英国毕业论文:Leadership Construct In General Management
英国毕业论文:Leadership Construct In General Management
本文题目是“综合管理中的领导力建设”。这个题目将由与领导力相关的研究理论和文献，以及方法论运用来支撑。
1.引言——Introduction
1.1研究目标——2.1. Objective of the Study
本文的研究目标是，，针对土耳其人在认识领导力时，常用的认知结构或内隐领导理论进行研究。内隐领导理论是对领导者特征的认知图式。人们运用这种模式来判断某人是否为领导者，结果会引导人们对领袖的认知，并受到他的影响。尽管内隐领导理论的的内容可能会随着个体和环境的不同而变化，它还是对于不同社会环境（政治、宗教、运动、商业等等）下领导者的出现和进化产生着重要的作用。简单地说，本文将引入传统领导理论的新观点，并且对通常和成功联系到一起的领导能力建立起模型。
1.2议题的环境与内容——2.2. Context and Content of the Issue
在本研究的总体框架之下，领导被定义为个体影响组织群体来迎接不断的挑战，并达成总体目标的过程，这里被称作领导的人，有着最终决定权和权威。它包括两个清楚的维度：一个就是包括组织、领导、控制功能的工作取向，另一个就是以支持、互动、沟通、倾听为中心的关系。
事实上，土耳其社会的内隐领导理论还没有得到透彻的研究。以往针对这个理论的研究案例十分有限，因此其结果也只能够反映这个社会的某个特定部分。
The title of the paper is “Leadership Construct In General Management”. This title will be supported by theory and literature in leadership studies and with following methodological applications.
1.引言——1. Introduction
1.1研究目标——1.1. Objective of the Study
The aim of this project is to examine the cognitive structures or implicit leadership theories people utilize in perceiving leaders in business settings in Turkey. Implicit leadership theories are cognitive schemas about the characteristics of a leader. People us these schemas to categorize someone as a leader or not, which leads them to perceive that person as a leader and be influenced by him or her. Implicit leadership theories, for which the content may differ across individuals and contexts, play an important role in the emergence and evaluation of leaders in various social settings (politics, religion, sports, business etc.) In a nutshell, this paper will bring in new perspectives regarding the traditional leadership theories and will build a prototype of leadership commonly associated with being successful.
1.2议题的环境与内容——1.2. Context and Content of the Issue
Under the general frame of the study, leadership shall be defined as a process in which an individual influences the group to achieve a common goal with the challenge of trying to bring in and lead to ever-lasting changes in hand, here the person is referred to as the leader who possesses the ultimate decision making power and authority (Northouse, 2004). It has two clear dimensions; one of them is task orientation that includes organization, leading, controlling functions and the other one is related to relationship focus that revolves around support, interaction, communication and active listening (Hersey and Blanchard, 1988).
The topic of implicit leadership theories in Turkish society has not been investigated thoroughly. Previous studies investigated the topic using limited samples; therefore their findings can reflect only a particular segment of the society. The proposed research will aim to investigate implicit leadership theories using a representative sample including a variety of industries and organizations. In addition, the previous studies only aimed to describe and summarize these characteristics and did not attempt to identify individual differences in implicit leadership theories. The study will attempt to predict individual differences in implicit leadership theories with gender roles, regulatory focus and core self-evaluations.
1.3. Significance of the Issue
From global warming to ethnic conflicts leadership is widely regarded as both as the cause and the solution to many of the contemporary problems of our world. Although the academic literature on leadership includes hundreds of studies the dominance of leader focused studies and theoretical fragmentation of the field resulted in a lack of knowledge on leadership as a process involving followers’ perceptions and judgment. In addition to this leadership is suggested to be like beauty difficult to describe. This means that everybody has a somewhat different view of what leadership is and what leaders are made of. Although at first this observation about different views may seem insignificant, the social information processing view (Lord and Maher, 1990) which points to the importance of perceptions in the leadership process states that cognitive structures on leadership (implicit leadership theories) plays a dominant role in the emergence and influence of leaders on others. Therefore the significance of the issue stems from this aspect and it is necessary to understand the contents and structure of the beliefs that make up the leadership perceptions and to examine the sources of these beliefs and views in order to better grasp leadership as a process.
Since the continuity of developing countries depends on the leaders who can come up with a vision that can match with the changing circumstances, it is expected that the findings from this research will contribute significantly to the national economy and societal development. The findings of this study may contribute to strengthen the conditions under which positive leadership develops.
