Month: February 2018

Posted on

Learning activity 6.2-Unit 6

Learning activity 6.2-Unit 6

 

Unit 6 Learning Activities

Russell, E. J., Maxfield, R. J., & Russell, J. L. (2017). Discovering the self-interest of servant leadership: A grounded theory. Servant Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4(1), 75-97.

What sampling strategy is used and is it appropriate and justified?

Russell, E. J., Maxfield, R. J., & Russell, J. L. (2017) selected theory sampling as a good purposeful sampling strategy, they were “14 senior level leaders from multiple for-profit organizations headquartered in the Western United States” (p.84). The justification for this choice was clearly to elicit theoretical discovery involving data and analysis from pre-selected specific experts (Russell et al., 2017, p.85). They relied on data saturation to determine the sample size. The participants accessed the questionnaire anonymously through an online database; these questions were open-ended questions which an example of data type under interview category (Plano-Clark & Creswell, 2017, p.338).

Rate 3

Is the sample size appropriate?

According to Plano-Clerk &Creswell, 2017, p.336), “There are no strict rules for sample size in qualitative research,” however they included a guideline in grounded theory study. Therefore, they chose a decent number to conduct the study; saturation point reached when no longer learning new information. The 14 participants selected from several organizational positions in the For-profit sector, which represent a pre-selected expert which will help researcher forming the theoretical findings.

Rate 2

Is the data collected appropriately? Do the data types are appropriate and gathered using rigorous qualitative procedures?

The researchers used an open-ended question to learn about participants experience and perspectives. “The script avoided key terms and language that could compel participants to answer questions in a specific way to avoid researcher bias” (Russell et al., 2017, p.84). They also included specific script about areas of focus and sources. “The pilot study allowed the researchers to edit and refine the questions to develop a rich and meaningful script for the actual research study” (Russell et al., 2017, p.85).

Rate 4

Are the data gathered ethically and thoughtfully?

The researchers removed any personal identifiers, which was a step taken by researchers to protect participants anonymity. “The researchers triangulated data sources from multiple participants and had another researcher perform an analysis for comparison, and presented the data in-depth, rich descriptions in the results section” (Russell et al., 2017, p.85). The researchers also obtained permission from their University Institutional Review Board to conduct this study and the pilot study. The participation in the study was voluntary and took less than 30 minutes.

Rate 3

Were the selected participants information-rich?

The site and participants fit the study purpose. The participants provided rich information that formed the theoretical findings.

Rate 3

Was the database providing extensive and credible information about the central phenomenon?

The multiple types of open-ended questions were explicit and related to the central phenomenon and the study of intents; therefore the participation in the study was voluntary and took less than 30 minutes to complete.

Rate 3

Quality rating

0=Poor

1= Fair

2= Good

3= Excellent

Overall quality

0-10= Low quality

11-16=Average quality

17-21= High quality

Total score=21

My overall assessment=17

Reference

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

 

Posted on

Learning activity 6.1-Unit 6

 

Learning activity 6.1-Unit 6

Unit 6 Learning Activities

Russell, E. J., Maxfield, R. J., & Russell, J. L. (2017). Discovering the self-interest of servant leadership: A grounded theory. Servant Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4(1), 75-97.

What research design was used to guide the study? Was it justified? The choice of the research design is appropriate and justified?

Russell, E. J., Maxfield, R. J., & Russell, J. L. (2017) used the qualitative grounded theory research design in purpose to “discover how senior-level leaders perceived personal benefits derived from serving the needs of their followers.” (Russell et al., 2017, p.75); also built upon conceptual work of Russell (2016), who argued the existence of an ongoing tangible and intangible benefit cycle between the leader and follower. A thorough review of literature served as a foundation for this qualitative research to emerge to advance the knowledge of servant leadership philosophy and identifying the benefit of being a servant leader.

According to Plano-Clerk & Creswell (2010), explained the grounded theory research as to develop a theory about the process, action, or interaction that found in the experiences and perspectives of the participants (p.297, 298). Russell et al., (2017) involved 14 participants interviewed to discover how different leaders perceived the benefit of serving the others. They considered understanding participants’ interpretation of their new theory. They use terms and citing up-to-date (1943-2016).

