Minimization of Subjectivity- An Analysis of the Factors That Influence the Manager Selection Process

8/8/2019 Minimization of Subjectivity- An Analysis of the Factors That Influence the Manager Selection Process

1/315

MINIMIZATION OF SUBJECTIVITY: AN ANALYSIS OF THE FACTORS THAT

INFLUENCE THE MANAGER SELECTION PROCESS

By

MAHER Z. ZAKHARY

A dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment ofthe Requirement for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

June 2005


2/315

UMI Number: 3174550

3174550

2005

Copyright 2003 by

Zakhary, Maher Z.

UMI Microform

Copyright

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected againstunauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

All rights reserved.

by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.


3/315

Copyright by

Maher Z. Zakhary

2003


4/315


5/315

Abstract

Companies usually pay high salaries for any executive who is able to define the

organizations mission and goals (direction) and to motivate and inspire their employees

to move in that direction. A significant distinction between successful and unsuccessful

organizations is in their dynamic and effective leadership. Human resources can be a

valuable asset to a company because of their vital role in supporting an organizations

business strategies. Therefore, finding the right manager who is able to effectively

manage these valuable resources is crucial if the organization is to execute its mission

and goals successfully while maintaining a low employee dissatisfaction and turnover at

the same time. The purpose of this study is to identify and select the best-fit manager

from a competitive well-qualified pool of potential managers that aligns with the overall

company strategy to manage and lead a functional/business unit. Although this research

does not address issues concerning identification and selection of the best manager in

general, it does however address the characteristics of the best-fitmanager for a particular

functional/business unit in general. The best manager is the best performer/achiever by

all measures; however, he/she may be a misfit for a particular functional/business unit

according to the Apollo Syndrome discussed below.


6/315

v

Dedicated to:

The good, the bad, and the ugly!

Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted.

