He naus, Tomisla ; Ju as, Ana; Ma ić, I an
A icle
C oss-echelon manage ial design compe encies:
Rela ional coo dina ion in o ganiza ional lea ning and
g ow h pe o mance
BRQ Business Resea ch Qua e ly
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Asociación Cien í ica de Economía y Di ección de Emp esas (ACEDE), Mad id
Sugges ed Ci a ion: He naus, Tomisla ; Ju as, Ana; Ma ić, I an (2024) : C oss-echelon manage ial
design compe encies: Rela ional coo dina ion in o ganiza ional lea ning and g ow h pe o mance,
BRQ Business Resea ch Qua e ly, ISSN 2340-9444, Sage Publishing, London, Vol. 27, Iss. 2, pp.
164-181,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/23409444211022749
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/327039
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/23409444211022749
Business Resea ch Qua e ly
2024, Vol. 27(2) 164 –181
© The Au ho (s) 2021
A icle euse guidelines:
sagepub.com/jou nals-pe missions
DOI: 10.1177/23409444211022749
jou nals.sagepub.com/home/b q
C ea i e Commons Non Comme cial CC BY-NC: This a icle is dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons
A ibu ion-NonComme cial 4.0 License (h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which pe mi s non-comme cial use,
ep oduc ion and dis ibu ion o he wo k wi hou u he pe mission p o ided he o iginal wo k is a ibu ed as speci ied on he SAGE and
Open Access page (h ps://uk.sagepub.com/abou us/openaccess.h m).
Lea ning and g ow h (inno a ion) capabili y has become a
highly ele an o ganiza ional a ge (e.g., He a y, 2004)
wi hin hype compe i i e ma ke s. Manage s a e e y hie a -
chical le el—as pa o hei jobs (Wo en, 2012) a e
in ol ed in some espec in design decisions (Ande son,
2018b), hus becoming inc easingly esponsible o design-
ing op imized solu ions (e.g., Nadle & Tushman, 1997). To
be able o mee pe o mance goal equi emen s, hey need o
be compe en , ha is, possess adequa e design- ela ed
knowledge (Ma in, 2009; Wol & Ama al, 2016) and
de elop p oblem-sol ing skills (de Beeck e al., 2017;
S u m e al., 2017; Zacca o e al., 2000). No ably, s a ing
wi h Weih ich and Koon z (1994), manage ial design com-
pe encies (i.e., he unde lying knowledge base and a se o
skills ela ed o sys em hinking, pa e n ecogni ion, p ob-
lem-sol ing, and c ea i i y; Dulewicz & Higgs, 2004) ha e
been inc easingly ecognized as a ele an skill ca ego y o
de e mining he ue na u e o he wicked p oblems—such
as unp eceden ed ma ke challenges, ongoing ade-o
decisions, s a egic ole ambigui y, o managing duali ies—
o ganiza ions ace (e.g., Mum o d e al., 2007).
Howe e , we s ill do no know much abou how his pa -
icula ype o manage ial compe ency is ep esen ed a di -
e en hie a chical echelons, no o wha ex en , i has an
in luence on pe o mance ou comes. This is no su p ising i
we acknowledge ha exis ing leade ship compe encies
esea ch has p edominan ly a ge ed a speci ic manage ial
le el (i.e., execu i es, op-, o middle-le el manage s) and
examined single-le el ela ionships, such as he linkage
be ween he CEO o leade ship and pe o mance ou comes
(DeChu ch e al., 2010). Consequen ly, mixed e idence
exis s abou he o ganiza ional bene i s o de eloping mana-
ge ial compe encies (Boya zis, 1982; Dulewicz & Higgs,
C oss-echelon manage ial design
compe encies: Rela ional coo dina ion
in o ganiza ional lea ning and g ow h
pe o mance
Tomisla He naus1, Ana Ju as2 and I an Ma ic2
Abs ac
We ollowed he con inui y pe spec i e o leade ship skill equi emen s o examine he in e play be ween he design
compe encies o di e en managemen coho s, ela ional coo dina ion, and o ganiza ional lea ning and g ow h
pe o mance ou comes. Using a wo-sou ce sample o 103 o ganiza ions, we ound e idence o compensa o y e ec s.
Speci ically, a condi ional p ocess analysis (mode a ed media ion) e ealed ha : (a) design compe encies a e a highly
ele an ype o manage ial knowledge o skill, (b) compe en middle-le el manage s compensa e o a lack o design skills
and design- ela ed knowledge a he op managemen le el, and (c) op- and middle-le el manage ial design compe encies
simul aneously c ea e a c oss-echelon complemen a i y e ec on o ganiza ional lea ning and g ow h pe o mance.
JEL classi ica ion
Keywo ds
Design compe encies, ela ional coo dina ion, o ganiza ional lea ning and g ow h pe o mance, condi ional p ocess
analysis, complemen a i y analysis
1
Facul y o Economics and Business, Uni e si y o Zag eb, Zag eb,
C oa ia
2
Facul y o Economics, Business and Tou ism, Uni e si y o Spli , Spli ,
C oa ia
Co esponding au ho :
Tomisla He naus, Facul y o Economics and Business, Uni e si y o
Zag eb, 10000 Zag eb, C oa ia.
Email: [email p o ec ed]
1022749BRQ0010.1177/23409444211022749Business Resea ch Qua e lyHe naus e al.
esea ch-a icle2021
Regula Pape
He naus e al. 165
2004; S u m e al., 2017; Waldman & Yamma ino, 1999).
Only a ew ecen s udies ha e s a ed o examine he pe -
o mance e ec s o in e play be ween manage ial compe-
encies ac oss hie a chical le els (e.g., DeChu ch e al.,
2010; Kaise & C aig, 2011; Mum o d e al., 2007; Wilcox
King & Zei haml, 2001; Yukl, 2012), ha is, in e play
be ween se e al o many manage s wi h in e dependen
esponsibili ies. Despi e he eme ging esea ch, we s ill can-
no con i m whe he manage ial compe encies a e gene ic
( he con inui y pe spec i e) o le el-speci ic ( he discon i-
nui y pe spec i e) o i he con inui y and discon inui y
iews o leade ship skills ansi ion can occu simul ane-
ously (e.g., De Meuse e al., 2011).
The e o e, ou main aim o his a icle was o add o
he discussion by examining how indi idual compe ency
elemen s a dis inc manage ial le els a e complemen a y
o s i ing o each highe o ganiza ional pe o mance
esul s. Speci ically, esponding o Yukl’s (2012) p oposi-
ions on desi able and ele an u u e leade ship esea ch
s eams, we applied he con inui y pe spec i e o leade -
ship skill equi emen s (De Meuse e al., 2011) and ol-
lowed he assump ions o he heo y o ela ional
coo dina ion (Ho e Gi ell, 2016) o es empi ically—on
a sample o 103 medium- and la ge-sized o ganiza ions
om an EU membe s a e—how he design compe encies
o di e en managemen coho s ( op- and middle-le el
manage s) enable less angible (lea ning and g ow h) pe -
o mance h oughou he o ganiza ion ia ela ional coo -
dina ion (i.e., “ he managemen o ask in e dependencies
ca ied ou in he con ex o ela ionships wi h o he g oup
membe s,” c . Ho e Gi ell, 2001, p. 471) as a ype o
in o mal s uc u al mechanism.
This examina ion o c oss-echelon dynamics o e s a
h ee old con ibu ion o he science o leade ship. Fi s ,
we add essed no only he con inui y, bu also he comple-
men a i y o manage ial compe encies ac oss hie a chical
echelons. Thus, we managed o add alue o he esea ch
s eam ocused on s a egic leade ship a mul iple le els o
an o ganiza ion. Second, ou empi ical esea ch in es i-
ga ed a no el ca ego y o manage ial design compe encies
and how his dimension o compe ency impac s he s a e-
gic ou comes o s ill less-examined pe o mance pe spec-
i e o o ganiza ional lea ning and g ow h. Finally, we
joined he leade ship compe ency app oach and heo y o
ela ional coo dina ion o explain how he in e ace
be ween uppe -echelon manage ial compe encies ( op-
and middle-le el manage s) con ibu es o he de elop-
men o a la e al in eg a i e mechanism ha , in u n, d i es
he s a egic implemen a ion o lea ning and g ow h-
ela ed pe o mance goals.
The a icle is s uc u ed in a such manne ha we s a
by in oducing manage ial design compe encies and ela-
ional coo dina ion as ele an p edic o s o o ganiza ional
lea ning and g ow h pe o mance (a basic media ion
model), and con inue wi h p o iding heo e ical a gumen s
suppo ing a con inui y pe spec i e o he changing leade -
ship skill equi emen s ac oss managemen le els (a i s -
s age mode a ion and mode a ed media ion models). Nex ,
a sampling s a egy, measu emen ins umen s and da a
analy ic p ocedu es applied in he a icle a e desc ibed,
ollowed by ield su ey esul s p o ided by explo a o y
(i.e., ac o analysis, subjec i e/objec i e measu e com-
pa ison, and desc ip i e s a is ics), hypo hesis es ing (a
condi ional p ocess analysis) and supplemen a y analyses
(i.e., complemen a i y analysis and endogenei y es ing).
Finally, we highligh heo e ical and p ac ical implica ions
o he p esen esea ch, wi h a special a en ion gi en o
po en ial limi a ions o ou s udy.
