Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition (Fall 2016)

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Behavioral Sciences

Volume 1, Page 1

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry:

Special Edition

Special Edition, Volume 7, Issue 1

Fall 2016

Published by: Center for Scholastic Inquiry, LLC ISSN: 2330-6564 (online)

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 2

ISSN: 2330-6564 (online) ISSN: 2330-6556 (print)

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Fall 2016

Volume 7, Issue 1

www.csiresearch.com

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 3

p

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition The Center for Scholastic Inquiry (CSI) publishes the Journal of Scholastic Inquiry to recognize, celebrate, and highlight scholarly research, discovery, and evidence-based practice.

Academic research emphasizing leading edge inquiry, distinguishing and fostering best practice, and validating promising methods will be considered for publication. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method study designs representing diverse philosophical frameworks and perspectives are welcome. The JOSI publishes papers that perpetuate thought leadership and represent critical enrichment. The JOSI is a rigorously juried journal.

If you are interested in publishing in the JOSI, feel free to contact our office or visit our website.

Sincerely,

Dr. Tanya McCoss-Yerigan Executive Director & Managing Editor Center for Scholastic Inquiry 4857 Hwy 67, Suite #2 Granite Falls, MN 56241

Web: www.csiresearch.com

Phone: 855-855-8764

Email: editor@csiresearch.com

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 4

JOURNAL OF SCHOLASTIC INQUIRY: Special Edition Fall 2016, Volume 7, Issue 1

Managing Editor Dr. Tanya McCoss-Yerigan

Editor-in-Chief Dr. Jamal Cooks

General Editor & APA Editor Jay Meiners

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Shirley Barnes, Alabama State University Joan Berry, University of Mary Hardin-Baylor Brooke Burks, Auburn University at Montgomery Timothy Harrington, Chicago State University Michelle Beach, Southwest Minnesota State University Kenneth Goldberg, National University Linda Rae Markert, State University of New York at Oswego Lucinda Woodward, Indiana University Southeast Arina Gertseva, Washington State University Robin Davis, Claflin University

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 5

PEER REVIEWERS Tracy Huddleston Michelle Beach Joan Berry

Brooke Burks Tanya McCoss-Yerigan Linda Rae Markert Timothy Harrington Robin Davis Marie Kraska

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Publication Agreement and Assurance of Integrity Ethical Standards in Publishing Disclaimer of Liability Research Manuscripts An Exploratory Examination of GLOBE Leadership Constructs in Education Megan M. Buning, Augusta University Barbara J. Mallory, High Point University Teri D. Melton, Georgia Southern University Cindi Chance, Augusta University Graduate Student and Faculty Perspectives of Academic Writing Jaya S. Goswami, Texas A&M University-Kingsville Steve F. Bain, Texas A&M University-Kingsville Maria E. Martinez, Texas A&M University-Kingsville Embedding Assessment into Instruction: The Reasons, Reactions, and Results Joseph W. Spadano, Rivier University Managerial Behaviors that Support Participative Decision Making Heshium Lawrence, University of Texas at Tyler Rochell McWhorter, University of Texas at Tyler Sherry Avery Jackson, University of Texas at Tyler Ann Gilley, University of Texas at Tyler Jerry W. Gilley, University of Texas at Tyler The Role of Analytics in Business Sustainability Dennis F. X. Mathaisel, Babson College Clare L. Comm, University of Massachusetts, Lowell Manuscript Submission Guide Why Read Our Journals

6 7-122 7

43

64 75

104

122 124

Volume 7 Page 6

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

PUBLICATION AGREEMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INTEGRITY By submitting a manuscript for publication, authors confirm that the research and writing is their exclusive, original, and unpublished work. Upon acceptance of the manuscript for publication, authors grant the Center for Scholastic Inquiry, LLC (CSI) the sole and permanent right to publish the manuscript, at its option, in one of its academic research journals, on the CSI's website, in other germane, academic publications; and/or on an alternate hosting site or database.

Authors retain copyright ownership of their research and writing for all other purposes.

ETHICAL STANDARDS IN PUBLISHING The CSI insists on and meets the most distinguished benchmarks for publication of academic journals to foster the advancement of accurate scientific knowledge and to defend intellectual property rights.

The CSI stipulates and expects that all practitioners and professionals submit original, unpublished manuscripts in accordance with its code of ethics and ethical principles of academic research and writing.

DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY The CSI does not endorse any of the ideas, concepts, and theories published within the JOSI: E. Furthermore, we accept no responsibility or liability for outcomes based upon implementation of the individual author’s ideas, concepts, or theories. Each manuscript is the copyrighted property of the author.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 7

An Exploratory Examination of GLOBE Leadership Constructs in Education Megan M. Buning Augusta University Barbara J. Mallory High Point University Teri D. Melton Georgia Southern University Cindi Chance Augusta University

Abstract This study was designed to identify how teachers view principal leadership “as is” and “as it should be” to determine how the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) instrument performs in the educational leadership discipline. The international GLOBE project originally helped to determine how people from different cultures view leadership, recognizing that cultural characteristics were related to culturally-endorsed leader behaviors. Using the GLOBE instrument, the researchers of this study administered an online questionnaire to public school teachers to assess behaviors of educational leaders. Initial findings across the sample of this study, from an exploratory factor analysis indicated that teachers conceptualize school leadership as multi-dimensional, not unidimensional. However, several issues emerged with scale stability when used to collect individual data. Data analysis provided insight into the construct of leadership in the field of educational leadership, as it relates to the sub-scales of charismatic/value-based; self-protective; humane-oriented; teamoriented; participative; autonomous.

Keywords: School leadership, leadership constructs, GLOBE, CLT

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 8

Introduction If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, what about “leadership”? Regardless of the extent to which educational leadership training is standards-based, and in spite of a university’s commitment to teaching principles of social justice and dispositions of equity and fairness, the broad brush reality is that school leaders practice leadership in schools in communities that conceptualize leadership based on community and cultural values, norms, and expectations of the complex construct of leader. The multidimensional aspect of society varies across regions, cultures, and people, and the nuances of culture have the potential to impact well-intended school leaders in their approach to school improvement efforts, perhaps forgetting about practices they learned in a well-intentioned, university-based principal preparation program.

Upon matriculation from educational leadership degree programs, candidates enter into professional practice, but it is difficult to determine how others, especially teachers, conceptualize their leadership characteristics and behaviors. Although school leaders know leadership, how they are perceived as leaders in practice is less known. So, how do principals lead once they are in schools, impacted by local tradition and culture, and out of the university setting? To gain a better grasp of principal leadership, the investigators of this study queried: How do teachers and other educators currently view principal leadership, and what is it that teachers desire in their quest for ideal school leadership? In an attempt to understand school leadership in context, the researchers designed this study to examine principal characteristics and behaviors from the perspective of educators in a geographic region, i.e., the southern United States.

This initial study was designed specifically to identify how teachers view principal leadership “as is” and “as it should be” to determine how the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) instrument performs in the educational leadership discipline. GLOBE was originally designed for, validated with, and previously administered globally to business and financial leaders. Findings indicated that there were differences in cultural acceptance of the different leader styles across cultures, with some leader characteristics and behaviors, such as “ambitious”, “enthusiastic”, or “risk taker”, being valued

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 9

very differently around the world (House, Javidan, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002). However, school leadership was not part of the original GLOBE cross-cultural studies.

The research and literature on leadership is voluminous. Nonetheless, these researchers chose to engage in another leadership investigation for the following three reasons. First, global economic competition has rapidly placed the importance of education in the center of public debate. The concept of globalization advanced by Friedman (2007) posited: “The playing field has been leveled” (p. 7). However, the playing field in education is not level, as evidenced by the global problem of disparity in student achievement. International comparisons of US students on international tests suggest a need to further examine leadership behaviors and characteristics that influence effectiveness as perceived by classroom teachers (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2014). Secondly, the choice of the instrument and research method were intentional. With a national call for education to mirror business models, the researchers chose an internationally validated leadership instrument—the GLOBE. Finally, with the national call to reform leadership preparation programs, most states are in some stage of reform relative to the preparation of school leaders, especially as they are challenged to graduate PK-12 students who are globally competent and career ready. These researchers chose to examine, through the teachers’ eyes, school leader characteristics and behaviors as teachers experience them and as they wish to experience them. Therefore, for this initial study the researchers piloted, with permission of GLOBE researchers, the GLOBE survey in schools, making a few modifications in language to make the instrument “educator friendly.”

The overarching question that guided this study was: To what degree are the six universal leadership dimensions referred to as culturally endorsed implicit leadership theory (CLT) identified in the GLOBE survey transferable to the field of educational leadership?

Literature Review In the early 1990’s, House conceived the idea of conducting a large-scale international study of cultural, leadership and organizational practices, and the GLOBE instrument was an outcome of his idea (House & Javidan, 2004). However, the GLOBE studies did not include leadership practices of school leaders. As globalization has advanced throughout the world, and

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 10

with increased connectivity, it is now possible to understand and engage in educational leadership training and development across cultures (Leithwood, Lewis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). One of the many challenges presented by global interconnectedness is to have a clear understanding of “leadership,” and how leadership of schools is viewed across and within cultures.

Leadership can be defined as “an attempt to use non-coercive types of influence to motivate individuals to accomplish some goal” (Gibson, Ivancevich, Donnelly, & Konopaske, 2003, p. 513). Studies exploring school leadership and, more recently, the school leaders’ influence on student achievement abound. While some contend the influence is indirect (e.g., Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, & Cohen, 2007), others found it to be more direct (e.g., Leithwood et al., 2004). According to Leithwood et al. (2004), “There seems little doubt that both district and school leadership provides a critical bridge between most educationalreform initiatives, and having those reforms make a genuine difference for all students” (p. 14).

However, Leithwood et al. (2004) had contended that one of the major problems in studying educational leadership is the wide variety of types of leadership that primarily capture stylistic or methodological approaches to leadership, such as transformational leadership, moral leadership, instructional leadership, which they refer to as “leadership by adjective” (p. 6). Instead, school leaders and those who train them need to have a common language by which to study school leaders’ impact on student success locally, nationally, and globally regardless of societal or organizational culture.

Schein (2010) coined one of the more commonly used definitions of culture when he defined culture as: A pattern of basic assumptions--invented, discovered, or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with the problems of external adaptation and internal integration--that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, feel in relation to those problems. (p. 18) Schein’s definition provides a perspective from which to understand the behavior of individuals and groups, and can be applied to a society, a country, a region, or to an organization, such as a school. Cultures are covert in that they are often difficult, if not impossible, to understand, to manage, and even more so, to change. Persons or groups are often unaware of how their culture

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 11

has influenced their values, attitudes, beliefs, and norms; nonetheless, these values, attitudes, beliefs, and norms influence their perceptions of constructs, such as leadership (Gibson et al., 2003).

One of the seminal studies investigating leadership and culture in 40 countries was conducted by Hofstede in 1980 (Hofstede, 1980, 1991, 2001). Findings resulted in the identification of four dimensions of culture: uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity, individualism-collectivism, and power distance. In 1988, Hofstede and Bond identified a fifth cultural dimension, which they labeled Confucian dynamism. Using this early work as a springboard, House and Javidan (2004) began working in the global setting of business and finance to identify if leadership behaviors and characteristics were universal or culturally contextual. In working with a team of over 150 researchers around the world, the work of Dorfman (1997) and House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, and Gupta (2004) led to the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) Project. The theoretical foundation of the project is that “societal culture influences the kind of leadership found to be acceptable and effective” (House, Hanges et al., 2004, p. 673).

The original developers of the GLOBE instrument acknowledged the role that cultural values play in each individual’s images or prototypes of leader behavior and attributes based on implicit leadership theory (ILT) (House, Hanges et al., 2004). ILT holds that each person has a mental model of implicit assumptions about how an “effective” leader looks, acts, behaves, and communicates, very similar to leadership categorization theory (Lord & Maher, 1991), which posits that everyone has an implicit idea of what leaders should look, act, and behave like. The scales consist of a leadership questionnaire based on ILT, which presents 112 leader attributes and behavior items with a 7-point Likert-type scale, along with a societal and organizational culture (two levels) questionnaire represented across two cultural manifestations of As Is and Should Be. In their work across 62 countries that merged ILT with a cultural context, GLOBE researchers House and Javidan (2004) and House, Hanges et al. (2004) identified 21 primary or first-order universally desirable/undesirable characteristics of effective leaders across cultures, which they grouped into six universal leadership dimensions referred to as culturally endorsed implicit leadership theory (CLT). CLT implies that a culturally similar group holds similar

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 12

perceptions of leadership as a construct. The six global CLT dimensions identified are charismatic/value-based, team-oriented, participative, humane-oriented, autonomous, and selfprotective leadership. These six universal leadership dimensions provide a common ground to study perceptions of leadership across cultures (House, Hanges et al., 2004). The universal leadership dimensions and the associated characteristics and behaviors can be found in Table 1.

One of the criticisms of the GLOBE research is that the researchers conceptualized leadership based on perceptions of leadership from 17,300 middle managers in the food processing, financial services, and telecommunications services industries (Northouse, 2013).

The six dimensions were framed from perceptions and implicit beliefs that individuals have about leaders, not specifically about what leaders do. While GLOBE data were not collected from leaders in educational organizations, this research team’s justification for using the GLOBE leader dimensions is the argument that these dimensions represent universal principles, or behaviors and characteristics, which were perceived culturally as “leadership.” In other words, the GLOBE findings provide a common metric to study leadership across societal cultures as opposed to studying “leadership by adjective” (Leithwood et al., 2004).

According to the GLOBE researchers (House, Hanges et al., 2004), leader effectiveness is culturally embedded in the values and norms of people within a society or organization.

Leadership and culture are unquestionably important to schools and schooling, specifically as related to student success. However, we continue to be stymied by the question of what makes leadership effective in one country, state, or community, but not in another? It is apparent that as globalization increases, the “one size fits all” approach to leadership is not appropriate in the milieu of school. Oftentimes, practitioners and researchers alike have difficulty defining effective educational leadership because context does matter and we must consider the cultural context when determining the type of leadership necessary for student success. Undoubtedly, school leadership is a multidimensional factor with a variety of underlying constructs. The original intent of this study was to capture the definition of leadership across various levels of the PK-12 system using an instrument designed for the business context; however, the purpose shifted to examine the issues with the structure of the GLOBE leadership scales within the education context.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 13

Methodology Ultimately the researchers of this study plan to conduct cross-cultural research investigations in similarities and differences of school leadership, which required the identification of an instrument so meaningful comparisons could be made. Hence, this study was an exploratory examination of the GLOBE Leadership scales, created for business leadership assessment, within the PK-12 public school setting. The purpose of the study was to explore how tenable the GLOBE scales would translate at the individual level of analysis.

Participants In order to explore the tenability of the GLOBE scales, a sample of education personnel familiar with school principal behaviors was needed. Therefore, PK-12 education personnel in two states in the US comprised the convenience sample of the study. A variety of PK-12 educators and administrators (n = 193) participated in this study. Participants included male (n = 44) and female (n =137) educators and personnel from the states of Georgia (n = 29) and North Carolina (n =147). The majority of participants were Caucasian (n = 127) and included African American (n = 38), Hispanic (n = 3), European American (n = 1), Asian (n = 1), and Other (n = 2) participants. The sample consisted of teachers (n = 142), principles (n = 8), media/technology specialist (n = 6), counselors (n = 2), assistant principals (n =1), and participants in the “other” category (n = 3). On average, participants had worked in their schools 6.34 years (SD = 5.76).

Instrument The instrument used in this study was the GLOBE Culture and Leadership Scales, Form Alpha (Hanges & Dickson, 2004). The GLOBE instrument was designed to quantify and examine universally acceptable and unacceptable leadership characteristics at both the societal and cultural level using aggregated country scores for each first and second-order scale. This instrument measures nine cultural dimensions in two of the four sections of the scale, and measures leadership characteristics and behaviors in the other two sections.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 14

The current study focused on the responses to the leadership portions of the instrument.

The leadership scale examines 21 first-order characteristics that are reduced to six, second order culturally endorsed leadership styles. The leadership scale is a 112-item scale asking participants to respond using a 7-point Likert scale to indicate the extent to which the characteristic/behavior inhibits or contributes greatly to the leader being an outstanding leader. The GLOBE scales were developed with the focus on middle business managers so the researchers altered the language of the item stems to reflect the education setting (e.g., changed “organization” to “school”). This exploratory study sought to examine the underlying constructs of the second-order scales when analyzed at the individual participant level of analysis.

Procedures After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval the researchers identified all PK-12 public schools in North Carolina and Georgia using state directories of public information. An electronic version of the altered GLOBE questionnaire, developed using SurveyMonkey©, was sent to each principal’s school email, asking him or her to forward the request for participation all teachers in the school during spring 2014.

Results After data were cleaned for outliers, principal axis factor analysis (PAF) with direct oblimin rotation was used to examine the underlying constructs of each second-order leadership scale on as is and as it should be items separately following guidelines presented in Bertsch (2011) and Field (2013). Significant factor loadings were retained at the 0.43 level based on sample size and recommendations in Tabachnick and Fidell (2007). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin statistic (KMO) was used to verify sampling adequacy following thresholds set forth by Kaiser (1974) and Hutcheson and Sofroniou (1999). KMO values above 0.50 were retained as acceptable. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was deemed significant for all. Internal consistency for each emerging factor is reported by Cronbach’s alpha (α). All second-order scales were cleaned of items that had low sampling adequacy and low inter-item correlations. Results of the current

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 15

analysis are discussed in comparison to the original GLOBE Leadership scales. Factors were named for the exploratory purpose of the study only. Factor patterns and loadings for applicable factors are presented within tables.

Second-Order Leadership Scales – As Is Charismatic/value-based. The KMO statistic verified appropriate sampling adequacy for the 14 items in the original scale. All individual KMO values were greater than 0.52 with most above 0.83. Examination of eigenvalues and the scree plot suggested a three-factor solution explaining 55.84% of the variance. Internal consistency was acceptable for each factor.

Factor one had a moderate negative correlation with Factor 2 (r = -.59), and a weak negative correlation with Factor 3 (r = -.25). Factor two had a weak positive correlation with Factor 3 (r = .31). Factor pattern and structure loadings based on pattern coefficients and structure coefficients are displayed in Table 2. The original second order scale included items associated with six first-order scales (Visionary, Inspirational, Self-sacrifice, Integrity, Decisive, and Performance-oriented); however, Self-sacrifice did not emerge as a first-order scale for this set of data. Of the 14 original items comprising Charismatic/Value-based, five items did not load above the threshold. Based on the items that loaded within each new factor, the first factor was named “Inspiring, Improvement-Focus.” Items in this factor had a weak inter-item correlation (r = .40). The second factor was named “Disingenuous.” The two items in this factor had a strong inter-item correlation (r = .70). The third factor was named “Discouraging” based on the negative item loadings. The two items in this factor had a strong correlation (r = .66).

Self-protective. Overall, three of the original seven items were removed from this scale for various reasons (low KMO values, low inter-item correlations, or failure to meet the threshold) (Field, 2013). After removal of these items, the KMO statistic verified appropriate sampling adequacy, KMO = 0.73, and all individual KMO values were greater than 0.70.

Examination of eigenvalues and the scree plot suggested a one-factor solution explaining 41.88% of the variance with acceptable internal consistency (α = .67). This scale originally included five first-order scales but was reduced to one in this data set. The factor was named "Loner" based on

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 16

a loading of four items (loner, asocial, secretive, and self-interested). However, all items that loaded within the “Loner” factor were all weakly correlated with each other (average r = .36).

Humane-oriented. The KMO statistic verified appropriate sampling adequacy for this four item scale, KMO = 0.67, and all individual KMO values were greater than 0.64. All four items from the original scale loaded above the threshold. Examination of eigenvalues and the scree plot suggested a one-factor solution that explained 51.07% of the variance with acceptable internal consistency (α = .67). This scale originally contained two first-order scales, but was reduced to one for this set of data. Based on the individual items that loaded within this factor (generous, compassionate, modest, calm) the original subscale name was retained: “HumaneOriented.” All four items were weakly correlated to each other (average r = .35).

Team-oriented. Six original items were removed from this 17-item scale based on individual KMO values, inter-item correlations, or loadings (Field, 2013). After removal of these items, the KMO measure verified appropriate sampling adequacy, KMO = 0.84. All individual KMO values were greater than 0.50 with the majority above 0.80. The original analysis revealed a four-factor solution; however, only one item loaded on the fourth factor. A factor should contain at least two items (Comrey & Lee, 1992), therefore a second analysis forced a three-factor solution that explained 50.78% of the variance. Internal consistency was acceptable for all factors. Factor pattern and structure loadings are presented in Table 3. The original scale contained five first-order scales and items from various first-order scales loaded under the same factor in this data set. In examining the pattern and structure matrix results the first factor was named "Gifted Collaborator" based on the factor loadings for seven items. This combination of items, from all five of the first order GLOBE scales, loaded on this one factor with weak inter-item correlations (average r = .38). Factor two was named "Non-irritable" based on the loading of two items. Both items had a strong inter-item correlation (r = .62). Factor three was named "Mediator" based on the loading of two items. Both items had a moderate inter-item correlation (r = .49).

