Evaluation of Report

Leadership development has an important role in the robust growth of business organizations. This research report has explored leadership development as integration strategy towards helping leaders relating with others, coordinating their efforts, building their commitments and extending social networks through the application of self-understanding to organizational and social imperative. From the evaluation of this report, it is evident that leadership coaching enhances the general feeling of the leaders towards confidence judgment about their abilities to carry out the behaviors comprising the leadership roles. From the theory of leaders’ role efficacy, it can be known that leadership coaching improves the quality of relationship between the leaders and their subordinates through increasing the trust of leaders on their subordinates (Ladegard and Gjerde 2014). While evaluating the research report in terms of leaders, it can imply that the leaders can establish and strengthen the psychosocial function of leader-subordinate relationship. In this way, they can improve the perception of subordinates regarding their effectiveness and competence. Such increasing trust also enhances the willingness of the subordinates for continuing with their working relationship. Hence, leadership coaching has positive implication on the leaders towards enhancing their leadership efficacy and leader subordinate relationship.

The theory of leadership coaching has also been emphasized on the increased psychological empowerment and reduced turnover of the employees. It is a custom tailored process for the leaders for improving the mental wellbeing, workplace wellbeing, resilience and depression. The theoretical coaching framework has explained the coaching beyond just behavioral and psychodynamic focused practice, which is also focused on shaping the accountability, collaboration, awareness, commitment and action of the leaders (Ladegard and Gjerde 2014). In this way, the evaluation of the report has completely been focused on goal directed behavior of the leaders towards meeting the actual organizational goals effectively. The research report has also explored that facilitative coaching style is highly essential for developing the leadership traits among the leaders. On the other hand, the theoretical concept of leader-subordinate relationship assists in extracting the reciprocal nature and trust from the subordinates. More specifically, this research report implies that the leaders need to trust on the competence level of the subordinates through delegating some authority to them. It ultimately enhances the competence level and willingness of the employees to their work.

The outcome of the research article has revealed that relational leadership establishes mutually beneficial relationship between the leaders and subordinates. Such trends have led to the organizational practices through interaction and dialog, where the leaders must be able to build trust, relationship and more specifically express themselves among the subordinates. Moreover, leadership coaching leads to mutual influence process in the organizations, where the leaders must delegate some authority to the subordinates for making their responsible and efficient at their works (Ladegard and Gjerde 2014). Hence, leadership coaching enhances the leadership efficacy of the leaders, where the leaders become able to enhance the effectiveness of the subordinates. In this way, the research has perfectly met its objectives leading to effective research outcome. On the other hand, the outcome of the research has also indicated that leadership coaching enhances trust in the subordinates in terms of their reduced turnover intension and psychological empowerment. Moreover, delegation of authority from the leaders to the subordinates leads to their increased participation in the organizational decision making process. It ultimately builds the trust and empowerment of the subordinates on their concerned leaders. It has actually met the objective of the research to prove the fact the leadership coaching influence the leaders’ trusts on the subordinates.

Critique the Outcome of Research Article

The formative evaluation of the effect of coaching has proved that it reduces the turnover intension of the subordinates and enhances their psychological empowerment. The coaches of the leadership coaching challenges the leaders towards setting the goals, action plans, initiating action and reassume actions to facilitate cognitive learning. Facilitative coaching behavior acts as an active mechanism in the leadership coaching process, which is extremely essential for the assessment of leadership efficacy among the leaders. In this way, the higher the number of coaching session provided to the leaders, the higher the leadership efficacy of the leaders is enhanced. On the other hand, facilitative coach behavior impact on the trust of the leaders on the subordinates. The leaders’ propensity to trust on the subordinates is generated in a state that is actually generated through the leadership coaching process. Furthermore, the objective of the research was also to explore the importance of facilitative behavior in establishing the trust level of the leaders on the subordinates (Ladegard and Gjerde 2014). From the research, it is evident that the leadership coaching helps the leaders in enhancing their confidence to delegate the job authority to the responsible subordinates. In this way, the research has successfully achieved the initially established research objectives.   

Research design is the set of procedures and measures, which are actually used in collecting and evaluating the measures of research variables in the problem research. Moreover, the research designs are actually created with an intension to find answer and in-depth information regarding the problems and research variables within the research (Lewis 2015). The selection of effective research design is completely dependent on the types of research variables. Qualitative and quantitative research methods are usually used in designing primary research.

Qualitative method is mostly used for collecting descriptive data regarding research topic. On the other hand, quantitative research method is usually used for collecting numeric and quantitative data associated with research variables and overall research topic (Choy, L.T., 2014). Research study can definitely use mixed method, which is consisted of both qualitative and quantitative research methods. In mixed method, the mixture of qualitative data and quantitative data are used for collecting appropriate and authentic information regarding research topic. In qualitative research method, mostly the descriptive data associated with research topic is collected. Hence, such method can provide detailed and in depth authentic data related to research variables. On the other hand, quantitative data provides numeric and objective data associated with research topic. The numeric nature of the data leads to high level of authenticity in the collected research data quantitative data is actually collected through survey method (Dumay and Cai 2015). Hence, it includes close ended information for measuring the behaviors attitudes and performance instruments related to research topic. The statistical analysis of the quantitative data can lead to high level of authenticity in the overall research result. Furthermore, qualitative research method is consisted of open ended information that is usually connected through focus groups interviews and observations. In this way, qualitative research method can collect diverse ideas and information regarding the topic of research.

