ANEXOS

A formative part of the evolution of the research questions was the study of additional literature from the educational research discipline as well as other approaches to leadership, which employed qualitative methodologies such as (Anderson et al, 2005; Boerner et al, 2007; Bolden et al, 2009; Brookes 2007; Brookes and Grint 2010; Burgoyne and James 2006; Collinson 2006; Grint 2005a; Grint 2005b; Gronn 2009b; Mabey and Finch-Lees 2008; Peck and Dickinson 2009; Thody 2003). As a consequence of that additional reading, the chapter on educational literature served as a catalyst to re-evaluate the original ontology and epistemology of the research. Whilst this research appreciates the contribution to knowledge, which studies within the functionalist discourse have made to our understanding of change through transformational leadership, the educational leadership literature is particularly germane to this study due to its focus upon followers and distributed leadership such as Spillane (2006) and Thody (2003).

The review of the literature therefore stimulated a re-evaluation of the epistemology (Cassell and Symon, 2004; Johnson and Duberley, 2003). This concurs with the process articulated by Krauss (2005) which succinctly described epistemology as being to do with questions of how we know what we know and what the researcher counts as knowledge. This led to a reappraisal of the epistemological stance of the research and to a consideration of the questions: What is to be counted as leadership? How is that knowledge of leadership acquired? How do we know what we know about leadership in an academic context? By considering these epistemological questions in relation to the leadership literature and in the

formation of the research approach, it became evident that a multiplicity of postures coexists as to what counts as being knowledge with respect to leadership. Furthermore, it was as necessary to be cognisant of what was not going to be included as what would, for the purposes of this research.

In evaluating the literature in the previous chapters it also became evident that there was a divergence as to whether social context should be included in what counts as knowledge in the study of leadership and followership. For example, Peck and Dickinson (2009) argued that leadership should be viewed through the lens of its social context, and furthermore, that behavioural norms and organisational culture have significant bearing upon how people lead or follow. In support of the significance of contextual knowledge, Peck and Dickinson (2009) observed that leadership can be expressed simultaneously as formal and informal and that persons can serve as both leaders and followers, depending on the situational context. Hence, for Peck and Dickinson (2009), their epistemology included the knowledge of organizational contexts. Conversely Bass (1999) has argued that, from the evidence of over twenty years’ research into leadership, the pre-eminent focus of our knowledge of leadership should be upon the influence of the leader’s personality and their transformational leadership qualities. Accordingly, in Bass’s epistemology the knowledge of what leadership is resides in studies of the leader’s personality and his or her ability to bring about transformation in an organisation (Bass, 1999). Consequently the focus of knowledge is upon the leader and their personal characteristics as measured by the positivistic Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2001). The inherent epistemological

assumption in the research by Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe (2001) and Bass (1999) is that leadership can be measured by predetermined criteria, as set out by the Transformational Leadership Questionnaire.

The discussion of differing objects and methods of study above illustrates that the focus of what constitutes knowledge of leadership is determined by the researcher’s epistemology. Furthermore, writers within the field of leadership research have selected differing epistemological approaches. For example, the approach of Bass (1999) focuses primarily on the personal characteristics of the leader. Each researcher inevitably has to make choices about what knowledge they elect to include and report upon and conversely what they exclude from their research. The process of reviewing the epistemology thereby surfaces this issue of knowledge and what is to be included or excluded by the researcher’s choices (Krauss, 2005; Mabey and Finch-Lees, 2008).

In discussing differing perceptions of reality it is relevant to observe that researchers do not commence their study as value-free entities. Instead each person has his or her personal iconography as to what leadership might be. These perceptions are of significance to research because they influence the lens through which the researcher views leadership and how they construct a reality to interpret those personal experiences. This is relevant here because, as argued by Krauss (2005), it is the researcher’s theoretical lens which guides the focus of their research and the underlying belief system of the researcher and their ontological assumptions which largely define the choice of methodology. Consequently, the researcher’s perception of

leadership as perceived through their personal iconography of leadership will thereby both form and inform their research. It is in recognizing these choices as to how research is constituted that Hertz (1997, p. viii) urged reflexivity in recognizing those influences on the:

‘choices of the questions, who they study and who they ignore.’ This is also where this

section began, in recognition that this study continues to evolve through re-examination and reiteration.

Consequently, this research follows the proposition that both the researcher and respondents have values ‘even if they have not been made explicit,’ (Collis and Hussey, 2003 p.48). This approach to the research includes the awareness that each respondent will have differing perceptions of reality in his or her business school. These perceptions might be shared amongst colleagues, or reflect the personal experiences of the individual respondent. Each story or observation can therefore contribute to the emerging picture of what the respondents believe leadership or followership to be within their business school context.

For example, some of the respondents may offer a peer group view of their leadership experiences. Hence the respondent may prefer to express a view, which they believe expresses the peer group’s consensus of leadership. Alternatively, other respondents may proffer their personal and genuinely held beliefs about what they believe a leader or follower is within their organisation. Additionally, some respondents might offer perspectives which, when viewed through the prism of different sources (Janesick, cited in Denzin and Lincoln, 2000a) might be considered as ‘false’ consciousness’ (Mabey and Finch-Lees 2008, p. 128).

It is relevant to acknowledge here that, although the word ‘false’ may be construed to be a value judgement on the part of the researcher, this is not the case. As noted in the previous paragraph, it is acknowledged that both the researcher and the respondents will enter into their meetings with values (Collis and Hussey, 2003). Furthermore, each respondent’s contribution is viewed through the prism of perspectives as expressed by other respondents. It is thereby possible that what a person genuinely regards to be efficacious to leadership might not be so regarded by others. For example, the reported rising levels of bureaucracy and the centralisation of leadership in some universities might be regarded by proponents as helpful to efficiency and accountability (Khurana, 2007). Conversely, academics might consider such interventions to be counterproductive to the distribution of leadership responsibility and accountability of scholars and administrators (Bolden et al, 2009).

Alvesson and Sveningsson (2003) observed that there are some inherent difficulties in leading knowledge workers through the application of a top-down centralised bureaucracy. Hence, the intention to improve leadership performance may be a genuine and sincerely held viewpoint. However, the perceptions of reality, as reported by those respondents who are experiencing the transformation as either an academic leader or follower, might differ from the aspirations of those who designed the policies. Such issues are germane to this study of leadership and followership in business schools, because what people believe to be their reality is also likely to inform their decisions about what leadership and follwership might be in a time of transformational changes (Mabey, Kulich, and Lorenzi-Cioldi, 2012; Keleman and Bansal, 2002).

Accordingly, the position of this research is constructivist (Mabey and Finch-Lees, 2008).