managerial effectivenss

8/2/2019 Managerial Effectivenss

1/11

/?ESE/\/?A/OT"fMANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS IN INDIANORGANISATIONS: REEXAMINING ANINSTRUMENT IN AN INDIAN CONTEXT

Thi5 study contr ibutes to understanding the manager ialeffectiveness perception of executives in Indian organisationsby assessing and validating the related constructs, that havebeen developed and standardised ou tside India. Em ploying aWestern scale, a diverse sample was collected from executives oforganisations fun ction ing in India, and a total of 207 responseswas collected and evaluated using principal component analysisto provide a clearer picture of the co nstruct of m anagerialeffect iveness perception of Indian managers at dif ferentorganisational levels. Originally, the scale comprising of eightitems grouped in three factors (i.e., productivity, adaptabilityand flexibility).The results of the study provide a comprehensiveand fresh inde pth view of managerial effectiveness in selectedIndian organisations as the results of the present study aresomewhat different from those gained w ith the original scale. Animp ortant f indin g of the study is reassembling of the variables/items of the original scale wi th the significant alpha value andcorrelation pattern for perception of managerial effectiveness.These observations p rovide the foun da tion for hum an resourcemanagement (HRM) policy and practices in contemporaryIndian organisations.

Key wo rds Ad aptab ility, efficiency, flexibil ity, indianorganisation, managerial effectiveness

Submitted4 M arch 2011Resubmitted

Umesh K. BamelDepartment of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Techno log)/Santosh Rangnekar


2/11

INTRODUCTIONWith an increasing 'cut throat'competit ion and dynamic business environment around the globeorganisations require a team of managers to run the day to day operations (Boyatzis 1982). Managersplay a significant role in the d evelopm ent, formulation, and execu tion of the organisation's lon g term aswell as short term strategies, that d eterm ine corporate success (Al-Madhoun & A naloui 2004). Indeedmanagers are dynamic and the life giving elements in every business, and w itho ut them the resourcescannot be converted into high p roduc tion (Drucker 1967). Aggregation of employees'performancerepresents the organisational performance which places stress on the efficient use of resources andaccom plishmen t of desirable outcomes. W ith increased depen dency of business on info rm ationtechn ology, m anagers are required to sort ou t new ways to facilitate organisational p rod uct ion andsustainable self gro wt h. What d ifferentiates surviving o rganisations fr om others (Sinclair-Hunt &Simms 200S), tha t have not been able to tack le'tou gh times', is the performan ce and effectiveness ofits executive. Indeed, there has been th e de bate over ho w t o assess executive manage rial effective-ness, which provides a pathway for utilising resources efficaciously. Consequently, management maybe viewed as a special kind of leadership in wh ich the a chievemen t of the orga nisational goal is vitaland m anagers strive to opera te in a situation with op timu m performance outcomes.The performanceof a manager and how effectively he/she wou ld operate a situation is related to many variables fro man individual to an organisational dimen sion (Page, et al. 2003, Ham lin and Serventi 2008, Bao 2009).The fate of any organisation largely depends on th e m anagerial actions. A key fun ction of managersis to determ ine what has to be done and how it is to be done (Drucker 1967). But the m anagerial roleis continually changing with organisational complexity, globalisation, the accelerated product lifecycle, growing complexity of relationship with stakeholders, scarcity of the resources, and intensecompetit ion (Bolman & Deal 1991). Consequently, the managerial job has changed from merelysupervision of subordinates and middleman between workers and top managem ent to h elping instrategy formulation, managing change, making and developing cross functional teams and impro vingthe stakeholder relationships. As the role of the manager changes and becomes more dem and ing sohas the interest in investigating the factors that impac t efficiency an d effectiveness of the manager(Mintzberg 1973, Ana loui 2007). And d ifferent researchers suggest that ma pping of the degree o f ef-fectiveness of any individu al is not o nly based on skills, know ledge and personal competencies, b utalso on interpersonal interactions as well as the way teams are mana ged.Regardless of its increasing imp orta nce , the fie ld of m anagerial effectiveness has been ne glected ascom pared to o ther issues of m anagem ent (Willcocks 1992). India being a rapidly grow ing econo mylargely depends u pon its hum an cap ital and increasing atte ntion is being directed in Indian organisa-tions toward s im pro ving managerial effectiveness. This study con tributes t o 'closing the gap ' in thisdeficit in the relative literature. Hence, the main objective of this paper is to exp lore the perc eptionof managers towards dimen sions of m anagerial effectiveness by reexam ining a Western scale in th eIndian c ontext. The study also traces the relative im portan ce o f variables used for m app ing man age-rial effectiveness.MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESSConceptEffectiveness of execu tives is very im po rta nt for the success of an organisation in the contemp orarybusiness arena (Bao 2009). Organisations need effective and com peten t m anagers to be able to reachthe ir objectives efficien tly and effectively (Boyatzis 1982). In fact, executives employ theii- competen-cies and enhance the economic value of raw resources to play a crucial role in the de velop me nt and