Participative. This scale contained two items and the KMO measure verified sampling adequacy (“mediocre”), KMO = 0.50. Examination of eigenvalues and the scree plot suggested a one-factor solution that explained 61.99% of the variance, but had low internal consistency (α = .38). Both items loaded above the threshold. Although internal consistency was low, this

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 17

factor was labeled “Dictorial” to reflect the two characteristics captured in “bossy” and “autocratic.” However, the inter-item correlation between the two items was weak (r = .24).

Autonomous. Four items were removed based on low inter-item correlations or KMO values. After removal of the items, the KMO measure verified appropriate sampling adequacy, KMO = 0.78. All individual KMO values were greater than 0.60 with the majority above 0.80.

Initial analysis returned a three-factor solution; however, only one item loaded on the third factor. Follow-up analysis forced a two-factor solution explaining 46.18% of the variance.

Internal consistency was acceptable for both factors. Pattern and structure factor loadings are presented in Table 4. The original scale consisted essentially of four subscales (Autonomous, Individualistic, Independent, and Unique). In this study, factor one was comprised of negative characteristics, but with items from a mixture of the original scales. Factor one was name “Egocentric” based on the individual items that loaded. The seven items that loaded in the “Egocentric” factor contained weak inter-item correlations (average r = .42). Factor two was named “Independent” based on the two items that loaded with a strong inter-item correlation (r = .59).

Second-Order Leadership Scales – Should Be Charismatic/value-based. The KMO measure verified appropriate sampling adequacy for this 17-item scale, KMO = 0.90. All individual KMO values were greater than 0.82; however four items did not load above the threshold. Examination of eigenvalues and the scree plot suggested a three-factor solution that explained 55.90% of the variance with acceptable internal consistency. Factor one was moderately correlated to factor two (r = .51) and factor three (r = .50). Factor two was moderately correlated to factor three (r = .41). Pattern and structure factor loadings are presented in Table 5. Consistent with analysis on the “As Is” scale, this secondorder scale was reduced from the original six subscales to three. Factor one was named "FutureOriented," based on factor loadings of four items and had moderate inter-item correlations (average r = .58). Factor two was named "Confidence Builder" based on factor loadings of three items with moderate inter-item correlations (average r = .49). Factor three was named

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 18

“Performance-Oriented" based on the loadings of six items with weak inter-item correlations (average r = .41).

Self-protective. Six items were removed due to low inter-item correlations or low factor loadings. After removal of these items, the KMO verified appropriate sampling adequacy, KMO = 0.62. All individual KMO values were greater than 0.53 with the majority above 0.60.

Examination of the scree plot and eigenvalues suggested a two-factor solution that explained 46.68% of the variance; however, internal consistency was not acceptable. The two factors showed a weak, negative correlation (r = -.23). Two items did not load above the threshold.

Pattern and structure factor loadings are presented in Table 6. The two items that loaded in the first factor were weakly correlated (r = .23) as were the items in the second factor (r = .36).

Considering the weak inter-item correlations, this second-order scale was deemed not tenable (Little, Linderberger, & Nesslroade, 1999).

Humane-oriented. The KMO measure verified appropriate sampling adequacy (“mediocre”), KMO = 0.50. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was borderline (p = .048, χ2 = 3.91). All individual KMO values were greater than 0.50. Examination of eigenvalues and the scree plot suggested a one-factor solution; however, neither item loaded above the threshold for this set of data and held a weak correlation (r = .15). Internal consistency (α = .24) was not acceptable for this scale. Similarly to the Self-Protective scale, Humane-oriented was deemed not tenable.

Team-oriented. The KMO measure verified appropriate sampling adequacy for this 14item scale, KMO = 0.84. All individual KMO values were greater than 0.72. Examination of the scree plot and eigenvalues suggested a two-factor solution explaining 52.57% of the variance with acceptable internal consistency. One item did not load above the threshold. Pattern and structure factor loadings are shown in Table 7. This scale was reduced from five factors to two for our set of data. Factor one was named "Team-Focused," based on the loadings of eight items, and inter-item correlations were weak (average r = .41). Hostile, dishonest, non-cooperative, egotistical, and cynical were items that contributed to factor two as the inverse of this factor evident by the negative loadings of each of these items. Inter-item correlations for this factor were moderate (average r = .52). All items that loaded under factor two were reverse-scored; therefore, the original GLOBE name was retained for this factor (Malevolent).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 19

Participative. The KMO measure verified appropriate sampling adequacy for this eight item scale, KMO = 0.83. All individual KMO values were greater than 0.78. Examination of the scree plot and eigenvalues suggested a two-factor solution explaining 52.48% of the variance with acceptable internal consistency. The factors had a moderate, negative correlation (r = -.58).

Three items did not load above the threshold. Pattern and structure factor loadings are shown in Table 8. Although this scale remained consistent with the original scales by producing a twofactor solution, items within the two factors for this data were a combination of items from the original two scales. Factor one was named "Micromanager" based on factor loadings of three items with moderate inter-item correlations (average r = .46). Factor two was named “Elitist,” and contained two items with a weak correlation (r = .46).

Autonomous. The KMO measure verified appropriate sampling adequacy for the five items on this scale, KMO = 0.61. All individual KMO values were greater than 0.60.

Examination of the scree plot and eigenvalues suggested a two-factor solution explaining 54.92% of the variance. The factors were weakly correlated (r = .13); however, internal consistency was poor for both. One item did not load above the threshold. Pattern and structure factor loadings are shown in Table 9. Factor one was named "Ambitious" based on the loading of two reverse-scored items; however, the two had a weak correlation (r = .25). The second factor was named “Individualistic,” and again, the items returned a weak correlation (r = .19).

Discussion How others view leadership can be elusive and difficult to capture. The designers of the original GLOBE scales constructed the subscales to represent a very broad range of leader behaviors and characteristics. In this study of the construct of the scales in the GLOBE questionnaire, educator respondents were asked to identify the extent to which a behavior or characteristic inhibits or contributes to being an “outstanding leader,” based on observations of the school principal. To view how different societies and cultures across the world observe leadership in others, the GLOBE researchers (Hofstede, 1980, 1991, 2001; Hofstede & Bond, 1988; House, Brodbeck, & Chhokar, 2007; House, Hanges et al., 2004; House & Javidan, 2004) grouped global leadership behaviors in six dimensions. These six: (a) Charismatic/Value-based

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 20

Leadership, (b) Self-Protective, (c) Humane Leadership, (d) Team-oriented, (e) Participative, and (f) Autonomous Leadership, were examined in the current initial exploratory study to observe how variables in the original subscales would perform. The GLOBE scales were developed using non-educators from 67 countries; however, this study was conducted within the milieu of P-12 education.

Hanges and Dickson (2004) verified the factor structure of the GLOBE scales to measure societal level conceptualization of leadership using aggregated data. This study sought to examine the underlying constructs of each second-order leadership scales at the individual level of analysis. Analysis revealed several issues of using the scale to measure at the individual level.

In this study the researchers found factors describing leadership dimensions in the GLOBE survey and factor loadings observed in this study yielded different factor structures. The set of factor structures, or a set of variables designed to measure leadership dimensions, differed in the way the variables clustered, which resulted in naming new factors by dimension and making it possible to drop some items in the GLOBE instrument. This discussion focuses on how the established subscales of the GLOBE were assessed for their applicability to leadership conceptualization in education.

Second Order Scales In this section, we addressed the question, what are the clusters of inter-correlated variables that were identified as factors associated within each of the six dimensions of leadership? In examining the pattern and structure matrix results for the second order scales, we identified factor loadings to explain the dimensions (as is) and (should be), which resulted in naming several new factors in the following dimensions.

Charismatic/value based (as is). It was not uncommon to observe several complex variables that loaded on several factors. The first factor was name “Inspiring, ImprovementFocus,” the second factor was named “Disingenuous,” and the third factor was named “Discouraging,” based on the negative item loadings. Factor two, Disingenuous, was so named based on the cluster of two variables (trustworthy and sincere) that were strongly but negatively correlated. Each variable had high structural coefficients, with trustworthy and sincere, to

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 21

support their contribution to the Disingenuous factor. Further confirming the name for factor two, the item "inspirational" had a moderately negative correlation with the Disingenuous factor.

It can be assumed that participants who rate “trustworthy” and “sincere” as characteristics that contribute “greatly” to a person being an outstanding leader would rate characteristics that are perceived as “untrustworthy” and “not sincere” as characteristics that greatly inhibit a person from being an outstanding leader.

This three-factor solution to explain the subscale of "charismatic value based (as is)" is reflective of the concept of leadership in the school culture. It distinctly reflects the construct of Charismatic/Value based by distinguishing principal leadership at the school level as being a champion of people in times when schools are improvement-focused. Rather than "innovative" and "transformative," the charismatic dimension of the principal as an inspiring leader is related more in the conceptualization of a principal as managerial in steering the school to improvement, as opposed to inspiring change and innovation, as suggested by this construct of charismatic value based dimension of leader.

Simonet and Tett (2013) conducted a study to explain the conceptualization of leadership as “leader” and “manager,” to discover much overlap, but also distinctive descriptors for each, with “productivity” being descriptive of leaders who are liked by others. Educators in schools are devoted to those who are productive, performance-oriented, and inspirational. In the GLOBE studies, both “trustworthy” and “encouraging” were identified as a positive attribute of effective leadership universally endorsed in 62 countries. In other studies of GLOBE factors, the Charismatic/Value-based dimension varied across cultures. For example, in New Zealand individuals observed a more Inspirational or Motivational dimension, whereas in Australia, the Charismatic/Value-based dimension was characterized to include factor loadings the Visionary, Decisive, and Performance-orientated scales (Ashkanasy, Trevor-Roberts, & Kennedy, 2000). In general, New Zealanders perceive a Visionary/Inspirational leader in their society to be inspiring and motivating, whereas Australians observe a Charismatic/Value-based leader to be futureoriented with a penchant to get things done. In observing principal leadership, the participants of this study also view school leaders as inspiring, with an improvement-oriented focus.

Charismatic/ value based (should be). The new factors (n = 3) that constitute Charismatic/Value-based leadership (should be) were reduced from original GLOBE factors (n =

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 22

6). The three factors, "Future-Oriented, “Confidence Builder;" and “Performance-Oriented," were not surprisingly moderately positively correlated with each other. This three-factor solution as a subscale of charismatic/value based (should be) is reflective of the concept of leadership in the school culture. The three factors distinctly reflect the construct of charismatic value based (should be) dimension by distinguishing principal leadership at the school level as being a role in which one plans the future and builds confidence of those moving to this future.

As suggested by McGregor's (1960) theory of leadership, a value in people by believing education is a human enterprise is demonstrated by the charismatic/value based leadership dimension. The "performance-orientation" factor suggests charismatic/value-based leadership in education requires more visibility and hands-on approaches to leadership as it "should be," again reflective of the tension of the principal leadership role as both "leader" and "manager."

Educators conceptualize principal leadership as that of planning for the future, having capacity to build confidence in others, while also working in the trenches. In GLOBE studies, researchers found that the type of leadership that is "performance oriented" and "visionary" is highly associated with the Anglo cultural cluster.

Team-oriented (as is). The original GLOBE scales for team orientation (n = 5) were reduced to (n = 3) in this study, with factors associated with team orientation being gifted collaborator, non-irritable, and mediator. Work teams and the team approach to leadership are not uncommon in many organizations, and within the fluid and dynamic structure of the organization in teams, skills of leaders as “gifted collaborators” are required in what Aime, Humphrey, DeRue, and Paul (2014, p. 328) refer to as “heterarchy.” Characteristics of school leaders, who behave as gifted collaborators, consult faculty and team members in a transparent and clear manner to resolve problems of practice from a win-win perspective, and appear as both relationship and task-oriented. The items, diplomatic and mediator were uniquely correlated to the “mediator” factor with some highly correlated shared variance with structure coefficients of (.71) and (.68).

This two-items grouping appeared in GLOBE in two different scales, namely diplomatic and collaborative. One item loaded on a fourth factor with moderate inter-item, pattern, and structure correlations, and the decision was made to retain this factor (named “Subdued”) considering the exploratory nature of the study. In the GLOBE studies, the leader characteristic

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 23

identified as subdued was “culturally contingent,” meaning it was not seen as desirable across all cultures as contributing to outstanding leadership.

Team-oriented (should be). While GLOBE had five, first-order subscales/factors, we only identified two factors in this dimension: team-focused and malevolent. House, Hanges et al.

(2004)

found that organizations that value expressions of pride, loyalty, and interdependence,

include team-oriented as part of the prototype of effective leadership. In many schools, the presence of professional learning communities, grade-level teams, and coherence around achieving school goals, makes the school as an organization synergistic around team-building.

Autonomous (as is). In the GLOBE original scale, the first-order scale of the dimension, autonomous, was comprised of individual items, but the GLOBE still tried to group them into scales. All of the items in factor one describe characteristics that strongly inhibit effective leadership, and, in GLOBE studies were seen as “universally undesirable.” In GLOBE studies, the characteristics that comprise the “Independent” factor were identified as culturally contingent leader characteristics, being positive or negative, depending on the context and society in which they were observed. The original first-order scales for autonomous (n=1) expanded in this study (n = 2), with factors identified as egocentric and independent.

Autonomous (should be). In GLOBE, all of the other dimensions consisted of primary leadership subscales, but autonomous was identified as both a subscale and a dimension, making it a solitary subscale that included only four questionnaire items. We have in essence defined two subscales of this leadership dimension. Ambition and individualistic are not highly desirable characteristics of school leaders, and may be viewed as toxic leadership. The U.S. Army (Ulmer, 2012) defines toxic leadership as, “a combination of self-centered attitudes, motivations, and behaviors that have adverse effects on subordinates, the organization, and mission performance.

This leader lacks concern for others and the climate of the organization” (p. 48). Generally, servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1991), which is conceptualized as an approach to leading that emphasizes how leaders are attentive and empathetic to followers, placing followers first and help them achieve their full potential. Cultures influence the way that leaders may behave as servant leaders, and in organizations, such as schools, leaders are more valued as “servant leaders” than ambitious or individualistic (Brumley, 2012).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 24

Scale issues. Multiple first-order scales contained issues in terms of basic scale structure.

Although the purpose of this study was to explore the underlying structure of a scale, one must remember one major goal when developing a scale is to create a valid instrument to measure an underlying construct or constructs (Clark & Watson, 1995). One purpose of factor analysis is to explore the dimensionality of a construct, and can help determine if a construct is unidimensional or multidimensional (Bertsch, 2011). The GLOBE Leadership scales were intentionally developed to assess leadership as a multidimensional construct; however, the authors clearly state the scales were developed to assess leadership at the middle management level and to analyze using an aggregated score (Hanges & Dickson, 2004). When observing the original Leadership scales, it is important to note several first-order scales within the “As Is” and “Should Be” sections contain one or two items. For scale development involving a multidimensional construct, subscales should contain at minimum three items, with a preference of four items, to capture the dimensionality of the subscale (Clark & Watson, 1995; Little et al., 1999; Raubenheimer, 2004). Additionally, items within each subscale should be more correlated with each other than with items located within a separate subscale (Clark & Watson, 1995).

The structure and validity of the GLOBE scales have been challenged by others (e.g., Fischer, 2009; Minkov & Blagoev, 2012; Peterson & Castro, 2006). However, others have argued the GLOBE scales are both valid and reliable (Bertsch, 2011; Javidan, House, Dorman, Hanges, & de Luque, 2006). Regardless of the level of measurement (aggregate or individual), similar issues were presented within the current data. Specifically, the first-order subscales often contained less than three items and the inter-item correlation values within each subscale were often weak. To retain a subscale, the items within each subscale should correlate moderately (on average) with each other and weakly with items within a separate subscale (Clark & Watson, 1995).

Inter-item correlations. The second-order scale, Self-protective (As Is) retained four items, but the inter-item correlations between items were weak. Examination of factor loadings for the four items reveal a range of correlations to the factor from weak to strong with “selfinterested” returning the weakest correlation. These items loaded together based on correlations; however, none of the items were strongly correlated to each other. Self-protective (Should Be) revealed two factors; however, items within each factor were weakly correlated with each other.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 25

Despite weak average inter-item correlations, the inter-item correlations were stronger than all average intra-item correlations between factors. This supported the decision to keep items within respective factors rather than combining items with another factor (Clark & Watson, 1995).

Participative (As Is) also consisted of two items with a weak correlation. Autonomous (Should Be) returned two factors, both containing weakly correlated items. Again, the average inter-item correlations were stronger than average intra-item correlations suggesting the factors were different from each other, but items within a factor should correlate moderately to each other (Clark & Watson, 1995). More items should be created for these scales to truly examine if the scales are an underlying construct (Little et al., 1999).

Number of subscale items. Several scales contained issues of low item counts.

Although at least two items need to load to consider a factor, a subscale should contain at least three items to be properly revealed (Clark & Watson, 1995; Raubenheimer, 2004). For the “As Is” portion of the scale, two of the three factors for Charismatic-Value-based loaded with only two items as did Team-oriented (As Is), Participative, and Autonomous. For the “Should Be” portion of the scale, Self-Protective, Participative, and Autonomous contained factors with only two items. For those factors (scales) that returned acceptable inter-item correlations and internal consistency values, but only contained two items, more items should be developed and tested to truly capture the underlying construct as the more items there are increases the ability for each factor to replicate (Little et al., 1999; Velicer & Fava, 1998).

Humane-oriented was the least stable in the Should Be portion of the original Leadership scales. Essentially, this second-order scale was not an underlying construct for this data set.

While this CLT dimension in GLOBE research highlights supportive and considerate behavior, it may be interpreted as having limited impact on outstanding leadership in the school setting, especially in a high-stakes, accountability environment. The syntax for the GLOBE Leadership scales included only two items designated to assess the first-order scale “modesty.” While humanistic values may be present in school environments, the first-order scale of “modesty” related to Humane-oriented is not often associated with leadership effectiveness. Items for this scale need to be reviewed and revised at the individual level of analysis. However, GLOBE researchers who have studied factor loadings caution that the absence of a GLOBE factor within a society should not be interpreted as the factor being unimportant, but rather it may not appear

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 26

because there was little variability in how individuals rated the items (Chhokar, Brodbeck, & House, 2007). Factor loadings depend on variability, so a scale that is important may not appear because it is highly important across all individuals.

Summary There is no doubt that there are numerous variables used to characterize and describe a complex construct such as leadership. As implicit leadership theory posits, individuals, including teachers, have implicit beliefs and convictions about what makes a principal an outstanding leader. By conducting factor analyses on data collected from a sample of teachers, we were able to observe how credible the GLOBE scales translated at the individual level of analysis, as teachers assessed behaviors and characteristics of principal leadership.

Table 10 identifies the underlying constructs of the second-order scales.

Conclusions and Limitations of the Study This exploratory study sought to examine the underlying constructs of the second-order scales when analyzed at the individual participant level of analysis. Examination of factor pattern and structure matrices revealed that individual items had a variety of relationships with more than one factor. The factors from this study did not load in the same way as the original scales. Before the next administration of the GLOBE questionnaire, the researchers should delete items and organize items by renamed factor constructs that were discovered and named in this study.

There were several limitations to this study, which will also impact decisions before the next administration. The first is that the sample included primarily teachers as observers of principal leadership in schools. Although principal leadership is expected, it may be that principals behave more as managers than leaders. The assumptions that teachers are observing management behaviors and characteristics, rather than leadership, may influence outcomes of the study. Due to principal leadership being evaluated and observed by district leaders, we may

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 27

consider a sample of district leaders in verification of the psychometric properties and factor structure in future research.

Another limitation was the design of the electronic administration of the questionnaire.

First, it is difficult when seeking large samples of teachers from various schools, to provide a link to the electronic survey at the school level. The researchers encountered IRB issues when districts filtered the SurveyMonkey to advise that we needed IRB approval before distribution of the link in the district. By sending the link to the school-level principal, the researchers were dependent on their distribution of the link to teachers. The next barrier encountered, once the link to the survey reached the intended participants, i.e., teachers, was the time commitment for participants. The researchers speculated that due to the length of the questionnaire, there were a number of incomplete questionnaires that resulted in a small, but adequate sample size for a factor analysis procedure. Comrey and Lee (1992) consider a sample size of 100 to be “poor” and 200 to be “fair.” The sample size in this study fell between these two categories. Future data collection needs to consider a large sample size and results of this study should be interpreted with caution. Also, web-based studies may reach a limited population that involves participants in a self-selecting manner that may bias outcomes and may not be representative of the general population (Granello & Wheaton, 2004). With the next administration, the time it takes to respond will be addressed by a reduction of items on the questionnaire, and electronic links to the survey may be directed to professional organizations that provide direct links to teachers and district-level administrators.

