JOEPP REandME

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/319017763
Dimensions of role efﬁcacy and managerial effectiveness: evidence from India
Article in Journal of Organizational Effectiveness People and Performance · August 2017

DOI: 10.1108/JOEPP-02-2016-0009
CITATIONS READS
9 2,147
4 authors:
Umesh Bamel Pawan Budhwar

IMI New Delhi Aston University
51 PUBLICATIONS 857 CITATIONS 320 PUBLICATIONS 12,695 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Peter Stokes Happy Paul

De Montfort University T. A. Pai Management Institute
131 PUBLICATIONS 1,261 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 160 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Edited Book View project
The Performative University - ‘Targets and Terror’ in Academia View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Peter Stokes on 10 February 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance
Dimensions of role efficacy and managerial effectiveness: evidence from India
Umesh Bamel, Pawan Budhwar, Peter Stokes, Happy Paul,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Umesh Bamel, Pawan Budhwar, Peter Stokes, Happy Paul, (2017) "Dimensions of role efficacy and
managerial effectiveness: evidence from India", Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and
Performance, https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-02-2016-0009
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-02-2016-0009
Downloaded by Doctor Umesh Bamel At 04:56 09 August 2017 (PT)
Downloaded on: 09 August 2017, At: 04:56 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 106 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by
Token:Eprints:5V5FUAZYJEFAACU4AJMV:
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2051-6614.htm
Dimensions of
Dimensions of role efficacy and RE and ME
managerial effectiveness:
evidence from India
Umesh Bamel
HRM Department, TA Pai Management Institute, Manipal, India
Pawan Budhwar
Department of Human Resource Management, Aston Business School,
Birmingham, UK
Peter Stokes
Leicester Castle Business School, Leicester De Montfort University,
Leicester, UK, and

Happy Paul
HRM Department, TA Pai Management Institute, Manipal, India
Abstract
Purpose – While a range of studies have been undertaken on role efficacy (RE) and managerial effectiveness
(ME), understanding of the link between RE and ME in the extant literature remains underdeveloped and, in
particular, there is a need to develop appreciation of the phenomenon in varying (national and cultural)
contexts. The purpose of this paper is to advance the understanding of ME by considering the relationship
between RE and ME in the Indian context. In tandem with this focus, the study considers the parallel
underlying dynamic and influence of social cognitive frameworks and adaptive self-regulation mechanisms.
Design/methodology/approach – The study employs a quantitative methodology and follows a
correlational design. A survey questionnaire was employed sequentially (the independent variable was
measured at time 1 and the dependent variable was measure at time 2) in order to collect data from 294 Indian
managers. Structural equation modeling was used to ascertain the validity of measures and multiple
hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to test the study hypotheses.
Findings – The results of the study identify that RE dimensions, i.e. role making, role centering and role
linkage were significantly and positively related to ME and these findings are particularly important in relation
to the transforming cultures of Indian work and organizational environments. These findings advance the
understanding of social cognitive theory and adaptive self-regulation processes in relation to RE and ME.
Practical implications – The empirical results of this study suggest that RE-related components may be
used as means to boost employee effectiveness.
Originality/value – The study identifies a significant role for RE in relation to beneficial outcomes for ME.
These findings contribute to the field of social cognitive mechanisms by establishing positive relationships in
domain link efficacy, i.e. RE and ME.
Keywords Managerial effectiveness, Dimensions of role efficacy, Role centering, Role efficacy,
Role linkage, Role making
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In recent decades, role efficacy (RE) has emerged as a significant concept in managerial and
organizational analyses (Bamel et al., 2016; Beauchamp et al., 2002; Upadhyay et al., 2016).
RE may be understood as the extent to which one feels, and is, effective in a given role
(Pareek, 1987, 2008). Empirically, research has identified the linkage of RE with, and as a
significant predictor of, many workplace-related constructs, for example: managerial
flexibility (Bamel et al., 2016), quality orientation (Hassan et al., 2006), organizational Journal of Organizational
citizenship behavior (McAllister et al., 2007; Bolino et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2016), role conflict Effectiveness: People and
Performance
and creativity (Giustiniano et al., 2016), and work-related stress (Sayeed and Kumar, 2010; © Emerald Publishing Limited
2051-6614
Khamisa et al., 2016). The growing discussion on RE highlights the potential that the DOI 10.1108/JOEPP-02-2016-0009
JOEPP concept appears to offer scholarly investigation. Moreover, given the longstanding dialectic
between efficacy and effectiveness (Drucker, 2007), it is reasonable to anticipate that RE is
likely to have linkages with concepts such as managerial effectiveness (ME).
Researchers have characterized ME in a variety of ways including, for example:
successful job behavior (Chai et al., 2016; Hamlin et al., 2016; Hamlin and Patel, 2016;
Ruiz et al., 2014, 2016); job productivity/output (Austin et al., 1991); and, possession of skills
and competencies (Analoui et al., 2010). Furthermore, Tsui and Ashford’s (1994) seminal
adaptive self-regulation model (i.e. self-goal setting, self-monitoring of behavior referring to
the goals and self-evaluation that characterize managerial activity) is a common influence in
defining ME. The reflective aspects of Tsui and Ashford’s model provide a bridge between
the contrasting self-defining dimensions and the external assessment notions within
ME. Nevertheless, overall, whereas RE tends to be grounded on primarily an emic view
(i.e. self-regarding and internalized perception), alternatively, ME, while possessing
reflective elements, is often discussed from a more etic perspective. Thus, ME points at the
connectivity of the individual with their own RE in relation to their performance as an

externally assessed task or output which might be more generally considered to be of value
and, importantly, ultimately impacts on organizational performance. Thus, the concept of
adaptive self-regulation (representing a key mode of ME) originates from a long lineage of
classical management approaches including, by way of example: multiple constituency
approach (Tsui and Gutek, 1984); contingency perspective (Fiedler and Chemers, 1967);
path goal approach (House, 1971); and, a range of contemporary commentaries
(Clampitt, 2012; Aslam et al., 2016). In essence, these approaches acknowledge that
managers operate in a social context which is constituted of multiple stakeholders (i.e.
multiple constituencies) having many expectations and these expectations of relevant
constituencies are significantly moderated by context characteristics. Managers who
operate effectively are viewed as those who appreciate differential goals of relevant
constituencies and adjust their goals and tactics accordingly. On the basis of the above
observations, ME may, therefore, be broadly understood as successful job/role behavior
which satisfies stakeholders’ expectations.
It is significant to note that within the span of work on ME – from the earliest up to and
including more recent developments – scholars have considered the contribution of several
ME variables encompassing both organizational and individual variables, for example:
political skills (Snell et al., 2013; Ferris et al., 2017); altruistic behavior, communication, and
interpersonal relationships (Bamel et al., 2013); supervisory ability (Analoui et al., 2010;
Hamlin and Serventi, 2008); and, knowledge and intellectual abilities (Wang, 2011).
Nevertheless, in spite of this important work a number of gaps exist in ME research, i.e.
studying ME from the perspective of social cognitive frameworks. Therefore, this study
aims to advance the understanding of effectiveness research by examining the underlying
dynamism between social cognitive frameworks and adaptive self-regulation mechanisms.
By doing so, it responds to calls for novel scholarship in effectiveness research at all
organizational levels and not least in to the call made in the inaugural issue editorial of
Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Process (Sparrow and Cooper, 2014).
In the present examination, which refers to leadership efficacy and leadership effectiveness
research (Ng et al., 2008; Chemers et al., 2000; Kane and Engle, 2002; Chai et al., 2016), RE
(a specific form of efficacy) is anticipated to be positively related to ME. RE is defined as a
specific form of efficacy which is related to role occupant’s confidence in his/her capabilities to
carry out role functions successfully (Bray and Brawley, 2002). Simply stated, it may
be seen as confidence to carry out formal role responsibilities (Beauchamp, 2007). For instance,
Bray et al. (2004) examined the RE with role performance of players of the Spanish youth
soccer team. They identified and confirmed a positive relationship between role occupant’s
confidence in his/her capabilities and role performance. Importantly, in spite of the fact that
RE is widely accepted as a motivational construct for prediction of successful job-related Dimensions of
behaviors (Pareek, 2008; Bray and Brawley, 2002), the relationship between RE and ME has RE and ME
not been extensively examined empirically.
In addition, recent research in managerial and leadership effectiveness has also begun to
consider the role of specific national and cultural contexts (Hamlin et al., 2016) including, for
example: perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness within South Korean and
British private companies (Hamlin et al., 2016); perceived managerial and leadership
effectiveness within higher education in France (Hamlin and Patel, 2017); and, behavioral
determinants of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness in Argentina (Ruiz et al.,
2016). In this regard, it is important to acknowledge that theoretical accounts of knowledge
may be transformed while transferring an idea or concept from one (national) context to
another context (Tsui et al., 2007; Ruiz et al., 2014) due to cultural and organizational
differences. In this way, India represents a particularly interesting site for the study of RE in
relation to ME. India constitutes a major emerging economy and therefore is likely to have
significant interactions and impacts on contemporary and future global business activities
and practices. Moreover, in cross- and inter-cultural terms, it is useful to note that, following
the oft-cited framework of Hofstede (1980) and Hofstede et al. (1990), Indian organizational
culture is characterized as having high power distance, collectivism, long-term orientation
and restraint. As a consequence, it is valuable to note that this contrasts substantially with,
for example, many western cultures. As a consequence, this examination is of direct value
for Indian managers in assisting them to develop RE-based interventions with a view to
enhancing their effectiveness. Finally, the study research team has ready access to sizeable
research data and respondents in Indian settings. Thus, overall, a study which focuses on
India offers a contextual and indigenous examination of the social cognitive perspectives
and adaptive self-regulatory mechanisms in this context and assists in increasing the
theoretical generalizability of RE and ME constructs.
In response to the need to develop research into RE and ME, and also to respond to calls
by Yeo and Neal (2006) and Sparrow and Cooper (2014) for specific developmental activities
in relation to effectiveness, the current study is structured in the following manner. First, the
study conducts a literature review on RE and ME and associates this with notions of social
cognitive theory and adaptive self-regulatory processes. This contextualizes the research
questions and points the way to the detailed development of the methodology section which
empirically tests them by employing primary responses collected from Indian managers.
The findings, in consideration with the literature, facilitate a discussion which leads to
conclusions on the research questions and hypotheses. A number of limitations and
managerial implications are also identified.
Theoretical background and hypotheses

