Extra Konczakonczak Et Al 2000 Full Instrument

Educational and Psychological Measurement
http://epm.sagepub.com Defining and Measuring Empowering Leader Behaviors: Development of an Upward Feedback Instrument
Lee J. Konczak, Damian J. Stelly and Michael L. Trusty Educational and Psychological Measurement 2000; 60; 301 DOI: 10.1177/00131640021970420 The online version of this article can be found at: http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/60/2/301
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Educational and Psychological Measurement can be found at: Email Alerts: http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://epm.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 14 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/60/2/301
Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on February 2, 2008 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT KONCZAK ET AL.
DEFINING AND MEASURING EMPOWERING LEADER BEHAVIORS: DEVELOPMENT OF AN UPWARD FEEDBACK INSTRUMENT
LEE J. KONCZAK Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. DAMIAN J. STELLY J.C. Penney MICHAEL L. TRUSTY Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
Empowerment is a popular management practice, but there has been little research to identify empowering behaviors of leaders. The present article discusses the development of an instrument designed to measure empowering leader behavior (Study 1) and the relationship of the instrument to several theoretically relevant variables (Study 2). Confirmatory factor analyses supported a six-dimension model of empowering leader behavior. Furthermore, psychological empowerment mediated the relationship between six dimensions of empowering leader behavior and two outcome variables, job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Recently, researchers interested in empowerment have focused their attention on construct definition and explication of the antecedents and consequences of empowerment (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996). However, research concerning the leaders role in the empowerment
The authors would like to thank Robert L. Cardy, Scott Highhouse, and Debbie Ungerott for comments on an earlier version of this article. Portions of Study 1 were presented at the 11th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, April 26-28, 1996, San Diego, California, and portions of Study 2 were presented at the 12th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, April 11-13, 1997, St. Louis, Missouri. Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Lee J. Konczak, Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., One Busch Place, 202-7, St. Louis, MO 63118.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 60 No. 2, April 2000 301-313 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.
301
302
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT
process has not been considered in contemporary conceptualizations of psychological empowerment. The purpose of the present study was to identify leader behaviors associated with employee empowerment and to develop a measure to be used in the context of a leadership development program. Following a brief literature review and discussion of the theoretical rationale for the development of the measure, the initial scale development process and results of confirmatory factor analyses are described in Study 1. Study 2 examines the relationships between the new measure of empowering leader behaviors and two theoretically relevant variables (i.e., perceptions of psychological empowerment, job attitudes). Previous Theory and Research Conger and Kanungo (1988) were among the first to define psychological empowerment. They described empowerment as a process of enhancing feelings of self-efficacy among organizational members through the identification of conditions that foster powerlessness and through their removal by both formal organizational practices and informal techniques of providing efficacy information (p. 474). Subsequently, Thomas and Velthouse (1990) proposed a cognitive model in which they argued that empowerment is a multifaceted construct. These authors defined empowerment as intrinsic task motivation resulting from a set of four task-related cognitions pertaining to an individuals work role: (a) meaning (the value of a work goal), (b) competence (similar to Conger and Kanungos self-efficacy), (c) self-determination (choice in initiating and regulating actions), and (d) impact (influence over strategic, administrative, or operating outcomes). Although the managers influence is not emphasized by Thomas and Velthouse, it is likely that managers influence subordinates task perceptions given their ability to affect their subordinates job responsibilities. To date, the only theory-based measure of empowerment was developed by Spreitzer (1995) based on the facets of psychological empowerment hypothesized by Thomas and Velthouse (1990). However, the relationship between leader behavior and the experience of psychological empowerment has not been investigated. Dimensions of Leader-Empowering Behavior Conger and Kanungo (1988) characterized empowerment as a process that involves a manager sharing power with subordinates. To empower implies the granting of power or delegation of authority (Burke, 1986) that, in turn, should increase intrinsic motivation by influencing task assessments related to meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact in Thomas and Velthouses (1990) conceptualization. Consequently, Delegation of
