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

MINIMIZATION OF SUBJECTIVITY: AN ANALYSIS OF THE FACTORS THAT
INFLUENCE THE MANAGER SELECTION PROCESS
By
MAHER Z. ZAKHARY
A dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirement for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
June 2005
UMI Number: 3174550
Copyright 2003 by
Zakhary, Maher Z.
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 3174550

Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
© Copyright by
Maher Z. Zakhary
2003
Abstract
Companies usually pay high salaries for any executive who is able to define the
organization’s 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 organization’s
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-fit manager 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.

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
v
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

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
People’s Psychological Needs 70
vii
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
Belbin’s 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
viii
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
ix
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
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Theory X and Theory Y 46
Table 2: Belbin’s Team Types 85
Table 3a: Belbin’s Dominant and Sub-Dominant Roles 86
Table 3b: Belbin’s Dominant and Sub-Dominant Roles 87
Table 3c: Belbin’s 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 Employee’s Traits and Skills 114
Table 9b: Manager X Best Employee’s Traits and Skills 115
Table 10a: Manager X Best Employee’s EQ 115
Table 10b: Manager X Best Employee’s EQ 116
Table 11: Manager X Best Employee’s Personality 116
Table 12a: Manager X Poorest Employee’s Traits and Skills 117
Table 12b: Manager X Poorest Employee’s Traits and Skills 118
xi
Table 13a: Manager X Poorest Employee’s EQ 118
Table 13b: Manager X Poorest Employee’s EQ 119
Table 14: Manager X Poorest Employee’s Personality 119
Table 15: Manager X Best Peer’s Personality 120
Table 16: Manager X poorest Peer’s Personality 121
Table 17: Manager X Boss’s 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 Employee’s Traits and Skills 131
Table 22b: Manager 1 Best Employee’s Traits and Skills 132
Table 22c: Manager 1 Best Employee’s Traits and Skills 133
Table 23: Manager 1 Best Employee’s EQ 133
Table 24: Manager 1 Best Employee’s Personality 134
Table 25a: Manager 1 Poorest Employee’s Traits and Skills 135
Table 25b: Manager 1 Poorest Employee’s Traits and Skills 136
Table 26: Manager 1 Poorest Employee’s EQ 136
Table 27: Manager 1 Poorest Employee’s Personality 137
Table 28: Manager 1 Best Peer’s Personality 138
xii
Table 29a: Manager 1 Poorest Peer’s Personality 138
Table 29b: Manager 1 Poorest Peer’s Personality 139
Table 30a: Manager 1 Boss’s Personality 139
Table 30b: Manager 1 Boss’s Personality 140
Table 36a: Manager 2 Best Employee’s EQ 146
Table 36b: Manager 2 Best Employee’s EQ 147
Table 40: Manager 2 Poorest Employee’s Personality 150
Table 41: Manager 2 Best Peer’s Personality 151
xiii
Table 43a: Manager 2 Boss’s Personality 152
Table 43b: Manager 2 Boss’s Personality 153
Table 51c: Manager 3 Poorest Employee’s Traits and Skills 162
Table 53a: Manager 3 Poorest Employee’s Personality 162
Table 53b: Manager 3 Poorest Employee’s Personality 163
Table 54a: Manager 3 Best Peer’s Personality 163
Table 54b: Manager 3 Best Peer’s Personality 164
xiv
Table 56: Manager 3 Boss’s 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 employee’s EQ 180
Table 64b: Manager 1 Best employee’s EQ 181
Table 65a: Manager 1 Best Employee’s Personality Classification 181
Table 65b: Manager 1 Best Employee’s Personality Classification 182
xv
Table 68a: Manager 1 Poorest Employee’s Personality Classification 187
Table 68b: Manager 1 Poorest Employee’s 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 Peer’s Personality Classification 190
Table 70b: Manager 1 Poorest Peer’s Personality Classification 191
Table 71a: Manager 1 Boss’s Personality Classification 191
Table 71b: Manager 1 Boss’s Personality Classification 192
Table 74a: Manager 2 EQ 197
Table 74b: Manager 2 EQ 198
xvi
Table 77a: Manager 2 Best Employee’s EQ 202
Table 77b: Manager 2 Best Employee’s EQ 203
Table 78a: Manager 2 Best Employee’s Personality Classification 203
Table 78b: Manager 2 Best Employee’s Personality Classification 204
Table 82a: Manager 2 Best Peer Personality Classification 210
Table 82b: Manager 2 Best Peer Personality Classification 211
Table 83a: Manager 2 Poorest Peer’s Personality Classification 212
Table 83b: Manager 2 Poorest Peer’s Personality Classification 213
xvii
Table 91a: Manager 3 Best Employee’s Personality 225
Table 91b: Manager 3 Best Employee’s Personality 226
Table 95a: Manager 3 Best Peer Personality 231
Table 95b: Manager 3 Best Peer Personality 232
Table 98a: VBM Traits and Skills 236
Table 98b: VBM Traits and Skills 237
xviii
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
xix
Table 115: Comparison of EQ ESV3 of all managers 258
Table 116: Comparison of Total Vertical ESV of all managers 258
xx
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 might
have 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 and
act 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 drop
of productivity from its work force, it is unusual to see that more and more people
in 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 more
people want to hang on to jobs that give them a good work-life balance. She went
on to say that “too often people get promoted out of roles they are good at and
into jobs they aren't suited for…If 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).
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.

Promotion Mistakes
The common mistake is to promote the best technician available into the
managerial 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 candidate
may 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 manager’s 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
“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 success
depends 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 who
are competent but have a higher need for affiliation than they do. In this situation,
their overemphasis on producing frustrates these people and prevents them from
maximizing 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 mold
themselves 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 an
organization; 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
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
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
organization’s 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,
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 fill
administrative 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 get
the job done effectively. (p. 93)
A firm’s 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 firm’s 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 organization’s 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.
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 the
American 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 are producing, implementing,
innovating and integrating.

A manager in the role of producing 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 work…while producing and implementing are important, in a
changing 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 are
insufficient for adequate managerial functioning… Many an organization that had
been 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 role
must be performed (Adizes, 1976, pp 12-14).
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 can
choose 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 people’s needs. Such an
individual 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 of mismanagement can be observed. He argues that

Few managers fill perfectly all four of these roles and thus exhibit no
mismanagement style since they are at once excellent technicians, administrators,
entrepreneurs, and integrators. Thus, to discuss the role of THE manager, as is
done 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).
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 on
the 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-performing
departments (Luthans, 1988, pp. 127- 132).
Hersey and Blanchard stated:

It is said that success in life is “… twenty percent timing and eighty percent just
showing up,” We have all seen people who just “show up” in leadership and
management situations. However, we believe that success is much more than just
“showing 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 people’s psychological needs is necessary in
order to be able to relate to and manage them according to their personality types.
Working with them, then, would be more effective and enjoyable. This would enhance
everybody’s 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
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.

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 paragraph
form; for example, Ms. Taylor's file read: "Barbara makes effective, timely
decisions based on rational analysis of the available information. She anticipates
future 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).
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 company’s 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

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 company’s 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

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-leader type 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 of Strengths, 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 researcher’s theory that the best-fit
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 manager’s 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.

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 manager’s 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

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 organization’s 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
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 firm’s 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
firm’s 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.
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 company’s 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).
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 company’s 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 company’s existence. A
mission is formally defined in a written mission statement (Wright et al., 1996).

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
organization’s 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.

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 organization’s
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

8. Compatibility types.
Willingness
Willingness. Willingness is a function of (Hersey and Blanchard, 1993):
1. Confidence – the person’s feeling that, “I can do it.”
2. Commitment – the person’s feeling that, “I will do it.”
3. Motivation – the person’s 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;
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 commitment to 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.

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.

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
researcher’s 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:
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 career

attainment, while being female was negatively related to career attainment. In
contrast to the tournament model theory, the number of years to reach middle
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 the
firm studied. Moderating effects of late entry on gender, race or corporate
experience were also not found…This supports the clean slate effect in which late
entrants to the ILM organization are promoted more quickly than early entrants…
Research 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 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). Also, because of firms' reluctance to
share 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, labor
can 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.

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. That’s 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 is
based on four stages of growth: single business, dominant business, related
businesses, and unrelated businesses. In the first stage, a company operates within
a 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 firm’s original
business. 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 and
evolutionary. These distinctions recognize the differences in management style,
and the different types of managers, required to achieve growth through change as
opposed to growth greater scale. Steady state-managed companies are defined as
firms 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… There
is 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

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 don’t deal with personality traits of managers or the fit of an
individual’s personality with the corporate culture, although these factors may
preclude any further consideration of a person for employment… The models also
cannot 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 candidate’s 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.
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.
More specifically, perspective had a strong effect on the relative significance

attached to moral flaws A further issue, however, concerns the nature of the moral
information 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 limited
relevance 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 manager’s
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 criteria
and 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 it
bears 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 to
transfers 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 set…
Determining 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, and
planning 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).
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 vary
from company to company…Assessment 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 little
attention (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 ability
related (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 eliminates
external 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 the
extent to which a candidate was considered…The potential by position interaction
indicates that decision process may involve a partially compensatory cognitive
process (Payne, 1976). Multiple regression analyses were used following Cohen
and 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
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 in
their 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 or
weakness 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 and
weaknesses 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 more
proximal 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 Stumpf’s two studies, as discussed above, emphasize this researcher’s
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

those who were never assessed but who were promoted after the 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 ability and knowledge, and participates in
individual and group simulations. The individual simulation is a lengthy
administrative exercise known as the In-Basket. The candidate is required to
handle a number of items actually taken from the in-baskets of Bell System
managers. Each candidate also participates in two group problems…The main
objective of the evaluation session is to rate the candidate's potential for
promotion, assigning the prospective manager to one of three categories:
acceptable for promotion now, questionable, and not acceptable now and unlikely
to become acceptable… The assessment results are then fed back to
management (Campbell & Bray, 1993, pp. 692-693).

Conclusions
The authors concluded that assessment center method could be used in
managerial selection.
It is a valuable technique for the identification of management potential… In
comparison with individuals promoted before the assessment program began,
almost twice as many of those rated high at the assessment center have
demonstrated potential to advance beyond the first level of management… The
difference in the results for performance and potential suggests that the
management skills measured at the assessment center are more important in
higher levels of supervision. Promotion of a small percentage of the total group of
men assessed as neither fully acceptable nor clearly unacceptable, after careful
review by the line organization, resulted in generally good selections for
management. Promotion of individuals who had never been assessed led to
satisfactory results in terms of performance at the first level, but only a small
percentage of this group had potential to advance to higher levels of management
(Campbell & Bray, 1993, pp. 697-698).
The next review discusses what managerial competencies are currently being assessed in
these managerial assessment centers.
Managerial Assessment of Proficiency
The Managerial Assessment of Proficiency (MAP) assesses 12 core managerial
competencies using video simulations (Blinn, 2003). Managerial style, personal style, and
communication style are also assessed through paper and pencil instruments. A unique
video-simulation approach is used to provide Participants with objective ratings of
mastery in 12 fundamental managerial competencies. Individual participant scores are
then given a percentile ranking against the scores of over 75,000 managers in over 600
organizations who have previously taken the assessment. The twelve core managerial
competencies are as follows:
1. Time Management and Prioritizing
2. Setting Goals & Standards
3. Planning & Scheduling Work
4. Listening & Organizing
5. Giving Clear Information
6. Getting Unbiased Information
7. Training, Coaching, & Delegating
8. Appraising People & Rewards
9. Disciplining & Counseling
10. Identifying & Solving Problems
11. Making Decisions, Weighing Risk
12. Thinking Clearly & Analytically
As mentioned in chapter 1, this researcher’s approach to management selection
complements MAP programs. Candidates for managerial positions are presumed to have
passed MAP analyses as described above.

Smarter Hiring
Smarter Hiring (2003b) conducts team profile analysis and describes each team
member’s characteristics in the following areas:
1. Control
2. Composure
3. Social
4. Analytical
5. Patience
6. Results Orientation
7. Precision
8. Emotions
9. Ambition
10. Team Player
11. Positive Expectancy
12. Quality Orientation
The Job Analysis Study can be performed to determine:
1. The characteristics of the Top Performers
2. The characteristics of the Lower Performers
3. The specific training and coaching needs of study participants

360-Degree Feedback
Companies conduct 360-degree feedback surveys to look at employees in an
organization from all angles. They generally address three areas such as skills,
performance and knowledge. The purpose is to better understand their employees’ skills
and performance. A 360-degree feedback can identify an employee's strengths and
weaknesses -- enabling managers to develop a training and development plan best suited
for the individual (Websurveyor, 2004).
The next research compares British and French management selection processes.
Shackleton and Newell (1991) conducted a survey to compare the methods
used to select managers in 73 British and 52 French organizations… The survey results
are discussed in terms of cultural differences. The current data are compared with those
obtained by Robertson & Makin (1986) in 1984. They claimed that the results are
encouraging since they suggest that methods such as psychological tests, biodata and
assessment centers are being used more frequently, although the interview remains
dominant.
Common Patterns
1. The almost ubiquitous use of application forms (93.2 % in Britain and 98.1 %
in France).
2. The common use of interviews (93.2 % in Britain and 94.3 % in France) and
the inclusion of line managers in these interviews.
3. No reliance at all on astrology, which is as would be hoped, given the low

reliability and validity of such a method.
Cultural Differences
1. Interviews: Although interviews are prevalent in both countries, there is also a

salient contrast between Britain and France in terms of the number of interviews
used in the selection process. In France, 92.4 per cent of the respondents say that
they resort to more than one interview, compared with 60.3 per cent in Britain.
2. References: There has been a long tradition of selectors in Britain using
references. In France, 17 per cent always use them, while 9.6 per cent do so in
Britain. In contrast, British organizations make greater use of cognitive tests.
3. Handwriting analysis: As expected, handwriting analysis is a very commonly
used selection technique in France. More than 77 per cent of French firms use it to
select managers, while the figure for Britain is 2.6 per cent.
4. Biodata: Although a relatively recent method, the use of biodata seems to have
developed faster in Britain where nearly 19.1 per cent of firms report using it,
compared with 3.8 per cent of the sample in France.
5. Assessment centre type exercises. As with biodata, the uptake of assessment
centers for selection purposes has been greater in Britain than in France.
Comparison with Robertson and Makin survey
The data for the British firms in this survey in 1989 compared to the data
collected by Robertson & Makin in 1984 seem to show an encouraging trend over
time, with a greater proportion of the 1989 sample using more valid and reliable
methods… Thus, the most dramatic difference between the two samples relates to
the use of psychological tests, biodata and assessment centre methods… In this
respect the use of personality tests by companies has increased from 12 to 37 per
cent, the use of cognitive tests has increased from 9.3 to 41.1 per cent, the use of
biodata has increased from 2.9 to 8.2 per cent, and the use of assessment centers has
increased from 6.8 to 24.7 per cent (Shackleton and Newell, 1991, pp. 23-36).
To this researcher’s knowledge so far, none has addressed the importance of personal
compatibilities in the management selection process. This emphasizes the need for further
research that builds on this researcher’s study to explore the personality variable
individually and collectively to determine its role in selecting the best-fit manager. These
constructs, viewpoints, and ideas would be further expounded upon in chapter 5 of the
dissertation. The next study points out the difficulties in identifying and objectifying
management competencies.
McKenna’s research discusses if high-performance competencies could be
identified, objectified and made public in such a way that they can be used in
management selection, development and performance management. It argues that
attempts to do this are overly simplistic and ultimately meaningless.
Using two examples from the many managers interviewed as part of a wider
research program, the paper proposes that high-performance is constructed and
negotiated by managers within the specific contexts in which they operate. There
are, in effect, no competencies that are truly general, but only competencies that
are context-specific. The use of qualitative techniques allows for the exploration
of the rich detail of constructed high-performance and moves beyond the limited
lists that are ubiquitously reproduced in the management literature (Mckenna,
2002, pp. 680-702).
Although this researcher agrees with McKenna’s findings in general, he would be able to
prove that these skills could be identified, objectified and made public within a specific
context such as a specific functional/business unit in a particular organization. Therefore,
identifying these skills would be meaningful and could be used in management selection.
The next study discusses gender promotion and hierarchical levels.
Gender and Promotion
A study by Stewart & Gudykunst (1982) revealed that males had higher job
grades than did females, although females had a greater number of promotions.
Men advance up an organizational hierarchy through a series of promotions, but

the relationship between number of promotions and hierarchical level is not as
clear for women. In the organization studied, older women who had received
more promotions were at a lower level in the hierarchy than younger women with
more education who had been in the organization for a shorter length of time…
Women who are advancing in the hierarchy perceive a combination of the formal
and informal organizational systems to be important in the promotion process…
In addition, they perceive the help of “a friend” and spending a considerable
amount of time communicating with their supervisor to be important in the
promotion process...The perceived importance of a friend’s assistance may
indicate that these women have organizational mentors (Henning & Jardim, 1977)
or that they are successfully networking (Welch, 1980, pp. 586-596).
It is safe to assume from this study that receiving a large number of promotions does not
guarantee that a woman actually is advancing in the organizational hierarchy (Stewart &
Gudykunst, 1982).
Powell and Butterfield (2002) studied the effects of decision makers' race and
gender on promotion decisions about applicants of diverse race and gender for 51 top
management positions in a cabinet-level US federal department over a 12-year period are
examined.
Analyses were performed to examine the effect of the race and gender
composition of review panels serving as decision-making teams and the race and
gender of selecting officials serving as individual decision makers on the
outcomes of decisions about applicants of diverse race and gender… However,
the number of applicants in many of the possible cells was too small to allow
inclusion of multiple terms pertaining to the interactions between decision maker
race/review panel race composition, decision maker gender/review panel gender
composition, applicant race, and applicant gender… Regarding decisions by
review panels, we noted that 91.3 % of the 310 applicants for whom applicant and
review panel race information was available were either White or African
American and that 94.2% of the same applicants were reviewed by either an all-
White panel or a mixed race panel with White and African American members.
The proportions of Hispanic applicants (3.5%) and of applicants who were
reviewed by a panel with a Hispanic member (5.8%) were both small. The
proportions of Asian (4.2%) and Native American (1.0%) applicants were also
small, and no review panels had an Asian or Native American member. Thus, we
decided to analyze referral decisions about White and African American
applicants made by review panels that consisted only of White and/or African
American members. The sample for these analyses consisted of 265 applicants:
17.0% (45) were African American and 17.4% (46) were female (Powell &
Butterfield, 2002, pp. 397-428).
It should be noted that the same authors did not find the expected discrimination against
women in a previous study utilizing actual promotion decision records (Powell and
Butterfield, 1994). The authors attributed this surprising finding to the fact that the study
took place in a federal government department that may have had a special commitment
to equal employment opportunity. A recent study did find that women indicated that
gender discrimination was the most frequent barrier to promotion at all managerial levels
(Metz & Tharenou, 2001).
This researcher’s approach to management selection and/or promotion is
independent of race, age, gender, and ethnicity as pointed out in chapter 1.
Maslow's Motivation Theory
Abraham Maslow (1970) carried out his investigations into human behavior
between 1939 and 1943. He pointed out that there are five basic human needs. He was the
first psychologist to develop a theory of motivation based upon a consideration of human
needs (p. 46).
Maslow's theory of human needs was based on three assumptions. They are:
(a) Human needs are never completely satisfied.
(b) Human behavior is purposeful and is motivated by need satisfaction.
(c) Needs could be classified according to a hierarchical structure of
importance from the lowest to highest.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs can be classified into five specific groups. To reach
successive levels of the hierarchy required the satisfaction of the lower level needs:
1. Physiological needs. Maslow groups all physical needs necessary for maintaining
basic human wellbeing into this category.
2. Safety needs. These needs include the need for basic security, stability,
protection, and freedom from fear.
3. The belongingness and love needs. Once the physical and safety are satisfied and
no longer are motivators, then the belongingness and love needs emerge as
primary motivators.
4. The esteem needs. An individual must develop self-confidence.
5. The need for self-actualization. Assuming all of the previous needs in the
hierarchy are satisfied, a "new discontent and restlessness will soon develop
(Hartman, 2003).”
Maslow's hierarchy of needs shows the most basic need emerging first and the most
sophisticated need last (Jarvis, 2000).
George Elton Mayo's Hawthorne Experiments
Mayo (1977) was in charge of the Hawthorne studies of the Western Electric
Company in Chicago between 1924 and 1927. His research findings have contributed to
organizational development in terms of human relations and motivation theory (Hersey &
Blanchard, 1993, p. 57).
Mayo’s conclusions were:
1. Work is a group activity.

2. The social world of the adult is primarily patterned about work activity.
3. The need for recognition, security and sense of belonging is more important in
determining workers' morale and productivity than the physical conditions under
which he works.
4. The worker is a person whose attitudes and effectiveness are conditioned by

social demands from both inside and outside the work plant.
5. Informal groups within the work plant exercise strong social controls over the
work habits and attitudes of the individual worker.
6. The change from an established society in the home to an adaptive society in the
work plant resulting from the use of new techniques tends continually to disrupt
the social organization of a work plant and industry generally.
7. Group collaboration does not occur by accident; it must be planned and
developed. If group collaboration is achieved, the human relations within a work
plant may reach a cohesion, which resists the disrupting effects of adaptive
society (Accel-Team, 2001e).
Theory X and Theory Y
This theory was developed by Douglas McGregor in 1960 and is often referred to
as the human relations theory. It focuses on the interaction between managers and
subordinates and investigates the relationship in terms of managers’ attitude and beliefs.
Managers’ attitudes toward employees would have a direct impact on the management
strategy implemented by superiors, which in turn affects the behavior and performance of
the employees (Accel-Team.Com, 2001c).
McGregor believes there are two basic kinds of managers. One type of manager,
Theory X, has a negative view of employees assuming they are lazy,
untrustworthy and incapable of assuming responsibility while the other type of
manager, Theory Y, assumes employees are trustworthy (Hartman, 2003)…
Research seemed to clearly suggest that these assumptions were not valid but
rather a different series of notions about human behavior seemed more valid
(Wertheim, 2003).
Table 1: Theory X and Theory Y
Theory X
1. Work is inherently distasteful to most people
2. Most people are not ambitious, have little desire for responsibility, and prefer to be directed
3. Most people have little capacity for creativity in solving organizational problems
4. Motivation occurs only at the physiological and security levels
5. Most people must be closely controlled and often coerced to achieve organizational objectives
Theory Y
1. Work is as natural as play if the conditions are favorable
2. Self-control is often indispensable in achieving organizational goals
3. The capacity for creativity is spread throughout organizations
4. Motivation occurs at affiliation, esteem, and self-actualization levels, not just security,
physiological levels
5. People can be self-directed and creative at work if properly motivated

Increasing interpersonal competence
Even though management based on the assumptions of Theory X is perhaps no

longer widely appropriate in the opinion of McGregor and others, it is still widely
practiced. Consequently, a large majority of the people in the workplaces today is
treated as immature human beings in their working environments… Chris
Argyris, of Harvard University, compared bureaucratic / pyramidal values (the
organizational counterpart to Theory X assumptions about people) that still
dominate most organizations with a more humanistic / democratic value system
(the organizational counterpart to Theory Y assumptions about people)… The fact
that bureaucratic/ pyramidal values still dominate most organizations, according
to Argyris, has produced many of our current organizational problems. While at
Yale, he examined industrial organizations to determine what effect management
practices have had on individual behavior and personal growth within the work
environment (Accel-Team.Com, 2001b).
Chris Argyris recognizes the difference between attitude and behavior. He
identified and discussed patterns A and B in addition to Theory X and Y (Argyris, 1971).
Pattern A represents the interpersonal behavior, group dynamics, and

organizational norms that Argyris has found in his research to be associated with
Theory X; pattern B represents the same phenomena found to be associated with
Theory Y. In pattern A, individuals do not own up to feelings, are not open, reject
experimenting, and do not help others to engage in these behaviors. Their
behavior tends to be characterized by close supervision and a high degree of
structure. On the other hand, pattern B finds individuals owning up to feelings,
open, experimenting, and helping others to engage in these behaviors. Their
behavior tends to be more supportive and facilitating. The result is norms of trust,
concern, and individuality…under certain conditions, pattern A could go with
Theory Y or pattern B with Theory X. Thus, XA and YB are the most frequent
combinations, but some managers, at times, may be XB or YA. Although XB
managers have negative assumptions about people, they seem to behave in
supportive and facilitating ways (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993, p. 61).
Frederick Herzberg – 2-Factor Hygiene and Motivation Theory
Frederick Herzberg contributed to human relations and motivation in terms of
organization development. His motivation theory consists of two parts:

The first part of the motivation theory involves the hygiene factors and includes
the job environment. The hygiene factors include the company, its policies and its
administration, the kind of supervision which people receive while on the job, working
conditions, interpersonal relations, etc.
These factors do not lead to higher levels of motivation but without them, there is
dissatisfaction. The second part of Herzberg’s motivation theory involves what people
actually do on the job. The four motivators are achievement, recognition, growth /
advancement, and interest in the job.
These factors result from internal generators in employees, yielding motivation

rather than movement. Both these approaches (hygiene and motivation) must be
done simultaneously. Treat people as best you can so they have a minimum of
dissatisfaction. Use people so they get achievement, recognition for achievement,
interest, and responsibility and they can grow and advance in their work (Accel-
Team.Com, 2001a).
Effects on Work Groups of Working Environment
Whilst the working environment will affect individuals, it will undoubtedly have a
greater effect on working groups, since whilst an individual may have certain
needs, he will not obtain those needs if the working environment does not provide
the needs of the working group. The working group is the instrument of society
through which, in large measure, the individual acquires his attitudes, opinions,
goals and ideals; it is also one of the fundamental sources of discipline and social
controls.
Therefore, the working environment has an effect on groups as follows:
1. It will affect the morale of the group.