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Leadership Construct in General
Globalization, hyper competition, and the continuous changes have forced companies to converge their strategies, structures and leadership styles. Subordinates are more sensitive and responsive to their leaders’ behaviors than ever before (Davidson and Burke, 2004; Eagly and Carli, 2003; Kanter, 1997). In micro perspective, recently observed, ever changing nature of the organizations into flatter types has brought about the necessity of team oriented decision making processes, continuous learning and diversity all of which pose challenges into the way of managing the subordinates (Wood and Lindorff, 2001). In close vein, the rising women force in senior management positions and in leadership roles have challenged the men-dominated work environments by unveiling critical edges regarding female type of leadership, management styles and the effectiveness brought in through their lenses (Heilman, 2001).
To begin with a general framework, leadership is defined as a process in which an individual influences the group to achieve a common goal with the challenge of trying to bring in and lead to ever-lasting changes in hand, here the person is referred to as the leader who possesses the ultimate decision making power and authority (Northouse, 2004). It has two clear dimensions; one of them is task orientation that includes organization, leading, controlling functions and the other one is related to relationship focus that revolves around support, interaction, communication and active listening (Hersey and Blanchard, 1988).
Before the discussion on the evolution of contemporary leadership theories, one should focus the readers’ attentions on the previously studied, classical leadership patterns. Three primary classifications have gained substantial interest in the literature of management; personal behavior theories that have underpinned personal qualities as driving instrumentalities towards leadership (Donnelly, Gibson and Ivancevich; 1992). The second approach that received huge acceptance was trait theory which posited the very postulation that some individuals inherently possess the key leadership traits that are transferable and inbreed the potential that will make these individuals effective leaders (Bennis, 1984). The third prevailing theory capitalized on the contingency perspective postulating the dependency of the effectiveness of leadership on the surrounding externalities namely the close task environment hereby benefiting from the contingency approach (Schumaker, 1990).
In addition to above mentioned and developed theories of leadership, we should also look at transformational and transactional leadership theories. The former stands for leadership attributes that are relationship oriented and that seek to motivate employees by means of setting achievable and challenging goals and structures. As compared to this, transactional leadership prototypes deal with getting tasks and things done wherein effectiveness and result oriented behavior matter more.
Though leadership is analyzed under different themes in social sciences, “implicit leadership” concepts have been included in the literature thanks to industrial psychology and organizational behavior. According to leadership categorization theory (Lord & Maher, 1991), the schemas that people hold in their minds, are related to prototypes of leaders they posses. Theories on implicit leadership are conducted in different cultural settings and they are quite limited in Turkey (Kabasakal & Bodur, 2007; Paşa, 2000). However these theories need extended studies because they enable individuals to associate effective leadership in their minds.
Studies in implicit leadership showcase that people hold prototypical images in their minds (Lord, Foti & De Vader, 1984) and such prototypes lead individuals decide on attributes that a leader should posses. The result of such a classification is the categorization that supervisors are either leaders or not. Implicit leadership theories are commonly shared in society (Foti, Fraser & Lord, 1982). In all of these studies, dimensions and conceptualizations of these theories are determined (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Offermann, Kennedy & Wirtz, 1994). These studies also show that people in different cultures hold different perceptions on what leaders should be like (Konrad, 2000). To exemplify this situation, there has been a study called GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) which has underpinned different leadership attributes in 61 countries across the world (House, Javidan, Hanges & Dorfman, 2002). The major conlusion of the study has been that attributes of leadership changed according to cultures (Brodbeck, Frese, Akerblom, Audia, Bakacsi, Bendova et all., 2000). The main limitation of this study has been the translation of questionnaires created in one culture and its application in other cultures (Scandura & Dorfman, 2004). However this dimension eliminates the culture-specific explanation factor.
2.2. Cultural Differences on Implicit Leadership
Research on many studies have revealed that transformational leadership is more positively associated and valued by followes and therefore, more positive implicit leadership image is held in their minds. Studies have shown that leadership success is mostly attributable to outcomes of leaders. The second most commonlt denominated aspect of such implicit leadership theory relates to recognized fit between a person’s overall characteristics and their perceptions on what leaders should be like. Cultures differ in their perceptions about optimum leaders and many implicit leadership theories have been utilized to account for the difference observed across cultures and societies (Lord, Foti & Philips, 1982; Lord, Foti & De Vader, 1984; Offermann, Kennedy & Wirtz, 1994). When the perceived attributes of leaders are matched to these of the internal categories, then we can talk about the collection of trait characteristics (Offermann, et al., 1994; Foti & Luch, 1992).
Cultural background of the perceiver is an important aspect to be considered. Hunt, Boal and Sorenson (1990) support the very idea that societal culture has an important impact on the development of category prototypes and implicit leadership theories. Depending on the national culture, leadership can be seen as a fuzzy category (Cantor & Mischel, 1979). Relevance of perception becomes important in cross-cultural specific situations and there will be culturally influenced differences in leadership prototypes observed. In sum, charismatic and transformational leadership attributes are seen as prototypes of positive implicit leadership dimensions and contribute to a large extent to the ongoing research.
