essential-guide-to-qualitative-in-organizational-research

64 –––––––––– QUALITATIVE METHODS IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES ––––––––––––––––––method was chosen for its sensitivity in assessing an individual’s view of the world: in this casetheir view of their organization and their place within it. The explicit comparison betweenoneself and others is a key element of the repertory grid. We would expect such a comparisonto be particularly important in a work context.THE RESEARCH ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Four publishing companies took part in the study: two from the trade sector and two fromthe information/education sector. Sixty employees were interviewed (15 participants fromeach company: 9 women and 6 men). The researchers chose a range of interviewees on thebasis that their job descriptions covered a range of roles and responsibilities. Each interviewlasted approximately an hour and was conducted during work time. During the initial stagesof the interview (lasting about 10–15 minutes), respondents were asked a variety of openendedquestions about: their career history; their experiences of working with the firm; theirviews about the company, its values and environment and their own role within it; and theirviews of any equal opportunities policies. The individual’s responses were recorded in noteform by the researchers.The second stage of the interview involved eliciting a number of constructs frominterviewees using the repertory grid technique. Eleven elements were used that representedthose who took on key roles in a participant’s personal or professional life. These were: acompetent management at work; an incompetent manager at work; my closest friend; my linemanager; a female work colleague; my mother; my father; an important person in thehierarchy at work; a male work colleague; someone who supports me at work; and myself.Interviewees were asked to bring to mind an individual who fitted in to each of thosecategories. Interestingly the only category any of the participants had problems with was thatof an ‘incompetent manager at work’. A number of individuals told us that there were noincompetent people in their organization. When that was the case we suggested that theychoose a manager who they respected a little less than other managers to fit in to that category.A separate individual was chosen for each element.These elements were then presented in varying triad combinations and interviewees wereasked to characterize how two of the individuals were similar in some respect of their workbehaviour, but different from a third. The triads were presented in varying combinations 10times to each interviewee. These combinations were standardized so that each intervieweeaddressed the same combinations at the same stage of the interview. The constructs that theinterviewees generated were then written onto the grid. Any comments the interviewee madeduring the elicitation process were noted. Once the grid was complete interviewees movedinto stage three of the interview process. Here issues that emerged in the grid were followedup with a particular emphasis on what behaviours individuals thought were important to doa good job and what behaviours they felt led to success in the company. Specifically individualswere asked to mark on the grid using a scale of 1 to 7 the extent to which they felt a particularbehaviour was important to them doing a good job, and the extent to which they thoughteach behaviour led to success in the company. Therefore any discrepancies between the twocould be identified. An example of a completed repertory grid is shown in Table 6.1.In practice this is a deviation from the way in which repertory grids are usually conducted.After the grid has been constructed it is usual to ask the interviewee to rate all the elements