Author Biographies Megan M. Buning is Assistant Professor of Research at Augusta University. Megan currently teaches masters and doctoral level research method courses with emphasis on quantitative methods. She currently serves as co-primary investigator at Augusta University for the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate initiative and is involved in development and implementation of AU’s first education doctorate. Current research focuses on influences on motivation in college athletes and students, use of athletic strategies in the classroom, and the influence of state STEM programming on students’ attitudes toward STEM subjects. Prior to

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 28

faculty life, Megan was a Division I softball coach at Florida State University, Coastal Carolina University, and the University of Mississippi.

Barbara J. Mallory is Program Coordinator of the Ed.D. Program and Associate Professor in Educational Leadership at High Point University (HPU) in North Carolina. Previously, Barbara served as inaugural Director of the Rex Institute for Educational Renewal and Partnership at Winthrop University and as Chair of Programs in Educational Leadership at Georgia Southern University. As a practitioner, Barbara was a high school principal in North Carolina and worked as a School Improvement Specialist at the NC Department of Public Instruction. She currently serves as President-elect of the North Carolina Professors of Educational Leadership (NCPEL). Current research focuses on doctoral education in leadership and global school leadership.

Teri Denlea Melton is Director of Educational Leadership Programs and Associate Professor of Educational Leadership at Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA. She currently serves as co-primary investigator at GSU for the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate initiative. Prior to joining the faculty at Georgia Southern University in 2008, Dr. Melton held faculty rank at Barry University in Miami Shores, FL, and Lehigh University in Bethlehem, PA, and served in leadership positions in both the public and private sectors in NY, VA, and the Dominican Republic. Her current research interests focus on mentoring the assistant principal, and international leadership behaviors and characteristics. Dr. Melton earned her Ed.D. at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, PA. Cindi Chance is Director of the Augusta University Confucius Institute. AU is among 400 universities across the globe that has an institute that promotes the study of the Chinese language and culture. The AU Confucius Institute, however, is the first to be affiliated with a comprehensive academic medical center and the first in the Western Hemisphere to focus on traditional Chinese medicine. Prior to the appointment as Director, Dr. Chance served as Dean of the College of Education at Augusta University (formally Georgia Regents University) and Dean of the College of Education at Georgia Southern University.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 29

References Aime, F., Humphrey, S., DeRue, D. S., & Paul, J. B. (2014, April 22). The riddle of heterarchy: Power transitions in cross-functional teams. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 327-352. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0756 Ashkanasy, N. M., Trevor-Roberts, E., & Kennedy, J. (2000). Leadership attributes and cultural values in Australia and New Zealand compared: An initial report based on GLOBE data.

International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 2(3), 37-44. ISSN 1440-5377 Bertsch, A. M. (2011). Validating GLOBE’s societal values scales: A test in the U.S.A. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(8), 10-23.

Brumley, C. (2012). Leadership standards in action: The school principal as servant-leader.

Lanham, MA: R & L Education.

Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C., & House, R. J (Eds.). (2007). Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Christiansen, N. & Tett, R. (2013). Handbook of personality at work. New York, NY: BrunnerRoutledge.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309-319.

Commrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

Dorfman, P. W. (1997). Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 233-274. ISSN: 1048-9843 Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Fischer, R. (2009). Where is culture in cross-cultural research? An outline of a multilevel

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 30

research process for measuring culture as a shared meaning system. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 9(1), 25-49. doi: 10.1177/1470595808101154 Friedman, T. L. (2007). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Picador.

Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M., Donnelly, J. H., & Konopaske, R. (2003). Organizations: Behavior, structure, processes (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Granello, D. H., & Wheaton, J. E. (2004). Online data collection: Strategies for research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 387-393. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00325.x Greenleaf, R. K. (1991). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2004). The development and validation of the GLOBE culture and leadership scales. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 122-151). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organizations. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988, Spring). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 4-21.

House, R. J., Brodbeck, F. C., & Chhokar, J. (2007). Culture and leadership across the World: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

House, P., J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.). (2004) Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. House, R. J., & Javidan, M. (2004). Overview of GLOBE. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 31

House, R. J. Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to Project GLOBE, Journal of World Business, 37(1), 3-10. doi: 10.1016/S1090-9516(01)00069-4 Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. London, England: Sage.

Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & de Luque, M. S. (2006).

Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: A comparative review of GLOBE’s approaches and Hofstede’s approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 897-914. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400234 Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36. doi: 10.1007BF02291575 Leithwood, K., Lewis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. University of Minnesota: The Center for Applied Research in Educational Improvement. Retrieved from http://wallacefoundation.org Little, T. D., Lindenberger, U., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1999). On selecting indicators for multivariate measurement and modeling with latent variables: When “good” indicators are bad and “bad” indicators are good. Psychological Methods, 4(2), 192-211. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.2.192 Lord, R., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions to performance. Boston, MA: Unwin Hylan.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Minkov, M., & Blagoev, V. (2012). What do Project GLOBE’s cultural dimensions reflect? An empirical perspective. Asia Pacific Business Review, 18(1), 27-43.

Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2014). Education at a glance: OECD indicators 2014. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/eag.htm Peterson, M. F., & Castro, S. (2006). Measurement metrics at aggregate levels of analysis: Implications for organization culture research and the GLOBE project. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 506-521.

Raubenheimer, J. (2004). An item selection procedure to maximize scale reliability and validity.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 32

South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30(4), 59-64. doi=10.1.1.462.3826 Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Simonet, D. V., & Tett, R. P. (2013). Five perspectives on the leadership-management relationship: A competency-based evaluation and integration. Journal of leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(2), 199-213. doi: 10.1177/1548051812467205 Ulmer, W. F. (2012, June). Toxic leadership: What are we talking about? Army Magazine, 47-52.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3, 231-251. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2202_4

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 33

Tables and Figures Table 1 Universal Leadership Dimensions and Associated Characteristics and Behaviors Universal Leadership Dimensions

Associated Characteristics And Behaviors

Charismatic/



Values-Based Leader



Team-Oriented Leader





 

Self-Protective Leader

  

Participative Leader

  

HumaneOriented Leader

 

Autonomous Leader







Has the capacity to inspire followers and to motivate others based on strongly held core values.

Behaviors and characteristics are those of a visionary, inspirational leader, who is trustworthy and performance-oriented.

Six primary CLT leadership subscales associated with this Global CLT Dimension were: Charismatic 1: Visionary; Charismatic 2: Inspirational; Charismatic 3: SelfSacrifice; Integrity; Decisive; and, Performance Oriented.

Has the capacity for team building and encouraging a common purpose among team members.

Is integrative and diplomatic and displays behaviors and characteristics that are collaborative and non-malevolent leader.

Five primary CLT leadership subscales associated with this Global CLT Dimension were: Team 1: Collaborative Team Orientation; Team 2: Team Integrator; Diplomatic; Malevolent, an, Administratively Competent.

Is self-centered, status conscious, and procedural.

Displays behaviors and characteristics that are face saving; he or she will ensure his or her own security or the security of the group.

Five Primary CLT leadership subscales associated with this Global CLT Dimension were: Self-Centered; Status Conscious; Conflict Inducer; Face Saver; and, Procedural.

Exhibits the capacity to involve others in decision-making.

Behaviors and characteristics are those of a non-autocratic leader who seeks to make and implement decisions with others.

Two primary CLT leadership subscales associated with this Global CLT Dimension were: Autocratic (reverse scored); and, Non-participative (reverse scored).

Demonstrates compassion and generosity.

Behaviors and characteristics of this type of leader are supportive; this leader is one who is modest and sensitive to others.

Two primary CLT leadership subscales associated with this Global CLT Dimension were: Modesty; and, Humane Oriented.

Leads individually and independently, displaying the behaviors and characteristics of an autocratic leader.

Primary CLT leadership subscales associated with this Global CLT Dimension was: Autonomous. Autonomous is considered both a global CLT and a specific subscale.

Volume 7 Page 34

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Table 2 Pattern and Structure Matrix results for Charismatic/Value-Based (As Is) Rotated Factor Loadings Inspiring Improvement -Focus

Item No. First Order Item

(S)

Disingenuous

(S)

Discouraging

(S)

11

Imp-Oriented

.77

(.70)

56

Intellectually Stimulating

.73

(.70)

12

Inspirational

.55

(.71)

5

Positive

.47

(.53)

13

Anticipatory

.44

(.60)

16

Trustworthy

15

Sincere

(.48)

31

Encouraging

(.51)

(-.54)

-.65

(-.77)

32

Morale Booster

(.58)

(-.56)

-.50

(-.65)

20

Just

48

Enthusiastic

35

Prepared

14

Risk-taker

44

Decisive

KMO

.85

(-.58)

(-.53) -.91

(-.85)

-.86

(-.83)

(-.48) (.49)

(-.46) (-.48)

(-.54)

E

5.46

1.24

1.11

% Var

39.02

8.87

7.95

.79

.81

.78

α

.82

Note. Pattern coefficients are reported under the “F” column. Structure coefficients reported in parentheses (S).

Some items that did not load on the pattern matrix did load on the structure matrix. Eigenvalues are reported in the “E” row. Original GLOBE scale consisted of six factors/subscales.

Volume 7 Page 35

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Table 3 Pattern and Structure Matrix results for Team-Oriented (As Is) Rotated Factor Loadings Item No.

Gifted First Order Item

Collaborator

(S)

Irritable

(S)

Mediator

43

Intelligent

.87

(.75)

30

Collaborative

.58

(.69)

45

Consultative

.52

(.48)

34

Orderly

.52

(.56)

22

Clear

.54

(.68)

21

Problem-Solver

.51

(.58)

19

Admin. Skilled

.46

(.60)

46

Irritable

(.46)

-.78

(-.80)

50

Vindictive

(.44)

-.77

(-.78)

1

Diplomatic

.75

(.76)

3

Mediator

.49

(.62)

52

Subdued

28

Loyal

25

Integrator

KMO

.86

(-.44)

(.44)

(-.48)

(.49)

(-.46)

(.45)

E

4.81

1.23

1.07

% Var

34.38

8.80

7.62

.81

.77

.64

α

.73

Note. Items 46, 50, & 52 are reversed scored.

(S)

Volume 7 Page 36

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Table 4 Pattern and Structure Matrix results for Autonomous (As Is) Rotated Factor Loadings Item No.

Egocentric

(S)

Independent

(S)

24

Tyrannical

.72

(.73)

9

Ruthless

.62

(.66)

33

Arrogant

.63

(.64)

53

Egocentric

.67

(.67)

27

Provocateur

.47

(.46)

54

Non-explicit

.59

(.58)

55

Distant

.55

(.58)

7

Autonomous

.76

(.77)

8

Independent

.76

(.76)

29

Unique

49

Risk-adverse

KMO

.73

E

3.62

1.46

% Var

32.87

13.31

.69

.74

α

First Order Item

Volume 7 Page 37

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Table 5 Pattern and Structure Matrix results for Charismatic/Value-Based (Should Be) Rotated Factor Loadings Item No.

Future-

Confidence Builder

(S)

Performance -Oriented

First Order Item

Oriented

(S)

10

Foresight

.94

(.84)

19

Able to anticipate

.73

(.78)

11

Plans Ahead

.67

(.72)

15

Intuitive

.63

(.70)

32

Honest

.80

(.72)

26

ConfidenceBuilder

.72

(.73)

20

Motive Arouser

(.57)

.48

(.67)

40

Perf-Oriented

(.48)

(.45)

.58

(.70)

46

Visionary

(.65)

(.50)

.48

(.70)

42

Motivational

(.48)

.48

(.59)

47

Willful

24

ExcellenceOriented

(.55)

51

Future-Oriented

(.60)

22

Convincing

(.49)

(.49)

30

Self-Sacrifice

8

Logical

(.44)

(.52)

35

Dynamic

(.59)

(.55)

KMO

.90

(.47) (.48) (0.46)

(.54)

.47 (.46)

6.89

1.35

1.27

% Var

40.50

7.93

7.47

.84

.71

.80

.87

.46

(.64)

.44

(.64)

(.59)

E

α

(S)

Volume 7 Page 38

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Table 6 Pattern and Structure Matrix results for Self-Protective (Should Be) Rotated Factor Solutions Item No.

First Order Item

Procedural

(S)

Participative

(S)

1

Cautious

.55

(.56)

25

Procedural

.54

(.47)

29

Non-participative

-.69

(-.71)

16

Indirect

-.48

(-.49)

45

Avoids Negatives

56

Ritualistic

9

Status-Conscious

KMO

.62

E

1.94

1.33

% Var

27.75

19.93

.36

.53

α

(.43)

.54

Volume 7 Page 39

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Table 7 Pattern and Structure Matrix results for Team-Oriented (Should Be) Rotated Factor Loadings Item No.

First Order Item

Team-Focused

(S)

52

Good Administrator

.83

(.80)

23

Communicative

.75

(.71)

38

Team Builder

.73

(.76)

4

Informed

.69

(.68)

2

Organized

.54

(.57)

36

Coordinator

.54

(.50)

53

Dependable

.52

(.62)

5

Effective Bargainer

.49

(.49)

50

Hostile

(.44)

-.83

(-.84)

49

Dishonest

(.46)

-.78

(-.80)

7

Non-cooperative

-.80

(-.74)

6

Egotistical

-.66

(-.65)

39

Cynical

-.60

(-.67)

27

Group-oriented

KMO

(-.47)

(.44)

.84 5.45

1.91

% Var

38.92

13.65

.83

.82

.86

(S)

(-.44)

E

α

Malevolent

Volume 7 Page 40

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Table 8 Pattern and Structure Matrix results for Participative (Should Be) Rotated Factor Loadings Item No.

First Order Item

Micromanager

(S)

43

Micromanager

.69

(.61)

48

Ruler

.63

(.72)

(-.52)

33

Domineering

.60

(.72)

(-.55)

37

Elitist

14

Non-egalitarian

54

Dictorial

(.55)

44

Non-delegator

(.45)

13

Individually Oriented

KMO

.83

(-.81)

-.56

(-.57) (-.46)

3.18

1.01

% Var

39.78

12.70

.72

.63

.75

(S)

-.77

E

α

(.51)

Elitist

Volume 7 Page 41

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Table 9 Pattern and Structure Matrix results for Autonomous (Should Be) Rotated Factor Loadings Item No.

First Order Item

Ambitious

(S)

Individualistic

(S)

41

Ambitious

.57

(.58)

3

Cunning

-.45

(-.43)

55

Individualistic

.45

(.44)

34

Intra-group FaceSaver

.44

(.48)

21

Sensitive

KMO

.61

E

1.62

1.13

% Var

32.40

22.52

α

.16

.37

.31

Volume 7 Page 42

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Table 10 Original GLOBE Leadership Dimensions Compared to Current Findings

AS IS

SHOULD BE

ORIGINAL GLOBE SCALES

Charismatic/ value based

Charismatic/ value based

Charismatic/ value based

F1-Inspiring, improvement focus; F2-Disingenuous (reverse);

F1-Future-oriented; F2-Confidence builder; F3-Performance-oriented.

F3-Discouraging (reverse).

Self-protective F1: Loner

Self-protective F1: Procedural F2: Participative (reverse)

Humane-oriented No factors.

Team-oriented

Humane-oriented No factors.

Team-oriented

F1-Gifted collaborator;

F1: Team-focused;

F2-Non-irritable (reverse);

F2: Malevolent (reverse).

F3-Mediator.

Participative

Participative F1: Micromanager; F2: Elitist

Autonomous

Autonomous

F1: Egocentric;

F1: Ambitious

F2: Independent.

F2: Individualistic.

F1-Visionary F2-Inspirational F3-Decisive F4-Integrity F5-Performance-oriented F6-Self-sacrifice Self-protective F1-Procedureal F2-Self-centered F3-Status-conscience F4-Conflict-Indicer F5-Face-saver Humane-oriented F1-Modesty F2-Humane--oriented Team-oriented F1-Collaborative F2-Team integrator F3-Diplomatic F4-Malevolent (r) F5-Administratively competent Participative F1-Autocratic F2-Non-particpative Autonomous F1-Individualistic F2-Independent F3-Autonomous F4-Unique

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 43

Graduate Student and Faculty Perspectives of Academic Writing Jaya S. Goswami Texas A&M University-Kingsville Steve F. Bain Texas A&M University-Kingsville Maria E. Martinez Texas A&M University-Kingsville

Abstract Students’ academic transition from undergraduate to graduate education can be problematic for them and their instructors. Instructors typically expect new graduate students to be ready for the rigors of research and inquiry-based education. Graduate students are often surprised at their own lack of preparedness for the research components of their studies, specifically, critical thinking and academic writing. While effective academic writing by graduate students is of paramount importance, it is a challenging issue for both professors and students. This study compares and contrasts quantitative and qualitative responses from graduate faculty and students regarding students’ academic writing skills. The researchers paid particular attention to the areas of concern in academic writing and postulating strategies designed to make graduate students more successful in their academic writing.

Keywords: Academic writing, graduate students, research, graduate programs, substantive writing

Introduction The shift from undergraduate and graduate academic writing is often fraught with difficulties and academic exigencies. Some new graduate students may be surprised by the expectations associated with graduate level academic rigor, especially as they relate to academic

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 44

writing. Faculty expect graduate students to have the ability to write well beyond what is usually necessary for term papers at undergraduate levels. Cooper and Bikowski (2007) found that several American universities require various forms of academic writing across disciplines, even though not all graduate classes may include writing components. Nonetheless, academic writing continues to be a key element in graduate degree programs. Although some graduate programs have opted to forego the thesis requirement, the need to master content literacy is typically bound in graduate programs and discipline specific assignments. The purpose of this mixed methods study was to compare faculty and graduate student perceptions of graduate student academic writing preparedness. This study seeks to contribute to the body of knowledge surrounding graduate student writing and to discuss possible strategies to address gaps in academic writing preparation.

Literature Review

Understanding Academic Writing The ability to effectively communicate research, theory, critical analysis, and philosophical perspectives has long been considered fundamental in the pursuit of a graduate degree; however, as Bair and Mader (2013) noted, there appears to be a lack of research on graduate academic writing. Graduate students and faculty tend to have different perspectives on the issue of academic writing. Many professors and instructors assume graduate students already possess the skills necessary to write at an advanced academic level (Gunn, Hearne, & Sibthorpe, 2011). Students often do not see academic writing as an important component of their academic experience because higher education typically undermines the importance of academic writing skills in research preparation (Aitchison & Lee, 2006).

Elder and Paul (2006a) postulated the significance of “substantive writing” and identified the “intimate connection between the ability to write well and the ability to think well” (p. 38).

For these researchers, substantive writing was academic writing, a higher and more complex type of written expression. This form of writing relates material to core ideas, constructs and conceptualizes arguments, and articulates the discipline of study at hand. McWilliams and Allan

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 45

(2014) discovered in their research the importance of connecting discipline specifics with graduate level assignments. In their research, they discovered the efficaciousness of embedding academic writing skills and instruction throughout the graduate program. They maintained, “one of the most effective means of supporting students in developing academic literacies is through embedding academic writing programs in faculty courses” (McWilliams & Allan, 2014, p. 1).

Regardless of the fact that many graduate programs do not require a formal thesis for degree completion, there is a need for critical thinking and formal academic expression of thought throughout these advanced programs. The very nature of the graduate degree speaks of moving into a higher level of analytical, investigative, and research-oriented conceptualization.

Bair and Mader (2013) concluded that “an understanding of formal educational theory and research has long been considered central to advanced study and professional improvement” (p.

2). Academic writing is the vehicle by which this level of academic understanding is developed, expressed, and enhanced. Research indicates that aligning an institution’s goals with the academic development of graduate students would seem a logical way to infuse the disciplinedirected curriculum with academic writing and conceptualization skills (Cooper & Bikowski, 2007).

Helping students develop academic writing skills is more than an exercise of mechanical manipulation. It sets the student up for successful research-oriented review, analysis, summation, and application of the concepts included in the research itself. Academic writing helps identify authors’ particular philosophical perspectives (Kost, 2015). Understanding and applying academic writing skills at the graduate level helps the student develop an on-the-go ability to read, synthesize, and communicate technical information in an effective writing style, appropriate to the specific discipline.