KONCZAK ET AL.
303
Authority was one of the dimensions of empowering behavior identified in the present study. A second dimension of leader empowering behavior concerns the leaders emphasis on accountability for outcomes. According to Ford and Fottler (1995), empowerment redistributes power but also provides a mechanism by which responsibility for outcomes is placed with individuals and teams. Conger (1989) describes how changes in authority must be accompanied by restructuring of performance measurement systems to ensure that individuals and teams are evaluated and held accountable for performance they can control. Thus, items also were developed in the present study to assess Accountability. Tannenbaum (1986) defined control as the individuals ability to determine outcomes, act as a causal agent, and have an impact. To the extent that empowerment is related to heightened self-efficacy perceptions, the degree to which managers encourage independent decision making should be an important element in the empowerment process. Thus, Encouragement of Self-Directed Decision Making was identified in the present study as a dimension of leader-empowering behavior. Based on the work of Manz and Sims (1987, 1990) with self-managed teams, Encouragement of SelfDirected Problem Solving was hypothesized as another dimension, distinct from Encouragement of Self-Directed Decision Making. Although Encouragement of Self-Directed Decisions relates to decision making around plans, goals, and procedures, Encouragement of Self-Directed Problem Solving deals with taking initiative in identifying problems in work processes and taking steps to correct these problems (Wellins, Byham, & Wilson, 1991). According to Ford and Fottler (1995), empowerment requires managers to share information and knowledge that enables employees to contribute optimally to organizational performance. With respect to skill development, Wellins et al. (1991) described the managers role as one of facilitating rather than directing and controlling, with a significant proportion of the leaders time spent on securing appropriate training to ensure that employees develop skills needed to support empowerment efforts. Based on these writings, Information Sharing and Skill Development were included as dimensions of leader-empowering behavior. A final dimension of empowerment, labeled herein as Coaching for Innovative Performance, includes leader behaviors that encourage calculated risk taking and new ideas, provide performance feedback, and treat mistakes and setbacks as opportunities to learn. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) pointed out that widespread use of the term empowerment has come at a time when foreign competition and change have caused companies to search for alternative management strategies that encourage commitment, risk taking, and innovation. Leaders must ensure that risk taking is not punished while working with subordinates to help them understand the reason for mistakes and reducing
304
the risk of their recurrence (McConnell, 1994; Wallace, 1993). To the extent that leaders emphasize these types of behaviors, psychological empowerment should be influenced in a positive manner. In Study 1, items were developed for each of the dimensions described above, and confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the factor structure of the hypothesized dimensions comprising an instrument labeled the Leader Empowering Behavior Questionnaire (LEBQ). In Study 2, following refinement of the initial set of dimensions, the relationships of LEBQ scales with job attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction and organizational commitment) and Spreitzers (1995) measure of psychological empowerment were investigated.
Study 1
