This paper assessed if and to what degree leadership styles, mo ti vati on profiles and decision ‐making styles explain organiza ti onal goal a tt ainment (e ffec ti veness). Leadership behaviors of 209 Swedish corporate managers were col ‐ lected using established instruments, and e ffec ti veness data were collected from the companies in which these man ‐ agers were employed. It is concluded that managers’ leadership styles, mo ti vati on profiles, and decision ‐making styles support each other because they give a more comprehensive descrip ti on of leadership behaviors. On the other hand, leadership styles, mo ti vati on profiles, and decision ‐making styles compete in presen ti ng empirical support for and ex ‐ plana ti ons of organiza ti onal e ffec ti veness. Managers who were power ‐mo ti vated appeared to be more e ffec ti ve 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 organiza ti onal goal ‐a tt ainment. Keywords: management, leadership, a tti tudes, mo ti vati on, decision ‐making, e ffec ti veness Abstract EXPLAINING ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS—LEADERSHIP STYLES VS. MOTIVATION PROFILES VS. DECISION ‐MAKING STYLES: SUPPORTING OR COMPETING DIMENSIONS? Jon Aarum Andersen School of Business and Economics, Linneaus University, Sweden jon.andersen@lnu.se Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2022 37 1 INTRODUCTION Leadership scholarship includes a number of de ‐ scrip ti ons of managers’ behaviors, with di fferent rea ‐ sons for the behaviors as well as the organiza ti onal consequences of behavioral types. This paper as ‐ sessed to what degree leadership styles, mo ti va ti on styles, and decision ‐making styles support or are at odds with each other in explaining organiza ti onal ef ‐ fec ti veness with reference to empirical studies. Several hundred defini ti ons of leadership have been presented over the years (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 2010). What proper ti es must be present for leader ‐ ship to exist and to be what it is? What makes formal leadership possible? Organiza ti onal ‐e ffec ti veness studies argue that a formal leader, subordinates, and tasks are the proper ti es that must exist for manage ‐ rial leadership to exist. Formal organiza ti ons (corpo ‐ ra ti ons or public agencies) employ both managers and subordinates, which have legal and contractual implica ti ons. A formal leader (manager) is a person who is responsible both for the subordinates and for the results. Leadership is a process, but management is a posi ti on (Hughes et al., 1999). Managers lead business enterprises or public agencies. Organiza ti onal psychology addresses the rea ‐ sons for behaviors or behavioral pa tt erns of individ ‐ uals at work, such as personality traits, a tti tudes, needs (mo ti va ti on), and intui ti on. Management studies address the behaviors of managers rather than the reasons for their behaviors. The aim is to assess the consequences of managerial ac ti ons re ‐ lated to organiza ti onal e ffec ti veness. Again, manage ‐ rial psychology seeks to explain the ac ti ons and behaviors of managers. Explaining the organiza ti onal consequences (goal ‐a tt ainment) of managerial be ‐ haviors is the aim of management scholarship. Three types of managerial behaviors have dom ‐ inated leadership scholarship: leadership styles (e.g., Blake and Mouton, 1964), mo ti va ti on profiles (e.g., McClelland, 1990), and decision ‐making styles Vol. 11, No. 1, 37 ‐48 doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2022.v11n01a03 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2022 38 Jon Aarum Andersen: Explaining Organiza ti onal E ffec ti veness—Leadership Styles vs. Mo ti va ti on Profiles vs. Decision ‐Making Styles: Suppor ti ng or Compe ti ng Dimensions? (e.g., Keegan, 1984). The universal theorists claim that there is one best way to lead, whereas the con ‐ ti ngency theorists claim that leadership e ffec ti ve ‐ ness is dependent on the situa ti on (Blake and Mouton, 1978). McClelland and Burnham (1976, p. 105) wrote “A ft er all, management is an influence game.” It is only by ac ti ng or refraining from taking ac ti on that subor ‐ dinates, superiors, owners, financiers, customers, and other parti es can be influenced. Leadership research addresses the reasons for ac ti ons as well as di fferent kinds of ac ti ons. Again, what is central in managerial leadership research is not the reasons for leaders’ be ‐ havior, but rather the organiza ti onal consequences of the behaviors. Table 1 presents the causes, study ob ‐ jects, and the presumed consequences of a tti tudes, mo ti va ti ons, and decision ‐making styles on organiza ‐ ti onal e ffec ti veness. Table 1: Causes, study objects (phenomena), and consequences 2 ORGANIZATIONAL TYPES AND EFFECTIVENESS (GOAL ‐ATTAINMENT) Blau and Sco tt (1962) presented a typology based on the prime beneficiaries of organiza ti ons. Some organiza ti ons are established in which the owners are the prime beneficiaries, namely busi ‐ ness enterprises. Goal ‐a tt ainment is the key issue and the basic defini ti on of e ffec ti veness in manage ‐ rial theory. The main goal of a specific business en ‐ terprise is a descrip ti on of a desired permanent state in the future with respect to the degree of profitability (i.e., the dividend on shares) and the risk level expected by the owners based on their in ‐ vestment ti me horizon. The ul ti mate goal of a com ‐ pany is profitability (She tt y, 1979; Hambrick, 1983; Nash, 1983; Walton and Dawson, 2001). The prime beneficiaries in public organiza ti ons are the ci ti zens. In private schools the goal is profitability, and the means is educa ti on. The goal of public schools is to increase the level of knowledge in society, and the means is educati on. Organiza ti onal e ffec ti veness is an objec ti ve variable. It is measured by the degree of goal ‐a tt ain ‐ ment in which the owners, board of directors, and managers on di fferent levels specify the goals that their subordinate departments need to achieve. The people, who cons ti tute the majority of the working popula ti on, work in private or public organiza ti ons in order to achieve the goals of the prime beneficia ‐ ries. Leadership is a process, but management is a posi ti on (Hughes et al., 1999). 