Youth Leadership and Theory

Theory

Compare and contrast at least three views on what constitutes a theory. Distinguish the related concepts of theories, such as hypothesis, paradigm, model and concept.

Differentiating between hypothesis and theory

The word hypothesis is a description of various phenomenon occurring. In most cases, it's not a confirm statement. In other cases, it can be well-developed, designed and explained to follow through the workings and mechanisms of certain phenomenon. According to one definition, it states particularly that it's a precursor to a conditional proposition. A hypothesis is an unconfirmed theory. One can develop a hypothesis while the observation is being tested, that could be unconfirmed too. By an observation, one can simply have a window of opportunity to verify a hypothesis. A hypothesis can be detailed and inclusive of details. This permits lucid testing. Apart from that, it is the distinguishing factor from a theory (Harris, 2001).

The word theory is of scientific nature by the way. Some define theory as a bunch of occurrences while others usually refer to it as a wild guess. Theory is the branch of research, which is based on conceptual idea rather than practical viability of the subject. The theory must be conjectural in nature. Within scientific domains, the theory is a working model and understanding of an occurrence (Harris, 2001).

Theory is sometimes developed within the scientific domains of observation. Thereby, it is tested consecutively forming it into a theory, prior to which it was a hypothesis. After a theory is refuted it is usually discarded away (Harris, 2001).

Models can also serve as representation of possibilities which can present a theory. The scientists can also create simulations and validate a hypothesis after the theory. Models can sometimes confirm a certain theory. Apart from that, they can serve as practical models for theory's validation (Harris, 2001).

Comparing theory, concept and paradigm

Concept is not exactly the most sophisticated of the three mentioned above as they explain skeletal ideas and piece of information that doesn't yet exist. Concepts are to be tested first by scientific testing; but the nature of scientific research is ever expanding the scientific methods and tools tend to change and modify with the passage of time. Technology morphs and changes too. In circles of social sciences, the term concept explains a list of important points around which data is compiled. In circles of biology, one concept is that an animal adjusts to its environment after a period of time by natural selection (Harris, 2001).

A theory is a bunch of explanations on a particular subject. The theory needs to be proved, tested or disproved. Theories aren't rock solid facts but rather special phenomena, but are rather guesswork around a certain phenomenon. A theory can also consist of a broad spectrum of concepts from a given field. The instances of a theory are the big bang theory or the Dalton's atomic theory (Harris, 2001).

Paradigm usually defines a bunch of theories, beliefs, methodologies and concepts which define a worldwide perspective on life and its mechanism. An instance of a paradigm is the disbelief in the scientific ideas on evolution and their relevance with respect to religious overtones. On the other hand, the scientific man with knowledge of both worlds can certainly find out the differences between religious texts. Some believe that religious texts and scientific research go hand in hand if researched with an open mind (Harris, 2001).

Differentiating between model and theory

Scientific discoveries and studies are formulated after in-depth research and analysis. The hypothesis is well thought out and experiments are done quite many times. Students may have studied and stumbled upon various scientists through time trying to explain various facts. Some teachers and professors assign their students to differentiate between model and theory to distinguish between the two (Harris, 2001).

The definition of both words is a tad bit cloudy. The students can develop both models and theories after working step by scientific methods. Theories and models are developed in a variety of different levels and stages of a study. Models are formed after theories are confirmed and then there are times when models are formed prior to theories. There are models which produce a different aspect of a theory and it leads to making another model (Harris, 2001).

Models are formed for testing a theory; they are based on theories as theories are the basis for explaining different phenomena's. Models can appear in the form of a simulation, visual, verbal and mathematical presentation of a scientific phenomenon which is strictly followed by the scientists to confirm their theories. The theories are formed after elongated observations of a certain physical phenomena. Models are often denoted as a physical presentation of a certain theory. While the scientists are researching on the ants living in a colony, they have various theories as to how ants live and eat. Observing ants in their natural environment isn't easy thus ant's colonies are designed. A physical model is created hence. The physical model is certainly a glass case with ants living inside. On observing the glass case full of ants, the scientists will propose theories and confirm their validity. Physical models are hence needed for validating a theory. Models are also application of respective theories sometimes. They define a certain boundary beyond which a certain possibility exists founded on a certain concept. The behavior of Eiffel tower is noted during an earthquake occurrence by the scientific model of a Prandtl-Meyer stress-strain relationship. So in this case, models appear after the theories rather than vice versa. Sometimes, model is often used after a theory has been formed before.In the end, a theory and model give out possibilities on giving explanations for natural occurrences. Models are often used in formulating experimental setups as scientists go through various steps of a scientific method. They refurbish a theory in its entirety (Harris, 2001).

