Abstract
Is complex, ambiguous, and fluctuating social reality measurable? Sometimes yes, perhaps, but often not. At least not in the fairly straightforward way assumed by many researchers. This study is an ethnographic inquiry into data collection during a survey research project. Based on our observations of participants’ spontaneous thoughts and confusions as they filled in questionnaires on “leadership” and “teamwork”, we draw attention to hidden problems in much organizational research. Many respondents found measures ambiguous, irrelevant, or misleading. We (a) underline the inherently interpretative nature of research into complex organizational phenomena, (b) warn against lack of reflexivity and overreliance on existing survey instruments when we study complex social aspects of organizations, (c) identify five categories of possible problems, and (d) suggest paths towards better informed research that take context seriously.
Highlights
This study came about unexpectedly. It is to some extent inspired by the influential Laboratory Life by Latour and Woolgar (1979), and other research that emerged as a side product of what at first seemed to be a well-planned and confident research process, but turned out to be something much more uncertain, open-ended, and even counterintuitive
We believe that what we found out deserves the attention of those who like us conduct research into complex, social phenomena such as teamwork and leadership
The interpretative nature of much research in social sciences is an important aspect we, researchers, forget when we focus all our attention on collecting, processing, and presenting data rather than shedding light on questions and the phenomenon that triggered our study in the first place
Summary
Apart from all the ambiguities around almost any statement of “leadership”, for example, how to capture this mystical quality, including how to distinguish it from, for example, management (Alvesson et al, 2017; Carroll et al, 2008), we have the fundamental problem in a project-based setting to identify who is supposed to be the leader—and even a member due to the fluid nature of the teams If it is an experienced junior or a more senior person that one meets fairly infrequently, the questions may gain different meanings and lead to different responses, that is, an employee is likely to have a close relationship and get more support from the former than the latter. The idea of “the organization” assumes a sometimes false unity of a variety of people, groups, and considerations
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