Albert Einstein


7/315

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

LIST OF TABLES xi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 6

Statement of the Problem 12

Purpose of the Study 13

Research Questions 16

Significance of the Study 16

Definition of Terms 17

Assumptions and limitations 24

Assumptions 24

Scope Conditions 24

Limitations 25

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 26

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 27

Organizational Behavior Theories and Concepts 27


8/315

vii

Dinosaurs 27

Choosing the Right Manager 29

Candidate Evaluation and Promotion 30

The Role of Assessment Centers in Management Selection 34

Managerial Assessment of Proficiency 36

Smarter Hiring 38

360-Degree Feedback 39

Gender and Promotion 41

Maslow's Motivation Theory 43

George Elton Mayo's Hawthorne Experiments 44

Theory X and Theory Y 45

Increasing interpersonal competence 47

Frederick Herzberg 2-Factor Hygiene and Motivation Theory 47

Rensis Likert - Management Systems and Styles 49

David C. McClelland: Achievement Motivation 50

Leadership and Management 50

Luthans Research 56

Effectiveness in Organizations 60

Effective Communication 61

Emotional Intelligence 68

Peoples Psychological Needs 70


9/315

viii

Trait and Attitudinal Approaches to Leadership 72

Situational Leadership Styles 76

Attitudinal Approaches 77

Team Management 81

Lewin, Lippitt and White 82

Bales Task and Maintenance Leaders 83

McCann: The Team Management Wheel 83

Belbins Concept of Team Roles 84

Force Field Analysis 88

Summary 88

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 98

Introduction 98

Research Philosophy 99

Research Methods 100

Research Design 103

Data Collection 108

Analysis 123

Force Field Analysis 123

Summary 124

CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS 126


10/315

ix

Manager 1 Responses 128



SWPT Analysis 166

From Likert to Lewin 166

Manager 1 SWPT Analysis 170



Virtual Best-Fit Manager SWPT Analysis 236

Conclusions for Company 1 241



Conclusions for All Participants 255

General Observations 259

Best-fit Manager Characteristics 260

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 261

The Problem 261

Literature Review 262

Methodology 269

The Findings 270


11/315

x

Variable 1: Character Traits and Skills 270

Variable 2: Effectiveness 270

Variable 3: Emotional Intelligence EQ 271

Variable 4: Personality Classification 272

Conclusions 272

Recommendations 275

General Recommendations 275

REFERENCES 277

APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE 290

Cover letter 290

APPENDIX B: PARTICIPANTS QUALIFICATIONS 292

Participant 1 292

Participant 2 293

Participant 3 294


12/315

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Theory X and Theory Y 46

Table 2: Belbins Team Types 85

Table 3a: Belbins Dominant and Sub-Dominant Roles 86

Table 3b: Belbins Dominant and Sub-Dominant Roles 87

Table 3c: Belbins Dominant and Sub-Dominant Roles 88

Table 4a: Research Utilized in S. W. P. T. Analysis 108

Table 4b: Research Utilized in S. W. P. T. Analysis 109

Table 5a: Manager X Character Traits and Skills 110

Table 5b: Manager X Character Traits and Skills 111

Table 6: Manager X Effectiveness 112

Table 7a: Manager X EQ 112

Table 7b: Manager X EQ 113

Table 8: Manager X Personality 113

Table 9a: Manager X Best Employees Traits and Skills 114

Table 9b: Manager X Best Employees Traits and Skills 115

Table 10a: Manager X Best Employees EQ 115

Table 10b: Manager X Best Employees EQ 116

Table 11: Manager X Best Employees Personality 116

Table 12a: Manager X Poorest Employees Traits and Skills 117

Table 12b: Manager X Poorest Employees Traits and Skills 118


13/315

xii

Table 13a: Manager X Poorest Employees EQ 118

Table 13b: Manager X Poorest Employees EQ 119

Table 14: Manager X Poorest Employees Personality 119

Table 15: Manager X Best Peers Personality 120

Table 16: Manager X poorest Peers Personality 121

Table 17: Manager X Bosss Personality 122

Table 18a: Manager 1 Character Traits and Skills 128

Table 18b: Manager 1 Character Traits and Skills 129

Table 19a: Manager 1 Effectiveness 129

Table 19b: Manager 1 Effectiveness 130

Table 20: Manager 1 EQ 130

Table 21: Manager 1 Personality 131

Table 22a: Manager 1 Best Employees Traits and Skills 131

Table 22b: Manager 1 Best Employees Traits and Skills 132

Table 22c: Manager 1 Best Employees Traits and Skills 133

Table 23: Manager 1 Best Employees EQ 133

Table 24: Manager 1 Best Employees Personality 134

Table 25a: Manager 1 Poorest Employees Traits and Skills 135

Table 25b: Manager 1 Poorest Employees Traits and Skills 136

Table 26: Manager 1 Poorest Employees EQ 136

Table 27: Manager 1 Poorest Employees Personality 137

Table 28: Manager 1 Best Peers Personality 138


14/315

xiii

Table 29a: Manager 1 Poorest Peers Personality 138

Table 29b: Manager 1 Poorest Peers Personality 139

Table 30a: Manager 1 Bosss Personality 139

Table 30b: Manager 1 Bosss Personality 140









Table 36a: Manager 2 Best Employees EQ 146

Table 36b: Manager 2 Best Employees EQ 147





Table 40: Manager 2 Poorest Employees Personality 150

Table 41: Manager 2 Best Peers Personality 151




15/315

xiv

Table 43a: Manager 2 Bosss Personality 152

Table 43b: Manager 2 Bosss Personality 153










Table 49: Manager 3 Best Employees EQ 159




Table 51c: Manager 3 Poorest Employees Traits and Skills 162


Table 53a: Manager 3 Poorest Employees Personality 162

Table 53b: Manager 3 Poorest Employees Personality 163

Table 54a: Manager 3 Best Peers Personality 163

Table 54b: Manager 3 Best Peers Personality 164



16/315

xv


Table 56: Manager 3 Bosss Personality 165

Table 57: SaWaPaTa Components 166

Table 58: Response/Weight Matrix for SWPT Components 167



Table 59c: Manager 1 Character Traits and Skills 172



Table 61a: Manager 1 EQ 174

Table 61b: Manager 1 EQ 175

Table 62a: Manager 1 Personality Classification 176

Table 62b: Manager 1 Personality Classification 177




Table 64a: Manager 1 Best employees EQ 180

Table 64b: Manager 1 Best employees EQ 181

Table 65a: Manager 1 Best Employees Personality Classification 181

Table 65b: Manager 1 Best Employees Personality Classification 182




17/315

xvi



Table 68a: Manager 1 Poorest Employees Personality Classification 187

Table 68b: Manager 1 Poorest Employees Personality Classification 188

Table 69a: Manager 1 Best Peer Personality Classification 188

Table 69b: Manager 1 Best Peer Personality Classification 189

Table 70a: Manager 1 Poorest Peers Personality Classification 190

Table 70b: Manager 1 Poorest Peers Personality Classification 191

Table 71a: Manager 1 Bosss Personality Classification 191

Table 71b: Manager 1 Bosss Personality Classification 192






Table 74a: Manager 2 EQ 197

Table 74b: Manager 2 EQ 198

Table 75a: Manager 2 Personality Classification 198

Table 75b: Manager 2 Personality Classification 199





18/315

xvii

Table 77a: Manager 2 Best Employees EQ 202

Table 77b: Manager 2 Best Employees EQ 203

Table 78a: Manager 2 Best Employees Personality Classification 203

Table 78b: Manager 2 Best Employees Personality Classification 204





Table 81a: Manager 2 Poorest Employees Personality Classification 209

Table 81b: Manager 2 Poorest Employees Personality Classification 210

Table 82a: Manager 2 Best Peer Personality Classification 210

Table 82b: Manager 2 Best Peer Personality Classification 211

Table 83a: Manager 2 Poorest Peers Personality Classification 212

Table 83b: Manager 2 Poorest Peers Personality Classification 213

Table 84a: Manager 2 Bosss Personality Classification 213

Table 84b: Manager 2 Bosss Personality Classification 214








19/315


20/315

xix

Table 98c: VBM Traits and Skills 238

Table 99a: Virtual Best-Fit Manager Effectiveness 238

Table 99b: Virtual Best-Fit Manager Effectiveness 239

Table 100: Virtual Best-Fit Manager EQ 240

Table 101a: Summary of Company 1 Participants Character Traits and Skills 241

Table 101b: Summary of Company 1 Participants Character Traits and Skills 242

Table 102: Summary of Company 1 Participants EQ 244

Table 103: Summary of Company 1 Participants Personality Classifications 245

Table 104: Summary of Company 1 ES Vectors 246




Table 107: Summary of Company 2 Participants Personality Classifications 250






Table 112a: Summary of All Managers Effectiveness 255

Table 112b: Summary of All Managers Effectiveness 256

Table 113a: Comparison of Character Traits and Skills ESV1 of all managers 257

Table 114: Comparison of Effectiveness ESV2 of all managers 257


21/315

xx

Table 115: Comparison of EQ ESV3 of all managers 258

Table 116: Comparison of Total Vertical ESV of all managers 258


22/315

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

Without the right manager and employees, money alone cannot make any

company succeed. While the reason for hiring the right people is obvious in small

entrepreneurial companies, it is also true in larger companies. Companies, small and

large, collapse occasionally. One of the main reasons is hiring the wrong people for the

job.

Could the right people have made a difference? Probably! The right people mighthave had the foresight to help companies change and keep up with their industry.Some companies depend entirely on the strength of their employees to perform

services; others sell products or manufacture products for sale. Even companies

that make or sell products depend on people to make the products or sell the

products. No machine can ever replace the ability of humans to think, create andact appropriately. Even government agencies and public organizations need the

right people to perform their functions well (IME, 2002).

Job matching which is aligning candidate abilities and interests with job requirements is a

goal of most staffing decisions. Varieties of job-matching techniques have been

proposed (Wellbank, Hall, Hamner, & Morgan, 1978; Morrison & Holzbach, 1979).

Does Everyone Aspire for Promotion?

According to Karen Hube (2004), not all employees aspire for a promotion.

Although corporate societies reward unbridled ambition and squeezes every dropof productivity from its work force, it is unusual to see that more and more peoplein every industry pass up promotions in favor of having a life. She attributed that

to the massive realization brought on by 9/11 that work isn't everything and morepeople want to hang on to jobs that give them a good work-life balance. She wenton to say that too often people get promoted out of roles they are good at and

into jobs they aren't suited forIf you have excellent customer-service

representatives, for example, you've got to be willing to pay them for their

performance or you lose them (p. R4).


23/315

Minimizing Subjectivity in Management Selection 2

Most organizations are inclined to promote from within to staff management positions

(London, 1978). Consequently, management promotions are important to both the

organization and its managers.

From the organization's viewpoint, management promotions are central to the

efficient utilization of its human resources and are likely to affect future strategic

decisions. For individuals, promotions are a source of status, recognition, responsibility,

higher pay, and opportunities for further advancement (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, &

Weick, 1970).

Stumpf and London (1981) noted that promotions are judgmental decisions; they

are often based on ambiguous criteria and numerous sources of information, much of

which is subjective. Organizations often rely on their performance appraisal systems to

provide a criterion of promotion decision effectiveness.

Leontiades (1982) emphasizes the importance of selecting a manager that fits the

overall strategy for organizations. This study does not only support Leontiades

management selection models at all levels, but it also investigates his study limitations

vigorously.

Cox and Nkomo (1992), Paulin and Mellor (1996), Leontiades (1982), and

Stewart and Gudykunst (1982) discuss gender, race, and promotions from within an

organization to managerial positions. Works of Leontiades and others are covered in

chapter 2 of this proposal. This research also expands on research findings by Luthans

(1988), Goleman (2001), Bell (1973), and others.


24/315


Promotion Mistakes

The common mistake is to promote the best technician available into themanagerial role. Initially, such a promotion would seem to make sense, since the

candidate is a proven performer within the company. Unfortunately, good

technical skills just don't equate to good management skills, and the candidatemay be ill prepared to take on the new managerial role because of the different

skill-set required. Even the best technician may be lacking the people skills and

knowledge necessary for capable management (Kane, 1999).

