Step 4: Making Meaning

At this point in the analysis, there were data derived from two processes, the ascribing of NVivo codes under the three research questions yielding 85 nodes and the tabular referential and structural framework which provided both a capture of each transcript and a capture of elements across the transcripts. The next phase, the fourth

of the seven steps, was to build on these two processes, synthesising the outcomes to make meaning of the data. This was undertaken to devise ‘meaning statements’ (Herbert, 2014), that is, a set of statements which articulated the phenomenon as indicated by the coding in Step 2 and/or tabulation in Step 3. These meaning statements were then grouped under the three research questions. The statements grouped under Research Question 1 each began with ‘Destructive leadership is perceived to be…’, signalling the ontological intent of the question and the descriptive ‘referential what’ of phenomenography. The second set of meaning statements related to Research Question 2 each began with ‘Destructive leadership is experienced as…’, signalling the epistemic intent of revealing explanatory features, knowledge and understandings of the phenomenon. This set of statements linked to the ‘structural how’ of phenomenography. The stem of the third set of meaning statements related to Research Question 3 and read, ‘Destructive leadership is responded to as…’, the intent of which was to explore consequential and interpretive features of impact and learning from the experience. This set of statements explored the ‘structural what’ in the phenomenographic approach.

The meaning statements, once grouped under each research question, were further regrouped to find their similarity or difference. Table 13 shows the meaning statements categorised and sub-categorised in relation to Research Question 1, with the number of direct individual quotations or ‘utterances’ (Cope, 2004) that comprised that meaning statement (column ‘N’), allowing for grouping and regrouping to find a stable set of statements. A form of ‘heat map’ has been applied to the number of utterances per meaning statement to distinguish those more densely referenced.

Table 13

Meaning Statements for Research Question 1

Referential (Ontological; conceptions of the phenomenon; what it is conceived to be)

Categorya _Nb

DL is perceived to be control over people A1 17

DL is perceived to be control over ideas A1 26

DL is perceived to be an abuse of power in absence of checks and balances

A1 13

DL is perceived to be an unequal balance of power A1 8 DL is perceived to be an (intentional) abuse of positional power A1 29

DL is perceived to be targeting those weaker A1 8

DL is perceived to be personal attack A1 9

DL is perceived to be harmful change B1 11

DL is perceived to be a pattern of harmful behaviour B1 35 DL is perceived to be a self-perpetuating, self-reproducing cycle B1 20 DL is perceived to be a psychological condition; expression of

personality

C1 31

DL is perceived to be an excess of ego C1 12

DL is a lack of capability C1 37

DL is a lack of courage C1 15

DL is perceived to be a manifestation of hierarchical systems D1 21

DL is perceived to be an assumption of privilege D1 9

DL is perceived to be a sociological phenomenon D1 4

DL is perceived to be a normative environment where power is exercised without checks and balances

D1 38

DL is perceived to be all encompassing; pervasive—individual, relationships, school, community

D1 6

DL is perceived to be unethical practices E1 20

DL is perceived to be the antithesis of accepted ethical norms E1 7

DL is perceived to be an absence of core values E1 11

DL is perceived to be a philosophical worldview/set of values E1 23

a _{A1 = power and control (N = 110), B1 = patters (N = 66), C1 = personality issues (N = 95),} D1 = sociological issues (N = 78), E1 = philosophical questions (N = 61). b _{number of} utterances per meaning statement; ≤ 10 = blue, 11–18 = green, 19–26 = yellow, 27– 34 = orange, ≥ 35 = red.

The meaning statements generated for Research Question 2 and the number of utterances that comprised them are presented in Table 13 and refer to the understandings and knowledge participants have gained through their personal experience. The development of meaning statements for Research Question 2 resulted

in greater clarity between the intentions of Research Question 1 and Research Question 2 and gave specificity to the conceptions.

