What do effective managerial leaders really do? Using qualitative methodological pluralism and analytical triangulation to explore everyday ‘managerial effectiveness’ and ‘managerial coaching effectiveness.
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractThe present study analyses the qualitative research methodologies used for several 'emic' case-study explorations of managerial behaviours that we have carried out independently within various UK and US public, corporate/private and voluntary sector organisations. These results have subsequently been used for a collaborative cross-cultural 'etic' study. The aim of each 'emic' study was to identify either the criteria and/or behavioural indicators/categories of 'managerial and leadership effectiveness', or of 'managerial coaching effectiveness'. The aim of our collaborative cross-cultural 'etic' study was to search for evidence of commonalities and relative generalisations between the findings of our respective 'emic' studies and, if possible, synthesise a 'unified perspective' from the 'multiple realities' identified. The main conclusion of the present article is that research designs embracing 'qualitative methodological pluralism' and 'rigorous analytical triangulation' can result in meaningful generalised findings, and these can lead to the production of 'general knowledge' and 'management theory'.
CitationInternational Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 2(3): 255-276
PublisherInderscience Enterprises Limited
JournalInternational Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biomarkers for the prioritisation of patients awaiting coronary revascularisation: a systematic review and decision model.Hemingway, H; Henriksson, M; Chen, R; Damant, J; Fitzpatrick, N; Abrams, K; Hingorani, A; Janzon, M; Shipley, M; Feder, G; Keogh, B; Stenestrand, U; McAllister, K; Kaski, J-C; Timmis, A; Palmer, S; Sculpher, M (NIHR, 2010-02-01)To determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a range of strategies based on conventional clinical information and novel circulating biomarkers for prioritising patients with stable angina awaiting coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 1966 until 30 November 2008. We carried out systematic reviews and meta-analyses of literature-based estimates of the prognostic effects of circulating biomarkers in stable coronary disease. We assessed five routinely measured biomarkers and the eight emerging (i.e. not currently routinely measured) biomarkers recommended by the European Society of Cardiology Angina guidelines. The cost-effectiveness of prioritising patients on the waiting list for CABG using circulating biomarkers was compared against a range of alternative formal approaches to prioritisation as well as no formal prioritisation. A decision-analytic model was developed to synthesise data on a range of effectiveness, resource use and value parameters necessary to determine cost-effectiveness. A total of seven strategies was evaluated in the final model. We included 390 reports of biomarker effects in our review. The quality of individual study reports was variable, with evidence of small study (publication) bias and incomplete adjustment for simple clinical information such as age, sex, smoking, diabetes and obesity. The risk of cardiovascular events while on the waiting list for CABG was 3 per 10,000 patients per day within the first 90 days (184 events in 9935 patients with a mean of 59 days at risk). Risk factors associated with an increased risk, and included in the basic risk equation, were age, diabetes, heart failure, previous myocardial infarction and involvement of the left main coronary artery or three-vessel disease. The optimal strategy in terms of cost-effectiveness considerations was a prioritisation strategy employing biomarker information. Evaluating shorter maximum waiting times did not alter the conclusion that a prioritisation strategy with a risk score using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was cost-effective. These results were robust to most alternative scenarios investigating other sources of uncertainty. However, the cost-effectiveness of the strategy using a risk score with both eGFR and C-reactive protein (CRP) was potentially sensitive to the cost of the CRP test itself (assumed to be 6 pounds in the base-case scenario).