3/11

is expected to g et the right thing s don e and this is simp ly saying tha t he is expected to be effective.Researchers have described mana gerial effectiveness in various ways, th ou gh there is yet no conform -ity on conce pt and m etho d of m app ing managerial effectiveness (Luthans 1988). Broide and Bennett(1979:14) defined mana gerial effectiveness a s,"...results and consequences, brin ging abo ut effects, inrelation to purpose, and giv ing v alidity t o particular activities.". Reddin (1974) explicated manage rialeffectiveness as the degree to which managers achieve the output requirements corresponding totheir respective positions. In other words, it is the act of fulfi l l ing m ultiple e xpectations rather thanop tim ising one o bjective (Kirchoff 1977). Boyatzis (1982) unde rlined effectiveness a s qualities, intrinsicabilities or pe rsonality strengths of a n individual, while Mintzberg (1973) defined an effective man-ager a s one w ho identifies the need to unde rstand the fun ctions and uses the available resources tocarry out these managerial function s. Drucker (1988) differentiated efficiency and effectiveness anddelineated effectiveness as the fo und ation of success. A review of th e literature revealed that thereis no t a lone defin ition of manage rial effectiveness, wh ich co uld be single handedly a pplied in everyaspect of manage ment.Approaches to EffectivenessA com'prehensive review of th e literature reveals three imp orta nt perspectives of m anagerial effec-tiveness, 1) conv entional perspective, 2) organisational level proficiency based perspective, and 3)individua l level com petenc y based perspective.The conv entional ap proach stresses the ab ility to setand achieve goals (Bartol & M artin 1 9 9 1 ) and explains that it is the manage rial effectiveness wh ich isresponsible for organ isational effectiveness.The orga nisational level proficiency based the ory explainsthat internal and external factors have a strong influence on the long term fu ture orientation of th eorga nisa tion. For instance, an organisation's m ission, vision, and strategic plan form ula tion play a vitalrole in achieving future goals.This approach furth er divulges th at any organisation incorporates theinternal resources (i.e., people, material, money, machinery, know how and the e xternal surround ingsa s a system to accomplish the tactical intent).The individua l comp etency approach focuses upon theindividuals rather than th e association of external actors, and puts stress on the e nhancem ent of c o n -venie nt ma nagem ent skills and tactics (behaviour). These skills and tactics can be learned, atta ined,practiced, and nourished.The individua l competen cy based approach advocates to develop m anage-m en t skills and tactics tha t can be used across different con texts an d situations (Page, et a l. 2003).Analoui (1997), in his study, grou ped t w o streams o ft h e cons truct of m anagerial effectiveness in therelevant literature. One stream iden tified objectiv ity and order with in the function al limitations, wh ileanother l ine of th e l iterature tried to explain managerial effectiveness from a managerial point ofview. The later stream stressed a need to understand and consider the manager's level of awarenessof their effectiveness, dem and and m otives beh ind ac tions, constraints and choices available at thework place (Analoui 1997). Earlier, Langford (1979) had stated effectiveness is contingent upon thesituation th at is available to a manager, jo b pos ition, tasks assigned a s well a s the organisational andthe socioeconomic environm ent. Later, Margerison (1981) proposed that the situation is importantand if a manager behaves appro priately in tune w ith the situation, the n actions are likely to be high lyeffective. More recently, Metts (2007) measured the managerial effectiveness of SMEs in the UnitedStates of Am erica (USA), and s tated tha t effectiveness co uld be assessed by focus ing on wh at execu-tives do (focusing on behaviour and action of executives), and wh at executives achieve (focusing onperformance results of executives). Black and Edward (1979) had two decades earlier held a similarview that effectiveness could be measured by obtaining the difference between the actual outputand targeted output.Ano ther im po rtan t issue of managerial effectiveness is a need for m ultitaskin g. The impo rtance of


