A Comparison of Empirical Articles on Leadership - Research Proposal Example

A Comparison of Empirical Articles on Leadership A Comparison of Empirical Articles on Leadership Introduction The first article is titled ‘The effect of personality traits on leadership behaviors: a research on the students of business administration department’ and is written by Agah Sinan Unsar and Serol Karalar. Michael Onorato is the author of the second article that is on “transformational leadership style in the education sector: an empirical study of corporate managers and educational leaders.” “Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire” is the title of the third article. This third article is authored by Bruce J. Avolio, Bernard M. Bass and Dong I. Jung. The first article sought to evaluate the impact of personal traits on the choice of individuals to join either business administration departments or economic and administrative science faculty. The study further sought to assess whether the type of institution is an indicator of students’ personality traits and leadership behaviors. The study investigated how students’ personalities and leadership predispositions are affected by factors such as high school background, parental level of education, total family income and the environments in which people grow (Unsar & Karalar, 2013). Onorato’s study is similar to Unsar and Karalar’s in the sense that both are enquiries in the scope of education. However, whereas Unsar and Karalar studied students, Onorato studied educational leaders. Onorato sought to study the managerial leadership role of contemporary educational leaders. Unlike the first two, Avolio et al sought to check whether Bass’ multifactor model of leadership works but in general usage and not in education only. A unique contribution of Unsar and Karalar’s study is that it examined the link between styles of leadership and sub-dimensions personalities. The importance of Onorator’s study lies in its promise of establishing which style among transformational, transactional and passive leadership is commonly used. Avolio et al claim that the importance of their study is to provide sufficient proof of whether Bass’ multifactor model of leadership works or not. Their study was also important because it could help revise Bass’ model in order to enhance its stability and replicability (Dragoni et. al., 2009). Research questions Unsar and Karalar do not identify their research question but the study’s objective and title infers the following question. What are the effects of personality traits on leadership behavior of students who study in business administration departments of the Trakya University Vocational School of Social Sciences and the faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences? Quantitative research method’s survey design was used in implementing the study. This involved use of questionnaires to collect data on leadership styles and personality traits, a scope that relates to existing data in their natural form. The authors are silent on their applied sampling strategy but 197 research participants were used and data was analyzed using SPSS software for descriptive and inferential statistics (Unsar & Karalar, 2013). Onorato and Westbury also failed to state their research question but their core objective into the study offers a basis for inferring a research question. The following is the formulated research question for the study. What are the managerial leadership roles of the contemporary educational leader? Analysis of the research question, with respect to the formulated research question for the the study by Unsar and Karalar, identifies both similarities and differences. Target subject is one of the differences in the research questions as Unsar and Karalar targeted students while Onorato and Westbuty targeted managerial leaders in academic institutions. Unsar and Karalar are further general on their leadership variable while Onorato and Westbuty are specific to transformational leadership, though they collected data on other leadership styles. The articles however both relate to leadership traits within academic institutions. Onorato and Westbuty used survey design in their study and like Unsar and Karalar, they used questionnaires to collect data. They used existing questionnaires, an approach that communicates validity of the instruments because it has been tested and applied for the same type of study. The authors used random sampling strategy for sample selection and outlined their research procedure for easy replication. They however fail to clarify whether the sampling approach was stratifies or just simple but the scope of the study, identifying three categories of participants by type of school, suggest stratified random sampling. Like in the other two studies, Avolio and Bass do not state their research questions. Their title, research objectives and results however suggests the following research questions. What are the aspects of transformational and transactional leadership styles? Is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire effective in serving its purpose? The questions focus on leadership styles as one of its themes, identifying similarity with the other two studies, but are not restricted to educational set up. The study’s method, having implemented survey design, is consistent with that of the two studies. It is however not explicit on its sampling strategy and its research procedures. Sample populations Unsar and Karalar drew their sample from the student population of the department of Business Administration of Trakya University Vocational School of Social Sciences and Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences. The sample size of one hundred and ninety seven students was a good number because it could help the researchers capture the things they sought to investigate. In