When collecting quantitative or qualitative data it is necessary to employ instruments that are both reliable and valid (Creswell, 2011, p.159). The Leadership Behavior, Path-Goal Leadership, and LMX 7 Questionnaires have demonstrated these characteristics through the collection of “stable and consistent scores”, which align to their intended research interpretations (Creswell, 2011, p.159). Each of these questionnaires correlates to a unique theoretical framework, therefore, the resulting data sets offer alternative leadership perspectives. Through a comparative analysis this paper will examine the theories that inform these instruments, while also highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. In addition, a discussion of potential research
…show more content…
71). In this context, task behaviors support individuals in meeting objectives, while relationship behaviors encourage individuals’ comfort level (Northouse, 2016, p. 72). This theory has not established a “universal leadership style”, therefore, the purpose of this tool in not to “tell leaders how to behave, but to describe major components of their behavior” (Northouse, 2016, p.78). The strengths of this questionnaire rely heavily on its structure. For instance, data can be easily be collected from both leaders and followers because of its overall length, and the use of the Likert Scale. Also, within the twenty behavior statements the task and relationship indicators are intermixed, therefore, making it more challenging to provide inaccurate data (Northouse, 2016, p.88). The theoretical framework prompts an additional strength for this …show more content…
Northouse (2016), indicated within this theoretical framework four distinctive types of leadership behaviors exist, including “directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented” (p.117).The most important feature of this framework is that it forces leaders to consider what will best motivate their followers to complete the task at hand (Northouse, 2016, p.123). Similar to the previous questionnaire, the use of a Likert Scale and intermixed indicators prompts strengths for this tool. Strengths are also demonstrated in the way this instruments informs users about which leadership styles they use most frequently, therefore, allowing them to adjust their strategies as necessary (Northouse, 2016, p.134). Unfortunately, this process also presents certain weakness because it requires a certain degree of self-awareness. The Path-Goal Leadership Questionnaire also presents weakness because current research inconsistently supports the validity of this theory, specifically in regards to the relationship predictions of leader strategy and follower outcomes (Northouse, 2016,
71). In this context, task behaviors support individuals in meeting objectives, while relationship behaviors encourage individuals’ comfort level (Northouse, 2016, p. 72). This theory has not established a “universal leadership style”, therefore, the purpose of this tool in not to “tell leaders how to behave, but to describe major components of their behavior” (Northouse, 2016, p.78). The strengths of this questionnaire rely heavily on its structure. For instance, data can be easily be collected from both leaders and followers because of its overall length, and the use of the Likert Scale. Also, within the twenty behavior statements the task and relationship indicators are intermixed, therefore, making it more challenging to provide inaccurate data (Northouse, 2016, p.88). The theoretical framework prompts an additional strength for this …show more content…
Northouse (2016), indicated within this theoretical framework four distinctive types of leadership behaviors exist, including “directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented” (p.117).The most important feature of this framework is that it forces leaders to consider what will best motivate their followers to complete the task at hand (Northouse, 2016, p.123). Similar to the previous questionnaire, the use of a Likert Scale and intermixed indicators prompts strengths for this tool. Strengths are also demonstrated in the way this instruments informs users about which leadership styles they use most frequently, therefore, allowing them to adjust their strategies as necessary (Northouse, 2016, p.134). Unfortunately, this process also presents certain weakness because it requires a certain degree of self-awareness. The Path-Goal Leadership Questionnaire also presents weakness because current research inconsistently supports the validity of this theory, specifically in regards to the relationship predictions of leader strategy and follower outcomes (Northouse, 2016,