Several guidelines were followed during scale development. First, positive wording was used for all items to avoid the introduction of covariance as a measurement artifact due to the use of positively and negatively worded items (Idaszak & Drasgow, 1987). Second, given the applied nature of this effort and the fact that lengthy questionnaires can result in careless responding, three items were developed to measure each of the hypothesized dimensions. Finally, after draft items were developed, editing assistance was obtained from line managers and human resource professionals, including several doctoral-level psychologists, to ensure that items adequately represented the dimensions being measured and were clearly worded. Method Sample and procedures. The data used in Study 1 were collected from 1,309 subordinates who rated 424 managers participating in a leadershiptraining program at a Fortune 500 consumer products company. The subordinates were asked to complete the LEBQ anonymously to provide feedback to the managers during the leadership program. At least 3 subordinates completed the LEBQ for each manager. Sixty-seven questionnaires with missing responses on one or more items were omitted from the study. The 424 managers represented three management levels: vice presidents and directors (31%), managers (44%), and supervisors (16%). Data concerning the organizational level of the remaining managers (9%) were not available. Many functional areas within the organization were represented, with the majority of managers coming from the areas of administration (12%), marketing (15%), and sales (27%). Demographic data concerning the 1,309 subordinates who provided the LEBQ ratings were not available because their responses were collected anonymously.
KONCZAK ET AL.
305
Measures and analyses. The initial version of the LEBQ consisted of 21 items with seven three-item scales representing the seven proposed dimensions of leader-empowering behavior previously described. Items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The urgency concerning the implementation of the leadership program in the host organization precluded pretesting of the LEBQ items. Consequently, it was decided to use the initial set of 21 items as part of the leadership program and conduct the first confirmatory analysis when the respondent-to-item ratio reached approximately 10:1 (Nunnally, 1978). Confirmatory analysis was conducted on the responses of 254 subordinates after several offerings of the program. Based on these results as well as conceptual considerations, a revised model was cross validated on the subsequent 988 responses. Maximum-likelihood confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on the interitem covariance matrices using PROC CALIS (SAS Institute, 1990). Model specification was similar to Cudecks (1989) Model 3. Thus, all models tested were scale invariant. In addition, only correlated models were tested as it was assumed that the dimensions were facets of an underlying construct. Item means, standard deviations, and correlations are available from the first author on request. Results and Discussion Means, standard deviations, and coefficient alphas were computed on the hypothesized dimensions using the initial sample (N = 254). Mean values ranged from 4.83 to 5.90, indicating that the participants generally felt that their supervisors engaged in empowering behaviors. Standard deviations ranged from 0.93 to 1.30, indicating moderate variability in the ratings. Alpha reliability coefficients were computed for the data and ranged from .82 to .88, with the exception of the data on the Encouragement of Self-Directed Problem Solving dimension, which had a coefficient alpha of .70. The initial confirmatory factor analysis resulted in marginally acceptable model fit. Specifically, two of the three fit indices were less than the .90 convention suggested by Bentler and Bonett (1980) (comparative fit index [CFI] = .93, goodness-of-fit index [GFI] = .85, adjusted goodness-of-fit index [AGFI] = .80). The root mean squared residual (RMSR) was .12 compared to the recommended .05 or less. Finally, the 2 statistic was 433.01 (df = 168, p < .01). To enhance model fit, the seven-factor model was modified using both conceptual (e.g., item content) and statistical (e.g., modification indices) criteria. The major aspect of the LEBQ revision involved the combining of three items from the original decision-making and problem-solving dimensions to form a revised Encouragement of Self-Directed Decisions dimension. These
306
three items all focus on whether employees feel empowered to make their own decisions about issues related to their work. Furthermore, two of the original decision-making items were deleted because these items appeared to be measuring participative decision making rather than the degree to which managers empowered employees to make their own decisions (e.g., My manager always asks for input prior to making decisions that affect how I accomplish my work). In addition, the desirability of participative decision making has been described as situationally dependent (Vroom & Yetton, 1973). The remaining problem-solving item, which dealt with whether managers encouraged the use of systematic problem-solving techniques, was reclassified as part of the Skill Development dimension. Reclassifying this item seemed reasonable given that total quality management problemsolving techniques are closely associated with employee development and training programs in the host organization and in many other organizations. An item was deleted from the Information Sharing dimension because it differed from the other information sharing items in