Some organizations take the management selection process for a functional/business unit

lightly. The management selection process is not given the proper attention it deserves,

especially if it is based on the following criteria:

1. Favoritism (in some cases);

2. Performance and/or achievement;

3. Seniority (in some cases); and

4. If the employee is good in networking and politicking, he/she has the job

(Luthans, 1988).

It is possible to assume that a selection process like this is unfair because the

group members and the potential managers future peers do not participate in the

selection process, which will not only affect their careers, but it would also affect their

lives. Not only that, but selecting a manager based on any or all four reasons mentioned

above is also subjective and imply biases and discriminations of one type or another

except for the third one, which is seniority. Nevertheless, seniority does not imply nor

does it guarantee effectiveness in management.

These and other weaknesses in this selection process are discussed in Smarter

Hiring (2003a), Blinn (2003), and IME (2002). In addition, Zaleznik (1998) pointed out


25/315


In the splendid discipline of the market place, past formulas for success today contain

the seeds of decay.

Concerns

Hersey and Blanchard (1993) pointed out some reasons as to why achievers may

not be able to be effective managers. They stated:

Achievement-motivated people can be the backbone of most organizations, but

what can we say about their potential as managers? As we know, people with a

high need for achievement get ahead because as individuals they are producers

they get things done. However, when they are promoted when their successdepends not only on their own work but also on the activities of others they may

be less effective. Since they are highly task-oriented and work to their capacity,they tend to expect others to do the same. As a result, they sometimes lack the

human skills and patience necessary for being effective managers of people whoare competent but have a higher need for affiliation than they do. In this situation,

their overemphasis on producing frustrates these people and prevents them frommaximizing their own potential. Thus, while achievement-motivated people are

needed in organizations, they do not always make the best managers unless they

develop their human skills. (p. 48)

Drucker (1993) has indicated that choosing the wrong managers will have negative

effects on their employees. He stated:

Subordinates, especially bright, young, and ambitious ones, tend to moldthemselves after a forceful boss. There is, therefore, nothing more corrupting and

more destructive in an organization than a forceful but basically corrupt

executive. Such a man might well operate effectively on his own, even within anorganization; he might be tolerable if denied all power over others. (pp. 86-87)

Based on the above discussion, it is obvious that selecting the right manager for a

functional or a business unit is crucial and should be treated accordingly. Therefore, it is

important that we enhance the management selection process to incorporate not only

traditional managerial roles (Fayol, 1925), but also different personality types and


26/315


emotional intelligence levels that the group members, their potential manager, his/her

immediate supervisor, and future peers possess.

It may be possible to take advantage of the massive advances in technology such

as personal computers and the Internet to allow all affected parties to participate in the

selection process in order to make an objective decision that is fair and bias-free. Possible

results of this approach could include:

1. Increases in organizational effectiveness;

2. Synergism;

3. Congeniality in the work place;

4. Goal congruence;

5. Interpersonal competence; and

6. Productivity.

The main concern of this study is identifying and selecting the best-fit manager

from a competitive well-qualified pool of potential managers that aligns with the overall

company strategy, to manage and lead a functional/business unit. Due to downsizing and

outsourcing jobs overseas, it is a commonly perceived situation (Job Fairs) that several

capable people apply for the same managerial job and the real challenge is how to choose

the best-fit manager from this pool of qualified managers regardless of age, ethnicity,

gender, organizational culture, etc.

Research also indicates that in order to remain competitive, Internal Labor

Markets (ILMs) should hire some high-level managers from the external labor market.

Some researchers suggest that hiring external labor market managers is important in order


27/315


for the organizations to avoid becoming "dinosaurs" (Lawler and Galbraith, 1994).

Dinosaur organizations are unable to respond quickly to their changing environments.

Managers are advised to hire specialists from outside their organizations to remain

competitive. Few organizations are willing to open up their records regarding

management promotions, limiting research on ILM organizations (Powell and

Butterfield, 1994).

Although this research does not address issues concerning identification and

selection of the best manager, it does however address the characteristics of the best-fit

manager for a particular functional/business unit in general. The reason is to avoid

serious problems such as the Apollo syndrome (Belbin, 1981).

The Apollo Syndrome is a phenomenon that was discovered by Dr. Meredith

Belbin (1981) where teams of highly capable individuals could perform badly

collectively. He reported some unexpectedly poor results with teams formed of people

who had sharp, analytical minds and high mental ability.

Background of the Study

Companies usually pay high salaries for any executive who is able to define the

organizations mission and goals (direction) and to motivate and inspire their employees

to move in that direction. The major distinction between successful and unsuccessful

organizations is in their dynamic and effective leadership. Peter F. Drucker (1954) points

out that those managers (business leaders) are the basic and scarcest resource of any

business enterprise. Hersey and Blanchard (1993) indicated:

This shortage of effective leadership is not confined to business, but is evident in

the lack of able administrators in government, education, foundations, churches,


28/315


and every other form of organization. Thus, when we decry the scarcity of

leadership talent in our society, we are not talking about a lack of people to filladministrative positions. What we are agonizing over is a scarcity of people who

are willing to assume significant leadership roles in our society and who can getthe job done effectively. (p. 93)

A firms mission and goals' strategies, no matter how well conceived, are doomed to fail

unless they are implemented effectively. See for example, Hersey and Blanchard (1993)

and Leontiades (1982). Each firms human resources are diverse and unique (Drucker,

1993). No company would be able to achieve its intended mission and goals strategies

without its human resources (Wright, Kroll, and Parnell, 1996).

Conger (1993) observed that large numbers of individuals entering the workforce

are severely unskilled and undereducated. The unprecedented advances in technology and

the widespread use of personal computers and communication systems are forcing

organizations to downsize and hire the best of the best. It is obvious, then, that

organizations are looking for top-notch leaders for their valued human resources.

Human resources are the most valuable asset a company has, because of their

vital role in implementing the organizations business strategies. Therefore, finding the

right manager who would be able to effectively manage these valuable resources is

crucial if the organization isto execute its mission and goals successfully while

maintaining a low employee dissatisfaction and turnover at the same time (Hersey and

Blanchard, 1993). Kotter (1998) pointed out that choosing the right manager is a question

of fit within a particular context.

The emphasis on human skills was considered important in the past, but it is of

primary importance today. For example, one of the great entrepreneurs, John D.


29/315


Rockefeller (1966), stated: I will pay more for the ability to deal with people than any

other ability under the sun (p. 3).

These words of Rockefeller are often echoed. According to a report by theAmerican Management Association, an overwhelming majority of the two

hundred managers who participated in a survey agreed that the most important

single skill of an executive is effective relationship skill. In this survey,management rated this ability more vital than intelligence, decisiveness,

knowledge, or job skills (Hersey and Blanchard, 1993, p. 9).

Adizes (1976), has indicated that four managerial roles must be performed in

order to run an organization effectively. These four roles areproducing, implementing,

innovating and integrating.

A manager in the role ofproducing is expected to achieve results equal to or

better than the competition The principal qualification for an achiever is the

possession of a functional knowledge of his field, whether marketing,engineering, accounting, or any other discipline. (p. 6)

Managers should have more than just technical skills and should be able to administer

the people with whom they work and to see that these people also produce results.