4/11

(1991 ) contend that a manager wh o can tack!e a broad range of everyday organisationa! problem s wifun ctio n mo re effective!y. Effectiveness can be increased by tun ing se!f perception and expectationsof interested groups a nd p eop!e. There are many attribu tes, whic h are the necessities of tim e an dcritica! to deve ring improve d resu!ts, effective operations, and programm mes ( Hacker & Washington2003). Both Fraser (2000), and Tsui and coeagues (1995) c!aimed that impression managem ent p!aysa critica! ro!e in manage ria! effectiveness.The present paper, thr ou gh its empirica! evidence, provides a clearer picture of m anagerial effective-ness perception in an Indian conte xt, and further has the pote ntial to assist executives to imp rovetheir o utp ut. Prod uctivity, adaptability, and flexibity dimensions o f stakeho!der approach were usedto articulate views of managers in Indian organisations. These dimensions can be grouped with anindividua ! comp etency based approach as the dime nsions o f this scale are related w ith personalcompetency.METHODOLOGYParticipantsThe study targ eted all leve!s of managers (senior, midd !e, and junior !eve!) in large pub lic and privatesector compa nies in India. Notable, the find ings are thus, based on primary data. A tota ! of 207 re-sponses was coected from !ndian organisations !ocated in the n orthe rn re gion of the cou ntry. Therationa!e behind choosing executives/managers as participants for the present study relates to thefact that managers have been considered as the important element in the organisation's ability tosecure success. A large p rop ortio n of the respondents was ma!e (N=65.2 per cent), va!ues that areshown in Table 1 .The age profile of the respondents varies w ith th e younge st manager at 24 and o!desexecutive at 57 years of age. A!l of the respondents had significant w ork experience w ith an averageva!ue of 16 years. A ma jority of the respondents (47.4 per cent) he!d a junio r !eve! posit ion, whi!e therem aining s ection of the samp!e comprises senior (23.6 pe rce nt), and m idd!e !eve! positions (29 percent).The samp!e comprises of m anage me nt graduates (46 per cent), engine ering graduates (38 percent), whi!e dip!om a ho!ders and art graduates accoun t for less tha n one qu arter of th e tota ! samp!e(16 per cent). Respondents from pubc organisations equa ted to 47 percent, whi!e resp ondents fromprivate organisations totaNed 53 per cent.

Tab!e 1Demographic % (W = 207)

GenderManagerial level

Education

Ownership

Country

MalesFemalesSeniorMiddleJuniorEngineering graduateManagem ent graduateOthers (diploma holder, art graduate)PublicPrivateIndia

65.234.823.62947.43846164753

100


5/11

of a self adm inistered and op en ended scale tha t w a s developed and validated by Mo tt (1971). Purpo-sive/snowball techniqu e o f data collection was used for the collection of responses. A fter establishingrapp ort, the subjects were asked to tick mark his or her choice against any of the five statements ineach set. Scoring for the scale was done manu ally after ge tting the responses. There was nor ight orwrong answer to the statements or items. A set of 207 responses was received out of a distributedsample of three hun dred.MeasuresThis study employed primary data collection procedure by distributing a self administered ques-tionnaire. This scale was adapted from Mott (1971), who grouped eight items in three factorsproductivity (three items, production output, optimum utilisation of resources, and adoptionof new method of production), adaptability (three items; quality, problem anticipation, and ac-ceptance of changes and flexibility (it includes two items; adjustment to the new situations andcopes with emergencies readily and successfully).The Cronbach alpha value for the present scaleis .78, and factors are 0.78 for productivity, 0.69 for adaptability, and 0.74 for flexibility. Thesevalues are shown in Table 2.AnalysisAfter collection of responses data were initially norm alised and then adm inistered by using principalcomponent analysis, incorporating the variamax option ata significance level ofp < 0.05. Principalcom pone nt analysis were em ployed to reduce the dimensions o fth e factors and also to explain thevariance in the obse rved variables in terms of laten t factors (Kundu 2003). Descriptive statistics (shownin Table 3) were used to obtain the relative ihiportance of items used in the present study to mapmanagerial effectiveness. These statistics measure ofcentral tenden cy (mean value) and m easure ofdispersion (standard d eviation).

