Personaliy in Manager

79MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS

Abstract

Managerial Effectiveness: A Function ofPersonality Type and Organisational Components

Renu RastogiVandana Dave

Department of Humanities and Social SciencesIndian Institute of Technology, Roorkee

79

Managerial effectiveness is very important for the survival and growthof the organisation. It is difficult to define managerial effectiveness in con-crete terms. Many perceive it within a particular frame of reference. Deci-sions about effectiveness are bound to be situational and contingent upon thedefinition and perspectives of those making the judgment. A review of litera-ture shows that managerial effectiveness has been studied with three perspec-tives:

1. Traditional/Conventional perspective2. Organisational level competency based perspective, and3. An individual level competency based perspective.

The traditional model emphasises the ability to set and achieve goals(Bartol and Martin, 1991) where it is implicitly assumed that managerial ef-fectiveness leads to organisational effectiveness.

The organisational competency based approach implies that there is long-

This study tests managerial effectiveness of top and lower level man-agers in production and marketing departments in relation to their personal-ity type in private sector organisations. A 2Χ2Χ2 factorial design wasemployed, in which there are three independent variables with two levelseach: departments (production and marketing), managerial positions (toplevel and lower level), and personality type (Type A and Type B). Manage-rial effectiveness is a dependent variable. The main effects of managementpositions and personality types have been found significant and interactioneffects between managerial positions x personality type and among depart-ments Χ managerial position Χ personality types have been found signifi-cant. The major findings are that in production department, both top andlower level managers having Type B personality are found more effectiveand in marketing department top-level managers having Type A personalityand lower level managers having Type B personality have been found moreeffective in comparison to their counterparts.

SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT REVIEW, VOLUME 26 NO 280

term future orientation that accounts for both external and internal influenceson the organisations. From these analyses a vision is created for the future ofthe organisation, goals are set that will achieve the vision and plans are deve-loped to achieve these strategic goals. Here, the organisation tries to createthe system and environment with the help of skills and characteristics of man-agers that lead them to achieve strategic intents.

The individual competency based approach to managerial effectivenessfocuses upon the individual rather than the organisation. The purpose of thisapproach is to develop transferable (generic) management skills that are ap-plicable across different circumstances both nationally and internationally.But this competency-based perspective on managerial effectiveness has beenheavily criticised on the ground of the contingencies and the contexts.

Effectiveness is best seen as something a manager produces from a situ-ation by managing it appropriately, producing the results or meeting the tar-gets in every sphere of the activities of organisations. The manager’s job islinked with three major dimensions—technical, conceptual, and human. Theproductivity of any organisation can be increased by the effective manage-ment of all the three dimensions and specially by managing the conceptualand human dimensions of management. All managers need to work with andthrough subordinates to optimise organisational performance. Therefore, cer-tain behavioural skills are required of individuals if they are to be effective asmanagers.

Managers have many resources at their disposal and the quality of workis dependent on how well these resources have been used. The performanceof a manager can be measured by the extent to which goals that are importantto the group and organisations are met through the productive efforts of sub-ordinates (Herbert, 1976). In other words, effective management is the cul-mination of synergy of effectiveness of individual managers in the organisation(Sen and Saxena, 1999).

Das (1987) identified the characteristics of an efficient branch manageras setting an example by personal qualities, job knowledge, business acu-men, and management ability. Miles (1992) suggested that constructive useof authority entails the ability to formulate clear goals and to determine whatsteps are necessary to achieve them, including getting people to do what isnecessary for achieving the targets. Misumi (1989), and Misumi and Peterson(1985) defined the ideal manager in Japan in terms of both performance andmaintenance orientations, namely, a manager who leads the group towardsgoal attainment and preserves its social stability. Just as there had been con-troversy and many arguments were raised that a good leader should have


certain characteristics similar arguments are there for managerial effective-ness. There are many researchers who on the basis of their findings haveidentified that effective managers possess the particular set of characteristicslike job knowledge, good communication, business acumen and interpersonalrelationship but having these characteristics are not sufficient to become ef-fective manager. Managerial effectiveness is not only a personality character-istic but it is related to performance and output. Gupta (1996) has developeda 16-factor scale to measure managerial effectiveness. These factors are tap-ping three important aspects of effectiveness: activities of his position, achievingthe results, and developing further potential. The managerial effectivenesshas been measured by experts in several different ways at different times.Some models focus on individual competencies of managerial effectiveness,while most of the studies have taken performance measure and superior’sappraisals rather than self report measures while deciding the effectiveness ofa manager. In the light of above discussion, a study is planned to see the effectof management position, departments, and personality variable on manage-rial effectiveness.