that it dealt with whether a manager encourages subordinates to ask for needed information versus whether the manager actively shares work-related information that subordinates need to do their jobs effectively. A Skill Development item also was deleted because, unlike other LEBQ items, it did not contain a My manager stem and may not clearly have focused respondents on the task of rating their managersbehaviors. The original items are available from the first author on request. The revised six-factor model was tested and yielded a much better fit. In fact, all fit indices showed improvement and supported the revised six-factor model (CFI = .96, GFI = .90, AGFI = .86, RMSR = .08, 2 = 231.90, df = 104, p < .05). The interfactor correlations ranged from .48 to .87. Standardized factor pattern coefficients for the final six-factor model are reported in Table 1. All coefficients were greater than .78 with the exception of Item 6 (.67) and Item 12 (.55). All alpha reliability coefficients for the scores on the six dimensions were acceptable (range = .80 to .91). There was moderate variability in the scales as indicated by the standard deviations (SDs = 0.93 to 1.33). A single-factor model also was examined to exclude the possibility that the LEBQ was measuring a unitary construct. As expected, fit indices for the single-factor solution indicated poor model fit (CFI = .73, GFI = .69, AGFI = .60, RMSR = .16, 2 = 928.70, df = 119, p < .05). The one-, six- and seven-factor models were then tested on the second, independent sample of subordinates (N = 988). The seven-factor model had marginally acceptable fit (CFI = .94, GFI = .89, AGFI = .85, RMSR = .11, 2 = 1146.38, df = 168, p < .05), but as was the case in the initial sample, the more parsimonious six-factor model provided better fit (CFI = .96, GFI = .94, AGFI = .91, RMSR = .10, 2 = 564.92, df = 104, p < .05). Finally, the fit indi-
KONCZAK ET AL.
307
Table 1 Confirmatory Factor Pattern Coefficients for the Revised Six-Factor Leader Empowering Behavior Questionnaire (LEBQ) Sample 1 Sample 2
Dimension and Item
Standardized Standardized Factor Factor Coefficient t Value Coefficient t Value
Delegation of Authority 1. My manager gives me the authority I need to make decisions that improve work processes and procedures. 2. My manager gives me the authority to make changes necessary to improve things. 3. My manager delegates authority to me that is equal to the level of responsibility that I am assigned. Accountability 4. My manager holds me accountable for the work I am assigned. 5. I am held accountable for performance and results. 6. My manager holds people in the department accountable for customer satisfaction. Self-Directed Decision Making 7. My manager tries to help me arrive at my own solutions when problems arise, rather than telling me what he/she would do. 8. My manager relies on me to make my own decisions about issues that affect how work gets done. 9. My manager encourages me to develop my own solutions to problems I encounter in my work. Information Sharing 10. My manager shares information that I need to ensure high quality results. 11. My manager provides me with the information I need to meet customers needs. Skill Development 12. My manager encourages me to use systematic problem-solving methods (e.g., the seven-step problem-solving model). 13. My manager provides me with frequent opportunities to develop new skills. 14. My manager ensures that continuous learning and skill development are priorities in our department.
.86 .86
16.80 16.64
.83 .86
31.13 33.03
.83
15.72
.81
30.26
.87 .91 .67
16.72 17.82 11.53
.86 .89 .65
31.61 33.20 21.98
.81
15.14
.82
30.25
.79
14.58
.79
28.67
.87
16.89
.85
31.95
.88 .96
17.11 19.26
.90 .93
34.96 36.71
.55 .88
9.04 16.79
.62 .85
20.64 31.99
.86
16.19
.90
34.65 (continued)
308
Table 1 Continued Sample 1 Sample 2
Dimension and Item
Standardized Standardized Factor Factor Coefficient t Value Coefficient t Value
Coaching for Innovative Performance 15. My manager is willing to risk mistakes on my part if, over the long term, I will learn and develop as a result of the experience. 16. I am encouraged to try out new ideas even if there is a chance they may not succeed. 17. My manager focuses on corrective action rather than placing blame when I make a mistake.
.80 .87
14.82 16.50
.82 .85
30.65 32.25
.79
14.34
.80
29.62
ces for the single-factor (null) solution indicated poor model fit (CFI = .77, GFI = .73, AGFI = .65, RMSR = .14, 2 = 2856.58, df = 119, p < .05). All alpha reliability coefficients for scores on the six-factor model were acceptable (range = .82 to .90). As with the initial sample, all standardized factor coefficients were greater than .78 with the exception of Item 6 (.65) and Item 12 (.62) (see Table 1). There was moderate variability in the scales as indicated by the standard deviations (SDs = 0.99 to 1.37). The interfactor correlations ranged from .40 to .88. Overall, these results indicate that a six-factor model provides a good description of the relationships among the LEBQ items. With respect to leadership development, the LEBQ would appear to be a psychometrically sound instrument for providing managers with feedback on behavior relevant to employee empowerment. As an applied tool, the six-factor model provides behaviorally specific feedback for coaching and development purposes.