The basic question that this research will seek to answer is “the difference of individuals at workplaces in terms of their perceptions of their managers as leaders and the consequences of this mutual interconnection that give rise to work satisfaction and their work output processes”. The sub areas that will be tapped are as in the following:
To identify the metaphors of leaders and see the implications of this process in work places
To see if individual differences play role in analyzing and utilizing some of these leadership metaphors at workplaces
To intertwine the workers’ perceptions of leadership with gender and come up with further conclusions.
To arrive to generalizations regarding sub dimensions of leadership and their accepted validity in different countries.
To conclude on the chosen countries workers’ leadership perceptions and provide a general picture on what constitutes a successful manager therefore leader.
CHAPTER 3 Research Methodology
There are two basic research methodology tools used in literature: these are qualitative and quantitative tools. Below, you shall see the brief analyses of these tools.
3.1.1. Qualitative Research
Qualitative research is a method applied in many disciplines and mostly in social sciences. Gaining in depth understanding of human behavior and reasons that govern such behaviors are main purposes of such a study. The investigation of “why” and “how” aspects of decision making processes are focal points of qualitative studies.
Different tools of data collection are utilized in qualitative research: storytelling, ethnography and theory practices are among the tools besides the surveys of many kinds. Forms of the data collected can include interviews and group discussions, observation and reflection field notes, various texts, pictures, and other materials. As methods, participant observations, non-participant observations, field notes, structures and unstructured interviews are among the common tools of application (Denzin, Norman and Lincoln, 2005).
3.1.2. Quantitative Research
This method refers to systematic investigation of quantitative properties and phenomena as well as their respective relationships. The central objective of qualitative methods is to implement mathematical models, theories as well as hypotheses. Measurement is a pivotal matter in quantitative research designs as it provides links between analyses and quantitative modeling (hypothesis testing). Besides the mathematical sciences, quantitative methods are widely used in sociology, anthropology, and political sciences. For social sciences, quantitative methods relate to statistical testing of hypotheses that are case based.
Methods both from the qualitative approaches and quantitative approaches will be utilized. First of all, the samples will be composed of participants in various industries and positions. Data collection process will include both qualitative interview and surveys methods. The data analysis will make use both qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative analysis will be done using programs like NVivo and quantitative analysis will be done using programs such as SPSS and Lisrel software programs.
The qualitative dimension of the research will include in depth interviews with the participants and use of some metaphors. (Gibson and Zellmer-Bruhn, 2001). From this point of view, participants will be asked both during the in-depth interviews and in the questionnaires some questions that will enable them to reveal their cognitions on leadership and than relate this to either gender or gender-based behaviors. The analyses of these questionnaires will be done on SPSS and on Lisrel programs to reach to basic conclusions.
3.1.3 Participants
The sample of the present study will include samples from different industries and companies. The overall objective is to collect sample size ofapproximately 100 who will be composed of different genders, sexes, ages, and occupations [1] .
3.1.4 Focus Group Interviews
The term focus group was first used in the classic The Focused Interview (Merton et al., 1956) when some of the procedures that are now accepted as common practice in focus group interviews were established. Focus groups are used extensively across a wide variety of disciplines. In addition to consumer marketing research and marketing management research, focus groups are used in studies in communication, human resources, public health, and political science.
The main characteristic of focus group research is the simultaneous involvement of a number of respondents in the research process to generate the data. The distinguishing feature of focus groups is the explicit use of group interaction to produce data and insight that would be less accessible without the interaction found in a group (Morgan, 1997).
The difference between focus groups and other qualitative methodologies is that they bring together a group of individuals who may be either heterogeneous or homogeneous, in an interaction of views that collectively aims to achieve a balance of meaningful information and opinions. Focus groups generate greater depth of information on an issue than a general count of single opinions gleaned from a survey (Carson et al, 2001). Closely aligned to depth of information is the strength of collectivity. The strength of focus group research is its emphasis on the participants’ own comparisons between variables and ideas rather than moderators’ speculations about comparisons. This is achieved through the researcher’s ability to ask participants for comparisons and views rather than aggregating individual data so that the researcher can speculate about whether participants differ or not.
The most important feature of focus groups is their ability to reveal complex behaviors and motivations, and this is the direct result of the interaction within the group. The interaction has been termed the group effect (Carey, 1994) or synergy (Keown, 1983), or simply group dynamic. The factor, which makes the discussion in focus groups greater than the sum of separate individual opinions gathered from interviews, is that the participants both query each other and explain themselves to each other (Carson et al, 2001). That is, interaction is a unique strength of focus groups and should improve the quality of the ideas and opinions generated.