regards to family income, the sample was fairly representative. The researchers were apt in their specification of places from where respondents grew up. Metropolis areas contributed the highest number of respondents (fifty eight respondents) while township areas contributed the least number of respondents (fourteen). Respondents’ high school background was well captured with the majority having attended vocational high school (88). Teacher high school recorded the least attendance with twelve respondents only (Unsar & Karalar, 2013). Onorato used New York principals as his population from which he drew a sample of forty five principals. There were twenty four females and twenty one males and therefore gender was equitably represented in the sample. Ethnically, the sample may not have been representative because it had thirty nine Caucasian respondents, four African Americans and the other two came from other unspecified ethnicities. Elementary schools contributed the majority of respondents (twenty) and middle or junior high school provided the fourteen only and as such, the sample was fairly representative in regards to type of institution. Onorato picked the members of his sample equitably from suburban and urban locations. The sample had representatives from different levels of education with doctoral degree holders and other unspecified levels registering the fewest number of respondents. Principals with master’s degrees were the majority in the sample accounting for 48.9 % of the sample (Dragoni et. al., 2009). Avolio et al used the largest sample as compared to the other two groups of researchers. Their total sample was composed of three thousand, seven hundred and eighty six respondents. These respondents were from two sets of samples the initial one having nine samples and the second one having five samples. The size and diversity of the total sample was sufficient for drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Middle-level managers of different business firms in the United States were the members of three of the nine initial samples. Workers of North Sea oil platforms were the members of one of the nine initial samples. Of the remaining five initial samples, one sample comprised of individuals working in a nursing school. A government research agency contributed the members of one of the three initial samples. Members of the three remaining samples were from the US Army. The remaining two samples were composed of undergraduates rating the superiors of the different places of work. The second set of samples was composed of five samples two of which were composed of individuals working in business firms in the US. A fire department provided the members of one of the three remaining samples. Out of the two remaining samples, one was composed of individuals from a political organization and the other one drew its membership from a not-for-profit agency (Avolio et. al., 1999). Results Unsar and Karalar established a significant difference between the gender of students and their leadership predispositions. Their study found that extraversion is more prevalent among female students than in male students. An outcome of their study showed that while males tend to use autocratic leadership and females tend to use a laissez-faire leadership. Unsar and Karalar assert that there is a causal relationship between masculinity and autocratic leadership. A finding of their study showed that the type of school is an important factor in students’ leadership behaviors. This originated from the observation that students form Vocational School are less responsible, open to experience and extraverted than their counterparts from the Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences (Unsar & Karalar, 2013). Students from Vocational School favor laissez-faire leadership less compared to those from the Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences. Unsar and Karalar found that education level is a determinant of students’ personality traits and favored leadership style in students from the Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences. Family income influences the personality of students and their leadership behaviors. Middle income (1000 – 1999 TL) has the most significant impact on the personality of students and their leadership behaviors. The place in which students grow up has a significant impact on their personality and leadership behaviors. Town settings have the most profound impacts on students’ personality and leadership behaviors (Unsar & Karalar, 2013). Democratic leadership is most prevalent among students from towns than among students brought up in other places. Father’s level of education affects students’ personality and leadership behaviors. Students who favor laissez-faire leadership behaviors are largely those whose fathers are university degree holders. Mothers with primary and secondary school level of education are likely to produce students who are open to experience. Students’ high school background influences their personality and openness to experience. Many students believe that leadership is inborn and not learned. More than half of the respondents reported that they believed education is a prerequisite for leadership. Extraverted and responsible students tend to favor democratic leadership (Dragoni et. al., 2009). Onorato found that most principals (31) favor transformational leadership. Transactional leadership is the second most preferred leadership style with passive avoidance being the least preferred. Avolio et al found that the six factor model recorded a poor fit due to the factors of transformational leadership association with conditional reward leadership. In the modification of the survey instrument reduces the factors that needed in the use of the Modification Indices. Modified Indices is an effective tool of reducing unnecessary factors from