The growth and development of leadership in the information technology (IT) industry have changed dramatically over the past few decades. With new technologies come new challenges for IT professionals and their leaders. The rapid growth of IT has created new expertise, opportunities, expectations, business plans, and methodologies for IT professionals to deliver products faster, better, and sometimes under unattainable goals and promises (Von Urff, 2009). Many theories, methodologies, and models exist that have developed around IT and organizational leadership with speculation on what makes a leader effective. This paper will analyze, compare, contrast, and examine research methodologies that exist in information technology (IT) leadership and information systems (IS) research. This exploration of IT leadership methodologies explains the origins of research methodologies along with the issues of sampling, validity, reliability, and bias within the methodologies. A section explaining method bias will discuss the systematic variability that can taint a study in favor of leaning toward certain results through the methods used to collect the information for the study. Bloom’s taxonomy will serve as the model explaining the six levels through the learning hierarchy in practical yet challenging methods (Nentl, 2006). Bloom’s taxonomy helps determine the category most needed in methodology competency to show researchers the category most used by extracting action verbs that describe each competency for each research methodology (Jui-Hung, 2005).
Origins of Research Methodologies
Organizations implement information systems to improve effectiveness and efficiency through their capabilities, systems, people, and methodologies (Hevner, 2004). Several methodologies exist within the realm of Information Systems and information technology.
Although qualitative research provides the foundation for scientific methods and studies for design science and grounded theory provide methodologies used to define research in the IS discipline, situational, transactional, and transformational are specific leadership methods leaders use to lead and manage organizations. Grounded theory and design science are two research methodologies used to study information systems research. Glaser and Strauss are the developers of the grounded theory methodology with their 1967 article: The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research (Glaser & Struass, 1967). Several researchers quote Glaser and Struass (1967) in their investigative articles about using grounded theory in information systems research practices. Many research articles and survey studies on the subject of the grounded theory base their research on the methodologies of Glaser and Struass.
Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard developed situational leadership in the 1960s. Hersey developed a situational leadership model involving three steps: identify the specific job or task, assess the current performance readiness, and match leader responses (Hersey, 2009). This model provides the foundation for learning how to become a more effective leader. The three steps in Hersey’s model feed into four leadership styles that flow together in the directive and supportive behaviors. These leadership styles are: High Task/Low Relationship characterized by telling subordinates duties they are to perform, High Task/High Relationship based on two-way communication to gain a lead in decisions made, High Relationship/Low Participating involving a leader and individual sharing decision making, Low Relationship/Low Task referred to as “delegating” through leaders delegating tasks to subordinates and allowing these subordinates to accomplish the tasks freely without intervention (Hersey, 2009). Blanchard agrees with Hersey whereas there is no single solution for managing and leading people, there are four leadership styles that provide guidance and direction: directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating (Blanchard, 2008). From these styles, leaders use a combination of directive and supportive behaviors to meet the level required to engage individuals to perform tasks on varying degrees of supervision. These models of leadership styles exist within leaders and are observations by Blanchard and Hersey in their experiences of leadership. Leaders do not view these models as a decision to make for how they decide to manage their team on a daily or weekly basis but rather they use these models as a reference and self-discovery to discover their leadership style falls into one of Blanchard’s or Hersey’s styles through situational leadership. If continued research in situational leadership and other leadership methodologies, new discoveries of hybrid or related methods are possible.
Task behavior, relationship behavior, follower (subordinate) maturity, and effective leader behavior serve as the basis for situational leadership (Johansen, 1990). Situational leadership is the model leadership method for behavior and training. This theory must be fully understood by leadership to achieve successful results with subordinates. Leaders who fail to practice properly this leadership method run the risk of wasting company assets, providing unreasonable expectations, and losing congruence over subordinates.
The following areas provide the basis for Situational leadership: the theory’s conceptual validity, the validity of the related instrument – the Leadership Effectiveness and Adaptability (LEAD) survey, and the effect on subordinates’ performance (Johansen, 1990). The validity of the instruments and conceptual basis of situational leadership does not have the adequate support it needs from research. When leaders practice situational leadership theory by testing the effect on subordinates’ performance the resultant data produces mixed results, which has limited support by research on the theory because finalized statements cannot base themselves on experimental data (Johansen, 1990). By testing effects on subordinates’ performance, leaders may look for a leadership style that will work well and produce significant results. The results of these tests determine the reliability of this leadership method. If proven effective, this leadership style proves successful for leadership under current circumstances with subordinates and leaders. Leadership that may be new to a task or team may not know how the team functions and may have to experiment with different situational leadership styles to determine the best fit for their team. Situational leadership theory’s redemption from the lack of support comes from the critical research generated through discussions about the various factors affecting IT leadership behaviors and the nature of subordinate to leader relationships. Situational leadership theory is a good place to start for studying and discussing the dynamics of leadership behavior, subordinate effects, effective leadership, and decision-making practices until questions on the theory’s validity and performance are answered.