In this implementing role, managers schedule, coordinate, control, and discipline.If managers are implementers, they see to it that the system works as it has been

designed to workwhile producing and implementing are important, in achanging environment managers must use their judgment and have the discretion

to change goals and change the systems by which goals are implemented. (pp. 7-

10)

In this role, managers must be organizational entrepreneurs and innovators since, unlike

administrators who are given plans to carry out and decisions to implement;

entrepreneurs have to generate their own plan of action.

The three roles of producing, implementing, and innovating in combination areinsufficient for adequate managerial functioning Many an organization that hadbeen managed by an excellent achiever-administrator-entrepreneur (usually their

founder) nosedived when this key individual died or for some reason was

replaced. For an organization to be continuously successful, an additional rolemust be performed (Adizes, 1976, pp 12-14).


30/315


This additional role that must be fulfilled is Integrating, which is the process by which

individual strategies are merged into a group strategy; individual risks become group

risks; individual goals are harmonized into group goals. Ultimately, individual

entrepreneurship emerges as group entrepreneurship.

When a group can operate on its own with a clear direction in mind and canchoose its own direction over time without depending on any one individual for a

successful operation, then we know that the integrating role has been performed

adequately. It requires an individual who is sensitive to peoples needs. Such anindividual unifies the whole organization behind its goals and strategies (pp. 15-

16).

Adizes (1976) contends that whenever one of the four managerial roles is not performed

in an organization, a certain style ofmismanagementcan be observed. He argues that

Few managers fill perfectly all four of these roles and thus exhibit nomismanagement style since they are at once excellent technicians, administrators,

entrepreneurs, and integrators. Thus, to discuss the role of THE manager, as isdone in management literature, is a theoretical mistake. No one manager can

manage alone. It takes several to perform the process adequately, several people

to perform roles, which seem to be in conflict, but really are complementary.There should be individuals who possess the entrepreneurial and integrating

qualities, which can guide a united organization to new directions. There should

be administrators who can translate these new actions into operative systems,which should produce results. And there should be performers who can put the

system into action and set an example for efficient operation. (p.17)

While all the roles are necessary for running an effective organization, Adizes

argues that integration is the sine qua non of effective management. If managers do not

perform the other roles themselves, there may be others to supply them; but they have to

be able to integrate in order to allow the other functions to work in a positive fashion. If

this people-part of the managerial role is not fulfilled, the entrepreneur will become a

crisis maker, the administrator a bureaucrat, and the producer a loner (Adizes,

1976, p. 18).


31/315


Luthans (1988) conducted a four-year observational research to determine the

differences between successful managers (those who were promoted rapidly) and

effective managers (those who had satisfied, committed employees, and high-performing

departments). The study reported that successful managers spent more of their time and

effort networking with others inside and outside the organization.

Politicking and socializing occupied most of their time, with less time spent onthe traditional activities of managing planning, decision making, and

controlling. In contrast, effective managers spent most of their time in

communication, i.e. exchanging information and paperwork, and in human

resource management. These activities were the reasons for their high-performingdepartments (Luthans, 1988, pp. 127- 132).

Hersey and Blanchard stated:

It is said that success in life is twenty percent timing and eighty percent justshowing up, We have all seen people who just show up in leadership and

management situations. However, we believe that success is much more than justshowing up. We believe it is the knowledge and application of tested behavioral

science concepts plus the timing skills to get things done (Hersey and

Blanchard, 1993, pp. 1-2).

According to Bell (1973), understanding peoples psychological needs is necessary in

order to be able to relate to and manage them according to theirpersonality types.

Working with them, then, would be more effective and enjoyable. This would enhance

everybodys psychological health. In his research, Bell (1973) suggests six dominant

personalities. All individuals have them, but in varying combinations and degrees. Within

the mixture of needs, one of the six pure types is a dominant type, which is the primary

motivation or personality. These six personalities are: The Commander, the Attacker, the

Avoider; the Pleaser; the Performer; and the Achiever. Each psychological need causes


32/315


behavior in a unique fashion. This behavior, then, is a personality type that corresponds

with our major psychological needs.

According to the above research findings that would be expounded upon in

chapter 2, there is rich information in effective managers roles, leadership traits and

skills, attitudinal and situational leadership qualities, effective team management,

personality types, and the important role of emotional intelligence in leadership. This

researcher would definitely use these research findings in identifying elements of

Strengths, Weaknesses, Potentials, and Threats (S. W. P. T.) analysis as discussed below.

Consequently, the four-part questionnaire introduced in chapter 3 would be based, in its

entirety, on such valuable information that is presented and discussed in depth in chapter

2 of this proposal.

S. W. P. T. Analysis

To increase fairness in the manager selection process, this research would draw

on strategic management concepts and use something similar to S. W. O. T. analysis

(Wright et al., 1996). This shall be named Strengths, Weaknesses, Potentials, and Threats

(S. W. P. T.) analysis for each member of the group under consideration, their potential

manager and his/her immediate supervisor, and future peers. Form Field Analysis would

then be applied as discussed in Lewin (1947) to define the equilibrium state vector of

every member subjected to S. W. P. T. analysis.

According to London and Stumpf (1983), employees personnel files contain a

brief narrative description of employees strengths and weaknesses. They identified

several strengths and weaknesses on each personnel file.


33/315


These strengths and the weakness are: leadership, decision making ability,

behavioral flexibility, ability to organize and plan one's work, impact on others,written communication skills, performance stability, and inner work standards.

The strengths and weakness were presented on the personnel file in paragraphform; for example, Ms. Taylor's file read: "Barbara makes effective, timely

decisions based on rational analysis of the available information. She anticipatesfuture events when making a decision, and considers several alternatives. She has

an excellent writing style. She performs well under stress. She is able to schedule

resources and personnel effectively, and she is able to develop systematic,effective means for accomplishing tasks and total jobs." Under the heading "areas

needing improvement," Ms. Taylor had the following: "Some people feel

Barbara's independent nature and boldness hamper her interpersonal effec-tiveness." Similar statements reflecting performance attributes were provided on

each personnel profile. (p. 249)

Statement of the Problem

Based on initial review of the related theories and research findings, selecting a

manager for any functional or business unit that is based on favoritism (in most cases);

performance and/or achievement; seniority (in some cases); and/or politicking is not

always the best way for achieving company goals nor is it fair for the group to be

managed. For example, Yate (1994) stated: We have all heard about someone who is a

great engineer (or accountant or salesman) with great top-office potential, but who turns

out to be a lousy manager.

Belbin (1981), Yate (1994), Smarter Hiring (2003a), Blinn (2003), and IME

(2002) pointed out several instances where selecting a manager based on a word of mouth

or advice from another peer and/or the reasons mentioned above, have been proven very

costly to the organizations that adopt them. In addition, good producers and/or achievers

do not always make the best managers unless they have the necessary skills (Hersey and

Blanchard, 1993).