Russel et al., (2017) defined grounded theory research design in the methodology section the reason behind is “the design allows for an analysis of data using a constant comparative method” (p.83,84).

Russell et al., (2017) used a type of purposeful sampling known as expert sampling which allows for a theoretical discovery involving data collection and analysis from pre-selected specific experts (Patton, 2002). Also, the saturation point addressed as “No more participants recruited once saturation occurred” (p.85).

Rate 6

Were good qualitative data collection procedures used?

According to Plano-Clerk & Creswell (2015) statement, “The ground theory researcher collected data in the form of interviews” (p.298). The evidence of collecting data was through multiple online questionnaires obtained from leaders from the for-profit organization in western united states. They protect the anonymity of the 14 participants’ age, gender, specific organization, and the information not disclosed (Russell et al., 2017, p.84,85).

Rate 2 (LA 6.1-Unit 6).

Were good qualitative data analysis procedures, qualitative results, and interpretation reported?

According to Plano-Clerk & Creswell (2015), they used multiple stages of coding; overarching open codes which revealed specific relationships resulting in axial codes then converged to selective codes and reaching saturation to explain and relate the core categories that allowed for the study’s theoretical development with attributes (Russell et al., 2017, p.86).

The results presented in words in the article text, they included tables to include specific script areas of focus and sources, participants of the study, and theoretical findings with attributes and themes.

Rate 6 (LA 6.1-Unit 6)

Did the study use a rigorous research design?

All elements of the study fit together logically and coherently. Addressing and reducing the skepticism surrounding servant leadership of one-sided servitude can benefit those who served by the leader. Therefore, two attributes converged from the theory finding were, validation as a leader and freedom from the management which explained how different leaders perceived the benefits from serving followers, thus a rewarding outcome for the organization.

Rate 3

Does the qualitative research design address the study’s purpose?

Russell et al., (2017) findings from the research provide, a rich exploration that fulfills the studies intent and discovers “how senior-level leader from multiple for-profit sectors perceived the benefits derived from serving the needs of the followers” (p.75). Also, revealed a single theoretical finding that advances the understanding of servant leadership philosophy by discovering the benefits to one’s self -interest from being a servant leader (p.93).

Rate 3

Quality rating

0=Poor

1= Fair

2= Good

3= Excellent

Overall quality

0-10= Low quality

11-16=Average quality

17-21= High quality

Total score=21

My overall assessment=20

Reference

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

 

Posted on

Response- reflection- Unit 4, LA 4.5

Response – Unit 4-LA 4.5 and Reflection to Unit 4, LA 4.1

Unit 4 Learning Activities

In response to Omolewa Ahmad- LA 4.5

Question:

Is it possible to apply the principles of servant leadership in situations where the leader lacks the charisma of a messiah or an extraordinary person?

My question was informed from the conceptual framework presented in the study of servant leadership (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002), one of the leaders was an extraordinary person while the other was a messiah. I could not help thinking about the character of the leaders – Leo and Jesus Christ; if they had no charisma, would their “servanthood” have been noticed?

My response;

Charisma is a result of excellent communication interpersonal skills, as these skills can be learned and developed. So according to your question, they can be developed. Its all about interacting with people around you and try to meet their needs positively. Being confident about supporting others when needed and applying positive thinking optimistically. It’s the notion of the SL movement to transform to meet the needs and interest, which opposed to their needs. I did read the article: Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organizations, by (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002), and I enjoyed and learned from it the notion of SL.

Posted on

Response- LDRS 591- Unit 5, LA 5.4

 

Unit 5-Response

Unit 5 Learning Activities

In response to Tom Williams Question- LA 5.4

What are some red flags shown in methodology that can lead to discounting the quality of a research paper?

My response;

I believe lack of prior research, sample size, measures used to collect the data, lack of reliable data should flag you when you do your research paper.

Have your standard measure at the beginning of your review, and ability to acknowledge your limitation will help out in troubleshooting the undesirable outcomes if its present. Understanding the critique of the statistics used help you to find what measures needed in the study and how to interpret them to relate to your research paper if its required.

