|
Prepare an Ethics Paper
BTM 8103, Assignment 3 DuBose, Justin Z. Dr. Robert Levasseur 25 March 2018 Ethics in Research One of the most important considerations of research design is ensuring that the researcher safeguards the design, as well as the research itself, to adhere to proper ethical considerations for research. The APA Ethics Code lists five principles for research (Cozby, 2014, p. 43) observed by every researcher and built into the framework of their research. These five principles are: beneficence and nonmaleficence, fidelity and responsibility, integrity, justice, and respect for people’s rights and dignity (Cozby, 2014, p. 46). Beneficence and nonmaleficence are principles of maximizing benefits and minimizing harmful effects of those participating in the research. Fidelity and responsibility address the need for the researcher to develop and build trust with the research subjects. Integrity is a principle of truthfulness by the researcher in not deceiving or manipulating the research in any way. The principle of justice refers to the need for the researcher to ensure, throughout their design, that the participants benefit from the study and are all treated equally in the process. Finally, respect for people’s rights and dignity means that the researcher recognizes the inherent worth of all individual participants in the research and binds them to consider their rights throughout the study and make an intentional effort to protect their rights and dignity throughout the design of the research (Cozby, 2014, p. 48). Ethical Considerations History has demonstrated the need for ethical considerations in all forms of research. Perhaps the most prominent of all unethical research are the studies undertaken by the Nazis on concentration camp inmates and pilots of the Allied forces. Tyson (2000) describes 30 various experiments used by the Nazis, each of which subjected the participants to horribly excruciating pain and, often, death. These experiments included severing limbs from victims and attempting to attach them to another as well as subjecting victims to freezing conditions and observing the effects of such conditions on bodies. Another example of unethical studies come from the obedience studies of Stanley Milgram. Milgram wanted to test the degree to which participants would follow orders and administer what they thought were electric shocks to a fellow participant. The participants were operating under the assumption that the voltage from these shocks were enough to be potentially fatal. Though Milgram received wide criticism for his lack of research ethics, he did create a follow-up procedure to address the risks associated with his obedience study (Blass, 2004). These studies, among others, demonstrate the need for ethical considerations in research. Steps taken in recent decades seek to ensure that all research meet certain ethical criteria before research commences. For example, in 1974 the Belmont Report outlined three core principles required in all research: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice (Trochim, 2016, p. 40). Trochim (2016) noted that “research can be done in a way that respects and cares for the participants, maintains integrity in the process, and results in studies that are reported honestly” (p. 34). One concrete step taken by government and research institutions and organizations to ensure ethical research is the adoption of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) Trochim (2016) observed that “the role of local IRBs is to review all proposed research involving human subjects to ensure that subjects are going to be treated ethically and that their rights and welfare will be adequately protected” (p. 43). Dr. Linda Bloomberg, the Associate Director of Faculty Support and Development for the School of Education at Northcentral University, noted that, “IRB’s have emerged in accredited academic institutions of higher education as bureaucratic entities that are responsible for the regulation, governance, and enforcement of significant research ethics” (Bloomberg, 2017). She further noted that IRB’s possess institutional authority to approve or disapprove potential research by doctoral candidates, according to FDA regulations (Bloomberg, 2017). Northcentral University’s Institutional Review Board must review and approve all potential research conducted by doctoral candidates of Northcentral University. The design of the program is for this research to occur during the academic course labeled “Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Data Collection,” according to the school’s academic degree plan for doctoral students. Part of the IRB process for doctoral students includes obtaining a certification from the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) to conduct research on human subjects. The dissertation chair is also required to possess a valid CITI certificate in addition to the doctoral candidate. Every proposal to the IRB must demonstrate that the benefits of the research outweigh the risk of conducting research. As there are always certain risks to conducting research, the researcher must forthrightly note these risks in their research proposal to the IRB. Once granted approval by the IRB, the researcher must ensure that the research closely adhere to the guidelines approved by the IRB and not vary the procedures in the process of conducting research. Conclusion Research conducted in an unethical manner has potentially devastating consequences for research participants. As a means of mitigating such risks, Northcentral, and other accredited research institutions, have IRBs in place so that research is ethical in nature and, therefore, trustworthy and credible. Doctoral students and candidates should prepare to submit and amend research proposals as required by the IRB in order to treat all human subjects with dignity and respect. References Blass, T. (2004). The man who shocked the world. New York: Basic Books. Bloomberg, L. (2017, August 29). Supporting student researchers: Preparing for the IRB process. [Webinar presentation]. Retrieved from https://vac.ncu.edu/soe-community-forum/forum/53947/ncu-institutional-review-board-irb-doctoral-student-webinar Cozby, P. C. (2014). Methods in behavioral research (12th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill Higher Education. Trochim, W., Donnelly, J., & Arora, K. (2016). Research methods: The essential knowledge base (2nd ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage. Tyson, P. (2000). The experiments. Retrieved from the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/holocaust/experiside.html