Used alone or in combination with other methods, the aim of focus groups is to get closer to participants’ understanding and perspectives of certain issues. It is not geared towards the formal testing of hypotheses in the traditional hypothetico-deductive sense, although it can be used for hypothesis formulation and construct development (Brewerton and Millward, 2001).
Focus groups may be used differently according to the purpose of the research and the background of the researcher. Carson et al. (2001) argue that the reason of using focus group method varies according to the kind of research. In traditional social science studies, literature and research based on positivist philosophy, focus group method is often described as most useful and appropriate in the exploratory and developmental phases of research where little is known about the phenomenon of interest. Thus this type of research is about obtaining general background information about a topic of interest, generating ideas that can be submitted to further research and interpreting previously obtained quantitative results.
Marketing practitioner research, on the other hand, is concerned with specific marketing issues in relation to corporations and business activities, so focus group interviews can be useful for stimulating new ideas and product concepts; diagnosing the potential for problems with a new program, service or product; and generating impressions of products, programs, services, institutions or other interests. Interpretivist social science researchers may make any or all of the above common use of focus group interviews. However, the greatest use of focus groups for them is learning how respondents (i.e. managers or consumers) talk and construct their own understanding about the phenomenon of interest.
The focus group interview can be used as a self-contained means of data collection (i.e. the primary research technique of collecting qualitative data), as a supplement to other primary methods or in multi-method studies that combine two or more means of gathering data. As a self-contained method, focus groups can either explore new research areas or examine well-known research questions from the research participants’ own perspective. In combination with other methods, focus groups can provide preliminary research on specific issues in a larger project or follow up research to clarify findings from another method (Morgan, 1997).
Focus group interviews are cost-effective and time-saving methods of gathering insightful aspects about a research topic. However, like all research methodologies, focus groups benefit from rigorous framework and planning. Planning phase is especially important because they are group interviews and to bring together several participants requires attention to who the participants are and how the researcher will interact with them as a group.
Focus group interviews usually generate qualitative data in the form of transcripts produced from audio-tapes or video-tapes. By video-taping, observational data such as non-verbal communication can be extracted in addition to the content of the discussion. Whatever the type of recording used, it is crucial to first obtain the consent of the participants, having explained the purpose of the recording and assured them of confidentiality.
Selection of participants for focus group interviews requires purposive rather than random or convenience sampling. In purposive sampling, participants are selected for their suitability and ability to provide insights that are relevant to the particular study even though they are not necessarily representative of the population as a whole. The researcher is interested in a sample that is supposed to have a perspective on the research question (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2002). Carson et al. (2001) state that most focus group research seeks some element of homogeneity so that opinions stem from a factor of commonality among participants. This can be of age group, lifestyle, consumption patterns, expertise or experience. If the issue is largely unframed or determined, a heterogeneous group will enable broad and general discussion and a wide variety of opinions to be expressed without prejudice or pre-judgment.
There is no consensus in the literature as to the number of participants in each group. Traditional focus group sessions entail a moderated discussion among 8 to 12 individuals in a face-to-face setting (Montoya-Weiss et al., 1998). According to Morgan (1997), a range of 6 to 10 is the rule of thumb for group size even though these are no strict lower and upper boundaries. Carson et al. (2001) affirm that the contemporary view of an appropriate number of respondents in each group is 5 to 8. Groups larger than 12 participants are usually not recommended due to the constraints large numbers put on each person’s opportunity to share insights and observations.
Saturation is the criterion in determining the number of groups. Saturation is the point at which additional data collection no longer generates new understanding. Morgan (1997) states that projects should consist of 3 to 5 groups. Nevertheless, he also points out that the variability of the participants both within and across groups is the most important determinant of the number of groups. More heterogeneous participants within groups, for instance, will need more total groups. Another factor would be the degree of structure in the interviews. Projects that use less standardized interviews and lower levels of moderator involvement require more groups. Finally, it may be necessary to run several groups of smaller size if there are few potential participants or if they are highly dispersed in terms of location.
A critical element of successful focus group interviews is the moderator, who must be careful not to bias participants’ responses. The wording of topics and how and when they are introduced need rigorous attention. Potential problems with wording and flow can be avoided through the use of pilot studies. All stages of the focus group discussion –the beginning, the middle and the end– are of equal importance.
Some researchers supplement transcript data with questionnaires. However, it is important to avoid survey-like interpretations of the questionnaire data, given the small size and non-representativeness of the sample (Morgan, 1997).
According to Morgan (1997), neither the group nor the individual constitutes a separable unit of analysis. Instead, our analytic efforts must seek a balance that acknowledges the interplay between these two levels of analysis. There are three common ways of coding focus groups transcripts: to note (a) all mentions of a given code, (b) whether each individual participant mentioned a given code, or (c) whether each group’s discussion contained a given code. Descriptive counting is especially useful in research projects that compare distinctively different groups to determine how often various topics are mentioned in the different types of groups. The aim is to investigate whether numerical characterizations of those differences add anything to our understanding (Morgan, 1997).
Morgan (1997) mentions that there are three basic factors that influence how much emphasis a given topic should receive: how many groups mentioned the topic, how many people within each of these groups mentioned the topic and how much energy and enthusiasm the topic generated among the participants. The best evidence comes from a combination of these three factors that is known as “group-to-group” validation.
Once the content analysis is performed by the researcher who moderates the groups, the reliability of the classification scheme has to be ensured. The reliability can be checked by independent researchers who have not been moderators in groups. Acting as judges, they analyze the transcripts and assign topics to categories. In order to assess to what extent the classification scheme is reliable, Cohen’s kappa is calculated (Cohen, 1960). It shows the percentage of agreement between raters/judges. If necessary, the set of categories has to be revised and inter-judge agreement has to be checked again.
Advances in technology and globalization of real-time communication open up the possibility for focus groups to be run on-line. Greenbaum (1998) used the term “global focus groups” to describe on-line discussion groups that cross cultural, spatial and temporal boundaries. Two types of on-line global focus groups can be envisaged: real-time focus groups who log on to the network at a set time for a set period to discuss a topic or issue, and on-going focus groups whose members sign in and sign off whenever they wish and contribute whenever convenient and/or they feel appropriate.
On-line focus groups are self-selected groups. In the real-time version, a focus group could be run in the traditional fashion with a facilitator keeping the discussion on-track and probing wherever necessary. In the on-going version, a discussion is not easily managed or facilitated. The group itself is responsible for determining the shape and direction of the dialogue that ensues.
Anonymity and leanness of the media interact with the group composition and the degree of topic controversy. According to Montoya-Weiss et al. (1998), focus group participants are more likely to focus on ideas instead of interpersonal differences when the communication environment is anonymous and lean. Moreover, electronic communication environment attenuates some of the causal factors of communication apprehension, which is defined as an individual’s level of fear or anxiety associated with communication with others. This facilitates dialog between participants and therefore, depth, quality and richness of information provided from online focus groups are expected to increase.
Another advantage of on-line discussion is that the issue of transcription is side-stepped. As opinions are self-reported by participants in a written form, the need for time-consuming transcription is eliminated at the stage of data analysis.
Limitations are linked to process issues and the generalizability of the findings. As far as process issues are concerned, two problems may arise: first, group members can affect each other or groups may suffer from uneven participation due to a dominant or aggressive respondent intimidating others and suppressing their views. Second, the moderator can disrupt group dynamics by prompts during the session.
Due to theoretical and non-probabilistic sampling, the results of focus groups are not generalizable to larger populations. Therefore, focus group researchers should concentrate on analytical generalizability rather than statistical generalizability.
3.1.5. Access to Study Population
3.1.6Data Gathering
Data will be gathered with questionnaires. Personal involvement, e-mail and on-line surveys will be the basic tools of data gathering. In addition to this, on-line web site created to reach target segments that live in various parts of the country will be reached thereby.
3.1.1.7Possible Difficulties and Limitations
Sample size which is around 100 will be the basic limitation ofthe study. Biased and not-so-reflective answers will pose certain limitations on us. In addition to this, setting out web sites for this purpose and collecting data through e-mails will also be difficult, if not impossible. These target segments will have direct difficulty in learning how to use web sites established to reach them and the response collection rate may be low. Since this is a social study, getting out in-depth answers of the respondents and their real feelings could only be possible through open-ended questions where they can not be identified or through in-depth interviews.
With respect to above mentioned sample size, our study has been undertaken with a sample of 21 as it was impossible to reach the statistically determined group. First of all, number of items in the questionnaire is around 90, which is quite a high value when considering the sample size and therefore, only with this nature of questionnaire we reached validity
3.1.1.8Ethical Considerations
The commonly accepted ethical concerns of a research process include:
Review process in terms of the quality and originality of the research undertaken
Honesty of researcher, participants, editors and all involved parties
Authorship and referencing to respect the rights of the original authors ((Hubert, 2007).
For this study, among the aspects that will be important are as in below:
Confidentiality of the participants
Having the interests of the parties kept as secure and as confidential. Besides this, establishing trust among the key parties is also vital. The misuse of information, privacy and sensitivity issues will be dealt with further concerns.
Providing employees with information considering the limits on what could be shared and what constitutes the dimensions of a study
The participation will be voluntary on the respondents’ part. On the workers part, we will try to get the funds of the university and assistants will be paid from this fund. Their volunteer participation will be of utmost significance for us.