Theo y and hypo heses
Manage ial design compe encies and
o ganiza ional pe o mance
Compe encies ep esen skill ulness and abili y, ha is, he
human capaci y o pe o m new asks and sol e highly
complex p oblems in a gi en wo k si ua ion (Hun &
Wallace, 1997). They e lec he leade ship skills and
esul ing ac ion-d i en beha io s needed o accomplish an
o ganiza ion’s s a egic and de elopmen al objec i es
(Hamb ick, 1989; Hollenbeck e al., 2006). A di e se se o
manage ial compe encies ha e been ecognized in he li -
e a u e. The mos es ablished compe ence-based app oach
is a manage ial skill model de eloped by Ka z (1955).
Howe e , his h ee old manage ial skill se (concep ual,
in e pe sonal, and echnical skills) is gene ic and should be
expanded (Pe e son & Van Flee , 2004) o mee con empo-
a y business and leade ship skill equi emen s.
Con inuous g ow h in en i onmen unce ain y and
o ganiza ional complexi y (Lacey & Fiss, 2009) has led o
enewed and inc eased a en ion being gi en o o ganiza-
ional design as an applied science domain (Joseph, 2018).
O ganiza ions a e inc easingly u ning o design as an
impo an in isible asse (Bo ja de Mozo a & Kim, 2009)
o op imizing s a egy execu ion (Capelle, 2014; Cichocki
& I win, 2011) and gaining compe i i e ad an age (e.g.,
Deloi e, 2016; Ko le & Ra h, 1984; Ra asi & Lojacono,
2005). Consequen ly, leade s and manage s a e challenged
o sol e an inc easing numbe o wicked p oblems (e.g.,
Wo ld Economic Fo um, 2016) ha equi e p oblem iden-
i ica ion skills (Yukl, 1989), solu ion app aisal and objec-
i e e alua ion skills (Mum o d e al., 2000; Mum o d
e al., 2007), and complex p oblem-sol ing skills (Connelly
e al., 2000). Weih ich and Koon z (1994) labeled his
impo an p oblem- ocused subse o concep ual compe-
encies as design compe encies.
Design(ing) is a cogni i e ac i i y (Visse , 2006) and a
managemen skill ha ep esen s a co e compe ency
acco ding o he esou ce-based iew (Bo ja de Mozo a,
2013). The o igin o his speci ic dimension o manage ial
166 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 27(2)
compe encies da es back o he pionee ing wo k o Ka z
and Kahn (1978), who sugges ed ha op-echelon manag-
e s should ha e a sys emic pe spec i e in ol ing he abil-
i y o in eg a e and ha monize a ious o ganiza ional
subsys ems. Wi hin he las decade, design managemen
has been inc easingly pe cei ed as a s a egic p og am o
o ganiza ions (Libânio e al., 2017) esponsible o in e-
g a ing co e capabili ies, wo k p ocesses, and co po a e
s a egies (Wol & Ama al, 2016). The ising numbe o
CEOs is app oaching design no om he s andpoin o he
design ou comes, bu om he s andpoin o con empo a y
manage s’ challenges ha can u n o design hinking o
solu ions and o in en ing new ways o go e nance (Bo ja
de Mozo a, 2013).
Ex an esea ch clus e ed a ound he uppe echelons
heo y has es ablished ha o ganiza ions a e o en e lec-
ions o hei op manage s (Hamb ick & Mason, 1984),
whose backg ound cha ac e is ics (such as pe sonali y,
age, gende , educa ion, job enu e, pe sonal alues, and
cogni i e biases) impac on i m pe o mance (Ca pen e
e al., 2004). Howe e , a s aigh o wa d answe abou he
ole o op-le el manage ial compe encies in shaping
i m’s o e all pe o mance is s ill missing (e.g., Semeijn
e al., 2014). Mo eo e , a numbe o schola s who poin o
close e sus dis al leade ship al e na i es conside his
issue somewha con o e sial (Waldman & Yamma ino,
1999). Fo ins ance, he me a-analy ic esul s e ealed
modes suppo o a di ec ela ionship (i.e., close leade -
ship) be ween op managemen eam cha ac e is ics ( eam
size and eam he e ogenei y) and inancial pe o mance,
and also indica ed he exis ence o mode a ing in luences
(Ca pen e & Sande s, 2002; Ce o e al., 2006). Top-le el
manage s’ in luence migh be neu alized as hey a e o en
disconnec ed om he shop- loo ope a ions.
On a ela ed no e, we should also acknowledge ha
compe encies in and o hemsel es a e no pe o mance
(Led o d, 1995). Ra he , hey should be app oached as a
means h ough which pe o mance is achie ed (Le enson
e al., 2006). Ne e heless, he capi aliza ion o execu i es’
skills and compe encies and he skills and compe encies o
manage s a each hie a chical le el a e highly ele an o
o ganiza ional pe o mance (Eisenbach e al., 1999; Pawa
& Eas man, 1997).
A iable app oach o building a case o dis al leade -
ship would be o de elop and es ich heo ies on he op-
down mechanisms h ough which execu i es ul ima ely
impac hei o ganiza ions (DeChu ch e al., 2010). A good
candida e migh be he in angible alue o manage ial
design skills ha is supposed o add ess he lea ning and
g ow h pe spec i e in he balanced sco eca d (Bo ja de
Mozo a, 2013). Speci ically, we conside ed he ole o
ela ional coo dina ion ep esen ing an in o mal s uc u al
mechanism (i.e., a p oxy o ho izon al in o mal in eg a-
ion) ha ansla es op-le el manage ial design compe en-
cies in o highe (lea ning and g ow h) pe o mance esul s.
Rela ional coo dina ion subsumes speci ic dimensions o
in e pe sonal ela ionships (e.g., sha ed goals, sha ed
knowledge, mu ual espec , communica ion, p oblem-
sol ing). I is ca ied ou o he pu pose o ask in eg a ion
(Ho e Gi ell, 2002), and o e s a much-needed in o ma-
ion-p ocessing capaci y o coo dina ing highly in e de-
penden wo k (Ho e Gi ell e al., 2008).
This cons uc is cen al o ou esea ch and should be
pe cei ed as a linking pin be ween s uc u al/wo k p ocess
in e en ions and pe o mance ou comes. The exis ing
esea ch g ouped a ound he heo y o ela ional coo dina-
ion (Ho e Gi ell, 2016) p o ides a suppo i e e idence
o he media ing na u e o ela ional coo dina ion. Fo
ins ance, Ho e Gi ell e al. (2008) examined ela ional
coo dina ion as a media o be ween job design and ce ain
measu es o e iciency and quali y. Likewise, Siddique
e al. (2019) epo ed on he in e ening ole o ela ional
coo dina ion be ween high-pe o ming wo k sys ems and
o ganiza ional pe o mance. Mo e closely o ou esea ch
opic, Vainie i e al. (2019) showed ha manage ial com-
pe encies ha e signi ican posi i e e ec on o e all pe o -
mance, whe e ela ional coo dina ion ully media ed his
ela ionship.
Al hough pa h b ( ela ional coo dina ion and o ganiza-
ional pe o mance) has al eady been examined and had a
posi i e associa ion con i med in se e al s udies (e.g.,
Edmondson, 1999; Ho e Gi ell, 2001, 2002, 2015), we
a e s ill wai ing o con i ming e idence on whe he ela-
ional coo dina ion media es he link be ween leade ship
compe encies and o ganiza ional pe o mance. Top-le el
manage ial design compe encies a e expec ed o enable
c oss- unc ional coo dina ion, mu ual adjus men , and
ho izon al communica ion h oughou an o ganiza ion
(pa h a), which should e en ually esul in be e o ganiza-
ional lea ning and g ow h ou comes (pa h c′). The e o e,
we hypo hesized he ollowing:
Hypo hesis 1. Rela ional coo dina ion media es he
ela ionship be ween op-le el manage ial design com-
pe encies, and o ganiza ional lea ning and g ow h
pe o mance.
A con inui y-discon inui y pe spec i e o
manage ial design compe ency
Mum o d e al. (2007) ecen ly emphasized a con inui y–dis-
con inui y issue in o ganiza ional psychology esea ch, ha is,
con as ed heo e ical pe spec i es o changing manage ial
compe encies ac oss o ganiza ional le els, simila o
F eedman’s (1998, 2011) le go, p ese e, add on model. The
con inui y pe spec i e posi s ha (manage ial) jobs a succes-
si ely highe le els equi e all o he skills impo an o man-
aging a lowe le els o hie a chy. This inhe en ly ansi i e
and eplica i e na u e o knowledge, skills, and abili ies means
ha ce ain compe encies ha one de elops while wo king as
He naus e al. 167
a i s -line supe iso o middle-le el manage do no diminish
bu a e s ill ele an o uppe -echelon posi ions. Such eason-
ing is in line wi h he insigh s o Min zbe g (1973) ha jobs
a y by hie a chical le el only ega ding he amoun o ime
de o ed o each manage ial ole. In con as , he discon inui y
pe spec i e con ends ha manage s need o elinquish some
skills as hey ge p omo ed om one o ganiza ional le el o
ano he (De Meuse e al., 2011) o p e en a decline in hei
pe o mance. This s a i ied and segmen ed na u e o he
changing skill equi emen s ac oss manage ial le els has been
desc ibed as a s a aplex model o leade ship de elopmen
(Mum o d e al., 2007).