0 Comments
Prepare a Validity Paper
BTM 8103, Assignment 2 DuBose, Justin Z. Dr. Robert Levasseur 20 March 2018 Research Validity Validity in research is one of the most important aspects in research design (Mohajan, 2017). Indeed, scholars may discredit even the most compelling research if steps are not taken by the researcher to ensure validity in their design, methodology, analysis, and conclusions. One of the reasons validity is so important in research design and methodology is that it not only brings about transparency and limits implicit bias on the part of the researcher, but it also constitutes the best practice of the researcher (Tuval-Mashiach, 2017). In other words, when the researcher ensures validity in their design, they are communicating with everyone else that their conclusions are trustworthy and, therefore, credible. This paper will examine three primary types of validity: external validity, internal validity, and construct validity. Additionally, this paper will discuss the threats to validity and their potential impact upon the envisioned research of the author. External Validity External validity is a form of research validity which addresses the degree to which research findings can be accurately projected onto other contexts and populations (Cozby, 2014 p. 73). Scholars have identified several key questions that researchers should answer when designing and constructing external validity into research. Some of these questions include: “Can the results be replicated with other operational definitions of the variables? Can the results be replicated with different participants? Can the results be replicated in other settings?” (Cozby, 2014, p. 89). When researchers answer these questions, they can confidently generalize their research findings and others can trust their generalizations (Trochim, Donnelly, & Arora, 2010, p. 83). For example, if a researcher can ensure randomization of participants in the study, then this validates the results to larger populations and contexts. Thus, a major benefit of meticulous safeguarding of external validity is the generalization of research findings to area beyond the research itself. Internal Validity While external validity pertains to projecting research findings onto other contexts and populations, internal validity refers to the “accuracy of conclusions about cause and effect” (Cozby, 2014, p. 73). As researchers conduct research on various subjects, selecting various participants, and examining various relationships, internal validity ensures that their conclusions about relationships between these variables are accurate. As this is an important component of any study, it is imperative that researchers understand how to ensure internal validity in their design. Cozby (2014) noted that, “a study has high internal validity when strong inferences can be made that one variable caused changes in another variable” (p. 87). Cozby (2014) noted that experiments (as opposed to surveys, interviews, questionnaires, etc.) are more likely to ensure high internal validity in a study. The reason for this correlation is due to the high degree to which the researcher can closely observe the effect one variable has on another. The researcher can also alter “temporal precedence” in an experiment (Cozby, 2014, p. 87). Causal variables can be re-ordered and re-examined by the researcher in order to more closely observe the cause-and-effect relationship between variables. Therefore, researchers concerned with maintaining a high degree of internal validity will place controls on their research experiment for the purpose of more closely and accurately observing causal relationships. Construct Validity Construct validity refers to the design and methodology of research and the degree to which that design accurately studies and measures variables (Cozby, 2014, p. 73). One way to consider construct validity is to think of the “adequacy of the operational definition of variables” (Cozby, 2014, p. 75). In other words, the question for the researcher to ask and answer to ensure high construct validity is: “Does the operational definition of a variable actually reflect the true theoretical meaning of the variable?” (Cozby, 2014, p. 76). Perhaps Trochim, Donnelly, and Arora (2016) offer a simpler definition of construct validity. They define construct validity as “the degree to which inferences can legitimately be made from the operationalizations in your study to the theoretical constructs on which those operationalizations are based” (p. 28). Researchers concerned with maintaining high construct validity will ask and answer the question of their research: “Did you implement the program you intended to implement, and did you measure the outcome you wanted to measure?” (Trochim, Donnelly, & Arora, 2010, p. 28). One major danger is that researchers design their study to measure one variable but, in fact, measure a different variable entirely. One fictitious example may be a study constructed to measure the correlation between hours of study by tenth graders and geometry scores. Researchers may conclude