2. It will determine whether the group achieves the objectives set by the
organization.
3. It will determine the degree of cooperation provided by the group.
4. It will motivate the group to give their best.
5. It will determine whether the human relations within an organization are good or
bad.
6. It will also affect the relations between management and trade unions (Accel-
Team.Com, 2001a).
According to Herzberg's 2-factor theory, motivation comes from the employee's
feelings of accomplishment or job content rather than from the environmental factors or
job context.
Motivators encourage an employee to strive to do his or her best… Job

enrichment can be used to meet higher-level needs. To enrich a job, a supervisor
can introduce new or more difficult tasks, assign individuals specialized tasks that
enable them to become experts, or grant additional authority to employees (Allen,
1998).
Rensis Likert - Management Systems and Styles
Dr. Rensis Likert (1967) has conducted much research on human behavior within
organizations, particularly in the industrial situation. He has examined different
types of organizations and leadership styles, and he asserts that to achieve
maximum profitability, good labor relations and high productivity, every
organization must make optimum use of their human assets… The form of the
organization, which will make greatest use of the human capacity, Likert
contends, is a highly effective work group linked together in an overlapping
pattern by other similarly effective groups (Accel-Team.Com, 2001f).
Organizations at present have widely varying types of management style and
Likert has identified four management styles:
1. The exploitive - authoritative system
2. The benevolent - authoritative system
3. The consultative system
4. The participative - group system

This fourth system is the one which is the ideal for the profit oriented and human-
concerned organization. Likert (1967) says that all organizations should adopt this
system. Clearly, the changes involved may be painful and long-winded, but it is
necessary if one is to achieve the maximum rewards for the organization.

To convert an organization, four main features of effective management must be
put into practice:
Features of Effective Management
1. The motivation to work must be fostered by modern principles and techniques,

and not by the old system of rewards and threats.
2. Employees must be seen as people who have their own needs, desires and values
and their self-worth must be maintained or enhanced.
3. An organization of tightly knit and highly effective work groups must be built up
which are committed to achieving the objectives of the organization.
4. Supportive relationships must exist within each work group. These are
characterized not by actual support, but by mutual respect (Accel-Team.Com,
2001f).
David C. McClelland: Achievement Motivation
Over the years behavioral scientists have observed that some people have an
intense need to achieve; others, perhaps the majority, do not seem to be as
concerned about achievement. This phenomenon has fascinated David C.
McClelland for over twenty years he and his associates at Harvard University
studied this urge to achieve…the need for achievement is a distinct human motive
that can be distinguished from other needs. More important, the achievement
motive can be isolated and assessed in any group (Accel-Team.Com, 2001d).
Leadership and Management
Leadership
According to George R. Terry (1960), “Leadership is the activity of influencing
people to strive willingly for group objectives (p. 493).” Leadership is defined as
“interpersonal influence exercised in a situation and directed, through the communication
process, toward the attainment of a specialized goal or goals (Tannebaum, Weschler, &
Massarik, 1959).”
Harold Koontz and Cyril O’Donnell (1959) state: “Leadership is influencing
people to follow in the achievement of a common goal (p. 435).” Raven and Rubin
(1976) defined a leader as "someone who occupies a position in a group, influences
others in accordance with the role expectation of the position and co-ordinates and directs
the group in maintaining itself and reaching its goal (p. 37)." Avery and Baker (1990)
defined leadership as "process of influence between a leader and his followers to attain
group, organizational and societal goals (p. 453)."
Sears (1988) defines a leader as "the one who initiates action, gives order, makes
decisions, settles disputes between group members, offers encouragement, serves as a
model, and is in the fore-front of group activity (p.400)."
Management
It is obvious after reviewing the literature that there are almost as many
definitions of management as there are writers in the field. A common denominator that
appears in these definitions is the manager’s requirement to accomplish organizational
goals or objectives (Schermerhorn, 1989).
Management is defined as the process of working with and through individuals
and groups and other resources to accomplish organizational goals. The achievement of
organizational objectives through leadership is management (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993,
p. 5).
A review of other writers reveals that most management writers agree that
leadership is the process of influencing the activities of an individual or a group in efforts
toward goal achievement in a given situation. Peter F. Drucker (1954) points out that
managers (business leaders) are the basic and scarcest resource of any business
enterprise.
Distinction between Management and Leadership
The Management and leadership are often thought of as the same thing. Actually,
there is a big distinction between the two concepts. In defining the difference between
leaders and managers, French (1987) states:
Leaders are often dramatic and unpredictable in style. They tend to create an
atmosphere of change, ferment even chaos. They are often obsessed by their
ideas, which appear as visionary and consequently excite, stimulate and drive
other people to work hard to create reality out of fantasy… Managers are typically
hard working, analytical, tolerant and fair-minded. They have a strong sense of
belonging to the organization, and take great pride in perpetuating and improving
the status quo (p. 475).
Kotter (1998) points out

Leadership is different from management, but not for the reason most people
think. Leadership is not mystical and mysterious. It has nothing to do with having
Charisma or other exotic personality traits. It is not the province of a chosen few.
Nor is leadership necessarily better than management or a replacement for it.
Rather, leadership and management are two distinctive and complementary
activities… Both are necessary for success in an increasingly complex and
volatile business environment. (pp. 37-60)
Bennis (1994) states:
I tend to think of the differences between leaders and managers as the differences
between those who master the context and those who surrender to it. There are
other differences, as well, and they are enormous and crucial:
1. The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.
2. The manager maintains; the leader develops.
3. The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people.
4. The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.
5. The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective.
6. The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why.
7. The manager has his eye always on the bottom line; the leader has his eye on the
horizon.
8. The manager imitates; the leader originates.
9. The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.
10. The manager is the classic good soldier; the leader is his own person.
11. The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing (p. 45).
The achievement of organizational goals is paramount in management. In essence,
leadership is a broader concept than management. Management is thought of as special
kind of leadership.
The key difference between the two concepts, therefore, lies in the word
organization. Leadership occurs any time attempts to influence the behavior of an
individual or group, regardless of the reason. It may be for one’s own goals or for
those of others, and they may or not be congruent with organizational goals
(Hersey & Blanchard, 1993, p. 5).
Leadership Skills
In leading or influencing, there are three general skills or competencies:
1. Diagnosing– being able to understand the situation you are trying to influence;
2. Adapting – being able to adapt your behavior and the other resources you have
available to meet the contingencies of the situation; and
3. Communicating – being able to communicate in a way that people can easily
understand and accept (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993, p. 5).
Management Process
The managerial functions of planning, organizing, motivating, and controlling are
considered central to a discussion of management by many authors. These functions that
comprise the management process are relevant regardless of the type of organization or
level of management with which one is concerned. As Harold Koontz and Cyril
O’Donnell (1972) have indicated:
Acting in their managerial capacity, presidents, department heads, foremen,

supervisors, college deans, bishops, and heads of governmental agencies all do the
same thing. As managers, they are all engaged, in part, in getting things done with
and through people. As a manager, each must, at one time or another, carry out all
the duties characteristic of managers (p. 20).
Management effectiveness versus leadership effectiveness
In discussing effectiveness, it is important to distinguish between management

and leadership… It should be noted that not all of your leadership behavior is
directed toward accomplishing organizational goals…Parkinson’s Law suggests a
clear example of a person’s personal goals being placed before organizational
goals (Parkinson, 1957). His law states that in bureaucracies, managers often tend
to try to build up their own departments by adding unnecessary personnel, more
equipment, or expanded facilities (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993, p. 141).
Although this tendency may increase the prestige and importance of these managers, it
often leads to “an organizational environment, which not only is inefficient but stifling
and frustrating to the individuals who must cope with [it] (Carvell, 1970 p.182).”
Power
The resource that enables a person to induce compliance from or to influence
others is power. It is a person’s influence potential. According to Rogers (1973), power is
a resource, which may or may not be used, is “the potential for influence.”
There tend to be two kinds of power – position and personal.
Individuals who are able to induce compliance from others because of their
position in the organization have position power; individuals who derive their
influence from their personality and behavior have personal power. Some people
are endowed with both position and personal power. Others seem to have no
power at all. Power is also defined as the ability to manipulate or control the
activities of others to suit one’s own purposes (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956).
Etzioni (1961) discusses the difference between position power and personal
power. He claims that power is derived from a personal influence, an organizational
position, or both.
Individuals who are able to induce other individuals to do a certain job because of
their position in the organization are considered to have position power;
individuals who derive their power from their followers are considered to have
personal power. Some individuals can have both types of power. Etzioni
suggested that the best situation for leaders is when they have both personal
power and position power. However, in some cases, it is not possible to build a
relationship on both… Although personal and position powers are unique and
distinct, they are an interacting influence system: one directly affects the other.
Often followers are affected by their perception of the leader’s ability to provide
rewards, punishments and sanctions, and influence up the organization. In
addition, the extent to which people above you in the organization are willing to
delegate position power is often dependent on their perception of the followers’
commitment to you. So it is not sufficient just to have either position or personal
power alone – you need to work at gaining both (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993, pp.
222-224).
To summarize, any attempted leadership may have successful or unsuccessful outcome. It
is the responsibility of managers in any organization to get work done with and through
people using personal power, position power, or both. Managers’ success is measured by
the output or productivity of the group they lead. Based on the above discussion, it seems
that any effective manager is a successful manager; however, the reverse is not true.
Successful and Effective Managers
Human productivity, which is defined as the quality and quantity of work,
involves effectiveness and efficiency. “Effectiveness implies the accomplishment of
goals and efficiency refers to the cost of resources. Effectiveness is simply what you
produce, divided by what you cost (Gray, 1999).”
In any organization, effectiveness is critical because, as Peter Drucker, a founding
father of management theory, has written, “Effectiveness is the foundation of success –
efficiency is a minimum condition for survival after success has been achieved.
Efficiency is concerned with doing things right. Effectiveness is doing the right things
(Drucker, 1973).
Luthans Research
Luthans (1988) defines successful managers as those who have been promoted
relatively quickly and effective managers as those who have satisfied, committed
subordinates and high performing units. He tried to find out what successful and effective
managers have in common
Successful managers in what he defines as "real organizations"-- large and small
mainstream organizations, mostly in the mushrooming service industry in Middle
America - are not engaged in the same day-to-day activities as effective managers in
these organizations. Many cynics believe that although managers who are successful may
be astute politicians, they are not necessarily effective. Indeed, the so-called successful
managers may be the ones who do not in fact take care of people and get high
performance from their units.
Luthans (1988) pointed out:
Through the years management has been defined as the famous French
administrator and writer Henri Fayol (1925) said, by the functions of planning,
organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling. Only recently has this
classical view of managers been challenged. Starting with the landmark work of
Henry Mintzberg, observational studies of managerial work have found that the
normative functions do not hold up. Mintzberg charged that Fayol and others'
classical view of what managers do was merely "folklore." (pp. 127-128)
Both Mintzberg (1973) and Kotter (1982) used small samples (5 and 15 successful
managers, respectively) and concluded that managers do not simply perform the five
Fayolian functions, but rather spend most of their time interacting with others. Luthans,
however, used a sample of 44 “real” managers. He determined 12 descriptive behavioral
categories that were then divided into the four managerial activities of real managers:
1. Communication: This activity consists of exchanging routine information and
processing paperwork. Its observed behaviors include answering procedural
questions, receiving and disseminating requested information, conveying the
results of meetings, giving or receiving routine information over the phone,
processing mail, reading reports, writing reports/memos/letters, routine financial
reporting and bookkeeping, and general desk work.
2. Traditional Management: This activity consists of planning, decision-making,
and controlling. Its observed behaviors include setting goals and objectives,
defining tasks needed to accomplish goals, scheduling employees, assigning tasks,
providing routine instructions, defining problems, handling day-to-day
operational crises, deciding what to do, developing new procedures, inspecting
work, walking around inspecting the work, monitoring performance data, and
doing preventive maintenance.
3. Human Resource Management: This activity contains the most behavioral

categories: motivating/reinforcing, disciplining/punishing, managing conflict,
staffing, and training/developing. The disciplining/punishing category was
subsequently dropped from the analysis because it was not generally permitted to
be observed. The observed behaviors for this activity include allocating formal
rewards, asking for input, conveying appreciation, giving credit where due,
listening to suggestions, giving positive feedback, group support, resolving
conflict between subordinates, appealing to higher authorities or third parties to
resolve a dispute, developing job descriptions, reviewing applications,
interviewing applicants, filling in where needed, orienting employees, arranging
for training, clarifying roles, coaching, mentoring, and walking subordinates
through a task.
4. Networking. This activity consists of socializing/politicking and interacting
with outsiders. The observed behaviors associated with this activity include non-
work-related "chit chat"; informal joking around; discussing rumors, hearsay and
the grapevine; complaining, griping, and putting others down; politicking and
gamesmanship; dealing with customers, suppliers, and vendors; attending external
meetings; and doing/attending community service events.
These four activities are what real managers do. They include some of the classic
notions of Fayol (the traditional management activities) as well as the more recent
views of Mintzberg (the communication activities) and Kotter (the networking
activities). As a whole, however, especially with the inclusion of human resource
management activities, this view of real managers’ activities is more
comprehensive than previous sets of managerial work (Luthans, 1988, pp. 130-
132).
Luthans’s Conclusion
Since Luthans discovered the difference between successful and effective
managers, what are the implications of his study?
If, as our study indicates, there is indeed a difference between successful and
effective real managers, what does it mean and what should we do about it? First
of all, we need to pay more attention to formal reward systems to ensure that
effective managers are promoted. Second, we must learn how effective managers
do their day-to-day jobs. The traditional assumption holds that promotions are
based on performance. This is what the formal personnel policies say, this is what
new management trainees are told and this is what every management textbook
states should happen. On the other hand, more "hardened" (or perhaps more
realistic) members and observers of real organizations (not textbook organizations
or those featured in the latest best sellers or videotapes) have long suspected that
social and political skills are the real key to getting ahead, to being successful.
Our study lends support to the latter view… The solution is obvious, but may be
virtually impossible to implement, at least in the short run. Tying formal rewards -
and especially promotions - to performance is a must if organizations are going to
move ahead and become more productive. At a minimum, and most pragmatically
in the short run, organizations must move to a performance-based appraisal
system. Managers that are effective should be promoted. In the long run
organizations must develop cultural values that support and reward effective
performance, not just successful socializing and politicking. This goes hand-in-
hand with the current attention given to corporate culture and how to change it.
An appropriate goal for cultural change in today's organizations might simply be
to make effective managers successful. Besides the implications for performance-
based appraisals and organizational culture that came out of the findings of our
study is a lesson that we can learn from the effective real managers themselves.
This lesson is the importance they give and effort they devote to the human-
oriented activities of communicating and human resource management. How
human resources are managed - keeping them informed, communicating with
them, paying attention to them, reinforcing them, resolving their conflicts,
training/developing them - all contribute directly to managerial effectiveness…
While we must move ahead on all fronts in our search for solutions to these
problems, we believe the activities basic to the effective real managers in our
study - communication and human resource management - deserve special
attention (Luthans, 1988, pp. 130-132).
Bernard M. Bass (1960) suggests another distinction between successful and effective
leadership/management.
Suppose manager A attempts to influence individual B to do a certain job. A’s
attempt will be considered successful or unsuccessful depending on the extent to
which B accomplished the job…If A’s leader style is not compatible with the
expectations of B, and if B is antagonized and does the job only because of A’s
position power, then we can say that A has been successful, but not
effective…Success has to do with how the individual or the group behaves. On
the other hand, effectiveness describes the internal state, or predisposition of an
individual or a group, and thus is attitudinal in nature…Position power tends to be
delegated down through the organization, while personal power is generated
upward from below through follower acceptance (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993, pp.
142-143).
Effectiveness in Organizations
For the effectiveness of the whole organization over periods, Rensis Likert
introduces three variables as follows (Likert, 1967, pp. 26-29):
1. Causal,
2. Intervening, and
3. End result
Causal Variables
Causal or independent variables (stimuli) are those factors that influence the
course of developments within an organization and its results or accomplishments. The
organization and its management control these variables. Examples of these variables are
as follows:
1. Leadership strategies,
2. Skills and behavior;
3. Management’s decisions; and
4. Policies and structure of the organization
Intervening Variables
Intervening variables or the human resources in an organization (organism) are
affected by causal variables. According to Likert (1961, p. 2), intervening variables
represent the current condition of the internal state of the organization and they tend to be
long-term goals. Examples of such variables are:
1. Commitment to objectives,
2. Motivation, and morale of members and
3. Skills in leadership, communications, conflict resolution, decision-making, and
problem solving.
This is the part of effectiveness that many managers overlook because it

emphasizes long-term potential as well as short-term performance. This oversight
is understandable because most managers tend to be promoted on the basis of
short-term output variables, such as increased production and earnings, without
concern for long-run potential and organizational development (Hersey &
Blanchard, 1993, p. 147).
Output or End-Result Variables
Likert defined the output or end-result as the dependent variables (responses) that
reflect the achievements of the organization.
In evaluating effectiveness, perhaps more than 90 percent of managers in

organizations look at measures of output alone. Thus, the effectiveness of
managers is often determined by net profits; the effectiveness of college
professors may be determined by the number of articles and books they have
published; and the effectiveness of basketball coaches may be determined by their
win-loss records …Many researchers talk about effectiveness by emphasizing
similar output variables. Fred E. Fiedler (1967), for example, in his studies
evaluated “leader effectiveness in terms of group performance on the group’s
primary assigned task (p. 9)” …Although intervening variables do not appear on
win-loss records, balance sheets, sales reports, or accounting ledgers, we feel that
these long-term considerations are just as important to an organization as short-
term output variables. Therefore, although difficult to measure, intervening
variables should not be overlooked in determining organizational effectiveness
(Hersey & Blanchard, 1993, pp. 146-150).
Effective Communication
Communication embraces more than just talking and listening. Communicating
usually implies both intention and means. Adair (1997) claims:
In a sharper focus we could say that communication is essentially the ability of

one person to make contact with another and to make himself or herself
understood… Communication is the process by which meanings are exchanged
between people through the use of a common set of symbols Now, intention and a
common set of symbols (usually language) are immensely important factors but
they should not be allowed to fill the whole picture. Emotions or feelings, for
example, are non-material. They are certainly communicated, sometimes
intentionally but more often not. Nor is a common set of symbols involved.
Emotions often do not need words. You should always bear in mind this much
broader backcloth of communication, which encompasses such phenomena as the
unintentional and direct transfer of states of mind or feelings (p. 13).
The Communication Process
Communication is a process by which meanings are conveyed or exchanged.
Adair (1997) claims that the key ingredients of this process are four elements that are
defined as follows:
Social contact: The persons who are communicating have to be in touch with each
other.
Common medium: Both parties to communication must share a common language
or means of communication.
Transmission: The message has to be imparted clearly.
Understanding: The message has to be received, properly understood and
interpreted.
Communication’s role in leadership
According to Hersey & Blanchard (1993), Leadership is more than having
technical and conceptual skills; leadership involves capturing the hearts and minds of
followers. Communication skills are essential in leading, managing and working with
others (p. 325).
Communicating is a process competency. Even if you are able to understand the

situation, even if you are able to adopt behavior and resources to meet the
situation, you need to communicate effectively. If you can’t communicate in a

way that people can understand and accept, the whole process will not have the
impact you would like it to have (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993, p. 8).
In a study reported by Benson (1983) in Personnel, a survey questionnaire was sent to
the personnel managers of 175 of the largest companies in a western state. One of the key
questions in this study concerned the factors and skills most important in helping
graduating business students obtain employment. The personnel managers’ responses
agreed that Written and oral communication were the two most important skills in
obtaining employment (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993, pp. 325-326).

A 2001 study involving some 20,000 exit interviews found that the No. 1 reason
people leave jobs is "poor supervisory behavior." And one of the biggest factors
cited in "poor supervisory behavior" was poor communication skill. People too
often are promoted for their workplace accomplishments without any assessment
of their communication skills… Simply put, if you aren't a good communicator,
you probably shouldn't be a boss. And you probably won't be one for long,
although there does appear to be a lot of bad bosses hanging on out there (Enbysk,
2003).
Communication and job Performance
When communicating with other people, the message passes through perceptual
or emotional “filters.” There is a potential for communication breakdown because of
these filters. It is as if “I know you think you understood what I said, but I’m not sure that
what you heard is what I meant (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993 pp. 327-328).”
Communicating with Rapport
Leaders spend more time communicating than doing any other single activity; yet
studies show that many need to develop their ability to communicate more
effectively. This may result from the complexity of the interaction between leader
and follower, as well as the nature of the training that the average person
receives…research also shows that people spend about 45 percent of their
communication time listening. Despite this, the average listener understands and
retains about half of what is said immediately after a presentation…and within 48

hours, this level drops off to 22 percent (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993 p. 328).
This data prompted Alessandra, Wexler, and Deem (1979) to point out the importance of
listening. They stated:

Listening is one of the most critical skills in the communication process, which
helps leaders to determine followers’ needs, problems, moods, or levels of
interest…in order to become effective communicators, leaders need to tune in not
only to words – and the way those words are expressed – but to nonverbal cues.
Effective communication requires responses that demonstrate interest,
understanding, and concern for the follower, as well as for the follower’s needs
and problems. (pp. 81 - 118).
Follower
In interpersonal communications, 7 percent of your meaning is from followers’

interpretation or perception of your words – that is, what you say; 38 percent is
conveyed by their perception of your voice – that is, how you say the words; and
approximately 55 percent comes from their interpretation of your nonverbal
signals (LaBorde, 1983).
Conger (1991) emphasizes the need for careful word selection, use of
paralanguage, and nonverbal behavior to inspire others.

