Evaluation of Methods and Methodologies - Essay Example

Evaluation of Methods and Methodologies Introduction In any scientific field there are certain methods and methodologies which have to be used to establish the validity of a hypothesis. In certain sciences like physics or chemistry where controlled environments can be created and materials for use are relatively easy to obtain, experimentation often takes precedence over other methods of research. However, when we discuss the more humane sciences like sociology, psychology, management or any other science which involves human being interacting with one another, it is difficult to use experimentation techniques to test hypotheses. In such situations, case studies, surveys, interviews and observation methods of research are often far more useful. Even amongst the variety of methods which are available to a researcher, a careful selection has to be made as to the appropriateness and the validity of a research method before it is used to test a hypothesis. Even then, questions can be generated regarding the study and several different studies using a multitude of methods may need to be applied before a relatively firm conclusion can be made regarding a topic. Methods and Philosophies Bullying is one topic which one would think is confined to the school yard and not seen in the corporate world however, as the research shows, it is very much present. Before we discuss the methods used by various researchers it is important to understand the various approaches that can be used for management related research and the underlying philosophies associated with their natures. In terms of the research on this topic, two main philosophies can be observed i.e. Positivist and Interpretivist. Positivist Philosophy The basic premise of the positivist philosophy is that there is an objective truth which can be completely understood from the elements which surround us in any given problem. This revelation can only come when we apply the scientific method to judge and evaluate relationships between sets of variables using systematic and statistically sound approaches. The approach itself has to be empirical and grounded in scientific principles for accurate measurement of both obvious and hidden relationships. Since a large part of the Positivist approach concerns itself with the measurement and comparisons between different relationships, the main focus of the approach and the research methods is on quantification. For instance, to study the case of bullying in the workplace, the researchers could look at the intensity of bullying and assign it numerical values, they can assess the number of times an employee felt bullied and try to point towards the source of these feelings as well. Compared to other approaches, the nature of the approach makes it intrinsically useful to management research where the detection of causes, reliability of information, and replication of research are all extremely important considerations. The overall assumption made by researchers in this mode of operation is that management and the processes of management are activities which are scientific, non-value based and rational. Being a scientific, measurement and quantification approach, the researcher using the positivist philosophy has to keep him/herself separated from the topic being researched. The involvement of the scientist can not be interventionist and they should not make any value based judgements about the situation or the conditions they are measuring. This approach by its nature tends to be deductive since the researcher will find it easier to create and have a hypothesis and then test it with measurement, observation or surveys. Interpretive Philosophy On the other hand, the interpretivist viewpoint asks the researcher to be a part of the study being conducted which means that the biases of the researcher will be a part of the study. In the case of a study on bullying, research may be focused on the symbolic interactions between power relationships, hermeneutics, or the context of the conflict between personalities. The philosophy holds that there is no discernable objective reality rather there are versions of reality created by individuals as it suits them. The central aim of this research is to therefore understand how these realties are constructed and how people make sense of what is happening around them. In this context, research conducted on management topics seeks to interview and understand the people involved. Management itself is viewed as a process of negotiation where conflicting personalities are brought together for the common purposes of business. The philosophy itself leans towards being inductive since only after viewing the management world and being a participant could a researcher create an applicable theory. Deductive and Inductive Methods There are stark differences between deductive and inductive methods for management research and the first difference comes from the fact that deductive methods follow the same principles which are outlined for research in the natural sciences. Inductive methods seek to report, analyse and make judgements from personal accounts given by participants in the management process. Inductive methods can be said to be more intense for the researcher since the researcher is expected to be a part of the study. Deductive methodologies would look at how to test a given hypothesis and seek other research which has been done in the past for standards of testing. Quantification of variables is one of the most important aspects for a deductive outlook and the focus is always on numbers, values and statistical calculations leading towards results. Inductive methods on the other hand, seek to find theories which can be applied in other management situations. The topic of bullying appears to use both methods and it seems as if it is the personal preference of a researcher to go towards positivist deductive methods or to go towards Interpretive inductive methods. Undoubtedly, value and understanding can be gained from both sorts of studies and while the positivist approach helps in understanding the level, quantity and intensity of bullying, the interpretive approach lets us know the why and the how. Research Strategies and Examples of Methods There are several strategies which can be used for management research and one may be more appropriate than the other depending on the philosophical viewpoint taken by the researchers. A quantitative analysis would be helped by using surveys and questionnaires to evaluate the level of bullying and to calculate the negative effects of workplace bullying. A qualitative analysis could be done to show that workplace bullying is only effective when the manager employing bullying is charismatic and knows how to use bullying tactics to get positive results for the company. In fact, the research material used for this paper shows that there are several different approaches which can be taken to study the phenomenon of workplace bullying. Kramer (2006) prefers to give examples of great leaders and managers who intimidated and bullied their subordinates into performing to acceptable levels and how their management style affected those working with them. The article presents a detailed look at how bullies functions as bosses yet it does not use any surveys or questionnaires. It begins with a discussion of emotional intelligence as well as social intelligence and shows how leaders can use intimidation along with emotional/social intelligence to get results. However, it does not seek out to measure the social intelligence of the CEOs under discussion rather a high level of intelligence is assumed. The article also gives reports from various people who have worked with these executives and shares their experiences in how these CEOs came across as bullies to