These findings could assist militaries in designing effective improvement The results indicate six “cause” constructs: ability to persuade, taking the lead, result orientation, accurate forecasting, building interpersonal relationships, and cooperation with managers. This study contributes to military leadership by using a novel approach for identifying and prioritizing the behavior criteria for leaders. Method based on the new concept of the relationship between the influenced and influencing criteria were employed to analyze the ranking using leadership behavior and to establish the causal relationships among the criteria when the collected data were expressed in trapezoidal fuzzy numbers.
#Codebook example qualitative research trial
Consequently, the Fuzzy Decision Making (FDM) with Fuzzy Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) Additionally, commander–leaders were chosen as experts to judge the importance of the criteria by pair-wise assessment. The validated Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ XII) was used to collect data representing followers’ preferences with respect to commander–leader behavior by assessing twelve leadership behavior criteria. This study seeks to identify the criteria for effective leadership behavior that is appreciated by Lithuanian servicemen. The continuous improvement of military leadership identity to maintain excellent performance with respect to the promotion of mission success is a highly desired by the Lithuanian Armed Forces. Using EZ-Text, the two authors independently coded ten percent of the abstracts in two iterations we met after each iteration to refine and clarify the subtleties of each code.
#Codebook example qualitative research code
Insert Table 1 about here - Coding was performed using EZ-Text (Carey, Wenzel, Reilly, Sheridan, & Steinberg, 1998) which facilitates coding defined units (in this case abstracts) with a predefined code book as well as conducting inter-rater reliability analysis. We present our complete codebook, including code descriptions, frequencies, and exemplars, in Table 1. process resulted in a final set of 31 codes, broken down into nine major categories (in alphabetical order): 1) Context (geographic location of study: U.S., non-U.S., comparative, or not specified), 2) Domain of Theory (micro or macro), 3) Level of Analysis (individual, group, organization, organizational field/society, or multi-level), 4) Leadership Variable (leadership modeled as independent variable, dependent variable or both, as in mediating models), 5) Methods (quantitative, qualitative or meta-analytic), 6) Model (process/explanatory or variance/predictive), 7) Research Context (lab or field), 8) Theoretical Focus (behavioral, contingency, dyadic/relational, trait, or the meaning of leadership), and 9) Additional Topics (leadership and change, diversity, networks, performance, strategic, or Top Management Team/CEO).