Research Design and Methodology: Leadership, Intelligence, and Workplace of First-Line Managers

It is difficult to argue the fact that any profound research requires a meaningful methodology and overall sophistication of the design. Such aspects are especially pivotal for study, which is contemplating to address an issue of the best practice for examining leadership, intelligence, and workplace of first-line managers. As a result, the research design is expected to be up-to-date and provide a complex approach to revealing the best practices for the subject. A need for a profound research design is justified with a research problem, which is based on the evidence that interventions of assessment managerial leadership, intelligence, and workplace do not have any distinct framework. Therefore, the research design has to facilitate identification of multiple perspectives of the research problem. Regardless of the fact that this task is difficult, it is possible provided that the research design is relevant. Hence, the current paper focuses on a description and discussion of the research design for the future study.

In order to be more specific, the following paper initially conducts a literature review for establishment of minimal theoretical foundation and identification of recent trends. Then, the paper presents the suggested research design and explains its basic constraints. In addition, the paper also outlines the most distinct advantages of the research design and its potential limitations. The justification of the selected research design and methodology is based on the evidence retrieved from the literature review, which is why the design is theoretically credible. It is also important to place the emphasis on the fact that the research design is strictly applied to the future study of the best practice for examining intelligence, leadership, and workplace of first-line managers. Since the thesis, structure, and key terms of the paper have been outlined, it is necessary to proceed to the next section.

Literature Review

It is informative to note that a relatively limited volume of literature has been published on the subject of examining front-manager leadership, intelligence, and workplace. As a result, certain constraints, which can create a theoretical framework for the further study, are present. In such way, William Mark Nicholson (2009) suggests that a research of this subject itself is also limited owing to numerous factors. At the same time, Nicholson (2009) confirms that a relation between managerial leadership and commitment in regard to the level of standards, internal affairs, and cultural connection is also present. Consequently, many researches use qualitative approach in regard to the given problem as they depict specific phenomena and approaches leading to establishment of relationships described by Nicholson (2009). Hence, quantitative research of managerial leadership and intelligence is infrequent, as these parameters are difficult to measure. This factor is the main cause of a present limitation, especially due to the low need for purely quantitative research of the subject.

On the contrary, Jim Mansell and Julie Beadle-Brown (2012) suggest that leadership and other aspects of front-management are measureable. Mansell and Beadle-Brown (2012) argue that quantitative measurement of leadership and intelligence of a front manager is possible at a level of personal outcomes. For instance, achievement of higher salary, bonuses, a high rate of successfully completed projects and tasks, etc. can be recognized as quantitative data that depict leadership and other managerial characteristics. At the same time, Mansell and Beadle-Brown (2012) consider that personal outcomes can be attached to a complex assessment of managerial characteristics, as long as functions of front managers considerably vary within a single working position. Without doubt, functions serve as purely qualitative data, but their relation to personal outcomes implies the fact that quantitative and qualitative data are combinable in terms of assessing characteristics of a first-line manager.

At the same time, Tom Short and Roger Harris (2014) argue that examination of manager’s intelligence and leadership skills is placed in a framework, which presupposes a mixed methodology a priori. Short and Harris (2014) also admit that personal measures of performance are combinable with social constraint of business context, leadership in self-improvement, and enhancement of business culture. As a result, a relation between quantified outcomes and descriptive qualitative components is apparent. Moreover, Short and Harris (2014) claim that any documentary representation of organizational culture, ethics, vision, and mission also has a direct relation to measuring leadership of a first-line manager. In general, Short and Harris (2014) suggest that personal quantified traits of a first-line manager are directly reflected by the organizational issues, which are qualitative. They contain efficiency and cooperation among personnel, presence of organizational culture, compliance with ethics, and any other evidence of relationships that exists beyond terms of working environment.

In addition, Gang Wang (2011) in his study confirms that mixed meta-analysis of studies related to leadership is the most effective as it presents the results on a large scale. Gang Wang (2011) mentions that a more global context is distinct for investigating insights on assessment of leadership and related characteristics. Consequentlyh, meta-analysis is considered as the most accurate approach, as long as it describes an overall tendency, meanwhile personal cases may sufficiently vary. Gang Wang (2011) does not differentiate specific elements of quantitative or qualitative data, as meta-analysis focuses on an accurate average with empirical implications. Further, Gang Wang (2011) recommends a sample of 113 sources, which is a standard for studies on a large scale. Such recommendation is especially useful for the further study, considering the fact that sampling for mixed methodology research is usually complicated. In such way, a strictly practical support of mixed methodology is presented.