3 EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS AND EFFECTIVENESS Studies of the behaviors of managers tradi ti on ‐ ally have used masked instruments, in which man ‐ agers have responded to a number of ques ti onnaires without knowing what is being measured. The ques ‐ ti onnaires are returned directly to the researchers, who score them, and the managers who responded are not informed of which leadership behaviors they have. Only the researchers know the iden ti ty of the respondents. Empirical data on the degree of e ffec ti veness (what goals to achieve and what actually has been achieved by each manager) come from the senior managers of the individual managers who re ‐ sponded to the instruments that measure behav ‐ iors. This procedure enables researchers to link specific leadership behaviors and the degree of ef ‐ fec ti veness of each manager who takes part in an inves ti ga ti on. It is impera ti ve to stress this procedure because some studies have deviated from these require ‐ ments and these data ‐collec ti on procedures when studying managerial leadership. Managerial e ffec ‐ ti veness was a key concept in the study by Yukl et al. (2019). However, it was neither defined nor mea ‐ sured as the degree of goal ‐a tt ainment. Yukl et al.’s Cause Study object Consequence (presumed) A tti tudes Leadership styles: Separated, dedicated, related, integrated. Organiza ti onal e ffec ti veness Mo ti va ti ons Mo ti va ti on profiles: Achievement, a ffilia ti on, power mo ti va ti on. Organiza ti onal e ffec ti veness Personality, intui ti on Decision ‐making styles:Sensing, intui ti on, thinking, feeling. Organiza ti onal e ffec ti veness Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2022 39 empirical study of leadership behaviors was not based on subordinates and managers, but on re ‐ sponses from students at two universi ti es regarding their supervisors (university employees). The man ‐ agerial e ffec ti veness was measured according to the students’ subjec ti ve ra ti ngs of how their supervisors carried out their du ti es. In other words, the depen ‐ dent and independent variables were subjec ti ve and originated from the same respondents. 4 ATTITUDES AND LEADERSHIP STYLE THEORIES 4.1 Style Theories The seminal works of Likert (1961), Halpin and Winer (1957), and Fleishman and Harris (1962) were concerned with the rela ti onship between be ‐ havior and organiza ti onal performance. It was as ‐ sumed that a par ti cular leadership style was a consequence of the leader’s a tti tudes, values, and assump ti ons. Likert (1961), Halpin and Winer (1957), and Fleishman and Harris (1962) developed the no ti on of “one best way to lead,” or universal theories: employee ‐centeredness (i.e., more con ‐ cern for the employees than tasks), “high ‐high” leadership style (i.e., high concern for employees and for tasks), and, with Blake and Mouton (1964), the team ‐leadership style (i.e., high concern for em ‐ ployees and for outcomes). However, the empirical support for the universal theories has not im ‐ pressed other researchers. Blake and Mouton (1985, p. 198) defined lead ‐ ership as follows: “Processes of leadership are in ‐ volved in achieving results with and through others.” They stressed that goal ‐a tt ainment can be achieved only with or through other people inside as well as outside the organiza ti on. Blake and Mou ‐ ton pinpointed what may be seen as the dilemma of leadership. The formal leader (manager) is re ‐ sponsible for results in accordance with organiza ‐ ti onal goals, yet no leader or manager can achieve the goals of the organiza ti on by his or her own ef ‐ forts alone. If that were possible, neither an organi ‐ za ti on nor a leader would be needed. Although the logical arguments for the “9.9 ‐team leadership” that Blake and Mouton (1982) presented were strong, the empirical support was not. Leadership research experienced an upheaval when Fiedler (1967) argued for a theory of con ti n ‐ gency, which was founded on 15 years of research. To Fiedler it was illogical to argue for one best way to lead. He claimed that e ffec ti ve leadership de ‐ pended on the leader adjus ti ng his or her behavior according to the degree of internal situa ti onal con ‐ trol. Strube and Garcia (1981) performed a meta ‐ analy ti c review of 170 studies based on Fiedler’s theory. They reached a favorable conclusion about the validity of Fiedler’s model. However, Fiedler and Garcia (1987) argued that it was ti me to leave the con ti ngency model behind and move on. Addi ti on ‐ ally, Yukl (1989) concluded that Fiedler’s theory could not explain leader e ffec ti veness a ft er all. How ‐ ever, the managerial style theory is one of the most influen ti al leadership theories, and has influenced managers around the world (Andersen, 2013). 4.2 Measurements of Leadership Styles Blake and Mouton (1985, p. 13) suggested five leadership styles which measured managers’ con ‐ cern for produc ti on and concern for subordinates. Fiedler (1967) developed the LPC instrument with three leadership styles, adding a situa ti onal variable in addi ti on to the concern for people and tasks. The concept of leadership style proposed by Reddin (1970) consists of task ‐orienta ti on and rela ti onship ‐ orienta ti on with two main styles: task ‐oriented style and rela ti onship ‐oriented style. This leads to four leadership styles: separated style, related style, ded ‐ icated style, and integrated style. These styles were measured by a forced ‐choice instrument, the Man ‐ agement Style Diagnosis Test (MSDT), consis ti ng of 56 statement (Reddin, 1987). 5 MOTIVATION AND MANAGERS’ MOTIVATION PROFILES 5.1 Mo ti va ti on Theories The works of McClelland (1961, 1990) on mo ti ‐ va ti on were based on the proposi ti on that needs are the reason for mo ti va ti on. The focus was on the mo ‐ ti va ti on and mo ti va ti on ‐based behaviors of man ‐ agers (mo ti va ti on profiles) and the impact of their behavior on organiza ti onal outcomes. McClelland (1990) claimed that every individual has three Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2022 40 Jon Aarum Andersen: Explaining Organiza ti onal E ffec ti veness—Leadership Styles vs. Mo ti va ti on Profiles vs. Decision ‐Making Styles: Suppor ti ng or Compe ti ng Dimensions? needs: achievement, which is the desire to do be tt er than other people or be more e ffec ti ve, to solve problems, or to master di fficult tasks; power, which is the desire to control other people, to influence their behavior, or to be responsible for other people and their work; and a ffilia ti on, which is the desire to establish and maintain friendly and close rela ti on ‐ ships with other people. According to McClelland (1990) the needs for achievement, power, and a ffil ‐ ia ti on are acquired, and are not based on personal ‐ ity. These needs are expressed in varying degrees and are results of individual life experiences. McClelland (1990) performed extensive research on managers’ mo ti va ti on ‐related behavior . It is a the ‐ ore ti cal assump ti on that most individuals have a dis ‐ ti nct or predominant mo ti va ti on profile. McClelland (1990) claimed that one specific mo ti va ti on profile en ‐ hances organiza ti onal e ffec ti veness: strong power mo ti va ti on, stronger than the needs for a ffilia ti on and achievement. This claim does not imply that the higher the power mo ti va ti on, the greater is the e ffec ‐ ti veness. The main claim is only that managers’ power mo ti va ti on must be stronger than the other needs. 