Conger cites the well-known story of two stonemasons to support his view of the
motivational aspect of leadership. When one of the stonemasons was asked what
he was doing, the reply was: “I am cutting stone.” When the other mason was
asked, his reply was: “I am building a great cathedral.” Leaders must build “great
cathedrals” with their communications. Conger’s guidelines for more expressive,
inspirational leadership include:
1. Craft your organization’s mission statement around the basic deeply held values,
beliefs, and societal purposes of the organization.
2. Use key elements of the organization’s culture, e.g. stories, analogies, metaphors
when you are communicating the mission in action.
3. Use rhetorical techniques such as paralanguage and nonverbal behavior.
4. Show your emotions to reflect your personal feelings and concern (Conger, 1991,
p.4).
Conger (1991) points out

Business leaders see their role as ‘meaning makers.’ They must pick from the
rough materials of reality to construct pictures of great possibilities… If you, as a
leader, can make an appealing dream seem like tomorrow’s reality, your
[employees] will freely choose to follow you. (p. 4)
Active Listening
Communication is not only a process of sending messages. A leader must also be
skilled in receiving, or listening to, messages. A manager may spend as much as 75
percent of work time in face-to-face communication (Harris, 1989) As much as half of
this time may be spent listening (Caudill & Donaldson, 1986). Human physiology also
influences our ability to listen accurately and actively.
The Gap Theory
To most people, concentration while listening is harder than concentration during
any other form of personal communication. When we listen, concentration must be
achieved despite a factor that is peculiar to aural communication, one of which few
people are aware (Nichols & Stevens, 1999).
Basically, the problem is caused by the fact that we think much faster than we
talk. The average rate of speech for most Americans is around 125 words per
minute…most psychologists believe that the basic medium of thought is
language. Certainly, words play a large part in our thinking processes, and the
words race through our brains at speeds much higher than 125 words per minute.
This means that, when we listen, we ask our brain to receive words at an
extremely slow pace compared with its capabilities. To phrase it another way, we
can listen and still have some spare time for thinking. The use, or misuse, of this
spare thinking time holds the answer to how well a person can concentrate on the
spoken word (pp. 6-7).
Alessandra (1986) identified four types of listeners:
1. The nonlistener,
2. The marginal listener,
3. The evaluative listener, and
4. The active listener

The nonlistener and the marginal listener hear the words being spoken, but are
preoccupied, uninterested, or busy preparing their next statement. These listeners
are neither concerned with the message nor the context in which it is being
presented. The evaluative listener makes a sincere attempt to listen by paying
attention to the speaker, but makes no effort to understand the intent of the
speaker’s message. This listener hears the words, but not the feelings and meaning
of what is being said (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993, pp. 333-334).
The active listener hears and understands the message. The active listener’s full attention
is on the content of the message and the intention of the speaker. Active listening is a
skill, which can be learned through practice and use on a daily basis. Carl Rogers (1951)
has proposed five guidelines that we can use to perfect our active listening technique:
1. Listen for the content of the message – Make an effort to hear precisely what is
being said.
2. Listen for the feelings of the speaker – Try to perceive the speaker’s feelings
about what is being said through the way the message is delivered.
3. Respond to the feelings of the speaker – Demonstrate to the speaker that you
recognize and understand the feelings being expressed.
4. Note the speaker’s cues, both verbal and nonverbal – Attempt to identify mixed
messages and contradicting messages the speaker may be expressing.
5. Reflect back to the speaker what you think you are hearing – Restate to the
speaker in your own words what you think the speaker said. Allow the speaker to
respond to further clarify the message being sent.
Communication in Organizations
Organizations communicate externally with their environment and internally
through specific systems. Researchers have identified five basic internal
organizational communication systems (Lewis, 1987):

1. Downward communication,
2. Upward communication,
3. Horizontal communication,
4. Grapevine, and
5. Networks.
These five communication systems could be further divided into formal and informal
communication channels. Formal communication channels are planned and established
by the organization; informal channels allow information to be carried outside of the
formal communication channels. The grapevine and networks are informal
communication channels.
Hersey and Blanchard (1993) define these communication systems as follows:

1. Downward communication is the most common communication system used in an
organization. Communication flows from a manager to a follower. Distortion of
communication in this system can occur if a manager attempts to restrict or
monitor the amount and type of information passed to employees.
2. Upward communication is characterized by communication from the subordinate
to the manager and occurs through verbal and written channels.
3. Communication between a manager and peers or between coworkers is called
horizontal communication.
4. The grapevine communication system is often neglected by managers, but can be
found in any organization. Grapevines grow primarily to meet organizational
member’s innate need for information…both managers and followers have links
into the grapevine system. (pp. 340-341)
The effective leader sees the positive and negative value of the grapevine
system…Adopting a proactive communication policy and integrating the grapevine into

more formal communication systems can help decrease negative aspects of the grapevine
system (Zaremba, 1988).

5. Networks are the second informal communication system in an organization.
Networks are patterned after regular interactions of organizational members and
are composed of various groups of people. Networks link the other organizational
communication systems. Members who take work breaks together and socialize
outside of work form strong networks. Network characteristics and actions are
reflective of small groups with members serving as opinion leaders, gatekeepers
and bridges to other networks. Networks can encourage strong identification with
work and serve as essential socializing units…the influential leader understands
the communication systems inherent in an organization. Through the use of
effective communication, including active listening, the leader can work with the
systems to achieve organizational goals (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993, p. 342).
Practice, in all aspects of the communication systems is necessary to improve our
communication ability, increase our effectiveness, and build ongoing rapport. Irving S.
Shapiro (1984) noted that

One important day-to-day task for the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) is
communication – digesting information and shaping ideas, yes, but even more
centrally, the business of listening and explaining. Decisions and policies have
neither effect nor any real existence unless they are recognized and understood by
those who must put them into effect…it sounds banal to say that a CEO is first
and foremost in the human relations and communication business– what else
could the job be? – But the point is too important to leave to inference. No other
item on the chief executive’s duty list has more leverage on the organization’s
prospects. (p. 157)
Emotional Intelligence
According to psychologist Daniel Goleman (2001), effective leaders are alike in
one substantial way:
They all have a high degree of what has come to be known as emotional
intelligence. In fact, Goleman’s research at nearly 200 large, global companies
revealed that emotional intelligence – especially at the highest levels of a
company – is the sine qua non for leadership. (p. 3)
Components of emotional intelligence
The five components of emotional intelligence are summarized as follows:
Self-awareness
Self-awareness is the ability to recognize and understand your moods, emotions,
and drives, as well as their effect on others
Self-regulation
1. The ability to control or redirect disruptive impulses and moods
2. The propensity to suspend judgment – to think before acting
Motivation
1. A passion to work for reasons that go beyond money or status
2. A propensity to pursue goals with energy and persistence
Empathy
1. The ability to understand the emotional makeup of other people
2. Skill in treating people according to their emotional reactions
Social Skill
1. Proficiency in managing relationships and building networks
2. An ability to find common ground and build rapport
Exhibiting emotional intelligence at the workplace does not mean simply

controlling your anger or getting along with people. Rather, it means
understanding your own and other people’s emotional makeup well enough to
move people in the direction of accomplishing your company’s goals (Goleman,
2001, p. 2).
Leadership Essentials
Goleman (2001) claims that his research, along with other recent studies, clearly
shows that emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership.
Without it, a person can have the best training in the world, an incisive, analytical
mind, and an endless supply of smart ideas, but he still won’t make a great leader.
We have examined the relationship between emotional intelligence and effective
performance, especially in leaders… Other researchers have confirmed that
emotional intelligence not only distinguished outstanding leaders but can also be
linked to strong performance. The findings of the late David McClelland, the
renowned researcher in human and organizational behavior, are a good example.
In a 1996 study of a global food and beverage company, McClelland found that
when senior managers had a critical mass of emotional intelligence capabilities,
their divisions outperformed yearly earnings goals by 20%. Meanwhile, division
leaders without that critical mass under performed by almost the same amount.
McClelland’s findings, interestingly, held as true in the company’s U.S. divisions
as in its divisions in Asia and Europe (Goleman, 2001, pp. 3-5).
People’s Psychological Needs
According to Bell (1973), understanding people’s psychological needs is
necessary in order to be able to relate to and manage them according to their personality
type. Working with them, then, would be more effective and enjoyable. This would
enhance everybody’s 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:
1. The Commander;
2. The Attacker,
3. The Avoider;
4. The Pleaser;
5. The Performer; and
6. The Achiever.
Each psychological need causes behavior in a unique fashion. This behavior, then,
is a personality type that corresponds with our major psychological needs. The definitions
of the six personality types are:
1. The need to command: The need to Command is the need to control any situations
confronted, dominate every group, and to live an orderly and systematic life.
2. The need to attack: The need to Attack is the need to release hostilities without
accepting any responsibility or depending on others.
3. The need to avoid: The need to Avoid is the need to avoid failures, conflicts, and
stay out of troubles.
4. The need to please: The need to Please is the need to be liked, accepted, and
validated.
5. The need to perform: The need to Perform is the need to gain prestige and
recognition.
6. The need to achieve: The need to Achieve is the need to maximize our potential,
to reach the highest levels of competence, and to become self-fulfilled (Bell,
1973).
Trait and Attitudinal Approaches to Leadership
Trait Theory
According to this theory, no training could ever produce an individual with the
ability to be a successful leader. Ralph Stogdill (1948) investigated many studies in the
personality trait area to uncover any specific personality traits that could be correlated
with leadership. However, leadership was found to be dependent upon the situation a
person was in.
The findings suggest that leadership is not a matter of passive status, or of the
mere possession of some combination of traits. It appears rather to be a working
relationship among members of a group, in which the leader acquires status
through the active participation and demonstration of his capacity for carrying
Cooperative tasks through to completion. (pp. 3-38).
Richard D. Mann (1959) also examined the relationship between leadership,
personality traits and behavioral variables. His results suggest a relationship between
leadership and intelligence, dominance, adjustment, extroversion, and interpersonal
sensitivity.
Are Leaders Born?
Adler and Rodman (1991) noted that there are “certain inborn qualities such as
initiative, courage, intelligence and humor, which altogether pre-destine a man to be a
leader…the essential pattern is given at birth (p. 4).”
Trait theory concentrates on the characteristics of the leader. The theory, which
until the mid-1940s was the basis of most leadership research, listed traits believed to be
those of leaders, the list of which grew in length over the years, to include physical,
personality and cognitive factors, including height, intelligence and communication
skills. Hersey and Blanchard (1993) stated:
Prior to 1945, the most common approach to the study of leadership concentrated
on leadership traits per se, suggesting that there were certain characteristics, such
as physical energy or friendliness, that were essential for effective leadership.
These inherent personal qualities, like intelligence, were felt to be transferable
from one situation to another. Since all individuals did not have these qualities,
only those who had them would be considered potential leaders. Consequently,
this approach seemed to question the value of training individuals to assume
leadership positions. It implied that if we could discover how to identify and
measure these leadership qualities (which are inborn in the individual), we should
be able to screen leaders from nonleaders. Leadership training would then be
helpful only to those with inherent leadership traits. (pp. 94-99)
A review of the research literature using this trait approach to leadership has revealed few
significant or consistent findings (Stogdill, 1948). As Eugene E. Jennings concluded,
“Fifty years of study have failed to produce one personality trait or set of qualities that
can be used to discriminate leaders and nonleaders (Jennings, 1961).” See also Jago
(1982).
Yukl (1989) has also stated:

The old assumption that “leaders are born” has been discredited completely, and
the premise that certain leader traits are absolutely necessary for effective
leadership has never been substantiated in several decades of trait research. Today
there is a more balanced viewpoint about traits. It is now recognized that certain
traits increase the likelihood that a leader will be effective, but they do not
guarantee effectiveness, and the relative importance of different traits is
dependent upon the nature of the leadership situation. (p. 176)
According to Yukl, the traits and skills that would increase the likelihood of a leader to
be effective, but do not guarantee effectiveness are as follows:

Traits
1. Adaptable to situations;
2. Alert to social environment;
3. Ambitious and achievement-oriented;
4. Assertive;
5. Cooperative;
6. Decisive;
7. Dependable;
8. Dominant (desire to influence others);
9. Energetic (high activity level);
10. Persistent;
11. Self-confident;
12. Tolerant of stress; and
13. Willing to assume responsibility
Skills
1. Clever (intelligent);
2. Conceptually skilled;
3. Creative;
4. Diplomatic and tactful;
5. Fluent in speaking;
6. Knowledgeable about group task;
7. Organized (administrative ability);
8. Persuasive; and
9. Socially skilled
Based on Bennis study of ninety remarkable leaders, he identified four common
traits or areas of competence shared by all ninety leaders:

1. Management of attention – The ability to communicate a sense of outcome, goal,
or direction that attracts followers.
2. Management of meaning – The ability to create and communicate meaning with
clarity and understanding.
3. Management of trust – The ability to be reliable and consistent so people can
count on them.
4. Management of self – The ability to know one’s self and to use one’s skills within
limits of strengths and weaknesses (Bennis, 1984, p. 182).
Bennis concluded that Leaders are not made by corporate courses, any more than they are
made by their college courses, but by experience.

Organizations tend to pay lip service to leadership development… This must
change. Here, then, are the ways in which organizations can encourage and
stimulate learning: Opportunity = Empowerment
Leadership opportunities should be offered to executives early in their careers,
because they build drive, trigger a can-do spirit, and inspire self-confidence. Such
opportunities include line-to-staff transfers to utilize, test, and develop strategic
and conceptual skills in addition to tactical skills, task force assignments to
review and revise old policy or make new policy, troubleshooting, and overseas
posts (Bennis, 1994, pp. 182-183).
In studying the negative traits that hinder a group member from becoming a leader as
observed by Yukl, Geier (1967) conducted a research and found three fatal traits. These
traits were the perception of:
1. Being uninformed;
2. Being nonparticipants; or
3. Being extremely rigid

Fatal Flaws
McCall and Lombardo (1983) were interested in the differences between
executives who went all the way to the top and those who were “derailed” just before
reaching their goal. Those who fell short seemed to have one or more of what McCall and
Lombardo call “fatal flaws.”
1. Insensitive to others: abrasive, intimidating, bullying style;

2. Cold, aloof, arrogant;
3. Betrayal of trust;
4. Overly ambitious: thinking of next job, playing politics;
5. Specific performance problems with the business;
6. Over managing – unable to delegate or build a team;
7. Unable to staff effectively;
8. Unable to think strategically;
9. Unable to adapt to boss with different style; and/or
10. Over dependent on advocate or mentor (pp. 26-31).
The worse flaw according to them was the third one namely “betrayal of trust-not
following through on promises or double-dealing.
Situational Leadership Styles
According to Hersey and Blanchard (1993), there are four situational Leadership
styles. Each style depends on the employee’s ability and willingness to perform the task.
The descriptions of the four leader behaviors are:

Telling (S1) – Provide specific instructions and closely supervise performance.
This style is suitable for an employee who is a little bit able and is seldom willing to do
the job.
Selling (S2) – Explain decisions and provide opportunity for clarification. This
style is suitable for an employee who is somewhat able and is occasionally willing to do
the job.
Participating (S3) – Share ideas and facilitate in making decisions. This style is
suitable for an employee who is quite a bit able and is often willing to do the job.
Delegating (S4) – Turn over responsibility for decisions and implementation. This
style is suitable for an employee who is very able and is usually willing to do the job.
Attitudinal Approaches
The main period of the attitudinal approaches to leadership occurred between
1945, with the Ohio State and Michigan studies, and the mid-1960s, with the
development of the Managerial Grid (Blake & Mouton, 1984). Attitudinal approaches are
those approaches that use questionnaires to measure attitudes or predispositions toward
leader behavior. For example, the two dimensions of the Managerial Grid, Concern for
Production, and Concern for People are attitudinal. Concern may be defined as a
predisposition or feeling toward or against production and people (Hersey and Blanchard,
1993, p. 100).
Managerial Grid
In discussing attitudinal approach to leadership, two theoretical concepts were
emphasized in Ohio State, Michigan, and Likert leadership studies. The two concepts
were task accomplishment and the development of personal relationship.
Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton have modified these concepts in their
Managerial Grid and have used them extensively in organization and management
development programs (Blake & Mouton, 1964).
In the Managerial Grid, five different types of leadership based on concern for
production (task) and concern for people (relationship) are located in four quadrants
similar to those identified by the Ohio State studies. Concern for production is illustrated
on the horizontal axis. Production becomes more important to the leader as the rating
advances on the horizontal axis. A leader with a rating of nine on the horizontal axis has a
maximum concern for production. Similarly, a leader with a rating of nine on the vertical
axis has a maximum concern for people.
The Managerial Grid tends to be an attitudinal model that measures the values and
feelings of a manager, while the Ohio State framework attempts to include behavioral
concepts (items) as well as attitudinal items (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993, p. 111).
The Grid’s Five Leadership Styles:
1. Impoverished. Exertion of minimum effort to get required work done is

appropriate to sustain organization membership.
2. Country Club. Thoughtful attention to needs of people for satisfying relationships
leads to a comfortable, friendly organization atmosphere and work tempo.
3. Task. Efficiency in operations results from arranging conditions of work in such a
way that human elements interfere to a minimum degree.
4. Middle-of-the-Road. Adequate organization performance is possible through

balancing the necessity to get out the work while maintaining morale of people at
a satisfactory level.
5. Team. Work accomplishment is from committed people; interdependence through
a “common stake” in organization purpose leads to relationships of trust and
respect (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993, pp. 110-111).
In this section, we will discuss three more attitudinal approaches to leadership:
1. The Ohio State Studies,
2. The Michigan Studies, and
3. Rensis Likert’s work.
Ohio State Leadership Studies
The leadership studies initiated in 1945 by the Bureau of Business Research at
Ohio State University attempted to identify various dimensions of leader behavior
(Fiedler & Chemers, 1985). After several trials, the researchers narrowed the description
of leader behavior to two dimensions:
1. Initiating Structure.
2. Consideration.
Initiating Structure refers to “the leader’s behavior in delineating the relationship
between himself and members of the work group and in establishing well-defined
patterns of organization, channels of communications, and methods of procedure (pp.
220-222).
Consideration refers to “behavior indicative of friendship, mutual trust, respect,
and warmth in the relationship between the leader and the members of his staff (Halpin,
1959, p. 4).”
Most studies show that consideration is generally related to high employee
satisfaction; it is related much less often to high performance, although it is occasionally.
In some studies, initiating structure has been found to be related to job satisfaction but
less often to high productivity, low absenteeism, and low turnover (Bass and Stogdill,
1990).
Michigan Leadership Studies
According to Hersey and Blanchard (1993), the Institute of Social Research at the
University of Michigan conducted a number of studies in offices, railroad settings, and
service industries. In the early stages of the Michigan studies, leaders were described as
engaging in behavior that was either production centered or employee centered while the
Ohio State studies characterized an individual on both dimensions (Stogdill, 1974).
Rensis Likert (1961) tried to find out the difference between management styles
used by high-producing managers and those used by the other managers. He indicated:
Supervisors with the best records of performance focus their primary attention on
the human aspects of their employees’ problems and on endeavoring to build
effective work groups with high performance goals. These supervisors were
called “employee-centered.” Other supervisors who kept constant pressure on
production were called “job-centered” and were found more often to have low-
producing sections (p. 7).
As a result of behavioral research studies of numerous organizations, Likert implemented
organizational change programs in various industrial settings.

These programs were intended to help organizations move from Theory X to
Theory Y assumptions, from fostering immature behavior to encouraging and
developing mature behavior, from emphasizing only hygiene factors to
recognizing and implementing motivators. Likert in his studies found that the
prevailing management styles of organizations could be depicted on a continuum

from System 1 through System 4 (Hersey and Blanchard, 1993, p. 105).
Team Management
Individuals and Groups
There are some complicating factors when you are working with groups, but you
still have to apply the three basic competencies in influencing – diagnosing,
adapting, and communicating. It is also important to remember that you may have
to deal with individual group members differently when you are in a one-on-one
situation than when you are working with the entire group as a group. This is
because individual group members may be at different levels of readiness from
the entire group (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993, pp. 346-347).
Group cohesion
Research in the social sciences has identified a number of factors that will
increase the cohesion in a group. According to RDL (1997), the social sciences have
identified some factors that will lead to group cohesion. These factors are:
1. The more frequent the interactions required by the job, the more likely that social
relationships and behavior will develop along with task relationships and
behavior.
2. The more attractive the group, the more cohesive it will be.
3. The more cohesive the group, the more eager individuals will be for membership,
and thus the more likely they will be to conform to the group's norms.
4. The greater the similarity in member attitudes and values brought to the group, the
greater the likelihood of cohesion in the group.
5. Group cohesion will be increased by the existence of a superordinate goal
subscribed to by the members.
6. Group cohesion will be increased by the perceived existence of a common enemy.
7. Group cohesion will be increased by success in achieving the group's goals.
8. Group cohesion will be increased when there is a low frequency of required
external interactions.
9. The more easily and frequently member differences are settled in a way
satisfactory to all members, the greater will be group cohesion.
10. Group cohesion will increase under conditions of abundant resources.
Why Group cohesion?
1. The more cohesive the group, the more similar will be the output of individual
members.
2. The more cohesive the group, the more it will try to enforce compliance with its'
norms about productivity.
3. The greater the cohesion of the group, the higher productivity will be if the group
supports the organization's goals, and the lower productivity will be if the group
resists the organization's goals.
4. Group cohesiveness can also either enhance or stifle productivity, depending on
member's willingness to be open with another.
5. A cohesive group will have a high overall level of satisfaction.
Lewin, Lippitt and White
Lippitt and White conducted one of the best-known investigations of the effects of
different leadership styles in the 1930s Known as 'Leadership and Group Life’;
the study was conducted under the leadership of Kurt Lewin. The study involved
directing groups of schoolchildren in the production of arts and crafts artifacts in
four different clubs (Underwood, 2003a).
They had three types of leader assigned to them:

1. Authoritarian - this leader was to remain aloof and to use orders without
consultation in directing the group activities.
2. Democratic - this leader was to offer guidance, encourage the children and
participate in the group.
3. Laissez-faire - this leader gave the children knowledge, but did not become
involved and generally participated little in the group's activities.
4. The groups were carefully matched for IQ, popularity, energy and so on and
all worked on the same project of making masks.
Results
1. Democratic - morale was high, relationships between the group members were
friendly, as well as with the group leader.
2. Authoritarian - in these groups, there were found to be two types of behavior –
“aggressive” and “apathetic”.
3. Laissez-faire - these were the worst groups of all. They did not produce many
masks and those they produced were of poor quality (Underwood, 2003a).
Bales Task and Maintenance Leaders
Bales has pointed out that a group might well have two leaders who complement
each other - one a 'task' leader who leads the group towards the achievement of its
declared aims, one a 'maintenance' leader who is concerned with maintaining
morale, well-being and group cohesiveness. These might be two people; they
could be united in one, particularly effective, group leader. The task leader will
keep reminding the group of its aims and bringing them back to them whenever
they stray from their problem-solving purpose, coming up with new ideas when
they get stuck.
The maintenance (or 'social-emotional') leader is particularly sensitive to other
people's needs, uses praise and other forms of feedback and is more inclined to
ask for suggestions than give them (Underwood, 2001b).
McCann: The Team Management Wheel
Dick McCann is a management consultant, who, together with Charles
Margerison developed the so-called Team Management Wheel in 1984.
The aim of the Team Management Wheel is to place at the center of management
teams the fundamental insight that people like to work in different ways. It tries to
make explicit what those different preferred styles are and to show how they
relate to one another. Thus, McCann's ideas…do not in fact constitute a theory of
personality types, but a theory of people's working preferences (Underwood,
2001a).
Preferred working styles
According to Margerison and McCann (1985), there are essentially four sliding
scales, which indicate how people prefer to work. They are:

1. How people prefer to relate to others?

INTROVERTED <===> EXTROVERTED
Some people will have an extroverted approach, talking things through with
others and enjoying a wide variety of different tasks; others will prefer to think
things over and won't have a high need to discuss things with others.
2. How people prefer to gather and use information?

PRACTICAL <===> CREATIVE
Practical people prefer tried and tested ideas, paying attention to the facts and
details; creative people will be less constrained by tradition, will be future-
oriented, won't mind ambiguous situations and will enjoy looking at possibilities.
3. How people prefer to make decisions?

ANALYTICAL <===> BELIEFS
Analytical people will gather the information and then set up objective decision-
criteria, trying to find the solution which maximizes the pay-off; others will be
more constrained by their beliefs, principles and values.
4. How people prefer to organize themselves and others?

STRUCTURED <===> FLEXIBLE
Some like a structured environment, where everything is neat and tidy and
decisions are made quickly; others prefer to be more flexible and make sure that
all possible information has been gathered before decisions are reached - they'll
tend to put off 'concluding' until they have gathered all the information they can
(Underwood, 2001a).
Belbin’s Concept of Team Roles
Belbin’s role team theory (1981) is discussed in Yates (1996). Yates indicated
that Belbin attempted to encourage convergence between two roles that most people have
within the group; the role the team members perceive that they should have and the role
that they actually enact. Belbin also looked at the difference between the functional role
within the group that the members are allocated and the team role that they adopt
naturally because of their personality.
Belbin's work with a large number of managers suggested that there were nine
possible team roles that a person can adopt (originally eight). Some are natural
roles and some are roles that a person can adopt if necessary and some are roles
that a person finds very hard to adopt. Other work such as that carried out by
Margerison and McCann (1985) has come up with very similar findings. The
team types Belbin postulated are as shown in Table 2:
Table 2: Belbin’s Team Types
Plant: very creative, the ideas person
Resource Investigator: extrovert, good at making outside contacts and developing ideas
Monitor Evaluator: shrewd and prudent, analytical
Shaper: dynamic and challenging
Coordinator: respected, mature and good at ensuring that talents are used effectively
Implementer: practical, loyal and task orientated
Completer Finisher: meticulous and with attention to detail also full of nervous energy
Team Worker: caring and very person orientated
Specialist: high technical skill and professional as opposed to organizational prime loyalties
Belbin’s Team Role Theory
Based on research with over 200 teams conducting management business games
at the Administrative Staff College, Henley, in the UK, Belbin identified nine team types.
Almost always, people have a mix of roles and will have dominant and sub-dominant
roles as shown in table 3 that is adapted from West (1994).

