In Transformational Leadership, Organizational Commitment and Taking Charge in Small Businesses in the Northwestern United States, Willis (2020) reports to have measured three dimensions –
- Transformation Leadership
- Organizational Commitment
- Taking Charge
The emerging scholar used the MLQ-5X Short Form to measure transformational leadership, and the Three-Component Model (TCM) of commitment Employee Commitment Survey to measure organizational commitment (pp. 61-67). Both are widely used in social science research. I was intrigued about how the “Taking Charge” dimension would be measured. During my time reviewing student dissertations, I had never seen the phrase operationalized. However, I was surprised to not find a discussion about it in the methodology section, although it is prominently listed in RQ2: What is the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational employee take-charge behavior? (emphasis added).
After a search for the phrase in the document, I found an interesting passage –
The instruments used by Morrison and Phelps and Kim and Lui ultimately did not measure take charge behavior as defined in this study. No instrument was found to measure take charge behavior adequately.Willis, 2020, p. 27
So, the phrase has been defined, operationalized, and written about in peer-reviewed journals by Morrison and Phelps (1999), and used and confirmed by Kim and Lui (2017); however, that didn’t match the definition adopted by the emerging scholar (and the committee)? Why not simply change the definition to match other researchers? At a minimum, create an instrument that matches the new operationalized definition? Regardless, why keep the phrase in the title for search engines to find? Post-publication review begins!
Willis cited Love and Dustin (2014) as the source for this definition of Taking Charge –
The efforts both voluntary and constructive in the nature and exertion of the individual employee’s desire to affect change within the organization about how tasks are executedWillis, 2020, p. 18
If Love and Dustin’s definition differed from Morrison and Phelps and Kim and Lui, why not use the instrument that Love and Dustin used in their study? Guess what? They measured the Taking Charge dimension using the Morrison and Phelps instrument!
I don’t understand why the committee didn’t press the issue with the student (if they even read the study), and how the title and abstract, which states RQ2 was never answered, got through at least three reviewers. Now back to RQ1.
In RQ1, the emerging scholar explored the relationship between transformation leadership and organizational commitment. This is a common research question for doctoral students. To answer the question, one would follow a standard process –
- Collect data via survey
- Form the dimensions and subdimensions of inquiry by averaging items (e.g., add items a, b, c, & d and divide by 4). Don’t forget to reverse code when necessary!
- Report descriptive statistics (M, SD, SE)
- Perform exploratory data analysis such as examining outliers and making a decision about the distribution of each variable by looking at graphs and performing statistical tests
- Perform a statistical test appropriate for interval variables such as Pearson Product-Moment Correlation or Spearman Rank-Order Correlation.
What was done? The emerging scholar did not report any descriptive statistics regarding the dimensions formed (if they were even formed), and there is no reporting on the variable’s distribution. A Chi-square test was used to reject the null hypothesis. A Chi-square test is used to examine the association of categorical variables; think of a 2X4 matrix of Gender (0/1) and Education(0:4). In other words, the wrong test was used. The emerging scholar merely reported the effect size (Cramer’s V), and p-value.
Who reviewed this study? The review process let this student down. As a result, the results of this study should be ignored.
Student Note: Here’s a great chance to do some research; just do it correctly.
Liu, Y., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2011). Linking organizational identification and employee
performance in teams: The moderating role of team-member exchange. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(15),3187-3201. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.560875
Love, M. S., & Dustin, S. L. (2014). An investigation of coworker relationship and psychological collectivism on employee propensity to take charge. The International Journal of Human Resource Managment, 25(9), 1208-1226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.826712
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate
workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.5465/257011
Willis, S. G. (2020). Transformational leadership, organizational commitment and taking charge in small businesses in the Northwestern United States (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection. (27998399)