blackhippychick

Capella Just Gave me a 78 for this

In politics on July 29, 2015 at 11:55 am
Olivia Walker
Critical Thinking in Practice – Olivia Walker

Article Analysis

Skogstad, A., Aasland, M. S., Nielsen, M. B., Hetland, J., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2014). The relative effects of constructive, laissez-faire, and tyrannical leadership on subordinate job satisfaction: Results from two prospective and representative studies. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 222(4), 221–232. http://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000189

Hypothesis

Constructive and Destructive leadership behavior towards subordinates can predict job satisfaction. While the effects of constructive and destructive leadership styles are usually investigated separately. They are rarely investigated together.  Constructive leaders empower subordinates and provide clear expectations.  Studies show constructive forms of leadership such as consideration and transformational leadership strongly correlate with job satisfaction. Destructive forms of leadership are defined as either tyrannical of laissez faire.  Tyrannical leadership is bullying and abusive and results in negative emotions from subordinates. Laissez Faire leadership is when a leader refuses to lead and can result in reduced work effort and withdrawal by employees.  It has been documented that laissez faire leadership can also result in the negative wellbeing of subordinates.

There have only been two longitudinal studies examining leader behavior. The authors’ longitudinal sample will predict whether and to what extent leadership behaviors can predict the job satisfaction of subordinates.

Previous research has shown stronger relationships between constructive leadership and job satisfaction.  This is contradictory to Baumeister’s prediction that “bad is stronger than good”.  Longitudinal studies will determine whether constructive or destructive leadership has a stronger impact on job satisfaction.

Method

The authors’ used two samples to evaluate their hypothesis. The first sample was predominately male between the ages of 18-63 with an average age of 45 and conducted in Norway.  The random sample of offshore workers were mailed a questionnaire, and six months later a random sample of offshore workers were mailed another questionnaire. The second sample consisted of a random sample of 4500 Norwegian employees who were mailed a questionnaire. A questionnaire was mailed two years apart. Women made up over half of the sample with an average age of 43.79 and aged between 19-66.

Established scales measured constructive and destructive leadership. Several different models were used in statistical analysis.

Conclusion

Investigating destructive and constructive leadership over time yields different correlations than investigating them separately. Separately, constructively leadership has a stronger impact on worker satisfaction but when examined together destructive leadership has a stronger impact on worker satisfaction.

Analysis

    Do you think the author made his or her point in a compelling way?

A good theory is coherent, parsimonious, and falsifiable (Fiske, 2009).  The author’s theory is coherent.  All parts of the theory agree with each other (Fiske).   It is true and makes sense that other writers have written that constructive leadership correlates with worker satisfaction.  It is true and makes sense that destructive forms of leadership correlate with worker dissatisfaction. Therefore, it makes sense to research together what has the stronger impact on worker satisfaction destructive leadership behavior or constructive leadership behavior. Parsimony is defined as explaining something simply. The theory is explained simply and concisely. Finally, the data must be falsifiable.  The data is falsifiable it can be written that longitudinal data suggests that destructive leadership styles result in worker satisfaction and constructive leadership styles result in worker dissatisfaction.

Fiske (2009) states all researchers must establish a research strategy. The authors’’ use a correlational research strategy.  The authors’ investigate how constructive and destructive leadership behavior affects worker satisfaction. This is correlational.

Did you identify any problems with the methodology for any research described?

The methodology was thorough.  The scales that were used to measure attitudes were respected scales designed to measure the variables. It is important for statistical techniques to be adjusted to make up for differences in information (Ruscio, 2006). This was done to examine research that were not longitudinal and did not measure destructive and constructive leadership at the same time. A cross sectional model was used to adjust leadership dimensions using regression techniques. Cross lagged models were also used as regression techniques.

Can the findings be generalized to the general population?

Based on common sense the findings can be generalized to the general working population however the survey examines Norwegian workers so while the research is a start in analyzing the general working population, a more reliable sample might be cross cultural or confined to workers in the country for which leadership styles will be used.

Are the conclusions drawn in the discussion section based on the findings reported in the results section, or are they based on something else?