Though situational leadership can be characterized by such valuable merit as practicality and prescriptive value (Northouse & Northouse, 2009), its validity and reliability can be questioned on the basis of the lack of a strong body of research devoted to it (Northouse & Northouse, 2009). Weak theoretical background, evidently, prove that practical application of the methodology can turn to be unreliable. There are two main issues of sampling concerning the analyzed methodology: the first is related to the underestimation of demographic characteristics’ influence on the leader-subordinate relationship prescribed by the methodology. The second issue of sampling that is worth mentioning is the absence of research on the issue of one-to-one and group leadership in a professional setting (Northouse & Northouse, 2009). Consequently, an additional theoretical basis is needed to eliminate negative issues of the analyzed leadership..
Transactional leaders develop an agreement that their subordinates will receive an equal contingent reward if they do something right or if they do something wrong (Bass & Avolio, 1993). Existing operations and procedures within an organization determine the leadership methods used. Transactional leadership explains unique criterion variance far beyond the contributions of transformational leadership (Vecchio, Justin & Pearce, 2008). Transactional leaders realize what actions must be taken to achieve certain outcomes by subordinates (Bass, 1985). Transactional leaders will clarify to their subordinates their expected outcomes so they are confident in making the appropriate efforts to achieve them. These types of leaders have expectations of their subordinates however they also recognize their needs and wants as well and will provide clarification regarding how they will handle them provided they meet their expectations (Bass, 1985). Although this leadership method works well, it does not come without weakness. The validity and reliability of this method is only as well as it works in practice by those who take this form of leadership into an organization. Managers must fully understand the transactional leadership theory and concepts. The consequences of not fully applying the transactional leadership theory can result in mismanagement of time, subpar appraisal methods, second-guessing the effectiveness of positive reinforcement, poor leader-subordinate relations, and lack of management experience with the theory.
Leadership mistakes come when leaders practice management by exception by associating poor performance to lack of ability and manipulating feedback so it is more in favor one way or the other how they want it to be. These mistakes alter the reliability of transactional leadership. Leaders must ensure they do not fall prey to giving improper evaluations to subordinates otherwise an employee doing an average job will receive praise and continue performing average work. Before long, subordinates begin to think they have done something well and lose concern for what peers think of their performance (Bass, 1985). Once subordinates’ performance drops even though their evaluations reflect otherwise, transactional leadership fails because leaders begin to lose their reputation for the team’s performance and lose their image of an effective leader.
Those leaders who properly fulfill the expectations will obtain a reputation for delivering and producing. Leaders may decide to stop transactional leadership practices if they discover non-contingent rewards work equally as well as contingent rewards for employee performance. If non-contingent awards do not affect employee performance, it is oftentimes the best decision to go with a leadership style that works well for the leader and proves effective for the organization.
The reliability of the analyzed methodology can be questioned as it has been stated above already, and the logical proof given earlier can be supported by empirical evidence. Schepers, Wetzels, & de Ryuter (2005) perform reliability analysis of transactional leadership to get the result of 0.65 while the threshold of acceptable reliability established by the researchers is 0.70. This is evidence of weak reliability and validity of transactional leadership; however, the researchers decide to consider it as sufficiently reliable due to the small difference compared to the cutoff value (Schepers et al., 2005). As for the bias of the methodology under consideration, Bass and Riggio (2006) have established on the basis of their Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire that transactional leaders are inclined to be biased when solving MLQ that shows the bias of the analyzed leadership method.
