Abstract
Five separate studies involving over 12,000 managers were conducted to explore the relationship between personal applications of behavioral science principles and managerial achievement. Managers, categorized as High, Average, or Low Achievers according to an objective achievement formula, were asked to respond to several standardized survey instruments based on the theories of Argyris, Blake and Mouton, Herzberg, Marrow, Maslow, and McGregor. Subordinate assessments of their manager's practices were also obtained from companion instruments. Multivariate analyses revealed that High, Average, and Low Achieving managers differed significantlyin terms of both self-reports and subordinate appraisals-in those practices circumscribed by our more prominent applied theorists. Moreover, High Achievers were found to behave in ways essentially consistent with the normative thrust of the models cited while Average and LowAchievers violated critical tenets of those models. Results are discussed in terms of the personal implications of applied behavioral science principles vis-a-vis their more typical organizational focus.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
