Michelas Research in Employee Reactions Critique - Essay Example

? The current paper seeks to critique Michela’s (2007) research on employee reactions to the way their supervisors exhibit influence behaviors. In sodoing, this paper touches on the many aspects of Michela’s (2007) research and tackling them by part to give an in-depth assessment of the way the processes of the study have been taken up. These parts are divided into the following: (1) general identification of issue/s addressed, (2) content present in the literature review, (3) the issue’s context, (4) questions and ideas that have jumped started the research, (5) an exploration of the way the research methodology has been conducted, (6) how the data obtained was analysed, and finally (7) how all the data collected have been communicated in writing. All about the Research’s Issue The main issue that has been specified in the study is determining the mechanics that work between supervisors’ and/or managers’ influence behaviours to that of the employees that work under them. Given that there are many factors that could be taken in this setup in matters of employee reaction, the research has made it a point to cover the different possibilities that may be drawn as results toward the conclusion of the study. In this aspect, the current paper assesses that the researcher Michela (2007) has laid out the naming of the issue substantially. He started with the general idea to which he gave out what the study is mainly concerned with. Then he initially laid out possibilities (as per the different employee reactions and what affects them) which showed a clear path for research and what course it follows. This is considered a good introduction by this current paper since the researcher gives it in concise form yet filled with the necessary details. Furthermore, Michela (2007) transitions in identifying why the current issue is tackled in the first place. This leads him to discuss both the source and the significance of the issue. In this part of the discussion, the researcher enumerates, and then elaborates on factors that have something to do with his research topic. Firstly, he touches on how influencing behaviours are categorised. Given the nature of his research, he angles this part towards the leader-over-follower influence mechanism. The influence factor is explored in the situational case by taking one example; how does a supervisor or a manager appeal to a subordinate if he/she wants that employee to accomplish something or not. In turn, the term tactics is discussed to elaborate in what ways the workplace higher ups could influence those working under their supervision. Around this part, examples are cited by the researcher in order to give a clearer picture on influential schemes. Secondly, the aspect of generating consequences—which still had to do with tactics—is also discussed. However, this area differs in a way that it pinpoints how the influence of a higher ranking official in the company affects aspects like employee stisfaction and their commitment to their jobs (Michela, 2007, 324). The way that these factors affects employee reactions depend on how the managers or supervisors makes use of their influence over their subordinates. Thirdly, the researcher then discusses what consequences could be solicited from the way employees respond to the influential attempts of the higher ups’. In so doing, Michela (2007) yet again gave examples to illustrate what he means in this particular section. These examples are then explained thoroughly and elaborately. Lastly, how to assess the meaning in influential behaviours are also discussed by the researcher. Similar to how he discussed the other aspects in influential behaviour mechanism, this portion was also substantiated by examples, elaborations, and proper citing of previous works that delved on the topic or those that had similar context. By discussing all these data, the topic was more contextualised and put in perspective. In this part of introducing the issue, the current paper generally views the laying out of information as mostly favorable. The first reason why the rating was favorable was due to Michela’s (2007) efficiency in conveying the introduction. It is concise which helps the reader not to easily tire in absorbing the information. Michela also states his paragraphs direct to the point, which absolves the reader of rather useless information. The directness makes the text easy to understand, and at the same time, less confusing. Simplicity also contributed to this part’s compressed format. Lastly, the positive aspect that the introduction of the issue possesses is the effort of the researcher to give examples and provide extensive data on his explanation. However, although the review for this portion is mostly favorable, the current paper can also pinpoint some lapses that the issue portion faces. The most problematic that this paper has perceived is the organisation of ideas. Although it uses a simple structure and conveys information in an easy way to understand, some ideas are scattered. At times, there is a tendency where the researcher explains one concept and then jumps to another idea without a clear transition. In this case, even when the two explanations are understandable individually, the reader may still fail to associate the two since both have not been properly distinguished. Nevertheless, the current paper still lean on Michela’s an efficient way of presenting information. Scope of the Literature Review/ Research questions/ Variables of interest While the first part is brief and concise, another thing that is noticeable in Michela’s (2007) research paper is the absence of particular sections dedicated solely to introducing the questions of the research and/or hypotheses. There is also no section allotted for the study’s literature review. The portion for the variables of interest has been enumerated in line with the discussion of the research’s issue. One may ask where the review of literature review would go if it is not allotted with its own portion. In this case, Michela (2007) was able to incorporate all related research while enumerating the different aspects of influential behaviour. While discussing each aspect, he also provided his information with studies in the same field—to which he substantiated each elaborately. This way, while he was introducing the issue, its context, and other purposes, he was also bringing into the discussion other studies which served as his literature review. On the other hand, stating the research question can also be drawn from the same introduction of the issue. The only visible written aspect, in this part, is his of the influential aspects of behaviour with that of managers/supervisors and behavioural components of the subordinates. Firstly, it is important to note that the current paper found it effective for the portion of introduction to be concise. However, if the aspect of literature review is brought into perspective, it is the opinion of this paper that there must be a section that must be solely dedicated to it. The main reason for this is to give a better grasp of other studies. Having this better perspective will enable the reader to understand what has been done in other research and then compare it later on when the study at hand (Michela’s study) reaches a conclusion. This better understanding makes it the second point of the current paper on why there must be a sole section for the literature review. With a standalone section, the reader will not be confused in interpreting known and unknown in data. More so, data that have been retrieved from previous research will not be mistaken as the current research’s information. This is very important to be distinguished since it will preserve the soundness of the current research. Meanwhile, in the aspect of hypotheses and research question, it is considerable that the researcher has