Evaluation of Research Design

The research design used in this research was quite sufficient for addressing the research objective. Moreover, this research has used mixed to research method for addressing the research objectives. The selected coaches for conducting focus group discussion was quite sufficient for gathering the information regarding the importance of leadership coaching on the self efficacy level of the leaders. The number of coaches selected in the research study was sufficient to collect adequate information about the research study. On the other hand, the field experiment conducted through survey method was quite sufficient to collect objective information about the association between leadership coaching and the trust of leaders on the subordinates.

The methods used in this research study to collect data were sufficiently justified and described enough. Moreover, the research study used focus group and questionnaires for collecting authentic research information. In case of focus group, the research study selected 7 coaches for conducting focus group discussion. However, out of 7 coaches, it was possible to gather 5 coaches for having 2 hours focus group discussion (Ladegard and Gjerde 2014). Such focus group discussion was particularly useful for having comprehensive ideas, understanding and opinions about the research topic. In this way, focus group discussion was quite effective than individual interviews. Moreover, focus group discussion was helpful for collecting adequate and in-depth data from the collection of 5 coaches, which might not be possible in case of individual interview. Hence, the focus group discussion was sufficient enough for having detailed descriptive information about the significance of leadership coaching in leaders’ self efficacy and enhancing trust on the subordinates. From the description of focus group discussion, it can be found that researcher acted as moderators and took notes during the session for comparing the ideas of different coaches. From this focus group discussion, it can be found that the goals have been changed during the coaching process for increasing self reflection and enhanced self awareness of the leaders about the leadership. In this way, it can be said that the description of focus group was sufficient and justified enough for leading authentic research result.

In the second part, the research conducted field experiment for collecting objective data through distribution of questionnaires among the leaders of different organizations. Initially, the research study distributed these survey questionnaires among 34 participants. However, ultimately the research got responses from 24 participants, who were the leaders in different organizations. From the participating organizations, the research also received 192 email addresses from the subordinates, where the research study distributed the questionnaires for having authentic information about research study (Ladegard and Gjerde 2014). In this way, adequacy of sample size was sufficient enough for leading the accuracy of research result. However, in case of questionnaire method, it would be better to have some more samples size for reducing the biasness in the collected information from the research participants. Such increased sample size could have resulted in more authentic research result.

Sampling defines the process used in statistical analysis, where a predetermined number of observations are selected from a larger population (McCusker and Gunaydin 2015). Moreover, it is the process or a technique of selecting adequate and suitable sample for gathering authentic information regarding the research topic. This process is particularly concerned with selection of units from a large population size for collecting most accurate and relevant information about the topic of the research. The methodologies that are used in sampling adequate sample size from larger population are highly dependent on the type of analysis to be performed in the research. Mostly, two types of sampling methods are used in conducting research study, which are like simple random sampling and stratified sampling. This study is basically dependent on simple random sampling for collecting authentic information about the importance of leadership coaching on the effectiveness of leaders self efficacy and the trust level on the subordinates. In case of simple random sampling, all the participants selected in this research study got equal chance of participation in the whole data collection process (Ladegard and Gjerde 2014). Moreover, the participants were provided there convenient option to take participation in the data collection process. Furthermore, in case of questionnaire method, the research distributed the questionnaires through emails to the participants. Hence, it became quite easier for the participants to response to the questionnaires without any hindrance. In case of focus group discussion, the coaches were also gathered at the convenience place for having 2 hours discussion to collect detailed information about the research topic.

In case of simple random sampling, the research faced huge difficulties in the selection of sample, because of the dispersed nature of the respondents. The collection of wide sample size required a lot of time and cost for this research study, which had ultimately increased the overall cost and time for completing the research. Furthermore, in case of respondents, five respondents of focus group discussion were quite limited to gather in-depth and detailed information as required by the research study. On the other hand, 24 respondents was also not sufficient for having completely bias free information for leading most authentic and accurate research result. Moreover, the research would have required more numbers of sample size as respondents for having more authentic research result.

References

Choy, L.T., 2014. The strengths and weaknesses of research methodology: Comparison and complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(4), pp.99-104.

Dumay, J. and Cai, L., 2015. Using content analysis as a research methodology for investigating intellectual capital disclosure: a critique. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(1), pp.121-155.

Ladegard, G. and Gjerde, S., 2014. Leadership coaching, leader role-efficacy, and trust in subordinates. A mixed methods study assessing leadership coaching as a leadership development tool. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), pp.631-646.

Lewis, S., 2015. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Health promotion practice, 16(4), pp.473-475.

McCusker, K. and Gunaydin, S., 2015. Research using qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods and choice based on the research. Perfusion, 30(7), pp.537-542.