Despi e some esea ch indings ha ha e p o ided e i-
dence abou di e ences in e ec i e leade ship beha io s
ac oss hie a chical le els (Ba le & Ghoshal, 1997; Dai
e al., 2011), he analyses o a 360-deg ee compe ency a -
ing da a se ound ha he wo pe spec i es occu simul a-
neously (De Meuse e al., 2011). Namely, acco ding o
Na ali (2014), ce ain ac i i ies, oles, pe o mance
equi emen s, skills, o ganiza ional esponsibili ies, and
ai s emain impo an ac oss le els o equi e g ea e
ap i ude in he same a ea in highe le els o he hie a chy
(suppo ing he con inui y pe spec i e), while o he s
dec ease in impo ance o change in how hey a e enac ed
(suppo ing he discon inui y pe spec i e).
Fu he mo e, by en isioning o ganiza ional design as an
ongoing cogni i e ac i i y no only pe o med by op man-
agemen (Nissen, 2014), bu also in ol ing middle-le el
manage s likewise (Li ijin, 2019), we leaned owa d an
in eg a i e app oach o manage ial design compe encies in
which he con inui y and discon inui y pe spec i es o lead-
e ship de elopmen apply concu en ly. Fo ins ance, we
expec ed op- and middle-le el manage s o ake an impo -
an ole in ini ia ing and execu ing change (Heyden e al.,
2017). In addi ion o op-le el manage s’ de aul ole, mid-
dle-le el manage s likewise play a c ucial ole in accom-
plishing o ganiza ional es uc u ing (Balogun & Johnson,
2004). Indeed, Li ijin (2019) iden i ied designing as one o
he impo an oles ha middle-le el manage s play in
building collabo a ion and coo dina ion ac oss a hie a chy.
Middle-le el manage s p o ide change and execu ion
suppo o op managemen (Floyd & Lane, 2000), ep e-
sen ing a bu e be ween op managemen and lowe le el
employees (Ryan, 2008) and enabling he s a egy–ope a-
ions link (DeChu ch e al., 2010). This manage ial laye is
expec ed o in e p e and communica e bo h up and down
he hie a chical ladde (Kang e al., 2015; Wilcox King
e al., 2001), hus helping o c ea e a sha ed unde s anding
o he o ganiza ion’s capabili ies, enabling he op imal u i-
liza ion o esou ces, and di ec ing he employees’ ocus o
he mos aluable sou ces o compe i i e ad an age.
Middle-le el manage s a e also expec ed o ansla e s a-
egic plans in o conc e e e e yday ac ions ha employees
can unde s and (Balogun, 2007; Heyden e al., 2017).
By building on ea ly examples o he con inui y pe -
spec i e o he changing leade ship skill equi emen s
ac oss managemen le els (Mahoney e al., 1965) and
acknowledging mo e ecen insigh s in o he impo ance o
cogni i e skills a each le el, we simila ly expec ed ha
design compe encies would be ep esen ed and migh be
ele an beyond he op managemen le el (Mum o d
e al., 2007). The e o e, we assumed ha c oss-echelon
manage ial design compe encies simul aneously and
somewha cumula i ely a ec ela ional coo dina ion
p ac ices ac oss an o ganiza ion ( o an o e iew o ou
esea ch amewo k, see Figu e 1), hus p oducing sha ed
leade ship:
Hypo hesis 2. Middle-le el manage ial design compe-
encies mode a e he ela ionship be ween op-le el
manage ial design compe encies and ela ional coo di-
na ion, making i mo e posi i e when op-le el mana-
ge ial design compe encies a e low.
Complemen a i y e ec o manage ial design
compe encies ac oss le els
The leade ship li e a u e is mos ly silen on how in e ac i e
models o manage ial compe encies ac oss hie a chical le els
Figu e 1. Resea ch amewo k.
168 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 27(2)
explain o ganiza ional pe o mance. Al hough i is clea ha
leade s a di e en echelons ha e an e ec on he implemen-
a ion o s a egic ini ia i es, how agg ega e leade ship shapes
pe o mance ou comes is no s aigh o wa d (e.g., O’Reilly
e al., 2010). Two excep ions a e a s udy by Raes e al. (2011),
who speci ied he unc ions o he op managemen eam and
middle-le el manage s’ in e ace, and he wo k o Gen y
e al. (2013), who examined whe he middle-le el manage s’
beha io al mani es a ions o in eg i y a e ela ed o op-le el
execu i es’ pe o mance a ings.
To unde s and and b idge he compe ency-based di e -
ences ac oss manage ial le els wi h he ul ima e goal o
d i ing o ganiza ional pe o mance, we decided o pu sue
he unde examined idea o complemen a i y (Cable &
Edwa ds, 2004; Piasen in & Chapman, 2007), ha is, o
examine whe he “opposi es a ac o comple e and o se
each o he ” (c . K is o -B own & Jansen, 2007, p. 131).
Speci ically, we p oposed a compensa o y model o leade -
ship skills, meaning ha manage ial design compe encies
a lowe le els o a hie a chy compensa e (a nega i e in e -
ac ion) o he lack o such cha ac e is ics a highe le els.
Simila o inno a ion managemen esea ch conduc ed by
Heyden e al. (2018) on a sample o op- and middle-le el
manage s, we belie e ha a c oss-echelon alignmen o
manage ial design compe encies could be an impo an
an age poin om which we can unde s and lea ning and
g ow h pe spec i e o o ganiza ional pe o mance.
Because op-le el manage s o en do no know exac ly
wha so o linkages would wo k bes o how o imple-
men hem, he ole o senio leade s is enabling middle-
le el manage s o engage in linking ac i i ies ha p o ide
adap abili y and c ea e change (Taylo & Hel a , 2009).
Such linking ac i i ies a he le el o middle managemen
migh include bounda y spanning (e.g., b oke ing), o gan-
izing and implemen ing aligned ac ions (i.e., in eg a ing),
p omo ing c oss- unc ional aining (e.g., enabling collab-
o a ion), join planning and decision-making (e.g., coo di-
na ing), and deploying esou ces ac oss uni s in ways ha
os e in e connec i i y. In addi ion, highly compe en
middle-le el manage s can help o achie e ela ional coo -
dina ion o he pu pose o ask in eg a ion (Ho e Gi ell,
2002).
The e o e, we acknowledged and u he sea ched o
suppo o in oduce ela ional coo dina ion in o he deba e
as a highly ele an in eg a i e mechanism be ween o gan-
iza ional membe s (Ho e Gi ell & Douglass, 2012). Fo
ins ance, Jansen e al. (2009) a gued ha leade s a all le -
els mus ad oca e new o ganiza ional logic and os e col-
lec i e pa e ns o in e ac ion (Hel a & Pe e a , 2003).
Ben-Menahem e al. (2016) added ha manage s should
achie e c oss-echelon consis ency by c ea ing a consensus
on o ganiza ional p io i ies and hus becoming be e able
o coo dina e knowledge exchange and in eg a ion.
Rela i e coo dina ion highligh s ha o ganiza ions can
achie e desi ed ou comes in a supe io manne h ough
equen , high-quali y communica ion suppo ed by wo k
ela ionships wi h sha ed goals, knowledge, and mu ual
espec . This in o mal s uc u al mechanism is no
expec ed o eme ge solely om in e ac ions among indi-
iduals; a he , i is heo ized o depend upon o ganiza-
ions o suppo i s de elopmen (Bol on e al., 2021).
Speci ically, compe en manage s who possess design
skills and design- ela ed knowledge—by ca e ully design-
ing and implemen ing in o mal s uc u al mechanisms,
such as ela ional coo dina ion in and ac oss hie a chical
le els (Galb ai h, 1973; Galunic & Eisenha d , 2001;
Tsai, 2002)—boos he o ganiza ional lea ning and g ow h
pe o mance cu e.
Hypo hesis 3. Middle-le el manage ial design compe-
encies mode a e he indi ec e ec o op-le el mana-
ge ial design compe encies on o ganiza ional lea ning
and g ow h pe o mance h ough ela ional coo dina-
ion, such ha he indi ec e ec s a e ealized when
middle-le el manage ial design compe encies a e low
o medium.
Me hod
Sample
The condi ional p ocess esea ch model has been es ed on
a c oss-indus y sample o medium- and la ge-sized o gan-
iza ions (mo e han 100 employees) lis ed in an online
da abase o he C oa ian Chambe o Economy. Mul isou ce
su ey da a we e collec ed om 103 o ganiza ions om
Oc obe o Decembe 2017. Howe e , we had o disca d a
ew esponses due o in alid o incomple e da a en ies,
leading o a inal sample o 96 o ganiza ions ( o a esponse
a e o 9.0%) which ope a e in di e en sec o s (31.1%
manu ac u ing, 12.6% cons uc ion, and 10.7% ade,
au omo i e epai , and main enance se ices) wi h a 1:2
a io in a o o p i a ely owned companies. A majo i y o
he sampled o ganiza ions (53.4%) had less han 250
employees, al hough e y la ge companies coun ing mo e
han 1,000 employees we e also ep esen ed (10.7%).
O e all, o he s udied companies, 29.3% had women in
manage ial posi ions, al hough op-le el manage s we e
mainly men (mo e han 90.0%). The majo i y o he mana-
ge ial wo k o ce was highly educa ed (82.5% had a uni-
e si y diploma), wi h ei he a business (49.5%) o
echnical and enginee ing academic backg ound (48.5%).
