Emergent Leadership in a Cohort-Model Doctoral Program

Emergent Leadership in a Cohort Model Doctoral Program

1


2

AN ABSTRACT FOR THE DISSERTATION OF

Jeffry Beard for the degree of Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership, Learning,

and Community

presented on October 23, 2014

Title: Emergent Leadership in a Cohort Model Doctoral Program

Abstract approved:

Dissertation Committee Chair

Emergent leadership is the direction of group activities by individuals that are members

of a group without formal or nominative leadership. Their fellow group members

attribute emergent leadership to people in groups. Doctoral cohorts are groups of students

that work toward a degree in a manner that is synchronous. Projects and coursework

make it necessary for collaboration and emergent leadership to occur within cohorts of

doctoral students. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore and to describe

the experiences of students in a cohort model doctoral program at a state university in

New England with emergent leadership. This research can lead to further work in the

area of groups without formal leadership in disciplines beyond graduate higher education,

including emergent leadership in non-profit and for-profit organizations.

Keywords: Emergent Leadership, Doctoral Education, Cohort-Model Doctoral Programs


3

©Copyright by Jeffry William Beard

October 23, 2014

All Rights Reserved


4


by

Jeffry W. Beard

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to

Plymouth State University

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Education

Defended October 23, 2014

Degree Conferred May 2015


5

Dissertation of Jeffry W. Beard

presented on October 23, 2014

APPROVED:

________________________________________________________________________

Cheryl Baker, Ed. D, Dissertation Committee Chair

________________________________________________________________________

Kathleen McCabe, Ph. D, Dissertation Committee

________________________________________________________________________

Nancy Puglisi, Ph. D, Dissertation Committee

________________________________________________________________________

Associate Vice President for Graduate Studies

I understand that my dissertation will become part of the permanent collection of

Plymouth State Lamson Library. My signature below authorizes release of my

dissertation to any reader upon request.

________________________________________________________________________

Jeffry W. Beard


6

Dedication

I would like to express my gratitude for all who have helped me through this

process. Everyone mentioned in this dedication has fostered my growth as a student, a

researcher, and a person. The order in which I list my thanks has no implications as to

the magnitude of my gratitude, but rather is an expression of my thoughts as they came to

me. Take that, as you will.

Thank You:

Dr. Dennise Maslakowski, for talking me into all of this, and by convincing me, through

the strength of her conviction, that I could do it.

Dr. Kathleen Norris, for insisting on rigorous scholarship, and for keeping a focus on

service to the local and world communities.

Dr. Cheryl Baker, for her kind and insightful guidance.

Dr. Kathleen McCabe, for stretching me intellectually.

Dr. Nancy Puglisi, for asking the kinds of questions that moved me to the next level.

My cohort, Summer Camp, for offering their unwavering support for me in both

scholarship and my personal life.

Noelle Dimitri, the love of my life, for her patience and excellent feedback.

Dr. Robert Dimitri, for his deep probing, which allowed me the opportunity to grow as a

scholar, and to think ever more deeply about my topic of study.

Nancy Dimitri, for taking an interest, and for her love and support

William Beard, Jan Beard, and Jordan Beard, for their constant love and concern.


7

Table of Contents

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 11 CONCEPTUAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE STUDY ............................................. 13

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM .................................................................................................................................... 13 EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................................................................. 14 PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES ........................................................................................................ 16 COHORTS AND ADULT EDUCATION .................................................................................................................... 16 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ........................................................................................................................... 17 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................................................................... 18 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 20 DEFINITION OF TERMS ......................................................................................................................................... 20 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 21

CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 22 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 27 IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................................................... 27 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 28 LEADERSHIP ........................................................................................................................................................... 29 TRAIT-BASED LEADERSHIP ................................................................................................................................. 29 BEHAVIOR-BASED LEADERSHIP ......................................................................................................................... 31 MODELS AND INSTRUMENTS TO MEASURE LEADERSHIP CAPACITY ............................................................ 32

__________________________________________________________________________ TRANSACTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ........................................................................... 35 TRANSFORMATIVE LEADERSHIP IN SCHOOLS .................................................................................................. 38 EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................................................................. 38 EMERGENT LEADERSHIP ...................................................................................................................................... 43 FOLLOWERS IN GROUPS WITHOUT FORMAL LEADERSHIP ............................................................................ 44 GROUP STRUCTURE AND BEHAVIOR .................................................................................................................. 45 GROUP FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 46 DOCTORAL COHORT AS LEARNING COMMUNITY ............................................................................................. 48 BENEFITS OF THE COHORT MODEL FOR DOCTORAL STUDENTS ................................................................... 50 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AND GROUNDED THEORY ....................................................................................... 52 GROUNDED THEORY ............................................................................................................................................. 53 CONSTRUCTIVIST GROUNDED THEORY ............................................................................................................. 53 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................................... 54 PROBLEM ................................................................................................................................................................ 55 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 55 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AND INQUIRY ............................................................................................................ 56 INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORKS, ONTOLOGY, AND EPISTEMOLOGY ................................................................ 57 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ........................................................................... 58 TOOLS, METHODS, AND PROCEDURES OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AND THE PRESENT STUDY ............ 59 TRIANGULATION .................................................................................................................................................... 59 QUESTIONNAIRES .................................................................................................................................................. 60 EXTENDED INTERVIEWS ...................................................................................................................................... 62 CONSTRUCTIVIST GROUNDED THEORY ............................................................................................................. 64 FOCUS GROUPS ...................................................................................................................................................... 66 CODING.................................................................................................................................................................... 68 CONSTRUCTIVIST GROUNDED THEORY ............................................................................................................. 69


8

POPULATION AND SAMPLE .................................................................................................................................. 70 DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................................... 72 BIAS ................................................................................................................................................................ ......... 73 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 73 ANONYMITY ........................................................................................................................................................... 74 RECORD KEEPING .................................................................................................................................................. 74 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................... 75

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................ 76 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 76 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................................................................... 77 GROUNDED THEORY AND CONSTRUCTIVIST GROUNDED THEORY ............................................................... 78 DOCTORAL COHORTS AND STUDY PARTICIPANTS ........................................................................................... 79 DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................................................ 80 CODING OF DATA ................................................................................................................................................... 82 DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................................................ 85 QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES .............................................................................................................................. 85 FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS................................................................................................................................. 91 COHORT B ............................................................................................................................................................... 91 COHORT A............................................................................................................................................................... 95 COHORT D .............................................................................................................................................................. 98 COHORT C ............................................................................................................................................................ 101 INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS.................................................................................................................................. 103 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 105

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY.......................................................................................................... 107

SUMMARY OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................................................. 107 DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................. 109 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 110 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................................. 110 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY ............................................................................................................................. 113 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 114

Figure 1 .................................................................................................................................................................. 116 The Emergent Leadership Attribution Process for Groups .............................................................. 116

IMPLICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 117 FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................................ 119 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................ 120

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 123 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................ 137 QUESTIONNAIRE....................................................................................................... 137 APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................ 138 FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ........................................................... 138 APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................ 139 INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ............................................................... 139 APPENDIX D ................................................................................................................ 140


9

VALIDATION QUESTIONNAIRE USED FOR MEMBER CHECKING ............ 140


10

List of Tables

Table 1 Nomothetic and Idiographic Approaches……………………….............. 27

Table 2 Quadrant Model of Leadership…………………………………………..34

Table 3 Transformational and Transactional Leaders……………………….........35

Table 4 Social Intelligence Competencies…………………………......................39

Table 5 Social Skills Listed in the Emotional Competency Inventory…………...41

Table 6 Behaviors Associated With Leaders in Groups…………………….........88

Table 7 Leadership Behaviors in Cohorts at NESU, According to Fellow

Cohort Members…………………………………………………………90

Table 8 Personality Characteristics Associated With Leadership…………..........92


11

Chapter One: Introduction

Doctoral education prepares students for future roles as professors, researchers,

and entrepreneurial innovators (Ostriker, Kuh, & Voytuk, 2011). Doctoral students

contribute to scholarly inquiry and discussion by making presentations on original

research, publish articles in peer-reviewed journals, and write chapters for books

regarding their areas of study (Ostriker, Kuh, & Voytuk, 2011). Doctoral students are

also in line to become leaders in academia, becoming administrators and professors at

colleges and universities (Luna, 2010). Golde (2005) found that a majority of doctoral

students expressed a desire to become professors and to conduct academic research after

the completion of their degrees.

Leadership has been studied by a variety of theorists, from a wide range of

disciplines (House & Aditya, 1997). Two broad categories of the multiple types of

leadership are nominative and emergent leadership. Nominative leadership consists of

work done by a person that is placed in a position of authority by those in charge, while

emergent leadership occurs when other members of the group informally confer the

position of leader upon an individual or individuals within a leaderless group (Emery,

Calvard, & Pierce, 2013).

Doctoral cohorts are groups of students that simultaneously enter into a program

of study that ends with their earning a doctoral degree (Barnett & Muse, 1993). Doctoral

study is challenging on many levels for students, including personally and academically

(Fenge, 2012). One meta-analysis, done by Bair and Hayworth (2005) found that forty to

sixty percent of students who begin their doctoral studies leave before completing the

program and receiving their degree.


12

Research conducted on the cohort model of doctoral education suggests that

students support each other while completing their doctoral studies, and that this

interpersonal assistance, which can take the form of practical or emotional advice or help,

is a major benefit of the cohort model (Lipson, 2002; Saltiel, 1998). Cohort members are

empowered through the simple understanding that they are sharing an experience, and

that the other members of their group share a related set of understandings (Devenish,

Dyer, Jefferson, Lord, Van Leeuwen, & Fazakerley, 2009). Lipson (2002) found that

initial experiences within cohort groups are critical in forming the norms and shared

values of the group. Saltiel (1998) stated that cohorts meet the need for affiliation felt by

post-graduate students. This affiliation is formed through the cohort’s acting as a

community of practice, working together on projects and learning collaboratively (Saltiel,

1998).

Many of the studies in the literature examine aspects of nominative leadership,

including leadership behaviors (Bennis, 1996) and managerial effectiveness (Blake &

Mouton, 1985). Emergent leadership, or leading done by individuals in groups without

formal leadership, has also been studied in several settings (Emery, Calvard, & Pierce,

2013; Emery, Daniloski, & Homby, 2011; O’Connor & Jackson, 2010). There is little or

no evidence in the literature that emergent leadership within doctoral cohort groups has

been studied.


13

Conceptual Underpinnings of the Study

Dewey (1916) wrote, “education is a social function…education will vary with

the quality of life which prevails in a group” (p. 81). Vygotsky (1979) asserted that

understanding is created through the interactions of people working together, and that

learning occurs in the space created by interpersonal interactions. These assertions

reflect the principles of social constructivism, a major theoretical basis for this study.

Social Constructivism

Social constructivism rejects the idea that individuals are the central focus of

learning (Palincsar, 1998). Learning is an inherently social activity (Palincsar, 1998).

Conceptual development, according to social constructivist theory, results from cultural

activities, and the interpersonal interactions that occur during those activities, especially

those related to the exchange of language (Palincsar, 1998).

Vygotsky (1979) theorized that a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) exists.

This is the optimal condition in which learning occurs, and takes place when others assist

a learner (Vygotsky, 1979). Bandura (1971) refers to social learning as a continuous and

reciprocal interaction between behavior in an individual and the conditions around him or

her. This is distinct from the act of learning by direct observation, which Bandura (1971)

suggests is effective because it allows a person to learn about the consequences of a large

range of actions without having to experience them firsthand or to go through a long and

painful process of trial and error. New patterns of behavior can be discovered through

either direct experience or through the observation of others (Bandura, 1971).

Social constructivism relates directly to the experience of adult learners, and to

doctoral students working together in cohorts, as cohort-model doctoral students are


14

enabling each other to move to the next level of understanding (as in Vygotsky) and are

learning through a combination of observation and experience (as in Bandura).

Emotional Intelligence

Mayer and Salovey (1990) proposed the theory that emotional intelligence was a

separate entity from what had previously been termed social intelligence or interpersonal

intelligence by Gardner (1983). Mayer and Salovey (1990) viewed emotions as

controlled responses to external stimuli, and stated that an awareness of those responses

is at the core of emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence is ability to process

emotional information accurately and efficiently, including the recognition of emotional

states in others, and to use this information in order to apply it to situations in life and

work (Mayer & Salovey, 1995).

Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2001) mention the concept of mood contagion,

the powerful effect that a person’s emotions have on the moods and emotions of people

around them. Awareness of this neurobiological effect is a crucial aspect of emotional

intelligence (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2001). The close proximity experienced by

individuals in cohort coursework lends itself to mood contagion as described by

Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2001).

Goleman (2011) writes that in peer groups, in which all members have equivalent

power, the primary transmitter of emotions, that sets the mood for the group, tends to be

the most emotionally expressive member. This idea is similar to Emery, Calvard, and

Pierce’s (2013) assertion that expressiveness is directly related to behaviors that

contribute to the attribution of leadership to group members by other members of the

group. Emotional contagion is therefore an important aspect of emergent leadership, if


15

Goleman’s (2011) emotional intelligence theory is applied to an understanding of how

leadership is attributed in groups without formally appointed leaders.

The emotions and mood felt by one member of the cohort can elicit a sympathetic

or empathetic response, and as many of the emotions felt during the time that they are

working together can be powerfully positive or negative, it is likely that mood contagion

is prevalent in cohorts of doctoral students. Pescosolido (2002) suggests that an essential

part of emergent leadership is providing certainty and direction for the group in situations

that are ambiguous or where there is not a clear or definite way to proceed. A calm

demeanor is very important in uncertain situations (Pescosolido, 2002) and in order for a

non-nominative leader to direct the group in such a situation, they will have to remain

serene, in order to avoid the possibility of negative mood contagion, which could render

the group incapable of effectively negotiating an ambiguous or stressful situation.

Communities of Practice

Lave and Wenger (1991) described communities of practice in their theory of

Situated Learning. Communities of practice consist of individuals who reflect on and

share information about their commonly shared activities or professional work (Wenger,

1998). Shared learning and social interaction results from the cultivation of communities

of practice (Wenger, 1998). Emergent leadership is directly related to communities of

practice, as many non-nominative or emergent leaders have influence on the opinions of

their groups, often by articulating the shared interests or desires of the group (Wolff,

Pescosolido, & Druskat, 2002).


16

Professional Learning Communities

Hord (1997) describes a specific variety of community of practice when writing

about professional learning communities (PLCs). Professional learning communities are

composed of educators engaged in collaborative, strategic planning with continuous

improvement as the focus of activity (Hord, 1997). The educational focus of PLCs

distinguishes them from communities of practice as described by Wenger (1998), because

communities of practice can be found in any discipline. This dissertation will view

doctoral cohorts as communities of practice as described by Wenger rather than as PLCs

as described by Hord. The reason for this is that Hord’s PLC model is both descriptive

but also prescriptive, with some specific structures and behaviors unique to a PLC that

are suited to the collaborative groups of primary and secondary school teachers that were

the intended adopters of the model, but which do not apply to the doctoral students that

will be participants in the present study.

Cohorts and Adult Education

Individuals in groups are agents within systems that both affect and are affected

by experiences within those systems (Norris & Barnett, 1994). Cohorts of students are

groups composed of individuals (Barnett & Muse, 1993). Norris and Barnett (1994)

suggest that cohorts enhance the development of individuals while also creating

community.

Imel (2002) asserts that cohorts must be structured and designed purposefully for

them to act as effective vehicles for student academic and intellectual growth. Critical

reflection and collaborative construction of knowledge are important functions of cohorts

in higher education (Imel, 2002). Members of cohorts composed of graduate students


17

report enhanced critical thinking ability and an expanded knowledge base as a result of

their cohort-based learning experience (Imel, 2002).

Imel (2002) noted that some researchers, including Norris and Barnett (1994), had

identified behaviors that negatively impacted the efficacy of cohorts as learning

organizations. These behaviors included failure to meet group expectations, lack of

confidence in the cohort model, and ceding authority to the instructor rather than

attributing leadership to other members of the group (Imel, 2002).

Statement of the Problem

The study of leadership in teams has often focused on traditional views of

leadership (Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2009). Traditional views see leaders as

hierarchal and formally appointed (Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2009). Emergent

leadership studies seek to identify and explain the behavior of leaders in groups who are

not formally appointed, but who have leadership attributed to them by others (Emery et

al., 2013).

Some studies of leadership have identified certain personalities and behaviors that

lead group members to attribute leadership to individuals (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009).

Emergent leaders have been shown to be more dominant, and to be more talkative than

their peers (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009). Dominance and extroversion are interrelated,

and lead to the attribution of leadership to individuals in groups without formal

leadership (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009).

Imel (2002) wrote about the impact of a lack of emergent leadership within

cohorts, noting that the efficacy of cohorts as learning groups suffered when cohort


18

members attributed primary leadership to instructors rather than to their fellow cohort

members.

Barnett and Muth (2008) stress the importance of using the cohort model to train

future educational leaders in the discipline of research and collaborative knowledge

building. Immersion in collaborative structures for learning about and conducting

research can take place within cohort model programs, and this collaboration is crucial

for the development of the type of leadership skills and knowledge that will be needed to

direct educational organizations in the immediate future (Barnett & Muth, 2008). It

follows that, as leadership skills are collaboratively learned through cohort activities like

coursework and research projects, emergent leadership within cohort groups should also

be evident.

The study of emergent leadership in doctoral cohort groups will contribute to the

understanding of how leadership attribution occurs, and will add to the body of research

on the experiences of doctoral students. There is little or no research published in the

literature on emergent leadership within doctoral cohorts, and it is possible that this study

will be the first to examine this topic. The study of emergent leadership in doctoral

cohorts will add to the fund of knowledge on leadership in leaderless groups in general,

which might have applications in a wide range of fields of both study and practice.

Purpose of the Study

The researcher used a constructivist grounded theory (CGT) methodology to

generate explanatory theories about the emergence of leadership within doctoral cohort

groups focusing on educational leadership. Constructivist grounded theory (CGT) was

developed by Charmaz, working from the grounded theory approach of Glaser and


19

Strauss, which was refined and extended by Strauss and Corbin (Creswell, 2013). This

approach, described by Charmaz (2006) as a family of methods, is used to generate

descriptive and explanatory theories about aspects of human experience (Charmaz, 2006;

Creswell, 2013).

The results, including analysis and interpretations of data, in a CGT study are not

meant to be definitive or truly conclusive (Creswell, 2013). The interpretive nature of

CGT embraces subjectivity and acknowledges the importance of the feelings, thoughts,

and expressed perceptions of individuals in the study, including the subjects as well as

the researcher (Creswell, 2013). In CGT, a researcher continues to generate data through

subject-researcher interactions, including interviews and examination of artifacts, until

the researcher makes the determination that the period of study has ended (Charmaz,

2006). This makes CGT an appropriate choice when conducting an inquiry into a

complex topic, especially one that examines human interactions, which are multi-layered

and not conducive to objective study (Creswell, 2013).

Examining emergent leadership among groups of doctoral students in a cohort

provided the researcher with insight into the nature of the experiences of members within

cohort groups. The flexibility of the qualitative approach, incorporating CGT and

including the use of in-depth interviews and open-ended survey instruments, will allow

for opportunities within the study to discover the attitudes, thoughts, feelings, and

aspirations of doctoral students within a cohort-model program. Analyzing the data

collected in the course of the study allowed the researcher to generate theoretical

constructs to explain emergent leadership in doctoral cohorts and the experience of

doctoral students in cohort-model programs. Administrators, faculty, and students in


20

educational leadership doctoral cohort programs, to inform decisions and planning, may

use reoccurring themes found by the researcher, observations, and theories generated

through the analysis of study data in the future.

Research Questions

Two research questions formed a framing structure for the study. First, how does

leadership emerge during the course of a cohort-model doctoral program of study?

Second, what are the perceived behaviors of individuals considered to be leaders by their

fellow cohort members? Inquiry into the two questions provided data for the researcher

to analyze and consider as emergent leadership in doctoral cohorts is being studied.

Definition of Terms

Academia: The life, community, or world of teachers, schools, and education (N.D.,

2014).

Constructivist Grounded Theory: A research methodology that is used to systematically

analyze data collected from in-depth interviews and a review of artifacts to generate

explanatory theories (Charmaz, 2006).

Doctoral Cohort: A group of individuals that enter simultaneously into a program of

study that ends with students earning doctoral degrees from a university (Barnett &

Muse, 1993; Saltiel, 1998).

Doctoral Student: A student enrolled in a program of study culminating in the award of a

doctoral degree (Golde, 2001).

