Management Perspectives

In today’s demanding world, inspirational leaders need a range of highly-developed skills. Knowing which skills to deploy in different circumstances and embracing a balanced approach can transform your leadership style for the better. We have all met leaders who are gifted in a particular area. However, when they apply that one skill to every situation regardless of the facts, poor results are not far behind. Leaders with such a narrow skill set are at risk of becoming the one-trick ponies of the leadership world, lacking breadth and nuance in their approach. As one former colleague described the limited style of a peer’s leadership, “When you are a hammer, all you see is nails.”

At times, there is a dense fog around the terms ‘managerial effectiveness’ and ‘efficiency’. Consequently, these terms are often loosely used. Nevertheless, though they are related, de facto, they are distinct concepts. Managerial effectiveness refers to the ability of managers to achieve the desired results. It is about doing the right things. For example, managers are effective if they successfully lead their team to complete a project on time and meet all specified requirements. They are often measured by key performance indicators (KPIs), goal achievement, and overall success in fulfilling KRAs.

Managerial efficiency is the ability to achieve goals with the minimum use of resources such as time, money, and effort. It is about doing things right. Here, the focus is processes and resources. Managers are efficient if they can complete the same project using fewer resources, such as reducing costs or time without compromising quality. They are measured by resource utilisation ratios, cost savings, time management, and productivity metrics.

Managerial efficacy refers to the perceived effectiveness and confidence of managers in their ability to perform their roles. It relates to self-belief in one’s managerial capabilities. Managers with high role efficacy feel confident in their ability to lead and solve problems. Efficacy is assessed through surveys, 360-degree feedback, etc.

Thus, effectiveness is about achieving the right outcomes and meeting objectives, and focusing on the results, whereas efficiency is about the optimal use of resources to achieve these outcomes and self-perceived ability to perform tasks effectively, focusing on selfbelief. Now let us come to third related paradigm—role efficacy. It delves into the effectiveness with which individuals perform their roles within an organisation. It encompasses the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that enable employees to feel empowered, competent, and satisfied in their roles, ultimately leading to enhanced performance and success.

Understanding role efficacy involves examining the interplay of various elements, such as role clarity, role support, personal development, and organisational environment. One of the fundamental aspects of role efficacy is role clarity. When individuals have a clear understanding of their responsibilities, expectations, and the scope of their role, they are better equipped to perform their tasks efficiently. Clarity reduces ambiguity and confusion, allowing employees to focus their efforts on achieving specific goals.

For example, in a software development company, a programmer who knows the precise requirements of a project, the deadlines, and the quality standards expected can channel their skills and efforts more effectively than one who is uncertain about these parameters. Another critical factor contributing to role efficacy is role support. This includes the availability of resources, guidance from supervisors, and collaboration with colleagues. Supportive environments enable individuals to overcome obstacles and leverage their strengths.

For instance, in a healthcare setting, a nurse who receives continuous training, access to modern medical equipment, and a collaborative team of healthcare professionals can provide better patient care. This support not only enhances the nurse’s efficacy but also improves overall patient outcomes. Personal development is also integral to role efficacy. When individuals perceive opportunities for growth and advancement, their motivation and commitment to their roles increase.

Organisations that invest in employee development through training programs, mentorship, and career advancement opportunities tend to have higher levels of role efficacy among their staff. For example, in a multinational corporation, an employee who regularly participates in leadership development programs and receives mentorship from senior executives is likely to feel more competent and confident in their role, leading to higher productivity and innovation. Moreover, the organisational environment plays a crucial role in shaping role efficacy.

A positive organisational culture that fosters trust, open communication, and recognition. Uday Pareek, a renowned behavioural scientist and ex-IIM A faculty was a pioneer in developing the concept of ‘role efficacy’ which refers to the potential effectiveness of an individual in their organisational role. Role efficacy, according to him, is determined by each of the key of the following dimensions.

1. Role making: The degree to which an individual integrates their self-concept with their role.

1.1 Proactivity: The extent to which an individual takes initiative in his role and self-role integration. For example, software developers who see their role as not just a job but a reflection of their passion for coding and problem-solving, integrating their identity with their professional responsibilities.

1.2 Creativity, role centring, and role centrality: The ability to innovate and bring new ideas into role and how central an individual perceives their role to the organisation’s functioning.

1.3 Influence and growth: The extent of influence an individual believes they have in their role to perceived opportunities for growth within the role.

2. Role linking and inter-role linkage: The degree to which an individual sees connections between their role and other roles in the organisation

2.1 Helping relationships: The extent to which individuals perceive they can form and utilise helping relationships in their role.

2.3 Superordination: The extent to which an individual perceives his role contributing to larger organisational goals.These dimensions and their respective aspects collectively influence an individual’s role efficacy, affecting their performance and satisfaction in their organisational role.

A few examples for each of the key dimensions and aspects of role efficacy are:

Role making: A marketing manager who anticipates market trends and takes the initiative to propose new campaigns or strategies before being asked by their superiors.

Creativity: A teacher who develops innovative teaching methods and engaging activities to make learning more effective and enjoyable for students.

Role centring: A customer service representative who understands that his role is crucial in maintaining customer satisfaction and loyalty, recognising its impact on the company’s reputation and success.

