Simarjit Shergill

Just another TWU Digital Learning Commons site

Category: Unit 7

LDRS 591 Activity 7.2

February 18, 2018 / / 3 Comments

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.

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

LDRS 591 Activity 7.1

February 17, 2018 / / 1 Comment

LDRS 591 Activity 7.1

 

Unit 7 Learning Activities

 

In my reading of research methodologies so far, I have not sensed a “debate” around qualitative vs quantitative. Plano-Clark and Creswell (2015) have highlighted the differences between the two throughout their book, and also pointed where one of them is more applicable than the other. I think we could summarise the discussion in one word- applicability. There are some research topics that are more amenable to a quantitative study involving numbers and data that can be measured and objectively analysed; while other topics need ‘explanation’ and subjective analysis , hence are better suited to qualitative analysis.

Before reading the chapter on mixed methods research in the Plano-Clark and Creswell textbook (2015), I was unaware of this concept. I had often wondered though why does a study need to be restricted to only one kind of methodology? I was enlightened by this chapter on mixed methods; but at the same time will admit that mixed methodology does seem more complex and intensive than either qualitative or quantitative. ” Although applying mixed methods research requires a researcher to learn about multiple methods and how to mix them appropriately, the ability to answer a broader and more complete range of research questions makes it a worthwhile endeavor” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The article by Stentz, Plano-Clark and Matkin (2012) apprises us further about the data that are available about the application of mixed methods in leadership research. They reviewed published articles in The Leadership Quality between 1990 and 2012, and found 55 articles that possibly used mixed methods. They concluded that researchers have started focusing on mixed methods in leadership research, with most of the change having occurred over the last decade. They also concluded that these studies were being conducted in different countries and cultures. They identified four articles that exemplify how mixed studies can develop understanding of leadership theories.

Leadership research, as most other research, has historically leaned towards quantitative methods. Leadership is a complex phenomenon and is challenging to study. The study of this phenomenon cannot be justified using a single approach. The authors of this article are hopeful after reviewing the recent trend that more researchers will adopt mixed methods research design in studying leadership theory.

 

References

Johnson, R.b., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(77), 14-2.

 

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

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.

Stentz, J. E., Plano-Clark, V. L., & Matkin, G. S. (2012). Applying mixed methods to leadership research: A review of current practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 1173-1183.

 

Response Unit 7

November 12, 2017 / / 0 Comments

This is in response to Rob’s post

Unit 7 Activity 1: Ethics in Leadership

 

He is right in quoting that teachers are held to higher standards and are judged more strictly. Having said that, I am very intrigued with the rest of his quote-” Don’t be in any rush to become a teacher, my friends” or ” We get it wrong nearly every time we open our mouths “. I don’t understand the source of this quote- sounds like it might be scripture. Yes, I agree that being the people who are shaping our next generations is a task that is loaded with responsibility, and comes with great pressures . I appreciate the humility of this quote but I do not think that everything that comes out of teachers’ mouths is wrong . I for one am a great admirer of the contributions of teachers to society. In no other profession are integrity and ethics more valuable than in teaching. Teachers are role models for students. A teacher has the power to consciously or subconsciously influence many students in their lifetime. Looks like in Rob’s experience non profits are scrutinized more carefully, as has also been mentioned in the video by Van Buren. As per her the predominant reason for this is that the source of funding on non profits makes them more liable to scrutiny.

Reference

Van Buren, J.A. ( 2013, March 29). Retrieved November 6, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks2QGoIq5nA .

 

 

Unit 7 activity 2

November 8, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Unit 7 activity

Implications for managers as per Wang & Oh ( 2011) : The authors quote Barling, Weber, & Kelloway (1996) saying that transformation leadership is trainable. They also have some suggestions for organizations in their selection of people to managerial positions. They refer to previous research by (Bono & Judge (2004) that transformational leadership can be predicted from characteristics like extraversion and stability. In jobs requiring little interdependence or collaboration, transactional leadership is preferable. On the other hand transformational leadership is more valuable in settings involving teamwork and collaboration among employees (Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997). These are very interesting conclusions which could be applicable in various organizational settings. These observations could be very helpful in choosing the right person for the right job. It is also important to know that transformational leadership is more appropriate in settings where contextual performance is important, and transactional leadership is more appropriate in situations where task performance is required. Knowing this, a leader can determine what model of leadership to adopt in various settings.

The five principles of ethical leadership as per Northouse (2016, p. 341) are: respect, service, justice, honesty, and community building.

Respect: Beauchamp and Bowie (1988) point out that we should not treat others as means to an end; rather persons should be treated as having their own goals. Respect in leadership goes beyond the simplistic meaning taught to us in childhood. Respect in leadership means: approaching other people with a sense of their unconditional worth and valuable differences (Kitchener, 1984), giving credence to others’ ideas (Northouse, 2016, p.342), nurturing followers to become aware of their own needs, values, and purposes (Burns 1978), being tolerant of opposing views (Northouse, 2016, p. 342)

Service: Service in leadership is akin to beneficence in medicine, where providers have a duty to help others pursue their interests and goals (Beauchamp, Childress, 1994). Service to others is also the basis of the Servant Leadership model proposed by Greenleaf (1970, 1977)

Justice: Ethical leaders are just, they make it their priority to treat all followers equally (Northouse, 2016, p. 344). Northouse also posts that resources, rewards and punishment should all be distributed fairly

Honesty: “To be a good leader, one must be honest”, (Northouse, 2016, p.345). Why does one need to be honest to be a good leader? As per Jaksa & Pritchard (1988), dishonesty creates distrust. Northouse explains that honesty does not just mean telling the truth. It also includes being open, and representing reality fully and completely, while at the same time being sensitive to other people’s feeling.

Community building: This can also be construed as working towards a common goal. This is  incorporated in Burns’ model of transformational leadership (Burns, 1978) . In this context the organization is considered a community. Rost (1991) takes the meaning of community beyond the organization and states that the leaders and followers need to attend to community goals in addition to their own.

It is very hard for me to choose 2 out of the five principles that I think are the most important. I believe these 5 tenets are the basic requirements of any collegial human environment, and especially the workplace. If I had to rank them in order of importance, the top 2 would be honesty and respect. We spend a major proportion of our day and hence our life at our workplaces. Treating our co workers with respect and honesty goes a long way in reducing work place stress. In the leader and follower relationship, honesty and respect are a 2-way exchange. It is important that leaders are honest with their employees for the employees in turn to be honest and sincere to their work. I believe this would have a positive effect on their performance. Honesty should not only mean not telling lies. It also means “do not promise what you can’t deliver, do not hind behind spin-doctored evasions, do not suppress obligations, do not evade accountability, do not accept that the ‘survival of the fittest’ pressures of business release any of us from the responsibility to respect another’s dignity and humanity”. (Dalla Costa, 1998, p. 164).

Furthermore, employees should respect their leaders for the vision and oversight they provide. This should be reciprocated by the leaders by showing respect to employees by listening closely, being empathic and tolerating opposing views ( Northouse, 2016, p.342).

Having elaborated on 2 of the 5 principles as instructed, I would like to reiterate that in my opinion service, justice, and community building are no less important for the development of ethical leadership.

References

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827-832.

Beauchamp, T.L., & Bowie, N.E. ( !988). Ethical theory and business (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Beauchamp, T.L., & Childress, J.F. (1994). Principles of biomedical ethics (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901-910.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Dalla Costa, J. (1998). The ethical imperative: Why moral leadership is good business. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1997). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York-Paulist.

Jaksa, J. A., & Pritchard, M.S. (1988). Communications ethics: Methods oof analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262-270.

Rost, J.C. (1991). Leadership for twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.

