An Analysis of The Research Approaches Taken by The Authors
Introduction
In the business discussion of leadership, there exists little congruence on the characteristics of a leader (Hersey, Blanchard & Johnson, 2007). The description of leadership, however, can not be attributed to business roots. While it seems hindsight mundanely to base the effectiveness of an organizational leadership based on the accomplishments made, making determinations on whether or not such leadership will be effective before their ascension to leadership stardom is insurmountable. The description of the roles of leadership is extensive in literature, more so in helping, organizations determine the right people assume these roles. Then Aithal and Kumar, (2016a) in their study approach extensively explain five main approaches to help organizations understand leadership, including the traits approach, the situational approach, the functional approach, the relational approach, and the transformational approach.
Brown (2011) postulates that the Trait Approach to leadership exposits on a series of personality, mental, and physical traits possessed by effective leaders. It ranks both as the earliest and one of the primarily predominant approaches to management. Leadership approaches using this style is extensively described using terms such as social influence, ability, and intelligence, task-related, personality, physical and social background.
The literature approaches leaderships then coined the Situational Approach to leadership which theorizes effective leaders on a contingent variety of situational factors (such as follower commitment/motivation, task to be achieved, relationships between the followers and the leader) (Hersey, 1984). Aithal and Kumar, (2016a) among other leadership theorists’ literature extensively use this approach, more so in their description being a relationship or task oriented. Whereas task-oriented leaderships have tendencies to focus on accomplishing tasks and achieving organizational objectives (Brown, 2011) leadership that is a relationship-oriented focus on the creation of positive interactions with the workforce based on mutual respect, confidence and trust (Vroom & Jago, 2007).
While the Situational and Trait Approaches to leadership focus on the primary outcomes of characteristic the help create the leadership concepts, the Functional Approach to Leadership postulates that leadership are not a series of leader characteristics, but rather leaders are persons who communicate like, acts like and looks like a leader (Morgeson et al., 2010). Under this approach, the three basic functions of leadership are the Formulation of an organization’s objectives and purposes, establishment and maintenance of a communication system and securing essential services form the workforce. The Relational Approach to leadership neither tools its focus on the functions, characteristics, and traits of followers nor their leadership, but rather on the relationships that develop between these leaders and the workforces they lead (Uhl-Bien, 2006). A Managerial Grid is used in ranking how they focus on both tasks and relationships. The five types of management under this approach are middle of the road, authority compliance, impoverished, team, and country club.
The Transformational Approach to leadership is popularized by the researchers, more so as it exposits on the two sides of leadership: transformational and transactional (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). A transactional approach to leadership focuses on the myriad of exchanges that between a leader and the followers – it popularizes pay raises and promotions to workforces meeting or exceeding an organization’s goals (Shin & Zhou, 2003). Transformational leadership foster engagements that promote connections which raise the leader’s and follower’s levels of morality (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). It exceeds the mere reward of employees who exceed organizational exceptions. The three major factors of this approach include inspirational and charismatic leadership, individual consideration and intellectual stimulation (Shin & Zhou, 2003).
The Extent to Which the Researchers Followed the Research Lifecycle
Research methods allow for an organized and systematic way of approaching research questions. Where there exist no singular official research methods, the steps of each research methods usually continuously blend. The outline presented is a description of the research steps followed by the researchers. The research problems were clearly stated and specified based on initial observations. Precisely stating the research problem allowed for the eventuality of the theoretical exposition. The researchers then further collected and analyzed available information on the study question. The stated hypothesis was good as they related to and explained known facts. The hypotheses were stated in such a way that they would be tested by either further observation or by experimentation thus allowing the reader to determin one its falsifiability. The researchers gathered observations, analyzed them and drew conclusions based on hypothesis developed.
An Alternative Approach, How It Supplements or Extends the Literature Presented and What Could Go Wrong
While management and organization researchers continue to emphasize on the development and testing of theories on these topics with little due concern for the impacts of these theories on management practice, there has risen a new voice for concern on the relevance of their research (Mohrman & Lawler, 2011). As the area continues to experience an expansion in literature rapidly, there tandemly continues to be an increase in the number of voices advocating for change. These voices of change have continued highlighting the numerous apparent rationales for closing the existent gaps between research and practice, including pragmatic and instrumental arguments, epistemological and methodological arguments and values-based positions (Hersey et al. 2007). While these rationales cannot be termed mutually exclusive, each offers different windows on the reasons and methods to seek relevance and make differences in organizational practice, more so dependent on how researchers position their work in the broader landscape of knowledge generators.
