Qualitative research methods tend to focus on the deviations in quality instead of quantity, and results tend to be in words or pictures and not numbers. It can be described as inquiry with an aim of understanding human or social problems from different multiple perspectives (Tuli, 2010, p. 99). Quantitative research, on the other hand, focuses on quantities or numbers. Its results tend to be based on statistics and numerical analysis. It can be described as an inquiry into an identified problem; its goal is to establish the truthfulness of predictive generalizations (Tuli, 2010, p. 100).
There can be various approaches of gathering data in Human resource (HR) research. Organizations can use a range of methods to find out what people feel concerning their organization. People can be interviewed or engaged in conversation. In addition, focus groups can be established, or people can be advised to keep some journals where they can record their take concerning their respective organizations (Creswell, 2003, p. 99). The attitude survey approach tends to be a significant method of data collection; it is a qualitative method, which gives us a clear understanding of the mood at the workplace. The questionnaire tends to be well structured and enables people to respond honestly since it allows for anonymity. Therefore, data generated with this procedure can be examined to identify the relationship among different variables concerning employment relations in an organization.
For researchers who identify with the positivist/objectivist approach to research and knowledge, using qualitative data obtained through focus groups and participant observation would have minimal value in knowledge contribution concerning motivation and organizational performance at the workplace (Pfeffer, 1998, p. 105). To the same degree, an inter pretivist researcher working from a social constructivist view about reality and knowledge might propose that quantitative data collected from an attitude survey would provide exceptionally minimal understanding of what issues like performance and motivation mean for employees involved in that organization.
Several HR researchers, mostly practitioner researchers realize that they can see qualitative and quantitative data values and still feel comfortable with intepretivist and positivist approaches as the foundation for developing their research. ‘mixed-method’ research describes research which adapts both quantitative and qualitative data in a manner that enables insights to be mutually illuminating (Creswell, 2003, p. 100). This approach gives both characteristic and statistical results concerning employment relations, therefore, giving the researcher a wider variety from where to make final conclusions, hence obtaining correct analysis concerning employment matters (Pfeffer, 1998, p. 107).
Theory, therefore, is useful and necessary to HR professionals who apply a variety of frameworks. Some tend to be derived from common sense and some from formal research contained within business or social sciences and management literature. Maslow’s theory still provides a basis for a number of careers undertaken within organizations. Theories play a considerable part in effective HR practice, it is crucial that HR professionals have the ability to evaluate different frameworks to identify the ones which offer appropriate basis for understanding organizational situations and from which to implement HR intervention (Pfeffer, 1998, p. 110). This way, they can enhance better relationship between Human resource management and employees within organizations.
However, mixed-methods research can cause problems. For example, in student projects, time tends to be a limitation. It involves a lot of time gathering and analyzing data in a systematic and competent way. Using more than a single method, can cause difficulties of lack of time. There tend to be different theories alluded, but, there are two ways of judging between different theories. First is testing to see if one of the other works (Creswell, 2003, p. 97). This implies taking a fresh approach to rewarding and evaluating effects. This ensures one can measure the extent to which the outcomes predicted by the approach to HR being tested are achieved. This process can lead to unexpected outcomes, or lead in part, to what one has been led to expect, and this provides a basis for further amendment and development of the original theory (Anderson, 2009, p. 136).
In human resource management, leadership plays a decisive role since it determines the interaction and relationship between the employees and management in an organization. Looking at qualitative research on leadership, it gives more attention to the methods in which leaders and their styles of leadership have to be or tend to respond to certain circumstances. This tendency can function at two levels (Creswell, 2003, p. 103). First, qualitative researchers tend to be more sensitive to the effects of certain circumstances for leaders and their leadership styles. Secondly, qualitative researchers more likely emphasize on the importance of the sector within which leadership takes place for leadership styles and what is regarded as most effective.
In qualitative leadership, there is a trend to put more attention on senior leaders, whereas quantitative research is more concerned with leaders at different levels. For the purpose of accessing senior leader’s behavior, researchers can observe and interview the leaders at their workplaces or interview other employees regarding their leadership behavior (Bryman, 2004, p. 752). The types of leadership styles and behaviors identified as conducive by qualitative researchers or identified by study participants, tend to be more mundane than current quantitative research concerning leadership with its emphasis on charismatic leadership, transformational leadership and vision. Rather, qualitative researchers, despite recognizing the significance of such leader behaviors, also emphasize the importance of more mundane instrumental behavioral forms, like ensuring adequate resources for subordinates, to ensure they perform their duties effectively (Anderson, 2009, p. 146).