Personality Type and Managerial PerformanceUndoubtedly, the personality characteristics influence the performance

and this difference among managers can be an important source of differencein managerial effectiveness. There is evidence to support the proposition thatthe managerial effectiveness is moderated by the personality characteristics.One such variable is Type A versus Type B personality.

The types of work environment, level of job position, and personalitycharacteristics are the important variables that affect managerial effectivenessin an organisational environment. This is exactly why personality tests areused in screening of job candidates to avoid potential mismatches. Friedmanand Rosenham (1966) defines the Type A personality as “an action emotioncomplex that can be observed in any person who is aggressively involved ina chronic incessant struggle to achieve more and more in less time and ifrequired to do so, against the opposing efforts of other things or other per-sons”. The Type A personality is characterised by feeling a chronic sense oftime urgency and by an excessive competitive drive. Some of the more out-standing characteristics of Type As include:

1. Always in haste2. Feeling of impatience3. Obsessed with success4. Persistent inability to cope with leisure time.


Type B personality can be identified by the following characteristics:

1. Never suffer from a sense of time urgency2. Play for fun and relaxation3. Can relax without guilt4. No need to display either their success or accomplishments.

The evidence links these two distinct personality types with diversebehaviours and different performance outcomes depending on the require-ments of the job.

Finally, there is paucity of studies that establish an effect of personality(Type A and Type B personality profiles) on managerial effectiveness. Thesecond variable, which was taken in the study, is the type of department. Twotypes of department (marketing and production) were chosen for this pur-pose. The requirements from these two types of managers are totally differentto become effective. The third independent variable selected is the level ofthe management position.

Two levels of managers (top and lower) participated in the study. Thepresent study is expected to highlight the significance of personality type pro-file, department, and management position on managerial effectiveness ofmanagers. The hypotheses formulated for the study are:

1. There is a significant difference in managerial effectivenessbetween managers of the production and marketing departments.

2. There is a significant difference in managerial effectivenessbetween top and lower level of managers.

3. There is significant difference in managerial effectivenessbetween managers of Type A and Type B personality profiles.

4. There is significant interaction between departments and mana-gerial positions.

5. There is significant interaction between departments and person-ality profile.

6. There is significant interaction between managerial positions andpersonality profile.

7. There is significant interaction among departments, managerialposition, and personality profile.


MethodologyType of Department: Mainly two types of departments (production

and marketing) from private organisations were chosen for the study. Dutiesand responsibilities of both these departments are different from each other.Managers generally are faced with various limitations on their activities, de-pending on their rank, their role in the organisation, and the kind of organisationthey work for. There are differences among the managers of different depart-ments in the amount of time they devote and the type of job they have, theactivities of production managers of these organisations will be different fromthat of marketing managers of the same organisations.

Managerial Levels: There are many different types of managers withdiverse tasks and responsibilities.

Top Managers: Composed of a comparatively small group of execu-tives, top management is responsible for overall management of theorganisation. It establishes operating policies and guides the organisation’sinteraction with its environment.

Lower Level Managers: These managers are called first-level manag-ers. First line managers direct operating employees only, they do not super-vise other managers. They are foremen or supervisors.

Sample: A sample of 80 managers, all male, from various private sectororganisations of western Uttar Pradesh were selected for this study.

Instruments: Managerial Effectiveness Questionnaire (MEQ) developedby Gupta (1996), and Type A-Type B self-test developed by Bortner (1985)were used.

Design of the Study: A 2Χ2Χ2 factorial design was used to study theeffect of three independent variables (departments, managerial positions, andpersonality type) on dependent variable (managerial effectiveness).