Table 14

Meaning Statements for Research Question 2

Structural (Epistemological; knowledge about the phenomenon; how it is experienced)

Categorya _Nb

DL is experienced as physical behaviour A2 14

DL is experienced as bullying A2 21

DL is experienced as retribution and vindictiveness A2 14

DL is experienced as aggression A2 11

DL is experienced as an invasion of personal space A2 7

DL is experienced as lies and deception B2 27

DL is experienced as hypocrisy B2 18

DL is experienced as the silence or mobbing of others C2 21

DL is experienced as damaged relationships C2 12

DL is experienced as isolation C2 8

DL is experienced as humiliation C2 10

DL is experienced as lack of support C2 19

DL is experienced as white-anting C2 9

DL is experienced as fear and anxiety C2 3

DL is experienced as the compliance and complicity of others C2 9

DL is experienced as professionally limiting D2 10

DL is experienced as professional barriers D2 11

DL is experienced as powerlessness D2 13

DL is experienced as being restricted, constrained verbally or otherwise

D2 6

DL is experienced as system dysfunction E2 20

DL is experienced as a toxic culture E2 18

DL is experienced as favours and nepotism E2 13

DL is experienced as conflicted or irreconcilable values F2 16

DL is experienced as unfairness F2 6

a _{A2 = direct, physical and personal presentations (N = 67), B2 = hidden presentations} (N = 45), C2 = reactions and feelings of participants in relation to others (N = 91), D2 = profession experience (N = 40), E2 = understandings at the social systems level (N = 51), F2 = understandings about values (N = 32). b _{number of utterances per meaning} statement; ≤ 10 = blue, 11–18 = green, 19–26 = yellow, 27–34 = orange, ≥ 35 = red.

The meaning statements in Table 15 are those generated for Research Question 3 and interpret the impact of destructive leadership and the learning that may be

derived individually or more broadly. It may be noted here that ‘learning’ was originally coded, as described in Section 4.4.2, under Research Question 2, but through the process of developing meaning statements was regrouped and seen as better classified as an outcome construct. The meaning statements were categorised according to the following conceptions and the related number of utterances that comprised them.

Table 15

Meaning Statements for Research Question 3

Structural (Epistemological; knowledge gained from the phenomenon; how it impacts)

Categorya _Nb

DL is responded to as an attack to avoid A3 11

DL is responded to as career ending A3 7

DL is responded to as a weakening of identity or sense of self A3 18

DL is responded to as a model not to emulate B3 13

DL is responded to as a challenge to confront B3 33

DL is responded to as character building B3 9

DL is responded to as an affirmation of personal values B3 34 DL is responded to as an opportunity for learning B3 31

DL is responded to by being resilient B3 23

DL is responded to by reflecting on own practice B3 25

DL is responded to by reference to the positive and positive role models

B3 42

DL is responded to as a loss of psychological wellbeing C3 29 DL is responded to as a loss of physiological wellbeing C3 13 DL is responded to as a loss of organisational wellbeing C3 35

DL responded to as a loss of faith/trust C3 15

DL responded to by turning to or establishing networks D3 25 DL responded to by turning to family and/or friends D3 10 DL responded to by establishing a circle of trust D3 22

DL responded to by exiting the situation E3 39

DL responded to by taking precautions E3 6

DL responded to by acting early E3 16

DL responded to by looking after self/self-care E3 13

a _{A3 = reactive responses from individuals (N = 36), B3 = proactive responses to the} phenomenon (N = 210), C3 = refer to the impact of the phenomenon (N = 92), D3 = ways participants seek support through the experience (N = 57), E3 = possible actions and interventions (N = 74). b _{number of utterances per meaning statement; ≤ 10 = blue, 11–} 18 = green, 19–26 = yellow, 27–34 = orange, ≥ 35 = red.

The meaning statements in Tables 13, 14 and 15 provided a rich source of material in respect of defining categories of description and helped in discerning the dimensions of variation, the subject of the following section.