Table 3a: Belbin’s Dominant and Sub-Dominant Roles
Coordinator
Traits Weaknesses
The coordinator is a person-oriented leader, trusting, The coordinator may not stand out in a
accepting, dominant, and is committed to team goals and team and usually does not have a sharp
objectives. intellect.
Shaper
Traits Weaknesses
The shaper is a task-focused leader who abounds in He or she will challenge, argue or disagree
nervous energy, who has a high motivation to achieve and will display aggression in the pursuit of
and for whom winning is paramount. goal achievement. More than one shaper in
a group can lead to conflict.
Plant
Strengths Weaknesses
The plant is a specialist idea maker characterized by high Tendency to disregard practical details and
IQ and introversion while also being dominant. Plants are argumentativeness.
more concerned with major issues than with details.
Resource Investigator
Strength Weaknesses
The resource investigator is someone who explores Weaknesses are a tendency to lose interest
opportunities and develops contacts. Resource after initial fascination with an idea, and
investigators are good negotiators who probe others for they are not usually the source of original
information. They are characterized by sociability and ideas.
enthusiasm and are good at liaison work.
Table 3b: Belbin’s Dominant and Sub-Dominant Roles
Company worker/ implementer
Implementers are disciplined, conscientious and have a Implementers are conservative, inflexible
good self-image. They tend to be tough-minded and and slow to respond to new possibilities.
practical, trusting and tolerant. Implementers figure
prominently in positions of responsibility in larger
organizations.
Monitor evaluator
Monitor evaluator is a judicious, prudent, intelligent Weaknesses are that they may appear
person with a low need to achieve. Monitor evaluators boring or even over-critical. They are not
contribute particularly at times of crucial decision making good at inspiring others.
The monitor evaluator is serious minded, tends to be slow
in coming to a decision.
Team worker
Team workers enable difficult characters within the team They tend to be indecisive in crisis and
to use their skills positively. They tend to keep team spirit reluctant to do things that might hurt others.
up and allow other members to contribute effectively.
They tend to be sensitive and people oriented.
Completer finishers
The completer finisher dots the i’s and crosses the t’s. They tend to be over anxious and have
They make steady effort and are consistent in their work. difficulty letting go and delegating work.
Table 3c: Belbin’s Dominant and Sub-Dominant Roles

Specialist
The specialist provides knowledge and technical Their weaknesses are single-mindedness and a
skills. They are often highly introverted and anxious. lack of interest in other peoples’ subjects
Force Field Analysis
Kurt Lewin (1947) developed the Force Field Analysis technique for diagnosing
situations that may be useful in looking at the variables 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.

Summary
Hurley, Wally, Scandura, and 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." Research 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
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.
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
your company.” 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 is based on four stages of growth: single business,
dominant business, related businesses, and unrelated businesses. Management style is
divided along two basically different philosophies of managing: steady state and
evolutionary.
This researcher targets Leontiades’ limits of his models head-on. His study
limitations were:
The models do not deal with personality traits of managers or the fit of an
individual’s personality with the corporate culture, although these factors may preclude
any further consideration of a person for employment.
The models also cannot 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 candidate’s entrepreneurial temperament and drive. 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.

suitability of six candidates applying for a managerial vacancy. According to Cook and
Emler (1993), personality differences are reliably associated with leadership potential as
perceived by. However, research on managerial careers shows that the upward mobility
of managers in organizations is predictably related to their personality. This is one of the
reasons that this researcher would like to involve not only the potential manager
supervisor, his employees, but also his future peers in selecting the best-fit manager for a
functional/business unit.
promotion decisions. They introduced 16 propositions concerning promotion decisions
for further empirical research. According to them, Promotions are judgmental decisions;
they are often based on ambiguous criteria and 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. They also indicated that systematic research on
promotion decisions is important because it bears on at least three managerial concerns:
organizational effectiveness, equal employment opportunity, and career development and
planning. The promotion decision process can be split into five stages: strategy
formulation, search for candidates, information handling, evaluation and choice, and
planning for implementation.

London and Stumpf (1983) 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. Equal to, if not more
important than past performance is one's potential to perform at the next
managerial level. Assessment center and supervisory management potential ratings
have been designed to identify managerial potential in several large firms. Other
factors often suggested as influencing promotions include political influence,
seniority, equal employment opportunity (EEO) guidelines or an affirmative action
program, and the match between the individual's prior experience and the job
requirements. The decision to promote from within is often company policy, which
eliminates external candidates from serious consideration until it is clear that no internal
candidates are suitable for the position. Decision makers consistently felt that strengths
and weaknesses were important in their decision even though the listed candidates'
strengths and the one weakness were random relative to the experimental design.
centers in five telephone companies. 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 ex-
tensively 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 of
management positions. This researcher agrees with the authors’ conclusions that
assessment center method can be used in managerial selection and that it is a
valuable technique for discovering candidates with management potential. In actuality,
this proposal complements their work by considering managers that exhibit such potential
when assessed.
communication style are also assessed through paper and pencil instruments.
obtained by Robertson & Makin (1986) in 1984.
management positions in a cabinet-level US federal department over a 12-year period.
McKenna’s research discusses whether high-performance competencies could be
management selection. It argues that attempts to do this are overly simplistic and
ultimately meaningless. This researcher agrees with McKenna in that the best-fit manager
for a functional/business unit does not mean that he/she is the best-fit manager for each
and every functional/business unit.

A study by Stewart & Gudykunst (1982) revealed that males had higher job
grades than did females, although females had a greater number of promotions.
Motives and Behavior
People have many needs, all of which are continually competing for their
behavior. There are some people who are driven mainly by money, others who are
concerned with security, and so on. An important role of a manager is to make some
predictions about which motives seem to be more prominent among his/her employees.
According to Maslow, these motives are those that are still not satisfied. If we are to
understand, predict, and control future behavior, we must know what our employees
really want from their jobs.
In assessing needs, managers must know their people to understand what
motivates them without making any assumptions. People act based on their perceptions
of reality and not on reality itself. When managers satisfy their employees’ needs, they
can often increase their effectiveness.
McClelland’s concept of achievement motivation is related to Herzberg’s
motivation-hygiene theory (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark & Lowell, 1953). People with
high achievement motivation tend to be interested in the motivators (the task itself).
Achievement-motivated people want feedback. They want to know how well they are
doing on their job. However, people with low achievement motivation are more
concerned about the hygiene (environment). They want to know how people feel about
them rather than how well they are doing.

Mayo addressed the social needs of workers. Herzberg - 2 factor hygiene and
motivation theory discussed the task environment (Hygiene), which reflects satisfying the
lower needs and his motivators address the higher needs in Maslow’s hierarchy.
McGregor divided Maslow’s hierarchy into two extreme zones, i.e. X (low) and Y (high).
Argyris filled in the region between these extremes by introducing behavior patterns “A
and B” and Maturity-Immaturity continuum.
Last, but not least, some people believe that Without McGregor the management
world would have never heard of Maslow. However, Maslow gave McGregor the
intellectual credibility for his theories and, in management circles; McGregor gave
Maslow fame (Butler, 1986). Trait, attitudinal, and situational leadership
In summary, empirical research studies suggest that leadership is a dynamic
process, varying from situation to situation with changes in the leader, the followers, and
the situation. Nevertheless, this learner believes that some people are more likely than
others to assume leadership roles if they have Yukl’s helping traits that were mentioned
earlier. Those with any of McCall and Lombardo’s fatal flaws would not be able to go all
the way to the top.
As Adler and Rodman (1991) pointed out "The research on trait theories of
leadership has shown that many other factors are important in determining leader success,
and that not everyone who possesses these traits will be a leader (p. 267)." There is no
universal set of traits that will ensure leadership success in every situation. The lack of
validation of trait approaches led to other investigations of leadership. Among the most
prominent areas were the attitudinal approaches.
As interest in the trait approach to leadership declined, researchers focused their
attention on the leader's attitudes rather than their traits, which led to the behaviorist
theories. The most widely used approach was the Managerial Grid, which attempted to
explain that there was one best leadership style that is applicable in all situations. Five
leadership styles were determined from this research by using various combinations of
two factors regarding a concern for production and people. The team management style
was the only one that was considered the best.
Finally, the researchers realized that the required leader’s traits differ from one
situation to another. As Adair (1984) noted: "Rather than a great man causing a great
event to happen, the situational approach claims that great events are the product of
historical forces that are going to happen whether specific leaders are present or not (p.
8)."
Belbin and a group of researchers based at Henley Management College studied
an international group of managers. Their different core personality traits, intellectual
styles and behaviors were assessed. Different clusters of behavior were identified as
underlying the success of the teams. These formed the nine-team roles listed below in
three categories (Three roles per category).
1. Shaper, Implementer and Completer Finisher (action-orientated)
2. Co-coordinator, Teamworker and Resource Investigator (people-orientated)

3. Plant, Monitor Evaluator and Specialist (cerebral)
Managers could be successful, but ineffective, having only a short-lived influence
over the behavior of others. On the other hand, if managers are both successful and
effective (use both personal power and position power); their influence tends to lead to
long-run productivity and organizational development. This really is what leadership and
management are all about.
In the management of organizations, the difference between successful and
effective often explains why many supervisors can get a satisfactory level of output only
when they are right there looking over a worker’s shoulder. However, as soon as they
leave, output declines and often such things as horseplay and scrap loss increase.
Based on Likert’s work, one can conclude that managers ‘effectiveness should be
a function of:
1. Output variables (productivity/performance);
2. Intervening variables (the condition of the human resources);
3. Short-range goals; and
4. Long-range goals
We should point out that success and/or effectiveness in one endeavor or situation
does not carry over to other situations. Once a manager is successful or effective does not
mean that he/she will always be successful or effective. Managers’ effectiveness depend
not only on the manager, but it also depends on a host of other variables such as
employees, peers, bosses, family, culture, and time. It should be obvious that there is no
single all-purpose leader behavior style that is successful and effective in all situations.
Long-term evaluation is not a result of a single leadership event, but a summation of
many different leadership events.
one substantial way…they all have a high degree of what has come to be known as
emotional intelligence which comprises self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation,
empathy, social skill.
Goleman’s research, along with other recent studies, shows that emotional
intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership. Without it, a person can have the best
training in the world, an incisive, analytical mind, and an endless supply of smart ideas,
but he still would not make an effective leader.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this research is to develop a better management selection process
for selecting the best-fit manager, from a pool of competitive and well-qualified potential
managers that are also good fit for the company’s overall strategy with minimum
subjectivity to eliminate biases. It intends to define the characteristics of the best-fit
manager for a functional or business unit that 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 research questions that are being addressed in this study are:
unit?
2. How could we increase fairness in the manager’s selection process?
Leontiades (1982) emphasizes the importance of selecting a manager that fits the
overall strategy for organizations. Based on empirical research conducted by Luthans,
Goleman, and others as discussed in chapter 2, it is logical and even obvious, that the
variables of the best-fit manager phenomenon are as follows:

Are these variables the only variables that should be considered in identifying and
selecting the best-fit manager for a particular functional/business unit? Which
characteristic(s) are more prevalent than others and therefore could be considered
universal in describing the best-fit manager phenomenon?
In order to address the research questions and explore the best-fit manager
phenomenon, the role of horizontal and vertical equilibrium state vectors, as defined
below and developed in chapter 4 of this dissertation, in selecting the best-fit
manager/leader for any functional or business unit shall be investigated this research.
Strengths, Weaknesses, Potentials, and Threats (S. W. P. T.) Analysis
S. W. P. T. Analyses consist of trait, skill, emotional intelligence, effectiveness,
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 organization’s mission, goals, and
objectives.
Research Philosophy
Epistemology and Methodology
The term epistemology comes from the Greek word epistêmê, their term for
knowledge. In simple terms, epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge or of
how we come to know. Methodology is also concerned with how we come to
know, but is much more practical in nature. Methodology is focused on the
specific ways -- the methods -- that we can use to try to understand our world
better… A post-positivist might begin by recognizing that the way scientists think
and work and the way we think in our everyday life are not distinctly different
(Trochim, 2000a).
Research Methods
Qualitative Research Methods
Qualitative Research Methods were developed in the social sciences to enable
researchers to study social and cultural phenomena (Wenjogu, 2003). Examples of
qualitative methods are descriptive research and case study research to name a few.
Qualitative data sources include observation and participant observation
(fieldwork), interviews and questionnaires, documents and texts, and the researcher’s
feelings and reactions. Qualitative research methods are designed to help researchers
understand people and the social and cultural contexts within which they live (Myers,
2003).
Subjectivism and Objectivism in Qualitative Methodology

Qualitative methodology recognizes that the subjectivity of the researcher is
intimately involved in scientific research. Subjectivity guides everything from the
choice of topic that one studies, to formulating hypotheses, to selecting
methodologies, and interpreting data. In qualitative methodology, the researcher is
encouraged to reflect on the values and objectives he brings to his research and
how these affect the research project. Other researchers are also encouraged to
reflect on the values that any particular investigator utilizes (Ratner, 2002).
Exploratory Study
Exploratory study is also known as inductive or theory building.
In this kind of study, we don't begin with a theory. Instead, we collect data that,
after analysis, we will use to develop a theory. After we develop the theory, we
might then design a study to test the theory. Of course, even in exploratory studies
we have to have some idea about how things work, otherwise we wouldn't know
what data to collect (Borgatti, 1996).
Descriptive Research
Descriptive research does not fit neatly into the definition of either quantitative or
qualitative research methodologies, but instead it can utilize elements of both, often
within the same study. The term descriptive research refers to the type of research
question, design, and data analysis that will be applied to a given topic.
Descriptive studies are sometimes called “observational” studies. In descriptive

research the researcher does not manipulate or change any variables. Therefore,
there are no independent variables. The only variables are the ones the researcher
chooses to measure in order to find out more information about their topic.
Descriptive studies might involve collecting data on an event, on the habits of an
animal population, evaluating traffic congestion or analyzing data collected by a
government agency (Central, 2002).
A descriptive Research study tries to discover answers to the questions who, what,
when, where, and, sometimes, how.

The researcher attempts to describe or define a subject, often by creating a profile
of a group of problems, people, or events. Such studies may involve the collection
of data and the creation of a distribution of the number of times the researcher
observes a single event or characteristic… Descriptive studies may or may not
have the potential for drawing powerful inferences (Cooper & Schindler, 2003).
A descriptive study is similar to an exploratory study in that we do not attempt to test
hypotheses. Often, they are used in settings where a theory of how variables are related is
already in place, but specific values for each of the variables are needed for specific cases
in order to take some action (Borgatti, 1996).
Three main purposes of research are to describe, explain, and validate findings.
Description emerges following creative exploration, and serves to organize the findings
in order to fit them with explanations, and then test or validate those explanations
(Krathwohl, 1993).
Descriptive Research Methodology
Survey Methods
Survey research is one of the most important areas of measurement in applied
social research. The broad area of survey research encompasses any measurement
procedures that involve asking questions of respondents. A "survey" can be anything
from a short paper-and-pencil feedback form to an intensive in-depth interview with an
individual or a group. Surveys could be quantitative, qualitative, or both. Surveys are
usually divided into two broad categories:
1. Questionnaires
2. Interviews
Questionnaires are usually paper-and-pencil instruments that the respondent
completes. The interviewer based on what the respondent says completes interviews.
Sometimes, it is hard to tell the difference between a questionnaire and an interview. For
instance, some people think that questionnaires always ask short closed-ended questions
while interviews always ask broad open-ended ones. However, questionnaires with open-
ended questions (although they do tend to be shorter than in interviews) do exist and
there will often be a series of closed-ended questions asked in an interview.
Although survey research can yield data that are compared and analyzed at a more
complicated level, the simplest use to which survey data can be put is a description of
how the total sample has distributed itself on the response alternatives for a single
questionnaire item. These are sometimes called marginal tabulations such as opinion
polls. Although there are a variety of potential methods and instruments, questionnaires
and individual interviews are the most common collection techniques used in survey
research (Borg & Gall, 1989).
Surveys can take several forms and data can be collected in many ways. Surveys
can be in the form of written questionnaires, personal interviews, or telephone interviews.
This researcher shall distribute questionnaires via electronic mail (e-mailed
questionnaires).
No matter what method is eventually used, there are certain major issues involved
in choosing a data collection strategy. Some of these issues include sampling, type
of population, question form, question content, response rates, costs, available
facilities, length of data collection, and computer-assisted techniques for data
collection. The type of data collection mode can vary with each situation, and the
selection of a particular method is a complex process involving consideration of
many aspects of the survey research process (Fowler, 1993).
Subjects are more likely to answer a survey if they can relate to it as being:
1. Purposeful (Patton, 1990),
2. If it is not time consuming,
3. If it appears aesthetically pleasing and legible, and
4. If it presents itself as an ethical piece of research.
Research Design
Mixed Research Method Design
The research design for this study would utilize both quantitative and qualitative
data collection and analysis in sequential form (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003). This
means that qualitative data that are based on a review and synthesis of the related theories
and research findings are providing the basis for collecting quantitative data. The latter is
collected in the form of participants’ responses to a Likert measurement instrument.
Quantitative analysis of this data would be achieved using Force Field Analysis as
discussed above and in the analysis section later on in this chapter. This approach would
result in a primarily qualitative research design that is informed by quantitative data.
Based on empirical research conducted by Luthans (1988), Goleman (2001), and
others as discussed in chapter 2, it seems plausible that the four variables of the best-fit
manager phenomenon are as follows:
However, are these variables the only ones that must be considered in identifying
and selecting the best-fit manager for a particular functional or business unit? Which
characteristic(s) are more prevalent than others and therefore could be considered
universal in describing the best-fit manager phenomenon?
To better understand these four variables, questions have been developed based
on research findings of the above-mentioned researchers and summarized in table 4.
Each part of the four-part questionnaire addresses a variable. These variables were
discussed in depth in chapter 2 of this proposal.

These four variables would be operationalized in this chapter for the purpose of
conducting this research. A research instrument, which is a four-part Likert scale
questionnaire, has been devised for this purpose. Instrument validation and reliability was
achieved using brainstorming session(s) with some experts in the field to achieve face or
content validity. Validity implies reliability of the index measure used in the quantitative
data collection method (Zikmund, 2000).
Measuring Instrument Sensitivity
Instrument sensitivity is defined as the measurement instrument’s ability to
accurately measure variability in stimuli or responses. Likert scale with five items on the
response scale is a more sensitive measure than that with two items. By its very nature,
my instrument is more sensitive since it’s an index measure (Zikmund, 2000).
Index Measure
Measuring complex concepts such as the four variables discussed above require
more than one question because each of the four variables has several attributes. An
attribute is a single characteristic or fundamental feature pertaining to an object, person,
situation, or issue. Multi-item instruments such as those used in the four-part
questionnaire to measure a single concept with several attributes are called index
measures or composite measures (Zikmund, 2000).
In this study, an in-depth quantitative analysis shall be conducted utilizing
marginal tabulation and Lewin's FFA on data collected from sampling three effective
managers (a total of 18 participants) to define equilibrium state vectors (ES) of all 18

participants as discussed previously. The purpose of this analysis is to shed real light on
the variables of interest.
Sampling
Purposeful Sampling
Patton (1990) contends that qualitative inquiry typically focuses in depth on
relatively small samples selected purposefully. The methods of purposeful sampling used
in this dissertation research are two-fold:
1. Selecting successful three mid to large-size companies.
2. Selecting store (general) managers from each of those companies as respondents.
The reasons for selecting such managers are their familiarity with managerial
issues and terms, convenience sampling, their experience in management, hiring and
firing authorities as well as customer satisfaction. The following tutorial sheds some light
about the participants in this study.
Tutorial
A store such as Best-Buy, Circuit City, Comp USA, and/or the like in the west
coast is not a mom and pop store nor is it a convenient store around the corner. Each and
every store is a microcosm of a large organization. For each store, there is a general
manager similar to a business unit manager in a big corporation such as General Electric
Company. This general manager who is also called a store manager has several managers
working for him/her. Some of these managers have over 300 employees working for
them. These managers are similar to functional unit managers in any large organization.
They are responsible for departments such as sales, business sales, technical, customer
service, training, human resources, and floor managers. Their peers are other store
managers. See appendix B for participants’ qualifications.
Population Selection
It has been decided to investigate three store managers for a total of 18
participants in this research. These store managers work for their companies for several
years and satisfy the above reasons. In addition, they all are middle-aged managers who
know what they are doing since they have been working in the same place for years.
It is worth noting that Mintzberg (1973) based his landmark work of managerial
roles on a sample of five managers. Each questionnaire in this research involves a total of
six managers. It involves the manager, his boss, his best and poorest peers, and his best
and lowest performer/Achiever employees.
Since this researcher neither has access to employment records nor would he be
able to review performance appraisals because of companies’ policies as well as privacy
issues, it is left to the participating store managers to evaluate their employees, their peers
and their bosses. After all, they know their bosses, employees, their peers and have access
to all relevant records.
The four-part questionnaire has been designed in such a way as to simulate
personal interviews. The horizontal and vertical Equilibrium State (ES) vectors for each
individual involved in this research would be investigated using marginal tabulation and
Force Field Analysis as explained previously.

Research Bias
Objectivism states that the researcher's subjectivity can enable her to accurately
comprehend the world as it exists in itself. Of course, subjectivity can bias the
researcher and preclude objectively understanding a subject's psychological
reality… In fact, one of the advantages of recognizing subjectivity is to reflect on
whether it facilitates or impedes objective comprehension. Distorting values can
then be replaced by values that enhance objectivity (Ratner, 2002).
Subjective cognitive processes such as perception, analytical and synthetic reasoning,
logical deduction, and the ability to distinguish truth from fiction are essential in
acquiring and enhancing objective comprehension of the phenomenon of interest (Ratner,
2002). This subjective cognitive process is utilized fully in the design process of the four-
part questionnaire to explore the best-fit manager phenomenon of interest.
Data Collection
Questionnaires
Based on the above discussion, each selected manager would respond to a four-
part mixed (mostly closed-ended) Likert scale questionnaire as shown below. This four-
part questionnaire design is based on findings by researchers shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4a: Research Utilized in S. W. P. T. Analysis

Traits, Skills, Effectiveness, Personality types, and Contribution to S. W. P.
Emotional Intelligence (EQ) T. Analysis
Researchers
Traits, Skills, and Personality Types EQ
effectiveness
Adler and Rodman X X

(1991)
Alessandra (1986) X X
Belbin (1981) X X X
Table 4b: Research Utilized in S. W. P. T. Analysis

Bell (1973) X X X X
Bennis (1984) X X
Benson (1983) X X
Blake & Mouton X X

(1984)
Bolman and Deal X X

(1991)
Kurt Lewin (1947) X
Geier (1967) X X
Goleman’s (2001) X X X X
Lewis (1987) X X
Luthans (1988) X X
McCall and X X
Lombardo (1983)
McCann (1985) X X X
Ralph Stogdill X X
(1948)
Richard D. Mann X X
(1959)
The Michigan X X
Studies
The Ohio State X X

Studies
Yukl (1989) X X
Table 5a: Manager X Character Traits and Skills

Strongly Strongly
I’m: Agree No Opinion Disagree
Agree Disagree
1. Adaptable to situations (flexible)
2. Ambitious and achievement-

oriented
3. Assertive (confidently aggressive

or self-assured)
4. Cooperative
5. Decisive (determined)
6. Dependable (reliable)
7. Dominant (desire to influence

others)
8. Energetic (high activity level)
9. Persistent (enduring)
10. Self-confident (positive self-

image)
11. Tolerant of stress
13. Sensitive to others (comforting,

reassuring)
14. Considerate (attentive)
15. Loyal to company
16. Loyal to peers
17. Loyal to boss
18. Overly ambitious (thinking of

next job, playing politics)
Table 5b: Manager X Character Traits and Skills

19. Over managing (unable to
delegate or build a team)
20. Able to staff effectively
21. Able to think strategically before

acting
22. Able to adapt to boss with

different style
23. Over dependent on advocate or

mentor
24. Clever (intelligent)
25. Conceptually skilled
26. Creative (original, imaginative)
27. Diplomatic and tactful
28. Fluent in speaking
29. Knowledgeable about group task
30. Organized (administrative ability)
31. Persuasive (convincing,

compelling)
32. Socially skilled (sociable,

gregarious)
Table 6: Manager X Effectiveness

Strongly No Strongly
About myself Agree Opinion Disagree
Agree Disagree
33. I’ve been a manager for this group for over

2 years
34. My boss helps me succeed
35. My boss trusts me
36. It is very important to get along with my

boss
37. My peers help me get work done efficiently

peers

employees
40. I’m usually promoted relatively quickly (in

less than 2 years)
41. My subordinates are satisfied and committed

to me
42. My functional/business unit is high

performing (productive)
Table 7a: Manager X EQ

I’ve the ability to: Agree Disagree
Agree Opinion Disagree
43. Recognize and understand my moods,

emotions, and drives, as well as their
effect on others
44. Control or redirect disruptive impulses

and moods
Table 7b: Manager X EQ

45. Understand the emotional makeup of
other people
46. Treat people according to their emotional

reactions
47. Manage relationships and build networks
48. Find common ground and build rapport
Table 8: Manager X Personality

I prefer to: Agree Opinion Disagree
Agree Disagree
49. Control any situations

confronted
50. Dominate every group
51. Live an orderly and systematic
life
52. Depend on others
53. Avoid failures
54. Avoid conflicts
55. Stay out of troubles
56. Be liked
57. Be accepted
58. Be validated
59. Gain prestige
60. Gain recognition
61. Maximize my potential
62. Reach the highest level of
competence
63. Become self-fulfilled.
Table 9a: Manager X Best Employee’s Traits and Skills