Based on the findings of literature, below model is framed:Figure2: Theoretical Framework.The above model asses and asks for the relationship between gender roles of participants and the relevant expectations formed about their possible leadership expectations. On the independent variable side, gender role inventory developed by Bern in 1974 will be utilized and on the dependent variable side which is the expected and formed leadership prototypes will be sourced from the studies of Lord and Mahers in 1993. This theory is referred to as Leader Categorization Theory and thereby refines different sub groups and categories as such: sensitivity, dedication, tyranny, charisma, attractiveness, intelligence, strength, and masculinity.
The gender based identity characteristics of respondents are categorized as masculine, feminine and androgen. Masculinity deals with man-like behaviors that are assertive and that are result oriented (task orientation in a way) while feminism is relationship focused type of leadership attribute. Androgenity is in between these two concepts and is not dominated by any of them. While searching for such differences and attributes, the gender of the follower and the gender of the expected leader are also determined for so as to cross check the moderating impact of perceived gender.
According to this model, the re-framed research question is:“What are the gender role related expectations of students about their future managers?”The questionnaire of the study is operationalized with below question categories:
Individuals are expected to rate their perceived leadership attributes according to 8 different categories and these are the ones including sensitivity, strength, dedication, education, masculinity and tyranny attributes of leaders. Below can be seen the question categories of each of the attributes:
Leaders in general are strong, bold, and decisive. They are powerful individuals who use their strength to lead their followers.
Leaders in general are sensitive, sympathetic, and understanding. They are caring individuals who use their compassion to lead followers.
Leaders in general are dedicated, motivated, and goal oriented. They are devoted individuals who use their drive to lead followers.
Leaders are intelligent, well educated, and clever. They are wise individuals who use their knowledge to lead followers.
Leaders in general are attractive, well-groomed, and well-dressed. They are classy individuals who use their good looks to lead followers.
Leaders in general masculine and macho. They are manly individuals who use their masculinity to lead followers
Leaders in general are tyrannical, manipulative, and domineering. They are power-hungry individuals through their demanding nature to lead followers.
3.1.9. Data Analyses
In terms of data analyses, different sequences of analytical tools of qualitative and quantitative nature will be utilized. At first hand, two focus groups structure will be formed and will be utilized which is to be followed by questionnaire based analyses.
3.2.0. Focus Groups
Focus groups are tools of social sciences utilized especially in qualitative studies and the objective of this tool is to gain a closer look at individual dynamics under group influence. In other words, focus groups are group-based in-depth interviews that aim to source extended and variety of information concerning the individual attitudes and their reactions. As to the size of effective focus groups, there are analyses and debates going on and most commonly consensus reached size is between 6 and 12.
As for the purposes of this study, a focus group composed of 7 people were formed and they were senior management students who are assumed to hold working positions within the next periods. For focus groups, the diversity of individuals is important because through this way only can difference in ideas and brainstorming is achieved. Also, it is not a good idea to include participants who used to know each other beforehand because in this situation, the conversation takes place in between them.
Under the shed of this discussion, we have decided to frame our focus group composing of senior management students who are from different universities and who did not have previous knowledge about each other. Therefore, the fallacy of group pressure, group thinking is solved out.
The focus group tool place in a place which was not the university of any of the participants and a friend of the author is utilized for the provision of the room. The focus group activity took around 1 hour and the participants were asked the below questions:
Name and say out the words that describe the ideal leader in your mind the best.
Name and describe the characteristics of leaders that you would not like to work with and why?
How do you see yourself with respect to categories of masculinity, feminity an d androjen aspects.
Do you see any correlation between your gender expected identity and the ideal leadership aspects you have provided for us?
The focus group was structured and no room was provided for divergence of the topics being discussed. The main purpose was to unfold the possible match or mismatch between expectations of participants about their possible future leaders. Tape recordings have been used so that encryptions from the original texts were all possible.
Since this is a preliminary qualitative research technique, therefore validity and reliability issues have posed problems. In order to deal with the problem of construct validity, scales of authors on gender-expected identities and leadershipcategories were utilized. Therefore, scales measuring these dimensions were directly taken and utilized in original questionnaires. However in the focus group study, only the examples were provided from these scales without giving solid references of the scales. As for the reliability issue, internal reliability was tried to be cross checked with explanation building, logic models, trend analyses and comparative literature analyses. As for the reliability, nothing concrete could be taken at this step only with further suggestion of undertaking the same structure of study with different sample groups and searching for the gaining of similar findings. The saying of the group members was recorded but their behaviors were not recorded through videos because of privacy and consent requesting issues.
There are different methods employed in the content analyses process at top which comes the categorization process. In other words, this step relates to category establishment of the sentences of the respondents. In this focus group, we have used the “counting method” whereby words of similar nature and that had similar connotations were grouped under similarly created categories.
