To Örebro University

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

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

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

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

Originality/value: This paper reaffirms the conclusion ofAndersen (2017) that corporate governance scholarship will improve if it abandons the concept of managerial discretion.

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

Design/methodology/approach: Critical comments are presented on the usefulness of the notions of followers and followership.

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

Research limitations/implications: The literature review contains no new empirical data.

Originality/value: The paper stresses that study objects which are not theoretically and empirically defined cannot be investigated

Purpose Some scholars have claimed that CEOs make decisions, while boards of directors control these decisions by applying the concepts of decision management and decision control. These concepts were suggested more than 30 years ago and are still applied in corporate governance research. They are now challenged on the basis of scholarship on corporate governance and management. Design/methodology/approach Corporate governance addresses the authority and responsibility that boards of directors and executives have. Management theory addresses planning and control in corporations. Findings The relationship between the owners (the boards of directors) and the top managers is hierarchical. This paper concludes that owners or boards of directors make decisions on main and strategic goals. Decisions cannot be controlled, but the implementation and outcomes of plans can. The latter is managers' responsibility. The terms "decision management" and "decision control" are undefined and do not describe what takes place in organizations. Originality/value Management theory offers clear definitions of decisions, decision-making and control. The concepts of decision management (initiation and implementation) and decision control (ratification and monitoring) neither properly describe who makes major and strategic decisions nor how and who controls the consequences of these decisions.

The first purpose of this paper is to find the reasons why subordinates trust their managers in private organizations. The second purpose is related to whether there are national differences in the degree of subordinates’ trust in their managers. Studies from two European countries are presented which were based on the same instrument for measuring subordinates’ trust. These studies concluded that managers’ actions are the antecedent to trust. Managers are, however, trusted to different degrees. It appears that managers need to show by their actions that they trust their subordinates, offer help and guidance, show appreciation to the subordinates, and solve problems adequately. The antecedent was the managers’ proximity to the subordinates. Other studies found more antecedents. Additionally, a number of positive consequences of trust in managers – reported in other studies – are work performance, job satisfaction, and subordinates’ motivation. Some questions regarding trust in managers still need answers. They are formulated but not answered in this paper. 

To promote leadership research on managers' motivation, a measurement (Andersen Motivation Profile Indicator [AMPI]) has been developed and tested that (a) measures achievement, affiliation, and power motivation; (b) measures the relative strengths of these factors; (c) rests explicitly on the definitions of McClelland; and (d) measures managers' work motivation. The questionnaire has been tested for reliability and validity with responses from 580 managers. The application of the instrument in four studies with responses from 565 managers in other organizations supported McClelland's theoretical claims: (a) managers have motivation profiles, (b) there are differences in motivation profiles between managers across organizational types, (c) there are no significant differences in motivation profiles between female and male managers, and (d) managers who are predominantly power motivated enhance organizational effectiveness. Arguably, the application of the instrument may be an indicator of its quality. The instrument facilitates leadership research on the relationship between managers' motivation profiles and organizational specifics, gender, sociocultural factors, and organizational outcomes.

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

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

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

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

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

In management and leadership scholarships, organisations are often regarded as entities established as vehicles for the owners so that the owners can achieve their goals. Arguably, the purpose of managerial leadership research is to provide managers with knowledge which benefits organisations. The purpose of this article is to assess whether current managerial leadership research is relevant and helpful to managers or not. Five studies (March & Sutton, 1997; Collins, 2001; Richard et al., 2009; Hiller et al., 2011; Andersen, 2013), which contain data from a total of 2,479 articles, have revealed that the relationship between formal leadership (management) and organisational effectiveness is seldom studied. When effectiveness is addressed it is rarely defined and almost never measured. It is, indeed, no surprise that six studies (Burack, 1979; Calas & Smircich, 1988; Astley & Zamuto, 1992; House & Aditya, 1997; Ghoshal, 2005; Brownlie et al., 2008) have shown that managers regard leadership research both irrelevant and useless.

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

Design/methodology/approach: This paper scrutinises applied theoretical claims, definitions andmethods, as well as a number of empirical studies on managerial discretion.

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

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

Originality/value: This paper concludes that corporate governance scholarship will improve if itabandons the concept of managerial discretion.

Leadership has been a scientific discipline for over 100 years. The magnitude of research has increased tremendously. Many different objects of study related to leadership have been investigated with the ambition to solve a variety of problems that appear to be more or less relevant for those in leadership positions. In the current article, the author provides one person's description of eight specific areas of leadership scholarship throughout all these years and how he has reflected upon these theories in light of this fundamental question: what has leadership research really accomplished? These considerations on leadership theories are a product of a lifetime spent on leadership research.

The purpose of this article is to show that three basic concepts in the fields of organization research, corporate governance, management and leadership research come together theoretically. The concepts of goal, activity and goal-attainment constitute a commonality between them. The theoretical bounds are, however, not evident in all writings. The field of organizational research contains as basic concepts owners and goal, while corporate governance deals with the relationship between owners (shareholders), executives and stakeholders. Additionally, the management discipline pertains to an organization to be managed on behalf of the owners. Numerous leadership theories address the behaviors and activities of managers related to goal-attainment. Highlighting these common grounds could help progress in research in one field to be beneficial in the other research areas. They all come together: the fields of organization, corporate governance, management, and theories of leadership. It all starts with the goal of the owners, and it ends with goal-attainment.