Setting Criteria for Academic Writing Institutions of higher education must clearly identify and communicate the essential criteria for success in graduate studies and, by implication, what the institution regards as effective academic writing. Barrie (2006) found the identity of fundamental graduate attributes varies from one institution to the next and even among academic departments within institutions.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 46

The development of academic writing can be further complicated by cultural nuances of the students, given that graduate students come from a varied social and multicultural backdrop.

Further, international students must grapple with the typical graduate level demands of course assignments, as well as cultural change (Cooper & Bikowski, 2007; Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999; Gunn et al., 2011). Research conducted by Berman and Cheng (2001) confirmed “the perceived language difficulties of NNS [Non-Native Speaker] graduate students, which relate to the productive skills of speaking and writing, were directly related to their academic performance” (p. 38). Research indicated many international students saw the development of writing skills as difficult and problematic (Berman & Cheng, 2001). Findings such as this necessitate a closer review of the expectations of universities from their graduate students, which should include strong considerations of cross-cultural rhetorical modes. To expect all students to be at the same level of experience, expectation, and academic writing skill is to be remiss.

Ramanathan and Atkinson (1999), in an effort to facilitate an “expressive writing pedagogy” called for a “complex, multidimensional understanding of individuals-in-context” and supported a more individualistic approach for English as Second Language or ESL writers (p. 66), currently referred to as English as New Language (ENL) writers. Hence, educational institutions wanting to impart academic writing skills should start with the student and determine where that individual is in terms of a graduate mindset and skills. The uniqueness of thought, conceptualization, and feelings possessed by each individual can be disclosed uniquely by written expressions. When faculty help graduate students facilitate this writing expression, they encourage a level of individualism that is liberating for the student.

Residuals of Academic Writing Simply because graduate students might find it difficult to develop academic writing should not deter universities from enhancing the skills necessary for substantive writing. In fact, several residuals of academic writing have been supported by empirical research and data. As students move into a changing educational world, academic writing continues to be an essential proficiency for dominant reasons.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 47

Academic writing enhances academic thought. Any type of critical or applied writing requires the thought construct to effectively communicate on paper that which is conceptualized in the mind. Bair and Mader (2013) concluded, “writing is an essential component in both developing and demonstrating critical thinking skills” (p. 2). Elder and Paul (2006b) maintained the very exercise of academic writing is intellectual work; that is, it is a strenuous activity of the mind. They further purported that academic writing is an “intellectual work requiring a willingness to persevere through difficulties” (Elder & Paul, 2006a, p. 38). Without this high level of thought processing, the mind is vulnerable to negative, caustic, and base ideas and conceptualizations that are neither healthy nor positive for society.

Academic writing facilitates an in-depth understanding of the discipline. To master a discipline or area of study, one must be able to do more than memorize facts and numbers.

Critical thinking skills must come into play to review, analyze, investigate, question, challenge, and inform. Elder and Paul (2006c) maintained the inseparability of critical and creative thought. The student becomes the expert in his or her field of study by filtering the information of the discipline through focused, purposeful thinking. Further, current literacy theorists purport the significance of academic writing even in contemporary environments such as online courses.

Lapadat (2002) asserted that “the nature and qualities of online interactive writing itself bootstrap the construction of meaning” (p. 1). Academic writing nurtures conceptual change and a higher level of meaningful reasoning.

Academic writing underscores the importance of research and publication. In most academic settings, faculty members are required to publish scholarly work in order to be retained. In graduate schools, there is an increasing amount of emphasis placed on scholarly publications among students. Because the very act of writing in an academic format is driven by critical thought, there is a natural creation of depth of knowledge and expertise. When graduate students are allowed to conduct research with faculty, their confidence grows when they write for publication (Austin, 2002). Research by Murray and Newton (2008) conducted on physiotherapists in the United Kingdom implied “that writing for publication is as important as other skills and other professional duties” and the research associated with it “enhanced clinical knowledge and practice” (p. 33). It would stand to reason that academic writing across the

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 48

disciplines produces contemporary research worthy of publication and accentuates the importance of sharing disciplined, articulated thought.

Academic writing can impact student awareness and development in the area of academic integrity. Academic integrity goes beyond the act of plagiarism, cheating, and dishonesty. It is a function of lower reasoning skills. It is an adaptive response to the pressure of trying to succeed in graduate school. Kanat-Maymon, Benjamin, Stavsky, Shoshani, and Roth (2015) found significant evidence to support a connection between the lack of fulfilment of the psychological needs for autonomy and competency, and academic dishonesty. Pecorari (2003) contended not all students who plagiarized on academic papers did so intentionally. Inversely, a higher level of academic integrity may result if a student is intellectually stimulated to feel significant, capable, and connected in academic pursuits. Developing effective academic writing skills contributes to the satisfaction of these psychological needs. When professors collaborate with graduate students, they communicate and create a caring and supportive environment which helps meet these needs of students. When scholarly mentorship includes the demonstration of academic writing skills, there is more opportunity for students to connect and feel significant (McGowan, 2005). Austin (2002) underscored the importance and impact of faculty mentorship for graduate students by showing the growth of professional development in graduate assistantships with faculty members.

Academic writing is a continual process. Most researchers tend to see academic writing as a continual process, one that includes more than a mere course or workshop. Kellogg (2008) argued that the development of advanced writing skills takes a very long time in the life of a student. He detailed this elaborate process: It takes at least two decades of maturation, instruction, and training to advance from (1) the beginner's stage of using writing to tell what one knows, to (2) the intermediate stage of transforming what one knows for the author's benefit, and to (3) the final stage of crafting what one knows for the reader's benefit. (Kellogg, 2008, p. 3) Bair and Mader (2013) also believed effective academic writing at the Master’s level would take time and continual practice. As graduate students make life transitions, their academic proficiencies do not always transfer onward with these changes (Gunn et al., 2011). Therefore, it

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 49

is important that continued research and practice be maintained to ensure the ongoing growth and development of academic writing skills.

Method The aim of this mixed methods study was to conduct a comparative examination of faculty and graduate student perceptions of graduate student academic writing preparedness.

The overarching research question guiding this study was: What are the perceptions of faculty and graduate students regarding the students’ academic writing skills? The study addressed the following sub questions: a) What are the areas of concern relating to academic writing? and b) What strategies will help graduate students improve their academic writing skills? This study was conducted among graduate faculty and students in a College of Education at a doctoral granting research university in Texas. Using purposeful sampling, a URL containing a link to the survey instrument was delivered via email to 52 faculty members who had taught at least one graduate class within the year and 430 part-time and full-time graduate students enrolled in the college. Thirty-one graduate faculty (60%) and 64 (15%) graduate students participated in the study. The survey instrument included two open-ended questions and two closed-ended multiple selection questions. Respondents remained anonymous. Results were derived from analytical methods involving descriptive strategies of frequency distribution, percentages, correlation of unordered pairs by way of analysis of variance (ANOVA) and interclass correlation (ICC) coefficient for the closed-ended (quantitative) items. Open-ended (qualitative) items were examined through thematic and axial coding identification of recurrent themes.

Results The first research question asked respondents about the areas of concern related to graduate students’ academic writing. Table 1 presents the questions and the emerging themes identified in the faculty and graduate student responses. Significant similarities appear in the areas related to analytical skills, technical skills and professional success. Differences in the emergent themes suggested that graduate faculty seemed concerned about graduate students’

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 50

lack of familiarity with the application of APA style and format of documentation in academic writing. Graduate students, on the other hand, acknowledged that they received limited preparedness in this area.

The second question provided a non-Likert scale list of possible concerns regarding graduate students’ academic writing and asked respondents to indicate all areas that applied.

Figure 1 illustrates the comparison of student and faculty responses. Question 2 responses indicated that faculty and student perceptions of areas of concern aligned closely in only one area: at least 75% of both groups of respondents selected use of APA style and format as an area of concern. A noted disparity was found between graduate student and faculty perceptions regarding the following areas of concern: plagiarism (students: 22%, faculty: 55%); mechanics of grammar/structure (students: 22%, faculty: 81%); critical analysis (students: 37%, faculty: 71%); resource identification (students: 23%, faculty: 48%); and drawing and supporting conclusions (students: 20%, faculty: 48%).

An ANOVA was performed upon the data derived from each category from faculty and graduate students. Table 2 illustrates the correlation for unordered pairs for this data. Slightly over half of the total variability indicates similarity in measures between faculty and graduate student responses for each category of concern,

= .549. Further, the estimate of correlation in

perceptions related to concerns of academic writing is low, ICC = .1497. This is consistent with the instance of only one strong similarity connected to the category associated with use of APA style and format of documentation. The low ICC suggests that the responses from faculty and students in this study may likely vary as much as random responses from members of a larger population of faculty and students. It may also lead to an explanation of the wide variation in responses from faculty and students and the need for improvements to the survey instrument.

Question 3 on the survey was open-ended and different for each respondent group, in order to capture data relevant to perceived differences among faculty and graduate students.

Faculty were asked to comment about specific resources or strategies they would consider using in their courses to improve student writing. Graduate students were asked about their undergraduate preparation for academic writing at the graduate level. They were provided an opportunity to expand on this question. Table 3 represents the emerging themes derived from the analysis of the qualitative data from question 3 provided by faculty respondents. Consistent with

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 51

the faculty responses to questions 1 and 2, faculty indicated they would be willing to consider using resources related to APA style and format, as well as provide resources to help their students avoid plagiarism. Additionally, faculty were supportive of the idea of requiring graduate students to attend academic writing workshops.

As stated earlier, question 3 for the graduate students examined the impact of their undergraduate academic writing preparation on their graduate academic writing. Table 4 presents the themes that emerged from the data. The emerging themes reveal that some graduate students communicated a detrimental impact on their writing due to the time elapsed since completion of their undergraduate degrees and participation in graduate school. Other themes included the differences between undergraduate and graduate writing, specifically with reference to the use of different styles and documentation formats such as MLA and APA. Question 4 provided a non-Likert scale list of possible resources or strategies that respondents would consider using and asked them to indicate all categories that applied. Figure 2 illustrates the comparison of student and faculty responses. Both faculty and graduate students indicated a similar heightened response to the use of an APA workshop as a strategy to improve academic writing (faculty: 77%, students: 62%) and resources modeling critical analysis (faculty: 48%, students: 43%). The responses to this question are indicative of the apparent importance placed on APA style and format for documentation for both groups of respondents. Both faculty and graduate students also seemed willing to utilize handouts and websites as resources (faculty: 61%, students: 43%). Over half of faculty respondents (55%) appeared to be in favor of mandatory writing workshops at the beginning of the students’ graduate program, while 44% of graduate students agreed. The data also indicated a remarkable difference in the perceived need for a workshop on plagiarism. While over half of the graduate faculty (52%) responded positively, only 21% of the graduate students would consider using this resource.

An ANOVA was performed on the data derived from faculty and graduate student responses regarding possible resources or strategies that respondents would consider using each category. The calculations of the data are presented in Table 5. More than two-thirds of the total variability indicates similarity in measures between faculty and graduate student responses for each category of concern, η2 = .7614. In other words, of the variability within the measures, 76.14% indicate on-average differences among the faculty and students. Further, the estimate of

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 52

correlation in willingness to consider various writing strategies or resources is moderate, ICC = .5651. The ICC in this instance signifies only a moderate extent to which the responses may accurately estimate the variance of measures of faculty and student groups. This information may align with the differences in group responses relating to workshop resources as discussed earlier.

Discussion Faculty and graduate students’ perceptions of the areas of concern regarding students’ academic writing skills appeared to differ from more than conform to one another. This was evident specifically in the area of critical analysis where 71% of faculty perceived it to be a weak area in students’ academic writing, while only 37% of students felt the same way. Regarding coherence and cohesiveness of expression of thought, 58% faculty regarded that as an area of concern, but only 28% of students perceived it to be so. Sixty-eight percent of faculty felt that student’s academic vocabulary was of concern to them and 38% of students felt concerned about their academic vocabulary skills. Of particular note is the discrepancy in the perceptions of the two groups regarding mechanics of grammar and sentence structure. Eighty-one percent of the faculty considered this area to be one of concern, while only 22% of graduate students felt similarly. Among all the findings, this discrepancy in perception indicated the largest gap between the two groups.

The results also indicated, however, that faculty and graduate students agreed (75% and 77%, respectively) that using discipline-specific style and format of documentation, in this case APA, was an area of concern. As Bair and Mader (2013) and Elder and Paul (2006c) maintained, academic writing is the vehicle through which scholarly expression and critical thought is conveyed. In fact, critical thought and academic writing are natural partners in scholarly work. Given the importance, then, of academic writing in graduate level studies and given the apparent mismatch of perceptions of graduate students’ academic writing skills, it becomes imperative for graduate programs to explicitly identify and clarify their expectations of graduate level academic writing. As McWilliams and Allan (2014) have suggested, such clarifications and support for academic literacy should be infused in the graduate programs.

Further, opportunities to engage in academic writing should be multiple, varied, and ongoing.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 53

Kellogg (2008) commented on the time it takes for an academic writer to mature; thus, it is vital for students to be given ample time and opportunity to learn and transition into scholarly writers.

In contrast to the perceptions of the two groups of participants regarding the areas of weaknesses, both groups were receptive to the list of resources and strategies for support in improving graduate students’ academic writing skills. Specifically, both groups agreed (faculty 62%, students 77%) that workshops on using APA style and format would be helpful, as would a mandatory course on academic writing embedded in each graduate program (faculty 43%, student 48%). Regarding workshops on plagiarism, which faculty felt students would, or should, consider attending (52%) and only 21% of student participants agreed. This is further heightened by the evident difference in the perceptions of plagiarism as an area of concern (as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2). Thus, it would be prudent for graduate programs to examine graduate students’ respective needs in this area as referred to by Pecorari (2003) concerning psychological needs frustration.

Limitations of the study included the low response rate of the graduate students. The low response rate may have been attributed to the timing of the survey, level of interest, and response time lines. The researchers recommend larger sample sizes for future studies, particularly for graduate students. Further, cross discipline surveys coupled with inclusion of other institutions could strengthen the analyses.

Conclusion Advanced academic writing skills are expected of students pursuing graduate studies.

However, as this study reports, there is a discrepancy between graduate faculty members’ perceptions of their students’ academic writing skills and the perceptions of their students. This study aligned with the existing literature on the importance of academic writing in graduate programs. Specifically, it highlighted the importance of effective academic writing to communicate scholarly ideas and activities. It would be prudent for institutions and their graduate programs to offer the necessary support for students to succeed in their scholarly journey as academic writers.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 54

Author Biographies Dr. Jaya S. Goswami is the Associate Dean, College of Education and Human Performance, at Texas A&M University-Kingsville. Her faculty affiliation is with the Department of Teacher and Bilingual Education, which offers a doctoral program and several graduate programs. She also serves as Director, Center for Teaching Effectiveness.

Dr. Steve F. Bain is Associate Professor of Counseling and the Educational Leadership and Counseling Department Chair at Texas A&M University-Kingsville. His department is home for one doctoral program, one Higher Education certificate program, and four master’s degree programs.

Dr. Maria E. Martinez is the Executive Director for Strategic Initiatives in the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs at Texas A&M University-Kingsville. She also teaches in an adjunct capacity in graduate programs in higher education leadership and administration.

References Aitchison, C., & Lee, A. (2006) Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 265–278.

Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94-122. DOI: 10.1353/jhe.2002.0001 Bair, M. A., & Mader, C. E. (2013). Academic writing at the graduate level: Improving the curriculum through faculty collaboration. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 10(1), 1-14. Retrieved from: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol10/iss1/4.

Barrie, S. C. (2006). Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates.

Higher Education, 51, 215–241. DOI 10.1007/s10734-004-6384-7 Berman, R., & Cheng, L. (2001). English academic language skills: Perceived difficulties by undergraduate and graduate students, and their academic achievement. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1-2), 25-40. Retrieved from: https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19830/21603 Cooper, A., & Bikowski, D. (2007). Writing at the graduate level: What tasks do professors

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 55

actually require? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(3), 206–221.

Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2006a). Critical thinking and the art of substantive writing, part II. Journal of Developmental Education, 29(3), 38-39.

Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2006b). Critical thinking and the art of substantive writing, part III. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(1), 32-33.

Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2006c). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought.

Journal of Developmental Education, 30(2), 34-35.

Gunn, C., Hearne, S., & Sibthorpe, J. (2011). Right from the start: A rationale for embedding academic literacy skills in university courses. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 8(1), 2011. Retrieved from: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol8/iss1/6.

Kanat-Maymon, Y., Benjamin, M., Stavsky, A., Shoshani, A., & Roth, G. (2015). The role of basic need fulfillment in academic dishonesty: A self-determination theory perspective.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 43, 1-9.

Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1-26. Retrieved from: http://www.jowr.org/articles/vol1_1/JoWR_2008_vol1_nr1_Kellogg.pdf.

Kost, C. P. (2015). Student quick reference success guide to writing in the APA 6th edition style. Presto, PA: Kost Services.

Lapadat, J. C. (2002). Written interaction: A key component in online learning. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(4). DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2002.tb00158.

McGowan, U. (2005). Academic integrity: An awareness and development issue for students and staff. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 2(3), 46-57.

Retrieved from: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol2/iss3/6.

McWilliams, R., & Allan, Q. (2014). Embedding academic literacy skills: Towards a best practice model. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 11(3).

Retrieved from: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol11/iss3/8.

Murray, R., & Newton, M. (2008). Facilitating writing for publication. Physiotherapy, 94, 29-34.

Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic secondlanguage writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 317-345.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 56

Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 45-75. Retrieved from: https://compstudyforteachers.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/ramanthan.pdf.

Volume 7 Page 57

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Table 1 Academic writing: Areas of concern Faculty - Which areas (if any) are of particular

Graduate Students – Is your

concern to you as they relate to your students’

academic writing an area of

academic writing?

concern for you as a graduate student? If yes, how does this issue impact your success as a student and professional?

Critical thinking and high level analytical skills

Analysis

APA and technical skills

Limited preparedness, Technical skills

Research skills Professional and career readiness

Student and professional success

Volume 7 Page 58

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Table 2

One-Way Analysis of Variance of Academic Writing Concerns between Faculty and Graduate Students Source

SS

df

MS

F

p

Between Pairs

.5806

9

.0645

1.35

.322124

Within Pairs

.4769

10

.0477

Total

1.0575

19

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 59

Table 3 Academic Writing: Resources and Strategies to Improve Faculty - Which resources/strategies would you consider including in your classes to improve your graduate students’ academic writing?

APA resources style and format Online resources for academic writing Mandatory academic writing workshops Resources on avoiding plagiarism

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 60

Table 4 Academic Writing: Impact of Undergraduate Preparation Graduate Students - How has your undergraduate academic writing preparation impacted your graduate academic writing? Please explain.

Time since undergraduate degree Different format requirements Emphasis upon organization, coherence and structure Writing was basic

Volume 7 Page 61

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Table 5

One-Way Analysis of Variance of Academic Writing Resources between Faculty and Graduate Students Source

SS

df

MS

F

p

Between Pairs

.3947

8

.0493

3.6

.036805

Within Pairs

.1237

9

.0137

Total

.5184

17

Volume 7 Page 62

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Figure 1. Specific concerns regarding academic writing.

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

81%

75%77%

71%

68% 58%

55%

48%

22%

22%

48%

48% 38%

37% 23%

28%

25%

20% 10% 3%

Students Faculty

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 63

Figure 2. Academic writing resources/strategies.

90% 77% 80% 70% 62% 61% 55% 60% 52% 52% 45% 43% 44% 43%48% 50% 37% 35% 40% 32% 30% 21% 16% 16% 20% 14% 10% 0%

Students Faculty

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 64

Embedding Assessment into Instruction: The Reasons, Reactions, and Results Joseph W. Spadano Rivier University

Abstract Assessment has typically been an activity associated with teachers. This study investigated the vision of assessment as a continuous activity for both teachers and students. The research examined how embedding formative assessment into instruction informs teaching and supports learning. Six in-service and two pre-service graduate students enrolled in the course, Assessment in Mathematics Education, and participated in a qualitative study to examine and analyze assessment techniques embedded in a problem solving educational orientation. Research data were collected in the form of reflective writings that analyzed, critiqued, and revised the application of formative assessments that influence teaching and learning by improving instruction and advancing growth in learning. The data indicated that, when used properly, formative assessment isolated students’ points of confusion and allowed teachers to design specific learning experiences to meet students’ needs with the implication of enhancing the educative process.

Keywords: Assessment, Formative Assessment, Teaching, Learning, Problem Solving

Introduction Assessments are generally represented in two major categories: formative and summative. Summative assessments are commonly understood to be cumulative evaluations, such as quizzes, tests, and projects, that produce a score used to grade students. Formative

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 65

assessments are evaluations that monitor student understanding during instructional activities and student progress in the learning experience. The process of assessment is usually considered the responsibility of the teacher. A teacher’s role in assessment is, typically, to examine student efforts and isolate students’ points of confusion. This study investigated assessment techniques in learning experiences that included students in the process of assessment.