from this fictitious study that the less time a tenth-grade student spends studying geometry, the higher their test scores. However, they may fail to note in their study that these tenth-graders were utilizing digital study tools which required less time than traditional study methods. Therefore, the variable they actually measured (the impact of digital study tools) would be different than the variable which they intended to measure (study time). How validity impacts research The envisioned research which I intend to undertake deals with the field of e-leadership. I envision researching the effects of periodic personal interaction by the e-leader with individual virtual team members on overall team cohesion and performance. In this envisioned research, I will seek to examine three types of personal interaction between e-leader and virtual team members – face-to-face meetings, professional development, and individual coaching sessions – and their impact on team cohesion and performance. The design of this envisioned research is in the form of a field experiment. The envisioned participants in this study are employees of a multi-billion dollar financial services company who are on virtual teams dispersed over a ten state area. While they conduct regular, virtual meetings to discuss sales numbers, this field experiment would introduce a new variable of individual meetings between e-leader and team members and study the effect of these meetings on team cohesion and performance. As previously discussed, while field experiments have certain advantages when it comes to ensuring validity, they also present unique threats to the research. Field experiments, for example, lack the research advantage of experimental control (Cozby, 2014, p. 90). In a controlled environment, the researcher maintains close control of research variables so that cause and effect relationships can be more accurately observed. However, in a field experiment, the researcher observes cause and effect in a natural environment. One example is a study in which college students passed a confederate who either sneezed, coughed, or had no reaction as they passed (Lee, Schwarz, Taubman, & Hou, 2010). The students were then asked to complete a survey regarding their perception of being at risk for the flu. Results consistently concluded that those who passed when the confederate either sneezed or coughed perceived being at greater risk for “contracting a serious disease, having a heart attack prior to age 50, and dying from a crime or accident” (Cozby, 2014, p. 90). The dilemma in this field experiment is that researchers have no control over participants and their level of education, race, gender, field of employment, and many other factors which could be more closely controlled in a designed experiment. Similarly, my envisioned research would lack certain controls which could provide greater validity as it pertains to cause-and-effect relationships. The researcher would have no control, for example, over the participants as they are already selected and employed on these virtual teams. Cozby (2014) identified two great threats to ensuring validity in field experimentation. He noted that “(1) it can be difficult to determine the direction of cause and effect and (2) researchers face the third-variable problem – that is, extraneous variables may be causing an observed relationship.” (Cozby, 2014, p. 82). In this envisioned research, the threat to external validity is that the financial service industry limits generalization. Thus, any steps taken to ensure the greatest randomization of virtual team participants would increase external validity. Similarly, the greatest threat to internal validity is not accounting for a certain variable which may be present during meetings between the e-leader and virtual team members. For example, is music playing in one type of meeting and absent in another? Is the type of room or furniture arrangement in the room impacting the interaction between e-leader and virtual team member? The researcher must take steps to limit the presence of other variables to ensure high internal validity. Likewise, the greatest threat to construct validity is that the study actually define and measure “team cohesion” and “team performance” and not some other variable, such as “employee satisfaction” or “e-leader effectiveness.” Steps taken here could include aligning a definition of both cohesion and performance with the corporate standards of the financial services industry as well as existing research in the field. This step would ensure high construct validity within the study. References Cozby, P. C. (2014). Methods in behavioral research (12th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill Higher Education. Lee, S. S., Schwarz, N., Taubman, D., & Hou, M. (2010). Sneezing in times of a flu pandemic: Public sneezing increases perception of unrelated risks and shifts preferences for federal spending. Psychological Science, 21, 375–377. doi:10.1177/0956797609359876 Mohajan, H. (2017). Two criteria for good measurements in research: Validity and reliability. Annals of Spiru Haret University Economic Series, 17, 59-82. doi:10.26458/1746 Trochim, W., Donnelly, J., & Arora, K. (2016). Research methods: The essential knowledge base (2nd ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage. Tuval-Mashiach, R. (2017). Raising the curtain: The importance of transparency in qualitative research. Qualitative Psychology, 4(2), 126-138. doi:10.1037/qup0000062 Defining Theoretical Perspective
