Management derailment.

Abstract

The vast body of research on management and leadership that has accumulated over the past 100 years leads to two very different conclusions. On the one hand, many people believe that the effort has largely been wasted. For example, Hamel (2007) argued that the modern study of management is stagnant and out of date, and Khurana (2007) argued that attempts to create a science of management have failed. In an effort to provide guidance to practitioners, Kramer (2008, p. 26) reviewed the leadership literature, commented that it is "a strange mixture of alchemy, romantic idealism, and reason," and concluded that the lack of consistent, actionable findings prompts some business people "to wash their hands of the whole subject, talent shortage or no talent shortage." (See also Vol. 1, chap. 7, this handbook.) Other reviewers believe that there are recognized principles of management that can be used to enhance organizational performance (cf. Fayol, 1949). For instance, Bloom and Van Reenen (2007) studied the performance of 732 manufacturing firms in the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany and found that a firm's financial performance was a function of the degree to which it followed "well-established management practices" in the areas of operations, performance management, and talent management. The more profitable companies enhanced operations through continuous improvement, setting clear performance goals, monitoring and reviewing performance, and aligning incentives with performance. Bloom and Van Reenen replicated these findings using an additional 3,268 firms, including a large sample from Asia. Four of their conclusions are worth noting. First, there are, in fact, some well-established princi-ples of management. Second, the companies that use these principles are more profitable than those who do not. Third, senior leadership decides whether to use effective management practices. And finally, the best run companies are multinationals; the worst run companies are government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and companies managed by second-generation family members.The economic literature clearly shows that good management enhances organizational performance and that some managers are better than others. However, Kramer (2008) and other critics are also right-there is little consensus in the psychological literature regarding the characteristics of good managers (cf. Hogan, 2007, pp. 106-109). In contrast, the research on bad managers converges rather well. Across studies with different methodologies and in different organizations and national cultures, and across organizational level, the data have shown that failed managers have bad judgment, can not build teams, have troubled relationships, and can not manage themselves or learn from their mistakes. This research is important for both economic and moral reasons. THE COST OF BAD MANAGERSWhen managers fail, it costs time and resources to replace them. Lombardo reported that, in 1985, two Fortune 500 organizations asked him for advice on preventing...

How Power Affects People: Activating, Wanting, and Goal Seeking

“…In organizations, managers often focus too narrowly on organizational targets, in particular profit, at the expense of relational goals and the employees' needs (Hofstede et al 2002, Pfeffer 2007. Consequently, up to two-thirds of employees in any organization consider their immediate supervisor the strongest source of stress at work (Hogan et al 2010). Ironically, neglecting employees markedly reduces organizational profit and the commitment and well-being of subordinates (Pfeffer 2007).…”

The Destructiveness of Laissez-Faire Leadership Behavior

“…Hiller, DeChurch, Murase, & Doty, 2011;Schyns & Schilling, 2012), destructive leadership behaviors have received less attention (Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007). Still, destructive leadership is highly prevalent in contemporary working life (Aasland, Skogstad, Notelaers, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2010;J. Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2011;R.…”

How displaying empathic concern may differentially predict career derailment potential for women and men leaders in Australia

“…Drawing on signaling theory, we contend that displaying behaviors that connote empathic concern is one key signal of other-(as opposed to self) focus. Such other-focus is important for working with others to attain goals at higher organizational levels, a critical requirement of those able to continue advancing to higher levels in the organization (Charan, Drotter, & Noel, 2011), and a hallmark of low derailment potential (Gentry, 2010;Gentry & Chappelow, 2009;Hogan et al, 2010). Furthermore, our work can help bring attention to the importance of emotion management and regulation at work.…”

“…Such measures however are not synonymous with derailment potential (Conger & Fulmer, 2003;Hall, 2002). Different than those who are able to progress, advance, and succeed in higher organizational levels, derailed individuals display certain behaviors that are indicative of an individual's career derailment potential (see Braddy, Gooty, Fleenor, & Yammarino, 2014;Gentry, 2010;Gentry & Chappelow, 2009;Gentry & Shanock, 2008;Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2010). Decades of research shows that certain behaviors, such as problems with interpersonal relationships or difficulty changing and adapting, are not simply a lack of certain skills or competencies.…”

“…Decades of research shows that certain behaviors, such as problems with interpersonal relationships or difficulty changing and adapting, are not simply a lack of certain skills or competencies. Rather, these behaviors indicate an inability to work with others to accomplish goals at higher positions in organizations that eventually limit one's own career advancement, resulting in a person plateauing in his or her career, being demoted, or fired (Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007;Furnham, 2010;Hogan et al, 2010;Lombardo, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1988). Accordingly, we define career derailment potential based on whether or not a leader displays behaviors indicative of career derailment which ultimately limit or stall a person's career (Braddy et al, 2014;Carson et al, 2012;.…”