Simarjit Shergill

LDRS 591 Activity 10.2

Unit 10 Learning Activities

” why you think evidence-based decision making is important for the Transformational Servant leader? “

The first time I heard of the term “transformation servant leadership” was when I was talking to the counsellor prior to enrolling for this course. It struck a chord with me, as it intuitively seemed to be just the kind of leader I wanted to be. Since then I have learned about the different models of leadership.  In my studies so far “transformational” and “servant” leadership have been described as different models of leadership. I am not sure if there was an attempt to put them together, though it would not be surprising or hard, as they do have some overlapping principles.

In my opinion a good transformational servant leader must use evidence from research in their area, in addition to their own judgement, to make informed decisions that are important to their organization and employees. As per Bass and Avolio (1994), transformational leadership can “be used in improving team development , decision-making groups, quality initiatives, and recognizations”. As per  Coetzer, M. F., Bussin, M., Geldenhuys, M. (2017), servant leadership “proposes a more meaningful way of leadership to ensure sustainable results for individuals, organizations, and societies”. Of all the leadership models we have learnt so far, I find that “transformation” and “servant ” leadership resonate the most with me. For a leader to be a good “transformation servant leader” , they need to be well versed in the research process and also its analysis. Even if one is not an active researcher, a good leader should know how to evaluate research so that they can find ways how to best apply it. I apply evidence based decision making in my practice, and it has helped me immensely, especially when in doubt. 

References

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Coetzer, Michiel Frederick; Bussin, Mark; Geldenhuys, Madelyn. The functions of a servant leader.  Administrative Sciences 7 (1), p. 1-32.

LDRS 591 Activity 10.1

Unit 10 Learning Activities

“if after taking this class, would you make your decisions differently? What new insights have you learned and how would those insights inform your decision making process now?”

The two recent decisions that I posted about in activity 10.1 were my decision about blood pressure treatment of my patients and the recommendations for flu vaccination. The blood pressure treatment recommendation was made based on recent peer reviewed publications, some guidance from past experiences and expert opinion. The recommendations for flu vaccination were made according to the most recent guidelines from the CDC and the local health department, with some guidance from organizational policy. Since these decisions were not mine alone, I don’t think my decisions would have changed based on what I learned from this course.  I feel compelled to admit here that most of our decisions as physicians are based on a combination of guidelines, peer reviewed research, best practices and organizational policy.

During the course of my studies of LDRS 591,  I have learned some very important tips on how to evaluate scholarly research articles, so that I can gain the most information from them and apply it usefully . In the last few units I learnt about APA style writing. I also learnt about mixed methods research which is a new concept for me. Another new concept is action research. It was very insightful to learn about action research, and how to carry on an action research project. For me as a non academic practitioner, this was very useful. I can translate the knowledge I gained from action research unit and apply it to some practical problems at work. This course has given me the tools to assess scholarly research and to apply research to my workplace.

LDRS 591 Activity 9.3

Unit 9 Learning Activities

The most important thing for me about the conclusions section of a high-quality research report is . . .

that the results be summarized and present in a succinct manner. I personally do not like long conclusions, I prefer them to be brief and easy to understand, without a heavy reliance on statistical references. The results should also be organized and discussed in a logical manner. I also like to see how the authors related the results to previous studies, and to their hypothesis/hypotheses. Oftentimes there will be a long drawn discussion without a clear mention of whether the study supports or refutes their hypothesis. The scope and applicability of the results must also be discussed in conclusions. This gives the reader a clearer idea of the implications of the results of the study in their practice. As part of the back notes, in addition to references, an important component are the appendices. I like to see that the authors attached their tools, survey questionnaires etc. to help the readers understand their process/methods, and their interpretation.

Question:  Where do you think the results should be discussed in detail? In the results section itself, or in discussion ? I personally prefer the results to be discussed in the results section, and the discussion section to only focus on the conclusions, authors’ interpretation of results, and the other elements mentioned above.

Reference

Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

LDRS 591 Activity 9.2

Unit 9 Learning Activities

Article reviewed: Barbuto, J. E., Gottfredson, R. K., & Searle, T. P. (2014). An examination of emotional intelligence as an antecedent of servant leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 21(3), 315-323.

Are the major results identified and summarized?

The authors identified and summarized the results very well. In their discussion they summarized in a simple easy to read manner, which i really appreciate, as compared to long-winded discussions of results in some other studies. Score 3.

Are the results related to the literature?

The authors attempted to correlate their results to previous literature, but they concluded that there wasn’t a robust literature studying the relationship between emotional intelligence and servant leadership, especially from the followers’ perspective. Score 3.

Are appropriate implications of the results for practice identified and justified?

They identified the implications of their results , suggesting that for organizations that wished to adopt a servant leadership approach, emotional intelligence could be used in selection and development of such leaders. They admitted that one arm of the study (followers’ perspective of relationship between leader’s emotional intelligence and servant leadership behavior) was contrary to their expectation. Score 3.

Is there a thoughtful critique of the study’s limitations?