The conclusions in the discussion section are based upon the findings in the results section, additional information, and the initial research in the introduction. In sample one, the results were constructive leadership correlated with positive job satisfaction; and destructive leadership resulted in negative job satisfaction.  Tyrannical leadership was the only predictor for future job satisfaction.  In sample 2 the findings supported the findings in the discussion based on standard data, however when it was adjusted constructive and tyrannical leadership indicated job satisfaction but not laissez faire leadership.  When using cross lagged models of the data laissez faire leadership was the sole predictor of job satisfaction.  This data is discussed and highlighted in the discussion section but also interpreted with information that was used in the introduction with added information.

Do you see any errors in the article, or anything with which you disagree?

No, I agree with the article.

Does the article leave you with any unanswered questions?

Is Laissez Faire leadership desirable until it results in what apathetic leadership results in nonproductive behavior and outcomes?

References

Fiske, S. T. (2009). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology. John Wiley & Sons.

Ruscio, J. (2006). Critical Thinking in Psychology: Separating Sense from Nonsense. Thomson/Wadsworth. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=NjgOPwAACAAJ

Skogstad, A., Aasland, M. S., Nielsen, M. B., Hetland, J., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2014). The relative effects of constructive, laissez-faire, and tyrannical leadership on subordinate job satisfaction: Results from two prospective and representative studies. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 222(4), 221–232. http://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000189

Problem Statement

In politics on July 23, 2015 at 10:22 am

Problem Statement

In 1948, Lester Guest (1948) wrote the following:
If psychologists are to attain dignity and respect in the eyes of the general public in order to fulfill
Their objectives and obligations, it is mandatory that they first find out what people know about
them, what attitudes about psychologists exist, and the sources of information that lead to these
attitudes and ideas.

Years later the I/O psychology field that provides personal and executive coaching faces challenges from
the business community that reflect the feelings of the quote above. There is a problem in the Industrial
Organizational Psychology field. Despite the fact that Industrial Organizational Psychologists are trained
to deal with work and organizational issues and cannot diagnose mental illness in the work place
(Spector, 2008), they are being viewed that way. This prevents them from being the logical choice for
coaching psychology in the workplace. Psychologists are unwelcome in organizations as coaches because
organizations believe they will diagnose mental illnesses while coaching their employees (Joo, 2005).
Individuals who are clinical psychologists and coaches have admitted that they think that they are better
coaches because they can diagnose mental illnesses (Hart, Blattner, & Leipsic, 2001). Some researchers
believe psychological practices are needed in coaching but do not believe psychologists are needed to use
them (Feldman & Lankau, 2005). In 1989 it was written the perception of psychologists has been an APA
concern for decades (Hartnett, Simonetta, & Mahoney, 1989). In the year 2015, these perceptions are still
affecting the ability of I/O psychologists to act as Coaching Psychologists.
This problem negatively affects coachees. Research has shown that individuals with a psychology
background are more effective at generating positive outcomes for coachees during executive coaching
(Bozer, Sarros, & Santora, 2014). Unqualified individuals as coaches can actually harm coachees (Palmer
& Whybrow, 2005).

A barrier that may prevent I/O psychologists from being welcome in organizations as coaches is a
perception among organizations and individuals that I/O psychologists as coaching psychologists
diagnose individuals. If organizations and individuals were familiar with I/O psychology and that they
cannot diagnose mental illnesses, they would not hold negative attitudes towards coaching psychologists
in the I/O field.
Current knowledge is incomplete as to whether most organizations and individuals are familiar with the
work and purposes of I/O psychologists. A search of perceptions of I/O psychologists, attitudes towards
I/O psychologists, and understanding of I/O psychology of EBSCO, Business Source Complete, Google
Scholar, and ABI inforum yielded no results of prior research into the area. In addition, a search of
perceptions of psychologists, attitudes towards psychologists, and public attitudes towards psychologists,
yielded less than five articles on the subject spread over 69 years. The oldest of the articles was the most
relevant to this study (Guest, 1948). However, all of the individuals surveyed would have to be over 89.
A research study that examines how I/O psychologists can differentiate themselves from clinical
psychologists through qualitative and quantitative research with directed action to change perceptions will
solve the problem.

