Últimos libros de los 90’s

The purpose of reflecting on potential ethical risks associated with the study is to protect the dignity, rights, safety and well-being of the research participants involved in the study (Standard Operating Procedure, 2012).

Some potential risks or discomforts were envisaged in this study. Employees’ concerns regarding possible negative repercussions of evaluating their managers/supervisor’s ethical leadership competence, integrity and altruism were however allayed through assuring confidential utilisation of results. The obtained information was not used to determine the

performance levels of the managers individually, or on average, but rather to test hypothesised relationships between the specific variables. No inferences that would affect the managers being rated were consequently derived from the results, nor did it really matter who was rated. All questionnaires were answered anonymously and participants’ names and identities were not disclosed (i.e. nobody was able to determine their identity from the data that were submitted). Participants were not exposed to any risks or discomfort other than the fact that they had to set aside approximately 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire. The research participant had the right to voluntarily decide whether he/she wished to accept the invitation to participate in the research. To make an informed decision on whether he/she wished to participate in the research, the participant was informed of the objective and purpose of the research; what participation in the research involved; how the research results would be disseminated and used; who the researchers were; what their affiliation was; what their rights as participants were; and where they could obtain more information on their research rights (Standard Operating Procedure, 2012). The researcher obtained informed consent from the participants.

The fact that participants were required to rate their immediate superior might have brought to the fore the somewhat troublesome ethical question of whether the right of the superior to be informed was not being violated. In response to this issue, it could be argued that the follower was the only unit of analysis in this study, which would imply that the hypothesis that was examined was that the follower’s perception of his/her leader’s ethical leadership and leader effectiveness abilities determined the follower’s perceived organisational justice and his/her perceived ethical climate. Furthermore, employees’/followers’ concerns regarding possible negative repercussions of evaluating their manager’s/supervisor’s ethical leadership competence, integrity and altruism were allayed through assuring confidential utilisation of results. The obtained information was not used to determine the performance levels of the managers individually, or on average, but rather to test hypothesised relationships between the specific variables. No inferences that would affect the managers being rated were consequently derived from the results, nor did it really matter who was rated.

In addition, the issue that managers were evaluated without being informed upfront can be seen as somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, one could argue that the manager being rated had the right to be informed about the fact that he/she was being rated. In addition, one could argue that the manager had the right to decide whether he/she wished to be rated. Informed consent would have been non-negotiable if the ratings in one way or another would be used in a manner that would affect the manager, or if the rating had to be obtained for specific managers for some reason. In this case, also, no inferences that would affect the

managers being rated were derived from the results, nor did it really matter who was being rated.

One the other hand, it could be argued that there were methodological reasons why the manager being rated should preferably not be aware of the fact that he/she was being rated. The first was that it reassures the rater (along with the reassurance that no individual feedback would be given to the manager) that he/she would not be victimised by the manager, thereby increasing that chances of valid, unbiased ratings. The second was that the concern existed that, if the manager was aware that he/she was being rated and what they were being rated on, they would act unnaturally during the particular period.

The researcher consequently prepared a debriefing formulation concerning that managers should be debriefed after the collection of data, provided the institution agreed to this. The debriefing formulation simply comprised a document that explained the study, explained that the manager had been rated but that the information had not been used to determine the performance levels of the managers individually or on average, but rather to test hypothesised relationships between specific variables. The institution’s internal communication system would then be used to circulate the debriefing formulation to all affected managers. The idea was not that managers should give informed consent up front, but rather be debriefed afterwards.

A further consideration was that the institution should be provided with sufficient information to decide how they wanted the matter be handled. Informed institutional permission is required. It is thereby not implied that unethical research behaviour can be condoned if the institution agrees to play along. Informed institutional permission for the research was obtained from the participating organisations. The Research Ethics Committee of Human Research (Humanities) of Stellenbosch University furthermore granted approval for ethical clearance of the research study.

3.11 SUMMARY

In Chapter 3, the plan and methodology for the research process have been explicated. This included a description of the applied research design; formulation of hypotheses; sample design and characteristics; information regarding the measuring instruments; and the way in which the data were collected. Finally an outline of the different statistical techniques used to analyse the data was presented. The results of the data analyses are presented in Chapter 4.