This article was downloaded by: [Kainan University] On: 04 February 2015, At: 23:07 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20

The Perceived Leadership Communication Questionnaire (PLCQ): Development and Validation a

a

Frank M. Schneider , Michaela Maier , Sara a

a

Lovrekovic & Andrea Retzbach a

University of Koblenz-Landau Published online: 10 Mar 2014.

Click for updates To cite this article: Frank M. Schneider, Michaela Maier, Sara Lovrekovic & Andrea Retzbach (2015) The Perceived Leadership Communication Questionnaire (PLCQ): Development and Validation, The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 149:2, 175-192, DOI: 10.1080/00223980.2013.864251 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2013.864251

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any

losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 23:07 04 February 2015

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Journal of Psychology, 2015, 149(2), 175–192 C 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright  doi: 10.1080/00223980.2013.864251

Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 23:07 04 February 2015

The Perceived Leadership Communication Questionnaire (PLCQ): Development and Validation FRANK M. SCHNEIDER MICHAELA MAIER SARA LOVREKOVIC ANDREA RETZBACH University of Koblenz-Landau

ABSTRACT. The Perceived Leadership Communication Questionnaire (PLCQ) is a short, reliable, and valid instrument for measuring leadership communication from both perspectives of the leader and the follower. Drawing on a communication-based approach to leadership and following a theoretical framework of interpersonal communication processes in organizations, this article describes the development and validation of a one-dimensional 6-item scale in four studies (total N = 604). Results from Study 1 and 2 provide evidence for the internal consistency and factorial validity of the PLCQ’s self-rating version (PLCQSR)—a version for measuring how leaders perceive their own communication with their followers. Results from Study 3 and 4 show internal consistency, construct validity, and criterion validity of the PLCQ’s other-rating version (PLCQ-OR)—a version for measuring how followers perceive the communication of their leaders. Cronbach’s α had an average of .80 over the four studies. All confirmatory factor analyses yielded good to excellent model fit indices. Convergent validity was established by average positive correlations of .69 with subdimensions of transformational leadership and leader–member exchange scales. Furthermore, nonsignificant correlations with socially desirable responding indicated discriminant validity. Last, criterion validity was supported by a moderately positive correlation with job satisfaction (r = .31). Keywords: communication, leadership, scale construction, scale validation

LEADERSHIP COMMUNICATION IS AT THE HEART OF DAILY ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE. Activities such as receiving instructions from a supervisor, meeting an executive in order to get feedback for job performance, or discussing

Address correspondence to Frank M. Schneider, University of Mannheim, Institute of Media and Communication Studies, Haus Oberrhein, Rheinvorlandstr. 5, 68159 Mannheim, Germany; [email protected] (e-mail). 175

Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 23:07 04 February 2015

176

The Journal of Psychology

problems with a superior are examples of some typical communicative behaviors of organizational members in subordinate positions pursuing their everyday tasks. Furthermore, organizational members with leadership responsibility have to provide their employees with work-relevant information, give them feedback about how they have done their jobs, and show them consideration in order to establish a good work relationship with their subordinates. Many taxonomies of further leadership tasks have been described (cf. Fleishman et al., 1991); however, according to Barnard (1938), “the first function of an executive is to develop and maintain a system of communication” (p. 226). Thus, communication plays a central role for leadership. This is also consistent with empirical findings of high frequencies of communicative leader behaviors in daily work life (Jablin, 1979; Luthans & Larsen, 1986; for a recent overview see Tourish & Hargie, 2009). However, most leadership theories pay little attention to communication, and communication scholars have not systematically explored the prerequisites of effective leadership (Cohen, 2004, p. 177). This is also reflected in common theories and measures of leadership related behavior: Although a variety of scales for assessing leadership behaviors or styles have been proposed, seldom is communication theoretically embedded in the measured constructs. Let us take a brief look at two currently prominent examples—the transactional and transformational paradigm (e.g., Bass, 1998) and the leader–member exchange (LMX) theory (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Whereas transactional leadership focuses on contingent rewards, transformational leadership concentrates on, for example, inspiring or stimulating employees and expressing a vision about the future organization. Both share a leader-centered perspective. Although we can assume that especially transformational leadership behaviors are primarily communicative, communication processes have not been explicitly considered according to these approaches. The same holds true for LMX theory, which focuses on the specific relationship or dyad between a leader and an individual follower. Although research provided empirical support for the relationship between LMX quality and communicative interactions (e.g., Bakar, Dilbeck, & McCroskey, 2010; Fix & Sias, 2006; Kramer, 1995), this has not been explicated in the original theory. Thus, it does not come as a surprise that the corresponding measures—in LMX theory (e.g., the LMX-MDM, Liden & Maslyn, 1998) as well as in other common leadership theories—lack appropriate items. Table 1 provides some examples of the rare operationalizations of communication behaviors, which are mostly distributed among subscales and do not form a coherent leadership communication scale. Therefore, it is hardly possible to explore the role of communication as an explicit part of leadership in an adequate way. Moreover, it is difficult to derive recommendations for leaders with regard to communicative behaviors (e.g., for communication competence trainings for leaders or similar programs). Consequently, a new, coherent instrument, which focuses on the communication aspects of leadership behavior and theoretically connects leadership and communication, is needed.