Charismatic and Transformational Leadership
The following paragraphs explain charismatic and transformational leadership methods and the close similarities between them. Transformational leaders are those who can persuade admirers to see their work from a new point of view, create an awareness of the organization’s vision, bring their followers to advanced levels of their abilities and potential, and encourage associates to envision completing goals and objectives beyond their personal interests (McLaurin, 2008). Empowerment, attention, creating visions, persuading others, and tailoring policies to fit personal ideas encourage transformational leaders. Charismatic leaders are self-confident, act as change agents, have a clear vision, and maintain a realistic view over environmental constraints (McLaurin, 2008). Charismatic leaders view themselves as role models, image and vision builders, and presenters of confidence that excites others. Although these two types of leadership methods have similarities; transformational leaders have a variety of primary qualities whereas charisma is the focus of charismatic leaders. Between the two methods, transformational leadership is the more aggressive type because of the de-emphasis on charisma and emphasis on others following and performing work under a personal vision. Charismatic leaders tend to be more self-centered, which can cause problems. What is more, charismatic leaders can be inclined to overestimate their leadership skills that show the presence of bias of the method, and lack of reliability. Still, taking into account, the abovementioned research by Schepers et al., it is possible to state that the validity of transformational analysis is sufficient though it is comparatively low.
Charismatic leaders have a vision of themselves as self-appointed leaders who have a following of those suffering and in need to follow someone gifted, qualified, or special in some way that obligates others to follow them (McLaurin, 2008). Charismatic leaders take actions to influence followers, these actions lead followers to believe they must abide by leadership. This gift of influencing others to develop a following is a powerful resource in leadership because of the effects a charismatic leader can have over a team or group. Some of the charismatic leaders and heroes in history seen as powerful revolutionists leading for the greater sake of humanity have been Mother Theresa and Profit Mohammad. Researchers define charismatic leaders differently in studies. Some researchers have determined that charisma indicates the leader can have a strong influence over how followers behave, believe, perform, and value through influence and vision (McLaurin, 2008). Other researchers have argued that charisma can influence others in a positive manner through connecting on a physical and emotional level without a hidden agenda. Charismatic leadership can be something a person is born with or has the natural instinct based on personality and emotional aspects that make someone a leader rather than a charismatic person with little influence or following. To understand this leadership method studies must examine the perceptions and reactions to charismatic effect on followers. The validity of these two leadership methods comes from the results of the level of influence and loyalty of followers developed over time.
Transformational leadership, although similar to charismatic leadership, not only includes charismatic tendencies but also integrates ideas of motivating followers to increase their performance and do better than previous expectations of empowerment, role models, social architects, and other characteristics. Transformational leaders can influence followers to perform more work than previously expected of them through motivation (Bass, 1985). This type of result can be accomplished by raising the level of self-consciousness by emphasizing the importance of task completion or motivating others to exceed their self-interests for the team’s sake.
Transformational leadership has been studied a lot from the point of view of different perspectives, a series of qualitative studies were included (Northouse & Northouse, 2009). This can be treated as proof of its reliability. As for the bias of the method, it can be considered comparatively unbiased as it assumes the basis of leadership as a bilateral process between leaders and followers incorporating the needs of both.
Qualitative research is a widely studied methodology that follows fundamental logic in general and scientific studies. The primary goal of a qualitative research study is to develop a methodological approach to explain and analyze management at an organizational or societal level (Delattre, Ocler & Moulette, 2009). Positivist, interpretive, and action research are all forms of two qualitative principles in the form of modus ponens and modus tollens (Lee & Hubona, 2009). Positivist research is a type of science with respect to a natural science that models itself after social sciences (Lee & Hubona, 2009). Positivism is a form of social science that respects and adopts the natural sciences as a model for social science. Variants in natural sciences like independent and dependent variables, math problems, quantitative data, and stats are associated with the natural sciences positivism supports. In interpretive research, researchers interpret the understanding of the subjects in their study from a humanistic point of view in a form of case research (Lee & Hubona, 2009). Interpretive research methods maintain the idea that natural science is “inadequate to the study of social reality” (Lee, p. 347 1991). Action and design research both contain similarities in the fact that neither are basic sciences and are research fields reliant on business, government, and private organizations obligated to provide real-world situational research. Nontraditional methodologies derived from consumer research serve as the foundation of action research (Ozanne & Saatcioglu, 2008). Information Systems researchers conduct IS studies through a scientific basis, the fallacy of affirming the consequent and summative validity (Lee & Hubona, 2009). Qualitative research is as valid and reliable as quantitative research for the academic construct of IS by consideration of researchers (Markus, 1997). The primary beliefs of the data logic path and scientific research work equal in both qualitative and quantitative research.