Human esou ces o o ganiza ional design and de elop-
men manage s epo ed on hei exis ing o ganiza ional
complexi y ( he le el o ela ional coo dina ion), and CEOs
o membe s o he managemen boa d e alua ed he eche-
lon-speci ic compe ency o he manage ial wo k o ce ( op-
and middle-le el manage ial design compe encies) and
hei o ganiza ional e ec i eness (lea ning and g ow h pe -
o mance dimension). Following an es ablished p ac ice
He naus e al. 169
(e.g., Glase e al., 2015; Heyden e al., 2017) and gi en he
conside able challenges o gaining mul ile el da a on man-
age ial echelons (Heyden e al., 2018), we solely examined
op- and middle-managemen posi ion le els because he
na u e o low-le el manage ial wo k migh be signi ican ly
di e en in e ms o complexi y, o ganiza ional esponsi-
bili ies, and equisi e skills (see Kaise e al., 2011). We
analyzed da a using he PROCESS mac o (Hayes, 2013).
Measu es
Manage ial design compe encies. Acknowledging di icul ies
in ob aining an objec i e assessmen o compe ence and
compe encies (Ellio e al., 2017; Lich enbe g e al., 2007),
we applied he skill a ing o de e mine he pe cei ed le el
o design compe encies p esen a di e en hie a chical le -
els. Execu i es (CEOs o membe s o he managemen
boa d) e alua ed he agg ega ed le el o design compe en-
cies p esen in op- and middle-le el hie a chical echelons
because hey a e supposed o ha e a gene al o e iew o he
exis ing si ua ion (i.e., knowledge base) wi hin an o ganiza-
ion (Glase , 1968) and a speci ic unde s anding o manage-
ial skills and e o s (Moh man e al., 1989). Design
compe encies pe se a ge ed di e en p oblem-sol ing
app oaches (posi i e and op imis ic app oach, inclusi e
app oach, quick and e ec i e, o objec i e p oblem-sol -
ing). Commensu a e measu es consis ed o 5-poin Like -
ype ag eemen scale i ems (1 = s ongly disag ee o 5 =
s ongly ag ee) o iginally p oposed by he au ho s appea ed
o be eliable, as C onbach’s alphas we e abo e he h esh-
old o .70 (Nunnally, 1978) o wo consecu i e manage ial
le els examined ( op: α = .852; middle: α = .844). The
sample i ems we e “Con on ed wi h new si ua ions and
challenges, manage s a e capable o de eloping a no el
solu ion quickly and e icien ly” and “Whene e possible,
manage s analyze a wide se o al e na i es, including p ob-
lem-sol ing ideas gene a ed by o he s.”
Rela ional coo dina ion. Because p e ious esea ch showed
ha human esou ce manage s a e eligible o epo on
a ious aspec s o o ganiza ional complexi y (Tu kulainen
& Ke oki i, 2013), we used hei inpu o measu e ela-
ional coo dina ion. Speci ically, we applied he 7-i em
Like - ype ag eemen scale (1 = s ongly disag ee o 5 =
s ongly ag ee) de eloped by Ho e Gi ell (2002) which
has been al eady alida ed in se e al indus ies and coun-
ies. Fou i ems ocused on communica ion ies ( equen ,
imely, accu a e, and p oblem-sol ing) and h ee on ela-
ionship ies wi hin an o ganiza ion (sha ed goals, sha ed
knowledge, and mu ual espec ). Sligh ly adjus ed o iginal
sample i ems we e “Employees communica e in a imely
way abou ocal wo k p ocesses” and “When a p oblem
occu s wi h a wo k p ocess, employees wo k oge he o
sol e he p oblem.” The epo ed alue o C onbach’s
alpha coe icien o his measu e was .862.
O ganiza ional pe o mance/e ec i eness. Lea ning and
g ow h pe spec i e is a cons i u i e pa o he in luen ial
balanced sco eca d model o pe o mance (Kaplan & No -
on, 1992, 2005) ha ep esen s an impo an lead indica-
o o o ganiza ional e ec i eness (Akke mans & Van
Oo scho , 2018). I co e s a b oad spec um o in angible
pe o mance d i e s (such as employee mo i a ion and job
sa is ac ion, employee loyal y, R&D and aining, and
in e nal communica ion) ha migh explain he p edic i e
ole o manage ial design compe encies. We decided o use
ou o iginal balanced sco eca d measu emen i ems
(Kaplan & No on, 2006) ha we e addi ionally supple-
men ed wi h he o e all quali y o a wo k en i onmen
i em (Ni en, 2006). The 5-i em pe o mance scale
desc ibed was in e nally consis en wi h C onbach’s alpha
coe icien o .823. As bo h objec i e and subjec i e pe -
o mance measu es ha e been widely adop ed (Singh
e al., 2016), he me hodological choice was made o he
la e ones; subjec i e measu es a e mo e commonly used
as hey enable c oss-indus y compa ison and migh o e
insigh s on in angible pe o mance. Mo eo e , subjec i e
pe o mance was ex ensi ely ound o be posi i ely co -
ela ed wi h he objec i e pe o mance (e.g., Vij & Bedi,
2016; Wall e al., 2004), and is much mo e app op ia ed o
add essing an in angible asse / esou ces, such as o ganiza-
ional lea ning and g ow h.
Howe e , o u he suppo ou easoning, we an a
compa a i e analysis o subjec i e ( op manage ’s assess-
men ) and objec i e measu es ( e ie ed om he Financial
Agency [FINA], a public company ha p o ides inancial
and elec onic se ices) o inancial pe o mance. The sim-
ila subjec i e/objec i e compa ison was no possible o
ocal-dependen a iable (i.e., o ganiza ional lea ning and
g ow h pe o mance), as he majo i y o C oa ian compa-
nies s ill do no measu e objec i ely his speci ic dimension
o o ganiza ional pe o mance/e ec i eness. The publicly
a ailable objec i e inancial da a (i.e., p o i , e u n on
asse s [ROA], and e u n on equi y [ROE]) we e ob ained
o h ee consecu i e yea s (2017–2019).
The con e gen alidi y has been con i med as
Spea man’s ank-o de co ela ion coe icien s we e sig-
ni ican and posi i e o subjec i e inancial pe o mance
measu e and each o he objec i e inancial pe o mance
measu es (please see he co ela ion ma ix shown in
Supplemen al Appendix 2). In addi ion, we ound a posi-
i e link be ween subjec i e measu es o inancial, and
lea ning and g ow h pe o mance (ρ = .367, N = 101, p <
.01), while he e was no s a is ical e idence o he ela ion-
ship be ween pe cei ed lea ning and g ow h pe o mance,
and inancial s a emen esul s, espec i ely. A he same
ime, by compa ing subjec i e (2017) wi h objec i e inan-
cial indica o s (2017 and 2018), we no iced a dec ease in
objec i e inancial pe o mance, which is consis en wi h
he equi emen s o disc iminan alidi y (Wall e al.,
2004). Finally, we ound an e idence o cons uc alidi y
170 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 27(2)
as subjec i e and objec i e inancial pe o mance meas-
u es co esponded closely o each o he in ela ion o main
a iables o he p esen s udy (i.e., op-, and middle-le el
manage ial design compe encies, and ho izon al in o mal
in eg a ion; see Supplemen al Appendix 3). Some anoma-
lies ha e been iden i ied ega ding he con ol a iables,
ye hey we e no subs an i e leading o he conclusion ha
manage ial- epo ed subjec i e measu es o o ganiza ional
pe o mance/e ec i eness a e alid and eliable e e ence
poin s.
Con ol a iables. Following bes p ac ice ecommenda-
ions o con ol a iable usage (see Be ne h & Aguinis,
2016), we con olled se e al a iables ha may a ec ou
model. Taking he gene al o ganiza ional con ex in o con-
side a ion, we in oduced con ingency ac o s, such as
en i onmen unce ain y (i.e., en i onmen complexi y
and en i onmen al dynamism; see Masca enhas, 1984),
co po a e s a egy ype (i.e., p ospec o , de ende , ana-
lyze , and eac o ; see Miles & Snow, 1978), o ganiza-
ional size (i.e., he numbe o employees), and managemen
gende a io (i.e., he pe cen age o women in he co po-
a e boa d). In e ms o o mal s uc u al a angemen s,
a iables such as he execu i e’s and middle manage s’
span o con ol (i.e., he [a e age] numbe o di ec line
and s a epo s), ho izon al o mal in eg a ion (α = .622;
i e i ems cap u ing he ex en o which o ganiza ions use
c oss- unc ional in e aces, such as eams and p ojec s, job
o a ion, and liaison oles; see Jansen e al., 2009), ype o
o ganiza ional s uc u e (e.g., unc ional, di isional,
ma ix, p ojec , on -back), specializa ion (i.e., he num-
be o di e en job desc ip ions), and e ical di e en ia-
ion (i.e., he a e age numbe o hie a chical le els) ha e
been add essed. Finally, bo h o ganiza ional (i.e., indus y
and owne ship ype) and indi idual (i.e., esponden ’s job
posi ion and esponden ’s job enu e) demog aphic ac o s
we e examined.