RE
RE may be understood as domain-linked perceived competence of a function holder to perform
the essential tasks of a role effectively (Pareek, 2008; Ng et al., 2008; Upadhyay et al., 2016).
RE facilitates the internal examination and judgment of internal strengths and capabilities of
people. This internal assessment provides deeper awareness about self-capabilities and can
lead to job performance enhancement. In tandem with RE, adaptive self-regulation mechanisms
(a long-established idea – see Tsui and Ashford, 1994; Niessen and Jimmieson, 2016)
propose that an effective manager sets self-goals, monitors self-behavior, self-evaluates
behavior and adjusts behavioral discrepancies in order to achieve goals. Our argument,
proposes that the RE of a role occupant is likely to moderate role-behavioral discrepancies
and lead to desired behavioral outcomes and builds on Bandura’s (1977, 1999a, b, 2007,
2015 – self-efficacy theory) work and leadership efficacy research (Chai et al., 2016;
Ng et al., 2008). Thus, a manager with high RE tends to set high performance standards,
JOEPP develop better behavior strategies to meet the goals and accomplish managerial tasks
effectively. In alignment with earlier research (McAllister et al., 2007; Ng et al., 2008), the present
argument proposes RE, more precisely, as domain-specific efficacy. In particular, the extant
literature (Ng et al., 2008; Upadhyay et al., 2016) highlights the primary importance of domain
efficacy and its connectedness with the attainment of high performance. Efficacy and
performance are closely linked across a range of domains, for example: empirical
examinations in domain-specific efficacy (i.e. leadership efficacy) research confirm the positive
relationship of leadership efficacy and effectiveness (Ng et al., 2008; Chemers et al., 2000;
Kane and Engle, 2002; Chai et al., 2016). Leaders who were found to be positioned high on
leadership efficacy were given higher positive ratings in relation to performance by their
stakeholder constituencies, i.e. peers, trainers and observers (Chemers et al., 2000). Moreover,
findings from laboratory experiments (Kane and Engle, 2002) also concurred with
propositions of self-efficacy theory and suggested that leaders with high leadership efficacy
tend to set higher goals, design better strategies to achieve these goals and ultimately display
higher leadership performance.
In recent decades, social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1999a, b, 2007) has been widely used in
order to explain individual task performance. Social cognitive frameworks are understood as
powerful self-regulatory mechanisms positively affecting behaviors through a range of
cognitive, motivational and affective decision processes (Bandura, 1999a, b). A meta-analytic
investigation by Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) found that efficacy beliefs were positively
related to individual task performance. Moreover, meta-analyses (Morris et al., 2015)
demonstrated efficacy belief (both generalized and domain link/task specific) as a strong
predictor of task performance. However, a further set of studies including, Yeo and Neal (2006);
Vancouver and Kendall (2006); and Vancouver et al. (2008), signaled the potentially debilitating
relationship between task-specific efficacy (specific form of efficacy) and task performance.
Sitzmann and Yeo (2013) supported such findings by calling into question the generalized
conviction that domain-specific efficacy is positively related with task performance.
Notwithstanding the generalized motivational aspects of social cognitive frameworks, Yeo
and Neal (2006) called for further research to elaborate the dynamics relating to self-efficacy
effects. However, beyond Yeo and Neal (2006), very few studies have examined the linkage
between domain-specific efficacy and performance, a notable exception being, for example,
leadership efficacy and leadership effectiveness (as illustrated by Ng et al., 2008). Consequently,
the present study aims to address the relationship between domain-specific efficacy (linked to
RE) and performance (linked to ME). By building on Ng et al.’s (2008) proposition of leadership
efficacy, the present study posits that RE (a domain-specific efficacy) is likely to be positively
related to ME.
Dimensions of RE
RE is constituted of three broad dimensions: role making, role centering and role linkage
(Pareek, 2008). Role making refers to the involvement of a role incumbent in defining and
designing a role. Active involvement of a manager in designing a role: enhances employee-
role integration; promotes a manager’s initiative-taking attitude; provides opportunities to
try new and unconventional ways of solving problems; and, increase a manager’s tendency
to confront and solve problems (Pareek, 2008). The role centering dimension of RE is
concerned with increasing the importance of the given role. As a sense emerges that the
given role is central to organization, this provides an opportunity to exercise influence and
also enables an employee to grow and develop. Role centering portrays the power of role
within organization and, through this, contributes to RE (Pareek, 2008). The role linkage
dimension extends the relationship of the said role with other functions and groups.
It depicts the linkage of a role with other roles in an organization, provides opportunities for
helping and receiving help from others. Role linkage also connects the role with systems,
groups and entities beyond the organization. Thus role linkage supports the synergistic Dimensions of
efforts to be more productive and remove the risk of role isolation (Pareek, 2008). RE and ME
The next sections discuss the relationship of the specific dimensions of role making, role
centering and role linkage ( following Pareek, 2008) within RE and links them with ME as an
integral part of the process of building the hypotheses for the argument.
Role making and ME

