Unethical and Abusive Leadership, Essay Example

Ethics in the workplace have long been a subject of study. More often than not, these studies chose to focus more on numbers and percentages of success rates of different types of leadership or on the statistics about unethical behavior from the workers with fewer responsibilities, especially financial and legal issues, like theft. The ethics of the leaders is not discussed as regularly and still usually uses quantitative methods for further study. This research study suggests a qualitative approach in three phases- all aimed at the common goal of understanding the effects of abusive and unethical leadership styles on the other workers. Since some people simply hate their work or their bosses, this requires some careful methods meant to rule out unreliable or extreme viewpoints and create a single, diverse look at different leaders within one workplace and at the leadership culture of the workplace as a whole.

Quantitative Reasoning

Both in the literature review and in the discussion sections of the paper, a small amount of statistics may be used to illustrate the need for qualitative research methods. The study of a breach of ethics within the leadership requires that a higher-ranking supervisor or the police- if the breach breaks the law- reports and enforces the policies in place. However, the statistics of reported breaches will likely represent a much-lower figure than exists in reality. Not all breaches will be discovered and- of those- subordinate employees may be more prone to intimidation by the leadership officials, like bosses or supervisors, or may engage in their own criminal behavior and blackmail the unethical leader.

Qualitative Reasoning

For these reasons, qualitative research was selected for this study. Qualitative design will perfectly deal with the broad range of different methods and approaches of leaders and their subordinates, which considerably vary in terms of assumptions, focus, and nature of the knowledge (Camic, Rhodes, & Yardley, 2003). Cassell and Symon (2011) also write that the study of workplace psychology is dominated by quantitative research, capturing the bottom line but not the processes affecting the work as it happens. The rest of this paper narrows down the type or combination of qualitative methods for this study and includes the reasoning for the selection process.

Creswell (2013) writes that data analysis provides six steps for inclusion: 1) organize data, 2) read it all, 3) begin analysis through coding, 4) generate a description, 5) represent themes of discussion, and 6) interpret the data (pp.183-190). Creswell defines step three’s coding as “the process of organizing the material into chunks or segments of text before bringing meaning to information” (p. 186). Obviously, the early coding will change since, as Creswell points out, the meaning of the information has not yet been decided. A detailed coding system will help after a concrete thesis and group of research questions take shape. Creswell’s six-step process for data analysis requires an in-depth approach not needed for the purposes of this study. The focus of this paper will not be on data. However, these same six steps might guide a brief explanation for the avoidance of numbered figures (percentages, fractions, totals, etc.) in the study of the topic.

Can a study which proposes to examine ethics credibly ignore the personalities which affect the information received? In such a sensitive area of study, both leaders and subordinates transfer their fears, motives, and biases into a questionnaire or interview. Organizationally, this power distance theory is represented in the literature review, which examines the relationship between methods of leadership and employee attitudes. These methods give control to each person as a separate part of the organization. A questionnaire may be given anonymously online but eliminates many of the possibilities for verification. Additionally, the type of unethical conduct may produce a legal obligation for the researcher. Knowledge of a crime involves the researcher, who then cannot complete the study without a high level of bias and without involving the police in some manner. An interview may still produce a legal obligation, but it allows face-to-face interactions to be videotaped for transcription, evidence, or research cataloguing. However, this still does not guarantee that the employees will tell the whole truth. There is simply no such method.

Both questionnaires and interviews present their own advantages and disadvantages, give much of the control to employees, and allow personal views to gain a heavy influence over the themes produced by the study. While employee control may produce a greater comfort with the researcher, this study proposes the use of observation and double-blind methods as a means of evaluating the source of reported information.

Procedure

For this study, given the evidence of the power distance and personality theories and the weight that these may have on the responses of subordinate workers, this research study should contain three qualitative steps to the procedure of carrying out the actual research- not including the discussion or analysis which are part of the writing process. The researcher gathers a questionnaire, selects a small group for electronically-activated audio recording and observation, and then follows up with a face-to-face interview after the possible themes of the research become clear.

After a workplace is selected for the study, the researcher selects a pool of possible participants to provide their input on leadership and its effects. This pool of people should include people at as many different levels and departments in the company as possible, because the greater variety might suggest possible themes for the entire workplace culture. For example, a CEO who only cares about deadlines or quotas being met might pressure or stress supervisors to the point that they become abusive and unethical in their leadership. Also, since the specific goals of the research are sensitive, taking volunteers from all levels of the workplace lowers suspicion and would probably raise the level of trust and support from the company members.