Influence: A project leader who believes that he has the authority and ability to make decisions.

3. Measures of role efficacy: It is often assessed through a structured questionnaire that evaluates the different aspects of the three key dimensions: Role making, role centring, and role linking.

Here are the specific measures for each aspect:

3.1 Role making: Items assessing the alignment between personal values and job responsibilities, e.g., “I see my role as an extension of my personal goals and values.”

3.2. Proactivity: Items evaluating the frequency and willingness to take initiative, e.g., “I often take the lead in initiating new projects without being asked.

3.3. Creativity: Items gauging the extent of innovation and new idea generation, e.g., “I frequently come up with creative solutions to problems in my role.”

3.4. Role centring: Items determining the perceived importance of one’s role in the organisation, e.g., “My role is central to the functioning of my department.”

3.5 Influence: Items assessing the perceived ability to impact decisions and outcomes, e.g., “I have a significant influence on important decisions within my role.”

3.6. Growth: Items evaluating opportunities for personal and professional development, e.g., “My role offers many opportunities for learning and growth.”

3.7 Inter-role links: Items examining the awareness and connection between different organisational roles, e.g., “I understand how my role is interconnected with other roles in the organisation.” 3.8. Helping relationships: Items assessing the availability and quality of support from colleagues, e.g., “I can easily seek help and advice from my colleagues.”

4. Having looked at various aspects of role efficacy, the next logical question relates to how to measure them. It is normally done through various measurement scales like the Role Efficacy Scale using self-report questionnaires on the lines of Likert-scale items

Likert scale:

1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) to assess various dimensions of an individual’s effectiveness within their role. Other measurement scales involve Job Performance Scales like Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS),Graphic Rating Scales where employees are rated on various job-related factors, such as productivity, etc., using a numeric or descriptive scale; Meyer and Allen’s Component Model of Commitment tests Gallup Q12 test; Role Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman’s Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict Scales; Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)**: Measures job satisfaction through various dimension; Locus of Control Scale; General SelfEfficacy Scale (GSES), etc.

5. Another concept relating to role involves understanding the difference between ‘key role’ and ‘pivotal role’, which are often used interchangeably but have subtle differences in their connotations and usage. This pioneering idea can be attributed to John Boudreau a Professor Emeritus at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business. A key role refers to an important position or function that is crucial to success. The term suggests importance but not necessarily centrality.

A key role is one among several important roles. It is used to describe roles that are significant and influential but might not be the central or most critical one. Whereas a pivotal role implies a central and critical position that has a decisive impact on the outcome. The term suggests that the success or failure of the endeavour hinges significantly on this role. It emphasises centrality and indispensability. A pivotal role is often seen as the linchpin or fulcrum upon which everything else depends. It is used to describe roles that are absolutely essential and central to the functioning or success. For example, let us consider a banking or a large retail brokerage organisation. Here, a branch manager’s role is a key but not a vital role whereas an RM’s role is exactly the other way round.

Or consider an airline wherein a pilot’s role is a key role but not a crucial role. Thus a pivotal role is one where rubber meets the road wherein there is an intense interaction between the rôle occupant and the client, if the interaction is pleasant then there is an exponential possibility of enhancing business potential or it can work the other way around as well. While both key and pivotal roles are important, a pivotal role is more central and critical to the outcome compared to a key role. By understanding and leveraging the distinction between key roles and pivotal roles, organisations can better align their structures and strategies to foster innovation, drive change, and maintain a competitive edge in a rapidly evolving business landscape.

Compensation surveys are always conducted based on roles rather than designations as they focus on the specific functions and responsibilities. By assessing the actual duties performed, companies can ensure that compensation is aligned with the work being done, rather than the title someone holds. This approach provides a consistent basis for comparison across different organisations, as the same role can have different titles in different companies. Here the focus is on skills, competencies, and experience required By doing this, compensation can be more accurately matched to the expertise and value an employee brings to the organisation. Moreover this accounts for the variations in what a particular designation might entail in different organisations. The role-based surveys help benchmark against the market standards for similar roles as this ensures that the compensation is competitive and helps in attracting and retaining talent. As compared to this, designation based roles suffer from serious limitations.

6. Incentive systems should indeed be based on roles rather than designations as incentive systems based on roles ensure that rewards are directly linked to the responsibilities and contributions of the employee. Such an approach motivates employees to perform well in their specific roles, as their efforts are clearly tied to tangible rewards and ensure fairness and equity in reward distribution. Moreover, employees performing similar roles and contributing similarly receive comparable incentives, fostering a sense of fairness Role-based incentives allow for tailored performance metrics that accurately reflect the key performance indicators (KPIs) of each role. This specificity ensures that employees are evaluated and rewarded based on criteria that are most relevant to their work, leading to more meaningful incentives. Moreover, incentive systems that are closely aligned with the roles can boost motivation and engagement by directly linking rewards to the successful execution of role-specific tasks. Hope that by now, the enigma behind role efficacy is completely resolved. After all, “The efficacy of management lies not just in doing things right, but in ensuring that those efforts yield meaningful and sustainable outcomes.” Adapted from Peter Drucker.