the research objective of the repertory grid study and perceived cognitive overload (if applicable).
Pilot Interview 1 Method
Element Selection
The elements represented individual followers that, at the time of the interview, the participants had responsibility for managing or leading. Specifically, these elements were identified through the researcher asking participants to consider the individuals they were responsible for leading and managing, and then asking participants to identify any six to eight individuals.
Construct Elicitation
The psychological constructs were elicited through the triadic difference method; as the differences between the elements did not have to be bi-polar, a difference method of construct comparison was employed (Kelly, 1955). Specifically, participants were asked to write down one way in which time affects how they manage/lead two of their followers (elements) and one way in which time affects how they manage/lead a third follower that is different from the first example.
Observation
A few main problems linked to this methodology were identified. The first stemmed from the interview question guiding the development of the constructs (i.e., ‘understand how time affects the way in which you manage and lead your staff’). Firstly, the question is general in that time is the only term to guide participants to construe psychological constructs that depict time-related behaviours. However, as demonstrated by the literature review, time is a complex and multi- dimensional construct. The question employed in pilot interview 1 therefore relies on the participant’s understanding of the term time, which may not relate to their actual temporal behaviours. While the basic premise underlying the repertory grid interview is to identify the individual’s own psychological construct system, a general question as employed here limits the type of information that can be collected about time. Therefore, on reflection of this interview,
it was decided to explore ways in which an individual’s own psychological construct system could be examined while drawing on the knowledge yielded from the literature review to provide behavioural contexts to which the variable of time can occur in.
Pilot 2 Method
Element Selection
The elements again represented individual followers that, at the time of the interview, participants had responsibility for managing or leading. As in pilot interview 1, these elements were
identified by the researcher asking participants to consider the individuals they were responsible for leading and managing, and then asking participants to identify any six to eight individuals.
Construct Elicitation
Interview 2 was designed to explore the relevance of time as a construct to leadership behaviours underpinned by the Full Range Leadership Theory (FRLT). The psychological constructs were elicited through the triadic difference method. Specifically, participants were asked to read a vignette that represented one of the four transformational leadership measures, one of the three transactional leadership measures or the laissez-faire dimension of the FRLT (refer to Appendix 4). Participants were then asked to write down one way in which their behaviour accorded with a specific FRLT dimension (randomly selected using a random generator) involving a situation with two of their followers (elements), and one way they behave in accordance with the
aforementioned FRLT dimension in a different situation involving the final follower (element) in the presented triad. This step was repeated with the next set of three elements, and so on, until the constructs were exhausted. Repetition of elicited constructs was an indicator of this, and
following exhaustion of constructs a different leadership dimension from the FRLT was randomly selected to facilitate the elicitation of a new psychological construct.
131
Observation
Firstly, a prominent issue highlighted during this research interview related to the utilisation of a triadic difference method. This actually presented notable difficulties for the participant in terms of ease of identifying psychological constructs. In many places during the interview, the
participant reverted back to their own comparison which followed a dyadic methodology, or, in some, no comparison system was followed. These observations were deemed to be attributable to cognitive overload.
It was also clear that a list of up to seven followers may not be representative of the leader’s followers (especially if they have many leadership roles). To address this concern, which is in line with Björklund’s (2005) line of argument that elements should be representative, the remaining interviews firstly invited participants to consider whether they see themselves as having one or more than one leadership role (cue questions were employed to identify the number of roles and what they were). Participants were then asked to consider their different leadership roles and list five to eight followers who cover the identified leadership roles. Names of individual followers were first encouraged (especially in construct elicitation stage) but the participant was also advised to list a team if it facilitated their recall.
Pilot 3
Element Selection
The elements represented individual followers that, at the time of the interview, the participant had responsibility for managing or leading. Specifically, these elements were identified by the researcher firstly asking participants to consider whether they see themselves as having one or more than one leadership role (cue questions were employed to identify the number of roles and what they were). Participants were then asked to consider their different leadership roles and list five to eight followers or groups of followers (i.e., a group counting as one element) that cover the identified leadership roles. It was encouraged that elements represented both individual followers and groups of followers.
Construct Elicitation
A dyadic difference construct elicitation process was employed. The construct elicitation process was the same as in pilot interview 2, but elements were presented in dyads rather than triads. Participants were asked to write down one way in which their behaviour accords with leadership aspect X, involving a situation with one of the presented followers (elements), and one way they behave in accordance with leadership aspect X in a different situation involving the second follower (element).
Observation
The dyadic comparison method appeared to be more suitable for construct elicitation than the triadic in that comparing and contrasting two elements was observed to cause fewer difficulties than when three elements were presented (as in pilot interview 2). Throughout the interview, however, the participant was unable to make comparisons between the two elements; this may be attributable to the fact that the leader did not behave in accordance with one of the FRLT’s dimensions. However, it is also plausible than pre-selecting elements may inhibit this comparison process. Consequently, to address this issue and to further integrate the CIT into the repertory grid methodology, the participant was asked to draw on two elements from the sample of five to eight originally identified, in order to exemplify when they behaved in accordance with a particular leadership dimension. For example,
Pilot 4:
Element Selection
Element selection followed the same procedure as pilot interview 3.
Construct Elicitation
The aim of pilot interview 3 was to address the concerns generated from pilot interview 1 regarding employing ‘time’ as a term to denote psychological constructs relating to time.