The first pool of people does not need to be carefully selected- just diverse. This large bunch of people will answer a subjective questionnaire in which they rate the truth of a statement from 1- 5, or completely disagree to completely agree. These statements will address the person’s past and present attitudes toward their work, the likability and effectiveness of the leadership, especially immediate supervisors, the general impressions of the workplace. These three areas are important because many employees enter with their own personality challenges which make them unsuited for the work they begin. General attitudes toward the leadership, as separate from the workplace, should provide a big picture idea about whether the people in the workplace feel that there is a problem with one or more groups of leadership. Extreme answers from these respondents may indicate a general bias or a bad workplace experience. If this workplace experience occurred in another place, that person should be eliminated from the next part of the research study. If this experience occurred in the current workplace, then the next two parts of the procedure will be very important to getting the whole story on the leadership. Before the pool of workers can be considered for more research, they must turn in the appropriate papers, including a confidentiality agreement and terms of use packet. These forms must say that the general focus of the research concerns the qualitative research of the interactions between workers at different levels of responsibility and cite the specific focus as leadership and motivation.

During the second phase of the research, observation occurs. Of the original pool, those workers who have not been eliminated need to be separated by department and level of management or responsibility. Even though different departments provide better data for the whole company, the researcher should select two workers in the same department. Their personal preferences may be different, affecting their views in the questionnaire. For example, a shy, insecure, or sensitive person may dread their department if their supervisor is very aggressive- even if his leadership style is not generally abusive. Of the group not eliminated, only the workers available at the times and dates needed for the researcher may be included. The researcher should observe the workers at different points in the day, on a rotating, fixed schedule, and include as many of the workers as they can. The larger the group of workers included, the less likely it will be that a biased view will make it into the final research.

Although the participants will be aware that they are being audio-recorded, the supervisors, co-workers, bystanders, etc. will not know. The researcher should not interfere in the normal work day any more than is necessary to get a quality recording and should avoid being seen whenever possible. Still, the other workers can see the researcher and so it is not completely naturalistic, but taking two types of data (audio recording and visual observations) helps to create a more complete picture of the workplace and the people in it. Naturalistic observations, such as a concealed audio recording only method, gives the researcher a narrow window for viewing an entire workplace and for the thoughts and actions of workers at all levels. While the audio recording for this observation occurs, the researcher makes notes of visual observations, behaviors, body language, etc. or silently compiles possible points of research- all done confidentially and privately. Mehl et. al (2011) writes that the small talk of an office may be less fulfilling than a deeper conversation, so the leadership style’s way of speaking and behaving both create a feeling about the workplace and supervisors. The researcher never discusses their observations or comments on them. The researcher may not be able to attend some project meetings, but the worker may take audio during these times. Any event not witnessed by the researcher should not be discussed until after the review of the audio recordings.

This last phase of this procedure, the face-to-face interview, allows the researcher the chance to get the instant feedback and to ask the workers any questions that may have arisen during observation. Since the researcher observed the personality traits, such as honesty, of the workers with their own eyes, the need to stay separate from the workers is not as great. In fact, the researcher will want to take this last chance to ask questions which will get some sort of credible emotional reaction- whether that is anger, respect, or even fatigue. There should be a section for the worker to include any comments or thoughts which they felt related to the workplace, the leadership, and their view.

In this type of study, it will be impossible to fully examine the relationship between the treatment given by an employee without reaching some generalizations, which may be supported by the observations and questionnaire but will ultimately depend upon the researchers and participants for reliability and validity. A second researcher can view anonymous copies of the post-observational questionnaire if the participants agreed to this when they granted permission. A second set of eyes certainly would help with proofreading and paper order, interpreting unclear meaning, finding and compiling themes, and locating and pointing out questions that readers will have.

Conclusion

Even the most positive bosses would likely feel shy about participating in a study if they knew that it explored the dark side of leadership. For bosses with abusive leadership styles, the presence of the researcher might seem threatening. For this reason, the researcher, the subordinates, and the members of the leadership must proceed carefully with this study. Much of the total success or failure will depend upon the qualitative research procedure given above. To lessen the amount of unverified input, the qualitative research begins with the bias questionnaire, proceeds to observation, and then ends with the face-to-face interview. After these three phases are complete, the researcher’s own judgment, organizational skills, and general objectivity play a greater role in the development of the themes and conclusions of the study. During the research itself, the workers provide the data. After that complicated process is completed, the researcher compiles and reviews all of the information and follows many of the same steps that Creswell suggests for data analysis- except that the researcher looks more at the big picture and about what the differences of responses have to say about the shared experiences of the workers coping with abusive or unethical leadership.

References

Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S., Holleran, S. E., & Clark, C. S. (2010). Eavesdropping on Happiness Well-Being Is Related to Having Less Small Talk and More Substantive Conversations. Psychological Science, 21(4), 539-541.

Camic, P. M., Rhodes, J. E., & Yardley, L. (2003). Qualitative research in psychology: expanding perspectives in methodology and design. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2011). Assessing ‘good’ qualitative research in the work psychology field: A narrative analysis. Journal Of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 84(4), 633-650. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02009.x

Creswell, J. W. (2013).  Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (4th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.