Table 2Principal com pon ents analysis (PCA)

Factors F1 F2 F3Factor Fl Productivity

1 . Production outp ut of product and services3. Op tim um Util isation of resources4 . Problem anticipation and management of unforeseen consequences.5. Ado ption of new method of doing work

.560

.869

.S8S

.516

.089

.211

.162-.173.

.191-.129

.181

.197F 2 Adaptability

6. Acceptance of changes made in the system of organisation.7. Adjus tmen t to new work Environment

F 3 Quality and Flexibility2. Ouality of service and products.8 . Cope w it h em ergencies more rea dil y and successfully

.158

.257

.157

.253

.697

.908

.078-.094

.496-.323

.882

.626EigenvaluesPercentage of total variance explained

2.79034.881

1.21915.237

1.05813.226


6/11

RESULTSBefore em ploy ing fa ctor analysis the data were first examined for sample adequacy. The Kaiser-MeyerOlkin {KMO=.903) value is near to one a nd indicates that th e patterns of correlations are condensedBartlett's test of sphericity wi th ap proxim ated ch i square value 91.068 and with twe nty eigh t degreeof f reedom, wh ich is significant at the 0.05 level, shows that the factor analysis is app ropriate. A to talof eight variables rega rding perce ption of m anagerial effectiveness was subjected to principal com -ponent analysis with varimax rotation by using the factors with eigen value more than one beingretained. Harman (1976) indicated that factors with loading score greater 0.29 at the 0.05 level weresignificant, but in this study the factors having been loading greater than 0.5 were considered andincluded to d efine the factor.T hree factors were extracted assuming eigen value criterion more tha none (rang ing from 1.058 to 2.790) and explaining 63.334 per cent of variance. They are (a) prod uctiv ity(b) adap tability, and (c) quality and flex ibility. The terms we re used from the original scale to defineextracted factors. Table 2 gives ro tated loading of variables for extracted three factors, eigen valueand variance explained by each factor.Table 3 presents the correlation of qu ality related constructs. An imp orta nt objective o f this study wasto explore the dimensions of managerial effectiveness. A mean value was obtained to find out therelative impo rtance of variables/items a ccording to respondents (Table 3). Variable qu ality o f serviceand products was identif ied w ith a mean value 3.76 followed by the variable of produ ction ou tpu tin terms of p rodu ct and services with a mean value 3.72. Variable optim um utilisation o f availableresources was iden tified as the least score wit h a mean value 3.03 (see Table 3).

Table 3Descriptive statistics and correiation (N = 207)

I tems1. Product ion2. Ouality3. Op t imum4. Problem5. Adopt ion6. Acceptance7. Adjustm ent8. Cope

M3.723.763.033.463.233.393.143.51

SD0.860.740.900.860.981.081.161.14

20.22

30.30**-.02

40.38**

.19

.31

50.43**0.830.300.38**

60.27

-0.010.270.310.86

70.320.06

-0.010.200.33**0.45**

80.260.41**0.240.100.280.210.16

Notes: a. M = Mean, S.D. = Standard deviation.b. P rodu ction = pr od uc tion ou tp ut of product and services; Quaiity = quality of services and products,Op timum = op timum utilisation of resources, Problem= problem anticipation and management o funforeseen consequences, Adoption= adoption of new me thod of doing work, Acceptance= acceptance o fchanges made in the system organisation, Adjustmen t= adjustment to new work environment, anci Cope=cope with emergencies more readily and successfuiiy.c. **p