Schneider et al.

177

TABLE 1. Examples for Communicative Item Content in Selected, Common Leadership Instruments Instrument

Item Example

Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 23:07 04 February 2015

CKS: Conger-Kanungo scale for assessing charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1994)

“Inspirational, able to motivate by articulating effectively the importance of what organizational members are doing” ELQ: Empowerment Leadership “Tells my work group when we perform Questionnaire (Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, well”; & Drasgow, 2000) “Explains company goals” LBDQ: Leader Behavior Description “Argues persuasively for his/her point Questionnaire (e.g., Halpin, 1957; of view” Stogdill, 1963) LMX-MDM: Multidimensional measures “My supervisor would come to my defense if I were ‘attacked’ by others” of leader–member exchange (Liden & Maslyn, 1998) “Talks optimistically about the future”; MLQ: Multifactor Leadership “Listens attentively to my concerns” Questionnaire (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1995) “Paints an interesting picture of the TLI: Transformational Leadership Inventory (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, future for our group”; “Shows us that he/she expects a lot from & Bommer, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990) us”

Recently, several promising attempts have been made to elaborate on the notion that leadership and communication are closely connected (e.g., Bakar et al., 2010; de Vries, Bakker-Pieper, & Oostenveld, 2010; Levine, Muenchen, & Brooks, 2010). For instance, Hertzsch, Schneider, and Maier (2012) provide an approach to leadership communication by specifying and extending a framework for investigating interpersonal communication processes in organizations (Jablin, Cude, House, Lee, & Roth, 1994). Following this framework, leadership communication can be described in terms of a process model consisting of the following four stages: 1) On the basis of individual communication competences (knowledge, skills, and motivation; cf. Jablin & Sias, 2001), leader and follower deliberately (mindfully) or automatically (mindlessly) select their communicative behavior; (2) Performing communicative behaviors in a dyadic leader–follower interaction provides both with feedback about their behavior; (3) Communication results (e.g., communication satisfaction, uncertainty reduction, shared meaning, and perceived goal accomplishment) are attributed to the communication competence of the other and one’s own communicative performance; and (4) Noncommunicative outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, commitment, organizational citizenship behavior) are mediated by communication results. All process stages are embedded in

Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 23:07 04 February 2015

178

The Journal of Psychology

an organizational context with its specific characteristics taken into account as moderating variables (e.g., task demands, organizational communication culture, norms, and relational history). This model deepens our understanding of how communication and leadership are interconnected by emphasizing the role of communication (for more comprehensive descriptions see Hertzsch et al., 2012, and Jablin et al., 1994). In accordance with this concept, our goal was to develop a new measure to gain more knowledge about leadership communication from both leaders’ and followers’ perspectives by taking into account the different facets involved in the leader–member communication process. Furthermore, we aimed at constructing a short instrument to avoid respondent fatigue (Burisch, 1984). In the remainder of this article, we describe methods and results of four studies conducted to construct and validate the Perceived Leadership Communication Questionnaire (PLCQ) in a self-rating version (PLCQ-SR) and an other-rating version (PLCQ-OR). Last, we discuss implications and limitations of the results and offer some directions for future research. Study 1: Construction of the PLCQ-SR Method Scale Construction In order to construct a standardized self-rating instrument for assessing how leaders perceive their communication with their employees we built a pool of 45 items based on the theoretical facets of the interpersonal communication process model previously described. We developed items inspired by existing measures relevant for the assessment of single constructs embedded in the interpersonal communication process model. Thus, we used: (a) 10 items inspired by the German version of the Organizational Communication Questionnaire (Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974) named “Fragebogen zur Erfassung der Kommunikation in Organisationen” (KOMMINO; Sperka & R´ozsa, 2007); (b) seven items inspired by the Communicator Competence Questionnaire (Monge, Bachman, Dillard, & Eisenberg, 1982); (c) five items inspired by the self-report version of the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (Richmond, McCroskey, & Johnson, 2003); (d) four items inspired by the McCroskey Shyness Scale (McCroskey & Richmond, 1982); and (e) one item inspired by the Personal Report of Communication Fear (McCroskey, Andersen, Richmond, & Wheeless, 1981). In addition, we developed 18 new items.1 All 45 items theoretically belong to the following seven facets: (a) knowledge about strategic communication, (b) verbal and nonverbal communication skills, (c) communicative motivation, (d) communication quality, (e) reduction of uncertainty, (f) shared meaning, and (g) openness of communication. Each item was rated on a five-point response scale ranging from 0 (completely disagree) to 4 (completely agree). Three pilot participants with leadership responsibilities in small and medium-sized enterprises filled out the questionnaire. Afterward, they were

Schneider et al.

