Do the behaviors related to managerial effectiveness really change with organizational level? An empirical test.

Abstract

Kaiser, Craig, Overfield, & Yarborough, this issue). However, there is a noteworthy gap in this otherwise extensive literature. Because job requirements vary with organizational level, it seems logical to suppose that the behaviors that constitute effective performance also differ across levels. But, as Zaccaro (2001) andYukl (2006) have pointed out, the published literature contains no direct empirical tests of the proposition that the behaviors that predict managerial effectiveness vary with organizational level. Nor is there direct evidence for the assumed discontinuities in these differences-where the same behavior is positively related to effectiveness at one level but negatively related to effectiveness at another level (cf. Freedman, 1998; Kaiser et al., this issue).This article reports a direct test of the assumption that the behaviors that predict effectiveness are different for jobs at the bottom, middle, and top. This study is the first we know of to use an identical set of measures across a range of organizations to directly test whether the behaviors that predict managerial effectiveness change with organizational level. Such an empirical test is important not only for theoretical reasons but also because of the widespread application of such assumptions in practice on the basis of popular books lacking an empirical basis, including The Leadership Pipeline (Charan, Drotter, & Noel, 2001) and What Got You Here Won't Get You There (Goldsmith & Reiter, 2007). Is the popular fascination with the Leadership Pipeline model and related best practices warranted by data, or is this just another fad lacking empirical support?

Usage, benefits and barriers of human resource information system in universities

“…In this regard, other studies also confirm the importance of demographic features such as gender, experience (Muchiri et al, 2011;Wickramasinghe and De Zoyza, 2008), education (Igbaria et al, 1989;gbaria and Nachman, 1990) levels/positions (Baral and Bhargava, 2011;Kaiser and Craig, 2011;Mumford, et al, 2007;Rai, 2009) on preferences, attitude and behaviors. Our next research question, thus, considers the importance of demographic variations…”

Educational Reform: A Case Study of Teachers’ Attitudes, Perceptions, and Engagement Throughout Curricular Reform

“…As previously identified, schools operate with a clear management structure wherein school boards empower superintendents who task principals which depend on teachers to ensure that the mission of the school is fulfilled on a yearly basis. Given that those individuals serving as principals bear the responsibility of enacting the reforms in a non-abrasive manner (Kaiser & Craig, 2011), that reform implementation has a greater chance of success within a culture of trust (Louis & Wahlstrom, 2011), and that the changes brought on by reform are frequently viewed as unnecessary shifts away from the familiar (Evans, 1993), the principal within any given school faces an enormous challenge when seeking to implement reform of any kind within the walls of a school. Virgilio and Virgilio (1984) verify such sentiment in their claim that "the success or failure in implementing [reform] falls heavily on the shoulders of the school principal" (p. 346).…”

“…Throughout the reform implementation process, the usage of communication by the individuals involved becomes a key aspect to the success of the reform efforts (Patterson & Czajkowski, 1979;Evans, 2005;Kaiser & Craig, 2011;Virgilio & Virgilio, 1984). Specifically, the type of communication and the frequency of communication hold great impact on reform efforts.…”

Conceptualizing Learning Agility and Investigating its Nomological Network

“…In a study of executives, middle managers, and supervisors, Kaiser and Craig (2011) found that learning agility was the only factor that predicted success across all three career levels. However, learning agility was a stronger predictor of success for executives than it was for middle managers and supervisors.…”