The connection between models, theories, hypothesis and paradigms

In case of a paradigm, it guides, collects and experiments with various observations from researcher on a particular concept. After scientific research is performed, the scientists seek to confirm the validation of the known notions. When the knowledge expands and concepts are altered and changed, the facts and predictions are solidified around a particular concept. When new theories are confirmed and formed then paradigms are shifted and reformed in order to be relevant with the scientific beliefs (Harris, 2001).

When water falls on the table, it's a matter of time before it falls on the floor. After that a hypothesis will form thereby confirming that water will flow down on the floor regardless its state of presence or time on the table. Then that hypothesis will be tested as well by sampling water on different parts of table and verifying that it remains on the table or falls on the floor (Harris, 2001).

2. What is the relationship between theory and research and the ways research (quantitative and qualitative) can contribute to theory. Give three ways research contributes to theory.

The development of theory relies on research whereas research depends on theory. The relationship between a theory and research is dialectic as theory suggests the data to be collected while the research challenges the theories generally accepted. For the development of theory, research is a vehicle. This is correct in case the aim of the research is to test a theory or develop a theory. Research is the collected data for the theory to be solidified. The aim for theory generation is to look in the accurate direction. For instance, when a theory of patient's thoughts on nurses care plan is developed, the data would be surmising the grounds on which they will follow the nurses caring plan. When the case is of theory testing, then information must be gathered from around. For instance, if the case is strong for patients to stick to nurses caring plan due to approval of their spouses, then information is gathered from that vicinity. The spouses have a huge role in attaining these nursing care plans (Wacker, 1998).

The historic research is targeted at the phenomena which occurred at an earlier point in time. Similarly, the empirical descriptive research entails surveys, case studies, studies, ethnographies and grounded theory to work with. Case studies are very focused on a particular domain, based on some individuals in a narrow domain or based on a community (Wacker, 1998).

The descriptive studies use empirical methods for engaging observations of a certain phenomenon in its predominant environment. Information is collected by the observers, questionnaires and structured interviews (Wacker, 1998).

The connection between research and theory can be broadened by examining the research designs used for developing theories of various forms. The theories can be descriptive and explanatory. The descriptive theories are developed and tested after descriptive research. This form of research is also called exploratory research. The descriptive research may or may not use empirical method. Empirical methods negate historic and philosophic inquiries. The descriptive theories are the most common forms of theories. They explain and categorize particular forms of dimensions of a class, group, situations and events finding the common grounds between them. Descriptive theories are needed when little is known about a concept (Wacker, 1998).

3. Which theory directly relates to early leadership development for youth?

House and Javidan (2004) argue that in the older times, there was a rigid system of work in the companies. The leaders were accustomed to taking autonomous decisions and allocated tasks to their assistants all by themselves. They were only familiar with giving commands. This type of atmosphere provided restricted development opportunities to the employees. Creativity and novelty coming from the workers was barely valued and anticipated, therefore, the employees were not enthusiastically committed to the organizations. They considered their company only as a place of work and nothing else.

Additionally, it is also revealed by House and Javidan (2004) that such companies are similar to a well-ordered machine in an assembly line production, in which everybody is supposed to perform their defined duties in an identical way every day and give the same level of production. The set of duties was pre-allocated to the worker and he/she had to work accordingly. The employee was supposed to care about his own task and responsibility only. The influence of that single worker and his performance was not given any significance and was never a point of attention for the company managers. Times however have changed and workplace ethnic and cultural diversity, including innovation and creativity demands constant change.

