that no pattern of leader behaviour has been found to be consistently associated with any criteria of supervisor or manager effectiveness. Resulting from a wide ranging historical literature review in search of strong empirical evidence to support the concept of evidence-based management, Axelsson (1998) claims that few studies have produced results that can be generalised from one organisation to another. A similar situation exists in the field of leadership research. Kim and Yukl (1995) draw attention to the fact that not only is the number of studies on specific behaviours still small, but also different researchers have examined different sub-sets of behaviour, thus making it difficult to compare and contrast the findings from one study to another. As Yukl (1994: 19) claims, “we still have to develop a general theory of leadership that explains all aspects of the process adequately”. Furthermore, Avolio, Bass and Jung (1999) argue that weaknesses in research design have been the cause of limitations on the generalisability of findings in various studies.
Other writers perceive problems of generalisability arising from the significant cultural and organisational differences affecting the managerial and leadership environment of the US in relation to other countries, and have questioned the generalisability of findings from US research to non-US cultures (see Peterson and Hunt, 1997; Holt, 1998; Hunter, 1998; Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban Metcalfe 2000). Even so, based on a critical review of the scientific study of leadership and the latest discussions on the existence of “universal or near universal effective leader behaviours”, House and Aditya (1997) believe it is likely there are indeed several leadership functions generic to the exercise of leadership, and that these are universally expected, accepted and effective across organisations, industries, and cultures. Although claiming the functions of the leader may be enacted with different behaviours depending on the situation or culture, they claim that “the logic suggesting universality of leader behaviours is compelling.” However, they also point out that this belief represents theoretical speculation and remains to be developed theoretically and demonstrated empirically. Despite the sparseness of empirical evidence, other writers have expressed a belief in the existence of ‘generic’ criteria of managerial/leadership effectiveness and the ‘universality’ of management For example, Bass (1997) believes there are leadership styles that may be more universal to different cultures, while Thompson et al. (1996) argue that comparisons between existing lists of managerial competence and overlaps support the notion of generic competencies. These views strongly support the concept of the ‘universally effective manager’ and of the use of ‘universalistic’ approaches for studying managerial effectiveness as reported and advocated by Bennett (1983),. This contrasts sharply with those who believe managerial/leadership effectiveness is ‘contingent’, being context-dependent, situation-specific and perspective-specific (see, Cappelli and Crocker-Hefter, 1996; Flanagan and Spurgeon, 1996; Van der Velde et al., 1999; Hayes et al.,2000; Shipper, 2000; Garavan and McGuire, 2001).
To determine empirically whether or not managerial/leadership effectiveness is a more ‘universalistic’ as opposed to ‘contingent’ phenomenon, replica studies have been called for by, for example, Avolio, Bass and Jung (1999). Ideally, such studies should be carried out in a wide range of private, public and voluntary sector organisations in different countries around the globe. Meta level analyses of the findings should then be conducted in search of evidence of generalisability. The present study is one small step in this direction.
Research Method
Specifically the study compares and contrasts examples of empirically derived criteria of managerial/leadership effectiveness resulting from UK and US research where near identical research methodologies and methods have been used. Respectively, these include several previous studies carried out in Britain by the author (see Hamlin, 1988, 1990, 200a, 200b, 2003; Hamlin Reidy and Stewart 1998, 1999), and the predominantly American/Canadian based Zenger Miller ‘grass-roots’ leadership study of Russ-Eft et al.(1996). The specific research questions addressed were as follows:
1) Which behavioural criteria (competencies) comprising the Hamlin ‘Generic Model of Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness’ are held in common with those comprising the Zenger Miller ‘Grass-Roots Leadership Model’?
2) To what extent are the identified management/leadership competencies generalised to each other
The Hamlin ‘Generic Model of Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness’
Hamlin’s model was derived from the results of several meta level analyses of findings from three previous empirical factor analytic studies of the criteria of managerial/leadership effectiveness applying within three different types of UK public sector organisations, namely in Secondary Education, Central Government and Healthcare respectively (See Hamlin 2002c; 2003). Each study deployed both qualitative and quantitative methods and adopted a common subjectivist/interpretive design within a grounded theory mindset. This included the use of Critical Incident Technique (CIT), as originally devised by Flanagan (1954), for obtaining concrete examples of effective and ineffective manager behaviours, plus statistical analytic methods for reducing, categorising and classifying these behaviours. Across all three studies over 1,900 ‘critical incidents’ were obtained from over 220 managers and non-managers. These critical incidents were then used to develop behavioural item questionnaires (BIQs) with Likert scales attached. The BIQs were then administered widely within the respective organisations. The Secondary Education related BIQ comprised 126 discrete behavioural items, whereas the Central Government and Healthcare related BIQs comprised 83 and 52 discrete items respectively. The BIQ data collected for each study were subjected to various factor analytic techniques (factor analysis or principal component analyses) to identify the particular job dimensions/competencies and criteria of effectiveness applying within the respective case study organisations.
The meta level analyses carried out on the various sets of criteria revealed very high degrees of sameness, similarity, coincidence and congruence of meaning. Most criteria were internally generalised across different levels of management and staff, and externally generalised to one or both of the other two organisations. Those manager/leader behaviours and criteria of effectiveness generalised to all three organisations were then used to create an eleven (11) factor model comprising six (6) positive criteria (competencies) indicative of effective management/ leadership [indications], and five (5) negative criteria indicative of ineffective management/leadership [contra-indications]. Further details of the development of this new ‘Generic Model of Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness’ and its empirical base can be found in Hamlin (2002c; 2003).