the multifactor leadership questionnaire 5X survey and enhancing it. Avolio et al found that GFI and TLI are better alternatives to chi square. The six factor of the MLQ survey reported fair reliabilities for most scales save for Active Management-by-Exception. There was a weak correlation between transformational leadership and contingent reward scale (Onorato, 2013). Avolio et al asserted that there are factor that underlie high correlation among scales when there is an adequate fit in a model and there is no discriminant validity. It was found that a model that incorporates transformational, developmental and passive corrective leadership has high discriminant validity. Conclusion A limitation with Unsar and Karalar’s study is that it studied one department only and it is not necessarily true that the findings of this study can be generalized to other departments. Unsar and Karalar claim that there is a possibility of comparing the effect of personality traits on leadership behaviors in students from different departments and even establish trends and patterns. A limitation with Onorato’s study is that it did not consider the differences in performance that result from leadership attributes in both the educational and private sectors. Avolio et al study is limited by the lack of a clear distinction of the disparate components of transformational leadership. Survey might also not have captured all important aspects of transformational leadership (Avolio et. al., 1999). Based on Unsar and Karalar’s findings, leadership styles and extraversion differs with gender. High school background affects individuals’ personality. Parental level of education and places from where individuals grow up are important considerations in preference for different leadership styles. Existing recruitment practices and team development mechanisms should be expanded to include personality tests. Onorato has provided proof that teachers need to be taught the basics of management. This should help equip teachers with the knowledge of personnel performance assessment, recruitment, hiring and using data in management. There is a need to have mechanisms that can help put into practice the plans set out to help raise educational awareness of the public while factoring in student performance. Transformational leadership is effective and can help leaders boost the performance of their employees. Transformational leaders challenge the status quo and can realize their results effectively. The effectiveness of transformational leadership is based on the quality of collaboration between leaders and their followers (Onorato, 2013). Avolio et al suggest that there is a need for researchers to try using methodologies including interviews and observation in confirming survey evaluations of leaders. The use of many methods serves to help distinguish between different leadership factors. Evaluation, assessment and training are some practices that can benefit from the outcomes of such endeavor. Distinguishing between transactional and transformational leadership would also achieve the same end (Dragoni et. al., 2009). Proposal Research has shown that a combination of leader traits and behaviors is important to the effectiveness of leadership. Leader behavior has more profound impact on the effectiveness of leadership than leader traits. I propose an enquiry into the possibility of an integrative model in which leader behaviors adjudicates effectiveness of leadership and the leader traits. This enquiry should consider the effectiveness of leadership on the basis of content, analysis and evaluation. Content in relation to the effectiveness of leadership should touch on relational and task components. Analysis of the effectiveness of leadership can come at different levels including organizational, group, dyadic or individual. Evaluation of the effectiveness of leadership should establish whether it is the leader is the target of the evaluation or the target of study is another element. Generally, this enquiry can consider the effectiveness of leadership based on a number of criteria including the job satisfaction of the follower, the follower’s satisfaction with the leader, group performance, and an individual leader’s effectiveness (Onorato, 2013). The study should consider leader traits on categories including demographics, the relationship between the trait and task competence and interpersonal properties. Leader behaviors cut across change, relational dynamics and task processes. Leader behaviors including transactional leadership and transformational leadership serve right in the endeavor to develop an integrative model. This enquiry should regard both the predictive and the relative validities of leader traits and leader behavior. The success of this study should lead to the development of an integrative model that would help define the reciprocal supplementary and complementary relationship between leader behaviors and leader traits (Avolio et. al., 1999). References Avolio, Bruce J., Bass, Bernard, M. & Jung, Dong I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72: 441 – 462. Dragoni, L., Tesluk, P. E., Russell, J. E. A., & Oh, I. S. (2009). Understanding Managerial Development: Integrating Developmental Assignments, Learning Orientation, and Access to Developmental Opportunities in Predicting Managerial Competencies. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 731 - 743. Onorato, Michael. (2013). Transformational leadership style in the educational sector: An empirical study of corporate managers and educational leaders. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal,17(1): 33 – 47. Unsar, Agah Sinan & Karalar, Serol. (2013). The effects of personality traits on leadership behaviors: A research on the students of business administration department. Economic Review – Journal of Economics and Business, 9(2): 45 – 56. Read More