Crítica en construcción o los torpedos en los pupitres

In this section, I discuss how I intend to proceed with the operationalisation of leader cognitions, behaviour, and management practices.

In terms of management practices, I focus on Human Resource Management (HRM) practices, based on the widespread recognition of the importance of such practices on firm performance (Huselid, 1995). The specific focus is on the use of HRM best practices designed to influence, manage, attract, and r (Bloom and Van Reenen, 2007). There is ample evidence that sophisticated HRM practices matter for organisational performance. In fact, HRM practices are much more investigated in literature compared to other management practices (Bloom and Van Reenen, 2007; Messersmith and Guthrie, 2010; Youndt et al., 1996).

In addition, there is a long history of research into how such practices can be measured validly and reliably (Huselid and Becker, 2000; Wright and Gardner, 2000, 2003). Despite the widespread knowledge on the role and implications of HRM practices within firms, HRM theories, have completely omitted the role of leaders in the process, as if

Leader Cognitions Strategic Leader Behaviour Management Practices

integration and allocation of resources, and the influence of employee behaviour is an automatic process (McDermott et al., 2013; Sirmon et al., 2007). Therefore, the choice of HRM practices is based on a number of justifications.

With regards to strategic behaviour, different studies have identified different categorisations of leader strategic behaviour over the years (Pearce and Sims Jr, 2002; Yukl et al., 2002). I focus on command, rational, and generative strategic behaviour, adapted from Hart (1992)

focused on the categories of behaviour that relate to strategic capabilities. These three categories represent different modes of strategy-making, each of which involve distinct strategy-making behaviours (Hart and Banbury, 1994). Leaders, through their behaviour, -making capabilities (Teece and Pisano, 1994).

(1992) categorisations involve a thorough explanation of the different roles leaders undertake in the strategy-

behaviour with regards to strategic management by explaining the extent of leader direction, and the way they influence leader strategic behaviours. The categories build on one other in terms of leader involvement and interrelations with employees. Command strategic behaviour involve high leader involvement and low interactions with employees. Leader involvement decreases as one moves to rational and generative strategic behaviour, while the importance of employee interactions increases.

Finally, I

structures, through leader skills. The choice of skills is based on three main arguments. First, skills as knowledge structures are reflected in the literature on absorptive capacity. This stream of literature argues that knowledge stocks provide support in learning/absorbing new information (Bower and Hilgard, 1981; Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Ellis, 1965; Estes, 1960). Based on this argument, it is suggested that the higher the level of knowledge stocks, it is more likely that individuals are efficient in making sense of new information and applying it to new settings (Bower and Hilgard, 1981). Based on these arguments, literature shows that highly skilled individuals are better at

133

framing and understanding the world (Mumford, Friedrich, et al., 2007; Mumford et al., 2017; Mumford, Zaccaro, et al., 2000). Thus, skills are in fact knowledge structures.

Second, based on previous literature, it is suggested that skills reflect the expertise of an individual and thus are likely to represent the accumulation of experiential knowledge (Ng et al., 2009; Reuber and Fischer, 1999). Taken together, these arguments imply that skills reflect underlying expertise, knowledge structures, and schema for interpreting the world, and will influence decision making through their effects on cognition (Mumford

et al. (2017).

Third, compared to more observable indicators used in the past to proxy for cognitions (e.g., age, and education), measures of skills are likely to represent more proximal indicators of cognitive structures. For example, with observable indicators, two individuals with the same education are likely to be treated as having similar level of experience and thus these individuals would be expected to deal similarly with similar situations. However, individuals with similar levels of experience measured by age or education level are likely to develop distinct knowledge structures, based on qualitatively different types of experiences. Therefore, in order to assess the impact of experiential knowledge structures on strategic choices, it is important to develop indicators that reflect the psychological process of such structures more closely, such as skills (Hambrick and Mason, 1984).

Leaders are likely to draw on multiple skills that they develop over time. These skills can be categorised as conceptual, interpersonal, and technical skills, based on the work of Katz (1955)

internal and external factors that influence a firm and how these factors work together. s logical thinking and lead to better reasoning especially interpersonal relations, human behaviour and provide leaders with a sense of emotional intelligence. These

-related knowledge with regards to the product and/or service, and the processes involved in developing it (Baum and Locke, 2004; Katz, 1955; Yukl et al., 2002). These categorisations are relatively old, however, they remain the dominant framework involving managerial skills to date (Boyatzis, 1982; Pavett and Lau, 1983). In addition, more recently scholars have identified the important role of

entrepreneurial skil

seeking new and innovative opportunities, and his/her ability with respect to the communication of entrepreneurial vision, and the acquisition and orchestration of the necessary resources.

resources toward organisational growth (Baum and Locke, 2004; Mintzberg, 1973, 1978). Therefore, in line with the three managerial skills identified by Katz, I include entrepreneurial skills in the analysis.

The framework involving HRM Practices and the categorisations of skills and strategic behaviour is outlined in the Figure 4.2. Based on this framework, the aim of this study is to assess how combinations of leader skills and strategic behaviour are likely to be associated with high and low levels of HRM practices.

Figure 4. 2: Leader Skills, Strategic Leader Behaviour, and HRM Practices

Overall, the analysis in this section shows that the relationship between leader cognitions, strategic behaviour, and management practices involves reciprocal connections between the variables, resulting in endogenous relationships. Endogeneity across the three constructs also implies that skills, strategic behaviours, and HRM practices are moderators (complements) and mediators of each other. These relations become even more complex because leader cognitions and strategic behaviours involve multiple sub-dimensions which can also have multiple configurations or profiles.

135

First, in order to implement their tasks effectively, leaders may draw on multiple skills at one point in time (Mumford, Campion, et al., 2007). Given that these skills are closely interrelated like any other cognitive construct, it

(Katz, 1955; p.94). Thus, multiple skills need to be assessed simultaneously. Different combinations of skills are likely to be associated with different strategic behaviours and levels of HRM practices.

behaviours which, in practice, can be blended into multiple combinations. For example, leaders may use specific elements of rational and generative behaviours and also may combine the two approaches (Hart, 1992). In order to cater for these potential connections, multiple strategic behaviours have to be assessed concurrently. Different combinations of strategic behaviour are likely to be associated with different combinations of skills and levels of HRM practices. These conclusions imply that, if these sub-dimensions are assessed individually or selectively, their implications may be over stated or understated.

Moreover, strategic behaviour and HRM practices may complement or substitute each other. These two elements are both used to reach similar goals, that is, to influence individual and firm-level outcomes. Leaders may use HRM practices to reinforce their strategic behaviours (Zhu et al., 2005). Alternatively, leaders may use their behaviour to substitute for the presence of HRM (Chuang et al., 2016). In practice, it is quite possible that both configurations of strategic behaviours and HRM practices occur.

These complexities imply that the relationships within the sub-dimensions and between focal constructs are likely to involve nonlinearity. That is, the interactions may involve positive relations, negative relations, or an absence of relations.

The presence of multiple potential combinations may also generate equifinal solutions. For example, more than one combination of leader skills and strategic behaviours may be associated with a high level of HRM practices. In addition, we cannot rule out a priori the potential for asymmetric reciprocal associations among the constructs. Assuming a symmetric effect places an unnecessary restriction on the nature a given outcome but does not improve performance without limit, suggests that asymmetries are not uncommon. Therefore alternative approaches to modelling may be

more revealing of the true relationships among these phenomena, especially when considering the complex associations involved (Herzberg et al., 1959). For example, if one had to compare leader influence with respect to the high and low levels of HRM