5.2 Measurements of Mo ti va ti on Profiles McClelland had a strong convic ti on that the Thema ti c Appercep ti on Test was a superior method for the study of mo ti va ti ons. McClelland and Steele (1972) described this instrument. To promote lead ‐ ership research on managers’ mo ti va ti on, an instru ‐ ment was developed and applied which (1) measures achievement, a ffilia ti on, and power mo ti ‐ va ti on; (2) measures the rela ti ve strengths of these factors; (3) rests explicitly on the defini ti ons of Mc ‐ Clelland (1990); and (4) measures managers’ work mo ti va ti on. It was tested for reliability and validity with responses from 580 managers (Andersen, 1994, 2018). The applica ti on of this instrument in four studies with responses from 565 managers sup ‐ ported McClelland’s theore ti cal claims that (1) man ‐ agers have mo ti va ti on profiles; (2) there are di fferences in mo ti va ti on profiles between managers across organiza ti onal types; (3) there are no signifi ‐ cant di fferences in mo ti va ti on profiles between fe ‐ male and male managers; and (4) managers who are mo ti vated predominantly by power enhance organi ‐ za ti onal e ffec ti veness (Andersen 2018). 6 PERSONALITY , INTUITION, AND MANAGERS´ DECISION ‐MAKING STYLES 6.1 Personality Types In psychology, intui ti on o ft en is regarded as a personality trait. The most influen ti al contribu ti on to the subject of intui ti on is Jung’s work on psychologi ‐ cal types (Jung, 1921/1971). Quinn and Hall (1983) turned to Jung’s typology as a social scien ti fic meta ‐theore ti cal framework. Jung’s typology (a clas ‐ sifica ti on of personality traits) has proven to be useful in defining and predic ti ng behavior (Keegan, 1984). Morgan (1986) showed how Jung’s theories have in ‐ fluenced organiza ti onal thinking. Jung’s typology has been reviewed in recent years, especially in the field of management (e.g., Akinci and Sadler ‐Smith, 2012). Jung (1971) pointed out that in real life the types are not found in pure form. The typology rests on two elements, namely a tti tudes and func ti ons, and o ft en is presented using three dimensions of the human psyche: (1) a tti tudes (extrovert and introvert); (2) per ‐ cep ti on func ti ons (sensing and intui ti on); and (3) judgment func ti ons (thinking and feeling). Jung (1933/1992, p. 103) used the term “deci ‐ sions” in only one place (“important decisions”) when referring to the func ti ons. Carlyn (1977, p. 461) argued that “thinking/feeling has to do with the decision ‐mak ‐ ing style which is preferred by a person.” Myers and McCaulley (1985) also described the func ti ons in terms of decisions. Jung applied the concept of func ti on to designate specific forms of psychic ac ti vity and behav ‐ ior in people generally, and these remain the same re ‐ gardless of circumstances (Benfari, 1991). Everyone has a preference for one of the four func ti ons. The preferred func ti on is called the “domi ‐ nant” or “superior” func ti on. The opposite of the dom ‐ inant func ti on (i.e., that person’s strength) is called the “inferior” func ti on (i.e., that person’s weakness). For example, if the dominant func ti on is thinking, the weakest func ti on will be feeling. If the dominant func ‐ ti on is sensing, the inferior func ti on will be intui ti on. The personality ‐type theory dis ti nguishes be ‐ tween the types with respect to temporal orienta ‐ ti ons, in which the intui ti ve ones have the longest ti me horizons. According to Jaques (1990) the hier ‐ archical levels in organiza ti ons are reflec ti ons of the Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2022 41 managers’ and supervisors’ planning ti me span. The level of responsibility in any organiza ti onal posi ‐ ti on—whether a manager’s or a foreman’s respon ‐ sibility—can be measured objec ti vely as the targeted ti me of comple ti on of the longest task, pro ‐ ject, or program assigned to that role (ibid.). The more distant the targeted date of comple ti on of the longest task or program, the higher the posi ti on the individual ought to have. Bass (1990) also referred to research on the planning ti me span of managers that supports this argument. People solve problems and make decisions in a variety of ways because humans apply di fferent func ‐ ti ons. Problems can be solved and decisions made using intui ti on, sensing, thinking, and feeling. The func ti ons that are dominant and preferred depend on the personality of the individual. Problems are solved e ffec ti vely and e ffec ti ve decisions are made when the person in ques ti on applies the func ti on most appropriate to the problem, situa ti on, or task at hand. Isabel Myers must be credited with bringing Jung’s typology to life (Keirsey and Bates, 1978). Jung’s work on personality and intui ti on s ti ll s ti mu ‐ lates researchers today (Liebowitz, 2020). However, the prevalence of inconsistencies in Jung’s works re ‐ garding descrip ti ons and explana ti ons of types has created problems for contemporary researchers. 6.2 Leadership and Personality Several reviews of the research on leadership and personality have been performed. Stogdill (1948) performed a compara ti ve review of 124 pub ‐ lished studies and concluded that persons who are leaders in some situa ti ons may not necessarily be leaders in others. Although there were posi ti ve cor ‐ rela ti ons between a number of traits and emergent leadership, these correla ti ons were weak. Gibb (1969) stated that (1) it is not possible to find one specific personality trait that characterized leaders, and (2) it is not possible to isolate a number of traits that, when combined, explain leadership. Research failed to find a rela ti onship—even a mod ‐ est one—between personality and leadership. Gibb (1969, p. 227) concluded that “research showed no scien ti fic basis for a rela ti onship between traits and leading posi ti ons.” However, he pointed out that per ‐ sonality traits could not be excluded in leadership because they probably were not completely without consequences. Stogdill (1974) concluded that per ‐ sonality research had limited value when predic ti ng an individual’s leadership poten ti al. However, there were indica ti ons that traits work with other factors for those in formal leadership posi ti ons. When it comes to decision ‐making styles, in ‐ cluding intui ti on, some theories are not based on personality theory (e.g., Rowe et al., 1986; Driver et al., 1990). The scholarship on the reasons for re ‐ garding intui ti on as a cogni ti ve factor (e.g. Cristo ‐ faro, 2019) rather than as a personality trait was reviewed by Akinci and Sadler ‐Smith (2012). 