This research investigated the effects of embedding formative assessment techniques into instruction. Graduate students in the course, Assessment in Mathematics Education, were introduced to a problem solving framework and asked to examine formative assessment techniques used in a problem solving educational orientation. The students’ effort in this study included accepting the responsibility of an evaluative role in the assessment process by isolating their points of confusion in the problem solving process. These students’ efforts contributed to the data used for this qualitative study.

The intent of this research was to provide in-service and pre-service teachers with the knowledge, skills, and behaviors to implement formative assessment techniques in their mathematics classrooms. The purpose of this study was to contribute to the growing knowledge base of recent reform initiatives in applying formative assessment strategies during instruction.

The goal of this research project was to investigate and promote the understanding of this new vision of assessment and advance its practice in the mathematics classroom.

Literature Review Assessment has many purposes and corresponding results. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 1995; NCTM, 2000) suggest that those purposes and results include monitoring student progress to promote growth, evaluating student progress to recognize accomplishments, making instructional decisions to improve instruction, and evaluating programs to modify programs. Summative assessments are more likely to be used to recognize achievement over a period of time or to generate data to evaluate and modify programs. This research study and literature review will highlight formative assessment and focus on the purposes of assessment that monitor student progress and shape instructional decisions. These

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 66

purposes of assessment directly influence teaching and learning behaviors in the mathematics classroom.

Formative assessment informs and guides ongoing learning (Klenowski, 2009).

Research suggests that well-planned and well-implemented formative assessment can significantly increase the speed and amount of student learning (Nyquist, 2003; William, 2007; Wilson & Kenney, 2003). In the typical mathematics classroom, teachers are conditioned to play an evaluative role in student learning. Expecting students to play an evaluative role in their learning is a relatively rare phenomenon. Shepard (2013) contends that assessment in the mathematics classroom be a continuous activity for both teachers and students. Research suggests that when students accept a reasonable share of the work to self-regulate, they can focus their efforts toward the learning goals (Brookhart, 2013).

As assessment is integrated into learning experiences both teachers and students play an important role in analyzing and examining how assessment informs teaching and supports learning (Popham, 2008; William, 2008). During instruction, when teachers assess students’ understanding and learn what students know and what students do not know, they are able to isolate students’ points of confusion and can design specific learning experiences to meet students’ needs. During the course of a lesson, when students assess their own understanding and learn what they know and what they do not know, they become proactive learners, central to the learning process, and they advance their ownership of understanding. Hattie (2009) suggests that students’ self-evaluative behaviors have a substantial effect on improving students’ academic achievement.

The value of embedding well-planned and well-implemented formative assessment into instruction is worthy of consideration. However, the research on formative assessment lacks clarity in methodology. What does a well-planned and well-implemented assessment scheme look like in the mathematics classroom? What constitutes a reasonable amount of the work for students to accept in order to self-regulate? How do the students become proactive learners, central to the learning process?

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 67

Methodology This research project contributed to the formative assessment knowledge base by examining a structured approach that compartmentalizes formative assessment. In this research, a problem solving framework was introduced to students and a problem solving educational orientation is utilized to implement formative assessment techniques. The purpose of the study was to analyze formative assessment techniques and provide valid inferences about their effect on mathematics teaching and learning.

Eight graduate students enrolled in the course, Assessment in Mathematics Education, were asked to participate in mathematics lessons that incorporated formative assessment techniques. The students were asked to reflect on those assessment schemes for their value as an open and coherent process that enhances mathematics learning and informs instruction. The methodology of this study involved an emergent design with grounded theory. This research’s emergent methodology involved the graduate students in generating, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating data. The emergent design capitalized on the adaptability of the human-asinstrument by utilizing natural skills of listening, observing, inferencing, discussing, and judging (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This research was investigative and attempted to facilitate and illuminate the phenomena surrounding the use of formative assessment in mathematics learning experiences. The data that emerged were student efforts from learning experiences and assignments in the course. Along with the researcher, students in the course mutually shaped data to guard against deliberate or subconscious distortions by providing feedback through individual and classroom discussions as well as reflective writing assignments. The focus of inquiry was students’ reactions to and reflections on formative assessment techniques embedded in a problem solving educational orientation. This generated grounded theory, theory that follows from data rather than preceding them, and produced working hypotheses worthy of educational consideration (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

On the first day of class, students were introduced to Polya’s (1988) problem solving framework (see Figure 1) and familiarized with a problem solving educational orientation. The four-phase problem solving framework provided students with a structure to solve problems.

The nature of the problem solving educational orientation facilitated the students’ activity in

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 68

navigating the problem solving process from the problem state to the solution state. Student effort and understanding in a problem solving educational orientation was evidenced in each of Polya’s four distinct phases of the problem solving process. Given a problem to solve, students were asked to isolate their points of confusion into one of the four phases. Isolating points of confusion was considered the students’ responsibility and was considered accepting a reasonable share of the work to solve the problem.

The following list of activities in each of Polya’s four problem-solving phases was shared with the students as an evaluative dimension of what may be assessed in a problem solving educational orientation. These activities within a problem solving framework required students to generate artifacts that evidenced their content knowledge and ability to use process standards (reasoning, representation, communication, and connections) as defined by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000).

1. Students demonstrate an understanding of the problem when they restate the problem in different terms, list given information, identify conditions or constraints in the problem, state the problems’ connections to previous problems or prior understandings, create diagrams, charts, or pictures to analyze and represent the problem, define resources or algorithms necessary to solve the problem, and select tools that may be valuable to effect a solution.

These artifacts provide immediate evidence of appropriate and accurate resources.

2. Students demonstrate their ability to devise a plan for solving the problem as they communicate a strategy for navigating from the problem state to the solution state. This requires students to make meaningful mathematical connections using prior knowledge to build new knowledge. In this phase thinking or reasoning is essential. A written plan exposes reasoning and proof becomes visible. This plan should articulate the mathematically rational, clear, and coherent steps necessary to solve the problem.

3. Students demonstrate their ability in carrying out the plan for solving the problem as they engage their plans to effect solutions. Desirable efforts in this phase of the problem solving process demonstrate the rational, clear, and coherent mathematical gymnastics necessary to solve the problem.

4. Students demonstrate their ability in looking back at their solutions when they confirm the result of their problem solving efforts. Activity promoted in this phase of the problem

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 69

solving process is evidenced when students communicate, in writing, how they verified their solutions.

Students in the course were asked to examine assessment techniques embedded in each phase of the problem solving process during mathematics learning experiences. Students were also asked to develop, present, analyze, critique, and revise their own assessment techniques as well as those of others. Coursework efforts were collected, analyzed, synthesized, and evaluated through semi-structured personal conversations, class discussions, and reflective journal entries.

Reflective journal writings were peer-edited to triangulate data and to refine the understanding of the focus of inquiry, the formative assessment techniques embedded in a problem solving educational orientation. The coursework efforts elaborated on content and themes through students’ interpretations and judgments of formative assessment techniques that were embedded in mathematics instruction using the problem solving framework within a problem solving educational orientation. The strength of the phenomenological descriptions involved the specific experiences as conveyed by the students. Students were also asked to analyze, critique, and revise their own assessment techniques as well as those of others.

There were no rewards or penalties for participation in this study. There were no risks or discomforts associated with this research project beyond that which might be considered typical risks or discomforts associated with learning. There were no direct benefits to students for taking part in this study beyond that which might be considered typical benefits or rewards associated with learning. This study was considered experimental insofar as learning experiences and students’ efforts, in any educative course of study, are considered experiments in the practice of teaching.

Research Findings The data that emerged were student efforts from learning experiences and assignments in the course, Assessment in Mathematics Education. Each student stated that they gave their mathematics classes problems to solve. However, prior to this class, students were not familiar with Polya’s (1988) problem solving framework. In classroom discussions and written reflections, each student recognized and confirmed the importance of providing a problem

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 70

solving framework to their students if a mathematical problem was to be the focal point of a learning experience. The consensus was, summarily, presenting students a problem to be solved without providing students a problem solving framework to solve the problem had little educative value.

In classroom discussions and written reflections, students recognized and confirmed that a reasonable share of the work to solve the problem was evidenced when students isolated points of confusion into one of Polya’s four problem solving phases. The data suggested that students’ efforts in isolating and identifying points of confusion represented formative assessment.

Further, students commented on the importance of the teacher, or a more experienced peer, in providing hints, prompts, and suggestions as useful moves to help students that were having difficulty with the problem solving process. These moves were instructionally instrumental in allowing the students to resume their problem solving efforts.

The data suggested that the activity of isolating and identifying points of confusion so that the teacher could design a specific learning experience to meet students’ needs, informed instruction and supported learning. Students suggested that when the teacher addressed student’s points of confusion, teaching and learning was differentiated and tailored to individual needs.

This educative activity was considered valuable by placing teaching strategies where they were most effective and appropriate.

The data highlighted that students engaged in a problem solving educational orientation were active agents, central to the learning process. The participants of the study all agreed that shifting various roles and responsibilities within formative assessment schemes from the teacher to the students advanced learners’ ownership of understanding. The data suggested that growth in students’ ownership of understanding was most significant when students were central to the assessment process by isolating their points of confusion.

The data evidenced that process standards (how students learn) became visible when students navigated from the problem state to the solution state in the problem solving framework and were enhanced in a problem solving educational orientation. The participants of the study concurred that both content and process were measured in Polya’s (1988) problem solving framework. In reflective writings, the participants observed the importance of teaching and evaluating process standards.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 71

Discussion Our personal experiences in schools conjure images of assessment as grades related to quizzes and tests; an end-product of teaching and learning. A new vision of assessment as a continuous and coherent activity appears as it is embedded into instruction. Collectively, formative assessment research confirms its importance in the mathematics classroom. This research substantiates the importance of formative assessment as an integral part of teaching and learning mathematics. The study also suggests a problem solving framework serves as a structured approach that compartmentalizes assessment by isolating points of confusion into one of four phases in the problem solving process. The data confirmed that students’ ownership of understanding was advanced. Reflective writings suggested that using a problem solving framework within a problem solving educational orientation was considered a well-planned and well-implemented formative assessment. This structured approach may be worthy of consideration by classroom teachers and for future research.

This research may have implications beyond the mathematics classroom to include other content disciplines. The findings from this research may remove barriers that prevent pre-service or in-service teachers from utilizing formative assessment techniques in their classrooms by outlining an action plan for implementing a problem solving educational orientation. The degree to which this research is transferable may depend on its universal appeal in the contexts of problem solving as a 21st century skill. Professionals in other fields may find value in the process of assessment as not only an activity for teachers, but also an activity for students.

Teachers, business people, and behavioral science personnel may find this research useful or educational significant when they explore having their students assume a more active role in formative assessment.

This study was intended to raise the level of understanding of formative assessment.

The examination of formative assessment as a means of improving instruction and supporting learning provided insights and propositions of practical working hypotheses for educational consideration. The research contributed to the knowledge base and may be a catalyst for future educational consideration. There are limitations to this study. The findings from this research pertain to particular events for a specific time, place, and

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 72

situation. Although methods of triangulation and mutual shaping were used to safeguard against possible bias, it should be noted that an additional limitation of this research involved self-reporting in its methodology. Further research may include a field-tested study in a K-12 educational setting. Future formative assessment research may also explore a quantitative analysis of academic growth over a longer period of time.

Author Biography Joseph Spadano received a Bachelor of Science degree from Fitchburg State University and a Master’s Degree and Doctorate from the University of Massachusetts Lowell. Dr. Spadano taught mathematics at Westford Academy and presently holds a dual appointment as Associate Professor in the Division of Education and Department of Mathematics at Rivier University. Dr. Spadano was a 2001 recipient of the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching, a 2002 recipient of the Distinguished Alumni Award from the University of Massachusetts Lowell, and is a National Board Certified Teacher. He has recently authored the book, Problem Solving Without Figures.

References Brookhart, S. M. (2013). Classroom assessment in the context of motivation theory and research.

In J. H. MacMillan (Ed.), Sage Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment, (pp.

35-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.

Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for learning revisited: An Asia-Pacific perspective.

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practices, 16(3), 263-268.

Lincoln Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 73

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM. Nyquist, J. B. (2003). The benefits of reconstruing feedback as a larger system of formative assessment:A meta-analysis. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. Polya, G. (1988). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, N.J. Princeton University Press.

Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Shepard, L. A. (2013). Foreword. In J. H. MacMillan (Ed.), Sage Handbook on Research on Classroom Assessment, (pp. xix-xxii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

William, D. (2007). Content then process: Teacher learning communities in the service of formative assessment. In D. B. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the Curve:The Power of Assessment to Transform Teaching and Learning (pp. 183-204). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

William, D. (2008). Changing classroom practice. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 36-41.

Wilson, L. D., & Kenney, P. A. (2003). Classroom and large-scale assessment. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A Research Companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 53-67). Reston, VA: NCTM.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Tables and Figures

POLYA’S PROBLEM SOLVING FRAMEWORK Understanding the Problem Devising a Plan Carrying Out the Plan Looking Back

Figure 1: Polya’s (1988) Problem Solving Framework

Volume 7 Page 74

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 75

Managerial Behaviors that Support Participative Decision Making Heshium Lawrence University of Texas at Tyler Rochell McWhorter University of Texas at Tyler Sherry Avery Jackson University of Texas at Tyler Ann Gilley University of Texas at Tyler Jerry W. Gilley University of Texas at Tyler

Abstract This paper explores leadership practices that influence employees’ perceptions that their managers involve them in participative decision making (PDM). Surveys measuring employee perceptions of manager behaviors were administered to 442 full-time and part-time students in MBA and organizational development (OD) masters’ and PhD programs at five four-year public institutions in diverse locations (Mountain West, Midwest, and South) from the USA, resulting in 409 useable responses. The hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling and linear regression. Results indicated managers who encouraged employees’ growth and development, promoted teamwork and collaboration, and effectively implemented change positively influenced employees’ perceptions that managers involved them in decision making.

In addition, front-line employees perceived they were not included in the decision making process. The majority of previous research on PDM focused on outcomes of PDM. This study expands on preceding research by examining the antecedents of PDM, specifically leader or manager behaviors that encourage PDM.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 76

Keywords: Participative decision making, teamwork, employee development, work-life balance Introduction Currently, there is a shift away from decision making residing exclusively with managers.

Instead, the contemporary organization prefers managers as coaches, change agents, counselors, motivators, and team leaders in which decision making is participative and promotes empowerment (Carbonell & Rodriguez-Escudero, 2012; A. Gilley, 2005; J. Gilley, 2006; J. Gilley & Gilley, 2007; Nadeem, 2012; Russ, 2013; Shuck & Herd, 2012). As Sakakibara and Kimura (2011) stated, “Communication for understanding ‘What do others want?’ and ‘What we can do?’ can play an important role in finding a solution” (p. 83).

Involving employees in decision making has far ranging effects for organizations.

According to Konrad (2006), positive outcomes of giving employees the power to participate in high-involvement decision making improves employee morale, worker retention, and organizational performance. Additionally, Burris (2012) found that when employees are given a voice in decision making, it leads to higher quality decisions and improves organizational effectiveness. According to Celino and Concilio (2010), today’s managers are more likely to encourage employees involvement in the decision making process than in the past.

Literature on participative decision making (PDM) suggests that involving employees in decision making helps organizations achieve improved business results by enhancing communication between managers and employees (Hashim, Alam, & Siraj, 2010; Lindelow, Coursen, Mazzarella, Heynerickz, & Smith, 1986), improving employee learning and development (Hashim et al., 2010), and generating innovative ideas, which augments the sustainability of the organization (Akdere, 2011; Arthur & Aiman-Smith, 2001). Also, the literature reflected the reduction of employee psychological stress (Sebolsky-Rubenstein, 2002), and enhancing employees’ feelings of empowerment and job satisfaction (Carbonell & Rodriguez-Escudero, 2012; Grissom, 2012; Lindelow et al., 1986).

Today, effective managers and highly motivated employees are a competitive advantage (Akdere, 2011; McWhorter & Lynham, 2014; McWhorter, Lynham, & Porter, 2008); thus, it is expedient for organizations to identify specific managerial behaviors that influence employees’

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 77

perceptions of PDM. As Blake, Kester, and Stoller (2004) pointed out, employees’ perceptions of managerial behavior are significant “drivers of [the] workplace experience” (p. 924).

Therefore, our overarching research question in this study is: What characteristics of management behavior influence employee perceptions of PDM? This study is important because the sharing and management of knowledge in the contemporary workplace is critical (Danish, Munir, Nazir, Abbasi, & Hunbal, 2013). Further, it is essential for the prosperity of organizations to create management development programs that encourage the involvement of employees in the decision-making process (Wainaina, 2013). This study aims to determine the factors specific to managerial behaviors that contribute to PDM as identified by employees and ascertain how often employees perceive their managers involve them in PDM.

Literature Review The quality of managerial decision making is frequently enhanced when allowing and encouraging input from others (Danish et al., 2013; McWhorter, 2010; See, Morrison, Rothman, & Soll, 2011). In this article, we will highlight existing scholarship of PDM relevant to the study. Further, we will examine three current trends in business that improve PDM, which are employee development, teamwork, and change initiatives.

Participative Decision Making Involving employees in decision making has been an important topic in organizations for decades (Black & Gregersen, 1997; Hashim et al., 2010; Mulder & Wilke, 1970; Parnell, 2002; Russ, 2013). The earlier work of Lewin (1947) and Lowin (1968) explained how PDM is affected by organizational culture. They independently reported that organizational culture either embraces or stifles the practice of PDM. Lowin (1968) defined PDM as “a mode of organizational operations in which decisions as to activities are arrived at by the very persons who are to execute those decisions” (p. 69). This definition suggests that PDM facilitates the empowerment of employees through the decision- making process. Further, Lowin (1968) urged

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 78

researchers to seek additional insights into PDM effectiveness through further investigation.

Russ (2011) posited that PDM is a collaborative process in which responsibility for making workplace decisions is shared between the employee and manager.

Hashim et al. (2010) offered six advantages of PDM to organizations. First, PDM enables a greater pool of knowledge, which has the potential of improving both quantitative and qualitative decisions. Second, different perspectives may enable managers and employees to view problems from different vantage points. Third, greater comprehension is achieved when those individuals who weigh the alternatives of a decision have an increased understanding of why the decision was made. Fourth, PDM increases acceptance and motivation in those decisionmakers who take more ownership over the process and the decisions made. Fifth, training in PDM helps participants gain experience in decision making, which enhances participant competencies. The sixth advantage is enhanced empowerment, which occurs when employees are actively involved in PDM. In the following section, we discuss three factors that impact PDM in the workplace.

Employee Growth and Development Recently, Carbonell and Rodriguez-Escudero (2013) reported that PDM has increased in popularity among managers who are interested in developing their employees. They provided empirical evidence supporting that employees who engage in PDM acquire a working knowledge of how to complete a project and also exhibit an increase in job satisfaction. By providing training, opportunities for employee development, and sharing of information, employees can attain the needed conceptual skills to become managers or top executives. Helping employees know their individual strengths and taking advantage of those strengths is a way to help them develop and engage in the decision making process. In addition, guiding employees in the areas in which they are knowledgeable, allows manages to ensure their success (DuFrene, 2015).

Phipps, Prieto, and Ndinguri (2013) stated that “A culture that promotes employee involvement recognizes and embraces the development of employees, the facilitation of their informed decision-making, the sharing of power between management and the workforce, and the latter’s receipt of incentives for input” (p. 111).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 79

Teamwork and Collaboration When an employee contributes in the decision making process of the organization, it makes them feel like they are a part of a team with a common goal, and exploring their selfesteem and developing their creativity (DuFrene, 2015). For PDM to be effective, employees must be willing to express their opinions. A collaborative approach between manager and employee can foster a common goal. An effective team approach can create an environment in which employees can be comfortable in voicing their decisions (DuFrene, 2015).

Organizational Change Management that utilizes a participative style, discovers that employees are more receptive to change than in circumstances which do not allow them to use their voice. The implementation of change is more successful when employees have an input into the day-to-day activities of the company and contribute to the decisions (DuFrene, 2015).

To successfully implement change, managers must encourage individuals to initiate new behaviors so that the desired outcome or change can be attained. (Armenakis & Bediean, 1999).

Implementing PDM can be a major shift in culture from an autocratic to participative management style. Employees that are receptive to change are also more willing to adapt to implementation of participatory decision management (DuFrene, 2015).

Conceptual Framework Grissom (2012) defined the managerial process of PDM as “the inclusion of employees in the process of making decisions about organizational goals and policies” (p. 401). This definition places PDM in the organizational context with employee participation at the heart of PDM, and is useful for framing PDM for our study.