their subordinates. Some of the important examples of bullies in the workplace include the situation at Motorola with CEO Ed Zander and Miramax Studios. While examples of the bullying practices of these individuals are given in detail the reader is expected to take the word of the writer when he says: “Zander and Weinstein are examples of what I call great intimidators. They are not averse to causing a ruckus, nor are they above using a few public whippings and ceremonial hangings to get attention. And theyre in good company. A list of great intimidators would read a bit like a business leadership hall of fame: Sandy Weill, Rupert Murdoch, Andy Grove, Carly Fiorina, Larry Ellison, and Steve Jobs would be just a few of the names on it (Kramer, 2006, Pg. 89)”. Strangely enough, there is no further evidence given as to why Andy Grove or Sandy Weill can be seen as bullies. Clearly, this can not be seen as a positivist deductive viewpoint. Additionally, the writer makes several assumptions like bullying is motivated by ego and bosses who use intimidation are trying to impart their vision to the employees. The article further talks about a positive use of bullying where the politically intelligent leader gains insights into organizational behaviour and human motivation. That leader can then use his/her innate or acquired skills which are necessary to bring about a change in the company that overrides any potential resistance. Politically intelligent leaders are said to use the emotions of fear and anxiety and motivate people to consider their value to the company or views on an issue of importance. The evidence presented in the material is anecdotal and focuses on the relationships as well as the interactions individuals have had with CEOs who used bullying tactics. It seems as if the article is more of a story about these characters involved rather than how their bullying affected the people around them or why bullying takes place in the office environment at all. Overall, this article seems to be for an entirely different audience as compared to those which might read the study produced by Einarsen et. al. (1994). The study made by Einarsen et. al. (1994) can certainly be called a positivist deductive analysis since their aim was to measure the relationship between organizational conditions and the occurrence of bullying. They are very clear when it comes to definitions and declaring their research methods as compared to Kramer (2006). Instead of looking at just two examples, Einarsen et. al. look at survey results of more than two thousand individuals from six different labour unions. The results complied by them show that workplace bullying is directly related to the state of the work environment. It important to note that throughout the study the writes continue to cite examples, results and conclusions drawn by other researchers in the field. This certainly improves the validity of the study and increases its value in academic terms. On the other hand Kramer (2006) does not cite too many sources and instead provides interview comments from different people who worked with CEOs employing bullying tactics. While this makes Kramer’s study more readable and enjoyable than the one undertaken by Einarsen et. al., it does little to add to the value of the study itself. The same can be said about the report given by Professional Engineering (2005) where the editors cite the survey conducted by Chartered Management Institute (CMI) and say that bullying is on the rise but do not support their statement or the survey conducted by CMI with additional outside sources. The same can be said for the report made by Management Services (2005) which also discusses only one research study. While their approach is similar to Einarsen et. al., they do not go into the depths undertaken by Einarsen et. al. At the same time, these articles do not provide the personal touch which is given by Kramer (2006). Leymann (1996) creates a paper which combines both the approaches since he begins his discussion with a case study and provides historical background notes which brings readers up to speed on the topic. Not only are the reasons for bullying like behaviour given, the paper also cites the medical and psychological stresses associated with the behaviour. Instead of depersonalised surveys and questionnaires, Leymann uses more than eight hundred case studies to judge the effects of bullying on the employee. At the end of the paper, Leymann gives reasons for why bullying takes place at all and concludes with means and ways to prevent the occurrence of bullying. Conclusions It seems clear that there is no one specific way to approach a topic for research in management studies. A variety of different viewpoints must be studied before a decision can be made and it is important to undertake both positivist and interpretive studies which can show where a company should stand on a particular issue. For example, before undertaking this research study, I held the opinion that there is no possible situation in which bullying could work in improving the situation of a company. However, after reading the article presented by Kramer (2006) it seems that there are scenarios where bullying actually helps the company and motivates employees into outperforming the competition as well as themselves. Additionally, while conducting any research, experiment, or evaluation of a hypothesis, the historical background and earlier research done into the topic can be of great value. This can be realised from the excellent method used by Einarsen et. al. to discuss and present the research of earlier scientists who have worked on the same subject and have added to our body of knowledge. It is certainly a valuable resource for any researcher or student of management and the continued use of studying earlier research has the benefit of showing the path taken by other scientist as well as giving guidance for further research. Between the two central approaches, if I had to select one for management studies, I would prefer to go with the positivist approach. This is because I believe that the management sciences can be studied in ways which are similar to natural sciences and quantitative measurement of various variables involved in any situation can give clear action points for a scientific managers. Without these measurements a manager would have to deal with approximations and opinions which may not be the best basis for the foundation of a science. Finally, I believe that knowing and understanding research philosophies, methods and techniques becomes vital in an age where the internet provides us with volumes of information on a daily basis. If we can understand how the information was generated in the first place, it can make it easier for us to digest and use the information in a meaningful manner. Without knowing the background of how the information was created, we might be led into trusting different sources without questioning their validity or applicability. Works Cited Einarsen, S. et. al. 1994, ‘Bullying and Harassment at Work and Their Relationships to Work Environment Quality: An Exploratory Study’, European Work & Organizational Psychologist, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 381-402. Kramer, R. 2006, ‘The Great Intimidators’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 88-96. Leymann, H. 1996, ‘The Content and Development of Mobbing at Work’, European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 165-185. Management Services. 2005, ‘Bullying amongst managers rockets as organisations fail to take action’, Management Services, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 12-13. Professional Engineering. 2005, ‘One manager in three has been bullied at work, survey reveals’, Professional Engineering, vol. 18, no. 17, pp. 9-10. Word Count: 2,503 Read More