Role making constitutes the process of defining, clarifying and enacting organizational roles
(Kahn et al., 1964; Pareek 2008; Peng et al., 2016). Role theory stipulates that role making is
an interactive process which enables a role incumbent to understand the demands and
constraints placed on his/her behavior in a given role. Furthermore, it also facilitates
interpretation of feedback regarding his/her behavior, and, helps him/her to identify the
accepted pattern of behavior in a given role (Katz and Kahn, 1978). The involvement of
the role incumbent in the role-making process increases the degree of alignment between the
role and role occupant and further reinforces role congruence. Involvement in role-making
processes enhances the role commitment of the incumbent and facilitates goal attainment
behavior (Yanagizawa and Furukawa, 2016). Similarly, role making leads to role clarity and
role clarification has been found to be positively associated with job satisfaction which acts
as a catalyst of effectiveness (Hassan, 2013). Moreover, as part of this assessment, managers
will typically have a range of individual capabilities to contribute in terms of skills,
experience and technical expertise and the notion of participation of the role incumbent in
the role-making process assumes that the assigned role should enable managers to employ
their respective capabilities (Pareek, 1987). Furthermore, the role-making process can be
seen as analogous to the goal setting process. Locke (1966), Locke and Latham (2002) and
Travers et al. (2014) view goal setting as an organizational intervention which can augment
employees’ task motivation and subsequent employee performance and this is further
underpinned by a range of valuable studies (Pritchard et al., 1988; Cameron and Green,
2015). Moreover, it is interesting to note that the management by objectives (MBO) literature
(Yanagizawa and Furukawa, 2016) also supports the present study’s proposition, i.e.
involvement in role making and goal-setting processes is a determinant in role performance.
MBO has been characterized as a management planning and controlling tool which helps in
self-regulation and which negates the discrepancy between role objective and role behavior
(Kanfer and Kanfer, 1991).
From a more negative perspective, longstanding research has also indicated that
role-based stress considerably diminishes the role incumbent’s ability to utilize his/her
competencies and the available organizational resources (Pandey, 1995) and that stress
can aggravate and lead to deterioration in the performance of a role carried out by an
incumbent. Research has demonstrated that where a given role incumbent has input into
the design of a role this can be an important factor in mitigating role-based stress
(Pareek, 1987; Pestonjee, 1996; Beauchamp et al., 2002; Bray et al., 2004). Hence, it is useful
to indicate that role making potentially serves managers in improving their effectiveness.
Overall, the above arguments allow the establishment of the following hypothesis
which states:
H1. Role making will be positively and significantly related to ME.
Role centering and ME

Pareek (2008) indicated that employees’ belief that their occupied role is central to the
organization, the department, or team, is likely to boost their potential effectiveness.
Alternatively, possession of a sense that a role was less important tended to diminish an
employee’s potential effectiveness. According to a number of writers in the area of RE
JOEPP research, role centering can be viewed as the extent to which any person in a given
position can exert the position’s influence and power (Pandey, 1995, Pestonjee, 1996;
Pareek, 2008; Bamel et al., 2016). Thus, role centering may be seen in essential terms as the
perceived importance of a role in an organization. A prescient sense of importance
contributes to the intrinsic motivation of the role incumbent and, for instance,
a meta-analysis by Cerasoli et al. (2014) confirmed intrinsic motivation as a fundamental
component of performance behavior. Kanfer et al. (2012) corroborated this view and
suggested that intrinsic motivational force guides the direction, intensity, and persistence
of performance behaviors.
A further important component of role centering is the role incumbent’s perception that
the position offers him or her opportunities for growth and development, i.e. the perception
that opportunities for change and evolution are available makes employees more effective
(Pareek, 2008). Role centering may also be taken as a component of employee empowerment.
Employee empowerment is widely believed to improve employee engagement and
subsequently their performance (Ugwu et al., 2014). Role-centering advances a role
incumbent’s satisfaction within the assigned role and, as such, employees are more likely to
be committed to their professions and organizations (Gupta and Khandelwal, 1988). In
summary to this section of the discussion on role centering, it is possible to propose that role
centrality, associated with ability to exercise influence in the workplace and opportunities
for further development, customarily leads to ME. Thus, it is hypothesized that:
H2. Role centering will be positively and significantly related to ME.
Role linkage and ME

Role linkage is the connecting of one’s role with that of others in the organization or
expanding the relationships of the role with others. Role linkage mechanisms facilitate
communication processes and promote collective discussion on problems. Consequently, the
overall linkage process amplifies the potential effectiveness of the role incumbent
(Hong, 2002; Pareek, 1987, 2008). Harvey and Kou (2011) supported this view and added that
collective engagement in tasks can generate creativity. In a similar vein, Jain and Juneja
(2011) also opined that role linkage causes innovation in connection with roles
and Priyadarshini (2009) correlated it with organizational productivity resulting in
heightened effectiveness.
In addition, joint efforts by employees in understanding problems, findings solutions and
helping each other in their roles are likely to improve role effectiveness (Pareek, 2008). On
occasion, the role holder may not find himself or herself sufficiently resourceful in terms of
knowledge, skills, abilities and experiences to be able to fulfill the multifaceted demands
of tasks. Where this occurs, it may contribute to role stress which potentially harms
effectiveness (Wincent and Örtqvist, 2009). The feeling of belonging and helping within
relationships can generate a virtual inventory of diversified skills, knowledge and abilities.
A readily available pool of capabilities may significantly enhance the potential of the role
occupant and generate synergy in efforts between employees. The concept of team, where
roles are often interdependent may also strengthen this view. The role incumbent’s belief
that others are available to help him or her out in adverse conditions also dilutes the fear of
unexpected and unknown outcomes. In contrast, a feeling of isolation hampers motivation
even if the role incumbent is able to fulfill role demands. Therefore, a person working
without any linkage with another colleague would generally be seen to be less productive.
In addition to role linkage within an organization, the linkage of role beyond the boundaries
of an organization may also motivate a role occupant to work more effectively. The role
incumbent’s belief that his or her role outcomes would add value to a larger group is more
likely to motivate him/her and Pareek (2008) termed this super-ordination. Thus, it may
be deduced that super-ordination, coupled with sense of inter-role linkage and Dimensions of
belongingness, engenders effectiveness. This argument underscores the potential RE and ME
significance of role linkage in predicting ME leading to the next hypothesis of the study:
H3. Role linkage will be positively and significantly related to ME.
The current discussion has elaborated the importance of RE dimensions in ME research.
While there exist a wide range of allusions of the significance of RE in relation to ME, few
studies have been undertaken which frame the relationship that role making, role centering
and role linkage have on ME. Thus, the next stage of the study develops a methodology
with which to progress to the empirical analysis of the argument.
Methodology
Population and sample
The present study examines the relationship of dimensions of RE with ME and focuses on
managerial-level employees from “mid and large capital” manufacturing organizations.