References

Bozer, G., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2014). Academic background and credibility in executive
coaching effectiveness. Personnel Review, 43(6), 881–897.
Guest, L. (1948). The public’s attitudes toward psychologists. American Psychologist, 3(4), 135–139.
http://doi.org/10.1037/h0057512
Hartnett, J., Simonetta, L., & Mahoney, J. (1989). Perceptions of nonclinical psychologists toward clinical
psychology and clinical psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20(3),
187–189. http://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.20.3.187
Hart, V., Blattner, J., & Leipsic, S. (2001). Coaching versus therapy: A perspective. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 53(4), 229–237. http://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.53.4.229
Joo, B.-K. (Brian). (2005). Executive Coaching: A conceptual framework from an Integrative Review of
Practice and Research. Human Resource Development Review, 4(4), 462–488.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305280866

Leadership Styles

In politics on July 23, 2015 at 10:14 am

Styles of Leadership

It is important to evaluate styles of leadership so that organizations can justify having leaders and ensure that leaders are keeping those they lead productive and content as they go about the work of the organization. Consequences of poor leadership can be a poor work product, attrition of employees, and harm to the organization and to the human beings that work there.  Human beings who have negative experiences with leaders can have a diminished sense of self-esteem whereas positive experiences can increase self-esteem (Hudson, 2013).

The Best and the Worst Type of Leadership Styles

There are numerous leadership styles based upon the style approach and the situational approach which center around how leaders relate to those they lead and how they direct or organize tasks.  There is a continuum of leadership styles but most generally agree that there is a worst one and though leadership may be situational there is an ideal best leadership style.

Apathy – The Worst Leadership Style

While it could be assumed that the worst leadership type would be authoritarian characterized by being demanding, overbearing, and not engaging in human relations (Northouse, 2015).  This is not the case.  The worst sort of management style is the apathetic managerial style referred to as impoverished management or a laissez faire style of management characterized by a leader being uninvolved and uninterested in those they lead.  An apathetic managerial style not only does harm to the individuals being lead but to the whole organization resulting in nonproductive or underproductive individuals (Skogstad et al., 2014).  In addition the effects of apathetic leadership in an organization can have effects lasting as long as two years (Skogstad et al., 2014).   Apathetic leaders can cause chaotic thinking, affect confidence, and stifle personal growth of those they lead (Hudson, 2013).

Transformational Leadership – The Best Leadership Style

The best leadership style has been called team management, constructive leadership, or transformational (Northouse, 2015) (Skogstad et al., 2014).  It is characterized by high levels of interaction and directed and clear task explanation and direction towards followers. This type of leadership can result in brief but not sustained job satisfaction (Skogstad et al., 2014).  However, this leadership style has the ability to increase the self-esteem, personal value, and security of followers (Hudson, 2013).

The Continuum of Leadership Styles

While the above styles are the best and the worst leadership styles.  There is a continuum of leadership styles that are used in various situations.  For example, in a family with young children the leadership style might be highly supportive and highly directive because the children are learning new skills and need instruction and support.  In addition, in the coaching of a sport a highly directive and highly supportive leadership style may be used to teach skills that can facilitate a win and support players to have the confidence to win.  In a workplace, the continuum of leadership styles are used based on the type of duties that need to be fulfilled.  For example, skilled employees with lots of commitment may need high support and low directives. Finally for a community event or volunteer organization where individuals are passionate for a cause they might need a leadership style that is highly directive such as how many doughnuts to sell, where to pick them up, and drop payment off with very little support from a leader.

 

References

Hudson, D. L. (2013). Attachment theory and leader-follower relationships. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 16(3), 147–159. http://doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000003

Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage publications.

Skogstad, A., Aasland, M. S., Nielsen, M. B., Hetland, J., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2014). The relative effects of constructive, laissez-faire, and tyrannical leadership on subordinate job satisfaction: Results from two prospective and representative studies. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 222(4), 221–232. http://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000189

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,047 other followers