Study 2
Study 2 was conducted to test the hypothesis that the LEBQ dimensions would be positively related to the level of psychological empowerment experienced by subordinates. It also was hypothesized that both empowering leader behavior and psychological empowerment would lead to attitudinal outcomes in a manner similar to that described by Spreitzer (1995). In Spreitzers model, personality and work context variables influence outcome variables (e.g., innovation) indirectly through psychological empowerment. In the context of this preliminary nomological net, it was reasoned that leader behaviors are an additional class of variables that should influence outcome variables through their effect on psychological empowerment. Thus, it was
KONCZAK ET AL.
309
hypothesized that the psychological experience of empowerment would mediate the relationships between leader-empowering behavior and job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Method Participants. A questionnaire was sent to 150 managers at a Fortune 500 company located in the Midwest. The study participants were from a wide range of functional areas within the organization, including marketing, engineering, administration, operations, and others. Eighty-four employees (56%) returned completed questionnaires. Collection of detailed demographic data (age, gender, etc.) was not possible. However, the average tenure of employees in the sample was 12.75 years with a range from 1 to 28 years. The majority of participants were from three organizational levels: director (11%), manager (70%), and supervisor (19%). Most participants in the sample (82%) had college degrees. Measures and procedure. Participants rated the degree to which their managers engaged in empowering behaviors using the LEBQ. Participants also rated their own job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and feelings of psychological empowerment. Job satisfaction was assessed using a measure of general job satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Organizational commitment was measured by the nine-item short form of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). Psychological empowerment was assessed using the measure developed by Spreitzer (1995), which is intended to assess the degree to which an employee feels empowered on the job. The psychological empowerment measure is composed of four related dimensions (meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact) that assess different aspects of a single construct (Spreitzer, 1995). Results and Discussion Means, standard deviations, alpha reliability coefficients, and correlations among the nine measures appear in Table 2. There were moderate to large correlations among all of the LEBQ scales and the composite measure of psychological empowerment indicating that leader behaviors are related to the psychological experience of empowerment. Table 2 also shows that both the LEBQ scales and the psychological empowerment measure were related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment. With the exception of the competence facet of psychological empowerment, most of the correlations between the LEBQ dimensions and the individual facets of psychological empowerment also were moderate to large. Correlations between the LEBQ
310
Table 2 Relationships Among Leader Empowering Behavior Questionnaire (LEBQ) Dimensions, Psychological Empowerment, and Job Attitudes Scale 1. Delegation of Authority 2. Accountability 3. Encouragement of Self-Directed Decisions 4. Information Sharing 5. Skill Development 6. Coaching for Innovative Performance 7. Psychological empowerment 8. Job satisfaction 9. Organizational commitment M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
5.34 1.30 (.92) 5.99 0.99 .31 (.82) 5.46 1.17 .78 .21 (.85) 4.80 1.53 .67 .51 .67 (.93) 4.29 1.49 .63 .40 .58 .66 (.86) 4.70 1.47 .68 .26 .74 .74 .66 (.89)
5.63 .72 .62 .23 .54 .42 .47 .46 (.86) 5.26 1.16 .63 .32 .54 .55 .51 .48 .64 (.85) 5.72 .83 .38 .41 .31 .35 .38 .31 .55 .69 (.87)
Note: Items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Correlations of .22 or greater are statistically significant at p < .05 (two-tailed); coefficient alpha estimates of score internal consistency are given on the diagonal. N = 84.