In order to assess the research hypotheses, the study employs a quantitative sequential
survey design. Sequential survey design was preferred in order to reduce the common
method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003, 2012).
Large-scale manufacturing organizations located in the established industrial clusters of
northern India were selected for the data collection. List of companies were obtained from
the directorate of industries. Out of total 386 companies, 50 companies were selected by
random sampling procedure which, due to usual data access and limitation issues,
developed into a multi-tire nomination through snowball sampling process. A research team
member approached the human resources department of these organizations (telephonically
and via e-mails), the purpose of the research was explained, and access approval sought.
A total 32 organizations agreed to participate in the study. These companies were in the
manufacturing of automobile, farm machinery, pharmaceutical, glass manufacturing, heavy
electrical equipment, household electrical equipment.
Measures
RE. The scale for measuring RE perception and its factors, i.e. role making, role centering
and role linkage is drawn primarily from the seminal conceptual work of Pareek (2008).
The scale consists of 20 sets of statements (a total of 60 statements, three statements in each
set). Role making has eight sets of statements. For example, one aspect of role making is
“freedom to take initiatives” in a given role. Participants were provided with a set of three
items and asked to tick the one that most appropriately described their belief regarding
the item. By way of illustration, a sample set of items for role importance was: “I have
little freedom in my role; I am only an ‘errand’ (runner);” “I operate according to the
direction given to me;” and “I can take initiatives in my role.” The Cronbach’s α for the role
making was 0.68.
In order to assess role centering, six sets of statements were used, for example: “role
importance” is one aspect of role centering and, in order to test this, the three statements
were employed. The three statements were anchored as, for example: “very little importance
is given to my role in this organization; I feel peripheral here;” “I am doing a useful and fairly
important work;” “my role is very important in this organization; I feel central here”.
The Cronbach’s α for role centering was 0.69.
Similarly, responses for role linkage were recorded on six sets of statements, for example,
“work in collaboration” is one aspect of role linkage and to measure it three statements were used:
“I am alone and have almost no one to consult on my role;” “No one in the organisation
responds to my ideas and suggestions;” “I work in close collaboration with some other colleague.”
JOEPP In each statement, the respondents had to select one of the three options that most
appropriately described their experience in the organizations. The Cronbach’s α coefficient
for role linkage was 0.71.
ME. In order to assess ME, we used well-established but adapted aspects of Mott’s (1972)
seminal work. Mott (1972) employed this metric for measuring effectiveness at department
and organizational level. It is important to note that subsequent scholars (Luthans et al., 1988;
Singh Chauhan et al., 2005; Bamel et al., 2011, 2015) have used this metric for measuring
effectiveness at individual level, i.e. ME. Bamel et al. (2011) reported a good reliability of ME
scale, i.e. 0.78. Items from this scale are measured on a five-point Likert scale in which 1 refers
to “poor” and 5 refers to “excellent.” This instrument measures the desired behavioral aspects
of a managerial job (i.e. responsiveness toward changes and orientation toward quality).
The example item included: “How good a job is done by you [in relation to your division] in
anticipating problems that may come up in the future and preventing them from occurring or
minimizing their effects?” Similarly, another sample item was: “When changes are made in the
routines or in the equipment, how quickly do you accept and adjust to these changes?”
The reliability coefficient i.e. Cronbach’s α for ME was 0.67.
Data collection
A total 32 organizations agreed to participate in the study. Access approval was sought and
confirmed from the organizations. The research team requested that data collection take
place at the participants’ place of work. One of the objectives here was to make respondents
more comfortable and thereby more able to engage fully with the study.
Once access had been agreed, the human resources department of the collaborating
organizations was requested to nominate three to four managers (only one nomination from a
given department) having at least two years of employment with the organization to
participate in the survey. A minimum of two years’ affiliation period was deemed appropriate
as a sampling criterion because this underlined a degree of integration in the firm which was
required for the RE and ME constructs. In total, 143 executives were nominated in first round
of nomination. Thereafter, the nominated executives were asked for the next round of
nomination of employees following the same criteria as the previous selection. Second round of
nomination nominated 235 participants. One purpose of this approach was to mitigate bias by
the human resource departments and, moreover, to better represent the internally perceived
culture of the organization. In this way, a snowball sampling procedure was followed.
Data from participating managers were collected at two different time points. At time
point one, a twenty-item questionnaire which captured the RE perception of participants
was administered in the workplace. A total of 378 questionnaires were returned, resulting in
a response rate of 84 percent. At time 2, an eight-item ME questionnaire was sent to a
sample set who had responded to the first phase through their e-mail address and responses
were sought on their ME. Finally, after a preliminary screening, a sample set of 294
responses was deemed suitable for analysis.
The average age of participants was 38.3 years and the average period of employment
was 12.6 years. In total, 80 percent of the sample members were male; 60.3 percent
participants were employed in private organizations; and 44.3 percent of the sample was
comprised of junior-level managers. Approximately six percent of participants held a PhD
degree; 41.7 percent of participants were degree-level graduates; and 44.5 percent of
participants indicated attainment of postgraduate qualifications. In the Indian case under
examination, it was recognized that, in the Indian context, managers generally tend to be a
graduate, and occasionally a postgraduate entry profession.
There are many commonalities in both the RE and the ME variables of the study,
i.e., both are perceptual in nature, are collected from the same source, and, are self-reported.
These commonalities could be a potential source of common method variance
(Podsakoff et al., 2003, 2012). Hence, in order to eliminate or minimize common method Dimensions of
variance, the study employed procedural remedies advocated by Podsakoff et al. (2003). RE and ME
First, a different response format was used for both variables. The ME scale was measured
on a five-point Likert scale, whereas, sets of statements were used to assess RE. Second,
different media were used for collecting responses for both variables. The RE scale was
administered personally and respondents were asked to agree to provide their e-mail
addresses for further communication. Then, the ME scale (as an embedded link) was mailed
to the same set of participants after 48 hours from the time point where responses for RE
was collected.
Reliability and validity of measures

In order to ascertain the psychometric properties of measures used, reliability and validity
scores were calculated. The Cronbach’s α values for role making (0.68), role centering (0.69),
role linkage (0.71) and ME (0.67) were found to be close to 0.70 and hence within an
acceptable range. George and Mallery (2003, p. 231) suggest the following criteria for
ascertaining the reliability of a measure: “ ⩾ 0.9 – excellent, ⩾ 0.8 – good, ⩾ 0.7 – acceptable,
⩾ 0.6 – questionable, ⩾ 0.5 – poor, and ⩽ 0.5 – unacceptable.” A number of researchers also
corroborate these criteria (see Cortina, 1993; Gliem and Gliem, 2003) and therefore the results
are toward and in the domain of “acceptable.” An alternative index of reliability i.e.
Guttman’s λ2 was also calculated to ascertain the reliability of used instruments. The λ2
indices for role making (0.71), role centering (0.73), role linkage (0.74) and ME (0.71) were
again found in the acceptable range and hence ascertain the moderate reliability of the
instruments used.
To ascertain validity of the measures used, a series of confirmatory factor analysis
(measurement model) was conducted using structural equation modeling. Results of the full
measurement model ( four-factor structure) demonstrated good psychometric properties.
The fit indices indicate a good fit with the data, χ2 ¼ 438.26 (df 80), p ¼ 0.00, χ2/df ¼ 1.28,
comparative ﬁt index (CFI) ¼ 0.93, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) ¼ 0.92, root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) ¼ 0.031, PCFI ¼ 0.90 (Hair et al., 2006). To test the discriminant
validity of the constructs the study compared the four-factor model with three-factor nested
models. The obtained fit statistics (Table I) demonstrated the fit superiority of the four-factor
model over competing models (Alfes et al., 2013). Since data were collected from the same
source, possibilities of inflated inter-correlations among RE and ME can be ruled out.
Therefore, we calculated the variance inflation factor (VIF) to ascertain the non-existence of
multicollinearity. The VIF values for role making (1.25), role centering (1.21) and role linkage
(1.13) negate the existence of multicollinearity (Aquino and Bradfield, 2000; Hair et al., 2006).
Analysis and results

In order to test the hypotheses of the study, the data gathered were analyzed using multiple
hierarchical regression analyses. Multiple hierarchical regression analysis is an appropriate
analytical technique and has been used extensively in scholarly examinations of a similar
nature, i.e. to test predictor function of/relationship between the independent variable and
dependent variable (Aquino and Bradfield, 2000; Ng et al., 2008). Table II presents the results
of descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) of RE and its subscales and ME. The
categorical variables are quantified before analysis (gender ¼ 0 for female and 1 for male;
education ¼ 0 for graduates, 1 for postgraduates and 2 for others; managerial level ¼ 0 for
junior level, 1 for middle level and 2 for senior level; type of organization ¼ 0 for private and
1 for public organizations). The values of the correlation analysis of scales and subscales
with the criterion variable are also listed. The results indicated that RE factors are positively
and significantly correlated with ME, i.e (role making and ME ¼ 0.36**, role centering and
ME ¼ 0.33**, role linkage and ME ¼ 0.29**, p o0.01 two-tailed).
JOEPP χ2 df χ2/df GFI CFI TLI RMSEA PCFI
Full model 438.26 341 1.28 0.91 0.93 0.92 0.031 0.90
Nested model 1 781.55 347 2.26 0.82 0.69 0.67 0.069 0.64
Nested model 2 710.46 347 2.04 0.85 0.72 0.69 0.061 0.66
Nested model 3 719.94 347 2.07 0.85 0.73 0.70 0.062 0.68
Nested model 4 723.68 347 2.08 0.81 0.73 0.69 0.065 65
Nested model 5 718.85 347 2.07 0.82 0.72 0.70 0.063 0.69
Harman single factor test 892.16 350 2.78 0.80 0.57 0.54 0.079 0.52
Notes: Source primary data, n ¼ 294; p ¼ 0.000; df, degree of freedom; CFI, comparative fit index; TLI,
Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation. Nested model 1: role linkage and role
Table I. centering is combined in a single factor; Nested model 2: role making and role centering is combined in a
Measurement model single factor; Nested model 3: role centering and managerial effectiveness is combined in a single factor
and competing model model; Nested model 4: role linkage and managerial effectiveness is combined in a single factor model; Nested
fit statistics model 5: role making and managerial effectiveness is combined in a single factor
Variables Gen. Edu. Man. Org. RM RC RL ME
Age 0.11 −0.07 0.91** 0.29** 0.007 0.05 0.05 0.09