Qualitative research on leadership identifies good communication from the leader and the leader’s integrity, with the extent of trust as extremely crucial for effective leadership. These are aspects that are normally neglected by quantitative researchers (Dubrin, 2001, p. 245). Employees always emphasize leading from the front and by example. This can mean being a good role model, but, seems to involve more of being credible and having integrity. Leading by example only becomes possible if the leader or manager in charge of the organization is straightforward, focused and professional, only such traits can make his followers admire his efforts. This focuses on the qualities of the leader and hence helps us in understanding the employment relations in the organization (Bryman, 2004, p. 752).
There is a frequent theme in qualitative research on leadership, where leaders are often symbolized as people who get ideas, values and beliefs from their subordinate and ‘recycle them back’ in a distinctive leadership model (Bryman, 2004, p. 753). Qualitative research on leadership has brought various aspects concerning leadership processes that otherwise have not been unexplored. Charismatic leadership has been in focus for a long time, and it is only qualitative research that has shed ‘sufficient’ light on the matter. This has enabled researchers to better understand the contents of a charismatic leader and enable them advise human resource managers on how to better handle their employees at the workplace (Anderson, 2009, p. 150).
Qualitative research concerning leadership has led in investigating new leadership forms like ethical leadership, environmental leadership and e-leadership. It has been faster compared to quantitative research in diverting attention to these emergent forms. It emphasizes the significance of the leader as a manager who manipulates symbols to manage change, achieve support and instill a vision (Bryman, 2004, p. 753). These have been less amenable to quantitative research. Qualitative research less often portrays the nebulous notion of managing symbols and meaning as reliable in their own right.
It has been a common occurrence for leadership in qualitative research to be less cumulative compared to quantitative research on leadership. Most of the times, qualitative investigations begin afresh and make minimal reference to other qualitative research concerning leadership behavior and style while quantitative research always builds on existing quantitative studies (Dubrin, 2001, p. 255). This deficiency of cumulativeness may be a result of the open ended ness of much qualitative research that tends to avoid prior theorizing (Bryman, 2004, p. 755). This means researchers cannot be able to build on already existing research, but have a chance of doing so by relating whatever they find to the findings of other researchers concerning leadership.
Some qualitative research pertaining leadership uses the existing research and theory as the foundation for their research approach; others treat it as counterpoint (Justin Conger Arnold, 1998, p. 187). Other researchers shun existing research and theory, and can only refer to it at the end of their article; this ensures they do not mix the research and its discussions. For several qualitative leadership researches, there exists a unique balance between providing a rationale for investigation and demanding existing literature for the purpose of bestowing credibility (Bryman, 2004, p. 754). Qualitative research pertaining to leadership most likely problematizes the leadership concept, while qualitative researchers are not the only ones questioning the utility and application of the concept, they have been acting as a means of aid in probing its meaning and conducting investigations which underline its problematic nature.
Though leadership has been found to be the driving force in organizations and helps in explaining the employment relations in an organization. Charismatic leadership has been found to be one of the most fascinating, yet subtle, at the moment being analyzed by leadership and organizational behavior researchers in most organizations that aim at being successful (Maxwell Diamond, 2003, p. 493). When using meta-analytical procedures, it incorporates the empirical research on charisma and gives a quantitative summary of literature that contains various findings. This type of quantitative aggregation gives an assessment of the current state of research literature examining charisma using Bass’ measure of charisma.
In an example of a sample experiment, the result indicate that the leader satisfaction (r corrected = 0.80) has the highest significant relation with charismatic leadership, followed by leader effectiveness as perceived. Therefore, charisma has a positive relationship to the outcomes examined in this sample experiment (J. Brian Fuller, 1996, p. 281). Though, most fascinating part of the present study is contained in moderator analysis. There was a significant difference as expected between objective and subjective performance outcome measures. This sample study confirms previously presented evidence in studies that suggested this major moderating influence. Therefore, the results of the study indicate strongly that the two types of measures should not be used as surrogates (Dubrin, 2001, p. 249). More precisely, self-report measures of extra effort should not be depicted as performance indicators because they exist in previous research. Though, researchers should include both measures for the purpose of gaining a clearer picture of differences existing between more objective performance and perceived performance measures. Of interest, would be probing of whether perceptions of extra effort actually translate into increased performance assessed by objective measures.