Analy ic s a egy
A esponden -d i en p e es o ou su ey was done on a
small subsample o he a ge ed popula ion (Fe ke ich e al.,
1993). Speci ically, we ini ially an ou su ey on 38 pilo
pa icipan s om he co po a e wo ld, hus sa is ying a gen-
e al ule o humb o conduc ing pilo es s (Shea sley,
1983). As a esul , he ace alidi y o he cons uc s and hei
i em wo ding we e checked. To es ou esea ch model, we
used he PROCESS mac o e sion 2.16.3 o SPSS (Hayes,
2013). We conduc ed hypo heses es ing by examining he
nes ed: (a) a basic media ion model, ha is, he ole o ela-
ional coo dina ion; (b) a i s -s age mode a ion, ha is, he
ole o middle-le el manage ial design compe encies; (c) a
comple e mode a ed media ion model, ha is, he simul ane-
ous mode a ing ole o middle-le el manage ial design com-
pe encies and he media ing ole o ela ional coo dina ion
on he ela ionship be ween op-le el manage ial design
compe encies, and lea ning and g ow h pe o mance dimen-
sion. To u he alida e ou da a and s udy indings, supple-
men a y analyses we e conduc ed: (d) complemen a i y
analysis o he conjoin in luence o op- and middle-le el
manage ial design compe encies on lea ning and g ow h pe -
o mance; and (e) endogenei y es ing o examine whe he
ou esea ch model is co ec ly speci ied and as such enables
causal easoning.
Resul s
Explo a o y analyses
Fac o analysis. We used explo a o y ac o analysis o de e -
mine o iden i y he unde lying s uc u e among he se o
i ems o a iables (Nunnally & Be ns ein, 1994), which
apped a speci ic ac o o la en cons uc ela ed o mana-
ge ial design compe encies (Dye e al., 2005). Consis en
i em loadings we e eached; ha is, each manage ial design
compe encies’ i em i in o a co esponding ac o (Clapp-
Smi h e al., 2009). Acco ding o he esul s ob ained, ou
explo a o y ac o analysis was alid because he Kaise –
Meye –Olkin measu e o sampling adequacy was abo e
.60, and Ba le ’s es o sphe ici y was s a is ically signi i-
can (p < .01). Fu he mo e, ollowing a p ede e mined
numbe o ixed ac o s, a p incipal componen analysis
ex ac ed h ee e y s ong ac o s. The R2 alues o com-
munali ies showed ha all i ems con ibu ed signi ican ly o
measu ing he unde lying ac o s (R2 > .40). Finally, he
a imax o a ed me hod wi h Kaise no maliza ion p o-
duced a o a ed componen ma ix om which i was e i-
den ha he i s ac o was measu ed by he middle-le el
manage ial design compe encies’ i ems, and he op-le el
manage ial design compe encies’ i ems loaded on he hi d
ac o . O ganiza ional lea ning and g ow h pe o mance
i ems also loaded on he hi d ac o , and ela ional coo di-
na ion i ems exclusi ely loaded on he second ac o .
Desc ip i e s a is ics. Means, s anda d de ia ions, eliabili y
coe icien s, and co ela ions a e p esen ed in Table 1. As
expec ed, manage ial design compe encies we e mo e ep-
esen ed in op-le el managemen (M = 3.84, SD = .69)
han in middle-le el managemen (M = 3.75, SD = .66). A
pai ed-samples - es showed ha di e ences ac oss mana-
ge ial le els we e ma ginally s a is ically signi ican
because design compe encies s e ched h oughou di e -
en 95% con idence in e als ( op-le el: 3.68–3.96; mid-
le el: 3.60–3.87).
Al hough medium o high alues o Pea son’s co ela-
ion coe icien s we e epo ed o exis be ween design
compe encies o op-middle echelons ( = .712, N = 96,
p < .01), collinea i y diagnos ics indica ed ha mul icol-
linea i y was no a signi ican issue (wi h a ole ance indi-
ca o = .481 and a iance in la ion ac o = 2.077).
He naus e al. 171
Hypo heses es ing
Hypo hesis 1 s a ed ha ela ional coo dina ion media es
he ela ionship be ween op-le el manage ial design com-
pe encies and o ganiza ional lea ning and g ow h pe o -
mance. As shown in he basic media ion model ( ecognized
as Model 4 in he PROCESS empla e), ou analysis p o-
ided clea e idence ha op-le el manage ial design
compe encies a e posi i ely ela ed o ela ional coo dina-
ion (β = .37, p < .01). The ela ionship be ween ela-
ional coo dina ion, and o ganiza ional lea ning and
g ow h pe o mance was also signi ican (β= .28, p < .05),
e en ually leading o a signi ican indi ec e ec o ela-
ional coo dina ion as a po en ial media o (c′ = .10, 95%
CI = [.017, .221]). The e o e, we con i med ou i s
hypo hesis. In addi ion, we ound ha he examined medi-
a ing ela ionship is pa ial, because he op-le el manage-
ial design compe encies also had a di ec e ec on he
pe o mance esul s (c = .39, p < .01).
Hypo hesis 2 co e ed he i s s age o he condi ional
p ocess (media o a iable) model, assuming ha middle-
le el manage ial design compe encies c ea e bounda y
condi ions o he ocal ela ionship be ween op-le el
manage ial design compe encies and ela ional coo dina-
ion. The eg ession coe icien o he in e ac ion e m
be ween op- and middle-le el manage ial design compe-
encies was nega i e and signi ican (a3 = −.234; 95% CI
= [−.386, −.082]). A simple slope analysis (see Figu e 2)
shows ha o ganiza ions epo ed he highes le el o ela-
ional coo dina ion when ha ing bo h a high amoun o
Table 1. Desc ip i e s a is ics and co ela ions (main a iables and con ingency/s uc u al con ols).
Va iable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 En i onmen unce ain y 3.70 1.11 (.826)
2 O ganiza ional size 508.15 892.87 .105 −
3 Ho izon al o mal in eg a ion 3.32 .58 .103 .044 (.622)
4 Specializa ion 3.39 .68 .196 .207* −.047 −
5 Ve ical di e en ia ion 3.55 .83 −.136 .314** −.126 .099 −
6 Top-le el manage ial design compe encies 3.83 .70 −.134 −.251* .322** −.142 −.206* (.852)
7 Middle-le el manage ial design compe encies 3.73 .66 −.081 −.210* .315** −.119 −.158 .720** (.844)
8 Rela ional coo dina ion 3.74 .54 .037 −.340** .518** −.148 −.251* .499** .458** (.862)
9 O ganiza ional lea ning and g ow h 3.44 .62 −.022 −.190 .183 −.034 −.111 .566** .482** .414** (.823)
M: mean alue; SD: s anda d de ia ion.
C onbach’s alphas o mul i-i em measu es a e shown on diagonal in pa en heses.
*p < .05; **p < .01.
Figu e 2. In e ac ion plo o he i s -s age mode a ion.
178 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 27(2)
Decla a ion o con lic ing in e es s
The au ho (s) decla ed no po en ial con lic s o in e es wi h espec
o he esea ch, au ho ship, and/o publica ion o his a icle.
Funding
The au ho (s) ecei ed no inancial suppo o he esea ch,
au ho ship, and/o publica ion o his a icle.
Supplemen al ma e ial
Supplemen al ma e ial o his a icle is a ailable online.
Re e ences
Akke mans, H. A., & Van Oo scho , K. E. (2018). Rele ance
assumed: A case s udy o balanced sco eca d de elopmen
using sys em dynamics. In M. Kunc (Ed.), Sys em dynamics:
So and ha d ope a ional esea ch (pp. 107–132). Palg a e
Macmillan.
Ande son, B. S. (2018a, Ap il 16). Endogenei y and en ep e-
neu ship esea ch. OSF P ep in s. h ps://os .io/75 n8/
Ande son, D. L. (2018b). O ganiza ion design: C ea ing s a e-
gic & agile o ganiza ions. SAGE.
An onakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacqua , P., & Lali e, R. (2014).
Causali y and endogenei y: P oblems and solu ions. In D. V.
Day (Ed.), The Ox o d handbook o leade ship and o gani-
za ions (pp. 93–117). Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Balogun, J. (2007). Managing change: S ee ing a cou se be ween
in ended s a egies and unan icipa ed ou comes. Long
Range Planning, 39(1), 29–49.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). O ganiza ional es uc u ing
and middle manage sensemaking. Academy o Managemen
Jou nal, 47(4), 523–549.
Ba le , C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1997). The my h o he gene ic
manage : New pe sonal compe encies o new managemen
oles. Cali o nia Managemen Re iew, 40(1), 92–116.
Ben-Menahem, S., on K ogh, G., E den, Z., & Schneide , A.
(2016). Coo dina ing knowledge c ea ion in mul idisci-
plina y eams: E idence om ea ly-s age d ug disco e y.
Academy o Managemen Jou nal, 59(4), 1308–1338.
Be ne h, J. B., & Aguinis, H. (2016). A c i ical e iew and
bes -p ac ice ecommenda ions o con ol a iable usage.
Pe sonnel Psychology, 69(1), 229–283.
Bol on, R., Logan, C., & Gi ell, J. H. (2021). Re isi ing ela ional
coo dina ion: a sys ema ic e iew. The Jou nal o Applied
Beha io al Science, 0021886321991597.
Bo ja de Mozo a, B. (2013). Design s a egic alue e isi ed: A
dynamic heo y o design as o ganiza ional unc ion. In R.