34/315


What has long been needed is an approach to management selection process that

is both conceptually sound and practical in application. Therefore, this researcher would

like to develop a strategy for selecting the best-fit functional/business unit manager

objectively and with minimum human intervention in the process to eradicate possible

biases. This manager would be selected from a pool of well-qualified managers that fits

the companys overall strategy. The selection process would be grounded in sound

research findings that are based on the works of Leontiades (1982), Maslow (1970),

Herzberg (Accel-Team, 2001a), Argyris (Accel-Team, 2001b), McGregor (Accel-Team,

2001c), McClelland (Accel-Team, 2001d), Bell (1973), Margerison and McCann (1985),

Luthans (1988), and Goleman (2001) and several other researchers in effective

communication, trait, attitudinal, and situational approaches to leadership, personal

compatibilities, emotional intelligence, etc.

Several tools touch upon the subject in general such as Managerial Assessment of

Proficiency (MAP) discussed in Blinn (2003), Team Management Systems (TMS)

(Underwood, 2001a), 360-Degrees Feedback (Debare, 1997), and Smarter Hiring

(2003b). However, these tools do not address vertical (upward-downward) and horizontal

compatibilities among the potential manager, his/her immediate supervisor, future peers,

and group members as this researcher is planning to undertake in this study.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this research is to develop a better management selection process

for selecting the best-fit manager for any functional/business unit from a well-qualified

pool of potential managers objectively and with minimum subjectivity to eliminate


35/315


biases. The study complements the work of Leontiades (1982) and picks up where he left

off. It addresses his research limitations as would be shown in the literature review

chapter.

This research would also build on previous research conducted by Hurley, Wally,

Scandura, & Sonnenfeld (2003); Leontiades (1982); Cook and Emler (1993); Stumpf and

London (1981); London and Stumpf (1983); Campbell and Bray (1993); Shackleton

and Newell (1991); Robertson and Makin (1986); Powell and Butterfield (2002); Stewart

and Gudykunst (1982); and many others to develop a sound and reliable manager

selection process from a pool of competitive well-qualified potential managers that fits

the companys overall strategy. This manager selection process would result in the best-

fit manager for a functional or business unit. This process could be applied in any

situation and in most organizations whenever the need to select a manager arises and

several qualified applicants apply for the job.

The development of the above strategy would be based on evaluating successful

and effective managers from three mid to large-size companies as discussed in chapter 3

of this proposal to determine characteristics of the best-fit manager. It is believed that this

selection process, when implemented in its entirety, should lead to increases in

organizational effectiveness, synergism, goal congruence, interpersonal competence and

productivity.

This research shall explore and identify all pertinent employees that ought to

participate in the management selection process to analyze their S. W. P. T. in order to


36/315


develop a better management selection process that incorporates the vast advances in

personal computers and the Internet.

Some of the qualities that would be considered in the management selection

process are technical skills, emotional intelligence skills, traits, personality types,

productivity, ambition, entrepreneurship spirit, implementation, innovation, integration,

etc. Another important quality that is of prime concern is the ability to identify leadership

qualities of the potential manager. This is because current organizations need the

manager-leadertype in this exciting century (Robbins, 2003). It should be noted that the

proposed management selection process would apply only to those potential managers

that pass all other tests such as job requirements, references, background checks,

education, etc.

It should be noted that this is a study of vertical and horizontal compatibilities

among the potential manager, his/her immediate supervisor, and future peers; and how

these compatibilities could be used effectively in the management selection process.

These compatibilities shall be defined in terms ofStrengths, Weaknesses, Potentials, and

Threats (S. W. P. T.) analysis of every employee involved in the process.

S. W. P. T. components shall be extracted from several research findings

conducted in organizational behaviors; trait, attitudinal, and situational approaches to

leadership and management; personality types; and emotional intelligence. Force Field

Analysis as defined in Lewin (1947) shall be applied to S. W. P. T. data to determine the

equilibrium states of the functional/business unit, the potential manager(s), his/her

immediate supervisor, and future peers. It is this researchers theory that the best-fit


37/315


manager is the one whose equilibrium state vector complements that of his/her immediate

supervisor, functional/business unit employees, and future peers collectively.

Because of its very nature, this research would be exploratory and would utilize

mixed methodologies. This research would lead the way toward applying S. W. P. T.

analysis effectively in the management selection process. The outcome of this research

would suggest several propositions and hypotheses for further studies.

Research Questions

Based on the above discussion, the primary research questions are as follows:

1. What are the criteria of the best-fit manager for a specific functional or business

unit?

2. How could we maximize fairness in the managers selection process?

Significance of the Study

It has been proven over the years that when companies do not select the right

manager for their functional or business unit that fits their strategies, they suffer from

problems such as dissatisfied and demoralized employees, absenteeism, high turnover,

lawsuits, low production, etc. See Leontiades (1982), Yate (1994), IME (2002), Blinn

(2003), and Smarter Hiring (2003b).

This researcher proposes that vertical and horizontal compatibility among all

concerned parties be considered as the basic tenets for management selection process in

order to achieve cohesion, increased cooperation, and flexibility. This selection process

could result in increases in organizational effectiveness, goal congruence, interpersonal

competence and productivity.


38/315


The best-fit manager selection process as proposed here is democracy at its best

because the vote of everyone involved counts. The goal is to select a manager based on

horizontal and vertical compatibilities among the functional/business unit employees,

their potential manager, the immediate supervisor, and the potential managers future

peers. A management selection process like this could be objective and bias-free. Thus,

all types of discriminations and their impact on organizations in terms of lawsuits would

be minimized.

It should be noted that this approach for selecting the best-fit manager

complements the managerial selection tools such as MAP discussed in Blinn (2003),

Smarter Hiring (2003b), 360-degrees of evaluation (DeBare, 1997), and management

selection models discussed in Leontiades (1982). All these tools and models are used by

medium to large-size organizations that could afford them. However, it would not be

beneficial for small- size companies because of the time and costs involved in

implementing this study.

Definition of Terms

Ability

Ability. Ability is a function of (Hersey and Blanchard, 1993):

1. Knowledge: knowledge of the task

2. Experience: experience with or related to the task

3. Skill or performance: demonstrated skill and/or performance in successfully

completing similar tasks


39/315


Business Unit

Business Unit. A business unit is an organizational subsystem that has a market, a

set of competitors, and a mission that are different from those of other subsystems in the

same firm. For example, the General Electric (GE) Company has over two hundred

strategic business units, with each of these business units adopting its own strategy

consistent with the organizations corporate-level strategy (Wright et al., 1996).

Driving Forces (DF)

Driving forces. Driving forces are those forces affecting a situation that are

pushing in a particular direction; they tend to initiate a change and keep it going. In terms

of improving productivity in a work group, pressure from a supervisor, incentive

earnings, and competition may be examples of driving forces.

Entrepreneur

Entrepreneur. Downes and Goodman (1987) define Entrepreneur as a person

who takes on the risks of starting a new business. Many entrepreneurs have technological

knowledge that they apply to produce a marketable product or to design a needed new

service.

Equilibrium State (ES)

Equilibrium state. Equilibrium state is defined as the difference between the

driving forces and the restraining forces.

