Author:
Anzengruber Johanna,Goetz Martin A.,Nold Herbert,Woelfle Marco
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into the relative importance of task, relations, and change capabilities of managers at low, middle, and top hierarchical levels.
Design/methodology/approach
Data were gathered from performance reviews and evaluations from human resources personnel for 2,307 managers in one large company in a high-tech industry. Separate regressions for each management level were performed with standardized regression coefficients allowing comparisons across the different regressions.
Findings
Significant differences were observed in the effectiveness of managers using task, relations, and change capabilities. At top management, change-oriented capabilities become 2 to 3 times more important than at the lowest level. Task-oriented capabilities become significantly less important at the top level. Relations-oriented capabilities are important at all levels.
Research limitations/implications
Studies with participants from multiple industries and longitudinal studies could benefit research by further validating the findings and offering new insights on other situational factors, which change over time.
Practical implications
Managers, who have been successful in lower and middle positions, may not necessarily be effective top managers.
Originality/value
Few studies have explored differences in managerial capabilities at different hierarchical levels in organizations. The study offers a clear rationale to consider when conducting any analysis of different levels of management by practitioners or researchers.
Subject
Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Management Science and Operations Research,Applied Psychology,Social Psychology
Reference42 articles.
1. Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities;Strategic Management Journal,2003
2. Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking;Academy of Management Journal,2004
3. In the eye of the storm: frontline supervisors and federal agency performance;Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2005
4. Leadring to planning to learn: resolving the planning school/learning school debate;Strategic Management Journal,1999
Cited by
21 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献