Study shows little impact of age on managerial style

The Department of Management at Monash University and the Australian Institute of Management (QLD/NT) have released a study looking at a range of hypotheses on the correlation of age and managerial styles. What they found however, was that there were in fact very little differences between age groups.

Contrary to all expectations, our study shows that the opposite applies. Australian leaders, be they young or older and more experienced, record similar levels of leadership and have a similar impact on employee morale and performance. That is, while older managers do not add significantly more to the organization as measured by specific employee outcomes (employee well-being and psychological capital (PsyCap)), nor do they compromise these outcomes. Nonetheless, there are subtle indicators that older managers do contribute different skills to the organization.

Other interesting findings were that there was no statistically significant difference between the amount of transformational and transactional managers in age groups or the emotional intelligence between age groups.

Another hypothesis the research looked at was whether older managers possessed higher crystalized intelligence with younger managers possessing higher fluid intelligence. According to the paper:

• Crystalized intelligence refers to an individual's mental abilities learned through applying skills to certain situations. Generally, something that increases during an individual's life.
• Fluid intelligence on the other hand is refers to an inherited basic reasoning ability in solving novel or unusual problems which tends to decrease with time.  

The research showed no significant differences in age groups in regards to crystalized intelligence for managers over 31. The only difference being managers under 31 tended to show less. There was however a decline in fluid intelligence through age groups. The authors importantly note however that the differences in both of these findings are still statistically insignificant.

Either way it doesn't really matter because the research also showed there was no statistically significant association between fluid/crystalized intelligence and actual managerial competencies i.e managerial effectiveness.

So over all it's pretty safe to say 'statistically insignificant' is the word of the day with this paper. The authors find this surprising and tend to relate this to their sample size of about 55 managers (give or take a few as not all managers completed all parts of the survey). Sample size aside they also suggest the findings could be indicative of Australian business culture but regardless, state further research is needed to either support or reject the findings of the paper.

Bully screening?

HC Magazine recently posted about a new trial screening scheme for employers called BullyCheck. Basically young applicants aged between 17-22 consent to a character reference check from their current or former high school.

It would be great if this helps solve the ongoing issue of high school bullying but it could have interesting ramifications if it becomes mainstream practice. The article mentions "If a student voluntarily raises their bullying history and demonstrates remorse and a high level of community service then their application for a job may be considered on its merits" However I find it hard to see how a confessed bully would pass a typical comapany's culture fit test, remorseful or not..

Update:

Some comments are pouring in on the article and so far they're all negative. I've posted some below:


Bree Vreedenburgh

No, no, no. This is an awful idea. You marginalise these kids for their behaviour, without giving them (a) opportunity to demonstrate they have changed and (b) assistance to overcome their bullying...??? What if the kid is a bully because his dad is an idiot? Shouldn't that kid be educated and nurtured instead of marginalised?? Do you really think bullies are going to stop bullying if you refuse them the advantage of stepping into a workplace where they are required to behave like an adult?
Also, why would jobseekers not be told why their application was refused?? Doesn't it defeat the purpose of the exercise - being to make bullies understand that their actions have consequences - if you don't tell them that their bullying led to them being excluded from consideration for a particular job???
I am thoroughly confused by this scheme. 

Deborah

And what happens to these jobseekers if they get refused a job? They go on the dole? That's NOT an acceptable solution. Bullying should be addressed at the coalface - not x number of years later when applying for a position.

Dean Turner

A truly terrifying move!


Natural justice takes a back seat, conspiracy and deception now stand tall front and centre. Having children at school I am aware of this issue, it is now being highlighted ad nauseum to everyone. The issue is this, do school properly investigate an allegation, I know for a fact that 2 or more years ago these issues were being swept under the rug. How does the accused defend themselves? Where are the processes? Under 18 and you criminal record is sealed, yet for this we will happily tell any employer who comes along.

It may be 2011, but it feels much more like "1984"!

Reference checks are an important part of the recruitment process and for many young professionals entering the workforce, a reference from high school might be all they have. Treating this like a Criminal Check is probably the wrong way to go however especially if they can demonstrate solid character references from employment post high school. I guess we will just have to see how the trial plays out and what the results are.

The Talent Pipeline - Engaging High Potentials

I came across an interesting whitepaper titled "Is Your Talent Pipeline at Risk? Engaging High Potentials"

For those of you already familiar with career development and organisational engagement, the information in this paper may not come as much of a surprise to you. However the paper does make some important distinctions on terms and discusses common pitfalls that managers can make when planning to engage high potentials.

I'll post some of the more interesting observations I gained below:

Firstly, there is a big difference between performance and potential. It makes a lot of sense once you think of it but before I saw this table I would have often placed them in the same 'mental pool' of thought. It is entirely possible for someone to a high performer with low potential, visa-versa and everything in between.

One quote I particularly like from the paper, probably because it sounds like it was pulled from an episode of Yes Prime Minister, was from one of the contributors, Abgeka Scapello “If you have aspiration without ability, then you are an incompetent dreamer.”

As a follow on from this chart (however in the actual document the chart is at the end) the paper outlines three key pitfalls or traps to avoid. The paper already does quite a good job of summarising end expanding on these points so I'll quote them below.

1.     Don’t assume high potentials are engaged. It is vital that employers understand what drives engagement for this key group. High potentials generally have higher expectations for how they should be treated – starting with simply being identified as a high potential. Senior leaders should double or triple their efforts in keeping young stars engaged by:

·         Recognizing them early and often

·         Linking individual goals to corporate goals

·         Giving them opportunities to help solve the company’s biggest problems

·         Regularly taking the pulse of valued employees

While it’s important to acknowledge high potentials, you must be cautious not to disenfranchise the rest of your organisation. Consider how you recognise and reward other members of your workforce, including offering career development opportunities to other key segments of your employee population.

2.     Don’t confuse high performance with future potential. More than 70% of today’s top performers lack critical attributes essential to their success in future roles. The bulk of talent investments are being wasted on individuals whose potential may not be that high.

There are three attributes that best define stars: Ability + Engagement + Aspiration.

·         Ability:

Intellectual, technical and emotional skills to handle increasingly complex challenges

·         Engagement:

Level of personal connection and commitment the employee feels toward his or her role and to the firm and its mission

·         Aspiration:

Desire for recognition, advancement and future rewards

3.     Avoid delegating down management of top talent. Top talent is everyone’s responsibility. It is a long-term company asset. Responsibility for high potentials’ development must be shared by general managers. There is often an assumption that line managers know their people best, but they should not have the sole responsibility of managing top talent. What happens when management of top talent is not shared?

·         Candidates are selected solely on the basis of recent performance.

·         Candidates are offered narrow development opportunities limited to their own business units. Managers focus mostly on skills required now rather than tomorrow.

·         Employees are hoarded by line managers and not shared throughout the organisation.