Moreover, Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber (2009) admit that skills and characteristics of first-line managers and other leaders are currently reviewed at different angles. Such dimensions include interaction, business context, organizational structure, etc. It is becoming increasingly apparent that Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber (2009) also promote a view that aspects of a first-line manager can be examined qualitatively, as well as quantatively. The latter form is apparent to such sort of studies in investigation of perception information by leaders and subsequent compliance with this information by leader’s subordinates. The given aspect is evidently measurable, but it is also combined with mediators and modalities of leader-subordinate relationships, which are usually qualitatively represented. Taking these points into account, Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber (2009) predict that further studies will obtain a mixed methodology owing to the fact that more perspectives are involved. Hence, a mixed methodology is the best way to integrate data of various types.

Surprisingly, Skakon et al. (2010) argue that the current state of knowledge that deals with examining managerial abilities requires more orientation towards qualitative studies. Skakon et al. (2010) note that the majority of present studies insufficiently utilize descriptive methods, as they build their frameworks on a basis of quantitative data. Nevertheless, such assumption is hardly debatable, since Skakon et al. (2010) may have collected data from a limited sample of sources. Therefore, the main argument of Skakon et al. (2010) is that absence of qualitative and descriptive data is associated with inability to deploy comprehensive interventions to the object of the research. It is certainly true considering the fact that quantitative data do not depict a specific nature of managerial aspects. However, a presence of distinct quantitative data determines a particular tendency, so that quantitative studies should be closely related to qualitative ones. Therefore, a choice of a mixed methodology is explicit for the further study.

Proposed Methodology

Concept

The concept of the suggested methodology is based on a mixed analysis, which includes quantitative identification of specific qualitative categories for leadership, intelligence, and workplace assessments. Categories with the best statistics will present a foundation for the best practice and integrated approach to examining leadership, intelligence, and workplace of a first-line manager. Nevertheless, a sample for the data collection should be initially indicated. In accordance with the recommendations provided in the literature, a sample of 113 organizations of various size will be taken for analysis of their approaches towards assessment of managerial leadership, intelligence, and workplace. The study is conducted on a large scale, which is why such sample is appropriate, especially under circumstances that the research design includes multiple qualitative categories and their respective quantitative representations (Bell & Waters, 2014). At any rate, such sample is standard for studies on a large scale with a mixed methodology and diversified data.

Consequently, it is appropriate to outline qualitative categories, which will be assigned a specific quantitative value in accordance with findings retrieved from business cases. In such way, examining managerial leadership will be assessed throughout categories of increase in a company’s revenues, results of employees’ surveys, and employment rate within a company. Further, evaluation of managerial intelligence will be distinguished via increase in a company’s revenues, results of testing, and interviewing manager’s colleagues. Examination of a first-line manager’s workplace will be conducted according to managers’ surveys and interview results. It is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the fact that data for the research sufficiently vary. One may argue that it is not possible to place such different data within a single investigation. Such recommendation has a methodological underpinning, meanwhile practical sense suggests that the study is expected to reveal the best practice and the most effective methods of examining managerial leadership, intelligence, and workplace.

The record of data will be conducted according to the given categories, so that each category will obtain related statistical evidence. Generally speaking, each category will identify its best interventions for examining managerial skills. As a result, the study will identify what approaches to examination are the best indicators for each category. Consequently, quantitative data will serve a function of determinant even though the outcomes are apparent within a long period of performance (Bell & Waters, 2014). Hence, such design justifies statements observed in the literature review regarding combinability of quantitative and qualitative data. Quantity determines significance of quality, so that all categories and related interventions will be given an account (Bell & Waters, 2014). Such integrated approach is the main advantage of the suggested research design, so that it will be separately discussed. Overall, the main principle of the design is based on the complex of data collection described above.

Once interventions of examining managerial leadership, intelligence, and workplace vary and do not follow specific framework, it is reasonable to distinguish interventions with similar constraints or methodological basics. The purpose of the research will be to retrieve the best practice, which is why selection of the same intervention for multiple purposes can be justified due to its effectiveness. Furthermore, such strategy will make final outcomes more integrated. Such decision is also justified by the fact that the study will strive for identification of interventions for various purposes. Provided that one intervention is effective for assessment of leadership in relation to performance of a company does not necessarily mean that it will be effective for relationship of leadership with ethical environment of a company. In such way, the results of the study will be presented. However, a balance of sampling should be also clarified as a wide range of various data will be present in the study.

In order to be more specific, categories and respective interventions should be equally presented within the future research. Thus, the sample of 113 cases will be equally divided into three groups, which include leadership, intelligence, and workplace assessments. As a consequence, each group will be presented with a sample of approximately 39 cases. One may argue that such division may cause deviation, and study will not be able to identify the most prominent categories. As for prominence of categories, the purpose of the study does not strive for this objective, and the attention will not be paid to that aspect (Bell & Waters, 2014). However, deviations will be present but their correction will also be possible depending upon further processing of data for the development of a concept model (Bell & Waters, 2014). Considering such fact, division of a sample cannot be regarded as a strong limitation to the research design, as each study presupposes statistical deviation to an adequate extent.