The majority of scholarship on PDM has focused on the outcomes of utilizing this method in organizations. Far less empirical research has focused on specific managerial behaviors as antecedents of PDM. Once identified, this study offers a significant contribution to

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 80

the existing literature on PDM and serves as a framework for future management development in PDM, which this article strives to accomplish.

The conceptual framework for this study is based on literature reviewed around PDM, which suggests that managers who promote employee development, teamwork, and change initiatives may be facilitators of PDM. These concepts are depicted in Figure 1. Based on our conceptual framework, we identified the following hypotheses: H1: There is a positive relationship between managers who encourage employees’ growth and development and PDM. H2: There is a positive relationship between managers who facilitate teamwork and collaboration and PDM. H3: There is a positive relationship between managers who effectively implement change and PDM.

Methodology The study was part of a larger, long-term study of managerial practices. This study explored leadership practices that influence employees’ perceptions that their managers involve them in decision making. Employees’ assessments of managerial behavior have been found to provide accurate ratings of leadership performance (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994). Although this study was part of a larger, long-term study of managerial practices, our primary research questions focused on how frequently leaders/managers are perceived as involving employees in PDM, and which of their behaviors influenced employees’ perceptions on PDM. The previously validated ‘Managerial Practices’ survey instrument (A. Gilley, Gilley, & Kouider, 2010) was derived from seminal and existing literature related to managerial competencies, traits, and behaviors (e. g. Argyris, 1962; Derue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011; Levenson, Van der Stede, & Cohen, 2006; Leverty, 2012; Spencer & Spencer, 1993; Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001; Zaccaro, 2001; Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader, 2004). The survey instrument contained 17 perceptual-based questions (see Measures) about leader/manager behavior and organizational practices, and nine questions pertaining to

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 81

respondent demographics (i.e., gender, age, industry type and size, organization size, and gender and age of respondents’ managers).

Sample The voluntary, written survey instrument was offered to 442 full-time and part-time students in MBA and organizational development (OD) masters’ and PhD programs at five fouryear, public institutions in diverse locations (Mountain West, Midwest, and South). Data collection took place over six semesters. Master’s and PhD students at varying locations were chosen to enhance diversity among industries, job titles and positions, and respondent demographics. Respondents represented all organizational levels (front-line to executive) in service, manufacturing, educational, professional, and governmental entities. The response rate was 92.5% with 409 useable responses. Sample characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Measures The dependent variable in the study was a perceptual measure of employee involvement in decision making. Respondents were asked to specify, in their opinion, how frequently their manager involves employees in decision making. Responses were collected using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from never (1) to always (5).

The independent variables examined in this study were derived from research on leadership skills and managerial behaviors. Using the same 5-point scale, respondents were asked to indicate the frequency with which their supervisor or managers exhibits 14 managerial behaviors, including:

1.

Treats employees fairly and consistently.

2.

Coaches employees.

3.

Effectively evaluates employees.

4.

Appropriately rewards employees.

5.

Communicates appropriately.

6.

Effectively implements change (H3).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 82

7.

Motivates employees.

8.

Encourages employees’ growth and development (H1).

9.

Treats employees as unique.

10.

Encourages teamwork and collaboration (H2).

11.

Is ethical.

12.

Is trustworthy.

13.

Positively influences culture.

14.

Promotes work-life balance.

Additionally, the survey included two item measures designed to measure negative behaviors.

1.

Creates a hostile or fearful work environment.

2.

Is ineffective in his/her position.

The dependent variable is: Involves employees in decision making.

Data Analysis Two statistical tools were used to analyze the relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable (managers involve employees in decision making). Linear regression was used to test the individual item measures while structural equation modeling was used to test the combined impact of both the positive and negative variables. We used linear regression to assess the impact of the individual item measures on the dependent variable. Some items had a positive impact and others had a negative impact on the dependent variable. We also wanted to take a holistic view of the impact of a negative or positive environment on the dependent variable. Therefore we developed two constructs comprised of either the negative or positive items and used structural equation modeling to test the impact of the constructs on the dependent variable. We believe the use of two different methodologies provided richer results.

Both methods rely upon similar assumptions about the distribution of the data. The dependent variable exhibited a reasonable normal distribution. Additionally, there was no evidence of multicollinearity (all VIF factors < 3.0).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 83

Results/Findings Table 2 reports employees’ perceptions that their managers involve them in decision making. Respondents indicated that their manager “never,” “rarely,” or only “sometimes” included employees in decision making 63.1% of the time, as compared with 36.9% for “usually” or “always.”

Linear Regression Results The five most significant independent (predictor) variables identified through regression analysis (see Table 3) were the manager’s influence on “unique individuals,” “teamwork,” “work-life balance,” “change,” and “employee growth and development.” Two control variables were “employee position” and “manager age.” Table 4 reflects descriptive statistics and correlations for the dependent (predicted) variable ‘my manager involves employees in decision making.’

Prior to running the regression analysis, the variable “employee position” was separated by job position into four different variables comprised of front-line employee, supervisor or team leader, mid-level manager, and senior/executive manager. This enabled us to determine which of the individual positions impacted the dependent variable. To test the influence of the individual item measures on employee involvement in decision making, a multiple linear regression analysis using a stepwise method of all item measures was performed. Stepwise regression is appropriate for determining significant influences of multiple dependent variables on a single dependent variable (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Vogt, 2005). All of the 16 independent variables identified in the Measures section discussed previously and the two demographic variables of manager age and employee position were included in the initial regression. The stepwise criteria used on the F scores for variable inclusion were p< .05 for inclusion and p > .10 for exclusion. This resulted in fived independent variables and the two demographic variables were statistically significant at a minimum of p< .05 (see Table 3). The demographic variable ‘manager’s age’ had a positive statistically significant impact (=.01) while the ‘front-line

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 84

employee’ demographic variable had a negative statistically significant impact (=-.21) on perception of employee involvement in decision making.

These results indicate that the increasing age of the manager has a positive impact on PDM while front-line employees have a negative perception of their involvement in decision making. The item measures “unique individuals,” “teamwork,” “work-life balance,” “effective change,” and “employee development” had a positive influence on employees’ perceptions that their managers involve them in decision making. The final model resulting from the stepwise regression of five independent and two control variables explained 64.0% (R2 adjusted = .644) of the variation of the dependent variable “My manager involves employees in decisionmaking.” Therefore, hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 were supported. Additionally, results suggest that managers’ who “encourage work-life balance” and “treat individuals as unique” positively influence perceptions of employee involvement in decision making. The results of the stepwise regression also revealed that the behaviors of creating a “hostile work environment” and being “ineffective” did not have a statically significant impact on “decision making.”

Structural Equation Modeling Results The structural equation model consists of two constructs (positive and negative) and two control variables (manager age and front-line employee). This enabled us to determine the combined impact of the positive and negative traits and the control variables on decision making.

The model and the results are presented in Figure 2. Amos 20.0 was used to estimate the model.

The two-step approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was followed. In the first step, confirmatory factor analysis was used to validate the measurement model. In the second step, structural equation modeling was used to evaluate the full model including both the measurement and structural model.

Measurement model assessment. The behaviors promoting “teamwork,” “unique individuals,” “effective change,” “work-life balance,” and “employee development” were included in the positive traits construct, while the behaviors of creating “hostile work environment” and being an “ineffective manager” were included in the negative trait construct.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 85

The reliability and validity of the measures were assessed for each construct. The item measures and factor loadings, along with the reliability values for the constructs, are presented in Table 5.

All items were statistically significant at p<.05 and all of the individual item factor loadings exceeded the minimum threshold of .5 recommended by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006). The composite reliabilities for both constructs exceeded the minimum threshold of .7 (Hair et al., 2006) and the average variance extracted (AVE) met or exceeded the threshold of .50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). These results provide evidence that the measurement model is valid.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) assessment. For the structural equation model, we tested the relationship between the positive construct, negative construct, and the two control variables of manager age and front-line employee position. We included manager age and frontline employee in the SEM because they were identified statistically significant by the stepwise regression model. This enabled us to determine the impact of the control variables on decision making within the SEM model. We found that the age of the manager has a statistically significant positive impact on decision making and front line employees have a statistically significant negative impact on decision making. In other words, front line employees have a lower perception of involvement in PDM than other levels of employment. The fit indices for the structural model demonstrate a good fit with χ2=86.58, NFI=.96, RFI=.94, IFI=.98, TLI=.96, CFI=.98, and RMSEA = .06. All of the fit indices exceeded the minimum recommended threshold of .90 for adequate fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The model and results are reported in Figure 2. The positive trait construct had a positive influence (p<.01) on employees’ perceptions that their managers involved them in decision making. In contrast, the negative trait construct had a negative influence (p<.10) on employees’ perceptions that their managers involved them in decision making. This result is interesting in that the individual negative behaviors creating a “hostile work environment” and being an “ineffective manager” did not have a statistically significant impact. However, when combined in the SEM analysis the behaviors had a negative impact.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 86

Discussion Our findings support previous research that links employee development, promoting teamwork, and effectively implementing change with participative decision making.

Employee Development Hypothesis 1 suggested that encouraging employees’ growth and development is positively related to PDM. As previously stated, this was supported by our study. Employees are a key component of any organization (Lee & Bruvold, 2003). According to Hameed and Waheed (2011), the viability of organizations is highly dependent on employee performance; consequently, many organizations invest large sums in the development of their employees to improve the organization and ensure sustainability. Employee growth and development has been defined as “the personal and professional advancement of employees’ knowledge, skills, and competencies” (J. Gilley, Shelton, & Gilley, 2011, p. 387). Employee growth and development may include training as well as formal education such as academic participation, personality assessments, skills and abilities assessments, and work experiences that help the employees prepare for future jobs or positions (Mayo, 2000; Noe, 2012). Further, employee growth and development is a necessity for organizations to prepare employees to perform tasks and utilize modern technologies, support evolving work environments and virtual teams, collaborate with peers, and communicate with customers (Noe, 2012).

Teamwork and Decision Making Hypothesis 2 suggested that teamwork and collaboration are positively related to PDM. As previously stated, this hypothesis was supported by the finding in our study. Participative decision making allows each employee the opportunity to voice his or her opinions and disseminate knowledge and experience with others. According to Nation (2013), employees’ involvement in decision making often improves the relationship between managers and employees, which further encourages a strong sense of teamwork. Subsequently, a team can

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 87

assimilate more data from prior experiences with making decisions or problem solving as compared to one employee that acts independently (Hashim et al., 2010), thereby increasing the capacity of the team to handle complex problems facing their organizations.

The use of teams that implement a PDM approach is on the rise in contemporary organizations. According to Gupta, Huang, and Niranjan (2010), there has been an upsurge in the use of teams in the workplace that allows for the integration of diverse skills and knowledge for handling complex operational challenges. This trend is reiterated by Boot and Reynolds (1997), who advocated for the continued use of teams because it allows for a group of employees with diverse experiences and interests to discuss alternatives to problems from different vantage points, thus improving employee and organizational learning and reinforcing PDM.

Effective Change and Decision Making Hypothesis 3 suggested that effectively implementing change is positively related to PDM. Again, this hypothesis was supported by the finding of our study. According to Roberto and Lavesque (2005), PDM may be used to systematically influence how and when the rollout of a change initiative is implemented in an organization. Organizations that implement continuous and transformational change remain more competitive (Cohen, 1999). However, implementing organizational change is one of the most significant, yet least understood skills of contemporary leaders (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). Managers’ behaviors can directly influence actions that enable change in the work environment (Burke, 1967; Drucker, 1999; A. Gilley, 2005; Howkins, 2001). Specific leadership behaviors found to positively influence the execution of change initiatives include the leader’s ability to motivate others, effectively communicate, and build teams (A. Gilley, McMillan, & Gilley, 2009).

Additional Findings In addition to the hypothesized relationships, we found that managers who “treat employees as unique individuals” and who promote “work-life balance” also contribute to PDM. Each will be briefly discussed.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 88

Treating employees as unique individuals. Considerable attention has been given to the relationship between employees and managers because a positive relationship can improve organizational performance (Berneth & Walker, 2009). More important, managers who treat employees as unique individuals improve trust. This results in an enhanced professional relationship (J. Gilley & Gilley, 2007). Gordon and J. Gilley (2012) suggested such a relationship can best be achieved when employees feel appreciated as persons of worth. As a result, employees are more likely to develop a stakeholder perspective that creates a long-term commitment to the organization, which can increase organizational effectiveness (Martin, 1999).

Work-life balance. Work-life balance (WLB) is a relatively new concept. It refers to the belief of balancing one’s time engaged in employment with one’s life outside of work. Most scholars are in agreement that WLB is good for a worker’s job satisfaction and his or her psychological well-being (Clark, 2000; Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw, 2003). Rantanen, Kinnunen, Mauno, and Tillemann (2011) suggested that employees who enjoy better work-life balance have more favorable perceptions of the managers and/or attribute this benefit (WLB) to the sensitivity of their managers to their personal needs. This is supported by the findings of our study.

When incongruity exists between an employee’s work and non-work expectations (e.g., family, service, schooling, etc.), considerable conflict for both the employee as well as his or her manager can result. Brummelhuis and van der Lippe (2010) found that work-family conflict resulted in increased employee stress, feelings of burnout, absenteeism, and a decline in job satisfaction, work, and organizational performance.

Implication for Management Development There are several implications for management development that can be extracted from the finding of our study. First, there is a strong relationship between PDM and employee growth and development. Lee and Bruvold (2003) suggested that employee growth and development creates value for employees, which leads to more psychological investment in the organization.

Further, Shuck and Herd (2012) reported that the development of high levels of engaged employees is of considerable benefit to the modern organization. Second, PDM provides an

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 89

avenue for increased teamwork and collaboration. This contributes to an organization’s competitiveness and its ability to gain market share within its respective industry (Noe, 2012).

Third, employee involvement in the decision-making process will increase the likelihood of employees agreeing to changes in the organization (Kreisberg, 1999) and exemplifies the PDM process. Therefore, managers should use PDM as a way of implementing and facilitating change designed to improve organizational effectiveness. Fourth, employees’ participation and involvement in decision making as well as providing input and feedback regarding organizational decisions enable them to feel special and unique. Consequently, being treated uniquely may positively impact perceptions of one’s manager and PDM process (Berneth & Walker, 2009).

Fifth, managers are in a critical position for building a strong organizational culture that promotes work-life balance (WLB), which was an important characteristic in the integration of PDM. Accordingly, managers who encourage WLB are cognizant of human resource (HR) laws and policies (Rantanen et al., 2011), ones essential in creating work climates that help improve organizational results (Gordon & J. Gilley, 2012). Sixth, our study reveals that managers that create hostile work environments and are perceived as ineffective, negatively enhance PDM. As such, managers that create work environment free of fear and who are effective communicators and motivators will positively enhance PDM. Further, PDM is an important process in improving organizational effectiveness provided managers have the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to create a work environment that encourages its use. Finally, organizations must select, hire, and develop individuals that have the capacity to encourage employee growth and development, foster teamwork and collaboration, manage and implement change, treat employees as unique individuals, provide work-life balance, create positive fear-free work environments, and become effective managers. If organizations implement these as standards in the selection process, they will be able to utilize PDM in the workplace, which will lead to a more competitive and effective organization.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 90

Limitations and Future Research As with all empirical research, there are limitations that can often lead to future research opportunities. In this study, the questions were answered from the employee perspective, which raises concerns of common methods bias. Employee perceptions may be highly biased and subjective, which may result in perceptions of managerial behaviors that are incorrect or founded on inaccurate or incomplete information (Bandura, 1989). Participants’ frequency and quality of involvement with their managers, as well as the recency of interactions (halo and horn effects), may also bias perceptions and responses, as might the impact of managerial behaviors and decisions on employees’ professional and personal lives. Quantifying the effects of managerial behaviors in terms of customer satisfaction, sales revenue, or profitability may provide data that yield more defendable results. However, the study is considered a long-term study in that the data collection has transpired for more than six years, which should help mitigate common method bias.

Also of interest is that 68.2% of participants in the study worked less than three years for their current employers, which might be insufficient to adequately and accurately assess the behaviors of managers and leaders. Future research and analysis may need to compare and contrast results based on employee tenure to yield more robust and reliable results.

Finally, the scope and convenience sampling methodology of our study limits generalizability of our results. Although Ph.D. and MBA students often possess a wealth of diversity in organizational backgrounds, positions held, undergraduate and graduate education, and work and life experiences, a broader base of participants may enhance this study’s findings.

Further, Ph.D. and MBA students may be more versed in current issues surrounding managerial competencies and, thus, more aware and critical of their managers and leaders. Consequently, these participants may not be accurately reflective of all employees and organizations, which warrants additional study of diverse populations.

Future studies should include the examination of organizational culture and PDM to a larger degree to determine their effect on the acceptance of PDM in organizations (Van Der Westhuizen, Pacheco, & Webber, 2012). Additionally, researchers should expand the boundaries of research and practice to better understand how technology-mediated learning,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 91

development, and work processes affect PDM (McWhorter, 2010). Further, research is needed to determine how components of management’s behavior, such as attitude toward promoting work-life balance and treating employees as unique individuals, contribute to PDM. Managers who implement the aforementioned positive behaviors may encourage employees to become more participative in the workplace and allow employees a feeling of empowerment for improving organizational performance.

Hofstede (2001) brought to the forefront the need for researchers to consider cultural implications such as cultural values and attitudes when conducting and analyzing organizational studies. In this context, Van Der Westhuizen et al. (2012) reported that cultures with more traditional values (such as stressing the importance of an individual’s work versus valuing selfexpression found in more contemporary cultures) were considerably different in their perception of PDM (p. 2675). In this same vein, Lam, Chen and Schaubroeck (2002) concluded that cultural differences underscored the contrast in results of their study of PDM that sampled employee perceptions from two different regions.

Conclusion This study examined several components of management’s behavior that contribute to PDM and suggests that managers who possess teamwork and collaboration skills, encourage employees’ growth and development, and effectively implement change have a positive impact on perceptions of employee involvement in decision making in organizational settings. Treating employees as unique individuals and promoting WLB can also improve employees’ perceptions of their manager’s ability to encourage PDM. In addition, this study identified positive constructs that managers can use to encourage PDM in their organizations. Conversely, our results also identified negative factors that inhibit PDM, such as the existence of ineffective managers and those who create a hostile work environment.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 92

Author Biographies Heshium Lawrence is an associate professor of Industrial Technology/Management at The University of Texas at Tyler. He currently teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in Six Sigma, total quality management, and strategic sourcing. He has research experience in the pedagogy of undergraduate students in industrial technology programs and is a certified Lean Six Sigma black belt and Lean Champion.

Rochell McWhorter is an assistant professor of human resource development at The University of Texas at Tyler. She conducts research in virtual human resource development, virtual scenario planning, scenario-based leadership, professional branding, service-learning for business students and visual social networking. She is a recipient of two university-level grants for innovative teaching practices.

Sherry Avery Jackson is an associate professor of management at The University of Texas at Tyler, where she teaches in the areas of operations management and management science. Her current research focuses on the impact of internal (manager and employee) and external (buyer and supplier) relationship on performance.

Ann Gilley is a professor of management at the University of Texas at Tyler, where she

teaches graduate courses in strategy, OD, and change. She is an author, co-author, and editor of numerous books and articles, including Manager as Change Leader, The Performance Challenge, and the Praeger Handbook of Human Resource Management. Her business background includes approximately 15 years in insurance and financial services for large corporations, primarily in marketing and strategy, and nearly 15 years in management consulting as a partner for Trilogy Performance Group. She consults in leadership development, change management, and strategic planning. Her areas of research include change, the organizational immune system, and managerial malpractice.

Jerry W. Gilley is a professor of human resource development with a specialization in

organizational development and change at The University of Texas at Tyler (2010–present), and served as a principal (senior partner) and director of organizational development for Mercer Human Resource Consulting (1989–2005). He has authored and co-authored 26 books and more than 120 articles, book chapters, and monographs.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 93

References Akdere, M. (2011). An analysis of decision making process in organizations: Implications for quality management and systematic practice. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 22(12), 1317-1330.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.

Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal competence and organizational effectiveness. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-315.

Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 169-183.

Arthur, J. B., & Aiman-Smith, L. (2001). Gainsharing and organizational learning: An analysis of employee suggestions over time. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 737-754.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175-1184.

Berneth, J. B., & Walker, H. (2009). Propensity to trust and the impact on social exchange: An empirical investigation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(3), 217-226.

Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1997). Participative decision making: An integration of multiple dimensions. Human Relations, 50(7), 859-878. doi: 10.1177/001872679705000705 Blake, S. S., Kester, L., & Stoller, J. K. (2004). Respiratory therapists’ attitudes about participative decision making: Relationship between managerial decision making style and job satisfaction. Respiratory Care, 49(8), 917-925.