He/She is: Agree Opinion Disagree
Agree Disagree
64. Adaptable to situations (flexible)
65. Ambitious and achievement-

oriented
66. Assertive (confidently aggressive or
self-assured)
67. Cooperative
68. Decisive (determined)
69. Dependable (reliable)
70. Dominant (desire to influence

others)
71. Energetic (high activity level)
72. Persistent (enduring)
73. Self-confident (positive self-image)
74. Tolerant of stress
76. Sensitive to others (comforting,

reassuring)
77. Considerate (attentive)
78. Loyal to company
79. Loyal to peers
80. Loyal to boss
81. Overly ambitious (thinking of next

job, playing politics)
82. Over managing (unable to delegate
or build a team)
83. Able to staff effectively
Table 9b: Manager X Best Employee’s Traits and Skills

84. Able to think strategically before
acting
85. Able to adapt to boss with different

style
86. Over dependent on advocate or

mentor
87. Clever (intelligent)
88. Conceptually skilled
89. Creative (original, imaginative)
90. Diplomatic and tactful
91. Fluent in speaking
92. Knowledgeable about group task
93. Organized (administrative ability)
94. Persuasive (convincing, compelling)
95. Socially skilled (sociable,

gregarious)
Table 10a: Manager X Best Employee’s EQ

He/She has the ability to: Agree Disagree
96. Recognize and understand his/her moods,
effect on others
97. Control or redirect disruptive impulses

and moods
98. Understand the emotional makeup of

other people
Table 10b: Manager X Best Employee’s EQ

reactions
100.Manage relationships and build networks
101.Find common ground and build rapport
Table 11: Manager X Best Employee’s Personality

Strongly No Opinion Strongly
He/She prefers to: Agree Disagree
Agree Disagree
102.Control any situations confronted
103.Dominate every group
104.Live an orderly and systematic life
105.Depend on others
106.Avoid failures
107.Avoid conflicts
108.Stay out of troubles
109.Be liked
110.Be accepted
111.Be validated
112.Gain prestige
113.Gain recognition
114.Maximize my potential
115.Reach the highest level of

competence
116.Become self-fulfilled.
Table 12a: Manager X Poorest Employee’s Traits and Skills

He/She is: Agree Opinion Disagree
Agree Disagree
117.Adaptable to situations (flexible)
118.Ambitious and achievement-oriented
119.Assertive (confidently aggressive or

self-assured)
120.Cooperative
121.Decisive (determined)
122.Dependable (reliable)
123.Dominant (desire to influence others)
124.Energetic (high activity level)
125.Persistent (enduring)
126.Self-confident (positive self-image)
127.Tolerant of stress
128.Willing to assume responsibility
129.Sensitive to others (comforting,

reassuring)
130.Considerate (attentive)
131.Loyal to company
132.Loyal to peers
133.Loyal to boss
134.Overly ambitious (thinking of next

job, playing politics)
135.Over managing (unable to delegate or

build a team)
136.Able to staff effectively

Table 12b: Manager X Poorest Employee’s Traits and Skills

137.Able to think strategically before
acting
138.Able to adapt to boss with different

style
139.Over dependent on advocate or

mentor
140.Clever (intelligent)
141.Conceptually skilled
142.Creative (original, imaginative)
143.Diplomatic and tactful
144.Fluent in speaking
145.Knowledgeable about group task
146.Organized (administrative ability)
147.Persuasive (convincing, compelling)
148.Socially skilled (sociable, gregarious)
Table 13a: Manager X Poorest Employee’s EQ

149.Recognize and understand his/her moods,
effect on others
150.Control or redirect disruptive impulses

and moods
151.Understand the emotional makeup of

other people
Table 13b: Manager X Poorest Employee’s EQ

152.Treat people according to their emotional
reactions
153.Manage relationships and build networks
154.Find common ground and build rapport
Table 14: Manager X Poorest Employee’s Personality

He/She prefers to: Agree Opinion Disagree
Agree Disagree
155.Control any situations
confronted
157.Live an orderly and systematic

life
159.Avoid failures
160.Avoid conflicts
162.Be liked
163.Be accepted
164.Be validated
165.Gain prestige
167.Maximize my potential

competence
Table 15: Manager X Best Peer’s Personality

Agree Disagree
172.Live an orderly and systematic

life
174.Avoid failures
175.Avoid conflicts
177.Be liked
178.Be accepted
179.Be validated
180.Gain prestige
182.Maximize his/her potential

competence
Table 16: Manager X poorest Peer’s Personality

Strongly Strongly
He/She prefers to: Agree No Disagree
Agree Disagree
Opinion
189.Avoid failures
190.Avoid conflicts
192.Be liked
193.Be accepted
194.Be validated
195.Gain prestige

competence
Table 17: Manager X Boss’s Personality

No
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
204.Avoid failures
205.Avoid conflicts
207.Be liked
208.Be accepted
209.Be validated
210.Gain prestige
213.Reach the highest level of competence
Analysis
Marginal Tabulation and FFA
Analysis is the application of reasoning to understand and interpret the data that
have been collected about the research. In simple description, analysis may involve
determining consistent patterns and summarizing the appropriate details revealed in the
investigation.
The data collected from participants in this study would be weighted and coded to
conduct a quantitative analysis (FFA) and determine the actual S. W. P. T. of each
respondent. These data shall be categorized in terms of horizontal and vertical
equilibrium state vectors as discussed previously in this proposal. The four variables
under consideration would also undergo marginal tabulation.
Force Field Analysis
Kurt Lewin (1947) developed the Force Field Analysis technique for diagnosing
situations that may be useful in looking at the variables 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.

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 (Accel-Team, 2000b).
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. Equilibrium is reached when the
sum of the driving forces equals the sum of the restraining forces (Accel-Team,
2000b).
Equilibrium
Equilibrium, which is the difference between driving and restraining forces, is the
present level of productivity. It can be raised or lowered by changes in the relationship
between the driving and the restraining forces (Accel-Team, 2000b).
It is important to note that although this research is primarily qualitative, a major
component of it is a quantitative analysis based on survey data that utilize Likert scale on
the participants’ responses.

Summary
In this chapter, the researcher introduced and defined multidimensional horizontal
and vertical equilibrium state vectors that would result from applying FFA on data
collected. Marginal tabulation shall also be performed on the same data.
Some qualitative and quantitative research such as survey, descriptive, and
exploratory research methods were discussed. The survey research design was discussed
in depth since it is an integral part of this research methodology. Participants for this
study are general managers that would be chosen from several mid to large-size
companies. The targeted populations are managers that are able to respond to the four-
part questionnaires. These questionnaires will be either personally delivered or e-mailed
to the chosen participants.
The collected data from this study shall be analyzed using marginal tabulation and
Lewin’s FFA. The research findings shall be reported in the completed dissertation
starting with chapter 4.

CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS
A total of 18 participants were involved in this research. Three general managers
from three large companies responded to questions about themselves, their bosses, their
employees, and their peers to provide answers for the two research questions. A total of
642 responses were gathered to investigate the best-fit manager’s four variables of
interest.
The research questions are:
unit?
2. How could we maximize fairness in the manager’s selection process?
The four variables of interest were discussed in chapter 3 and they are as follows:
1. Character traits and skills;
2. Effectiveness;
3. Emotional intelligence (EQ); and
In order to maximize fairness in the management selection process, it is suggested
that all potential managers’ future employees, peers and bosses be involved in the process
as explained in the first three chapters of this dissertation. This is the reason for collecting
data from the managers’ employees, peers, and their bosses.
It is worth repeating that generalizations of this research are not sought. This
study is basically an investigation of four variables that seem to correlate with the
research topic as mentioned above. This research is geared for future researchers to pick
up and expand on, using qualitative and/or quantitative methodologies, to investigate
some or all of the variables to further explore the best-fit manager phenomenon.
However, convergence and/or divergence of quantitative and qualitative data collected in
this study shall be reported in the final chapter of this dissertation.
The research design for this study utilizes both quantitative and qualitative data
collection and analysis in sequential form (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003). This means
that qualitative data that are based on a review and synthesis of the related theories and
research findings are providing the basis for collecting quantitative data. The latter is
collected in the form of participants’ responses to a Likert index measurement
instrument. Quantitative analysis of this data is performed using marginal tabulation and
Force Field Analysis (FFA) as discussed previously in chapter 3. This approach would
result in a primarily qualitative research design that is informed by quantitative data.
Qualitative data collected from previous research findings regarding the four
variables of interest are referred to as Virtual Best-fit Manager (VBM) characteristics.
These data consist of virtual strengths (Sv), virtual weaknesses (Wv), virtual potentials
(Pv), and virtual threats (Tv). The aggregate of virtual strengths, virtual weaknesses,
virtual potentials, and virtual threats is referred to as SvWvPvTv. The quantitative
counterpart is being referred to as actual strengths Sa, actual weaknesses Wa, actual
potentials Pa, and actual threats Ta. Collectively, these are referred to as SaWaPaTa.
Manager 1 Responses
Table 18a: Manager 1 Character Traits and Skills

Strongly Agree No Disagree Strongly
I’m:
1. Adaptable to situations (flexible) X
2. Ambitious and achievement-oriented X
3. Assertive (confidently aggressive or self- X

assured)
4. Cooperative X
5. Decisive (determined) X
6. Dependable (reliable) X
7. Dominant (desire to influence others) X
8. Energetic (high activity level) X
9. Persistent (enduring) X
10. Self-confident (positive self-image) X
11. Tolerant of stress X
12. Willing to assume responsibility X
13. Sensitive to others (comforting, reassuring) X
14. Considerate (attentive) X
15. Loyal to company X
16. Loyal to peers X
17. Loyal to boss X
18. Overly ambitious (thinking of next job, X

playing politics)
19. Over managing (unable to delegate or build X
a team)
20. Able to staff effectively X
Table 18b: Manager 1 Character Traits and Skills

21. Able to think strategically before acting X
22. Able to adapt to boss with different style X
23. Over dependent on advocate or mentor X
24. Clever (intelligent) X
25. Conceptually skilled X
26. Creative (original, imaginative) X
27. Diplomatic and tactful X
28. Fluent in speaking X
29. Knowledgeable about group task X
30. Organized (administrative ability) X
31. Persuasive (convincing, compelling) X
32. Socially skilled (sociable, gregarious) X
Table 19a: Manager 1 Effectiveness

About myself:
33. I’ve been a manager for this group for over X

2 years
34. My boss helps me succeed X
35. My boss trusts me X
36. It is very important to get along with my X

boss
37. My peers help me get work done efficiently X

peers
Table 19b: Manager 1 Effectiveness

39. It is very important to get along with my employees X
40. I’m usually promoted relatively quickly (in less than 2 years) X
41. My subordinates are satisfied and committed to me X
42. My functional/business unit is high performing (productive) X
Table 20: Manager 1 EQ

I’ve the ability to: Agree Opinion Disagree
43. Recognize and understand my moods, X

emotions, and drives, as well as their effect
on others
44. Control or redirect disruptive impulses and X

moods
45. Understand the emotional makeup of other X

people
46. Treat people according to their emotional X

reactions
47. Manage relationships and build networks X
48. Find common ground and build rapport X

Table 21: Manager 1 Personality

49. Control any situations confronted X
50. Dominate every group X
51. Live an orderly and systematic life X
52. Depend on others X
53. Avoid failures X
54. Avoid conflicts X
55. Stay out of troubles X
56. Be liked X
57. Be accepted X
58. Be validated X
59. Gain prestige X
60. Gain recognition X
61. Maximize my potential X
62. Reach the highest level of competence X
63. Become self-fulfilled. X
Table 22a: Manager 1 Best Employee’s Traits and Skills

He/She is:

assured)
Table 22b: Manager 1 Best Employee’s Traits and Skills

67. Cooperative X
76. Sensitive to others (comforting, X

reassuring)
80. Loyal to boss X

playing politics)
82. Over managing (unable to delegate or X

build a team)

Table 22c: Manager 1 Best Employee’s Traits and Skills

He/She is:
93. Organized (administrative X

ability)
94. Persuasive (convincing, X

compelling)
95. Socially skilled (sociable, X

gregarious)
Table 23: Manager 1 Best Employee’s EQ

He/She has the ability to:
96. Recognize and understand his/her moods, X

effect on others
97. Control or redirect disruptive impulses X

and moods
98. Understand the emotional makeup of X

other people

reactions

Table 24: Manager 1 Best Employee’s Personality

102. Control any situations confronted
X
103. Dominate every group

X
104. Live an orderly and systematic life

X
105. Depend on others

X
106. Avoid failures

X
107. Avoid conflicts

X
108. Stay out of troubles

X
109. Be liked
X
110. Be accepted
X
111. Be validated
X
112. Gain prestige

X
113. Gain recognition

X
114. Maximize my potential

X
115. Reach the highest level of competence

X
116. Become self-fulfilled.

X
Table 25a: Manager 1 Poorest Employee’s Traits and Skills

He/She is:

assured)
120. Cooperative X
133. Loyal to boss X

playing politics)
135. Overmanaging (unable to delegate or build X
a team)

Table 25b: Manager 1 Poorest Employee’s Traits and Skills

Table 26: Manager 1 Poorest Employee’s EQ


on others

moods

people

reactions

Table 27: Manager 1 Poorest Employee’s Personality

162. Be liked X
163. Be accepted X
164. Be validated X
165. Gain prestige X

Table 28: Manager 1 Best Peer’s Personality

He/She prefers to:
177. Be liked X
178. Be accepted X
179. Be validated X
182. Maximize his/her potential X
Table 29a: Manager 1 Poorest Peer’s Personality

He/She prefers to: Strongly Agree No Disagree Strongly

Table 29b: Manager 1 Poorest Peer’s Personality

192. Be liked X
193. Be accepted X
194. Be validated X
Table 30a: Manager 1 Boss’s Personality

200. Control any situations X

confronted
202. Live an orderly and systematic X

life

Table 30b: Manager 1 Boss’s Personality

207. Be liked X
208. Be accepted X
209. Be validated X

Manager 2 Responses

I’m:

assured)
4. Cooperative X
17. Loyal to boss X

playing politics)
19. Overmanaging (unable to delegate or build a X
team)


About myself:
33. I’ve been a manager for this group for over 2 X

years

boss

peers

employees
40. I’m usually promoted relatively quickly (in X

less than 2 years)
41. My subordinates are satisfied and committed X

to me
42. My functional/business unit is high X



on others

moods

people

reactions


56. Be liked X
57. Be accepted X
58. Be validated X
59. Gain prestige X


He/She is:

assured)
67. Cooperative X

reassuring)
80. Loyal to boss X

playing politics)
82. Overmanaging (unable to delegate or X

build a team)

Table 36a: Manager 2 Best Employee’s EQ

He/She has the ability to: Agree Opinion Disagree
effect on others

and moods

other people

reactions
Table 36b: Manager 2 Best Employee’s EQ

He/She has the ability to: Agree Opinion Disagree

He/She prefers to:
109. Be liked X
110. Be accepted X
111. Be validated X


He/She is:

assured)
120. Cooperative X

playing politics)

a team)




on others

moods

people

reactions

Table 40: Manager 2 Poorest Employee’s Personality

162. Be liked X
163. Be accepted X
164. Be validated X

Table 41: Manager 2 Best Peer’s Personality

He/She prefers to:
177. Be liked X
178. Be accepted X
179. Be validated X

He/She prefers to:


192. Be liked X
193. Be accepted X
194. Be validated X
Table 43a: Manager 2 Boss’s Personality

He/She prefers to:

Table 43b: Manager 2 Boss’s Personality

207. Be liked X
208. Be accepted X
209. Be validated X

Manager 3 Responses

I’m: Agree Opinion Disagree
assured)
4. Cooperative X
17. Loyal to boss X
playing politics)
19. Overmanaging (unable to delegate or build a X
team)


About myself:
33. I’ve been a manager for this group for over X

2 years

boss


peers

employees
40. I’m usually promoted relatively quickly (in X

less than 2 years)
41. My subordinates are satisfied and committed X

to me
42. My functional/business unit is high X



on others

moods

people

reactions


56. Be liked X
57. Be accepted X
58. Be validated X
59. Gain prestige X

He/She is:

assured)

67. Cooperative X

reassuring)
80. Loyal to boss X

playing politics)
82. Overmanaging (unable to delegate or X

build a team)




effect on others

and moods

other people

reactions


He/She prefers to:
109. Be liked X
110. Be accepted X
111. Be validated X

He/She is:

assured)

120. Cooperative X

playing politics)
a team)

Table 51c: Manager 3 Poorest Employee’s Traits and Skills



on others

moods

people

reactions
Table 53a: Manager 3 Poorest Employee’s Personality


Table 53b: Manager 3 Poorest Employee’s Personality

162. Be liked X
163. Be accepted X
164. Be validated X
Table 54a: Manager 3 Best Peer’s Personality

He/She prefers to:

Table 54b: Manager 3 Best Peer’s Personality

177. Be liked X
178. Be accepted X
179. Be validated X

He/She prefers to:
192. Be liked X
193. Be accepted X
194. Be validated X


Table 56: Manager 3 Boss’s Personality

He/She prefers to:
207. Be liked X
208. Be accepted X
209. Be validated X

SWPT Analysis
From Likert to Lewin
The purpose of this analysis is to determine the actual SWPT components
(SaWaPaTa) based on received responses. Actual SWPT components are the results of
applying Likert’s response scale to virtual SWPT components (SvWvPvTv). The following
tables show the correlation between actual SWPT (SaWaPaTa) and virtual SWPT
(SvWvPvTv) based on participants’ responses.
Table 57: SaWaPaTa Components

SvWvPvTv
Response
Sv Wv Pv Tv
SA1 Sa Wa Sa Wa
A2 Pa Ta Pa Ta
NO3 0 0 0 0
D4 Ta Pa Ta Pa
SD5 Wa Sa Wa Sa
1 Strongly Agree
2 Agree
3 No Opinion
4 Disagree
5 Strongly Disagree
Table 58: Response/Weight Matrix for SWPT Components

SaWaPaTa
Response
Virtual Strength Sv Virtual Weakness Wv Virtual Potential Pv Virtual Threat Tv
SA 2 -2 2 -2
A 1 -1 1 -1
NO 0 0 0 0
D -1 1 -1 1
SD -2 2 -2 2
Driving Forces (DF)
According to Lewin (1947), 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. However, they are
redefined for the purpose of this study to be the combined weighted sum of strengths (Sa)
and potentials (Pa) of each member subjected to SWPT analysis. These are positive forces
in the Force Field Analysis (FFA).
DF = Sa + Pa; where
Sa, is the weighted Strengths; and

Pa, is the weighted potentials.
Restraining Forces (RF)
According to Lewin (1947), 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. However, they are
redefined for the purpose of this study to be the combined weighted sum of weaknesses
(Wa) and threats (Ta) of each member subjected to SWPT analysis. These are negative
forces in the Force Field Analysis (FFA).
RF = Wa + Ta; where
Wa is the weighted Weaknesses; and
Ta is the weighted Threats.
Equilibrium State Vectors (ESV)
Vertical Equilibrium State Vector (ESV)v
Vertical equilibrium state vector is defined as the difference between vertical
driving forces and the vertical restraining forces. This vector is reflective of direct and
tangible productivity.
(ESV)v = (DF)v – (RF)v
Horizontal Equilibrium State Vector (ESV)h
This vector is a representative of personal compatibilities. That is to say, if the
personality classification of a manager is compatible with that of his/her peer, then, this
vector is considered strength (Sa). If personality classifications are not compatible, then
(ESV)h is considered a weakness (Wa). According to Bell (1973), compatible
personalities result in better job performance.
It is worth noting that both (ESV)h and (ESV)v vectors reflect Herzberg’s 2-factor
hygiene and motivation theory. This theory addresses the hygiene factors and motivators,
which was discussed in chapter 2 of this dissertation.

Manager 1 SWPT Analysis

Virtual Actual Weighted Vertical
Response
I’m: SWPT SWPT SWPT Forces
SA A D SD Sv Wv Pv Tv Sa Wa Pa Ta Sw Ww Pw Tw DF RF ES
1. Adaptable to situations (flexible) X X X 2 2 0 2
2. Ambitious and achievement-oriented X X X 2 2 0 2
3. Assertive (confidently aggressive or self- X X X 1 1 0 1
assured)
4. Cooperative X X X 1 1 0 1
5. Decisive (determined) X X X 2 2 2
6. Dependable (reliable) X X X 2 2 2
7. Dominant (desire to influence others) X X X -1 0 1 -1
8. Energetic (high activity level) X X X 1 1 0 1
9. Persistent (enduring) X X X 1 1 0 1
10. Self-confident (positive self-image) X X X 1 1 0 1
11. Tolerant of stress X X X 1 1 0 1
12. Willing to assume responsibility X X X 2 2 0 2
13. Sensitive to others (comforting, X X X 2 2 0 2
reassuring)

14. Considerate (attentive) X X X 1 1 0 1
15. Loyal to company X X X 2 2 0 2
16. Loyal to peers X X X 2 2 0 2
17. Loyal to boss X X X 2 2 0 2
18. Overly ambitious (thinking of next job, X X X 2 2 0 2

playing politics)
19. Overmanaging (unable to delegate or X X X 1 1 0 1

build a team)
20. Able to staff effectively X X X 1 1 0 1
21. Able to think strategically before acting X X X 1 1 0 1
22. Able to adapt to boss with different style X X X 1 1 0 1
23. Over dependent on advocate or mentor X X X 2 0 2 0 2
24. Clever (intelligent) X X X 1 1 0 1
25. Conceptually skilled X X X 1 1 0 1
26. Creative (original, imaginative) X X X 1 1 0 1
27. Diplomatic and tactful X X X 1 1 0 1

Table 59c: Manager 1 Character Traits and Skills

28. Fluent in speaking X X X 1 1 0 1
29. Knowledgeable about group task X X X 1 1 0 1
30. Organized (administrative ability) X X X 1 1 0 1
31. Persuasive (convincing, compelling) X X X 1 1 0 1
32. Socially skilled (sociable, gregarious) X X X 1 1 0 1
Manager 1 Character Traits and Skills--Driving Forces ( DF) 42
Manager 1 Character Traits and Skills--Restraining Forces ( RF) 1
Manager 1 Character Traits and Skills--ES ( DF- RF) 41


Virtual Actual Weighted Vertical Forces
Response
About myself SWPT SWPT SWPT
33. I’ve been a manager for this group for over X X X 2 2 2

2 years
34. My boss helps me succeed X X X 2 2 2
35. My boss trusts me X X X 2 2 2
36. It is very important to get along with my X X X 2 2 2

boss
37. My peers help me get work done X X X 1 1 1

efficiently

peers

employees
40. I’m usually promoted relatively quickly (in X X X 1 1 1

less than 2 years)
41. My subordinates are satisfied and X X X 1 1 1

committed to me

42. My functional/business unit is high X X X 1 1 1
Manager 1 Effectiveness--Driving Forces ( DF) 16
Manager 1 Effectiveness--Restraining Forces ( RF) 0
Manager 1 Effectiveness--ES ( DF- RF) 16
Table 61a: Manager 1 EQ

Response
I’ve the ability to: SWPT SWPT SWPT
43. Recognize and understand my moods, X X X 1 1

on others
44. Control or redirect disruptive impulses and X X X 1 1

moods
45. Understand the emotional makeup of other X X X 1 1

people
Table 61b: Manager 1 EQ

46. Treat people according to their emotional X X X -1 1
reactions
47. Manage relationships and build networks X X X 1 1
48. Find common ground and build rapport X X X 1 1
Manager 1 EQ--Driving Forces ( DF) 5
Manager 1 EQ--Restraining Forces ( RF) 1
Manager 1 EQ--ES ( DF- RF) 4

Table 62a: Manager 1 Personality Classification

Personality Classification
Strongly Strongly
I prefer to: Agree Disagree
Agree Disagree
Ach1 Avo2 Com3 Per4 Ple5 Att6
49. Control any situations confronted X X
50. Dominate every group X X
51. Live an orderly and systematic life X X
52. Depend on others X X
53. Avoid failures X X
54. Avoid conflicts X X
55. Stay out of troubles X X
56. Be liked X X
57. Be accepted X X
1 Achiever
2 Avoider
3 Commander
4 Performer
5 Pleaser
6 Attacker (Bell, 1973)
Table 62b: Manager 1 Personality Classification

58. Be validated X X
59. Gain prestige X X
60. Gain recognition X X
61. Maximize my potential X X
62. Reach the highest level of competence X X
63. Become self-fulfilled. X X
Manager 1 Personality Classification D1
Manager 1 is mainly an achiever who may get along with another achiever, performer, and/or a pleaser.
1 Dominant Personality