Emergent Leadership: Leaders that are not nominated or appointed by persons in

authority; individuals to whom leadership is attributed by other members of the group

(Crockett, 1955; Carte, Chidambaram, & Becker, 2006).


21

Professional Learning Community (PLC): A group of individuals who share a common,

clearly identified purpose and who work together to enhance their understanding of how

their learning organization can be more effective (Hord, 1997).

Social Constructivism: A theory of learning, developed from the work of Vygotsky that

suggests that people learn most effectively when they are working in collaboration with

others (Palincsar, 1998).

Limitations

The researcher is a doctoral degree candidate in a cohort-model doctoral program.

Because of this, the researcher has a great deal of familiarity with the type of doctoral

program in educational leadership that is the subject of the study. This familiarity was a

potential source of bias for the researcher. In addition, the focus on a small sample size

at one university could mean that the theories generated in the course of the study may be

applicable to or descriptive of only the doctoral students taking part in that specific

program, at that time and place. Another limitation is the scarcity of previous examples

in the literature of emergent leadership within doctoral cohort groups. The lack of

previous work means that the researcher could not refer to an existing body of

scholarship, in order to build upon what had been previously discovered.

Validity and reliability for the study were enhanced by the use of a variety of

procedures to collect data, including individual interviews, focus group interviews, and

data collected through standardized surveys generated by the researcher. The use of

multiple sources of data is also known as triangulation (Creswell, 2013).

The process of conducting qualitative research in emergent leadership within

doctoral cohorts, using a grounded theory approach, provided insights into the ways that


22

leadership behaviors, including interpersonal and intrapersonal ways of interacting, might

be manifested within groups of doctoral students studying educational leadership. These

students are going to direct, inspire, motivate, and innovate within the field of education,

at the primary, secondary, and university levels. Adding to the understanding of how

they become leaders will be useful for administrators, instructors, and either present or

future doctoral students in leadership-oriented doctoral programs. The theory generated

in the course of the study provides a description of how leadership emerges within this

kind of program, and the information may then inform the ways in which cohort model

doctoral programs in educational leadership can foster emergent leadership and provide

educational leaders with data about the nature of leadership among doctoral students in a

more general sense as well.

Chapter Two: Background and Review of the Literature

Doctoral cohorts are small groups of students created to complete a course of

study and dissertation, with the award of a doctorate as the end goal (Nimer, 2009).

Doctoral cohorts are typically small groups (Barnett & Muse, 1993). A doctoral cohort-

model program provides a supporting framework and gives opportunities for interaction

with other doctoral students (Barnett & Muse, 1993; Barnett, Basom, Yerkes, & Norris,

2000; Lipson, 2002; Nimer, 2009).

The phenomenon of people working together in small groups has been studied

extensively (McGrath, Arrow, & Berdahl, 2000). Researchers in the social sciences have

learned a great deal about how people work together and to what extent their interactions

are effective (McGrath, Arrow, & Berdahl, 2000). Organizational psychology (Lewin,


23

1947, Tuckman, 1965), business administration (Bennis & Shepard, 1956),

developmental psychology (Vygotsky, 1978), and educational leadership studies (Hord,

1997; Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005) are examples of the many fields of

represented in the study of groups.

Doctoral students contribute to the process of expanding knowledge, and are at

the forefront of research and creative innovation (Nerad, Trzyna, & Heggelund, 2008).

Collaborative research, completed by doctoral students while working on their

coursework and during their dissertation process, is a major contribution to new

developments and products in industry (Thune, 2009). In the discipline of educational

leadership, doctoral students are the next generation of leaders for higher education at

colleges and universities, taking on professor positions and administrative roles (Luna,

2010).

The pursuit of a doctoral program of study is challenging and stressful (Wright &

Lodwick, 1989). Many students do not fully comprehend what doctoral study will

require of them, how the process works, what the culture of academia is, or how to

navigate through a doctoral program effectively (Golde & Dore, 2001). Working with

people who share that same goal may be helpful in alleviating the above-mentioned

stressors, as suggested by Putnam (2006).

A number of scholars have noted the difficulties faced by doctoral students in the

pursuit of their degrees (Lipson, 2002; Teitel, 1997, Wesson, Holman, Holman, & Cox,

1996). Family pressures, finances, and difficulty with balancing responsibilities working

in one’s job or career along with doctoral study and research were all reasons given for

leaving doctoral programs before completion (Wesson, 1996; Teitel, 1997, Lipson, 2002,


24

Fenge, 2012). Some students are successful during coursework, but have difficulties

during the process of writing the dissertation, struggling with problems related to style,

format, and content (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012). One rationale given for implementing

cohort-model doctoral programs is the practical and emotional support that doctoral

students give to each other during their course of study and dissertation writing (Fenge,

2012).

Nimer (2009) mentions another rationale for the continuing use of cohort model

doctoral programs. Students make sense of the doctoral experience by talking about it

with peers in their doctoral cohorts (Nimer, 2009). The ability to share their perspectives

on the challenges of being a student in a doctoral program reduces some of the stress

placed on doctoral students, and this stress reduction has resulted in higher completion

rates for cohort-model doctoral programs (Nimer, 2009).

A study published in 2008 by the Council of Graduate Schools quantified student

attrition rates for all doctoral programs at 57%, with higher rates for the humanities than

for the sciences and engineering. Many students cite a lack of support from both the

institution and people within it, along with a sense of isolation, as contributing to their

lack of success (Golde, 2005). A doctoral cohort-model program is a framework to

provide support and interaction (Barnett & Muse, 1993).

The cohort model of doctoral education, in which students enter into a program of

study as a group working together on doctoral coursework and their dissertations, has

many benefits for students and doctoral candidates, including higher rates of completion,

reduced student stress, and enhanced collaboration on coursework (Dorn & Papalewis,

1997; Horn, 2001; Mullen, 2003). Programs in educational leadership seek to train and


25

prepare students for the leadership roles in the field of education, and many doctoral

programs in educational leadership follow a cohort model (Luna, 2010; Nimer, 2009).

Cohort model doctoral programs, by their very nature, provide training in collaboration

and transformational leadership required by schools (Barnett, Basom, Yerkes, & Norris,

2000).

Many people have studied leadership as a concept over the course of human

history (House & Aditaya, 1997). Several theories to explain leadership have been

identified over time, including: transformational leadership (Bass, 1991; Bennis, 1996),

transactional leadership (Burns, 1978), and emergent leadership (Carte, Chidambaram,

& Becker, 2006; O’Connor & Jackson, 2010). Transformational leadership and

transactional leadership will be explained in greater depth later in this chapter, in the

section on leadership.

This study will explore emergent leadership; the ways in which groups without

formal leadership are directed by individuals within groups of students. It will focus on a

group of students in a cohort-model doctoral program in educational leadership, at a state

university in New England.

New England Public University has a cohort-model doctoral program in

educational leadership. Students begin and end their doctoral coursework with their

cohort, progressing through their program over the same period of time. Dissertation

work is completed individually, and students may finish at different times than their

cohort fellows. Students and doctoral candidates from the three active cohorts in the

educational leadership program will be invited to take part in a series of individual

conversational interviews, along with conducting focus group interviews and completing


26

a survey, exploring their perspectives on being part of a cohort as well as the informal

leadership structure that may or may not have been developed during their time together.

This study will use grounded theory, a type of qualitative methodology (Fraenkel

&Wallen , 2006). Glaser and Strauss (1967) delineated the specifics of grounded theory.

A scholar using grounded theory collects data through a variety of means, and then

examines and analyzes that data to make meaning (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984).

The epistemological orientation of the study will be situated within the framework

of social constructivism, and will be idiographic, rather than nomothetic in point-of-view

and purpose. Social constructivism is the idea that knowledge is created among groups

of people working together (Palincsar, 1998). The study will incorporate the shared

perspectives of multiple subjects, and the data collected from the subjects will be used to

explore their unique experiences. Idiographic studies are undertaken to explain or to

describe a particular experience, and are not used to create universal or general truths in

relation to the experience being studied (Fraenkel, 1995).

Table 1 summarizes nomothetic and idiographic points of view:


27

Table 1 Nomothetic and Idiographic Approaches ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Nomothetic Idiographic Greek Root Nomos- Laws Idios- Private

or Personal Approach Investigates

Large Population Sample, Looking for General Behavioral Commonalities that Universally Apply

Investigates Individuals to Gain Understanding of Them and Their Unique Qualities

Methods Quantitative, Experimental

Qualitative

________________________________________________________________________

Note. Adapted from Fraenkel, P. (1995). The nomothetic‐ idiographic debate in family therapy. Family Process, 34(1), 113-121.

Research Questions

How does leadership emerge during the course of a cohort-model doctoral program

of study? What are the perceived behaviors of individuals considered to be leaders by

their fellow cohort members?

Importance of the Study

The doctoral program of study in educational leadership is the primary avenue to

formal leadership roles in higher education (Luna, 2010). Golde (2001) found that the

majority of students in doctoral programs want to move into jobs in the academy when


28

they finish their program, and finding professorships is the motivation for many students

to enter into post-graduate study. Students working on doctoral degrees in the

humanities, including education, expressed the strongest desire for college or university

faculty jobs (Golde, 2001).

Doctoral cohort model programs socialize students to the culture of academia and

also give them the opportunity to mentor each other through the process of coursework

and dissertation writing (Mullen, 2003). It is important to understand the nature of

collaborations among students during their doctoral studies in order to better understand

and predict their capacity for effective collaboration in the workplace after the

completion of their programs (Thune, 2009). Studying the interactions among doctoral

students in a cohort-model program and the responses of those students that engage in

emergent leadership behaviors will contribute to the understanding of how leadership

emerges within educational leadership doctoral programs.

Limitations

This study explores the experiences of groups of students at one university. This

limited, small sample will limit the generalizability of the resultant findings. Grounded

theory methodology design relies on the discernment of the investigator to make meaning

of the findings, and the researcher’s ability to decide when sufficient data has been

collected.

Researcher bias is also possible, which could harm the study’s validity. The

investigator has a great deal of familiarity with the program and participants in the study.

This awareness and familiarity could have a negative impact on objectivity. The

researcher is also an active member of a doctoral cohort group, and because of this, might


29

have biases about doctoral study within cohort-model programs. It will be important for

the researcher to be aware of the potential for bias while conducting the study.

Leadership

There are many definitions of leadership (House & Aditaya, 1997). However, no

single approach to or style of leadership has been shown to be the most effective

(Goleman, 2000; Schemerhorn, 1997). Because of this, the literature on leadership

consists of a wide variety of approaches and theories about what constitutes effective

leadership.

House and Aditaya (1997) identified a fundamental dichotomy within studies of

leadership: Trait-based leadership versus behavior-based leadership. Trait-Based

Leadership theory suggests that leaders have certain innate personality traits that can be

either developed or enhanced, in order to make their work as leaders more effective (Bass

& Stogdill, 1990). Behavior-Based Leadership is a series of behaviors, rather than innate

characteristics possessed by an individual (Farson, 1997).

Trait-Based Leadership

The earliest instance in the literature of trait-based leadership might be found in a

book written in 1869 (Zaccaro, 2007). Galton (1869) defined leadership as a set of

properties unique to special, extraordinary people. Galton (1869) also proposed that

these traits are inherited. Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader (2004) provide a definition of leader

traits: “relatively stable and coherent integrations of personal characteristics that foster a

consistent pattern of leadership performance across a variety of group and organizational

situations” (p. 104).


30

Much of the early empirical research on leadership, conducted from the 1930s to

the 1950s was based on attempts to identify the innate qualities of effective leaders

(House & Aditaya, 1997). Many of the studies that formed the body of research on

leadership during this time attempted to make distinctions between two groups of people:

leaders and non-leaders (Zaccaro et al, 2004). Leaders were considered to possess certain

innate characteristics (traits), which gave them the capacity to lead others; those who

didn’t have those characteristics were considered non-leaders (Zaccaro et al, 2004).

Stogdill (1948) asserted that leadership is composed of a person’s traits

interacting with situational context and a leader’s responses. However, Stogdill (1948)

also stated that a person cannot become a leader simply because they possess certain

traits. The leader must also demonstrate success in their leadership endeavors, according

to Stogdill (1948).

One critique of trait-based leadership, as noted by O’Connor and Jackson (2010),

is that leader-follower interactions are the result of a series of biochemical and

psychological processes. The reduction of such complex processes into predictable

frameworks is relatively simple to do in a statistical analysis, but is not necessarily a

reliable predictor of leader efficacy (O’Connor & Jackson, 2010).

Blum and Naylor (1956) provide another critique of trait-based leadership

models. They assert that the trait-based paradigm does not explain the processes or other

actions that make up effective leadership. Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader (2004) explain that

the qualities or traits that had been indicated in trait-oriented studies of leadership

emerged in specific contexts. However, leaders that emerged within one context could

transfer effective leadership to other situations (Zaccaro et al, 2004).


31

Trait-oriented leadership as a construct began to give way to behavior-oriented

leadership during the 1950’s and 1960’s, as experts like Fiedler (1967) began to develop

models for leadership effectiveness that were situational. The behaviors of effective

leaders came to the fore in these studies. Yukl, Gordon and Taber (2006) and Zaccaro

(2007) suggest that leaders must integrate leader attributes into situational contexts and

behavioral responses. This integration combines traits with behaviors, and behavior-

based leadership is the result.

Behavior-Based Leadership

Bass and Stogdill (1990) define leadership as, “the result of behavior, not position

or situation” (p. 1). Hogg (2001) supports the idea of leadership as consisting of

behaviors, and adds that leadership must include the assertion of influence by the leader

in order to change the behavior of followers. Burns (1978) writes that power and

influence are interrelated, but makes clear that power is part of leadership, but does not

constitute it entirely, while Yukl (2001) states clearly that influence is essential to

leadership.

Bennis (1996) clearly states the difference between completing a series of actions,

including delegating tasks or directing people, and leading. He identifies the essential

qualities of leadership, which he calls the ingredients: a guiding vision, passion, and

integrity. While these may, on first reading, appear to be trait-oriented, Bennis is clear

about the direct relationship of the characteristics and the context-dependent behaviors

that are the manifestations of them. Bennis (1996) offers qualities of leaders as a

theoretical construct, rejecting trait-based models. He suggests that characteristics like

passion, a guiding vision, and integrity are more important to effective leadership than


32

any inborn traits, and also makes the case that these qualities can be fostered (Bennis,

1996).

Leadership researchers have identified certain key characteristics possessed by

leaders (Yukl, 2001). Yukl (2001) notes that the most important of these are personality

traits such as perseverance, emotional maturity, and stress tolerance. Zaccaro et al.

(2004) suggested that charismatic models of leadership, in which leaders attract followers

through their attractive personalities, were problematic because they did not take into

account the interplay of leader characteristics combined with situations and the response

of the leader to them.

Hansen, Ropo, and Sauer (2007) expressed the idea that leadership studies have

generally tried to reduce leadership to a predictable set of variables, and they argue that

this leaves out much of the richness of detail and individuality that can come from the

leadership experience. Leadership studies have increasingly incorporated both subjective

qualities of leaders and the experiences of followers (Hansen, et al, 2007).

Hansen et al. (2007) offer the idea of aesthetic leadership to explore the ways in which

leaders react to situations in ways that are authentic to their unique, individual selves.

Models and Instruments to Measure Leadership Capacity

Task-oriented behavior is different than leadership (Rupprecht, Waldrop, &

Grawitch, 2013). Task-oriented behavior is management, rather than leadership

(Rupprecht, Waldrop, & Grawitch, 2013). While task-oriented behaviors, like setting

agendas for meetings and delegation of responsibilities is an important part of the work of

leaders, leadership consists of many other activities and actions. Fieldler’s (1967)

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness, found that leaders with a strong skill-set


33

in the area of task orientation were most effective in situations that were either going well

or were not going at all well, while leaders who were more relationship oriented

performed best in situations that were moderately favorable, without a great deal of

conflict or other situational adversity.

Ralph Stogdill (1948), previously influential in traits-based leadership research,

developed an instrument to aid in the identification of leader behaviors (O’Connor &

Jackson, 2010). Among the behaviors measured in the Leader Behavior Description

Questionnaire (Stogdill, 1963) are: initiation of structure, consideration, persuasion, and

emphasis on production. These items represent task and relationship oriented aspects of

leadership, and Stogdill designed the instrument to provide researchers with information

about where individual leader’s behaviors lay within a variety of leadership tasks and

activities.

Blake and Mouton (1985) designed a questionnaire to gauge the tendency of a

leader towards either relationship building or authoritarianism. This instrument aided the

researchers in measuring a respondent’s interest in people as opposed to tasks. The

results of their study indicated that more task-oriented leaders were more concerned with

results, and less concerned with the general well-being of their followers (Blake &

Mouton, 1985). Blake and Mouton (1985) used the results of their study to create a

model, using the strength of the two behaviors to situate types of leaders into four

quadrants. These quadrants represent leader types based on how strongly they engage in

the behaviors. The quadrants are: High Task/Low People, High Task/High People, Low

Task/High People, and Low Task/Low People (Blake & Mouton, 1985). This model can


34

be used to correlate leadership behaviors with the corresponding leadership style and to

gauge how leaders are behaving within groups (Blake & Mouton, 1985).

Table 2 Quadrant Model for Leadership

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

High Task/Low

People: Completion

of tasks has a higher

priority than building

relationships

High People/High

Task: Relationship

building and task

completion have

equivalent value

Low Task/High

People: Building

relationships more

important than

completing tasks

Low People/Low

Task: Relationship

building and task

completion are not

priorities

________________________________________________________________________

Note. Adapted from Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). The managerial grid III. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

A model for describing the behaviors that constitute effective leadership is the

Situational Leadership Model (Hersey, 1979). Developed by Paul Hersey in the mid-

1960’s, this model examines the interrelated factors of leader-follower communication

(Schemerhorn, 1997). In Hersey’s (1979) model, three factors work together to foster

effective leadership: the social-emotional support provided to followers by a leader,


35

explicit direction provided by the leader, and the readiness or willingness of followers to

complete the work suggested by the leader.

Chan and Drasgow (2001) noted that predictors of leader effectiveness have been

the main focus of most studies of leadership, and suggest that motivation to lead, which is

the result of a combination of highly individual factors may have more value for the

study of leadership. Motivation to lead varies from person to person, and has been

explained by theories such as McClelland’s (1985) need for power or Bandura’s (1986)

self-efficacy concept from his general social cognitive theory.

Yukl (2001) proposes that change management be included in the outcomes of

leadership, along with task orientation and relationship orientation. Farson (1997) agrees

with the idea that change management is an essential part of leadership, and explains in

detail the behaviors of change-oriented leaders. Bennis (1996) asserts that the formation

and maintenance of relationships are useful in the practice of enacting change.

The cultivation of relationships and the identification of the goals of the group is a

function of leadership (Bennis, 1996; Covey, Drucker, & Peters, 2009). A leader’s

behavior within a group must contribute to the common aims of the group (Farson, 1996;

Hogg, 2001). Successful leadership can be realized through the existence of shared goals,

under the guidance of a skilled leader with a clear vision of how to attain those goals

(Bennis, 1996).

Transactional and Transformational Leadership

Transactional Leadership and Transformational Leadership are theories, which

explain methods used by leaders to achieve goals (Bass & Stogdill, 1990). Both are based


36

on sets of behaviors, placing them within the paradigm of behavior-oriented leadership.

The specific behaviors vary in ways that affect the results (See Table 3).

Table 3 Transformational and Transactional Leaders ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Transformational Leaders Transactional Leaders

Motivate, build awareness of shared vision Explicitly exchange rewards for performance

Communicate expectations Correct mistakes

Coach, advise Intervene only when performance doesn’t

meet expectations

________________________________________________________________________

Note. Adapted from Bass, B. M. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.

While some leaders may include elements of each in their own leadership style, it

is likely that most leaders adopt only one of the two, as they are representative of very

different approaches to leading (Hogg, 2001).

Transactional leadership takes place through a series of interactions among

leaders and followers (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Burns 1978). These interactions are

characterized by interdependency, and are influenced by the relationships between leader

and followers (Farson, 1997; Patterson, Grenny, Maxfield, McMillan, Switzler, 2008).

Some researchers, including Farson (1997) and Bass (1991) suggest that this

interdependency can result in a quid pro quo relationship between leader and followers,

where the leader expects reciprocation from followers in a variety of situations.


37

This is distinct from transformational leadership. Bass (1991) uses a paraphrase of

John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address of 1961 to illustrate the key difference between

transactional and transformational leadership: “the transformational leader asks what you

can do for your country; the transactional leader, on what your country can do for you”

(p. 9). In other words, transactional leaders appeal to the direct needs and self-interest of

followers, while transformational leaders work with the higher order, self-actualization

needs of followers (Bass, 1991).

Transformational leadership models allude to the charismatic qualities of leaders

engaged in transformative work (Zaccaro, 2007). In transformational leadership, leaders

and followers interact with a sense of engagement and shared purpose that change the

situation positively (Burns, 1978). Transformational leadership is linked to traits-based

leadership by this relationship. As Farson (1997) points out, “true leaders are defined by

the groups that they are serving” (p. 145).

Fostering self-confidence for a group as a whole is also an important part of the

process of group development, and is an important responsibility for a leader (Heifetz &

Laurie, 1997). Lawrence-Lightfoot (2000) notes that a person or people lacking in self-

respect tend to take on the views of others, and these views may be inaccurate or

otherwise distorted. Taking on a distorted perspective can be harmful to the self-image

of the group. An effective leader, therefore, must be able to find ways to build self-

confidence in other members of their group so that the group can determine its priorities

(Drucker, 2005).


38

Transformative Leadership in Schools

Transformative leadership in education has been studied extensively (Leithwood

& Jantzi, 2006). Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) identified two variables that

determine a positive or negative impact on student achievement. The first primary

variable is the focus of change, the proper identification of classroom and school

practices that will be most likely to have a salutary effect on student achievement. The

second primary variable is how much leaders understand the extent of change that needs

to occur for student achievement to improve.

Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) found that the qualities a leader brings to

their work, especially commitment to a shared vision articulated by both leader and

followers, had a direct and measurable positive effect. In the particular case of the work

done by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005), this was specific to schools, but the

central idea of authenticity and commitment to a shared vision can be seen in the work of

scholars in other disciplines, such as Bennis (1996), who writes extensively about the

importance of articulating a shared vision.

Emotional Intelligence

Thorndike (1920) suggested that social intelligence, or the understanding of one’s

interpersonal relationships, was distinct from other types of intelligence. Thorndike

(1920) defines social intelligence, writing that it is “to act wisely in human relations” (p.

228). Salovey and Mayer (1990) define emotional intelligence as “a subset of social

intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and

emotions to discriminate among them to use this information to guide one’s thinking and

actions” (p. 433). Gardner (1983) places emotional intelligence within the greater


39

domain of social intelligence, grouping it with the personal intelligences, which he terms

interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence.

Goleman and Boyatzis (2008) provide a relationship-based means for determining

leadership capacity through social intelligence. Social intelligence is made up of

interpersonal competencies that are constructed from neurological and endocrine systems

in an individual that are used by leaders to inspire others to work effectively (Goleman &

Boyatzis, 2008). Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2001) identified four competencies

that make up social and emotional intelligence: self-awareness, self-management, social

awareness, and relationship management. See Table 4 for details about the four

competencies of social intelligence identified by Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2001).

Table 4 Social Intelligence Competencies ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Self-Awareness Knowledge of one’s own emotions. Used

to gauge one’s moods and their effect on

others.

Self-Management Controlling one’s emotions. Acting with

honesty and integrity, in a reliable and

adaptable manner.

Social Awareness Empathy- understanding how others feel

Organizational Awareness- knowing what

the organization needs, and what it

essentially is.


40

Relationship Management The ability to communicate clearly and

effectively, to manage conflict, and to build

strong interpersonal relationships.

________________________________________________________________________

Note. Adapted from Boyatzis, R. E., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. (2000). Clustering competence in emotional intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI). Handbook of emotional intelligence, 343-362.

Goleman and Boyatzis (2008) suggest that effective leadership makes extensive

use of positive emotional signals, in order to elicit positive responses in followers, which

in turn leads them to productive, effective work behaviors. While this may seem to be a

return to a trait-based model of leadership, Goleman and Boyatzis (2008) make it clear

that firing and activating social neural activity is a behavior that must be conscious and

habitual for them to be effective.

The primal leadership (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2001) model identifies

seven qualities of social intelligence: Empathy, Attunement, Organizational Awareness,

Influence, Developing Others, Inspiration, and Teamwork. This leadership model echoes

the work of other leadership theorists, including Bennis (1996) and Bass (1991), and adds

the layer of emotional intelligence to concepts, including understanding the context of an

organization and the articulation of a vision for the organization.

According to Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee (2001) the seven qualities of social

intelligence are defined as:

• Empathy is the ability to understand the thoughts and needs of others.


41

• Attunement is the use of interpersonal communication to gauge the

emotional responses of others.

• Influence is the use of knowledge and understanding of the desires and

needs of followers in order to convince them effectively to complete tasks

suggested by the leader.

• Developing others takes the form of coaching and recognizing strengths

in others that can be built upon by a leader.

• Inspiration is the ability to motivate followers through exemplary actions

and words.

• Teamwork is the use of communication and discernment on the part of a

leader to decide how and when to delegate tasks and to listen to the

suggestions of followers.

The primal leadership model was developed using data from The Emotional

Competence Inventory (ECI), an instrument created by Boyatzis, Goleman, and Rhee

(2000). The ECI clustered competencies into domains, including: self-awareness, self-

regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills. This inventory is a self-assessment

tool for leaders, in order for them to determine their relative strengths and weaknesses

(Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000). See Table 5 for more detailed information about the

competency domains found in the ECI.


42

Table 5 Social Skills Listed in the Emotional Competency Inventory ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Self-Awareness Emotional Awareness, Accurate Self-

Assessment, Self-Confidence

Self-Regulation Self-Control, Trustworthiness,

Conscientiousness, Adaptability,

Innovation

Motivation Achievement, Drive, Commitment,

Initiative, Optimism

Empathy Understanding Others, Developing Others,

Service Orientation, Leveraging Diversity,

Political Awareness

Social Skills Influence, Communication, Conflict

Management, Leadership, Change Catalyst,

Building Bonds, Collaboration and Co-

Operation, Team Capabilities

________________________________________________________________________

Note. Adapted from Boyatzis, R. E., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. (2000). Clustering competence in emotional intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI). Handbook of emotional intelligence, 343-362.

Mayer and Salovey (1993) argue that emotional intelligence is separate and

distinct from social intelligence. They contend that social intelligence is closely linked to

general intelligence and is broadly defined (Mayer and Salovey, 1993). Emotional

intelligence includes the manipulation of emotions and emotional content, and so can be


43

more clearly distinguished from the broad cognitive processes, which make up general

intelligence (Mayer & Salovey, 1993).

Emergent Leadership

Emergent leaders are individuals within self-managing groups, engaging in

directive and influential actions (O’Connor & Jackson, 2010). Leaders emerge within

groups without formal leadership through the attribution of leadership roles to them by

other members of the group (Emery, Calvard, & Pierce, 2013). Leadership emergence is

a process that takes place over the lifespan of a group (Judge, Bono, Iles, & Gerhardt,

2002). Other members of a group attribute leadership to individuals during this process

(Emery, Calvard, & Pierce, 2013).

Lord’s implicit leadership theory explains some aspects of emergent leadership

(Rush, Thomas, & Lord, 1977). In this theory, the perceptions that other group members

have of leadership capacity in certain individuals confers on them the social power

necessary to direct the group in the manner of a leader (Lord, 1977). Lord, DeVader, and

Alliger (1986) found that perceptions of intelligence, masculinity or femininity, or

dominance have a strong relationship with perceptions of leadership capability in

emergent leaders. Shondrick and Lord (2010) pair implicit leadership theory with an

implicit followership theory, as: “leadership is an ongoing, dynamic, two-way exchange

between leaders and followers” (p. 1).


44

Followers in Groups Without Formal Leadership

Followers decide who leads in a dynamic network or group (Emery et al, 2013).

This process has been referred to as emergent leadership (Taggar, Hackett, & Saha,

1999). Emergent leadership is therefore, a group process that occurs simultaneously with

followership (Hogg, Martin, & Weeden, 2003).

A person, who is perceived to be a leader, or to have leadership characteristics,

has a disproportionate influence on the direction of a group (Rush, Thomas, & Lord,

1977). Influence can be defined as: a process through which individuals change or

modify the feelings, thoughts, and behaviors of others in a group (Anderson & Kilduff,

2009; Cartwright, 1959; Lewin, 1947). Anderson and Kilduff (2009) also state that

influence is simultaneously a resource and a set of behaviors, drawn on and used by

leaders when they seek to direct the actions, behaviors, perceptions, or thoughts of a

group.

Followers also choose to follow a leader because so doing will benefit them

personally (Covey, 1990). Trivers’ (1971) theory of human reciprocal altruism, also

provides an explanation of the benefits of followership, arguing that by doing something

for another person, one expects reciprocity, whether in the near or the distant future.

Yalom (1975) and Putnam (2001) also make the case for social reciprocity as a

motivation for members within social networks. Putnam (2001) points out that members

of such tightly knit communities are likely to place value on mutual trust, because of the

potential for personal long-term gains, and Yalom (1975) asserts the primacy of

interpersonal relationships among people. The members of a group, or followers, are as

important to the direction taken by the group as leaders (Felfe & Schyns, 2010).


45

Group Structure and Behavior

This shared reliance is reflected in Lewin’s (1947) definition of a group as “a

dynamic whole, which is characterized by a close interdependence of its members” (p. 8).

This close relationship can become maladaptive. Yalom (1975) cautions that individuals

who have dysfunctional or otherwise negative communication or interpersonal

relationship styles outside of the group will bring those same problematic behaviors into

the group. Lawrence-Lightfoot (2000) also warns of the problems of power imbalances

within groups, using the term asymmetric relationships (p. 10) to characterize such

interactions among group members. Power imbalances cause dissonance among group

members in leaderless groups, and can affect how authority or leadership is attributed to

emergent leaders (Hogg, 2001).

Carter (1954) identifies three key variables that influence the behavior of a group:

the type of problem or project that the group is working on, individual personalities

within the group, and composition or structure of the group. Shaw (1959) conducted a

series of experiments to investigate the effects of individual personality on group

efficacy. One of the findings of Shaw’s study was that participants who responded

favorably to questions on a survey instrument about authority tended to also prefer an

authoritarian group structure. This finding helped to support Shaw’s (1959) hypothesis

that group structure is correlated to the preferences and personalities of group members.

Extraverted group members are more likely to engage with others and to approve

of relationship-oriented group behavior (Emery et al, 2013). Mullen, Salas, and Driskell

(1989) identified a correlation between talkativeness and the perception of leadership

capacity. Driskell, Olmstead, and Salas (1993) found that study participants that spoke


46

more often, and without pauses or hesitating, received high rankings for leadership

capacity and potential for influence.

A groups’ performance depends, at least partially, on the attitudes and abilities

that individual members bring to the task (Heslin, 1964). Authoritarian structures are

more conducive to task-oriented behaviors, and often have formal leadership (Fiedler,

1967; Blake & Mouton, 1985). However, Heslin (1964) found that authoritarian attitudes

of either leaders or group members had no significant relation to group competence,

productivity, or effective communication.

By their very nature, self-managed groups are relationship-oriented in structure,

and by extension, non-authoritarian (Emery et al, 2013). The presence of an authority

figure can have a negative effect on creativity and learning within a group, because fear

of failure and a desire to avoid disapproval from the authority figure can inhibit group

members (Ehiyazaryan, 2008). Relationship-oriented groups place more value on

interpersonal relationships and personal interactions, prioritizing people over tasks

(Emery et al, 2013).

Group Formation and Development

Lewin (1947) defines a group as “a dynamic whole, which is characterized by an

interdependence of its members” (p. 8). One of the memorable aspects of working, as

part of an effective group is how meaningful the experience is. Productivity,

connectedness, and “being part of something larger than themselves” (Senge, 1990, p. 13)

combine to create that sense of meaning for participants. Putnam (2001) also wrote about

interconnectedness in his study of social capital and societal interactions.


47

Tuckman (1965) studied the process of group formation and development. Four

stages in the development of a group were identified in this work: testing and

development, conflict within the group, development of group cohesion, and functional

role relatedness. Tuckman neatly summarized his group development theory using four

rhyming terms: forming, storming, norming, and performing (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977).

Tuckman and Jensen (1977) added a fifth stage, adjourning, during a re-evaluation of the

model (Williams & Duncan, 2010).

The first stage, called forming by Tuckman, is when a group is brought together

(1965). During this stage, members start to identify their common purpose, and to begin

to learn about each other as people (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Bennis and Shepard

(1956) noted that individuals consider, with varying degrees of awareness, their

experiences within groups to be a microcosm of their general life experiences. Tuckman

(1965) referred to this experience of individuals within groups as testing and

development (p. 386). Testing and development is the process of determining which

behaviors are acceptable to the group (Tuckman, 1965).

Bennis and Shepard (1956) suggest that a general theory of group development

must include identification of in-group dissonance or potential communication issues.

This suggestion corresponds to the stage of group development that Tuckman (1965)

referred to as storming.

Bennis and Shepard (1956) state, “the principal obstacles to the development of

valid communication are to be found in the orientation toward authority and intimacy that

members bring to the group” (p. 443). A group situates or orients itself in relation to

authority through the process that Tuckman (1965) referred to as norming. This stage is


48

the process of a group creating formal or informal rules for its operation (Tuckman,

1965). Once norming has taken place, a group can move into full functionality, the stage

referred to by Tuckman as performing (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977).

The final stage, added later by Tuckman and Jensen (1977) is called adjourning.

In this stage, participants complete their time together. Tuckman and Jensen (1977) note

that this stage has a great deal of variation in the ways that groups take leave of each

other. Some groups take the opportunity to reflect on their time together, in either an

evaluative or appreciative manner, while others separate without comment or

collaborative external processing about their shared experiences within the group

(Tuckman & Jensen, 1977).

Doctoral Cohort as Learning Community

A doctoral cohort can be defined as group of individuals that enter simultaneously

into a program of study that ends with students earning doctoral degrees from a university

(Barnett & Muse, 1993; Saltiel, 1998). Leadership is needed to direct the behavior of

group members toward the completion of shared goals or objectives (Carte,

Chidambaram, & Becker, 2006). In the case of doctoral students, working within a

cohort group, the common aim is completion of a course of study culminating in the

awarding of a doctoral degree. This is not easy; as Golde and Dore (2001) note “many

students do not clearly understand what doctoral study entails, how the process works,

and how to navigate it effectively” (p. 3).

As Saltiel (1998) noted, groups of students learning together as a cohort represent a

facet of the learning community model of education. Within learning communities,

individuals have a unique understanding of concepts discussed in the classroom and they


49

communicate what they have understood to their fellow students (Palincsar, 1998).

Learning is optimized when people work together, and an individual’s contribution can

help the group to move from one level of understanding to another, deeper or more

expansive level (Palincsar, 1998).

Vygotsky (1978) contended that the mind is composed of a series of independent

capabilities, and that learning happens when abilities, allowing the intake and analysis of

diverse information, are developed in an individual (Vygotsky, 1978). Wesson, Holman,

Holman, and Cox (1996) point out the importance of discussion and spoken language in

Vygotsky’s theory of learning, and make an explicit connection to the formation of

doctoral cohorts as social groups formed to enhance learning. Discussion and

collaborative sharing of ideas are essential to learning in groups (Wesson et al, 1996).

Albert Bandura’s (1977), theory of Social Learning built upon Vygotsky’s ideas.

Bandura posited that individuals learn more effectively in groups, because of the

interpersonal transactions and interactions that occur when group learning takes place

(Bandura, 1977). Wesson et al. (1996) extend the idea of social learning by contending

that higher psychological and cognitive functioning is also occurring within the cohort

structure, an idea that also stems from the theories of Vygotsky. Wesson et al. (1996)

wrote: “Vygotsky sees learning as a transformation of an interpersonal process to an

intrapersonal process which takes place in stages of internalization. The cohort structure

is a vehicle for both formal and informal social processing that, according to Vygotsky,

can facilitate the development of higher psychological function” (p. 4).

Another model for illustrating the power of people working together in groups can

be found in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), as described by Shirley Hord


50

(1997). Professional learning communities offer opportunities for shared power and

decision-making (Hord, 1998). Hord (1998) noted that one of the conditions of PLC’s

is a well-shaped communication structure. Hord (1998) offers a prescription for the

formation of PLC’s “to develop a community of learners, pull interested willing people

together; engage them in constructing a shared vision; develop trust and relationships,

and nurture a program of continuous learning” (p. 2). There are many versions of PLC’s,

as they are composed of individuals with unique perspectives working together (Hord,

Roussin, & Sommers, 2009).

Lave and Wenger (1991) provide another way to look at the knowledge work done by

groups in their theory of Situated Learning. According to this theory, learning is a

process that occurs within social relationships, and extends beyond only the acquisition

of knowledge, but also includes the socialization needed to become a member of a

community of practice. Wenger (1998) identifies three qualities needed for a community

of practice to exist: mutual engagement of members, a common purpose, and shared

points of reference. The doctoral cohort experience is a socio-cultural process that takes

place within a specialized community of practice (Barnett & Muse, 1993). Cohort-model

doctoral programs also fit Senge’s (1990) definition of a learning organization, as they

are environments in which “new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured” (p .3).

Benefits of the Cohort Model for Doctoral Students

Barnett and Muse (1993) and Fenge (2012) suggest that the work done by

doctoral students within cohorts is effective, because of the understandings created

through collaboration. Social constructivism, as described by Vygotsky (1978) and

Bandura (1977), among others, is a theoretical construct that explains the processes


51

through which understanding is created through collaborative learning (Palincsar, 1998).

Other benefits cited by researchers include emotional support and practical direction

provided to one another by members of a cohort (Devenish, Dyer, Jefferson, Lord,

VanLeeuwen & Fazakerley, 2009; Fenge, 2012). The cohort model has also contributed

to the prevention of doctoral program attrition by providing students with a network of

peers to give them advice on how to navigate the doctoral program, along with sharing

common challenges and concerns (Wesson, Wesson, Holman & Cox, 1996).

Lewin (1947) emphasized the importance for individuals to feel part of a group.

Putnam (2001) stated that this was integral to the process of building social capital, which

is the creation of social relationships with mutually beneficial outcomes for the

participants. Curtin, Stewart, and Ostrove (2013) assert that a sense of belonging is an

essential part of success in a graduate program of study. These elements come together

in a doctoral cohort model, as students cohere as a group, build interpersonal

relationships, and share in academic challenges and successes.

Wesson, Holman, Holman, and Cox (1996) conducted a study with a cohort of

doctoral students at the University of Arkansas. The study explored the perceptions of

students taking part in an educational leadership program. Researchers concluded that

much of the group cohesion for the cohort was the result of social interactions that took

place outside of the classroom (Wesson et al, 1996). These social interactions provided

opportunities to create a sense of trust among group members (Wesson et al, 1996).


52

Qualitative Research and Grounded Theory

Qualitative research is an inductive, naturalistic, and holistic methodology (Taylor

& Bogdan, 1984). Descriptive observation and the use of interviews are elements of

qualitative research, and have been used since antiquity to further understanding (Wax,

1971). The analysis of data collected during qualitative research is used to explore the

quality or nature of an experience or phenomenon (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006).

Research that incorporates interviews must include in its design an awareness of

the collaboration between investigators and participants, leading to the construction of

knowledge (Babchuk, 2011). Qualitative research requires a more deep and complex

relationship between subject and researcher than quantitative research (McCracken,

1988). A high level of respect and mutual trust must exist for a qualitative researcher

employing interviews, especially long-form interviews, to elicit extensive and valuable

responses from their interview subjects (McCracken, 1988).

Researchers bring their own unique personal perspective to their inquiry

(Charmaz, 2006). Charmaz (2006) notes the tendency of researchers to look for

possibilities and processes in data. Patterns in both approach and response while

conducting research can lead to the uncovering of theories to explain patterns that have

emerged through the examination of data (Charmaz, 2006). The formation of theories

from the rigorous examination of data collected from a variety of sources, using multiple

methods of collection, is known as Grounded Theory (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006).

The Grounded Theory (GT) approach is a qualitative research methodology

developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967). Grounded Theory can be used to develop


53

theories based on data collected and analyzed systematically over the course of a study

(Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006).

Grounded Theory

Strauss and Corbin (1994) define grounded theory as: “a general methodology for

developing theory that is grounded in data systematically gathered and analyzed” (p.

273). Grounded theory (GT) researchers seek to make meaning of experiences and issues

that have a prominent place in peoples’ lives (Mills, Bonner, & Francis, 2006). Dewey

(1916) writes explicitly about the value of examining multiple points of view when he

writes, “experience is an aggregate of more or less isolated particulars, acquaintance with

each of which must be separately made” (p. 334). GT accomplishes this goal of

exploring a phenomenon or set of experiences by conducting research and then

generating explanatory theories (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984; Creswell, 2012). Heath and

Cowley (2004) noted that using grounded theory methods necessitate the continuous

examination of one’s research questions. This makes GT a dynamic, rather than static,

process.

Constructivist Grounded Theory

Charmaz (2006) suggests that Grounded Theory is “a set of principles and

practices, not prescriptions or packages.” Charmaz’ approach diverges here from that of

both Glaser and Strauss and Corbin, as her less rigid structure moves away from the

definitive coding and study of processes laid out in the work of the others (Charmaz,

2006). Charmaz’ CGT is more purely phenomenological, rather than positivist in outlook

(Charmaz, 2006).


54

Grounded theory has been criticized for having a positivist bias (Charmaz, 2006).

Positivism is a theoretical perspective that looks for the facts or underlying causes for a

topic of study (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). A phenomenological perspective, on the other

hand, seeks to understand an experience or experiences by exploring the perspectives of

participants (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984, Creswell, 2012). Constructivist grounded theory

places emphasis on the phenomenological approach, and moves away from the positivist

perspective (Charmaz, 2006). Constructivist grounded theory also places strong emphasis

on the subjective perspectives generated through the interchange of researcher and

subject (Mills, Bonner, & Francis, 2006). This study utilized the CGT approach to

formulate explanatory theories about emergent leadership in doctoral cohort.

Conclusion

Groups are composed of individuals (Lewin, 1947). Group membership and

participation shape the thoughts and attitudes of individuals in groups (Emery, Calvard,

& Pierce, 2013). The purpose of the study is to examine leadership behavior in doctoral

cohort groups, and how perceptions of leadership emerge in doctoral cohorts. This study

will examine the emergence of leadership behaviors and the perception of leadership

capacity among members of doctoral cohort groups. Groups are composed of individuals

(Lewin, 1947

Some members of a group will be perceived as leaders by others (Emery,

Calvard, & Pierce, 2013). Attribution of leadership is a complex process, influenced by

the attitudes and shaped by the perceptions of group members (Carte, Chidambaram, &

Becker, 2006; Carter, 1954; Chan & Drasgow, 2001; Driskell, Olmstead, & Salas, 1993).


55

Emergent leadership occurs when members of a group attribute leadership to an

individual (Emery et al, 2013).

Constructivist Grounded Theory methods will be used to analyze the data

collected through individual interviews, focus group interviews, and surveys.

Constructivist Grounded Theory is used to systematically examine data until a theory can

be formed to explain or describe a phenomenon (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). Constructivist

Grounded Theory is a qualitative approach, and relies on the interaction of researcher and

subject in order to draw conclusions about an experience or phenomenon (Charmaz,

2006).

Chapter Three: Methodology

Problem

Emergent leadership is the attribution of leadership to individuals by their peers in

groups without formal, appointed leaders (Emery, Calvard, & Pierce, 2013). Doctoral

cohorts are groups of students working towards a doctoral degree. There have not been

any studies that have examined the process of emergent leadership within doctoral cohort

groups, based on a review of the scholarly literature. An inquiry into emergent leadership

among groups of students in cohort-model doctoral programs provided insights into the

nature of interpersonal relationships and the attribution of non-nominative leadership

within doctoral programs.

Research Questions

The researcher inquired into two questions during the study. The first is: How

does leadership emerge during the course of a cohort-model doctoral program of study?


56

The second: What are the perceived behaviors of individuals considered to be leaders by

their fellow cohort members? These questions served as guiding points for the inquiry.

Qualitative Research and Inquiry

Observing activities and exploring the thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of

participants form the core of qualitative research (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). This type of

research is used to explain the quality of some aspects of the human experience (Fraenkel

& Wallen, 2006). Quantitative research, on the other hand, examines the extent or

efficacy of a given subject or approach, and is used to study research among variables or

to draw correlative conclusions (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). Quantitative researchers also

define and isolate categories before research is begun, while qualitative researchers do so

in the course of conducting research (McCracken, 1988). Creswell (2013) addresses the

criticism levied on qualitative research by scholars who advocate quantitative research as

the sole legitimate approach to study: “qualitative inquiry represents a legitimate mode of

social and human science exploration, without apology or comparisons to quantitative

research” (p. 6).

The essential question posed by researchers using qualitative methods is: what is

going on here? (Locke, Spirduso, & Silverman, 2014). Studying human activity using

this approach is a phenomenological, rather than positivist epistemology (Taylor &

Bogdan, 1984). Positivism is a worldview often adopted by those that seek to explain

through cause and effect reasoning or by looking for correlations (Fraenkel & Wallen,

2006; Creswell, 2013). Those who believe that certain aspects of the human experience

cannot be quantified may be more likely to adopt a phenomenological perspective

(Locke, Spirduso, & Silverman, 2014).


57

Interpretive Frameworks, Ontology, and Epistemology

Interpretive frameworks are models for theoretical constructs, which both shape

and reflect the worldview of the researcher that adopts one of them (Creswell, 2013;

Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). Ontology is a set of beliefs about the nature of reality

(Creswell, 2013). Epistemology is a set of beliefs about how reality can be known and

understood (Creswell, 2013).

Creswell (2013) identifies five primary interpretive frameworks, and associates a

set of philosophical beliefs for each. The frameworks are: postpositivism, social

constructivism, transformative/postmodern, pragmatism, and

critical/race/feminist/queer/disabilities. Researchers using methods that are grounded in

postpositivism assume that a single reality exists and that an interpretation of that reality

can be formulated through the use of research and statistics. Social constructivist

scholars posit that multiple realities exist; they are constructed through experiences and

interactions with others; and that the researcher and subjects co-create a reality that is

informed by individual experiences. Adherents of the transformative/postmodern

paradigm believe that a subjective-objective reality emerges from participation between

the researcher and communities or individuals being studied, and that findings are

collaboratively created, with multiple ways of knowing honored. Pragmatism is based on

a value system that states reality is what is useful or practical, and that reality is

understood by using multiple tools of research, integrating both objective and subjective

evidence. Critical, Race, Feminist, Queer, and Disabilities researchers all share the belief

that reality is based on the interaction between power and identity. Creswell (2013)

states that the epistemology of Critical, Race, Feminist, Queer, and Disabilities is known


58

through “the study of social structures, freedom and oppression, power, and control” (p.

37).

General Characteristics of Qualitative Research

Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) provide a concise summary of the general

characteristics of qualitative research, identifying twelve preferences and methods that

are hallmarks of the approach. These include:

• The desire to have hypotheses emerge through the course of a study;

• Definitions to emerge in context as a study progresses;

• The use of narrative description, the assumption that inferences can be reliable;

• The use of triangulation among three or more sources to assess validity;

• The use of samples drawn from those who have first-hand experience of that

which is being studied;

• The use of descriptive narratives to explain procedures;

• A preference for logically analyzing extraneous variables, placing the primary

responsibility for bias on the researcher and

• Summarizing results using a narrative structure, preferring a holistic explanation

of complex phenomena, and being unwilling to alter or interfere with naturally

occurring phenomena in order to better observe it (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006).


59

Tools, Methods, and Procedures of Qualitative Research and the Present Study

Triangulation

Triangulation in qualitative inquiry is the use of multiple sources of information

in order to give a researcher a sense of the validity of data collected (Fraenkel & Wallen,

2006; Creswell, 2013). Evidence that supports a system of coding or that corroborates a

theme in qualitative inquiry also provides triangulation (Creswell, 2013). A researcher

that uses multiple points of view gained from working with a number of respondents can

help to achieve triangulation (Creswell, 2013). Another way to build in triangulation is

for a researcher to review several kinds of data, using many types of data collection. For

example, a researcher could use observations, interviews, and a review of artifacts to look

at multiple facets of a situation.

The practice of triangulation establishes validity in a qualitative study (Fraenkel

& Wallen, 2006). Verification of observations in qualitative inquiry can be accomplished

through crosschecking with other participants, observers, or investigators (Fraenkel &

Wallen, 2006). Triangulation improves the quality of data and can enhance the accuracy

of a researcher’s interpretations (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006).

Triangulation will be used to enhance the validity of the present study.

Interviews, focus group interviews, and questionnaires will be used to collect data from a

number of respondents. The multiplicity of perspectives provided by these participants

and consistency in coding the information provided by them will build validity into the


60

study. Multiple methods of data collection in the study, including collecting

questionnaire data and taking field notes during observations of the focus group

interviews will also be used to build triangulation in to the study’s design.

Questionnaires

Survey research is often conducted to describe the characteristics of a population

(Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). Questionnaires are often used in quantitative research to

generate statistical or other numerical data, but can be a valuable tool in qualitative

research as well (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). In order for an analysis of surveys by

participants to generate full and rich information so that it can be used in a qualitative

study, the questions must be open ended and not lead the respondent to answer in ways

that confirm an a priori hypothesis generated by the researcher (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984).

One of the drawbacks to using data from questionnaire is that a researcher cannot

respond with follow up questions for a participant (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). Another

limitation of questionnaire is the limited response rate that one can expect when

distributing questionnaire electronically (Baruch & Holtom, 2008). Baruch and Holtom

(2008) found that response rates were higher when dynamic, internet-based

questionnaires were used instead of electronic mail (email) or the distribution of

questionnaires by mail.

Survey data can be used in qualitative research to provide comparisons among

respondents, in order to establish the diversity of opinions about the topic of study

(Jansen, 2010). A limitation of using surveys, as a form of data collection is that using

them precludes the ability of a researcher to follow up with additional questions

immediately, in order to clarify the meaning. In this study, the researcher will use a


61

questionnaire, consisting of a set of open-ended questions created by the researcher, to

collect data about perceptions of leadership attributes of doctoral cohort members in the

study.

Taylor and Bogdan (1984) recommend beginning interviews with a set of

descriptive questions. These questions lead the respondents to describe important

experiences, interactions, and places relevant to their lives. This approach creates a

context for the inquiry, and a researcher can use the information gained to frame their

further questions based on what the participant has revealed. This study will use open-

ended questions contained in questionnaires to prompt participants to provide descriptive

details about their experiences with leadership behaviors in their doctoral cohort work.

Behaviors related to emergent leadership may be described in these responses, and the

themes that emerge from an analysis of the responses will provide a framework for the

inquiry, using interviews and focus group interviews, that will follow.

Creswell (2013), drawing on the work of Lather (1993), describes the process of a

researcher endeavoring to understand and to use writing as a part of the process of

working toward understanding. Lather (1993) dubbed that process voluptuous validation.

This working toward understanding was also addressed by Wolcott (1990), who

advocates the use of understanding rather than validation. Creswell (2013) cites Wolcott

(1990), who writes that the identification of essential elements of an experience can serve

in writing a “plausible interpretation” of them (p.247).

LeCompte and Goetze (1982) point out that qualitative inquiry, especially

phenomenological research, differs from positivist study in that the design of qualitative

research often necessitates data collection prior to the creation of a hypothesis that drives


62

questioning. Constructivist grounded theory rejects a priori hypothesizing as well, and

recommends the use of theoretical sampling as a strategy both narrow emergent themes

and to develop or refine them (Charmaz, 2006). Theoretical sampling is the use of data

to create tentative ideas and to begin to code and place the data into categories (Charmaz,

2006).

Charmaz (2006) addresses methods of data gathering within a constructivist

grounded theory approach, and also relates them to the goal of creating understanding.

Charmaz (2006) advocates creating or adopting methods that aid in advancing the

emerging ideas about the phenomenon being studied. The construction of an open-ended

questionnaire can be useful in providing the information (Charmaz, 2006).

The questionnaires used in the study were distributed electronically to participants

in the study, and were anonymous. The researcher organized the responses by assigning

a number to each, in the order that they were received. An analysis of the questionnaire

responses began the process of theoretical sampling that was used by the researcher to

inform the next stage of data gathering, which was accomplished through the use of

individual interviews and a series of focus group interviews.

Extended Interviews

The long interview is an important tool for qualitative researchers to gain

information (McCracken, 1988). Investigators of social life rely on verbal accounts of

social experience to paint a vivid descriptive picture of that experience (Taylor &

Bogdan, 1984). Interviews play a central role in certain approaches to qualitative

research, including grounded theory (Creswell, 2013). Extended interviews often provide

the researcher with information that changes the direction of inquiry (McCracken, 1988;


63

Creswell, 2013). Information that comes from open-ended questioning, which is not

intended by the researcher to confirm a hypothesis, can form the basis for uncovering

theories to explain what is being studied (Charmaz, 2006).

The procedure for conducting interviews, according to Creswell (2013) is:

• Decide on the research questions that will be answered through interviews.

• Select the population and sample of the interviewees.

• Determine the appropriate type of interview for the study being conducted.

• Identify interview procedures; for example the type of recording equipment that is to

be used.

• Create an interview protocol to ensure that each interview is conducted in a uniform

manner. This enhances the reliability and validity of the interviews.

• Make refinements to the interview questions and procedures through the use of a pilot

study: In the case of the present study, a questionnaire was sent to one cohort in the

doctoral program prior to the onset of the study, in order to gauge the effectiveness of

the questions asked in the questionnaire.

• Find an appropriate setting for the interview to take place.

• Provide the interviewee or interviewees with the opportunity to give informed

consent to take part in the interview; explain the purpose of the study and how the

information that is collected will be used in the future.

• Use proper interview techniques while conducting the interview, including following

the interview protocol, recording information for future transcription, and listening

carefully to the interviewees rather than doing the majority of the speaking during the

interview.


64

Open-ended, rather than dichotomous questions, provide an interviewer with

more extensive information (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). The responses given by an

interviewee in answering an open-ended question may give the researcher insights into an

experience, which may lead the researcher to approach the study in a different way

(Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). The establishment of a rapport between interviewer and

interviewee facilitates the openness and honesty needed to elicit high-quality responses

from open-ended questions (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). A more guarded respondent will

not offer as much information (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984).

The post-interview process includes the transcription of the interview or

interviews and the use of validated qualitative analysis techniques to sort the data into

meaningful categories (Weis & Fine, 2000). Taylor and Bogdan (1984) point out that

data collection in qualitative research is an ongoing process, and Charmaz (2006)

suggests that the coding and sorting process provides a researcher with the opportunity to

discover new avenues for inquiry.


This study was based on a constructivist grounded theory (CGT) methodology.

This research paradigm is used to examine a social situation, with an emphasis on the

collaborative creation of understanding through interactions with researcher and

participants (Babchuck, 2011). In order to create an understanding of the ways in which

participants think and feel about their experiences of emergent leadership during their

time as members of doctoral cohorts, the researcher will need to engage them in formal

conversations and information sharing.


65

Personal interviews were conducted in-person and face-to-face when possible.

Interviews were also conducted by interactive computer-based communications systems,

specifically Google Hangouts. In-person interviews provided the opportunity to explore

topics in depth and for the researcher to follow-up on statements made by the participant

(Rogers, 1976). The researcher recorded each interview using audio software on a laptop

computer, and then transcribed each interview. The researcher completed this

transcription in order to revisit the data offered by the participants and to determine

whether follow-up interviews were needed.

Constructivist grounded theory (CGT) methods are predicated on the concept of

category saturation (Charmaz, 2006). Category saturation is accomplished when the

researcher sees the same themes emerging from responses offered by different

participants consistently (Creswell, 2013). Category saturation is the part of the CGT

process that allows a researcher using this methodological approach to begin generating

theories to explain social situations (Charmaz, 2006). Data collection is ongoing until

category saturation has been reached, based on the judgment of the researcher. Repeated

interviews might be needed in order to collect more data from the participants in order to

approach category saturation. Follow-up interviews will also be part of the reliability

testing, as participants will be given the opportunity to verify or to clarify information

that they have shared previously.

The researcher entered into a process of member checking, in which they

distributed a questionnaire to study participants. The researcher to check with

participants to verify their assent that the major themes identified by the researcher in the

process of analyzing data collected during the study were valid and accurate used this


66

questionnaire. Member checking was thus used as a means of reliability testing, and also

was aligned with the constructivist nature of the study, as it gave the researcher and

participants another opportunity to co-create an interpretation of the experiences of the

participants.

Focus Groups

Focus group interviews take place with small groups taken from the larger

population sample that is being studied (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). The interviewer

poses a set of questions to the group, which can be answered by any member of the group

(Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). An advantage of using focus group interviews as a method

of data collection is that interviewees can respond and add to what others in the group

have said in the course of the interview (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). This diversity of

opinion can give a researcher a different, and sometimes more expansive, perspective for

their inquiry (McLafferty, 2004).

McLafferty (2004) found that the potential drawbacks of using focus groups were

outweighed by the benefits of using them. The drawbacks included the lengthy time

needed to plan for and to conduct focus group interviews, and the lack of standardization

or homogeneity in the ways to conduct them (McLafferty, 2004). The primary benefit of

using focus group interviews in research, according to McLafferty (2004) is the rich

information that emerges from the interactions of interviewees in the focus group.

Polkinghorne (2005) prefers the use of the term selection rather than sampling

when writing about the process of making up a group. Qualitative research is an

examination of the lived experience of people, and a focus group interview is composed

of a group of people that have shared an experience (Polkinghorne, 2005). McLafferty


67

(2004) suggests that a group of people that know each other and have shared an

experience may provide richer data more quickly than would be the case when

interviewing a group of individuals that do not know each other, because rapport among

participants has already been established. Polkinghorne (2005) makes the case that

sampling within qualitative research serves the purpose of identifying participants, rather

than for statistical purposes, which is the purpose of sampling in quantitative studies.

Focus group interviews were used in the study. There is a primary reason for

using focus groups. This study examines behavior within groups; therefore it is important

that the researcher collect data from groups. This provided an opportunity to observe

interactions among cohort members, and to see emergent leadership occur in real time.

For this reason, the researcher created focus groups composed of members of each of the

three active cohorts at New England State University (pseudonym). The focus groups

consisted of three to five members from each cohort. The focus groups were

homogenous, that is to say that members of an active cohort were grouped together. The

purpose of doing so was to explore the perceptions of cohort members as they work with

their cohort fellows. Emery, Calvard, and Pierce (2013) suggest that emergent leadership

is a process that is fostered by established relationships, and that it takes some time for

those relationships to build the kind of trust that attribution of leadership within peer

groups’ needs.

Detailed notes were taken by the researcher, noting the responses given by the

participants, along with observations of body language and other non-verbal signifiers.

The researcher is a certified special education teacher and conducts rigorous and detailed

classroom observations of student academic performance and behavior. These


68

observations are written up and included as part of the evaluation process to determine

eligibility for special education services. This experience has given the researcher more

than a decade of experience in observing and recording body language and facial

expressions as markers of thought and emotion.

The researcher created and then used a standardized interview protocol for each

individual interview, as well as for the focus group interviews. The protocols consisted

of a set of open-ended questions that will ask about the experiences of students within

their respective doctoral cohorts, along with their perceptions of leadership that occurs

within the activities of those cohorts, both in and outside of the classroom, during

informal and formal occasions and activities.

Coding

The process of placing information into categories for analysis is called coding in

qualitative research (Creswell, 2013). An important stage in the coding process is to

examine transcriptions of interviews, looking for common themes (Weis & Fine, 2000).

The purpose of coding is to categorize large amounts of information for analysis

(Creswell, 2013). Wolcott (1990) recommends creating broad categories for coding, in

order to allow for flexibility in sorting information as it is collected.

There are varying opinions among scholars on the subject of a priori, or

predetermined, categories for coding in qualitative research (Creswell, 2013). Some

types of qualitative inquiry, like Grounded Theory, and particularly Constructivist

Grounded Theory create the codes in the course of the study, as continual data analysis

informs further inquiry (Charmaz, 2006). A later section in this chapter will offer an

explanation of the attitudes and methodological constructs of Grounded Theory.


69

Other types of qualitative inquiry create a set of codes before a study begins

(Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). One result of utilizing a priori codes is the tendency of a

researcher using them to form hypotheses prior to their engagement with the subjects of

the study (Creswell, 2013). Researchers operating within a positivist framework will

likely not have a problem with hypothesizing, but those working within a social

constructivist framework will not do so, and will therefore avoid a priori coding schemes

(Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2013).


Charmaz (2006) adopted and adapted two of Glaser’s key ideas in her

development of Constructivist grounded theory (CGT). The first Glaserian idea that

Charmaz (2006) used in CGT is that everything is data. The second comes from Glaser

and Strauss’ (1967) invitation for readers to use the strategies of grounded theory (GT)

creatively and to adapt them to meet their own needs.