Wang,G & Oh, I.S. (2011)Transformational Leadership and Performance Across Criteria and Levels: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Research. Group & Organization Management: An International Journal Volume: 36 Issue 2

Unit 7 activity 1

November 6, 2017 / / 1 Comment

 

Van Buren defines ethics as “principles, values and beliefs that define what is right and what is wrong behavior”. She further postulates that leaders set up the moral tone for organization,  and that staff respond to moral clues from their leaders . All leaders will have to face some ethical or moral challenge in their roles , likely more often than once . Their actions during the challenging time will set the tone for the behavior of the rest of the organization.  She lays out that leaders can create an ethical culture by – being a role model, communicating ethical standards, promoting effective financial management, providing ethical training, institutional ethical culture, provide protective mechanisms to employees who bring forth their concerns about ethics violations. The principles that lay the foundation for the development of sound ethical leadership ( Northouse, 2016, p. 341) are – respect for others , serving others, showing justice, manifesting honesty, and building community . All the readings I have come across so far stress that one should “treat others the way in which you like to be treated”

The concept of authenticity originates in Greek philosophy “to thine own self be true” ( Avolio & Gardner, 2005) . More recently it is defined as “the extent to which one is true to the self “( Erickson, 1995; Trilling, 1972) or, “one’s relationship with oneself”  (Erickson, 1995, p. 124). As per Kernis ( 2003) , core elements of authenticity are : self-awareness, unbiased processing, relational authenticity, and authentic behavior/action. As per Shamir& Eilam (2005), authentic leaders have the following four characteristics : 1. they are true to themselves (rather than conforming to the expectations of others); 2.  they are motivated by personal convictions; 3.  they lead from their own personal point of view, i.e. they are original ; 4.  the actions of authentic leaders are based on their personal values and convictions.

“Authentic leadership development involves ongoing processes whereby leaders and followers gain self-awareness and establish open, transparent, trusting and genuine relationships, which in part may be shaped and impacted by planned interventions such as training “,  (Avolio, 2005) . They propose a number of components of authentic leadership, including leader and follower components. I believe that ‘positive psychological capital’ and ‘positive moral capital’ in leaders is inherent; one either has it, or doesn’t. On the other hand ‘leader self awareness’ and ‘ leader self regulation’ can be inculcated by training . They propose that ‘ follower self awareness’ and ‘follower development’ can lead to followers aligning their ideas with the leader. I think this is contradictory to the premise of authenticity which is ‘ being true to oneself’ . Isnt it too presumptuous to believe that a follower’s beliefs will always align with those of the leader? How does one reconcile with being true to themselves and also following a leader whose beliefs one does not necessarily agree with ?

In section 4.1 where the authors differentiate authentic leadership from transformation leadership, they postulate that authentic leaders have  ” a deep sense of self; they know where they stand on important issues, values and beliefs. With that base they stay their course and convey to others, oftentimes through actions, not just words, what they represent in terms of principles, values and ethics”, whereas transformational leaders “may be able to transform others and organizations, through a powerful, positive vision, an intellectually stimulating idea, attention to uplifting the needs of followers and by having a clear sense of purpose” ( Avolio & Gardner, 2005) . In these terms  authentic leadership seems very dogged and inflexible to me, whereas transformational leadership seems to have the power to influence (convince) followers, which to my understanding is the very basis of leadership. If I was to recommend a model of leadership to my organization, it would be transformational leadership.

 

References

Avolio, B. & Gardner, W. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership.  The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338.

Erickson, R.J. (1995). The importance of authenticity for self and society. Symbolic Interaction, 18 (2), pp.121-144

Kernis, M.H . (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, pp. 1-26.

 Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership theory and practice . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Shamir, B., Eilam, G. (2005) . What’s your story: A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly

Trilling, L. (1972). Sincerity and Authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Van Buren, J.A. ( 2013, March 29). Retrieved November 6, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks2QGoIq5nA .

 

© 2026 Simarjit Shergill

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