Procedure: Both the scales were administered on the respondent man-agers of production and marketing departments while they were on the job. Atotal of 170 questionnaires (80 in production departments and 90 in market-ing departments) were distributed. They were asked to go through the in-structions given on the questionnaire and to go ahead as instructed. There is


no time limit for completing the tests. The questionnaires were collected fromthe subjects after completion. Out of 170 subjects, 40 from each departmentwere sorted out. Out of these, 20 subjects were selected from top level man-agers and 20 from lower level managers in both departments. In both thegroups of top and lower level managers, 10 managers were Type A personal-ity and the other 10 were Type B personality in each department.

Scoring and Analysis: The scoring of managerial effectiveness andpersonality test was according to the instructions given in the manuals.

Results and Discussions: A 2Χ2Χ2 analysis of variance was applied tostudy the effect of two types of department, management position, and per-sonality on managerial effectiveness.

Table 1 shows that the main effects of managerial positions and person-ality type were found statistically significant on managerial effectiveness. Aglance at the table of means (Table 2) shows that top level managers havescored higher (M=195.65) than the lower level managers (M=187.60) onmanagerial effectiveness. There was a similar trend for personality type. Man-agers having Type B personality profile were found more effective(M=195.35) in comparison to Type A managers (M=187.90). Further, fordf=1.72, managerial position Χ personality type interaction effect (F=38.34,p<0.01 level) and three-way interaction (department Χ managerial position Χpersonality) effect was also found to be significant. These results supportedthe four hypotheses. However, the main effect of department and two-wayinteractions between DΧM and DΧP were not found significant at any level ofconfidence.

Source of Variance Sum of Squares Df Mean Squares F

Departments, D 217.73 1 217.73 3.18

Managerial Position, M 1296.00 1 1296.00 18.95**

Personality Type, P 1110.00 1 1110.00 16.23**

D Χ M 20.07 1 20.07 0.29

D Χ P 9.87 1 9.87 0.14

M Χ P 2622.10 1 2622.10 38.34**

D Χ M Χ P 404.93 1 404.93 5.92*

Error 4924.00 72 68.38 –

**p<.01 level, *p<.05 level

Table 1: Summary of Analysis of Variance for the Effects of Department,Managerial Position, and Personality Type on Managerial Effectiveness


Table 2: Means of Managerial Effectiveness

The important finding was that the department Χ managerial position Χpersonality type interaction turned out to be significant (F=5.92; df, 1,72,p<0.05). This suggested that significant managerial position Χ personality typeinteraction was not the same for two departments (production and market-ing). Type B managers at the top level are more effective in the productiondepartment than managers having Type A personality. In the marketing de-partment, managers having Type A personality at the top level are more ef-fective. Similarly, at the lower level, Type B managers are more effective inthe production department but in marketing also managers having Type Bpersonality at the lower level are found to be more effective. The means fordepartments Χ managerial positions Χ personality type interaction for manage-rial effectiveness are presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Means of Managerial Effectiveness for Departments Χ ManagerialPositions Χ Personality Types

Managerial

Positions (B) C1 C2 C1 C2

B1 196.2 197.4 199.1 189.9

B2 182.2 197.3 174.1 196.8

This shows that work environment of the departments also plays an im-portant role in the managerial effectiveness of managers having different per-sonality types and placed at different levels of managerial position.

Thus, from the perusal of the findings it appears that managerial effec-tiveness is related with the managerial position. Top level managers’ manage-

Production Marketing Top level Lower level Type A Type B

193.27 180.97 195.65 187.60 187.90 195.35

Departments Managerial Positions Personality Types

Departments (A)

A1 A2

Personality Type (C)


rial effectiveness was higher in comparison to lower level managers. Thefindings of the present study is in line with the Srivastava and Kumar study(1984), which shows that junior level officers were found less effective com-pared to middle level managers. The possible cause of this difference ineffectiveness may be the higher maturity level and longer managerial experi-ence of the middle level officers. Miles (1992) suggested that the constructiveuse of authority entails the ability to formulate clear goals and to determinewhat steps are necessary to achieve them, including getting people to do whatis required.