One of these approaches is the continuously expanding Systems Approach defining effective management in the wider contexts of the external and internal organization’s environment (Aithal & Kumar, 2016a). The approach serves as supplementation, and an extension of the leadership approaches described in the papers presented as it seeks to view an organization as a symbiotic entity where leaders have to deal with both external and internal aspects that affect organizational behavior (Mohrmam & Lawler, 2011). Maintaining a balance between the human and nonhuman inputs that an organization depends on allows for effective leadership. The perspectives of generating actionable knowledge on complex phenomena prerequisites the combinations of various knowledge sources form varying societies rather than linearly informing practice by a set of research recommendations. Efforts to understand phenomena not be fruitful if knowledge perspectives continue to remain narrow, limited and partial within the frameworks in which it operates.
Evaluation of A Management Theory Picked Based on The Bacharach’s Critical Evaluation Scheme
The Theory of Accountability (A) on organizational performance by Aithal and Kumar, (2016a) seeks to challenge the present propositions on how the workforce is motivated to behave. The theory is premised on today’s world employee mindset that has greatly changed due to technological advancements, improved means production means, societal and customer perceptions, relations to production and their individualistic expectations. Quests for organizational creativity propels employees to draw upon their positive energies from their innate potential and models of tuned best performance around these workforces through the exploration of themselves (St. John, 2013). Management approaches based on this theory hold beliefs in target delivery as feelings of creativity, responsibilities, and contributions to motivations and the identifications to organizational accountability and commitment – all the hallmarks of efficiency. Then, the ABCD analyzing technique developed refers to examining a system, model, or concept through focusing on its advantages, benefits, constraints, disadvantages by narrowing to determinant factors, key factors, and critical constituent element (Aithal & Kumar, 2016a). Determinant factors form the overall frame of reference while key factors represent the dimensions on which its advantages, benefits, constraints, and disadvantages are reflected.
Theory A explains the processes by which an organization’s, managerial leadership accomplishes tasks through eight steps of employee influencing. According to Bacharach, (1989) criteria, the theory delineates its theoretical boundaries and explains the assumptions (time, values and scope) that bound the theory. The theory specifies distinctions between hypotheses and proposition, outlines the relationships implied by them and ensures a common language of a common language of constructs and variables across its levels. Thus, the theory, on analysis, meets the theoretical criteria postulated by Bacharach.
Usefulness: the failure of theorists to not seriously consider rules on the formulation of theories they on eventually end up clinging to theories like cultists. Going over such clinging behaviors, which undeniably tend to drive research theorists from fad to foible, prerequisites for a precise discourse, one that allows the theorists to focus on the specific strengths and weaknesses of particular theories. If nothing else, Bacharach’s criteria enhance the accuracy of discourses on theory evaluation.
References
Aithal, P. S., & Kumar, P. M. (2016a). Organizational Behavior in 21st Century–’Theory A’ for Managing People for Performance. Srinivas Institute of Management Studies, Pandeshwar, Mangalore, INDIA
Aithal, P. S., & Kumar, P. M. (2016b). CCE Approach through ABCD Analysis of ‘Theory A’ on Organizational Performance. International Journal of Current Research and Modern Education (IJCRME), 1(2), 2455 – 5428.
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of management review, 14(4), 496-515.
Brown, K. G. (2011). Trait approach to leadership. Psychology, 37, 651-665.
Hersey, P. (1984). The situational leader. Center for Leadership Studies.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2007). Management of organizational behavior (Vol. 9). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). Transformational leadership. The essentials of school leadership, 31-43.
Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler, E. E. (2011). Useful research: Advancing theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of management, 36(1), 5-39.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 703-714.
St John, E. P. (2013). Research, actionable knowledge and social change: Reclaiming social responsibility through research partnerships. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus.
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The leadership quarterly, 17(6), 654-676.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 17.