I have been working on the 'Leadership' since long. This term always lead me to a dilemma regarding which is the best way to measure 'Leadership' along with other variables. As in a multivariate study other variable's will assessed by the respondent where as leadership has to be assessed by their subordinates. Now this creates problem while statistical treatment of data. Kindly suggest what can be done in this regard?
I think leadership, within the framework of the constructs by which it is defined in the study, should also be assessed by (intra-organizational and inter-organizational) peers and supervisors as well as the subordinates.
Dear Garima,
Maybe I have not fully understood the problem, but if you assess leaders' self perception of their leadership skills as one scale and how subordinates perceive those separately and treat the scales / scores accordingly, you should not have a problem. You could compare whether the self-image is reflected or not reflected by subordinates (e.g. see Person-Environment-Fit Theory or the Johari Window by Luft & Ingham).
Hope this helps!
Burkhard
Dear Garima,
Just using the self assessment may certainly lead to some bias.Alternatively, you can use leadership instruments which tests both the self- (for the respondent) and the other- (for the subordinates) so that you get a better picture of the leader you are studying. One example is the Bolman and Deal Leadership Orientations Survey which has got both the self and other instrument to test leader behaviour and leadership styles. All the best!
http://www.leebolman.com/orientations.htm
Hi Garima,
Leadership has been a topic of research being examined in different streams with different themes, objectives and population/sample. In you case, you rightly pointed out real problem. In fact in Indian context, self assessment is carried out vastly yet there are studies in which followers' data is also gathered. Chances of errors in data collection in the form of bias are always there. If possible you can compare the same items/statements from both the perspectives (with slight changes in the items/statements) and find the gap. This way perhaps you can go for damage control could find the requite outcome.
I am convinced that the leadership understood as conduct of the person is the result of having gone in self-knowledge. The leadership has to be seen as a result of knowledge, skill, attitude and integrity of the person.
Dear Joao
Thanks for the information. Let me go through your paper and I would definitely ask questions.
In the research we did at Infosys, we addressed the issue of what construct to measure by whom, based on the literature and on which stakeholder (e.g. self, manager, peer, mentor, client) had the best opportunities to observe that facet of leadership. As for literature, Hogan's Socioanalytic theory has been supported in three meta-analyses showing that asking for others' views of your personality is more predictive than self-report. But for self-regulatory constructs like identity, the leader herself/himself is likely the best judge.
I'm fond of Linacre's Many Facet Rasch Model to adjust for biases with modern psychometrics.
http://www.infosys.com/leadership-institute/publications/
http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/leading-value-creation-matt-barney/?K=9781137373717
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgY3NRT94mk
Article Personalizing Global Leader Development @ Infosys
Conference Paper Observer ratings of leader personality and performance: A te...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology