Reflecting on my positionality during the interviews, I could be considered as both an insider and an outsider (Bourke, 2014). My social position in terms of gender, age, race, socio- economic grouping, and professional position, in obvious and subtle ways, are likely to impact on the relationship dynamic between the participants and me (Berger, 2015). Being aware of who I am, who I could be perceived to be and how “being me”, influenced the engagement between the participants and me, and is an integral part of the research dynamic (Bourke, 2014). Because of a researcher’s active role in the interview process by asking questions and probing, it is important that they are aware of their own attitudes and how a researcher’s own positioning influences the questions they ask, how they ask them, and how they respond to answers. Researchers need to be aware of their own feelings and the feelings of participants (Rubin & Rubin, 2011).
Reflexivity encourages the researcher to be aware of their own history, their own issues (which in the South African context include the complex issue of racial positioning); and how I, the researcher, am positioned or situated in this dynamic. Therefore, qualitative research findings can best not be considered to be independent or objective; and are therefore essentially constructivist, with the research subjectively forming meaning from the
participants’ subjective narratives. The position of the researcher can influence the research process in terms of access to potential participants, as participants might be more willing to engage with a researcher who is in their social sphere. They may find it easier to share experiences with a researcher they perceive to be “like them” and thus more likely to be understanding of them. Further, the researcher’s own history and worldview influences the way the information is gathered and interpreted (Berger, 2015).
I was likely to be viewed by the participants as a White, middle aged, middle-class woman, who is a psychologist and owner of a consulting business. Some of the participants could view me as an “insider” because of those demographics. I could be viewed as an “insider” because I also work professionally in the “people professions” as do many of the participants. For others, I may be considered an insider because I had a similar self-perceived destructive experience with a leader similar to that as the participants. My shared destructive leadership experience could, however, also render me an “outsider” to some participants, as they could feel that they need to compare and compete with what they may perceive my coping to be, and they may thus be reticent to share self-perceived notions of failing to cope. My personal needs for boundaries and self-protection with regards to my own coping could also encourage “outsider” status (Berger, 2015). Considering the diversity of the participants in terms of race, age and gender, the positionality of my social attributes could play a key role in impeding or facilitating engagement between the participants and me (Rubin & Rubin, 2011).
During the interview I sensed that some participants were to an extent holding back and were understandably cautious. This could be due to various reasons, such as the
challenges of creating trust and rapport in a once-off interview, the personality of the
participants or having distanced themselves from the challenging experience they had with a manager as a way of coping with the experience. I was also mindful that some of the issues explored during the interview probed socio-political sensitivities and could perhaps be considered taboo in the South African context. I was therefore reluctant to probe too hard, being mindful that this was not a therapy session and that whatever distancing the participants employed, I had to be careful not to disturb that. Responsive interviewing is done in a gentle, non-confrontational and supportive manner and the interviewer imposes on the time, emotion and energy of the participant, for which the researcher should respond by giving the
participant loyalty and protection (Rubin & Rubin, 2011).
Although I was from the outset mindful and cautious about the impact that re-visiting an experience, that for many would best be forgotten, could have on the participants, I was taken by surprise by how unsettling the experience was for me. Therefore, although my caution to probe too hard was informed by care and concern for the participants and an awareness of their socio-political sensitivities, I should not ignore that traces of my personal need for emotional self-preservation and personal socio-political sensitivities may have infiltrated into this complex dynamic between the participant and me (Berger, 2015).
While analysing the data I was self-aware about my phenomenological positioning. I, thus, attempted to bracket my interpretative lens, to refrain from premature positing and open myself to the data (Finlay, 2011). However, it may not be possible to completely isolate biased interpretation. Therefore, as complete impartiality may not be possible, bridling or holding back the researcher’s own views to allow the phenomenon to present itself could be a more realistic way of dealing with the data. Thus, I was mindful not to reach conclusions and understand too quickly, but to interact with the data in a disciplined manner (Dahlberg, 2011).
I was careful to counter my own bias by journaling my reactions during the interview and during analysis. In order to increase trustworthiness and credibility in the interpretation of findings, I brought my own reactions during interviews, the raw participant interviews and the emerging themes to supervision; and the initial construction of themes and categories formed part of a consultative supervisory process. Thus, the supervisor took on the role of an external monitor to ensure sound constructions (Guba as cited in Krefting, 1991). By
transcribing the interviews myself, I ensured that I stayed close to the raw data and this in- depth engagement with the interviews strengthened the truth value of interpretive
constructions. Krefting (1991) advised that in order to increase the worth of the research findings, the distance between researcher and participant should be reduced. Although for logistical, ethical and confidentiality reasons, it was deemed that re-interviewing participants were not feasible, I mitigated this limitation by the steps taken above and by allowing
interviews to run their course. Extensive extracts from my conversations with participants gave voice to the participants’ experiences and also served to authenticate findings. In the next chapter, I present the findings of this study according to the themes and categories that emerged from my interviews with the participants.
CHAPTER FIVE
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
5.1 Introduction
The main focus of this research was to explore followers’ direct experiences with destructive leadership behaviour in South African organisational contexts and coping strategies that were employed to engage with this behaviour. Further, the study was interested in follower
perceptions of the characteristics of the phenomenon of destructive leadership behaviour. In this regard I particularly explored participants’ perceptions of relational authenticity with the leader (Eagly, 2005). To what extent does a follower’s identification with the leader in terms of congruent traits, values and social representation (i.e., socio-economic, racial, gender and age cohort) influence their coping processes? Furthermore, the study explored whether participants’ psychological capital played a role in their coping process (Walumba et al., 2011).
Findings of the study are presented first at the individual level, presenting a profile description of each participant.
The findings presented here describe a “slice” of the participants’ lives and, in particular, a “slice” of their work lives, that is, the participants’ experience of coping with a challenging manager in a work context. Although the participants live full lives consisting of many facets, areas other than the participants’ work lives were not the focus of this inquiry.