Glaser (2002) offers a direct critique of Charmaz’ perspectives on GT. Glaser

(2002) argues that the CGT approach amounts to descriptive capture rather than

development of theory, and reiterates his idea that the quality of the theory developed

directly depends on the quality of the data. Glaser (2002) also critiques constructivism as

“an effort to dignify the data and to avoid the work of confronting researcher bias” (p. 5).

Charmaz (2006) cautions against researchers using grounded theory, “forcing

their data into preconceived codes and categories” (p. 67). Preconceived ideas on the part

of researchers might result in biased analysis and the creation of coding strategies that

stem from these unconscious and paradigmatic biases (Charmaz, 2006). Codes must


70

come from solid data, according to Charmaz (2006), and to be aware that one’s own

unexamined assumptions cannot be treated as facts.

Coding in CGT is used to both summarize and to analyze data (Charmaz, 2006).

One cannot be done without the other, and the process of summarizing and analyzing

data through the use of descriptive themes in CGT is both cyclical and simultaneous

(Charmaz, 2006). Charmaz (2006) emphasizes the importance of drawing clear

connections between the evidence taken from data collected in a study using CGT and the

codes used to analyze and summarize that data in order to generate theories about what

has been studied.

Population and Sample

Participants for the study were drawn from four active cohorts of doctoral

students at New England State University (NESU). For the purposes of this study, active

cohorts will be considered to be composed of students who are in the process of

completing coursework in the doctoral program, but who are not yet in the process of

working on their dissertations.

This population consists of approximately sixty students. Students were invited to

take part in the study by electronic mail, which included an informed consent statement

giving explicit detail about what the researcher is interested in studying and an

explanation of the purpose and use of the study. Thirty-three doctoral students from the

four active cohorts at NESU took part in the study in total. Cohorts were assigned letters

of the alphabet, A through D, in order to maintain their anonymity as groups.

Twenty-five students completed the questionnaire. Three members of Cohort B

took part in individual interviews, 2 members of Cohort C took part in individual


71

interviews, 2 members of Cohort D took part in individual interviews, and 2 members of

Cohort A took part in individual interviews. Fifteen members of Cohort A took part in

the focus group interview with that cohort, 7 members of Cohort B took part in the focus

group interview with that cohort, 3 members of Cohort C took part in the focus group

interview with that cohort, and 8 members of Cohort D took part in the focus group

interview with that cohort.

This purposeful sampling provided a variety of perspectives, without any single

cohort being represented more than any other. Even during the focus group interviews,

although 15 members of Cohort A were present, only 5 spoke during the interview. The

researcher conveyed the importance of this equivalent sampling to all of the cohorts in

the initial informative electronic mailing.

Creswell (2013) writes about the importance of purposeful sampling. In the study

the researcher will use a sampling method referred to by Creswell (2013) as combined or

mixed sampling. The researcher would like to see a natural stratification of sampling

among members of the active cohorts who elect to take part in the study. However, other

sampling methods may present themselves as the study progresses, and by adopting the

combined method, the researcher will be able to take advantage of the flexibility and

built-in triangulation that these other sampling methods offer.

Crouch and McKenzie (2006) defend participant numbers below twenty in

interview-based qualitative research, because of the necessity of establishing close

working relationships between researcher and subjects in that variety of study. Creswell

(2013) emphasizes that it is more important for a researcher to look deeply into a

situation or experience by collecting extensive data, and that it is not necessary to have a


72

large sample size in order to do so. The sample anticipated by the researcher for the

present study will allow for in-depth conversation and a multiplicity of points-of-view.

Data Analysis

Charmaz (2006) emphasizes the importance of comparing and analyzing data

throughout the course of a study-using constructivist grounded theory (CGT) methods.

This means that descriptive sorting of data can take place while compiling and organizing

data. For example, a researcher could make note of emerging themes while transcribing

interviews, or even in the process of conducting a focus group interview.

In the present study, questionnaire responses, interviews and focus group

interview transcriptions were reviewed. Descriptive categories or codes were assigned to

themes that emerged from this review. Some examples of codes were: listening, respect,

and directing. Quotes from the respondents that illustrate each category were placed in

sections for each of the descriptive codes.

Results from the questionnaires were also be sorted into descriptive categories,

and a review of the data collected suggested questions for the researcher to include in the

interviews and focus group interviews to be conducted. Questionnaire results therefore

shaped the inquiry. The use of questionnaire data also provided triangulation of data, as

the researcher compared the data found in the surveys with that in the interviews and

focus group interviews.

In keeping with constructivist grounded theory tenets, the researcher continued to

collect data and to analyze it until consistent themes were present in the data. Charmaz

(2006) strongly warns against forcing data into preconceived categories and codes.

Therefore, it was important to keep the coding schemes in the present study flexible and


73

reflective of the information that emerged from the ongoing process of collecting and

analyzing data from the collaboration between participants and researcher.

Bias

The researcher is familiar with doctoral cohort model programs, having been a

student in one. This familiarity could have resulted in the unintentional formulation of

preconceptions about students in doctoral cohort model programs. Another possible

source of bias could be the interest that the researcher has in emergent leadership. It was

important for the researcher to draw any conclusions about emergent leadership within

the groups from multiple sources of data, rather than from a limited set of observations.

Procedural bias was controlled for by the continual use of direct communication with

participants, to ensure that they do not feel pressured by time constraints, and to verify

that the perceptions of the researcher were aligned with those of the participants. In

addition, the researcher controlled for personal assumptions and bias by relying on

triangulation, using multiple sources of data, and checking with respondents to be certain

that their points of view were accurately expressed.

Limitations

This study took place at a single university, and will be drawing from a limited

population sample; generalization of the conclusions from the study will be limited. The

perspectives and thoughts shared on the subject of emergent leadership within doctoral

cohort programs are representative of the relatively small sample. A larger geographical

sample or other expansion of participants in the study could give a greater variety of

perspectives on the topic. However, the amount of depth and detail attainable through


74

working with a smaller, convenient sample was reason to use that sample in the present

study.

Anonymity

The name of the university where the study is being conducted will be substituted

throughout the study with the pseudonym New England State University. The names of

participants were kept anonymous through the use of alphanumeric codes. The codes

corresponded to the cohort that they are part of, and a random single digit number. The

cohorts in the study will be designated cohort “A”, “B”, and “C”, and the letters will not

correspond with the chronological order that the cohort members started their studies at

the university. In addition, the names of faculty and individual doctoral students

mentioned in the study have been replaced by pseudonyms with no relation to the actual

name of those persons.

Record Keeping

The researcher kept field notes during the study. These notes consisted of

observations made by the researcher during the formal inquiry, during interviews, and

during focus group interviews. These notes are both descriptive and reflective in nature.

For example, descriptive notes were taken about the physical space where the interviews

and focus group interviews were conducted. Reflective notes on the same physical space

and participants will report on the conditions and responses noted during the interactions

between researcher and participants.

A formal record was kept for the duration of the study. This record included:

• A record of the times and locations of the interviews conducted


75

• A record of the alphanumeric codes (to preserve anonymity) of the participants

• A record of which recording (audio and visual) devices were used for interviews and

focus interviews

• The results of surveys that had been disseminated electronically.

The majority of the material collected in the course of this study was generated and

stored electronically, with materials backed up (saved) by transferring them to virtual

cloud storage, along with having them saved on the hard drive of the laptop computer

used.

Summary

This study used a constructivist grounded theory methodology to collect data

about the perceptions of emergent leadership within doctoral cohorts at a state university

in New England. The population was doctoral students in the cohort model program at

that university, and the sample consisted of volunteers from the four active cohorts of

doctoral students at the university. Individual interviews, focus group interviews, and

surveys were used to collect data about the perceptions, thoughts, and feelings about

those students about emergent leadership within their cohorts. Data analysis was

concurrent with data collection, in accordance with the CGT approach, and data was

placed in descriptive categories and codes. The purpose of the study was to propose a

theory or theories about the nature of emergent leadership in cohort-model doctoral

programs and the conditions necessary for emergent leadership to take place in such

programs.


76

Chapter 4: Results and Discussion

Introduction New England State University (NESU) is a public institution of higher education.

One of the degree programs offered at NESU for graduate students is a Doctorate in

Education (EdD) in Educational Leadership, Learning, and Community. The program is

structured in a cohort model, in which groups of students are admitted to the program at

the same time and complete a prescribed set of eight courses together as a group. The

students then complete research and write their dissertations independently.

A study was conducted in order to explore the perceptions and ideas of students

currently completing doctoral coursework, research, and dissertation writing at NESU.

The focus of the study was emergent leadership, which is leadership in groups without

formally appointed leaders and behaviors associated with leadership within their cohorts

of doctoral students. The study was conducted using qualitative methods. The conceptual

underpinnings of the study were aligned closely with Charmaz’ (2006) constructivist

grounded theory (CGT) set of approaches to research. Constructivist grounded theory is

a post-positivist approach to the study of a phenomenon (Creswell, 2013). Researchers

using this approach to data collection and analysis seek to generate a descriptive theory

about the experience being studied (Creswell, 2013). Theories generated during a CGT

inquiry are the result of a continuous process of considering and reconsidering data

collected through a variety of means, categorizing and coding that data into major

themes, and then using those emergent themes to provide a theoretical explanation of

what has been shared by the participants in the study.


77

The researcher used a variety of data collection methods during the study. A

questionnaire was sent out electronically to all of the doctoral students who were

completing coursework at NESU at the time of the study, except for one cohort with

which the researcher had too great a familiarity. Focus group and individual interviews

were also conducted with the members of the active cohorts at NESU. These interviews

were recorded, and transcribed for later review by the researcher. Post-study validation

questionnaires were sent electronically to all participants, in which the researcher shared

with the participants the major themes that had emerged in the process of coding the data,

and the participants were asked to give feedback to the researcher on the accuracy and

validity of the emergent major themes as suggested by the researcher. This process of

member checking indicated that the themes identified by the researcher were meaningful

to the participants, and accurately reflected their perceptions and ideas.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to inquire about the experiences of students in a

cohort model doctoral program in educational leadership, and to identify emergent

leadership behaviors within the cohorts. One of the main considerations of the

researcher was to examine the perspectives of doctoral students at NESU of what

constitutes leadership behaviors within their respective cohorts. Emergent leadership, or

leadership in groups without formally appointed leaders was the focus of the study, and

the researcher’s intent in studying in-depth the experiences of emergent leadership within

doctoral cohorts is to add to the knowledge and understanding of emergent leadership and

contribute to an understanding of how leadership behaviors develop within and among

groups of doctoral students.


78

Grounded Theory and Constructivist Grounded Theory

Grounded Theory (GT) is a qualitative methodology (Creswell, 2013). The following

are the essential characteristics of a grounded theory based study, according to Creswell

(2013):

• Inquiry into a process or experience that includes multiple steps over time

• The desire to generate a theory in order to explain or describe the process or

experience being studied

• The use of memos or written notes used by the researcher in order to track the

development of their ideas about the process or experience during the course of

the study

• Use of interviewing as the primary source of data, and the comparison of data

collected from different sources as the study is being conducted

• The use of structured coding, or the development of a theory from implicit

meanings derived from categories or codes.

Charmaz (2006) developed Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT).

Constructivist Grounded Theory differs from GT in several crucial ways. Charmaz

(2006) points out that the first way that CGT is distinct from GT is that CGT as an

approach “explicitly assumes that any theoretical rendering offers an interpretive

portrayal of the world, not an exact picture of it” (p.10). An interpretive portrayal of the

world places priority on the perceptions of participants in a study, and acknowledges the

role that a researcher plays in presenting the thoughts of study participants. Constructivist

Grounded Theory is an approach that advocates for the understanding of a process that


79

generates theory, which is dependent on the perspectives of the researcher (Creswell,

2013).

This study examined the process of how emergent leadership behaviors unfolded

during the time that cohorts of doctoral students were working together. Grounded

Theory methodologies are concerned with understanding processes as they occur over

time, and CGT adds an emphasis on communication and interpersonal dynamics integral

to the process or experience being studied (Creswell, 2013). For this reason, the

researcher adopted a CGT approach when conducting the study.

Doctoral Cohorts and Study Participants New England State University (NESU) offers a doctorate in Educational

Leadership and Community. The Doctor of Education degree program at NESU follows

a cohort model, with students entering the program at the same time and completing

coursework together prior to working independently on their dissertation research and

writing.

Participants for this study were in active cohorts of doctoral students at NESU at

the time that the study was conducted. For the purposes of this study, active cohorts are

considered to be cohorts that are currently completing doctoral coursework at NESU, or

are in the process of completing work toward their dissertations.

There are a wide range of ages and professional positions represented in the

cohorts at NESU. The participants voluntarily submitted their ages to the researcher for

the purpose of demographic data collection, and their ages ranged from age 34 to age 60,

with an average age for all of the participants of 44 years of age. Seven of the participants

were male, and 28 of the participants were female. There are 19 men and 53 women in


80

the active cohorts. The rate of participation in the study for male and female participants

drawn from the total number of doctoral students in the active cohorts at NESU was 36%

for men and 53% for women. Cohort members also reported their positions in their

careers as: principal, superintendent of schools, professor, police officer, guidance

counselor, and administrators from colleges and universities.

While there are five active cohorts presently at NESU, the researcher chose to

draw participants from only four of them, as the researcher has close personal ties with

many members in one of the active cohorts. This closeness to the researcher is

problematic, as the high likelihood of bias could harm the validity of findings, and could

color the perceptions of both the researcher and members of the cohort, were they to take

part in the study. For this reason that cohort was excluded from the study.

There are eight required courses in the doctoral program in educational leadership

at NESU. Two of the cohorts in the study were summer only cohorts, and the other two

were year-round cohorts. Summer only cohorts complete their coursework during a two-

week residence in July at NESU, in which they complete two courses a summer, while

year-round cohorts complete their coursework continuously, taking courses until all eight

have been completed. The characteristics of the four cohorts are described in greater

detail in a later section in this chapter that reports on the responses to focus group

interviews conducted with members of each of the four cohorts.

Data Collection

Two overarching questions guided the researcher in this study. First, how does

leadership emerge over the course of a cohort-model doctoral program of study? Second,

what are the perceived behaviors of individuals considered to be leaders by their fellow


81

cohort members? Inquiry into the two questions provided data for the researcher to

analyze and consider as emergent leadership in doctoral cohorts was being studied.

Members of the four active cohorts at NESU were invited to take part in the study

by researcher. An email, containing an informed consent statement (Appendix A), was

sent out by the researcher to the members of the four active cohorts. Participants then

expressed their desire to take part in the study by responding to the email.

Each cohort was assigned a letter, used to identify the cohort while preserving

anonymity. These letters: A, B, C, and D were assigned randomly to each cohort. The

random assignment was intended to eliminate the possibility of someone’s determining

the identity of the cohort members by assuming that the letters corresponded to a cohort’s

chronological place within the doctoral program at NESU. For this reason, the letters

assigned to each cohort have no intrinsic meaning.

Information used to address the research questions was collected from participants

drawn from the four active cohorts at NESU, using three primary forms of data

collection. First, an anonymous questionnaire was sent out electronically to all 72

members of the four participant cohorts. Twenty-five of the 72 members of active cohorts

at NESU responded to the questionnaire, a 35% response rate. Then, four focus groups

were convened. The focus groups were conducted by the researcher and consisted of

group interviews with members of the four active cohorts. Focus group members needed

to be part of one of the four active cohorts. Completion of the questionnaire was not a

prerequisite for taking part in a focus group interview. Focus groups were comprised of

members from the same cohort. Three members of Cohort A, seven members of Cohort

B, eight members of Cohort C, and fifteen members of Cohort D took part in focus group


82

interviews. Finally, individual interviews were conducted with members from each of

the four active cohorts, using a protocol designed by the researcher (Appendix B). Two

members from Cohort A, three from Cohort B, two from Cohort C, and two from Cohort

D agreed to be interviewed one-on-one with the researcher. The individual interviews and

focus group interviews were captured in an audio recording made by the researcher.

The researcher transcribed the interviews by listening to the recordings and then

typing the responses given by the participants. This process was part of the continual

cycle of data collection and analysis recommended by Charmaz (2006) as an integral part

of a constructivist grounded theory approach to data collection. Transcribing and

printing out the interview recordings also facilitated the line by line coding scheme used

by the researcher in order to place the information collected in the interviews into

descriptive categories.

Coding of Data Charmaz (2006) reiterates Glaser’s (1978) recommendation to summarize data

and create descriptive codes by using gerunds to categorize thematic concepts. Placing

behaviors and processes, rather than topics, into codes is crucial for proper grounded

theory coding (Charmaz, 2006). The resulting categories are then useful to the researcher

in organizing participant responses. This is then helpful in summarizing the major

themes that emerge from the experiences related by participants in their individual and

focus group interview responses.

The researcher used this method to go through questionnaire responses as well as

the transcripts of both focus group interviews and interviews with individuals. Doing so

allowed the researcher to identify the important themes relevant to the study of leadership


83

that emerged during the study. The process of line-by-line coding was also useful in

beginning the process of continual data analysis that forms the basis for constructivist

grounded theory generation.

Charmaz (2006) refers to the process of line-by-line coding of data as focused

coding. The researcher completed focused coding in several ways during the data

collection and analysis stages of the study. Questionnaire responses were coded using

printed reports from the Qualtrics software used to create and distribute the survey to

participants. Interview and focus group data were put into categories and themes by the

researcher, using transcripts of the recorded interviews.

The next phase of data coding was what Charmaz (2006) terms theoretical

coding. Codes generated to describe behaviors and ideas referred to in the questionnaire,

focus groups, and individual interviews were examined and categorized by frequency of

occurrence in participant responses. These conceptual categories were then used to form

the basis for hypotheses that were, upon further consideration, used to develop an

emergent theory to describe and explain the phenomenon of emergent leadership within

cohorts of doctoral students at NESU.

A validation questionnaire (Appendix D), which asked questions about these

theoretical codes, was created using Qualtrics software and sent out electronically to

participants. The researcher to ensure that their perceptions of the important concepts

and themes that were uncovered during the study matched those of the participants used

this questionnaire. This process allowed the researcher to verify that their construction of

the reality of the phenomenon explored during the study aligned with that of the

participants. Cohen and Crabtree (2006) give a detailed explanation of this process,


84

called member checking, and point out that one of the benefits of using member checking

in a non-positivist situated study is that so doing approaches validation as a co-creation of

understanding between participants and researcher, rather than as a statement of an

absolute truth as understood by the researcher.

The validation process is integral to Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT), as it

acknowledges the equal importance of participants and researcher in the uncovering of a

theory that explains or describes the experience of the participants (Charmaz, 2006). The

researcher was able to go through the responses of the participants and see that a

consensus had been reached about the major themes and concepts that had emerged

through the data collection process. This consensus existed both among participants and

between participants and researcher.

The use of the validation questionnaire also allowed the researcher to determine

that sufficient data had been collected, and that the process of theoretical coding could

continue, without further data collection. In CGT the determination that enough data is

present to begin coding and to generate hypotheses and theories is known as category

saturation (Charmaz, 2006). Determining that category saturation had been attained was

the end of the formal data collection process and allowed the researcher to move from

data coding and concurrent data analysis to beginning the process of theoretical

sampling. Charmaz (2006) describes theoretical sampling as, “seeking and collecting

pertinent data to elaborate and refine categories in your emerging theory” (p. 96).

Closely examining and re-examining the transcripts of interviews and focus group

interviews, along with the printed reports generated from the questionnaires, and then

using the validation questionnaire to determine the accuracy and validity of the codes


85

proposed by the researcher made it possible for the researcher to determine that category

saturation had been reached and that it was time to begin theoretical sampling.

Data Collection

Questionnaire Responses The researcher, using Qualtrics software, created an anonymous questionnaire

(Appendix A). A link to the questionnaire was sent out to members of the four active

cohorts in an email sent by the researcher. Twenty-five of the 72 active cohort members

completed the questionnaire. The response rate of completed questionnaires was 34%.

Items on the questionnaire were validated through the use of a pilot questionnaire.

The questionnaire was sent out to members of one of the previous cohorts at NESU,

Cohort Q. Cohort Q had completed their coursework, and was not considered an active

cohort by the researcher for the purposes of this study. The members of Cohort Q were

asked to complete the questionnaire, and to give feedback to the researcher about clarity

of questions and relevance to the topic of study. All 14 members of Cohort Q completed

the pilot questionnaire. The only comment given by a member of Cohort Q was provided

in an email sent to the researcher. The member wrote, “These questions make sense to

me.” No other questions or comments were included with the responses to the

questionnaire.

