Evaluation of Literature review
Discuss about the Managing Research for Mixed Design Approach.
The study aims at assessing leadership coaching as a leadership development tool with reference to leader role-efficacy and trust in subordinates. To effectively achieve this, the authors undertake an in-depth analysis of extant literature in six main areas namely leadership coaching, describing research constructs through focus group dialogue, leader role efficacy, trust in subordinates, subordinate results and coach behavior. Based on the foregoing analysis, five hypotheses are developed in the literature review. Hypothesis one is leader role-efficacy will be positively influenced by leadership coaching; hypothesis two is leaders’ trust in subordinates will be influenced by leadership coaching; hypothesis three is an increase in the trust of a leader in his/her subordinates is linked with a (b)decrease in their turnover objectives and (a) an increase in the psychological empowerment of the subordinates; hypothesis four is leader role-efficacy will be positively affected by facilitative coach behaviour; and hypothesis five is the trust in subordinates will be positively affected by facilitative coach behaviour.
Leadership coaching is defined as an official face to face association that encompasses counseling and work associated matters with the objective of enhancing the effectiveness of leadership (Ladegard and Gjerde, 2014). The scope of leadership coaching includes senior management but it is executive coaching that is commonly used and it deals with a number of issues such as mental health, depression, and stress (Grant et al., 2009). Leadership coaching is exceptional because it addresses the specific needs of the leaders and their organizations (Ely et al., 2010). The study used an explorative method in defining variables through focus group to ascertain the findings criteria that could be enhanced further with the help of relevant theory. Seven coaches were invited into the study but five of them got engaged in the discussion. Focus group was preferred because it is important for an inclusive clarification of notions, thoughts, and insights that are complex to understand (Smith and Osborn, 2008). All the coaches consented that goals change in the process of coaching. Leader role-efficacy was coined by Albert Bandura (Schwarzer, 2014) and it relates to one’s confidence regarding his/her abilities to influence others. Leader Self-efficacy (LSE) and leader role-efficacy (LRE) have both been linked to the domain of leadership. Hypothesis one has been developed from trust in subordinates, hypothesis two has been developed from subordinate outcomes, whereas all the remaining hypotheses are built on coach behavior.
Characteristics of Mixed Design Approach
A mixed research method is the integration of both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of one research (Castro et al., 2010: Creswell and Clark, 2017).
Methods – a mixed method design considers the similarity or variation of qualitative and quantitative methods are to each other with regard to the form, conventions, strengths, and restrictions.
Phenomena – a mixed method design is based on whether or not the quantitative and qualitative approaches will explore or assess similar or varying phenomena.
Study (categorical) – a mixed method design will depend on whether it is single or multiple studies.
The timing of implementation – a mixed method design will depend on the degree to which the qualitative and quantitative approaches are carried out either consecutively or concurrently.
Independence during implementation – a mixed method design will depend on the level to which quantitative and qualitative approaches are hypothesized, designed, and executed via interaction or autonomously.
It provides strengths that neutralize the weaknesses of both qualitative and quantitative research. For example, the quantitative study doesn’t give sufficient insight into the setting or context of the behavior of subjects, a scenario that is made up by the qualitative research. A mixed approach proves an in-depth understanding of the research problem than a single approach of either qualitative or quantitative.
Yes, the mixed research design adopted in the study sufficiently addressed the research objective than could any other design do. The qualitative research technique was used to achieve detailed understanding of the research topic and to develop the research hypotheses. The existing studies relevant to the study topic were examined and the research gaps determined. The qualitative section of the research helped to show the effect of coaching on LRE and LTS and any corresponding deviations in trust and their effect on subordinates. The quantitative section was an actual survey which was used to evaluate the hypotheses established in the initial section. Thus, the mixed design effectively addressed the research objective by first developing the theoretical part and then conducting an actual experiment to compare the findings with already established assertions.
The methods of data collection in the study are well justified and described. The authors describe in-depth on the stage they used the questionnaire that is during the experiment. A detailed description is also provided on how questionnaires were distributed to participants both in the first and second round and the number of respondents as well. Also, a response rate of 73% from the collected questionnaires is provided as a justification for continuing with the experiment and reliability of the findings. The study also carried out a separate survey for validation of measures of LRE and LTS, out of which questionnaires were administered. However, the authors have not provided the development of the research questionnaire with regard to details such as whether the questions were open-ended or close-ended or both. Also, it is not clear how the questionnaire responses were rated.