6.3 Intui ti on in Decision ‐Making In the Western world, great emphasis is placed on the analy ti cal way of solving problems (Fordham, 1964). By and large, Western culture overes ti mates the thinkers and underes ti mates the intui ti ve, feeling, and sensing types. Too many managerial techniques overemphasize thinking, whereas individual values, commitments, and mo ti va ti ons o ft en are ignored (Keegan, 1984). However, only one ‐fourth of what managers do requires logical capabili ti es. Other as ‐ pects of managerial work, such as the supervision of daily ac ti vi ti es, mo ti va ti ng subordinates, and being crea ti ve, require considerably di fferent ways of ac ti ng (ibid.). Thinking refers to only one of the steps of the managerial problem ‐solving process, namely the eval ‐ ua ti on of alterna ti ves and the selec ti on of solu ti ons. 6.4 The Measurement of Intui ti on and Decision ‐ Making: Myers–Briggs Type Indicator Jung (1971) discussed the problem of measure ‐ ment in psychology and claimed that there are facts that can be measured quan ti ta ti vely. Rela ti vely com ‐ plicated aspects could also be available by following the following measuring methods. The Myers– Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Briggs Myers, 1962) is one of the most applied psychological instruments in the world, and its scien ti fic quali ti es are well doc ‐ umented (Samuels, 1985). The chief obstacle to using the MBTI is that it is very extensive. The stan ‐ dard form of the MBTI in use is Form G, which has 126 items, of which 94 are scored for type. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2022 42 Jon Aarum Andersen: Explaining Organiza ti onal E ffec ti veness—Leadership Styles vs. Mo ti va ti on Profiles vs. Decision ‐Making Styles: Suppor ti ng or Compe ti ng Dimensions? The Myers–Briggs instrument measures 16 types (eight combina ti ons of func ti on and two a tti ‐ tudes) (Briggs Myers and McCaulley, 1985). It is a ques ti onnaire developed to make it possible to test Jung’s theory and put it to prac ti cal use (McCaulley, 1990). Jung’s typology and Myers’ contribu ti on are not iden ti cal theories. As Stoknes (1992, p. 103) ob ‐ served, “The MBTI has become so widespread that it has almost lost its roots in the Jungian theory.” However, it is hard to find empirical studies of man ‐ agers’ decision ‐making based on the MBTI instru ‐ ment (Liebowitz, 2020). 6.5 Keegan’s Type Indicator (KTI) To measure the func ti ons, the KTI instrument contains 32 items (compared with 94 items in the MBTI). The KTI collects only variables that are relevant for management studies. The instrument has accept ‐ able face and content validity, and is based explicitly on Jung’s typology. This instrument links Jungian func ‐ ti ons to managerial decision ‐making (Keegan, 1984). The BMTI is a general test of the Jungian typology, whereas the KTI is a test for managers and measures decision ‐making styles. The Keegan Type Indicator is less verified in terms of reliability and validity, and no documenta ti on of test results exists. Keegan (1984) focused on decisions, implying that a tti tudes are less relevant. This is based on the four func ti ons. Jung claimed that there is one dom ‐ inant, one auxiliary, one underdeveloped, and one unconscious func ti on for all humans. Keegan (1984, p. 34) presented eight decision ‐making styles: (1) in ‐ tui ti on with thinking (as the auxiliary func ti on), (2) intui ti on with feeling, (3) thinking with intui ti on, (4) thinking with sensing, (5) sensing with thinking, (6) sensing with feeling, (7) feeling with sensing, and (8) sensing with intui ti on. Sensing and intui ti on are denoted percep ti on func ti ons. Thinking and feeling are called judgment or decision ‐making func ti ons (Keegan, 1984). The fact that all humans must judge and choose by thinking and feeling in addi ti on to perceiving a prob ‐ lem (by sense and intui ti on) makes Jung’s typology a genuinely individual decision ‐making theory. Based on the concepts established here regard ‐ ing problem ‐solving and decision ‐making, we return to the problem ‐solving process. The first four steps in the process now can be linked directly to these con ‐ cepts. To find and define the problem, the perceiving func ti ons of sensing and intui ti on are needed. T o gen ‐ erate alterna ti ve solu ti ons and to evaluate alterna ‐ ti ves and select solu ti on, the judging func ti ons of thinking and feeling are used. Finally, to conduct an ethics double check, the feeling func ti on is needed. Jung’s func ti ons cover all the four steps of the prob ‐ lem ‐solving and decision ‐making process (Keegan, 1984). The Keegan Type Indicator Form B measures the variables extroversion and introversion as well as sensa ti on, intui ti on, thinking, and feeling with 44 statements and ques ti ons (Keegan, 1982). Twelve items concern the a tti tudes, 16 items refer to the func ti ons sensing and intui ti on, and 16 items refer to the func ti ons thinking and feeling. The items concern ‐ ing the a tti tudes are bipolar . Of the 32 items that mea ‐ sure the func ti ons, 24 are bipolar statements, and eight items are ranked on a scale from 1 to 4. Keegan (1980) described the instrument and guidelines for scoring. The instrument is open, and its merits are not reduced if the respondents have knowledge of Jung’s theory. The reliability has not been tested separately. The face validity can be es ‐ tablished easily because Jung’s typology describes the concepts and terms applied, thus enabling the formula ti on of valid statements and ques ti ons. The content validity has been tested, and the correla ti on between the scores and the assessment of the re ‐ spondents was found to be high (Keegan, 1980). A review of the plethora of planning and deci ‐ sion ‐making models that currently are available indi ‐ cates that although each has value, each is incomplete. Jung’ typology is almost complete because it touches on the two func ti ons of percep ti on (i.e., sensing and intui ti on) and the two func ti ons of judgment (i.e., thinking and feeling), and their rela ti onship to each other (Keegan, 1984). Keegan’s ambi ti on was to make the theory applicable to more professionals, especially to managers. In the field of managerial development, the typology presented by Jung (1921/1971) gives gen ‐ uine insight into the ques ti ons of why persons succeed or fail in decision ‐making and how they do so (Keegan, 1984). Keegan (ibid.) based his work on the works of Jung, and developed the theory further and adapted it to the field of management. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2022 43 The main contribu ti on of Keegan (1980, 1982, 1984) is the descrip ti on of decision ‐making behav ‐ ior, that is, how managers perceive when becoming aware of a problem or possibility and how they solve the problem or u ti lize the possibility. A per ‐ sonality theory thus has become a basis for a behav ‐ ioral theory of leadership. 6.6 Are Managers Intui ti ve Types? The purpose of Jung’s typology is not to label people in terms of their personality type, but to un ‐ derstand their behavior. However, the theory does not predict any rela ti onship between type ‐based behavior and specific consequences of the behavior . In managerial leadership, the focus is on the rela ‐ ti onship between leadership behavior or behavioral pa tt erns and organiza ti onal outcomes. A hypothesis states that managers with a deci ‐ sion ‐making behavior based on intui ti on and sup ‐ ported by the thinking func ti on would be found more frequently than those with other combina ti ons. An ‐ dersen (1994) collected data on the decision ‐making styles of 209 managers in eight Swedish corpora ti ons by using the Keegan Type Indicator, and found that the majority of the managers (32%) were intui ti ve types. 6.7 Managers’ Intui ti on and Organiza ti onal E ffec ti veness The burning issue in leadership theory on deci ‐ sion ‐making is whether there is one best way for managers to make decisions. In this case, the prob ‐ lem is whether intui ti ve managers are more e ffec ‐ ti ve than other managers when the rela ti onship between intui ti ve managers and the degree of or ‐ ganiza ti onal goal ‐a tt ainment is tested empirically. The research on decision ‐making behavior ba ‐ sically is descrip ti ve. In the field of managerial re ‐ search, this descrip ti ve research is less relevant, because the outcome factors are weakly developed. It is hard to find research that contains a hypothesis regarding a rela ti onship between specific deci ‐ sion ‐making styles and e ffec ti veness. These puta ti ve rela ti onships have not been fully tested empirically. Many theories can be described by the terms “phenomenon,” “cause,” and “e ffect.” The phe ‐ nomenon is behavior, that is, the decision ‐making behavior of managers. It is specific behavioral pat ‐ terns that Jung described using the four func ti ons. The cause of dis ti nct type (i.e., the dominant func ‐ ti on) is the personality of the individual. Jung’s the ‐ ory describes types and type ‐related behavior, and holds that type is a personality trait. E ffec ti veness embraces two entiti es. In the field of management, it is defined as the degree of goal ‐a tt ain ‐ ment. There is only a weak basis for assuming a direct rela ti onship between decision func ti ons (decision ‐mak ‐ ing styles) and e ffec ti veness. Keegan (1984) argued that the four func ti ons are e ffec ti ve in di fferent situa ti ons, that is, in rela ti on to di fferent types of problems and tasks to be addressed. These arguments are not precise regarding the concepts of situa ti on, problem, and task. McCaulley (1990) took another path in seeking an answer to this ques ti on. She claimed that the in ‐ tui ti ve and thinking types are those who most likely are successful. Eccles and Nohria (1992) introduced the concept of robust ac ti on. Robust ac ti ons are characterized by moves that managers make that preserve their flexibility in circumstances of uncer ‐ tainty. Eccles and Nohria (ibid.) suggested some prin ‐ ciples of robust ac ti ons, including “judging the situa ti on at hand.” Making decisions and ac ti ng at the right ti me depends on the ability to judge the sit ‐ ua ti on. The ability to see opportuni ti es and threats when one is in a managerial posi ti on is crucial. This may well be a characteris ti c of intui ti ve managers. Andersen (2000, 2006) suggested that intui ti on as a decision ‐making style might be related to orga ‐ niza ti onal goal ‐a tt ainment. The concept of intui ti on and the other decision func ti ons was based on Jung’s typology. Andersen (1994) found that the majority of the managers were intui ti ve, but the majority had feeling as the auxiliary func ti on, rather than thinking. Whether intui ti ve managers are more e ffec ti ve re ‐ mains to be seen (ibid.). The primary issue in deci ‐ sion ‐making is not the decision per se, but the execu ti on and implementa ti on of the decision, which is the task of the subordinates. This leads to a number of important ques ti ons. Are they capable and com ‐ petent, and will they execute the decision as intended and at the right ti me or within the ti me span? How will compe ti tors and suppliers act or react when they observe the consequences of the decision? Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2022 44 Jon Aarum Andersen: Explaining Organiza ti onal E ffec ti veness—Leadership Styles vs. Mo ti va ti on Profiles vs. Decision ‐Making Styles: Suppor ti ng or Compe ti ng Dimensions? 7 INTUITION IN DECISIONS ‐MAKING VS. LEADERSHIP STYLES VS. MOTIVATION PROFILES: SUPPORTING DIMENSIONS? Andersen (1994) presented data on leadership styles, mo ti va ti on profiles, and decision ‐making styles of 209 Swedish managers. That study re ‐ ported that of the 48 theore ti cal general profiles, four profiles with two or more managers in each group were isolated (Table 2). Two leadership style and all three mo ti va ti on profiles were present, whereas intui ti on as decision ‐making style was found in three combina ti ons (Andersen, 1994, p. 276). Thus, leadership styles, mo ti va ti on, profiles, and intui ti on in decision ‐making are suppor ti ng di ‐ mensions in describing leadership behavior. Table 2. Combina ti ons of leadership styles, mo ti vati on profiles, and decision ‐making styles in managers (N = 209) 8 LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS IN MANAGERS ACROSS ORGANIZATIONS AND GENDER 8.1 The Public–Private Dis ti nc ti on The public–private dis ti nc ti on research tradi ‐ ti on (Rainey et al., 1976) contains arguments for dif ‐ ferences between public and private managers in many areas, including personality and behavior. Wi tt mer (1991) stated that previous research indi ‐ cated that public managers are di fferent from their private ‐sector counterparts in terms of work ‐related values, reward preferences, needs, and personality types. Hanbury et al. (2004) found that leadership style and decision ‐making style (personality) were correlated strongly with years of service for public managers in the United States. Andersen (2010) determined whether there were behavioral di fferences between public ‐ and private ‐sector managers according to the public– private dis ti nc ti on argument. An analysis of data from 343 managers in two public organiza ti ons and one private company in Sweden revealed significant di fferences in behavior (namely leadership styles, mo ti va ti on profiles, and decision ‐making styles) be ‐ tween public and private managers (ibid.). However, one similarity in behavior was reported: most public and private managers were intui ti ve types. How ‐ ever, the public managers scored higher on intui ti on than the private managers. 