Gen. −0.17** 0.10 −0.06 0.071 0.05 0.02 0.09
Edu −0.13* −0.06 0.021 −0.11 −0.09 −0.04
Man. 0.28** 0.038 0.04 0.03 0.13*
Org. −0.11 −0.08 0.03 −0.08
RM 0.39** 0.32** 0.36**
RC 0.26** 0.33**
RL 0.29**
Mean 2.30 2.18 2.35 3.5
Table II. SD 0.42 0.40 0.49 0.48
Mean and correlation Notes: Source primary data, two-tailed Pearson correlation coefficient. Gen., gender, Edu., education, Man.,
coefficient of managerial level; Org., type of organization; RM, role making; RC, role centering; RL, role linkage; RE, role
subscales efficacy; ME, managerial effectiveness. *p o 0.05; **po 0.01
Hypothesis testing
The aim of the study was to examine the relationship of dimensions of RE with ME.
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was carried out to see whether dimensions of
RE, i.e. role making, role centering and role linkage are significantly related to ME.
The demographic variable, i.e. age, gender, education, managerial level and type of
organization were considered as control variables. The independent variables were entered
as follows: Step 1 control variables (age, gender, education, managerial level and type of
organization), Step 1: Step 1 + role making, Step 3: Step 2 + role centering, Step 4: Step
3 + role linkage. Table III presents the results of hierarchical multiple regression analysis.
The first model contained the explanatory variables, age, gender, education, managerial
level and type of organization and explained 1.4 percent (R2 0.014; F (1, 292) 4.023, pW 0.05)
variance in the dependent variable. In the second model, role making was added and this
increased the variance significantly by 14 percent (R2 0.141; F(2, 291) 42.936, p W0.01).
The third model added role centering, which is also significant and increased R2 by
4 percent (R2 0.181; F (3, 290) 14.098, p W0.01). The fourth model added role linkage which
significantly improved the R2 by 4.2 percent (R2 0.223; F (4, 289) 15.516, p W0.01). Moreover,
the fourth model which significantly improved the variance of the lower order model was
retained. The retained model significantly explained approximately 22.3 percent variance in
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Dimensions of
Predictors B B b b RE and ME
1. Constants 3.398 2.478 2.150 1.888
Age 0.078 0.082 0.095 0.093
Gender 0.066 0.067 0.061 0.059
Education −0.025 −0.028 −0.050 −0.045
Managerial level −0.010 −0.063 −0.089 −0.090
Type of organization −0.131 −0.089 −0.083 −0.099
2. 1 + role making 0.356** 0.271** 0.217**
3. 2 + role centering 0.217** 0.182**
4. 3 + role linkage 0.218**
F change 4.023 42.936 14.098 15.516 Table III.
Results of
Sig. F 0.04 0.000 0.000 0.000
2 hierarchical regression
R 0.014 0.141 0.181 0.223 analysis (IV subscales
Adj. R2 0.011 0.135 0.172 0.212 of role efficacy,
ΔR 2
0.014 0.13 0.040 0.042 DV managerial
Notes: n ¼ 294. Dependent variable: managerial effectiveness. b ¼ standardized β score. **p o 0.01 effectiveness)
ME (R2 0.223, adjusted R2 212 percent). The results of multiple hierarchical regression
analysis (Step 2, Table III) accept H1 (standardized β value 0.217, t (3.73) p o0.0.01);
H2 (standardized β value 0.182, t (3.18) p o.0.01); and H3 (standardized β value 0.218,
t (3.93), p o0.0.01). In order to measure the strength of relationship, effect size was also
calculated and a medium effect size was (Cohen f2 ¼ 0.28) observed. To check the sensitivity
of the test, the power of the test was also calculated and found to be very high (1−β ¼ 0.99).
Thus, the study empirically proves a positive and significant relationship of RE with ME
and therefore, objective of the study was achieved.
Discussion
In response to Yeo and Neal (2006) and Sparrow and Cooper (2014), the present study
considered the relatedness of a manager’s RE perception of his/her ME and examined a
multiple hierarchical regression model of the relationship of RE and ME in the Indian
context. In order to validate this supposition, three hypotheses were framed with the
support of relevant research. H1 suggested that a manager’s role making perception would
positively affect his or her effectiveness. Similarly, H2 and H3 proposed a positive
relationship between role centering and role linkage dimensions with ME,
respectively. This was underpinned through the perspective of social cognitive theory
(Bandura, 2012, 2015) which provided an account of a co-determination mechanism of
human behavior. The findings of the present study corroborate the theoretical postulations
of social cognitive theory and support the proposed hypotheses thereby making an
empirical contribution to the domain link efficacy and task performance literature
(Ng et al., 2008) and also extending the social cognitive literature through the examination of
the relatedness of RE and ME. Moreover, the empirical evidence establishes the
appropriateness of the social cognitive mechanism and adaptive self-regulation process in
an Indian context and increases the theoretical legitimacy of these concepts in this setting.
The following sections discuss these contributions in details.
Theoretical implications
The findings of the study advance the understanding of social cognitive theory and
adaptive self-regulation process in a number of ways. First, recent research (including Yeo
and Neal, 2006; Vancouver et al., 2008) reported negative or debilitating relationships
JOEPP between domain link efficacy and task performance. While the above findings might
challenge the generalizability of social cognitive theory, in contrast, the present examination
enhances the theoretical legitimacy of social cognitive frameworks. The research findings
empirically established normative frameworks for RE and registered it as one of the factors
which underpins productivity improvement and goal attainment. The argument findings
provide a backdrop for future inquiries which could extend understanding of the dynamics
of domain-linked efficacy.
Second, by examining ME from the lens of social cognitive perspective, the argument has
sought to synthesize and integrate important theories and models in ME research. The
findings demonstrate that RE can generate a positive and motivational state for a manager
which, in turn, is strongly related to his/her salient organizational behaviors. In this vein,
Sparrow and Cooper (2014) suggested organizations should develop conditions which
motivate employees to exhibit organizational behaviors which generate performance and
create value for organizational stakeholders.
Third, of particular interest in relation to this study, is the extension of the applicability
of the social cognitive framework and adaptive self-regulation mechanism in Indian

contexts. It is evident that national culture is an important determinant of managerial role
and task structure (Vilkinas et al., 2009). In his classic and much-cited work, Hofstede (1980)
and Hofstede et al. (1990) characterizes Indian culture as exhibiting high power distance,
collectivism, long-term orientation and restraint, and that, in these regards, it significantly
varies from many western cultures. Social cognitive theory and adaptive self-regulation
models are extensively studied in western contexts pointing at ways to improve managerial
performance. However, limited or no empirical evidence is available about the plausibility of
these constructs in an Indian context and this limits the applicability of managerial
interventions which are based primarily on the extant body of knowledge. The present
study empirically verifies the validity of these a priori models by generating detailed Indian
data. Historically, Indian managers have been found to be authoritative, task-oriented, and
have displayed a preference for centralized decision making (Sparrow and Budhwar, 1997).
Moreover, more recent research has reported that Indian managers are reconstructing their
style, roles and responsibilities in line with transitions in the Indian economy and its
organizations (Vilkinas et al., 2008). The integrated competing values framework (Vilkinas
et al., 2008) suggested that a successful Indian manager today is one who is highly task-
oriented but also compassionate and considerate to the needs of subordinates. The findings
of the present study assist in developing understanding and surfacing strategies with which
to improve the performance of Indian managers who are confronted by changing
environments and conflicting contingencies. This study undertakes and also motivates the
further examination of ME in a range of indigenous contexts.
Practical implications
The major practical contribution of the present study is that it focuses on the individual
manager and provides insight into ME in the Indian context from the point of view of actors
who seek to be effective at work. RE emerged as an organizational development intervention
in response to the interacting processes of the individual and the organization. This study
underscores that role perception remains an important consideration for organizations as
our results support the function of RE on ME in a specific cultural context. In order to be
committed and effective, managers need to feel that they are involved in their assigned roles.
As Sayeed and Jain (2001) indicated, a clear understanding of role fosters a sense of purpose
that further reinforces the employee’s attachment to his or her organization. Notions of role
making can promote this feeling and would enhance ME. Role making could be seen as a
“worker-focused holistic approach” with which to improve employee performance. In the
contemporary diversified and competitive business environment, Indian organizations are
tending to develop cultures of involving the employees in the role designing process. As Dimensions of
suggested by previous research ( Jain and Juneja, 2011), role making sometimes might be a RE and ME
complex process but it can also: motivate incumbents to initiate affirmative action plans;
develop positive attitudes toward surroundings and work groups; enable best utilization of
resources, i.e. human skills, knowledge, experience, and, predict both employee and
organizational effectiveness. Thus, the degree to which a role incumbent succeeds in
fulfilling a stakeholder’s expectations, depends largely on opportunities the role provides to
its incumbent to apply his or her competencies. Therefore, in the present argument we
recommend that organizations involve their executives closely in the design of their task
and role structure.
Additionally, the empirical findings supported the association of role centering with
employee motivation, commitment and performance thus organizations are recommended to
make efforts to widen the act of role centering. When the perception of role centering of a
manager is high, he or she may assume adequate control over their occupied role, which in
turn creates a sense of responsibility and accountability toward others. Role centering
allows managers to influence organizational processes such as decision making, scheduling,