The questionnaire consisted of five questions, designed to gather information

about the leadership experiences of participants. Some of the questions were about

leadership in general, while others asked questions relevant to experiences of leadership

within the doctoral cohorts of participants. Responses to the questions varied in length

and content, from lists of single words and phrases to multiple sentences.


86

Question one asked for a definition of leadership. Many of the responses

provided examples of leadership behaviors and personality characteristics possessed by

individuals perceived to have leadership capability. These responses contained variations

on themes, which will be examined in detail in the paragraphs that follow.

Six of the 25 responses (24%) offered formal definitions of leadership. For

example, one respondent wrote, “Leadership is the ability to guide individuals who make

up a group in the same direction in order to accomplish goals that benefit not only the

organization but the individuals within the group.” Another noted, “Leadership is

working in the now to inspire, engage, and cultivate collaboration to achieve agreed upon

goals.” A third noted, “Leadership is being able to implement change in an empathic,

compassionate way.” These definitions outline many of the attributes of leaders and

leadership behaviors that were present in the other responses to Question one. Among

these, the identification of shared goals and the ability to guide or influence were present

in 16 out of 26 responses (62%), and their responses offered more detail about ways in

which effective leaders could provide direction and influence.

Inspiration, engagement, capacity for vision, collaboration, compassion, and

empathy were terms that were used by all 25 respondents in their definitions of

leadership. One respondent defined leadership in this way: “Leadership boils down to

confidence, an ability to stay calm even when things are out of control and nurturing as

well as empowering those that you lead.” Another respondent continued with the theme

of emotionally intelligent leadership as defined by Salovey and Mayer (1990),

“Leadership is being able to implement change in an empathic, compassionate way.”


87

Respondents also cited collaborative work and the creation or sustaining of a common

goal or vision as integral to their definitions of leadership.

The words confidence, collaboration, courage, respect, listening, and inspiring,

were most present in the responses to Question two, which asked participants to

“Describe any behaviors that you associate with leaders in groups.” These descriptors can

be seen in Table 6. Listening was considered to be a behavior associated with leaders in

groups by 36% of the participants, and was mentioned more frequently than any other

behavior. The other behaviors included empathy and compassion, which eight out of 25

respondents cited as important aspects of leadership behaviors. One respondent wrote,

“Talking, listening, calming a group, inspiring a group, centering and focusing a group,

and working very hard” were behaviors that they associated with leaders in groups. This

assessment of leadership behavior in groups was common to perceptions of leadership

that emerged in the next question in the questionnaire.

Table 6 Behaviors Associated With Leaders in Groups ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Behavior Frequency Percentage ________________________________________________________________________

Listening 9 out of 25 36%

Caring 8 out of 25 32%

Thinking Flexibly and Creatively 5 out of 25 20%


88

Being Decisive 5 out of 25 20%

Being Confident 5 out of 25 20%

Leading by Example 2 out of 25 8%

Being Decisive 2 out of 25 32%

________________________________________________________________________

Question three asked respondents to think of someone that they consider being a

leader, and then to describe a specific thing that the leader had done that demonstrated

leadership. One respondent wrote: “They can listen to multiple perspectives on an issue

and provide space for finding a positive way forward.” Another wrote: “This person

leads by example and puts the well-being of the group before personal interests such as

selfish career advancement.” A specific example of the behavior of someone considered

to be a leader was given by a participant, when they wrote, “One of the best leaders I

have encountered was able to mentor others and encourage them without criticizing or

punishing them if they were not successful; she was also able to foster a desire in

individuals to accomplish goals beyond their ability without fear of failure.”

The next question, Question four, asked a more specific question about leadership

in the individual doctoral student’s cohort at NESU. The question read: “Think of

someone in your doctoral cohort that you consider to be a leader. Can you describe a

specific thing or things that they have done that you consider to be leadership behaviors?”

The specific behaviors mentioned in this set of responses differed from the more

general abstract responses given for the previous questions in that the behavioral

examples given by respondents related to their own cohorts were much more directive in


89

nature. These behaviors are outlined below in Table 7. Eighteen out of 25 respondents, or

72%, gave answers that illustrated directive behaviors in action within their cohort. For

example, one participant wrote: “This individual always rises to lead a discussion when

we are at a crossroads in terms of decision making. She stands up, goes to the front of the

class, and makes lists of tasks that need to be accomplished to proceed with the project.”

Another wrote: “She consistently knows when to take an objective leadership role by

helping us to formulate our disparate thoughts into a consensus-built end product. She is

direct and to the point, but never rude or imposing with her beliefs.” Another wrote:

“[The person leading] was able to facilitate [the] team to come to a group consensus.”

One other respondent also continued this theme of direction offered by an emergent

leader in her cohort, writing “during the first year, when we needed to present in Dr.

Tablet’s class, a colleague took it upon herself to help the group by organizing

everyone’s ideas into a format and order for presentations.” The responses to this

question also mentioned listening (8%) and support (12%) as important to leadership

behaviors within their cohort, but more responses expressed the idea that direction

offered by a cohort member was an important leadership behavior within the activities of

the cohort.

Table 7 Leadership Behaviors in Cohorts at NESU, According to Fellow Cohort Members ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Behavior Frequency Percentage _______________________________________________________________________ Directing 5 out of 25 20%

Organizing 4 out of 25 16%


90

Supporting 3 out of 25 12%

Caring 3 out of 25 12%

Sharing Knowledge 2 out of 25 8%

Listening 2 out of 25 8%

________________________________________________________________________

Question five on the questionnaire asked for respondents to describe any

personality characteristics that they associate with leadership. The responses were in

many cases identical to those for Question Two, which asked respondents to identify

behaviors that they associate with leadership in general. Confidence, compassion,

honesty, empathy, self-regulation, being calm, patience, and humility were all cited as

personality characteristics associated with leadership. Respondents cited confidence

more often than any other personality characteristic, which can be seen in Table 8.

Table 8 Personality Characteristics Associated With Leadership ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Characteristic Frequency Percentage ________________________________________________________________________ Confidence 7 out of 25 28%

Empathy 5 out of 25 20%

Being Calm 5 out of 25 20%

Compassion 4 out of 25 16%

Honesty 3 out of 25 12%

Patience 2 out of 25 8%

Humility 2 out of 25 8%

________________________________________________________________________


91

The sixth and final question on the questionnaire asked if respondents think that

leadership is a fixed set of behaviors and attitudes or does it change in different

situations. The answers given by participants to this question were notable for their

uniformity. Without exception all twenty-five respondents (100%) wrote that leadership

behavior and responses are dependent on context. One respondent wrote: “Leadership

has to change based on situations, since the goals change in each situation. Sometimes the

leader needs to be more active, and at other time more passive in the leadership style. To

me, leadership is entirely situational.” Another wrote, “Leadership has a few set

characteristics, however, the way in which a person leads or works with a group differs,

depending on the situation.” was the response given by one of the other participants. All

of the responses to the sixth question were variations on the theme that leadership

responses depend on contexts and situations.

Focus Group Interviews Focus groups were drawn from the four active doctoral cohorts at NESU.

Participants opted to take part in the focus group interviews, and participants were

interviewed with other members of their respective cohorts. The same interview protocol,

(Appendix C) designed by the researcher, was used for all of the focus group interviews.

The focus groups selected the locations for the interviews. The interviews were recorded

digitally.

Cohort B The first focus group was conducted with Cohort B. This cohort is a summer-

only group, which means that coursework is completed during two-weeks at NESU

during each of four summers. Doctoral coursework at NESU consists of a set series of


92

eight courses, which are completed by cohorts of students in a common sequence.

Cohort B had just completed their fifth course and third summer at the time of the focus

group interview. They elected to meet with the researcher in the lounge area of the

dormitory that many of them were staying in during their residency at NESU.

Seven members of Cohort B met with the researcher and responded to questions

from an interview protocol (Appendix C). The atmosphere was relaxed, and the

interview had the feel of a conversation, rather than a formal group interview. The

participants sat in a circle, some in chairs, and some on the carpeted floor. The researcher

sat in the circle with the cohort members, in a chair.

When the first question was posed, which was “Tell me about your cohort”; one

cohort member responded immediately, then the others each responded individually.

They took turns talking about their cohort, each successive speaker following the speaker

before, moving clockwise around the circle. There was no explicit verbal direction,

either from the researcher or from any of the participants that suggested this arrangement,

and the researcher paused the discussion for a moment to acknowledge it, and then to ask

the participants to explain how they had decided to take turns that way.

The cohort members responded that they rely heavily on non-verbal

communication in the classroom. One of the participants noted that turn taking in this

way was conventional for the group. All agreed that it was a common occurrence for

Cohort B to acknowledge a speaker through the use of eye contact and other non-verbal

communication.

One of the participants mentioned that a member of Cohort B had an obvious

illness, and that the group had a tacit, unspoken understanding that they would not speak


93

of the member’s illness, as it was clear that doing so would upset that person. Other

members of the cohort alluded to this sort of understanding during the focus group

interview. Several of the participants mentioned the work of Mayer and Salovey, (1990)

and Goleman (2000) regarding emotional intelligence in order to explain why this

awareness of each other’s emotional needs was present within the group. “I think that we

all sense each other’s needs, and we use emotional intelligence when working together”

said one of the participants.

The participants also made reference to Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the more

knowledgeable other as they spoke about roles taken on by cohort members during

coursework. They suggested that the more knowledgeable other possesses a skillset or

body of understanding that can then be shared for the benefit and edification of their

colleagues. One participant said, “Steve [pseudonym] is really good at public speaking,

and knows how to convince a crowd, he filled that role of more knowledgeable other in

that way.” This role was important to Cohort B when they were given a project in one of

their courses.

This project was cited by the members of Cohort B as a defining moment for the

formation of the group. The project assignment was to create a presentation, proposing a

program evaluation for a non-profit organization. This presentation was to be completed

in a condensed time frame and presented to representatives from the board of directors

from the organization.

Cohort B shared that leadership was demonstrated through the self-identification

of strengths and competencies that each member could apply to a part of the project. The

process of declaring themselves to be more knowledgeable in a certain area of need


94

allowed some cohort members to identify roles that drew on their strengths quickly. One

member of Cohort B described the cohort as, “a diverse group of really amazing people

that bring their talents to the projects and let us shine.”

The members of Cohort B agreed that the attribution of leadership in this instance

was explicit, with cohort members stating the part of the project that they would take on,

and their cohort fellows trusting that each would do high quality work that would enable

the project to be completed effectively. This was evident in the words of a member that

explained the process: “even though we work collaboratively and not individually, we

would say, can you do this part? We recognize that you should do this part.” Another

cohort member added, “I’m not sure if every cohort or every group is like this, but we see

that our cohort has a wide variety of gifts, and we acknowledge them and use them.”

The participants in Cohort B’s focus group interview agreed that trust and mutual

respect were integral to both the integrity of the group, but also for leadership to emerge

within the cohort. One participant stated “There are times when I make decisions in my

work, and I think as much about how my cohort would think about my actions as I do

about the people that work under me.” This process of acceding respect to each other

was very important to Cohort B, and permeated all of their interactions, according to the

cohort members. As one member said, “it works for us, but you have to trust that

someone is really going to have your back.”

Cohort B said that leadership within their cohort was fluid and context-dependent.

A similar process to the one mentioned during the evaluation course presentation project

took place when emergent leadership behaviors were needed. An in vivo code, or term

meaningful to the group, that was used by three of the participants at different times


95

during the focus group interview was alpha dog. The cohort members defined alpha dog

behaviors rather than people, giving verbal interruptions during discussion as an example

of that sort of behavior. The participants agreed that the lack of alpha dog attitudes and

behavior in their cohort was a major contributing factor to the group’s sense of mutual

respect and also to their strong bonds as a cohort. One of the cohort members also

expressed the idea that ego and personal interests were subsumed, in favor of the interests

of the group, an idea that three other cohort members agreed to, by vigorously nodding

their heads when their cohort fellow expressed it. The cohort member said, “It’s struck

me that with so many alpha dogs in the room, that the egos have really taken a backseat.”

Another member elaborated, “Egos are definitely left at the door, but without needing to

say anything.”

Cohort A The next focus group was conducted with Cohort A. The cohort chose the

classroom on campus that was the meeting place for their coursework at NESU. Fifteen

of the seventeen members of the cohort were present, but only six members spoke during

the interview.

One detail that set the responses given by Cohort A apart from the other three

active cohorts was in their response to a question asking if they were able to identify a

moment that contributed to their cohesion as a group. The other three active cohorts

identified the evaluation presentation project mentioned by Cohort B as the crucial

pivotal moment that brought them together as a cohort, and as an important opportunity

for leadership to be demonstrated within the cohort. Cohort A mentioned a very different

situation that afforded them a crucial opportunity for emergent leadership and also


96

contributed to their accelerated sense of group affiliation. The importance of the incident

came out during the focus group interview, when the researcher asked about key

moments when leadership was demonstrated within the cohort. A cohort member

responded by saying, “Somebody saved somebody’s life.”

The cohort was at a social function off-campus, when an accident occurred. This

accident resulted in one cohort member being seriously injured. When the participants in

the focus group reflected on the incident, they noted how calm everyone was, and also

the actions of one cohort member, who demonstrated decisiveness, confidence, and the

strong ability to direct the group in order to address the problem. This cohort member

got the injured cohort member to a safe place and directed another to call 911.

When speaking about this incident and the ways that leadership was manifested

during it, the members of Cohort A emphasized the importance of a single member’s

leadership behavior. One member explained, “One person was identified as the authority

in that particular realm, based on their experience.” Another member added, “They gave

off an air of authority that made it very easy to follow that lead.”

This incident happened on the second day of the cohort’s time together. This

experience was directly responsible for the relative speed of Cohort A’s quick bonding.

One participant alluded to this primacy when they said, “It made us come together

immediately, and we don’t always talk about it, but we know it’s there.” The other three

active cohorts reported that they really came together as a cohesive group during the

second course in the program. During the focus group interview, the first question asked

was to describe the cohort, and one member responded by saying, “We are a bonded,

cohesive unit.” The participants perceived that the shared experience of a stressful


97

incident led to their bonding together as a group much more quickly than they would

have otherwise. As a cohort member pointed out during an individual interview, “The

thing that happened at Dr. Regina’s house was stressful, but it brought us all closer

together.” Another cohort member, in their response to the member checking validation

questionnaire, referred to the incident, writing, “a near tragedy did seem to bond us

together early.”

While a single cohort member directed the others and took on a clear leadership

role in this case, the members of Cohort A stated that different members draw on

personal strengths and offer leadership in other contexts, especially in class. A cohort

member used an analogy to explain this attribution of leadership, saying, “We’ve seen a

lot of leadership through followership. When someone offers a strong idea, someone else

becomes the first follower. You see it on the streets in a riot situation. If one person does

something foolish, it doesn’t become a real problem until the second or third person

follows their lead.” They asserted that the formation of mutual respect facilitated this

attribution of leadership within the cohort. Because of this, leadership actions could be

initiated by any of the members of the cohort.

The cohort did express that they are very goal- and task-oriented, and so the type

of emergent leadership most valued by their cohort was the identification and statement

of ways to proceed. A member said, “Sometimes we have someone who is the public face

of leadership in our cohort-they’ll stand up in front of the group and say ‘you do this, or

we should do that’.” The same person went on to say that many times they served this

function in the cohort, saying, “If there is an elephant in the room, I’ll state it, saying, hey

this is the elephant in the room.”


98

Cohort D Cohort D decided to meet with the researcher at the home of one of the cohort

members. The focus group interview was conducted in the back yard, with the eight

participants seated in lawn chairs in a circle. The house was located on the shore of a

lake, and while the focus group conversation was taking place, the voices of neighbors

enjoying a barbeque mingled with those of the participants and researcher. The

atmosphere was accordingly relaxed and the participants were open and talkative.

One of the members related a story at the beginning of the focus group interview

about the same group evaluation proposal project that had been mentioned by Cohort B.

She expressed the opinion that two of the cohort members took on leadership roles during

that assignment, acting to organize the cohort members into groups that could work

together on specific tasks. The other cohort members agreed that the actions of the two

cohort members in organizing the group into smaller sub-groups had been helpful, as it

allowed them to direct their focus onto details, rather than spending time on those larger,

more abstract considerations. As one member put it: “Once we knew each other’s

strengths, we could jump in, or people could ask you to do something.”

Another cohort member said that she considers her cohort to be friends, and

another added that they consider the cohort to be family. She added “Our cohesiveness

kept us together, so that any outside threats weren’t really threats. They were just a

bother. We’re friends.” They all agreed that trust and mutual respect, along with a deep

understanding of each other’s emotional needs were important to the formation of the

group, and allowed it to function smoothly. One member expressed the feelings of

mutual respect by talking about a group project that had caused everyone feelings of


99

stress. She said, “We nurtured each other.” Another cohort member added, “We were

not competing against each other. We were there to make sure that we all won. We had

to understand how we felt, to make that happen.”

An interesting challenge that posed a threat to this trust and cohesion came about

as the result of the actions of one cohort member. One of the cohort members mentioned

that a cohort fellow was underperforming and stated “It made me wonder about my own

worthiness; was I valuable if this person could not be up to the quality.” Another cohort

member added that the behavior and attitude of the underperforming cohort member led

to a number of times in which the cohort members reflected on the possible reasons for

that cohort member’s behavior. This reflection led to discussions in the focus group that

transformed the feelings about the underperforming cohort member from being a

potentially destabilizing force within the cohort into an opportunity for greater group

cohesion. A cohort member explained, “Throughout the cohort, we’d each of us get

upset with this particular member at different times, and then some of us, and it changed

each time, would say things that led us to say, well, this is why this might be happening.”

Gatherings outside of the classroom and off-campus are very important to Cohort

D, and the participants agreed that much of their best work was done in those informal

settings. An example given was when they were working to get ready for the

presentation in the evaluation course. The group agreed to work at the home of one of

the cohort members, and they felt that working in that more comfortable environment

facilitated their process. A cohort member said “I remember one potluck during Professor

Tablet’s class, when all of a sudden, out of nowhere, we started to decide who should do

what for the group project.”


100

They expressed the idea that reaching consensus is the ideal outcome for them

when working collaboratively. A cohort member supported this, saying, “We all like to

come to an agreement on ideas on how to move forward. It doesn’t always happen, but it

is nice when it does.” In order to do this they have put in place a number of formal

protocols. One of these is a set of steps to facilitate discussion when there is a

disagreement between or among cohort members. They used this formal process during

the group evaluation project, and reported that it helped by leveling emotion, and

allowing each party to express their thoughts and opinions completely. A cohort member

expressed the opinion that the personalities of the group made the process of reaching

consensus possible, saying, “In some groups certain people are strong personalities, there

wasn’t an overbearing person that took over the group- that just didn’t happen with us!”

One of the members of Cohort D interjected, at the close of the focus group

interview: “Leadership is contagious!” The other members concurred, and some of them

went on to say that leadership within their cohort is not demonstrated by single

individuals or small groups, but depends on situations and is transferred from member to

member. At some point in the program each of the members had provided some variety

of leadership for the cohort. Sometimes this took the form of leading by example, as

when two of the members demonstrated a combination of emotional intelligence and

intercultural understanding in a situation encountered by the group. As one member said,

“Steve and Larry were more mature than the rest of us. They were nicer!” Other times it

took the form of physically organizing materials or articulating an effective strategy for

moving forward when the group was unable to move past a contentious point or irksome

detail during coursework, as when a member pointed out, “One of our members is quiet,


101

but has an incredible brain. He was our go-to guy for research methodologies, because he

could explain them so well.”

Cohort C The final focus group interview was anomalous for several reasons. First, the

cohort had just completed their first two courses so they hadn’t had comparable time to

develop as a group as the other cohorts had. Second, they are the largest cohort, with

twenty-six members, but only three were able to take part in the focus group interview,

because of logistical and scheduling difficulties. Finally, because of these logistical and

scheduling difficulties, the participants in the Cohort C focus group were unable to

physically meet in the same place, so the interview was conducted over the Internet,

using Google Hangouts web based software to meet virtually through a video

conferencing interface that allowed all participants to see and hear the researcher and

each other.