Coope , S. Junginge , & T. Lockwood (Eds.), The handbook
o design managemen (pp. 276–293). Bloomsbu y Academic.
Bo ja de Mozo a, B., & Kim, B. Y. (2009). Managing design as a
co e compe ency: Lessons om Ko ea. Design Managemen
Ins i u e Re iew, 20(2), 66–76.
Boya zis, R. E. (1982). The compe en manage : A model o
e ec i e pe o mance. John Wiley & Sons.
Cable, D. M., & Edwa ds, J. R. (2004). Complemen a y and
supplemen a y i : A heo e ical and empi ical in eg a ion.
Jou nal o Applied Psychology, 89(5), 822–834.
Capelle, G. (2014). Op imizing o ganiza ion design. Jossey-Bass.
Ca pen e , M. A., Gele kanycz, M. A., & Sande s, G. W. (2004).
Uppe echelons esea ch e isi ed: An eceden s, elemen s,
and consequences o op managemen eam composi ion.
Jou nal o Managemen , 30(6), 749–778.
Ca pen e , M. A., & Sande s, G. (2002). Top managemen eam
compensa ion: The missing link be ween CEO pay and
i m pe o mance? S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 23(4),
367–375.
Ca ee, M., Lokshin, B., & Belde bos, R. (2011). A no e on es -
ing o complemen a i y and subs i u abili y in he case o
mul iple p ac ices. Jou nal o P oduc i i y Analysis, 35(3),
263–269.
Cassiman, B., & Veugele s, R. (2006). In sea ch o complemen-
a i y in inno a ion s a egy: In e nal R&D and ex e nal
knowledge acquisi ion. Managemen Science, 52(1), 68–82.
Ca allo, K., & B ienza, D. (2002). Emo ional compe ence and
leade ship excellence a Johnson & Johnson: The emo ional
in elligence and leade ship s udy [Conso ium o esea ch on
emo ional in elligence in o ganiza ion]. Ru ge s Uni e si y.
h p://www.eiconso ium.o g/ epo s/jj_ei_s udy.h ml
Ce o, S., Les e , R. H., Dal on, C. M., & Dal on, D. R. (2006).
Top managemen eams, s a egy and inancial pe o mance:
A me a-analy ic examina ion. Jou nal o Managemen
S udies, 43(4), 813–839.
Choi, B., Poon, S. K., & Da is, J. G. (2008). E ec s o knowledge
managemen s a egy on o ganiza ional pe o mance: A com-
plemen a i y heo y-based app oach. Omega, 36(2), 235–251.
Cichocki, P., & I win, C. (2011). O ganiza ion design: A guide o
building e ec i e o ganiza ions. Kogan Page.
Clapp-Smi h, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & A ey, J. B. (2009).
Au hen ic leade ship and posi i e psychological capi al: The
media ing ole o us a he g oup le el o analysis. Jou nal
o Leade ship & O ganiza ional S udies, 15(3), 227–240.
Connelly, M. S., Gilbe , J. A., Zacca o, S. J., Th el all, K. V.,
Ma ks, M. A., & Mum o d, M. D. (2000). Explo ing he
ela ionship o leade ship skills and knowledge o leade
pe o mance. The Leade ship Qua e ly, 11(1), 65–86.
Csasza , F. A. (2012). O ganiza ional s uc u e as a de e minan
o pe o mance: E idence om mu ual unds. S a egic
Managemen Jou nal, 33(6), 611–632.
Dai, G., Tang, K. Y., & De Meuse, K. P. (2011). Leade ship
compe encies ac oss o ganiza ional le els: A es o he
pipeline model. Jou nal o Managemen De elopmen ,
30(4), 366–380.
de Beeck, S. O., Wynen, J., & Hondeghem, A. (2017). E ec i e
HRM implemen a ion by line manage s: Relying on a i-
ous sou ces o suppo . In e na ional Jou nal o Public
Adminis a ion, 40(2), 192–204.
DeChu ch, L. A., Hille , N. J., Mu ase, T., Do y, D., & Salas,
E. (2010). Leade ship ac oss le els: Le els o leade s and
hei le els o impac . The Leade ship Qua e ly, 21(6),
1069–1085.
Deloi e. (2016). Global human capi al ends 2016. Deloi e
Uni e si y P ess.
De Meuse, K. P., Dai, G., & Wu, J. (2011). Leade ship skills
ac oss o ganiza ional le els: A close examina ion. The
Psychologis -Manage Jou nal, 14(2), 120–139.
Donaldson, S. I., & G an -Vallone, E. J. (2002). Unde s anding
sel - epo bias in o ganiza ional beha io esea ch. Jou nal
o Business and Psychology, 17(2), 245–260.
Dulewicz, S. V., & Higgs, M. J. (2004). Design o a new ins u-
men o assess leade ship dimensions and s yles. Selec ion
and De elopmen Re iew, 20(2), 7–12.
He naus e al. 179
Dye , N. G., Hanges, P. J., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Applying mul-
ile el con i ma o y ac o analysis echniques o he s udy
o leade ship. The Leade ship Qua e ly, 16(1), 149–167.
Echambadi, R., Campbell, B., & Aga wal, R. (2006). Encou aging
bes p ac ice in quan i a i e managemen esea ch: An
incomple e lis o oppo uni ies. Jou nal o Managemen
S udies, 43(8), 1801–1820.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological sa e y and lea ning beha -
io in wo k eams. Adminis a i e Science Qua e ly, 44(2),
350–383.
Eisenbach, R. K., Wa son, K., & Pillai, R. (1999). T ans o ma ional
leade ship in he con ex o o ganiza ional change. Jou nal
o O ganiza ional Change Managemen , 12(2), 80–88.
Ellio , A., Dweck, C., & Yeage , D. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook
o compe ence and mo i a ion: Theo y and applica ions.
Guil o d P ess.
Fe ke ich, S., Phillips, L., & Ve an, J. (1993). De elopmen
and adminis a ion o a su ey ins umen o c oss-cul u al
esea ch. Resea ch in Nu sing & Heal h, 16(3), 227–230.
Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). S a egizing h oughou he
o ganiza ion: Managing ole con lic in s a egic enewal.
Academy o Managemen Re iew, 25(1), 154–177.
F eedman, A. M. (1998). Pa hways and c oss oads o ins i u-
ional leade ship. Consul ing Psychology Jou nal: P ac ice
and Resea ch, 50(3), 131–151.
F eedman, A. M. (2011). Some implica ions o alida ion o he
leade ship pipeline concep : Guidelines o assis ing manag-
e s-in- ansi ion. The Psychologis -Manage Jou nal, 14(2),
140–159.
Fu lan, A., Vinelli, A., & Dal Pon , G. (2011). Complemen a i y
and lean manu ac u ing bundles: An empi ical analy-
sis. In e na ional Jou nal o Ope a ions & P oduc ion
Managemen , 31(8), 835–850.
Galb ai h, J. R. (1973). Designing complex o ganiza ions.
Addison Wesley.
Galunic, C., & Eisenha d , K. M. (2001). A chi ec u al inno a-
ion and modula co po a e o ms. Academy o Managemen
Jou nal, 44(6), 1229–1249.
Gen y, W. A., Cullen, K. L., Sosik, J. J., Chun, J. U., Leupold,
C. R., & Tonidandel, S. (2013). In eg i y’s place among he
cha ac e s eng hs o middle-le el manage s and op-le el
execu i es. The Leade ship Qua e ly, 24(3), 395–404.
Glase , B. G. (1968). O ganiza ional ca ee s: A sou cebook o
heo y. Aldine T ansac ion.
Glase , L., Fou né, S. P. L., & El ing, T. (2015). Achie ing s a-
egic enewal: The mul i-le el in luences o op and middle
manage s’ bounda y-spanning. Small Business Economics,
45(2), 305–327.
Hamb ick, D. C. (1989). Pu ing op manage s back in he
s a egy pic u e. S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 10(S1),
5–15.
Hamb ick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Uppe echelons: The
o ganiza ion as a e lec ion o i s op manage s. Academy o
Managemen Re iew, 9(2), 193–206.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). In oduc ion o media ion, mode a ion, and
condi ional p ocess analysis: A eg ession-based app oach.
Guil o d P ess.
Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and es o linea mode a ed medi-
a ion. Mul i a ia e Beha io al Resea ch, 50, 1–22.
He e nan, M. M., & Flood, P. C. (2000). An explo a ion o he
ela ionships be ween he adop ion o manage ial compe en-
cies, o ganisa ional cha ac e is ics, human esou ce sophis-
ica ion and pe o mance in I ish o ganisa ions. Jou nal o
Eu opean Indus ial T aining, 24(2/3/4), 128–136.
Hel a , C. E., & Pe e a , M. A. (2003). The dynamic esou ce-
based iew: Capabili y li ecycles. S a egic Managemen
Jou nal, 24(10), 997–1010.
He a y, N. (2004). Towa ds an a chi ec u e o o ganiza ion-led lea n-
ing. Human Resou ce Managemen Re iew, 14(4), 449–472.
Heyden, M. L. M., Fou ne, S. P. L., Koene, B. A. S., We kman,
R., & Ansa i, S. (2017). Re hinking “ op-down” and “bo -
om-up” oles o op and middle manage s in o ganiza ional
change: Implica ions o employee suppo . Jou nal o
Managemen S udies, 54(7), 961–985.