It is critical that a doctoral student design and understand research in the context of a theoretical perspective. This perspective guides the researcher in “selecting an appropriate research approach, reviewing the literature to position the proposed study within the existing literature, and deciding on whether to use a theory in the study” (Creswell, 2013, p. 1). The researcher must first decide whether to conduct a quantitative or a qualitative research design for a dissertation. This decision will impact the framework and perspective employed by the researcher. Creswell (2013) defines defined quantitative research as “an approach for testing objective theories by examining the relationship among variables. These variables, in turn, can be measured, typically on instruments, so that numbered data can be analyzed using statistical procedures” (p. 4). The details of this proposed study are laid and nested within the theoretical framework of quantitative methodology. Identifying a Theoretical Framework A theoretical framework is used in either developing a new theory or expanding on a current theory (Corley, 2011), as opposed to a conceptual framework which is used in solving a practical problem (Rocco, 2009). In these early stages of my ownresearch, a theoretical as opposed to a conceptual framework takes shape, as the objective at this point is to expand on current research and theory rather than to solve a practical problem. In the field of e-leadership, existing research has both developed objective theories as well as identified gaps in the research which leave new areas of research to be explored and developed. Creswell (2013) says of those individuals who engage in quantitative research that they “have assumptions about testing theories deductively, building in protections against bias, controlling for alternative explanations, and being able to generalize and replicate the findings” (p. 4). Thus, according to Creswell, one of the most important elements of theoretical perspective in quantitative research is testing theories by collecting and examining data. This data, once examined, will then lead the researcher to develop a new, objective theory within the field which can be replicated in a variety of settings. Theoretical Perspective of E-leadership E-leadership is an academic field of study that has emerged since the turn of the millennium (Savolainen, 2014) which involves organizational leadership of highly technological structures stretched over different cultures and geographic regions (Avolio, 2014). These widely dispersed organizational structures have led to the advent and implementation of virtual teams (Lilian, 2014). With this growing organizational structure of dispersed virtual team members comes new, unique, and difficult leadership challenges which must be addressed by the e-leader (Hoch and Kozlowski, 2016). Liao (2017) defined virtual teams as “a collection of individuals who work on tasks that share varying degrees of interdependence and mutual accountability to accomplish a common goal” (p. 651). While virtual teams are dynamic and take many forms, research has highlighted several commons factors which impact how these teams should be led. For example, Cheshin et al. (2013) found that most teams are partially, rather than exclusively, virtual. In studying the nature of dispersion amongst virtual teams, Krumm et al. (2013) identified cultural dispersion as the most common dimension of virtual teams. The organizational e-leader, then, is likely to lead a culturally diverse, partially virtual team. In their study of virtual teams, Gilson et al. (2015) identified leadership as one of the most pressing themes in research on virtual teams and considered e-leadership of virtual teams an opportunity for future research. Hill & Bartol (2016) found that effective e-leadership of virtual teams empowers team members by providing collaboration between e-leader and team member as well as collaboration between fellow team members. Hill & Bartol (2016) also found that virtual collaboration contributes to team performance, and that team performance is also enhanced when e-leaders interact with individual team members. Writing about collaboration between e-leader and virtual team members, Liao (2017) notes that current literature does not address the process by which the e-leader interacts with individual virtual team members in a way that builds and maintains relationships. Research Contributions in this Theoretical Perspective The unique problem which will be addressed in this theoretical perspective is: given the cultural (Krumm et al., 2013) and geographic (Avolio, 2014) dispersion of virtual teams and the accompanying technological and organizational leadership challenges (Lilian, 2014), what are the effects of periodic personal interaction by the e-leader with individual virtual team members on overall team cohesion and performance? This perspective will examine three types of personal interaction between e-leader and virtual team members – face-to-face meetings, professional development, and individual coaching sessions – and their impact on team cohesion and performance. This study builds upon and develops current literature, specifically Hill & Bartol (2016) and their conclusion that team performance is enhanced further when e-leaders interact with individual team members. This study also addresses gaps in the existing literature regarding leadership of virtual teams (Gilson et al., 2015) and how e-leaders can positively develop and maintain relationship with individual virtual team members (Liao, 2017). Purpose of Theoretical Perspective in Research The purpose of this study is to examine three types of e-leader/individual virtual team member interaction and the effect of each on virtual team cohesion and performance. By studying the interactions of face-to-face meetings, professional development, and individual coaching sessions between the e-leader and individual virtual team members, this study purposes to provide e-leaders with research to positively improve their virtual team performance and cohesion between leader and member as well as amongst team members. Research Questions & Hypotheses To adequately address the research problem and fulfill the research purpose, the following research questions are posed and answered throughout this study: 1. How do face-to-face meetings between e-leader and individual virtual team members correlate to an increase in team member interactions? 