laid it out all while stating the nature of the issue. Still, it is preferred by this current paper that things such as this be enumerated—or particularly be laid out in a list. That way, it can be a clear basis in the research conclusion to determine which questions have been given a resolution and which have been left unanswered. If this is clear to any reader, then there is a chance for the questions left unanswered to be addressed in future research goals. Mentioning the variables of interest in an organised manner slightly makes up for the other lapses since it does what the other supposed-to-be sections failed to do—explain its part in a separate section and distinguished itself from the rest. The Research Methodology The methodology portion of the research was a large and detailed section. Firstly, Michela (2007) gave an overview of the research design to which involved stating the number of samples (employees) used as participants. Given that there were two samples mentioned, the researcher then classifies and describes each sample and labels them: the first (180 employees) sample were duly labeled as the employee sample, and the second (360 individuals) sample was coined as the community sample. This description of the research design is considered to be a good construction since it is complete and straightforward. In a short paragraph, it is able to deliver everything that needs to be known regarding the research design (Michela, 2007, 326). Then, the researcher moves on to discuss both samples—each in more abundant detail. Firstly, he tackles employee sample. In this portion, it is discovered that 220 employees were actually asked to complete questionnaires, but only the 180 accomplished those and were; therefore, the only ones considered as respondents. These considered respondents were then described by the researcher by breaking down sex and nature of employment. It is also broken down as to what variables did the questionnaires deemed to shed light on and how did the research go in measuring these variables. The mode of measurement were very detailed--i.e., “instructions and survey questions used to measure influence tactics for this study filled page 7 with an eight-page questionnaire”, “instructions were to ‘rate (by circling the number on the scale)’ etc. (Michela, 2007, 326). The details presented in this part are very helpful and gives a vivid description of how the study was conducted. Through this, there is transparency in the collection of data. In turn, transparency in data collection means that more credibility is bestowed upon the study. This is so because the steps taken in data gathering are well documented and at the same time, there is less opportunity for data results to be altered or fabricated. He then discusses the community sample, similar to how the other sample was discussed, and provide as vivid details. The prominent factor in both discussions aside from the step by step walk-through in data collection is bringing up the variables in the study. Namely, these outcome variables were identified as (1) affective commitment toward the organisation (ACO), (2) emotional distress (ED), and (3) turnover intention (TOI). In order to control extraneous variables, the researcher concentrated on the aforementioned variables by devoting questionnaires and the materials towards what data he really wanted to gather. Specificity was also a major factor in this research’s control of extraneous variables since having to focus in the aspects at hand--i.e., directing questions that focus on the influence of supervisors—lessened the chances of the research deviating from its study path (Michela, 2007, 327). In matters of external and internal validity, the research paper could be commended as one that duly satisfies and addresses both of those aspects. As per external validity, the research succeeds by bringing in the community sample as a generalisation of what the results of the study might gather in the end. It is also an additional asset that the community sample exceeds in number than those of the employee sample—to which the study is directed at uncovering. As per the internal validity of the study, it can be drawn that it was good of the researcher to bring up initial and casual conclusions. This is so because all sides have been explored by Michela (2007) even as early as in the introduction of the issue. By examining as many sides, internal validity becomes sound. In matters of obtaining the sample, the research was extensive in providing the details. Again, this works well for the research since transparency in methodology establishes credibility of the paper. On the other hand, in matters of measurement instruments and its reliability and validity, it can be said that the research paper has provided well enough for the data to stand on its own. For one, questionnaire items were laid out in detail. Aside from that, these questionnaire items were also duly labeled to properly account for the different aspects. An example of this would be labeling the different items as follows: (1) “I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for my job supervisor” falls under the Affective Commitment Toward Supervisor (ACS) category, (2) “I find that my values and the organization’s values are very similar” falls under the Affective Commitment Toward Organization (ACO) category, (3) “I will probably look for a new job in the next year” is under Turnover Intention (TOI), and (4) “I have feelings of being depressed or sad” falls under the Emotional Distress (ED) category. Those are only some of the items provided. In the aspect of where the measurement of error comes from, the study duly provides figures on alpha reliability to which the measurement and its soundness can be assessed. More to that, there is also a table provided that predicts multiple regression of outcomes from employee ratings—depending on which influence tactics are mentioned (Michela, 2007, 330). Lastly, if the matter of ethical considerations will be touched upon, the current paper draws out that there are no issues that can be pinpointed. In so far as this paper has reviewed Michela’s (2007) study, the research paper is ethically sound. Data Analysis and Communication of Findings In going through Michela’s (2007) data analysis, the current paper assesses that the researcher uses a systematic approach. This is one of the many good qualities of the paper since giving a step by step explanation enables a reader to analyse along with Michela (2007) what has been undertaken in the study. In the area of data presentation, the research was also effective in that it provided ample data in tables to support the text. The text, on the other hand, was kept as concise and direct-to-the-point as possible. This combination made it easier to transition into the interpretation of results. This section was easy to understand given its preceding sections—making the flow of the resulting data smooth. Lastly, Michela wraps the study with a consistent smooth flow since he lay out and communicates the findings effectively yet again. The discussion of findings was still in properly labeled sections which made it organised. The discussion of limitations was straightforward and honest which put into context other factors of the study. Lastly, offering implications for management and directions for future research were also helpful to jumpstart future explorations in the field. Overall, although the current paper has detected lapses in Michela’s (2007) paper, the general assessment is that the research has been properly conducted, and at the same time the conveyance of data has been effective in its voice. Reference Michela, J. L. (2007). Understanding employees’ reactions to supervisors’ influence behaviors: A community sample predicting employee commitment, turnover, and stress. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 15(4), 322-340. Read More