dimensions and specific facets of Spreitzers (1995) Psychological Empowerment scale are available from the first author on request. The next step was to test the hypothesis that psychological empowerment would act as a mediator between the individual LEBQ subscales and the two outcome measures, job satisfaction and organizational commitment. This was done following the four-step method outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) and Judd and Kenny (1981). These authors stated that four conditions must be met to show that a bivariate relationship is mediated by a third variable. First, the initial variable must be correlated with the outcome variable. Second, the initial variable must be correlated with the mediator. Third, the mediator must have a statistically significant effect on the outcome variable when the initial variable is controlled for. Finally, if mediation is complete, the effect of the initial variable on the outcome variable should be zero when the mediator is controlled for. Meeting the first three criteria indicates partial mediation, whereas also meeting the fourth indicates complete mediation. As seen in Table 2, the LEBQ dimensions were correlated with job satisfaction and organizational commitment, indicating that the conditions of the first step were met (rs = .31 to .63). Furthermore, the LEBQ dimensions were correlated with psychological empowerment, indicating that the conditions of the second step were met (rs = .23 to .62). The third and fourth steps were tested in multiple regression equations with each individual LEBQ dimension and psychological empowerment predicting job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Table 3 shows that the third criterion was met for all the combinations. Specifically, psychological empowerment at least partially
KONCZAK ET AL.
311
Table 3 Mediation Analyses: Impact of Leader Empowering Behavior Questionnaire (LEBQ) Dimensions and Psychological Empowerment on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment Criterion Organizational Commitment Predictor Delegation of Authority Psychological empowerment Accountability Psychological empowerment Encouragement of Self-Directed Decisions Psychological empowerment Information Sharing Psychological empowerment Skill Development Psychological empowerment Coaching for Innovative Performance Psychological empowerment R
2
Job Satisfaction R
2
b .04 .58* .25* .54* .02 .61* .08 .56* .09 .54* .04 .59*
b .33* .64* .21* .95* .27* .78* .26* .79* .21* .81* .18* .84*
.30* .39* .30* .32* .32* .31*
.49* .43* .46* .50* .46* .45*
Note. N = 84. Regression coefficients (b) are unstandardized. R2 values are for the full model. *p < .05.
mediated the relationship between each LEBQ dimension and job satisfaction and each LEBQ dimension and organizational commitment. For example, psychological empowerment had a significant impact on job satisfaction (b = .64, p < .05) in a regression equation that also included the LEBQ dimension Delegation of Authority. In addition, psychological empowerment completely mediated the relationship between each LEBQ dimension and organizational commitment with the exception of Accountability. In the regression equation predicting organizational commitment from psychological empowerment and Delegation of Authority, psychological empowerment had a significant impact on organizational commitment (b = .58, p < .05), whereas Delegation of Authority did not (b = .04, p > .05). Thus, the initial zero-order relationship between organizational commitment and Delegation of Authority (r = .38, p < .05) was not evident in the regression equation containing psychological empowerment.
General Discussion
The research presented here provides support for the use of the LEBQ as a tool for measuring empowering leader behaviors. Study 1 indicated that the scales comprising the LEBQ have a stable factor structure. Study 2 found evidence that the scales are positively related to the theoretically relevant out-
312
come variables of psychological empowerment, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. In addition, tests of mediation in Study 2 indicated that the LEBQ dimensions of leader behavior appear to fit well within the nomological net of psychological empowerment. These results suggest that the instrument has useful applications for both research and practice. Although the results of the studies presented here were quite positive, several limitations of the present research should be acknowledged. First, although the confirmatory factor analyses were based on a relatively large sample size, comprising a good cross section of functional areas and management levels, all participants were drawn from a single organization. Future researchers should cross validate responses to the LEBQ in different settings. Second, future investigators should explore additional items to assess the dimensions of empowering leader behaviors. The need for additional items is most apparent for the Information Sharing dimension given that the revised questionnaire contains only two items for that dimension. A final limitation concerns the fact that Study 2 data were gathered using a single questionnaire. Although common method variance is always a potential problem in survey research of this type, the differential mediation results with respect to the two job attitudes would suggest that common method variance