(NCU) Expand Your Literature Review

Expand Your Literature Review 
BTM 7300, Assignment 10 
DuBose, Justin Z. 
Dr. Antoinette Kohlman 
28 May 2017 

​Writing the Brief Literature Review Draft 
 
This paper constitutes an expansion of my literature review.  In this brief literature review draft, I will provide details regarding the connections or relationship uncovered in the analysis and synthesis of five articles. These articles focus on the role that technology plays in the twenty-first century workplace and the challenges they present to the modern organizational leader.  Examples of questions researched and explored in these articles are: What is the value of ethical training in new technologies?  What leadership skills are most important in a multi-generational workforce environment?  How does team climate impact employee production deviance?  The synthesis of information on this subject will include frameworks employed, study methodology, data collection instruments, study participants, study findings, study limitations, as well as my conclusion. 
Theoretical Frameworks  
           These five study articles were varied in their use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks.  One article employed a conceptual framework (Nadolny, 2013), and three articles employed a theoretical framework in their research (Clark, 2017; Nadolny, 2013; Zhang, 2015).  The one remaining article stated clearly that there was no singular theoretical framework employed (Ferguson, 2016).  Even within the umbrella of theoretical framework, no singular methodology was utilized by the researchers cited.  One author used the social exchange theory (Zhang, 2015) to study the relationship and work ethic between managers and employees.  Another researcher used the social forces theory (Clark, 2017) to study how multiple generations interacted within a singular workforce environment.  Finally, a third researcher used the concept management cultural framework (El-Sofany, 2014) to examine how to best manage virtual teams. 
Study Methodology 
Similarly, the study methodology was equally varied across these five research articles.  Three articles used a quantitative methodological approach (Clark, 2017; El-Sofany, 2014; Zhang, 2015) in their research, while one author employed a qualitative methodological approach (Ferguson, 2016).  Within this quantitative approach, data was collected by a variety of data collection instruments, and the collected data was then summarized and analyzed.  The results of the data form the basis of their conclusions.  In this qualitative approach, they were not seeking merely to find numerical patterns or statistical similarities, but they were rather seeking deeper answers to questions of human psychology.  The fifth and final article employed took both a qualitative and quantitative methodological approach in their research (Nadolny, 2013). 
Data Collection Instrument 
 
The form of data collection was also quite varied in the synthesis of these articles.  Two authors collected their data by means of face-to-face interviews (Ferguson, 2016; Nadolny, 2013), two authors collected their data by means of sending out questionnaires (El-Sofany, 2014, Zhang, 2015), and one author distributed surveys (Clark, 2017).  The particular study methodology employed had no correlation with the data collection instrument employed by the researchers. 
Study Participants 
 
The study participants were also quite varied depending on the topic being researched.  Two researchers interviewed university personnel – one dealing directly with students (Clark, 2017) and the other exclusively with faculty members (Nadolny, 2013).  Two articles were specifically dealing with information technology professionals (El-Sofany, 2014; Zhang, 2015), and one article dealt only with library professionals (Ferguson, 2016).  Most had an intentional balance of male and female, while one specifically emphasized males in their study (El-Sofany, 2014).  Additionally, one article specifically targeted both young and old in their research (Clark, 2017), while others targeted only a younger demographic in their study (Nadolny, 2013).  
Study Findings 
 
As each study was targeting various demographics and industries, the study findings were expectedly varied.  One study found that there is a high value of teaching ethics and interdisciplinary collaboration in virtual learning environments (Nadolny, 2013).  Another discovered that team climate impacts employee production deviance, and, more specifically, co-worker deviance has a positive impact in this regard (Zhang, 2015).  Another concluded that generational differences, while presenting unique challenges, also foster a more diverse and productive workforce (Clark, 2017).  While studying ethics, one author found that those in the library profession are very aware of the importance of ethics, but that technology creates the need for complex, new training in ethical decision-making (Ferguson, 2016).  Finally, it was concluded that technical proficiency in the IT field does not translate to effective leadership.  Rather, intangible skills such as communication and teamwork are equally important (El Sofany, 2014). 
Study Limitations 
 
In a majority of cases, the impact of the study was limited to those who actually participated in the study.  One study had limitations due to the type of industry being researched (Ferguson, 2016), and two studies had limitations based on the demographic being surveyed (students, employees, managers, etc.) (Clark, 2017; Nadolny, 2013).  In most cases, these limitations were clearly stated during the course of the research.  Two studies were also limited based on geography as one was only researching Chinese businesses (Zhang, 2015) and the other was limited to five specific geographic regions (El-Sofany, 2014). 
Conclusion 
These articles, while dealing with a variety of specific applications, all touch on the topic of organizational leadership in a technological environment.  Multiple studies highlighted the need for strong ethical training and awareness (Ferguson, 2016), which is in line with other articles on the subject.  Additionally, leadership is consistently being demonstrated to require both a technical and professional proficiency, as well as certain intangibles such as social awareness, good communication, and the ability to work with and lead a team of people (El-Sofany, 2014).  This is especially true, and even more pronounced, in a multigenerational workforce environment (Clark, 2017). 

 
References 
Clark, K.  (2017). "Managing Multiple Generations in the Workplace".  Radiologic Technology, 88(4), 379-398.  Retrieved May 28, 2017. 
 
El-Sofany, H., Alwadani, H., & Alwadani, A. (2014). “Managing Virtual Team Work in IT Projects: Survey”.  International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 7(4), 28-33. Retrieved May 28, 2017. 
 
Ferguson, S., Thornley, C., & Gibb, F. (2016). “Beyond codes of ethics: how library and information professionals navigate ethical dilemmas in a complex and dynamic information environment”.  International Journal of Information Management, 36(4), 543-556.  Retrieved May 28, 2017. 
 
Nadolny, L., Woolfrey, J., Pierlott, M., & Kahn, S. (2013). “SciEthics Interactive: science and ethics learning in a virtual environment”.  Educational Technology Research & Development, 61(6), 979-999.  Retrieved May 28, 2017. 
 
Zhang, H., Luo, X., Liao, Q., & Peng, L. (2015). “Does IT team climate matter?  An empirical study of the impact of co-workers and the Confucian work ethic on deviance behavior”.  Information & Management, 52(6), 658-667.  Retrieved May 28, 2017.