Therefore, about the expected leadership categories, categories of transformational and transactional leadership attributes were used. The commonly heard sentences and sayings from the participants were as in below:
My manager encourages us to be team players (Transformational leadership; group goals)
My manager fosters collaboration among group members (Transformational leadership; group goals)
My manager is very reluctant to change the way things are done in here (Transactional leadership; passive management)
I only get appraised by my manager when I complete my task (Transactional leadership; reward management)
I am treated without the consideration of my personal feelings (Transformational leadership; individualized support)
My manager is able to get others committed to his / her dream of the future (Transformational leadership; articulation of a clear vision)
My manager does not stimulate me to think old problems in new ways (Transformational leadership; intellectual stimulation)
Female managers are better in inspiring the subordinates as compared to male managers (gender impact)
I am always provided with new ways of looking at things that used to be a puzzle for me (Transformational leadership; intellectual stimulation)
My manager will not settle for the second best (Transformational leadership; high performance expectations)
Female managers keep track of mistakes better than male managers (Transactional leadership; contingent reward)
My manager is always seeking for new opportunities for the department (Transformational leadership; articulation of a clear vision)
My manager provides a good model of example (Transformational leadership; appropriate role model)
My manager does not have a clear understanding of where we are heading (Transformational leadership; articulation of a clear vision)
My manager has ideas that force me to think of my other ideas (Transformational leadership; intellectual stimulation).
And to see how respondents see themselves under the explained and pictured leadership attributes of their mental images, below organization citizenship behavior categories have been created and the aim of this step is to grasp ideas to the degree that respondents see themselves as committed for the leadership attributes just mentioned.
I tend to help others who have been absent in their works (altruism)
I see and reflect problems bigger than they normally are (sportsmanship)
I fix to the lunch times and breaks (conscientiousness)
I attend social-responsibility projects that will be good for my company’s public image (civic virtue)
Voluntary civil activities are good for the company reputation (civic virtue)
Even the small disturbances in my office negatively influence me (sportsmanship)
I coach and counsel the new entrants (altruism)
I do not follow the procedures and standards of the company (civic virtue).
As expected, participants discussed the desired attributes of their leaders as to belong to more to transformational leadership attributes and not to transactional one. This might be a limitation of the study because they could have been involved in behaviors that would seem socially desirable. Therefore, a limitation is present and needs to be furthered in coming questionnaire analyses. This part will be cross-checked with leader-category theory that has 8 sub categories. The part that related to self-evaluation of respondents aimed to unfold the degree of follower commitment on leaders. As expected, the frequency of words utilized were more signaling the altruism of individuals and therefore strengthened organization citizenship behavior. This could also be linked to connotations of relationship oriented mindset of individuals. This could be explained with similarity theory in the literature which posits that people adore the leaders that are alike and that they share common things. In other words, we tend to like who are similar to us. However, the finding is overt and expected: therefore, to deal in more detail with the results, questionnaire with statistical analyses will be carried out. The categorizations utilized will be replaced with scales in the literature (leader category theories) and the organizational citizenship behavior implications of respondents will be
CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS
4.1. Descriptive Statistical Analyses
Considering the time limitation and scale of the project, the response rate distribution among female and male participants has been almost equal. Over 21 respondents, 11 were female workers while 10 were male workers. So, in terms of the gender distribution impact, there has been no need for adjustment.
The analysis of the tenure aspect yields the result that 45.3 % of the respondents want to work in their organizations between 3-4 years which is followed by 28.6 % of respondents who want to work in their organizations between 5-6 years. While the implications can be countless, the fact that majority of the respondents who hold university degrees prefer to work in their organizations at least for 3 years is quite positive and acceptable in today’s fierce work environment characterized by high turnovers.
4.2. Sampling Design and Sample Size
Due to time and cost limitations, convenience sampling has been chosen. The pitfall of being one of the sub-categories of non-probability sample designs is pursued to be overcome via relatively high number of sample size. Since there is no exact knowledge on the population mean values, a sample size determination based on the population proportions has been performed. With the chosen confidence interval of 95% and the maximum error estimate of 3,5%, a sample size of (n) has been found as 120. Since the exact population parameters are not known, the decision on whether the calculated sample size exceeds the population size or not can no be known, yet based on the trial-based calculations, the potential adjustment resulting for the sample size is in the range of between 1 and 6 less than the actual calculated value. Hence, even if the calculated sample size exceeds the population by 10%, the subsequent adjustment will give at least 143 sample size which, for the purpose of the current study, does not make any significant difference. Hence, the sample size of 149 has been accepted as statistically valid, representative with the desired level of accuracy and estimated maximum error term. [2]
The choice of these different establishments is based on the related work experience of the author of the study hence the feeling of convenience and comfort for both of the parties will be strengthened since the necessary rapport and acquaintance have already been established between the questionnaire administrator and the respondents. The nature of the study is based on the hypothesis testing and represents a cross-sectional structure in terms of the time frame concerned as the questionnaires are administered once for a pre-determined period of time. As the data collection instrument, a questionnaire will be used and the process will be conducted at the chosen universities.