Consensus building was important to Cohort C, just as it was for Cohort D. One

member made reference to the process of choosing a name for the Cohort. It is a tradition

within the Doctor of Education program at NESU for cohorts to name themselves, and

this name becomes the title that all other faculty and students use when referring to that

cohort. During this process, the members of Cohort C articulated their ideas for a cohort

name, and then narrowed the options down to three selections. The member said that the

process was remarkably smooth and that it was surprising that so many high-powered

individuals came to an agreement so easily. She said, “We were able to have give and

take, expressing our own opinions and then coming to an agreement.”


102

Another cohort member expressed relief that he was able to comfortably attribute

leadership to others within the cohort. He explained that the usual process was that

someone would “step up to the plate” and take on a directive or influential role in a

discussion or classroom project. He went on to say, “I make a lot of decisions in my day-

to-day work, and it’s nice to give that responsibility to someone that I know will do it

right.” This attribution of leadership was made possible by the trust that had been

fostered within the group.

The participants noted that leadership within the cohort was fluid, and that

different people responded to needs and situations by drawing on their personal strengths.

One said, “We all take turns, depending on what is needed at those times.” An example

given was of a cohort member who was adept at defusing tension by using humor. This

participant related “one of our cohort members was really great at easing tension by

teasing another cohort member or by making a joke.” Another example stated was of a

cohort member who was especially skilled with public speaking, and who often served as

a spokesperson for a subgroup that had been assigned for the purposes of discussion in

one of the courses.

Respectful collaboration was an important value for Cohort C. One member

related that during discussions “Everyone was careful to not be the dominant person. No

one person tried to monopolize the conversation.” This emphasis on listening and respect

was common to all of the cohorts that took part in the focus groups, and a member of

Cohort C offered an explanation: “We all have some pretty good leadership qualities in

our day-to-day lives.”


103

As with Cohort D, activities outside the classroom were important to Cohort C.

The participants expressed that these activities provided excellent opportunities for

leaders to emerge, and also fostered strong group bonds to form. A participant said,

“Almost all of us lived in the dorm. We had picnics, drank wine together, and some of the

guys brought guitars and some of us sang. That brought us closer together.” Another

major benefit of social time spent with the cohort was that discussions about theory and

practice, which had begun in the classroom, were extended into the social realm, and the

participants all agreed that the time spent together outside of class was incredibly

valuable. As one member said, on the subject of working together in informal settings,

“There was that night at the Tiger Pub, when someone suggested- what if we just

videotaped our presentation right now, and then just show it to the professors- we’re

coming up with such great ideas!”

Individual Interviews The researcher conducted nine individual interviews with members of the four

active cohorts at NESU. The cohorts were represented as follows: three members from

Cohort B, three from Cohort A, one from Cohort D and two from Cohort C. The

individuals set the place to meet the researcher for the interviews, and it seemed that this

allowed for a mix of convenience and comfort. The settings for the interviews ranged

from the back deck at the home of one of the participants, to offices on campus at NESU,

and the lounge at the dormitory at NESU where some of the participants were staying

while completing summer coursework. Two of the interviews were done remotely, one

using the computer based Skype program and one by telephone.


104

The researcher used a five-question protocol for the interviews (Appendix B).

Each interview was recorded using digital audio. The researcher then transcribed the

interviews.

One of the respondents offered a succinct précis of one of the major themes that

came out in the interviews when she said: “We all lead; we all take turns, depending on

the endeavor.” This idea, that leadership is both fluid and situational, was common to all

of the interviewees’ perception of leaders and leadership within their respective cohorts.

Variants of this idea were found in responses about leading the group from each of the

participants. One participant said, “We started to see people’s strengths, and they became

a leader in their strength area.”

Collaboration was also a major theme in the interviews. One participant noted,

“My experience had been in highly competitive environments.” They followed with

“Everyone is valued.” A member from a different cohort echoed this sentiment, who

when asked to describe his cohort said: “they are bright, smart, capable, and they like

me.” He followed this statement by explaining that the congeniality of his cohort made

effective collaboration possible, stating, “I don’t think that my being able to step back

and let others lead, and for us to get things accomplished, would have happened without

us knowing and liking each other first.”

A participant, as it relates to emergent leadership, explained the collaborative

process, when she said:

I think leaders emerge in different groups by speaking up first, or putting some

structure to a discussion, maybe they are the person that has some ideas about

how a topic should go, offer that we should talk about this first. Grab the big


105

white pad and the marker first, and start outlining. And I've seen people for the

most part follow that lead, but I've also seen them not follow, then that leader

steps down and respects that the group is going in a different way.

Two separate interviews, with members of the same cohort, expressed the idea

that emergent leaders within doctoral cohorts at NESU serve as opinion leaders as well as

directors of activity. The two participants described situations in which a person

demonstrated leadership capacity by clearly articulating the steps needed to complete a

task, or to lay out their understanding of a shared goal that the group needed to reach.

One said, “Everyone kind of found their role within the group, but sometimes it had to be

named for them.” The other said, “I’m the feeling side, and she is the thinking side. The

empathy piece leads me to speak up when there is something that I feel is bothering

everyone. She summarizes what people have said, and she’s really skilled at that.” These

two participants did say that a single individual in their cohort tended to be the person

that took on this leadership role, and while this was not expressed or observed by the

researcher during the focus group interview with that cohort, an anecdote related during

the focus group did demonstrate that individual serving in that capacity.

Conclusions After completing the process of collecting data through the use of the

questionnaire, focus group interviews, and individual interviews, several major patterns

and themes emerged through the processes of validation and analysis. These themes

were determined by assigning relevant codes to them. The themes and patterns are

descriptive of specific behaviors related to emergent leadership, and were derived from


106

the language used by participants to talk about their experiences of leadership within their

cohorts.

Participants from the four active cohorts at NESU identified leadership behaviors

that were evident in interactions within their cohorts, in their responses to the

questionnaire. Of these, directing and organizing behaviors represented 36% of the total

responses, supporting and caring behaviors accounted for 24% of the responses, and

sharing knowledge and listening responses were 16% of the total. These active behaviors

within the cohorts did not align with general behaviors associated with leaders in groups,

based on responses to the questionnaire. In the responses about more general behaviors,

listening behaviors accounted for 36%, caring behaviors were 32%, and thinking

creatively, being decisive, and being confident each represented 20%.

The major theme that emerged from both the individual and the focus group

interviews was that emergent leadership within doctoral cohorts at NESU was both fluid

and dependent on context or situation. Three out of four cohorts stated that there was no

single leader or small group of leaders within each cohort, but that individuals took turns

leading or directing the cohort. In the case of the cohort that could identify one clear

leader, it was evident that an extremely stressful and life-threatening situation directly

contributed to the attribution of leadership to that individual by the cohort. Statements

that were made during the individual interviews with members of that cohort, however,

also contained the idea that leadership within the cohort had fluidity, and was also

situational. The general process described by all of the cohorts was that a situation or

need for the group would arise, an individual in the cohort would have a competency in

that area identified by either themselves or the group, and then attribution of leadership to


107

that individual would occur for the duration of that situation or need. In most cases, as

reported by the participants, this attribution was non-verbal and based on prior

knowledge of the individual by their cohort fellows.

The cohort members also identified certain conditions that made emergent

leadership possible. Trust, understanding, and sensitivity to the emotions and needs of

the group were cited as essential for emergent leaders. Listening, caring, and supporting

behaviors were all mentioned in focus group and individual interviews, and were also

present in responses to the questionnaire. These behaviors contributed to the conditions

of trust and respect that made the attribution of leadership within doctoral cohorts at

NESU possible.

Chapter 5: Findings, Conclusions, and Implications for Future Study

Summary of the Study A study was conducted at New England State University (NESU). The purpose of

this study was to identify emergent leadership behaviors within cohorts of doctoral

students in an educational leadership program. The study used qualitative methods,

specifically a constructivist grounded theory (CGT) approach.

In doctoral level graduate education, cohorts are groups of students who begin

their program of study at the same time and complete coursework together (Barnett &

Muse, 1993). At NESU, students in the Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership,

Learning, and Community program begin their program of study as a group, complete

coursework together simultaneously with their cohort, then conduct their individual

research and write a five chapter dissertation independently. The NESU program is a 60-

credit program, with a specialization component. This specialization piece requires


108

students to complete coursework and/or independent study in a particular area of

expertise of their choice. Additionally, there are eight core courses in the Doctor of

Education in Educational Leadership, Learning, and Community program at NESU.

Students come together in cohorts for these last eight courses. The final nine credits in

the program are dissertation blocks, three credit independent courses in which the

students conduct their research and write their dissertations.

There are two varieties of doctoral cohorts at NESU. The first kind meets only

during the summer for a two-week residency at the university every year. During the

summer residencies, the doctoral students complete two consecutive multi-day courses.

The second kind of cohort completes the eight doctoral courses in the program

throughout the academic year, and also meets for a two-week summer residency at

NESU. The year-round cohorts complete their coursework within one year, and the

summers-only cohorts complete their coursework over five summers. Total time to

earning of the doctorate varies by individual student, as research and the writing of a

dissertation are completed independently of one’s cohort.

In order to explore the experiences of doctoral students in cohorts at NESU with

leadership within groups without formal leadership (emergent leadership), the researcher

posed two questions: First, how does leadership emerge during the course of a cohort-

model doctoral program of study? Second, what are the perceived behaviors of

individuals considered to be leaders by their fellow cohort members? The researcher

used these questions to frame the inquiry and to drive data collection in order to form a

descriptive and explanatory theory about emergent leadership behaviors within doctoral

cohorts.


109

There were three means of data collection used to explore the research questions.

First, a questionnaire was created by the researcher, to gather information about the

perceptions of leadership, and to ask questions about experiences that participants have

had with leadership behaviors. Then, a series of focus groups were conducted with

members of each of the four active cohorts. Finally, the researcher used individual

interviews to speak with cohort members about leadership within their cohorts.

The focus group and individual interviews were recorded digitally and then

transcribed by the researcher. After the data was collected, the researcher created a

validation questionnaire in order to engage in member checking with the participants.

This process validated the accuracy and relevance of the themes from the original

questionnaires, focus group interviews, and individual interviews that had been identified

as important by the researcher.

Data Analysis

A number of major themes emerged from an analysis of the data. Themes were

discovered through a process of coding printed out responses to the questionnaire

distributed by the researcher and then through transcriptions of the focus group

interviews and individual interviews. Each line was assigned a category, and the

categories were given descriptive titles in the form of gerunds. For example, many

participants spoke about the value of hearing what their cohort fellows had to say during

discussions, and they also appreciated that their cohort fellows listened to them in turn, so

these responses were coded with the word listening. These themes were placed into

categories using the process of focused coding (Charmaz, 2006). Further analysis of the

themes that emerged through the process of focused coding provided the researcher with


110

expanded perspectives on those themes, which then extended into the process of

theoretical coding (Charmaz, 2006). Hypotheses, which were integral to the formation of

the theory, were formed during this process.

The researcher also created a questionnaire, which was sent electronically to all of

the participants, for the purpose of member checking. This questionnaire contained

questions about the major themes perceived by the researcher that emerged during the

focused coding process. The validation of these themes informed the process of

theoretical coding by providing the researcher with verification that the behaviors and

concepts that he thought was important to emergent leadership within the doctoral

cohorts at NESU were also important to the participants.

Limitations The study was conducted over the course of six weeks, at a single university.

Geographic and scheduling considerations made it impossible for some of the members

of the active doctoral cohorts to take part in the study. Conducting the study with

members of active doctoral cohorts only at NESU also had the potential to harm the

ability to generalize the results. It is difficult to tell if the findings are true only of

emergent leadership behaviors of students in doctoral cohorts in educational leadership at

NESU, and if the reasons for the leadership behaviors that did emerge were context

dependent in some way.

Findings Participants for the study were drawn from four active doctoral cohorts at New

England State University (NESU). Data was collected using three different types of

investigation: questionnaires, focus group interviews, and individual interviews.


111

The participants in the study spoke at length about the value of their time spent as

a member of a doctoral cohort. Many of them used the words friends or family when

speaking of their cohorts. It was evident that they rely on their fellow cohort members for

emotional support as well as for practical assistance with aspects of their coursework.

They also expressed a high level of regard for their cohort fellows, using words like

intelligent, brilliant, wise, and caring to describe them.

The four active cohorts at NESU are composed of diverse individuals. Their

career paths are manifold: Primary and Secondary Education, Higher Education, Nursing,

Health Care, Counseling, and Non-Profit Agencies. Within those fields, they represent a

wide range of roles: teachers, professors, administrators, researchers, and consultants.

Individuals and members of cohorts in focus group interviews overwhelmingly

cited a group project that asked the cohorts to identify the strengths needed within the

cohort to complete the task of presenting an evaluation plan to a local non-profit agency

as the definitive experience that coalesced the members into a functional cohort group.

The respondents identified several emergent leadership behaviors within their

cohort. These included: proposing ways to proceed toward a given goal through the

means of summarizing what others had said during discussion, providing emotional

support to others in the cohort, facilitating consensus, and providing direction in times of

crisis. A member of one of the cohorts mentioned in an individual interview that another

student in their cohort had demonstrated an aptitude for repeating back the essential

points made during a discussion in class by members of the cohort. During the focus

group interview with another cohort, a participant talked about a time when they

seriously considered quitting the program and abandoning the pursuit of a doctorate, and


112

said that the other members of her cohort reached out to her and encouraged her to stay,

supporting her emotionally, while also giving offering reinforcement of her ability as a

scholar. For another cohort, mention was made about the time that a cohort member

acted to literally save the life of a fellow cohort member, and that the cohort member that

had acted also directed the actions of the other people present, including members of their

own cohort and others.

They also spoke about leadership and collaborative behaviors, which took place

outside of the classroom. Many of the participants in the study mentioned that social

activities, including gatherings off-campus, communal meals, and informal discussions

were important opportunities to build trust, understanding and respect that carried over

into effective collaborative work in the classroom. This aligns with Oh, Chung, and

Labianca’s (2006) multi-level model of social capital, which states that bonds forged

during informal social activity with group members translates into effective collaboration

in formal contexts.

Students in the doctoral cohorts studied at NESU engaged with each other socially

in a variety of ways. One cohort organized an inner tubing trip on a nearby river.

Another cohort held a series of potluck dinners, in which cohort members brought entrees

and side dishes. The dormitory on-campus during the summer residency of another

cohort provided them with the venue for a series of sing-alongs with acoustic guitar

accompaniment.

The members of the cohorts that engaged in the activities mentioned in the

paragraph above spoke about conversations that had begun in the classroom, and then

carried over into the social activities, and finally were continued again in the classroom.


113

Several participants also said that feelings of trust and confidence in their cohort fellows

were strengthened during these informal, shared experiences. They reported that their

performance and communication in class, in both discussions and group projects, was

stronger and more effective because of the continued conversations outside of class, and

because of the fact that the social experiences led them to better know both the abilities

and personalities of their cohort fellows.

Reliability and Validity The researcher created and used an interview protocol for the individual

interviews, and created and used an interview protocol for the focus group interviews.

Questions that were used in the questionnaire were vetted through the use of a pilot

questionnaire that was distributed to members of one of the cohorts of doctoral students

that had already completed the program, in order to ensure that the questions were

comprehensible and that they served the purpose of examining the research questions

being proposed by the researcher.

Using a variety of means of data collection, including interviews, focus group

interviews, and questionnaires enhanced the validity of the study as doing so constituted a

practice of triangulation. Making sure that the cohorts that were included in the story

were proportionally representative of the types of cohorts at NESU, including both

summers only and year round programs of study, ensured that all types of active doctoral

cohort students at the institution were given the opportunity to express their thoughts and

perceptions on the topic of study, and allowed for generalization among doctoral cohorts

at NESU.


114

The researcher also engaged in a process of member checking with participants in

order to enhance the validity of the study. A questionnaire that posed questions about the

emerging themes that the researcher had generated from transcripts and digital audio

recordings of participants, along with an earlier questionnaire that asked questions about

the experiences that participants had with leadership, was distributed to participants. The

researcher checked these responses with the major themes that the researcher had

identified during the process of data analysis.

Conclusions Writers and thinkers like Putnam (2004), along with Tyler and Blader (2013) have

explored social capital, or placing a value on working together in groups. These scholars

have determined that the benefit of working collaboratively with others can be either

immediate or can take place over time. Bandura (1978) and Bennis (1990) identified

ways that social learning and effective groups can be formed. Tuckman (1967)

delineated the steps that comprise the lifespan of a group.

Emergent leaders come from groups in which attribution of leadership can take

place (Emery, Calvard, & Pierce, 2013). When respondents to the questionnaire were

asked to define leadership, and then to think of a person in general that they thought of as

a leader, they identified caring, and effective listening as being important and vital

behaviors and characteristics of leaders. When asked about their doctoral cohort

specifically, they wrote about listening and organizing others’ ideas, along with

facilitating consensus.

Another major theme expressed by the participants of one cohort, during their

focus group interview, was that leadership attribution within the cohort was implicit


115

rather than explicit. In other words, very often it was decided through non-verbal means

like eye contact, nodding, or pointing who was to take the lead in a situation. The

participants agreed that they had all quickly identified the strengths and competencies of

their cohort fellows, and that gave them the ability to confidently attribute the role of

leader to an individual in a given situation that the cohort was experiencing. This is in

alignment with the fluid nature of leadership within the cohorts, and the assertion made

by the participants that they based their attribution to leadership on what was warranted

by the situation. Implicit leadership was made possible by an understanding of what the

other members of the cohort were capable of, and the cohort members constructed this

understanding through seeing what they could accomplish, in concert with some

discussion and self-identification of strengths.

Analysis of data collected during the study was useful for the researcher in the

formation of a hypothesis, which laid the basis for the formation of a theory (Suddaby,

2006). For effective emergent leadership to take place in a doctoral cohort, the following

conditions must be in place:

• Awareness of other cohort members’ needs, perspectives, and ideas, constructed

by listening

• Respect and Trust

• Demonstration of confidence and competence

When these conditions are in place, leadership can be attributed to a member or

members of a cohort. This leadership lasts for the duration of the need or situation that

called for leadership, and when a different situation or need arises, the process of

identification and attribution is repeated. All of the elements described in the preceding


116

paragraph come together in a theory that the researcher terms The Emergent Leadership

Attribution Process for Groups.

Figure 1

The Emergent Leadership Attribution Process for Groups

As Figure 1 illustrates, the process of The Emergent Leadership Attribution

Process for Groups begins with a group of people coming together for a common

purpose. The group works together and spends time in social situations outside of their

formal work and forms the interpersonal bonds that make the essential conditions of

listening, respect and trust, and confidence in the competence or ability of group

members in various areas of expertise possible. A problem or task that the group must

collaboratively complete is identified. Individuals or small groups of individuals within

the group who have the ability to contribute to the solution of the problem have that

competency ascribed to them by the group. Leadership for the time that it is needed to

work on the problem or to move toward the common goal is attributed to that person or

Group Convenes for Common Purpose

Essential Conditions for Emergent Leadership

Developed

Identification of Situation, Problem, or

Need

Identification of Competencies

Attribution of Leadership

Implementation of Leadership Behaviors

and Actions

Resolution of Situation, Problem, or Need


117

persons. The individual or small group within the larger group draws on their identified

areas of ability or expertise to bring the problem, situation, or steps toward a goal to a

conclusion that is satisfactory to the group. When the solution or action steps have been

completed, the group returns to its original configuration and the cyclical process can

repeat as often as is needed.

Implications This study was an inquiry into the behaviors of leaders, followers, and perceptions

of leadership, in cohorts of doctoral students in an educational leadership program. The

findings, along with the theory of The Emergent Leadership Attribution Process for

Groups, can be used to inform design and practice in cohort-model graduate programs in

higher education.

It is possible that further research into the application of the theory to other

contexts in which leaderless groups come together for a common purpose can provide

insights into emergent leadership within those contexts. For example, cohorts of graduate

students could use the steps outlined in The Emergent Leadership Attribution Process for

Groups to facilitate group work. Having the process mapped out in advance could be

useful for students working in cohort groups that need assistance in determining the types

of behaviors that lead to emergent leadership, and which conditions are necessary for

emergent leadership to take place. Graduate programs that are cohort-model in nature

could use the process to determine whether the conditions created through listening, the

existence of trust and respect, and confidence in the ability of cohort members to

demonstrate competence in various areas of need exist in the cohort groups within those

programs.


118

Departments at institutes of higher learning without nominative leaders could use

The Emergent Leadership Attribution Process for Groups in order to assess their efficacy

at working together on collaborative projects. If they were to trace the steps outlined in

the theoretical model, a department could inquire about the presence of the three essential

conditions: awareness of other group members’ needs, perspectives and ideas, respect

and trust, and confidence in competency, then identify areas of need or common goals,

and then attribute leadership to the department members that have an identified

competence in those areas.