problem solving and strategy development. The overall effect and mechanism can develop a
sense of empowerment which boosts the occupant’s motivation to perform.
Furthermore, synergy among managers can be enhanced thorough the endorsement of
role linkage as it improves the availability of competitive factors such as knowledge, skills
and abilities which can boost their effectiveness. The joint efforts of employees in
understanding problems, finding solutions and helping each other in their roles are likely to
improve effectiveness (Pareek, 2008). Moreover, the feeling of belonging and engaging in
supportive relationships can facilitate the generation of a virtual inventory of diversified
skills, knowledge and abilities. The readily available pool of capabilities significantly
increases the potential of the role occupant and generates synergy in efforts. Therefore, it is
meaningful for organizations to put efforts into increasing the RE of managers. Possibly,
this may help them to design their roles and task standards, devise behavior strategies to
achieve the designed task and regulate their behavior so as to mitigate factors that might
detract from role performance.
Overall, the theoretical and practical implications of the study point at a number of
recommendations pertinent for practitioners. First, it is important for managers in Indian
contexts to make a concerted effort to view employees in with regard to their individual
personality and contextual setting. This leads on to a need to motivate employees to feel
genuinely involved in the work undertaken and, to accomplish this, they should become self-
evident stakeholders in the design of their own job role. Furthermore, an additional
recommendation is for managers to profile and heighten the importance and contribution
(centering) of employee roles in an overt and express manner. In summary, it is
recommended that managers pay renewed and substantive attention to the dimensions of
employee emotions and behavior in relation and reaction toward role defining and
operation. A lack of attention in relation to this is likely to lead to important deficiencies in
individual and organizational effectiveness.
Limitations
As with all studies, there are limitations associated with this research. The present research
points at the plausibility of a relationship between efficacy and ME, however, the survey-
based correlational design of present study limits this plausibility. Therefore, in order to
ascertain the causality and direction of the relationship it is perhaps appropriate to
recommend an experimental design-based investigation. Such forms of examination will
increase the theoretical legitimacy of the social cognitive mechanism. Second, the current
examination was limited to a bivariate examination and this could be extended to a
JOEPP conditional analysis by incorporating other work-related factors including, for example,
personality traits, emotional intelligence, task features. The sampling procedure adopted for
this study was a further limitation. The authors initially tried to follow a random sampling
procedure however they were unable to secure a list of all the managers from all the
organizations. The participants were selected using multi-tire nomination through snowball
sampling process, and this could be a possible limitation of present study. The sample
composition which was primarily male dominated might be seen as another limitation of
this study. Reliability coefficients of measures used were just at minimum threshold
and suggest a word of caution regarding the reliability of measures used. By indicating
these constraints, this study opens up the future possible panorama of research which may
be conducted.
Conclusion
This research aimed to examine the previously underexplored RE and ME relationship in an
Indian context. The study hypotheses were based on social cognitive mechanism and
adaptive self-regulation mechanism theories. A quantitative research design was employed
in order to answer the research questions. The assumptions of the study were met as the
results demonstrated that RE contributes to ME in the Indian setting under examination.
The following key points conclude the main findings of the study:
• The importance of considering the role incumbent’s views on role making
encompassed: full utilization of experience and knowledge; freedom to work
independently; use of creative work assignments; engendering a problem-solving
attitude in the incumbent; achievement of a sense of satisfaction taken in assigned
tasks; provision of opportunities for innovation; and, assisting others, all play a role
in improving the role incumbent’s effectiveness.
• Role centering which includes: access to important role assignments, participation in
decision making and learning, and, a feeling of centrality and influence on colleagues,
all significantly enhance ME.
• Role linkage in organizations which includes: close collaborations with colleagues;
helping group members; contribution to the well-being of colleagues and others; and,
membership of problem handling teams or task forces all noticeably lead to ME.
While the present study has progressed the study of RE and ME in relation to a social
cognitive mechanism in the Indian context, the Indian setting represents but one alternative
national environment compared to some of the more replete studies conducted in western
arenas. There are a number of potential ways forward. In the light of the present research,
future studies could be directed to identify organizational determinants that lead to RE and
ME consequently. For instance, Sparrow and Cooper (2014) have underlined the
development of organizational cultures which precede higher employee performance
through means of managing the mental, emotional and attitudinal states of employees.
Thus, in order to understand the linkage between organizational culture, climate and RE
(and other motivational states of an individual such as happiness, optimism and resilience)
research could be developed upon findings of this research. In addition, future research
could examine how certain personality traits of a manager affect the relationship of
managerial RE and adaptive self-regulation. Furthermore, an inquiry into how RE is
contingent upon organization environment and how it affects the task/role performance of
the incumbent could build upon the findings of this study. Finally, there is evident scope to
undertake the study of RE and ME in various conceptual framings and different national
contexts. This would serve to enrich the extant literature and data sets and would also
inform practice in a range of industrial sectors and geographical regions.
References Dimensions of
Alfes, K., Shantz, A.D., Truss, C. and Soane, E.C. (2013), “The link between perceived human resource RE and ME
management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: a moderated mediation model”,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 330-351,
doi: 10.1080/09585192.2012.679950.
Analoui, F., Ahmed, A.A. and Kakabadse, N. (2010), “Parameters of managerial effectiveness”, Journal
of Management Development, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 56-78, doi: 10.1108/02621711011009072.
Aquino, K. and Bradfield, M. (2000), “Perceived victimization in the workplace: the role of situational
factors and victim characteristics”, Organization Science, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 525-537.
Aslam, U., Ilyas, M., Imran, M.K. and Ur Rahman, U. (2016), “Intelligence and its impact on managerial
effectiveness and career success (evidence from insurance sector of Pakistan)”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 505-516.
Austin, J.T., Villanova, P., Kane, J.S. and Bernardin, H.J. (1991), “Construct validation of performance
measures: definitional issues, development, and evaluation of indicators”, Research in Personnel
and Human Resources Management, Vol. 9, pp. 159-233.