7/11

The results of this study include a pattern o f the factor loadings. This pattern suggests tha t the threefactors may be interpre ted as produc tivity {including four items/ variables, 1 ) production output, 2)optimum utilisation of resources, 3 ) problem anticipation, and 4 ) adoption ofnew method of production),adaptabil i ty {includes tw o items, I) acceptance of changes, and 2 ) adjustmentto t h e new situations), andquality and flexibility (includes two variables, 1 ) qua lity of services and pro ducts, and 2) copes w ithnew emergencies readily and successfully). Each of these three factors revealed acceptable values o fCronnbach alpha {productivity 0 . 7 8 , adaptability 0 . 6 9 , and qua lity and flexibility . 7 4 ) and accounted forthe reassembling of items in the factors, (i.e., productivity, adaptability, and flexibility).Table 2 shows tha t produc tivity accounts for 34.88 per cent o fto ta l variance. Four variables have beenloaded on this factor. Arguably, managerial productivity is highly contributing in managerial effec-tiveness. Analoui (1999) also claimed that the extent of effectiveness is largely based on employeeprod uctivity, and a series of studies by Cam pbell, et a l . (1970), Reddin (1974), and Laufer and Jenkins(1982) have reported so mew hat similar observations. Gupta (1996) iden tified em ployee comp etenceas one of the important dimension of managerial effectiveness. The productivity dimension of ef-fectiveness in the present study co nstituted of variables, ou tpu t o f products and services, op tim umutilisation, problem anticipation, and ado ption of new m ethod for pro duc tion. All these variablesseem to reflect com petence of m anagers. For example, Labbaf, Analoui and John (1996) also referredto emp loyee com petence as an essential keystone for m anagerial effectiveness. The results of th epresent study supp ort that prod uctivity o f managers has a positive effect on th eir effectiveness. Thi sfind ing con firms tha t managers perceive produc tivity a s a major p art of their effectiveness. Moreover,the results show resemblances wit h a previous study conducted by Chauhan, Dhar and Pathak (2005)using the same instrume nt in an Indian contex t and the authors concluded func tiona l effectivenessof managers as prod uctivity.Adaptability was retrieved as the second important factor with variance value 15.24 per cent andconstituted of two variables, (i.e., 1 ) acceptance of new system and de sign, and 2) adjustme nt to thenew w ork situation). As explained by M argerison ( 1 9 8 1 ) that effectiveness of a manager dependentupo n his ability to deal w ith different situations. Burke and Collins ( 2 0 0 1 ) also contende d tha t to bethe effective manager one m ust be adaptive.Of the myriad of factors iden tified, quality and flexibility was the thir d item and con stituted tw o vari-ables. These constructs were to qua lity a n d flexibility to m easure the perception of em ployees towardswork quality, and coping with new emergencies rapidly and successfully, and explained 13.23 percent oftotal variance. Hersey and Blanchard (1977) identified employee flexibility as an importantfactor for the ir pe rforma nce an d effectiveness. Analoui (1997) in his study on Rom anian pub lic sectorincorporated flexibility a s a n imp ortan t ingredient of m anagerial effectiveness, while Al-Madhou n andAnou li (2002) in their study on Palestinian m anagers also recognised flexib ility critical to effectiveness.Analysis of data has established the m ean value of cons tructs/variables a nd presents a pattern whichshows the relative importance o f variables from th e pe rspective of Indian managers. Table 3 shows alleight variables w ith the ir mean value from variable qua lity o f services and prod ucts w ith high value tovariable o pt im um utilisation of resources with least value. Overall, the finding s of the study indicatemanagers' perception regarding their effectiveness and concluded productivity, adaptability, andflexibility a s three imp ortan t predictors.CONCLUSIONThe main objective of the paper was to reexamine a Western instrum ent in an Indian context and tocheck the Indian manage rs'perception to wa rd the ir effectiveness. The loading and patte rn of variables


8/11

contribu tes to the exiting body of literature concerning manag erial effectiveness.The Indian executives perceived productivity as most imp ortan t con stituent of effectiveness, followeby adaptability, quality and flexibility. So it could be generalised that employee productivity musbe considered peculiar, and executives must be provided with such resources that enable them texcel their productivity. This paper attained another important conclusion related to importance ovariables and p rovides the answer tha t executives consider qua lity of services and products as mosim po rtan t variables for their effectiveness. A salient conclusion reached from the study is that Indiamanagers perceive effectiveness as a function of productivity, adaptability, quality, and flexibility.Managerial effectiveness is a complex and versatile concep t to exp lain and quantify. The three dimesions of manage rial effectiveness discussed in the present study alone can not su fficiently exp lain thnature o f managerial effectiveness as there are so many param eters available in the litera ture tha t cabe considered to explore the issue. Nevertheless, the findings of the presented data analysis de monstrate the perceptual im portanc e wh ich is wo rthy o f consideration in contem pora ry HRM policieand practices in progressive organisations.AUTHORSUmesh K. Bamel completed his master degree in HRM & OB. Presently, he is a research scholar iDepartment of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India working on organisational climate and managerial effectiveness.Email: [email protected], ume shddm @iitr.ernet.inSantosh Rangnekar is working as an Associate Professor at th e Indian Institute of Technology, RoorkeHe has 17 years experience in academia and industries like Raymond Ltd. Bombay (J.K. Engineers filePithampur), Shriram G roup o f Industries (SIEL, Delhi), The Hukam chand Mills L imited Indore, PrestigInstitute of Mana gem ent and Research, Indore, IIITM, Gwalior (Indian Institute of Info rma tion Technoogy and Management, Gwalior).Email: [email protected] Renu Rastogi is from the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur in Psychology (OB). Presentlshe is working as a Professor at the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee and has more th an 30 yeaexperience in academ ia. Her areas of expertise are organisational b ehaviour and w omen's studies.Email: [email protected] adho un, M. I. & An aloui, F. (2004). Dev eloping SME managers und er fire: Negotiating obstacles and