Groups of undergraduate students, in a first-year orientation seminar or other

long-term group setting could also apply this process. It may be useful in guiding those

students into effective group formation and collaborative work. A faculty advisor, acting

as facilitator, rather than as a nominative leader, could assist in walking the students

through the steps, and could provide assessment of the efficacy of the application of the

process to the needs of the group.

Groups without formal leadership in the non-profit sector, like advisory boards or

boards of directors without formally appointed chairpersons, could use The Emergent

Leadership Attribution Process for Groups in order to serve as a framework for their

collaborative work. Referring to the steps of the process could assist in speeding up

group processes like the formation of trust among group members, as an awareness of the

need to do so might lead group members to take direct actions to ensure that the

conditions that contribute to emergent leadership are present. Knowing that attribution of

leadership based on competency, and awareness that direction or guiding of a group is

fluid and context-dependent would also be important for groups working together in non-


119

profit organizations without formal leaders. The fluidity of emergent leadership would

allow for such organizations to react in a nimble and effective way to problems or

situations that may arise.

Groups or organizations with formal leadership could choose to employ The

Emergent Leadership Attribution Process for Groups when bringing together teams to

work on specific projects. The nominative leader could elect to convene a group, and

then direct them to work through the steps of the process in order to build the relational

trust needed for the essential conditions identified in the process, then to identify which

individuals within the group have the skills needed to lead the group for the planning or

problem-solving situation. In order for this scenario to be effective, the essential

conditions of listening, trust and respect, and confidence in competence would have to

exist for the members of the group either prior to their coming together, or would need to

be quickly established through purposeful group activity. This can be done with large

groups, as was shown by the experience of Cohort C, which had 26 members, and who

reported to the researcher that they had cohered as an effective group working

collaboratively within two weeks of beginning their final eight courses together as a

cohort.

Future Research The results of this study suggest that a continuous cycle of emergent leadership

occurred in cohorts of doctoral students studying educational leadership at NESU.

Listening, respect, and confidence were important actions and states of being identified

by the participants. When they were present, that made the emergent leadership behavior


120

of directing the group possible. Questions that arise from the consideration of these

factors include:

• What emergent leadership behaviors can be seen in doctoral cohorts in

educational leadership at universities other than NESU?

• What emergent leadership behaviors can be seen in doctoral cohorts in other

disciplines?

• Can the conditions created within the cohorts of doctoral students at NESU that

contributed to the emergent leadership behaviors related by participants in the

study be created at other institutions, both within the realm of education and

elsewhere, for example in a health care or business setting?

• Can the theory of The Emergent Leadership Attribution Process for Groups be

generalized to groups without formally appointed leaders?

Summary A qualitative study was conducted, utilizing a constructivist grounded theory

approach to data analysis and the generation of a descriptive theory to identify and

examine emergent leadership behaviors within a cohort of doctoral students in

educational leadership.

This study uncovered processes and experiences of emergent leadership at New

England State University. Groups of doctoral students in cohorts came together to

complete coursework and after establishing respect and trust for one another, were able to

entrust leading and direction of the cohort to a member or small group of members for the

time needed to work through challenges or situations that called for leadership. The role


121

of direction or leading was fluid and situation-dependent, and when the need for that

direct leadership had been resolved, the group returned to its original configuration.

A significant finding in the study was that emergent leadership within the cohorts

of doctoral students at NESU was fluid and situation-dependent. Individuals within the

cohorts possessed competencies that were required for specific situations or needs during

the time that the cohorts were working together. These competencies made them

appropriate leaders for the duration of the time that those situations or needs existed.

Their cohort fellows identified those competencies and attributed leadership to them.

When another situation or need arose, a different cohort member or members had the role

of leader attributed to them by the cohort. The process of identifying competencies was

often verbal and explicit, but the process of attribution of leadership was non-verbal and

implicit.

Through questionnaires, focus group interviews, and interviews, the researcher

collected data that suggested that listening, showing respect, and demonstrating

confidence were important emergent leadership behaviors noted by participants in the

study. These behaviors resulted when essential conditions of trust and shared respect

where present within the cohort.

Emergent leadership within groups of doctoral students has implications for

application in disciplines other than graduate education as well. Groups without formal

leadership in fields ranging from health care to public primary education can apply The

Emergent Leadership Attribution Process for Groups. This process could allow members

of groups to better understand the ways that individuals and small groups can provide


122

competent direction or contribute a specific set of skills in order to address a situation or

problem encountered by the group.

Farson (1996) wrote, “Leadership is situational, less a personal quality than

specific to a situation.” (p. 145). Farson (1996) further explains that effective leaders are

secure in their identities and that security is what enables them to identify strengths in

other members of their organization or group. The identification of strengths of one’s

colleagues along with an ability to apply self-knowledge is at the heart of the process of

emergent leadership.

Respect and confidence in the ability of one’s fellows in a group is essential for

attribution of leadership within the group. Emergent leaders are given permission to

direct the activities of the group by the other members of the group when respect and

confidence in their abilities are present. This study found that such attribution of

leadership in groups without formal leaders was fluid and flexible, and was entirely

dependent on context.


123

References Academia. (N.D.). In Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. Retrieved from:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/academia

Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in

face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait

dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 491.

Babchuck, W. (2011). Grounded theory as a “family of methods”: A genealogical

analysis to guide research. US-China Education Review, A(3), 383-388.

Bair, C. R., & Haworth, J. G. (2005). Doctoral student attrition and persistence: A meta-

synthesis of research. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp.

481-534). Springer Netherlands.

Baker, L. (2013). Emerging Leaders. In The Roeper School (pp. 259-263). Rotterdam,

NL: SensePublishers.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy

theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373.

Barnett, B. G., Basom, M. R., Yerkes, D. M., & Norris, C. J. (2000). Cohorts in

educational leadership programs: Benefits, difficulties, and the potential for

developing school leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 255-282.

Barnett, B.G., & Muse, I.D. (1993). Cohort groups in educational administration:

Promises and challenges. Journal of School Leadership, 3, 400-415.


124

Barnett, B. G., & Muth, R. (2008). Using Action-Research Strategies and Cohort

Structures to Ensure Research Competence for Practitioner-Scholar

Leaders. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 3(1), n1.

Bass, B. M. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share

the vision. Organizational dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.

Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership. Theory, Research &

Managerial Applications, 3.

Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in

organizational research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139-1160.

Bennis, W. G., & Shepard, H. A. (1956). A theory of group

development.Organization Change: A Comprehensive Reader. 155, 2008441.

Bennis, W. G. (1996). On Becoming a Leader. Philadelphia, PA: Perseus Books.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). The managerial grid III. Houston, TX: Gulf

Publishing.

Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (Eds.). (2012). Completing your qualitative dissertation:

A road map from beginning to end. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Blum, M. L., & Naylor, J. C. (1956). Industrial psychology: Its theoretical and social

foundations. New York: Harper & Row.

Boyatzis, R. E., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. (2000). Clustering competence in emotional

intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Competence Inventory

(ECI). Handbook of emotional intelligence, 343-362.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.


125

Carte, T. A., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. (2006). Emergent leadership in self-

managed virtual teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15(4), 323-343.

Carter, L. F. (1954). Evaluating the performance of individuals as members of small

groups. Personnel Psychology. 7(1), 477-484. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-

6570.1954.tb01049.x.

Cartwright, D. (1959). A field theoretical conception of power. Studies in Social Power.

(183-220). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Chan, K. Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and

leadership: understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86(3), 481.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Council of Graduate Schools. (2008). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of

baseline program data from the Ph.D. completion project. Washington, DC:

Author.

Covey, S., Drucker, P., & Peters, T. (2009). Leadership is a choice, not a position. Indian

Management, 13-20.

Covey, S. (1990). Seven habits of effective people. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Crouch, M., & McKenzie, H. (2006). The logic of small samples in interview-based

qualitative research. Social Science Information, 45(4), 483-499.

Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five

Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.


126

Crockett, W. (1955). Emergent leadership in small, decision-making groups. The Journal

of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 51(3), 378-383. doi: 10.1037/h0046109.

Curtin, N., Stewart, A. J., & Ostrove, J. M. (2013). Fostering academic self-concept

advisor support and sense of belonging among international and domestic

graduate students. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 108-137.

Devenish, R., Dyer, S., Jefferson, T., Lord, L., van Leeuwen, S., & Fazakerley, V.

(2009). Peer to peer support: the disappearing work in the doctoral student

experience. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(1), 59-70.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of

education. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Dorn, S. & Papalewis, R. (1997). Improving doctoral student retention.paper presented at

the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago,

IL.

Driskell, J. E., Olmstead, B., & Salas, E. (1993). Task cues, dominance cues, and

influence in task groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 51.

Drucker, P. (2005). Managing oneself. Harvard Business Review. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard Business School Publishing.

Ehiyazaryan, E. (2008). Managing uncertainty and promoting ownership over learning in

D&T students using an interactive learning environment. Design and Technology

Education: an International Journal, 13(2).

Emery, C., Calvard, T., & Pierce, M. (2013). Leadership as an emergent group process: A

social network study of personality and leadership. Group Processes &

Intergroup Relations. 16(1), 28-45.


127

Emery, C., Daniloski, K., & Hamby, A. (2011). The reciprocal effects of self-view as a

leader and leadership emergence. Small group research, 42(2), 199-224.

Farson, R. E. (1997). Management of the absurd. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2010). Followers' personality and the perception of

transformational leadership: Further evidence for the similarity hypothesis. British

Journal of Management, 21(2), 393-410.

Fenge, L. (2012). Enhancing the doctoral journey: the role of group supervision in

supporting collaborative learning and creativity. Studies in Higher Education. 37

(4), 401-414. doi: 10.1080/

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw

Hill.

Fraenkel, P. (1995). The nomothetic‐ idiographic debate in family therapy. Family

Process, 34(1), 113-121.

Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in

education. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. Basic Books, New York.

Glaser, B. G. (2002, September). Constructivist grounded theory?. In Forum: Qualitative

social research (Vol. 3, No. 3).

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2005). Awareness of dying. New Brunswick, NJ:

Transaction Publishers.


128

Golde, C. (2005). The role of the department’s discipline in doctoral student attrition:

Lessons from four departments. The Journal of Higher Education. 76(6). 669-

700. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2005.0039

Golde, C.M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of today’s

doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. Survey and Report for the Pew

Charitable Trusts.

Goleman, D., & Boyatzis, R. (2008). Social intelligence and the biology of

leadership. Harvard Business Review, 86(9), 74-81.

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review,78(2), 78-93.

Goleman, D. (2011). The Brain and Emotional Intelligence: New Insights. Northampton,

MA: More Than Sound, LLC.

Hansen, H., Ropo, A., Sauer, E. (2007). Aesthetic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly.

18(1), 544-560.

Heath, H., & Cowley, S. (2004). Developing a grounded theory approach: a comparison

of Glaser and Strauss. International journal of nursing studies, 41(2), 141-150.

Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard business

review, 75, 124-134.

Hersey, P. (1979). Situational leadership: A summary. Escondido, CA: Center for

Leadership Studies.

Heslin, R. (1964). Predicting group task effectiveness from member

characteristics. Psychological Bulletin, 62(4), 248.


129

Hogg, M. A., Martin, R., & Weeden, K. (2003). Leader-member relations and social

identity. Leadership and Power: Identity Processes in Groups and Organizations,

18-33. San Francisco, CA: Sage Publications.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and social

psychology review, 5(3), 184-200.

Hord, S. M., Roussin, J. L., & Sommers, W. A. (2009). Guiding professional learning

communities: Inspiration, challenge, surprise, and meaning. San Francisco, CA:

Sage Publications.

Hord, S. M. (1998). Creating a professional learning community: Cottonwood creek

school. Issues About Change. 6(2).

Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous

inquiry and improvement. Southwest Educational Development Lab report for the

U.S. Department of Education.

Horn, R. A. (2001). Promoting social justice and caring in schools and communities: the

unrealized potential of the cohort model. Journal of School Leadership. 11(1).

313-334

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo

vadis?. Journal of management, 23(3), 409-473.

Imel, S. (2002). Adult Learning in Cohort Groups. Practice Application Brief No. 24.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership:

a qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765


130

Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. Sociological

Quarterly, 34, 673-693.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge University Press.

Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2000). Respect. New York, NY: Harper Collins, Inc.

LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in

ethnographic research. Review of educational research, 52(1), 31-60.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale

reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School

Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201-227.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41.

Lipson Lawrence, R. (2002). A small circle of friends: Cohort groups as learning

communities. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2002(95), 83-

92.

Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation

between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity

generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402.

Lord, R. G. (1977). Functional leadership behavior: Measurement and relation to social

power and leadership perception. Administrative Science Quarterly. 22, 114-133.

Luna, G. (2010). Succession planning: A doctoral program partnership for emerging

community college leaders. Community College Journal of Research and

Practice, 34(12), 977-990.


131

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:

From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional

intelligence.Intelligence, 17(4), 433-442.

McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people

do. American Psychologist, 40(7), 812.

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

McGrath, J. Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. (2000). The study of groups: Past, present, and

future. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 4(1), 95-105.

McLafferty, I. (2004). Focus group interviews as a data collecting strategy.Journal of

Advanced Nursing, 48(2), 187-194.

Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded

theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 5(1).

Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional

approach to understanding leadership structures and processes.Journal of

Management, 36(1), 5-39.

Mullen, B., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1989). Salience, motivation, and artifacts as

contributions to the relations between participation rate and leadership. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 25, 545-559.


132

Nerad, M., Trzyna, T., & Heggelund, M. (2008). Toward a global ph.d?: Forces and

forms in doctoral education worldwide. Seattle, WA: University of Washington

Press. 5.

Nimer, M. (2009). The doctoral cohort model: Increasing opportunities for

success. College Student Journal, 43(4), 1373-1379.

Norris, C., & Barnett, B. (1994). Cultivating a new leadership paradigm: From cohorts

to communities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council

for Educational Administration, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED387877.pdf

Northouse, P. (2013). Introduction to Leadership: Concepts and practice. Thousand

Oaks: Sage.

Northouse, Peter G. (1997), Leadership: Theory and Practice. California: Sage.

O’Connor, P. J., & Jackson, C. J. (2010). Applying a psychobiological model of

personality to the study of leadership. Journal of Individual Differences, 31(4),

185.

Ostriker, J.P., Kuh, C.V., & Voytuk, J.A. (2011). A data-based assessment of research-

doctoral programs in the united states. National Academies Press: Washington,

D.C..

Palincsar, A.S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning.

Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345-375.

Patterson, K., Grenny, J., Maxfield, D., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2008). Influencer.

New York, NY: McGraw Hill.


133

Pescosolido, A. T. (2002). Emergent leaders as managers of group emotion.The

Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 583-599.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative

research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 137.

Putnam, R. (2006). Better together. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Putnam, R. (2001). Bowling alone. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Rogers, C. R. (1975). Empathic: An unappreciated way of being. The counseling

psychologist, 5(2), 2-10.

Rogers, T. F. (1976). Interviews by telephone and in person: Quality of responses and

field performance. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40(1), 51-65.

Rupprecht, E. A, Waldrop, J. S., & Grawitch, M. J. (2013). Characterizing effective

leader behaviors for the future. Good Company. 7(2),

Rush, M. C., Thomas, J. C., & Lord, R. G. (1977). Implicit leadership theory: A potential

threat to the internal validity of leader behavior questionnaires.Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 20(1), 93-110.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1989). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and

Personality, 9(3), 185-211

Saltiel, I. M. (1998). Adult Students as Partners in Formal Study. New Directions For

Adult & Continuing Education. 79(13).

Schermerhorn, J. R., & Bond, M. H. (1997). Cross-cultural leadership dynamics in

collectivism and high power distance settings. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 18(4), 187-193.


134

Shaw, M. E. (1959). Acceptance of authority, group structure, and the effectiveness of

small groups1. Journal of personality, 27(2), 196-210.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.

New York, NY: Doubleday.

Shondrick, S. J., & Lord, R. G. (2010). Implicit leadership and followership theories:

dynamic structures for leadership perceptions, memory, and leader-follower

processes. International Review of Industrial and Organizational

Psychology. 25(1).

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the

literature. Journal of Psychology. 25, 35-71.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. Handbook

of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 273-275.

Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of

management journal, 49(4), 633-642.

Tagger, S., Hackett, R., & Saha, S. (1999). Leadership emergence in autonomous work

teams: Antecedents and outcomes. Personnel Psychology. 52(4), 899-926.

Taylor, S. & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: The

Search for Meanings. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Teitel, L. (1997). Understanding and harnessing the power of the cohort model in

preparing educational leaders. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 66-85.

Thorndike, R. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper’s Magazine. 140, 227-235.

Thune, T. (2009). Doctoral students on the university-industry interface: A review of the

literature. Higher Education. 58(5), 637-651. doi: 10.1007/s10734-009-9214-0


135

Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology.

46(1), 35-57.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups.Psychological

bulletin, 63(6), 384.

Tuckman, B.W. & Jensen, M.C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited.

Group & Organization Studies. 2 (4), 419-428.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological

Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years

of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement (pp. 1-

19). Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Wax, R. H. (1971) Doing fieldwork: Warnings and advice. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system.Systems

thinker, 9(5), 2-3.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.

Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Wesson, L. H., Holman, S. O., Holman, D., & Cox, D. (1996). Cohesion or collusion:

Impact of a cohort structure on educational leadership doctoral students.

Presentation to the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting.

Williams, J., & Duncan, D. (2010). Impact of Group Development Knowledge on

Students’ Perceived Importance and Confidence of Group Work Skills. Volume 9,

Number 2–Summer 2010, 101.


136

Wolcott, H. F. (1990). On seeking- and rejecting- validity in qualitative research. In

E.W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The

continuing debate (pp. 121-152). New York: Teachers College Press.

Wolff, S. B., Pescosolido, A. T., & Druskat, V. U. (2002). Emotional intelligence as the

basis of leadership emergence in self-managing teams. The Leadership

Quarterly, 13(5), 505-522.

Wright, J., & Lodwick, R. (1989). The process of the PhD: a study of the first year of

doctoral study. Research Papers in Education, 4(1), 22-56.

Yalom, I. (1975). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Yukl, G. (2001). Leadership in organizations. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership

behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research.Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 9, 15-33. doi:10.1177/107179190200900102

Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and attributes. The Nature of

Leadership, 101, 124.

Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American

Psychologist, 62(1), 6.


137

Appendix A

Questionnaire 1.) What is your definition of leadership?

2.) Describe any behaviors that you associate with leaders in groups.

3.) Think of someone that you either know or do not know, that you consider to be a leader. Can you describe a specific thing that they have done that demonstrated leadership?

4.) Think of someone in your doctoral cohort that you consider to be a leader. Can you describe a specific thing or things that they have done that were what you consider to be leadership behaviors?

5.) Are there any personality characteristics that you associate with leadership? If so, please describe them.

1.) Do you think that leadership is a fixed set of behaviors and attitudes, or does

leadership change in different situations? Please explain your reasons for thinking either.


138

Appendix B

Focus Group Interview Protocol

1.) Tell me about your cohort.

2.) Can you think of any clear examples of leadership within your cohort? Was there

a moment that stands out, where someone said or did something that

demonstrated leadership capability?

3.) In leaderless groups, how do you decide who is leading? Does a single person or

smaller group of people direct the actions of the group? Do they also influence

the thoughts or opinions of the group?


139

Appendix C

Individual Interview Protocol 1.) Tell me about the experience of being in a cohort of doctoral students.

2.) Tell me about your cohort.

3.) Think of someone in your cohort that you think of as a leader. What do they do

that gives you the impression that they are a leader?

4.) Do you think of yourself as a leader?

5.) Tell me about the things that you have done as a leader, either within the context

of your cohort, or in other endeavors.


140

Appendix D

Validation Questionnaire Used for Member Checking Note: This questionnaire was distributed electronically to all participants.

1.) Different members, depending on the situation, take on leadership within my cohort.

2.) What would you say is the most important behavior of leaders in your cohort?

3.) Please rank the following behavior in order of importance to leadership in your

cohort: Listening

4.) Please rank the following statement in terms of your agreement: Time spent with my cohort in social activities resulted in the creation of trust and communication ability that made us more effective during coursework and in the classroom.

5.) Please add any thoughts that have occurred to you about leadership within your

cohort or leadership in general.

Emergent Leadership in a Cohort-Model Doctoral Program

Documents

Transcript of Emergent Leadership in a Cohort-Model Doctoral Program