179

Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 23:07 04 February 2015

interviewed to find out if all items were easily comprehensible and reported no problems. Participants and Procedure From a business database held by the regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 774 small and medium-sized enterprises in Southwestern Germany were selected, called, and asked to participate in a leadership survey; 343 enterprises agreed to fill out paper-and-pencil or online questionnaires including the 45 items.2 In the end, 162 (82% male) individuals with leadership responsibility returned the questionnaires. The average age was 44 years (SD = 9.9, range = 24–65). Results The development of the final scale included three major steps. First, we analyzed descriptive statistics and distributions of the items. Second, we conducted exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) maximum likelihood (ML) factor analyses. For these purposes, we used the software packages CEFA (Browne, Cudeck, Tateneni, & Mels, 2010) and EQS (Bentler & Wu, 2005), respectively. Third, we examined the internal consistency and homogeneity of the scale. Item Analysis First, we assessed item difficulties for each item (Dahl, 1971: arithmetic mean divided by number of response categories minus 1) and excluded eight items higher than .80 (cf. Bortz & D¨oring, 2006). We also excluded two items with a low response range (less than three categories chosen from five response categories). Second, we checked bivariate correlations for highly correlated items (r > .85) and third, examined univariate normality by assessing skewness and kurtosis. There were no bivariate correlations higher than .60. Univariate skewness and kurtosis were smaller than the recommended thresholds (skew < 2, kurtosis < 7; West, Finch, & Curran, 1995). Altogether, 10 items were removed. Factor Analysis As recommended by Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, and Strahan (1999), ML-EFA with oblique Geomin rotation (cf. Browne, 2001) were iteratively run to assess the dimensionality of the remaining 35 items. Several criteria were investigated to determine the number of factors, that is, RMSEA, expected crossvalidation index (ECVI), parallel analysis. Items without loadings above .40 or with multiple cross-loadings were removed considering 90% confidence intervals for the loadings in the pattern matrix. This led to a one-factor solution including eight items that yielded excellent fit indices: χ 2/df -ratio = .56; RMSEA = 0; PClose fit (H0 : RMSEA < = .050) = .990. However, the theoretical facets of two items were also represented by other higher loading items; therefore, both

180

The Journal of Psychology

Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 23:07 04 February 2015

lower loading items were dropped. This resulted in a six-item solution following the rationale to include as many items as necessary from a theoretical perspective (every remaining facet is represented by at least one item) and as few items as possible to keep the scale short and simple from a psychometric perspective. The six-item solution was submitted to CFA with ML estimation and yielded excellent fit indices (χ 2/df -ratio = .33; RMSEA = 0; CFI = 1; SRMR = .021; cf. Schweizer, 2010). Path coefficients of the standardized solution were between .50 and .69 (see Appendix). Reliability and Homogeneity Internal consistency of the six-item scale reached an acceptable Cronbach’s α of .79. In addition to factor analysis, item homogeneity indices (mean inter–item correlations) were between .33 and .42 (test homogeneity was .39). Discussion An item pool of 45 items was reduced to a six-item scale for measuring self-perceived leadership communication by running item and factor analyses. Excellent fit indices supported the unidimensionality of the PLCQ-SR. Moreover, homogeneity indices indicated an optimal level of homogeneity (.20–.40; Briggs & Cheek, 1986), thus reflecting the different facets of the construct. In other words, from seven initial dimensions only one facet—knowledge about strategic communication—was dropped (for the wording of the six remaining items, see Appendix). This might be due to threshold competencies (cf. Boyatzis, 1982): Leaders lacking knowledge of strategic communication might not have become leaders in the first place or remained leaders for any considerable length of time. Therefore, studying how these competencies develop in the course of the leaders’ careers might provide interesting insights, but is beyond the scope of this scale. Because EFA and CFA were run within the same sample, this model needed to be cross-validated in a second sample. Study 2: Cross-Validation of the PLCQ-SR In Study 2, we aimed to cross-validate the structure of the one-dimensional 6-item PLCQ-SR with a different sample. In addition, we examined the correlations between PLCQ-SR and socially desirable responding (Paulhus, 1991) in order to establish discriminant validity. Method Participants and Procedure Study 2 was conducted in German stores of a big European retail company. Questionnaires were administered to 91 executives with leadership responsibility;

Schneider et al.