Posted on

Learning activity 5.4-Unit 5

Learning activity 5.4-Unit 5

Unit 5 Learning Activities

As a consumer of research reports, the most important thing(s) for me in the methods and results section of a high-quality quantitative research report is/ are…

Research process it’s the first significant element to consider, what I meant by that is, research problem, a literature review related to the problem. Specifying a purpose, then choosing a research design that will process all your variables. I believe literature review plays a prescriptive role in making a decision.

A research design is an essential step in the process of conducting research. To make a right decision on what plan; participants, sample size, time of collection are crucial. The intent of the study, the use of manipulation, any specific procedure needed to make a decision. The variables of interest to be studied participate in choosing the statistical technique and instrument to be used. Keep in mind the reliable and valid result engage in interpreting the results that answer your research question.

The use of descriptive statistics to describe the variables as a first step in the process has an essential value to input towards the next level. Inferential statistics make the variables inferred to a population to may make a generalization and answer the research question.

Discussion question

How do you predict if the selected method and statistical technique will pronounce the statistically meaningful answer to your research question?

Reference

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

Posted on

Learning activity 5.3-Unit 5

Learning activity 5.3-Unit 5

 

Unit 5 Learning Activities

Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J. (2017). Leader purposefulness within servant leadership: Examining the effects of servant leadership, leader follower-focus, leader goal-orientation, and leader purposefulness in a large U.S. healthcare organization. Administrative Sciences, 7(10), 1-20.

Were descriptive analyses reported?

They used mean to describe the response of all participants for continuous variables, standard deviation to measure the relative results to the mean, all calculated for all significant variables. They had standard to suppress results or to consider them in a calculation (criterion used to determine whether they obtain statistically significant results). They outlined these analyses in tables (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.8,9).

Rate 3

Good Hypotheses testing procedures were used? Did inferential statistics were used? (e.g., correlations, regression analysis, ANOVA, t-test)

They formulated eight hypotheses, which they are follower perspectives on four Independent variables of SL, they analyzed for hypothesized positive relationships with four dependent variables. They perform the Bartlett test for proposed hypotheses to identify their significance level which is <0.05, and They set the p-value <0.01. They followed the five steps for hypothesis testing, no alpha level stated in the research; however, they used KMO and Bartlett test (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.8 ). They used Regression analysis to test the predictive impact of the independent variables on the dependent variables. So multiple regression standardized coefficient beta used on independent variables. Also, they used multiple linear regression hierarchical regression to test the hypotheses further. R squared measures for the strength of relationships between independent variables and dependent variables. F values were used to find how the primary hypotheses relate to each other to predict a positive effect on the sub-hypotheses (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.10-13).

Rate 3

What were the results? (What was found?) Were the results comprehensive? Did the results include sufficient information?

Results for hypothesized relationships:

Statistically significant positive relationships support each of the primary hypotheses and sub-hypotheses. The eight hypotheses supported by moderate (0.40 to 0.88). All correlations were statistically significant at the level of <0.001, which is exceeding the acceptable standard for the two-tailed significance of <0.01 (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.9,10).

Results from multiple linear regression analysis:

Each of the independent variables was statistically significant predictors, and the relative importance of the independent variable was consistent across each model with leader follower-focus having the largest effect, leader goal-orientation having the second largest effect, and leader purposefulness the third largest effect (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.10,11).

Results from Hierarchical regression analysis:

All R square change results support each of the sub-hypotheses as all models were and associated R square change findings were significant at a level of <0.001. R square change results also support the relative importance of follower-focus has the most significant predictive effect on organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and leadership effectiveness, whereas follower-focus has the third most significant predictive impact on person-organization fit. Goal-orientation and leader purposefulness have more limited R square change results but are statistically significant at these lower levels (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.11-13).

The results all included in tables, and consistent with research design.

Rate 9

Did the analysis represent a good quantitative process?

The data analysis in the results to a certain extent was manageable to understand all details and analysis the researchers included.

They provided an objective explanation of the results, and statistical information found all related to the collected data.

Rate 3

Did the results provide a good explanation of the study’s purpose?

All the results were directed to answer the research question.
Only statistical test related to the study’s purpose calculated and reported.

