���۴�ý

The confusion Burns refers to stems from, in part, a lack of a solid understanding of the integral nature of leader, leading, and leadership. The lack of tools needed for the integral exploration of leadership studies must be considered if leadership scholars are to advance solutions in concert with the continued evolution of leadership studies. Leaders, leading, and leadership can be measured in many ways and combinations of approaches. Our point of view and experiences significantly impact our beliefs on any subject, including leadership. Attempts to create convenient shallow summaries stemming from poor designs and misused research tools result in an incomplete understanding of the integral nature of leadership.

As an agricultural science high school teacher in my second year of teaching, I would invite practicing professionals to speak to my students about the jobs and their requirements. On one such presentation, a seasoned plumber bestowed upon us the gift of his acquired wisdom. Here is what he said, and I have never forgotten it. “Pick the right tools for the job. Keep them clean and sharp. Never use force, or you will end up with broken parts, bent tools, and scrapped knuckles”.

These simple statements can be applied to research designs to explore research methods for the study of leadership. That belief stems from two certain conditions surrounding the nature of leadership: one, leadership is an integral system involving leaders, leading, and leadership, and two, leadership studies and the nature of leadership are always evolving.

Picking the right tool means the leadership scholar understands the need for a full bag of tools. Without that, researchers may fall victim to Maslow’s lament: “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will see every problem as a nail.” The advice of “Keep them clean and sharp” signals the need to understand the nature of the tools at your disposal. Full knowledge leads to the right action. Awareness, insight, and discernment become critical assets for studying leadership. Without full knowledge, the researcher risks being satisfied with picking up nickels while stepping over five-dollar bills.

“Never use force, or you will end up with broken parts, bent tools, and scrapped knuckles” can be applied to the heavy propositions of manipulation, deception, intimidation, and coercion. There is a considerable difference between the nature of research and “me-search”. Me-search is when a researcher develops a study designed to confirm that what they believe is true is true. The data collection in such studies is often misleading or manipulative. Interview and observational protocols are often deceptive or coercive and intimidating. The findings of such studies have little value in the field and have limited, if any, publication value.

Leadership as an art or science (depending on your own point of view) refuses to be pinned down by a single concept, school of thought, or sociological movement. The movements in leadership study have provided today's students of the subject with rich details and experiences of what leadership is and perhaps what it is not. We know more about the nature of leaders and leadership than any of our predecessors. They have left a trail that, if carefully studied, will yield the insights of past generations and their contemplation on this leadership. We can build on that as we consider the tools, we need to study the nature of leadership.