181

Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 23:07 04 February 2015

65 leaders (64 male) returned completed questionnaires. The average age was 43 years (SD = 8.9, range = 28–60). Measures Socially desirable responding was measured with the German short form of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR-S-Ger; Winkler, Kroh, & Spiess, 2006) which consists of two scales—Self-Deception (SDE) and Impression Management (IM)—each comprising three items. Winkler et al. developed the BIDR-S-Ger as an economic instrument for conducting large-scale surveys (e.g., they used the German Socio-Economic Panel for development and validation). They report internal consistencies (SDE: Cronbach’s α = .55; IM: Cronbach’s α = .60) and findings supporting the validity of the subscales. The BIDR-S-Ger was also used in other studies (e.g., Bertrams & Dickh¨auser, 2009). In the present study, items were rated on a five-point response scale ranging from 0 (completely disagree) to 4 (completely agree). Cronbach’s α was .58 for SDE and .41 for IM.3 Results CFA with ML estimation was conducted: Yuan–Bentler residual based F–statistic—a recommended test statistic taking small sample size into account (Bentler & Yuan, 1999)—was not significant: F(9, 56) = .397, p = .931, therefore indicating a well-fitting model. Accordingly, fit indices also showed an excellent model fit (χ 2/df -ratio = .34, RMSEA = 0, CFI = 1, SRMR = .036; cf. Schweizer, 2010). Factor loadings were between .37 and .57 (see Appendix). Cronbach’s α was .64. Hardly any bivariate correlations between the PLCQ-SR items and BIDRS-Ger were significant or had substantial effect sizes. Although Item 2 (“I like devoting my time to my coworkers.”) was positively correlated with IM (r = .30, p < .050) and Item 3 (“I am content with the way my communication with my coworkers is going.”) was positively correlated with SDE (r = .43, p < .001), the magnitudes of the IM or SDE scores were relatively small (IM: r = .17, ns; SDE: r = .29, p < .050), with SDE accounting for only 8.1% of the total PLCQ-SR scale variance. Discussion Study 2 focused mainly on the cross-validation of the PLCQ-SR’s structure. Although factor loadings and internal consistency were rather low, model fit indices were excellent, thus establishing factorial validity of the PLCQ-SR. Discriminant validity was supported, because only a small portion of variance can be attributed to the theoretically unrelated response-style of social desirability.4 However, all results of Study 2 must be interpreted cautiously, because sample size was small. Further research should attempt to replicate these findings using bigger samples.

182

The Journal of Psychology

Study 3: Examination of the PLCQ-OR In Study 3, we aimed to examine the structure of the PLCQ-OR which assesses leadership communication from the followers’ perspective.

Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 23:07 04 February 2015

Method The PLCQ-SR was reworded allowing employees to rate the leadership communication of their superior (for rewording see Appendix). Questionnaires were filled out by 159 employees (56% male) of a big European retail company. The average age was 39 (SD = 9.1, range = 18–60). Results CFA with robust ML estimation was conducted because of violation of multivariate normality as indicated by Mardia’s Normalized coefficient = 10.37, p < .001. Therefore, model fit was evaluated with robust test statistics: Satorra–Bentler χ 2/df = 1.76, Robust CFI = .96, Robust RMSEA = .065, 90% CI of Robust RMSEA [.00, .121], SRMR = .043. These fit indices indicate a good fitting model (cf. Schweizer, 2010). Factor loadings were between .34 and .77 (see Appendix). Cronbach’s α was .83. Discussion First of all, PLCQ-OR’s good model fit provides first evidence for a onedimensional structure of leadership communication as perceived by followers. Regarding the path coefficients in this model, Item 3 of the PLCQ-OR—reflecting communication satisfaction—showed the lowest loading (.34). This may be due to the communication satisfaction in this sample or the item wording. We addressed this issue in Study 4. Study 4: Validation of the PLCQ-OR We conducted Study 4 to cross-validate the structure of the PLCQ-OR in a different setting, a civil service department. Moreover, we aimed to assess construct validity of the PLCQ-OR and to provide initial evidence for criterion validity. Furthermore, in our first wording of PLCQ-OR’s Item 3, we focused on how the employee rates the leader’s communicative behavior toward all subordinates. This probably caused the low loading in Study 3. Therefore, in Study 4, we slightly changed the wording of this item by focusing on the leader’s communicative behavior only toward the rater. Method Participants and Procedure We randomly selected 330 from 1,868 employees of a regional civil service department and provided them with leadership questionnaires and other inventories

Schneider et al.

183

Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 23:07 04 February 2015

for assessing construct validity. We received completed questionnaires from 218 civil servants (77% male). Their average age was 40 years (SD = 10.8, range = 22–61). Measures To assess convergent and discriminant validity, civil servants filled out the PLCQ-OR along with four additional questionnaires which will be described next. As mentioned above, leadership communication is strongly related to other leadership tasks (e.g., Flauto, 1999). Therefore, we assumed moderate to high positive correlations with two other leadership constructs—LMX (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) and transformational leadership (e.g., Bass, 1998)—thus supporting convergent validity of the PLCQ-OR. To measure LMX, we chose the German version of the Multidimensional Leader–Member Exchange Questionnaire (LMXMDM; Paul & Schyns, 2010) which assesses the quality of the leader–member dyad from members’ perspectives on four scales—(a) Affect (LMX-A), (b) Loyalty (LMX-L), (c) Professional Respect (LMX-PR), (d) Perceived Contribution (LMX-PC)—each consisting of three items (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). To economically assess transformational leadership, we translated 15 items which proved to be reliable and valid for measuring five subdimensions of the construct (Rafferty & Griffin, 2004), each comprising three items: (a) Vision (TL-V), (b) Inspirational Communication (TL-IC), (c) Intellectual Stimulation (TL-IS), (d) Supportive Leadership (TL-SL), (e) Personal Recognition (TL-PR).5 In addition, we assumed low correlations with socially desirable responding. Again, we used the BIDR-S-Ger (Winkler et al., 2006; see Study 2). Last, four items from the German version of J. R. Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) Job Diagnostic Survey (Schmidt & Kleinbeck, 1999) were used to measure the civil servants’ general satisfaction with their jobs as a criterion variable (item example: “Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job”). According to previous research, we expected a moderately positive relationship between the PLCQ-OR and general job satisfaction (cf. Madlock, 2008; Sharbrough, Simmons, & Cantrill, 2006).

