After the interviewees’ were named, they were contacted to arrange the interviewing schedule and place. One interview session took place at the university and all the others in the interviewees’ workplaces. At the beginning of the sessions the interviewees were explained why HRIS were studied together with the activities of good leadership and how the interviewees were chosen. Also, the basic conceptions and assumptions of NLP were described, because the interviewees were not familiar with NLP and because the questions and the style
to have an interview using NLP might at first have confused them. Next the interviewees were asked to describe their work experiences and career development. Then the interview session continued by asking about their leadership actions, because the target was to find out the activities they executed when leading the employees. Herein, NLP and Dilts’ (1990) logical levels as an interviewing method were used to highlight the activities that worked well and the issues that were important to the leaders. When opening the well-working and important issues, it enabled to reveal the interviewees’ tacit knowledge and EI. Then the interviewees were asked to define in which activities and how they used HRIS, i.e. the role of HRIS in their leadership. In the course of the interview session the basic questions were:
1. What do you do when you lead people? 2. How do you do what you are telling you do? 3. Why do you do it?
4. What is important? 5. What works well?
According to Dilts (1990), the first question led the interviewees to describe the work process, i.e. what were their actions, behavior and responses in a leadership situation. In many cases the answer for the first question was, “I do not know.” The interviewees had worked for a long time and their actions were part of their everyday leadership. Therefore, it was difficult for them to perceive the leadership actions. The sentence “I do not know” also expressed that the leadership behavior and actions were in their subconscious mind and therefore not immediately conscious information. It could be called tacit knowledge (Polanyi 1966). In addition, behavior was defined by NLP researchers “as all sensory
representations experienced and expressed internally and/or externally for which evidence is available from a subject and/or from a human observer of the subject” Dilts et. al. (1980: 4). Therefore, to help the interviewees to describe
their behavior and actions in leadership, they were asked to give an example of prevailing leading situation or to imagine that the interviewer was the one executing the leadership. The questions were: “What have you been doing lately?
What would I be doing if I were a leader like you? How would you advise me to do the task or to lead a person?” The questions made the situation easier for the
interviewees to recall and describe the actions.
The second question indicated the interviewees’ strategy of actions and thinking in leadership: abilities, knowledge and skills (Dilts 1990). It helped the
interviewees to remember how they acted in different leadership situations. To this question the answers were basically very concrete. The main points of one of the answers is as follows:
“I go to the employee and I may sit on his/her desk. First I talk this and that. I may ask how the day has started, if the kids are ok et cetera. After an appropriate small talk, I explain what I had in mind. I also consider his/her mood and personality before I do it. Sometimes I go for a talk just without a relevant work subject.” (Ismo 1.6.2005: 2)
The third question was used the least in the course of the interview sessions. It was replaced with questions four and five mostly. However, using them correctly, they all showed the interviewees’ overall learning process which included beliefs and values. The questions also indicated how work and life experiences had affected the leaders, how they had constructed the set of values and what kind of behavior could be regarded as suitable in leadership. Ordinarily, the beliefs and values were hidden behind the interviewees’ actions and ways of expressing themselves. However, several interesting beliefs and values came up during the interview sessions. The answers to those questions helped to interpret and clarify the interviewees’ EI and their abilities to use EI.
In addition to the basic questions, some open questions regarding the issue in question were made to clarify and specify the given answers. Also, syntheses of the discussed issues and answers were drawn to help to keep the essential in mind because, occasionally, the discourse extended to other issues – something that is quite normal during interview sessions. Overall, drawing the syntheses helped the interviewees to remember more about their leadership. They also had a possibility to verify if the interviewer had understood the answer right. A synthesis could start:
– “If I have understood right, when you lead people you…” – “If I have understood right, the important issues for you are…”
The same formula of the questions was used when asking about the usage of HRIS in the interviewees’ leadership. Related to HRIS, it was notable how IT professionals expressed themselves when talking about the usage, design, development, new ideas and the significance of IS and HRIS in the application area of leadership. How the IT professionalism had affected their ways of thinking, will be discussed later.
When describing the interview situations, at first they were somewhat formal. The questions, however, helped to relax both the interviewer and the interviewee. The interviewer let the interviewees speak as much as they liked about the subject in question. Many of the interviewees were extrovert people and also committed to the interview session, so the discussions progressed well, in general. However, in a couple of sessions the atmosphere stayed official most of the time and the answers were short. On one hand, the interviewer interpreted it as if the interviewees had prejudice against the session or as if they were afraid or just playing cautious. On the other hand, it may have been their way to participate in work-related meetings in general. Still, in the end the discourse satisfied both.
Although it was presumed that the interview sessions included a continuous discussion, a list of issues for the interview session had been prepared in case of a knotty situation. However, many of the issues came out spontaneously from the answers and pondering of the interviewees. The list was also useful in a situation when it was necessary to change the discussion subject or to break a silent moment. Notes were also taken during the sessions to keep track of the discourse. The list of the main subjects discussed was as follows:
– daily leadership work: tasks and actions – ways to execute their own leadership
– leadership versus management / human resource management – handling a new employee
– handling a new superior
– to know the old fellow workers and employees – problematic situations
– communication – information
– development discussion with an employee – roles in organization and leadership – internationality
– gender – project group – team work
– content of the company’s own HR information system – use and utilization of the HR information system – meaning of the HR information system.
After the interview sessions many of the interviewees were excited about having been able to take part in the research and thus to reflect on their daily behaviors as a leader. The interviewer felt the same. Lastly, the interviewees’ honest answers were given appreciation and they were thanked for the participation. Also permission was given to contact the interviewer if something important should come to mind afterwards.