Response Forces
He/she is: SWPT SWPT SWPT
64. Adaptable to situations (flexible) X X X 1 1 1
65. Ambitious and achievement-oriented X X X 1 1 1
66. Assertive (confidently aggressive or self- X X X 1 1 1

assured)
67. Cooperative X X X 1 1 1
70. Dominant (desire to influence others) X X X 0 -1 0 1 -1
71. Energetic (high activity level) X X X 1 1 1
72. Persistent (enduring) X X X 1 1 1
73. Self-confident (positive self-image) X X X 1 1 1
74. Tolerant of stress X X X 1 1 1
75. Willing to assume responsibility X X X 1 1 1
76. Sensitive to others (comforting, reassuring) X X X 1 1 1


77. Considerate (attentive) X X X 1 1 1
78. Loyal to company X X X 1 1 1
79. Loyal to peers X X X 1 1 1
80. Loyal to boss X X X 1 1 1
81. Overly ambitious (thinking of next job, playing politics) X X X 2 0 2 2
82. Overmanaging (unable to delegate or build a team) X X X 1 1 1
83. Able to staff effectively X X X 1 1 1
84. Able to think strategically before acting X X X 1 1 1
85. Able to adapt to boss with different style X X X 1 1 1
86. Over dependent on advocate or mentor X X X 0 1 1 0 1
87. Clever (intelligent) X X X 1 1 1
88. Conceptually skilled X X X 1 1 1
89. Creative (original, imaginative) X X X 1 1 1
90. Diplomatic and tactful X X X 1 1 1
91. Fluent in speaking X X X 1 1 1


92. Knowledgeable about group task X X X 1 1 1
94. Persuasive (convincing, compelling) X X X 1 1 1
95. Socially skilled (sociable, gregarious) X X X 1 1 1
Manager 1 Best employee’s Traits and Skills--Driving Forces ( DF) 32
Manager 1 Best employee’s Traits and Skills--Restraining Forces ( RF) 1
Manager 1 Best employee’s Traits and Skills--ES ( DF- RF) 31
Table 64a: Manager 1 Best employee’s EQ

Response Forces
He/She has the ability to: SWPT SWPT SWPT
96. Recognize and understand his/her moods, X X X 1 1 1

emotions, and drives, as well as their effect on
others
97. Control or redirect disruptive impulses and X X X 1 1 1

moods
Table 64b: Manager 1 Best employee’s EQ

98. Understand the emotional makeup of other X X X 1 1 1
people
99. Treat people according to their emotional X X X 1 1 1

reactions
100. Manage relationships and build networks X X X 1 1 1
101. Find common ground and build rapport X X X 1 1 1
Manager 1 Best employee’s EQ--Driving Forces ( DF) 6
Manager 1 Best employee’s EQ--Restraining Forces ( RF) 0
Manager 1 Best employee’s EQ--ES ( DF- RF) 6
Table 65a: Manager 1 Best Employee’s Personality Classification

Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
Ach Avo Com Per Ple Att

Table 65b: Manager 1 Best Employee’s Personality Classification

109. Be liked X X
110. Be accepted X X
113. Gain recognition X x
Manager (1) Best employee’s Personality Classification D
Manager 1 Best employee is mainly an achiever who is compatible with his/her manager

Response
He/she prefers to: SWPT SWPT SWPT Forces
117.Control any situations confronted X X X 0 0 -1 0 1 -1
118.Ambitious and achievement-oriented X X X -2 0 0 2 -2
119. Assertive (confidently aggressive X X X -2 0 0 2 -2

or self-assured)
120.Cooperative X X X -2 0 0 2 -2
121.Decisive (determined) X X X -2 0 0 2 -2
122.Dependable (reliable) X X X -2 0 0 2 -2
123.Dominant (desire to influence others) X X X 2 0 0 2 0 2
124.Energetic (high activity level) X X X -2 0 0 2 -2
125.Persistent (enduring) X X X -2 0 0 2 -2
126.Self-confident (positive self-image) X X X 0 1 1 0 1
127.Tolerant of stress X X X 0 1 1 0 1
128.Willing to assume responsibility X X X 0 0 -1 0 1 -1


129.Sensitive to others (comforting, X X X 0 0 -1 0 1 -1
reassuring)
130.Considerate (attentive) X X X 0 0 -1 0 1 -1
131.Loyal to company X X X 0 1 1 0 1
132.Loyal to peers X X X 0 1 1 0 1
133.Loyal to boss X X X 0 1 1 0 1
134.Overly ambitious (thinking of next job, X X X 2 0 0 2 0 2

playing politics)
135.Overmanaging (unable to delegate or build X X X 0 1 1 0 1

a team)
136.Able to staff effectively X X X 0 0 -1 0 1 -1
137.Able to think strategically before acting X X X 0 0 -1 0 1 -1
138.Able to adapt to boss with different style X X X 0 0 -1 0 1 -1
139.Over dependent on advocate or mentor X X X 0 1 1 0 1
140.Clever (intelligent) X X X 0 1 1 0 1
141.Conceptually skilled X X X 0 1 1 0 1
142.Creative (original, imaginative) X X X 0 1 1 0 1


143.Diplomatic and tactful X X X 0 1 1 0 1
144.Fluent in speaking X X X 0 1 1 0 1
145.Knowledgeable about group task X X X 0 1 1 0 1
146.Organized (administrative ability) X X X 0 1 1 0 1
147.Persuasive (convincing, compelling) X X X 0 1 1 0 1
148.Socially skilled (sociable, gregarious) X X X 0 1 1 0 1
Manager 1 Poorest Employee’s Traits and Skills--Driving Forces ( DF) 20
Manager 1 Poorest Employee’s Traits and Skills--Restraining Forces ( RF) 21
Manager 1 Poorest Employee’s Traits and Skills--ES ( DF- RF) -1


Response
He/She has the Ability to: SWPT SWPT SWPT Forces
149.Recognize and understand his/her moods, X X X 2 2 2

on others
150.Control or redirect disruptive impulses and X X X 1 1 1

moods
151.Understand the emotional makeup of other X X X 1 1 1

people
152.Treat people according to their emotional X X X 1 1 1

reactions
153.Manage relationships and build networks X X X 1 1 1
154.Find common ground and build rapport X X X 1 1 1
Manager 1 Poorest Employee’s EQ Driving Forces ( DF) 7
Manager 1 Poorest Employee’s EQ--Restraining Forces ( RF) 0
Manager 1 Poorest Employee’s EQ--ES ( DF- RF) 7

Table 68a: Manager 1 Poorest Employee’s Personality Classification

Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
155.Control any situations confronted X X
156.Dominate every group X X
157.Live an orderly and systematic life X X
158.Depend on others X X
159.Avoid failures X X
160.Avoid conflicts X X
161.Stay out of troubles X X
162.Be liked X X
163.Be accepted X X
164.Be validated X X
165.Gain prestige X X
166.Gain recognition X X
167.Maximize my potential X X
Table 68b: Manager 1 Poorest Employee’s Personality Classification

168.Reach the highest level of competence X X
169.Become self-fulfilled. X X
Manager 1 Poorest employee--Personality Classification D
Manager 1 Poorest employee is mainly a Performer who is compatible with his/her manager
Table 69a: Manager 1 Best Peer Personality Classification
Strongly Strongly
He/She prefers to: Agree Disagree Personality Classification
Agree Disagree
Table 69b: Manager 1 Best Peer Personality Classification

177.Be liked X X
178.Be accepted X X
182.Maximize his/her potential X X
Manager 1 Best Peer--Personality Classification D
Manager 1 Best Peer Personality is mainly an achiever who may be compatible with his/her manager.
Table 70a: Manager 1 Poorest Peer’s Personality Classification
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
192.Be liked X X
193.Be accepted X X
Table 70b: Manager 1 Poorest Peer’s Personality Classification

Manager 1 poorest Peer--Personality classification D
Manager 1 poorest Peer’s Personality is mainly a commander who may not be compatible with Manager 1.
Table 71a: Manager 1 Boss’s Personality Classification
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
Table 71b: Manager 1 Boss’s Personality Classification

207.Be liked X X
208.Be accepted X X
Manager 1 Boss--Personality Classification D
Manager 1 Boss’s dominant personality is mainly an achiever, which is compatible with Manager 1.

Response
I’m: SWPT SWPT SWPT Forces
assured)
5. Decisive (determined) X X X -1 0 1 -1
6. Dependable (reliable) X X X 2 2 0 2

13. Sensitive to others (comforting, X X X 1 1 1
reassuring)
18. Overly ambitious (thinking of next job, X X X 1 1 1

playing politics)
19. Overmanaging (unable to delegate or build X X X 1 1 1

a team)
23. Over dependent on advocate or mentor X X X 1 1 1


30. Organized (administrative ability) X X X 2 2 2
Manager 2 Character Traits and Skills--driving Forces ( DF) 38
Manager 2 Character Traits and Skills--ES ( DF- RF) 36


Response
About Myself SWPT SWPT SWPT Forces
33. I’ve been a manager for this group for over 2 X X X 2 2 2

years
34. My boss helps me succeed X X X -1 1 -1
35. My boss trusts me X X X 1 1 1
36. It is very important to get along with my boss X X X 1 1 1
37. My peers help me get work done efficiently X X X 1 1 1

peers

employees
40. I’m usually promoted relatively quickly (in X X X -1 1 -1

less than 2 years)
41. My subordinates are satisfied and committed X X X 1 1 1

to me


Manager 2 Effectiveness-- DF 10
Manager 2 Effectiveness-- RF 2
Manager 2 Effectiveness--ES= DF - RF 8
Table 74a: Manager 2 EQ

I’ve the ability to: Response
SWPT SWPT SWPT Forces
43. Recognize and understand my moods, X X X 1 1 1

others
44. Control or redirect disruptive impulses and X X X -1 0 1 -1

moods

people

reactions

Table 74b: Manager 2 EQ

48. Find common ground and build rapport X x X 1 1 1
Manager 2 EQ-- DF 5
Manager 2 EQ-- RF 1
Manager 2 EQ--ES= DF- RF 4
Strongly Strongly
I prefer to: Agree Disagree Personality Classification
Agree Disagree


56. Be liked X X
57. Be accepted X X
Manager 2 Personality Classification D
Manager 2 is mainly an achiever who gets along with a Performer or a Pleaser


Response Forces
He/she is: SWPT SWPT SWPT

assured)
68. Decisive (determined) X X X 1 1 0 1
69. Dependable (reliable) X X X 1 1 0 1
74. Tolerant of stress X X X -1 0 1 -1
75. Willing to assume responsibility X X X 2 2 0 2


76. Sensitive to others (comforting, reassuring) X X 1 0 0 1
79. Loyal to peers X X X 1 1 0 1
80. Loyal to boss X X X 1 1 0 1
81. Overly ambitious (thinking of next job, playing politics) X X X 1 1 0 1
82. Overmanaging (unable to delegate or build a team) X X X -1 0 1 -1
83. Able to staff effectively X X X -1 0 1 -1
86. Over dependent on advocate or mentor X X X -1 0 1 -1
90. Diplomatic and tactful X X X 1 1 0 1
91. Fluent in speaking X X X 1 1 0 1


95. Socially skilled (sociable, gregarious) X X X 2 2 0 2
Manager 2 Best Employee’s Character Traits and Skills--Driving Forces ( DF) 32
Manager 2 Best Employee’s Character Traits and Skills--Restraining Forces ( RF) 5
Manager 2 Best Employee’s Traits and Skills--ES= DF- RF 27
Table 77a: Manager 2 Best Employee’s EQ

Response Forces
He/She has the ability to: SWPT SWPT SWPT

others
Table 77b: Manager 2 Best Employee’s EQ

97. Control or redirect disruptive impulses and X X X -1 0 1 -1
moods

people

reactions
Manager 2 Best Employee’s EQ-- DF 6
Manager 2 Best Employee’s EQ-- RF 1
Manager 2 Best Employee’s EQ--ES= DF - RF 5
Table 78a: Manager 2 Best Employee’s Personality Classification

Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree

Table 78b: Manager 2 Best Employee’s Personality Classification

109. Be liked X X
Manager 2 Best Employee--Personality Classification D
This best employee is an achiever who is compatible with Manager 2


Response
He/She is: SWPT SWPT SWPT
117. Control any situations confronted X X X 1 1 0 1
119. Assertive (confidently aggressive X X X 1 1 0 1

or self-assured)
120. Cooperative X X X -1 0 1 -1
121. Decisive (determined) X X X 1 1 0 1
122. Dependable (reliable) X X X -1 0 1 -1
127. Tolerant of stress X X X -2 0 2 -2
128. Willing to assume responsibility X X X -1 0 1 -1


129. Sensitive to others (comforting, X X X -1 0 1 -1
reassuring)
132. Loyal to peers X X X -1 0 1 -1
133. Loyal to boss X X X -1 0 1 -1
134. Overly ambitious (thinking of next job, X X X -2 0 2 -2

playing politics)
135. Overmanaging (unable to delegate or X X X -2 2 -2

build a team)
136. Able to staff effectively X X X -1 0 1 -1
137. Able to think strategically before acting X X X -2 0 2 -2
138. Able to adapt to boss with different style X X X -1 0 1 -1
139. Over dependent on advocate or mentor X X X 1 1 0 1


143. Diplomatic and tactful X X X -1 0 1 -1
144. Fluent in speaking X X 1 0 1
146. Organized (administrative ability) X X X -2 2 -2
148. Socially skilled (sociable, gregarious) X X X -1 0 1 -1
Manager 2 Poorest Employee’s Traits and Skills--Driving Forces ( DF) 18
Manager 2 Poorest Employee’s Traits and Skills--Restraining Forces ( RF) 22


He/She has the Ability to: Response
SWPT SWPT SWPT
149. Recognize and understand his/her moods, X X X -2 2 -2

on others
150. Control or redirect disruptive impulses and X X X -1 1 -1

moods
151. Understand the emotional makeup of other X X X -1 1 -1

people
152. Treat people according to their emotional X X X -1 1 -1

reactions
154. Find common ground and build rapport X x X -1 1 -1
Manager 2 Poorest Employee’s EQ-- ( DF) 1
Manager 2 Poorest Employee’s EQ-- ( RF) 6
Manager 2 Poorest Employee’s EQ--ES ( DF- RF) -5


Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
162. Be liked X X


Manager 2 Poorest Employee--Personality Classification D
This employee seems to be an Avoider and it may be difficult to get along with Manager 2.
Table 82a: Manager 2 Best Peer Personality Classification
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree

Table 82b: Manager 2 Best Peer Personality Classification

177. Be liked X X
182. Maximize his/her potential X X
Manager 2 Best Peer—Personality Classification D
This Best Peer is mainly an achiever and He/she is compatible with Manager 2.
Table 83a: Manager 2 Poorest Peer’s Personality Classification
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
192. Be liked X X

Table 83b: Manager 2 Poorest Peer’s Personality Classification

This employee is mainly an Avoider. He/she is not compatible with Manager 2.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree


207. Be liked X X
Manager 2 Boss’s personality is mainly that of an achiever, which is compatible with Manager 2.

I’m: Response
SWPT SWPT SWPT
Question SA A D SD Sv Wv Pv Tv Sa Wa Pa Ta Sw Ww Pw Tw DF RF ES
assured)
7. Dominant (desire to influence others) X X X -1 1 -1

13. Sensitive to others (comforting, X X X 1 1 1
reassuring)

playing politics)
19. Overmanaging (unable to delegate or X X X 2 2 2

build a team)


Manager 3 Character Traits and Skills--Driving Forces ( DF) 49
Manager 3 Character Traits and Skills-ES ( DF- RF) 48

Response
About Myself: SWPT SWPT SWPT Forces
33. I’ve been a manager for this group for X X X 2 2 2

over 2 years

34. My boss helps me succeed X X X 1 1
1
35. My boss trusts me X X X 1 1
1
36. It is very important to get along with my X X X 1 1
boss 1
37. My peers help me get work done X X X 1 1

efficiently 1

peers 1

employees 1
40. I’m usually promoted relatively quickly X X X -1 0 1 -1

(in less than 2 years)
41. My subordinates are satisfied and X X X 1 1 1

committed to me

Manager 3 Effectiveness--( DF) 11
Manager 3 Effectiveness --( RF) 1
Manager 3 Effectiveness -- ES ( DF- RF) 10


Response
I’ve the ability to: SWPT SWPT SWPT Forces
43. Recognize and understand my moods, X X X 2 2 2

on others

moods

people

reactions
Manager 3 EQ-- ( DF) 9
Manager 3 EQ-- ( RF) 0
Manager 3 EQ--ES ( DF- RF) 9


Strongly Strongly
I prefer to: Agree Disagree
Agree Disagree
56. Be liked X X
57. Be accepted X X


Classification D
Manager 3 is an achiever who may get along with performers and pleasers

Response
He/she is: SWPT SWPT SWPT Forces

assured)


70. Dominant (desire to influence others) X X X -1 1 -1
76. Sensitive to others (comforting, reassuring) X X X 2 2 2

playing politics)
82. Overmanaging (unable to delegate or build X X X 1 1 1

a team)


Manager 3 Best Employee’s Traits and Skills-- ( DF) 46
Manager 3 Best Employee’s Traits and Skills-- ( RF) 1
Manager 3 Best Employee’s Traits and Skills--ES ( DF- RF) 45


He/she has the ability to: Response

on others

moods

people

reactions
101. Find common ground and build rapport X x X 2 2 2
Manager 3 Best Employee’s EQ-- ( DF) 8
Manager 3 Best Employee’s EQ-- ( RF) 0
Manager 3 Best Employee’s EQ--ES ( DF- RF) 8

Table 91a: Manager 3 Best Employee’s Personality

Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
109. Be liked X X

Table 91b: Manager 3 Best Employee’s Personality

Manager 3 Best employee--Personality Classification D
Manager 3 Best employee is basically an achiever and is compatible with his/her manager

Response
He/She is: SWPT SWPT SWPT Forces
117.Control any situations confronted X X X -1 1 -1
118.Ambitious and achievement-oriented X X X -1 1 -1
119.Assertive (confidently aggressive or self- X X X 2 2 2

assured)
120.Cooperative X X X -1 1 -1
121.Decisive (determined) X X X -1 1 -1

122.Dependable (reliable) X X X -1 1 -1
123.Dominant (desire to influence others) X X X -2 2 -2
124.Energetic (high activity level) X X X 1 1 1
125.Persistent (enduring) X X X -1 1 -1
126.Self-confident (positive self-image) X X X 1 1 1
127.Tolerant of stress X X X -1 1 -1
128.Willing to assume responsibility X X X -2 2 -2
129.Sensitive to others (comforting, X X X -2 2 -2

reassuring)
130.Considerate (attentive) X X X -1 1 -1
131.Loyal to company X X X -2 2 -2
132.Loyal to peers X X X -2 2 -2
133.Loyal to boss X X X -2 2 -2
134.Overly ambitious (thinking of next job, X X X -1 1 -1

playing politics)
135.Overmanaging (unable to delegate or X X X -2 2 -2

build a team)

136.Able to staff effectively X X X -2 2 -2
137.Able to think strategically before acting X X X -1 1 -1
138.Able to adapt to boss with different style X X X -1 1 -1
139.Over dependent on advocate or mentor X X X 1 1 1
140.Clever (intelligent) X X X 1 1 1
141.Conceptually skilled X X X 1 1 1
142.Creative (original, imaginative) X X X 1 1 1
143.Diplomatic and tactful X X X -2 2 -2
144.Fluent in speaking X X X -1 1 -1
145.Knowledgeable about group task X X X 1 1 1
146.Organized (administrative ability) X X X -2 2 -2
147.Persuasive (convincing, compelling) X X X -2 2 -2
148.Socially skilled (sociable, gregarious) X X X 1 1 1
Manager 3 Poorest Employee’s Traits and Skills-- ( DF) 10
Manager 3 Poorest Employee’s Traits and Skills-- ( RF) 34


Response
He/She has the ability to: SWPT SWPT SWPT Forces
149.Recognize and understand his/her moods, X X X -2 2 -2

on others
150.Control or redirect disruptive impulses and X X X -2 2 -2

moods
151.Understand the emotional makeup of other X X X 1 1 1

people
152.Treat people according to their emotional X X X 1 1 1

reactions
153.Manage relationships and build networks X X X -1 1 -1
154.Find common ground and build rapport X X X -1 1 -1
Manager 3 Poorest Employee’s EQ--Driving Forces ( DF) 2
Manager 3 Poorest Employee’s EQ--Restraining Forces ( RF) 6
Manager 3 Poorest Employee’s EQ--ES ( DF- RF) -4


Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
162. Be liked X X


Manager 3 Poorest employee—Personality Classification D
This employee is mainly a Performer and is compatible with Manager 3.
Table 95a: Manager 3 Best Peer Personality
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree

Table 95b: Manager 3 Best Peer Personality

177. Be liked X X
Manager 3 Best Peer—Personality Classification D
This Best Peer is mainly an achiever who is compatible with Manager 3.

Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
192. Be liked X X


This Peer’s Personality is that of a commander, which is not compatible with his/her Manager 3.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree


207. Be liked X X
This Boss is mainly a Pleaser and is compatible with Manager 3.

Virtual Best-Fit Manager SWPT Analysis
Table 98a: VBM Traits and Skills

I’m: Response
Question SA A D SD Sv Wv Pv Tv Sa Wa Pa Ta Sw Ww Pw Tw DF RF ES
1. X X X 2 2 2
2. X X X 2 2 2
3. X X X 2 2 2
4. X X X 2 2 2
5. X X X 2 2 2
6. X X X 2 2 2
7. X X X 0 -2 2 -2
8. X X X 2 2 2
9. X X X 2 2 2
10. X X X 2 2 2
11. X X X 2 2 2
Table 98b: VBM Traits and Skills

12. X X X 2 2 2
13. X X X 2 2 2
14. X X X 2 2 2
15. X X X 2 2 2
16. X X X 2 2 2
17. X X X 2 2 2
18. X X X 0 -2 2 -2
19. X X X 0 -2 2 -2
20. X X X 2 2 2
21. X X X 2 2 2
22. X X X 2 2 2
23. X X X 0 -2 2 -2
24. X X X 2 2 2
25. X X X 2 2 2
26. X X X 2 2 2
27. X X X 2 2 2
Table 98c: VBM Traits and Skills

28. X X X 2 2 2
29. X X X 2 2 2
30. X X X 2 2 2
31. X X X 2 2 2
32. X X X 2 2 2
Total Virtual Best-Fit Manager traits and Skills--Driving Forces DF 56
Total Virtual Best-Fit Manager traits and Skills--Restraining Forces RF 8
Total Virtual Best-Fit Manager traits and Skills ESV-- DF- RF 48
Table 99a: Virtual Best-Fit Manager Effectiveness

Response
33. X X X 2 2 0 2
34. X X X 2 2 0 2
35. X X X 2 2 0 2
Table 99b: Virtual Best-Fit Manager Effectiveness

36. X X X 2 2 0 2
37. X X X 2 2 0 2
38. X X X 2 2 0 2
39. X X X 2 2 0 2
40. X X X 0 -2 0 2 -2
41. X X X 2 2 0 2
42. X X X 2 2 0 2
Total Virtual Best-Fit Manager Effectiveness Driving Forces ( DF) 18
Total Virtual Best-Fit Manager Effectiveness Restraining Forces ( RF) 2
Total Virtual Best-Fit Manager Effectiveness ESV-- ( DF- RF) 16

Table 100: Virtual Best-Fit Manager EQ

I’ve the Virtual Actual Weighted Vertical
ability to: Response
43. X X X 2 2 0 2
44. X X X 2 2 0 2
45. X X X 2 2 0 2
46. X X X 2 2 0 2
47. X X X 2 2 0 2
48. X X X 2 2 2
Total Virtual Best-Fit Manager EQ Driving Forces ( DF) 12
Total Virtual Best-Fit Manager EQ restraining Forces ( RF) 0
Total Virtual Best-Fit Manager EQ ESV-- ( DF- RF) 12

Conclusions for Company 1
The following tables summarize the ESVs for Company 1 participants:
Table 101a: Summary of Company 1 Participants’ Character Traits and Skills

Manager Best Poorest
VBM
1 employee employee
Character Traits and Skills Questions
ESV
ESV ESV ESV
1. Adaptable to situations (flexible) 2 2 1 -1
2. Ambitious and achievement-oriented 2 2 1 -2
3. Assertive (confidently aggressive or self- 2 1 1 -2

assured)
4. Cooperative 2 1 1 -2
5. Decisive (determined) 2 2 1 -2
6. Dependable (reliable) 2 2 1 -2
7. Dominant (desire to influence others) -2 -1 -1 2
8. Energetic (high activity level) 2 1 1 -2
9. Persistent (enduring) 2 1 1 -2
10. Self-confident (positive self-image) 2 1 1 1
11. Tolerant of stress 2 1 1 1
12. Willing to assume responsibility 2 2 1 -1
13. Sensitive to others (comforting, reassuring) 2 2 1 -1
14. Considerate (attentive) 2 2 1 -1
15. Loyal to company 2 2 1 1

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

16. Loyal to peers 2 2 1 1
17. Loyal to boss 2 2 1 1
18. Overly ambitious (thinking of next job, playing

-2 2 2 2
politics)
19. Over managing (unable to delegate or build a

-2 1 1 1
team)
20. Able to staff effectively 2 1 1 -1
21. Able to think strategically before acting 2 1 1 -1
22. Able to adapt to boss with different style 2 1 1 -1
23. Over dependent on advocate or mentor -2 2 -1 1
24. Clever (intelligent) 2 1 1 1
25. Conceptually skilled 2 1 1 1
26. Creative (original, imaginative) 2 1 1 1
27. Diplomatic and tactful 2 1 1 1
28. Fluent in speaking 2 1 1 1
29. Knowledgeable about group task 2 1 1 1
30. Organized (administrative ability) 2 1 2 1
31. Persuasive (convincing, compelling) 2 1 1 1
32. Socially skilled (sociable, gregarious) 2 1 1 1
Total Character Traits and Skills ESV for Company

48 41 31 -1
1
Marginal Tabulation 100 85 65 0

Manager 1 and his best employee character traits and skills ESV are between 65%
and 85% when compared to that of VBM. It seems that the poorest employee does not
have the required character traits and skills necessary to do the job.
Table 102: Summary of Company 1 Participants’ EQ

VBM Manager Best Poorest
1 Employee Employee
EQ Questions
ESV
ESV ESV ESV
43. Recognize and understand my moods, emotions, 2 1 1 2

44. Control or redirect disruptive impulses and 2 1 1 1

moods
45. Understand the emotional makeup of other 2 1 1 1

people
46. Treat people according to their emotional 2 -1 1 1

reactions
47. Manage relationships and build networks 2 1 1 1
48. Find common ground and build rapport 2 1 1 1
Total EQ ESV 12 4 6 7
Manager 1 EQ ESV is 33%, his best employee EQ ESV is 50%, and the poorest
employee’s EQ ESV is 58%.