Force Field Analysis (FFA)

Force Field Analysis. Kurt Lewin (1947) developed the Force field analysis

technique for diagnosing situations that may be useful in looking at the variables


40/315


involved in determining effectiveness and when planning and implementing a change

management program. The basic assumption is that in any situation there are both driving

and restraining forces that influence any change that may occur.

Formal Organization

Formal Organization. The formal organization is the management-specified

structure of relationships and procedures used to manage organizational activity. It is a

system of consciously coordinated activities of two or more people. Within this structure,

the executive is the strategic factor. This management-specified structure might facilitate

or hinder achieving the firms mission, goals, and objectives. The formal organization

determines who reports to whom, how jobs are grouped, and what rules and policies will

guide the actions and decisions of the employees (Wright et al., 1996).

Functional Unit

Functional Unit. All organizations, regardless of their size, perform specific

functions such as production, marketing, finance, and research and development (R&D).

These functions are interrelated. Each functional area or unit must intertwine its activities

with the activities of other functional departments in order to attain its goal. Careful

planning, execution, and coordination of these functions are vital in implementing the

firms strategies (Wright et al., 1996).

Goal Congruence

Goal Congruence. The term goal congruence can be used when all members share

organizational goals. Consequently, the closer we can get the individual's goals and

objectives to the organization's goals, the greater will be the organizational performance.


41/315


One of the ways in which effective leaders bridge the gap between the individual's and

the organization's goals is by creating a loyalty to themselves among their followers

(Accel-Team, 2000a).

Goals

Goals. Goals are the desired general results toward which efforts are directed. In

this context, the efforts are directed toward accomplishing the companys mission

(Wright et al., 1996).

Informal Organization

Informal Organization. The informal organization refers to the interpersonal

relationships that naturally evolve when individuals and groups interact with one another.

This can play either constructive or destructive roles such as Soldiering (Taylor, 1947)

in helping the organization pursue its mission, goals, and objectives.

Intrapreneurship

Intrapreneurship. Intrapreneurship is defined as entrepreneurial activity that

occurs within the organization. Currently, more and more firms are coming to realize that

they must capture this entrepreneurial spirit within their organizations if they want to be

competitively innovative, creative, and adaptive. One of the most common

intrapreneurial approaches is to encourage and reward individual and group activity in the

development of new goods and services. Some companies do this informally and others

do it formally. For example, General Electric employs the latter approach (Hodgetts,

1990).


42/315


Management

Management. Management is a process that puts emphasis on both the goals to be

accomplished and the personnel who will be carrying them out. Emphasis cannot be put

on either to the exclusion of the other. Management and leadership are not synonymous.

Since leadership is implied in management, a manager can be a leader. However, the

reverse is not true since it takes more than just leadership to become a manager. Although

this conclusion complies with Wright et al. (1996, p. 216), it is in conflict with Hersey

and Blanchard (1993, p. 5).

Management Process

Management Process. The management process is composed of some basic

functions that are performed by almost all managers, in spite of their organization, type of

work, or their managerial level in the companys hierarchy. These basic functions include

but are not limited to planning, organizing, and controlling. However, the time managers

spend on these functions depends on their managerial level in their organization. For

example, first-line managers who are involved with detailed and routine work usually

spend more time on controlling than the time they spend on either planning

and/organizing. As they progress higher on the management ladder (Hodgetts, 1990),

managers spend more time on planning and less time on organizing and controlling.

Mission

Mission. Mission is defined as the purpose for any companys existence. A

mission is formally defined in a written mission statement (Wright et al., 1996).


43/315


Objectives

Objectives. Objectives are specific, verifiable, and often-quantified versions of

goals. These are usually derived from well-defined goals (Wright et al., 1996).

Organization

Organization. There are two types of organizations to be defined. The two types

are formal and informal organizations (Wright et al., 1996).

Restraining Forces (RF)

Restraining forces. Restraining forces are forces acting to restrain or decrease the

driving forces. Apathy, hostility, and poor maintenance of equipment may be examples of

restraining forces against increased production.

Strategy

Strategy. Strategy is the plan to select the best-fit manager who is compatible with

the group to be managed, the immediate supervisor, all future peers and the

organizations mission and goals (Wright et al., 1996).

Strengths and Potentials

Strengths and Potentials. Strengths and Potentials are those factors that are

considered helpful in achieving the functional/business unit goals. They consist of

1. Character traits;

2. Skills;

3. Ambitions;

4. Levels of emotional intelligence; and

5. Compatibility (personality) types.


44/315


Strengths, Weaknesses, Potentials, and Threats (S. W. P. T.) Analysis

S. W. P. T. Analysis. S. W. P. T. Analyses consist of trait, skill, emotional

intelligence, and psychological profile (compatibility) analyses. These tests are

performed on each member of the group under consideration, their potential manager and

his/her immediate supervisor, and future peers within the context of the organizations

mission, goals, and objectives.

Vision

Vision. The leader or the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) must inspire the

members of the organization with a vision of what the organization can become. The

CEO develops this vision, in some cases. In some other cases, especially in big

organizations, the CEO and key managers develop the vision (Thompson, A. A., &

Strickland III, A. J., 1998).

Weaknesses and Threats

Weaknesses and Threats. Weaknesses and Threats are those factors that are

considered hindrance in achieving the functional/business unit goals. They consist of:

1. Character fatal flaws;

2. Lack of specific skills;

3. Indolence;

4. Apathy;

5. Hostility

6. Social challenges;

7. Lower level of emotional intelligence; and


45/315


8. Compatibility types.

Willingness

Willingness. Willingness is a function of (Hersey and Blanchard, 1993):

1. Confidence the persons feeling that, I can do it.

2. Commitment the persons feeling that, I will do it.

3. Motivation the persons feeling of, I want to do it.

Assumptions and limitations

Assumptions

1. The Functional Unit Personality type is probably the prevailing personality type

among its employees.

2. Peers personality type is probably the prevailing personality among them.

3. Employee driving forces are directly proportional to the total sum of his/her

organization-related strengths and potentials.

4. Employee restraining forces are directly proportional to the total sum of his/her

organization-related weaknesses and threats.

5. Horizontal and vertical equilibrium state vectors are directly proportional to the

difference between driving forces and restraining forces.

Scope Conditions

This study is delimited to the following conditions (Creswell, 2003):

1. Industrialized countries;

2. Mid to large size successful companies;

3. Permanent employees;


46/315


4. Full-time employees;

5. The company is searching for the best-fit manager;

6. Minimum training is required for the selected manager;

7. There are several qualified potential managers to choose from; and

8. These qualified managers fit the right strategy for the hiring company.

Limitations

The techniques proposed to select the best-fit manager for a functional or a

business unit could be implemented in medium to large size companies that have

adequate resources. Only time will tell how well and effective these new techniques are.

As with any new method or technique, there might be some problems in the

implementation phase. However, with some modifications the proposed techniques might

work well. Smaller companies that do not have adequate resources could use the same

general principles to select and hire a manager.

Several companies, for comparison purposes, that have the necessary and

adequate resources to implement and incorporate the S.W.P.T. analysis and equilibrium

state vector techniques are encouraged to adopt this research in its entirety to validate it.