Appropriateness of mixed method research
The focus group discussions have sufficiently been justified and described. The authors chose focus group because it is the most effective in an explorative study which involves an area that is rather new and requires theory development by engaging experiences coaches to discuss their experiences. Additionally, the authors justify the choice of focus group because they are important in a detailed exposition of ideas, opinions, and giving insights into situations that are difficult to acquire through one-on-one interviews. Also, it is an efficient data collection method in situations where there is a focused topic that can be deliberated upon. The use of focus group is also described sufficiently by describing how one researcher acted as a moderator and recorded notes as the deliberations were ongoing, while the other played the role of an observer and recorded notes as well for comparison afterward during analysis. The scholars even go further ahead in their description of the data collection method using a focus group to sample responses from some of the respondents (but with fictitious names). Therefore, based on the foregoing arguments, it can be concluded that the data collection methods (focus group and questionnaires) use in the study is sufficiently justified and described except for the development of the questionnaire and details of the questions in the questionnaire.
The aim of this study was to evaluate leadership coaching as a leadership development tool with reference to leader role-efficacy and trust in subordinates. The authors developed five hypothesis to answer the study objective in detail. Hypothesis one asserted that coaching program was likely to be linked with high LRE levels and high levels of LTS for the second hypothesis. An independent sample t-test was done to compare the averages in the two categories. The outcomes revealed that the coaching group had significantly lower levels of both LRE and LTS than the control group. These findings were in agreement with previous studies by other scholars (Chopin et al., 2011; Agarwal, Angst, and Magni, 2009). The means difference was substantive, an indication that there was a rise in the coaching group, thus backing up hypothesis one. Also, the variation between the two categories was insignificant, thus supporting the second hypothesis which also means that involvement in the coaching program will likely lead to high LTS levels. The findings of a Mann-Whitney U test regarding the variation in LRE and LTS show that the leadership in the coaching group experienced a rise in their LRE and LTS during the period of coaching. The correlation between the variation in trust scores for the leaders in the coaching group and variation in the emotional empowerment and turnover objectives of the subordinates was carried out. The outcomes revealed no substantive correlations between the variation in LTS and four aspects of empowerment, and thus the rejection of hypothesis 3a. On the contrary, the variation in LTS and turnover objectives had a significant correlation and hypothesis 3 was is supported.
A test of multicollinearity between two variables based on the study is the variance inflation factor (VIF). The outcomes of the VIF test show that the facilitative behavior of the coach explained the change in LRE. The adjusted R2 for the variation confirms the hypotheses; an indication that LRE is influenced by facilitative coach behavior (hypothesis 3) and LTS (hypothesis4). This further confirms hypotheses one and two that the rise in LRE and LTS will be facilitated by leadership coaching.
Therefore, the objective of testing whether leadership coaching could affect the hypothesized outcome criteria with regard to high LRE and LTS have been confirmed in the findings and thus the objective stated initially is achieved.
References
Agarwal, R., Angst, C.M. and Magni, M., 2009. The performance effects of coaching: A multilevel analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(10), pp.2110-2134.
Castro, F.G., Kellison, J.G., Boyd, S.J. and Kopak, A., 2010. A methodology for conducting integrative mixed methods research and data analyses. Journal of mixed methods research, 4(4), pp.342-360.
Chopin, S.M., Danish, S.J., Seers, A. and Hook, J.N., 2012. Effects of mentoring on the development of leadership self?efficacy and political skill. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(3), pp.17-32.
Creswell, J.W. and Clark, V.L.P., 2017. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
Ely, K., Boyce, L.A., Nelson, J.K., Zaccaro, S.J., Hernez-Broome, G. and Whyman, W., 2010. Evaluating leadership coaching: A review and integrated framework. The leadership quarterly, 21(4), pp.585-599.
Grant, A.M., Curtayne, L. and Burton, G., 2009. Executive coaching enhances goal attainment, resilience and workplace well-being: A randomised controlled study. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(5), pp.396-407.
Ladegard, G. and Gjerde, S., 2014. Leadership coaching, leader role-efficacy, and trust in subordinates. A mixed methods study assessing leadership coaching as a leadership development tool. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), pp.631-646.
Schwarzer, R. ed., 2014. Self-efficacy: Thought control of action. Taylor & Francis.
Smith, J.A. and Osborn, M., 2008. Interpretative phenomenological analysis. JA Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (51–80).
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