Table 103: Summary of Company 1 Participants’ Personality Classifications

Personality Classification Compatibility
Company 1 Participants
Ach1 Avo2 Com3 Per4 Ple5 Att6 Yes No
Manager 1 X X
Best Employee X X
Poorest Employee X X
Best Peer X X
Poorest Peer X X
Manager 1 Boss X X
Manager 1, best employee, best peer, poorest employee, and his/her boss have
compatible personalities. Poorest peer personality is incompatible with the manager.
1 Achiever
2 Avoider
3 Commander
4 Performer
5 Pleaser
Table 104: Summary of Company 1 ES Vectors

Vertical ESV Horizontal ESV
Traits and Effectiveness EQ Personality Classification
Skills
Manager 1 42 16 4 Achiever
VBM 48 16 12 Compatible
Manager 1 best employee 31 - 6 Compatible
Manager 1 poorest employee -1 - 7 Compatible
Manager 1 best peer - - - Compatible
Manager 1 poorest peer - - - Not Compatible
Manager 1 boss - - - Compatible


VBM
Character Traits and Skills Questions 2 Employee Employee
ESV
ESV ESV ESV
1. Adaptable to situations (flexible) 2 1 2 1
2. Ambitious and achievement-oriented 2 2 2 1
3. Assertive (confidently aggressive or self-
2 1 1 1
assured)
5. Decisive (determined) 2 -1 1 1
7. Dominant (desire to influence others) -2 -1 -1 -2
8. Energetic (high activity level) 2 1 2 1
9. Persistent (enduring) 2 1 1 1
11. Tolerant of stress 2 1 -1 -2
14. Considerate (attentive) 2 1 1 1
15. Loyal to company 2 2 1 2
16. Loyal to peers 2 1 1 -1

17. Loyal to boss 2 1 1 -1
18. Overly ambitious (thinking of next job,

-2 1 1 -2
playing politics)
19. Overmanaging (unable to delegate or build a

-2 1 -1 -2
team)
20. Able to staff effectively 2 1 -1 -1
23. Over dependent on advocate or mentor -2 1 -1 1
27. Diplomatic and tactful 2 1 1 -1
28. Fluent in speaking 2 1 1 1
30. Organized (administrative ability) 2 2 1 -2
31. Persuasive (convincing, compelling) 2 1 1 1
32. Socially skilled (sociable, gregarious) 2 1 2 -1
Total 48 36 26 -5

Manager 2 and his best employee character traits and skills ESV are > 50% when
compared to that of VBM. It seems that the poorest employee does not have the required
character traits and skills necessary to do the job.
Table 106: Summary of Company 2 Participants’ EQ

VBM Manager Best Poorest
EQ Questions
2 Employee Employee
43. Recognize and understand my moods, emotions,

2 1 1 -2
44. Control or redirect disruptive impulses and

2 -1 -1 -1
moods
45. Understand the emotional makeup of other

2 1 1 -1
people

2 1 1 -1
reactions
47. Manage relationships and build networks 2 1 1 1
48. Find common ground and build rapport 2 1 2 -1
Total 12 4 5 -5
employee’s EQ ESV is zero.

Table 107: Summary of Company 2 Participants’ Personality Classifications

Personality Classification Compatibility
Ach1 Avo2 Com3 Per4 Ple5 Att6 Yes No
Manager 2 X
Best Employee X X
Poorest Employee X X
Best Peer X X
Poorest Peer X X
Manager 2 Boss X X
Manager 2, best employee, best peer, and his/her boss have compatible
personalities. Poorest employee and poorest peer personalities are incompatible with the
manager.
1 Achiever
2 Avoider
3 Commander
4 Performer
5 Pleaser

Company 2 Participants Traits and Effectiveness EQ Personality

Skills Classification
Manager 2 poorest employee -5 - -5 Not Compatible


VBM
3 Employee Employee
Character Traits and Skills Questions
ESV
ESV ESV ESV
1. Adaptable to situations (flexible) 2 2 2 -1
2. Ambitious and achievement-oriented 2 2 2 -1
3. Assertive (confidently aggressive or self-

2 2 2 2
assured)
5. Decisive (determined) 2 2 2 -1
7. Dominant (desire to influence others) -2 -1 -1 -2
8. Energetic (high activity level) 2 2 2 1
9. Persistent (enduring) 2 1 1 -1
11. Tolerant of stress 2 2 2 -1
14. Considerate (attentive) 2 2 2 -1
15. Loyal to company 2 2 2 -2


16. Loyal to peers 2 2 2 -2
17. Loyal to boss 2 2 2 -2
18. Overly ambitious (thinking of next job,

-2 1 1 -1
playing politics)
19. Overmanaging (unable to delegate or build a

-2 2 1 -2
team)
20. Able to staff effectively 2 1 1 -2
23. Over dependent on advocate or mentor -2 1 1 1
27. Diplomatic and tactful 2 1 1 -2
28. Fluent in speaking 2 1 1 -1
30. Organized (administrative ability) 2 2 1 -2
31. Persuasive (convincing, compelling) 2 1 1 -2
32. Socially skilled (sociable, gregarious) 2 2 1 1
Total 48 48 45 -24

Manager 3 and his best employee character traits and skills ESV are > 90% when
compared to its qualitative counterpart. It seems that the poorest employee does not have
the required character traits and skills necessary to do the job.
Table 110:Summary of Company 3 Participants’ EQ

VBM
3 Employee Employee
ESV
ESV ESV ESV
43. Recognize and understand my moods, emotions,

2 2 1 -2
44. Control or redirect disruptive impulses and

2 1 1 -2
moods
45. Understand the emotional makeup of other

2 2 1 1
people

2 1 1 1
reactions
47. Manage relationships and build networks 2 1 2 -1
48. Find common ground and build rapport 2 2 2 -1
Total 12 9 8 -4
employee’s EQ ESV is zero.


Traits and Skills Effectiveness EQ Personality
Classification
Manager 3 poorest employee -24 - -4 Compatible
Conclusions for All Participants
The following tables summarize the findings for all participants from the three
companies:
Table 112a: Summary of All Managers’ Effectiveness

VBM Manager 1 Manager 2 Manager 3
ESV ESV ESV ESV
33. I’ve been a manager for this group for over 2 years 2 2 2 2
34. My boss helps me succeed 2 2 -1 1
35. My boss trusts me 2 2 1 1

Table 112b: Summary of All Managers’ Effectiveness

36. It is very important to get along with my boss 2 2 1 1
37. My peers help me get work done efficiently 2 1 1 1
38. It is very important to get along with my peers 2 2 2 1
39. It is very important to get along with my employees 2 2 1 1
40. I’m usually promoted relatively quickly (in less than 2

-2 1 -1 -1
years)
41. My subordinates are satisfied and committed to me 2 1 1 1
42. My functional/business unit is high performing

2 1 1 2
(productive)
Total Effectiveness ESV for 3 Companies 16 16 8 10
Marginal Tabulation 100 100 50 62.5
Number of years with the Company 28 14 22
It seems that manager’s effectiveness is directly proportional to the time of
service with the company.

Table 113a: Comparison of Character Traits and Skills ESV1 of all managers
Managers ESV1 Marginal Tabulation %
VBM 48 100
Manager 1 41 85
Manager 2 36 75
Manager 3 48 100
All managers have a high degree of character traits and skills, which is > 75%.
Table 114: Comparison of Effectiveness ESV2 of all managers
VBM 16 100
Manager 1 16 100
Manager 2 8 50
Manager 3 10 62.5
All managers have varied degrees of effectiveness that vary from 62.5 to 100%.
Table 115: Comparison of EQ ESV3 of all managers
VBM 12 100
Manager 1 4 33
Manager 2 4 33
Manager 3 9 75
Considering the time of employment of these managers with their companies and
their personality classification (achievers), EQ values do not add anything of value. One
explanation is that Goleman (2001) did not include first line and middle management in
his research. His research findings are applicable only to CEOs.
Table 116: Comparison of Total Vertical ESV of all managers
Managers ESV1+ESV2+ESV3 Marginal Tabulation %
VBM 76 100
Manager 1 61 80
Manager 2 48 63
Manager 3 67 88
The total vertical ESV varies from 63 to 88% when EQ values are included. However,
they vary from 73 to 97% if we exclude EQ ESV values.

General Observations
Each and every questionnaire provided answers to all four variables of interest. It
seems that the participants had no problems with the questions. Neither emails nor phone
calls were received expressing difficulties and/or discomfort with the questionnaires. It
also seems that the index measure instrument did what was intended with the selected
sample.
The most striking finding is that all managers in this sample have a personality
classification of “Achievers” according to Bell (1973). All managers possess high
degrees of character traits and skills, effectiveness, and somewhat questionable degrees
of EQ as defined by Goleman (2001). Poorest employees of all managers either do not
have the required character traits and skills necessary for the job, or that their personality
classifications are not compatible with their managers’, and/or both.
Qualitative and quantitative findings are convergent in three out of the four
variables under study. The variable that did not enjoy such convergence is EQ as defined
by Goleman (2001). More discussion on this variable will be covered in chapter 5 of this
dissertation. Aside from the small sample size, Goleman’s research findings are
meaningless in this study since his research did not cover first line and middle
management.
Best-fit Manager Characteristics
Based on the above results and analyses, it seems that the characteristics of the
best-fit manager for a functional/business unit are high degrees of vertical and horizontal
equilibrium state vectors that extend over three ESVs, which are:
1. Character traits and skills;
3. Personality classifications
These vectors vary from one company to another as supported by the above
results. It also seems that every participating manager has all three characteristics;
however, they exist in varied degrees dependent upon the company they work for and the
people they work with.

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Problem
Every now and then, a need arises to find a manager for a functional/business
unit. Companies have a choice of either hiring an insider, by promoting from within, or
an outsider from external labor markets. 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 biases. The study complements the work of
Leontiades (1982) and picks up where he left off. It addresses his research limitations as
shown in the literature review chapter.
This research has also built 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 aligns
with the company’s overall strategy. It is believed that 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 is 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, would lead to increases in
organizational effectiveness, synergism, goal congruence, interpersonal competence and
productivity. It is also believed that the return on investment for those companies that
adopt this approach of management selection would be great due to savings in training,
increased productivity, and eliminating some reasons of employees’ absenteeism and
demoralization.
Literature Review
Hurley, Wally, Scandura, and 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." Research 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
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.
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
your company.” 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 is based on four stages of growth: single business,
dominant business, related businesses, and unrelated businesses. Management style is
divided along two basically different philosophies of managing: steady state and
evolutionary.
This researcher targets Leontiades’ limits of his models head-on. His study
limitations were:
The models do not deal with personality traits of managers or the fit of an
individual’s personality with the corporate culture, although these factors may preclude
any further consideration of a person for employment.
The models also cannot 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 candidate’s entrepreneurial temperament and drive. In essence,
this researcher complements Leontiades models by addressing his study limitations and
adding necessary and important human qualities to enhance the management selection
models that he proposed.
suitability of six candidates applying for a managerial vacancy. According to Cook and
Emler (1993), personality differences are reliably associated with leadership potential as
perceived by others. However, research on managerial careers shows that the upward
mobility of managers in organizations is predictably related to their personality. This is

one of the reasons that this study involved not only the potential manager supervisor and
his employees, but also his future peers in selecting the best-fit manager for a functional
or a business unit.
promotion decisions. According to them, Promotions are judgmental decisions; they are
often based on ambiguous criteria and 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. They also indicated that systematic research on promotion decisions
is important because it bears on at least three managerial concerns: organizational
effectiveness, equal employment opportunity, and career development and planning.
London and Stumpf (1983) 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. Equal to, if not more
important than past performance is one's potential to perform at the next
managerial level. Assessment center and supervisory management potential ratings
have been designed to identify managerial potential in several large firms. Other
factors often suggested as influencing promotions include political influence,
seniority, equal employment opportunity (EEO) guidelines or an affirmative action
program, and the match between the individual's prior experience and the job
requirements. The decision to promote from within is often company policy, which
eliminates external candidates from serious consideration until it is clear that no internal
candidates are suitable for the position.
centers in five telephone companies. 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 ex-
tensively 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 of
management positions.
This researcher agrees with the authors’ conclusions that assessment center
method can be used in managerial selection and that it is a valuable technique for
discovering candidates with management potential. In actuality, this proposal
complements their work by considering managers that exhibit such potential when
assessed.
communication style are also assessed through paper and pencil instruments.
obtained by Robertson & Makin (1986) in 1984.

management positions in a cabinet-level US federal department over a 12-year period.
McKenna’s research discusses whether high-performance competencies could be
management selection. It argues that attempts to do this are overly simplistic and
ultimately meaningless. This researcher agrees with McKenna in that the best-fit manager
for a functional/business unit does not mean that he/she is the best-fit manager for every
functional/business unit.
Motives and Behavior
People have many needs, all of which are continually competing for their
behavior. There are some people who are driven mainly by money, others who are
concerned with security, and so on. An important role of a manager is to make some
predictions about which motives seem to be more prominent among his/her employees.
According to Maslow, these motives are those that are still not satisfied. If we are to
understand, predict, and control future behavior, we must know what our employees
really want from their jobs.
In assessing needs, managers must know their people to understand what
motivates them without making any assumptions. People act based on their perceptions
of reality and not on reality itself. When managers satisfy their employees’ needs, they
can often increase their effectiveness.

McClelland’s concept of achievement motivation is related to Herzberg’s
motivation-hygiene theory (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark & Lowell, 1953). People with
high achievement motivation tend to be interested in the motivators (the task itself).
Achievement-motivated people want feedback. They want to know how well they are
doing on their job. However, people with low achievement motivation are more
concerned about the hygiene (environment). They want to know how people feel about
them rather than how well they are doing.
Mayo addressed the social needs of workers. Herzberg - 2 factor hygiene and
motivation theory discussed the task environment (Hygiene), which reflects satisfying the
lower needs and his motivators address the higher needs in Maslow’s hierarchy.
McGregor divided Maslow’s hierarchy into two extreme zones, i.e. X (low) and Y (high).
Argyris filled in the region between these extremes by introducing behavior patterns “A
and B” and Maturity-Immaturity continuum.
In summary, empirical research studies suggest that leadership is a dynamic
process, varying from situation to situation with changes in the leader, the followers, and
the situation. Nevertheless, this researcher believes that some people are more likely than
others to assume a leadership role if they have Yukl’s helping traits. Those with any of
McCall and Lombardo’s fatal flaws would not be able to go all the way to the top.
As Adler and Rodman (1991) pointed out "The research on trait theories of
leadership has shown that many other factors are important in determining leader success,
and that not everyone who possesses these traits will be a leader (p. 267)." There is no
universal set of traits that will ensure leadership success in every situation. The lack of
validation of trait approaches led to other investigations of leadership. Among the most
prominent areas were the attitudinal approaches.
As interest in the trait approach to leadership declined, researchers focused their
attention on the leader's attitudes rather than their traits, which led to the behaviorist
theories. The most widely used approach was the Managerial Grid, which attempted to
explain that there was one best leadership style that is applicable in all situations. Five
leadership styles were determined from this research by using various combinations of
two factors regarding a concern for production and people. The team management style
was the only one that was considered the best.
It should be pointed out that success and/or effectiveness in one endeavor or
situation does not carry over to other situations. Once a manager is successful or effective
does not mean that he/she will always be successful or effective. Managers’ effectiveness
depend not only on the manager, but it also depends on a host of other variables such as
employees, peers, bosses, family, culture, and time. It should be obvious that there is no
single all-purpose leader behavior style that is successful and effective in all situations.
Long-term evaluation is not a result of a single leadership event, but a summation of
many different leadership events.
one substantial way…they all have a high degree of what has come to be known as
emotional intelligence which comprises the following components:

1. Self-awareness
2. Self-regulation
3. Motivation
4. Empathy
5. Social Skill
Goleman’s research, along with other recent studies, shows that emotional
intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership. Without it, a person can have the best
training in the world, an incisive, analytical mind, and an endless supply of smart ideas,
but he still would not make an effective leader.
Methodology
The research design for this study utilizes both quantitative and qualitative data
collection and analysis in sequential form (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003). This means
that qualitative data, which are based on a review and synthesis of the related theories and
research findings, are providing the basis for collecting quantitative data. The latter are
collected in the form of participants’ responses to a Likert measurement instrument.
Quantitative analysis of this data was achieved using Force Field Analysis as discussed
previously. The result of this approach is primarily a qualitative research design that is
informed by quantitative data analysis.

The Findings
Based on quantitative analysis of data collected from 18 participants that work for
three large companies, the findings regarding the four variables of interest that seem to
correlate with identifying the best-fit manager are as follows:
Variable 1: Character Traits and Skills
Character traits and skills data converge with qualitative data. One manager’s
score was perfect. Poorest employees displayed negative numbers indicating that they do
not have the necessary traits and skills to do the job. It is worth noting that none of the
participating managers violated McCall and Lombardo fatal flaws (1983). These fatal
flaws are:
(a) Insensitive to others: abrasive, intimidating, bullying style;

(b) Cold, aloof, arrogant;
(c) Betrayal of trust;
(d) Overly ambitious: thinking of next job, playing politics;
(e) Specific performance problems with the business;
(f) Over managing – unable to delegate or build a team;
(g) Unable to staff effectively;
(h) Unable to think strategically;
(i) Unable to adapt to boss with different style; and/or
(j) Over dependent on advocate or mentor (pp. 26-31).
Variable 2: Effectiveness
All managers were in compliance with Luthans’ (1988) research findings about
effectiveness. They all are effective as opposed to being successful per Luthans findings
(see response to questions 33-40). It also seems that the longer a manager stays with the
company, the more effective he/she becomes.
Variable 3: Emotional Intelligence EQ
The findings regarding this variable cast doubt on the validity of Goleman’s
research findings about this variable. Only one manager scored 75% and the other two
managers both scored 33% in this test. I believe that Goleman’s research findings are
applicable only to a particular class of managers, which is the class of CEOs. It should be
noted that before Goleman’s research on EQ, Bell (1973) introduced a concept that he
called “Empacation.”
Empacation: Empacation refers to your skills in empathy and communication.

We do not have a word in our language which accurately refers to the concept of
skills in interpersonal relationships. Since it is such an important factor in our
lives, it deserves a specific name. Therefore, I have combined Empathy and
Communication (p. 127).
He used empacation to define the extent to which a person to do the following:

(a) Communicate your feelings, beliefs and ideas completely;
(b) Listen carefully without blocking, turning out, or thinking of quick one-
upmanship responses;
(c) Show confidence, warmth, and support toward others (as indicated by your
manner of expressing humor);
(d) Show acceptance instead of hostility or aggression toward others as indicated by
your temper;
(e) Act nondefensively as indicated by the degree and intensity of your openness and
trust in your relationship; and
(f) Sense the feelings, attitudes, and reactions of others—act empathetically (p. 127).
When a manager is effective according to Luthans (1988) and is an achiever according to
Bell (1973), he/she could not be lacking EQ as defined by Goleman (2001). Bell
conducted his personality research on a sample of 3000 participants over an eight year
period with an average personal interview of 2.5 hours and found out that achievers are
the best there is in almost all aspects of life, which include but not limited to working and
dealing with people at all levels (pp. 181-200).
Variable 4: Personality Classification
According to Bell (1973), 100% of the participating general managers are
achievers. Their best employees, peers, and their bosses have compatible personalities as
shown in chapter 4. Some of their poorest employees/peers do not have personalities that
are compatible with theirs. The findings in this research are in complete compliance with
Bell’s research findings.
Conclusions
Although the sample size for this study is small due to reasons discussed
previously, all participating general managers were found to be “Achievers” according to
Bell (1973). In spite of this fact, 67% scored low on the EQ test. Goleman’s Table 3c:
Belbin’s dominant and sub-dominant roles generalization of his research is only
applicable to CEOs and should not go beyond that. It is evidenced from this study that his
research findings do not apply to first line and middle managers.
All general managers in this sample exhibited characteristics that are consistent
with the findings of Bell (1973). The participating managers and their best employees
scored high in character traits and skills measure. Managers, their best employees, their
best peers, and bosses have compatible personalities. Poorest employees scored very low
in the character traits and skills measure. They as well as poorest peers have personality
classifications that are not compatible with the managers.
Effectiveness as defined by Luthans was found to be directly proportional to the
length of service with the company. Several managers have perfect scores in character
traits and skills, effectiveness, and personality classifications.
From data analysis, it seems that the most important variables of the best-fit
manager phenomenon that may be considered in hiring him/her are only three after
discounting the EQ variable. Actually, if one studies Bell’s research findings in depth, it
would be obvious that the “Achievers” possess high degrees of EQ, which contradict
Goleman’s findings.
I believe that this approach to the management selection process is somewhat
revolutionary and I would call it 360-degree management selection process in the future
since it takes into account not only the immediate supervisor, but it also considers the
characteristics of the employees as well as future peers. Personality classification is a
very important factor in selecting the best-fit manager for a functional/business unit.
According to Bell, some personalities are hard to work with. For example, if we want
work done through and with people, it would be better if we keep in mind the following
combination of personalities that are compatible:
1. A performer is compatible with an achiever, an Attacker, or both;

2. An achiever is compatible with a Performer, a Pleaser, or both;
3. A Pleaser is compatible with an achiever, an Avoider, or both;
4. An Avoider is compatible with a Pleaser, a Commander, or both;
5. A Commander is compatible with an Attacker, an Avoider, or both; and
6. An Attacker is compatible with a Performer, a Commander, or both.
Last but not least, I believe that this management selection process would save
companies lots of money since management training for new hires is kept to a minimum.
In addition, people would enjoy working with each other. We would also be able to keep
reasons of absenteeism to a minimum. It should be pointed out that the questionnaires
devised for this research could be used to identify several weaknesses and threats of all
employees that require immediate attention and/or training to strengthen them. Possible
results of this selection approach are increases in:
1. Organizational effectiveness;
2. Synergism;
3. Congeniality in the work place;
4. Goal congruence;
5. Interpersonal competence; and
6. Productivity.
Recommendations
General Recommendations
1. Conduct the same research on a larger sample of general managers from different
disciplines of the industry and compare the findings.
2. Conduct a similar, but a qualitative research using personal interviews and this
research questionnaire as guidelines for the interviews.
3. Goleman’s research findings need to be validated by testing several classes of
managers and not only CEO class as he did.
4. A Correlational study of both Bell’s and Goleman’s research findings is needed.
5. Research the dominant personality classifications in different industry sectors.
Each sector has its own requirements for workers and their leaders. In this
research, only the retail business was investigated.
6. Study the effects of each variable individually and collectively on the best-fit
manager selection process. That is to say, manipulate one variable at a time, then
two, etc.
Further Research
1. I believe that it is about time that some researchers verify Goleman’s EQ research
findings and compare it to Bell’s personality findings. I believe that the
discrepancies between Bell and Goleman’s research findings is that Goleman

targeted a selected class (CEOs) of managers in his research and did not include
first line and middle managers in his sample.
2. The best way to validate this research is to hire two managers for two similar
functional/business units in one organization. One manager is hired based on the
best-fit manager characteristics as defined in this study and the second manager is
hired using traditional methods. A research should be conducted after a year or so
to determine which management selection process is beneficial to the
organization.
3. According to chapter 2 of this dissertation, France relies heavily on handwriting
analysis in their management selection process. More than 77 per cent of French
firms use it to select managers, while the figure for Britain is 2.6 per cent. It
would be interesting to research the impact of this concept on the management
selection process in the USA.

