MGM- Management
As far as the research methodology is concerned, it is reasonable to conclude that in this particular case, it exactly corresponds to the case scenario at issue. The practice demonstrates that low levels of employee engagement are one of the most popular causes of inadequate professional productiveness of the organization. Thus, the authors of this research strategy correctly assumed that in order to increase individual and overall effectiveness of the company employees, understanding the causes of their low engagement is necessary. At the same time, the way the research team outlined the continuous variables is hardly consistent with the existing research standards. To be more specific, employee engagement and perception of the management behavior are supposed to be measured by a rating scale; yet, it is not mentioned how these issues can be measured with help of qualitative metrics. Thus, the good and justified question in this regard is “how are you going to measure employee engagement and perception in particular? What are scaling criterion will be used?”
In addition to that, I find it relevant to substantiate the choice of methodology. Specifically, it has been suggested that surveys will be used as the main methodological solution. The research team should have explained why this research technique has been used, as well it necessary to mention whether the data obtained through the surveys will be verified by making interviews with the randomly selected research participants.
Overall, in all other dimensions the research design corresponds to its objectives. Assumedly, the project will be successful.
Event Methodology
In spite of the fact that a particularly detailed description of the future research project is provided here, there are several important problematic areas, which should be taken into consideration by the research team before the project is advanced further. Firstly, the provided description of the research methods expressly state that only Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers will take part in it. At the same time, the project fails to describe how these people will be accessed. In other words, I strongly believe that these people are very occupied, that is why, it is necessary to understand that they will be capable of finding free time in their schedules. Even though the companies run by these people are in the client list, which is disposable to the project coordinators, motivating these people to take part in the project may be difficult. The authors should have specifically mentioned the techniques, which will be used to demonstrate to the targeted cohorts that the project is indeed important, and that it results will be helpful for their regular and strategic business operations. The members of the team should provide answer to ‘how shall we motivate the CEOs and CFOs to find time in their busy schedules?’.
Although offering a trip as an incentive appears to be a useful technique, this approach raises two relevant questions:
Is it a sufficient motivator for the CEOs and CFOs? Specifically, it is natural to assume that these people are the most handsomely paid professionals, who are capable of affording almost any trip they like.
What are the chances that the possibility of winning a trip may bias against giving impartial and neutral answers? In particular, someone may decide to provide the most favorable and comprehensive answers to increase his or her chances of winning. It is hardly consistent with the research integrity.
In all other areas, the research approach seems to be consistent with the ‘best practices’ in this area, and, assuming that the issues discussed above are taken into consideration, it will bring accurate results.