Korver (2008) described that it is necessary for the contemporary leaders to be flexible towards the opinion of others. This notion is divergent from the viewpoint of old times. Whenever a manager and the leader of the organization have an engaging and accommodating behavior towards the opinion of their employees, it makes them a mediator instead of a tyrant. The manager must be aware of the historical background about the cultures of the workers if he/she wants to work with them in an efficient way. If the manager is not aware, then he/she must inquire about it. This is significant because knowing about the cultures helps in comprehending the behavior of the employees. This in turn helps the manager to devise ways of dealing with varied attitudes which he had considered to be strange earlier and the manner in which a response can be given. Therefore, the theory that relates directly to the early leadership development for youth is transformational leadership theory.

The proposition of the theory is that the transformational leaders clearly envision the future of the company, bringing in a model which is compatible with that visualization, nurture the phenomenon that group goals are accepted while providing his/her support at all times (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer, 1996). This leads to the creation of trust and respect amongst the followers for their transformational leaders while getting the necessary motivation to accomplish more than what is expected from them. As a result, transformational leaders alter the attitudes and beliefs of the followers so that they willingly perform better than their capabilities to accomplish the results.

Various studies have made use of the conceptualization of transformational leadership given by Podsakoff et al. (1996) because it is highly validated, its oriented towards behavior, and also because it is used in Chinese and American cultures (Farh and Cheng, 1999). Farh and Cheng (1999) identified six dimensions of behavioral orientation in transformational leadership namely vision articulation, appropriate model provision, creating the acceptance for group goals, setting high expectations on performance, individual support provision (i.e. To give personal attention to each member and treating them accordingly), and to offer any intellectual advice (i.e. To teach to think about old problems in a modern and new way) (Spreitzer, Perttula and Xin, 2008).

a. Explain how the theory adds or may add to our understanding of Youth leadership development or training.

Over the last 20 years, transformational leadership has achieved academic attention as a new model for comprehending youth leadership growth and development. Initially, under the guidance of Bernard Bass (1997), the idea of transformational leadership was developed. Defining the want for change, developing a vision for the future, and assembling follower commitment to gain surprising results is the quality of transformational leaders. Bryman (1992), and Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam (1996) argued that transformational leadership has been found to be always linked to leadership and organizational success in more than 100 empirical studies. These findings hold in large range of samples as well as contexts from military units, to Fortune 100 business companies, to presidential administrations.

Currently, a number of studies have observed transformational leadership outside North American perspective. For instance, Yokochi (1989) observed the demonstration of transactional and transformational leadership behaviors in Japan, as did Ardichvili and Gasparishvili (2001) in Eastern Europe, Pillai (1999) in Germany, and Dorfman and Howell (1997) in Mexico. Researchers found proof for the existence of transformational leadership behaviors in each of the mentioned culture in their studies (Spreitzer, Perttula and Xin, 2008).

b. Discuss and analyze the literature on two areas of controversy or unanswered questions related to the theory of early youth leadership training and development.

Nowadays, it is quite necessary for workforce to be flexible in order to deal with the competition on a global level. This flexibility helps them to function effectively in areas having different customs, morals, behaviors, and cultures. Moreover, for enhancing the value of their business, the top management needs to engage in the local events of the society by adopting a cooperative behavior towards the culture prevalent in the locality of their businesses. It is imperative for a business to deal with cross-cultural interaction and to cope with the workforce belonging to different cultures. Due to the presence of workforce with diverse backgrounds, the top management must not only focus on executing customary procedures but also on providing wide-range of advantages to their workers as per their individual cultural requirements and desires. Two viewpoints on the influence of cultural diversity, leadership training and development have been extensively discussed in the literature (Dorfman, 1996). These two viewpoints are the culturally specific and the universal perspective, which have been suggested in the literature on leadership training and development.

The Universal Perspective: It is suggested by the simple universal perspective that some concepts are applicable in various cultures. In reality, the leadership idea is regarded as a universal phenomenon - certainly, no culture has been found lacking some sort of leadership (Murdock, 1967; as cited in Bass, 1997). A universal position has been recommended by Bass (1997) on the subject of transformational or transferability leadership. This form of culture-free system believes that core leadership design should be invariant or similar across cultures. Evidence for the conceptual and equality measurement of a number of diverse leader constructs has been found by Dorfman and Howell (1997). Also, significant empirical proof for the universal perspective on the usefulness of transformational behavior is provided by the groundbreaking GLOBE research program (a global network which includes 170 social scientists from sixty one cultures across the world) (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, and Gupta, 1999). In their study, they found that some leadership behavior aspects including foresight, dynamic, motivational, excellence-oriented, confidence builder, positive, and encouraging, of transformational leadership seem to be universally approved across the 61 countries (Spreitzer, Perttula and Xin, 2008).