Modus ponens is a form of deductive reasoning that is used in both forward and backward inference in which the premise provides the conclusion (Asogawa, 2000). Modus tollens is a form of deductive reasoning in which falseness drives the premise and conclusion is (Asogawa, 2000). The two are similar to transformational and charismatic leadership in which they share a similar foundation but become separated in the way they arrive at a conclusion. Modus ponens and modus tollens are logical deductive formations of syllogistic reasoning (Lee & Hubona, 2009). Syllogistic reasoning involves instances in which statements have a major and minor premise and a conclusion. An example of syllogistic reasoning is: “All learners pay tuition each quarter” “tuition costs are $2500 per quarter” “therefore all learners pay $2500 per quarter.” This reasoning follows the basic premise however does not conform to special cases such as students who receive a military discount. This deductive reasoning is used in logic and philosophical course textbooks. This deductive reasoning offers a framework that can identify ramifications of formal logic used for scientific studies. The name of this framework is the MPMT framework in reference to using modus ponens and modus tollens in a specific way (Lee & Hubona, 2009). The MPMT framework provides rigor in interpretive and positivist research methods and also provides a focus on action research. Research methodologies and theories can be diverse and fall into various categories (Gregor, 2006). Not every theory is compatible with the MPMT framework, however; researchers can choose to shape their theory to fit the framework if so desired.
Garca & Quek (1997) present a detailed study of the relationship between information systems and qualitative research as the methodology applied. The state that the issue of bias of the analyzed methodology is possible and should not be ignored. Still, just as in quantitative research that is valid if a valid instrument that measures what is really measured is applied, qualitative research appears to be valid if it truly examines the topic that it claims to be valid (Garcia & Quek, 1997). In this case, the validity of both methodologies can be considered equal. As for the sampling in the application of qualitative research, three commonly recognized sampling methods (Grove, 2005) are applicable to IS research: purposive sampling, snowball sampling, and theoretical sampling as well.
Grounded theory is popular in the community of IS research. Glaser and Strauss first researched and developed this theory in the late 1960s. Both researchers have their own version of grounded theory. The following paragraphs explain the differences in grounded theory between Glaser and Strauss.
Glaser’s method uses systematic procedures to create inductive theories about a substantive area (Van Niekerk, 2009). Both researchers define grounded theory as a “qualitative analysis research method that uses a systematic set of procedures to develop an inductive theory about some substantive area” (Van Niekerk, p. 98 2009). The theory comes from data that is “grounded” in the data and is not bound to a specific discipline though it is adapted in the study of IS. In a simplified way of explaining the differences between Glaser and Strauss’ methods of grounded theory Glaser’s theory focuses on the data and begs the question “what do we have here?” whereas Strauss stops at every word and asks “what if?” (Stern, 1994). These different approaches to research questions mean the difference between studying a predetermined data set and creating a new data set to uncover new areas in need of research. The purpose of Glaser’s method is to develop conceptual and relational data to determine a variance in the behaviors in the area of concern (Van Niekerk, 2009). Strauss’ method centers on the full area of behavior instead of the variants. Glaser describes qualitative analysis as “any kind of analysis that produces findings or concepts and hypotheses, as in grounded theory” (Van Niekerk, p. 98 2009). This description can be done with data from either qualitative or quantitative research and does not qualify as qualitative research itself. Strauss defines qualitative research as any research that arrives at a conclusion through means other than statistical or quantified methods and analysis.
Both Glaser and Strauss have a different approach when developing research questions. Glaser begins research development by investigating the subject area to be addressed. As researchers gather enough information the problem will develop and they can create the research questions and begin. This does not agree with how standard research is done and presents the researcher with difficulty in justifying funding for the research because it is not as reliable a form of research as the Streussian method. The advantage of taking this approach is that researchers can discover problems not yet considered but may affect future research. Strauss begins research with the question about the problem area containing a statement about it. The question guides the research as it develops and solves the problem. The disadvantage of this approach is the risk that the researcher may miss the full scope of the main problem through a preconceived research question. The validity and reliability of the Strauss approach are greater than the Glaser approach because it follows more traditional research and has a better chance of gaining approval for funding. Although both researchers have slight differences in opinion about what they consider grounded theory, they both agree about its qualitative origins.
