Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the relative importance of four managerial skill dimensions (technical skill, administrative skill, human skill, and citizenship behavior) for predicting managerial effectiveness. In addition, it aims to explore whether the relative importance of these skill dimensions varies as a function of gender or organizational level.Design/methodology/approachParticipants were 733 managers enrolled in a nationally recognized leadership development program. Ratings of managerial skill were obtained from peers using a well‐validated 360‐degree assessment instrument, while manager effectiveness ratings were provided by supervisors. Moderated multiple regression and relative weight analysis were used to test the study's hypotheses.FindingsUsing ratings provided by multiple sources, these results show that all four of the managerial skill dimensions were significantly important predictors of manager effectiveness. Human skills were significantly more important than technical skill and citizenship behavior, while administrative skills were most important overall. Gender was not a significant moderator of the skill‐effectiveness relationship, but organizational level was.Practical implicationsIndividuals tasked with selecting, developing, or placing managers should take all four skill dimensions into account. Moreover, special consideration should be given to administrative skill, and this emphasis should increase for managers higher up in the organizational hierarchy.Originality/valueAlthough prior research has speculated about the importance of different managerial skills, this study is the first to provide empirical support for this skill typology in predicting actual managerial effectiveness using appropriate statistical analyses for examining the relative importance of these skill dimensions.

PurposeThough a number of demographics (e.g. sex, age) have been associated with work overload, scholars have yet to consider the potential impact of immigrant status. This is important because immigrants constitute a significant proportion of the workforce, and evidence suggests many employers believe they are easier to exploit. This paper aims to examine work hours, interpersonal justice, and immigrant status as predictors of work overload.Design/methodology/approachThe hypotheses were tested using a large, national random telephone survey of employees in the United States (n=2,757).FindingsAs expected, employees who worked more hours tended to perceive more work overload. Importantly, however, this effect interacted with interpersonal justice differently for immigrant and native‐born employees. Justice attenuated the effect of work hours for the former but seemed to exacerbate it somewhat for the latter. Of note, the interactive effect was more than five times larger for immigrants than for natives.Practical implicationsThe study shows that supervisors might require their employees to work longer hours without necessarily being perceived as abusive (i.e. overloading them). Doing so, however, requires treating employees justly in the form of respect, courtesy, and dignity. Though this form of just treatment is important for all employees, its effects are especially pronounced for immigrants.Originality/valueThe relationship between the number of hours worked and perceptions of work overload is examined for immigrant and non‐immigrant workers in the USA.