8.2 Leadership and Gender Do female managers have di fferent leadership styles than male managers? Andersen (2011) elimi ‐ nated the e ffect of organiza ti onal di fferences (i.e., pri ‐ vate versus public) by studying only public organiza ti ons. Of the 30 pairwise comparisons of means for samples consis ti ng of 38 managers in three di fferent organiza ti ons (Andersen, 2011), only five com ‐ parisons (17%) yielded significant di fferences in lead ‐ ership behavior between women and men as managers (p < 0.05). In only one case was the signifi ‐ cance at the level of 1%. Anderson concluded that there were no or only small and inconsistent di fferences in leadership behavior between women and men. Trinidad and Normore (2005, p. 574) claimed that “Women leadership styles are presented as alterna ti ve to tradi ti onal leadership models.” However, because there are no di fferences between women’s and men’s leadership behaviors, this alterna ti ve does not exist. Virtually no significant di fferences in behavior between female and male public managers were found. 9 INTUITION IN DECISION ‐MAKING VS. LEADERSHIP STYLES VS. MOTIVATION PROFILES: COMPETING DIMENSIONS? 9.1 Compara ti ve Study of Leadership Behaviors and E ffec ti veness Regarding compe ti ng behavioral dimensions, only one empirical study has measured leadership styles, mo ti va ti on profiles, and decision ‐making styles (including intui ti on), as well as the e ffec ti ve ‐ Leadership styles Mo ti va ti on profiles Decision ‐ making styles Combina ti ons Integrated style Achievement mo ti vated Intui ti on 7% Integrated style Power mo ti vated Intui ti on 7% Integrated style A ffilia ti on mo ti vated Intui ti on 5% Related style Power mo ti vated Feeling 2% Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2022 45 ness of the same managers (Andersen 1994). Lead ‐ ership styles were measured using a forced ‐choice in ‐ strument (the MSDT) developed by Reddin (1987), and the mo ti va ti on profiles were measured using a di fferent forced ‐choice instrument, the Andersen Mo ti va ti on Profile Indicator (AMPI) by Andersen (1994). The decision ‐making styles were measured using a forced ‐choice instrument (the MSDT) devel ‐ oped by Keegan (1982). The e ffec ti veness of 53 man ‐ agers in two di fferent companies was measured according to the degree of financial goal ‐a tt ainment. Power ‐mo ti vated managers appeared to be more ef ‐ fec ti ve than those mo ti vated by any of the other be ‐ havioral dimensions inves ti gated by Andersen (1994). However, the chi ‐squared test showed that the rela ‐ ti onship between power mo ti va ti on in managers and e ffec ti veness was not significant at the 90% level. Those who managed departments in private com ‐ panies and achieved or surpassed the profit ‐margin goal were regarded as e ffec ti ve, whereas those who did not were regarded as less e ffec ti ve or ine fficient (Andersen, 1994). On the basis of data from these managers’ scores on decision ‐making style and the de ‐ gree of e ffec ti veness of their departments, the analysis assessed the degree, if any, of the rela ti onship be ‐ tween intui ti on in managers and their e ffec ti veness. Andersen (1994) reported that the covariance be ‐ tween e ffec ti ve and less ‐e ffec ti ve managers for intu ‐ i ti ve managers was 1.5 (6:4). The covariance for the other managers was 0.5 (8:15). These results imply that the intui ti ve factor in managers is 3 ti mes more strongly related to e ffec ti veness than are other domi ‐ nant func ti ons of the managers. Intui ti ve management with thinking func ti on was 6.7 ti mes more strongly re ‐ lated to organiza ti onal e ffec ti veness than was manage ‐ ment with other decision ‐making styles. Because the expected value in one of the cells was less than 5, the chi ‐squared test result was not presented. Moreover, the Fisher exact two ‐tailed p ‐value was 0.26, indica ti ng that the di fference was not significant. Several managers were intui ti ve and had an in ‐ nova ti ve and crea ti ve decision ‐making style. Ander ‐ sen (1994) found no sta ti s ti cal support for intui ti on in managers being the cause of organiza ti onal e ffec ‐ ti veness (i.e., goal ‐a tt ainment). However, managers who were predominantly power mo ti vated according to a McClelland ‐based instrument (Andersen, 1999) were more e ffec ti ve than managers with the other two mo ti va ti on profiles. In terms of the three lead ‐ ership behaviors, the aforemen ti oned studies suggest that decision ‐making styles, mo ti va ti on profiles, and leadership styles compete to explain managers’ be ‐ havior related to organiza ti onal e ffec ti veness. Ander ‐ sen (1994) showed that power ‐mo ti vated managers were more e ffec ti ve than managers with any other leadership behavioral pa tt ern. There was no strong sta ti s ti cal basis for determining the winner . However, power mo ti va ti on in managers is a strong contender . 10 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Scholarship on managerial leadership ad ‐ dresses the consequences of managers’ behaviors related to organiza ti onal goal ‐a tt ainment (e ffec ti ve ‐ ness). Managerial decision ‐making—stressing the making of decisions—is about ac ti ons. The main focus in managerial research on decision ‐making is the consequences of the decisions on goal ‐a tt ain ‐ ment. It is evident that both internal con ti ngency variables (i.e., the execu ti on of the decisions) and external con ti ngency variables (i.e., the reac ti ons of other organiza ti ons on these decisions) are needed in order to understand fully why some decisions lead to e ffec ti veness and others do not. This paper assessed the relevance to manage ‐ rial leadership of theories of intui ti on in decision ‐ making versus leadership theories based on managers’ a tti tudes (leadership styles) versus mo ti ‐ va ti on (mo ti va ti on profiles) when the end variable is organiza ti onal e ffec ti veness. The conclusion is that scholarship on leadership styles, mo ti va ti on profiles, and decision ‐making style, including intu ‐ i ti on, support each other by providing a broader perspec ti ve of managers’ behaviors. The three types of behavior in managers applied here may be compe ti ng in presen ti ng one type which is related more strongly to organiza ti onal e ffec ti veness than others. The main research ques ti on is this: What is the strength in explaining organiza ti onal e ffec ti veness of the leadership ‐style theories versus the mo ti va ti on ‐ profile theories versus the scholarship on intui ti on and decision ‐making? Table 3 presents the rela ti onships among the four leadership styles, the three mo ti va ti on profiles, and the four decision ‐making styles. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2022 46 Jon Aarum Andersen: Explaining Organiza ti onal E ffec ti veness—Leadership Styles vs. Mo ti va ti on Profiles vs. Decision ‐Making Styles: Suppor ti ng or Compe ti ng Dimensions? An empirical study (Andersen, 1994) with data from the same managers in di fferent companies found that managers who were mo ti vated by power appeared to be more e ffec ti ve than other man ‐ agers, regardless of leadership style and decision ‐ making style. It is evident that the personality approach to leadership has been contested, and has become more so over the years. What makes per ‐ sonality s ti ll a part of leadership research is the fact that the focus has changed from personality traits per se to decision ‐making and the behavioral con ‐ sequences of specific decision ‐making‐styles. Table 3: E ffect of leadership behaviors on organiza ti onal e ffec ti veness Studies of how personality traits, including intu ‐ i ti on, relate to leadership have produced inconsistent answers. Previous and current research has found no sta ti s ti cal support for the assump ti on that intui ti on in decision ‐making—whether as a personality trait or as a cogni ti ve variable—explains organiza ti onal e ffec ‐ ti veness. Managerial leadership is about ac ti ng and achieving organiza ti onal goals. Managerial research on leadership styles, mo ti va ti on profiles, and deci ‐ sion ‐making styles linked to organiza ti onal e ffec ti ve ‐ ness needs to con ti nue, as both suppor ti ng and compe ti ng dimensions of leadership behaviors. Leadership behaviors (cause) Organiza ti onal e ffec ti veness (outcome) Separated leadership style Not empirically supported (Reddin 1983, p. 59). Insignificant (Andersen 1994, p. 278) (N = 53). Dedicated leadership style Related leadership style Integrated leadership style Achievement ‐mo ti vated profile Not empirically supported (McClelland & Burnham 1976; McClelland 1990, p. 582). Insignificant (Andersen 1994, p. 280). (N = 53). A ffiliated ‐mo ti vated profile Power ‐mo ti vated profile Significant, but not significant on the 90% level. (Andersen 1994, p. 281). (N = 53). Sensing as decision ‐making style No defini ti on of e ffec ti veness (Keegan 1984). Insignificant (Andersen 1994, p. 283). (N = 53). Intui ti on as decision ‐making style Thinking as decision ‐making style Feeling as decision ‐making style EXTENDED SUMMARY/IZVLE ČEK Ta članek je razpravljal ali in v kolikšni meri s ti li vodenja, mo ti vacijski profili ter slogi odlo čanja pojasnjujejo doseganje (u činkovitost) organizacijskih ciljev. Vodstveno vedenje 209 švedskih man ‐ agerjev je bilo zbranih s pomo čjo uveljavljenih instrumentov, podatki o uspešnos ti pa so bili zbrani od samih podje ti j, v katerih so bili ti managerji zaposleni. Ugotavljamo, da se s ti li vodenja, mo ti vacijski profili in s ti li odlo čanja managerjev medsebojno podpirajo, ker rezul ti ra v celovitejšem opisu vod ‐ stvenega vedenja. Po drugi strani s ti li vodenja, mo ti vacijski profili in slogi odlo čanja tekmujejo v pred ‐ stavitvi empiri čne podpore in razlag organizacijske uspešnos ti . Managerji, ki gradijo svoje vodenje na podlagi mo či, so se izkazali za u činkovitejše od drugih managerjev, ne glede na njihov s ti l vodenja in slog odlo čanja. Podro čje vodenja se mora bolj osredoto či ti na posledice vedenja managerjev in na njihov odnos do doseganja organizacijskih ciljev. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2022 47 REFERENCES Akinci, C. & Sadler ‐Smith, E. (2012). Intui ti on in manage ‐ ment research: A historical review. Interna ti onal Jour ‐ nal of Management Research, 14(1), 104 ‐122. Andersen, J.A. (1994). Leadership and E ffec ti veness.Dis ‐ serta ti on (in Norwegian ‐ summary in English). Lund University Press, Lund. Andersen, J.A. (1999). Are power mo ti vated leaders more e ffec ti ve? A review of McClelland’s theory. Current Topics in Management, 4(4), 41 ‐59. Andersen, J.A. (2000). Intui ti on in managers. Are intui ti ve managers more e ffec ti ve? Journal of Managerial Psy ‐ chology, 15(1), 46 ‐67. Andersen, J.A. (2006). Leadership, personality and e ffec ‐ ti veness. Journal of Socio ‐Economics, 35(6),1078 ‐ 1091. Andersen, J.A. (2010). Public vs. private managers. How public and private managers di ffer in leadership be ‐ havior. Public Administra ti on Review, 17(1), 131 ‐141. Andersen, J.A. (2011). At the end of the road. On di ffer ‐ ences between men and women in leadership behav ‐ ior. Leadership & Organiza ti on Development Journal, 32(5), 428 ‐441. Andersen, J.A. (2013). Managerial Grid. In Kessler, E.H. (Ed.) (2013). Encyclopedia of Management Theory, 1, 474 ‐477. Andersen, J.A. (2018). Managers Mo ti vati on Profiles. Measurement and applica ti on. Sage Open, April 27. Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leader ‐ ship. Free Press, New York, NY . Benfari, R. (1991). Understanding Your Management Style. Beyond the Myers ‐Briggs Type Indicators. Lex ‐ ington Books, Lexington, MA. Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The managerial grid. Gulf. Publishing, Houston. Blake, R.R. & Mouton. J.S. (1978). The New Managerial Grid. Gulf Publishing, Houston. Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1982). A compara ti ve analysis of situa ti onism and 9,9 management by principle. Or ‐ ganiza ti onal Dynamics, 10(4), 20 ‐43. Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1985). The Managerial Grid III. Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX. Blau, P.M. & Sco tt , R.W. (1962). Formal organiza ti ons. Chandler, San Francisco, CA. Briggs Myers, I.B. (1962). The Myers ‐Briggs Type Indica ‐ tor. Consul ti ng Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA. Briggs Myers, I.B. & McCaulley, M.H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the Development and Use of the Myers ‐Briggs Type Indicator. Consul ti ng Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA. Carlyn, M. (1977). An assessment of the Myers ‐Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41(5), 461 ‐472. Cristofaro, M. (2019). I feel and think, therefore I am: An a ffect ‐cogni ti ve theory of management decisions. Eu ‐ ropean Management Journal, 38(2), 344 ‐355. Driver, M. J., Brousseau, K.R. & Hunsaker, P .L. (1990).The dynamic decision ‐maker. Five decision styles for exec ‐ u ti ve and business success. Harper & Row, New York. Eccles, R. G. & Nohria, N. (1992). Beyond the Hype. Re ‐ discovering the Essence of Management. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership e ffec ti veness. McGraw ‐Hill, New York. Fiedler, F.E. & Garcia, J.E. (1987). New approaches to ef ‐ fec ti ve leadership: Cogni ti ve resources and organiza ‐ ti onal performance. John Wiley & Sons. New York. Fleishman, E.A. & Harris, F.E. (1962). Pa tt erns of leader ‐ ship behavior related to employee grievances and turnover. Personal Psychology, 15(2), 43 ‐56. Fordham, F. (1964). Introduc ti on to Jung’s Psychology. Harmondsworth Penguin Books, London. Gibb, C.A. (1969). Leadership. In: L. Gardner and E. Aron ‐ son (Eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. IV (pp. 205 ‐281). Cambridge: Addison ‐Wesley. Halpin, A.W . & Wiener, B.J. (1957). The leadership behav ‐ ior and e ffec ti veness of the airplane commander. In: Stogdill, R.M. and Coons, A.D. (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its descrip ti on and measurement. Ohio State Univer ‐ sity, Bureau of Business Research, Columbus. Hambrick, D.C. 1983. Some tests of the e ffec ti veness and func ti onal a tt ributes of Miles and Snow’s strategic types. Academy of Management Journal, 26(1), 5 ‐26. Hanbury, G.L., Sapat, A. & Washington, C.W. 2004. Know yourself and take charge of your own des ti ny: The “fit model” of leadership. Public Administra ti on Review, 64(5), 566 ‐576. Hughes, L. R., Ginne tt , R.C. &Curphy, G.J. (1999). Leader ‐ ship. Enhancing the lessons of experience. Irwin Mc ‐ Graw ‐Hill, New York. Jaques, E. (1990). In praise of hierarchy. Harvard Business Review, 68, 127 ‐33. Jung, C.G. (1921/1971). Psychological Types. The Col ‐ lected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 6. Bollingen Series XX, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. Jung, C.G. (1933/1992). Modern Man in Search of a Soul. Ark Paperbacks, Routledge, London. Jung, C.G. (1964). Man and his symbols. Aldus Books, London. Jung, C.G. (1971). Psychological types. In: H. G. Haynes (trans.) and revised by R. F. Hall. The collected works of C. G. Jung (Vol. 6). Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. Keegan, W .J. (1980). How to Use the Keegan Type Indicator (KTI) and the Keegan Informa ti on Processing Indicator (KIPI). Warren Keegan Associates Press, New York. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, May 2022 Jon Aarum Andersen: Explaining Organiza ti onal E ffec ti veness—Leadership Styles vs. Mo ti va ti on Profiles vs. Decision ‐Making Styles: Suppor ti ng or Compe ti ng Dimensions? 48 Keegan, W .J. (1982). Keegan Type Indicator Form B. War ‐ ren Keegan Associates Press, New York. Keegan, W.J. (1984). Judgements, Choices and Decisions. Wiley, New York, NY . Keirsey, D. & Bates, M. (1978). Please Understand Me. Character and Temperament Types. Prometheus Nemesis Books, Del Mar, CA. Liebowitz, J., (Ed.) (2020). Developing informed intui ti on for decision ‐making. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Likert, R. (1961). New pa tt erns of management. McGraw ‐ Hill, New York. McClelland, D.C. (1961). The Achieving Society. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand. McClelland, D.C. (1990). Human Mo ti vati on. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McClelland, D.C. and Steele, R.S. (1972). Moti vati on Workshops. Morristown: General Learning Press. McClelland, D.C. & Burnham, D.H. (1976). Power is the great mo ti vator. Harvard Business Review, 54, 100 ‐110. McCaulley, M.H. (1990). The Myers ‐Briggs Type Indicator and leadership. In: Clark, K. E. and Clark, M.B. (Eds). Measures of Leadership. Leadership Library of Amer ‐ ica, West Orange, NJ, pp. 381 ‐418. Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organiza ti on. Sage Publi ‐ ca ti ons, San Francisco, CA. Myers, I.B. & McCaulley, M.H. (1985). A guide to the de ‐ velopment and use of the Myers ‐Briggs Type Indica ‐ tor. Consul ti ng Psychologists Press, Pablo Alto. Nash M. (1983). Managing Organiza ti onal Performance. Jossey ‐Bass: San Francisco, CA. Quinn, R.E. & Hall, R.H. (1983). Environments, organiza ti ons, and policymakers. Toward an integra ti ve framework. In: Quinn, R.E. and Hall, R.H (Eds), Organiza ti onal Theory and Public Policy. Sage Publica ti ons, Newbury Park, CA. Rainey, H.G., Backo ff, R.W . & Levine, C.H. (1976). Compar ‐ ing public and private organiza ti ons. Public Adminis ‐ tra ti on Review, 36(2), 233–44. Reddin, W.J. (1970). Managerial e ffec ti veness. McGraw ‐ Hill, New York. Reddin, W .J. (1983). Management E ffec ti veness & Style – Individual or Situa ti onal? S.A. Tamarisk, UK. Reddin, W.J. (1987). How to make your leadership style more e ffec ti ve. McGraw ‐Hill (UK), London. Rowe, A. J., Mason, R.O. & Dickel, K.E. (1986). Strategic management & business policy. A methodological ap ‐ proach. Addison ‐Wesley Publishing, Reading. Samuels, A. (1985). Jung and the Post ‐Jungians. Rout ‐ ledge, London. She tt y, Y.K. (1979). A new look at corporate goals. Cali ‐ fornia Management Review, 16(2), 71 ‐79. Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psy ‐ chology, 25(1), 35 ‐71. Stogdill, R.M. (1969). Validity of leader behavior descrip ‐ ti ons. Personnel Psychology, 22(2), 153 ‐58. Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press. Stoknes, P .E. (1992). What is the Myers ‐Briggs Type Indica ‐ tor? In: Sharp, D. (Ed.), Personality types: Jung’s Model of Typology, pp. 103 ‐316., Moxnes Publishing, Oslo. Strube, M.J. & Garcia, J.E. (1981). A meta ‐analy ti c inves ‐ ti ga ti on of Fiedler’s con ti ngency model of leadership e ffec ti veness. Psychological Bulle ti n, 90(2), 307–321. Trinidad, C. & Normore, A.H. (2005). Leadership and gen ‐ der: a dangerous liaison? Leadership & Organiza ti on Development Journal, 26(7), 574 ‐590. Walton E.J. & Dawson, S. (2001). Managers’ percep ti on of criteria of organiza ti onal e ffec ti veness. Journal of Management Studies, 38(2), 173–199. Wi tt mer, D. (1991). Serving for people or serving for pay: Reward preferences amongst government and busi ‐ ness managers. Public Produc ti vity and Management Review, 14(4), 369 ‐383. Yukl, G.A. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251 ‐289. Yukl, G.A. (2010). Leadership in organiza ti ons. Upper Sad ‐ dle River, NJ: Pearson. Yukl, G.A., Mahsud, R., Prussia, G. & Hassan, S. (2019). Ef ‐ fec ti veness of broad and specific leadership behav ‐ iors. Personnel Review, 48(3), 774 ‐83.