Grounded theory and leadership research: A critical realist perspective

Abstract

The methodology of grounded theory has great potential to contribute to our understanding of leadership within particular substantive contexts. However, our notions of good science might constrain these contributions. We argue that for grounded theorists a tension might exist between a desire to create a contextualised theory of leadership and a desire for scientifically justified issues of validity and generalizable theory. We also explore how the outcome of grounded theory research can create a dissonance between theories that resonate with the reality they are designed to explore, and the theories that resonate with a particular yet dominant 'scientific' approach in the field of leadership studies -the philosophy of science commonly known as positivism. We examine the opportunities provided by an alternative philosophy of science, that of critical realism. We explore how conducting grounded theory research informed by critical realism might strengthen researchers' confidence to place emphasis on an understanding and explanation of contextualised leadership as a scientific goal, rather than the scientific goal of generalization through empirical replication. Two published accounts of grounded theory are critiqued candidly to help emphasise our arguments. We conclude by suggesting how critical realism can help shape and enhance grounded theory research into the phenomenon of leadership.Crown

Understanding indigenous leadership research: Explication and Chinese examples

“…As the business world becomes increasingly globalized, the need to understand leadership across the world is also becoming more and more urgent, making indigenous research increasingly important and necessary (Gopinath, 1998;Kempster & Parry, 2011;Tsui, 2004Tsui, , 2009). Using local language, local subjects, and local perspectives (Li, Leung, Chen, & Luo, 2012;Tsui, 2004), indigenous leadership research primarily examines the impact of local contextual factors, including historical, societal, and cultural, on leadership outcomes in a particular region or country.…”

Untitled

“…This has been reinforced previously by Blair and Hunt (1985, p.275) who state that "the issue here is not basic versus applied research, but research that is or is not relevant to current or projected organisational problems." Kempster and Parry (2011) also critique past studies on leadership, and posit that these theories and models reflect positivist philosophy, which manifests itself in exploring the VOLUME X • ISSUE II • SUMMER/FALL 2017 44 LEADERSHIP current situation rather than investigating the most desired situation for an organisation. However, with these viewpoints, several authors argue that these studies could have reasonably developed some ways of appraising an effective leader versus an ineffective leader, and also identified a number of variables potentially affecting the effectiveness of leadership (Fiedler & Chemers, 1982;Zaccaro & Horn, 2003).…”

Leadership Research and the Oldest Crime

“…Alvesson and Sveningsson (2003) have studied the meaning managers ascribe to leadership or construct their leadership, while Holmberg and Tyrstrup (2010) have explored the way in which managers perceive and describe the characteristics of their everyday leadership. Similarly, Kempster and Parry (2011) have examined how managers believed that they have learnt how to lead. Again, if the interpretations and explanations of others were the real explanation, there would be no need for social science (Danermark et al, 2002).…”