Our result proposes that scholars view research on charismatic leadership using percept-percept research designs with caution. We would emphasize that researchers use both research design for the purpose of providing additional evidence of the convergence of percept-percept and multisource research relating charisma to any outcome measures. Meta-analytical studies might employ a hierarchical design to further assess the indications of homogeneity found in the present study (J. Brian Fuller, 1996, p. 282). From the sample, the level occupied by the focal leader did not moderate the charisma-outcome relationship. However, the relationships were in the hypothesized direction, giving support for leadership categorization theory. Charismatic behavior should be seeable at higher organization levels (Justin Conger Arnold, 1998, p. 190). They tend to encourage employees to aim at meeting the organizations objectives and give us a clear understanding of the relationship between the HR and employees.
Context had a crucial influence upon effectiveness and performance relationships in the study. The results suggested that, despite the general assertion existing in literature, charismatic leadership relationships do not popularize across settings (Maxwell Diamond, 2003, p. 493). Different results for performance and perceived leaders effectiveness can in part result from different organization culture and type. The wants, desires, needs, and involvement of organizational participants may also affect attribution and effectiveness of charismatic leadership across different organizations (J. Brian Fuller, 1996, p. 281).
Positions held by leaders in their organizations might in different ways affect the emergence and effectiveness of charisma. The discretion and latitude level given to a leader by the position they hold will most likely control the charisma that can be fostered. The ability to act in unconventional ways, challenge status quo and set goals, would be determined partially by the leader’s authority and position within the organization. Therefore, the role of charisma and its influence may vary across organizational contexts and positions. This is more of a qualitative approach and enables a researcher to get more knowledge on how charisma can affect the relationship between employees and managers in an organization (Anderson, 2009, p. 149).
Leadership depicts managerial leadership in terms of leaders creating visionary directions for their staff to voluntarily follow. Management tends to be characterized as coordinating, directing and controlling (Stefan Sveningsson, 2006, p. 205). Leadership, on the other hand, is said to involve inspiring other people to push transformation, these are its regulative rhythm, the ideas that leaders fulfill and make things happen. Communication is always seen to be central for the purposes of managers engaging, inspiring vision and doing the talking for the purpose of making changes. Empowerment should be the result of any leadership. The path that these leaders create for their subordinates determine considerably the employee’s position in the organization.
There has been a tendency in the discourse on leadership to transform managers to visionaries and leaders. Identities are temporary constructions regularly constituted and reproduced in various social interactions. This can be crucial for managers in general when facing their staff in situations of social interaction, where they are expected to perform managerial leadership, like implementing a corporate cultural change (Stefan Sveningsson, 2006, p. 206). However, the fragile character of managerial work can make it hard to accomplish and sustain a stable, coherent and steadily growing feeling of competence, respect and self-esteem. The idea of identity construction can be used to conceptualize efforts whereby managers try to secure a sense of self in a destabilized working world.
Qualitative and quantitative research methods indeed contribute to our understanding of human resource management and employment creations. The data generated from quantitative methods can be examined and aid in identifying the relationship among the employment variables existing in the organization. However, in my opinion, qualitative research methods have a more positive impact in making us understand the relationship between human resource management and employment relations in an organization.
References
Anderson, V., 2009. Approaches to gathering. In: Research Methods in Human Resource Management. s.l.:CIPD, pp. 133-155.
Bryman, A., 2004. Qualitative research on leadership: A critical but appreciative review. The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 15, pp. 729-769.
Creswell, J., 2003. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches. 2nd ed. California: Sage.
Dubrin, A., 2001. Leadership: Research Findings, Practice and Skills. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
J. Brian Fuller, C. E. P. P. K. H. D. Y. S., 1996. A Quantitative Review of Research on Charismatic Leadership. Phsycological Reports, Issue 78, pp. 271-287.
Justin Conger Arnold, R. N. K., 1998. Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. California: Sage.
Maxwell Diamond, S. A., 2003. The Cornerstone of Psychoanalytic Organizational Analysis: Psychological Reality, Transference and Countertransference in the Workplace. Human Relations, 56(4), pp. 491-514.
Pfeffer, J., 1998. The Ambiguity of Leadership. The Academy of Management Review, 2(1), pp. 104-112.
Stefan Sveningsson, M. L., 2006. Leadership. 2(203), pp. 204-220.
Tuli, F., 2010. The Basis of Distinction Between Qualitative and Quantitative Research in Social Science: Reflection on Ontological, Epistemological and Methodological Perspectives. 6(1), pp. 97-105.