weaknesses in Palestine. Journal of Management Development 23(5), 479 -495 .Al-M adho un, M . I., & Analoui, R (2002). De velo ping ma nage rial skills in Palestine. Education + Training 44(8/9)431-442.Analoui, F. (1997). How effective are senior managers in the Romanian p ublic sector. Journal of Management

Development, 16(7), 502-517Analoui, F. (1999). Eight parameters of managerial effectiveness: a study of senior managers in Ghana. Journaof Management Development, 18(4), 362-389.Analoui, F (2007). Strategic human resource management LondoniThompson Learning.Bao, C. (2009). Com parison of public and private sector m anagerial effectiveness in China: a three -param eter

approach. Journal of Management Development, 28(6), 533-541.


9/11

Jossey-Bass.Boyatzis, R. (1982). T h e competent manager: A model of effective performance. New York, N Y : Wiley.Broide, M ., & B ennett, R. (1979). Perspective o n managerial effectiveness. Slough: Valley Regional Management Center.Burke, S ., & Collins, K. (2001). Gender difference in leadership styles and management skill. Journal of Women

in Managem ent Review, 16(5), 244-256.Campbel l , S. J. P. , Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E ., & Weick, K. E., Jr. (1970). Managerial behaviour, performance, andeffectiveness. New York, NY: McG raw Hill.

Chauhan, V. S . , Dhar, U ., & Pathak, R. D. (2005). Factorial co ns titu tion of m anag erial effectiveness: Re exam iningan instrument in indian corMext. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), 164-177 .

Drucker, P F. (1967). T h e effective executive: Effectiveness ca n b e learned. Sussex: Book Print Lim ited Crawley.Dru cker, P.F (1988 ). T h e effective executive London: Henman.Fraser, C. (2000).The influence of personal characteristics on construction site managers'effectiveness.

Construction Manageme nt and Economics, 18(1), 29 -36 .Fraser, C, & Zarkada-Fraser, A. (2003). Inves ting the effectiveness of mana gers t h ro ug h an analysis o fstakeholder perceptions. Journal of Managem ent Development, 22(9), 762 -783 .Gupta, S . (1996). Manag erial effectiveness: con cep tual fram ewo rk an d scale dev elop me nt. Indian Journal of

Industrial Relations, 31(3), 392-409 .Hacker, M. E., & Wa shing ton, M. (2003). Project leadership and organisational chan ge. Proceedings of th e

institute of Industrial Engineering, 19"" Annual Conference Proceedings, Phoenix, AZ.Hamlin, R . G . , & S erventi, S . A. (2008). Generic behavioral criteria of managerial effectiveness: An empirical andcom parative case study of UK local gov ernm ent. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(4), 285 -302 .Harman, J . E. (1976). Modern factor analysis. Chica goiL: University o f Chicag o Press.Hersey, P, & Bianc hard , K. H. (1977). Managem ent of organisationai behaviour, utiiising huma n resource. NewDelhi: P rentice-Hall India Pvt. Ltd.Kirchoff, B . A. (1977). Orga nisational effectiveness and policy. Academy of Management Review, 2(3), 347-355 .Kundu, S . C. (2003). Workforce diversity status: a study of e mploye es'reactions. Industrial Managements/Data

Systems, 103(4), 215-226.Labbaf, H., An alou i, F, & John W. C. (1996). Senior m anag ers'effectiveness: the case of the steel indu stry in Iran.

Journal of Managem ent Development, 15(9), 47 -63 .Langford, V . (1979). Ma nage rial effectiveness: a review of th e literature. In R. Ben nett & M . Brodie (Eds.),Perspecf/ves on manager/o/effecf/veness (66-7 9). Tho m e: Thames Valley R egional M an ag em ent Center.Laufer, A., & Jen kins, G . D. (1982). M otivating con struction workers. Journa l of the Construction Division ASCE,108(4), 531-545Luthans, F. (1988). Successfui versus effective real managers. Academy of Managem ent Executive, 2,127-132Margerison, C . (1981). Where'd you learn to be a manager?. Supervisory Management, 26(2), 40 -53 .Me tts, G. A. (2007). Me asu ring th e effectiveness o f man agerial a ction in SMEs: An e mp irical analysis of

management's response to industry competit ive forces. Management Research News, 30(12), 892 -914 .Mintz berg , H. (1973). T h e nature of managerial work. New York, NY: Harper & Row.M ott, E. P (1971). T h e characteristics of effective organisations. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Page, C, W ilson, M., Meyer, D., & inkson, K. (2003). It's th e situ ation i'm i n : the importance of manageriai

con text to effectiveness. T h e Journal of Managem ent Development, 22(10), 841 -862 .Reddin, W . J . (1974). Manage rial effectiveness in 1980s. Management b y Qbjectives, 3(3), 6-12 .


10/11

Willcocks, S. G. (1992). Managerial effectiveness and pub lic Sector. Journal of Managem ent Development, 3(3), 4-

Appendix 1Instrument ofthe study (Managerial effectiveness scale)

Respondent's informationNam e: Gender: M/F Educational qua lifications:O rganisation: Role/P osition: Age:Total work experience: Experience in current org.: Email id: Contact no.INSTRUCTIONS: Every w orker produces som ething in 1. They do an excellent job in anticipating prohis w ork. It may be a 'Product' or a 'Service'. We would lemslike you to think carefully of the things that you pro- 2. They do a very good jo bduce in your work and ofth e things produced by those 3. Afa i r jobpeople wh o w ork around in your division. 4. Not too good a job5. They do a poor job in anticipating problems1 . Thinking now ofthe various things produced by 5. From time to time newer ways are discovered to othe people you know in your division, how much ganise w orkand newer equipment and techniqueare they producing? Tick one: are found w ith w hich to do the work. How goo

1 . Their production is very high a jo b do the people in your division do in keepin2. It is fairly high up w ith these changes tha t could affect the w3. It is neither high nor low they do their work? Tick one:4. It is fairly low 1. They do a poor job fo r keeping up to date5. It is very low 2. Not too good a job2. H ow good would yo u say is th e quality of the 3. Afa i r jobproducts or services produced by the people you ^- "^^^y '^ good jo bknow in your division? Tick one: 5. They do an excellent job of keeping uptodat

1 . Their products or services are of excellent qual- 6. When changes are m ade in the routines or in th'ty equipm ent, how quickly do the people in your div2. Good quality sion accept and adjust to these changes? Tick ones3. Fair quality 1. Most people accept and adjust to them imme4. Their qua lity is not too good diately5. Their qu ality is poor 2. Th eyadjustvery rapidly, but not immediately3. Do th e people in your division seem to get maxi- 3. Fairly rapidlymum output from th e resources (money, people, ^- Rather slowlyequipm ent etc.) they have available? That is, how 5. Most people accept and adjust to them verefficiently do they do their work? Tick one: slowly1 . They do not w ork efficiently at all 7. What proportion of the people in your divisio2. Not too efficient readily accept and adjust to these changes quickl3. Fairly efficien t Tick one:4. They are very efficient 1. Considerably less than h alfo fth e people accep5. They a re extrem ely efficient and adjust to these changes readily4. How good a job is done by the people in your divi- 2. Slightly less than half dosion in anticipating problems th at may come up in 3. The m ajority dothe future and preventing them from occurring or ^- Considerably more than half dom inim ising their effects? Tick one: 5. Practically everyone accepts and adjusts tthose changes readily8. From tim e to tim e em ergencies arise, such a

crash programmes, schedules moved ahead, orbreakdown in the flow of work occurs. When thes


11/11

Copyright of Research & Practice in Human Resource Management is the property of Singapore Human

Resources Institute and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without

the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for

individual use.

managerial effectivenss

Documents