Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHamlin, Robert G.
dc.date.accessioned2008-05-19T10:13:36Z
dc.date.available2008-05-19T10:13:36Z
dc.date.issued2005
dc.identifier.citationHuman Resource Development International, 8(1): 5-25
dc.identifier.issn13678868
dc.identifier.issn14698374
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/1367886042000338254
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2436/26754
dc.description.abstractHouse and Aditya (1997) claim there is a compelling logic suggesting the 'universality' of managerial leader effectiveness but this represents theoretical speculation and remains to be developed theoretically and demonstrated empirically. Their view contrasts sharply with the 'contingent' views of many writers who perceive problems arising from the significant differences in organizational settings and cultures that affect the management and leadership environment, and who question the generalizability and transferability of US management and leadership research to non-US cultures. The present study sets out to contribute to this debate. The findings from a qualitative comparative analytic study of empirically derived criteria of managerial leader effectiveness resulting from several factor analytic studies carried out in Britain and America respectively are presented and discussed. The research has revealed a high degree of universality that lends strong support to those who believe in generic theories and 'universalistic' models of management and leadership.
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherRoutledge (Taylor & Francis)
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a713722264&fulltext=713240928
dc.subjectModelling
dc.subjectManagers
dc.subjectLeadership effectiveness
dc.subjectManagerial effectiveness
dc.subjectUniversally effective manager
dc.titleToward Universalistic Models of Managerial Leader Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of Recent British and American Derived Models of Leadership
dc.typeJournal article
dc.identifier.journalHuman Resource Development International
html.description.abstractHouse and Aditya (1997) claim there is a compelling logic suggesting the 'universality' of managerial leader effectiveness but this represents theoretical speculation and remains to be developed theoretically and demonstrated empirically. Their view contrasts sharply with the 'contingent' views of many writers who perceive problems arising from the significant differences in organizational settings and cultures that affect the management and leadership environment, and who question the generalizability and transferability of US management and leadership research to non-US cultures. The present study sets out to contribute to this debate. The findings from a qualitative comparative analytic study of empirically derived criteria of managerial leader effectiveness resulting from several factor analytic studies carried out in Britain and America respectively are presented and discussed. The research has revealed a high degree of universality that lends strong support to those who believe in generic theories and 'universalistic' models of management and leadership.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record