Results Results of CFA indicated good model fit: χ 2/df -ratio = 1.08, RMSEA = .019, 90% CI of RMSEA [.00, .08], CFI = 1, SRMR = .014 (cf. Schweizer, 2010). Factor loadings were between .77 and .91 (see Appendix). Cronbach’s α was .93. The reworded Item 3 showed the highest corrected item–total correlation of all items (rit = .87). Furthermore, positive correlations between the PLCQ-OR and LMX and TL scales (average correlation r = .69) and nonsignificant correlations between the PLCQ-OR and BIDR-S-Ger were as expected (see Table 2). Last, the PLCQ-OR was moderately positively correlated with general job satisfaction.

2.76 2.49 2.60 2.90 2.30 2.55 2.86 1.87 2.48 2.45 2.70 2.80 2.49

1. PLCQ-OR 2. LMX-A 3. LMX-L 4. LMX-PR 5. LMX-PC 6. TL-V 7. TL-IC 8. TL-IS 9. TL-SL 10. TL-PR 11. JS 12. SDE 13. IM

0.95 1.06 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.86 0.84 0.93 1.19 0.66 0.52 0.80

SD

2 .93 .74 .68 .58 .53 .70 .44 .77 .68 .29 .10 .13

1

.93 .84 .73 .66 .53 .60 .73 .51 .82 .75 .31 .01 .12 .90 .67 .58 .52 .70 .44 .78 .69 .33 .05 .10

3

.92 .50 .63 .58 .45 .62 .59 .26 .04 .07

4

.74 .39 .52 .37 .52 .54 .27 .10 .19

5

.78 .65 .50 .55 .62 .28 –.05 .07

6

.81 .64 .73 .74 .41 –.01 .16

7

.71 .49 .54 .20 –.08 .05

8

.87 .76 .37 .07 .12

9

.94 .36 .00 .01

10

.68 .11 .11

11

.39 .24

12

.34

13

Note. N = 218. Internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α values) are in italics along the diagonal. Correlations > .14 are significant at p < .05 (two-tailed). PLCQ-OR = other-rating version of the Perceived Leadership Communication Questionnaire; LMX = Multidimensional Leader–Member Exchange Questionnaire; LMX scales: A = Affect; L = Loyalty; PR = Professional Respect; PC = Perceived Contribution; TL = Transformational Leadership; TL scales: V = Vision; IC = Inspirational Communication; IS = Intellectual Stimulation; SL = Supportive Leadership; PR = Personal Recognition; JS = General Job Satisfaction; SDE = Self Deception; IM = Impression Management.

M

Scale

TABLE 2. Means, Standard Deviations, Intercorrelations, and Internal Consistencies of Scales

Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 23:07 04 February 2015

184 The Journal of Psychology

Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 23:07 04 February 2015

Schneider et al.

185

Discussion The one-dimensional model yielded good fit indices, showed high factor loadings, and excellent internal consistency. Moreover, bivariate correlations supported convergent and discriminant validity of the PLCQ-OR. Although the correlations with LMX-A and TL-SL are high, item content clearly indicates conceptual differences. For instance, LMX-A includes items such as “I like my supervisor very much as a person” or “My supervisor is a lot of fun to work with,” and the TL-SL consists of items such as “Behaves in a manner which is thoughtful of my personal needs”—neither the LMX nor the TL contain items that explicitly reflect communicative behavior. Moreover, current leadership theories cannot easily incorporate such items because no theoretical assumptions are made about leadership communication. Therefore, these scales cannot be used to analyze (and optimize) communicative aspects of leadership. Last, the positive relationship with the criterion variable job satisfaction indicates concurrent validity. General Discussion In this article, we introduced a short, reliable, and valid scale for measuring how leaders perceive their own communication with their followers and how followers perceive the communication of their leaders. Results from Study 1 and 2 provide evidence for the internal consistency and factorial validity of the Perceived Leadership Communication Questionnaire’s self-rating version (PLCQ-SR). Furthermore, results from Study 3 and 4 show internal consistency, construct validity, and criterion validity of the Perceived Leadership Communication Questionnaire’s other-rating version (PLCQ-OR). Taken together, all CFA yielded good to excellent model fit indices showing factorial validity; Cronbach’s α had an average of .80; convergent validity was established by average positive correlations of .69 with subdimensions of transformational leadership and leader–member exchange scales; nonsignificant correlations with socially desirable responding indicated discriminant validity; initial criterion validation was supported by a moderately positive correlation with job satisfaction (r = .31). Although sample sizes varied between small and medium (range 65–218; total N = 604) and only Study 4 was a randomized sample, we expect that the results can be generalized because samples varied in (a) participants (leaders in Study 1 and 2; members in Study 3 and 4), (b) composition (heterogeneous sample in Study 1; homogeneous samples in Studies 2–4), and (c) context (small and medium-sized business enterprises, big retail company, civil service department). The rating scale comprises only six items; thus, it is economic and easy to administer. Limitations and Future Directions Although the promising results of our studies have practical implications, i.e. for teaching and training of leadership communication in organizations and

Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 23:07 04 February 2015

186

The Journal of Psychology

education, we have to mention some limitations and suggest issues that should be addressed by future research. First of all, we assessed reliability via internal consistency estimates (i.e., Cronbach’s α). Future research should also take other reliability estimates into account (e.g., test–retest and inter-rater reliability) or determine reliability via latent state–trait analysis (Steyer, Schmitt, & Eid, 1999). Second, larger sample sizes are needed for assessing measurement invariance (cf. Vandenberg & Lance, 2000) of the PLCQ-SR and PLCQ-OR across different leaders or organizations. Third, initial criterion validity was established in terms of concurrent validity only via job satisfaction. Additional subjective (e.g., commitment, organizational citizenship behavior) and objective (e.g., group performance outcome) criteria should be included to further investigate the predictive validity of the PLCQ. Moreover, several measures for communication-related constructs (e.g., communicator style) should be added to examine the incremental validity of our scale. Furthermore, although research usually discovers only small to moderate correlations between leaders’ self-ratings and other-ratings (for an overview see Fleenor, Smither, Atwater, Braddy, & Sturm, 2010), the magnitude of self–other agreement correlations related to leadership communication might be an interesting antecedent of non-communicative outcome variables (e.g., work attitudes and performance; Cogliser, Schriesheim, Scandura, & Gardner, 2009)—and the PLCQ versions seem to be the appropriate tools for investigating such a research question in the future. Last, comparing the scale with other approaches to leadership will enhance our understanding of the interplay of competing leadership constructs (e.g., consideration and initiating structure, transactional leadership). However, in contrast to the plethora of existing leadership measures, we built our scale on the theoretical ground of an interpersonal communication process model (Hertzsch et al., 2012; Jablin et al., 1994), thereby stressing the importance of communication as a core concept of leadership (M. Z. Hackman & Johnson, 2009) and bridging the gap between communication research and organizational psychology. Therefore, such a comparison would also help to more precisely specify where communication is located in the nomological net of leadership.

NOTES 1. The final six-item scale included five of the newly developed items, and one item, Item 1, was inspired by the second item of the Communicator Competence Questionnaire by Monge et al. (1982). See Appendix. 2. In all four studies, established ethical standards were met. Each participant was informed about the purpose of the study and about the way the data is protected (data protection fact sheet), responded voluntarily, and anonymously sent back the questionnaire in a business reply envelope. 3. Due to the small number of items and the heterogeneous content of different socially desirable behaviors in different contexts low Cronbach’s alphas are not surprising (cf. Cortina, 1993; John & Soto, 2007; Schmitt, 1996).

Schneider et al.

187

4. Removing items due to high correlations with IM might reduce content validity of the leadership self-rating as well as convergent validity (e.g., correlations with conscientiousness or agreeableness). The same should be true for SDE. Thus, items were not eliminated (cf. Pauls & Stemmler, 2003). 5. Rafferty and Griffin (2004) adapted items from House (1998) and Podsakoff et al. (1990). Examples are “Has a clear understanding of where we are going” (TL-V) or “Acknowledges improvement in my quality of work” (TL-PR).

Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 23:07 04 February 2015

AUTHOR NOTES Frank M. Schneider is a post-doctoral researcher, who is now at the University of Mannheim, Germany. His research interests include research methods, psychological assessment, and communication processes and effects. Michaela Maier is professor for Applied Communication Psychology at the University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. Her research focuses on political communication, science communication, and organizational communication. Sara Lovrekovic received her degree in Psychology at the University of Koblenz-Landau. She works as trainer in the field of human resources development and executive development. Andrea Retzbach is a Ph.D. candidate in Communication Psychology at the University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. Her research interests include organizational communication, science communication, and implicit social cognition. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to Judith Frisch, Annette Hosenfeld, J¨urgen Maier, Nicole Nolte, Simon Scheuerle, and Rainer V¨olker for their assistance with data collection, and Eleonore Hertweck for proofreading. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments on previous versions of this article. FUNDING Study 1 of this research was supported by a grant from the RhinelandPalatinate Ministry of Science’s Research Program for Universities “Wissen schafft Zukunft (Knowledge Creates the Future),” Germany, to Michaela Maier. Study 4 was supported by a grant from the Karl Fix-Foundation in Landau, Germany, to Sara Lovrekovic. Study 4 was also part of her unpublished diploma thesis. REFERENCES Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The Empowering Leadership Questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring

Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 23:07 04 February 2015

188

The Journal of Psychology

leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 249–269. doi:10.1002/(SICI) 1099-1379(200005)21:33.0.CO;2-# Bakar, H. A., Dilbeck, K. E., & McCroskey, J. C. (2010). Mediating role of supervisory communication practices on relations between leader-member exchange and perceived employee commitment to workgroup. Communication Monographs, 77, 637–656. doi:10.1080/03637751.2010.499104 Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire sampler set: Technical report, leader form, rater form, and scoring key for MLQ form 5x-short. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (2005). EQS 6 structural equation modeling software (Version 6.1). [Software]. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software. Bentler, P. M., & Yuan, K.-H. (1999). Structural equation modeling with small samples: Test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 181–197. doi:10.1207/S15327906Mb340203 Bertrams, A., & Dickh¨auser, O. (2009). High-school students’ need for cognition, selfcontrol capacity, and school achievement: Testing a mediation hypothesis. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 135–138. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.06.005 Bortz, J., & D¨oring, N. (2006). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation f¨ur Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler [Research methods and evaluation for human and social scientists] (4th ed.). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. New York, NY: Wiley. Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106–148. doi:10.1111/j.14676494.1986.tb00391.x Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 111–150. doi:10.1207/S15327906MBR3601 05 Browne, M. W., Cudeck, R., Tateneni, K., & Mels, G. (2010). CEFA: Comprehensive Exploratory Factor Analysis (Version 3.04). [Software]. Retrieved from http://faculty. psy.ohio-state.edu/browne/ Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory construction: A comparison of merits. American Psychologist, 39, 214–227. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.39.3.214 Cogliser, C. C., Schriesheim, C. A., Scandura, T. A., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Balance in leader and follower perceptions of leader-member exchange: Relationships with performance and work attitudes. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 452–465. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.010 Cohen, M. S. (2004). Leadership as the orchestration and improvisation of dialogue: Cognitive and communicative skills in conversations among leaders and subordinates. In D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro, & S. M. Halpin (Eds.), Leader development for transforming organizations. Growing leaders for tomorrow (pp. 177–208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations: Perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 439–452. doi:10.1002/job.4030150508 Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98 Dahl, G. (1971). Zur Berechnung des Schwierigkeitsindex bei quantitativ abgestufter Aufgabenbewertung [Computing a difficulty index for rating scales]. Diagnostica, 17, 139–142.

Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 23:07 04 February 2015

Schneider et al.

189

De Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., & Oostenveld, W. (2010). Leadership = communication? The relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 367–380. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9140-2 Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272 Fix, B., & Sias, P. M. (2006). Person-centered communication, leader-member exchange, and employee job satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 23, 35–44. doi:10.1080/17464090500535855 Flauto, F. J. (1999). Walking the talk: The relationship between leadership and communication competence. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 6, 86–97. doi:10.1177/107179199900600106 Fleenor, J. W., Smither, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Braddy, P. W., & Sturm, R. E. (2010). Self–other rating agreement in leadership: A review. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1005–1034. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.006 Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. J., & Hein, M. B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A synthesis and functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 245–287. doi:10.1016/10489843(91)90016-U Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5 Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170. doi:10.1037/h0076546 Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2009). Leadership: A communication perspective (5th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Halpin, A. W. (1957). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research. Hertzsch, H., Schneider, F. M., & Maier, M. (2012). Zur Kommunikationskompetenz von F¨uhrungskr¨aften – Vorschlag eines integrativen Rahmenmodells [The communication competence of management personnel - Suggestion of an integrative framework model]. In R. Reinhardt (Ed.), Wirtschaftspsychologie und Organisationserfolg [Business psychology and organizational success] (pp. 414–425). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst. House, R. J. (1998). Measures and assessments for the charismatic leadership approach: Scales, latent constructs, loadings, Cronbach alphas, and interclass correlations. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership. The multiple-level approaches: Contemporary and alternative (pp. 23–29). London, UK: JAI Press. Jablin, F. M. (1979). Superior–subordinate communication: The state of the art. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1201–1222. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.6.1201 Jablin, F. M., Cude, R. L., House, A., Lee, J., & Roth, N. L. (1994). Conceptualization and comparison across multiple level of analysis: Communication competence in organizations. In L. O. Thayer & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Organization - communication. Emerging perspectives (Vol. 4, pp. 114–140). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Jablin, F. M., & Sias, P. M. (2001). Communication competence. In F. M. Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication. Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 819–864). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. John, O. P., & Soto, C. J. (2007). The importance of being valid: Reliability and the process of construct validation. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 461–494). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 23:07 04 February 2015

190

The Journal of Psychology

Kramer, M. W. (1995). A longitudinal study of superior-subordinate communication during job transfers. Human Communication Research, 22, 39–64. doi:10.1111/j.14682958.1995.tb00361.x Levine, K. J., Muenchen, R. A., & Brooks, A. M. (2010). Measuring transformational and charismatic leadership: Why isn’t charisma measured? Communication Monographs, 77, 576–591. doi:10.1080/03637751.2010.499368 Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80053-1 Luthans, F., & Larsen, J. K. (1986). How managers really communicate. Human Relations, 39, 161–178. doi:10.1177/001872678603900205 Madlock, P. E. (2008). The link between leadership style, communicator competence, and employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 45, 61–78. doi:10.1177/0021943607309351 McCroskey, J. C., Andersen, J. F., Richmond, V. P., & Wheeless, L. R. (1981). Communication apprehension of elementary and secondary students and teachers. Communication Education, 30, 122–132. doi:10.1080/03634528109378461 McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1982). Communication apprehension and shyness: Conceptual and operational distinctions. Central States Speech Journal, 33, 458–468. doi:10.1080/10510978209388452 Monge, P. R., Bachman, S. G., Dillard, J. P., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1982). Communicator competence in the workplace: Model testing and scale development. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 5, pp. 505–527). Beverly Hills, CA: Transaction. Paul, T., & Schyns, B. (2010). Mehrdimensionale Skala zur Erfassung des Leader-Member ¨ Exchange (LMX-MDM nach Liden & Maslyn, 1998) - Ubersetzung [Multidimensional scale for the assessment of leader–member exchange (LMX-MDM after Liden & Maslyn, 1998) – Translation]. In A. Gl¨ockner-Rist (Ed.), Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen. ZIS Version 14.0 [Compilation of social science items and scales, version 14.0]. Bonn, Germany: GESIS. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, F. M. Andrews, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pauls, C. A., & Stemmler, G. (2003). Substance and bias in social desirability responding. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 263–275. doi:10.1016/S01918869(02)00187-3 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259–298. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(96)90049-5 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142. doi:10.1016/10489843(90)90009-7 Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329–354. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.02.009 Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. D. (2003). Development of the nonverbal immediacy scale (NIS): Measures of self- and other-perceived nonverbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51, 504–517. doi:10.1080/01463370309370170

Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 23:07 04 February 2015

Schneider et al.

191

Roberts, K. H., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1974). Measuring organizational communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 321–326. doi:10.1037/h0036660 Schmidt, K. H., & Kleinbeck, U. (1999). Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS - deutsche Fassung) [Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS - German version)]. In H. Dunckel (Ed.), Handbuch psychologischer Arbeitsanalyseverfahren [Handbook of psychological job analysis instruments] (pp. 205–230). Z¨urich, Switzerland: vdf Hochschulverlag. Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8, 350–353. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350 Schweizer, K. (2010). Some guidelines concerning the modeling of traits and abilities in test construction. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26, 1–2. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000001 Sharbrough, W. C., Simmons, S. A., & Cantrill, D. A. (2006). Motivating language in industry. Journal of Business Communication, 43, 322–343. doi:10.1177/0021943606291712 Sperka, M., & R´ozsa, J. (2007). KOMMINO: Fragebogen zur Erfassung der Kommunikation in Organisationen. Manual [Questionnaire for the assessment of communication in organizations. Manual]. G¨ottingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Steyer, R., Schmitt, M., & Eid, M. (1999). Latent state–trait theory and research in personality and individual differences. European Journal of Personality, 13, 389–408. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199909/10)13:53.0.CO;2-A Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire: Form XII. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research. Tourish, D., & Hargie, O. (2009). Communication and organizational success. In O. Hargie & D. Tourish (Eds.), Auditing organizational communication. A handbook of research, theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 3–26). London, UK: Routledge. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–69. doi:10.1177/109442810031002 West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Winkler, N., Kroh, M., & Spiess, M. (2006). Entwicklung einer deutschen Kurzskala zur zweidimensionalen Messung von sozialer Erw¨unschtheit [Development of a German short scale for measuring two dimensions of social desirability] (Discussion Papers No. 579). Berlin, Germany: DIW.

Original manuscript received August 2, 2013 Final version accepted November 3, 2013

192

The Journal of Psychology

APPENDIX Item Wording of Self-Rating (SR) and Other-Rating (OR) Items of the Perceived Leadership Communication Questionnaire (PLCQ; English Items Were Obtained via Translation–Back-Translation Procedure)

Downloaded by [Kainan University] at 23:07 04 February 2015

Item No.

Version

Wording

λ1

λ2

1

SR OR

.63

.37

2

SR OR

.50

.54

3

SR

I am sensitive to the needs of others. My supervisor is sensitive to the needs of others. I like devoting my time to my coworkers. My supervisor seems to like devoting his time to me. I am content with the way my communication with my coworkers is going. I am content with the way my communication with my supervisor is going.a My coworkers and I share an understanding of how we would like to achieve our goals. My supervisor and I share an understanding of how we would like to achieve our goals. My coworkers and I can speak openly with one another. My supervisor and I can speak openly with each other. Especially when problems arise, we talk to one another even more intensively in order to solve the problems. Especially when problems arise, my supervisor and I talk to each other even more intensively in order to solve the problems.

.61

.48

OR 4

SR OR

5

SR OR

6

SR OR

.66

.69

.66

λ3

λ4

.72

.81

.73

.82

.34

.91

.73

.77

.77

.83

.68

.89

.50

.44

.57

Note. Standardized factor loadings obtained via CFA: λ1 (PLCQ-SR in Study 1; N = 162); λ2 (PLCQ-SR in Study 2; N = 65); λ3 (PLCQ-OR in Study 3; N = 159); λ4 (PLCQ-OR in Study 4; N = 218). The five-point response scale ranges from 0 to 4 (0 = completely disagree; 1 = somewhat disagree; 2 = neither agree nor disagree, 3 = somewhat agree, 4 = completely agree). aDifferent wording in Study 3 (“My coworkers and I are content with the way our communication with our supervisor is going”).

The Perceived Leadership Communication Questionnaire (PLCQ): Development and Validation.

The Perceived Leadership Communication Questionnaire (PLCQ) is a short, reliable, and valid instrument for measuring leadership communication from bot...
138KB Sizes 5 Downloads 8 Views