Bamel, U.K., Rangnekar, S. and Rastogi, R. (2011), “Managerial effectiveness in Indian organisations:
reexamining an instrument in an Indian context”, Research and Practice in Human Resource
Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 69-78.
Bamel, U.K., Rangnekar, S., Stokes, P. and Rastogi, R. (2013), “Organizational climate and managerial
effectiveness: an Indian perspective”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 21
No. 2, pp. 198-218, doi: 10.1108/ijoa-09-2011-0514.
Bamel, U.K., Rangnekar, S., Stokes, P. and Rastogi, R. (2015), “Managerial effectiveness: an Indian
experience”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 202-225, doi: 10.1108/jmd-10-
2012-0129.
Bamel, U.K., Rastogi, R., Rangnekar, S. and Narayan, S. (2016), “Role efficacy and people flexibility:
examining moderating functions of demographic factors”, Managing Flexibility, Springer,
pp. 103-113.
Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 191-215, doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191.
Bandura, A. (1999a), “Social cognitive theory of personality”, in Cervone, D. and Shoda, Y. (Eds),
The Coherence of Personality: Social Cognitive Bases of Consistency, Variability and
Organizations, Guilford, New York, NY, pp. 185-241.
Bandura, A. (1999b), “Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective”, Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 21-41, doi: 10.1111/1467-839x.00024.
Bandura, A. (2007), “Much ado over a faulty conception of perceived self-efficacy grounded in faulty
experimentation”, Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 641-658.
Bandura, A. (2012), “On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 9-44, doi: 10.1177/0149206311410606.
Bandura, A. (2015), “On deconstructing commentaries regarding alternative theories of self-regulation”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 1025-1044, doi: 10.1177/0149206315572826.
Beauchamp, M.R. (2007), “Efficacy beliefs within relational and group contexts in sport”, Social
Psychology in Sport, pp. 181-193.
Beauchamp, M.R., Bray, S.R., Eys, M.A. and Carron, A.V. (2002), “Role ambiguity, role efficacy, and role
performance: multidimensional and mediational relationships within interdependent sport
teams”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 229-242, doi: 10.1037/
1089-2699.6.3.229.
Bolino, M.C., Hsiung, H.-H., Harvey, J. and LePine, J.A. (2015), “ ‘Well, I’m tired of tryin’! organizational
citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 1,
pp. 56-74, doi: 10.1037/a0037583.
JOEPP Bray, S.R., Balaguer, I. and Duda, J.L. (2004), “The relationship of task self-efficacy and role efficacy
beliefs to role performance in Spanish youth soccer”, Journal of Sports Sciences, Vol. 22 No. 5,
pp. 429-437.
Bray, S.R. and Brawley, L.R. (2002), “Role efficacy, role clarity and role performance effectiveness”,
Small Group Research, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 233-253.
Cameron, E. and Green, M. (2015), Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide to the
Models, Tools and Techniques of Organizational Change, 4eds, Kogan Page Publishers, London.
Cerasoli, C.P., Nicklin, J.M. and Ford, M.T. (2014), “Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives
jointly predict performance: a 40-year meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 140 No. 4,
p. 980.
Chai, D.S., Jeong, S., Kim, J., Kim, S. and Hamlin, R.G. (2016), “Perceived managerial and leadership
effectiveness in a Korean context: an indigenous qualitative study”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 789-820, doi: 10.1007/s10490-016-9476-x.
Chemers, M.M., Watson, C.B. and May, S.T. (2000), “Dispositional affect and leadership effectiveness:
a comparison of self-esteem, optimism, and efficacy”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 267-277, doi: 10.1177/0146167200265001.
Clampitt, P.G. (2012), Communicating for Managerial Effectiveness: Problems| Strategies| Solutions,
5th ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Cortina, J.M. (1993), “What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 1, p. 98.
Drucker, P. (2007), The Practice of Management, Routledge, London.
Ferris, G.R., Perrewe, P.L., Daniels, S.R., Lawong, D. and Holmes, J.J. (2017), “Social influence and
politics in organizational research: what we know and what we need to know”, Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 5-19.
Fiedler, F.E. and Chemers, M.M. (1967), A Theory of leadership Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
George, D. and Mallery, P. (2003), SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference,
11.0 update, 4th ed., Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.
Giustiniano, L., Lombardi, S. and Cavaliere, V. (2016), “How knowledge collecting fosters organizational
creativity”, Management Decision, Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 1464-1496, doi: 10.1108/md-04-2015-0111.
Gliem, R.R. and Gliem, J.A. (2003), “Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability
coefficient for Likert-type scales”, Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult,
Continuing, and Community Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Gupta, P. and Khandelwal, P. (1988), “Quality of work life in relation to role efficacy”, Psychological
Studies, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 34-38.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
(6th ed.), Upper Saddle River, Pearson Prentice Hall, NJ.
Hamlin, R.G. and Patel, T. (2017), “Perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness within higher
education in France”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 292-314.
Hamlin, R.G. and Serventi, S.A. (2008), “Generic behavioural criteria of managerial effectiveness”,
Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 285-302, doi: 10.1108/
03090590810871388.
Hamlin, R.G., Kim, S., Chai, D.S., Kim, J. and Jeong, S. (2016), “Perceived managerial and leadership
effectiveness within South Korean and British private companies: a derived etic comparative
study”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 237-269.
Harvey, S. and Kou, C.Y. (2011), “Collective engagement: exploring creative processes in groups”,
Academy of Management Proceedings, August, San Antonio, Vol. 2011 No. 1, pp. 1-6.
Hassan, A., Hashim, J. and Zaki Hj Ismail, A. (2006), “Human resource development practices as
determinant of HRD climate and quality orientation”, Journal of European Industrial Training,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 4-18, doi: 10.1108/03090590610643842.
Hassan, S. (2013), “The importance of role clarification in workgroups: effects on perceived role Dimensions of
clarity, work satisfaction, and turnover rates”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 73 No. 5, RE and ME
pp. 716-725.
Hofstede, G. (1980), “Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories apply abroad?”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 42-63.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D.D. and Sanders, G. (1990), “Measuring organizational cultures:
a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 286-316, doi: 10.2307/2393392.
Hong, I.B. (2002), “A new framework for interorganizational systems based on the linkage of
participants’ roles”, Information & Management, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 261-270, doi: 10.1016/s0378-
7206(01)00095-7.
House, R.J. (1971), “A path goal theory of leader effectiveness”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 16 No. 3, p. 321, doi: 10.2307/2391905.
Jain, R. and Juneja, V. (2011), “Role innovation behavior of managerial personnel in Indian banking and
insurance enterprises of public sector: an empirical study”, South Asian Journal of Management,
Vol. 18 No. 3, p. 69.
Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek, J.D. and Rosenthal, R.A. (1964), Organizational Stress:
Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity, John Wiley, Oxford.
Kane, M.J. and Engle, R.W. (2002), “The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity,
executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: an individual-differences perspective”,
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 637-671, doi: 10.3758/bf03196323.
Kanfer, R. and Kanfer, F.H. (1991), “Goals and self-regulation: applications of theory to work settings”,
in Maehr, M.L. and Pintrich, P.R. (Eds), Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Vol. 7,
JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 287-326.
Kanfer, R., Chen, G. and Pritchard, R.D. (Eds) (2012), Work Motivation: Past, Present and Future,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY.
Khamisa, N., Peltzer, K., Ilic, D. and Oldenburg, B. (2016), “Work-related stress, burnout, job satisfaction
and general health of nurses: a follow-up study”, International Journal of Nursing Practice,
Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 538-545.
Kim, K.Y., Eisenberger, R. and Baik, K. (2016), “Perceived organizational support and affective
organizational commitment: moderating influence of perceived organizational competence”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 558-583, doi: 10.1002/job.2081.
Locke, E.A. (1966), “The relationship of intentions to level of performance”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 60-66, doi: 10.1037/h0022937.
Luthans, F., Welsh, D.H.B. and Taylor, L.A. (1988), “A descriptive model of managerial effectiveness”,
Group & Organization Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 148-162, doi: 10.1177/
105960118801300203.
McAllister, D.J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E.W. and Turban, D.B. (2007), “Disentangling role perceptions:
how perceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality, and efficacy relate to helping and taking
charge”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 1200-1211, doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.92.5.1200.
Morris, S.B., Daisley, R.L., Wheeler, M. and Boyer, P. (2015), “A meta-analysis of the relationship
between individual assessments and job performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 100
No. 1, pp. 5-20.
Mott, E.P. (1972), The Characteristics of Effective Organizations, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Ng, K.-Y., Ang, S. and Chan, K.-Y. (2008), “Personality and leader effectiveness: a moderated mediation
model of leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and job autonomy”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 4, pp. 733-743, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.733.
JOEPP Niessen, C. and Jimmieson, N.L. (2016), “Threat of resource loss: the role of self-regulation in adaptive task
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 101 No. 3, pp. 450-462, doi: 10.1037/apl0000049.
Ugwu, F.O., Onyishi, I.E. and Rodríguez-Sánchez, A.M. (2014), “Linking organizational trust with