Boot, R., & Reynolds, M. (1997). Groups, group work and beyond. In J. Burgoyne & M. Reynolds (Eds.), Management learning-integrating perspectives in theory and practice. (pp. 89-103). London, UK: Sage.

Brummelhuis, L. L. T., & van der Lippe, T. (2010). Effective work-life balance support for various household structures. Human Resource Management, 49(2), 173-193.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 94

Burke, E. M. (1967). The search for authority in planning. Social Service Review, 41(3), 250260.

Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 851-875. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0562 Carbonell, P., & Rodriguez-Escudero, A. I. (2013). Management control, role expectations and job satisfaction of new product development teams: The moderating effect of participative decision making. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(2), 248-259. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.08.007 Celino, A., & Concilio, G. (2010). Explorative nature of negotiation in participatory decision making for sustainability. Group Decision and Negotiation, 20(2), 255-270.

Clark, S. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53(6), 747-770. doi:10.1177/0018726700536001 Cohen, M. (1999). Commentary on the Organization Science special issue on complexity.

Organization Science, 10, 373-376.

Danish, R., Munir, Y., Nazir, S., Abbasi, H., & Hunbal, H. (2013). Effect of knowledge sharing, participative decision making and transformational leadership on organizational performance. World Applied Sciences Journal, 24(10), 1339.

Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity.

Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7–52.

Drucker, P. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

DuFrene, D. D. (2015). Participative management. Encyclopedia of Management. Retrieved from http://referenceforbusiness.com/management/Or-Pr/Participative-Management.html Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Structural equation models with unobserved variables and measurement errors: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.

Gilley, A. (2005). The manager as change agent. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Gilley, A., Gilley, J. W., & Kouider, E. (2010). Characteristics of managerial coaching.

Performance Improvement Quarterly, 23(1), 53-70.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 95

Gilley, A., Gilley, J. W., & McMillan, H. S. (2008). Organizational change: Motivation, communication, and leadership effectiveness. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(4), 75-94. doi:10.1002/piq.20039 Gilley, A., McMillan, H. S., & Gilley, J. W. (2009). Organizational change and characteristics of leadership effectiveness. Journal of Organizational and Leadership Studies, 16(1), 38-47.

Gilley, J. W. (2006). The manager as politician. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Gilley, J. W., & Gilley, A. (2007). The manager as coach. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Gilley, J. W., Shelton, P. M., & Gilley, A. (2011). Development leadership: A new perspective for human resource development, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(3), 386405.

Gordon, G., & Gilley, J. W. (2012). A trust-leadership model. Performance Improvement, 51(7), 28-35. doi:10.1002/pfi.21284 Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2003). The relation between work-family balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 510-531. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00042-8 Grissom, J. A. (2012). Revisiting the impact of participative decision making on public employee retention: The moderating influence of effective managers. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(4), 400-418. doi 10.1177/0275074011404209 Gupta, V. K., Huang, R., & Niranjan, S. (2010). A longitudinal examination of the relationship between team leadership and performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(4), 335-350.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Hameed, A., & Waheed, A. (2011). Employee development and its effect on employee performance: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(13), 224-229.

Hashim, F., Alam, M. G., & Siraj, S. (2010). Information and communication technology for participatory based decision making-E-management for administrative efficiency in Higher Education. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 5(4), 383-392.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 96

organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, M. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49, 493-504.

Howkins, J. (2001). The creative economy. London, UK: Penguin.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.

Konrad, A. M. (2006). Engaging employees through high-involvement work practices. Ivey Business Journal Online, 1. Retrieved from http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/the-workplace/engaging-employees-throughhigh-involvement-work-practices#.UHNMKpjA98E Kreisberg, S. (1999). Transforming power domination, empowerment, and education. New York: University of New York Press.

Lam, S. K., Chen, X. P., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Participative decision making and employee performance in different cultures: The moderating effects of allocentrism/idiocentrism and efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 905-914.

Lee, C. H., & Bruvold, N. T. (2003). Creating value for employees: Investment in employee development. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(6), 981-1000.

Levenson, A. R., Van der Stede, W. A., & Cohen, S. G. (2006). Measuring the relationship between managerial competencies and performance. Journal of Management, 32(3), 360380.

Leverty, J. F. (2012). Dupes or incompetents? An examination of management’s impact on firm distress. Journal of Risk & Insurance, 79(3), 751-783.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, 2-38.

Lindelow, J., Coursen, D., Mazzarella, J. A., Heynerickz, J. J., & Smith, S. C. (1986).

Participative decision making. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED309511.pdf Lowin, A. (1968). Participative decision making: A model, literature critique, and prescriptions for research. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 3(1), 68-106. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(68)90028-7

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 97

Martin, M. M. (1999). Trust leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 5(3), 42-49.

Mayo, A. (2000). The role of employee development in the growth of intellectual capital.

Personnel Review 29(4), 521-533.

McWhorter, R. R. (2010). Exploring the emergence of virtual human resource development.

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(6), 623-631.

McWhorter, R. R., & Lynham, S. A. (2014). An initial conceptualization of virtual scenario planning. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(6), 335-355.

McWhorter, R. R, Lynham, S. A., & Porter, D. E. (2008). Scenario planning as developing leadership capability and capacity. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(2), 258-284. doi:10.1177/152342230731332 Mulder, M., & Wilke, H. (1970). Participation and power equalization. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 5(5), 430-448.

Nadeem, M. (2012). Participative management style: A tool to enhance quality education, Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 5(2), 8-14.

Nation, C. (2013). The advantages of employee involvement in decision making. The Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-employeeinvolvement-decision making-18264.html Noe, R. A. (2012). Employee training and development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Nunnally, I. H., & Bernstein, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Parnell, J. A. (2002). Propensity for participative decision making: A cross-cultural investigation, International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 3(2), 305-318.

Phipps, S. T. A., Prieto, L. C., & Ndinguri, E. N. (2013). Understanding the impact of employee involvement on organizational productivity: The moderating role of organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 17(2), 107-120.

Rantanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S., & Tillemann, K. (2011). Introducing theoretical approaches to work-life balance and testing a new typology among professionals. In S. Kaiser, M. Ringlstetter, D. Eikhof, & P. Cunha (Eds.), Creating balance?: International

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 98

perspectives on the work-life integration of professionals (pp. 27-46). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi 10.1007/978-3-642-16199-5_2 Roberto, M. A., & Lavesque, L. C. (2005). The art of making change stick. MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-art-ofmaking-change-initiatives-stick/ Russ, T. L. (2011). Theory X/Y assumptions as predictors of managers’ propensity for participative decision making, Management Decision, 49(5), 823-836.

Russ, T. L. (2013). The influence of communication apprehension on superiors' propensity for and practice of participative decision making. Communication Quarterly, 61(3), 335-348.

Sakakibara, H., & Kimura, K. (2011). Experimental study on negotiation process in participatory decision making process in a community. Group Decision and Negotiation, 22(1), 71-84.

Sebolsky-Rubenstein, J. (2002, September). Participative decision making (PDM) and performance: An examination of possible mediating processes. (Unpublished dissertation). Claremont, CA: The Claremont Graduate University.

See, K. E., Morrison, E. W., Rothman, N. B., & Soll, J. B. (2011). The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 272-285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.07.006 Shuck, B., & Herd, A. (2012). Employee engagement and leadership: Exploring the convergence of two frameworks and implications for leadership development in HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 11(2), 156-181.

Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior performance. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Van Der Westhuizen, D. W., Pacheco, G., & Webber, D. J. (2012). Culture, participative decision making and job satisfaction. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(13), 2661-2679.

Vogt, W. P. (2005). Dictionary of statistics and methodology: A nontechnical guide for the social sciences. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wainaina, L. (2013). Participative decision making: A study on employees’ participation and involvement in decision making. Saarbrücken, Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 99

Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter?

CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134-143.

Westhuizen, D. D., Pacheco, G. G., & Webber, D. J. (2012). Culture, participative decision making and job satisfaction. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(13), 2661-2679.

Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical analysis of success. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and attributes. The nature of leadership. (pp. 101-124). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 100

Table 1 Sample characteristics Description Respondent’s gender Male Female Respondent’s Age ≤25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 ≥66 Respondent’s Years Employed at Organization (years) ≤1 1-3 4-6 7-10 11-14 ≥15 Industry Manufacturing Service Education Professional Government Non-profit Number of employees in organization ≤100 101-500 501-1,000 1,001-2,500 2,501-5,000 5,001-10,000 ≥10,000 Job Position Front-line employee Supervisor or Team leader Mid-level manager Senior/Executive manager Other n=409

Percent 49.6 50.4 24.0 36.7 22.7 13.0 3.7 0 23.0 45.2 19.6 6.8 4.2 1.2 6.6 30.1 22.7 23.7 10.5 6.4 30.1 18.3 10.5 12.0 4.4 7.1 17.6 38.6 27.4 22.5 7.8 3.7

Volume 7 Page 101

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Table 2 Manager involves employees in decision making Never Rarely N 43 87 % 10.5 21.3 Cum. % 10.5 31.8 Note: N=409, M=3.02, SD=1.107

Sometimes 128 31.3 63.1

Usually 121 29.6 92.7

Always 30 7.3 100

Table 3 Regression Analysis Front-line employee Manager age Treats employees as unique individuals Encourages teamwork and collaboration Promotes work-life balance Effectively implements change Encourages employees’ growth and development

B (SE) -.21(.07)** .01(.01)** .24(.05)*** .24(.05)*** .18(.04)*** .15(.05)** .11(.05)**

F Adjusted R2

104.75*** .64 **p < .05, **p < .001

Table 4 Means, standard deviations, correlations Variable

Mean

SD

1

1.

2.

3.02 3.30

1.11 1.10

.73**

3.44 3.27

1.07 1.20

.68** .66**

.71* .71**

.59**

2.97 3.26

0.97 1.11

.63** .66**

.66** .72**

.62** .69**

.59** .63**

.62**

2.11 45

.99 10

.29** .06

.25** -.03

.17** -.10*

.22** -.02

.21** -.07

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Decision making Unique individuals Teamwork Work-life balance Change Growth and development Position Manager age

Notes: N=409, *p<.10, **p<.05

2

3

4

5

6

.26** -.04

7

.18**

Volume 7 Page 102

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Table 5 Individual item reliabilities, composite reliability, and AVE Items Positive Behaviors Treats employees as unique individuals Encourages teamwork and collaboration Encourages employee growth and development Promotes work-life balance Effectively implements change Negative Behaviors Creates a hostile or fearful work environment Ineffective in position Note: Composite reliabilities in bold.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework

Item reliabilities

Composite Reliability .91

AVE

.69

.53

.65

.88 .81 .82 .79 .76 .71 .75

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Figure 2. Structural model. *p<.10, **p<.05,***p<.001 Note: Standardized path coefficients are reported.

Volume 7 Page 103

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 104

The Role of Analytics in Business Sustainability Dennis F. X. Mathaisel Babson College Clare L. Comm University of Massachusetts, Lowell Abstract For any business or enterprise, sustainability should include the ability of the enterprise to meet its development goals while remaining productive, minimizing waste, conserving resources, and creating value. The enterprise, whether it is an ecological, environmental, human, or service enterprise, must possess five “abilities”: availability; dependability; capability; affordability; and marketability. However, while sustainability has become popular, it remains an elusive goal for many businesses. It is elusive because the concepts are difficult to sell. Since the goal of analytics is to sustain the enterprise by focusing on research data, this paper will then further explore how analytics can aid in marketing sustainability. The methodology employed is empirical research and an analysis of case studies of major corporations that use business analytics to achieve business excellence.

Keywords: Business analytics, enterprise sustainability, marketing business sustainability, business excellence.

Introduction Sustainability is an ability - the ability to endure. In ecology, sustainability describes how biological species survive. For the environment, it is assessing whether or not project outputs can be produced without permanent and unacceptable changes in the environment. For humans, it is our long-term physical and cultural well-being. For mechanical systems and structures, it is maximizing reliability while conserving required resources and reducing waste.

Sustainability involves the three “P’s”: people, planet and profit (Elkington, 2004). To gain a

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 105

sustainable competitive advantage, every enterprise needs locational excellence, operational excellence, product excellence, customer excellence, and analytics excellence. All of these types of excellence are fundamental to the five abilities needed for sustainability: availability, dependability, capability, affordability, and marketability (Mathaisel & Comm, 2011). These abilities are illustrated in Figure 1 and defined in the literature review.

Business Analytics has recently become a popular tool for business excellence and has begun to play a very important role in sustainability. Most people associate it with big data and the merger of three disciplines: computer science, quantitative methods and modelling, and statistics. Recent technological advances, such as powerful computers, better internet access, and software, have allowed these disciplines to merge and become the analytic tools for excellence that are available today to help businesses.

This paper explores how the five abilities of sustainability and business analytics can be integrated as innovative tools to help market sustainability concepts to those resistant to the concepts of sustainability. An empirical study was conducted for this paper, and 15 institutions that have documented their uses of business analytics to aid their sustainability efforts were analyzed. These institutions are cited as case studies in the Results and Findings section of this paper.

Literature Review Most of the work on sustainability has focused on systems: ecosystems, biosystems, or mechanical systems. Few of these articles have considered how these systems, or the enterprise, can become sustainable. Morris (2010) looked at economics and sustainability. She maintains that sustainability seeks to balance three things: (a) economic growth, development, or well being; (b) ecological or environmental protection and preservation; and (c) socioeconomic equity and equality. The main thrust of her research was that sustainability must be taught from the economic perspective.

Similarly, Dyllickand and Hockerts (2002) focused on three dimensions of sustainability.

For the first dimension, they looked at economically sustainable companies that guarantee a cash flow position sufficient to ensure liquidity while producing a persistent above-average return to

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 106

investors. The second dimension considered ecologically sustainable companies that use only natural resources that are consumed at a rate below the natural production, or at a rate below the development of substitutes. These companies do not cause emissions that accumulate in the environment at a rate beyond the capacity of the natural system to absorb or assimilate these emissions, and they do not engage in activity that degrades eco-system services. The third dimension is socially sustainable companies that add value to communities within which they operate by increasing the human capital of individual partners as well as furthering the societal capital of these communities. These companies manage social capital in such a way that stakeholders can understand their motivations and can broadly agree with the companies’ value systems. These three dimensions of sustainability match the triple bottom line (TBL) concept first described by John Elkington (2004). TBL, also known as “people, planet, profit” or “the three pillars” is a popular conceptualization and reporting vehicle for articulating enterprise performance. It is receiving significant attention in connection with its efficacy and sufficiency as a means for reporting the extent to which an enterprise meets its societal responsibilities. By preparing and disseminating TBL statements, an enterprise conveys an image of sensitivity to the three dimensions of societal responsibility: economic, environmental, and social (Brown, Dillard & Marshall, 2006).

Loorbach (2007) wrote about governance for sustainability. He focused on transition management, which is a coordinated effort to influence the speed and direction of large-scale social change based on the concepts of social transitions and sustainability. The research revealed that neither top-down government policies nor bottom-up market forces can alone support directed long-term sector-wide changes. They can only occur through combinations of government policies, market forces, and bottom-up initiatives from civil society (Rotmans, Kemp & Van Asselt, 2001; Loorbach, 2007). Bossel (1999) maintains that sustainability requires systems information: The total system of which human society is a part, and on which it depends for support, is made up of a large number of component systems. The whole cannot function properly and is not viable and sustainable if individual component systems cannot function properly, i.e., if they are not viable and sustainable. Sustainability is possible only if component systems as well as the total system are viable. (1999, p. 6).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 107

According to Parnell (2008), achieving market and environmental sustainability is a most desirable result. However, this is also the most difficult result to achieve in the quest for sustainability.

Five abilities are needed for sustainability (Mathaisel & Comm, 2011). Availability, the first ability, is access to the right technology, materials, facilities, tools, and people that makes sustainability of the enterprise possible. It is also the long-run operational availability of the services or products of the enterprise. Dependability concentrates on the reliability of the services or products. Can the components of the enterprise perform without failure? Capability is about performance metrics, performance measures, and performance management.

Affordability concentrates on life cycle costs. Marketability deals with defining the market for the products or services, understanding consumer needs, managing change over time, identifying improvements for the benefit of the stakeholders, and selling sustainability concepts to those who are resistant to change. These five abilities define business sustainability.

In 1958, IBM researcher Peter Luhn is attributed with creating the term Business Intelligence (Luhn, 1958). In the 30 years since then, this concept changed to decision support systems (DSS) and executive information systems (EIS). In 1958 Howard Dresner’s work focused on technology, standards and processes to collect, store, rationalize, retrieve data, and create reports (Koeppel, 2013). This was the beginning of operational decision making. In 2007 Davenport and Harris began looking at the use of analytics for firms to gain competitive advantages. In Competing on Analytics: The New Science of Winning, Davenport and Harris (2007) maintain that certain high-performing enterprises are building their competitive strategies around data-driven analytics. Examples they use are new tools which identify their most profitable customers and can be offered to them at the right price to accelerate product innovation, optimize supply chains, and identify the true drivers of financial performance.

Methodology The research included an investigation and analysis of how businesses use analytics to enrich their sustainability efforts and attendance by the author at big data and analytics conferences during the 2015-2016 time. In addition to the software developers Oracle, IBM,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 108

Microsoft, and SAP, the research found a number of other corporations that currently make use of analytics for sustainabile development. eBay has been integrating analytics in its search for customer requirements. Amazon is providing the ability to “rent” analytics software.

Metanautix, an analytics startup in Palo Alto that helps big corporations navigate their data, was acquired by Microsoft to assist businesses manage big data. Retail companies, like Walmart, are using analytics to reduce shipping costs. Hitachi has developed crime prevention analytics to increase its dependability and reliability. Wearable Devices has discovered the benefits of using big data in healthcare products. IBM is using data mining and predictive analytics to predict future vehicle maintenance needs and engine diagnostics. Bloomberg Media is using MarketShare, an analytics software tool, to optimize its marketing efforts. Brandwatch, a Brighton Beach startup in New York, has raised $33 million for its social media analytics platform. BuzzFeed, a business built on publishing articles that get widely shared across various social channels, including Facebook and Twitter, announced an analytics tool, called “Pound” (Process for Optimizing and Understanding Network Diffusion), that tracks how a piece of BuzzFeed content gets shared from one channel to the next. Some of these examples will be used as case study company analyses in the results/findings that follow which relates analytics to each of the five abilities for sustainability.

Results/Findings Availability is the first of the five abilities for sustainability. The availability of the best technology, parts, facilities, tools, and people is critical to achieving targeted rates of sustainability. The right types and quantities of these resources must be available when and where needed in order to provide the required services efficiently, flexibly, and responsively under varying demand conditions. Whether it is an increasing demand for a product or a resource, the objective is to develop an improved understanding of best-in-class inventory management practices and distribution strategies in order to identify innovative solutions for the company.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 109

Walmart was found to be one of the best examples of using analytics for availability.

Walmart focuses on manpower team-building and collaboration to achieve its availability goals.

It mines its data to gain market-related insights and have the right products at the right time at the right place at a lower cost to gain a competitive consumer advantage. According to Rollin Ford, CIO of Walmart, “Everyday I wake up and ask ‘how can I flow data better, manage data better, analyze data better?’” (The Economist, 2010, p. 6). Walmart manages more than 1 million customer transactions every hour, which are imported into databases estimated to contain more than 2.5 petabytes, which is the equivalent of 167 times the information contained in all the books in the US Library of Congess (The Economist, 2010). WalmartLabs, its analytics division, then mines the data (in-store, websites and social media) to generate retail-related insights.

Analytics for Dependability Dependability is an ability that refers to constancy and consistency of the service or product. This ability includes other abilities: reliability, maintainability, supportability, and testability practices and technologies. Reliability is the science of performing without failure, degradation, or placing high demands on the support infrastructure. Maintainability is the measure of the ability of a service or enterprise to be retained in or restored to operable condition. Supportability is a measure of the ability to support the customer by satisfying the requirements associated with restoring a failed service or enterprise to full operation. Testability is a characteristic that allows the status (operable, inoperable or degraded) of a service or enterprise to be determined and faults within the service or product to be isolated in a timely and efficient manner. The overall ability to detect and isolate faults in a new venture, and to do so efficiently prior to its launch, is sustainability.

As is the case with many disciplines, availability, reliability, maintainability, and supportability are all inter-related to dependability. Dependability is the ability to deliver a system or service that can be trusted. It is a collective term used to describe performance and its influencing factors: availability performance, reliability performance, maintainability performance, and supportability performance. Thus, dependability is a sustainability property

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 110

that integrates many other abilities. None can be treated as stand-alone. Availability, reliability, maintainability, supportability, and all of the related abilities, should be incorporated into an overall sustainable strategy.