Thus, the reliability and validity of grounded theory have appeared to be the subjects of controversy. Still, Parry has managed to validate the reliability of grounded theories of leadership on the basis of “questionnaire data and structural equation modeling” (Goethas, Sorenson, & Burns, 2004). Besides, the psychometric hierarchy of abstractions was created (Goethas, Sorenson, & Burns, 2004), it also proves the validity of grounded theory analysis. In order to improve the level of validity and reliability of grounded theories, it is possible to resort to the use of sophisticated innovative software. As for the sampling issues in grounded theory, it is necessary to state that if the researchers manage to cope with and apply all sampling methods (convenience sampling, purposeful sampling, theoretical sampling, and theoretical group interviews) in accordance with the developing research depending on the needs of the research, the application of grounded theory as a research methodology will be successful.
Behavioral science and design science are the two methodologies that define research in the IS discipline. Behavioral science focuses on human and organizational behavior with origins in natural science research although design science focuses on the creation of new and innovative artifacts (Hevner, 2004). Design science has roots in engineering and artificial sciences that seek to develop innovations that establish technical ideas, practices, capabilities, and products so the analysis, design, and implementation of information systems can provide value-added efficiency to an organization (Hevner, 2004). The building and application of a design are achieved through the knowledge of a problem in the design science domain (Hevner, 2004). Design science consists of a series of six steps. These six steps are the inspiration and identification of the problem, defining the desired resolution objectives, development and design, demonstration, communication, and evaluation (Peffers, 2007).
The origins of design science include the proposal of a multi-methodological process that integrated system development into research, which included “theory building, systems development, experimentation, and observations” (Nunamaker, p. 89 1990). Design science developers founded their theories on the building and testing foundations of social science with IS practitioners in mind with plans to better address IS-related issues. With the establishment of the concept of design science, an expected adoption of design science within the realm of IS exists throughout the IS community, which leads to closer relations between design science research and practical application (Walls, 2004).
The relevance and validity of design science in IS research are arguably related to the applicability in design and that empirical IS research should synthesize current research and promote critical thinking among IS researchers (Hevner, 2004). Design science is a useful tool for IT leadership because of the new ideas and application areas introduced to IT support teams as technical knowledge grow in an organization. Design science can introduce IT artifacts that extend the boundaries of problem-solving, analytical, and organizational capabilities through intellectual and computational tools to improve the efficiency of the IT workforce. Unlike social, behavioral, and natural sciences design science tries to develop solutions for people involved in design science (Simon, 1969). IT leaders can better use their workforce through the gained knowledge provided by the information in IS journals.
In order to prove the level of validity of the research, it is necessary to take into account that the factors that are decisive in for framing of IS research are the environment and the knowledge base (Ingelheim, 2009). The same author states that design science applies innovative ways aimed at problem-solving (Ingelheim, 2009). Still, innovative methods are always based on a solid background of the existing knowledge base that is able to provide the necessary instruments to undertake IS research process. Thus, the application of the knowledge base accounts for the reliability of the analyzed methodology. Still, if behavioral science is applied together with design science for the performance of IS research, the reliability of the results can be enhanced (Ingelheim, 2009). The technical background of design science accounts for the reduction of bias in terms of consideration of design science as a methodology for IS research.
Design science plays a role in organizational development and organizational change that relate to how for development of formal organizations (Van Aken, 2007). Organizational leaders can use design science perspectives and strengths of organizational development in human behavior to design business models and propose business models.
Method bias and Method Effects
Although many research methodologies provide researchers with strategies, researchers must be careful to avoid introducing bias into their research. Method bias is “the systematic variability that can be introduced into the data that is gathered in a study by the method that is used to gather the data” (King, Liu, Haney, & Jun, p. 458, 2007). In other words, systematic bias is like a speedometer that always reads a few miles per hour over or under the speed of a car because the calibration is off. This constant error is different from a random error in which the inconsistency occurs at various times. Although researchers are aware of the influence research methods have on construct measures, there are no guidelines or correct responses to eliminate it (Burton-Jones, 2009). Common method bias and self-report bias are methods that can help minimize the effects of method bias (Burton-Jones, 2009). Accepting poor theories and rejecting valid ones are risks researchers run by ignoring or avoiding method bias.
King and Haney developed an assessment of information systems (IS) research to discover the means that create issues for the integrity of the validity and credibility of research through method effects (King, Liu, Haney, & Jun, 2007). Method effects are issues taught to doctoral learners in IS (King, Liu, Haney, & Jun, 2007). Method effects can generate biased results in a survey-based study by increasing or decreasing the constructs. These biased results can change the construct of the study depending on how single-sided the arguments are.
The assessment involved discovering potential method bias in IS research, discovering how prevalent method bias is in IS research, the techniques used to reduce the impact of bias, what can be done to promote awareness to IS researchers, and journal article reviewers to reduce method bias (King, Liu, Haney, & Jun, 2007).
The study included methods to minimize the extent of the effects of method bias along with explanations of the introduction of method bias effects. The study included statistics to determine the significance of the effects introduced to the data. The research study encompassed studies in the top three ranked IS journals over a six-year period. The assessment discovered what would introduce bias and what effects those bias would have on a research study and what could be done to minimize the effects. A “concerted campaign, conducted through the review and editing process of IS journals” was used in the assessment to provide awareness of method bias in the journals (King, Liu, Haney, & Jun, 2007). The results of the assessment revealed that method bias is not taken into much consideration even though a serious threat of method bias exists in many of the journals studied. These results came from a study of 128 survey-based studies in three of the top IS journals between 1999 and 2005 (King, Liu, Haney, & Jun, 2007).
Researchers must compare, contrast, and analyze IT leadership methodologies under their own cognizance. Some of the methodologies complement each other when broken analyzed for similarities, variance, and reliability of the desired results. Situational leadership, transactional leadership, charismatic leadership, transformational leadership, qualitative research, grounded theory, design science, and method bias are the research methodologies selected for this paper. Each of these assists researchers and leaders in IT and IS disciplines by providing options for different leadership methods for those who may need direction whereas others naturally practice these methods in their individual sense of style and leadership.
Situational, transactional, charismatic, and transformational leadership methods have the closest relation to each other in comparison to the other research methods. Three main areas of validity and leadership effectiveness through testing subordinate’s performances by leadership through different leadership styles provide the foundation for situational leadership. High Task/Low Relationship, High Task/High Relationship, High Relationship/Low Participating, and Low Relationship/Low Task are the four leadership styles Hersey (2009) researched that can serve as a combination of directive and supportive behaviors for leaders to follow. Transactional leaders clarify perspectives to their followers and have expectations of them and recognize their needs and wants. This clarification ensures the followers are fully aware of their expectations, which eliminates confusion. The relationship between charismatic and Transformational leadership involves leadership style characteristics of persuasion and a following of subordinates through charisma.
Qualitative research is a methodology that follows more with fundamental logic and scientific study in general. Positivist, interpretive, and action research are forms of qualitative research principles. These principles contain variants in natural sciences, social sciences, and humanistic points of view. Three areas of validity and leadership effectiveness provide the principles that relate them to situational leadership.
The Glaserian and Straussin methods of grounded theory are both qualitative research methods. Each of the researchers has its own approach to developing research questions. Glaser begins development by investigating the subject area and does not enter preconceived research to uncover the full area of research. Strauss begins research with the questions centering on the problem, which may exclude some of the areas of study however it is a better way to justify funding for research.
Design science is a research methodology based on theories of building and testing foundations of social science designed with IS practitioners in mind to address issues related to IS. The goal was to build closer relations between research and application (Walls, 2004). Unlike qualitative research in which the principles contain variants of natural and social sciences, design science caters to the development of results to serve humans (Simon, 1969). In comparison, design science is not a qualitative method but is closer to situational, transactional, charismatic, and transformational leadership methods with human relations.
Method bias and method effects are not specifically qualitative or quantitative research methods but rather variables and occurrences that appear in research that affect the study. The assessment performed in the Kin, Haney, and Jun (2007) study of the top IS journals in the nation revealed that method bias is not taken too seriously even with a serious threat of method bias introduction in research studies. Further research with more valid results may affect the reliability of the results.
Concluding the analysis of the research methodologies that are applied in information technology leadership and information systems research, it is possible to state that the existing variety of the methodologies ensure the successful progress of the research. All analyzed methodologies have certain limitations tackled in this paper; however, all of them can be applied at the discretion of the researcher. In terms of leadership, transformational leadership has proved to be the most reliable and effective; while all IS research methodologies are sufficiently reliable.
Asogawa, M. (2000). A connectionist production system which can perform both modus ponens and modus tollens simultaneously. Expert Systems, 17(1), 3.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership: Good, Better, Best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26-40.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112-121.
Bass, B.M., & Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformational Leadership. Mahwan, NJ: Routledge.
