Search results

This paper aims to demonstrate the efforts of Hay Youssef and Tang (2019) to reaffirm the importance of managerial discretion is unsuccessful.

Theoretical frameworks from traditional and recent literature on the concept of managerial discretion are related to corporate governance scholarship.

There are in fact no studies on managerial discretion based on explicit theoretical and empirical definitions and thus no studies published which have measured the degrees of managers’ discretion. The conclusion is that the inability to define the notion of managerial discretion is tantamount to the inability to research it.

Research on managerial discretion does not provide any advice to owners and directors of boards on granting top executives a high or a low degree of discretion.

This paper reaffirms the conclusion of Andersen (2017) that corporate governance scholarship will improve if it abandons the concept of managerial discretion.

This paper aims to assess the concept of managerial discretion with respect to its theoretical and empirical usefulness for corporate governance research.

This paper scrutinises applied theoretical claims, definitions and methods, as well as a number of empirical studies on managerial discretion.

To date, no empirical definition of the concept has been presented and no measurement has been developed and tested for reliability and validity that contains all three factors of the managerial discretion concept, as proposed by Hambrick and Finkelstein (1987).

Research on managerial discretion does not provide owners and directors of boards with any advice on granting top managers a high or low degree of discretion.

This paper concludes that corporate governance scholarship will improve if it abandons the concept of managerial discretion.

The purpose of this paper is to question the usefulness of comparisons between theories on servant leadership and transformational leadership.

A review of scholarly works on these two theories is presented from the original works of Greenleaf, Burns and Bass to the current research.

Based on the four categories of construct clarity, two competing alternatives are identifiable in the scholarship of both servant and transformational leadership. There are thus 16 versions of each theory.

The literature review contains no new empirical data. The many versions available today of each theory do not make comparisons meaningful. The prevalence of several versions of theories on servant leadership and transformational leadership implies that they are no longer specific and useful theories.

Critical comments are presented on the usefulness of comparisons between servant leadership and transformational leadership. Thus, the value of these theories is also questioned.

Some scholars have claimed that CEOs make decisions, while boards of directors control these decisions by applying the concepts of decision management and decision control. These concepts were suggested more than 30 years ago and are still applied in corporate governance research. They are now challenged on the basis of scholarship on corporate governance and management.

Corporate governance addresses the authority and responsibility that boards of directors and executives have. Management theory addresses planning and control in corporations.

The relationship between the owners (the boards of directors) and the top managers is hierarchical. This paper concludes that owners or boards of directors make decisions on main and strategic goals. Decisions cannot be controlled, but the implementation and outcomes of plans can. The latter is managers’ responsibility. The terms “decision management” and “decision control” are undefined and do not describe what takes place in organizations.

This paper does not contain any new empirical data.

Management theory offers clear definitions of decisions, decision-making and control. The concepts of decision management (initiation and implementation) and decision control (ratification and monitoring) neither properly describe who makes major and strategic decisions nor how and who controls the consequences of these decisions.

Scholars’ ability to do research based on the notions of “follower” and “followership” is questioned when studying formal leadership in organizations. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

Critical comments are presented on the usefulness of the notions of followers and followership.

There are no evidence that followership exists other than some scholars’ perception of something that they have been unable to define. The conclusion is that the inability to define these notions is tantamount to the inability to research them.

The literature review contains no new empirical data.

The paper stresses that study objects which are not theoretically and empirically defined cannot be investigated.

This study aims to explore behavioural differences between women and men in managerial positions and suggest explanations for differences and similarities.

In order to eliminate any effects of organizational differences on leadership behaviour, this study had public managers responding to questionnaires that measured their leadership style, decision‐making style, and motivation profile.

Statistical analyses of data from three groups of Swedish public managers (n=385) revealed virtually no significant differences in behaviour between female and male managers. Regardless of whether there is a female or male majority of employees or a female or male majority of managers, no effect on leadership behaviour occurs.

A number of studies indicate that managers' behaviour is different in different types of organizations. This study suggests, therefore, that, independent of gender, organizational and demographic characteristics modify leadership behaviours, thus explaining similarities in leadership behaviour.