As an example, Amazon concentrates on providing reliability with its services and products to its customers by finding what their customers want versus telling them what they should want. They accomplish this by using their cloud-based analytics service. Since reliability plays a critical role throughout a product’s life cycle, they use modeling, prediction and optimization to ensure reliability for their customers (Hardy, 2012).

Analytics for Capability Capability is the ability to identify and fulfill a framework of performance metrics, performance measurement, and performance management for assessing the effectiveness of the service or product. Performance metrics are the units or standards of measure for the overall quantitative or qualitative characterization of performance. Performance measurement is the process of collecting, analyzing, and proper reporting of performance data to identify opportunities for the service or enterprise improvements. Performance management is the translation of the performance metrics and measurements into useful information and the techniques that will be used to drive continuous performance improvement. The purpose is to provide incentives, not barriers, for the achievement of objectives, and to measure performance by collecting, analyzing, and reporting performance data and using the resulting information to improve the quality of the venture.

A fundamental issue with performance measures centers on the question of how to define the critical few metrics that should be used. How many metrics should be included? The answer is that performance measures should be limited to those that relate and/or link to strategic organizational goals and objectives, and that provide timely, relevant, and concise information at all levels to assess progress toward achieving these predetermined goals. High level metrics should be defined for managers. More detailed metrics should be defined for the workers at the operational levels. The number of measures should provide a balanced management approach to ensuring that all strategic organizational goals and objectives get appropriate visibility.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 111

The use of performance metrics has the potential to offer numerous benefits beyond simply providing status data. The effective use of metrics is a key feature for a successful business. Metrics link processes and measurement. They are intrinsic to performance improvement initiatives, and they can be used to facilitate quality and continuous process improvement by communicating product, service, and process goals. They support risk management through early identification of deviations before major cost or schedule impacts occur. Metrics can also improve customer relations.

Performance metrics can be both qualitative and quantitative. They are expected to be more quantitative at the lower operational levels in the business. They must also be accompanied by a clear and complete set of planning assumptions, including the most likely anticipated future environment, as well as constraints (i.e., physical, human, budgetary, technological limits). In the most effective small businesses, the goals, objectives, and metrics are few in number and are clearly traceable from the top down. All stakeholders know them, and they understand how their individual efforts contribute to the company goals. They must also be sufficiently stable over time in order to induce the desired behavioral response and adaptation throughout the value stream. Conflicts must be eliminated, any variations explained, and subsequent changes must be effectively communicated to remove any appearance of inconsistency. Metrics, however defined and measured, will affect actions and decisions.

Choosing the right metrics is critical to the overall success of a venture, but the challenge of developing good metrics is difficult. To avoid difficulties, metrics should be directly tied to overall goals. They should be simple and easily understood, as well as logical. They should be unambiguously defined, measurable, and should drive appropriate individual, team or group behavior (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1998). eBay uses analytics at every level and scale (performance metrics, measurement, and management) to better know their customers. They have operations in over 30 countries with 100 million registered users (Sundaresan, 2013). Thus, much performance data and information are furnished so eBay can “get closer” to its customers and better fulfill their requirements. They use complex analytical models to better understand user response to site or feature changes and policy changes. These performance data can come in various forms: user behavior data, transactional, data, and customer service data.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 112

Analytics for Affordability Affordability concentrates on the methods and models for analyzing and improving the life cycle costs (LCC) of a service or enterprise. Most ventures follow a life cycle, which includes introduction/birth, growth, maturity and decline. Understanding this life cycle is important to understanding sustainability costs. Affordability is defined by the extent to which the cost is consonant with the life cycle plans (sustainability) of the business. Affordability considers not only development and investment costs, but also operating, support, and disposal costs. Life cycle costing is the process of collecting and analyzing the costs associated with acquiring or sustaining the enterprise during its life.

In the transportation industry, analytics is leveraged through a cost/benefit analysis to create business value. For example, in aircraft maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) services, several United States airlines own or contract with MRO facilities outside the US. They deadhead the aircraft out of the US to a facility overseas to take advantage of lower labor rates. Analytics are used to determine the costs versus benefits relative to the out-of-service time, fuel costs, and aircraft down-time (Kaduwela & Inbasekaran, 2014). Often the solution may involve allocating aircraft to routes closer to the repair facility. Unscheduled maintenance (repairs) may or may not be attended to immediately depending on the severity of the problem.

If a coffee maker is broken, it may impact passenger satisfaction, but there is no safety violation that could cause a critical failure. A critical failure that needs to be taken care of immediately can disrupt the schedule and have LCC impacts in terms of pilots, crews, and ground resources.

In such cases, analytics are used to find the best way to adjust the schedule with minimal impact to passengers, staff, and life-cycle costs. Another example, and one that has been focused on recently (e.g, Malaysia Flight MH360 and EgyptAir Flight MS804), is the streaming of real time data, called ACARS or Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System, from an airplane’s cockpit in case of a critical incident. To date, there is so much ACARS data that would have to be obtained from flights that airlines would need big data solutions to mine the database, and the cost would be exceptionally high for the airlines. The life-cycle costs would have to be passed on to passenger ticket prices. Ironically, in this situation, too much data would

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 113

create affordability problems, and it would necessitate high-level analytical models (big data solutions).

Analytics for Marketability Marketability is the ability to promote or sell suggestions for change or improvement to stakeholders. It is also the ability of the enterprise to define what sustainability implies for specific operations. Marketing is more than advertising and more than selling. It involves all activities that relate the organization to the stakeholders whom it must efficiently serve in order to survive. Particularly with respect to sustainable marketing, the focus is on more than just the four traditional “P’s” (product, price, place, and promotion). The focus should also include people, planet, and profit.

Many firms utilize analytics for marketing purposes. One home applicance company spent a majority of its marketing budget on print, TV, and display advertising to target its customers. But, data from this company showed that few consumers look at manufacturers’ websites (less than 9%). Most look at retailer websites. So, when this home applicance company shifted from general advertising to retail distributor advertising on their website, it gained 21% in sales (Bhandari, Singer & van der Scheer, 2014). In the software industry, the Microsoft Analytics Platform System is designed to meet the demands of evolving marketing data warehouse environments with its scale-out, massively parallel processing, integrated system supporting hybrid data warehouse scenarios. It provides the ability to query across relational and non-relational data by leveraging Microsoft PolyBase and industry-leading big data technologies (Microsoft, 2016). In the social media industry, according to Bloomberg Technology: “Microsoft is acquiring the professional social network LinkedIn Corporation for $26.2 billion, one of the largest technology-industry deals on record, as the maker of the Windows™ software attempts to put itself at the center of people’s business analytics lives.” (2016, para. 1).

Regarding consumer behavior in restaurants, customers desire to be treated like regular customers and, in turn, tend to be more loyal to those restaurants. An anlytics management system called “Upserve” was developed by Andy Husbands to keep tabs on what customers like and do not like (Torres, 2016). This software looks at transaction data, OpenTable reservations,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 114

and sales history to see what food is being served, and which servers have higher check averages.

In short, the more you know about your customers, costs, inventory and employees puts you in a better position to improve your sales.

Discussion Analytics is the use of (big) data, statistical and quantitative analyses, and explanatory and predictive models to drive business decisions (Davenport & Harris, 2007). There are many reasons why the use of business analytics has recently become very popular. First, there is a vast proliferation of data because of the decreasing cost and increasing availability of automatic data capture mechanisms, as well as the growth in the use of the Internet. Second, there have been improvements in computational power due to the doubling every year or two in the number of components per integrated circuit (Moore, 1998), which make computers more available and affordable by reducing costs and complexity in data collection, storage, retrieval and analysis.

Third, software firms have been quick to introduce new tools (see Figure 2) to assimilate this data. Fourth, analytics is a differentiator. According to a 2010 survey by the MIT Sloan Management Review and the IBM Institute for Business Value, 3000 executives, managers and analysts working across more than 30 industries and 100 countries saw analytics as the new path to value (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010). Lastly, analytics is seen as an investment in the growth of business information management. Analytics can help a company gain a competitive advantage to transform insights into action. For example, Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, and SAP have among them spent more than $15 billion on buying software firms specializing in data management and analytics. The industry is estimated to be worth more than $100 billion and growing at almost 10% a year, which is roughly twice as fast as the software business as a whole (The Economist, 2010). Figure 3 is an Analytics Road Map for businesses (Shmueli, Patel & Bruce, 2010), which helps explain this trend.

Businesses need to understand analytics and its relationship to sustainability so that they can improve prediction, improve decision making, refine goals, and focus on long-run efforts.

Big data analytics means access to large volumes of information, and in today’s competitive world, it is this access that enhances a firm’s survival. Hence, business analytics has the

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 115

potential to greatly influence a firm’s sustainability. Measuring and understanding how to use business analytics really does affect the natural world, and will open new opportunities for bringing sustainability inside an organization: creating change, cutting costs, and boosting longterm profitability in a resource-constrained world (Hsu, 2014).

The key questions are: Does analytics improve profits or ROI?; and, Are companies using them effectively? According to a recent Current Market Outlook survey, many companies now spend 6.7% of their marketing budgets on analytics and expect to spend 11.1% over the next three years (Ariker, Diaz, Moorman & Westover, 2015). Is this money being well spent, and how can companies get more from their investments? One suggestion is to ensure better communications from business users to data crunchers by hiring big data translators. Then, deliver results in a timely manner using simple language and graphics from the analytics software packages (e.g, Tableau™, XLMiner™, or RStudio). Finally, this investigation indicates that not all companies may gain a lot from analytics investments. Criteria to consider what activities to invest in include the financial impact, time required to develop and implement change, impact on customer perceptions, risks, and potential obstacles.

It is important to remember that sustainment strategies must evolve over time. They cannot be expected to be implemented quickly, or initially designed, for all possible future outcomes (Mathaisel & Comm, 2011). They must be transparent and altered throughout the life cycle of an enterprise, particularly during its development, its modifications, its implementation, and its upgrades. In conclusion, the authors believe that by focusing on business analytics and its relationship to the five abilities of sustainability, an enterprise can become more sustainable.

Author Biographies Dennis F.X. Mathaisel is Professor of Management Science at Babson College. He received his Ph.D. from MIT and was a Research Engineer in the Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics at MIT. His teaching interests are in the fields of business analytics, management science, and quantitative methods. His research is focused on the sustainability of complex systems, business analytics, and airline scheduling and aircraft operations. He is the author of 39 refereed journal articles as well as three books: Sustaining the Military Enterprise: An Architecture

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 116

for a Lean Transformation, 2008, Auerbach Publications Taylor & Francis Group; Sustaining the Military Enterprise: Enhancing its Ability to Perform the Mission, with J. Manary and C. Comm,

2009, CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group; and Engineering for Sustainability, with J. Manary and Ned H. Criscimagna, 2013, CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.

Clare L. Comm is Professor of Marketing in the College of Management at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, where she specializes in services marketing and buyer behavior. She received a Ph.D. in marketing from the University of Cincinnati. She has written numerous articles in the area of the marketing of services and sustainability (higher education and the airline industry). She is a co-author of a book on sustainability: Sustaining the Military Enterprise: Enhancing its Ability to Perform the Mission, ISBN: 978-1-4200-7858-9, with J. Manary and D. Mathaisel, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Spring 2010.

References Ariker, M., Diaz, A., Moorman, C., & Westover, M. (2015). Quantifying the impact of marketing analytics. Harvard Business Review. Issue 11, p. 1, November 5.

Bhandari, R., Singer, M., & van der Scheer. (2014). Using marketing analytics to drive superior growth. McKinsey & Company. Article. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/usingmarketing-analytics-to-drive-superior-growth. June.

Bloomberg Technology. (2016). Microsoft pays $26 billion for LinkedIn in biggest deal yet.

Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-13/116icrosoft-to-buylinkedin-in-deal-valued-at-26-2-billion-ipe079k9.

Bossel, H. (1999). Indicators for sustainable development: Theory, method, applications.

Winnipeg, Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Brown, D., Dillard, J., & Marshall, R. S. (2006). Triple bottom line: A business metaphor for a social construct. (Working Paper No. 6(2)). Barcelona, Spain: Departament d’Economia de l’Empresa, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 117

Davenport, T. H., & Harris, J. C. (2007). Competing on analytics: The new science of winning.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Dyllickand, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.

Business Strategy and the Environment. 11(2). 130-141.

Elkington, J. (2004). Enter the triple bottom line. In A. Henriques & J. Richardson (Eds.), The triple bottom line: Does it all add up. London, UK: EarthScan.

Gartner Inc. (2016). Magic quadrant for business intelligence and analytics platforms. ID:G00275847.

Analysts: Josh Parenteau, Rita L. Sallam, Cindi Howson, Joao Tapadinhas, Kurt Schlegel, Thomas W. Oestreich. Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/doc/reprints?id=1‐ 2XXET8P&ct=160204. 4 February.

Hardy, Q. (2012, January 4). Will Amazon offer analytics as a service? The New York Times, Retrieved from http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/will-amazon-offer-analytics-asa-service/?_r=0.

Hsu, J. (2014). Why Big Data will have a big impact on sustainability. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/big-data-impact-sustainable-business.

The Guardian. January 31.

Kaduwela, V., & Inbasekaran, R. (2014). Leveraging analytics in transportation to create business value. Paper 383. SAS Global Forum: Travel, Hospitality and Entertainment.

Retrieved from http://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings12/383-2012.pdf.

Koeppel, H. (2013). History of business intelligence and Analytics and what comes next.

Retrieved from http://searchcio.techtarget.com/opinion/The-history-of-businessintelligence-and-analytics-and-what-comes-next. March.

Loorbach, D. (2007). Sustainability: Science, practice & policy. Retrieved from http://ejournal.nbii.org. 3(2).

Luhn, H. P. (1958). A business intelligence system. IBM Journal of Research and Development.

2(4), 314-319.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 118

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (1998). Lean sustainment research. Executive summary, goals, objectives and metrics. Cambridge, MA: Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2010). Analytics: The new path to value. MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/reports/analytics-thenew-path-to-value/executive-summary/. Research Report # 52180.

Mathaisel, D. F. X., & Comm, C. L. (2011). A strategy for enterprise sustainability. Business Review Cambridge, 17(1), 9-17.

Microsoft. (2016). Breakthrough performance for analytics at an industry leading price.

Retrieved June 13, 2016 from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/servercloud/products/analytics-platform-system/overview.aspx.

Moore, G. E. (1998). Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(1), 82-85. January.

Morris, L. (2010). Economics and sustainability. Portland, ME: Muskie School of Public Service. University of Southern Maine.

Parnell, J. A. (2008). Sustainable strategic management: Construct, parameters, research direction. International Journal of Sustainable Strategic Management. 1(1). 35-45.

Rotmans, J., Kemp, R. & Van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight. 3(1), 15–31.

Shmueli, G., Patel, N. R., & Bruce, P. C. (2010). Data mining for sustainability. New York, NY: Wiley.

Sundaresan, N. (2013, June 25). How eBay uses data and analytics to get closer to its (massive) customer base. MIT Sloan Management Review. 55(1), 1–6.

The Economist. (2010, February 27). Data data everywhere. A Special report on managing information. 4-1.

Torres, N. (2016, May 29). Big data goes to brunch. Boston Globe Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2016/05/29.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Figure 1. Roadmap for Sustainability.

Volume 7 Page 119

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 120

Figure 2 Gartner Inc. Majic Quadrant for Business Intelligence and Analytics Platforms Source: Gartner Inc. (2016)

Figure 2. Majic Quadrant for Business Intelligence and Analytics Platforms.

Source: Gartner Inc.© (2016). ID: G00275847. Analysts: Josh Parenteau, Rita L. Sallam, Cindi Howson, Joao Tapadinhas, Kurt Schlegel, Thomas W. Oestreich. Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/doc/reprints?id=1-2XXET8P&ct=160204. 4 February.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 121

Figure 3. Data Preparation and Visualization. Adapted from Shmueli, G., Patel, N. R., & Bruce, P. C. (2010). Data mining for sustainability. New York, NY: Wiley.

Volume 7 Page 122

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION GUIDE

GENERAL FORMATTING           

American Psychological Association (APA) Sixth Edition Publication Guidelines Microsoft-Word or compatible format (Do not send your manuscript as a PDF or it will be declined) Letter-size (8.5 x 11 inches) format 1.50 spaced text Times New Roman, 12-point font One-inch margins Two spaces following end punctuation Left justification Single column Portrait orientation First-person

MANUSCRIPT ORDER (Please Note: Do not add a running head or page numbers.)

Cover Page: (This page will be removed prior to peer review.)  Manuscript Title o The first letter of each major word should be capitalized. o The title should be in font size 20 and bold.  Author(s) Name o First Name, Middle initial(s), and Last name (omit titles and degrees) o The names should be font size 12. No bold  Institutional Affiliation o Education affiliation – if no institutional affiliation, list city and state of author’s residence o This educational affiliation should be on the line directly under the author’s name. o If there are multiple authors, please place a space between them each set of information (name and affiliation).  Author Biography o If there are multiple authors, please label this section Author Biographies

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

Volume 7 Page 123

o Please be sure to indent the paragraph before the biography begins. If there are multiple authors, please begin a new paragraph for each author.

Manuscript: (From this point forward, please be sure your manuscript is FREE of any identifying information.) 











Abstract o The abstract (150-word maximum) should effectively summarize your completed research and findings. o The word “abstract” should be bold.

Keywords o This line should be indented. The word “Keywords” should be italicized and followed by a colon and two spaces. o Following the two spaces, list 3 or 4 keywords or key phrases that you would use if you were searching for your article online. o Only the first key word should be capitalized. The actual keywords are not italicized.

Body of Paper (sections) ALL of the following sections MUST be present or your manuscript WILL be rejected. o Introduction o Literature Review o Methodology o Results/Findings o Discussion References –this heading is NOT bolded within the manuscript o Manuscripts should be thoroughly cited and referenced using valid sources. o References should be arranged alphabetically and strictly follow American Psychological Association (APA) sixth edition formatting rules. o Only references cited in the manuscript are to be included.

Tables and Figures o If tables and figures are deemed necessary for inclusion, they should be properly placed at the end of the text following the reference section. o All tables and figures should be numbered sequentially using Arabic numerals, titled, acknowledged, and cited according to APA guidelines. o If graphs or tables are too wide for portrait orientation, they must be resized or reoriented to be included.

Appendices (if applicable) o Must be labeled alphabetically as they appear in the manuscript. o Title centered at the top.

Volume 7 Page 124

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

WHY READ OUR JOURNALS? Continuing Education: Each of the CSI's peer-reviewed journals focuses on contemporary issues, scholarly research, discovery, and evidence-based practices that will elevate readers' professional development.

Germane Reference: The CSI's journals are a vital resource for students, practitioners, and professionals in the fields of education, business, and behavioral sciences interested in relevant, leading-edge, academic research.

Diversity: The CSI’s peer-reviewed journals highlight a variety of study designs, scientific approaches, experimental strategies, methodologies, and analytical processes representing diverse philosophical frameworks and global perspectives Broad Applicability: The CSI's journals provide research in the fields of education, business and behavioral sciences specialties and dozens of related sub-specialties.

Academic Advantage: The CSI's academically and scientifically meritorious journal content significantly benefits faculty and students.

Scholarship: Subscribing to the CSI's journals provides a forum for and promotes faculty research, writing, and manuscript submission.

Choice of Format: Institutions can choose to subscribe to our journals in digital or print format.

Volume 7 Page 125

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Special Edition

An Exploratory Examination of GLOBE Leadership Constructs in Education Megan M. Buning, Augusta University Barbara J. Mallory, High Point University Teri D. Melton, Georgia Southern University Cindi Chance, Augusta University Graduate Student and Faculty Perspectives of Academic Writing Jaya S. Goswami, Texas A&M University-Kingsville Steve F. Bain, Texas A&M University-Kingsville Maria E. Martinez, Texas A&M University-Kingsville Embedding Assessment into Instruction: The Reasons, Reactions, and Results Joseph W. Spadano, Rivier University Managerial Behaviors that Support Participative Decision Making Heshium Lawrence, University of Texas at Tyler Rochell McWhorter, University of Texas at Tyler Sherry Avery Jackson, University of Texas at Tyler Ann Gilley, University of Texas at Tyler Jerry W. Gilley, University of Texas at Tyler The Role of Analytics in Business Sustainability Dennis F. X. Mathaisel, Babson College Clare L. Comm, University of Massachusetts, Lowell

Published by: Center for Scholastic Inquiry, LLC 4857 Hwy 67, Suite #2 Granite Falls, MN 56241 855‐855‐8764

ISSN: 2330-6564 (online) ISSN: 2330-6556 (print)