The Zenger Miller ‘Grass Roots Model of Leadership’
The Zenger Miller researchers used CIT to collect 1,871 critical incidents from 450 American and Canadian organisations ranging in size from fewer than 250 employees to over 10,000. These included organisations from a mix of heavy manufacturing, high-tech, and service industries as well as government agencies and educational institutions. Respondents were encouraged to give critical incident examples using not only managers and supervisors, but also non-supervisory employees. The researchers then analysed these concrete examples of managerial/leader behaviour for commonalities and differences and grouped them into categories according to the competencies they seemed to demonstrate. In the course of analysing and sorting the 1,871 incidents the researchers came up with over 120 categories of behaviours. These were grouped and classified into 17 competencies using factor analytic methods, and then further structured within the already existing Zenger Miller CLIMB Strategies Model to form the ‘Grass-Roots Model of Leadership’. A refined version of this model has been reported in Bergman et al.(1999). The respective behavioural underpinnings of each of the 17 competencies comprise examples of positive (effective) and negative (ineffective) behaviours. Although not explicitly included as part of the published Zenger Miller ‘grassroots’ model, the latter contra-indications of competence (negative behaviours) have been used for the present study, as well as the indications of managerial/leadership effectiveness (positive behaviours).
The present study
The present study comprised several comparative meta-level analyses of the respective Hamlin and Zenger Miller models of management/leadership involving a detailed comparison of the respective criteria/competencies and the specific underpinning behaviours. The purpose was to search for evidence of sameness, similarity, coincidence, and congruence of meaning between the models, and for generalisability. The ultimate aim was to reveal the extent to which the British model is generalised to the American model, and vice versa.
Research results
Specific details of the Hamlin and Zenger Miller models are set out in Table 1. Those behaviours loaded onto criteria (factors) in the Hamlin model that are clearly ‘near identical’ or ‘equivalent’ in substance and meaning to the behaviours comprising the corresponding CLIMB strategies and competencies (in italics) in the Zenger Miller model, have been typed in bold. As can clearly be seen by the amount of bold type in both the ‘Indications’ and ‘Contra-Indications’ sections of the table, the vast majority of Zenger Miller competencies (12 of 17) and their behavioural underpinnings (19 of 31 positive behaviours; 24 of 25 negative behaviours, and 43 of 56 overall) align closely with the Hamlin criteria.
Overall the degree of alignment, overlap, similarity and congruence of meaning between most of the Hamlin criteria and Zenger Miller competencies is high. However, there appears to be no specific or transparent alignment with three of the eleven criteria comprising the Hamlin model, namely ‘Empowerment and Delegation’, ‘Genuine Concern for People/Looks After the Interests and Development Needs of Staff’, ‘Resistant to New Ideas and Change/Negative Approach’, nor with one of the seventeen competencies comprising the Zenger Miller model, namely ‘Respond to Identified Customer Needs’.
Discussion
The lack of alignment with the ‘Respond to Identified Customer Needs’ competence comprising the Zenger Miller model can perhaps be explained by the fact that the Hamlin model is based on criteria of managerial/leadership effectiveness obtained from public sector organisations only. In these organisations the amount of importance given to the issue of ‘responsiveness to customers needs’ may be lower than is typically found in profit making commercial/business organisations where this ‘competence’ needs to be uppermost in the minds of employees. It should be noted the Zenger Miller study embraced both private and public sector organisations. The apparent absence in the Zenger Miller model of specific positive or negative behaviours concerned with ‘empowerment’, ‘delegation’, ‘showing genuine concern for staff’, ‘looking after their interests and development needs’, and ‘negative approach to new ideas and change’ is surprising. However, these differences may be the result of cultural differences between Britain and America. Despite these gaps in overlap and coincidence, the major parts of both models are held in common and strongly generalised at both the criterion/competence and behavioural levels.
This finding supports those who believe in the existence of ‘generic competencies’ and ‘universal or near universal effective leader (manager) behaviors’. The results also challenge in part the beliefs of those who claim managerial/leadership effectiveness is predominantly ‘contingent’ upon context and culture.
1
Table 1: Comparison of the Hamlin ‘Generic Model of Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness’ and the Zenger Miller ‘Grass-Roots Leadership Model’
The Hamlin ‘Generic Model of Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness’ / The Zenger Miller ‘Grass-Roots Leadership Model’Criteria/Functions of Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness / CLIMB Strategies and Competencies
INDICATIONS Positive Criteria/Functions
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. / Managing Work Horizontally: Manage cross-functional processes/Display technical skills /Manage projects/ Manage time and resources
Manager identified major aspects (of project), provided a master plan and a step by step process. The project had stagnated and someone had to get it going again. Went around to people who were being affected by the problem. Did a good job by creating a process in a situation where there was no process. Did a great job involving all the relevant stakeholders-design, building, and on-line testing. Solved the problem by getting everyone involved in it
Build Personal Credibility: Takes initiative beyond job requirement/Take responsibility for your own actions and the actions of your group/Handle emotions in yourself and others/Display professional ethics/Show compassion/Make credible presentations
He stepped up to the issue and dealt with it. Didn’t side-step the problem. Took responsibility for the error as a representative of the company, even though he didn’t do it himself. Does not lose their temper; during a confrontation with an angry employee the supervisor did not get upset or angry. Stood up for quality on her team despite the schedule pressure to release the product.