Moreover, these companies have to undertake some organizational changes to implement

the proposed strategy. This is not a study that could be validated in a short period.

Validation, then, will take not only resources, but also time and commitmentto the whole

process.

Sampling size in this study is somewhat limited due to lack of qualified

participants without time constraints to participate in this research.


47/315


It must be emphasized that generalizations of this research are not sought. This

study is basically an investigation of some variables that seem to correlate to the research

topic as mentioned above.

In essence, this research is geared for future researchers to pick up and expand on

it using qualitative, quantitative, or both on some or all of the variables to further explore

the best-fit manager phenomenon. As a byproduct of this study, is a practical application

of FFA in investigating this and similar phenomena.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

Chapter 2 reviews relevant literature for identifying the variables of that seem to

correlate to the best-fit manager phenomenon. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology that

will be used to identify the best-fit manager for a functional/business unit. Presentation

and data analysis is discussed in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 presents summary, conclusions,

and recommendations based on the findings of this study.


48/315

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Organizational Behavior Theories and Concepts

Several relevant organizational behavior theories and concepts are discussed in

this chapter. Important research findings that are closely related and would impact the

selection of the best-fit manager for a functional/business unit are presented and

discussed in detail. This careful and relevant literature review would be utilized in this

researchers four-part questionnaire discussed in chapter 3 of this proposal. Each part of

the questionnaire addresses one variable. This chapter reviews literature and research

findings that complement chapter 1 and are relevant to the following four variables:

1. Character traits;

2. Emotional intelligence EQ;

3. Effectiveness; and

4. Personality types, i.e. compatibility among the functional/business unit.

Dinosaurs

Hurley, Wally, Scandura, & Sonnenfeld (2003) conducted a study that contributed

to tournament mobility research on careers by examining the promotion patterns of

employees within an internal labor markets (ILMs) organization, in comparison to "late

entrants." Their investigation of 502 managers in a large corporation indicated that late

entry into the ILM organization was significantly and positively related to career

attainment, supporting the "clean slate effect."

Experience in the corporate office was positively related to managerial careerattainment, while being female was negatively related to career attainment. In

contrast to the tournament model theory, the number of years to reach middle


49/315


management was positively related to career success. While no effect for race was

found, this may be due to the relatively low representation of minorities in thefirm studied. Moderating effects of late entry on gender, race or corporate

experience were also not foundThis supports the clean slate effect in which late

entrants to the ILM organization are promoted more quickly than early entrantsResearch indicates that in order to remain competitive, ILMs should hire some

high-level managers from the external labor market. Some researchers suggest

that hiring external labor market managers is important in order for theorganizations to avoid becoming "dinosaurs" (Lawler and Galbraith, 1994).

Dinosaur organizations are unable to respond quickly to their changing

environments. Managers are advised to hire specialists from outside theirorganizations to remain competitive Few organizations are willing to open up

their records regarding management promotions, limiting research on ILMorganizations (Powell and Butterfield, 1994). Also, because of firms' reluctance toshare internal organizational records, those studies that have focused on or

included top managers often find it necessary to use self-reported surveys

(Tharenou et aL., 1994)Economists and social theorists have argued for the use

of external labor markets, because when external labor markets are used, laborcan be used until its marginal contribution no longer exceeds its marginal cost.

(Sonnenfeld, 1989, pp. 202-24)

Organizations may use different labor markets depending on the degree of

professionalism or specialization a firm requires. If a worker's skills are highly portable,

that employee is generally more easily replaced. If a firm requires a high degree of

specialization, employees with these skills are not easily replaced and the organization

must attempt to retain such employees. However, in a tight labor market no one is easily

replaced (Hurley, Wally, Scandura, & Sonnenfeld, 2003).

This study further reinforces why companies need to hire external managers

instead of promoting from within. The next study addresses models for managerial

selection at the corporate and the strategic business units.


50/315


Choosing the Right Manager

Leontiades (1982) wrote a paper titled Choosing the Right Manager to Fit the

Strategy. In it, he indicated that Managers make strategy and strategy determines

business success or failure. Thats why it is so important to select the right managers for

your company (p. 59). He provided top-down models for managerial selection at the

corporate and the strategic business units (SBUs).

The proposed model reflects a model suggested by Richard Rumelt (1974) that isbased on four stages of growth: single business, dominant business, related

businesses, and unrelated businesses. In the first stage, a company operates withina single industry and with a single product line. At stage 2, the company has

enlarged its scale, becoming dominant within its industry and diversifying into a

number of product lines in that industry. The next stage is typified by

diversification into industries outside of, but still related to, the firms originalbusiness. Finally, in the fourth and final stage, a company has diversified into

industries and products unrelated to its core business Management style is

divided along two basically different philosophies of managing steady state andevolutionary. These distinctions recognize the differences in management style,

and the different types of managers, required to achieve growth through change asopposed to growth greater scale. Steady state-managed companies are defined asfirms whose strategy is confined to competition within their respective industry or

industries. Evolutionary managed companies follow a broader strategy, including

changing industries by addition to, or divestment of, existing businesses Thereis no inherent superiority of one strategy or style of management over the other,

but the differences do suggest differences in the types of managers needed to

optimize each strategy (Leontiades, 1982, pp. 59-60).

To summarize, one of Leontiades models focuses on selection of a CEO for the

enterprise, while second model addresses the problem of choosing key line managers for

the operational levels and various business units. Construction of the models combines

familiar concepts (i.e., stages growth with management styles, and organizational levels

with strategy alternatives) into equally familiar, if generalized, notions of manager


51/315


prototypes and managerial skills. The whole idea is to link manager selection to company

strategy.

This researcher is interested in the characteristics of the best-fit manager for a

functional/business unit above and beyond strategic fitness to corporate culture. This

research targets Leontiades limits of his models head-on. In particular, the focus here is

on the following issues that were raised in his paper:

Finally, the models dont deal with personality traits of managers or the fit of an

individuals personality with the corporate culture, although these factors maypreclude any further consideration of a person for employment The models alsocannot account for a lack of personal chemistry between the prospective

employee and his employer, or a rigidly conservative style of corporate

management unsuited to a candidates entrepreneurial temperament and drive. (p.69)

In essence, this researcher complements Leontiades models by addressing his study

limitations and adding necessary and important human qualities that are necessary to

enhance the management selection models that he proposed. The next study points out

that subordinates and superordinates differ in evaluating candidates for managerial

positions.

Candidate Evaluation and Promotion

Cook and Emler (1993) studied how subordinate and superordinate evaluated the

suitability of six candidates applying for a managerial vacancy. These candidates

possessed varying combinations of moral, technical and social qualities. The participants

were hundred and forty managers (68% male, 32% female) enrolled on MBA courses

(64% full-time, 36% part-time) in the UK served as participants. Ages ranged between 20

and 50 years old with the highest representation being in the 26- to 30-year-old category.


52/315


Several nationalities (78 UK, 9 other EC country, 35 non-EC country, 5 dual, 13 not

specified), levels of management experience (6% no experience, 34% junior, 36%

middle, 24% senior) and years of management experience (10% less than 1 year, 32% 1

to 3 years, 15% 3 to 5 years, 37% over 5 years) were represented in the study.