was not unduly problematic in the current study. The LEBQ was developed primarily for the purpose of prescribing strategies and behaviors for managers trying to develop their empowerment skills. For this reason, a more parsimonious model (e.g., three to four factors) was not considered. That is, it was felt that the six-factor model provided managers with very prescriptive and useful feedback concerning the types of behavior necessary to empower subordinates. This situation illustrates the difficulty of balancing scientific and practical concerns when developing tools for use in applied settings. The status of research concerning empowerment recently has been characterized as being in its infancy (Spreitzer, 1995). However, an increasing number of empirical studies based on theoretical conceptualizations of empowerment and aimed at understanding the antecedents and consequences of psychological empowerment are beginning to appear in the literature (e.g., Parker & Price, 1994; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996). With respect to the theoretical antecedents of empowerment, it is hoped that the LEBQ will prove to be a valuable instrument for increasing understanding of the leaders role in the empowerment process relative to other variables such as personality and work context factors. From an applied management perspective, this type of research could help practitioners prioritize their efforts with respect to different human resource interventions intended to increase empowerment in the workplace. Finally, the LEBQ would appear to be a practical tool for providing feedback and coaching managers on their use of leader behaviors associated with empowerment in organizational settings.
KONCZAK ET AL.
313
References
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. Burke, W. (1986). Leadership as empowering others. In S. Srivastva (Ed.), Executive power (pp. 5177). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Conger, J. A. (1989). Leadership: The art of empowering others. Academy of Management Executive, 3, 17-24. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471-482. Cudeck, R. (1989). Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 317-327. Ford, R. C., & Fottler, M. D. (1995). Empowerment: A matter of degree. Academy of Management Executive, 9, 21-28. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170. Idaszak, J. R., & Drasgow, F. (1987). A revision of the job diagnostic survey: Elimination of a measurement artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 69-74. Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602-619. Manz, C., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106-128. Manz, C., & Sims, H. P. (1990). Superleadership: Leading others to lead themselves. New York: Berkley. McConnell, J. (1994). On lemmings, managers, and leaders. Journal for Quality and Participation, 17, 126-129. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Parker, L. E., & Price, R. H. (1994). Empowered managers and empowered workers: The effects of managerial support and managerial perceived control on workers sense of control over decision making. Human Relations, 47, 911-927. SAS Institute. (1990). SAS/STAT users guide. Cary, NC: Author. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465. Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483-504. Tannenbaum, A. S. (1986). Back to basics: Beyond perception. In R. N. Stern & S. McCarthy (Eds.), International yearbook of organizational democracy for the study of participation, co-operation and power: Volume III, The organizational practice of democracy (pp. 323331). New York: John Wiley. Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An interpretive model on intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15, 666-681. Vroom, V., & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Wallace, G. W. (1993). Empowerment is work, not magic. Journal for Quality and Participation, 16, 10-14. Wellins, R. S., Byham, W. C., & Wilson, J. M. (1991). Empowered teams. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Extra Konczakonczak Et Al 2000 Full Instrument

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Extra Konczakonczak Et Al 2000 Full Instrument

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Educational and Psychological Measurement

EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT KONCZAK ET AL.

EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

Dimension and Item

Standardized Standardized Factor Factor Coefficient t Value Coefficient t Value

.87 .91 .67

16.72 17.82 11.53

.86 .89 .65

31.61 33.20 21.98

EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

Table 1 Continued Sample 1 Sample 2

Dimension and Item

Standardized Standardized Factor Factor Coefficient t Value Coefficient t Value

EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

.30* .39* .30* .32* .32* .31*

.49* .43* .46* .50* .46* .45*

EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

Você também pode gostar