Heyden, M. L. M., Sidhu, J. S., & Volbe da, H. W. (2018). The
conjoin in luence o op and middle managemen cha ac e -
is ics on managemen inno a ion. Jou nal o Managemen ,
44(4), 1505–1529.
Ho e Gi ell, J. (2001). Supe iso y Span, Rela ional Coo dina ion,
and Fligh Depa u e Pe o mance: A Reassessmen o Pos -
Bu eauc acy Theo y. O ganiza ion Science, 12(4), 467–482.
Ho e Gi ell, J. (2002). Coo dina ing mechanisms in ca e p o-
ide g oups: Rela ional coo dina ion as a media o and
inpu unce ain y as a mode a o o pe o mance e ec s.
Managemen Science, 48(11), 1408–1426.
Ho e Gi ell, J. (2015). How in e dependen pa ies build
ela ional coo dina ion o achie e hei desi ed ou comes.
Nego ia ion Jou nal, 31(4), 387–391.
Ho e Gi ell, J. (2016). T ans o ming ela ionships o high pe -
o mance: The powe o ela ional coo dina ion. S an o d
Uni e si y P ess.
Ho e Gi ell, J., & Douglass, A. (2012). Rela ional bu eauc acy:
S uc u ing ecip ocal ela ionships in o oles. Academy o
Managemen Re iew, 37(4), 709–733.
Ho e Gi ell, J., Weinbe g, D. B., Benne , A. L., & Mille , J.
A. (2008). Is he doc o in? A ela ional app oach o job
design and he coo dina ion o wo k. Human Resou ce
Managemen , 47(4), 729–755.
Hollenbeck, G. P., McCall, M. W., J ., & Silze , R. F. (2006).
Leade ship compe ency models. The Leade ship Qua e ly,
17(4), 398–413.
Hun , J. B., & Wallace, J. (1997). A compe ency-based app oach
o assessing manage ial pe o mance in he Aus alian con-
ex . Asia Paci ic Jou nal o Human Resou ces, 35(2), 52–66.
Huy, Q. N., Co ley, K., & K aa z, M. S. (2014). F om suppo
o mu iny: Shi ing legi imacy judgmen s and emo ional
eac ions impac ing he implemen a ion o adical change.
Academy o Managemen Jou nal, 57(6), 1650–1680.
Jansen, J. J. P., Tempelaa , M. P., an den Bosch, F. A. J., &
Volbe da, H. W. (2009). S uc u al di e en ia ion and
ambidex e i y: The media ing ole o in eg a ion mecha-
nisms. O ganiza ion Science, 20(4), 797–811.
Joseph, J. (2018). E olu ion o he jou nal and he ield o o gani-
za ion design. Jou nal o O ganiza ion Design, 7(7), 1–5.
Kaise , R. B., & C aig, S. B. (2011). Do he beha io s ela ed
o manage ial e ec i eness eally change wi h o ganiza-
ional le el? An empi ical es . The Psychologis -Manage
Jou nal, 14(2), 92–119.
Kaise , R. B., C aig, S. B., O e ield, D. V., & Ya bo ough, P.
(2011). Di e ences in manage ial jobs a he bo om, middle,
and op: A e iew o empi ical esea ch. The Psychologis -
Manage Jou nal, 14(2), 76–91.
Kang, H.-J., Chung, K.-W., & Nam, K.-Y. (2015). A compe-
ence model o design manage s: A case s udy o middle
180 Business Resea ch Qua e ly 27(2)
manage s in Ko ea. In e na ional Jou nal o Design, 9(2),
109–127.
Kaplan, R. S., & No on, D. P. (1992). The balanced sco e-
ca d: Measu es ha d i e pe o mance. Ha a d Business
Re iew, 70(1), 71–79.
Kaplan, R. S., & No on, D. P. (2005). The balanced sco e-
ca d: Measu es ha d i e pe o mance. Ha a d Business
Re iew, 83(7), 172–180.
Kaplan, R. S., & No on, D. P. (2006). Alignmen : Using he
balanced sco eca d o c ea e co po a e syne gies. Ha a d
Business Re iew P ess.
Ka z, R. L. (1955). Skills o an e ec i e adminis a o . Ha a d
Business Re iew, 33(1), 33–42.
Ka z, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology o o gani-
za ions (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Ke chen, D. J., J ., Combs, J. G., Russell, C. J., Shook, C.,
Dean, M. A., Runge, J., Loh ke, F. T., Naumann, S. E.,
Hap ons ahl, D. E., Bake , R., Becks ein, B. A., Handle ,
C., Honig, H., & Lamou eux, S. (1997). O ganiza ional con-
igu a ions and pe o mance: A me a-analysis. Academy o
Managemen Jou nal, 40(1), 223–240.
Ke oki i, M. A., & Sch oede , R. G. (2004). Pe cep ual meas-
u es o pe o mance: Fac o ic ion? Jou nal o Ope a ions
Managemen , 22(3), 247–264.
Ko le , P. G., & Ra h, A. (1984). Design: A powe ul bu neglec ed
s a egic ool. Jou nal o Business S a egy, 5(2), 16–21.
K is o -B own, A. L., & Jansen, K. J. (2007). Issues o
pe son-o ganiza ion i . In C. Os o . & T. A. Judge
(Eds.), Pe spec i es on o ganiza ional i (pp. 123–153).
Psychology P ess.
Lacey, R., & Fiss, P. C. (2009). Compa a i e o ganiza ional analy-
sis ac oss mul iple le els: A se - heo e ic app oach. In B. G.
King, T. Felin, & D. A. Whe en (Eds.), Resea ch in he soci-
ology o o ganiza ions (Vol. 26, pp. 91–116). Eme ald G oup.
Led o d, G. E., J . (1995). Paying o he skills, knowledge, and
compe encies o knowledge wo ke s. Compensa ion &
Bene i s Re iew, 27(4), 55–62.
Le enson, A. R., Van de S ede, W. A., & Cohen, S. G. (2006).
Measu ing he ela ionship be ween manage ial compe-
encies and pe o mance. Jou nal o Managemen , 32(1),
115–130.
Libânio, C. D. S., Ama al, F. G., & Migowski, S. A. (2017).
Classi ica ion o compe encies in design managemen :
Indi idual, collec i e and o ganiza ional le els. S a egic
Design Resea ch Jou nal, 10(3), 195–203.
Lich enbe g, J. W., Bebeau, M. J., Nelson, P. D., Smi h, I. L.,
Po noy, S. M., Leigh, I. W., Rubin, N. I., & Kaslow, N.
J. (2007). Challenges o he assessmen o compe ence and
compe encies. P o essional Psychology: Resea ch and
P ac ice, 38(5), 474–478.
Lindell, M. K., & Whi ney, D. J. (2001). Accoun ing o com-
mon me hod a iance in c oss-sec ional esea ch designs.
Jou nal o Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.
Li ijin, M. (2019). Na iga ing in a hie a chy: How middle man-
age s adap mac o design. Jou nal o O ganiza ion Design,
8(7), 1–27.
Mahoney, T. A., Je dee, T. H., & Ca oll, S. J. (1965). The job(s)
o managemen . Indus ial Rela ions, 4(2), 97–110.
Ma in, R. L. (2009). The design o business: Why design hink-
ing is he nex compe i i e ad an age. Ha a d Business
School P ess.
Masca enhas, B. (1984). Flexibili y: I s ela ionship o en i on-
men al dynamism and complexi y. In e na ional S udies o
Managemen & O ganiza ion, 14(4), 107–124.
McE ily, B., Soda, G., & To o iello, M. (2014). Mo e o mally:
Redisco e ing he missing link be ween o mal o ganiza-
ion and in o mal social s uc u e. Academy o Managemen
Annals, 8(1), 299–345.
Me ens, W., Pugliese, A., & Recke , J. (2017). Causali y:
Endogenei y biases and possible emedies. In W. Me ens,
A. Pugliese, & J. Recke (Eds.), Quan i a i e da a analy-
sis: A companion o accoun ing and in o ma ion sys ems
esea ch (pp. 99–134). Sp inge .
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). O ganiza ional s a egy,
s uc u e and p ocess. McG aw-Hill.
Min zbe g, H. (1973). S a egy-making in h ee modes.
Cali o nia Managemen Re iew, 16(2), 44–53.
Mohnen, P., & Rölle , L. H. (2005). Complemen a i ies in inno a-
ion policy. Eu opean Economic Re iew, 49(6), 1431–1450.
Moh man, A. M., J ., Resnick-Wes , S., & Lawle , E. E., III.
(1989). Designing pe o mance app aisal sys ems. Jossey-
Bass.
Mo he, C., Nguyen-Thi, U. T., & Nguyen-Van, P. (2015).
Assessing complemen a i y in o ganiza ional inno a ions
o echnological inno a ion: The ole o knowledge man-
agemen p ac ices. Applied Economics, 47(29), 3040–3058.
Mum o d, M. D., Ma ks, M. A., Connelly, S., Zacca o, S. J., &
Rei e -Palmon, R. (2000). De elopmen o leade ship skills:
Expe ience and iming. The Leade ship Qua e ly, 11(1),
87–114.
Mum o d, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Mo geson, F. P. (2007). The
leade ship skills s a aplex: Leade ship skill equi emen s
ac oss o ganiza ional le els. The Leade ship Qua e ly,
18(2), 154–166.