The questionnaires are planned to be administered starting from the 5th of October to the end of 13th of October, 2010 (representing the time frame of the questionnaire administration). The author of the study has personally administered and will continue to do the survey process; hence no problem is expected in terms of the non-clarification of the questions. Each sample establishment is distributed thirty questionnaires which will count to total of one hundred and twenty sample size if the response rate will be at its maximum level. Within each sample establishment, questionnaires were administered at various departments and managerial levels as to have a mixed representation.
For the first question category of the questionnaire, the respondents are asked to rate their perceived leadership attributes with respect to certain leadership attribute categories and the scales used have been adapted from Lord and Mahers in 1993. The second groups of questions are designed to retrieve perceptions of respondents on their degrees of masculinity, feminity and in between the two, androgenity. This famous scale has been adapted from the study of Bern (1974) with which he developed the gender-identity personal attributes scale. In both of these question categories, respondents are asked to rate themselves and their managers on degrees of seven category question scales and to see whether there is match between the gender-identity category and the expected leadership attributes.
4.3. Factor Analyses
In order to test the sampling adequacy of the present study, below Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure has been conducted and the findings show that since the value of the test is above 0,905 for which the adequacy is 0,70. Since Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure tests the partial correlations among variables are small or not, the below substantiation is realized. The result is also significant at 0,000 levels which enable us to proceed on with the analyses
CHAPTER 5
5.1. Research Ethics
Research ethics involves the application of various ethical concerns in a scientific research conduct process. Having the security of actual permission of objectives and interests of all the parties involved and building of trust are among the key dimensions. The misuse of information, privacy and sensitivity issues should also be well taken into consideration. The obligation to protect the rights of people in the study as well as their privacy and sensitivity are among the primary concerns of any research project. The confidentiality of the involved parties must be made sure. The pinpoints of ethical concerns are as in below:
Honesty of researcher, participants, editors and all involved parties
Review process in terms of the quality and originality of the research undertaken
Authorship and referencing to respect the rights of the original authors (Hubert, 2007).
The ethical concerns of the present study include the following dimensions:
Preserving the confidentiality of information shared by the interviewee
Consent of the interviewee to use his shared information
Voluntary participation in the interview and nature of questions that will be directed only to the operational structure the companies chosen and selected
5.2. Limitations of the Study
To measure the satisfaction levels of employees, a previously conducted employee satisfaction survey has been utilized.
Time scale of the study has been limited to one semester which is around four months. In this respect, the changes with respect to organizational structures, the impediments that these changes will bring in the level of subordinate satisfaction might have been ignored.
Due to time limitations, convenience sampling has been utilized to 21.
The questions in the questionnaire have been adapted from the respective studies and for the respondents who do not speak English, the questionnaire had to be translated into Turkish which might have introduced biases in terms of translation issues.
5.3. Methodological Suggestions
The study has been undertaken with a qualitative approach and has focused on surveys that have also been analyzed by content analyses methods. However there have been limitations of many kinds and types: the survey has only been conducted by 21 participants and with one person. To counter such a limitation, therefore, crosschecks and triangulations with other methods should have been well utilized. Also, the analyses could have been cross-checked by the helps of some other inter-raters and independent judges.
There can also be some other measures of analyses besides the SPSS applications. Other qualitative approaches could also been utilized to further on the rationale of the study such as case studies and comparative analyses tools. The regression analyses might have also been biased due to the limited number of samples therefore; conducting the statistical analyses over time with test-re-test approaches could be well suggested.
Besides this, some psychology based tests and tools could have been utilized. This is the area of psychology and therefore, methods such as photo matching, sentence completions and story-telling could be well initiated during the case of methodology designs. These are the methods and tools that are used that much in Turkey and that do not have many implications and suggestive results for further studies therefore.
5.4. Further Managerial Implications
The study has also revealed some further implications on the managerial attributes and aspects: the main implication drawn has been the preeminence of transformational leadership attribute observed among the management students who are on the edge of graduation. Therefore, what I have suggested is that managers should be focused on transformational leadership attributes as in the following:
Be helpful to others not just because the nature of the work requires
Involve in voluntary activities that are beyond the requirements of their job responsibilities and that will be good for the sake of the involved worker
Not allow the small disturbances affect the work environment negatively
Not make issues bigger than they are
Should commit to the requirements of the job which may even fall behind the formal responsibilities of what is required.
本文编号：19288
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/waiyulunwen/yingyulunwen/19288.html