The researchers identified that because the leaders were chosen from the civic fields, the results of this study could not be necessarily applied to private sector leaders. Another limitation they noted was that the follower samples size was 4-6 per leader, and the results might have been different if they had chosen more followers per leader. Score 3.

Are suitable suggestions for future research provided?

They authors suggested that future studies could be conducted with leaders from the private sector, and with a larger number of followers per leader. Score 3.

Are the interpretations consistent with the study’s results and limitations?

The conclusions are outlined succinctly and logically. Score 3.

Is the back matter appropriate?

The authors included references and authors’ biographies. I was disappointed to note that there were no appendices. I was expecting them to append the tools/questionnaires they used for their data collection. Score 1.

Total score 19. High quality study.

Reference

Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

LDRS 591 Activity 9.1

Unit 9 Learning Activities

This is in response to Oliver Parson’ podcast about his Action Research project

Learning Activity 8.2

Does the project focus on a real problem in practice? Oliver’s proposed action research project focuses on a problem at his place of work , which is the non-profit coffee ship. He is talking about the problem of limited seating for customers, especially during their busy hours. Score 3.

Does the researcher plan to study his or her own practices or plan to collaborate with community members? He plans to study his own practice. There does not seem to be any mention of community involvement in his project. He does talk about discussing the problem with his workers and manager about ways to maximize their space. He also mentions gathering data from other coffee shops about their experience with space utilization. He does not elaborate how he plans to keep his coworkers or the community involved throughout the project. Score 2.

Does the project include careful reflection about the problem? Oliver reflects on how the problem of space is sometimes a deterrent to customers buying coffee from their shop. He thinks this negatively impacts their profits, which in turn affects their contribution towards the charity they support. Score 3.

Does the researcher plan to gather several sources of information (e.g., qualitative and quantitative procedures)? Oliver proposes collection of quantitative data, in terms of busiest hours, number of customers, duration of their stay etc. He does not propose collection of qualitative data. I think in this situation he could collect some qualitative data in the form a simple 2-3 question survey about what the customers like / dislike about the coffee shop, and an open ended question about what they can do to make the experience better. I think surveying the customers might yield some insight from the customers’ point of view. Score 2.

Does the researcher develop a clear plan for addressing the problem? He does seem to have a clear idea of the problem and the fact that some action needs to be taken to address it. He also has a plan about how to study the problem, and he also outlines some possible outcomes of the study, like rearranging furniture, the possibility of buying new furniture, changing the layout etc. Score 3.

Does the project include reflecting, thinking, looking, and gathering information and acting? Oliver proposes to ‘circle back’ after putting the interventions in place, and collecting more data to study the impact of the changes. Score 3.

Will the results of the project enhance the lives of those involved? His project endeavors to look for ways to optimize space in their coffee shop, in the hope of increasing customer satisfaction and sales. This could in turn increase their profits which are used to contribute towards a charity. Score 3.

Overall score 19. High quality.

Reference

Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

LDRS 591 Activity 7.2

Unit 7 Learning Activities

Review article: Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J.C., & Santora, J.C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-424.

Purpose of the study: to develop and validate a multidimensional measure of servant leadership behavior.

Rationale. The authors studied previously available measures for servant leadership, and concluded that two important dimensions were missing from these pre-existing measures : spirituality and morality ethics. They developed the Servant Leadership Behavior Scale (SLBS) which incorporated these dimensions along with voluntary subordination, authentic self, covenantal relationship and transforming influence. They then tested it using mixed methods. Score 3.

Choice of mixed methods appropriate? The researchers subjected the above scale, SLBS, to mixed methods using 2 studies. In study 1 they interviewed 15 senior level executives in for-profit and non-profit to get their insight into servant leadership. A pool of 101 servant leadership items was created. This was then subjected to analysis by 15 experts in the field of servant leadership research. Through Content Validity Ratio the number of items was reduced to a more reasonable 73 items. This 73 item SLBS was then used to survey 277 graduate students (study 2), who were also employed as managers or professionals. After applying confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling, more items were deleted and a final SLBS version with 35 items emerged. The authors justified their choice of mixed methods approach in the discussion. Score 3.

Are quantitative methods good quality? Study 2 surveyed 277 graduate level students. The authors did not elaborate on what methods were used to survey and what questionnaires were used, or what was the rationale behind the use of these survey methods. They did seem to have applied statistical analyses to their results. Score 2.

Are qualitative methods of good quality? The authors conducted interviews, used transcriptions and field notes, created themes. Score 3.

Quantitative and qualitative components meaningfully mixed? This study is an example of sequential exploratory mixed methods design, as per Plano-Clark and Creswell (2015, p. 398, figure 12.6). They applied qualitative methods to develop a new measure for servant leadership, and then used quantitative measures to test it and modify it. Score 3.

Mixed methods application was rigorous. The mixed methods design seems to be a good fit, and flows logically for the purpose of this study. Score 3.

Mixed methods produced a good understanding of the research purpose. The findings of the mixed study went beyond the explanation of either qualitative or quantitative study. Score 3.