REFERENCES
Accel-Team.Com. (2000a). Change management. In Achieving goal congruence.

Retrieved May 9, 2003 from http://www.accelteam.com /techniques/goal_
congruence.html
Accel-Team.Com. (2000b). Change management. In Force field analysis. Retrieved May

9, 2003 from http://www.accel-team.com/techniques/force_field_analysis.html
Accel-Team.Com. (2001a). Human relations school of management. In Fredrick

Herzberg- 2 factor hygiene and motivation theory. Retrieved May 13, 2003 from
http://www.accel-team.com/human_relations/hrels_05_herzberg.html
Accel-Team.Com. (2001b). Human relations school of management. In Chris Argyris.

Retrieved May13, 2003 from http://www.accel-team.com/motivation/
chris_argyris_00.html
Accel-Team.Com. (2001c). Human relations school of management. In Douglas

McGregor-Theory X and theory Y. Retrieved May 12, 2003 from
http://www.accel-team.com/human_relations/hrels_03_mcgregor.html
Accel-Team.Com. (2001d). Human relations school of management. In David C.

McClelland motivation. Retrieved May 13, 2003 from http://www.accel-
team.com/human_relations/hrels_06_mcclelland.html
Accel-Team.Com. (2001e). Human relations school of management. In George Elton

Mayo's hawthorn experiments. Retrieved May 16, 2003 from http://www.accel-
team.com/human_relations/hrels_01_mayo.html
Accel-Team.Com. (2001f). Human relations school of management. In Rensis Likert -

Management systems and styles. Retrieved May 13, 2003 from http://www.accel-
team.com/human_relations/hrels_04_likert.html
Adair, J. (1984). The skills of leadership. Aldershot Kants, UK: Gower.
Adair, J. (1997). Effective communication. London: Pan Books.
Adizes, I. (1976, Winter). Mismanagement styles. California Management Review, 19(2),

6-18.
Adler, R. B. & Rodman, G. (1991). Understanding human communication. Fort Worth,

TX: Holt Rhinehart & Winston.
Alessandra, A. (February 1986). How do you rate as a listener? Data Management, 20-
21.
Alessandra, A., Wexler, P., & Deem, J. (1979). Non-manipulative selling. Reston, VA:
Reston Publishing.
Allen, G. (1998). Motivation. In Supervision. Retrieved May 17, 2003 from http://ollie.-
dcccd.edu/mgmt1374/book_contents/4directing/motivatg/Herzberg.htm
Ansbacher, H. L. & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.). (1956). The individual psychology of Alfred

Adler. New York: Basic Books.
Argyris, C. (1971). Management and organizational development: The path from XA to

YB. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Avery, G. & Baker, E. (1990). Psychology at work (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Avery, R. D., Miller, H. E., Gould, R. & Burch, P. (1987). Interview validity for selecting
sales clerks. Personnel Psychology, 40, 1-12.
Bass, B. M. & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Stogdill's handbook of leadership (3rd ed.). New
York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior. New York:

Harper & Brothers.
Beehr, T. A., Taber, T. D., and Walsh, J. T. (1980). Perceived mobility channels:
Criteria for intraorganizational job mobility. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 26, 250-264.
Belbin, M. (1981). Management teams-Why they succeed or fail. UK: Butterworth-

Heinemann.
Bell, J. (1973). The achievers. Chapel Hill, NIC: Preston-hill.
Bennis, W. (1984, August). The 4 competencies of leadership. Training and Development

Journal, 15-19.
Bennis, W. (1994). On becoming a leader. Cambridge: Perseus Books.

Benson, G. (July-August 1983). On the campus: How well do business schools prepare
graduates for the business world? Personnel, 63-65.
Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. (1984). The managerial grid III (3rd ed.). Houston, TX:
Gulf.
Blinn, W. (2003). Quest Corporation. In Managerial assessment of proficiency. Retrieved

September 1, 2003 from http://www.questcorp.com/map_intro.html
Borg, W.R. & Gall, M.D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.). White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Borgatti, S. (1996). Outline. In Elements of research design. Retrieved November 3, 2003

from http://www.analytictech.com/mb313/resdesign.htm
Bray, D. W., Campbell, R. J., and Grant, D. L. (1974). Formative years in business. New
York: Wiley.
Butler, G. (1986). Organization and management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Campbell, D.T. & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for
research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler. E. E., and Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial
behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Campbell, R. & Bray D. (1993). Use of an assessment center as an aid in management

selection. Personnel Psychology, 46, 691-699.
Carvell, F. J. (1970). Human relations in business. Toronto: Macmillan.
Caudill, D. & Donaldson, R. (1986). Effective listening tips for managers. Administration
Management, 47, 22-24.
Central, V. (2002). Research design. In Descriptive study. Retrieved May 1, 2003 from
http://www.cvgs.k12.va.us/research/paper/design/
Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
Conger, J. (1991). Inspiring others: The language of leadership. Academy of Management

Executive, 5(1).
Conger, J. A. (1993). The brave new world of leadership training. Organizational

Dynamics, 21, 46-58.
Cook, T., & Emler, N. (1999). Bottom-up versus top-down evaluations of candidates’
managerial potential: An experimental study. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 72, 423-439.
Cooper, D. & Schindler, P. (2003). Business research methods (8th ed.). Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Cox, T., & Nkomo, S. N. (1992). Candidate age as a factor in promotability ratings.
Public Personnel Management, 21, 197-210.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
DeBare, I. (1997, May 5). 360-Degrees of evaluation. San Francisco Chronicle.

Retrieved November 2, 2004, from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1997/05/05/BU65200.DTL
Downes, J. & Goodman, J. (1987). Dictionary of finance and investment: Entrepreneur

(2nd ed., p. 113). New York: Barrons.
Drucker, P. (1973). Management: Tasks, responsibilities, practices. New York: Harper &
Row.
Drucker, P. (1993). The effective executive. New York: Harper Business.
Drucker, P. F. (1954). The practice of management. New York: Harper & Row.
Enbysk, M. (2003). In Bosses: 7 communication tips. Retrieved May 3. 2003 from

http://www.bcentral.com/articles/enbysk/149.asp
Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free

Press.
Fayol, H. (1925). Industrial and general administration. Paris: Dunod.

Fiedler, F. E. & Chemers, M. M. (1985, Spring). Improving leadership effectiveness.

Personnel psychology, 38, 220-222.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fowler, F.J., Jr. (1993). Survey research methods (2d ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
French, W. (1987). The personal management process: Human resources administration

& development (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Miflin.
Geier, J. G. (1967, December). A trait approach to the study of leadership in small

groups. Journal of Communication. 17(4), 316-323.
Goleman, D. (2001). What makes a leader?. Harvard business review on what makes a
leader (pp. 1-25). Boston: Harvard Business Review.
Gray, L. (1999, May). Executive summary. In Efficiency and effectiveness in technical

organizations. Retrieved May 2, 2003 from http://www.morganllc.com/Courses/
eandi/e_and_i_book/masterdocp5.htm
Halpin, A. W. (1959). The leadership behavior of school superintendents. Chicago:

University of Chicago, Midwest Administration Center.
Harris, G. & Hogan, J. (1992). Perceptions and personality correlates of managerial

effectiveness. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Psychology in the Department
of Defense Symposium, Colorado Springs, CO.
Harris, T. (1989). Listen carefully. Nation's Business, 77 (6), 78.
Hartman, S. W. (2003). Management theory. In Abraham H. Maslow (1908-1970)

(chap.2). Retrieved May 16, 2003 from http://iris.nyit.edu/~shartman/-
mba0120/chapter2.doc
Hennig, M., & Jardim, A. (1977). The managerial woman. New York: Pocket Books.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. (1993). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing

human resources (6th ed.). Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hodgetts, R. (1990). Management: Theory, process, and practice. Harcourt Brace

College.
Howard, A. & Bray, D. (1990). Predictions of managerial success over long periods of
time: Lessons for the Management Progress Study. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark
(Eds.), Measures of leadership, pp. 113-130. West Orange, NJ: Leadership
Library of America.
Hube, K. (2004, March 29). Your career; thanks, but no thanks: Who doesn't want a
promotion? A better job title? Lots of people. Wall Street Journal (Eastern ed.),
R.4.
Hurley, A., Wally, S., Scandura, T., & Sonnenfeld, J. (2003). An examination of the
effects of early and late entry on career attainment: The clean slate effect?
Personnel Review, 32(1/2), 133-151.
IME. (2002, October 27). Hiring the right people. In Online Newsletter. Retrieved
October 1, 2003 from http://www.itstime.com/feb2001.htm
Jago, A. G. (1982, March). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management

Science (pp. 35-36).
Jarvis, C. (2000). School of business & management. In Abraham Maslow and human
motivation. Retrieved May 15, 2003 from http://sol.brunel.ac.uk/~jarvis/bola/-
motivation/masmodel.html
Jennings, E. (1961, Autumn). The anatomy of leadership. Management of Personnel

Quarterly, 1(1).
Kane, P. (1999, Feb). Selecting a technical manager--the promotion pitfall. Manage,

50(2), 12-13.
Kanter, R. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kenny, D. & Zaccaro, S. (1983). An estimate of variance due to traits in leadership..

Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 678-685.
Koontz, H. & O'Donnell, C. (1959). Principles of management (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Koontz, H. & O'Donnell, C. (1972). Principles of management (5th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Kothari, V. (1974). The importance and application of promotional criteria as perceived

by management, union, and employee. Academy of Management Proceedings,
34.
Kotter, J. (1982). The general managers. New York: free Press.
Kotter, J. (1998). What leaders really do? HBR on Leadership (pp. 37-60). Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Krathwohl, D.R. (1993). Methods of educational and social research: an integrated

approach. New York: Longman.
LaBorde, G. (1983). Influencing with integrity (pp. 27-74). Palo Alto: Science and
behavioral Books.
Lawler, E.E. and Galbraith, J.R. (1994), "Avoiding the corporate dinosaur syndrome",
Organizational Dynamics, 23, 5-17.
Leontiades, M. (1982). Choosing the right manager to fit the strategy. Journal of
BusinessStrategy, 3 , 58-69.
Lewin, K. (1947, June). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method, and reality in
social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41.
Lewis, P. (1987). Organizational communication: The essence of effective management.

New York: John Wiley.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Likert, R. (1967). Human organization: Its management and values. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
London, M. (1978). What every personnel director should know about management
promotion decisions. Personnel Journal, 57, 550-555.
London, M., & Stumpf, S. (1983). Effects of candidate characteristics on management

promotion decisions: An experimental study. Personnel Psychology, 36, 241-
259.
Lord, R., de Vader, C. & Alliger, G. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation

between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An analysis of validity
generalisation procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-409.
Luthans, F. (1988). Successful vs. effective real managers. Academy of Management

Executive, 2(2) (pp. 127- 132). Retrieved May 3, 2003, from http://pages.stern.-
nyu.edu/~wstarbuc/mob/luthans.html
Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationship between personality and performance in

small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241-270.
Margerison, C. J. & McCann, D. J. (1985). Team management profiles: Their use in

managerial development. Journal of Management Development, 4(2), 34-37.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Mayo, G. E. (1977). The human problems of an industrial civilization. Salem, N.H.:

Ayer.
McCall, M. W. & Lombardo, M. M. (1983, February). What makes a top executive.

Psychology Today, 26-31.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J.W., Clark, R.A. & Lowell, E.L. (1953). The achievement
motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McKenna, S. (2002). Can knowledge of the characteristics of "high performers” be

generalized? The Journal of Management Development, 21(9/10), 680-702.
Metz, I. and Tharenou, P. (2001), "Women's career advancement: the relative

contribution of human and social capital", Group and Organization Management,
26 (3), 312-42.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.
Morrison, R. & Holzbach, R. (1979, August). Melding the individual and the
organization. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of
Management, Atlanta.
Myers, D. (2003, April 22). Qualitative research in information systems. In Overview of

qualitative research. Retrieved May 17, 2003 from http://www.qual.auckland.ac.-
nz/
Nichols, R. G. & Stevens, L. A. (1999). Listening to people. Harvard business review on

effective communication (pp. 1-24). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Parkinson, C. N. (1957). Parkinson's law. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage.
Paulin, E. A., & Mellor, J. M. (1996). Gender, race, and promotions within a private-
sector firm. Industrial Relations, 35, 276-295.
Payne, J. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An

information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 16, 366-387.
Pedigo, P. & Meyer, H. (1979, August). Management promotion decisions: The influence
of affirmative action restrictions. Paper presented at the Academy of Management
Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia.
Powell, G. & Butterfield, D. (2002, summer). Exploring the influence of decision makers'
race and gender on actual. Personal Psychology, 55(2), 397-428.
Powell, G.N. and Butterfield, D.A. (1994), "Investigating the glass ceiling phenomenon:
an empirical study of actual promotions to top management", Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 68-86.
Quinn, R. P., Tabor, J. M., & Gordon, L. K. (1968). The decision to discriminate: A
study of executive selection. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social Research,
University of Michigan.
Ratner, Carl (2002, September). In Subjectivity and objectivity in qualitative

methodology. Retrieved March 11, 2003 from http://www.qualitative-
research.net/fqs-texte/3-02/3-02ratner-e.htm
Raven, B. H. & Rubin, J. E. (1976). Social psychology: People in groups. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
RDL. (1997, October 10). Principles of management. In Group cohesion--from the

research. Retrieved May 29, 2003 from http://www.eou.edu/ ~blarison/-
321cohes.html
Robbins, S. (2003). Management skill vs. leadership skill. In Leadership decisionworks.

Retrieved September 7, 2003 from http://www.leadershipdecisionworks.com/-
articles/leadmanage.htm
Robertson, I. & Makin, P. (1986). Management selection in Britain: A survey and

critique. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 59, 45-57.
Rockefeller, J. as quoted in Bergen, Garret L. and Haney W. V. (1966). Organizational

relations and management action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rogers, C. (1951). Client centered therapy: Its current practice, Implications, and
Theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, M. F. (1973). Instrumental and infra-resources: The bases of power. American

Journal of Sociology, 79(6), 1418-1433.
Rosen, N., Billings, R., and Turney, J. (1976). The emergence and allocation of
leadership resources over time in a technical organization. Academy of
Management Journal, 19, 165-183.
Rumelt, R. (1974). Strategy, structure and economic performance. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.
Schermerhorn, J. R. (1989). Management for productivity (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Sears, D. O. (1988). Social psychology (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Shackleton, V. & Newell, S. (1991). Management selection: A comparative survey of

methods used in British and French companies. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 64, 23-36.
Shapiro, I. (1984, Fall). Executive forum: Managerial communication: the view from
inside. California management review, 157.
Smarter Hiring. (2003a). Weaknesses in the traditional hiring system. Retrieved

September 1, 2003 from http://www.smarterhiring.com/html/weaknesses.html
Smarter Hiring. (2003b). Profiles on the web online assessment center. Retrieved
September 1, 2003 from http://www.smarterhiring.com/index.html
Sonnenfeld, JA. (1989), "Career systems profiles and strategic staffing", in Arthur, M.,
Hall, D. and Lawrence, B. (Eds.), Handbook of career theory, Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY, pp. 202-24.
Stewart, L. & Gudykunst, W. (1982, September). Differential factors influencing the

hierarchical level and number of promotions. Academy of Management Journal,
25, 586-597.
Stewart, L. P., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1982). Differential factors influencing the

hierarchical level and number of promotions of males and females within an
organization. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 586-597.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of literature.

Journal of psychology, 25, 35-71.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: The free Press.
Tannebaum, R., Weschler, I. R. & Massarik, F. (1959). Leadership and organization: A

behavioral science approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tashakkori, A., and Teddlie, C. (Eds.) (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and
behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Taylor, F. (1947). The principles of scientific management. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company, INC.
Taylor, R. (1975). Preferences of industrial managers for information sources in making

promotion decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 269-272.
Terry, G. R. (1960). Principles of management (3rd ed.). ILL: Homewood.
Tharenou, P., Latimer, S. and Conroy, D. (1994), "How do you make it to the top? An
examination of influences on women's and men's managerial advancement",
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, 899-931.
Thompson, A. A., & Strickland III, A. J. (1998). Strategic management: Concepts and
cases (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Trochim, W. (2000a, June 29). Positivism and post-positivism. In research philosophy.

Retrieved November 1, 2003 from http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/ kb/-
positvsm.htm
Trochim, W. (2000b, June 29). Scaling. In Research Philosophy. Retrieved November 1,

2003 from http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/scaling.htm
Trochim, W. (2000c, June 29). Validity. In Research Philosophy. Retrieved November 1,

2003 from http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/introval.htm
Underwood, M. (2001a, March 9). Interpersonal communication: Leadership. In Group

leadership: McCann. Retrieved May 15, 2003 from http://www.cultsock.ndirect.
co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/groups/mccann.html
Underwood, M. (2001b, March 9). Interpersonal communication: Leadership. In Group

leadership: Bales. Retrieved May 15, 2003 from http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.
uk/MUHome/cshtml/groups/lead2.html
Underwood, M. (2003a, March 9). Interpersonal communication: Leadership. In Group

leadership: Lewin et al. Retrieved May 16, 2003 from http://www.cultsock.
ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/groups/lead1.html
Websurveyor, C. (2004). 360-Degree feedback. Retrieved May 16, 2004 from

http://www.websurveyor.com/company/websurveyor-corporate.asp?
1100713893140?1100713894765
Welch, M. S. (1980). Networking. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Wellbank, H.; Hall, D.; Morgan, M.; & Hamner, W.C. (1978, March-April). Planning job
progression for effective career development and human resources management.
Personnel, 55, 54-64.
Wenjogu, N. (2003). Foundations of social science research. In Theory. Retrieved

November 5, 2003 from http://www.neiu.edu/~wenjogu/Theory.htm
Wertheim, E. G. (2003). Historical background of organizational behavior. In Douglas

McGregor's theory X and theory Y. Retrieved May 13, 2003 from http://web.cba.
neu.edu/~ewertheim/introd/history.htm
West, M. (1994). Belbin's team role theory. The British Psychology Society. Retrieved
May 15, 2003, from http://www.thebpl.co.uk/trainers/handouts/hand40.htm
Wright, P., Kroll, M.J. & Parnel, J. A. (1996). Strategic management: Concepts and
cases (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yate, M. (1994). Hiring the best: A manager's guide to effective interviewing (4th ed.).
Holbrook: Adams Media Corporation.
Yates, M. (1996). Contribution to bola. In The concept of team roles. Retrieved May 15,
2003 from http://sol.brunel.ac.uk/~jarvis/bola/teams/belbin2.html
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.
Zaleznik, A. (1998). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard business review
on leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Zaremba, A. (1988, July). Working with the organizational grapevine. Personnel Journal,
38-42.
Zikmund, W. (2000). Business research methods (6th ed.). Mason: South-Western.

APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE
Cover letter
The following four-part questionnaire is designed to help me define the
characteristics of the best-fit manager for a functional/business unit, which is one
important aspect of my research. It is believed that this research will benefit companies
like yours, in the long run, since it would result in better hiring practices for future
managers that help achieving their goals and maximizing their productivity. This is a
four-part questionnaire reflecting the present characteristics and qualities as they are and
not as you would like them to be in the future.
The first part is for evaluating yourself; the second part is for evaluating your best
and lowest Performer/Achiever employee that are currently working for you; the third
part is for evaluating your best and poorest peer; and the fourth is for evaluating your
immediate supervisor, as you perceive him/her. If you have difficulties in responding to
any item(s) or would like this questionnaire to be emailed to you, please contact me at
drmzzakhary@aol.com
Each questionnaire addresses traits (characters and skills) and/or personalities of
the people involved in this questionnaire as follows:
Questionnaire 1-I: Manager X Character Traits and Skills
Questionnaire 1-I: Manager X Effectiveness
Questionnaire 1-I: Manager X EQ
Questionnaire 1-I: Manager X Personality
Questionnaire 1-II: Manager X Best Performer/Achiever Traits and Skills

Questionnaire 1-II: Manager X Best Performer/Achiever EQ
Questionnaire 1-II: Manager X Best Performer/Achiever Personality
Questionnaire 1-II: Manager X Lowest Performer/Achiever Traits and Skills
Questionnaire 1-II: Manager X Lowest Performer/Achiever EQ
Questionnaire 1-II: Manager X Lowest Performer/Achiever Personality
Questionnaire 1-III: Manager X Best Peer’s Personality
Questionnaire 1-III: Manager X poorest Peer’s Personality
Questionnaire 1-IV: Manager X Boss’s Personality
Thank you very much for your cooperation and for participating in this exciting
research. Please be assured that your privacy would be respected. Your company and
your real names will be disguised in the final report if you wish.
Regards,
APPENDIX B: PARTICIPANTS’ QUALIFICATIONS
Participant 1
Questions Response
1. What is your Current title? Store team Leader
2. What is your Education (your highest BS
degree would be adequate)?
3. Years of experience as a manager 28 years
4. What are your responsibilities with your Total operations of the store. I have
current company? executives that are responsible for each
Hiring/firing; Performance appraisal; work center and I over see them.
Conflict resolution internally and
externally (Customers);
Promotion/demotion; etc.
5. What is the total number of employees About 165 to 250 depending on the time of
working for you? the year
6. What is the total number of managers ETL-Logistics, ETL- Hard lines (2 of
working for you and their titles? (7) them), ETL-Soft lines, ETL-Guest service,
ETL-stands for Executive team leader ETL-Human Resources, ETL-Assets
Protection
Participant 2
Questions Response
1. What is your Current title? General Manager

2. What is your Education (your highest B.A. Communication
3. Years of experience as a manager 14 Years
4. What are your responsibilities with your • Hiring/firing; Performance appraisal;
current company? Conflict resolution internally and
Hiring/firing; Performance appraisal; externally (Customers);
Conflict resolution internally and Promotion/demotion; etc.
externally (Customers); • Profit and Loss statement responsibility.
Promotion/demotion; etc. • Annual Store Budget
All of the above • Expense Planning.
• Community Involvement
5. What is the total number of employees 300
working for you?
6. What is the total number of managers A total of 21 Managers:

working for you and their titles? 2 Asst. mgrs; 4 Dept Mgrs; 4 Area Mgrs; 6
Ancillary Business Mgrs; 1 Pharmacy Mgr;
and 4 Asst. Dept. Mgrs.
Participant 3
Questions Response
1. What is your Current title? Store Manager
2. What is your Education (your highest Some college – no degree
3. Years of experience as a manager 22 years
4. What are your responsibilities with your Customer service, inventory management,
current company? increasing sales, cash controls,
Hiring/firing; Performance appraisal; hiring/firing, all performance appraisals
Conflict resolution internally and HR procedures
externally (Customers);
Promotion/demotion; etc.
5. What is the total number of employees 25
working for you?
6. What is the total number of managers 4 total – Assistant Manager, Customer
working for you and their titles? Service Manager, Sales Manager and Copy
Print Manager

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

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

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

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

MINIMIZATION OF SUBJECTIVITY: AN ANALYSIS OF THE FACTORS THAT

INFLUENCE THE MANAGER SELECTION PROCESS

A dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of

All rights reserved.

UMI Microform 3174550

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

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 organization’s

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

according to the Apollo Syndrome discussed below.

The good, the bad, and the ugly!

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 6

Statement of the Problem 12

Purpose of the Study 13

Significance of the Study 16

Assumptions and limitations 24

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 26

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 27

Organizational Behavior Theories and Concepts 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

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

People’s Psychological Needs 70

Situational Leadership Styles 76

Lewin, Lippitt and White 82

Bales Task and Maintenance Leaders 83

McCann: The Team Management Wheel 83

Belbin’s Concept of Team Roles 84

Force Field Analysis 88

Research Methods 100

Research Design 103

Data Collection 108

Force Field Analysis 123

CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS 126

Manager 2 Responses 141

Manager 3 Responses 154

SWPT Analysis 166

From Likert to Lewin 166

Manager 1 SWPT Analysis 170

Manager 2 SWPT Analysis 193

Manager 3 SWPT Analysis 215

Virtual Best-Fit Manager SWPT Analysis 236

Conclusions for Company 1 241

Conclusions for Company 2 247

Conclusions for Company 3 252

Conclusions for All Participants 255

General Observations 259

Best-fit Manager Characteristics 260

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 261

The Problem 261