This paper assessed if and to what degree leadership styles, motivation profiles and decision‐making styles explain organizational goal attainment (effectiveness). Leadership behaviors of 209 Swedish corporate managers were collected using established instruments, and effectiveness data were collected from the companies in which these managers were employed. It is concluded that managers’ leadership styles, motivation profiles, and decision‐making styles support each other because they give a more comprehensive description of leadership behaviors. On the other hand, leadership styles, motivation profiles, and decision‐making styles compete in presenting empirical support for and explanations of organizational effectiveness. Managers who were power‐motivated appeared to be more effective than other managers, regardless of their leadership styles and decision‐making styles. Leadership scholarship needs to focus more on the consequences of managers’ behaviors and how they relate to organizational goal‐attainment.

This paper assessed the theoretical explanations for similarities and differences in managers’ leadership behaviors as well as their empirical support based on data from 222 corporate managers in eight companies and 385 public managers in three public agencies in Sweden. Two explanations for similarities and differences in male and female public managers’ leadership behaviors have been suggested in previous studies. The public–private distinction says that public and private organizations are distinctly different, and thus explains differences between public and private managers leadership behaviors. Gender theory argues that the ratios of male to female managers explain of differences in leadership behaviors. However, this explanation did not explain similarities in leadership behaviors in the three Swedish public organisations investigated. The leadership behaviors of public managers were the same even though there was a female majority in management in one organization and a male majority in the other two. It is suggested that the distinct characteristics of public organizations explain the similarities in leadership behaviors of both male and female public managers. The public‐distinction explanation appears to outweigh the gender‐based explanation. © 2021 Slovenian Academy of Management. All rights reserved.

Is contemporary managerial leadership research relevant and helpful to managers? Arguably, managers’ main task and prime concern is to contribute to the attainment of organisational goals, i.e., to enhance organizational effectiveness. On the basis of this premise of relevance, a survey of 105 research articles published in two international journals year 2011 reveals that researchers did not address this question. In these articles the term ‘effectiveness’ occurred about one time for every 1000 words. In the 105 articles effectiveness was seldom defined and never measured. If managers‘ prime concern is to contribute to organizational effectiveness, then there is no surprise that several scholars have found that managers regard leadership research irrelevant and useless.

This survey article addresses three questions based on the assumption that significant differences exist between public and private organizations. If this assumption is correct managerial and leadership behavior will differ between public and private managers. Additionally, the propensity to change will also differ between public and private managers. Since a number of studies indicate that managers’ leadership behavior in public organizations differ from that of private managers, difference and similarities in leadership behavior between women and men in public organizations are examined. Three studies are presented here which show that public and private managers have different behavioral patterns of leadership. However, public managers turn out to be more change-oriented than business managers. In the public organizations investigated no differences in leadership behavior between women and men were found.

This article illustrates that contemporary literature on organisation and leadership attributes little attention to the topic of corporate governance. Textbooks on organisation and leadership theory yield no or few listings of corporate governance and owner (ownership). This paper does not deal with corporate governance and the agency theory as such, but rather the way in which these theories are linked to organisation and leadership theory. Additionally, several incidents from business and private organisations have shown the problems and dramatic consequences of inadequate corporate governance, which in itself call for more research on this topic. The main reason why corporate governance has been marginalised in the literature appears to be the prevalence of the open system theory, in which ownership and organisational goals are not essential theoretical concepts. According to this theory the owners are but one of many stakeholders. Some scholars even claim that organisations do not have any owners. Moreover, the organisational goals are not the goals of the owners, but the goals of the stakeholders or goals of the managers. In order to promote corporate governance a sound theoretical foundation is called for. The rationalistic organisation theory constitutes a sound theoretical foundation for the principal agency theory and thus for the study of corporate governance. In the rationalistic theory the owners and their goals are given as the reason for the establishment of an organisation. The chief execute officer is hired to run the organisation on behalf of the owners in order to achieve organisational goals as decided by the owners. The principal and agency theory is based on the rationalistic organisation theory in which owners play a central role in the formulation of goals and establishing as well as controlling the organisation and its managers. Both corporate governance and agency theory need to regain a dominant place in organisation theory textbooks and in organisation, management, and leadership research. In present-day literature on organisation, management and leadership theories - based on the open system theory - the owner has disappeared. The time has come to reinstate the owner.

Current organisation literature is rife with several incorrect and confusing assertions which continually create problems for students and researchers alike. Seven of these unfortunate beliefs are presented here and provocatively called ‘pitfalls’. The aim of this article is to draw attention to some of these theoretically incorrect assertions and how they can be avoided in scholarly work. The implications for managers are also presented.

This article addresses the problem of why subordinates trust their managers based on the responses from 108 subordinatesof seven Slovenian managers and from 138 subordinates of eight Swedish managers. The subordinates of these managersresponded to a 20-item instrument tested for reliability and validity. In both samples the managers enjoyed different degreesof trust. The level of trust vested in Slovenian managers was higher than in Swedish ones. The kinds of managers’ actions thatenhanced trust were similar amongst Swedish and Slovenian subordinates. Different socio-cultural contexts may theoreticallyexplain why some other kinds of actions had contrasting effects between the samples. On the whole, the actions of managersexplain trust in both countries. Subordinates’ trust in managers declines with the increasing hierarchical distance in bothnational samples. Managers need to show in action that they trust their subordinates, promote their interests, demonstrateappreciation of their subordinates, and solve problems.

This article surveys the literature on the impact of managerial successions on team performance in professional sports and assesses ten studies on the effect of managerial succession. They cover 80 years (1920-2000) with data from four different sports and two countries. From these studies, three lessons emerge when teams perform poorly: (i) a change of coach or manager during the season is not helpful; (ii) if succession is deemed necessary, change the manager between seasons; and (iii) if the choice is between a manager from inside the organization and one from the outside, choose the former. What is critical is that whichever manager is replaced or for whatever reason, the performance of the team will most likely not improve for that reason alone. In short, a new manager does not make a better team.

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

Design/methodology/approach – 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.

Findings – 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.

Originality/value – 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.