ANEXOS

For the purposes of accessibility and subsequent analysis, the findings in chapter six are organized under themes. One of the outcomes to surface from the research is the comparatively similar perspectives which the respondents expressed when in a similar role, even when working in different universities. Accordingly, in the Findings chapter the post holders across the three university business schools are clustered: hence, sets for Deans; Heads of Department; Professors (who are not Deans); Programme Directors and Principal Lecturers; Senior Lecturers and Lecturers.

The respondents’ answers and reflections will subsequently be considered through a thematic comparative analysis with the existing literature on transformational leadership, distributed leadership and followership. The purpose of employing the aforementioned design is to build upon the previous research, to surface possible gaps between the theoretical, espoused and actual practice of leadership and followership in the case studied business schools (Brookes, 2007; English 2002).

The primary data collected will be critically evaluated, compared, and contrasted with the themes which have been discussed in the literature review. In their review of qualitative analysis Saunders et al, (2000 p.382) recommend the qualitative researcher to: ‘disaggregate

the mass of qualitative data that you collect, as you collect, into meaningful and related parts or categories.’ The benefit of the thematic approach is that the research can be categorised so

materials drawn from different transcripts and notes; identify key themes or patterns for further exploration; form critical evaluations; verify conclusions (Silverman, 2005). The literature review chapters served to identify the discussion arising from transformational, distributed, and followership, drawn from work including, (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban- Metcalfe 2005; Bass 1999; Bass and Avolio 1994; Bolden et al, 2009; Collinson 2006; Gronn 2009a; Mabey and Finch-Lees 2008; Spillane 2006; Peck and Dickinson 2009).

The research design has been partly informed by the work of Burgoyne and James (2006) who utilised case-study research on leadership. In their methodology Burgoyne and James (2006) observed that by stimulating and encouraging respondents to tell of their experiences of leadership within their organisational context, the research was able to surface the leadership practices as experienced by the participants. Accordingly, Burgoyne and James (2006) sought to find underlying motives through questioning staff about the why, how, what, of leadership in their organisational context. ‘The interview protocol had questions

framed to explore ‘why’ and ‘how did you decide’ as well as ‘what’, covering the integration of leadership development with business strategy, assumptions of leadership’ (Burgoyne and

James, 2006, p. 309). Additionally, Burgoyne and James (2006 p. 309) also found that the reflective experiences of both leaders and followers enriched the depth of respondents’ answers so that what emerged from the interviews was ‘a theory of leadership in use.’

Where this research builds on the work of Burgoyne and James (2006) and Bolden et al, (2009) is with the inclusion of the possibility that perceived roles of either leaders or

followers are likely to be fluid within the current academic context, where individuals may lead or follow according to the particular tasks being addressed (Peck and Dickinson, 2009).

For example, in reviewing the existing literature and research, it became apparent that there is more depth to be found by addressing the research from the perspective that there could well be ‘multiple versions of reality,’ (Mabey and Finch-Lees 2008, p. 13). The implications for the research design are therefore to construct in-depth interviews which are able to surface alternative realities, recognising that respondent participants may be either unwilling to disclose, or perhaps unconscious of, any dissonances between espoused values and their personal perspectives. The research therefore aims to listen to respondents’ experiences of leadership and their felt realities of leadership in practice (Jung and Avolio, 2000); for example, whether there are counter-organisational attitudes or postures, submerged conflicts and contradictions, which may exist in their business school context. In this respect, cognisance of how the world may be viewed through the different discourses has been helpful to the research design in raising the researcher’s awareness that there are many ways of researching a case-study and that each approach places the research lens upon a different area of leadership behaviour. It is useful to reiterate here, as discussed in the previous chapter, that it is the researcher’s theoretical lens which guides the focus of his or her research and the underlying belief system of the researcher – his or her ontological assumptions –- which largely defines the choice of methodology (Krauss, 2005).

The research plans to employ an inductive questioning methodological approach, building upon previous qualitative research studies into leadership (Zikmund, 1994). This approach thereby benefits from the foundation of earlier work, whilst seeking to gather new research from academics regarding their experiences and perceptions of leadership and their perceived realities of leadership in practice. For example, in the work of Burgoyne and James (2003) and Gabriel and Griffiths in Cassell and Symon (2004) the authors indicated that there is a richness of material to be collected by qualitative studies of respondents’ perceptions regarding the realities of leadership in practice. The inclusion of leadership stories, as proposed by Gabriel and Griffiths in Cassell and Symon (2004, p.114), can encourage respondents to tell of how leadership works in their organisation, what kinds of leaders are well regarded or not, and who tends to be asked to serve as a leader. Stories of leadership in practice will offer valuable insights into the respondents’ perceived reality of their organisation. ‘Searching for the leadership stories enable us to study change in uniquely

illuminating ways, revealing how wider issues are viewed…’ (Gabriel and Griffiths in Cassell

and Symon 2004, p.114). The research also recognises both the benefits and issues arising from the earlier qualitative studies into leadership. For example, according to Alvesson (2003), the researcher should be aware of the conscious or unconscious obfuscations that respondents may offer in their answers.

‘A managerial career calls for being perceived as reliable and rests upon an acquired ability to smoothly navigate in a tactful way, avoiding unnecessary risk taking. A habitual acting so that one cannot be tied to expressing dangerous opinions or indiscretion becomes part of the stuff making up managers…. It seems unlikely that interviewing —whatever the tricks used — manages to fully break this habit.’ (p.13-33).

Recognition of this issue has therefore informed the criticality of the method of enquiry discussed here.

The respondents’ observations, which may be consciously or unconsciously proffered, are not regarded as a matter to be overcome by the researcher’s questioning (Alvesson 2003). Instead, the respondents’ perceptions of the leadership reality within their business school are accepted by the research as their testimony within a particular business school context.

It is also possible that respondents may proffer genuinely held beliefs, which, when viewed through a prism of different sources, might be considered to have a preponderance towards

‘‘‘false’’ consciousness’ (Mabey and Finch-Lees, 2008, p. 128). The belief may be honestly

proffered and yet untrue. For example Morgan (1997, p. 216) observed that people who share a common environment might misinterpret their situation because they lack external perspectives; hence what he described as a ‘psychic prison.’ Accordingly, a respondent’s perception of leadership and followership is likely to be influenced by peers and the contextual factors influencing their business school, including interventions such as restructuring and redundancies.

The researcher is conscious that the primary data is derived from the epistemological and ontological choices for the research. Accordingly, instead of a model whereby a positivistic hypothesis has to be proved or disproved, in this research there is no presumption that there is an objective reality, which can be surfaced through a scheme of questions and then subsequently utilised to prove or disprove a hypothesis. For example, Burgoyne and James

(2003) and Remenyi et al, (1998) have observed that there are likely to be influences working behind leadership behaviours, so an open questioning approach focusing on the why? how? and what? can further our research understanding into both leadership and followership.

‘Open questions allowed the story of leadership development to unfold. Informants could prepare by having indicative questions and topic areas in advance. The researchers were interested in uncovering the theory of leadership development in use’ (Burgoyne and James,

2003 p.309). In order to find more in-depth reflective data Burgoyne and James (2003) also recommended that it could be worth considering providing: ‘indicative questions and topic

areas in advance’ [to the respondents]. This will be done before each interview.

For example, the research by Bolden et al, (2008a, p.362) into leadership in higher education employed the following questions:

• Why are some people regarded as ‘leaders’ rather than others?

• What is it that enables certain people with limited formal authority to exert

considerable influence, while others remain relatively powerless despite holding a formal role?

• How do those involved experience leadership as it unfolds?

• How is personal agency constrained and/or enhanced through access to and control of

To further underpin the questioning of respondents, the questions will also ask about each respondent’s organisational self-awareness. This approach is also informed by the

questioning design of Erickson’s (2010) research on educational leaders: • What is it like to be a [research professor, dean, programme leader]? • Why do groups A and B social groups not socialise with each other?

• What does ‘name calling’ say about what staff believe about their university?

The questions raised by Erickson (2010) regarding how colleagues behave and interact within their university are helpful to this research, which plans to study leadership in a business school context. Hence, it might be that either collective collaboration or disunities between colleagues may influence what leaders can achieve and to what extent the various constituencies, administration, research, and teaching can, and, in reality, do, coalesce.