Currently, the need to move beyond the simple universal to the variform universal (i.e., when a common rule prevails across cultures but the performance of that rule varies across cultures) is suggested by Dickson, Hanges, and Lord (2001) (following Bass, 1997; Lonner, 1980). However, except one, no study involving the variform universality of transformation leadership could be found. Farh, Early, and Lin (1997) provides evidence for organizational ownership as being a variform universal (the concept of organizational ownership lies across various cultures, but its performance is unusual in an Asian context).

One more sophisticated kind of universal is the functional universal (referred by Bass (1997)). When the within group association among two variables (effectiveness and transformational leadership) is similar across cultures, the functional universal holds. We have little knowledge regarding the level to which transformational leadership behaviors are observed as successful across those with diverse cultural values. Regardless of culture, those leaders will be more successful who hold more transformational behavior compared to those who engage in less transformational behavior (Bass, 1991). He proposed that for brilliance in any culture, encouraging followers to work hard and developing a vision of the future for achieving outstanding performance ought to be part of a formula. Bass (1997) is referring to the research that supports the respective generalization of effective leadership that has transformed countries like Singapore, Japan, India, and New Zealand. Yu, Leithwood, and Jantzi (2002) also conducted research in Hong Kong using functional perspectives. The results of the research were that the effects were similar in both Hong Kong and North America on the level of teacher commitment but the extent of the effect was comparatively lower in Hong Kong.

The Culture-Specific Perspective: This culture-specific perspective argues that various theories of leadership that were formulated in North America might not be applicable to all the cultures in the world because the basis for all these theories is Western ideology and culture (Hofstede, 2001). It further argues that people living in different cultures might consider leadership in an entirely different manner. For instance, Pillai, Scandura, and Williams (1999) deduced that more satisfied and content followers were found for effective leaders in India, the Middle East, and Columbia. These were contrary to the various findings that have been carried out in Western backgrounds that suggest that effective leaders have much more satisfied followers. They further go on to suggest that leaders that are comparatively less involved and are more directive are likely to be important behaviors in countries like India, the Middle East, and Columbia. Furthermore, while comparing various Anglo, Germanic, Arab, Latin European, Eastern European, and South Asian cultures, important differences in leadership were found by the GLOBE research study (Gupta, Surie, Javidan, and Chhokar, 2002; Ashkanasy, Trevor-Roberts, and Earnshaw, 2002; Kabasakal and Bodur, 2002; Szabo, Brodbeck, Den Hartog, Reber, Weibler, and Wunderer, 2002; Bakacsi, Sandor, Andras, and Viktor, 2002; Jesuino, 2002).

Universalistic and Culture-Specific instances: Many researchers have suggested that there are various universal as well as simple culture related perspectives that are important in effective leadership. It was reviewed by Dickson, Hanges, and Lord (2001) how the assessment of Hunt and Peterson's (1997) various articles in the limited issue of the Leadership Quarterly that was focusing on transformational leadership determined how all the 10 articles had a visible focus on universal as well as culture related results. For instance, it was found by Dorfman and Howell (1997) that there tend to be various differences and commonalities between transformational leadership across different cultures. Furthermore, the results that they deduced through researching on 3 Asian and 2 Western countries were also in sharp contrast to the contention of Bass (1990) regarding the cultural and universal perspectives of the behaviors of effective leaders. In 5 countries, two aspects, charisma and supportiveness, were similar for the leaders. On the other hand, there was a strong focus on aspects such as participation and directiveness in Western nations (Spreitzer, Perttula and Xin, 2008).

Various differences and commonalities were found by Boehnke, Bontis, DiStefano, and DiStefano (2003) when they researched business executives from the Commonwealth, Far East Latin America, Southern Europe, Northern Europe, and America. Essential aspects of transformational leaders tend to be similar in most cultures while the applications of such aspects tend to be suited to differences present in different countries. A higher level of team developing behaviors was reported by Americans in comparison to their counterparts in the Far East and even in Southern Europe.