Participants were assigned to one of two selection perspectives (71 bottom-up, 69 top-

down).

The relative weight accorded to moral and technical qualities was studied in the

context of an imaginary appointment to a department head position in a commercial

organization. The research was presented to the participants as a role-playing exercise in

which they assumed the role of either senior managers in the organization (top-down), or

the staff of the department to which the appointment was to be made (bottom-up).

According to Cook and Emler (1993), personality differences are reliably associated with

leadership potential as perceived by others (Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983; Lord, de Vader &

Alliger, 1986). However, research on managerial careers shows that the upward mobility

of managers in organizations is predictably related to their personality (Howard & Bray,

1990).

The result of this study shows a significant interaction between rater perspective

and candidate qualities; both individual and group judgments of the suitability of

candidates moderate in moral integrity but high in technical competence and social skills

were significantly higher from the superordinate perspective than from the subordinate

perspective.


53/315


More specifically, perspective had a strong effect on the relative significance

attached to moral flaws A further issue, however, concerns the nature of the moralinformation available to raters. We have treated moral virtue as if it is

unidimensional, yet there is no reason to suppose that all moral differences are

equally relevant to potential subordinates or, for that matter, of equally limitedrelevance to potential superiors. There is also an issue of whether the present

findings would generalize to other contexts, including different kinds of jobs and

different kinds of organizations (Cook and Emler, 1993, pp. 423-439).

This study further reinforces the importance of involving not only the potential managers

supervisor and his/her employees, but also his/her future peers in selecting the best-fit

manager for a functional/business unit. The next research discusses promotions and

introduces 16 propositions for further studies.

Stumpf and London (1981) discussed factors that are likely to influence

promotion decisions. They introduced 16 propositions concerning promotion decisions

for further empirical research. They stated:

Promotions are judgmental decisions; they are often based on ambiguous criteriaand numerous sources of information, much of which is subjective. Even though

promotions are central to the quality of leadership in most large organizations,

little is known about the process or effectiveness of management promotion

decisions Systematic research on promotion decisions is important because itbears on at least three managerial concerns: organizational effectiveness, equal

employment opportunity, and career development and planning Our focus is on

strategic promotion decisions, but many of the processes described may apply totransfers and other staffing decisions. One outcome is the creation of vacancies

down the organizational hierarchy, requiring a chain of promotion or transfer

decisions. Such decisions may be treated sequentially or as an interrelated setDetermining the effectiveness of a promotion decision (or set of decisions) entails

defining the appropriate criteria and collecting suitable measures The

promotion decision process can be split into five stages: strategy formulation,

search for candidates, information handling, evaluation and choice, andplanning for implementation The decision process includes strategy

formulation, candidate search, information handling, evaluation and choice, and

planning for implementation (Stumpf & London, 1981, pp. 539-549).


54/315


London and Stumpf (1983) addressed their propositions in their paper published in 1981.

They pointed out that several industry surveys and experimental research suggest what

information is used to make management promotion decisions.

Past performance is reported as a basis for promotion (Beehr, Taber, and Walsh,1980; Taylor, 1975) Campbell et al. (1970, p. 37) suggest that the weight

assigned to past performance in making promotion decisions is likely to varyfrom company to companyAssessment center and supervisory management

potential ratings have been designed to identify managerial potential in several

large firms (Bray, Campbell, and Grant, 1974). The extent to which such ratings

are actually used by managers in making promotion decisions has received littleattention (Rosen et al., 1976) Other factors often suggested as influencing

promotions include political influence (Kanter, 1977; Kothari, 1974) seniority(Campbell et al., 1970), equal employment opportunity (EEO) guidelines or an

affirmative action program (Pedigo and Meyer, 1979), and the match between the

individual's prior experience and the job requirements (Rosen et al., 1976)

Thus, some candidate characteristics used to make promotion decisions are abilityrelated (e.g., performance and potential for advancement), whereas others are

nonability related (e.g., sex and race) (Quinn, Taber and Gordon, 1968) The

decision to promote from within is often company policy which eliminatesexternal candidates from serious consideration until it is clear that no internal

candidates are suitable for the position (London & Stumpf, 1983, pp. 242-244).

London and Stumpf (1983) examined the effects of candidate characteristics on simulated

management promotion decisions.

Seventy-two managers from three organizational levels participated as decision

makers in a half-day exercise. Four candidate characteristics were manipulated:potential for advancement, the availability of assessment center information,

current position, and sex The results showed that potential, assessment center

information, and position were important in selecting finalists and rating theextent to which a candidate was consideredThe potential by position interaction

indicates that decision process may involve a partially compensatory cognitive

process (Payne, 1976). Multiple regression analyses were used following Cohenand Cohen (1975). Analyses examined the relationships between the independent

variables (candidate characteristics) and the frequency with which each candidate

was selected for promotion as well as the frequency with which each candidate


55/315


was selected as a finalist, using the skills index as a covariate (London & Stumpf,

1983, p. 242).It is worth noting that when the 72 decision makers identified which candidate attributes

they felt influenced them in their decision, the perceived importance of attributes

generally paralleled the statistical importance.

Decision makers consistently felt that strengths and weaknesses were important intheir decision even though the listed candidates' strengths and the one weakness

were random relative to the experimental design. Either the decision makers

promoted candidates based on potential, assessment information, and position

irrespective of candidate strengths and weakness, and/or the strengths orweakness which impressed the various decision makers varied substantially from

one decision maker to another. Interviews with the decision makers after

completing the Metrobank exercise indicated that candidate strengths andweaknesses were more important in explaining the decision after it had been made

than in actually making the decision The candidate's current position relative to

the vacant position was important, particularly for selecting finalists. The moreproximal a candidate was to the position vacancy, the more he or she was likely to

be promoted or considered as a serious candidate for promotion (London &

Stumpf, 1983, p. 255-258).

London and Stumpfs two studies, as discussed above, emphasize this researchers

opinion that promotions are judgmental decisions and that they are often based on

ambiguous criteria and numerous sources of information such as performance appraisal,

much of which is subjective to say the least. The next few studies address the role of

assessment centers in the management selection process.

The Role of Assessment Centers in Management Selection

Campbell and Bray (1993) conducted a more extensive study of assessment

centers in five telephone companies. In all, five groups of men were studied. Three of the

groups consisted of candidates who were assessed as acceptable, questionable, or not

acceptable, and subsequently promoted to management. A fourth group was composed of


56/315


those who were never assessed but who were promoted afterthe assessment program

began. The last group was made up of workers promoted before the program began.

The authors presented two types of evidences concerning the usefulness of the

assessment center program. One is impact (i.e., does assessment information lead to

different selection decisions and is the program extensively used?). The second is

the effectiveness of the program in selecting good performers for entry management

and building a pool with potential for higher levels (Campbell & Bray, 1993, p. 693).

Background

While at the center the candidate is given a comprehensive interview, completes

several paper-and-pencil tests of mental

Documents

Minimization of Subjectivity- An Analysis of the Factors That Influence the Manager Selection Process