2. What are the effects of professional development sessions between e-leader and individual virtual team members on team performance? 3. In what ways do individual coaching sessions between e-leader and individual team members correlate to improved team performance? In formulating hypotheses for these research questions, existing literature provided some clues as to what this study may conclude. Hill & Bartol (2016) concluded that team performance is enhanced further when e-leaders interact with individual team members and empower them to grow and succeed. Liao (2017) likewise concluded that e-leadership is complex and requires additional effort from leaders to achieve results from team members. Based on those conclusions and results, the hypothesis is that each of these three efforts by the e-leader (face-to-face meetings, professional development, and individual coaching sessions) will positively contribute to team cohesion and performance. Furthermore, the researcher predicts that both individual coaching sessions and professional development will yield greater results in team cohesion and performance than face-to-face meetings. This hypothesis is based in part on the work of Hoch & Kozlowski (2016) who concluded that direct relationships between leader and team member positively contribute to team performance. An additional hypothesis of the researcher is that these direct interactions, which have a specific goal of empowering team members with coaching and professional development from the e-leader, will demonstrate a greater return in cohesion and productivity than the more ambiguous agenda of face-to-face meetings. Methodology & Design within the Theoretical Perspective Participants in this experimental study are employees of a multi-billion dollar diversified financial services company. The population sample for this study are twenty-five members of a regionally distributed virtual team working under one regional manager. For the purposes of this study, this regional manager will be identified and referred to as the e-leader. These virtual team members are dispersed over a ten-state area and their regular interaction includes a weekly video-conference virtual meeting and a monthly physical meeting with the e-leader. The weekly virtual meetings last approximately two hours and the monthly physical meetings last two business days. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss sales numbers and targets from the individual virtual team members to the e-leader and guidance and direction from the e-leader to the individual virtual team members. Prior to this research study, there were no regular individual interactions between e-leader and individual virtual team members. The only individual interactions that occurred resulted from either disciplinary action needing to be taken or merit-based awards or promotions being received by team members. The introduction of a new variable of individual meetings between e-leader and team members into routine business life will provide the basis for the research design in this theoretical perspective. This research design is not intended to discover the motivations, emotions, and psychological rationale behind behavioral change but simply to track whether behavioral change results from individual interactions between e-leader and virtual team members. Mertens (2015) noted that qualitative research utilizes the researcher as the primary means of data collection, whereas quantitative methodology utilizes other means (survey, interview, questionnaire) for data collection. As this research study will utilize questionnaires from the researcher to the respondents for reporting behavioral change in sales data and personal interactions with fellow team members, the study, including the methodology and design, is quantitative in nature. References Avolio, B., Sosik, J., Kahai, S., Baker, B. (2014). "E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission". The Leadership Quarterly, 251, 105-131. Retrieved from https://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-leadership-quarterly/March 11, 2018. Cheshin, A., Kim, Y., Nathan, D. B., Ning, N., & Olson, J. S. (2013). Emergence of differing electronic communication norms within partially distributed teams. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12, 7–21. Retrieved from https://econtent.hogrefe.com/toc/pps/current Chua, Y.P., & Chua, Y.P. (2017). How are e-leadership practices in implementing a school virtual learning environment enhanced? Computers & Education, 109, 109–121. Retrieved from https://www.journals.elsevier.com/computers-and-education/ Corley, K., & Gioia, D. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12-32. Retrieved from http://aom.org/amr/ Cozby, P. C. (2014). Methods in behavioral research (12th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill Higher Education. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Publications. Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Young, N. C. J., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1313–1337. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/home/jom/ Hill, N. S., & Bartol, K. M. (2016). Empowering leadership and effective collaboration in geographically dispersed teams. Personnel Psychology, 69, 159–198. Retrieved from https://us.hogrefe.com/products/journals/journal-of-personnel-psychology Hoch, J., & Kozlowski, S. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership structural supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 390–403. doi:10.1037/a0030264 Krumm, S., Terwiel, K., & Hertel, G. (2013). Challenges in norm formation and adherence. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12, 33–44. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000077 Liao, C. (2017). Leadership in virtual teams: A multilevel perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 27, 648–659. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.010 Lilian, S. C. (2014). Virtual teams: Opportunities and challenges for e-leaders. Contemporary Issues in Business, Management and Education, 110, 1251-1261. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.972 Mertens, D.M. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Rocco, T., & Plakhotnik, M. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource Development Review, 8(1), 120-130. doi:10.1177/1534484309332617 Savolainen, T. (2014). Trust-building in e-leadership: A case study of leaders' challenges and skills in technology-mediated interaction. Journal of Global Business Issues, 8(2), 45-56. Retrieved from http://www.ipfw.edu/jgbt/ Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: SAGESage. Reflect Upon Your Meeting with Stakeholders
OLB 7004, Assignment 8 DuBose, Justin Z. Dr. Rosa Cassell 4 March 2018 Reflecting on meeting with organizational leadership In the meeting with the organizational leadership of Columbus Christian Academy, one of the most important decisions to consider was how to most effectively communicate the leadership action plan to the school board of Columbus Christian Academy. While both direct and indirect approaches to communication have certain benefits, a direct approach was taken for this presentation. The background of the presenter was one of much training in direct communication. As an individual who has spent eight years of his career serving as an officer in the United States Army Reserves, direct communication was ingrained as the most effective mode of communication as it minimizes the risk of miscommunication. Additionally, as an individual who has spent thirteen years of his career as a professional communicator – an ordained minister – direct communication has proven to be the most effective means of communication both inside and outside of the military. Thus, this decision was based partly on training and education as well as experience. Direct communication also has other benefits that have been researched and written about. For example, research has concluded that taking a direct approach to communicating with those in positions of leadership is the method best suited to “aligning people and motivating them to fulfill both individual and group objectives” (Glamuzina, 2015). One of the central purposes behind the presentation of a leadership action plan is to take a collection of individuals and align and mobilize them to collective action. Built into that mobilization is the need to motivate the group to fulfill group objectives. When the presenter was enrolled in a public speaking class in graduate school, the professor was quoted as saying, “When there is a mist on the stage, there is a fog in the seats.” What the professor was referring to was the need to clear, direct, and precise in communicating a message which requires action by those in the audience. In the case of this presentation, this was the exact objective on the part of the presenter. A leadership action plan was constructed and presenting with the goal of motivating and inspiring the group to take collective action. An additional reason for the direct approach to communication is to inspire creativity and innovation from those serving in leadership. This approach to leadership and communication helps “develop organizational vision, zero in on problems with alacrity, and thrive on prolific idea generation” (Sohmen, 2015). Inherent in the presentation is the stirring of creativity and innovation in the hearts and minds of those in positions of organizational leadership. Such a leadership action plan is the most beneficial to those who most greatly need to develop vision, focus on problems, and generate new and innovative ideas. Since this serves as one of the main objectives of the presentation of a leadership action plan, it added to the necessity to communicate directly. In preparing the presentation of such a leadership action plan, the primary challenge was identifying specific problems as well as solutions. The organization (Columbus Christian Academy) had sufficient broad goals and organizational mission and vision. The primary challenge was in addressing specific issues which could be addressed by the existing leadership and available resources at hand. Once specific problems were targeted and assessed, it made the job of developing specific solution a bit easier as there were specific problems which needed to be addressed. The final challenge was in nesting these problems and solutions within the existing mission and vision of the organization. A workable mission and vision statement were already in place, but the practice of placing problems and solutions under the umbrella of furthering the mission and vision of the organization. Once this was accomplished, it made the presentation not only flow better, but also interwove the “big picture” of the organization throughout every aspect of the leadership action. In doing this, it attached the entie plan o furthering the mission and vision of the organization. References Glamuzina, M. (2015). “Levels of leadership development and top management’s effectiveness: Is there a clear-cut relationship?”. Management, Vol. 20, 89-131. Retrieved March 4, 2018. Sohmen, V.S. (2015). “Reflections on Creative Leadership”. International Journal of Global Business, 8(1), 1-14. Accessed March 4, 2018. |
NG, LR, & NCUMy collection of personal papers written over the years Archives
March 2020
Categories |
RSS Feed
© Justin DuBose | 2013-2022
All Rights Reserved
All Rights Reserved