Rate 3

Quality rating

0=Poor

1= Fair

2= Good

3= Excellent

Overall quality

0-10= Low quality

11-16=Average quality

17-21= High quality

Total score=21

My overall assessment=21

Reference

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

 

Posted on

Learning Activity 5.2-Unit 5

Learning activity 5.2-Unit 5

Unit 5 Learning Activities

Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J. (2017). Leader purposefulness within servant leadership: Examining the effects of servant leadership, leader follower-focus, leader goal-orientation, and leader purposefulness in a large U.S. healthcare organization. Administrative Sciences, 7(10), 1-20.

What sampling strategy was used and was it justified?

The study uses the probability sampling, and the purpose is the author wants to answer the research question; therefore they examined the relationship between four leader independent variables and four dependent variables to assess the relationship between dimensions of leader ‘s servant leadership focus and the effect of these dimensions on followers. They selected 5000 employees from a large healthcare organization; each employee has an equal opportunity to respond, 1713 participants provided complete respond and used for most study analysis. This random sample represents sample size from which statistical, the generalizations may be made to a larger organization ( Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.7). So the purpose of using random sampling to reduce bias which may exist in the population.

Rate 3

Is the sample size appropriate and justified?

They selected 5000 employees from a large healthcare organization, and each employee has an equal opportunity to respond, 1713 participants provided complete respond and used for most study analysis. This random sample represents sample size from which statistical generalizations may be made to the larger organization. According to Plano-Clerk and Creswell (2015), this is the most rigorous form of sampling in quantitative research because the investigator can make the most reliable claim that the sample is representative of the population.

Rate 3

Are good quality measures used to gather data? How do you know they are good quality?

The authors used Purpose in Leadership Inventory (PLI), which provided an overall measure of servant leadership dimensions. Regression analyses were conducted to provide predictive modeling and indicators of the relative importance of each independent variable on the related dependent variable.  Each of the 16 hypothesized relationships supported at a statistically significant level (<0.001) with positive correlations ranging from moderate to strong correlation, the lowest 0.40 to the highest 0.88 leadership effectiveness ( (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.1). High-reliability coefficient (0.98), pointed toward the value of utilizing PLI as a collective measure of SL.

Other independent variables were measured by:

Cammann et al.’s assessment of overall job satisfaction(JS) was 0.86. Balfour and Wechsler’s measure of organizational commitment (OC) was 0.90. Cable and Judge’s measure of perceived person-organization fit (POF) was 0.84. Ehrhart and Klien’s measure of leadership effectiveness was on the shortened scale 0.88 (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.7).

The different SL instruments were engaged in the literature review as points of comparison to the present study.

Additionally, two-tailed Pearson r correlation calculated for each of the intercorrelations between the independent and dependent variables. Which is required, when a random sample from the population collected in the presence of a relationship between variables, and no outliers.
Series of regression analysis conducted.
All correlations were statistically significant at <0.001 level, exceeding the acceptable standard for the two-tailed significance of <0.01 (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.10). They used the possible analytical technique and method to answer the research question.

Rated 3

Are the data gathered using ethical procedures?

The invitation to participate was sent to give equal opportunity to respond. The instrument provided anonymous feedback on the leader to whom the researched participant reported on the job (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.6).

Rate 3

Are the data gathered using standardized quantitative procedures?

All participants were asked the same questions and had the same choices for responding the questions. All items have pre-set response options vary from strongly disagree to agree strongly. All applicants are given one month to complete responses. No training received by the participant on how to complete (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.7).

Rate 3

Does the study have a high level of internal validity?

They examined whether independent variables cause an effect on independent variables.
They used one measure per variable.
Other studies using other instruments were engaged to as a point of comparison. I believe this review has a high level of internal validity.

Rate 3

Does the study have an external level of validity?

5000 employees invited, 1780 participated, 1713 completed the response. The high rate of response from participants results in a larger sample size increases the possibility for generalization. They examined the demographic information obtained from participants to determine whether the individuals who participated are similar to the most significant group.

According to Plano-Clerk and Creswell (2015), “If the sample is similar o the larger population, then it provides some evidence that the results may be generalized.”

Rate 3

Quality rating

0=Poor

1= Fair

2= Good

3= Excellent

Overall quality

0-10= Low quality

11-16=Average quality

17-21= High quality

Total score=21

My overall assessment=21

Reference

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