When subordinates are asked what kind of manager they prefer, the answers are virtually the same. Subordinates have a different focus than managers, as the latter focus on organisational goal attainment. The purpose of this paper is to pinpoint the consequences of the subordinates' leadership preferences for organisational performance.

This paper draws conclusions based on previous research and empirical data collected to illustrate the likely outcome of subordinates having the managers they prefer.

Subordinates favour the type of manager who has a relationship oriented style of leadership, and who is predominantly motivated by affiliation. Additionally, subordinates appear to prefer a servant leader to be their boss. Research has shown that relationship oriented and affiliation motivated managers, as well as servant leaders are detrimental to organisational effectiveness.

The data refer only to Swedish samples of private and public managers regarding leadership styles and motivation profiles. Data have not yet been published on the occurrence of popular managers and the prevalence of servant leaders.

Both managers and subordinates need to acknowledge the conflicting issues in management. The manager that the subordinates want is precisely what they should not get.

This paper supplies theoretical as well as empirical arguments needed to warn organisations against having managers whose behaviour is preferred by subordinates, but also impedes organisational effectiveness.

The purpose of this paper is to scrutinise the concept of servant leadership from a business administration (management) point‐of‐view.

A review of scholarly works on servant‐leadership is presented.

A generally accepted definition of servant‐leadership is not available. There are no generally accepted instruments for measuring servant‐leadership. It is unclear whether some leaders are servant‐leaders while others are not, and whether leaders can be servant‐leaders to different degrees. The positive effects of servant‐leadership on organisational outcomes, a consideration highly relevant to management, have not been empirically established. Some studies have shown negative effects of servant‐leadership on organisational effectiveness.

This literature review contains no empirical data.

The argument that servant‐leaders should be in charge of private companies and public organisations appears to be contrary to theoretical and empirical considerations. Servant‐leaders, whose concerns are primarily focused on subordinates rather than customers (or citizens), are hardly able to attain organisational goals.

The paper offers critical comments on the conceptual and empirically usefulness of servant‐leadership when applied to business enterprises and public agencies.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate that the magnitude of interest in and of enthusiasm for transformational leadership is out of proportion with its weaknesses.

The theory has some grave problems: there are conceptual limitations; managerial leadership is conflated with political leadership; the theory is presented as a universal as well as a contingency theory; the claim that transformational leaders are more effective is not empirically supported; and the use of the term “followers” rather than “subordinates” creates confusion in the study of formal organizations. Finally, and perhaps most fundamentally, does transformational leadership theory qualify as a managerial leadership theory?

Transformational leadership is a political leadership theory and thus less relevant for managerial leadership.

This paper addresses the theoretical limitations of the transformational leadership theory as well as the lack of empirical support regarding the effectiveness of transformational leaders.

This paper aims to show how organisation theory can be used to understand the controversy between the shareholder and the stakeholder perspectives. Rationalistic and open system theories may enhance research on corporate governance by offering well-defined concepts and by specifying core relationships.

This paper applies descriptions of the two perspectives in organisation theory as a “method” for illustrating how they are linked to and support the shareholder versus the stakeholder perspectives.

The controversy stems from the fact that the shareholder and the stakeholder perspectives address different relationships. The shareholder perspective captures two relationships that accord with rationalistic organisation theory: shareholders are managing the managers and the organisation, and managers are managing the corporation on behalf of the owners. The stakeholder perspective focuses on three relationships that are not concordant with system theory: managers are managing the shareholders (i.e. the symbolic management of stockholders), managers are managing the corporation (i.e. general management theory) and managers are managing the stakeholders.

Organisation theory provides suggestions for more fruitful definitions of the often-used concepts of direction, control, administration and influence. These terms may be substituted with the well-defined concepts of management, power and control.

Proponents of organisation theory find it theoretically difficult to deal with the topic of corporate governance, if they do at all. When they do, they do it only perfunctorily.

Organisation theory may strengthen research on corporate governance if we insist on both theoretical clarifications of major relationships and on the use of more strictly defined concepts.