Blanchard, K. (2008). Situational Leadership. Leadership Excellence, 25(5), 19.
Burton-Jones, A. (2009). Minimizing Method Bias Through Programmatic Research. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), 445-A7.
Delattre, M., Ocler, R., Moulette, P., & Rymeyko, K. (2009). Singularity Of Qualitative Research: From Collecting Information To Producing Results. TAMARA: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science, 7(3/4), 33-50.
Garcia, L., & Quek, F. (1997). Qualitative Research in Information Systems: Time to Be Subjective? Information Systems and Qualitative Research. Ed. Lee., A.S., Liebenau, J., & DeGross, J.I. GB: Springer.
Glaser, B.G. & Struass, A.L. (1967). The discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Glaser, B. (2009). Theoretical writing. Grounded Theory Review, 8(3), 1-17.
Goede R., Villiers, C. (2003). The applicability of grounded theory as research methodology in studies on the use of methodologies in IS practices. South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists.
Goethas, G.R., Sorenson, G., & Burns, J.G. (2004). Encyclopedia of Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.
Grove, S.K. (2005). The Practice of Nursing Research: Conduct, Critique, and Utilization. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Health Sciences.
Hevner, A., March, S., Jinsoo, P., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105.
Hersey, P. (2009). Situational Leaders. Leadership Excellence, 26(2), 12.
Ingelheim, M.G. (2009). The Design Process in Information System Research: Tasks and Challeges of a Science Discipline. Germany: GRIN Verlag.
Johansen, B. (1990). Situational leadership: A Review of the research. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1(1), 73-85.
Jui-Hung, V., & Chien-Pen, C. (2005). The comparative study of information competencies-using Bloom’s taxonomy. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 7(1), 136-143.
King, W., Liu, C., Haney, M., & Jun, H. (2007). Method effects in is survey research: An assessment and recommendations. Communications of AIS, 2007(20), 457-482.
Lee, A. (1991). Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research. Organization Science, 2(4), 342-365.
Lee, A., & Hubona, G. (2009). A scientific basis for rigor in information systems research. MIS Quarterly & The Society for Information Management. (pp. 237-262). MIS Quarterly & The Society for Information Management.
Markus, M. L. 1997. “The Qualitative Difference in Information Systems Research and Practice,” in Information Systems and Qualitative Research: Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG 8.2 Meeting in Philadelphia, A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), London: Chapman & Hall, Ltd., pp. 11-27.
McLaurin, J., Bushanain, M., Amri, A. (2008). Developing an understanding of charismatic and transformational leadership. Allied Academies International Conference: Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications & Conflict (AOCCC),13(2), 15-19.
Nentl, N., & Zietlow, R. (2006). Marketing educators should use secondary research methods to teach critical thinking (reasoning) skills as outlined in Bloom’s taxonomy. Proceedings of the Marketing Management Association, 49-50.
Northouse , P. G., & Northouse, P. G. (2009). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Nunamaker, J. F.; Chen, M.; and Purdin, T. D. M. Systems development in information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(3), 89–106.
Ozanne, J., & Saatcioglu, B. (2008). Participatory Action Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 423-439.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45-77.
Schepers, J., Wetzels, M., & de Ryuter, K. (2005). Leadership Styles in Technology Acceptance: Do Followers Practice What Leaders Preach? Service Innovation Management, 15(6), 496-509.
Simon, H. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stern, P.N. (1994). Eroding grounded theory: In Grounded Theory: 1984 – 1994. Glaser. Ed. Sociology Press, California.
Van Aken, J. (2007). Design Science and Organization Development Interventions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(1), 67-88. doi:10.1177/0021886306297761.
Van Niekerk, Johanna C., & Roode, J.D (2009). Glaserian and Straussian Grounded Theory: Similar or Completely Different? ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 96-103 978-1-60558-643-4
Vecchio, R., Justin, J., & Pearce, C. (2008). The utility of transactional and transformational leadership for predicting performance and satisfaction within a path-goal theory framework. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 81(1), 71-82.
Von Urff Kaufeld, N., Chari, V., & Freeme, D. (2009). Critical Success Factors for Effective IT Leadership. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 12(1), 119-128.
Walls, J.; Widmeyer, G.; and El Sawy, O. Assessing information system design theory in perspective: How useful was our 1992 initial rendition? Journal of Information Technology Theory & Application, 6, 2 (2004), 43–58.