In spite of the Type A’s hard work, the Type Bs are the ones who appearto make it to the top. Great salespersons are usually Type As; while seniorexecutives are usually Type Bs (Robbins, 1996). Steers (1995) research re-vealed that in the very top positions Type Bs are more successful than TypeAs, who are not overly ambitious, are more patient, and take a broader viewof life. Studies have revealed that where high energy alone is a major deter-minant in job success, Type As should be highly effective. For jobs whereoriginality, thought, and care are important, the Type B personality should bemore successful. England and Lee (1974), Chakrabarti and Kundu (1984),and Howell et al (1997) found more effective managers as pragmatic, dy-namic, warm hearted, attentive, easygoing, persevering, emotionally matureand stable (personality characteristics create the parameters for people’sbehaviour, they give a framework for predicting behaviour).

ConclusionThe results of the study indicates that management position and person-

ality type are associated with self-perceived managerial effectiveness. Ashypothesised top-level managers and Type B managers have been foundhigher on managerial effectiveness as compared to lower level managers andType A managers. A three-way interaction among type of department, mana-gerial position, and personality type shows joint effect on managerial effec-tiveness.

In the selection process, this information regarding an applicant’s per-sonality type can enable the employer to make appropriate selection decisionthus ensuring match between person and job. It also provides opportunities toidentify potentials of suitable employees for higher-level managerial jobs basedon their personality types. It will be beneficial both for employees and theorganisation. A self-report method has been used to measure the managerialeffectiveness. Rating by the superiors and peers, if taken and correlated withit would have given substantive results but mostly fair evaluation by them isnot done. Personal bias and rivalry distort the results.


ReferencesBartol K and D Martin, 1991. Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bortner RW, 1985. “A Short Rating Scale as a Potential Measure of Pattern a Behaviour”,In Fred Luthans, Organisational Behavior, McGraw-Hill.

Chakrabarti PK and R Kundu, 1984. “Personality Profiles of Management Personnel”,Psychological Studies, 29.

Das GS, 1987. “Conflict Management Styles of Efficient Branch Managers: as Perceivedby Others,” ASCI Journal Of Management, 17(1), 30–38.

Ellen van Velsor and Jean Brittain Leslie, 1995. “Why Executives Derail: Perspectiveacross Time and Cultures,” Academy of Management Executive, November, 62–72.

England GW and R Lee, 1974. “The Relationship Between Managerial Values andManagerial Success in the United States, Japan, India and Australia” Journal of AppliedPsychology, 59 (4), 411–419.

Friedman and Rosenman, 1966. Qustionnaire on Type A and Type B. In RW Bortner, “AShort Rating Scale as a Potential Measure of Pattern A Behavior,” Journal of ChronicDiseases, 22, 87–91.

Gupta S, 1996. “Managerial Effectiveness: Conceptual Framework and Scale Development,”Indian Journal Of Industrial Relations, 31(3), 392–409.

Herbert TT, 1976. Dimensions of Organisational Behavior, Macmillan Publishing Co Inc.

Howell JP, 1997. DE Bowen, PW Dorfman and S Kerr. “Substitutes for Leadership:Effectiveness Alternatives to Ineffective Leadership,” In Veccho, RP.(ed.), Leadership:Understanding the Dynamics of Power and Influence an Organisations, University ofNotredame Press.

Miles Mary, 1992. The Effective Manager: Semi-Tough, McGraw Hill.

Misumi J and MF Peterson, 1985. “The Performance Maintenance Theory of Leadership:Review of a Japanese Research Program,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 30,198–223.

Richard M Steers, 1984. Introduction to Organisational Behavior, 2e, Scott, Foresman,Glenview, p. 518.

Robbins SP, 1988. Organisational Behavior: Concept, Controversies and Applications,Prentice Hall of India, Delhi.

Sen S and S Saxena, 1999. “Managerial Effectiveness: Managing with a Difference,”Personnel Today, 20(2), 5–11.

Shermon G. Managerial Effectiveness: The Difficult Question, http://www.jbims.edu/publications.htm

Srivastava SK and SH Kumar, 1984. “Leadership Styles and Effectiveness of Junior andMiddle Level Central Government Officers—A Comparative Study,” PsychologicalStudies, 29, 136–137.

Copyright of Singapore Management Review is the property of Singapore Institute of Management and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Personaliy in Manager