Eventually, the design of the study includes identification of approaches with the best results for each category. As it has been already mentioned, such outcomes will be based on the related quantitative data. However, it is informative to note that a single intervention may present the best results in spite of the fact that it was traced within the sample for a single time. For such cases, a need for identification of similar approaches has already been given an account (Bell & Waters, 2014). As a result, outlining of final outcomes will be presented in terms of specific sets of similar interventions, so that none of approaches remains unaddressed. In general, it will preserve the study from considerable deviations and flows (Bell & Waters, 2014). Nevertheless, all complexity of the study implies strong advantages, as well as some limitations, which also have to be discussed in order to contextualize the further study and findings.

Advantages

In order to speak about distinct advantages of the suggested research design, first of all it is important to admit its complex approach towards the research problem. The design suggests that the study will be capable of revealing the basic insights on examining leadership, intelligence, and workplace of first-line managers. Due to the fact that this issue is complex, it requires an integrated approach, so that to make a need for an independent study of each aspect minimal (Bell & Waters, 2014). Thus, the research design presupposes that all findings will be presented within one session of data collection and analysis.

Furthermore, considering the information given in the literature review, a mixed methodology of the research follows a current trend. Compliance with contemporary tendencies is especially important as it determines an academic value of findings. Each study is expected to contribute some knowledge in a selected field. As a result, responding to a trend will mean that the study is up-to-date and renders drastic significance to the subject of managerial leadership (Bell & Waters, 2014). Many studies attempt to follow a trend, but their significance is doubtful very often. Therefore, the suggested methodology is expected to deliver more academic advantages except its novelty.

As a matter of fact, such design of research can address the research problem to the fullest extent. The research problem is based on the fact that adequacy of examining managerial leadership, intelligence, and workplace is vague, and its effectiveness may sufficiently change. Consequently, a need for a concept integrated model for the assessment of such aspects in regard to first-line managers becomes apparent (Bell & Waters, 2014). Hence, the suggested research design enables the study to give a complete account of each aspect and even integrate them in unified complex of knowledge, which can be used for practical, theoretical, and scientific purposes.

Limitations

Based on the above-provided data, the suggested research design may not be feasible to deploy the future study. The design involves multiple factors and perspectives, so that their integration is complex. Moreover, collection of data in regards to each category, as well as to identification of the most prominent interventions is also a complicated task, which may result in different operational problems (Bell & Waters, 2014). It is becoming obvious that theoretical description of the design is complex, so that a respective difficulty may arise in practical implementation of the given design and frameworks in the future study.

In spite of the fact that the suggested methodology places the emphasis on its complex approach, it is informative to note that its outcomes still require a more profound research. The study is supposed to result in an integrated complex of findings regarding examining leadership, intelligence, and workplace of first-line managers. Consequently, the research design will facilitate opening of a larger context, which also requires a meaningful research (Bell & Waters, 2014). As a result, the research present within the terms of suggested design is not universal even though it is expected to provide meaningful findings in relation to the research problem. A more sophisticated study may be needed to meet the purposes of a researcher.

Eventually, it is necessary to make a remark that the research design implies collection of data from documentary sources only, which makes the methodology limited in sources of data. Due to the fact that the suggested design will operate with such type of data, sampling of 113 sources may seem to be insufficient from the perspective of data diversity (Bell & Waters, 2014). Similarly, this argument is applicable to the mixed methodology present in the suggested design making it a minor and natural limitation. Nevertheless, its presence should be mentioned.

Conclusion

In conclsion, the current paper has given an account of the research design for the future study based on identification of the best practice in examining leadership, intelligence, and workplace of first-line managers. For the purpose of the paper, a comprehensive literature review was conducted in order to establish a minimal theoretical foundation and retrieve the most prominent tendencies of current state of knowledge within the field. Further, the paper has presented the concept of the research design and explained its main constraints. As a consequence, advantages and limitations of the research design have been outlined. The paper has helped to make distinct remarks concerning a choice of such design and provided evidence retrieved from the literature review. Therefore, justification of the research design has been completed to a sufficient extent. The research design presents unique approach to the future study, which makes it necessary to make certain remarks.

It is appropriate to make a general comment on the fact that the research design is based on mixed methodology. The literature review has proved that mixed methodology is an up-to-date framework for such studies, and the nature of the subject can be better addressed with a combination of qualitative and quantitative data.