Nadle , D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1997). Compe ing by
design: The powe o o ganiza ional a chi ec u e. Ox o d
Uni e si y P ess.
Na ali, M. W. (2014). Le el up: The dynamic na u e o leade -
ship and managemen [Unpublished doc o al disse a ion].
Uni e si y o Minneso a.
Nissen, M. (2014). O ganiza ion design o dynamic i : A
e iew and p ojec ion. Jou nal o O ganiza ion Design,
3(2), 30–42.
Ni en, P. R. (2006). Balanced sco eca d s ep-by-s ep:
Maximizing pe o mance and main aining esul s. John
Wiley & Sons.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychome ic heo y. McG aw-Hill.
Nunnally, J. C., & Be ns ein, I. R. (1994). Psychome ic heo y.
McG aw-Hill.
O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., Cha man, J. A., Lapiz, M.,
& Sel , W. (2010). How leade ship ma e s: The e ec s
o leade s’ alignmen on s a egy implemen a ion. The
Leade ship Qua e ly, 21(1), 104–113.
Osbo ne, J. M., Shibl, R., Came on, C. M., Kend ick, D., Lyons,
R. A., Spinks, A. B., Sipe, N., & McClu e, R. J. (2016).
Validi y o pa en ’s sel - epo ed esponses o home sa e y
ques ions. In e na ional Jou nal o Inju y Con ol and
Sa e y P omo ion, 23(3), 229–239.
Pa el, P. C., & Te jesen, S. (2011). Complemen a y e ec s o
ne wo k ange and ie s eng h in enhancing ansna ional
en u e pe o mance. S a egic En ep eneu ship Jou nal,
5(1), 58–80.
He naus e al. 181
Pawa , B. S., & Eas man, K. K. (1997). The na u e and implica-
ions o con ex ual in luences on ans o ma ional leade -
ship: A concep ual examina ion. Academy o Managemen
Re iew, 22(1), 80–109.
Pedhazu , E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measu emen ,
design, and analysis: An in eg a ed analysis. Jou nal o
Econome ics, 22, 229–243.
Pe e son, T. O., & Van Flee , D. D. (2004). The ongoing legacy
o R. L. Ka z: An upda ed ypology o managemen skills.
Managemen Decision, 42(10), 1297–1308.
Piasen in, K. A., & Chapman, D. S. (2007). Pe cei ed simi-
la i y and complemen a i y as p edic o s o subjec i e
pe son-o ganiza ion i . Jou nal o Occupa ional and
O ganiza ional Psychology, 80(2), 341–354.
Podsako , P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsako , N. P. (2012).
Sou ces o me hod bias in social science esea ch and
ecommenda ions on how o con ol i . Annual Re iew o
Psychology, 63, 539–569.
Po e , M. E. (1991). Towa ds a dynamic heo y o s a egy.
S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 12(S2), 95–117.
P eache , K. J., Rucke , D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Add essing
mode a ed media ion hypo heses: Theo y, me hods, and
p esc ip ions. Mul i a ia e Beha io al Resea ch, 42(1),
185–227.
Raes, A., Heijl jes, M. G., Glunk, U., & Roe, R. A. (2011). The
in e ace o op managemen eam and middle manage s:
A p ocess model. Academy o Managemen Re iew, 36(1),
102–126.
Ra asi, D., & Lojacono, G. (2005). Managing design and design-
e s o s a egic enewal. Long Range Planning, 38(1), 51–77.
Rind leisch, A., Mal e , A. J., Ganesan, S., & Moo man, C.
(2008). C oss-sec ional e sus longi udinal su ey esea ch:
Concep s, indings, and guidelines. Jou nal o Ma ke ing
Resea ch, 45(3), 261–279.
Ryan, N. (2008). Top-down o ganiza ional change in an
Aus alian Go e nmen agency. In e na ional Jou nal o
Public Sec o Managemen , 21(1), 26–44.
Semadeni, M., Wi he s, M. C., & T e is Ce o, S. (2014). The
pe ils o endogenei y and ins umen al a iables in s a -
egy esea ch: Unde s anding h ough simula ions. S a egic
Managemen Jou nal, 35(7), 1070–1079.
Semeijn, J. H., Van de Heijden, B. I. J. M., & Van de Lee, A.
(2014). Mul isou ce a ings o manage ial compe encies and
hei p edic i e alue o manage ial and o ganiza ional e ec-
i eness. Human Resou ce Managemen , 53(5), 773–794.
Shea sley, P. B. (1983). Ques ionnai e cons uc ion and i em
w i ing. In P. H. Rossi, J. D. W igh , & A. B. Ande son
(Eds.), Handbook o su ey esea ch (pp. 195–230).
Academic P ess.
Siddique, M., P oc e , S., & Gi ell, J. H. (2019). The ole o
ela ional coo dina ion in he ela ionship be ween high-
pe o mance wo k sys ems (HPWS) and o ganiza ional pe -
o mance. Jou nal o O ganiza ional E ec i eness: People
and Pe o mance, 6(4), 246–266.
Singh, S., Da wish, T. K., & Po očnik, K. (2016). Measu ing
o ganiza ional pe o mance: A case o subjec i e meas-
u es. B i ish Jou nal o Managemen , 27(1), 214–224.
Spec o , P. E. (2019). Do no c oss me: Op imizing he use
o c oss-sec ional designs. Jou nal o Business and
Psychology, 34, 125–137.
S u m, R. E., Ve a, D., & C ossan, M. (2017). The en angle-
men o leade cha ac e and leade compe ence and i s
impac on pe o mance. The Leade ship Qua e ly, 28(3),
349–366.
Swink, M., & Schoenhe , T. (2015). The e ec s o c oss- unc-
ional in eg a ion on p o i abili y, p ocess e iciency, and asse
p oduc i i y. Jou nal o Business Logis ics, 36(1), 69–87.
Taylo , A., & Hel a , C. E. (2009). O ganiza ional linkages o
su i ing echnological change: Complemen a y asse s,
middle managemen , and ambidex e i y. O ganiza ion
Science, 20(4), 718–739.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explica ing dynamic capabili ies: The na u e
and mic o ounda ions o (sus ainable) en e p ise pe o -
mance. S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 28(13), 1319–1350.
Tsai, W. (2002). Social s uc u e o “coope i ion” wi hin a mul-
iuni o ganiza ion: Coo dina ion, compe i ion, and in ao -
ganiza ional knowledge sha ing. O ganiza ion Science,
13(2), 179–190.
Tu kulainen, V., & Ke oki i, M. (2013). The con ingen alue o
o ganiza ional in eg a ion. Jou nal o O ganiza ion Design,
2(2), 31–43.
Vainie i, M., Fe è, F., Giacomelli, G., & Nu i, S. (2019).
Explaining pe o mance in heal h ca e: How and when op
managemen compe encies make he di e ence. Heal h
Ca e Managemen Re iew, 44(4), 306–317.
Vij, S., & Bedi, H. S. (2016). A e subjec i e business pe o mance
measu es jus i ied? In e na ional Jou nal o P oduc i i y
and Pe o mance Managemen , 65(5), 603–621.
Visse , W. (2006). The cogni i e a i ac s o designing. Law ence
E lbaum.
Waldman, D. A., & Yamma ino, F. J. (1999). CEO cha is-
ma ic leade ship: Le els-o -managemen and le els-o -
analysis e ec s. Academy o Managemen Re iew, 24(2),
266–285.
Wall, T. D., Michie, J., Pa e son, M., Wood, S. J., Sheehan,
M., Clegg, C. W., & Wes , M. (2004). On he alidi y o
subjec i e measu es o company pe o mance. Pe sonnel
Psychology, 57(1), 95–118.
Weih ich, H., & Koon z, H. (1994). Managemen : A global pe -
spec i e. McG aw-Hill.
Wilcox King, A., Fowle , S. W., & Zei haml, C. P. (2001).
Managing o ganiza ional compe encies o compe i i e
ad an age: The middle managemen edge. Academy o
Managemen Execu i e, 15(2), 95–106.
Wilcox King, A., & Zei haml, C. P. (2001). Compe encies and
i m pe o mance: Examining he causal ambigui y pa a-
dox. S a egic Managemen Jou nal, 22(1), 75–99.
Wol , F., & Ama al, F. G. (2016). Design managemen compe en-
cies, p ocess and s a egy: A mul idimensional app oach o a
concep ual model. S a egic Design Resea ch Jou nal, 9(3),
145–154.
Wo ld Economic Fo um. (2016). The u u e o jobs epo .
Wo en, N. (2012). O ganisa ion Design: Re-de ining complex
sys ems. Pea son.
Yukl, G. (1989). Manage ial leade ship: A e iew o heo y and
esea ch. Jou nal o Managemen , 15(2), 251–289.
Yukl, G. (2012). E ec i e leade ship beha io : Wha we know
and wha ques ions need mo e a en ion. Academy o
Managemen Pe spec i es, 26(4), 66–85.
Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leade ship in o ganiza ions. Pea son
Educa ion.
Zacca o, S. J., Mum o d, M. D., Connelly, M. S., Ma ks, M. A.,
& Gilbe , J. A. (2000). Assessmen o leade p oblem-sol -
ing capabili ies. The Leade ship Qua e ly, 11(1), 37–64.