employee engagement: the role of psychological empowerment”, Personnel Review, Vol. 43 No. 3,
pp. 377-400, doi: 10.1108/pr-11-2012-0198.
Pandey, A. (1995), “RE and role stress relationship: some experience with workers”, Indian Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 193-210.
Pareek, U. (1987), Motivating Organisational Roles: Role Efficacy Approach, Rawat Publications.
Pareek, U. (2008), Training Instruments in HRD and OD (11th reprint), Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi.
Peng, A.C., Lin, H.E., Schaubroeck, J., McDonough, E.F. III, Hu, B. and Zhang, A. (2016), “CEO
intellectual stimulation and employee work meaningfulness: the moderating role of
organizational context”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 203-231.
Pestonjee, D.M. (1996), “Enhancing role efficacy: an OD intervention”, Vikalpa, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 43-52.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1,
pp. 539-569, doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Pritchard, R.D., Jones, S.D., Roth, P.L., Stuebing, K.K. and Ekeberg, S.E. (1988), “Effects of group
feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity”, Journal of Applied
Priyadarshini, R.R.G. (2009), “The importance of role efficacy and self efficacy in organizations and its
relationship with HR practices”, Management and Labour Studies, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 57-72,
doi: 10.1177/0258042x0903400104.
Ruiz, C.E., Hamlin, R.G. and Carioni, A. (2016), “Behavioural determinants of perceived managerial and
leadership effectiveness in Argentina”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 267-288.
Ruiz, C.E., Hamlin, R.G. and Esparza Martinez, L. (2014), “Managerial and leadership effectiveness as
perceived by managers and non-managerial employees in Mexico”, Human Resource
Development International, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 258-276, doi: 10.1080/13678868.2014.896127.
Sayeed, O.B. and Jain, R.K. (2001), “Organizational priorities and ME in a high reliability organization”,
Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 231-247.
Sayeed, O.B. and Kumar, S.C. (2010), “Role, work perception and stress in a high reliability work
environment”, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 287-299.
Singh Chauhan, V., Dhar, U. and Pathak, R.D. (2005), “Factorial constitution of managerial
effectiveness: re-examining an instrument in Indian context”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 164-177.
Sitzmann, T. and Yeo, G. (2013), “A meta‐analytic investigation of the within‐person self‐efficacy
domain: is self‐efficacy a product of past performance or a driver of future performance?”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 531-568.
Snell, S.J., Tonidandel, S., Braddy, P.W. and Fleenor, J.W. (2013), “The relative importance of political
skill dimensions for predicting managerial effectiveness”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 915-929, doi: 10.1080/1359432x.2013.817557.
Sparrow, P.R. and Budhwar, P.S. (1997), “Competition and change: mapping the Indian HRM recipe
against world-wide patterns”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 224-242, doi: 10.1016/
s1090-9516(97)90009-2.
Sparrow, P.R. and Cooper, C.L. (2014), “Organizational effectiveness, people and performance: new
challenges, new research agendas”, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and
Performance, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 2-13, doi: 10.1108/joepp-01-2014-0004.
Stajkovic, A.D. and Luthans, F. (1998), “Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a meta-analysis”, Dimensions of
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 240-261, doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240. RE and ME
Travers, C.J., Morisano, D. and Locke, E.A. (2014), “Self-reflection, growth goals, and academic
outcomes: a qualitative study”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 2,
pp. 224-241, doi: 10.1111/bjep.12059.
Tsui, A.S. and Ashford, S.J. (1994), “Adaptive self-regulation: a process view of managerial
effectiveness”, Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 93-121, doi: 10.1177/
014920639402000105.
Tsui, A.S. and Gutek, B.A. (1984), “A role set analysis of gender differences in performance, affective
relationships, and career success of industrial middle managers”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 619-635, doi: 10.2307/256049.
Tsui, A.S., Nifadkar, S.S. and Ou, A.Y. (2007), “Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior
research: advances, gaps, and recommendations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 426-478, doi: 10.1177/0149206307300818.
Upadhyay, P., Singh, R., Jahanyan, S. and Nair, S. (2016), “Measuring the effects of role efficacy
enhancement on knowledge workers”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 65 No. 6, pp. 860-872, doi: 10.1108/ijppm-03-2016-0065.
Vancouver, J.B. and Kendall, L.N. (2006), “When self-efficacy negatively relates to motivation and
performance in a learning context”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 1146-1153,
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1146.
Vancouver, J.B., More, K.M. and Yoder, R.J. (2008), “Self-efficacy and resource allocation: support for
a non-monotonic, discontinuous model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 35-47,
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.35.
Vilkinas, T., Monga, M., Mehta, S. and Cartan, G. (2008), “Predictors of leadership effectiveness for
Indian managers”, Promaco Convention Pty Limited for the ANZAM 2008 Conference,
December.
Vilkinas, T., Shen, J. and Cartan, G. (2009), “Predictors of leadership effectiveness for Chinese
managers”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 577-590,
doi: 10.1108/01437730910981944.
Wang, J. (2011), “Understanding managerial effectiveness: a Chinese perspective”, Journal of European
Industrial Training, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 6-23, doi: 10.1108/03090591111095718.
Wincent, J. and Örtqvist, D. (2009), “A comprehensive model of entrepreneur role stress antecedents
and consequences”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 225-243, doi: 10.1007/
s10869-009-9102-8.
Yanagizawa, S. and Furukawa, H. (2016), “Fitness of job type and management by objectives:
mediating effects of perception of effectiveness and goal commitment and moderating effects of
supervisor’s behavior”, Japanese Psychological Research, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 297-309.
Yeo, G.B. and Neal, A. (2006), “An examination of the dynamic relationship between self-efficacy and
performance across levels of analysis and levels of specificity”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 1088-1101, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1088.
Further reading
Analoui, F., Bao, C. and Branine, M. (2011), “Leadership and managerial effectiveness: the case of
MNCs’ Chinese subsidiaries”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 366-393, doi: 10.1504/ijesb.2011.041666.
Campbell, S.J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E. and Weick, K.E. Jr (1970), Managerial Behaviour,
Performance, and Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Dollwet, M. and Reichard, R. (2013), “Assessing cross-cultural skills: validation of a new measure of
cross-cultural psychological capital”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1669-1696, doi: 10.1080/09585192.2013.845239.
JOEPP Drucker, P. (1988), The Effective Executive, Heinemann, London.
Guttman, L. (1945), “A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability”, Psychometrika, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 255-282.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B.B. (2011), The Motivation to Work, Vol. 1, Transaction
Publishers, New Brunswick.
Hofstede, G. (1984), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Vol. 5, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Ivancevich, J.M. (1976), “Effects of goal setting on performance and job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied
Lau, C.-M., Ng, I. and Nyaw, M.-K. (1997), “The effects of managerial activities on managerial success
and effectiveness”, International Business Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 433-445, doi: 10.1016/s0969-
5931(97)00013-9.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (2002), “Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task
motivation: a 35-year odyssey”, American Psychologist, Vol. 57 No. 9, pp. 705-717, doi: 10.1037//
0003-066x.57.9.705.
Mintzberg, H. (1973), The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Peng, J., Li, D., Zhang, Z., Tian, Y., Miao, D., Xiao, W. and Zhang, J. (2014), “How can core self-evaluations
influence job burnout? The key roles of organizational commitment and job satisfaction”, Journal
of Health Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 50-59, doi: 10.1177/1359105314521478.
Sengupta, S., Whitfield, K. and McNabb, B. (2007), “Employee share ownership and performance:
golden path or golden handcuffs?”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 1507-1538.
Whetten, D.A. and Cameron, K.S. (2002), Developing Management Skills, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Corresponding author
Umesh Bamel can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
View publication stats

JOEPP REandME

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOEPP REandME

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOEPP REandME

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Dimensions of role efﬁcacy and managerial effectiveness: evidence from India

Article in Journal of Organizational Effectiveness People and Performance · August 2017

Umesh Bamel Pawan Budhwar

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Peter Stokes Happy Paul

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Edited Book View project

The Performative University - ‘Targets and Terror’ in Academia View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Downloaded on: 09 August 2017, At: 04:56 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Leicester, UK, and

connectivity of the individual with their own RE in relation to their performance as an

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Role making and ME

Role centering and ME

Role linkage and ME

managerial-level employees from “mid and large capital” manufacturing organizations.

Reliability and validity of measures

Analysis and results

Variables Gen. Edu. Man. Org. RM RC RL ME

Age 0.11 −0.07 0.91** 0.29** 0.007 0.05 0.05 0.09

of the social cognitive framework and adaptive self-regulation mechanism in Indian

allows managers to influence organizational processes such as decision making, scheduling,

and Human Resources Management, Vol. 9, pp. 159-233.

View publication stats

You might also like

Age 0.11 −0.07 0.91 0.29 0.007 0.05 0.05 0.09